PDA

View Full Version : Existence of God


Kyle Rouge
08-14-2009, 08:41 AM
God is defined as the eternal creator of the universe. Where do you stand on the following spectrum?

game set match 46 TIMES!!
08-14-2009, 09:39 AM
100%. :):):):)

S H O W S T O P P E R !
08-14-2009, 10:20 AM
Oh dear, here comes the flame war. *Takes cover*

skyzoo
08-14-2009, 01:56 PM
hahaha this is a serious *** thread

Topspin24
08-14-2009, 03:10 PM
Haha, the choices seem a little biased...zero even though i cant prove it? Anyways, I'll say no.

StuckInMalibu
08-14-2009, 04:54 PM
Haha, the choices seem a little biased...zero even though i cant prove it? Anyways, I'll say no.

That's the sort loaded question Lou Dobbs puts on his polls every night. The question implies that if someone doesn't believe in God, he can't prove that God doesn't exist or that he must prove that God doesn't exist for his belief to be valid. Obviously a difficult task.

Here's an example. For Lou Dobbs, his question is loaded: "The White House, the Democratic Party and their left-wing attack dogs want to marginalize anyone who's speaking out against Obama's massive government expansion. Do you believe the people speaking up at town halls are genuinely outraged or is "manufactured anger" as the Democrats say?"

Left wing attack dogs? Marginalize? Massive government expansion? It's a question with a ton of false or debatable presuppositions. The first sentence is information that serves as a (unchallenged) premise. The second sentence is the question. You can't answer either way without falling for the trap. Whether you answer "Yes" or "No" your answer implies that you believe Obama is trying marginalize ppl who speak out.

flyinghippos101
08-14-2009, 05:36 PM
Zero. I know there is no God even though I can't prove it.

But can YOU prove that there is a God?

Fedace
08-14-2009, 05:41 PM
Something had to have created the Universe and parallel dimentions. so who or whatever created this reality maybe the God.

Morpheus
08-14-2009, 06:28 PM
I would think that most non-believers would choose very low probability, so low that it is approaches zero, over the absolute zero option. I would submit that those that appreciate the scientific method would certainly go with this one because to choose the zero option suggests that a conclusion has been drawn without any evidence.

I have expressed in the past that the question of god cannot be known, but I find that this scale puts me in the very low category. I am open to the possibility, but it is a very slim possibility, perhaps approaching zero.

CyBorg
08-14-2009, 06:32 PM
I believe that there is no 'God', but I can't claim to know it. God, that is, the magical sky daddy who created the universe and now watches over us.

In as far as the biblical God is concerned, put me down for zero.

EtePras
08-14-2009, 07:01 PM
Wow, I guess everything man has ever thought of must exist because they haven't been proven to exist? Ridiculous logic, but then again that's expected out of people who believe fairy tales about someone who can create a universe.

Joeyg
08-14-2009, 07:10 PM
I personally believe that god is a self proclaimed 5.0 tennis player with massive topspin who likes to wear women's undies and has a thing for hot, smelly blondes.

pabletion
08-14-2009, 07:17 PM
Dont worry everyone, its just a matter of time till we find out the truth.

Noveson
08-14-2009, 07:26 PM
Hah love how the 0 percent answer says even though I can't prove it. Lame. Hate when OPs load the polls.

Sentinel
08-14-2009, 08:27 PM
100 percent ................

God is defined as the eternal creator of the universe. Where do you stand on the following spectrum?


God is not just the creator of the universe. He is not apart from it. The universe exists in him, everything does.

AM28143
08-14-2009, 08:31 PM
How can you be 100 percent sure of anything?

-Adam :)

ShiroRm
08-14-2009, 09:42 PM
Something had to have created the Universe and parallel dimentions. so who or whatever created this reality maybe the God.

if everything has to have an origin, why not this god too?
moreover, wich god are we talking about?

mtommer
08-14-2009, 10:12 PM
if everything has to have an origin, why not this god too?


Because of the plausible possibility that a creator (any creator) is not restricted by his creation. Who is to say that time itself, hence beginning and end, are not creations?

ShiroRm
08-14-2009, 10:27 PM
Because of the plausible possibility that a creator (any creator) is not restricted by his creation. Who is to say that time itself, hence beginning and end, are not creations?

not restricted by his creation, but created by another creator.
if everything has to be created, the creator has to be created too.
So, when are we going to stop the search, using this logic? and mostly, how and why?
and again: which god?

mtommer
08-14-2009, 11:07 PM
if everything has to be created, the creator has to be created too.


Again, we know that in THIS existence something cannot come from nothing. Yet there is something. If this universe cannot create, merely change from one form to another, then how is it here? The simplest answer, no matter how impossible, is that it was made. Until there is any proof to the contrary, this universe cannot exist just because it is here. Not one year ago, 1,000 years ago or 16 billion years ago. It is a violation of OUR reality, the reality supposedly created, of which by necessity the Creator cannot be assured to be held in limitation by.

ShiroRm
08-14-2009, 11:32 PM
Again, we know that in THIS existence something cannot come from nothing. Yet there is something. If this universe cannot create, merely change from one form to another, then how is it here? The simplest answer, no matter how impossible, is that it was made. Until there is any proof to the contrary, this universe cannot exist just because it is here. Not one year ago, 1,000 years ago or 16 billion years ago. It is a violation of OUR reality, the reality supposedly created, of which by necessity the Creator cannot be assured to be held in limitation by.

the universe exists without any doubt. So why can't it exist per se?
You consider necessary to conceive a creator/God, but then suppose that the creator/god is able to exist per se, instead. why? Because of traditions?
It seems to me illusory and illogic.

And again: which god are we speaking about?
the one that allows us to eat ham or the other that considers that practice a sin?
the one that allows gays or women to celebrate mass or the others that wants them to be discriminated against?

It seems to me that there's too much confusion in this assumed necessary factor.

jmverdugo
08-15-2009, 07:04 AM
I choose to beleive that there is a God but I do not beleive in any religion.

Regardless you beleive in God or Not you have to acknoledge that there is something going on and it doesnt smell right, I mean how can we be so completely and inexplicable alone? How can we be the only alive beings in an infinite universe? It is too much of a coincidence for me not to beleive that there is a cause for it, it is just too much of a coincidence.

Eviscerator
08-15-2009, 09:58 AM
Haha, the choices seem a little biased...zero even though i cant prove it? Anyways, I'll say no.

Actually I think the OP did a good job in giving a possible vote to everyone in the spectrum. You cannot prove or disprove it, so what is the issue with saying "I can't prove it" :confused:

mtommer
08-15-2009, 10:12 AM
the universe exists without any doubt. So why can't it exist per se?

Because there is no satisfactory evidence to suggest that the universe has the "ability" to create. In order for it to be in existence then there must be a fulcrum for creation by virtue of it's own inability to be the creation mechanism.


You consider necessary to conceive a creator/God, but then suppose that the creator/god is able to exist per se, instead. why? Because of traditions?
It seems to me illusory and illogic.

It has nothing to do with traditions or illusion. It is in fact basic logic. If something exists, yet there is no mechanism for it to exist within itself, then it came into existence somehow other than by it's own merits. A lightbulb can not turn itself on so it is logical to conclude that if it is on then it was turned on by someone. Whether this being must abide by the laws of our existence may be true or it may not be. What cannot be done is to assume that it must be so as logic dictates this is no reasonable parameter. Conversely one cannot also assume that it is not bound by the laws.


And again: which god are we speaking about?


At this point it doesn't matter. The issue is whether the universe could turn itself on or not. Without an ability to do so, it cannot do so. Therefore, something else must have. Now, is that the Chrisitian God? Does the universe in fact have a mechanism for creating something from nothing? Maybe.....maybe not.

