To answer this question I want to give an example of fire, when you touch fire you will feel heat or get burned, so there is an algorithm here. this algorithm gives a message or punishes anyone who plays with fire, it depends on how you conceive the feeling of fire.
Whether you call it god or not, it is there and it’s real, each time you try to play with fire, you’ll be afraid of getting burned, which you can also say you’ll be afraid of god.
Let me give an analogy of a castle builder to clarify more, if you’re rich and you bought a castle, whether the castle builder exists or not doesn’t matter because if you don’t follow the castle builder’s instructions you will be hurt, you don’t have to prove the castle builder existence for you to follow his instructions. so why do we know that fornication is bad but when someone tells you that you will go to hell for the fornication we give the excuse that we don’t believe in god?
So what I’m saying is that we have to start thinking about god abstractly, not like he is a being that looks like us.
All what god wants is to follow his instructions, and his instructions are learned from nature, like the example of fire I gave.
Now there are some scenarios where justice is not served as it is served with fire (when you touch fire you get burned but when you lie you might get away with it and never pay for it)
So finally what I believe is that as burning is a reaction to fire, the afterlife is also a reaction to this life.
i did my best to explain my thoughts, I’m sure there will be a lot of questions, i hope my thoughts will be understood.
Ok, I am abstract thinking mode about a being that is apparently real.
It seems to me you’re suggesting that the existence of a non human looking god should be inferred from some sort of observable model that predictably and reproducibly demonstrates its existence.
Non human looking god, therefore, should be quantifiable. What are the god’s dimensions? What is the god’s mass? What studies exist that support these quantities?
like i said you learn from nature like the fire example i gave. for example if you fornicate it feels good but if you do it too much you became ill, you start maybe not liking women anymore or you find your self unable to stick with one women which is bad for healthy marriage, as you can see here you learn what is wrong with fornication, you either except that is bad and change your life and nature will forgive you and help you fix your life if you’re sincere or you deny and you’re life will get worst and you start maybe licking pedophilia etc…
sex is made by nature for procreation not pleasure, but it is ok to enjoy with the intent of procreation, it is like food, you eat because you need nutrients and it is ok to enjoy food while getting nutrients but it is not ok to eat only to enjoy because you will get sick.
mass and dimensions and even math are things created by god, god is above all of that so it looks like going that route is leading no where, that’s why i try to understand god from understanding the universe, and the universe can lead you to it’s creator.
it’s like the castle example i gave earlier, you can know what you need about the creator of the castle just by knowing the castle, like the creator can leave instructions to me in the castle to understand how to use it. and the instructions can be expressed implicitly or explicitly in a shape of paper.
No, no algorithm, and fire is insentient, so it doesn’t punish. We have evolved to tolerate a range of temperatures, when we go significantly outside of the range it can damage or kill us.
What you imagine that has to do with any deity you imagine to be real, is anyone’s guess?
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity or deities, ot that any deity is even possible? You ought to start there, instead of violating Occam’s razor, by trying to imagine sentience exists where it does not.
Why would i call anything god, why do you imagine a deity is even possible, where is your objective evidence for this assumption?
That’s a false equivalency fallacy, since we know castles, castle designs and castle builders exist and are possible, we have no such objective evidence that deities exist or are possible.
Whose we? I don’t know it is bad, and bad is a subjective term, your claim is not objectively true, it is only your opinion on one topic.
You may do this, I do not. I don’t believe hell exist anymore than any deity, and nor am I convinced either idea is possible, I don’t see any relevance between what you imagine to be real, and sex at all, this is just a weird non-sequitur.
Why would I care, since I don’t believe any deity exists outside of the human imagination? You might as well be telling me to think about Spiderman.
Which deity, accurately define it, then demonstrate some objective evidence t exists or is even possible, until you do I don’t care what you think it wants, and theism teaches me absolutely nothing about fire I can learn from objective reality. So that assertion about fire was as meaningless as it was clumsily cobbled together.
Justice is a subjective idea, whereas fire and the results of getting too close to it, are part of objective reality, so you are again drawing some sort of bizarre and irrational false equivalence.
I don’t care what you believe, only what objective evidence you can demonstrate to support those beliefs? So far strident and bizarre assertions are all I see? What is it you wanted to debate?
