Does God Exist?

Mitchell, I don't quite agree with you on the specifics, but in the larger picture i guess we're on the same side anyways.


Yes. As i said in my previous post, that's what i believe. And no, no one can reasonably satisfy me, because there isn't hard evidence to the contrary. NEITHER is there hard evidence for it, but that's where the individual can make his own decision as to which he feels is a better theory. Though i do include bacteria in my definition of life. Their mutations don't count, to me, because these microorganisms, for instance tuberculosis bacterium, may evolve into other strains of TB, but they won't mutate into cholera bacteria. Therefore i believe that this does not in any way prove evolution. But someone looking at it from another angle could draw different conclusions.
Since I'll be losing my cable connection for a couple weeks and will only have dialup, i won't post in this thread anymore --takes too long to load-- and i've had a chance to extensively air my views... I do like the debate, tho.

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I don't see why it's a touchy subject. You either believe in it, you don't, or you just don't really care.

Personally I lean towards not believing or rather not really caring.

If he does exist, he was not my direct creator. My mother and father are the ones who directly contributed to my existance, not him. I certainly don't answer to my grandparents except of course out of common courtesy or because I happen to like them.

Basically the same reason why I refuse to answer to anyones claims of past misdoings on either a racial or any other effort, they did it then, not me now.

But concerning the last bit I suppose most of us will have some form of biase towards a race until proven otherwise either on an individual level or otherwise, but that's just how it is.

Anyway, I'm hoping it doesn't. When I finally drop off I want to be really dead not in some pit of flames or with bright lights shining in my poor eyes or however people portray it.

I guess for example it's easier to believe there is life after death and what not. I don't find it easy to swallow my own belief that when I die that is it, no more just dead, but I do accept it.

Oh well to each their own I guess, as long as it doesn't start cutting into and affecting other peoples lives. I don't go on and on about my beliefs on this particular topic (unless perhaps asked or provoked within reason), and I certainly don't appreciate the fools that knock on my door every week or bugging me in the middle of the street everytime I just want to pick up some bread sheesh lol.

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Evidently you do care or you wouldn't bother posting on this thread. Anyway....

I'm glad that this thread went up because it is a good discussion. I also like that everyone is so respectful on Astahost. It really does cut down on unnecessary time. Thanks everyone, glad you could participate and I enjoyed reading your posts.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

This is one more bullshit argument. I do not understand why people start them. There is no "supreme being" at all. God is NO BEING. Although yes he at times does take incarnations of a being, or makes empowers a being with certain powers that demonstrate his existence. He is out of space-time complex. He cannot be compared to a 'being'.

But the question that remains un answered throughout is that WHERE DOES HE BELONG TO? What is beyond this space time complex? Where the F* are we? No religion correctly answers it to satisfaction.

Anyhow read the book "Was God an Astronaut" and you will come across startling discoveries and probably will cease to believe in Old Testament, Mahabharata etc where God is described as accessible by humans. The Gods in these books represent a powerful alien instead... But yes what I believe is, as per Gita, we are in a space-time complex and God isn't. He created this universe for a purpose and it is solved when a human attains moksha...

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Uhhh in relation to Graffiti's post (#28):

Though it is a good question, a tale or a third hand are not essential to *survive*. From what I understand, survival is basically what comes first.

In order to survive we need a heart and other organs that can sustain good enough for the enviroment we live in. So if we lived in a higher climate where a larger heart and what not would make our survival that much better (or just plain possible) it makes more sense that future generations would develop it.

Don't know many jungle people that needed tails to live..... lol.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

IMO

A person like Jesus Christ could have existed. But as a magician or sorts like that. I don't believe in these forces of a supernatural being controlling us at all. It's our power, the human mind.

In every age and time people pop up everywhere with these ideas which we could classify as a cult or religion. Thing is in the age of science, proof, "pix or it didn't happen" we still clutch so dearly something we can't easily refute because it happened all too long ago with no photographic or video evidence.

Still I find Religion has served a role well in the past; where greed and violence reigned far more than they do now - they may chop someone's arm off but lose their afterlife in heaven. Now? Principles we sabotage ourselves with, especially extremists. We need to embrace the power of the human mind. For all too many impossible and easily fall into the extremist brainwashers.

