Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Atheists don't say that. And they argue that God cannot be “seen” not only by sight, but also by other sense organs or devices.�
In general, this idea was most successfully formulated(at least, it is believed) by Laplace: “I do not need this hypothesis.” That is, the existence of God will not change anything in the picture of the world. That is, it is an extra entity and an untenable hypothesis
Because they are established experimentally or derived according to the rules of strict mathematics. And most importantly, they can be tested experimentally at any time. Take, for example, an electron. No one has ever seen it with their own eyes (the maximum that we have is a photo of a separate and rather large atom). But all our knowledge about it is obtained on the basis of experiments and has been repeatedly tested. They are described by mathematical equations, which eliminates ambiguity of interpretation. As a result, we are absolutely sure of how the electron will behave under certain conditions. We can calculate this theoretically and test it practically.
But the existence of God cannot be verified strictly and experimentally at all. So that the instruments – and not the changing human psyche-record: here he is, God. It cannot be described by a mathematical formula or system of equations. Its existence and supposed actions of believers are beyond prediction. As a result, we don't have any scientific tool at all to confirm its existence. No strictly scientific properties of God can be established in order to say anything about him.
Atheists do not claim that God cannot be seen (although this is also true), they believe that there is no convincing evidence of the existence of God at the moment, so you can judge the absurdity of religions.
Although, if you do not delve into the meaning and syntax of the question, you can say that the laws of nature can be seen.�
Have you ever seen rain? And the tides? Change of day and night? Clouds, wind, storms? Have you watched other living things? If so , you've seen the laws of nature.
And in the end, even the author of this question (whose existence can be judged by the existence of the question itself) is the most obvious example of the power of nature.
The fact that we now live with you, friends, and are aware of ourselves, have food needs and sexual desires (read-the instinct of reproduction), can already be considered evidence of the existence of the laws of nature.�
Hail, Darwin!
Anatoly Skvortsov you are mistaken. Atheists claim that there is no God, so it is impossible to confirm his existence. And any of the physical laws is possible. Science has not found a single proof of the existence of God.
You know, this isn't about statements at all. The question of the existence or non-existence of God is not a scientific one, because it is impossible to prove either. Therefore, it is somewhat unwise to say anything harshly about whether there is a God or not, and even more so, to seriously argue about it. It's a matter of faith. Atheists believe that they do not need to believe in God to live in this world, and believers believe that it is necessary – only that. This is not justified or argued by either side in any way, and if it is argued, then all these arguments are unconvincing: some simply believe in God, while others do not. And there is nothing else to do in this matter: just everyone is free to choose which position is closer to him and it is not necessary to convince someone of his rightness or try to forcibly attract to his side – this is just an attempt to psychologically put pressure on the interlocutor, subordinate him to his will, assert himself at his expense, etc. Yes, if a person asks why you believe in God (or not), then you can explain your position, but no more. Let's leave it to everyone to make their own choices and respect what that person has chosen, even if we don't believe what they believe. Now for the second part of the question. What you have called the laws of nature are really just generalized and meaningful results of numerous and diverse observations, as well as models built on the basis of these observations and tested experimentally. Hence, it is clear that the existence of these very laws of nature is obvious, because they are based on real observations. I.e., the thesis that they are “physically impossible to see” is simply incorrect. On the contrary, it is by making physical observations that we find patterns that we call “laws of nature.”
And you have noticed ,citizens, that God is not only in our (African) image and likeness, but also with our passions and weaknesses. Someone loves, someone punishes, someone takes revenge, begets sons. So this phrase about the image and likeness of God is logical in this interpretation: and people created God in their own image and likeness.
The laws of nature are some regularities in the phenomena of nature. For example, the law of universal gravitation says that all material bodies in the universe are attracted. This pattern can be seen, felt, measured, and registered with instruments. But God cannot be seen, measured, or registered with instruments. Patterns in nature can be investigated, the causes understood, and reduced to deeper patterns. But how do you explore, understand, and reduce God to something simpler? Therefore, God is not a material body, a process, a pattern. It can only be a fiction.
