Debate: God Exists

[Drich]

Calm down nothing in the bible ever supported original sin. It was just a medieval way of selling crackers holy water and juice.

So close, yet, so far away.

Pretty much like the bible itself.

This should be easy.

Book charter and verse please. Not looking for book Chapter and verse to support a commentary, but BCV that spells out this doctrine of 'original sin'

[Neo-Scholastic]

So close, yet, so far away.

Pretty much like the bible itself.

This should be easy.

Book charter and verse please. Not looking for book Chapter and verse to support a commentary, but BCV that spells out this doctrine of 'original sin'

It seems to me that if you jettison original sin then there's no need for the doctrine of substitionary atonement.

[Drich]

Irrelevant. It's the simple existence of famine/inequitable food distribution that's the point here; there can not be an omnibenevolent god if famine exists. As I said previously though, some believe in the version of the biblical god that's happy to visit suffering on people for his own ends; this argument can't refute the existence of that god.

Ever heard the term it rain on the just and unjust alike? If Famine were to blame then I can see some glimmer of a point. IF Famine were to blame. Google top 10 poorest countries. Famine is not the problem. The war lords in the region are.

In truth we are to blame for starving people because of sanctions we put on the country, the country's leardship bad choices, the areas are war torn with infighting or out and out civil war. God is responsible when there is no food period planet wide. Us not wanting resources stolen from innocent people and given over to feed armies are political choices.

BTW, you didn't tell us which version you believe in: omnibenevolent or not?

God in the bible never claims to be omnibenevlent. God simply describes himself as the alpha and omega the beginning and end to all things. Meaning His power nature and charcter always affords him the last word on everything. This is true "Omni max power" or rather what Omni max power tries to describes but get mucked down in all sorts of foolish paradoxes.

Indeed.
But, have you ever heard the term a army moves on it's stomach? It means armies loose cohesion if they are not fed. Again many of these war torn areas are the places where the starving live today. If people X are being fed by people Y, but army Z is stealing the food people Y are sending to people X to feed their own army to go and make trouble for people Y or another people Y ally, then what is the logical thing to do? turn off the food people starve. Army is limited to their little version of Hell they created for themselves.

Also irrelevant. There would be no causes of famine if there were an omnibenevolent god.

Also irrelevant, God never claims to be Omni benevolent

Now imagine if God did things the way you wanted and everyone had an over abundance of food. Then Army Z is not limited to their little hell hole they created in the world, all they need is some sort of mass appeal idology and the can rape pillage and storm food stores from their little corner of the world till they are happy with them selves.

This shows no knowledge of the main causes of tribal conflicts; it's the shortage of resources that causes conflict, not equitable sufficiency. Abundance would be even more likely to eliminate trouble as even the greedy would likely be satiated. It would only be the few on the extreme edge of psychopathic gluttony who might still cause problems but they would have no mandate for power because everyone else would be satisfied. Plus, if god were omnibenevolent, he'd stop greed and gluttony, too!

Says the guy who did not actually research his position, but rather try his hand at 'common sense.'
You see your failure at common sense is based on the idea that 'we'/man are mostly good people. When in fact outside of your westernized little hidy hole. people aren't mostly good.

Here are a few articles that seem to think good old fashion greed, corruption, covetousness and good olde fashion money hungry power grabs are at the root of most tribal and modern warfare. After all did sadam invade Kuwait because a his people were starving and the kuaities had all the food? or did Kuwait simple represent complete control of the oil/power in that region?
https://www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/...rticle.pdf
The above article states that in certain tribes in yeman inorder for a boy to be come a man he must engaging in a tribal war, Then you have simple disputes that blow up into war. someone stole my goat, someone kiss my daughter, someone does pray the same prayer I do..ect.
http://fair.org/extra/tribal-label-disto...conflicts/
The above "respect" is the key to many African wars mentioned. or rather the lack of it. Some they mention don't know why they fight just that that is what they are supposed to do with certain people.

The list goes on and on. Bottom line all the BS you think your modern life puts you above... these people live out in spades. Again it all goes back to we are not all "good people." there are many evil among us. God's Children are not the only children in this day care.

