Does God Exist?

I knew it was....how could you not know.

 

Sorry for the verbal errors I am typing on a phone and it is very fiddly!

 

Thedope:

What plus what equals two of what, rather than zero of what?

Yes, I agree, you can claim such a vague statement is non-contradictory, but that's only because it doesn't contain any subject matter that can be contradicted.

Once again, what plus what, if it equaled zero of what, would be self condradictory? In that vague statement you actually can neither claim to be logical or contradictary.

There isn't an all encompassing everything, there is only being that is known and being that is unknown. The words 'existence/reality/being/everything', etc. are used just for simplicity; they're symbols, and like all symbols, they're tools for expression.

Tell me honestly, if to avoid what appears to be a condradiction, I had simply said there is constant motion, wouldn't you have wondered what the scope of that statement was? Yet, since the scope is all known and unknown things, I used the word "everything" for short.

By your logic one could say that the statement, "there're no absolutes", is contradictory, because such a statement would essentially mean, "there're absolutely no absolutes." But, I'm not denying the utility of the word 'absolute', I'm deny that there are absolutes. Just like I deny that there is an all encompassing reality, but I use the word 'reality' nonetheless.

How, according to you, can one express the lack of absolutes, using words?

You set a standard that can't be met, if you happen to find it convenient then one's word must be so explicit that they would either say nothing or go on so long as to say everything. Now should I apply that same standard to you, I then can question everyword you use, and question the words you use to explain those words, and so on. Basically, you're just obfuscating this conversation by setting those standards.

You were putting words before reality, which to me seemed like worship. Below you explain how you worship words.

True terms? Why, because you say so, or because it's common knowledge? This conversation is for too complex, unusual, or obscure to be compared to common knowledge terms like apples.

When you say, "truth is relitve to true terms", you're denying the fact that truth is relative to reality, which can only be described using terms, which are symbols.

 

Many other are and are saying that he hasn't so far then it doesn't exist.

Have you ever heard the old joke about the man who died in a flood waiting for God to rescue him? He turned down three boat rescues and a helicopter rescue waiting for God to rescue him. When he got to heaven he asked God why didn't he save him and God replied; "What do you mean? I sent three boats and a helicopter."

No, it doesn't. People don't test God to "learn" something, they're testing God because they're trying to get over. You ever read any of the tests that the scribes and Pharisees put to Jesus? They weren't trying to learn they were trying to get over on Jesus, make him look foolish.

That is just not true.

What did you have in mind?

 

Once again, it is a quote and is talking about the sharing of water not "kool-aid".

 

Not at all, God cares deeply about individuals.

How nice of you to care but God is not a human, he is a spirit being and as such does not have a physical location nor does he need sustenance.

Okay.

A little dancing on a pin head?

As I pointed out, there very well be beings that have no "physicality".

Well the are some humans live right now who say they know already.

God is not interested in forcing you to make up your mind, relax and take all the time you need.

 

Ha! Finally something we can agree on but I'm not the one that holds these wacky beliefs.

 

That's acceptable if you're FEMA. If you're Yaweh, my standards for intervention, miracles and evidence are proportionally higher.

If it's something a human being could have done, I do not accept it as proof of the biblical god's existence.

 

Do you exist?

 

I think you think you're being realistic because deep down inside you're afraid he's not coming. Never mind how smart it is that he might be coming for a moment. I just want to know what's REALLY to stop God from visiting this thread. Never mind what I want or anybody wants for a moment. Can't God just want to do something and do it? It can't possibly do any harm, since it's God.

 

It seems you are taking an old joke a little too seriously aren't you? And since you are taking this old joke so seriously, in the end he was talking to God, which even for you should be enough proof.

 

What in the world are talking about? Afraid he's not coming? Coming where? To this thread? I'm not afraid God is not coming to this thread, because I know God is not coming to this thread but I would say his representatives are probably already here.

God designed and created the Universe with rules and those rules are interdependent and unless God decides that he no longer wishes this Universe and us along with it to exist, there are certain lines that God can not cross.

