Thread: Why God Exists.

Originally Posted by stonedape

But where does this God fellow come in then? You can't just take words out of a definition. It changes the meaning. If the meaning of the word is up to interpretation, what is the point of having a debate?

I used the omni-term definitions and then related it to energy as being God.

Also, the OP never defined "God" to one specific thing, so why can I not use this definition? I could use a monotheistic definition if you'd like.

From dictionary.com
Omniscient-having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

That's not what I was using but you could apply that to energy and how it is manifest in biological things.

How exactly does energy fit this description? How can energy know anything without having a brain? Does a rock know things? Does energy hear the tree falling in the forest when no one is around?

Well, yes, as energy is omnipresent.

The problem with the question do you believe in God is that it implies certain things based on who is asking the question. If someone was to ask me do I believe in God and they implied what O'nus is arguing, I would say yes. However I've never had anyone other than a theist(meaning someone who worships a deity) actually ask me that question.

No worries. I think it is safe to suspend judgment of others beliefs in a thread like this.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

It is abundantly proven that there is energy within all mass. All matter contains energy.

When considering the big bang and the research done at the LHC, even they must consider the time in which there was no matter to which energy can manifest. There was a time in which there was energy without tangibility.

Without a form of tangibility and mass, this energy is infinite.

Although we obviously do not understand this energy at this time, it is clearly within everything that we know of now.

If we define God as an omnipresent being, then it is energy.

If we define God as omniscient, then it is energy.

We cannot properly attach morality to this energy as we do not know of its consciousness.

However, we can speculate on its morality; the flourishing of the energy.

In this case, the ideal is to be respectful to it. As entropy shows that energy deteriorates over time regardless of our interaction (as of yet) then we are powerless to how we maintain it. In that respect, we must consider that it is ideal that we simply survive as best as we can and equally as we can with others in respect to our lucky time with this God.

At that, God is abundantly clear and true.

What do you think...?



Thank you for pretending to contribute to a thread by saying, "Sorry, but I cannot let my guard down no matter what. I will unyieldingly always debate for my side no matter what. Free and critical thinking is out of the question!" Spoken like a true politician. Your new nick name is Bill O'Reilly now.

Tell me Bill O'Reilly, why did you even bother saying anything in the thread if all you have to say is, "I cannot do what this thread asks" which is to think outside of your own beliefs and perhaps question yourself.

Unless, of course, you are convinced that you have done all the questioning you need to do. You say you have already been in the questioning state of mind. What are you in now? What are we then? Where ought we be? Please, enlighten us as you are obviously atoned.

~

This is assuming that God is manifest as a physical being within the physical universe.

Originally Posted by Rickrold

This is assuming that God is manifest as a physical being within the physical universe.

Did I not make it clear that the energy that would be God would not be physical?

Energy without mass

~

I still can't find a reason.

Hehehe, this was a good thread, glad to see it revived.

Originally Posted by Abra

I still can't find a reason.

Well at least you've you've been looking for one over the past year.

I am not a stupid, hairy monkey.

But if there is no god and evolution is true, then I'm a stupid, hairy monkey.

Ergo, There is a god and I am not a stupid, hairy monkey. In fact, I'm above even the angels. The universe in all it's glory was created for me to witness. Yeah. I'm just that cool.

What's that you say? People pretty much behave like stupid, hairy monkeys? No, no. It's "original sin". See, there was this talking snake...

Haven't seen you in like forever. How's walaihaipekahiee?

Ho Brah! Why you stay messin wid me?! Dat's almost Hawai'ian! You wen drop da 'okina dough like one fucking ha'ole. It go be walaihaipekahie'e.

I change my mind.

I'd start with:

God is the number 0.

And then a special rare space radiation caused it to mutate.

But that's fiction.

I think god exists because there is no other way, If there is it is beyond human brain function. The scientist speak of a big bang in which everything poped out of nothing even tho it is stated that energy cant be created or destroyed. This makes me think that something always had to exist, the energy and the catalist that cuased it to shape itself into life. I think god is the simplistic explanation of the vast infinite existence of energy. I dont think god is like a human being who sits on a thrown in some heaven, it is something beyond explanation other than its there. The energy that is everything had to exist in some form. I think that god exists becuase everything is god. In order for god to breath a soul or what we call life into things that means putting a part of himself into it. You could say that we and everything exists becuase without god there would be no way to exist or without us or a universe god would have nothing to be conciouse of and therfore not exist. To me God is existence and what drives humans, a part of the universe to acknowledge its existence. A robot could function and know how to recharge itself through programming and it could even ask questions to add to its information on survival, but it might not know it exists and have a sense of self.

