If God exists, does he baffle himself?

[Moonbeam]

Everyone has their own standard of evidence. Some people are more easily to convince than others.

I think the degree of evidence someone is willing to accept, depends on how much or how less one buys into the existence of a god/God.

I think it is more a matter of what kind of coin one uses to buy with. My view differs perhaps because I differ in the degree of evidence I was willing to accept.

I believe that God is when one experiences a God conscious state. I believe there are many paths to such an experience. There is the way through the body called by some the way of the fakir. Imagine the Zen swordsman who enters the present without fear and can be beaten in battle only by exhaustion. There is the way through the emotions, where the worship of the Beloved, the love of God is so strong it is just like God's love. This is called by some the way of the monk. Then there is the way of what some call the yogi, the way through the mind, where contemplation, thinking is taken to thought's extinction stopping time. These paths are bridges to the experience of unity, the collapse of separate being. One can also through psychoanalysis root up the the things in the past that caused us to divide within.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You choose not to believe in God, and therefore, you will not know Him. And that's on you, man.

I do not know God because he has not revealed himself to me, and he has not revealed himself to me because I do not believe in him. Nice little logic loop you have there.

Everyone has their own standard of evidence. Some people are more easily to convince than others.

While this is true to some extent, there is a basic standard that something must reach to be considered evidence at all, that that is what nearly all so called evidence of God fails.
It is not that we don't believe the evidence theists put forth, it is that it is not even evidence.

So, all that we really have is logical arguments, and those rely on a set of premises that our two sides simply do not agree on. The search for 'evidence' is about trying to find a set of premises that we can all agree on, and so far theists have failed to find any and the atheists are able to fall back on the null set.

 

[Retro Rob]

While this is true to some extent, there is a basic standard that something must reach to be considered evidence at all, that that is what nearly all so called evidence of God fails.
It is not that we don't believe the evidence theists put forth, it is that it is not even evidence.

This would be true if no atheist ever became a believer...but since that isn't the case, my point stands.

 

[SMOGZINN]

This would be true if no atheist ever became a believer...but since that isn't the case, my point stands.

That would only be true if logical arguments are the only thing that ever sways people. Obviously appeals to emotion are sometimes effective.

 

[Retro Rob]

That would only be true if logical arguments are the only thing that ever sways people. Obviously appeals to emotion are sometimes effective.

Well, I'm not the one who said: "It is not that we don't believe the evidence theists put forth, it is that it is not even evidence.".

Obviously, former atheists either believe our evidence, or it is evidence to them...or they believe for some other reason.

The point is, it takes varying degrees of evidence based on who you're talking to.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Well, I'm not the one who said: "It is not that we don't believe the evidence theists put forth, it is that it is not even evidence.".

Obviously, former atheists either believe our evidence, or it is evidence to them...or they believe for some other reason.

The point is, it takes varying degrees of evidence based on who you're talking to.

What I am saying is that evidence is not what is swaying them but emotion. It does not take any evidence to make someone feel something, only a skillful manipulation of language.

I'm trying not to be judgemental about that (although I'll admit it is hard for me) because I think that maybe being happy is more important than having the evidence to be sure you are right.

 

[Retro Rob]

What I am saying is that evidence is not what is swaying them but emotion. It does not take any evidence to make someone feel something, only a skillful manipulation of language.

Not really:

In a 2004 interview (published December 9), Flew, then 81 years old, said that he had become a deist.[25] In the article Flew states that he has renounced his long-standing espousal of atheism by endorsing a deism of the sort that Thomas Jefferson advocated ("While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings."). Flew stated that "the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries" and that "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew#Atheism_and_deism


He seems to evaluate scientific evidence for the existence of God, not "feelings".

