Why Must There Be a God?

[_SteelHead]

Why should I define god? I am not the one proposing that such a thing exists. You define it.

If god is defined as the conjectured uncaused causer of the teleological and cosmological arguments, then god may as well be the universe as some being or entity of conscience. I am not inclined to worship gravity.

[_subgenius]

You have neither presented need nor evidence.

Your argument for need is incoherent, your evidence for god does not follow from your argument.

Incoherent in that all that we experience is through the manifold of our senses. No truly objective view of the universe has ever been demonstrated, nor has the need for such been demonstrated. While you can conjecture about such a truly objective entity, the need for such has not been demonstrated, hence incoherent munging of esoteric concepts does not equal true need.

Human choice of actions does not defy the laws of nature, chemical reactions follow the laws of nature. That the universe has laws does not demonstrate a creator. That I can choose certain actions does not make me supernatural. I can not defy the laws of physics. You have not demonstrated anything/class of things that can only be attributed to supernatural, rather than a lack of human understanding of natural phenomena. Your conclusion does not follow out of your argument.

The Bible is not evidence of god. It is evidence that we can write stories. There is no definitive link between the claims of divine influence into the authorship.

That people testify that god is acting through them does not mean that he is, rather that the believe/ are saying that he does. Independently, and externaly verifiable and repeatable evidence is required.
Try again.

You have herein provided a great example of your presupposition being wrong on this matter.

"That people testify that god is acting through them does not mean that he is"

what you have written here is surely correct...testimony does not mean (does not conclude) that "he is"...but it is evidence - (see example of testimony as evidence above). A person's testimony is sometimes all the evidence necessary to convict someone of a crime...does it always mean the crime was committed? - nope...but sometimes, many times, it does mean that....either way, it is evidence and evidence is what you asked for - and upon its presentation you promptly picked up your goalpost and moved....so, again evidence 1.

And this is why your sincerity on this subject is suspect....of course, based upon your testimony thus far.

[_subgenius]

Why should I define god? I am not the one proposing that such a thing exists. You define it.

If god is defined as the conjectured uncaused causer of the teleological and cosmological arguments, then god may as well be the universe as some being or entity of conscience. I am not inclined to worship gravity.

http://dailyatheistquote.com/wp-content ... -sagan.jpg

Equally ludicrous is that the idea of sending a gold record etched with music, crying, and brain waves hurling through deep space is not a prayer to gravity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record


bad news my friend, you worship gravity.

[_SteelHead]

Nor is it a prayer to god. Is this voyager probe germane in some way to this discussion?

I do not worship gravity, but I do live under its influence.

[Guest]

You have neither presented need nor evidence.

Your argument for need is incoherent, your evidence for god does not follow from your argument.

Incoherent in that all that we experience is through the manifold of our senses. No truly objective view of the universe has ever been demonstrated, nor has the need for such been demonstrated. While you can conjecture about such a truly objective entity, the need for such has not been demonstrated, hence incoherent munging of esoteric concepts does not equal true need.

Human choice of actions does not defy the laws of nature, chemical reactions follow the laws of nature. That the universe has laws does not demonstrate a creator. That I can choose certain actions does not make me supernatural. I can not defy the laws of physics. You have not demonstrated anything/class of things that can only be attributed to supernatural, rather than a lack of human understanding of natural phenomena. Your conclusion does not follow out of your argument.

The Bible is not evidence of god. It is evidence that we can write stories. There is no definitive link between the claims of divine influence into the authorship.

That people testify that god is acting through them does not mean that he is, rather that the believe/ are saying that he does. Independently, and externaly verifiable and repeatable evidence is required.
Try again.

You have herein provided a great example of your presupposition being wrong on this matter.

"That people testify that god is acting through them does not mean that he is"

what you have written here is surely correct...testimony does not mean (does not conclude) that "he is"...but it is evidence - (see example of testimony as evidence above). A person's testimony is sometimes all the evidence necessary to convict someone of a crime...does it always mean the crime was committed? - nope...but sometimes, many times, it does mean that....either way, it is evidence and evidence is what you asked for - and upon its presentation you promptly picked up your goalpost and moved....so, again evidence 1.

And this is why your sincerity on this subject is suspect....of course, based upon your testimony thus far.

Individual testimony of an un observable, completely internal, completely subjective to interpretation, non repeatable source of some testimony is not evidence of god. Eyewitness testimony is considered the weakest of all evidence in a court of law as it is so faliable. Uncorroborated eyewitness testimony more so. As such it is not evidence of god, rather people believe it is evidence of god, else wise every uncorroborated rambling of a delusional mad man serves as witness to their imaginary friends.

If we accept the criteria for evidence you are suggesting then Kazak Dum is a real place, and DoTerra oil cures cancer.

[_ludwigm]

Nor is it a prayer to god. Is this voyager probe germane in some way to this discussion?

I don't know the prequel because of ignore list...

I do not worship gravity, but I do live under its influence.

Yes.

I used to teach my students - would-be radar technicians - to not fear of high voltage, but respect it. Fifty hundred volts around...

[_LittleNipper]

Why should I define god? I am not the one proposing that such a thing exists. You define it.

If god is defined as the conjectured uncaused causer of the teleological and cosmological arguments, then god may as well be the universe as some being or entity of conscience. I am not inclined to worship gravity.

God is to the entire Universe as man relates to technology. He is originator of it. Oh wait, God also inspired man to be technical. Oh well! Mr. Sagan is died --- God is not. God continues to influence ---- Mr. Sagan's influence diminishes with time.

[_SteelHead]

I can show Carl Sagan existed, you can not do the same for god.

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

God is to the entire Universe as man relates to technology. He is originator of it. Oh wait, God also inspired man to be technical. Oh well! Mr. Sagan is died --- God is not. God continues to influence ---- Mr. Sagan's influence diminishes with time.

Jesus is not died?

Grammar notwithstanding, Jesus is an all powerful lich, not a god.

[_LittleNipper]

God is to the entire Universe as man relates to technology. He is originator of it. Oh wait, God also inspired man to be technical. Oh well! Mr. Sagan is died --- God is not. God continues to influence ---- Mr. Sagan's influence diminishes with time.

Jesus is not died?

Grammar notwithstanding, Jesus is an all powerful lich, not a god.

Jesus is God in human form. His power is God derived. In two thousand years (if this planet earth is still around) it would be interesting to see if Mr. Sagan is still thought about or even considered relevant.