Does God exist?

[RosaryFan]

As a consequence of the cross-wiring and jumbled circuits, our brains are prone to many problems.

…like refusing to believe what is obvious to most? (Sorry - just couldn’t resist)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

We can ask if God exists because we can think for ourselves.

Scientifically. I dunno, but an unstable, explosive particle being set off is a lot more plausible to me than an invisible man in the sky calling everything good as he makes it.

God is not “an invisible man in the sky” - God is not anything, but God only: “He” can’t be compared to anything, because God is utterly unique: no comparison would be any more than a very very faint glimmer of the truth. This “invisible man/giant in the sky” idea is rubbish, through & through - it is not in any sense Christian. ​

**As for science, it has no competence here, because God is not a scientific phenomenon, but the Phenomenon “behind” all created phenomena, without Whom they could not exist at all. He is known by faith & prayer, & not by telescopes or microscopes, so cannot be scientifically detected or recognised. Science is immensely useful - but it does not extend to realities of non-material kinds: & God is Pure Spirit - not matter. **

 

[grannymh]

No, because if it was properly designed, it would be neat and free from defects. Instead, the complexity of the brain stem is a result of many evolutionary “hits” and “misses” throughout the years. As a consequence of the cross-wiring and jumbled circuits, our brains are prone to many problems.

Not only are our brains prone to problems, as far as I can tell so is everything else eventually. Maybe an intelligent designer is one who initially set up those “hits” and “misses” so that things had the ability to work or function even when they are not neat and free from defects.

Actually, I started out thinking that ID would be the answer to the evolution issue. However, I am now considering that good old Thomas Aquinas is a better answer. I already believe that God exists, It is the relationship between God and His creation that needs more understanding. I do have a very strong faith in the Catholic church but that in no way isolates me from the rest of the world and its questions.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[Philthy]

We can ask if God exists because we can think for ourselves.

Just out of curiosity, how do you know your thoughts are your own? I dont think you “know” they are, I think you are “aware” that they are. But what say you?

 

[grannymh]

Just out of curiosity, how do you know your thoughts are your own? I dont think you “know” they are, I think you are “aware” that they are. But what say you?

Re:agnosticforlife’s comment: “We can ask if God exists because we can think for ourselves.”

I am not speaking for agnosticforlife.

But if I were the one responding, I would say, of course I can think and know I can think thoughts as being my own and if the situation calls for being aware, I can also be aware.

What interests me is your rather curious question. It reminds me of a philosophy history course which started with cogito ergo sum and ended with the birth of atheistic communism. Included were philosophers who worked off Decartes to the point that they were trying to figure out if they were able to think the thought of other’s existence or if the thought of existence existed in their own thoughts. Most likely their philosophy was more complicated than what I remember. Surely, you are not referring to this type of philosophy as a way to determine the existence of God.

 

[crowonsnow]

Maybe an intelligent designer is one who initially set up those “hits” and “misses” so that things had the ability to work or function even when they are not neat and free from defects.

But that still doesn’t answer the question of where the intelligent designers come from, which is the fundamental question. If the cosmos needs a reason, so does a cosmic designer.

 

[ckempston]

But that still doesn’t answer the question of where the intelligent designers come from, which is the fundamental question. If the cosmos needs a reason, so does a cosmic designer.

Everything that exists in this universe has a cause. This is axiomatic. We know of nothing in the “natural” universe that exists without a cause. There is an absolute need for an “uncaused cause” outside, based on our understanding of the universe, because it is impossible for the universe to have existed eternally (based on our current understanding). Therefore, something is needed outside our own universe to be the cause. This force can either be intelligent or unintelligent. Take your pick. It’s a crapshoot. Neither side can “prove” which way is right. We must either have faith in (affirm) one or the other, or take the agnostic position.

 

[grannymh]

But that still doesn’t answer the question of where the intelligent designers come from, which is the fundamental question. If the cosmos needs a reason, so does a cosmic designer.

My Irish Mother, bless her soul, would say: “There is more than one way to skin a cat!”

The impression I get from threads is that science is limited to the physical universe. I don’t believe that kind of limitation is applicable to scientific minds. So, why can’t scientists look at other disciplines to find the answer to the fundamental question–If the cosmos needs a reason, so does a cosmic designer?
Isn’t the scientific method one of observation, examination, comparison, evaluation, probable conclusion, and repetition of the foregoing?

