[NT] does a god really exist?

[Obsidius]

Also, might I add, if we are arguing "logic", you better do so yourself, because your original argument, as previously stated, does seem like a gigantic appeal to complexity and ignorance. The truth of the matter is, we cannot know either way, we merely need to establish the likelihood of either explanation and decide which way we lean, and in other words, this means that the best we can do is "agnostic-theist" or "agnostic-atheist", because other alternatives make 'objective' or 'positive' claims about the Universe which cannot be fully substantiated. For example, you have stated that there is a link between the complexity of the Universe and its "perfection" (which is questionable in itself), and the existence of God; however, you have offered no link of causality, just that "it seems like it has been guided", so you are inferring sentiment where unknowns lie, popularly known as "God of the gaps".

 

[Coriolis]

Do try to stay on topic.

In case this was not clear enough: further derails will be removed.

Do stay on topic.

 

[Tippo]

Hi! I am an intp and i would love to share my thoughts with other intps about the existence of god. I mean i have my own explanation on the existence of god,so if a few intps are interested in listening to my arguements,i would love to present them. And i would also love to hear if the explanation is logical and convincing or not. And if it is not logical and convincing,then i would also love to hear the reasons for which it seemed to be illogical.

He's a regular poster here.

 

[yasin]

I must admit I'm a little confused. If I'm correct, this is what you're telling me:
1) Prior to humanity, there was a perfect balance between plants and animals, which you deem a coincidence.

Yes i certainly told about a perfect balance between plants and animals. But what you meant by a perfect balance and what i meant by a perfect balance were different. You(probably) meant perfect balance to be a thing, for which there will be no natural disasters, no mutations, no changes etc. But what i meant by perfect balance between plants and animals was the system between plants and animals, where both plants and animals have there own roles, and they maintain a perfect cooperation(as explained in my original explanation, exchange of carbon-dioxide and oxygen, carrying of pollens) and this balance/cooperation is extremely improbable. This perfect cooperation is what i mean by perfect balance.

But the more important thing is, the part in which i told about the perfect balance(or cooperation) between plants and animals, this part was just the second of the first two parts which were used, just for explaining the complexities of life, and to explain the need and role of innumerous coincidences in order to carry on the reactions required for it in the perfect ways.

2) When humanity arrived, this balance was broken, therefore incoincidental and therefore proof of God.

No, i did not mean that. "The only roles the humans have is to create imbalance", these types of sentences were used only to emphasize that the humans have no natural roles in the ecosystem, they can only destroy. What i really meant in the third part(the part which explained the exceptions of humans) of both my original explanation and it's summary was:
"And WHO DEPEND ON ALL THE OTHER BEINGS BUT NO OTHER BEING DEPENDS ON THEM FOR SURVIVAL AND WOULD NOT FACE EXTINCTION DUE TO THEIR EXTINCTION(extinction of humans)?"(written in original explanation)

"If we are really not so special and no one had created us, and coincidence(without guidance) is the thing that is working behind every life, then WE SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN PLAYING ROLES IN THE ECOSYSTEM AND WITHOUT US THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMBALANCED."(written in the summary)

Humans have no natural roles or need in the ecosystem, so(i am adding a few things in brackets, for your convenience):
"But can you imagine what would happen if all the humans are killed? No imbalance would be created in nature(because the humans don't have any necessity),rather it would be saved from imbalance and the other living beings would live even more peacefully. The earth would remain the same as it was even centuries later(until any natural disaster or anything similar occurs). No imbalance(due to their extinction) would be found anywhere. Only the pet animals will face a bit of problem at first(i am joking)."(written in my original explanation)

If you kill all the tigers, the ecosystem would face a great problem, a big imbalance. If the ecosystem needs to keep running, there will be need for changes, lots of changes, another species will be needed which will play the roles of tigers, or, any other changes will have to take place. But kill all the humans, the ecosystem can run even better, there will be need for no changes, because the humans were not playing any roles, so there scarcity has no effect on the system.

Hope you are clear, "they can only create imbalance", these sentences just emphasize that the humans have no natural roles, they are not needed by the ecosystem unlike the other organisms, but themselves need all the organisms. This is the incoincidence, and this incoincidence happened only in case of the only being on Earth that can question the existence of god and it does not make sense. Reading my explanation along with the summary again might help you.

You also say that there should have been another species around similar to humans. There were the Neanderthals, and the recently discovered Homo floresiensis, close relatives of us.

I admit, i am a little confused at this part. I am still thinking.

 

[Passacaglia]

We know that the living world works in a perfect and extremely complex system. extremely complex reactions,both physical and chemical,are always occurring in just the perfect doses in just the right place and time so that the whole universe remains balanced.

