Does God Exist?

[alang1216]

Seems like a case of do as I say not as I do. The residents of Canaan or the victims of Noah's flood might question the whole "loving one's fellowman" thing.

Noah is an interesting case. He knew a flood was coming, and he was building a big boat. Why didn't he send word to his neighbors? Or did he? We don't know. Another thought: When Abraham learned Sodom was going to be destroyed, he asked God not to do it if there were some good men. On the other hand, he did not go and warn the city.

On the other hand, we know from history that people choose to live near volcanoes, on earthquake faults, and places known to be prone to floods. They are warned of the dangers--and shrug them off. Was it the same in Biblical times, where people knew they were in some danger, but simply shrugged it off?

Noah and Lot are both examples of people who took warnings to heart. They survived. And upon surviving, both immediately got drunk. Survivor's guilt? Wondering if they could have done more? Couldn't face the prospect of starting over from scratch?

God destroyed Sodom because the people were evil, fine. Were the babies evil too? Not seeing much from God love there.

 

[ding]

people who do believe in God tell us repeatedly that God promises justice and love.

Great when I talk to them they can argue for that belief. But someone like you who doesn’t have that belief will always make a piss poor argument for a belief he doesn’t hold.

I don't see I've been promised anything. I do appreciate what I have, maybe more than a believer since I don't expect to live for eternity and must enjoy the present knowing it is temporary. I have been given an incredible amount of good fortune but when I look around I see people, people no worse than me, suffering from disease, abuse, mental illnesses, etc. What promises did God make to them besides wait for the next life?

More of your you can’t see how good can come from bad position that you deny having.

Is there a promise of justice and love in this life?

Not in the manner you expect. You want God to perform magic for you like a show pony.

You're right, I don't care too much about winning, I'm more concerned with just being happy.

I’m not seeing that because you are here searching for something you are missing.

 

[alang1216]

Seems like a case of do as I say not as I do. The residents of Canaan

When I studied the accounts Canaan and the Amalekites I notice (at least) two groups of men who seem to be arguing different courses of action much as political parties do today. My thought is that Saul and David belonged to two different political parties.

Maybe but I'm guessing that the people of Jericho and their animals were united in not wanting to be slaughtered by the Israelites.

 

[ding]

Why should I want to change my answer?

If the parable of the wedding party guests doesn’t drive home my point, I doubt anything else will.

I’m good. I’ll stand.

For many are called, but few chosen?

Only God knows. I haven’t a clue.

You sure do obsess over heaven or hell a lot.

I’m just enjoying the journey which is what faith is all about.

 

[Meriweather]

God destroyed Sodom because the people were evil, fine. Were the babies evil too? Not seeing much from God love there.

Nor are you seeing the science. Are you familiar with the scientific theories surrounding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? And if so, do you believe God zapped them?

I keep in mind Biblical accounts were written well after the fact. We see some interesting thoughts in Genesis. With no knowledge of scientific facts, they worked with what they had. What they saw in many cases is that the behavior of humans contribute to disasters. (Even today, we relate how human behavior contributes to pollution, which may be causing global warming, destruction of sea life, etc.) It seems mankind has always investigated the question of how they contributed to any disaster.

It is very interesting that the behavior they found fault with in Sodom and Gomorrah was they were not at all welcoming to strangers, and that was the reason for the destruction of the two cities.

The latter chapters of Genesis seems to be investigating how we humans bring disaster down upon ourselves. Can early signs be detected and corrected before ruin strikes? Mankind becomes undisciplined, but can we identify the early signals that we are becoming willful and unruly? Do you know what they found in case after case? The early signs can be found in our sexual behaviors. Interesting, is it not? I am not saying whether I believe they are right or wrong, but it was their conclusion--which of course has been ignored ever since.

 

[alang1216]

You're right, I don't care too much about winning, I'm more concerned with just being happy.

I’m not seeing that because you are here searching for something you are missing.

I'm wondering why intelligent people believe in things that appear to me to be illogical, unprovable, and totally lacking evidence. I've come, slowly, that faith is a lot like alchohol. A little makes you feel good and does you no harm. Too much and you may become addicted that may lead to serious problems.

 

[luchitociencia]

.
not sure what if any of your response made any sense ...

time is subjective - so what is so special about your definition -

Being so, then Relativity and other theories implying time as an entity are false. Simple as that.

no, the elements of the periodic table do not represent chaos, the point of the post.

