IMMATERIAL EXISTS AND SO DOES GOD

[Josephhasfun01]

Immaterial exist. God is immaterial. Therefore God exist.

I have never seen anyone successfully debunk this:
Premise #1 The natural laws in which the physical universe follows are immaterial.
Premise #2 God is by nature 'unmade' so He is immaterial.
Conclusion: God exist.


In order for something to be immaterial it must be self existent. It does not depend on anything else to exist. Therefore it is independent of time and material.
Support for premise #1: The natural laws in which the physical universe follows are immaterial.

The natural laws which the physical universe follows are immaterial. Immaterial is defined as not having physical form as it is not made of material, thus, is not a concrete object.
We can not see the natural laws the universe follows directly. We describe them by observing how the physical universe behaves. We cannot describe something that does not exist so we know that laws of the physical universe do exist even though we do not see them directly because we see how the physical universe runs according to laws they follow. This very same concept is how we can know God exist.

Support for premises #2: God is by nature 'unmade' so He is immaterial.
We cannot see God but we know He is there because we can see throughout history all the way up to the present how God has effected peoples behavior and their various beliefs. Below is only a partial explanation. Another explanation for Gods' existence is morality. But I will save this for a latter debate as I see some have already been discussing this.




Belief that God exist has been held by the majority of people throughout history. Although there are a divergence of beliefs in God, they all stem from the one true belief in God. We can find the pieces to the puzzle of God spread throughout many different beliefs from the Hindu religion all the way to Lawrence Kraus' theory of 'Something From Nothing.'
The Hindus believe God exists as nature. The universe is God is what the believe. This belief is negated as a scientific explanation for the cause of the existence of the universe. The Hindus concept that God exist in nature is derived from one of the theistic aspects of Gods' omnipresence. God is everywhere. Hindus mistakenly take this aspect of the omnipresence of God and posit that God is in nature. That's why they believe in reincarnation. They believe when our souls pass on they inhabit physical forms of nature from a tree, to a butterfly, or a cow ect.
The reason the Hindus belief in God is not scientifically supported is because if God were confined to His creation, then He would need to have been created by something else. For example, a painter creates a painting therefore the painter is not the painting. That was a very oversimplified explanation but I feel it's sufficient.
Laurence Kraus has a theory called 'Something Form nothing' where in his explanation he states that long ago all that existed where numbers. All these numbers swirled around until they started forming into mathematic formulas and eventually the mathematic formulas formed the universe. Therefore something came from nothing. Although I don't see how Kraus' theory is supported by logic the basis of his theory that first numbers where all that existed is a piece of the puzzle that fits with God. When God 'breathed' the universe into existence there were numbers comprising mathematic formulas that took nothing and created something from it. God pronounced the universe into existence. This is proposed in the bible where it states in Isaiah that God breathed the universe into existence. Our God is a star breathing God. He is still your God too, whether you accept it or reject it.
As I have demonstrated, although superficially, God leads to the beliefs of even non believers and other religious beliefs.



We live in a world where much of secular society rejects absolutes. This is the belief of people who don't want to find out the truth. I have debated with people who propose there can be an infinite number of possibilities as to how the universe came to be. This is completely false as it is self defeating. 'the ONLY possibility as to how the universe came into existence is that there are infinite possibilities'. This makes no sense. First problem"¦this means that there could only be multiple truths for the explanation of the universe when logically only one can be true.
According to laws of logic something cannot be both true and a false at the same time in the same context.
Therefore there can only be one true explanation for the cause of the universes existence. Only one explanation is true for how the universe came to be. You can't say that it could have been either created by aliens or it created itself from numbers. Only one explanation can be true. They both cannot be true because we are talking about the universe in the same context. How it came to be.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

What is the point of posting this a second time when it is already posted here?

 

[Laurens]

Indeed, posting something twice doesn't make it any more true :lol:

 

[IBSpify]

As has been said in the other thread just because one immaterial thing exists doesn't mean that any conceivable immaterial thing exists, just as the material existence of Boston, doesn't prove the material existence of Atlantis.

Secondly this would be at best an argument for Deism as the argument has no way of granting any specific properties to the God being that you are defining into existence. Your argument works the same for Yog-Sothoth as it does for the Christian God.

Thirdly all your doing is attempting to define your god into existence using word games, which is not convincing at all to anybody. If you wish to tell the people here why you believe in god, I'm sure there are people here willing to listen, but this is a pointless way to go about doing that.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I have never seen anyone successfully debunk this:
Premise #1 The natural laws in which the physical universe follows are immaterial.
Premise #2 Wodin is by nature 'unmade' so He is immaterial.
Conclusion: Wodin, Norse deity of Wisdom, and his 11-legged magical horse, exist.

I'm sorry. I just wanted a laugh for a moment.

However, your premises are wrong, therefore your conclusion is wrong. "Laws" in science are not immaterial fabrications, they are refined observations.

If I were to throw a baseball in the sky, it would not fly off into the stars and, instead, would most likely slow, and then come crashing down into some lad's glove (or his head. It depends on how bad of a pitcher you are). However, if I were to throw a Baseball in open space, that ball would fly on seemingly undeterred until it was met with a mass that caused it to fall on.

This observation, gravity, is just that. We know that masses attract.
So, we've developed a reason - since all physicists can really do is goad an approximate out of infinity - this is called a Theory (spoiler: Mass bends spacetime around it with both it's motion and it's mere existence as matter, forming pits in which things must escape).

This relies on several, long-worded and tested lines of reasoning:
Premise 1) Objects with mass attract each other
Premise 2) Light has (for all intents and purposes) no mass.
Premise 3) Light is affected by mass, bending in proportion to it's speed around large masses
Conclusion: Light is travelling on a straight path like matter that has been bent in the same proportions, by a mass, in variation with it's speed - this is the warping of "Spacetime" around the mass.

If we find out that there are invisible dragons or spaghetti monster tendrils bending all things towards mass, then we'll definitely change and refine our statements until then. However, until such a time comes, we can only stick with that evidence (actual evidence, based on testing and conclusions) does, indeed, draw.

Your premise fails on the mere fact that you have:
1) Failed to define "God"
2) I can use it to prove anything from an invisible dragon in my closet to an invisible cheeseburger in my hand right now.

Like I said on your last thread - Define "God".

 

[forgotten observer]

I apologise to hystegia and those have posted arguments here, but I feel this thread should be locked for redundancy, this argument is already taking place in a forum by the same author at the same time. having the same argument in two different threads seems pointless and inconvenient.

forgotten observer

 

[bluejatheist]

Reminds me of a Stripe-YYNJ hybrid, condescending emoticon usage combined with spam

 

[australopithecus]

I apologise to hystegia and those have posted arguments here, but I feel this thread should be locked for redundancy, this argument is already taking place in a forum by the same author at the same time. having the same argument in two different threads seems pointless and inconvenient.

forgotten observer

Agreed. There is no point discussing the exact same thing in two threads.