After an internal debate between science and philosophy I am leaning towards an answer of yes. This is due to the fact that the scientific explanation for the existence of life is greatly flawed, which leaves only one other possible solution. I usually only believe things that can be proven but this one has me stuck. If 'The Big Bang Theory' and its gases is the scientific explanation, one has to ask themselves...where did the gases come from?
If you will define this god thing you speak of, in a form other than "opinion," I'd be glad to consider your question and discuss it with you.
Think ya can do that?
If you can't, what's the goal/purpose of your question?
Why would anyone think it'd be worth responding to?
Most people in this day and age do not believe what can not be explained, and I am one of those people. The confusion for me, comes in the question of the existence of God. Science suggests that an explosion gave life to the universe, I believe that this explanation is a cop out. Nothing can not explode, meaning something had to be present in order for an explosion. If it is gases then where did the gases come from? This question has to be answered before anyone can claim who is right and who is wrong.
I understand your dilemma and it is one any thinking person wrestles with. Science has not been able to adequately explain the beginning of the universe, and we may never have a definitive answer; but we don’t have answers to many, many questions. I am certainly not advocating that there is nothing more, but absence of answers is not a logical reason to assume that God exists.
How can you logically explain the existence of God? There isn't anything sensible, or rational about the concept. Any belief will, by necessity, be influenced by emotion and require a leap of faith by your intellect. I don't think it's the head that is drawn to the concept. It's the heart.
Emile, I would disagree slightly with your reply, as logic is an integral --if not most honorable-- portion of the human beings existence. The terms of (ir)rational, describe segments of logical processes. The absence of full understanding would be a more precise response, no? Can we agree that neither science nor religion have, nor will ever (ever is my own opine), provide adequate proof? I believe they are not designed to, which is contrary to them both. They are designed to temper the senses, until the individual is able to clearly reason the full measure of it. I would think after x-thousands years, humans have acquired enough observational knowledge to exceed these handicaps and understand how limited they are by there very application.
An absence of full understanding is the ideal means by which to explain it. I stand corrected.
But, could you expand on your statement that religion was designed to temper the senses? I’m not convinced I fully comprehend the point you are making.
Certainly. Theology or sensationalism, known well as religion, was designed to temper the senses themselves. As noted by many extreme expressions of human emotion and desire, a system or regulations were set in place to temper those extremes. Today, those extremes are rarely noticed, compared to say Ba`al, Roman, Egyptian and other such religious practices --ranging from animal sacrifice to public sexual rape/enslavement of men and women. It is believed, had laws not been put into place, humanity would have gone into massive chaos. Equally, the sciences were designed to temper the equation side of the coin. By doing so, such extremes of warfare and mechanics have been kept under control, else the same result would occur. Albeit, technology seems to have completely numbed humanity and likewise religious doctrines. Yet, on both sides of the coin, outbursts such as atomic bombs and hijacking planes or genocides, have occurred. Over all, the human seems to have been tempered. At least until recently. Seems the powers that be on both ends of the spectrum are losing control of the populous. Which is an indication of a massive change in human civilization over the next three many four decades.
"The opposite of struggle is not peace but total war. War is the attempt to end struggle once and for all. Rub out the competition."
- Garret Keizer
You didn't answer my question.
Try again pls.
The problem lies in the fact that you are using the mind to solve a problem created by the mind.
Imagine it like this... You are a robot. Your mind which lies outside of your body and brain is like programmer that controls the brain and so the body. The mind is creating the world you perceive from every impulse that comes in through the senses. The mind is where your questions are coming but it is the same mind that interferes with and creates everything you perceive. Science has realised now that it is impossible to explain the Universe through science because creation lies outside the realm of mind and as such indescribable.
We in effect have created the world not God and by perceiving Him as separate from us we have created someone to blame for all our problems.
Why do you think that most of the mind is subconscious? What do we need to so badly hide from ourselves?
Ask yourself another question...who dreams your dreams at night...is it God? Then why do you imagine that God is dreaming up your waking reality by calling Him the creator of your imperfect world?
God exists all right but not the way you can describe or explain using a mind whose best interests are served by keeping him separate and a cruel figure who stands by and watches us suffering.
I like this take on the discussion. This is a fresh view. Thank you Spirit Whisperer.
People searching for God remind me of a fish looking for water. Once you learn to quiet the mind you will see God everywhere you look, including in the mirror.
Personally, I don't see much difference between science and religious philosophy. Eventually they will intersect, if they haven't already.
Well done on choosing the rEDpILL by the way..
Pure nonsense. If you actually see gods everywhere you look, especially the mirror, get your eyes checked.
Beelzedad you seem that you are the one loosing you vision and walking around in a blur. If anyone should get their eyes checked it should be you. Blinded by your own ego and ignorance.
You wanna know who God is? It’s your humble self, if you ever find it. And your ego is the devil that will destroy you. In the end neither your opinion or mine matter in the bigger picture, as we’re just another particle which will eventually dissolve into the earth.
Lol! Yes, I'm blinded by reality. However, it appears crystal clear in my vision. Is it a blur for you?
A figment of imagination?
Yes well, this "particle" is interested in learning everything there is to know about the world around us; ie. reality.
Sorry, that you feel your opinion doesn't matter.
Trust me Ranzi I know what you mean. I been going it it with this guy for days now, and I have noticed that, even when you make a valid point he still refuses to admit to it. He is blind alright, blinded by some kind of rage against the machine (maker).
Max wow. I love what you wrote. Great insight. Yes there are many drowning fish out there.
Thanks Ranzi, I like that I can always count on you to understand what I am talking about.
Since I don't consider myself religious, I loathe to wade into these kind of discussions.. But hey, we both know how hard that is to (not) do on HubPages lool.
Some people speak from direct experience, and others speak from the way they imagine things to be. I can only talk about what I have experienced directly in my life, and have found to be true for me.
This is not to detract from what others believe, and in a way we are all 'right', since whatever we seek in the world we will find - regardless of whether it is love, hate, God, Satan.. or even Thetans!
I love how you say that none of our opinions will matter in the end. Once we lose everything, there will be only what is real - regardless of what we think it will be. It's nice to speculate at times, but we also need to just enjoy each moment and cross that bridge when we come to it.
After all - We will all have the answer one day, and no amount of debate is going to prevent any of us from having to take that final(?) step!
nothing can't explode, but 'nothing' does not necessarily explain what is 'outside' of the universe.
Also, trying to use teh argument 'if science can't explain it, then god must have created it' just does not hold any water, it jsut means science cannot explain it 'yet'.
The universe is huge, it may take millions of years for humanity to fully understand everything about it, it may never understand everything about it.
But just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean some random diety created it. It also doesn't explain why so many gods are seemingly interested in the Earth.
Interesting reply, I thank you for your participation and I respect your theory. To adjust the stance I have on this discussion I would like to say that, although both explanations are illogical, the scientific one in the realm of science is inconclusive while the religious explanation in the realm of religion is. Get it?
Ambassador Butler will answer all your questions. He has walked and talked with God.
How do you know that you’re not part of our crazy dream? Maybe we’re your God
Ranzi:god? God? what the hell is that?
I've been asking for ages and haven't gotten a credible answer yet.
You got one?
Why are you asking mere mortals who have no idea themselves? God? This has been the number one question asked for centuries. People rattling their minds to know whether they have a chance in the after life. If or if not they lived a life in vain, and if or if not they will see their loved ones in the after life. People have created a God the way they saw fit. Whether to control, to have a place to go after death, or whether to have a higher being there to answer their wishes. In the end, they will never really know 100%.
If there are people who have found God and are happy within their reality or illusions, then good for them. If this brings them peace that they know god, then why belittle their faith?
Is it because atheists themselves are jealous of that belief? That these people hold a conviction that they will not perish into dust after all. Envious of the fact that these people may have immortality in an after life? Do atheists hold themselves of higher intelligence because they hold pride that they haven’t been conned into a code of belief? Or are some just desperate to have faith bestow itself upon them?
What ever you want to find out about God, whether its facts or evidence, a mere mortal will never be able to answer you. Only YOU and you alone will ever be able to find this out. Because although you may be mortal yourself, somewhere deep down inside, lives a God. You just have to open your mind. I know I’m still looking.
This god concept was created by man to alleviate primitive fears.
No one "finds" (to discover or obtain) whatever this god thing is except as they imagine it.
I "belittle" their faith simply because it is based soley upon hope and conjecture. Only a fool would guide their lives on such sillyness.
There are no atheists!
My mind is "opened wide" for this god thing to be defined so that I can stop wondering why the "abstract concept:" god. can so easily fool and lead the fearful and superstitious sheep.
Again, to those of you who use this word: "god" so often, if you have realized something I haven't and ya can back it up in a form other than "opinion" based upon logic and reason, pls offer it!
I've been asking this question for 45 yrs and haven't received a credible response yet.
I'm about to give up and conclude that this god thing falls into the same category as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the "Sandman," the toothfairy et al....:
Please don't give up qwark! I will explain it to you.
Once upon a time a god made himself out of nothing from nowhere, became his own son, then killed himself so that you could be as free as all the religious people are!
Women are just spare ribs really, and the three bears and little red riding hood lived happily ever after!
I know that may seem a bit disjointed, but hey who am I to argue with the "word"
There ya go!
That was logical wasn't it?
Damn you Earn!
You just ended my quadruple decade search for truth!
Now what am I gonna do for fun in this forum!
It is what it is. The simple truth is all that was needed.
I will try to find a new truth for you to enjoy.
Have you heard the true story of Hansel and Gretel?
Oh sh!t, Earn!
Now I gotta worry about a skinny, hungry witch?
Hesus kristy! I get rid of one "troll" and the "Wicked
Witch of the West" replaces it!
Where the hell did I put my "Ruby Red Shoes?"
A couple clicks of those magical red heels and I'll be on my way back to Kansas!
Toto!Toto! where'd you hide my "Ruby Red Shoes???"
Damned dog!! Toto! Toto, c'mere ya mutt!
Who said that insanity was always destructive? There are mentally ill people who have lost a whole family in a tragedy, and believe that their wife and kids visit them once a week in a mental hospital. They are so happy and content within their own illusions. So perhaps loosing their mind was the only way they were able to survive the reality of their tragedy. And for some people believing in a God is a way to survive the threat of their immortality.
So perhaps the illusion of a god serves a better purpose in some peoples mind. Maybe these “fearful and superstitious sheep” that you describe, have found more peace here on earth than you and I. Because you yourself have been searching for the answer of “who the hell is this god that most people know? Why the hell doesn’t he talk to me?” for the last 45 years, while these sheep have harmony thinking that they know God.
