Belief in God is Self-Evident (but Not Necessary) (Buddha, America, churches)

[bulmabriefs144]

I have proven (using science, using philosophy, using other means over the years) that there is indeed a Creator. I have done it repeatedly, without results. They say repeatedly "that's not proof" whenever I try. In other words, the proof is ridiculously easy to see.

1. Creation cannot exist without a Creator. It is a fact. Anyone who believes otherwise has taken leave of logic. Taking leave of logic is neither sane nor scientific, as science requires logical and repeatable methodology. I can take any object, whether natural or manmade, and show the steps it to be made.
2. "You are an idiot" is not a disproof. Neither is "God does not exist, and you have no proof." Here's what I do know. God, if we are to call this God as God, is the God of not only primative Jewish people, but the God of nature and the universe. This is the difference from the gods of the Romans and early cultures, and modern religions. Those religions broke a god into "this thing our people believe in, and build statues to that controls X phenomenon." This is what is called a tribal deity. A God however, is something that is immortal, and is the source of mortal things. That is, everything that is, came from something. Except a God. A strict nihilistic non-creation existence makes no sense, unless we believe the Universe is eternal. And if that is the case, the Universe is God (pantheism).
3. What does it mean to be made in the image of God? It means, not just humans, but everything that exists, has the imprint of God in it. Jesus at one point said "everyone who has seen me has seen the father." Whether you are looking at rocks, trees, whatever, every single thing is a proof there is a God. You cannot escape this, any more than you can escape the Buddha's Hand. You're welcome to try, though.

Perhaps you don't know this story, it's in a Chinese novel called Journey to the West. There was a brilliant and powerful monkey named Sun Wukong made from stone, who had mastered magic, including riding a cloud and holding an immense staff (think Goku from Dragon Ball). After eating a bunch of longevity peaches, and otherwise causing a ton of destruction in heaven, they tried to stick him into a furnace. It didn't work. Finally, they asked the Buddha. Buddha, being a pacifist, refused to challenge him in combat, and instead gave him a test. "If you can leave my hand (Buddha being much larger than Wukong) I will let you do as you will, otherwise you will accept punishment." So Sun Wukong flew to the edge of the universe, past all the stars and space and such, until there were nothing but pillars. The original story goes that he not only marked his name with ink, but peed on the pole. When he came back to start, Buddha opened his eyes and saw him sitting there. "You haven't left my hand!" The monkey was like "I thought you might do this, so I wrote my name in these poles way out at the end of the universe." And the Buddha said, "did you, by any chance, pee on this pole?"

The point is, you can "prove" all you want that there isn't a God. It just proves how limited your understanding is.

But here's the thing that's more important. Why are people so eager to deny the existence of a (blatantly obvious) God? It's because they feel like if they were to believe in God, they'd have to join the church and follow some path. And unfortunately, churches, wanting members, do nothing to dismiss this thinking. You do not have to join the church, you can worship privately, not worship at all, or continue screaming "I hate you God" until the day you die. But to be considered a sane and productive member of society, you must understand that all created things come from an origin (trees from a seed, computers from a programmer, etc) and that to prevent infinite regression, somewhere there was an origin that was not created. By no means is it necessary to believe in the Abrahamic God, by no means is it necessary to call this God. By no means is it necessary to even follow conventional Western morality, some people believe in an evil god that demands they kill others in the name of their faith. Such people appear to be permitted to live in this world (until they are caught!) so it's not really relevant. In fact, even atheism of some sorts are rational, particularly the "I do not believe in supernatural gods, I believe the universe arose from one event" variety. What does not work, however, is the "I do not believe the universe had a cause" variety. It's called cause and effect, remember? No logic.

So, to reiterate. It is simple enough to find proof for God if so inclined simply by looking at created things, since God is defined as immortal Creator of the universe, and not as a specific Abrahamic God (which I do not believe in either, I believe in a concept closer to Brahman, the reality above the Hindu Trinity). God doesn't appear to mind if we do not believe in him, because unlike ghosts or the gods of the past, this is a being who existence is immortal. To say "I do not believe in God/gods" is a valid statement, while "there is not God/are no gods" is a statement that you have as much chance of proving as that there are no unicorns anywhere in the universe. Have you searched everywhere?

[Miss Hepburn]

Loved your post.
I forget to mention the Atman or Brahma or Brahman...funny how Abraham has
Brahman and a-ham in his name...for those that know about 'a-ham'.
(I don't need to get into that .)

And of course there are unicorns...on another plane....camp out in England a few nights
and you'll know first hand there are fairies and leprechauns, also!

[Clintone]

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

I have proven (using science, using philosophy, using other means over the years) that there is indeed a Creator. I have done it repeatedly, without results. They say repeatedly "that's not proof" whenever I try. In other words, the proof is ridiculously easy to see.

1. Creation cannot exist without a Creator. It is a fact. Anyone who believes otherwise has taken leave of logic. Taking leave of logic is neither sane nor scientific, as science requires logical and repeatable methodology. I can take any object, whether natural or manmade, and show the steps it to be made.
2. "You are an idiot" is not a disproof. Neither is "God does not exist, and you have no proof." Here's what I do know. God, if we are to call this God as God, is the God of not only primative Jewish people, but the God of nature and the universe. This is the difference from the gods of the Romans and early cultures, and modern religions. Those religions broke a god into "this thing our people believe in, and build statues to that controls X phenomenon." This is what is called a tribal deity. A God however, is something that is immortal, and is the source of mortal things. That is, everything that is, came from something. Except a God. A strict nihilistic non-creation existence makes no sense, unless we believe the Universe is eternal. And if that is the case, the Universe is God (pantheism).
3. What does it mean to be made in the image of God? It means, not just humans, but everything that exists, has the imprint of God in it. Jesus at one point said "everyone who has seen me has seen the father." Whether you are looking at rocks, trees, whatever, every single thing is a proof there is a God. You cannot escape this, any more than you can escape the Buddha's Hand. You're welcome to try, though.

Hooray! I got to this gold mine first! I have the following criticisms:
#1. Since when can a creation not exist without a creator? prove it. I already know you can't...so that's my point. I see absolutely no reason why a creation requires a creator. Now, it seems to me that a creation would have either been created or have always existed...but it having been created is only half of those two possibilities.
#2. People who make your sort of argument like to point to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and note that this points to the universe having been created, and therefore requiring a creator. From what I understand that's part of the reason why the big bang theory became so popular...because the second law of thermodynamics says the universe needed a beginning. Well then, perhaps something else outside our universe was the creator of our universe, something outside our perception of time. Perhaps that always existed, or perhaps that was created by something else. None of those "creators" need be intelligent though.
#3. Intelligence doesn't appear to be very common in our universe, particularly intelligence capable of complex planning. When we do see intelligence, it's very fragile and comes in the form of brains. We have no evidence of brains being capable of building universes. The closest I can even think of to how something like that might happen would be for a universe to be created through a computer simulation (which may or may not be possible, an even if so wouldn't have necessarily been created by a god so much as just an extremely technologically advanced but potentially mortal society). Another possibility I might wonder about might be for the universe to have been created by a being capable of created sentient imagined thoughts...but we have no evidence that our imaginings can become sentient. A being might have built the universe our of real matter, created by itself or its mind too, but we also have no evidence of brains being capable of such a thing. We know brains can build...but actually for the most part, it's the simpler, brainless organisms who have made most of the complex designs throughout our world. They made our bodies, so I would say the most complex of brains on our planet are capable of coming up with new designs faster than much of other life (although, microscopic life can adapt pretty quickly too, so it might be more of a neck and neck race in some ways) most of the complex structures, so far as we know, were the result of non-intelligent life, so we certainly don't seem to need intelligence to build complex structures.
#4. Next, people with your perspective tend to say that those bacteria and cells and insects that build all those extremely complex structures without the guidance of a brain were guided by a god. Alright, where is the god? If I don't have a reason to believe it's here, it only makes sense to believe it is not here, so far as I can see, and that insects and bacteria and microbes designed all their incredibly complex structures without the help of a brain or the sort of complex consciousness of some kind of self-aware designer. Saying a god created the universe doesn't answer any important questions about how the universe came to be. That is because anything we say a god can do, we have to say a non-intelligent source can do as well, which is because there is no reason we know of why a non-intelligent source wouldn't be able to do everything a god could do.