 

I understand where you're coming from, in fact I've made more or less the same argument in response to a video posted with some preeminent physicists discussing the universe starting from nothing. However, The idea of infinity doesn't seem any more sensible to me, since everything we can observe: from ourselves, to animals, plants, cells, stars, etc. Is finite and exists temporally.

Perhaps we are just not mentally equipped to conceptualize certain notions. Do you really grasp like antimatter? that stuff is completely annihilating the matter which we can observe and even made of out of existence upon interaction 'out there'? or assuming the prevailing current physics is accurate, the notion that there is dark energy around us which has negligible observable effect on us when say we toss a ball in the air or various other activity?

 

Infinity is simply all that there can be, any possible event with non-zero probability will inevitably occur. So i guess God could be in there somewhere, but its a pretty long stretch ... especially the variety of God depicted in the popular religions.

What exactly are the criteria for an entity to be considrered God?

 

I don't have too much knowledge of physics.I've read a few books like a lot people,but not retained much information from them.I'm coming from a more abstract position based upon personal philosophical musings.As I've said in other threads I find both concepts of infinity and finitude to be equally impossible.It is impossible to conceptualize "nothing",a spaceless space of no existence as it implies a space for that spaceless space to exist.How could there be a "nothingness" without extension and time?How could there be a boundary to this extension,like some kind of wall.What is beyond the wall? Nothing?An infinite extension also seems impossible.These dilemmas are illuminate why even some intellectuals choose to follow a super-numinous path at times,a kind of holistic spirituality somewhere in the middle ground of disbelief.

 

Infinity initial wiki definition:

Going by that definition, are you not creating a paradox when you are limiting infinity to "simply" all that there can be?

I assume based on prior discussions, you are approaching the concept of infinity from more of a strict mathematical respect rather than philosophical idea. Earlier in the discussion, I mentioned my qualms with the term 'miraculous' being used in this discussion with natural scientific explanations as compatible descriptions, given that the 'miraculous' feats of God carry a completely different connotation. Perhaps in a similar respect, the distinction of the term infinity can be distinguished amongst a conceptual philosophical idea and a mathematical concept or other uses.

Going by your definition for a moment, I would like to understand how the math part of physics can add or multiply to infinity if it is "all there can possibly be?" On the surface, it seems like a conceptually sloppy approach. Is it just referring to the perceptual 'infinity' in any given system?


The criteria for an entity to be considered God is a worthwhile matter to disseminate for discussion, especially if you don't want threads to run on for infinity This allows for a chance to address the criteria to be responded to, rather than the amorphous depictions of God which are put forth. I came across this criteria the other day from a philosophy paper, which I think is fair in regards to the commonly put forth notions of a personal God.

 

The mathematical symbol for infinity represents a concept,or imaginary notion of infinity.It doesn't represent that concept to be an actuality or probable state.We have the concept of infinity in our heads.As far as this goes,we can try and hold infinity in our minds.In a certain sense it really is in our heads.If anything,sentient beings such as ourselves have evolved to be the way the universe comes to observe itself.Taken like this,we ourselves are Gods.

 

I don't follow how we become Gods and all of what that implies just by being sentient beings which are aware of the universe.

 

Because maybe there is no conscious creator God and we are the most godlike beings in Town.Maybe we are the only conscious beings around,or perhaps share this state of consciousness with other sentient beings in the universe,the self-observing universe like an eye which has grown around in a U shape to take a look at itself.I rarely come to conclusions,always in a state of flux,so I thought I'd just throw that out for discussion.It's an idea I got from a book by Paul Davies called "God and the New Physics" which I read about 20 years ago so I admit I am probably rehashing some garbled remnants of that.I think it's an interesting idea though.Maybe we are merely demi-gods.

 

Does it then follow we un-God when we fall asleep, get blackout drunk, knocked out from anasthesia (or physically violent methods), fall into coma, or other states of unawareness?