Is ? required for our existence?
Options
VIBE
Members Posts: 54,384 ✭✭✭✭✭
With religions aside (bible too), what makes you think there is a creator? How and why is there a need for a creator?
Comments
-
What it really boil down to is people being afraid of what happens to them after they die.
-
I don't believe the issue is whether we need ? in order to function; make decisions and such. There are people who can make sound decisions without Him. It is whether we are going to credit ? for our functions. Are we going to believe that ? is the reason for our existence?
-
What it really boil down to is people being afraid of what happens to them after they die.
Right, this would be the real reason for even believing. People are scared to know there is NOTHING after death, SOMETHING after death gives people a sense of relief. To me, no existence after death is fine and dandy because I ain't gonna ? know I'm dead, it's just the end and that's that. I'd rather have that to be honest though.alissowack wrote: »I don't believe the issue is whether we need ? in order to function; make decisions and such. There are people who can make sound decisions without Him. It is whether we are going to credit ? for our functions. Are we going to believe that ? is the reason for our existence?
IF there is a ? , there is finding it. There's been a hundred things in the universe that have been said "never would exist", such as black holes, and yet they found one and thousands possibly billions more. If there is a ? , it would have to be somewhere. I think if anyone can answer this question, then that could more so prove ? than anything. It could prove more than religion itself or the bible itself rather than just make a blank statement.
It's hard to wrap your mind around an existence of a ? but it is also hard to wrap your mind around the universe, but the universe can be explained yet ? can't? It's too easy to say, "Oh, ? just did this and you just gotta believe, that is all". That's easy, just make a statement without proof or explanation and expect others to believe. Forget religion or a bible, that just lets you know about a ? now you need to BACK it up and know your ? understand your ? etc.. -
IF there is a ? , there is finding it. There's been a hundred things in the universe that have been said "never would exist", such as black holes, and yet they found one and thousands possibly billions more. If there is a ? , it would have to be somewhere. I think if anyone can answer this question, then that could more so prove ? than anything. It could prove more than religion itself or the bible itself rather than just make a blank statement.
It's hard to wrap your mind around an existence of a ? but it is also hard to wrap your mind around the universe, but the universe can be explained yet ? can't? It's too easy to say, "Oh, ? just did this and you just gotta believe, that is all". That's easy, just make a statement without proof or explanation and expect others to believe. Forget religion or a bible, that just lets you know about a ? now you need to BACK it up and know your ? understand your ? etc..
But is finding ? just a matter of taking a scientific approach (or for that matter is it just a matter of following the rules)? Some people seek ? not wanting some educated explanation for one. Some people want to know that when they find ? , they find the desires of their hearts as well; that in finding ? they find the ultimate form of love, peace, and happiness...that they find life in the the truest sense. To treat the pursuit of ? as feat that the sciences hasn't discovered yet cheapens it.
It also says that ? is not ? unless the sciences says so. Sure, it's no different from saying...? is not ? unless Christianity says so, but it says that we can't just say these things unless there is reason to believe, that in either case, one of them is worthy of our trust. -
alissowack wrote: »But is finding ? just a matter of taking a scientific approach (or for that matter is it just a matter of following the rules)? Some people seek ? not wanting some educated explanation for one. Some people want to know that when they find ? , they find the desires of their hearts as well; that in finding ? they find the ultimate form of love, peace, and happiness...that they find life in the the truest sense. To treat the pursuit of ? as feat that the sciences hasn't discovered yet cheapens it.
It also says that ? is not ? unless the sciences says so. Sure, it's no different from saying...? is not ? unless Christianity says so, but it says that we can't just say these things unless there is reason to believe, that in either case, one of them is worthy of our trust.
In science there's math for everything in our existence, so that would mean ? has to have a math equation as well. That is for science to figure out and I think science could find ? if there was one.
Our minds aren't on the level of that science nor that math (except probably Fiat Money).
We can only make statements such as, "something can't come from nothing". Which is a pretty cheap argument. I heard of, "Information requires intelligence, design requires a designer" = Intelligent Designer. A painter cannot work without material to create art on a canvas, he cannot think or zap his art into existence, it takes time to craft such beauty.
All of that is true, but it can also be used AGAINST ? . If the universe cannot be something from nothing, then neither can ? . If the universe cannot just be, then neither can ? . If information requires intelligence and design require a designer then ? would need something w/ intelligence to design him. The very few arguments to argue a creator can be used against itself, there is no possible way to say, "? is in a different zone, he cannot be held by time, space etc". That is giving a cheap excuse without trying to really understand this ? , to understand the how and what ? is.
Also, if a creator needs materials (which is true) then where did ? get his materials from? There was NOTHING, materials would be needed to start a creation. You HAVE to start somewhere, there's ALWAYS a start, therefore ? would have to have a start as well. -
from another thread,That's a hard one.
I don't know if I can explain my reasoning for the existence of a creator without setting aside religion. My opinion of ? goes hand in hand with holy scripture. This may not sound so Christian-like, but I hardly ever really think about the existence of ? . I'm not saying that I don't beleive in ? , but as far my religion goes, I instead think mainly about the many truths present in the Bible, which is represented as ? 's Word through his prophets. I'm pretty sure that Judiasm and Islam, different but similar religions, also have the same truths and conclusions about the existence of a ? , so it's not merely a Christianity thing. Some parts of history have also apparently corroborated the holy scriptures. For instance, the existence of Christ and supposedly they found the remnants of Noah's Ark, but that sounds dubious to me. I've also seen and heard prayers to ? being answered. All that aside, it may all just boil down to faith. I simply have faith in ? and His existence.
The reason I say religion or bible aside is because of confusion. I know what the bible states about ? and his creation, it specifically states he created this whole sha-bang but is a ? truly required for any of this in existence? In other words, how can we just not be an "accident", what makes it SO impossible? If we cannot comprehend it, does it make it impossible?How and why is there a need for a creator? I 'm not sure. Maybe there isn't. I dont think there has to be, but that doesnt mean that a creator is impossible or unreasonable. Again, I don't think that there is neccessarily a reason or purpose for everything. Or maybe the need for a creator is incomprehensible to humankind. Honestly, I'm the last person you should ask that question to. I think that question is impossible to know, if I'm understanding it correctly.
I feel just as ? (if real) is incomprehensible, so is the universe yet we find understanding as far as we can. I'm sure we know very little. Even with as much as we think we know, the universe is so grand that what is beyond our reach (even with our own technology) we might be missing a lot of things out there. The universe was so unknown just 100 years ago, very little information was at hand. Just that long ago it was a spark, now we have a lot more but there has to be more out there. Just as the thought of the universe blows your mind, the same is with ? if he exists. What is it? How is it that it's there?
I feel if ? is real it can be found. I'm not saying visually, but through the math or whatever other way there is. -
"Is a creator required in order for the existence of creations?"
um...... -
supaman4321 wrote: »"Is a creator required in order for the existence of creations?"
um......
Are we really a creation? Do we happen to be just? Just here, just happened? -
In science there's math for everything in our existence, so that would mean ? has to have a math equation as well. That is for science to figure out and I think science could find ? if there was one.
Our minds aren't on the level of that science nor that math (except probably Fiat Money).
We can only make statements such as, "something can't come from nothing". Which is a pretty cheap argument. I heard of, "Information requires intelligence, design requires a designer" = Intelligent Designer. A painter cannot work without material to create art on a canvas, he cannot think or zap his art into existence, it takes time to craft such beauty.
All of that is true, but it can also be used AGAINST ? . If the universe cannot be something from nothing, then neither can ? . If the universe cannot just be, then neither can ? . If information requires intelligence and design require a designer then ? would need something w/ intelligence to design him. The very few arguments to argue a creator can be used against itself, there is no possible way to say, "? is in a different zone, he cannot be held by time, space etc". That is giving a cheap excuse without trying to really understand this ? , to understand the how and what ? is.
Also, if a creator needs materials (which is true) then where did ? get his materials from? There was NOTHING, materials would be needed to start a creation. You HAVE to start somewhere, there's ALWAYS a start, therefore ? would have to have a start as well.
I don't consider the "something not coming from nothing" bit cheap if ? is truly the source. The problem is that we have these presupposed ideas on who ? is and how ? creates and in that we unfortunately create biases as a result of it.
I don't think people understand that in saying that science is the only way to do something credibly is that they are implicitly saying...science is the source of all existence; that science is that something that created something. Someone could just as well say...well, where did "science" come from and it leads down to an infinite road. -
T/s u mean like a ? gene?
-
Jonas.dini wrote: »T/s u mean like a ? gene?
So a ? gene is reason for a gods existence? -
If there is a mind, there is finding it. There's been a hundred things in the universe that have been said "never would exist", such as black holes, and yet they found one and thousands possibly billions more. If there is a mind, it would have to be somewhere. I think if anyone can answer this question, then that could more so prove the mind than anything. It could prove more than ? itself or the bible itself.
just sayin -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »If there is a mind, there is finding it. There's been a hundred things in the universe that have been said "never would exist", such as black holes, and yet they found one and thousands possibly billions more. If there is a mind, it would have to be somewhere. I think if anyone can answer this question, then that could more so prove the mind than anything. It could prove more than ? itself or the bible itself.
just sayin
That's what I've been saying and that's my point. I think "is there a ? " ? I know it's POSSIBLE, because nothing is impossible until proven otherwise. ? right now doesn't exist, because it hasn't been found. Just like black holes, they DIDN'T exist at all because they hadn't been found. In reality, were black holes ALWAYS there? Yes, but to us, to our knowledge it was mythical. We've proven black holes are real, by discover, math etc so they now exist.
The same could be with ? , like you said.
