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 -

Does "God" Have Faith?


 Share

Recommended Posts

This is strictly a rhetorical question that I thought I'd post as food for thought. I don't expect any real answers or protracted debate on it, so I won't be able to provide much opinion either pro or con. Something just made me want to throw it out there.

Sometimes I wonder if "God" was ever at a point where he too considered his own existence. Was there ever a "time" when he stated "I think, therefore, I am!"? Did he ever wonder "Where did I come from?; Who am I; Why am I here?" Did he ever have faith that someone created him? If so, how long was it before he determined that he was indeed "God"? Once he realized he had/was a "mind", did he then set about to create to occupy his mind/time/existence? Did he decide that he would figure out a way to realize and experience whatever he could through his creative acts? Did he come up with a way of creating a multiple varieties of contrast to define and distinguish differences? Who knows, perhaps he is still contemplating such things.

Of course, the question is moot for any who do not believe there is a "God".

Sojo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sort of like asking "is god an atheist?".

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone can put a real answer to the questions you asked. Creation might just be the result of loneliness and whole religion thing an existential crisis.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think that if there is a god that it would have a religion as that is man’s creation.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would something tapped into every probability think like us? A thing at the core of creation that can shape the probable, possible. Impossible, and unlikely. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Would something tapped into every probability think like us? A thing at the core of creation that can shape the probable, possible. Impossible, and unlikely. 

I would hope not.  It would sure imply a very limited universe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking if God needs faith then He’s NOT as all-knowing as many believe so why then is He considered “God”?

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's like saying God needs a drink to lift his Spirit... 

~

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
38 minutes ago, Ell said:

Emptiness yearns to be filled.

He who watches the tiger, escapes the tiger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Douglas Adams already covered this as far as I know. 

 

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/35681-now-it-is-such-a-bizarrely-improbable-coincidence-that-anything

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 7/6/2022 at 11:15 AM, psyche101 said:

Douglas Adams already covered this as far as I know. 

[ . . . . ]

 

 

Don't take Douglas Adams for your seriours thinker, the man is just a fiction writer.

Think for yourself. You can do it, no need to drop names.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, oslove said:

Don't take Douglas Adams for your seriours thinker, the man is just a fiction writer.

Think for yourself. You can do it, no need to drop names.

Douglas Adams has illustrated more thinking in the one paragraph than you have with every post you have put together. Although it's easily recognised as humour, it's still classes well above what you have proposed 

Let's look at your repetitive post that you are claiming is original thinking.

God is everything, everything is god. Everything not God is still god. 

That's as silly as it gets.

Nothing original. Nothing reasonable. No logic. No thought. Nothing. Just blind parroting plagiarized from a fable. You should be embarrassed that you keep interrupting genuine discussion to repeat the same nothing nonsense. 

Circular conclusion. No thought, no reason, just blind adherence to a nonsensical statement that literally means absolutely nothing at all.

Perhaps a better start for you might be to try and define how your circular proposal makes any sense to anyone at all. There is no reason, no thinking, no structure to your claim. It's a foolish statement repeated ad nauseum. 

Why would anyone take such a flimsy easily dismissed proposal as valid? No thinking person would. 

Everything is not god. God is a slave to the human mind. We own god. God only exists in imagination.

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life isn't about the destination--the destination is always death. So, life isn't about the destination. Like the man said, it's about the ride.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

[ . . . . ]

God is everything, everything is god. Everything not God is still god. 

That's as silly as it gets.

[ . . . . ]

 

I say everything including God are inter-connected, not that everything is god.

 

About circular reasoning, you don't know: it is not any fallacy at all but in reality it is just a pseudo-fallacy.

The socalled circular reasoning fallacy is invented by shallow thinkers in order to prove that God does not exist: because in the sentence,  "God is existence itself," the subject and the predicate are identical, so there is no proof but only repetition like God is God.

For your better understanding of the sentence, "God is existence itself," the subject God is defined in the predicate, namely, "is existence itself."

Now that the reader knows what is the definition of God, he can go into the world outside definition, to search for an entity that is existence itself.

So, let you and me go forth into the world outside definition - but using the definition as a guide, to seek for God, and we will find God because He is everywhere.

Conclusion: Your much vaunted fallacy of circular reasoning is just an instance of wrong thinking from your part, and I call it the pseudo-fallacy of circular reasoning.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, oslove said:

I say everything including God are inter-connected, not that everything is god.

Everything not God created by God. Same nonsense. It's circular. Everything starts, runs and completes with the god idea. That is lazy thinking resulting in circular reasoning. 

59 minutes ago, oslove said:

About circular reasoning, you don't know: it is not any fallacy at all but in reality it is just a pseudo-fallacy.

No.

You're reasoning does not answer questions. You are offering the definition of a pseudo fallacy as an argument. You're argument justifies the god idea with a creator. 

BTW, your post is pseudo reasoning offered as support for a pseudo fallacy.

59 minutes ago, oslove said:

The socalled circular reasoning fallacy is invented by shallow thinkers in order to prove that God does not exist: because in the sentence,  "God is existence itself," the subject and the predicate are identical, so there is no proof but only repetition like God is God.

For your better understanding of the sentence, "God is existence itself," the subject God is defined in the predicate, namely, "is existence itself."

Now that the reader knows what is the definition of God, he can go into the world outside definition, to search for an entity that is existence itself.

That's not a definition of god. It's creationist view said arranged in a circle. 

I reject your definition. It's untenable. 

As far as I can tell you fear that your circular reasoning is exposed. There's no other good reason to attempt to dismiss the accusation so lightly. Reason would be the proper way to dismantle the circle, which you have avoided. You're basically insisting people accept your definitions and conclusions without challenge. When you do that you lose the debate right there. That's pseudo reasoning.

59 minutes ago, oslove said:

So, let you and me go forth into the world outside definition - but using the definition as a guide, to seek for God, and we will find God because He is everywhere.

No.

Definition exists for clarity. I'm not interested in helping you self validate circular reasoning. 

God is man made. God can be found where people imagine him to be. God is not everywhere. God exists in a gap of knowledge relative to the individual housing the god idea. People can exist without god. God cannot exist without people.

59 minutes ago, oslove said:

Conclusion: Your much vaunted fallacy of circular reasoning is just an instance of wrong thinking from your part, and I call it the pseudo-fallacy of circular reasoning.

No, it's too complex for you to understand. It's easier for you to simply brush of with an insult. The problem there is you are exposing yourself. You have started with a conclusion. And that conclusion is not qualified.

What you are actually doing is illustrating the pitfalls of religion and why it's an out of date ideology. You have shown how easily a mind is jailed by religion and how it robs one of reason. You are asking for your own definitions and conclusions to be accepted unchallenged. It doesn't work like that. Nothing does.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 5:25 PM, psyche101 said:

Everything not God created by God. Same nonsense. It's circular. Everything starts, runs and completes with the god idea. That is lazy thinking resulting in circular reasoning. 

No.

You're reasoning does not answer questions. You are offering the definition of a pseudo fallacy as an argument. You're argument justifies the god idea with a creator. 

BTW, your post is pseudo reasoning offered as support for a pseudo fallacy.

That's not a definition of god. It's creationist view said arranged in a circle. 

I reject your definition. It's untenable. 

As far as I can tell you fear that your circular reasoning is exposed. There's no other good reason to attempt to dismiss the accusation so lightly. Reason would be the proper way to dismantle the circle, which you have avoided. You're basically insisting people accept your definitions and conclusions without challenge. When you do that you lose the debate right there. That's pseudo reasoning.

No.

Definition exists for clarity. I'm not interested in helping you self validate circular reasoning. 

God is man made. God can be found where people imagine him to be. God is not everywhere. God exists in a gap of knowledge relative to the individual housing the god idea. People can exist without god. God cannot exist without people.

No, it's too complex for you to understand. It's easier for you to simply brush of with an insult. The problem there is you are exposing yourself. You have started with a conclusion. And that conclusion is not qualified.

What you are actually doing is illustrating the pitfalls of religion and why it's an out of date ideology. You have shown how easily a mind is jailed by religion and how it robs one of reason. You are asking for your own definitions and conclusions to be accepted unchallenged. It doesn't work like that. Nothing does.

 

How do you propose that I prove God to exist, and you tell me how you prove God to not exist, if we don't have the same concept of God?

For it would be that we are in an absurd situation of each one controverting about something existing, while in reality they are talking about different things altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2022 at 2:25 AM, psyche101 said:

Everything not God created by God. Same nonsense. It's circular. Everything starts, runs and completes with the god idea. That is lazy thinking resulting in circular reasoning. 

No.

You're reasoning does not answer questions. You are offering the definition of a pseudo fallacy as an argument. You're argument justifies the god idea with a creator. 

BTW, your post is pseudo reasoning offered as support for a pseudo fallacy.

That's not a definition of god. It's creationist view said arranged in a circle. 

