Author Topic: Gods existence help  (Read 7637 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline zulfiqarchucknorris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Gods existence help
« on: March 10, 2013, 01:40:12 PM »
I have read many articles to show gods existance, I dont mean a christian/muslim god, but a presence of a higher power. I though they were great, but i seem to have lost them, plus, I have forgetten many of the information that i recieved, i oly clearly remember one about the big bang, how it could not have been possible without some external force (Not exactly but i dont want to get into detail), but thats about it, can you give me evidence and some good articles  ( I like these better because i can save the links in my stash). Thanks

Offline shabeer_hassan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Gods existence help
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2013, 11:42:12 PM »

Offline zulfiqarchucknorris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Gods existence help
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2013, 08:10:49 AM »
that article is one for islam
im talking about one that proves the existance of a higher power
that shows us that the life we are in is impossible without a higher power
such as the big bang one i showed you


  • Guest
Re: Gods existence help
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2013, 01:10:28 PM »
Assalamu Alaikum.
Brother the precision of our Universe, its creation and its design, all point to the fact that there must have been a supreme designer. Aristotle, Plato, Newton have all agreed with this. The precise rotation of the earth and the sun, the existence of black holes are all but amazing.Most modern day scientists themselves have realized, through the complexity of our universe that there must be a Higher Power. The beginning of life itself is a mystery. The aging and the death of all creatures is another. Every single living cell is but an intricate machine (a biologist can explain better). Suppose you found a cell phone in a desert. Would you expect it to have been created by 'random nature' over millions of years? Or would you say 'somebody' left it there? If you dont think a mobile phone could have been created through 'random nature' you should have no reason to believe that a living cell got created by 'nothing', no matter how many millions of years you add.
 The formation of stable nuclei depends on the ratio of the strong and electromagnetic forces - the protons in a nucleus repel each other, but the strong force overcomes this repulsion. A small change in their relative strengths could allow the electromagnetic force to overcome the strong force, and atoms could not exist. If electrons were any more massive, then electrons and protons would be disposed to bond and form neutrons, thus disrupting the formation of heavy elements. The strength of gravity is also important: if it were any stronger, stellar matter would bind more strongly and stars would use their nuclear fuel much faster, thus negating the possibility of the evolution of life. If gravity were any weaker, matter might not "clump together" to form larger structures, thereby preventing the formation of stars in the first place.

Finally, the same single message of the Prophets and their Books makes it evident about the existence of the One God.
You should pray to God for guidance and read the Quran (only!). The Quran makes accurate predictions and also includes miraculous scientific revelations. O and dont consult Google about these. It is run by disbelievers who will simply confuse you.

Offline The Canadian Atheist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Gods existence help
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2013, 04:32:36 AM »
there is no proof any gods exist. period.

Offline Sama

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile

Offline mendacium remedium

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
    • View Profile
Re: Gods existence help
« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2013, 03:25:22 PM »
Brother, here is an article i wrote, and i obtained the information from other muslim sources and philosophers. These arguments were among the one used by the ancients.

Evidence for the existence of God

Some people like to straw-man God as akin to a ‘fairy’. Other human beings like to create Idols of stone and make God in their image. However, both do injustice to what God actually is. Both are nonsensical claims and fail to grasp the topic at hand adequately. 

I will begin by describing the various states of existence.

Possible form of existence:

One of these states , let us say, is a man walking to a shop. Now, does a man have to walk to a shop? The answer is no. Is it possible for a man to walk to a shop? The answer is yes. Is It impossible? The answer is no. Thus, although it is possible for a man to walk to a shop, a man going to a shop is not a necessary action.

Impossible form of existence:

Now imagine 2+ 6 = 10. That is a fallacy and breaks the very tenants of logic and mathematics.  Is this a necessary form of existence? – no. Is this a possible form of existence? – no. This is an impossible form of existence.

Necessary form of existence:

Lastly, there is another state of existence.  We know our universe had a beginning, before it must have been some sort of multi-verse or system that churns out constants – to explain the ridiculous fine tuning our universe has – even if it came by a random process.  Everything happened all at once. Now, before our universe, if we simply assume there was another, and another, we land onto an infinite regress.

If you lived on earth, and you lived through one day, and were asked, have the days on earth been ‘infinite’? You would immediately answer ‘No’. If the number of days on earth truly was infinity, then you would not be hear talking about it, by virtue of the fact you cannot get to the first  day on earth, because a past-infinity is insurmountable – no day would come after and nothing would exist. Infinity is used in mathematics, the internet, and all sorts of things, but it has no place in an actual physical reality
Thus, whether you are an atheist or theist, whether you believe in matter or an underlying necessary ‘intelligence’, something had to exist, by virtue or by necessity of its own existence – or nothing exist. There had to be something that just existed for the sake of it. You can call this energy; matter if you feel that will be more palatable to you, or any other kind of physical existence for now.

