GOD EXISTS

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
Fine you don't know. No faith required. I do know and do embrace my faith.

You do understand that while faith may be... irrationally... invoked as a reason to BELIEVE something, it comes up rather short as a justification to claim you KNOW something.

You went and overstepped, and now you've made a claim I'm quite sure you're not going to be able to support.

1a and 2a both apply from the Merriam-Webster definition of know. I supported my assertions.

Full Definition of KNOW
transitive verb

1
a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern

b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of

2

a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>

PeterZ wrote:1a and 2a both apply from the Merriam-Webster definition of know. I supported my assertions.

Full Definition of KNOW
transitive verb

1
a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern

b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of

2

a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>

Yeah... I am in fact aware of what the word "know" means.

Citing the definition to me isn't supporting your assertion that you know the cause of the universe. Nor is simply declaring you know what it is.

Back up your claim if you want to make it. Explain to the rest of us how the universe was created if you know how it happened.

Note, "God did it" is no more an explanation of how the universe was created than "Stewart did it" would be an explanation for how the law of gravity was reversed were such a thing to happen. Did it how? Details or you know nothing... all you would be doing is taking a complete unknown and assigning responsibility for it and pretending as if that was the same thing as having knowledge of it.

Enjoy yourself.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:1a and 2a both apply from the Merriam-Webster definition of know. I supported my assertions.

Full Definition of KNOW
transitive verb

1
a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern

b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of

2

a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>

Yeah... I am in fact aware of what the word "know" means.

Citing the definition to me isn't supporting your assertion that you know the cause of the universe. Nor is simply declaring you know what it is.

Back up your claim if you want to make it. Explain to the rest of us how the universe was created if you know how it happened.

Note, "God did it" is no more an explanation of how the universe was created than "Stewart did it" would be an explanation for how the law of gravity was reversed were such a thing to happen. Did it how? Details or you know nothing... all you would be doing is taking a complete unknown and assigning responsibility for it and pretending as if that was the same thing as having knowledge of it.

gcomeau wrote:Yeah... I am in fact aware of what the word "know" means.

Citing the definition to me isn't supporting your assertion that you know the cause of the universe. Nor is simply declaring you know what it is.

Back up your claim if you want to make it. Explain to the rest of us how the universe was created if you know how it happened.

Note, "God did it" is no more an explanation of how the universe was created than "Stewart did it" would be an explanation for how the law of gravity was reversed were such a thing to happen. Did it how? Details or you know nothing... all you would be doing is taking a complete unknown and assigning responsibility for it and pretending as if that was the same thing as having knowledge of it.

PeterZ wrote:Enjoy yourself.

That's about the level of response I was expecting.

You don't know how the universe started any more than anyone else here, but apparently can't bring yourself to just say you don't know, so we get this instead.

Thanks for your full and informative reply.
I now know much more about where you are coming from, and while I respect your views I must admit I have absolutely no understanding of them as it appears our values and mindsets are just so different.

That said though, I do support your right to have these views, and apologise for the other personal responses since that seem to be more aimed at putting you down than having an adult discussion.

PeterZ wrote:Daryl,

I was not raised in a religious household. I was born to a nominally Catholic parents in Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim nation. We moved to the US before I turned 6. I was agnostic until my 20's.

Belief in God began as I answered the "Why" question or perhaps questions. The most important being "why are we here?" Science describes the Big Bang but not the primal cause. Was that cause intentional? All the existing laws of nature argue that something cannot come from nothing. Matter and energy are conserved. Where then did the universe come from? Something had to predates creation. That something changed nothing, a void, into something, our universe. If that something is unintentional, it follows our universe exists within a larger environment that governs the creation of our universe. If this is true, that larger universe also exits within a larger environment ....and so on and so on. At one point all creation had to begin from Something. Nothing unintentional can come from nothing. Nothing means nothing and chance is not nothing.

The next question was easier. What was that Something? Answering this was easy. The Bible describes creation the most accurately of all creation myths out there. TontoSillerheels posted a time line of the Big Bang and Genesis that matches remarkably well. Considering God had to use Bronze Age concepts to capture His Revelation, Genesis was dead on describing the Big Bang.

I agreed wholeheartedly with the morality throughout the Bible, but I was raised to believe that morality. Yet, even here the validity of these core principles was supported by the Creation these moral codes were meant to govern. The more societies adopted These codes, the more those civilizations prospered.

None of this is proof. Yet all of this led a curious agnostic to believe that he was created intentionally to help accomplish a purpose. That purpose is found in the Bible's New Testament.

MAD-4A wrote:

Zakharra wrote:...frankly it's a very egotistical view of saying that god touches everyone (or that god is who created the universe), That is a VERY narcissistic view to have or to claim.

How do you figure that - it is the opposite of egotistical or narcissistic.