ShiroRm
08-15-2009, 10:24 AM
Actually I think the OP did a good job in giving a possible vote to everyone in the spectrum. You cannot prove or disprove it, so what is the issue with saying "I can't prove it" :confused:

nothing, a part from the fact that I don't have to prove god's non-existence.
I have to prove God's existence instead, because it's something that's everything but a shared experience.

So, if I can't prove god's non-existence, it's unimportant.
But, if I want to annoy others with my god, it's not unimportant that I can't prove its existence

JohnnyCracker
08-15-2009, 10:27 AM
I believe in unicorn. I challenge anyone to prove that it doesn't exist. :mrgreen:

mtommer
08-15-2009, 10:29 AM
nothing, a part from the fact that I don't have to prove god's non-existence.
I have to prove God's existence instead, because it's something that's everything but a shared experience.

So, if I can't prove god's non-existence, it's unimportant.
But, if I want to annoy others with my god, it's not unimportant that I can't prove its existence

Not quite true actually. It is up to God to prove his existence. We are the receivers of the message, not the message maker.

ShiroRm
08-15-2009, 10:32 AM
If something exists, yet there is no mechanism for it to exist within itself, then it came into existence somehow other than by it's own merits. A lightbulb can not turn itself on so it is logical to conclude that if it is on then it was turned on by someone. Whether this being must abide by the laws of our existence may be true or it may not be. What cannot be done is to assume that it must be so as logic dictates this is no reasonable parameter. Conversely one cannot also assume that it is not bound by the laws.

you set the (logic) rule: "if something exists, yet there is no mechanism for it to exist within itself, then it came into existence somehow other than by it's own merits".
but then you decide that god can be free from this rule. So why can't we decide that the universe exists per se? why is it necessary the first step and not a second or third one?
I don't see any reason why we shouldn't ask: "who tourned god on"?

ShiroRm
08-15-2009, 10:33 AM
Not quite true actually. It is up to God to prove his existence. We are the receivers of the message, not the message maker.

haha, very easy solution :-)

mtommer
08-15-2009, 10:35 AM
I believe in unicorn. I challenge anyone to prove that it doesn't exist. :mrgreen:

Who said it doesn't?

JohnnyCracker
08-15-2009, 10:38 AM
Awesome. :) I also believe in centaur. :mrgreen:

YULitle
08-15-2009, 10:39 AM
Assigning probabilities to the immeasurable is the worst kind of statistics. It's bad enough that statistics can be so missleading WITH data.... it's sure to be BS WITHOUT data. You can't count unicorns. You can't count fairy's. You can't count Yetti's either, just like you can't count God's.

pinky42
08-15-2009, 10:40 AM
Actually I think the OP did a good job in giving a possible vote to everyone in the spectrum. You cannot prove or disprove it, so what is the issue with saying "I can't prove it" :confused:

If the OP wanted to remove traces of bias, the first option should have been "100% even though I can't prove it". It's the lack of symmetry between the 100% and zero answer that is problematic.

Eviscerator
08-15-2009, 10:55 AM
If the OP wanted to remove traces of bias, the first option should have been "100% even though I can't prove it". It's the lack of symmetry between the 100% and zero answer that is problematic.

Look, compared with many polls on this forum, this one is very reasonable with the choices.
There are some polls I'd like to participate in, but the choices are so limited or biased it is impossible. In this instance I think the OP deserves credit for attempting to give everyone, from one end of the spectrum to the other, a choice they could vote for.

mtommer
08-15-2009, 11:18 AM
you set the (logic) rule: "if something exists, yet there is no mechanism for it to exist within itself, then it came into existence somehow other than by it's own merits".
but then you decide that god can be free from this rule....
.....I don't see any reason why we shouldn't ask: "who tourned god on"?

I didn't say God can be free from this rule, I simply said we can't reasonably assume he isn't. There's nothing wrong with asking "who turned God on?" so long as you allow for flipside as neither can as yet be assumed just upon the merits of either side (from a philosophical point and not yet bringing anything else like Scripture etc. into the equation.)


So why can't we decide that the universe exists per se? why is it necessary the first step and not a second or third one?


Because this side is that of the side of science and therefore to take that position requires there to be evidence supporting it. It is in fact a positive assertion. Even if the Big Bang is a reoccurring theme in the overall scheme of existence, there is still nothing that shows something came from nothing. Even with the coalesence (sp?) of matter etc. into a big huge gigantic ball of whatever before it expands out again there is no formation of new, just a transition from what was into was is to be, using what was.

aphex
08-15-2009, 11:30 AM
Because there is no satisfactory evidence to suggest that the universe has the "ability" to create. In order for it to be in existence then there must be a fulcrum for creation by virtue of it's own inability to be the creation mechanism.



It has nothing to do with traditions or illusion. It is in fact basic logic. If something exists, yet there is no mechanism for it to exist within itself, then it came into existence somehow other than by it's own merits. A lightbulb can not turn itself on so it is logical to conclude that if it is on then it was turned on by someone. Whether this being must abide by the laws of our existence may be true or it may not be. What cannot be done is to assume that it must be so as logic dictates this is no reasonable parameter. Conversely one cannot also assume that it is not bound by the laws.



At this point it doesn't matter. The issue is whether the universe could turn itself on or not. Without an ability to do so, it cannot do so. Therefore, something else must have. Now, is that the Chrisitian God? Does the universe in fact have a mechanism for creating something from nothing? Maybe.....maybe not.




i'm by no means an expert, but even i know time did not exist before the big bang.

mtommer
08-15-2009, 11:55 AM
i'm by no means an expert, but even i know time did not exist before the big bang.

Speculation or fact? Do we understand time or not understand time fully?

pinky42
08-15-2009, 12:07 PM
Speculation or fact? Do we understand time or not understand time fully?

Well, considering time is one of the dimensions of the universe, it makes no sense to say "before the universe". However, if you wish to propose a physics where time isn't one of the dimensions, go right ahead.

aphex
08-15-2009, 12:25 PM
Speculation or fact? Do we understand time or not understand time fully?

fact. at least to the best of mankind's knowledge.


as for the 2nd part...i couldn't tell you...as i said i'm by no means an expert...

mtommer
08-15-2009, 12:25 PM
Did time really begin with the most recent Big Bang?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/may/05/spaceexploration.universe

A transformation from one thing to another does not make the new thing "created", merely reformed or repatterned if you will. Thus we still cannot dismiss a creator, though we can't say there is.

Morpheus
08-15-2009, 03:56 PM
If the OP wanted to remove traces of bias, the first option should have been "100% even though I can't prove it". It's the lack of symmetry between the 100% and zero answer that is problematic.

Seems to me there is symmetry. The first is I am certain and I believe -- I don't need proof. The last is I am certain and I do not believe --- I don't need proof.

To me, this is a well set up poll. I must confess some surprise that anyone would choose the last option. Skeptics tend to look for logic and evidence and are often willing to leave open the potential for new information. I am not surprised by many people selecting the first option. Faith needs no evidence.

Morpheus
08-15-2009, 03:58 PM
Look, compared with many polls on this forum, this one is very reasonable with the choices.
There are some polls I'd like to participate in, but the choices are so limited or biased it is impossible. In this instance I think the OP deserves credit for attempting to give everyone, from one end of the spectrum to the other, a choice they could vote for.

I agree. So, which did you choose, if I may be so bold as to ask? My choice was "highly improbable" (with a very small probability of existence). Does that make me an atheist or agnostic? Hmm. Any atheists in the house care to help categorize these choices?

scraps234
08-15-2009, 04:00 PM
100 percent

Sentinel
08-15-2009, 08:15 PM
not restricted by his creation, but created by another creator.
if everything has to be created, the creator has to be created too.
So, when are we going to stop the search, using this logic? and mostly, how and why?
and again: which god?

Again, we know that in THIS existence something cannot come from nothing. Yet there is something. If this universe cannot create, merely change from one form to another, then how is it here? The simplest answer, no matter how impossible, is that it was made. Until there is any proof to the contrary, this universe cannot exist just because it is here. Not one year ago, 1,000 years ago or 16 billion years ago. It is a violation of OUR reality, the reality supposedly created, of which by necessity the Creator cannot be assured to be held in limitation by.

