Why do many Americans believe in God?

[Sarkus]

And I'm saying that existence is a perception that we perceive in this material world.
The material world could not have brought itself into being. The cause of the material world cannot, therefore, be material.
If the cause cannot be material, it must be immaterial, the opposite to material, by nature.

You can say what you like to others, Jan, but this has simply no bearing on what I have said. Your continued evasion is insulting.

To repeat: You said: "If everything ceased to be, you would be left with the Supreme Cause of ALL Causes.."
No mention of existence in this material world, no mention of material or immaterial. So stop with the strawmen and the irrelevancies. Drop the question of "existence" which, despite my previous e-mail as to how it should be understood in the context of this conversation, you seem intent on limiting it to simply a perception "in this material world".

If everything "ceased to be" you would have nothing. That includes NO GOD whether God is material or immaterial.
Unless you think that God, as immaterial, is unable to "cease to be" - in which case you are simply special pleading.
The alternative is that we define God as nothing... i.e. God is not in the state of being. And thus when there is nothing left, we can equate that to God, because we have defined God as nothing. And then we conclude that everything comes from nothing... which would be synonymous with God being the "Supreme Cause of ALL Causes".
So do you concur that God is nothing? That God is not in the state of being? It seems to be the only logical conclusion to your otherwise contradictory claim.

 

[Jan Ardena]

To repeat: You said: "If everything ceased to be, you would be left with the Supreme Cause of ALL Causes.."
No mention of existence in this material world, no mention of material or immaterial. So stop with the strawmen and the irrelevancies.

The Supreme Cause of ALL Causes, defines God. How can immaterial, and spirit be excluded? Do you require me to change my definition so you can make your point?

Drop the question of "existence" which, despite my previous e-mail as to how it should be understood in the context of this conversation, you seem intent on limiting it to simply a perception "in this material world".

Ultimately it is a perception. No matter how much you learn about it, it is still a perception./
A non existent person cannot perceive anything. But non existent people don't exist. Do they?

If everything "ceased to be" you would have nothing. That includes NO GOD whether God is material or immaterial.
Unless you think that God, as immaterial, is unable to "cease to be" - in which case you are simply special pleading.

Nothing only works in relation to something.

The alternative is that we define God as nothing... i.e. God is not in the state of being. And thus when there is nothing left, we can equate that to God, because we have defined God as nothing. And then we conclude that everything comes from nothing... which would be synonymous with God being the "Supreme Cause of ALL Causes".

You can define God as nothing, but it is still The Supreme Cause of ALL Causes without which we couldn't perceive anything.
As I said earlier, nothing just becomes another property of God.

That God is not in the state of being?

God's being is not subject to the laws of nature, it neither comes into or, out of being.

jan.

 

[Yazata]

If the only thing that is natural is the natural universe, and it must have had a cause, then the only explanation is for the cause to be supernatural. The specifics are what are to be debated on.

Except that cause and effect appear to be a little understood relationship that seems to hold between natural events that are part of the natural universe. We don't really have any reason to believe that the causal relation will continue to hold true between the natural universe in its entirety and some hypothetical 'supernatural' thing outside that universe.

 

[Sarkus]

The Supreme Cause of ALL Causes, defines God. How can immaterial, and spirit be excluded? Do you require me to change my definition so you can make your point?

That's the point - I'm not excluding them - you are! If you don't exclude them then even these would "cease to be". Whether God is material, immaterial, spirit - irrelevant - as I do not exclude them. They would cease to be. God would cease to be.

Ultimately it is a perception. No matter how much you learn about it, it is still a perception./
A non existent person cannot perceive anything. But non existent people don't exist. Do they?

No, it's not a perception. That we perceive someone/thing else to exist is, but the reality of that existence is not a perception. So stop trying to obfuscate. As ever you're trying to just flood the discussion with drivel either so that the other person gives up or until you successfully move the line of discussion away from the flaw you're trying to gloss over. Pathetic.

Nothing only works in relation to something.

Fortunately we currently are something. So we can have a reasonable notion of nothing - being the absence of everything - whether material, immaterial, spirit etc.

You can define God as nothing, but it is still The Supreme Cause of ALL Causes without which we couldn't perceive anything.
As I said earlier, nothing just becomes another property of God.

Not another property - it becomes God in its entirety. I don't define God as nothing. We are working here with your definition ("Supreme Cause of ALL Causes") and currently your definition, and your argument, leads as shown to the conclusion that God equates simply to "nothing". Is this the God you worship / believe in?
Nothingness?

God's being is not subject to the laws of nature, it neither comes into or, out of being.

