Does God Exist? Evidence & Arguments For & Against

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Assuming this was a debating point, this would be considered a "Shifting the Burden of Proof" argument flaw.

No, what I'm saying is that if no one can provide any proof to the contrary, then ultimately it's up to me to decide, and no one has any business trying to sway my opinion one way or the other.

In which case I could say God exists and it would be true or, I would very likely be under a delusion. In either case, who's going to prove otherwise?

Are you saying I have no business believing in God because I can see it for myself?

And why does science seem to be so unwilling to even consider the possibility?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, what I'm saying is that if no one can provide any proof to the contrary, then ultimately it's up to me to decide, and no one has any business trying to sway my opinion one way or the other.

In which case I could say God exists and it would be true or, I would very likely be under a delusion. In either case, who's going to prove otherwise?

Are you saying I have no business believing in God because I can see it for myself?

And why does science seem to be so unwilling to even consider the possibility?

Well, you can't disprove that I am God, can you? Therefore, I can decide that I am, and demand that you all worship me?

I'm saying that you have no business stating as a fact that supernatural beings exist.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, what I'm saying is that if no one can provide any proof to the contrary, then ultimately it's up to me to decide, and no one has any business trying to sway my opinion one way or the other.

If you finished reading my post, I said the same thing. Burden of proof regards the burden one bears when debating, if you're not debating then there is no such burden.

In which case I could say God exists and it would be true or, I would very likely be under a delusion. In either case, who's going to prove otherwise?

Are you saying I have no business believing in God because I can see it for myself?

I agree completely [in that you can believe anything you wish], if you finished reading my post, it concerned debating. If you are not trying to convince others that god exists, then there is no debate, thus no burden of proof, et. al.

And why does science seem to be so unwilling to even consider the possibility?

'Why does cooking seem so unwilling to even consider the possibility that god exists'

Sounds kinda odd, right?

My point is, science is a branch of endeavor that has, by it's definition and method, restricted itself to only that which can be agreed on [the definition of objective reality], and which is repeatable or can make used to make falsifiable predictions. The proof or disproof of god is outside this domain. Science can't say anything about them either way.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
So what if it does? Just because medicine calls pain subjective, that doesn't mean medicine disregards it. Us rational folks just don't think subjective equals supernatural, the way you do. A thing can have perfectly rational, materialistic reasons, and still be good.

For instance, we know that food tastes good because we ned it to eat, and 'good' flavor is our brain's way of driving the body. The same goes for 'bad' flavors. 'Good' and 'bad' taste is a subjective thing with a biological explanation...that doesn't mean I can't also absolutely love a juicy steak, just because I know why I love it.

A Zen koan from Alan Watts', Behold the Spirit ...

"In answer to a question about the meaning of Reality an old master simply held up his fly-whisk, and another master asked one of his monks to explain the action. "The master's idea," replied the monk, "was to elucidate the spiritual along with the material, to reveal truth by means of an objective reality." "Your understanding," said the master, "is alright as far as it goes. But why are you in such a hurry to make theories about it?" At this the monk asked, "What, then, will be your explanation?" The master held up his own fly-whisk.

What can I say? ...

 

[Zero]

BTW...science HAS considered the existence of the supernatural, and so far there is little evidence to back it up. Show someone some new evidence, and the case is reopened.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
A Zen koan from Alan Watts', Behold the Spirit ...

What can I say? ...

Mu!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, you can't disprove that I am God, can you? Therefore, I can decide that I am, and demand that you all worship me?

LOL!

I'm saying that you have no business stating as a fact that supernatural beings exist.

Oh, speaking of one's opinion? And yet if it "were" a fact that God exists, then how can it be stated otherwise?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
LOL!
Oh, speaking of one's opinion? And yet if it "were" a fact that God exists, then how can it be stated otherwise?

But you don't have any proof!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
BTW...science HAS considered the existence of the supernatural, and so far there is little evidence to back it up. Show someone some new evidence, and the case is reopened.

So, if there are those of us who wish to believe in the supernatural, then I guess it would require a "second opinion" now wouldn't it?

And yet it's like I keep telling everybody, I don't necessarily have a problem with science ... at least "as far as it goes."

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
But you don't have any proof!

