Can You Rationalize Your Belief in God?
- Thread starter XxtraMannish
- Start date
Ideas are not necessarily based on questioning what you are told. They can be based on questioning what you observe as well.
Once again, not necessarily. Faith simply means accepting something of which you haven't conclusive proof. The nature of hypothesis is the same. Someone has an idea they are putting their faith on in order to follow through with an experiment.
Still I ask, what is randomness?
Once again, not necessarily. Faith simply means accepting something of which you haven't conclusive proof. The nature of hypothesis is the same. Someone has an idea they are putting their faith on in order to follow through with an experiment.
Still I ask, what is randomness?
Originally Posted by Formaldehyde Rx
Faith is based on believing what your told
There are three types of faith
The First faith is seeing is Believing you see something which you perceive to be true or what other people say so you believe it
Then there's temporary faith, you believe in something but when everyone tries to give evidence that it's not true you loose that faith, you let people or other forces take it away from you through their words, you just believe it because it's there, but once it's not there you don't believe it anymore
And there's the True faith, it's not a rational or a faith that you can reason will people, it's Absolute, no matter what a perons animal or demon can say, you always will have that absolute faith whatever you believe in, which for Me Is Jesus Christ.
You're gonna say how is it, it's not something that I can explain but the best way I can explain, I'll use the Scriptures. Romans 10:17 "Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. Which the Word of God is absolute and Perfect. 1 Peter 1:23 Faith is born from the seed of the Word. Which once again God's word is absolute and perfect. 1 Peter 2:2 Faith Grows as it feeds on the Word. Meaning what God tells you, his promises. He has promised my many things, eternal life through Christ, him being with my through Trials and Tribulations. It's something that has been in me since I was a child, and no my parents haven't brainwashed me, my mom is Catholic and my dad is Pentocostal Christian, but I never lived with my Dad. These things which I learned about God is inspiration by him, if you're not willing to accept it as it is, Read the Bible. So it is something that is spoken then you believe, but there are lies that people believe and turn it into a corrpted root, meaning there was no base or foundation for the faith that came from that word.
Faith is based on believing what your told
There are three types of faith
The First faith is seeing is Believing you see something which you perceive to be true or what other people say so you believe it
Then there's temporary faith, you believe in something but when everyone tries to give evidence that it's not true you loose that faith, you let people or other forces take it away from you through their words, you just believe it because it's there, but once it's not there you don't believe it anymore
And there's the True faith, it's not a rational or a faith that you can reason will people, it's Absolute, no matter what a perons animal or demon can say, you always will have that absolute faith whatever you believe in, which for Me Is Jesus Christ.
You're gonna say how is it, it's not something that I can explain but the best way I can explain, I'll use the Scriptures. Romans 10:17 "Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. Which the Word of God is absolute and Perfect. 1 Peter 1:23 Faith is born from the seed of the Word. Which once again God's word is absolute and perfect. 1 Peter 2:2 Faith Grows as it feeds on the Word. Meaning what God tells you, his promises. He has promised my many things, eternal life through Christ, him being with my through Trials and Tribulations. It's something that has been in me since I was a child, and no my parents haven't brainwashed me, my mom is Catholic and my dad is Pentocostal Christian, but I never lived with my Dad. These things which I learned about God is inspiration by him, if you're not willing to accept it as it is, Read the Bible. So it is something that is spoken then you believe, but there are lies that people believe and turn it into a corrpted root, meaning there was no base or foundation for the faith that came from that word.
Maybe defend is the wrong word, but you are putting it at those who believe in God to rationalize why.
I'm not saying this to be contentious, I really am curious: For those who don't believe in God, can you rationalize why it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to exist?
The whole reason I'm saying this is that, as you have all shown me, it is very easy to disprove a theory on why God exists. In the same token, it is very easy to disprove a theory on why God doesn't exist. We're arguing a concept that, I believe, cannot be proven. So when people say God exists, others say that the person is relying on faith or a fantasy world.
When people say God doesn't exist, they're still relying on faith or a fantasy world, because no little birdie landed on their shoulders and told them the truth of the past trillion years.
