Why I Think God Exists

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, Unfortunately said:

That does absolutely nothing to help my understanding of your previous statement. If you were quoting a factual book that stated the same thing with evidence proving that this is the case I would be in a position where I understand. As it is, you're just using the same link every time, and said link does not include anything that is proven to have been based on objective truth. Don't worry, I'm not asking you to provide verifiable proof of existence, as we all know there isn't any as of yet. Just like there isn't any verifiable proof of absence.

As I stated in a previous post, both concepts are just theories until irrefutable proof is given; as there isn't any on either side, they stay theories.

 

I appreciate everything you've decided. We are in agreement that concepts are theories. But my true religious experiences are not theoretical nor conceptual. They are real.

For the sake of keeping the discussion dignified I will respectfully bow out of our conversation at this point. I will however leave you with one more thing from a book that has all the hallmarks of the miraculous, based on the merits of all that it says and the unexplained mystery of its earthly materialization.

 

(101:2.8) Reason is the proof of science, faith the proof of religion, logic the proof of philosophy, but revelation is validated only by human experience. 

Science yields knowledge; religion yields happiness; philosophy yields unity; revelation confirms the experiential harmony of this triune approach to universal reality.

 

[Unfortunately]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

I appreciate everything you've decided. We are in agreement that concepts are theories. But my true religious experiences are not theoretical nor conceptual. They are real.

For the sake of keeping the discussion dignified I will respectfully bow out of our conversation at this point. I will however leave you with one more thing from a book that has all the hallmarks of the miraculous, based on the merits of all that it says and the unexplained mystery of its earthly materialization.

 

(101:2.8) Reason is the proof of science, faith the proof of religion, logic the proof of philosophy, but revelation is validated only by human experience. 

Science yields knowledge; religion yields happiness; philosophy yields unity; revelation confirms the experiential harmony of this triune approach to universal reality.

 

I respect your standpoint and your maturity whilst presenting it. I also respect that you believe that your spiritual experiences are real, but please understand that believing something to be real/not real does not make it so. 

This was a good debate .

[Will Due]

As a post script, you're probably aware that my purpose for participating in this forum is to bring the existence of the Urantia Book to the attention of anyone who may find it useful for determining what's real in life, when most of what can be known is often fraught with doubt and confusion. It's a crazy world.

The Urantia Book is epochal revelation. The fifth time to this world. It is an extraordinary literary work, and its authorship is unquestionably super-human. Its advent in the world is much more impressive than if God where to float the Statue of Liberty above NYC as you stated, because it embraces "the highest existing concepts of spiritual values as a part of the new and enhanced co-ordination of planetary knowledge" and is destined to influence the evolution of a great spiritual awakening that will bring down the curtain that shields what needs to be exposed for good.

 

[Unfortunately]

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

As a post script, you're probably aware that my purpose for participating in this forum is to bring the existence of the Urantia Book to the attention of anyone who may find it useful for determining what's real in life, when most of what can be known is often fraught with doubt and confusion. It's a crazy world.

The Urantia Book is epochal revelation. The fifth time to this world. It is an extraordinary literary work, and its authorship is unquestionably super-human. Its advent in the world is much more impressive than if God where to float the Statue of Liberty above NYC as you stated, because it embraces "the highest existing concepts of spiritual values as a part of the new and enhanced co-ordination of planetary knowledge" and is destined to influence the evolution of a great spiritual awakening that will bring down the curtain that shields what needs to be exposed for good.

 

I appreciate your conviction and with any luck you might find someone who is in need of that kind of spiritual guidance. I personally rely on more of a spiritual self-awareness path and as such I don't need books/religious doctrine to define that for me, nor would they help me in the slightest as that is not what my spirituality revolves around.

Good luck with your endeavors. 

[Claire.]

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

As a post script, you're probably aware that my purpose for participating in this forum is to bring the existence of the Urantia Book to the attention of anyone who may find it useful for determining what's real in life, when most of what can be known is often fraught with doubt and confusion. It's a crazy world.

