Why are some people so adamant that God does exist?

[greylorn]

Pretend humans never developed souls. How would that change my argument about the beginning of the cosmos? It wouldn’t. I would argue that the existence of the human soul is more evidence of the existence of God, since we could not even ponder this question or debate it on the internet if we never developed a soul. We would be like plants. The cosmos could still be here if we had no souls, only with no one capable of wondering why.

Your arguments are pretty much correct in light of your hypotheses, which I assume rest firmly in Catholic theology.

However my arguments come from my hypotheses, which are different. They are mostly expressed in small units here on CAF and will appear in their entirety in my book. December? It would be unfair of me to expect you to understand them at this point for lack of a fully organized presentation. So the best I can do here is make little “corrections,” which of course would really be corrections if I am approximately right.

By my hypotheses, bodies do not grow or develop souls. That is not even a Catholic concept. (It comes from classical Buddhism.) IMO all souls were created in a monstrous pre-universe calamity. Most have developed consciousness on their own. We are the dregs of the lot, forced into consciousness like tube-fed birds on a Russian chicken farm.

Human souls did not contribute to the construction of the universe, for insufficient competence. Others did that work.

Your alternative hypotheses are fun to consider, but they still fail to reconcile how the cosmos could naturally evolve from nothing. As long as conditions “exist,” then something already exists, and you haven’t traveled back far enough to reach the very beginning in order to answer the question.

The cosmos does not IMO evolve at all, much less from nothing. It is clearly an engineered phenomenon, Engineers shape things from stuff, not from nothing.

You stated earlier in the thread that it’s absurd to believe that the cosmos has always existed with no beginning. Your soul hypothesis is ancillary to whether or not the cosmos had a beginning.

I stand by my earlier statement. You probably do not understand my “soul hypothesis,” I prefer the term beon to soul, and the concept (which is quite different from the soul-concept) is essential to the beginning of the cosmos, not just ancillary.

 

[ASimon]

It really isn’t that unprecedented for a man to come back alive after a period of death. In fact doctors call it, I believe, “Lazarus syndrome”. So it really isn’t a violation of any “laws of the universe”. It happens.

Indeed, it happens. Though the “period of death” is always a lot shorter than 3 days, and anyone so lucky to be brought back isn’t quite so lucky as to be called a god for it.

And you are wrong that I would give far greater weight to any number of things. I would take the case as it is, on it’s own.

So, take the information I gave you. Your friend tells you he saw someone on the street today that he saw dead three days earlier. You’ve got nothing else to go on in that moment. Without the benefit of any further information, you think it’s just a likely that this is a miraculous resurrection as any other explanation? Is this at all problematic for you, theologically? Other than the case of Christ, is this supportable at all in Christian theology? And if so, how?

 

[ASimon]

An Apostle is someone who saw Jesus after His resurrection, which there were thousands of. The twelve are separate.

Unless you are talking about churches, I don’t know what you are talking about. I am not saying that every Apostle founded a church.

You did actually say that.

karebear92:

Well, the thousands of Apostles founded Churches, many of which still exist. So either those Apostles were frauds or they really saw Him.

 

[karebear92]

You did actually say that.

Sorry, it was a poor use of language. It wasn’t what I meant. THere were thousands of Apostles, and many of them founded Churches. I would say most founded churches together. I don’t think anyone, alone, could feasibly found a church. If I traveled to New York and stood in the middle of the street yelling, “I believe in Santa Clause,” nobody would believe me.

Sorry for my poor grammar, but my point is the same.

It was supposed to say “there were thousands of Apostles, and many founded churches.” Just a few words… no big deal.

Private Practice was really good tonight… I blame that.

 

[greylorn]

I will seriously consider buying your first book. I thought you hand’t published one yet. I apologize if I offended you, which I know I didn’t because I said that on another thread and you said that you are to ornery to be offended.

What is your first book called? Also does JDaniel know this? I bet he would buy it too.

And I am not belittling CAF. I am not a well known author and I assume that almost all other people on here aren’t either. For example, I doubt Dawkins or Hawking have secret CAF accounts. Maybe they do, but I highly doubt it.