And perhaps these “fearful and superstitious sheep” will die and there may be no God, but at least they have lived a life filled with hope, faith and purpose. Because a life without purpose, could at times be cruel. A life without hope could leave people feeling mediocre.
I’m actually envious of these sheep, and hope some day I could find this God, the same god that makes these believers eyes shine when they talk about him/her/it…who whether fantasy or reality….it doesn’t matter.
I’m not suggesting that you live your life in illusion, or that you become a submissive sheep, but just be aware that imagination and fairy tales are what at many times give people hope.
I like your point btw and agree with you in many ways
I don't think I mentioned 'insanity" in my post. I just re-read it and I'm right. Soooo...I'll ignore that part of the response.
I have no trouble with people who desire to live in a "dream" world. just as long as their hallucinations don't, adversely. affect others.
Self imposed ignorance is a choice that only the individual is responsible for.
No one "knows" this god thing except as it exists in their imaginations.
Living a life that has been frustrated by beliefs in the supernatural, reduces living to levels of restriction that I never want to experience.
If a belief in a "fairytale" makes one happy, who am to take the superhero of ones dreams away from him? I wouldn't/couldn't do it.
My problem with the hallucinations "believers" suffer, is that their "hallucinations" have, historically, proved to be deadly to their fellow man and that "deadlyness" is still taking the lives of innocents all over this planet!
Too many "hopeful believers" are, at this moment, planning the destruction of their fellow man!
Their reasons for "killing" are founded in the writings of simple, ignorant, ancient people who had existed barely long enuf to crawl of the caves they were hiding in. They were fearful of "EVERYTHING" ... and still are!
I'm glad that ya see some of this "my way!" :
Ranzi: Well said!
Qwark: I agree that many are still fearful of everything (hey, me too at times!) and that they need to use their common-sense and think about where their beliefs actually came from. It was a very different world when the Bible was written.
I totally relate to your need to be unburdened by preconceived ideas, and to have the freedom to think for yourself. People need to 'live and let live'. Religion crosses into insanity when it is used as the basis of an attack on others.
I can't say that I've read the Bible, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus (or any religion) wasn't preaching a message of hate, and I imagine such teachings would go along the lines of...
'If someone even thinks about slapping your right cheek, beat them to death. Then hunt down their whole family and kill them all (where there is one cheek-slapper, there is bound to be more!) Once their family is dead, you will need to kill anyone who looks like them, just in case.'
Haha, I don't remember seeing that anywhere, but maybe I missed it!
I'm not sure why anyone would be jealous that others brains have turned to mush from religious indoctrination. That seems rather odd.
The Big Bang produced a sea of hot dense radiation that eventually cooled and formed into atoms and molecules (gases) some hundreds of thousands of years later.
Where is the proof --hard evidence- of this?
Sigh, just more scientific ( = post theistic ) woo-woo la-la.
Not very rational or logical for that 'matter'.
Funny how you ask that question and then claim to have some sort of minor degree in... what was it again?
I am asking YOU the question. So, bugger me if you can't answer? What my education has to do with you ACTUALLY responding with information (proof) is beyond me. Based on your usual, general, but nonetheless genuine drivel, I personally do not think you can answer that question. Which proves far more than I can say here, fella. Thanks, enjoy your rejection.
The Big Bang theory is similar to the question, "what came first the chicken or the egg?"
Where would you get that ridiculous notion? Do you actually know anything about the Big Bang or are you just guessing? It would be beneficial for you to understand the theory rather than just making silly remarks about chickens and eggs.
Please explain to me how something came from nothing aka "The Big Bang theory", Einstein.
Let me be clear here, I do not believe in the bible nor do I believe in religion. I am a rational thinking philosopher. This question is in the realm of metaphysics. Normally I only believe in what I can see, taste, touch, hear, feel, etc. All I am saying here is that when you weigh both sides, this Big Bang Theory gets stuck with it's origin story.
ps, that is because the BBT was finally compiled by a Belgian Catholic Priest. In essence, it is the exact same construct as "And [God] said". Only difference, science says it went BANG!
In other words, everything you understand about the theory is zilch and you're just guessing. You have no clue, right?
you my friend are on the right track.I suppose you have read the bible in order not to believe it.I am asking you to read it again being rational and taking no sides.The bible is historical data not supernatural hype.If you read carefully you would see air ships, teleporting, Aerial bombardment ,hear loud speakers,,mind reading , communicating device and a whole lot more. The were not called by those names but the descriptions are there .I am not a religious person but the bible is so very intriguing its mind boggling....
This is not a question that makes sense to me. There are areas of life that transcend logic. "God" or "Gods" or "Higher Power" are neither logical nor illogical. Deity, like beauty or love, exists most properly in that part of life that is untouched by logic.
Granted, many people believe that God is a scientific proposition, and/or try to place science and religion in opposition. I think this entire approach is wrong-headed. If your God defies science, I have a problem with your religious thinking. If your science defies God, then I think your life might be empty of the experiential and transcendent, and that's kind of sad.
Of course the existence of God is logical. There are more invisible things than visible things in the world. More unexplained things than explained things. Why not another?
If we knew the answers to the creation of gases, we'd probably be ranking along side a superior being who knows all the answers.
The Bang theory, the creation of Adam and Eve and the world are factors we chose to believe or not. Many find the possible answers in their faith in one or the other factors/theories.
There is logic in the belief in God if our faith is strong enough. Equally, the Big Bang theory and evolution in scientific terms, is highly probable if we look at the evolution of mankind which according to the Darwinian theory, we evolved from the sea, developing means to walk upright.
Yet if you take a historical visit to the Holyland, there is evidential facts that Christ existed.
It's down to the influences we have in our lives and how we see ourselves in this 'picture' of theories. Believing in the Big Bang theory is more convincing that that of a God and his creation but we have a choice of choosing what we want to believe.
The top three major religions all respect Jerusalem as "The Holy Land." With the massive amount of followers these three religions have and the undeniable similarities in each of their religions origins, you have to give some consideration to religious belief.
I would not be surprised if the big bang was from an earlier collapse of the universe. It is a human limitation of the mind to imagine that some things have to have a begining. We get the same problems when a person tries to imagine infinity.
As to the explination of how life evolved, that has already been explained by science, I sugegst you do a little research before you slag off a subject which has taken some people decades to understand.
Most scientific theory such as gravity, are not I repeat "are not" confirmed facts. If you don't believe me ask a scientist or doctor. They are theories that make sense and have no other possible explanations, 'yet'. I suggest you do some research too my friend.
The existence of god may not or may not be logical, but a belief in the existence of god may be a logical response to dealing with the complexities and uncertainties of life and death.
I believe in god,so lets get that out the way first.Like you stated it's only a theory not facts.If it was being to allocate evidence and being proven over time like relativity,then maybe i would consider it.For now it's a theory.If there is a god to my understand we are also gods according to one of the holy books. Judging from what i am ,i guess this god would have been formed millions of particles(or what ever he was formed from) into one giant organism with great intelligence and consciousness.So great that he escapes the hold time and space has on him. My be one day i'll transcend and become a mini god myself( wait i already am ). Who knows maybe science is right.Maybe God is the universe and we are little particles running around through it.
well there is spontanuous combustion that may make it possible. Then again, it's only a theory. I think the reality is that there are some things in our universe that mankind will never find out. Sure, you can use god as an explanation for what's unknown, or you can simply choose to believe that we still haven't found the answers yet. As I always said in the past, none of us will really know if there's a god or not until we're all dead, as that's the only true way we'll find out for sure. I know that's a grim way to look at things, but it's just how I choose to see it. do i think there's a god? I do, but I think my interpretation of him might be vastly different from others, as you have to remember the bible's been rewritten and retranslated several times over the years, so who's to say that the current version of it is even close to how the original was.
I recently watched the doco about the three missing gospels of Peter Mary Magdalene and some other dude. After doing more research, I see there are 20 missing gospels.
That;s like a workshop manual with all the engine and transmission data ripped out!
Any wonder it is a mishmash of indecipherable rhubarb!
NO, He cannot be found in logic.Only in that which is not logical.Common knowledge.....everyones got it.
Messages from God through a TRUE messenger of God bring and is sent with that in which is not logical.
logic = "sound mind".
righteousness = "right thinking" aka a "sound mind", aka "logical" aka "rational faith",
not aloof, here-thee-and-anywhere haphazard woop-woop I gotta word...
If you think Creator and we his creations aren't supposed to use our brains, logic, youare sadly misinformed.
The brain is a material concept.It cannot produce spirituality such as choice,and personality.It is compose of DNA mater and cells.The brain is to regulated the flesh.The spirituality of it is a different story to be told.
Incorrect, the mind/brain is to regulate the light of the spirit to the body and vice versa. The brain is a tool, a mechanic to manifest/process/filter that Light. It is the place all knowledge necessary for man to live in Free Will/Grace was placed, so he would not be captive to it nor ruled by it. The knowledge was sufficient for him to be a perfect being -walking with Creator, understanding the unseen and seen.
You left out spirituality.No life exist without a spirit. CAN THE BRAIN SPEAK?
The physical body and brain alone are sufficient to explain the ability to generate and produce speech.
I disagree, it is not logical. As yoiu have probably guessed, I do not believe in God. Having said that, I respect all fo those who have faith no matter their religon. If I am at diner with someone who wants to pray before eating, I bow my head out of respect. I do not believe God should be removed from the Pledge or from the court. If you are as patriotic as I am, it does not matter if you do not believe in God. Our country was founded on those principals and our laws were fashioned the same way. So back to the question. I had several freinds try to get me to believe and I tried. I started to read the bible, but could not get through the first chapter. I will ask 2 questions both of which show God is not logical. first, if God forgives all sins, why did he not forgive Eve? And last,m if Adam and Eve were the first and the only ones, and they have several sons, no mention of daughters, where did the kids wives come from?
If you believe something that does not make it real and if you don't believe something that does not make it false.If we assume things that does not make them true.You assume god did not forgive Eve you also assume that Adam Eve Cain and Abel were the only people on earth....read objectivly.
Last time I checked you didn't get a universe out of nada, so I tend to believe.
Life doesn't require any knowledge of a god to be understood.
Life doesn't require any knowledge of a god to be lived.
Therefore, no god required.
Regardless of what science or religion states- no god is required.
Cagsil--You make some bold assertions there. How have you arrived at these conclusions?
I understand my life. I have no need/want/desire to have to be told how to live. I can do it on my own. Therefore, no god required.