The Urantia Book is epochal revelation. The fifth time to this world. It is an extraordinary literary work, and its authorship is unquestionably super-human. Its advent in the world is much more impressive than if God where to float the Statue of Liberty above NYC as you stated, because it embraces "the highest existing concepts of spiritual values as a part of the new and enhanced co-ordination of planetary knowledge" and is destined to influence the evolution of a great spiritual awakening that will bring down the curtain that shields what needs to be exposed for good.

How do you explain the fact that the supposed super brilliant celestial authors had no knowledge of science beyond what was known in 1955?

[D.O'N]

The whole thing about "God" is just never ending, if there is a God who created it? If God was always there then couldnt we just say the universe has always been here?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

15 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

I have already apologised to Lilly, I thought she was propounding a theory as to the origin of the universe, she says she was merely expressing a personal belief.

It is possible to disagree with someone's belief without dis-respecting them. By expressing a belief on a public forum you are changing it from a private, personal belief to a kind of declaration, a viewpoint.

And presumably expect it to be challenged- why else bother to express it publicly?

That's why I was curious about it. For my  point of view, I think it's great to show where you (in general) stand in what you believe and don't believe, but to state it as that opinion in public, I wonder if that's it? I guess, I'm one to think that one definitely has a right to their opinion, (if their opinion doesn't mean harm to others). That's why I was  about it. But as I always state things, that's me!       

 

15 hours ago, Claire. said:

Belief systems should always be questioned in my opinion, as I do not see how someone could ever be truly comfortable with whatever it is they believe in until their questions have been satisfactorily answered. For example, I do not believe that there is an eternal being, or any other phenomena, outside the scope of natural law. I am confident in my belief system because arguments for the existence of God (and other phenomena) are little more than glaring examples of our cognitive limitations. You're no doubt aware of the term God of the gaps.

Well, first I'm wondering if you mean that others should questioned someone's personal opinion of their belief systems, or that that one themselves should question their own belief systems? I wonder, if you mean the latter, because of what you said after what I put in bold. For me, I constantly question my own belief system, because yes, there are times I am not satisfied with it. Frankly, I believe one and their own belief, (like anything in their lives) will always be something of working through it, if it means a lot to them. If there is something there to give them a strong reason to believe in it. 

It's like how you say you are confident with how you don't, because of what you have as evidence for yourself. 

And yes, I am aware of the God of the gaps. Although, I don't go a say God has to be there, I do have in my belief systems maybe's that have me feeling at peace in my belief. I guess, this goes back to my question to you, as to whether you believe in challenging other's belief systems or your own. If it's constantly challenging others, does it mean to those, like Lilly's who is confident in her own, but has stated she is not saying others should believe or even saying how there are elements of her's that she's not saying or believing as definitely? Because I wonder, if it's that everyone has a right to tell someone else how they themselves should challenge others, even when they just saying their belief with no pushing? It makes me wonder, if those who do not want to be challenged, by the sheer fact of not dealing with the confrontation, keep their beliefs private. I pretty much do. It's not that I'm not confident in mine, but that I don't think I want to deal with having to defend me the right to still believe, when it's no one's business to do so. That's if, that is what you're saying. If not................. forgive my mis-interpretation of your post.     

Quote

So yes, God, in my opinion, is the result of our cognitive limitations. I will be the first to admit that not everything is within the scope of human knowledge, but that's no reason to create fantastical beings to fill in the gaps. Why not simply say we don't as yet know, and as you suggest be satisfied with that, until such time when we do know.

Believe it or not, that's what I do within my belief. And if you have noticed me and my posts, I tend to prioritize science and nature over beliefs, my belief. I just feel that my belief, people's beliefs, have a right to guide them within the nature and science of the world. And if anyone is going to consider the 'God in the gaps' type of thing, then yes, I would believe it should be only for them, and learn and continue to learn through science and knowledge and experimentation. (and experience)  

15 hours ago, Will Due said:

15 hours ago, Claire. said:

First, there is no empirical (or any other) evidence whatsoever of a supreme being which conveniently also happens to have existed for forever and, hence, doesn't require an explanation as to how it got there in the first place.

 

The proof that God exists can only be realized by faith, and true personal spiritual experience.

