I want decent explanations for why there has to be a God WITHOUT using any religions and religious teachings as backup.

inexplicable coincidence, though science would explain it away one way or another

quote:Originally posted by Florida Snow:

inexplicable coincidence

How is that proof of God? I could claim all sorts of crazy shit caused the coincidence.

Nothing has no capacity to hold something, to allow anything to exist, nothing is nothing and nothing can happen in nothing it is just nothing.

"God" is what everything exists within and what allows everything to exist. If there was nothing there would still be nothing, things can't happen or exist in nothing, nothing only has the capacity for nothing.

quote:Originally posted by Florida Snow:

inexplicable coincidence, though science would explain it away one way or another

The possibility of "coincidence" has to also exist in order for the coincidence to occur.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

"God" is what everything exists within and what allows everything to exist. If there was nothing there would still be nothing, things can't happen or exist in nothing, nothing only has the capacity for nothing.

That’s not what God is, that’s what Reality is. What’s the point in calling Reality ‘God’ and worshipping it? There’s some old religions that did that, but I figured we were past that stage.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

The possibility of "coincidence" has to also exist in order for the coincidence to occur.



Sorry, Coincidences which have a have a 1 and a million chance of occurence, over, and over, and over.

Let's define God as an omnipotent and omniscient being (this definition is accepted among 99% percent of people). If God is omnipotent, God can do anything. In fact, if I propose that 1=5, God can make that statement true, as God can do anything. Ridiculous, no? My mind isn't open to this nonsense. There is no God.

quote:Originally posted by Florida Snow:

inexplicable coincidence, though science would explain it away one way or another

Give me an example of one of these coincidences.

quote:Originally posted by Florida Snow:



Sorry, Coincidences which have a have a 1 and a million chance of occurence, over, and over, and over.

Where have you seen it "occure"?

That is like saying "Why do you have a nose?"

That is, God is a tangible reality to me and hence beyond question.

quote:"That is like saying "Why do you have a nose?"

That is, God is a tangible reality to me and hence beyond question."

And here we see the most common response to the question "Is there a God?", which is "There just is!"

Sorry, that shit don't fly if you've the capacity for rational thought. Next.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

That is like saying "Why do you have a nose?"

That is, God is a tangible reality to me and hence beyond question.



That is nothing like saying why do we have a nose. It can be explained why we have a nose, a quick google search and I found: "Evolution. Our triangular nose evolved in tandem with shrinkage of the primate's bony muzzle. Because early primates depended more on sight than smell, their snouts gradually shortened. Because we have no muzzle at all, our proboscis was left standing high and dry on the fleshy plain."

quote:Originally posted by Overman:

I want decent explanations for why there has to be a God WITHOUT using any religions and religious teachings as backup.

This is a subject done near to death for thousands of years, perhaps the whole history of man. We've argued, debated, fought and killed over it. How to describe the ineffable? how to define the infinite? Those are the subjects humanity has debated ad-infinitum, and where does it lead?

One constant in that debate, is that the idea of God is not defined or we are not able to agree on a definition. Although most would think of God as: “the sole Supreme Being, eternal, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions”. But is this a useful definition given it cannot be proven thru empirical analysis?

here are some other dictionary definitions:

* a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world, or is a personification of some force.

* any person or thing to which excessive attention is given e.g. “Money was his god.”

Taking the latter definition then it’s relatively easy to see most people have a god, and that’s easy to prove. What do you think of most? What do you spend your life doing/serving? That is your god and that definition could prove useful in introspection and analysis. However, the first definition is not provable and could be seen as a useless distraction except when regarded as the personification of some force. That may be useful in developing a theory.

For mine, the most useful definition is linked to the ancient greek idea of ‘Logos’.

The Gospel of John begins thus: “In the beginning was the Word(Greek – Logos) and the Word/Logos was with God and the Word/Logos was God.” Most would be familiar with these words although how many know they are almost a word for word rendition of a quote from the much older Indian scriptures the Vedas?

logos noun:1. Philosophy. reason regarded as the controlling principle of the universe. [Originally from the Greek meaning word or reason. – Collins Concise Dictionary] What do we seek as the controlling principle in our society and communities? Does reason fit?

