Is there God?

[bluecherry]

Sounds a bit like like the concept behind the phrase "Thou art god" from one of my favorite books. cool

 

[every1lafs]

What if...

Everything was one, all matter & energy. Time was meaningless in this state. And out of a yearning, this One, this unmoved mover, *BURST*.

Every particle, every photon, shattered out from the explosion. No longer aware of their commonness, they began to collide and ricochet...

Forces of gravity, magnetism, and so on caused patterns to arise -- an impossibly large fractal with random variations.

Sentience arose from the ashes. The full spectrum of Life's rich experiences. Wonder existed, hope existed, and everything else one could describe.

And eventually the same strong and weak forces which formed Everything from the original Big Bang began to pull it all in on itself. Collapse, the ultimate resolution.

And He was one again. All aspects, every magnificent moment, experienced and indellibly integrated. The Power and The Glory, forever and ever.

Would once be enough?  

[every1lafs]

In the book "Calculating God", an alien lands and wants to communicate with one of Earth's great scientists. The subject of God's existence comes up. The scientist says that he's a pragmatist, and only puts his faith in what he can explain. Therefore, he doesn't believe in God. The alien says that he, too, is pragmatic, scientific, and believes in God because of everything he *can't* explain.  

[Demoire]

The general perseption of a God,
is one who is resposible for the creation of all mortal life,
immortal, and is resposible of deciding the fate of all mankind.

Yes, there is a God.

To know if there is a God,
you must learn about yourself first.

To embrace yourself as a human being,
as one with limitations, and flaws.

For you cannot count up to infinity.

What more, than to understand the infinite.

If there is a beginning to all..

Then where is the beginning.

Imagine a gigantic painting as the reason of existence.
You are facing it amoungst many, astounded by its beauty.
You begin to wonder, "Why?", "What?", "How?".
So you step closer to it.
You look at its details, examining it's every grain of color.
Many others before you do so, and has been doing so for many years.
Yet you step back again..
For you wonder why those who has stepped back to look at it as a whole, are so content.
Again, you are astounded by its beauty.
Then you realise..
There are more colors than the eyes can see.

 

[bluecherry]

As for the "Calculating god" story, I don't think having many things you do not yet understand is any support for the belief in "god" (which shall be safely assumed in this case to be the judeo-christian one I believe since they are the ones who typically refer to their single diety as "god.") I think it's creating a false dilema. "Either we can explain it or it was 'god.'" People didn't always know how a lot of things worked. That doesn't mean it was "god." We later figured out how many things work and are still in that process or figuring more things out all the time now. 3nodding Besides, even if you want to say not having all the answers must mean it's some magical type of creature that's responsible, why can't it be by that reasoning alone just as likely it was say, Zeus and/or any other Greek/Roman gods or goddesses?

And Demiore, as long as you're going to assert that there is a being which can be called "god", care to define what "god" metaphysically is? I mean a real definition of what he/she/it IS. It's always a good idea to define your terms in any kind of debate. This definition also should tell me what "god" is, not just what he/she/it does, how he/she/it relates to other things, what he/she/it isn't. wink
Also, as for not being able to count up to infinity, that doesn't help support your claim. That is not something humans can not do because of limitations on our ability to comprehend. It's a practical problem that keeps us from counting up to infinity. Not only do we just keep dieing so we would be forced to stop counting, but unless there is a giant conspiracy I've not been let in on, there are no people who have been alive for as long as time has existed up until now in order to make sure that they really would, even if they never died, have ALL the time needed to keep counting in order to make sure they could indeed keep counting forever on into infinity.

 

[Demoire]

What he is, is the simplest form on existence.
He has no parts.
He is one.
He exists in a "Place" seperate from time.
So all is happening at once, and yet is not.
Infinity..

How much of a room does it take to know there are ants?
Part of it.

How much of a room does it take to know there are no ants?
All of it.

There is much evidence of God.
It just cannot be scientifically explained.

Now, why cant he just appear,
and cause all kinds of miracles to make everything perfect.

The reason..
Freewill..

If you can tell one to love you.
And as a mechanism, one loves you by command.
Would'nt mean as much as, if one chose to love you.

Why so much suffering..

A balance has been set, on this plane of existence.
We are in the middle of where good and evil collides.
If we are to live, we are to die.
With pain, there is pleasure.
With hate, there is love.

Once the balance swings too much,
to the favor of either good or bad.

It's goodbye mortality for us,
and hello eternal damnation, or heavenly rest.

