Belief in a "Creator" is caused simply by the illusion of perspective

Great Debates
121

That’s true. And we can’t decide he is or is not. New rules won’t help that. Our encounters with him are physical, but no; I never said that made him literally physical.

What I’m saying is the only way we can have any awareness of him is through our senses, which are physical in nature. The original point was at this present time, he has to approach us according to physical or natural law. We don’t know how to go to him even based on your “entity rules”. You can call it “spiritual” contact or whatever, but we still have to engage brain chemicals and energy to perceive him. That’s physical. God is a participant. We have to go with what we know until it’s proved otherwise. If you’re trying to make the point that we don’t have enough information to believe anything about God or to believe in him; I would have to agree. But I still do. A belief in God isn’t based on much in the way of facts. Makes perfect sense to me, but I wouldn’t expect to be able to sell it to the next guy.

He is lifting rocks in effect. We call it our solar system. But although it appears earth is floating mid-air, he created a mechanical system to allow this to happen and gave us the intelligence to explain it to some degree. If he dropped by and lifted a rock right next to me, he would have to either communicate that it was him or I would just think I was hallucinating. Would he materialize because he was lifting the rock, probably not; since he doesn’t show his face around earth much.

I realize it’s just a guide, but if you used it to decide whether the natural laws we have right now apply to God or there’s a whole new set; we would have to choose the one that we have facts on until a new book comes out.

122

Maybe you’re earnest, but at times, you come off as a troll. How do you decide that our “encounters” are physical? What if a Judeo-Christian God does exist? Then, it’s possible that a soul exists and that there can be awareness that is non-physical in manifestation. Since you can’t disprove the Judeo-Christian God, you can’t prove that our encounters are confined to the physical realm.

And what does this mean: at this present time, he has to approach us according to physical or natural law.

Do you mean that God changes medium of interaction every 1500 years? Or more likely, are you trying to say that humans should try to understand encounters in terms of physical laws? I see no firm reason to pursue the latter, other than it being the only option available to us. And that’s a human constraint and doesn’t say anything about God’s constraints, if it exists.

Earth isn’t “floating in mid-air”. A summation of gravitational forces are responsible. And Newton showed that these same forces operate within our scope of observation. God isn’t proven to be required for these forces to operate.

123

So I see now. What threw me off is the fact that you only quoted the parts that you liked, and deliberately ignored the earlier definitions which specifically contradicted your position.

In other words, this was a misunderstanding on my part, caused by your selective use of the facts.

Moreover, as I already pointed out, even the definition which you cited fails to prove that God is part of the universe. Its very own wording demonstrates that it is only meant to encompass those things which are bound to a spatial location.

Because God is supposed to be the one who created space and time. Ergo, he cannot be part of space, and he cannot be said to exist in either space or time.

For reasons that I already gave. If God created the universe, then he is not part of the universe.

You insist on repeating that mantra, “The Universe is everything.” This is a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT. You can’t prove that the universe is everything by repeatedly insisting it to be so.

124

Yes.

Yes.

“Arrogance” is simply a label we apply to those physical manifestations, not a non-physical construct.

125

Still not sure what a troll is, but if you mean I’m arguing from a position I don’t believe is true, just to stir the pot, then you’re wrong. I have answered everything as honestly as possible. Well, I happen to believe a Judeo-Christian type God does exist. I just don’t agree with what it means to the world. I don’t believe it excludes most of the world because they don’t know his name. I think we Christians just really missed the boat on what it signified. I didn’t know that having a soul was in question by what brand of God there is. Okay for the purpose of this question and because I believe it’s true, we have a soul. You’re suggesting that God connects with our soul on a completely non-physical way and we have no awareness of it? Seems kind of pointless. Do we not know it’s happened. Are we just “soul incubators” with no connection to our soul? I’m saying when God interacts with us, we perceive it with our senses. I don’t necessarily think our encounters are confined to the physical realm, but that’s the only thing I am capable of interpreting it from. I have no other way to measure it yet.

No, I don’t mean God changes medium at certain time intervals. We are the ones that cease being physical and then the encounters are re-defined. I really have no details on that other than “religious” interpretations. If I am wrong, we enter the miraculous world of compost and are re-cycled by the planet and no part of us goes on. I am hoping to be “re-defined” rather than merely “recycled”.:slight_smile:

Earth isn’t “floating in mid-air”. A summation of gravitational forces are responsible. And Newton showed that these same forces operate within our scope of observation. God isn’t proven to be required for these forces to operate.
[/QUOTE]
I said it appears we are floating in air. The mechanism exists to explain that. We only need God for gravity if our existence and lives are due to God.

Gyran9, I have never failed to recognize that my argument is weak. All of my points hinge on God’s existence. When you’re making those points to someone who doubts God’s existence, they are hard to really get across. I am trying, not trolling.

