A reason for existence of God

[bahman]

But you can not call it "a point when", if time didn't exist.

So time existed always?

No. I mean The phrase "a point when" is inappropriate since there is no time. See, you must be in a state of no time, and be talking about it. How can one talk in a state of no time?

That is a valid question since we can then agree that time has a beginning. But if time has a beginning and has a creator then it means that there is a point when time didn't exist. This is problematic as you noticed. So we are left with only one scenario: time started to exist at the beginning of time without any intervention.

[Immanuel Can]

Now you are mixing things. There are two sides/persons when it comes to Good and Evil. One is the receptor of the action and another is the actor. For example, rape is pleasurable for the raper but painful for the one who is raped.

That's not how either works, actually. Rape is an act of aggression, rather than pleasure, and theft makes the victim a victim, and the perp a thief.

But either way, you're assuming your own arbitrary definition, one that is clearly not correct. Pain and pleasure come mixed, in life. And it's not at all obvious that you can identify one with "evil" and the other with "good."

So you'd need to prove that definition of yours.

No, I don't need to prove my definition.

Well, you do if you want anybody else to agree with you. If you don't, then they can simply ignore it, because it lacks warrant. But that's up to you, of course.

The definition is a phrase that explains a situation/word.

It has to do so accurately. If your alleged "definition" is contentious and not generally conceded, then yes, you need to show you've defined the word in a way that everybody knows is correct.

Or you can just expect that people will respond, with good reason, "He doesn't seem to know what he's talking about."

Again, it's up to you.

You're still going to need a set of criteria.

No, I don't need a set of criteria. My definition is simple and it explains the reality of things well.

Not for your definition: you need criteria for your value judgment.

A value judgment is a claim that something is "good" or "bad," or "righteous" or "evil," or "functional" or "disfunctional," or any other sort of value-implying terms like that.

You want to ask, "Why can we not claim God is evil?" "Evil" is a value-judgment. It implies criteria. That is, you must think you know what makes a thing "good" or "evil," so as to apply the term to God.

But I don't think you do. Because if I believe your definition, you think that "evil" is automatically "anything to do with pain." And I don't think you believe in God, and I don't think pain is always associated with evil. Sometimes it's associated with things like overcoming, triumph, exercise, achievement, victory, growth, and all sorts of other things most people see as quite positive.

So you've got to show your case...if you want anybody to believe you.

I already defined what I meant by evil.

It's not important what you meant. It's important that whatever you meant corresponds to a justifiable definition of "evil," because that's the term you're hoping to apply to God.

Do you want me to prove that God is evil?

No. I want you to show that you know what "evil" means. I want you to show your criteria for that value judgment, no matter what entity you apply it to.

I'll let you pick the referent...anything you like. Just show that you have the right criteria in mind to detect when X is "evil."

[bahman]

This can itself be a standalone topic, but it is related to present discussion: Why the time started if there is no almighty God?

If we accept that there is no God who created time and time has a starting then we can deduce that time started by itself.

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

I already showed you that the act of creation of time is impossible since it requires a point that time does not exist. Time has a beginning. Therefore, time started by itself. That is pure logic.

[K1Barin]

So time existed always?

No. I mean The phrase "a point when" is inappropriate since there is no time. See, you must be in a state of no time, and be talking about it. How can one talk in a state of no time?

That is a valid question since we can then agree that time has a beginning. But if time has a beginning and has a creator then it means that there is a point when time didn't exist. This is problematic as you noticed. So we are left with only one scenario: time started to exist at the beginning of time without any intervention.

If the start of time, had no intervention, then why do we have an orderly universe? By order I mean Logic the most. If time had no reason to start, why I for example am busting myself, trying to find reason for this and that? If start of time had no reason, why should anything else have a reason?

[bahman]

That's not how either works, actually. Rape is an act of aggression, rather than pleasure, and theft makes the victim a victim, and the perp a thief.

But either way, you're assuming your own arbitrary definition, one that is clearly not correct. Pain and pleasure come mixed, in life. And it's not at all obvious that you can identify one with "evil" and the other with "good."

So you'd need to prove that definition of yours.

No, I don't need to prove my definition.

Well, you do if you want anybody else to agree with you. If you don't, then they can simply ignore it, because it lacks warrant. But that's up to you, of course.

