(Continued)

A third thought is that God might show Himself because of our concern or our love for others. This relates specifically with the prayer that I finally felt God was near again. After so many prayers asking Him to forgive me, or to come back into my life, it was a prayer for a stranger on the street as I was driving that made me feel His love again. If the third consideration is right then there's more to searching for God then just a personal search, it should be paired also with a love for others. That or each of these hypothesizes are wrong (which is also has a high chance).

I don't know how your search or your research went when you searched for God. But I still thing that if I can find Him, so can you. Hope that's an encouragement for you or my thoughts are an encouragement to look for him again instead of waiting for the world to prove His influence in it.

Regarding the comment of God of the gaps and our conversation with science, I have more to add but it won't fit in the amount of text I can post today. I'll homely have time to post it tomorrow.

To Tony Lavis. I respect experiences more then I respect philosophies. Although I would hear out a person who says they follow the Tao, and consider it based on the merit I think it holds. But if they have an experience with the Tao. (Has anyone experienced the Tao? Or is it a way of viewing and understanding the world?). If they have an experience with something called the Tao, I would consider it with a greater level of respect to take into it's account.

//I respect experiences more then I respect philosophies.//

I have to wonder to what extent that is true. Would you respect Scientologists who claim to have experienced the super-human abilities that supposedly come with attaining a high 'operating thetan' level?

What about people who claim to have experienced the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

.

Dear George,

.

The online Apple dictionary you cited requires a paying subscription to consult it. I consulted another reputable American dictionary, the Merriam-Webster.

It defines “nothing” as :

« not any thing : no thing »

It defines “thing” as :

« an object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated »

And “object” as :

« something material that may be perceived by the senses »

Here is the link :

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nothing

You remark :

« I think you just confirmed that you did not understand the question “why there is something rather than nothing” … »

I took it on its face value as a simple, straight forward question to which I replied in the same vein. I think we know that “something” exists because it is different from “nothing” which also exists. Both exist, perhaps, inextricably and interdependently.

But Leibniz is only looking at one side of the coin when he asks that question. On the other side is “why there is nothing rather than something ?”

Leibniz replied to his own question :

« The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." »

Leibniz was a “philosophical theist”. His philosophy served his faith. If there was a hidden message, it was not in the question, it was in his reply. It is not difficult to imagine who he was alluding to as the “necessary being”.

I, personally, am not inclined to cede to the temptation of Leibniz’s simple “God-of-the-gaps” explanation of “why there is something rather than nothing”.

You note :

« physicists do not do research relating to the existence … of gravitation »

Of course not. Unlike the existence of God, nobody questions the existence of gravitation. Physicists simply try to explain the phenomenon.

« You can seek … God … but you cannot do (scientific) research on His existence »

Neuroscientists research how people have religious experiences linked to belief in the existence of God :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_religion

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2005/PSCF9-05Jeeves.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10914137/What-God-does-to-your-brain.html

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.
You wrote :

« So at the moment there is no God (yet), but possibly in future someone may "prove" God and then they would have created God... »

If someone manages to prove that the God hypothesis is true does not mean that he/she created God – just as proving that a cockatoo is white does not mean that you created a white cockatoo.

« I think it's silly to attempt the impossible task of defining oneself … »

For me, it’s easy. I’m just an ordinary person.

« Whatever has an objective reality, must be an object! »

“Objective” means (OED) :

1. (Of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

2. Not dependent on the mind for existence

It has nothing to do with “objects”.

« God is not an hypothesis either, because God does not exist while hypotheses do »

There is no proof that God does not exist and there is no proof that he does exist. There is only a hypothesis that he does exist. Some people consider that hypothesis to be true. I don’t – until proof to the contrary.

« They tried to run away, but no matter where they went, they could not escape the lion because, without realising it, THEY WERE the lion! »

And they all ate each other – "an give de udder udder to me udder brudder" said the kitten !

.

Dear Banjo,

The way you reworded it now makes sense:
"{Some people consider that hypothesis to be true. I don’t} – until proof to the contrary.",
as opposed to your previous claim, which I read:
"I consider that {there is no God until “proven” otherwise}".

Myself, I firmly believe that no proof to the contrary can ever be made - since proofs can only depend on objective evidence while God could not possibly exist (or "have an objective reality", according to the OED) because the assertion of God's existence both belittles Him as well as leads to numerous paradoxes.

«There is no proof that God does not exist»

Actually there are many and we proved this in primary school: Had God existed, then He could do anything, including to create a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift, but then He could not lift it... contradiction!

Yes we ought to have faith in God, worship and love Him with all our heart, mind and resources, but to believe that He exists is a misinterpretation of scriptures.

«There is only a hypothesis that he does exist.»

So you agree that this hypothesis exists, right?
While God, according to your own view, probably does not exist (until/unless proven).

Well nothing can simultaneously exist and "probably not exist", which proves that God is not an hypothesis!

«For me, it’s easy. I’m just an ordinary person.»

This describes your personality, rather than yourself, who has that personality.

Yes, it is possible for personalities to escape all three OED definitions ("theist", "atheist", "agnostic"), but your above statement ("some people... to the contrary") seems to match the "agnostic" description. To escape all definitions, you should probably not think of God at all.

«And they all ate each other – "an give de udder udder to me udder brudder" said the kitten !»

They tried to eat each other, but they could only catch their own tail because they all were one and the same lion!