Why Must There Be a God?

[_Amore]

As logical as not engaging in a discussion about the physiology of dragon-unicorn hybrids.


How logical is it to insist something exits, that you can provide no evidence of, and that you can not provide a definition of?

Actually, we all regularly believe things that have no evidence!
We are not all-knowing - some of us realize.
All of our thoughts are subjectively limited - so we cannot help but believe things that are not the full picture.
So, is it more logical to consciously choose helpful thoughts, or to subconsciously allow negative destructive thoughts?
And as you consider that, also remember how thoughts affect your emotions- your physiology.

Also, if you consider the definitions given of God that make sense, are logical - then it is ignorant and illogical to deny them.
IE: "God is love." How can you deny love?
"God is your ultimate concern." How can you deny someone's concern is not more ultimate than another concern?

If you are reasonable, you will acknowledge this. If you are not reasonable, you will insist on your own herd mentality, even in the face of inconvenient truths.

[_Amore]

In Islam, alone, are about 100 definitions of God - one being that there are infinite definitions and that God cannot be sufficiently defined.
There are many religions - with many ways of definition God.
Jesus said, "The kingdom of God is within you."
How can you deny what is within all of people - and all possible definitions of God, without claiming to be omnicient?

[_SteelHead]

You have not provided a definition that is anymore concise than saying god is a blob. You can claim god is in all people. Now show this claim.

God is love.... What a nebulous definition. Might as well worship gravity as love. Just because we all share some common emotions, does not god the emotions make.

[_subgenius]

Again with the oversimplification. Comparing a massively parallel hundreds of millions of pathways, feedback mechanism, learning and memory electro chemical biological processor to boiling water in order to show that it is magic

If you have proof that any one, or combination of several, of the "hundreds of millions" is capable of transcending natural law, then please post. Otherwise the boiling water aptly exemplifies the concept that every single one of the "hundreds of millions" adheres to...without exception....without exception....without exception.
(ironically, another poster would claim that I am correct merely because my explanation is simpler)

...... The brain is not a single chemical reaction. It is an process that weighs and evaluates against a multitude of input variables via reactions, produces a multitude of options, via the parallelism inherent over differing weighted pathways, and allows for the selection from the results. There is also an element of randomness thrown in, plus the impact of degraded pathways.

I never claimed it was a "single" reaction...what i claimed, via your own requirements, is that no single reaction can behave any other way.
Either you believe in chemistry, physics, etc. or you do not...it is becoming clear that you have doubts.

Your overly simplistic attempt at making it supernatural might satisfy you, doesn't meet the criteria of showing that it is supernatural.

how so? the definition is quite clear and quite concise...is there another definition that you would prefer to use? I mean you seem to be inclined to want to use the definition of "magic" to describe how "many" reactions can adhere to a different law of chemistry than "one" reaction.

You would have been the guy 700 years ago arguing that the only logical explination for lightning is Thor welding Mjolnir.

Not really an applicable analogy....considering that on this particular argument you are the one taking the faith based position.

[_SteelHead]

The Thor analogy is much more apt than your boiling wayer analogy. And now, it is the faith based proposition to note that thinking is natural but not fully understood, not supernatural? Burden shift much?

As the original request was to provide evidence for god, and you proposed choice as such an example, the burden is upon you definitively demonstrate that it is indeed supernatural.

As the quality of one's "choices" can be impacted by the administration of a variety of substances, there is demonstrable natural elements to choice.

[_subgenius]

The Thor analogy is much more apt than your boiling wayer analogy. And now, it is the faith based proposition to note that thinking is natural but not fully understood, not supernatural? Burden shift much?

Your claim of "not fully understood" is back-pedaling and is addressed in item #2 from my list above.

As the original request was to provide evidence for god, and you proposed choice as such an example, the burden is upon you definitively demonstrate that it is indeed supernatural.

What is produced was for you to make a choice...and if you believe that you actually "made" a choice then you conceded the presence of the supernatural - and that concession merely allows for the possibility of God.
Now, as to the specific "evidence" - it has been proven that "evidence' can come in the form of testimony, and as such there have been millions that have testified. Now, you may well dispute, discard, and even dismiss this "evidence" - BUT it is evidence none the less and satisfies your request.
ergo Evidence scores (1).

As the quality of one's "choices" can be impacted by the administration of a variety of substances, there is demonstrable natural elements to choice.

"can be impacted" demonstrates that external/environmental influence "creates" a chemical reaction which creates another and then another, etc...all unable to react any other way. This is the basic fact established in #8 above. "You" are not able to "choose" which reaction gets put into motion and "You" are not able to change the outcome of any of those reactions...in fact "You" are just a product of another complex set of reactions....which means "You" are not accountable for anything....unless you concede that "You" are supernatural in as much as "You" can act outside of the laws of the universe.

[_SteelHead]

I have not back pedaled, it has been my position from the get go that thought/choice while natural, is not fully understood. Still you have not demonstrated that it is supernatural.

I'll keep waiting.

