Saw some of the endnotes. "...morality is grounded in the unchanging nature of God (Malachi 3:6; 1 Peter 1:15), it is absolute-not cultural, not relative, not situational...." Sorry to burst your bubble but that just wrong. You tell me that the morality of the Spartan warrior was exactly the same as now? I'm not wasting time on a HUGE wall of text well documented but terribly argumented.I feel like everyone is refusing to read what I posted. >_>
ShadowNinja606
Feel free to disagree but imo if there was a god...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
God is a spiritual. It isn't a person.
I feel like everyone is refusing to read what I posted. >_>
ShadowNinja606
I skimmed what you posted. It's just a long-winded way of saying that without god there are no morals, therefore god exists.
I won't dissect the whole thing, but I will defend nihilism (as a moral nihilist myself). "Everything is permitted" does NOT mean "I don't care what happens to me, my family or my possessions". All it means is that there are no oughts Moral nihilism doesn't state that people ought to be able to act as they wish, because there are no oughts. All moral nihilism states is that ethical statements are not truth-apt, and that all moral philosophies are just personal values. There are some nihilists who reject values, but I don't care about them. They're simply applying nihilism where it doesn't belong.
I just proved God exists, the point of this topic I thought, and you won't read it? I can't say I'm surprised, honestly. When people have their views challenged they do stuff like that.
ShadowNinja606
Nobody is going to read through all that.
If you want people to respond to your proof, sum up your argument.
It has nothing to do with people having their views challenged.
,and science only deals with that which is natural, so not only does scientific evidence of god not exist, but it cannot exist by definition. -Sun_Tzu-science studies what it can study. Alot of "unnatural" things like gravity and radiation became "natural" things after we knew more about them
Believe me that some things are greater than our understanding.....
Its just my personal experience that while interacting with people, athiests are the most confused people and they also suffer from an inferiority complex. That alone is a sign enough that we should believe there is a God.
This isn't matter of me saying that there is or isn't a God... I really don't know whether he exists or not.[QUOTE="Meinhard1"]
[QUOTE="EntropyWins"] Do you care to define what could be classified as real evidence of a god? What discovery could we find that would make you say that there is a god? GabuEx
I'm just saying that it's discouraging how in the realms of physical science and neuropsychology haven't found any evidence of a god who is supposedly everywhere. I would expect that we would find some sort of mechanism in our brain that allows us to connect with God, or perhaps some evidence of a soul but rather it's well established that everything we are can be explained by the firing of neurons. In the physical sciences we have a good number of theories that can can make predictions with a good degree of validity and reliability, I would expect that in a world where God manipulates matter and performs miracles we would see less consistency to these theories for example
Well if God is everywhere, then everything has God in it, and as such we have no control group against which to compare that does not contain God.
You're assuming that if God exists, then random crap would happen for no natural reason. That doesn't seem like a logical assumption.
We'll I'm not saying random crap. When you look at views of God through the course of history you need to realize that you are referring to a pretty modern view of God whom may not even really interact with his creation at all. However considering that God apparently created everything he must have some form of interacting with matter. We could assume that it's in some abstract "spiritual," "Dragon Ball Z" sort of way but realistically if God exists he is every bit as real as we are (perhaps more real) and there must be some sort of means through which he manipulates matter. (ie plucking "strings" in the string theory") Even if random crap didn't happen God would have needed to create Energy, Time, Matter and presumably the laws of nature. If God can interact with our world I would have expected some sort of means. But what I'm talking about here is more the near the limits of my understanding - I think I make a good point with the historical perspective that I explain a few posts up. The main thing I'm referring to his how our old views of God are becoming invalid - to the point where the God you and many others describe seems incredibly distant and ambiguous as opposed to being in every natural phenomena as many used to believe. I think your "control group" point is interesting. I'm not sure how to respond but I think that the laws of nature could be the control and God exercising his authority over these laws could be the measured variable.I feel like everyone is refusing to read what I posted. >_>
ShadowNinja606
Generally speaking people do not take very kindly to six pages of copypasta. Reading that much and responding to it all would be tiresome enough, but the fact that it's not even your own words - i.e., if we responded to it, we would be responding to someone not even present - tipped it over into "tl;dr" territory even for me.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="Meinhard1"] This isn't matter of me saying that there is or isn't a God... I really don't know whether he exists or not.