Okay, right from the start, you use a lot of words that make sense in your head, but not necessarily to who you're talking to. Which complex reactions are always occurring, and in which perfect doses? What about the universe do you see as balanced? You use the word 'perfect' in particular again and again, but it's not a very useful word if you're trying to convince non-believers.

Are you, btw? You give the impression that you're trying to convert people, but then, the big classical arguments for the existence of God were actually invented to bolster the faith of those who already believe, rather than to convince non-believers.

Now let's think about the first being ever created/born/produced. science says that the living beings are formed by various lifeless chemical elements like carbon,hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, iron, iodine, potassium, phosphorus etc(i CERTAINLY agree).but every organic substance,produced by the reactions of these non-living elements,are produced by extremely complex,perfectly calculated and lengthy chemical processes. even if it is just carbohydrates.

The majority of your argument, which revolves around the beginning of life on Earth, is basically a biological slant on the classical Teleological Argument. There are valid objections to this argument, some of which others here have touched on, but it's enough to at least give most people pause. Even if someone objects to it, they'll probably have a hard time putting their finger on exactly why, especially during a face-to-face conversation. Unless of course they're practiced in this sort of debate.

now imagine if i say i will put a huge container in space where there is no living being,the container almost as huge as the earth,i will fill it with lifeless elements like oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen,iodine, iron, phosphorus, potassium, sodium etc and there will be not even a single living or dead cell there. now if i say after 1 trillion years,you will find the container crawling with insects,what would everyone and even the scientists say?i asked this to a few people and all of them said something like,"they will say,how can it be?are you mad?”

Who were you talking to that thought you were mad?

This is one of those hypotheticals that believers and non-believers will both have ‘Well duh’ reactions to, but for opposing reasons. A believer will say ‘Well duh, that can’t happen [unless God wills it],” while a non-believer will say ‘Well duh, it happened on Earth, of course it could [and probably has] happened elsewhere.’

They had no notable amount of physical strength or special physical abilities like flying,breathing in water,horns,big teeth,extreme flexibility,extreme speed etc.

Just as an aside, humans are in the 99th size percentile of species. That is, we’re bigger than 99% of other species on Earth, even though we tend to notice the bigger scarier ones in the last 100th percentile more than the others.

But yeah, our bipedal form, our opposable thumbs, and most of all our large brains are what gave us the edge which led to us dominating this planet.

But the humans had another unique uniqueness. We know that the animals,plants,insects and all living beings are interdependent,one cannot survive without the other.

This is partly true. The ecosystem is a complex and delicate thing, but it does have a certain amount of give. That’s why evolution doesn’t bring the ecosystem to an apocalypse state every time a species evolves a new advantage, and why life still struggles on despite humanity fucking with it. (We’ve exterminated species, like the dodo, and introduced exotic species to new habitats, like the dingo to Australia.)

This is just an indication and proof that coincidence is not so easy to occur thousands and thousands and thousands of times.

Here is where your conclusion does not follow logically from your argument. Your argument is that life as it appears on Earth is incredibly unlikely to have happened by chance; but even if one buys this argument, it is not proof of anything.

And this someone,who is behind everything, is GOD.

You said you don’t believe in the Christian god; is your god one that I might know from another religion, or a more personal god? Just curious.

 

[yasin]

You quoted me:
"We know that the living world works in a perfect and extremely complex system. extremely complex reactions,both physical and chemical,are always occurring in just the perfect doses in just the right place and time so that the whole universe remains balanced."
you said:

Okay, right from the start, you use a lot of words that make sense in your head, but not necessarily to who you're talking to. Which complex reactions are always occurring, and in which perfect doses? What about the universe do you see as balanced? You use the word 'perfect' in particular again and again, but it's not a very useful word if you're trying to convince non-believers.

Exactly!! i know what i try to mean, but the person who reads it, does not understand what i try to mean. and about the perfect doses of chemical reactions, such a perfect dose so that life could be formed from lifeless things, plants and animals can evolve, so that plants will give oxygen while taking carbon dioxide, and animals will take the oxygen and give carbon dioxide, so that levels of both oxygen and carbon dioxide remain almost constant in the atmosphere(until any other change though), animals/insects will pollinate trees, trees will reproduce, they will also give food and house to the animals. Seems as if they talk to each other although they actually cannot. and this is the perfect dose, which makes it seem the animals and plants plan with each other. hope you are clear.

then you quoted me:
"now imagine if i say i will put a huge container in space where there is no living being,the container almost as huge as the earth,i will fill it with lifeless elements like oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen,iodine, iron, phosphorus, potassium, sodium etc and there will be not even a single living or dead cell there. now if i say after 1 trillion years,you will find the container crawling with insects,what would everyone and even the scientists say?i asked this to a few people and all of them said something like,"they will say,how can it be?are you mad?”"

you said:

Who were you talking to that thought you were mad?

