Is God a deliberate reality, or a fantasy?

[Mickiel]

Is there a God? You know, is it real or just some historical fantasy. Or like some call it, the " Greatest made up story ever told!" We have grappled with this question for centuries. Yet I think one simple word could help bring some light; " Deliberate!" Something that was intentionally done. Something done that had reason and intelligence behind it, something that was alive and planning and had a course of designed action in mind.

We talk about reality TV, but is God real?

If you walk down the street and find a dime on the ground, you think nothing of it. If you walk further and find two dimes on the ground, now you may think you're lucky or someone has a hole in their pocket. But then you go farther and now find 100 dimes on the ground, yet each perfectly balanced and standing on their edges , in rows of ten. Now you can " KNOW", not assume, you can " Know" that this was " Deliberately done!" Somebody did this; they arranged it intentionally, with a purpose in mine.

Well if you look at the Universe in this same reasoning, it obvious has intent; and we can look at the wonders on Earth and KNOW they were deliberately done! It was arranged. Designed. Thought out and laid out.

It was Deliberate!

 

[The_Chameleon]

But the appearance of intelligent design, and what is considered proof of it are two different things. And even intelligence that falls well short of absolute is scientifically acceptable. I mean, I have heard modern acedemics propose that the universe is a giant program running inside of an alien computer. Aliens are okay, but God? Now that's just silly. Scientists are willing to accept that they just don't know what lies within the event horizon of a Black Hole, but they know with absolute certainty that there is no such thing as God. Scientists admit that the idea of a big bang from a time-space-energy singularity breaks virtually all the laws of physics, and they have no problem coming up with theories that involve "magical" unseen, and unproven dimensions of "reality", but the idea of a creative intelligence being behind it all is just a fairy tale told to manipulate gullible people.


- Cham

 

[Mickiel]

No they are not two separate things; science just wants to keep them separate. Intelligence and design are joint things, not separate, one leads to the other; one gives birth to the other. I admit that I am not my mother and father, but science admits that I am the result of a combination of them both, so my parents cannot be excluded from my existence. So it is with intelligence and design; there can be no design without intelligence; science just likes to give mindless self creating chemicals and magical appearing rocks to be the beginning of intelligence that gave birth to design; and I refuse to believe that I am an ancestor to magical rocks and mindless self appearing chemicals. And I certainly am not continuous with the idiot bloodline of non speaking apes that developed from tadpoes who crawled out of self appearing water.

That is the real fantasy.

 

[The_Chameleon]

When I say science, I mean "science"... What narrow minded atheists would have you believe justifies proof of a Godless universe. True science would take into account principles like conservation of information and quantum entanglement as it relates to consciousness. It would take into account conservation of energy within a closed system as it relates to the idea of "everything". It would look at the fact that the atheistic god called "Randomness" has even less supporting evidence than the Invisible Pink Unicorn and that theories of extradimensional space are just that, theories. I've taken all of these things into account and to my mind there can be no question as to the presence of an all permeating order within creation that transcends all physical laws at every observable scale. Being that this order predates the existence of physical matter, and yet codes for intelligent life forms, it seems silly to me to keep reaching for other dimensions of imagination when the fingerprints of God are plain to see.


- Cham

PS When it comes to the actual inner workings of this great Universe, I've figured out quite a bit by not taking for granted everything "science" says I am supposed to.

 

[Mickiel]

Well I agree. All that is, is deliberate; its expected! I expect life and future, because I am alive and have a future. Many Atheist think we have no future, so Atheism is not futuristic, its fatal thinking that seeks to dominate on the basis of science. Even science is not the future, its only the fact;

and the fact is, that science came later, life came first.

 

[The_Chameleon]

Well put...

>Scientific Creationism<



- Cham

 

[Hilander]

Our knowledge of science came later, science has always been with us, we just didn't understand it.

 

[The_Chameleon]

People seem to find it difficult to be impartial, even when it's a critical part of what they do. The scientific process doesn't include the step "Ignore any concepts similar in nature or character to religious ideas". If facts just happen to point to something that may have similarities to a religious concept, it doesn't mean that this interpretation of the facts should be outright rejected. I understand and appreciate that scientific pursuit should never be tainted by religious dogma or personally held beliefs, but at the same time, science should not be tainted by a reverse dogma and reverse beliefs. I've heard the idea of a creator be described as a "magical" concept because of the lack of tangible proof, but how tangible are purely theoretical dimensions, alien computer programs, infinite universes, and singularity theories that defy all laws of physics? All of which I've heard emerge from the scientific community with little to no supporting evidence. "Scientific" magic is okay though, I guess. The beginning of wisdom is the statement "I don't know", but in the scientific community it seems to be "I don't know, but I do know anything God-like is wrong."


I didn't originally set out to find God, I set out to find the truth about, as Monty Python might have put it, life, the universe, and everything. I didn't try to squeeze the concept of God into anything along the way. I wasn't even a believer in religion when I started. There just came a point though when too many things were pointing in the same direction and I would be remiss to ignore it. I am a firm believer in Occam's razor. I think my observations and conclusions are quite logical and reasonable, but if someone disagrees, then I welcome an alternative point of view. By all means, share.



- Cham

 

[Mickiel]

Between reality and fantasy is a grey line and often that grey line is " I don't know." But is God a grey line thing, or is he real? I once tried to answer that question;

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/general-religious-discussions/53934-god-real-113.html

I may yet try to answer it again in this thread.

 

[The_Chameleon]

Allow me to offer you a vector to get you started.

Let us logically extrapolate the extreme or pure forms of each of the two basic ideas. One, that God is real, deliberately created the Universe, and had a reason for doing so that is focused around those who he created to reside therein. And the other, that God is a fabrication, a fairytale told to gain control over the hearts and minds of the masses.

If God is a myth, then consider a Universe that is born of non-intention, without purpose. Whilst the scientific data strongly contrasts with this view (see the videos recently posted in the linked thread) we can ignore the evidence and believe as the Atheists would have us believe, that all things emerge from haphazardness, without rhyme or reason. If one is to hold to such a belief system in denial of scientific evidence, what would be the motivation, since it clearly isn't the pursuit of truth?


It is often said of believers in God that their beliefs have no basis in fact and only exist out of a need for emotional security or comfort. But the hidden facts of scientific discovery are actually more supportive in many cases of religious explanations than modern acedemic dogma. While I, as a believer in God, do in fact gain a sense of security and comfort knowing by faith that the all knowing creator of the Universe created me out of love and has got my back, and that my soul is immortal, it doesn't motivate me in my pursuit of understanding the creation. By understanding the creation, I gain a deeper insight and awe for the glory and magnificence of the creator. But what comfort does it bring the atheistic sorts to believe, against available evidence, that they are short lived bubbles in an endless, meaningless soup that will blip out of existence? Well, it really comes down to ego.

Consider how a believer and non-believer in God would address the following questions differently.

A> If you were to assume that you are a truly free agent in the Universe, accountable to nobody, would this bring you happiness?

B> How would you feel knowing that there is a divine power greater than yourself that you are accountable to?

C> Would it bring comfort to you to believe that a spirit world does exist and is ruled by a loving God?

D> Would it bring comfort to you to believe that the reason bad things happen to good people is because there is no reason or order in the universe?

How would you respond to these questions?

... Accountability, free will, and predestination are matters of faith, not science, and both the atheists and theists have their respective faiths.


- Cham