My second impression of the threads is that some people seem to be hung up on having the perfect evidence for the perfect proof. My reply, one that was often used at the university, is “Come down from your ivory tower.” In real life, there can be five theories or 500 theories and never the completely perfect one. So what!

A good friend of mine would say: “Sometimes second best is first best.”

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[crowonsnow]

Everything that exists in this universe has a cause. This is axiomatic. We know of nothing in the “natural” universe that exists without a cause. There is an absolute need for an “uncaused cause” outside, based on our understanding of the universe, because it is impossible for the universe to have existed eternally (based on our current understanding). Therefore, something is needed outside our own universe to be the cause. This force can either be intelligent or unintelligent. Take your pick. It’s a crapshoot. Neither side can “prove” which way is right. We must either have faith in (affirm) one or the other, or take the agnostic position.

The universe has no cause that we can discern, even at T=0. You’re merely asserting that it was caused by some other miraculous, abracadabra-like universe. That is very weak, and there are no observations that lead to such a conclusion.

And why stop at just one more universe other than this one? Based on this line of reasoning wouldn’t that “outside” universe need a cause too? Shouldn’t our methodologies be consistent?Why only two universes? If this one needs a cause, don’t they all?

Everyone is free to believe whatever they wish, but there is certainly no compelling reason to believe in an abracadabra-like universe that is the realm of gods that causes universes like our own.

 

[crowonsnow]

My Irish Mother, bless her soul, would say: “There is more than one way to skin a cat!”

The impression I get from threads is that science is limited to the physical universe. I don’t believe that kind of limitation is applicable to scientific minds. So, why can’t scientists look at other disciplines to find the answer to the fundamental question–If the cosmos needs a reason, so does a cosmic designer?
Isn’t the scientific method one of observation, examination, comparison, evaluation, probable conclusion, and repetition of the foregoing?

My second impression of the threads is that some people seem to be hung up on having the perfect evidence for the perfect proof. My reply, one that was often used at the university, is “Come down from your ivory tower.” In real life, there can be five theories or 500 theories and never the completely perfect one. So what!

A good friend of mine would say: “Sometimes second best is first best.”

Blessings,
grannymh

hi grannymh,

I think you’d have to bring forth some evidence that suggests the existence of non physical universes. Even what we call energy rests on physicality.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I have been plagued by this question for many years of my life, and I’ve never been sure of the answer…Can someone help me make up my mind?

Why have you been “plagued” with this question?

Why does it cause you “discomfort”?

Do you actually know what a “convincing argument” for the existence, or nonexistence, of God would look like, so that you can BE “sure” you have the right answer and can havetruly “made up your mind”?

Are you really “agnostic-for-life”, which is a rather decisive statement, or are you simply “unsure-and-plagued-for-life”?



:shamrock2:

 

[grannymh]

hi grannymh,

I think you’d have to bring forth some evidence that suggests the existence of non physical universes. Even what we call energy rests on physicality.

Dear crowonsnow,

Oops, I didn’t mean to imply non-physical universes. One is enough already.

I’m out the door and hope to be back on line tomorrow. Though I do have a kind of silly question – can the evidence be non-physical since I would be dealling with non-physical universes?

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[ckempston]

The universe has no cause that we can discern, even at T=0. You’re merely asserting that it was caused by some other miraculous, abracadabra-like universe. That is very weak, and there are no observations that lead to such a conclusion.

Please. Leave the strawmen out of it. They take enough of a beating from atheists as it is. And you’re merely asserting (without proof I might add) that it was caused by a non-miraculous, natural process.

As I pointed out, there are two choices: intelligent, or unintelligent. Neither can be proven, and each has its problems when people attempt to do so.

And why stop at just one more universe other than this one? Based on this line of reasoning wouldn’t that “outside” universe need a cause too? Shouldn’t our methodologies be consistent?Why only two universes? If this one needs a cause, don’t they all?

This is pretty simple, and I see no reason not to include more than one outside universe as a probability. In fact, I brought this up as a possiblity (multiverses), which you seem to be conveniently ignoraning in your strawman attacks. The fact that you don’t understand that other universes would likely have different laws than our own suggests to me that you don’t know much about the subject.

Everyone is free to believe whatever they wish, but there is certainly no compelling reason to believe in an abracadabra-like universe that is the realm of gods that causes universes like our own.

There is no reason to believe that two membranes collided in fifth dimension and caused the Big Bang either, but some scientists certainly see this as a possibility.

