Theist:Why do you think God does not exist what are your reasons?

[Mike Cl]

Please identify the irrationality, illogic or whatever problem you have with defining or identifying homo sapiens as natural.

You will likely have to step out on a limb and define some terms here.  That could limit your future ability to dodge, weave or obfuscate.

Ha!  Don't underestimate my friend, Baruch! :))

[popsthebuilder]

That is the weird thing about the definition of "natural." It means that humans didn't design it, and nothing supernatural designed it either. If a wasp builds a nest, it's natural because an animal designed it. But humans are animals, so what's the difference between a wasp's nest and a human's house? I suppose it's a definition of convenience. If we read "100% natural honey," we don't really care if bees made the honey. We just want to know if humans tampered with it somehow.

Where is the dividing line between natural and supernatural? We only have limited means to observe and understand our surroundings and existence at this time so the word or distinction supernatural isn't really fitting in this case.

I think people like the word because it can be likened to fairies and dragons and such. Just because a thing cannot be accurately explained away doesn't make it supernatural, nor the cause. Who has the knowledge to rightly claim that GOD cannot be both wholly causal to existence and existence still wholly caused naturally? And if said knowledge is with that individual then surely they can present it here.

[Blackleaf]

Where is the dividing line between natural and supernatural? We only have limited means to observe and understand our surroundings and existence at this time so the word or distinction supernatural isn't really fitting in this case.

I think people like the word because it can be likened to fairies and dragons and such. Just because a thing cannot be accurately explained away doesn't make it supernatural, nor the cause. Who has the knowledge to rightly claim that GOD cannot be both wholly causal to existence and existence still wholly caused naturally? And if said knowledge is with that individual then surely they can present it here.

Something supernatural is something that is beyond the material realm. It includes magic, ghosts, gods, etc. Sometimes aliens, yetis, and mythical creatures are thrown in too, but I think that just confuses the term. If aliens exist, they're just as natural to the universe as we are.

As for God using natural means to create the universe, that just makes God an unnecessary middle man. If we can explain the universe's existence without him, then adding God to the equation only complicates things.

[popsthebuilder]

Something supernatural is something that is beyond the material realm. It includes magic, ghosts, gods, etc. Sometimes aliens, yetis, and mythical creatures are thrown in too, but I think that just confuses the term. If aliens exist, they're just as natural to the universe as we are.

As for God using natural means to create the universe, that just makes God an unnecessary middle man. If we can explain the universe's existence without him, then adding God to the equation only complicates things.

God alone set the laws of existence in motion. It is no middle man. It is causal to existence.

Sure...We can have theories all day. Some may even be fairly accurate, but none of them can be tested at this time with any level of real certainty, and none of them whatsoever show by what means all of existence is possible without an ultimate causal source. You can say it was a supernova or what have you which is merely conjecture by the way, but you still have to explain the laws that caused the supernovae in the first place. You can say there are whole universes within bubbles of sorts and that they are somewhat independent of one another, but you're gonna have a pretty hard time showing how that works by doing it. And if it can't be repeated then it isn't sound scientific law nor should it be considered truth. And you can claim science isn't about law but it is obvious that existence is governed by laws. So if we can't determine their source even though we can observe and describe them mathematically, then it is safe to assume that we are nowhere near being able to rightly claim that existence happened without an ultimate cause.

God is in all of nature as the force, energy, drive, and necessity of life to live. That is not to say that God isn't also outside of the governing laws that bind us as creation or formation.

peace

[Blackleaf]

God alone set the laws of existence in motion. It is no middle man. It is causal to existence.

Supposedly. But what caused God to exist, and to be the way that he is and not some other way? Did something design God to be the way he is? If not, then he came from nothing. In which case, why can God come from nothing, but not the universe? All you've accomplished by throwing god into the mix was change what it was that came from nothing. That's what I mean when I say that God is the unnecessary middle-man. He doesn't explain anything. He just complicates things.

[Baruch]

Please identify the irrationality, illogic or whatever problem you have with defining or identifying homo sapiens as natural.

You will likely have to step out on a limb and define some terms here.  That could limit your future ability to dodge, weave or obfuscate.

The problem is over-generalization.  I can identify a rock, as a rock.  Shall I define a man as a rock too?  Or because a man has minerals in his bones, am I over-generalizaing?  I never dodge, weave or obfuscate ... and I know many more fancy words too ;-)  I was agreeing with Blackleaf ... because his concerns are genuine.  I disagree with him, if he equates materialism with naturalism.  The quandary of humanism vs naturalism is a real problem too.