You require of a chaotic moment, however your interpretation of metaphysical forces must require of a cause instead.

Forces -regardless of being physical or not- require of a source.

Same as well, chaos is not needed when changes in vibration frequency happens.

If the universe were to be formed by forces in order to become physically existent, then the source of the forces changed their vibration frequency. Again, no need for such a chaotic moment.

this statement of yours is the reason for the response - chaos did not form the universe the opposite is true from a momentary chaos the universe through the metaphysical forces assembled a physical state of existence of which the relationship between the two continue to evolve, physiology and from the present there may be as yet an unknown form yet to be known - spiritual independant from its physical dependence. accomplished through the religion of antiquity.

In your scenario you evade the source of the metaphysical forces.

When I do studies, I pay no attention to the further consequences but to the primary target which is the root, the beginning, the cause of those consequences. In your statement, you base your hypothesis on the consequences (metaphysical sources) which became the source of a following phenomenon.

At one point you must recognize that there is a primeval source before those metaphysical forces.

You won't be able to evade and avoid it.

 

[Meriweather]

Maybe but I'm guessing that the people of Jericho and their animals were united in not wanting to be slaughtered by the Israelites.

They should know, considering the number of Israelites and their goods they slaughtered and destroyed while the Israelites were hungry and lost in the desert.

 

[alang1216]

You sure do obsess over heaven or hell a lot.

I’m just enjoying the journey which is what faith is all about.

I've been told hell's where I'm headed. Wouldn't want any unpleasant surprises.

The journey is what life is all about, faith is concerned with how the journey ends, IMHO.

 

[ding]

You sure do obsess over heaven or hell a lot.

I’m just enjoying the journey which is what faith is all about.

I've been told hell's where I'm headed. Wouldn't want any unpleasant surprises.

The journey is what life is all about, faith is concerned with how the journey ends, IMHO.

So I don’t believe you are worried about your destination because according to you you don’t believe there is a destination. So this is really about something else and I doubt even you know what it’s about. So there’s that.

And you don’t strike me as someone who is qualified to speak of faith in this context because this belief is diametrically opposed to your belief, so I would expect you to make piss poor arguments on their behalf.

 

[luchitociencia]

The Bible speaks of God's Spirit, God's Word, God as Creator/Father. Trinity is beyond our comprehension. The best I can do is think of these things we say as humans:

I exist.
I'll send word.
I'll be with you in spirit.

With God His existence, His Word, His Spirit are all dimensions of Himself--but in a way that is so powerful His Word and His Spirit also have their own existence even though all are One.

Better think as God's Word and God's Spirit BELONG to God.

 

[alang1216]

The latter chapters of Genesis seems to be investigating how we humans bring disaster down upon ourselves. Can early signs be detected and corrected before ruin strikes? Mankind becomes undisciplined, but can we identify the early signals that we are becoming willful and unruly? Do you know what they found in case after case? The early signs can be found in our sexual behaviors. Interesting, is it not? I am not saying whether I believe they are right or wrong, but it was their conclusion--which of course has been ignored ever since.

Do we bring disaster or does that come from a vengeful or angry God? He made us but destroys us when he doesn't like what we do, that is not very fatherly. I wonder if our sexual behaviors are cause or correlation of destruction?

 

[ding]

You're right, I don't care too much about winning, I'm more concerned with just being happy.

I’m not seeing that because you are here searching for something you are missing.

I'm wondering why intelligent people believe in things that appear to me to be illogical, unprovable, and totally lacking evidence. I've come, slowly, that faith is a lot like alchohol. A little makes you feel good and does you no harm. Too much and you may become addicted that may lead to serious problems.

And yet I presented a logical argument that you have been unable to refute one single point nor even to make an attempt to refute so I am wondering how you can believe what you just wrote.

 

[alang1216]

You sure do obsess over heaven or hell a lot.

I’m just enjoying the journey which is what faith is all about.

I've been told hell's where I'm headed. Wouldn't want any unpleasant surprises.

The journey is what life is all about, faith is concerned with how the journey ends, IMHO.

So I don’t believe you are worried about your destination because according to you you don’t believe there is a destination. So this is really about something else and I doubt even you know what it’s about. So there’s that.

And you don’t strike me as someone who is qualified to speak of faith in this context because this belief is diametrically opposed to your belief, so I would expect you to make piss poor arguments on their behalf.