This is one of those hypotheticals that believers and non-believers will both have ‘Well duh’ reactions to, but for opposing reasons. A believer will say ‘Well duh, that can’t happen [unless God wills it],” while a non-believer will say ‘Well duh, it happened on Earth, of course it could [and probably has] happened elsewhere.’

except one guy, all were my frineds. all of them are non-intps, no one was significantly intelligent. but this example is just used to make the reader or the listener feel how extremely improbable it can be and what an innumerous number of coincidences it would require to do all these. i myself would say, it can happen, it's not impossible man!

then you quoted me:
"They had no notable amount of physical strength or special physical abilities like flying,breathing in water,horns,big teeth,extreme flexibility,extreme speed etc."

you said:

Just as an aside, humans are in the 99th size percentile of species. That is, we’re bigger than 99% of other species on Earth, even though we tend to notice the bigger scarier ones in the last 100th percentile more than the others.

But yeah, our bipedal form, our opposable thumbs, and most of all our large brains are what gave us the edge which led to us dominating this planet.

i did not talk only about size. we cannot fly but we rule the sky, we cannot stay under water for more than 4 minutes, but we also rule it, we don't have huge teeth or horns, but we are the ones who kill tigers, cows, goats, bulls and all those. hope you have understood.

you quoted me:
"But the humans had another unique uniqueness. We know that the animals,plants,insects and all living beings are interdependent,one cannot survive without the other."

This is partly true. The ecosystem is a complex and delicate thing, but it does have a certain amount of give. That’s why evolution doesn’t bring the ecosystem to an apocalypse state every time a species evolves a new advantage, and why life still struggles on despite humanity fucking with it. (We’ve exterminated species, like the dodo, and introduced exotic species to new habitats, like the dingo to Australia.)

i did not understand exactly what you tried to mean at this part. sorry, hope you will clarify me.

you quoted me:
"This is just an indication and proof that coincidence is not so easy to occur thousands and thousands and thousands of times."

you said:

Here is where your conclusion does not follow logically from your argument. Your argument is that life as it appears on Earth is incredibly unlikely to have happened by chance; but even if one buys this argument, it is not proof of anything.

i admit i made a mistake in this part. but what i tried to mean was correct, just the wording should have been different. i should not have said, "coincidence is not so easy to occur thousands and thousands and thousands of times". rather, i should have said it in this way:
"And WHO DEPEND ON ALL THE OTHER BEINGS BUT NO OTHER BEING DEPENDS ON THEM FOR SURVIVAL AND WOULD NOT FACE EXTINCTION DUE TO THEIR EXTINCTION(extinction of humans)?"(written in original explanation)"(written in my original explanation)

"If we are really not so special and no one had created us, and coincidence(without guidance) is the thing that is working behind every life, then we should also have been playing roles in the ecosystem and without us the environment would have been imbalanced. But this idea of humans naturally playing roles in the ecosystem as other living things is just absurd. Our only role in the system of Earth is to create imbalance(we have no natural roles). This shows that coincidence did not work for us the way it did for others. But it cannot happen. And for this I called the uniqueness of human beings to be "in-coincidental". But this "in-coincidence" is never supposed to be. But why did it happen? If coincidence occurred so many times without anyone's guidance, there should not have been any "in-coincidence"."(written in my summary)
hope you are clear and will pardon me for the mistake. you see, this is actually the first time i have typed this explanation down, so there are mistakes. i will actually have to modify and improvise the original explanation a little bit, most of the things will be the same, just the wording will be a bit different.

you quoted me:
"And this someone,who is behind everything, is GOD."

you said:

You said you don’t believe in the Christian god; is your god one that I might know from another religion, or a more personal god? Just curious.

thank you very much for showing curiousity. i feel happy when people show interest in my ideas. but i would like to see your reply to this post before telling about religion.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Chrysanthea]

Ehh... I don't know. And I don't think I ever will plan on investigating any further into the possible existence of a supreme being called God. However, if I were forced to make an opinion... then I feel as if we are all the eyes of the supreme being. We are God, the Universe, the Force Behind the Creation of Everything... whatever the hell makes you most comfortable. I can't easily support this thought, but if I weren't allowed to abstain from having an opinion on the subject, that would be it. Maybe we are the idiotic Aedra who were tricked by Lorkhan into creating the Universe, and thus became devolved from our former Higher Self in order to create enough energy to bring about the Beginning of everything. I dunno.

