Why does the Universe exist?

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Quote:
There is NOTHING to support the existence of a god. Therefore NO god exists.

You contend there is no evidence that supports your requirements, then that is a personal choice. My contention is the existence of the bible alone is proof because it is either a good thing for humankind or a bad thing for humankind. Either way it relays to me a purpose.

It can't be a choice.

That is like saying, since I chose cars to exist, therefore cars exist because I chose for them to. No. That is silly.

The greeks believed in gods. They wrote about them. Does that mean that all the greek gods exist because there is literature on them? Same is true for the bible. Just because the bible exists, in no way suggests that there is a god.

All I see the bible is ancient people attempting to explain reality in terms they can relate with. That's it. Which is why it reeks of terrible knowledge. Something a god would be well aware of unless it was stupid.

The history of ancient jews shows this. Before there was monotheism, the jews believed in multiple gods. There were several different tribes of jews, each one had a different god head. One such tribe was the Yahwehians. They wanted to elevate Yahweh (the god of the armies) to be the top. So they forcibly attacked the other tribes and made them convert. Then they attempted to rewrite the old texts to make it appear as though Yahweh had always been the main god. Through bloodshed they succeeded.

Biblical historians know this history, but modern Christians are completely ignorant of it. However; contained within the bible are clues that this is true. Because they were not perfect in weeding out all the parts where other gods were spoken of or mentioned. Passages that most modern christians can't make heads or tails over make sense when you keep this concept in mind.

The point I am making here is that the bible is a hodgepodge of ancient ideas. Some plagiarized by other cultures. It isn't based in truth at all. It's a collage of ideas, not a truth.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

That is like saying, since I chose cars to exist, therefore cars exist because I chose for them to. No. That is silly.

Yes that is silly but you said it.

Quote:

Does that mean that all the greek gods exist because there is literature on them?

That means the Greeks had point of view that formulated for them those tales. The Greeks borrowed a lot from Ancient Egypt but it existed in different context.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Quote:
That is like saying, since I chose cars to exist, therefore cars exist because I chose for them to. No. That is silly.

Yes that is silly but you said it.

Quote:
Does that mean that all the greek gods exist because there is literature on them?

That means the Greeks had point of view that formulated for them those tales. The Greeks borrowed a lot from Ancient Egypt but it existed in different context.

If they had to barrow, does that mean they had NO reference for it themselves? So they had to barrow the ideas? Doesn't this in itself prove that there is no actual reference? If you have to take from something else then it is not self evident.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

If they had to barrow, does that mean they had NO reference for it themselves? So they had to barrow the ideas? Doesn't this in itself prove that there is no actual reference? If you have to take from something else then it is not self evident.

Pythagoras, Hermes, Hypocrites etc., are said to have traveled to Egypt for instruction. Their writings are what is called sophistication or embodiment for their time.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Still disagree. Creating people, and expecting them to choose a lifestyle which can create/maintain a peaceful ‘heavenly’ society is not evil.
Love one another kind of command is not burdensome, just as ‘do not eat the darn fruit’ (in the garden of Eden).
Anyone who is created and chooses a rebellious lifestyle of lawlessness will naturally face the repercussions of jail/isolation/hell.

As for not ppl having enough evidence, well...Luke 16 reads .’they have Moses and the prophets’ (the evidence is more than convincing) if a person fails to see it, then it is s condition of the heart ultimately.

We live in a fallen world. Intermingling with others by socializing can spread germs, and sure sometimes is a good idea to not intermingle, for that matter it can be morally wrong to do so if a person has known germs, and were to go into a hospital with newborn children.
Or ‘intermingling’ with nature can have negative effects like getting cut by thorn bushes (Genesis 3:18 ‘thorns will begin to appear)....these are not necessarily punishments as you put it, but rather repercussions.
If all of God’s laws and commands were kept from day one, intermingling in any way which he commanded, there would be no negative effects like cold and flus, stds/aids, or even thorn bushes.
He is the engineer, and knows exactly what type of oil creation needs to keep it running smoothly. You and I do not.
You see, by you saying You believe marriage is ‘silly’ you are dictating right from wrong. Making yourself ‘king’ of your universe, dictating right from wrong, and thinking you know what ‘oil’ is best for this created world.

1 Reply

@Helloandgoodbye,

Helloandgoodbye wrote:

Still disagree. Creating people, and expecting them to choose a lifestyle which can create/maintain a peaceful ‘heavenly’ society is not evil.