He just 'knows'... He, like every other religious zealot, feels it to be true and therefore he 'believes' it is true and his belief is all that is necessary for it to be proclaimed an 'absolute truth'. Anyone who can't see the obvious truth in it is simply lacking in mental clarity and to be pitied.
Cagsil, most people seek God or wonder about God. WHY? You are lucky to be so satisfied with what is here. Most others are not. I won't ask you WHY on that subject.
This is a bold assertion with nothing to back it up. You cannot say with any more measure, why someone would call themselves Christian? When it's actually not the truth of the matter. It seems like there are more liars in the world than the world can withstand.
Satisfied with what is here? You must be joking. I am sure you won't ask why, because you most likely wouldn't like the answer. However, the "why" is actually on a need to know basis, and you don't actually have a need to know.
Life Require the knowledge and understanding of God
Life requires the knowledge an understanding of "no god"
Both of these give you the knowledge of Truth
Why ? Because Life is Knowledge and understanding of all things Which includes god to those who are still ignorant....
Or we may say Life is knowledge and understanding of all things which is God ...to those with knowledge.
Otherwise it is not Life but death.....
Where Life does not have All knowledge it would be imperfect ..half baked ..divided...
Therefore its eventuality is Death.
Whosoever desires the Knowledge of Life God and Truth will find it and will Live....
For they cannot Die.
All others Die their death.
My question is not about requirement. My question is does his existence make logical sense.
If ya can't answer my question, your question is silly one.
The only way to explain This 'God thing' is to die. So if you really want your question answered you know how to get it. I would like to know but not that bad, know what I'm saying? So I can not accurately describe God but, I do know one thing. Nothing just appears out of thin air, everything has an origin. If you can not track every single thing in this world back to one origin then you have to assume that there may be other explanations that we do not understand.
Then your question is silly.
It can't be answered in any form but opinion.
There are as many opinions as there are people: 6.7 billion?
C'mon theredpill get real...:
Just getting back in here, if you haven't already noticed look around, I explained why my question is not a silly one. No question that causes the type of reaction that this one has can be a silly question. The "End Game' is knowledge to all in this room. Everyone has something to teach someone else.
You don't seem to be able to grasp the reason I refer to your question as being silly.
You seem to think that because so many respond, they have something intrinsic and credible to offer and they don't...nor do you or I.
The first thing you presume, which is silly, :...is this god thing your question refers to.
That question is "IMPOSSIBLE" to answer except in terms of OPINION ...as is your reference to the "big bang."
No "thinker" would consider answering your question until this "god" thing you refer to can be defined in other than opinion and if and once that has been done, trying to figure out if it exists could be considered to "logical" to those who are interested.
The abstract "concept" god, itself, is just a "fairytale" and exists only in the imaginations of the "hopeful"... until proved otherwise.
The "premise" of your question, "god" is silly (Exhibiting a lack of wisdom or good sense) one.
Why would you ask such a question?
Do you think you have defined this god thing "factually" and are now seeking to KNOW "it" in reality?
If you have, pls share your "knowledge" with the rest of us because you have acquired that which none of us has been able to.
The abstract "concept" god, itself, is just a "fairytale" and exists only in the imaginations of the "hopeful"... until proved otherwise.
I say: So is The Big Bang Theory
Or, maybe there are just explanations YOU personally don't understand.
Why do you believe this nonsense, after saying that you don't believe in religion? This sounds just like indoctrination.
What if there is a God, but dying has no effect on whether or not you will ever know Him/her/it?
Is the existence of a god logical? I said no, because it's irrational. Then, I rationally told you WHY.
Why or How the Universe came to be, is just a game, like cat and mouse. All you are doing is mixing in the oldest theologian ideology/philosophy trick. What you fail to realize is that it actually holds no weight anymore and hasn't for awhile now.
My two statements are infallible. You can understand your life, just like I can understand my life. You can live your life, just like I can live mine. I don't have to tell you what to do or how to live, and YOU don't have to do anything with regards to how I live my life. We are each responsible for oneself.
You be your own authority, learn to create your own path and see what mark you leave when gone? It is in your control, just like it is in my control.
is it rational to think something came from nothing? Gas from thin air, molecules, atoms? Where did each one of those come from. And further more to suggest that the existence of God holds no weight is an idiotic statement to make. The percentage of believer to non-believers is no contest with the numbers going to the religious groups. Whether you want to believe it or not you yourself are interested, otherwise you would not be in this forum. How much weight does that hold?
IT doesn't hold any weight. Because it is not what brings me to a religious forum.
Confront the irrational and unwarranted need for a belief in a god's existence. It must be addressed.
There IS NOT an actual need for a god to exist. Every single person on the planet can make their own decisions, based on free will thought, which brings choices. Everyone has choice and are aware of their own existence. They know how THEY came to be, through child birth. No god required.
Once they create their own purpose, which creates meaning for their life, then you will have a self-guided individual, who understand their own life. Purpose of life is not to be given or granted, it is to be created. You taking the steps to fulfill that purpose, brings out your meaning of life, for all to see.
But, I digress. I'm done. I have too many hubs that address all the different areas. You might be able to benefit from my latest one. It might actually be helpful, in some way.
IF This Life is all you want then fine. People accepting God every single day does not instill in you one bit that the need for God is real, inherent in each one of us? Some choose to accept it, but my guess is others too selfish of their own wants and desires, refuse it.
Child birth... what are the odds of a big bang occurring in a female and she now has the ability to give birth? What are the odds of the male having the necessary material to complete insemination? Yes its all some weird coincidence like the big bang theory that started it all.
Yo chanan, you might reconsider what words you use. "God" is a human concept. Anything other than that, you're blowing smoke. It is a perpetuated idea. There IS no need for it whatsoever.
And, we have people like yourself, blowing smoke, like it really matters. Leave it your "personal" god. When you bring to public, it causes conflict.
Do you love people?
Do you try to do the right thing in your everyday life?
All need to believe in is the voice in your head telling you to do the right thing.
As long as you're a decent man; you don't have to believe in God.
God is already in you.
The word God can be replaced by whatever you want to call the Golden Rule.
I understand why you don't want God shoved down your throat.
It does seem like some people need you to believe what they believe.
It would not seem that the writer agrees with you.
Reconsider the word God? i cannot and will not. If i do, i have no substitute, because God himself hinders me from calling Him anything else but God and if i tell you a different story i have made myself and God a liar and the lie will not benefit anyone a single bit. So God, will have to be discussed in all threads that have the word God in them in the title. If you want to not discuss God then perhaps a differently titled thread would be more to your liking.
That was already explained to you, did you just ignore it?
"is it rational to think something came from nothing?"
It is not. But if you put a "creator", still the idea is irrational.(assuming, by 'god' you meant creator). So the default position will be "matter is eternal". Big bang and the new science is irrational and just religion in disguise(creation ex nihilo)
Cagsil, you and I and everyone else alive today was born on a previously created stage. Your life depends greatly on the maintenance of the stage. Since everything is constantly in a state of flux and changing, I am sure that we are our brother's keeper. I don't think that you are aware of the BOLD statement that you have made. CAPACITY!
Then talk logic. Logically an infinate being observing everything and able to manipulate everything, who looks like a man, is probably not goign to exist. It also doesn't explain why he is so interested in humanity, personally I would rather watch the flames of the sun burn at an electron level than an episode of Jersey Shore.
"Life doesn't require any knowledge of a god to be understood.
Life doesn't require any knowledge of a god to be lived.
Therefore, no god required."
Life doesn't require any knowledge of a quantum physics to be understood.
Life doesn't require any knowledge of a quantum physics to be lived.
Therefore, no quantum physics required.
So in essence, all those nice people hanging out at the large hadron collider looking for the higgs boson are completely wasting their time.
Hey DH, you know your statement here makes you look foolish? I just thought I would point it out in case you didn't notice it.
Quantum physics? Is there an actual NEED for it? Is it some sort of advancement for humankind? Can it be used to help people?
My statements are simply facts. Your statements are mocking and false.
Using the term "quantum physics" to mean the actual forces and interactions of energy and matter rather that the study of those forces and interactions (the actual meaning of the term) they are indeed necessary for life as we know it. While "quantum physics" (study) is certainly not necessary the lack of those forces, exactly as they are, would change the universe into something entirely different.
On the other hand, Cagsils statement seems to be true. There is, and can be, no study of God; there is no evidence at all that such a creature is necessary for the existence of anything at all, let alone life. There is no apparent interaction between God and anything that we know of; this imaginary "thing" has no effect on the universe that we can detect. It cannot, therefore, be studied and to compare such study to the study of something that can be seen and examined is a completely unreasonable argument.
"all those nice people hanging out at the large hadron collider looking for the higgs boson are completely wasting their time"
Sorry to but in, but they are... They just believe in another religion....... only changed the name "god".
Cagsil, I like the picture, it is so striking against your name. It seems your essence is captured by this photo.
(But I must disagree with you..and you know why, I'm not going to repeat myself)
I would have no doubt you would disagree. It's been hashed out before and you're correct, you do not need to repeat yourself.
I must say, you do have intellectual honesty. You know when futile when you see it and that's not hard to respect.
I guess that's a compliment? Thank you.
Futile? If you're referring to the topic at hand? It's not actually not futile, because it can be a learning experience for both sides. If you were referring to our past conversation about this topic, is where you are correct, you don't have to repeat yourself, with regards to me. I know your position.
But, I appreciate your awareness.
You don't know how right you are nor the power of your words because the stage of this life is already set.However the Great scientist is setting another stage in which he will be required.If i told you 2000 years ago Jesus was a product of artificial insemination you would not have believed me.If I tell you same today you will not believe me.If I told you 2000 years ago the wise men followed a space ship you would not believe me. If I told you same today you will not believe me....
Theoretical is the optimum word.
Theoretical Physics; Theoretical Theology;
Philosophically, the existence of Creator IS highly logical, as logic dictates purpose, above and beyond the necessity or requirement "to be" or "not to be". Logic itself is apart of the human consciousness --that is, we exist. Therefore, existence is not based on the logic itself, but something which provides the logical core, processes and the explanation (titled: reason).
BUT! A G/god is not a correct application of such a Thing. A G/god is a construct of necessity to explain a logical approach mixed with sensory and observational experience of said existence.
GOD is just a name maybe some how connected to the word GOOD, just as DEVIL maybe somehow connected with the word EVIL. Look at the spellings. Lost in translation? Either way the words mean nothing without our society using them. Just like the 'N' word, our society gave it meaning. GOD-->GOOD is a name just like Superman, and the cross is a symbol just like the 'S' on the chest. These things just make it easier for us to articulate and attempt to understand the beliefs of the religious believers. I do like your response but to play Evil's advocate let me ask you this...does the fact that we are sitting here pondering our existence and origin surpass the scientific realm of the brain and how it is supposed to work?
