God Must Exist;

[SciWriter]

Of course, 'eternal' is an attribute, 'God' not even then having an earliest memory. Wish we could send him off to search for it, ha-ha.

Complexities still cannot be original, fundamental, and causeless as the First, having been around forever. One cannot have something already made and defined in all of its particulars without even having been made and defined in the first place that never was. Self-contradictory to the max!. This idea can't even work for mere and simple electrons, much less for some ultimate.

Comments?

Do theists/deists have even an explanation how 'God' just happens to be sitting around intact and fully formed for all eternity?

Just in the right place at the right time with all this talent bestowed on Him for no particular reason? Lucky Guy.

 

[wynn]

Comments?

Do theists/deists have even an explanation how 'God' just happens to be sitting around intact and fully formed for all eternity?

Just in the right place at the right time with all this talent bestowed on Him for no particular reason? Lucky Guy.

Strangely, I never had a problem with conceiving God as the First Being, the Cause of All Causes.
"Who created God?" never seemed relevant to me.

I mean, God is defined as being The Cause of All Causes, as the Supreme Being.
It's silly to question a definition.

Asking "Is God indeed the first cause?" is like asking "Are apples a kind of fruit?"

 

[SciWriter]

Strangely, I never had a problem with conceiving God as the First Being, the Cause of All Causes.
"Who created God?" never seemed relevant to me.

I mean, God is defined as being The Cause of All Causes, as the Supreme Being.
It's silly to question a definition.

Asking "Is God indeed the first cause?" is like asking "Are apples a kind of fruit?"

Except that the definition is silly and impossible when extended to the actual, but I will agree that believers seldom question it, and that even those who might don't get down to the nitty-gritty of it, and therein lies the problem: assumption of dogma carved in stone with no basis.

So, here we have 'God', just placed there by a self-defining 'definition', already made and defined in all His specifications without ever having been made and defined as such, for there was no place or time for that.

The initial question has not been answered; only having been replaced by an even more complex question. Then is full stop and think no further, being satisfied, although one could not be in the lessor instance of the first place.

Seems like 'God' has the ultimate royalty bestowed on Him by no bestower at all.

Might not we find out information as we go along, rather than proclaim it all at once thousands of years ago?

 

[nitram22]

I am a spiritual being. The very realization that I am shows me that I owe to something only one thing. I owe to life the respect of life by learning of all that life is and how to live it.
I do know that somewhere along the way man achieved,(along w/ opposable thumbs)the power to learn and understand. And that ability is processed through electrical and chemical interactions within our brains. But, to explain how the manifestations of emotion
are experienced is another story.Yes, the brain processes emotion. And everyone has their own set of parameters for what, why, and how we feel those emotions. The Human experience is about that, and that is the thing that makes us unique among conscious life forms. How and when did this sudden ability embed into our evolution. We we're created. By a course of evolving changes that only the spirit of science will answer. Faith is a wonderful thing for those that wish for simplicity in life. But finding Gods true essence is to find more than what you have in your pocket.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Very pretty, but so what?

How and when did this sudden ability embed into our evolution. We we're created.

Supposition.

By a course of evolving changes that only the spirit of science will answer.

I would have thought that it would be the practice of science rather than the spirit, but...
Are you of the opinion that science will at some point verify god's existence?

But finding Gods true essence is to find more than what you have in your pocket.

Another supposition.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bells,

How is that even possible?

Quite easily.
I live in a concrete jungle.

I have seen several trees fall down. And I can recall the sound they make very clearly.

Being in it's presence is a completely different experience to not being.

I can then deduce that it would be similar. But that would only if I were to come upon the fallen down tree or be told of it later.

So if in my mind the tree doesn't make a sound, which one of us
is actually right?

You mean scrounging for survival, finding clean drinking water and food to remain alive? That would be godly?

What's ''godly''?

We consider nature awesome because we do not really live in it, we do not have to hunt for our own food, or pick berries and hope they are not poisonous and avoid deadly animals on a day to day basis..

I disagree.
I think we have become arogant, selfish, and harmful to nature.

I am sure if I dumped you in the middle of the outback, for example, with nothing but the clothes on your back, you would not be 'regarding the awsomness of nature as God'.