You are not understanding my point.

Creating a being and then forcing it to make a choice and punishing it for making the "wrong" choice is EVIL.

You can't create a being and then place upon it an expectation. It's evil.

Imagine this. You have a simple ant farm. A box of sand with a colony number of ants. You produce two holes for them to start constructing their tunnels.

Let's say you decide if they construct their tunnels down the right hole then everything is great. You are completely fine with them using the right hole.

But if they start constructing tunnels down the left hole then you will flood them with water to drown them all.

One day you discover they started constructing tunnels down the left hole. So you flood and drown all the ants and kill them.

This is exactly the christian premise. It is evil. An arbitrary expectation is placed upon the ants to behave in a way they will ultimately naturally follow because they are doing what they normally do.

So if humans are capable of "evil" and it is in their nature to do bad things. You can't create them and then expect them NEVER to be evil. It doesn't make any sense. A god would be well aware of this fact. So punishing them on this is evil in of itself. God would be evil.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

Creating a being and then forcing it to make a choice and punishing it for making the "wrong" choice is EVIL.

I've said there is no basis in logic or the bible for the eternal punishment you insist the existence of a God demands. You didn't refute it at the time, so why keep setting this straw man up?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Creating a being and then forcing it to make a choice and punishing it for making the "wrong" choice is EVIL.

I've said there is no basis in logic or the bible for the eternal punishment you insist the existence of a God demands. You didn't refute it at the time, so why keep setting this straw man up?

The thing about this is you are attempting to cleverly hide behind the vagueness that ONLY certain Christians believe in a kind of "test" humanity much undergo as our "purpose" for our existence on Earth.

It's not a straw man. It's addressing this one notion. It doesn't matter if it is supported in the bible or not. You can not deny that there are Christians who think life is a "test" set by god.

The over all point isn't that a god sets up this "test" or not. The point is, IF, the key word here is, if. If a god creates a being and has an expectation placed upon that being to behave a certain way or it is punished eternally for it, then that god is evil.

All of this is pure speculation. I can't even determine if there is a god or not. I am simply following a line of logical reasoning. Call it a straw man all you want, I am just presenting a logical premise and explaining how I derive the conclusion.

3 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

You can't create a being and then place upon it an expectation. It's evil.

Christians believe in eternal mercy except for trespass go great. All things have to answer to this quest for survival. Ancient Egyptians believed you had to survive death to enter the next world.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Christians believe in eternal mercy except for trespass go great.

What does that even mean?

There is a statement made in the NT that states if you reject/deny the father, son and the holy ghost, it is an "unforgivable" sin. It implies that you are damned for ever. Okay so how is "eternal mercy" carried out if you have received "unforgivable" sin? Seems like a contradiction in terms. You can't have both an unforgivable sin an eternal mercy. It has to be one or the other unless you are attempting to suggest, sending a being to hell for eternity to "suffer" is mercy. If you call that mercy, then you are evil too.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

What we believe directly affects how we perceive things. An example is the heart. What is the heart and what does it do? Most people have been taught the heart is an organ that pumps blood throughout the body but.. recent discoveries suggest this isn't true but rather it's the capillaries that are responsible for circulation. So what does the heart actually do? Well, ... isn't that interesting?

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

What we believe directly affects how we perceive things. An example is the heart. What is the heart and what does it do? Most people have been taught the heart is an organ that pumps blood throughout the body but.. recent discoveries suggest this isn't true but rather it's the capillaries that are responsible for circulation. So what does the heart actually do? Well, ... isn't that interesting?

I still want you to explain what "eternal mercy" means.

If you are suggesting, with your heart analogy that I can't understand eternal mercy because it means something more than what it means then by all means explain eternal mercy.

To be honest here. Most believers toss around buzz words and nice lines or statements because they heard their pastor or preacher say them. They are often just gobbledygook nonsense. They think since it sounds kind of cool then why not repeat it because then everyone will see it makes sense. No, it's just nonsense being tossed around.

It's like with the hippy Christians who claim, there is no fiery torment hell. Hell instead is just a "separation" from gods presence. This is so they can get around the notion that the biblical god is an asshole. So they invent this separation idea as a way to suggest god is gracious and not vindictive.

