The Reality of God: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » The Reality of God » The Reality of God

The Reality of God
A rational view of how God exists in and outside the universe

Page: 1 2 3

The Reality of God

tommygun77
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 27, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 10/28/09 - 08:19 PM:	#11
Dragohunter wrote: Then your defintion of God is different. The idea of God infers that the universe exists because God was responsible for its existence. If so, then the universe isn't responsible for God's existence. Doesn't scientific evidence suggest that there is nothing before the big bang but singularity? How does your God exist here? To say my definition of God is different (to yours?) is an understatement. I haven't pulled my definition out of a book and would suggest that God should be different to everybody as we all experience a different perception while alive.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 707

Posted 10/28/09 - 09:38 PM:	#12
op wrote: I propose that God, if existing, would exist in a similar state,... Close, but god actually exists in the exact same state. In your mind.
Or not.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 10/28/09 - 11:29 PM:	#13
You start off saying God and mind are outside time and the universe. Our minds are clearly subject to time and space, (all our memories are of past events, we can't really predict the future by direct perception, and we are limited to our local environs). Making this kind of equivocation, God is neither omniscient or omnipresent. Then you switch into panthesim, the idea that the universe is God, (if I follow correctly). Meaning that God is purely physical and not transcendent. He would also be finite and mortal.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1021

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 10/29/09 - 07:27 AM:	#14
Cadrache wrote: mmm??? Do you have an alternate word for 'doubt' by chance? I don't think so. Do you feel that Descartes legitimately "doubted" the existence of his body? I picture him stuggling to do so while squatting on whatever passed for a toilet at that time.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1021

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 10/29/09 - 07:29 AM:	#15
tommygun77 wrote: I percieve my mind to be abstract to my body and bodily functions. They are interdependent yet seperate entities. I believe this to be the case because my mind is not bound by the laws of physics, whereas my body is. Do you find yourself disagreeing with your mind, now and then?
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

d_martin
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 21, 2009
Location: Quartzsite Arizona

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 39

Posted 10/29/09 - 07:30 AM:	#16
Dragohunter wrote: Remember that "God exists outside of the universe" is a different statement then, "God's existence doesn't depend on the universe" The description of being in and out of something is a representation that our mind creates because of our perception of spacetime. Using this representation to God is false, and the confusion of the matter can easily be gone away with. I would agree on your point of the posting. In that God is separate from the universe, but that does not mean that God could not be present in the universe. If it is true that the mind is separate from the body, the mind would still have to be present in the body to command it, and be perceived by the body? A mind not present in the body does not command the body. But if the body ceases to be, does the mind continue to be? Though there be no body to perceive it. Does the mind require the body (a place) in order to be?
You don’t have to believe something you don’t know is true, whether it be fact or fiction. But if you know it’s true?

Slipstick Libby
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 28

Posted 10/29/09 - 10:12 AM:	#17
tommygun77 wrote: I percieve my mind to be abstract to my body and bodily functions. They are interdependent yet seperate entities. I believe this to be the case because my mind is not bound by the laws of physics, whereas my body is. Kind of like a radio that isn't plugged in? Do you consider a radio which has power running through it and playing music a different entity than that same radio not plugged in and not playing music?

Slipstick Libby
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 28

Posted 10/29/09 - 10:29 AM:	#18
swstephe wrote: You start off saying God and mind are outside time and the universe. Our minds are clearly subject to time and space, (all our memories are of past events, we can't really predict the future by direct perception, and we are limited to our local environs). Making this kind of equivocation, God is neither omniscient or omnipresent. Then you switch into panthesim, the idea that the universe is God, (if I follow correctly). Meaning that God is purely physical and not transcendent. He would also be finite and mortal. Why would God be mortal if the conservation of matter and energy are true?

Dragohunter
illusion is persistent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 160

Posted 10/29/09 - 04:49 PM:	#19
tommygun77 wrote: Dragohunter wrote: Then your defintion of God is different. The idea of God infers that the universe exists because God was responsible for its existence. If so, then the universe isn't responsible for God's existence. Doesn't scientific evidence suggest that there is nothing before the big bang but singularity? How does your God exist here? To say my definition of God is different (to yours?) is an understatement. I haven't pulled my definition out of a book and would suggest that God should be different to everybody as we all experience a different perception while alive. No, most physicists are incontempt with following the singularity model.And even if there was a singularity, that would support the cosmological argument even more.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein

Slipstick Libby
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 28

Posted 11/01/09 - 10:31 PM:	#20
Dragohunter wrote: Doesn't scientific evidence suggest that there is nothing before the big bang but singularity? How does your God exist here? To say my definition of God is different (to yours?) is an understatement. I haven't pulled my definition out of a book and would suggest that God should be different to everybody as we all experience a different perception while alive. No, most physicists are incontempt with following the singularity model.And even if there was a singularity, that would support the cosmological argument even more.[/quote] Really? Then what's all of the hubub about black holes?

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.