There is no God?

[Orbital]

This happened because you always noticed wrong peoples,
More over spirituality is only the subject, When "God" finds anybody, not when anybody finds "God",
"God" has made us, we have not made "God".


jasdir.

So what you are saying is that "God" is subjective?
If this "God" actually exists, there must be something measurable to him, what do you propose that is, only our imagination?

 

[Orbital]

It is obvious that everything in a physical world has a creator.
Consider, cars, paintings, houses and etc, all have a creator. And they have a beginning and an end. You can not say, one million years later your car still exist in the same condition you have.
Now with respect to the whole world, we say there must be a God who created it, for it couldn’t have created itself.

No not everything in the world has a creator. We have a lot of naturalistic explanations for a lot of things in the world. Cars, paintings and houses were all created by us, nice work sherlock. And yes I agree that a car cannot last a million years, simply because of radiation you would not even have the same elements you started of with. In the respect to the whole world YOU say there must be a god. You seem to have the need to stick this variable in an equation.

Now, the only way, to say, there is no God, is that you prove that it doesn’t need a creator. Because the normal way is that everything has a maker! If you say, the world is different than the normal way, then you need to prove it.

Again the 'normal way' is not that everything has a maker. I suggest you look up the lecture 'A Universe from Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss and watch it. He proves that the creation of the universe needs no creator.

Well, this is only a theory. Not proved. you are saying 'May have always existed". any proof?

You seem to not know what a theory is, please look up the term 'scientific theory'.
Gravity is 'just' a theory, right?

Everything can evolve until it reaches it’s perfection. But it can only be perfected at it’s own level.
“Look at this mineral. However far it may evolve, it only evolves in its own condition; you cannot bring the crystal to a state where it can attain to sight. It is true that coal could become a diamond, but both are in the mineral condition, and their component elements are the same."

This is complete bs.
Coal is only perfect in your eyes when it becomes a diamond. Try using a diamond for fire, then it's not so perfect at all. Things aren't perfect because they are shiny f.y.i.
These are all perfections relative to you. For example I would consider coal to be more 'perfect' than diamond.
I don't see how evolving means being better, it just means change.

 

[Meow Mix]

It is obvious that everything in a physical world has a creator.
Consider, cars, paintings, houses and etc, all have a creator. And they have a beginning and an end. You can not say, one million years later your car still exist in the same condition you have.
Now with respect to the whole world, we say there must be a God who created it, for it couldn’t have created itself.

Cars, paintings, houses and so on are clearly artificial and therefore have creators. This is hardly relevant though. Rocks, planets, life, galaxies -- we have a pretty good idea of how these things form and it certainly isn't by creation from any sort of being.

You say a God must have created the universe, but you're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions such as that a God exists to create and that the world was "created" at all.

Please provide your evidence that you're basing these assumptions on.

Now, the only way, to say, there is no God, is that you prove that it doesn’t need a creator. Because the normal way is that everything has a maker! If you say, the world is different than the normal way, then you need to prove it.

The "normal way" certainly isn't that "everything has a maker." No one sat around and carved out the Himalayas, they formed through natural geologic processes. No one sat around and put together the moon, it formed through an impact in the early development of the solar system. Physical laws such as gravity and chemistry cause many things that we see around us, not "create" them (since physical laws aren't sentient).

Before you go asking "who created the physical laws," remember that the laws themselves are non-physical and earlier you said it's just physical stuff that requires a creator.

I'm just saying that you're being extremely assumptive, it exhibits poor critical thinking.

Well, this is only a theory. Not proved. you are saying 'May have always existed". any proof?

I'm not sure you have a correct understanding of how the word "theory" is used in science. Theory isn't just a guess, it's a collection of facts, hypotheses that have passed critical inquiry, and laws that explain phenomenon. Right now you're reading these words through the optic theory your computer screen is designed from, I sincerely doubt that you reject the notion from atomic theory that your computer is built from atoms or the gravitational theory that your computer monitor is staying where it is because its mass is attracted to the mass of the earth.

More in line with our conversation though, there is no evidence that the universe is created. By pointing out that it didn't necessarily begin to exist, you suddenly ask for evidence: it becomes prudent to ask why you demand evidence for that notion but not for the notion that it was created? Do you see how you're being overly assumptive now?

Everything can evolve until it reaches it’s perfection. But it can only be perfected at it’s own level.