Okay fine, hell is just a separation. So what? I already feel that I am separated from god, and I am fine. I don't feel tortured by it. So if that is what hell is, that is fine with me. But the funny thing is, as soon as I explain this, they say, BUT its' more than that. You are tortured by this separation. Okay where did I get this from? Why would I all of a sudden develop these feelings? Oh because you learn that god is real when you die but it's too late to change your mind now. You are tossed in the exclusion box for eternity. Meanwhile the rest of us who believed get to go to the after party. You got screwed. Have fun..

If this is how it is, then you cant talk about eternal mercy. It is not mercy to punish a being for eternity over a finite crime. Its another reason I object to shria law. They chop off the hands of thieves. This is terrible because it doesn't allow the thief to grow, to improve. They are punished by it for the rest of their life. This is why it is barbaric and stupid. It tortures a person for the rest of their life over a finite crime.

The same is true for eternal torment or eternal reward. It gives no opportunity for growth, for improvement. It punishes a being eternally for a finite crime. That is evil.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

I still want you to explain what "eternal mercy" means

You realize the volumes that have been written??? I'm attempting an analogy (analogize) to help cause I don't have the ink to attempt a textual explanation. But I'll give it a go... So simply just to state.. if "God" is the creator then "God" is the law. Ancient beliefs held dearly to the idea of "identity," what they were and all that was in their environment. Basically this comes down to philosophy and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. To lose your identity basically was loss of the soul, your home or house to dwell in.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Cont.)

Quote:

I still want you to explain what "eternal mercy" means

As for eternal mercy... I think the idea is something like saying that energy isn't lost it's just converted from one form to another.

0 Replies

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Quote:
I still want you to explain what "eternal mercy" means

You realize the volumes that have been written??? I'm attempting an analogy (analogize) to help cause I don't have the ink to attempt a textual explanation. But I'll give it a go... So simply just to state.. if "God" is the creator then "God" is the law. Ancient beliefs held dearly to the idea of "identity," what they were and all that was in their environment. Basically this comes down to philosophy and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. To lose your identity basically was loss of the soul, your home or house to dwell in.

If the creator creates everything, does it necessarily mean then that it is the "law" as well?

Is it possible for a god to create everything and not have agency over what was created? Because we do that all the time.

Should we assume that a god has agency over that which it creates? How do we know these both are inseparable?

It's no different then saying, god is good. Which exists first? It would imply that good needs to exist prior to god. God can't exist and then followed by "good". But if god is the embodiment of good then god isn't god. It would just be good. You wouldn't be able to separate them. It also would render good meaningless. If you attempt to say that god never came into being and good exists simply because god exists. So good has always existed because god has always existed.

The problem with this is that you are creating two things that have separate agency. You have god and you have good. They both can't be the same thing. So good would be equal to god, but not god. But there is a qualifier missing. Good doesn't exists upon it's own self arising. It relies on other things for it's existence. So now you create a snowball effect, where you NEED to create the universe so that GOOD can exists so that god can have agency over good. But this becomes the rabbit hole, it means in order for god to be good, he first needs to create the universe.

But there is not a single believer who would accept that. Yet that is exactly what the logic implies.

So god can not be good nor have agency over good. You can say that it is all you want, but it logically doesn't make any sense. But I don't expect believers to follow it. Humans are capable of holding two contradictory ideas as both being true when they contradict each other.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

Should we assume that a god has agency over that which it creates? How do we know these both are inseparable?

Man has free will. I believe he can separate himself.

Quote:

Is it possible for a god to create everything and not have agency over what was created? Because we do that all the time.

Same answer.. Man has freewill

Quote:

It's no different then saying, god is good. Which exists first?

I don't know:) it's said "God" is all things but I don't believe that. I think something separated from "God."

Quote:

The problem with this is that you are creating two things that have separate agency

God and Good are simply two different words. If you want to use an incomplete expression such as words to relay a complete concept then we might need to start incorporating smellavision. Does 1+1=2.. well... dealing simply in number we have one thing, another thing and the observer so we now have 3.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

It's no different then saying, god is good. Which exists first?

Who really knows what this concept of "God" really is? Is it possible "God" arose from good? I don't know.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

Quote:
I've said there is no basis in logic or the bible for the eternal punishment you insist the existence of a God demands. You didn't refute it at the time, so why keep setting this straw man up?

The thing about this is you are attempting to cleverly hide behind the vagueness that ONLY certain Christians believe in a kind of "test" humanity much undergo as our "purpose" for our existence on Earth.

