jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (147 posts)

Do you believe that the existence of God can be proved empirically?

  1. profile image0
    Chasukposted 5 years ago

    Specifically, the existence of Yahweh as he is typically conceived: the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Creator of the universe?

    Note: When I say "empirically," I am asking whether you believe that his existence can be proved _without_ resorting to faith.

    1. pisean282311 profile image54
      pisean282311posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      nope...it is concept...we can say hypothesis...unproven hypothesis...

      1. profile image0
        jomineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I agree with pisean282311.
        God exists is a hypothesis, however we can form no theory with that hypothesis, hence invalid.
        Proof is an opinion, Depends on the interpreter. The same proof is a proof for the presence of god for the theist and proof for the absence of god for the atheist.

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image89
      oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It may be kind of a forced idea on those that would reject a God, to be able to prove him by observation and experiment.  It seems the God of the Bible, for instance, doesn't want to be found in such ways, which if he exists, would be his right to do.

    3. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Believers constantly claim they have faith in their gods, yet they contradict themselves when they claim their gods talk with them or intervene in any way. If that were the case, then we should be able to test those interventions because they are part of the physical world.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
        oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        My experience has been that rather than testing such things, such miracles are rather reasoned away as having any other possible effect than a God. 

        There isn't really any way to test such interventions that I can think of (that would satisfy say a materialist skeptic).  I disagree that believers contradict themselves when they claim to have faith in a god, and then god responds to a prayer, say.  (If he indeed is.)

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Oh no, the miracles of lightning and thunder have been proven well beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zeus and Thor are at it again. lol



          You mean like prayer for a morsel of food for a starving child or prayer to find an obese Christians car keys?

      2. profile image0
        Larry Wallposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Believers test god by Faith. Believers do sometimes get signals from God. God does provide for miracles. However, this is all according to God's plan, his timetable, etc.

        We cannot test God. We can only test our faith in God.

        I almost died about 12 years ago.It was a series of tiny miracles, right people at the right place at the right time they saved my life. You can call it a coincidence if you want. I call it divined intervention.

        If you chose not believe in God, that is unfortunate. However,he will forgive you.

        1. artblack01 profile image61
          artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          According to the bible, god's time table ended more than 1900 years ago.
          If you almost died and people came and did little things that helped you, that had nothing to do with god that had to do with the people who cared about you. You should thank them and not god.
          I almost died once too but my survival is never going to have anything to do with god except in the eyes of the believer.
          Of course in the eyes of a Hindi it was Vishnu, in the eyes of a Buddhist it was karma, in the eyes of a pagan it was fairies or some other god.
          I'd rather place authority on what is real rather than what is fantasy and the only thing unfortunate about that is I don't live in a fantasy world all the time.
          We don't need or want your forgiveness for this.

          1. profile image0
            Larry Wallposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I did thank the people who saved my life and I thanked God for giving them the skills and dedication they needed.

            Tell me what do I lose by believing in God and then tell me what do you gain.

            I am looking forward to an afterlife in a place that will be free of all the evil and tragedy that man, because he disobeyed God, causing a disruption in the order of things.

            What do you have to look forward to when you die. If there is nothing beyond this life, then why are we here.

            1. artblack01 profile image61
              artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              What you lose by believing is the direction your life goes. Let me put it this way what do you think someone loses when they live in a fantasy vs a real world. When you answer that you answer both questions from my perspective.
              You can look forward to a better after life (an unknown empty promise) or you can strive to make life happier for everyone I'm the real world. I think it's selfish to not strive to make everyone's lives better here and now rather than preaching some nonsense that is in some book that you can't even prove.
              Why are we here? To live and make life good.

          2. profile image0
            Larry Wallposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Can you give me the book, chapter and verse in the bible that said god died 1900 years ago. Considering that some books of the Bible are centuries old, the 1900 year figure if it exists is being taken out of context or has another meaning. It is impossible to accept all things in the Bible in a literal manner. A priest once told me, upon my questioning him, if 40 had any significance. Jesus stayed in the desert for 40 days. The great flood lasted 40 days. In the Catholic chuch calendar, lent last for 40 days, etc. He said from the Bibical standpoint, forty just meant a long time.

            That reminded me of a discussion my late uncle and I had about a old cowboy movie. The Indian said that it had been many moons since something had happened. I said that was many months, because the moon's cycle is approximately one month long. My uncle said it was days because the moon is in the sky each night. He was an intelligent person, but he was wrong. Everything has to be in context to have any validity.

            1. artblack01 profile image61
              artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              According to revelations the world ends in the lifetime of the people who recorded the passage stating the end.  It's been a while since I read this so no I cannot give you verse and chapter, the bible is not that important to me not is it relevant to our time or life nor is it's history even accurate to our own.  1900 is just a rough estimation for someone's life time.

              So according to you or your uncle a life time is what? The life time of humanity or the life time of the authors?

            2. DreamThis Arts profile image60
              DreamThis Artsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Actually Larry, I am Native American and I can tell you your Uncle was right.  The phrase "Many moons since..." refers to every night the moon comes up counts as 1 moon.  Natives worship of the sun and the moon was daily, therefore many moons would be a daily calculation.

        2. peanutroaster profile image75
          peanutroasterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Wow Larry, God must really like you.

    4. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Can we show that the entire universe empirically exists 100 billion years ago? Can we show that the entire universe empirically exists 100 billion years into the future? The entire universe could "come and go". So "empirically exist" would seem to require time parameters=when. Now, -What- empirically exists within these time parameters? Does a dog exist? A cat? A rock? It seems to me that these empirically existent things are not really things at all- but one thing= energy. So, one thing, that being energy, empirically exists within certain time parameters. Until we actually understand existence, it would be difficult to speculate on hypothetical creators of this reality. It is obvious that we would probably be very biased. We could look for clues I suppose to a hypothetical creator of reality, but "we are inside that reality" and all we can see is that reality.

      1. EinderDarkwolf profile image59
        EinderDarkwolfposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Sounds like the Matrix..yet they absolved from one reality to another, and quite frequently went back and forth between them...that not withstanding though...