I think this post here is very important. I applaud Claire for her points and such, and I like reflecting on her points and her questions, even towards me. (Good for the synapses, I always say.     ) But, I think this is the difference here, what you just pointed out. It is something of a subjective experiences and existence, and it's going to be something of a difference to the objective understanding of the world. And it's yes, a variety of what people believe yes, like how mine is difference. But within the confines of a person's personal belief, (if not pushing it or saying other's should believe) than it's something that's just as important to them, if they still hold the understanding of how natural everything around them is. 

15 hours ago, Claire. said:

There is always the danger of offending people in such discussions, which is never a desirable situation. The concept of 'cognitive limitations' was not meant to be an insult. We all have such limitations, or inefficiencies if you will. Our brains work in such a way that we strive to fill information gaps. We're hardwired that way. But you're right, people's minds are set, although I personally am open to whatever given the right kind of evidence.

I do feel as well, that the 'cognitive limitations' is not seen to be an insult. I have seen it being used as such, on many occasions and in many places. I know that you're not doing that, but I have seen it. I wonder, what is the agenda of others who do practice that type of thinking though. *shrugs* 

15 hours ago, Claire. said:

Anyway, who are we kidding. You and I both know what supreme being created the universe.

Edited 14 hours ago by Claire.

I know it!!!! ALL HAIL THE KITTY!!!!!!!! MEOOOOOOOOW!

15 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

15 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

The proof that God exists can only be realized by faith, and true personal spiritual experience.

 

http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/read-urantia-book-online

I think this is a tautology.

So,the only people who can understand God exists are people who understand God exists.

The people who do not believe God exists are not in a position to believe he exists, as they have the wrong mind-set.If they had faith he exists, they would understand he exists. Because they lack such faith, they do not realise he exists.

You can say exactly the same thing by substituting the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Flying Teapot for God.

 

I don't think he is saying that. Anyways, I don't think that. And that would be a good point. 

14 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

Well, why doesn't God meet us halfway?

My understanding of God from my primary school education is that he is rather keen on us believing in him. A lot of smiting and smoting used to go one if someone else was worshipped.

Since he is all powerful, eternal, etc., why doesn't he do a miracle to get us all on board?

Not necessarily something big, like curing cancer, irrigating deserts, or killing Jeremy Corbyn, just something little like making the Statue of Liberty float about above New York?

Then I would believe.

Well yeah, these are good questions, in my opinion.  

 

[Will Due]

 

 

3 hours ago, Unfortunately said:

I appreciate your conviction and with any luck you might find someone who is in need of that kind of spiritual guidance. I personally rely on more of a spiritual self-awareness path and as such I don't need books/religious doctrine to define that for me, nor would they help me in the slightest as that is not what my spirituality revolves around.

Good luck with your endeavors. 

That is the most wholesome and healthy attitude to have towards discovering the truth of spiritual reality in my opinion. It's exactly the same way I go about it too. 

All the truth contained in all the books put together do not compare to the source of all truth that is already present and available within. Spiritual truth discernment is not dependent on books, but books can be helpful, all kinds of books on many diverse subjects. Truth discernment is dependent on will. "Not my will, but yours be done."

 

He did say two other important things:

"Seek first the kingdom of God, and when you have found entrance thereto, all things needful shall be added to you."

"The kingdom of God is within."

 

[Will Due]

4 hours ago, Claire. said:

How do you explain the fact that the supposed super brilliant celestial authors had no knowledge of science beyond what was known in 1955?

 

That's a very good question:

(101:4.2) Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.

 

[Claire.]

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

That's a very good question:

(101:4.2) Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.

That's a bit of a cop out, don't you think? A total CYA statement by the book's true, and very human, authors.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Claire.
Added missed word.

[Claire.]

4 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Well, first I'm wondering if you mean that others should questioned someone's personal opinion of their belief systems, or that that one themselves should question their own belief systems? I wonder, if you mean the latter, because of what you said after what I put in bold. For me, I constantly question my own belief system, because yes, there are times I am not satisfied with it. Frankly, I believe one and their own belief, (like anything in their lives) will always be something of working through it, if it means a lot to them. If there is something there to give them a strong reason to believe in it. 

It's like how you say you are confident with how you don't, because of what you have as evidence for yourself. 

