Who could ever answer a question about God?
My God is at constant odds with my brain, both of which are under my complete control.
If your god is under your control, then your god is surely not a god.
That's why I called it my God, because it isn't your's... Duh!
Hey. . .I am just joking.
How was the day there - did dawn break?
About 2 hours ago. Now I'm just biding my time until I have to go to work...
??? "My God is at constant odds with my brain, both of which are under my complete control." The keyword here is "BOTH". Thus you claim your god is under your complete control, and therefore either you are a god greater than your god, or your god is not a god. Simples.
We all envision what our God/god is; we give it attributes, a persona and any other qualities we so choose. Therefor, it is a representation of our minds and is very much under our control. My God/god, is the love I choose to share with others, all other aspects are secondary.
Do you take these discussion too seriously?
No I just seek clarification when someone's post make no apparent sense.
They don't have to make sense, to you... That's why it's called a point of view.
There's not much point in posting a view unless it is written in such a way as to make sense to the readers.
I stand by my first comment, your post was illogical.
If it makes sense to a few, then I've accomplished my goal. To be as clear and direct with my point of view, is truly all that matters. But sometimes, a person may just be musing, seeking a clarification of a view. This is not to say that I'm seeking approval, I really don't care what people think of me, I'm just communicating a point of view.
You see. . .often when you hear someone speaking something 'wrong', that can make you think, and reach truth. When someone is saying something illogical, that may lead to a revelation. It's productive if you take it that way.
mischeviousme has answered. . .
Wow it must be amazing to be so enlightened.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying that point. . .
In what sense, in the 'not doing anything' sense? or sleeping like creatures of this planet 'to rest' or both or something else?
Also who's timeframe are we using. Someone that was just born, a fifty year old's, a centenarian, coz each one has their own reasons to want/not want some 'happening' to happen.
A newborn hasn't had the chance to make choices, the fifty year old made many choices and is wondering what to think next, the centenarian is thinking she's done what she's done, so what's next? So what would/should God be doing? stepping up and doing what?
The point I'm trying to make is, it's not about God sleeping (because we'd be using a constraint that is measured by humans) it's about plans that we can't fathom, we are so far removed in some senses from God, that we just can't figure out the deal, we can't know his thinking about the way it is or will be.
So to answer your question, no, he isn't sleeping, he's connected in ways we can't fathom.
Caveat; All of the above is 'only' believable IF you are a believer in God
God is not sleeping; he has given the Beast 42 Months in which it can blaspheme and teach falsly. God is waiting for the the beast and US to do as we choose untill the time has come
Soon, the 42 prophetic months will have been fulfilled.
And every question will be answered with one single answer.
Howdy... That's the answer I just envisioned. No offense, just kidding.
There is one single answer which if we did not reject, does make sense all the way through our analitical processes.
If I'd been away for the entirety of human history, I'd at least stop in every once in a while, with a warm hello. That's at least the vision I have of a loving God.
Away ? he hasn't gone anyplace!
It is we who have caused a separation of time and space.
(some of us anyway)
Try saying that to the heavily indoctrinated, they know nothing but what they've been told.
After more than 800 days of doing just that ..... I am getting weary ....
It is time for me to go lay down before I fall down.
He's not. He's just waiting for you to poke Him. Sometimes humans think they can take care of themselves but in reality, our strength is fairly limited.
Not at all because God is everything and all energy and the source of it so cannot sleep!
Another worthless topic posed by a troubled man. You will see God soon enough and you can ask him who is sleeping yourself.
You our not arguing about God, this forum was posted by a person who does not believe in God at all. The goal is to get you to argue when their is nothing to argue at all. The question is pointless.
No, the point is that you have no ability to see God. We are all tested in our faith and our ability to see God and how he influences are lives. No faith equals no ability to see God, is it any wonder. When you equate Earthly examples to faith you have nothing to provide to others. All great emperors in the Bible had all Earthly things and were only convinced of Godly things they were lacking in order to know that something in Heaven was going on.
I daresay that you don't have that ability, either. If you did you could point Him out to me, or at least tell me where to go to see Him. Not a river or a tree, mind you, not events or items that you mistakenly attribute to this mythological creature, but God in all his glory.
Five hundred years from now, Sarah will find a photo of your child 'James'.
