A reason for existence of God

[Lacewing]

A god is not necessary for a person to live a 'peaceful and pleasing and relieving' life. It is a state of being. If you want to imagine a god, that is your trip, for whatever reasons it serves you. Agreed?

AGREED. And I think I do have a good reason for his existence.

You can choose to think that you have a good reason, but you're stretching things by insisting to people here that your thinking is based on logic. Your thinking is based on the preference of what you want to think -- because that's what you like to think.

You like to think of this supposed god as a "him". There is no sense in that. It's the way men designed their stories... catering to themselves.

Why the time started if there is no almighty God?

The concept of time is based on our physical reality. There are many experiences and indications that our physical reality is not all there is -- it is just the one we order our lives by. So to create/imagine a god based on such a limited mode of perception is to serve a need within that reality... nothing more.

Start of time by itself is less likely than God creating it because God is supposed to be the almighty.

There could be many reasons why the experience we know of as "time" started, and none of these have to involve an almighty god. That is human imagination. And it seems quite primitive to imagine the idea of a god to answer every unknown. Do you see what that has turned into and what that does? It goes well beyond being a comfort for people. It is an imaginative creation used in all sorts of self-serving ways -- and people might even distort or lie or destroy to protect it. The god-idea stunts human beings from thinking and acting further on their own.

The 'reason for the existence of God' has nothing to do with logic. It has to do with imagination for serving oneself. That's the reason.

What we are able to 'see' of our Universe is not all there is. Our definitions serve our limited awareness. There is much beauty and compassion and love flowing throughout our limited awareness. Superimposing a god to explain that, and to imagine as the creator of our limited awareness, is ridiculous. I think it makes more sense to allow that there is much more than we are aware of and be courageously in awe of that being so, rather than further blinding ourselves with our fearful creations and not taking responsibility for ourselves.

[bahman]

If you cannot show that my reason is wrong then it follows that my reason is right.

That's like saying, if you can't show that disease is not caused by pixies, it is. Total nonsense.

You don't understand the basics.

[Immanuel Can]

We have four concepts when it comes to the state of reality and what we do. These four concepts are good, evil, right, and wrong.

No, no "we" don't. Famously, David Hume doesn't agree with you, and most people won't agree with you, and now I don't agree with you. We don't "have" anything, unless the speaker provides the criteria by which he insists we are to judge -- then, and maybe only then, we might.

But right now, "we" have nothing.

Maybe I've asked you a question that's just too hard for you. I guess that's possible. But whether you know it or not, it's going to stay one very good reason why people don't believe you, unless you can find a way to understand and answer it.

Good luck.

I understood your question. Maybe, that is you who didn't understand my answer.

No, I was right...you didn't get it.

[bahman]

Maybe I am missing a point, reason for what?

The reason for my reason is wrong. If you cannot show that my reason is wrong then it follows that my reason is right. Therefore there is no God.

Sorry for there are so many replies, I may have forgotten your reason for no God. I remember that you were saying time started with no intervention.

Yes.

I responded with reasoning no intervention leaves no reason for time to start.

Yes, it does. If there is no creator of time and there is a beginning for time then time has to start by itself.

You said you can simplify your reason for start of time is there would be life which everything is after.

What? I have never said that.

My objection to that is if there is no Love to cause the start of time, there is no reason for life and everybody which are after life, to have any sense for life for everybody to be after life. You said that there are complicated reasons, and life and all that were your simple way to express your reason. As I said there is flaw in your simple reason. For life and everything being after life, there must be Love as reason to start time. I mean start of time can not be with no intervention. That is my reason that you can not overrule a Loving God.

I don't have time to go through these!

[bahman]

No, no "we" don't. Famously, David Hume doesn't agree with you, and most people won't agree with you, and now I don't agree with you. We don't "have" anything, unless the speaker provides the criteria by which he insists we are to judge -- then, and maybe only then, we might.

But right now, "we" have nothing.

Maybe I've asked you a question that's just too hard for you. I guess that's possible. But whether you know it or not, it's going to stay one very good reason why people don't believe you, unless you can find a way to understand and answer it.

Good luck.

I understood your question. Maybe, that is you who didn't understand my answer.

No, I was right...you didn't get it.

How do you define good?

[Immanuel Can]

I understood your question. Maybe, that is you who didn't understand my answer.

No, I was right...you didn't get it.

How do you define good?

No, that's not it. My question is, "by what criteria do you define evil?" You, personally. How do you do it?

[bahman]

A god is not necessary for a person to live a 'peaceful and pleasing and relieving' life. It is a state of being. If you want to imagine a god, that is your trip, for whatever reasons it serves you. Agreed?

AGREED. And I think I do have a good reason for his existence.

You can choose to think that you have a good reason, but you're stretching things by insisting to people here that your thinking is based on logic. Your thinking is based on the preference of what you want to think -- because that's what you like to think.

