A reason for existence of God

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by Lacewing »

K1Barin wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:14 pm
Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:04 pm How is any of this representative of logic... rather than simply belief, based on imagination and feelings?
Did you really expect a Logical proof for every single belief I have?
No. I asked 'how is ANY OF THIS representative of logic? Where is the logic you claim... anywhere? If the logic exists, it should be possible to demonstrate it somehow (as I do with my points below).
K1Barin wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:14 pmThis post was originally based on a reason for existence of Loving God. If you want let's get to that.
Then respond to the points I made. I will repeat and expand on them below:

> The reality that humankind experiences, does not match up with your claim of a loving god. A child suffering with cancer or starvation or abuse does not need this supposed (as you say) "pinch" from God to awaken them to reality. Logically, this shows that there is no such god.

> Throughout human history, there have been so many varied imaginings and claims about various gods from the minds of men obviously for their own purposes/circumstances. Logically, this shows gods as being products of man.

> None of these gods have ever been demonstrated as real. Instead, men make up all kinds of excuses for why this must be so. Logically, this shows that people do this in order to preserve their imagination and continue making claims that serve themselves.

> It is not logical to think that a god who supposedly creates ALL would be intent on saving or condemning any part of that creation, rather these are needy and fearful human attributes attributed to the god.

> It's not logical to claim that the creative spirit/energy that flows/exists throughout all is loving while ignoring everything else contrary to that, nor is it logical to identify that creative spirit/energy that flows/exists throughout all as any separate 'beingness'. Claiming there's a separate being (often referred to as a 'he') is what humans create and use for their purposes which very easily turns into intoxication and delusion which they insist that others believe as the only truth.

> Based on all of this above, it is more logical to embrace the life experience we find ourselves in with more awareness and flexibility and responsibility than pretending there's a god in charge.

If the same creative spirit/energy is flowing throughout all, then logically there must be potential for empowerment through that, and representation of it, throughout all. No imaginary and problematic figurehead needed. :)

Does that seem logical to you? Can you provide the same amount of logic for your beliefs?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:11 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:00 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:42 pm
Ironic, but yes..I can't imagine what you're trying to ask.

Well, lots of things. One is that God always knew it, and the person just discovered it.
Apart from this, what is the difference between God knowing it and a human knowing it?
I answered your question. No comment?
Yes, you didn't understand my question.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:11 pm You're not very good at conversation, are you?
How about you?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:11 pm
Does God know whether I am drinking my tea now or not? If yes, if I have the knowledge of God through communication with Him, then I could do the opposite! What happens to the knowledge of God if I do the opposite?
God has what's called "middle knowledge." That means that He knows not simply what will happen, though He knows that, of course, but also what could have happened, had things been different than they are going to be, even though they are not. He's not limited that way.
What does happen to God's knowledge if I don't drink?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:26 pm
That's all I was talking about. And it's what we were talking about, at the time. I'm not interested in going beyond that, for the moment, until I get some answers from you.

You said you thought reason could be used to decide morality. I showed you it could not. What do you think now?
People are confused.
Yeah, they are; but that's irrelevant here. That's not the reason they can't use reason to locate morality.

The reason they can't is because reason can't do that. It needs premises, which do not themselves come from pure reason. It would never work, even if they were being truly rational. Reason's a mechanism, not a set of conclusions.

Do you see that yet?
I of course know that. By the way, what is the objective meaning and purpose to you?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by bahman »

K1Barin wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:11 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:01 pm
K1Barin wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:52 pm

Theorems are not just patterns. They are Logical dedication from previous theorems and principles. That is how we learn some new things from previous things. And a lot of times we learn from experience, but not all the times.
Everything that we learn is a pattern in what we experience.
We have reached a deadlock in this argument too. We are not in agreement with that theorems are patterns we experience or they are Logical deductions.

