Can someone please give me a reason to believe in a personal god

[beingofone]

Bill3000:

Me: God cannot make Himself nonexistent and then create Himself out of nothing again. In other words he can't make Himself exist and not exist at the same time.
If you could not make comparisons (good/evil light/dark) - there would be no existence or reality at all.

I can just refute this with two words - "Quantum Mechanics".
Plus, omniscience is impossible.

In all due respect; you do realize you contradicted yourself or you need to clarify your thought.

An infinite amount of realities as described by the probability distributions of the multiverse, until I make an observation, restricting myself to one observable universe, although I can see the effects of other universes if I observe things in the quantum scale.

And who is it that 'knows' all this and is conceptualizing a multiverse?

The fundamental laws of physics inside this universe is a constant.

186,000 MPS is just a number - nothing more, nothing less.


Urban Ranger:

That makes absolutely no sense. It is like saying "a circle cannot be a circle without the potential for continuously making it more of a circle."

Lets do a thought experiment that has been done with the universe.
Throw a ball at the edge of your conscious awareness, if it bounces back your consciousness is finite. If it keeps going it is infinite.

Me: If something is truly infinite, there is nothing to compare itself to. When the desire for expansion transpires

UR: Pray tell, how does something infinite in all aspects expand?

Well since you prayed for an answer .
At what point does your ability to conceptualize infinity stop?


Flip McWho:

But how can perfect get more perfect?

Also doesn't wash well with God supposedly being all-knowing. God being all knowing would have no reason to create a world for new experiences seen as he already knows all there is to experience.

I like your questions, they are good ones indeed.

Perfection in the realm of comparisons is just a concept. God knows all that can be known, not all that will be known - does that make sense?

The concept that God cannot grow or expand is a limited perspective pronounced by organized religion to trump all learning. We cannot explore the mysteries of existence unless we transcend the 'box'.

You are performing an infinite number of actions of awareness (and tasks - but that is another subject) and all done in a finite amount of time (as if time were finite .
Look around in the room you are in and start counting the objects. You will quickly find you will never stop counting and yet aware of the 'total'.

Just like God, you seek out new experience.

Why is there a God? Heck if you say there must be a reason that the universe exists there has to be a reason God exists. Otherwise why does the buck stop with God and not with the universe?

Heaven lasts long, and Earth abides
What is the secret of their durability?
Is it because they do not live for themselves
That they endure so long?
-- Lao Tzu

God is being for himself and none other.


Sn00py:

Hm, I actually like what you said; what is the reason behind God? Presuming God does exist. Why would God choose to create the universe? The reason itself must be greater than God, surely? Unless the reason IS God. All starting to make sense...

Exactly - creation exists for a reason beyond God`s present experience so to speak.
BTW - God is not a supremely great being, he is being in and of itself that transcends existence and essence. Therefore to argue for God`s existence in the classic sense is to argue against his being 'real'.

[Flip McWho]

Aye it does make sense. Its that whole God is all knowing but its impossible to know the future because of free will. And I have to admit that I mainly argue against the organized religions definitions of God.

God is being for himself and none other.

Can't the same apply to the universe? The universe is being for itself and none other. Nice quote though.

[aneeshm]

@ the thread starter

I have come to the conclusion that you are in error in two ways .

In the first - your premises are wrong . You do not truly seek to find an answer as to the existence and nature of god . You assume , since the very beginning , that God exists . If you sought an answer as to whether God exists , you would ask , "Where do I start ?" , instead of asking for reasons to justify a stand you have taken up but cannot substantiate any longer without experience or proof . You are looking for justification , not answers .

Secondly - you assume that you know the nature of God . A true seeker would start with nothing , and try to find out first if God exists , and then try to determine his nature , having found that he exists . You also want a justification for faith , even if such faith is not backed up by experience . Do not accept anything unless you have experienced it yourself - this is a fundamental tenet of searching for things like God ( and the experience must be reproducible , or else it is worthless ) .

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Aye it does make sense. Its that whole God is all knowing but its impossible to know the future because of free will. And I have to admit that I mainly argue against the organized religions definitions of God.

The future and the past was just an allegory that I used to understand what could motivate an infinite to become finite.

I have personally found the scripture(Bible) to be filled with wisdom that cannot be explained. After many, and I do mean many years of study, I agree less and less with organized religions view.
It has almost reached the point that if they (organized religion) say it, it will probably be the exact opposite of the meaning of the original text.

Can't the same apply to the universe? The universe is being for itself and none other. Nice quote though.

Thanks for the compliment.
That is a huge subject and would require a great deal of time that I unfortunately do not have.
To view the universe as the alpha and omega would be like that of the Totality is continuum of infinitesimal quantity and magnitude. The number of the chain of events is so minute and multiplied that it evaporates into nothingness. That is division without limit one might say. That exceeds duality in its infinite division and separation.
Ie: Zeno`s paradox

The reason I have come to the conclusion of God is singularity of consciousness. It is a lengthy discussion but in a nutshell:

Are you experiencing a whole reality or a partial reality?