Anthony will say, that photo doesn't prove anyone gave birth to that child, that child has no parents. Sarah will say, well that's how humans procreate so someone definitely gave birth to the child, Anthony will say prove to me WHO gave birth to this child and I'll believe you. Sarah said, I can't. Anthony will then say, 'James' has never existed.
So James doesn't exist, yet, apparently he does.
So God doesn't exist, yet, he apparently does.
Scripture tells us what God is doing.
He has given "ThA Beast" center stage for a period of forty two (Prophetic) Months to Blaspheme.
During this time, God sends his two witnesses in his defense.
Sounds like a Christian argument against evolution. False logic from start to finish - anything to "prove" a point that ends up not proven at all.
One can never put it into words. It's a feeling intended for the one experiencing such a perception, as it is an internal aspect.
You have to do better with a rebuttal. Saying "False logic from start to finish - anything to "prove" a point that ends up not proven at all." is void of any breakdown and constructive criticism, it's like saying 'nothing'
So my argument stands, thanx!
So, you've got a photo of God? Can you share it with us, please?
Oh you need a picture from me because I used that in my analogy?
The picture was a way of showing that without seeing someone in a corporeal sense, we can know that someone can still exist, is that not true?
For instance do I/you need a photo of the watchmaker to know that the watch didn't 'just' happen? do I/you need a photo of mans ascent from apes or can you show me irrefutable proof every evolutionarily 'micro or macro' step of the way to have 'faith' in atheism. How about the Cambrian explosion, can you fill in the chasm so that I can drop my belief in ID and side with something (atheism) and feel I finally have the unshakable positive empirical proof that we are the result of zip zap and here we are?
Give me your proof and I'll give you mine, lacking that (your proof,) tell me you are now agnostic.
"The picture was a way of showing that without seeing someone in a corporeal sense, we can know that someone can still exist, is that not true?"
No, that is not true. However, you can collect evidence supporting the belief that someone exists. Enough evidence will result in a virtually certainty of their existence without actually seeing (touching, smelling, etc.) them.
In the case of the evolutionary steps, the evidence is overwhelming in quantity and is to the point that a reasonable person does not require more to accept it as truth.
In the case of ID there is absolutely no evidence - zero - and thus a reasonable person (requiring evidence for belief) will accept that the probability of that concept is minute to nonexistent. To have the belief anyway is OK - to each their own - but to promote it as factual truth is a falsehood.
The first paragraph, is your opinion, so it's not proof.
The second paragraph, (except for the first five words) I agree with.
The third paragraph, no problem.
The final paragraph, is not supported by any evidence by you, so I exhort you to supply proof, so I can become an atheist.
Take your time
The first paragraph is a copy/paste from your post. It was added as an indication of what my post was to be about, and is not my opinion at all.
The first five words of the second paragraph indicate that the copy/pasted sentence is not true, and it isn't. Anything out of your immediate five senses may or may not exist at that point in time. Technically, even the star you might be looking at may not exist, having been destroyed hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Final paragraph - what would you suggest as evidence that there is no evidence? A list of every printed word ever made, with discussion about each statement? Far easier that you provide evidence (not proof) that ID is a high probability concept and we can discuss your evidence. Or do you deny that presenting belief without evidence as factual truth is a falsehood?
I see no empirical evidence from you that God is incapable of 'being' and your response was also void of any empirically peer reviewed facts concerning the theory of evolution as the 'sole' catalyst for life on earth and the existence of the universe and it's formation.
How about an analogy, maybe you can start there?
Or do you deny that presenting belief without evidence as factual truth is a falsehood?
Lacking any evidence from you, I feel you should at least consider being agnostic, even if you weren't confident of ID as viable. Where is the evidence, the printed words you speak of? I'd luv to review them, thanks
I don't present any evidence that He cannot "be" because I can't find any. Partly because I don't know what God is (and can't therefore determine if He can exist) and partly because generally I look for the positive side. I find no evidence He exists, either, and that means He probably does not.
I don't present evidence that the theory of evolution provides the sole catalyst for life on earth because it doesn't. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the creation of life. That is another field of study and conjecture entirely.
Yes, I am agnostic - I do not know if God exists or created the universe. That should not be startling news - there is not a person on earth that knows the answer to those questions, although a great many will present their belief as fact.
Your last sentence confuses me - I asked what you would consider as evidence that there is no evidence of ID. A convoluted question, yes, and the only real answer I could think of would be to examine every statement ever printed to see if there was positive evidence of ID. If it is not found, there is no evidence.
A much simpler method that won't take a thousand lifetimes to do would be to examine purported evidence of ID. Do you have any we could discuss?
Although I dislike repeated answers to a forum post (it can be confusing, at least to me) I will provide an analogy of sorts.
You propose a separate universe from ours, with a single(?) inhabitant that then created ours, and ask that I provide evidence it isn't true.
I then propose a third universe, undetectable to us, that contains a race of intelligent unicorns. These unicorns created your God's universe, with the machine you call God, solely to have the machine create our universe. They are thus the real gods that you should be worshipping. Can you provide evidence that it does not exist? I won't tell you where to look, what to look for, or any information other than that it exists - how will you give evidence that it does not and cannot exist?
This kind of thing is a futile discussion that can lead nowhere. Rather, if I propose such a place and creatures it is incumbent on me to give evidence that it/they exist instead of simply making the statement that they do. Similarly, if you wish to convince anyone that ID was factual, you must provide evidence that God exists and that He created the universe. Evidence that an imaginary place/thing does not and cannot exist outside of our universe is not possible to obtain.
As an example of this reasoning, Steven Hawking is on record as stating that there is no need for a cause for the big bang that created our universe. He does not say that there was no cause, just that there is no need in the world of physics for one. That's because neither he nor anyone else can determine if there is anything outside our universe that could have caused the event.
Evidence of ID, and evidence of no ID, and evidence of the catalyst for the universe and everything contained therein. I'm not sure, but I think those are the questions relative to a secular position of the beginning of all things (tangible) created, or not created, and just happened.
Evolution provides evidence to some extent (purportedly) for how 'a' evolves and becomes 'b', however, I have never seen any evidence of how 'a' evolves and becomes '1' (for instance an ant becomes a roach, or, a mouse becomes a horse). Do you know of any? If there is no evidence of 'a' becoming '1' then I am supposed to believe that hundreds of thousands (and perhaps even more than that as we haven't as yet examined the entire universe) of distinct species evolved independently of each other here on Earth, without the influence of an outside source, why would I believe that? what overwhelming evidence is there that 'all phyla and every distinct species within each phyla', not only happened by an evolutionary process, but that they 'all' happened within a few billion years, and according to the Cambrian explosion, happened within a 5/10 million year timespan. Can you tell me why I would drop the idea of ID in favour of 'no ID?.
Relative to that of evolution, what degree of 'Faith' am I supposed to invest in carbon 14 dating that at best can be 'off' by millions of years because of the assumption, that isotopes within a given lifeform deteriorates at a so called half life rate after it's demise, and 'also' based on 'several' unknowable variables (such as rate of deterioration of each species and relative to it's environment), I would need boatloads of 'Faith' to even begin to except such hypotheses.
If you can offer any sound proof of why I should not believe that the likelihood that ID is not involved I'd like to hear it, thanx!
I didn't see any evidence for ID, but:
Evolution. We know without doubt that 'a' can evolve and become 'a' prime. We know that 'a' prime can evolve and become 'a' prime(2). We know that 'a' prime(2) can evolve to the point that it can no longer reproduce with 'a' (at least not without help from man). We know this because we observe 'a' prime(2), or maybe 'a' prime(100), compare them to 'a' and see very distinct similarities while recognizing that environment has forced 'a' prime(2) to modify it's characteristics.
Now, that is not proof at all, merely evidence. Now examine 'b' and 'b' prime. Do it 100 times for different species. Darwin's hypothesis is formed, and the beginning of his theory.
Still not proof, but stronger evidence. Now take all the knowledge you have of biology, geology, chemistry, physics, etc. and apply it to fossils found in the ground. Voila! We find 'a' prime(-1000)! and 'a' prime(-100).
No proof yet, but ever stronger evidence. Do it 10,000 more times. Experiment with forced "evolution" via mutations, and we find that evolution can be watched before our very eyes, although still probably not to the point of producing viable new species.
Not proof, but the evidence is now overwhelmingly pointing in the same direction; Darwin's theory of evolution is almost certainly true and what actually happened.
Now look at evidence for ID. We find the bible, which is full of outright lies and fables from ignorant peoples of millenia past. While the statements from these ancestors of ours may be true, there is no corroborating evidence that it is, and unsubstantiated statements are worthless in the world of science and evidence. Other than that the most common "evidence" is the statement "I don't believe in evolution because it contradicts my religion" or "I don't understand how evolution could happen and don't want to learn" and therefore it had to have been God. Neither statement is evidence of ID; a statement of our own ignorance is not evidence of anything but our ignorance.
The ID proponent does not realize that they are also proposing a different universe from ours (with zero evidence to back it), a supernatural creature that is omnipotent (with zero evidence to back it), and that the said creature created us (with zero evidence to back it and no indication as to how it might be done).
You take your choice; what 100% of available evidence points to or what makes you feel like you are loved and cherished and cared for. For myself, I choose the evidence side.
Even if I was able to observe evolution go from 'a' to 'z' over the course of 1 billion years, all I would see is a bug that formerly walked ('a') that can now fly ( 'z'). I may then, within that billenia be able to observe an offshoot of that genus, 'a' becomes better equipped (but perhaps unable to fly because it's wings weren't necessarily useful to it's environment so it evolved a longer tongue that could excise small protein sources from the crevices of rocks that dwell there) and becomes z-.
Within that billenia I could observe all manner of so called forced mutations that benefit the particular genera ('evolved improvements') to 10s of thousands of taxa. However at no time can one species cross over and become an entirely different species. It is this phenomenon encapsulated within the Cambrian explosion that I need explained. How did 40 or more distinct phyla abruptly appear within a short span of time ( a few million years) along with the thousands of subspecies with all their evolutionary changes (possibly millions of evolutionary changes) appear and where are all the documented incremental changes to be found?
I'm being asked to make the leap from a bug or flying fox to over one thousand types of bats throughout the world, without a single connecting piece of evidence to connect them (bug to bat) I'm being asked to accept incremental changes in thousands of species without those incremental (only so called macro changes are available) differences being able to be empirically observable, I'm being asked to accept that over a period of 4 billion years that entirely different categories of life all began with a single cell that magically (magical because conjecture as to how it happened is all that's being offered) evolved to become the 10s of millions of lifeforms on this planet within all the insects, crustaceans, sponges, kingdom animalia, etc because 'is' equals 'ought'.
Instead I'm being challenged to prove how the viability of 'ID' could possibly be the reason that life exists. How does my computer work? it was IDed, how do scientists clone animals? they IDed the system, how did scientists create synthetic life? they IDed it. how will scientists create new lifeforms in the future? they will ID them. Yet with all the IDing going on, it's only mankind that can possibly have the intelligence to 'create' because throughout the entire universe that we know nothing of, there couldn't possibly be other intelligent designers that may have designed us.
Does that about sum it up? because if that's your argument/hypotheses, then I can only assume you to be anthropocentric and that you do not accept that we might not be 'alone' and that humans may not be the only player in this pony show we call 'intelligent life' amongst billions of solar systems.
Magical creatures in mysterious universes vs mysterious leaps of evolution and the appearance of dozens of phyla during the Cambrian period, all stemming from magical one celled organisms.
I 'also' choose the evidence side, and the vacuous evidence of the evolutionary hypotheses to formulate my choice.
Nope, no such evidence of that. Evolution must therefore be complete bunkum based on your examples.
The picture represents evidence to the persons existence, hence I asked you to provide the same evidence for your God.
Evidence (not proof) is readily available for evolution, the Cambrian era and watchmakers. If you say it isn't, you would be lying.
So, show me your God, or at the very least, some evidence?
I had a friend about a decade or so ago that used to discuss these things with me. His suggestion is that time for God was not measured the same as for us. Let's say God sleeps for a thousand years, or thousands of years. Or is in a state of inactivity as far as creation goes. Maybe God is finally taking his sabbath. My friend would turn to me full of awe and say, "on the seventh day . . . he rested."
I must point him out, am I God? The Devil cares nothing about the people he owns and only convinces the believer that he exists. When I found God I found the devil convincing me that the World is mostly made by people like you. Before it was only normal people destroying people and now I want nothing to do with you. I try not to hate but eventually you only convince me why I must. Its easy to hate when you no longer see a person but an abomination of what we were meant to be, Hell will be a sewer filled by filth and decay and a place I will never visit except to remind me of why I never wanted to be like you.
so it took him 6 days to make the universe and this is just 'one' day for god? is it too long
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.