God can exist

N

Norsefire

Salam Shalom Salom
Registered Senior Member
My point is, even if you believe in Science, what is the scientific reason God cannot exist? Perhaps there is a Creator that did create this universe, with its own set of laws (like the physical laws), and then "nature" guided the rest; but in the first place, God created it

I am interested in hearing why God is an impossibility to the atheists.
 
Norsefire said:
My point is, even if you believe in Science, what is the scientific reason God cannot exist? Perhaps there is a Creator that did create this universe, with its own set of laws (like the physical laws), and then "nature" guided the rest; but in the first place, God created it

I am interested in hearing why God is an impossibility to the atheists.
Click to expand...

Correct; god can exist, just as much as the Tooth Fairy and the Roc can.

The real point is, simply because once can conceive of a thing, doesn't entail that it may be.
 
glaucon said:
Correct; god can exist, just as much as the Tooth Fairy and the Roc can.

The real point is, simply because once can conceive of a thing, doesn't entail that it may be.
Click to expand...

The tooth fairy could not exist within our realm; it cannot exist by our physical laws. Therefore, it does not exist.

God can; the real point is, God CAN exist, and MAY exist
 
Norsefire said:
The tooth fairy could not exist within our realm; it cannot exist by our physical laws. Therefore, it does not exist.

God can; the real point is, God CAN exist, and MAY exist
Click to expand...

lol

And your support for the difference between the ontological possibility of god and the Tooth fairy are???
 
glaucon said:
lol

And your support for the difference between the ontological possibility of god and the Tooth fairy are???
Click to expand...

The tooth fairy would exist within our realm; God would be the Creator, beyond our realm and our "existence", therefore he would not be bound by the same laws that we are.


Scientifically, I see no reason why God cannot exist; in fact, there is plenty reason that God DOES exist, such as that we [the universe] exist.
 
Norsefire said:
The tooth fairy would exist within our realm; God would be the Creator, beyond our realm and our "existence", therefore he would not be bound by the same laws that we are.


Scientifically, I see no reason why God cannot exist; in fact, there is plenty reason that God DOES exist, such as that we [the universe] exist.
Click to expand...

Again, since it is you who began the thread, I ask, what support do you offer for this supposition?


Note: Although this has been pointed out time and again over the years here to various and sundry theists, a simple avowal does not constitute support.
 
glaucon said:
Correct; god can exist, just as much as the Tooth Fairy and the Roc can.

The real point is, simply because once can conceive of a thing, doesn't entail that it may be.
Click to expand...
so can you provide a scientific reason why god does not exist or can you only talk of how you can conceive that god does not exist?

thanks in advance
 
Norsefire said:
I am interested in hearing why God is an impossibility to the atheists.
Click to expand...

For me, the question is not whether a creator God exists or not.

For me, the question is what believing in a creator God would entail for a person, and where it would lead them to, what sort of life a person would have if they believed in a creator God.

It is my estimation that believing in a creator God is detrimental to a person's happiness and wellbeing. Because believing in a creator God, the person gives the responsibility for their own happiness and suffering to someone else which disempowers the person and leads them to live a life of silent despair.

Believing in a creator God, the person also makes a claim about "who they really are", what their "true identity" is. It has been my experience that making any claims about one's "true identity" leads to some form of misery.



Of course, what I am saying above applies mostly for the Christian model of a creator God, but it does not apply so much for a, say, Hindu model of a creator God (where karma plays a very important role).
 
greenberg said:
For me, the question is not whether a creator God exists or not.

For me, the question is what believing in a creator God would entail for a person, and where it would lead them to, what sort of life a person would have if they believed in a creator God.

It is my estimation that believing in a creator God is detrimental to a person's happiness and wellbeing. Because believing in a creator God, the person gives the responsibility for their own happiness and suffering to someone else which disempowers the person and leads them to live a life of silent despair.

