Existence of God (split from old thread)

[Broken_Erika]

It's his day off.

 

[SkeleTony]

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.

You are using Deepak Chopra linguistics. That is a bad and highly irrational thing to do. Again I repeat my unanswered point: While this universe is most probably one of potentially countless universes (or it may be the first and maybe the only universe still having come into being through natural processes.) it does not stand to reason that reality itself is an 'anything is possible' reality. Reality cannot be of unlimited possibility. Existence itself requires limitations and it seems most probable that logic and naturalism are the primary limitations applying across reality. Until someone can cite a universe or even a 'transcendent reality' where this is not true this seems unavoidable. You cannot argue from the perspective of a 'transcendent' being unless you are a transcendent being. Just as the square in Flatland could not even perceive the true shape of the sphere it encountered and instead perceived it as a growing then shrinking 'circle' in its two dimensional reality (as the sphere passed through their 2D plane).

If it were otherwise existence of limiting natural laws would be a paradox and an impossibility.

How so?

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

Honestly I am absolutely NOT trying to insult here but I would point out that the most rational explanations to irrational people are often very irrational. The way to get around this is to make a rational case for your position that follows logically from premise to conclusion (without absurd premises such as "anything is possible!").

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.

I am going to stop you right there for a second and explain something about the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. It is a common misunderstanding that evolution = progress. It does not. Evolution = CHANGE, for better, worse or neither. What we call "free will" is merely a functional capacity of abstract thinking creatures (humans being the only known entities who are so). Specifically it is the ability to ponder decisions abstractly. Nonhuman animals can only do this in a very limited sense. My small dogs will sometimes try to hide the treats I give them and save them for later (only to be stolen by the other dog) but they do this only when and because of either not being hungry enough to eat at the moment or having some sort of discomfort that makes chewing a dog treat an unappealing option.

I am not sure what you mean when you assert that the capacity for free will progresses with some "evolving nature"?!

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.

How exactly is our free will limited (relevant to your point here)? Why do you believe the "culmination of the universe is expanding ad infinitum"? Why would this infer that we should not have what you assert is a limited free will?

They are not the same god by definition but the reality which they are projection of is the same.

Even if this were or is somehow true (again, I cannot make sense of word salad) what relevance does it have to my point?

Thor, Jesus or Kim cannot function outside of the existence of an Absolute reality.

Yes...and?

One may be more pregnant manifestation then the other but the essence is the same.

What do you mean by "essence" here? How is a human like Kim Jong Un or Eric Clapton of the same essence as Thor or Jesus or the sun and moon?

Psychologically or practically on human level the difference may of course be extremely vast.

Well we are human so...that is kind of important.

If you define God as an absolute which is the most common definition to my knowledge itsnt bold at all.

I never said it was "bold". I informed you that you had committed the BALD assertion fallacy. Also known as the unqualified assertion. This occurs when one states something dubious or not yet established to be true as if it were an indisputable fact.

Also, defining God as an absolute is only common among the Deepak Chopra crowd and even then it is of debatable frequency as word salad is not something which one can gain understanding from.

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

This is the problem with word salad offerings. I can reasonably infer that you meant to say that "God is everything that exists" or some such but I think most can interpret your offering here in several ways. The problem with what I suspect you are trying to say here is that you have redefined "God" out of existence! You are not actually claiming that God exists. You are just using "God" as a synonym for the natural universe or all natural universes that may be.

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.

What does that even mean though?! What you are saying here is akin to someone claiming that a a unicorn trampled his garden and you saying 'Well I don't think it was a unicorn but more likely known animals/humans..." . The problem with that would be that it is the exact opposite of the case you were trying to make here.

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.

Again, you are committing the unqualified assertion fallacy several times over here. Also, to try to get past some of the word salad stuff; what is a "constructive reality" as opposed to a non-constructive reality? What reality can be contained within an individual? I think you are employing a radically unusual usage of "reality" here. As if reality were like memories or something where each person has his own and cannot directly share them with others. What do you mean when you assert that "mental action has its own laws...."? Are you using "laws" in the descriptive, scientific sense or in some other way?

By bringing God into the picture you dont multiply anything.

Yes, you do and you do so unnecessarily which is what makes it a violation of Occam's Razor/The Principle of Parsimony. There is nothing in reality which infers the need for God to explain so claiming there is this omni-max being is an unnecessary multiplication of entities for explanation. Here is an analogy to illustrate my point:

A man is driving down the road when suddenly one of his tires blows out. He pulls over and investigates and finds a rusty nail protruding from the flat tire.

