Do You Know Why You Don't Believe?

[Super Universe]

I see no sufficiently persuasive reason to believe in God.

It's not that for me. The number one reason for me is just that the universe appears to be a godless one to me. I just don't see any good reason to explain it by reference to a God.

Where do you rate your own ego, and do you realize it's the main reason behind your key question?

(I can ask leading questions too! It's fun!)

eudaimonia,

Mark

So you must see sufficiently persuasive reason's to not believe in God then? What are they?

The universe appears to be Godless? So you think particles built it all by themselves?

Yes, I'm well aware that my ego can be quite high at times, thanks. Perhaps you could start your own thread on that.

 

[doppelganger]

What power does uncertainty have? Do you see visions? Any at all?

Uncertainty is omniscient.

The entire Universe is a vision. Uncertainty reveals it as such. Don't kid yourself, S_U.

Hmm, maybe it's all just a dream that God is having?

That's a nice metaphor, actually. Just don't confuse the metaphor with what it signifies and you'll be okay.

Did you ever think that it's impossible for anything to truly exist because it would have to come from something and that something would then have to come from something and on and on forever...

The causal nature of the Universe springs from the act of observing and organizing primal chaos. You should take a moment to meditate on the inner phenomenology of the "law of cause and effect." Causes follow effects. They do not precede them.

Think about it.

Think of it this way, God made a deal with the void, the value of the universe will stay at zero but to balance the positives an equal amount of negatives will be created.

Also a nice metaphor . . . but again a sign and not the thing signified.

 

[Super Universe]

The causal nature of the Universe springs from the act of observing and organizing primal chaos.

If by observing you thus organize primal chaos, where did the observer come from?

Where did the First Cause, as in "cause and effect", come from?

 

[doppelganger]

If by observing you thus organize primal chaos, where did the observer come from?

The concretizing of the process of integrating sensory input with memory as though it were a thing it itself.

"Like everything metaphysical the harmony between thought and reality is to be found in the grammar of the language. " -Wittgenstein

Where did the First Cause, as in "cause and effect", come from?

Logic predicated on a sloppy understanding of "cause and effect." You obviously didn't do the homework assignment I gave you in my last response, S_U.

"We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language — in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere reason sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity. Today we know that it is only a word.

Very much later, in a world which was in a thousand ways more enlightened, philosophers, to their great surprise, became aware of the sureness, the subjective certainty, in our handling of the categories of reason: they concluded that these categories could not be derived from anything empirical — for everything empirical plainly contradicted them. Whence, then, were they derived?

And in India, as in Greece, the same mistake was made: "We must once have been at home in a higher world (instead of a very much lower one, which would have been the truth); we must have been divine, because we have reason!" Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. "Reason" in language — oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar."

 

[eudaimonia]

So you must see sufficiently persuasive reason's to not [sic] believe in God then? What are they?

I think you made a typo. I must see sufficiently persuasive reasons to believe in God.

As an example, I would have to see clear evidence that the universe is created, and cannot be uncreated. For instance, unambiguous evidence of intelligent design. I see nothing of this sort that persuades me.

The universe appears to be Godless? So you think particles built it all by themselves?

That's not quite the way I would word it, but that is the basic idea.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Super Universe]

The concretizing of the process of integrating sensory input with memory as though it were a thing it itself.

What control causes the concretization of this process?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The universe appears to be Godless? So you think particles built it all by themselves?

If simple particles are too complex to have just occurred spontaneously, invoking an infinitely complex deity doesn't really answer the question any better.

 

[doppelganger]

What control causes the concretization of this process?

As I already noted, language/grammar. By learning nouns, you learn your self. When your Mommy gave you a baked shingle of sugar, flour and chocolate and you got a rush of pleasure, the next time she said "cookie" and gave you another one, you learned a little bit more of your "self."

Did you do your homework assignment yet, S_U?

 

[Super Universe]

[/size]

I think you made a typo. I must see sufficiently persuasive reasons to believe in God.

As an example, I would have to see clear evidence that the universe is created, and cannot be uncreated. For instance, unambiguous evidence of intelligent design. I see nothing of this sort that persuades me.

That's not quite the way I would word it, but that is the basic idea.

eudaimonia,

Mark

I did not make a typo. You need reasons to believe in God yet you do not need a reason to be an athiest?

So particles just happen? And physical laws just happen? And life just happens? It's
easy. Happens all the time.

You see nothing that persuades you? What evidence do you require?

 

[Super Universe]

If simple particles are too complex to have just occurred spontaneously, invoking an infinitely complex deity doesn't really answer the question any better.

I didn't say that God was infinitely complex.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't say that God was infinitely complex.