If i found that i could survive, i'm sure it would increase my awe and respect for God. I suppose it depends where your head's at.

How do you know? You apparently haven't even seen a tree fall down. A newly planted tree would make the same noise, just not as loud.

Ah! But i know what a tree is.
I know that they are generally heavy.
I have heard the sounds they make in heavy wind.
I have experienced the sounds heavy objects make when they drop.
I'm sure i could put my imagination to work.
But which one of us would be correct?

Coming back to the existense of God; Does, belief, no belief, evidence, or no evidence, alter it?

God can only not exist if he has the same quality of complete non-existence.


jan.

 

[wynn]

Except that the definition is silly and impossible when extended to the actual, but I will agree that believers seldom question it, and that even those who might don't get down to the nitty-gritty of it, and therein lies the problem: assumption of dogma carved in stone with no basis.

So, here we have 'God', just placed there by a self-defining 'definition', already made and defined in all His specifications without ever having been made and defined as such, for there was no place or time for that.

Saying such things suggests that you are omniscient ...

The initial question has not been answered; only having been replaced by an even more complex question. Then is full stop and think no further, being satisfied, although one could not be in the lessor instance of the first place.

Satisfied?

What is the point of writing one's own dictionary?
Writing one's own dictionary will disable one from effectively communicating with others.

Might not we find out information as we go along, rather than proclaim it all at once thousands of years ago?

You seem to take for granted that the holy scriptures that are purported to be the Word of God, are not actually the Word of God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SciWriter,

So, here we have 'God', just placed there by a self-defining 'definition', already made and defined in all His specifications without ever having been made and defined as such, for there was no place or time for that.

Not at all.
'God' refers to a system of heirachy, one which is found throughout the whole of life. The definition given by St. Anslem in his ontological proof refers to the top of the chain.

So whether you like it or not, you have a conception of God.
And if you have heard about the Supreme Being conception, then He exists, even if only in your mind.

Whether you argue for or against Him, he always exist.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

nitram22,

I am a spiritual being. The very realization that I am shows me that I owe to something only one thing. I owe to life the respect of life by learning of all that life is and how to live it.

Hi nitram22, welcome to the forums.
As a ''spiritual being'', what is it that you must respect about life, what is it
that you must learn, and how are you going about learning it?

Somewhere along the way man achieved,(along w/ opposable thumbs)the power to learn and understand.

Apart from scientific advancement, what do you think man has achieved?
Or do you think scientific advancement IS the achievement of man?

Yes, the brain processes emotion.

Do you think the brain sends out a signal, then we become emotional?

And everyone has their own set of parameters for what, why, and how we feel those emotions.

What happens when we learn to overcome these emotions?

The Human experience is about that, and that is the thing that makes us unique among conscious life forms. How and when did this sudden ability embed into our evolution.

Are you saying there was a point when humans didn't have emotions?

We we're created. By a course of evolving changes that only the spirit of science will answer.

What is ''the spirit of science''?

Faith is a wonderful thing for those that wish for simplicity in life.

Why render it to ''simplicity''?
When your back is completely against the wall, and all that matters is struggling to exist, faith is what keeps you going.
If you were at work and an earthquake occurred, followed by tsunami, followed by possible nuclear meltdown, what's going to carry you through life?

All computers, libraries, data, gone. Where is your family? Will you see them again? What are you going to eat? This is reality.
It's easy to sit in the comfort of our living room spouting science is the answer to life, when in fact it isn't. It is but a part of life.
Faith is a totally important aspect of real life, and at some point we will all
understand this.

jan.

jan.


But finding Gods true essence is to find more than what you have in your pocket.[/QUOTE]

Do you believe that the ability to learn, know, and understand, has evolved
from not having these abilities to having them? Or do you believe they are part and parcel of what it means to be human?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

The idea of ''illusory'' is a choice we make after the relationship is forged.

jan.

Right, you can chose to remain oblivious to the illusory nature of your belief, and that is called faith.

 

[leopold]

Much smaller.
Zero external inputs of energy.

so, all the energy of the universe was contain in a volume smaller than an amoeba?
wow, that must have been some hot stuff, 'bout like my current girlfriend.

nice rack.

 

[nitram22]

nonsensical logic?

Hi Jan.
Thanks.