If you want let's call we are done with each other on this too!
How do you deduce something?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:33 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:11 pm You're not very good at conversation, are you?
How about you?
I'm doing fine. I'm not finding you very good at it, though.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:11 pm
Does God know whether I am drinking my tea now or not? If yes, if I have the knowledge of God through communication with Him, then I could do the opposite! What happens to the knowledge of God if I do the opposite?
God has what's called "middle knowledge." That means that He knows not simply what will happen, though He knows that, of course, but also what could have happened, had things been different than they are going to be, even though they are not. He's not limited that way.
What does happen to God's knowledge if I don't drink?
:roll: Go above.

You really don't listen and think at all, do you?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:11 pm

People are confused.
Yeah, they are; but that's irrelevant here. That's not the reason they can't use reason to locate morality.

The reason they can't is because reason can't do that. It needs premises, which do not themselves come from pure reason. It would never work, even if they were being truly rational. Reason's a mechanism, not a set of conclusions.

Do you see that yet?
I of course know that.
Then why did you ever say that there would be a way of "reasoning" secularly toward morality?

Anyway, I'm glad you've figured it out now.
K1Barin
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:45 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by K1Barin »

Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:31 pm
K1Barin wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:14 pm
Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:04 pm How is any of this representative of logic... rather than simply belief, based on imagination and feelings?
Did you really expect a Logical proof for every single belief I have?
No. I asked 'how is ANY OF THIS representative of logic? Where is the logic you claim... anywhere? If the logic exists, it should be possible to demonstrate it somehow (as I do with my points below).
K1Barin wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:14 pmThis post was originally based on a reason for existence of Loving God. If you want let's get to that.
Then respond to the points I made. I will repeat and expand on them below:

> The reality that humankind experiences, does not match up with your claim of a loving god. A child suffering with cancer or starvation or abuse does not need this supposed (as you say) "pinch" from God to awaken them to reality. Logically, this shows that there is no such god.

> Throughout human history, there have been so many varied imaginings and claims about various gods from the minds of men obviously for their own purposes/circumstances. Logically, this shows gods as being products of man.

> None of these gods have ever been demonstrated as real. Instead, men make up all kinds of excuses for why this must be so. Logically, this shows that people do this in order to preserve their imagination and continue making claims that serve themselves.

> It is not logical to think that a god who supposedly creates ALL would be intent on saving or condemning any part of that creation, rather these are needy and fearful human attributes attributed to the god.

> It's not logical to claim that the creative spirit/energy that flows/exists throughout all is loving while ignoring everything else contrary to that, nor is it logical to identify that creative spirit/energy that flows/exists throughout all as any separate 'beingness'. Claiming there's a separate being (often referred to as a 'he') is what humans create and use for their purposes which very easily turns into intoxication and delusion which they insist that others believe as the only truth.

> Based on all of this above, it is more logical to embrace the life experience we find ourselves in with more awareness and flexibility and responsibility than pretending there's a god in charge.

If the same creative spirit/energy is flowing throughout all, then logically there must be potential for empowerment through that, and representation of it, throughout all. No imaginary and problematic figurehead needed. :)

Does that seem logical to you? Can you provide the same amount of logic for your beliefs?
When you made questions I answered my beliefs, ofcourse with no proof at the time. I expected you to give your opinion on them one by one. But instead you presented your beliefs. Anyway, I try to get to them one by one.

> Human experience of sufferings you claim are more than a "pinch" in human scales. But in the universal scale, compared to all the life and Love and pleasures and reliefs, they are like pinches from God after all.

> The God (not gods) is what we have always concerned with. It is not a full Logical deduction to say then that God is production of man. You need more proof for that. Still God may be real.

> Ofcourse everybody wants to serve himself or herself. But it doesn't mean doing that always leads to false ideas. The "logical" claim of yours needs more proof than that.

> True humans are needy and fearful. But you can not claim this will always lead to false beliefs. Actually being needy and fearful may have a reason for a true need, maybe a real God. Anyway you need more proof to overrule existence of a Loving God based on that.

> I am not insisting my beliefs are the only truth, and you shouldn't too.

