Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not quite, Max.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Just for clarification: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.
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!
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.
Similar evidence, even in great amounts, do not equal proof. Evidence is evidence and nothing more.
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.
Partly "we don't know", partly, "we don't care because it doesn't matter to the present and human advancement"
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.
The best we can hope for in the real world is overwhelming evidence.
How do you reconcile these statements in the context of the abundant evidence for the existence of random processes?
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.
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 not dispute this at all. I am only refusing to allow that overwhelming evidence is the same thing as 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.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.
If everything has acommon origin, I would guess that origin is matter.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.
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.
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?".
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?