What is God?

[Hooding_Trees]

All the knowledge in the world consists of things that human beings “really really really believe”. I “really really really believe” that the Sun exists, and the reason I call that “knowledge” is because I and a bunch of other humans “really really really believe” that our seeing it and being able to sense it is proof that I’m right, and I “really really really believe” that we aren’t all just crazy or delusional in the same identical fashion. Perhaps the word “knowledge” shouldn’t exist at all?

Err no. Honestly do we really have to go down this road i really can’t be bother will all the typing?

Besides that, we often use “love” in place of “like”, “see” in place of “understand,” “I’d kill for an X” for “I really really want an X but wouldn’t honestly take a life for it.” Language doesn’t tend to restrict itself to flat definitions. Complaining that it does not and criticizing people for it will not change that reality.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

Well clearly you have to understand the context of the conversation, and the context is clear as it has been pointed out to theists that they do not “know” there is a god they “believe”. I fail to see how the fact the theist made a semantical error in the first place has something strengthens the theist position. In fact all it means it they are incorrect twice!

 

[Hooding_Trees]

bro, this is how i think about this issue.

If a God does truly exist, He gave us this universe. He just let everything play out, allowing the universe to play out because he know at least one advanced conscious being would turn out. With an advanced conscious being like us, God knows he exists.

The God, the universe, us. We have a creator, a blank slate, and a master piece. Without the creator, we have no blank slate and master piece. If we have no blank slate we have a creator but not a master piece. If we have no master piece, then there is no evidence of a blank slate and a creator.

Fair enough, however you are aware that is a personal belief and you do not have a single shred of evidence to support it? How to you get round that blatant gap in your logic, that being that the universe needs a creator, yet your creator can just exist without a creator. In short it makes absolutely ZERO sense.

 

[JohnDamian]

Fair enough, however you are aware that is a personal belief and you do not have a single shred of evidence to support it? How to you get round that blatant gap in your logic, that being that the universe needs a creator, yet your creator can just exist without a creator. In short it makes absolutely ZERO sense.

As the totality of essentially contingent things exists (viz. the universe) it is essential to formulate that this existence is contingent upon a something independant of the essential contingency; for else the totality would be the cause of itself - or uncaused. Essentially therein, some form of extra-contingent creativity is required; the particular manifestation of this as God or anything else is a belief, but it is apodeictically certain that a non-contingent extra-total cause exists, and by definition of the cause itself must be essentially Nessecary, Eternal and potent enough to formulate and create the totality of contingent things.

Therein, it can be “known” that something created the universe; it can also be “known” some of the essential traits of that thing (nessecarity and eternity).

However, the translation of this logical certitude into a parituclar religious formation requires a belief.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

Sorry, but we cannot prove that the universe exists. Nothing physical can be proven to exist. It could all be a dream, there could be an evil deceiving spirit making you beleive there is all this stuff going on around you and so on. A Philosopher named Descartes figured out that nothing can be proven to exist but yourself(“I think, therefore I am” was his saying.) and even you cannot prove this to anyone else but yourself because everyone else might be a figment of your imagination.

Have you taken Philosophy 101? If so you should have learned this argument, and its not even an oppinion, its a logical fact. I brought it up earlier in the thread and it seems to just have been brushed aside.

So even athiests have to realize that they beleive in something that cannot be proven to exist.

I am fully aware of Descartes, and in short it is utter hogwash.

That fact of the matter is this, when it comes to knowledge philosophy shuts is mouth and science does the talking. Sure there are many great things about philosophy, however there is also a lot of utter nonsense like Solipsism.

A test if you like…

Go jump off a cliff. You don’t even know it exists do you? However i am willing to better your going to ditch the Solipsism here and jump in with Newton eh? In short we have to assume the cosmos is as we see it, for two very good reasons.

1. If we did not, we would never progress.
2. How else could we view the cosmos than by how we observe it!

So will you sit in a cave and wonder if its real, science will get on with; going to the moon, curing illness, feeding the world, reducing travel time etc. Which view point do you believe is more productive.

Oh and given that the word knowledge is a construct of human language and it has defined, that definition holds true, even if IT IS only in my mind and my mind is all that exists. So stick that in your Philosophy 101 pipe and smoke it!