        Sounds a lot like Quantum Physics...which a friend of mine, who is currently studying the subject, brought up an interesting point about Quantum Physics being able to give you a choice of immortality. I don't remember the whole conversation we had about it, though at the time, I found it extremely interesting.

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Yea, the Matrix is a great example that often comes up in discussions like this. They are all plugged in to that electronic world thinking they are individuals when they are not, they are just part of the program.

          What is weird is that although all of our "seemingly" physical reality appears to be just one matrix to coin the word, we still seem to be more than the sum of parts. Are the concepts inside or outside a matrix the same or different? Is the fear or anger towards Mr Smiths different inside the matrix as opposed to the fear or anger towards the "program" Mr Smiths when they are out of the matrix? I think they are the same. Concepts (and qualia) are created, yet do not seem to empirically exist.

          Our universe or reality produced biological machines that can create concepts that don't physically exist. Its head game for sure. More than the sum of our parts. Even a human that has passed on-their personalities are often remembered by family or loved ones or words they wrote or were recorded.

      2. DreamThis Arts profile image60
        DreamThis Artsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        AWESOME Analogy! You are correct.  In addition to that ...Which reality is the correct one? Is my reality and beliefs correct or is yours? Do I exist or am I just a figment of your imagination? No one knows the answers to alternate reality questions.  We would like to think we do but until we are all considering these questions human evolution will not progress.  We must get to the next level.  Keep asking the questions and perhaps the answers will begin to come.

    5. By His Way profile image57
      By His Wayposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Nope. Not today, but some day - yes. smile

    6. Trish_M profile image84
      Trish_Mposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I very much doubt that God's existence could be proven.

      I don't see how it could possibly be done.

    7. mischeviousme profile image58
      mischeviousmeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No...

    8. jacharless profile image76
      jacharlessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That is a little blurred, with regard to the appointment of empirical by "faith".
      As it is coined, faith is considered simply the belief in or ones belief system (i.e. My Faith) which is largely the doctrine one accepts, and therefore, without deep research/experience, defines what a person considers true, real, factual.

      However, by the method of practical faith or application (testing, searching, researching, aggressive go-to and find-out) empirical can certainly be established. This empirical can then be said to have a foundation of experiential faith. Such proof cannot be formed into a doctrine or belief system. It becomes void of choice [ Adamic Inception; Reason; Duality; Necessity ]. In such a stasis, a person experiences Free Will and the power of creation flows without reservation. Creator-creation unified. Elohim-elohim, so to speak.

      Applying or Solidifying Empirical removes all Theos -by both equation and sensational approach, even though some effects of sensation (emote) and equation (logistics) can result from it.


      Now, by the term of omni, many say a person cannot see the fullness of Creator, else they would be consumed by His 'fire' or 'brilliance', likening that brilliance to standing on or in front of a star. However, if creation (that is the manifest universe) is even a minute expression of Creator, then omni is clearly evident and Creator is known/viewed by this particular expression.

      James.

      1. profile image0
        Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry, but I don't find mixing theology with epistemology a useful exercise.

        1. jacharless profile image76
          jacharlessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          They are the same. My approach rejects them both (the approach of practicality/experience)

          But, you are leaning now toward Hobbes v Hume, and for that I applaud you. By the same applause, however, I shake my head. First, because Voltaire was too much of a closet Romantic despite his persistence as a 'balanced Determinist' and Descartes very dark -- in many ways juvenile. In fact, M. Knowles, here on HP, reminds me greatly of "Voltairian" conflict.

          To this day, however, none can thoroughly challenge Hume, or even Locke, regarding empirical evidence. I have written extensively on this subject as well, coming to some rather obscure -but not dismissive conclusions- regarding Free Will v Choice, Chance v Predestination, Empirical v Esoteric (aka Poetic Justification).

          So, on that note, I would really like to further engage this conversation, without nitpicking.

          James.

          1. profile image0
            Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not leaning more towards Hobbes than Hume; I am methodologically ecumenical.

            Based on the evidence, you reject neither theology nor epistemology, as you infer them both in your responses. You reject the labels.

            Sophistry aside, faith has nothing to do with the empirical. The word "empirical" has no useful meaning outside of science and the scientific method, and it is in this context that I engage it. Central to empiricism is reproducible observation, which, for the faithful, is a moot consideration.

            I don't believe in Free Will, in the sense that I don't see the possibility of it existing in a universe which functions in the same way that ours apparently does.

            If you would prefer to discuss Free Will rather than the topic of this forum, I am amenable. However, I will continue to identify small problems, as it is only by identifying small problems that one is able to successfully forestall big ones.

    9. ackman1465 profile image61
      ackman1465posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Of course it can't (be proved).  But, what difference does that make?  Some people believe that - short of tangible evidence - all "religion/God" questions are so much hoo-haa....   Meanwhile, others - who are Hell-bent to believe that there IS a "God" don't need anything more than a Bible or other book (Torah, Koran) to convince themselves that THAT is enough proof for their needs.....

      1. DreamThis Arts profile image60
        DreamThis Artsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Agree and who are we to tell them that they are wrong.  Some people NEED God.  They would be a horrible person without it or they wouldn't want to be alive without it.  Allow the people who NEED it to have it and the people that don't NEED it to believe it whatever makes them a better human being.

        1. artblack01 profile image61
          artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          The thing about that is most believers are horrible human being because of it.

    10. DreamThis Arts profile image60
      DreamThis Artsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      NOPE! God is our conscience and the misunderstanding of that inner voice is why we have war and hate!

      1. artblack01 profile image61
        artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Actually war and hate come from ignorance, fear and greed. Whether God exists or not most wars have been fought in the name of God and some of the most evil acts have been done for the sake of God.

    11. Jeff Berndt profile image88
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No, of course not.

    12. ib radmasters profile image61
      ib radmastersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The answer is NO.
      God has never been seen, not even in the bible itself.
      The Earth and the Universe are filled with defects, and these defects cannot be the result of a design or creation of a perfect God.

      They are filled with death and destruction.
      Science has found the history of the Earth and it took millions of years before humans came into existence.

