if you believe in God...then please post why?

Post Reply New Topic

One of the basic problems with God is that it raises more questions than it answers. I wonder why people are curious enough to ask where we all came from and why we exist but stop being curious once the very enigmatic God is considered an answer. Why is there no curiosity as to where this God came from and why it exists and whether its actions are to be unquestionably approved. Certainly there is much misery in the world and an all powerful God must be assumed responsible somehow. The answer of "free will" solves nothing as an all powerful God must be totally aware of the consequences of its actions. Unless these problems are approached (I doubt they can be answered satisfactorily) then why bother to assume a God at all since it seems irrelevant.

These questions have been heavily dealt with.
Maybe less for Protestants, but they were certainly
not ignored by the Scholastics.

I have looked through a good deal of material put out by religious proponents and their justification for their belief was evidently a result of their ignorance or their stupidity or their lack of imagination.

I have no difficulty with "God has always existed" do you? We are finite, and see all else as finite too, but as this is a human limitation, like our conceptual capacity, I have no trouble conceding something might not be finite.
When something is more powerful than you can conceptualize, and vastly more intelligent than you, and holds your existence and your provision moment by moment in its power, do you think it matters if we approve of it or not? By definition, that being is RIGHT!
As to why God exists how would it help you to know that? If a child asked, "Mummy why do you exist?" he'd probably get the answer, "you'd be in big trouble if I didn't!"
The question of misery on Earth: well I doubt it has escaped the Almighty. If you concede there is a God, a being who created the universe, has always existed and is aware of every moment of time simultaneously, and under whose effortless control is every iota of matter and non-matter, you may have to allow that it's probably your own understanding that is incomplete. Complete it; it's something we all have to do on our own, for ourselves.

Doesn't work for me.

When you assert that something is there because it always has been there you are claiming something you do not and cannot know and you have stopped thinking.

thats an appeal to consenquences fallacy. Just because someone asserted this doesn't mean that they suddenly stop thinking, you have no evidence to back you up here.


And, why can't something always have been there, without beginning or end?



Once you postulate something that is omnipotent, or anything that is in principle beyond logic, reason, or any of the laws of nature, you can come to any conclusion you want. It still has no validity.

Last edited by RadiantAspie on 06 Oct 2007, 11:36 am, edited 2 times in total.

One of the books I've read says somewhere, "That which truly exists has always existed and will always exist. That which does not exist has never existed and will never exist," the case in point being the existance of the soul or atman. The Buddha questioned the existance of the soul as anything more than a mental construct. This is consistant with the Laws of Conservation of Mass and of Energy. If we accept this, then it means that the Universe has always existed and will always exist in some form or another. This would make the God called the Alpha and the Omega and the Universe synonomous (One) with each other. Hence the belief, "God is everywhere."

I don't know about that. For example, the Earth has only existed for 4.5 billion years. By the logic above, would that mean that the Earth doesn't "truly exist". I think many aspects of existence are self-evident here. Second, there are lots of things that haven't always existed, such as the internet. Just because something hasn't existed before doesn't mean that it will never exist. You have to be less vague here.



The conservation laws don't necessarily imply that something has lasted forever and will continue to do so. The conservation laws are just what has been observed as a fundemental property of the physical universe. Why these physical laws hold is something that I don't have an answer to. You are making rather hasty assumptions here, and making things more complicated then they need to be.

There is no way you can have evidence that something always existed. I do not claim that the universe did not always exist, although Stephen Hawking (whom I trust more than people of faith) does claim that the universe did not always exist and he has cited several pieces of evidence that seem to confirm this. I merely said you merely feel comfortable with an eternal universe and have ceased to consider that matter further. But that has no logic or science behind it.

Before that, the matter and energy which we refer to as "the Earth" existed as something else. That matter and energy has always been here and will always be here. The "soul" on the other hand may be nothing more tham a mental construct with no existance outside of our own minds. Hence the belief the "You" and "I" do not exist.

You just made my point actually, there is no evidence (that I know of) that something or some object hasn't always existed, neither is there any evidence that there ever was a beginning. Hence the question: why can't something have always existed?

Steven Hawking provides no evidence for this either, and in any case his books are so horribly oversimplified and inaccurate, and outdated for that matter. Actually, from what I've understood from his books, he seems to doubt that the universe ever had a beginning in the normal sense of the word if you've been keeping up with his idea of imaginary time.



You did not! You said:



You claimed that just because someone believes in something that has been around for eternity, they then cease to think critically about things. But that is not true.

And why doesn't an eternal universe have any science or logic behind it. What if that really is the case, that the universe has always existed? Nature does not have to conform to your ideals.

You seem incapable of merely admitting that you do not know and have no way of finding out. If you claim the universe always existed you really have stopped considering any other possibility. It means you have stopped thinking.

Oh, ok, I see what you mean now. While your claim about matter and energy cannot be confirmed, I will have to say that do agree with you about the "soul". However, I am certain that "I" and "You" do exist, just not in any non-material sense. My physical features are distinct from your own, such as my fingerprints and the way my brain has been wired. One does not need a soul to be indentified as an individual.

Last edited by RadiantAspie on 06 Oct 2007, 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And you seem incapable of understanding that that is not true and that your logic is flawed. You are making rather vague and hasty generalizations here. One can believe in something and still think critically about things.

And besides, if there is proof or at least evidence that the universe has always existed, why would one consider any other possibility. After all, nobody considers the possibility that things fall up, do they? With things that are self-evident or proven, you don't need to consider any other possibility because they are nonsense.

I never claimed that I knew whether there was a beginning or not, I clearly stated that there is no evidence for either. Since there is none, I pose the question again: Why can't something always have existed?

And please do not misrepresent my posts, what I've stated was very clear.

I'm sorry, but the universe has not been proven to always exist. That is why other possibilities must be considered. Falling is a very local phenomenon which occurs only near a planetary body.