C.S Lewis seemed to reject God for emtional resons:

Lewis was raised in a religious family that attended the Church of Ireland. He became an atheist at age 15, though he later described his young self as being paradoxically "angry with God for not existing".[

...then seems to accpet God's existence for logical reasons:

Lewis was very interested in presenting a reasonable case for Christianity. Mere Christianity, The Problem of Pain, and Miracles were all concerned, to one degree or another, with refuting popular objections to Christianity, such as "How could a good God allow pain to exist in the world?". He also became known as a popular lecturer and broadcaster, and some of his writing (including much of Mere Christianity) originated as scripts for radio talks or lectures.[68][page needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis

I'm trying not to be judgemental about that (although I'll admit it is hard for me) because I think that maybe being happy is more important than having the evidence to be sure you are right.

No, you're just broad-brushing people whom you don't know.

 

[Ban Bot]

OP,

Just my opinion but questions of origins may implicate time--to our current knowledge time isn't a known parameter outside the universe.

Creation may implicate space and matter--both of which are unknown parameters outside the universe.

Op, your question boils down to how you define God and the scope of his creation.

Let's assume that the consensus theories regarding the origins of the universe and the nature of space-time are generally accurate and correct (i.e. won't be overturned completely). The Big Bang is an accurate cosmology and General Relativity is accurate description of space-time.

If God created the universe, and thus spacetime, attempting to ask questions about features fundamental to spacetime don't follow. It would first have to be established that these features are laws that govern outside our universe and we don't know that.

It is akin to sending a blind email online, "When did you stop beating your wife?" only to discover your email went to a 3 month old female octopus at the local aquarium. The octopus is female (doesn't have a wife), not mature enough to mate, knows not of civil institutions such as marriage, imposes a concept poorly conceived for the species (beating), and altogether assumes the octopus was doing such an act to begin with. Your questions in the OP assume a lot of features familiar to humans would be shared concepts with a being outside the universe. You would first need to establish they are relevant and second how they are defined.

If science is correct about spacetime and cosmic origins then asking a being who "caused" the Big Bang and thus created spacetime questions confined by properties of the universe doesn't make sense to me. How are you defining origins? How could there be something "before" something else if time doesn't apply? Origins itself assume substance which also wouldn't be appropriate. Heck, if there is a big crunch and rebounding Big Bang the universe may emerge with completely different physics so asking questions dependent on this universe's current model or spacetime and how it relates to a being outside such seems to assume a lot about how we define words like origins.

Try as I may I find it difficult to formulate questions regarding "being" and "substance" of any being who could create the universe. Time and substance questions sound childish; questions like "are there others/things" imposes assumptions in how we define finite individuals and objects. Asking whether he has the power to "sustain" the universe ignores the laws of thermodynamics that conclude that from the conception of the universe it has all it needs to be sustained. It is very difficult to relate personally to the philosophical concept of a being who could look at the universe, including time, as (using a human analogy) is nothing more than a marble that is small in the hand and easily manipulated and yet for humans we are confined to the river of time and cannot fathom the size of the universe, let alone something outside it and its laws and concepts. The fact I have to fall back on a human analogy is due to the fact we have no way to relate to such a being on a philosophical basis and questions, based on the concepts of this universe, about the being's nature assume a lot we don't know. We are superimposing our limitations onto that being assumes a lot IMO.

Just my opinion.

 

[Moonbeam]

OP,


Just my opinion ..............

If I had to think about this, I would say that the universe looks like it exists and that I do too.

That says to me that one of the properties or inherent features of the universe is that it can create awareness of itself. I would call that being created in the image of God. I say that because I experience awareness as love. Love is a fundamental property of the universe because it is what it creates. The universe is love because I am.

 

[Ventanni]

I do not know God because he has not revealed himself to me, and he has not revealed himself to me because I do not believe in him. Nice little logic loop you have there.

It's not a logic loop. It's why it's called faith. Paul describes it as believing in the things you cannot see.

The reality is, it's much more simple than that. You expect God to come down to your human court and prove to you His existence, but that's just waaaaaaaaay more complicated than it needs to be (not to mention, that's just how that works - even for me as a believer).

