I do believe there is some type of God that is responsible for the creation of the universe.....but whatever it is is so far out of our realm of comprehension well never have any idea what it is.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Do you believe in a higher power? (God, etc.)
- Thread starter BAD
- Start date
It is frustrating but I have found one constant - the more idiosyncratic, overly complex and subject varied someone gets when trying to explain their God, the more they're aware of how nonsensical their God sounds.
So you decided to believe in something that is not just incomprehensible to humans but something that we will NEVER comprehend? And that forms the foundation of your belief system??
And as a follow up question - if God is totally and completely out of your comprehension, how do you know any single thing about him? And furthermore, how can you know any single thing that he wants of you? how can you even know the most basic stuff such whether he wants you to believe in him? How can you know he wants you to worship him? How can you know he wants you to follow any single rule, ritual or belief that you have or do with regards to him? Heck how do you even know he's a he??
I believe all the higher beings in all religions are man made BS to control people. They have zero chance of them being real considering the fuckury we experience from religious beliefs. Beliefs that a true high being would find insignificant and even preemptive. If a higher being exists, we are not important and our existence is mere side effect of whoever made the singularity that gave birth to our universe. The only concerning thing is that the universe is very quiet considering the probability of another habitual world in the universe or even our galaxy. Where are the other intelligent life in the universe? The fermi paradox tries to explain this, but there have been other theories that are as convincing. If we are truly alone, then there must be more significance to the importance of our existence but until that's proven it goes back what I belief.
Thanx! I feel i've gotten closer to what you mean now. Or so i think.
The objective truth, so with that i mean the truth that needs no humans for interpretation and is always the way it is, seems an impossible goal to reach, as our senses will always interfere with it or interpret. Maybe it's a simple example, but the old "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" seems similar. An answer that always made sense to me would be "Sound is vibration, transmitted to our senses through the mechanism of the ear, and recognized as sound only at our nerve centers. The falling of the tree or any other disturbance will produce vibration of the air. If there be no ears to hear, there will be no sound." And then there is the question of how accurate our senses are. And .. well, they're all we have. That's also what i meant with the humane rules we all can agree on vs objective morality. We can't agree on more than what we as people can agree on as being true. So even with no objective morality existing, when we all agree on rules, we consider them objective, since there is nothing more we as humans can do to make it more objective, from our pint of view. So, is what you are searching for, an objective truth, beyond what we can imagine or perceive?
Does this make any sense? Again,.. just thinking with the limited recourses available, haha.
but, it does make sense, it's what all the evidence points to and it's considered the accepted scientific theory in science, if it didn't make sense it wouldn't be.
Study, learn, and keep searching for answers
Excuse me but you've clearly just happened upon this conversation now and are making frankly embarrassing statements based on very poor comprehension. All my posts in this thread are public so feel free to inform yourself before passing judgement. Be that as it may I will "be the better person" and address your mala-fide statements. Firstly, I couldn't care less about your "friend". I have very few friends myself, am rather picky in said regard and would definitely not associate with your "friend" but that's just me.
On the contrary, as I've made clear in this thread, I literally embrace asking questions and abhor contradictions. It's an integral part of the process of learning and I view the seeking of knowledge as mandatory i.e. beyond necessary. I've also made it clear that I'm committed to consistency.
I've defined it in recent posts. I would hope you're not so lazy as to expect everybody in a thread to reiterate their posts specifically for you or have them excluded from the conversation.
The statement is in and of itself entirely sensible. I've described it as "a path which appears to lead to objective truth". That is what it is. I've not described all the evidence which it is based upon but that is a body of work that I'm not wiling to divulge unless I can ascertain that it won't be a wasted exercise. Once again I've never claimed to have all/any answers. Feel free to manage your expectations appropriately.
I'm not allowed to use knowledge and science? Besides science is a branch of knowledge. Also, I'll use an analogy, it is possible to build a device using a spanner as one of the tools. Does that mean the device is based on a spanner? You do not appear to have a grasp of basic logic
The path is clearly defined multiple times in this thread as "one which leads to objective purpose and truth". What is so difficult to comprehend.
You claimed I do not "use science" not I. Do you sanity check your posts before selecting post. As a rule of thumb always proof read your posts twice or thrice (or maybe 10 times in this instance).
I've made clear my sources are based on the various branches of knowledge. It's not strange that you are the first to attempt to discredit my posts in this manner though. Your intentions are clear though I find your attempts wanting.
You're not sorry. Don't apologise. I don't need nor want your false apology.
