|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does God negate the need for his own existence? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
robinrohan writes: The two choices don't involve something coming from nothing. They involve the choice of an eternal Being creating the universe or the universe always existing.There's no reason to pick one of these choices over another. Thats like saying that the two choices are that God always existed (thus foreknowing us) or that human wisdom is for all practical purposes the only reality that we can draw on as an origin of explanative wisdom. (Our mental universe) Its odd to me how we humans on this dustspeck of a blip in the known universe can have the audacity to attempt to explain a theory of everything and yet so grandly dismiss God as an illogical concept!
boolean writes: For the reason that we quite plausibly do not know nor can know the entire reality of the universe, yet we can quite plausibly begin to know God, in which case He makes plausibility an attractive option! God existing for eternity and creating the universe = plausibleUniverse existing for eternity in pre-big bang mode = not plausible. Why? Of course, boolean, I am not suggesting that God is any easier to figure out than the universe! A scientist may say that while God gives no clues that verify His reality, the Universe is slowly yielding clues about its reality. A Theologian may counter by saying that ultimate truth will never be figured out while God, once encountered, begins to richly and faithfully complete His image within you and that by allowing this process, we DO come to know and understand Him. Perhaps the issue is this:Do we seek to understand God personally, or do we seek to understand natural reality scientifically and impassionately?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Thats like saying that the two choices are that God always existed (thus foreknowing us) or that human wisdom is for all practical purposes the only reality that we can draw on as an origin of explanative wisdom. (Our mental universe) This I don't get. I don't see how this question has anything to do with "human wisdom." The choices mentioned above are the only 2 choices there are. Perhaps you are putting forth an idea that, if there were no God, we could not think?
Its odd to me how we humans on this dustspeck of a blip in the known universe can have the audacity to attempt to explain a theory of everything and yet so grandly dismiss God as an illogical concept! In this particular case, I was not dismissing God as an illogical concept. I was saying that there is no reason to choose between the two choices. One's as logical as another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
robinrohan writes: The two choices don't involve something coming from nothing. They involve the choice of an eternal Being creating the universe or the universe always existing.There's no reason to pick one of these choices over another. Phat, replying, writes: ...And I mean that for me, the choices are not equally logical. To me, God is logical since I believe in Him. He would be logical even if I were not to believe in Him. I see Him as a necessary absolute, but of course my bias is that I believe in Him. You may see it differently. You may see Him as an un-neccessary hypothesis and a non-absolute.
Thats like saying that the two choices are that God always existed (thus foreknowing us) or that human wisdom is for all practical purposes the only reality that we can draw on as an origin of explanative wisdom. (Our mental universe) Robinrohan writes: In a sense, yes. I am proclaiming God as an absolute whether or not we believe in Him.
This I don't get. I don't see how this question has anything to do with "human wisdom." The choices mentioned above are the only 2 choices there are. Perhaps you are putting forth an idea that, if there were no God, we could not think? Phat,replying to Robin writes: ...and what I mean't was that its odd how human wisdom can grandly theorize a distant past and point of known origin, operate quite nicely in a present that need not contain God, and hypothesize a future in an empirical, unbiased way. (But I will admit that science is safer than the Left Behind series of books!
Its odd to me how we humans on this dustspeck of a blip in the known universe can have the audacity to attempt to explain a theory of everything and yet so grandly dismiss God as an illogical concept! Robin writes: And from your perspective, this may make pefect sense. In this particular case, I was not dismissing God as an illogical concept. I was saying that there is no reason to choose between the two choices. One's as logical as another. It just seems odd to me when you say that there is no reason to choose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It just seems odd to me when you say that there is no reason to choose. Why does it seem odd to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Its odd to me how we humans on this dustspeck of a blip in the known universe can have the audacity to attempt to explain a theory of everything and yet so grandly dismiss God as an illogical concept!
It's not odd at all. That is because either people proclaim god to be unexplainable, or they have a large number of 'special pleadings' they reserve just for God. I mean, look at what the evidence for God is. It appears to be "I can't explain it, so it must be God". Couple that with the fact you can't get agreement about what God is, and what god does, and it does seem to be illogical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I suppose that if you are as honest as you can be about the need to form a personal relationship with Jesus then you will not be judged for appearing (to me) to be indifferent about the matter. I mean, after all, who am I to suggest how you should think??
I guess that I should be more worried about my own relationship with God and that perhaps I am projecting my own insecurities onto you in order for me to feel better about myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Its odd to me how we humans on this dustspeck of a blip in the known universe can have the audacity to attempt to explain a theory of everything and yet so grandly dismiss God as an illogical concept! The flaw might be in us, if the intellectual giants insist that God is nothing more than an anthropomorphic absurdity by means of reductio absurdum. People such as Dawkins, do. But there are also intellectual giants who do give God a chance, such as Einstein. (Albeit a none-personal, very intellectual version of God). Yet you are correct, logically, when you mention this, because it is arrogant to dismiss a possibility. No true intellectual giant would do this. As far as I'm concerned it's just a matter of personality. One side has the parsimonious razor ensconsed upon their psyche, while the other side are lazy thinkers. The former cannot possibly understand how the latter group could be correct because they themselves are stone cold intellects, and think that God is simply a highly silly idea whom is woefully primitive, because afterall, the idea came from the latter group of lazy thinkers. I wish I could be either a lazy thinker who has an admiral trait and freedom to rest one's mind or a stone cold intellect who is a parsimonious vacuum in the lake of Spock. Unfortunately, I am a bit of both. Yet fortunately for you and I phatboy, we both seem to content ourselves concluding anything while still letting God reside in our own minds.in
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I suppose that if you are as honest as you can be about the need to form a personal relationship with Jesus then you will not be judged for appearing (to me) to be indifferent about the matter. I mean, after all, who am I to suggest how you should think?? I guess that I should be more worried about my own relationship with God and that perhaps I am projecting my own insecurities onto you in order for me to feel better about myself.
