You cannot Prove God's existence.

Originally posted by Nellinator
They cannot be predetermined if the decision hasn't been made yet. They aren't predetermined, they are preknown. The choice is there, God knows what it will be, but that is not the same as Him deciding for you. God can be completely seperated from your decision making process and still know exactly what you will do.

I did not state that God is "deciding for you." I stated that in order for one to have foreknowledge of an action, the action must be predetermined. Otherwise, it is possible for an action to take place that is contrary to foreknowledge.

Why must it be predetermined? That makes little sense.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Why must it be predetermined? That makes little sense.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Otherwise, it is possible for an action to take place that is contrary to foreknowledge.

No, that doesn't make sense as there is nothing to suggest that foreknowledge cannot be perfect.

Originally posted by Alliance
Why can't I critique your answers, Terri?

Because you should listen to what others say to you.Not everyone can be right can they?jm 🙂

I do listen, to what you say. That doesn't men you can't be wrong...or that we should celebrate being wrong.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, that doesn't make sense as there is nothing to suggest that foreknowledge cannot be perfect.

The ability to do something other than what it is known one will do, i.e. free agency indicates that foreknowledge cannot be perfect.

Who is celebrating?Now I am abit confuse.jm

Originally posted by Nellinator
Which can't possibly be applicable to God.

Ah! Limiting god again, I see...

😂

The debate is pretty much a stalemate if you ask me.

no. unless u prove its there, with physical evidence it aintrly there.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
no. unless u prove its there, with physical evidence it aintrly there.

aintrly? I have no idea what this word is supposed to be.

Time for Digi's 2 cents. I've browsed the thread, but 10 pages is a lot even for a stalwart...with luck, I won't re-tread too much ground.

-The burden of proof is, in fact, on the theists, whose hypothesis defies all observed and recorded phenomenon. But that doesn't also exempt non-theists from having to provide reasoning for their viewpoint.

-You can't prove a negative, and an absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence. These are oft-quoted "hiding spots" for theists whose argument is solidly trumped. I usually take a subjective reality approach and claim that nothing at all can be proven, which throws them off and is amusing....but doesn't really hit my point. The better answer to such statements is that yeah, you can't disprove God. Nor the Tooth Fairy, nor Santa, etc. But you can perceive the utter lack of evidence for a God combined with rational explanations for every known phenomenon of the universe. Most of the evidence to the contrary involves either Biblical/historical assertions or paranormal anecdotes, both of which are debunk-able by an intelligent individual who is willing to look for plausible explanations.

The logical conclusion, then, is "no God". It's not proof, and never will be...but at that point, retreating to blind faith is in defiance of reason and becomes no less silly than a continued belief in sentient garden gnomes or Bigfoot. A belief in God might serve an emotional or social need, but it certainly can't serve an intellectual need.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Time for Digi's 2 cents. I've browsed the thread, but 10 pages is a lot even for a stalwart...with luck, I won't re-tread too much ground.

-The burden of proof is, in fact, on the theists, whose hypothesis defies all observed and recorded phenomenon. But that doesn't also exempt non-theists from having to provide reasoning for their viewpoint.

-You can't prove a negative, and an absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence. These are oft-quoted "hiding spots" for theists whose argument is solidly trumped. I usually take a subjective reality approach and claim that nothing at all can be proven, which throws them off and is amusing....but doesn't really hit my point. The better answer to such statements is that yeah, you can't disprove God. Nor the Tooth Fairy, nor Santa, etc. But you can perceive the utter lack of evidence for a God combined with rational explanations for every known phenomenon of the universe. Most of the evidence to the contrary involves either Biblical/historical assertions or paranormal anecdotes, both of which are debunk-able by an intelligent individual who is willing to look for plausible explanations.

The logical conclusion, then, is "no God". It's not proof, and never will be...but at that point, retreating to blind faith is in defiance of reason and becomes no less silly than a continued belief in sentient garden gnomes or Bigfoot. A belief in God might serve an emotional or social need, but it certainly can't serve an intellectual need.

