Belief in God

I was thinking a little while ago about the thread that ties it all together. From a human perspective or more like, my own understanding of it. When I looked through history I saw examples of early man showing ritualistic behaviour with burying ceremonial spear heads and what not. Then as I moved through time a little more, Ritual looked to have turned in to Religion, with its many guises. Now, it seems that some people have turned from Religion to Reason. Which to me, all came from the same seed of curiosity.

So whenever I see ( for example ) an theologian and an atheist going at it in debate ( of which there's been many over the recent years ) I can't help but see one in the same...I can't move beyond the image of two human beings trying to communicate/express their interpretation or experience of life. It's almost like, when people try to be different, they somehow end up just being the same.

I personally don't take sides or value anyone higher or less based on if they think such a being exists.

I just think that the good points about Religion aren't exclusive to Religion so I prefer to build the positives than the negatives. But I myself, sometimes develop a creeping suspicion that maybe, just maybe, this life and our actions mean more than is being let on.

As an old woman at a Bus stop once said to me on my first day of my first ever job, '' we all breathe the same air son and we all die just the same, may as well get on ''
 
I truly believe we see what we believe in. Faith, then, becomes a reality in our minds. For those who have God in their hearts, He reveals Himself to them in their dreams and visions. God reveals Himself to the believer in the earth and universe around them.

Someone of this nature is not arguing religion; they are trying rather to share what they have seen...and felt. If they speak of the marvelous things they have encountered, they open themselves to cold shoulders and often laughter. Some feel threatened by them. To those who have felt of the power of God, they are blessed. Belief becomes reality.
 
Dragon said:
Here is a thought.

Do you agree that God is by definition transcendent (as in, above material reality)? If yes, then God is categorically different from typical, material things.

As a result, it makes no sense to ask the question about whether or not God exists because non-transcendent things are categorically different from God. Agnosticism and atheism are literally nonsensical positions because they are assuming that asking whether or not God exists is a genuine question. Likewise, believers who argue about the existence of God are also making the mistake of assuming that they are arguing about a genuine question. I think if we accept that God is transcendent, then we cannot have a discussion about whether or not God exists.

Discuss.
Click to expand...
When I first read this I was a bit confused. I bolded the part that confused me. What about God's transcendence makes the question of his existence senseless? Just because the answer is unobtainable doesn't mean that considering the question is meaningless. Furthermore, I'm not ready to surrender the point that the question itself is unanswerable. At the very least we should be able to indicate his existence or lack thereof to some degree. We could theoretically eventually reason our way to the point where we can say that he probably does or probably does not exist.

For my part, his existence seems probable. But then, I've grown up Catholic all my life, so I'm naturally biased. I could rehash all the traditional arguments, but I'm sure many of you are already familiar with them. Nothing comes from nothing, the existence of morality(Which is a debatable point to many), etc.

Also, being Catholic, Pascal's Wager is applicable. But furthermore, without God, significant meaning cannot exist. Any action becomes valueless. I'd rather believe in God and then be proven wrong than vice versa. Without meaning, my life becomes much less worth living.
 
Dragon said:
Here is a thought.

Do you agree that God is by definition transcendent (as in, above material reality)? If yes, then God is categorically different from typical, material things.

As a result, it makes no sense to ask the question about whether or not God exists because non-transcendent things are categorically different from God. Agnosticism and atheism are literally nonsensical positions because they are assuming that asking whether or not God exists is a genuine question. Likewise, believers who argue about the existence of God are also making the mistake of assuming that they are arguing about a genuine question. I think if we accept that God is transcendent, then we cannot have a discussion about whether or not God exists.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

if god is transcendend and his power is all encompassing surely he can find a way to manipulate whatever humane boundary he himself created and then breach it because he created it and he's all powerful,according to abrahamic religions anyways,or religions which believe that gods power is all encompassing,which are most religions i know of well probably all of them but maybe not idk
 
ihavenofriends said:
if god is transcendend and his power is all encompassing surely he can find a way to manipulate whatever humane boundary he himself created and then breach it because he created it and he's all powerful,according to abrahamic religions anyways,or religions which believe that gods power is all encompassing,which are most religions i know of well probably all of them but maybe not idk
Click to expand...

