God exists

[rktpro]

People say that God doesn't exist both scientifically and visually.

Let me conclude this:

Not everything can be visualized. Can you get the knowledge of the letter 'A' only by visualizing? Simply not. You need to have the knowledge how the word sounds.

Can you prove your father by visualizing? No, because you weren't even born at that time.

Can you prove a far country by visualizing? No, because the country can be beyond reach of eyes, but it actually exists.

Same is for God. He is beyond our material eyes and ears and all senses.

A lot of saints have seen him and they have attained bliss.

 

Something more-

What is nature?

Whatever we can't explain scientifically is what we call nature.

For ex- We know subatomic particles have no smell when taken individually. But when they combine in ratios of different number(as different elements) they form compounds with different smell. How can you get smell? This is termed as NATURE of electrons! Because this is unexplained.

There are countless examples of so called Nature.

GOD is what we call nature in science.

[ecoli]

False premise

[rktpro]

False premise

 

Saying this doesn't actually make the statement false.

[ecoli]

Saying this doesn't actually make the statement false.

 

You said:

 

People say that God doesn't exist both scientifically and visually.

 

First of all your premise is false. People don't say that. And even if some people did, it's not a valid source to base a claim from. Therefore, your conclusions are logically invalid.

[rktpro]

People do. There are only two ways possible- believe in him and don't believe in him. I concluded both taking don't believe in him as base.

[ydoaPs]

You said:

 

 

 

First of all your premise is false. People don't say that. And even if some people did, it's not a valid source to base a claim from. Therefore, your conclusions are logically invalid.

That would make it unsound; not invalid.

[ecoli]

People do. There are only two ways possible- believe in him and don't believe in him. I concluded both taking don't believe in him as base.

 

Huh?

[Marat]

Even though we may not be able to visualize God, we do insist that for things we cannot visualize or for which there is no direct, demonstrative, empirical evidence there must at least be indirect empirical support or their existence must be a necessary posit to make sense of the rest of some well-established theory we accept. Thus I cannot visualize, cannot easily wrap my mind around, and have not directly seen with my own eyes the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, but I accept that it exists because it is an essential inferential implication of a theory that is widely accepted on ultimately observational grounds as true.

 

But with respect to God, not only can we not see him smoking an old cigar as he chases young girls around Central Park on a given Sunday morning, but his existence also does not follow as a necessary conceptual posit from any theory which is itself based on empirical evidence. He is not logically entailed by the web of our belief, but rather, his existence would contradict it at many points (e.g., if there is an infinitely good, omnipotent, omniscient being, why does he allow evil things to happen to good people?), so he has neither support from our conceptual structures nor from direct observation.

 

The only support he seems to have is from some texts which record the mythological beliefs of Bronze Age nomads, but that is no better than the support we have for many other things we know to be non-existent, such as witches, which the Bible (see the Witch of Ensor story) also accepts along with God.

[rktpro]

Even though we may not be able to visualize God, we do insist that for things we cannot visualize or for which there is no direct, demonstrative, empirical evidence there must at least be indirect empirical support or their existence must be a necessary posit to make sense of the rest of some well-established theory we accept. Thus I cannot visualize, cannot easily wrap my mind around, and have not directly seen with my own eyes the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, but I accept that it exists because it is an essential inferential implication of a theory that is widely accepted on ultimately observational grounds as true.

 

But with respect to God, not only can we not see him smoking an old cigar as he chases young girls around Central Park on a given Sunday morning, but his existence also does not follow as a necessary conceptual posit from any theory which is itself based on empirical evidence. He is not logically entailed by the web of our belief, but rather, his existence would contradict it at many points (e.g., if there is an infinitely good, omnipotent, omniscient being, why does he allow evil things to happen to good people?), so he has neither support from our conceptual structures nor from direct observation.

 

The only support he seems to have is from some texts which record the mythological beliefs of Bronze Age nomads, but that is no better than the support we have for many other things we know to be non-existent, such as witches, which the Bible (see the Witch of Ensor story) also accepts along with God.

 

Evil things happen to good people because of the evil deeds they committed in their previous birth.

You didn't noticed the 'Nature Part' of what I said. Electrons are non-living or material, then how they join together to make up a living organism? Who induces in them what we call Life?

This is God. That is why he is omnipresent. He has taken many avtaars, we have seen him many times, but as he is beyond our material eyes and senses, we never devoted to him.

[ydoaPs]

Electrons are non-living or material, then how they join together to make up a living organism?

Water molecules are non-wet material; how do they join together to make up a pool of wet water? Your composition fallacy ignores the concept of emergent properties.

[rktpro]

Water molecules are non-wet material; how do they join together to make up a pool of wet water? Your composition fallacy ignores the concept of emergent properties.

 

See yourself, how do they join to make water? It is the existence of God that induces in them this property!

[mississippichem]

See yourself, how do they join to make water? It is the existence of God that induces in them this property!

 

Are you sure it's not hydrogen bonding and strong dipole-dipole interactions? I have seen, and I know that it is. I doubt any teacher or professor would accept "God did it" as a valid explanation. That's the problem with belief in a god, it makes one get used to accepting very poor or vague explanations for complex or finesse phenomena.

 

Don't try and say god made dipole-dipole interactions either because I have a naturalistic explanation for that as well.

[ydoaPs]

Are you sure it's not hydrogen bonding and strong dipole-dipole interactions? I have seen, and I know that it is. I doubt any teacher or professor would accept "God did it" as a valid explanation. That's the problem with belief in a god, it makes one get used to accepting very poor or vague explanations for complex or finesse phenomena.

