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

Unfortunately

I think it would be hilariously ironic if there did turn out to be a creator and we were just the random product of a mass-scale experiment gone wrong. ^_^

Then everybody wins! Or loses...depending on how you look at it. :rofl:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt221

I belive in Atheisum ...... it's non Prophet organisation.... see what I done there

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aka CAT
8 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

Intelligent design and science doesn't mix!

According to you.

8 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

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

One needn't be religious to believe in intelligent design.  Granted it has already been conceded that there is no evidence one way or the other, I and others consider the complexity of the universe too much to happen by chance in however many billions of billions of years.  We find more logical the possibility of matter resulting from consciousness than vice versa.  Moreover, spiritually aware persons concur with Why Not and I in that we "have a very hard time believing life came from non-life."

6 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

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.

The above statement is patronizing.  The fact that some scientists, as I already stated, think it "allows for the existence of pretty much everything else in the universe [...]" infers why such persons like to refer to the Higgs boson as the 'God particle.'  One no more need be an atheist to be a scientist than skeptics, e.g. yourself, need be rude and condescending toward persons of faith.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do

The only proof that exists, that God exists, is the proof that you exist. Your personality. 

Quote

(1:6.2) God is to science a cause, to philosophy an idea, to religion a person, even the loving heavenly Father.

God is to the scientist a primal force, to the philosopher a hypothesis of unity, to the religionist a living spiritual experience.

Man's inadequate concept of the personality of the Universal Father can be improved only by man's spiritual progress in the universe and will become truly adequate only when the pilgrims of time and space finally attain the divine embrace of the living God on Paradise.

 

 

Materially speaking, the evaluation of the cosmos is that there's a person to evaluate it. You.

Quote

(195:7.11) If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to embolden the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify, nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could be executed only by some entity of supermachine status.

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

According to you.

One needn't be religious to believe in intelligent design.  Granted it has already been conceded that there is no evidence one way or the other, I and others consider the complexity of the universe too much to happen by chance in however many billions of billions of years.  We find more logical the possibility of matter resulting from consciousness than vice versa.  Moreover, spiritually aware persons concur with Why Not and I in that we "have a very hard time believing life came from non-life."

The above statement is patronizing.  The fact that some scientists, as I already stated, think it "allows for the existence of pretty much everything else in the universe [...]" infers why such persons like to refer to the Higgs boson as the 'God particle.'  One no more need be an atheist to be a scientist than skeptics, e.g. yourself, need be rude and condescending toward persons of faith.  

No evidence one way or another? Hahaha!

You may not be religious to believe in intelligent design but you certainly have to be, let us say, unscientific.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin

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?

Here a scientist is  hearing someone express the belief that the Prophet M rode to the moon on a winged horse and split it in two.

Do you expect him to say, well of course you are entitled to your opinion, that's a very valid theory?

I think it is possible to challenge a belief without being accused of being patronising, rude ,or condescending.

 

Edited by eugeneonegin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
8 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

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. :) 

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.

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
13 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. 

 

CAT, not sure if you've had a chance to view it just yet, but I posted a video earlier where one leading cosmologist addresses the first part of your comment. He and other physicists believe something from nothing can indeed be created without violating and conservation laws. I'd try to explain their theory and calculations myself, but I would make a dog's breakfast of it.

As for the concept of 'omniscience', my issues with it are twofold:

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. Sorry, but I don't for a moment think that theists should get a free pass on this. If they want to be taken seriously, they will have to come up with something significantly better than the Cosmological Argument.

Second, even if I could be convinced that some supreme being preexisted, I would like to know whether there was one being (or more), and what this being was like. Indeed, for all we know there were several beings and the big bang was nothing more than a "hold my beer" type situation.

Ask theists how many Gods are out there and what they are like, and you will get a myriad of answers. So who is right?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aka CAT
42 minutes ago, Claire. said:

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.

Similarly, I could claim your lack of belief in God a glaring example of your cognitive limitations, insofar as He is incomprehensible.  But, because of peoples' mind sets, such arguments tend to be futile.  So, my friend, I prefer we either stick to hard science or goof off in the Fun and Games Section.

Peace be with you.

Edited by aka CAT
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
21 minutes 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.

Quote

(1:2.8) Those who know God have experienced the fact of his presence; such God-knowing mortals hold in their personal experience the only positive proof of the existence of the living God which one human being can offer to another. The existence of God is utterly beyond all possibility of demonstration except for the contact between the God-consciousness of the human mind and the God-presence of the Thought Adjuster that indwells the mortal intellect and is bestowed upon man as the free gift of the Universal Father.

