Does a God exist?

[pocaracas]

'existing' itself is not a thing. It is a property of a thing.

Property? Not really. Existing is an action of a thing. You might say it is the 'primary' or most fundamental action of a thing. If it isn't being (i.e. if it isn't existing) in the first place, then it isn't being any 'thing' at all.

: sigh :
An "action" of a thing is not a thing, then.... it is... wait for it... a PROPERTY.
Harry Potter has the property of existing, within a very limited realm - the realm of fiction.... a particular realm of fiction, the world invented by J.K. Rowling.
An electron has the property of existing in the real world. It has many other properties, too.... charge, mass, velocity, energy. All those properties, taken together, let us make the identification of "electron".
A conceptual electron, one used by physicists when doing calculations, has no property of existing in the real world.

As far as we know, nowadays, at the base of it all is Quarks. Here, education free of charge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

If quarks are at the base of it all in the sense that quarks just 'are' without condition, then the demonstration is proven true, and what we have been calling god all of this time is really quarks. The 'search' for a fundamental particle is based upon the conclusion of this demonstration within the context of a universe in which only a material existence is possible.

However, since there are different sorts of quarks, that indicates that conditions exist according to which the different sorts of quarks are differentiated (called flavors). I am happy to be educated about whether or not these are actually different particles or merely different relative to a particular perspectives. But if an 'up' quark exists on the condition that a particular configuration of matter simultaneously exists, while 'down' quarks exist on the condition that a different configuration of matter (and 'more' of it) exists, then it begs the question: "What is the condition that the "up" 'configuration of matter' exists?"

Eventually, you will arrive at the question: "What is the condition that "exists" exists?" There is none... it just is. If nothing else existed, it would still be. If nothing else existed, it would still be existing.

Ah.... I think I see where you are...

"Why is there something, rather than nothing?"
The theists' POV of science is that, before the big-bang, there was nothing and somehow that nothing turned into the everything in our universe.... there's no mechanism to account for such a thing, therefore God made it so. Am I right?

1) If the big-bang brought forth space-time itself, then "before the big bang" is non-sense, as that expression would represent a timeless state. There's no "before" is there's no time. We humans have a damned hard time wrapping our heads around this type of concept, so it's ok if you too have a difficulty there.
No space and no time... what does that mean?! What does "exist" mean in such a state?

2) If the big-bang didn't bring forth space-time itself, then space-time pre-exists the known Universe. Space-time has been shown to have some remarkable properties... and one of them is the so-called quantum foam... that " is theorized to be created by virtual particles of very high energy. Virtual particles appear in quantum field theory, arising briefly and then annihilating during particle interactions in such a way that they affect the measured outputs of the interaction, even though the virtual particles are themselves space. These "vacuum fluctuations" affect the properties of the vacuum, giving it a nonzero energy known as vacuum energy, itself a type of zero-point energy. However, physicists are uncertain about the magnitude of this form of energy."

If (2) is correct, I see no difficulty in assuming that space-time has always existed (temporally infinite) and is, maybe, spatially infinite. We have no way of testing this without reaching beyond our Universe, so I don't expect this matter to be resolved anytime soon.
But do note how everything can come from simple building blocks, unlike the theist proposition that everything comes from the most complex imaginable building block that lays out the plan for simple blocks to become complex... and, eventually, culminating in an entity of similar highest possible complexity? Almost like if this Universe was a womb for generating the next generation of the divine! Now there's a neat proposition for a movie or book!




Also, picking up on your last sentence there... if nothing exists, the property of "existing" is also absent. Absent from where I wonder....?
Again, if there's no space-time, what does it mean "to exist"?
Does space-time exist as a thing? or is it merely a substrate where everything else exists?
I honestly have no answer for these questions... Let someone wiser than me answer them satisfactorily.

[GUBU]

You're saying I don't want to think deeply?

Have you thought deeply about the possibility that magical rainbow unicorns exist? I mean, why would people lie about there being magical rainbow unicorns Steve, huh?! Do you realise that if we believe in the Unicorns, their rainbow magic will allow is to live forever in the magical world of stardust?

You think you're so superior with your Jesus - like Jesus would win in a fight against a Unicorn. Yeah right.

Thanks for proving my point.

Steve are you that chicken that you won't even try to refute my counter to your six "evidences" for christianity.

