Does God Really Exist?

[pfrattali]

Does God Really Exist?

Do you doubt the existence of a Supreme Intelligent Being?
Think logically:
Are there not laws of conservation of Energy governing the universe? Remember, Energy cannot be created nor destroyed (#1 & #2 laws of thermodynamics). You can only change its state. Through logic then, we can conclude that Energy had no beginning (cannot be created) and will never end (cannot be destroyed). In other words, ENERGY IS ETERNAL. Do you not think that ENERGY RULES then?

If you believe in the 'BIG BANG' then tell me, how did ENERGY 'appear' out of nowhere?
In fact, Energy can only happen as a result of vacuum or complete nothingness, of which there was no beginning. The vacuum causes Energy to flow. This flow has always been and will always be. No beginning, no end. The nothingness is also still there and will always be. Why? Because PURE ENERGY ITSELF IS INVISIBLE. Energy is what causes perception and conscious awareness. You cannot see Pure Energy itself, but you can observe its effects. Energy holds the complete blueprint of ALL cause and effect of the entire Universe.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, Energy in its purest form is intelligent/conscious? Do you have proof that it's not? Thus God is PURE INTELLIGENT ENERGY, a PERFECT, UNIVERSALLY CONSCIOUS BEING without flaw.

What causes you to 'think', be 'intelligent', 'perceive reality', etc.? Is it not ENERGY? Do you agree that Energy allows for brain functions which eventually bring about intelligence and self-awareness in us ('I think, therefore I am')? Now ask yourself: IF ENERGY IS NOT INTELLIGENT, HOW DO YOU SUPPOSE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT INTELLIGENT BRING ABOUT INTELLIGENCE ITSELF?
Does it not make logical sense that if SOMETHING is to bring about intelligence, IT would have to be intelligent also? To say that something non-intelligent brings forth or creates 'intelligence' by random accident is absurd!
My proof here is common sense.

Now, since God is ETERNAL and we are created in His image, we are ETERNAL also. We are made of ENERGY too, are we not? So if you decide you want nothing to do with God and His RULE of the Universe, then where will you spend eternity after your soul and spirit leave your mortal body? Is God going to receive you into His Presence? Wait a minute! You just said you didn't want anything to do with God! I'll let you think about that one.


Energy has it's own set of laws and if we mess with those laws, we'll probably get burned! Energy is a two-edged sword. It can be beneficial to us, but it can also destroy us. It all depends on our attitude towards it. If we as human beings are to live in peace and harmony with one another and with nature, should we not submit to these laws, the laws of the Creator? Should we not submit to God? Look at our society. Do we not have judges, laws, law enforcement, etc.? If we didn't, wouldn't there be chaos? If someone breaks the law, should they go unpunished? Should they not be charged or go to jail?

To sum it all up:
ENERGY = LIFE, LIGHT, REALITY, CONSCIOUS AWARENESS
ENERGY is ETERNAL
GOD is PURE ENERGY



Look around you, at all of nature. Do you not see design? For every design there must be a Designer! Do you not see programming in the complex makeup of DNA? For every program there must be a Programmer!


So why are we here? Why did God create us? Simple. God wanted a family to enjoy. God is good and wants us to enjoy life with Him and with one another. Do you not suppose God loves you and cares for your well-being?

So why is this world full of problems? Simple. Because most people have left God and want their own rule. They want to be their 'own god' and don't want the perfect rule of God. They've taken prayer out of schools. They think they don't need God! But God is the 'Source' and if you separate yourself from the Source, you suffer decay and corruption. So mankind is now 'fumbling' around, so to speak, without God. God is allowing these problems in the world so that mankind can learn through 'experience'. God has already warned through 'words', but mankind will not listen to the 'Word of God'. The more stubborn a man is to listen to and obey God, the more painful the experience will be.
If you're a parent and you try to teach your children not to touch a hot stove, how would you do it? With 'words'. You warn them. If they don't listen to you, then what alternative is there? Your children will learn through 'experience'. They will touch the hot stove and get burned. They will think twice before doing it the next time.

Will these problems on planet earth go on forever? Of course not. Read the last book of the Bible. It will tell you what will happen in the future. God is coming back to judge mankind and set things straight. This world will be restored by God. Either you submit to His Way or get out of the way!


"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has shown it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His ETERNAL POWER and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1:18-23



1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. 2 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God. 3 They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one. Psalm 14:1-3



"But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that HE IS, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." Hebrews 11:6

 

[Unforgiven]

Do you doubt the existence of a Supreme Intelligent Being?
Think logically

 

[talloola]

Wow, that started out calm and slow and built up into a full blown sunday sermon.

I like all of the statements re: energy, makes sense to me, but you lose me when
you connect all the energy to a god, I don't believe in any god.

 

[El Barto]

no!!!! god damn it !

 

[Cliffy]

Oh We have another live one! You were doing pretty good until you refer to that work of fiction called the bible. Then you lost all credibility. You are basically saying, like all those before you, that if you do not accept my version of god and my interpretation of the bible, you are hooped. Well, life doesn't work that way and neither does your imaginary god, who, by the way, is a psychopath and you just another ego maniac trying to push his psychosis on the rest of us.

 

[Cliffy]

no!!!! god damn it !

don't you mean... goddess damn it!??

after all, when god created man was she not only joking?

 

[El Barto]

don't you mean... goddess damn it!??

after all, when god created man was she not only joking?

mmmm sweet ambergris batman , your right!

 

[Unforgiven]

What about Black Holes? You're theory sorta falls apart there doesn't it.

 

[AnnaG]

Wow. Someone sure has an odd idea of the laws of thermodynamics and others. Skipped science classes, didja?

 

[Toro]

Yes.



That was easy.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Do you doubt the existence of a Supreme Intelligent Being?

No, it's a bit stronger than that. I don't merely doubt it, I'm convinced there's no such being.

...how did ENERGY 'appear' out of nowhere?

The best evidence we have suggests the total energy content of the cosmos is zero. Missed a lot of science classes, did you? The Bible's not a useful reference for scientific matters, it's wrong about pretty much every empirical claim it makes.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Wow, that started out calm and slow and built up into a full blown sunday sermon.

I like all of the statements re: energy, makes sense to me, but you lose me when
you connect all the energy to a god, I don't believe in any god.

Talloola, if somebody wants to say that God is energy, I don’t have a problem with that. Problem comes if somebody tries to ascribe supernatural power to that ‘energy’, claiming that if you pray to the energy, the energy will grant your wishes.

 

[Cliffy]

Talloola, if somebody wants to say that God is energy, I don’t have a problem with that. Problem comes if somebody tries to ascribe supernatural power to that ‘energy’, claiming that if you pray to the energy, the energy will grant your wishes.

The universe is just energy. We are a conscious part of it and our thoughts affect it. Prayer, like any ritual, is a way of focusing our attention on what we intend by our thoughts. Most of the time we are so focused on the outcome of our thoughts - what we are experiencing at the time - that we don't realize is that it is a result of our thoughts and beliefs. Most of what we experience looks like random circumstance but that is because we don't usually pay attention to out thoughts. Our reality is as chaotic as our thoughts.

If we pay attention to the constant dialogue in our minds we begin to see a connection to that dialogue and the circumstances in our lives. Once we become aware of it, we can change the circumstance by intentionally changing the dialogue. That is what the docudrama movie What the Bleep do we Know? tries to show us - how quantum physics and mechanics work in our lives.

 

[Spade]

Do any gawds exist?
Perhaps Thor; it thundered today!

 

[AnnaG]

Do any gawds exist?
Perhaps Thor; it thundered today!

... and Ra. we had about everything except snow and hail here today.

 

[ironsides]

Hegel’s Proofs for the Existence of Godby Jonathan A. Waskan8 May 1998 http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/proofs.htm

If you can understand this God does exist. I got lost in the 1st paragraph.​

 

[Spade]

... and Ra. we had about everything except snow and hail here today.

Siss, boom, bah, siss, boom, bah!
There ain't no gawds here
'Cepting Thor and Ra!
Get your prayer beads,
Sow religious seeds!
Thor and Ra fear!
No Moses in the reeds!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If we pay attention to the constant dialogue in our minds we begin to see a connection to that dialogue and the circumstances in our lives. Once we become aware of it, we can change the circumstance by intentionally changing the dialogue.

Cliffy, now I could go along with that. Anyway, gotta run, the wife is hollering at me. Bye.

 

[AnnaG]

Siss, boom, bah, siss, boom, bah!
There ain't no gawds here
'Cepting Thor and Ra!
Get your prayer beads,
Sow religious seeds!
Thor and Ra fear!
No Moses in the reeds!

roflmao That's awesome, Spade!

 

[AnnaG]

Hegel’s Proofs for the Existence of Godby Jonathan A. Waskan8 May 1998 http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/proofs.htm

If you can understand this God does exist. I got lost in the 1st paragraph.​

There are problems with Hegel's ideas and you hinted at one of them; obscurity. Another is mystification (big surprise there lol ).

Criticism

Hegel used his system of dialectics to explain the whole of the history of philosophy, science, art, politics and religion, but he has had many critics over the centuries. Perhaps the most famous critics were the Left-Hegelians, including Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and their followers in the 19th century.
In Britain, Hegel exercised an influence on the philosophical school called "British Idealism", which included Francis Herbert Bradley and Bernard Bosanquet, in England, and Josiah Royce at Harvard. However, analytic philosophy, which still continues to dominate philosophy departments in the United States and the United Kingdom, was virtually founded when G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell rejected British Idealism and their colleagues' admiration for Hegel. Hegel remains largely out of fashion in these departments even to this day. Logical positivists such as Alfred Jules Ayer and the Vienna Circle criticized his ideas and their supporters such as F. H. Bradley.
The trend towards criticism of Hegel has been widespread in the 19th and the 20th centuries, and has included individuals such as Arthur Schopenhauer, Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Eric Voegelin, A. J. Ayer, and many others. In the late 20th century this trend was resisted by Professor Jon Stewart (Northwestern University, Illinois) in 1996 with his book, The Hegel Myths and Legends.
Some 20th century critics suggested that Hegel glosses over the realities of history in order to fit it into his dialectical mold. Erich Heller opines in his The Disinherited Mind (1952) that Hegel was proved wrong — by the poets who succeeded him, not by the unfolding reality. Some newer philosophers who prefer to follow the tradition of British philosophy have made similar statements.

