How Do We Know That God Exists?

[agnosticator]

kcdad is describing and/or means panentheism is this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

[mwc]

That article is waste of time. Essentially the universe is a subset of "god." And? So then "god" is the everything. So then "god" cannot be more than itself as I already stated. It's no a matter of whether or not we can perceive the everything or not but whether or not everything can be more than everything. The answer is "No. It cannot." Everything, being all things by definition, is it. "God" cannot go beyond itself. If "god" is all things then it is limited to that. You can't define "god" as "infinite" and "everything" since this would be contradictory. So "god" could not be Pi unless you simply used the identifier Pi to point to "god" since the endless stream of numbers would essentially make "god" incomplete (ie. lacking in everything since it doesn't even contain the whole of Pi which is what it is defined to be therefore the "god" that is Pi is never actually Pi and can never truly be Pi) at any given time.

 

What purpose does this serve to define things in this way? It has no sense of sentience. It has no sense of a completeness. It doesn't simplify the "problem" at all. It seems to do nothing than to push back the issue so as to not have to deal with it. It seems pointless.

 

mwc

[Guest kcdad]

I think your comic book explanation falls short.

 

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe. [1]

 

In panentheism, God is not exactly viewed as the creator or demiurge but the eternal animating force behind the universe, with the universe as nothing more than the manifest part of God. The cosmos exists within God, who in turn "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

 

This universal arrangement is not pantheism (all is God), but panentheism, a term devised by Karl C. F. Krause (1781-1832) to describe his thought. It is best known for its use by Charles Hartshorne and recently by Matthew Fox. Panentheism says that all is in God, somewhat as if God were the ocean and we were fish. If one considers what is in God's body to be part of God, then we can say that God is all there is and then some. The universe is God's body, but God's awareness or personality is greater than the sum of all the parts of the universe. All the parts have some degree of freedom in co-creating with God. At the start of its momentary career as a subject, an experience is God--as the divine initial aim. As the experience carries on its choosing process, it is a freely aiming reality that is not strictly God, since it departs from God's purpose to some degree. Yet everything is within God.

http://websyte.com/alan/pan.htm

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/

 

http://frimmin.com/faith/godinall.php

[Guest kcdad]

That article is waste of time. Essentially the universe is a subset of "god." And? So then "god" is the everything. So then "god" cannot be more than itself as I already stated. It's no a matter of whether or not we can perceive the everything or not but whether or not everything can be more than everything. The answer is "No. It cannot." Everything, being all things by definition, is it. "God" cannot go beyond itself. If "god" is all things then it is limited to that. You can't define "god" as "infinite" and "everything" since this would be contradictory. So "god" could not be Pi unless you simply used the identifier Pi to point to "god" since the endless stream of numbers would essentially make "god" incomplete (ie. lacking in everything since it doesn't even contain the whole of Pi which is what it is defined to be therefore the "god" that is Pi is never actually Pi and can never truly be Pi) at any given time.

 

What purpose does this serve to define things in this way? It has no sense of sentience. It has no sense of a completeness. It doesn't simplify the "problem" at all. It seems to do nothing than to push back the issue so as to not have to deal with it. It seems pointless.

 

mwc

 

There is a great example of comic book philosophy. (At least you could have read the Cliff's Notes version)

 

Pi... and infinite non repeating decimal...an irrational number... right? And yet, it is a real constant, unchanging concept. Pi exists as a single finite figure, but our puny mathematics can not find it.

 

Next time, try and move up to at least the Reader's Digest version...

[mwc]

There is a great example of comic book philosophy. (At least you could have read the Cliff's Notes version)

 

Pi... and infinite non repeating decimal...an irrational number... right? And yet, it is a real constant, unchanging concept. Pi exists as a single finite figure, but our puny mathematics can not find it.

 

Next time, try and move up to at least the Reader's Digest version...

And yet you offer nothing better in return. Maybe if I actually put forth more time and effort than whatever came into my head as I typed these responses I could reach your level of sophistication on this matter (ie. "god" is an everything...no really...that's an answer trust me on that) but alas I'm not willing that considering what I've up to now.

 

As for your assertion that Pi is a finite number, well, I think that speaks for itself. I may as well go ahead and assume that 1/3 must be a finite number as well.

 

mwc

[Guest kcdad]

There is a great example of comic book philosophy. (At least you could have read the Cliff's Notes version)

 

Pi... and infinite non repeating decimal...an irrational number... right? And yet, it is a real constant, unchanging concept. Pi exists as a single finite figure, but our puny mathematics can not find it.

 

Next time, try and move up to at least the Reader's Digest version...