Two big assumptions are being made here. A lot hinges on these and similar false assumptions.

1. Something cannot come out of nothing. Sounds absurd of me to question this. Just as an example, in our dreams, a whole complex world was created in an instant out of ... what ?

2. Concepts like space, time and creation. What if these exist only inside this "creation". Why do we assume or insist that there has to be a "before" (before this started). Or that there has to be a "Start" and a "finish".

You speak of "violation of our reality". What guarantee is there that the laws/principles/realities that we hold so dear to us actually make sense outside our world/creation. Our mind makes everything seem very consistent/logical etc in any state. Even the dream world in your dream seemed very logical and consistent inside the dream. Upon waking a lot of it seemed totally illogical from the perspective of this world/state.

To those of us who are seriously and persistently pursuing this question of reality (*IMO*) it is necessary to drop all assumptions and previous knowledge (which is ultimately based on assumptions/conditioning).
Don't try to pre-create limitations or boundaries, or what reality/creator "should be" in advance.
IMO, don't assume that reality or God can be figured out by the mind, by thinking it out, or discussion. What about going behind the mind ... after all, the mind has the power to create a new world each night, and make it look totally real.

Without trying to push my findings on others, I would still like to say that whatever I have reached, shows that things are so simple that our ways of thinking, our logics, our preconditions, are too complex for it. Which is why I suggest that if you are serious, drop all assumptions and conditioning and limitations, and then investigate.

(btw, nice to see you back, Shirorm :-D )

ShiroRm
08-15-2009, 09:52 PM
Two big assumptions are being made here. A lot hinges on these and similar false assumptions.

1. Something cannot come out of nothing. Sounds absurd of me to question this. Just as an example, in our dreams, a whole complex world was created in an instant out of ... what ?

2. Concepts like space, time and creation. What if these exist only inside this "creation". Why do we assume or insist that there has to be a "before" (before this started). Or that there has to be a "Start" and a "finish".

You speak of "violation of our reality". What guarantee is there that the laws/principles/realities that we hold so dear to us actually make sense outside our world/creation. Our mind makes everything seem very consistent/logical etc in any state. Even the dream world in your dream seemed very logical and consistent inside the dream. Upon waking a lot of it seemed totally illogical from the perspective of this world/state.

To those of us who are seriously and persistently pursuing this question of reality (*IMO*) it is necessary to drop all assumptions and previous knowledge (which is ultimately based on assumptions/conditioning).
Don't try to pre-create limitations or boundaries, or what reality/creator "should be" in advance.
IMO, don't assume that reality or God can be figured out by the mind, by thinking it out, or discussion. What about going behind the mind ... after all, the mind has the power to create a new world each night, and make it look totally real.

Without trying to push my findings on others, I would still like to say that whatever I have reached, shows that things are so simple that our ways of thinking, our logics, our preconditions, are too complex for it. Which is why I suggest that if you are serious, drop all assumptions and conditioning and limitations, and then investigate.

(btw, nice to see you back, Shirorm :-D )

thanks. Unfortunately, I'm very interested in this kind of topics, because I'm living not so far from the Pope. He is very reactionary and manages to influence politics in my country, so that I don't live in a secular/civil country: many rights are denied and the eventual feeling is frustration.

I wouldn't care about religious beliefs at all, if they didn't manage to influence so many political choices and consequently, even my life by law, despite my atheism

mtommer
08-15-2009, 10:16 PM
Two big assumptions are being made here. A lot hinges on these and similar false assumptions.


I'm sorry if that came across as an assumption. I'm merely stating what we know right now scientifically speaking. It may very well end up being a false statement but as of yet is has not proven to be hence it's an observation rather than an assumption. Does that make sense?

Sentinel
08-15-2009, 10:35 PM
I'm sorry if that came across as an assumption. I'm merely stating what we know right now scientifically speaking. It may very well end up being a false statement but as of yet is has not proven to be hence it's an observation rather than an assumption. Does that make sense?
Fine. What I meant is avoiding basing an inference or conclusion (final or even intermediate) on something that is not proven (be it an observation/assumption etc).

Most people don't care enough about "the truth" to do that. Its comfortable to take previous thought/assumption/observation and continue on it. However, if you truly at all costs wish to know what the so-called reality is (if there is such a thing) or whether there is a God, or who/what created all this, and one does not want to take any chances, one does not wish to compromise, one does not want to delude oneself, or live on someone else's truths, then (IMO) one has to discard all concepts/ideologies/philosophies/faiths/beliefs and start from scratch.

Sentinel
08-15-2009, 11:01 PM
thanks. Unfortunately, I'm very interested in this kind of topics, because I'm living not so far from the Pope. He is very reactionary and manages to influence politics in my country, so that I don't live in a secular/civil country: many rights are denied and the eventual feeling is frustration.

I wouldn't care about religious beliefs at all, if they didn't manage to influence so many political choices and consequently, even my life by law, despite my atheism
I am sorry to hear this. I too in my personal life am "squeezed" by people who pretend to believe in God on one hand, and atheists on the others.

Today, at this moment in my life, i look at *belief* as the culprit. When we start believing in things, we need to defend those beliefs, often force them on others. We are perturbed if others disagree.

Even atheists (e.g. communists) have killed large numbers of people and destroyed thousands of Buddhist libraries and temples.

I thus choose to stay clear of belief, only to accept what is my clearly apparent to me as the reality. I try not to let beliefs form in me, and question them when they try to.

Upon persistent investigation, there is this thing that is alive, this aliveness that is beyond physical. It cannot be denied, it cannot be labelled or described. Yet it is totally loving and peaceful, no needs no wants no craving. Not being physical in any way, it certainly seems to be a "nothing" and it seems far more real than this physical world.
Which is why I question the logic that "something cannot arise out of nothing."
Being a "nothing" the question of how it started/arose or was created does not seem to make sense.

The above is roughly the basis of what i say.

ShiroRm
08-15-2009, 11:36 PM
I am sorry to hear this. I too in my personal life am "squeezed" by people who pretend to believe in God on one hand, and atheists on the others.

Today, at this moment in my life, i look at *belief* as the culprit. When we start believing in things, we need to defend those beliefs, often force them on others. We are perturbed if others disagree.

Even atheists (e.g. communists) have killed large numbers of people and destroyed thousands of Buddhist libraries and temples.

I thus choose to stay clear of belief, only to accept what is my clearly apparent to me as the reality. I try not to let beliefs form in me, and question them when they try to.

Upon persistent investigation, there is this thing that is alive, this aliveness that is beyond physical. It cannot be denied, it cannot be labelled or described. Yet it is totally loving and peaceful, no needs no wants no craving. Not being physical in any way, it certainly seems to be a "nothing" and it seems far more real than this physical world.
Which is why I question the logic that "something cannot arise out of nothing."
Being a "nothing" the question of how it started/arose or was created does not seem to make sense.

The above is roughly the basis of what i say.

well, the search for a sense in existance, is in our nature.
And I respect the answers others like. I'd only like to be respected too and not to be forced by law to live according to others opinions/beliefs.

So, I respect your general opinion.
I just don't agree with you about an aspect: the equation between atheists and comunists. It seems to me that soviet comunists weren't mere atheists, because they had a "secular god" instead: comunism. So, they fought religions, only because they represented a competing form of authoritarism/absolutism. It wasn't a fight against mere religious beliefs, but a fight to oust traditional gods, imposing a new (secular) one.

aphex
08-16-2009, 03:55 AM
man is so arrogant!

even if something made the universe, it has abolutely nothing to do with mankind...

what? it was biding its time for 13billion years?

did he make dinosaurs so humans could enjoy jurassic park millions of years later?

fact is, even if something created the universe, it has absolutely nothing to do with mankind (or life in general for that matter).

the existence of man is the result of a completely random process...

