God or What?

[quatona]

YES! I can finally answer your question. Whew. I was afraid that old age was getting the best of me.

The easy answer is "most everything" would be different and in fact was different when I lived strictly according to my agnostic thinking. I will not leave it at the easy answer, because you deserve more than that just for putting up with me.

Before I was saved, I did not have any morals unless one actually considers egoism to be a real morality which I have my doubts about now and did even when I adhered to the principles of self-interest alone. The ramifications of this I know are clear, but to highlight some of the more dangerous ones, I did not recognize crime, any value outside what I could personally experience, or even the right of others to be egoists. I behaved without conscience. I am one of the people others joke about when they say, "We need to make sure he is in church on time."

I could not believe that God exists (in the way I believe He exists) and maintain that He is not the "intentional force" behind existence.

Does that answer your question?

Not quite, Max.
I meant to ask strictly about the belief that there is an intentional force behind the universe. I didn´t mean to ask for the implications, consequences and changes caused by your belief in the god of your concept (with all those additional aspects of it that surely go way beyond the mere idea the there is an intentional force behind the universe).
Do you see how these are two different questions?

 

[Max S Cherry]

Not quite, Max.
I meant to ask strictly about the belief that there is an intentional force behind the universe. I didn´t mean to ask for the implications, consequences and changes caused by your belief in the god of your concept (with all those additional aspects of it that surely go way beyond the mere idea the there is an intentional force behind the universe).
Do you see how these are two different questions?

I said:

I could not believe that God exists (in the way I believe He exists) and maintain that He is not the "intentional force" behind existence.

To me, the intentional force is God. If I part from believing in the intentional force behind existence, I must part from the belief in God as I see Him. I cannot maintain an unintended existence while maintaining a belief in God. So the implications that follow me not having God follow me not believing that existence is intended.

We know that I can be slow at times, but if I am looking at the situation correctly, they are the same question rather than two different ones. Perhaps they would not be for everyone, but due to my particular belief of God, He is necessarily the intentional force.

 

[quatona]

I said:



To me, the intentional force is God. If I part from believing in the intentional force behind existence, I must part from the belief in God as I see Him. I cannot maintain an unintended existence while maintaining a belief in God. So the implications that follow me not having God follow me not believing that existence is intended.

We know that I can be slow at times, but if I am looking at the situation correctly, they are the same question rather than two different ones. Perhaps they would not be for everyone, but due to my particular belief of God, He is necessarily the intentional force.

Well, I was under the impression that this thread was about believing there´s an intentional force behind the universe vs. not believing there is (for which it would be necessary for you to be able to isolate this aspect and discuss it separately from your particular god concept).
I wasn´t aware that actually it was about Max´s god concept vs. a universe without an unintentional force behind it.
Sorry for misunderstanding.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Well, I was under the impression that this thread was about believing there´s an intentional force behind the universe vs. not believing there is (for which it would be necessary for you to be able to isolate this aspect and discuss it separately from your particular god concept).

That is at least part of what the thread was about. I had in mind that I considered the universe to be intended. This consideration is not borne by thoughts, which you and I agree leave us with in the "I do not know" position. I have to move into belief to arrive at the intended existence position. I am not saying that anyone else would have to, but I do.

I wasn´t aware that actually it was about Max´s god concept vs. a universe without an unintentional force behind it.
Sorry for misunderstanding.

No problem at all. Although, that is not what I think the thread is about either. Another poster may take the position that God is not the intentional force behind existence, but it is not my position. I was only answering in response to your question about me in particular.

 

[Max S Cherry]

I'll try, no promises it'll make any more sense afterwards




You said everything is alleged to have a common origin, but the difficulty comes in when we talk about the beginning of the universe, more particularly, this universe, if we're presuming there is a possibility of multiverse theory being true. But even if we accepted the common origin thesis, the question remains as to whether that origin is conscious or simply a natural force.



You seemed to misrepresent atheists and such as attributing all things to randomness, which is certainly untrue when it comes to physical and material things, such as the computers we use, the lights, electricity, those sorts of things. Chance meetings, etc, that's different. Like if I met someone at a convention and we eventually married or some such thing.



You seem to be giving something purpose that doesn't necessarily require it. The universe existing is something that preceded humans, one could claim, so the idea of purpose in the sense of giving a goal and function to something only arguably came about with human consciousness. That's the core of my problem: giving purpose and telos to things that don't need nor require it in and of themselves.

So if I understand correctly, you are in the "we do not know" position? If I missed it, I apologize. I have been having problems getting my brain to function properly today!

 

[apache1]

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.

What if 1 plus 1 makes 3? Remember Ogre on Revenge of the Nerds? Also, I like Jethro Bodine's revolutionary numerical system where 2 plus 2 equals 5.

 

[quatona]

That is at least part of what the thread was about. I had in mind that I considered the universe to be intended. This consideration is not borne by thoughts, which you and I agree leave us with in the "I do not know" position. I have to move into belief to arrive at the intended existence position. I am not saying that anyone else would have to, but I do.



No problem at all. Although, that is not what I think the thread is about either. Another poster may take the position that God is not the intentional force behind existence, but it is not my position. I was only answering in response to your question about me in particular.

Just for clarification:
My initial response to the question "Is there an intentional force behind the universe or has it come about by random" (which, on a sidenote, appears to be a false dichotomy to me - but that´s not my point here) is - as long as I don´t make additional assumptions about what and how this force may be: "I don´t know, can´t know. And why would I even care?".
Naturally, I am interested in learning how other people think, and thus I am also wondering why others find this question relevant, important or significant, and for what.
Seeing your response, maybe the answer is: They wouldn´t care, either, if it weren´t for their additional assumptions about this force.
I do understand why certain god concepts are of relevance, importance and significance to their holders, and why they feel it´s helpful in guiding them.