Perhaps you don't know this story, it's in a Chinese novel called Journey to the West. There was a brilliant and powerful monkey named Sun Wukong made from stone, who had mastered magic, including riding a cloud and holding an immense staff (think Goku from Dragon Ball). After eating a bunch of longevity peaches, and otherwise causing a ton of destruction in heaven, they tried to stick him into a furnace. It didn't work. Finally, they asked the Buddha. Buddha, being a pacifist, refused to challenge him in combat, and instead gave him a test. "If you can leave my hand (Buddha being much larger than Wukong) I will let you do as you will, otherwise you will accept punishment." So Sun Wukong flew to the edge of the universe, past all the stars and space and such, until there were nothing but pillars. The original story goes that he not only marked his name with ink, but peed on the pole. When he came back to start, Buddha opened his eyes and saw him sitting there. "You haven't left my hand!" The monkey was like "I thought you might do this, so I wrote my name in these poles way out at the end of the universe." And the Buddha said, "did you, by any chance, pee on this pole?"

I've heard that story before. Never read the book. I watched the movie though. I recommend it.

The point is, you can "prove" all you want that there isn't a God. It just proves how limited your understanding is.

You should know by now, pretty much nobody is trying to prove there is no god, because it's so difficult to prove a negative. We're mostly just looking for evidence for one. Personally, I'll pretty much ignore most people's views unless they insist they are correct, like you have done.

*Not that what you emphasized was proof of a "Creator" rather than proof of a god, and I've been treating my response as if you were arguing for proof of a god rather than the more ambiguous creator...but really, if the creator you're talking about is not necessarily intelligent, then I suspect you wouldn't get many people disagreeing with you anyway so there wouldn't be much of a point to making a thread about that, so I'm just treating this as if you had said "god" or "intelligent creator" rather than Creator.

But here's the thing that's more important. Why are people so eager to deny the existence of a (blatantly obvious) God? It's because they feel like if they were to believe in God, they'd have to join the church and follow some path. And unfortunately, churches, wanting members, do nothing to dismiss this thinking. You do not have to join the church, you can worship privately, not worship at all, or continue screaming "I hate you God" until the day you die. But to be considered a sane and productive member of society, you must understand that all created things come from an origin (trees from a seed, computers from a programmer, etc) and that to prevent infinite regression, somewhere there was an origin that was not created. By no means is it necessary to believe in the Abrahamic God, by no means is it necessary to call this God. By no means is it necessary to even follow conventional Western morality, some people believe in an evil god that demands they kill others in the name of their faith. Such people appear to be permitted to live in this world (until they are caught!) so it's not really relevant. In fact, even atheism of some sorts are rational, particularly the "I do not believe in supernatural gods, I believe the universe arose from one event" variety. What does not work, however, is the "I do not believe the universe had a cause" variety. It's called cause and effect, remember? No logic.

Because it's most certainly not blatantly obvious that a god exists. That's probably why people are so eager to deny its existence, and so many people insisting it's obvious enhances our enthusiasm. Note that when Miss Hepburn talks about her beliefs, she certainly feels strongly about them but she doesn't talk about others as if they are engaging in a fallacious thinking if they disagree with her. You have spoken of those who disagreed with you as if they're engaging in fallacious thinking...but you are the one who I've shown to be engaging in fallacious thinking, I think. If I have not shown that, I probably should have explained myself better.

So, to reiterate. It is simple enough to find proof for God if so inclined simply by looking at created things, since God is defined as immortal Creator of the universe, and not as a specific Abrahamic God (which I do not believe in either, I believe in a concept closer to Brahman, the reality above the Hindu Trinity). God doesn't appear to mind if we do not believe in him, because unlike ghosts or the gods of the past, this is a being who existence is immortal. To say "I do not believe in God/gods" is a valid statement, while "there is not God/are no gods" is a statement that you have as much chance of proving as that there are no unicorns anywhere in the universe. Have you searched everywhere?

"Immortal" implies being alive. Whatever the universe sprouted from wasn't necessarily alive. "Being" also implies being alive, and maybe even conscious. I see no reason to believe whatever the universe sprouted from was conscious either.

Depending on my mood, I'll sometimes call myself an agnostic or a gnostic atheist. I might think of myself as an agnostic atheist because literally anything is possible. I might think of myself as a gnostic atheist instead because, though anything is possible, people would give me funny looks if I said something like "I might get struck by lightning four times today" (which I know is possible). I can imagine scenarios in which I genuinely could be struck by lighting four times today. I can imagine how that might occur. I don't know how a god could exist though. I don't see omniscience in nature, or telepathy, or the ability to create matter from thought, or immortality, or thoughts existing outside of a brain in nature, or any signs of those sorts of characteristics we tend to think of gods as having, so if I can imagine exactly how I might be struck by lightning four times today (however unlikely that would be) and I can't imagine how a god could exist, and I could easily imagine myself saying "I know I won't get struck by lightning four times today," I don't know why I should have a problem saying "There is no god/gods." You're correct that it's just my opinion...but I'd think that'd be obvious. We can't truly know anything with 100% certainty. It's always our opinion.



I just thought of something else I should have added to this statement:

#4. Next, people with your perspective tend to say that those bacteria and cells and insects that build all those extremely complex structures without the guidance of a brain were guided by a god. Alright, where is the god? If I don't have a reason to believe it's here, it only makes sense to believe it is not here, so far as I can see, and that insects and bacteria and microbes designed all their incredibly complex structures without the help of a brain or the sort of complex consciousness of some kind of self-aware designer. Saying a god created the universe doesn't answer any important questions about how the universe came to be. That is because anything we say a god can do, we have to say a non-intelligent source can do as well, which is because there is no reason we know of why a non-intelligent source wouldn't be able to do everything a god could do.

And I do mean anything we say a god can do, we should also assume a non-intelligent universe can do, I think. I see so few characteristics of gods in nature that even if Jesus spoke to me in person, with glowing robes, as he parted the sea before my eyes, and he did that every week for a year, I'd consider it irresponsible not to wonder if that was coming from an unintelligent source. I see so little evidence of anything we might call a god, by which I mean an intelligent creator of the universe, if we do begin to get signs something like that exists, for me that would open up all sorts of bizarre possibilities. I'd consider us living in a computer simulation much more likely, because while that might be impossible, at least I have some idea of how that might happen.

People tend to treat god as a answer to all questions, and if that's for emotional satisfaction I have few to no problems with that. I can imagine scenarios where that would be a bad thing, but I can imagine scenarios where that might be a good thing too...but god did it is not an answer. I wish the world would get of the mentality that "god did it" is an answer to any real questions.

[hljc]

Most of these rivers in India like Braham river and Saraisvati river and Ghaggar tributary sound like Abraham ,Sara and Hagar of the bible who were popular as they had wisdom of hearing from God , so the India belief borrowed their names...

[Amaznjohn]

I too reject your first premise, since I've seen no proof of that, so the rest of your "proof" referring to the cosmos as "creation" is flawed, IMO. I would say the same to those who say that there is no God(s).

I've seen no scientific proof provided, only philosophical which is better at asking questions than answering. And, I don't know what you mean by "other means".

[FredNotBob]

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

1. Creation cannot exist without a Creator. It is a fact. Anyone who believes otherwise has taken leave of logic. Taking leave of logic is neither sane nor scientific, as science requires logical and repeatable methodology. I can take any object, whether natural or manmade, and show the steps it to be made.
2. "You are an idiot" is not a disproof. Neither is "God does not exist, and you have no proof." Here's what I do know. God, if we are to call this God as God, is the God of not only primative Jewish people, but the God of nature and the universe. This is the difference from the gods of the Romans and early cultures, and modern religions. Those religions broke a god into "this thing our people believe in, and build statues to that controls X phenomenon." This is what is called a tribal deity. A God however, is something that is immortal, and is the source of mortal things. That is, everything that is, came from something. Except a God. A strict nihilistic non-creation existence makes no sense, unless we believe the Universe is eternal. And if that is the case, the Universe is God (pantheism).
3. What does it mean to be made in the image of God? It means, not just humans, but everything that exists, has the imprint of God in it. Jesus at one point said "everyone who has seen me has seen the father." Whether you are looking at rocks, trees, whatever, every single thing is a proof there is a God. You cannot escape this, any more than you can escape the Buddha's Hand. You're welcome to try, though.

I disagree with most of your points.

Something can, on a quantum level, exist 'without' a creator; science has proven the existence of quantum 'virtual particles' that, while not fully understood, appear to blink in and out of existence of their own accord.

And yes, the 'you are an idiot' defense is incredibly weak, but I still disagree entirely that tribal gods and modern gods are conceptually different. That carries with it the assumption that one or the other don't qualify as gods, which is a logical absurdity -- a banana is a banana, whether it's rotting or newly-grown.

