Does 'God' exist?

  • Thread starter Alex
  • Start date
  • #71
TENYEARS
472
0
Megashawn, if you asked any elightened human being a question they would all answer from the same source no matter what the relgion. God does not rule us, god is part of all things becuase "God Is Everything". This was what I witnessed.

Truth may only be found in a place where you are afraid to go. Our egos keep us from it with incredible tricks, but it does exist.

Technology will not save us, only the truth will set anyone free.

And yes the messiah is comming again, the jews as well as the christians as well as the hindus, etc.. are all waiting. The messiah must be born from one place. You will find that place tomarrow morning when you wake up and wash you face in the mirror.

This is the truth of all christians, hindus, buddists, etc... Only a dam fools of each religion would argue the points.
 
  • #72
megashawn
Science Advisor
443
0
So then, essentially what your telling me is I'm god and pretty much the majority of the population is a bunch of idiots.


This is the truth of all christians, hindus, buddists, etc... Only a dam fools of each religion would argue the points

Because by the above logic, and noting the violence of one religion towards another, that most of them are complete fools.

You see, if things actually worked like you claim they do, things would in fact be much better then they are.
 
  • #73
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by megashawn
I agree with the bolded section, but from there on I've got issues.

Yes, physics and metaphysics is 2 different things.

Physics is proven, substantiated, and operates on the principles described in a physics book.

Metaphysics is much more complex, as any piece of fiction is. There is no proof for metaphysical claims (got some?) and no basis in the real world.

And if there was, then why hasnt The amazing Randy hand over the million bucks?
Well let's just say that out of the blue I happened to be a philanthropic billionaire who had the desire to hand over a million bucks to the next person I saw at random which, happened to be "you." But let's say I didn't want to be found out, so I would follow you home and wait for the opportunity to slip "the package" into your mailbox. Which I would, and I would leave, without none being the wiser.

So here you are, when you go out to check the mail the next day, you find yourself the beneficiary of a million bucks (the effect), but you haven't a clue as to how it got there? (the cause). Doesn't this kind of belie the way life works in general? Where we have the whole of creation in front of us (the effect), but without truly understanding the "hidden hand" that put it there? (the cause). This is really all that metaphysics is supposed entail -- be it spiritual or otherwise -- an attempt to understand the "first cause" of things. Or at least this is one of the definitions in the dictionary.

Oh, if you would like to read a different take on James Randi's million bucks, please follow this thread ... Tonight I Visit The The Bowlless Bowl (originally posted by TENYEARS).
 
  • #74
TENYEARS
472
0
Iacchus32, your post about a vision of chief Joesph intrigues me. I know it's quality of experience and for some reason it repeats upon me and I do know know why. Maybe this is the way in which it must be done. It can, the question is should it? Maybe the fishbowls are there for a reason? Maybe humankind is not ready for the truth or maybe it is I do not know. It seems in 5000 years humanity has not changed much.

There are a few where I work that have asked of visions which I have had. One day my response was why should I say anything anymore, you have not learned and only avoid things so you don't have to learn. People sometimes have to walk through the fire in order to learn.
 
  • #75
megashawn
Science Advisor
443
0
So here you are, when you go out to check the mail the next day, you find yourself the beneficiary of a million bucks (the effect), but you haven't a clue as to how it got there? (the cause).

Well, because I might happen to have a security camera on my mailbox. Lot of ppl are doing it to catch mailbox vandals.

I understand your point of view.

edit: My dog would definately bark as well.
 
  • #76
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by TENYEARS
Iacchus32, your post about a vision of chief Joesph intrigues me. I know it's quality of experience and for some reason it repeats upon me and I do know know why. Maybe this is the way in which it must be done. It can, the question is should it? Maybe the fishbowls are there for a reason? Maybe humankind is not ready for the truth or maybe it is I do not know. It seems in 5000 years humanity has not changed much.

There are a few where I work that have asked of visions which I have had. One day my response was why should I say anything anymore, you have not learned and only avoid things so you don't have to learn. People sometimes have to walk through the fire in order to learn.
And then again, what does a grub know about being a butterfly, that is, until that time comes? ... Which isn't to say it shouldn't be alluded to from to time to time, but maybe this is the purpose behind myths and fables?
 
  • #77
What if there are no gods, no magic? That single thought seems to scare people more than anything, except one other thought: what if there are no answers?
 
  • #78
radagast
484
1
Originally posted by Zero
...except one other thought: what if there are no answers?

Better no answers, than no questions.
 