 

Don't try and say god made dipole-dipole interactions either because I have a naturalistic explanation for that as well.

It reminds me of Bill O'Reilley and his thing about the tides. "Oh yeah, how'd the moon get there?". He never stops to realize that the end of that line of reasoning is "Oh yeah, how'd God get there?".

[A Tripolation]

Who made God?

[ydoaPs]

Who made God?

Jesus. Checkmate, atheists!

[A Tripolation]

Jesus. Checkmate, atheists!

 

I have actually had that response before. *sigh*

[Mr Skeptic]

Who made God?

 

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[farmboy]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

Wish I could friend, but she's down with that kind of thing in the bedroom. Frightens me at times.

 

And to the OP, if I could salvage one single good thing from your posts in this thread it is that for all your naivety you don't seem to be filled with the same anger and self loathing that drives most of the other 'religious' folks of your ilk. I really hope that lasts for you.

 

With regards to the actual content of your message, sorry but it is horribly filled with contradictions and errors, and you have fundamentally failed to follow any sort of logical progression of thought despite implying otherwise. Following your logic I think I could make a real case for the existence of Batman in real life. Just like in the comics his dark visage strikes fear into the heart of criminals the world over, though he is known to ply his trade primarily in Gotham City, which incidentally explains why we have never seen him on the news. Like your god, gotham city is invisible. Thankfully you do not require any sort of burden of proof before accepting something as true, so I take my bow and leave safe in the knowledge that you are now most greatful to me for opening your eyes to this lost wonder, no doubt on a par with the recent discovery of the taj mahal 2.0 in the sea of tranquility.

 

 

 

EDIT

 

Just wanted to point out that this post was meant to be taken a entirely 'tongue in cheek' lol, in reality I haven't beaten my wife (or mother) for years at least, and I am certainly not (quite) as arrogant as the tone in the latter section might suggest lol.

Edited March 18, 2011 by farmboy

[A Tripolation]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

...what?

[imatfaal]

Trip - don't panic it's not an accusation; it was once thought of as an unanswerable loaded question. Answer Yes - and you admit you were beating your wife . Answer No and you admit you are still beating your wife. Mr Skeptic was just retorting with another question that does not readily admit to an answer.

 

BTW modern practices mean that Farmboys very cute answer defuses the question with an answer that does not reflect badly on the respondent

[Mr Skeptic]

A question sometimes is not only a question but makes a claim. The question, "Who created God?" is equivalent to "Someone created God. Name that person." The premise of that question is considered false by all the monotheists I know. The question itself is invalid/misleading.

[A Tripolation]

A question sometimes is not only a question but makes a claim. The question, "Who created God?" is equivalent to "Someone created God. Name that person." The premise of that question is considered false by all the monotheists I know. The question itself is invalid/misleading.

 

The OP is claiming that everything was created by something. If his logic stops at his deity, it is unsound. That is the point I was trying to make. I do not think it is a false premise in this case. I'm a monotheist. Something must have created God. Why is he immune and different?

 

And thanks imatfaal. I thought Mr S just suddenly started hating me.

[Phi for All]

People say that God doesn't exist both scientifically and visually.

It would be more correct to say "God remains unobservable". This includes more senses than just the visual, and includes other ways of obtaining information.

 

Let me conclude this:

Not everything can be visualized. Can you get the knowledge of the letter 'A' only by visualizing? Simply not. You need to have the knowledge how the word sounds.

We don't have to get it only by visualizing it, therefore it's not a good example.

 

Can you prove your father by visualizing? No, because you weren't even born at that time.

There is a lot of evidence in favor of his existence, very little that might disprove it, and my theory that he existed is testable.

 

Can you prove a far country by visualizing? No, because the country can be beyond reach of eyes, but it actually exists.

Again, seeing something visually is different from scientific observation. If I think I have cockroaches in my kitchen but I never see any, I can test my theory by spreading flour near the baseboards. I still don't see the cockroaches but I can see where they have walked through the flour. This is a testable, repeatable observation (if I want to be truly rigorous, I would find some real cockroaches to make flour tracks and compare them to the ones in my kitchen).

 

Same is for God. He is beyond our material eyes and ears and all senses.

This makes God super (outside of the) natural.

 

A lot of saints have seen him and they have attained bliss.

A lot of saints never knew bliss, many died screaming and none were recognized as saints while they lived.

 

Something more-

What is nature?

Whatever we can't explain scientifically is what we call nature.

Completely wrong. Science studies what is natural, or in nature. God is supernatural, can't be observed in nature. Everything you attribute to God has naturalistic explanations.

[ydoaPs]

A question sometimes is not only a question but makes a claim. The question, "Who created God?" is equivalent to "Someone created God. Name that person." The premise of that question is considered false by all the monotheists I know. The question itself is invalid/misleading.

Given the premises of the OP, it is special pleading to remove God from consideration with the same line of reasoning unless a specific mechanism for doing so is given. No such mechanism has been provided. Otherwise, we could just say:

 

A question sometimes is not only a question but makes a claim. The question, "Who created hydrogen bonding and dipole dipole interactions?" is equivalent to "Someone created hydrogen bonding and dipole dipole interactions. Name that person." The premise of that question is considered false by all the scientists I know. The question itself is invalid/misleading.

 

However, the general sub-thread you jumped into was attempting to show the error of the reasoning in a different manner. You can't just change the rules mid game.

[michel123456]

Evil things happen to good people because of the evil deeds they committed in their previous birth.

(...)

This is monstruous. Criminal.

You would'nt dare to tell that to a mother losing her new born child. Or to 10.000 japanese lying under the mud of Tōhoku.

Edited March 18, 2011 by michel123456