Believing in a creator God, the person also makes a claim about "who they really are", what their "true identity" is. It has been my experience that making any claims about one's "true identity" leads to some form of misery.



Of course, what I am saying above applies mostly for the Christian model of a creator God, but it does not apply so much for a, say, Hindu model of a creator God (where karma plays a very important role).
Click to expand...

why would issues of one's true identity entail misery?
for instance suppose I was living in america in a state of unawareness and somebody explained to me that there was a president and a government and a system of management with an elaborate history etc etc.

why would this new knowledge disempower me from happiness and why would my expanded new (relative) identity diminish my sense of self?
 
The "true identity" I am referring to is when it is formulated like

"I am a child of God, and this is who I really am"
"I am a good person, and this is who I really am"
"I am a bad person, and this is who I really am"
"I am a human, and this is who I really am"
"I am a liar, and this is who I really am"
"I always speak the truth, and this is who I really am"
"I am worthless, and this is who I really am"
"I deserve to be happy, and this is who I really am"
"I am a blob of matter, and this is who I really am"
"I am a product of evolution, and this is who I really am"
"I am a bully, and this is who I really am"
"I am a victim, and this is who I really am"
"I am a wife (husband), and this is who I really am"
"I am a philosopher, and this is who I really am"
"I am an amateur, and this is who I really am"
"I am white, and this is who I really am"
"I am Jewish, and this is who I really am"

- and so on. All these identifications are partial or speculative. My point is that whatever identification we would come up with, it would be partial or speculative, covering only a portion of our existence or speculating about it. When our self-definition is based on such a partial or speculative identification, we are bound to miss and neglect other parts - which leads to misery for us, and for others.
 
greenberg said:
The "true identity" I am referring to is when it is formulated like

"I am a child of God, and this is who I really am"
"I am a good person, and this is who I really am"
"I am a bad person, and this is who I really am"
"I am a human, and this is who I really am"
"I am a liar, and this is who I really am"
"I always speak the truth, and this is who I really am"
"I am worthless, and this is who I really am"
"I deserve to be happy, and this is who I really am"
"I am a blob of matter, and this is who I really am"
"I am a product of evolution, and this is who I really am"
"I am a bully, and this is who I really am"
"I am a victim, and this is who I really am"
"I am a wife (husband), and this is who I really am"
"I am a philosopher, and this is who I really am"
"I am an amateur, and this is who I really am"
"I am white, and this is who I really am"
"I am Jewish, and this is who I really am"

- and so on. All these identifications are partial or speculative. My point is that whatever identification we would come up with, it would be partial or speculative, covering only a portion of our existence or speculating about it. When our self-definition is based on such a partial or speculative identification, we are bound to miss and neglect other parts - which leads to misery for us, and for others.
Click to expand...
that is true of material identity (ie identifying with the body - eg american, old, ugly, rich, educated, healthy, etc etc) but not the spiritual identity.

Of course religious principles corrupted by the bodily conception of life are still ultimately material (for instance if I say "I am a child of god" I should be careful that I am not saying "I am a white middle class american" or something).

In the vedas there are clear distinctions between what are dharmas for the body (sva dharma) and what are dharmas for the soul (sanatana or eternal dharma) - in other words material and spiritual identity ..... actually the distinctions are not always so clear - that is how the bhagavad gita starts off (arjuna giving sva dharma excuses to avoid sanatana dharma responsibilities) - I guess you could say it is our tendency in this world to identify with the wrong things (aka misery) but while the problem may be common, it is merely endemic to a way of thinking
 
Norsefire said:
I am interested in hearing why God is an impossibility to the atheists.
Click to expand...

Because to me it is based upon a myth not facts. Throughout time here on Earth humans have tried to come up with ways to control others and gain power over others in benevolent ways instead of using fear. They base their control in ways that cannot be proven but instead must be believed in or have faith in in many instances. A superpower who cannot be seen or heard yet controls humanities very existance is beyond common sense. Those with the power however can somehow relate to this superpower and they tell us what it wants us to do. Seems rather strange doesn't it? :(
 
lightgigantic said:
that is true of material identity (ie identifying with the body - eg american, old, ugly, rich, educated, healthy, etc etc) but not the spiritual identity.
Click to expand...

