jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (80 posts)

God's Existence and Nature are random and unnecessary.

  1. Dgerrimea profile image78
    Dgerrimeaposted 7 years ago

    A youtube user by the name of Theoretical Bullshit made a video called "Random...Necessarily", which states that God's existence and qualities must be random, and exist for no reason with no cause.

    The logic behind it is that God is said to exist prior to anything else, as it was God that brought everything else into existence. So the default state of existence is that there is this being, a disembodied intelligence which exists for no reason with no cause (because to say that it existed for a reason would necessitate a greater being capable of assigning meaning to its existence). This being possesses certain qualities, for example it is omnipotent and  loving to name just two. Is there anything about existence at this stage which requires this being's qualities to be what they are? No, clearly not. This being could happen to have any set of qualities, for example it could be hateful and petty, as nothing about reality requires it to be loving.

    This means that there is an equal "probability" of this being possessing any combination of qualities, and therefore whatever set of qualities it happens to actually possess are by definition random.

    God could just have easily been hateful, unloving, completely powerless, or any other qualities you care to imagine.

    I am interested in what believers think of this.

    1. profile image0
      cosetteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      you must be new wink

      good luck with that. and welcome aboard! you seem pretty groovy.

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            This statement of truth can easily be rewritten changing very few worde to as seemingly prove the oposit opinion as truth.

        1. Dgerrimea profile image78
          Dgerrimeaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks Cosette!
          Jerami, could you please elaborate on your train of thought?

    2. atomswifey profile image69
      atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hi there and welcome! smile

      Who's reality? God's or our's? God is and always was. In that He is and always was, perfect. Because of this there is no room there for what man perceives as imperfection. Too He is only accountable to Himself as He is and not mans perception of what He might be.

      I am sure God doesn't sit around asking Himself, "why am I here? What is my purpose?" lol
      As I am sure this one who did the video has done and thus prompted the video.

      1. UpHisAss profile image61
        UpHisAssposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Once again you worship Me and claim You Know God's Reality. Please Provide Scripture Proving You Know God's Reality.

        Did God Tell You His Reality - or did you Mis-Interpret a Bad Translation of the Disney Bible? Does It Involve A Pretty Photo of Jesus Saving You?

        Well done. Excellent work. Congratulations on Winning!!!!!

        Do You Want Your Prize?

        1. atomswifey profile image69
          atomswifeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I did not claim to know Gods reality. But in showing that it proves that none of us do. And since none of us do how can any of us assert to know as this one did that
          "as nothing about reality requires it to be loving."

          1. UpHisAss profile image61
            UpHisAssposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Really......

            Welcome to my fan club.

          2. Dgerrimea profile image78
            Dgerrimeaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            The answer to your question, atomswifey, is that through logical deduction we can conclude that nothing about the initial reality in which God existed requires him to be perfect, or good, or loving, or even to exist at all.

            As TBS would put it, God just happens to exist and just happens to have the qualities he has, for no purpose and with no cause.

            1. Daniel Carter profile image89
              Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Then that would also be true of each of us, no?
              After all, to the believer, God created us in his likeness. So we just happen to exist, and happen to have certain qualities for no reason at all, because that's how God is...according to the argument.

        2. profile image0
          sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          OH MY! You sounded so nice until you wrote "Once!"

    3. Daniel Carter profile image89
      Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not a "believer" pre se.
      There are some fundamental flaws in this line of logic. The trouble is that logic in and of itself, with no regard to experience is always believable. Once can construe the facts in a court of law and "prove" anything with those facts, but the experience itself can be entirely different, therefore "truth" is either represented or not.

      What seems to be lacking in the argument is the acceptance of truth. The acceptance of what "is."

      Regardless of its origin, a baby "is." Regardless of its origin, God "is." What is the purpose of a baby? We can make a warm and fuzzy list all day about how it brings joy, etc, but that doesn't actually give a factual detail of why it exists.

      One cannot define God, because in doing so, the definition itself becomes finite, and therefore, an invalid description of God. Therefore, the only truly accurate description of God is that God "Is." To list traits and characteristics suddenly makes him human and fallible. How absurd.

      The experience is that we are conscious of ourselves in a place called the universe, and that we are not alone. We are not alone neither from each other, nor the universe. Whether God exists or not, many claim to experience a "presence" that in the silence, there is stillness, and in the stillness they discover they are not alone. What this means is irrelevant. It simply "is." To know that it is, is acceptance. Acceptance brings content and understanding in time. Understanding brings knowing, and hence definable by the mind.

      Logic is a concoction of human thinking. The universe is not about thinking as much as it is about know that it "is."

      So says I.

