Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof for God's Existence

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Ok, this is pretty interesting stuff. This man, Hatcher has attempted to wed modern mathematics and ancient philosophy in a proof of God's existence, drawing on Avicenna's concept of relational logic.

It's a pretty good read, even if you aren't good at mathematics, or logic....... he explains things in an easy to read format...




GOD'S EXISTENCE?


The proof itself rests on four principles, the first of which is the assertion that something exists. Even if the world is an illusion, he pointed out, an illusory self, contemplating an illusory universe, is still something that exists.Further, he said, everything that exists does so because of some cause, and the "principle of sufficient reason" states that every phenomenon is either caused by something external or caused by itself, but never both. "Everything that exists has to have a reason for existing," he said.

Working from these principles, Hatcher first defined what he called "the minimum criteria for Godhood," and then set about trying to prove the existence of a phenomenon to fit those criteria. God, he said, must exist and be unique, and must be self-caused as well as being the cause of everything else. "Every existing phenomenon is the end effect of a causal chain of possibly infinite length, starting with God," he said.

He then delved into Avicenna's discussion of the part-whole relationship. "All known physical phenomena are composites, except possibly the elementary particles of quantum mechanics," he stated. Thus, if A is a component of B, then B is composite, and furthermore a composite cannot be a cause of one of its components, because it could not exist without all its components in place.

From these definitions, he said, one can infer that the universe is a composite of all phenomena. He inferred that the universe itself, then, cannot bring any of its own components into being, as it could not have existed before the existence of the components.

Then, the universe could similarly not be self-caused, since it is caused by the aggregation of its components, and so there must be some object, G, that causes the universe but is not the universe itself. G must then be universal because it is a cause, directly or indirectly, of every component in the universe. He concluded that G is the unique uncaused phenomenon, because, as the cause of everything, it can't be caused by something else.

Hatcher said that the strength of the proof is that each assumption it rests on is empirically grounded and is "far more reasonable than its negation."



[Edited on 1-4-2004 by TrueLies]




posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Could you please add that to this. Please. Or MODs



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Thank you TrueLies... finally someone has posted what I was waiting for. Although I could have done it too I guess. Great stuff



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Hey no prob shugo, what were you waiting for in this? Was there something ther eyou already knew about??

for the horned devil, not sure what your name is on here, i'll "add" this to that thread yes..
gimme a minute.



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 09:28 PM
link   
come on, science disproves all this religious stuff all the time.

and most of that article just pointed to faith and bs like that.

And as for have faith, ill have faith when I see some sign that god exists



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I find it kinda hard to believe that the earth just one day decided, "Hey this looks like a nice spot, I think I'll settle here. A perfect distance from the sun. And I'll tilt at a perfect angle and rotate and revolve at a perfect speed in order to support life. And many different types of life at that, that require many different types of stuff to survive. Oh and i'll have to have the perfect atmosphere for all this."
Jupitur or Saturn would have been like "Oh no girlfriend, *snapping fingers*, that's my spot."

Seriously though, it's too perfect to be without outside interference. Is it even statistically possible to have so many perfections all happening at the same time period?

What's stopping humans from devolving? Why do we continue to evolve? What happened to Chaos?

Why is murder wrong? No God means nothing is immoral or wrong.



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Boy was that a 'Dry' way of explaining those Theological Ideas and Proofs! No offense or anything. I don't want to give the impression that I disagree with what he's saying either. Just that it kinda lacks some flavor or something, ya know. What this guy is saying is actually nothing new for the most part, as he uses similar methods and examples that many Ancient Masters and Mystics used as well. IMO, they just said it in a more creative and interesting way, where as this guy is trying to keep it Simple and Logical and that's it. I don't blame him for it either, since most people today deny everything that they can't find the answer to in 'Popular Science.'

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

Definition of God
How do you define God? 'Define' means place limits on, so maybe it's blasphemous even to try to define God, if this implies that the creature is attempting to place limits on its Creator.