“Look at this mineral. However far it may evolve, it only evolves in its own condition; you cannot bring the crystal to a state where it can attain to sight. It is true that coal could become a diamond, but both are in the mineral condition, and their component elements are the same." For example when coal becomes diamond, then it has reached it's perfection.

This is a bizarre definition of perfection. Is perfection defined by crystalline structure of molecules?

A tree would be perfected when, it has most delicious fruits. But a tree cannot become human.

I really don't think your concept of "perfection" is tenable. It's not meaningful because it's so subjective.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Physical laws such as gravity and chemistry cause many things that we see around us, not "create" them (since physical laws aren't sentient).
Before you go asking "who created the physical laws," remember that the laws themselves are non-physical and earlier you said it's just physical stuff that requires a creator.
I'm just saying that you're being extremely assumptive, it exhibits poor critical thinking.

I didn't say, that every non-physical does not require a creator.
Read my post again!. This is what I said:

“in a physical world everything has a beginning and an end. However, God is not physical, therefore He does not need to have a beginning and an end.”

So, the laws, existed from beginning that has no beginning with God. For they are part of the knowledge of God!

Please read the posts carefully!

I'm not sure you have a correct understanding of how the word "theory" is used in science.
.

I think I do. Theory are things that are not proved yet.

Now, you said: “Considering that mass/energy are properties, that implies that something may have always existed to carry them as properties.”

You are using the word “may” here in you statement. It means that they may or may not. Therefore it’s not proved yet.
For example, if we say water is 2 Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen then this is not just a theory, it is proved! it is a Fact!
But for example if you refer to cause of gravity, there are only theories out there. Nothing is proved, to determine why there is gravity. It’s the same with your argument. You are only saying, there are some evidences that MAY….

This is a bizarre definition of perfection. Is perfection defined by crystalline structure of molecules?

I really don't think your concept of "perfection" is tenable. It's not meaningful because it's so subjective.

Actually, it is a very common definition of “perfection”, all you need to do is refer to dictionary and you will find out. One meaning is: ” The act or process of perfecting”

If your waiting for God to come down in the clouds and show you He exist, that won’t happen my friend! There are many reasons that God exist. We don’t have time to go through each one of them.

Also I recommend you read the “Book of Certitude” for clear and logical arguments. So, I leave you with readings if you are interested to learn more than what you already know! You can get that Book from here:

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/

 

[Storm]

I think I do. Theory are things that are not proved yet.

Nope. That's a hypothesis. "Proof is for math and liquor," but theories have mountains of evidence.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Nope. That's a hypothesis. "Proof is for math and liquor," but theories have mountains of evidence.

Anyways, the point is that, she is refering to something that's not proved to be a fact.

 

[Storm]

Anyways, the point is that, she is refering to something that's not proved to be a fact.

Like gravity and germs?

Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence.

No, theories do not "graduate" into laws. Theory is as good as it gets.

 

[Meow Mix]

I didn't say, that every non-physical does not require a creator.
Read my post again!. This is what I said:

“in a physical world everything has a beginning and an end. However, God is not physical, therefore He does not need to have a beginning and an end.”

So, the laws, existed from beginning that has no beginning with God. For they are part of the knowledge of God!

Please read the posts carefully!

I read carefully -- you did indeed imply that non-physical things don't require creators. You're just adding on to it now by asserting that physical laws are "part of the knowledge of God." However, that's just yet another assumption on your part. You make many assertions but offer nothing to back them up so far, perhaps we should start talking about the evidence for your position.

I think I do. Theory are things that are not proved yet.

No, that is most definitely not what scientific theories are. I'm sorry, you're simply confusing layman's terms with scientific terms. Laypersons use the word "theory" to mean "guess" or "unproven assumption" but that's not how the word is used in science. I'm speaking of scientific theory, not "things that aren't proven yet."

Now, you said: “

Considering that mass/energy are properties, that implies that something may have always existed to carry them as properties.”

You are using the word “may” here in you statement. It means that they may or may not. Therefore it’s not proved yet.

Yes, I'm using the word "may" because there is no direct evidence for what things were like before the first Planck time after the Big Bang event. Therefore I can't make any hardline assertions about what things were like before that time -- and neither can you. I'm being responsible by using the word "may" while you, on the other hand, are just asserting things without any evidence to back them up. So, again, we need to start discussing evidence here. Where is yours?

