Philosophy Now Forum

osgart wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:43 am Non existence is an impossibility. Therefore since there is a universe it must be infinite and eternal. Why? Because nothing is an impossibility within an existence.

So if existence is infinite and eternal then it is the foundation for things that never occured before, but now do.

The elements that make up us living beings existed in the forever past before our lives became alive. We did not exist but our constitutent elements did.

Since death occurs we have no evidence that life is anything beyond fleeting. So you will have to resort to proof that a God exists based on knowledge currently known.

Evolution itself does not prove or disprove an intelligent agency responsible for life's becoming.

Abiogenesis will not disprove or prove agency neither.

The reality of consciousness cannot be grasped by outside observation.

Science can only work within the physical realm.

Subjective proof will never pass for objective understanding by others.

No matter how hard i try there is no evidence of a God, other then human existence. And if that is all the evidence there is, then naturalism is a distinct possibility.

I am just curious, when you say that "there is no evidence of a God, then how are you defining God exactly?

Or, what exactly is It that you are saying there is no evidence for?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 2:40 pm

osgart wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:43 am Non existence is an impossibility. Therefore since there is a universe it must be infinite and eternal. Why? Because nothing is an impossibility within an existence.

So if existence is infinite and eternal then it is the foundation for things that never occured before, but now do.

The elements that make up us living beings existed in the forever past before our lives became alive. We did not exist but our constitutent elements did.

Since death occurs we have no evidence that life is anything beyond fleeting. So you will have to resort to proof that a God exists based on knowledge currently known.

Evolution itself does not prove or disprove an intelligent agency responsible for life's becoming.

Abiogenesis will not disprove or prove agency neither.

The reality of consciousness cannot be grasped by outside observation.

Science can only work within the physical realm.

Subjective proof will never pass for objective understanding by others.

No matter how hard i try there is no evidence of a God, other then human existence. And if that is all the evidence there is, then naturalism is a distinct possibility.

I am just curious, when you say that "there is no evidence of a God, then how are you defining God exactly?

Or, what exactly is It that you are saying there is no evidence for?

God is an interactive, authority with power over nature and life. God is intelligent agency to all that exists.

osgart wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:55 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 2:40 pm

osgart wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:43 am Non existence is an impossibility. Therefore since there is a universe it must be infinite and eternal. Why? Because nothing is an impossibility within an existence.

So if existence is infinite and eternal then it is the foundation for things that never occured before, but now do.

The elements that make up us living beings existed in the forever past before our lives became alive. We did not exist but our constitutent elements did.

Since death occurs we have no evidence that life is anything beyond fleeting. So you will have to resort to proof that a God exists based on knowledge currently known.

Evolution itself does not prove or disprove an intelligent agency responsible for life's becoming.

Abiogenesis will not disprove or prove agency neither.

The reality of consciousness cannot be grasped by outside observation.

Science can only work within the physical realm.

Subjective proof will never pass for objective understanding by others.

No matter how hard i try there is no evidence of a God, other then human existence. And if that is all the evidence there is, then naturalism is a distinct possibility.

I am just curious, when you say that "there is no evidence of a God, then how are you defining God exactly?

Or, what exactly is It that you are saying there is no evidence for?

God is an interactive, authority with power over nature and life. God is intelligent agency to all that exists.

Yeah I also can not find any evidence for any thing with power OVER Nature and Life.

To have power "over" some thing is to suggest that it is separate from that thing. But from what I observe, I see that Nature or Life, them Selves are the Authority with power not "over" but 'with' every thing. They hold this power not by being separate from any thing but actually by being those actual things and interacting with themselves, which is just ALL things. To me, this is God just Creating It's Self. If there is an actual 'authority' with 'power', then it is just God having the authority and power 'over' Its own Self, and nothing else. God is just EVERY thing any way.

To me, God is Nature, Itself, which is just EVERY thing physical, interacting 'with' each other, and God is also the Life force within ALL physical matter, which could be seen as the intelligent agency to all that exists.

But to witness the intelligent Agency's greatest ability to create new things can be observed and seen in the human beings when they are Truly OPEN. What can be imagined and dreamed up, and then actually realized and CREATED or turned into and made an actual 'reality' comes from that most intelligent agency of all - the one and only Mind, which is always OPEN.