It's claiming that your god, the only god, of a religion that did not even -exist- in a religion 2,000 years ago (and the gold of the Old Testament was a mean vindictive asshole. Not something worthy of love, but of fear) is the one and only religion of the world and that -every- other religion is false.


[quote[

Zakharra wrote:...We're not asking for faith, we're asking for facts and logic. You are the one saying we should take it on faith rather than logic.

Who said you should be given facts? It's egotistical and narcissistic to think God HAS to provide YOU with facts. As a child were you ever told to do something by your parents? & when you asked why, what did they say? "Because I said to!" as PeterZ said:

PeterZ wrote:The best example is like treating a six year old the same as an 18 year old

No, not 6-Vs-18-YO more like 3-Vs-7-YO [/quote]

Children grow up sooner or later and can become smarter and/or better educated than their parents, so the analogy falls flat (unless you are implying that we will become better/more powerful than god). We are asking for facts, not faith. You are demanding that your faith be taken as fact (I believe this was stated by you or PeterZ, that your faith IS fact.). That is a incorrect statement. Faith cannot and should -never- be taken or used as fact in scientific matters. Ever. Science can be defined, measured and repeated(experiments). Faith cannot. Therefore it is not science or fact.

Zakharra wrote:...So far many of us haven't seen any facts proving that God or a god or gods, exists...

Sure you have - you just make up reasons to reject them. & then say they don't exist. The Bible/Torah book of Genesis describes God creating the universe. a description that directly corresponds to the Big Bang & has been around for thousands of years before modern Astronomy. How could some "off-his-rocker Kook" in the desert come up with such an accurate description? He can't - not without help from someone who was there. & who was there? do you know anyone, any sentient life form who could survive the Big Bang? According to current Quantum Physics objects don't exist unless observed, they are in a state of "probability". That means that until something is observed by a sentient observer, it doesn't really exist, it just "may" exist in a variety of forms or locations. when it is observed, then the Probability wave collapses into one of those probabilities, So that means that if there was no sentient observer at the time of the Big Bang, then there could be NO Big Bang, because nothing existed. therefore a sentient being must have existed at the time of the Big Bang to have observed it. Do you know of any type of being that could be other than God? "And God said 'let there be light' and there was."
As to whether God touches others: I had a discussion with a Hindu I worked with. The Hindu religion does state that there is an overall God of creation, Who created everything & nothing exists that he didn't create. the difference is, the Hindu believe in lesser "Gods", beings of great power who can effect us. The Jewish/Christian faith also recognizes these beings existence but do not accept them as "Gods". They are "Angels/Demons" depending on their nature. As I pointed out to him, anything that can be created, can be destroyed and is therefore (by definition) not a "God". Just because a creature is powerful doesn't make it a "God". You can step on an ant and squish it, even without ever noticing it existed in the first place (probably have). That doesn't make you a "God".

No.. I am not ignoring any facts proving god exists, I don't see any sign God, god or gods exist. By your and others definition, G/god cannot be measured or defined, so then why should it be taken on faith that one does exist?There's nothing that is there in the real world that cannot be explained by science (sooner or later). No god is required or needed as far as I can see.

Uum.. as far as I remember, the only way to enter heaven is by believing in Christ, to accept him as the one true savior. There is literally --no- other way to enter into heaven. So people who follow other faiths, or never heard the word of Christ or were born and died before his birth are SoL.

God was there before the Universe existed. God entered into relationships with Jews before Christ expanded upon the Old Testament Commandments. Are they not provided for? I believe they are. You may believe as you like. Regardless of our beliefs, God will treat Jews justly and often if not universally with Grace. The same will be true for other non-Christians throughout time. If such a person loves God and treats others with love as Jesus calls for, I trust God's judgment upon that worthy soul will be consistent with the New Testament teachings. This is true regardless of when that individual lived.

The idea that we must refer to "the Christian God" specifically when committing ourselves to Him is a bit silly. There is only one God, the Creator of all things. Reaching out to Him regardless of the name used to refer to Him to other men and women with love serves the Greatest Commandment. Doing one's best to love one's neighbors as you would be loved serves the second Commandment.

That's your faith speaking, not fact. The god of the Old Testament was rather vindictive and mean, and he focused only on one small group of people. Everyone else was sol.

Uum.. as far as I remember, the only way to enter heaven is by believing in Christ, to accept him as the one true savior. There is literally --no- other way to enter into heaven. So people who follow other faiths, or never heard the word of Christ or were born and died before his birth are SoL. And I believe the New Testament overrides the Old one (with God 2.0, the Kinder, Gentler God)

Discovering the New Testament and learning of the best ways to express one's love for God is priceless for better achieving what God wants for each of us. Recognizing Him, loving Him and accepting what He desires that we do is sufficient to enter into relationship with Him. That relationship does not end.