Morpheus
08-16-2009, 04:36 AM
Without trying to push my findings on others, I would still like to say that whatever I have reached, shows that things are so simple that our ways of thinking, our logics, our preconditions, are too complex for it. Which is why I suggest that if you are serious, drop all assumptions and conditioning and limitations, and then investigate.

(btw, nice to see you back, Shirorm :-D )

If you remove all that we know and can observe, you can easily end up believing anything and everything. Just how does one conduct a search such as this without considering the world that we live in? Perhaps you are approaching the question as a philosopher?

Gmedlo
08-16-2009, 05:48 PM
you set the (logic) rule: "if something exists, yet there is no mechanism for it to exist within itself, then it came into existence somehow other than by it's own merits".
but then you decide that god can be free from this rule. So why can't we decide that the universe exists per se? why is it necessary the first step and not a second or third one?
I don't see any reason why we shouldn't ask: "who tourned god on"?

The creator of our universe would not have to be created because if he created our universe, which is made up of both space and time, then before he created the universe there would be no time and he would therefore exist infinitely. So yes, you can ask "who turned god on" but you'll quickly find that there is no logical way that the creator of our universe as we now know it (as being both space and time, thank you Einstein) could have been created, only that he has been in infinite existence.

Some of you should take a look at some philosophy, I'm sure you'd all enjoy it if you like this conversation. The works of Thomas Aquinas are very applicable to this thread, if you'd like a place to start and get thinking.

YULitle
08-16-2009, 05:52 PM
the existence of man is the result of a completely random process...

There's nothing random about natural selection.

Fedace
08-16-2009, 05:54 PM
Why is it that if someone said they spoke to GOD then they right away assume that you are crazy. If so many people Truly believe in God's existance then it shouldn't be so wacky if someone tells that they spoke to God. This only means that People doesn't really believe, even the ones that say they do....

Hondasteve
08-16-2009, 06:57 PM
Watch = Watchmaker

Creation = Creator

YULitle
08-16-2009, 07:47 PM
Watch = Watchmaker

Creation = Creator

Idiot =

Well, I guess I'm not good at "your momma" jokes...

Vermillion
08-16-2009, 07:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxIN79n4jVo

ShiroRm
08-16-2009, 10:03 PM
The creator of our universe would not have to be created because if he created our universe, which is made up of both space and time, then before he created the universe there would be no time and he would therefore exist infinitely. So yes, you can ask "who turned god on" but you'll quickly find that there is no logical way that the creator of our universe as we now know it (as being both space and time, thank you Einstein) could have been created, only that he has been in infinite existence.

Some of you should take a look at some philosophy, I'm sure you'd all enjoy it if you like this conversation. The works of Thomas Aquinas are very applicable to this thread, if you'd like a place to start and get thinking.

Well, everyone has to study philosophy in almost all high schools in my country. And Fossanova Abbey (where Thomas Aquinas died) is a very beautiful place.
But Thomas was a Dominican and lived in a period when, if you didn't agree with roman catholic doctrine, you would certainly experience a fatal "accident".

Considering the situation has changed a bit since then, while his works remain superb, his (and yours) mere assumptions aren't obligatory anymore.

akv89
08-17-2009, 07:50 AM
Considering that there is no such thing as an absolute (yes I recognize the irony of that statement), I choose very very very low probability.

Morpheus
08-17-2009, 02:26 PM
The creator of our universe would not have to be created because if he created our universe, which is made up of both space and time, then before he created the universe there would be no time and he would therefore exist infinitely. So yes, you can ask "who turned god on" but you'll quickly find that there is no logical way that the creator of our universe as we now know it (as being both space and time, thank you Einstein) could have been created, only that he has been in infinite existence.


The Big Bang Theory and Einstein's General Theory do seem to strengthen the argument that something must have started everything (ie. God) because it neatly avoids the problem of infinite regress. I believe this is also one of Aquinas's arguments -- everything has a cause (but oddly and conveniently not God?). Unfortunately, in developing his theory that time and space began in the moments just following the Big Bang, Einstein did not have the benefit of the tools of quantum physics. These tools are now being used to gain glimpses of what may have occurred at the moment of the Bang and what may have come before. In other words, time and space may well have existed prior to the creation of our universe as we know it. If so, then how do we solve this infinite regress that is so easily assumed away? If the universe has always been, do we need to identify its cause? Just wondering...

Flyingpanda
08-17-2009, 02:44 PM
First... ShiroRm has asked a couple times "which God". I will say for the purposes of this poll... it doesn't matter. And perhaps everyone is too limited by preconceived notions of "God". If we define God as the way the OP defined, the creator of the universe. Then I absolutely believe that something created the universe.

Sentinal: 1. Something cannot come out of nothing. Sounds absurd of me to question this. Just as an example, in our dreams, a whole complex world was created in an instant out of ... what ?

Dreams are an entirely different matter and should not be put into this argument the way you're using it. According to mainstream science, matter cannot be created or destroyed. If you can disprove this... by all means go ahead.

I don't know why people are making such a big deal about who created God or if God exists on his/its/her own. We're only going back one step. Was the universe created or not. Who created the creator or if the creator was even created is a totally different topic to me.

Andres
08-17-2009, 03:55 PM
Why is it that if someone said they spoke to GOD then they right away assume that you are crazy. If so many people Truly believe in God's existance then it shouldn't be so wacky if someone tells that they spoke to God. This only means that People doesn't really believe, even the ones that say they do....
Quoting the good ol' doctor:

"If you talk to God you're religious. If God talks to you, you're psychotic"

TheFifthSet
08-17-2009, 06:00 PM
Atomist, sphere-earthisist, teapotist, evolutionist, Jesusist. :D

hankash
08-17-2009, 07:18 PM
I'm in the 50/50 area.

If one does not exist then:
Where did everything come from?
Where and why did the ideas of morals come about and why don't we just behave as typical animals?
Do people who get away with crimes today go left unpunished?
Where did the idea of God even come about?

If one does exist then:
Where did God come from?
Why does God need to be worshiped by humans and was everything even created in the first place?
If God knows everything and has everything, then why would he have to create so many things with an intended purpose, and choose to punish or reward people based on whether they listen or not. Why would he care if it does not affect him?
Why does God ask questions in religious texts if he knows the answer to everything?

Just a few questions I've pondered.

Sentinel
08-17-2009, 07:52 PM
Sentinal: 1. Something cannot come out of nothing. Sounds absurd of me to question this. Just as an example, in our dreams, a whole complex world was created in an instant out of ... what ?

Dreams are an entirely different matter and should not be put into this argument the way you're using it. According to mainstream science, matter cannot be created or destroyed. If you can disprove this... by all means go ahead.

.
I don't use dreams or such analogies to prove a point. Only to make you question what you accept to be a reality. How can you be sure of what you consider to be "reality" when you experience other similar realities which *later* proved to be fake. They were 100% real when you experienced them.

If you remove all that we know and can observe, you can easily end up believing anything and everything. Just how does one conduct a search such as this without considering the world that we live in? Perhaps you are approaching the question as a philosopher?
Not as a philosopher. Then that comes back into thinking and the mind. If you remove what we have been taught/conditioned into accepting is the truth, then we see without a bias. We do not then wish to fall into believing. I said earlier that IMO believing is a mental thing. WHen you have something in front of you, you don't need to believe or disbelieve its existence. When you don't experience something (like say a blind man), then you can fall into believing there is a sky or there isn't. To me the existence of belief means you are not sure of something. Why get into beliefs at all and then into strife over protecting them whilst never really being 100% sure.

I mentioned that when one drops thoughts and beliefs and investigates with a pure mind, one comes across what is alive here, which is clearly and evidently real (as opposed to what the mind experienced or told us it experienced). I have talked about this earlier, you could call it an active meditation, but its more of an investigation into what is alive here, what is experiencing all this, including what is experiencing even this body and the thoughts that come and go.

