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

GlitterRose
8 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Show me how the Urantia Book supports eugenics.

The UB spells it right out for you. I'm not going to quote your book. You have read it, or at least you claim to have read it. Find it yourself. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Yes, no proof. But life is pretty nice living in a mansion. :D

Someone said that you can enjoy a nice garden without having to imagine that there are fairies at the bottom of it.

Edited by eugeneonegin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

I know the drill. Let me paint a rational argument.

A person is born in his or her father's house. The one he planned and constructed for him or her to live and grow up in. Everyday he feeds him, provides him with everything he needs, his clothes, his pencils, all manner of things for his enjoyment. He assigns him one of the rooms in his mansion to occupy, and so forth, watches over him but allows him to make mistakes so he'll learn to be careful, and so on.

Then for some reason, other than being rational, this same person makes a big show and denies that his or her father exists, claiming there's no evidence. While all along he's just in the other room, out of sight. :rofl:

The analogy you've presented in no way supports your argument. Not only can his claims about his father be tested, his assertions are not immune to disproof. Arguments for the existence of God, on the other hand, do not meet that criteria, and are, as a result, not worth the paper they're written on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
53 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Yes, no proof. But life is pretty nice living in a mansion. :D

Your analogy doesn't work. We don't live in a mansion, because a mansion is an artifically-constructed thing. For your analogy to even remotely work, we live in a wide open field, or a mountain cave, or something like that. Equating an artificially constructed piece of engineering to the universe itself is disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
26 minutes ago, Podo said:

Your analogy doesn't work. We don't live in a mansion, because a mansion is an artifically-constructed thing. For your analogy to even remotely work, we live in a wide open field, or a mountain cave, or something like that. Equating an artificially constructed piece of engineering to the universe itself is disingenuous.

I think you are being a bit pedantic.

"Mansion" in this context means the world, or universe, I think.

(Didn't someone in the bible say "my house has many mansions" in a metaphorical sense?)

Share this post


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

I think you are being a bit pedantic.

"Mansion" in this context means the world, or universe, I think.

(Didn't someone in the bible say "my house has many mansions" in a metaphorical sense?)

I am aware that "mansion" meant the world or the universe. That's why I wrote what I wrote. The implication being that the universe necessarily required a creator, in the same way that a mansion did. Which, of course, is absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wes4747
2 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

The UB spells it right out for you. I'm not going to quote your book. You have read it, or at least you claim to have read it. Find it yourself. 

As a second, i read that too...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
27 minutes ago, Podo said:

I am aware that "mansion" meant the world or the universe. That's why I wrote what I wrote. The implication being that the universe necessarily required a creator, in the same way that a mansion did. Which, of course, is absurd.

I get it. And agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
10 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

I've never had a personal relationship with a Blue Whale or an amoeba, but I am certain they exist.

Because of the evidence.

 I am certain  that is true. However,  that is not knowing. It is a belief based certainty, based on second or third hand evidences, and your acceptance that those evidences are true.We live with such certain (true and justifiable ) beliefs, all the time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin

The problem is, religion is not amenable to logic.

The fact that mankind has a history of many gods, none of whom have answered any prayer or entreaty, or have given any indication they exist, seems to be neither here nor there to the religious folk.

Quite otherwise sensible people believe, or would like to believe, in a god. It is akin to mental illness.

My belief is that religion is drummed into children when they are most vulnerable (they are pre-programmed to learn language and other stuff which helps ensure survival), and it can take a lifetime to get it out of the brain.

It is disappointing that in the 21st Century we still have a  branch of learning called "Theology", which is taught in colleges. It should more properly be called Mythology or History.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 I am certain  that is true. However,  that is not knowing. It is a belief based certainty, based on second or third hand evidences, and your acceptance that those evidences are true.We live with such certain (true and justifiable ) beliefs, all the time

Well, I'm glad you accept we need evidences.

There are no evidences for any kind of god or deity. Are there? Give me one, I dare you, no, I double dare you!

Give me one piece of credible evidence that the Norse gods existed, the ancient Greek gods existed, the ancient Roman gods existed, the Cargo Cult Gods existed, the Scientologists God (whatever they believe in) exists, the Muslims, the Christians, the Buddhists, the Seven Day Adventists, etc., etc.

Just one piece of verifiable evidence that any one of these gods were active and achieved something would win your argument.

I know what you will say- only those who believe and understand, can understand God's great work. I can't because I am a unbeliever.

 

Edited by eugeneonegin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
10 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

Wrong, surety and knowledge is gained through evidence, not personal experience.

A person's personal experience is unique to them, a scientific fact is universally true.

 

 

 The only  evidences YOU can be certain  of are those  you gather and experience for yourself.

 Any evidences not tested by yourself are ipso facto  accepted in faith from others . All scientific knowledge is originally individually based and gained, only becoming accepted as scientific when it is peer reviewed, tested and show to be repeatable

Every persons' real (rather than imagined ) experience is just a s scientifically true as anything else.  Reality is demonstrated to an individual by the same proofs and evidences by which it is demonstrated to science  There are many cases where one or two human experiences were the ONLY evidences for the truth or existence of something.  Best example ?  At first only two human beings knew what it was like to walk on the surface of the moon and had concrete evidences of that experience

 You CANNOT gain surety of knowledge by second or  third  hand evidences or sources, because the validity of such sources relies on your faith based acceptance of their validity  When those two men returned from the moon they KNEW what it was like to walk upon it. Everyone else had to take their word for it.   I watched them descend from the capsule and walk, but even that is not first hand evidence.  I had to accept  the validity and reliability/truth of what i was watching. 

Share this post


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

The problem is, religion is not amenable to logic.

The fact that mankind has a history of many gods, none of whom have answered any prayer or entreaty, or have given any indication they exist, seems to be neither here nor there to the religious folk.

Quite otherwise sensible people believe, or would like to believe, in a god. It is akin to mental illness.

My belief is that religion is drummed into children when they are most vulnerable (they are pre-programmed to learn language and other stuff which helps ensure survival), and it can take a lifetime to get it out of the brain.

It is disappointing that in the 21st Century we still have a  branch of learning called "Theology", which is taught in colleges. It should more properly be called Mythology or History.

True religion is not a system of philosophic belief which can be reasoned out and substantiated by natural proofs, neither is it a fantastic and mystic experience of indescribable feelings of ecstasy which can be enjoyed only by the romantic devotees of mysticism. Religion is not the product of reason, but viewed from within, it is altogether reasonable. Religion is not derived from the logic of human philosophy, but as a mortal experience it is altogether logical. Religion is the experiencing of divinity in the consciousness of a moral being of evolutionary origin; it represents true experience with eternal realities in time, the realization of spiritual satisfactions while yet in the flesh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 The only  evidences YOU can be certain  of are those  you gather and experience for yourself.

 Any evidences not tested by yourself are ipso facto  accepted in faith from others . All scientific knowledge is originally individually based and gained, only becoming accepted as scientific when it is peer reviewed, tested and show to be repeatable

Every persons' real (rather than imagined ) experience is just a s scientifically true as anything else.  Reality is demonstrated to an individual by the same proofs and evidences by which it is demonstrated to science  There are many cases where one or two human experiences were the ONLY evidences for the truth or existence of something.  Best example ?  At first only two human beings knew what it was like to walk on the surface of the moon and had concrete evidences of that experience

 You CANNOT gain surety of knowledge by second or  third  hand evidences or sources, because the validity of such sources relies on your faith based acceptance of their validity  When those two men returned from the moon they KNEW what it was like to walk upon it. Everyone else had to take their word for it.   I watched them descend from the capsule and walk, but even that is not first hand evidence.  I had to accept  the validity and reliability/truth of what i was watching. 

I get it.

You are not very intelligent, but you like getting involved in controversial topics on the internet.

Good luck.

Don't quote me again, thanks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
8 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

No, a scientific fact must be capable of validation which means it can be replicated by others using the same experimental conditions. There may be further research with different results, but again this further work must be amenable to validation.

A unique personal experience will always remain a unique personal experience- this may be of inestimable value to the individual, but of no value to science.

That becomes an accepted scientific fact.  However there are many truths and facts never tested or proven by science but known to individuals  i had two pieces of buttered toast for breakfast That is a fact and true  However  it will never be scientifically tested.  That does not invalidate its status as a true fact.  Of course individual experiences are of extreme value to science, as pointed out, but which you refuse  to accept.  All science is based on individual experiences which are then compared tested repeated under controlled conditions before being declared "scientific fact", but when you read such a fact and have no knowledge or experience of it you have a choice to believe it or not. If you read the history of science and of scientists you will see how individuals contributed to and proved ideas concepts and  hypotheses, like those who tested vaccines on themselves  .  CAPABLE OF validation is quite different to  HAVING BEEN validated   A statement of fact must be capable of validation but does not have to have been validated.  

Share this post


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

True religion is not a system of philosophic belief which can be reasoned out and substantiated by natural proofs, neither is it a fantastic and mystic experience of indescribable feelings of ecstasy which can be enjoyed only by the romantic devotees of mysticism. Religion is not the product of reason, but viewed from within, it is altogether reasonable. Religion is not derived from the logic of human philosophy, but as a mortal experience it is altogether logical. Religion is the experiencing of divinity in the consciousness of a moral being of evolutionary origin; it represents true experience with eternal realities in time, the realization of spiritual satisfactions while yet in the flesh.

 

This is a nonsensical post, I shall either ignore you or put you on ignore, depends how much you irritate me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

That becomes an accepted scientific fact.  However there are many truths and facts never tested or proven by science but known to individuals  i had two pieces of buttered toast for breakfast That is a fact and true  However  it will never be scientifically tested.  That does not invalidate its status as a true fact.  Of course individual experiences are of extreme value to science, as pointed out, but which you refuse  to accept.  All science is based on individual experiences which are then compared tested repeated under controlled conditions before being declared "scientific fact", but when you read such a fact and have no knowledge or experience of it you have a choice to believe it or not. If you read the history of science and of scientists you will see how individuals contributed to and proved ideas concepts and  hypotheses, like those who tested vaccines on themselves  .  CAPABLE OF validation is quite different to  HAVING BEEN validated   A statement of fact must be capable of validation but does not have to have been validated.  

I have genuine concerns about your mental health.

I think you should avoid controversial sites like this, seriously. Go see your GP. I don't mean this unkindly at all.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
8 hours ago, Podo said:

I do not support eugenics. Period, end-of-discussion. If you do, you are a trash person with trash ideas. It is not our job to declare demographics as inferior or superior. Sod off with your eugenics, go to a nazi forum or some other cesspit instead. 

Depends how you define eugenics. It got a bad name under hitler but genetic engineering can eliminate so many illnesses and  disorders. i am all for using medical science, including genetic manipulation, to eradicate congenital birth defects, spina bifida, chrones disease  and things like parkinsons disease, muscular dystrophy or motor neurone disease. It is just an extension of modern medical practice and the hippocratic principle.  

basically eugenics is 

" the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. " 

there is no racial or other qualifier in that definition

Today we can use genetics rather than simply controlled breeding but, in principle, if the traits sought are genuinely  desirable such as better health and less suffering,    I don't have a problem with it.

My cousin would be alive today if the genetic heart disease caused by the unfortunate combined genes of her parents had not caused her heart and lungs to fail . While in line for  heart lung transplant she died before one became available  Today, genetic testing would have told her parents of the danger, before the y had children and allowed an informed or controlled choice about whether to have children.

Her two brothers were unaffected but in her genes the combination of her parent's genetic make up  was lethal. Prevention is an extension of, and better than, curing something.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
4 hours ago, Baldylocks said:

 

Until said person walks into the room and sees his/her dad, you cant do that with God...

Maybe, but maybe not.   It depends on whether a real and physical god or gods exists, or not.  If they do then assuredly you CAN  (potentially) walk into a room and find them and they can walk into a room and find you .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
4 hours ago, Podo said:

False equivalence. There is no way to walk into another room and reveal a deity. There is no physical trace, nor has there ever been. There is no reason to believe that such an entity exists, therefore. Your analogy further breaks down because tools and a home necessitate a builder, while the existence of the universe is not implicit proof of any sort of creator.

This is your experience, but   not that of millions of people, including a significant percentage of modern humans, who claim physical contact with gods or agents of gods .  

So, logically,YOU have no reason to believe and a right not to believe  

 That leaves some who choose to believe  and others who claim to know that gods exist, due to physical personal encounters with them.  To maintain your disbelief you must extend it to all those people and claim every one of them is mistaken, deluded, or lying.   Is that  a logical or reasonable assumption, and can you verify it, using evidences?.

 if you cannot, then  is it not just the same as them trying to impose their belief or knowledge over your own experiences and beliefs? . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, eugeneonegin said:

Well, I'm glad you accept we need evidences.

There are no evidences for any kind of god or deity. Are there? Give me one, I dare you, no, I double dare you!

Give me one piece of credible evidence that the Norse gods existed, the ancient Greek gods existed, the ancient Roman gods existed, the Cargo Cult Gods existed, the Scientologists God (whatever they believe in) exists, the Muslims, the Christians, the Buddhists, the Seven Day Adventists, etc., etc.

Just one piece of verifiable evidence that any one of these gods were active and achieved something would win your argument.

I know what you will say- only those who believe and understand, can understand God's great work. I can't because I am a unbeliever.

 

Actually there are  physical  evidences that such entities exist  it is just that you have not experienced them yourself and have chosen not to accept the valiftiy of second or third hand evidences form other sources The same can be said for ghosts and aliens, to use just two common examples    Such an entity need to have two qualities to be  capable of being shown/proven  to be a god.

First it must offer physical testable  evidences of its existence. Second it must offer physical evidences which qualify it for what we call a god.

The first is easy. All physical things offer the abilty to test their physical existence.  The second  is harder because there are varying definitions of what qualifies something as a god   Some people claim that if we can prove the physical nature of an entity this automatically proves it is not a god.  I would argue that unless we can prove its existence first, then there is no point trying to prove that it is a god.

No i would say that belief is a matter  of choice only available to those without knowledge. Those with proofs and evidences know and thus do not have a rational choice to believe or disbelieve.

I was a n atheist secular humanist  when  a god  like entity manifested in my physical existence and returned time and time again,   teaching me, protecting me, empowering me and healing me  I don't have a choice about believing in its existence  or not  although i do have a choice about how i perceive it and what i call it.  The existence of this entity is proven by my continued life Several times it has intervened physically to save my life and ta t of my wife If it was not present i would be dead.

Now while that evidence is not transferrable to you, it is absolutely convincing to me. This being has intelligence physical presence and a lot of power in the physical world.  it physically shapes and alters reality while explaining what it is doing and why it is doing so.

Not expecting you to believe a word of this ( i wouldn't have either) Just saying  that, for me ,and many other humans with similar experiences of a powerful protective and caring entity connected to them as an individual,  it is absolute proof of the  existence of entities we know as gods.  They offer the same physical proofs of their presence as any other real thing.

You can touch them, feel them, speak with them learn form them   etc.   They can heal, protect,  and use/manipulate  matter and energy at will  

In my opinion this is the same being or race of beings encountered by individual humans since cro magnon times and the y continue to offer the same role to humanity One of guidance/education,  protection and  empowerment  IMO They actually did help cro magnon people hunt,  help norse people to sail the seas,   and today they continue such relationships with human beings.   They offer the same for me as they have to all humans past and present  

Humans create religions and organised beliefs around such contacts and experiences  but, in my experience, this is not meant to happen.

it is supposed to be a unique individual connection between a human being and the "god"

 They walk with everyone  and exist around you and inside you  but generally are only accessible to those whose  hearts and minds are open to their existence. Sometimes, however, the y impose their presence for their own reasons. 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
On 7/2/2017 at 6:08 AM, Lilly said:

Ok, I'm not saying there's a 'personal God' or a God indicative of any particular religion. What I'm offering as a hypothesis is that *something* eternal has to exist. In philosophy this is called the Cosmological Argument. Here's the basic framework of this hypothesis:

Something exists (pretty obviously our universe)

Nothing can’t bring forth something

Therefore, something must have always existed in order to cause the universe to come into existence

The universe didn’t always exist (we know the universe came into being at the Big Bang)

Therefore, something outside of the universe must have always existed

 

So, what has always existed? What is eternal? IMO, this has to be God. Opinions?

 

No, it doesnt have to be 'God'   unless you define God in different ways . 

 

If we have pairs of duality and one is + and the other   -     ( eg 'superpartner theory )   then  n+   +  n  =  0 

So matter / energy   and   'dark' matter /energy   were created from   0 

What I am interested in is the 'original impetus '   that causes 'division'   .  But that can be contained within the process 

 

Image result for DNA  dividing gif

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
On 7/2/2017 at 5:02 PM, 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

Indeed !    It is called   'theology '   ;  those convoluted ideas that arise when a religious person tries to explain the logical holes in their argument  to the non religious     ;) 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

 and for the scientists it is called 'quantum theory '   .... 'dark matter'  .... 'alternate universes ' ......     :rolleyes:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
On 7/3/2017 at 3:41 AM, Will Due said:
On 7/3/2017 at 8:50 AM, eugeneonegin said:

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.

 

 

 

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.