We are part of a damned cycle.
We are basically nothing but tools.
Whether you or I, like it or not..
We are doomed to take part in this game.
Existence, like a balance again, is both a burden and a gift.
Frankly, I'm sick of playing my part.
But, I gotta do what I am meant to do.

 

[bluecherry]

"simplest form of existence" I'm taking it to be defined by you as what you said after that, if it isn't though then that needs to be defined. "Has no parts" doesn't say anything, so I'll go with the "all one thing" thing you mentioned. Then you said he's not in time, so that doesn't help, and "everything happening at once and yet not" is a meaningless statement as the two things cancel each other out. Better define how things can happen -- how any CHANGES, which by definition require time -- without time. And the thing about the ants is also a false dichotomy of a comparison you're setting up since if something can be shown to be logically impossible then you do not need to search everywhere. An example, and a commonly used one, would be you'd be wasting your time looking all over for a "married bachelor" since it's a self contradictory statement as a bachelor is by definition not married. If he was married he would cease to be a bachelor. Things that are not explained by science yet, again, is not evidence of a "god." When something is not understood by people yet there could be many possible explanations, we just haven't narrowed it down to only one yet. And if you had any specific examples for what you'd consider "evidence of 'god'" other than just things we have not yet found an exact answer for yet in science, things that don't just say what we don't know but DO say things that could only be explained by the existence of the christian "god" that you're asserting exists (again, it hasn't been said by you directly yet, but I thought it was a safe assumption. correct me if I'm wrong. Though I still have not yet seen from you a good definition of what "god" is anyway. Though maybe I could be off by a bit on what religious section your views are coming from as I thought christianity typically had "god" being in three parts with the "father, son and holy ghost" thing and you said "god" is all one single thing, like to the point of not even being composed of atoms like how matter in our physical world is. In fact, I'd like to know how you propose something which not only is not capable of change because it exists outside of time, but is all one thing so has no parts to interact with each other or anything else to interact with around him/her/it -- you've not said there was anything else in that "place" yet TO be interacted with -- is going to ever do anything even if that one thing it was made out of was somehow some concentrated pure will power because it would never have any stimuli to cause it to think of things, have things to decide upon. Though again, how will is to exist with no physical form such as a brain I do not see either.) please, do articulate them here. By the way! The free will thing -- Again, I already addressed some problems of the old "free will" thing in my first post in this thread. And also, though maybe it wouldn't mean as much to "god", if they forced a person to love them, that would not change the fact that it was still in fact love. Although, I don't see by the very nature of what love is, as far as how I see love, would make it possible to FORCE love out of anybody. Love is a result, a reaction, an evaluation. It is something which comes from being earned through things said and done by one entity that the other entity observes and finds worthy of love. So as far as I see it, this is another thing that kind of is almost by definition not possible. Also, aside from having already addressed the Problem of Evil and the free will defense's problems, in another thread in here I've already addressed your "balance of good and evil" thing. And as a side note to your end comment -- you just were supporting the existence of free will earlier and now the end of your post says we rather don't have much of any choices, that we are naught but tools to be manipulated stuck in a cycle (do you mean you support the idea of reincarnation? Because otherwise if you go for the old people going to heaven or hell thing that's not a cycle, you go, live, do, go on to one of those places, there is not starting back at the beginning) and that you "have" to do what you are "meant" to do as if you in fact do not have the ability to choose, to say you want to do something else. Because you clearly seem to not like what it is you think you have to do, so if you could freely choose then you would choose something else I'd think which you did not dislike so much.

 

[Demoire]

Nope.
I cant force you to think anyways.
So, whatever I say to try and correct you,
will be a waste of my time.

Like the words I've just typed above.

 

[Kecitich]

It's sad to see the original poster of this thread has gone. Last login date from Drew was 2nd of April. I have a lot of thoughts about either posting here and discuss about our real life issues because we have bought up in different culture and background. We aren't fair between each others to begin with. It's even harder to discussing and sharing our opinions with others with total different opinion of what is alright to do, what is bad of us to do. Though, here are my thoughts and I would like somebody to think about these if you are similar creature like me.

For me and from what I've seen and being taught so far. I am also leaning toward to the assumption there is none. Look at all those babies with no parents taking care of, look at all those animals with feeling and emotion that can go depressed when being tortured ended up on our tables each day. Look at all those people that born with suffers. I am not saying what if there is a God, what He should do. I am just saying if he see all those and doesn't even stopping those. He is the cruel one and the producer of all sins. How can one knows what is wrong from right without being forgiven? If Adam and Eve did something wrong, and all of us needed to suffered on here because of their sins. The one who sent them on Earth is asking us to forgive others "seventy seven" times? We come here to suffer and try to do as little "sins" as possible and then go to heaven and share eternal lives with Him? confused It's really a twisted idea.

And half of the world have different religions and cultures. Are we also going to discuss about their Gods existence or what? Are we being racists to those people's beliefs?

Because we could be very likely the top creatures on our planet we have the right to protect our World, animals and plants from facing extinction. If we don't do the job, who will? No joke, we are on our own.

I know many people still living and moving on because they believe there is(/are) God(/Gods). Of course whoever planted those seeds of messages, the roots itself has been giving so much energy, hopes and goals for people who being taught about God(/s). Those roots will go wider and wider. It's up for us to either believe those or not, to relay on those to moving on or not....... Those that don't believe in God still can do a lot of good things to help others and our world. Just because of we don't believe in god. And for all those little good things we have done. We are being labeled we would likely suffer after our death? confused surprised  

[Demoire]

We Catholics do not believe,
just because one does not believe in "our" God & religion,
you are damned to hell.
That's more Jehovas Witness, or some other denomination.

"Oh wah.
The world is'nt perfect.
I'm not going to believe in you God.
This is all your fault.
Here's my revenge."

That's exactly what evil wants you to do.

This is the damned middle-ground existence,
where both good and evil collide.
There will never be "Free will", without evil.
There will never be evil without good.
There must be an existence of choice.
And you have a choice.
I dont want to type the philosphy all over again.
Read the posts I've put up before this one.

 

[Kecitich]

Demiore, don't you think I haven't read those posts of yours and others about this subject before I posted? I read yours at least 2 times each because with the way you write it is more difficult for me to understand. It's like riddles as you have said. I knew you said God is the one who created us. And we human are all to blame for our "own" sins. But if He does want to judge us, He rather make it fair for everyone, our culture, our parents, the ways he want us to see things, so we have all the fault to be blamed at if we have done something wrong in later life since we all started off as like everyone else... nobody should be given the idea because we have done something bad (in majorities' eyes) we are going to suffer after we die (staying between heaven and hell isn't nice, that is also suffer as all Catholic knows. I never say those that done many good things and yet not believe in God is going to hell. I know there is middle area. Those souls rely on our prayers to eventually go back to heaven.)

I can't believe you put my words in that way.... I am not saying it's His fault because for what I believe, there isn't even a He above us, because of all these things I've mentioned. I believe there is none as I've said clearly. IF there is one, those shouldn't appeared on this Earth. Look at those millions of animals getting slaugther each day. Let alone those babies in China getting abandoned each day. Where is my revenge? For not believe there is one out of all those religion? The world has never been perfect because it always has been like that. Never has been a good enough place for everyone to say "yes, our world is prefect".

I know it's not up to me or you or anyone else to force others to believe these and believe those. My messages and opinions here are for the ones that has similar minds/background as me to think about it more deeply if they have spare time AND if they are willing to. I thank you since you did read my message though, Demiore. Even if you disagree with what I've said in these 2 replies. smile  

[Demoire]

Kecitich

Demiore, don't you think I haven't read those posts of yours and others about this subject before I posted? I read yours at least 2 times each because with the way you write it is more difficult for me to understand. It's like riddles as you have said. I knew you said God is the one who created us. And we human are all to blame for our "own" sins. But if He does want to judge us, He rather make it fair for everyone, our culture, our parents, the ways he want us to see things, so we have all the fault to be blamed at if we have done something wrong in later life since we all started off as like everyone else... nobody should be given the idea because we have done something bad (in majorities' eyes) we are going to suffer after we die (staying between heaven and hell isn't nice, that is also suffer as all Catholic knows. I never say those that done many good things and yet not believe in God is going to hell. I know there is middle area. Those souls rely on our prayers to eventually go back to heaven.)

I can't believe you put my words in that way.... I am not saying it's His fault because for what I believe, there isn't even a He above us, because of all these things I've mentioned. I believe there is none as I've said clearly. IF there is one, those shouldn't appeared on this Earth. Look at those millions of animals getting slaugther each day. Let alone those babies in China getting abandoned each day. Where is my revenge? For not believe there is one out of all those religion? The world has never been perfect because it always has been like that. Never has been a good enough place for everyone to say "yes, our world is prefect".

I know it's not up to me or you or anyone else to force others to believe these and believe those. My messages and opinions here are for the ones that has similar minds/background as me to think about it more deeply if they have spare time AND if they are willing to. I thank you since you did read my message though, Demiore. Even if you disagree with what I've said in these 2 replies. smile

domokun
Oh.. I tend to skim through stuff.
I blame it on my ADHD.

 

[bluecherry]

Actually, I agree it's kind of a shame the original thread creator hasn't been around in a while too. D:

Demiore

Nope.
I cant force you to think anyways.
So, whatever I say to try and correct you,
will be a waste of my time.

Like the words I've just typed above.

You can not force me to think, correct, however, thinking is already exactly what I am trying to do. So trying to correct me when you believe you are indeed correct is not a waste of time. If I'm wrong I actually WANT to be corrected. However, I must be adequately PROVEN wrong first. Raising challenges to the things somebody says even if they are right does not mean they will "never learn" or "never listen" -- in fact it should show they are paying attention, listening, thinking about what has been said. If the other person is indeed correct and can support their opinions then when all the challenges a person has raised to claims have been answered beyond doubt and sufficient reliable evidence has been provided then it just means when that person does finally agree and say the original claims are right they will be that much more sure of the truth of the claims. It's like building your castle on a foundation of stone (firm certainty) instead of cardboard (flimsy "taking your word for it.")

The other thing is as the one making the assertion that a "god" exists here, you are committing the logical fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof" expecting me to be the one to prove a "god" exists. As it's your assertion, it's your responsibility to support it. And even if you wanted to say that it WAS in some way valid to say we can't prove there is no "god" because we haven't seen everything, that still is not proof of a "god" existing just because we couldn't say there wasn't. That would be a case of the logical fallacy "argument from ignorance." It would also be committing the fallacy of argument fro ignorance if I was to say "god has not been proven therefore he must not exist" however I am not saying this, I do believe the existence of a god has been shown to be logically impossible. One example of why is the Problem of Evil as has been brought up by the first post and again by Kecitich even though neither of them used that exact name. And please do remember I have already raised challenges to the free-will that is commonly used against the Problem of Evil and your story of a balance of good and evil being necessary to the existence of free will. Another thing, which I've also been trying to get you to address right now, is a problem frequently referred to as the meaninglessness of the term "god" -- as in a real definition of what "god" metaphysically/epistemicly (I tend to get those two confused sweatdrop ) is as opposed to just a definition composed of what he/she/it isn't (is not bound by time, does not make errors), what he/she/it is in relation to others (creator), maybe what he/she/it does ("loves", "watches") -- until you have a real definition of what "god" is you kind of can't say it exists. It's like me telling you I have a "squigglethorp" and saying "squigglethorp" is big ( a pretty relative term based on comparison), does not smell bad, and is annoying. Do any of those things tell you what a "squigglethorp" is? Nope. Now make it more confusing -- when asked what "squigglethorp" is that it is possible for it to not smell bad - like does it smell good? does it have any smell at all? is it made of something like light which can't have a smell? - I tell you "squigglethorp" is something which lacks in an foul odor and has never to my knowledge had one, in fact it can't, except that it can, and I'm too stupid to understand the nature of "squigglethorp" so don't ask me to explain how that is possible, it just is. Does that give you any more idea what a "squigglethorp" is? Nope. Now what if I was to come out and tell you "squigglethorp" was everything and nothing at once. Now, we still don't know what "squigglethorp" is for me to ever be able to prove I do indeed have a "squigglethorp" even if you came into direct contact with it, however now we have an assertion made about "squigglethorp" which is simply not possible. When asked about how "squigglethorp" can be everything and nothing at once, I generally just give you the same statement in synonyms and talk in circles. I have thus tried to claim I have proven sufficiently how "squigglethorp" can exist, but have not. Unless one day I or someone else manage to both define what "squigglethorp" actually is in order for it to be possible to assert it exists in the first place (everything that exists is something, every something can be described and defined, if it can't be, it's not a something, and if it isn't something it's nothing and therefore doesn't exist) and second must be able to then prove how what "squigglethorp" is can possibly be everything and nothing at the same time (though again, technically for this example if "squigglethorp" were indeed nothing that would mean it didn't exist). Until the first condition is fulfilled it isn't really even possible to say such a thing as a "squigglethorp" exists and until the second condition is fulfilled a "squigglethorp" not only can't be said to exist but whatever it would be simply couldn't exist anyway. (lol, long metaphors.)

So end conclusion: I have reason to believe right now based on all available information to me that the christian "god" (among the many others) does not exist because it is impossible for multiple different reasons. HOWEVER if new information were ever to come in and answer every reason out there that has been raised for why there can't be and isn't a "god" (to first bring “god“ into the realm of possibility) and then show why “god” is the best explanation for all the things he/she/it is supposed to be the explanation for, well then when I get the news and all challenges have been answered satisfactorily praise be, hallelujah, amen and all that -- sign me up. I'll become a "believer" when/if I ever found I had sufficient reason to believe it. Until then I'll keep on saying there is no "god" due to what sure seems to be the impossibility of such and going on what I believe will most likely be an infinite waiting for somebody to do that "proving me beyond reasonable doubt wrong" thing.

By the way, it is simply not possible for somebody to think there is no "god" AND go out for revenge against "god" -- revenge has to be taken against something, if you think "god" doesn't exist you have nothing then to be getting revenge against. ninja domokun

 

[Kecitich]

Demiore

domokun
Oh.. I tend to skim through stuff.
I blame it on my ADHD.

When I looked at your reply on 10th of jun 2007. I am sure the "I blame it on my ADHD" wasn't there... What does ADHD stands for, Demiore? Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder? If it is, I am sorry to hear that sad Have you ever been really got diagnosis about that ADHD things?

bluecherry, I've also read your replies a few time each. I always love to read whenever I have time. As always try to understand as much as I could. What's puzzling me is "the Problem of Evil". What is that?

I think the example you have given ("squigglethorp") is so brilliantly said. Really, it's so abstract and thing like that is more like a make up word in my opinion, like "god"... In the case of the word - "God", people tends to do more things in "better" ways if they feel they needed to, since most of us got told we need to do these else can't be in heaven.... In the ends, those has been building up our Human history in the way it is now (no matter we like those "good" rules or not). In my opinion, that is a sad thing. Many things the "good" rules said aren't actually good or outdated. As I've said

Quote:

Those roots will go wider and wider. It's up for us to either believe those or not, to relay on those to moving on or not.......

neutral  

[bluecherry]

Thanks for taking the time to read through my long posts Kecitich. smile I'm glad you see what I mean with the "squigglethorp" example. Actually, that last thing you mentioned is like something I've often thought about religions. They're a lot like the Grimm's Fairytales. The Grimm's Fairytales were originally just a bunch of really scary little stories told to children to try to teach them, through a little bit of fear often, lessons. They were told to kids who lived in an area that was kind of dangerous, so kids really needed to learn these things for their own safety. The Grimm brothers are just the people who originally wrote all these stories down into a single collection. Later on however people wanted to keep the stories around, but they found they didn't like how violent and harsh the stories were. So, people tried to alter them and "clean them up" to make them "nicer." This often lead to major re-writes in the stories, quite often entirely defeating their original purpose of making it so they would teach the lessons that were considered necessary to know to get by living in that certain area they were first told in and possibly even having elements in them which didn't make sense anymore. So yes, I thin originally many religions were started to teach people lessons they wanted taught back then, often through fear of retribution if they disobeyed. They also used religion as a way to give answers that people wouldn't have too hard a time understanding back when they didn't know how a LOT of things worked and not knowing so much on so many important issues really might have made many people feel uneasy. Now days we have answers to a lot of things they didn't before though and a lot of their lessons have been outdated like you said beyond even making sense, however, people grew attached to the religions and wanted to keep them around still, clinging on. Some of them have tried making updates to things every so often to try to fit in with moder attitudes more, but this often leads to more internal conflicts and contradictions being written in then there were originally to try to make it work. This is mostly just opinion though on religion, what I speculate would make a lot of sense as to the cause. I admit that this is not a known fact or anything, so please don't try to take it as if I'm saying it is and start asking me for sources. (If anybody really wants sources on the Grimm's Fairytales thing I'll try to find some though because that I do believe IS fact, but until then I don't think it's entirely necessary to the argument since I was just using it to illustrate a comparison. Even if it were false about the fairytales I could still say that was what I thought was likely the case for religions often.)

The Problem of Evil is an old commonly brought up issue of something many people have said doesn't make sense in religion, that the typical "god" is supposed to be said to know everything, be all powerful and can do anything, and entirely perfect and entirely good and that if this were the case why is there evil in the world? The most common defense used against it is the Free-will Defense, saying that evil exists because the existence of free-will means people have to have the option of doing both good and evil things and having free-will is such a good thing it's worth having evil exist in order for free-will to exist. I have in my first post in this topic a link to a wikipedia article about the Problem of Evil along with some stuff about why I think the free-will defense does not explain away the Problem of Evil. Feel free to read it, see what you think about it, maybe post some thoughts on it.