Is there really a God?

Post Reply New Topic

Really???? You have never had such a basic urge that questioning it is pointless? I mean, I would think that there ultimately have to be some urges so primal that rationalizing them is only sophistry. Wanting a sports car is likely sufficient for this, because a lot of people don't scrutinize themselves so rigorously, and why should they? Everything withers under certainty, even our foundations. To cite William James: "The philosopher's logical tranquillity is thus in essence no other than the boor's. They differ only as to the point at which each refuses to let further considerations upset the absoluteness of the data he assumes."

If a friend tells me "I want a sports car" without giving any reasons why, I will be tempted to ask why. If the person just shrugs and say "I just feel like it", it's not like I'm going to take that seriously.

Reasons are the cornerstone of any argument.

All these are infinitely better than just "I just feel like it". Just doing something for the sake of doing something must be the definition of insanity.

I can think of a few reasons to own a sports car. I'm not claiming they are true, or that they are good reasons, but they are reasons.

"I want to show that (or give the appearance) I'm rich."

"I want to attract hot ladies."

"They perform better than regular cars."

"I need one, a gypsy holds my daughter hostage and demands a sports car as ransom payment."

All these are infinitely better than just "I just feel like it". Just doing something for the sake of doing something must be the definition of insanity.

What makes you think houses you see around had builders to build them? Maybe they just put themselves together. Or course they didn't, but neither did the universe.

Yes, but why is it that an all knowing God would make such a person awful in the first place?

Given an initial energy source the rest could have been self organizing. Of course these leave the question of where the singularity came from if it came from anywhere. Or maybe matter and energy have always existed. It makes as much sense as assuming that a conscious creative being has always existed.

ruveyn

it makes a great deal more sense

Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor,[1] is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." It is apocryphally attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity."[2]

When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. To quote Isaac Newton: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."[3]

To straightforwardly summarize the principle as it is most commonly understood, “Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable.”

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories. Here the same caveat applies to confounding topicality with mere simplicity. (A superficially simple phenomenon may have a complex mechanism behind it. A simple explanation would be simplistic if it failed to capture all the essential and relevant parts. Instead, one should choose the simplest explanation that explains the most data.)

Ah, but you see the people we see are not really "bad" people they just have problems. But most of the time we cant see that from where we stand.
This is why your not supposed to judge (which is impossible most of the time.)

But to answer your question.
The awful person serves as an example , to show us why we should be good people. If we had not suffered at an awful persons hand then we could not relate to the pain of others and therefor we would feel no remorse for hurting others.

Occam's Razor. Learn to love it.

Is there really a god?

Why does God give someone a condition like aspergers and then when they screw up hold them at fault for making "judgements" and being bitter?

God derives terminalogisticly through representative conception. This can mean that the term "god" was derived through time phoneticly, etymologicly, and is representative of a concept, shared. The concept is the birth of the will of the mind, con- as in will, and cept as in ceptus, septis or coeptis, syeptys representative I believe in a general sense to wisdom and also mental processes such as in re'cept'ion, de'cept'ion, sept'ic. Also cognate to sept'ember and the numeral 7. So basicly god is a word someone invented or derived from else where. The term signifies power, control, will, influx, etc. All of us have the divine right to exist for here we are. Requiem to existence is motion or thought, action. Everything effects/affects everything. Here we are, right now, within the reflection of all that is, the Universe. You are as the Universe as are we all. The spirit is within each of us. We are all of the mind of the divine.






Would one have to first assume that a. a personified god exist and b. that they were ultimately responsible. Then I suppose you would have to ask gods creator and then perhaps god's creators creator. From a personal perspective, god is the Universe, we are of the Universe and as such we are also god.

No.

Ah, but you see the people we see are not really "bad" people they just have problems. But most of the time we cant see that from where we stand.

(...)

The awful person serves as an example , to show us why we should be good people. If we had not suffered at an awful persons hand then we could not relate to the pain of others and therefor we would feel no remorse for hurting others.

(...)

Both are needed to create good in the world.