This miraculous thing we call the human mind has been around for thousands of years, and all this time processing information, which is a lot longer than science has been around!

Are you saying that until recently, the human mind hasn't been fully functional?

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
LOL!
Oh, speaking of one's opinion? And yet if it "were" a fact that God exists, then how can it be stated otherwise?

By saying "I believe..."

or

"IMO, ..."

Both these prefaces make it clear you believe something, not that you are claiming something (as in the start of a debate).

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero
But you don't have any proof!

I think the disconnect is coming from Iacchus32 stating something he believes, in such a way that we consider it a claim he will back up, or is something he's trying to convince us.

Obviously he needs to prove nothing to us, just for him to believe something. His own criterion for internal truth is his own.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
By saying "I believe..."

or

"IMO, ..."

Both these prefaces make it clear you believe something, not that you are claiming something (as in the start of a debate).

And yet what if it's possible to ascertain something, without being able to explain it? Should I say I believe this is so? Or, should I say I know this is so? ... Mu?

By the way what does Mu mean?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
This miraculous thing we call the human mind has been around for thousands of years, and all this time processing information, which is a lot longer than science has been around!

Are you saying that until recently, the human mind hasn't been fully functional?

What are you talking about? Do you believe that the merit of an idea rests in how long it has been around?

People have believed the wrong things for much longer than they have known the right things. The fact that religion is an old idea works against it, frankly.

 

[bogdan]

Yes...God exists...end of story...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
What are you talking about? Do you believe that the merit of an idea rests in how long it has been around?

No. But it does make it more plausible, and hence more consistent (historically).

People have believed the wrong things for much longer than they have known the right things. The fact that religion is an old idea works against it, frankly.

And what I'm telling you is that there's a great many things about "the experience" that you're not taking into account.

Recommended reading: The Power of Myth, by Joseph Campbell. Or better yet get ahold of the video or DVD ... from the PBS series that came out about 15 years ago. You'd be amazed at the similarities between one religion and the next clear across the globe, even in reomote and isolated areas. It's just too uncanny to believe that it could have happened by chance.

But then again I don't base everything upon this, because I have had an "original experience" ... and more than once.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet what if it's possible to ascertain something, without being able to explain it? Should I say I believe this is so? Or, should I say I know this is so? ... Mu?

By the way what does Mu mean?

Yes, I agree. Its possible to be certain of things without being able to explain them.

When you say you believe something is so, then anyone here has to 'cross the line' into your subjective territory to try and contradict it, more importantly, you are telling them what 'is', not matter how certainly you accept it as true. If you say you know it's true, then you're liable to get questions relating to how you know it's true, but still - I would it as a personal truth and not have a problem with it. When someone here, say 'bogdan' for instance, makes a flat statement, in effect they are claiming something not commonly accepted by all, something that I would accept as needing justification - as in debate.


Mu. The reply was sort of a zen joke. A zen koan had been put out in a post, so my response was Mu (the question 'what is mu?' is the most basic of koans in most lines of zen that practice koan training. The answer I would give to you wouldn't make any sense to you - it's one of those things that I could ascertain for myself, but not communicate to someone that hasn't experienced solving the koan.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No. But it does make it more plausible, and hence more consistent (historically).

No, it doesn't, at the fact that you think it does shows that you are willing to throw truth in the garbage if it suits your fantasies. Old ideas are generally wrong; this is why they are replaced by new ones. If religion was worth anything, there would have been no need for science to come along and kick it in the sensitives.

And what I'm telling you is that there's a great many things about "the experience" that you're not taking into account.

Recommended reading: The Power of Myth, by Joseph Campbell. Or better yet get ahold of the video or DVD ... from the PBS series that came out about 15 years ago. You'd be amazed at the similarities between one religion and the next clear across the globe, even in reomote and isolated areas. It's just too uncanny to believe that it could have happened by chance.

Again with the nonsensical interpretation of facts to support your untruth. In reality, most religions are similar not because of coincidence, or because religion has and basis in reality, but because human psychology is the same all over, and we tend to create similar myths. It is the same with a lot of other things common to all people; not because of some magical connection, but simple genetic and physiological similarity between all people, combined with mostly common experience.

But then again I don't base everything upon this, because I have had an "original experience" ... and more than once.