Whether or not one accepts logos/reason as a definition of god is irrelevant, the point being made is that god can be seen as the controlling principle of the universe, of one’s mind, of one’s life etc. Scientists search for the one unifying law, the one principle that controls the universe, the one law that explains everything, is this a search for God? Would such a law satisfy the definition of God? I think so, and it is known that some of the ancients indeed worshipped a law as God.

I am the Law, thy God, which hath brought thee out from the depths of the bondage of darkness.

Thou shalt have no other Laws before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any image of the Law in heaven above or in the earth beneath. I am the invisible Law, without beginning and without end.

Thou shalt not make unto thee false laws, for I am the Law, and the whole Law of all laws. If thou forsake me, thou shalt be visited by disasters for generation upon generation.

If thou keepest my commandments, thou shalt enter the Infinite Garden where stands the Tree of Life in the midst of the Eternal Sea.

Thou shalt not violate the Law. The Law is thy God, who shall not hold thee guiltless.

Honor thy Earthly Mother, that thy days may be long upon the land, and honor thy Heavenly Father, that eternal life be thine in the heavens, for the earth and the heavens are given thee by the Law, which is thy God.

(From The Essene Book of Moses – The Ten Commandments, The Gospel of the Essenes, Edmund Bordeaux Szekely)

It is evident that there are other definitions of God beside the classic monotheistic religious versions. For me, ‘reason’ is as good a definition as is needed, we use our powers of reason to solve problems of life, to understand our universe, to search for meaning and purpose. It is ‘a’ controlling principle, whether it is ‘the’ controlling principle, or 'God', is up to the individual.

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by iiChriSii:



That is nothing like saying why do we have a nose. It can be explained why we have a nose, a quick google search and I found: "Evolution. Our triangular nose evolved in tandem with shrinkage of the primate's bony muzzle. Because early primates depended more on sight than smell, their snouts gradually shortened. Because we have no muzzle at all, our proboscis was left standing high and dry on the fleshy plain."



And the system of evolution, the possibility of planets and muzzles and sentient beings just popped out of absolute nothing even though nothing has no capacity to allow anything to exist within it, nor can anything occur in or from nothing, nothing can only do nothing and will always be nothing, nothing has never existed.

quote: Article II. Whether the existence of God is demonstrable:

Let us proceed to the second point. It is objected (1) that the existence of God is not demonstratable: that God's existence is an article of faith, and that articles of faith are not demonstratable, because the office of demonstration is to prove, but faith pertains (only) to things that are not to be proven, as is evident from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 11. Hence that God's existence is not demonstratable. Again, (2) that the subject matter of demonstration is that something exists, but in the case of God we cannot know what exists, but only what does not, as Damascenus says (Of the Orthodox Faith, I., 4.) Hence that we cannot demonstrate God's existence. Again, (3) that if God's existence is to be proved it must be from what He causes, and that what He effects is not sufficient for His supposed nature, since He is infinite, but the effects finite, and the finite is not proportional to the infinite. Since, therefore, a cause cannot be proved through an effect not proportional to itself, it is said that God's exisence cannot be proved.

But against this argument the apostle says (Rom. I., 20), "The unseen things of God are visible through His manifest works." But this would not be so unless it were possible to demonstrate God's existence through His works. What ought to be understood concerning anything, is first of all, whether it exists. Conclusion. It is possible to demonstrate God's existence, atthough not a priori (by pure reason), yet a posteriori from some work of His more surely known to us.

In answer I must say that the proof is double. One is through the nature of a cause and is called propter quid: this is through the nature of preceding events sirnply. The other is through the nature of the effect, and is called quia, and is through the nature of preceding things as respects us. Since the effect is better known to us than the cause, we proceed from the effect to the knowledge of the cause. From any effect whatsoever it can be proved that a corresponding cause exists, if only the effects of it are sufficiently known to us, for since effects depend on causes, the effect being given, it is necessary that a preceding cause exists. Whence, that God exists, although this is not itself known to us, is provable through effects that are known to us.