> Embracing life with all the things you said is fine. But this is not in conflict with embracing the belief of a Loving God.

You think you have a lot of Logic in your beliefs, but it is not enough to overrule the God. All the good feelings that come from believing in a Almighty and Loving God, don't make it a false idea.

It is more like you are saying "Tou shall not feel good, because it leads to mistake".
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:44 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:33 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:11 pm You're not very good at conversation, are you?
How about you?
I'm doing fine. I'm not finding you very good at it, though.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:11 pm
God has what's called "middle knowledge." That means that He knows not simply what will happen, though He knows that, of course, but also what could have happened, had things been different than they are going to be, even though they are not. He's not limited that way.
What does happen to God's knowledge if I don't drink?
:roll: Go above.

You really don't listen and think at all, do you?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:11 pm
Yeah, they are; but that's irrelevant here. That's not the reason they can't use reason to locate morality.

The reason they can't is because reason can't do that. It needs premises, which do not themselves come from pure reason. It would never work, even if they were being truly rational. Reason's a mechanism, not a set of conclusions.

Do you see that yet?
I of course know that.
Then why did you ever say that there would be a way of "reasoning" secularly toward morality?

Anyway, I'm glad you've figured it out now.
What is the objective meaning to you?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:25 pm What is the objective meaning to you?
The objective meaning of conversation, to me, is not getting off topic.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:29 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:25 pm What is the objective meaning to you?
The objective meaning of conversation, to me, is not getting off topic.
So you don't know.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:53 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:29 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:25 pm What is the objective meaning to you?
The objective meaning of conversation, to me, is not getting off topic.
So you don't know.
I know I want to stay on topic until we get somewhere. What I know beyond that, you're just going to have to guess, I suppose.
K1Barin
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:45 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by K1Barin »

Maybe I should have published the following before this topic about Logic itself:

Thanks to God that if God exists he is supposed to be Loving.

Please observe the induction in the above.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Harbal wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:40 pm
K1Barin wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:21 pm Sorry for double post :mrgreen:
You shouldn't have posted it once, let alone twice. :|
:lol:
K1Barin
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:45 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by K1Barin »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:25 pm
Harbal wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:40 pm
K1Barin wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:21 pm Sorry for double post :mrgreen:
You shouldn't have posted it once, let alone twice. :|
:lol:
:roll:
K1Barin
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:45 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by K1Barin »

Maybe I should have published the following before this topic about Logic itself:

Thanks to God that if God exists he is supposed to be Loving.

Please observe the induction in the above.


Moreover, this topic had been brought up to prove that the common belief that "if God exists, he is supposed to be Loving" is Logical. The proof is in Logic itself. That can be the reason that this belief is common. This topic holds this proof.

Now why is the Logic like that? Because anything but what is in Logic is illogical. And illogical things are rejected. So anything but that is rejected. So Logic is like that!
K1Barin
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:45 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by K1Barin »

Maybe I should have published the following before this topic about Logic itself:

Thanks to God that if God exists he is supposed to be Loving.

Please observe the induction in the above.


Moreover, this topic had been brought up to prove that the common belief that "if God exists, he is supposed to be Loving" is Logical. The proof is in Logic itself. That can be the reason that this belief is common. This topic holds this proof.

Now why is the Logic like that? Because anything but what is in Logic is illogical. And illogical things are rejected. So anything but that is rejected. So Logic is like that!

Moreover, maybe I should state my reason for the common belief, I talked about, which is inside this topic to finish it all:

Mathematical Logic (maybe not the Logic in speech) is based on 1 and 0, which are true or not true. There is a positive weight in Logic if it is all 1's and 0's. So there is Love in Logic itself. Maybe that's why we all have a Loving God in our hearts. Because the whole universe is based on Logic.

What is said about "why is Logic like that?", is meant to say "why is Logic based on 1 and 0?". Reason was because it is illogical otherwise!
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by Lacewing »

K1Barin wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:21 pm
Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:31 pm > The reality that humankind experiences, does not match up with your claim of a loving god. A child suffering with cancer or starvation or abuse does not need this supposed (as you say) "pinch" from God to awaken them to reality. Logically, this shows that there is no such god.

> Throughout human history, there have been so many varied imaginings and claims about various gods from the minds of men obviously for their own purposes/circumstances. Logically, this shows gods as being products of man.

> None of these gods have ever been demonstrated as real. Instead, men make up all kinds of excuses for why this must be so. Logically, this shows that people do this in order to preserve their imagination and continue making claims that serve themselves.

> It is not logical to think that a god who supposedly creates ALL would be intent on saving or condemning any part of that creation, rather these are needy and fearful human attributes attributed to the god.

> It's not logical to claim that the creative spirit/energy that flows/exists throughout all is loving while ignoring everything else contrary to that, nor is it logical to identify that creative spirit/energy that flows/exists throughout all as any separate 'beingness'. Claiming there's a separate being (often referred to as a 'he') is what humans create and use for their purposes which very easily turns into intoxication and delusion which they insist that others believe as the only truth.

> Based on all of this above, it is more logical to embrace the life experience we find ourselves in with more awareness and flexibility and responsibility than pretending there's a god in charge.

If the same creative spirit/energy is flowing throughout all, then logically there must be potential for empowerment through that, and representation of it, throughout all. No imaginary and problematic figurehead needed. :)

Does that seem logical to you? Can you provide the same amount of logic for your beliefs?
K1Barin wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:21 pm > Human experience of sufferings you claim are more than a "pinch" in human scales. But in the universal scale, compared to all the life and Love and pleasures and reliefs, they are like pinches from God after all.
Why would a suffering child need such an experience to awaken them to reality (as you said before)? They might not understand or even survive it. Where is the logic for a supposedly loving god doing this?
K1Barin wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:21 pm > The God (not gods) is what we have always concerned with. It is not a full Logical deduction to say then that God is production of man. You need more proof for that. Still God may be real.
What is more logical -- that we can see -- than considering the many obvious creations of men which are believed and worshipped by men?
K1Barin wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:21 pm> Ofcourse everybody wants to serve himself or herself. But it doesn't mean doing that always leads to false ideas. The "logical" claim of yours needs more proof than that.
You're just making up lame derailments now. I've been asking about your logic for claiming there is a loving god, considering all that I've been logically pointing out.
K1Barin wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:21 pm> True humans are needy and fearful. But you can not claim this will always lead to false beliefs. Actually being needy and fearful may have a reason for a true need, maybe a real God. Anyway you need more proof to overrule existence of a Loving God based on that.
Here you go again. You demonstrate what I've said about people doing whatever they need to for protecting their imagination, despite all to the contrary, and despite the lack of logic.
K1Barin wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:21 pm> I am not insisting my beliefs are the only truth, and you shouldn't too.
I've been asking you about your logic. You simply reply with what you believe... as if that is somehow logical just because you claim it is.
K1Barin wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:21 pm> Embracing life with all the things you said is fine. But this is not in conflict with embracing the belief of a Loving God.

You think you have a lot of Logic in your beliefs, but it is not enough to overrule the God. All the good feelings that come from believing in a Almighty and Loving God, don't make it a false idea.

It is more like you are saying "Tou shall not feel good, because it leads to mistake".
Your defensiveness is turning this discussion into nonsense. A belief in God is not needed to feel good or to have a loving connection to all of life. Countless people throughout the ages have demonstrated this, yes? Not everyone believes in a god, nor do they need to. If you want to believe in a god because it makes you feel good, fine. You go further than that, though, when you claim that there's some kind of logic for the existence of God, and then you simply claim what you believe and ignore all to the contrary. That is not demonstrating any logic.

So, this whole discussion is just about what you want to believe and claim, rather than truly considering and presenting logic. A big misrepresentation that is not worth any more time and energy. Good luck to you.
Post Reply