God or What?

[Eudaimonist]

You do not know what you really need.

How do you know that? You aren't quatona.

But, you DO feel that you still need something.

He was talking about the requirements of logic, not "emotional needs".

In any case, we have needs because we are biological beings with complex psychologies. No God has to exist in order for us to have needs, both emotional and survival-oriented.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

You do not know what you really need.
But, you DO feel that you still need something.

Either my point flew right over your head, or yours over mine, or both.

 

[Freodin]

I use God, because in my belief, the creative force is called God. I have no problem accepting that other people call this creative force something else or even call it God and mean something other than I do.

By calling it "God", you burden the concept with all the other ideas that people connect with that term. For example, the idea of personality... something that I see as a result of "creation", not the start.

I have no idea. It seems that you may side with the "everything has always existed" idea. Am I understanding correctly? I know you said that you could accept the creative force idea, but the last line seems to move away from that.

As I said, I could accept that idea. Provided I had some reasons to do so. As yet, I don't.

Yes, basically I adhere to the "everything has always existed" idea... for certain values of "everything", "always" and "existed". It's a little complicated.

 

[KCfromNC]

Everything has a common origin. For me, I say that the origin is God. He has existed *always*. So my amended point is that everything other than God has a common origin, God. This is as far as I need to go. God's purpose in creating everything else is whatever it is, and His means of doing so were and are whatever they were and are.

Or....

Everything has a common origin. There is no God to have created anything, so how did everything get here?

Why do you need to ask these questions for non-God scenarios but are satisfied with no answers simply by adding the word God into your question?

First, randomness is as uncertain as God: one can be proven as easily as the other.

Hardly. I can demonstrate a random process to you with a pair of dice and a few minutes. You can't do the same with god.

Before anyone gets his feathers ruffled, rest assured that I am aware that there are other options, but I do not see an option existing that does not rest on either randomness or purpose.

These two are not opposites. Using the same example, dice are designed with a purpose and work randomly. Or on the other side, gravity works in non-random ways and has no purpose.

What, other than randomness or purpose could account for existence?

Non-purposeful, non-random processes, for one. But why do we need to account for existence in the non-God case when adding God into the mix adds nothing to answer this question either?

 

[Max S Cherry]

I highly recommend you check out a book by Lawrence Krauss called "A Universe from Nothing". It's a fascinating look at how the universe can naturally come into being based on our observations of the actual universe, without needing to appeal to a creator of any kind.

I got the audiobook version, and I had to listen through it two or three times before I completely understood what he was talking about, but the work is quite brilliant.

Thank you for the suggestion. Without having read it, it still seems that something had to exist originally. Maybe it was everything, or maybe it was enough of something to allow development into everything. I do not know. How big is the read? I would probably shy away from a massive undertaking.

Not really, an organism itself is not going to change via evolution. For example, a tiger that needs to run faster to catch prey is not going to all of a sudden get longer legs to be able to stride longer, and therefore run faster. That's what evolution is.

Thank you. That is a much better explanation than mine. I do understand that, but I also thought there were instances of more than one species developing from a common origin. The development occurring over millions of years, of course, but still having the same the ancestor. It has been many years since I studied any of this with enthusiasm, so I am working off an old memory.

 

[Max S Cherry]

No. So far I´m not even seeing how you get past a mere tautology ("the origin is the origin, and I call this origin - whatever it may be - 'God'").

I do not understand your problem with the suggestion. Are you supposing that there was no beginning? If so, I have considered the same. Everything may have always existed, and it may simply change over time. Did I misunderstand you again?

 

[Max S Cherry]

I think it's fair to say that we don't know how everything 'got here'. And that that's okay. You act like there's only two options... or more accurately, like a person has to at least choose from the available options what they believe happened.

Is that so? Why then did I bother to include:

Before anyone gets his feathers ruffled, rest assured that I am aware that there are other options, but I do not see an option existing that does not rest on either randomness or purpose.

What, other than randomness or purpose could account for existence? Some things that I have thrown around are that everything has always existed, that nothing actually exists now, that there is no common origin and multiple sources exists, and a few other equally dissatisfying ideas.

I know you to be one who leaves a discussion as soon as her argument falls apart. Go back to the abortion thread if you have something to say.

 

[Max S Cherry]

One can always say that something may not be what it appears to be, but that is a self-defeating standard of skepticism. It basically says that we can't ever know anything at all.

I agree fully, but I am one of those self-defeating skeptics. I am in the position of thinking that it is likely that we can never know anything with certainty. That has nothing to do with your point, though. I do agree.

I'd prefer to look at this scientifically. Is there evidence that intelligent planning is at work? If not, then the default view is that what happens is unplanned and simply a consequence of natural properties, and this line of thinking can be studied and supported by research. This seems like a reasonable and a sufficient view.

