Evidence for God from Science

Why does God exist? I mean, surely, He doesn't actually need to...? There's no reason He should exist, if you think about it.

You could say: 'He is the absolute cause of everything' but that doesn't explain why He exists; there doesn't need to be 'anything' at all. Besides, to claim He exists because He is the supreme cause is to imply that He exists for the sake of us, and we know that's not true...

Anyway, if you couldn't answer the above question, so here's another big one:

Does God Himself know the answer to this question?

If 'no', He wouldn't be omniscient, would he?

If 'yes', that would mean there was something beyond God...

If 'there isn't an answer', then that means there is no reason and His existence is meaningless, life is meaningless, love is meanlingless...

This one's been a real headache for me to try and fathom. You guys have a go.

Assuming there were an answer to "why" God exists, what reason is there to assume that we as finite human beings, made by an infinite God possess the capacity to understand that question?

There are mysteries in life for which there is not a satisfactory answer.

You have hit upon one of them. At some point, we have only the answer that God has given to many when they have sought to know His nature, His name or His complete scopes of attributes. He says to them and to us, "I am that I am" ; nothing more.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Assuming there were an answer to "why" God exists, what reason is there to assume that we as finite human beings, made by an infinite God possess the capacity to understand that question?

There are mysteries in life for which there is not a satisfactory answer.

You have hit upon one of them. At some point, we have only the answer that God has given to many when they have sought to know His nature, His name or His complete scopes of attributes. He says to them and to us, "I am that I am" ; nothing more.

AMEN to that!!!

Harry12345 wrote:Why does God exist? I mean, surely, He doesn't actually need to...? There's no reason He should exist, if you think about it. You could say: 'He is the absolute cause of everything' but that doesn't explain why He exists; there doesn't need to be 'anything' at all.

The "why" question posed as you have put it actually begs the question. That is, the question is already assuming that God is made up by people and therefore there must be a "why" he exists for us - why we created "God". Yet, this is what is debated amongst Theists and Athiests right? As a Christian I see that the beginning focal of the question being us is entirely wrong...

For example, if God exists, then a question asking "why" we exist would make entire sense since God is the beginning focal point. On the other hand, your question of why God exists only makes sense if we are the beginning focal point and God is an invented idea of man. But then your question begs the question for it presumes that it is in fact the case that God is an invention of man. It is therefore fallacious to ask to Christians or any group who believes in God's actual existence.

"Why does God exist?"

Hmmm...a question for the ages to ponder. To know the meaning of the answer would be to attain to the very essence of the Deity, something which is only accessible to Him. The answer to your question is the most simple and elusive substance there is, yet it contains the potential for all complexities imaginable.

God exists because He wills it.

Seek to understand the answer to the question. Once you comprehend it, when you have reached the end of eternity and the edge of infinity and have attained the knowledge of all mysteries, then your perfection will be complete. Heaven is a path leading upward forever. The attainment of this perfection is its destination.

God exists because He wills it.

I'm sure I agree with that. Are yopu saying that God could cease to exist if He wanted to? I know that God can do all things but I don't believe terminating His own existence is even a possible option...simply because by definition He is.

The problem here is that you think of God as existing. In reality, He is the Originator of Existence. You could, in fact, say that the Lord does not exist, in the sense that He is above and beyond existence. But be careful about who you mention this around. Few people have reached the point of realizing that the central doctrine of atheism is right, but incomplete.

A good way of describing God might be that He exists, but does not exist, for He is beyond existence and He is the Originator of Existence, yet He is within existence, But He is not existence itself, so to speak. "God is" is a much more accurate expression than "God exists." The latter does not do Him justice.

SaintGeorge wrote:He is above and beyond existence.

What does it mean to be above and beyond existence? What ontology is necessary to understand this? If it is undefinable, than what does it mean to even say this?

A good way of describing God might be that He exists, but does not exist, for He is beyond existence and He is the Originator of Existence, yet He is within existence, But He is not existence itself, so to speak.

These contradictions leave the statement incoherent - please expound on this a bit more if you would...

The phrase is adequately clear. Besides, I find it naive to think that human intellect can comprehend the mode of being native to its Creator. It is as absurd as thinking that a painting could grasp the inspiration of its artist.

A God Who is comprehensible simply is not God.

What does it mean to be above and beyond existence? What ontology is necessary to understand this? If it is undefinable, than what does it mean to even say this?

What, are you surprised to find out that God is unknowable? This is exactly what we would expect about God.

"It is necessary, therefore, that one who wishes to speak or to hear of God should understand clearly that alike in the doctrine of Deity and in that of the Incarnation, neither are all things unutterable nor all utterable; neither all unknowable nor all knowable. But the knowable belongs to one order, and the utterable to another; just as it is one thing to speak and another thing to know. Many of the things relating to God, therefore, that are dimly understood cannot be put into fitting terms, but on things above us we cannot do else than express ourselves according to our limited capacity; as, for instance, when we speak of God we use the terms sleep, and wrath, and regardlessness, hands, too, and feet, land such like expressions...But neither do we know, nor can we tell, what the essence of God is, or how it is in all, or how the Only-begotten Son and God, having emptied Himself, became Man of virgin blood, made by another law contrary to nature, or how He walked with dry feet upon the waters. It is not within our capacity, therefore, to say anything about God or even to think of Him, beyond the things which have been divinely revealed to us, whether by word or by manifestation, by the divine oracles at once of the Old Testament and of the New. " (St. John of Damascus, 709 AD)

SaintGeorge wrote:The phrase is adequately clear. Besides, I find it naive to think that human intellect can comprehend the mode of being native to its Creator. It is as absurd as thinking that a painting could grasp the inspiration of its artist.

It isn't clear - it doesn't say anything definitively. It is a broken concept - if god is above or beyond existence... then what's left? If god is undefinable, than what does it mean to even say the word 'god'? This is indeed an important point to make, as In turn if simply anything could be used to define god - the word also loses meaning (since it really wouldn't have one as anything can apply)...

Reduced down, it simply sounds like an argument from ignorance to me... Even St. John's posit of how one attempts to understand god falls under this argument, as well as contradicting itself - he states god is unknowable - the basic premise to his contention, as you've pointed out, yet he contends to know he is unknowable...

The analogy also does not fit - even if a painting (a painting is not even sentient, but regardless) could not grasp the inspiration of its artist, it would still depend upon the same contingency of the artist.

Simply put (to surmise what I'm saying in relation to your point and this post), if god exists, then to exist is to exist as something (having identity). We cannot refer to existence without identity, otherwise how would we know what anyone is talking about?

animal wrote:

SaintGeorge wrote:The phrase is adequately clear. Besides, I find it naive to think that human intellect can comprehend the mode of being native to its Creator. It is as absurd as thinking that a painting could grasp the inspiration of its artist.

It isn't clear - it doesn't say anything definitively. It is a broken concept - if god is above or beyond existence... then what's left? If god is undefinable, than what does it mean to even say the word 'god'? This is indeed an important point to make, as In turn if simply anything could be used to define god - the word also loses meaning (since it really wouldn't have one as anything can apply)...

Reduced down, it simply sounds like an argument from ignorance to me... Even St. John's posit of how one attempts to understand god falls under this argument, as well as contradicting itself - he states god is unknowable - the basic premise to his contention, as you've pointed out, yet he contends to know he is unknowable...

The analogy also does not fit - even if a painting (a painting is not even sentient, but regardless) could not grasp the inspiration of its artist, it would still depend upon the same contingency of the artist.

Simply put (to surmise what I'm saying in relation to your point and this post), if god exists, then to exist is to exist as something (having identity). We cannot refer to existence without identity, otherwise how would we know what anyone is talking about?

Then permit me to offer you an analogy you can probably relate to. 'God' is outside of our time and space (and yes, our very existence) and as infinite as the previous universe was to the current one in the multiple and infinite universes theory (unless, of course, you do not subscribe to that theory, in which case you will have a whole other set of problems disproving yet another very popular theory, i.e. the big bang). The only difference is that the theory of multiple and infinite universes is in the category of a 'nice idea'. 'God', on the other hand, has been known for a few millennia, wrote a best-seller book, and I hear some people contend He came down to earth to teach us a thing or 2 about this life and the one to follow, but very few people believed him. He even suffered, physically died and was resurrected, not just to prove a point, but to entirely take away the burden of proof from you and I and take it upon himself. Now there's ample historical, archiological, geographical (and every other kind of '...ical' you can think of) proof for that but then again, people tend to see what their five senses can discern (i.e. only what they want to see).

That pretty much sums up my analogy. How does that sound to you?

Byblos wrote:

animal wrote:

SaintGeorge wrote:The phrase is adequately clear. Besides, I find it naive to think that human intellect can comprehend the mode of being native to its Creator. It is as absurd as thinking that a painting could grasp the inspiration of its artist.

It isn't clear - it doesn't say anything definitively. It is a broken concept - if god is above or beyond existence... then what's left? If god is undefinable, than what does it mean to even say the word 'god'? This is indeed an important point to make, as In turn if simply anything could be used to define god - the word also loses meaning (since it really wouldn't have one as anything can apply)...

Reduced down, it simply sounds like an argument from ignorance to me... Even St. John's posit of how one attempts to understand god falls under this argument, as well as contradicting itself - he states god is unknowable - the basic premise to his contention, as you've pointed out, yet he contends to know he is unknowable...

