Why I Think God Exists

[Will Due]

What if the make up of the universe and the human being were created for just one purpose, at least for this mortal life?

To ignore the objective perspective to prove anything, so subjectively, proof of the purpose for existing can be realized personally, the only possible way to know why we are here and where we are going.

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

What if the make up of the universe and the human being were created for just one purpose, at least for this mortal life?

To ignore the objective perspective to prove anything, so subjectively, proof of the purpose for existing can be realized personally, the only possible way to know why we are here and where we are going.

These two sentences seem to be in a little bit of conflict. If the make-up of the universe was created for just one purpose, then that one purpose is 'objective' by definition.  If 'the purpose' is subjective, then there are actually many purposes based on who you are talking to, not just one.

[Will Due]

9 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

These two sentences seem to be in a little bit of conflict. If the make-up of the universe was created for just one purpose, then that one purpose is 'objective' by definition.  If 'the purpose' is subjective, then there are actually many purposes based on who you are talking to, not just one.

To clarify: the one purpose for this life, which is short, is to find out, to know, subjectively, that there are many more purposes to follow this life. But in order to participate in the life to come, beyond mortality, there will need to be reasonable recognition response of this, which is only possible subjectively, not objectively. 

What if this is the purpose of subjectivity?

 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Will Due

[Stubbly_Dooright]

3 hours ago, Will Due said:

What if the make up of the universe and the human being were created for just one purpose, at least for this mortal life?

To ignore the objective perspective to prove anything, so subjectively, proof of the purpose for existing can be realized personally, the only possible way to know why we are here and where we are going.

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!?!?!?

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

These two sentences seem to be in a little bit of conflict. If the make-up of the universe was created for just one purpose, then that one purpose is 'objective' by definition.  If 'the purpose' is subjective, then there are actually many purposes based on who you are talking to, not just one.

Ah, so that is what he meant. I thought so, but couldn't make that out right away. Sorry Will Due, and it's not on you, I have problems with understanding right away. I'm glad LG put it into another perspective. 

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

To clarify: the one purpose for this life, which is short, is to find out, to know, subjectively, that there are many more purposes to follow this life. But in order to participate in the life to come, beyond mortality, there will need to be reasonable recognition response of this, which is only possible subjectively, not objectively. 

What if this is the purpose of subjectivity?

Well, isn't that still on speculating still? And like LG said, it would be made up of many purposes based on the subjective point of view. Now, team work is something I always go for and agree as a successful situation, but can that be understood and learned from? 

And that's another thing, with your reference to life being short. What if it's too short, meaning too short to really learn anything. In my perspective, not one person in history really has a hand of the answers beyond this plane of existence or really found any proof of a higher power. You even put into a 'what if' situation, and not that you  know for sure. 

And even in the short life span, not everyone has the luck to live it fully, thus being cut off from learning anything they made have needed to learn. 

If there was something to learn, it either should have been made to be easier to obtain, or make our lives longer, or both. Some people think the universe is too organized (in some sense) to not be a creator. I personally don't think it's that organized. And the pattern I happen to see, (I think others do as well) could easily be natural from a scientific point of view. (Well as scientific as I can get. Biology and the sciences were never my favorite classes.   *shrugs*  ) 

I don't understand how conjecture is used as a reasoning or proof. 

 

[Will Due]

44 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

And like LG said, it would be made up of many purposes based on the subjective point of view.

I'll clarify: what if it's the same purpose for everyone, to subjectively recognize and respond to the one purpose of the short mortal life, that there are many more purposes to follow this life. Which, if the desire develops to want to participate in life past this life, reasonable response to doing what it takes becomes necessary to discover it for oneself?

 

44 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

And that's another thing, with your reference to life being short. What if it's too short, meaning too short to really learn anything. In my perspective, not one person in history really has a hand of the answers beyond this plane of existence or really found any proof of a higher power. 

What if it's the case, that if life is really too short for certain personal reasons, or cut short due to death in an accident or due to sickness, that this will qualify one for automatic continuance of life beyond, there to pick up where one had left off to address the very same purpose that was before, to recognize and respond, subjectively, without objective proof?

 

44 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

If there was something to learn, it either should have been made to be easier to obtain, or make our lives longer, or both. Some people think the universe is too organized (in some sense) to not be a creator. I personally don't think it's that organized. And the pattern I happen to see, (I think others do as well) could easily be natural from a scientific point of view. (Well as scientific as I can get. Biology and the sciences were never my favorite classes.   *shrugs*  ) 

I don't understand how conjecture is used as a reasoning or proof. 

What if science isn't what's necessary to recognize what the purpose for mortality is, and instead, just common reasoning sense. That way it will make sense that all, from the highest to the lowest, the most gifted with intelligent intellect to the least gifted can find it personally, subjectively and recognize the purpose and respond appropriately and accordingly?

 

What if God is fair?

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Will Due

[Podo]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

I'll clarify: what if it's the same purpose for everyone, to subjectively recognize and respond to the one purpose of the short mortal life, that there are many more purposes to follow this life. Which, if the desire develops to want to participate in life past this life, reasonable response to doing what it takes becomes necessary to discover it for oneself?

 

What if it's the case, that if life is really too short for certain personal reasons, or cut short due to death in an accident or due to sickness, that this will qualify one for automatic continuance of life beyond, there to pick up where one had left off to address the very same purpose that was before, to recognize and respond, subjectively, without objective proof?

 

What if science isn't what's necessary to recognize what the purpose for mortality is, and instead, just common reasoning sense. That way it will make sense that all, from the highest to the lowest, the most gifted with intelligent intellect to the least gifted can find it personally, subjectively and recognize the purpose and respond appropriately and accordingly?

 

What if God is fair?

 

You're stacking the "what-ifs" so high that you're in danger of falling and crashing into the ground. You have no argument, just a large collection of speculations.

[+Liquid Gardens]

3 hours ago, Will Due said:

To clarify: the one purpose for this life, which is short, is to find out, to know, subjectively, that there are many more purposes to follow this life. But in order to participate in the life to come, beyond mortality, there will need to be reasonable recognition response of this, which is only possible subjectively, not objectively. 

I think the issue is that 'the one purpose for this life is to find out subjectively that there are many more purposes to follow this life' is itself a subjective purpose, not 'the one'.  It's nitpicky agreed, but it's not 'the one purpose for this life', it's more like, 'Will Due's and those who agree with him purpose for this life'.  There are many people who think that everyone's one purpose in life is to glorify their god for example, which doesn't necessarily require there to me 'many more' purposes to follow this life.

Quote

What if this is the purpose of subjectivity?

I don't think those necessarily go together.  Subjectivity describes a concept that is in existence, it's like asking the purpose of a blue sky or the musical note C.

[Will Due]

33 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Subjectivity describes a concept that is in existence, it's like asking the purpose of a blue sky or the musical note C.

Well there you go then, that's the beauty of it. Because when I hear a Stratocaster stand up next to a mountain and chop it down with the edge of its hand, I see purpose.

I see the purpose of not being late.

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Will Due

[Stubbly_Dooright]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

I'll clarify: what if it's the same purpose for everyone, to subjectively recognize and respond to the one purpose of the short mortal life, that there are many more purposes to follow this life. Which, if the desire develops to want to participate in life past this life, reasonable response to doing what it takes becomes necessary to discover it for oneself?

And will that be the same with each person? You're points and post seems to be using a lot of 'what if's', but that doesn't mean it's definitely true. And if those 'what if's' are true, wouldn't it be a lot easier for one to find it? And would you think it's natural for many different outcomes in finding it, be different to each person? 

I am confused and wondering, where are you going in your purpose to explain the 'what if's'. I could say a lot of 'what if's' too, and more than likely you wouldn't agree with them. But, they are still 'what if's' that are similar to your's. 

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

What if it's the case, that if life is really too short for certain personal reasons, or cut short due to death in an accident or due to sickness, that this will qualify one for automatic continuance of life beyond, there to pick up where one had left off to address the very same purpose that was before, to recognize and respond, subjectively, without objective proof?

Your 'what if's' again. *sigh* But, do you think everyone is going to pour their entire energy into 'what if's' You cannot prove entirely that there is a life to continue after this one, either short or long. 

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

What if science isn't what's necessary to recognize what the purpose for mortality is, and instead, just common reasoning sense. That way it will make sense that all, from the highest to the lowest, the most gifted with intelligent intellect to the least gifted can find it personally, subjectively and recognize the purpose and respond appropriately and accordingly?

 

What if God is fair?

Despite me again getting  on your 'what if's' pertaining to the actions of God, because you don't know that for sure, you can't expect everyone to participate in the same path, based on 'what if's'. 

And again, using your 'what if's' to explain that maybe science would not be necessary, well that's a really farfched 'what if' for me to take that seriously for myself. Science is not my strong suit, but I feel that it's tells me about something that goes from 'what if' to it is actually true. 

43 minutes ago, Podo said:

You're stacking the "what-ifs" so high that you're in danger of falling and crashing into the ground. You have no argument, just a large collection of speculations.

Speculations maybe good for some, but not for all. 

24 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Well there you go then, that's the beauty of it. Because when I hear a Stratocaster stand up next to a mountain and chop it down with the edge of its hand, I see purpose.

I see the purpose of not being late.

 

 

 

You may, but someone more than likely wont. I just recently saw wisdom in a phrase mentioned by a character of Whoopie Goldberg in an old movie. But, you might brush it off as bonk. To each it's own. 

Yes, you raise subjectivity on a high level. Ok, there you go. But, do you expect your subjectivity be other's objectivity? 

 

[Will Due]

3 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

But, do you expect your subjectivity be other's objectivity? 

No, of course not. But why can't you accept that it's not a "What if" for me because I know it subjectively. 

Objectivity is a perspective, something to see, or visualize of another's experience. 

Subjectivity is a realizable personal experience. So it trumps objectivity.

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

15 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

But, do you expect your subjectivity be other's objectivity? 

No, of course not. But why can't you accept that it's not a "What if" for me because I know it subjectively. 

Objectivity is a perspective, something to see, or visualize of another's experience. 

Subjectivity is a realizable personal experience. So it trumps objectivity.

I do not know how is it, that you think I'm not accepting that you don't see it as a 'what if'. I believe, you would noticed that I stand behind you believing and subjectively seeing it as not 'what if's'. (And do see, that I put things in my opinion, not as a generalized effect, when it comes to speculations and subjective points of views.)

But, (and correct me if I'm wrong), I see how you make points that could be your wish for others to see this as truth. But, you did answer my question in not wishing your subjectivity in an objective form in other's eyes. 

But how are you going to have me believe subjectivity trumps objectivity. Because, I don't think so, by the fact, that since objectivity 

Definition of objective:

Quote

 relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophyb :  of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers :  having reality independent of the mind

  expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Since objectivity is something shared by all, I have a hard time seeing subjectivity, (when talking about a message or a religious point of view) as trumping objectivity. 

 

[Will Due]

30 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Since objectivity is something shared by all, I have a hard time seeing subjectivity, (when talking about a message or a religious point of view) as trumping objectivity. 

What I'm trying to say is that when it comes to belief in God, experience with God, knowing it all to be true, and not being able to share this with others is all that can be said about it. I apologize if I'm confusing the issue. 

When I asked the questions in a what if format, yes, I did it because I want those to know that I know it to be true, subjectively, since there is no other way to know. 

I realize this doesn't do much for most people but I only want to emphasize that it isn't that I think God exists, it's that I know it, subjectively and lowly as that might be. 

There is no other way to know. Perhaps discussing it further will just be more of the same. 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Will Due

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

Well there you go then, that's the beauty of it. Because when I hear a Stratocaster stand up next to a mountain and chop it down with the edge of its hand, I see purpose.

Look here brother, who you jiving with that cosmik debris?

Quote

 But why can't you accept that it's not a "What if" for me because I know it subjectively.

But what would it mean for Stubbs to 'accept' that?  If she 'accepts' that it's not a 'what if' for you because you 'know' it subjectively, what should she say?  Or should she not respond, or just say, 'that's nice'? 

Quote

What I'm trying to say is that when it comes to belief in God, experience with God, knowing it all to be true, and not being able to share this with others is all that can be said about it

Perhaps by you, but we have two whole boards here filled with things to say about those very topics.

[Will Due]

9 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Look here brother, who you jiving with that cosmik debris?

Look, at least I'm not asking anyone to eat the yellow snow.

 

10 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

But what would it mean for Stubbs to 'accept' that?  If she 'accepts' that it's not a 'what if' for you because you 'know' it subjectively, what should she say?  Or should she not respond, or just say, 'that's nice'? 

Yeah, that would be nice, but not objectively provable to her.

 

14 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Look here Perhaps by you, but we have two whole boards here filled with things to say about those very topics.

This is true.

Where did I hide my vodka?

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Look, at least I'm not asking anyone to eat the yellow snow.

Blessed are those who follow the wisdom of Nanook's mama.

Quote

Yeah, that would be nice, but not objectively provable to her

Sure, but we're light years away from talking about 'proving', we are still at square one, with little to no objective evidence at all for it.  'God exists' is currently at the same level as 'dragons exist', objective evidence-wise.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

7 hours ago, Will Due said:

What I'm trying to say is that when it comes to belief in God, experience with God, knowing it all to be true, and not being able to share this with others is all that can be said about it. I apologize if I'm confusing the issue. 

When I asked the questions in a what if format, yes, I did it because I want those to know that I know it to be true, subjectively, since there is no other way to know. 

I realize this doesn't do much for most people but I only want to emphasize that it isn't that I think God exists, it's that I know it, subjectively and lowly as that might be. 

There is no other way to know. Perhaps discussing it further will just be more of the same. 

 

First, you don't need to worry that others don't think you know it to be true. I know ghosts to be true, but others will not see that. And well, yeah, I can see that. But, it's still subjective, from what I feel it to be, and subjectively can have many environments surrounding it. 

I wonder, are you worried of what people think in how you believe? If you are, why should that bother you? (Again, if that is the case, that that is what you're worried about.) I feel, that maybe I could 'know' my belief, but that is just ok with just me. It could be understandable that some might think I'm under some influence or something else. It doesn't bother me. 

[Will Due]

8 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I wonder, are you worried of what people think in how you believe?

It's the other way around Stubbly. 

When I express that I don't think God exists, I know he does, some reply and try to tell me that it doesn't mean anything, that it's subjective like you do.

I wonder why they have a need to do this and don't instead realize that there is a huge difference between thinking and knowing and leave it at that. Since you can't know what anyone else really knows, why do you think that I do not know and keep telling me it's subjective?

I wonder, why do you worry that I know what I know?

 

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Will Due

[Stubbly_Dooright]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

10 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I wonder, are you worried of what people think in how you believe?

It's the other way around Stubbly. 

When I express that I don't think God exists, I know he does, some reply and try to tell me that it doesn't mean anything, that it's subjective like you do.