 

[INTP]

I think its impossible to know whether something that created all of this and could be by some called god. Some say that god is this stuff all around us, all of the universe and that its somehow conscious. Then you could start arguing about what it means to be conscious(and its not that simple what many people first think). Maybe the creators are us, some say that time flows backwards and that we live in a black hole and that everything is connected, and that everything is possible because the universe is infinite, so it could be possible that we are creating this universe by becoming possible over time and simply observing it, thus altering the universe. There is just too many different views, definitions and the fact that you cant scientifically prove that god does not exist, neither is it possible(at least with current technology and i think any sort of technology we can ever create) to prove that god does exist. But naturally if you go to specifics about some certain religions and their texts, those things have(most of the time) been going around for hundreds of years from mouth to ear like a broken telephone before being written down and even then edited heavily by some people and after that translated multiple times, which means that the book can say all sorts of crap that can easily be at least intellectually be proven wrong. However i think there is really just one truth common to all religions, its what jesus tried to say, what buddha wanted to say, what some hindu gods try to say. That truth is that if you live from your heart and have pure intentions(have proper morals according to what ever book in case), then you are as son of god(or something alike) and get eternal bliss or get good in return in other ways from the world you treat good(karma).

 

[Kullervo]

"If god created the universe, who created god?" - most children

Undeniably Atheist: The Infinite Regress of Gods

 

[yasin]

I think its impossible to know whether something that created all of this and could be by some called god. Some say that god is this stuff all around us, all of the universe and that its somehow conscious. Then you could start arguing about what it means to be conscious(and its not that simple what many people first think). Maybe the creators are us, some say that time flows backwards and that we live in a black hole and that everything is connected, and that everything is possible because the universe is infinite, so it could be possible that we are creating this universe by becoming possible over time and simply observing it, thus altering the universe. There is just too many different views, definitions and the fact that you cant scientifically prove that god does not exist, neither is it possible(at least with current technology and i think any sort of technology we can ever create) to prove that god does exist. But naturally if you go to specifics about some certain religions and their texts, those things have(most of the time) been going around for hundreds of years from mouth to ear like a broken telephone before being written down and even then edited heavily by some people and after that translated multiple times, which means that the book can say all sorts of crap that can easily be at least intellectually be proven wrong. However i think there is really just one truth common to all religions, its what jesus tried to say, what buddha wanted to say, what some hindu gods try to say. That truth is that if you live from your heart and have pure intentions(have proper morals according to what ever book in case), then you are as son of god(or something alike) and get eternal bliss or get good in return in other ways from the world you treat good(karma).

You are saying that god's existence cannot be proved with the technology we have. But actually my original explanation, it's summary and many other posts on this whole thread were just trying to prove god's existence. I don't think you need highly developed technology to prove god, rather, I think you only need an open and thoughtful mind to find the reasons for god's existence.

You are also saying that there are different views of what god might be like, but you see, how can you know how god is like? In my explanation, I have tried to prove god's existence, because I think the signs of life clearly show his existence(explained before), but if you ask me questions like, how god looks, how he lives without food, where he is, how he controls everything, I would say, I don't know. Because the signs of life clearly show his existence(explained before), but the signs of life don't even give any hints about his appearance, thinking process, or anything like that. But I would still believe in him, because the signs of life do show his existence, but not how he works. Hope this helps you to understand that it's meaningless to think where god is or how god looks, because we cannot know where he is by looking at the signs of life, we can only know that he exists.

Now, you say that if we live with good morals and have good intentions, we will have a good return. An intj Hindu friend of mine has no answers to my questions, so one day he told me the same thing, if he does something good, he will get paradise, my question is, what is the logical proof that this statement is correct, and he will get paradise if he does something good, and what is the proof that the so called good deed has been actually chosen by god, whose existence is logically seen in the signs of life?

 

[INTP]

You are saying that god's existence cannot be proved with the technology we have. But actually my original explanation, it's summary and many other posts on this whole thread were just trying to prove god's existence. I don't think you need highly developed technology to prove god, rather, I think you only need an open and thoughtful mind to find the reasons for god's existence.

You are also saying that there are different views of what god might be like, but you see, how can you know how god is like? In my explanation, I have tried to prove god's existence, because I think the signs of life clearly show his existence(explained before), but if you ask me questions like, how god looks, how he lives without food, where he is, how he controls everything, I would say, I don't know. Because the signs of life clearly show his existence(explained before), but the signs of life don't even give any hints about his appearance, thinking process, or anything like that. But I would still believe in him, because the signs of life do show his existence, but not how he works. Hope this helps you to understand that it's meaningless to think where god is or how god looks, because we cannot know where he is by looking at the signs of life, we can only know that he exists.

Now, you say that if we live with good morals and have good intentions, we will have a good return. An intj Hindu friend of mine has no answers to my questions, so one day he told me the same thing, if he does something good, he will get paradise, my question is, what is the logical proof that this statement is correct, and he will get paradise if he does something good, and what is the proof that the so called good deed has been actually chosen by god, whose existence is logically seen in the signs of life?