Or I may be a dispassionate observer since only an atheist can see how the many different religions are both different and the same. Someone with faith, by definition, has their blinders firmly in place.

 

[alang1216]

You're right, I don't care too much about winning, I'm more concerned with just being happy.

I’m not seeing that because you are here searching for something you are missing.

I'm wondering why intelligent people believe in things that appear to me to be illogical, unprovable, and totally lacking evidence. I've come, slowly, that faith is a lot like alchohol. A little makes you feel good and does you no harm. Too much and you may become addicted that may lead to serious problems.

And yet I presented a logical argument that you have been unable to refute one single point nor even to make an attempt to refute so I am wondering how you can believe what you just wrote.

Sorry, which logical argument are you referring to?

 

[ding]

You sure do obsess over heaven or hell a lot.

I’m just enjoying the journey which is what faith is all about.

I've been told hell's where I'm headed. Wouldn't want any unpleasant surprises.

The journey is what life is all about, faith is concerned with how the journey ends, IMHO.

So I don’t believe you are worried about your destination because according to you you don’t believe there is a destination. So this is really about something else and I doubt even you know what it’s about. So there’s that.

And you don’t strike me as someone who is qualified to speak of faith in this context because this belief is diametrically opposed to your belief, so I would expect you to make piss poor arguments on their behalf.

Or I may be a dispassionate observer since only an atheist can see how the many different religions are both different and the same. Someone with faith, by definition, has their blinders firmly in place.

How many more times must I tell you multiple perceptions of God is not only normal but good?

Rather than disproving God it proves God.

But none of that has any impact on someone who holds a different belief will ever be able to make an honest defense of a belief he opposes.

 

[Meriweather]

I'm wondering why intelligent people believe in things that appear to me to be illogical, unprovable, and totally lacking evidence. I've come, slowly, that faith is a lot like alchohol. A little makes you feel good and does you no harm. Too much and you may become addicted that may lead to serious problems.

The same might be said about science.

When I am studying science, I seek evidence. What I find astonishing is people who expect to find evidence in that which is spiritual. I often comment that is like refusing to believe in water unless water can be squeezed from a rock. We all know there is water, and we all know we cannot squeeze a rock and expect to get water. Same thing with the spiritual and physical.

Faith is not like any consumable. It is like knowledge. How much knowledge would you judge harmful enough to lead to serious problems?

 

[luchitociencia]

God destroyed Sodom because the people were evil, fine. Were the babies evil too? Not seeing much from God love there.

Same as today you have sex without "protection", in ancient times having anal intercourse caused several diseases as well. When sexual depravity is general in a population, their children inherit the diseases by contagious means and even the new born pay the consequences.

This is the reason God also commanded the Israelite not only to destroy building but also animals and people because in certain cultures men had sex with animals as well.

 

[luchitociencia]

The same might be said about science.

When I am studying science, I seek evidence. What I find astonishing is people who expect to find evidence in that which is spiritual. I often comment that is like refusing to believe in water unless water can be squeezed from a rock. We all know there is water, and we all know we cannot squeeze a rock and expect to get water. Same thing with the spiritual and physical.

Faith is not like any consumable. It is like knowledge. How much knowledge would you judge harmful enough to lead to serious problems?

When X Rays were discovered, in a university in Pennsylvania they did experiments to check if they can see the human soul using X Rays.

Curiosity has no limits.

 

[ding]

You're right, I don't care too much about winning, I'm more concerned with just being happy.

I’m not seeing that because you are here searching for something you are missing.

I'm wondering why intelligent people believe in things that appear to me to be illogical, unprovable, and totally lacking evidence. I've come, slowly, that faith is a lot like alchohol. A little makes you feel good and does you no harm. Too much and you may become addicted that may lead to serious problems.

And yet I presented a logical argument that you have been unable to refute one single point nor even to make an attempt to refute so I am wondering how you can believe what you just wrote.

Sorry, which logical argument are you referring to?

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale - like you do - then everything you see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that you will agree with or accept. Whereas if you were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world you would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument I will use my perception of God because your perception of God is a fairy tale and designed to get fairy tale answers instead of seriously considering the proposition. My perception of God is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us. God exists outside of our four dimension space time. So my premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create. In other words, it's not an accident that intelligence arose. The universe is an intelligence creating machine.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All I have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if you assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

But wait... there's more.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

This is the basis for my belief. So what is the basis for your belief?