Ok, I understand your answer. Well, if I explain my position, maybe this might be understandable then. Haved been in a million conversations, like I have in my adult life, sometimes talking with people with the utmost surety of something that cannot be proven to others can be a bit awkward. Being in conversations with people who talk about their beliefs like it's right there, kind of expect me to not just believe (when I don't), but to behave in the same manner. Also as a trekkie, I have had conversations with people who talked about the in's and out's of a starship, like they have been on it. For me, I just don't want to 'play along'. Now, I'm not insinuating you behave like that, I'm using an example how it can get a bit uncomfortable to someone else in the conversation who cannot see that as the same way as you do. And they feel that way for their own good reasons. 

I wonder, if you insist others to feel that they 'should know he exists' like you do?. Now, I don't know for sure if others, do what I do, ( and I really hope you have noticed this ) but I still put things in "I think" or "I feel" and such, and that's even when it's on things that I feel can be proven and such. I may do this, speak of it's subjectivity, but I do feel it's coming from what I believe, and that's a big difference, I feel, when discussing things. If I feel there's some form of actuality to it, I post sources, links, things that show evidence, or where I got the information. 

But, I feel that you should keep in mind, if they do it, that it's an opinion based thought that comes from their mind, as you have yours. I feel, that most of the time, you start of in things that stems it's your opinion, but when you say 'you know', it's understandable when others don't believe it without proof. Take in what they say as well as hoping they take in what you're saying. 

Quote

I wonder why they have a need to do this and don't instead realize that there is a huge difference between thinking and knowing and leave it at that. Since you can't know what anyone else really knows, why do you think that I do not know and keep telling me it's subjective?

Because from a whole group based way of looking at it, it is subjective. It's still just coming from just you, hence a subjective outlook. You can say 'you know' all of the time, but if others don't believe that, they won't believe. What's the difference of you saying 'you know' and a liar saying 'they know'? Or the difference with someone who had a alcohol or drug related experience during the time of their 'evidence'? I remember eons ago on this board, a woman who was a staunch Christian, (nothing wrong with that) who was talking about an experience where she was pulled over by cops who I think charged her with speeding or something close to that, and she was telling them she wasn't, and she wasn't lying, and that's because she was Christian. She was confused and frustrated that they didn't believe her, and that they should, because she told them she was Christian. Hence, the advice given to her was that they couldn't stop their task to do that, because she said she was one thing, but she could be lying of who she was or other influences. 

Long time ago, a friend of mine, was talking to me about his experience walking along train tracks at night telling me he saw something that would be close to a UFO experience, where the UFO in question definitely had elements to it that sounded not close to any Earth like craft. But he also told me, he was drunk off his ass. I took his told experience and threw that out the window. ( I could also tell people of skiing down a friend's front lawn and think others could assume she own's ski resort, but I too was drunk off my ass, it was a small lawn and I was doing just fine in a t-shirt, jeans, and sneakers.   Experiences can become bigger due to other substances.     )

I also had a relationship with a pathological liar. Knew quite a few others. Was friend to one, worked with a couple of others. They could tell me 'they know' about a lot of stuff, and they really felt that they did 'know'. But since what ever they told me kept contradicting each story they told, I'm like, 'nope'. 

If you like, I can be like, ok then, 'you know'. But, I will not believe your 'I know' if I cannot possibly could, can I know? Now, you chose, just like me and all the rest of the others here, to come to this board. Things like what others tell you, is going to happen. Now, if you want to look at it another way, them telling you it's subjective, is the same courtesy as you telling them it's your own objectiveness. I don't know about them, but I see subjective, because that is how I see it and that I see what you talk about as subjective. 

Though, maybe some are just straight telling you as statements, in which there should be back up, or it should show in opinion-set up sentences. Like I do.  (or at least I hope I do ...... all of the time......    ) Well, anyways, your objective can still come out as someone else's subjective..................... or so I feel...................strongly,.............. in a very opinionated way.  

Quote

I wonder, why do you worry that I know what I know?