This reminds me of the "Can God create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it?" type questions. Either way, omnipotence is violated.

At least we are beyond debating about how many angels can stand on the tip of a pin.
 
Dragon said:
This reminds me of the "Can God create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it?" type questions. Either way, omnipotence is violated.

At least we are beyond debating about how many angels can stand on the tip of a pin.
Click to expand...
Did we ever get to that point? O.o
That sounds painful.

Personally, I prescribe to an aquantian view on God.
Given that God exists, I'd be less inclined to say that he created logic. Logic seems more like it'd be a part of God.
Why would God create a universe? He already knows every minute detail of it's existence, so it would be effectively purposeless. The only reason I can think of for God to want to create a universe(and more specifically, people) is so that he himself could be known.
If that is the case, it must follow that logic is an extension of God himself. If logic doesn't apply to God, then God is unknowable. And the only way that logic can apply to God without preventing God from being omnipotent is if logic is a manifestation of God himself. Given the rules of logic, things that are logically impossible cannot exist. They're unexistable. 2+2=5 is an unexistability. It doesn't even make sense. We can't make 2+2=5 nor can God, because the idea is incapable of being possible. It's outside of the realm of God, and is therefore outside the realm of man. God can do everything within the realm of God, and the realm of God extends to everything. Therefore anything that doesn't exist with in the realm of God, the realm of the logically possible, also does not exist with in the realm of things.
Creating a stone that is too heavy for God to lift is a logical impossibility. The stone's existence is impossible.

There are predominately 2 understands of omnipotence:
Either omnipotence means that one can do ANYTHING. And God could just change the rules of logic to lift the stone.
or
Omnipotence means that one can do anything that is logically possible. And the existence of such a stone being an impossibility, God would not be able to create it. This wouldn't imply that God is not omnipotent, because this definition states that God can do anything possible, and creating such a stone is impossible.

I favor the second definition for reasons stated above.
 
Dragon said:
This reminds me of the "Can God create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it?" type questions. Either way, omnipotence is violated.

At least we are beyond debating about how many angels can stand on the tip of a pin.
Click to expand...

that would imply that the notion of "all powerful" was written as a literal concept rather than just to display his power,God has infinite power,nothing can exceed infinite power and thus God cannot create something which exceeds something which is limitless.it is not an inhibition rather just a display of his oneness and such.

thats my take on it anyway
 
I gotcha, I can agree with that. I just don't think God can breach logical laws. I suppose he could, but if he could, religion would become almost meaningless.
 
Questions: can science and logic validate the intangible and ethereal "spirit" of God?

Can they disprove him as anything more than a concept of the mind?

Have the scientists found unrefutable proof of the "physical" existence of God outside of the man made relics and artifacts supporting the words written in the history of the evolution of religion?

and, has not time proven that each religion serves as the road to the same source "the breath of life", who is in essence within each being as the source of their creation.

I'm not posting to derail, but rather bring up the fact that the concept of God is changing among humans at a rapid rate. Bottom line for most is: yes he exists, no he does not exist, or not sure he exists. Let's accept facts that humans live a physical existence while pursuing spiritual enlightenment and it confuses the majority as it has for eons.
 
The people are changing, not the concept of God.
 
"We can't have a discussion"

"Discuss."

I am seeing a problem here.
 
Dragon said:
Here is a thought.

Do you agree that God is by definition transcendent (as in, above material reality)? If yes, then God is categorically different from typical, material things.

As a result, it makes no sense to ask the question about whether or not God exists because non-transcendent things are categorically different from God. Agnosticism and atheism are literally nonsensical positions because they are assuming that asking whether or not God exists is a genuine question. Likewise, believers who argue about the existence of God are also making the mistake of assuming that they are arguing about a genuine question. I think if we accept that God is transcendent, then we cannot have a discussion about whether or not God exists.

