Is God exist ? Yes or no ?



  • My God is all-powerful
    My God is all-knowing
    My God is absolute one
    My God is eternal refuge
    My God is incomparable
    My God is one
    My God is omniscience
    My God is merciful


  • Chocolate lovers ;)

    @Rihoy said in Is God exist ? Yes or no ?:

    My God is all-powerful
    My God is all-knowing

    All-knowing means omniscience. All-powerful means Omnipotent. Both attributes are incompatible.
    If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.
    If he is all-knowing and all-powerful, why he is observing us from sky ? Why does not he save his children ?
    100 million people have cancer today
    36.9 million people worldwide are living with HIV
    One in three people have insomnia in world

    My God is absolute one

    Then why he made different plans for everyone ? Even little creatures are more united than him. We observe that many human beings like masons and even lower animals like ants and bees act together harmoniously to build objects like palaces, ant-hills and hives.

    My God is eternal refuge

    God again is said to be eternally perfect. But eternal perfection is a meaningless epithet. Perfection is only a removal of imperfection and it is meaningless to call a being perfect who was never imperfect.

    My God is incomparable

    That's a new privilege but human-reasoning requires comparison. 'Perfect' word itself has superlative degree.

    My God is one

    Repeated attribute

    My God is omniscience

    Again repeated attribute

    My God is merciful

    God is not merciful. We perceive animals, poor, children are dying from floods, earthquakes and many other natural phenomena. He is even unable to stop human-caused floods. It reminds me of Epicurus’ inquiry when he called him impotent.
    Is he willing to prevent evil but not able ? Then he is impotent.
    Is he able but not willing ? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing ? Whence then is evil ?

    Before, you give him one more new attribute 'ultimate creator' I need to use my brain.
    We can use philosophy with physics to conclude the origin of universe though. I’d elaborate with philosophy. Four causes are stated in philosophy-

    1. Primary cause- a change or movement's primary cause, is the aspect of the change or movement which is determined by the material that composes the moving or changing things
    2. Secondary cause- a change or movement's secondary cause, consists of things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which interact so as to be an agency of the change or movement.
    3. Formal cause- is a change or movement caused by the arrangement, shape or appearance of the thing changing or moving.
    4. Final cause- a change or movement's final cause, is that for the sake of which a thing is what it is.
      Wherever we perceive creation, secondary cause is found to work on primary cause to produce the final cause with his limbs.
      For an example- a potter (secondary cause) work on soil (primary cause) to produce a pot (final cause) with his limbs. Changing answers’ shape is formal cause. He make the pot in six parts.
      We must have two conditions to follow the whole process-
      (1.) final cause must have its parts
      ( 2.) secondary cause must have limbs
      If God was the secondary-cause/creator of this world, he must work on matter to produce the world.
      Here is a twist in story 🙂
      (1.) God is said to bodiless, he must have limbs to produce final cause
      (2.) First law of thermodynamics states nobody can create or destroy energy/matter. We have observed energy was same before and after in every experiment.
      Here we can say secondary cause is not required. He cannot violate natural law and he does not have limbs either. After excluding secondary cause, first cause can create final cause. The proof is matter ! Scientists have discovered humans, animals, planets, galaxies are consisted of 13 billion year ago matter. If the matter was not primary cause, how it came in everything ? Different parts of energy positive and negative satisfy 1st condition too. Positive and negative sum up to 0. Today negative energy is in space. Again, it is a natural law.

    Note- you will say 'material cause or primary cause aka matter' should have a cause too. But theists forgot the whole first-cause argument was based on a chain of effecient causes, not a chain of material cause. For more-https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/cause.shtml

    We finally found out something which does not has a cause. We have discovered in 20th century that the universe is actually ruled at the bottom level by quantum mechanics. No cause of particles and events exists. For an example, there is no such previous cause of an event ‘radioactive decay of a uranium atom’. Quantum particles can pop out of nothing and can disappear in nothing. It is the measurable effect through Lamb shift and Casimir effect. Electrons, protons and neutrons can appear, disappear and reappear in different places and supposed empty space. Even thou, an electron can travel in all possible paths between two points.

