Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Christian Confederation]

I think it's just human nature to believe in a higher power.
I personally believe in God because that's what I was taught and as far as I can tell is accurate. 1. Because Jerusalem exists, 2. scintists agree that the flood happened, 3. plus year after year more and more planets are found to have no life make earth apear more and more likely to have been put here by some higher power.
4. So unless someone can prove me wrong I will believe in God.

1. ???
2. Apologists aren't scientists.
3. We have actually discovered quite a few planets that are, as far as we can tell, similar to Earth. Hell, one of the most similar planets we've found so far orbits the closest star to our solar system. Sure, we haven't discovered life on them (it's not like we can currently), but that doesn't mean you can make the assertion that every planet we've discovered is lifeless.
4. And unless someone can prove me wrong I will believe in unicorns.

Well more arcaticts and engineers don't agree with the official 9/11 story than those that do, that doesn't make ether side wrong.

Source? Also, you're contradicting yourself here. You just said there was a scientific consensus that the flood happened. After learning that that couldn't be further from the truth, you now say that a consensus doesn't even matter? So, if people agree with you, it supports your argument, and when people don't agree with you, it just means that they have a different opinion. Yeah... no.

https://www.ae911truth.org

[Kowani]

Wouldn’t an all knowing god know exactly how loyal Job was, without needing to kill his family and servants and destroy his property?

How would He, exactly?

Well, if he was all knowing, he’d know the outcome of the bet before it happened so it’d be unnecessary.

[The Archregimancy]

I think it's just human nature to believe in a higher power.
I personally believe in God because that's what I was taught and as far as I can tell is accurate. Because Jerusalem exists, scintists agree that the flood happened, plus year after year more and more planets are found to have no life make earth apear more and more likely to have been put here by some higher power.
So unless someone can prove me wrong I will believe in God.

Archaeologist and Orthodox Christian.

The Deluge did not happen as recorded in the Old Testament; at best it records a folk memory of earlier floods.

Also:

1) Arguing that the existence of Jerusalem demonstrates the veracity of the Deluge is point-blank bizarre since even by a literal reading of the Bible Jerusalem would have been founded centuries after the Deluge; the existence of the former does not prove the latter.

2) Pinning your religious faith on the lack of known planets with life makes your faith a hostage to events you can't control, and the science of which you appear to understand poorly; especially since our ability to identify exoplanets that might potentially be suitable to life - or indeed to identify life on exoplanets - is exceptionally limited.


Really, I'm embarrassed by the shocking quality of theological argument in this thread. If you were to intentionally set out to start a thread specifically designed to make a certain sub-type of atheist feel smug about the self-evident idiocy of Christian apologetics, it would be hard to better the present discussion.

[New Legland]

1. ???
2. Apologists aren't scientists.
3. We have actually discovered quite a few planets that are, as far as we can tell, similar to Earth. Hell, one of the most similar planets we've found so far orbits the closest star to our solar system. Sure, we haven't discovered life on them (it's not like we can currently), but that doesn't mean you can make the assertion that every planet we've discovered is lifeless.
4. And unless someone can prove me wrong I will believe in unicorns.


Source? Also, you're contradicting yourself here. You just said there was a scientific consensus that the flood happened. After learning that that couldn't be further from the truth, you now say that a consensus doesn't even matter? So, if people agree with you, it supports your argument, and when people don't agree with you, it just means that they have a different opinion. Yeah... no.

https://www.ae911truth.org

In 2016, there were 109,748 architects in the U.S. In 2015, there were ~1.6 million engineers in the U.S. Your source claims that 3,104 architects and engineers support them. That's about 0.2% of that group. So no, more architects and engineers definitely do agree with the widely-accepted story of 9/11.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I believe the universe has a plan for everyone. I've felt the energies of the universe, negative and positive. I've felt my chakras and seen auras. I believe in a higher power, who I refer to as God, but I've been struggling with my faith a lot lately. I think faith is very important. We all need to believe in something to keep our souls strong and keep the demons out. I went to church until 14 and, according to my alter, I'd dissociate (leave the body) during service often because I found it boring. After I stopped going I started calling myself an atheist. At this point I'd say I'm agnostic. I'm 19. I really need to look into Buddhism and Hinduism sometime soon.