Oh well I had quite a drink and I'm probably writing down nonsense. Excuse me for that.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Being simply means that which is. If God has no being then there is no God. Therefore your words are double talk. I also believe that God exists outside time and space, for He created time and space. But that just means that he is not confined by the mathematical relationships which bind everything in this universe together. So God is - which is to say that He has being - is a being, which is not bound by these space and time relationships. Of course He can be compared to other being for there all types of relational comparisons. God is more powerful. God knows more. God created everything else, and everything else was created by Him. I don't think that God is a finite being. I don't think that God has any inherent rational limits except those which He himself creates. But this too is a basis of comparison.


"Where" is a question that only has meaning in a system of spatial relationships, so if God is outside the system of spatial relationships to which we belong then this question has no meaning. But it is a mistake to think of God as completely outside time and space unless He has no interaction with the phsical universe, and to me it is clear that He does interact. But since His interaction is not limited by spatial relationships, we say that God is everywhere. This is the traditional paradox of God's transcendance (out there) and immanence (within us and everywhere).


So, this question only makes sense within the system of spatial relationships of our physical universe and the answer is well known: We are in the outer reaches of the Virgo Supercluster of galaxies, in the Orion arm of the Milky Way galaxy, on the third planet of the star we call Sol.


That is because this is not a question which religion asks. This is more properly a topic of metaphysics: the study of the nature of reality.

Everything in this universe is a form of energy. In fact, the whole universe is one single complex form of energy. This form is highly mathematical. Every bit of this energy of the universe has a quantity, position and many quantifiable properties that change in time according to definite mathematical rules. Everything in the world that we see including our own bodies are a part of this form and bound by these mathematical rules. For example, one of these rules is gravity, and if you step off the roof of a twenty story building you will accelerate towards the ground in a mathematical precise and relentless fashion, with a mathematically calculable collison when you reach the ground.

But these mathematical rules, position and quantity are not absolute. This mathematically defined form of the universe does have limits. As physics studied the fundamental structures of energy of which everything is composed - the elementary particles, it discovered something called the uncertainty principle. These particles have irreducable uncertainties in their mathematical properties. Even the quantity of their energy is uncertain during short periods of time according to dE x dt ~ 6.626x10^27 Js. This is an extremely small uncertainty but it is definitely there and it is definitely irreducible.

There are events which force the uncertainties of particle's measurable quantities to collapse into a definite measure, which in physics is refered to as measurement events or wave collapse. And it has been proven that the results of these events have no cause within the range of phenomena that is an acceptable subject of study in physics. This either means that these results have no cause at all or that the physical world view constructed from what is measurable and objectively observable is not complete. For the non-physicist it comes as no great surprise that there is more to the world than what can be measured, but for the physicists it was quite a shock.

In any case this does suggest that there is being which is outside this mathematical construction which we call the physical universe, and by abstract extention there is no reason we cannot think of this being as consisting of forms of energy which are simply not a part of the mathematical relationships of our physical universe. I envision a "sea" of relatively formless energy "in" which such things as our universe "floats" but without (and this is the hard part) spatial or temporal relationships. Other beings that would be found there are any of those things which we think exist but which we call "spiritual" since they do not seem to be objectively observable.


I am familiar with the content of this book and I have come to no such conclusions. God may be intellectually inaccessible to human reason and beyond our definitons and manipulations, but God created this universe as a womb of life. God created life as something which He could have an intimate relationship with as nuturer, cultivator, shepherd, teacher and parent. If we have no access to God, nevertheless God has access to us, and He is a giver of gifts which we can receive if we open to receive them. For as living beings we are finite with infinite potentiality as the perfect mirror image of God's infinite actuality, and thus we were made for an eternal relationship with Him. And so I must fervently disagree with your idea of our purpose because our purpose is eternal and any achievement we make with His aid whether you call it salvation, sanctification, enlightenment, or moksha, it is only one step on a neverending path.