According to multiple dimension theories, and things like string theory, it is possible that alternate dimensions exist, some of which may exhibit different laws of physics. According to the theories, all possible versions of history, and all possible laws of physics exist some where. So theoretically if all possible situations exist, then in at least one universe there should be a god. Even more specifically there should be a god of the bible, and even gods like the flying spaghetti monster can exist in one possible universe. More so a powerful being like a god may though high understanding of the universe, learn to travel between dimensions. Some scientists even believe that humans will be able to travel to other dimensions, and there are theories on how this may be possible, though obviously we need to advance our technology thousands perhaps million fold to what it is today.

It is even possible such a god exited and either came to our universe himself, or copied himself and sent the copy here, found earth, decided to screw around with the population for fun, then end up dying because of the law of physics here are so different from his originally universe. In which case the god of the bible existed, and still exists in another universe, he couldn't survive here because of the law of physics, but he is still vastly superior to humans and for all practical purpose is all seeing and all knowing. You could even throw in that he seeded human life, or that to try to survive the laws of physics that were killing him he really did change his body into that of a human and came to live here as Jesus, or any other scenario. Theoretically, in at least one dimensional universe, some where, it really did happen.

Of course this is all hypothetical and extremely unlikely. However even strong atheists will often say it is theoretically possible a god could exist, it is just extremely unlikely and doesn't seem to fit with our universe. People are actually trying to scientifically prove that multiple universes and alternate dimensions actually exist however. If they are able to prove it, then it might also prove that there might be a god.

Originally Posted by Osmodin

I think god is the simplistic explanation of the vast infinite existence of energy... it is something beyond explanation other than its there

Interesting concept of 'simplest explanation'?

In reality, the 'explanation' humans seek for the universe is not theirs to grasp. When we ask for an explanation of something, we ask for something that preceded it that caused it to occur, and how it caused it. But the beginning of reality was the beginning of time, so no explanation, in the sense that humans understand it, can exist.

Good thread. I shall partake.

Well, this is difficult for me, seeing as I neither completely embrace nor fully reject the idea of god. Well, I do believe in the likelihood of the existence of some power or influence above and beyond chance, but I tend to reject the traditional western concept of God. Let's put it this way: I've considered myself the counterpart to the "Noogah"s of DV.

The biggest hole in the atheistic viewpoint I see is the simple question of the origin of our universe. Even if you accept the theory of evolution, about how our planet came to be, there is still no explanation given as to where everything initially comes from. The laws of physics state that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and yet the idea that all of this has, going backwards in time, existed indefinitely doesn't make sense. Even if you believe in the multiverse theory, the same must apply to this multiverse. It is a bit of a quandary, and the idea of god explains it better than anything else I've heard yet.

Originally Posted by Supernova

The biggest hole in the atheistic viewpoint I see is the simple question of the origin of our universe. Even if you accept the theory of evolution, about how our planet came to be, there is still no explanation given as to where everything initially comes from. The laws of physics state that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and yet the idea that all of this has, going backwards in time, existed indefinitely doesn't make sense. Even if you believe in the multiverse theory, the same must apply to this multiverse. It is a bit of a quandary, and the idea of god explains it better than anything else I've heard yet.

Evolution doesn't explain how our planet came to be. Planetary accretion does.

Normally I'd put forth the old argument from ignorance response, but what do you mean, exactly, by "god?"

Having characturized the characture (Char²), I'll try my hand at the real thing. I've been meaning to do it for a while but a comment Taosaur made reminded me.

I said on another thread a while ago that I believe that "I" am an illusion. Of course my physical body exists with it's neurons and such but chains of causality flow in and out of that with a frequency and complexity of such a degree as to render meaningless any serious assertion that it exists as a discrete unit of independent existence. There is the perception of liking this or not liking that. "I" is an accretion of blank spaces associated with these perceptions. "I" like blue and "I" dislike Guinness even though these two perceptions are completely unrelated.

In the same sense, there are perceptions of gratitude. These come with two blank spaces. That which is being grateful and that to which one directs the gratitude.

"God" is that to which "I" am grateful for the gift of the present moment.

Originally Posted by Supernova

The biggest hole in the atheistic viewpoint I see is the simple question of the origin of our universe. Even if you accept the theory of evolution, about how our planet came to be, there is still no explanation given as to where everything initially comes from.

It isn't a hole in the viewpoint because atheists acknowledge that it's not within their viewpoint. They say, 'we don't know what the origin was', and leave it at that. What more can you do? The theistic position makes an assertion which does not actually logically explain it anyway, so it's worse, in the sense that it's baseless and plausibly incorrect. It's like you have a box that cannot possibly be opened. The atheist says, 'I don't know what's in it'. The theist says, 'there's a banana/cash prize/ghost' in it. You're saying the latter is more intellectually satisfying because it 'doesn't have holes'?

