Logical explanation: why a god must exist

@Johnny Fresh,

cosmologists have debated these issues for a long time, but few of them are inclined to conclude any creator exists. I am a physicist, and not a philosopher, and almost no physicists opt for the "I give up" stance of presuming there is a creator

1 Reply

@hilbert,

Anything that was caused by anything else may be said to an extent to be "created" by that anything...so I guess given the latest tendency's in physics The Multiverse is a good candidate to be the "Creator".

0 Replies

@Johnny Fresh,

There is a God. He and She is the collective spirits of all life.

God grows and evolves just as life does.

On our planet, humans are the dominant life form. On our planet, we are God.

Our collective spirit is continuing to slowly evolve, continuing to grow.

There is still hope.

I see the world of man growing, becoming one.

We all do.

Do we see what that "One" will grow to become?

I believe the One will become a true understanding of itself.

With a will to survive.

What do you think?

0 Replies

There is a God. He and She is the collective spirits of all life.

God grows and evolves just as life does.

On our planet, humans are the dominant life form. On our planet, we are God.

Our collective spirit is continuing to slowly evolve, continuing to grow.

There is still hope.

I see the world of man growing, becoming one.

We all do.

Do we see what that "One" will grow to become?

I believe the One will become a true understanding of itself.

With a will to survive.

What do you think?

1 Reply

@Madacad,

Madacad wrote:

There is a God. He and She is the collective spirits of all life.

God grows and evolves just as life does.

On our planet, humans are the dominant life form. On our planet, we are God.

Our collective spirit is continuing to slowly evolve, continuing to grow.

There is still hope.

I see the world of man growing, becoming one.

We all do.

Do we see what that "One" will grow to become?

I believe the One will become a true understanding of itself.

With a will to survive.

What do you think?

I think you are trying to add unnecessary baggage onto humanity. But at the same time you destroy humanity by trying to lump the word god onto humanity. See you ruin the ability to say humans have this ability to grow or learn without needing some superficial special being, being involved.

It is no different than when theists say when a person does something good it is because of jesus they did it. This robs the person from doing the act because they thought it was a good act. It deminishes the person to always say the reason good people are good is because some god makes them good.

So it is no different when you want to lump this concept onto humanity. You are robbing humanity of it's chance to be free of this supernatural concept that can't be proven.

I say what you are trying to do is damaging and demeaning. We don't need this concept lumped onto humanity. It brings nothing valuable to the table to do it. It only makes things more confusing because people have preconcieved ideas of what a god is or does. Yet at the same time you are not exactly freeing the concept, you are just trying to entangle them but they don't work at all together which is why you need to ask what others think.

If it were obvious you wouldn't need to say it. So you are trying to sell this idea and it has been sold before but it is worthless.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Are you claiming humans invented Goodness from nothingness or that we invented the possibility of good ? It is my impression that you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about no offence meant, but it really seems the case...of course either one or the other don't prove or disprove God either, not my point to go there...so ?

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...in fact the naive idea that we must do good without expecting profit is entirely rotten wrong and poorly explained...it defy s physics rules, the very concept of transactions of energy where an equilibrium must be sustained it reminds me of loss of information in a black hole...
...what should be explained to people is that profit is not linear it should not be immediate or direct but it must exist...helping others or society at large and I mean really helping not playing around ensures the well being of everyone by ensuring everyone is productive and thus indirectly affects your quality of life as the culture in which you live grow and develop yourself, the better it goes the better you go...good equals order and building order through work gives brings meaning to life...the 2 law of thermodynamics is the nemesis of order a necessary condition in itself for human as any other form of Intelligence to have a purpose in our Universe...the possibility of Good (Order) is inextricably linked to it, the very condition for practising it...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Are you claiming humans invented Goodness from nothingness or that we invented the possibility of good ? It is my impression that you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about no offence meant, but it really seems the case...of course either one or the other don't prove or disprove God either, not my point to go there...so ?

