• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I don't see how God could plausibly exist (Christian definition of God)

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
To call the big bang tho the end or the beginning of the universe is scientifically incorrect since it does nothing else than putting symbolism in a thing that doesnt care about symbolism. The same it with God and since I dont believe in God, I dont believe in symbolism as well

Plus there is the fact that we have natural constants, like the gravitational constant or the Planck constant. Those have very asymmetrical values and seem somehow to have been set ( no not by God ). There values are increasingly important to our existance cause if the gravitation would be just slightly off our whole solar system would have evolved differently or not at all.

Therefore scientists think that the big bang and following up crunch actually happened a couple of million times before our universe as we know it formed. So even the symbolism of the big bang being the beginning would be off here
 

ahriman

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
41
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5W4
To call the big bang tho the end or the beginning of the universe is scientifically incorrect since it does nothing else than putting symbolism in a thing that doesnt care about symbolism. The same it with God and since I dont believe in God, I dont believe in symbolism as well

Plus there is the fact that we have natural constants, like the gravitational constant or the Planck constant. Those have very asymmetrical values and seem somehow to have been set ( no not by God ). There values are increasingly important to our existance cause if the gravitation would be just slightly off our whole solar system would have evolved differently or not at all.

Therefore scientists think that the big bang and following up crunch actually happened a couple of million times before our universe as we know it formed. So even the symbolism of the big bang being the beginning would be off here

The symbolism between creationist theories and big bang theories was just a novelty more than anything else. Just a brainfart I decided to share. In any case The big bang explains how the universe came into some kind of physical existence and how forces and energy were created. But it does not explain how the properties of the universe came about to actually allow anything to happen. M-theory is one such theory to explain how universes are created but again all it does is create more questions than it answers. Do branes create the properties of a universe if not, what does? What created branes and how do they form? This is why I believe there is room for God to exist in a scientific world. It doesn't mean I actually believe in one right now. But I can entertain the idea and find it plausible.
 

Sanctus Iacobus

New member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
286
MBTI Type
STP
God already went to the trouble of instructing a few people to write down his word. Why not be a little more tangible and less open to misinterpretation if you already decided to allude to your own existence?

Well, this is also asking from the standpoint of 'if I were God, I would do it differently', which we already covered and I'm sure by now is starting to seem circular to you.

Anyways, according to God, His existence already is tangible and obvious, and if we don't recognize it then we are looking but not seeing, so to speak.
 

ahriman

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
41
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5W4
I don't like creating labels for my beliefs but I guess you could say I'm somewhat akin to a apathetic agnostic, that is I believe there is no evidence for or against the existence of a god of any type yet if a God does exist it is probably detached from humanity and it's needs. I don't believe in a God in a religious sense which some might find hard to understand, I believe in the possibility of a an impersonal God. To answer the thread I don't believe a christian God exists. We created that God and gave it human qualities i.e love, hate, judgement, retribution e.t.c. The Christian God is just an omnipotent, immortal version of us. That's all I have to say.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
The symbolism between creationist theories and big bang theories was just a novelty more than anything else. Just a brainfart I decided to share. In any case The big bang explains how the universe came into some kind of physical existence and how forces and energy were created. But it does not explain how the properties of the universe came about to actually allow anything to happen. M-theory is one such theory to explain how universes are created but again all it does is create more questions than it answers. Do branes create the properties of a universe if not, what does? What created branes and how do they form? This is why I believe there is room for God to exist in a scientific world. It doesn't mean I actually believe in one right now. But I can entertain the idea and find it plausible.

I know that you think that way and I dont find it necessarily unwise. The only issue I have is why it always needs to be God. Why cant it just be the big yellow glibber that invented the universe ? Of course you'll now say that this is possible too, but I have issues relating so much to religion cause religion has caused so much suffering and evil on the World that I actually rather like to forget about it. There are people then who say religion has caused many good things as well, but I am just not the type of guy who says "the means justify the end".

Its the same with nazi Germany. The nazi did great for Germany, this country had the best time when they rose to power. Everything flourished, everyone was rich but what was the cost we had to pay for this ? Say it is for me with religion, while it may give a purpose to people who need a purpose in life, in other parts of the World it leads to never ending wars about shit and the pope is so irrational to tell for example in Africa that condomds are evil.

I dunno, I have had it with following false idols. Thes best thing is to think for your own and give life your own purpose.
 

ahriman

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
41
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5W4
I know that you think that way and I dont find it necessarily unwise. The only issue I have is why it always needs to be God. Why cant it just be the big yellow glibber that invented the universe ? Of course you'll now say that this is possible too, but I have issues relating so much to religion cause religion has caused so much suffering and evil on the World that I actually rather like to forget about it. There are people then who say religion has caused many good things as well, but I am just not the type of guy who says "the means justify the end".