Morpheus
08-17-2009, 08:05 PM
^^ Now you are sounding like Morpheus of the Matrix...

Morpheus: If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain

Morpheus: The Matrix is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Morpheus: What is "real"? How do you define "real"? Welcome to the desert of the real. You have to let it all go, Neo. Fear, doubt, and disbelief. Free your mind.

Great movie.

I must confess, however, that I have no clue as to what you are talking about...sorry.

Sentinel
08-17-2009, 08:13 PM
My dear Morpheus,
I have always imagined you as someone with a white beard sitting atop the Himalayas with eyes closed, legs crossed ... knowing everthing about the universe, and occasionally opening one eye when some angel tells you that there's a new thread on TW with the word God in it , lol.

Anyway, IMO, in the quest for truth (if one is deathly serious about it), one has to discard or question everything one has been taught to believe. I have to start from scratch.

As an example which i often give, how can i trust the mind that has lied to me every night, in creating an entire world and presenting it to me as reality. This includes a body which I accept to be mine for that duration. How do i really know that "waking up" is not happening in the same dream or state.



In the end, all i really know is that there is something alive here that is questioning and wondering ... I really don't 100% know anything above that. And so my only starting point is this -- this thing that is alive, what is it .. not as a question or pondering or philosophy but as an actual physical examination or investigation.
Whatever you may call the world, the body and thoughts are just sensations nothing more. The mind labels these sensations, but in reality without the labellign which is socially conditioned, these are just all sensations.
And who experiences these sensations ? Investigating that being or thing behind all that is what I am talking about.

Sentinel
08-17-2009, 08:30 PM
Morpheus: The Matrix is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

I must confess, however, that I have no clue as to what you are talking about...sorry.

Morph,

The mind is the matrix.

Go behind it with a perfectly still mind, and there is complete peace, and a completeness, that's about all one can say. And strangely what is left is also a love without conditions and boundaries. It is "nothing" and yet it is alive.

Is this God ???

Does God experience this universe through billions of "beings" along with all the conflict strife etc, as a dream ??? :confused:

Dilettante
08-17-2009, 09:01 PM
Then I absolutely believe that something created the universe.

Why?

I think the concept of "creating" is an antropomorphic concept. The universe "is", that doesn't mean that the universe needed to be created.

ShiroRm
08-17-2009, 11:58 PM
First... ShiroRm has asked a couple times "which God". I will say for the purposes of this poll... it doesn't matter. And perhaps everyone is too limited by preconceived notions of "God". If we define God as the way the OP defined, the creator of the universe. Then I absolutely believe that something created the universe.

I don't think so.
It seems to me that believers need this concept of god to give sense to their lives and to reality in general.
And this sense inevitably translates to rules people have to follow in order to live a "correct" and "meaningful" life.

But it's a fact that we know different senses (gods) and rules both in time (history) and in space (various existing cultures).
While believers tend to speak about their respective god only, ignoring (at best) or even fighting others beliefs.

I think that this approach is nothing less than a deliberate distortion, that hides an aspect -the existence of various religious beliefs - that seems to me very important for two reasons concernig both the cause(s) and the consequences:
- first of all, it lets me doubt about the exact relationship between gods and men: it seems to me more probable that men created their gods, than the contrary;
- secondly, it lets me doubt about the expediency of the concept of god: considering there are different beliefs inevitably and then different rules etc, religions end up with causing conflicts, instead of peace and order.
Briefly, why should we still consider religions (and their gods) necessary and/or expedient? Because of mere traditions, despite the costs (in terms of time, money and democratic life sacrifice)?

Sentinel
08-18-2009, 01:35 AM
I don't think so.
It seems to me that believers need this concept of god to give sense to their lives and to reality in general.
And this sense inevitably translates to rules people have to follow in order to live a "correct" and "meaningful" life.

true ... to a point. However, i think that children live happily without any need for concepts or beliefs. For example, notice that they have no understanding of "shame" (w.r.t nudity) till we force it into them.

So i think its possible that the reason (most) believers do need this concept is because they were born into it. I was born into an atheist family, i changed much later on my own due to what i consider to be evidence, and my "belief" is because of a reality staring me in the face, just like the sun/stars above you. I do not need it for meaningfulness (in fact the very opposite can happen).

But it's a fact that we know different senses (gods) and rules both in time (history) and in space (various existing cultures).
While believers tend to speak about their respective god only, ignoring (at best) or even fighting others beliefs.


I mentioned in another post, that i think that problem is not with religion but with any strong "belief". Since belief implies lack of actual "presence" of that thing (for that person at least), so then one is going on hearsay/what one has been taught, or brainwashed into believing, or inculcated from society/family.


I think that this approach is nothing less than a deliberate distortion, that hides an aspect -the existence of various religious beliefs - that seems to me very important for two reasons concernig both the cause(s) and the consequences:
- first of all, it lets me doubt about the exact relationship between gods and men: it seems to me more probable that men created their gods, than the contrary;
- secondly, it lets me doubt about the expediency of the concept of god: considering there are different beliefs inevitably and then different rules etc, religions end up with causing conflicts, instead of peace and order.
Briefly, why should we still consider religions (and their gods) necessary and/or expedient? Because of mere traditions, despite the costs (in terms of time, money and democratic life sacrifice)?

what i *think* happened: some people through effort or just spontaneously reach "the reality of creation/creator" -- they try to describe it but it cannot be adequately described since it is totally outside our experience. They thus use analogy and allegory (?) and parables. Ordinary people make a religion out of these people, and sacred books out of what they said. What they said is often literally (mis)understood giving rise to misquotations or differences in various books.

Maybe the truth they speak of is deliberately hidden in analogies so that only those who reach it can recognize it (for verification perhaps). Others would be threatened and destroy the truth if directly/clearly described. Since it is hidden in stories and parables it gets left untampered or is ignored. So it's safe in a way.

IMO, man created religions and a lot of the rituals and stuff that goes with it. But the founders were genuine, we made them into Gods or demi-gods. I am convinced Jesus and Buddha and various others are all genuine. There is a lot of commonality in what they say. And that commonality is far more important than the cultural or other differences.

Most religions give paths on how to find or realize God, instead of following those, we make a belief out of the religion and start converting/arguing/debating/fighting etc.
If we followed the path to the point where we begin to have a taste of what is refered to, there would be no question of fighting/conflict/power struggles. What is pointed to is (imo) ever-loving, non-discriminating, totally peaceful, a singular being. All creation is a part of this being, so how does one hate another part of it or struggle against ? To touch this infinite love, is to feel love for all ... there is no question of hatred after that.

Andres
08-18-2009, 04:13 AM
IMO, man created religions and a lot of the rituals and stuff that goes with it. But the founders were genuine, we made them into Gods or demi-gods. I am convinced Jesus and Buddha and various others are all genuine. There is a lot of commonality in what they say. And that commonality is far more important than the cultural or other differences.
I agree with the part of them being genuine. Both were prophets.
The thing is, Buddha (aka Sidartha Gautama) was not "made" a god or a demi-god. Buddha is not thought of as a god in Buddhism and is not prayed to. He is looked up to and respected as a teacher.

Buddha believed that religious ideas, and the GOD concept in particular, have their origin in fear. Fear of the unknown, and fear of the unexplainable.

Buddhism is not a religion. It's a doctrin. A moral doctrin, so to speak.

Sentinel
08-18-2009, 07:22 AM
I agree with the part of them being genuine. Both were prophets.
The thing is, Buddha (aka Sidartha Gautama) was not "made" a god or a demi-god. Buddha is not thought of as a god in Buddhism and is not prayed to. He is looked up to and respected as a teacher.

Buddha believed that religious ideas, and the GOD concept in particular, have their origin in fear. Fear of the unknown, and fear of the unexplainable.