Ah, the dEvil's Advocate...great flick. Pressure Kevin, we talked about pressure.
Considering our existence is very logical and quite frankly fun! It certainly surpasses the sciences of equation and sensation by leaps and bounds. Science to observe/report; religion to feel/feast. Again, not 'wrong' constructs, just eventually useless and for lack of a better word: mundane. Eventually --and this is a large portion of my work, regarding free will-- all of humanity will "get its memory back" aka the 90% unused portion of their brain and finally come to terms with the why and what. Presently, with this oppressive amnesia, they are stuck in this "sick lickle" treadmill of equation-sensation. The brain is merely a tool, if you can believe this. A microprocessor of intangible energy to tangible reality (physic world).
Nice description of the brain and memory! And yes that was a great movie. What is the basis of "your work?"
Twenty One, I agree with theredpill, nice brain-memory treatise. But, what direction would you guide mankind or influence positively for the collective good? You have defined a state; what is it's dynamics? God is logical or doesn't exist?
The direction I would take, would be ludicrous to many.
Understand the stasis: a mental lethargy; amnesia; a logical Alzheimer's.
Before this stasis, if one considers it, Adam had ultimate understanding. He was of a fully rational mind. One that understood the parameters of all creation (fish, birds, bugs, plants, the air, everything) on the "scientific" & "sensational" level. And rightly so, as he was set as manager of it. He also understood the intangible/unseen. However, should the story be accurate, he trades that unique ability of understanding (wisdom; philo; free will) for a complete indulgence of the thoughts in him -the processes of knowledge. At that instance, he went mad. He was bombarded by millions if not trillions of neural waves of light (meaning thoughts) at the same time. Can you imagine that? In essence, he traded understanding for reasoning/thinking.
The text ascribes he gained the knowledge of "good/evil". That is called reason, the unified priori.
So with the stasis understood, we ask: what direction can be taken, rationally, to regain that original fullness. And this is where the concepts of gods end and a reality called rational Faith ( Free Will ) begins. Again the text defines this universe by BOTH science and religion as having been ordered in a singular event. The text defines it as words, as "said"; Science terms it "bang". We can consider then: this entire energy expanse is the result or actual breath of Creator; like a bubble or balloon, ever expanding. Given this, we note the same character in Adam, the same life force/energy/spirit.
The core of this is huge, and cannot be explained here, but lends a very helping hand to answering your request: what direction to go. It would have to be a return to that original stasis, by a step by step 'reordering' of the human mind ( as I believe the entire letter of Johns Revealing describes perfectly ). Fortunately, it cannot be done using the processes of reason, as history has so brilliantly and otherwise emphatically shown throughout the last 250k or 6k years. It must occur another way. That way, I believe is by allowing the original life force to become the ruling portion of the human, allowing the brain to return to its place of processing the intangible to tangible. not at all difficult and certainly not costly or requiring mechanics, synthetic stimulants and the like. By the essence of man transmitting intangible light through the mind and into the body, the mind is automatically 'reset' allowing timelessness, eternity, logic, free will to flow. The limitation/madness and constant bombardment of those neural bursts would seize to hinder man, but rather do what they were designed to from the very start: allow perfection; understanding; unlimited ability to create --and manage creation-- as man was created and given authority to do.
T O, Adam didn't have all knowledge. He constantly depended on God. After the original sin Adam was cursed with death, and lose the paradise provided by God.
We are takling about a relationship with God, not the ability of man to return to the paradise using his own devises. Not going to happen.
You say we are speaking of a [rational] relationship with Creator, yes? Unity, is the optimum word. To have unity with Creator, man could not be dependent on Creator, as dependency is a lack of faith, a lack of logic, a lack of free will. In fact dependency is the operation of choice/reason. However, if you say he communed, was one with, walked with Creator --as the text ascribes --then yes, one is still within the parameter of free will, void of choice and has full action of that understanding defined as rational faith.
The entire point of the debate regarding covenant and Immanu El's Work, was to do exactly that: restore humanity to "paradise". One the other point, there is nothing textually to support a claim that Adam did not understand, or have full working knowledge of the planet. Adam is described as quite powerful.
I do not believe for a moment Creator made man to be merely a flower sniffing, helpless creature. He made millions of other creatures to do that, from dinosaurs to dingos. Man was created to be the perfect reflection of Creator, by imagination and likeness; to have dominion over the planet and all its parts. Plus, in order to commune with Creator as spirit, Adam would have required understanding of the intangible, as equally as he did the tangible.
A true relationship with Creator, as a human being, must be first a living one, second one that fulfills mans purpose -the manifest tangible-intangible. That was Adam. A few exemplified this in Torah -like Samson, like Elijah to smaller degrees, Abram, the 3 Teens, Daniel and more. The 2nd Adam: Immanu El (Creator In Us) reflects this to the highest extreme.
The true purpose of salvation: restoration by the Spirit power -restoring health, communication (reversal of Babal), freedom from all oppression --within and without. Unity. And the power to create. ...Not just 120 years and a ticket to 'heaven'.
Sidebar: : one friend had me thinking about this and it stirred up even more in me: what if Adam was a prototype manager on this planet, as a precursor for other planets...
T O, Adam had freewill to choose God or something else. God furnished all of Adam's needs and desires and wants for boot, but Adam choose to be equal to God and disobeyed God. That's why we are living in a fallen world.
Desiring to know what's right or worry requires full knowledge for a perfect determination. What's evil or good is less of a task. One must be God to know what's right or wrong in its fullest perfection. Adam made the original sin, and Adam and Eve was kicked out of paradise and was on their own. Mankind is still on that Adam and Eve trip searching for what is right or wrong. Their offsprings are fighting about what is right or wrong with each fighting to possess and control others and material things (To be God).
The return to paradise is once again to choose God in all things and ways. Jesus was a ransom for out redemption to God, and paid the price of the first sin (Second Adam). It had to be a perfect life because Adam was given a perfect life. He used his freewill to disobey God.
Oh, forgot to respond to "Adam had all knowledge". He didn't have all knowledge. God is the only one with all knowledge, and it was available to Adam as for we are linear thinkers and not infinite thinkers.
I disagree. I am not saying Adam had all infinite knowledge, certainly not. But, he did have all necessary knowledge & understanding of this entire planet -from air to zebra.
Adam was given everything, sure, including that understanding.
But again, Free Will and choice are not the same. It was at the moment Adam decided to indulge himself, that he fell into choice.
Agreed, they are still on that trip of wanting to know right from wrong. This is linear thinking. And, sadly it is not rational faith, to any degree.
Choice is linear thinking, incorrect thinking, unrighteous.
Linear thinking is the result of the Fall into reason. Outside the linear is where Adam was, originally. He convinced himself he needed to know the processes of his own mind. Thus, he was placed in a very limited mode, on a very short leash, so to speak, from 100% brain ops to 10%, lest he destroy himself completely in that madness.
Edit: but now, now that the work is done, all of humanity has access again to that stasis. I am convinced, by reading all the text and 'groaning' of the Spirit, that this is the case. This is precisely what Immanu El said, did, showed after the resurrection. This is what happened when the Spirit of the Father re-established unity with the 120pp. Not an aloofness or A B C redundancy by any means, but a full body, brain and spirit reentry into the KOH (paradise). Why all the Churches are not into teaching this is beyond me; why they are hold back the fullness/boldness of grace from the people; why they are faking it.
Even in the face of the most powerful opposition at the time, according to the text, after being warned and flogged (beaten to near death) they continued to speak, teach, heal, display the joy and more. No B I B L E in hand, no quoting Moses or Einstein, no evoking. A simple unity of mind, body and spirit is all that is required. That is rational faith, righteousness, understanding --that was Adam. That is free will at work.
To the linear man, that is not rational at all. If that isn't rational, they say, then believing is not rational and certainly believing in Creator is not rational either.
Seeking Creator is one thing. It is a good thing. BUT the "dangling carrot concept" being taught is wrong. What is the point of seeking if you do not find; the point of asking if you do not get? Seeking just to seek? No, that is not faith, that is doctrine...
Hope you don't mind.
I'm goina translate what you just said in the termonology of a 65 year old mountan man , in 1967.
grand PA said .. "shit happens and afterwads, some folks just can't understand stuff like they used to!
But , now, that Adam was standing in the heat of the camp fire; ... at tha time, ... he had no intentions of describing nuthing! Feeling it was all that he could think of!
It is only after we have lost something that we ever feel a need to describe it!
OK I admit it he didn't say that!
But if the subject hada ever come uP!
I think that's what he woulda said. And I would agree.
I see... This is called Binah consciousness when you try to unfold something that will take your entire lifetime to unfold because our ability to follow the logic is limited. Sometimes it is just better to take the symbol in its full mystery.
Logic dictates purpose beyond to be or not to be?
Can you elucidate, showing original premise, supporting facts if necessary and logical steps to your conclusion?
I have never considered "purpose" to be a logical necessity to existence and can't image how that conclusion can be reached through logic. Through religion and/or desire, yes, but not through logic.
I think perhaps you misread what I said. My statement was this:
So, again, logic and purpose on not based on necessity. But, yes, both science and religion are. It is what I coined The Ism, the Need To Know Factory. Science needs to know whatever, religion needs to feel whatever in order to validate purpose and validate the processes called reason, within the human scope of logic.
Logic itself is Free, unlimited. Choice, defined as reason is highly limited.
Yes, my misunderstanding. I can even understand and agree with this.
twenty one, logic implies predisposition of necessary facts.
Of course, logic is predisposed --if not all encompassing. How else can reason (the processes of logic aka the tres priori operate. [What we call thinking) or neurological processing]. I have affirmed much, that humans were created with thorough knowledge --and no less thorough understanding-- of their purpose and ability to govern creation. It was the indulgence of the mechanic --the brain/mind-- that resulted in what I call amnesia. A restoration is most definitely in order. If nothing else, science and religion have proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, it is not logical. If you do not think that a current answer to a question is correct logic neither demands nor condones that you make up your own story without basing it on as many solid facts as possible.
I believe some of your "facts" are being challenged as well. While our entire experience in macro day to day physics would indicate that there is always a causal relationship when an action occurs, this is apparently not the case in subatomic physics or in the concept of singularities.
