From concept of God to object of God in existence

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: Pachomius

Why's do we search for origins? Why does it matter so much? If we created this God in our minds why don't we just create the answers. Who created questions?

Maybe the religious folks who have run the world for the last few thousand years were asking the wrong questions? Science has only been properly applied for the last 100 years. Give it as many years as folks have clung to the bible and we'll see how well it out performs anybody's modern god concept.

Your just swapping one genie for another. The problem is science and religion both have to account for an unknown origin, an unobserved beginning. The question is are they meant to find proof. Or are they simply a tool to keep us asking questions.

A lack of knowledge propelles us into a quest for knowledge. Awe and wonder can sit still for so long. Before it turns into curiosity. It's Gods way of starting up a conversation.

originally posted by: Observationalist

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: Pachomius

Why's do we search for origins? Why does it matter so much? If we created this God in our minds why don't we just create the answers. Who created questions?

Maybe the religious folks who have run the world for the last few thousand years were asking the wrong questions? Science has only been properly applied for the last 100 years. Give it as many years as folks have clung to the bible and we'll see how well it out performs anybody's modern god concept.

Your just swapping one genie for another. The problem is science and religion both have to account for an unknown origin, an unobserved beginning. The question is are they meant to find proof. Or are they simply a tool to keep us asking questions.

A lack of knowledge propelles us into a quest for knowledge. Awe and wonder can sit still for so long. Before it turns into curiosity. It's Gods way of starting up a conversation.

swapping one genie for another? in 100 years we have accomplished more than 10,000 years of burning witches and sacrificing virgins. we changed the playing field and a whole new spectrum of demons came with it, but at least we established bona fide control over our fates and fortunes. im thinking we swapped an exotic looking bottle with nothing in it for a chemistry set and some reading glasses. the gods must be crazy.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Pachomius

I disagree with your premise. God is completely unnecessary. Our Big Bang could have been the result of a star collapsing to black hole in a previously existing space-time dimension. So God is not needed to exist as a creation cause for our Universe.

I imagine you next counter point would be then who created the star that collapsed to black hole. Well, it's a question of having logical consistency. If you believe having logical consistency is important then consider this line of reasoning. Nobody has ever experience nothingness. Nothingness only exists in our imaginations. We can only imagine that nothingness is even possible. So my argument is since nothingness only exists in our imaginations there is no proof that it ever existed or can exist as a state of being. Since all the evidence points that somethingness exists, therefore, and final conclusion, somethingness has ALWAYS existed.

I understand that many people have strong feelings about nothingness. And many people simply cannot continue living in a world were nothingness never actually happened in reality. Even though many people reading this will think my views are BS and simply will not accept my argument that somethingness has always exists, I will take the high road and concede the following. I can accept this way of thinking as an assumption. Let's just assume nothingness actually happened at some point in the history of time. And in our state of nothingness I will accept your claim that God is the first cause in creating something in the Universe. Although there's a little voice in my head screaming "God existing is something" I will ignore it.

I will accept God created Universe as long as you accept my claim you absolutely no evidence God actually exists in reality. My hope is you can at least give me something. Maybe you won't. Maybe you believe ALL of existence, or some small part of it, or some experience you had, is ABSOLUTE proof for the existence of God. Then I ask you to consider this idea. We do not experience God the same way you and I experience an apple. I can hold and apple in my hand, and together, we can agree the apple exists. All I am saying is can you simply accept my claim that God does not exist in reality the same way you and I experience an apple. I hope we can at least agree on that small point of argument.

But maybe we can't. Maybe you think YOUR way of thinking of God is ABSOLUTE truth. Okay, I will accept that for you, this is your definition of God. Even though it's not my definition of God, you are okay to use your imagination to believe in a particular idea of what it means to experience God.

Assuming you can accept my claim that God only exists in our imaginations, then consider this. I will prove to you God exists. God is just a word. Nobody denies the existence of the word God. What the word God means is defined by every sentence in which the word God is used. So since God is just a word then God exists in our written and spoken language.

Even though God only exists as a word, it has additional meanings that make the word God different than every other word in our dictionary. Some atheists have argue saying God is just a word is not good enough to prove God exists. They claim that claiming God exists as a word is no different than just saying the Flying Spaghetti monster is also equally real. Yes, they both are equally real and only exist in our words and language, but the word God has a special distinction.

The word God is used to represent not only the creator of everything, but also, the cause for everything that is known and unknown by man. God is a space in our minds we use as abstraction for what we do not know or understand. Everything that is beyond our understanding is part of the meaning of God. God represents all mystery beyond our conscious awareness. So in this way, since the Flying Spaghetti monster is just animated pasta existing only in our imaginations, the word God has a purpose beyond just what we imagine what the word God to mean.

So God exists even though we do not have a single shred of evidence he exists in reality.

soooo....the literal definition of god is absence of information and ignorance of causality?

God is or has many definitions. One definition of the word god for you is "absence of information and ignorance of causality?". For someone else, the definition of the word god is "complete knowledge of causality of existence."

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Observationalist

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: Pachomius

Why's do we search for origins? Why does it matter so much? If we created this God in our minds why don't we just create the answers. Who created questions?

Maybe the religious folks who have run the world for the last few thousand years were asking the wrong questions? Science has only been properly applied for the last 100 years. Give it as many years as folks have clung to the bible and we'll see how well it out performs anybody's modern god concept.

Your just swapping one genie for another. The problem is science and religion both have to account for an unknown origin, an unobserved beginning. The question is are they meant to find proof. Or are they simply a tool to keep us asking questions.

A lack of knowledge propelles us into a quest for knowledge. Awe and wonder can sit still for so long. Before it turns into curiosity. It's Gods way of starting up a conversation.

swapping one genie for another? in 100 years we have accomplished more than 10,000 years of burning witches and sacrificing virgins. we changed the playing field and a whole new spectrum of demons came with it, but at least we established bona fide control over our fates and fortunes. im thinking we swapped an exotic looking bottle with nothing in it for a chemistry set and some reading glasses. the gods must be crazy.

In 100 years we have convinced everyone God is dead, life is meaningless random events, and since we are all basically automatons mindlessly carrying out the laws of physics, there are no moral implications to how we treat each other. Good job. Science rocks!

Do you believe anything is sacred or holy? Or is everything mundane and meaningless? Sartre may think it's all meaningless. But it's also meaningless that it is meaningless. I'm not advocating the burning of witches or sacrificing virgins (or non-virgins), but it would be nice to least pretend to believe life has some shred of sacredness.

a reply to: Pachomius

This is Platonism.

Looked at scientifically, there are some instinctive presets we are born with (babies fear loud noises, chicks and ducklings freeze when a shadow passes overhead), but the idea of fully realized, pre-existent Platonic forms programmed into our minds has no support. On the contrary, everything indicates that our concepts are developed empirically, and are constantly changing.

a reply to: TzarChasm

God doesn't need religion or science to prove he exist. He is not worried about James Hutton and Charlie Darwin ruining his perfect plan. He is not begging christian scientis to please prove to everyone I am real.

He exist and everyone knows it. Religion feels like they owe Him and guilt everyone into this numbers game, convert or die. Religion build God an earthy kingdom He never asked for. Science thinks they pulled a coup d'eta, and they are taking over this made up throne that God never sat on.

Problem is science will now take on the role of religion. Welcome to Scientism.

No one wins, some good information is learned In between the shouting, but mostly it's a pointless battle. A battle ending that will alway lead us back to the same question;" How do we know for sure"?

Thanks everyone for your replies.


The essence of nothingness is non-existence.

The essence of somethingness is existence.

Now, there is no division to nothingness i.e. to non-existence.

But there is an ultimate division to somethingness or existence, namely:

1. Permanent existence
2. Transient existence


What do you folks say about my ultimate division of existence into two kinds?

1. Permanent existence
2. Transient existence

originally posted by: Pachomius
This is an invitation to discuss the possibility of having in concept in our mind, and then going to the objective reality of existence outside our mind, to search for an entity corresponding to the concept in our mind, or evidence to its existence though not direct access to it as with our eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and touch, and of course with our conscious attention.

Here is the concept in our mind, God [in concept in our mind] as the creator of everything with a beginning.

So, we go out into the universe and search for God, i.e. an entity that is the creator i.e. cause of everything with a beginning to its existence.

For examples of things with a beginning to their existence: babies, roses, the sun and the moon, stars and the galaxies they belong in, sub-atomic particles, and the universe itself.

All these things have a beginning to their existence, so they are evidence to the existence of an entity in concept in our mind as the creator or cause of everything in the realm of objective existence which have a beginning to their existence.

Everything in existence but having a beginning to their existence, they need a being to bring them to their beginning in existence, because they could not have brought themselves to existence, as prior to their existence they were not around.

What do the folks here say about this idea from yours truly, namely, from the concept of God in our mind, we pass to the world of objective existence outside our mind, to search for at least evidence to an entity corresponding to the concept in our mind, i.e. of God [in concept in our mind] as the creator of everything with a beginning to its existence.

a reply to: Pachomius

The essence of nothingness is non-existence.

Can nothingness have an essence? Perhaps the value of non-existence is null? I haven't really thought about it much. Seems like a singularity and 'beyond our ken.'

What do you folks say about my ultimate division of existence into two kinds?

1. Permanent existence
2. Transient existence

You could reduce it to 'existence.'