Can "spiritual identity" be anything but a speculation (in that we cannot verify it, at least not in a foreseeable time)?
Given that we are stuck in "material identity" (and so our insights are tainted by it), how could we know for sure what our "spiritual identity" is?
 
greenberg said:
Can "spiritual identity" be anything but a speculation (in that we cannot verify it, at least not in a foreseeable time)?
Given that we are stuck in "material identity" (and so our insights are tainted by it), how could we know for sure what our "spiritual identity" is?
Click to expand...

I am not even sure how it is defined..
 
I am interested in hearing why God is an impossibility to the atheists.
Click to expand...

Which one?

What should be needless to say is that most atheists, (that I know at least), do not say such a thing is an "impossibility", merely that there is no evidence to suggest there is.
 
Enmos said:
I am not even sure how it is defined..
Click to expand...

I sometimes have the impression that some theists or other spiritualists are implicitly making statements like

"Everything is subject to Maya, except the doctrine about Maya. When a person studies the doctrine about Maya, they are not subject to Maya."

or

"A person could be delusional about anything except for one thing: they cannot be delusional about God. When a person thinks they know God, this is always true - when a person thinks they know God, they in fact do know God."

I mean, it would be comforting if this would be so, but I do not see how it could possibly be so, other than by taking some fundamental assumptions for granted, as if they were the Truth, and denying they are assumptions.
 
Norsefire,

My point is, even if you believe in Science, what is the scientific reason God cannot exist?
Click to expand...
Science is silent on anything that cannot be observed, detected, or tested. Science takes no position in attempting to show that something does not exist.

Perhaps there is a Creator that did create this universe, with its own set of laws (like the physical laws), and then "nature" guided the rest; but in the first place, God created it.
Click to expand...
That’s fine but without any evidence all you have is a speculative fantasy that lacks any credibility. There are plenty of alternative speculations for the existence of the universe that do not require a god that are far more plausible. Why should anyone choose your speculation over the others?

I am interested in hearing why God is an impossibility to the atheists.
Click to expand...
Atheists generally do not assert that a god is impossible but usually refer to specific god concepts like the Christian god or the Islamic god. In both these cases the concepts were derived from ignorant times and based on earlier incredible myths. The related scriptures are rife with inconsistencies, unbelievable fantasies, unsupported claims, and contradictions that lead any rational thinker to conclude that such gods are impossible as presented.

Can a god exist? Depends on how you define such a thing and then, really, no one knows. From a scientific perspective there are now a considerable quantity of hypotheses that explain the universe without reference to supernatural constructs that there is no need for a god to exist. That doesn’t mean a god does not exist or could not exist but that one is not a necessity to explain the universe.
 
greenberg said:
I sometimes have the impression that some theists or other spiritualists are implicitly making statements like

"Everything is subject to Maya, except the doctrine about Maya. When a person studies the doctrine about Maya, they are not subject to Maya."

or

"A person could be delusional about anything except for one thing: they cannot be delusional about God. When a person thinks they know God, this is always true - when a person thinks they know God, they in fact do know God."

I mean, it would be comforting if this would be so, but I do not see how it could possibly be so, other than by taking some fundamental assumptions for granted, as if they were the Truth, and denying they are assumptions.
Click to expand...

Yep, those statements you 'quoted' sound pretty delusional.
I'm not sure whether they really think about it like that though.. they probably just think they are right and all the rest is wrong..
 
Norsefire said:
The tooth fairy could not exist within our realm; it cannot exist by our physical laws. Therefore, it does not exist.

God can; the real point is, God CAN exist, and MAY exist
Click to expand...

How can a being such as God exist within our realm ?
Andif he does, does that mean we can see him; that he is around somewhere ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top