Zone1 Is There Really A Personal God?

[TruthNotBS]

No.

The part about God can be known through the light of human reason.

How would that be the case? What type of God are you referring to?

 

[toobfreak]

That's just speculation and subjective.

Not it isn't just speculation! It is the result of DIRECT EXPERIENCE! Like getting punched in the face. If you get punched in the face, you KNOW you've been punched in the face, and that is not speculation. It only SEEMS speculative to people like you who have not had any direct experience in divine nature. And as to the subjective part, all experience is subjective--- if you tell me you ate somewhere and the food was too hot and spicy, that is subjective! You can't SHOW me hot and spicy--- the only way I can confirm that is to either just trust you or eat it myself and see, and either of those will be subjective as well because you can't hold up hot and spicy in the air and SHOW it to no one else. Get that through your this head.

Your problem is that you just don't believe in God nor WANT to believe in God, you want to prove him just primitive speculation; I can relate to that because I've been there myself. The thing is, just as the Marines don't take in candidates which are not ready yet for their training program, God does not reveal himself but to those which are ready and open to seeing him. It is a matter of inward progress and readiness. I can tell you that with absolute certainty. Your problem is that you want something physical that you can hang up on a wall and say: "There is God, absolute, objective evidence," but it doesn't work like that. God is not a block of mortar. God is beyond time, God is beyond measure.

There, now I've given you something of great value. You can either throw it away foolishly, or benefit and make use of it. I hope it is the latter.

What you are identifying as a personal God may be something else completely.

First of all, God is both personal and impersonal. One must go through the impersonal aspect of him before getting to his personal aspect, but then, since we have finite minds and consciousness, God must be the reserve of infinite mind and consciousness. All things we have and that exist in finite amounts in the phenomenal world, God possesses in infinite quality. The finite aspects of this creation are but a poor, timid reflection of some of the infinite aspects which God possesses.

There's no way to know and in light of the Bible's many contradictions and flaws, I don't see how any person who thinks critically and rationally could believe that's God's inerrant word.

But I've told you, there IS a way to know. By opening up your inner self. Be like a little child again and all the world will pour into you. As to the Bible, I agree, it contains many contradictions and flaws which is why I long ago moved on beyond the Bible. The Bible is but a foot in the door to another world larger than you can imagine. And as to critical, rational thinking, I spent my life as a scientist and engineer and have a high IQ and have taught logic and many other things. You'll never meet a more rational, critical thinker than me. The problem isn't God, and not really even the Bible. The problem is in YOU and you need to get your head and heart right, or you can just go on believing that the phenomenal universe, creation, love, consciousness and power are all just accidents created out of dust. Your call, Holmes. I've given you the key to a chest full of rubys, emeralds and jewels. I've done for you all that I can.

But looking at your moniker, I fear that just won't be enough for you. Shame.

 

[ding]

agnosticism refers to the position that it is impossible to know whether God or any divine being exists.

Isn't that what I said?

 

[ding]

How would that be the case? What type of God are you referring to?

The same way I could learn things about you from studying something you created.

I find the who God is argument to be rather disingenuous. Just because different people have different perceptions of God doesn't mean there are different Gods. It only means that there are different perceptions of God.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The same way I could learn things about you from studying something you created.

I find the who God is argument to be rather disingenuous. Just because different people have different perceptions of God doesn't mean there are different Gods. It only means that there are different perceptions of God.

Or people are just assuming that there's a personal God because it provides them comfort to have a heavenly Dad, that's all-powerful and has a checking account with an infinite balance. The same goes with the concept of life after death. We simply don't know, and the person telling you this is an agnostic who attends seances, has experienced the paranormal. and has seen several apparitions. I've had poltergeist activity in my home, I've communicated with spirits through a radio sweeper like this:

Marcello Bacci:, top ITC (Instrumental Trans-Communication) researcher and medium (Direct voices without sweeper):

​

But I still don't jump to the conclusion that I have a heavenly, rich, almighty Dad. That may not be the case, perhaps the cause of the universe is something that we can't even begin to imagine now or define and our views of God are infantile and essentially us creating God in our human image. I don't believe in the God of religion, but I do accept the possibility that there's some type of super-intelligence or will causing, sustaining, and guiding the universe.

