A reason for existence of God

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

K1Barin
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:45 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by K1Barin »

bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:35 pm Dude, you started talking about after life, etc. We are dealing with a problem of the beginning of everything. Could we focus on that?
No this is not true. I never did that.
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: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:48 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:35 pm Dude, you started talking about after life, etc. We are dealing with a problem of the beginning of everything. Could we focus on that?
No this is not true. I never did that.
Hmm, ok. Where do you want to start from? I already showed that time cannot be created so it is started by no intervention. I also showed that other things, whatever can be found in the universe also do not need a cause. What else you are looking for?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:38 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:25 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:14 pm
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 think you did. But you didn't answer MY question. You answered what you understood to be the question, no doubt. But you missed.

And I can't make it simple enough for you. So that's on both of us, I guess.
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: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:52 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:38 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:25 pm
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 think you did. But you didn't answer MY question. You answered what you understood to be the question, no doubt. But you missed.

And I can't make it simple enough for you. So that's on both of us, I guess.
Why don't you answer my question? What is good to you?
K1Barin
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:45 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by K1Barin »

bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:52 pm
K1Barin wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:48 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:35 pm Dude, you started talking about after life, etc. We are dealing with a problem of the beginning of everything. Could we focus on that?
No this is not true. I never did that.
Hmm, ok. Where do you want to start from? I already showed that time cannot be created so it is started by no intervention. I also showed that other things, whatever can be found in the universe also do not need a cause. What else you are looking for?
I have not agreed that time is started by no intervention. I am claiming God started it as a start of creating everything because he wanted to Love. God's Love is the cause of creation itself, and everything has a cause.
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: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:01 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:52 pm
K1Barin wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:48 pm

No this is not true. I never did that.
Hmm, ok. Where do you want to start from? I already showed that time cannot be created so it is started by no intervention. I also showed that other things, whatever can be found in the universe also do not need a cause. What else you are looking for?
I have not agreed that time is started by no intervention.
But I have shown that time cannot be created. Time also has a starting. Therefore, time started with no intervention.
K1Barin wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:01 pm I am claiming God started it as a start of creating everything because he wanted to Love. God's Love is the cause of creation itself, and everything has a cause.
I already showed you that time cannot have a cause.
K1Barin
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:45 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by K1Barin »

bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:07 pm
K1Barin wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:01 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:52 pm
Hmm, ok. Where do you want to start from? I already showed that time cannot be created so it is started by no intervention. I also showed that other things, whatever can be found in the universe also do not need a cause. What else you are looking for?
I have not agreed that time is started by no intervention.
But I have shown that time cannot be created. Time also has a starting. Therefore, time started with no intervention.
K1Barin wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:01 pm I am claiming God started it as a start of creating everything because he wanted to Love. God's Love is the cause of creation itself, and everything has a cause.
I already showed you that time cannot have a cause.
Time could have started with its cause, all at once. And before that it was a state of no time, so we are unable to talk about it. Because nobody is able to talk in a state of no time. I mean talking has tenses for verbs and all that which require a sense of time.
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: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:18 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:07 pm
K1Barin wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:01 pm
I have not agreed that time is started by no intervention.
But I have shown that time cannot be created. Time also has a starting. Therefore, time started with no intervention.
K1Barin wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:01 pm I am claiming God started it as a start of creating everything because he wanted to Love. God's Love is the cause of creation itself, and everything has a cause.
I already showed you that time cannot have a cause.
Time could have started with its cause, all at once....
That means that time existed and not existed at the point of creation! You have no room, my friend. Either time did not exist and then created or it existed and not existed at the point of creation.
K1Barin
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:45 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by K1Barin »

bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:25 pm
K1Barin wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:18 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:07 pm
But I have shown that time cannot be created. Time also has a starting. Therefore, time started with no intervention.


I already showed you that time cannot have a cause.
Time could have started with its cause, all at once....
That means that time existed and not existed at the point of creation! You have no room, my friend. Either time did not exist and then created or it existed and not existed at the point of creation.
I agree with it did not exist and then created. But when it happened, it happened at once. It did not consume any time.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:58 pm Why don't you answer my question?
Because you can't even understand mine, apparently; so I think I've gone to "a well that's dry," so to speak, and there's evidently no point in trying any further. I'm not trying to frustrate you. But neither can I get something from you, if you can't understand the question.
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: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:39 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:25 pm
K1Barin wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:18 pm

Time could have started with its cause, all at once....
That means that time existed and not existed at the point of creation! You have no room, my friend. Either time did not exist and then created or it existed and not existed at the point of creation.
I agree with it did not exist and then created.
Good. What do you mean by "then" here? It means that the act of creation of time needs the passage of time.
K1Barin wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:39 pm But when it happened, it happened at once. It did not consume any time.
You cannot have an apple pie and ate it at the same time!
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: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:42 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:58 pm Why don't you answer my question?
Because you can't even understand mine, apparently; so I think I've gone to "a well that's dry," so to speak, and there's evidently no point in trying any further. I'm not trying to frustrate you. But neither can I get something from you, if you can't understand the question.
I understand yours if you let me know. By the way, does God know His nature?
K1Barin
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:45 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by K1Barin »

bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:50 pm
K1Barin wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:39 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:25 pm
That means that time existed and not existed at the point of creation! You have no room, my friend. Either time did not exist and then created or it existed and not existed at the point of creation.
I agree with it did not exist and then created.
Good. What do you mean by "then" here? It means that the act of creation of time needs the passage of time.
K1Barin wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:39 pm But when it happened, it happened at once. It did not consume any time.
You cannot have an apple pie and ate it at the same time!
Again before time existed, there is no means of communicating about what was happening then. Maybe even this can not be said about it.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A reason for existence of God

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:51 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:42 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:58 pm Why don't you answer my question?
Because you can't even understand mine, apparently; so I think I've gone to "a well that's dry," so to speak, and there's evidently no point in trying any further. I'm not trying to frustrate you. But neither can I get something from you, if you can't understand the question.
I understand yours if you let me know.
I can see you don't. But I guess that, if you want to, you can go back over my messages and read them carefully. Eventually, maybe you'll get it.

Hope springs eternal.
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: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:57 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:50 pm
K1Barin wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:39 pm

I agree with it did not exist and then created.
Good. What do you mean by "then" here? It means that the act of creation of time needs the passage of time.
K1Barin wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:39 pm But when it happened, it happened at once. It did not consume any time.
You cannot have an apple pie and ate it at the same time!
Again before time existed, there is no means of communicating about what was happening then. Maybe even this can not be said about it.
This is the last time I try: Either time existed and non-existed at the point of creation or it didn't exist and then existed. Take your pick. Which one?
Post Reply