Buddhism is not a religion. It's a doctrin. A moral doctrin, so to speak.
From what I have heard, the Buddha was silent on the topic of God (and other such topics that he felt were not practical issues). I am hearing this for the first time, from the little I know of his teachings. I confess I know almost zilch of all religions.

What I also understand or follow is that he was teaching at a time when India was suffering from the existing Brahmanical (you could say Hindu to make it easy) rituals and stuff. He wanted to get them out of that. Another thing (my feeling) is that he wanted his path/way to be secular, so all could follow it. He did not want his teachigns to become another blindly followed religion -- since that was exactly what he wanted to clear up ... (mostly my opinion only, no backing).

Buddhism _seems_ to have been modified (or mixed) with other existing practices. e.g. Tibetan Buddhism does seem to have worship of Buddha/Buddhas and various deities (can't recall names). Tibetan Buddhism talks in great detail of "bardos" (post death) which i do not think, the Buddha touched upon.

Interestingly, the Buddha was integrated into Hinduism as the 9th avatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da%C5%9B%C4%81vat%C4%81ra) (reincarnation) of Vishnu (the maintainer). That does technically make him a God/demi-God though I have never heard of any Hindu who would really accept it (other than technically).

CaptainInsano
08-18-2009, 09:05 AM
I heard an interesting story about the existing of God.

-----
The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".

The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor.

The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?"

The professor answered, "What kind of question is that? ...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?"

The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot."

"And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light."

Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."

The student responded, ôSir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man.

After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back.

The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN.
----

Now of course Eisntein didn't really say this. This was just to have a more dramatic effect to the story. But it's still an interesting perspective on things (http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/einstein_god.htm)

aphex
08-18-2009, 09:33 AM
I heard an interesting story about the existing of God.

-----
The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".

The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor.

The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?"

The professor answered, "What kind of question is that? ...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?"

The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot."

"And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light."

Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."

The student responded, ôSir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man.

After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back.

The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN.
----

Now of course Eisntein didn't really say this. This was just to have a more dramatic effect to the story. But it's still an interesting perspective on things (http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/einstein_god.htm)


this has so many logical fallacies, it's not even worth it...

good story though...

YULitle
08-18-2009, 09:33 AM
You can measure heat.
You can measure light.
You can not measure good.

And you certainly can't measure "God's presence in the hearts of man."

cucio
08-18-2009, 10:00 AM
ROTFLMAO, I can do bogus too. Watch me:

"Nokolay Davydenko is the greatest player that ever set foot on a tennis court" - Ernest Hemingway

Hey, if Hemingway said it it must be true, right?

Sentinel
08-18-2009, 10:10 AM
You can measure heat.
You can measure light.
You can not measure good.

And you certainly can't measure "God's presence in the hearts of man."
You can feel heat.
You can see light.
"Good" - well that's relative and a term created by man.

You can certainly feel God's presence.

YULitle
08-18-2009, 10:30 AM
You can feel heat.
You can see light.
"Good" - well that's relative and a term created by man.

You can certainly feel God's presence.

Can I? ..........

Morpheus
08-18-2009, 11:13 AM
Whatever you may call the world, the body and thoughts are just sensations nothing more. The mind labels these sensations, but in reality without the labelling which is socially conditioned, these are just all sensations.
And who experiences these sensations ? Investigating that being or thing behind all that is what I am talking about.

You acknowledge that the body and thoughts are just sensations and nothing more, yet you can feel god within you. How do you know that what you are labeling as god is not a mere artifact of various chemical processes and you are deluding yourself into thinking it is more than that? Has it occurred to you that perhaps your body and mind are not important in the scheme of things and that you simply may cease to exist when you expire? (and that is you who is experiencing these sensations and not some greater being).

I appreciate your exploration (and the fact that you understand the extent to which we are all indoctrinated by our parents/culture), but I can't help feel that you have simply supplanted what others have made up for something of your own design.

Dedans Penthouse
08-18-2009, 11:25 AM
From what I have heard, the Buddha was silent on the topic of God (and other such topics that he felt were not practical issues). I am hearing this for the first time, from the little I know of his teachings. I confess I know almost zilch of all religions..Sentinel my good friend, here's Buddha and that "God question" in a nutshell. Christians view God-the-Father as someone Jesus spoke to. Jews in turn view God as someone who spoke to Moses.

Buddha?? .... Buddha was a fat guy with a huge pot belly who wore his shirt open.

THAT my friend is confidence. ;-)


Buddha=theoriginalbabemagnet.

CaptainInsano
08-18-2009, 11:41 AM
You acknowledge that the body and thoughts are just sensations and nothing more, yet you can feel god within you. How do you know that what you are labeling as god is not a mere artifact of various chemical processes and you are deluding yourself into thinking it is more than that? Has it occurred to you that perhaps your body and mind are not important in the scheme of things and that you simply may cease to exist when you expire? (and that is you who is experiencing these sensations and not some greater being).

I appreciate your exploration (and the fact that you understand the extent to which we are all indoctrinated by our parents/culture), but I can't help feel that you have simply supplanted what others have made up for something of your own design.

Our conditioning comes from our surrounding (parents, friends, education) and sets our bounderies of understanding and also how we perceive things. But perhaps as human beings, a being that is able to "think" and perceive time and other relative concepts, we can also think outside the box?

An interesting example of perspective and limits of understanding is with dimensions. Imagine a 2 dimensional world with 2-dimensional beings living in this world (e.g. on a piece of paper). Imagine you bring a 3 dimensional object (sphere) through that piece of paper. For those 2-dimensional beings it would look like a circle is suddenly forming on the ground, enlarging to the diameter of the sphere then shrinking until disappearing. Now for those beings that have no concepts of a 3rd dimension how could it be explained?

The point is that we're trying to explain things by what we already know, what we can "measure" and be rational. But there might be things outside our own understanding that are part of the equation. Things we can't really explain but can "feel". Granted that doesn't proove the existing of "God" but it leaves room to expand, to believe there's something beyond simply going from dust to dust.

Morpheus
08-18-2009, 12:11 PM
^^ I get that we may be "flatlanders" attempting to understand a 3D image, but I still can't help but feel that this line of thought is merely an excuse to just make things up. How do you decide what to believe or not believe? I can feel peaceful through meditation, but does that suggest anything about God or is it merely how my body functions?

By thinking "outside the box" you imply having an open mind (or that I may be close-minded on this subject). But having an open mind means being open to the possibility that an idea can be true or false. If you are not willing to reject a fanciful idea, then you will believe in anything. I don't see this sort of exercise as all that useful unless, of course, your goal is not to seek truth, but instead to just conjure up a delusion that makes you feel better about death and dying

Sentinel
08-18-2009, 08:04 PM
You acknowledge that the body and thoughts are just sensations and nothing more, yet you can feel god within you. How do you know that what you are labeling as god is not a mere artifact of various chemical processes and you are deluding yourself into thinking it is more than that? Has it occurred to you that perhaps your body and mind are not important in the scheme of things and that you simply may cease to exist when you expire? (and that is you who is experiencing these sensations and not some greater being).

I appreciate your exploration (and the fact that you understand the extent to which we are all indoctrinated by our parents/culture), but I can't help feel that you have simply supplanted what others have made up for something of your own design.

Two things, Morpheus.
1. Anything and everything in this set of experiences called "Sentinel" (basically my mind/body) is a set of sensations, and that includes the experience of God. Others may never be up to admitting that, but that is a fact better discovered oneself than mentioned to others who may get frightened that their set of beliefs is being uprooted by someone speaking. Better to find out for oneself that all experiences are just that.

However, there is one thing different about this experience. It points you out of the experential world to what i would call reality. If you will once again allow me to use an analogy, if i wrote a computer game (a simulation of a world) can I really represent my human self in there as a flesh and blood human ? No.
I could however put my email address or 2d picture or name there, so someone could contact me. The "prophets" are (IMO) precisely that. Pointers to the so-called reality (what some may want to call Creator). So is this experience of God (or God;s prophets).