The analogy also does not fit - even if a painting (a painting is not even sentient, but regardless) could not grasp the inspiration of its artist, it would still depend upon the same contingency of the artist.

Simply put (to surmise what I'm saying in relation to your point and this post), if god exists, then to exist is to exist as something (having identity). We cannot refer to existence without identity, otherwise how would we know what anyone is talking about?

Then permit me to offer you an analogy you can probably relate to. 'God' is outside of our time and space (and yes, our very existence) and as infinite as the previous universe was to the current one in the multiple and infinite universes theory (unless, of course, you do not subscribe to that theory, in which case you will have a whole other set of problems disproving yet another very popular theory, i.e. the big bang). The only difference is that the theory of multiple and infinite universes is in the category of a 'nice idea'. 'God', on the other hand, has been known for a few millennia, wrote a best-seller book, and I hear some people contend He came down to earth to teach us a thing or 2 about this life and the one to follow, but very few people believed him. He even suffered, physically died and was resurrected, not just to prove a point, but to entirely take away the burden of proof from you and I and take it upon himself. Now there's ample historical, archiological, geographical (and every other kind of '...ical' you can think of) proof for that but then again, people tend to see what their five senses can discern (i.e. only what they want to see).

That pretty much sums up my analogy. How does that sound to you?

I LOVE IT!!!

SaintGeorge wrote:The problem here is that you think of God as existing. In reality, He is the Originator of Existence. You could, in fact, say that the Lord does not exist, in the sense that He is above and beyond existence. But be careful about who you mention this around. Few people have reached the point of realizing that the central doctrine of atheism is right, but incomplete.

A good way of describing God might be that He exists, but does not exist, for He is beyond existence and He is the Originator of Existence, yet He is within existence, But He is not existence itself, so to speak. "God is" is a much more accurate expression than "God exists." The latter does not do Him justice.

I believe You're confusing physical substance with existance. God is a Spirit but He is also a person.

I appreciate the effort, but you've simply restated the same problems...

Byblos wrote:'God' is outside of our time and space (and yes, our very existence) and as infinite as the previous universe was to the current one in the multiple and infinite universes theory (unless, of course, you do not subscribe to that theory, in which case you will have a whole other set of problems disproving yet another very popular theory, i.e. the big bang).

Again, if god is outside of time, space and existence... what's left? Something you've just made up? I do 'subscribe' to the parallel universes theory, however, judging by your positing of it in comparison to some deity not be applicable by it, I doubt you are aware of such a theory's implications. You have the set of problems (or rather gaps of knowledge) of explaining how a deity is 'above and beyond' parallel universes. It still rests within an argument from ignorance - I don't know x, therefore y.

The only difference is that the theory of multiple and infinite universes is in the category of a 'nice idea'. 'God', on the other hand, has been known for a few millennia, wrote a best-seller book, and I hear some people contend He came down to earth to teach us a thing or 2 about this life and the one to follow, but very few people believed him. He even suffered, physically died and was resurrected, not just to prove a point, but to entirely take away the burden of proof from you and I and take it upon himself.

First, explain to me how 'god' doesn't fit the description of simply a 'nice idea'.

The concept of the Hindu deities have been around much longer than the concept of the Jewish or Christian deities... do they hold more weight or value in belief? We still have Aesop's Fables - do they hold more prevalence than the Bible since it's been around longer? I don't see the purpose of pointing out how long something has been around in a means to help justify it... Also, I understand that it was men who actually wrote the Bible.. just as I understand you are to accept someone else's word that they were inspired by the deity they wrote about.

Now, the story of Jesus in the Bible is certainly an interesting one. We are to believe that god sent himself down to earth to sacrifice himself to himself because it was the only way he could convince himself to forgive us all for being sinful beings... And what is sin? Sin is doing what god does not want you to do which basically means that god gave us free will but gets upset when we use it, calls it sin and has to bleed on a cross to make things better. That, of course, is paraphrasing.. but for the most part, that almost sums up this core doctrine in Christianity... do correct me if I am wrong about this. A bloody, sadistic human sacrifice somehow makes everything better... It actually reminds me of reading about other ancient traditions and religions around the time and before the story of jesus came around, but we can get into that a later if you'll indulge it further.

Now there's ample historical, archiological, geographical (and every other kind of '...ical' you can think of) proof for that but then again, people tend to see what their five senses can discern (i.e. only what they want to see).

But, unfortunately, not ample logical proof. There is, on the other hand, plenty of historical, archaeological, geographical (and every other kind of '....ical', yes - including logical - you can think of) proof that Christianity is a product of Jewish, Egyptian, Zoroastrian, and Hellenistic mythologies, beliefs and traditions, but people tend to see what they've been indoctrinated with and usually choose not to study such origins of what and why they believe to be true.