Em Emalb's Journal: Is there a God? How can there not be?

OK, it's 6:00am EST, I'm tired as hell, and I have been at work for 10 hrs, with 2 more to go. So, if this is kinda fuzzy, you know why. On to the good stuff.

Time again for that is there a God question.

Disclaimer: I did not go to college (military instead, and have not taken any classes in either Astronomy or physics, or any other science that could be used against my theory. Nor am I a religious person, if being religious means you go to a certain church, or believe absolutely in certain writings.)

Ok, what I know is this:
A long time ago, the universe formed from masses of swirling gases. Which in turn lead to earth, which happened to be a breeding ground for tiny single celled creatures, which in turn joined creating larger beings, etc., until we get to where we are today. Now all that is well and good. But, nothing cannot come from nothing. Something had to create that at one time or another. So, some sentient being created all this? Are we really just a marble in a super-creatures bag of toys as MIB would have us believe?

I personally believe there is a God, simply because something had to put all these events in motion. In many books I have read, it seems Gods/Goddesses/Deities/Minor Dieties sprung into being via the urge to do so, i.e., they willed themselves into being. If that is the case, then did our universe will itself into being, AND, if that is true, is our UNIVERSE a God? Also, how can there NOT be other life out there? We have discovered literally more galaxies than I care to count, gotta be stuff out there.

comments as always, welcome....

P.S. oh, I would also like to say hi to my anonymous troller...you bring laughter into my journal, little one. Get a nickname so I can add you to my friends list please.

Depends

[am 2k]

I think it depends on how you define "God". Even Christianity got a few definitions of it (or "Him", whatever). The usual definition is that it's a living thing with a free will, and I don't think that's something we are experiencing here.

On the other hand, there's a simple explanation on why the Big Bang happened (if it really happened) here: When there wouldn't be one, there would be nobody to ask that question.
Maybe there are trillions of universes outthere (not in the space-sense), which happen to have never big-banged. But who cares about them? In reality, there's nobody there to care.
That's also the way you could explain why life happened to grow on earth.

Heh. Flawed Logic. Good Troll.

[keesh]

But, nothing cannot come from nothing.

So where did God come from?

Actually, that law you just stated is a law of this universe (and even that's not certain). Before there was a universe, that law wouldn't have applied.

Re:Heh. Flawed Logic. Good Troll.

[Em Emalb]

Trolling my own journal, an new low even for me :) Nah, I wasn't trolling, merely asking a question. If the universe was created, who or what created it? That is all I am asking, and wanted to hear ideas on it, not you logic is flawed. Of course it is, I don't have all the pieces.

Re:Heh. Flawed Logic. Good Troll.

[Chacham]

Sorry, but that makes aboslutely zero more sense than the "universe coming from nothing". The concept of "God" merely answers your first question with another.

No it does not. Although, the answer is providing too much information. Instead, the question is:

If the world is physical, and nothing physical can be created (only "transfered") then how did the world itself get here?

The answer is apparent in the question itself. There is something non-physical that created the physical.

Since we know very little about the non-physical, the same question cannot be asked about it.

The first question is obviously a valid one (the universe does exist - of that much most everybody agrees).

I doubt that.

How many people have actually thought about what "exists" actually means? I'd venture to say that if you asked those people, you wouldn't find that "most" believe the world to exist.

Personally, I believe the world doesn't exist. It is merely an elaborate dream inside my phyche to help me understand what is going on. Well, it's my working theory at least.

The validty of the question "where did god come from" is not so clear.

Why not?

Questions are on subjects. Those subjects are either true or false. Questions, therefore, have two purposes.

1) When the subject is true, the question demonstrates a lack of understanding of the subject.

2) When the subject is false, the question demonstrates the fallacy of the original subject.

In either case, unless one knows all, and everything stated is true, questions will be asked. And, (almost) all questions are valid.

I'd stick with the first question, cause God is just a cop-out way of saying we don't know and won't know anytime soon.

Maybe to someone who doesn't think about it often. Personally, I thing Evolutionism is a cop-out answer to many questions. They admit they don't have all the answers, yet they believe it explains all. At least believing in a deity has all the answers, "cop-out" or not.

Why cop out?

Because it's easy. Most people do it for that reason.

Re:Heh. Flawed Logic. Good Troll.

[turg]

Actually, that law you just stated is a law of this universe (and even that's not certain). Before there was a universe, that law wouldn't have applied.