While I have not spent my lifetime studying such matters and don't understand it (so don't ask me to explain) Steven Hawking is on record as stating that there need not be a cause for the big bang and I have yet to see anyone try to refute that statement.
There is also considerable evidence for the big bang concept, beginning with a pair of cosmologists constructing a (microwave?) receiver some time ago and hearing the echoes of the beginning of the universe everywhere they listened (poor terminology, I know, but I have no other words). There is a good deal of evidence, but you won't learn much from the forums of HP. Just enough that if you truly are interested it might push you to investigate something besides the opinions here.
I appreciate your responses, they are intriguing yet it seems like everyone is eluding a concrete answer to my question. In all retrospect I do not have a long laid out explanation but I do have a question that seems hard to answer. Unless anyone can explain to me where the necessary components to cause a big bang effects originated I have to give a strong consideration that its from some kind of supernatural origin.
Your question is: "Is the existance of God Logical?"
If you have a problem understanding the theory of the "big bang," make that the object of your question.
Even tho that would also be silly because, presently, that occurrence is yet beyond mans ability to understand.
God? the "big bang?" How can you expect a "concrete answer" in ref. to either of those subjects?
Both of those subjects will be considered, until and beyond, the day that you and I will RIP.
Let it go.
Hmm, so your saying that The Big Bang theory is "beyond mans ability to understand?" Just like the existence of God. If neither can be understood how can you say that one is right or wrong? How can you give one more credibility than the other? Because one is a scientific explanation? They are both unexplainable.
How on earth did'ja get the idea that I said god and the big bang are impossible to explain?
Until this god thing can be defined in other than opinion and until the "big bang theory" can be figured out, they just exist as opinions. I didn't say they are not able to be explained.
I said that, PRESENTLY, the concept god and the theory of the "big bang" are beyond mans ability to understand.
Take a little more time in reading my comments...ok?
I'm gonna have a cuppa coffee. :
qwark your right about the fact that we won't know until we die, I agree.
The goal of the question is to spark interest and conversation, seems like it's working. The answer obviously can not be explained by anyone living. The closest we will ever get is near death experiences and those can not be trusted because they can be explained by psychology. Don't you know anything about philosophy?
The only "component" of the big bang was energy, contained in a singularity (whatever THAT means). No mass involved at the instant of the bang. No cause is necessary, either. And there is a good deal of physical evidence to support the idea that it really did happen.
On the other hand, I never seen any evidence at all of God causing it, or any other form of creation. Just opinions leached from the writings of millenia dead people that had no idea whatsoever of the physical laws of the universe.
Truthfully, if you don't understand how the big bang could happen, you should spend some time (months, years) studying it. To truly understand even a small part will require study of cosmology and physics.
Or you could listen to the priests that want your tithes give their uninformed opinions to convince you that the easy way is simple acceptance of what they claim and therefore must be true.
I don't care about religion, I think it's a crock. I believe in rationality and logic. No one in this forum or in a college with a PhD. in physics could ever give me an answer. Like you said "singularity, whatever that means." You blindly believe something you obviously don't understand yourself and then hypocritically chastise religious people for doing the same? That's not niiiiice.
Not at all. I know very few things in this life. I don't truly understand how a computer chip works (certainly not the subatomic workings of a PNP junction) but I accept that it works and that some people know and understand vastly more than I do about the subject. I am willing to take their word for it that if you do this and that to silica then electrons will perform in a certain way. I don't have a need to understand all that is known about the subject to use a computer.
The answers you are looking for don't exist. A handful of people in the entire world have studied the subject for enough time to have formulated a working theory that fits facts and is based on esoteric knowledge that I do not, or every will, have. I can, as you seem willing to do, ignore their thoughts and work and formulate my opinion based on superstition and fantasy or I can accept that they have done their best to find answers and that that best is far beyond what I am willing to do.
The priests and shamans of our time, on the other hand, do no research, they do no tests. At best they try to interpret a millenia old book to say what they need it to say to agree with their pre-conceived notions of what the universe is. Or so I see it; I have never heard of anyone actually investigating and testing the hypothesis they come up with about the actions, interactions with or existence of God. Rather they attribute his actions (specifically creation of the universe) to magic with no attempt to understand it.
Singularity: As I understand it, a point in space of 0 dimension that has certain physical characteristics (immense gravity for starters) of which we know very little about and understand even less. What else can I say? It seems almost to be a catch all phrase used to describe (or at least discuss) the unknown.
And finally, I might add that if you took a college class in physics and cosmology you just might find a PHD that could give you some answers. Not all, certainly, but some. You say you have never seen one that could, but have you tried talking to multiple experts in the subject? Or do you simply assume that they can't help? That the subject is completely unknown to humanity and therefore you will have to make up your own story? I don't mean to poke fun at you here, but that is actually what the majority of people do when faced with a huge deficit in knowledge; demand an answer they can understand without effort, then declare it doesn't make sense because they won't put out the required effort.
Well said. As far as finding a PhD who could give me an answer its most likely impossible as you said no one has the answer. If someone did it would probably be in the news, at least for a day until the next celebrity cheats on their spouse.
I say 'yes' .... BUT, define god. How I see god is probably totally different than most people's definition. By my definition, yes, the existence of god is logical because god can be what ever one worships or lives for, be it the idea of an omnipotent being or money, fast cars and a big fancy house. The god(s) created by man is totally logical because man created it. Man thinks, man has logic, if a man thinks it then it exists.
Nice, man created the thought of God and many people agree with it. You have to ask why?
There are as many 'whys' as there are definitions, if not more.
What do all those whys have in common? Basic human need to have something they believe in and is logical to them.
If the question is about logic, then as I said before, yes the existence of god is logical. There is no scientific proof of God, but the idea of God is not illogical because it is based on a reasonable assumption. For example, when ancient man looked at the rising sun, he asked 'who is doing it?' When trees grew he asked 'who is making them grow?' It was a logical question to ask based on the knowledge of that man. We now know that what is behind those things is science.
It is logical in a court of law, to find a man guilty if it is beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. If there is any doubt that he is guilty then, despite there being no alternative proof, it is logical to assume there is someone else guilty of the crime.
'Scientists' like Richard Dawkins will tell you that the notion of God is completely illogical whilst not having absolute proof of God not existing. This is simply bad science. It is logical, in the absence of absolute evidence, to accept the possibility of there being something rather than nothing.
Humans are localized and linear thinks. God is hidden in plain sight of everything. Our sight is limited. Using our logic, we can not define God, only keep seeking God. Low and behold, if we continue to seek Him we will receive from God rewards for seeking Him as if we had found Him. God is love. God is good. But don't piss Him off!
The personification of God is only one definition of god.
There are other definitions; All is god, I am god, sex is god...the list goes on.
THANK YOU, Owl Ka Myst!
I hereby declare OKM to be at least the most reasonable person up to this point in the threaded discussion. It always irritates me when people attempt to engage in discussions of what is "logical" without making any apparent effort to determine what that actually means in a rigorous sense. In order for a statement (such as "God exists") to be considered "logical" then it has to at least contain well-defined ideas.
OKM makes a wonderful point in mentioning that not all definitions of "God" are equivalent. For example, I would ask some of the people who are arguing that the existence of God is logical if they feel that the existence of Zeus or Brahma is also "logical." After all, both of those would have at one time been defined by many as "God." So, it's really ridiculous to even pretend that a person can discuss the logical rationality of something without even having a sound basis of definition to work from! If you believe God exists in any form, just bare up and admit that there is NOT any "logical" basis for your belief. Simply saying that something makes sense to you doesn't make it logical, no matter how much better you think it would sound if it did.
Is the existance of God Logical?
No, there is nothing logical about God. God is spiritual, dealing with faith, not logic.
Faith is quite rational, logical when defined and applied correctly.
Why is faith being separated from logic? As someone recently reaffirmed in this thread: "rational faith". That is faith I can understand and do. Blind, Uncoordinated, Haphazard, By Chance Aloofness, I cannot...
and to you as well twenty one days. What does that stand for anyway?
Thank You --- sorry, I don't know your name and prefer not to call you Morpheus. lol. Twenty One Days is the title of a book I wrote, self published and now is being handled by an actual agent for commercial publication. It is based on the planets seed-time harvest principle. Sort of a prelude to Quantus Philo ( or at least something to keep me in the loop, while I am finishing up the Free Will critique).
As for my posting on Faith. One certain thing I cannot understand, especially with regard to the text and Immanu El [Jesus to some], why they all seem so aloof in their thinking, when He and 90% of the scribe Paul's writing was all based on being logical (rational; sound) in ones thinking. Everything the man did was planned well, executed with purpose, publically and privately with his followers --in a full measure of faith. Heck, I cannot believe that the man Petra just blindly jumped out of the boat into the middle of the sea without thorough knowledge of the outcome. In fact, the text says there was a logical dialogue before he took the leap. This bothers me greatly with religion --and equally science. When Moshe [Moses] built the temple, fashioned the Ark, made the apothecary, the incense, etc he didn't just say OKAY let's build it, woo-hoo! It was designed and planned well in advance. Albeit, the action of building was faith, just as Abrams action --with full understanding-- was of faith.
Sorry, I am rambling, too much espresso, my fingers are typing a mile a minute.
You have a very creative mind, I am in school for Film Making and I can appreciate someone who thinks outside the box, I need to know what your goals are and what kind of contact s you have. Two great minds are better than one.
Well, it's all different and individual to each of us isn't it? But if I have faith in God, I don't need it to be logical. My faith is what I believe in on my own terms and it doesn't have to make sense to anyone else but me. It doesn't need to be evaluated, defined, rationalized, quantified, proven to, or judged and measured by anyone else's standards but my own.
No one is an island. Each one with their own truth is like the madhouse on christmas. Everyone to their own delusion only means that everyone is deluded. There is one truth, which, by definition is that which no one can deny. Man, did, indeed, walk with dinosaurs. Man was man created. If all came from the same ooze, then man was man from the very beginning. We may not have looked like much, we lost the Phamily Photo Album, so we really can't say, but man got other names down through the ages, so we started an alias database. Anyways, everything that's here has been here since we have. How in the heck did Moses nail that one?
This discussion has been debated since the beginning of time.
The only logical explanation or response to this discussion is that life presents many mysteries of which we have no answers to logical or factual.
That being said each one is afforded the opportunity to derive his/her own conclusion on the matter.
We can coexist driving different makes and models of cars in the name of free choice, but bring God/religion/and the like in a conversation and the gloves have to come off for some reason.
This problem always occurs when one tries to “convince” another that they are right in what they know when the best you can really do is “convey” why it is right for you and your life.