I look it up a while back but I still think the info is Good there was a percentage that said 97% of the starving were staving because their famers are now soldiers their farm land battle fields. Again my point being God is rarely if ever to blame for modern examples of starvation in a region. It's man.

Yes you can and people do, hence my reference to the 'different versions' of the biblical god.

Granted

Either there's one entity with a severe multiple-personality disorder or there are different entities being described in one book (I'll leave out, for the sake of this argument, the option where different tribal leaders are just writing down whatever they think is necessary to maintain control of their tribes at different points in history).

What about the bluntly obvious option? That God is simply a title and not a name? as In God the Father God the Son And God the Holy Spirit.

Three distinct deity one title

God the Father is the creator, law giver, standard bearer/perfectionist, The righteous wrath of God.
God the Son is Jesus the Christ. The sacrifice, the blood needed to satisfy the righteousness and demand for perfection of the Father. (hence being bought with the blood of Christ) He is our judge and our savior.
God the Holy Spirit, is a measure of God we have direct contact with. This is our Friend This is our comforter This aspect of God petitions the Father for us. We only have access to the Spirit if We are under the blood covenant of Christ. With the Spirit we can know love without end.

What's honest is recognising that it's impossible to ascribe the 'peace and love' attributes of god from certain parts of the bible to the 'hate and war' character from other parts; they're simply incompatible.

Watch out now! I think I just did in 5 or 6 little lines.

I addressed this earlier in this post. Your statement simply fails to understand the primary driver for war since time immemorial.

Now if this were true you'd be able to give idk 3 or 4 popular recent examples...

I worship a God smart enough to making things equal for everyone only makes a mess. a God wise enough to only give certain resurces to certain people when they are mature enough as a people to use them. Then simply task us to take care of those in need rather than fuel the evil that look to prey on the poor.

...which critically ignores the fact that an omnibenevolent god would not allow that to happen. It seems you've answered the question as to which god you worship. That saddens me.

Why? If god does not claim to be Omni benevolent then to ascribe that attribute is the same as worshiping a false God... For example if the bible says God is ABC but a popular religion claims the bible say God is 123, then when you pray to this 123 version the ABC God of the bible will not act on your petitions/prayers. Why would he grant your petition if you are just going to give thanks to the 123 version of God?

So again when I say God is not Omni-benevolent I meant he does not follow or have to follow the doctrine of Omni benevolence. In fact the bible simply states God has mercy and love for those in whom he chooses to do so. That means not all in this world are his children. What don't you guys get about that? The devil 'seed' according to the parable of the wheat and weeds grows in and among us.

Sure except that their is a law against it (BD edit - killing children)..
...except when god orders it, takes control of intermediaries to do it or just does it himself. That's not the act of an omnibenevolent being.

Who children?

  where in the bible is anything like that even hinted at??? You are confusing religion with God. If you do not have a clear picture of a given doctrine all spelled out in one chapter, what you have is empty religious non sense.

Erm... Here are dozens of passages that state humans are born in sin. That means that babies are subject to the punishments of sin should they die. The fact that you would try that dishonest tactic is telling.

Hows about I do the first 10 and if there are anymore that you can't get past cut and paste it in your response:

First I'd like to point out you did not give me book chapter and verse that outlines the docrine of original sin as the commentary tells it. You point to a comglomeration of verse scraps (cherry picking) to try and support a commentary. so lets break down what each one of these means in it's orgininal setting:

Psalm 51:5 ESV / 150 helpful votes
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
1) psalms are not law nor prophecy. They are songs and poems that the people sang, most of which came from King David. I believe Psalms 51 is a king David psalm right after he was caught murdering bathesheba's husband and sleeping with her. This is a prayer from David to God. Meaning David is speaking of Himself concerning his specific life. We are not all born out of sin. What david is saying is for in order for him to have done this kind of thing (the prophet illustrated his sins in such a way that he himself wanted to kill him for what he had done, and when he found it it was he David the king whom had sinned so greatly before God) He put on this whole big display of guild shame and repentance. Never once was david trying to teach us we are all born from sin.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=NIV

Ecclesiastes 7:20 ESV / 142 helpful votes
Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.

