It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intellectually Accurate Arguement In Regards To The True Existence Of GOD

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Just uploaded this to my other YT account. Trust me, I know all about Kent Hovind and his tax fraud and how he fools the gullible with some of his "Scientific" theories. I think he goes too far most times, but the message is still there. I think he says it best here...

Debating 3 Evolutionist teachers from 3 fields. Don't worry, the clip is only 3 minutes:




[edit on 25-5-2010 by CanadianDream420]




posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
In the words of many youth,

"PWNED"



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
He's saying that God pre-existed time, which is valid but it doesn't completely convince.

The consolation of philosophy puts it more succinctly

(paraphrased): If God was given his power of Goodness, the giver would be superior to the receiver. (end paraphrase)

So if God had a mother, that mother would be God. Thus, God had to be self-created out of himself.

Another quote from the excellent consolation:

"anything that is said to be imperfect is held to be so by the absence of perfection, so that if any imperfection is visible in any class of things, there must necessarily be a proportion of perfection to it. Do away with perfection and it is impossible to imagine how anything that is imperfect could be held to exist."

While this quote does not prove God per se it does prove that imperfection implies a proportion of perfection, kind of like saying we exist in Time, thus there must be Time itself. If Time itself did not exist, we could not exist in time. Same could be said about matter and space. So God is nothing but that Ideal which is the building block of all other things. Some might call that just simply matter, after all many atheists say matter has always existed, so how hard is it to assume that an absolute origin has always existed.

The problem with the Christian God, especially reading the Old Testament, is that God is given too many human characteristics, namely bad ones, Vices, such as anger and wrath, which goes against his supposed Transcendent nature.

Plotinus does a wonderful job in explaining the One as being absolutely simplex, perfect, needing nothing, beyond all comprehension, and the name "the One" is simply an indication that it is not a multiple.

Buddhism also uses this type of thinking which is called "neti neti" not this, not that, in that the Supreme Reality is beyond all duality, and so the only way you can properly define it is to say it is not this, not that, not physical, not contingent upon any type of duality.

I agree with Kent that if the brain was just a collection of random particles there'd be no reason to call yourself a scientist and then expect some respect.



[edit on 25-5-2010 by filosophia]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Isn't the whole discussion entirely moot?

The religious argument merely pulls the supernatural trump card, when under threat from reason.

I could believe in a giant immortal intergalactic lobster called Colin. It's no more/less possible/provable or believable than god. If someone can prove their god over Colin, I'll eat my words. That isn't going to happen, of course.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mithrawept
Isn't the whole discussion entirely moot?

The religious argument merely pulls the supernatural trump card, when under threat from reason.

I could believe in a giant immortal intergalactic lobster called Colin. It's no more/less possible/provable or believable than god. If someone can prove their god over Colin, I'll eat my words. That isn't going to happen, of course.


Colin is a lobster, so even though it may be immortal and intergalactic, it still has the form of a lobster. God has no form since it Transcends form. Do you see why my idea of God makes more sense than your intergalactic lobster? I'll try and spell it out.

Your lobster is immortal you say, but how so? Was it always that way? If it was born that way, there was a time when it did not exist, thus it could not have been immortal. It's form of a lobster makes it finite, whereas if it had no form, like God, it would be infinite.



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join