But this certainly hasn't stopped people from trying to define God in the past. In fact, disagreements about the definition of the Indefinable have been one of the major causes of wars, persecution and terrorism during the past two millenia.

To quote Revel and Ricard:
'Intolerance is something that arose with monotheism. As soon as human beings allowed themselves to say, 'There's only one true God, and that's mine, so I have the right to annihilate anyone who doesn't believe in him', the cycle of intolerance and religious wars began.

God the Creator
God is usually held to be the creator of the universe. Pantheists hold that God is still present within and throughout His creation. Deists believe that God is totally separate from His creation - a watchmaker who constructed the mechanism, wound it up, and then let it run down according to the laws of thermodynamics, with no further intervention.

A Personal God
God is anthropomorphic, at least to the extent of being sexually differentiated as male rather than female (why?).

God the Judge
In all religions (apart from Buddhism & perhaps a few others) God is the Judge of the Dead. Good people and/or true believers go up to heaven. Bad people and/or atheists and heretics (who disbelieve in God or believe in the wrong definition of God) go to hell, where they are subjected to sadistic tortures for all eternity. The actual criteria for sorting out who goes to which destination is a matter of debate within the the various denominations. Some favor salvation by works, others salvation by faith, and yet others salvation by a bit of both.

Salvation by Works
Salvation by works consists of collecting Brownie points. Good deeds earn positive points, bad deeds negative ones. When you die your points are counted, and if you've got more positive than negative you go to heaven, if more negative than positive it's eternity in hell. If you've got exactly the same number of each, they flip a coin.

Salvation by Faith
Salvation by faith places more emphasis on what you believe than what you actually do. So if your religion has, say, 39 Articles of Faith and you believe 20 and disbelieve 19, then up you go. But if you only believe 19 then you go down. The coin-flipping situation can be completely avoided by having an odd number of articles of faith.

BUDDHISM AND GOD
Buddhism is sometimes said to be an agnostic religion. Certainly there is no concept of God as the vindictive, judgmental, time-subservient warlord of the Old Testament.

Buddhism has ethical objections to the idea of a God who throws infidels and sinners into everlasting torment. The Buddhist ideal is that of the Enlightened Being, who has vowed to save all sentient beings from their suffering.

What also causes problems is that Buddhism is as much a philosophy as it is a religion, and does not adopt logically inconsistent doctrines. To quote Alfred North Whitehead - 'Christianity ... has always been a religion seeking a metaphysic, in contrast to Buddhism which is a metaphysic generating a religion.' The concept of an 'inherently-existent' God is fraught with difficulties:

Buddhist philosophy regards all phenomena as being 'dependently-related' , that is existing contingently upon three relationships.
(1) In relation to their causes
(2) In relation to their parts.
(3) In relation to the mind of the observer.
(see Sunyata for further information)


That last part sure sounds familiar doesn't it?

For the most part, I think anyone who makes a claim that they can Prove or Disprove 'God' is only setting themselves up for a battle they should probably avoid. However, should someone really want their opinion on the matter, they should honestly give it to them. The reason being that, first of all, there is no way of actually proving 'First Cause' type ideas beyond any doubt simply because any and all methods used are a 'Composite' of the original and therefore will never be as 'True' as 'It' would be. Second, that even if it's done with good intent there will always be someone who gets bent out of shape that you even suggested such a thing. So, I say let them believe in Chaos, Chemical Chance, Aliens or whatever and avoid the trouble.

Third, is the fact that 'If God was trying to hide to the point that One could not witness Him without Scientific Proof', then I am sure He would also hide out of reach of Science as well. On the other hand, if He isn't Hidden in the first place, then it's not the Evidence that is the problem, it is the fact that some people just refuse to see sometimes, regardless of proof. That is a problem that only they can choose to fix when they're ready.