The problem I do have is that you are coming to CAF with an idea based on physics. We have many people on here with PhDs in Theology, but the population of those with a strong physics background is not great. There has to be physics forums out there for you to discuss your ideas. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy everyone who comes to this forum, but I wouldn’t go to a physics forum to discuss God, and people wouldn’t come here asking for medical advice. I know you believe in Heterodoxical (sp) theism, but you never argue for it or say why we are wrong. I feel like most of your debates come down to, “you are wrong because I am right.” I will read your book when I get a chance, however, and then I will discuss your theory with you.

You are correct about the non-offense. Regrettably, the name of the book will break my anonymity, which seems important to me to retain as long as possible, for the protection of others. I wish I could share it, even though I don’t make a penny from resales-- although fiction, it has changed the thinking of a few atheists.

BTW I am not a well-known author. Published once, over three decades ago.

My ideas depend upon physics but were actually derived from Catholic theology. One of the arts I practice on CAF is the explanation of certain basic physics principles. IMO what Galileo wanted from the Church which he honored and cherished was for it to recognize that physics represented God’s true Bible, and that the written works of men, and the theological beliefs of men, were subsidiary to God’s own works.

This is what I believe. I also believe that an understanding of basic physics is essential to an understanding of the universe, and especially of its creators. Physics challenges many bright people, but this is because it is usually poorly taught. Good physics teaching requires examples. Even for someone who fully understands Newtonian gravity and knows that heavy objects fall at precisely the same speed as light objects, no amount of theory has quite the effect of watching a feather and a golf ball drop, side by side all the way, in an evacuated bell jar.

Moreover, many people are first taught physics by teachers who do not understand it. I know many women who gave up on math and science because incompetent teachers do not realize that females need a different style of teaching than males, because their brains are different. They can learn physics and math from me, easily.

I chose, as editor for the current book, a woman who had not taken a high school physics class, and no math. This was a deliberate choice, knowing that to get the ideas across, I had to explain the physics behind them to those who do not know it and may believe that they cannot learn it. Now she understands some basic physics, and managed an effective edit of a complex speculative physics chapter that could easily put a professor to sleep.

My favorite physics forum is PhysicsForums.com, but it is not an ecumenical place. While here on CAF I can discuss both physics and theology, There, theology is forbidden. Likewise implications of creationism. I once initiated a simple thread asking for the probability that a single 900 base-pair human gene could have assembled according to (Darwinian) principles of random chance. (I’d already done my own calculation but did not disclose it.) Within two days the thread was closed and completely erased, and I received reprimands and demerits from two different moderators— but not before one upfront guy confirmed my calculation, the ridiculous value of one chance in 10[sup]-542[/sup], well beyond the realm of possibility.

Since my ideas involve a serious merger of physics and theology, CAF seems the best place for me now. Sorry about that. You can simply ignore my posts, of course.

Many of them have been attempts to present my style of heterodoxical theism, but I end up defending it, and my most interesting threads, where I approach topics directly, have been sandbagged. The best way I’ve found to present even a few ideas here is to slip them into related threads, such as this.

I hope that it will be possible to present my book for discussion on CAF, so as to further what I hope will be not a reconciliation, but a serious, world-changing merger between religion and science. That is not something that any one person can do alone. It will require other minds dedicated to a correct understanding of reality, which I am certain includes intelligent engineers (God). I hope that you will engage such a conversation if it materializes.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

How is this not committing the fallacy of false association?

You are in effect saying; people make outrageous claims, therefore Jesus did not rise from the dead.

More than that, where are these thousands of people who have claimed this? You are citing it as if it’s common knowledge, and we should be well aware of these cults of Elvis devotees.

There are many people who have claimed to have risen from the dead. Jesus certainly wasn’t the first (that is, if it really even happened). This is common knowledge but you refuse to acknowledge it. For example, there are strong parallels between the mythical character of Osiris and that of Jesus (Osiris rose from the dead). This has troubled Christian theologians since C.S. Lewis and is a spectre that lingers over them till this day.

You can claim it’s “fallacy of false association”, but it clearly isn’t. You just don’t want to accept evidence contrary to your own. Most unbiased biblical scholars now unanimously agree that many aspects of the narrative of Jesus’ life was borrowed from earlier myths and legends to create what is known as “pious fiction”.

 

[karebear92]

You are correct about the non-offense.

This is about your entire post, but I didn’t want to take up a ton of space.

I will. And I understand the anonymity thing.

