Something I can never understand - can anyone help?

[paulm50]

Christians, well in fact Muslims and Jews and for all I know many other religions "explain" the existence of the universe, the solar system, humanity etc by the fact it was created by a God (maybe the same god, maybe not?), and some justify this by saying that the chances of intelligent life are near impossible without a creator.

What I can't understand is where did this God come from? If the chances of intelligent life evolving over billions of years are very remote, then what are the chances of a being existing who is capable of making the heavens and everything in them just by willing it to happen. Where did he/ she/ it come from, who made God?

in my atheist, logical mind, the existence of this all powerful, all pervading being seems much more unlikely than natural forces evolving in tiny steps over billions of years, resulting in where we are now. What do Christians think about the origins of God, and if the answer is that God "just exists", why can't the universe "just exist"?

The gods in the books, are man made. None of them have any more knowledge about the world other than the knowledge of their day.

We don't know if intelligent life exists elsewhere in the Universe. What we do know is Intelligence at the level Homo Sapiens have, is a tiny slot in the lifetime of the Earth. Compressing the life of the Earth into 20 hours, Humans came in the last few minutes. 500,000 years, 1% of the last 5,000 years. From Bronze Age to today. This is the concept the bibles, gods and devout can't get their head around. We have always existed in a world of immediacy, even if a years and seasons.

There are planets in the Universe capable of sustaining life. From single cell to something similar to Star Wars, we are yet to find out.

For more information, ask the potato farmers in Idaho who keep getting abducted by them. LOL

 

[cjstabbo]

Do you know anyone who does? I don't.

I think that before we all find purpose Catherine we are all two faced.

 

[quatona]

That's not what is going on

That's not what is going on here at all. The concept "existence" does not commit the fallacy of pure self reference as its reference is literally everything that exists.

Personally, I have problems giving meaning to "existence exists" because I can´t seem to handle a category that is part of itself.

 

[Lateralgal]

Christians, well in fact Muslims and Jews and for all I know many other religions "explain" the existence of the universe, the solar system, humanity etc by the fact it was created by a God (maybe the same god, maybe not?), and some justify this by saying that the chances of intelligent life are near impossible without a creator.

What I can't understand is where did this God come from? If the chances of intelligent life evolving over billions of years are very remote, then what are the chances of a being existing who is capable of making the heavens and everything in them just by willing it to happen. Where did he/ she/ it come from, who made God?

in my atheist, logical mind, the existence of this all powerful, all pervading being seems much more unlikely than natural forces evolving in tiny steps over billions of years, resulting in where we are now. What do Christians think about the origins of God, and if the answer is that God "just exists", why can't the universe "just exist"?

Your atheist logical mind cannot explain a piece of art, a great poem, a woman, a tree, a kangaroo, or even a puppy dog. No wonder It can't explain God. Yet the evidence of a creator is there even before you wake up in the morning because you are there and there is no other explanation for that. Science is way behind God, though it can explore some little things. It's funny how it keeps on finding out things that have been known and clearly understood for thousands of years. The Bible, for instance, states that the world is round. If some people didn't pick that up for centuries it's not God's fault.

Humans have a great ability to see things through dark glasses and miss half the picture (their own personal agenda makes these dark glasses very dark at times). They say there are no atheists in the trenches, so atheism must be a construct of pride, and when there is none of that left, then all of a sudden we are looking for God because our instinct knows He's out there. Too many people have been dramatically changed by an encounter with Jesus (and yes, that is still happening, even without a Christian there to bamboozle the mind) for any really logical person to go on pretending there is no God. So go on pretending as long as you like, and blame it on your logic (or excess of cynicism interfering with common sense). but there will come a time when you'll know differently. The sooner that time comes, the greater your joy.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your atheist logical mind cannot explain a piece of art, a great poem, a woman, a tree, a kangaroo, or even a puppy dog.

I'm skeptical that your religion is somehow able to offer a satisfying explanation of these various phenomena.

No wonder It can't explain God. Yet the evidence of a creator is there even before you wake up in the morning because you are there and there is no other explanation for that. Science is way behind God, though it can explore some little things. It's funny how it keeps on finding out things that have been known and clearly understood for thousands of years. The Bible, for instance, states that the world is round. If some people didn't pick that up for centuries it's not God's fault.

Did the Bible predict quantum mechanics and general relativity? What about germ theory? Evolution?

 

[True Scotsman]

Personally, I have problems giving meaning to "existence exists" because I can´t seem to handle a category that is part of itself.

Hi Quatona,

Could you explain to me what you mean by a catagory that is part of itself?