It's not a straw man. It's addressing this one notion. It doesn't matter if it is supported in the bible or not. You can not deny that there are Christians who think life is a "test" set by god.

The over all point isn't that a god sets up this "test" or not. The point is, IF, the key word here is, if. If a god creates a being and has an expectation placed upon that being to behave a certain way or it is punished eternally for it, then that god is evil.

All of this is pure speculation. I can't even determine if there is a god or not. I am simply following a line of logical reasoning. Call it a straw man all you want, I am just presenting a logical premise and explaining how I derive the conclusion.

I can't tell from your response whether you read my post or not.

First, I do not hinge anything I say on ANY Christian(s) or adherents of any other religion. I'm doing the same thing you claim to be doing - trying to reach an independent logical conclusion about the possible existence of God and what he must be like.

On the question of whether God is going to eternally punish those who do not seek or follow him, that would indeed be illogical and evil, but the only evidence that that is the case are the words of some followers of Christianity, Islam, and others. I can only assume you used 'Some Christians' opinion as your sole source of input. Why let them dictate your position?

What I am saying is that they have no logical foundation for saying that and have no support for that view in the bible. I don't know enough about the Quran to make a judgement about it.

Is this life a test? There is a great deal of logical and biblical support for that idea. I just don't see 'eternal punishment' as one of the possible outcomes.

The only sense in which it is eternal punishment is that 'final death' is permanent. It can't even properly be called punishment since that is what those who do not believe in a God fully expect. You can't call it evil for letting someone have what they believe is inevitable.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Unlike your ant scenario, Adam and Eve fully understood why they were to not eat of the fruit of that one specific tree...’for they would surely die’ God told them. Ants are unaware of such choices to be made, so yes I agree with you that that would be weird, even evil, to flood, and kill the ants.
The people of Noah’s day were well aware of their sin, and the morally bankruptcy of their time(much like ours today).

Also take the ancient city of Nineveh, (book of Jonah) which was going to face Gods judgement, but DID NOT, Smile

for they repented. (Turning from their lawless ways of life)
I am positive I would have faced judgement rather than Grace if I did not turn from from sinful ways of life.

Jesus said on the cross (Luke 23:34) after his creation had been spitting on him, mocking him, whipping him etc. ‘Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do! (Similar to your ant scenario)
I would say this is why so many people try to be like ants, and try to live in ignorance of the truth. Ignorance is bliss.
Problem is Isaiah 11:9 tells us that ‘The day is coming when the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as water covers the sea’

Deuteronomy 21:28 a law was given to ancient Israel about how to go about putting to death a rebellious son. I would say the keyword here is rebellious!
Whether it be an angelic being, or human being, there will be no rebellious people who practice lawlessness in the kingdom of heaven. A peaceful society.

Matthew 7:23 And Jesus said ‘I will tell them, get away for me you who practice lawlessness’

Again, humanity in general having children(creating ppl) knowing that some of them will practice lawlessness and land themselves in jail does not make the people creating lives evil, but rather those who chose rebelliousness/lawlessness evil...and therefore land themselves in jail/‘hell’

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Is this life a test? There is a great deal of logical and biblical support for that idea. I just don't see 'eternal punishment' as one of the possible outcomes.

Right, it is very vague on the response of judgement. What is the actual result of judgement? Is it permanent or is it transitory?

If it is permanent (eternal) then it is evil. No way around it.

If it is transitory (non eternal) then it would be far less evil depending. Possibly not evil at all. But this would mean you would have to exist again. You would have to have the ability to live as a human mortal again. I don't think the bible supports this idea that after you server your "punishment" you get to live again as a mortal human.

There are only two options here. Permanent or transitory. Since the bible does not talk about transitory punishment but it does hint to permanent (eternal) punishment then it is more likely permanent.

Leadfoot wrote:

The only sense in which it is eternal punishment is that 'final death' is permanent. It can't even properly be called punishment since that is what those who do not believe in a God fully expect. You can't call it evil for letting someone have what they believe is inevitable.

You are created, you lack the belief in a god, so at the end of your life you are destroyed?

Am I understanding your point above correctly?

Since a person already does not believe, their death is both equal to destruction, and non-existence. They both are the same right?

I would have to consider this more. It seems as though it might not be evil to just destroy a person who already believes you cease to exist when you die. So that person has already accepted non-existence. So if god destroys this person at death, the result is basically the same.

Is the final death really that bad? I will need to think about this more.

1 Reply

Why does the Universe exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know