Everyday thousands of people pray to God ask for things from him because it makes them feel better about it. For some it's the fear of the unknown. 

There is nothing God can do and the reason is very simple. The reason lies in the relativity and circular logic.

For example let's take us, human beings. We go about doing our own things. Let's say someone sneezes sending particles into the air. Each particle can develop millions of micro organisms within the particle. We cannot go deep into the sub nuclear level to see what goes on in there. There could be civilizations within that particle. There could be an organism which fears God and the god is the human being who sneezed.

In the same way, in the realm of our God, the whole milky way could be a speck of dust particle floating in God's environment. The God Civilization is completely unaware of this speck of dust but this speck of dust contains the whole universe, the whole milky way and the unexplanable void beyond which is just too large for the organisms within that speck of dust to comprehend. We do see how electrons and nucleus acts similar to the solar system so I draw the parallel universe comparision from there.

For each level of God there can be sub level creations and it can go on a circular way till we reach back on the starting God since everything about relative sizes. Relative sizes in one reality may be vastly different in different realities including different time cycles.

In conclusion, since GOD cannot ever experience or observe the minute sub sub atomic existence of their creation, they cannot in any way affect their life cycles. 

So don't worry about God, and enjoy life for what it's worth.

PS: Don't take this too seriously. I just had some time to burn and this thought had been dwelling as a possibility since the god discussion some time back

Riddle
I liked your analogy but you made a fundamental error in your logic. The error you made is that you tried to understand the existence and action of a supreme being (God) from a normal context. You are interpreting things based upon the undesrtandings you have. The counter argument is that God could have a more complex presence than you think.

Case in point, when we didn't have Newtons and Einsteins, our understanding was limited to earth-centric model. Everything revolved around Earth and that's how we understood our universe. Why do we have day/night? Because Sun revolves around us and moon follows path. But with enhanced understanding of theory of relativity and a better picture of universe, our theories have changed significantly. But who is to say that we have reached the ultimate limit of the complexity of the universe? There are still many things that are not answered and it might need understanding of another level to explain/justify those mysteries.

God, I can argue, is omnipresent in another level/dimension. Universe was created millions of years ago, so our frame of reference of time is really big..yet every millisecond can make a difference and should be counted for. God, then can comprehend time difference of such a big magnitude, he can contexualize millions of years as well as a nano second. In similar fashion, maybe he can comprehend and influnence action in a speck of dust to a giant galazy. Maybe, just maybe, our compreshension is not mature enough to understand how things are carried out by the Supreme being?

I am not saying this is right or that's right, I am just pointing out a flaw in the approach you have taken.

 Kiddo, you haste in pointing out fundamental error in logic.

Firstly you respond to Riddle instead of me, another hasty action!

As far as any interpretation of GOD, it is only someone's personal or group interpretation and there is no right or wrong since noone knows the truth, so any flaw you point out does not hold any validity since you do not know the absolute truth!

You said "The counter argument is that God could have a more complex presence than you think." But the counter argument to your argument is that you could be wrong and God could have a more simple presence than you think!

If there are any logical errors then I have no problem accepting them 

@Rethink bro,

You sound more like an Agnostic than an Atheist. So what is it that you want to say?. Atheists will never make that statement you are making with that kind of analysis. It means that there is God but we do not need to fear him. I think you cannot decide on your beliefs.

Yeah, sorry about the wrong name.
As for the actual argument, I don't think I conveyed the message well enough. My point is not whether you are right or wrong, neither have I stated my opinion about God's existence. I have just attempted pointing out the void in the argument, the logic itself.

You said, I could be wrong. Sure, anybody can be wrong, but this sentence tells me you missed my point.You forwarded a linear logic to a complex entity, which is God. My point is that linear logic might not work with this entity. Linear thinking doesn't work while describing the supreme being.

Let me give you an example. You must have heard during various "katha-vachan" that Gods used to fight for 1000 years. Would that make sense with our perception of world? How can they live thousands and thousands of years? This means that our scriptures have accepted a super-natural existence of God that cannot be defined or understood by our "limited" though process. So it should be accepted that existence of God, if you were to believe, is more complex than what our perceptions logically say is possible. You have to go beyond your understanding realm. What this means then, that it is possible for God to acknowledge a speck of dust while also monitoring the whole galaxy.

I am not saying you are right or wrong, I am pointing out a flaw in your logic, at least the way I see it. No need to get offended.