But as of right now, ? isn't real. There's no proof, there's nothing. -
That's what I've been saying and that's my point. I think "is there a ? " ? I know it's POSSIBLE, because nothing is impossible until proven otherwise. ? right now doesn't exist, because it hasn't been found. Just like black holes, they DIDN'T exist at all because they hadn't been found. In reality, were black holes ALWAYS there? Yes, but to us, to our knowledge it was mythical. We've proven black holes are real, by discover, math etc so they now exist.
The same could be with ? , like you said.
But as of right now, ? isn't real. There's no proof, there's nothing.
And I'm just saying that by the stipulation you are puttin forth, neither does the mind exist, yet nearly all of us believe it is there and exists even if it can't be empirically found an tested. But also by what you are saying is why I say nothing ever existed until a human found it. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »T/s u mean like a ? gene?
Like telomerase? they made immortal cells but don't know how they can implent it in a human yet, they say we will be immortal in 50 years lol. -
ether-i-am wrote: »Yes a creator is required but the truth about said creator is not.
What about emotions? Do you think ? has them? -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »And I'm just saying that by the stipulation you are puttin forth, neither does the mind exist, yet nearly all of us believe it is there and exists even if it can't be empirically found an tested. But also by what you are saying is why I say nothing ever existed until a human found it.
See but that ? becomes mind blowing, it becomes something that's so unreal to think about it just hurts my head lol
So would you agree ? doesn't exist because we haven't found it? Or have we found ? but we're just overlooking it? -
See but that ? becomes mind blowing, it becomes something that's so unreal to think about it just hurts my head lol
So would you agree ? doesn't exist because we haven't found it? Or have we found ? but we're just overlooking it?
Well, we want nothing to do with ? whether we are searching for Him or not. -
alissowack wrote: »Well, we want nothing to do with ? whether we are searching for Him or not.
No, because if ? is found then I'm okay with that. This thread I know won't really answer my question, it's more so for the sake of discussion because I was thinking it so hey, why not make a thread. I was a confused dude at first, is ? real or is he non existent. I decided he was real because "that was the right thing to do", with my fam being Christian and all. I felt guilt and feared hell, all because of one book and a bunch of people. Finally I just said, "? it" and let it all go because I feel like there is no ? , and truthfully there isn't (in my eyes) because we haven't found ? yet. If we do, and it is certain ? exists then I have no problem with accepting that. I'm just not attaching religion or a book to it. -
No, because if ? is found then I'm okay with that. This thread I know won't really answer my question, it's more so for the sake of discussion because I was thinking it so hey, why not make a thread. I was a confused dude at first, is ? real or is he non existent. I decided he was real because "that was the right thing to do", with my fam being Christian and all. I felt guilt and feared hell, all because of one book and a bunch of people. Finally I just said, "? it" and let it all go because I feel like there is no ? , and truthfully there isn't (in my eyes) because we haven't found ? yet. If we do, and it is certain ? exists then I have no problem with accepting that. I'm just not attaching religion or a book to it.
Why would you be "OK" with it? To me, this suggest that maybe you know what to expect if ? is found; that ? would not be presented (or ? presents Himself) as a dominant being the way that certain books say. What if the discovery of ? is not some science project, but the difference between life and death? -
See but that ? becomes mind blowing, it becomes something that's so unreal to think about it just hurts my head lol
So would you agree ? doesn't exist because we haven't found it? Or have we found ? but we're just overlooking it?
I would say that ? exists in certain capacities, under certain terms and definitions. There is not one thing to dissect and test that definitively proves ? exists. But if ? is even a concept in man's mind ? must exist in some capacity, however the mind remains as elusive as ? .
I tend to side with there is a '? ' because whatever I ask, I receive. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »I would say that ? exists in certain capacities, under certain terms and definitions. There is not one thing to dissect and test that definitively proves ? exists. But if ? is even a concept in man's mind ? must exist in some capacity, however the mind remains as elusive as ? .
I tend to side with there is a '? ' because whatever I ask, I receive.
thats just dishonest -
alissowack wrote: »Why would you be "OK" with it? To me, this suggest that maybe you know what to expect if ? is found; that ? would not be presented (or ? presents Himself) as a dominant being the way that certain books say. What if the discovery of ? is not some science project, but the difference between life and death?
What I'm saying is I wouldn't be mad about gods existence, it is what it is. I don't know what ? would be though, I don't know if ? would be what the books say ? is. -
Would the knowledge of ? being required for our existence help you on your Way?
-
What I'm saying is I wouldn't be mad about gods existence, it is what it is. I don't know what ? would be though, I don't know if ? would be what the books say ? is.
I probably wouldn't be mad if ? 's existence is just a matter of who's right and who's wrong. It would be "safe" to not even take a side if the pursuit for ? is a matter of gaining another bit of knowledge for the brain to chomp on. I just believe there is more to the existence of ? than just...existing. There is a lot of weight attached to ? existence that people don't want to wrestle with.