And Last, is the fact that 'God' is a different concept for everyone to some degree anyway. Plus most of the time in our modern day thinking, just the word alone seems to automatically include links to one religion or another even when it was not supposed to be. Even in this post, there have already been comments about how Science disproves all Religious Stuff and how Faith is Useless and so forth. Yet, nobody has said anything about a certain Religion or Dogma or even the Need for Faith for that matter. It was just assumed, that 'God' always means what 'they' think of as 'God'. It never occurs to some people that the 'God' concept can be anything from one person to the next and by assuming they know everything about what others are thinking, they instantly shout 'Fraud'. So I say, unless you've been asked to share your 'opinion' why bother, cause ultimately it's beyond total explanation anyway, and it usually just rattles the cages of the 'Finger Pointers' who are just a pain once they start throwing a fit.


EDIT: All that sounded a bit negative, so I thought I'd throw in that it was a good post and a good article, just to let ya know.

[edit on 10-6-2004 by mOjOm]

[edit on 10-6-2004 by mOjOm]



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 12:28 AM
link   
"God made the world with enough evidence to make faith reasonable, but he left enough out so that we cant make it on reason alone."



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satariel
"God made the world with enough evidence to make faith reasonable, but he left enough out so that we cant make it on reason alone."


Personally, I feel that there is enough 'Evidence', so to speak, so that Faith isn't required. All it takes is for someone to really look around themselves and see how incredible everything is, (or could and should be when Humans aren't messing it up) and they would 'Know' without need for 'Beliefs'.

As far as leaving things our, I'd say it's less for reasons of 'causing doubt' and more for reasons like keeping us from screwing things up any more than we already do!! It seems to be the most Ironic and sad fact that the more we figure things out about the mechanics of the Universe and Nature, the more destruction we cause.



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 05:07 AM
link   
I had a dream about god and it goes like this:-

I was floating through space, just drifting when something appeared in the distance. As I got closer to it I began to see how amazing it was. It was a MASSIVE cubiod in the colour of royal blue. Within the faces of the cubiod there was massive carving of shapes, symbols etc and they were all pulsating in like a turquios colour.

Anyway I was right up to this cube and it was say as big as 20 houses. A door way opened up and I slowly drift inside, then it hits me like a brick, this is where god resides. A pure white light engulfs me and at that point I woke up like never before. It was almost as if my body dropped from the ceiling and landed on the bed.

I was spooked by the dream but wish I didn't wake up. I am not saying god lives in a massive cube but I wish I could have seen what my take on god was in my dreams.

[edit on 11-6-2004 by 7th_Chakra]



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Don't ya just hate waking up from those type of dreams!!! I've never been able to get it back either no matter how quickly I try going back to sleep!!

Well, that is certainly one cool dream/vision or whatever. You could spend a long time trying to pull out all the meaning behind such things. In fact it kinda sounded a bit like 2001 Space Odyssey IMO. Ya know like at the end where Time comes full circle with the unborn baby and all.

Anyway, that sounds like a cool dream. Or whatever it may have been....



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   
mOjOm: I fully agree.

Going from that I feel I must share this quote:


"Someday, after mastering the winds, the waves, the tides and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of love, and then, for the second time in the history of the world, humans will discover fire."

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin





[edit on 11-6-2004 by Satariel]



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I have a question that I have never had answered before. Or at least in a way that doesn't make sense. The article mentioned that all things in this world are a result of a series of components happening one after the other. I agree that this is nothing new and is pretty basic info. But, it's still true in my mind nonetheless. So, my question is, if this theory is not true and accurate, and the world we know is a result of a series of elements accumulating at the begining of time resulting in a "big bang" thus sending life into motion, where did these initial "elements come from? How is it possible for these elements to create themself? I am sure I sound ignorrant, and probably am when it comes to this topic, but someone please try to decifer my basic question and form into an answer for the lamen. Thanks!!!



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   
There must be a god or else i lucked out over everyone else.



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I would love to see someone's take on this question as well. Most of the time I pose this question I am told something to the effect of "they were just their, infinitely small and compressed".



