Defining God: Discussing the nature and attributes of God

A) I'm not an atheist I'm an Agnostic, I do not believe in god: but I do not exclude the chance that god exists.
B) Depends on what you mean with worldview. I do normaly not believe in anything which can't be proven, altho there are certain exceptions: like the existences of Intelligent life outside of earth. However I am always open to the possiblity that even tho I don't believe in it, it might as well be there.
C) Until I see some serious evidence, (doesn't have to be visual proof but does have to be NON debattable) of god I will never believe in god, this doesn't mean he does not exist

Lets say for instance one found 2+2 equalling 4 to be ridiculous, how would you look at that

However, random chance creating the universe and life from non life, is ridiculous in premise even if one chooses to accept it

I would like to see mere random chance (sans influence) create me a TV, a Mcclarren, 200 mill in cash and so on

As to the 'illogical beliefs' of christianity, elaborate if you will

Well I believe there is a right and a wrong in this case however people are entitled to their beliefs. I do suggest to you though that everybody operates on faith.

A) I'm not an atheist I'm an Agnostic, I do not believe in god: but I do not exclude the chance that god exists.
B) Depends on what you mean with worldview. I do normaly not believe in anything which can't be proven, altho there are certain exceptions: like the existences of Intelligent life outside of earth. However I am always open to the possiblity that even tho I don't believe in it, it might as well be there.
C) Until I see some serious evidence, (doesn't have to be visual proof but does have to be NON debattable) of god I will never believe in god, this doesn't mean he does not exist

Let me just say that though I do not know you, you seem to be a reasonable person.

About part C though, I feel like most anything can be debated technically speaking.

I will address your earlier questions, no problem man.

well there is a serious debate about something and then there is debatting for the sake of debatting

-to compare the belief in a higher being with that of simple math is so poor its border to comedy

-not more ridicoluse than an omniprecence being

-well if not you people do win big stuff out of random chance so

-believe in a divine trinity

-well it is you who comes out with things that "we all know that to be a lie" and "One can deny the truth, one can hope and wish it away but it will not change, they will remain none the less wrong" suggesting you actually wont let people be entitled to a belief and maybe you should actually take up on your own suggestion here

Im not going to say that it is necessarily or seemingly that obvious to a person, I was however using that as an example. Perhaps you found it to be a bit insulting though so I can see your objection.

I will admit that, omnipresence is not easy to comprehend. We know so many limitations and something like that can be hard to really grasp, how can we relate.

Winning something by random chance and random chance creating things are two entirely different things.

The trinity is another thing that is not easy to comprehend. I can do my best to explain it if you would like but I certainly dont completely understand it.

You are correct man, I did say that there is a right and a wrong in this issue, something I assume that you believe aswell. I dont believe that everybody is correct, I do however believe that everybody is entilted to their own views, I would not deny that.

Fire ill get back to you later on (Today), I dont want you think that that im avoiding the issue.

"However, random chance creating the universe and life from non life, is ridiculous in premise even if one chooses to accept it"

Given enough time, anything and everything will happen. People just can't imagine that all came from chance, but if you think about it in terms of how long - billions of years - it took to manifest everything that is, it's not so ridiculous. A billion years is impossible to picture in your mind, just imagine all the "impossible" things that can happen over such a long period of time.

Perhaps you found it to be a bit insulting though so I can see your objection.

The trinity is another thing that is not easy to comprehend. I can do my best to explain it if you would like but I certainly dont completely understand it

Go finti!

-no I just found it poor and laughable

-oh I know enough on that matter

Which is your opinion and you are entitled to it, doesnt make you correct and I dont even know that you really understood my intention in saying it. It was an example that was drawn to show a perspective.

Well if you dont want me to give an explanation on that then so be it, I will not force it upon you.

Given enough time, anything and everything will happen. People just can't imagine that all came from chance, but if you think about it in terms of how long - billions of years - it took to manifest everything that is, it's not so ridiculous. A billion years is impossible to picture in your mind, just imagine all the "impossible" things that can happen over such a long period of time.

So given your belief that anything can and will happen over time, does that then include a belief that over time a divine being would create a universe?

As to anything and everything happening over time, we can get further into that I suppose though at this point im curious to have you answer my question.

Originally posted by clickclick
So given your belief that anything can and will happen over time, does that then include a belief that over time a divine being would create a universe?

As to anything and everything happening over time, we can get further into that I suppose though at this point im curious to have you answer my question.

This is a silly question clickclick - a divine being is omnipotent, he doesn't need a lot of time to create the universe as he has the power to create it in an infinitesimally small instant. If you meant that a divine being could evolve over time, then he fails to be divine anymore, because an omnipotent, omnicient being doesn't evolve, he's suppose to have existed for eternity, needing no origin.

This is a silly question clickclick - a divine being is omnipotent, he doesn't need a lot of time to create the universe as he has the power to create it in an infinitesimally small instant. If you meant that a divine being could evolve over time, then he fails to be divine anymore, because an omnipotent, omnicient being doesn't evolve, he's suppose to have existed for eternity, needing no origin.

