The Philosophical Argument For God

The philosophical argument for God..with a cool track lol

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Intelligent
• design
• creation
• evolution
• evidence
• for
• God

[3523984573245]

@aaugoaa Your second point doesn't make that much sense to me... if you could elaborate that would be good.

[3523984573245]

@aaugoaa This is a form of the big bang model, but a symettric one involving a "big crunch" at the other "pole" if you wish. And don't think that this is some random model i have dreamt up, it is used in physics by Stephen Hawking most notably but as well as others. The big bang model was predicted by general relativity, but that prediction required a singularity, in which general relativity falls flat on its face. The model i am describing is part of quantum physics.

[aaugoaa]

@3523984573245 so you don't believe the big bang theory is correct?

your second point is irrelevant, humans are around and this planet in all it's complexity is perfect for life.

there is no such thing as to much or to little on this planet, thats why it's perfect.

[3523984573245]

@aaugoaa 2. your second point that the universe is "perfect" for us simply presents the anthropic principle that is easily explained. If the universe wasn't perfect for us, we would not be around to ask questions such as: "Why is the universe so perfect for human life?".

[3523984573245]

@aaugoaa I would like to point out something on your first two points:

1. it is a common misconception that the universe suddenly "began" and therefore had a cause. The universe is self contained and although it has a finite amount of time, it has no "beggining" or "end". Think of it like the earth; you don't "fall off" at the poles, you simply keep on walking around the earth. In order to understand this you cannot think of time in the way we perceive it, as the way we perceive it is arbitrary.

[aaugoaa]

@rjswolfman your belief that science is all knowing and all seeing is your imagination, it has never proven anything about the origin of anything, yet you have the blind faith that it can, and call others for illogical faith.

[aaugoaa]

@rjswolfman no if science makes the claim that my God experiences are purely naturalistic, then it is up to them to prove that claim.

i asked you a question earlier that you didn't answer...

so you believe that eventually science will find the origin of all life? you believe that science makes progress? does it? so what has science proven? if you cannot say what science has proven in all it's years, then you will have to submit to me that science is just a by-product, right?

[aaugoaa]

@rjswolfman i think that people who do believe in God without personal experience do so in trust of what others have said. that is not illogical it's faith, most people have faith in something.

in order for science to prove to me that my thinking my experiences of God were a mistake they would have to prove they know exactly what i experienced without me telling them, how else could i know they are right?

[rjswolfman]

I'm not saying it's either or, I'm simply demonstrating that each explanation is equally likely, and thus neither is superior. I never said that this was supported by scientific evidence, indeed if you look back, I say that i would give this example first RATHER than a scientific one. My point is that your experience was either of what you think caused it, or o something very different, and that they are equally valid (though neither are very much so).

[rjswolfman]

that your 'god experience' is the result of stimulation in some corner of your brain caused by errant brain chemistry (let's shorten it to EBC). Refutation of my theory is done simply by showing hat EBC cannot cause an experience like yours without supernatural aid.

May I ask what would refute your position?

If you admit that without personal experience, belief is unjustified, would you please follow through and assert that you find believers with no personal experience to be illogical?