I am relying on logic. To believe without proof is an act of faith. Tautology. To believe anything besides a conscious Creator is responsible for the Universe absent proof is an act of faith. Again tautology. We all claim evidence supporting our beliefs, but only the agnostic doubter stands on logically firm ground.

You are relying on faith not logic, and are twisting the facts of science to fit your faith. In other words, you've already decided what the answer is and are now busy hammering the facts into place to make it fit, and demanding that we accept your faith as fact when you haven't given any proof or facts it is real.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote: "PeterZ"

Fine you don't know. No faith required. I do know and do embrace my faith.

You do understand that while faith may be... irrationally... invoked as a reason to BELIEVE something, it comes up rather short as a justification to claim you KNOW something.

You went and overstepped, and now you've made a claim I'm quite sure you're not going to be able to support.

1a and 2a both apply from the Merriam-Webster definition of know. I supported my assertions.

Full Definition of KNOW
transitive verb

1
a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern

b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of

2

a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>

Yes, you believe this to be true, you know it to be true, but you can't prove it to be true. Not in a scientific manner. Many people BELIEVED things they KNEW were right, that were later proven wrong. (flat earth, the earth being the center of the universe. the sun circling the earth, the earth being only 6,000 years old or so, among things) Belief and knowing doesn't mean you're right without facts to back up that assertion.

As far as I can see, all you have is faith that what you know and believe it true and fact. While your faith is commendable, insisting that faith is fact isn't going to win anyone over because you don't have any scientific proof backing you up.

If you recall my earlier posts, the core element of my belief derives from the primal cause of the Big Bang. That cause somehow transitioned between the absence of everything and all the energy in our universe. While science is the cat's meow for describing our universe, it has no useful referents in the period I am discussing. The very physical laws that allow science to predict and describe the universe do not exits.

In that context one can only know anything in the way I used the word. Of course there is no proof. There is NOTHING before the Big Bang.

Regarding salvation. I do not and will not presume to judge or limit God. He is free to offer His Grace to anyone He chooses. Jesus entered this fallen world to remove the sin that separates man from God. No salvation is possible after he came without using that path His sacrifice established. "He is the way the truth and the life". If you love God, you believe. If you follow His Commandments, you accept the Author of those Commandments as your Lord. I know this leads to salvation. I suspect that God will grant His Grace in other less clearcut circumstances. I trust that such grants will be consistent with the Bible.

Zakharra wrote: Yes, you believe this to be true, you know it to be true, but you can't prove it to be true. Not in a scientific manner. Many people BELIEVED things they KNEW were right, that were later proven wrong. (flat earth, the earth being the center of the universe. the sun circling the earth, the earth being only 6,000 years old or so, among things) Belief and knowing doesn't mean you're right without facts to back up that assertion.

As far as I can see, all you have is faith that what you know and believe it true and fact. While your faith is commendable, insisting that faith is fact isn't going to win anyone over because you don't have any scientific proof backing you up.

Daryl, you are as ever kind. This universe began when from nothing, the absence of everything, all the energy in our universe was imbued into this void to eventually form into that we humans exist in. Science cannot describe or predict events that do not exist within its rules and constraints.

Nothing we know of science sufficiently answers that question of the primal cause. How is my logical pursuit of an answer so different from the foundations of science? I hypothesize an answer, God. I look for evidence such as the societal benefit for moral behaviour. After more inquiry I accept the theory that God is our Creator. After living with that theory for some time longer, I accept it as the law under which Creation is governed.

Daryl wrote:Thanks for your full and informative reply.
I now know much more about where you are coming from, and while I respect your views I must admit I have absolutely no understanding of them as it appears our values and mindsets are just so different.

That said though, I do support your right to have these views, and apologise for the other personal responses since that seem to be more aimed at putting you down than having an adult discussion

Now I am beginning to understand better why wars have been fought over religious differences. What I find interesting is that as far as I know, few or no wars have been fought over scientific differences.

Respectfully, it is difficult or impossible for me to wrap my feeble mind around the pesky facts that religion does not require the same emperical scientific method of discovery, data, conclusions and theorys ...

... necessary and required for scientific fact. Therefore I always try to default to the notion of religious beliefs being formulated, tested, expanded and what not are based only upon faith ... without real basis at all.

Again, as long as a religious person bases his beliefs upon faith, then I for one try to respect that faith or belief. To each his own. Where it all falls apart for me is that when they DEMAND that faith is fact. Does not work.

Respectfully. I am 68 years old and have suffered, (endured) several failed lady friend relationships mostly, (nearly?) because of our religious differences. We could simply not compromise. Sad but true. HB of CJ (old coot)

PS; I have also observed that most of my educated friends, (post grad like me) tend to think the same way I do regarding religion. Where the sparks fly is with other subjects like politics, government, taxes, history, etc..