Special pleading - as you require everything else (by definition) to stem from God without any particular reason (other than through definition - and belief in the reality of that definition is in itself nothing but an unsupported assumption).

 

[sideshowbob]

God's being is not subject to the laws of nature, it neither comes into or, out of being.

But we are subject to the laws of nature - so how can we know anything about something that is not?

 

[DaveC426913]

So stop trying to obfuscate. As ever you're trying to just flood the discussion with drivel either so that the other person gives up or until you successfully move the line of discussion away from the flaw you're trying to gloss over.

Jan, I consider myself tolerant and respectful, but even I am keenly aware of this tactic. You hope that, by responding with a barrage of clarification questions, no one will notice that you have evaded the point. You think it works but everyone else knows it is an evasion tactic.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's the point - I'm not excluding them - you are! If you don't exclude them then even these would "cease to be". Whether God is material, immaterial, spirit - irrelevant - as I do not exclude them. They would cease to be. God would cease to be.

You seem to be missing the point.
Everything, is a perception.
We have the ability to perceive.
Perception, mixed in with everything is caused by God, The Supreme Cause of ALL Causes.
If God decides to wrap up everything, why would He cease to be.

If the creators of The Simms computer game decides to discontinue the game, does it mean they discontinue themselves?

No, it's not a perception. That we perceive someone/thing else to exist is, but the reality of that existence is not a perception.

Could you, or anyone else know that without the aid of perception?

Fortunately we currently are something. So we can have a reasonable notion of nothing - being the absence of everything - whether material, immaterial, spirit etc.

We only have that notion because we are something.
The absence of everything, itself, is nothing but a perception, based on our experience of things being absence.
We can't truly have a notion of the absence of everything unless we can remove our perception from it. But we can't.

Not another property - it becomes God in its entirety.

Your experience of nothing, is in relation to something. As I said before we are incapable of even imagining the concept of absolute nothingness, because you cannot remove your mind, and it's perceiving the observation.

We are working here with your definition ("Supreme Cause of ALL Causes") and currently your definition, and your argument, leads as shown to the conclusion that God equates simply to "nothing". Is this the God you worship / believe in?
Nothingness?

Nothing isn't caused, because there is nothing to cause.
God is The Supreme Cause of ALL Causes.
You do the math.

Special pleading - as you require everything else (by definition) to stem from God without any particular reason (other than through definition - and belief in the reality of that definition is in itself nothing but an unsupported assumption).

That's your opinion. A crap one, but one all the same.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

But we are subject to the laws of nature - so how can we know anything about something that is not?

Through the process of Self-Realisation.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan, I consider myself tolerant and respectful, but even I am keenly aware of this tactic. You hope that, by responding with a barrage of clarification questions, no one will notice that you have evaded the point. You think it works but everyone else knows it is an evasion tactic.

Dave, I'm glad that you consider yourself tolerant and respectful, and I hope that it is true.
Could you point out these tactics?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

You seem to be missing the point.
Everything, is a perception.

No, everything is not a perception.

We have the ability to perceive.

We can only perceive what already exists, and by no means are we capable of perceiving everything that exists.

Perception, mixed in with everything is caused by God, The Supreme Cause of ALL Causes.

So you claim. Please support it.

If God decides to wrap up everything, why would He cease to be.

If the creators of The Simms computer game decides to discontinue the game, does it mean they discontinue themselves?

So now you're changing your question (which was actually not originally raised as a question but a claim)... from "If everything ceased to be..." to "If God decides to wrap up everything...".
So once again all you have is a strawman to argue against?
Why bother posting at all if you're not actually going to address any of the points actually made and if all you're going to do is basically have a discussion with yourself?

Could you, or anyone else know that without the aid of perception?

What we might require to know it is irrelevant. Please stop asking such red-herrings. I couldn't know it without having been fed, without breathing oxygen. So what!
As to how we can know it: our perception can only be of something that exists prior to our perception (it does take time for our brain to receive any input from that thing). Whether we perceive that thing as it is in reality is a different matter - but that thing exists whether we perceive it or not.

We only have that notion because we are something.
The absence of everything, itself, is nothing but a perception, based on our experience of things being absence.
We can't truly have a notion of the absence of everything unless we can remove our perception from it. But we can't.
...
Your experience of nothing, is in relation to something. As I said before we are incapable of even imagining the concept of absolute nothingness, because you cannot remove your mind, and it's perceiving the observation.

Utter drivel. And nothing but a cop out, Jan. Are you not intellectually capable of coming up with a notion of nothing? It's simple. You treat it like a metaphorical black box with nothing inside it. Zip. Nada. Zero. Nout. Do you need to remove our perception of the outside of the black box? No! But you still have a notion of what is inside: nothing.