You like to think of this supposed god as a "him". There is no sense in that. It's the way men designed their stories... catering to themselves.

Why the time started if there is no almighty God?

The concept of time is based on our physical reality. There are many experiences and indications that our physical reality is not all there is -- it is just the one we order our lives by. So to create/imagine a god based on such a limited mode of perception is to serve a need within that reality... nothing more.

Start of time by itself is less likely than God creating it because God is supposed to be the almighty.

There could be many reasons why the experience we know of as "time" started, and none of these have to involve an almighty god. That is human imagination. And it seems quite primitive to imagine the idea of a god to answer every unknown. Do you see what that has turned into and what that does? It goes well beyond being a comfort for people. It is an imaginative creation used in all sorts of self-serving ways -- and people might even distort or lie or destroy to protect it. The god-idea stunts human beings from thinking and acting further on their own.

The 'reason for the existence of God' has nothing to do with logic. It has to do with imagination for serving oneself. That's the reason.

What we are able to 'see' of our Universe is not all there is. Our definitions serve our limited awareness. There is much beauty and compassion and love flowing throughout our limited awareness. Superimposing a god to explain that, and to imagine as the creator of our limited awareness, is ridiculous. I think it makes more sense to allow that there is much more than we are aware of and be courageously in awe of that being so, rather than further blinding ourselves with our fearful creations and not taking responsibility for ourselves.

This I like!

[K1Barin]

A god is not necessary for a person to live a 'peaceful and pleasing and relieving' life. It is a state of being. If you want to imagine a god, that is your trip, for whatever reasons it serves you. Agreed?

AGREED. And I think I do have a good reason for his existence.

You can choose to think that you have a good reason, but you're stretching things by insisting to people here that your thinking is based on logic. Your thinking is based on the preference of what you want to think -- because that's what you like to think.

You like to think of this supposed god as a "him". There is no sense in that. It's the way men designed their stories... catering to themselves.

Why the time started if there is no almighty God?

The concept of time is based on our physical reality. There are many experiences and indications that our physical reality is not all there is -- it is just the one we order our lives by. So to create/imagine a god based on such a limited mode of perception is to serve a need within that reality... nothing more.

Start of time by itself is less likely than God creating it because God is supposed to be the almighty.

There could be many reasons why the experience we know of as "time" started, and none of these have to involve an almighty god. That is human imagination. And it seems quite primitive to imagine the idea of a god to answer every unknown. Do you see what that has turned into and what that does? It goes well beyond being a comfort for people. It is an imaginative creation used in all sorts of self-serving ways -- and people might even distort or lie or destroy to protect it. The god-idea stunts human beings from thinking and acting further on their own.

The 'reason for the existence of God' has nothing to do with logic. It has to do with imagination for serving oneself. That's the reason.

What we are able to 'see' of our Universe is not all there is. Our definitions serve our limited awareness. There is much beauty and compassion and love flowing throughout our limited awareness. Superimposing a god as the creator of our limited awareness is ridiculous. I think it makes more sense to allow that there is much more and be courageously in awe of that rather than blinding ourselves with our fearful creations and not taking responsibility for ourselves.

Fine, everything about a Loving God is imagination. But according to you, so is everything else. So taking responsibility only for no God for what? Limited awareness may include the greatness of a almighty, and most Loving God too. When you say our awareness is limited, why are you imposing it on just existence of God? And not whether God exists or not?

[bahman]

No, I was right...you didn't get it.

How do you define good?

No, that's not it. My question is, "by what criteria do you define evil?" You, personally. How do you do it?

I already mentioned evil is pain. If you don't like it that is your problem. What is good for you? You refuse to answer. I don't why but I know what you think. Whatever God says is good is good. Why? Perhaps He is knowledgeable. But isn't it possible that human knows what God knows so she/he eventually understand what good and evil, right and wrong are? You answer, of course not. The criterion is Him what is your criterion? So we are dealing with a God who has no reason why something is good and evil!

[K1Barin]

The reason for my reason is wrong. If you cannot show that my reason is wrong then it follows that my reason is right. Therefore there is no God.

Sorry for there are so many replies, I may have forgotten your reason for no God. I remember that you were saying time started with no intervention.

Yes.

I responded with reasoning no intervention leaves no reason for time to start.

Yes, it does. If there is no creator of time and there is a beginning for time then time has to start by itself.

You said you can simplify your reason for start of time is there would be life which everything is after.

What? I have never said that.

My objection to that is if there is no Love to cause the start of time, there is no reason for life and everybody which are after life, to have any sense for life for everybody to be after life. You said that there are complicated reasons, and life and all that were your simple way to express your reason. As I said there is flaw in your simple reason. For life and everything being after life, there must be Love as reason to start time. I mean start of time can not be with no intervention. That is my reason that you can not overrule a Loving God.

I don't have time to go through these!