To the first objection above, I reply, therefore, that God's existence, and those other things of this nature that can be known through natural reason concerning God, as is said in Rom. I., are not articles of faith, but preambles to these articles. So faith presupposes natural knowledge, so grace nature, and perfection a perfectible thing. Nothing prevents a thing that is in itself demonstratable and knowable, from being accepted as an article of faith by someone that does not accept the proof of it.

To the second objection, I reply that, since the cause is proven from the effect, one must use the effect in the place of a definition of the cause in demonstrating that the cause exists; and that this applies especially in the case of God, because for proving that anything exists, it is necessary to accept in this method what the name signifies, not however that anything exists, because the question what it is is secondary to the question whether it exists at all. The characteristics of God are drawn from His works as shall be shown hereafter, (Question XIII). Whence by proving that God exists through His works as shall be shown hereafter, (Question XIII). Whence by proving that God exists through His works, we are able by this very method to see what the name God signifies.

To the third objection, I reply that, although a perfect knowledge of the cause cannot be had from inadequate effects, yet that from any effect manifest to us it can be shown that a cause does exist, as has been said. And thus from the works of God His existence can be proved, although we cannot in this way know Him perfectly in accordance with His own essence.

Article III. Whether God exists.

Let us proceed to the third article. It is objected (1) that God does not exist, because if one of two contradictory things is infinite, the other will be totally destroyed; that it is implied in the name God that there is a certain infinite goodness: if then God existed, no evil would be found. But evil is found in the world; therefore it is objected that God does not exist. Again, that what can be accomplished through a less number of principles will not be accomplished through more. It is objected that all things that appear on the earth can be accounted for through other principles, without supposing that God exists, since what is natural can be traced to a natural principle, and what proceeds from a proposition can be traced to the human reason or will. Therefore that there is no necessity to suppose that God exists. But as against this note what is said of the person of God (Exod. III., 14) I am that I am. Conclusion. There must be found in the nature of things one first immovable Being, a primary cause, necessarily existing, not created; existing the most widely, good, even the best possible; the first ruler through the intellect, and the ultimate end of all things, which is God.

I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.

The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.

In response to the first objection, then, I reply what Augustine says; that since God is entirely good, He would permit evil to exist in His works only if He were so good and omnipotent that He might bring forth good even from the evil. It therefore pertains to the infinite goodness of God that he permits evil to exist and from this brings forth good.

My reply to the second objection is that since nature is ordered in accordance with some defined purpose by the direction of some superior agent, those things that spring from nature must be dependent upon God, just as upon a first cause. Likewise, what springs from a proposition must be traceable to some higher cause which is not the human reason or will, because this is changeable and defective and everything changeable and liable to non-existence is dependent upon some unchangeable first principle that is necessarily self-existent as has been shown.

It is an impossible thing to prove beyond a doubt. God is based on what some say is faith. Some say faith is just jumping to a conclusion because you don't know why shit just happened. You can't eliminate the religious references from this arguement just because that's how people have gotten the idea of what god is and eliminating that from the equaton leaves you with nothing to argue.

my reasoning that there is a god-type being is rather simple. its due to the saying "there's always a bigger fish". so, there's something greater than humans out there. call it a god if you'd like, but its more powerful than us. of course, that doesn't mean they interfere with our lives, but they or it exist.

The reason you think there's a god is a crappy saying? "There's always bigger fish"? I read Pooh and the Philosophers but hell that ones a stretch.

quote:Originally posted by Albatross:

And here we see the most common response to the question "Is there a God?", which is "There just is!"

Sorry, that shit don't fly if you've the capacity for rational thought. Next.

indeed, that is the answer you'll get from most Christians on 99.9% of your questions. "if you could see God then it wouldn't be called "believing" now would it?" BULLSHIT!

quote:Originally posted by sybil:

indeed, that is the answer you'll get from most Christians on 99.9% of your questions. "if you could see God then it wouldn't be called "believing" now would it?" BULLSHIT!