Nothing isn't caused, because there is nothing to cause.
God is The Supreme Cause of ALL Causes.
You do the math.

Thus God is nothing and therefore does not exist. QED. Thanks, Jan.

That's your opinion. A crap one, but one all the same.

Feel free to rebut it then, Jan. If it's a crap opinion then it should be easy for you.
Or is merely calling it crap the limit of your ability?

 

[wellwisher]

Among the main world cultures, America is known for its creativity and ability to innovate. Germany is known for its precise fabrication and machining abilities, while Japan is known for its high quality manufacturing.

Creativity and innovation, connected to America, means the ability to work outside the box of what is known . This is what one also does with religion. God is not something one can prove, using the box of known science. God is outside the box. There is a connection between the two, in the sense of the shared lessons of being outside the box.

Perfect machining and perfect manufacturing is not about faith, but lots of practice making perfect. But innovation is about the new, which needs faith, since one has to walk alone and can't always practice without precedent. The charisma of faith is what makes innovation easier since both religion and innovation learn to operate outside the box. Faith is about, what first appears in the wilderness as a vision; outside the box, and what shall be part of the box, in the future.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, I'm glad that you consider yourself tolerant and respectful, and I hope that it is true.
Could you point out these tactics?

You just did. Better than I could have.
And I think you know that. You're just havin' fun.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No, everything is not a perception.

If all perception ceases to be, what is left.

So you claim. Please support it.

Already have.

So now you're changing your question (which was actually not originally raised as a question but a claim)... from "If everything ceased to be..." to "If God decides to wrap up everything...".

Same difference. In my world view, God is the cause of everything (including) perception, as opposed to stuff popping into existence by itself. So ''everything ceased to be'' is non different than ''If God decides to wrap every thing up''. That's what it would take to wrap everything up.

What we might require to know it is irrelevant. Please stop asking such red-herrings.

It's not a red-herring, which is why you went on to try and answer the question, albeit pathetically.
If you insist that it is, then show it. Don't just assert it.

I couldn't know it without having been fed, without breathing oxygen. So what!

You mean you couldn't know it if you didn't exist.
So what? You've just accepted my point.

Why bother posting at all if you're not actually going to address any of the points actually made and if all you're going to do is basically have a discussion with yourself?

Once again. Stop being a douche, and pull yourself together. I am addressing your points from my world view, and you're doing a hopeless job of maintaining any credibility for your world view.
You're on the ropes Sarkus.

Whether we perceive that thing as it is in reality is a different matter - but that thing exists whether we perceive it or not.

So basically you're asserting that things exist outside of perception?
Can you properly support this claim?
Your attempts thus far have been piss poor.

Utter drivel. And nothing but a cop out, Jan. Are you not intellectually capable of coming up with a notion of nothing? It's simple. You treat it like a metaphorical black box with nothing inside it. Zip. Nada. Zero. Nout. Do you need to remove our perception of the outside of the black box? No! But you still have a notion of what is inside: nothing.

Note that you need a black box (something), to demonstrate that nothing is inside it.
No shit Sherlock, you're just reiterating my point.
If you really want to impress me, show me nothing without something having to be the star of the show.

Thus God is nothing and therefore does not exist. QED. Thanks, Jan.

Come with a demonstration of nothingness, no co dependency. Then we'll carry on this discussion.

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Curious, Jan, is English a second language to you?

 

[Jan Ardena]

You just did. Better than I could have.
And I think you know that. You're just havin' fun.

Apart from the ''havin' fun'' part, this makes no sense.
You're right, I am ''havin fun''. Aren't you?
I bet Sarkus is.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Curious, Jan, is English a second language to you?

Hello pussy cat.

No. It's my first and only language. What are trying to say?

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Hello pussy cat.

No. It's my first and only language. What are trying to say?

jan.

I simply have trouble understanding some stuff you say.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I simply have trouble understanding some stuff you say.

I'm sorry about that.
Is there something I can try to clarify for you?

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I'm sorry about that.
Is there something I can try to clarify for you?

Well, this:

Who is me, in relation to myself?

:EDIT:

If it was just a hasty, not well thought out post, I can understand that.

Heck, if I thought out everything before I post, I wouldn't post at all.

 

[sideshowbob]

Through the process of Self-Realisation.

jan.

Self-realization can only make you aware of your own internal thought processes. If there was something external - e.g. a god - self-realization could only tell you whether you really, really, really do believe in spooks or whether at some level you're just fooling yourself. Self-realization can not tell you anything about that external something.