Who is God?

[Josephhasfun01]

The reason I ask 'who is God' is because there are many different beliefs about God. There's mythology stemming from a Pagonis tic view. Then there is other beliefs in God like the Hindus, Zen Buddhism and New Age, belief. They believe in a pantheist God. this pantheist view believes God is nature. Mythology has it wrong as most all of mythological gods are deemed finite. They can die. Most have not been claimed to have created the universe. Logically gods in this view can be ruled out as plausible.
As for the belief in a pantheist god, this to can also be ruled out because god is cannot exist as material and also immaterial. God cannot create the universe as himself being the universe. That is the equivalent to a painter creating himself into the painting.
The only logical view is that of a theist God. A personal God. This leaves the Christian view, Judaism and the Islamic view as the last of tangible views.
Now we have the task of deciphering which of these three are the correct view. This is not hard to do either. God allowed His prophets' to do miracles. No where in the Islamic bible did Mohammed do any miracles.
In fact there is no evidence Mohammed even existed. As for Judaism this one can be discounted too. They believe that obeying the law is what God commanded of them. There is so much infighting as to what Judaism entails that no one agrees on anything in this belief.

Christianity is the correct view of God because it is the most tangible as far as it's belief in Jesus as the son of God. The sacrificial lamb. The bible is the only holy book. The bible has stood the test of time and many hammers have been broken over it as it's anvil still holds strong today. In fact many have tried to disclaim the bible and all have failed. It is the Word of God. God wrote the bible. Not man.


God is defined as a great spirit who is infinite in power. Also omnipresent and omniscient.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Does God merely exist in the abstract? Or is it tangible to believe God is exists concretely in the abstract?
Using good philosophy it can be shown that God does exist. If you look at the world with an open mind you can see that God can be proven through the existence of 'material'.

Go on.

 

[australopithecus]

This'll be good. Popcorn's on me.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Does the Loch Ness Monster merely exist in the abstract? Or is it tangible to believe the Loch Ness Monster exists concretely in the abstract?

Using good philosophy it can be shown that the Loch Ness Monster does exist. If you look at the world with an open mind you can see that the Loch Ness Monster can be proven through my tree fiddy.

 

[televator]

This'll be good. Popcorn's on me.

Why, thank you. *Puts on 3d glasses*

 

[Laurens]

Using good philosophy it can be shown that God does exist.

Okay

If you look at the world with an open mind you can see that God can be proven through the existence of 'material'.

:lol:

 

[Inferno]

This'll be good. Popcorn's on me.

Nachos? I can't stand popcorn.

 

[Visaki]

Nachos? I can't stand popcorn.

Heretic! But I forgive you. And I'll even lend you my pillow in case you need one to protect your face from all the magnetude 9.2 facepalms.

 

[australopithecus]

This'll be good. Popcorn's on me.

Nachos? I can't stand popcorn.

What is wrong with you, man?

 

[Inferno]

What is wrong with you, man?

A great many things, this one is the least of my worries.

Heretic! But I forgive you. And I'll even lend you my pillow in case you need one to protect your face from all the magnetude 9.2 facepalms.

I certainly won't facepalm myself and any other palm palming my face is not a true facepalm but a slap. And I refuse to be slapped.

 

[Laurens]

This'll be good. Popcorn's on me.

I have my reservations...

When someone says 'good philosophy' can be used to prove God's existence, and then the next sentence is atrocious philosophy, I'm thinking 'this is going to be arduous and atrocious'. But that's just me.

But hey, I'll have some popcorn anyway cheers...

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Does God merely exist in the abstract? Or is it tangible to believe God is exists concretely in the abstract?
Using good philosophy it can be shown that God does exist. If you look at the world with an open mind you can see that God can be proven through the existence of 'material'.

Define "God"
Then we'll talk

People toss the phrase "God" around as if it's implied that there's only one that was ever discussed in human history and that there's only one way to view that deity. If you ask two different people from across the globe, you're likely to get two astronomically different answers - in fact, if you asked any two persons whom went to the same chapel and belong to the same religious affiliation questions about the aspects of the said deity, you wouldn't get two uniformed answers.

If there is only one deity with a definite set of characteristics and aspects, and it's so evident, then how can my above statement be true in any stent of the word?

 

[Gnug215]

Does God merely exist in the abstract? Or is it tangible to believe God is exists concretely in the abstract?
Using good philosophy it can be shown that God does exist. If you look at the world with an open mind you can see that God can be proven through the existence of 'material'.

Well, I'm an avid adherent of bad philosophy, and I keep my eyes closed to the world, with an ever more closed mind.

That's pretty much what you're accusing me of here, do you realize that?

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Does God merely exist in the abstract? Or is it tangible to believe God is exists concretely in the abstract?
Using good philosophy it can be shown that God does exist. If you look at the world with an open mind you can see that God can be proven through the existence of 'material'.

Go on.

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.

 

[Laurens]

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.

:lol: My anus comes up with better arguments than that.

How does it follow that if the immaterial exists, God exists?

Why could we not have something immaterial, say a soul and not have God?

Please explain how the laws of the universe are immaterial. If you were to ask me, the laws of the universe follow very much from matter and the way that it behaves.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Yes...... What is the OP calling immaterial? A particle, a wave perhaps? Is a wave immaterial? the electromagnetic force? Is he trying to state that the electromagnetic force is immaterial? If he does..... As Laurens states..... It still does not support or verify that a god exists.

 

[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.

:lol: My anus comes up with better arguments than that.

How does it follow that if the immaterial exists, God exists?

Why could we not have something immaterial, say a soul and not have God?

Please explain how the laws of the universe are immaterial. If you were to ask me, the laws of the universe follow very much from matter and the way that it behaves.

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]

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.

For the sake of argument, I will grant your first premise. However, the second point you make does not follow from premise one, as was pointed out already by Laurens. Your logic: "Immaterial exist. God is immaterial. Therefore God exist." By the same logic, material exists, flying pigs are material, and therefore flying pigs exist. Do you see how from your first premise, premise two does not follow?

 

[Aught3]

I interpret this argument thus:

P1: Immaterial things exist
P2: God is an immaterial thing
C: Therefore, God exists

This argument is invalid, as other other immaterial things could exist without God existing. To make this argument valid either P1 needs to be: All things which are immaterial exist. Or P2 needs to be: God is equivalent to all immaterial things. The OP can then provide support for the premises so we can asses soundness. Until the argument is modified it remains invalid.

 

[Laurens]

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.

Evidence please.

Also there is a problem for you on this point. I'm sure you believe that all humans have an immaterial soul, right? But if that is so then your soul does not depend on anything else to exist. In other words it does not depend on God to exist. But surely this contradicts your theology?

The same goes for anything else that you claim are immaterial. The laws of the universe don't depend on anything to exist, ergo, by your logic they cannot have been created by God.

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.

But even if I grant you this, it doesn't mean you can use that same concept to pretend that anything you can fantasize about actually exists.

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.

The belief that witches exist has affected people's actions throughout history. The belief in astrology, quack medicine, demon possession, all sorts of ghosts, ghouls and supernatural entities, as well as other gods besides your own have all affected peoples actions throughout history. Something doesn't necessarily have to exist to affect history. Take Saddam Hussein's WMDs for example....

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.

You prove nothing in this last couple of paragraphs.

I'm still waiting for the good philosophy...