 

[ding]

Or people are just assuming that there's a personal God because it provides them comfort to have a heavenly Dad, that's all-powerful and has a checking account with an infinite balance. The same goes with the concept of life after death. We simply don't know, and the person telling you this is an agnostic who attends seances, has experienced the paranormal. I've seen apparitions, I've had poltergeist activity in my home, I've communicated with spirits through a radio sweeper like this:

Marcello Bacci:, top ITC (Instrumental Trans-Communication) researcher and medium (Direct voices without sweeper):

​

But I still don't jump to the conclusion that I have a heavenly, rich, almighty Dad. That may not be the case, perhaps the cause of the universe is something that we can't even begin to imagine now or define and our views of God are infantile and essentially us creating God in our human image. I don't believe in the God of religion, but I do accept the possibility that there's some type of super-intelligence or will causing, sustaining, and guiding the universe.

I don't believe it is possible for you to answer who God is until you conceptually believe God exists. And to do that you first must have some reasonable perception of God. For instance, my perception of God is that God is no thing. That God is more like a verb than a noun. I believe that God is every extant attribute of reality. The Christian perception is that God is more like mind which fits nicely with my perception.

So what was your perception of God? What were you looking for?

 

[TruthNotBS]

I don't believe it is possible for you to answer who God is until you conceptually believe God exists. And to do that you first must have some reasonable perception of God. For instance, my perception of God is that God is no thing. That God is more like a verb than a noun. I believe that God is every extant attribute of reality. The Christian perception is that God is more like mind.

So what was your perception of God? What were you looking for?

I don't necessarily believe that if there's a God he/it would resemble a human mind, or is in line with Christian theology. What you were describing before you mentioned Christianity was somewhat pantheistic, seeing God as reality itself. There are spirit entities that have expressed that view. God isn't a person, but reality itself, with all of its laws and the state of being conscious. As you mentioned, God is more of a verb or condition, a state of beingness, than one being or person, one individual with a personality. That would be the concept of God that I find most convincing. God is reality itself, which includes consciousness.

 

[ding]

I don't necessarily believe that if there's a God he would resemble a human mind, or is in line with Christian theology. What you were describing before you mentioned Christianity was somewhat pantheistic, seeing God as reality itself. There are spirit entities that have expressed that view. God isn't a person, but reality itself, with all of its laws and the state of being conscious. As you mentioned, God is more of a verb or condition, a state of beingness, than one being or person, one individual with a personality. That would be the concept of God that I find most convincing. God is reality itself, which includes consciousness.

I didn't say a human mind. I said God is more like mind. Saying God is existence isn't saying God is everything. So, no. Nothing pantheistic in seeing God as existence.

God is literally the source of existence. Logically there is no other option than an eternal and never changing source of reality. A source which supplies reality equally to every part of the universe — all events at all times and all places. A source which does not supply energy as a match does to an explosive, but supplies reality instead. This is a life breeding, intelligence creating universe because the constant presence of mind made it so. Imbibing its creation with its invisible attributes. As such God is every extant attribute of reality. God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness, infinite goodness and every other extant reality of existence. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes.

 

[ding]

And for the record... the Christian view is that God is Love and God is Logic. So if God is those two extant attributes of reality, then logically God must be every extant attribute of reality as well.

You do understand what an extant attribute of reality is, right? It's the "thing" that exists. The negation of the attribute doesn't exist. It's the absence of the attribute.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I didn't say a human mind. I said God is more like mind. Saying God is existence isn't saying God is everything. So, no. Nothing pantheistic in seeing God as existence.

God is literally the source of existence. Logically there is no other option than an eternal and never changing source of reality. A source which supplies reality equally to every part of the universe — all events at all times and all places. A source which does not supply energy as a match does to an explosive, but supplies reality instead. This is a life breeding, intelligence creating universe because the constant presence of mind made it so. Imbibing its creation with its invisible attributes. As such God is every extant attribute of reality. God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness, infinite goodness and every other extant reality of existence. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes.