Also - the law of thermodynamics states that energy is neither created nor destroyed. So in this sense, energy has always existed. So once again I'll take it a step further and say that until you can tell me how energy was created, I reserve the right to say that this higher power may have originally created energy. How is it possible to say that energy has just always been in existence? No one has theorized on the creation of energy because we are not capable of understanding how. The law of thermodynamics would disprove the existence of a God only if it was proven that energy has always existed, and it is quite possible that God created this universe and this energy, and the law only followed afterwards.
Just playing devil's advocate.
I'm not saying this to be contentious, I really am curious: For those who don't believe in God, can you rationalize why it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to exist?
The whole reason I'm saying this is that, as you have all shown me, it is very easy to disprove a theory on why God exists. In the same token, it is very easy to disprove a theory on why God doesn't exist. We're arguing a concept that, I believe, cannot be proven. So when people say God exists, others say that the person is relying on faith or a fantasy world.
When people say God doesn't exist, they're still relying on faith or a fantasy world, because no little birdie landed on their shoulders and told them the truth of the past trillion years.
Also - the law of thermodynamics states that energy is neither created nor destroyed. So in this sense, energy has always existed. So once again I'll take it a step further and say that until you can tell me how energy was created, I reserve the right to say that this higher power may have originally created energy. How is it possible to say that energy has just always been in existence? No one has theorized on the creation of energy because we are not capable of understanding how. The law of thermodynamics would disprove the existence of a God only if it was proven that energy has always existed, and it is quite possible that God created this universe and this energy, and the law only followed afterwards.
Just playing devil's advocate.
i believe intelligent design is proof of Gods existance.
randomness n the chaos theory cant be this perfect or this lucky.
think of a fly catcher.
how does it know to "create" sensers that shut the trap and teeth to act like prison bars to trap the insect in when a plant shouldnt even know that living things will try to get away.
plants dont have brains
not really lookin for a reply, just droppin my 2 cents
randomness n the chaos theory cant be this perfect or this lucky.
think of a fly catcher.
how does it know to "create" sensers that shut the trap and teeth to act like prison bars to trap the insect in when a plant shouldnt even know that living things will try to get away.
plants dont have brains
not really lookin for a reply, just droppin my 2 cents
STILL WITH THE WORTHLESS ONTOLOGY WHY CAN"T YOU ARGUE ANYTHING BUT THE WORDING OF DEFINITIONS WHEN IT IS THE CONCEPTS INVOLVED THAT ARE UNDER REVIEW?
#1 reread the quote you are addressing
#2 Yes necessarily. A hypothesis is a testable proposition they are not using faith to test it they are using intellect there is a difference. A hypothesis is testing an idea where as faith is accepting that idea without a test. SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE IRRECONCILABLE ACCEPT IT. You don't understand the scientific method and yet you patronize its results for the purpose of legitamizing a spook.
#3 if your not going to take the time to investigate entropy im not going to waste my time explaining it to you because all your doing is trying to find a loophole in a steadfast concept. All of this pseudozen metaphysical mumbo jumbo is totally transparent and is typical of a pseudoscientist.
some people will say Faith in a higher being is Idiotic and irrational. I think those who chose not to believe in a higher being, or according to the scriptures LUKE WARM, men who chose not to side with anything, chose to be ignorant, and say they are Atheist. I'm getting off Topic here, but Atheist the real definition are men who know everything, if that's the truth why don't they know the foundations of our faiths, and why it's in the human mind to believe in God. How do they know a million years is a million years, and that stars are as old as what scientist say, then you have to ask yourself, how can I explain these feeling I have toward my family, and life, and everything around me, a scientist can say it's electricity in your mind that send you signals about how you feel. I say it's bullshit too cause scientist, don't have a base on what they prove what they believe. You can't just say rats and chimps have the same DNA as humans, then they must have a million reason. Well to answer the question, I just go through scriptures, of course you'll write it off, but that's the only way I can make you get a feel about how it is, and it's up to you to believe it.