And yet you offer nothing better in return. Maybe if I actually put forth more time and effort than whatever came into my head as I typed these responses I could reach your level of sophistication on this matter (ie. "god" is an everything...no really...that's an answer trust me on that) but alas I'm not willing that considering what I've up to now.

 

As for your assertion that Pi is a finite number, well, I think that speaks for itself. I may as well go ahead and assume that 1/3 must be a finite number as well.

 

mwc

 

Again, you fail to grasp the intricacies of advanced thought. I didn't claim Pi was a finite number. I wrote finite figure. Numbers are human concepts attempting to convey real world experience. The number is definitely infinite... we are unable to record in our imperfect number system the finite and constant nature of Pi... another human concept.

[shantonu]

There is a great example of comic book philosophy. (At least you could have read the Cliff's Notes version)

 

Pi... and infinite non repeating decimal...an irrational number... right? And yet, it is a real constant, unchanging concept. Pi exists as a single finite figure, but our puny mathematics can not find it.

 

Next time, try and move up to at least the Reader's Digest version...

And yet you offer nothing better in return. Maybe if I actually put forth more time and effort than whatever came into my head as I typed these responses I could reach your level of sophistication on this matter (ie. "god" is an everything...no really...that's an answer trust me on that) but alas I'm not willing that considering what I've up to now.

 

As for your assertion that Pi is a finite number, well, I think that speaks for itself. I may as well go ahead and assume that 1/3 must be a finite number as well.

 

mwc

 

Again, you fail to grasp the intricacies of advanced thought. I didn't claim Pi was a finite number. I wrote finite figure. Numbers are human concepts attempting to convey real world experience. The number is definitely infinite... we are unable to record in our imperfect number system the finite and constant nature of Pi... another human concept.

 

What does pi have to do with anything? Presumably, we should be able to understand the basics of Christianity without having infinite minds. If it doesn't make sense, then it's nonsensical (in the bad way).

 

Religion need not be simple, but it should be susceptible to ordinary criticism. The orginal gospel of the old testament was that God walked around like a human being and had a particular relationship with a particular group. There's nothing very complicated about that. The new testament offers a different gospel that is more complex, but it's still suscetible to ordinary human understanding.

 

However, as human beings have started to learn more about themselves and the world, the basic assumptions of the Bible no longer to make sense if interpreted as literal truth. Thus we can say pretty confidently that the God of the Bible does not exist.

 

I don't know what pi has to do with anything. After the Holocaust, we can't help but think that the genocidal account of Joshua is well . . . a genocide. And we know that genocides are wrong. So any account of God that has him order a genocide must be faulty. Q.E.D.

[Ouroboros]

I think KCs point is that we (as humans) put symbols on things we can't fully understand. Pi is both infinite and irrational, but we still can use it, represent it with letters and codes, and we can to certain extent understand it, without having a full knowledge of it. No one knows the decimal of Pi at position 10^100, but yet, we know how to use the number in math. In other words, we make an finite language (math) to represent infinite concepts.

[shantonu]

I think KCs point is that we (as humans) put symbols on things we can't fully understand. Pi is both infinite and irrational, but we still can use it, represent it with letters and codes, and we can to certain extent understand it, without having a full knowledge of it. No one knows the decimal of Pi at position 10^100, but yet, we know how to use the number in math. In other words, we make an finite language (math) to represent infinite concepts.

 

Oh. That's a good point. But then question then becomes whether a symbol adequately captures the reality that may lie beyond our comprehension.

 

Death is majestic--and the further shore may lie beyond our comprehension. But are the symbols of Christianity adequate to capturing what we humans long for in terms of comfort and "explanation" when confronted by the death of an innocent child?

 

I honestly don't know.

[Ouroboros]

Oh. That's a good point. But then question then becomes whether a symbol adequately captures the reality that may lie beyond our comprehension.

No, it never does. It only represents enough of what it's used for. Language is also symbols, and it's based on agreed forms. We make language, and we learn language to represent our ideas, but each one of us have a slightly different image of the words we use. That's why there's so much confusion in all these things we talk about. Two people can be in total conflict and argue against each other, and yet they mean the same things, but the language is what creates the conflict. I've seen it and experienced it innumerable times. And to understand a person, you have to understand what they mean with their symbols.

 

Death is majestic--and the further shore may lie beyond our comprehension. But are the symbols of Christianity adequate to capturing what we humans long for in terms of comfort and "explanation" when confronted by the death of an innocent child?

 

I honestly don't know.