I'm just saying that it's discouraging how in the realms of physical science and neuropsychology haven't found any evidence of a god who is supposedly everywhere. I would expect that we would find some sort of mechanism in our brain that allows us to connect with God, or perhaps some evidence of a soul but rather it's well established that everything we are can be explained by the firing of neurons. In the physical sciences we have a good number of theories that can can make predictions with a good degree of validity and reliability, I would expect that in a world where God manipulates matter and performs miracles we would see less consistency to these theories for example
Meinhard1
Well if God is everywhere, then everything has God in it, and as such we have no control group against which to compare that does not contain God.
You're assuming that if God exists, then random crap would happen for no natural reason. That doesn't seem like a logical assumption.
We'll I'm not saying random crap. When you look at views of God through the course of history you need to realize that you are referring to a pretty modern view of God whom may not even really interact with his creation at all. However considering that God apparently created everything he must have some form of interacting with matter. We could assume that it's in some abstract "spiritual," "Dragon Ball Z" sort of way but realistically if God exists he is every bit as real as we are (perhaps more real) and there must be some sort of means through which he manipulates matter. (ie plucking "strings" in the string theory") Even if random crap didn't happen God would have needed to create Energy, Time, Matter and presumably the laws of nature. If God can interact with our world I would have expected some sort of means. But what I'm talking about here is more the near the limits of my understanding - I think I make a good point with the historical perspective that I explain a few posts up. The main thing I'm referring to his how our old views of God are becoming invalid - to the point where the God you and many others describe seems incredibly distant and ambiguous as opposed to being in every natural phenomena as many used to believe. I think your "control group" point is interesting. I'm not sure how to respond but I think that the laws of nature could be the control and God exercising his authority over these laws could be the measured variable.But what if the laws of nature are God's interaction with the universe? You're assuming they're not. If God is everywhere, he would be found in the laws of nature just as much as anything else.
Believe me that some things are greater than our understanding.....
Its just my personal experience that while interacting with people, athiests are the most confused people and they also suffer from an inferiority complex. That alone is a sign enough that we should believe there is a God.
outworld222
So, your limited, generalized, and probably biased, judgment of athiests somehow is evidence for God? That's the biggest non-sequitur I've even seen. I've met some confused athiests, so God exists?
Do you realize how silly that sounds?
Blatantly untrue statements like this are what give me doubts (I'm not an atheist btw). This is sort of off topic but once I was told that compassion does not exist without the love of Christ, that people "of the world" don't care for one another unless they have some sort of selfish motivation or feeling of duty. To answer your point directly I was a Christian for the first 19-20 years of my life but as I grew older something wasn't right - God wasn't using me or even letting me feel his presence. So I prayed and fasted, and read scripture. Scientists would come at me with these well supported theories and I would respond with the same dogma (which I felt very confident in at times but less so over time.) Then came the kicker - I found myself in arguments with people of other faiths and then it occurred to me... What right to I have to insist that my perceptions are true? That the way that I was raised, the worldview that I was taught, that my relationship with God is correct while those of others are false? You can tell just by reading this topic that almost EVERYONE is really confident and comfortable with their world view. People look for data that supports their claims, people develop arguments to support them and strengthen them by contrasting themselves with other people while taking in communion with people of similar beliefs. (This is all a general trend of course, it's not true for everyone) Everything is so relative. Sure truth exists but there are so many different ideas of what truth is. I could read the Bible and assume that it is the basis of all truth, I could discuss it with many of my friends and family who think similarly. And then consequently insist that others are wrong. But how unfair is that? I'm not a Christian in a traditional sense. I'm an investigator. I'm interested in other peoples' arguments - I don't condemn them as having some sort of inferiority complex for example. Dayum, that is a long, rambling post. Oh well :PBelieve me that some things are greater than our understanding.....
Its just my personal experience that while interacting with people, athiests are the most confused people and they also suffer from an inferiority complex. That alone is a sign enough that we should believe there is a God.
outworld222
[QUOTE="outworld222"]
Believe me that some things are greater than our understanding.....
Its just my personal experience that while interacting with people, athiests are the most confused people and they also suffer from an inferiority complex. That alone is a sign enough that we should believe there is a God.
GreySeal9
So, your limited, generalized, and probably biased, judgment of athiests somehow is evidence for God? That's the biggest non-sequitur I've even seen. I've met some confused athiests, so God exists?