If you don't have time to go through those, don't claim you reasoned and I failed to reason. You all know by now that my English is poor. But I am trying. If you don't understand me, maybe it would help to consider previous posts. I am trying for God sake, don't dismiss all the posts that have passed.

[Immanuel Can]

How do you define good?

No, that's not it. My question is, "by what criteria do you define evil?" You, personally. How do you do it?

I already mentioned evil is pain. If you don't like it that is your problem.

Well, three things: one, that's obviously not the case. Pain is not synonymous with evil, and nobody who thinks for ten seconds thinks it is.

Two, and even more importantly, your decision to make "pain" mean "evil" is arbitrary. Where, outside of your own imagination, is it written that pain is evil, and evil means pain?

If it's arbitrary, then you can't expect anybody to find your question coherent.

And that's what, third, makes it your problem. You are trying to speak to other people about this, so a defintion that is only your own doesn't mean anything to them. They need an objective definition, showing that your utterance "god is evil," has some particular content. But absent any reference to a meta-ethic higher than the "god" you're talking about, you've got nothing for that, because you're a polytheist. It can't be your claim that "god" and "evil" refer to the same entity. It must be the case that you think, instead, that "evil" is a predication about "the god." But then, that standard of "evil" must come from some place higher than "the god" you're talking about. Where would that be?

It would have to seem that you're not grounding your assessment in any universal reality, then.

But I can see you can't follow this problem. So I guess I can't expect an answer.

[Immanuel Can]

You all know by now that my English is poor.

It seems fine, to me.

[K1Barin]

The reason for my reason is wrong. If you cannot show that my reason is wrong then it follows that my reason is right. Therefore there is no God.

Sorry for there are so many replies, I may have forgotten your reason for no God. I remember that you were saying time started with no intervention.

Yes.

I responded with reasoning no intervention leaves no reason for time to start.

Yes, it does. If there is no creator of time and there is a beginning for time then time has to start by itself.

You said you can simplify your reason for start of time is there would be life which everything is after.

What? I have never said that.

My objection to that is if there is no Love to cause the start of time, there is no reason for life and everybody which are after life, to have any sense for life for everybody to be after life. You said that there are complicated reasons, and life and all that were your simple way to express your reason. As I said there is flaw in your simple reason. For life and everything being after life, there must be Love as reason to start time. I mean start of time can not be with no intervention. That is my reason that you can not overrule a Loving God.

I don't have time to go through these!

If you don't have time to go through those, don't claim you reasoned and I failed to reason. You all know by now that my English is poor. But I am trying. If you don't understand me, maybe it would help to consider previous posts. I am trying for God sake, don't dismiss all the posts that have passed.

[bahman]

Sorry for there are so many replies, I may have forgotten your reason for no God. I remember that you were saying time started with no intervention.

Yes.

I responded with reasoning no intervention leaves no reason for time to start.

Yes, it does. If there is no creator of time and there is a beginning for time then time has to start by itself.

You said you can simplify your reason for start of time is there would be life which everything is after.

What? I have never said that.

My objection to that is if there is no Love to cause the start of time, there is no reason for life and everybody which are after life, to have any sense for life for everybody to be after life. You said that there are complicated reasons, and life and all that were your simple way to express your reason. As I said there is flaw in your simple reason. For life and everything being after life, there must be Love as reason to start time. I mean start of time can not be with no intervention. That is my reason that you can not overrule a Loving God.

I don't have time to go through these!

If you don't have time to go through those, don't claim you reasoned and I failed to reason. You all know by now that my English is poor. But I am trying. If you don't understand me, maybe it would help to consider previous posts. I am trying for God sake, don't dismiss all the posts that have passed.

Dude, you started talking about after life, etc. We are dealing with a problem of the beginning of everything. Could we focus on that?

[bahman]

No, that's not it. My question is, "by what criteria do you define evil?" You, personally. How do you do it?

I already mentioned evil is pain. If you don't like it that is your problem.

Well, three things: one, that's obviously not the case. Pain is not synonymous with evil, and nobody who thinks for ten seconds thinks it is.

Two, and even more importantly, your decision to make "pain" mean "evil" is arbitrary. Where, outside of your own imagination, is it written that pain is evil, and evil means pain?

If it's arbitrary, then you can't expect anybody to find your question coherent.

And that's what, third, makes it your problem. You are trying to speak to other people about this, so a defintion that is only your own doesn't mean anything to them. They need an objective definition, showing that your utterance "god is evil," has some particular content. But absent any reference to a meta-ethic higher than the "god" you're talking about, you've got nothing for that, because you're a polytheist. It can't be your claim that "god" and "evil" refer to the same entity. It must be the case that you think, instead, that "evil" is a predication about "the god." But then, that standard of "evil" must come from some place higher than "the god" you're talking about. Where would that be?

It would have to seem that you're not grounding your assessment in any universal reality, then.

But I can see you can't follow this problem. So I guess I can't expect an answer.

I already answered you several times. You, however, reject to answer my question which I find wrong. What is good to you?