Do you believe in God?

[Joey D]

A source that was never created by anything, a source that merely just exists and that always has been and always will be, and a source that is essentially beyond anything else, this is what I believe God to be.

You keep saying "God" which means the God of Abraham, however, what you're describing isn't God. I'm curious, do you believe in the God of Abraham and/or one of the religions that worship him, or do you believe in something else entirely? If it's something else entirely, you probably shouldn't refer to it as God, but rather a supernatural force.

As I've said, I believe in a supernatural force, but I wouldn't refer to it as god or gods though. And at the end of the day, I still accept the possibility that there's an equal chance of that force not existing at all.

 

[Yttrium99]

I can tell you the most obvious answer as to what existed before the Big Bang, that answer is and always will be God.

So, you don't know what happened pre-Big Bang, you're just throwing your chips on a higher power.

 

[Imari]

I believe that God is singular, because ultimately I believe that there can only be one source for all of creation. If there were to be multiple Gods, this would then suggest in the need for a creator for these multiple Gods to explain away the duality of it all. When it all boils down to it, the only way to truly explain the existence for anything is to eventually come to the conclusion that everything in creation must have all come from one common source. A source that was never created by anything, a source that merely just exists and that always has been and always will be, and a source that is essentially beyond anything else, this is what I believe God to be.

That's just wrong though. If you're assuming that there's this thing that exists with no beginning and no end, then there's no reason that there should be only one of them. Unlike normal things that are limited by lifespan, resources, etc. a being that has always been and always will be has no such limitations. Without limitations, there would be an infinite number of such beings, because there's literally nothing stopping that from being the case as long as it's possible for there to be at least one.

So your options for number of these beings are zero, or infinity. One is not an option.

The truth is that God or source has no explanation for it's existence, it just simply just exists, it is what it is. It's confusing at first because the human mind perceives things in terms of duality, and the idea that God just simply exists makes absolutely no rational sense at first to the mind. The human mind demands that there must be some sort of explanation for Gods existence, but the ultimate truth is that there isn't an explanation. God just exists, therefore reality just exists.

This is not correct. That might be how your mind works, but most people are completely capable of accepting the existence of something without understanding why it exists or how it came into existence.

The pushback you're getting is against the idea that one would believe in the existence of something without clear evidence of that thing existing. The universe existing is evidence that the universe exists, not of God.

And so what is the explanation for "The Big Bang"? There was nothing, and then all of a sudden the physical universe just popped into existence all by itself? Right, because that makes a lot of sense...

I'm assuming that you're using "The Big Bang" as shorthand for "how did the universe begin?".

It turns out that it's actually okay to admit that you don't fully understand something. You don't have to make up an answer just because you're not sure. "We don't know how the universe started, therefore it must have been God" is a terrible argument, and makes about as much sense as "We don't know how the universe started, therefore it must have just popped into existence from nothingness".

I can tell you the most obvious answer as to what existed before the Big Bang, that answer is and always will be God.

Why is that obvious? If it's obvious, it seems like it would be easy to lay out the explanation in a logical manner. But as far as I can tell, the properties of the Big Bang as we understand it are such that we're unable to make any clear statements about what things were like before a certain point. And even if we ignore obvious inconsistencies in our understanding and draw them out to their logical conclusions, we end up at a point where the entire concept of a reality breaks down and we have literally no idea if even basic things like "existence" are possible.

Again, there's nothing wrong with admitting that you don't fully understand something and just because you don't understand doesn't mean God did it.

 

[Danoff]

@Ghost Lap

To really understand what exists or happened prior to the big bag, you need to understand quantum mechanics and entanglement. As you approach the earliest moments in the big bang, quantum mechanics plays a bigger and bigger role until you get to a point where it dominates. Our universe is not quantumly entangled with what happened in the earliest moments in the universe, and so it is unobservable. It is, therefore, not a part of our universe. Our universe is what is entangled.

If you think you can perceive a supreme being in any fashion, or that the supreme being plays any role whatsoever in our universe, then we'd be entangled with it and it's not what I'm talking about when it comes to anything outside of the big bang. Where our universe came from is simply not part of our universe. And people generally think of God as part of our universe. God is something people think they can interact with, or know, or feel, or visit when they die. All of those things are part of our universe. Where the big bang came from is not.

In a very real way, we can say that our universe has a beginning - the big bang. And that every frame of reference that we understand - time, space, matter, energy have a beginning, at the very least in terms of our entanglement with it. Asking what's before or outside of that beginning is like asking what's north of the north pole.

Our universe is quantum in nature. It exists as a possibility, which is a broader and more encompassing view of reality than constraining it to be nothing. Nothing is a possibility, our universe is a possibility, other universes are possibilities. Quantum mechanics IS existence based on possibility, and we know, and rely, on the fact that our universe behaves in exactly that fashion.

Edit:
More posts of mine on this subject in this thread.

 

[Chris30]

Having an open mind is better than being naive and not listening to God. Hopefully God will protect the people in Russia/Ukraine cause it's a bloody war out there!

 

[Scaff]

Having an open mind is better than being naive and not listening to God.

Oh, the irony.

Hopefully God will protect the people in Russia/Ukraine cause it's a bloody war out there!

Why did god let it happen?

 

[Hun200kmh]

This is still going strong I see

Oh, the irony.

Why did god let it happen?

Scaff, a mind open to the existence of God is indeed more open than one closed to it. You refuse to be a creation from a creator. I suspect you'll be more open to the idea of humanity or indeed the entire universe being a science project created by beings that exist in another of the possible universes.

On your second question, it is a question as old as the belief in God and I'm sure you know the answer to it. We're not His slaves therefore we all are allowed to sin and choose evil.

 

[Scaff]

This is still going strong I see

Scaff, a mind open to the existence of God is indeed more open than one closed to it. You refuse to be a creation from a creator. I suspect you'll be more open to the idea of humanity or indeed the entire universe being a science project created by beings that exist in another of the possible universes.

My mind is open to the possibility of it, I just want to see falsifiable and repeatable evidence of it.

The bible however repeatedly instructs followers to ignore any teachings that contradict it.

On your second question, it is a question as old as the belief in God and I'm sure you know the answer to it. We're not His slaves therefore we all are allowed to sin and choose evil.

Yes, as is the paradox that it causes.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”​

 

[Hun200kmh]

There's no paradox, just wrong answer to the second question. I find it all very superficial though, to discuss if we're free to do good or evil. It is obvious that we are.

A much more deeper and - for me, as a faithful - troubling is the question "Why does evil exist at all in a world created by God? Shouldn't it be erradicated by design?"

But all the questions pertaining to my faith in the existence of God will probably remain unanswered until I die. And then either I don't exist or, if I do, I hope to get some enlightenment. In any case I value my physical life and even more how my everyday choices (on what to do or abstain doing) define my path as a person.

Also: I keep an open mind and I certanly don't act condescendingly towards people that don't believe we have a Creator. I do accept as logical the scientific approach that you just postulated ...

I just want to see falsifiable and repeatable evidence of it.

... however I just don't think science will ever get any evidence of God. And that leaves us with faith, or lack of it.

PS - offtopic question (but about this thread) if I may. Placing the mouse cursor over my avatar in this thread's icon I can see (and was amazed by it) that I have posted here more than 300 times. Is there a way for me to browse through my past posting? It was so many years ago I'd like to revisit it in a quick, efficient manner.

 

[Famine]

Having an open mind is better than being naive and not listening to God.

Are you open-minded enough to accept that what you believe is "listening to God" could in fact be any other deity speaking to you, or voices in your head caused by mental illness, or your imagination, and that God doesn't exist at all?

If not, you're not as open-minded as you're requiring others to be in accepting your God.

At the very least if you had as much of an "open mind" as you demand of others, you'd question whether the God you think exists is exactly as the humans from the sect of your religion (of which there are hundreds) teaches from the translated-by-humans English language version (of which there are more than 50, none of which are entirely the same) of the translated-by-humans common Latin translation (of which there are several), of the selectively anthologised by humans collection of books (which saw several excluded due to personal preference of the humans) originally written, by humans, in a variety of languages like Hebrew, Sanskrit, Greek and even some ancient cuneiform, based on human oral history... or if it could have been corrupted somewhere along the way by humans.

 

[Scaff]

There's no paradox, just wrong answer to the second question. I find it all very superficial though, to discuss if we're free to do good or evil. It is obvious that we are.