The laws of physics state that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and yet the idea that all of this has, going backwards in time, existed indefinitely doesn't make sense.

I don't get what you mean by this. Surely existing indefinitely is consistent with matter not being destroyed? Or do you mean that an indefinite existence is nonsensical for other reasons? Well, science doesn't propose an indefinite existence anyway. All science can do is observe lots of instances and make some general law that encompasses all of them. Matter (or rather, energy; matter can indeed 'disappear') is only observed to be conserved now (and even that is contentious). Before the universe came into being, we have no clue if energy is conserved as a general principle. How could we? We have no clue about any general principles 'above our level of reality'. Anything is possible, including universes spontaneously coming into existence.

Even if you believe in the multiverse theory, the same must apply to this multiverse. It is a bit of a quandary, and the idea of god explains it better than anything else I've heard yet.

In what way is God an explanation? Please define your terms.

On the one hand we have 'natural phenomenon X, which itself is causeless, caused the universe', and on the other we have 'God, who is causeless, caused the universe'. Why do you find the latter to be 'better'? What is it about being a causeless creator that necessitates the qualities of God as you define him?

Ok.... I'm to lazy to read all this, but I will say something

Christians. They worship an imaginary god. It is basically a man. A man who has control over all. A man who is judgmental. A man who needs to be worshiped and loved more than any human or any living creature. We need to love him. Because he is our master. And we should fear him. Because if we don't he will fuck us in hell. We need to live our lives by beliefs. Beliefs that create attitudes about the world around us and ourselves. We need to live by morals.

This idea of god is completely imaginary. He doesn't exist. Christians get all emotionally hyped up in church over this. They get emotionally hyped up and connected over an imaginary idea of a ruler. An all powerful ruler.

God is not this. If god is the word you want to use. God is something more than this. God is you. God is me. God lives inside us. God blows in the wind. God is all of it. Yet he is nothing. He is the emptiness of everything. He is the source. The source we came from. The source we will return to. We are already here though. We are the source. We are the light. We are god. God is spirit. To live in spirit is to be one with god. To be true to yourself is to be one with god. To worship yourself is to be true to god. We are god. We are free. Nothing is keeping us from our freedom except ourselves. We are free.

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

God is you. God is me. God lives inside us. God blows in the wind. God is all of it. Yet he is nothing. He is the emptiness of everything. He is the source. The source we came from. The source we will return to. We are already here though. We are the source. We are the light. We are god. God is spirit. To live in spirit is to be one with god. To be true to yourself is to be one with god. To worship yourself is to be true to god. We are god. We are free. Nothing is keeping us from our freedom except ourselves. We are free.

An incoherent, contradictory mess if I've ever seen one.

Originally Posted by Xei

Matter (or rather, energy; matter can indeed 'disappear') is only observed to be conserved now (and even that is contentious).

Care to elaborate on the part that I bolded?

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

Ok.... I'm to lazy to read all this, but I will say something

Christians. They worship an imaginary god. It is basically a man. A man who has control over all. A man who is judgmental. A man who needs to be worshiped and loved more than any human or any living creature. We need to love him. Because he is our master. And we should fear him. Because if we don't he will fuck us in hell. We need to live our lives by beliefs. Beliefs that create attitudes about the world around us and ourselves. We need to live by morals.

This idea of god is completely imaginary. He doesn't exist. Christians get all emotionally hyped up in church over this. They get emotionally hyped up and connected over an imaginary idea of a ruler. An all powerful ruler.

God is not this. If god is the word you want to use. God is something more than this. God is you. God is me. God lives inside us. God blows in the wind. God is all of it. Yet he is nothing. He is the emptiness of everything. He is the source. The source we came from. The source we will return to. We are already here though. We are the source. We are the light. We are god. God is spirit. To live in spirit is to be one with god. To be true to yourself is to be one with god. To worship yourself is to be true to god. We are god. We are free. Nothing is keeping us from our freedom except ourselves. We are free.

Your supposed to present an argument for the opposite of what you believe. It's an excercise to make you think.

Well thats stupid

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

God is not this. If god is the word you want to use. God is something more than this. God is you. God is me. God lives inside us. God blows in the wind. God is all of it. Yet he is nothing. He is the emptiness of everything. He is the source. The source we came from. The source we will return to. We are already here though. We are the source. We are the light. We are god. God is spirit. To live in spirit is to be one with god. To be true to yourself is to be one with god. To worship yourself is to be true to god. We are god. We are free. Nothing is keeping us from our freedom except ourselves. We are free.

So...what is god again? It seems to have lost all meaning within this paragraph.

exactly