I am genuinely interested. I never dismiss religions or beliefs without looking into them, except for the obvious ones of course (I refuse to look into the flying spaghetti monster). It just is difficult to refute your posts sometimes, or agree with them. But I also understand how you can’t present an entirely new idea on a forum. So I see your predicament, but I am also sure that you see mine. It would be like if you posted something about Heteodoxical Theism and I said that you are wrong because I am God. You couldn’t refute it because you don’t know who I am. I could be God. I could be Christ, and you could be receiving a divine message (from the dumbest God to ever exist. Meaning I would be the dumbest God, not that Christ is). Okay, I am just a human, but I think you know what I mean.

Okay, if some random and anonymous poster mentions a new book about heterodixical theism, I will read it. Who knows, maybe you could even chime in.

 

[karebear92]

There are many people who have claimed to have risen from the dead. Jesus certainly wasn’t the first (that is, if it really even happened). This is common knowledge but you refuse to acknowledge it. For example, there are strong parallels between the mythical character of Osiris and that of Jesus (Osiris rose from the dead). This has troubled Christian theologians since C.S. Lewis and is a spectre that lingers over them till this day.

You can claim it’s “fallacy of false association”, but it clearly isn’t. You just don’t want to accept evidence contrary to your own. Most unbiased biblical scholars now unanimously agree that many aspects of the narrative of Jesus’ life was borrowed from earlier myths and legends to create what is known as “pious fiction”.

I don’t know enough about the story, and the resources I do find don’t support your view. If you could post a link to a non-biased version of it, however, I would appreciate it. Here is a link refuting it, but I do not endorse it as I do not know the story.

 

[DCNBILL]

And Islam, a faith in many ways incompatible with Christianity, has 1.57 billion followers (and rising), now about 1,500 years after Muhammad walked the Earth. If it’s growth trend continues at this rate, it will become the most popular religion in the world by the middle of this century.

So is it about the God Who Was Man, or is it about the appeal to popularity? Because plenty of extinct or relatively unpopular religions have claimed the former. And the soon to be most popular religion in the world was founded by a man who was not God, merely a prophet.

Popularity? Have you ever looked into the Catholic Faith? A very hard religion to follow well indeed, with the only reward as being united with ones Creator. If I wanted to choose a religion on the basis of popularity I think that would have to be LDS, at least I have a chance at becoming a god of my own planet.

Also note that asking questions about religions and making statements about which one has the real God is pretty silly. If there is a God then there is a God, what men can believe about that God or the way that they worship that God is a matter of calling or choice.

 

[DCNBILL]

There are many people who have claimed to have risen from the dead. Jesus certainly wasn’t the first (that is, if it really even happened). This is common knowledge but you refuse to acknowledge it. For example, there are strong parallels between the mythical character of Osiris and that of Jesus (Osiris rose from the dead). This has troubled Christian theologians since C.S. Lewis and is a spectre that lingers over them till this day.

You can claim it’s “fallacy of false association”, but it clearly isn’t. You just don’t want to accept evidence contrary to your own. Most unbiased biblical scholars now unanimously agree that many aspects of the narrative of Jesus’ life was borrowed from earlier myths and legends to create what is known as “pious fiction”.

Please name at least 10 of these many people, no myths please.

Note that myths such as Osiris are actually used by theologians to demonstrate that the God/Man had been anticipated from the beginning of creation just as God planned.

 

[ASimon]

Popularity? Have you ever looked into the Catholic Faith? A very hard religion to follow well indeed, with the only reward as being united with ones Creator. If I wanted to choose a religion on the basis of popularity I think that would have to be LDS, at least I have a chance at becoming a god of my own planet.

Well, at least you’re willing to admit that getting into the Christian Heaven and being granted the priviledge of thanking and praising your Creator for eternity wouldn’t be the greatest possible outcome to one’s life. Most Christians will insist to me that this “gift” is the perfect expression of God’s love (along with every other ‘gift’ he gives us).

Also note that asking questions about religions and making statements about which one has the real God is pretty silly. If there is a God then there is a God, what men can believe about that God or the way that they worship that God is a matter of calling or choice.

Pretty silly? Aren’t we talking about eternal reward versus eternal damnation? These are the stakes each of us has on the line here (or so I’m told). And here you’re telling me, that once we’ve established that God exists, that it doesn’t really matter which is the correct one to worship?

 

[DCNBILL]

Well, at least you’re willing to admit that getting into the Christian Heaven and being granted the priviledge of thanking and praising your Creator for eternity wouldn’t be the greatest possible outcome to one’s life. Most Christians will insist to me that this “gift” is the perfect expression of God’s love (along with every other ‘gift’ he gives us).