And yes, I am aware of the God of the gaps. Although, I don't go a say God has to be there, I do have in my belief systems maybe's that have me feeling at peace in my belief. I guess, this goes back to my question to you, as to whether you believe in challenging other's belief systems or your own. If it's constantly challenging others, does it mean to those, like Lilly's who is confident in her own, but has stated she is not saying others should believe or even saying how there are elements of her's that she's not saying or believing as definitely? Because I wonder, if it's that everyone has a right to tell someone else how they themselves should challenge others, even when they just saying their belief with no pushing? It makes me wonder, if those who do not want to be challenged, by the sheer fact of not dealing with the confrontation, keep their beliefs private. I pretty much do. It's not that I'm not confident in mine, but that I don't think I want to deal with having to defend me the right to still believe, when it's no one's business to do so. That's if, that is what you're saying. If not................. forgive my mis-interpretation of your post.     

We should challenge both ourselves and others, but in the right way.

I believe that we owe it to ourselves to be skeptical and to always question before determining what we choose to believe in. If we are comfortable with whatever answers we find, then I say go for it. So, for example, if a person deems the Cosmological Argument a satisfactory enough explanation, so be it. Others might say, no wait a minute, that's not good enough. Either way, it is up to us as individuals to make that determination for ourselves.

So what I meant by my earlier comment is that we should challenge ourselves, the same way you do so. It's an important part of our personal growth. It does not matter what we ultimately choose to believe in, as long as we end up, as you put it, at peace with it.

As for questioning others' beliefs systems, belief is a personal choice. If someone told me they believed in God I would not neither question or challenge them on the face of it. If it turned into a discussion or debate (such as the one here) then yes I might challenge certain statements, just as I would expect mine to be challenged in return. I mean, how else can we learn?

But I do draw the line when it comes to pushing beliefs. No one should ever do that to another person.

[Claire.]

5 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I do feel as well, that the 'cognitive limitations' is not seen to be an insult. I have seen it being used as such, on many occasions and in many places. I know that you're not doing that, but I have seen it. I wonder, what is the agenda of others who do practice that type of thinking though. *shrugs* 

It's not an insult, just a fact. I should never have used the term 'cognitive limitations' though, as I realized later that some might interpret it as meaning 'diminishing cognition', which is not at all what I meant. It's just that our brains like to play fill in the blanks. Some will fill in whatever gaps with the God or the supernatural, some with science, and others with a combination of both. Either way, all of us do it to one degree or another.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Claire.
Minor edit.

[eugenonegin]

12 hours ago, Baldylocks said:

The whole thing about "God" is just never ending, if there is a God who created it? If God was always there then couldnt we just say the universe has always been here?

Very interesting.

Edited July 3, 2017 by eugeneonegin

[Unfortunately]

10 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

 

That is the most wholesome and healthy attitude to have towards discovering the truth of spiritual reality in my opinion. It's exactly the same way I go about it too. 

All the truth contained in all the books put together do not compare to the source of all truth that is already present and available within. Spiritual truth discernment is not dependent on books, but books can be helpful, all kinds of books on many diverse subjects. Truth discernment is dependent on will. "Not my will, but yours be done."

 

He did say two other important things:

"Seek first the kingdom of God, and when you have found entrance thereto, all things needful shall be added to you."

"The kingdom of God is within."

 

Actually, my spirituality revolves around understanding my place in the world; I personally believe that spirituality cannot be used to find 'truth' as truth is based on facts.

My spirituality is an effort to understand myself on an individual and cosmic scale, but I am comfortable in the realisation that these are only beliefs and hold no sway in reality, nor should they. They are merely the inner workings of my mind as I attempt to find a form of contentedness.

In my opinion, spirituality should never be confused with reality, as one is a cognitive perception (spirituality) and one is truth/fact (reality). The error would come from believing that the two are one and the same, which is simply not the case.

I will never have an issue with those who choose to have a different cognitive perception than myself; I will definitely have an issue with those who try to claim that their perception is reality, as that is entirely incorrect until there is verifiable proof that can be measured and shown to the masses.

[Will Due]

45 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

Actually, my spirituality revolves around understanding my place in the world; I personally believe that spirituality cannot be used to find 'truth' as truth is based on facts.

My spirituality is an effort to understand myself on an individual and cosmic scale, but I am comfortable in the realisation that these are only beliefs and hold no sway in reality, nor should they. They are merely the inner workings of my mind as I attempt to find a form of contentedness.

In my opinion, spirituality should never be confused with reality, as one is a cognitive perception (spirituality) and one is truth/fact (reality). The error would come from believing that the two are one and the same, which is simply not the case.

I will never have an issue with those who choose to have a different cognitive perception than myself; I will definitely have an issue with those who try to claim that their perception is reality, as that is entirely incorrect until there is verifiable proof that can be measured and shown to the masses.

 

I will never claim that my perception is anything other than mine, let alone that spirituality is reality. 

However I can state that the achievement of finality of spirituality is equivalent to the attainment of the maximum of reality, which would also be the maximum of Godlikeness and will be proved by the measure of the bearing of the verifiable spiritual fruit that will be shown.

 

(100:2.1) Spiritual development depends, first, on the maintenance of a living spiritual connection with true spiritual forces and, second, on the continuous bearing of spiritual fruit: yielding the ministry to one's fellows of that which has been received from one's spiritual benefactors. Spiritual progress is predicated on intellectual recognition of spiritual poverty coupled with the self-consciousness of perfection-hunger, the desire to know God and be like him, the wholehearted purpose to do the will of the Father in heaven.

 

[Unfortunately]

25 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

I will never claim that my perception is anything other than mine, let alone that spirituality is reality. 

However I can state that the achievement of finality of spirituality is equivalent to the attainment of the maximum of reality, which would also be the maximum of Godlikeness and will be proved by the measure of the bearing of the verifiable spiritual fruit that will be shown.

 

(100:2.1) Spiritual development depends, first, on the maintenance of a living spiritual connection with true spiritual forces and, second, on the continuous bearing of spiritual fruit: yielding the ministry to one's fellows of that which has been received from one's spiritual benefactors. Spiritual progress is predicated on intellectual recognition of spiritual poverty coupled with the self-consciousness of perfection-hunger, the desire to know God and be like him, the wholehearted purpose to do the will of the Father in heaven.

 

My mistake, I didn't word my post correctly; I was referring to using the words 'truth' and spiritual' together as they do not correlate. Truth is reality and spirituality is not reality, therefore cannot be classed as truth. That was what I was trying to infer.

[Tatetopa]

On 7/1/2017 at 9:15 PM, Astra. said:

I personally lean more towards the random and cosmic accident theory. Something tremendous went 'bang' because of certain natural gases and matter...that collided...and there after, set off a cause and effect situation that spawned more infinite Universe's and galaxies over billions and billions of years that are impossible to measure or calculate.
   

Maybe not so random, the bang is implied in the mathematics of the matter energy thing.   Fish gotta swim, and birds gotta fly,and expansions gotta happen in the sweet by and by. 

[Astra.]

31 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Maybe not so random, the bang is implied in the mathematics of the matter energy thing.   Fish gotta swim, and birds gotta fly,and expansions gotta happen in the sweet by and by. 

^ cute.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

On 7/3/2017 at 6:09 AM, Unfortunately said:

On 7/3/2017 at 3:56 AM, Will Due said:

As a post script, you're probably aware that my purpose for participating in this forum is to bring the existence of the Urantia Book to the attention of anyone who may find it useful for determining what's real in life, when most of what can be known is often fraught with doubt and confusion. It's a crazy world.

The Urantia Book is epochal revelation. The fifth time to this world. It is an extraordinary literary work, and its authorship is unquestionably super-human. Its advent in the world is much more impressive than if God where to float the Statue of Liberty above NYC as you stated, because it embraces "the highest existing concepts of spiritual values as a part of the new and enhanced co-ordination of planetary knowledge" and is destined to influence the evolution of a great spiritual awakening that will bring down the curtain that shields what needs to be exposed for good.

 

I appreciate your conviction and with any luck you might find someone who is in need of that kind of spiritual guidance. I personally rely on more of a spiritual self-awareness path and as such I don't need books/religious doctrine to define that for me, nor would they help me in the slightest as that is not what my spirituality revolves around.

Good luck with your endeavors. 