(emphasis added)
It is actually impossible to say that energy didn't exist at some point, especially for a theist. Why? Because part of the definition of God is that He owns all power/energy. If we are to say that God at any point in time was lacking His energy, then we would invariably be saying that 'God' didn't exist at some point in time. Therefore we would contradict an eternal God. The first law of thermodynamics doesn't disprove God's existence. Formaldehyde is the one claiming that the second law of thermodynamics disproves God's existence. I have yet to see how this is supposedly done.
It is actually impossible to say that energy didn't exist at some point, especially for a theist. Why? Because part of the definition of God is that He owns all power/energy. If we are to say that God at any point in time was lacking His energy, then we would invariably be saying that 'God' didn't exist at some point in time. Therefore we would contradict an eternal God. The first law of thermodynamics doesn't disprove God's existence. Formaldehyde is the one claiming that the second law of thermodynamics disproves God's existence. I have yet to see how this is supposedly done.
That's flawed reasoning to say that based on the definition of God, energy has always existed. I've never defined God, at least not in the same terms as a "theist".
I dont see how energy has anything to do with God. It is very possible that God is something that is not energy, and the entity known as God created energy.
My whole point is that if God is all powerful, then ANYTHING is possible. To say that something is impossible with respect to God would be blasphemy in the eyes of a theist.
I dont see how energy has anything to do with God. It is very possible that God is something that is not energy, and the entity known as God created energy.
My whole point is that if God is all powerful, then ANYTHING is possible. To say that something is impossible with respect to God would be blasphemy in the eyes of a theist.
Please clarify what you are referring to here.
No need. I already understand that it does NOT disprove the existence of God. It may show that the second law of thermodynamics does not prove the existence of God, but not proving something and disproving something are two different things.
You wrote: "He cant have created the super ordered initial universe because that is a violation of Law 2 randomness only increases."
How is it that because randomness increases therefore God could not have created the universe? Please show me logically how this follows. Thanks.
The mistaken assumption here is that faith and intellect are mutually exclusive.
Accepting something on faith without applying that faith in practical life would be likened to a hypothesis without a test. Some people do this. Their faith is purely theoretical and really worthless until they apply it. Although some people do this, others don't. Therefore your conclusion that faith never includes testing is incorrect.
Wow, all caps!
No. I understand the scientific method fine... and it's results. Hare Krsna!
If you're going to claim that entropy disproves God's existence, then I will hold you to that. So far you haven't shown that it disproves, but only perhaps that it does not prove the existence of God. And once again, disproving something and not proving something are two different things.
Disproving = not true
not proving = may be true, may be false (non-conclusive)
No need. I already understand that it does NOT disprove the existence of God. It may show that the second law of thermodynamics does not prove the existence of God, but not proving something and disproving something are two different things.
You wrote: "He cant have created the super ordered initial universe because that is a violation of Law 2 randomness only increases."
How is it that because randomness increases therefore God could not have created the universe? Please show me logically how this follows. Thanks.
The mistaken assumption here is that faith and intellect are mutually exclusive.
Accepting something on faith without applying that faith in practical life would be likened to a hypothesis without a test. Some people do this. Their faith is purely theoretical and really worthless until they apply it. Although some people do this, others don't. Therefore your conclusion that faith never includes testing is incorrect.
Wow, all caps!
No. I understand the scientific method fine... and it's results. Hare Krsna!
If you're going to claim that entropy disproves God's existence, then I will hold you to that. So far you haven't shown that it disproves, but only perhaps that it does not prove the existence of God. And once again, disproving something and not proving something are two different things.
Disproving = not true
not proving = may be true, may be false (non-conclusive)
(emphasis added)
YES! God is all powerful! Power is another term for energy. The title of "God" constitutes owning all power for all eternity. This means that if you suggest that some power did not exist at some point in time, then you would be saying that God did not exist at some point in time since God is DEFINED by His having ALL power. Do you follow now?
