Does intuition favor God's existence?

[odeon]

"It just happened" is a poor explanation. It actually requires more explanation than "we don't know the reason yet".

[midlifeaspie]

I see double standard in your post.

If "it just happened" doesn't need an explanation, then neither should "God did it". Because God, by definition, just is and just does.

You can't make the former valid without the need for an explanation while the other one with a need for one.

This requires a base acceptance of the existence of such a thing.

I could also say that "floxflap", by definition, just is and does and therefore the simplest explanation of the universe is "floxflap".  Does that make sense to you?

[Scrapheap]

Both are bare assertion fallacies of logic.

That's the point, mate.

Yes, but one is a viloation of Occam's razor and one isn't because initially, god is undefined. Having to then explain god is when the violation occurs.

[Calavera]

I see double standard in your post.

If "it just happened" doesn't need an explanation, then neither should "God did it". Because God, by definition, just is and just does.

You can't make the former valid without the need for an explanation while the other one with a need for one.

This requires a base acceptance of the existence of such a thing.

I could also say that "floxflap", by definition, just is and does and therefore the simplest explanation of the universe is "floxflap".  Does that make sense to you?

But that's what many people call "God" in most cases. God is the entity that's unexplainable but that simply is and that simply made this universe. It's not an argument that's evidence for God at all, but your argument does seem to be an argument of semantics.

['Butterflies']

I see double standard in your post.

If "it just happened" doesn't need an explanation, then neither should "God did it". Because God, by definition, just is and just does.

You can't make the former valid without the need for an explanation while the other one with a need for one.

This requires a base acceptance of the existence of such a thing.

I could also say that "floxflap", by definition, just is and does and therefore the simplest explanation of the universe is "floxflap".  Does that make sense to you?

But that's what many people call "God" in most cases. God is the entity that's unexplainable but that simply is and that simply made this universe. It's not an argument that's evidence for God at all, but your argument does seem to be an argument of semantics.

What do you believe God is?

[Calavera]

I see double standard in your post.

If "it just happened" doesn't need an explanation, then neither should "God did it". Because God, by definition, just is and just does.

You can't make the former valid without the need for an explanation while the other one with a need for one.

This requires a base acceptance of the existence of such a thing.

I could also say that "floxflap", by definition, just is and does and therefore the simplest explanation of the universe is "floxflap".  Does that make sense to you?

But that's what many people call "God" in most cases. God is the entity that's unexplainable but that simply is and that simply made this universe. It's not an argument that's evidence for God at all, but your argument does seem to be an argument of semantics.

What do you believe God is?

If you mean according to my deist belief, an incomprehensible entity that has unlimited powers to do anything that can be done with unlimited powers.

If you mean what God is like, it depends on one's belief. But when one mentions God the Creator, then there is a common definition for that Creator, which is that he is and, therefore, he did and, therefore, we are. That's what the Creator is by definition. To create is to make something exist out of nothing.

['Butterflies']

I see double standard in your post.

If "it just happened" doesn't need an explanation, then neither should "God did it". Because God, by definition, just is and just does.

You can't make the former valid without the need for an explanation while the other one with a need for one.

This requires a base acceptance of the existence of such a thing.

I could also say that "floxflap", by definition, just is and does and therefore the simplest explanation of the universe is "floxflap".  Does that make sense to you?

But that's what many people call "God" in most cases. God is the entity that's unexplainable but that simply is and that simply made this universe. It's not an argument that's evidence for God at all, but your argument does seem to be an argument of semantics.

What do you believe God is?

If you mean according to my deist belief, an incomprehensible entity that has unlimited powers to do anything that can be done with unlimited powers.

If you mean what God is like, it depends on one's belief. But when one mentions God the Creator, then there is a common definition for that Creator, which is that he is and, therefore, he did and, therefore, we are. That's what the Creator is by definition. To create is to make something exist out of nothing.

So you believe that he's a concious being?

[Calavera]

I see double standard in your post.

If "it just happened" doesn't need an explanation, then neither should "God did it". Because God, by definition, just is and just does.

You can't make the former valid without the need for an explanation while the other one with a need for one.

This requires a base acceptance of the existence of such a thing.

I could also say that "floxflap", by definition, just is and does and therefore the simplest explanation of the universe is "floxflap".  Does that make sense to you?

But that's what many people call "God" in most cases. God is the entity that's unexplainable but that simply is and that simply made this universe. It's not an argument that's evidence for God at all, but your argument does seem to be an argument of semantics.