This is no different than trying to describe what an apple taste like to someone who has never had an apple before. You can use all the colorful language known to man, but you will always come up short.
Humans like to think that we have a full understanding of all that is before us; when in fact we are far from getting and knowing it all so to speak.
The issue becomes clouded when we act like there is something inherently wrong with the statement “we do not know…”
When the fact is we truly do not know everything. We do not know where we come from... We do not know what happens after we expire in the does the soul truly continue vs. nope you are just dead no soul no next life...
We do not know what is beyond the stars, so forth and so on. Having said that, there is so much that we do know.
This knowledge is within our powers to work on in our short time in these “human meat suits”.
I like peace in my life, so it really doesn’t matter to me if another person prefers chaos as long as it does not interfere or compromise my peace… live and let live.
If you know there is a god/creator/universal being/one all knowing creative force or whatever you choose to indentify it as great, do what you feel you are here to fulfill in your life.
If you believe in nothing, but “you” and what you can do, great get to work on being the best you--you can be.
We can agree to disagree and life will continue to go on as we all know it my friends.
Create Sun - I absolutely agree with everything you have said here.
Well said my friend, I like this response, It feels good.
Stephen Hawkins is a physicist who prescribes mathematical solutions to the physical world.
Persons that seek God has an even longer track record. Christianity have existed for over 2000 years. It has constantly transformed with revelations from the Word Of God, prayer, and meditation. This is the human spirit validating believes in life. This supercedes logic. Our spirit reacts yea and nay to everything. Our conscience is our main guide. The bible has survived over 1900 years, and has constantly been under attacked; but remained, and confirmed by billions over the years. This is super logic speaking.
If anyone would take the time to check the English definition of faith, it would become EVIDENT that there are 2 connotations of the word.
1 faith based upon empirical fact. i.e. "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Ex. I have "faith" that the sun will rise from the east and set in the west.
2. religious "faith" based soley on "hope" i.e.
a.strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.
b.a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason.
Of course, a belief in the abstract concept: god, is defined by connotation 2.(a)and (b.)
Stop diverting attention away from the question and answer qwark. I know your better than that.
I've answered your question several times!
Are you not paying attention?
Your question is "silly."
I've told you why, but ask me again and I'll reiterate my response.
I guess your saying that the question cannot be answered, but that does not make it silly. Questions allow us to better understand the world as well as ourselves. With out them their would be no philosophy at all.
Wisdom would teach to know the difference about questions, in and of, themselves. All questions have answers. However, not all questions actually need be answered and even sometimes, the answer to some questions is that there is no need for them to be answered.
Why? Which is reason is what drives philosophy.
Is why not a question my friend? Think about it, think about it...
Reason is the underlying attribute, to asking "why". That's what you are missing.
Don't be coy Cagsil, is "why' a question or not?
And if it is you will have to re-think what you said before. It's okay we all make mistakes. I do all the time. What makes people unique is the ability to admit them.
I didn't say "why" wasn't a question. Apparently, you enjoy twisting things to suit you. As I state, "REASON" is what drives philosophy. It's the CAUSE for asking "WHY".
You don't appear to be stupid, so stop the childish game.
Logic drives philo (wisdom); reason are they processes within logic, the neural network.
Where Logic says, Reason "asks". That is its purpose -to transmit information within itself. Reason does not require engagement of it to understand anything.
"It is not necessary to consider a quest(ion) for knowing, nor its opposite an answer; both are interchangeable parallels within reason (the Need To Know Syndication )." ~ Quantus Philo
Eh, I like the realization that a question is actually a quest and the connection in the word, but the rest is just a lot of running around in circles, claiming that it will eventually lead to a destination.
Q & A are identical constructs.
Where = What!
What = Where?
Where is The Empire State Building
Where = The Empire State Building
??? = Answer
`tis elementary my dear Watson, (element)ary. Or is it rudimentary, I can never get those two straight. either way, it sure is lots of fun!
You missed my point again.
Logic and this god thing exist at opposite ends of the "reality" continuum.
Your question: "Is the existance of God Logical," is a silly one.
Your concern about getting a "concrete," definitive response to your "big bang" concerns are also silly because anyone who has studied and "thinks," "KNOWS" that we are "PRESENTLY" unable to determine if the "big bang theory" is fact.
I'm not being disrespectful, I'm just explaining why I consider this thread to be "silly.
If this thread is so silly, then why so many replies and conversations? I'm not trying to be disrespectful. Also I must add the fact that you continue to come in here, you either like silly things A or this thread is not silly and your just upset that someone has sparked many people to converse and debate B. Im going to go have a cuppa tea now:) Since this thread is silly you probably won't reply right?
The human mind wields great power faith is the medium to unleash that power.Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Due to the fact that in my life I have seen sufficient proof it would be illogical for me to even attempt to deny the presence of something which equates to the job description "GOD".
God(pun intended), I like this forum. Everyone in here gives me something to think about with each post.
Is the presence of God logical? Well, no, and neither is the Big Bang Theory, BECAUSE - it is illogical for something to come from nothing - and is that not what the big bang is? - empty nothing that after an explosion became a something? And even if I'm not correctly interpreting the bang theory, then the other possibility is that there was a SINGLE something that exploded and became many somethings. Either way, how did the original something come to be!
(Perhaps some research into physics has the answer, or perhaps there is no answer, but I will have to look into that, because it appears to me that no one currently does know the answer)
Then, if you take an intelligent creator as a given for a moment and say: well, before the universe there was God, THEN WHERE DID GOD COME FROM?! It is simply ungraspable for the human mind to understand how existence came into existence and if it is possible for absolute nothingness to have ever existed, or for something to have always existed. If someone thinks they possess the logical explanation to how either God OR Existence/universe itself came into being or simply always was, please do share. I think that to explain will take either a really educated physicist, or a really imaginative theorist/philosopher/[writer?].
Marlana, in order to engage that quest, humanity will first need to understand one basic fundamental: who they truly are. From there, the cumulative universe, which he exists. If the theists and scientists are accurate (meaning both say identically the same in two different forms: 1. And [God] said. 2. Bang!) then it is a starting point, I suppose.
But, before they can go off conjuring 'alternate universes' or 'winged nephilim', they need to simply start from the beginning instead of going backward to go forward. Granted, if this reality is nothing more than Alice, then everything backasswards is certain frontwardback.
Something can come from nothing. Ask Bernie Madoff
This is the best response I have heard thus far.
"Either way, how did the original something come to be!"
God struck a match and lit the fuse. That is that! The only LOGICAL explanation to creation and evolution.
Good answer thats what this forum is about, peoples opinions and views on their perception of the beginning and end.
Cagsil--Surprisingly I agree with you observation that we live in a world that now values lies more than truth. I believe this is the predicatble evolution of a fallen world leading to but one conclusion. I believe you are a person who believes in truth, but has been harshly and perhaps unfairly wounded.
Hey Digs, I have had my bumps in life, but my past is my past and I've dealt with as it should have been dealt with. I have no regrets and I have no search for truth left for understanding my life. It's a shame many people fail to understand truth in and of itself, much less much of anything else.
The ignorance level of the world's population is at an all time high. Then again, so is the world's population with regards to religious beliefs. Sorry, coincidences such as the level of ignorance and the level of religious belief, both being at the same level is extremely hard to dismiss.
Unfortunately, both go hand in hand, in present day of humankind.
I agree w/ digs man, it just seems to me that you and the other fellas that harbor so much obvious venom towards people who are comfortable with their belief that you are going to hell, and if you are so dtermined, they would rather you didn't. You don't believe in hell or heaven, so, why not just ignore them? According to you and the others they are dying out anyways. except...wait...that is what is supposed to happen to godless people. See? If you would be more patient and hold your tongue, you'll get what you pray for...or is that the wrong word? See, the more you protest, the more you convince them, not that you are somehow privy to the absolute truth, but that Satan has you by the shorthairs, so you just make'em pray harder that Jesus will make'em disappear. Do you ever get the feeling like I just like to laugh at you? Torment you with my twisty deviousness? Have you told anyone yet, that you had to ask me where Genesis was? What? Oh, I'm sorry...was that supposed to be a secret? Nothing like an animating discussion about something you don't even know anything about. Like reviewing a book or movie one has never read or seen. Sad, just sad.
If God is real I don't think he's going to be mad at people for not believing in him, especially because of the world we live in. We are lied to by our parents, friends, government, television, movies, school books etc. How could he be mad at us for not being sure what to believe in?
Last I heard...he gets the last laugh AND ends up w/ all the marbles. "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believed." What would good be w/o the opposite? What would be the point if everyone believed w/o question? Or dis-believed? I don't believe that HE is ALONE. After all, Man was created in God's image. Male and female made he them. Male and Female is part of God's image. Gotta be a female involved somewhere, before he created Man.
QUESTION EVERYTHING! ALL THE TIME! DON'T BECOME A CULT FOLLOWER, THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD. CULTS WANT POWER, HATE, AND FEAR TO FEED ON.
Hey Cagsil, I'm just curious about the ignorance and religious belief correlation there. If you've found some sort of data supporting that, then I really would like to see it if you could refer me to it. I've been looking for the longest time for any sort of actual quantitative data on these sorts of variables, and all my searching has been, thus far, fruitless. So, if you can remember at all where you got that idea from, I would be indebted to you if you'd tell me. Although, obviously, if you can't remember what made you think that, then you can't expect anyone to just accept it as a valid and confirmed fact.
Unless, of course, you are a person of great faith... then, it doesn't really matter much what kind of data you have to support your views and you most certainly CAN just expect everyone to buy into them. Fair? No. True? I think so.
LOGIC IS NOT REQUIRED TO FIND GOD. Logic actually is put aside, Love is the tool required and faith is the vehicle, but logic is never used in the bible where God produces His most stupendous miracles.
1) parting of the sea
2) walls of jericho
3) Christ on the cross
4) not leaning to our own understanding
5) not by our own works do we achieve righteousness
and so on.
Indeed put logic aside and by simple faith believe that God exists and have faith in Him crucified.
I have to disagree, slightly.
Immanu El, James, Peter, Saul --even Solomon, all say the same: be of a sound mind. A sound mind is one of rational faith. Faith is not an aloof enigma; a blind go-to attitude or what does this button do? kind of thing. It is a highly discerned way of thinking -right thinking (also known as righteousness).
As said earlier: Abram believed and it counted as right thinking.