126

You had already referred to the earlier definition and assumed the position that there was only one. I merely enlightened you.:wink:

We were both being selective, but yes it was a misunderstanding on your part.

I don’t look for my truths in the dictionary. You were using those definition to prove a point that I don’t agree with. I really have a tough time separating God from the universe. Don’t you agree that he is everywhere, all powerful? Saying he is “out” of the universe or somehow not a part of it is saying he is not a part of everything. Prove that God is somehow not a part of the universe. What is he part of then?

That’s a really big leap. Okay, I’ll agree that he is timeless, because a mortal God is in itself pointless. I’ll agree that God created space, but only to the extent that he created our awareness of it, our existence. If I pull from one of the books they threw out of the Bible, it states that he made the invisible, visible. You’re saying he’s not in our universe and I’m saying he is able to be anywhere and is. I’m also saying that space has always existed. He is the creator of our reality, of our physical world. That doesn’t mean that there wasn’t something before us. He has always been and so has the universe. He altered reality, but it existed before us. He just created our perception of space and time. Time only has meaning to a physical world, with physical limitations. Our physical universe has an expiration date, but there is no end to everything. Everything is the universe. If you need to call it something else, then you can. The total of all that is. TATI.:slight_smile:

You’re right I do think it’s everything. You can’t say God is not a part of the universe and not define what or where he is. You’re telling me where he isn’t or what he isn’t is somehow a definition or an answer of where and what he is. That seems circular to me. If he can’t be here, he’s gotta be there. Define “there”. That he can’t be in the universe because he created it is too simplistic. If you agree that he created our physical universe, then you have to see that where he was that split second before our creation was everything. It was his universe and his only creation was to add a physical realm to what already there.

127

Demonstrably wrong, as I cited several of the definitions in that link. I did fail to recognize the ones which you cited, but that’s precisely because you ignored the earlier ones which specifically contradicted your claim.

The difference is twofold, First, unlike me, you ignored the definitions which explicitly disproved your claim. And second, the definition which you DID cite failed to contradict my position in the least. In other words, my “selectivity” was for the purpose of emphasis, whereas yours was for the purpose of avoiding any evidence that contradicted your position.

In which case, you shouldn’t utter arguments which rest on the definition of the word “universe.” If you’re unable to defend that definition, then you should avoid such lines of reasoning.

In other words, don’t appeal to definitions if you truly claim not to seek any truths in that manner.

Naturally. Howver, the fact that you disagreed with this point is not a valid excuse for using incorrect definitions of terms such as “universe” or “physical.”

Look, if you’re unwilling to use terms correctly, that’s your problem. This merely demonstrates one’s desire to hold fast to a position, despite all evidence and despite all proper usage of the terms. Are you willing to use definitions correctly, or would you rather save face and hold fast to your opinions?

Similarly, if you’re unable to comprehend that the creator of the universe is not a mere part of the universe, then I’m afraid there’s nothing anyone can do for you. This is such a fundamentally tenet that your inability (or perhaps refusal?) to grasp it simply boggles the mind. Ultimately, it is your problem, and one can only question how any person can fail to grasp something so basic.

128

No, I’m saying that if said God exists, one could posit that a human is able to submit to experiences from both realms: physical and “spiritual”. And that it’s possible that to the human, the type of these interactions is indistinguishable, thus leading to your claim that “encounter” is via physical apparatus.

129

But JThunder, you have to be able to actually analyze the definitions to argue about them intentionally.

It’s not at all impossible that we might someday discover a new kind of “stuff” that was neither matter nor energy (according to their present definitions), but that stuff would still be part of the universe.

The problem is that you can’t recognize which definitions are valid and which are imprecise. Ultimately the “universe” can only be considered to be the set of everything that interacts.

130

I didn’t ignore them. They weren’t definitive enough.

I’m not sure how me ignoring the definition is different than you ignoring the one that doesn’t fit your beliefs. My selectivity was for the purpose of a more accurate description, but I’m not going to argue that point. It’s irrelevant.

I didn’t quote the dictionary, you did. I went to your link and saw there was information you missed. The dictionary doesn’t have any up to date reference sources for God or the universe. Science has some for the universe. I’m going with what we’ve learned about the universe so far and trying not to come up with too much more than what that is.

I would like to know on what authority your limited definition has merit. I don’t have a “problem”. I do have a belief and I am able to conceive how the “universe” can be all there is, everything. This is not about saving face or winning an argument. If I was keeping score, I’m sadly behind on wins. It is about your limited concept of the big picture. I explained to you my interpretation of the word universe and even offered to rename it, so you could stop being so narrow about the concept. So we could get past a stupid word and discuss the concept. You weren’t interested in that.

A “mere part” of this universe is not what I am suggesting at all. The universe is everything. It is all of the energy and matter that is and ever was. God is in that, of that. He has changed that energy and matter to create us. We are still all part of the energy and matter that has always existed. How is that not the universe. I am not somehow insulting God by expaining that we are all part of the same whole. Maybe we’re not talking about the same God? Okay below is your quote:

Recap: This I believe is where you first brought up that God transcends space and time. Before that we were talking about whether God was in some way physical(not literally) because all of our interactions with him involve our physical response. What does God trancends space mean? Where was he when he “created” the universe. Some sort of “parallel universe” or what? You’ve indicated that the universe is limited and there are “other aspects” outside it. But yet you haven’t even come up with a theory or opinion. Transcends does not define anything. It is abstract or incomplete without details.

131

Okay, I can’t disagree with that on the whole. What I was trying to say is that from my frame of reference, which is physical; I can only perceive things physically. If somehow there is a component that is indistinguishable to me, I have no reason to add a new theory to the mix. It is unnecessary to add details that may not even be required for our experience. But, I’ll give you that point, it is possible. If something requires that it be necessary, then I would consider it. We have no proof at this point that anything exists totally in a spiritual realm.

132

That’s the thing. You don’t know this. You guess it, based on your understanding and experience, like any human will. But, it’s an assumption that we take for granted.

And no proof against, either. Technically, it is unknown but assumed that the spiritual realm doesn’t exist (scientifically speaking).

133

We do not refer to a nose in the air as arrogance or “rolleyes” as arrogance. These are signs of arrogance. These manifestations remain just that.
And the word arrogance is the label – a symbol of the thing* itself. The “thing” is arrogance. It is an abstract concept and non-physical. If you do not consider arrogance to be an abstract concept, please give an example of what you do consider to fit that description.
My understanding is that time is not physical. If it were, it would be part of the “M” in E=MC2 rather than the “C.” Please correct me if I am mistaken and provide a cite or cites which support your statement that time and gravity are physical things.

Thanks for your response. As you can tell, math and science are not my strong suit so please explain in layman’s terms.

134

I agree, that’s all we have is what we have experienced, heard and believe to be true. I would label it a conclusion as opposed to a guess. I have had physical proof of God or I am delusional, so have come to the conclusion that my “physical” frame of reference is correct.(or I’m delusional:)) That doesn’t mean there isn’t more, another “realm”. We learn from what our experiences are. I can say that God is part of the physical realm from experience, but cannot even define a process that bypasses physical or sensory input of some kind. Scientifically I cannot prove God exists either.

135

Abstract concepts and ideas exist only in the conciousness of human beings. I believe conciousness is physical in nature, and by extension, abstract concepts are physical, as well.

Time is simply considered a dimension of space-time. Dimensions are physical.

Gravity is simply the interaction between two massive bodies. I would call the interaction between two physical objects physical.

136

Arrogance is a physical thing, although the particular physical manifestation of it can vary. Software is a physical thing, although its particular physical manifestation can vary. Two programs might have very different code, yet be functionally identical.

Take away the physical manifestation, and where’s your arrogance? No brain, no attitude, no arrogance.

137

You are not making any senses here. Where did you get from my initial post that I was doing circular reasoing?

The age-old counterquestion is, if this universe needs a creator, who created this creator?

138

There is no gravity. Gravity is just a concept created to describe a phenomenon we have been observing for ages. Instead, space-time warps around masses, creating this effect.

Time is not a physical thing. It is one of the axes of space-time. Time does not exist, either. I know, it’s mind boggling.

No, but it is merely a label given to a particular mental state. It’s like blue - blue doesn’t exist, it merely is a label for a particular region in the visible light spectrum.

139

What you said would not have been circular reasoning, were it to stand on its own. It only becomes circular reasoning when it is combined with the OP.
You said that, since we are here, abiogenesis and development of self aware beings must be mathematically inevitable.

On its own, this statement is not circular reasoning.

However, the OP says that, since abiogenesis and development of self aware beings is mathematically inevitable, there is no need to consider the possibility of a creator.
Think about that for a second. This conclusion must have already have been an implicit assumption for your original statement to make sense.

Thus the argument ends up looking like this:

  1. Since we need not consider the possibility of a creator, and since we are here, our existence must have been a mathematical certainty.

  2. Since our existence was a mathematical certainty, we need not consider the possibility of a creator.
    As you can see, the conclusion has already been assumed in the first step, and that is why it is circular reasoning.

I don’t believe in anything so simplistic as a a “creator”.

But if a universe exists in which self aware beings arise from lifelessness, I will consider the possibility that there is some reason for that.

140

To clarify: I don’t believe in a creator, but neither do I disbelieve in one. I just don’t think I have enough information to know either way, especially considering that the true explanation may be beyond my understanding.