You seem to be describing yourself here? I'm not sure.
You don't even have enough respect for yourself to sanity check your own posts. I doubt anyone cares for your respect to be honest.
Again, don't bother with non-apologies. Nobody here is gullible enough to buy them especially not when you've used them twice in a single post. Also, I'm not sorry my post may come across passive aggressively :D
Looking back at my previous posts I've defined everything plainly. I've simply not provided the full body of evidence which I base my apparent objective purpose on. Why should I when it's clear it would not be considered. The example/question I provided earlier required a simple response in order to determine conduciveness. Scientists are by their nature both skeptical and inquisitive. A scientist would logically simply want to know "how". If one is not even willing to consider the how then it's a waste of my time since I'm not here to teach nor preach anything.
I understand what you're describing however, you are still limiting your scope within the dimensions of time and space. The all encompassing entity has to exist outside of those bounds. Time and space are merely dimensions by which human existence are confined. Applications within an operating system. You could migrate applications but only from one system to another. The application is contingent on the system and could not actively exist outside of it. The rules for the application can exist and be known, explicit and objective both within the system and beyond its scope.
Consider the statement "cannot be encompassed by vision yet encompasses all vision". I.e. while fully understanding the entity might be beyond our grasp, it fully comprehends us and is thus able to communicate with us in ways it knows we can comprehend. It's amusing that CTMU defines reality/the universe as self-designing and all I'm doing is expanding reality beyond the scope of the universe (all encompassing), saying that design is a product, not feature, of it and personifying it i.e. saying it acts with intent (not that it is in any way comparable to its products). Yet somehow my perspective is delusional from the viewpoint of those non-theists who, as the theory posits, clearly believe/have faith in acausality/randomness/"magic".
Coincidentally this analogy better suits our perceived existence. If we are entirely purposeless all our actions amount to that tree in the woods which nothing comprehends. What you've described is roughly the foundation for the anthropic principle.
No matter what we agree on it will always be subjective since it is, by definition, contingent on what we agree. What I seek is objective truth. Not subject to change. Not contingent on the universe. We might not have the faculties to fully comprehend it but at least its existence would be known.
Makes perfect sense, thank you
Thank you for the reply. Right now i'm not fully capable of answering but i will be tomorrow.
Thanx again.
I guess is it is more accurate to say I'm an agnostic. If there's a god then he's an asshole not worthy of my worship.
No, if that were true you wouldn't have been able to tell me that "It works". You came to that conclusion somehow inorder to make a positive claim.
See? This is EXACTLY what I mean. You believe not through logic or reason. You simply claim that "it works". Others of other religions have the same kind of faith in their own religions/gods.
Right. But faith does. The problem with that is that faith isn't a valid path to the truth because you can have faith in anything. Including incorrect things.
Yes it is. Leave it or take it. "It works" is a completely additional matter.
Yes, i do, and i cannot possibly claim anything but that. And nothing that i perceive can change that, may it be the concept of faith being questioned or other people claiming for other stuff to work.
"faith" is not a random generator. "logic or reason" happen within your computing unit, while "faith" is being steered by an external source.
It makes sense when we try to find out what happened, but as soon as touch the why we are tapping in the dark again.
That might have been what he/she meant.
My claim is that i didn't decide this...
...also you messed up your quote.
Last edited:
Yeah, i understand that you're looking for a real objective truth, not subject to change.
But we're probably not capable of that anyway due to the nature and limitations of what we are.
So you're looking for something you'll never be able to perceive, because you are a human being and therefore it will always be subjective.
Anyway, when do you think you'll break that barrier? In your lifetime, while dying, after life? Or is there scripture (not religious necessarily) that you consider being truth right now? The way i see it, most we can do is philosophize about it.
Last edited:
It's a good thing I never really think about this. And when did I say he was a he.
And what created that "force"?
If universe "had" to be created. Same rules should apply to said force. Else you're special pleading, which is a logical fallacy.
i don't discount the idea of a higher power. no one knows to what extent existence stretches out to. it could literally be limitless. there are sooooooo many possibilities. there exist things that you could probably never imagine, not in your wildest dreams.
so to flat-out reject the idea seems rather impossible to me. people box themselves up in their own way of thinking / world view far too much. that type of thinking, imho is no different to that displayed by those who scorned galileo when he introduced the idea of heliocentrism. "it doesn't make sense to me therefore it can't be true". until we find the limit of existence, you can't rule out the possibility
so to flat-out reject the idea seems rather impossible to me. people box themselves up in their own way of thinking / world view far too much. that type of thinking, imho is no different to that displayed by those who scorned galileo when he introduced the idea of heliocentrism. "it doesn't make sense to me therefore it can't be true". until we find the limit of existence, you can't rule out the possibility
I don't think so, no.