Traits a necessary form of existence – which had to exist by the way – must have:

•   A necessary form of existence needs to exist by virtue, or necessity of its own existence. It just exists – nothing caused it.
•   It can have no ‘beginning’. You cannot say there was a point where there was no necessary existence – then it won’t exist as a necessity of its own existence.
•   It should not depend on anything else for its existence. A necessary form of existence, again, must exist simply as a necessity of its own existence; it should not exist as a dependence or result of something else.
•   It can not be subject to change – if it is subject to change, then it bring on an infinite regress. For instance, matter can turn into energy (particle/anti-particle), Matter can decay, and vice versa. If either of these are supposed to be the necessary form of existence, and existed for ‘eternity’ you would have an infinite causal link of conversions, which defies the very reason for having a necessary existence. Furthermore, is energy not dependent on matter?

Thus, the necessary form of existence cannot be energy or matter or anything physical, it must be non-physical, and thus, we have one of the qualities of God – immaterial and non-physical.

The universes constants

Our universe has a ridiculous amount of fine-tuning. You can say this resulted in the random churning out of our universe in the ensemble of infinite universes in the multiverse, or that the precision which would require magnitude of more ‘zeros’ than there is space to even put in this universe, is the result of some ‘purpose’ or some ‘underlying intelligence’. Matter cannot be the necessary existence, and so, there needs to be an immaterial necessary existence.

Let us define intelligence:

You are deficient in knowing something, and you acquire knowledge. There was a time where you did not know that thing and had to learn it.

Gods intelligence is not like this. God does not require to ‘learn’ .God is the embodiment of knowledge of all things, absolute, neither increasing nor decreasing – one of the absolute qualities of God.

For instance, in the Quran God describes himself as ‘all seeing’, but he has no eyes or a form (“No vision can perceive him”). Does God need light photons to bounce into his eyes? By ‘seeing’ it means the awareness and knowledge of all things. By ‘intelligence’ it is not acquired intelligence stored or utilised in a brain composed of neurons, or acquired sight or thought, it is absolute. God can only be realised by human beings from what is created – we can never get to the essence of God or comprehend God. Gods attributes are absolute and necessary God IS knowledge – rather than knowledge being a component of God. Thus, the whole point of ‘one God’ , one in the ‘absolute’ indivisible sense.

Why can’t we have a multi-verse, with an infinite number of universes?

Matter cannot be the necessary form of existence. Furthermore, you cannot impose the limit of infinity to quantifiable stackable forms of existence like matter.

For instance, if there are an infinite number of universes in the multiverse and our universe is made, you’ve just added +1 to the total number. There can’t have been an infinite before: you cannot have a static infinite in physical reality.(You might be able to draw the sign on a piece of paper, or use infinites on the internet(programming) or in abstract mathematics though).
Some people like to use the paradox of a hotel, whereby you go and book a room and ask everyone after the first person to move one room ahead. You then have a spare room. To use this to solve the multi-verse paradox brings some problems:

The last ‘man’ who is situated in the ‘last’ room will never again be situated in a room. People being in a room are likened to universes being existence, so by this paradox, you are basically wishing out an INFINITE number of displaced people who will never find a room (it’s an infinite, an infinite number will be finding rooms).

This assumes a static infinite. You will be wishing out of existence an infinite number of universes, and will be left with a finite number of universes – as you will be left with a finite number of people in rooms, where people in a room = universe. A necessary existence need not violate the very tenants of logic you use to prove it.

Thus, ridiculous fine tuning cannot be explained by virtue of chance (a multiverse churning out an infinite number of universes).– the only other option is purpose.


God is an immaterial, unchanging, absolute, underlying intelligence, whose existence has been thought of by man – even by the most primitive of human beings.  I appreciate honest debate, but attributing ‘God’ to a flying spaghetti monster shows a complete lack of awareness of the topic and its finer details; but it’s viral, funny, and popular, and in todays society that sells.

“So who made God then? Doesn’t this create more problems?”

Not at all. By logic, I at least, have deduced the need of a necessary form of existence. On top of that, matter cannot be this necessary form of existence, and a multi-verse with an infinite number of universes cannot exist. Yet we need a necessary form of existence – something immaterial i.e God. Thus, the whole point of this exercise was to show why we need something that just exists, and why the universe cannot ‘just’ exist, but why an immaterial transcendent reality can fulfil the properties of a necessary existence – which has to exist, and why a physical reality can not.

“What about evil suffering/ect”

It has no effect within this context. We are only movements of matter, from point A to B. There is nothing objectively wrong with putting a sword in a human. Evil and good are relative. If you put it in a human in self-defence, it is different from murdering a child. The context of this particular discussion was for the objective – not the inherently subjective.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2013, 03:27:15 PM by mendacium remedium »


What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube