If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 115

Originally posted by: Beyond_the_Veil

So God is illogical? 😆
I understand God is beyond the scope of the natural world and hence outside the field of science, so it's not scientific/material evidence one is always demanding when it comes to God. I think it is important to maintain discussions rationally and logically, regardless of whether we are talking about something scientific or philosophical or metaphysical.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Reminds me of a scene from Donnie Darko

Donnie: Oh, I don't know. I mean, I'd like to believe I'm not, but I just... I've just never seen any proof, so I... I just don't debate it anymore, you know? It's like I could spend my whole life debating it over and over again, weighing the pros and cons. And in the end, I still wouldn't have any proof. So I just... I just don't debate it anymore. It's absurd.

Dr. Thurman: The search for God is absurd?

Donnie: It is if everyone dies alone.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

BTW, theists claiming that God definitely exists is not that different from atheists claiming that God definitely doesn't exist.

Yeah, that's why agnostic theism works perfectly from me. I don't know but I believe. 😆

Originally posted by: Beyond_the_Veil

Yeah, that's why agnostic theism works perfectly from me. I don't know but I believe. 😆

I think you are an ignostic (like me) considering you too wouldn't answer the question whether God exists unless a working definition of God is provided that is acceptable to all.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I think you are an ignostic (like me) considering you too wouldn't answer the question whether God exists unless a working definition of God is provided that is acceptable to all.

Ignostic? Hmm, that is a new word.

I agree though. Is it possible to find the existence of something when we don't even know what that something is?

It's like trying to find XYZ.

"Does XYZ exist?"
"Well what is XYZ?"

I think anthropomorphic versions of God/gods can easily be dismissed as man-made depictions. Depending on the definition, people will perceive it differently.

But I think a narrow definition of God from various philosophies and religions can be deduced. 'First uncaused cause' is the narrowest it can get.

But it's so easy to believe someone is watching over you, and you will get eternal happiness (whatever that means) and all your sorrows will one day be wiped out...even if none of it makes sense.

Btw does belief in God/divinity/supernatural exist among other animals (primates especially)? Or is it only limited to homo-sapiens and those who can exercise abstract reasoning and thinking?

Originally posted by: Beyond_the_Veil

I agree though. Is it possible to find the existence of something when we don't even know what that something is?

It's like trying to find XYZ.

"Does XYZ exist?"
"Well what is XYZ?"

I think anthropomorphic versions of God/gods can easily be dismissed as man-made depictions. Depending on the definition, people will perceive it differently.

But I think a narrow definition of God from various philosophies and religions can be deduced. 'First uncaused cause' is the narrowest it can get.

Hate to nitpick but why did you use three variables? That adds to the confusion :) You could have simply added:
"Does X exist?"
"Well what is X?"

Yes, "what is it?" is a fundamental question. The problem is we can only understand what that is in terms of what we know. We know energy/matter (elements), we know forces (gravitation, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces), we know space and we know time. Actually, even these are not very well understood but we pretend that we understand them anyway.

So, whenever we come across a concept like God, we try to break it down into terms we know and understand. Is that energy/matter? Is that a force? Is that consciousness (yet another catch-all phrase)?

And, the biggest constraint of all is that none of the above mentioned can exist outside the dimensions of space-time. To us that is. In fact, that is where even our language breaks down, not to mention the carefully constructed physical laws, the logic, the math. Simply put, "Outside" is a word that cannot penetrate space-time.

So here's the puzzle (understatement by the way): we know that everything, and by that I mean every single darn thing, dissolves into a singularity, where space-time, energy/matter and forces were all united (read mathematically integrated). To us, it is a state. That was the state that the universe was in. To understand what that state is, we start breaking it into terms we understand (mathematically differentiating). So what's the puzzle?! Well, to understand what that is, should we integrate further or differentiate? As a simple analogy: brass is an alloy of copper and zinc. Are we supposed to understand brass as brass or are we supposed to understand Brass as a mix of copper and zinc in some proportions, and copper and zinc themselves in terms of their atomic weights and electron configurations and so on?

As a visual, you can imagine you have a tiny lens in your hand and there is something gigantic in front of you, all around you, that you proceeded to examine with your lens. Let's call that something God. How would you analyze what you have in front of you, all around you? By taking in that something as a whole or by traversing your lens on that something, part by part, atom by atom? Remember the goal is to understand everything, and holding that everything in your brain as one single thought. And this single thought should have the explanation for you as well, not just everything but you.

But then what is that thought? What is it composed of? There we go, differentiating again.

It's a vicious cycle!

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

It's easy to pick apart most paradoxes including the "omnipotent paradox" presented here if only one is willing to spend a couple of minutes thinking. Sadly, most people refuse to think for fear of getting taxed.

BTW, theists claiming that God definitely exists is not that different from atheists claiming that God definitely doesn't exist.

@K

@K, FT is right. XYZ was a name, not three variables. Substitute X for G, Y for O and Z for D - know what I mean. But honestly, how many Gods are there? One? Is God even something that is measurable or quantifiable? 😉

Maybe someday we will evolve into higher beings to answer all there is to answer. Or maybe not. Maybe we are but one small fraction of God. God is the supreme consciousness, and our sentience is a small fraction of that. A lot of metaphysical and theological philosophies actually support this idea. (Yes, these are all philosophical so don't ask for empirical data).

Will we find the answers once we die? The thought of eternal oblivion (oxymoron?) scares me. I'd rather chose struggle after death than just disappear into nothingness. But once we were nothingness, or at least our memory can't conceive of what was before this life too. It's so wonderfully strange, the numinous mysteries of life, isn't it? I hope one day we merge with God and know all there is to know... 🤔😕


@Freethinker,

I think there was a logical inconsistency or loophole in the question in itself which Angie picked apart. The question itself was like can an omnipotent being prove his non-omnipotence. One could also ask - "Can God become non-omnipotent? If he can. then he is becoming non-omnipotent. If he can't, then he is non-omnipotent." But frankly the question still remains. Let's say God can do anything. Can he destroy himself?

Frankly the concepts God, higher power, Infinite force, supreme being, supreme consciousness, Allah, Ram, Jesus, Odin, Thor, Zeus, mother nature etc etc are so vastly complex and distant that you can pick apart them with ease and also justify them quoting random texts. They are still philosophical in nature and hence will have as many ifs and buts and fallacies and justifications.

Anyway I don't think atheists are close-minded or unrealistic. They simply don't believe. Unless we get an objective analysis on the nature faith and what biological components constitute it, it would be unreasonable to say they are just plain arrogant or ungrateful. Some people believe, some don't. With belief comes disbelief, with faith comes skepticism. I think people who blindly follows doctrines are the ones who'd never bothered to understand what's in there.

corrected order of sequence.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Hate to nitpick but why did you use three variables? That adds to the confusion :)

He was making sure to cover all three - father, son and holy ghost.