Why God Exist!!!?

page: 34
13
<< 31  32  33   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Exactly, so in that thread there should be no preconceived concepts of religion. The discussion must be balanced and I don't usually find the religious among us are ever very willing to consider the prospect that they are absolutely and completely wrong.

Logic is demanded, but rarely applied in the debate by that school.




posted on May, 23 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: gusdynamite
a reply to: edmc^2

Exactly, so in that thread there should be no preconceived concepts of religion. The discussion must be balanced and I don't usually find the religious among us are ever very willing to consider the prospect that they are absolutely and completely wrong.

Logic is demanded, but rarely applied in the debate by that school.


That is why I took on this thread based on logic and commons sense.

Hence the axiom "Out of something (or Someone Eternal) comes something".

It's highly illogical to believe and accept that "Out of nothing comes something".

And based on logic, common sense, and scientific facts as well as laws governing matter and energy - all of these show that INDEED, the Universe came from "something infinite" or Someone Eternal rather than from absolute nothing.

Nothing comes out from nothing otherwise we're all gazilionares!



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: gusdynamite
a reply to: edmc^2

Exactly, so in that thread there should be no preconceived concepts of religion. The discussion must be balanced and I don't usually find the religious among us are ever very willing to consider the prospect that they are absolutely and completely wrong.

Logic is demanded, but rarely applied in the debate by that school.


That is why I took on this thread based on logic and commons sense.

Hence the axiom "Out of something (or Someone Eternal) comes something".

It's highly illogical to believe and accept that "Out of nothing comes something".

And based on logic, common sense, and scientific facts as well as laws governing matter and energy - all of these show that INDEED, the Universe came from "something infinite" or Someone Eternal rather than from absolute nothing.

Nothing comes out from nothing otherwise we're all gazilionares!


I really appreciate the way you approach the topic, because our views seem to differ, but for a refreshing change there can be a frank and pleasant dialogue for ideas and understanding.

I think too often both camps get their backs up over the issue as a defensive default position and it prevents the sharing of ideas. I like to think I follow in a similar path to your own in regard to what I think the real deal is, but I love the idea of not knowing because mystery is always intriguing.

By the way, don't you dare stop me from trying to force gazillions to pop out of thin air - It's my only hope!






posted on May, 24 2014 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: gusdynamite

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: gusdynamite
a reply to: edmc^2

Exactly, so in that thread there should be no preconceived concepts of religion. The discussion must be balanced and I don't usually find the religious among us are ever very willing to consider the prospect that they are absolutely and completely wrong.

Logic is demanded, but rarely applied in the debate by that school.



And like you said, logic is demanded but rarely applied one has to arrive at the obvious.

That is why I took on this thread based on logic and commons sense.

Hence the axiom "Out of something (or Someone Eternal) comes something".

It's highly illogical to believe and accept that "Out of nothing comes something".

And based on logic, common sense, and scientific facts as well as laws governing matter and energy - all of these show that INDEED, the Universe came from "something infinite" or Someone Eternal rather than from absolute nothing.

Nothing comes out from nothing otherwise we're all gazilionares!


I really appreciate the way you approach the topic, because our views seem to differ, but for a refreshing change there can be a frank and pleasant dialogue for ideas and understanding.

I think too often both camps get their backs up over the issue as a defensive default position and it prevents the sharing of ideas. I like to think I follow in a similar path to your own in regard to what I think the real deal is, but I love the idea of not knowing because mystery is always intriguing.

By the way, don't you dare stop me from trying to force gazillions to pop out of thin air - It's my only hope!





Thankz,

But we're really not that far off for i too believe in mystery. In fact there's so much out there waiting for us to discover. In fact we haven't even scratch the surface yet. But to advance to the next level we have to pass the barrier of ignorance and accept the fact that we're NOT alone in the Universe. That such thing as the Universe with its highly organized structure is not a product of random chance event but by a precise mathematical fine tuning of universal laws. Of which if logic is applied leads one to an undeniable conclusion that a law requires a lawmaker and a law giver.

Hence, if the universe is governed by fundamental laws (which it is), then it must have a source - an intelligent source! For laws by themselves as logic dictates doesn't just appear on their own but rather have a source.

Question is, as logic demand - what or who IS the source of the universal law?

edit on 24-5-2014 by edmc^2 because: ed



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2That such thing as the Universe with its highly organized structure is not a product of random chance event but by a precise mathematical fine tuning of universal laws. Of which if logic is applied leads one to an undeniable conclusion that a law requires a lawmaker and a law giver.


