Does God Exist?

But heres the thing. God has revealed himself as much as he needs to, to accomplish what his will is. He wants a person to actually strive for a relationship with him. Just as Jesus said " keep on knocking, keep on seeking"The insider information is available for all to see in the bible.

 

I think he could do a little more. I don't think God has introduced himself/Itself properly. We must look like fish in an aquarium to him. He just gives us a little bit of fish food and we're supposed to be fine with that. I don't want to swim around aimlessly; I want to know what I'm doing. How many different variations on God are out there? You don't think there's one solitary thing God could explain to us to help us a little bit?

 

You provide a quote that says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING regarding the laws of the universe?

"Go read the bible" what a generic response.

 

I don't know how you reason to there. I was commenting on your hope of resolution to thread, by thread, in relation to the thread title.

There is no truth that can be known by anyone but that they themselves find it acceptable. Even if it is true if you do not accept it you will not see it is so. We are our only measure, the thread cannot make that determination for you.

 

Because you said there wasn't any hope of finding a resolution here.

And you're saying it again here... So God couldn't possibly make a believer out of me in a thread?

 

Well you see, this quote from the Quran
"And whoever is patient and forgiving, these most surely are actions due to courage" clearly suggests that direct interaction with God must be postponed until your heart stops beating and your body begins decomposing.

Said in jest..

What types of ways could you be made a believer from a thread?

 

You didn't say your resolution you said, "I guess it's crazy for me to keep coming into this thread hoping there's been some resolution."

Of your resolution I say it is your own to resolve. So no I am not claiming to know the mind of god. You may in fact come to your own resolution by virtue of the discussion, however the discussion will probably continue until there is no more interest.

 

That's all semantics. I mean the same thing by a resolution for me and "some resolution".

I'm just not putting it past God to be able to convince everyone in this thread that he exists with words alone. Maybe the poster "God" could tell us all of the events that will transpire in the next 48 hours or something and then also be kind enough to tell us which religion is right and what the hell those divinely inspired people meant by their words so we can all stop arguing aimlessly.

 

Well I can only go on what you said and don't think about much guessing what you mean. At the same time it is not your place to tell me what I am saying. I don't consider this discussion to be arguing. It is more like refining through the examination of statements. I have a purpose and am not aimless. Thanks for sharing your impressions and allowing us to guess at what you mean.

I can tell you that in the next 48 hours you will experience a series of sensations one followed by the other, some of which you will find pleasant and some not so.

 

I'm sure this thread will continue but really if God supposedly knows the laws of nature better than us and what not, this really is an argument that should be...

/thread

 

Pray for understanding and clarification earnestly and the answer be given to you and never put God to the test.

 

I think we must be having a parallel conversation. I think biological imperative does illustrate why we need religion and ethics, because biological imperative by itself just gives us more babies--unless you want to define "biological" so broadly that it includes cultural and intellectual dimensions of human existence. For deeper meaning relating to our own quest for what it's all about, we need to turn to the humanities: philosophy, religion and ethics--the disciplines that take our quest seriously. "Biological imperative" is a blind, impersonal, pitiless thing that tends to be the opposite of meaning as the quest for human significance. At one level, culture can be reduced to biology, and biology can be reduced to physics, but the more we do that, the less meaningful (i.e.,significant to our lives in telling us why in a way that gives us a sense of purpose) it becomes. The reductionist approach fails to answer the big questions in our lives that most people consider important. The reductionist approach isn't a finding of science so much as it is an assumption that some scientists and their fans mistakenly believe is an inherent part of the scientific enterprise. For another view, by another scientist, see the works of complex systems researcher Stuart Kaufman, who argues for emergence in the development of self-organizing systems that defies reduction. (At Home in the Universe; Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion ) Biological imperatives are and have always been the province of science, specifically biology, and many scietinsts are atheists, so it is logical that I quote them. Understanding the limitations of their formulations is useful as a point of departure in looking for more adequate answers. I also don't draw a sharp distinction between atheists and theists when it comes to wisdom, and will quote anyone whom I think has something worthwhile to say. While I find Dawkins, Harris and Wilson to be off base on some of their positions, I find them to be insightful on others, and I consider myself better off from reading their books. My library is consists about half and half religious and anti-religious books, and my thinking reflects the influences of both.

My point is that biological imperatives per se can do little to satisfy our search for meaning in our lives. To do that, we need to look elsewhere--some to existentialism, in which we try to find our own meaning, others to religions and philosophical systems that purport to provide meaning for us. Psychologist and concentration camp survivor Viktor Frankl considers the quest for meaning to be the most basic human imperative (Man's Sense for Meaning.) He noticed that the people who survived the concentration camp experience with their sanity intact tended to be those who could find meaning there. And the meaning varied for each individual. Some could find it in fond memories; others in a ray of sunlight shining through a crack. But he argues that lots of folks try to find meaning in all the wrong places: in wealth, status, power, sensual indulgence, which are blind alleys leading ultimately to an unsatisfying existence. According to Frankl: "The way in which a man accepts his fate and all the suffering it entails, the way in which he takes up his cross, gives him ample opportunity — even under the most difficult circumstances — to add a deeper meaning to his life. It may remain brave, dignified and unselfish. Or in the bitter fight for self-preservation he may forget his human dignity and become no more than an animal. Here lies the chance for a man either to make use of or to forgo the opportunities of attaining the moral values that a difficult situation may afford him. And this decides whether he is worthy of his sufferings or not."
It's this meaning, the meaning that gives ultimate satisfaction, that I'm concerned with.

For more on meaning, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/

 

It just seems obvious, if there is a God and he created the Universe, it would just seem reasonable to think he might know how the universe works a little bit better than we do.

 

I don't know, have you tried the next thread over?

 

..

 

Yeah, because you say its a perfect little oasis, but your definition of perfection somehow includes the death of 99% of all species which have ever existed, so it certainly wasn't perfect for them, was it? I can conceive of a better system; for example, a system where merely 98% of all species died, is already better than your supposedly omnipotent creator could have conceived. Really I'm pointing out that to call this planet "perfect for us" is an anthropomorphism. It's plainly NOT perfect for us, we could create a better earth had we merely the technical prowess (and if we survive long enough as a species, that prowess will be well within our grasp)

The argument says that god is either evil or impotent, not non-existent. If there is evil, and god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then we have a problem don't we? From whence comes the evil? Can you explain how there can be suffering, death, psychopaths, and child rapists, in the presence of an all powerful, all knowing god who apparently has the concept of justice high on his list of priorities?

So then you chose to not say that god is evil, but rather that he is impotent? Or that he doesn't care? Or that he can fix it, and wants to fix it, but still doesn't, for some reason you will provide me, which you received not via god, but via just sitting at a computer thinking thoughts about it? Does it not bother you that there seems to be an eery silence from the one party in this conversation who might put an end to the debate (not to mention the suffering of billions); that is, Yaweh? Where are you old chap? We've got some questions about all this malarky, it'd be great if you'd pop in and check the forums now and then, because us simple people down here are confused about just what on earth is going on with you and us.

Unless of course you aren't actually a real thing out there, in which case I'm just talking to myself, so please ignore me.

You mean the godless science which produced the printed bible you read? What about the computer you're posting on? How about your sunglasses in your avatar? Or the medicines you take? What can possibly be godless, if god is real? How is he not overflowing within all things, especially his own creation? If god is in Israel, then god is in your tylenol.

Which is neither here nor there. You might as well say that modern medicine is flawed because it lacks a relationship with poseidon.




Science and religion will never "merge", nor are they compatible, nor are they seeking the same things. Religion seeks to affirm its own claims against any presentation of evidence. Any backtracking of religions in order to accomodate overwhelming evidence to the contrary is always laughably late and without a hint of chagrin. You cannot pick two different modes of discourse or human endeavors which are more opposed to each other.

It is a poetic wish to say that they are anything alike to each other, and the presence of both in any given individual is merely an example of cognitive dissonance. "I should use science when buying my vegetables and choosing my heart medication, but for the purpose of life and origin of the universe, I'll just believe without evidence these propositions in this book because it makes me feel good to do so"

 

I want to define biological imperative exactly how I quoted it. Lol

Ill display it again for you :

"Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. Include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking, and group forming."

Focusing on those last two... Perhaps the reason why there is religion and ethics is due to the need for quality of life-seeking and group forming, if you are of the persuasion they are beneficial. Those less fond of religion may perhaps suggest religion satisfies needs of territorialism and competition. Perhaps using religion to satisfy varying biological imperative needs may explain why there are discrepancies in religious belief of the same religion, which you and others have mentioned.

The contemplative 'meaning of life' question(s) you are seeking are, in my opinion at this time, akin to like First world problems.

First world problems are those problems which may effect our leisure or the excess of First World Culture.. I.E. the internet connection dropping for the evening.

Similarly attributing some overarching cosmic significance to the meaning of life question(s) require circumstance. A person usually has to have lived several years to even become developed enough to be able to conceptualize and ponder such questions and perhaps be somewhat educated to cogently contemplate them, which has not always been the norm throughout many places in history.

 

Would you mind examining this a little?

First who do you think God is? Do you think God created the universe and mankind? If this is what you think God is, do you think he might be more intelligent than we are and might even know us better than we know are selves? So wouldn't know exactly how much information we need, no more no less?

He gave us a book that tells us his name, who he is and who we are and where we are at and the possible futures we can have and how we get there.

That is more than likely, although I think we probably mean a lot more than that.

If one is to believe the Bible, he has done a lot more than that. He provided his precious only begotten son so that those who want it can have wonderful future.

There are those who would say the Bible could help with that.

I guess that would depend on what you consider God to be. Those who study the Bible believe there is only one true God, with no variations.

What did you have in mind?

 

If you wanted God to use this thread to "make a believer out of me" he could very easily do so but you must realize God is not trying to force anyone to be a believer.