For me this is the greatest experience possible in this mind/body and i would never ever treat it with the slightest disrespect (even though i know it is a stepping stone to the real outside thing). The "respect" here, in case someone wants to catch me, is in terms of the body/mind and what it has learned.

2. You keep talking about replacing one set of beliefs with another/supplanting etc. I keep saying : get out of believing and investigate/examine what is there. Don't maintain beliefs. That is why I prefer not to talk about it but examine, or ask someone to examine. The moment we use words and concepts another person is likely to make a set of beliefs out of it without examining and finding. I feel a danger there.

It is perfectly possible to live without a set of beliefs. May sound appalling, but there is no conflict in such a state, no perpetual craving, no need to prove oneself right and others wrong.

My so-called meditation, is not an eyes-closed posture but a constant examination of the thing that is alive here. I believe there are parallels to it in various religious texts such as the "I Am". This is IMO like the signature of "reality" or the creator. One does need a still mind for that, btw. I never force this on anyone, I think it will just happen when one is ready and sincere about finding the truth.

^^ I note a hint of concern there, and thanks for that M, but i would not allow a new set of beliefs to fall in. When one is serious about knowing what is real, and is willing to be proved totally wrong, and is open to finding anything, and is not willing to compromise or delude oneself ever, then i don't think one can settle into a comfortable set of ideas ( i sure hope so).

It's always nice talking with you, Morpheus :-D

Dilettante
08-18-2009, 11:12 PM
You can certainly feel God's presence.

How?

I know I can see the light and feel the heat, but God?

Sentinel
08-19-2009, 03:49 AM
Sentinel my good friend, here's Buddha and that "God question" in a nutshell. Christians view God-the-Father as someone Jesus spoke to. Jews in turn view God as someone who spoke to Moses.

Sir
How are we to know that Moses didn;t speak to (or pray to) God ?
Also, how do we know that God did not speak to Jesus, or speak through Him ?


Buddha?? .... Buddha was a fat guy with a huge pot belly who wore his shirt open.

THAT my friend is confidence. ;-)


Buddha=theoriginalbabemagnet.

I wonder where that came from (lol)... all those Feng Shui and other lucky charms with a fat Buddha. From what I know, the Buddha had one mid-day meal all his life, and it was a small meal "that would not have satisfied a sparrow" (some say). But we do know he did not eat after midday as a lot of practicing Buddhists do.

Second, we know that he walked the length of India literally (except for the rainy season). So thats not much eating and a lot of walking. I doubt the food in those days was french fries or pizzas -- should have been mostly rice and vegetables.

So i can visualize a very lean Buddha with six pack abs (forgive my joking on this matter folks, i mean no disrespect). He begged for food all his life ... can't imagine a fat guy with open shirt begging for food and getting any :-D

dedan's=theultimatebabemagnet ;-)

Sentinel
08-19-2009, 10:19 PM
What kind of incontrovertible proof are we looking for here? What should happen, or in what way should God present itself that you would be completely convinced that It exists.

Could people put their thoughts down. Ask yourself, if your points really prove God. e.g. could they be faked by a good magician, or be just coincidence. Could a good hypnotist fake it, or some yogi with some kind of yogic powers or paranormal gifts ?

In case you are defining God as having some attributes/form, how can you be sure that your definitions are correct, and not someone else's, or no ones. What if He/It were totally different from what you expected?

btw, these are not trick questions, just some curious, innocent ones (which we will have to face if _hypothetically_ we were to have "contact").

Morpheus
08-20-2009, 04:26 AM
2. You keep talking about replacing one set of beliefs with another/supplanting etc. I keep saying : get out of believing and investigate/examine what is there. Don't maintain beliefs. That is why I prefer not to talk about it but examine, or ask someone to examine. The moment we use words and concepts another person is likely to make a set of beliefs out of it without examining and finding. I feel a danger there.


I am merely suggesting that the sensations you feel and claim to be of or pertaining to God are likely just biological processes. The word belief in this context means that while you may be sensing something, you have no evidence that that something is God but you believe it is so nonetheless. How would you react if I said that when I run 5 miles I get this light headed sensation and clarity of mind and at that moment I know (not believe) that God is within and around me? Some people might call that "runners high"; few would call it God. I am pressing you on this because I just find it interesting that you claim not to believe in God, but to have certainty of God through your own experience. The main difference between "believers" and you is that the believers do not in the main profess to have direct evidence of god -- faith is sufficient. You seem to be going one step further with your claims that you do not believe, but you know.

With that, I am now going to throw my beard over my shoulder, climb back atop Olympus, see to my children, and put a new coat of wax on my lightening bolts before dinner (tonight is goat cheese night at the mansion).

LuckyR
08-20-2009, 03:47 PM
^^ I get that we may be "flatlanders" attempting to understand a 3D image, but I still can't help but feel that this line of thought is merely an excuse to just make things up. How do you decide what to believe or not believe? I can feel peaceful through meditation, but does that suggest anything about God or is it merely how my body functions?

By thinking "outside the box" you imply having an open mind (or that I may be close-minded on this subject). But having an open mind means being open to the possibility that an idea can be true or false. If you are not willing to reject a fanciful idea, then you will believe in anything. I don't see this sort of exercise as all that useful unless, of course, your goal is not to seek truth, but instead to just conjure up a delusion that makes you feel better about death and dying


IMO you are too focused on the issue. Sometimes things come into better focus when they are viewed from a few steps back. Many report that they have subjective or objective evidence of god or they can perform a trick of logic to "prove" that there is a god. Good on them. You are free to postulate that their evidence is suspect or disprove their logic. Others, like myself, make the connection that if God is all he's cracked up to be, omniscient, all powerful etc then certainly he can defy our puny ability to detect him or prove his existance. That leaves you with the "excuse" argument above. It is a truly valid argument but IMO misses the point of god. What level of faith is required to believe that the desk my computer is resting on is solid? Essentially none. The desk is a provable reality but is just a desk. God is not provable (in my eyes), but plays a much, much larger role than many things that are provable. Couldn't you just meditate and get to the same place without calling it "god"? Sure. The fact that some are comforted by the label of "god", is a reality for them and has value, it may have no value for others. There is no point in using a perjoritive, like "delusion". If something intangible is helpful to someone, it's helpful to them, your opinion is secondary, if relevant at all.

Char
08-20-2009, 07:48 PM
Something had to have created the Universe and parallel dimentions. so who or whatever created this reality maybe the God.

Not necessarily. No one created the thunderstorm that poured on me while I was out riding today. Its just the convergence of a number of atmospheric events. Same can be said of the universe and anything it it, just on a larger scale.

Sentinel
08-20-2009, 08:06 PM
I am merely suggesting that the sensations you feel and claim to be of or pertaining to God are likely just biological processes. The word belief in this context means that while you may be sensing something, you have no evidence that that something is God but you believe it is so nonetheless. How would you react if I said that when I run 5 miles I get this light headed sensation and clarity of mind and at that moment I know (not believe) that God is within and around me? Some people might call that "runners high"; few would call it God. I am pressing you on this because I just find it interesting that you claim not to believe in God, but to have certainty of God through your own experience. The main difference between "believers" and you is that the believers do not in the main profess to have direct evidence of god -- faith is sufficient. You seem to be going one step further with your claims that you do not believe, but you know.