I posted the proof, which isn't scripture based at all, as to why Catholics(the vast majority of them at least) believe in A god.

There is no definitive prrof that what we consider God exists. The classic Christian God is, in itself, infallible by definition. Therefore, no matter how many times science finds evidence against such a being's existance, their answer is simple: your mind is too feeble to understand him in his complexity, and/or he has planted that evidence to trick the non believers, or that "evidence" is merely a red herring to spite the religious.

If there was any indisputable evidence that he existed, science would have taken it up and proved it. You would see interviews with God on the cover of Scientific American. But you don't. The "evidence" that God exists is merely based upon the idea of his infallibility, weak logic, and philospohy created by those who will distort anything to make it appear obvious.

I findit ironic that there seems to be more prrof in favor of creatures such as bigfoot, UFOs, aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, etc., than the classic Christian God, and yet more than 90% of Americans believe in God; few believe in the Loch Ness Monster.

i have got the simple answer no there isn't

without faith there is no evidence of god

Depends what you define as God, stretch the definition of coarse there's a God, traditional sense No faith = no God.

Simple really. The question of God could not exist without God. If God did not exist then neither would the question.

quote:Originally posted by noholdsbard:

Simple really. The question of God could not exist without God. If God did not exist then neither would the question.

So does me asking whether or not the almighty purple elephant that lives on the moon exist actually make him exist?

Of course... isn't it obvious? Just because I can ask whether or not 2 + 3 = 28454.565 means 2 + 3 does equal that.

His logic is outstanding!

quote:Originally posted by sketchy:

The reason you think there's a god is a crappy saying? "There's always bigger fish"? I read Pooh and the Philosophers but hell that ones a stretch.

yeah. i know. it's just really simplified thinking. you know, instead of trying to explain the earth's foodchain, and how if we expand it to the universe then there has to be something more powerful than humans. childish thinking works on occasion for me.

Let's not throw Descartes' circular logic into the fray, Noholdsbard.

As for the question of God's existence (not that my opinion means anything):

You must first define God. This word has been thrown around so carelessly that there's a separate view of God for just about every person on this planet. In other words, it's meaningless to ask such a question.

I can claim that God is an omnipotent, omniscient deity. I could also claim that it is the all-encompassing reality around us. Then again, maybe it's the warm fuzzy feeling you get when you adopt a kitten.

The point? It's an arbitrary term with as many definitions as there are human beings. No one can prove anything relating to their own personal beliefs on the subject. Get over it.

"I would rather live my life believing in a God and to find out there wasn't, rather than living my life thinking there wasn't a God to find out there was."

...if you catch my drift http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Gyrin:

"I would rather live my life believing in a God and to find out there wasn't, rather than living my life thinking there wasn't a God to find out there was."

...if you catch my drift http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Pascal's wager is full of crap.

quote:Originally posted by Q777:

Pascal's wager is full of crap.

Pascal = Toilet?

Why Pascal's wager is stupid:

1. There are infinite possible deities, and there is no proof for any of their existences.

2. For every imaginary deity that rewards belief in god, there is an imaginary deity that punishes belief in god.

So:

3. Believing in anything including god is just as likely to get you punished instead of rewarded, assuming a god exists.

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

Let's define God as an omnipotent and omniscient being (this definition is accepted among 99% percent of people). If God is omnipotent, God can do anything. In fact, if I propose that 1=5, God can make that statement true, as God can do anything. Ridiculous, no? My mind isn't open to this nonsense. There is no God.

If God is omnipotent, he can do anything that is logically possible and not inconsistent with his other attributes. For example, God could not create a "round square." Such a thing cannot possibly exist because a square by definition is not round. God cannot make 1=5 simply because he is omnipotent. To do so would not be logically possible. This is not to imply that God is not truly omnipotent, but that like any being, there are limits to what he can do. Aquinas put it best when he said, "Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is more approporiate to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them." Power extends ONLY to what is possible. Even omnipotence has its limits.