• Occam's Razor: This principle suggests that when presented with competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Theistic explanations introduce an additional, unverified entity (a god) to explain phenomena that science can already explain through natural processes. For instance, evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life without needing to invoke a creator. Adding a deity to the explanation is unnecessary and violates the principle of simplicity.
• Science Explains the "Gaps": Historically, gods were often invoked to explain what science could not—thunder was attributed to Zeus, diseases to demons, etc. However, as scientific knowledge expands, these "gaps" in understanding shrink. We now understand thunder as a result of lightning, and diseases as caused by pathogens. The "God of the gaps" approach is increasingly irrelevant as science continues to provide natural explanations.
• Non-Testable Hypotheses: For a claim to be scientific, it must be testable and falsifiable—meaning it can be proven wrong through observation or experiment. Theistic claims typically lack this quality. For example, the statement "God exists" is not falsifiable because there's no way to observe or test for an omnipotent, invisible being. As such, it doesn't meet the criteria of a scientific hypothesis.
• Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism: Science is grounded in methodological naturalism, which means it explains phenomena in terms of natural causes and laws. Supernatural explanations, like those offered by theism, don't adhere to this framework because they invoke forces or entities outside of nature. Without a way to observe or measure the supernatural, these explanations are not within the scope of science and are therefore not scientifically credible.

 

[ding]

What was it that God said when Moses asked for his name? I am that I am. That is existence.

 

[TruthNotBS]

And for the record... the Christian view is that God is Love and God is Logic. So if God is those two extant attributes of reality, then logically God must be every extant attribute of reality as well.

You do understand what an extant attribute of reality is, right? It's the "thing" that exists. The negation of the attribute doesn't exist. It's the absence of the attribute.

You're making a fundamental error by conflating abstract concepts like love and logic with physical reality. Love and logic are human constructs, not "extant attributes" in the sense that they exist independently of our perception. They describe relationships, processes, or feelings—not tangible entities.

Claiming that God is love or logic doesn’t equate to God being reality itself. That's a leap in reasoning without any basis in evidence or logical consistency. Just because something is considered a positive attribute (like love or logic) doesn’t mean it’s an all-encompassing force that dictates the nature of existence. This is a clear case of attributing unwarranted properties to abstract concepts and then claiming they represent the totality of reality.

Moreover, the idea that the negation of these attributes is simply their absence is oversimplified and ignores the complexity of reality. Not everything can be neatly categorized as an attribute or its absence—reality is far more nuanced than this binary thinking allows. This is philosophical rhetoric dressed up as logic, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Reality isn’t dictated by your personal definitions of love and logic, and asserting that God is every "extant attribute" based on this flawed premise doesn’t make it true.

 

[ding]

• Occam's Razor: This principle suggests that when presented with competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Theistic explanations introduce an additional, unverified entity (a god) to explain phenomena that science can already explain through natural processes. For instance, evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life without needing to invoke a creator. Adding a deity to the explanation is unnecessary and violates the principle of simplicity.
• Science Explains the "Gaps": Historically, gods were often invoked to explain what science could not—thunder was attributed to Zeus, diseases to demons, etc. However, as scientific knowledge expands, these "gaps" in understanding shrink. We now understand thunder as a result of lightning, and diseases as caused by pathogens. The "God of the gaps" approach is increasingly irrelevant as science continues to provide natural explanations.
• Non-Testable Hypotheses: For a claim to be scientific, it must be testable and falsifiable—meaning it can be proven wrong through observation or experiment. Theistic claims typically lack this quality. For example, the statement "God exists" is not falsifiable because there's no way to observe or test for an omnipotent, invisible being. As such, it doesn't meet the criteria of a scientific hypothesis.
• Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism: Science is grounded in methodological naturalism, which means it explains phenomena in terms of natural causes and laws. Supernatural explanations, like those offered by theism, don't adhere to this framework because they invoke forces or entities outside of nature. Without a way to observe or measure the supernatural, these explanations are not within the scope of science and are therefore not scientifically credible.

The simplest explanation is that existence comes from existence (i.e. Occam's Razor)

Science tells us that the universe popped into existence, not being created from existing matter, predestined to create intelligence.

The only way to test the existence of God is to enter into a relationship with God and see what happens. I've done it. It's quite real.

The laws of nature existed before space and time itself.

 

[TruthNotBS]

What was it that God said when Moses asked for his name? I am that I am. That is existence.

Or I will be who I will be. It depends on how you translate it. If God is existence, then that includes everything that exists, not just something or a reality outside of the material world. It includes all dimensions and aspects of existence.