For example, if we say water is 2 Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen then this is not just a theory, it is proved! it is a Fact!

Yes, that is a fact of atomic theory. Theories are factual in science; or more aptly they contain facts. It's a fact of gravitational theory that you accelerate earthwards at about 9.8 m/s^2. Facts and scientific theories go hand in hand. Again, I think you have a mistaken notion of what a "theory" is in science if you think they're non-factual or just unestablished guesses.

Actually, it is a very common definition of “perfection”, all you need to do is refer to dictionary and you will find out. One meaning is: ”

The act or process of perfecting”

Why is the crystallization of carbon atoms "perfecting?" Is water "perfected" when it crystallizes into ice? Again, you're using the term in such a subjective fashion that it's not really tenable.

If your waiting for God to come down in the clouds and show you He exist, that won’t happen my friend! There are many reasons that God exist. We don’t have time to go through each one of them.[/quote]

I appreciate the link and I may check it out at some point, but I generally like to discuss with people about justifications for ideas in their own words and understanding. One-sided debates are a little boring if one person is using their own words while the other one just tosses links and references at them without summarizing anything for themselves. I'm not saying that's what you've done here (we've been conversing nicely ), just that I prefer to talk about ideas rather than have them linked to me.

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't want to sound rude, but aside from the fact that I'm a little ADHD walls of obtuse text are difficult for me to wade through... is there any way you can summarize the point you're trying to make succinctly?

I mean imagine if you asked me about evolution and I just quoted a page from Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," one of the most boring and dry books I've ever tried (and failed) to read...

Can't we talk in our own words to one another? I mean quoting is fine, but swaths of text written so esoterically that you have to read it a few times to even gather what's being said aren't very conducive to conversation.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Ok, sure. I just thought it would be more complete to quote a few paragraphs. So, I try to point out important part of it, then we can go from there.

Just as you mentioned, that something may have always existed. I am saying what they found is quite possible. But that wouldn’t contradict with believing that a creator has created it.

So, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that God is the creator and He existed from beginning that has no beginning. Then a creator without his creation is impossible. That is to say, in the same way that God existed from beginning that has no beginning, so did his creation.

“a creator without a creature is impossible...absolute nonexistence cannot become existence.
If the beings were absolutely nonexistent, existence would not have come into being. Therefore, as the Essence of Unity (that is, the existence of God) is everlasting and eternal—that is to say, it has neither beginning nor end—it is certain that this world of existence, this endless universe, has neither beginning nor end. “

 

[Meow Mix]

Ok, sure. I just thought it would be more complete to quote a few paragraphs. So, I try to point out important part of it, then we can go from there.

Just as you mentioned, that something may have always existed. I am saying what they found is quite possible. But that wouldn’t contradict with believing that a creator has created it.

So, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that God is the creator and He existed from beginning that has no beginning. Then a creator without his creation is impossible. That is to say, in the same way that God existed from beginning that has no beginning, so did his creation.

“a creator without a creature is impossible...absolute nonexistence cannot become existence.
If the beings were absolutely nonexistent, existence would not have come into being. Therefore, as the Essence of Unity (that is, the existence of God) is everlasting and eternal—that is to say, it has neither beginning nor end—it is certain that this world of existence, this endless universe, has neither beginning nor end. “

I don't disagree, it's entirely possible that God exists even if the universe has always existed in some form. I wasn't trying to argue that such was impossible. I have been saying however that there isn't really any evidence that God exists.

There's a huge difference between possibility and probability and existence. Why should we suppose that a creator exists at all if there are no contradictions in withholding belief in such a thing due to a lack of evidence?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Why should we suppose that a creator exists at all if there are no contradictions in withholding belief in such a thing due to a lack of evidence?

We cannot understand God because He is far from our understanding. Consequently, the evidence of existence of God, is not observation of God.

What kind of evidence would be sufficient?

For me, the prophets and the creation. To me it makes a lot more sense to say there is a creator, than to say the world existed by itself. It does not make sense, to say there is no creator. My questions would remain, unanswered.

Farther more, there has been so many Messengers and prophets. With my understanding, they came with clear evidence and signs. There has been a lot of strong believers to the point they accepted to die in the path of God.
It's really impossible to say, every single one of them was either imagining that he was a prophet, or he was a liar.

