Existence of God (split from old thread)

[Farm Boy]

Got something to say about adoptive fathers, eh Narz? Right back at'cha you wonderful sack of shiny things that smell great.

 

[Narz]

Got something to say about adoptive fathers, eh Narz? Right back at'cha you wonderful sack of shiny things that smell great.

Joseph didn't adopt, his wife cheated on him with God.

I think people who are adopt are among the best humans on Earth.

 

[Ryika]

It amuses me when people say that the existence of God can't be proven. It is quite easy to demonstrate that we have received a message from outside the time and space that we occupy. In that message, the author authenticates his message by accurately describing history beforehand. Clues to the deepest mysteries of physics, astronomy and medicine have been hidden in the message and modern science is slowly peeling away the layers to discover those truths. All that is just the supporting evidence. My reason for believing Him is that I've met Him.

No, this would not prove the existence of a god. Among other things, a more likely conclusion would for example be that aliens that are far beyond our technological development are toying with us.

 

[timtofly]

Modern Judeo-Christian Gods are so boring. I want a feminine Goddess who showers me with her divine essence, can split herself into thousands of individual goddesses, each with their own style of nurturance and who makes love to me daily in her myriad different forms.

Whole helluvalot more appealing than some masochistic skinny bearded guy raised by a weird prude mom and ****old step-dad (and left to die by a Father with borderline-personality-disorder to prove some sort of point). Who wants to be 'touched' by that God.

If I had a time-machine I'd go back to the middle ages, slaughter all the Christians and rescue all the witches.

So you're saying you want to go back in time on the basis of your misinterpretation of God? Humans can no more bring a fantasy to life, and especially do it by killing or rescuing other humans. I am sure your boring sex goddess would get just as old, and complained about as well.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So you're saying you want to go back in time on the basis of your misinterpretation of God? Humans can no more bring a fantasy to life, and especially do it by killing or rescuing other humans. I am sure your boring sex goddess would get just as old, and complained about as well.

It looks to me that Narz is saying he would prefer a more kindly, feminine goddess instead of the capricious, violent narcissist of the Old Testament and the one who demands human sacrifice in the New Testament.

 

[Berzerker]

how did the bible and judaism give rise to death cults?

 

[SkeleTony]

It amuses me when people say that the existence of God can't be proven. It is quite easy to demonstrate that we have received a message from outside the time and space that we occupy. In that message, the author authenticates his message by accurately describing history beforehand. Clues to the deepest mysteries of physics, astronomy and medicine have been hidden in the message and modern science is slowly peeling away the layers to discover those truths. All that is just the supporting evidence. My reason for believing Him is that I've met Him.

First of all, though I am not sure if you are trolling or serious (but I will bite) -this depends on what you mean by "God". If you are not defining "God" in any meaningful way then no, it cannot be proven or disproven (and weak atheism should rationally be your position here).

But if you are defining "God" as per usual (where the capital 'G' indicates a specific Abrahamic version of the most popular monotheistic deity) then not only is there no evidence warranting the inference, it can actually EASILY be proven false/impossible.

The Jewish/Christian/Muslim "God" is specifically defined as being 'Omniscient', 'Omnibenevolent' and 'Omnipotent' as well as himself having free will (even granting such to us!).
The problem with this is that if God has perfect, immutable direct knowledge of all that has ever happened as well as all that will ever happen, he cannot have free will himself. Think about it for a second: if God knows that he will create humanity (for whatever reason a 'perfect' being might do something like that...*boggle*) then at what point could he have pondered a decision on whether or not to create humanity?

Also, no...you never met this impossible God and baldly asserting such is worthless here.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

First of all, though I am not sure if you are trolling or serious (but I will bite) -this depends on what you mean by "God". If you are not defining "God" in any meaningful way then no, it cannot be proven or disproven (and weak atheism should rationally be your position here).

I think for this point weak theism is more rational and natural to human psyche as the history shows us.

But if you are defining "God" as per usual (where the capital 'G' indicates a specific Abrahamic version of the most popular monotheistic deity) then not only is there no evidence warranting the inference, it can actually EASILY be proven false/impossible.

Is there something the absolute cant be? My position is that all the conceptions of God has some truth in them but are by no means complete.

The Jewish/Christian/Muslim "God" is specifically defined as being 'Omniscient', 'Omnibenevolent' and 'Omnipotent' as well as himself having free will (even granting such to us!).
The problem with this is that if God has perfect, immutable direct knowledge of all that has ever happened as well as all that will ever happen, he cannot have free will himself.

Not limited free will but absolute free will is different matter. God cant be bound by his infinity or this world of apparent limitations could have never even exist.

Think about it for a second: if God knows that he will create humanity (for whatever reason a 'perfect' being might do something like that...*boggle*) then at what point could he have pondered a decision on whether or not to create humanity?

Its silly to try to apply ordinary logic to God when we know it doesnt even apply to subatomic particles. Dont you think?

Also, no...you never met this impossible God and baldly asserting such is worthless here.

I am good deal of sceptic myself but this assertion follows very narrow road of thinking and cant be accepted on its own.

 

[Perfection]

It is quite easy to demonstrate that we have received a message from outside the time and space that we occupy.

Then by all means please demonstrate.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Then by all means please demonstrate.

First you have to enter a Nirvana...

 

[Honor]

How does one go about believing in the mystical? I cannot seem to be able to get there.

 

[SkeleTony]

I think for this point weak theism is more rational and natural to human psyche as the history shows us.

Yes, as I said in the very sentence you replied to.

Is there something the absolute cant be? My position is that all the conceptions of God has some truth in them but are by no means complete.

Yes there are impossible things. If we lived in an "anything is possible" reality then we could never understand anything about reality. Of particular relevance here is the Law of Non-contradiction. A thing cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A' at the same time.

Not limited free will but absolute free will is different matter. God cant be bound by his infinity or this world of apparent limitations could have never even exist.

This is what we call 'Word Salad'. It is literally without sense or meaning. Free will is the capacity to ponder decisions. One cannot have such capacity if one already knows with immutable certainty what the future holds.

Its silly to try to apply ordinary logic to God when we know it doesnt even apply to subatomic particles. Dont you think?

False all around. For starters there is nothing suggesting that logic does not apply to particles. What I think you are aiming for is the typical 'Quarkpot' argument that 'Quantum physics is mysterious so ...therefore what I believe is true!'. "God" is not claimed to be or defined as a quantum particle or whatever. He is defined as and claimed to be an abstract thinking, willful being of omni-max status.

I am good deal of sceptic myself but this assertion follows very narrow road of thinking and cant be accepted on its own.

What does that even mean?! How are you a "sceptic"? What do you believe skepticism entails?! How is my reasoning "narrow" and why would that conclusion (if true) be relevant?!

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

How does one go about believing in the mystical? I cannot seem to be able to get there.

I suspect there are as many approaches to it as there are people. Mine is at least partly from observation of the limited intelligence we posses and comparing it to the limitless intelligent processes we are part of plus our innability to comprehend and master ourselves as well our environment satisfactorily with the limited instruments we are equiped with. Nice example is with our brain where only 0,5% of its actions are part of our conscious awarness. The rest of it is part of a secret hidden/subconscious intelligence...

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Yes there are impossible things. If we lived in an "anything is possible" reality then we could never understand anything about reality. Of particular relevance here is the Law of Non-contradiction. A thing cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A' at the same time.

This may apply to our universe but not to a supracosmical absolute deity/intelligence/consciousness.

This is what we call 'Word Salad'. It is literally without sense or meaning. Free will is the capacity to ponder decisions. One cannot have such capacity if one already knows with immutable certainty what the future holds.

This is true in a kind of reality human consciousness is moving about. I have no reason to think that this is the maximum possibility of an infinite existence but rather its opposite.

False all around. For starters there is nothing suggesting that logic does not apply to particles. What I think you are aiming for is the typical 'Quarkpot' argument that 'Quantum physics is mysterious so ...therefore what I believe is true!'. "God" is not claimed to be or defined as a quantum particle or whatever. He is defined as and claimed to be an abstract thinking, willful being of omni-max status.

It doesnt matter how is God defined. What is important is that nothing can exist outside of existence of God. Including a quantum particle and the laws which it follows.

What does that even mean?! How are you a "sceptic"? What do you believe skepticism entails?! How is my reasoning "narrow" and why would that conclusion (if true) be relevant?!

I am sceptical to others claims of seeing God although I dont doubt the experience itself. Its the meaning which are giving to it which may have very relative value and significance.
Infinite existence with its various forms of self-limiting manifestations isnt impossible. Its a hell lot more rational then infinitely expanding limited existence out of limited or nothing.

 

[Broken_Erika]

First you have to enter a Nirvana...

Come as you are.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Come as you are.

The problem of God, man and the world is all the same. Its a problem of consciousness. Once we can learn to adopt and master altered state of consciousness through natural psychological means and explorer it to its "limits" we will have a solution to the problem. With a bit of indulgence we can say we already know the answer for thousands of years. The individual, universal and transcendental consciousness is part of the same original existence.

 

[SkeleTony]

This may apply to our universe but not to a supracosmical absolute deity/intelligence/consciousness.

You meant to say that this definitely applies to our reality. And while it is true that we only have direct knowledge of this universe, logic infers that this universe is only one in potentially countless universes...but we have NO grounds to infer that any other universe operates by significantly different laws of nature and therefore logic. If you can assert that such a being exists by your reasoning then you lose the grounds to assert this being is transcendental and therefore beyond our reasoning ability.

It is the problem of Flatland (a great book published in the late 19th century IIRC which you can read for free online)all over again . You are starting with an irrational conclusion which you attempt to justify via groundless premises.

This is true in a kind of reality human consciousness is moving about. I have no reason to think that this is the maximum possibility of an infinite existence but rather its opposite.

What grounds do you have for this assertion? What other realities with 'greater potential' (for lack of a better term) are you aware of? What is the difference in how logic works over there?

It doesnt matter how is God defined.

False. It is of utmost importance because Kim Jong Un is not the same "god" as Thor is or Jesus is or a god defined as 'the spiritual beyondification of the oneness of being' (an admittedly made up take on Deepak Chopra's goofy word salad nonsense). An extremist/radical Islamist claims a different God altogether from the one claimed by Liberal and moderate Islamists. The God claimed by Jehova's witnesses is an entirely different God than the one claimed by Bishop Spong or Rev. Barry Lynn.

What is important is that nothing can exist outside of existence of God. Including a quantum particle and the laws which it follows.

Another bald assertion fallacy. Fallacies are errors in reasoning and so should always be avoided.

I am sceptical to others claims of seeing God although I dont doubt the experience itself.

Just to make sure I am following you; do you mean to say that while you doubt the reality of their claims you do not doubt that the experience feels real to them?

Its the meaning which are giving to it which may have very relative value and significance.

Sounds like I did understand you correctly. If so them my only contention here is that even IF it is or were true that such persons felt like their experience was real (as opposed to the all too common act of fabricating such 'experiences' to bolster a belief-claim) it is only of any real import to THEM, not the rest of us (save for them going on a terrorist rampage or doing great charitable work or what have you). Idealists adopt the axiom that ideas somehow exist prior to and independent of the brains which generate such ideas. To me that is a laughably silly attempt to justify irrationality.

Infinite existence with its various forms of self-limiting manifestations isnt impossible.

Correct, as I have said a thousand times over the last ten years. In fact logic dictates that existence itself MUST BE infinite, in that it can have had no 'beginning' and cannot really end. But I wield Occam's razor on this one. Logic and evidence give reason to infer the infinity of existence itself (natural, material existence) but to assert "God" as a necessity is to unjustifiably multiply entities for explanation.

Its a hell lot more rational then infinitely expanding limited existence out of limited or nothing.

Yes it probably is. But what does that have to do with what I said? This is another logical fallacy called the Straw man. Straw men are positions that no one in a debate holds but one member creates and puts forth because it is far easier to tackle than the actual positions he wishes to contest/debate.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

How does one go about believing in the mystical? I cannot seem to be able to get there.

All people are able to and also do believe things because they really want them to be true and for not much of a different reason. So as the first step you would probably need to discover and nurture an acute emotional desire for "the mystical" within you.
Then you will have to relax and embrace this need and see where it takes you. With luck and some - hehe - faith, maybe you will eventually be able to override that alarm bell in your head with powerful positive emotions.
All about the feels man, logic or reason need not apply.
I think if I really wanted to I could get semi-religious. But I feel I also would need to go a bit mad in the process and it would probably be the hard work of years, with occasional depressive fallbacks.
But I don't think it would be worth all the effort and potential hazards. And maybe after 10 years I realize it won't work after all and I am worse off than I ever was.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

You meant to say that this definitely applies to our reality. And while it is true that we only have direct knowledge of this universe, logic infers that this universe is only one in potentially countless universes...but we have NO grounds to infer that any other universe operates by significantly different laws of nature and therefore logic. If you can assert that such a being exists by your reasoning then you lose the grounds to assert this being is transcendental and therefore beyond our reasoning ability.

Correct. It definitely applies to our reality but not in absolute sense simply becouse this universe isnt total but only a partial expression of an Absolute. If it were otherwise existence of limiting natural laws would be a paradox and an impossibility.

It is the problem of Flatland (a great book published in the late 19th century IIRC which you can read for free online)all over again . You are starting with an irrational conclusion which you attempt to justify via groundless premises.

So far its the most rational explanation I have ever came across.

What grounds do you have for this assertion? What other realities with 'greater potential' (for lack of a better term) are you aware of? What is the difference in how logic works over there?

One of the grounds for this is the theory of evolution. We see that with the progress of the evolving nature the capacity for free will/ action based on will increases. The limited free will which is the standard in human race doesnt seem to be warranted as a culmination of the universe which is expanding ad infinitum and which has possibly an infinite source.

False. It is of utmost importance because Kim Jong Un is not the same "god" as Thor is or Jesus is or a god defined as 'the spiritual beyondification of the oneness of being' (an admittedly made up take on Deepak Chopra's goofy word salad nonsense). An extremist/radical Islamist claims a different God altogether from the one claimed by Liberal and moderate Islamists. The God claimed by Jehova's witnesses is an entirely different God than the one claimed by Bishop Spong or Rev. Barry Lynn.

They are not the same god by definition but the reality which they are projection of is the same. Thor, Jesus or Kim cannot function outside of the existence of an Absolute reality. One may be more pregnant manifestation then the other but the essence is the same. Psychologically or practically on human level the difference may of course be extremely vast.

Another bald assertion fallacy. Fallacies are errors in reasoning and so should always be avoided.

If you define God as an absolute which is the most common definition to my knowledge itsnt bold at all. Its a logical fact. If you do not define God that way you are pointing to some partial manifestation which must be never the less part of an absolute reality

Just to make sure I am following you; do you mean to say that while you doubt the reality of their claims you do not doubt that the experience feels real to them?

More precisely I dont necessarily doubt the experience itself but I suspect that the interpretation of the experience as well as its understanding is subject to error.

Sounds like I did understand you correctly. If so them my only contention here is that even IF it is or were true that such persons felt like their experience was real (as opposed to the all too common act of fabricating such 'experiences' to bolster a belief-claim) it is only of any real import to THEM, not the rest of us (save for them going on a terrorist rampage or doing great charitable work or what have you). Idealists adopt the axiom that ideas somehow exist prior to and independent of the brains which generate such ideas. To me that is a laughably silly attempt to justify irrationality.

I dont see how that follows. If there is an experience which has an impact on an individual its already affecting the whole of society. The reality of it (be it constructive or not) cant be contained within an individual. Mental action has its own laws and ways of operation and is bound to be manifested.

Correct, as I have said a thousand times over the last ten years. In fact logic dictates that existence itself MUST BE infinite, in that it can have had no 'beginning' and cannot really end. But I wield Occam's razor on this one. Logic and evidence give reason to infer the infinity of existence itself (natural, material existence) but to assert "God" as a necessity is to unjustifiably multiply entities for explanation.

By bringing God into the picture you dont multiply anything. Just like you dont decrease or increase an infinity by adding or subtracting anything out of it. Unfortunately the word "God" carries with itself unnecessary emotional baggage and triggers the less rational within us but thats just a matter of a little detachment...

Yes it probably is. But what does that have to do with what I said? This is another logical fallacy called the Straw man. Straw men are positions that no one in a debate holds but one member creates and puts forth because it is far easier to tackle than the actual positions he wishes to contest/debate.

Also, no...you never met this impossible God and baldly asserting such is worthless here.

Impossible God sounds too much like an oxymoron. The assertion of the first claimant may be subjective and even worthless but so is yours...

 

[Perfection]

There is no God on Mondays.