Im Converting!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter Neutrino_Albatross
- Start date
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Hello Cris
,Eternal: If He is not, something else created Him. something else created the something that created God, and we can keep going. If He is not eternal, He is not God.
Perfect: This is rather subjective and opinion, but to me God is flawless, He can't be like Humans and flawed.
God is perfect, for something to be perfect it must exist, so God exists.
I know, I know cirrcular logic Please don't comment on the italics I believe God to exist and the italics is not proof of His existence, that was just a joke for the atheists - cirrcular reasoning, Xev fallacy right? Omnipotent: God must be all-powerful to be God. If He is not all-powerful, what if something is more powerful than He is? Does that still make Him God? I don't think so. Science works through God's power. (Don't ask me "How does it work through science? Can you prove this?" - No I have no proof, I believe this.)
Omniscient: God has total knowledge. He is the ultimate truth. He always existed, He came before the universe and precedes time. If He doesn't know everything, how is He God? Humans do not know everything, so it puts Him on the same level as us if He is not omniscient.
Creator: God created the universe. He organized the universe through science. Science is His tool. I don't believe in "poofing"
So Cris, does believing in such a God limit me? Make me irrational? Yes I do rest something on faith and not pure logic. God is a truth that I wish to seek, I believe God to be the ultimate truth, I will try to reach this truth through any means possible, through science.
The way I look at God and science, it does not limit me concerning science.
Hi Chosen,
Your statements explain specific concepts but not the reasons. You begin from the assumption that a god must exist. Why must a god exist?
The primary reason for the existence of a god, typical of your description, is to provide an explanation for the existence of the universe, e.g. a creator. The idea here is that everything has a cause, and therefore the universe must have been caused. But this idea breaks down when we must consider how such a god is caused. You answer that he is eternal, i.e. has no cause. But that is logically inconsistent with the idea that everything must have a cause. Since theists are therefore prepared to accept that not everything must be caused then we can re-visit the original question of where did the universe come from and provide the answer that it is eternal, i.e. it was not caused but has always existed. At this point the whole highly complex issue of gods simply vanishes, i.e. the concept of a god is not needed to explain the existence of the universe.
In which case why do you want believe a creator god exists?
The main problem with omnipotence, omniscience and creation all embodied in a single entity is that that leaves no room for human free will; humans would be just puppets in the hands of this being that knows and controls everything. However, you have not stated that you believe that humans have free will, do you? If you do then your idea of god as you have defined him is impossible (a paradox). I’ll explain further depending on your answer.
You can remove these limits by starting from the perspective that you don’t know whether a god exists or not, and then be prepared to accept whatever you find in a truly objective manner.
Take care
Cris
Your statements explain specific concepts but not the reasons. You begin from the assumption that a god must exist. Why must a god exist?
The primary reason for the existence of a god, typical of your description, is to provide an explanation for the existence of the universe, e.g. a creator. The idea here is that everything has a cause, and therefore the universe must have been caused. But this idea breaks down when we must consider how such a god is caused. You answer that he is eternal, i.e. has no cause. But that is logically inconsistent with the idea that everything must have a cause. Since theists are therefore prepared to accept that not everything must be caused then we can re-visit the original question of where did the universe come from and provide the answer that it is eternal, i.e. it was not caused but has always existed. At this point the whole highly complex issue of gods simply vanishes, i.e. the concept of a god is not needed to explain the existence of the universe.
In which case why do you want believe a creator god exists?
The main problem with omnipotence, omniscience and creation all embodied in a single entity is that that leaves no room for human free will; humans would be just puppets in the hands of this being that knows and controls everything. However, you have not stated that you believe that humans have free will, do you? If you do then your idea of god as you have defined him is impossible (a paradox). I’ll explain further depending on your answer.
Limit? Not sure what you mean by that, but irrational, yes, you are technically irrational since the process of reasoning depends entirely on facts and you have none, you only have concepts. If you want to claim rationality you must either provide evidence for your beliefs or accept that the basis for your ideas are just unproven hypotheses, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Good science means maintaining strict objectivity. To remove any limitations one must not make assumptions about any experimentation and accept the findings no matter what they show. Poor scientists tend to only show experimental results that favor what they want to prove and conveniently discard contrary results. Your approach of believing that something is true before you begin necessarily limits your ability to be objective.