Atheists say that there is no God, because it is possible to logically justify the reason for a person's belief in an omnipotent mythical being. Brownies, gods, Santa Claus and others. And then it becomes clear how faith in the gods appears and what psychological processes justify this. And it is quite clear the purpose and reasons for the emergence of religious organizations and why they did not even pay taxes in the Middle Ages. And when everything falls into place, it is obvious that there is no place for One person, otherwise the whole scheme would fall apart. More precisely, if It existed, there would be no religion, because then there would be no sense in it. There are also religions that are based on the teachings and do not claim the existence of gods. Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, etc.
If anything, we are talking about the very first and only god Ahuramazda, and not about Abraham and others. And we are talking about the Egyptian religion about the pantheon and Ra, and not about any other. There, the Pharaoh was considered a descendant of god. And over time, the sons of the gods crushed something. So if you don't believe in Ahuramazd and Ra – you are an atheist, congratulations.
Judging the existence of something only on the basis of its physical visibility with the eyes is a primitive level. If you ask such a question, then you have reached the next one. But atheists do not slumber, many of them are also at a higher theoretical level. And they reason like this: invisible entities manifest themselves somehow logically, so we can confirm from their manifestations that some entity exists. For example, we have formulated a law and see if it is fulfilled: if so, we consider it a real entity, although no material object corresponds to it. The problem with God here arises only from the fact that the hypothesis of God is formulated by everyone according to subjective arbitrariness, everyone understands It as they please, and it is problematic to come to a consensus here in itself, especially between believers and non-believers. For example, someone suggests that if there is a God, then money should materialize in response to prayer-conducts an ” experiment “and makes a” conclusion ” that It does not exist. Proving to him that such an experiment was stupid is a problem in itself. And the analysis of such nonsense is the main content of near-religious sracha.
It is quite possible to see God. In yourself, in the world around you. The body of God is our universe. And in every creation there is a part of God. In man, it is conscience. And the laws of nature are a manifestation of the same God.
A person sees at most five percent of what surrounds us. Just because we don't know or see something doesn't mean it isn't there. And if there is a law, then there is also a legislator, who is also the creator and judge.
Not true. You attribute to atheists your own completely illiterate notion of atheism
In fact, the main idea of atheists is that there is no unambiguous evidence of the existence of God or his participation in earthly affairs
And then-simple logic. If there is no such evidence, why introduce a new entity that explains absolutely nothing in the observed picture of the world? The answer is no.
Мikhail Besfamilnyi :”The laws of nature”are properties”. The question is: why do you have the combination of words” laws of nature” enclosed in quotation marks? Agree, here you have a clear ambiguity: either you deny the existence of the necessities(laws) of nature, which contradicts the reference to the device(tester), with which you learn the properties of the material world(nature), or you recognize the reflection in consciousness of only an idea, i.e. a copy of the object, with the essence of which you have not decided(i.e. the laws of nature are the necessities of the material world-matter, or they are reflections of the idea of matter, because there is visible matter for you). If the laws of nature are properties(attributes) , then the properties(attributes) of what object(what entity)?- of matter or idea (i.e.,e. divine providence, “providence”).It is with the purpose of revealing the essence and form of being (i.e., the nature of the manifestation of the laws of nature: are they material or ideal(disembodied), that the author asked the question.Laws of nature-ways of existence of nature ,in which it manifests its properties in the forms of its movement.In its movement through time and space, which are the forms of existence of nature(matter), from one point to another, and it is on this philosophical distinction that all natural science and its theories stand, as well as the use of devices ( a tester in this case, the design of which is based on the particular principle of determining the difference in the amount of электричества electricity (electrons) at two levels of the state of this form of motion of matter).Therefore, if God is visible and exists in a corporeal or ideal form, then he must manifest himself in motion, in time, and in space.It must also be simultaneously � “in itself”, i.e. to be a movement, space and time that are in unity, and to have an internal source of development-opposites that nature itself possesses.If he is more powerful and superior to nature, he must show proof of it.If it exists in the form of universal universal love on the one hand, what is the opposite of its existence on the other?