 

[Hooding_Trees]

As the totality of essentially contingent things exists (viz. the universe) it is essential to formulate that this existence is contingent upon a something independent of the essential contingency; for else the totality would be the cause of itself - or uncaused. Essentially therein, some form of extra-contingent creativity is required; the particular manifestation of this as God or anything else is a belief, but it is apodeictically certain that a non-contingent extra-total cause exists, and by definition of the cause itself must be essentially Nessecary, Eternal and potent enough to formulate and create the totality of contingent things.

Therein, it can be “known” that something created the universe; it can also be “known” some of the essential traits of that thing (nessecarity and eternity).

However, the translation of this logical certitude into a parituclar religious formation requires a belief.

Well while i would agree how universe most probably did have a cause i have to admit that is just a belief. We can not assume this chain of cause and effect must be “contingent upon a something independent of the essential contingency”.

The bottom line is once we go beyond the point of inflation we can not assume anything. We simply do not know, and we can not apply the laws of this universe to that which is outside it. This includes cause an effect. Like i said, we simple do not know.

 

[Ignatius]

Only if you want to prejudice the answer. What makes you think God is human?

The who does not necessarily imply human personhood. God is the Divine Person.

 

[lemondiesel]

Fair enough, however you are aware that is a personal belief and you do not have a single shred of evidence to support it? How to you get round that blatant gap in your logic, that being that the universe needs a creator, yet your creator can just exist without a creator. In short it makes absolutely ZERO sense.

Bro, the fact that we ARE here makes ZERO sense. We can not prove Gods existence because then free will is no longer needed. Science will NEVER prove/disprove the existence of a “God” of some kind.

“In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was God.”
We’re all familiar with that statement. God is not simple though, we can not just look at this and give a simple answer. The Word is not stories of God or anything of the sort, the Word is the Laws of the Universe. In the beginning a “God” created the universe, which followed Laws, but until “we” existed, nothing knew of these “Words.”

“God created man in his image”
Again, we are not created in the image of God, meaning we do not look like God or anything of the sort. “God” follows the Laws of the universe and he is ALSO outside the Laws of Physics. He created us to do the same. Our bodies follow these Laws, yet our advanced minds understand these laws, and we can create our own cause and effect relationships.

Before our advanced minds, the universe was in a state of IS. “We” have carried it beyond just IS. With “us”, the universe was, is, and will be.

 

[Moonstruck888]

That wasn’t the question. You implied that God, the Maker of the Universe, should not be exempt from the laws of the universe. I gave you an example that something’s maker can be exempt from the rules by which he has made his creation to work. Your answer did not at all demonstrate why God is an exception to the last sentence I just typed.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

The Universe is defined as everything that exists anywhere. If God exists then he is part of the Universe, as it is everything that exists anywhere.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The who does not necessarily imply human personhood. God is the Divine Person.

Define: person

A human being.

So like I said, what?

 

[KindredSoul]

Err no. Honestly do we really have to go down this road i really can’t be bother will all the typing?

Though I certainly believe my point is valid (and had typed up a paragraph about it before deciding the following), no, we don’t have to go further down that road, because I have a feeling that the conversation will be useless to both sides and bring neither of us any closer to agreeing with the other.

Well clearly you have to understand the context of the conversation, and the context is clear as it has been pointed out to theists that they do not “know” there is a god they “believe”. I fail to see how the fact the theist made a semantical error in the first place has something strengthens the theist position. In fact all it means it they are incorrect twice!

No, it means that they, like anyone else, can only speak for themselves. If I even said it was possible that there is no God, I’d be lying (even if you believe there is no God, remember that a lie only has to be something the liar doesn’t himself believe). I’m not convinced that it’s even possible, so I wouldn’t believe what I was saying if I conceded the possibility that there is no God: By definition, that would thus be a lie. If I find it impossible that there is no God, then obviously I am going to say I know that there is a God, because that’s the only possibility left. You may disagree with me, but that’s you. I can’t pretend that just because you disagree, I have changed my mind, because I haven’t. I can’t pretend that Atheist/Agnostic arguments convince me otherwise when they simply don’t. Again, that would be a lie. I can only speak for what I find to be true: And I find to be true that I know some sort of Creator (whatever or Whoever may be the case) exists. If you don’t find it to be true, or if you’re not quite convinced, by all means, you should not say you “know” there’s a God. But you cannot speak for me, nor can I speak for you.