You can remove these limits by starting from the perspective that you don’t know whether a god exists or not, and then be prepared to accept whatever you find in a truly objective manner.
Take care
Cris
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
I believe God to exist, not must exist. If I say God must exist then I am at fault because must means with 100% certainty that God exists. I can't justify that claim, therefore I believe in God.
Yes to provide an explanation for the existence of the universe. Also I set God as an ultimate truth. He has total knowledge.
The way I look at the universe, is to learn what I can, such as through science and then link it to God (God is always the last link). Science is God's tool. The way I look at the universe does not restrict my ability to learn, uncover the truth. I believe in God because I want the truth. Since I believe Him to be the ultimate truth, I seek Him.
Cris do you believe in Big Bang or no? For atheists the cause of the Universe is "randomness." Maybe the universe could be eternal, as proposed by the Plasma Theory, that would be a joy to seek such a truth. Stars have life cycles and so on.
Also I don't believe in everything must have a cause. It's a dilemma. God is the end of a cause, He needs no cause because He is eternal. If we insist on everything must have a cause then we can keep going and going, on and on, about God's cause, God's cause cause, and so on. That eliminates God.
Something with total knowledge can answer anything. When such a God exists, my insatiable want/need to learn will end.
Isn't this your concept? I didn't say God controls everything, I said He is all-powerful. Yes, I do believe Humans have a free will. A free will to learn and gather knowledge.
I'm interested to what you exactly mean, explain this "paradox."
Then so be it, I am irrational for having faith.
Also by such a statement you are inferring that scientists that believe in a Higgs Boson in another inflatable dimension are also irrational also. Or those that accept the String Theory of 11 to 24 different dimensions. These are all unproven hypotheses. I understand, by your definition we are all irrational. Emphasis: By your definition.
The mysterious is the greatest thing. Faith is often required to venture into the mysterious and seek truth. I believe God to be the ultimate mysterious, once we find Him, our search for insatiable knowledge ends.
Agreed, as I said earlier, I accept all truths. Yes, I do believe God is true, but if I find out He is not true, then I will accept that truth and rule out my faith in Him being true.
Yes I don't know that God exists. I have faith that God exists. Know is to regard as a truth beyond a doubt (you need evidence to know if something is true or not). Faith is a belief that doesn't rest on material evidence and also a confident belief in a truth (you don't need evidence for faith).
Last edited:
Chosen,
1. I believe God to exist.
2. I believe God must exist.
3. I believe in God.
Each of these statements say exactly the same thing as each other.
The common phrase “I believe in God” is an abbreviation for “I believe as a truth that God exists”. This is the usual interpretation. The first phrase is then clearly the same as the third. These statements state that a God exists, without doubt, with 100% certainty. This is the theist position. The term ‘must’ is redundant since to believe God exists implies that he must exist.
Consider 10 colored balls. In logic we can say that ALL balls are blue, or SOME balls are blue, or NO balls are blue. When dealing with the question of a theist belief in the existence of God there are only two states: Either one believes God exists (100% certainty) or one does not have 100% certainty.
The two positions are –
1. Theism = 100% certainty of the existence of God.
2. Atheism = No certainty of the existence of God.
Atheism can also be seen as two primary types –
1. Disbelief of the theist claims (the weak position).
2. A belief that God does not exist (the strong position).
The weak atheist position can also be seen as skepticism.
At this point I think you should decide what you are, a theist (no doubt) or an atheist (has doubts).
If you have free will to determine your own destiny then God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient. The problem with heaping many super superlatives onto a God means you create a paradox. Either God has control and you are merely a puppet created to act out a pre-determined sequence of actions, or you have free will and God does not have the abilities you ascribe.
So please take care when you claim that scientists “BELIEVE” something, generally they remain fiercely skeptical of any claims that truth has been achieved.
Note though that faith is a claim that you do KNOW before you have any evidence. You cannot claim that you don’t know and you do know in the same sentence.