    Why I'm certain about his nonexistence - We have no evidence for spiderman, superman and for harry potter, therefore we don't believe in them. If we have no evidence or other reason for believing in God, then we can be pretty sure that God does not exist.


  • Chocolate lovers ;)

    @Indrid-Cold said in Is God exist ? Yes or no ?:

    There's no free will. At best our consciousness is the sensation of friction as our free will tries to take hold.

    There is always free will. Nobody is sitting on my shoulder to do a specific task. Nobody can work through me. I dictate my own life. E.G. Now I can grab headphones and go to hang out. -Good work. I grab a hammer and hit on someone’s foot- evil work.
    If there was no free will, how evil came into me ? God is symbol of Goodness and he is powerful. why cannot he stop my evilness ? If he works through me, I will do only good things. Look over the history, thirty percent of wars started war for the name of religion, rest 70% did not start the war for the name of atheism.

    I don't know any kids who've died in floods. Earthquakes are fun. I don't need to worry about floods. I live on a hill. Boom.

    Thanks for correcting me.
    People are dying from floods, Children are dying from malnutrition*
    I was indicating towards a tropical storm Barry started lashing Louisiana. 90 percent people follow christian religion, 2 percent people follow other religions there. Authorities rushed to close floodgates and raise the barriers around the New Orleans metropolitan area of 1.3 million people for fear of disastrous flooding. People who were leaving in low-level areas left their houses. Lives of 10,000 people much more matter than that of one.

    God could still be Absolute even if He's just spinning a gazzillion different plates in different directions.

    He said absolute one not only absolute. It is just our imagination he spins the plate like that.
    No matter where we live on this planet electricity will not conduct through rubber, neither will water mix with oil . . . Natural laws, one set of them apply to all people. They do not change nor can one escape from them by changing continents. If natural laws changed according to where people lived it would be a chaotic universe

    For all we know, reality might just be a sophisticated piece of performance art, or an attempt to flood a vacuum with as much content as possible.

    As much content as possible not all. Absolute= total
    He cannot be absolute one because we don’t know his gender. Is he female or male character ? We just call him ‘he’. He is coming from Quran and verse 76:2 states ‘’Verily We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm, in order to try him: So We gave him (the gifts), of Hearing and Sight’’ A female is required for uterus

    In a way, I love that internet debates about God's existence always somersault straight from a kind of very, very generalized complaint about stoopid indoctrination, the existence of cancer, injustice, etc --

    Argument from justice is given by a random philosopher.

    and then straight on to a kind of scholarly, Wittgenstein formula of semantics. Before we get to the semantic stuff, there's a world of nuance in the rubbish stuff that God is (supposedly) to blame for, but which we (as humans) put up with. We're talking about whole lives that need to be deconstructed before we get to the technical stuff. But nobody seems interested in discussing that nuance. For that reason, @Rihoy's bullet-pointed beliefs seem fine to me.

    First he needs arguments for proving his beliefs then he needs to disprove the my constructed stuff. This is why I wrote that creation stuff in different paragraph.
    Most of the theists talk about cause-effect and creation stuff. This dude is different or perhaps he'd talk about it ahead,
    Argument from degree was Aquinas’ argument. His god was perfect too. Perfect and incomparable are opposite to each-other

    “We notice that things in the world differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or perfection. But we judge these degrees only by comparison with a maximum. Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness cannot rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maximum to set the standard for perfection, and we call that maximum God.

    With this argument, we can say people are different in their smelliness but we can make comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Ergo, there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. We can substitute any dimension of comparison which we like and we will reach on an equivalently fatuous conclusion

    There is some photos of them. And I'm pretty sure all these monsters exist conceptually; I refer you to Bigfoot and the Hendersons.

    Spider-man are superman have their photos and books but they are fictional characters of comic books. Photos and tales are not evidence of anyone’s existence ! I should write spiderman and superman, again thanks for correcting me 😛
    P1. Whatever a holy book says, is true
    P2. Holy book says, God exists
    C. God exists, is true

    Funny conclusion from imagined assumptions-
    P1. Whatever a holy book says, is true
    P2. Holy book says, sky is solid
    C. Sky is solid, is true



  • @Rihoy allahu akbar!!



  • @LeoWeirdo akbar.jpg



  • @Electrifying-Guy said in Is God exist ? Yes or no ?:

    All-knowing means omniscience. All-powerful means Omnipotent. Both attributes are incompatible.
    If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.

    There's no free will. At best our consciousness is the sensation of friction as our free will tries to take hold.

    @Electrifying-Guy said in Is God exist ? Yes or no ?:

    One in three people have insomnia in world

    Insomnia is cool.

    @Electrifying-Guy said in Is God exist ? Yes or no ?:

    Then why he made different plans for everyone ? Even little creatures are more united than him. We observe that many human beings like masons and even lower animals like ants and bees act together harmoniously to build objects like palaces, ant-hills and hives.

    God could still be Absolute even if He's just spinning a gazzillion different plates in different directions. For all we know, reality might just be a sophisticated piece of performance art, or an attempt to flood a vacuum with as much content as possible.

    @Electrifying-Guy said in Is God exist ? Yes or no ?:

    That's a new privilege but human-reasoning requires comparison. 'Perfect' word itself has superlative degree.

    In a way, I love that internet debates about God's existence always somersault straight from a kind of very, very generalized complaint about stoopid indoctrination, the existence of cancer, injustice, etc -- and then straight on to a kind of scholarly, Wittgensteinian formula of semantics. Before we get to the semantic stuff, there's a world of nuance in the rubbish stuff that God is (supposedly) to blame for, but which we (as humans) put up with. We're talking about whole lives that need to be deconstructed before we get to the technical stuff. But nobody seems interested in discussing that nuance. For that reason, @Rihoy's bullet-pointed beliefs seem fine to me.

    @Electrifying-Guy said in Is God exist ? Yes or no ?:

    children are dying from floods, earthquakes and many other natural phenomena. He is even unable to stop human-caused floods.

    I don't know any kids who've died in floods. Earthquakes are fun. I don't need to worry about floods. I live on a hill. Boom.

    @Electrifying-Guy said in Is God exist ? Yes or no ?:

    We have no evidence for Bigfoot, the Abominable Snowman, and the Loch Ness Monster, so we do not believe they exist. If we have no evidence or other reason for believing in God, then we can be pretty sure that God does not exist.

    There is some photos of them. And I'm pretty sure all these monsters exist conceptually; I refer you to Bigfoot and the Hendersons.



  • Absolutely, the variety is God trying out every single possible form, The Unameable



  • @Electrifying-Guy said in Is God exist ? Yes or no ?:

    There is always free will. Nobody is sitting on my shoulder to do a specific task. Nobody can work through me. I dictate my own life.

    It may only seem like you dictate your own life, EG. It may feel like we're self-determined, but it could just be a sophisticated illusion. Since it's impossible for us to step outside our minds and/or re-run time to see if we could make a different decision, we don't know for sure.

    @Electrifying-Guy said in Is God exist ? Yes or no ?:

    He said absolute one not only absolute. It is just our imagination he spins the plate like that.
    No matter where we live on this planet electricity will not conduct through rubber, neither will water mix with oil . . . Natural laws, one set of them apply to all people. They do not change nor can one escape from them by changing continents. If natural laws changed according to where people lived it would be a chaotic universe

    It sounds to me that you're interested in the criteria which a God might apply when considering whether to show us a miracle. This isn't saying much, is it? If I believed in God, I wouldn't necessarily want anything from Him, would you?

    I mean, at the end of the day, personally, I couldn't care less about whether God exists. Why, @Electrifying-Guy, do you pounce on the subject with such fervor? I notice you're a New Zealander, a great, liberal country not noted for its religious oppression or angsty feelings (the Christchurch shootings notwithstanding).

    The world is a cold, oppressive, uncaring place (increasingly masquerading as a warm, inclusive, loving place). It seems to me that for punters in the Western World to criticize religion is just prioritizing the wrong bit of conceit.

    Beyond that, where is @pe7erpark3r? This stuff is right up his alley.


  • Chocolate lovers ;)

    @Indrid-Cold said in Is God exist ? Yes or no ?:

    @Electrifying-Guy said in Is God exist ? Yes or no ?:

    There is always free will. Nobody is sitting on my shoulder to do a specific task. Nobody can work through me. I dictate my own life.