Why does a law require a lawmaker and a lawgiver?

And what is the difference between a law maker and a law giver?

Lets do this, lets find out.


P.S: I am not your enemy.
edit on 30-5-2014 by Subnatural because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Wow so many theories on God.
Imagine one of them was right but everyone who starts reading this thread skips it because of getting lost in all the wrong answers.

Of course none where right.
There seems a point in that.


But at least most readers will get to read the mother universe reply. And possibly see that other nice ideas or similar ideas to shape their own.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
What if you know for a fact that God doesn't exist... try explaining that one to the people. They do not want to hear or understand it. Best solution is to wait a hundred years and try again.




posted on May, 31 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subnatural

originally posted by: edmc^2That such thing as the Universe with its highly organized structure is not a product of random chance event but by a precise mathematical fine tuning of universal laws. Of which if logic is applied leads one to an undeniable conclusion that a law requires a lawmaker and a law giver.


Why does a law require a lawmaker and a lawgiver?

And what is the difference between a law maker and a law giver?

Lets do this, lets find out.


P.S: I am not your enemy.


First of all Subnatural, thanks for the post and nothing to worry - we're all friends here.

The simple answer to your Q is that any law, man made or not can't just appear on their own - especially a highly precise law as the laws that govern the Universe: like the law of Motion, law of Gravitational force or the four fundamental laws that govern matter and energy. These laws just don't happen on their own.

Hence a law must have a maker and a giver - someone to implement it.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: zatara
What if you know for a fact that God doesn't exist... try explaining that one to the people. They do not want to hear or understand it. Best solution is to wait a hundred years and try again.



Even if you know that God does not exist, what is the point of explaining it to people? Knowing is a subjective experience. What is the benefit of making other people know that God does not exist? Regardless of the time you do it.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=17982134]edmc^2First of all Subnatural, thanks for the post and nothing to worry - we're all friends here.

The simple answer to your Q is that any law, man made or not can't just appear on their own - especially a highly precise law as the laws that govern the Universe: like the law of Motion, law of Gravitational force or the four fundamental laws that govern matter and energy. These laws just don't happen on their own.

Hence a law must have a maker and a giver - someone to implement it.


First of all, how can you say a law is more highly precise than another law? What are the criteria? What determines the precision of a law?

Secondly, why can a law not appear on its own? What do you mean by "on its own"? Which laws do happen on their own? Are simpler laws capable of happening on their own? Or are no laws capable of happening on their own?

And why can no law appear on their own?

P.S: I am glad we are friends
. The best discussions are between people who do not agree.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

To all unbelievers, here's a simple yet profound question that merits an honest answer.


I'm actually a believer...but I find this interesting...


Should not the existence of "something" uncreated and infinite proves the existence of "someone" uncreated and infinite - God?


Can I answer a question with a question? Something uncreated and infinite only proves that something uncreated and infinite CAN exist...So, Can something infinite and uncreated create something ELSE that is infinte and UNCREATED? (The answer should be relatively easy...)


For example, we know that spacetime is both uncreated and infinite, that "IT" always existed. Yet why is this NOT proof enough of the existence of an incorporeal uncreated and infinite being - God?
Answer my previous question and you'll find out why.....


It's quite the conundrum...it really is.

As far as we can deduce any current models, there has to be at some "point"..."something" that is infinite and uncreated...Whatever you want to call that is up to you.

But my real question is....what could we conclude if we begin with the assumption that only this physical plane was created...?
(I know, beginning with an assumption is not exactly scientific, but I see no sign that says "no fun welcome here"...)

A2D



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree




But my real question is....what could we conclude if we begin with the assumption that only this physical plane was created...? (I know, beginning with an assumption is not exactly scientific, but I see no sign that says "no fun welcome here"...)


Well the thing is, it's NOT only "this physical plane" that was created but there's another. In fact it's another dimension of existence. For if there's a physical plane, there MUST also be a "spiritual" one or I should say in scientific term - an "invisible plane" from which higher beings exists.

Just as there is matter and anti-matter, energy and dark energy, then there must be the anti-physical plane.

But yet, the anti-physical or to be precise, the invisible realm is the reality of the visible. Meaning we exist because of the existence of the invisible.

The invisible plane is the pattern of the visible plane.

And since the INFINITE is uncreated - thus, there's ONLY ONE God!

ONE Infinite reality - One God the Creator of all things.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
discussion continues here.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: gusdynamite

continue the discussion here:





top topics
 
13
<< 31  32  33   >>

log in

join