Is god real?

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 136
#121
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
God's essence is unknowable.

That doesn't mean that we can't know things about God.

No, there is real movement in the spiritual practice of my faith. Loving The Truth brings about a different effect in the soul than loving anything else above The Truth.

#122
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,144
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@EtrnlVw
  1. You don't believe in Zeus, the most powerful of the gods according to the Ancient Greeks, you don't believe in Helios or in any of the other gods, goddesses, spirits and the like of the Greco-Roman pantheon?
  2. You don't believe in Odin, the most powerful god for the Nordic religion, you don't believer in Thor of the mighty hammer. You don't believe in the rest of that pantheon.?
  3. You don't believe in the ancient Celtic gods and goddesses who required human sacrifice?
  4. You don't believe in the ancient Aztec and other South American gods/goddesses who also required human sacrifice?

#123
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,307
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
That doesn't mean we can't know things about God.
Yes it does.

But it doesn't stop you making things up.
#124
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
You are simply being incredulous.

But God has been revealed to us. I do not know the inner thoughts of my Father, but I see what He does. I hear what He says. For me to know Him would be to know everything. I can only know what He reveals.




#125
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,307
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
But God has been revealed to us etc.
No it hasn't....A person made that up and has strung you along.


And yes, an atheist could rightly be regarded as exhibiting incredulity.
#126
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW

We don't need organized religion (or proposed supposed beings) to propose a Creator, religion is the products of mans observations of that reality. God exists independent of that.

  1. You don't believe in Zeus, the most powerful of the gods according to the Ancient Greeks, you don't believe in Helios or in any of the other gods, goddesses, spirits and the like of the Greco-Roman pantheon?
  2. You don't believe in Odin, the most powerful god for the Nordic religion, you don't believer in Thor of the mighty hammer. You don't believe in the rest of that pantheon.?
  3. You don't believe in the ancient Celtic gods and goddesses who required human sacrifice?
  4. You don't believe in the ancient Aztec and other South American gods/goddesses who also required human sacrifice?
That being said I don't see what this has to do with the topic or there being a Creator.

Why would you assume we would have to accept any of mans particular ideas about God? God exists independent of mans ideas. Do you also have to abandon the fact that music exists and that you can enjoy the benefits of partaking of it just because man has opinions, ideas and preferences of particular kinds and styles of music? And don't miss the analogy here, trying to get you to understand you can consider the existence of God without any of mans concepts or ideas involved about that. 

That being said I look into all forms of spiritual sources and concepts. However not all sources need to be accepted, as well not just only one needs to be accepted. I study a variety of sources mainly to discover clean and true insights. 

Generally speaking I stay within the guidelines of rational, logic and commonsense when evaluating Theistic claims along with my own observations and experience while also employing cross referencing/examination. Not everything within the spiritual arena put forward is accurate and not everything is wrong.

If you want to talk about my specific beliefs just ask, I'm fully prepared to discuss them and defend them. Thanks.

#127
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,307
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
There's a big difference between "A Creator" and  a creation.

"A Creator" has secondary implications attached.....Namely, "A Creator"......Or in other words, an uncreated precursor. 

In suggesting "A Creator" you are suggesting:  A. An unconstructed entity.  With B:  The ability to construct something from nothing.... Both of which are illogical.

Though, if it is logical that something can be constructed from nothing, then it's therefore also logical to suggest that there is no need for "A Creator".
#128
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
You are right, God hasn't been revealed to you.

But you are wrong in all other regards. God certainly has been revealed to me, and in no way can I deny that.

#129
seldiora
seldiora's avatar
Debates: 158
Posts: 352
2
6
10
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
2
6
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Oho. I found a fantastically beautiful argument from Plato that gives very reasonable grounding for God's existence. I'm not 100% convinced, but it looks better than KCA or Ontological Argument. 

  1. Consider some beautiful thing — say an incredibly beautiful sunset, the kind that totally absorbs you in a profound sense of beauty, awe, and wonder..
  2. Now, instead of pausing in that experience alone — which is our usual tendency — elevate your thoughts still higher and consider that this is not the only beautiful thing.  There are many other experiences equally or more beautiful as this one.
  3. Then consider that there must be something in common amongst all these experiences — in exactly the same way that there is something in common for all triangles, all horses, or all trees.  That is, each of these things has some defining principle or principles, some essence.
  4. Consider further that a defining essence has, at least in theory, some existence outside of its instantiation in actual examples.  Hence we may conceive of the abstract “Form” of a triangle, which would exist even if somehow we were able to remove all physical triangles from the world.  If so, we may also suppose that there is some Form of Beauty, which is the principle that all beautiful things have in common; and that this may potentially exist independently of all beautiful things.
  5. Moreover, Beauty is not the only good.  There are also such noble things as Truth,  Virtue, Excellence, and Justice — which we also unhesitatingly consider good, which delight or assure us, and which can bring us very deep levels of satisfaction.
  6. And, just as with Beauty, we may suppose that there is some essence or Form for each of these other things: a Form of Truth, a Form of Virtue, of Excellence, of Justice, and so on.
  7. And finally, we may contemplate the possibility of some principle or essence which all these different Forms of good things have in common.  This, too, would be a Form — the Form of Goodness.
  8. God is defined as that being than which nothing can be more Good.  Therefore God is the Form of Goodness.
  9. Darwinism cannot alone explain this, due to heroic sacrifice contradicting the ideals of survival, but can still be viewed as beautiful

Topic's author
#130
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@seldiora
No... that's just the ontological argument restated.... it's still defining god into existence
#131
seldiora
seldiora's avatar
Debates: 158
Posts: 352
2
6
10
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
2
6
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
also I just thought of something... why can't the idea of "science" be god?

science created the universe: the big bang

science concerns all knowledge (omniscience) of the truth of the universe (gravity, speed of light, black hole force, etc.)

science, being applied philosophy, may extend to the morality and upbringing up people (as we clearly suffer), leading towards a society of good and benefit (omnibenevolent..ish. Not an usual requirement for most gods though)

science constrains all the laws of the universe and is responsible for all actions executed (omnipotence... in a kind of way)

though I guess the problem is that science is an alternating view of the world that changes based upon observation and experience, while God is an overarching constant who listens to few, if any.
Topic's author
#132
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@seldiora
First of all - because the classical definition of god has her as an agent, and science isn't an agent nor did can science make decisions or actions. 
Second of all - because that would again be defining god into existence
Third - science is an over-arching concept - people simply get it wrong - and we correct our information as we learn more
#133
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,307
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
You assume that a GOD has been revealed to you....Though, this is not the same as a GOD actually being revealed to you.

One can assume anything.
#134
seldiora
seldiora's avatar
Debates: 158
Posts: 352
2
6
10
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
2
6
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
makes sense. The agent is necessary to resolve the problem of God. I was thinking of a counter argument where God is the collective thinking of humanity (as an agent, if objective morality can exist, then this may be the transcendental "God"), but I realized this doesn't make any sense lol.
#135
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
You wouldn't know.
Topic's author
#136
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@seldiora
I am very glad you did