--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------


On the first thing you say, we can agree. Relationship and control are mutually exclusive concepts. If God desired control He would have designed us as He did the angels to be and do exactly no more and no less that what we were designed to be and do. But the human mind is simply our true physical being which resides within our bodies and which dies when the body dies. It is our spirit, created by the exercise of freewill in the choices we make, which exists outside the time and space of the physical universe and which continues to exist eternally. Our freewill lies at the heart of the process which distinguishes living organisms from inanimate objects. Life and freewill are quantitative, which means that not all living things are equally alive, and even human beings can be more alive or less so, although in this sense it is more commonly called consciousness even though it is really the same thing. And that is where our freewill has a catch, because not all choices are equal. Many choices may simply be a matter of our own uniqueness but some are choices which decide whether we attain a greater life (and consciousness) or whether we spiral down into a death of habit and stagnation.


I am a physicist, but I do not belong to this cult which thinks that science has all the answers and solutions to the human condition. Science is about only what is objectively observable, but life is more that that. This cult in the forms of nazism and communism nearly destroyed the world, so I surely hope that most people are wise enough to avoid going down that dead end again. If you really want to look to the future and avoid the failures of the past then I would suggest that instead of dismissing and condemning the opinions of others that you instead attempt to love and appreciate people of every culture and religion and learn what they have to teach you first.

Proof is a trap and a delusion. Proof only exists in a very few areas of knowledge like mathematics. And irony of ironies, one of the few things that you can prove, is that you cannot prove that mathematics is consistent. Certainty is a crutch for small children. There are too many things in life which are too important in which the uncertainty is irreducible. Love is one of these things. Love only exists because you believe in it, not the other way around. Therefore to grow up we must leave the crutch of certainty behind and learn to make leaps of faith, which simply means that we must make our own choices in regards to some of these uncertainties in life and live according to our choices.


These extremists are just people like you. They have failed to love and appreciate people of other cultures and religions. They are so wrapped up in their own point of view that they cannot learn from anyone else, they can only destroy them. If you think that the solution is to eliminate the different ways that people think then you are exactly like them, and it is you who are stuck in the past and cannot create a future. Unity is not uniformity. Unity can only be achieved if everyone embraces the beauty of diversity.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Hey mitchellmckain sorry but you sound so frustrated of life... you surely need a God to make you happy



Uh well, so you say that God has physical existence? No dear, I think he is no where close to Physical existence. If God were so simple (to have knowledge and intelligence then he wouldn't be God but a higher superset of Human being). I understand your mathematical universe concept and my religion (like all other Dharmic religions) also propagates the fact that this world is nothing but "Maya" or a false illusion. Well you argue that God has to have some connection with us in the space-time complex. To that, I think you know already that most electromagnetic waves do not exist purely in the space time complex. For example Light has a particle nature that makes it present in the Space-time complex and it has a Wave nature that does not interact with the space-time complex. This is what was illustrated by Einstein's theory of relativity. Light has a constant speed regardless of its relation with any other moving object. In our case, it's our mind that interacts with the electromagnets to a great degree. Scientists studying our brain are baffled by it's construction. Unlike previous theory that all memories are equally distributed in the neural networks in our brain, it has been observed that the brain follows the holographic model. The outcome may possibly be that it's our brain that is the point of contact between our God and us.

The holographic model can also explain a lot of unexplained "paranormal" phenomenon. But still talking about God, he is not definable atleast as of now when we lack proper knowledge of this universe.



As about the theory of "Was God an Astronaut" it is very much evident after researching on the facts mentioned in the book that Gods mentioned in Old Testament, Mahabharata and Epic of Gilgamesh were indeed Alien species.



All the three books mentioned above talk of irrefutably similar stories and even similar characters, and all of them talk of interacting with Heavenly Gods who came down in flying chariots and gave them weapons to defeat others. God would never do that. Even in Mahabharata, the Pandavas are given a weapon called the Brahmastra by the heavenly Gods. Brahmastra was an ancient Nuclear Weapon. Anyway I wont argue on this because it depends on the belief of the people.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

You'd have to wonder how something exists that has that kind of power and potential eh.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Why do you say that? What did I say that sounds fustrated. Is there any basis to your judgement of me?

As living beings we have the innate capacity to become more than we are. That is our infinite potential. But because we are finite beings with finite knowledge we are blind to our own possibilities and blind to the full consequences of our choices. God is the parent of all life. God raises life up to realize its greater potentialities. As an infinite being with infinite knowlege, God has the knowledge that we lack. So, I am saying that you need God to realize your potential.