    It may only seem like you dictate your own life, EG. It may feel like we're self-determined, but it could just be a sophisticated illusion.

    In my evil work example, someone could hide his feet so that I would not be able to hit hammer on it. After-all it was my choice to hit hammer on his feet. Self-determined or autonomy is not an illusion. We are working on a speculation for going back in time too.

    Since it's impossible for us to step outside our minds and/or re-run time to see if we could make a different decision, we don't know for sure.

    Agree. If it was possible for us to go back in time, we would not require scientists here. We could know the origin of universe with it. We cannot change our past but we can make our future.

    @Electrifying-Guy said in Is God exist ? Yes or no ?:

    He said absolute one not only absolute. It is just our imagination he spins the plate like that.
    No matter where we live on this planet electricity will not conduct through rubber, neither will water mix with oil . . . Natural laws, one set of them apply to all people. They do not change nor can one escape from them by changing continents. If natural laws changed according to where people lived it would be a chaotic universe

    It sounds to me that you're interested in the criteria which a God might apply when considering whether to show us a miracle. This isn't saying much, is it? If I believed in God, I wouldn't necessarily want anything from Him, would you?

    Why is he unable to reveal himself ? First he needs to show himself, then I'll think about miracles.
    Natural laws are natural laws, they should be followed by everyone. Otherwise we should not call them laws. Miracles are illusions and superstitions. Our eyes do not present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time. Our brains construct a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless. Optical illusions are vivid reminders of this. Miracles happen with those people who are suffering from multiple personality order or obsessive compulsive disorder.

    I mean, at the end of the day, personally, I couldn't care less about whether God exists. Why, @Electrifying-Guy, do you pounce on the subject with such fervor? I notice you're a New Zealander, a great, liberal country not noted for its religious oppression or angsty feelings (the Christchurch shootings notwithstanding).

    I do not live in newzealand. I'm not an anti-theist either. I'm just a new atheist. I wished that I were a kiwi. I live in Norway. Hell is my location

    alt text

    The world is a cold, oppressive, uncaring place (increasingly masquerading as a warm, inclusive, loving place). It seems to me that for punters in the Western World to criticize religion is just prioritizing the wrong bit of conceit.

    alt text

    Beyond that, where is @pe7erpark3r? This stuff is right up his alley.

    Peter is busy irl. He is on break


  • Chocolate lovers ;)

    He doesnt.



  • @Electrifying-Guy
    There are many, many arguments

    • Aquinas cosmological argument- an infinite regress of creation, cause and movers is impossible, so there must be an uncreated creator, uncaused agent and unmoved mover.

    • Popularity- most of the world believes there is sufficient evidence of God's existence, and it is more likely that the majority is right and the minority is wrong.

    • Morality- we have a sense of right and wrong. And from a pragmatic angle, ethical relativism erodes the basis for right protections and destroys their meaning.

    • The teleological argument- things in the universe seem to have a purpose, and in fact people are always seeking meaning in existence. Without God there is no meaning or purpose.

    • Universality of mythos- all cultures and people have stories of creation and gods


  • Chocolate lovers ;)

    @Rihoy said in Is God exist ? Yes or no ?:

    @Electrifying-Guy
    There are many, many arguments

    • Aquinas cosmological argument- an infinite regress of creation, cause and movers is impossible, so there must be an uncreated creator, uncaused agent and unmoved mover.

    First, an infinite regress of cause, not creation. A creator is different from a cause. A is caused by B, which means if B dies, there will be no A. A is created by B, which means if B dies, it is not necessary that A will die too. Take an example of your dad and you for more clarification. If your dad dies, it does not mean you will die. He is just your creator, not cause.

    Second, A is caused by B, B is caused by C, C is caused by D and so on. This chain might be an infinite regress. Just because you want to prevent this chain from an infinite regression, you wanted a terminator. Even though, you can name that terminator anything. For an example- Electrifying guy is a terminator, is supposed. It does not prove Electrifying Guy exists.

