Why do you believe in God?
-
Leibniz’ Contingency Argument is another argument that seems to be absolutely correct.
The argument goes like this:
- Every contingent fact has an explanation.
- There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
- Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
- This explanation must involve a necessary being.
- This necessary being is God.
-
@Norwegian-Mugabe Hi, what do you mean by "god"?
-
There can be a pantheistic god... Or maybe not...
A theistic god is rather just a fairytale to keep normies behaving in order (keep their heads down)... -
@Truth Lol, don't go full Juden Peterstein on me. If you see the video I just posted which explains the contingency argument, you will find a good definition of god at the end of the video.
-
@Norwegian-Mugabe I'm going full elementary question, what meaning do you personally give to the word "god", what characteristics do you associate with it?
-
@Truth What we can know from the arguments posted earlier in this thread, is that someone or something created the universe (God). God is also the greatest possible being. I think that much of God's other properties are speculation. Some guesses are better than others, but there are certain things that it seems like we are unable to get answer to by reason alone.
-
@Norwegian-Mugabe What do you mean by "greatest possible being", in terms of size, in terms of the value you personally give to it?
-
@Truth God is the greatest being in terms of abilities and influence.
-
@Norwegian-Mugabe Are there any specific reasons why you perceive it as external to us, rather than partly within us or totally within us?
-
@Truth Yes the arguments posted earlier shows that the Universe was created contigently. See the following arguments: Kalam's cosmological argument, Aquinas Argument from Necessity , and Leibniz’ Contingency Argument.
-
@Norwegian-Mugabe in this thought, do they imply or do you imply that this thing, is a being,(Being often has a personifying connotation), and potentially assumes that this "being" has intentions?
-
@Truth None of those three agruments imply intentions, but some arguments for God's existence do imply intetion. I thnik for instace, that all forms of The Mozart Argument imply that God values beauty. It might be possible to argue that you can infer intention from Anselm of Canterbury's argument too.
-
@Norwegian-Mugabe No distinction between a being and a thing (such as a stone) in this argument? If there is, what contributes to the perception of "god" as a "being" rather than a thing (such as a stone) in this idea?
-
@Truth again the arugments differ on this. Kalam's argument does not say what kind of being/force it would be that created the universe. Anselm of Canterbury's argument certainly states that God must be the greatest possible being.
-
@Norwegian-Mugabe Which of these two is part of your idea of "god"?
-
This post is deleted! -
@Truth Both of these arguments are valid arguments for God. Kalam's argument is perhaps the greatest argument of all, but this argument does not state much about the kind of being God is.
If you truly want spiritual wholeness and develop a deep relationship with God, then I reccomend spending time hiking in nature. If you sit in silence in nature you will feel in your gut what purpose you should take on. I also reccomend to train yourself to be a lover of beauty. Listen to classical music and make your surrondings as beautiful as possible. -
@zawisza Lolol, it doesn't matter if we're not on reddit, or if my name is Truth instead of socrates
I'll keep asking elementary questions, Even if you please me not to
According to you it's obvious, keep reading and you'll potentially realize that there are aspects and nuances of his idea of "god" that aren't necessarily mentioned or explained in the initial post
Lolol it's you who comes across as a fanatical buffoon who tries to label people who ask questions about "god" as "heretics"
I don't care about "Christian theology" and "saints", I ask the questions to the guy who made the post
I block you
-
From my experience, I suggest that "god" in the majority of cases is a feeling and/or feelings associated with ideas,
the higher our energy level,
the more we feel united with everything, the more we feel united with "god", or even that this unity we feel within us, and of which we are a part, is "god" or "divine" energy, to the point where we no longer perceive it as something "greater" or external to usWe can also experience a certain degree of masculine energy, which is associated with a high enough degree of sovereignty, fertility, power, free of any negative emotions, where we feel we embody the energy of life creation, we no longer think of all the potentially sub-optimal ideas associated with "god" that arouse suboptimal emotions, we no longer think of "god",
we feel that we are "god" (in this second state, the feeling of "divine" energy is felt individually, rather than as part of everything)
-
@Truth you touch on Schopenhauer's view of objectivity nullifying the burden of the will, and Nietzsche's idea of will to power. Both ideas hold truths, but neither give an explanation of the universe. I think many people seek God to explain why the universe exists, rather than to seek God to live better. Your views are similar to Oneness Pentecostalism, exepct maybe you aren't a Christian? I think of us as an extention of God.
I think you are wrong regarding the ideas part. Yes you can reason yourelf to a closer relationship with God, but sensus divinitatis tends to come from transcendental momements of beauty and ovebecoming.