The thing is that you cant give any solid evidence of it. All you can do it give some rationalizations based on assumptions, from which you can create some hypothesis about it. Then no matter what you say, there is always some counterargument that you also cannot prove true or false. In the end you always have arguments against and for it and you cannot prove any of those correct, so it just comes down to personal belief(in both theist and atheist side).

What comes to this "paradise", well i dont know if its true or not, but there is scientific evidence combined with rationalization that supports the argument. Basically when you die your Na/K channels gets fucked up because you lose the energy to keep to pumps working and to keep them separate, this causes action potentials in both brains and other axons in your body. So basically everything gets activated. This activation of the brains has been observed in mice. Naturally there havent been much study about this on humans, but there has been few times when it has been looked for shortly after death and it has been there obviously, because the nervous system works similarly on all animals. Now if you start to think of the implications of everything getting activated, well the person would obviously lose the sense of time completely, nothing new is "recorded", but what is inside your head gets triggered(i think this is the major cause for why some people with near death experiences has seen something like a film of their life going past their eyes), i think it just feels like a film since nothing is recorded(except maybe in the limited short term working memory). Now when this happens i believe that its not just life moving past your eyes, but since your moral judge in the brains gets activated also(which caused the myth of a judge of afterlife) and all that stuff, the end result can be something that can feel like eternal bliss or hell.

Even tho i dont think it goes exactly like in this book, i think its the closest to actuality, i would highly suggest watching this film:

Now when it comes to karma it could be also what i described earlier, but what is more definite is that if you do bad things to people around you, they will start to act in more negative manner towards you and towards others. This can come back around to you directly or indirectly. Also it has been proven that if you do good deeds(or just even positive thoughts instead of dwelling on negatives), you feel more happy yourself(regardless whether or not you receive good back form others), your immune system works better and im sure it has other good effects on you as well. So this karma thing seems to be real in one way or another.

 

[Luke O]

Yes i certainly told about a perfect balance between plants and animals. But what you meant by a perfect balance and what i meant by a perfect balance were different. You(probably) meant perfect balance to be a thing, for which there will be no natural disasters, no mutations, no changes etc. But what i meant by perfect balance between plants and animals was the system between plants and animals, where both plants and animals have there own roles, and they maintain a perfect cooperation(as explained in my original explanation, exchange of carbon-dioxide and oxygen, carrying of pollens) and this balance/cooperation is extremely improbable. This perfect cooperation is what i mean by perfect balance.

But the more important thing is, the part in which i told about the perfect balance(or cooperation) between plants and animals, this part was just the second of the first two parts which were used, just for explaining the complexities of life, and to explain the need and role of innumerous coincidences in order to carry on the reactions required for it in the perfect ways.



No, i did not mean that. "The only roles the humans have is to create imbalance", these types of sentences were used only to emphasize that the humans have no natural roles in the ecosystem, they can only destroy. What i really meant in the third part(the part which explained the exceptions of humans) of both my original explanation and it's summary was:
"And WHO DEPEND ON ALL THE OTHER BEINGS BUT NO OTHER BEING DEPENDS ON THEM FOR SURVIVAL AND WOULD NOT FACE EXTINCTION DUE TO THEIR EXTINCTION(extinction of humans)?"(written in original explanation)

"If we are really not so special and no one had created us, and coincidence(without guidance) is the thing that is working behind every life, then WE SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN PLAYING ROLES IN THE ECOSYSTEM AND WITHOUT US THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMBALANCED."(written in the summary)

Humans have no natural roles or need in the ecosystem, so(i am adding a few things in brackets, for your convenience):
"But can you imagine what would happen if all the humans are killed? No imbalance would be created in nature(because the humans don't have any necessity),rather it would be saved from imbalance and the other living beings would live even more peacefully. The earth would remain the same as it was even centuries later(until any natural disaster or anything similar occurs). No imbalance(due to their extinction) would be found anywhere. Only the pet animals will face a bit of problem at first(i am joking)."(written in my original explanation)

If you kill all the tigers, the ecosystem would face a great problem, a big imbalance. If the ecosystem needs to keep running, there will be need for changes, lots of changes, another species will be needed which will play the roles of tigers, or, any other changes will have to take place. But kill all the humans, the ecosystem can run even better, there will be need for no changes, because the humans were not playing any roles, so there scarcity has no effect on the system.

Hope you are clear, "they can only create imbalance", these sentences just emphasize that the humans have no natural roles, they are not needed by the ecosystem unlike the other organisms, but themselves need all the organisms. This is the incoincidence, and this incoincidence happened only in case of the only being on Earth that can question the existence of god and it does not make sense. Reading my explanation along with the summary again might help you.