Actually, I don't know why you think that is what I worry about. I feel, it's more than not worrying you know what you know, but feel you have a right to feel and stand your ground that you know, what you know. What is something I feel should be discussed, (do I worry about it, or just be slightly concerned, ........ who knows?) is that you shouldn't expect me to feel that there isn't a truth that you know. I can feel, Great  you know, and in your heart you are happy you know. But, I can disagree with that and feel deep down in my heart, that you actually don't know and I have my reasons for it. You could look at it this way, that I wonder or am I correct in assuming that you worry that I don't consider that you actually know, but you think you did, and you want me to think that you know. Do you actually expect me to think that you actually know? 

I can disagree with that and think differently from you, you realize. Right?  

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Stubbly_Dooright

[Will Due]

9 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Do you actually expect me to think that you actually know? 

No. How's that for an in depth answer. 

 

10 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I can disagree with that and think differently from you

No. Everyone MUST think the same. Why? Because if I know what I know then you should know what you know that I know that what you know is subjective and that I don't care if you know or anyone knows that objectivity is subject to knowing in case you don't know.

I'm being facetious.  sorry.

I like you Stubbly!

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

20 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Do you actually expect me to think that you actually know? 

No. How's that for an in depth answer. 

Well, it's to the point.   And good to know.........  

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

21 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I can disagree with that and think differently from you

No. Everyone MUST think the same. Why? Because if I know what I know then you should know what you know that I know that what you know is subjective and that I don't care if you know or anyone knows that objectivity is subject to knowing in case you don't know.

Wait! WHAT?!?!?!?!?   Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr........................... (sssshhhhh, I'm playing along) 

Quote

I'm being facetious.  sorry.

Uh, ..............    ............................ I knew that..................      .................................. sure I did.  ..............      

and my wife is.............................. Morgan Fairchild!!!! .....................  Yeah, that's the ticket!!!!!   

Quote

I like you Stubbly!

Uh, thanks........................... though, I don't know why.............................. I'm weird.       

 

[GlitterRose]

On 8/1/2017 at 5:59 AM, Will Due said:

What if the make up of the universe and the human being were created for just one purpose, at least for this mortal life?

To ignore the objective perspective to prove anything, so subjectively, proof of the purpose for existing can be realized personally, the only possible way to know why we are here and where we are going.

 

There's a similar belief in Thelema, that everyone has a "true Will" that they need to determine. The trick is to figure out what it is and do it. That's also where I heard that bit about falling in love (with deity) that you mentioned. 

You say that you know there is a God. How is it that you know? Has God talked to you, personally? 

[GlitterRose]

21 hours ago, Podo said:

You're stacking the "what-ifs" so high that you're in danger of falling and crashing into the ground. You have no argument, just a large collection of speculations.

What-ifs are fun. That said, when we use them, it's typically because we don't really know and we're speculating. 

[Khanivore]

On 20/07/2017 at 6:36 PM, Baldylocks said:

Look, it is as simple as this, was God always here or was "it" made?

Alpha and omega that is God in a nutshell. 

[Galactic Goatman]

On 8/2/2017 at 11:43 AM, ChaosRose said:

There's a similar belief in Thelema, that everyone has a "true Will" that they need to determine. The trick is to figure out what it is and do it. That's also where I heard that bit about falling in love (with deity) that you mentioned. 

You say that you know there is a God. How is it that you know? Has God talked to you, personally? 

"No man has seen god" One part of the Bible. 

"Man has seen god" another part of the Bible. 

If even the Bible cannot decide weither or not man has seen god, how can we believe the statements of people who claim to see/hear god? 

[GlitterRose]

7 minutes ago, AustinHinton said:

"No man has seen god" One part of the Bible. 

"Man has seen god" another part of the Bible. 

If even the Bible cannot decide weither or not man has seen god, how can we believe the statements of people who claim to see/hear god? 

Well, we can't. And even if we see/hear God ourselves...we have to ask whether or not we're reliable on that. On top of which, how could we possibly know it's actually God? 

Edited August 4, 2017 by ChaosRose