Does It Matter If God Exists?

[nPeace]

A compass is useless if you don't know the geometry. In other words, both the shape of the Earth and the position of the land and water on that sphere.

Yet men sailed the seas without a compass, and without scientific knowledge today.

 

[nPeace]

In other words, essentially none.

No Polymath257. Everything you say is not Gospel, you know. I hope you'll learn that some day.
People do have an education, however small, and they do experiment, and make observations, and along with reading, they do have thinking ability - common sense, as you put it.

 

[nPeace]

But that does NOT mean we are completely ignorant about gravity. Are there questions still to be answered (and even questions still to be asked)? Absolutely.

The key here is that word 'fundamental'. We do know the 'ultimate' theory of gravity? No. But we certainly know enough to say that we understand a great deal about gravity.

The point is that understanding isn't a yes/no thing: it is a progressive thing. We don't have to understand *everything* in order to understand *something*.

If I am still on RF when the adjustment in such understand comes, I will remind you of this.

 

[nPeace]

Matter / Mass is energy. Energy and space are co-originates. One affects the other.
We are learning about Dark Energy and Dark Matter. There are other explanations too.
"Inhomogeneous cosmologies assume that the backreactions of denser structures, as well as those of very empty voids, on space-time are significant enough that when not taken into account, they distort our understanding of time and our observations of distant objects. Following Thomas Buchert's publication of equations in 1997 and 2000 that derive from general relativity but also allow for the inclusion of local gravitational variations, a number of cosmological models were proposed under which the acceleration of the universe is in fact a misinterpretation of our astronomical observations and in which dark energy is unnecessary to explain them. For example, in 2007, David Wiltshire proposed a model (timescape cosmology) in which backreactions have caused time to run more slowly or, in voids, more quickly, thus giving the supernovae observed in 1998 the illusion of being further away than they were. Timescape cosmology may also imply that the expansion of the universe is in fact slowing."

Thanks for trying.

 

[Polymath257]

If I am still on RF when the adjustment in such understand comes, I will remind you of this.

Here's what we know:

Newton's ideas about gravity were very accurate. They can be used and give results that are correct to several decimal places. They were good enough to lead us to the discovery of the planet Neptune and are known to apply to some level of accuracy across the universe.

But, Newton's ideas were not *totally* accurate. Einstein's ideas are much more so. The corrections provided by Einstein are *very* small for things in our solar system, for example. But they are relevant for large scale phenomena such as galaxies and galactic clusters or, even more so, the universe as a whole.

That said, we *know* that we do not understand quantum gravity. But, the details of quantum gravity, as you say, won't affect much in ordinary life, or even the investigation of black holes. It *will*, however, affect our understanding of the Big Bang and how our universe came about.

So, do we understand gravity? Yes, a great deal is understood about gravity. We certainly understand it better today than we did 100 years ago. And we understood it better 100 years ago than we did 200 years ago.

Do we understand *everything* about gravity? No, we do not. And NOBODY claims otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

No Polymath257. Everything you say is not Gospel, you know. I hope you'll learn that some day.

Have I ever claimed otherwise? I am more than happy to admit it when I am wrong. And I am wrong occasionally. And, when corrected, I rejoice because that means I have learned something.

People do have an education, however small, and they do experiment, and make observations, and along with reading, they do have thinking ability - common sense, as you put it.

Common sense is neither. It is a particularly bad way to understand the universe because the human scale is not particularly universal.

Even in classical mechanics, there are many things that are true, but violate 'common sense'. In particular, the way that rotating bodies act tends to be very counter-intuitive to most people.

But once you get past that and into relativity or quantum mechanics, the way the universe works is very much NOT the way 'common sense' would expect. The truth of the matter is that our 'common sense' has developed for survival on the scale of humans. But when it comes to things like atoms or galaxies, it is just not good enough.

That is why science is necessary to understand: common sense fails all too often.

 

[Polymath257]

Yet men sailed the seas without a compass, and without scientific knowledge today.

Yes, and when they learned more, they sailed better.

