Where did God come from?

Science
Theology
Society

(The Honest Skeptic) #101

Isn’t that sort of convenient, then? Why ask the question if you rule the response out a priori?

What is more complex, that we landed on the moon or that we did not land on the moon?


(Dan Eastwood) #102

It’s about as good as any other answer :slight_smile:


(Evan) #103

I can see your flair :slight_smile:

I was saying that as a general statement to everyone reading this thread


(John Dalton) #104

Are you saying God couldn’t have made pink oceans? :slight_smile:


(Guy Coe) #105

No; just that He wouldn’t, if He had anything like creating you and me in mind. : )


(John Dalton) #106

I meant you and me and pink oceans. I think that’s a Peter Paul and Mary song


(Ashwin S) #107

Yes to all the above. However, I might define some of these words differedntly from the way you do… For example “meaningful”; “improve” etc.

Did you save that question somewhere so that you can ask it to everyone who claims to be a christian? Do you have muslim, Hindu, and wiccan versions of the same question ? :slight_smile:


(Ashwin S) #108

Correct. We dont get many specifics such as who God is.

I think the highlighted part is just another way of saying God doesnt exist. However, if one is convinced that there is a Creator, then he would have abilities beyond our imagination.

Yes, we seem to approach this issue differently… Your interest in listening is definitely appreciated.
As to the information not being readily available… yes the details are not… that’s why a search is involved.

I agree with the second part of what you said… The problem with the first part is the word “convincing demonstration”… Its highly subjective. For example, i see nature and the universe as a convincing demonstration of Gods existence and power… Whereas you don’t.


(Guy Coe) #109

How about a yellow submarine in a pink ocean? Will that do instead? : )


(John Dalton) #110

Maybe. It is saying that a creative force with the characteristics people commonly assign to God doesn’t exist. I guess that’s the same thing. I don’t think a “Creator” would necessarily have to have those characteristics though. I take the “beyond our imagination” part of this more literally. All aspects of it could be beyond our imagination. That would literally mean that we would be unable to imagine anything about it.

I was talking about personal revelation. I thought you meant something more personal than the existence of nature for example. One can give testimony about a personal revelation, but demonstrating it is another story. We all can see that nature exists, and our disagreement about what it represents is a different kettle of fish. All that being said, to me it represents that something is going on which is outside my understanding.


(Daniel Ang) #111

It depends on the meaning of “see”. We literally don’t see dark matter either, but we infer that it exists based on its effect on things we can see in nature. Similarly, one can posit a God based on phenomena we observe in this universe (whether it be inanimate nature, people, or other things), even if one can’t directly see God.

(Note that I am not suggesting God is literally a scientific hypothesis.)


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #112

I am beginning to like Occam even more now.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #113

Both are invisible, not testable, not falsifiable, just one bit of information to describe: true or false, exist or doesn’t exist, real or imaginary. Can’t get simpler than that.


(John Harshman) #114

I don’t rule out the response a priori. I point out that the response in incorrect.


(John Harshman) #115

No, it doesn’t depend on the meaning of “see”. By “see” I refer to observation in the scientific sense. We know people exist based on copious evidence. One can posit a God, but there is no clear evidence. The phenomena we observe do not point to God for anyone who doesn’t already believe. On the other hand, there is good evidence of dark matter.


(Daniel Ang) #116

By definition, God is not a scientific object of study, so I agree that his existence is not clearly shown by any sort of scientific evidence. The evidence for God consists of a philosophical and historical case, which is less clear-cut (as philosophical arguments tend to be), but it is claimed evidence nonetheless.

I don’t think this statement says much. I could just as well say that only people who have already decided to not believe refuse to see the evidence for what it is. I agree that there is more disagreement on the question of God compared to science,* but some people have decided to believe in God based on certain evidence (whether philosophical, historical, or personal), just as people have decided to believe in dark matter based on certain other kinds of evidence (scientific).

*Note that about 93% of all humans worldwide believe in some sort of God, so there is not as much disagreement on this as one might think!


(John Harshman) #117

I disagree.

Previously you had claimed that the evidence for God was what we see in the universe. Of course many things are claimed to be evidence. I just don’t think they really are evidence.

You could, but I don’t think you would be right. And are we back to the universe rather than history and philosophy?

What point are you trying to make by that?


(Guy Coe) #118

You have no explanation for the universe displaying an Anthropic Principle without a transcedent, Creator God. You have to ignore those observations to come to the opposite conclusion. There’s plenty to “see” as evidence for God.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #119

I ask the same question to every human being. Especially the one’s that say this or that has changed their life. I am interested in what people say as life transforming.


(John Harshman) #120

Which anthropic principle did you have in mind, and how does a transcendent, creator God explain the universe? Are we not back to needing an explanation for God, which is where this all started? The cosmological argument just doesn’t work other than by assuming its truth at the beginning.