However, let me counter with a point that is missed in this argument: what is God? If God is a being that is separate from the universe, then I agree with you. But if the universe its self is a living being, then the proof is self evident, and the conversation turns to sentience or not.

Well the concept of God is contradictory... mainly the omnipotent part... omnipotence implies He knows what will happen... which means it is predetermined, if it is predetermined then there is no free choice... thus faith is placed there automatically and lack there of is placed there automatically, thus there cannot be a Hell... or God, or for that matter free choice, which is the entire point of faith... the choice of having it, which means if He does exist then we all go to Heaven no matter what because he decides whether we kill someone or whether we save someone's life.
Also he inventing us and having omnipotence would have to create each persons personality... or just know what it will be. He also decides what percentages of each each person will have and how this will affect their decision making... since it affects decision making thus making it impossible for some of us to believe and for others to not... and so again either Hell does not exist or God doesn't... in the case of a lack of God this means that Hell also does not exist.
In the idea of good and evil without a Hell for the evil to go to they will go to Heaven so the evil cannot exist... but this is also true that good does not exist. As all people believe they are doing something good, even some know they do an evil thing... but in the end to achieve a greater good. Through a lack of good and evil one can surmise that the only thing we can go to is punishment or paradise or something entirely neutral since punishment would seem evil and paradise would be good... so it is likely to believe there is neither... rebirth then is possible and thus it would be neutral. Yet God is thought of as good and without good or evil to be in existence with God being the epitome of good he cannot exist. Although this does not disprove the existence of a higher power... it cannot be God as God is a being given a definition by man and named by man, and seeing as how the "Word of God" was written by man for man it can be surmised that he does not exist.
In the aspect of evolution of religion it is impossible for the religion of Christianity and the other 2 "God" religions to exist in the modern day without it. Before we could scale tall mountains we believed gods to be on top, when we scaled them we believed them to live in the clouds, when we flew on planes we believed them to come from space, and when we went to space we believed them to exist in another dimension. If they had stayed with the mountain tops... it would have been impossible to be believed as truth.
And finally.... if God exists and talks to people then when he tries to tell others they will either be shunned by the Church and all sects... but also be considered part of the occult.... or put into a mental asylum for hearing the mouth of one who does not exist physically.

There so many things wrong with that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, let me counter with a point that is missed in this argument: what is God? If God is a being that is separate from the universe, then I agree with you. But if the universe its self is a living being, then the proof is self evident, and the conversation turns to sentience or not.

Of course it's dependant on the definition, so I'll agree. My argument was against the Western Judaic/Christian/Islamic God archetype, and hopefully that was obvious. There's a whole slew of changes that need to be made to the debate if we broaden the search. But I think that what you are calling God, most people wouldn't....they were simply term it something else. But the thread really isn't about those types of questions, and focuses on the "mainstream" acceptance of the idea of God.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Of course it's dependant on the definition, so I'll agree. My argument was against the Western Judaic/Christian/Islamic God archetype, and hopefully that was obvious. There's a whole slew of changes that need to be made to the debate if we broaden the search. But I think that what you are calling God, most people wouldn't....they were simply term it something else. But the thread really isn't about those types of questions, and focuses on the "mainstream" acceptance of the idea of God.

Ya, I know, but I got to get my ideas out there sometime. All I really have to say about the Western Judaic/Christian/Islamic God is as follows:

😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, I know, but I got to get my ideas out there sometime. All I really have to say about the Western Judaic/Christian/Islamic God is as follows:

True true. Necessity and circumstances have forced me to form more of an opinion on Christianity, but I'll admit a certain envy at your position, and utter lack of a need to defend yourself further.

It just gets murky as hell once you get into alternative definitions for God. Anyone can define it sufficiently vague and/or universal that He can be said to exist, but at that point "He" is wrong because it's no longer a personified deity. Einstein believed in "God" (which half-informed Christians love pointing out to me when I have to quote him) but based on his personal writings it's clear that his god was inextricably linked to the wonder of scientific discovery....hardly the God of scripture.

There is no definition for God as God stated it in the Bible. And outside the Bible, there is no definition for god as stated by many outside the bible. It is just this really weird thing. 😕