Now, the action he took in line with that believing is described in many places as faith. So, he saw the 'harvest' even before that thing unseen manifest. Moses saw the harvest of the sea part, even before he raised his hands; Immanu El saw the harvest before he completed the requirement. It is the same description of creation. By faith the worlds were framed. Are the worlds by chance or randomness? No, they are quite organized, placed, structured and balanced --in other words, sound.
If faith is not rational, how can we explain the intricate details of a speck of subatomic energy or a cell of a hair or believe the work done on behalf of all humanity? How can we rejoice over a healing or the gifts?
People would argue that is not 'spiritual', but again, it was the Spirit who hovered over creation until it went 'Bang!' aka 'And [God] said'. Being of spirit does not mean a person is out of their mind (woo-woo la-la), it means they understand correctly the purpose of the mind and power that flows from spirit to body -intangible to tangible; unseen to seen.
It may not be by our own power, our own methods if thinking, for certain; but it doesn't mean it isn't rational faith. It is just a way of thinking that is correct and the corresponding action (step of faith) to that correctness.
So it lends the question to many believing: "Are you still that dull?"
The things that can not be scientifically explained by now should at least be considered to have some other kind of origin. So in my opinion, until science can prove every single thing that happens in this world I will always believe that there is something else out there.
In other words, all the answers in the universe have not been made readily available to you so you will invoke and embrace magic, myth and superstition as your answers until they have been made readily available.
Will you change your mind then or keep believing in myths?
If science explained everything I would have no belief in God, yes.
I do not believe in God through FAITH, I believe in God through LOGIC. Nothing else makes sense at this point. Even neither science nor religion can prove or disprove the existence of God the belief in him has stood the test of time. And the amount of believers is still huge. In other words if the Earth wasn't round we would know by now. get it?
Nothing makes more sense to you than a god making itself becoming it's own son then killing itself because the people IT made were faulty?
Maybe you should read the whole book, it gets even more bizarre than that in places.
For a professed born again christian. you sure have a lot of catholic doctrines. Exactly, the people were faulty - they were given a few rules to abide by and by the time moses came down the mountain they were already breaking those rules. So God gave them a few more rules to guide them and to keep them in his way. Some, very few, punishable by death, the rest full of equality, eye for eye, kill an ox repay an ox, steal 20 bucks repay 20 bucks. Then there were some rules about lending money for example... charge no interest... how nice. And then after receiving the rules they made more rules... they then added more rules to that. Mishnah was created 1500 rules added to the 613 they dug up and then more... they kept making rules and also, they kept breaking the rules they made and by making all these rules they forgot that God was more than just rules. That God required honesty, truth and forgiveness
Hosea 6:6 For I desired MERCY, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
So in what became a big mess of rules and religion God ended the OT ways with a brilliant plan. God wrapped himself in flesh and had himself sacrificed to atone for all the sins of the world and to open a new way from God to His people. There is such a depth and grandeur about this its unfathomable to think that any man would come up with this way of salvation.
Born agains all know this... what were you studying? It basic stuff dude.
Yes, so "unfathomable" that other religions long before Christianity used exactly the same story of the virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection. Your religion is just a cheap facsimile of ones before it. Funny how you forgot all about them.
Wasn't it widely said of Julius Caesar back in the good ol' days of antiquity that he had been similarly born of a virgin and resurrected? Seems like I've read that somewhere.
I hadn't read that, sounds interesting. Of course, the Romans were some of the more serious believers of superstitions and myths so it wouldn't surprise me if that was true.
I would highly recommend watching the series, "I Claudius" for a glimpse into the nature of Romans.
I heard it was Augustus who had more in common with Jesus , or is it the other way round?
There may have been as many as 7 jesus stories before the biblical one as I recall. Have to research it again.
Oh! Don't waste your time on non existent personality
Here are some jesuses,
Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus, Jesus ben Gamaliel, Jesus ben Sirach, Jesus ben Pandira, Jesus ben Ananias,Jesus ben Gamala,Jesus ben Thebuth and Jesus ben Saphat can all calim to be the Christ jesus.
Jesus ben Stada- a crucified jesus.
Then there is the teacher of righteousness the essene teacher.
Gods like Aesculapius,Apllo, various Egyptian and Indian gods.
The list is endless.
You might be right, I really don't recall. As I said, my source was the word of mouth from a Christian apologist. Normally, I wouldn't put much credence to that, but as it seemed like it might have at least been a genuine admission to a counterpoint, I thought it might be something. But again, I don't know.
That is very sad to hear and only shows the depth of your religious indoctrination.
and rightly so. after 250,000 years (according to science or 6000 according to Judeo-Christian) neither has yet come up with validity, it just makes sense that they never will.
the entire constructs of science and religion have precisely the same result time and time again: "Neither can proof or disprove by their present applications whether or not Creator exists". This is the process defined as reason. Reason is not designed to validate yes or no only to "parse" between thoughts. Therefore, philo (wisdom) is logic. As wisdom supersedes the processes themselves, allowing free flow of understanding. Logic or Faith is what is being attempted using the aforementioned, but cannot be achieved by using the processes. Thus, the escape clause in reason: dismissal or acceptance by default, without a full grip on the Reality in which is being explored, tested, observed and pulled apart.
I am of the mind to firmly state what you are implying: "we do get it", we always knew it. Faith is understanding the beginning to end of a thing. Understanding the unseen as seen. Faith is really the only applicable solution. Rational Faith, not woo-woo, la-la or quoting Moses or Einstein.
This was the Adamic Inception: indulgence of the processes --of knowledge, reason. The knowledge was always there, understood, not requiring engagement to 'sort it all out'.
As usual James,you baffle me with your intellectual process...good work.The word God brings about a knee jerk argument programed into ones psyche,from most.Ultimately God must equal infinity,a concept not aprehendable by the mind of man,neither therefore,can God be.Bantering and intellectualising God is good fun,but in the end it's nothing more than mental masturbation,providing the same temporary feeling of release as the Other type....and then the desire builds again.Hope your well James,no offence intended.
The "mental masturbation" comparison to intellectualizing God is very sharp. Very Good Sir.
Hey Dean. No offense taken. I do like that quip "mental masturbation" says it all perfectly. How are things down south?
CheapTrick, I partly agree with your mental masturbation comparison, but we do have the inspired word of God, B.I.B.L.E. which has held for over 2000 years as truth while being opposed by many without success.
God is infinite as you said, and we are finite making it necessary to be linear thinkers. But God rewards trying to find Him as if you have found Him. We must be dynamic, continuously seeking God.
The bible?Do you have the courage to research where,how and why the bible came to be?I'm in no way attacking Christ here,only this book you claim is THE book.Do you know what Christianity was like shortly after Christs death?The fact that the bible has taken precedence for two thousand years does not make it correct.People believed incorrectly in[and the church enforced]Ideas,cosmologies,gods,pseudo facts etc etc for much longer than Christianity has been on the face of the earth,let alone a mere two thousand years.I stand by my statement"Mental masturbation"...and how is it you can contradict your self by agreeing God is not aprehendable then telling us about what God does or does not do?This fundamental clinging to a book that excludes through lies,torture,murder,and misdirection,the MASS of christian works baffles me.Please read the very end of the book of John and explain to me what he means by"These are just a few of the things Christ did and said.If you put them all into books I suppose they would fill the whole world".Where ARE these other works John alludes to?Why have you"bible only"people not found them and incorporated them?Your salvation depends on them as well.This from your own bible.Yes,I do read the bible.The difference is I decide what else I can and Won't read,not some pastor who insists on stepping between me and Christ and God to instruct me as though I were an intellectual child.No offence meant.
Not to abuse the words of the famous Vegas Texas hold`em Champion, "Dean: I'm all in!"
CheapTrick, the B.I.B.L.E. is the book that describe Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Super for all humanity, our Savior.
The bible contains more knowledge about our relationship with God than what any sane person need. Jesus is the Author and Finisher of our faith.
Christianity is about Jesus; each person is to commune with Christ on their own. It's personal first and always. We attend church to thank God and to be edified. "...do not forsake the gathering in God's name...". It doesn't even say seek Pastor sermon every Sunday! Going to save another soul takes priority over listening to a sermon on Sunday.
Wanting to read all of the info on Jesus is an excuse for not acknowledging, repenting, and accepting Jesus as control of your life.
As I stated in my previous comment, I agree with your "mental masturbation", but everything has some good in it even if we have to wait to experience it.
There is untruth in the book, especial the old testment, but it is truly recorded. In other words, the bad is recorded as a bad example for us to understand and that we should not do it.
Everything boils down to Jesus, Lord and Savior.
I must comment further, Jesus has God's Holy Spirit which is complete and pure and comes from above. All of your or our intellectual tools are incomplete with corrupted spirits and comes from below (the material). "when the complete comes all incompletes are cancelled...". "Lean not on your own understanding...". COME TO ME.
How would you know? You wouldn't. So don't go making assumptions and claims you cannot back up.
Ray, most do not understand what it is they are reading or being interpreted to them. And their interpretation is based on the text itself referencing another phrase of the same text.
So, I cannot be upset with them, just disappointed.
Came to me that I needed to clarify "incompletes are corrupt". All of Our intellectual tools have some corruption to varying degrees, but is still good for improving our lives, but stops from reaching the Kingdom of God.
"Heaven is at hand.", Jesus.
And exactly how do you come to that conclusion, wilmiers77? According to the text, He was just the beginning:
The first of MANY brothers...
Greater Works than these...
The [Holy] Spirit came on them all, even on their servants and maid servants.
"If I do not go, the Spirit [of the Father] cannot come. He [THE SPIRIT] will come to lead you into all truth."
Jesus didn't say he was going to lead you, he said the Fathers own spirit -see Genesis 1-- would do that and thus you enter the KOH, within you. It was by his work, sacrifice, that we have access to grace, yes, but even he said you would do greater things than he did. and if all the works he did could fill all the books, imagine what you can do,if you just believe.
But my point is this: millions seem stuck at the point of entry, at the Cross, at the wonder of the work. Last i read, the twelve did much after that, and so did the remaining 108, just in a day...
[anyway, I am probably just wasting my typing]
T O D, I think you are confusing works with faith. Great in this case means more works but the quality has been set by Jesus.
And rightly so, humanity needed a perfect example of the works of faith, of righteousness.
Now the question becomes: How much rational faith (works of righteousness) not woo-woo-la-la does the believing really have. Are they as bold, if not bolder than the first twelve? Shouldn't they be? I say: Yes and yes. Not boldness of doctrine (go to church, quote the bible, pretend to have the spirit), I mean real boldness of grace.