You haven’t yet quite grasped what is meant by the term ‘faith’. If you replace the word ‘faith’ with ‘suspect’ then I think your position will be much clearer.
In that light your statement would read –
I don't know that God exists. But I suspect that God exists.
And that I think accurately summarizes your perspective. How close am I?
Take care
Cris
I think you are leaving room for healthy skepticism, but I think you are showing some confusion about the words you are using. For example the phrases –
1. I believe God to exist.
2. I believe God must exist.
3. I believe in God.
Each of these statements say exactly the same thing as each other.
The common phrase “I believe in God” is an abbreviation for “I believe as a truth that God exists”. This is the usual interpretation. The first phrase is then clearly the same as the third. These statements state that a God exists, without doubt, with 100% certainty. This is the theist position. The term ‘must’ is redundant since to believe God exists implies that he must exist.
Consider 10 colored balls. In logic we can say that ALL balls are blue, or SOME balls are blue, or NO balls are blue. When dealing with the question of a theist belief in the existence of God there are only two states: Either one believes God exists (100% certainty) or one does not have 100% certainty.
The two positions are –
1. Theism = 100% certainty of the existence of God.
2. Atheism = No certainty of the existence of God.
Atheism can also be seen as two primary types –
1. Disbelief of the theist claims (the weak position).
2. A belief that God does not exist (the strong position).
The weak atheist position can also be seen as skepticism.
At this point I think you should decide what you are, a theist (no doubt) or an atheist (has doubts).
The latest theories indicate that the big bang is just one of a potential infinite number of big bangs all in various states of expansion and death. The cause of a big bang is not yet understood. To say I believe in the big bang would not be accurate. It is not possible to reach a deductive conclusion because we do not yet have enough information. Inductively we can see significant evidence to support big bangs and quantum events as their cause. This tends to indicate a high probability that big bang theory is a strong contender for explaining the universe.
Consider then your God who created the universe. At the moment of creation, he will know with perfect knowledge everything you are going to do throughout your entire life. This is omniscience. It follows then that all of your actions have been perfectly pre-determined at the beginning of time. You can have no freedom to change any action because if you could then God would not be omniscient. Since you say your god is perfect and omnipotent then clearly everything that happens is perfect and according to his desires and omnipotence. Since you have no choice over your actions then God must have absolute control over everything you do.
If you have free will to determine your own destiny then God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient. The problem with heaping many super superlatives onto a God means you create a paradox. Either God has control and you are merely a puppet created to act out a pre-determined sequence of actions, or you have free will and God does not have the abilities you ascribe.
That is an honesty most theists do not admit.
No that is not correct. A scientific hypothesis is not a belief that something is true. Rather it is a speculative explanation of observed phenomena. Scientists might personally want their hypotheses to be true but they are well aware that a desire for truth is not the same thing as achieving a truth.
So please take care when you claim that scientists “BELIEVE” something, generally they remain fiercely skeptical of any claims that truth has been achieved.
This is not true. Faith is a premature belief that something is true before actually knowing. The responsible scientist maintains skepticism throughout an investigation. Faith is never required only imaginative speculations as an aid to research. Only when factual deductions can be made will a tentative truth be declared. In most of science it seems that most evidence is not deductively conclusive but the predominance of evindence can lead to inductive conclusions.
Ok nearly done. You are clearly an atheist, welcome aboard.
Note though that faith is a claim that you do KNOW before you have any evidence. You cannot claim that you don’t know and you do know in the same sentence.
You haven’t yet quite grasped what is meant by the term ‘faith’. If you replace the word ‘faith’ with ‘suspect’ then I think your position will be much clearer.
In that light your statement would read –
I don't know that God exists. But I suspect that God exists.
And that I think accurately summarizes your perspective. How close am I?
Take care
Cris
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Forgive me if I have shown confusion. What I meant was, if I did say "God must exist!" Any atheist may ask and attack on that statement, asking, "Why must God exist?" It is much simpler to just state, "I believe in God." If an athiest would attack upon that declaration, asking, "Why do you believe in God?" My answer would be, "Because of my faith." Simplicity is important and avoids confusion.