 Kiddo no offence taken, I was merely attempting to point out that there cannot be any absolute assumption when it comes to theories about god.

Regarding complex entity and linear logic, you are assuming that god is a complex entity, which only becomes a relative term in this context. Even we are 'god' to the microscopic organisms that take form in a sneeze molecule. So we become complex entity for them but to us just simple entity so there is no point dwelling on the complex entity and linear logic flaw. I can only form ideas using human logic!

Regarding time frame, I did mention 
Relative sizes in one reality may be vastly different in different realities including different time cycles.

Different time cycle meaning thousands of years for us may be less than a day for god.

Freedom:
Either agnostic or atheist at this point does not matter when you are looking at the frame of reference that I am refering to. 'God' did not create us willingly so the classical labels of agnostic does not apply.

@Rethink,
there is no such thing as either an agnostic or atheist. You could be an agnostic atheist but that way you could never argue againsts the existence of God. The term agnositc atheist is only there to show contrast to the term agnostic theist.

Atheists are alone in their belief. Atheists say there is absolutely no God.

 Freedom

What I am saying is that the definition of god is flawed since it is believed that god is all knowing creator. In the alternative explanation I offered, god does not create us. We are simply a by-product of god's environment, just as when we sneeze one of the sneeze particles can become a breeding ground for a civilization of sub microscopic organisms.

Yes, it is possible from an agnostic perspective. However it is Atheists vs the rest of us. So in essence, you should never argue againsts the existence of God as that would defeat the whole purpose of being agnostic.

Life is complex and difficult to understand. The answer to life therefore is not simple. God is not a simple answer to life. It is a complex answer to life. Science is the simple answer to life but life as it is not simple.

To me God is a complex answer that makes simple sense.

Freedom,

Do you really understand the term "Agnostic?" 

You go on spewing your beliefs and don't hide your antagonism against atheists - which is characteristically not an agnostic ideology. Your every other sentence is a prayer to God (may be non-deistic).

It's a misnomer calling yourself an agnostic but hearing your sermons I assume you’re a deist, and you should label yourself as such. Historically, an agnostic has been closer to atheist and has been referred to having large hue of atheism than theism. In effect, this relabeling doesn't alter your opinions but may be useful for others to holistically gauge you without reading more about your beliefs. 

@ Alternate,
I am an Agnostic Theist. I have said that before.

Atheist: "There is absolutely no God."

Agnostic: "I am open to the possibility of there being a god."

So the fundamental difference to the most crucial question remains. Yes some beliefs might overlap but i am afraid, Atheists are alone on the other side of the table, no matter how much you complain my friend. Though the terms are complex i agree, i am only interested in the fundamental question to life. Is there God?. God does not have to be the one that is preached by religion. Just a much higher level of consciousness and knowledge than humans.

Is he omnipotent?. Dunno. Maybe. Maybe not.

Is he omniscient? Dunno. Maybe, Maybe not.

Freedom,

Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. (Definition from Merriam-Webster dictionary)

Agnostic Theism : Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the truth or falsehood of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. (Definition from Wikipedia)  Also note that the entry is filed under Irreligion.

Again from the link above: Agnostic theism could be interpreted as an admission that it is not possible to justify one's belief in a god sufficiently for it to be considered known. This may be because they consider faith a requirement of their religion, or because of the influence of plausible-seeming scientific or philosophical criticism.

Agnostic theism is more of epistemological question than theological question –which means it is more about knowledge than religion.

I have been reading Sajha and as such have come across your views, and have always noted your incongruence.

My friend, I may on the other side of the table ( I know as an atheist, but you aren’t sure because of agnosticism) but on the right and growing side of table. Here is the latest poll (pdf warning) http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf

Related news: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-13/national/35491519_1_new-atheism-atheist-groups-new-atheists

You should first debate with deistic theists who vehemently oppose both atheism and agnosticism (of all flavors). I read in one of your posts you support William Lane Craig. You probably don’t know that he considers agnostics as atheists and only supports theistic God – in this instance, Jesus Christ; and opposes Islam. One may wonder how your belief is compatible to his. I can give you the answer: Syncretism and Reductionism – which is basically a CYA.