Do you realize how silly that sounds?
Ah, pardon me if you may, but that is not an illogical statement. It is just my humble observation upon myself. Now I didn't call athiests confused people, they are smart and intelligent. However! I wonder what they're reaction would be if they found out there is a God. Lets say a revalation of something. BTW, are you really implying that most Christian believers (Not to mention Jews and Muslims) are wrong when they believe in the same GOD? Fallacies in your argument are quiet substantial.Believe me that some things are greater than our understanding.....
Its just my personal experience that while interacting with people, athiests are the most confused people and they also suffer from an inferiority complex. That alone is a sign enough that we should believe there is a God.
Blatantly untrue statements like this are what give me doubts (I'm not an atheist btw). This is sort of off topic but once I was told that compassion does not exist without the love of Christ, that people "of the world" don't care for one another unless they have some sort of selfish motivation or feeling of duty. To answer your point directly I was a Christian for the first 19-20 years of my life but as I grew older something wasn't right - God wasn't using me or even letting me feel his presence. So I prayed and fasted, and read scripture. Scientists would come at me with these well supported theories and I would respond with the same dogma (which I felt very confident in at times but less so over time.) Then came the kicker - I found myself in arguments with people of other faiths and then it occurred to me... What right to I have to insist that my perceptions are true? That the way that I was raised, the worldview that I was taught, that my relationship with God is correct while those of others are false? You can tell just by reading this topic that almost EVERYONE is really confident and comfortable with their world view. People look for data that supports their claims, people develop arguments to support them and strengthen them by contrasting themselves with other people while taking in communion with people of similar beliefs. (This is all a general trend of course, it's not true for everyone) Everything is so relative. Sure truth exists but there are so many different ideas of what truth is. I could read the Bible and assume that it is the basis of all truth, I could discuss it with many of my friends and family who think similarly. And then consequently insist that others are wrong. But how unfair is that? I'm not a Christian in a traditional sense. I'm an investigator. I'm interested in other peoples' arguments - I don't condemn them as having some sort of inferiority complex for example. Dayum, that is a long, rambling post. Oh well :P Neither am I a Christian in the traditional sense. I don't see eye to eye with most christians. I just believe there is evidence that Christ did walk the Earth and he was telling the truth. I guess we all learn more about ourselves and life's truths as we get older. It's up to us, as individuals, to decide what we want to believe and take in to our souls and what to reject.We'll I'm not saying random crap. When you look at views of God through the course of history you need to realize that you are referring to a pretty modern view of God whom may not even really interact with his creation at all. However considering that God apparently created everything he must have some form of interacting with matter. We could assume that it's in some abstract "spiritual," "Dragon Ball Z" sort of way but realistically if God exists he is every bit as real as we are (perhaps more real) and there must be some sort of means through which he manipulates matter. (ie plucking "strings" in the string theory") Even if random crap didn't happen God would have needed to create Energy, Time, Matter and presumably the laws of nature. If God can interact with our world I would have expected some sort of means. But what I'm talking about here is more the near the limits of my understanding - I think I make a good point with the historical perspective that I explain a few posts up. The main thing I'm referring to his how our old views of God are becoming invalid - to the point where the God you and many others describe seems incredibly distant and ambiguous as opposed to being in every natural phenomena as many used to believe. I think your "control group" point is interesting. I'm not sure how to respond but I think that the laws of nature could be the control and God exercising his authority over these laws could be the measured variable.[QUOTE="Meinhard1"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Well if God is everywhere, then everything has God in it, and as such we have no control group against which to compare that does not contain God.
You're assuming that if God exists, then random crap would happen for no natural reason. That doesn't seem like a logical assumption.
GabuEx
But what if the laws of nature are God's interaction with the universe? You're assuming they're not. If God is everywhere, he would be found in the laws of nature just as much as anything else.
Ah... hmm... Good food for thought.If the laws of nature ARE God's interaction with the universe... well this is a neat idea, I've come across it before but it really stands out when put in the context of this conversation.
I don't have time to debate or expound on that point right now.
But I still there's some validity to my point that modern views -- like religious pluralism, the theory of evolution, a biological basis for human thought and consciousness (neuroscience), etc -- have really pushed God into these deeply theoretical realms such as the idea that God may operate through the laws of nature instead of through sheer power and might as previously thought.