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 01:22 PM
link   
That is a great question and one that has been asked and pondered by the best minds we know of since the dawn everything we know of and probably before that too.

You are essentially asking the time old question of 'Original Cause'. What is the Origin that started all other causes and effects? I actually touched on this very question earlier in fact. I'm sorry to tell you, that today is not the day you'll get the answer to it either. In fact, another question and problem that goes along with that first one is that we don't know if such an answer even exists in the first place. Before looking for answers to explain First Cause, you may want to think about the fact that Concepts such as First, Cause & Effect, Origin, Time, and even objective reality have not yet been solved either. Take 'First' for example. What is First and why exactly is it First? Does everything require an initial point known as the First?

Take a circle for example, where is the first point of the circle?
It doesn't really require one does it? In fact, who's to say that the circle was Created at all? As far as we can tell and including Scientific Laws and even Theories as well, Everything including Matter and Heat and Motion can be thought of as being Equal to 'Energy' in the loose definition of the word. While at the same time 'Energy' is neither Created nor Destroyed, but just Changes in a variety of ways. So, if that is true, was that circle really created or was it always a circle and just changed so that we can now see it? You might say that it was created, because at some point someone actually drew it, even if we don't know when that was.

Assuming that someone did draw it even, still doesn't mean that they Created it. Since you could also say once again that it was always there, and it just changed so that it could be seen. After all, it isn't the Pen or the ink that can take credit for Creating the Circle even though they were both included somehow. Also, should the same person using the same pen and in the same motions try and Create that circle somewhere else, does it work? No, then you have yet another circle while the previous circle remained the same. They may look exact to each other, but they are not the same circle are they. Which brings up the question of what is the circle? Is it the paper it's on or the ink that it appears as or the color of the ink? Is it all of these things combined? Could it be that the Circe isn't even there and just there because it is supposed to be?

Well, first off what is color? Color is just a certain Wavelength or speed of Light which is interpreted by your eye and depending on it's characteristics is one color or another. So Color isn't a real thing either but a method of interpretation based on speed. It's not as though the photons hit an object and take with it some of the Color from the object like it's a tangible thing that is then carried to your eye where it hands it off to your brain so you know the objects color. You see what that is getting at? Even something as basic as Color which you never question whether or not it exists, in a matter of speaking, exists and includes certain properties which are in fact only there because your ability to see is measuring the speed of light that enters your eye and based upon it's frequency is interpreted as one color or another and then that color is then sent to your brain like a message saying 'GREEN".

But that would mean that the color of the ink, which is what you see as bing the ink is just an interpretation of your mind. And without that color the ink would then have to be Invisible ink, which of course you wouldn't be able to see. And if you couldn't see it, you would say that there is no circle. But there is a circle, however that is only true because it's being Observed by you and you see the color of the ink and so forth. But we just showed a second ago that the entire circle exists only as an interpretation of your mind. So, now think back as to whether or not the Circle was Created or just Changed into something viewable or if it's even real at all, since your only proof of what is real comes down to You as the Observer Interpreting some type of observation. It could be that All reality itself then is nothing more than Interpretation of the act of Observation and that things such as 'Real', or Physical, or First, or Original, are nothing more than Concepts which exist or don't exist based on whether or not the Observer is Interpreting them as Existing.

I know all of that will sound confusing. I hope I was able to get across the message I was trying to show though. I guess depending on the responses I'll have my answer of whether or not the message was delivered correctly or not. Just take it one step at a time, and I do apologize for any of it that is hard to understand because of mistakes I may have made in the use of Grammar and Sentence Structure. All I can say is that I gave it a good try and the point of it is more difficult to put in words than you might think. Good luck....