Given that it's been a question that has confounded philosophy for millennia, without a definitive answer, I would argue that it's anything but obvious.

A much more deeper and - for me, as a faithful - troubling is the question "Why does evil exist at all in a world created by God? Shouldn't it be erradicated by design?"

But all the questions pertaining to my faith in the existence of God will probably remain unanswered until I die. And then either I don't exist or, if I do, I hope to get some enlightenment. In any case I value my physical life and even more how my everyday choices (on what to do or abstain doing) define my path as a person.

It's arguably still the same question, just approached from a different direction. It also then opens up the question of what is evil, and who defines it.

Also: I keep an open mind and I certanly don't act condescendingly towards people that don't believe we have a Creator. I do accept as logical the scientific approach that you just postulated ...

Many thanks.

... however I just don't think science will ever get any evidence of God. And that leaves us with faith, or lack of it.

Faith, particularly blind faith ahs a nasty habit of becoming closed-minded, hence my comment regarding irony. Don't get me wrong I've come across many people of faith who are openminded, but hose who open a conversation by accusing people who don't believe of not being openminded, very rarely, fall into that category.

PS - offtopic question (but about this thread) if I may. Placing the mouse cursor over my avatar in this thread's icon I can see (and was amazed by it) that I have posted here more than 300 times. Is there a way for me to browse through my past posting? It was so many years ago I'd like to revisit it in a quick, efficient manner.

The easiest way I've found is to use the search tool from in-thread, leave the search field blank, limit the search to the thread and add yourself in the Member field. That should do the job for you.

 

[MatskiMonk]

There's no paradox, just wrong answer to the second question. I find it all very superficial though, to discuss if we're free to do good or evil. It is obvious that we are.

Then god isn't able. In which case, clauses 2 & 3 don't apply anyway, and result is that 'he' is not omnipotent, and why should we call 'him' a god.

You refuse to be a creation from a creator.

I personally accept that a creator can create something they cannot control, nor predict, nor influence, therefore the actions of the universe can't be used to determine the existence or intention of a creator. Such arguments tend to exist to undermine religious teachings, rather than faith itself. It is entirely plausible to accept a theory of creation that is totally separate to the established religious teachings you may have grown up with.

For me, being open minded to the idea of a creator is somewhat reasonable, it might also be reasonable to consider such a creator as a god of sorts. It's the association of everything that the major religions attach to their concepts of deities that undermines their attachment to the idea that a creator, or the creator, is part of their chosen religion. It carries as much weight as someone walking out of 'The Matrix' in the cinema the first time, and all of a sudden believing we exist in a computer simulation.

What undoes the notion of a creator as an entity, is the simple question of who created the creator. I think if you carry thoughts on the matter to a conclusion you'd arrive at the notion that the only thing that can exist before something else is simply the framework for it to exist. I think in the case of our universe that framework is the laws and principles we try and explain with Physics and Chemistry. As we begin to break those things down further and further we'll probably gain a greater understanding of what the fundamental mechanic of that framework is... I am confident it will not represent what is taught by any existing religion, and any entity we would consider to be a god would be a product of the framework, and not the creator of it. We off course could be a result of the work of the latter, but it would still require the former. And, I'd have to say, if a god exists within the same framework as us, then it should be possible to prove its existence.

Just my two cents.

 

[Joey D]

The real paradox around god is: Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

 

[UKMikey]

The real paradox around god is: Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

Theologians kinda take the centre lane on this one. It's the art of being omnipotent... without being omnipotent, you see. Mysterious ways. Mysteeeeeriousss wayyyys.

"Omnipotence doesn't mean you can do everything".

 

[Imari]

On your second question, it is a question as old as the belief in God and I'm sure you know the answer to it. We're not His slaves therefore we all are allowed to sin and choose evil.

So why would He protect people then? What's the point of even asking Him to protect people in war if you already know that He is full non-interventionist? What's the point of praying to Him for anything at all if the answer is "you chose evil, sucks to be you"?

The real paradox around god is: Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

He would have to heat the burrito to absolute hot, and then He Himself would also become absolute hot from being in contact with the burrito as He ate it. The burrito and Our Lord would combine to become the Holy Drunken Snack, a glowing inferno of power and magnificence.