That's my point - science was supposed to provide evidence for God (my historical knowledge is limited but I believe that was the case) but the opposite is true - it hasn't disproven God (perhaps it never will, heck it might still prove God's existence one day...) but again it certain has displaced our views of him into these highly theoretical (or theological) realms.
Believe me that some things are greater than our understanding.....
Its just my personal experience that while interacting with people, athiests are the most confused people and they also suffer from an inferiority complex. That alone is a sign enough that we should believe there is a God.
Blatantly untrue statements like this are what give me doubts (I'm not an atheist btw). This is sort of off topic but once I was told that compassion does not exist without the love of Christ, that people "of the world" don't care for one another unless they have some sort of selfish motivation or feeling of duty. To answer your point directly I was a Christian for the first 19-20 years of my life but as I grew older something wasn't right - God wasn't using me or even letting me feel his presence. So I prayed and fasted, and read scripture. Scientists would come at me with these well supported theories and I would respond with the same dogma (which I felt very confident in at times but less so over time.) Then came the kicker - I found myself in arguments with people of other faiths and then it occurred to me... What right to I have to insist that my perceptions are true? That the way that I was raised, the worldview that I was taught, that my relationship with God is correct while those of others are false? You can tell just by reading this topic that almost EVERYONE is really confident and comfortable with their world view. People look for data that supports their claims, people develop arguments to support them and strengthen them by contrasting themselves with other people while taking in communion with people of similar beliefs. (This is all a general trend of course, it's not true for everyone) Everything is so relative. Sure truth exists but there are so many different ideas of what truth is. I could read the Bible and assume that it is the basis of all truth, I could discuss it with many of my friends and family who think similarly. And then consequently insist that others are wrong. But how unfair is that? I'm not a Christian in a traditional sense. I'm an investigator. I'm interested in other peoples' arguments - I don't condemn them as having some sort of inferiority complex for example. Dayum, that is a long, rambling post. Oh well :P Neither am I a Christian in the traditional sense. I don't see eye to eye with most christians. I just believe there is evidence that Christ did walk the Earth and he was telling the truth. I guess we all learn more about ourselves and life's truths as we get older. It's up to us, as individuals, to decide what we want to believe and take in to our souls and what to reject. Very true.[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="outworld222"]
Believe me that some things are greater than our understanding.....
Its just my personal experience that while interacting with people, athiests are the most confused people and they also suffer from an inferiority complex. That alone is a sign enough that we should believe there is a God.
outworld222
So, your limited, generalized, and probably biased, judgment of athiests somehow is evidence for God? That's the biggest non-sequitur I've even seen. I've met some confused athiests, so God exists?
Do you realize how silly that sounds?
Ah, pardon me if you may, but that is not an illogical statement. It is just my humble observation upon myself. Now I didn't call athiests confused people, they are smart and intelligent. However! I wonder what they're reaction would be if they found out there is a God. Lets say a revalation of something. BTW, are you really implying that most Christian believers (Not to mention Jews and Muslims) are wrong when they believe in the same GOD? Fallacies in your argument are quiet substantial.Where the heck did you get this?
I never said anything about Christians being wrong by believing in the same God. Please show me where I said this.
Also, you clearly said that athiests are the most confused people.
And yes, it is an illogical statement to say that because you think athiests are the most confused people, that is evidence for God's existence. That is making the argument hinge on your perceptions of people, rather than evidence for God's existence.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"],and science only deals with that which is natural, so not only does scientific evidence of god not exist, but it cannot exist by definition. JuarN18science studies what it can study. Alot of "unnatural" things like gravity and radiation became "natural" things after we knew more about themAnd science, by definition, cannot study that which does not pertain to the natural world. God, being supernatural, does not pertain to the natural world, therefore you cannot scientifically study god. Moreover, gravity and radiation have always been natural phenomena's, which is why we can observe and study those things in the first place.
God... existence or not, is there a point? I mean not to be a hole, but ya know.. It's just a belief system so people can have a backup to. For example "I did that because god told me so" kinda like the "i blamed videogames for shooting." It's a scapegoat for people. There is also the benefits to believing in something since everything is all in the mind. What you truly believe will naturally (not always but you know what i mean) be. Just try your best at it and there ya go. It's not like "Oh yea i'm filthy rich now and it's all thanks to god", yea... if you say so, but it's all you.
