The Concept of God

1. 60

   daeemominposted 15 years ago

   The Concept of God
   Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
   
   We have the entire universe before us. We see it, we experience it, and so are forced to believe in its existence. Even when a man rejects the godhead, he still believes in theuniverse. But when and how did it come into being? Explaining its existence as the creation of God is no final answer--so it is generally held--since the very next question which arises is if God made the universe, then who made God?
   
   Can we believe in a causeless universe and a causeles God? Belief in a causeless God as the Creator of all things has more logic to it, in this world of cause and effect, than belief in a causeless universe and a non-existent God. It is by believing in a causeless Creator that we save ourselves from believing in the impossibility of a causeless universe.
   
   Belief in God seems to many to be a very strange thing. But disbelief is even stranger. Sometimes it is argued that belief must rest on proof. But, from the purely scientific standpoint, nothing in this world can be proved or disproved. So far as believing in anything is concerned, the option is not between the proved and the unproved, but between the workable and the non-workable.
   
   
   
   For instance, scientists in general believe in the concept of gravity. They do so, not because of proof of its existence, but because of the demonstrable predictability of effects. They do not know why gravity has the effect it has, or how it came into existence. They simply accept its existence as a useful theory.
   
   This is the case with all scientific concepts, and belief in them does not mean uncritical acceptance of established as opposed to unestablished ideas. It simply means believing in a working hypothesis as opposed to an unworkable theory. Exactly the same principle is applicable to the concept of God.
   
   In the matter of gravity, the choice for us is not between matter with gravity and matter without gravity, but between matter with gravity and non-existent matter. Since the concept of non-existent matter is untenable, because unworkable, we have opted for matter with gravity. From the purely academic angle, the same is true of the -.concept of God.
   
   The universe itself does not have the ability to create. It can neither increase nor decrease itself by so much as a particle. As with all other scientific concepts, we must choose not between the universe with God and the universe without God, but between God and a non-existent universe. Since a non-existent universe is unconceivable, we must perforce opt for the concept of the universe with God.
   
   
   for more on this topic see this link:
   <promotional link snipped>

   replyreport
2. 58

   Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

   What an atrocious argument. I can boil it down in to one sentence:
   
   "I cannot conceive of a universe that was not created by a magical, invisible super being, therefore it was created by one and I will call him god."

   replyreport
   1. 79

      BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      And how is this different than, "I cannot concieve of a a universe that was created by God and therefore I will not-believe and call him an imaginary magical, invisible superbeing"? 
      
      [Man Hug]

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Ah, but that is not what I am saying. I am saying this -
         
         OK, there is a possibility that a god created the universe. But - there is no evidence for this and it is just as likely that the universe was vomited up by an enormous star goat after drinking too many gin and tonics. He just chooses not to show us him presence. Therefore the possibility that it was created by an invisible super being is just as likely as all the infinite number of other possibilities available.
         
         On top of that, we now have proof that we were not created the way we are. We evolved. Doesn't sound like the work of an almighty creator to me. It sounds like a natural process much like all the other natural processes I can watch with my own eyes.
         
         Even if the religions are now back peddling and saying that god started and had a hand in evolution. Which is nonsensical and makes evolution an unworkable theory.
         
         Evolution by natural selection must happen naturally or the theory is worthless.
         
         Why anyone would select the idea of an all powerful invisible super being as creating the universe from the infinite number of possibilities is beyond me. Unless they have an ulterior motive. And guess what? Ulterior motives abound in all their god given glory.
         
         Common sense.
         
         And in answer to your unspoken question - yes, most people's idea of god sounds exactly like a magical, invisible super being to me.
         
         [Man hug and kisses on each cheek back ]

         replyreport
3. 69

   Nickny79posted 15 years ago

   The argument by design is a valid, if not fool-proof (as we can see in this thread) argument.  Another way of thinking about it is that the universe demonstrates a degree of order and complexity that challenges the belief in a universe that is a mere mechanistic, ad hoc clustering of atoms.  How can swirls of star dust order themselves only by chance and transform themselves with regularity into complicated organism, ecosystems and even cities?  How does something so complex as the human body and the human mind arise from swirls of carbon and hydrogen and oxygen?  It's very easy for the complex to decay unaided to something more simple; but the opposite is not quite so easy in a universe governed by the law of entropy.  The transformation of chaos into order, the simple into the more complex, allows for the reasonable inference (if not the irrefutable deduction) that a higher, ordering intelligence may exist.  Now the step from this inference, to the dogmas of Christianity, Islam or Judaism, is a little bit more challenging and probably beyond the scope of human reason.  Nevertheless, it is equally dogmatic to assert that, because the dogmas of religion cannt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the only things that can exists are those object that can be perceived by the senses or ascertained by human reason.  A reasonable person must allow for a range of essences that are beyond the scope of the physical senses and human reason. To do otherwise is equally dogmatic and close-minded.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Well, to be fair to Mark, he did allow for the vomiting goat ... and Sandra did post those images of nebulas or stars made completey of alcohol ... so there is some evidence to support Mark's drunken goat theory.
      
      Now, the truth is that Mark is of the "Gin and Tonic" dogma group, where as I, would say that it was everclear ... this very important distinction has caused a split in the church. ....
      
      
      
      Actually Nicky, I think intelligent design is more reasonable than "randomness" ... but I also think rationality is simply a more manageble form of insanity .

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         The argument for design is no more valid that the star goat. Evolution is anything but "random." As usual the argument for a god rests on :
         
         
         
         Which is exactly what the entire argument for a god boils down to -
         
         
         As for the dogma of religions

         replyreport
         1. 79

            BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Oh Yeah!? ...[Sorry, I'm at work ... that's best I can come up with right now.]

            replyreport
      2. 0

         sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         They say that a man who talks to himself is either insane or a genuis.  I suppose if God had no one to talk to when He spoke the magic words and made things possible, He certainly must have been a genius. lol 
         
         He could have had a momentary lapse of sanity though considering he might have made the alcohol clouds pure everclear in which case God didn't know it's effects cause He didn't speak what it would do yet....
         
         So Marks theory of a vomiting goat could be true after all even a drunken God on everclear would have needed a ride home. 
         
         But I totally agree with parts of the first post in that there is not even one particle, atom, quark or whatever that is not here that was here in the beginning.  They do not disapear (maybe only to our eyes) so it is completely logical to insist that there is a source ( I call it God) out there that like Nicky said, turns chaos into order.
         
         Something that confines everything to this existence because for whatever reason...we cannot escape, we cannot unexist on our own and when you die, you may not be with us like we are when alive but everything else, absolutely everything else is ordered to be remade somehow...everything.
         
         Something does not come from nothing and nothing doesn't come from something...to me that is God's territory.  Nothing could exist but there is no way I can completely understand existence in a non-existing world.

         replyreport
   2. 78

      Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with Nick on this one - The evidence leads me to believe that scientific 'rules' underlie the universe, including evolution. However, science cannot answer theological and philosophical issues. It can answer 'How' something works, but rarely the 'Why.'
      
      Unfortunately, the ongoing debates between creationists and evolutionists masks this basic principle. If somebody asks including, 'Before the Big-Bang,' 'Where the Universe is going' and 'Why we are here,' then they are great questions, with plenty of room for discussion.
      
      The minute that scripture starts flying about, I can no longer be arsed to debate.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Surely, Spinoza--and not indicative of the American creationist idea of intelligent design?

      replyreport