You all know God exists; you just choose not to follow him. I'm not saying that to attack anybody. I just say that to cut to the chase. You wouldn't be participating in this forum conversation if a part of you wasn't curious. But God still loves you tremendously; a lot, lot more than you can possibly imagine. And He wants to spend time with you. He wants you to get to know Him, and pour blessings out upon your life.

So I say this: It ain't about logic. It's not about evidence. It's about love, because that's what God is; pure love. And I can say that because I know Him. You love your spouse, do you not? You want to get to know them more, right? You can't do that without spending time with them. It's the same way with God. You accept Jesus into your heart and follow God's ways, he'll show you more evidence of His existence than you can possibly imagine.

 

[moonbogg]

It's not a logic loop. It's why it's called faith. Paul describes it as believing in the things you cannot see.

The reality is, it's much more simple than that. You expect God to come down to your human court and prove to you His existence, but that's just waaaaaaaaay more complicated than it needs to be (not to mention, that's just how that works - even for me as a believer).

You all know God exists; you just choose not to follow him. I'm not saying that to attack anybody. I just say that to cut to the chase. You wouldn't be participating in this forum conversation if a part of you wasn't curious. But God still loves you tremendously; a lot, lot more than you can possibly imagine. And He wants to spend time with you. He wants you to get to know Him, and pour blessings out upon your life.

So I say this: It ain't about logic. It's not about evidence. It's about love, because that's what God is; pure love. And I can say that because I know Him. You love your spouse, do you not? You want to get to know them more, right? You can't do that without spending time with them. It's the same way with God. You accept Jesus into your heart and follow God's ways, he'll show you more evidence of His existence than you can possibly imagine.

God seems to love you so much, but what's he got against poor kids in Africa? They say the Lord will provide, right? But these kids and their parents have to be praying themselves crazy, right up until they die from starvation. They aren't Christian enough or what?

 

[Moonbeam]

God seems to love you so much, but what's he got against poor kids in Africa? They say the Lord will provide, right? But these kids and their parents have to be praying themselves crazy, right up until they die from starvation. They aren't Christian enough or what?

To me this is your proof that God exists. You are angry that the innocent suffer. You want then to experience joy and love. You would not care if God were not within you. You know instinctively that you are more just than the God you don't believe in, but that god does not exist. God acts only when you do.

 

[Dessicant]

It's not a logic loop. It's why it's called faith. Paul describes it as believing in the things you cannot see.

The reality is, it's much more simple than that. You expect God to come down to your human court and prove to you His existence, but that's just waaaaaaaaay more complicated than it needs to be (not to mention, that's just how that works - even for me as a believer).

You all know God exists; you just choose not to follow him. I'm not saying that to attack anybody. I just say that to cut to the chase. You wouldn't be participating in this forum conversation if a part of you wasn't curious. But God still loves you tremendously; a lot, lot more than you can possibly imagine. And He wants to spend time with you. He wants you to get to know Him, and pour blessings out upon your life.

So I say this: It ain't about logic. It's not about evidence. It's about love, because that's what God is; pure love. And I can say that because I know Him. You love your spouse, do you not? You want to get to know them more, right? You can't do that without spending time with them. It's the same way with God. You accept Jesus into your heart and follow God's ways, he'll show you more evidence of His existence than you can possibly imagine.

I disagree with your proposition. God is not love, and God does not exist. It's not that I don't follow him, it's that I flat out state that God is a silly concept. I know the human weakness that causes theistic preoccupation, but I choose not to participate. That little monster in Boston talks a lot about his God, doesn't he? Quite a lover...

 

[Moonbeam]

I disagree with your proposition. God is not love, and God does not exist. It's not that I don't follow him, it's that I flat out state that God is a silly concept. I know the human weakness that causes theistic preoccupation, but I choose not to participate. That little monster in Boston talks a lot about his God, doesn't he? Quite a lover...

If the things you were taught about God are not true but you took them to be who God is if he did exist, then all you have done is not believe in a God who never existed. All you have done is to reason out that the God some believe in makes no sense. A standard within you rejects such nonsense. I think of that standard as God given. You know who God isn't, because you know unconsiously who He is.

