I believe in God because...

[Thief]

Look up at the stars....take a look around you in this world....
take a look in the mirror....

Call all of this an accident?
Take another look in that mirror...closer....in the eye....

Say it again.

No God?

In terms of regression...Someone had to be 'First' in thought and feeling.
That would be Him.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

...

well?

Can you give me 1 logical, fact-based argument as to why God exists, or you should be religious?

Credo quia absurdum est.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Look up at the stars....take a look around you in this world....
take a look in the mirror....

Call all of this an accident?
Take another look in that mirror...closer....in the eye....

Say it again.

No God?

Sure - why not?

In terms of regression...Someone had to be 'First' in thought and feeling.

Why would this be?

 

[1137]

Look up at the stars....take a look around you in this world....
take a look in the mirror....

Call all of this an accident?
Take another look in that mirror...closer....in the eye....

Say it again.

No God?

You see, we have explanations and understand of all of the above. There is no God involved, but it doesn't exclude one's existence.

In terms of regression...Someone had to be 'First' in thought and feeling.
That would be Him.

Someone? I don't think so, you have not shown the evidence for that. This is the argument I provided, but to say that something is God is quite a leap that is not supported by fact, evidence, and logic. At least not directly. You'll have to fill in the gap.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thief,

As I see it, you have a few choices:

- call the universe an accident.
- say that it wasn't, but call the God that created the universe an accident.
- say that God created the universe and that God needed a God of his own.

At some point, there has to be an end to the chain, and the end you're suggesting - God - doesn't have anything more going for it than any other.

 

[1137]

Thief,

As I see it, you have a few choices:

- call the universe an accident.
- say that it wasn't, but call the God that created the universe an accident.
- say that God created the universe and that God needed a God of his own.

At some point, there has to be an end to the chain, and the end you're suggesting - God - doesn't have anything more going for it than any other.

That's correct when using the argument. The problem comes from what exactly "god" is. The theistic God never will work in this jump. Perhaps some force or "All" like the Tao or Brahman would fit, but not a God. And once you get down to some sort of subtle, natural force the title "god" is just silly.

 

[Thief]

So apparently no one understands backing up to the beginning....
and finding One...the First One.

Someone had to be First.
This is hard to wrap your minds around?

In the beginning there was God.
Seems straight forward enough.

 

[1137]

So apparently no one understands backing up to the beginning....
and finding One...the First One.

Someone had to be First.
This is hard to wrap your minds around?

In the beginning there was God.
Seems straight forward enough.

All this argument shows is there is something foundational to existence. That is true, as infinite regression and uncaused events are illogical. To say it is God is a leap, and quite an unneccesary one.

 

[Quintessence]

That definition seems unreasonably broad.

Fair enough, but it is inclusive of every (?) god-concept human cultures have ever come up with. I prefer that to giving special privilege or standing to a specific culture's god-concept by saying something like "if it isn't supernatural, it isn't a god" or some similar nonsense. In the context of the OP, it is appropriate to consider the full spectrum of what "god" means worldwide because he wasn't specific about the term's meaning or cultural context. He didn't put up a sign that said "hey, you pantheist/animist/polytheist types, I'm not talking about your god-concepts so go away."

 

[GKDAIR]

I believe in God because...

When I was exploring myself (and still am) I got to my very core beliefs. I believed we are not alone in this world, and I believed in spirits. I cannot be an Atheist and believe in Ghosts, thats like being a christian but worshipping Thor.

From there I laid out a checklist of what I believe neturally (that is, what I believe without looking at any external sources) and I just kind of waited for something to call me. A few weeks later I was drawn to paganism for no reason what so ever. Now I am looking at Asatru, the religion of my ancestors.

 

[PolyHedral]

Someone had to be First.
This is hard to wrap your minds around?

The empty set exists. All else follows.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fair enough, but it is inclusive of every (?) god-concept human cultures have ever come up with.

It's also inclusive of the Van Allen Belt (something we need to survive), a person's sweetie ("if I can't be with him/her, I'd die!"), the city council of Spokane (it's a group of people, so it's "greater/grander than a human", right?), a Saturn V rocket taking off (since it can definitely inspire awe and wonder), and a person's oath (since it's a thing that a person honours). Are these things gods?

It's not enough for a definition to include all of the class of thing it purports to define; it also has to exclude everything that is not in the class of thing in question.

 

[Thief]

All this argument shows is there is something foundational to existence. That is true, as infinite regression and uncaused events are illogical. To say it is God is a leap, and quite an unneccesary one.

What you consider 'necessary' is the line drawn?...nay.
That's like saying your presence is 'needed' for that noise a tree makes when it falls in the forest.

Regression is simple.
Before you....someone else....then again....and again....

Skip to that moment of Man's creation....then decide if spiritual life can be.
If not, then Genesis means nothing to you.

Eventually you arrive at that moment when the First did pronounce....
"I AM'.

If you have difficulty with 'spiritual life'....this discussion will elude you.
Hence your declaration of 'illogic'.