As I stated, the universe has some cause. It is either intelligent (god/gods/spirits, etc.) or not (“natural” processes). The problem becomes, any processes outside our universe could not really be considered “natural” by any stretch, and any effort to “prove” either way is totally useless, because we would be incapable of accurately describing or testing such a theory, especially if it occurred in some extra dimension that we can’t detect or experience.

My point is that, given what we know, and what we don’t know, it is just as reasonable when discussing the origin of the universe to assign an intelligent cause as it is to assign a natural one. It’s all about faith, and not everyone has it.

 

[GailMac4]

Dear Agnosticforlife - I realy feel bad for you since you haven’t replied to the posts that some have given in trying to help you with your dilemma. If you prefer not to believe that God exists because you’ve swallowed so much theory and “proofs” of scientific stuff, then perhaps a word from the Bible might help - unless you become like little children you shall not enter the kingdom of God…but I’m not sure which translation that comes from. Try being silly.

Did God give you a brain to think with and understanding to help you fall away further from belief in Him or is it that you are stuck in some sin cycle or other you can’t seem to think your way out of? It usually is something of the like with brainiacs who are too smart for their own good. you could trust me - smater folks than you are have acknowleged the God of the Christians, Jesus Christ. But He won’t force Himself on you.

Peace,

Gail

 

[grannymh]

Dear agnosticforlife,

You asked a simple question and received a variety of answers from a variety of personalities. Would mind letting me know your reaction and if you resolved your issue or not? Thank you.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[Philthy]

Re:agnosticforlife’s comment: “We can ask if God exists because we can think for ourselves.”

I am not speaking for agnosticforlife.

But if I were the one responding, I would say, of course I can think and know I can think thoughts as being my own and if the situation calls for being aware, I can also be aware.
What interests me is your rather curious question… Surely, you are not referring to this type of philosophy as a way to determine the existence of God.

No, not at all granny. Im not that smart! I was attempting to expose his hypocrisy in doubting God while accepting his thoughts. His reason for having doubt?

agnosticforlife:

There’s just no way to prove it. He doesn’t influence my life in any way.

He cant prove his thoughts as his own, nor can he prove the lack of influence of God in his life, yet he accepts these beliefs without the proof he demands for Gods existence. That was my point.

 

[redhen]

then perhaps a word from the Bible might help - u**nless you become like little children **you shall not enter the kingdom of God…but I’m not sure which translation that comes from. Try being silly.

Why should human adults be asked to forgo their mature psychological state and regress to that of an infant?

Is that what it takes?

Surely, there’s a more reasonable approach, no?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Why should human adults be asked to forgo their mature psychological state and regress to that of an infant?

Is that what it takes?

Surely, there’s a more reasonable approach, no?

You misinterpret (due to a marked lack of listening to the Magisterium and to your inherent sense of natural law) what is meant by “unless you become like little children you shall not enter the kingdom of God”.

We (humans) are not being asked to “regress” into a “less developed” state. We are being asked to “progress” into a more “cleansed” state with all (and more) of our adult faculties.

The reason that the state of “like little children” is referenced is because it was a state where we were less “polluted” by the agglomerated rubbish of false intellectualism (where “false intellectualism” means unguided hyper-rationalization and complexification which makes the unreal seemingly real).

The most reasonable approach to the question of belief in God’s reality is to allow ourselves to be guided by the “experts” and see where it takes us.

To allow oneself to be guided by ANY expert other than the Magisterium of the Church WILL result in very unsatisfactory results, every single time.

But, the ability of people to “hyper-rationalize” their miserable condition (assuming they’ve been guided by the wrong experts) so that they can call it “nirvana” is nearly endless, so I’d be very skeptical taking anyone’s word as to which experts to be guided by.

Do your own experimentation. Only that will give you what you need.

:shamrock2:

 

[Shredderbeam]

As an empiricist, I am not likely to believe in God until I see some evidence of his existence.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

As an empiricist, I am not likely to believe in God until I see some evidence of his existence.

And apparently you DON’T, at present, see any evidence of His existence?

How can you not see it? It’s all around you!

Well, there’s our difference, then, isn’t it?

There are indeed none so blind as those who WILL TO not see, and those with “no time” to work at seeing that which they don’t know is most worthy of seeing.

The “satisfied” are handicapped. The “hungry” are blessed.

:shamrock2: