Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Lilly

Why I Think God Exists

637 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

eugenonegin
6 hours ago, Kismit said:

I don't see what makes Lilly's belief provocative. Could you explain.

As I see it it fits very clisely wirh my own belief.

My self, I don't believe people have purpose, but I believe that God is the spark that makes all things exsist. Is this also a provocative thought?

I just don't understand how you where, provoked by someone's genuine and thoughtful post.

Lilly's hypothesis is a fallacy.

She says the universe exists, it can't come out of nothing (why not? Spontaneous existence is dismissed?) so something must have created it.

But she proposes the creator came out of nothing, even though she maintains nothing can come out of nothing.

Or did the creator get created because the creator couldn't have come out of nothing?

This type of argument can go on an on.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Edited by eugeneonegin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately
9 minutes ago, Trenix said:

Very reasonable argument. But I still believe our planet has quite a lot of perfections for it to not consider it some sort of miracle. The idea that our universe was created and then life somehow came about, is the equivalent of two big bang theories. Don't get me wrong, I believe in probability. For example, flipping a coin will eventually land on the side you want. Yet flipping a coin long enough wont magically make it become a dollar. This is what I believe, but who knows, maybe it's possible. Maybe.

You're correct, flipping a coin will not magically turn that coin into a dollar; that is against the laws that govern our existence (as we know them). But even though it's highly improbable, there are no laws preventing the possibility of our existence due to random factors as of yet. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that we are definitely the product of random variables, just that it is theoretically possible. As I mentioned in a previous post, finding out whether we are/aren't the product of randomness/a supernatural being would be fascinating, but it's not going to impact my life or my spirituality in any way. ^_^

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
16 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

Lilly's hypothesis is a fallacy.

She says the universe exists, it can't come out of nothing (why not? Spontaneous existence is dismissed?) so something must have created it.

But she proposes the creator came out of nothing, even though she maintains nothing can come out of nothing.

Or did the creator get created because the creator couldn't have come out of nothing?

This type of argument can go on an on.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

That's hardly provocative? Perhaps it is flawed in it's inception, but not provocative.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
9 minutes ago, Kismit said:

That's hardly provocative? Perhaps it is flawed in it's inception, but not provocative.

I meant provocative in the sense to provoke comment, not to come to blows.

And she has been successful.

I like to hear people's views on topics such as the existence of gods.

Edited by eugeneonegin
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
31 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

I meant provocative in the sense to provoke comment, not to come to blows.

And she has been successful.

I like to hear people's views on topics such as the existence of gods.

So you are using the term provocative in a positive sense?

In that case it is indeed a topic which provokes comment.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aka CAT
6 hours ago, Claire. said:

So God was the 'bang' behind the Big Bang? Particle physicists would disagree, but okay, for the sake of argument, let's say it was God.

So where did God come from?

The Cosmological Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God. The existence of the universe, the argument claims, is in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation is that it was created by God. But why is it that the universe requires an explanation, but God does not?

It's a shame the philosophers pushing this argument knew nothing about quantum mechanics and inflationary cosmology because they would then have argued that what was in place before the Big Bang were the laws of physics, not God — because the laws that govern the something-from-nothing creation of our universe are a far more persuasive argument than that of a cause-exempt, fantastical, eternal being.

The laws of physics in what is state-of-the-art for that branch of science establish a precedence for God.  How?  The laws of physics state that energy is neither created nor destroyed and that thoughts are energy.  Therefore, I am inclined to believe intelligence (Omniscience) pre-existed as much as favored matter in view of the overgeneralization following: 

“The conditions of the early universe were biased toward creating something out of nothing[...]”--  Scientists may have solved mystery of matter's origin

More exactly, conditions prerequisite to an/y universe favor the formation of matter.  In deed, while "[...]the Higgs boson — an elusive so-called 'God particle'[,] allows for the existence of pretty much everything else in the universe [...]", all of the above information implies the particle itself a result of intelligent design. 

 
Edited by aka CAT
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
33 minutes ago, aka CAT said:

The laws of physics in what is state-of-the-art for that branch of science establish a precedence for God.  How?  The laws of physics state that energy is neither created nor destroyed and that thoughts are energy.  Therefore, I am inclined to believe intelligence (Omniscience) pre-existed as much as favored matter in view of the overgeneralization following: 

“The conditions of the early universe were biased toward creating something out of nothing[...]”--  Scientists may have solved mystery of matter's origin

More exactly, conditions prerequisite to an/y universe favor the formation of matter.  In deed, while "[...]the Higgs boson — an elusive so-called 'God particle'[,] allows for the existence of pretty much everything else in the universe [...]", all of the above information implies the particle itself a result of intelligent design. 

 

Intelligent design and science doesn't mix!

Intelligent Design is a religious concept. Based on no evidence, while science is evidence based.

There are lots of reasons why people have a vague belief in a god, or a more concrete belief in a specific god.

Some are: Evolutionary. Those groups who worshipped had a common cause and worked together better than other groups and were more likely to survive.

Nurture: most people are born into a family, and grow up believing, at first, their parents are all-wise and all-powerful, and as adults carry this belief into the wider world.

Evolutionary again: we have an innate need to order the world, the better to survive, and we also try to understand the "bigger questions", such as why are we here?.

BTW, gorillas have been observed carrying out what has been claimed to be proto-religious rituals!

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not

My biggest problem is how life arose. I have a very hard time believing life came from non-life. I have looked at biology and chemistry and that just made it harder for me to believe life came from non-life. All of the amino acids that have to link togather just right to be able fold into proteins and so on. Even a single cell organism is extremly complex. 

I have never heard a half way logical explanation for life from non-life.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
2 hours ago, aka CAT said:

The laws of physics in what is state-of-the-art for that branch of science establish a precedence for God.  How?  The laws of physics state that energy is neither created nor destroyed and that thoughts are energy.  Therefore, I am inclined to believe intelligence (Omniscience) pre-existed as much as favored matter in view of the overgeneralization following: 

“The conditions of the early universe were biased toward creating something out of nothing[...]”--  Scientists may have solved mystery of matter's origin

More exactly, conditions prerequisite to an/y universe favor the formation of matter.  In deed, while "[...]the Higgs boson — an elusive so-called 'God particle'[,] allows for the existence of pretty much everything else in the universe [...]", all of the above information implies the particle itself a result of intelligent design. 

 

Bodily waste is also energy.

That quote implies nothing about intelligence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
2 hours ago, aka CAT said:

The laws of physics in what is state-of-the-art for that branch of science establish a precedence for God.  How?  The laws of physics state that energy is neither created nor destroyed and that thoughts are energy.  Therefore, I am inclined to believe intelligence (Omniscience) pre-existed as much as favored matter in view of the overgeneralization following: 

“The conditions of the early universe were biased toward creating something out of nothing[...]”--  Scientists may have solved mystery of matter's origin

More exactly, conditions prerequisite to an/y universe favor the formation of matter.  In deed, while "[...]the Higgs boson — an elusive so-called 'God particle'[,] allows for the existence of pretty much everything else in the universe [...]", all of the above information implies the particle itself a result of intelligent design. 

 

The "God Particle" name has nothing to do with religion- it refers to it's suspected omnipresence throughout the universe. It was a joke in a 1993 book, and the name is avoided by scientists today.

It was very nearly called the "Goddam Particle"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
6 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

 

But she proposes the creator came out of nothing, even though she maintains nothing can come out of nothing.

 

Here's where you misinterpreted what I'm trying to say. There is no actual 'creator' in my hypothesis as God doesn't need to be personified (more along the line of a natural force). God did not "come out of nothing" because God is eternal (has always existed). You're also still attempting to imply that I'm trying to use my hypothesis as some type of 'proof'. I already said that the question of God simply can not be proven...it has to be a matter of faith/belief.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
12 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Here's where you misinterpreted what I'm trying to say. There is no actual 'creator' in my hypothesis as God doesn't need to be personified (more along the line of a natural force). God did not "come out of nothing" because God is eternal (has always existed). You're also still attempting to imply that I'm trying to use my hypothesis a some type of 'proof'. I already said that the question of God simply can not be proven...it has to be a matter of faith/belief.

