Is God real?
What are some of the better arguments for the existence of God?
Is God real?
What are some of the better arguments for the existence of God?
Other urls found in this thread:
if God isn't real then where did the all water of the earth came from? I haven't seen water in too many planets, let alone whole oceans
After being a Christian on and off for about three years I have found the Biblical narrative to be fundamentally absurd:
>YHWH, who used to be worshiped within a polytheistic pantheon, is found by the Israelites to be the one God.
>YHWH created the universe
>Originally, there was no death or disorder on earth, it was only when humans sinned and failed to be YHWH's image bearers that things in the cosmos began to act violently and die
>Israel were in a special covenant with YHWH and were meant to restore faithfulness to YHWH to the whole world
>They keep fucking up and getting fucked up by pagan neighbors
>The consistently reject YHWH's prophets
>Finally YHWH decides to set things on the right track by sending his son, the penultimate Israelite God-bearer to bear the sins of Israel and all of humanity in order to save them and restore the cosmos to their primordial state of union with YHWH which includes no death, violence, or suffering whatsoever
>They kill him
>He resurrects and ascends vertically into the atmosphere/YHWH's presence, promising to return to raise people's bodies from the dead and create a new heavens and earth where nothing dies and there is eternal joy and peace
>God no longer speaks to humanity in any literal or tangible way
>S-surely the Lord will come back soon!
I have taken up Buddhism.
What kind of Buddhism do you practice?
I learned to meditate via the Theravada tradition, and pretty much everything I have learned about Buddha's teachings and the nature of reality have been from Theravadists. So, I guess I'm Theravada though I don't really subscribe to any particular school. I just practice basic mindfulness and Vipassana meditation.
What kind of Theravada? Ajahn Chah tradition over here.
I pretty much just follow Mahasi Sayadaw's stomach-rising meditation method.
I'll look into that. Trying to get my meditation practice back off the ground.
Teleology, atheism rejects design as relative/meaningless/unknowable which goes against every intuitive observation I have ever experienced. You're fucked if you make religious religious arguments of any sort.
I'm a Christian due to personal experiences within my life, and so that's unlikely to change regardless of any scientific discoveries or debates with people.
But, if you're looking for material reasons to believe in God, there are some arguments to be made along the lines of a "prime mover". The argument being that since science thus far has shown there to be a "Big Bang" that created the universe, and since the universe is accelerating at an expanding rate, it goes to reason that our universe had a beginning. But if it had a beginning, then who or what caused it? Now some people try to apply this logic to God as well, but God does not exist within the limits of time as we know it (in fact he doesn't even exist within the limits of the laws of the universe).
4. Complex and Intelligent Design
P2. as a side note look into Thomas Aquinus
Jesus says under Stonehenge below Heelstone is his Ark of his Testament but there are no Cheddarites to unearth it only Britons who are not real Britons.
If you need to “argue” for the existence of something you already know it’s bs.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever read. So morality is BS? Quarks are BS? Evolution and general relativity are BS?
Even if you think it's true, cosmological argument misses the point of God. Excuse my projecting, but I don't think the main reason for believing in God is due to some events that occurred nearly 14 billion years ago. These events are abstract and entirely dependent on cosmological theories which change rapidly any time new physics are discovered. It says very little about how God should be understood and how he relates to the human condition. If anything the cosmological argument should be used as a defense (in the form of the prime mover) if someone says God begs the question.
You could also argue nonexistence.
>If you need to argue your stance in politics then you already know its BS
Teleology is the worst argument of the three, logically speaking. It rests entirely on analogy.
The cosmological argument is nothing but a reformulated ontological argument. Existence is a series of conditions, therefore there must be an absolutely unconditioned thing, i.e. God. Absolute necessity is found in only one being, God, and therefore this is the thing from which all reality stems. But if the reasoning is valid, I must be able to reason conversely, and say, that the thing which all reality rests upon necessarily exists; this is the ontological argument. And the ontological argument rests on the premise that existence can be deduced from mere analysis of concepts, something Aristotle himself warned against.