Your position is solid, and it is one that I have no problem understanding. By the way, I absolutely loved the Jack Frost example! Excellent work.

It fits into that category. Yes, spontaneous order is unplanned. However, it is not "random" in the everyday sense of playing the lottery. It is how order can arise from seeming chaos even when there is no planning agency, and how this may be likely instead of unlikely.

Understood.

 

[Max S Cherry]

By calling it "God", you burden the concept with all the other ideas that people connect with that term. For example, the idea of personality... something that I see as a result of "creation", not the start.

Differences in views I suppose, and there is nothing wrong with those.

As I said, I could accept that idea. Provided I had some reasons to do so. As yet, I don't.

Yes, basically I adhere to the "everything has always existed" idea... for certain values of "everything", "always" and "existed". It's a little complicated.

Yes, my friend, it is definitely complicated. I thought you were going with that idea or with some form of that idea anyway.

 

[Jade Margery]

Is that so? Why then did I bother to include:

And I said "or more accurately, like a person has to at least choose from the available options what they believe happened." which was really the point of that sentence. Why is one required to believe ANYTHING about what happened?

I know you to be one who leaves a discussion as soon as her argument falls apart. Go back to the abortion thread if you have something to say.

Hah! Look, if you're that desperate to keep talking to me in that thread, why don't you just keep re-responding to my old posts? Since your last few posts added nothing new, insightful, or supporting to your arguments and I already addressed all of your points several times, I see no need to repeat myself to infinity. Just skip back a couple pages, pretend I just posted that, and keep on replying to it. It'll be just like I'm there.

Edit: Just had m'self a look-see, seems that thread is closed anyway. As to your last post on it:

I also said that my bodily integrity is violated repeatedly each and every day. I am not fussing about it, throwing a fit about it, and I accept it. If you are now saying that you are okay with it as well, we can lay your support for abortion aside. If you still think that forcing a woman to have her baby is an unacceptable violation of her bodily integrity, you have to allow others to refuse those things that represent unacceptable violations of their bodily integrity. Once again, this is called consistency.

"If it (violation of bodily integrity) is okay in one case, it is okay in another. I am not sure why you have a problem with it."

By your own 'consistent' logic, you wouldn't throw a fit about someone raping you. You accept 'bodily violations' all the time, so every kind of 'bodily violation' is acceptable. Right?

You're amusingly bad at this, I'll give you that. If your arguments weren't so repetitive and pointless, I'd be inclined to humor you further, but until you can actually come up with a position that represents your much vaunted 'consistency', you're not worth any more of my time as far as this particular topic goes. I especially liked the bit where you explained how you were arguing for two contradicting points of view simultaneously by calling them 'two different conversations'. In the same thread. On the same topic. Consistency!

Hypocrisy Fisher.... Away!

 

[Max S Cherry]

Why do you need to ask these questions for non-God scenarios but are satisfied with no answers simply by adding the word God into your question?

I do not understand your question. I am satisfied with all answers, and if I ask a question about an answer, it is to better understand the position. I am not arguing for any point here.

Hardly. I can demonstrate a random process to you with a pair of dice and a few minutes. You can't do the same with god.

If that satisfies your need for proof, I am happy for you. To me, that shows nothing more than the fact that you are throwing dice. The numbers turn up as they do and are controlled by whatever controls them.

These two are not opposites. Using the same example, dice are designed with a purpose and work randomly. Or on the other side, gravity works in non-random ways and has no purpose.

I can agree that these things appear to be that way, and I have no trouble understanding your position on them.

Non-purposeful, non-random processes, for one. But why do we need to account for existence in the non-God case when adding God into the mix adds nothing to answer this question either?

Everyone is not satisfied with God as the answer. In my original post, I stated that I have considered the possibility of no common origin and of multiple sources of the origin. For me, those did not work, but that in no way means that I am attempting to limit what others think. I believe that adding God into the mix accounts for existence, and I am only looking at others' opinions concerning existence. Nothing more.

 

[Max S Cherry]

And I said "or more accurately, like a person has to at least choose from the available options what they believe happened." which was really the point of that sentence. Why is one required to believe ANYTHING about what happened?

If it was the point of the sentence, there was no need for the "first" part of the sentence. No one is required to believe, and that is why I left the question open to any response. One possible response, which one might think is yours, is that we do not know. You might have tried just answering the question.

Hah! Look, if you're that desperate to keep talking to me in that thread, why don't you just keep re-responding to my old posts? Since your last few posts added nothing new, insightful, or supporting to your arguments and I already addressed all of your points several times, I see no need to repeat myself to infinity. Just skip back a couple pages, pretend I just posted that, and keep on replying to it. It'll be just like I'm there.

My last post responded to your most recent post, and if my response was nothing new, it is because yours repeated the same defeated argument. That, however, was not the case. Accept that you were at the end of your argument, or please tell me how our agreed upon definitions were wrong. Face it you had nothing intelligent left to say, there was no more wiggle room for you, and your argument was soundly defeated. You either had to accept the inconsistencies, change positions, or leave. You left.