[_spotlight]

4. The supernatural is confirmed by the ability to choose otherwise. If you believe that our existence is nothing more than the result of a variety of complex chemical reactions then you must affirm that these reactions are incapable of "reacting" in any other way. Neither vinegar nor baking soda can "choose" to not fizz when mixed. So, your every thought and action must be without option and ergo "you" do not really exist outside of a neurological disorder and "you" cannot be held responsible for anything...."you" are constantly in a state of reacting to environmental influence - without control, motive, nor meaning. Even your disagreement on this topic has no value because it is not of your own device or accord.
But
if you believe that you have the ability to choose otherwise - if your believe you can choose not to fizz, then somehow you have transcended the laws of nature and by definition entered the supernatural....and the existence of the supernatural is evidence for the possibility of God...ergo, 1 evidence for God.

Your very thoughts, by your notion, must be products of bio-chemical reaction...inescapably formed by environmental influences. No thought can be "generated" without first being subject to the immutable laws that govern these reactions. Therefore your notion of being able to "choose" is a delusion because that "choice" is nothing more than the inevitable and unavoidable conclusion of a variety of chemical reactions...reactions that are unable to "react" any other way.

We can make choices the same way computer programs can make choices - based upon a unique combination of inputs. If-Then statements in software are the example here. Choice does not necessitate the supernatural which by your definition is self-contradictory.

Per LDS doctrine there is no such thing as an immaterial anything. All is matter though there is more refined matter per LDS. So your immortal self consists of refined matter. Your argument now applies to this refined matter in the very same way you think it applies to normal matter. Can this matter from one initial state proceed to various different subsequent states? If so, what is doing the differentiating? Certainly not the matter of which you consist for it is in the self same state prior to exercising "free will." So there must be something more. And you have the very same problem all over again.

Are the non LDS Christians correct that immaterial minds are behind it all? Being immaterial is the same as being nothing. If we have a box with nothing inside and another box with a mind inside we have a contradiction. For the contents of both are identical - nothing. Yet one has a mind where the other does not.

If a mind exists it has a state and it is self-contradictory for the self-same state to result in more than one subsequent state. Because there must always be something more that is doing the differentiating, the choosing.

Your argument rather than establishing proof of the existence of god or anything more actually disproves it.

[_subgenius]

4. The supernatural is confirmed by the ability to choose otherwise. If you believe that our existence is nothing more than the result of a variety of complex chemical reactions then you must affirm that these reactions are incapable of "reacting" in any other way. Neither vinegar nor baking soda can "choose" to not fizz when mixed. So, your every thought and action must be without option and ergo "you" do not really exist outside of a neurological disorder and "you" cannot be held responsible for anything...."you" are constantly in a state of reacting to environmental influence - without control, motive, nor meaning. Even your disagreement on this topic has no value because it is not of your own device or accord.
But
if you believe that you have the ability to choose otherwise - if your believe you can choose not to fizz, then somehow you have transcended the laws of nature and by definition entered the supernatural....and the existence of the supernatural is evidence for the possibility of God...ergo, 1 evidence for God.

Your very thoughts, by your notion, must be products of bio-chemical reaction...inescapably formed by environmental influences. No thought can be "generated" without first being subject to the immutable laws that govern these reactions. Therefore your notion of being able to "choose" is a delusion because that "choice" is nothing more than the inevitable and unavoidable conclusion of a variety of chemical reactions...reactions that are unable to "react" any other way.

We can make choices the same way computer programs can make choices - based upon a unique combination of inputs. If-Then statements in software are the example here. Choice does not necessitate the supernatural which by your definition is self-contradictory.

But, per your example, computers do not make choices, they follow a prescribed program from which they cannot deviate. A computer cannot be presented with the input "2+2"and provide a response of "7" when the program states "4". A computer is wholly incapable of choosing otherwise.
And yes, choice as described up thread does require the supernatural, because currently there is no natural explanation.

Per LDS doctrine there is no such thing as an immaterial anything. All is matter though there is more refined matter per LDS. So your immortal self consists of refined matter. Your argument now applies to this refined matter in the very same way you think it applies to normal matter. Can this matter from one initial state proceed to various different subsequent states? If so, what is doing the differentiating? Certainly not the matter of which you consist for it is in the self same state prior to exercising "free will." So there must be something more. And you have the very same problem all over again.

Nope, still no problem when considering God, who by definition transcends nature....is supernatural...refinement being the key I suppose.

Are the non LDS Christians correct that immaterial minds are behind it all? Being immaterial is the same as being nothing. If we have a box with nothing inside and another box with a mind inside we have a contradiction. For the contents of both are identical - nothing. Yet one has a mind where the other does not.

Then I suppose you should prove that the mind exists if you want to explore that. This discussion was about choice.

If a mind exists it has a state and it is self-contradictory for the self-same state to result in more than one subsequent state. Because there must always be something more that is doing the differentiating, the choosing.

That is a rather scientific trapping, the inability to stop filtering off is a limitation of that paradigm not the supernatural one.

Your argument rather than establishing proof of the existence of god or anything more actually disproves it.

Not really. My argument is that the supernatural is possible and thus God is possible.
You seem to be going down a rabbit hole on your own.

[_subgenius]

I have not back pedaled, it has been my position from the get go that thought/choice while natural, is not fully understood. Still you have not demonstrated that it is supernatural.

I'll keep waiting.

Perhaps the definition of supernatural will demonstrate, since you seem to be missing out:

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl
adjective: supernatural
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


...
Glad to see you have the faith.