  • #79
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Zero
What if there are no gods, no magic? That single thought seems to scare people more than anything, except one other thought: what if there are no answers?
Life itself is magic. And yet if there were no wonder or sense of awe about it, then what's the point? Why endow us with such a large brain and extensive nervous system, if not for the sake of realizing "the experience?"
 
  • #80
megashawn
Science Advisor
443
0
Life itself is magic. And yet if there were no wonder or sense of awe about it, then what's the point? Why endow us with such a large brain and extensive nervous system, if not for the sake of realizing "the experience?"

Perhaps, not only realizing the experience, but maybe someday being able to create our own "experience".

I mean, why would god create a society, knowing he'll have to destroy it, only to take the good ones out and start a new one, while torturing the bad.

It seems more our duty to turn our society into the dreams of the people who wrote the bible.

We can wait for god to do it.

Or we can try to get it done without him.

Don't you think god would be so proud?

I don't really see what you mean by saying life is magic. Life is understood. Magic is just another word for trick.
 
  • #81
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by megashawn
Perhaps, not only realizing the experience, but maybe someday being able to create our own "experience".

I mean, why would god create a society, knowing he'll have to destroy it, only to take the good ones out and start a new one, while torturing the bad.
Why separate the wheat from the chaff? It's not God who tortures the bad, it's the bad who torture themselves. This is the only reason why hell was created.


It seems more our duty to turn our society into the dreams of the people who wrote the bible.
In which case you would have to acknowledge there was a God.


We can wait for god to do it.

Or we can try to get it done without him.

Don't you think god would be so proud?
If you mean something similar to what the founding fathers did when founding this country, then I would say you had the right idea. :wink:


I don't really see what you mean by saying life is magic. Life is understood. Magic is just another word for trick.
With all the beauty, the splendor and diversity that exists, I would have to say yes, life is magical.
 
  • #82
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Life itself is magic. And yet if there were no wonder or sense of awe about it, then what's the point? Why endow us with such a large brain and extensive nervous system, if not for the sake of realizing "the experience?"

And why is it that everything with you has to be mystical? Why does there have to be 'magic' beyond tables and cars and Chex Mix?
 
  • #83
Originally posted by radagast
Better no answers, than no questions.

Better to ask useful questions, than to ask 'questions' for which we just make up answers.
 
  • #84
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Zero
And why is it that everything with you has to be mystical? Why does there have to be 'magic' beyond tables and cars and Chex Mix?
Hey I don't get a 'buzz' out of everything I do in life. Nor do I hit on the 'bong' every five minutes, as another of the PF Mentors 'implied.' And yet for the sake of consistency on this forum, this is one of those questions which can only be answered with a 'yes' or a 'no.'

Does God exist? Yes. Is the means by which we understand God mystical? Yes. If this is true and always has been true, then is there another means by which I can explain it? No.

If on the other hand God didn't exist, then the only answer could be 'no.'
 
  • #85
maximus
495
4
IACCHUS32: i believe your problem (no offense meant) is that you are unable to abandon the idea of a purpose to life. in thread after thread you ask "why do we exist, if not for a Purpose?". i would ask you, do you believe what science proves (<<i use this word lightly<<)? becuase purpose is impossible in QM, because no intended result can come from comlete randomness. therefore, life is an accident. will you respond, please? i wonder how it can be that you won't accept this.
 
  • #86
Iacchus32
2,313
1
The Life Within

Originally posted by maximus
IACCHUS32: i believe your problem (no offense meant) is that you are unable to abandon the idea of a purpose to life. in thread after thread you ask "why do we exist, if not for a Purpose?". i would ask you, do you believe what science proves (<<i use this word lightly<<)? becuase purpose is impossible in QM, because no intended result can come from comlete randomness. therefore, life is an accident. will you respond, please? i wonder how it can be that you won't accept this.
Hey, no offense taken. And yet I'm not prepared to accept that which is unfounded and illogical. :wink: Ha ha ha!

You see the argument exists between what we deem "external reality" (the science aspect) and "internal reality" (the religious aspect), which I don't necessarily see as disparaging, but rather that of a relationship, between "essence and form." And, while it's entirely possible to have a totally "objective reality" (i.e., as form), it could only happen if the subjective reality (the life within or essence) had died and there was nothing to animate or give life to the form, in which case it would be considered a "dead reality."

In other words, what is reality without the life (or soul) to animate it?

While consider what it would be like stumbling across the ruins of an acient civilization, bereft of the "actual life" that it entailed. It would be a "dead civilization" now wouldn't it?

This I think is the danger with science today, in its attempts to "objectify" everything and "cancel out" any notion of a "life within" (which to most of us is represented by God). Indeed one of these days it will be the ruins of our own civilization that someone will be "gawking at." :wink:

Remember, the founding of the United States was based upon one very important principle, The Freedom of Religion.
 
  • #87
heusdens
1,736
0


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Remember, the founding of the United States was based upon one very important principle, The Freedom of Religion.

Seems as if this principle has recently been updated.
It has now been added to this principle the Freedom to Conquer Others ...
 
  • #88
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by heusdens
Seems as if this principle has recently been updated.
It has now been added to this principle the Freedom to Conquer Others ...
Do you mean like when Iraq tried to conquer Iran, and proceeded to invade Kuwait? It's not like we arrived at their doorstep arbitrarily.

Besides that, you just side-stepped my whole argument! Hmm ... although it basically reiterates what I said in the previous thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=50364#post50364 :wink:
 
  • #89
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you mean like when Iraq tried to conquer Iran, and proceeded to invade Kuwait? It's not like we arrived at their doorstep arbitrarily.


I mean exactly that yes, when the US was helping Iraq in their conquering Iran, and at some instant later, US was helping Iran to conquer Iraq, and thereafter, US had no problems Iraq invading Kuwait, but thereafter started a war against Iraq to liberate Kuwait.

And that is why the US is now occupying , ehhh liberating Iraq.
 
  • #90
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by heusdens
I mean exactly that yes, when the US was helping Iraq in their conquering Iran, and at some instant later, US was helping Iran to conquer Iraq, and thereafter, US had no problems Iraq invading Kuwait, but thereafter started a war against Iraq to liberate Kuwait.

And that is why the US is now occupying , ehhh liberating Iraq.
So what does this really have to do with you side-stepping my previous post? This is all politics anyway, and has very little to do with the "ethics" of religion.
 
Last edited:
  • #91
radagast
484
1


Originally posted by Iacchus32
This I think is the danger with science today, in its attempts to "objectify" everything and "cancel out" any notion of a "life within" (which to most of us is represented by God). :wink:

It seems as if this is an anthropomorphizing of science. Science is a means to determine information about the objective, the internal (as in subjective) is outside the domain of science in that it cannot be deemed repeatable by others, it doesn't seem to be something which theories can be created and falsifiable predictions made.

It could also be said that the study of navel lint "objectify" navel lint and "cancel out" any notion of a "life within". Given the "life within" would be outside the domain of navel lint, is perhaps, an important consideration.
 
  • #92
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by radagast
It seems as if this is an anthropomorphizing of science. Science is a means to determine information about the objective, the internal (as in subjective) is outside the domain of science in that it cannot be deemed repeatable by others, it doesn't seem to be something which theories can be created and falsifiable predictions made.
If, by and large science is a result of the "human endeavor," and by and large effects its outcome, then what can I say? Are you saying science is a non-human agency, run by non-humans? Then hey, why don't we just pass a law, saying only monkeys can be scientists?


It could also be said that the study of navel lint "objectify" navel lint and "cancel out" any notion of a "life within". Given the "life within" would be outside the domain of navel lint, is perhaps, an important consideration.
The subjective reality is "you" man. The subjective reality is "me." If you wish to cancel out your own existence, then I guess that's your choice. Of course if you believe in determinism then I suppose that means there is no choice. Too bad.

See what I mean by "canceling out?"

And by the way, the "objective reality" is only the aftermath, of a lot of "internal things" at work which, have come and gone. In which case I would say you're living in the past. Aren't we all? This is why we can't find God, because He only exists in The Present.
 
  • #93
Ejderha
12
0
First of all HELLO to all. I am new here. I didn't know where to begin. So I post my opinion about god. English is not my mother language, so I am sorry for mistakes and everybody welcome for any correction.

In my opinion god is simply created by human beings for control. Of course by the help of holly books, surely they served some good purposes in the past as law...(!) They look different in the surface and in practice but all the books are telling the same thing. There is a god and he is unquestionably the creator... Honestly I have to say that it makes me sick. With all respect to believers...
The idea of a mighty god is simply pointing the arrogance of human being. "God created us and gave us our most precious abilities to worship himself" Well, everything about the god and the religions today serve for money and a domination fight over the planet. It is a very good basic to force people to murder and do horrible things also.
Of course there are lots of things to discuss about the god thing. In the terms of philosophy or science... But in my opinion the most important thing about god and the religion that they are the most dangerous socialogical problems. Social drugs. They provide the needed adrenaline and anger for war, peace and harmony for an ordered social life, which are infact only a kind of a mental terrorism practised on countless people.
By religion I mean all of them...
 
  • #94
Originally posted by Iacchus32


Does God exist? Yes. Is the means by which we understand God mystical? Yes. If this is true and always has been true, then is there another means by which I can explain it? No.


So you can't explain or justify it at all. We knew this, of course, since your mode of debate is a hallmark of religious thought. Intellectual laziness combined with a desire for pretty ideas to be true combine to form most religious and philisophical thought. 'God exists, therefore God exists' should be your sig line.
 
  • #95
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Zero
So you can't explain or justify it at all. We knew this, of course, since your mode of debate is a hallmark of religious thought. Intellectual laziness combined with a desire for pretty ideas to be true combine to form most religious and philisophical thought. 'God exists, therefore God exists' should be your sig line.
Are you trying to tell me God doesn't exist? It's like I said it's either yes or no.


Originally posted by Iacchus32
If on the other hand God didn't exist, then the only answer could be 'no.'
And yet neither you nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate that He doesn't exist. So who or "what" am I supposed to believe?
 
  • #96
Royce
1,514
0
Yes, God exists. No, it does not take a mystical experience to know that he exist or to know or talk with him. Can I prove it? Yes and have to myself nearly every day. Can I prove it to you? No.
That is something that only you can do for yourself. Even if I could you wouldn't accept it and would be right not to.

"If you see the Buddha walking down the street, kill it."
 
  • #97
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are you trying to tell me God doesn't exist? It's like I said it's either yes or no.


And yet neither you nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate that He doesn't exist. So who or "what" am I supposed to believe?

Believe as little as possible...that will get you farther than your current 'believe in the pretty lies' attitude.
 
  • #98
radagast
484
1
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet neither you nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate that He doesn't exist. So who or "what" am I supposed to believe?

Assuming this was a debating point, this would be considered a "Shifting the Burden of Proof" argument flaw.

With regards to debating the point:
The default position, with regards to existence of a god, where god doesn't have characteristics that allow for a simple, straightforward demonstration of her/his existence, is the negative. The reason for this is basic common sense. To prove her/his existence, only requires demonstrating unequivocal and unambiguious evidence of said existence, yet the proof that he/her doesn't exist requires the searching of all possible places of said existence [simultaneously] - which is both impractical and blatently impossible.

Just as with the question of the existence of Unicorns - the default is that they don't. It would only take one to prove such, but the searching of all possible places, in the universe, simultaneously, to prove they didn't.

If you have proven to yourself that god exists, fine, but in an argument where the evidence isn't unambiguous and unequivocal by all parties, then the rational default position for god existence has to be the negative. The argument for his existence would be require the debator to provide evidence for said argument.

This only pertains to debate. As to what you believe, the criteria for what you believe is strickly up to you.


Originally posted by Royce
If you meet the Buddha walking down the street, kill it

Picky point: The quote is 'If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him'.

I know very few in the west that understand the intent of this quote, though you may.
 
Last edited:
  • #99
Royce
1,514
0
I stand corrected. I obviously westernized unintentionally. Yes I understand its full meaning. BTW, years ago I read a book of that title. That's where I got the quote. It's one of my favorites. If I need to say it, we can only find the Buddha (or God) within ourselves, which we all have within us. If we encounter a/the Buddha outside of ourselves "it" is an imposter and probably in their words a demon or evil spirit bent on deceiving us. That was my point.

This is completely off topic, but everytime I think of that quote, I think that that is exactly what we (the Jews and Romans at least) did to Jesus. I don't yet know what to think of that or what the connection is other than the obvious. There is some deeper meaning or connection there or at least I feel there is. Any thoughts on that one?
 
  • #100
radagast
484
1
Originally posted by Ejderha
In my opinion god is simply created by human beings for control. Of course by the help of holly books, surely they served some good purposes in the past as law...(!) They look different in the surface and in practice but all the books are telling the same thing. There is a god and he is unquestionably the creator... Honestly I have to say that it makes me sick. With all respect to believers...
The idea of a mighty god is simply pointing the arrogance of human being. "God created us and gave us our most precious abilities to worship himself" Well, everything about the god and the religions today serve for money and a domination fight over the planet. It is a very good basic to force people to murder and do horrible things also.
Of course there are lots of things to discuss about the god thing. In the terms of philosophy or science... But in my opinion the most important thing about god and the religion that they are the most dangerous socialogical problems. Social drugs. They provide the needed adrenaline and anger for war, peace and harmony for an ordered social life, which are infact only a kind of a mental terrorism practised on countless people.
By religion I mean all of them...