 

[Jade Margery]

My last post responded to your most recent post, and if my response was nothing new, it is because yours repeated the same defeated argument. That, however, was not the case. Accept that you were at the end of your argument, or please tell me how our agreed upon definitions were wrong. Face it you had nothing intelligent left to say, there was no more wiggle room for you, and your argument was soundly defeated. You either had to accept the inconsistencies, change positions, or leave. You left.

Check my edit, Cherry baby.

And as for the original thread, I welcome anyone else to read through it and tell me I didn't respond to his (illogical, inconsistent, repetitive, ignorant) arguments fully.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Check my edit, Cherry baby.

And as for the original thread, I welcome anyone else to read through it and tell me I didn't respond to his (illogical, inconsistent, repetitive, ignorant) arguments fully.

When I see a new post, I will go read it. The only thing you have been consistent in is your need to call others to your defense. Finish what you start. That is all I am saying.

 

[Jade Margery]

When I see a new post, I will go read it. The only thing you have been consistent in is your need to call others to your defense. Finish what you start. That is all I am saying.

I did. If you want to stand by the finish line of the race and shout 'Why'd everyone stop running!?' then be my guest.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

One issue that I have been working with lately concerns the origin of everything, and I would like to get some more thoughts on it. I am not try to convince anyone that God is the origin of all, and I am not looking for arguments to convince me otherwise. I would like to know what other people think though.

Everything has a common origin. For me, I say that the origin is God. He has existed *always*. So my amended point is that everything other than God has a common origin, God. This is as far as I need to go. God's purpose in creating everything else is whatever it is, and His means of doing so were and are whatever they were and are.

Or....

Everything has a common origin. There is no God to have created anything, so how did everything get here? This is where I have difficulty. Before I was saved, I attributed everything to randomness. It was the most sensible solution I could find that did not break down under questioning. It meant that *stuff* (stuff being the pieces that everything is made from) existed, but randomness was the force acting upon them. Now, I am sitting on the other side looking back at it, and it seems to be loaded with difficulties.

First, randomness is as uncertain as God: one can be proven as easily as the other. Second, if randomness is responsible for everything else existing, the times that *creative forces* (I am clearly using the term to suit my needs for lack of knowing a better way) had to line up are astonishing. In fact, it is so astonishing that it becomes even more fantastic than the idea of God.

Before anyone gets his feathers ruffled, rest assured that I am aware that there are other options, but I do not see an option existing that does not rest on either randomness or purpose.

What, other than randomness or purpose could account for existence? Some things that I have thrown around are that everything has always existed, that nothing actually exists now, that there is no common origin and multiple sources exists, and a few other equally dissatisfying ideas.

"Source of everything" can not and does not exist. This is simply because of the definition of "everything". You cannot have "everything" on one hand, and then ask for something else on the other. I mean, if God is said to be the source of everything that exists, then funnily enough God would not exist.

Stuff exists, just so. That may sound a little tautological. But it is true regardless of whether God exists or not.



(And a few words on randomness ... To my mind, God is indistinguishable from randomness. There is no reason why there God created one universe and not another; there can't be because that would be a constraint.)

 

[Tinker Grey]

For instance, do we really have to invent Jack Frost to explain how ice crystal "art" forms on one's window in wintertime?

[aside]

The insulation industry has killed Jack Frost.

[/aside]

 

[Lord Emsworth]

JackFrosticide.

 

[Max S Cherry]

"Source of everything" can not and does not exist. This is simply because of the definition of "everything". You cannot have "everything" on one hand, and then ask for something else on the other. I mean, if God is said to be the source of everything that exists, then funnily enough God would not exist.

Very true. I did amend my point to indicate that I was taking everything but God to have a common origin. Still, I can see your point.

Stuff exists, just so. That may sound a little tautological. But it is true regardless of whether God exists or not.

I do not think there is any problem with it. I think it is a solid position.

(And a few words on randomness ... To my mind, God is indistinguishable from randomness. There is no reason why there God created one universe and not another; there can't be because that would be a constraint.)

I do not really understand what you mean, but it is not necessary that I understand this part. I think you are siding with the "everything has always existed" idea or some variation on it, or it may be that you prefer the "we do not know" idea.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Very true. I did amend my point to indicate that I was taking everything but God to have a common origin. Still, I can see your point.



I do not think there is any problem with it. I think it is a solid position.

Really, it is very simple. Almost the same as theism, except that there isn't a conscious, intelligent or [you-name-it] entity at the top of it all.

I do not really understand what you mean, but it is not necessary that I understand this part. I think you are siding with the "everything has always existed" idea or some variation on it, or it may be that you prefer the "we do not know" idea.

It would be self-defeating to speak about a time when nothing existed.