Did Jesus eat the burrito or did the burrito eat Him? Either, neither and both. All hail the Holy Drunken Snack, and speak not of the infidel pretender Doner Kebab.

 

[Joey D]

He would have to heat the burrito to absolute hot, and then He Himself would also become absolute hot from being in contact with the burrito as He ate it. The burrito and Our Lord would combine to become the Holy Drunken Snack, a glowing inferno of power and magnificence.

Did Jesus eat the burrito or did the burrito eat Him? Either, neither and both. All hail the Holy Drunken Snack, and speak not of the infidel pretender Doner Kebab.

You know, I'm going to rethink my stance on religion. I would totally get up every Sunday to attend the First Church of Burrito Christ, especially if this is the sort of thing they're preaching.

 

[Imari]

You know, I'm going to rethink my stance on religion. I would totally get up every Sunday to attend the First Church of Burrito Christ, especially if this is the sort of thing they're preaching.

It makes the whole "eat the body of Christ" thing a lot more delicious.

 

[UKMikey]

You know, I'm going to rethink my stance on religion. I would totally get up every Sunday to attend the First Church of Burrito Christ, especially if this is the sort of thing they're preaching.

Spaghetti Church are going to have to up their game.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Why did god let it happen?

I could easily ask the reverse, why would God not let it happen?

 

[Scaff]

I could easily ask the reverse, why would God not let it happen?

So your god exists to actively allow pain, torment, suffering, rape and murder?

Those are traits you find admirable? You want your god to allow child abuse, even if it was within their power to stop it?

I honestly have to ask how much thought you put into that question and exactly how it would reflect on your deity!

Did you even read this:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”​

 

[Exorcet]

On your second question, it is a question as old as the belief in God and I'm sure you know the answer to it. We're not His slaves therefore we all are allowed to sin and choose evil.

God's intervention would not remove free will, just like the intervention of other people in your life does not remove free will. The intervention of others can restrict your actions sure, but you're still able to choose whatever you want. Were that not the case then God has removed our free will by putting us all in the same place and giving us the ability to influence each other. Also, if anything the intervention of God would be even less restrictive then that of humans. Supposedly if God wanted to he could let someone run around shooting people and not intervene except for negating the bullet at the very last moment. However, if God exists, he's fine with fatal wounds. He has the ability to prevent them entirely but does not want to, assuming God is omnipotent. Speaking of omnipotency, wouldn't God holding this power from me also be a violation of free will according to your logic. I'd love to be able to natively fly and explore the universe but it's physically impossible. Why is God denying me this?

Another problem with tying free will to evil is that it ignores the will of people who want to be prevented from doing evil. If I ask God to keep me from doing wrong against other people I'm going to be ignored (and I know this because I used to be very religious and no prayer or mine has ever been answered in a way that could be attributed to divine intervention). I certainly have no interest in choosing to be evil, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person. If a perfectly fair being was able to stop me from doing wrong with 100% certainly I would want that being to interact and stop me when needed every single time.

 

[Ghost Lap]

So your god exists to actively allow pain, torment, suffering, rape and murder?

Those are traits you find admirable? You want your god to allow child abuse, even if it was within their power to stop it?

I honestly have to ask how much thought you put into that question and exactly how it would reflect on your deity!

See there it is, you're making automatic assumptions and showing your close mindedness.

You're basically assuming that because things happen down here, that God can't be real or that
God must be evil or twisted in some kind of way.

Have you ever thought about the possibility that God allows bad things to happen to us so that we may
eventually learn and grow from these experiences?

 

[Scaff]

See there it is, you're making automatic assumptions and showing your close mindedness.

No, I've asked you questions.

You're basically assuming that because things happen down here, that God can't be real

No I haven't, I'm quite literally assuming god exists for the purposes of these questions.

or that
God must be evil or twisted in some kind of way.

If a being who created everything actively allows suffering to occur how else would you describe it?

Have you ever thought about the possibility that God allows bad things to happen to us so that we may
eventually learn and grow from these experiences?

So some children need to be raped, abused and murdered in order to learn and grow (well up to the point they die) and others don't?

A few questions come to mind if we assume this is true:

Why is it selective?
Who choses?
Why can't an all powerful being find a better way to achieve this aim than one that causes pain, suffering and death?