 

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

Edited by Will Due
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
29 minutes ago, aka CAT said:

Similarly, I could claim your lack of belief in God a glaring example of your cognitive limitations, insofar as He is incomprehensible.  But, because of peoples' mind sets, such arguments tend to be futile.  So, my friend, I prefer we either stick to hard science or goof off in the Fun and Games Section.

Peace be with you.

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.

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

A0yt5HX.jpg?1

Edited by Claire.
Image correction.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
30 minutes 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.

 

Edited by eugeneonegin
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
internetperson
5 hours ago, aka CAT said:

According to you.

Me too. Why can't I have a breathing tube and an eating tube?

1 hour ago, Claire. said:

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.

Ma'am, you just rang the gong to my soul.

26 minutes ago, aka CAT said:

Similarly, I could claim your lack of belief in God a glaring example of your cognitive limitations, insofar as He is incomprehensible.

I want to reply to this but it would take like 5 years. That being said I wish you the best in life! Your beliefs don't bother me a bit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
4 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

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

 

Not exactly.

The only people who know God exists are people who've had true personal spiritual experience.

Scientists experiment.

Religionists experience. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
28 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Not exactly.

The only people who know God exists are people who've had true personal spiritual experience.

Scientists experiment.

Religionists experience. 

 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
1 hour ago, eugeneonegin said:

Well, why doesn't God meet us halfway?

 

God doesn't meet us halfway, he meets us all the way. That isn't a miracle but he does establish law, and one law of the universe is: Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find.

 

Quote

(0:12.13) We are fully cognizant of the difficulties of our assignment; we recognize the impossibility of fully translating the language of the concepts of divinity and eternity into the symbols of the language of the finite concepts of the mortal mind. But we know that there dwells within the human mind a fragment of God, and that there sojourns with the human soul the Spirit of Truth; and we further know that these spirit forces conspire to enable material man to grasp the reality of spiritual values and to comprehend the philosophy of universe meanings. But even more certainly we know that these spirits of the Divine Presence are able to assist man in the spiritual appropriation of all truth contributory to the enhancement of the ever-progressing reality of personal religious experience — God-consciousness.

(0:12.14) [Indited by an Orvonton Divine Counselor, Chief of the Corps of Superuniverse Personalities assigned to portray on Urantia — that being the name of your world  the truth concerning the Paradise Deities and the universe of universes.] 

 

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately
14 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

God doesn't meet us halfway, he meets us all the way. That isn't a miracle but he does establish law, and one law of the universe is: Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find.

 

 

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

 

Honestly, you are allowed to believe what you wish to believe, but as there is literally no proof to either the concept of a spiritual creator (I really dislike the term 'god' as I've stated previously) or the absence of a spiritual creator, no one can say definitively that either concept is true/false.

Making claims that one is right and the other is wrong is utterly naive until such a time as we actually find out definitively. I think the number one lesson people need to learn is that both concepts are entirely theoretical at this stage. Of course stating opinions are fine, but I tend to have issues with those who are trying to pass something as fact when there is no realistic evidence to support their argument. ^_^

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
2 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

Of course stating opinions are fine, but I tend to have issues with those who are trying to pass something as fact when there is no realistic evidence to support their argument. ^_^

 

I wholeheartedly agree. That's always my first thought when I hear anyone say, there isn't any evidence that God exists. Because in my personal experience, there's plenty of evidence that he exists and exists as my Father, ever guiding and comforting me through all of it. But I'm very aware that none of that would be true if I hadn't utilized the faith he gave me, first.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately
1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

I wholeheartedly agree. That's always my first thought when I hear anyone say, there isn't any evidence that God exists. Because in my personal experience, there's plenty of evidence that he exists and exists as my Father, ever guiding and comforting me through all of it. But I'm very aware that none of that would be true if I hadn't utilized the faith he gave me, first.

 

I think an important thing to note is that personal experiences are based on belief until evidence of them can be shown (i.e. You believe what you experienced, but have no evidence to support this). I don't doubt that you personally believe what you experienced, but as it is personal it can't be claimed as proof. I think that's where many people go wrong unfortunately.

Brings light to the sentence: Just because you believe it, doesn't make it so. ^_^

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
5 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

I think an important thing to note is that personal experiences are based on belief until evidence of them can be shown (i.e. You believe what you experienced, but have no evidence to support this).

 

True spiritual experience is the result of faith. 

Beliefs (right or wrong) evolve, because personal spiritual experience evidence God's existence, not the other way around as you have said.