Its the same with nazi Germany. The nazi did great for Germany, this country had the best time when they rose to power. Everything flourished, everyone was rich but what was the cost we had to pay for this ? Say it is for me with religion, while it may give a purpose to people who need a purpose in life, in other parts of the World it leads to never ending wars about shit and the pope is so irrational to tell for example in Africa that condomds are evil.

I dunno, I have had it with following false idols. Thes best thing is to think for your own and give life your own purpose.

I totally agree with you. Which is why I would never believe in a "religious" God again. I say "again" because I had a catholic upbringing and did believe in catholocism up until about 16 years of age. Unfortunatly religion doesn't work. It doesn't achieve what it was supposed to achieve which is a sense of unity, love and peace. Everyone finds a way to re-interpret what is taught because it is so cryptic. See monty pythons "The life of Brian" for a visual example lol. Therefore such a system is flawed and prone to people interpreting what they want and that is the biggest problem and in my opinion was probably done on purpose. Like when a fortune teller gives some vague description of how your life should unfold and your mind puts the pieces together to form your own opinion. Therefore the fortune teller is always right because you made it right. I'll go a step further on your allegory and state that nothing good has actually come from religion because most if not all theists do what they do for personal gain, like saving souls. A close relative of mine want's to "save my soul" but it is not saving my soul she want's to achieve, it's getting into heaven for saving my soul. Being seen as "good" in the eyes of God.

Religion reminds me of a corporation. It's head is the CEO, it has it's own rules and regulations, it's own reward/councilling system, it strives to "gain" something for it's institution and usually has a membership drive. It has a philosophy or slogan behind it and usually a symbol to represent it. Their one and the same. Just another brainfart I had lol. But back to your point I think everything you say is correct.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
So because of this inability for either side to come up with a plausable theory of everything I combined both science and God into a new paradigm. I use the word "god" and not religion for the reasons I mentioned in the earlier posts.
What you say is this: "I do not know, therefore an idea, for whose truth there is no hint, is as probable as a theory for whose truth there is at least a mathematical explanation." I do not agree.

This universe would mean there is a definate beginning and end to the universe and that time and space were essentially created from "nothingness". I'm sorry but that is no more farfetched than having a man in the cloud judging my every thought. If anything the two are ridiculously similar. God creates something from nothing, the universe somehow creates itself from nothing (mathematically). Sounds very similar to christian/muslim ideology to me.
I refuse to believe that you really find the idea of the big bang and the idea of an almighty 'man in the cloud' equally far-fetched an explanation for the beginning of the universe. The old man is dripping with anthropomorphism. You are serious?

The symbolism between creationist theories and big bang theories was just a novelty more than anything else. Just a brainfart I decided to share. In any case The big bang explains how the universe came into some kind of physical existence and how forces and energy were created. But it does not explain how the properties of the universe came about to actually allow anything to happen. M-theory is one such theory to explain how universes are created but again all it does is create more questions than it answers. Do branes create the properties of a universe if not, what does? What created branes and how do they form? This is why I believe there is room for God to exist in a scientific world. It doesn't mean I actually believe in one right now. But I can entertain the idea and find it plausible.
Your god, in fact every god, reminds me a lot of luminiferous aether.

How do you like this proof of god's existence?

Well, this is also asking from the standpoint of 'if I were God, I would do it differently', which we already covered and I'm sure by now is starting to seem circular to you.
You covered it by implying that it is not a permissible standpoint. I assume you believe that no human can ever judge god's decisions, which, if it is indeed the case, makes our conversation quite pointless.

Anyways, according to God, His existence already is tangible and obvious, and if we don't recognize it then we are looking but not seeing, so to speak.
According to the Bible, you mean. Why should I believe that it tells the truth?
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Risible

God is only plausible to those critical faculties have been put to sleep in a hypnotic trance.

This is charming in children who also find Santa and fairies to be plausible, but it is risible in a grown up.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
God is only plausible to those critical faculties have been put to sleep in a hypnotic trance.

This is charming in children who also find Santa and fairies to be plausible, but it is risible in a grown up.
When Victor speaks such harsh words, they must convey the truth.
 

Helios

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
273
MBTI Type
INTP
Anyways, according to God, His existence already is tangible and obvious, and if we don't recognize it then we are looking but not seeing, so to speak.

Then I daresay that God is quite mistaken. Still, perhaps you can help me: what "tangible and obvious" evidence of God's existence am I overlooking?
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
The Heretic

Then I daresay that God is quite mistaken. Still, perhaps you can help me: what "tangible and obvious" evidence of God's existence am I overlooking?

At my University there is a Faculty of Theology but it produces no experimental evidence at all - absolutely none. In other words the Faculty of Theology produces no emprical evidence.

So I asked them why not start a Faculty of Astrology, it would be very popular, the fees would be acceptable, and there would be no need for experimental evidence, just like the Faculty of Theology. But they just looked at me like I was a heretic.
 

FunnyDigestion

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
1,126
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4
Ah... of course this thread has to exist. Paraphrasing a misunderstood Voltaire quote, If God didn't exist it would be necessary to invent him in order to argue about whether or not he exists.

Think of how many horrific diseases could be cured by now if only certain extraordinarily intelligent people cared less about arguing about religion.
 

ahriman

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
41
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5W4
1. What you say is this: "I do not know, therefore an idea, for whose truth there is no hint, is as probable as a theory for whose truth there is at least a mathematical explanation." I do not agree. I refuse to believe that you really find the idea of the big bang and the idea of an almighty 'man in the cloud' equally far-fetched an explanation for the beginning of the universe. The old man is dripping with anthropomorphism. You are serious?


2. Your god, in fact every god, reminds me a lot of luminiferous aether. How do you like this proof of god's existence?


1. Yes. Primarily because it doesn't explain how non-existence gives birth to existence. It is a mathematical equation not an observation. Furthermore there is no such thing as a mathematical proof of any scientific theory. Mathematicians prove theorems using rules of logic. Scientific theories are based on observation and we are observing this magnificent system from within with an imperfect mind. Since we are unable to objectively observe outside the system it is probably impossible to truly understand it's true nature. The result of this: M-theory, ether theory, many worlds theory, super symmetric flipped SU(5) theory and so on, all of which are mathematically possible yet none is conclusive. So how does mathematics make any explanation on the theory the universe and it's function correct? It doesn't, at least not at this point in our observation of the universe.

2. It is not "my God". I am speaking of an abstract and impersonal God and I use the word "God" allegorically not literally. As I said there is no "proof" of anything and that includes God. Especially the type of God your insinuating I believe in.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
1. Yes. Primarily because it doesn't explain how non-existence gives birth to existence. It is a mathematical equation not an observation. Furthermore there is no such thing as a mathematical proof of any scientific theory. Mathematicians prove theorems using rules of logic. Scientific theories are based on observation and we are observing this magnificent system from within with an imperfect mind. Since we are unable to objectively observe outside the system it is probably impossible to truly understand it's true nature. The result of this: M-theory, ether theory, many worlds theory, super symmetric flipped SU(5) theory and so on, all of which are mathematically possible yet none is conclusive. So how does mathematics make any explanation on the theory the universe and it's function correct? It doesn't, at least not at this point in our observation of the universe.
If all theories concerning the beginning of the universe are equally plausible to you, then you can stop thinking about it altogether. Personally, I believe in the Great Green Arkleseizure.

2. It is not "my God". I am speaking of an abstract and impersonal God and I use the word "God" allegorically not literally. As I said there is no "proof" of anything and that includes God. Especially the type of God your insinuating I believe in.
I insinuate you believe in the god (an abstract and impersonal god) that you described. I find it appropriate to call it 'your god' because its definition certainly differs from the standard. But since you think that the 'man in the cloud' theory is also plausible, it would be fair to insinuate that as well.

You have not read the other thread, have you?
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
I don't like creating labels for my beliefs but I guess you could say I'm somewhat akin to a apathetic agnostic, that is I believe there is no evidence for or against the existence of a god of any type yet if a God does exist it is probably detached from humanity and it's needs. I don't believe in a God in a religious sense which some might find hard to understand, I believe in the possibility of a an impersonal God. To answer the thread I don't believe a christian God exists. We created that God and gave it human qualities i.e love, hate, judgement, retribution e.t.c. The Christian God is just an omnipotent, immortal version of us. That's all I have to say.

So then, why "god"? What is "god"? Why and how did you arrive at ascribing this word, "god", to that which you do not know? If you do not know, then where are your possibilities of this "god" stemming from (it must be from some idea/concept/fact that you do know)? What basis are you starting from? And, why?
 

MoneyTick

New member
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
252
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Let us reason further -

I understand your God is called Jesus. And I understand Jesus thought that it was demons that caused disease, and Jesus did not think it is germs that caused disease. And Jesus even cast out demons. And futher Jesus never said one word against institutional slavery.

So let us ask ourselves -

Is it plausible that such an ignorant and immoral person is God?


Jesus did not think it is germs that caused disease.

I can invalidate your assertion by citing Leviticus chapter thirteen where God imposes unto the Isrealites the many laws which exclusively deal with the segregation of contagious diseases. Therein, it is explicitly mentioned multiple times that individuals infected with leprosy were to be quarantined and forbidden to be exposed to the public. Keep in mind that the book of Leviticus was written between 1440 and 1400 B.C, when germs and contagious diseases were incomprehensible phenomenons.

"The laws against leprosy in Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of a sanitary legislation" - Arturo Castiglioni, A History of Medicine (p.71)


The law commanding the burying of excrement and filth (for the purpose of abating disease) was given by Deuteronomy 23:12-13 where God told Moses "Thou shalt have a place also. without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: and thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee"

Castiglioni further eloborates on Deut. 23:12-13 by emphasizing that "The regulations in Deuteronomy as to how soldiers should prevent the danger of infection coming from their excrement by covering it with earth constitute a most important document of sanitary legislation ..." (A History of Medicine, p. 70).


The contributing causes of heart disease encompass an improper diet, obesity, smoking, a lack of exercise and excessive stress.

In Phil. 4:5 the Bible clearly recommends "moderation" in all things and a balanced life. Prov. 23:20-21 condemns gluttony and overeating.

I Timothy 4:8 advocates for the importance of regular exercise and moderately throughout our lives, specifically - it expresses that bodily exercise profits "for a little while." Proverbs 15:13; 17:22; Psalms 119:165; Matthew 11:28-30; John 14:27; Philippians 4:7 commands us to avoid stress, anxieties, and worries which can trigger heart attacks.

Perhaps Leviticus 7:23 (which states "Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat," commands the Isrealites to abstain from the excessive consumption of cholesterol which has been proven to be an agent of atherosclerosis and heart disease.

Dr. Paul Dudley further elaborates: "It is conceivable that a few years from now we medical men may repeat to the citizens of the United States of America the advice that Moses was asked by God to present to the children of Israel 3,000 years ago."


Is it plausible that such an ignorant and immoral person is God?

Since you have interjected with an objection to God's ideology of health and medicine, I have entertained your thesis with a few cherry picked verses from the Bible and Torrah that refer exclusively to your inquiry.

You have acknowledged the many health principles outlined in the Bible throughout your life, but still refuse to acknowledge the source.

In any scientific analysis, a single odd detail can lead to a whole new line of inquiry. Maybe the command to quarantine individuals with leprosy would have been silly and illogical at that time. Only after recent medical discoveries have we arrived at the verdict that the foregoing was a valid remedy to prevent the mass transmission of disease. Therefore, explain to me how in 1400 B.C civilization had instituted conventional disease control measures in the complete absence of the medical understanding of germs and contagious diseases.

The Torah is filled with laws and ordinances that can be reconciled with modern day medicine. Let me know if you need me to vindicate further, and I'll provide you with more examples.

You must invalidate the credibility of those laws (including those formerly illustrated) to claim that God "did not think it is germs that caused disease."

Wandering from the topic of medicine, the Torah and Bible are also the precedents for our modern day justice system. The most important precept of our legal system is based on the familiar Exodus 21:24 clause - "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot"

The modern-day legal translation would be lex talionis, or the law of talion.

Obviously you are an ignorant airhead if you think this was a literal command. It was interpreted by the ancient Jewish courts by mandating monetary compensation in tort cases. Lex talionis was a monetary compensation schedule consisting of payment for property damage, unwarranted infliction of pain, incapacitation, and mental anguish.

It is reasonable to assume that modern legal codes are predicated on Exodus 21:24; specifically, workers compensation legislation, common law, and the remedies in tort law.

We can get into a long discussion about the credibility of the Bible and the Torah, but your beliefs are predicated on so many false premises that it would take a decade of vindication to ignite that spark of intellectual revival in your biased mind.
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
Well, I'm convinced. "The poo is smelly, so bury it" is a conclusion we could have only come to through God.
 

MoneyTick

New member
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
252
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Well, I'm convinced. "The poo is smelly, so bury it" is a conclusion we could have only come to through God.

Great counterpoint to the discussion of the origins of early disease abatement practices! I would recommend you to pursue Nobel Peace prize candidacy for your contributions to the ancient medicinal facets of anthropology.
 
Top