I will give Will Due credit, and noticed that he states he brought in the book, (in which is close to the OP's topic, I think) which if anyone else is interested. Not that, everyone should find it interested. If I understood that correctly. But, I feel I'm like you, having that same kind of path you have with no need material things like books, and have had no religious doctrine type upbringing to have gotten there. 

And Will Due, please accept my apologies in seeing Unfortunately's point of view of one stating a personal experience was real to them, does not necessarily actually real for everyone to think so. I still feel it's a subjective experience that hasn't gone through the process of showing an objective existence like similar popular experience. (and even then, if not everyone, that can be subjective too.)  I have had experiences, which could be considered in the paranormal sense, that seemed extremely real to me, but that still doesn't mean it's considered that by everyone else. There could be many explanations as to what it could be other wise. And if not possible mundane explanation outside my experience, but there could be physical reasoning to it too. That doesn't mean, one definitely has to accept that for their subjective experience, if it's unexplained to the individual, I think that individual should still consider it what they consider it is. But, for me, with that, I don't think I can expect everyone else to see it that way. I think, because there is varying experiences, differing to mine, that has worked through their lives to come up to their frame of mind.  I just feel, until it's shared by all, it's still a subjective experience. And for me, still a debatable reason of what it is. *shrugs* 

 

[Grandpa Greenman]

Just because our Universe has a beginning is not an indicator of a god being who created it.  It just means we don't, at this point, have the tools understand what is going on in the big picture.  When I look out window at the world I see a system of life, that expands beyond our ability to experience, at this time.  In my humble opinion,  the Universe is a living entity among many of it's kind or type. The big bang is birth, just like the birth of a child.  As to it's awareness, of itself or of us, hard to say.  I'm only know for sure I am self aware and maybe that is my role, as a part of the universe. As to the origins of a multiverse, first we got find a way to detect it to see if it's actually there and it's true nature.    if we last long enough as a species we might figure it out, who knows.  

[D.O'N]

I think us being self aware is our down fall, while we do have smart animals i doubt they sit there and wonder where we come from, what happens when we die, is their a God etc (but im not in their head so who knows) While we do, and dont get me wrong it can be fun to think about those things, but it is a curse at times aswell. Is being self aware about somethings really a good thing?

Edited July 4, 2017 by Baldylocks

[Podo]

The whole premise of OP seems a bit lacking. "Something must be eternal, therefore god" is a very god-of-the-gaps-ish argument. Just because something probably exists/existed outside the bounds of our universe doesn't mean that it *must* represent a deity. For all we know it's nothing more than a physical law that we're not subject to, or a lack of laws that we *are* subject to. Cramming a god into that blank space is a cop-out.

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, Podo said:

The whole premise of OP seems a bit lacking. "Something must be eternal, therefore god" is a very god-of-the-gaps-ish argument. Just because something probably exists/existed outside the bounds of our universe doesn't mean that it *must* represent a deity. For all we know it's nothing more than a physical law that we're not subject to, or a lack of laws that we *are* subject to. Cramming a god into that blank space is a cop-out.

 

If there are physical laws, what (who) wrote them?

 

[Will Due]

2 hours ago, Baldylocks said:

I think us being self aware is our down fall, while we do have smart animals i doubt they sit there and wonder where we come from, what happens when we die, is their a God etc (but im not in their head so who knows) While we do, and dont get me wrong it can be fun to think about those things, but it is a curse at times aswell. Is being self aware about somethings really a good thing?

 

(111:1.3) Material mind is the arena in which human personalities live, are self-conscious, make decisions, choose God or forsake him, eternalize or destroy themselves.

(130:4.9) Only in degree does man possess mind above the animal level aside from the higher and quasi-spiritual ministrations of intellect. Therefore animals (not having worship and wisdom) cannot experience superconsciousness, consciousness of consciousness. The animal mind is only conscious of the objective universe.

 

You can find out more about these things said, if you're interested, in the Urantia Book. 

http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/read-urantia-book-online

 

[Podo]

54 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

If there are physical laws, what (who) wrote them?

 

It is a fallacy to assert that the existence of constants requires a conscious writer. There are reasons for them, of course, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support their intelligent creation