I do agree with you, that one cannot believe 50%, 25.5%, and so on, that is ridiculous. Therefore, yes I do believe in God. Since I tend to want to stay open-minded, I do also see the possibility of no such thing as God.
The difference here is, I accept the possibility of a God and reject the possibility of no God, therefore I believe in God. Now you know why I avoid the term "must." The two terms "certainty" and "believe" should not be specified at the same value. Certainty requires something to be clearly established and assured, God is not clearly established or assured. So to state that God exists with 100% certainty is fallacious. With reference to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, humans do not know anything to be 100% certain. We can only believe or suggest it to be.
Do you see the difference between know and believe?
Replace certainty with belief. It is illogical for both atheists and theists to state accordingly to a certainty. How do atheists know with no certainty that God does not exist? How do theists know with 100% certainty that God does exist? Just keep it simple and use the term believe.
I am a theist. Atheists rest nothing on faith, I rest something on faith, that makes me a theist (mainly because I believe in God), not by certainty but by faith.
I will try not to interpret God. You cannot try to use logic to discredit God and state that He is a "paradox" and then outrule God based on human logic. Nor can I really defend God. I do not know God's powers, what God is, how God works - therefore I cannot question on how God is to be, as you have assumed.
Religions do that Cris
I will make an exception to challenge your claim, I will assume and interpret God, we may both be wrong, and I will show you how logic is defeatable.
1) Omniscience - God has total knowledge. How do you know God exercises all His power? How do I know He doesn't? It is a paradox as you state. God knows everything, yet we still have the free will to do as we wish. Using logic to defeat God, IMO, is pointless. Same way as using logic in favor of God (as I have stating His abilities and powers). God is the ultimate mysterious. You cannot defeat something mysterious, make unknown interpretations of, and use logic to rule out. Since we do not even understand it in the first place. Assumptions are worth almost nothing.
2) Omnipotent - Maybe God has the power to give us this free will yet this cannot cancel out his omniscience. Now, does that conform to logic? Of course not, could humans possibly understand such a paradox? How do you know if God did not "pre-determine" the events, rather He just knows what paths we will take. God has the power to predict any events to happen. Say a fortune teller, she has the power to see into the future - she sees your future, does that mean she has total control over your entire life?
But this sounds like such childish babble, saying "well God has the power to this and that." Frankly, I don't know God personally, I have no idea of God and God's abilities and/or capabilities.
I assume it will be a brick wall argument if we continue about God, since either of us don't know who God is. It is my fault then for trying to use logic to support God and making assumptions.
Forgive me, some theists are NOT irrational, rather they are illogical, as in not conforming to logic but rather faith. Irrational = senseless.
Notice I stated by your definition.
Cris, did you not blow up to me about believing in other dimensions? What "observations" do these scientists have concerning the multiple dimensions?
Cris, you need to believe in something before actually pursuing it. The Luminous Ether for example, you first believe it to be true, pursue this belief, then prove it to be true, it then no longer is a belief, but a truth. You believe for the truth, then you seek the truth. Of course they still maintain skepticism, all scientist must do this, it is a given. They cannot be 100% certain it "must" exist, it is fallacious to think that way.
Most scientists, believe in the Big Bang, but of course they remain skeptical because they do not know it is true yet because of limited evidence. There is a distinct difference between knowing something to be true and believing something to be true.
Ask any scientist that pursues their Big Bang Theory, do they have faith in their Big Bang Theory that it could possibly be true? If they do not, why pursue it?
No, not done yet, you misinterpreted between
certainty and believe
I am a theist. *Declines invitation to atheistism*
Clearly I'm not an atheist, or maybe I'm just an atheist that believes in a God
How do I know that God exists?
I have faith that God exists. Know is a term that requires experience, I did not experience anything that proves the existence of God.
The thing is, faith rests on nearly nothing, no evidence, experiences of truths, etc.
You are close, but know and faith are two different things.
Put a box around an orange, we cannot see the orange. We don't know what is in the box.
Cris: I know there is an apple in the box.
Chosen: I have faith that there is an apple in the box.
Do you see the difference? To know something requires experience(s).
Take care,
~The_Chosen~