Does God exist?

Silent Song said:
clarification: the "gender" of God as commonly called "He" and "Him" is derived from:

1. as those who believe that He is the Creator of humanity, He would then be the Father of humanity...

2. those who believe in Him also know that Jesus referred to God as Father both literally and figuratively. Jesus further established that God, though essentially genderless, would be referred to as "He" to make communication simpler and to represent the relationship between humanity and Him.

What you say is 100% correct if you refer only to what the Bible says. Being skeptical of the Bible, however, I'd argue that there's a side of this you missed. SoundMaster hit part of it:

SoundMaster said:
Why not then, "mother"?
Basically, this is due to the fact that during the invention of many of today's god stories, society was (and mostly still is) a male-dominated one.

The other part of it doesn't seem to have surfaced in this discussion yet. Paganism, which was essentially the rival religion of very early Christianity, often assigned the central role of creator to a mother goddess rather than a male god (though acknowledging the existence of both the mother and her male consort, and often a variety of other, lesser deities.)

If, as I believe, Christianity is merely an invention of man and not higher truth of any sort, then the portrayal of God as male according to Christian beliefs was undoubtedly designed to distance Christianity from paganism, denying its ideals at the same time. Between that and conversion by force, what better way to compete with the old ways?
 
SoundMaster said:
I'm naive. Can you explain and define this "lifeforce" you speak of?
Or at least put itin terns the uninitiated can comprehend.
thanks.

Sure, the visible aspect of this energy has been called auras, human energy field, but it is enery infused with consciousness. Apparently recent studies in quantum physic have proven that consciousness can effect matter at a quantum level. after that it gets really complicated to explain without going into everthing else.
 
this explains it better.

hamanic Healing: Why it Works
The most startling discovery in the scientific history of mankind proves that shamans know what they're doing.

By William S. Lyon
Adapted with permission from Integrative Health & Healing, Fall 2003.

Western cultures have always dismissed shamanic healing and other native medicine powers as "primitive superstition," mainly because we had no explanation for how shamans do what they do. Shamanic healing was the main form of healing used by the American Indians, who called upon helping spirits to cure the patient. Though there are few native shamans left in North America, 200 years ago upwards of 30% of the population had some form of spirit-enabled medicine power.
How does shamanic healing work? Let’s start with some recent developments in quantum physics, which have finally provided us with answers.

In the late 1920s, scientists—led by Neils Bohr--were convinced, based on observations of their data and mathematics, that our reality was dependent on an "observer effect," an interplay between how our reality manifests and how we observe it. It became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Meanwhile, Albert Einstein's followers, by far the majority of physicists at the time, disagreed, and spent the next 40 years searching for the "hidden variable" that would explain quantum mechanics and enable them to do away with the Copenhagen interpretation.

Finally, in 1964, physicist John S. Bell came up with a mathematical theorem, known as Bell's inequality (or theorem), which, for the first time, made it possible to physically test which of these two views was the correct one. Henry Stapp, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley and an authority on the implications of Bell's theorem, believes that all the strange concepts we have learned to adjust to since Einstein--where time goes slower as we goes faster; where the mass of the sun bends space such that earth travels in an ellipse while also going in a straight line through space; the atom bomb; quantum tunneling; and the like--are merely the tip of the iceberg. The heavy-duty, bottom line all along has been, "Is the observer effect real?"

The first experimental test of Bell's theorem was conducted eight years later, in 1972, by Professor John Clauser at UC Berkeley. Clauser conceived his experiment in 1969 while at Columbia University, and completed it in 1972 at Berkeley using calcium atoms. The results were that reality is based on an observer effect. In 1973, Holt and Pipkin repeated the experiment using mercury atoms, which was repeated by Clauser in 1976—and both showed conclusively the observer effect is real.

In 1975 scientists at Columbia repeated a 1974 experiment done in Italy, again confirming the observer effect. In 1976, Lamehi-Rachti and Mittig at the Saclay Nuclear Research Center in Paris carried out another experiment, which again confirmed the observer effect.

