• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

God probably exists.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Big Eye

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
8,196
Reaction score
3,207
Location
Portsmouth ,UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
God probably exists for these reasons...

There is no legitimate reason for believing that anything exits beyond thought. In fact Occam inclines us to discard that which adds nothing of use , eg materialism. The idea of materialism (ie, mind independence) serves no purpose other than to deny the existence of God...it serves no other purpose.

So if we naturally (due to Occam's advice) drop materialism (ie. mind independence) we come to the conclusion that the world is a world of thought .

You can naturally descend into solipsism with such a view of reality...the trouble with that is that most of us (ie , the sane ones) feel that we are not all that there is to know...therefore other things (like mathematical theorems) exist outside of us .

If we accept that mind independence can not exist but that other things exist outside of ourselves, then it stands to reason that we exist in an external non-material reality. That external reality must be the product of another mind (since mind independence does not exist).

We exist in another mind (God) much in the same way that the Chrome browser can exist within Windows 10 .Separate but dependent.
 
theres tons of more reasons
 

Whose mind does God exist in?
 
Deuce said:
Whose mind does God exist in?
Click to expand...

That's not for me to know. My "job" is to know where I am, and to what I owe thanks for my existence.

If you went to another planet and found some intelligent constructions there, would it be right for me to expect you to explain the origins and reason for the civilisation that built them?
 

The way you are using Occam's razor precludes your premise that other things exist outside of ourselves if mind independence cannot exist. The fact that "I feel" that things like mathematical theorems exist outside of my own thoughts and experience is irrelevant. If I assume that materialism is an illusion, then this feeling itself is also an illusion. While it may seem that I inhabit an external world, in fact I do not, and all of my feelings and conclusions are created solely by my own mind.

If we assume that materialism cannot exist and everything is dependent upon my own thoughts, then I am god, and the concept of a creator deity that created me and my thoughts exists solely within my own thoughts and nowhere else. The creator is me and the created is God.
 
Last edited:
"There is no legitimate reason for believing that anything exits beyond thought."

And that's where this line of thought ends. Saying anything further fares no better than "I think therefore I am": you don't get to "I am". All you can really get to is "there are thoughts". That there is a you thinking them is mere assumption. If you can't get to "I am" from "there are thoughts", you certainly don't get anywhere close to "there is God".

So all you can really say is that you know that there are thoughts, and therefore, you cannot truly know that there is an external empirical reality. After all, the only proof of its existence comes from your sense organs, yet there is nothing that proves your sense organs are themselves real other than said thoughts.



But this is one of those things that is both true and useless. You cannot act upon it.

Knowing and thinking these things does not cause the external reality your sense organs tell you is there to stop being there. If you don't believe me, sit in the middle of a busy street and believe really hard that the cars do not exist. Either you'll get run over, or someone will come and move you out of the way. No amount of disbelieving their existence will stop them from being there. In other words, knowing that there is no absolute proof they exist does not get you anywhere.

No amount of certainty that the only thing you can be sure of is that there are thoughts will stop you from starving and dehydrating, were you to stop drinking and eating in defiance of this possibly-non-existent empirical reality.

Thus the only reasonable approach is pragmatism; to accept empirical reality as real.




And if you accept empirical reality, you have no reason to believe in a God. The concept of God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present. Such a being cannot be proven to not exist, nor can it be proven to exist. A lack of evidence cannot disprove the existence of an all-all-all being. And evidence cannot prove it either. As a matter of logical necessity, we cannot know that there is not more to know about empirical reality. It is logically impossible for someone to say "Event A could not have resulted from something in empirical reality, therefore God", because making that judgement would require knowledge greater than the sum total of possible knowledge. How else could you know that something could not happen without God?

Not only can someone in empirical reality never have more than the the sum total of possible knowledge, someone in empirical reality could never know that they had attained the sum total of possible knowledge even if they had attained. You can never know there are no more unknowns.




All these attempts to conjure God into existence (or conjure existence into existence) with word games are silly. The only reasonable approach is pragmatism, and pragmatism counsels accepting empirical reality as true, then neither accepting nor denying the existence of some all-all-all being.
 
Last edited:
Big Eye said:
I'm just getting to the unarguable philosophical point...the other stuff you can argue about, I'm not interested.
Click to expand...

yes but theres more philosphical points

ontological argument?
 
Suffering best reconciles the material world with consciousness. Pleasure obscures consciousness, but still allows certain clarity. However, suffering will control you beyond your own will. This greatly suggests that there are outside forces which control us, which could be attributed to some metaphysical materialism. Of course you can always ultimately just attribute these forces to a god, if you wish, but "god did it" is not a useful conclusion unless said god is of importance to our thoughts. We should move on from the question of whether or not god exists to what is the nature of this god. Until then, we are simply wasting time.
 

The real question is why your faith in god is so shaky you have to try to convince strangers on the internet that he exists using faulty thought processes disguised as a logical series of conclusions.
 

Convenient. But then, religious beliefs always are. Good thing happens? God did it, he's great. Bad things happen? Can't be his fault, blame Satan, blame whatever. When the logic train hits its end, "he works in mysterious ways, it's not for us to know." See my previous discussion with Elvira about the existence of a disease like smallpox (in "lets be real" thread). It killed more people than any human war, creating it is objectively an evil thing to do. God created the entire universe, but isn't responsible for smallpox? Oh, that was Satan. Why did God let Satan do that? He had to! Why would he have to do anything, he's God? LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU NOT FOR YOU TO KNOW.

There's a reason they call it "faith" and not...reason.
 

This was so good.
 


Actually, you take Occam’s Razor one step too far. What it really states in this regard is that there is no need for an entity to exist outside of the NATURAL world as is is. A “God” simply becomes extraneous according to Occam’s Razor. Thus your input is simply wrong.
 

"Materialism serves no purpose," he types, on a computer in the material world.
 

Surprise...unlike humans, God is perfect...He has righteous integrity...He has set high standards for Himself that He cannot/will not break...He does not destroy just because He can, but He does/will destroy all those who oppose Him/His eternal purpose for mankind...

"The Rock, perfect is his activity,
For all his ways are justice.
A God of faithfulness who is never unjust;
Righteous and upright is he." Deuteronomy 32:4
 

This is witnessing, not evidence. Anybody can ascribe to "God" whatever they want. So what?
 
TypicalRussian said:
for the ontological argument? Yes!
Click to expand...

It's double-talk. In the end, it means nothing.



double-talk noun





To save this word, you'll need to log in.



Log In



dou·​ble-talk | \ ˈdə-bəl-ˌtȯk How to pronounce double-talk (audio) \



Definition of double-talk

1 : language that appears to be earnest and meaningful but in fact is a mixture of sense and nonsense
2 : inflated, involved, and often deliberately ambiguous language
 
Your probably and my probably live on two different worlds. For me, if there's a god, it's nature.

There is not one single shred of physical evidence that Jesus from the bible ever existed. What's more, even christians can't agree on where he is buried.

Nature I can see and feel and it is ever changing. Believe what you wish.
 
Elvira said:
A witness is evidence...
Click to expand...

No, a witness is not evidence. A witness provides testimony, which is considered evidence in a court of law. Life is not a court of law.
 
God probably exists.
Click to expand...

well, at least there was some good news today. works for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…