Right. Assuming we are talking about your traditional omnipotent omniscient omnipresent God that created and/or transcends the universe, and that "the universe" includes the "laws" of the universe (e.g. the laws of science and logic)...

God must not be subject to those laws, as he transcends them. Anything which can be proven (using science, logic, etc.) to exist must be subject to those laws and therefore must not be God.

Dilema

[huckda]

OH how harsh reality can be at times.
I grew up raised believing in God. The Old Testament God, but if I do believe in God then I feel that I must believe also in the Bible as a guideline for how I should live my life. This is where the struggle begins, because there are 'rules' and 'guidelines' that are contrary to my way of living and thinking. Mind you, none of these rules or guidelines will ever have any harmful effect on my life and would most likely only make it better for myself and those around me, but constantly I am forced to think deeply of WHERE exactly my belief is.(Not in Organized Religions by any stretch of the imagination) But anyway I digress.

God does exist, but trying to quantify to what extent is the issue. Is he returning to save us all? Many questions yet to be answered and sorrowfully I don't feel that they ever will be answered in my lifetime...but if there is a 2nd coming I do hope that I am ready and waiting, and have lived a life that has brought me close enough to Him to be saved...

--Huck

Re:Dilema

[turg]

Religious texts are to blame for billions of deaths over time. People have been killing eachother over the bible, or koran, or whatever, for all of fucking time!

And if those texts had not been written, then the killing would not have occurred?

I suspect that the texts were more likely used as an excuse for what people wanted to do anyway

You certainly can't say that the separation of Church and State has resulted in a reduction in war deaths (Disclaimer: This is not an arguement against the separation of Church and State, just an observation that there does not appear to be a correlation between the the killing and adherence to religious texts)

Re:Dilema

[TheKey]

You certainly can't say that the separation of Church and State has resulted in a reduction in war deaths

Well.. I believe you can. If the US was heavily pro-Christian (which, they seem to be kind of pro-Christian, but not really that pro-Christian), then don't you think we would be out defending the Christians of the world with our massive armies, attacking and killing the murderous evil doers? Maybe not. I like to think that the seperation of Church and State has prevented some deaths, although I don't believe that was the primary intention of the seperation.

Re:Dilema

[turg]

The US does make war to defend certain ideals (The tendency to do this is not specific to the US, but the US's capabilities are such that the US is more free do do so, and can do so to greater affect).

Anyway, this is how wars have been made throughout the history of the world. People have often claimed that the defense/promotion of the ideals at stake was the will of God. In evaluating these claims, there seem to be the following logically possible conclusions:

1. The texts cited are not the word of God. They were written by humans to justify their own ideals and actions.
2. • In this case, the religion is not the cause, but a result of the clash which is taking place. The same battle would have taken place anyway.
3. The texts cited are the true word of God, but they are being misused and the making of the war in question is not God's will
4. • In this case, the religious arguments being used are again not the cause, but a result. The same battle would have taken place anyway.
5. The texts cited are the true word of God and those who are making war are indeed doing God's will
6. • In this case, you can say that religious belief is the cause of the bloodshed.

It seems to me that the conlcusion that religion is a real cause of war logically requires that God(s) exists, and God's will has been communicated. Otherwise the religious beliefs in question are just a projection by those making war.

Anyway, that's a philisophical answer, but the statement to which you were responding was actually (intended to be) a statistical one: that the separation of Church and State is not correlated with a reduction in war deaths. Given the war deaths in the western world in the past century, I would say this is somewhat of an understatement.

Re:Dilema

[huckda]

Yet again, an intelligent post with a NON_anonymous respondant, vs. an ill-thought out irrational response by someone refusing to attach an ID.

Proving once again that those who post anonymously rarely establish concrete arguments or facts.

--Huck

Re:nitpick

[huckda]

individual occurances seldom prove something as rare =)

although if you read slashdot.org much you would recognize that those who post anonymously RARELY establish concrete arguments or facts, but most often post some form of flamebait, and thus hide behind their anonymity.

--Huck

Here's what I think

[Some Woman]

I love science. I believe that the way chemistry and physics work together is more beautiful than all of the worldly philosophical writings combined. Sometimes in my math or chemistry classes, I will discover something of which I am so in awe that I am able to think of little else for several days.

I do believe that there is a higher power at work. This higher power may be nothing more than the beauty that is physics equations, "Mother Nature," if you will. Whatever power is at work, I think it foolhardy to personify such a concept. I do not entertain such arrogance as to believe that I can understand and relate to this "higher power."