      On a slightly different note, I can't quite ever really get what you are on to uphisass. It's like you're speaking into a mega phone that keeps going out and I only hear bits and pieces. And I'm trying to get at what your saying, but it's just disjointed to me. Not meaning any disrepsect and all. It's probably more about me than you.

      1. UpHisAss profile image61
        UpHisAssposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I will grow on you. Think of me as an "honest christian." ;;;;;;;;; wink

        1. Daniel Carter profile image89
          Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, you've written that before. I like that idea mucho, but am just a titch skeptical. I guess I just need to put your boots on and walk in them, and figger out what the hell you're all about....
          LOL

    4. aka-dj profile image80
      aka-djposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I also disagree with this conclusion.
      For God to qualify as GOD, He would (by definition) be the "ultimate being". By necessity He would be either ALL good, or ALL bad, but not a mix. He would need to be in total harmony with Himself. He is not in any contradiction to Himself, or in His nature. To say otherwise, is to put human, mortal limitations on Him.
      He is HOLY. His creation is flawed, due to man's fallen state. We, therefore are not qualified to "quantify" Him for that reason. Though we may not see order and purpose in what "IS", but if He IS indeed God, one DOES exist.
      I can think of one off the top of my head, but I will keep it there for now. big_smile

    5. Paraglider profile image89
      Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The first problem is that word 'prior', meaning before, which simply has no meaning at the singularity. Many of these woffly rambles make Cartesian space/time assumptions that are wholly unjustified.

      But I'm not a believer, so maybe that's not interesting wink

      1. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No more Nepalese Temple balls for you!

    6. paulhvv profile image61
      paulhvvposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Does it matter what we think?

      Exodus13 Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"

      14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am . [b] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

      15 God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, [c] the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.


      John 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

      9"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.

      10"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[d] 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[e] 


      Hopefully this will shed some light on the subject. When we lean on our own understanding confusion, misunderstanding,own interpretations can all lead to wrong direction of the human race. God has his way and his way for us is to be holy like him. We on our own can not achieve this state but God through his mercy for us gave us a way. If that is not love then I don't know what love is. The kingdom of heaven can be within.

      1. tantrum profile image60
        tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        the kingdom of heaven can be within, and there is where it should stay. I wonder what God's mercy is ,when I see all the misery of this world

        1. profile image0
          sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          This is how it's supposed to go.

    7. Margie01 profile image60
      Margie01posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Had he not existed prior to everything then there would be nothing; including all of us.  I don't understand the constant issue with belief in something as wonderful as God but we will believe in so many other things we know absolutely nothing about.

    8. Richard VanIngram profile image79
      Richard VanIngramposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That a Deity could exist without a cause is a necessary statement: If a Deity existed that had a cause, It would be created, It would have a creator (Its cause) and THAT would be God, not the Deity in question.  If the Deity created itself, this would be circular - invoking the effect to explain the cause.  Thus meaningless.

      So, if God exists, God has no cause.

      But to then say that God's qualities - if we are talking about a necessarily existing God, a God with no cause - can be random is also meaningless as such a Being would not be God.  To be God, if God exists, is to lack no perfection; this is a fancy way of saying God could not lack any Being. 

      Imperfections are holes in being, they involve missing something essential.  Being hateful,for example, is not the presence of a power or ability, it is an inability to love perfectly.  Powerlessness is an inability to act on one's desires and will - a lack of ability.  If God could lie, this would be an inability to be perfectly truthful.  If God could will God out of existence (commit suicide), this would be to lack the ability to be everlasting and to have necessary being.

      And so on.

      If the response is, "But being truthful is an inability to lie, so lying must be an ability," I would respond that this is simply an imprecission born of common usage.  In fact, truthfulness is not defined by an inability to lie, but lying is defined as a disability to tell the truth consistantly.  Otherwise we could just as well define sight as an inability to be blind, which would make no rational sense and, again, be meaningless.

      In essence, if you can predicate a statement to humans, who are limited and imperfect and incomplete in a relative sense, you may not transfer the same to God, who is simply unlike us.  God is not a "big old man sitting on a throne" somewhere.  Anthropomorphizing Deity leads to all manner of muddled thinking (such as the claims being discussed here).

      Necessary Being (i.e. uncaused Being) necessarily involves the presence of all possible qualities and the absence of all possible imperfections (which are incomplete or missing qualities, by definition).  So an uncaused Deity could not have random attributes and, at the same time, be God.

      RVI

      1. Dgerrimea profile image78
        Dgerrimeaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You seem to be using 'necessary' synonymously with 'uncaused', which is wrong. To say that something is 'necessary' is a conditional statement. A is necessary if B is true, but A is not necessary in and of itself.
        And so because nothing existed outside of God, God's existence and qualities are not necessary for anything.
        Also there is nothing that requires God to have the 'more perfect' set of qualities, and there is no objective measurement of what the 'more perfect' set of qualities would be.

  2. GeneralHowitzer profile image62
    GeneralHowitzerposted 7 years ago

    Hayz...

  3. Dgerrimea profile image78
    Dgerrimeaposted 7 years ago

    Not really a thought is it General? But at least you tried your best.

  4. atomswifey profile image69
    atomswifeyposted 7 years ago

    Some of the realties of God, some of His mysteries are revealed through His Word.
    Grasping the knowledge of it we can learn a great deal about the God we love and serve.

    1. UpHisAss profile image61
      UpHisAssposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So you Do Claim To Know His Reality.

      Welcome to my fan club..............

  5. Dgerrimea profile image78
    Dgerrimeaposted 7 years ago

    Yes it would be true of us as well Daniel. There are a few quotes of yours I would like to respond to.



    So you are basically saying that a logical argument/thought process can be internally valid, but if the premises fail to correspond to reality then the whole thing could just as easily be untrue?



    Without some kind of definition, the word 'God' fails to refer to anything. It becomes a meaningless piece of noise unless some definition can be given.



    Accepting certain things as facts does not improve your understanding of them. Knowledge and understanding must be strived for; they don’t just fall into your lap after you’ve shown enough “acceptance”.

    1. Daniel Carter profile image89
      Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      1. Yes, with the exception of wording change to "seem valid." In this premise, if experience/reality (I'm saying that experience is a kind of reality) yields some kind of "truth", then logic doesn't have to be "truth", though it may seem valid in and of itself.

      2. Yes, we do need a reference to intelligently discuss this, so I concede this point. However, on a personal basis, if there is a God, that experience is personal, and therefore, it is about awareness, not about definitions. (To me, that is.)

      3. Again, I concede this point, because you are right. It's not in keeping with the rules of the thesis you present. However, on a personal level "acceptance" is a kind of "awareness". Through awareness comes content and information. Hence, curiosity, which all becomes a step-wise motion to "striving," does it not?

      One of the problems of me participating in this discussion is that I don't have the same views as the average "believer." I'm not sure that God or the universe existed one before the other, nor am I sure that the universe is God or that God is the universe. I'm aware of being a part of it, but have no idea as to it's possible meaning. Don't know that it's terribly important to me at this point.

  6. mobilephone guide profile image59
    mobilephone guideposted 7 years ago

    humanity's existence and qualities must be random, and exist for no reason with no cause. we only think we have a purpose and exist for a reason, we refuse in not existing. actually, the earth is better without humans. we give a damn about too many things. humanity is a contradiction to itself.

  7. Dgerrimea profile image78
    Dgerrimeaposted 7 years ago

    While it makes no sense to say that humanity contradicts itself, I agree that humanity's existence and qualities are, for all practical purposes (I say this because I am a determinist and I reject the existence of certain definitions of 'random') random.
    However it is the religious who believe that God created humans they way we are for a specific purpose.

  8. Dgerrimea profile image78
    Dgerrimeaposted 7 years ago

    I agree completely Paraglider, but it's the believers who claim things like "God existed prior to the big bang".

    aka-dj you appear to be defining God in one breath, and declaring him undefinable in the next. Also I would like to know how you are defining 'good' and 'evil', because your statements make no sense under the normal use of these words.

    1. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      What do you believe?

      1. Dgerrimea profile image78
        Dgerrimeaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        About what? If you mean God, then I believe that every example of a God I have come across seems to be the invention of an unimaginative and ignorant mind.

        1. profile image0
          sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I meant "Life the Universe and Everything"?

  9. Dgerrimea profile image78
    Dgerrimeaposted 7 years ago

    I'm not going to list all of my beliefs. If you ask a more specific question then I'd be happy to answer.

    1. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I was hoping you could provide some solid evidence for your position so I could rationalize a reason to sleep in on Sundays!

  10. Dgerrimea profile image78
    Dgerrimeaposted 7 years ago

    A noble pursuit, but I haven't actually adopted a position on this thread, so I still need you to tell me what you're asking me to justify.

  11. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    I disagree, I believe religion leads to a lack of understanding and a closed mind for most. smile

  12. tantrum profile image60
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    @ sneak
    Yeah! I guess ! So welcome to the world ! Have a greatttt weekend ! big_smile

  13. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    No more boogy man stories from the ramblings of a lot of sexist men OK? God does not exist, there is not even a skeric of proof of any god, and the thought that a  benevolent god could be in the world today is preposterous in light of the suffering. The only argument religionists have is "The devil in the corner" one which has been seen as laughable by thinkers for hundreds of years.
    The psychology of the bible will not stand the slightest test. smile

    The bullying threatening language supposedly used by an omniscient being is just sad, and had no valid role in describing anything other than the human condition. Nothing godlike about
    jealousy and pitiful commands to worship! smile

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      If God exists ,people should stop worshipping someone so mean !

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I'd have a few pointed questions for god about his omnipresence too! lol

        1. tantrum profile image60
          tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah ! but we will never be able to ask! thank God ! lol

      2. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know what motivates other Christians but we don't fear God and you shouldn't either.

        1. tantrum profile image60
          tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          And why should I fear someone I don't believe in ? Like fearing the boogy man big_smile

          1. profile image0
            sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Great now your getting it! All you need is love! All you need is love, love! Love is all you need!

            1. tantrum profile image60
              tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Love for me is not God.

    2. profile image61
      JDub13posted 7 years ago in reply to this
  14. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Love is not, "I will only love you if you obey me"
    That is conditional love, and has a whole different meaning.

    1. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I love you both without any conditions! You don't even have to send a Christmas card! OH wait,birthday card and I'll still share my cake!

      1. tantrum profile image60
        tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        lol cool

  15. Danny R Hand profile image60
    Danny R Handposted 7 years ago

    First, if we are going to dicuss something, we should have at least some knowledge of the topic. When you bring up the topic of creation, and you begin to discuss the universe, we really don't have anywhere near enough information to dicuss it in a sensible way. We have no concept of what exists as far as other deminsions, or parallel universes.
       Secondly, you have left out the option that Gods qualities are not random, but choice. Omnipotent demands the knowledge of good AND evil.
       Thirdly, I don't claim proof of God for my belief in Him, I do so because of a relationship with Him.
       I hope you find one too.

    1. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Ah MAN! They were about to be Baptized too! You messed me up! Now I've got to start over and get my groove on! Ok, lets pick up where you get the cake without the birthday card!

    2. Dgerrimea profile image78
      Dgerrimeaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      For God to have chosen his qualities he would have to have existed prior to his qualities, which is impossible. He also would have had to have had the quality of an effective will in order to do so anyway, so that's a second contradiction.

  16. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    I have had one, and decided against continuing to worship that which does not exist. smile

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Dany says :
      Omnipotent demands the knowledge of good AND evil.

      so we are omnipotent ! Good! I am right in not believing. I don't need any God. As I know what's wrong or right. Thanks for the revelation ! big_smile

      1. Danny R Hand profile image60
        Danny R Handposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Not only the knowledge of good and evil, but brilliantly used out of context. Congradulations!

        1. tantrum profile image60
          tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Here it's in its context

              Danny R Hand wrote:

                ' First, if we are going to dicuss something, we should have at least some knowledge of the topic. When you bring up the topic of creation, and you begin to discuss the universe, we really don't have anywhere near enough information to dicuss it in a sensible way. We have no concept of what exists as far as other deminsions, or parallel universes.
                 Secondly, you have left out the option that Gods qualities are not random, but choice. Omnipotent demands the knowledge of good AND evil.
                 Thirdly, I don't claim proof of God for my belief in Him, I do so because fo a relationship with Him.
                 I hope you find one too. '

          Do you think I used it out of context ? yikes  that phrase was a statement on its own.

    2. Danny R Hand profile image60
      Danny R Handposted 7 years ago in reply to this


        Hard to have a relationship with something that does'nt exist, would'nt you say?

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Impossible in reality yes. smile

        1. Danny R Hand profile image60
          Danny R Handposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            So you were not in reality?

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            No I was not. Like all my religious associates I believed that I was at the time. smile

            1. Danny R Hand profile image60
              Danny R Handposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                It might surprise you, but I'm not really into religion much. God, YES! Religion, not so much.

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                No god for me! I spent some years in belief systems, and about forty years trying to find out what makes humans tick, but it is the human condition projected on to an entity that I find hardest to swallow.
                No proof exists for a god. I find that enough these days.

                I spent 2 years of bible study in 3 languages and passed with flying colors.
                No little nasty biblical god for me. smile

                1. profile image0
                  sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  We have a special on big elephant gods?

                  1. earnestshub profile image88
                    earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Big is good when it comes to gods, they should be without all those nasty human traits like needing to be worshiped. The biblical god reminds me of Donald Trump! lol

                  2. Paraglider profile image89
                    Paragliderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Someone called me? http://z.hubpages.com/u/163532_f520.jpg

      2. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You're back again! Hey Danny this is my rivival! Go back and measure the demensions and let us know how big God made them, ok?

  17. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
    - Voltaire

    1. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      He needed to stick to electricity.

  18. Danny R Hand profile image60
    Danny R Handposted 7 years ago

    Just trying to be Gods advocate. Hope you don't mind?

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No problem. smile

  19. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    It's good to have a god for such occasions, thank you Paraglider. smile

 
working