I did not make that statement and it seems very disingenuous of you to state that I did. I was addressing your popularity comment, nothing more.

Your use of the term “gift” from God is very accurate indeed. The whole of creation is gift from God who alone is Being.

Pretty silly? Aren’t we talking about eternal reward versus eternal damnation? These are the stakes each of us has on the line here (or so I’m told). And here you’re telling me, that once we’ve established that God exists, that it doesn’t really matter which is the correct one to worship?

No, we are talking about the existence of God. Once we establish that God is the Creator of all and the source of all then one can speak of what one believes concerning God.

Note that it is the Christian belief that the “fullness” of the truth of God is not revealed to anyone alive on earth and the different religions do have some participation in the Truth to some degree or another.

 

[Lui]

This type of objection is so common, it’s almost pre-requisite for being an atheist.

How does the fact that some people claim to have seen Elvis alive in any way do anything to undermine the resurrection? This is a false assocation.

It shows that people believe what they want to believe. There is a whole community who think Michael Jackson staged his death and that the whole Dr. Conrad Murray trial was staged. Maybe a cult following will evolve from this and one day there is a Michael Jackson religion. If even nowadays with photos, film footage, internet etc people believe this, so how easily can the whole Jesus thing be fake and have followers.
Humans tend to idolize things and make cults. You see it all the time with dictators, actors and musicians. Christianity can easily have been a cult that was used by the Romans for political reasons and turned into a huge business. Confession was a good way to find out what leaders were up to. Celibacy is a great way to ensure that the fortune priests inherit by their families goes to the Church and not to their spouse and children. The whole teaching that is outside of the Bible was a sure way to defend the Church’s interests. The Popes of the past and the Church had a lot of power and still do. It’s a multi billion dollar cooperation.

The whole concept of Hell is a great way to manipulate the masses. Do what we tell you to do or you will suffer the worst possible punishment imaginable until eternity.

 

[ASimon]

I did not make that statement and it seems very disingenuous of you to state that I did. I was addressing your popularity comment, nothing more.

Well, then your response fails, I’m sorry to say. Because you’re using a subjective measure of popularity (what You think would be a more enjoyable afterlife). I was using an objective measure of it - the number of actual people who currently subscribe to different faiths.

No, we are talking about the existence of God. Once we establish that God is the Creator of all and the source of all then one can speak of what one believes concerning God.

Right. And if you happen to be wrong about what you’re speaking of what you believe, then you go to Hell. I don’t understand why you’re trivializing this choice, and reducing it to a simple matter of preference and taste. In your worldview, if you’re wrong, the consequences are the gravest imaginable. This makes the question of “Which God is the real God” decidedly unsilly.

Note that it is the Christian belief that the “fullness” of the truth of God is not revealed to anyone alive on earth and the different religions do have some participation in the Truth to some degree or another.

Super. Does that mean nobody goes to Hell, then? Since we’re all priviledged enough to get a piece of the “fullness of truth?” Or is it only atheists who go to Hell, since we don’t believe in God in the first place?

 

[DCNBILL]

Well, then your response fails, I’m sorry to say. Because you’re using a subjective measure of popularity (what You think would be a more enjoyable afterlife). I was using an objective measure of it - the number of actual people who currently subscribe to different faiths.

I am sorry that you missed the point.

Right. And if you happen to be wrong about what you’re speaking of what you believe, then you go to Hell. I don’t understand why you’re trivializing this choice, and reducing it to a simple matter of preference and taste. In your worldview, if you’re wrong, the consequences are the gravest imaginable. This makes the question of “Which God is the real God” decidedly unsilly.

Regardless of your denial of the fact, the question of the existence of God does not include a question of a choice of gods from differing religions. Let me explain it this way if 10 people that have never seen a elephant or a picture of an elephant were informed what an elephant looked like from 10 different people and they all drew pictures of what they thought an elephant looked like, all the pictures would be different and most likely none of them would be an accurate rendering of an elephant. Now does any of this change the nature of the actual elephant, would that not be silly?

Super. Does that mean nobody goes to Hell, then? Since we’re all priviledged enough to get a piece of the “fullness of truth?” Or is it only atheists who go to Hell, since we don’t believe in God in the first place?

