How to explain existence of God from reality

[oslove]

12 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

[...]

I didn't grow up with any concept. I know a lot of people, who consider God in the female concept.   

[...]

Dear Stubbly, let us just concentrate on this one point, the concept of God.

I have this concept of God, namely as follows:

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

Do you know by way of information any concepts of God at all?

If you do, please choose one, so that we will consider that concept from you and my concept, in order that we will compromise on an agreed on concept.

That is necessary, otherwise we will be irrationally talking past each other's head.

 

[Guyver]

1 hour ago, oslove said:

That is necessary, otherwise we will be irrationally talking past each other's head.

 

    

[Stubbly_Dooright]

8 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

He did the same to me! I wouldn't mind but we both have 'female' marked quite clearly under our avatars.

Which makes me wonder if one can go beyond the 'concept' and use real facts. Wouldn't that be a lot easier to debate on?  

4 hours ago, oslove said:

17 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

[...]

I didn't grow up with any concept. I know a lot of people, who consider God in the female concept.   

[...]

Dear Stubbly, let us just concentrate on this one point, the concept of God.

I have this concept of God, namely as follows:

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

Do you know by way of information any concepts of God at all?

If you do, please choose one, so that we will consider that concept from you and my concept, in order that we will compromise on an agreed on concept.

That is necessary, otherwise we will be irrationally talking past each other's head.

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, you don't seem to answer my questions then. 

Ok, So, if to answer your question to me, no, not really, not really a particular concept of God at all. Because, I grew up with none. I grew up learning of the universe being from something natural. I have a spiritual concept for me, but that doesn't match your's, and it doesn't say 100 percent it created the universe. So, yes, you and I do not have a matching concept. Your's, (that you keep saying over and over and over) is that God is the formost the creator cause of everything with a beginning. Mine, is not.  

So, here is something I'm trying ask you. Are you trying to get everyone to conceptualize the same concept of God, as you have? If that is the case, do you not realize, that wont be the case, unless you're asking others to lie to themselves of what they see as a concept as the creator of the universe? I think, in my perception and opinion, what is irrational in thinking, is saying everyone must come to the same concept. You can't, because a concept is prone to be perceptualized, because it's just a concept, not a real thing. 

So, I'm wondering, do you want to not have this debate with me, because my concept differs from you? I mean, because our concepts differ, than it's irrational to discuss further, or did I get you wrong? 

To surmise, I do not have any concept of God to chose from. I guess our debate is irrational.  Right? *shrugs* 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

2 hours ago, Guyver said:

4 hours ago, oslove said:

That is necessary, otherwise we will be irrationally talking past each other's head.

 

    

I would really like to know, why how someone would work so hard, for a concept. 

 

[quiXilver]

well...

 

I'm convinced.

[Guyver]

1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I would really like to know, why how someone would work so hard, for a concept. 

 

So there are no detractors?  It seems like he's going for a Socratic Dialog....but he didn't need us for that.  Bottom line, when a person says God, in general, they do not refer to a flying teapot orbiting the planet.  They mean the prime mover; the unsourced source, the Creator of All Things - the Maker of the Universe.  

It may be that there are many variations within people's understanding of what God is.....but maker.....beginner.....source....of existence seems to me to be safe enough to use as a working definition.  I don't mean to be insulting but at this point this is almost a comedy number.  Our friend is a pseudo-intellectual using us for practice?  IDK....that's my guess.  

[Guyver]

19 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

I'm puzzled why you'd say this when I'm talking about Naturalism.

Naturalism is the idea that only natural forces govern the universe. All study of the natural universe supports this. Supernatural forces or God governing the universe is therefore an assumption, there is zero evidence of such.

I would equate Naturalism and Materialism.  Same philosophy.  I say this because you said that there are no assumptions in the philosophy and there are.  I gave one example, and another example would be the universal common ancestor.  

[Guyver]

On 10/7/2017 at 1:33 PM, Sherapy said:

Don't be limited by what you read from the posters in your camp, Will.

Read Thomas Aquina's "The Five Ways" 

 

This is an excellent post for many reasons IMHO.  But specifically, it tells me many things.....and the OP would be wise to research your reference here.  Anyway, I speak positively about this post because it demonstrates your fair-mindedness.....but it also shows me that smart people have always been with us and Aquinas, his troubled fashion sense not withstanding.....has made about as good an argument for God's existence as one will find.  

At the same time.....we still end up back at the beginning.....and that is.....what is the proof of God's existence.  Good arguments point to the need for such a being from our perspective (at least some of us) but this does not necessarily equate to any "proof." 

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

This is an excellent post for many reasons IMHO.  But specifically, it tells me many things.....and the OP would be wise to research your reference here.  Anyway, I speak positively about this post because it demonstrates your fair-mindedness.....but it also shows me that smart people have always been with us and Aquinas, his troubled fashion sense not withstanding.....has made about as good an argument for God's existence as one will find.  

At the same time.....we still end up back at the beginning.....and that is.....what is the proof of God's existence.  Good arguments point to the need for such a being from our perspective (at least some of us) but this does not necessarily equate to any "proof." 

I agree Aquila’s argument’s are as good as they get. I wonder how many good arguments there are for god that never get thought of or shared. I am with you there are many smart folks amoung us, and UM provides a frame to give a god argument a go, yet not only no takers, but no humility. 

I can honestly say I was hard pressed to counter Aquinas and just want to say you were always an intelligent  poster, one I read, but you have grown so much and it is with great respect I say it is a pleasure when you post. 

I thank you for your kind words and sharp mind, look forward to more of it. 

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

So there are no detractors?  It seems like he's going for a Socratic Dialog....but he didn't need us for that.  Bottom line, when a person says God, in general, they do not refer to a flying teapot orbiting the planet.  They mean the prime mover; the unsourced source, the Creator of All Things - the Maker of the Universe.  

It may be that there are many variations within people's understanding of what God is.....but maker.....beginner.....source....of existence seems to me to be safe enough to use as a working definition.  I don't mean to be insulting but at this point this is almost a comedy number.  Our friend is a pseudo-intellectual using us for practice?  IDK....that's my guess.  

Thumbs up!

[Mr Walker]

On 08/10/2017 at 3:29 AM, Mystic Crusader said:

The only thing I attribute the Abrahamic God making is his rank spirit in others. You actually consider mankind to be friendly?

 

While humans can be many things, I have found 99% of the humans i have dealt with to be friendly, caring, and loving people. Whether that speaks to their nature or my own  can be debated.  

[Mr Walker]

On 08/10/2017 at 7:03 AM, quiXilver said:

and all I keep hearing are stories...

granted... well thought out, sometimes very meticulous and clever... yet still, stories.

god said... god said, yet it's always a human speaking and it's always a story.

So you are waiting for god to speak directly to you, when you will  then have your own story to tell ?  

[Mr Walker]

13 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

He did the same to me! I wouldn't mind but we both have 'female' marked quite clearly under our avatars.

Well there you go.  I knew stubbs was of the feminine gender but i thought you were male.   

I don't take much notice of gender, race, colour, nationality,  etc.'

They seem like false divisions of humanity.  I do take note of the style and tone of a poster's writing,and it is interesting that i would categorise stubbs posts as definitely feminine and yours as more masculine, but then I have noticed this many times with other writers  Their style and tone is sometimes   quite different to  the norm for their gender.

I thought 8bits was a female for several years because his posts were so articulate and rational,  and intelligent and non emotive. And yes that makes me guilty of gender stereotyping, but only  because there ARE real differences in the style  and pattern of writing between females and males educated in the 20th century western world, overall.

You can pick this up if you read a lot of modern books by male and female authors within similar genres,    and especially if you study advertising styles directed at male and female audiences. 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

4 hours ago, Guyver said:

5 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I would really like to know, why how someone would work so hard, for a concept. 

 

So there are no detractors?  It seems like he's going for a Socratic Dialog....but he didn't need us for that.  Bottom line, when a person says God, in general, they do not refer to a flying teapot orbiting the planet.  They mean the prime mover; the unsourced source, the Creator of All Things - the Maker of the Universe.  

It may be that there are many variations within people's understanding of what God is.....but maker.....beginner.....source....of existence seems to me to be safe enough to use as a working definition. 

Well, that seems to be his theme in his posts. But yet, he's asking for everyone else to give their version of God, am I right on that? Like he did me, or that he gave an instruction to make a choice of which ever concept, in which I didn't make that choice, because there's no choice to make. But, in the end, it confuses me that he asks for other's input on their concept, yet he's saying over and over again, his concept. Ok, he has his concept, what happens when someone else's concept just might have more proof over his? I mean, there is the distinct possibility, right? If we're boiling it down to just the concept of God as the first step to discussing proof, right? 

I must say, Guyver, thank you for answering something, that was answered in one post, that wasn't answered by many posts with the same question from someone else.  I feel, you gave me a bit of clarity on this.  

Quote

I don't mean to be insulting but at this point this is almost a comedy number.  Our friend is a pseudo-intellectual using us for practice?  IDK....that's my guess. 

I do feel, like it seems that way. I wonder, if I should quietly tip toe out of here. Would anyone notice?  

 

[Rlyeh]

5 hours ago, Guyver said:

I would equate Naturalism and Materialism.  Same philosophy.  I say this because you said that there are no assumptions in the philosophy and there are.  I gave one example, and another example would be the universal common ancestor.  

I've already gave the definition of Naturalism, you gave an example of hypothesis. It seems you're saying gravity and genetics aren't natural.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

7 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

13 hours ago, Guyver said:

I would equate Naturalism and Materialism.  Same philosophy.  I say this because you said that there are no assumptions in the philosophy and there are.  I gave one example, and another example would be the universal common ancestor.  

I've already gave the definition of Naturalism, you gave an example of hypothesis. It seems you're saying gravity and genetics aren't natural.

Now, I'm a bit confused, when it comes to comparing the two as the same. I would agree, they both are the opposite to spiritualism and belief, and such. But, if I am even breaking it down, and just looking at the definition my laptop shows, (when the cursor highlights the word.) It would break down Naturalism: "(in art and literature) a style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail" And if I break down Materialism the same way: "A tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values. " I think there is two different things. I think 'Naturalism' is probably the best way to see the opposite of belief, since I see 'Naturalism' is something that shows actual truth in front of you as proof. And then if you look at the opposite of 'Materialism' would be 'Spiritualism'. 

Yeah, I even feel, the 'Belief' and 'Spiritualism' is broken down to be different from each other. Isn't that how it is normally looked upon by many? Or, am I wrong? 

I have to admit, I'm a bit surprise to see 'Materialism' being seen as part of a belief/philosophy outlook. I'm use to just seeing it as a behavior, really. Then again, would 'spiritualism' be seen as the same thing, a behavior, despite it's outlook is the opposite? 

[Rlyeh]

7 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Now, I'm a bit confused, when it comes to comparing the two as the same. I would agree, they both are the opposite to spiritualism and belief, and such. But, if I am even breaking it down, and just looking at the definition my laptop shows, (when the cursor highlights the word.) It would break down Naturalism: "(in art and literature) a style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail" And if I break down Materialism the same way: "A tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values. " I think there is two different things. I think 'Naturalism' is probably the best way to see the opposite of belief, since I see 'Naturalism' is something that shows actual truth in front of you as proof. And then if you look at the opposite of 'Materialism' would be 'Spiritualism'. 

Yeah, I even feel, the 'Belief' and 'Spiritualism' is broken down to be different from each other. Isn't that how it is normally looked upon by many? Or, am I wrong? 

I have to admit, I'm a bit surprise to see 'Materialism' being seen as part of a belief/philosophy outlook. I'm use to just seeing it as a behavior, really. Then again, would 'spiritualism' be seen as the same thing, a behavior, despite it's outlook is the opposite? 

Philosophical Materialism is the belief that only matter exists and anything else is derived from it.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

5 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Philosophical Materialism is the belief that only matter exists and anything else is derived from it.

Ah!  

Yes, I believe, this makes sense. I hope you understand my ignorance on this, but is this something that has been born into belief systems lately? In my observation, I have lately seen this in discussions and talking points in varying degrees of belief conversations recently. And that, it seems to add into my reflections of my belief. I feel total spirituality in my belief, but I do feel as a human, on this Earth, it's not going to take materialism and/or things right there as for granted, or separate myself from them. I just feel, that I don't have to depend on them a total one hundred percent. 

So, that's why I see this being talked a lot, Philosophical Materialism as part of belief and how it plays into the religion discussion and it being something of reflection on my belief.  

[Will Due]

I have a question.

If God doesn't exist and life evolved entirely by accident and without design nor controlling overcare and direction, why did sight, hearing and the rest of the senses evolve for the detection of the material world in man and animals? 

In other words, why aren't we able to detect, with evolved organs, dark matter and perhaps several other things that are a part of what's real but not sensed like we do materially that scientists have evidence of?

How did nature do that? 

Decide which realities material life would be able to sense and which others not, across the board?

 

 

[Guyver]

50 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Now, I'm a bit confused, when it comes to comparing the two as the same. I would agree, they both are the opposite to spiritualism and belief, and such. But, if I am even breaking it down, and just looking at the definition my laptop shows, (when the cursor highlights the word.) It would break down Naturalism: "(in art and literature) a style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail" And if I break down Materialism the same way: "A tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values. " I think there is two different things. I think 'Naturalism' is probably the best way to see the opposite of belief, since I see 'Naturalism' is something that shows actual truth in front of you as proof. And then if you look at the opposite of 'Materialism' would be 'Spiritualism'. 

 

Yes.  Materialism as a philosophy shouldn't be confused with the colloquial usage of one who is "materialistic."  The materialist worldview is the same as athiest.  It just means, "I am my body."  There is no spirit, no gods, etc. and we are just the natural product of a natural world.  So, that's what I assumed was meant by naturalist....though this is the first time I've heard that world used in this context.  Generally, I've always considered a naturalist to be one who simply loves nature.  

[+Nuclear Wessel]

38 minutes ago, Will Due said:

If God doesn't exist and life evolved entirely by accident and without design nor controlling overcare and direction, why did sight, hearing and the rest of the senses evolve for the detection of the material world in man and animals? 

Environmental pressure and natural selection.

For instance, there exists exceptional ability for animals who live in caves to see really well (in darkness). The creatures with hindered ability to see/sense in darkness are less likely to survive, thus the traits that allow for poorer sensing/seeing are less likely to be passed on because they're, well, dead. Traits that provide advantage = more likely to survive = more likely to pass on said traits to the next generation.

Quote

In other words, why aren't we able to detect, with evolved organs, dark matter and perhaps several other things that are a part of what's real but not sensed like we do materially that scientists have evidence of?

Because there was no evolutionary advantage to being able to detect these things. If there were an advantage, these traits would have quite been naturally "selected" for in our evolutionary history.
 

Quote

 

Decide which realities material life would be able to sense and which others not, across the board?

 

There was no conscious effort on the part of "nature"... nature is not a sentient entity; it would more along the lines of, in reiteration, "environmental pressure and natural selection".

Edited October 10, 2017 by Nuclear Wessel

[Will Due]

10 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Environmental pressure and natural selection.

For instance, there exists exceptional ability for animals who live in caves to see really well (in darkness). The creatures with hindered ability to see/sense in darkness are less likely to survive, thus the traits that allow for poorer sensing/seeing are less likely to be passed on because they're, well, dead. Traits that provide advantage = more likely to survive = more likely to pass on said traits to the next generation.

Because there was no evolutionary advantage to being able to detect these things. If there were an advantage, these traits would have quite been naturally "selected" for in our evolutionary history.
 

There was no conscious effort on the part of "nature"... nature is not a sentient entity; it would more along the lines of, in reiteration, "environmental pressure and natural selection".

Then why are there so many "missing links" in a large variety of species?

In other words, given what the evidence suggests, why did natural evolution change gears from very slow evolution in gradual steps to evolving suddenly, in a higher gear, and cause an evolutionary step to be accomplished much quicker like in the evolution of man?

Please don't say it's because this missing evidence hasn't been discovered yet because it's common practice for scientists to declare that a specimen, having been discovered to be the oldest yet found, is now the ancestor to all its descendants and from that specific location where it was found, such as Africa being the place that man originated based only on the evidence discovered so far.

What is the meaning of this?

 

 

[Rlyeh]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

I have a question.

If God doesn't exist and life evolved entirely by accident and without design nor controlling overcare and direction, why did sight, hearing and the rest of the senses evolve for the detection of the material world in man and animals?

So evolution didn't happen because "God did it"? 

Organisms that aren't suited to an environment will not have the advantage of ones that are, and therefore will very likely die out. Natural Selection.

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

In other words, why aren't we able to detect, with evolved organs, dark matter and perhaps several other things that are a part of what's real but not sensed like we do materially that scientists have evidence of?

How did nature do that? 

Decide which realities material life would be able to sense and which others not, across the board?

Would detecting dark matter aid in an organisms survival?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

I have a question.

If God doesn't exist and life evolved entirely by accident and without design nor controlling overcare and direction, why did sight, hearing and the rest of the senses evolve for the detection of the material world in man and animals? 

In other words, why aren't we able to detect, with evolved organs, dark matter and perhaps several other things that are a part of what's real but not sensed like we do materially that scientists have evidence of?

How did nature do that? 

Decide which realities material life would be able to sense and which others not, across the board?

I can see why you would ask that, and I was going to put a response to that, in my way of explaining it, but I think NW did a splendid job of it.   

Evolution and such, does seem to me to be 'heartless'  in a way, but I think that best explains the answer to your questions. 

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

Yes.  Materialism as a philosophy shouldn't be confused with the colloquial usage of one who is "materialistic."  The materialist worldview is the same as athiest.  It just means, "I am my body."  There is no spirit, no gods, etc. and we are just the natural product of a natural world.  So, that's what I assumed was meant by naturalist....though this is the first time I've heard that world used in this context.  Generally, I've always considered a naturalist to be one who simply loves nature.  

I find it interesting that this term and definition, has crept up lately. Not arguing against it, just find it interesting that it's here. In one sense, I feel that the definition has been around, but in different meanings. I thought that was a Scientologist, by that definition, (in which, I think I was thinking wrong on that) but yes, Naturalism seems to be the best way of looking at it. Isn't Humanism also like that? 

Thanks for clarifying it for me.    

7 minutes ago, Will Due said:

31 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Environmental pressure and natural selection.

For instance, there exists exceptional ability for animals who live in caves to see really well (in darkness). The creatures with hindered ability to see/sense in darkness are less likely to survive, thus the traits that allow for poorer sensing/seeing are less likely to be passed on because they're, well, dead. Traits that provide advantage = more likely to survive = more likely to pass on said traits to the next generation.

Because there was no evolutionary advantage to being able to detect these things. If there were an advantage, these traits would have quite been naturally "selected" for in our evolutionary history.
 

There was no conscious effort on the part of "nature"... nature is not a sentient entity; it would more along the lines of, in reiteration, "environmental pressure and natural selection".

Then why are there so many "missing links" in a large variety of species?

In other words, given what the evidence suggests, why did natural evolution change gears from very slow evolution in gradual steps to evolving suddenly, in a higher gear, and cause an evolutionary step to be accomplished much quicker like in the evolution of man?

Please don't say it's because this missing evidence hasn't been discovered yet because it's common practice for scientists to declare that a specimen, having been discovered to be the oldest yet found, is now the ancestor to all its descendants and from that specific location where it was found, such as Africa being the place that man originated based only on the evidence discovered so far.

What is the meaning of this?

I don't understand Will, I think that 'it hasn't been discovered yet' to be a pretty good explanation for the 'missing links'. It really is impossible to find the answers to it all, at once, right? 

And isn't the scientists saying that they 'concluding' that evidence discovered is a possible chance evidence of being the ancestor, and not 'declaring' it? I think that them 'declaring' it wouldn't be prudent for someone who uses new researched evidence as something that is concluding their research. Something, that could change later. 

 

[Will Due]

6 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I can see why you would ask that, and I was going to put a response to that, in my way of explaining it, but I think NW did a splendid job of it.   

Evolution and such, does seem to me to be 'heartless'  in a way, but I think that best explains the answer to your questions. 

I find it interesting that this term and definition, has crept up lately. Not arguing against it, just find it interesting that it's here. In one sense, I feel that the definition has been around, but in different meanings. I thought that was a Scientologist, by that definition, (in which, I think I was thinking wrong on that) but yes, Naturalism seems to be the best way of looking at it. Isn't Humanism also like that? 

Thanks for clarifying it for me.    

I don't understand Will, I think that 'it hasn't been discovered yet' to be a pretty good explanation for the 'missing links'. It really is impossible to find the answers to it all, at once, right? 

And isn't the scientists saying that they 'concluding' that evidence discovered is a possible chance evidence of being the ancestor, and not 'declaring' it? I think that them 'declaring' it wouldn't be prudent for someone who uses new researched evidence as something that is concluding their research. Something, that could change later. 

 

Then why is it always reported that "man evolved out of Africa" when there's still so much evidence that's missing?

Why are scientists so biased?