I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic school from 8th grade thru high school. I just never bought into it, even when I was very young. The thought of something watching over us and judging everything we do never made sense to me. Then you consider the fact that there are various religions and views on what this higher power might be. Who's right? Are the Catholics right? Were the Vikings right? Is Zeus looking down on us from Mount Olympus? I think that probably none of them are right.
What makes more sense to me is that the concept of a higher power was invented in order to explain things that could not be explained at the time.
Also, I think that we have these concepts because sometimes, people need something to believe in. They need to think that there is something waiting for them when they die, or else some would go nuts. They also need to think that they have to abide by certain rules of living, and I think that these "rules" (the Catholics would call them "Commandments") keep some people from doing bad things that they maybe would have done if these "rules" didn't exist.
I do reserve a tiny bit of room for doubt, though. I still don't have a good answer on how, if there is or was no higher power, the universe came into existence. Obviously the big bang explains quite a bit, and there is evidence to support it, and we know that the universe is still expanding. But...where did that initially come from? I don't know that anyone knows for sure. But I will say that if there was some higher power who started it all, I think that it left long ago...before humans even came into existence.
I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic school from 8th grade thru high school. I just never bought into it, even when I was very young. The thought of something watching over us and judging everything we do never made sense to me. Then you consider the fact that there are various religions and views on what this higher power might be. Who's right? Are the Catholics right? Were the Vikings right? Is Zeus looking down on us from Mount Olympus? I think that probably none of them are right.
What makes more sense to me is that the concept of a higher power was invented in order to explain things that could not be explained at the time.
Also, I think that we have these concepts because sometimes, people need something to believe in. They need to think that there is something waiting for them when they die, or else some would go nuts. They also need to think that they have to abide by certain rules of living, and I think that these "rules" (the Catholics would call them "Commandments") keep some people from doing bad things that they maybe would have done if these "rules" didn't exist.
I do reserve a tiny bit of room for doubt, though. I still don't have a good answer on how, if there is or was no higher power, the universe came into existence. Obviously the big bang explains quite a bit, and there is evidence to support it, and we know that the universe is still expanding. But...where did that initially come from? I don't know that anyone knows for sure. But I will say that if there was some higher power who started it all, I think that it left long ago...before humans even came into existence.
Read a book, of your choosing, on your own, in your downtime on occasion.
Thats what i said. I'm amazed at how many people are ascribing all kinds of allusions over a very simple, and worthwhile suggestion.
Why would you be Ok with Dying children?
I don't see why one should assume there is a barrier. In effect all that is required to know objective truth is to have it communicated. By that I mean the portions of object truth relevant to our purpose as opposed to "all truth" which we wouldn't , or at least shouldn't, be able to comprehend based on our limited faculties.
And I would propose that it has been coomunicated throughout history (recorded and unrecorded) in various ways. All we need do is determine, unequivocally, what has been communicated vs what is merely purported to have been communicated.
The evaluation would be therefore be simple. The entity would have to
- Claim it's all encompassing nature.
- Prove itself beyond time and space by describing events and processes which had not yet occurred or were impossible to be known at the time of communication.
- Not be guilty of contradiction at any time i.e. free from both past and future contradictions.
I'm unsure. There's nothing to really point towards the idea of a higher being as the source of all life on Earth but there's no reason to outright dismiss it either. Although I am far from religious. The idea of a god that takes on the image of a man or anything in our comprehension and especially one that gives a fuck about us is ridiculous to me.
By that logic, what created that? And what created that? So on and so forth.
What if it just always was? What if instead of something creating all that energy, the universe collapses on itself and starts over. Rinse and Repeat.
Yes i do. What i dont believe in however is that this whole world came from nothing. 0+0 can never be 1. When i see a phone, car, a video game i know someone made that. People say where is the proof that a higher power exists? Well look around you and you will see the evidence. Your body is damn good evidence of higher power.
You want to see God? Try to stare at the sun without burning your eyez.
You want to see God? Try to stare at the sun without burning your eyez.
Last edited:
That really doesn't prove anything... Though i agree there is much to be amazed about.
But i liked the staring in the sun part, haha.