Very insightful.I feel that is true (and felt that for quite some time) for many of the people who are trying to convince others that their religion is the 'true one'. Many of them just can not admit that to themselves though. The fact that you can realise it is quite unusual.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I suppose that if you are as honest as you can be about the need to form a personal relationship with Jesus then you will not be judged for appearing (to me) to be indifferent about the matter. Indifferent? I'm not indifferent. It's just there's no way to choose logically between the 2 alternatives--if we base our decision on the idea of creation or lack thereof alone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4754 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
Dierotao writes: It's the logical conclusion that since the known laws of the physical universe dictate that all effects have a cause I see you're not familiar with QM.Beyond that, you can't have causation without a dimension of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Deer In The Headlights writes: Man! It takes Mr. Dictionary, Mr. Sherlock Mike, and Mr. Encyclopedia to keep up with these $20.00 words that you so casually toss about like discarded chewing gum wrappers!
The flaw might be in us, if the intellectual giants insist that God is nothing more than an anthropomorphic absurdity by means of reductio absurdum.Websters writes: an”thro”po”mor”phism: an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics : humanization ” an”thro”po”mor”phic \-fik\ adj and then I had to look up reductio absurdum Although the fine tuning would bring that word into this: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy writes: an implausibility or anomaly (ad ridiculum or ad incommodum) So Mike! Why don't you just say that the intellectual giants insist that God is nothing more than an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of likely implausibility or anomaly? You just knew that I like to look stuff up, did'nt ya, Sherlock! Sherlock writes: Again with the concepts! *sigh* As far as I'm concerned it's just a matter of personality. One side has the parsimonious razor ensconsed upon their psyche, while the other side are lazy thinkers. I need to know this stuff anyway, I guess! Let me speculate: Lazy Thinkers =Biblical Creationists> That is quite elementary, my deer Watson! Intellectual Eggheads= "parsimonious razor" Now I gotcha, Mike! Why the name change? Are you stalking poor innocent little deer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1503 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi, I am going to answer your post as a Catholic. So forgive the dogma I have been indocrinated into.
1. The universe always existed. Possibly, but spacetime and matter did not. If existance is a extention of what always was:ie the universe. Then we are a extention of God as well; who always was. 2. God being perfect why need to create anything?It was not a need, nor was it necessary. It was out of a manifestation of love of God's perfection that he wanted to share this. 3. God is a uncreated, undifferentiated, manifested reality. He is the essence of being itself for itself. We recieve our existance through him. If there is something that is before or something that trancends God...then that is God. 4. Where in the universe is the universe? Space and time and matter and energy all follow the natural laws that man has discovered , but there is a point in our knowlege that limits our ability to probe further than the moment prior to Plankes time. There is no before. There simply is a potential for something or not something. Every instance of there being something is a moment that the universe maintains it's homeostasis to support existance rather than non existance. This to me is rather profound when you consider how caotic the quantum foam is beneath our rather ordered biochemical existance as sentient organisms.. Ok..all dogma and no bark. Atheist and agnostic relax-- I am not stating any of this as fact so chill daddy-yo. edit for spacing by PB This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-06-2006 03:14 AM "One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
You just knew that I like to look stuff up, did'nt ya, Sherlock! . It would be boring otherwise, you know that!
So Mike! Why don't you just say that I don't want Dan to understand the key to my irrefutability.
Are you stalking poor innocent little deer? Dan's head is on my wall as I type. This message has been edited by Deerstalker, 04-06-2006 09:10 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
boolean writes: When it comes to figuring out what happened before the big bang, there are two main lines of thought:1) God has been around for eternity, and he created the universe 2) The pre-big bang universe has always been there in a very small state robinrohan writes: there is no reason to pick one over the other if the creation of the universe is all we are considering. Jar writes: For many of us, GOD is that which has always existed.The Big Bang relates to our universe. From our perspective, whether or not the singularity always existed or came into being is something that is simply unknown. What does seem to be indicated, at least from the evidence available so far is that there was a change at one point in that singularity. That change led to the universe we occupy. In summation, to even ask a question such as "Does God negate the need for His own existance?" is a question that we not only don't know but can't know. I suppose that from a theological perspective, God could suddenly talk to us through a donkey! Im not sure if He could actually make Himself not exist, unless He were to express the belief through us. Perhaps that is why it is blessed to not see and yet believe!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DeclinetoState Member (Idle past 6437 days) Posts: 158 Joined: |
This probably should be seen as a reply to comments made by a number of different posters here, so I'm making it a general reply.
Is Einstein's Theory of Relativity, in which we get the idea that time and space "bend" each other, a way to approach an understanding of God? In other words, does God exist in a dimension beyond what we've conceived, one in which time is as malleable as anything else--and perhaps truth and the natural laws of physics as well? We could never conceive of God because we can't really conceive of the dimension (other than in a hypothetical sense). If we could, however, we might see how God can be eternal and thus not needing to have been created, yet also see how the universe itself must be a product of creation. God may "negate" the need for his own existence in any universe which we understand, but not necessarily in any universe that can be conceived of.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024