I did not say that. There is a difference between physical existence and spiritual existence. I explained the difference. If you disagree with my explanation please explain why.


God is infinite, and we are finite. Therefore God is not simply higher but categorically different. Having knowledge and intellegence are not limitations. Not having intellegence or not having knowledge would be a limitation. If God has such limitations then these limitations would require an explanation. But if God is without limit then there are no limitations to explain.


If the world is nothing but illusion, then your active participation in it is a willful escape from reality. So, if you truly believe this, then why do you humor your delusions? Why do you participate in nonsense?


No I do not argue any such thing. God does not require any connection with us. I simply argued that God created us for a purpose. I believe that purpose is for a relationship with us.



I do not know any such thing. As a physicist I know that we represent light as a mathematical construct called a wave function. And we have mathematical equations that describe how these wave functions change with time in perfect agreement with all of our measurements and objective observations. Describing light as a particle or a wave are just techniques used to visualize the nature of light in different limited circumstances. Clearly light is neither of these visualizations, because the behavior is inconsistent with them in different circumstances. The physical description of light as the wave function is perfectly consistent and is defined completely within the space-time structure of the physical universe.


What you are refering to is the a result of the Minkowsky structure of space-time. Everything massless has a velocity with a magnitude of about 2.997x10^8 m/s relative to all things with mass no matter what the velocity of that thing with mass is. All things with mass have velocities with magnitudes less than 2.997x10^8 m/s relative to all other things with mass. These facts are all a part of the mathematical relationships between everything which is objectively observable and measurable.


Yes I am quite aware of the holographic model. In fact this is one of the significant pieces of evidence that brain is nothing like a computer or a machine that controls our actions. Cases of brain damage has shown that although specific areas of the brain are normally assigned specific functions, these functions can be reassigned to different locations of the brain when there is damage. Thus in most of the brain, it is, in fact, only the total amount of damage which contributes to impairment. This is entirely consistent with the idea that the human mind is a living organism in the information flows within the brain, which is adaptable to changes in its evironment (the brain).

I am exceeding the maximum number of quotes so from here it is the old fashioned way.

"The outcome may possibly be that it's our brain that is the point of contact between our God and us. The holographic model can also explain a lot of unexplained 'paranormal' phenomenon. "

But it is clear that God is not objectively observable or measureable - not physical as you say. Therefore to understand the contact between physical beings and God, you must explain how there can be connection between the physical (consisting of this mathematical description of everything measurable and objectively observable) and things which are not physical.

"But still talking about God, he is not definable atleast as of now when we lack proper knowledge of this universe."

Now that is an odd thing for you to say. If God is outside the space and time which is part of the structure of this universe, then how will "proper knowledge of this universe" provide a means to define God?

"As about the theory of 'Was God an Astronaut' it is very much evident after researching on the facts mentioned in the book that Gods mentioned in Old Testament, Mahabharata and Epic of Gilgamesh were indeed Alien species."

But no such thing is evident to me. What is evident to me is that contact with alien beings lacks the evidence consistent with physical phenomena and eludes objective observation and measurement just as paranormal and religious experiences do, which means they all lack that which is characteristic of everything in the physical description of reality. Giving different names to spiritual beings (calling them alien species) and finding reasons to ridicule the religious texts of other peoples is a typical behavior found in religious groups.

"All the three books mentioned above talk of irrefutably similar stories and even similar characters, and all of them talk of interacting with Heavenly Gods who came down in flying chariots and gave them weapons to defeat others. God would never do that. Even in Mahabharata, the Pandavas are given a weapon called the Brahmastra by the heavenly Gods. Brahmastra was an ancient Nuclear Weapon. "

Well I certainly agree that God would not do any such thing. However since I see no such claim as this in the Old testament, I reject your argument in this regard.


"Anyway I wont argue on this because it depends on the belief of the people."

Good. I think that is a productive attitude. I never presumed that you acknowledged any authority in the Old Testament and I have not made a single reference to it contents, other than the mention of angels, which was only an example anyway.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)