Something is impossible if it is self-contradictory. God is defined by having all energies. Therefore it is impossible to say that God created the energies that constituted Him being God. God is God eternally. It is not that He became God at some point in time. Nor can a being who is devoid of energy, create anything, what to speak of creating energy? God's energy/power/potency is eternally with Him and that is what makes Him God.
YES! God is all powerful! Power is another term for energy. The title of "God" constitutes owning all power for all eternity. This means that if you suggest that some power did not exist at some point in time, then you would be saying that God did not exist at some point in time since God is DEFINED by His having ALL power. Do you follow now?
Something is impossible if it is self-contradictory. God is defined by having all energies. Therefore it is impossible to say that God created the energies that constituted Him being God. God is God eternally. It is not that He became God at some point in time. Nor can a being who is devoid of energy, create anything, what to speak of creating energy? God's energy/power/potency is eternally with Him and that is what makes Him God.
My point is that if God is more powerful than power, than it is possible that he created this power.
By suggesting that some power did not exist at some time is NOT saying that God did not exist, it is saying that God existed BEFORE this power.
Defined by who?
For the second time, you are using a predefined defintion of God, and you cannot use the defintion of God to argue his existence.
Something is impossible if it is self contradictory, I agree. YOU define God as having all energies. According to YOUR definition, everything you say is true.
But I don't see how it isn't reasonable to at least acknowledge the possibility that God created power or energy and therefore came before it?
Why not? Are you saying God is not more powerful than the law of energy? That same thinking would say that God is not more powerful than the law of gravity. If you truly believe God is all powerful, then I'm sure you believe that God can defy gravity. Why can't he defy energy?
(This is not directed at you, however) Thermodynamics is a lot like brain surgery or rocket science. Just because someone can understand the basic premise of it does not make them an expert, and I hardly feel that an average person with a "working knowledge of thermodynamics" will be able to prove or disprove God.
By suggesting that some power did not exist at some time is NOT saying that God did not exist, it is saying that God existed BEFORE this power.
Defined by who?
For the second time, you are using a predefined defintion of God, and you cannot use the defintion of God to argue his existence.
Something is impossible if it is self contradictory, I agree. YOU define God as having all energies. According to YOUR definition, everything you say is true.
But I don't see how it isn't reasonable to at least acknowledge the possibility that God created power or energy and therefore came before it?
Why not? Are you saying God is not more powerful than the law of energy? That same thinking would say that God is not more powerful than the law of gravity. If you truly believe God is all powerful, then I'm sure you believe that God can defy gravity. Why can't he defy energy?
(This is not directed at you, however) Thermodynamics is a lot like brain surgery or rocket science. Just because someone can understand the basic premise of it does not make them an expert, and I hardly feel that an average person with a "working knowledge of thermodynamics" will be able to prove or disprove God.
Powerful (adj.)
Having or capable of exerting power. (dictionary.com)
Power isn't powerful at all. Power refers to that which is owned by the powerful. Therefore it is absurd to imply that an entity could possibly be less powerful than power. God is powerful because He HAS POWER. That means that He does not create power. He may manifest that power, but manifesting a power that already exists says nothing of creating power, or energy.
What power did He use to create it?
God exists BECAUSE He has power. Therefore it is nonsensical to suggest that God could exist before power.
By you.
"My whole point is that if God is all powerful, then ANYTHING is possible." -Stealth (11:25am 8-16-06)
Your premise is that God is all-powerful, yet you ask why I define it that way. Maybe you are misunderstanding the terminology. In this context, "power", "energy" and "potency" are synonymous. I may use the terms interchangably.
1) a definition you are herein accepting (as confirmed by you)
2) I am not using the definition of God having all power to argue His existence. I am using that definition to argue that the power/energy that makes up the universe is eternal with God.
God has all energies = God has all power. Your premise is that God is all-powerful. Are you changing your position now?
Similarly, one can say, "But I don't see how it isn't reasonable to at least acknowledge the possibility that wood came before the existence of trees."
It isn't reasonable because it isn't possible. Wood comes out of the trunks of trees. If no trees exist, no wood exists. Similarly, if no power exists, no God exists since God is defined as being all powerful, i.e. full of all power.