So my point is, god doesn't exist. Your belief exist in your own mind. Does your belief effect you? Yes because that's what makes you react.
[QUOTE="JuarN18"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"],and science only deals with that which is natural, so not only does scientific evidence of god not exist, but it cannot exist by definition. -Sun_Tzu-science studies what it can study. Alot of "unnatural" things like gravity and radiation became "natural" things after we knew more about themAnd science, by definition, cannot study that which does not pertain to the natural world. God, being supernatural, does not pertain to the natural world, therefore you cannot scientifically study god. Moreover, gravity and radiation have always been natural phenomena's, which is why we can observe and study those things in the first place. If god interacts with the natural world, there is no reason why science couldn't conceivably observe this. If he doesn't interact with the natural world, why believe at all?
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="JuarN18"] science studies what it can study. Alot of "unnatural" things like gravity and radiation became "natural" things after we knew more about themRhazaknaAnd science, by definition, cannot study that which does not pertain to the natural world. God, being supernatural, does not pertain to the natural world, therefore you cannot scientifically study god. Moreover, gravity and radiation have always been natural phenomena's, which is why we can observe and study those things in the first place. If god interacts with the natural world, there is no reason why science couldn't conceivably observe this. If he doesn't interact with the natural world, why believe at all?You bring up a very good point, but that's a question that those who claim that god is supernatural have to answer; i.e how does a supernatural entity interact with the natural world? I personally think defining god as supernatural makes the entire concept meaningless.
"Sorry to burst your bubble but that just wrong. You tell me that the morality of the Spartan warrior was exactly the same as now? I'm not wasting time on a HUGE wall of text well documented but terribly argumented."
You obviously don't understand what morality is. Morality is unchanging; whether or not the world view of it is unchanging is not the same thing.
"
Nobody is going to read through all that.
If you want people to respond to your proof, sum up your argument.
It has nothing to do with people having their views challenged."
I am disgusted with humanity. You want me to sum up an argument so people can immediately ask for more information? Yeah, not doing it.
"@shadowninja Problem with "design" be summed in here. Are the laws (physics )that such that are ment for our existence, or we exist because such laws are like they are. Put this way is grass nutritious and tasty for cows so they can eat it and survive, or cows eat grass because it is tasty and nutritious?? Simply put, we are here because we could. It is not a matter of design or cosmic wish. Think of it. Are you arguing for this: a complex set of physical and chemical rules that govern every physical action, and the creation of a trillion mile space and the setting of whole galaxies was designed so a handful of less than a billion humans can exist? That is being extremely egocentric."
I don't follow. You use some abstract analogy that proves nothing, and then try to sum up your argument by making an enormous leap.
'Egocentric' is an abstract concept; it's all relative and can't really be used.
"sTARTED READING. Stopped at first page. Law of causality is affected by quantum physics, you know??"
"We cannot - and here is where the causal law breaks down - explain why a particular atom will decay at one moment and not the next, or what causes it to emit an electron in this direction rather than that."
Werner Heisenberg^
That doesn't disprove the law of cause and effect. Simply because somethin is seemingly random in no way means there was no cause for it. What an insubstantiated argument.
"Generally speaking people do not take very kindly to six pages of copypasta. Reading that much and responding to it all would be tiresome enough, but the fact that it's not even your own words - i.e., if we responded to it, we would be responding to someone not even present - tipped it over into "tl;dr" territory even for me."
Fine. Whatever.
The proof of GOD
The first law of thermodynamics states that matter can be neither created nor destroyed. The big bang is based entirely on the theory that the universe came from nothing with no cause.
There is absolutely no evidence to support that. Scientific method states that something does not move above the level of hypothesis until the projected theory or law is observed occurring in the natural world. Recreation of that is humanly impossible.
It is commonly excepted that there are two basic components: matter (includes energy) and mind. The Universe is obviously contingent, so that itself leaves evidence for a creator.
Mind preceded matter. Mind can account for the existence of the Universe.
That had better be short enough.
"You bring up a very good point, but that's a question that those who claim that god is supernatural have to answer; i.e how does a supernatural entity interact with the natural world? I personally think defining god as supernatural makes the entire concept meaningless."
The supernatural cannot be studied. How can you say what the limitations are?
It's based on an energetic dot.The big bang is based entirely on the theory that the universe came from nothing with no cause.