Okay, sorry to misquote you, Lilly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
13 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Here's where you misinterpreted what I'm trying to say. There is no actual 'creator' in my hypothesis as God doesn't need to be personified (more along the line of a natural force). God did not "come out of nothing" because God is eternal (has always existed). You're also still attempting to imply that I'm trying to use my hypothesis a some type of 'proof'. I already said that the question of God simply can not be proven...it has to be a matter of faith/belief.

But then what purpose does your version of God fulfil?

Why have god at all? Why not have a previous universe? I'm just asking, and not trying to be argumentative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
Just now, eugeneonegin said:

Okay, sorry to misquote you, Lilly.

Not misquoting, more like misinterpretation as I'm not claiming to have somehow proven the existence of God....just offering up an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
1 minute ago, eugeneonegin said:

But then what purpose does your version of God fulfil?

Why have god at all? Why not have a previous universe? I'm just asking, and not trying to be argumentative.

A universe with nothing having been eternal delivers us some logical problems as well. Just stating that God doesn't exist doesn't serve to explain things either.

BTW, some very, very intelligent people have tackled this question throughout history...no one has solved it (been at it for centuries). IMO no one will ever solve this question.

Here's an interesting example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
12 hours ago, Lilly said:
12 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 

I wonder, Lilly, what is the purpose of letting people know you believe God exists? I'm curious myself. 

Uh...because the existence of God is an 'unexplained mystery' and because this is a discussion forum about 'unexplained mysteries'. Nothing nefarious I assure you.

Oh no no no, I wasn't thinking anything nefarious. I never would have thought of that from you, anyways. :blush: But, I feel, when something is based on their own admitted opinion, which I feel you have, and opinions, beliefs, and such are something that everyone is entitled too, I just don't think anything would go on from there. It could be me, but I don't think anyone's opinions, be them harmless, should be challenged. Granted, you may believe in a way, that I wouldn't believe that, and for my reasons for that. In the end, I feel it would go back and forth, and what's would still be important, is the two would not waiver in what they believe, and I think it should stay that way. 

I could be missing the path here of mutual learning of how one sees things, and maybe we can both learn something new. If that is going on, I apologize. :yes: 

10 hours ago, Claire. said:

So God was the 'bang' behind the Big Bang? Particle physicists would disagree, but okay, for the sake of argument, let's say it was God.

So where did God come from?

The Cosmological Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God. The existence of the universe, the argument claims, is in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation is that it was created by God. But why is it that the universe requires an explanation, but God does not?

It's a shame the philosophers pushing this argument knew nothing about quantum mechanics and inflationary cosmology because they would then have argued that what was in place before the Big Bang were the laws of physics, not God — because the laws that govern the something-from-nothing creation of our universe are a far more persuasive argument than that of a cause-exempt, fantastical, eternal being.

I find this interesting. And I agree with the question about why the Universe needs an answer, but God does not? I have thought, that sometimes belief systems do not. (But, I have always questioned my belief, and hopefully expect to get an answer or understand it later. ) I do feel, there is more out there in information, that we haven't formulated a way to explain it. Could we be satisfied with that, and at the moment, feel that it's all something scientific that we can't put a finger on yet? Part of me, feels like we can. :) 

10 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

The Universe and our understanding of it is still a hot topic in physics.  I just finished a book by Brian Greene called "The Hidden Universe".  He is a physics professor at Columbia.  He has also done a TED talk on string theory about 15 min. long.  The math that underpins relativity and quantum theory points to the Big Bang not being a singular event.   In fact there may be an infinity of bubble universes that pop into being fold time and space around themselves and separate themselves from our universe forever.  We may live in one such bubble universe that spawned in an older existing universe.  The Big Bang is not necessarily the ultimate beginning, but then so what.  It does not change our ability to believe or not, even if we only live in one of an infinite number of other universes.