If you want to know about Al-Islam, feel free to send me a telegram Or you can go here.

It's only uncertain to those who don't believe.

It is objectively uncertain.

To those who don't believe, correct. Which then would make it subjective.

[New Legland]

It is objectively uncertain.

To those who don't believe, correct. Which then would make it subjective.

No, it is impossible to definitively prove a God that is claimed to transcend the natural world. People can believe that its existence certain, but that doesn't make it any less uncertain.

[Des-Bal]

To those who don't believe, correct. Which then would make it subjective.

Like gravity.

[Ifreann]

I think it's just human nature to believe in a higher power.
I personally believe in God because that's what I was taught and as far as I can tell is accurate. Because Jerusalem exists, scintists agree that the flood happened, plus year after year more and more planets are found to have no life make earth apear more and more likely to have been put here by some higher power.
So unless someone can prove me wrong I will believe in God.

Archaeologist and Orthodox Christian.

The Deluge did not happen as recorded in the Old Testament; at best it records a folk memory of earlier floods.

Also:

1) Arguing that the existence of Jerusalem demonstrates the veracity of the Deluge is point-blank bizarre since even by a literal reading of the Bible Jerusalem would have been founded centuries after the Deluge; the existence of the former does not prove the latter.

2) Pinning your religious faith on the lack of known planets with life makes your faith a hostage to events you can't control, and the science of which you appear to understand poorly; especially since our ability to identify exoplanets that might potentially be suitable to life - or indeed to identify life on exoplanets - is exceptionally limited.


Really, I'm embarrassed by the shocking quality of theological argument in this thread. If you were to intentionally set out to start a thread specifically designed to make a certain sub-type of atheist feel smug about the self-evident idiocy of Christian apologetics, it would be hard to better the present discussion.

I think what he was getting at is that the existence of Jerusalem is one of the reasons that he believes in God. And so far as I'm aware there is strong consensus within the scientific community that Jerusalem does exist.

[The Grims]

Archaeologist and Orthodox Christian.

The Deluge did not happen as recorded in the Old Testament; at best it records a folk memory of earlier floods.

Also:

1) Arguing that the existence of Jerusalem demonstrates the veracity of the Deluge is point-blank bizarre since even by a literal reading of the Bible Jerusalem would have been founded centuries after the Deluge; the existence of the former does not prove the latter.

2) Pinning your religious faith on the lack of known planets with life makes your faith a hostage to events you can't control, and the science of which you appear to understand poorly; especially since our ability to identify exoplanets that might potentially be suitable to life - or indeed to identify life on exoplanets - is exceptionally limited.


Really, I'm embarrassed by the shocking quality of theological argument in this thread. If you were to intentionally set out to start a thread specifically designed to make a certain sub-type of atheist feel smug about the self-evident idiocy of Christian apologetics, it would be hard to better the present discussion.

I think what he was getting at is that the existence of Jerusalem is one of the reasons that he believes in God. And so far as I'm aware there is strong consensus within the scientific community that Jerusalem does exist.

As does London. Hence Harry Potter is real ?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

To those who don't believe, correct. Which then would make it subjective.

Like gravity.

Gravity isn't subjective.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

To those who don't believe, correct. Which then would make it subjective.

No, it is impossible to definitively prove a God that is claimed to transcend the natural world. People can believe that its existence certain, but that doesn't make it any less uncertain.

The arguments that prove Allah SWT beg to differ.

[Des-Bal]

Gravity isn't subjective.

I disagree which by your logic means it is.

[Kowani]

No, it is impossible to definitively prove a God that is claimed to transcend the natural world. People can believe that its existence certain, but that doesn't make it any less uncertain.

The arguments that prove Allah SWT beg to differ.

So where are these arguments?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Gravity isn't subjective.

I disagree which by your logic means it is.

I'm talking about the fact that it exists, not the belief of it.

The arguments that prove Allah SWT beg to differ.

So where are these arguments?

The one I like particularly is the Kalaam Cosmological Argument (KCA for short)

[Des-Bal]

I'm talking about the fact that it exists, not the belief of it.

Yeah gravity is only certain to people who believe in it so it's subjective.

[Kowani]

I disagree which by your logic means it is.

I'm talking about the fact that it exists, not the belief of it.