The definition is a phrase that explains a situation/word.

It has to do so accurately. If your alleged "definition" is contentious and not generally conceded, then yes, you need to show you've defined the word in a way that everybody knows is correct.

Or you can just expect that people will respond, with good reason, "He doesn't seem to know what he's talking about."

Again, it's up to you.

You're still going to need a set of criteria.

No, I don't need a set of criteria. My definition is simple and it explains the reality of things well.

Not for your definition: you need criteria for your value judgment.

A value judgment is a claim that something is "good" or "bad," or "righteous" or "evil," or "functional" or "disfunctional," or any other sort of value-implying terms like that.

You want to ask, "Why can we not claim God is evil?" "Evil" is a value-judgment. It implies criteria. That is, you must think you know what makes a thing "good" or "evil," so as to apply the term to God.

But I don't think you do. Because if I believe your definition, you think that "evil" is automatically "anything to do with pain." And I don't think you believe in God, and I don't think pain is always associated with evil. Sometimes it's associated with things like overcoming, triumph, exercise, achievement, victory, growth, and all sorts of other things most people see as quite positive.

So you've got to show your case...if you want anybody to believe you.

It's not important what you meant. It's important that whatever you meant corresponds to a justifiable definition of "evil," because that's the term you're hoping to apply to God.

Do you want me to prove that God is evil?

No. I want you to show that you know what "evil" means. I want you to show your criteria for that value judgment, no matter what entity you apply it to.

I'll let you pick the referent...anything you like. Just show that you have the right criteria in mind to detect when X is "evil."

I already discussed this so I repeat again in the hope that we converge somewhere: What we experience is either thoughts or feelings. The feeling can be divided into three different categories, painful, neutral, or pleasureful. There is no other option. I then assign painful to evil, neutral to neutral, and pleasureful to good. The problem with you is that you always think of evil as a wrong thing. That is not correct. Evil given circumstances could be right like when two chess players are having a match. They are under pressure so the act of playing chess is evil-evil considering that there are two players in the game. Playing chess however is right since it helps you to have a healthy brain. It is like body-building but for the brain.

[K1Barin]

If we accept that there is no God who created time and time has a starting then we can deduce that time started by itself.

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

I already showed you that the act of creation of time is impossible since it requires a point that time does not exist. Time has a beginning. Therefore, time started by itself. That is pure logic.

If there is no reason for everything to start, including reasoning, why should there be a reason for it to continue?
I think there is a good reason for God to start creation, and that is his Love.

[bahman]

No. I mean The phrase "a point when" is inappropriate since there is no time. See, you must be in a state of no time, and be talking about it. How can one talk in a state of no time?

That is a valid question since we can then agree that time has a beginning. But if time has a beginning and has a creator then it means that there is a point when time didn't exist. This is problematic as you noticed. So we are left with only one scenario: time started to exist at the beginning of time without any intervention.

If the start of time, had no intervention, then why do we have an orderly universe?

The answer to this question is beyond the scope of this thread. You need to study cosmology and particle physics for it to understand how things evolved to the current state of affairs since Big Bang. But the simple answer I can give you is that life is only possible in an orderly universe. There is no reason against a non-orderly universe. It could exist but life is not possible in such a universe. So there would be no person like you who wonders about things in such a non-orderly universe.

By order, I mean Logic the most. If time had no reason to start, why I for example am busting myself, trying to find the reason for this and that?

I don't know my friend. That is your problem.

If the start of time had no reason, why should anything else have a reason?

You think that anything has a reason because you live in an orderly universe. It is a matter of habit. The beginning of everything does not essentially has a reason if it is possible. I in fact can show that the existence of something out of nothing is possible. You basically think in terms of energy when you think that something out of nothing is impossible. You say well this thing has energy so where this energy could possibly come from. The answer to this question is that you have positive energy like mass and negative energy like gravity. The whole energy that exists in the universe must be zero in order to allow you to have something, mass and gravity, out of nothing.

[bahman]

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

I already showed you that the act of creation of time is impossible since it requires a point that time does not exist. Time has a beginning. Therefore, time started by itself. That is pure logic.

If there is no reason for everything to start, including reasoning, why should there be a reason for it to continue?