You say I don't know what I am talking about when you don't even understand what I said? Really? Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension?

Why the hell would I say humans invent goodness from nothing? You actually think this is something I would say or consider? If you say yes, then you haven't read a single thing I have ever written here. Not only that but there is no way you can come to that conclusion from my previous post on this thread.

So if you think I don't know what I am talking about then you have no idea what you read.

I was talking about adding a concept onto something that already has a good enough definition. You don't need a god concept to be a good person. To give credit to some god for every good action done robs humanity of its' due recognition.

A great example of this is back during the bush administration when Rosa Parks died. Condalisa Rice gave a retarded speech where she said it was by the power of jesus that Rosa refused to give up her seat on that bus. Making this statement it says indirectly that had she not been a believer she never would have challenged the unfairness and bigotry her fellow racist humans. I say absolute bullshit and it robs her of her own sense. You don't need a stupid god concept to determine when something is not right. You should give credit where credit is due, humanity, not some fair tale.

Goodness arises out of our own self preservation and empathy for other life. It doesn't get any more simple than that and it is easy to understand. You don't need any belief in any gods for that to come about. If you value your own life then why is it such a far fetch to value equally someone else's life? I mean, I wouldn't want someone threatening my life, so maybe I shouldn't go around threatening other's lives. I don't need a belief in a god or gods to come to that conclusion.

Everything secular works off this premise. Religion uses dogma to come to it's conclusions about right or wrong, but religion is almost always wrong on certain cases because it gets it's points of view from dogma instead of empathy, compassion or self reflection.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

To give credit to some god for every good action done robs humanity of its' due recognition.

yet again I can see you don't know what I was aiming at...what due recognition, eh ???
We do good when we do it because good is advantageous for us as a social species...the origin or the possibility of good is not in men but in reality itself in nature...my point was that we don't do good because we choose but because we learn that it might be in our interest...there is no merit in there...nor does it say anything in favour or against God...I am not trying to get into a fight with you I just really think you are not getting to the bottom of it...I know that what you meant is correct for practical purposes I just tried to get the whole conversation a step deeper and I did it because I believe you can grasp it if you care to read it calmly !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

the origin or the possibility of good is not in men but in reality itself in nature...

No, I think that is bullshit. Nature does not care about good or evil or wrong or right at all. It just is. It is WE who have decided to pick and chose what is wrong or right for our own self interests. Nature doesn't care if the human race survives. Nature doesn't care if the entire planet gets wiped of life. Goodness does not come or arise from nature or natural phenomena. It comes from us.

There was a time when a huge majority of people thought owning of another human being was perfectly reasonable and fine. We have now come to the conclusion that owning another human being as if they are your property to do with how you please is not so good and not reasonable. It definately was not religion or the belief in a god that stopped us from wanting to own slaves. In fact I think the reason we started owning slaves was due to religious dogma in the first place.

The credit I am referring to is when a person is willing to sacrafice their own self interests for that of their fellow human beings for a cause that benefits and reduces suffering. You should totally give praise for such individuals because without them you never get any progression towards a more civil society or better possible life for everyone. Religion has failed on this task time and time again and often times it is the cause behind unnecessary human suffering and discrimination. It is time we shed this ancient superstion in favor of secular morality.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Equate good or evil as subjective expressions of order or disorder of music or noise and you will see that it is not bullshit...survival of species endures when it endures, it says nothing on order or disorder themselves, but only that structures change...

Quote:

The credit I am referring to is when a person is willing to sacrafice their own self interests for that of their fellow human beings for a cause that benefits and reduces suffering. You should totally give praise for such individuals because without them you never get any progression towards a more civil society or better possible life for everyone. Religion has failed on this task time and time again and often times it is the cause behind unnecessary human suffering and discrimination. It is time we shed this ancient superstion in favor of secular morality.

The point being it was not a sacrifice but a deal and a profitable one...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

In fact the best way for building a secular morality goes exactly in the direction I was pointing, which was about getting a more physical natural explanation for the whole idea of good and evil...praising people for making profitable non linear deals seems vain from where I am standing...I rather see it as the natural smart course of action the "superior" man should follow...there is a reason why well educated people choose to be anonymous when helping others...they understand the point I am trying to make...equally I agree the the common Jack needs a little push and that praising might help along...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Equate good or evil as subjective expressions of order or disorder of music or noise and you will see that it is not bullshit...

Once again, nonsense. Order is neither good nor evil and the same goes for music. Just because a person thinks about it and decides they like it or hate it has absolutely no bearing on the actual thing they are referring to. So it is meaningless to say that a subjective opinion about a concept is in some way valid for your argument.

A child molester thinks having sexual acts with children is alright and fine. Does this in fact make it alright and fine just because it is their subjective point of view? Should we respect their opinion because it is their subjective expression?

A person who murders another person must have obviously thought it was alright to do during the act. Sure they might have been caught up in the moment but not enough to stop themselves or think it over or turn themselves in after the fact if they actually thought it were wrong. So should we respect their subjective expression?

Just because a religious person thinks that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married, should we respect their subjective opinion? What about racism or racial hatred? Should we respect those subjective opinions too?

As you can see a subjective point of view is not always the truth. Just because someone believes something, doesn't make it true or valuable or meaningful.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Equate good or evil as subjective expressions of order or disorder of music or noise and you will see that it is not bullshit...

Once again, nonsense. Order is neither good nor evil and the same goes for music. Just because a person thinks about it and decides they like it or hate it has absolutely no bearing on the actual thing they are referring to. So it is meaningless to say that a subjective opinion about a concept is in some way valid for your argument.

A child molester thinks having sexual acts with children is alright and fine. Does this in fact make it alright and fine just because it is their subjective point of view? Should we respect their opinion because it is their subjective expression?

A person who murders another person must have obviously thought it was alright to do during the act. Sure they might have been caught up in the moment but not enough to stop themselves or think it over or turn themselves in after the fact if they actually thought it were wrong. So should we respect their subjective expression?

Just because a religious person thinks that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married, should we respect their subjective opinion? What about racism or racial hatred? Should we respect those subjective opinions too?

As you can see a subjective point of view is not always the truth. Just because someone believes something, doesn't make it true or valuable or meaningful.

never said that...I meant as "subjective" a less accurate expression on what order and disorder really are...besides what you have been speaking about in your last post regards lack of synchrony between the subject system (his inner values) and the social system he is in, therefore a form of disorder on its own...order comes in when through ethics and moral the subject is forced to synchronize his inner values with social demands, rearrangement of a system within a system, an orchestra in formation...we might reduce the whole idea of "bad" and "good" to systems coupling or pattern coupling as a process of entanglement of states...what I am saying is that order and disorder are themselves relative to layers...the internal order of a system if conflicting with the order of another bigger system is a form of disorder that needs work to be resolved...I am entirely convinced it is possible to bring an understanding of Ethics through a Physics point of view but I will not spend the entire day trying to make a point you seem no willing to see...I suppose those who ought to make reason of what I said did get it already and I am happy enough with that...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

never said that...I meant as "subjective" a less accurate expression on what order and disorder really are...besides what you have been speaking about in your last post regards lack of synchrony between the subject system (his inner values) and the social system he is in, therefore a form of disorder on its own...order comes in when through ethics and moral the subject is forced to synchronize his inner values with social demands, rearrangement of a system within a system, an orchestra in formation...we might reduce the whole idea of "bad" and "good" to systems coupling or pattern coupling as a process of entanglement of states...what I am saying is that order and disorder are themselves relative to layers...the internal order of a system if conflicting with the order of another bigger system is a form of disorder that needs work to be resolved...I am entirely convinced it is possible to bring an understanding of Ethics through a Physics point of view but I will not spend the entire day trying to make a point you seem no willing to see...I suppose those who ought to make reason of what I said did get it already and I am happy enough with that...

Here is the thing you are not getting from my continued reiteration of it.

There is a difference between a person who follows social norms and a person who acts regardless of social norms. A person who only follows the "rules" put forth by society because they don't want to be locked away for breaking them, is not in fact a good person. This means that there really isn't this so called "order" that you speak of.

Many people just follow the rules because of the threat of punishment for breaking them. I bet if you were to life all the threats of punishments for actions only a handful of people would actually be good people. The rest would **** on the world. Where is your order in that?

This is just another illusion of order. I don't have to prove it to you that what I just said is true, because there is one key point that proves it. The fact that we have laws. If people were nice or considerate or empathetic of their fellow humans we wouldn't need so many laws. The reason there are so many laws is because people use the argument that they didn't think that their actions were bad or wrong to avoid owning up to their action. So the response is to add it to the books so future people won't try to use it as an excuse.

Lift the threat of punishment for committing a crime and I bet it would be incredibly hard to find an actual "good" person.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

While you treat this matter as a matter of choice I treat this matter as a matter of progressive understanding...people act better or worse in relation to what they perceive as priority, a continuous negotiation between their urges strength and their capability of foreseeing social cooperation as advantageous to them...obviously someone less competent at emotional intelligence or with a more individualistic genotype will find it hard to comply with group norms, it may even feel unnatural...in which case law must enforce compliance to assure general order...order or goodness comes in layers, it reflects perspectives, that go from small individual systems to large clusters groups and entire society's and their specific cultures...accommodation unfolds in a process of communication in which these structures of systems synchronize themselves every time it proves advantageous, its called Evolution...yes good and bad are relative, but relative to structures, and structures of structures which in turn means there are general rules and very simple norms who bring together the optimal functioning of a whole ecosystem...that is what is generally called the common good, or the final order in which it all rests...again appreciate your insistence in educating me on the matter but I haven't started thinking on it yesterday...any ways your are entitled to your perspective I respect that so lets leave it as it is, to each its own !

0 Replies

@Persona phil,

God is both able and willing to overcome evil, He is simply waiting for said party in need to call upon Him. This guy (lets call him Mark) was at his town barber shop getting his hair cut when a discussion of God's existance arose. The barber pointed to a little girl starving on the side of the street and said, "If God existed than that child would have food to eat and water to drink. Why would God allow her to starve?" Mark began to argue but as the debate became a bit heated he stopped. Mark paid for his haircut and walked out of the door passing by an old man with a long unkempt beard and long knotted hair. Mark walked back into the barber shop and said, "Barbers don't exist." Confused, the barber replied, "what are you talking about, I'm right here, I just cut your hair." "No, Barber's don't exist," Mark replied, "because if barbers existed then everyone would have nice, well kept hair and a nice shaven face." "I'm right here" the barber responded, "they just don't come to me."

1 Reply

@Stasko,

...the barber you are speaking off doesn't come on the yellow pages and doesn't have a facebook account...some claim their barbershop is the real deal, the one where he works, but I never saw him working in any of them...it kinda of sounds a lazy barber to me... Laughing

0 Replies

@Persona phil,

Your question is that why evil exist right ? or "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

ok now you have to put your feeble mind to race!
how could you know of happiness if there was no sorrow? how could you know of light if there was no darkness ? how could you differentiate between good and evil if there was any of it missing ? This relativity that exist is the 2 grand pillars of this universe.
An artist doesn't use the same color for the whole painting, he has to use all the colors to make a perfect painting.

1 Reply

@Persona phil,

and as you said " Thus, if God exists, he as a something, must have come from something"

God is not a being, God is omnipotent but has no single form
and regarding your question "God came From himself" he doesn't need to be created, and it is too difficult for your feeble mind to understand

0 Replies

Logical explanation: why a god must exist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know