Hello,

Since you say you mean all of them, answer me this:

1) Explain how Buddhism and Taoism have been used to 'murder and do horrible things'. How about Jainism?

2) Considering Buddhism and Taoism do not have the concept of sin, how have they been used to control humans?

3) Buddhism and Taoism have no god, no creator, or actual supernatural beings, how does this fit with what you just wrote?
 
  • #101
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Zero
Believe as little as possible...that will get you farther than your current 'believe in the pretty lies' attitude.
Beauty. Yes, what is wrong with beauty? And you're right, if it weren't for beauty, I probably wouldn't believe. And yet this is one thing that science seems to have the inability to explain, "beauty."

How does science go about explaining beauty? It would be so much easier if it didn't exist wouldn't it? :wink:
 
  • #102
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Beauty. Yes, what is wrong with beauty? And you're right, if it weren't for beauty, I probably wouldn't believe. And yet this is one thing that science seems to have the inability to explain, "beauty."

How does science go about explaining beauty? It would be so much easier if it didn't exist wouldn't it? :wink:
What are you talking about?!? Science explains beauty just fine, thank you.

My problem is that science may be cold to you(not to me), but it is solid. Your 'beauty' is a thin veneer covering nothing at all.
 
  • #103
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Zero
What are you talking about?!? Science explains beauty just fine, thank you.

My problem is that science may be cold to you(not to me), but it is solid. Your 'beauty' is a thin veneer covering nothing at all.
Okay, explain to me how science "appreciates" (and hence acknowledges) beauty? Isn't beauty one of those things science deems "subjective?"
 
  • #104
radagast
484
1
Originally posted by Iacchus32
If, by and large science is a result of the "human endeavor," and by and large effects its outcome, then what can I say? Are you saying science is a non-human agency, run by non-humans? Then hey, why don't we just pass a law, saying only monkeys can be scientists?

My intent was that you were 'personifying' science, as if it were a monolithic entity with a personality. If you wish to resort to ridicule to try and win your points, fine, but I must point out that it is an argument flaw, and unlikely to bother me either way. :wink:


The subjective reality is "you" man. The subjective reality is "me." If you wish to cancel out your own existence, then I guess that's your choice. Of course if you believe in determinism then I suppose that means there is no choice. Too bad.

See what I mean by "canceling out?"

And by the way, the "objective reality" is only the aftermath, of a lot of "internal things" at work which, have come and gone. In which case I would say you're living in the past. Aren't we all? This is why we can't find God, because He only exists in The Present.

Hmmm, all reality is in the present - does that mean we cannot find anything in reality?

Since I cannot produce evidence of how I experience or feel things, it is not readily observable to others and cannot be independently verified, is, by the definitions of science, outside the domain of science. That doesn't mean what I am feeling or what I experience internally isn't real, only outside the domain of science.

Saying science is trying to objectify everything is a little absurd, given the main definitions of science restrict it to the quest for knowledge about the objective.

Some here seem to forget that science, as a protocol for determining objective truth, has a focus which is narrowed such that many things are outside it's domain. Determining the existence of god [assuming no easily verifiable attributes, like living on Mount Olympus], is one of the things outside that domain. Determining one's own reasons for life is another. Finding a meaning in life, yet another. This doesn't mean they don't exist, only that it's outside the domain of science to investigate.

My own religious practice deals extremely intimately with being and living in the present, as well as my own subjective reality. I've never found any conflict with investigating the objective and living in the present, nor any problem with it 'cancelling me out'. I do try to maintain a level of clarity, with respect to what is agreed reality (the objective) and my subjective reality.
 
Last edited:
  • #105
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Okay, explain to me how science "appreciates" (and hence acknowledges) beauty? Isn't beauty one of those things science deems "subjective?"

So what if it does? Just because medicine calls pain subjective, that doesn't mean medicine disregards it. Us rational folks just don't think subjective equals supernatural, the way you do. A thing can have perfectly rational, materialistic reasons, and still be good.



For instance, we know that food tastes good because we ned it to eat, and 'good' flavor is our brain's way of driving the body. The same goes for 'bad' flavors. 'Good' and 'bad' taste is a subjective thing with a biological explanation...that doesn't mean I can't also absolutely love a juicy steak, just because I know why I love it.
 

Suggested for: Does 'God' exist?

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
348
  • Last Post
Replies
30
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
796
Replies
25
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
373
Replies
22
Views
913
Replies
14
Views
501
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
541
Top