In Jewish culture a "man" is of the age of awareness (13)/not a child. Children according to the Law are not punished by the law of God, but rather by their parents. which is why the law say being born a jew or to jewish parents was not enough to be considered a jew. one must be raised a jew as well. Bottom line ECC 7:20 is a proverb. not a book of law or phrophets. it is simple a saying like a penny saved is a penny earned. This book nor this passage was meant to convey the doctrine of original sin.

Psalm 58:3 ESV / 103 helpful votes
The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.

Again I point a psalm is not law. Not setting up doctrine here. Also read the first part of that... The wicked. The wicked also refers to the weeds or the spawn of satan who grow among the wheat. We are simply born unto or under sin. like a child of a slave is born under the rules of slaver we too are bound to the rules of sin. That said no where in the bible does it say being born is a sin.

Romans 5:12 ESV / 94 helpful votes
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Again like to point out the usage of the word man/men then spread to all men meaning one adult sold the rest of his descendants into slavery. Meaning we are all destined to sin. That said nowhere in scripture does it say being born is a sin, breathing is a sin, eating a sin and pooping a sin. crying is a sin.. That's all children/babies do. Nothing a baby does in accordance with the law is by definition sinful. therefore They are without sin. yet if they live long enough they will follow there sin nature. Once they understand what sin is and they do it anyway. then like adam and eve they will be responsible for that sin.

Romans 3:23 ESV / 85 helpful votes
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

context context context:
20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

So it is through the law that we become conscious/responsible for our sin.

And so what happens before we can comprehend the law... what happens when we are children and do not know what it is to covet our neighbor's wife? What that whole chapter says is what I've been saying. NO ONE will be found righteous in accordance to their works of the law. It is up to Christ to Judge a man save or Guilty. The same Christ that said look at the children unless you can come to me as innocent as they are then you will never know the kingdom of Heaven. So then how is the same Christ going to send them to Hell because of a doctrine not invented to several hundred years till after they died?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=NIV
This chapter heck this whole book is very anti-trying to live by the law. Read chapter 3 to 10 Paul Frees us from religions from the law from Everything doctrine like 'orginial sin' teach!!! We do not have to obey like the Jews did or the RC church teaches. The Law is only meant to identify sin. The only way to be righteous now is through Christ's say so. Not by what we do or do not do.

Romans 5:19 ESV / 63 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

I do not disagree. I am simply point out not all stand before God as men. Children are not men

Genesis 8:21 ESV / 58 helpful votes
And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

Youth=/=child Remember to an OT jew 13 meant you were a man/Young man. This teen/man is what is refered here as 'youth' or juvenile
In otherwords someone old enough to understand sin. Before God a man before older men a punk, sport or scrub.

Romans 3:10 ESV / 43 helpful votes
As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;

as above keep reading. not setting up for original sin, but a life free from the laws as a means to the righteous needed to stand before God.

Ezekiel 28:15 ESV / 32 helpful votes
You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you.

glob... EZEkiel was speaking to the King of Tyre or if you like to read between the lines The Devil. Do I really have to explain how we are not all the devil?

Jeremiah 17:9 ESV / 31 helpful votes
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

So.. who can understand the heart= Doctrine of orginal sin... Yeah if you believe that I am waisting my time here.

1 John 1:10 ESV / 30 helpful votes
If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Who was John talking to the preschoolers or men his own age?
COMEON!

I could go the rest of the way but a simple glance at context will definativly prove to anyone that the bible does not contain the ins and outs of the doctrine of original sin all in one place... Riddle me this. If this f-ing doctrine keeps babies from burning in hell then why oh why did Jesus never ever ever mention it ever? Why did He said to the men he was teaching that they must come to him as these children without sin?

Why then did Paul never compile the tenements of the doctrine of orginal sin??? Why did this doctrine wait several hundred years and see several hundred years of hell bound babies before God said OY! Baptize these little bastards, we are choking on the huge ashe clouds these things make while burning away in Hell!