Now from this he can reasonably infer a few possibilities of varying degrees of likelihood:

1) Most likely he ran over a rusty nail
2) Someone jammed a rusty nail into his tire and it resulted in a delayed reaction blow out.
3) A vehicle ahead of him on the road hit the nail such that it shot directly into his tire...

And so forth. But if he then asserts that what happened to his tire was that angry gremlins should at his car with a magic nail-gun because of something his great, great, great grandmother did to gremlins, then he is unnecessarily multiplying entities.

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...

The God claims (even yours here) are not analogous to someone trying to treat infinity as if it were a quantity (Hilbert's Hotel...?). If you are just using God as a synonym for natural reality then welcome to atheism!

Impossible God sounds too much like an oxymoron.

How so? I am quite able to demonstrate the impossibility of the most popular God claims right here. But if you are just going to wriggle away saying 'All you did was prove a representation/manifestation/perception wrong...' then you are trying to use linguistics to counter logic and that will fail every time.

The assertion of the first claimant may be subjective and even worthless but so is yours...

How exactly is my assertion that you did not meet an impossible-to-exist God 'subjective' or worthless? Remember we are talking about a distinct individual being with an independent existence here and not whether God can be used as a synonym for reality.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

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.

Rescue the witches from whom? Medieval Christians did a lot to save those accused of witchcraft. Witch trials were very common in pagan antiquity, but the Church put a stop to them. At the Council of Paderborn in 785 it was declared that belief in witchcraft was a heresy, and all accused witches were innocent of their supposed crimes as magic does not exist. Medieval dogma was that miracles can only come from God; demons exist but are are bound by the same laws of nature as mortal men, unable to do anything that wise humans could accomplish through technology. Those involved in witch hunts or witch trials were declared to be complicit in murder. If an accused witch insisted that she had supernatural patterns she could be excommunicated (which would allow civil authorities to punish her for heresy, which often meant burning alive, although the church itself would do nothing more than deny her access to the Eucharist), but those trying to have her punished for witchcraft were much more likely to face that punishment.

The middle ages were one of the safest times for accused witches. The Renaissance (a time of rebirth for ancient superstitions as much as art and science) was much more dangerous. Belief in witchcraft and in a duty to kill witches (by hanging, not burning) is something that was reintroduced during the protestant reformation. Lutherans and especially Calvinists were the perpetrators, while Catholics continued to he harder on

 

[Narz]

Thanks, I realized the witch hunts I remember hearing about were mostly post-Renaissance but was too lazy to edit. :/ I still stand by my wish though and pagan girls are definitely hotter than Christian ones.

 

[Agent327]

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.

' I don't believe you'. (Evidence of God refuted.)

 

[Perfection]

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...

so what sort of limitless intelligent processes are we a part of? And how do you observe we're a part of it?

I tend to see explaining our intelligence by positing a greater intelligence as sort of a doubling down on the mystery. Now we have the even bigger mystery of the even bigger intelligence that demands a bigger explination. Where did that intelligence come from? Many religious folk try to explain it by positing God existing outside of time or pullling some other weird conceptual trick. Ultimately I find those ideas difficult to swallow (how does one have intelligence without time) or not supporting the need for an intelligence (why can't some thing else besides God by outside of time yet cause the universe we know to come into being?).

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

There is no God on Mondays.

I am not backing down on my claim that nothing is impossible so you must be somewhat correct.

 

[Perfection]

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Out of nowhere, the mind comes forth.
— The Diamond Sutra

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

..and pagan girls are definitely hotter than Christian ones.

Most women are regardless of the religion much more pagan when young.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

so what sort of limitless intelligent processes are we a part of? And how do you observe we're a part of it?

Nature. By the senses, instincts, intellect, intuition...

I tend to see explaining our intelligence by positing a greater intelligence as sort of a doubling down on the mystery.

I tend to see it as a great simplification. If the original stuff of existence is by nature limitless all mysteries are almost instantly solved.

...why can't some thing else besides God by outside of time yet cause the universe we know to come into being?

Becouse its unnecessary. Religion doesnt have a monopoly on the concept of God. Science can have its own. Any religion can at most hint at the existence of God from usually very limited perspective. There is no need to accept that as any sort of final account of reality.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

You are using Deepak Chopra linguistics. That is a bad and highly irrational thing to do.

I barely know the dude exists so its more of coincidence then a thing learned from ones "guru". I am open to new forms of expression if it can help the understanding.