 

[Polymath257]

Whatever happened to common sense now?

Common sense is often wrong.

Half the world don't care about understanding gravity and they do quite well, as they don't rely on an expert to tell them that something above can fall on you, and you can drop to your death, if the distance below is a certain depth.

And if that is the level of understanding that you are content with, then there is nothing I can teach you. But, if you want to go beyond the surface, there is a lot that can be learned.

You have all this tech, and what has it done for you? Perhaps it makes you well off financially, along with those being paid a fat salary.

Hardly a 'fat' salary. Most academics are not paid as well as they would be if they went into industry. I am certainly not. But then, wealth like that is not my goal: understanding is.

The terrorist will still shoot their rockets in the air, knowing that a well aimed shot will hit their intended target.
None of them learned physics for that.
PhDs don't make you smarter or more sensible than anyone else. Nor does it make you wise.

True enough. I know many foolish PhD's.

Those who have true wisdom possess pearls that you can have if you want it.
If you did possess them, you would see what you adore right now, as far inferior in comparison.
That's really how it is... but you can't see it.

I can see your claims and read about pearls and swine. But what you see as pearls, I see has without value and meaningless.

I can only feel for you, but that's not going to do anything for you. It's up to you.

And I can say the same about you. If you are happy in your lack of understanding, there is no way to teach you. And, if I am not the teacher you need, maybe someone else can show you the path.

But, if you ever decide you want to understand more, there are resources out there. I hope some day you take advantage of them.

 

[nPeace]

But it is, though. Again, that's how burden of proof works. If you make a claim, it's on you to demonstrate it. It's not on everyone else to show that isn't the case.

Did I make a claim? Wha Wha Wha Where?
May I suggest you read again.

Oh, you do have formal education in physics? How much? High school? College? Was it your major?

Really? This coming from someone who is always saying the thread is not about this or that. You sure do have a lot of interest in me.
This thread is not about my education , so let's get back to the topic at hand.
I will tell you a little something about myself ... related to the thread.
A lot of people have died because of not having God in their life. I might have been one of them.
As you may know, some people live a reckless life - they live on the edge. Some make decisions that cost them their life. If they had lived differently, they would have prolonged their life.
This is where God makes a difference in the lives of people. Because they try to live a life pleasing to God - one based on his holy writings, they make decisions that are in harmony with what they consider to be the word of God, and this actually saved their life.
I have made some bad decision, as we all do, but sometimes we don't see the danger involved. Turning my life around to please God, was, I think, a life-saver.
So whereas there are people who, for the moment, don't think they need God, there are billions of people who think the do, and they have proved that it benefits them immensely.

As @Polymath257 already explained, that we don't know all things about a subject doesn't mean we "don't understand it." Gravity matters because it accurately, testably explains how things in our experience work. God does not.

Yes science gives certain knowledge, God gives other knowledge. Both are compatible.
For example, I understand why the sky is blue, red, orange, by means of science, but I understand true love from God.

Oy vey.

Are you sure you understand my original argument? Because it has nothing to do with whether I believe something is true or not. It has to do with what difference a thing makes even if I concede it is true.

So by analogy, I don't have to believe the earth is round to use a cell phone. However, that the Earth is in fact round, is relevant to my ability to use a cell phone. And that relevance can be demonstrated by showing how satellites work and so on.

Now you may think that's the case with God, in which case you're welcome to demonstrate how God is necessary to explain how one lives a good life. So far as I can tell, all definitions of a good life I'm aware of are human, and require no divine intervention to be defined or carried out.

I understand your OP. No need to prolong that little side note.
Imagine... A man found a "rock"

Being uninterested in it, he threw it away.
Little did he realize what he possessed.
Someone else may see the true value in that rock, because he examined it closely, and realized that what he held was more than a rock.

What that man threw away was a diamond in its raw state. With some cutting and polishing, we have a gem.
As far as you can tell, there are rocks everywhere.
Other people find the pearls.
It is my hope that one day you will... if you heart is right. That's what it depends on.