Also, not everyone may understand things in the same level. Some people may come to the highest level of certitude, and some may not.

There's a huge difference between possibility and probability and existence.

Yes, we cannot have a strong believe in God, based on probability and possibility.

"O SON OF SPIRIT! I created thee rich, why dost thou bring thyself down to poverty? Noble I made thee, wherewith dost thou abase thyself? Out of the essence of knowledge I gave thee being, why seekest thou enlightenment from anyone beside Me? Out of the clay of love I molded thee, how dost thou busy thyself with another? Turn thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find Me standing within thee, mighty, powerful and self-subsisting." Hidden Words- Baha'u'llah

 

[chinu]

So what you are saying is that "God" is subjective?
If this "God" actually exists, there must be something measurable to him, what do you propose that is, only our imagination?

"Existance" exists in "God"
Realizing "God" as unmeasureable is mesurement of "God"
Yes! What i propose that is truely "your" imagination.

 

[ruhnafsoul]

I'm curious as to why you believe in God? Sorry this question is not very long i just don't believe it needs to be.

If you could, i would like to talk about this purely in a non-metaphysical sense. I notice when people get into that realm of thought an idea becomes "irrefutable" and the discussion enters the area of a false dichotomy.

hmm.. can you find you inside you? where are you exactly inside your own body? Can you locate your SELF ? If we see and hear from the inside, where are we actually? I must be somewhere inside my own body.. ? Where am I ?

What is believe ? Where does this believe comes from ? From my heart.. my mind ? Does it come out from my mind / my heart just like that ? etc...

Those kind of questions had made me a seeker for the Creator.. till to point where I believe in the existance of a CREATOR.. and I believe in GOD.

And you just dont believe it needs to be.. but some are just believe it needs to be. And I guess its nuthing wrong with that.

I guess that we should live a life base on of what we had been thinking of.. I guess that we shall not follow others but to follow our own thinking.. because we were given a thinking in every seconds and it never stop coming. And the best is, it was given and its free.

Forgive me..

 

[LuisDantas]

In other words... "i've had mystical experiences"

That is one of several valid possibilities. One can legitimally have one's own conception of God, and it can (and IMO probably should) be very personal and non-standard (if there is even a true standard conception of God to begin with).

Come to think of it, there is rarely any good reason to much expect one's conception of God to match anyone else's. Particularly if it turns out that God is indeed a human invention, as I figure most of us Atheists believe to be the case.

 

[Meow Mix]

We cannot understand God because He is far from our understanding. Consequently, the evidence of existence of God, is not observation of God.

What kind of evidence would be sufficient?

There are many types of evidence that could be used if empirical evidence isn't forthcoming: ontological, transcendental, epistemological, etc.

For me, the prophets and the creation. To me it makes a lot more sense to say there is a creator, than to say the world existed by itself. It does not make sense, to say there is no creator. My questions would remain, unanswered.

You're perfectly willing to accept the self-existence of a God though, what's the difference? You're just pushing the question of ultimate existence back another step so that instead of asking "Why does the universe exist at all" you're left with the question "Why does the creator of the universe exist at all." That doesn't "answer" any questions, that doesn't "solve" anything.

The existence of a powerful creator-being is just as inexplicable and mysterious as the existence of a universe without a powerful creator-being. It's not a good explanatory tool because it doesn't really explain anything, it just creates a microcosm of the original question. If anything, I'd say that it's even more inexplicable for a powerful creator-being to exist as opposed to the universe just existing.

Farther more, there has been so many Messengers and prophets. With my understanding, they came with clear evidence and signs. There has been a lot of strong believers to the point they accepted to die in the path of God.

It's really impossible to say, every single one of them was either imagining that he was a prophet, or he was a liar.

No, it's quite possible to make that suggestion reasonably considering every one of them said something different that contradicted one of the others' message. Either God changes his mind more than a schizophrenic blonde deciding what to wear to the bar (thus all the mixed messages) or these people are getting their messages from elsewhere; such as hallucinations, political interests, seeing what they want to see, etc.