      Humans share over ninety percent of the DNA of other life forms on the Earth. So it is more likely than not we developed out of just another manipulation of DNA. It would be different if humans had a different special DNA that separated us from other life forms, but we don't.

      1. artblack01 profile image61
        artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Actually there is some verse in the Bible that Describes God walking with someone having a face to face conversation with someone.

        Ge 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. {aprons: or, things to gird
        8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. {cool: Heb. wind}

        9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

        10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

        Now how do you hide yourself from someone you can't visually see?
        And How does someone not physical (and omniscient) not see you hiding?
        Contradictions of God's power and lack of physical presence...  even if you "interpret" that line differently.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Art is right. Early Genesis depicts God speaking directly to Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. All of these were 'sons of God' who had lifespans centuries-long. Later, in Genesis 6, it says the 'sons of God' began having children with mortal humans who only lived up to 120 years, and explains that 'God's spirit' would not contend with these humans forever. Over subsequent chapters it illustrates a gradual decrease in lifespans. 20 generations later Abraham only lived to 175.

          God gave the Israelites 613 specific commands known as the Mitzvah laws. Among those laws were both rules as far as what is okay and not okay to eat, including rules that have a decidedly spiritual kind of flare to them, like rules against boiling a calf in its mother's milk. There are also numerous rules that define just how close the Isaelites could 'keep it in the family' without getting too close.

          In other passages, like in Ezra 9, it's made clear that the priority was to not dilute the 'holy seed'. The Israelites were forbidden from intermingling with other populations and were even at one point instructed to divorce anyone they had married that was not of their people. These provisions are what ultimately allowed for the 'immaculate conception' of the savior generations later through this same bloodline.

          Long story short, there is a direct correlation between the level of 'God's spirit' present in a being and whether or not God could/would speak to them directly or through some other indirect means. Just as it illustrates in the stories regarding the Tabernacle, only specific members could enter after taking specific provisions to prepare themselves. If they didn't they would not survive.

  2. janesix profile image62
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    No

    1. janesix profile image62
      janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Because god doesnt want to be proven.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        And, he told you that? lol

        1. janesix profile image62
          janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          She did not.

          1. profile image0
            jomineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            ok, she did not. Did HE?

            1. janesix profile image62
              janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              The male aspect of god is passive and static so i doubt he says much of anything.

              1. profile image0
                jomineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                And the female aspect won't speak. Dumb god!

      2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Romans 1:20
        For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

        God's existence cannot and will not be proven through any sort of scientific means because science is limited to the study of physical matter, or anything and everything from the big bang forward. God existed before this and therefore will not be detected through the study of it.

        However, God's actions can be seen in history. Like the inexplicable changes that separated sauropsid reptiles from proto-mammals, for example. Changes that only served a purpose generations later began early on as changes way too insignificant to aid in survival in any form or fashion. Changes that led to mammals and eventually us. According to Genesis 1, this was a direct command from God on 'day' 6. According to those of the strictly scientific persuasion, these are merely random mutations that fortunately led to us out of sheer coincidence and could have gone any other way.

        So in a case like that, your choices are either proof of God's existence and evidence of what's documented in Genesis 1 being accurate, or fortunate random mutations that coincidentally played a significant role in humanity existing at all.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image85
          Disappearingheadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          With respect I don't think Paul's statement works today. He had no alternative explanation for creation available other than the beliefs of pagans. We today do have alternative explanations supported by scientific observation, so people now do have an excuse for observing creation but not crediting it to God.

          However, I read an interesting article on the BBC news website about how geneticists have seen their artificial DNA evolve when it interacted with other DNA. However this evolution was only possible by human design, thus evolution by God design makes sense.

          1. Druid Dude profile image59
            Druid Dudeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            The book of Genesis isn't as much about universal creation as it is about the creation of the self. This is why God first appears in an embryonic state as if in the womb. The "creation" of light is the birth from the womb. Now, you might think I'm making this up...I'm just telling you what I see written there.

            1. EinderDarkwolf profile image59
              EinderDarkwolfposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Allegory...oddly enough...I was thinking the same thing last night and this morning! I actually thought about breaking the bible down into allegory and writing about the various stories allegorically.

              1. Druid Dude profile image59
                Druid Dudeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Trouble is, I get a few things from the Adam and Eve creation. It did strike me that, in modern terms, it sounds remarkably like cloning...right down to using bone marrow for a growth medium...which is precisely one of the best ways to do it. A year ago, I pointed out that the name of the first book Genesis, has Gene as it's root. The 'sis' draws together to form the very Greek symbol of medicine, the cadeucis. The staff of which is called "the staff of life". I really couldn't make this crap up...unless of course I wrote...and believe me, nobody wants that to be the case.

                1. Disappearinghead profile image85
                  Disappearingheadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  If Eve was cloned from Adam would she have been a boy? hmm

                  1. Druid Dude profile image59
                    Druid Dudeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Your DNA holds both sex chromosomes.

                2. EinderDarkwolf profile image59
                  EinderDarkwolfposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  It's actually very interesting. I find it fascinating though because I've heard you talk about the things that I've found in reading the book The Jesus Mysteries. I honestly never thought of the bible allegorically until then.

                  As for the Adam & Eve story, if you pay close attention, Eve is created TWICE in the bible. Once she is created from the earth just as Adam is, then she is created again from Adams rib. One she is an equal, in the other she is subservient. Either way though, I see your point of genetics and cloning. You could always write it as a hypothesis and post a page on it though. Just write it as a theory and not as a fact. Am sure more people would like to hear it.

                3. profile image0
                  Emile Rposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm not sure the fact that gene is in Genesis is an oddity. I assume the word was given to a gene on purpose.  Since it had to do with heredity.

                4. kerryg profile image85
                  kerrygposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Genesis isn't the Hebrew name for the book, though, so I'm not sure that's actually relevant to anything. I don't speak Hebrew, but Wikipedia says the actual name of Genesis is בְּרֵאשִׁית  or "Bereʾšyt."

      3. profile image0
        jomineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Then why did he show his a** to Moses?