 

[muichimotsu]

So if I understand correctly, you are in the "we do not know" position? If I missed it, I apologize. I have been having problems getting my brain to function properly today!

Partly "we don't know", partly, "we don't care because it doesn't matter to the present and human advancement"

 

[KCfromNC]

I did not say anything of the sort. I said that I did not know if randomness controlled the numbers that come up. Those are two different statements.

I have no idea why your anthropomorphizing randomness here, but it seems to be getting in the way of understanding what's actually going on.

Similar evidence, even in great amounts, do not equal proof. Evidence is evidence and nothing more.

The best we can hope for in the real world is overwhelming evidence.

I never claimed that there was any evidence of God's existence, and I did not claim that God's existence could be proven.

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

How do you reconcile these statements in the context of the abundant evidence for the existence of random processes?

 

[Max S Cherry]

dsfasdfasdf

 

[Max S Cherry]

Partly "we don't know", partly, "we don't care because it doesn't matter to the present and human advancement"

Gotcha now. Thank you for clearing up your position.

 

[Max S Cherry]

I have no idea why your anthropomorphizing randomness here, but it seems to be getting in the way of understanding what's actually going on.

I apologize for my denseness, but I seem to be suffering from a lot of it lately. I do not think that I am anthropomorphizing randomness. I am only emphasizing its unknown nature. It may exist, or it may not.

The best we can hope for in the real world is overwhelming evidence.

I do not dispute this at all. I am only refusing to allow that overwhelming evidence is the same thing as proof.

How do you reconcile these statements in the context of the abundant evidence for the existence of random processes?

My first statement, "First, randomness is as uncertain as God: one can be proven as easily as the other," is not disputed by my second statement, "I never claimed that there was any evidence of God's existence, and I did not claim that God's existence could be proven." I do not equate abundant or overwhelming evidence with proof. A thing may be well supported by evidence and nevertheless be false. Perhaps it makes it seem more likely, but it does not necessarily make it more likely. The more likely option may be incorrect.

Your point that overwhelming evidence is the best we can hope for is, as far as I can see, true, but that still does not make it proof. In my mind, the best we can hope for will never be proof since I sincerely doubt that we will ever have proof.

 

[KCfromNC]

I apologize for my denseness, but I seem to be suffering from a lot of it lately. I do not think that I am anthropomorphizing randomness. I am only emphasizing its unknown nature. It may exist, or it may not.

You're talking about how randomness does stuff in the context of a personal loving creator god doing the same things. Sounds like personification to me.

I do not dispute this at all. I am only refusing to allow that overwhelming evidence is the same thing as proof.

100% absolute proof isn't even possible except in very specific fields. That doesn't include science. So your distinction here is meaningless - nothing anyone says about reality is ever going to have 100% proof. If you're going to apply that standard, and do it consistently, you're going to be stuck at "does an external reality exist?".

My first statement, "First, randomness is as uncertain as God: one can be proven as easily as the other," is not disputed by my second statement, "I never claimed that there was any evidence of God's existence, and I did not claim that God's existence could be proven." I do not equate abundant or overwhelming evidence with proof.

Just because two things lack 100% proof doesn't make them equally uncertain. There are lots of different levels of uncertainty other than 0%. As you've said above, we overwhelming evidence isn't proof. Does that make the existence of unicorns as uncertain as the existence of humans? We don't have proof of either (by your definition) but no one in their right mind would say that the existence of these two things are equally uncertain.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

If everything has acommon origin, I would guess that origin is matter.

Ken

 

[Max S Cherry]

You're talking about how randomness does stuff in the context of a personal loving creator god doing the same things. Sounds like personification to me.

No, that is not what I am talking about. I suppose I am not getting my point across to you. I am saying that randomness may exist and that it may be responsible for what is. If that is true, it lacks any intent, it has no purpose, and it is entirely inhuman. It is nothing like humanity or God.

100% absolute proof isn't even possible except in very specific fields. That doesn't include science. So your distinction here is meaningless - nothing anyone says about reality is ever going to have 100% proof. If you're going to apply that standard, and do it consistently, you're going to be stuck at "does an external reality exist?".

I do it consistently. I have no problem with the "does an external reality exist" question, and I do not think we can know the answer to the question. There is no such thing as 100% proof in the context you are using the phrase. Proof is 100%.

Just because two things lack 100% proof doesn't make them equally uncertain. There are lots of different levels of uncertainty other than 0%. As you've said above, we overwhelming evidence isn't proof. Does that make the existence of unicorns as uncertain as the existence of humans? We don't have proof of either (by your definition) but no one in their right mind would say that the existence of these two things are equally uncertain.

You are speaking of probabilities. While it may be that the existence of unicorns is not as probable as the existence of humans, that does not speak to the actual existence of unicorns. They may exist. There is a 0% chance of rain today, but it may still rain.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

My answer to this leads to a question for the OP, but its the only honest answer I have on this topic, so bear with me. This answer is....I don't know. I really don't. I don't have enough information to come to a conclusion. I don't see how anyone does. I'm intrigued by the question...I've read up on various theories when they arise or I learn of them, but I've drawn no conclusions.

I too, also don't understand your explanation of randomness. Consider a magnet. It draws its polar opposite to it...for no more reason than that's what it does. I see no purpose or randomness in the event...what do you see? In a way, I view the universe similarly.

I also don't understand the need for a conclusion. You seem woefully aware how fragile and inadequate answers to this question are, yet its almost as if you need a conclusion. Why? Aren't there things you don't understand and are completely comfortable not understanding? I don't get it. Why not just say that you don't know? This question, more than any other, it seems people need to jump to a conclusion for. To me, it seems the least important question to need a conclusion for.