I find it amazing that people find something wrong with a simple recognition that things exist. If I were to say that trees exist, No one would have a problem with that. Yet "tree" is a concept just like "existence". The only difference is its scope of reference. "Tree", like all concepts, is an open ended integration of all trees, including every tree that exists now, has ever existed or will exist. "Existence" is an open ended integration of all the things that exist either now or in the past or future. "Tree" is all inclusive of every tree and "existence" is all inclusive of things which exist. Perhaps it would be better to phrase it "existents exist".

So I don't see what the problem is. When you consider that for the last couple hundred years, philosophers have all been pushing some form of subjectivism, it seems prudent to start one's worldview with objective reality.

 

[cjstabbo]

Hi Quatona,

Could you explain to me what you mean by a catagory that is part of itself?

I find it amazing that people find something wrong with a simple recognition that things exist. If I were to say that trees exist, No one would have a problem with that. Yet "tree" is a concept just like "existence". The only difference is its scope of reference. "Tree", like all concepts, is an open ended integration of all trees, including every tree that exists now, has ever existed or will exist. "Existence" is an open ended integration of all the things that exist either now or in the past or future. "Tree" is all inclusive of every tree and "existence" is all inclusive of things which exist. Perhaps it would be better to phrase it "existents exist".

So I don't see what the problem is. When you consider that for the last couple hundred years, philosophers have all been pushing some form of subjectivism, it seems prudent to start one's worldview with objective reality.

Well I know what to buy you for this Christmas True Scotsman.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Your atheist logical mind cannot explain a piece of art, a great poem, a woman, a tree, a kangaroo, or even a puppy dog.

I would not use logic to 'explain' any of those things, since that is not what it's for.

No wonder It can't explain God.

Neither can you. To possess any actual explanatory power, you would need first a coherent definition of 'god', then a workable and demonstrable method by which to glean information about it.

You have neither of those things. Religion is ontologically and epistemologically vacuous. All you have are naked assertions.

Yet the evidence of a creator is there even before you wake up in the morning because you are there and there is no other explanation for that.

'Sky wizard did it with magic' is not an explanation. Explanations contain actual information that is demonstrable and useful.

The Bible, for instance, states that the world is round.

Firstly, the Earth is spherical (slightly elliptical, actually). The closest the Bible gets is calling it a 'circle', which is false.

Secondly, the Greeks already knew the world was spherical before any book of the Bible was written.

 

[True Scotsman]

Well I know what to buy you for this Christmas True Scotsman.

What's that cjstabbo?

 

[cjstabbo]

What's that cjstabbo?

A tree.

 

[True Scotsman]

Your atheist logical mind cannot explain a piece of art, a great poem, a woman, a tree, a kangaroo, or even a puppy dog.

I don't understand what you mean here. My "atheist logical" mind can explain art just fine. You do know that aesthetics is a branch of philosophy don't you. Art is just another form of communication. It just uses images and light and mood to do the same thing that poetry and literature and sculpture and music do, which is make concepts available on the perceptual level. It shows us philosophical ideas in concrete, visual form. Art is conceptual in nature and logic is the tool of integrating and organizing concepts. So logic is important in concept formation and is indispensable to art.

Or are you perhaps saying that my "atheist logical" mind can not explain the existence of all the things that you listed. I most certainly can. All those things came from existence by a causal process. Concepts are a product of our conceptual faculty with is an attribute of our conscious mind which is a product of biology which is a product of matter and energy acting in accordance with their natures and the law of causality. As I've already explained, asking for a cause for existence, as a whole, is fallacious so the chain begins with existence as a whole which is the starting point of my philosophy.

 

[True Scotsman]

A tree.

Oh, lol. I need some. I've lost a lot in this drought we've been having. I want some of those Honey drop Apricot trees I've seen in the Guerney's catalog.

 

[cjstabbo]

Oh, lol. I need some. I've lost a lot in this drought we've been having. I want some of those Honey drop Apricot trees I've seen in the Guerney's catalog.

Yeah I wondered why your post seemed like you had trees on the brain.

Now I know why.

 

[True Scotsman]

Yeah I wondered why your post seemed like you had trees on the brain.

Now I know why.

Actually, I'd rather have a fat bike. Specialized Fat Boy or Surley Pugsley please.

The wife and I went on a nice ride in the mountains last night. We could hardly ride for all the Horny Toads on the trail. They were everywhere!

 

[cjstabbo]

Actually, I'd rather have a fat bike. Specialized Fat Boy or Surley Pugsley please.

The wife and I went on a nice ride in the mountains last night. We could hardly ride for all the Horny Toads on the trail. They were everywhere!

Horny Toads sound like a great aphrodisiac.

 

[SkyWriting]

I do not live in a shack and drink from a stream.