Being willing to die for a belief doesn't mean the belief is true, it just means the belief is strongly believed. Do you consider the fact that some Aztecs who were willing to die to keep the Fifth Sun from setting to mean that their beliefs must have been true since they were willing to die for it, or that their willingness to martyr themselves even serves as any evidence for the truth of their believes? Of course it isn't, because people believe strange things and are often willing to die -- and kill -- for them, which is why unjustified beliefs can be extremely dangerous to society.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

There are many types of evidence that could be used if empirical evidence isn't forthcoming: ontological, transcendental, epistemological, etc.

human knowledge is of two kinds.
One is the knowledge of things perceptible to the senses—that is to say, things which the eye, or ear, or smell, or taste, or touch can perceive, which are called objective or sensible. So the sun, because it can be seen, is said to be objective; and in the same way sounds are sensible because the ear hears them;

The other kind of human knowledge is intellectual—that is to say, it is a reality of the intellect; it has no outward form and no place and is not perceptible to the senses. For example, the power of intellect is not sensible; none of the inner qualities of man is a sensible thing; on the contrary, they are intellectual realities. For example love is a mental reality and not sensible.

You're perfectly willing to accept the self-existence of a God though, what's the difference? You're just pushing the question of ultimate existence back another step so that instead of asking "Why does the universe exist at all" you're left with the question "Why does the creator of the universe exist at all." That doesn't "answer" any questions, that doesn't "solve" anything.

To answer the question, why the universe exists at all, we must consider 2 cases:
1-If we say there in no creator, then, the only answer is, it exists for no reason. It exists for no purpose. For there can be a purpose, only if there is maker who had a purpose to make it.
2-If there is a Creator for universe, then the only one who truly knows why it exists, is the Creator. For every maker, has a reason and purpose for making what he does.
“O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.”
“O SON OF DUST! All that is in heaven and earth I have ordained for thee, except the human heart, which I have made the habitation of My beauty and glory” Hidden words – Baha’u’llah

No, it's quite possible to make that suggestion reasonably considering every one of them said something different that contradicted one of the others' message.

Actually, I don’t see any difference between their messages. The unity of prophets is well proved. Is in it possible that while they said the same message, people distorted their message? If this is an important issue, shouldn’t we look more carefully to see if their messages are really different or is it people who every time corrupted their religion, for their own selfishness?
Can you give me one or more example, how they said different things? Then we can go from there.

Being willing to die for a belief doesn't mean the belief is true, it just means the belief is strongly believed. Do you consider the fact that some Aztecs who were willing to die to keep the Fifth Sun from setting to mean that their beliefs must have been true since they were willing to die for it, or that their willingness to martyr themselves even serves as any evidence for the truth of their believes? Of course it isn't, because people believe strange things and are often willing to die -- and kill -- for them, which is why unjustified beliefs can be extremely dangerous to society.

Yes, being willing to die for a belief, doesn’t make that belief correct, if we only consider this as a proof. Maybe people would die for strange beliefs, but dying for a belief, would indicate a good possibility of the truthfulness, if the belief is not voodoo. I mean, it is possible that those people actually have found the truth and died for it. So, I am only saying, it should be investigated it more closely and logically.
If we examine the lives of a wider range of the prophet-founders of the world religions we see that patterns can be discerned in them. For example, all of them had a herald, who long before He appears, the herald was giving the news to people that a Manifestation soon shall appear.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Lol, be careful asking for proof. If evidence and proof is dragged into the arguement, where is YOUR proof of YOUR god?

See posts #51, #53, #55 and #60. Then we can continue from there.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Again the 'normal way' is not that everything has a maker. I suggest you look up the lecture 'A Universe from Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss and watch it. He proves that the creation of the universe needs no creator.

If you looked it up, why don't you try to prove it to me that the universe needs no creator.

This is complete bs.
Coal is only perfect in your eyes when it becomes a diamond. Try using a diamond for fire, then it's not so perfect at all. Things aren't perfect because they are shiny f.y.i.
These are all perfections relative to you. For example I would consider coal to be more 'perfect' than diamond.
I don't see how evolving means being better, it just means change.

Both coal and diamond are made of carbon. Clearly, coal is ugly, while diamond is beautiful. This is just an example about perfection of the same mineral. it's a metaphor to show a point.

Can't you have a deeper discussion?

 

[JustAsking]

Both coal and diamond are made of carbon. Clearly, coal is ugly, while diamond is beautiful. This is just an example about perfection of the same mineral. it's a metaphor to show a point.

Can't you have a deeper discussion?

Coal is ugly? Could you get more subjective?