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   
mOjOm,

You definitely understand the question I was asking, but like you said, you or anyone ever in existence has not provided the answere. It is the idea of "first" that is the most puzzeling to me. I myself beleive in God and I beleive in his creation of everything. Perhaps it is God who put the elements, or energy into place to create the "Big Bang", or perhaps it was he that just spoke the words and the world came into existence, that too will go unanswered till I die. But the fact that the origin of "first" is an unknown entity makes it easier for someone like me to place my faith in God the creator. Again, thanks for you time and concise response!



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
Ok, this is pretty interesting stuff. This man, Hatcher has attempted to wed modern mathematics and ancient philosophy in a proof of God's existence, drawing on Avicenna's concept of relational logic.

It's a pretty good read, even if you aren't good at mathematics, or logic....... he explains things in an easy to read format...




GOD'S EXISTENCE?


The proof itself rests on four principles, the first of which is the assertion that something exists. Even if the world is an illusion, he pointed out, an illusory self, contemplating an illusory universe, is still something that exists.Further, he said, everything that exists does so because of some cause, and the "principle of sufficient reason" states that every phenomenon is either caused by something external or caused by itself, but never both. "Everything that exists has to have a reason for existing," he said.

Did he forget that perhaps cause is the effect and vice versa? He's thinking from the perspective of linear time of cause-event. What if, something happened and it caused something else to happen, and after a chain reaction of events that follow, it returns to the starting point again, in an infinite time loop? Time is just our way to explain motion, but what if this motion is variable, and we only SEE it as linear and specific?

Like a self fulfilling prophecy, cause and effect can switch places.




Working from these principles, Hatcher first defined what he called "the minimum criteria for Godhood," and then set about trying to prove the existence of a phenomenon to fit those criteria. God, he said, must exist and be unique, and must be self-caused as well as being the cause of everything else. "Every existing phenomenon is the end effect of a causal chain of possibly infinite length, starting with God," he said.

He said God is self-caused, which means he created himself. Then, he went on to create everything else. However, if absolutely NOTHING exists, where does NOTHING get the resources to create a GOD and then out of that God a universe? Nothing is absolutely NOTHING! This means, NOTHING never existed, otherwise it forevermore would exist - SOMETHING can never come out of absolute NOTHING!

But if GOD is eternal and always existed, then the question is: BEFORE he created the VERY FIRST THING EVER, what was he doing? Because apparently, he spent infinity creating absolutely NOTHING (since God had no beginning), and then after an INFINITY OF TIME he suddenly decided: Ah let's make some stuff! But the problem is, how could God spend a whole INFINITY doing anything? Infinity never ends, so he could never create anything, he'd have to wait INFINITY first (since we know God had no beginning). However, if GOD is TIMELESS, which means he exists at ALL times simultaneously, then there's another problem! How could a being that exists outside of time CREATE something? Isn't creation an aspect of TIME? Like, something does not exist BEFORE it was created, but after you create it, it exists. If there is no time, then anything that exists always existed, since you can see it BEFORE it's actual creation "in time".

What does this mean for God? That means he couldn't create anything: It had to forever exist along side him, because if something did NOT exist, it simply will NEVER exist. Why? Because God apparently is timeless and infinite himself, as that's the only way he could "wait infinity first" and THEN create a universe. When there is no time, there is no such thing as CREATION, there is only BEING. So if God didn't create anything, and didn't even create himself, and the Universe is eternally existing in a timeless state of simultaneous being, what the hell is God good for? Well we better give him a new job quick, or he might file bankrupcy and demand retirement pay! And our government can't afford God's retirement pay, so we better give him something else to do quick, since he can't create anything in a timeless universe.




He then delved into Avicenna's discussion of the part-whole relationship. "All known physical phenomena are composites, except possibly the elementary particles of quantum mechanics," he stated. Thus, if A is a component of B, then B is composite, and furthermore a composite cannot be a cause of one of its components, because it could not exist without all its components in place.

From these definitions, he said, one can infer that the universe is a composite of all phenomena. He inferred that the universe itself, then, cannot bring any of its own components into being, as it could not have existed before the existence of the components.

