• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Where Did 'God' Come From?

There is no reason and no evidence to propose that anything other than matter and energy exist.

Of course there is, but let's not get off topic.

You are “presupposing” that something other than the only things we can detect, measure, or predict, exists.

No, I have reasons for thinking God exists. That's not a presupposition.

He is observing that absolutely nothing other than matter and energy have been shown to exist

Obviously, it doesn't follow from there is evidence of matter and energy that therefore there's evidence against a category of existence that is outside of matter and energy.
 
Well, again, there's no reason to think that an immaterial being can't interact with a material being.
Oh. Dear. Well, you maybe should take a pause and read carefully the other posts and threads in this forum.

Yes, there are very good reasons - reliable, repeatable and predictable - to think that nothing can interact with human being that we can’t detect.

It’s really quite interesting science!

A bit of advice, since you have just joined our forum. Read. Think. Reflect. A lot has been written here over the decades. A lot of young christians have come here thinking they know everything, thinking they are talking to other teenagers. But that is not what this forum is. Look around. Learn the place you have just arrived at. Don’t be the ugly American in France shouting at everyone in vulgar English for not giving you what you want.

If your whole purpose is to fly in like a seasgull and shit all over the place and fly away, you will neither influence others nor learn anything. You will merely flap your wings and squawk.
 
Well, again, there's no reason to think that an immaterial being can't interact with a material being.
Oh. Dear. Well, you maybe should take a pause and read carefully the other posts and threads in this forum.
I have. Nobody has given any good reason to think that what is immaterial cannot interact with what is material.

to think that nothing can interact with human being that we can’t detect.

So, what is your good reason for thinking something immaterial cannot interact with what is material?

Read. Think. Reflect.

You should take your own advice. You're going to learn a lot more from me than I am from you. I've already read what you've read and then some. I know all the dumb atheist arguments.

thinking they are talking to other teenagers.

I don't know who I am talking to, but I've pwned everyone so far. Are you next?
 
Actually, your position is the weak one. What you are arguing here is that I must prove that there is no other "substance"

I don't care what you think you can prove or can't prove.

Then why are you trying to engage me in a discussion? I care enough about what you think you can prove or can't prove to spend some of my few remaining heartbeats in this discussion.

Did you not admit that you're presupposing materialism? That there is only matter and energy? And if so, how is that a good argument against God's existence? All you're doing is presupposing that the very category of existence that God occupies is nonexistent. Do you really think that's persuasive?

Absolutely not, and Rhea is quite right. I am not presupposing materialism. I am saying that I have no good reason to presuppose or just plain suppose that your proposed "category of existence that God occupies" actually exists. If you believe it does, then explain why and we can discuss your reasons.

Yours is to prove your positive claim--that a spiritual realm is likely to exist

I could do that, but it's besides the point... My critique against your position still stands whether or not I believe there's another category of existence that is outside of matter and energy. All I'm saying is your position is silly. "Hey guys, God doesn't exist...! Why? Because I've presupposed that He doesn't exist! Bam!"

I would not presuppose that God doesn't exist, and I hope that you would not presuppose he does exist either. I certainly don't presuppose that God does NOT exist. Not having a reason to presuppose God's existence is not the same as presupposing that God does not exist. It is just having no reason to jump to the conclusion that God exists. I have no evidence to support such a supposition. I can't prove that fairies or leprechauns don't exist either, but I don't see why I have any burden to prove that. Same goes for your God.

Anyway, you claim above that you could prove your positive claim. If so, why on earth would you not do that? By claiming to have a proof and not giving it, you end up leaving the impression that you actually don't have one. It is not beside the point, because it would actually answer the question that is the thread title.
 
A newborn child, cold and hungry, cries out to the universe for food and warmth. He is gathered up in his mother’s arms, and is comforted, and fed.

We don’t remember this experience, but it is one we’ve all shared. I believe it leaves us with a sense that we might implore a greater being to come to our aid in time of trouble, and that it is likely the seed of the idea of ‘God’.

On a cold day, I walked out of the apartment ready to shiver. Stepping out of the shadow and into the sunlight, I felt a warmth and comfort, as if I were loved by the Sun. And I understood how easy it was for our ancestors to view the Sun as a god.

In early history people worshiped multiple gods, prayed to them for favors and offered them gifts so that the rains would water their crops, and the river would not flood their homes. By coincidence, this sometimes appeared to work. Psychologists have since discovered that behavior that was intermittently rewarded was more difficult to extinguish than behavior that was consistently rewarded. And so superstition flourished.

But then something new was added. Monotheism took the strong position that there was only one God.

And not only was this the God to pray to and worship, but this God also expected you to follow rules. If you followed the commandments, you would prosper, if not in this life, then in the next.

I remember the preachers from my youth, Oral Roberts and Norman Vincent Peale, teaching that God is a Good God, and that following Him brings both blessings and expectations. I remember the prayer at dinner, “God is Great, God is Good …”.

God became a way to make being good and doing good both valuable and sacred. And that is why the idea is still useful today, even by those of us who use the term in a literary rather than a literal sense.

He didn't 'come' from anywhere because He has always existed. He's an eternal being.
Nonsense. If this god can think and do things like create universes, it is subject to time. Which means it is subject to the arrow of time and everything that comes with it. And we know that perpetual motion machines don't exist, which means your hypothesized god would be reduced to nothing (literally) within a finite period of time. So much for an eternal god.
 
He didn't 'come' from anywhere because He has always existed. He's an eternal being.
No, you are confusing God with physical reality. God came from human beings trying to figure out how it works and how to cope with it.
God isn't part of 'physical reality,' so no.
God is a product of human brains, and exists solely as arrangements of neurons within human brains, so far as anyone can tell. So yes, gods are very much a part of our physical reality.
 
I also believe that God is not part of physical reality. Nor are other things that don't exist. ;)

That's a pretty bad argument. "A being like God can't exist because God isn't of matter and energy, and I've presupposed that only matter and energy can exist!" Lul.
Feel free to explain what this god is made of, what its characteristics are, what the characteristics of the domain it exists within are, and how this god creates universes and interacts with them. If you can't do this, you are just blowing hot air out of your ass.
 
If your whole purpose is to fly in like a seasgull and shit all over the place and fly away, you will neither influence others nor learn anything. You will merely flap your wings and squawk.
I think we have a winner here.
 
Well, again, there's no reason to think that an immaterial being can't interact with a material being.
Oh. Dear. Well, you maybe should take a pause and read carefully the other posts and threads in this forum.
I have. Nobody has given any good reason to think that what is immaterial cannot interact with what is material.

to think that nothing can interact with human being that we can’t detect.

So, what is your good reason for thinking something immaterial cannot interact with what is material?

Read. Think. Reflect.

You should take your own advice. You're going to learn a lot more from me than I am from you. I've already read what you've read and then some. I know all the dumb atheist arguments.

thinking they are talking to other teenagers.

I don't know who I am talking to, but I've pwned everyone so far. Are you next?
If your beliefs make you a better person then hang onto them. But if they cause you problems you may want to re-examine where they came from and what they actually mean.

I was raised in a pragmatic church (the Salvation Army) that believed in the possibility of faith healing but also believed in doctors. Mother took us to an Oral Roberts evangelism meeting. They would pray, but also take their kids to the doctor when ill. The idea was that God worked through the doctors. A couple other adaptive notions were that "God always answers prayers, but sometimes the answer is No" and "God helps those who help themselves".

I remember writing to Oral Roberts about a question that was bothering me. "What is the difference between our soul and us?" I was wondering what it means that our souls go to heaven, and why should I care if this soul went to heaven if it wasn't me. I got a response back suggesting I speak with my local minister about this. But my local ministers were my parents and I figured if I didn't know then they probably wouldn't know either.

There is a question about the materiality of an "idea" or a "belief". Although ideas are presumed to be products of the brain, we are perfectly capable of communicating ideas without connecting one brain to another. A chef can write a book of recipes, pass away, and then a hundred years later someone can pick up the book and prepare the same meal.

Another question is about our own nature versus the nature of a brain. We seem to exist as processes running upon the brain. If the process stops, then the brain reverts to a lump of inert matter, and we are gone. So, the brain is insufficient without a running process. The process is not a physical object, but is instead a series of rapid changes within the physical object.
 
Back
Top Bottom