Didn't we already suggest that you lay off the drugs?;)

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
No, it doesn't, at the fact that you think it does shows that you are willing to throw truth in the garbage if it suits your fantasies. Old ideas are generally wrong; this is why they are replaced by new ones. If religion was worth anything, there would have been no need for science to come along and kick it in the sensitives.

Or, perhaps science has come along in order for us to understand it in the "rational sense?" Perhaps so we don't have to rely on somebody else to tell us that it's so?

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:33-34).

Huh? ... No more sermonizing?

Again with the nonsensical interpretation of facts to support your untruth. In reality, most religions are similar not because of coincidence, or because religion has and basis in reality, but because human psychology is the same all over, and we tend to create similar myths. It is the same with a lot of other things common to all people; not because of some magical connection, but simple genetic and physiological similarity between all people, combined with mostly common experience.

So what you're saying then is that people are generically stupid in nature.

Didn't we already suggest that you lay off the drugs?;)

What? ... Lay off on the dopamine?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Yes, I agree. Its possible to be certain of things without being able to explain them.

So what alternatives do you have when those around you are trying to dismiss them?

When you say you believe something is so, then anyone here has to 'cross the line' into your subjective territory to try and contradict it, more importantly, you are telling them what 'is', not matter how certainly you accept it as true. If you say you know it's true, then you're liable to get questions relating to how you know it's true, but still - I would it as a personal truth and not have a problem with it. When someone here, say 'bogdan' for instance, makes a flat statement, in effect they are claiming something not commonly accepted by all, something that I would accept as needing justification - as in debate.

And yet even in trying to define the "objective reality," it can only be understood -- and hence conveyed -- by subjective means.

Mu. The reply was sort of a zen joke. A zen koan had been put out in a post, so my response was Mu (the question 'what is mu?' is the most basic of koans in most lines of zen that practice koan training. The answer I would give to you wouldn't make any sense to you - it's one of those things that I could ascertain for myself, but not communicate to someone that hasn't experienced solving the koan.

Aha! ...

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero
Old ideas are generally wrong; this is why they are replaced by new ones.

The above is an argument flaw. Argumentum ad novitatem. The argument that newer ideas are better or more valid than old is a logical flaw, when used in debate.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So what alternatives do you have when those around you are trying to dismiss them?

They are fully within their capabilities to dismiss them, the same as you are within your's to dismiss theirs. The contention comes about when one of you crosses the boundary between you and states the other is wrong. For them to state you are wrong, they have to be able to weigh the evidence you have. Since much is subjective, they cannot do so - hence no further rational progress can be made.

A simplified version of the above, somewhere on www.infidels.org,[/URL] basically paraphrases the above in the context of belief - i.e. it is entirely possible for someone to believe in god because of evidence they experienced subjectively. No rational argument can say they are incorrect, without being able to demonstrate the subjective experience was of a mundane source - which is virtually impossible, without access to blood tests and the detection of certain drugs.

By the same reasoning, the believer, no matter how certain, cannot rationally say the unbeliever is incorrect then back it up rationally - being the unbeliever doesn't have access to what the believer accepts to be evidence.

[quote][b]
And yet even in trying to define the "objective reality," it can only be understood -- and hence conveyed -- by subjective means.
[/b][/quote]

But part of that definition includes 'that which is generally agreed upon'. W/o question it requires being filtered thru the subjective, that's just the way of things. I'm not certain of the conflict here.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by radagast
The above is an argument flaw. Argumentum ad novitatem. The argument that newer ideas are better or more valid than old is a logical flaw, when used in debate.

Yep, you got me there...but I was only using it to counter his argument in the opposite direction. I should have said that old ideas don't get any points for being old, and left it at that.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Yep, you got me there...but I was only using it to counter his argument in the opposite direction. I should have said that old ideas don't get any points for being old, and left it at that.

Except for the fact that there must have been an "acceptable" reason for it existing in the first place.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except for the fact that there must have been an "acceptable" reason for it existing in the first place.

Yep. The psychology of ignorant people.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
By the same reasoning, the believer, no matter how certain, cannot rationally say the unbeliever is incorrect then back it up rationally - being the unbeliever doesn't have access to what the believer accepts to be evidence.