With that, I am now going to throw my beard over my shoulder, climb back atop Olympus, see to my children, and put a new coat of wax on my lightening bolts before dinner (tonight is goat cheese night at the mansion).
my dear friend,
Before you spring onto Pegasus and go flying over to Olympus, yes, i agree with you -- the likelihood of biological processes (or even mind-play which you did not mention). There is no way we have, to mentally understand or label anything other than on the basis of what we have earlier learned. If i had never heard the terms "god" or "divine", etc I would never have labelled them as such.
However, the experience is so overwhelming and life changing ... for over a year I often doubted and wondered whether it was all a mind play. Not always, but once in a while. And then I came across some others who at a very young age (around 5 years), with no previous religious background had had similar experiences.
The second point is the impact it has on one's life. Coming across this Creator who is also infinite and unconditional love, makes it impossible to hate or judge others. That's a huge change for an ordinary dude. Slowly resistance crumbles and love is taking its place.

Look around you -- what has "belief" done. Resulted in strife, killing, conversion, "my religion over yours", "my way is better than yours". More hatred and unhappiness results from that. But see what happens with experience (so-called if you say). There's no question of hating because all are created by the Creator. There's no question of religion, or race or belief, or good /bad. No internal conflict, no hating, no feeling you are right and others are wrong. Hatred, anger, greed, revenge ... these things slowly crumble leaving love and peace. That's a huge change that happens with NO indoctrination, no listening to sermons or reading scriptures, it slowly (to me logically, step by step) happens on its own.

However, that still doesn't mean i would stop at this stage and make a belief out of this. For me the above is all actually incidental (?) to my search for "reality". I do not any longer (I cannot) accept the world that my senses (or mind) relay to me as reality. So all of the above was just some experience I was meant to have, that luckily did no damage (btw, I don't touch drugs/alcohol/tobacco, etc).

The only thing at this moment that i accept as reality is that I exist, and that this thing that is alive here, clearly apart from the mind and body, is real -- far more real than what it experiences.

fed_the_savior
08-20-2009, 09:25 PM
I am merely suggesting that the sensations you feel and claim to be of or pertaining to God are likely just biological processes.

I have a problem with the logic behind this. If we take as a presupposition that something can be experienced beyond the physical, you would always associate it with biological processes if you did not believe in anything more. In other words, both presuppositions influence the deduction of the origin of the experience. And to insinuate that someone, who likely has experienced the full range of what the brain can produce through life experiences, is too stupid to tell the difference between something associated with a natural cause and something wholly different, seems very prejudice. Now it makes sense to think that, "because I've never experienced anything that was so unusual I thought it was non-physical, I highly doubt you have either," but realize that through being strictly logical, this can in no way be considered conclusive. I've plenty of respect for someone that thinks that way, but I do think they need to realize that their argument is nowhere near as powerful as they think it is. Just to add some balance to this view.

Morpheus
08-21-2009, 10:31 AM
my dear friend,
Before you spring onto Pegasus and go flying over to Olympus, yes, i agree with you -- the likelihood of biological processes (or even mind-play which you did not mention). There is no way we have, to mentally understand or label anything other than on the basis of what we have earlier learned. If i had never heard the terms "god" or "divine", etc I would never have labelled them as such.
However, the experience is so overwhelming and life changing ... for over a year I often doubted and wondered whether it was all a mind play. Not always, but once in a while. And then I came across some others who at a very young age (around 5 years), with no previous religious background had had similar experiences.
The second point is the impact it has on one's life. Coming across this Creator who is also infinite and unconditional love, makes it impossible to hate or judge others. That's a huge change for an ordinary dude. Slowly resistance crumbles and love is taking its place.

Look around you -- what has "belief" done. Resulted in strife, killing, conversion, "my religion over yours", "my way is better than yours". More hatred and unhappiness results from that. But see what happens with experience (so-called if you say). There's no question of hating because all are created by the Creator. There's no question of religion, or race or belief, or good /bad. No internal conflict, no hating, no feeling you are right and others are wrong. Hatred, anger, greed, revenge ... these things slowly crumble leaving love and peace. That's a huge change that happens with NO indoctrination, no listening to sermons or reading scriptures, it slowly (to me logically, step by step) happens on its own.

However, that still doesn't mean i would stop at this stage and make a belief out of this. For me the above is all actually incidental (?) to my search for "reality". I do not any longer (I cannot) accept the world that my senses (or mind) relay to me as reality. So all of the above was just some experience I was meant to have, that luckily did no damage (btw, I don't touch drugs/alcohol/tobacco, etc).

The only thing at this moment that i accept as reality is that I exist, and that this thing that is alive here, clearly apart from the mind and body, is real -- far more real than what it experiences.

Thanks. I get where you are coming from. (Who says I need a winged horse?)

Morpheus
08-21-2009, 10:46 AM
I have a problem with the logic behind this. If we take as a presupposition that something can be experienced beyond the physical, you would always associate it with biological processes if you did not believe in anything more. In other words, both presuppositions influence the deduction of the origin of the experience. And to insinuate that someone, who likely has experienced the full range of what the brain can produce through life experiences, is too stupid to tell the difference between something associated with a natural cause and something wholly different, seems very prejudice. Now it makes sense to think that, "because I've never experienced anything that was so unusual I thought it was non-physical, I highly doubt you have either," but realize that through being strictly logical, this can in no way be considered conclusive. I've plenty of respect for someone that thinks that way, but I do think they need to realize that their argument is nowhere near as powerful as they think it is. Just to add some balance to this view.

No one said anything about being "stupid" I was seeking to understand a view because I wasn't clear on Sentinel's rejection of the word "belief." This has actually been a quite civil discussion about a topic that usually ends up in flames. Do you really think I was overly critical?

Sentinel
08-21-2009, 11:22 AM
Whatever experience is happening, on one hand, I am always open to questioning it, and i always myself take it to be just that -- an experience.

Yet, i have to say this that it is *so* overwhelming, and it does inspire trust and faith in it.

Go back to the first organism that could see, that had functioning eyes. How does it convey its experience to others. Their language has no words for "see", for color, for light. All they can do is hear, taste and touch.

The others ask for a repeatable scientific method for this experience, but what repeatable process can this one person suggest to those whose eyes are not functioning.

The others ask "Can I". How can this person say for sure how he could see. He could give wild guesses but he could not bet on them.

Does this inability invalidate his experience?

Yet, due to the cynicism and even hostility near me (in real life), I am open to considering it to be some mind-play or whatever. But what about mother's love and your love for your parents/spouse. Was that a delusion ?
Can your love for your spouse be repeatable across the population? Can love really be proved scientifically ?

"God" is the greatest love I have encountered *ever*. I would certainly enjoy this experience and reciprocate in the fullest. And as i said, i know this experience is a pointer to something outside this set of experiences (the world).

fed_the_savior
08-21-2009, 07:09 PM
No one said anything about being "stupid" I was seeking to understand a view because I wasn't clear on Sentinel's rejection of the word "belief." This has actually been a quite civil discussion about a topic that usually ends up in flames. Do you really think I was overly critical?

I just said I thought your logic was not so good. That is all. Continue being civil...

dannyjjang
09-03-2009, 11:29 AM
i don't believe in god however..i've seen miracles such as people getting healed and such thru Christianity ( don't know about other religions )

kinda amazing..maybe i should ask for a miracle for my bad back...

mtommer
09-03-2009, 11:51 AM
I am merely suggesting that the sensations you feel and claim to be of or pertaining to God are likely just biological processes.

Sensations still have causes. As a general rule humans don't go through random fluctuations of sensations "just because". Even if the sensations are identical to what we feel at other times it does not make the cause any less than what it is. The question is whether we generate the cause from the feeling or accept the cause as it presents itself. The cause may present itself WITHIN the feelings, giving us the necessary distinctions to understand there is a difference between this time and times before. To an onlooker, there would be no difference which is why they might be skeptical. In general, no amount of "telling" (teaching as in a classroom situation) can educate where experience is pivotal to the understanding.

History is invaluable in this case for through experience we come to understand those who came before and their claims. The previous claims validate our own, and further, provide the distinction between the Flying Spaghetti monster and reality, no matter how "fiction like" that reality appears to some.

David_Is_Right
09-03-2009, 12:01 PM
^ In English?