Discuss.
Click to expand...
Transcendence isn't different from physical existence, except for not being limited to time, place, quantity, causality, etc.

Non-transcendent being is existence within limits; transcendent being is pure existence.

There's an analogy between both, but we're so limited in our existence, that those limitations are often confused as being all there is.

Existence is better and simpler than what differentiates this and that, or what can be differentiated into this and that. That's my God.
 
I believe in God, and I do believe he transcends time and space, reality as we know it.
I believe that believing in God has as much philosophical, and logical validity as believing in the Big Bang, or other theories of origin.
God, is uncreated. He has no beginning, nor does He have an End. The Big Bang theory takes on a similar form, in that universes are constantly collapsing on themselves, and then there is another Big Bang of sorts. And that this process is eternal.
If something can come from nothing, in the name of "science"
How does saying that something can come from something, make it illogical and incompatible with science?
 
Dragon said:
Here is a thought.

Do you agree that God is by definition transcendent (as in, above material reality)? If yes, then God is categorically different from typical, material things.

As a result, it makes no sense to ask the question about whether or not God exists because non-transcendent things are categorically different from God. Agnosticism and atheism are literally nonsensical positions because they are assuming that asking whether or not God exists is a genuine question. Likewise, believers who argue about the existence of God are also making the mistake of assuming that they are arguing about a genuine question. I think if we accept that God is transcendent, then we cannot have a discussion about whether or not God exists.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Imaginary units and transcendental numbers are also above material reality and yet we use them to put men on the moon and make airplanes fly among other material purposes.

Therefore, this argument is pure Sophistry unless you want to argue that the belief in the existence of these mathematical constructs is also nonsensical despite our constant effective use of them in the material world.
 
Dragon said:
Here is a thought.

Do you agree that God is by definition transcendent (as in, above material reality)? If yes, then God is categorically different from typical, material things.

As a result, it makes no sense to ask the question about whether or not God exists because non-transcendent things are categorically different from God. Agnosticism and atheism are literally nonsensical positions because they are assuming that asking whether or not God exists is a genuine question. Likewise, believers who argue about the existence of God are also making the mistake of assuming that they are arguing about a genuine question. I think if we accept that God is transcendent, then we cannot have a discussion about whether or not God exists.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Even if god transcends material reality, this is no reason to think we can not answer questions about him/her. There is a mistaken belief here that material things are the only things we can ever know about. But there are plenty of examples of exactly the opposite. Consider questions about the nature of science; these are immaterial. Or questions in mathematics, also immaterial. And the mind? Its the same story here too.

If you mean gods existence is separate from our own, then he can not ask questions about us either. If he could, we would not really be separate at all. In which case we CAN ask questions about him. Which ever way you look at this, the immaterial argument doesn't work.
 
Actual said:
Imaginary units and transcendental numbers are also above material reality and yet we use them to put men on the moon and make airplanes fly among other material purposes.

Therefore, this argument is pure Sophistry unless you want to argue that the belief in the existence of these mathematical constructs is also nonsensical despite our constant effective use of them in the material world.
Click to expand...

So would that make God equivalent to a mathematical construct then?
 
Dragon said:
So would that make God equivalent to a mathematical construct then?
Click to expand...
I counter with another question just for fun.

What is most like God?
1. A worm
2. A cloud of smoke in the wind
3. An irrational unit

Answer:
None of them are at all like God.

However, choice 3 is transcendent and above material reality as is God, but they are otherwise not at all alike. And a belief in such a construct is not at all a nonsensical question to begin with.

If it was, there wouldn't be a manifestation in the world of this belief nor a hardwired instinct to believe in God throughout all of recorded human history.

In fact, if it was nonsensical, we wouldn't be having this debate at all. We wouldn't be able to. This debate itself is proof that the existence of God is a valid question just like we can debate transcendent mathematical forms.

:-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top