 

[Left Coast]

Did I make a claim? Wha Wha Wha Where?
May I suggest you read again.

Sure:

Could we put aside the strawman. I know man does not understand gravity.

"I know man does not understand gravity." is a claim. Do you understand that you have a burden of proof to demonstrate that?

Really? This coming from someone who is always saying the thread is not about this or that. You sure do have a lot of interest in me.
This thread is not about my education , so let's get back to the topic at hand.

You sure do have a lot of interest in critiquing scientific knowledge, while being cagey when asked what your actual qualifications are to assess scientific knowledge. That's why I brought it up, after being asked a question comparing my analysis of God to things like gravity or the shape of the Earth.

I will tell you a little something about myself ... related to the thread.
A lot of people have died because of not having God in their life. I might have been one of them.
As you may know, some people live a reckless life - they live on the edge. Some make decisions that cost them their life. If they had lived differently, they would have prolonged their life.
This is where God makes a difference in the lives of people. Because they try to live a life pleasing to God - one based on his holy writings, they make decisions that are in harmony with what they consider to be the word of God, and this actually saved their life.
I have made some bad decision, as we all do, but sometimes we don't see the danger involved. Turning my life around to please God, was, I think, a life-saver.
So whereas there are people who, for the moment, don't think they need God, there are billions of people who think the do, and they have proved that it benefits them immensely.

No, they have shown that their belief benefits them. Not one of them that I've encountered have actually demonstrated that God benefits them. Can we agree there's a difference between those things?

You see, lots of people, from all different religious faiths, have stories not unlike yours, wherein they started out on a reckless path in life, doing dangerous things, terribly unhappy, and so on, and then uncovered their religious tradition, and through it turned their lives around to become wise, happier, more loving, and so on. Yet I would venture to bet that those stories don't convince you that any of those non-JW's religions are true or that their Gods are real. It is their faith, their connection to community, their abstinence from harmful behaviors, and so on, that's benefitting them, right?

Yes science gives certain knowledge, God gives other knowledge. Both are compatible.
For example, I understand why the sky is blue, red, orange, by means of science, but I understand true love from God.

What's true love, to you?

I understand your OP. No need to prolong that little side note.
Imagine... A man found a "rock"

Being uninterested in it, he threw it away.
Little did he realize what he possessed.
Someone else may see the true value in that rock, because he examined it closely, and realized that what he held was more than a rock.

What that man threw away was a diamond in its raw state. With some cutting and polishing, we have a gem.
As far as you can tell, there are rocks everywhere.
Other people find the pearls.
It is my hope that one day you will... if you heart is right. That's what it depends on.

Until such time as someone actually shows me good evidence of a pearl, we have no rational justification for believing one is there. I'm happy to evaluate evidence when shown it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. only that the belief in the god exists (in at least part of the congregation).

Even that is not a necessity in Indian religions (Buddhism, Jainism and some parts of Hinduism).

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, I did not miss that, and the reason for all of what you noted is because people are still clinging to the religions of the past, and I did address that.

You mean we should all join the newest religion, i.e., Ahmadiyyas, followers of the returning Jesus, the Mahdi, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Bahai is old and out-dated.

Those who have true wisdom possess pearls that you can have if you want it.

Everyone claims to have pearls when they are just fakes, Chinese plastic imitations. You are not the only seller in the market. You can trap only the ignoramus.

Yet men sailed the seas without a compass, and without scientific knowledge today.

Without compass does not mean without knowledge. There is a compass in the sky.

 

[Ancient Soul]

It seems that this is a matter of "how do we start investigating anything?". When it comes to God, people really start with no info or little understanding and then have to get it from somewhere or someone, which means that we should explore various avenues. The very idea of TRYING to let God in raises the question of what does "let god in" mean? Do we look internally, externally or both?

Before I try to answer your question, I first have to say that I've been on Internet forums for some 20 years and that is the best question anyone has ever asked me. Not only because of the question itself, but being spiritually blessed my entire life, with everything coming more or less easily, I never really considered what it would be like for all the "others" who hadn't a clue how to even start on their spiritual path. So I thank you for such a thought provoking question.