No. look at the parable of the talents. God only judges us based on what He has given us. If we do not have the ability to identify sin, then we are not judge by that sin.

One passage to refute the dozens? I think not. But doesn't this just highlight the side-issue I'm illustrating about there being many different versions of god in the bible. The reason why there are so many denominations of christianity is because of this.

not different version. Same God all the way though. Just need to understand the word God has deeper meaning that you first thought.

And Not one passage. Jesus Spoke in parables to describe how the kingdom of God works. Jesus' parable trump ALL other teaching before and after. These teaching are God's attempt to describe to us what His world His glory and His efforts are all about, by using things and events we can somewhat understand.

IF you have a "doctrine" that has been cherry picked !/2 a verse here 1/2 a verse there times 1000 verse scraps, and one contextual parable taugh by Christ, then the parable's meaning should always come out on top. Never should the teachings of some religious zealot trump the teaching of Christ.

I didn't assume, I asked and stated the likely options, to drive discussion. Just so I'm clear, the reason you don't accept this argument against the existence of the biblical god is because you believe that he's not omnibenevolent. Right?

Show me in the bible where it says God is Omni benevolent. Book Chapter and verse. If you can not or if you have to default to a 1000 yearold copy of the bible then know you do not worship the God of the bible. or rather the God of the bible is not Omni benevolent.

Okay, I'll pick this up as an aside to the main point of the thread.

So you think that god has the right to withhold food from them?

Again God doesn't we do. we get to choose who eats and who does not. The reason they do not have food is because these evil people have blown up their farmlands rather than not attack the west.

Then here's a situation where I'm more moral than your god. I think everyone has the right to have sufficient, appropriate food. In fact, if everyone did, there would be fewer problems across the world.

That's just plain idiocy and ignorance to the past. Japan had an over abundance of food fuel and raw material to develop it home islands and even it's captured colonies.. however they wanted more. they wanted all of the pacific down to Australia Russia and the western united states. Similar situation in 1930's Germany. Greed envy and pride start wars not food unless you are a cave man. look at the last 10 cnflicts the US was in. none of them had to do with starvation. Wake up. Food is a resource needed to mobilize an army that is why it is sought after in war.

We must allow God the room to judge who is and is not innocent.

No, I would not.

 you don't get a vote. The reason I say we must do this is because we will be judged using the same measure you use to judge God. Brother respectfully you do not stand up to that line of scrutiny.

Even if he existed, I would refute his authority on the basis that he's a sadistic murderer, dangerously inconsistent and dishonest; consequently an unfit judge.

And after he showed you the truth?? (I said the same thing at one time) then he showed me the truth. showed me I had no idea who or what God was. that I had been hating a thing not of the bible but of my own lazy ass rendering taken from books movies and 1/2 ass church attendance. Then He showed me it was all right in front of me the whole time. But then moments after it was too late. what then sport, what happenes when you find out your God and the God of the bible aren't even close, and you waisted a whole life hating what you built up in your mind?

What else would you do? open the resources of the united states to any of those places/people I mentioned? Sorry Sport the world (apart from God) does not agree with your hippy BS. Go sell your crap somewhere else.

The world would be demonstrably better off if there were no tribalism or national boundaries with all resources being equitably shared. Simple. I work towards that end because it's the current, tribal, nationalistic model which is flawed and dangerous.
[/quote]
So the world would be better if everyone was like you. Funny, that how these tribal conflicts most often start!

---

This should be easy.

Book charter and verse please. Not looking for book Chapter and verse to support a commentary, but BCV that spells out this doctrine of 'original sin'

It seems to me that if you jettison original sin then there's no need for the doctrine of substitionary atonement.

Here's a good test for all 'doctrine'

Can it be found in one place? rather can the core doctrine be explained well enough in one instance in one complete teaching say starting a book such and such chapter 3 verse 4-49???

or

does it have to be compiled like the original sin doctrine, out of literally tens if not every single verse scrap that pair's sin and man. then adds commentary to fill in the blanks? if like the doctrine of substitutionary atonement can be pulled from one or two sources, then the doctrine has at least sound foundations.