Again I repeat my unanswered point: While this universe is most probably one of potentially countless universes (or it may be the first and maybe the only universe still having come into being through natural processes.) it does not stand to reason that reality itself is an 'anything is possible' reality. Reality cannot be of unlimited possibility. Existence itself requires limitations and it seems most probable that logic and naturalism are the primary limitations applying across reality. Until someone can cite a universe or even a 'transcendent reality' where this is not true this seems unavoidable. You cannot argue from the perspective of a 'transcendent' being unless you are a transcendent being.

The problem is that while limitation can come into existence from the unlimited it cant be fully explained as coming to existence from another limited except pointing to some infinite circle of limited processes of limited mass of energy or by magic. The existence of the limited while percieved by our intellect and senses as something most natural becomes an absurdity when faced with the problem of existence itself unless you admit possibility of some kind of infinity as a source of existence. If infinity is a source of existence than it seems largely self-explanatory.

Just as the square in Flatland could not even perceive the true shape of the sphere it encountered and instead perceived it as a growing then shrinking 'circle' in its two dimensional reality (as the sphere passed through their 2D plane).

Our senses and intellect are such a percievers capable of only seeing portion of reality at time.

 

[warpus]

Becouse its unnecessary.

Technically so is God.

Bringing God into the equation complicates everything unnecessarily and makes reality even harder to explain as a whole.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ought always makes is more complex.

 

[Lexicus]

Ultimately I find those ideas difficult to swallow

They should be hard to swallow, since they all amount to special pleading/handwaving.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Technically so is God.

Bringing God into the equation complicates everything unnecessarily and makes reality even harder to explain as a whole.

That would be true if human consciousness wouldnt be very complicated itself.

 

[warpus]

That would be true if human consciousness wouldnt be very complicated itself.

Surely a hypothetical God's consciousness is many many times more complex than a puny human's.

Maybe you misunderstood my point, so let me restate it slightly differently. Which universe is more complex? The one with only human minds in it? Or the one with human minds AND god-like minds in it as well?

Right now we have no idea how the universe got started and how it really fully works. Introducing a God-like creature into the equation in an attempt to help explain this is unnecessary because it introduces even more questions than it answers, and makes the goal of figuring out why the universe is here and how it operates even more difficult to answer. It doesn't bring you closer to the answer, but instead takes you further away from it, as you are suddenly faced with having to explain a God-like entity instead of just humans and planets and marble cheese.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Surely a hypothetical God's consciousness is many many times more complex than a puny human's.

I wouldnt be so sure about that. It may be immense/infinite/absolute but less complicated even very simple.

Maybe you misunderstood my point, so let me restate it slightly differently. Which universe is more complex? The one with only human minds in it? Or the one with human minds AND god-like minds in it as well?

Sure you have a point but do you want answers or do you want truth?

Right now we have no idea how the universe got started and how it really fully works. Introducing a God-like creature into the equation in an attempt to help explain this is unnecessary because it introduces even more questions than it answers, and makes the goal of figuring out why the universe is here and how it operates even more difficult to answer. It doesn't bring you closer to the answer, but instead takes you further away from it, as you are suddenly faced with having to explain a God-like entity instead of just humans and planets and marble cheese.

Thats why I dont look at God as a creature which sounds quite silly and even not so much exclusively as a kind of being. Take God as some kind of all permeating constant instead. Sure that constant has to house within itself possibility of human consciousness and personality and infinitely more but it cant be determined by these limited movements of energy.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Why are we still positing things that are outside of existence? If they aren't, we're back to causal influences, and testing for religious deities hasn't shown anything useful.

No surprise either, since there was never evidence suggesting those beliefs should have received more attention than arbitrary beliefs in other non-existing concepts in the first place. An extra detail w/o testable consequences is a strange thing for humanity to mass shoehorn in but that's what happens unfortunately.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Why are we still positing things that are outside of existence? If they aren't, we're back to causal influences, and testing for religious deities hasn't shown anything useful.

It depends from what pov you are studing reality. Do you give importance only to a physical science? From the pov of philosophy or metaphysics these question has to be answered. Century ago for science has been many more things outside of existence then they are now. Our knowledge increases.
Its too simplified and ignorant view to think that thousand years of spirituality hasnt shown anything useful. How does science test for usefulness of art and music?

No surprise either, since there was never evidence suggesting those beliefs should have received more attention than arbitrary beliefs in other non-existing concepts in the first place. An extra detail w/o testable consequences is a strange thing for humanity to mass shoehorn in but that's what happens unfortunately.

I claim humanity would be class of masters and a mass of slaves if not for spirituality. The life would have been a nightmare in the almost completely devilish world. Something like Hitlers wet dreams come true but worse. Its easy to take the common for granted.