Do you believe in God?

[Hayden]

People who think like that would also think "if God does not exist, then everything's just chaos, we're all just somewhat evolved chimpanzee cousins and I should stop giving a crap about anyone then and descend into madness. I'd prefer not to believe in such a miserable scenario of a life without God"

Make the absolute most of the lottery win of existing at all.

Accepting that we are ants on a rock; the result of an infinitely rare occurrence and the subject of Millenia of natural refinement is actually quite freeing. It is obviously person dependent, but even without god, our morals, laws and conscience is still there to keep us decent.

I respect religious people and the commitment that they have. It’s a lifetime of worship and belief based on a level of faith that I simply don’t possess.

I personally prefer to believe it’s all chaos, I’m incredibly lucky to exist and I’ve got 60-80 years to have as much fun and fulfill as many dreams as possible. I want to be a good person so I can sleep well at night and keep within laws so I don’t get locked up.

If there’s a god and they use logic, that sounds like a better candidate for paradise than a devout Christian child predator, a warmonger, a faith healer or a dishonest politician.

 

[UKMikey]

It's almost as if logic exists within this universe, and that anything that created the universe is probably beyond any logic that exists within the universe 🤔

 

[Exorcet]

I don't think it's unfalsifiable, but rather I've yet to seen anything to the contrary. My 'god' is, as you say, generic, and is more about the aspects of nature rather some supernatural being. this makes my personal belief able to adapt with modern science and societal principle rather than being stuck in archaic doctrine.

If you're trying to test something, you actually do want to look for contradictions. They will let you rule out possibilities. If you only look for affirmations, then you never get to the point of narrowing down the list of possible results and get nowhere:



You did not say that you were actively testing your idea of god, so this isn't directed at you specifically, but approaching questions from the wrong direction can pop up often in this discussion.

You might consider me ignorant but, I've yet you see anything go against my God, to whom are an aspect of our very nature.

Everyone is ignorant about something. As long as it's not self imposed there is nothing to apologize for.

Religion is human-made if we're being honest, all human wars can be directly traced back to a core problem that lies within humans themselves, religion just becomes another reason to start a war or a scapegoat to put all of the blame on it seems.

If you adhere to Christianity, among others, religion is not human made. God demands worship. Besides, religious wars between different beliefs would die off pretty quickly if a god simply came forward for all to see.

 

[Imari]

If God is just a recurring thought pattern across humanity, then it has some basis in the mind.

Sure, but that's not saying much. That puts it on the same level as fairies, ghosts and the undead. At best it tells us something about the fundamental structure of the human brain and how it deals with ambiguous phenomena.

It's almost as if logic exists within this universe, and that anything that created the universe is probably beyond any logic that exists within the universe 🤔

Logic is ultimately a way of clearly explaining your thoughts and rationale to another person. If there are thoughts, there is logic.

Which is kind of the problem, yes.

To some people the existence of god is tied to their hope. "If there's no god, how can there be hope?" At least that's what some people think. Those people who prefer to live with this version of hope might gravitate to believing in a God or God(s). Which would serve it's purpose of restoring hope for them.

People who think like that would also think "if God does not exist, then everything's just chaos, we're all just somewhat evolved chimpanzee cousins and I should stop giving a crap about anyone then and descend into madness. I'd prefer not to believe in such a miserable scenario of a life without God" Which is a point, but how would this line of thinking be problematic or good to the progress of modern civilization?

These are subjective things. If someone finds that thinking a certain way makes them more hopeful, then good for them. As long as that doesn't lead them to harm others, they should think however they want. Ditto nihilism.

It does start to lead to problems when people think that the subjective ways that they view the world are objective and apply to everyone though. Problems both in the way that they treat other people who may have different subjective ways of dealing with the world, and problems when dealing with things that are actually objective. Plus the problems where people trained in this way of thinking then have trouble telling the difference between subjectivity and objectivity.

If I was psychotic and had regular vivid hallucinations of a man speaking to me, that would be an interesting thing to talk with other people about. If the voice helps me cope with the world and get through the day, it's not even necessarily a wholly bad thing, although such a coping mechanism probably has it's downsides also. But if I insisted that the voice was real for everyone and that other people just weren't listening, that's going to become difficult very quickly.

The voice would be real for me, in as much as any voice is. I think I hear it, and my brain can't tell the difference between something I think I hear and something I actually hear. But talking with others will make it clear that this is not something that exists for everyone, and so any attempt to insist that this voice is a real being and that other people should do what I tell them it's saying would be kinda yikes. And using that voice as justification for doing nasty things would be mega double yikes.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Logic is ultimately a way of clearly explaining your thoughts and rationale to another person. If there are thoughts, there is logic.

Which is kind of the problem, yes.

There is nothing logical about the existence of the universe. Do you have to use logic every time you wish to express your love for those closest to you? Of course you don't, because there are ways which are more clear and direct than mere logic.

 

[Famine]

There is nothing logical about the existence of the universe.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

At the risk of muddying the waters, here is an question that I ask.
What do you think would happen if you gave a person a complete library documenting how things actually work and why they are, written in the books' native languages (because translations and non-native languages nearly always introduce inaccuracies), and told them that "here are all the answers about everything".
My guess is that they would be overwhelmed and uncertain even where to begin. I imagine a child trying to read a doctoral thesis.
It is my belief that this is why time and this universe were constructed. It is my belief that it should be easier to learn in a linear, ordered fashion, hopefully building on the accrued knowledge of the human race.
It is my belief that there are things happening that we have no way of knowing about, much less understanding. In the bibllical book of Job, chapters 38 and 39, an attempt is made to explain this.

Hopefully this helps someone and doesn't make understanding even more difficult.

Here is an interesting question to move your question along: What are we learning?

Here is my (personal) answer: We are learning how to be what we want to be forever.

If we are wanting to learn to be like God, then what we learn in that aspect of life will be important for the next phase of life.

If all we want to learn is what this world has to offer (which can be amazing and wonderful), then that will be important for the next phase of life.

Either way, what we focus on is not only what we get, but what we take with us.

 

[Exorcet]

Either way, what we focus on is not only what we get, but what we take with us.

So if I understand, we're given a short finite life to make decisions that will determine how our infinite lives that we can't even be sure we'll have will go, and the whole system is setup such that there is no way to make modifications after the short life is over.

That doesn't seem like it was well planned. Or possibly even planned at all.

 

[Daz555]

Here is an interesting question to move your question along: What are we learning?

Here is my (personal) answer: We are learning how to be what we want to be forever.

If we are wanting to learn to be like God, then what we learn in that aspect of life will be important for the next phase of life.

If all we want to learn is what this world has to offer (which can be amazing and wonderful), then that will be important for the next phase of life.

Either way, what we focus on is not only what we get, but what we take with us.

How does this philosophy work out for those who die as newborns?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Here is an interesting question to move your question along: What are we learning?

Here is my (personal) answer: We are learning how to be what we want to be forever.

If we are wanting to learn to be like God, then what we learn in that aspect of life will be important for the next phase of life.

If all we want to learn is what this world has to offer (which can be amazing and wonderful), then that will be important for the next phase of life.

Either way, what we focus on is not only what we get, but what we take with us.

Is this based on a Christian viewpoint, or your own experiences/outlook?

 

[feral and bad]

Here is an interesting question to move your question along: What are we learning?

From my Christian viewpoint:
(an obviously incomplete list) Faith, Love, Charity, Hope, Service
Things that allow us to live with others, to all of our benefit.

Things that can be derived from the following scripture in Mark 12,

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

Why would you not be able to? If something is perfect, should it not be perfectly easy to explain and understand as well? I mean, I understand the idea of a perfect circle. It's not really that hard.

This is an interesting question. Yes, we can understand perfect circles, perfect triangles, all 2-d and 3-d shapes. We can understand many things that in THIS existence are good and, some may say, perfect.

But....

Can we understand God? Because He is truly perfect. How do you define that with an imperfect language, imperfect understanding of said language, and an imperfect definition to begin with?

That is why I say that defining God is rather difficult, and not easy to share. Because, maybe especially because, most experiences are COMPLETELY personal. How do I describe something that only I have experienced? Look at my descriptions a couple of pages back. Do ANY of them make sense to you?

I'm not saying that to be mean or, much less, expect you to understand them. I'm merely asking if you feel that they make sense? If you say no, then you are normal, and (probably) haven't experienced anything like that yourself. It's not a problem. It's just your life. My life and understanding is different. That's not good on me or bad on you. Or vice-versa.

So if I understand, we're given a short finite life to make decisions that will determine how our infinite lives that we can't even be sure we'll have will go, and the whole system is setup such that there is no way to make modifications after the short life is over.

That doesn't seem like it was well planned. Or possibly even planned at all.

I understand that this is a rather interesting problem to consider. But think of it this way: If you want to go to college, you take an SAT or ACT. Does that test tell you how well you will do later?

I FULLY believe (as does my church) that progress and learning are BARELY being started here.

We lived with God as spirit children for an untold amount of time before this life. I'm not going to try to guess how long it was, as it really doesn't matter all that much. In order to learn (and accomplish) more, we needed physical bodies. But along with them came the opportunity to choose who and how we wanted to be in the eternities.

After this life ends, we will be given the chance to move on, if we choose to. Also, if we have lived in a way that will allow us to choose to.

Then, we will be given the chance to learn and progress eternally. That is why it is called eternal progression.

How does this philosophy work out for those who die as newborns?

Anyone who lives this life without becoming fully accountable (my church regards that limit as the age of 8 years old, but some don't get there for their entire lives), they will be permitted the chance to learn what they would have during the millennial reign for the 1000 years. After that, they will be permitted to enter into God's kingdom as a fully accepted person in His kingdom.

Read Moroni 8 for some detail on that. (Baptising babies is wrong.)



On a different note, here is a WONDERFUL explanation of why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is NOT predjudiced: Curses and skin color

 

[wheelhp]

There is nothing logical about the existence of the universe. Do you have to use logic every time you wish to express your love for those closest to you? Of course you don't, because there are ways which are more clear and direct than mere logic.

Feelings are the language of the body. Logic is simply a tool humans have developed to get ahead of problems etc.

Both logic and feelings don't have to get along in a person all the time, they're two different "languages" of a person if you will. It's also impossible for a human to be a robot 24/7 and live purely on logic, human biology contradicts it every step of the way. Objectively speaking, All people are weird walking contradictions.

Love is a feeling. Logic doesn't need or want to care about feelings.

 

[Imari]

I'm not saying that to be mean or, much less, expect you to understand them. I'm merely asking if you feel that they make sense? If you say no, then you are normal, and (probably) haven't experienced anything like that yourself. It's not a problem. It's just your life. My life and understanding is different. That's not good on me or bad on you. Or vice-versa.

But that's not a problem of the item of discussion being perfect. It's a problem of subjectivity. I can explain what happiness feels like to me, and you may think you feel something similar but we'll never really know if they're the same thing at all. Welcome to people's brains.

But for something objective... either you can describe the objective parts or it's not objective and it's all in your head.

You can't describe God. It's all in your head.

...Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints...

Oh. Well, that explains a lot. You're a member of the church that is incredibly intolerant of independent thought and questioning, and apparently a fairly devout one.

Good luck with that. You won't find many converts here.

 

[Danoff]

How do I describe something that only I have experienced? Look at my descriptions a couple of pages back. Do ANY of them make sense to you?

Yes. They make perfect sense to me. It's your explanation that doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Love is a feeling. Logic doesn't need or want to care about feelings.

What exactly is a feeling by your definition? You see it all depends on who you ask, to me feelings are the language of the soul, logic the language of the mind, both have their place but feelings transcend logic if you ask me.

 

[Imari]

What exactly is a feeling by your definition? You see it all depends on who you ask, to me feelings are the language of the soul, logic the language of the mind, both have their place but feelings transcend logic if you ask me.

So drugs like LSD act directly on the soul? That seems interesting, someone should study that.

 

[Watzlaw]

If god means the creators of our universe, then yes.
If god means the religion fantasy ********, then no.

 

[MatskiMonk]

So drugs like LSD act directly on the soul? That seems interesting, someone should study that.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

But that's not a problem of the item of discussion being perfect. It's a problem of subjectivity. I can explain what happiness feels like to me, and you may think you feel something similar but we'll never really know if they're the same thing at all. Welcome to people's brains.

But for something objective... either you can describe the objective parts or it's not objective and it's all in your head.

You can't describe God. It's all in your head.

Oh. Well, that explains a lot. You're a member of the church that is incredibly intolerant of independent thought and questioning, and apparently a fairly devout one.

Good luck with that. You won't find many converts here.

While some teachings are fairly solid in their knowledge and placement in life, saying that the LDS church is intolerant of independent thought shows how little you understand. Seriously. I have NEVER felt that I was told that I HAD to be one way or the other. That would be what the Amish, Shaker or other viciously solidly inflexible religions demand.

I have not EVER felt that I was required to do ANYTHING that I was not willing to be part of.

Speaking of that, here is a talk about how following God's information is rather simple in many ways:

 

[TexRex]

If god means the creators of our universe, then yes.
If god means the religion fantasy ********, then no.

 

[Imari]

While some teachings are fairly solid in their knowledge and placement in life, saying that the LDS church is intolerant of independent thought shows how little you understand. Seriously. I have NEVER felt that I was told that I HAD to be one way or the other.

You're saying that the LDS church welcomes questions surrounding the origins of the church and it's scriptures, Joseph Smith and other key historical members of the church, secrecy and authoritarianism in the church, or any of the other wide array of historic and current actions of the church that could be seen as potentially problematic such as their treatment of LGBT folks?