[GUBU]

You have a bunch of circumstantial evidence.  So do they.  Both cases are weak.  I've yet to see a difference.

You are comparing apples and oranges.I don't think it is reasonable to think the NT authors were simply mistaken (as there is ample reasons to think UFO people are)--especially with the additional evidence of the existing churches. The only plausible explanation of the contents being false is intentional deception. That would have been quite an undertaken and I think we would need to answer the question why?

How is a of third person hearsay (the new testament) better evidence than first person belief (ufo "abductees")? At least the ufo people can talk about what they think happen to them, the best you can say for a few books of the new testament is that they are based off letters wriiten by a man who never met his religious leader, thirty years after that leader's death, while at doctrinal odds (in his own words) with those who knew this leader. And then you've got the fact that singificant early documents were destroyed because they didn't agree with later invented orthodoxy and even that significant events depicted in the current bible were fabricated to support this later orthodoxy.

Ufology has more going for it in evidential terms than christianity.

[robvalue]

Since approaching religion and theism in general, my question has been, "Is God a coherent concept?"

My answer so far, in general, is no.

It most often seems to be an intelligent creator (stop here and we could have a meaningful discussion) covered in layers upon layers of superpowers, superlatives and word salad in general. Quite often it's given so many powers that it can't do anything without contradicting itself.

Are people doing this because they're really scared someone might come along with a bigger God?

And for all that waffle, no one has been able to tell me what relevance it has to my life other than trying to hold my future hostage. Or how I'm supposed to tell it apart from nothing at all.

[GUBU]

ALL this demonstration shows is that while some things, RIGHT NOW, depend on the existence of other, simultaneously existing, more fundamental things, something must exist without that or any such condition. It simply exists, and would exist if nothing else existed at all. Call it whatever you want.

And that thing you talk about is the universe, ni god included nor needed.

Oh and the reason I used creatard is because when I boiled out all the nonsense word salad from your previous post, all I got was a badly worded version of Paley's argument from design, which was refuted in On the Origin of Species.

[GUBU]

The Mother Mary appeared on my toast this morning. #checkmate

Was she tasty?

[SteveII]

I have never heard a reasonable  plausible scenario that took into account: 

1) that all 8 authors were mistaken that miracles were happening as they followed Jesus around for 3 years, they were mistaken that he rose from the dead after his crucifixion, and how they worked out the common details in time to start writing to

Not all authors claim a rising from the dead, do they? At least, not in the original versions...
The versions that had stuff added to later on... well... it is known that there has been tampering with at least one ending.... no "mistake" intended, I'm sure!

Which authors don't claim Jesus rose from the dead? Mark? How does the 'original' verses 1-8 not claim Jesus rose from the dead? Did you remember there were 27 different documents? They would have ALL had to been significantly altered to remove the resurrection of Jesus. There is simply no evidence that happened.

2) the pre-existing churches who mistakenly believed the same basic thing (of which were not in close proximity to the authors)

Like I said: Essenes.
The notion of the dying and rising leader/teacher was already present in the region... for some 200 years.
How odd that such a notion would be built upon and embellished!

Belief... that's where the whole building crumbles. Why is belief required at all?
Why would the super-being creator of the Universe and beyond be limited to belief?
Makes no sense.
But it does make sense if said being was absent (at least) and people were perpetuating a notion that seemed to work... once... and still does, in a way... perpetuating the notion of the absent being.
And which better way than to indoctrinate children? https://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ages.htm

Kirk said it well.... "What does God need with a starship?"
What does God need with you believers trying to convince others to believe in the same thing? Can't he do it himself?
If He doesn't do it himself, why do you impose yourselves over His apparent desire not to impose?

I read the entire Wikipedia article on the Essenes. Did not mention anything about "dying and rising leader/teacher". I think you underestimate the just how radical an idea that a 'messiah dies for our sins therefore allowing a personal relationship with God' is. 

Your definition of belief is off. From Wikipedia: "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. "

[SteveII]

You are comparing apples and oranges.I don't think it is reasonable to think the NT authors were simply mistaken (as there is ample reasons to think UFO people are)--especially with the additional evidence of the existing churches. The only plausible explanation of the contents being false is intentional deception. That would have been quite an undertaken and I think we would need to answer the question why?

How is a of third person hearsay (the new testament) better evidence than first person belief (ufo "abductees")? At least the ufo people can talk about what they think happen to them, the best you can say for a few books of the new testament is that they are based off letters wriiten by a man who never met his religious leader, thirty years after that leader's death, while at doctrinal odds (in his own words) with those who knew this leader. And then you've got the fact that singificant early documents were destroyed because they didn't agree with later invented orthodoxy and even that significant events depicted in the current bible were fabricated to support this later orthodoxy.

Ufology has more going for it in evidential terms than christianity.

Why is the NT third-person hearsay? Peter, James and John were eyewitnesses. The gospels editors borrowed from even earlier sources so those sources would certainly be from near the time of the events. UFO abductees do not have corroborating testimony such as the 27 different documents from 8 authors and a pre-existing church that believed the same thing. This is how historical events work. By your standard, we could not believe anything about history ever.

Please present your scholarly backup for: "the fact that singificant early documents were destroyed because they didn't agree with later invented orthodoxy and even that significant events depicted in the current bible were fabricated to support this later orthodoxy." (when I say scholarly, something more than a 1-off, Christian bashing, obviously biased, never been published in academic journals, popular level book-writing, author). Then we can discuss it.

[pocaracas]

Not all authors claim a rising from the dead, do they? At least, not in the original versions...
The versions that had stuff added to later on... well... it is known that there has been tampering with at least one ending.... no "mistake" intended, I'm sure!

Which authors don't claim Jesus rose from the dead? Mark? How does the 'original' verses 1-8 not claim Jesus rose from the dead? Did you remember there were 27 different documents? They would have ALL had to been significantly altered to remove the resurrection of Jesus. There is simply no evidence that happened.

Mark... why not?...
What was the original ending?
" When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

Can you spot the problem here?
1 - They just decided to go do that but wouldn't even have remembered that there was a huge ass stone blocking the entrance. Either they're all 3 a bit dumb, or... like many others, the story is fabricated, with a particular objective.
2 - "Oh yay, someone else got the stone out for us... and told us that 'he has risen' and went off into the world" No need to take a look in the tomb, then... this unknown figure is totally believable.
3 - Oh... instead of rejoicing, they cower in fear, flee, and TELL NO ONE!! How does this tale come to be in writing, then?

Bah.... I don't care to discuss the stupid book. It was written with a purpose in mind.
It is astonishing that that purpose is still working.

Like I said: Essenes.
The notion of the dying and rising leader/teacher was already present in the region... for some 200 years.
How odd that such a notion would be built upon and embellished!

Belief... that's where the whole building crumbles. Why is belief required at all?
Why would the super-being creator of the Universe and beyond be limited to belief?
Makes no sense.
But it does make sense if said being was absent (at least) and people were perpetuating a notion that seemed to work... once... and still does, in a way... perpetuating the notion of the absent being.
And which better way than to indoctrinate children? https://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ages.htm

Kirk said it well.... "What does God need with a starship?"
What does God need with you believers trying to convince others to believe in the same thing? Can't he do it himself?
If He doesn't do it himself, why do you impose yourselves over His apparent desire not to impose?

I read the entire Wikipedia article on the Essenes. Did not mention anything about "dying and rising leader/teacher". I think you underestimate the just how radical an idea that a 'messiah dies for our sins therefore allowing a personal relationship with God' is. 

Your definition of belief is off. From Wikipedia: "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. "

The wikipedia article... lol...
Maybe you should have looked into this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher_of_Righteousness
But... wiki... we all know how biased it can be...
Maybe historians are better at explaining things?
http://www.shareintl.org/archives/M_emer...eacher.htm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...19666.html
http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/deadsea.htm


On belief, thank you for the definition. This one you gave is a bit too inclusive... to the point where knowledge must be defined as "justified true belief". How about we leave this philosophical definition and use the common understanding?
belief - to think that something is the case, without evidence to attest it.
knowledge - to think that something is the case, with evidence that attests to it.

[SteveII]

How is the occurrence of a supernatural (or not natural) event different from a suspension of the laws of physics?

I think he means that the event itself might be within the laws of physics (eg, someone spontaneously recovering from cancer), but the driving force itself behind the event exists outside of/above nature.  My question would be, how do we distinguish if a cause is supernatural, not so much the event itself.

Good question. I have been trying to get someone to show me how this argument from a debate by WLC and Bart Ehrman about the NT does not answer that question. WLC First Rebuttal