  3. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    If I am God I experience myself empirically.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXLHUThBib8

  4. christianajohan profile image57
    christianajohanposted 5 years ago

    Hi to all!

    No matter what human mind can interpret, I still believe that our intellect is very far with the mind of our Creator.

    Happines with God is only our purpose being here on earth.

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Speak for yourself, and as long as you do that I agree with you in your above sentence.

      1. Druid Dude profile image59
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The proof of God is right in front of your eyes. There is nowhere you can gaze, that your eyes don't fall upon the evidence. Science has found God...and renamed him....this, so that you would not know him when you heard his new name. It is so obvious, that it would, under other circumstances, be, hilariously funny....I'll bet we keep God in stitches...in fact, I daresay that he's not going to let us off the hook for quite a long time....not quite an eternity. Maybe just one more millenium. See: Nostradamus.

        1. EinderDarkwolf profile image59
          EinderDarkwolfposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          As for Nostradamus...a lot of his prophecies have been translated wrong or pulled away from where they are suppose to be to fit the situation. So far..the only reason I say this is because if you read the book centuries (which I could send you a digital copy of) before the first century is even up he concludes that his prophecies are finished, then starts again at the beginning. It's been been poured over and poured over, but most only do it for specific events or references to the prophecies they say have been fulfilled.

          1. Druid Dude profile image59
            Druid Dudeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Some say he could see to the third millenium, that's why I mentioned him. I've also been involved in others, like Edgar Cayce, because of my acquantance with one of the High Chiefs of the Iroqouis.

        2. profile image0
          jomineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Its idiots who speak about evidence.

        3. artblack01 profile image61
          artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Nostradamus - Con-artist.  Any one who uses metaphor instead of actual imagery for future events is using dishonesty to trick the reader into thinking that some event that happens later is one that was predicted even if that prediction could be placed on another similar yet different event.
          I have met some "psychics" and have one friend who claims to be a psychic.  He has a supposed 100% success rate with his clients and is very popular in this town.  However, I once heard him tell another friend of ours...  and I quote "You could be a psychic, Jim, you are a really good Liar."  Jim never had stories that were true, he just liked to make stories up on the spot to express an opinion in an example.

          1. profile image0
            Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Nostradamus prophesied nothing. His debunking is decades old, but no one pays any attention to it, because they would prefer to believe entertaining fiction.

        4. artblack01 profile image61
          artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          God is the idea used to express events for which people did not understand the natural events taking place.  Imagine you didn't know ANYTHING about what the sun was and what the moon was and that the Earth moved around it and the moon around the Earth....  maybe to you they are Gods....  now imagine that you are witnessing a solar Eclipse for the first time and all your friends are there and they have never seen such a thing either.....  what would you think?  HOLY CRAP, THE SUN IS BEING TAKEN FROM US!!!!  Now imagine that you believe the Sun is being eaten by a wolf, so you yell at the wolf and the sun comes back?  You now believe you have evidence that a wolf tried to eat the sun and you made the wolf leave by screaming at it.

  5. artblack01 profile image61
    artblack01posted 5 years ago

    The concept of God is a human creation, he is the anthropomorphic spiritual creator of all things, but he only exists to explain the unexplained, the unknown or unknowable.  Everytime new knowledge is found God's sphere of influence and creation diminishes.  The more we know the less God had anything to do with it.  God of the gaps.
    IF God existed and were some sort of intelligent designer/creator, he would have either been found, or if his personality were as the Bible describes he would have made his presence known. IF God existed and were as vengful, spiteful, lonely, or any other human emotion he is said to have in the Bible, he would have shown himself.
    If God existed, he would have to have a link to his creation which we could all find, whether by asking, by studying nature or natural occurances, science would have come to some conclusion about God being the origin of it all....  yet the further back they look the further and further they have to continue to look... As close as we look or as far as we look, God does not exist but in our imaginations.  We don't need him, he needs us, in order to exist.

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Just suppose for a minute the whole point of this existence is to enable free will to exist. God, being capable of creation of existence and life, chose existence over non-existence, and chose beings with their own will rather than beings who only live according to His will with no will of their own.

      What would that require? Free will means the ability to create nearly anything you can imagine. You can make choices based on what you feel is best for the greater good or you can make choices that are more selfish and self-serving. Not knowing the full extent of the effects of each choice you make you are fully capable of either purposefully or accidentally causing harm to others or just being generally destructive. There's no way of knowing without first understanding all the parameters. You know, that whole 'with great power comes great responsibility' thing.

      So how do you gain the knowledge/wisdom required to properly wield free will? Can it just be given? Can wisdom be gained through any other means other than earned through experience? How does a child best learn? By reading rules you wrote down in a book? By listening to you lecture about how you should behave and why? Or do they best learn by experience?

      Now, if you're attempting to introduce beings with free will, and you're attempting to teach them what they'll need to know to wield free will responsibly, do you think they would learn best if God were visibly standing over each of us watching our every move? Or do you think the best scenario for allowing everyone to really learn would be to step back and let them doubt He's even there?

      1. artblack01 profile image61
        artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        That statement and your questions are somewhat meaningless in the sense that they are all based on assumptions and not necessarily on facts. First assumption is that we obtain our morality from a god of which is in question at this moment.  You wonder what a society based on anything but "God's will" would look like. Well, assume for a second that you know that god doesn't exist and the way the world is at this moment is a result of there not being a god. Now you can fully understand that the questions you ask have an answer but not one you would expect. What is free will and is there actually such a thing? With or without a god the answer is, no. How is that? We are social animals, everything we do is based on social outcomes and expectations and motivations. We cannot act in any other manner than that. Our morality comes from the need to function within our society, to make a good living, to have friends, to not go to prison... If society were to dismiss us then we would dismiss society.
        Now think about all the subcultures that creates within a culture. Think about all the different moralities exist within each culture/society.
        God has nothing to do with morality, free will or existence.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I simply offered an alternative explanation to your 'if God existed' scenario that offers reasons behind the behaviors you presented. If the whole thing was hypothetical, then both yours and my input are equal in meaning.

          Besides, if you were to take the same conclusions you reached regarding moral societies being a natural result of social behavior and interaction, then roll the clock back and apply that same reasoning across the board throughout the earlier ages of human development, then it doesn't match up with how things actually played out.

          According to your view, moral societies should have formed as long as the conditions were right. However, there are numerous examples of regions in human history where the conditions should have yielded the same result, yet did not. Nearly all of Eurasia was fully populated by 20000 BC, yet civilization consisting of established government and laws only happened in one place about 15000 years later, and spread out from there. The same region and time frame that early Genesis is set in.

          The same goes for the Americas. While similar conditions existed in ancient Mayan and Inca cultures, they yielded very different results. Society as we know it was not established until people of the civilizations from across the ocean reached them.

          In fact, history more matches my claim. Early humans throughout the world did not actually have a free will of their own. Their will simply consisted of what was commanded by God of them in Genesis 1; be fruitful and multiply, fill and subdue the earth, and establish dominance in the animal kingdom. This is exactly what early humans did. Free will was not introduced until Adam's creation somewhere around 5500 BC in Mesopotamia.

          The 5.9 kiloyear event (3900BC) literally dispersed human populations in that region in the same way Genesis describes the dispersion of people at Babel. This also matches the time frame given, 1656 years between Adam and flood (see end of Ubaid culture in Ur), then Babel 100 or so years later). In the centuries following that climatological event there is a noted increase in violence in both artifacts and in ancient depictions and carvings dating to around this time, resulting in the establishment of civilization and eventually the first dynasties in Sumer and Egypt, all of which happened around the same time civilization cropped up in the Indus Valley in India.

          1. artblack01 profile image61
            artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Your view of history and prehistory is funny and I completely disagree with your conclusions and your assumptions.  You can make the claim all you like that society didn't become as it were until your god was in it because it contradicts your belief that your god was in always in it.  I find that hilarious.
            Was society less moral in the past than it is now? I think not. Different but not less so. Take for example India, the Hindu religion is far more civil in many ways than the Christian religion. If a society falls do you think it's due to moral less culture? I think not. Did they fail? No more than we can fail. Societies rise and fall. Your view that history matches your claim is in error since your view of history is set in your bible which history doesn't quite follow and our current history from 5000 bc to now is no more moral than previous. Our nation and almost all other nations are plagued with a history of attempted genocide. Including the United States towards it's native people. To say we are more moral and have more free will than previous eras is a joke that from my studies in anthropology and early western history I find no distinction. The only thing we have different from them is our collected knowledge thanks to a written and recorded language.  We have learned from our mistakes only because of this. From our beginning 40,000 years ago till now we have been growing to be a better society, it is not unusual for us to be better than the past. As a child grows into an adult so does a tribe grows into a society. And don't make the claim that children have a parent so it must be a god. Our parent is the world, it's teachings are life and death.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              No, you're not getting me. Having free will doesn't make you more moral. It makes you capable of moral decisions. Whatever you do without free will is neither moral nor immoral because it's not your will. You're simply following instinct. Your instinct is for the good of the tribe. Good of the group. Survival. Procreation. Free will is simply a will apart from God's. Decisions outside of God's will have the potential to be evil.

              Free will is different in that it's the introduction of the potential for selfishness. Numerous individual humans, each capable of making self-serving decisions. That's civilization.

              Just look at the native americans, the tribal cultures in southern africa south of the sahara, and the aborigines of australia. Basically all of the humans who were geographically cut off from the budding civilizations in Eurasia and Africa from 12000 BC on (Bering Land Bridge). They lived in harmony with nature. Some still do. There's no desire to 'improve' their quality of life through invention. No self-serving need to take more than they need. And in many cases they feel no need to cover their naked forms, unlike Adam and Eve who immediately realized they were nude when their 'eyes were opened' (Gen 3).

              You're right, there have been all kinds of atrocities throughout human history. It's full of 'civilized' cultures wiping out or enslaving the 'natives' or 'savages'. That's the difference. 'Civilized' humans had a will of their own and could decide it was for their own good to wipe out populations. Drive native tribes from their lands. Enslave these native people to do their labor and build their cities and monuments.

              God was there all along and Genesis explains this distinctly, as long as you first realize Adam wasn't the first human. That misconception throws off everything else. Once you clear that up it makes a lot more sense. He...

              - Created a planet and populated it with animals and humans (Gen 1/ 5.4bya - 10000BC)
              - Created Adam and Eve, introducing Free Will into an already populated world (Gen 2/ about 5500BC)
              - Adam/Eve/Cain all acted on their own accord against God's will (Gen 3/4)
              - Cain driven from land/builds city (Gen 4/ (Eridu, 1st Sumer city est. 5400-5300BC)
              - Adams descendants (sons of God) have children with mortal humans (Gen 6)
              - Flood 1650 years after Adam/ 1500 years after Cain banished (abrupt end of Ubaid culture in Sumerian city of Ur due to flood (4000BC))
              - Dispersed descendents of Noah in all directions at Babel, confusing language and spreading knowledge of agriculture and civilization along with seed of free will throughout the world. (Gen 11/ 5.9 kiloyear event (3900BC))
              - Sumer and Egypt bud into civilizations/dynasties. Introduction of Indus Valley culture in India (3400 BC). Rapid advancements in technology and craftsmanship across the board. Increased violence noted historically during this period. Akkadians up north a couple of centuries later blend with Sumerians. Each of these 4 civilizations in relatively close proximity had their own unique languages and all of them wore clothing beyond functional purposes.

              Civilization is evidence of free will. It's the result. Humans no longer living in harmony with nature, but rather living in opposition of it. Outside of nature's whim. Humans choosing of their own free will to invent and build and completely alter forever how humans exist on this planet.

              Can you maybe now start to see what I'm talking about?

              1. artblack01 profile image61
                artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I understood from the beginning what you were talking about, I just disagree.

                So if your definition of free will is any will apart from god's and all animals have no free will but instinct the god wants us to be like animals?   Ha ha, just kidding.  If that is how you define free will then that concept has no meaning for me since I don't believe in the existence of god. However, the free will as you describe it does not exist, since you seem to think people living in tribes on instinct were not selfish and that we are any different from them. We may be 100 times more complex but we are not that different.
                Individual life forms whether by themselves or in a group are primarily selfish and only use social groups to further their own survival. Social groups help in ensuring not just the group but the individual. Strength in numbers. Watch any show on animals, whether apes, wolves, birds, any.  If another nation attacks us are we going to fight individually or create an army?

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  The complexity is the difference. Physically, we are no different. Same bodies. Same physical brains. I'm not trying to suggest they're somehow lesser than us. Early humans were no slouches. They were given a task and they did it well, the biggest being establishing dominance. Homo sapiens knocked megafauna off the top of the food chain. No small task. And they managed to push Neanderthal out of existence, making them the only remaining species of the homo genus. Not to mention the ability to adapt to diverse conditions allowing them to populate the planet. The thing is, they didn't go beyond that.

                  It's the imagination and inspiration and invention and using it for personal gain that's different. It's the need to examine and study and understand that's different. And it's not all bad. This capability is the whole point. God wants us to have that. But he wants us to wield it responsibly.

                  The only way to learn is to experience. To let life play out. The very nature of free will allows for the possibility of destructive decisions and actions. You can tell a being with free will what not to do, but the very nature of free will means we want to. We want to know why not. We want to know who says we can't and why. We don't and can't know all the potential outcomes of our actions because we don't fully comprehend. We have to learn. Without a knowledge base that allows you to first fully comprehend, we have the potential to be both constructive and destructive.

                  History illustrates that. And you can actually see where it began using the accumulated knowledge we now have. Just look at the bit in Genesis where God dispersed the people at Babel, and specifically what He said ....

                  Genesis 11:4-6
                  And they said, "Come, let us build us a city and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."
                     
                  And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men built.
                     
                  And the LORD said, "Behold, the people are one and they have all one language, and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be withheld from them which they have imagined to do.

                  These 'children of men' were problem solving. They were imagining and conceptualizing an outcome and were constructing this idea into physical form to serve a specific purpose. So God dispersed them and confused their language. Not long after we begin to see the same imaginative activities spring up again, only instead of just being located in one place in Southern Mesopotamia (Sumerians), it was also happening to the west (Egyptians), to the east (Indus Valley culture), to the north (Akkadians), across the Mediterranean (Greeks then Romans), etc.

                  Interesting note, there is a base of a Ziggaraut at the site of Eridu that some believe may be the tower of Babel.

                  1. profile image0
                    Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Your worldview seems coherent, but I don't understand why you would devise it.

                  2. artblack01 profile image61
                    artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    You make many assumptions about what God wants, maybe based on your interpretation of the Bible but considering Genesis, God warned Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. From the onset it seems God did not want us to go this route. In fact free will doesn't seem to have ever been his intention, directly anyway.  But still you are assuming that God exists and the Bible is true. We have no evidence that God is real or that the Bible is anything but human mythology.  We aren't here to debate God's will or intentions but his existence and whether or not we are what we are or the world is what it is God has nothing to do with it unless you can prove he existed and prove that he is the one who did it. Both.

                  3. artblack01 profile image61
                    artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    The bible claims that god separated the people into different regions and languages but they were already separated long before this incident. When people develope separately they develop different ways of communicating, it doesn't take a god to do that just a need for man to explore and settle. It's why people of different regions of the US speak differently and have different slang words.

          2. artblack01 profile image61
            artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Presupposing a god and rationalizing that we couldn't have gotten here without one is a logical fallacy. Arguing from ignorance. You don't understand how we got here without a god so a god must have been responsible. You must first prove a god before you can blame a god. That is pretty much what this forum is about. Proving a god exists or is possible. Not one scientist has done this and faith is the only reason to believe in a god.

          3. profile image0
            Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            First, nearly all of Eurasia was _not_ "fully populated by 20000 BC." Second, the existence of "moral societies" does _not_ depend on the existence of "civilization [s] consisting of established government and laws."

            Although presupposing the existence of God does sidestep the criteria of my original question, I do deeply appreciate that you have at least attempted empirical proofs.

            Sincerely, thank you.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              No problem. I subscribe to St. Augustine's view. He felt God reveals Himself to us through what he called the 'book of nature' and the 'book of scripture' and felt that if at any time the two appear to conflict, then it's human interpretation that is flawed.

              Using this view I have found what appears to be cohesion between the two by simply recognizing that Genesis does not say Adam was the first human. There were other humans already in existence when he was created. This view actually manages to clear up some previously unclear things along the way both throughout the rest of the bible as well as historically and scientifically.

              Also, FYI ...

              "Homo sapiens appear to have occupied all of Africa about 150,000 years ago, moved out of Africa 70,000 years ago, and had spread across Australia, Asia and Europe by 40,000 years BC. Migration to the Americas took place 20,000 to 15,000 years ago, and by 2,000 years ago, most of the Pacific Islands were colonized. "
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_migration

              1. profile image0
                Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Respectfully, I disagree with St. Augustine, but that's a tangent currently too large for my weary brain.

                As for Homo sapiens having occupied all of Eurasia by 20000 BC, I actually don't disagree with you. My dispute was with the words "fully populated" which has no logical meaning other than "completely filled." Homo sapiens obviously could not have  "completely filled" all of Eurasia by 20000 BC, but they certainly inhabited all of it.

                I apologize for my pedantism. :-)

                1. artblack01 profile image61
                  artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks Chasuk, I am with you on this.
                  As far as most any saint of the past goes, their knowledge of the world rarely goes beyond the prejudices of their own religion... Meaning they know little else than what their bible tells them is true, anything they learn outside of it must correspond to it and if it doesn't they must rationalize a reason why it really does.

  6. Disturbia profile image61
    Disturbiaposted 5 years ago

    If the existence of God could be proven, someone would have done it by now.

    1. Trish_M profile image84
      Trish_Mposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Too true! smile

  7. MizBejabbers profile image90
    MizBejabbersposted 5 years ago

    If you read Zacheriah Sitchin and some of the other scholars, their research indicates that Yahweh was a space dude, but they can't seem to agree whether he was Enki or his brother Enlil of the Nephilium, who by the way, are mentioned in the Old Testament (the Nephilium, not Enki and Enlil by those names, just called Yahweh. It's pretty easy to see how an advanced culture could hold itself out to be Gods if they created a "universe" on earth. So in that light, it could be empirically proven.

    1. janesix profile image62
      janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Sitchen is not a scholar.

    2. profile image0
      Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You can empirically "prove" Sitchin's science fiction to the same degree that you can empirically "prove" L. Ron Hubbard's.

      1. MizBejabbers profile image90
        MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry, I was just trying to throw some humor into your "oh so serious and unanswerable question".

        1. profile image0
          Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          My bad. I'm frequently not good at detecting humor. Unfortunately, I'm one of those people who seem hardwired in "serious" mode. Even my levity strikes some as grim and foreboding. Not literally, and not always, but too often. :-)

          1. MizBejabbers profile image90
            MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Thazok. It's harder to see humor in the written word than in voice inflection, and sometimes my levity is misunderstood. I have been accused of "I can't tell whether you are joking or not". I was hoping my use of the term "space dude" would tip you off. I see that your question has been provoking a lot of thought, and I congratulate you.

  8. IntroduceCroatia profile image59
    IntroduceCroatiaposted 5 years ago

    I think that it cannot be proved. Because if someone proves it then it would lose all the mysticism about the question opf God.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      And, mysticism is helpful, how? Are you saying you prefer to remain ignorant about something because it's steeped in mysticism?

  9. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 5 years ago

    I do not believe it can be proven for if one does present proof it is still based on acceptance of that proof. example: a glass of water can be seen as half empty or half full- which one is?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      More nonsense. The glass of water can be proven to exist. Your Invisible Super Being cannot be proven because it does not exist.

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Well the infamous Mark Knowles is still lurking about.

        Years ago people believed in a lot of different things such as the world was flat, space travel was impossible, Pluto was a planet.

        However their disbelief did not make it so.

        [Nice avatar by the way]

        1. profile image0
          Larry Wallposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Who said God was indivisible. He may walk among us every day and we would not know it. We will meet our maker. I have never met you. How do I know you exist--just because there is a name attached to some writing, you could be anybody. I am accepting you at your word who you are. I accept God at his word that he is who he says he is.

          1. artblack01 profile image61
            artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Even though the author could have made him up? The thing about god is he doesn't speak, he doesn't use words, except 2000 years ago when the bible was written but nothing after the new testament. The thing about believing we exist vs god is you are having a back and forth conversation with us. True we could be artificial but we are real entities whether flesh or programming. But what evidence does god have. You should question our validity as well as we say to question gods. NEVER take anyone at their word unless you have evidence of a persons character and can tell whether or not they would lie to you.

  10. artblack01 profile image61
    artblack01posted 5 years ago

    At one time the Vikings believed that the gods controlled everything, they had a god for everything. There was even one that became a wolf and would eat the sun during solar eclipses. They would yell at the wolf to try and scare it away and they knew they had done it because the sun would come back. I saw that on a program yesterday.

  11. profile image0
    ScottHoughposted 5 years ago

    I was reading about this guy named Nietzsche: he seemed to think that maybe there was a God at one point and then God died. Nietzshe seemed to think that He probably died in the mid to late nineteenth century from what I gather. I don't think he offered much empirical evidence though.

    I have mixed feelings about this, however it really does give one something to ponder.

    1. profile image0
      Larry Wallposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      God did not die. God was the beginning and will be forever. You cannot put physical laws to the existence of God. His spiritual nature is beyond our power to prove or disprove. It is a matter of faith and a promise of an afterlife that will be our eternal reward.

      People spend to much time trying do disprove the existence of god. It is impossible for me to accept all of the wonders of nature just happened by chance.

      God is real. God is alive and God loves you. All you have to do is accept him.

    2. jacharless profile image76
      jacharlessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      First, this is grossly misinterpreted.
      "Fred" Nietzsche never implied God had actually died.
      His statement was: "God is dead", which appears in many of his writings, especially The Gay Science, implies that with the increase of sciences, the division/segregation of Europe and massive industrialization, the "God of Abram" would be killed off.

      Nietzsche also strongly believed this "death" would eventually lead to the loss of any universal perspective on life's true purpose, reducing society to nothing more than a robotic slave, to the power of industry and greed, ultimately imploding.
      He wasn't so aloof now was he.

      Until his madness set in, Nietzsche wrote some outstanding works! Read Twilight of Idols and The Antichrist together, which explains greatly his position. In fact, any who call themselves a philosopher ought to read much of his work. The man was brilliant, IMO.

      James.

      1. profile image0
        ScottHoughposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The statement is rich with meaning, "God is dead."

        I do understand that Nietzsche didn't believe that literally. smile I think it's possible that he used the phrase to catch people's attention, instil an emotional response and then hook them with solid logic. I think he is referring to a sort of "reflection" of God that was created through people's belief and faith. That changes in society would lead to less faithful people and the ramifications these changes would have on the future.

        I mean if he didn't literally mean, "God is dead," he meant something else. If he meant something else why didn't he write something else? Because the statement is an accurate euphemism for what he saw around him and that it would catch people's attention and help them understand what he was trying express. IMHO

        I see a new hub that just came up arguing that God will be dead in fifty years. Nietzsche was way ahead of his time.

        For the most part, I think he was spot on. When I look at my father I see: "...the loss of any universal perspective on life's true purpose, reducing society to nothing more than a robotic slave, to the power of industry and greed." And my father is a respected teacher. He not only doesn't believe in God, he finds the whole idea of faith or spirituality laughable. I have a thirty year argument going with him that, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," means that, "lying is wrong." My dad has raged at me for thirty years that lying is ok and that everyone does it.  "Thou shalt honour thy mother and thy father," is tripping me up

        I'm reading the Book of Job currently as well.

        Nietzsche’s ideas have real appeal for me. I am going to keep reading his stuff. smile

        1. jacharless profile image76
          jacharlessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Certainly, as a poet, writer and free thinker, catching public attention is critical. What he saw happening in his modern world must have been astonishing.
          huge separatist movements; the church getting richer while Europe got poorer; the building blocks of socialism; the beginning of the industrial revolution; the foundations of WWI (1914-18, less than a 10 years after he died and where his sister continued his work). No doubt a morbid view, one that pushed him -everything in him- to the edge.

          And yes, since the globalization of the modern sciences, from medicine to technology, society has become a collective of awestruck slaves, entertained to the level mental stupidity/numbness.

          No one wants to 'think' about Creator anymore because right now there is something more interesting/nouveau happening on Twitter. Who needs God when they have instant gratification at the touch of their iPad button or science has induced a euphoric coma, because they found a bone in the desert which somehow  reaffirms/proves empirically their concept of evolution...

          James

          PS, nice to meet you Scott.

    3. profile image0
      Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The "death" that Nietzsche described was metaphoric, in the sense that God "died" in the hearts and minds of man. Nietzsche didn't believe that God had ever literally existed.

  12. Druid Dude profile image59
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    Larry... I would disagree that God doesn't conform to physical laws...he wrote them. The mathematical perfection displayed in the universe speaks very loudly to this. There are levels to physical laws which we have not fully considered the implications of. I believe that science knows exactly where and what God is. They renamed God so that others might not recognize the evidence, when it has been traveling incognito, under their very noses all along. People speak of God as being supernatural, when in fact, it is man, and man alone who stands outside of nature. We are the most super-natural creature on this, and maybe every planet. We shake our fist at nature.

    1. profile image0
      Larry Wallposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting concept, except God is forever. Everything else has a definite life span. Trees may live for hundreds of years, but will die. Man dies usually in less than 100 years.

      If God is a physical being, how did he come into existence. Also, while your theory is interesting, I do not think you can provide any convincing proof.

      Man may be the ultimate lifeform in the universe. We may truly be unique. Then again, we will not know.

      It would be aruged that God so love the world that he sent his only begotten son...did he do that on other worlds, or did man get it right and on those other worlds they are living in Paradise while we struggle with the sins of today and of the past.

      I am not a Bible scholar. I am just a believer.

      1. artblack01 profile image61
        artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        It's debatable that his exists at all, you either don't believe because there is no evidence or you believe despite the evidence or you continue to think that god exists because you can't understand the point of existence without god. But then you must ask what is the point and purpose of the existence of god? If we had to come from some intelligent being then god whether physical or spiritual had to have a creator. The problem is that you have no proof that god did it except some guy wrote a book a long time ago saying he was inspired to write a book by a god. You know I could do that. I am a really good story teller. Not to mention people write books on the origin of the world by their gods before the bible that is still believed to this day.

        You asked the question what if you are right and I am wrong? What if we are both wrong?

  13. profile image0
    erickcbposted 5 years ago

    I like to imagine a god that agrees with my spiritual self or core self. The root of my being. My spiritual self doesn't care about money or intellectual things like college. It is always in search of something more meaningful, more beautiful, and offering more connection to the world surrounding me. It is solely rooted in emotions, beauty, and good will. Fully living in these things collectively amount to a certain state of being which I call my "noble" state. It is the embodiment of serenity, love and feeling more alive. All of these things, the love, the beauty, etc. coupled with a direct connection with wisdom via intuition, tells me my god is a good one. I believe in a spiritual being that is not above the natural laws because that automatically creates a hierarchical separation between it and the rest of its creation. Loves dies and dictatorship, hatred, fear, and slavery rule in this tiered existence. Some say well, god is perfect and thus is a perfect dictator. I say, dictatorship is always refused when the ruler truly cares for the people. Thus, I do not believe in this model of creation. I believe at my core lies love, and love itself is: deep and profound physical-emotional intimacy. The total opposite of a dictatorship... The proof of this, in my eyes, is the inter connectivity of all of the natural laws, and beings that exist here. My god is very much alive and lives AS the laws. It IS the laws of nature, physics, emotional, spiritual etc. Cant get any closer than that. We live in it as it lives in us in perfect, eternal harmony. I actually prefer the term Creation not Creator or God.

    One of my favorite quotes to put it all into perspective.

    Trillions of complex, interrelated, interdependent processes are functioning in cooperation and in harmony every second. -Jack Davis

    1. profile image0
      Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes. Sadly, I'll have to paraphrase it, as I no longer remember it word-for-word:

      "Chance is a word invented by man to express the visible effects of all unknown causes." -- Voltaire

    2. artblack01 profile image61
      artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It seems everyone has their own definition of what God is, hence why God will probably never be anything but an idea whose time has passed yet people still find relation with just like our invisible childhood friend we invented when we were alone.

  14. Druid Dude profile image59
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    DreamThis, howdy. I'm a recognized Medicine Dreamer. Been on my path 'many, many moons' Some of these folks have been viewing the spirit world around them. Some of them are really blind to it. There is no alternate reality. Just one reality. All else are just branches off of the main. Tributaries of the one river.

    1. profile image0
      Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What is a recognized "Medicine Dreamer?" And recognized by whom?

  15. Druid Dude profile image59
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    The actual wording in the non-Judaic texts is that Adam and Eve " heard the voice of the Lord God, walking in the garden." Which does open the question: How does one hear a voice walking. There was another man thing in the garden. Male AND female.  Says so. Can't you see it?

  16. Druid Dude profile image59
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    The three monkeys...hear no evil, speak no evil and se no evil...just saw what Adam an Eve were doing in the garden!smile

  17. Druid Dude profile image59
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    God dwells inside of you, why wouldn't he be able to speak to you directly. These Sons of God lived many times. You are a son of God.

    1. artblack01 profile image61
      artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Don't you just love ancient mythology?

      1. Druid Dude profile image59
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Manitou isn't that ancient, just as old as anything else, I geuss. It's considered a given. Immutable. Solid.

        1. artblack01 profile image61
          artblack01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          What do you consider ancient?

 
working