Therefore, I must disagree with your logic.

quote:Originally posted by karma_sleeper:

If God is omnipotent, he can do anything that is logically possible and not inconsistent with his other attributes. For example, God could not create a "round square." Such a thing cannot possibly exist because a square by definition is not round. God cannot make 1=5 simply because he is omnipotent. To do so would not be logically possible. This is not to imply that God is not truly omnipotent, but that like any being, there are limits to what he can do. Aquinas put it best when he said, "Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is more approporiate to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them." Power extends ONLY to what is possible. Even omnipotence has its limits.

Therefore, I must disagree with your logic.



well according to christians he created a creature that he has complete control over defy him, claim he doesn't exist, kill his followers, and countless other things

quote:Originally posted by karma_sleeper:

If God is omnipotent, he can do anything that is logically possible and not inconsistent with his other attributes. For example, God could not create a "round square." Such a thing cannot possibly exist because a square by definition is not round. God cannot make 1=5 simply because he is omnipotent. To do so would not be logically possible. This is not to imply that God is not truly omnipotent, but that like any being, there are limits to what he can do. Aquinas put it best when he said, "Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is more approporiate to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them." Power extends ONLY to what is possible. Even omnipotence has its limits.

Therefore, I must disagree with your logic.



Read Matthew 19:26. The Christian God places no such limitations on himself. It is man, not God, that places boundaries on God's omnipotence.

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

Read Matthew 19:26. The Christian God places no such limitations on himself. It is man, not God, that places boundaries on God's omnipotence.



"And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible."

And before verse 26,

"And I again I say unto you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved? And Jesus beholding" blah blah blah. (24-25).

Mat 19:26 is not discussing the issue of God's omnipotence but rather that of salvation. Jesus is telling his disciples that faith in God and faith in God alone is what leads to salvation, not faith in man or any works of man. Jesus is saying that with God, one's life can accomplish many things - even salvation.

I'm not pretending to know everything about scripture, but I don't think you understand what this passage is saying. You need to take it in context of the entire scene that is happening here, not just one or two lines that stand out.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

well according to christians he created a creature that he has complete control over defy him, claim he doesn't exist, kill his followers, and countless other things

Most contend God created man with freewill, therefore leaving man free to defy or obey the will of God. Yes, God could've created us as perfectly obedient creatures who love him without question. But is true love forcing someone to love you like that? I feel, instead, that that love is much more meaningful when one chooses out of freewill to love God.

What does the word God mean in your context, Overman?

[This message has been edited by ate (edited 07-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by ate:

What does the word God mean in your context, Overman?



I don't believe in it, but a deity that created all, like the one found in the old testament.

Yea its all bullshit. there has been "gods" around since the beginning of time. what would make any other religion more right or wrong than any other since there has been countless numbers of religions. god did not create men, men created god. the only reason men created god was for control over the people. think about it, the people that believe in a god basically think there is some invisible man that sits in the clouds with a huge ass check list and determines whether you go to hell or not based on your actions. if you just so happen to do anything wrong then you go to a dark firey place full of torture screaming and pain, but oh dont forget, this invisible man loves you anyway. and i think that the vast majority of people who do believe in god and the possibility of life after death believe so because the thought of their life ending with nothing afterwards is too frightening to think about or they just cant comprehend it.

i might have gotten a little off topic but thats my belief.

Well you guys know what I'd say.

quote:Originally posted by Overman:

I don't believe in it, but a deity that created all, like the one found in the old testament.

No offense, but if you're using the old testament as your basis for the definition of God, what is the point in telling people not to use religious texts?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

No offense, but if you're using the old testament as your basis for the definition of God, what is the point in telling people not to use religious texts?

Well I was just saying that's how I picture God, because Ate asked, I never said we had to use that definition. Just state your definition of God before you post, I guess.

quote:Originally posted by karma_sleeper:

Most contend God created man with freewill, therefore leaving man free to defy or obey the will of God. Yes, God could've created us as perfectly obedient creatures who love him without question. But is true love forcing someone to love you like that? I feel, instead, that that love is much more meaningful when one chooses out of freewill to love God.

If God created a creature with freewill then does God have freewill to be God or not?