[Cavebear]

I had a student in a high school geometry class tell me that since the number pi is a non-repeating decimal, that God wouldn't make an important constant act like that.  He wanted something more orderly and more defined according to his own requirements.  I get the same responses from students when I give essay questions on tests!   The point is we put restrictions on God and even say God doesn't exist because we always put restrictions on who we want God to be.  But God still "is" regardless of whether or not we like His creation or how He designed it.

I was with you halfway through, but then you assumed a deity had to exist because you assume a deity has to exist.  With your assumption, I sure hope you aren't teaching any science class.

[popsthebuilder]

Supposedly. But what caused God to exist, and to be the way that he is and not some other way? Did something design God to be the way he is? If not, then he came from nothing. In which case, why can God come from nothing, but not the universe? All you've accomplished by throwing god into the mix was change what it was that came from nothing. That's what I mean when I say that God is the unnecessary middle-man. He doesn't explain anything. He just complicates things.

GOD is eternal. No beginning and no cause. It doesn't really complicated anything seeing as how we can prove none of it. I'm speaking of an ultimate causal force without a cause itself. Saying whatever caused all existence as we observe it today was itself caused by void is confusion and nonsensical. I see where you're coming from, and it's a decent defensive stance, but really is based on circular logic.

peace

By the way; I do appreciate your general tone with regards to your interactions with me as of late, and mean no disrespect towards you or your own views.

[Baruch]

QM gives materialism an advantage, because vacuity is treated as a dynamic substance, out of which, per Heisenberg, anything can emerge (not all of it stable of course).

[Cavebear]

GOD is eternal. No beginning and no cause. It doesn't really complicated anything seeing as how we can prove none of it. I'm speaking of an ultimate causal force without a cause itself. Saying whatever caused all existence as we observe it today was itself caused by void is confusion and nonsensical. I see where you're coming from, and it's a decent defensive stance, but really is based on circular logic.

peace

By the way; I do appreciate your general tone with regards to your interactions with me as of late, and mean no disrespect towards you or your own views.

The un-evidenced assumption that God is eternal (or the implied statement that one exists) means about as much as saying that we are all unicorns and just don't know it, that we are all from Andromeda, or that toads cause warts.  All 4 statements are equal in provability.

The only thing you can do is provide evidence that any deity exists, and that is not very likely.

[popsthebuilder]

The un-evidenced assumption that God is eternal (or the implied statement that one exists) means about as much as saying that we are all unicorns and just don't know it, that we are all from Andromeda, or that toads cause warts.  All 4 statements are equal in provability.

The only thing you can do is provide evidence that any deity exists, and that is not very likely.

Equal in provability does not mean equal in probability.

[Cavebear]

Equal in provability does not mean equal in probability.

A=A

[popsthebuilder]

A=A

I'm sorry; I am just a layman. Could you explain equation? I've seen it before but my memory isn't the best sometimes.

Thank you in advance.

peace

[Mike Cl]

GOD is eternal. No beginning and no cause. It doesn't really complicated anything seeing as how we can prove none of it. I'm speaking of an ultimate causal force without a cause itself. Saying whatever caused all existence as we observe it today was itself caused by void is confusion and nonsensical. I see where you're coming from, and it's a decent defensive stance, but really is based on circular logic.

You admit that you can prove neither stance--god or no god--yet you chose to believe in god.  That seems to me to be wishful thinking.  You'd like there to be a god.  For you, you say that we don't really know how anything came into being, yet you insist that god did it.  Is that not the picture perfect circular believing?  Yet you accuse others of circular believing? (I won't say circular thinking orlogic, since I see none of it coming from you.)  Would it not be most accurate to simply say 'I don't know'?  And more honest?

[Blackleaf]

GOD is eternal. No beginning and no cause. It doesn't really complicated anything seeing as how we can prove none of it. I'm speaking of an ultimate causal force without a cause itself. Saying whatever caused all existence as we observe it today was itself caused by void is confusion and nonsensical. I see where you're coming from, and it's a decent defensive stance, but really is based on circular logic.

peace

If God had no beginning or cause, what determined his personality? Why should he care about anything, let alone us? What determined whether he'd be a good natured god versus an evil one, or an unpredictable one? To me, it is much simpler to think that the universe came into existence without any gods to help. Until any acts of god are scientifically proven to exist, I'm keeping God out of it.

By the way; I do appreciate your general tone with regards to your interactions with me as of late, and mean no disrespect towards you or your own views.

I try to match the tone of the people I talk with. People who offer arguments over name-calling get the same treatment. And after experiencing Godis, you're looking like Stephen Hawking by comparison.