I don’t believe we can survive the physical deaths of our brains in any meaningful way.
They’re bizarre, disjointed, poorly reasoned, and completely unevidenced, if that is what you were hoping for? Now what is it you wanted to debate?
You’re doing it wrong.
Again, you must be doing it wrong, and pleasure and functionality in eating are not mutually exclusive, anymore than procreation and pleasure are when having sex. Though one can enjoy the pleasure of sex without procreating, that is axiomatic.
Maths is a human creation, and again there is no objective evidence a deity exists or is possible, so your unevidenced claims it created stuff are meaningless.
It has not, nor has anything science understood about the universe remotely evidenced any creator.
This false equivalence fallacy is explained above, your reasoning is irrational, and thus very poor.
To much to respond to so I’m just gonna try to build some common ground so we can achieve an understanding.
let me give some examples:
when you see a camera you can tell how much its creator is considerate of the need of the user, when you see that it has water proof and doesn’t break very easy, you don’t need to know if the camera has a creator to tell that its creator is considerate.
by applying the same analogy we can say the something about the human body.
my question is do you think regardless if the human body has a creator or not would you agree that it is created by consideration. like what ever made it had some considerations in mind, again regardless if it exist or not.
Too much, not to (sic) much, and isn’t that always the way, when an apologist is done preaching they fold up their tent and move on. I can only observe that you could have responded to the legitimate criticism of your unevidenced and irrational assertions, in the time it took you to post claiming to have insufficient time.
Everyone who has responded has demonstrated they have a better understanding of your assertions than you do, they recognise they are poorly reasoned as they contain known logical fallacies, like your false equivalence fallacy in your analogous comparisons of human designs, like castles, when we have sufficient objective evidence that humans design and create things, but have none that any deities do so, or even that they exist or are possible. The misunderstanding, if any exists, is therefore entirely yours, though I suspect this shrug of the shoulders is a ruse on your part, to preach on, without honestly addressing those criticisms, or even trying to understand them.
Well there you go, you ignore my response that indicated your analogy as irrational, and why it was irrational, to simply repeat your irrational arguments, using a different analogy. Do you imagine repetition will make your argument less irrational?
No, since a) we know for an objective fact that the human body, like all living things, has evolved slowly over time, and b) your claim is again unsupported by any objective evidence, you cannot or will not demonstrate objectively that any deity exists or is even possible, so your claim is again utterly meaningless.
There is no objective evidence that anything in nature is designed. Do you understand this, if you do, then do you agree, if you don’t then please demonstrate some objective evidence to show otherwise?
Circular reasoning fallacy, you have not demonstrated the human body, or anything else come to that, was created by any deity. You have not even attempted to demonstrate that any deity exists, or is even possible. I think it’s fair to say you don’t understand how this might be achieved, or understand the difference between your irrational and subjective claims, and objective evidence.
English is not my native language, it’s to much to keep writing a journal every response like you, if you want me to answer please make it short.
the human body has evolved slowly but it could be part of the intelligence to evolve in the first place, how does this contradict with the creation has considerate intelligence?
why you keep saying you have not demonstrated any deity, I’m just asking if the creation is considerate creation or not, I’m not yet arguing about god’s existence here.
if i asked you who ever done this job he did a good job are you gonna say what do you think somebody did this job, the question is not about who did the job, it is about the job itself!
You have used logical fallacies, and failed to address this. Since you haven’t even acknowledge the fact, then I don’t see that this evasion on your part has anything to do with language, the length of posts, or time limitations on your part.
Again I have explained that you have demonstrated no objective evidence that anything in nature is designed, yet you simply repeat the same speculative claims? I will give you one more chance then, and use bullet points:
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that a deity exists, or is possible?
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that any deity has created anything?
If you roll past these questions again without attempting to answer, then I must infer it is dishonesty, and that you’re here to preach, and not ot debate.
I have not said this, I said you have not offered any objective evidence that any deity exists, or that a deity is even possible, which you have not, all you have offered is subjective and irrational arguments.
You posited a deity in your thread title, you don’t get to pretend now that you’re not arguing for a deity, or dictate that this can be evidenced later. I have no reason to accept a deity is an option, unless you can objectively evidence one exists, or at the very least that a deity is possible.