What do you believe God is?

If you mean according to my deist belief, an incomprehensible entity that has unlimited powers to do anything that can be done with unlimited powers.

If you mean what God is like, it depends on one's belief. But when one mentions God the Creator, then there is a common definition for that Creator, which is that he is and, therefore, he did and, therefore, we are. That's what the Creator is by definition. To create is to make something exist out of nothing.

So you believe that he's a concious being?

Yes, God is a sentient being to me.

[midlifeaspie]

I see double standard in your post.

If "it just happened" doesn't need an explanation, then neither should "God did it". Because God, by definition, just is and just does.

You can't make the former valid without the need for an explanation while the other one with a need for one.

This requires a base acceptance of the existence of such a thing.

I could also say that "floxflap", by definition, just is and does and therefore the simplest explanation of the universe is "floxflap".  Does that make sense to you?

But that's what many people call "God" in most cases. God is the entity that's unexplainable but that simply is and that simply made this universe. It's not an argument that's evidence for God at all, but your argument does seem to be an argument of semantics.

What do you believe God is?

If you mean according to my deist belief, an incomprehensible entity that has unlimited powers to do anything that can be done with unlimited powers.

If you mean what God is like, it depends on one's belief. But when one mentions God the Creator, then there is a common definition for that Creator, which is that he is and, therefore, he did and, therefore, we are. That's what the Creator is by definition. To create is to make something exist out of nothing.

So you believe that he's a concious being?

Yes, God is a sentient being to me.

That you don't know if you believe in.  He has a lot of defined characteristics for something you are on the fence about.

['Butterflies']

You obviously know a lot about this subject, and I know next to nothing, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance, but there's a couple of things that I don't understand about deism.

A Christian or Muslim has the bible and koran as "proof" of their belief. If you, as a deist disregard those pieces of evidence, then what evidence do you base your belief on? Is it based purely on intuition, or is there more to it?

Also, if you find it hard to believe that the universe was created out of almost nothing, then how is it easier to believe that God was created from nothing?

[Calavera]

That you don't know if you believe in.  He has a lot of defined characteristics for something you are on the fence about.

Never said I don't know if I believe in God. I don't know if what I believe in exists is what my claim was.

[Calavera]

You obviously know a lot about this subject, and I know next to nothing, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance, but there's a couple of things that I don't understand about deism.

It's ok. There's no prerequisite course to understand deism anyway.

A Christian or Muslim has the bible and koran as "proof" of their belief. If you, as a deist disregard those pieces of evidence, then what evidence do you base your belief on? Is it based purely on intuition, or is there more to it?

My evidence (although very weak) is intuition and that it's a better explanation to me thus far for the existence of the universe than "it just happened".

Also, if you find it hard to believe that the universe was created out of almost nothing, then how is it easier to believe that God was created from nothing?

Because it makes better sense to me for sentience to bring forth what's not sentient than to say that the universe just came into existence from basically nothing.

And I don't believe God was created.

[Osensitive1]

I don't know if what I believe in exists

This reminds me of the point I made of everyone. Maybe better said as you don't claim to know. That's pretty freaking agnostic. Deist.

['Butterflies']

You obviously know a lot about this subject, and I know next to nothing, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance, but there's a couple of things that I don't understand about deism.

It's ok. There's no prerequisite course to understand deism anyway.

A Christian or Muslim has the bible and koran as "proof" of their belief. If you, as a deist disregard those pieces of evidence, then what evidence do you base your belief on? Is it based purely on intuition, or is there more to it?

My evidence (although very weak) is intuition and that it's a better explanation to me thus far for the existence of the universe than "it just happened".

Also, if you find it hard to believe that the universe was created out of almost nothing, then how is it easier to believe that God was created from nothing?

Because it makes better sense to me for sentience to bring forth what's not sentient than to say that the universe just came into existence from basically nothing.

And I don't believe God was created.

I have to admit, I've always at the back of my mind, had a funny thought that we are all in a giant super advanced computer, and "God" is some fat spotty dude playing a super advanced game of "The Sims"

And, before anyone dogpiles me. It's not a genuine belief Although I have never been able to totally disprove it to myself.

[Calavera]

I don't know if what I believe in exists

This reminds me of the point I made of everyone. Maybe better said as you don't claim to know. That's pretty freaking agnostic. Deist.

Was that you swearing just there?

By the way, I can know that I and others exist because we have strong evidence that shows us we do. Can't say the same for God.