My spiritual experiences are based on the wholeheartedness of my faith, and that's the evidence I have.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately
22 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

True spiritual experience is the result of faith. 

Beliefs (right or wrong) evolve, because personal spiritual experience evidence God's existence, not the other way around as you have said.

My spiritual experiences are based on the wholeheartedness of my faith, and that's the evidence I have.

 

Faith is merely the strength of a belief. The two are interchangeable. If one has 'faith' in a god's existence then, in other words, they strongly believe in said god's existence. I understand where you are coming from, but spiritual experience is not limited to the concept of "God". I believe that I am a spiritual person, but the concept of there being a god/not being a god does not impact my spirituality in the slightest as I am not religious. Again, I'm not stating that your experiences are false, as that would be naive of me; I'm saying that those personal experiences are only strong beliefs as they do not provide verifiable evidence (something that can be used to supply valid information to others).

Edit: In other words, if I was convinced through personal experience that there was a spiritual apparition in a room, that would still only be my belief (however strong my faith in that concept is). Until such a time as I was to find evidence of it having been in the room that I could show to others, it will stay just that, a belief.

Edited by Unfortunately

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
1 hour ago, Unfortunately said:

I'm saying that those personal experiences are only strong beliefs as they do not provide verifiable evidence (something that can be used to supply valid information to others).

 

I have proof of God's existence in my personal experience, but proof is irrelevant, that's why it's not valid for another.

Being desirous of doing God's will is valid but it doesn't happen because there's proof of God's existence, and it also doesn't occur because of what is believed. 

That's the purpose of this mortal life. To decide. To decide what you want to want, and to do it before much can be known, understood or proved. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately
14 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

I have proof of God's existence in my personal experience, but proof is irrelevant, that's why it's not valid for another.

Being desirous of doing God's will is valid but it doesn't happen because there's proof of God's existence, and it also doesn't occur because of what is believed. 

That's the purpose of this mortal life. To decide. To decide what you want to want, and to do it before much can be known, understood or proved. 

 

Proof is irrespective of personal experience, so it would be incorrect to say that you have proof unless you can verify that proof with others.

I'm not sure I understand your second sentence. I live my life respecting the moral boundaries I have set for myself, no one else can set those boundaries for me as they are personal and unique to my tastes (although they do adapt over a lifetime of experience and exposure to different environments), the same applies to everyone else regardless of whether or not a religion influences said person's decisions.

I can understand that's what you personally believe. As for myself, I believe that learning, understanding and expanding our knowledge about everything (i.e. minimising our ignorance using objective truths, not subjective experiences) is the primary purpose.

Edit: Also, being aware of the fact we are ignorant about some things and then striving to learn more to minimise that ignorance is the way we better ourselves.

Edited by Unfortunately

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
13 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

I'm not sure I understand your second sentence.

 

Then I'll refer to this:

(1:0.3) The enlightened worlds all recognize and worship the Universal Father, the eternal maker and infinite upholder of all creation. The will creatures of universe upon universe have embarked upon the long, long Paradise journey, the fascinating struggle of the eternal adventure of attaining God the Father. The transcendent goal of the children of time is to find the eternal God, to comprehend the divine nature, to recognize the Universal Father. God-knowing creatures have only one supreme ambition, just one consuming desire, and that is to become, as they are in their spheres, like him as he is in his Paradise perfection of personality and in his universal sphere of righteous supremacy. From the Universal Father who inhabits eternity there has gone forth the supreme mandate, "Be you perfect, even as I am perfect." In love and mercy the messengers of Paradise have carried this divine exhortation down through the ages and out through the universes, even to such lowly animal-origin creatures as the human races of Urantia [that being the name of your world].

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately
1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

Then I'll refer to this:

(1:0.3) The enlightened worlds all recognize and worship the Universal Father, the eternal maker and infinite upholder of all creation. The will creatures of universe upon universe have embarked upon the long, long Paradise journey, the fascinating struggle of the eternal adventure of attaining God the Father. The transcendent goal of the children of time is to find the eternal God, to comprehend the divine nature, to recognize the Universal Father. God-knowing creatures have only one supreme ambition, just one consuming desire, and that is to become, as they are in their spheres, like him as he is in his Paradise perfection of personality and in his universal sphere of righteous supremacy. From the Universal Father who inhabits eternity there has gone forth the supreme mandate, "Be you perfect, even as I am perfect." In love and mercy the messengers of Paradise have carried this divine exhortation down through the ages and out through the universes, even to such lowly animal-origin creatures as the human races of Urantia [that being the name of your world].

 

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

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.

  • Like 2

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.