What did exist and now does not, or what will exist and does not now, are abstract possibilities and nothing more. In such a context, the only thing that has matter is existence and permanent/transient become unnecessary layers of complication.

I'm going to give you all my part of the understanding, see it as a missing puzzle part, if you like.

So from my point of view:

Whenever you think about God and Nothingness, you will have to understand what this nothingness is.

It is not nothing. What we call nothing is only our limited understanding of it.

Like we do not see the Gravity, we do know that it exists. So basically Gravity is nothing that is there, but that is only an effect. And by observing the effect, we have learned that it is there.


If you would like to understand where God is, then try to imagine this reality, (2 dimensional or 3dimensional).
What you can observe here is Splitting. Each and every thing is spliting itself to get Bigger (that does not automatically mean better, but thats not the point).

If you want to understand it, then watch an embryo Growing. it is split after split after split.

We understand 2 and 3 dimensional objects. And call this our reality. So if we use the Bigger Picture -3Dimensional reality is a Split of 2Dimentional Reality. So it follows that they both are Splitted off the 1Dimentional Reality. (and 0th dimension does not exists)

While we understand 2d and 3d, we do not Understand 1D. (but 1D can be taught). And there is God.

You see, in the 1 dimensional reality, only life is possible. meaning that else nothing would exists at all.
In this dimension, attack is impossible. Only Love exists. Only happiness exists and everything created is like itself.
But that are only the observable effects of God.

Happy understanding and thanks for reading.

originally posted by: Pachomius
What do you folks say about my ultimate division of existence into two kinds?

1. Permanent existence
2. Transient existence

Transient existence is that which is appearing.
Permanent existence is that which is seeing/knowing the appearance.

The observed/scenery is constantly changing but there is always scenery.
The witness/observer is constantly the same.
However, they are not two - they are one.

originally posted by: Pachomius
This is an invitation to discuss the possibility of having in concept in our mind, and then going to the objective reality of existence outside our mind, to search for an entity corresponding to the concept in our mind, or evidence to its existence though not direct access to it as with our eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and touch, and of course with our conscious attention.

Can what is seeing ever be seen with the eyes? Can what is hearing ever be heard by the ears? Can what is tasting ever be tasted by the tongue?
God is what is seeing and knowing and is always present.

God will never be found because God is where 'you' are seeing from.
Saint Francis of Assisi said 'We are looking for what is looking'.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Pachomius
This is an invitation to discuss the possibility of having in concept in our mind, and then going to the objective reality of existence outside our mind, to search for an entity corresponding to the concept in our mind, or evidence to its existence though not direct access to it as with our eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and touch, and of course with our conscious attention.

Can what is seeing ever be seen with the eyes? Can what is hearing ever be heard by the ears? Can what is tasting ever be tasted by the tongue?
God is what is seeing and knowing and is always present.

God will never be found because God is where 'you' are seeing from.
Saint Francis of Assisi said 'We are looking for what is looking'.

That is a great quote. It is kind of shocking to think mind has arisen from matter. We are the Universe experiencing itself.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
It is kind of shocking to think mind has arisen from matter.

What do you mean by 'mind'? And what is 'matter'?

a reply to: Pachomius

Although we may have a set of mathematics that perfectly describes the way nature behaves with accuracy and completeness, God is the force in the Universe that motivates the electrons to move at all.

I heard an interesting interpretation to the philosophical question if a tree falls down in the forest did it make a noise. If no one is there to experience the noise, then the forest does not exist. If no one is talking about God with our words and language, then God does not exist.

originally posted by: Pachomius
This is an invitation to discuss the possibility of having in concept in our mind, and then going to the objective reality of existence outside our mind, to search for an entity corresponding to the concept in our mind, or evidence to its existence though not direct access to it as with our eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and touch, and of course with our conscious attention.

Here is the concept in our mind, God [in concept in our mind] as the creator of everything with a beginning.

So, we go out into the universe and search for God, i.e. an entity that is the creator i.e. cause of everything with a beginning to its existence.

For examples of things with a beginning to their existence: babies, roses, the sun and the moon, stars and the galaxies they belong in, sub-atomic particles, and the universe itself.

All these things have a beginning to their existence, so they are evidence to the existence of an entity in concept in our mind as the creator or cause of everything in the realm of objective existence which have a beginning to their existence.

Everything in existence but having a beginning to their existence, they need a being to bring them to their beginning in existence, because they could not have brought themselves to existence, as prior to their existence they were not around.

What do the folks here say about this idea from yours truly, namely, from the concept of God in our mind, we pass to the world of objective existence outside our mind, to search for at least evidence to an entity corresponding to the concept in our mind, i.e. of God [in concept in our mind] as the creator of everything with a beginning to its existence.

Please dear everyone, this thread is on a very old topic between theists and atheists, on the existence of God, and the God here is the god of the three monotheistic religions: Christianism, Islamism, and Judaism.

And it has come to my mind that I have found a new way of proving God exist, which, modesty aside, no one else has ever thought about, and it is so simple.

Please read the OP and notice that when I say that I have a concept of God in my mind, it is like I say tht I have a concept of Bigfoot or Yeti or Sasquatch in my mind, and to prove that he really exists or to prove that he really does not exist, I will go forth on an expedition or exploration or adventure to search for an entity in the world outside my mind, that corresponds to the concept of Bigfoot, etc. in my mind.

That is why I say that the concept of God in my mind is that He is the creator of everything with a beginning; that creator of everything with a beginning, it is reminiscent of Gen: 1.1: "In the beginning God made heaven and earth," and also the first article of the Apostles' Creed, "I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth."

So, please read the OP again.

In very few words, the argument for God existing starts with the concept in my mind that He is the creator of everything with a beginning, meaning by beginning a point at which a thing starts to exist, previous or before that point the thing was not existing.

So I see and experience all things in the universe, including the universe itself, to have a beginning; wherefore they owe their existence to an entity or a being or if you will, a thing, which made them come to existence, so that if this entity had not made them come to existence, they would not be existing now.

mOjOm got me wrongly, see this text from me which I thought I would use it to reply to him, but I have not yet mastered how to negotiate in the forum format of ATS,* that is why I decided to wait for another time.

Dear mOjOm, you got it wrongly, you ask’ “Why does everything in existence require a "being" to bring it into existence???”

Please read the excerpt from me you are wrongly re-telling it, it is not “everything in existence require a "being" to bring it into existence,” it is “Everything in existence but having a beginning to their existence, they need a being to bring them to their beginning in existence, because they could not have brought themselves to existence, as prior to their existence they were not around.”

Originally posted by: Pachomius Everything in existence but having a beginning to their existence, they need a being to bring them to their beginning in existence, because they could not have brought themselves to existence, as prior to their existence they were not around. .

mOjOm: You're whole premise rests on this idea right here and it being true. So before you go any further let's look at it first. Why does everything in existence require a "being" to bring it into existence??? Where are you getting this universal law from exactly??? What proof do you have to show that some "Being" must bring things into existence before they exist???

*I had authored at least one thread and contributed several posts in more than one thread in ATS, and the forum format now is really seemingly so alien to me, don't know why, that I had to look for instructions with Google and in the internet, on how to navigate as to post a reply to another member's post addressed to me.

I am still reading up on the FAQS.

So, atheists here who read authors like Dawkins and company, I think they will get right away to bust up my thread with charges of fallacies, like circular reasoning.

I honestly really find the replies here to be so off-focus on what I have in mind.

Paging therefore the internet atheists, you know what and how to rebut the OP, start with calling God a flying spaghetti monster.


Now, I will see by preview how this post turns out, if all right, then I will click 'reply.'

originally posted by: Pachomius
And it has come to my mind that I have found a new way of proving God exist, which, modesty aside, no one else has ever thought about, and it is so simple.

Go on then - simply prove God exists (as an object?).

Go on then - simply prove God exists (as an object?).

I got this.

www.youtube.com...

Assuming your time is valued, skip to 14:02 (through 15:26)and watch over and over until it sinks in.

a reply to: mOjOm

We aren't talking about sun's or galaxies or matter or physics. We're talking before all that. All that is a chain reaction, which begs the question, how did it start?

And, for your last question, you already answered it. "nothing can bring itself into existence." God IS nothing! Zero. Nirvana

a reply to: dfnj2015

God is or has many definitions. One definition of the word god for you is "absence of information and ignorance of causality?". For someone else, the definition of the word god is "complete knowledge of causality of existence."

hmm, that phrasing is as pretty as an empty magic lamp...promises, promises...

a reply to: dfnj2015

In 100 years we have convinced everyone God is dead, life is meaningless random events, and since we are all basically automatons mindlessly carrying out the laws of physics, there are no moral implications to how we treat each other. Good job. Science rocks!

Do you believe anything is sacred or holy? Or is everything mundane and meaningless? Sartre may think it's all meaningless. But it's also meaningless that it is meaningless. I'm not advocating the burning of witches or sacrificing virgins (or non-virgins), but it would be nice to least pretend to believe life has some shred of sacredness.

you are asking me specifically? if you are then my answer is pretty simple: it is all a matter of perspective. it has been said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. on a similar note any sufficiently appreciative perspective is indistinguishable from sacrament. appreciation is key, not ego.

a reply to: Observationalist

No one wins, some good information is learned In between the shouting, but mostly it's a pointless battle. A battle ending that will alway lead us back to the same question;" How do we know for sure"?

i will see your philosophical quandary and raise you one: "why do we need to know for sure?"