Existance of god(s)

I've been doing some reading lately. Much of the philosophy for the existance of god makes no sense, and I was wondering if anyone would be so kind as to provide the reasons they believe god exists. I won't make fun of any of them, I promise. But seriously, I've never actually been provided with an answer that doesn't contradict itself, or the opinions of the person who says it.

This might develop into a very interesting discussion, as long as we keep the yelling, flaming, and name calling to a minimum. I'll admit right now that I'd be considered an agnostic or a heretic. I believe that it is wrong to assume there is a god without proof. I've never ruled out the possibility, because it still exists. I'm also not positive that an afterlife exists, and if I had to say what happens to a person when they die, I'd have to say that their energy(soul if you will) returns or goes into a pool of energy from previously existing life.(heaven) This could be what people consider a god, but I'm not sure if I do. What are your beliefs and reasons?

will it now?

that's a bit of an odd reply, I was expecting more of a defensive "god does to exist you idiot" answer.

No offence, but I feel like I am on a merry-go-round with these threads. The people that don't see any logical reason for god are never going to buy into it and the people that hold faith above all else are never going to care that there is no hard proof. It is like butter and water my friend, butter and water!

Should have just done a search first. This same topic is already talked about in about a million different threads.

Originally posted by joehayner
will it now?

that's a bit of an odd reply, I was expecting more of a defensive "god does to exist you idiot" answer.

What are you hoping for a fight?

I think that it is funny how some religious individuals get all of their 'logical reasoning' from the bible as if it was hard core facts and then can not conceive of how people can argee against such bible facts. Nothing gets me to ignore a post faster then bible quotes.

Originally posted by Jonna
No offence, but I feel like I am on a merry-go-round with these threads. The people that don't see any logical reason for god are never going to buy into it and the people that hold faith above all else are never going to care that there is no hard proof. It is like butter and water my friend, butter and water!

My purpose is not to convince other people that I'm right. It's to find out what other people are thinking, and how they think it. I'm more of a "torn between" person. That's why I'm considered agnostic. I have so far refused to eliminate either possibility.

Let them flame me.

And another question I wanted to ask. Why do most religions refer to their god as a him? Even the ones who refer to them as her are strange. Why must a god have a gender. Genders are for reproduction. And if you are all powerful and immortal you don't need to reproduce. The polytheistic approach with different genders doesn't make any sense either. Why are gods procreating, unless of course, they are not really gods and are just much more advanced lifeforms than us......just some thinking I've been doing.

Originally posted by joehayner
And another question I wanted to ask. Why do most religions refer to their god as a him? Even the ones who refer to them as her are strange. Why must a god have a gender. Genders are for reproduction. And if you are all powerful and immortal you don't need to reproduce. The polytheistic approach with different genders doesn't make any sense either. Why are gods procreating, unless of course, they are not really gods and are just much more advanced lifeforms than us......just some thinking I've been doing.

It is called, I believe, anthromorphisize. This is when one gives human qualities to something nonhuman in order to better understand it.

Originally posted by Jonna
It is called, I believe, anthromorphisize. This is when one gives human qualities to something nonhuman in order to better understand it.

Ahhh...so they're grasping for straw and making assumptions so they can put their minds at rest? They don't bother to ponder what else could be?

Originally posted by joehayner
Ahhh...so they're grasping for straw and making assumptions so they can put their minds at rest? They don't bother to ponder what else could be?

Sorry, but this is what I ment.
Anthropomorphism: an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics.

You have to understand that the ego rules us like bitches. Hence we naturally (arrogantly) think, not that we are like god, but that god is like us. The Earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around us. Everything on Earth was given to US because We are so great. Nothing is ever going to be learned and we are not going to evolve with this mentality. We are all going to be sitting on our thrones thinking that our crap does not stink.

This is the way of mindlessly following traditions, whose purpose if there ever was one, was lost long ago.

We want revolution
Constant evolution
This is our solution
~Covenant~

I've been reading a book that you might like.


If some one could accurately predict hundreds of events in the future, you would pay attention and listen. That's what the Bible does. One of the best proofs that the Bible is not man-made is prophecy. I highly recommend this book. The author writes it in a way that makes it an easy read. No preaching or sermons in this book, just an examination of Bible prophecy and how it validates the Bible.

Without study of the subject its just meaningless back and forth bashing on this board.

Originally posted by joehayner
I've been doing some reading lately. Much of the philosophy for the existance of god makes no sense, and I was wondering if anyone would be so kind as to provide the reasons they believe god exists. I won't make fun of any of them, I promise. But seriously, I've never actually been provided with an answer that doesn't contradict itself, or the opinions of the person who says it.

This might develop into a very interesting discussion, as long as we keep the yelling, flaming, and name calling to a minimum. I'll admit right now that I'd be considered an agnostic or a heretic. I believe that it is wrong to assume there is a god without proof. I've never ruled out the possibility, because it still exists. I'm also not positive that an afterlife exists, and if I had to say what happens to a person when they die, I'd have to say that their energy(soul if you will) returns or goes into a pool of energy from previously existing life.(heaven) This could be what people consider a god, but I'm not sure if I do. What are your beliefs and reasons?

I think this is a very fair question and would love to hear some responses from the more fundamentally religious on the board. I always wonder how they would describe the Supreme Being, God ,as It exists in their own minds, instead of just repeating someone else's words. When you imagine God, as an actual conscious diety, what do you see?

As for my personal beliefs, I don't know what category I fit in. I believe in God's existence without any hesitation, but it is not the God of any particular religion, entirely.
I believe that God is self-aware, infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and eternal. It is kind of hard to explain, but I'll give it a shot. Since this is something I, myself, am still trying to work through and I have never tried to fully articulate in words, it may seem hard to understand. Hopefully you can follow it alright..

I believe that God existed as a single, infinite consciousness in a void, empty of any physical substance. The great nothingness, so to speak. I think that God was aware of It's existence but since It existed as One, it had no point of reference to consider Itself from or to give direction to It's "thoughts". ( At this point, I want to make it clear that I do not think it is possible for us to fully comprehend the complexity of God's thoughts in comparison to our own. So when I say God's "thoughts", don't limit them to the rules of our physical realm.) Back to my theory now, God was an infinite consciousness, that needed to create a separate state of being in order to gain a sense of It's full potential. Since all that existed was thought and the blackness of a void, part of God became what we call, light energy waves or electromagnetic radiation, to replace the dark nothingness. I think this is why the Bible may describe the light as existing before any celestial bodies.
Light is not confined to the definitions of particle or wave, like sound is, for instance. It exists as both/either possibility, but if it is forced to choose 1 of 2 paths, and we see it's choice, we see a particle. If we don't know which path it chose, however, the result shows it as a wave instead. Waves, of course, radiate out and go in all possible directions simultaneously, not having to choose one specific possibility. It also appears to "know" when it is being observed. In the "double-slit" experiment, the scientists tried to "trick" the light photons by monitoring their choice of direction with hidden detectors, so they could see it afterward. To their surprise, the light photons showed up as particles, as if the photons "knew" they were still being watched. I think both, the human concept of free choice, and the multiverse theory, may also operate by these principles on a larger, much more complex scale.

So God now exists as a consciousness and as the entire spectrum of light energy waves. The emptiness is now filled with energy, the basis of our physical universe, and "nothing" is no longer a state of being. God is also still the One, remaining without a separate point for perspective. By using sound waves and manipulating the properties of the energy spectrum, matter became visible and tangible. Some of it gradually developed into the non-living universe ( i.e., planets, stars, etc.).

At this point, God still needed a separate consciousness to gain a complete sense of Itself. With this in mind, God proceeded to separate tiny portions of Itself with temporary containers (bodies) to divide the infinite Whole from It's tiny subsections. It can be compared to an infinite ocean of water with tiny cups made of ice, full of the oceanwater, and floating around in it. The ocean's water IS the cups, as well as their contents, yet they remain separated from whole until the cups melt away. It's my belief that all life came into being as a result of God's desire to experience Itself from all possible perspectives.

While my entire theory is always changing and becoming more developed, the next part is still a very young "theory in progress", but I will post it if you are interested in veiwing it. I will end it here for the time being.

jezebel, We think alot a like. I have noticed, I was going to reply to a thread or two , you had beat me to it, with my words. Very funny.

www.para-normal.com...

Try that, this guy found away to prove god's existence.


Using a different tactic of course.

Further, he said, everything that exists does so because of some cause, and the "principle of sufficient reason" states that every phenomenon is either caused by something external or caused by itself, but never both. "Everything that exists has to have a reason for existing," he said.

How can you prove that absolutly everthing has a cause? There are things out there beyond our primitive comprehension yet. To prove that everthing has a cause, you would have to show exactly how(at a macro and microscopic level) everything is caused and effected. And also cannot just assume that everything has a reason for existance, though I know you want to feel special, you cannot prove that you or your mothers fruitcake have a purpose or a reason.

Furthermore, this guys logic doesn't make any sense. He's making too many assumptions. He says that in order for there to be a god.

God, he said, must exist and be unique, and must be self-caused as well as being the cause of everything else. "Every existing phenomenon is the end effect of a causal chain of possibly infinite length, starting with God

From these definitions, he said, one can infer that the universe is a composite of all phenomena. He inferred that the universe itself, then, cannot bring any of its own components into being, as it could not have existed before the existence of the components.

This is an assumption that our universe is not infinate and did not always 'just exist'. It relys on the 'watchmaker' philosophy, and the 'it all had to start somewhere' philosophy. What if it didn't all just start, what if it has always just been? That's what they're saying about 'god', that in order for there to be a universe, there must have been something infinate that existed before it that created it.(lost yet?) Why then, if there could be an infinate being that existed before everything, couldn't the universe just simply exist before everything? Why is that so hard for you to believe?

I love these philosophical discussions, they really make you think. Remember now, I pledge myself to no particular belief, I just want to figure out where you are coming from in your beliefs. Try to argue your own points, and use your own logic rather than looking up the philosophy of some professional doctor.(no offense intended)