[edit] Obscurantism

Modern analytic and positivistic philosophers have considered Hegel a principal target because of what they consider the obscurantism of his philosophy.

Another popular criticism of Hegel came from Bertrand Russell. Russell notes that much of Hegel's philosophy is merely an elaboration of his mystic insight which Hegel was attracted to in his younger years. Russell also attacks Hegel calling his logic "obscure" and accusing him of making knowledge "metaphysically impossible" because of Hegel's attempt to get rid of the in-itself.


Finally, although the centerpiece of his criticism was around Hegel's justification of the political arrangement he happened to live in (thus renouncing to apply his substantive critical skills to the Prussian state), and by extension to proto-totalitarian modes of social relationship, a significant component of Karl Popper's attack on Hegel has to do with the lack of clarity of his prose, leveling against him charges of mystification, pompousness and even intellectual dishonesty (as according to Popper, those features were purposefully used by Hegel to distract the reader's attention from some of the ugliest implications of his ideas).

The Absolute

Nietzsche criticized Hegel's claims about the Absolute.

Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth. ... Thus it is, today, after Kant, an audacious ignorance if here and there, especially among badly informed theologians who like to play philosopher, the task of philosophy is represented as being quite certainly "comprehending the Absolute with the consciousness", somewhat completely in the form "the Absolute is already present, how could it be sought somewhere else?" as Hegel has expressed it.

– Friedrich Nietzsche, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, § 11.​

Totalitarianism

Kierkegaard, one of Hegel's earliest critics, criticized Hegel's "absolute knowledge" unity, not only because it was arrogant for a mere human to claim such a unity, but also because such a system negates the importance of the individual in favour of the whole unity. In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, one of Kierkegaard's main attacks of Hegel, he writes, under the pseudonym Johannes Climacus:

So-called systems have often been characterized and challenged in the assertion that they abrogate the distinction between good and evil, and destroy freedom. Perhaps one would express oneself quite as definitely, if one said that every such system fantastically dissipates the concept existence. ... Being an individual man is a thing that has been abolished, and every speculative philosopher confuses himself with humanity at large; whereby he becomes something infinitely great, and at the same time nothing at all.

– Johannes Climacus, alias Søren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript I​

In the 20th century, Karl Popper suggested that Hegel's system formed a thinly veiled justification for the absolute rule of Frederick William III, and that Hegel's idea of the ultimate goal of history was to reach a state approximating that of 1830s Prussia. He argued that Hegel's philosophy eventually inspired both Marxism and fascism.
This view of Hegel as an apologist of state power and precursor of 20th century totalitarianism was criticized by Herbert Marcuse in his Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory, on the grounds that Hegel was not an apologist for any state or form of authority simply because it existed: for Hegel the state must always be rational.



An analysis against Popper's arguments can also be found in Joachim Ritter's influential work, Hegel and the French Revolution.

The worship of power is an old religion, and Hegel, to go no farther back, is full of it; but like traditional religion his system qualified its veneration for success by attributing success, in the future at least, to what could really inspire veneration; and such a master in equivocation could have no difficulty in convincing himself that the good must conquer in the end if whatever conquers in the end is the good.

– George Santayana, Winds of Doctrine, I​

Natural sciences Gauss, writing in hindsight, viewed Hegel's discussion of the natural sciences as inaccurate:

Noah got drunk only one time, to become then, according to the Scriptures, a judicious man, while the insanities of Hegel in the Doctoral Dissertation, where he criticizes Newton and questions the utility of a search for new planets are still wisdom if one compares them with his later remarks.

– Carl Friedrich Gauss, In Jacques d'Hondt, Hegel et l'hégélianisme, Que sais-je?, p.27​

Wilhelm Krug challenged Hegel to "deduce his quill (pen)." In other words, he dared Hegel to arrive at knowledge of a particular thing from the abstractions of absolute idealism's philosophy of nature.



The psychoanalyst Carl Jung associated Hegel with mental illness (Jung also made similar statements about James Joyce) when he wrote:

A philosophy like Hegel's is a self-revelation of the psychic background and, philosophically, a presumption. Psychologically it amounts to an invasion by the unconscious. The peculiar language Hegel uses details this view, it is reminiscent of the megalomaniac context of schizophrenia, who use terrific words to reduce the transcendent to subjective and objective form, to give weight the abscurity of their use of language and it's inherent subjective meaning, so great in their terminology produces the symptoms of weakness, ineptitude, and lack of substance.

– Carl G. Jung, On the Nature of the Psyche, 1928​

- Wiki​