Ah yes, always learning something new.   :yes:  

But, I feel that way about beliefs too. ;)  

8 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:
8 hours ago, Claire. said:

 how the universe could have been created from nothing, and how the concept of something from nothing does not necessarily violate any conservation laws.

 

It's this part that trips people up and makes then insert their god(s), though there is no need for it and it really just further complicates matters and does nothing but inflate their own self worth. 

There could be so much more to 'nothing' than people realize. .................. Well, that's my feeling on that. ;) 

8 hours ago, Astra. said:

Was the Universe a cosmic accident, or was it created by intelligent design (such as God) is one of the biggest mysteries that still today stump and cause much debate between some of the most greatest scientists, religious folk, and philosopher's.

Personally, and only in my opinion. I find it difficult to get my head around a possible invisible, and supremely intelligent entity that kicked started the beginning of the Universe from nothingness. 

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.
   

I'm like, I can deal in the existence in both. And yea, I wouldn't blame that others would think, "how?". But, that's is me, and having something to think about a lot. :D 

6 hours ago, Tatetopa said:
7 hours ago, Unfortunately said:

As incredibly fascinating as it would be to have an answer to the question of our existence, I prefer to look toward the things that actually have a direct impact on our lives. Once we become 'all-powerful' and have solved all our worldly problems/know everything there is to know about the contents of our universe perhaps we can look into the universe's initial origins. Until such a time I think we should turn our efforts to questions that are within our grasp of understanding.

If you think about it, we have only been working on modern mathematical models of the Universe for the last 300 or so years since Newton.  I would find it a little disappointing to think we could figure it all out any time soon.  Its a little like getting to the end of a book or game and and thinking there should have been more.

Maybe, there is! :tu:  ;)   (well, that's my thinking anyways.....)  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

Lilly, I stand corrected. I think you introduced a thread that brought on some many fascinating posts on both sides. My following apologies. :blush:  :D  :blush: 

(I actually thought grounded but differing opinions could only go so far..) 

6 hours ago, Trenix said:

Interesting ideas and read, except some mistakes, like our universe being formed, is impossible, at least that's what I believe through modern day logic. Not only will the creation of a universe be consider a miracle by how low of a chance it could possibly happen by probability, but what about the way our planet has formed, the way our atmosphere was created, the way our organisms mutually assist one another to live, whether directly or indirectly. What about the fact that if we were too far or too close to the sun there would be not live on earth. You can go on and on with the what ifs, but it adds a lot to the table. It's essentially like throwing a brick in the sky and expecting it to fall and construct a house eventually. Some people may believe that, but I don't. There is more to life than randomness. This is not to say that by chance, things don't happen, but I've seen plenty in life where things happen for a reason.

I feel that way too. But going on your point about where Earth is to the sun and what life would there be, I would consider Mercury and Venus, and that we didn't evolve on those planets for that reason. *shrugs* 

6 hours ago, Astra. said:
6 hours ago, Unfortunately said:
  • I watched this earlier today! It's a great video, from what I've seen so far I'm definitely a fan of Neil de Grasse's viewpoints. He seems like a very astute fellow. :D

Yes, I like him very much as well. He doesn't pull any punches, and he also has a great sense of humour to boot. :tu:

I consider him the Bill Nye of the 21st century. ........... Even though Bill Nye is still around and going strong. :D  

I have hard time wrapping my head around various things like his work, but his latest book, for the those who need it like myself, I find very helpful! :tu:  

5 hours ago, Trenix said:

Very reasonable argument. But I still believe our planet has quite a lot of perfections for it to not consider it some sort of miracle.

Weeeeell, I could go without the earthquakes, tornadoes, tidal waves, blizzards, Volcanoes, and such. ;)  But, I do love those good old fashion thunderstorms. :D  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
5 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

Lilly's hypothesis is a fallacy.

She says the universe exists, it can't come out of nothing (why not? Spontaneous existence is dismissed?) so something must have created it.

But she proposes the creator came out of nothing, even though she maintains nothing can come out of nothing.

Or did the creator get created because the creator couldn't have come out of nothing?