I also want to state that I'm so not a teacher. I have a tough enough time trying to articulate my spiritual experiences so that others can get some idea of them, which usually doesn't go too well because it's all outside of their physical world everyday experiences. So I find it too draining to go into most spiritual matters too deeply.

Now to answer your question.

Both.

For myself I try to view the world around me with as little man made distractions as possible. Spending as much time as possible exploring the natural world, the outdoors, wilderness. It keeps me connected to God, spiritually balanced, and silences my mind so God can answer my spiritual questions. And in my dealings with people, I am always prepared for any spiritual lessons that may be presented to me. To understand what is going on, and how I should deal with it.

But while the above is important, it's just the foundation of it all. The key to "connecting" with God is to "connect" with your soul, inner self, higher self, whatever you may call it. It helps make it easier if one feels connected to God, is spiritually balanced, and MUST have a silent mind. As that is the very first thing God taught me, how to silence my mind so that I could have full access to my soul. Then one can know God and seek true spiritual answers directly from the source. There's more to doing that, but I'm at a loss for the words on how to describe going any further. So all I can do is recommend trying various meditative techniques that does NOT require any noise or chanting until you find the one that works best for you.

It is natural for people to seek guidance from other people because the experiences of others guides us.

Ok, but in context to my comments on religions, too many people just get "locked in" to ONE spiritually void religion and do nothing but let other men lie to them about their "god".

But spiritual teachings are a different thing all together.

 

[nPeace]

Sure:



"I know man does not understand gravity." is a claim. Do you understand that you have a burden of proof to demonstrate that?



You sure do have a lot of interest in critiquing scientific knowledge, while being cagey when asked what your actual qualifications are to assess scientific knowledge. That's why I brought it up, after being asked a question comparing my analysis of God to things like gravity or the shape of the Earth.



No, they have shown that their belief benefits them. Not one of them that I've encountered have actually demonstrated that God benefits them. Can we agree there's a difference between those things?

No. Why should I agree with you when you are wrong... to my mind.
What skeptics call a demonstration is usually a miracle - that is opening their brain, and making them what they don't want to be.
You will always have a hard time understanding this, and I am not about to even attempt that... again.
One time is all I need to see what a person is. After that I don't travel that road again.

When you read in the Bible that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, what comes to mind? I don't mean what you think of God. I mean, think about the expression "harden your heart". I think of a heart of stone, or even granite.
That's a heart impossible to reach.
These expressions are not based on story-telling. We know. We know when we want to do something really really bad, the length we go to convince ourselves against anything that will prevent us.
Now think about it,.. If I keep convincing myself about something, what's going to happen? It becomes seasoned - like mixed concrete left in the sun to solidify.
Some of us know this from experience. We've been there, done that.

The Bible describes the Israelites as stiff-necked. They hardened their heart too. Till they were broken.
No LC. I know the truth. I can see it, and I see that everything the Bible says, is Bang On. Everything.
Agree with you? Not when you are clearly dead wrong.
You are fighting for your independent. Or should I say you have chosen a course of independence.

You see, lots of people, from all different religious faiths, have stories not unlike yours, wherein they started out on a reckless path in life, doing dangerous things, terribly unhappy, and so on, and then uncovered their religious tradition, and through it turned their lives around to become wise, happier, more loving, and so on. Yet I would venture to bet that those stories don't convince you that any of those non-JW's religions are true or that their Gods are real. It is their faith, their connection to community, their abstinence from harmful behaviors, and so on, that's benefitting them, right?

I don't doubt stories where people change their life. Although there are the few pretenders, many people do want to change, and sometimes they really try. There are factors involved though in where that person chooses, as well as their heart, but I know there are sincere people out there who may hold back from taking the right path - perhaps because of fear, uncertainty, etc., but we JWs don't give up on them. So we keep calling on people's homes; talking to them on the bus; at the market; at work; at school.
Our love for them will keep motivating us to do so, as long as Jehovah keeps the door opened.
When he closes it, that's it. We have done our best.
It's at their heart.

