2., The Cosmological god argument.
Reasonable, that for everything which we see in the world, he has a reason, and further back and we move further back in the chain of the reasons, finally we have to get to the primary reason -- this first reason --, and for this The God name we get it.
Refutation: Russel (Google)
If we understand that himself is a god the reason, the question turns into meaningless one then, - Who created it how god? (s.k.)
GOD ARGUMENTS I.
1., The Ontology god argument.
"The ontology used in connection with the artificial intelligence word altogether not unambiguous, but very debated expression. tn The philosophy it is used for a long time already, the existence marks his topic there.
Canterboryi Anzelm (1033-1109) his god argument, sounds in this manner:
Let us imagine a being, who is more perfect, everything else conceivable being. Has to be our concept if we understand this sentence from a being like this, the sentence would be incomprehensible otherwise. This being, which we imagined, - enter sporting event B - , only than an idea exists? No. If since B does not exist, we can imagine a more perfect being then, namely an one like that, than B, but who exists actually moreover. Because of this for that assumption, that B only an idea, has to be false, because we would be able to imagine an even more perfect being if he would be true, he is what would contradict for our hypothesis. B so exists, and he the person who we call a god.
Refutation: from Kant in 1781 (Google)."
In the on-line Bible (Károli translation), onto the perfect expression 101 hits appear. Comparing Newworld prepared translation based on the original Hebrew documents (Jehova's witness publication), In 29 Bible poems can be found the perfect one, you are its some kind of form. From the 29 hits: 10 show signs of a direct god in a case, in 7 cases on an indirect manner indicating a god, in 4 cases onto Jesus indicate, in 1 case from the Satan pointed. In 3 cases in cities' concern (Jerusalem, Tirus), and in 4 cases so human, and onto physical things indicate, that may not do perfect one. We may manage to get through the Bible into a god's neighbourhood, and if we obtain proper knowledge, we do not have need then onto the illusion, onto delusion. The ban prevents much from this of course, banned = banned god from our life (s.k.). see it "The God arguments II." on a side
3., The argument of the Natural laws.
"An argument was most popular the XVIII. in a century, particularly Sir Isaac Newton and on the time of his cosmogony. The people observed that the planets circulate according to the law of the gravitation around the day, and they reckoned that the planets move onto a god's command punctually on this manner.
Refutation: Russel (Google)"
The systems, they work based on the necessities created by the god in that manner, they have to work , the scripture (Moses 1. book, 1. chapter 2. poem) his front gives some footing in this look:
"The land at this time yet desolate and was sheer, and the depth was darkness on the colour of waters. And a god's active strength floated above the waters." - A god does not mention the time of the universe's creation with a word, his manner. Is about the previous phases of the creation tangentially only later ("Takes the army of the stars into consideration, one and all calls it by their name" - "Where you were when I had a basis regarded as the land?" - "Tell me it if you know it, we the sense?"). How could we understand creating the universe when we are not with that of the land in clear one? We make it ridiculous one, and banned god from our life! I reckon that he is the substance onto his intelligence truth refer, again only a loophole for them, they are who want to contradict. The Bible reports so much about the creation, which is necessary inevitably.
Does the man want to prove himself? Is searching, well, makes guesses. Apparently, these things do not jeopardize the existence, but it is not made better one. Good entertainment, pastime for some other individuals who are unfit for an activity. Play between each other, dissertations are written, each other are rewarded: Steve is well, you do not have a big head. Go into the shop, and buy 20 pounds of potato in your cap. An well profitable, parasitism without responsibility, kindergarten for adults. (s.k.)
4., The argument of the Plan.
"Everything is created in that manner on the world, that let us be allowed to live in this world, and if he is the world only an entirely tiny one would be something else, we could not live it already in him then.
Refutation: Russel;
We understand it in much better one since Darwin, why and how the living beings adapted to their environment. Their environment was not formed one like that, that let him be an equivalent for them, but they adjusted to their environment, and this adaption his basis."
The above refutation dived already in the man's case! Ravages, pollutes his environment! Certainly many people we were audible, we read from that direction, that the rules holding the world, with what kind of thorough care necessities are portrayed: for example: the distance of planets, his mass, gravitation, the tilt angle of an axis and the additional effects stemming from these: radiation, energy, hot, light, etc. why this precision was necessary on butter? Because they are us people, we can live in this manner only! So plain, not? Sober, peasant reason. Who does not believe it let him be due after. (s.k.)
5., Moral arguments beside a god's existence.
"Would not be good on the world and bad, if he would not be a god.
Refutation: Russel
Not deal now with it, there is a difference good and between bad one, or is not -- this somebody else question. I would bring up the successor rather: If we are sure that there is a difference in him good and between bad one, we have to ask it immediately then: this difference onto a god's provision came onto existence, or not? If he is a god onto his provision came onto existence, there is not a difference for a god then good and between bad one, and this is not in a case his sense to say that a god is good. If we say it, that the theologians, that god good, this means it necessarily then, that for the good one and the bad one's role is independent of a some kind of god's provision, since a god's provisions good, not though bad; independently from that fact, that all gods' creation. This means that he is the good one anyway though and the bad one not came by way of a god merely onto existence, but according to their essence anyway it is preceded logically god."