 

[ding]

You're making a fundamental error by conflating abstract concepts like love and logic with physical reality. Love and logic are human constructs, not "extant attributes" in the sense that they exist independently of our perception. They describe relationships, processes, or feelings—not tangible entities.

Claiming that God is love or logic doesn’t equate to God being reality itself. That's a leap in reasoning without any basis in evidence or logical consistency. Just because something is considered a positive attribute (like love or logic) doesn’t mean it’s an all-encompassing force that dictates the nature of existence. This is a clear case of attributing unwarranted properties to abstract concepts and then claiming they represent the totality of reality.

Moreover, the idea that the negation of these attributes is simply their absence is oversimplified and ignores the complexity of reality. Not everything can be neatly categorized as an attribute or its absence—reality is far more nuanced than this binary thinking allows. This is philosophical rhetoric dressed up as logic, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Reality isn’t dictated by your personal definitions of love and logic, and asserting that God is every "extant attribute" based on this flawed premise doesn’t make it true.

No, I'm not. I am telling you that these "things" (which are no things in reality) exist independent of man. Just as music or science or mathematics do. And in fact, these are the only "things" that can be eternal because material things are not unchanging.

 

[ding]

Or I will be who I will be. It depends on how you translate it. If God is existence, then that includes everything that exists, not just something or a reality outside of the material world. It includes all dimensions and aspects of existence.

I translate it as it is. I am that I am. I exist as I exist.

But it seems to me that you are arguing against the existence of God. Which would make you more atheistic than agnostic, right?

 

[ding]

If God is existence, then that includes everything that exists, not just something or a reality outside of the material world. It includes all dimensions and aspects of existence.

The painter cannot be the painting.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The simplest explanation is that existence comes from existence (i.e. Occam's Razor)

Science tells us that the universe popped into existence, not being created from existing matter, predestined to create intelligence.

The only way to test the existence of God is to enter into a relationship with God and see what happens. I've done it. It's quite real.

The laws of nature existed before space and time itself.

The claim that "existence comes from existence" might sound appealing, but it doesn't address the complexity of cosmological models. To say the universe "popped into existence" oversimplifies what science actually suggests. Many physicists propose that the universe emerged from a quantum field, a state of energy that pervades all of space. This isn’t "nothing"—it’s a complex, dynamic system governed by the laws of quantum mechanics.

Furthermore, the idea that the "only way to test the existence of God is to enter into a relationship with God" is unscientific. Personal experiences are subjective and cannot be empirically tested, replicated, or observed by others. They don’t constitute evidence in any rigorous sense.

Lastly, the statement that "the laws of nature existed before space and time" is speculative and not supported by any empirical data. The laws of nature, as we understand them, are descriptions of how matter and energy behave within our universe. Suggesting they existed before the universe itself is a philosophical assertion, not a scientific one.

Physicists like Roger Penrose have explored ideas such as a cyclic universe or multiple Big Bangs, where our universe is just one phase in an eternal process. This perspective challenges the notion that everything "popped out of nothing" and suggests a much more complex and enduring cosmos than simplistic theistic interpretations allow.

 

[ding]

Freddie Mercury created an amazing work when he wrote Bohemian Rhapsody. You can say Freddie put a great deal of himself into that work, but Freddie is not the song. Freddie is the author of the song.

 

[ding]

The claim that "existence comes from existence" might sound appealing, but it doesn't address the complexity of cosmological models. To say the universe "popped into existence" oversimplifies what science actually suggests. Many physicists propose that the universe emerged from a quantum field, a state of energy that pervades all of space. This isn’t "nothing"—it’s a complex, dynamic system governed by the laws of quantum mechanics.

Furthermore, the idea that the "only way to test the existence of God is to enter into a relationship with God" is unscientific. Personal experiences are subjective and cannot be empirically tested, replicated, or observed by others. They don’t constitute evidence in any rigorous sense.

Lastly, the statement that "the laws of nature existed before space and time" is speculative and not supported by any empirical data. The laws of nature, as we understand them, are descriptions of how matter and energy behave within our universe. Suggesting they existed before the universe itself is a philosophical assertion, not a scientific one.

Physicists like Roger Penrose have explored ideas such as a cyclic universe or multiple Big Bangs, where our universe is just one phase in an eternal process. This perspective challenges the notion that everything "popped out of nothing" and suggests a much more complex and enduring cosmos than simplistic theistic interpretations allow.

In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.