To give one example of what holds some religious folk back - Tradition. Some people fear the ridicule from others, but especially family, and they may feel a sense of loyalty to them. They may be a bit uncertain too, because they have not fully tasted and seen that Jehovah is good, and that he will satisfy their every need.
However, yearly, thousands of people show their interest by accepting a free personal study of the Bible with JWs. Many joyfully become disciples, and join us in helping more people.
The disciple making work is the most joyful endeavor among JWs.

What's true love, to you?

True love to me is what true love is.

Until such time as someone actually shows me good evidence of a pearl, we have no rational justification for believing one is there. I'm happy to evaluate evidence when shown it.

Okay. Take care.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Lol, I do not think it matters to God whether we believe He exists for His sake, but it matters to God that we believe for our own sake. The reason I think that is because I believe that God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining, and as such God has no needs whatsoever; so how could God need us to believe in Him? However that does not mean that God does not want us to believe in Him, I think He does. But since God does not need us to believe in Him, God leaves it up to us to choose to believe in Him or not, rather than letting us know in a very obvious way.

Moreover, if God needed everyone to believe in Him, God could easily accomplish that because God is omnipotent so the very fact that God has never made everyone believe tells us God wants it to be our choice.

I don't actually disagree with the theory behind this, except that people do not actually choose to believe. One either believes or they don't, it isn't a choice. What is a choice is being in denial because that would be active suppression of ones own belief.

In my mind, if it does matter if God exists, even if it is for our sake and not his sake, he should make it pretty obvious. At the moment he is leaving himself in a "cannot prove, cannot falsify" category which is not a solid basis for believing anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't actually disagree with the theory behind this, except that people do not actually choose to believe. One either believes or they don't, it isn't a choice. What is a choice is being in denial because that would be active suppression of ones own belief.

I think people choose to believe based upon what they consider evidence, what would be evidence to them, so if there is nothing that they consider to be evidence they cannot believe in God. I would not believe if I did not have evidence so why would I expect others to do so?

In my mind, if it does matter if God exists, even if it is for our sake and not his sake, he should make it pretty obvious. At the moment he is leaving himself in a "cannot prove, cannot falsify" category which is not a solid basis for believing anything.

It is for nonbelievers who do not see any evidence.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I think the first paragraph was self interpreting, i.e. the scriptures do say God is spirit and other scriptures say spirit and flesh mix no better than oil and water. That's about all I said in the first paragraph.

I'm going to guess the part you didn't like was what I said about Jesus having to learn who he was and what he had to do to redeem mankind. With that assumption, I'll reply that Jesus, being a man like us (Heb 2:17, et. al., none of us are god-men), came into this world exactly like the rest of us, i.e. he knew nothing when he popped out and he learned about life from sources outside of himself, just like we all do. His source of learning was the scriptures which, as I said, was the blueprint for a new creation (the logos of John 1:1) and Jesus was the building contractor, not the architect (God).

Actually my disagreement is with the premise that what the Bible says actually happened. If we discuss the internal narrative with the assumption that what the bible says is true, then I would agree with you on the most part. The scriptures themselves are in dispute, and a lot of Christians as well hold this view. For instance many Christians believe Genesis to be metaphorical and that Adam is representative of something else and was not a literal person. You are speaking from the premise that the Bible conveys the truth, whereas I am not, and if we do not agree on the premises then we cannot discuss the contents of the books with a view to it revealing the truth.

Raised from the dead is just an example. How about the vast majority believing that Jesus is coming back? Discounting the outliers, those who argue for argument's sake, I would say by far the vast majority agree on that point. That's not something "self evident." It's a doctrine found only in the Bible. At least as far as I know.

Being reasonable, I think it fair to say that they agree more than disagree. I'm not saying any disagreement at all is OK. It's not. God was clear in 1 Corinthians 1:10 that He wants us united. But people are people. But when Jesus does come back, we'll align with 1 Corinthians 1:10. We just need to be patient.