This is why I typically use the word believe, because I don't expect the other person to understand it, unless of course they can see it for themselves. But then there are times, particularly when dealing with obstinate people, that it comes time to up the ante, and say, deal with that ... At least it might get them to think about it a little.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero
Yep. The psychology of ignorant people.

While I understand your feelings and I have no belief in a diety, you haven't experienced the things they have. Referring to believers as ignorant is unjust at best, and abusive at worst.

It is extremely easy to fall into the trap of feeling that someone with a contrary point of view is not just accepting something different, but trying to tell us that we are wrong (unlike saying that they believe we are wrong). It can end up with both parties arguing from a point of view that they are defending themselves - a little ironic to say the least -, and often starts to generate frustration and anger. To allow this emotion to let insults and spite slip into the discussion, reduces a rational debate to simple name calling and venting of anger.

This is not productive. If I need to feel my anger emotionally manipulated, I'll watch the WWF or a soap opera.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
This is why I typically use the word believe, because I don't expect the other person to understand it, unless of course they can see it for themselves. But then there are times, particularly when dealing with obstinate people, that it comes time to up the ante, and say, deal with that ... At least it might get them to think about it a little.

I understand you feelings, but I suspect that when you 'up the ante', you are triggering defensive mechanisms that will do a lot more to prevent them from actually thinking about it, than thinking about it. While it may feel better emotionally, it will, IMO, likely lead to two iron-clad camps, neither of which will budge in their views. Just something to think about.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
I understand you feelings, but I suspect that when you 'up the ante', you are triggering defensive mechanisms that will do a lot more to prevent them from actually thinking about it, than thinking about it. While it may feel better emotionally, it will, IMO, likely lead to two iron-clad camps, neither of which will budge in their views. Just something to think about.

And yet if it weren't for the fact that I've had an "original experience," I probably wouldn't be talking about it.

 

[Royce]

Yet, because they have not had such an experience, they call us ignorant. This reveals their ignorance far more that it effects our personal knowledge. Go figure.
We've been here before my friend. Good luck.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Royce
Yet, because they have not had such an experience, they call us ignorant. This reveals their ignorance far more that it effects our personal knowledge. Go figure.
We've been here before my friend. Good luck.

Who is they?

I don't have a belief in dietie(s), and I haven't called anyone ignorant.

It is all too easy to get into the trap of both parties in a debate percieving an attack from the other party, usually because emotions and frustrations started rising, leading to statements that are overly broad - as in 'they call us ignorant'. This, if unchecked, will cause the discussion to denigrate into name calling and entrenched positions.

I suspect I've experienced some of the things you may have, if you also include 'being saved' as one of them. My interpretation of the experience has changed, since. That doesn't mean I denigrate those I disagree with, nor try to change them. Two people can see the same data and come to completely different logical conclusions. We all bring a set of unacknowledged assumptions to the party.

That said, when flat statements of 'Truth' [and I want to emphasize the quotations] is made, it is easily seen as an attack by those who do not share the acceptance of 'said' truth.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Who is they?

I don't have a belief in dietie(s), and I haven't called anyone ignorant.

No, I think he was referring to Zero's post, which you just replied to a few posts back.

 

[Royce]

Glenn, I was replying to Zero's post not yours. Nor did I mean any offense. You are relatively new to PF, Iacchus32 and I have been here a bit longer. Discussions of this type have been going on since I found these forums back in March. I am sure that they had being going on much longer before I got here. "They" are those whom I've come to call scientific objective realist who typically attack any beliefs other than those "proven facts" of science and ridicule and those who believe in them.
You are right of course in all that you say. I meant it in more in humor than derision. We have been here before facing the same type of stone wall complete with spikes and broken glass on top.
A voice of reason and open mindedness is quite rare and unexpected. We have, I'm afraid, forgotten how to respond to such reason and openness.
I apolagize for the misunderstanding. I respect you wrinting and thoughts too much to intentional offend or call names.
We do not always agree in out thoughts but I have not found any occation to disagree.

Zero on occation likes to play the devils advocate and rabbel rouser.

 

[pace]

B. Spinoza's take from his book 'Ethics':


Explanations:

* By absurd I understand by him something that is almost as untrue as you can come.