That is of course aside from the nonsense that pain and suffering allows us to grow, it doesn't it causes trauma, PTSD and mental heath conditions.

 

[Ghost Lap]

That is of course aside from the nonsense that pain and suffering allows us to grow, it doesn't it causes trauma, PTSD and mental heath conditions.

It does indeed cause those things, and perhaps from those experiences the soul can grow and evolve?

 

[Scaff]

It does indeed cause those things, and perhaps from those experiences the soul can grow and evolve?

You forgot to answer quite a few of my questions, oh and as an Autistic person who spent 48 years undiagnosed, no, it doesn't. All it teaches you to do is mask and cope with often crippling mental health issues that needn't have occurred at all.

Dressing up suffering as somehow noble and required for growth is not only ********, but also deeply insulting and dangerous.

Now please address the questions i asked, and without the pop-psychology

 

[Ghost Lap]

You forgot to answer quite a few of my questions, oh and as an Autistic person who spent 48 years undiagnosed, no, it doesn't. All it teaches you to do is mask and cope with often crippling mental health issues that needn't have occurred at all.

Dressing up suffering as somehow noble and required for growth is not only ********, but also deeply insulting and dangerous.

Now please address the questions i asked, and without the pop-psychology

I suffer from mental health issues myself, due to bullying I went through at school. You're simply very close minded and I kind
of feel for you to be honest.

 

[UKMikey]

Have you ever thought about the possibility that God allows bad things to happen to us so that we may
eventually learn and grow from these experiences?

What about when He allows fatal things to happen to us?

 

[Ghost Lap]

What about when He allows fatal things to happen to us?

Fatal to the body perhaps, but not to the soul.

 

[Scaff]

I suffer from mental health issues myself, due to bullying I went through at school. You're simply very close minded and I kind
of feel for you to be honest.

So you're refusing to engage in a discussion and will not answer the quite reasonable questions I asked (I'm even working on the assumption your god exists in these questions)?

I've answered every question you have asked, you are avoiding mine. It's not me that's being closed-minded, and right now it's making you look rather hypocritical.

So let's try again, please answer the following:

"If a being who created everything actively allows suffering to occur how else would you describe it?"

"So some children need to be raped, abused and murdered in order to learn and grow (well up to the point they die) and others don't?

A few questions come to mind if we assume this is true:

Why is it selective?
Who choses?
Why can't an all powerful being find a better way to achieve this aim than one that causes pain, suffering and death?"

Fatal to the body perhaps, but not to the soul.

Presumes the existence of a soul, what if your wrong?

 

[Ghost Lap]

So you're refusing to engage in a discussion and will not answer the quite reasonable questions I asked (I'm even working on the assumption your god exists in these questions)?

I've answered every question you have asked, you are avoiding mine. It's not me that's being closed-minded, and right now it's making you look rather hypocritical.

So let's try again, please answer the following:

"If a being who created everything actively allows suffering to occur how else would you describe it?"

"So some children need to be raped, abused and murdered in order to learn and grow (well up to the point they die) and others don't?

A few questions come to mind if we assume this is true:

Why is it selective?
Who choses?
Why can't an all powerful being find a better way to achieve this aim than one that causes pain, suffering and death?"

Welp, I've asked myself deep question like this before. I can't pretend that I have all the answers, but the general idea
that we are all just souls or spiritual beings here in physical vessels (bodies), and that we are basically here on a journey
of spiritual evolution seems to make sense to me as of right now. It's up to you whether you do so or not, but if you
research into that general idea, I'm sure you will find answers to your specific questions.

For example

Why is it selective? The idea is that we are all souls all at different stages of evolution, some souls are at a certain point where certain growth is needed, and so these select souls will undergo such experiences where as others might not currently need to.

Who chooses? Again, the idea is that you as a soul plan out your life pre-birth, along with the major life events and challenges you will face during said lifetime.

Why can't an all powerful being find a better way to achieve this aim than one that causes pain, suffering and death? I think the general idea is that there really is no good or bad from the souls point of view, there is simply just different experiences to be had.
Going through experiences that causes us pain or suffering, allows us to appreciate the experiences that give us joy that much more. Say you're born in a completely white room and spend all of your life there, how would you ever really know what white was without something different from it to contrast it to? The only way you would know what white is would be to experience something that is in contrast to the white.