I would say that the split between Catholics and Protestants is a big disagreement. One side says that the Pope is the representative of God and the other says that the Catholic are a cult. Then there are a fair amount of smaller groups who disagree that Jesus is God. regarding Jesus' return that is also disputed, as there are different groups that believe different eschatology theories with some saying that he already returned, that when he returns he will support a different group, that the return was just metaphorical. I would also say that the majority of Christians do not read the Bible, and do not come to their own conclusions based on the book but based on what they hear from their leaders, so I would care more about the majority unity of those who have read the book rather than the majority of those who declare themselves Christians.

Also, as I said, the Jews use the old testament, and they disagree heavily with Christians on many points about God. Their views should also be taken into account.

It's easy to say God could have done something different. Much harder to say what that something different would be.

Any concrete ideas on how God could do better?

Doing something as simple as just speaking to everybody individually in their own language, providing them with the same information that can lead to predictive results, would be a step in the right direction. Simple as that.

Your going way outside of scriptures into conjecture. Now I don't mean to tell you that you must believe the scriptures, but at least know what it is you're not believing that's in there.

No I am not. Jesus was God incarnate according to the majority of Christians who read the Bible. The 3 angels that manifested into material form and ate physical food with Abraham before two went to Sodom and Gomorrah reveals that angels can materialise into physical form (some theories say that the one identified as YHWH was God). Also many Christians believe that before the flood angels became physical and mated with human females based on what is said in Genesis. God communicated through visions to prophets such as Ezekiel and John. He spoke to prophets such as Isaiah. These are common beliefs based on the scriptures. I am surprised that you think they are conjecture.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I think people choose to believe based upon what they consider evidence, what would be evidence to them, so if there is nothing that they consider to be evidence they cannot believe in God. I would not believe if I did not have evidence so why would I expect others to do so?

But the belief or disbelief still wasn't a choice. We cannot switch on and off what I believe in and what I don't. I can be in denial, but still know that I belief deep inside. If that was the case you could choose to be an atheist at will and I don't think that is possible.

It is for nonbelievers who do not see any evidence.

OK. Lets test this then. What falsifying criteria would prove that God doesn't exists?

 

[Polymath257]

I understand your OP. No need to prolong that little side note.
Imagine... A man found a "rock"

Being uninterested in it, he threw it away.
Little did he realize what he possessed.
Someone else may see the true value in that rock, because he examined it closely, and realized that what he held was more than a rock.

What that man threw away was a diamond in its raw state. With some cutting and polishing, we have a gem.
As far as you can tell, there are rocks everywhere.

And most of them are not diamonds. Furthermore, if you are hungry, NONE of them will be good to eat.

Other people find the pearls.

Or they find plastic imitations and are content with those.

 

[Polymath257]

For myself I try to view the world around me with as little man made distractions as possible. Spending as much time as possible exploring the natural world, the outdoors, wilderness. It keeps me connected to God, spiritually balanced, and silences my mind so God can answer my spiritual questions. And in my dealings with people, I am always prepared for any spiritual lessons that may be presented to me. To understand what is going on, and how I should deal with it.

But while the above is important, it's just the foundation of it all. The key to "connecting" with God is to "connect" with your soul, inner self, higher self, whatever you may call it. It helps make it easier if one feels connected to God, is spiritually balanced, and MUST have a silent mind. As that is the very first thing God taught me, how to silence my mind so that I could have full access to my soul. Then one can know God and seek true spiritual answers directly from the source. There's more to doing that, but I'm at a loss for the words on how to describe going any further. So all I can do is recommend trying various meditative techniques that does NOT require any noise or chanting until you find the one that works best for you.

I found this interesting because I also like to go into nature to 'reconnect'. I also get a wonderful feeling of peace and tranquility from, say, being out under the stars on a clear, dark night. The 'silent mind' is also something I cultivate.

I just don't see how that has anything to do with a God. Instead, i see it as a common human emotion that is restoring.

So, why do you identify this with God and I don't?