 

[Caravaggio]

All you have done is to reason out that the God some believe in makes no sense. A standard within you rejects such nonsense. I think of that standard as God given. You know who God isn't, because you know unconsiously who He is.

Always a pleasure to read your work. But you are being rather hard on the doubters here. 'Unconscious knowledge' is necessarily hard to interrogate.

As a non-believer the most irritating assumption I have to deal with is the belief, by believers, that I am a shoddy moral relativist, not properly nailed-down, should a storm flap the awning.
My morality is actually pretty solid and of the "Protestant ethic" (work hard, help the weak, fight the bully)variety. In earlier exchanges we have agreed about the nature of, and need for, goodness. Likewise honesty. Love, too, yep I can go with that.

My question is this, is the God you believe in, reducible to the values I believe in? In other words, am I "godly" in your terms?

If your answer is "yes" and I so hope it is, then your God has little in common with a vengeful Yahweh or Allah, it seems? ( I am thinking of the bossy God of Deuteronomy).
Is your God an interventionist, resurrecting, censorious, life-ever-after creator God of the Southern Baptist stripe or is he 'just love'?

 

[Vdubchaos]

"If god exists, he is definitely a man. Only man can F things up like this" - George Carlin

I agree

 

[moonbogg]

I think the problem of origins can only apply to the most fundamental thing, and if that thing is necessarily eternal, which I believe it to be, then there is no problem. From this perspective, there is only God and nothing but God. Saying I am fundamentally different or better than you is like saying water in a cup is different and better than water in a bucket.

 

[Sonikku]

Peter Venkman thought Zuul was a man. It's whatever it wants to be. God can be anything human imagination is capable of thinking.

Sure you aren't confusing Peter with Winston and Zuul with Gozer? #hateToBeThatGal

 

[Dessicant]

If the things you were taught about God are not true but you took them to be who God is if he did exist, then all you have done is not believe in a God who never existed. All you have done is to reason out that the God some believe in makes no sense. A standard within you rejects such nonsense. I think of that standard as God given. You know who God isn't, because you know unconsiously who He is.

"I think of that standard as God given" is your error. Don't think that.

 

[moonbogg]

To me this is your proof that God exists. You are angry that the innocent suffer. You want then to experience joy and love. You would not care if God were not within you. You know instinctively that you are more just than the God you don't believe in, but that god does not exist. God acts only when you do.

I like this

If the things you were taught about God are not true but you took them to be who God is if he did exist, then all you have done is not believe in a God who never existed. All you have done is to reason out that the God some believe in makes no sense. A standard within you rejects such nonsense. I think of that standard as God given. You know who God isn't, because you know unconsiously who He is.

I like that

 

[SMOGZINN]

It's not a logic loop. It's why it's called faith. Paul describes it as believing in the things you cannot see.

The reality is, it's much more simple than that. You expect God to come down to your human court and prove to you His existence, but that's just waaaaaaaaay more complicated than it needs to be (not to mention, that's just how that works - even for me as a believer).

You all know God exists; you just choose not to follow him. I'm not saying that to attack anybody. I just say that to cut to the chase. You wouldn't be participating in this forum conversation if a part of you wasn't curious. But God still loves you tremendously; a lot, lot more than you can possibly imagine. And He wants to spend time with you. He wants you to get to know Him, and pour blessings out upon your life.

So I say this: It ain't about logic. It's not about evidence. It's about love, because that's what God is; pure love. And I can say that because I know Him. You love your spouse, do you not? You want to get to know them more, right? You can't do that without spending time with them. It's the same way with God. You accept Jesus into your heart and follow God's ways, he'll show you more evidence of His existence than you can possibly imagine.

You know there is no god. I know that if you have searched, you found that there is nothing there. Prayers are not answered, that is obvious if you look at the world. Wanting a good outcome does not make it happen. You are afraid of admitting that because it means that you have wasted so much of your life in empty debasement to power hungry men that would control you. You have wasted so much of your prescious time on an imaginary god, and that is painful.