So it is communicated through texts that have existed for a while, i assume. Like religious texts, etc?
And the first thing you'd have to assume then, is that these didn't originate from the minds of human beings.
And finding something that covers your three points would be rather hard, i'd think.
Are we talking about prophecies here? Do you have an example?
You proved nothing at all and just told people to stare at the Sun for no reason at all, lmao.
Yes.
Not any sort of single almighty deity. Too much evil happens in our world alone for any truly benevolent, truly omnipotent diety to exist. Like, if the Abrahamic God exists and is truly omnipotent and omniscient, fuck them for doing nothing as millions if not billions suffer. But there are definitely forces, arguably sapient forces, beyond our ken, that science may never truly be able to document. It's the height of human hubris to assume otherwise, imo- the exact same hubris, incidentally, that's leaving our planet in a state that will leave it in tatters for our use.
Not any sort of single almighty deity. Too much evil happens in our world alone for any truly benevolent, truly omnipotent diety to exist. Like, if the Abrahamic God exists and is truly omnipotent and omniscient, fuck them for doing nothing as millions if not billions suffer. But there are definitely forces, arguably sapient forces, beyond our ken, that science may never truly be able to document. It's the height of human hubris to assume otherwise, imo- the exact same hubris, incidentally, that's leaving our planet in a state that will leave it in tatters for our use.
Lol think about what i meant with that for e sec and u will hopefully understand :-)
I know what you mean, it's just some baby level argument for the existence for god, basically the Watchmaker analogy, and I thought I wouldn't actually see someone actually try to use in here.
Herein lies an issue that is seemingly more troublesome than any universal theorem itself. Texts (or any representation of physical information) alone would not be sufficient. Unless the medium of preservation of the information were immune to time and space as well it would always suffer the possibility of being corrupted. Likewise testimony would not suffice neither since humans are not able to perfectly preserve their memories. Then there is the issue of interpretation. Let's, for example, assume the information was communicated in English. English continues to evolve over time thus even the most basic forms of understanding of the information would adopt potentially contradicting nuances if reliant thereupon. Those nuances might appear tiny and be disregarded at first but would undoubtedly increase in number and breadth with the passage of time. In other words the information has to be communicated and preserved in a range of complimentary ways with the information itself in its base (unwritten) language being the only definitive form. All man-made symbolism is to be rejected as being derivative and rudimentary since the universe is, itself, authentic evidence already.
The language/code/medium of communication must be reliable. The information must be subtle enough for the full spectrum of intended audiences to consume, complex enough to prevent forgery, dense enough to convey the intended meaning(s) while not being overwhelmingly large in its breath/capacity. It would also need to include a range of mnemonic devices to allow for ease of consumption and distinction of its parts, be self referential and, above all, a clear and, by its nature, objective criterion upon which to base decisions.
It would require, at least, all of the above and yet somehow still need to remain consistent in its authorship i.e. the "personality" of its author must remain clear, consistent and distinct at all times to avoid doubt. One could argue that incorporating and maintaining all of the above is impossible and I would agree that it is for us as humans. However to that which encompasses everything (reality) it should technically be trivial.
It stands to reason then that I do not specifically mean prophesies. It could potentially contain them but those are often open to interpretation for example, look at the lengths some go to in an attempt to qualify the clearly false biblical and "nostradamian" prophecies. What it would need to contain are material facts. Descriptions of universal processes impossible to be known, by humans, at the time of communication (I know I'm repeating myself). Similar to my example of accurately describing the wave-particle nature of matter. If there is anything which complies those those requirements then, in my opinion, it is definitely worth evaluating. I think the only way to know is to determine for oneself through one's own research
Seeing as the topic of texts came up, I am once again reminded of the works of Jiddu Krishnamurti, who spent a good deal of his life examining ideas like higher power and the self that is supposed to be saved by such a higher power...
"All that we have invented, the symbols in the church, the rituals, they are all put there by thought. Thought has invented these things. Invented the savior. Invented the temples of India and the contents of the temples. Thought has invented all these things called sacred. You cannot deny that. So thought in itself is not sacred. And when thought invents God, God is not sacred. So what is sacred? That can only be understood or happen when there is complete freedom, from fear, from sorrow, and when there is this sense of love and compassion with it's own intelligence. Then when the mind is utterly still, that which is sacred can take place."
A still mind isn't a "me" that needs to be saved by an "other" cosmic king, so if we're playing that game, we're playing in fairy tale land.