I am very sorry, posting on a Catholic forum regularly I frequently forget that not all posters understand the theology of the Faith. In the view of the Church all have the capacity for good and all are seeking answers to the same questions. Please see the document Nostra Aetate here vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html to get a fuller understanding of the Church and it’s views concerning other religions.

 

[DCNBILL]

Most unbiased biblical scholars now unanimously agree that many aspects of the narrative of Jesus’ life was borrowed from earlier myths and legends to create what is known as “pious fiction”.

This is an obvious misrepresentation of truth, everybody knows that Biblical scholars unanimously agree on nothing!

 

[ASimon]

DCNBILL:

Regardless of your denial of the fact, the question of the existence of God does not include a question of a choice of gods from differing religions. Let me explain it this way if 10 people that have never seen a elephant or a picture of an elephant were informed what an elephant looked like from 10 different people and they all drew pictures of what they thought an elephant looked like, all the pictures would be different and most likely none of them would be an accurate rendering of an elephant. Now does any of this change the nature of the actual elephant, would that not be silly?

It does if the choice you inevitably make carries the consequences your faith says it does. The elephant thing is a false analogy. If somebody draws their elephant to look like a Vespa, whether it’s because they can’t draw, or don’t understand your description, or would rather draw what they want to draw, that may not change what an elephant actually is, but nobody will send that guy to Hell for getting it wrong either.

 

[DCNBILL]

It does if the choice you inevitably make carries the consequences your faith says it does. The elephant thing is a false analogy. If somebody draws their elephant to look like a Vespa, whether it’s because they can’t draw, or don’t understand your description, or would rather draw what they want to draw, that may not change what an elephant actually is, but nobody will send that guy to Hell for getting it wrong either.

Again I am sorry you did not understand the purpose of the elephant analogy. The point was not to condemn the poorness of the renderings of the elephant, it was to point out to you that the differences in human perception of an almighty Creator do not change the nature of that Creator.

Please note that Christians do not believe that anybody, including God, sends anyone to hell.

You didn’t read the link did you?

 

[ASimon]

Again I am sorry you did not understand the purpose of the elephant analogy. The point was not to condemn the poorness of the renderings of the elephant, it was to point out to you that the differences in human perception of an almighty Creator do not change the nature of that Creator.

Please note that Christians do not believe that anybody, including God, sends anyone to hell.

You didn’t read the link did you?

I understood perfectly well what you meant by the elephant analogy. Varied conceptions of God do not change the true nature of God. I got it - truly, I did. And I agree with you, as far as it goes. But you’re still deliberately dismissing a key piece of the calculus. Unlike drawing a picture of an elephant without having seen one, believing in an incorrect conception of God has explicit consequences, if not in this life, than certainly in the next one. If you deny this, you’re effectively saying that there’s no difference between being a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, or a Hindu, in terms of the ultimate consequences of that choice.

No, I didn’t read your link, nor do I plan to. If you believe that all religions are just believing in inaccurate versions of the same basic truth, and that by implication, there’s no consequential reason to choose one over the other, that’s fine. But you should have the courage to say so out loud.

And yes, I’ve heard the oft-cited trope that God doesn’t send people to hell, that they send themselves there. As a punchline, it’s moderately amusing.

 

[DCNBILL]

I understood perfectly well what you meant by the elephant analogy. Varied conceptions of God do not change the true nature of God. I got it - truly, I did. And I agree with you, as far as it goes. But you’re still deliberately dismissing a key piece of the calculus. Unlike drawing a picture of an elephant without having seen one, believing in an incorrect conception of God has explicit consequences, if not in this life, than certainly in the next one. If you deny this, you’re effectively saying that there’s no difference between being a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, or a Hindu, in terms of the ultimate consequences of that choice.

This is exactly what I am saying.

No, I didn’t read your link, nor do I plan to. If you believe that all religions are just believing in inaccurate versions of the same basic truth, and that by implication, there’s no consequential reason to choose one over the other, that’s fine. But you should have the courage to say so out loud.

I believe that is what I have been saying all along, and thank you for being honest about not reading the link but you are in fact misrepresenting what you did not read.

And yes, I’ve heard the oft-cited trope that God doesn’t send people to hell, that they send themselves there. As a punchline, it’s moderately amusing.

I would go off topic to pursue the theology of hell in this thread, lets just stick to those who are adamant that God does not exist.