The final bit of evidence came in a March 1999 article in Nature by Alain Aspect from the University of Paris-South, in Orsay, France. He announced the conclusions of his team's experiment, which closely aligned with the requirements of Bell's theorem. Again, the results were in favor of the observer effect.

So here we are, faced with the most startling discovery in the scientific history of mankind, and very few people know a thing about it. Recall that when we were faced with the discovery that the earth goes around the sun, it took the general population well over a century to adopt this as fact. We still speak of the sun rising and setting.


Now we are faced with the notion that there is an interplay between our local space-time reality and human consciousness. Worse yet, it means objects are not really solid. Here I will summarize points made by Evan Harris Walker, writing in his book, The Physics of Consciousness: Strained by the conflicts between Einstein and Bohr over the ultimate meaning of quantum mechanics, subjected to further stress in Bell's theorem, and finally ripped through in recent tests, the whole cloth of the materialistic picture of reality must now be rejected. We must now recognize that objective reality is a flawed concept, and that consciousness is a negotiable instrument of reality.

We stand at the threshold of a revolution in thinking that transcends anything that has happened in 1,000 years. Now the observer, consciousness, something self-like or mind-like, becomes a provable part of a richer reality than physics or any science has ever dared to envision.

Why hasn't this incredible discovery reached the front cover of Time magazine? Give it a couple of decades. We have yet to figure out how to handle it.

Nevertheless, this means that shamanism finally has an explanation based in modern physics. Shamans can effect change in local reality through spirit helpers working at the quantum level. This is achieved through their ritual action, in which the shaman's consciousness, in an altered state of being, is intently focused on a singular objective. For example, “Take this cancer out of this sick person.”

What we blandly refer to as "ritual rules," are actually quantum mechanics rules. That is, native ceremonial behavior is exactly what is needed to change reality via the observer effect. For example, shamanic rituals are extremely repetitive over long periods of time. This is because they are trying to effect the probability waves that bring reality into time and space in the first place. Waves are repetitive, and so are the waves of consciousness generated in a shamanic ritual.

Once you understand these new findings of physics, what shamans do in ceremony appears rational. This means that healing ceremonies are basically wish-fulfillment exercises, whereby the "wish" is expressed as prayer. A prayer constitutes an intensely focused, strong human will. It is the observer effect of quantum mechanics at its best. It is the patient who sets this process into motion by first making a request and "sacrifice", usually in the form of a payment, to the healer. The notion of sacrifice accompanying prayer is an ancient tradition in all religions, such as the early animal sacrifices of ancient Judaism. It is this sacrifice that sets the aim of the prayer such that it will hit its target. You give before you receive.

Once the healer conducts the diagnosis, the healing ceremony can begin. If it is a particularly difficult case, the shaman will usually call for ceremonial assistants. The more "observers," the better the chance for success, so friends and relatives of the patient are often invited to participate. For this same reason, a shaman will also ask doubters to leave before a healing ceremony begins. In fact, one often reads ethnographic records in which shamans would not conduct a ceremony if whites were present.

Once the ceremony begins, the "observation" is maintained and repeated in order to secure success. The shaman locates the disease (afflicted part of the body), and then, with the aid of spirit-helpers, removes it, most often by sucking. What the shaman draws from the patient's body matters little. It is the observation that the disease is gone that brings about the needed change in reality that causes the quantum-level probability wave to collapse in favor of the patient.

Quite often the shaman's spirits will give instructions to the patient that are designed to maintain the desired observation, once the ceremony has ended. For example, a Lakota healing might require the patient to make prayer offerings on a daily basis. In this sense, one's prayers often extend beyond the healing per se. I know of one case in which this was not done by the patient, and the symptoms returned.

This relationship between the actions of a shaman and quantum mechanics has been dealt with by Fred Allen Wolf in The Eagle's Quest. Wolf, a physicist, discusses nine parallels between quantum mechanics and shamanic activity. In so doing, he makes it clear that shamans, while in a trance state, operate at the quantum level of reality. Once this is realized, one can begin to understand not only why shamans can do what they say they can do, but also why their means for doing so are similar from culture to culture. They are all following quantum level rules.

No doubt the observer effect plays a central role in many other alternative forms of healing as well--healing at a distance, sympathetic touch, psychic surgery, etc. However, the presence of spirit helpers makes shamanic healing additionally powerful. In this particular form of healing, reality can be radically changed such that "miracles" often occur. These miracles now have a solid scientific basis, but it will be some time before this new realization becomes fact in the minds of the general public.
 
RookParliament said:
Does God exist? There is no reason for a God to be. So no. Of course as has been stated that can never be conclusively proven.

But Silent Song the Biblical Jesus never existed either. You can go a lot farther in proving Jesus never existed than God thats for certain.
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel.html
i'm sorry but your arguments are flawed. you cannot claim that God does not exist because you believe there is no reason for him. you admit this in your next sentence.

then you go and claim it again. which is it, or are you unsure? your sources are clearly biased in trying to promote atheism so i would be skeptical of their research and what manner that research is presented.
 
NeverIsForever said:
If, as I believe, Christianity is merely an invention of man and not higher truth of any sort, then the portrayal of God as male according to Christian beliefs was undoubtedly designed to distance Christianity from paganism, denying its ideals at the same time. Between that and conversion by force, what better way to compete with the old ways?
you seem to have read books such as The Davinci Code (which i also read).

if you read what i said above, i am not claiming God has ANY gender at all, but that for a figurative reference God is given "He" as discussed above.

would you also debate calling our species "mankind" or humanity? everyone knows what these words mean, their purpose is figurative...
 
Maybe I should have put a huge whopping IMO after I claim God doesn't exist. Would that have helped? It was not really an argument. My apologies. I'm actually a bit strapped for time to make a full fleshed out argument, but an extraordinary claim that some great man in the sky created everything requires some extraordinary evidence.
Yes I'm sure the links I gave are biased. A critical mind could dissect them if they are wrong. That does not make them irrelevant. There is still no mention from historians that would have been Jesus's contempraries on what seems to be quite an important figure
 
I made a reply and it says mine is the last post in this thread, but I can't see it.
But what I stated was along the lines of:
-Maybe I should have put a big IMO after my first statement. It was not really meant to be an argument of any kind. My apologies.
- If I wanted to argue God doesn't exist because He's unneccesary I can go ahead and do that. But I'm sure the only people who would agree with me are ones who already share my beliefs.
- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
-Jesus would be a historical figure of note. It seems telling that none of the historians that are contemporary with him mention him in the slightest. Have you read any scholarly works that try to prove he actually existed? They might be an interesting read in balance.

Oh and God is referred to as male because the Jews were misogynistic. As were other cultures then and now.
 
RookParliament said:
Oh and God is referred to as male because the Jews were misogynistic. As were other cultures then and now.
i already discussed this. contrary to popular belief, it is for reasons that i have already stated twice, according to the bible... for those nonreligious folk, i also already stated that the reasons i stated are figurative...
 
I would dispute your reasoning for your claim that Gods gender is figurative, and state again the Jews were a patriarchy and this is reflected in their beliefs. Modern and maybe not so modern thinkers may try to say that its all figurative, but explain to me why we are created in God's image and Adam was the first being created? Why were his wives than created differently from him?
 
RookParliament said:
I would dispute your reasoning for your claim that Gods gender is figurative, and state again the Jews were a patriarchy and this is reflected in their beliefs. Modern and maybe not so modern thinkers may try to say that its all figurative, but explain to me why we are created in God's image and Adam was the first being created? Why were his wives than created differently from him?
does it matter if man or women were created first?

you could argue that man was created first and took priority.
you could also argue that woman was created after with improved results ("save the best for last").

neither argument is any good.

that the Jews were a Patriarchy has no relation to the reference of gender in Christianity, as they are not the same beliefs. central to Christianity and not to Judaism is that Jesus was the literal as well as figurative son of God and that establishes my argument above.
 
But Christianity is still a growth from Judaism. I'm not claiming that Christianity is the same thing. But I would argue that the patriarchal term of referring to God as a He is also present in Christianity not because it just figurative, but because it arises from Judaism.

Also would you say Christian beliefs are not historically used to prevent from having any significance in society beyond being recipients of seed?

God created Adam in his own image, but Eve was created from one of Adams ribs. A diffrent proccess that seem to me to state that God has a little "son of god" hanging there between his legs.
 
that the Jews were a Patriarchy has no relation to the reference of gender in Christianity, as they are not the same beliefs. central to Christianity and not to Judaism is that Jesus was the literal as well as figurative son of God and that establishes my argument above.
Wait a minute.

Wait a minute. How does that establish anything? What does Jesus being the literal and figurative son of god have to do with why God is referred to as a male?
 
RookParliament said:
Wait a minute.

Wait a minute. How does that establish anything? What does Jesus being the literal and figurative son of god have to do with why God is referred to as a male?
read what i wrote on the last page, at least 3 times now...
 
1. as those who believe that He is the Creator of humanity, He would then be the Father of humanity...

2. those who believe in Him also know that Jesus referred to God as Father both literally and figuratively. Jesus further established that God, though essentially genderless, would be referred to as "He" to make communication simpler and to represent the relationship between humanity and Him.

1. Why does Creator automatically imply Father?
2. So Jesus (who still has not been historically proven to exist) sets up a patriarchy, because the relationship between your god and humanity is that of a father and child?
 
RookParliament said:
1. Why does Creator automatically imply Father?
2. So Jesus (who still has not been historically proven to exist) sets up a patriarchy, because the relationship between your god and humanity is that of a father and child?
how many times do i have to spell it out for you to understand? honestly...

1. Creator implies genderless.

2. God as he is represented by Christianity (which i believe in) has been given the "He" title because He is believed to be the Creator of all things, and thus is the creator of humanity "Father/Mother" if you will. further, this ambiguity is settled when Jesus comes, and in the bible calls God his father (as in father of all humanity) as well as his literal father, the one who made Mary pregnant without intercourse. further, in the bible and all other religious texts concerning God, he is referred to as "He". this includes islam, judaism, and christianity...
 
Don't pretend I'm not understanding what you're saying. Maybe where the problem lies is I'm looking at it through a historical perspective where the culture/history shapes the beliefs. In this case a patriarchy gives male characteristics to its main/only deity. You on the other hand are looking at it as just a way of interpreting your holy book.

How does Creator imply genderless? Plenty of other mythologies have creators that are female or male, or have tendencies to either. Again maybe some of the actual Bible passages could clear this and show me what you Christians actually believe in.

And please don't be afraid about talking about any other point I have made.
 
RookParliament said:
Don't pretend I'm not understanding what you're saying. Maybe where the problem lies is I'm looking at it through a historical perspective where the culture/history shapes the beliefs. In this case a patriarchy gives male characteristics to its main/only deity. You on the other hand are looking at it as just a way of interpreting your holy book.

How does Creator imply genderless? Plenty of other mythologies have creators that are female or male, or have tendencies to either. Again maybe some of the actual Bible passages could clear this and show me what you Christians actually believe in.

And please don't be afraid about talking about any other point I have made.
:lol: no, you really ARE not understanding.

i too am looking at it from a historical perspective. i don't believe the BS that Christianity "stole" aspects of other religions- it doesn't need to. I know what Patriarchy is, no need to define.

tell me where in the english language does "Creator" have a gender? it is a word meaning maker. it is genderless. i'm not talking mythology, i'm talking history. (as you claimed you were)

it's 2am, i'll post passages tomorrow if you STILL don't get it.
 
Its not BS that Christianity has aspects from other beliefs. What was Christmas before it was your savior's birthday? Or Easter. How about all those mythologies that have an aspect of the divine king in them, where the king has to die so his divinity returns to the earth and the harvest comes etc... All beliefs systems have a foundation.

How are you looking at it from a historical perspective? Please explain. The Bible is not an accurate historical document.

So no I don't get it. Could you try posting something that addresses what I have said?