You need to stop reasoning on the topic when it is shown that your reasoning does not take you anywhere.

I think there is a good reason for God to start creation, and that is his Love.

You are free to believe in such a God but there is no such a God.

[K1Barin]

That is a valid question since we can then agree that time has a beginning. But if time has a beginning and has a creator then it means that there is a point when time didn't exist. This is problematic as you noticed. So we are left with only one scenario: time started to exist at the beginning of time without any intervention.

If the start of time, had no intervention, then why do we have an orderly universe?

The answer to this question is beyond the scope of this thread. You need to study cosmology and particle physics for it to understand how things evolved to the current state of affairs since Big Bang. But the simple answer I can give you is that life is only possible in an orderly universe. There is no reason against a non-orderly universe. It could exist but life is not possible in such a universe. So there would be no person like you who wonders about things in such a non-orderly universe.

By order, I mean Logic the most. If time had no reason to start, why I for example am busting myself, trying to find the reason for this and that?

I don't know my friend. That is your problem.

If the start of time had no reason, why should anything else have a reason?

You think that anything has a reason because you live in an orderly universe. It is a matter of habit. The beginning of everything does not essentially has a reason if it is possible. I in fact can show that the existence of something out of nothing is possible. You basically think in terms of energy when you think that something out of nothing is impossible. You say well this thing has energy so where this energy could possibly come from. The answer to this question is that you have positive energy like mass and negative energy like gravity. The whole energy that exists in the universe must be zero in order to allow you to have something, mass and gravity, out of nothing.

Your simple answer that the reason is that life would become possible for me, is saying everything started with no intervention for me to live a life.
I prefer God's Love started everything to everything started with no intervention.

[bahman]

If the start of time, had no intervention, then why do we have an orderly universe?

The answer to this question is beyond the scope of this thread. You need to study cosmology and particle physics for it to understand how things evolved to the current state of affairs since Big Bang. But the simple answer I can give you is that life is only possible in an orderly universe. There is no reason against a non-orderly universe. It could exist but life is not possible in such a universe. So there would be no person like you who wonders about things in such a non-orderly universe.

By order, I mean Logic the most. If time had no reason to start, why I for example am busting myself, trying to find the reason for this and that?

I don't know my friend. That is your problem.

If the start of time had no reason, why should anything else have a reason?

You think that anything has a reason because you live in an orderly universe. It is a matter of habit. The beginning of everything does not essentially has a reason if it is possible. I in fact can show that the existence of something out of nothing is possible. You basically think in terms of energy when you think that something out of nothing is impossible. You say well this thing has energy so where this energy could possibly come from. The answer to this question is that you have positive energy like mass and negative energy like gravity. The whole energy that exists in the universe must be zero in order to allow you to have something, mass and gravity, out of nothing.

Your simple answer that the reason is that life would become possible for me, is saying everything started with no intervention for me to live a life.
I prefer God's Love started everything to everything started with no intervention.

You are of course free to believe in whatever you like but I showed that you cannot reason it to others.

[K1Barin]

If there is no reason for everything to start, including reasoning, why should there be a reason for it to continue?

You need to stop reasoning on the topic when it is shown that your reasoning does not take you anywhere.

I think there is a good reason for God to start creation, and that is his Love.

You are free to believe in such a God but there is no such a God.

I won't stop reasoning on the topic, especially when I am free to believe in such a God. Again thanks to God for the fact that if there is a God, he is supposed to be Loving.

[K1Barin]

The answer to this question is beyond the scope of this thread. You need to study cosmology and particle physics for it to understand how things evolved to the current state of affairs since Big Bang. But the simple answer I can give you is that life is only possible in an orderly universe. There is no reason against a non-orderly universe. It could exist but life is not possible in such a universe. So there would be no person like you who wonders about things in such a non-orderly universe.


I don't know my friend. That is your problem.


You think that anything has a reason because you live in an orderly universe. It is a matter of habit. The beginning of everything does not essentially has a reason if it is possible. I in fact can show that the existence of something out of nothing is possible. You basically think in terms of energy when you think that something out of nothing is impossible. You say well this thing has energy so where this energy could possibly come from. The answer to this question is that you have positive energy like mass and negative energy like gravity. The whole energy that exists in the universe must be zero in order to allow you to have something, mass and gravity, out of nothing.