    Third, this argument is not sound in 2019. The argument was stated by Aquinas in 12th century. According to your argument, there is no possibility of infinite or multiverse world. There is possibility of finite world. Right ? Big bang created space and time itself. There was no time before big bang for creator to create universe in. Everything was initialized from a photon and without time, cause-effect relationship cannot be established. As we have seen, quantum particles have no cause. They are something from nothing.

    Fourth, first cause argument is the most flawed argument that I’ve ever gone through.
    Premise 1- Whatever begins to exist, must have a cause.
    Premise 2- God begins to exist.
    Conclusion – God must have a cause.
    Your conclusion violates its own premise
    Take the idea of creator now
    Premise 1- Everything that exists, must have a creator
    Premise 2- God exists
    Conclusion- God must have a creator
    Your conclusion again violates its own premise

    • Popularity- most of the world believes there is sufficient evidence of God's existence, and it is more likely that the majority is right and the minority is wrong.

    Argumentum ad populum
    A great amount of people say A exists, therefore A exists -flawed
    You need to show evidences given by great people. You cannot use great people as evidences. Also, burden of proof will be always on you.

    • Morality- we have a sense of right and wrong. And from a pragmatic angle, ethical relativism erodes the basis for right protections and destroys their meaning.

    “We have a sense of right and wrong”- because it is our free will. It is our choice what to do and how to react- Good or bad or both or both not at same time.

    “ethical relativism erodes the basis for rights protections and destroys their meaning ;”

    It is capital offence to be atheists in most of the middle east countries. It is punishable to death in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran etc. They cannot even change their religion from Islam to any else. Which right protection are you talking about ? Fear, terror, slavery or homophobia ?

    However, existence of God has nothing to do with ethics. Early Buddhism and Jainism are the most ethical religions of the world. They do not believe in any supernatural power. Your debate is pursuing with an atheist, he is not an anti-theist. An atheist is someone who disbelief in god or he says, “I know there is no God”. An atheist can follow religion without believing in God too.

    If you still think so, I may write something special for you. Prophet Muhammad is quoted as calling for the death penalty against apostates-

    The Prophet said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam
    (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 83, Hadith 17)

    Now we will see the rights of wives-
    The Quran also advocates beating wives when they misbehave:
    “Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth.
    So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from
    whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.” (Quran 4:34)

    • The teleological argument- things in the universe seem to have a purpose, and in fact people are always seeking meaning in existence. Without God there is no meaning or purpose.

    Teleological argument is fifth argument of Aquinas. It is argument from design. You altered the whole argument. However, I will still reply you.

    Premise 1- Every being is seeking meaning in existence (your premise)
    Premise 2- God is a being
    Conclusion- God is seeking meaning in existence

    • Universality of mythos- all cultures and people have stories of creation and gods

    Evolution was a natural process, Charles Darwin destructed the argument from design. The difference between our minuscule and Chimpanzee's minuscule is just 0.1 percent. Humans, chimpanzee and bonobons are closely related to one-another.
    Hindu mythology says creationism took place 8 billion years ago.
    Abrahmic religions say creationism took place 6,000 to 8,000 years ago.
    Australian aboriginal dreamtime says our universe is 70,000 years old.
    Science says Big bang took place 13.8 billion years ago. Archaeologists, biologists and cosmologists have found the oldest ice cores are 8,00,000 years old.
    Did you mean creationism took place after evolution ? We existed before this creationism.
    If he created this universe, why would he waste so much matter to create empty space ?
    Space-time is not mentioned in Abrahmic religious books, how someone can create something without time ? How someone can work on matter ? How can someone count those days without time ?
    When our universe was young, law of gravity was expanding it. Positive energy was created with explosion during bigbang. It created negative energy simultaneously. For an example- I dig a hole and throw some soil out of it. I create a hole with a hill simultaneously. There is no reason to think of a supernatural being.

    Beyond our debate (this is not part of our debate)-
    I'll make a topic on illogical theism. Someone made a topic on how atheism is irrational, but ofcourse he couldnt prove God's existence. I will show how people started to believe in myths.






By using TalkWithStranger, you are accepting our privacy and usage terms . You must be 18+ or 13+ with parental permission to use our online chatting site.