Well you’re moving the goal posts now, as you claimed it was possible the human body was “made and designed”, and I pointed out that is was an objective fact that it evolved slowly over time, so it demonstrably was no made or created. However you don’t get to claim evolution may involve an intelligent designer, you would need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support this claim as well.
You either can, or cannot, demonstrate some objective evidence that a deity is possible, or that a deity exists, it is a yes no question, and if you claim you can, then it is reasonable to expect you to do so, and yet you have not done so.
FYI, I will post what I deem apropos in response to your posts, and you don’t get to tell me how long they should be, or where the debate for the existence of a deity should start, your title premises a deity, you’re making claims, they are irrational, I have told you why, it’s for you to either improve your arguments or offer something approaching objective evidence to support them.
I have no interest in answering poorly conceived loaded questions, that are circular as they are begging the question. I have linked an explanation of that fallacy for you.
Shouldn’t we have a “wide load” warning sign and make a beeping sound, when goal posts are being moved at such a speed? FWIW either humans were created, or they evolved slowly, those are mutually exclusive claims.
Since English is not your primary language, let me explain the error you are making. You are doing what’s called begging the question. Look it up. You are asking if a creation is created. If it were not created, it would not be a creation.
It’s amusing when posters think they can bluff their way past logic, or pretend that their ignorance of logic, means their claims are not irrational. Like a child imagining it can escape the wrath of a parent by covering its face. The irony is palpable…his language skills are sufficient to come here and argue for a deity, but fail him when presented with objections. He has time to waste on irrational analogies, that conflate human creations, with unevidenced deific creations, but no time to even acknowledge posts explaining these use a false equivalence fallacy, he entitles a thread positing does god exist, posts multiple claims that a deity does exist, clearly thinks a deity is possible as his profile states he is a theist, then lies he is not here to argue for a deity…
I am simply struggling to believe he has any honest interest in debate, but I suppose time will tell all. Meanwhile I shall throw on my deerstalker hat, and grab my magnifying glass, and go look at previous exchanges with this poster.
Yeah, I have read his first half dozen posts, and they are all dishonest and evasive, he doesn’t answer questions, reels off unevidenced claims, and tries t reverse the burden of proof using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies in the form of loaded questions.
Here is one example of him shamelessly evading Nyarl’s legitimate request he evidence a claim:
Oh dear…now take a look at this…
.
Shamelessly dishonest and evasive…not only no attempt to answer after asking for clarification on the question, he then posts a mendacious straw man, and he can’t spell existence to boot.
It went from bad to worse after that, he became more and more dishonest, I should have checked before bothering this time, oh and he’s likely a Muslim, I found this:
Aha, Holmes you astound me…
This may explain why he is so closed minded anyway.
It turns out @Nogba has been dishonestly dodging this question for 3 years, make of that what you will. Oh and he’s a Muslim, since he’s suddenly so reticent to tell us which particular superstition he’s peddling.
If God exists, then where does God come from? If God has always existed, then why not skip a step and assume that the Universe has always existed?
Or . . . if God’s origin is an unanswerable question, then why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question?
You seem to want to combine the Kalaam Cosmological Argument (that God is the ultimate root cause of everything) with the Watchmaker-on-the-heath . . . along with a dash of the moral argument (where God establishes the basis of our sense of right and wrong).
I wish I could convince theists that just because we don’t understand something doesn’t mean that we should automatically resort to God.
As a historical story that supports my argument, consider the Hungarian obstetrician Ignaz Semmelweis, who died in 1865.
A few decades before Pasteur’s germ theory of disease, Semmelweis discovered that handwashing in a mild bleach solution will drastically cut the rates of childbed fever. He had numbers to back up the idea that doctors–when proceding from autopsy to birth–were causing childbed fever (“sepsis”, “blood poisoning,” or “septicaemia”) by their dirty hands.
So, my point is that people refused to believe him because they couldn’t think of a mechanism by how hands can spread disease.
His ideas were rejected, and it was decades later when Pasteur’s germ theory was able to put Semmelweis’s findings into their proper context.
These facts are relevant because a scientific explanation presented itself when science advanced.
In a like manner, just because we don’t know something now doesn’t mean that we won’t understand it in the future, and claiming that God did something accomplishes nothing.