ShadowNinja606
Based on the very definition of the word. If you're going to say that something is not of this material universe, yet claim that this same thing regularly interacts with our material universe, for the sake of coherence you should explain how this immaterial thing interacts with that which is material. Saying "I don't know" is not a sufficient explanation."You bring up a very good point, but that's a question that those who claim that god is supernatural have to answer; i.e how does a supernatural entity interact with the natural world? I personally think defining god as supernatural makes the entire concept meaningless."
The supernatural cannot be studied. How can you say what the limitations are?
ShadowNinja606
[QUOTE="ShadowNinja606"]Based on the very definition of the word. If you're going to say that something is not of this material universe, yet claim that this same thing regularly interacts with our material universe, for the sake of coherence you should explain how this immaterial thing interacts with that which is material. Saying "I don't know" is not a sufficient explanation."You bring up a very good point, but that's a question that those who claim that god is supernatural have to answer; i.e how does a supernatural entity interact with the natural world? I personally think defining god as supernatural makes the entire concept meaningless."
The supernatural cannot be studied. How can you say what the limitations are?
-Sun_Tzu-
This is why I like to think of the material universe as a devolved imitation of God, or rather perfect, eternal light- which is virtually intangible. I studied Taoism befoe I became Christian, and the former helped me understand the scientific nature of the latter. When you make useless categories to separate otherwise compatible concepts, you end up just creating confusion.
Also, to the TC, we only derive hints from the past when we study it. The evidence we have is only what we think we know. Despite thousands of years of human history, we can really only know for sure what happened approximately 100 years ago based on eye-witnessed accounts. Even then it is subject to error. Remember, the mind is capable of hallucinating any experience. This applies not only to the existence of a supreme being (I'm looking at you athiests) but in the very perception of the universe, which is which is the basis for scientific exploration- the human mind.
Again the old catch-phrase that Socrates uttered about knowing is knowing you know nothing rings true.
God... existence or not, is there a point? I mean not to be a hole, but ya know.. It's just a belief system so people can have a backup to. For example "I did that because god told me so" kinda like the "i blamed videogames for shooting." It's a scapegoat for people. There is also the benefits to believing in something since everything is all in the mind. What you truly believe will naturally (not always but you know what i mean) be. Just try your best at it and there ya go. It's not like "Oh yea i'm filthy rich now and it's all thanks to god", yea... if you say so, but it's all you.
So my point is, god doesn't exist. Your belief exist in your own mind. Does your belief effect you? Yes because that's what makes you react.
Niks-Greed
You're right, people do use God as a scapegoat for alot of things. That doesn't mean He doesn't exist, however. Of course, it's all about faith, so, if you lack that, there's no point in continuing this discussion.
Anyways, God is all powerful, and will make Himself known when he wants.
[QUOTE="JuarN18"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"],and science only deals with that which is natural, so not only does scientific evidence of god not exist, but it cannot exist by definition. -Sun_Tzu-science studies what it can study. Alot of "unnatural" things like gravity and radiation became "natural" things after we knew more about themAnd science, by definition, cannot study that which does not pertain to the natural world. God, being supernatural, does not pertain to the natural world, therefore you cannot scientifically study god. Moreover, gravity and radiation have always been natural phenomena's, which is why we can observe and study those things in the first place.
Abiogenesis is probably what he meant.
"No it isn't."
Okay, let's talk.
Taken from big-bang-theory.com:
"Our universe is thought to have begun as something infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, somethin-a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know."
That's interesting. Something accepted as fact is summed up by saying 'we don't know how or why it appeared, nor how it could have violated proven laws to come into existence.
Maybe it didn't specifically come from nothing, but the matter that expanded did. I would have thought more of a mod.
"Based on the very definition of the word. If you're going to say that something is not of this material universe, yet claim that this same thing regularly interacts with our material universe, for the sake of coherence you should explain how this immaterial thing interacts with that which is material. Saying "I don't know" is not a sufficient explanation."
I'm glad you brought that up. I consider myself decently well versed on this.
God is Infinite Being. God is pure consciousness that exist as formless spirit. God is not fundamentally a personality, but God expresses itself as a personality or a group of personalities. The Infinite Being manifests itself as three distinct divine beings or personalities. We cannot see the essence of God because it is unseen, but that does not mean we cannot see God. To understand why beings have seen God but do not believe in him, we have to come to the knowledge of God's appearance in both planes.