If you find our saying “I know” to be arrogant or presumptuous, remember this: Basically, I know that my own personal brain’s working gives me every reason to say “I know” there is a God as much as it gives me a reason to say “I know” anything at all. I am open to the possibility that someone else’s brain may not give them such reason, and it would just be a difference in how our brains work, an impasse, not that either of us is stupid or irrational. I can only work with how my own brain processes information, but that doesn’t mean I assume that others’ brians are somehow deficient if they disagree…there’s just something different about us, somehow.

By the way, do you have just as much of a problem when non-Theists claim to “know” there is no God or claim to “know” that there is probably no God? Do you have just as much of a problem when they claim to “know” that our beliefs are ridiculous or illogical? Because non-theists make bold claims like that all the time, in fact they often totally disregard the respectful conditions of my last paragraph and use the word “know” in a condescending “religious people are idiots/in-denial and if they had a bit of rational sense they’d agree with us” manner which I do indeed find unwarranted and wrong (I don’t think Religious people should be so condescending to non-Theists either). If you have just as much of a problem with non-Theists using the term “know” as well, then I appreciate your sense of balance.

My own solution is that, on known-to-be-controversial issues like this, we say “know” only in the company of like-minded people. We can use “believe” about something we know without lying, because it’s true that to know something is to believe it, even if to believe something isn’t always (necessarily) to know it. So if I were having a conversation with an Atheist friend, I would use the word “believe.” If I were having a conversation with a Catholic friend, there is no need to walk on eggshells and I would say “know.” These are Catholic forums, though, so it is to be expected that Catholics would feel welcome and comfortable in letting their guard down and talking as they would around fellow Catholics.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Moonstruck888]

We’re all familiar with that statement. God is not simple though, we can not just look at this and give a simple answer.

So, given that you admit God is complex and complexity has to evolve from simplicity, where did God come from?

You’re trying to answer, or in my opinion evade, the question of where complexity in the Universe came from by asserting that is was created by a being that is by definition complex.

That is totally illogical.

 

[JohnDamian]

The Universe is defined as everything that exists anywhere. If God exists then he is part of the Universe, as it is everything that exists anywhere.

It is generally held in scientific as well as religious communitys that the “universe” as is now, the accumulation of physical existents, is temporal; this is where speculation as to religion and science really takes off - in the definition of occurrences prior to the Big Bang, specifically the definition of finitude and temporality that is required to draw causal conclusions.

 

[KindredSoul]

That wasn’t the question. You implied that God, the Maker of the Universe, should not be exempt from the laws of the universe. I gave you an example that something’s maker can be exempt from the rules by which he has made his creation to work. Your answer did not at all demonstrate why God is an exception to the last sentence I just typed.

Let us consider the original context. If you say that the Universe should obey the laws of physics, then you are not defining the Universe as everything that exists anywhere, you are defining the Universe as “Everything that exists under the domain of the laws of physics.” If you are simply defining Universe as “everything that exists anywhere,” this carries absolutely no implication as to what laws it should or shouldn’t obey, and thus the question of why God could be exempt from them would be a moot point.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[lemondiesel]

So, given that you admit God is complex and complexity has to evolve from simplicity, where did God come from?

You’re trying to answer, or in my opinion evade, the question of where complexity in the Universe came from by asserting that is was created by a being that is by definition complex.

That is totally illogical.

What is simplicity? How do we know the universe was simple at the beginning? You can even name the Big Bang theory “God,” because we do not know where it came from.

I am not trying to answer anything. “Complexity and Simplicity” are our words to describe existence. Let me use an example that we can fathom. Our bodies, we are so complex. Now as you say, complexity must come from simplicity. So if we break our bodies down to the simplicity, we are left with atoms, or different types of matter. Is matter simple? How is matter simple? Its the building blocks for everything, yet how do these “simple” atoms know how to form complex beings?

There is no simplicity in the universe. That word is only used on our perception.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Sorry, but we cannot prove that the universe exists. Nothing physical can be proven to exist. It could all be a dream, there could be an evil deceiving spirit making you beleive there is all this stuff going on around you and so on. A Philosopher named Descartes figured out that nothing can be proven to exist but yourself(“I think, therefore I am” was his saying.) and even you cannot prove this to anyone else but yourself because everyone else might be a figment of your imagination.

Have you taken Philosophy 101? If so you should have learned this argument, and its not even an oppinion, its a logical fact. I brought it up earlier in the thread and it seems to just have been brushed aside.