The point I am getting at is that we all have a unique quality that gives us the ability to learn, understand, and make choices based on what we know. We have the choice to use faith as our security and strength. Or we can decide that we should go and find the answers through the tangible evidence that science may bring. It's the conscious choices we are able to make that sets us apart.
And yes I am of the opinion that religion is the root of all evil. But, not spiritualism. There is a mathematical balance to all that we can see, touch, and hear. And I do believe that 'God' is there and science is the path laid out for us to follow.
oh yeah, I can see you all rolling your eyes right now. But I can say one thing is for certain. I believe in possibilities, but I am a scientist to to core.
This planet will suffer another catastrophic event such as a meteor strike or something else and chances are life here will cease to be. At least as we know it. Sitting in church and wishing for divine intervention is not going to protect you. We've already had divine intervention. We've been given the intelligence and ability to foresee and prepare. If 'God' instilled in us the ability
to find answers and we chose not to use that ability, I think that he would say.... "Morons!!! I put the answers right there in front of you. Use the skills I gave you"
But, lets talk reality and lets open our eyes.
We are on our own out here in space. We have to make our own way.
Or do I not understand the meaning of freewill?

PS. If this don't confuse you, you might have deeper issues than I do.

 

[SciWriter]

And if you have heard about the Supreme Being conception, then He exists, even if only in your mind.

Whether you argue for or against Him, he always exist.

jan.

We know that imagination can exist. This doesn't mean that whatever can be imagined must exist.

 

[SciWriter]

'God' refers to a system of heirachy, one which is found throughout the whole of life. The definition given by St. Anslem in his ontological proof refers to the top of the chain.

Are you saying that stuff came before Him, that He is a highly evolved life form who did not create everything?

 

[Dywyddyr]

There is a mathematical balance to all that we can see, touch, and hear.

Uh, there is?

And I do believe that 'God' is there

We've already had divine intervention.

I am a scientist to to core.

you might have deeper issues than I do.

Issues... yes.

 

[SciWriter]

Saying such things suggests that you are omniscient ...

No, just logical.

Satisfied?

Yes, now satisfied with the much large dilemma, no less.

What is the point of writing one's own dictionary?
Writing one's own dictionary will disable one from effectively communicating with others.

They made it out of their wishes.

You seem to take for granted that the holy scriptures that are purported to be the Word of God, are not actually the Word of God.

They took it for granite stone in the first place, presuming. God never said a word; people did. They then picked and choose what Books to keep.

 

[glaucon]

If our whole life, and perception are based on relationships.
God must exist.

For something NOT to exist fully, it cannot be percieved by the mind, or exist
in the memory.

Hi, just want to see what you philosophical headz think to this;

1. To believe God does not exist, or, that there is not enough evidence for his existence, still forms a relationship, at least in the mind, because God has to be percieved to not to exist.

2. That perception differs ONLY, from the perception of God does exist, in
the negative sense, as opposed to a positive one.

3. The only way God can NOT exist is to illiminate all notions of God, Supreme Being, Leader, boss, from the mind.
By doing so one relinquishes the relationship.

4. This is not a theistic argument, or a religious one.
It is more in the realm of an ontological one.

What do you think?

thanks
jan.

Jan,

As has been noted by others, one cannot assert existence on the basis of a belief. Having a relationship to a notion of god says nothing whatsoever about the world, but rather, simply comments on your particular mind.

 

[Jan Ardena]

We know that imagination can exist. This doesn't mean that whatever can be imagined must exist.

That's not the point i'm making.

God exists, at least in the mind.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Are you saying that stuff came before Him, that He is a highly evolved life form who did not create everything?

read it again;
'God' refers to a system of heirachy, one which is found throughout the whole of life.
The definition given by St. Anslem in his ontological proof refers to the top of the chain.

in response to;

''So, here we have 'God', just placed there by a self-defining 'definition', already made and defined in all His specifications without ever having been made and defined as such, for there was no place or time for that. ''

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

glaucon,

As has been noted by others, one cannot assert existence on the basis of a belief.

That is my point.
Maybe you misunderstood.

Having a relationship to a notion of god says nothing whatsoever about the world, but rather, simply comments on your particular mind.

So you're saying ''minds'' say nothing about the world?


jan.