 

Another of your comment http://sajha.com/sajha/html/index.cfm?StartRow=1&PageNum=1&threadid=102324: Morality is not evolution based, it is rather religion based. Through the return benefit system, you do not get morality but only selfishness. It is religion that teaches do unto others as you want others to do unto you. It is religion that teaches to pray for those who persecute you. You take away religion, you take away all these teachings and on hand you will only have the return benefit system. You are good to me therefore i am good to you.

By attributing morality due to religion and cosmological development to creation or intelligent design of God, you clearly affirm to the Omnipotence and Omniscience of God, if there is one. Now in this thread, all of sudden you’re not sure of it. I don’t expect anything but shape-shifting from you.

In process of reading more about your opinions, I got a premonition that you are another sajha user that I know. I don’t mean to digress from the topic of discussion but just wanted to bring parallels about your particular style of bludgeoning religion chiefly via argumentum ad ignorantiam.

tl;dr : It’s not only semantic difference (you are basically a theist) but your arguments also juxtaposes your beliefs over the time. And I don’t find you worthy of any discussion due to lack of any citation – you assert or opine due to your gut(god) feelings.

rethink, that was long ago what I used to think exactly the same way you are thinking now..
I even imagined universe or whole different level of world or universe in the tip of my nail tip.
You could be right, may be :D Quantum realities are way beyond our imagination and they
do exist.

Freedom, I totally agree with your take on "agnostic". In simple, they are 'may be' folks.
They believe in both stories. :D

- My personal thought on 'God' is that we are all merely the reflection of universe. We're mere
mass of proton,neutron and electron and that which keeps these bound together, has baffled
scientists for long time which they confidently have termed as 'god particle'. Some of you
so against the GOD shouldn't forget that even top notch scientists and physicists do believe
the concept of creator, it's just they don't believe in religious creator. When they refer to GOD,
they're not talking about your GOD, Gods of your religions. I don't know how many of you think
urself being ardent atheists, but never forget before scissors hit the patients many of these brilliants
do seem to acknowlegde the divine to help them with their endeavors, when lunar orbiter was landed
on moon, they thanked the divine, when 'Curiosity' landed on mars they had jars of peanuts in their
hands and chewing 'em on just to bring the success of the mission. It's not superstitution, but rather
the law of nature they believe and have seen in experiments they did based on quantum mechanics that every
particle in the universe has and can have effect onto something happening. Things act differently at
sub-molecular level and what physics have taught us, it failed right there and hence quantum physics
was born. Some of you saying there is no creator is disapproving your very own existence, which turns
out to me as something to laugh at , sometimes. If you could even try to differentiate between two
bodies, dead and alive not emotionally but analytically, you'd start to garner some vital information at
subconscious level which is suffice for anyone to sit and contemplate. The very essence of life/non-life
that is giving this structural shape of matter to anything in the universe is godly(non-religious) in nature
to me. That something is keeping all these mass of atoms bound together, don't you see that. But like
they say, you're free to believe whatever you like to. When I see spiralling galaxies, I see same within
me, the same formation and same spiraling in each atomic cell of our bodies. Contemplate folks, we
are minute reflection of universe and hence we're all one. Should there be this no 'God particle', we're
all mere dust of atoms swirling on this vast vague void space.
Btw, I didn't know in fact I never ever imagined about my thought would resonate with others but someone
in different group let me know that I will perfectly befit into some category called 'pantheist'. That was
'Oh whao' moment. But anyway, I may sound total loser to someone or the subject of joke, but
that doesn't really bother me at all. Keep discovering yourself everyday. Even the hardened so-called
'atheists' here on sajha, I know you at times do acknowledge your divine. It's okay you don't need to
admit it, can be cool 'atheist' dude for others. But those perplexed moments or (co)incidents must have
baffled you.

 BitterTruth,

Going by all your posts, I can't help but think your idol is someone like "DEEPAK CHOPRA", a modern day charlatan who makes millions off naive people by juxtaposing scientific and spiritual jargon that noone really understands, and defends his stance by shouting when confronted. And when scientists are using the term "god particle" they're merely using it as a metaphor. Jeez! Is that really that difficult to see? 

And I don't quite understand your constant bringing up quantum physics in every other discussion, a field you say "way beyond our imagination" but you talk constantly like you're a authority of it (just like Dr. Chopra). Richard Feyman - a leading theoritical physicist of the 20th century couldn't have said it better--
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics." 

Time for some introspection eh? (since you don't get bothered)!!! 

snurp.. lol I don't shout.. who's deepak chopra??(googling)
...
okay..deepak chopra sounds like he's having his moments.. lol.. (short 5 minute search and read don't let me know who he really is? )

btw, do you really know me? how about yourself? do you know yourself?

as per your say.. now am self-instrospecting.. and hence..(back to the past... that post at the top right before yours) ..thats the outcome of my introspection(just an excerpt).

anyway, core of that statement has been lingering in my mind for long and very true, I though admit I forgot who said it, but thanks for attributing who said it. Refreshed my memory.

Regarding my redundant use of the phrase ' quantum mechanics', well, I like the topic and I use it when it's contextual. At least thats what I think. And am sorry, am responsible for what I've said/written, am not responsible for what and how you understood( I know I keep repeating this very sentence as well, because I like it and I use it when need be). If you've noticed me repeating that particular phrase(quantum mechanics) very often, thanks for paying that much attention to my posts. Appreciated :D 

Lastly, no.. I'm authority of nothing.. it's just my views.

Have a wonderful moment brother 

@BT,
Thanks. :)


@Alternate bro,
Thank you for the detailed analysis and colourful argument. It was a pleasure going through it. I would have
prefered not to indulge in semantics but yes you are right. I do not identify myself as a Theist because i am not
religious and my search for divine knowledge is not based on religion but Science itself. So i choose the second
best option which is Agnostic Theist. Yes you are right, my belief does tend to overlap but i think that is not
avoidable in such a debate. When an Atheist seeks a religion free world, i like to make a counter argument as i
do not seek one. So even i am not into religion myself, i would still support it merely based on the fact that
search for divine knowledge by itself is not evil.

I supported William lane craig on his stand on morality, not his religious stand. I have seen a lot of Christian
debators though and they do bring forward relevant arguments. If you listened to that debate, he has said that he
is not speaking of the christian God, but God in general in relation to morality. Appealing to humanity for basis
of morality is not scientific as Science cannot guide morality. In a morality freedom world, what is good for the
goose is not always good for the gander. How am i hinting towards an omnipotent/omniscient God by infering thus?.

There is nothing to cite. I like to make brief arguments. For example, i said love is not scientifically
quantifiable nor understandble, what is there to cite?.

Yes Atheism is growing but appealing to numbers is a logical fallacy. Some people simply become Atheists to
appear "cool". It is like those Nepali guys who learn to play guitar and smoke just to appear "cool".
The population of honeybees is decreasing at an alarming rate, so is that good?. Heart disease is growing along
with cancer, is that good?. 

 

And by the way alternate bro, i do not know anyone in sajha and you do not know me either. I do not use another ID. Who do i remind you of?. I want to read his threads and see what i sound like to you. :)

Your logic doesn’t compute. While I can syntactically read your argument, semantically it still doesn’t make any improvement from your earlier opinions. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, argues like a duck, waddles like a duck, changes shape like a duck, uses fuzzy logic like a duck, acts pseudo-intellectual like a duck,  and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

->my search for divine knowledge is not based on religion but Science itself

Did you just really say that?  Here is what the National Science Foundation (NSF) has to say regarding paranormal activities:

“Scientists (and others) have observed that people who believe in the existence of paranormal phenomena may have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. Their beliefs may indicate an absence of critical thinking skills necessary not only for informed decision making in the voting booth and in other civic venues (for example, jury duty[38] ), but also for making wise choices needed for day-to-day living.[39]  “

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind00/access/c8/c8s5.htm

 So, obviously, Science is not your refuge. I think the best bet for you is to contact MythBusters.

->When an Atheist seeks a religion free world, i like to make a counter argument as i
do not seek one.

Again, if your quest is to retain faith-based religions, you can’t call yourself an agnostic, unless you are an agnostic Christian, agnostic Hindu, and so on – which are contradictory to your beliefs. Technically, you can be a deist but not a theist or agnostic theist without adhering to one of the faith-based religions, and still believing in a higher power (mind you, you make an assertion here of higher power not knowledge of its existence). I repeat agnosticism is largely an epistemological stance. I don’t personally mind anyone practicing their religion as long as it is personal and doesn’t interfere in others’ day-to-day life.

->I supported William lane craig on his stand on morality, not his religious stand. I have seen a lot of Christian debators though and they do bring forward relevant arguments. If you listened to that debate, he has said that he is not speaking of the christian God, but God in general in relation to morality.

I do have listened to several of William Lane Craig. Fundamentally, his arguments of Objective Morality are grounded in immutable premise of organized religions; for him that objective morality comes from Bible. He is hesitantly accommodating of other religions bar Islam and Calvinism, which can be inferred as challenging the morality of a billion plus people who go by Koran . Pray tell me – how can you advocate objective morality without having a set of code of conduct if you are an agnostic and not religious? Inform this apostate what does the general God say about morality? I had posted a link in my previous post how you said Christianity is better than other religions. Now your support to William Lane Craig without supporting him his religious stand and partaking in objective comparison of religions is like saying you’re a carnivorous vegan – which logically doesn’t compute unless you’re a lying shill.

->How am i hinting towards an omnipotent/omniscient God by inferring thus?.

In previous discussions you talked how god has an invisible hand in creating the cosmos. And god, by definition, has been said to be omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Isn’t that tautologically true? If you counter this theological position, you don’t believe in god. What kind of god do you believe who doesn’t possess these qualities and is responsible for designing the Universe? Then how is he any different than any human? That’s the reason I told you first to go and talk to a theist than an atheist. What you are essentially doing is picking words from alphabet soup and posting your belief without even knowing its meaning.

->Yes Atheism is growing but appealing to numbers is a logical fallacy. Some people simply become Atheists to appear "cool". It is like those Nepali guys who learn to play guitar and smoke just to appear "cool". The population of honeybees is decreasing at an alarming rate, so is that good?. Heart disease is growing along with cancer, is that good?. 

My human mind can’t even parse this paragraph. You said logical fallacy but conveniently ignored to say which (well, just saying that would not making it valid; nevertheless, just for a change I wished). Ironically, you exhibit an instance of equivocation, circular, false attribution, verbose fallacies and could be many more (just thinking from my memory).  Are those some sort of metaphorical questions that you were asking?

To sum it up, you are making emotive arguments that too with relative certitude and purport objective truth that can’t be explained. I am afraid to bluntly put that you can’t even make a well-formed argument. I am tired of your pertinacious attitude and tired of reading your inane arguments removed from semblance of logic. And I wish you good luck in finding your general god. 

 

@Alternate bro,

1) All i said was if religion were movies, christianity is hollywood. Now other movie industries have come up with some
   gem of movies too. I was speaking in context when i said that.

2) Argumentum ad populum is the logical fallacy involved. Even after i gave examples of logical fallacy, you want me to
   list the type of fallacy. Now that was so not smart of you.

3) Deists do not believe in miracles or mysteries of religion, i am open to them. In fact, i do believe in miracles.

4) As an Atheist, you have lost credibility because you are pitting one religion againsts the other. Whereas your main job
   is to use Atheism to prove your points. How does Atheism account for objective morality that which is good for the goose
   and also good for the gander?. Instead you only bring forward red herrings. Typical trademark Atheism.

5) To attribute life to unconsciousness would be to believe in a miracle even more greater than miracles of religion. My mind
   cannot comprehend such a miracle because it is unscientific. Something does not come from nothing. In Cause and Effect,
   a Cause is aptly satisfied when the Cause is conscious in origin. Who made the cake?. My mother. That's it, it is answered.
   There is no need to ask who made my mom as that is not the question. My mother is not eternal. But divine knowledge is
   eternal. That is the only way to stop infinite regress.

6) How does my being Theist, Agnostic, Deist, etc prove your stand on Atheism?. The definition for these beliefs are ever
   evolving. You can consider me a weak agnostic. Beliefs do overlap, it is unavoidable. But only Atheism stands apart in
   their absolute denial of existence of God but our beliefs never overlap into that. 

7) Using the cake analogy, it is possible to create something without being omnipresent/omniscient. So creation could
   happen at a higher level without being omniscient/omnipotent. 

8) You either indulge in red herring or ad hominem. You should focus more on your religion which is Atheism. You should debate
   from that perspective. Give a scientific rebuttal. You used Islam/Calvinism to prove your viewpoint about whose objective
   morality to follow. You forgot that those are religion, as an Atheist you should not use such examples. All religion
   preach good morality to a certain extent. I know playing devil's advocate is normal, but hignly hypocritical of Atheists
   to use religion to their favour at times.  

Freedom i know you can digress a lot, but let me ask you a simple question. What is the difference between a person praying to god and a dog barking at a tree?