I was not suggesting that a divine being would need a lot of time to create a universe.

Now your suggestion that a divine being doesnt evolve becomes problematic, as there is no basis for that. According to the theory, random chance + time = anything can and will happen over time.

You have mistaken me if you believe I was talking about God, I was speaking theoretically some divine being.

The atheistic belief that things can simply evolve, why is there any limitation to evolution? Time trumps limitations remember?

If a universe can come from nothing without cause and then come into existence without cause, why cant a omnipotent being come from nothing without cause?

In fact if anything can and will happen over time, why would said Divine being ever need to evolve? Theoretically it should be able to come as is.

Originally posted by clickclick
I was not suggesting that a divine being would need a lot of time to create a universe.

Now your suggestion that a divine being doesnt evolve becomes problematic, as there is no basis for that. According to the theory, random chance + time = anything can and will happen over time.

Divine means unnatural or supernatural and thus does not fit into the picture of evolution/chance. Divine being(s) is not a natural possibility in other words.

You have mistaken me if you believe I was talking about God, I was speaking theoretically some divine being.

God is a Divine Being. What are you trying to say?

The atheistic belief that things can simply evolve, why is there any limitation to evolution? Time trumps limitations remember

There is no limitation to evolution - that's an unfounded argument.

If a universe can come from nothing without cause and then come into existence without cause, why cant a omnipotent being come from nothing without cause?

An omnipotent/Divine being is superfluous in the equation if we establish the possibility that the universe came from nothing or existed for eternity. What need is there for a God if the universe can subsist eternally on its own? To explain the universe with a Divine Being who is unexplainable in itself, is not solving anything and is not an explanation as the divinity itself is without explanation. We might as well just leave it there with an unexplainable eternal universe, without superimposing just another unexplainable entity upon it.

-Divine means unnatural or supernatural and thus does not fit into the picture of evolution/chance.

-Divine being(s) is not a natural possibility in other words.

-God is a Divine Being. What are you trying to say?

-There is no limitation to evolution - that's an unfounded argument

-An omnipotent/Divine being is superfluous in the equation if we establish the possibility that the universe came from nothing or existed for eternity. What need is there for a God if the universe can subsist eternally on its own? To explain the universe with a Divine Being who is unexplainable in itself, is not solving anything and is not an explanation as the divinity itself is without explanation. We might as well just leave it there with an unexplainable eternal universe, without superimposing just another unexplainable entity upon it.

I do not like having to seperate and then put back together somebodies response in order for me to respond to it. If I were to do the same thing it will just become extremely messy, with quotes everywhere and a lack of organization. As a courtesy and just all around being helpful to the discussions here, can you either make few quotes or preferably make one whole response that is not seperated by every line that I wrote.

As to the limit of evolution, I was following the basic premise that through time anything can and will happen. You suggest that there are limitations but based on that premise, how could there be. I would just use the same argument that one can not fathom the infinite possibilities of infinite time.

A divine being isnt 'naturally possible' and neither is the singularity yet all signs point to that. Even an eternal universe is not naturally possible, not based on the laws of nature we have. Added to the fact that there is no evidence of that and all the evidence points the contrary. It is also unprovable and you would be arriviving at a conclusion that would be, because it is. Apparently evidence and logical explanations are not nearly as important to you as you pretend.

Is non life by random chance begetting life possible? Not based on any evidence it isnt.

I know what divine means, I also know that doesnt mean omnipotence contrary to what you have suggested. Unless you are pulling out your "Required power for a divine being handbook", then what would even be your basis for that statement?

The universe is not eternal A) you can throw that out B) even if that was the case (which its not) then you would have no room to talk about anybody who mentions a higher power. Certainly you cant say its because your belief is more reasonable.

Existence or the Absolute as such must be eternal, otherwise you end up with an edge without being able to describe what is beyond that. The term 'Universe' should mean Existence as a whole - it should imply Everything there exists, so it simply must be eternal - call that God if you want, but not God as in a divine being with a personal connection with its creation. God is simply blind eternity, nothing more and nothing less - the absurdity of all of Existence - he is the universe and therefore the universe is eternal. But if you still disagree I respect that.

clickclick, either you are a bias fool who doesn't look at what you are saying or you are trying to lay mind control traps in words, or both. Go back over all of your posts in this discussion and count how many times you have written hypocritical statements. Most of the information you have presented is invalid and I've read most of it from anti-athiest books written by christians. I'm not going to spell it out for you, find your own mistakes because clearly you are hardly observing when people tell you them.

Well if you dont want me to give an explanation on that then so be it, I will not force it upon you.

clickclick, either you are a bias fool who doesn't look at what you are saying or you are trying to lay mind control traps in words, or both. Go back over all of your posts in this discussion and count how many times you have written hypocritical statements. Most of the information you have presented is invalid and I've read most of it from anti-athiest books written by christians. I'm not going to spell it out for you, find your own mistakes because clearly you are hardly observing when people tell you them.

Yup, Im definetly trying to lay "mind traps" 🙄 I was unaware that incredibly talented comedians visited this board.

Here is a thought, how about you point out my supposed hypocritical statements since you supposedly found incalculable amounts of them.

I dont read anti-athiesm books and your suggestion that what I have stated was invalid is incredibly weak, certainly at this point. Here is a suggestion, support what you say or stop wasting my time.

Now I read down further and see that you suggested I find them. You are indeed a troll and I will waste no further time on you.

Ok fire, I will address your questions. It probably wont be as direct as you expected but these things are interrelated.

I will begin with the existence of anything. I will speak on the issue of the existence of the universe but in order to do that I will go back to the beginning point, the singularity. Now I believe that both Einstein and Hawking stated that it would be pointless to think of what preceded the singularity. This is something that I feel is accurate but only if one is an unobjective atheist. You are not going to going to get proof that random chance created the universe, I can assure you of that. I am not an atheist however, so I will delve into the issue. The premise is that from nothingness, came something, without cause and by random chance. A singularity that was infinitely dense and infinitesimal volume. Without cause (obviously this would violate the law of cause and effect) but the entire the singularity violates all known laws of nature. This requires one to believe that something began to exist, existed outside space time, without cause yet with a definite effect. From there, without cause again but and again with effect, it expands etc. Something violating the laws of nature like that in truth is a supernatural concept. How about the existence of the laws of nature? Laws indicate boundries. Somehow these boundries came into existence without cause by random chance. Why would something that violates the laws of nature suddenly create laws, not a few laws but many that govern the universe, that created order for our universe. Not only order on a big scale but order on smaller scales aswell. The suggestion is that random chance not only did that but now creates boundries for order instead of chaos. Nothing about this concept sounds random at all. One can also not suggest that those laws already existed through eternity (a weird concept in itself) because the singularity violates those laws. It existed when and where those laws were not.

So then we get to life from non life, spontaneous generation if you will. The suggestion once again is that random chance created not only the complexities of life (why?) but life itself from non life. Why would anything ever even arise from non life without cause by random chance? So again we arrive at a premise that random chance is some ultimate creator. Random chance is not some ultimate creator though, I can assure you of that. Random chance (unaided by any outside force) will not even create something as incredibly simple as a car and yet the suggestion is that it created something as complex as DNA? As complex as even a single celled organism?

On the notion of random chance creating things. Now if life were the result of random chance, it would have no purpose. Which would also mean that a human is no more important than an animal, which is no more important than a banana which is no more important than a rock. The existence of these things according to atheism has no purporse. One could reasonably even suggest that based on those beliefs that anything that was created with a purpose is actually more important. So an eraser or a pencil ( anything that was created with purpose) is more important than life which is the purposeless the result of random chance. Now it is extremely doubtful that anybody would truly believe those things but even if they did, it goes deeper than that.

When a single celled bacteria dies I assume that an atheist wouldnt care (as they shouldnt) or a spider dying what have you but what about when their dog dies/their pet, an animal period or even a human? With atheistic beliefs, all that was lost was something that was without purpose, there is nothing to care about. If somebody cries because of a death, feels distraught or what have you, there actions are in direct conflict with this.

Now lets move on to the whole moral issue. Now lets pretend for five seconds that macro evolution does exist. The proposed theory is simlpicitiy + random genetic mutations + natural selection begets complexicity. The theory of evolution in a nut shell. Now, animals have no observable moral code, they simply act instinctivily. The fact that animals exist like that can be construed as making sense according to the atheistic belief (this of course is termporarily suspending all the other stuff I have brought up so far) However unlike those animals, humans demonstrate a moral code. If humans are merely evolved animals as atheists believe, why do we have a moral code? Human moral code is no illusion yet it defies atheistic explanation. Not even random chance could possibly explain that one but that is no surprise because it cant explain a lot of things. If there were no creator who is divine (good and goodness) and life were indeed purposeless, then there is no moral good nor bad. No moral law as all of it be completely subjective though it shouldn’t even exist in truth. The question then becomes, how come humans operate contradictory to that? Additionally, natural law dictates survival of the fittest is not simply acceptable but necessary for the continuation of the species. So not only is murder no longer objectively wrong but it is factually good. It would simply be getting rid of the weak. Genocide would not only be perfectly acceptable (overpopulation, getting rid of the weak, only the strongest survive) but it would be factually good.

Now as we know, humans contradict that stuff every day (this is inclusive atheists). If any person were to really adhere to those beliefs, they would be the first. Atheism is not as simple as not believing in God, there are a lot of things that go along with it.

I can assure you that there is evidence for a creator and far more than one thing either. We have the intellect to comprehend these issues because we aren’t mere animals. We exist not because random chance dicated it but because something created it. The laws of nature exist because they were enacted, there is no reason for them to exist otherwise. An incredible being incomprehensible intelligence created life, not random chance which cant even create a car unaided.

There is also the subject of the supernatural period but I didn’t want to get into all that at present time.

The alien issue you mentioned is an interesting one. I have recently been doing some research on that very subjective. I am remain objective to the idea and undecided on the issue.