Who says a universe has a specific SET of components that define it? Who defines a "universe" as a "universe"? There's no set definition of what a universe is, as far as I know. And once again, before ANYTHING can EVER be brought into BEING, one must ask: How much time passed before this "thing" was brought into being? The answer is always INFINITY, because there was never a BEGINNING of absolutely everything, since we can't start with NOTHING. And in infinity of "time", anything that can ever BE already IS, thanks to the factor of "free will". However, if you bring something into being, this would mean you must'ev reached the END of this infinity, and once again, we run into a roadblock, since we cannot reach an end if infinity, unless of course, you yourself are infinite, and exist simultaneously at all times. If that is TRUE, then wahtever you're bringing into BEING already existed, exists, and forever exist!

So if the universe could not have existed before the existance of its components, the question would always be: How long did "The Creator" have to wait before he decided to create any universe? And how did he MANAGE to wait this long, what properties does this "Creator" need to have in order to wait INFINITY? He needs to be infinite. And if he's already infinite, he exists at ALL times by definition, and if he already exists before AND after his OWN creation, then it's no longer a CREATION. He already KNOWS what he's going to create then right? This means he has no CHOICE, he cannot suddenly decide NOT to create anything, because he already exists AFTER the creation too. And in fact, if he already knows what will be, that means it already IS, he doesn't need to create anything for it to BE, because he cannot KNOW what doesn't exist, can he? You see, even the act of "changing one's mind" in terms of CREATION implies that you create something by choice, which means it MAY or MAY NOT exist, depending on what you choose. However, if you already SEE IT EXISTING before you create it as you're timeless, then you do NOT have this choice. However, if you DO still have a choice, then perhaps EVERYTHING exist that can EVER possibly exist, and forever in a simultaneous now just IS. Then, the "creator" could choose to NOT create anything, and in one reality nothing would exist. In another reality humans don't inhabit Earth. In another earth doesn't exist. In another, there's not even the milky way galaxy. And the timeless being would be aware of ALL of the possibilities, simultaneously - they all already ARE. So he's NOT the creator, he cannot CREATE what did NOT already exist - the problem is, there's NOTHING that doesn't already exist as there are absolutely no limits in terms of what exists, as long as it doesn't create a contradiction in the same reality. So if Earth exists in this reality, it can't NOT exist in the very same reality. It either does or it doesn't.



Then, the universe could similarly not be self-caused, since it is caused by the aggregation of its components, and so there must be some object, G, that causes the universe but is not the universe itself. G must then be universal because it is a cause, directly or indirectly, of every component in the universe. He concluded that G is the unique uncaused phenomenon, because, as the cause of everything, it can't be caused by something else.


Ah so he admits G is eternal, with no beginning aka cause. If so, G must have spent infinity waiting around before he CREATED something, because apparently anything that has a CAUSE isn't infinite in existance, only the "G" is infinite. but "G" can't spend infinity waiting, unless he IS infinity, unless he exists everywhere. But if he does, then obviously G is timeless and therefore he cannot CREATE anything, as creation is an aspect of linear TIME, and when time is GONE, so is creation. Without time, there's only BEING. So "G" once again has nothing to do, and no reason/purpose to exist - unless "G" IS everything, unless "G" is the universe and EVERY universe, unless "G" is simply absolutely all that exists, the infinite permeating consciousness that IS. Without that consciousness nothing would exist, but there was never a "time of creation".. that consciousness forever was, forever will be, and is inseparate from the creation because it IS the creation. The creator IS the creation, the one concept this AUTHOR cannot grasp, because he skips over really heavy contradictions in his argument, which is BASED on on the fact that THE CREATOR CANNOT BE THE CREATED. This is a false premise, but it only works in LINEAR TIME! This author is stuck in a linear frame of mind, and has a poor understanding of infinity and what it implies, or so it seems




Hatcher said that the strength of the proof is that each assumption it rests on is empirically grounded and is "far more reasonable than its negation."


Reasonable? Some of his "assumptions" have no logical basis, because they create contradictions in and of themselves, if you think carefully enough what they imply! He did NOT consider all the implications of his own assumptions, such as "How can someone exist forever and then create something", that concept went right over his head and he assumed it is possible without explaining logically how. But logically, I explained it, and we keep arriving at the same conclusion: There IS no time, because if there WAS, nothing could ever exist nor would ever exist.

And once again, this statement isn't easily grasped by our minds because our minds are linear just like the author's who wrote this "proof". Therefore, one must think very critically about this and TRY to understand each aspect of this, and only THEN the mind begins to see the non-linear aspects of existance. A linear mind, when introduced to non-linear ideas, has a lot of trouble grasping them, even if they are indeed true. But when an honest attempt at understanding is made, without prior assumptions or agenda to prove something, then it CAN understand certain things.

This author apparently had a goal: PROVE that God exists! Instead of asking "Does God exist, can logic be used?" he said "He exists and I will prove it!". That is what caused him to fail and to make HUGE, unforgivable holes in his "proof", which created contradictions and impossibilities that the author did not even SEE, because he was blinded by his assumption and desire to PROVE God's existance, instead of critically examining his own statements. God is not separate, he IS us, we are HIM, he is ALL, ALL is him. God = light = love = knowledge = all there is. They are all synonymous terms that mean precisely the same thing.

[edit on 11-6-2004 by lilblam]



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake
mOjOm,

You definitely understand the question I was asking, but like you said, you or anyone ever in existence has not provided the answere. It is the idea of "first" that is the most puzzeling to me. I myself believe in God and I believe in his creation of everything. Perhaps it is God who put the elements, or energy into place to create the "Big Bang", or perhaps it was he that just spoke the words and the world came into existence, that too will go unanswered till I die. But the fact that the origin of "first" is an unknown entity makes it easier for someone like me to place my faith in God the creator. Again, thanks for you time and concise response!


Sure, no problem. It is a fun question as are most questions like it that deal with ideas far more complex that most people have ever bothered to think about.

I have a question about last part of your post where you say that the Unanswerable question of Origin or First Cause makes it easier for you to put faith in God the Creator. That statement makes me wonder something that for me personally would make that same statement cause less of a desire to rely on it. What i mean is:

What happens if, let's say you meet God, and he tells you that He didn't Create Everything but instead just formed it into what we understand it to be. The reason that there is no Original Creation by Him is because like Himself 'It' was and is Eternal and without having a Beginning or End. Just as God required No Original Creation, but instead has always Been, that the same thing goes for Everything. After all God is Everything, & Without a Beginning or End, which includes anything that He might Create as well. God being Eternal and Timeless therefore already IS anything he might create even before he would have to create it. All he did was change his eternal self into what we would call reality.

Would God revealing that then cause problems with your Faith in God the Creator?

If not, then why is that idea not acceptable to you now?



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Great question mOjOm!

Here goes...The reason your answer and answers like yours make it easy for me to put my faith in "God the Creator" is simple. Occams Razor. With all the possibilities and theories out there, I choose the one for me that is the most simple and reasonable. There is a God and he created us and all that exists. With all the intangibles in existence, and the perfection required to pull it all together, that for me is the only explaination. It's not the flashiest answer or the most thought provoking, and usually is the one most laughed out of these forums, but it's mine. I love talking about this kind of stuff cause I always learn something new, but it seems the more i learn on this subject, the more my conclusion resonates with me as truth.

But, if I were to come face to face with God so to speak (which would most likely mean I am in dead and in heaven) and he told me that what I had thought/beleived all along was wrong, well then I guess I'd just say, ok. Right now I have my convictions and beleifs and I won't change them till I have been given a reason to, and to have God tell me that I'm wrong, that'd be reason enough.

Hope my response answers your question sir!

[edit on 11-6-2004 by mpeake]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join