No. I am saying that a self-contradiction is unnacceptable. We can completely disregard the laws of thermodynamics herein if you want. They have nothing to do with this. Scientists didn't come to the understanding of the first law of thermodynamics because the contrary would contradict God's position as having all power. Nor am I justifying God's existence by this law. I a simply saying that since God is defined as having all power, God can only exist so long as ALL POWER exists. Furthermore, since the concept of God constitutes an eternal and absolute truth, all God's power must exist with Him eternally.
That same thinking would say no such thing.
Of course God can defy gravity, but this analogy of yours is incorrect.
He can.
(edit: my mistake. I read that last question wrong. I thought it asked why God can't defy gravity. Anyway, God doesn't defy energy because He is defined as having all energy (i.e. having all power).
Having or capable of exerting power. (dictionary.com)
Power isn't powerful at all. Power refers to that which is owned by the powerful. Therefore it is absurd to imply that an entity could possibly be less powerful than power. God is powerful because He HAS POWER. That means that He does not create power. He may manifest that power, but manifesting a power that already exists says nothing of creating power, or energy.
What power did He use to create it?
God exists BECAUSE He has power. Therefore it is nonsensical to suggest that God could exist before power.
By you.
"My whole point is that if God is all powerful, then ANYTHING is possible." -Stealth (11:25am 8-16-06)
Your premise is that God is all-powerful, yet you ask why I define it that way. Maybe you are misunderstanding the terminology. In this context, "power", "energy" and "potency" are synonymous. I may use the terms interchangably.
1) a definition you are herein accepting (as confirmed by you)
2) I am not using the definition of God having all power to argue His existence. I am using that definition to argue that the power/energy that makes up the universe is eternal with God.
God has all energies = God has all power. Your premise is that God is all-powerful. Are you changing your position now?
Similarly, one can say, "But I don't see how it isn't reasonable to at least acknowledge the possibility that wood came before the existence of trees."
It isn't reasonable because it isn't possible. Wood comes out of the trunks of trees. If no trees exist, no wood exists. Similarly, if no power exists, no God exists since God is defined as being all powerful, i.e. full of all power.
No. I am saying that a self-contradiction is unnacceptable. We can completely disregard the laws of thermodynamics herein if you want. They have nothing to do with this. Scientists didn't come to the understanding of the first law of thermodynamics because the contrary would contradict God's position as having all power. Nor am I justifying God's existence by this law. I a simply saying that since God is defined as having all power, God can only exist so long as ALL POWER exists. Furthermore, since the concept of God constitutes an eternal and absolute truth, all God's power must exist with Him eternally.
That same thinking would say no such thing.
Of course God can defy gravity, but this analogy of yours is incorrect.
He can.
(edit: my mistake. I read that last question wrong. I thought it asked why God can't defy gravity. Anyway, God doesn't defy energy because He is defined as having all energy (i.e. having all power).
I am addressing each comment in the order it was made:
#1 No clarification is needed
#2 That quote was not referring to entropy
logically if randomness always increases you can't create an ultra ordered universe from nothing a state of total randomness therefore using your own ontology of the definition of god as the creator of said universe god becomes an impossability. logically. Your Welcome.
Now you show me using this same law how god can exist logically.
#3 That is not an assumption the idea is derived through intellect and reason in an effort to solve a problem leading to a hypothesis.
faith is derived from the absence of intellect and reason in the face of seemingly unexplainable phenomenon leading to a seemingly untestable referral to an imaginary solution.
#4 it would be likened by an idiot.
#5 WoW all True.
#6 Its obvious to someone who does (me) that you do not .......Hail Satan!
#7 refer to 2
It is impossible for you to know if there is a god yet your faith will not allow you to refute its existance based on hypothesises theories or Laws.
So arguing with you is pointless because you will not allow yourself to understand concepts that undermine your beliefs.
I am renaming this thread officially its new title is:
ALL ONTOLOGY ALL THE TIME
#1 No clarification is needed
#2 That quote was not referring to entropy
logically if randomness always increases you can't create an ultra ordered universe from nothing a state of total randomness therefore using your own ontology of the definition of god as the creator of said universe god becomes an impossability. logically. Your Welcome.
Now you show me using this same law how god can exist logically.
#3 That is not an assumption the idea is derived through intellect and reason in an effort to solve a problem leading to a hypothesis.
faith is derived from the absence of intellect and reason in the face of seemingly unexplainable phenomenon leading to a seemingly untestable referral to an imaginary solution.
#4 it would be likened by an idiot.
#5 WoW all True.
#6 Its obvious to someone who does (me) that you do not .......Hail Satan!
#7 refer to 2
It is impossible for you to know if there is a god yet your faith will not allow you to refute its existance based on hypothesises theories or Laws.
So arguing with you is pointless because you will not allow yourself to understand concepts that undermine your beliefs.
I am renaming this thread officially its new title is:
ALL ONTOLOGY ALL THE TIME
1) why is "nothing" considered a "state of total randomness"? You have yet to define randomness.
2) Assuming that "nothing" is a state of total "randomness", are you saying that an omnipotent being is incapable of creating an ultra-ordered universe from a state of void? Hmm, that would be illogical. No, you are welcome.
I am not required to show you any such thing. I did not make the claim that the second law of thermodynamics proves the existence of God.
(emphasis added)
Not necessarily. This depends on the person. It is not axiomatic that all cases of a person having faith in something are done so in the absence of intellect and reason. You thinking that faith is always devoid of intellect and reason is itself devoid of intellect and reason.
I have faith that you're not an idiot. Though in this case my faith may be irrational, especially since I do not plan on testing this hypothesis.
You can only have such faith.
If my hypothesis was that Formaldehyde Rx gets very emotional on the internet, I would be correct. Now maybe you can show me how the laws of thermodynamics prove Satan's existence.
Refer to:
Similarly, your faith will not allow you to accept God's existence.
Wrong. I am not willing to accept certain concepts, and neither are you. For example, the concept that God created the universe. You don't accept that concept because it undermines YOUR beliefs; particularly the belief you have that God does not exist. And REMEMBER I am not the one claiming proof positive or negative of God. YOU are the one claiming that God's existence is disproven. You have not shown this. Your so-called proof is bereft of the very basic knowledge that defines what we are referring to as "God". God is all-powerful, so WHY WOULDN'T IT BE POSSIBLE for God to create an ultra-ordered universe from a state of void??? Where is the definition of God that states, "God is all-powerful with the exception that He cannot over-power entropy"?
No one cares.
2) Assuming that "nothing" is a state of total "randomness", are you saying that an omnipotent being is incapable of creating an ultra-ordered universe from a state of void? Hmm, that would be illogical. No, you are welcome.
I am not required to show you any such thing. I did not make the claim that the second law of thermodynamics proves the existence of God.
(emphasis added)
Not necessarily. This depends on the person. It is not axiomatic that all cases of a person having faith in something are done so in the absence of intellect and reason. You thinking that faith is always devoid of intellect and reason is itself devoid of intellect and reason.
I have faith that you're not an idiot. Though in this case my faith may be irrational, especially since I do not plan on testing this hypothesis.
You can only have such faith.
If my hypothesis was that Formaldehyde Rx gets very emotional on the internet, I would be correct. Now maybe you can show me how the laws of thermodynamics prove Satan's existence.
Refer to:
Similarly, your faith will not allow you to accept God's existence.
Wrong. I am not willing to accept certain concepts, and neither are you. For example, the concept that God created the universe. You don't accept that concept because it undermines YOUR beliefs; particularly the belief you have that God does not exist. And REMEMBER I am not the one claiming proof positive or negative of God. YOU are the one claiming that God's existence is disproven. You have not shown this. Your so-called proof is bereft of the very basic knowledge that defines what we are referring to as "God". God is all-powerful, so WHY WOULDN'T IT BE POSSIBLE for God to create an ultra-ordered universe from a state of void??? Where is the definition of God that states, "God is all-powerful with the exception that He cannot over-power entropy"?
No one cares.