If it can't and it must be cut and pasted together with a ton of commentary (extra biblical commentary) otherwise you would not know what is going on or being said... Then that would be an unsound doctrine/manmade/traditional rather than a scripturally based doctrine.

In this case Without a doubt all men sin. All of those verses left by the attempt to glue together the doctrine of orginal sin conclusively point to men sinning. (when put back into their original scriptural contexts.) (it just do not assign sin to Children)

how do we know this?

how can we be sure?

ask yourself does/has the bible ever said being born was a sin?

If sin is breaking the laws of God, then what laws do babies break? (if being born is not a sin) 

what law does a toddler break?

At what point in or under the OT law does a child become equal share/man in the Jewish community?

That is the same point where that child is responsible for his own sin. (If you follow or care about jewish tradition at all/It's a really big deal as jewish tradition is how Jesus would have been raised, and under jewish tradition did he frame and teach what it was to be Christian. Which is why Peter the supposed first pope demanded all Christians must first be converted to Judaism. (making the case that popes/Peter at least are not infallible)

Again really big deal so much so Peter mandated all of his Church member be Jews in all aspects before conversion... Yet now we/Some of us forget that the jews were not considered legal law bound adults till they were 13.

[Minimalist]

Calm down nothing in the bible ever supported original sin. It was just a medieval way of selling crackers holy water and juice.

So close, yet, so far away.

Without Adam and Eve there is no Fall of Man and no need for your silly god boy to atone for fuckall.  And you would have to be a total fucking fool to think that "Adam" was a real person.


And you are.

[Amarok]

Calm down nothing in the bible ever supported original sin. It was just a medieval way of selling crackers holy water and juice.

So close, yet, so far away.

So guess Jesus died for nothing

[Flavius]

Man, there are a fuck-ton of quotes here..

[Drich]

Calm down nothing in the bible ever supported original sin. It was just a medieval way of selling crackers holy water and juice.

So close, yet, so far away.

So guess Jesus died for nothing

What makes you think that?

Just because being born is not a sin does not make any conscience adult any less of a sinner. As such all sinners either must die for their sin or have our sins atoned for. Therefore Christ death serves the same purpose.

[Harry Nevis]

So guess Jesus died for nothing

What makes you think that?

Just because being born is not a sin does not make any conscience adult any less of a sinner. As such all sinners either must die for their sin or have our sins atoned for. Therefore Christ death serves the same purpose.

Sure it does.  Sin doesn't exist, except in you mind, so there is nothing to atone for.  And how can someone else atone for someone's sin?  So much for personal responsibility.  And, if we're not born in sin, what did he atone for?  All our future sins?  So everyone is off the hook?  Such a silly religion.

[RonaldMcRaygun]

1. What is God?

"God is the Supreme Intelligence--First Cause of all things."
2. What is to be understood by infinity?
"That which has neither beginning nor end; the unknown: all that is unknown is infinite."
3. Can it be said that God is infinity?
"An incomplete definition. Poverty of human speech incompetent to define what transcends human intelligence."
God is infinite in His perfections, but "infinity" is an abstraction. To say that God is infinity is to substitute the attribute of a thing for the thing itself, and to define something unknown by reference to some other thing equally unknown.

Proofs of the Existence of God

4. What proof have we of the existence of God?
"The axiom which you apply in all your scientific researches, 'There is no effect without a cause.' Search out the cause of whatever is not the work of man, and reason will furnish the answer to your question."

To assure ourselves of the existence of God, we have only to look abroad on the works of creation. The universe exists, therefore it has a cause. To doubt the existence of God is to doubt that every effect has a cause, and to assume that something can have been made by nothing.

5. What is to be inferred from the intuition of the existence of God which may be said to be the common property of the human mind?
"That God exists; for whence could the human mind derive this intuition if it had no real basis? The inference to be drawn from the fact of this intuition is a corollary of the axiom 'There is no effect without a cause.'"
6. May not our seemingly intuitive sense of the existence of God be the result of education and of acquired ideas?
"If such were the case, how should this intuitive sense be possessed by your savages?"