The two planes of existence are the Heaven and Earth planes. In this case, Heaven refers to the nonphysical dimensions and Earth refers to the physical dimension. There are different dimensions of the universe and different states of existence in each of these dimensions. The nature of time and space changes from one dimension to the next. Form and appearance also changes from one plane to another. Every dimension is simply an emanation from Original Consciousness, the dimensionless dimension.
There are different levels of the nonphysical dimension. At the highest level, beings do not exist in form but they interact with one another with their pure thoughts, emotion and energy. It is only in the lower levels where they appear in form. Therefore, we can see one another as separate and distinct entities even in Heaven, just like the way we see each other on Earth. Knowing this, we can understand why God appears like one of us whether in the heavenly or earthly plane. Because all appearance is illusion.
Appearance is illusion because it is only an expression of God and not the essence of God itself. The ultimate reality of God is Pure Spirit which expresses itself into individuated consciousness, forms and appearances. The moment we interact with God by means of the senses whether physical or nonphysical, we are interacting with an expression of God. We are all expressions of God Consciousness and therefore when we interact with another being, we are interacting with an aspect of our God Self.
Beings that exist in Heaven can manifest into any form and take on any appearance. There are two forms that spirit beings tend to manifest in particular. They are the form of a Prince and the form of a Dragon. The princely form which is a human like form that shines as a body of light, is the purest and most perfect expression of divinity. The dragon form which is a gigantic, beastly and awe inspiring form, is the ultimate expression of divine power, might and majesty. Both forms have their own use and purpose.
In the physical world, Man questioned how can Jesus Christ claim to be God when he was one of us humans. He looked like us, talked like us and lived like us. That is the reason why people don't automatically believe in Jesus Christ as God even though they saw him face to face. He appeared like anyone of us but he sought to let us know that he alone was the highest expression of God. We could either believe him and his words or reject them both. Believing is purely a matter of total freewill choosing.
In the heavenly planes, Angels questioned how can The Trinity claim to be the highest expression of God when they were supposed to be light beings like themselves. The trinity looked like them, talked like them and existed like them. The difference was that, the trinity appeared to be more powerful than any of them. But some of the angels sought to put that power to test, while the rest of the angels remained faithful and true to the trinity. Angels also had a choice of pure freewill to serve or rebel against God.
As below so above. When we do not believe in Jesus Christ, the Heavenly Father and the Holy Spirit as the highest expression of God while on Earth, we will also not believe when we pass into the Heavenly or nonphysical dimensions. Because in Heaven, we will appear as the angels, possessing angelic powers and divine abilities. To make the choice of believing the trinity in one dimension is to believe them in all other dimensions. Therefore it's not the appearance of God but his Word that truly matters.
Acknowledging The Lord as God is based on pure respect and pure faith. We can understand and comprehend everything else in the entire universe, in all dimensions, in all realities purely by metaphysical reasoning and logic. But when it comes to accepting the concept that The Lord is God Most High, we can only do it by believing in Him. If even angels who are super intelligent in universal laws and capable of experiencing all spiritual phenomena directly, can still doubt The Lord, how much more we humans?
Choosing to follow The Lord is a choice based on pure freewill. Because of this metaphysical structure of the universe that God has established, there is no force that pulls you in one direction or the other more powerfully. Therefore whatever spiritual phenomena that you experience, does not automatically cause you to believe or disbelief The Lord. There is a choice that is within your power to make. This is the perfect balance and fairness of freewill that God establishes for faith in Him. It is the Wisdom of Spirit.
Authentic service is not because of power but because of love. If we choose to serve a being just because it appears to be the more powerful one, how true is our choice? Because as soon as that being appears to be less powerful than another, we would automatically serve the other. That's why there're beings that change allegiance between The Lord and Satan whether in Heaven or on Earth. When you choose to serve because of love, power is not a factor. Power can be subjective but only love is true reality.
"No it isn't."
Okay, let's talk.
Taken from big-bang-theory.com:
"Our universe is thought to have begun as something infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, somethin-a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know."
That's interesting. Something accepted as fact is summed up by saying 'we don't know how or why it appeared, nor how it could have violated proven laws to come into existence.
Maybe it didn't specifically come from nothing, but the matter that expanded did. I would have thought more of a mod.