* The chapters in the book is: Of God(I), Of the Mind(II), Of the Affects(III), Of Human Bondage(IV), and Of Human Freedom or the Power of the Intellect (V).
So: (IIIP= (III=Chapter 3, Of the Affects) + P= Proposition)
I.e. IIIP7=Chapter 3, Proposition 7. If only 'P' is mentioned, then Proposition is from the same chapter)

* NS= A previous version of translation from latin, but it is controversial


* If 'Or' is marked as 'or' it means 'or/and', as in something that is equivalent, not as alternative.

* 'q.e.d.' = 'And thus it is proven'

If you want some info on the other P's or A's (Propositions or Axioms), what they say, just ask. It helps me remember the book better writing it down, besides my sucky languages skills

Below is written directly from english to here, so it's no translation faults from me.

Ethics:

IP15:Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God.
-Dem.: Except for God, there neither is, nor can be conceived, any substance (by P14), that is (by D3), thing that is in itself and is conceived through itself. But modes (by D5) can neither be nor be conceived without substance. So they can be in the divine nature alone, and can be conceived through it alone. But except for substances and modes there is nothing (by A1). Therefore, [NS: everything is in God] nothing can be or be conceived without God, q.e.d.
-Schol.: [I.] There are those who feign a God, like man, consisting of a body and a mind, and subject to passions. But how far they wander from the true knowledge from God, is suffieciently established by what has already been demonstrated. Them I dismiss. For everyone who has to any extent contemplated the divine nature denies that God is corporeal. They prove this best from the fact that by body we understand any quantity, with lenght, breadth, and depth, limited by some certain figure. Nothing more absurd than this can be said of God, namely, of a being absolutely infinite. But meanwhile, by the other arguments by which they strive to demonstrate this same conclusion they clearly show thay they entirely remove corporeal, or extended, substance itself from the divine nature. And they maintain that it's been created by God. But by what divine power could it be created ? They are completely ignorant of that. And this shows clearly that they do not understand what they themselves say. At any rate, I have demonstrated clearly enough - in my judgement, at least - that no substance can be produced or be created by another thing (see P6C and P8S2). Next we have shown (P14) that except for God, no substance can either be or be conceived, and hence [in P14C2] we have concluded that extended substance is one of God's infinite attributes. But to provide a fuller explanation, I shall refute my opponents arguments, which all reduce to these.
-- [II.] First, they think that corporeal substance, insofar as it is substance, consists of parts. And therefore they deny that it can be infinite, and consequently, that it can be pertain to God. They explain this by many examples, of which I shall mention one or two.
---[1] If corporeal substance is infinite, they say, let us coneive it to be divided in two parts. Each part will be either finite or infinite. If the former, then an infinite is composed of two finite parts, which is absurd. If the latter [NS: i.e., if each part is infinite], then there is one infinite twice as large as another, which is also absurd. [2] Again, if an infinite quantity is measured by parts [each] equal to a foot, it will consist of infinitely many such parts, as it will also, if it is measured by parts [each] equal to an inch. And therefore, one infinite number will be twelve times greater than another[NS: which is no less absurd]. [3] Finaly, if we conceive that from one point of a certain infinite quantity two lines, say AB and AC, are extended to infinity, it is certain that, although in the beginning there are certain, determine distance apart, the distance between B and C is continuously increased, and at last, from being determinate, it will become indeterminable. Since these absurdities follow - so they think - from the fact that an infinite quantity is supposed, they infer that corporeal substance must be infinite, and consequantly cannot pertain God's essence.
---[III.] Their second argument is also drawn from God's supreme perfection. For God, they say, since he is a supremely perfect being, cannot be acted on. But corporeal substance, since it is divisible, can be acted on. It follows, therefore, that it does not pertain to God's essence.
