Reasons to postulate the existence of a God.

[Divine Insight]

If you think you have a valid reason for postulating the existence of a supernatural entity that supposedly created the world in which we live please post those reasons here for discussion and possible rebuttal.

Thank you.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

In a World of science, one reason to postulate the existence of God is because you feel, strongly, that there indeed God is in the World, one way or another. It's your conviction!

However, nowadays, we're so lucky to have many "indicators", if not evidence outright, to say that God exists so that the mere little postulation is no longer such a problem or an issue for doubt of how the World works, so to speak!

[Divine Insight]

In a World of science, one reason to postulate the existence of God is because you feel, strongly, that there indeed God is in the World, one way or another. It's your conviction!

People who allow emotions to cloud their rational thinking shouldn't become scientists.

However, nowadays, we're so lucky to have many "indicators", if not evidence outright, to say that God exists so that the mere little postulation is no longer such a problem or an issue for doubt of how the World works, so to speak!

I don't see any valid reasons or "indicators" being proposed here.

Can you list one valid reason or indicator?

That way we can have something to actually discuss instead of just tossing around empty claims.

[Aetixintro]

People who allow emotions to cloud their rational thinking shouldn't become scientists.

When you sit on top of a long life in science and have read a lot of science, you use feelings too, call them gut feelings or something. Often times, they make you look harder at something and help you shape the first hunches toward something.

It's no like you say, you do not let "emotions" cloud your rational judgment, you allow your central nervous system (read: brain!) be a part of your guiding system so that you can be a more effective scientist!

The "indicator" list: The Defences for God, Blogspot, https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2 ... sm-is.html

You can read the external listing yourself. Me and Atheism do not go well together.

[Artie]

The "indicator" list: The Defences for God, Blogspot, https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2 ... sm-is.html

What an incomprehensible irrational illogical mess. Here's a quote: "now that, by telepathy, that we have God by our foreheads and Atheism seems more wrong than ever before, then why Atheism at all?"

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 5 by Artie]

Here's another list you can chew at, The Fantastic Phenomena or of Freak Nature as Accounts of Reality at Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/lukas-f- ... 606236984/

So you think I'm a novice at science, surely very "illogical"? I'm sorry my investigations do not fit into your school books. Perhaps they will in the future?

Merry Christmas.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 5 by Artie]

Here's another list you can chew at, The Fantastic Phenomena or of Freak Nature as Accounts of Reality at Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/lukas-f- ... 606236984/

So you think I'm a novice at science, surely very "illogical"? I'm sorry my investigations do not fit into your school books. Perhaps they will in the future?

Merry Christmas.

We can only hope that those writings never get anywhere near a serious school book other than as an example of how not to reason and write of course... Merry Christmas.

[Divine Insight]

So you think I'm a novice at science, surely very "illogical"? I'm sorry my investigations do not fit into your school books. Perhaps they will in the future?

Posting links to websites filled with nonsense is hardly credible debate.

Apparently you can't offer a single indicator or valid reason to postulate the existence of a God that you are willing to back up via your own arguments.

Until you do, you haven't offered us anything to debate.

By the way, any arguments for "Intelligent Design" have already been thoroughly debunked. The fundamental problem with those arguments is that if it is your position that anything that possesses intelligence must have been intelligently designed, then this would necessarily need to apply to your postulated God as well. And so those types of arguments automatically fail as a meaningful reason to postulate the existence of a God.

So arguments of intelligent design are out.

Also, the idea that a God is needed simply because anything exists at all, and you can't imagine where something came from if it didn't come from a God also fails miserably. Why? Because this too would then need to apply to the God that you are postulating. So your very own reasoning actually rules out the idea that a God could solve that problem as well.

So do you have anything to offer that hasn't already been debunked?

[mgb]

Also, the idea that a God is needed simply because anything exists at all, and you can't imagine where something came from if it didn't come from a God also fails miserably. Why? Because this too would then need to apply to the God that you are postulating. So your very own reasoning actually rules out the idea that a God could solve that problem as well.

The idea that the physical universe needs a creator does not imply the creator needs a creator. People believe the physical universe needs a creator because they don't believe that the physical laws of nature can produce the complexity we observe, without a guiding intelligence. This argument does not automatically apply to God because God is not a physical being that needs to be physically constructed.

For God to be complex all that is needed is abstract/mathematical complexity. All that is required is that knowledge can exist. If mathematical knowledge exists in God, complexity exists, abstractly, in God. Indeed some scientists argue that the universe is fundamentally information/knowledge. Knowledge made visible by taking on a physical image that we call the universe. Mathematics is intrinsically complex; it does not have to evolve in the way physical complexity evolves. It simply is what it is. This is one way in which God can be complex - by knowing complexity. Ultimately all that is required is the ability to contain information - and even a cd can do that.

[Divine Insight]

Also, the idea that a God is needed simply because anything exists at all, and you can't imagine where something came from if it didn't come from a God also fails miserably. Why? Because this too would then need to apply to the God that you are postulating. So your very own reasoning actually rules out the idea that a God could solve that problem as well.

The idea that the physical universe needs a creator does not imply the creator needs a creator. People believe the physical universe needs a creator because they don't believe that the physical laws of nature can produce the complexity we observe, without a guiding intelligence. This argument does not automatically apply to God because God is not a physical being that needs to be physically constructed.

For God to be complex all that is needed is abstract/mathematical complexity. All that is required is that knowledge can exist. If mathematical knowledge exists in God, complexity exists, abstractly, in God. Indeed some scientists argue that the universe is fundamentally information/knowledge. Knowledge made visible by taking on a physical image that we call the universe. Mathematics is intrinsically complex; it does not have to evolve in the way physical complexity evolves. It simply is what it is. This is one way in which God can be complex - by knowing complexity. Ultimately all that is required is the ability to contain information - and even a cd can do that.

I don't see where this helps.

To begin with you first need to postulate that knowledge can exist without physical form. We really have no reason to postulate this. While it is true that many mathematicians appear to have accepted the idea of a non-physical "Platonic World" of pure mathematics, there is really no evidence to back up that totally imagined concept.

You say that even a CD can contain information. But a CD is physical. Can you point to an example of information existing in a non-physical form? I think not.

In fact, mathematics is a subject that I have been very interested in since early childhood. I see no reason to believe that mathematics is anything more than a formalism that expresses the relationship between quantities. And the very concept of quantity is a physical concept. After all, what sense would it make to say that you have "two" non-physical things? How could you determine that you have two of them?

Moreover, even in an imagined "Platonic World" a "perfect circle" could never exist, even by pure definition. So trying to invoke a non-physical "Platonic World" doesn't really do anything. It's really just an ill-defined philosophical idea that has no meaningful or useful value. It's basically an unwarranted postulate that doesn't serve to explain anything. It's a meaningless concept that has no value. Truly not much different from religious ideas. An unprovable concept that cannot even be shown to be true.