You are experiencing ground zero or the critical mass of the total of all reality right now as you are reading this post. There is no more of the universe that you can possibly experience in this present moment. Yet at the same time the Ultimate Reality is not confined nor restrained by having your experience.

If not; tell me what you are not aware of and what you are not experiencing?
If you cannot; that by definition as well as experience makes it irreducible as it is a singularity and carries with it 'ultimate or total' characteristics.

[Flubber]

How about this as a reason

Pragmatism--

If you disbelieve and a "personal god" does exist, said deity may be peeved at you for your non-belief, bad deeds etc etc with the resulting eternal damnation, or return as a manure eating beetle or other negative consequences

If you believe and such a thing does not exist, the worst thing that could happen is that you have wasted time and hope and prayer on a non-entity.

I'm not trying the "prove GOD", I am merely providing a reason why you should believe. Consider the consequences if you are incorrect

[child of Thor]

I think we make god into too big a thing(or not at all if your an aetheist). When you realise that 'he' cant give you all the answers or that your science doesnt add up, then you may be getting closer to god. We have a part to play in this universe we percieve, energy such as ours has its cause+effects. If you want/need to believe in 'god' then just let yourself do it unquestionably - you cant set tests to prove the existence of god.
One persons god is no greater or better than any others for providing what belief can give you.

If you dont want to/can't believe then dont - use your energy in another way. But be mindful that how you use your energy is whats really important imho.

[johncmcleod]

Flubber-the problem I have with Pascal's Wager (your post pretty much quotes it) is that I don't like the better safe than sorry approach to life. As far as I can see I have one life to live, and I don't want to compromise it over some small chance that there is a personal God that would damn me. And even if there was a personal God, I doubt he would send me to hell. What kind of loving God would send a human to hell just because he 'got the answer wrong?' I am using my reason to try and figure out the nature of the universe, and it is difficult, so chances are I will get it wrong. And punishing someone for this would not be very compassionate. At least I thought. Would it be better if I had never questions the beliefs I was taught and ended up a brainwashed Christian?

I do realize some of the errors of my original post. I am a little familiar with some of the philosophy of the mystics, so I can see where beingofone is coming from. There was a time when I believed that God wasn't a separate deity but that he was everything and that the universe was simply a physical manifestion of him. I believed that because of our complex brains we have developed a sense of self, therefore dividing the universe into two categories: me and them, me being my body and the things very close to me that I consider myself, and them being the rest of the universe. I believed this was the cause to suffering and that through spirituality one can temporarily weaken this division between the self and the rest of the universe and realize that it is all one giant, breathing, living organism all connected, known as God, Enlightenment, the Ultimate Reality, etc.

But then I decided that this was wishful thinking. I decided that maybe this was the nature of the universe, but maybe none of it was true and that the universe was simply a bunch of random floating matter, and that the mystics and all of their teachings were simply the product of a strange biological phenomena that came about as a result of biological chance. I didn't see any reason to believe one way or the other.

But I figured that the first explanation didn't add up as much as the other. It did explain the nature of creature in a way that made more sense. Rather than creating an imperfect, physical world separate from a perfect deity, which didn't make sense; it described creation as what would make more sense: God simply spreading his being throughout the universe. The catch is that his being can take the form of living organisms that are a product of evolution, and they are very messed up.

But if this God loved us, than why would he not intervene in the evolutionary process? And why would he even allow life in the first place? If a biotic matter is better than abiotic matter, why isn't the entire universe a giant, living organism

[this is being edited]

[Flip McWho]

Another problem with Pascal's wager argument is which one is right? All religions require you to live to a certain way. If you pick the wrong one, well you're pretty stuffed. Also hell doesn't really wash with a perfectly good being. To deserve the fate of hell you'd have to be nigh on close to satan himself.

Thats another thing, why is God often referred to as a 'him'? I realise that historically its because people thought men were better than woman and it was a mans world hence God being the best had to be a man. But wouldn't it stand to reason that God would be sexless rather than a defined sex?

Heres something concerning faith. If God created us then he must have installed the faculties of reason into us and thus just leaping blindly into faith in God is possibly against what such a God would wish. If you see what i'm saying.


Beingofone:

Could you please explain the Zeno's paradox bit further. I can't quite understand what you're getting at.

The singularity of consciousness is interesting, again its almost outta reach of my understanding. Is what you're saying basically that just because we're limited to our single experience doesn't mean that necessarily God is limited to any experience, God is effectively experiencing everything?

[FrostyBoy]

Maybe we have just misinterpreted what God meant when God said he made us in his image.

[Bill3000]

In all due respect; you do realize you contradicted yourself or you need to clarify your thought.

Hm? No, I didn't. Virtual particles pop in and out of existance all the time; it's part of the reason why the four fundamental interactions work at all. This is different from the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which deals with the problem of the collapse of a wavefunction.

And who is it that 'knows' all this and is conceptualizing a multiverse?

If by knowing you mean who observes all the universes, no one, by definition, as an observer only observes his own universe; e.g. the quantum state of the universe. No one has to "know" everything - in fact, it is impossible to know everything - Heisenburg Uncertaincy principle, which states that some quantities cannot be measured precisely at the same time, even in. principle. This is a fundamental law of nature - up to the point where particles are created from it, and is far more likely for nature to be formed from it, than a being that violates it.

186,000 MPS is just a number - nothing more, nothing less.

The speed of light is, by far, much more than just a number. It's a factor in many equations (And probably most, if not all, relativistic equations) - the energy of a particle, lorentz transformations, the norm of the 4-velocity, a conversion factor between time and space, et cetera. The speed of light, as well as other fundamental constants, are the reason why you exist today. If, for example, the fine structure constant ( a constant relating to the strength of the electromagnetic interaction), you probably wouldn't be typing your post right now, as there would be no molecules. Our universe is fine-tuned to have precise constants that allow us to exist. (Note that this isn't a proof toward god - after all, in an almost-infinite multiverse, there is bound to be at least one universe in which we exist)

The laws of nature are elegant enough to explain our existance, and it is possible to be satisfied by this and retain spirituality by celebrating existance. We do not need an arbitary being of human construct and flaws to explain otherwise.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by beingofone

Perfection cannot be perfect without the potential for continuous perfecting.

That makes absolutely no sense. It is like saying "a circle cannot be a circle without the potential for continuously making it more of a circle."

Lets do a thought experiment that has been done with the universe.
Throw a ball at the edge of your conscious awareness, if it bounces back your consciousness is finite. If it keeps going it is infinite.

It appears that my original reply was regarding "perfection," not infinity.

Originally posted by beingofone
At what point does your ability to conceptualize infinity stop?

Something infinite in all aspects is something without limits in all aspects. You cannot expand such a thing. It is a contradiction.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by beingofone
To view the universe as the alpha and omega would be like that of the Totality is continuum of infinitesimal quantity and magnitude. The number of the chain of events is so minute and multiplied that it evaporates into nothingness. That is division without limit one might say. That exceeds duality in its infinite division and separation.

Words pile up but the sentences don't make sense.

Originally posted by beingofone
Ie: Zeno`s paradox

Zeno's Paradox is resolved by realising an infinite series can have a finite sum.

[techumseh]

This essay by Bertrand Russell, "Why I am not a Christian", is interesting and quite entertaining. http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm

[trev]

What kind of loving God would send a human to hell just because he 'got the answer wrong?'

God is a just and holy God who cannot be near sin, and therefore people who have sin must because of the holy nature of God be kept away from him. But because God is a loving God, he has provided through his Son Jesus Christ a means to be cleansed of that sin and therefore allow us near him. So it is not a question of whether an answer is right or wrong, but whether we have been cleansed of our sin or not. Believe in Jesus Christ and the cleansing of sin he offers and you can live in heaven throughout eternity with God.

[beingofone]

Flip McWho:

Could you please explain the Zeno's paradox bit further. I can't quite understand what you're getting at.

Blind cause and effect is the end result of the universe as the totality. It ends as UR said with being solved by a finite sum and therefore not feasable in a philosophic framework.
It must be ultimate and ergo: beyond conceptualization.

The singularity of consciousness is interesting, again its almost outta reach of my understanding. Is what you're saying basically that just because we're limited to our single experience doesn't mean that necessarily God is limited to any experience, God is effectively experiencing everything?

This may sound bizaare at first but think about it.

Consciousness relates everything without exception including light and photons. You can experience light and matter and be aware of the experience.
There is no example, comparison, or duplication of your consciousness, it is one of a kind and the singularity that is the universe. Nothing that exists is outside of your consciousness.
There is only one consciousness - how many do you experience? You are experiencing reality in a nonlinear consciousness. You defy all linear thought, though it can be conceptualized and confused with actual existence.

Scientists keep looking for a singularity, they should try looking right between their eyes. I speak tongue in cheek as some physics major will no doubt take me to task.

Your consciousness is carrying out at this moment the hypertask of transcendance. It can never exaust itself in experience, thought, or expansion it is just as infinite as the universe. Learn to love it.
As Soren Kierkegaard said "subjectivity is the truth".

"How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin, when Aladdin rubbed his lamp"
-- T. H. Huxley



Sn00py:

Maybe we have just misinterpreted what God meant when God said he made us in his image.

Well said, and the scripture begins to make sense from beginning to end.



Urban Ranger:

It appears that my original reply was regarding "perfection," not infinity.

How long does a string have to be before it is the perfect length?

Something infinite in all aspects is something without limits in all aspects. You cannot expand such a thing. It is a contradiction.

Could you tell us where infinity ends?
Take your time.

Words pile up but the sentences don't make sense.

Cause and effect ad infinitum.