Your simple answer that the reason is that life would become possible for me, is saying everything started with no intervention for me to live a life.
I prefer God's Love started everything to everything started with no intervention.

You are of course free to believe in whatever you like but I showed that you cannot reason it to others.

But thanks God, I feel that I am still able to reason for a Loving God to others.

[Immanuel Can]

No, I don't need to prove my definition.

Well, you do if you want anybody else to agree with you. If you don't, then they can simply ignore it, because it lacks warrant. But that's up to you, of course.

The definition is a phrase that explains a situation/word.

It has to do so accurately. If your alleged "definition" is contentious and not generally conceded, then yes, you need to show you've defined the word in a way that everybody knows is correct.

Or you can just expect that people will respond, with good reason, "He doesn't seem to know what he's talking about."

Again, it's up to you.

No, I don't need a set of criteria. My definition is simple and it explains the reality of things well.

Not for your definition: you need criteria for your value judgment.

A value judgment is a claim that something is "good" or "bad," or "righteous" or "evil," or "functional" or "disfunctional," or any other sort of value-implying terms like that.

You want to ask, "Why can we not claim God is evil?" "Evil" is a value-judgment. It implies criteria. That is, you must think you know what makes a thing "good" or "evil," so as to apply the term to God.

But I don't think you do. Because if I believe your definition, you think that "evil" is automatically "anything to do with pain." And I don't think you believe in God, and I don't think pain is always associated with evil. Sometimes it's associated with things like overcoming, triumph, exercise, achievement, victory, growth, and all sorts of other things most people see as quite positive.

So you've got to show your case...if you want anybody to believe you.

Do you want me to prove that God is evil?

No. I want you to show that you know what "evil" means. I want you to show your criteria for that value judgment, no matter what entity you apply it to.

I'll let you pick the referent...anything you like. Just show that you have the right criteria in mind to detect when X is "evil."

I already discussed this

You didn't, actually. You only thought you did. You got the question wrong.

I can see you didn't understand it. I'll make it dead simple, if I can.

Whenever somebody says something is "bad" or "good" or "evil" or "useful" or "better than," or anything else like that, it's what's called a "value judgment."

But value judgements are not always right. They need to be shown to be right, if anybody is going to have reason to accept them. This is called "justification."

If you say "X is evil," then, if doubted, you need to prove you have the right concept of "evil" in order for that to be believable.

Your concept of "evil" is clearly doubtable. I would even say that, to me, it looks completely naive and refutable. But maybe it's not: I'm giving you the benefit of that doubt, and thus offering you the opportunity to prove it's not.

If you're going to show that you're right, you're going to have to provide the criteria by which you judge things to be "evil." "Pain" is not correct, because lots of things that entail pain are goods. Childbirth. Athletic competition. Parenting. Rescue operations. Academic achievement. All these things are clearly goods that entail pain.

So give me what criteria you are using to judge when something is "evil."

That's as simple as I can make it.

[popeye1945]

According to you and your view of nature, even if God doesn't exist, the reality is a real fuck up! With that view, it doesn't help that much for God not to exist. Then why bother?

There is still the wonder of it all, perhaps the seed of religion is knowing we are all part of something greater than ourselves, and it is quite beautiful, but also painful. If one knows the nature of life, that life lives upon life, I think one is more likely to be through an intelligent understanding more compassionate to all of one's fellow creatures. Yes, knowing nature does eliminate a loving god, perhaps through this understanding we could be more like gods ourselves and manifest a sacred life in a sacred environment. This is not going to happen believing in Disney world characters.

When the horrific death has no escape, be it God exists or God doesn't exist, where is the compassion to all of one's fellow creatures?

In the realization that the essence of all life forms is one and the same, only their structures and forms differ, thus, you make identification with possible, and only with the identification with others does compassion arise. It is rather obvious, that to a God all things are right and good, read murder, mayhem, death and suffering.

[bahman]

Your simple answer that the reason is that life would become possible for me, is saying everything started with no intervention for me to live a life.
I prefer God's Love started everything to everything started with no intervention.

You are of course free to believe in whatever you like but I showed that you cannot reason it to others.

But thanks to God, I feel that I am still able to reason for a Loving God to others.

Now you are not making any sense.