So even athiests have to realize that they beleive in something that cannot be proven to exist.

If you would like a few demonstrations of existence, I can help you there.

1. Try doing a bungee jump without the rope. Since neither the rope nor the ground can be proven to exist, your argument from sheer will should keep you safe.
2. Try drving your car into a wall at 100 miles per hour. Since neither the car nor the wall can be proven to exist, your argument from sheer will should keep you safe.
3. Maybe it was the car that made the last one go wrong. Try just running into a wall as fast as you can.
4. Try levelling a loaded revlover at your temple and pulling the trigger. Since neither the revolver nor your head can be proven to exist, you know?

WARNING: Unless you are a trained Solipsist, DO NOT TRY ANY OF THESE STUNTS AT HOME!

 

[JohnDamian]

If you would like a few demonstrations of existence, I can help you there.

1. Try doing a bungee jump without the rope. Since neither the rope nor the ground can be proven to exist, your argument from sheer will should keep you safe.
2. Try drving your car into a wall at 100 miles per hour. Since neither the car nor the wall can be proven to exist, your argument from sheer will should keep you safe.
3. Maybe it was the car that made the last one go wrong. Try just running into a wall as fast as you can.
4. Try levelling a loaded revlover at your temple and pulling the trigger. Since neither the revolver nor your head can be proven to exist, you know?

WARNING: Unless you are a trained Solipsist, DO NOT TRY ANY OF THESE STUNTS AT HOME!

That would in no way prove either to the individual or to other individuals (if they exist) that what was percieved sensorarily was in any way true or reflective of the world (if it exists).

Pain, or death do not nessecarily imply reality, hence phantom pains from limbs that are missing, etc. etc., or illusiory pains, furthermore the pain of other people is potential in dream and conception, thus is no way proof of its existence.

That is the problem of solipsism, you cannot disprove it, even though I doubt it essentially.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Let us consider the original context. If you say that the Universe should obey the laws of physics, then you are not defining the Universe as everything that exists anywhere, you are defining the Universe as “Everything that exists under the domain of the laws of physics.” If you are simply defining Universe as “everything that exists anywhere,” this carries absolutely no implication as to what laws it should or shouldn’t obey, and thus the question of why God could be exempt from them would be a moot point.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

If God was to take a jaunt out to visit spacetime, maybe to place a man in a whale’s entrails for a few days or set fire to a bush after playing a hilarious prank on a man involving the murder of his son, and he manifested here without obeying the laws of physics, there would be repercussions that would be very easily detectable by scientific apparatus, assuming there was anything still here to detect it afterwards.

 

[Moonstruck888]

That would in no way prove either to the individual or to other individuals (if they exist) that what was percieved sensorarily was in any way true or reflective of the world (if it exists).

Pain, or death do not nessecarily imply reality, hence phantom pains from limbs that are missing, etc. etc., or illusiory pains, furthermore the pain of other people is potential in dream and conception, thus is no way proof of its existence.

That is the problem of solipsism, you cannot disprove it, even though I doubt it essentially.

You can prove that there is no sound basis for setting stock by it as an axiom…

ROTFL!!!

Solipsism! LOL!!!

I mean to say!

 

[j1akey]

I can’t resist. To answer your original question of “What is God?”

God is an alien from another planet with highly advanced technology that visited us long ago and built the pyramids for us.

History Channel! \o/

 

[lemondiesel]

If you would like a few demonstrations of existence, I can help you there.

1. Try doing a bungee jump without the rope. Since neither the rope nor the ground can be proven to exist, your argument from sheer will should keep you safe.
2. Try drving your car into a wall at 100 miles per hour. Since neither the car nor the wall can be proven to exist, your argument from sheer will should keep you safe.
3. Maybe it was the car that made the last one go wrong. Try just running into a wall as fast as you can.
4. Try levelling a loaded revlover at your temple and pulling the trigger. Since neither the revolver nor your head can be proven to exist, you know?

WARNING: Unless you are a trained Solipsist, DO NOT TRY ANY OF THESE STUNTS AT HOME!

I agree with you on existence. However, the ultimate unknown question comes from your examples. After you end this existence, is there another existence of some kind? We know our bodies will be decomposed and “reincarnated” into this world. But what about “us.”

Is it like sleeping, where our “minds” lose track of time, but we will have no dreams, no imagination. We will go to “sleep” and never wake up. “You” cease to exist.

or

there’s something else