I don't believe you. There's plenty of evidence out there from current and former LDS members of how they have been treated when they asked questions or voiced concerns about their faith. For example, the September Six or John Dehlin. You may not have felt that you were told how to be or how to think, but maybe you're just one of the people who naturally fits into that lifestyle and mindset. Maybe everyone is not exactly the same as you.

The LDS church does not accept behaviour outside of what appears to me as an outsider to be a pretty narrow band. You fall in line, or you get kicked out. Whatever you want to call that, it's not tolerance.

 

[HenrySwanson]

If god means the creators of our universe, then yes.
If god means the religion fantasy ********, then no.

Something like this??

Spinoza's God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

The Enlightenment thinker was branded a heretic, but his philosophy overflows with subtle religious insights

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

 

[Aj1127]

Living things are made of non living matter and physics dictates everything. If matter is able to interact with other matter, then there is a chance that an interaction will happen. If there is enough matter in total the chance that matter interacts with other matter somewhere becomes essentially 100%. The universe is big, so that seems to apply to us.

Which interactions become common will depend on many factors, but as a general rule systems tend to end up in the lowest energy state possible. It's the most stable configuration. So matter will interact and tend to give off energy in the process. This energy that is released can be captured by other matter which is then able to interact with yet more matter, etc.

Some of these interactions may be self replicating. Carbon likes to bond to itself and can form very long chains of atoms, so it's not unreasonable to expect chains of carbon to create more chains of carbon. As these chains keep being produced, the ones that are less likely to be broken by the environment or absorbed by other chains will be the ones that last the longest and over time they may become more and more complex as they interact with each other. This provides a basis for replication and natural selection purely from a physics standpoint. Natural Selection itself applies to living things, but only because humans have defined it that way. It is really just another result of matter following the laws of thermodynamics.

So where did the matter come from ?

You can believe in a god. However, there will be a time when you will not be capable of doing so any more.

Unless of course TB is correct

 

[HenrySwanson]

So where did the matter come from ?

But if we were to say there was a god, or some other being....where did they come from.

 

[feral and bad]

But if we were to say there was a god, or some other being....where did they come from.

I hope this helps.
from: https://www.gotquestions.org/who-created-God.html

A common argument from atheists and skeptics is that if all things need a cause, then God must also need a cause. The conclusion is that if God needed a cause, then God is not God (and if God is not God, then of course there is no God). This is a slightly more sophisticated form of the basic question “Who made God?” Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing. So, if God is a “something,” then He must have a cause, right?

The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

Best Regards.

 

[TexRex]

Making up idiotic non-answers to questions is peak religious delusion.

 

[Exorcet]

So where did the matter come from ?

We don't know. That doesn't mean we can make up an origin.

I hope this helps.
from: https://www.gotquestions.org/who-created-God.html

A common argument from atheists and skeptics is that if all things need a cause, then God must also need a cause. The conclusion is that if God needed a cause, then God is not God (and if God is not God, then of course there is no God). This is a slightly more sophisticated form of the basic question “Who made God?” Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing. So, if God is a “something,” then He must have a cause, right?

The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

Best Regards.

You've rephrased the question. Yes if all things need a cause (a common theist claim), then so do gods. This is not the same as asking who created god. It's applying a common standard to all things. If you say that god is not in the category of things that are created, then matter can be in the same category. Whenever you invoke god, you can just replace god with matter or whatever. That is the problem. You're either relying on semantics to make god special or purposefully ignoring explanations that are valid as the ones you favor.

To be more specific:

"But things do exist." - True

"Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing" - Assumption

"something had to have always been in existence." - True if we accept the assumption above

"That ever-existing thing is what we call God." - That makes God simply a placeholder. No attributes or meaningful description is provided here. You can define God this way, but then God may simply be particles, or an unthinking and unfeeling field of potential.

"God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence." - This does not follow from anything else that you've said. Why is a God a being? What did God cause?

 

[TB]

uncreated Creator

I don't recall ever seeing circular logic demonstrated in two words like this since jumbo shrimp.

 

[Famine]

It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed.

Allow me to introduce to you the concept of "synaesthesia".

It's also worth noting that the majority of humans have this ability to a small degree, and it's part of the reason why certain products are certain colours: if you opened a bottle of something blue and smelled limes, you'd react negatively.

The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be.

This is begging the question (an actual example of it, rather than the colloquial form). The answer is asserted without any actual evidence for the answer.

In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

Why?

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence.

Circular - and wrong. See: Hawking radiation.

But even if it were not wrong:

That ever-existing thing is what we call God.

... why?

Why can it not be what we call Kblmlbptk? From whence do you assume "nothing can come into existence, so therefore God"?