So where are these arguments?

The one I like particularly is the Kalaam Cosmological Argument (KCA for short)

So basically, just repurposed Aquinas. Which is still bullshit.

[The Grims]

I disagree which by your logic means it is.

I'm talking about the fact that it exists, not the belief of it.

So where are these arguments?

The one I like particularly is the Kalaam Cosmological Argument (KCA for short)

There must be a god because there musg be a god is not much of an argument, let alone an argument in favour of allah over other creator deities.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I'm talking about the fact that it exists, not the belief of it.

The one I like particularly is the Kalaam Cosmological Argument (KCA for short)

So basically, just repurposed Aquinas. Which is still bulls*it.

I barely know who he is. Anyway, here's what the KCA says:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/th ... -argument/:

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

[Ifreann]

So basically, just repurposed Aquinas. Which is still bulls*it.

I barely know who he is. Anyway, here's what the KCA says:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/th ... -argument/:

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Proving that there is a god by assuming that there is a god is not especially convincing.

[Kowani]

So basically, just repurposed Aquinas. Which is still bulls*it.

I barely know who he is. Anyway, herehere's what the KCA says:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/th ... -argument/:

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

That is literally Aquinas.
However.
1. Unproven assertion. More accurately, incorrect assertion. Quantum particles spontaneously pop into existence at random, so there’s evidence that it’s factually wrong.
Secondly, 4 is an Olympian leap of logic that makes no sense in the slightest.
Also, if this were correct, it would argue that a God existed. It does not prove that said God is the one of any religion that humanity ever came up with.

[The Archregimancy]

I think what he was getting at is that the existence of Jerusalem is one of the reasons that he believes in God. And so far as I'm aware there is strong consensus within the scientific community that Jerusalem does exist.

Hmmmm. It could well be. It was a poorly phrased argument, but that does make more sense.

But I don't understand why the existence of Jerusalem would inherently prove the validity of the Christian God. Jerusalem has an important role to play within Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, of course; but on that logic, the existence of Lumbini proves Buddhism, and the existence of Qufu proves Confucianism - neither of which are inherently theistic belief systems.

That Jerusalem exists, and that us pesky archaeologists can prove that Jerusalem has existed for at least a certain amount of time, does demonstrate that some Biblical accounts aren't necessarily false (and please spare me the tiresome Harry Potter/London cliche; why some people ever think that's even mildly clever escapes me), but nor does it inherently prove that the accounts are necessarily true as written.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I barely know who he is. Anyway, here's what the KCA says:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/th ... -argument/:

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Proving that there is a god by assuming that there is a god is not especially convincing.

True, that's something I disagree with in the KCA, I think it should be replaced with "higher power(s)"

I barely know who he is. Anyway, herehere's what the KCA says:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/th ... -argument/:

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

That is literally Aquinas.
However.
1. Unproven assertion. More accurately, incorrect assertion. Quantum particles spontaneously pop into existence at random, so there’s evidence that it’s factually wrong.

Those have a reason for coming into existence. It's just something we can't explain, that doesn't they come in at random.

[Kowani]

Proving that there is a god by assuming that there is a god is not especially convincing.

True, that's something I disagree with in the KCA, I think it should be replaced with "higher power(s)"

That is literally Aquinas.
However.
1. Unproven assertion. More accurately, incorrect assertion. Quantum particles spontaneously pop into existence at random, so there’s evidence that it’s factually wrong.

Those have a reason for coming into existence. It's just something we can't explain, that doesn't they come in at random.

If everything has a cause, then God would have to as well.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

True, that's something I disagree with in the KCA, I think it should be replaced with "higher power(s)"

Those have a reason for coming into existence. It's just something we can't explain, that doesn't they come in at random.

If everything has a cause, then God would have to as well.

Not necessarily true. Since Allah SWT exists outside of the universe, he is not bound by the laws of said universe.

[Kowani]

If everything has a cause, then God would have to as well.

Not necessarily true. Since Allah SWT exists outside of the universe, he is not bound by the laws of said universe.

Special pleading. Your conclusion cannot violate your premise.

Additionally, in order that to be taken seriously then you’d have to prove that there is an outside of the universe.

And even more additionally, you’d have to prove that this being is Allah and not, say, Xaos.