--[IV.] There are arguments which I find Authors using, to try to show that corporeal substance is unworthy to the divine nature, and cannot pertain to it. But anyone who is properly attentive will find that I have already replied to them, since these arguments are founded only on their supposition that corporeal substance is composed of parts, which I have already (by P12 and P13C) shown to be absurd. And then anyone who wishes to consider the matter rightly will see that all those absurdities (if indeed they are all absurd, which I am not now disputing), from which they wish to infer that extended substance is finite, do not follow at all from the fact that an infinite quantity is supposed, but from the fact that they suppose an infinite quantity to be measurable and composed of finite parts. So from the absurdities which follow from that they can infer only that infinite quantity is not measurable, and that it is not composed of finite parts. This is the same thing we have already demonstrated above (P12, etc.). So the weapon they aim at us, they really turn against themselves. If, therefore, they still wish to infer from this absurdity of theirs that extended substance must be finite, they are indeed doing nothing more than if someone feigned that a circle has the properties of a square, and inferred from that the circle has no center, from which all lines drawn to the circumference are equal. For corporeal substance, which cannot be conceived except as infinite, unique, and indivisable (see P8, 4, and 12), they conceivve to be composed of finite parts, to be many, and to be divisable, in order to infer that it is finite.
-- So also others, after they feign is composed of points, know how to invent many arguments, by which they show that a line cannot be divided to infinity. And indeed it is no less aburd to assert that corporeal substance is composed of bodies, or parts, than that a body is composed of surfaces, the surfaces of lines, and the lines, finally, of points. All those who know that clear reason is infallible must confess this - particularly those who deny that there is a vacuum. For if corporeal substance could be so divided that its parts where really distinct, why, then, could one part not be annihilated, the rest remaining connected with one another as before? And why must they all be so fitted together that there is no vacuum? Truly, of things which are really distinct from one another, one can be, and remain in its condition, without the other. Since, therefore, there is no vacuum in Nature (a subject I discuss elsewhere), but all its parts must so concur that there is no vacuum, it follows also that they cannot be really distinguished, that is, that corporeal substance, insofar as it is a substance, cannot be divided.
--- [V.] If someone should now ask why we are, by nature, so inclined to divide quantity, I shall answer that we conceive quantity in two ways: abstractly, or superficially, as we [NS: commonly] imagine it, or as substance, which is done by the intellect alone [NS: without the help of the imagination]. So if we attend to quantity as it is in the imagination, which we do often and more easily, it will be found to be finite, divisible, and composed of parts; but if we attend to it as it is in the intellect, and conceive it insofar as it is a substance, which happens [NS: seldom and] with great difficulty, then (as we have already sufficiently demonstrated) it will be found to be infinite, unique, and indivisable.
-- This will be sufficiently plain to everyone who knows how to distinguish between the intellect and the imagination - particularly if it is also noted that matter is everywhere the same, and that parts are distinguished in it only insofar as we conceive matter to be affected in different ways, so that its parts are distinguished only modally, but not really.
- For example, we conceive that water is divided and its parts separated from one another - insofar as it is water, but not insofar as it is corporeal substance. For insofar as it is substance, it is neither separated nor divided. Again, water, insofar as it is water, is generated and corrupted, but insofar as it is substance, it is neither generated nor corrupted.
---- [VI.] And with this I think I have replied to the second argument also, since it is based on the supposition that matter, insofar as it is substance, is divisible, and composed of parts. Even if this [reply] were not [sufficient], I do not know why [matter] would be unworthy of the divine nature. For (by P14) apart from God there can be no substance by which [the divine nature] would be acted upon. All things, I say, are in God, and all things that happen, happen only through the laws of God's infinite nature and follow (as I shall show) from the necessity of his essence. So it cannot be said in any way that God is acted on by another, or that extended substance is unworthy of the divine nature, even if it is supposed to be divisible, so long as it is granted to be eternal and infinite. But enough of this for the present.

 

[TENYEARS]

Zero, to your response:

What makes you think anyone knows anything. I witness on a daily basis that they do not know what they know they believe or they do not believe. So you tell me that Joe blow scientist says whatever and 50 idiots nod there heads suddenly ah yes. Now we know. No you believe. What has changed.

I am not debating god here I am debating the word know. And that is the difference between englightenment and not. Knowing you don't know and only then can knowing occur.

If you have a glass filled with belief how do you have room for what there really is. If it is belief and you are content with that what will really happen when the metal is tested?

Tell me this zero or anyone. What will happen if tomarrow some science figure says yep we didn't understand before but it's real. What would you say on this forum then or anywhere else. Yep I belive. What has changed?