ShadowNinja606
No it didn't.
The Big Bang Theory was a hypothesis that was formed based on observable phenomena, and gained credibility when predictions that the hypothesis made, such as the presence of cosmic microwave background radiation, were shown to be the case. Today we know it to account for everything from the macro-scale composition and distribution of celestial objects to the distribution of atomic elements in the universe. It has become the dominant, accepted theory within science precisely because it accounts for everything we know to be the case about the macro-scale universe. Its opponents constantly make the completely false claim that it is of no worth or that it cannot be trusted if it cannot explain the origins of the singularity. This statement has no basis in reality. If one sees a footprint in a patch of mud, one does not need to explain, in order to declare that a person walked through that area, the person's identity, or where he came from. The Big Bang Theory, like all portions of accepted science, is accepted precisely because the evidence demands it to be accepted.
If you are going to argue in favor of the existence of God, at the very least understand the science that you wish to use as part of your argument.
There are no singularities.
But that hasn't been proved. It's only speculation. Kinda sucks how it can't be proved.
But that hasn't been proved. It's only speculation. Kinda sucks how it can't be proved.
ShadowNinja606
Um, no, the existence of black holes is pretty much proven, unless you believe that "nothing" can exert a measurable and observable gravitational force on celestial objects.
Nor can the existence of God be proved. You can argue the possibility of his existence, but there is no ironclad proof. If that were the case, everyone would believe in God and there would be no reason for faith.
This is why you're supposed to not leave your dust collecting on their doorstep. No one's required to get in anyone's face about it, and no one's required to listen.
BTW I have to say I'm surprised that one of the most civil discussions I've seen at GS is actually on this topic. Good thing this isn't in SW.
"Um, no, the existence of black holes is pretty much proven, unless you believe that "nothing" can exert a measurable and observable gravitational force on celestial objects."
If I've misunderstood what you're saying, I apologize.
I thought you were saying that matter was being destroyed in black holes.
"Nor can the existence of God be proved. You can argue the possibility of his existence, but there is no ironclad proof. If that were the case, everyone would believe in God and there would be no reason for faith."
But I can prove all existing theories denying His existence wrong.
"BTW I have to say I'm surprised that one of the most civil discussions I've seen at GS is actually on this topic. Good thing this isn't in SW."
I'd like it to stay civil. I'm currently debating the same thing on GF. The guy is not quite as civil to having his views subsequently challenged and defeated.
"Um, no, the existence of black holes is pretty much proven, unless you believe that "nothing" can exert a measurable and observable gravitational force on celestial objects."
If I've misunderstood what you're saying, I apologize.
I thought you were saying that matter was being destroyed in black holes.
ShadowNinja606
Huh? No. You said there are no singularities. Black holes are singularities. Ergo, there are singularities.
You sir area god among men. Btw I just put this in my quotes on my facebook :PI'm an atheist but, If god is real, it's untangible to us.
We could be god to another universe, and some sort of being within our mind could be what we consider us. (abstract thought I know)
Make sense? Everything we think of is untangible, we can't touch it, feel it, smell, etc, but we can think of anything we want and it'll happen in our mind. For all we know, there's some kind of beings living within our minds. Our minds = another universe/dimension.
Crazy to think, god doesn't even know it's god.
Jamiemydearx3
if there was a god then my life would not be so f***ed up.
"Huh? No. You said there are no singularities. Black holes are singularities. Ergo, there are singularities."
A singularity of what?
"if there was a god then my life would not be so f***ed up."
I thought we'd get here.
God made the world for us. Adam screwed up; he sinned. Adam gave control of the world also to Satan. God will intervene if you ask Him, but, because of what Adam did, He technically has no right (complex God/Satan deal here) to intervene with anything unless you ask Him.
God gave us free will, ability, conscience to allow us to do what we can for the world (kinda abstract interpretation of the great commision) we can't accomplish anything, but God will give you help and courage if you pray persistently. I've recently had Him work in my life, and it was an amazing experience for me. I encourage you to pray.
Again and I don't know why this continously gets brought up in these topics, but please evolution has nothing and I mean nothing to do with the existance of God. It does not go hand and hand and it does say whether he exist or not. Creationism and evolution are two seprate items.
With that being said I believe he/she/it exists because in my opinion life is way to complex and there is so much, even with science, that cannot and probably will never be explained.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment