Does God Exist?

Like life , God will have motion , and relational to God existing this string can have no end until ... well ,
until love is done and the glorious lunatic stands alone .

 

Sam needn't be amazed his perception of the situation is exactly as he measures it and his results are according to his comparisons and most markedly the adjectives he uses. He could be better informed however. No ones suffering is special. If there is a superior wisdom in the functioning of the world then it may be found in what occurs. If what occurs is perplexing then that suggests more information is required to give clarity.

The territory of the offended is the territory of the moralistic and superstitious prude and his absurdity is in comparing what he sees to idealistic models that must be defended. Belief in good and bad fortune no matter what it is attributed to, reflect a sliding and perpetually arbitrary scale of measuring what occurs. Such measurement does not improve the situation but it does guarantee there will be bitter tension involved in the constant state of becoming we share.

 

I don't want to suffer,but I have to use different stratagems than faith in organized religion.I even have problems with Buddhism,which I am dipping out of,as I cannot subordinate my freedom to think against the grain.It informs my daily life,but I am taking it more lightly as something that holds no great aspiration for me.

 

As the Harris quote Writer paraphrased, not all of us get to experience an examined life. There doesn't appear to be any litmus test for our being here, I don't think the Earth, let alone the universe was in dire straits and figured it needed humans.

I find that freeing though, I get to explore and examine my life on my own terms amongst the amazing and difficult situations I may discover upon my interactions with people, places, animals and things.

 

The farthest I can go with this is that life is just a random statistical possibility that we just happen to be experiencing,for no special purpose in the universal context of phenomena.But because it is we that are experiencing it,it takes on a massive significance for us,thus the egotism of the three major religious texts and doctrines.

 

To Mr. Writer: I know it's all in the brain and not the actual heart muscle. When I say living out of the heart it would be the same as what samurai swordsman call "no mind". When they are in the middle of swordplay the mind must be always moving and if it stops on the opponents sword they're dead. If their mind stops on their sword they're dead. In order to fight effectively they have to use instinct and have instant reactions. The same state is what musicians call playing from the heart. In order for a violinist for example to play at their maximum potential they have to be completely present and absorbed in the music. As soon as they start thinking about how to place their fingers on the strings they start making mistakes. So basically my point is in order to be fully alive a person has to be able to use all their faculties including intuition, feeling, intellect, instinct and emotion. If a person is living out of the left hemisphere of their brain then they are always caught in thought and they never experience life to the fullest extent. We can think about what God might be through concepts, but unless we are fully alive then it's kind of like studying H2O without never having experienced water. To me God is simply what is. I am that I am. How could truth be anything other than that?

 

I believe the heart and mind are intimately connected,in a very symbiotic relationship.People can literally make their heart sick through great disturbances of the mind.A peaceful relaxed mind has many health benefits.I know from personal experience due to overthinking and getting myself into very complex states of mental health problems.I'm trying to get my heart and mind in balance.Makes me think of that Rush song "Closer to the Heart",although I am not much of a Rush fan so much these days.

 

As a musician and someone deeply interested in buddhist mindfulness techniques your examples are not lost on me. It's one thing to point at the ineffable in life and say "that's my god", it's quite another to then rise to defense of organized religion in a debate, or attacking science as some kind of illegitimate approach to life. That tells me you somehow don't understand either one.

I think your example with the left hemisphere needs a little work too . . . are people who've had herespherectomies forever denied "a full experience of life" in your definitions? Are thoughts not part of life? When you "experience" water, how is that different from experiencing the concept that water is composed of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom?

These are only different modes of approaching reality. A person should be balanced and have both accessible for the richest life.

The full sensorial richness of drinking water is only added to by my understanding of hydrodynamics, chemistry, astrophysics, and biology. I appreciate water that much more. There is no detraction; knowledge is not the enemy. Don't confuse attention or mindfulness with ignorance.

 

I figured this was coming, thanx for being so predicable.

Actually God gives them to everyone, I just thank him for it.

Yes, pretty much.

Honestly, when was the last time you were engaged in a "survival of the fittest" contest with any of the Earth's carnivores? Probably the last time you even saw one was on TV.

It seems you have done some research on starvation, you know how many children starve to death each day, have you bothered to look into why they starve to death?

Surely you have heard of the destruction of surplus crops for economic reasons (greed) or perhaps you have heard food sent for aid to sitting on docks being eaten by rats or just rotting because local governments want the starving to pay for it (greed).

I could go on but if someone wants to blame these things on God there is really not much that can be said to convince them otherwise.

I don't believe I said anything about thanking God for supper roasts and I couldn't help but notice that you didn't really comment on what I really said I thank God for and that was being given the ability to enjoy things.

Also I have always found it interesting how people who feel God is imaginary and nonexistent can get so worked up about what he doesn't do. I mean isn't not doing stuff, what imaginary and nonexistent beings are supposed to do.

 

You know that we don't see eye to eye on many things and most of this is one of those things but as usual there is a nugget of truth here that rings true and I thank you for that.

 

More playground logic. "Nyah nyah, you DO have a crush on her because you got mad when I said you did!"

We are arguing with your conception of God, not any "actual" god, since we do not believe that to be an actual existing entity. We are getting working up with the terrible logic that says that god is responsible for all the good things, and mankind is responsible for all the evil things. Proof? Well, god is the greatest good, duh. How do you know that? Well, look at all the good things!

:tumbleweed:

 

Like this comment is real mature.

If it is my "conception" of God, then why are you getting upset about it? Even if it is "terrible" logic. I'm not upset that your "brilliant wit and outstanding intellect is so stunning" that you are "winning" the conversation. In fact it mildly amuses me.

And by the way God is responsible for all that is good. As for the bad, perhaps you could show me how mankind isn't responsible for it? For example God provided a planet for mankind that could provide food for everyone and mankind invented deforestation and desertification and still the planet that God provided could provide food for all of mankind, if it wasn't for mankind's greed.

 

Scumbag olderwaterbrother: Won't show me how god made all the good things, demands I show him how humans didn't make all the bad things.

This thread feels over to me, we are talking past each other. There cannot be an exchange of ideas if we do not agree on basic fundamentals like what constitutes proof and evidence.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/miracle-face-jesus-appears-south-5388113

 

Honestly, what are the good things? Things like love, kindness, joy, happiness, the ability to see colors, to smell flowers, to taste, to feel tenderness, tell me which of these did mankind invent? Mankind is barely even scratching the surface of how they work so no mankind didn't make these things. Yeah, you're going to say "evolution" but be honest, what do these good things have to do with "survival of the fittest"?

But the real question is why won't you even try to show me how humans didn't make all the bad things?

Yep, you finally figured it out, that without God to blame it all on, the only one to blame for all the evil in the world, all the starving children is mankind.

It's simple as that.

 

@ OWB: Humans did not invent natural disaster (we are barely capable of giving warning for, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.) disease, crippling disability, retardation, animal attacks, food poisoning, cancer, etc.

Some of those can potentially be exacerbated by human activity nonetheless humans did not invent them. Similarly some of the 'good things' you mention can be claimed by human activity as well, for instance in regards to food: agriculture and farming.

 

The way you phrased your previous threads, I thought you were suggesting that if God doesn't jump through your hoops and meet your tests, He must not exist. I hope you can see the fallacy in that thinking. I think you're expecting someone to present evidence as to why YOU or some other atheist should believe in God. I'm more concerned with why I should or do believe in God. Whether or not you or anyone else believes in God is up to you. You seem to be saying that no one should believe anything without proof--except that people saying that tend to make an exception for things like M-theory. I disagree. I think that reality is thoroughly ambiguous, and that there is no "proof" for most things that give meaning to life. My own approach to this problem is to exercise judgment which includes a bet on reality (i.e., faith) based on substantial evidence (less than a preponderance but more than a shred--that's actually the legal definition). Substantial evidence is the level of evidence decision makers use to decide what levels of radiation or toxic chemicals we're exposed to, how much risk is acceptable in building a highway, etc. It's enough evidence to convince a reasonable decision-maker to take action, even though another reasonable decision-maker can think otherwise. Compare it to public policy decision-making in which Democrats and Republicans can come to different conclusions without being considered irrational. Of course, the decision can't be contrary to logic or science.

Now let's look at God. It should be evident that many of us using the term aren't talking about a supernatural being that can be expected to perform like a trained seal in order to convince skeptics that (S)he's real, or that is necessarily gives a rats ass what we believe. As I use the term, we're talking at minimum about a concept, and possibly about some kind of force or entity that accounts for the integrated complexity of the universe. We are either winners of the cosmic lottery or something more. Some distinguished scientists are sufficiently impressed with the narrowness of the range of physical constants necessary to support conscious human life that they opt for something more. The fact that we exist is either a fluke or not. My instinct tells me our existence is too amazing to be brushed off as fluke. Others disagree, and can provide rational arguments for doing so. But as long as my views aren't illogical or contrary to science, I'll stick with them, especially since I think they make me a better person and support altruistic behavior. (Note I didn't say they'd make everyone a better person if they adopted them, or that no one can be a good person or an altruistic one without doing so. If you are unpersuaded, or find the contrary evidence more persuasive, by all means go for it. It does seem, however, that you and Mr. Writer think no one who disagrees with your conclusions can be rational or even sane.

 

I think you are choosing selective statements I've said and blowing them out of proportion. You seemed to do this with Harris a bit as well, but I digress.

If someone who believes they understand the personality of an invisible entity, which when 'invoked' around others and doesn't respond, how is that not a textbook definition of insanity?

Now if someone is comfortable with the 'creation' of the universe by some eternal force permeating throughout, which more or less sets things off and has it's own agenda, I can entertain that notion and do not care if it dissents from my view. However, I'm not sure why anyone maintaining that view would opt to be informed about this notion from millenia old books which come from societies of pre-industrial, limited technological, pre-scientific (in the modern sense), largely illiterate populations.

It is not a fallacy saying that the completely capable, all loving God being suggested does not exist with the test NeonSpectraltoast presented.

 

LOL, FrankenJesus sad.

 

You don't understand evolution. If you don't see how the ability to see colors, or smell, or bond socially, or love, is part of the adaptability of a species, you need evolution 101.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhHOjC4oxh8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SCjhI86grU

You don't understand physics, or causality. Of course you live in a universe which has physical constants tuned to your existence; you exist!. That's why you're standing here on this planet. It's not like there's trillion other worlds where you were born before this one, and on those worlds, all the constants were wrong, and you materialized and thought "Gosh, this is rubbish innit?" and promptly were destroyed, being finally reincarnated on THIS world, where you can survive (under great duress from a very hostile universe which is clearly NOT finely tuned for you). This is the anthropocentric error, and it's really sad that it still litters the minds of great thinkers everywhere. It also has within it the hidden assumption that any universe which can sustain a mind that can conceive of god, is therefore created by said god.