Both can be an awesome vacation though.

 

[quatona]

Hi Quatona,

Could you explain to me what you mean by a catagory that is part of itself?

Let me try it this way:
Does the existence of existence exist? If yes, does said existence of the existence of existence exist? Etc.

I find it amazing that people find something wrong with a simple recognition that things exist.

I don´t find anything wrong with the recognition that things exist (well, yes, I do - but that´s not the point here).

If I were to say that trees exist, No one would have a problem with that. Yet "tree" is a concept just like "existence".

I guess there´s a reason why you put the words in quotation marks in the latter part, but not in the first: When people say "Trees exist", they typically aren´t trying to communicate that the concept "tree" exists.

The only difference is its scope of reference. "Tree", like all concepts, is an open ended integration of all trees, including every tree that exists now, has ever existed or will exist.

Again, you yourself differenciate between the concept "tree" and the tree, but you conclude as though they were the same.

"Existence" is an open ended integration of all the things that exist either now or in the past or future.

In your worldview, are physical objects indistuinguishable from concepts? Do both exist in the same way?
Would you eat the word "spaghetti" from the menu?

Perhaps it would be better to phrase it "existents exist".

Which would be a mere tautology, though.

So I don't see what the problem is. When you consider that for the last couple hundred years, philosophers have all been pushing some form of subjectivism, it seems prudent to start one's worldview with objective reality.

Huh, were did that come from?

 

[Resha Caner]

I can't show you existence apart from a thing because to exist is to be something and to be something is to exist. It's unclear to me why this would need to be demonstrated?

Because the ability to demonstrate is an indication that that of which you speak is not merely abstract. I can say all kinds of things that aren't true. I can say all kinds of things that are nonsense. But, upon your further explanation, I would think what you are really saying is, "things exist," and that is a phrase I could agree with.

However, I will leave you to vet the rest of your existence concept with quatona.

Here is an example of a purely self referential statement:

This statement is true.

Yes, it is. But do you have an example of statement that is a self-reference, but not a "pure" self-reference?

What I am interested in is why this necessitates excluding consciousness. I don't claim the first cause must be sentient (or at least I've not found a way to defend such a position). So, I'm not saying consciousness is necessary, but neither do I think you can show it is necessary to exclude it from the first cause.

 

[Noxot]

So there's no real point to any religion? If god is so literally everywhere, for example, all that stuff that christians say about non-christians going to hell because god cannot exist in the same place as sin...all that would have to be incorrect. Clearly god can exist in the same place as sin and there wouldn't be any need for hell.

Come to think of it, lots of aspects of christianity would be flat out wrong. Why need a close relationship with god if part of him literally exists inside you?

it is because people do not know that we have what we have. sin is a thing still and having freedom allows for sin to be. obviously one of the largest problems in the world right now is that those who are less sinful tend to allow very evil people to rule over and control them. they would do no such things if they believed they ought rather to follow God rather than man but not many have a clear enough vision to realize that even God is not worth following if all he is to you is a devil. humans put God in the garb that they themselves can perceive because they have a limited capacity which makes their own freedom blinded and irrational until they come to better conclusions about goodness and love which we Christians say is the workings of the holy spirit in us who serves to enlighten and purify us to a better seeing of God and thus more of a capacity of communion with God as his Son in the loving union of eternity which is a deeper reality that we can start to more clearly exist in, which would mean creating a better world rather than basing it on perspectives which make people think wars and other such evils are needed things.

religions can be very useful to the world but I do admit that if all humans were "enlightened" that we would not need religions nor governments. however we do have those things and evil people like to take control of the ignorant even though those things are supposed to be tools which serve humanity ( and only exist because everyone does not "see the light" )

 

[1213]

...
in my atheist, logical mind, the existence of this all powerful, all pervading being seems much more unlikely than natural forces evolving in tiny steps over billions of years, resulting in where we are now. What do Christians think about the origins of God, and if the answer is that God "just exists", why can't the universe "just exist"?

If God is not creator of this universe, universe is the creator of it/himself. Either way, we have some that has existed always, or created it/himself. Personally I don’t think material has any ability to create anything, so if world exists without God, it must have been forever. And by what I have read and seen, I don’t think it is possible that universe would have existed eternally, because all things in nature seem to go to direction which is destructive. Human genome seems to be degenerating, materials get weaker by erosion and atoms seek state that needs less energy, which means for example that iron rust away. Nothing in this world seems to be creating/building force, except maybe humans.

In my opinion it is just not reasonable scientifically to assume that natural world could create itself from nothing or exist without God. However God is different thing, because according to the Bible, God is spirit (John 4:24). Spirit has no known limitations, therefore He is more plausible.