If the intuition of the existence of a Supreme Being were only the result of education, it would not be universal, and would only exist, like all other acquired knowledge, in the minds of those who had received the special education to which it would be due.

7. Is the first cause of the formation of things to be found in the essential properties of matter?
"If such were the case, what would be the cause of those properties? There must always be a first cause."

To attribute the first formation of things to the essential properties of matter, would be to take the effect for the cause, for those properties are themselves an effect, which must have a cause.

8. What is to be thought of the opinion that attributes the first formation of things to a fortuitous combination of matter, in other words, to chance?
"Another absurdity! Who that is possessed of common sense can regard chance as an intelligent agent? And, besides, what is chance? Nothing."

The harmony which regulates the mechanism of the universe can only result from combinations adopted in view of predetermined ends, and thus, by its very nature, reveals the existence of an Intelligent Power. To attribute the first formation of things to chance is nonsense for chance cannot produce the results of intelligence. If chance could be intelligent, it would cease to be chance.

9. What proof have we that the first cause of all things is a Supreme Intelligence, superior to all other intelligences?
"You have a proverb which says, 'The workman is known by his work.' Look around you, and, from the quality of the work, infer that of the workman."

We judge of the power of an intelligence by its works as no human being could create that which is produced by nature, it is evident that the first cause must be an Intelligence superior to man. Whatever may be the prodigies accomplished by human intelligence, that intelligence itself must have a cause and the greater the results achieved by it, the greater must be the cause of which it is the effect. It is this Supreme Intelligence that is the first cause of all things, whatever the name by which mankind may designate it.

Attributes of the Divinity
10. Can man comprehend the essential nature of God?
"No; he lacks the sense required for comprehending it."
11. Will man ever become able to comprehend the mystery of the Divinity?
"When his mind shall no longer be obscured by matter, and when, by his perfection, he shall have brought himself nearer to God, be will see and comprehend Him."

The inferiority of the human faculties renders it impossible for man to comprehend the essential nature of God. In the infancy of the race, man often confounds the Creator with the creature, and attributes to the former the imperfections of the latter. But, in proportion as his moral sense becomes developed, man's thought penetrates more deeply into the nature of things, and he is able to form to himself a juster and more rational idea of the Divine Being, although his idea of that Being must always be imperfect and incomplete.

12. If we cannot comprehend the essential nature of God, can we have an idea of some of His perfections?
"Yes, of some of them. Man comprehends them better in proportion as he raises himself above matter; he obtains glimpses of them through the exercise of his intelligence."
13. When we say that God is eternal, infinite, unchangeable, immaterial, unique, all-powerful, sovereignty just and good, have we not a complete idea of His attributes?
"Yes, judging from your point of view, because you think that you sum up everything in those terms; but you must understand that there are things which transcend the intelligence of the most intelligent man, and for which your language, limited to your ideas and sensations, has no expressions. Your reason tells you that God must possess those perfections in the supreme degree; for, if one of them were lacking, or were not possessed by Him in an infinite degree, He would riot be superior to all, and consequently would not be God. In order to be above all things, God must undergo no vicissitudes, He must have none of the imperfections of which the imagination can conceive."

God is eternal. If He had had a beginning, He must either have sprung from nothing, or have been created by some being anterior to Himself. It is thus that, step by step, we arrive at the idea of infinity and eternity.
God is unchangeable. If He were subject to change, the laws which rule the universe would have no stability.
God is immaterial, that is to say, that His nature differs from everything that we call matter, or otherwise. He would not be unchangeable, for He would be subject to the transformations of matter.
God is unique. If there were several Gods, there would be neither unity of plan nor unity of power in the ordaining of the universe.
God is all-powerful because He is unique. If He did not possess sovereign power, there would be something more powerful, or no less powerful, than Himself. He would not have created all things and those which He had not created would be the work of another God.
God is sovereignty just and good. The providential wisdom of the divine laws is revealed as clearly in the smallest things as in the greatest and this wisdom renders it impossible to doubt either His justice or His goodness.

