I have to question the two arguments made God is a person with Omnipotence and omniscience God probably exist since the universe is governed by "laws" that seem necessarily created. If the laws are necessarily artificial. That does not conclude the existence of an omnipotence or omniscient being. For instance the creator may have created a simulation on some computational device. The device is capable of doing things the creator can not for instance calculate information several times faster than there mind if the creator has a temporal limitation while they may have the means to view all the information provided by the simulation they would not have the ability. Similarly the simulation may have inaccessible feature they then would not be omnipotent. Finally the programmer may program a being with to said features without being the creator. My other point is that a good scientist would tell you that all models are approximation of the world as it is. That means that the universe may have know governing laws or they maybe completely different to what we had previously assumed. Meaning the "laws" we perceive are just as likely a consequence of our perception as they are a feature of the universe. Take for instance Newton's laws of motion they are not features of the universe but features of our perception.
with every argument for the existence of god you can make it an argument for the existence of apollo, or krishna or whatever.. these arguments can be used for any god. why then do you choose the christian god over other gods?
+Sebastiaan van Rijk We dont need a consensus. It would be impossible to define as the quetion is so broad. As it is impossible to not know everything we dont know. We need somehting to grasp and say, hey, this is an apect of god and porve it so that we can prove that there is a some part of god that exists. From there we can continu e
Waiting for part 2
thanks for uploading, I appreciated his input
Thanks for uploading, this is going to help me in my RS A level studies.
I have to question the two arguments made
God is a person with Omnipotence and omniscience
God probably exist since the universe is governed by "laws" that seem necessarily created.
If the laws are necessarily artificial. That does not conclude the existence of an omnipotence or omniscient being. For instance the creator may have created a simulation on some computational device. The device is capable of doing things the creator can not for instance calculate information several times faster than there mind if the creator has a temporal limitation while they may have the means to view all the information provided by the simulation they would not have the ability. Similarly the simulation may have inaccessible feature they then would not be omnipotent.
Finally the programmer may program a being with to said features without being the creator.
My other point is that a good scientist would tell you that all models are approximation of the world as it is. That means that the universe may have know governing laws or they maybe completely different to what we had previously assumed. Meaning the "laws" we perceive are just as likely a consequence of our perception as they are a feature of the universe. Take for instance Newton's laws of motion they are not features of the universe but features of our perception.
anthony flew over to the cuckoos nest; silly bird got fooled by the i.d. trick, just like Christian Huygens, Francis Collins and thousand others
with every argument for the existence of god you can make it an argument for the existence of apollo, or krishna or whatever.. these arguments can be used for any god.
why then do you choose the christian god over other gods?
***** That's just silly. What does coherence have to do with truth? Sure it's necessary, but certainly not sufficient.
@peteryoung301 we still have islam, judaism and christianity zoroastanism, some types of hinduism, sikhism.
My question to atheists is ; can you think of any evidence that would convince you that God exists ?
before believing or claim 'there is a god', first define what is 'god'. there is no unanimous definition...
+Sebastiaan van Rijk We dont need a consensus. It would be impossible to define as the quetion is so broad. As it is impossible to not know everything we dont know. We need somehting to grasp and say, hey, this is an apect of god and porve it so that we can prove that there is a some part of god that exists. From there we can continu e
Yes there is LMAO. Almost every world religion affirms the essential attributes of God, just not the immanent attributes
Still waiting for proof of God.
(whistles...)
Still no evidence huh?
(whistles...)
I can't whistle forever waiting for your evidence,and won't. :p