"All that we have invented, the symbols in the church, the rituals, they are all put there by thought. Thought has invented these things. Invented the savior. Invented the temples of India and the contents of the temples. Thought has invented all these things called sacred. You cannot deny that. So thought in itself is not sacred. And when thought invents God, God is not sacred. So what is sacred? That can only be understood or happen when there is complete freedom, from fear, from sorrow, and when there is this sense of love and compassion with it's own intelligence. Then when the mind is utterly still, that which is sacred can take place."
A still mind isn't a "me" that needs to be saved by an "other" cosmic king, so if we're playing that game, we're playing in fairy tale land.
Why does it need to come into existence?
Why can't the universe be infinite?
Yeah, I'm Christian. I don't really go to Church, like at all mainly due to my town not having a good Chruch, but I believe in God completely.
Also I'd like to say that I don't shove religion down people's throats, so neither should the non-believers with not believing in it. Goes both ways really. Not aiming at anyone in this thread btw.
Also I'd like to say that I don't shove religion down people's throats, so neither should the non-believers with not believing in it. Goes both ways really. Not aiming at anyone in this thread btw.
Fair point.
You didn't it was a generalisation
You literally use one of the worst possible colours to respond. That was an eyesore, and then are too lazy to encapsulate the portions of the post you are responding to thus making quoting your text a pain in the backside i.e. when I select "reply" the only portion of your post that is presented is the above. You're not looking for a discussion simply to annoy but it won't be allowed. It's clear the discussion is beyond your comprehension since you cannot even comprehend the most basic contradictions you are guilty of nor can you understand simple analogies. And yet you call me obtuse. Move along
I didn't think you were being intentionally obstinate, and didn't want to accuse you of such... but now I'm confident you are, because you're stating something as true while also pretending you didn't come to that conclusion, just so that I can't point to you how there are other people who do the same thing in order to cheapen the importance of your own revelation.
That's intellectually dishonest. Just because you claim a god made you believe something doesn't mean that you didn't come to that realization. If you DIDN'T come to the realization that they made you believe, you WOULDN'T BELIEVE. You're avoiding accepting that point so that I can't hold proceed with my own point: that other religious people of other religions make the same claim for different gods.
Not even someone else's god?
Faith does too. Faith is you believing in something not just without evidence, but in spite of it. It takes stubbornness to adhere to something when everything else is telling you it's false. You haven't even explained how you know that your godly revelation wasn't a hallucination. You're accepting it as true because you want it to be true.
I'm sorry for coming off like a jerk this time but it honestly seems like you're playing games now.
Things are too complicated. I can't accept that.
Create some mystic creature in your head which solves all open questions in a magical way.
The arrogance of humans not to accept open questions is outstanding.
Create some mystic creature in your head which solves all open questions in a magical way.
The arrogance of humans not to accept open questions is outstanding.
I realized that i can't (and didn't) conclude gods existance, yet i am so certain of gods existance (and identity) as i am certain of my own existance, if not more.
And that certainty was there before i realized that it is technically impossible for even God to prove his existance to us through signs, since you could just interpret any actual miracle as the law of physics just randomly changing on their own at that point, or well, "hallucination".
Though "hallucination" is potentially the weaker explanation in this scenario as we are already familiar with it and might find out with our own methods if it occured or not.
Only one God shows up in a proper fashion. Only one God fills the void. Only one God gives me the strength to survive. Only one God grants me purpose. (this doesn't force me to not be an insensitive asshole to other people sometimes btw, but it's still more worth it than anything)
If any other seperate gods are real, then they aren't attempting to meddle with this relationship, so they must be either inferior or don't care about me, and that would be enough reason for me to not attempt to meddle with the status quo either.
Now this is all on the "it works" side of things which technically wouldn't force anyone to assume Gods existance, but it should still answer the question.
My statement was a bit unprecise, so let's create an example that has two chronological phases:
1. A person is being promised something. The person sees no reason not to believe in this promise. And so the persons faith is being steered by whomever made this promise.
2. THEN Evidence shows up that the promised something isn't a thing. But the person remains stubborn about it and forces him/herself to keep the faith, because the person is too afraid of loosing something (or some other reason).
Now whoever made the promise is still steering the persons faith.
I'm using a shitty iPad to reply so my formatting is rubbish.
But anyway. I'm glad you sidestepped the discussion by using my colour selection and lack of good formatting as an excuse. That encapsulates your entire assertion, discussion and arguments.
I wonder what God would say...... oh. Nothing because he's a figment of our imaginations....