Everything is much simpler: believers in nothing are just sick, blind freaks. Due to their genetic limitations, they are not physically able to see the beauty and complexity of the World around them, and, accordingly, to know the universe. Real scientists understand and know everything.
Who, mentally retarded, can believe that something arises out of nothing?
Atheists don't say that. Most modern atheists claim that God cannot be known by the methods of scientific knowledge. So they don't believe in Its existence.
It is useless to try to convince an atheist of the existence of God, because they are not looking for the true meaning of life … so the spirit of God stays away from their hardened hearts. Their anger is their reaction to a God they don't want to know or discover in their lives. Consequently, they remain spiritually dead and cannot experience all the amazing power and beauty of their creator until they decide to seek him with all their heart. It has been said that our God is a jealous God and will not be replaced by any other gods, whether human, materialistic or imaginary. God stays away from the hearts that reject him, and he is not accountable to anyone. Life on earth is a test to see if we deserve to live with him forever or not.
If you put the question correctly, you can search for the answer. Our ancestors attributed all their unconscious natural phenomena to many gods or one Creator, because they lost the ability to communicate with Him (godlike). Contemporaries seek and find explanations for many phenomena and laws of nature, but they cannot understand and explain everything. Because our abilities do not yet allow us to “embrace the vast.”
God is the Law-Logos… We do not see only the part of matter that our senses can perceive, but the invisible part is also there. If you train your eyes, you can see part of the invisible spectrum of light. If you train your hearing, you can hear the infra and ultra sound. We can also train those abilities that we lost along with the likeness of God, which will allow us to “move the mountain” and communicate with God, becoming prophets (pioneers). The possibility of reaching such heights is confirmed by the experience of our ancestors and transmitted in the Holy Scriptures. One can imagine our attitude to the magnetic field, if there were no discoveries of scientists, teaching physics and technology based on them. Similarly, the attitude towards God is manifested: Instead of research, there is a distortion of information about His nature – the Torah, the Gospel, the Koran. All knowledge of the laws of nature is used by man not only to improve, but also to destroy humanity. If we master the laws of the universe without understanding God, we will destroy ourselves…
), Good day to all. I would like to explain it to those who are really looking for the truth and can't find it. Physics, in principle, cannot prove the existence of the Creator because it is not its task. Physics studies matter and its properties, and the Creator is not matter, not a body, and is not described by the qualities of the created. It's like trying to hear with your eyes, for example. Space and time are created things, everything created has a beginning, and the Creator has no beginning, i.e. He is Beginningless. The same goes for location. It does not include 6 directions (top, bottom, right, left, right, back) because there were no directions, but the Creator always was. How It exists, we do not know, because man is a weak creature, just as we cannot “measure” our soul. But isn't there a difference between a dead body and a living person?! So what does the existence of a Single Creator – this world-prove to us? For in order for something commensurate to appear, there must be Someone who created it. A house cannot arise on a vacant lot by itself, money from an atheist's pocket cannot disappear by itself, just as it cannot “form” there by itself )) The big Bang theory doesn't prove anything, if you blow up a pile of metal, for example, it will never form the Eiffel Tower itself. The belief that the substance of non-existence blinded itself out of nothing, and even so complex and harmonious is a complete absurdity! I wish you all peace and good)
Another provocative throw-in of another verun. What is the difference between a believer and a believer: a believer calmly believes in himself, quietly and peacefully, without imposing his faith on anyone. Verun, on the other hand, is shaking in a fever of hatred for the damned atheists and a desire to persuade, to show off. Similarly, atheists differ from amethysts