I reject your definition. It's untenable. 

As far as I can tell you fear that your circular reasoning is exposed. There's no other good reason to attempt to dismiss the accusation so lightly. Reason would be the proper way to dismantle the circle, which you have avoided. You're basically insisting people accept your definitions and conclusions without challenge. When you do that you lose the debate right there. That's pseudo reasoning.

No.

Definition exists for clarity. I'm not interested in helping you self validate circular reasoning. 

God is man made. God can be found where people imagine him to be. God is not everywhere. God exists in a gap of knowledge relative to the individual housing the god idea. People can exist without god. God cannot exist without people.

No, it's too complex for you to understand. It's easier for you to simply brush of with an insult. The problem there is you are exposing yourself. You have started with a conclusion. And that conclusion is not qualified.

What you are actually doing is illustrating the pitfalls of religion and why it's an out of date ideology. You have shown how easily a mind is jailed by religion and how it robs one of reason. You are asking for your own definitions and conclusions to be accepted unchallenged. It doesn't work like that. Nothing does.

Exactly, it is a creationist view. I observed this too. As always a fabulous post articulated very well. Glad to see you posting Andy. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, oslove said:

 

How do you propose that I prove God to exist, and you tell me how you prove God to not exist, if we don't have the same concept of God?

For it would be that we are in an absurd situation of each one controverting about something existing, while in reality they are talking about different things altogether.

Oslove at best you are sharing your personal construct of what you think g?d is, without evidence it is fantasy at best. And goody for you if this fantasy serves you, but it is fantasy none the less. 
 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Oslove at best you are sharing your personal construct of what you think g?d is, without evidence it is fantasy at best. And goody for you if this fantasy serves you, but it is fantasy none the less. 
 

 

 

Here we go again.

Shall we work together to concur on what is evidence - otherwise you keep on insisting that I have no evidence, and I keep on insisting that I have evidence - that is again getting ourselves into an absurd situation, where we are controverting about something, but without having the same thing in our respective mind.

 

Here is again my definition of what is evidence:

"Evidence is anything existing outside the mind of man that leads man to know the existence of another thing outside the mind of man. An example of evidence: a baby is the evidence of the existence of its papa and mama."

So, produce what is evidence for you, and we will work together to arrive at a concurred on definition of evidence, and apply it to the question "Does God exists or not."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, oslove said:

 

Here we go again.

Shall we work together to concur on what is evidence - otherwise you keep on insisting that I have no evidence, and I keep on insisting that I have evidence - that is again getting ourselves into an absurd situation, where we are controverting about something, but without having the same thing in our respective mind.

 

Here is again my definition of what is evidence:

"Evidence is anything existing outside the mind of man that leads man to know the existence of another thing outside the mind of man. An example of evidence: a baby is the evidence of the existence of its papa and mama."

So, produce what is evidence for you, and we will work together to arrive at a concurred on definition of evidence, and apply it to the question "Does God exists or not."

What is the evidence you have for your g?d? 
 

Again, Oslove it would help if you payed attention I am Agnostic, not Atheist. G?d is an unknown meaning that I don’t know what god is or isn’t no human does, not for lack of trying or asking but that there is no way to test for any g?d. I am not claiming there is a god or isn’t a god. I don’t know and am okay with this.  You are making the claim the burden of proof lies with you. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, oslove said:

 

How do you propose that I prove God to exist, and you tell me how you prove God to not exist, if we don't have the same concept of God?

For it would be that we are in an absurd situation of each one controverting about something existing, while in reality they are talking about different things altogether.

Of course we are talking about different things. 

You are starting with a conclusion. You assume god is the base concept. A given fact to be accepted. 

I'm illustrating that god has been superseded. Your working with out of date flawed information.

That situation in reality only exists in your mind. Hence god is man's creation. Not the other way around. You are an example of my argument. You can attempt to conjure or prove the existence of God, but like so many before you, you will fail. 

The God idea is superseded. God is not required for anything on the universe to exist. God is a product of man. Man can exist without god, but god (s) cannot exist without man. It's not symbiosis, it's dependency. 

God is dependant on human imagination. Without it the human concept of god, god (s) cease to exist. We control god, no god controls man. 

You cannot prove god is more than a thoughtform. In fact I dare you to try.

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Exactly, it is a creationist view. I observed this too. As always a fabulous post articulated very well. Glad to see you posting Andy. 

Hi Sheri. 

Always nice to hear from you. Haven't been in this section in any serious capacity for a while. Although I notice that walker seems to have vacated the section. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.