Pantheism

14. Is God a being distinct from the universe, or is He, according to the opinion of some, the result of all the forces and intelligences of the universe?
"If the latter were the case, God would not be God, for He would be effect and not cause; He cannot be both cause and effect."
"God exists. You cannot doubt His existence, and that is one essential point. Do not seek to go beyond it; do not lose yourselves in a labyrinth which, for you, is without an issue. Such inquiries would not make you better; they would rather tend to add to your pride, by causing you to imagine that you knew something, while, in reality, you would know nothing. Put aside systems. You have things enough to think about that concern you much more nearly, beginning with yourselves. Study your own imperfections, that you may get rid of them; this will be far more useful to you than the vain attempt to penetrate the impenetrable."
15. What is to be thought of the opinion according to which all natural bodies, all the beings, all the globes of the universe are parts of the Divinity, and constitute in their totality the Divinity itself; in other words the Pantheistic theory?
"Man, not being able to make himself God, would fain make himself out to be, at least, a part of God."
16. Those who hold this theory profess to find in it the demonstration of some of the attributes of God. The worlds of the universe being infinitely numerous, God is thus seen to be infinite; vacuum, or nothingness, being nowhere, God is everywhere: God being everywhere, since everything is an integral part of God, He is thus seen to be the intelligent cause of all the phenomena of the universe. What can we oppose to this argument?
"The dictates of reason. Reflect on the assumption in question, and you will have no difficulty in detecting its absurdity."

The Pantheistic theory makes of God a material being, who, though endowed with a supreme intelligence, would only be on a larger scale what we are on a smaller one. But, as matter is incessantly undergoing transformation, God, if this theory were true, would have no stability. He would be subject to all the vicissitudes, and even to all the needs, of humanity He would lack one of the essential attributes of the Divinity, namely, unchangeableness. The properties of matter cannot be attributed to God without degrading our idea of the Divinity and all the subtleties of sophistry fail to solve the problem of His essential nature. We do not know what God is; but we know that it is impossible that He should not be and the theory just stated is in contradiction with His most essential attributes. It confounds the Creator with the creation, precisely as though we should consider an ingenious machine to be an integral portion of the mechanician who invented it.
The intelligence of God is revealed in His works, as is that of a painter in his picture; but the works of God are no more God Himself than the picture is the artist who conceived and painted it.

[pocaracas]

Oh, wow... hello new guy!
I admit I didn't read the whole thing... I stopped... here:

4. What proof have we of the existence of God?
"The axiom which you apply in all your scientific researches, 'There is no effect without a cause.' Search out the cause of whatever is not the work of man, and reason will furnish the answer to your question."

To assure ourselves of the existence of God, we have only to look abroad on the works of creation. The universe exists, therefore it has a cause. To doubt the existence of God is to doubt that every effect has a cause, and to assume that something can have been made by nothing.

So much said... so much implied... so much unknown... so much assumed to be known...
What is nothing?
Can there be nothing? Can there ever have been nothing? (if this question makes sense at all)

If a god exists in the absence of anything else, whence cometh he?

Now, just to start messing with the known unknowns:
- Does nothing contain space-time?
- Does nothing contain time?
- Does it make sense to speak of a state of affairs in which time does not exist?
- Does it make sense to speak of an action - creation - in the absence of time?
- Is space-time infinite?
- Is our Universe a small distorted fraction of an infinite space-time?
- Could such an infinite space-time produce, on some rare occasions, such a Universe creating distortion?
- Could infinity mean that those rare occasions are also infinite? Are there infinite Universes?

And don't get me started on unknown unknowns!

Anyway.... maybe something a bit more down to Earth...
- Does nothing pertain to matter alone?
- Is the vacuum of space nothing?
- What if light is flowing through that space? Is it still nothing?
- What if a magnetic field is present therein?
- What about an electric field?
- Or a gravitational field?
- What is nothing?