 

[1137]

What you consider 'necessary' is the line drawn?...nay.
That's like saying your presence is 'needed' for that noise a tree makes when it falls in the forest.

Well it makes sound waves...

Regression is simple.
Before you....someone else....then again....and again....

Skip to that moment of Man's creation....then decide if spiritual life can be.
If not, then Genesis means nothing to you.

That is exactly why the first part of the argument works: infinite regression is logically impossible. I am not sure what you mean by "man's creation", but man evolved along with the rest of life on earth, and I feel that the exact moment humans came into being is not currently known. Spiritual life can be without creation and without even God.

Eventually you arrive at that moment when the First did pronounce....
"I AM'.

If you have difficulty with 'spiritual life'....this discussion will elude you.
Hence your declaration of 'illogic'.

I don't have any difficulty with spiritual life but that has nothing to do with logic. The idea that god exists is not illogical, and this argument is valid but it is missing something. It goes from a necessary something to God, which does not work. You have to show why that something is most likely God, using logic, evidence, whatever it takes.

 

[Thief]

Well it makes sound waves...



That is exactly why the first part of the argument works: infinite regression is logically impossible. I am not sure what you mean by "man's creation", but man evolved along with the rest of life on earth, and I feel that the exact moment humans came into being is not currently known. Spiritual life can be without creation and without even God.



I don't have any difficulty with spiritual life but that has nothing to do with logic. The idea that god exists is not illogical, and this argument is valid but it is missing something. It goes from a necessary something to God, which does not work. You have to show why that something is most likely God, using logic, evidence, whatever it takes.

I believe I did.
It seems you simply don't understand.
Spiritual life has everything to do about logic.
You are a spirit...in a body for now...
And logic is sourced from what?....your spirit?
And no One has a better play of logic?....in spiritual form?

You say you have no problem with spiritual life.
Someone is already in spiritual form....and has been for a very long time.

 

[1137]

I believe I did.
It seems you simply don't understand.
Spiritual life has everything to do about logic.
You are a spirit...in a body for now...
And logic is sourced from what?....your spirit?
And no One has a better play of logic?....in spiritual form?

You say you have no problem with spiritual life.
Someone is already in spiritual form....and has been for a very long time.

I'm not sure what you were getting at here. Logic comes about because of our ability to think rationally, and we have found laws of logic to gauge what rational thoughts are logical and which are simply silly. Again, it does not disprove God / spirituality but it has nothing to do with them. I think the view of matter / spirit duality is useless as it puts too much emphasis on materialism.

 

[Thief]

I'm not sure what you were getting at here. Logic comes about because of our ability to think rationally, and we have found laws of logic to gauge what rational thoughts are logical and which are simply silly. Again, it does not disprove God / spirituality but it has nothing to do with them. I think the view of matter / spirit duality is useless as it puts too much emphasis on materialism.

And I'm not sure how you move to materialism....(love of the material)

God...being the First in mind and spirit...would be alone.
The substance He made, would respond to His touch...but not really 'respond'.

In spirit, the making of another like yourself is mirror image.
You would be talking to yourself.

So...placing life into substance....Man....would be the means and method to have unique individuals.
Your linear existence insures a fresh perspective.
You are here to learn all that you can....and then back to God you go.

It remains...Someone had to be First.

 

[waitasec]

So apparently no one understands backing up to the beginning....
and finding One...the First One.

Someone had to be First.
This is hard to wrap your minds around?

In the beginning there was God.
Seems straight forward enough.

had to be the first....what?

being self aware enables one to contemplate, which is good until it is cause for undue importance...

 

[1137]

And I'm not sure how you move to materialism....(love of the material)

I just think that the belief (which I believe is false) in matter / spirit duality holds people back on their spiritual journeys.

God...being the First in mind and spirit...would be alone.
The substance He made, would respond to His touch...but not really 'respond'.

Mind would not be the first. A mind is the product of the brain. Plants do not have minds as they have nothing to cause this. Again, it does not show that God does not exist, but perhaps your idea of god is not backed by logic / fact (no offense please).

In spirit, the making of another like yourself is mirror image.
You would be talking to yourself.

I am not sure what you are talking about here.

So...placing life into substance....Man....would be the means and method to have unique individuals.
Your linear existence insures a fresh perspective.
You are here to learn all that you can....and then back to God you go.

It remains...Someone had to be First.

Again, I am not sure I know what you are saying. This can be interpreted many ways which is why clarity is so important. By saying you go back to God this could mean heaven, absorption, enlightenment, pretty much anything. This thing is that someone did not have to be first, something did. It is unlikely that this was a being of any kind. Beings need creators, our parents for example. In this case, God cannot be the necessary something as beings need creators. So, God must be a force, and I pointed out earlier that this makes the title "god" unnecessary.

 

[Jainarayan]

But this 'I' is not the ego "I' at all. It is referring to your true identity, the part of you, the essence of you, often called the Self, not to be confused with ego-self.

Yes, indeed. "I-ego" isn't real. "I-atman/self" is real. My "ego-I" wasn't clear.