I admit, i am a little confused at this part. I am still thinking.

I disagreed with the perfect balance (your original explanation of) and I also want to question the roles/purpose of any life form, not just humans. Is there any reason for any life to exist, or even matter or energy itself? Were humans just uncomfortable with there being NO reason for anything existing and began to invent reasons instead? Was this a premise for creating gods?

Asking these questions as I don't know any believers who believe all gods exist. Believers may believe other gods to be made up and try to prove that that is the case, but see their god as different. Is it really just a case of double standards in the end? I just go one god further and reject all gods.

 

[Rambling]

Jumping in, mid-conversation...

A good thought experiment I came across once was to imagine a world without pain...

So, in that world, illness and death have no meaning, neither do wars, and nobody feels pain about anything... Now, if nobody cares whether you live or die, because suffering got removed, then also nobody can really show any kind of caring or love for anyone else...

So, love is tied up with suffering, that's what this thought experiment shows. And that tends to point to a God who loves and suffers...hence to Jesus, not just to any God but to that specific kind of God.

 

[yasin]

Asking these questions as I don't know any believers who believe all gods exist. Believers may believe other gods to be made up and try to prove that that is the case, but see their god as different. Is it really just a case of double standards in the end? I just go one god further and reject all gods.

No, it's not a case of double standards. The reason we cannot believe in every god is, logical discrepancy.

--------------which god and why?---------------

Firstly, polytheism and monotheism. If polytheism is correct and there are many gods, and there are ranks among the gods, there must be fights among the gods. Some gods will fight against the others to claim superiority over the others. And as a result, there will be different disorders. When one god or group of gods gets angry on the other gods or any other group of gods, he or they will take away what they created, or will destroy what the others created. For example, one day the sun god gets angry on the other gods, the sun god takes away the sun, all life perishes away. Even the polytheist religions i know, hinduism and the greek gods, support this idea of fights and disputes between the gods. But why do these fights not occur today. So that we may see that suddenly the sun stops giving light one day. Once i asked this to an intj hindu friend of mine, he thought for some time and said,"It does happen, when the sun god gets angry, eclipse occurs i.e. the sun stops giving light." I told him,"Today it can be told very easily, when the next eclipse would occur by using scientific calculations. So, according to you, i, a mere creation of my infinitely superior god/gods, can tell when my infinitely superior god would get angry (engaging in fight with the others)?" So there can be only one god, otherwise there should be fights and disorders like the sun stopping to give light.

Now, about the one god. Firstly, "the one god" must be infinitely powerful and infinitely knowledgeable, otherwise he could not have created all these with such complexities. If someone wants to create all these, he must have complete control over every particle and complete knowledge of everything including infinity, positions of the particles, laws that work on them etc. So the one who created all these must be infinitely powerful and knowledgeable, otherwise he cannot create all these.

But even the major monotheist religions, judaism, christianity (they claim to be monotheist), and islam, contradict about the concept or view of "the One God".

Christianity says that god is one, but he has a son. I don't understand if they believe in one god or two....i am also confused how god's son was born before getting born on earth, or if the son was created. Did jesus come out of god or god created him.

John 17:5 - "And now Father, glorify me in Your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

Let's suppose that our infinite god does have a son, for some reason, he wished to have a son. But god is infinitely powerful and knowledgeable, he does not have any limits, so why should he have only one son? He, since he is infinite, should have an infinite number of sons. And they should reproduce, and their should be lots and lots of gods. And since they reproduce like humans, they should also fight and dispute, and we will see disorders as mentioned before. So the infinite god having one son does not make a logical sense to me. But this is not the main problem i have with christianity. The christians might ask me how i can know why god wishes what he wishes. I don't know why god wishes what he wishes, i only know from the signs of life that he exists, and knowing the complexities of all these, i know that he is infinitely powerful and knowledgeable. So, this is not my main problem.

But the main problem is, god's son, himself a god, who must also be infinite, looks like a human or took the form of humans, which is a finite creation of god himself and it has it's own limits. And he himself, while in his human form, had his own human limits. God is infinite in power and knowledge, so god should also be infinite in superiority in every aspect. So let's suppose jesus was 10 times more beautiful than you as a human. Now my infinitely superior god, who is infinitely superior to me in power and knowledge, is finitely more beautiful than me, he has limits in beauty, also in strength. Does not seem logical to me. He is infinite on one side and finite on the other. It is like saying, "space has no limits on one side but it has it's limits on another side."

Judaism has the same problem. It is written in the book of Bereishit (Genesis) of the Torah (book of jews) in chapter 1:

26) "And G-d said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth'."
27) "And G-d created man in His own image, in the image of G-d created He him; male and female created He them."

These verses are also part of the Old Testament of The Bible (book of the christians). So according to these verses, god either looks like us or thinks like us. But we cannot obviously be like god in thinking, because he knows what we don't know, again we kill each other illegaly, quarrel among ourselves, we get impatient when we have to wait for an hour for something, we get greedy, god does not. So we cannot be like god in thinking.

If god looks like us, then there is the same problem again, god, who is infinite in power and knowledge, is finite in appearance. A dog created in the image of a human seems illogical, humans created in the image of god seems infinitely illogical. So actually, god looking like his own finite and infinitely inferior creations having their own limits, cows, monkeys, trees or even humans, does not seem logical to me. He is infinitely superior in knowledge, strength, power or control, he must also be infinitely superior in appearance and in every other way, he should not be similar or comparable with his own finite and infinitely inferior creations. So, man is made in god's own image, does not seem logical to me.

So, the only best and perfect concept of god is, he is nothing like anything or, there is nothing like him. This is the main problem i have with hinduism, christianity and judaism.

But amazingly, the Qur'an (book of the muslims) gives the exactly same concept of god. It is written in the Chapter of Ikhlas (sincerity) of the Qur'an:
1) Tell, he is Allah, he is one (not more than one, nor less than one).
2) He is sovereign/independant (he has no limits in power, there is no one to question, overpower or even threat him).
3) He did not give birth, nor was he given birth.
4) THERE IS NOTHING/NO ONE LIKE HIM (most logical and awesome part).

And for these reasons, we believe only and only in one god, with no one comparable and similar to him. And we believe in the Qur'an beacuse only this book gives this perfect concept of god and we call god by the name, "Allah", because the Qur'an used this name.

--------------------------------------------------------

I disagreed with the perfect balance (your original explanation of) and I also want to question the roles/purpose of any life form, not just humans. Is there any reason for any life to exist, or even matter or energy itself? Were humans just uncomfortable with there being NO reason for anything existing and began to invent reasons instead? Was this a premise for creating gods?

No, we are not uncomfortable with there being no god and this is not the premise of making reasons. Don't we wish to have freedom as you wish? The reasons we make reasons for god's existence are the punishments of disbelieving that the Qur'an warns of. The Qur'an says:

"Those who reject Our Signs, We shall soon cast them into the Fire. As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty. For Allaah is Exalted in Power, All-Wise" (4:56)

"... then as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling water will be poured down over their heads. With it will melt or vanish away what is within their bellies, as well as skins". (22:19-20)

"Their garments of liquid pitch, and their faces covered with fire". (14:50)

"The Fire will burn their faces and they will therein grin, with their lips displaced" (23:104)

"And for them are hooked rods of iron . Every time they seek to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be driven back therein, and said to them: "taste the torment of burning!" (22:21-22)

These horrifying punishments are what force us to rethink,"Are we really correct? Is the punishment really false?". And then we think and make reasons.

But as the Qur'an promises, we will have freedom, happiness, power, and real and eternal satisfaction, just after this life ends, but only if we die as believers.

Hope this helps you

 

[Passacaglia]

Hey yasin, sorry for the delayed reply!

i did not talk only about size. we cannot fly but we rule the sky, we cannot stay under water for more than 4 minutes, but we also rule it, we don't have huge teeth or horns, but we are the ones who kill tigers, cows, goats, bulls and all those. hope you have understood.

My comment about humans being in the 99th size percentile was just a bit of trivia, not a debate point.

As for the rest, I'm not going to go over the debate points one by one. People have been arguing theology since the dawn of humanity, and we have yet to prove any metaphysical idea correct. Ultimately, it all comes down to what you personally find most intuitive, and what your needs are.

The strength of your argument is, as Obsidius mentioned, its appeal to our ignorance of the universe. Most people find it easy to see the supernatural in the universe when we still know so little about it. The weakness of your argument is in the details, so I'm going to suggest some research topics that will help you strengthen them:

Evolution of Aerobic (and Anaerobic) Respiration
Evolution of Homo Sapiens
Ecological Stability
Teleological Argument (and its counter-arguments)

Just for fun, you might also want to look into Baha'i, aka 'Monotheism v4.0.' I don't know how old you are, but I also recommend taking a course or two in comparative religion if and when you can. I think you'll learn a lot, and with a good professor they can be a lot of fun! (For example, did you know that believers didn't start denying the very existence of foreign gods until Judaism?) This past semester, I took a course called 'Faith and Reason.' I wrote a paper in which I argued about the Problem of Evil with Saint Augustine, and ended up getting the highest grade in my class!