Or, is he a slave to his own will?

Whom does his 'will' serve? Self? or Man?

This "God" will never be realized by discussion, facts, evidence, proof, a good explanation, or theory. The nature of mind is to only look beyond the present moment, and question MORE... just look at how many thoughts you have each day while your mind runs loose analyzing everything it sees jumping from one thought to another. Rather, God is found only accepting all there is at the deepest level of detachment without thought, no ifs ands or buts, it's a state you have to be in, it's not something you can "believe" or analyze, argue about, talk about, even think about. It just IS. God is a realization, the deepest... not a product you can buy.

If you haven't realized all the discussion in the world will never help you find God, then you better wake up, because these conversations have gone on for years and years, they never end and they never end or go anywhere. When the mind finally stops after years, maybe lifetimes, and you're at the point of no return, you look, and say "THERE! THERE IT IS! THIS HAS BEEN STARING ME IN THE FACE THE ENTIRE TIME AND I DID NOT SEE IT". Now you know a key into reality, a key many have silently whispered, passed on and on, watch that breathing, watch it all night, watch it and see where it leads...

I remember a post by Arms one time, buddhism in 3 sentences "Everything is connected. Everything is one. Pay attention." Seemed interesting at the time, when IT happens that there is a point of no thought, no seeking for past or future, nowhere to go, nowhere else to look, when at that point of being purely attentive and humble, those words armsmerchant posted became the truth of my entire reality, more than a lot of you might think. In fact, that was one of the most important threads posted ever here on totse I believe.

God God God all you people do is babble on, the real magic is inner states, meditation, concentration, devoted, prolonged practices. Even if you're no monk, meditation is not limited to a certain religion or style, simply conscious breathing FULLY conscious for long periods of time can throw you into la la land more than you think... You want God in a paragraph, but it fit in 3 sentences just as I said. If you do not believe me, I don't care. What YOU are looking for is already HERE, it is YOU that is not here.

Really, the mind is the barrier. Overcome it in a lifetime, a week, a night. And you know all that's worth knowing.

Read the Book of Secrets by Osho, that should be the bible. He openly claims he cannot spill secrets out in words, he cannot "prove" things and is not interested in doing so. Rather he suggests through TECHNIQUE, you can find a new world. By TESTING, by PRACTICE, by "scientific" means of your own. YOU are the experiment, you have to go very deep and then once you realize it, the world is a different place to live in.

Or would you rather keep asking silly questions nobody can answer? Sometimes I think you people just like hearing yourselves talk. The real answer is in personal experiences, which no proof or evidence can change, which no theory can explain or give you. Experience is the only real way to discover truth in ANYTHING.

bah... Im gonna go play guitar.

The mathematical probability of randomly guessing as to your God's properties are below epsilon, which means that it is theoretically impossible to do so.

This would mean that for our God, assuming he exists, to judge us based upon what we do/believe on earth, it is necessary (if he's not a malicious God) for him to provide a way for us to know him.

Sure, one who holds a religious belief can claim all they want that he provided that way to know him through their religious paths, but these are hollow claims. The very basis of Science is to gather knowledge, and even our modern science that has come so far lacks the ability to discern if there even IS a God, let alone that God's properties. So then, this opportunity has not been provided.

What we're left with is that our God either:

A) Is malicious

B) Doesn't judge/condemn, or

C) Is nonexistent.

As you can see, this argument I created (which not even DS attempted to refute when it was up on the front page and she visited the forum everyday) is against the traditional understanding of God.

There still may be a God, but in any of the above cases, worship is unnecessary and depending on how you look at it, fruitless.

god doesn't exist. if a supernatural being created existence he wouldn't have to be a part of it. just some speculation.

I am not posting here to give you an answer but instead posting to help you make up your mind on his existance.

Imagine two mental roads(ideologies) you can take for the rest of your life.

A. There is nothing but what is seen in plain site. You die, you get buried and your body decays and your journey is over.