I am not a religious person, and if you asked me if I believe in god, I may say no because of the conotations that word holds.

Re:Here's what I think

[Chacham]

I believe that the way chemistry and physics work together is more beautiful than all of the worldly philosophical writings combined.

And others, who have a greater appreciation for philosophy, would make exactly the opposite statement.

I am not detracting from your statement. The world is rich with beautiful things, and everyone can find something to appreciate.

I do not entertain such arrogance as to believe that I can understand and relate to this "higher power."

Isn't that also arrogance? To believe that the possibility of a "higher power" created something in such a way as to alienate those very creations?

Those who pursue certain ideas, claim that the "higher power" *wants* them to do so. Why else would the world have been created (assuming it was)? Thus, to consider such things as being foolhardy, would actually be blasphemous, and rather foolhardy in itself.

I'm not going to tell you what to believe. But we all must realize that we each see the world differently, and those who don't believe in some "higher power" cannot tell those that do believe that they are silly. (Although, technically, the opposite is possible, assuming they claim that the "higher power" gave them that knowledge.)

Re:Here's what I think

[turg]

Whatever power is at work, I think it foolhardy to personify such a concept. I do not entertain such arrogance as to believe that I can understand and relate to this "higher power."

What if the higher power chose to communicate to us and describe (some aspects of) itself in language we could understand? Obviously this language would be quite limited, but would it not be valid for us to then use that language ourselves?

Yes

[styk]

My paticular beliefs are that there is a God. I won't name the specific religion in this comment, because people would be biased to anything else I said. Anyways my religion is basically that of a Jew and a protestant mixed. I know there is a God and that he is eternal. In fact we are all eternal. We didn't have physical bodies before we came here to this earth, but our intelligence (conscience) always has been. How that can be I don't know the specifics, I do know its true though.

The point of this life is to test our agency or our ability to choose right from wrong. We have the ability to choose if we want to do what is right or wrong. If we choose what is right God rewards us in this life and in the life to come. If we do what is bad we are punished. So there is accountibility to our choices. Your basic religion stuff. I have heard a lot of people say that God is lonely that is why he created us or that we are automatically saved, etc. Those ideas of religion never made sense to me. If God was wanted us in heaven with him, or was just going to bring us to heaven anyways why not skip having us go through this life? Also for the saving thing they believe God came down and suffered so we could be saved, why didn't he save himself the trouble and just create friends who could be in heaven with us. There must be something about this life for us. It is to be able to learn and grow. God sending his son (literally, not a different version of him, though Jesus is a God himself) to suffer for our sins was to allow us to, if we choose to, repent of our sins so we aren't punished for them.

Basically I know there is a God and he has a specific plan for all of us. This religion makes sense to me spiritually and physically. Can I answer every single question, no cause not all of them are essential for me to know in this life. How do I know its true? Through a promise God gave to us to let us know (read, study and pray the Holy Ghost will let you know). Why doesn't God just send a message for everyone to let them know what he wants them to do, he has through the scriptures and also unless we want to know the message would infringe on our right to choose. For more info e-mail me or check out this site [mormon.org]

Re:Yes

[rreyelts]

People might want to consider comparing the information that they come across from a site like www.mormon.org with some other literature which is oriented towards historical fact. For example, "One Nation Under Gods" by Richard Abanes and "Mormonism 101" by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson.

Have a Read!

[Snoopy77]

Get your hands on a copy of C.S Lewis' 'Mere Christianity'. At the very least it may strengthen your belief in a 'higher power'. If your heart is willing you may find God.

Yes, I am a Christian. However C.S Lewis takes a fair bit of time arguing the case for a 'higher power' not necessarily the Christian God. Naturally, he continues later on with his belief in the Christian God but his initial arguments are quite intruiging (sp?)

Re:Have a Read!

[rreyelts]

CS Lewis really is a nice read, and not just for the Chronicles of Narnia, or his space trilogy. "The Screwtape Letters" and "The Abolition of Man" are also good books to get a hold of.

I'd like to add to that and say that, if you're interested, there are lots of good books by well renown (for example, 10K+ hits on Google) authors that speak to this issue both factually and emotionally/"spiritually". For example,

Josh McDowell - "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", "He Walked Among Us", "Answers to Tough Questions", "Christianity: Hoax or History?"

Lee Strobel - "The Case for Faith", "The Case for Christ"

Ravi Zacharias - "Jesus Among Other Gods", "The Lotus and the Cross", "The Prophet Marries a Prostitute"

That would at least give you a good start.