Let us reverse the direction: on the world (on land) nothing would be bad, if he would not be a man. Moses 1. book, 3. chapter 22. poem:
"..., Now, the man has become like one of us, having knowledge of good and evil; and now." - this turned into obvious one in the moment of the rebellion when the hand tore the fruit on the tree off, and the mouth bit into it. In the earthly creation, from this moment we may talk about his bad appearance. And as soon as we may find it out from the Bible, this outrage began in the daughter-in-law. Although we may be looking for an explanation, loophole, we may make excuses, than Eve: "The snake leaded to a half because of that I ate." and Adam made it: "The woman, who beside me gave, he given . We make the same one today, than once our we first parents: we rebel against a god, we collect all bad one onto him, we dream up devious arguments, that may banned he our life from all of his areas , and if something is bad happens, from one stinging then we accuse it, for a killer, we call it evil. The trouble only it, that this bout has a serious stake, and the today's position of the things shows it: we may be the losers of this duel only. What prevents us from thinking on butter? (s.k.)
GOD I.
6., The argument of the offset of the injustice.
"Onto a god existing because of that there is need, that let him bring truth into the world.
Refutation: (Russel) a substantial injustice exists in the part of a universe known by us; the good ones they suffer often, the evil ones live though and they are blooming, and we do not know it many times, which more embarrassing one he is. If he is the universe mutually whole just, we have to presuppose a unearthly life then, that compensates for the earthly sufferings and restores the balance. It is said so on the manner such arguing: there has to be a god, and there has to be heaven and for hell, that let truth be long on a distance. This is a most strange argumentation. If he is scientific from a viewpoint we would look at the thing, we would be trying to be clever in this manner: I know this world only finally. I know the first thing about the rest of the parts of the universe, but -- already it is possible to say anything on a probability basis -- this world is good for sampling certainly can be considered, and if there is an injustice here, then all chances is onto him, that there is an injustice somewhere. If we get a chestful of orange, and we see it opening the chest, we do not say that the oranges in the upper layer went off then: The ones under it have to be good, that let the balance be re-establish, but it: All of the chest comes from a spoiled freight presumably; and this it, he is what a scholar man would say in connection with the universe. Would present arguments in this manner: We find a substantial injustice in this world, and this constitutes a proper basis for its assumption, that the truth does not govern the world; as a result of this than moral argument, sounds against a god's existence rather, rather than beside it."
Some are thoughts in connection with the ones written down in the above refutation.
Unearthly life:
Solomon king, for the Preacher's book 9. wrote the next thoughts down in the 5. poem of a chapter:
"Because the living persons know that they die, but the dead persons know nothing, and they do not have more payment because they do not remember them long, they were forgotten." - they, who with the life, with their things which are connected to a death to the intellectual world, to occultism, they turn for a council, it will not be noticed apparently that the truth does not govern the world. It would be necessary to find the balance in ourselves first. The balance works according to the morals of a Satan on the land, but we cannot overcome it alone. See it: Scholarly man
Hell and daughter-in-law country:
Matthew apostle, for his gospel 5. writes this in his chapter: "Happy the mild ones, since the land will be inherited."
According to the 29. poem of the 37. psalm: "The just ones inherit the land, and eternally on him dwell."
For the book of the Parables 2. the 21. poem of a chapter writes this: "Because the honest ones live on the land then, and the impeccable ones remain on him."
The question may be who he is, what it was worth it will be inherited, the eternal one and the they remain on him on expressions? On the other hand: "Because the death is the soldier's pay of the sin: the gift though, which the god gets, eternal life Christ Jesus by way of our lord." - Paul writes it an apostle's letter written to Roman 6. in the 23. poem of a chapter. If we believe that himself is a god the truth, does not stain then for a sin many times to punish (our death in the hell to torment). This we may say that he is the hell rightfully on his basis, a wrong teaching, with which the to be converted not wanting it was being scared in the older times.
Scholarly man:
If somebody is the human injustice, depravity, that is contemplates a god's things based on the world, who; does not exist according to it, then it, judges according to the Satan. God and we may not treat the world. It totally obvious, that the truth does not govern the world, since Matthew is an apostle writes the bygones down in this manner: "The devil brought him again, now onto an exceptionally tall mountain, and showed him all of the world's kingdoms , and they his glory, said this to him then: I provide all these to you , if cloud over and you present an adoration to me." - Jesus said only this much instead of him having called the devil a liar: "Arise on Satan! - because he is written: adore your god, and make a holy service for him alone." What may we deduce from Jesus answer? In that direction, that the world is in the power of the Satan really, and if this is in this manner, it is true then that the truth does not govern the world! John an evangelist relates it in this manner, for the 8. chapter of his gospel 44. in his poem: "You from your father, from the devil are, ... The killing one was from the very beginning, and did not consist in the truth strongly because there is not truth in him,... because he is untruthful, and the father of the lie." (s.k.)