I'm not trying to attack you either, I just know that you have tied up so much of your identity in the concept of religion that you are afraid to let it go, afraid that you will lose your social standing, afraid you will have to face the certainty that you will die and cease to exist. I understand, and can sympathise. But if you simply let go of it I can tell you that you can find happiness. You will find a community that will accept you. You will find that it is not so bad. You can start to live a life of real meaning in the community of your fellow man. You don't need an afterlife, you matter right here, right now in this only life you have. The things you do change this world, and while those changes might be unfathomably small, they will echo throughout all mankind.

That is why I am here. I know there is hope for you. I know that you can let go of all this fear you have and learn to really care for people, right here and now, and not just pretend to in the name of a few powerful men that would make rules to control you.

 

[Moonbeam]

"I think of that standard as God given" is your error. Don't think that.

Actually, I don't think it. I know it.

 

[Moonbeam]

You know there is no god. I know that if you have searched, you found that there is nothing there. Prayers are not answered, that is obvious if you look at the world. Wanting a good outcome does not make it happen. You are afraid of admitting that because it means that you have wasted so much of your life in empty debasement to power hungry men that would control you. You have wasted so much of your prescious time on an imaginary god, and that is painful.

I'm not trying to attack you either, I just know that you have tied up so much of your identity in the concept of religion that you are afraid to let it go, afraid that you will lose your social standing, afraid you will have to face the certainty that you will die and cease to exist. I understand, and can sympathise. But if you simply let go of it I can tell you that you can find happiness. You will find a community that will accept you. You will find that it is not so bad. You can start to live a life of real meaning in the community of your fellow man. You don't need an afterlife, you matter right here, right now in this only life you have. The things you do change this world, and while those changes might be unfathomably small, they will echo throughout all mankind.

That is why I am here. I know there is hope for you. I know that you can let go of all this fear you have and learn to really care for people, right here and now, and not just pretend to in the name of a few powerful men that would make rules to control you.

Why do you think he has not been lifted up by his faith in God. Why do you believe that because some hide behind God that everybody does. I see two ways to God, when one has so much faith in Him, when ones love for Him becomes so strong that it merges and becomes His love for us. The other, inferior way, in my opinion, the way you would have to go and the way I was forced to take, is to find some way to scrub away the filth that causes God separation. Ventanni is very lucky and has something profoundly precious; he got a free ride. He stepped right over the pit and went straight to God. I would not take take that from him, ever.

His way isn't for you. I hope. His faith grows and grows.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Why do you think he has not been lifted up by his faith in God. Why do you believe that because some hide behind God that everybody does. I see two ways to God, when one has so much faith in Him, when ones love for Him becomes so strong that it merges and becomes His love for us. The other, inferior way, in my opinion, the way you would have to go and the way I was forced to take, is to find some way to scrub away the filth that causes God separation. Vegan I is very lucky and has something profoundly precious; he got a free ride. He stepped right over the pit and went straight to God. I would not take take that from him, ever.

His way isn't for you. I hope. His faith grows and grows.

Because he thinks that everyone already knows a god exists. That is not faith, that is blindness. He has let his fear blind him, not raise him up. Having faith in god does not improve us, it deludes us. We are not helped by asking god for something, we are helped by hard work. Asking god for a favor never got anyone anywhere, but rolling up your sleeves and doing it yourself can.
The key is, and somewhere inside you know this but are afraid to admit it, that there is no god. It is fear that holds you back. Let go of your fear and see that the human community is much greater than you ever imagined. We have done all this ourselves, with no need of a god.

 

[Retro Rob]

We are not helped by asking god for something, we are helped by hard work. Asking god for a favor never got anyone anywhere, but rolling up your sleeves and doing it yourself can

These statements show that you have virtually no understanding of how Christians view prayer as it relates to hard work. Prayer and hard work are not mutually exclusive.

To us, prayer and hard work go hand and hand -- we believe God blesses efforts (work put in), meaning that whatever we do is helped along by God when we request help.

My goodness, this is Christianity 101.