This type of argument can go on an on.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

How ever I may feel that you are correct, I still am focusing on the fact, she has put it in her opinion, hence the title of her thread starting out as "Why I think....." 

I think, for all one could possibly break it down, do we still hope to change her mind about it? I don't think so. 

So, I wonder, it would be different if someone came out and said, it in a statement why they say God exists. And I think, there's a crutch in this, if it really doesn't cause anything in the real world, does someone have the right to change someone else's mind? 

But, that's me........... :wacko: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

To be scientific, an hypothesis must at least be falsifiable. In order to be falsifiable, it has to be testable.

Edited by ChaosRose
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
3 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

Intelligent design and science doesn't mix!

Intelligent Design is a religious concept. Based on no evidence, while science is evidence based.

There are lots of reasons why people have a vague belief in a god, or a more concrete belief in a specific god.

Some are: Evolutionary. Those groups who worshipped had a common cause and worked together better than other groups and were more likely to survive.

Nurture: most people are born into a family, and grow up believing, at first, their parents are all-wise and all-powerful, and as adults carry this belief into the wider world.

Evolutionary again: we have an innate need to order the world, the better to survive, and we also try to understand the "bigger questions", such as why are we here?.

BTW, gorillas have been observed carrying out what has been claimed to be proto-religious rituals!

 

 

And if anything, I'm part of the ration of the opposite of most people. I grew up secular, so despite my unique New Age belief, I don't have any mainstream ones, and I tend to prioritize science over belief in a lot of ways. Even when I can't get my head around it. ;) 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
4 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

To be scientific, an hypothesis must at least be falsifiable. In order to be falsifiable, it has to be testable.

I wasn't trying to be strictly scientific. I tend to use the term 'hypothesis' probably due to my science background. I could say 'idea' if that's any better. Also, I did say (a couple of times now) that I do not think the question of God existing is amenable to being proven.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
Just now, Lilly said:

I wasn't trying to be strictly scientific. I tend to use the term 'hypothesis' probably due to my science background. I could say 'idea' if that's any better. Also, I did say (a couple of times now) that I do not think the question of God existing is amenable to being proven.

Yeah, that's an issue with many things that are discussed on UM. It's that whole provable thing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simplybill

We may eventually find the answers to the origins of the material world, though we'll still have the questions about the origins of the non-material things such as emotion, intelligence, longing, grief, conscience, morality, decision-making...the hundreds of non-material components of our humanness. 

Some will argue that chemical activity in our brains may be the answer, but I'm not convinced that chemicals can force me to consider a glorious sunrise to be "beautiful", or to consider murder to be "evil". 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
6 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

Lilly's hypothesis is a fallacy.

She says the universe exists, it can't come out of nothing (why not? Spontaneous existence is dismissed?) so something must have created it.

But she proposes the creator came out of nothing, even though she maintains nothing can come out of nothing.

Or did the creator get created because the creator couldn't have come out of nothing?

This type of argument can go on an on.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

I don't think that's what she's saying. I think she's proposing that God is eternal. 

There are beliefs about God coming out of different types of nothing, but that's not how I'm understanding what she's saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
3 hours ago, Lilly said:

Here's where you misinterpreted what I'm trying to say. There is no actual 'creator' in my hypothesis as God doesn't need to be personified (more along the line of a natural force). God did not "come out of nothing" because God is eternal (has always existed). You're also still attempting to imply that I'm trying to use my hypothesis as some type of 'proof'. I already said that the question of God simply can not be proven...it has to be a matter of faith/belief.

I find your idea of a Creator very similar to my own:

Quote

I hope that you are understanding that I do not presume to know what exactly the Creator I believe in is. I consider it a creator only to the extent that it preceded our universes existance and set in motion events that culminated in said existance. I neither anthropomorphize it, in any way, nor do I presume to know its motivation, or even the assumption that it has/can have a motiviation. It could be something as "simple" as cause and effect of multiple unknown/unknowable processes on 11th dimensional space-time or something else entirely.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/300950-most-beautiful-thing-about-god/?do=findComment&comment=6002197

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.