It also doesn't follow that 'eternal universe = the universe is God'; to make that claim necessarily debunks your earlier assertion (that Creation cannot exist without a Creator). If the Universe is God, and Creation cannot exist without God, then, paradoxically, the Universe cannot exist without itself and thus cannot create itself. QED.

I disagree with the assertion that 'every single thing is a proof there is a God'. As David Hume noted in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Philo refutes the design argument thus:

According to Philo, the design argument is based on a faulty analogy: we do not know whether the order in nature was the result of design, since, unlike our experience with the creation of machines, we did not witness the formation of the world.

[TRANSPONDER]

I see no point in this thread.

(1) there can be no presents without a Santa.

(2) Rudolph the red nosed reindeer
Had a very shiny nose.

(3) anyone who doesn't agree with me is stupid.

Bulma has tried this arguments before. So have many others. It didn't work then and it works less now where possible alternative hypotheses to Prime Mover are being mooted.

It doesn't matter anyway. The only real debate is Personal god -claims and Holy Books, organized religion and its' influence on society, whether something should be done to remove it and what.

[auralmack]

Originally Posted by Clintone

Hooray! I got to this gold mine first! I have the following criticisms:
#1. Since when can a creation not exist without a creator? prove it. I already know you can't...so that's my point. I see absolutely no reason why a creation requires a creator. Now, it seems to me that a creation would have either been created or have always existed...but it having been created is only half of those two possibilities.
#2. People who make your sort of argument like to point to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and note that this points to the universe having been created, and therefore requiring a creator. From what I understand that's part of the reason why the big bang theory became so popular...because the second law of thermodynamics says the universe needed a beginning. Well then, perhaps something else outside our universe was the creator of our universe, something outside our perception of time. Perhaps that always existed, or perhaps that was created by something else. None of those "creators" need be intelligent though.
#3. Intelligence doesn't appear to be very common in our universe, particularly intelligence capable of complex planning. When we do see intelligence, it's very fragile and comes in the form of brains. We have no evidence of brains being capable of building universes. The closest I can even think of to how something like that might happen would be for a universe to be created through a computer simulation (which may or may not be possible, an even if so wouldn't have necessarily been created by a god so much as just an extremely technologically advanced but potentially mortal society).

Any creation has to have a creator. If there is no creator don't call it a creation. You contradict yourself. Call it something else. Nothing creates nothing. Nothing causes nothing. Something created the earth and universe, and maybe you just refuse to recognize intelligent design. Nothing created your shoes to a cow. They were just always there. Moo.

Why don't you test your theory, cut down a few trees and see how long it takes them to become a house without any creator or intelligence. Contrary to your thinking, things don't just happen for no reason. Everything that has ever happened had a reason to happen. What caused this to happen is because this happened, and that happened because that happened, it is an endless cycle of one thing happening because another thing happened. It's called cause and effect. Why is all this happening? Oh, no reason comes from lack of knowing. It's up to us to find the reasons and the whys.

So if the earth is not a creation what is it, an accident? What caused the accident? and the reasons takes us into another endless cycle. It requires energy, so where is the source of all this energy? Life or nothing?

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by auralmack

Any creation has to have a creator. If there is no creator don't call it a creation. You contradict yourself. Call it something else. Nothing creates nothing. Nothing causes nothing. Something created the earth and universe, and maybe you just refuse to recognize intelligent design. Nothing created your shoes to a cow. They were just always there. Moo.

Why don't you test your theory, cut down a few trees and see how long it takes them to become a house without any creator or intelligence. Contrary to your thinking, things don't just happen for no reason. Everything that has ever happened had a reason to happen. What caused this to happen is because this happened, and that happened because that happened, it is an endless cycle of one thing happening because another thing happened. It's called cause and effect. Why is all this happening? Oh, no reason comes from lack of knowing. It's up to us to find the reasons and the whys.

So if the earth is not a creation what is it, an accident? What caused the accident? and the reasons takes us into another endless cycle. It requires energy, so where is the source of all this energy? Life or nothing?

How did you determine the highlighted text?

[auralmack]

Let me rephrase, Something caused the earth and universe.

And I see intelligent design. If you cut down those trees and toss around a few nails, something would have to cause a house to exist. No intelligent design and I don't believe a house would ever exist. Man-made or otherwise.