B. There is an untouchable, unfeelable unseeing being among us. Choice to believe he is always there but do not devote your life to him, just keep in mind he know he's occuping his time for you and you will get a limited place up in the clouds. (Considering you follow the Righteous Path)

What do you really have to lose? Not only you lose your fear of death because if you have faith in him, death will only be the beginning of something beautiful. If you conclude your life respecting the idea he's not there, you will no doubt spend eternity burning every shred of dignity you hold.

Just one problem concerning the *nothing in nothing* statement though. It is reasonable enough that god created everything but what created him? He DID NOT create himself, you have to be more realistic than that.

(Did not revise, bare with me)

I don't choose based on feeling and what makes me feel happy, I choose via logic and reasoning. Stop with the appeal to emotion.

yes there is a God. But this thing that we call God hates you, me, and everyone else. Seriously.

quote:Originally posted by random_jew:

I am not posting here to give you an answer but instead posting to help you make up your mind on his existance.

Imagine two mental roads(ideologies) you can take for the rest of your life.

A. There is nothing but what is seen in plain site. You die, you get buried and your body decays and your journey is over.

B. There is an untouchable, unfeelable unseeing being among us. Choice to believe he is always there but do not devote your life to him, just keep in mind he know he's occuping his time for you and you will get a limited place up in the clouds. (Considering you follow the Righteous Path)

What do you really have to lose? Not only you lose your fear of death because if you have faith in him, death will only be the beginning of something beautiful. If you conclude your life respecting the idea he's not there, you will no doubt spend eternity burning every shred of dignity you hold.



(Did not revise, bare with me)

Believing in silly things does not make them true. If it did, I would agree with you 100%.

Unfortunately, no matter how strongly you believe, it doesn't change anything.

If anything, the fact that your belief is so reassuring should give suspicion toward the reason it's being believed.

Christianity is an irrational, unreasonable, and even disgusting belief system that simply cannot be true. No matter how desirable it's rewards are, it simply isn't true.

quote:Originally posted by Flesh:

If God created a creature with freewill then does God have freewill to be God or not?

Or, is he a slave to his own will?

Whom does his 'will' serve? Self? or Man?





I don't know really. I suppose most Christians, when referring to the "will of God," mean what we as people can discern from scripture and the like. Beyond that, God is beyond the human comprehension. One might argue your question undeterminable. Truthfully, I don't know how to answer it. I can see how one might argue for both "self" and "man."

"does God have freewill to be God or not?"

I've only heard arguments that God cannot "will" himself not to be God because then he would cease to exist as we understand him. In other words, it would be an action inconsistent with his other attributes which philosophically is a logical impossibility.

quote:Originally posted by karma_sleeper:



I don't know really. I suppose most Christians, when referring to the "will of God," mean what we as people can discern from scripture and the like. Beyond that, God is beyond the human comprehension. One might argue your question undeterminable. Truthfully, I don't know how to answer it. I can see how one might argue for both "self" and "man."

"does God have freewill to be God or not?"

I've only heard arguments that God cannot "will" himself not to be God because then he would cease to exist as we understand him. In other words, it would be an action inconsistent with his other attributes which philosophically is a logical impossibility.

So God, in creating man, has become enslaved in his own Godly image?

quote:Originally posted by karma_sleeper:

If God is omnipotent, he can do anything that is logically possible and not inconsistent with his other attributes. For example, God could not create a "round square." Such a thing cannot possibly exist because a square by definition is not round. God cannot make 1=5 simply because he is omnipotent. To do so would not be logically possible. This is not to imply that God is not truly omnipotent, but that like any being, there are limits to what he can do. Aquinas put it best when he said, "Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is more approporiate to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them." Power extends ONLY to what is possible. Even omnipotence has its limits.

Therefore, I must disagree with your logic.



Using your definition of omnipotence,(since the most common definiton is God can not only transcend the laws of physics and probability, but can also transcend logical truths because God is not bound by any limitations.)the Christian God is said to have made miracles, made donkeys talk and raise people from the dead. These things are logically impossible but it is said that he did it, therefore God can only do things that are logically possible yet he does the logically impossible.?? Think on that.

[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 07-20-2006).]