Now the question isn't what caused the world, but whether or not "cause" could be applied to the "world," taken to mean the totality of that which exists externally. If the world had no cause, and is infinite, that would mean at any given point in time an infinite amount of time would need to elapse, which is impossible, because the synthesis of an infinity quantity can never be completed. If the world had a cause, it would need to be caused prior to the existence of time, which is impossible, because causality exists only within time.
So it seems that, although cosmological and ontological arguments are insufficient, there remains only one, the least "reasonable" of the three, the one which least appeals to reason of itself: the teleological. Unfortunately this rather unsound footing is the only one on which a belief in God can rest, in relation to reason. But gladly for some it has been known for quite a while that this sort of belief has as little relation to reason as painting to ditch digging.
I could shove my dick down your throat, you're understandings of discomfort rest entirely on analogy.
>Jesus says, "under Stonehenge below Heelstone is his Ark of his Testament but
>there are no Cheddarites to unearth it only fake Britons who are not real Britons."
No argument there. True.
>If the world had a cause, it would need to be caused prior to the existence of time, which is impossible, because causality exists only within time.
Except God exists outside of time as time is a confinement and is superseded by an omnipotent being.
Comparison is not analogy. When I compare two things, it is in an absolute sense, because the things are of the same kind. Analogy is used to compare things that are of different kinds.
Again, to agree to the cosmological argument, which is a converse ontological argument, you must agree to the ontological argument, which is faulty.
So really the Rev 18:7 queen's
just another Atheist, figures.
DNA is an intricate and complex structure that exists in all forms of life.
If even one thing were out of place an organism would be rendered incapable of reproduction.
And here we are with over 6 billion letters in our genetic code, how do you get not just a lifeform, but one capable of reproducing from a random event?
If one is to argue against God in any capacity they must argue some form of Abiogenesis an event which would seem impossible.
Abiogenesis doesn't seem any less possible than God
>lumping in evolution with the rest of the demonstrably true things
I see what you did there.
All of these abrahamic religions are a fucking poison if your iq is over 90 and you begin to question it at all
There's nothing wrong with what Jesus said but there's a problem that's inherently wrong with the "big 3," the fact that they make their believers sit around and wait for thousands of years for an objectively impossible event to transpire
>look guys i know its been 3000 years but the messiah will come i swear
>yeah he came here once 2000 years ago but he'll be back after he gets some cigarettes i swear
>yeah were gonna get the end times and have global islam just like allah said any minute now
Fuck this element of waiting around and being a sitting cuck. The NT is good literature but if you actually think a bulletproof jesus is going to descend from heaven and magically transform the earth then I have a bridge to sell you.
>walk into a church for the first time in years
>overhear a conversation between the priest and some other people
>priest: "It's been 2000 years already we're tired of waiting"
When will they accept its not going to happen and that it's folklore just like every other religion?
>b-but 2000 years is an eyeblink in god time
monotheism is the spiritual equivalent of waiting for your dad to come back from the convenience store when he said he was leaving for cigarettes, at least buddhism and stoicism focus on improving your life now
>believes in IQ
>doesn't believe in God
God is real but the waiting around for a savior aspect is brainlet tier and you know it
You are butthurt your soul is headed straight to hell when you die. You hide behind your anonymous filter because you're scared to face reality. You are scared to face the fact that God is real .
Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I already admitted god is real and you keep saying the opposite. You're fucking retarded and can't read.
Thinking about it that way... I agree. You aren't headed to hell if that's the case.
There is one among us who has interesting potential as far as prophets go. This gives hope for the PRESENT and FUTURE, instead of focusing on the PAST.
As you know my first name is YHWH and
my last name is Allah, why question silly?
serious question what will christbros be saying 1000 or 2000 or 10,000 years from now when jesus still hasnt returned?
mere words cannot, you cant define anything
define the color red.
Why can't you just read theological teachings? I've noticed buddhism has lots of appeal to cocks who can't help but drown in their vanity.
>If even one thing were out of place an organism would be rendered incapable of reproduction.
That's totally false.
>If one is to argue against God in any capacity they must argue some form of Abiogenesis an event which would seem impossible.
There are multiple plausible ideas as to how you get the first RNA to evolve into DNA