Okay... but God's still more complex than a collection of elementary particles, right?

 

[Super Universe]

As I already noted, language/grammar. By learning nouns, you learn your self. When your Mommy gave you a baked shingle of sugar, flour and chocolate and you got a rush of pleasure, the next time she said "cookie" and gave you another one, you learned a little bit more of your "self."

Did you do your homework assignment yet, S_U?

So language creates the observer?

I don't know what homework you are talking about.

 

[Panda]

Those aren't "proof," those are evidence.

More proper to say that the formula is evidenced by such things.

No they are proof, if it was wrong nuclear bombs and the sun wouldn't work. By proof I mean they prove the formula to be correct.

 

[Super Universe]

Okay... but God's still more complex than a collection of elementary particles, right?

That is probably the most difficult question I've ever had to answer. Yes, and no.

God is, in theory, infinitely more complex than a collection of elementary particles. If you can access All That Is, you access a tremendous, and growing, library of all the knowledge in existence. You also access not just the primary timeline but every other (an infinite amount) timeline.

But, in actuality, God is not more complex.

The trouble comes in defining what is real because... it's all relative.

 

[Panda]

There is a lot of proof of Einsteins Theory? But what evidence of it have you ever tested? You trust strangers when they say this or that. You choose to believe in things you have never seen or experienced. Your level of evidence to believe in this is extremely low.

What evidence do you require to believe in God?

First I don't "trust strangers on it." It is actually part of the physics course I am studying, general and special relativity. What evidence have I ever tested? Well I don't have a nuclear device or a sun to test it on(Both fission and fusion use relativity) but we were shown the proofs of it and while I don't understand it all I understand enough of it to know it isn't made up.

For proof of God I would need evidence to support the God concept, I would need evidence of the effects this has on the universe and I suppose an explanation of where God came from and how it exists would be nice.

 

[doppelganger]

So language creates the observer?

Social reality creates the observer using language as the "stuff" from which it is created.

I don't know what homework you are talking about.

You are supposed to do a meditation on the inner phenomenology of the law of cause and effect and give a report based on as complete an examination as you can muster as whether causes follow effects in inner phenomenology, or precede them.

 

[Super Universe]

First I don't "trust strangers on it." It is actually part of the physics course I am studying, general and special relativity. What evidence have I ever tested? Well I don't have a nuclear device or a sun to test it on(Both fission and fusion use relativity) but we were shown the proofs of it and while I don't understand it all I understand enough of it to know it isn't made up.

For proof of God I would need evidence to support the God concept, I would need evidence of the effects this has on the universe and I suppose an explanation of where God came from and how it exists would be nice.

So once you reach a certain level of understanding about something you then trust the rest?

Okay, once again, here's where God came from:
In the beginning was the Law. This Law said "There can be no nothing." So a particle formed, then more particles formed in other areas of the void. Eventually these particles joined and to make a very long story short, a being evolved. This being eventually learned everything there was to know, He knew of the Law, and He ascended to the central control room of the universe that existed. When this being entered the control room He found... nothing. At that point He realized that He and the Law were One. The Law was simply God before God evolved. So, essentially, God and the Law are One and in this way God created Himself.

Here is a greatly simplified view of how the universe, energy/matter, works:
God emits energy (not EMR energy, a type humans have yet to discover, think gravity or String Theory) from heaven. This energy travels outward and as it does it's frequency reduces and this energy becomes more dense. Also, this energy creates the effect of time which is slower in the inner dimensions (near heaven) and faster as you move outward.

Now, when God decided to form our dimension, our universe, He simply caused an opening to form in the outermost dimension and energy flowed outwards (big bang) and condensed into matter. Built into the energy are all the physical laws and time.

 

[Willamena]

if it was wrong nuclear bombs and the sun wouldn't work. By proof I mean they prove the formula to be correct.

No. The formula is right because nuclear bombs and the sun work. They evidence it.

 

[Super Universe]

Social reality creates the observer using language as the "stuff" from which it is created.
[/size]

You are supposed to do a meditation on the inner phenomenology of the law of cause and effect and give a report based on as complete an examination as you can muster as whether causes follow effects in inner phenomenology, or precede them.

So, your theory is that it's all intertwined. The act of observing creates the observer and the observer then learns to define what it experiences by following the example of others.

You are stuck in the old "chicken or the egg" loop. Here's the answer: The egg came first then it hatched a chicken who went back in time to cause the egg to form.

 

[doppelganger]

So, your theory is that it's all intertwined. The act of observing creates the observer and the observer then learns to define what it experiences by following the example of others.

Nope. Read it again. You have a habit of constructing straw men, S_U. It's bad form in a discussion.