 

[Qlip]

[MENTION=23629]Passacaglia[/MENTION]

Actually, it's little known that the Egyptians got the jump on the Hebrews on Monotheism by more than a few centuries, and may have influenced them:

Aten - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[yasin]

Hey yasin, sorry for the delayed reply!


My comment about humans being in the 99th size percentile was just a bit of trivia, not a debate point.

As for the rest, I'm not going to go over the debate points one by one. People have been arguing theology since the dawn of humanity, and we have yet to prove any metaphysical idea correct. Ultimately, it all comes down to what you personally find most intuitive, and what your needs are.

The strength of your argument is, as Obsidius mentioned, its appeal to our ignorance of the universe. Most people find it easy to see the supernatural in the universe when we still know so little about it. The weakness of your argument is in the details, so I'm going to suggest some research topics that will help you strengthen them:

Evolution of Aerobic (and Anaerobic) Respiration
Evolution of Homo Sapiens
Ecological Stability
Teleological Argument (and its counter-arguments)

Just for fun, you might also want to look into Baha'i, aka 'Monotheism v4.0.' I don't know how old you are, but I also recommend taking a course or two in comparative religion if and when you can. I think you'll learn a lot, and with a good professor they can be a lot of fun! (For example, did you know that believers didn't start denying the very existence of foreign gods until Judaism?) This past semester, I took a course called 'Faith and Reason.' I wrote a paper in which I argued about the Problem of Evil with Saint Augustine, and ended up getting the highest grade in my class!

Hi! Thanks for the reply, i thought you would never reply, but you did, thank you.

About bahai, i did read about it a few months ago, not in details though. What i searched in wikipedia was,"monotheist religions". What i learnt from it was, they believed that god is one and he sends messengers to us. So, i found no contradiction with islam. But now, as i have skimmed your link, they are dimwits. They believe that Muhammad, our prophet, was also a prophet sent from god. But if they do believe in him, then they cannot believe that any other prophet will arrive, that is, they will have to reject bahaullah as a messenger. Because in the Qur'an, the book which our prophet claimed to get from god, it was said,
"Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and LAST OF THE PROPHETS." (33:40)

So, if they believe in Muhammad, peace be upon him, then they cannot believe in bahaullah as a messenger.

And about foreign gods and Judaism, no i did not specifically know about it, but yes, i did know about it, from the qur'an though. But such a rejection of foreign gods is not the case only with judaism. The same is the case with Abraham, Noah, and all the other prophets, according to the qur'an though. But history does testify, when Muhammad came, peace be upon him, except a very few intelligent ones including him, all of arabia was engaged in idol worshipping. After a long time of inviting, struggling and fighting, finally this system was completely destroyed.

I advise you to research on islam, it might interest you. So, you are still an atheist?

 

[Passacaglia]

Actually, it's little known that the Egyptians got the jump on the Hebrews on Monotheism by more than a few centuries, and may have influenced them:

Aten - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the heads-up, Qlip! The wiki page is rather muddied though; it reads as if the nature of Aten-worship is controversial. At the start, it says "The deified Aten is the focus of the monolatristic, henotheistic, monistic or monotheistic religion of Atenism..." Later it mentions "Aten created all countries and people," which could have been the seed of Yahweh to come. But it also mentions that "Others see Akhenaten as a practitioner of an Aten monolatry, as he did not actively deny the existence of other gods; he simply refrained from worshipping any but the Aten."

 

[Passacaglia]

Hi! Thanks for the reply, i thought you would never reply, but you did, thank you.

About bahai, i did read about it a few months ago, not in details though. What i searched in wikipedia was,"monotheist religions". What i learnt from it was, they believed that god is one and he sends messengers to us. So, i found no contradiction with islam. But now, as i have skimmed your link, they are dimwits. They believe that Muhammad, our prophet, was also a prophet sent from god. But if they do believe in him, then they cannot believe that any other prophet will arrive, that is, they will have to reject bahaullah as a messenger. Because in the Qur'an, the book which our prophet claimed to get from god, it was said,
"Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and LAST OF THE PROPHETS." (33:40)

So, if they believe in Muhammad, peace be upon him, then they cannot believe in bahaullah as a messenger.

Obviously they can.

Virtually all believers pick and choose which parts of Scripture to take at face value, and which parts to ignore or reinterpret, don't you think? Believers who try to live by every literal word of the Torah or the Bible or the Qur'an end up crazy, like the ISIS psychos.

I advise you to research on islam, it might interest you. So, you are still an atheist?

Lol, most days, yes.

I have learned a bit about Islam, but it doesn't appeal to me. Muhammed obviously did his best to leave a clear and final doctrine after his death, but I don't need or want doctrine.

 

[chado]

i believe in the hindu philosophy that god is everywere and can take any form so yes i do believe in god