I don't Christianity, in its current form, is adequate to help everyone, since we are the evidence it can fail. If something is supposed to work 100%, then it can't work to 90%. It's enough to have one leaving a religion to show that the religion wasn't enough for everyone. The religious symbols tends to be a bit too vague to be useful for science, research, and experiments, so religion doesn't fit there either. But it doesn't mean they can have some form of function for some people in their daily life.

[Guest kcdad]

'shantonu' date='Feb 8 2009,

Religion need not be simple, but it should be susceptible to ordinary criticism. The orginal gospel of the old testament was that God walked around like a human being and had a particular relationship with a particular group. There's nothing very complicated about that. The new testament offers a different gospel that is more complex, but it's still suscetible to ordinary human understanding.

 

Not very complicated, nor very interesting... the creator of the universe, infinite, and omnipotent walking around...??? At that moment he become finite and less than omnipotent... a self contradiction. That must be a "only God can pull that off" ability.

However, as human beings have started to learn more about themselves and the world, the basic assumptions of the Bible no longer to make sense if interpreted as literal truth. Thus we can say pretty confidently that the God of the Bible does not exist.

 

The God of The Bible may exist, the deity depicted in the Bible may not exist.

 

I don't know what pi has to do with anything. After the Holocaust, we can't help but think that the genocidal account of Joshua is well . . . a genocide. And we know that genocides are wrong. So any account of God that has him order a genocide must be faulty. Q.E.D.

 

Any account of God "saying" anything must be faulty.

[Guest kcdad]

If something is supposed to work 100%, then it can't work to 90%.

 

BRILLIANT! How simple and inarguable. (Dang it, how come I can't think of simple, concise things like that?)

 

Hey! Can I get that tattooed on my ass?

[Ouroboros]

If something is supposed to work 100%, then it can't work to 90%.

 

BRILLIANT! How simple and inarguable. (Dang it, how come I can't think of simple, concise things like that?)

 

Hey! Can I get that tattooed on my ass?

Sure! Go ahead! Then you have a solid argument to sit on, all the time...

 

Btw, the "brilliant" sounded a bit British... I'm getting a sudden urge for dark beer?!?

[Guest kcdad]

If something is supposed to work 100%, then it can't work to 90%.

 

BRILLIANT! How simple and inarguable. (Dang it, how come I can't think of simple, concise things like that?)

 

Hey! Can I get that tattooed on my ass?

Sure! Go ahead! Then you have a solid argument to sit on, all the time...

 

Btw, the "brilliant" sounded a bit British... I'm getting a sudden urge for dark beer?!?

 

Pint 'o ale laddie buck. Tuck a couple of bangers away and throw down a couple of pints.

[MathGeek]

If aliens from another planet landed and saw the cross of Jesus and they said, "Hey, he came and saved our kind from sin and damnation."

 

That might be the day I believe again. Or if God talked to the world OUT LOUD like he did to the people of Israel in the Old Testament!!!!

[shantonu]

If aliens from another planet landed and saw the cross of Jesus and they said, "Hey, he came and saved our kind from sin and damnation."

 

That might be the day I believe again. Or if God talked to the world OUT LOUD like he did to the people of Israel in the Old Testament!!!!

 

Even under those circumstances, I not worship God. I would believe in God, but he still would not be worth worshiping. If God were to say that the genocides in Josha were all wrong and that he never authorized them and said some other things, then I would worship him. Why worship an entity simply because he is infinitely powerful if he is not also just and loving?

[MathGeek]

If aliens from another planet landed and saw the cross of Jesus and they said, "Hey, he came and saved our kind from sin and damnation."

 

That might be the day I believe again. Or if God talked to the world OUT LOUD like he did to the people of Israel in the Old Testament!!!!

 

Even under those circumstances, I not worship God. I would believe in God, but he still would not be worth worshiping. If God were to say that the genocides in Josha were all wrong and that he never authorized them and said some other things, then I would worship him. Why worship an entity simply because he is infinitely powerful if he is not also just and loving?

 

I think by that time I would understand that the gun was loaded and there was no way I could escape it.

 

I agree with you, though.

[Guest kcdad]

If God were to say that the genocides in Josha were all wrong and that he never authorized them and said some other things, then I would worship him.

 

Has God ever "said" anything? Did God ever say he did authorize those or any other genocide. OR... did some one say God said he authorized them?

 

As George Bernard Shaw wrote in The Crucible: "God's voice never tickled my ear, nor anyone else's".

[nightflight]

If God were to say that the genocides in Josha were all wrong and that he never authorized them and said some other things, then I would worship him.

 

Has God ever "said" anything? Did God ever say he did authorize those or any other genocide. OR... did some one say God said he authorized them?

 

As George Bernard Shaw wrote in The Crucible: "God's voice never tickled my ear, nor anyone else's".

 

Mthrqutl never said anything either. That's why I don't believe in Mthrqutl.

[Guest kcdad]

If God were to say that the genocides in Josha were all wrong and that he never authorized them and said some other things, then I would worship him.

 

Has God ever "said" anything? Did God ever say he did authorize those or any other genocide. OR... did some one say God said he authorized them?

 

As George Bernard Shaw wrote in The Crucible: "God's voice never tickled my ear, nor anyone else's".

 

Mthrqutl never said anything either. That's why I don't believe in Mthrqutl.

 

BRILLIANT!

[Realist]

Joanna,

 

I think Antlerman hit the nail on the head. Although a group of people may gather and state WE believe in God, it is essentially up to the individual and how they interpret the meaning of thier lives.

 

You ask the question, "How do we know God exists;" but I ask you the question, How do YOU know God does not exist? This is a long and painful journey that I think would be very rewarding for you to embark on. For the record, there is no clear cut answer for this question, only peoples perceptions as it relates to thier life. I would suggets reading every book, article, sermon and website you can get your hands on and then decide for yourself.

 

I would be very hesitant to come to a site such as this in search for answers since you will get usually only one perspective. The people here are very smart and canny with words.

 

If you want, I can certianly tell you why I feel that God exists; but this could be abrogated by most of the loquacious intellects on this site. Just my thoughts anyway.

 

.... Freeday!!! What narrow minded crap you ooze here!! I think maybe I will rephrase for you what you are REALLY saying here!

 

I would suggets reading every book, article, sermon and website you can get your hands on WRITTEN BY CHRISTIANS AND ONLY FROM THE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT and then decide for yourself.

 

I would be very hesitant to come to a site such as this in search for answers since you will get usually only one perspective. OUR CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE IS THE ONLY PERSPECTIVE YOU NEED! The people here are very smart and canny with words.

 

Joanna .... what you need to know is that that is the BASIC problem with Christianity! It is SOOO stuck inside its BRAINWASHED mindset it cannot see the woods for the trees! I think the following example I witnessed recently expands on the above theme. I heard one of my born again nephews state to his brother that he had just read a superb book which FULLY explained the Muslims, their beliefs and their goals! I have neither respect for born agains or Muslims ... but who did the book turn out to be written by?? A born again of course!! How can one EVER get a balanced perspective in life unless one strives to read from as MANY varied viewpoints as possible! Freeday ... you have just condemned yourself with your own statements!!!

[mwc]

Again, you fail to grasp the intricacies of advanced thought. I didn't claim Pi was a finite number. I wrote finite figure.

Indeed you did. Thus you have shamed me with my inability to think at your obviously much higher level of thought.

fig⋅ure

   /ˈfɪgyər; especially Brit. ˈfɪgər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fig-yer; especially Brit. fig-er] Show IPA Pronunciation

noun, verb, -ured, -ur⋅ing.

–noun

1. a numerical symbol, esp. an Arabic numeral.

2. an amount or value expressed in numbers.

3. figures, the use of numbers in calculating; arithmetic: to be poor at figures.

4. a written symbol other than a letter.

5. form or shape, as determined by outlines or exterior surfaces: to be round, square, or cubical in figure.

6. the bodily form or frame: a slender or graceful figure.

7. an individual bodily form or a person with reference to form or appearance: A tall figure stood in the doorway.

8. a character or personage, esp. one of distinction: a well-known figure in society.

9. a person's public image or presence: a controversial political figure.

10. the appearance or impression made by a person or sometimes a thing: to make quite a figure in financial circles; to present a wretched figure of poverty.

11. a representation, pictorial or sculptured, esp. of the human form: The frieze was bordered with the figures of men and animals.

12. an emblem, type, or symbol: The dove is a figure of peace.

13. Rhetoric. a figure of speech.

14. a textural pattern, as in cloth or wood: draperies with an embossed silk figure.

15. a distinct movement or division of a dance.

16. a movement, pattern, or series of movements in skating.

17. Music. a short succession of musical notes, as either a melody or a group of chords, that produces a single complete and distinct impression.

18. Geometry. a combination of geometric elements disposed in a particular form or shape: The circle, square, and polygon are plane figures. The sphere, cube, and polyhedron are solid figures.

19. Logic. the form of a categorical syllogism with respect to the relative position of the middle term.

20. Optics. the precise curve required on the surface of an optical element, esp. the mirror or correcting plate of a reflecting telescope.

21. the natural pattern on a sawed wood surface produced by the intersection of knots, burls, growth rings, etc.

22. a phantasm or illusion.

 

I mean for me to actually be silly enough to use the word "figure" in one of the top 4 ways laid out in the dictionary in relation to numbers and math. Low thinkers we all are. When we should have all been thinking something like number 12 or 13 like the advanced thinkers do.

 

If you're going to switch contexts, Mr. Advanced Thinker, you should probably not use a synonym to do it. Figure=number dumb ass. Word play doesn't help you escape this go around.

 

Numbers are human concepts attempting to convey real world experience. The number is definitely infinite... we are unable to record in our imperfect number system the finite and constant nature of Pi... another human concept.

I understand that's where you were going with Pi. But you'll use word play to twist the concept, any concept, to say "These are just words that humans use to point to concepts and...<blah blah blah>." That's your "out" in all situations (and especially convenient in a written forum). The problem is you've yet to actually say anything. "God" is everything. "God" apparently can't envelope an infinite human concept (apparently they're exempted from the requirements of inclusion as "god" is not required to know the infinite number Pi since that's only a human concept and somehow beneath "god" or "god" knows what Pi is to infinity which is impossible...no matter...that's "low thought"). You've no clue what your "god" is but you desire it to be transcendent so it is. It's as simple as that.

 

For example. "Dumb ass" is a pointer I use to point to you. But what does that really mean? What does "dumb ass" really say about you? I can sit here and talk about "dumb ass" all day long (and probably enjoy myself quite a bit) but am I really saying anything or am I just saying "dumb ass" a lot? I think I'm probably just saying "dumb ass" a lot and never, really, saying anything about you. So why go on? If I head down that path the fact is I'm not really talking about you, the "dumb ass," but really I'm making it more about me. So from what I can tell you're saying a lot of nothing about your "god" but it's really all about you. This is why you have to pick nits instead posting anything of substance.

 

Please feel free to actually post something of substance instead of the ad homs and word play. Since all my thoughts are "low thinking" you go right ahead, step up, and "god" the fuck out of your next post. Define the shit out of that SOB so drooling "low thinkers" like myself can't possibly get confused. C'mon Mr. Tour Guide. Give me the deluxe tour.

 

mwc

[Guest kcdad]

'mwc' date='Feb 9 2009, 05:49 AM'

4. a written symbol other than a letter.

 

I mean for me to actually be silly enough to use the word "figure" in one of the top 4 ways laid out in the dictionary in relation to numbers and math.

 

Oh yes, we can play this game all day long if it makes you feel better...

 

How long did you have to search to find that series of definitions?

The first one on my search list from Princeton:

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=figure

 

"Number" comes in NINTH here.

 

 

 

For example. "Dumb ass" is a pointer I use to point to you. But what does that really mean? What does "dumb ass" really say about you?

It doesn't say anything about me, because you don't know anything about me... it says a lot about you; your education, your anger, your frustration and your childishness.

 

Please feel free to actually post something of substance instead of the ad homs and word play. Since all my thoughts are "low thinking" you go right ahead, step up, and "god" the fuck out of your next post. Define the shit out of that SOB so drooling "low thinkers" like myself can't possibly get confused. C'mon Mr. Tour Guide. Give me the deluxe tour.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen... step right up and watch the mwc as it rages and spits all over itself....

"dumb ass"

"fuck"

"shit"

"SOB"

Wow... those are highly technical and academic terms.

[mwc]

'mwc' date='Feb 9 2009, 05:49 AM'

4. a written symbol other than a letter.

 

I mean for me to actually be silly enough to use the word "figure" in one of the top 4 ways laid out in the dictionary in relation to numbers and math.

 

Oh yes, we can play this game all day long if it makes you feel better...

 

How long did you have to search to find that series of definitions?

The first one on my search list from Princeton:

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=figure

 

"Number" comes in NINTH here.

 

 

 

For example. "Dumb ass" is a pointer I use to point to you. But what does that really mean? What does "dumb ass" really say about you?

It doesn't say anything about me, because you don't know anything about me... it says a lot about you; your education, your anger, your frustration and your childishness.

 

Please feel free to actually post something of substance instead of the ad homs and word play. Since all my thoughts are "low thinking" you go right ahead, step up, and "god" the fuck out of your next post. Define the shit out of that SOB so drooling "low thinkers" like myself can't possibly get confused. C'mon Mr. Tour Guide. Give me the deluxe tour.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen... step right up and watch the mwc as it rages and spits all over itself....

"dumb ass"

"fuck"

"shit"

"SOB"

Wow... those are highly technical and academic terms.

And you have successfully proven my point. Thank you.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Everyone, stop the name calling. This forum is the Coliseum, and we won't allow it here. Or we have to close this thread.