"CheapTrick, I partly agree with your mental masturbation comparison, but we do have the inspired word of God, B.I.B.L.E. which has held for over 2000 years as truth while being opposed by many without success. "
Indeed the bible has stood for some 1700 years (not 2000) as truth by anyone that wishes to believe it regardless of what it says. On the other hand readers that question and actually read it and study it very quickly find it to be mostly nonsense and contradictions. Very little actual truth there.
AND equally Agreed Upon without success, either. Lest we forget that. Reason: it is just a book; a compilation of parts regarding the greater whole.
Even the likes of Parsley --and most of the World Harvest collective (including Le Sea ministries) backed down from the "quote that scripture" concept, because it isn't truth. Funny thing, John Osteen said that years ago and they laughed at him. Now they are eating crow.
Wilderness, as I have proven to many a skeptic, the bible does not contradict itself. How it is interpreted IS the contradiction. It is a history lesson. History is not nonsense nor contradictive, in most cases. History can be distorted and thus appearing to contradict. It all depends on who is telling the story and how the reader interprets it.
It is only not contradictory when you choose to change what it says to some other "interpretation". You are certainly correct in that it can be "interpreted" to have no contradictions. But of course as everyone that reads it interprets it differently it can and does say just about anything that one wishes it to say.
On the other hand, if you read it and accept it at face value without any changes then it is contradictory, both within itself and with most know physical laws. I doubt that your interpretations have convinced very many skeptics; rather you convince yourself and expect others to agree.
What you or they believe or doubt, is irrelevant [ as I have often told BOTH the believers & skeptics ] which is really the entire point.
Any manuscript is not -again not- contradictory by itself. So, the only probable instance of contradiction is on the observer, the reader AND their intention or perception when viewing. If Shakespeare and Blake wrote identical plays and we compile them in a single book, would we dare say they contradict each other or would be smart enough to appreciate two expressions of the same idea?
As a set of historical documents, that have been highly translated (at least 2 times per 3-4 languages), then edited for commercialization (social opinion), then taught at great lengths using "one passage to support" or "find contradiction", can either side really --honestly-- say what is or is not? That would be highly well, stupid. A love letter in Spanish can translate to a hate letter (fatwa) to a Russian ex-mother-in-law -literally.
Clearly it is the believers and skeptics desire to find validity for or against the text. Oddly, the text cannot defend itself and really does not have reason to. Which leads me to believe both the believer and skeptic are wrong and their egos the only thing at work.
-my convincing of skeptics, per say, was not using the texts at all. Even more ironic, same with the believing.
Yes, I must stop the shameless propensity to constantly agree with you. But that is to the point. Mismo.
The mindset seem to be of classic "word is law" orientation.
It is ancient literature, condensed, compiled translated to greek from hebrew, then to hebrew, then two translations competed. then it was condensed to make it less contradictory, making it more contradictory because the cultural nuances were not translatable, then translated to english then because it is so convoluted, those who preach say..."don't question the word of god" generally because they can't answer.
Fortunately for us the old books emerged again in the form of the dead sea scrolls...and there we see, through years of study what we missed all these years... we now have within our reach what it really means and James is right. It is not at all contradictory. It presents many paradoxes, yes. But it is in the tradition of yin yang.
Just like brocolli makes you healthy by giving you small doses of poison.
As far as non-belief goes, I don't think anyone who does not believe in God will be in any kind of trouble if he does exist. In a world where we are lied to by our parents, spouses, friends, significant others, brothers, sisters, kids, school books, teachers, government,television, movies, etc., why would a supreme being be mad at us for not believing in something that we can not see or touch. Why would he hold anger towards us for doing what our society has forced us all to do...be skeptical?
Humans long for hierarchy subconsciously. If there is nothing better then imperfect humans, is that not a great disappointment? People create religion in order to keep themselves motivated. Some towards reincarnation, and others towards a supposed after life.
Dose anyone else see the fundamentalist hypocrisy and denial here?I rarely come to this forum anymore because of this steel bound sort of thinking.Present a logical argument and you meet with preaching and personal interpretation as though the person is some how a spokesman for God and Christ.I'm done
Oh I didn't recognize you! I always thought you were a girl! Really.
A Girl!...Well...people change Ya know...How do you like me after the operation?Did a pretty good job Huh?
I think it's great people get into this kind of debate. It wouldn't be much of a debate if you didn't have extremes. Personal interpretation is a symptom of a free-thinking society surely. I don't get this kind of conversation at the bus stop.
I see both your points. I enjoy reading what everyone thinks on the subject, but there appear to be some wild interpretations. And the hard liners don't understand that it's nothing but opinion, which should be questioned. It is as if they think they know the mind of God. Some even claim to speak directly with God. It's a little spooky.
Such a harsh word, but from a few posts I've read I can't help but wonder.
is the unconscious talking...you'll be surprised to find some pretty revealing things going on with some of the people's fixations here. like, talk about the RED BOOK but less less inspired.
I didn't see this. You're right about the 'less inspired' part. I have enjoyed following your comments on the forum. I saw your talk on TED. Very impressive.
Thank you. I will post a longer one next month, when I manage to be done with forums for a few weeks. it is really a black hole of time. Like I was supposed to call two doctors...so right now. I have to stop the habit of checking responses advertised in my email
If that's a real pic of you...well,your to pretty to debate...So how about drinks instead?
BTW,that post was in response to another hubber,it somehow didn't connect to his post[my fault I'm sure].It was not entirely aimed at this thread.I suppose my old age has made me grumpy.My profuse apologies to those I've offended.....But you probably deserved it Ha!
Ha ha! outrageous!
I'm not offended in the slightest. This forum thing is completely new to me you see. I have been on this, my first, for two weeks and it's a whole new world. I'm taken aback by the anger of some people, but I'm also delighted by the free-speech. Some people get on a podium and go on a bit though.
Science, up until about 30 years ago, laughed at the Big Bang Theory. They said there was no way that 'time' began in an instant, that there was actually an extremely slow and arduous expansion.. and they absolutely refused to consider the idea.
It wasn't until 1968-70 that Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose published papers in which they calculated that time and space had a finite beginning that included the origin of matter and energy. They proposed also that this singularity didn't occur in space, as space didn't exist. Space began inside the singularity. Before this, nothing existed.
Some scientists were extremely reluctant to sign on to this, as they understood that the Bible quoted God as saying "Let there be light", an in an instant everything we see and know began to form. Gases began to form in this vast void and lead to both the formation and pushing outward of the galaxy and universe structure we can see. 'Something' had to exist to set this in motion. There was no time, no space, no matter, and no energy. Only the Bible can offer an explaination as to what happened. There may be inconsistencies in the Bible related to dates and times, that's human, but there isn't inconsistencies related to the Word of God. His Words are the same throughout the old testament, and the words of Jesus supplanted the old law, and again, there were no discrepancies in the word of Jesus.
Evidently some are reading a different Bible from the one I read, or they are simply offering an 'opinion' based on the thoughts and/or studies of others. Anyone who believes that we are not the children of God has never seriously considered how all that we are came together in a totally random universe to form all that we are... Put some air and a little dirt and water in an airtight room, come back in 50 million years, and see if you find a family of four sitting inside watching American idol...
Really? Ask Stephen Hawkings if he believes in God... There are as many non-believers as there are Christians. That's a fact. Sects share a belief. The scientific community, although generally united on the big bang, argue vehemently about the existence of God. Where's your 'facts'...?
What the Christians call god, they call big bang, what the Christians call end of days and annihilation, they call black hole, see just a change of names. The explanation religion and hawkin give is the same- MAGIC
Isn't it funny how science and the Bible parallel. How did these folks 2000 years ago have any inclination about black holes and the big bang? End of days... the law of averages says this planet will bite the bullet one day.. you can count on it, and there will be nothing 'magic' about it..
"]Isn't it funny how science and the Bible parallel. How did these folks 2000 years ago have any inclination about black holes and the big bang?"
It is the other way round. The present day priests like Hawkings call creation big bang and end of days, black hole!
Actually, unlike Mr Dawkins, Mr Hawkings, is reluctant to believe or disbelieve, as was Einstein, Friedman and others.
The case is strictly one of studying the information, gathered by observation, cannot determine if or if not god exists. Ironically, neither can most theists.
Both present the concept of The Moment as follows:
theological: "And [He] said"
scientific: "And Bang!"
So, can we say there is some validity to the concept.
The oddity of both science and religion -the same concept really, by two different expressions, is not unique. Their "requiem to for dream", is irrelevant. It is the mind trying to process accordingly, as it also tries to remain master...
It is funny to me that when most people who claim to have no belief in God are put in a life or death situation they suddenly become religious. I have seen this many times before. A gun or knife in your face. A fire in your home. A flood. Who do people cry out to when these things happen? Not mom or dad, but God. Please God don't let this person kill me. Please God don't let me die in this fire, please God don't let me die in this flood. I believe that most people that claim no belief in God do so because things have gone bad in their lives and their thinking goes like this: If there's a God he wouldn't let this happen to me, hence there is no God. As soon as possible I will research and relay to you a "scientific study" that will support my claim, better than The Big Bang explains its claim. But rest assured I already know I'm right because I have seen these Scenarios with my own eyes, I grew up in many different states under many different social environments, so I can tell you some of the people in here, once put in a life or death position would change there minds like a flat tire.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. -Abraham Lincoln
We humans are easily fooled and led.
We have a history of foible to prove that.
I, again, ask you to define this "god thing" in other than "opinion." You can't.
The "big bang" is but a theory that can't be described in any manner but "opinion."
Don't those "facts" give you an idea of human intellectual maturity?
I repeat, your question about this god thing is "silly."
There are no silly questions, just too many silly answers. Nothing is outside of the bounds of possibility, until we can reasonably determine those bounds. Which we have yet to accomplish.
A professor in college responded in the same manner when I commented that his question was silly: "There are no silly questions."
I disagree in this case. Why Because the abstract concept: god and logic, exist at opposite ends of the "reality" continuum.
They ARE opposites.
The question has been answered.
The fact that this question has been answered in your mind is is all well and good; however, that does not equate to 'written in stone'.
I see nothing illogical in accepting the fact that I cannot possibly know everything.
Pls explain to me what is to be "KNOWN in this instance.
Until this "god thing" can be defined, how in the world could "it" be "KNOWN?"
You put too much emphasis on the word god. Even if it isn't capitalized. We know we are different, if for no other reason than that we've been asking this question since the beginning of recorded history, and longer. We know our species is unique. Maybe 'god' was never anything more than a quest for knowledge. Maybe the search will die out once we've evolved a little more and have answered all of the questions of this universe.
But to scoff at the question that has driven our species from the moment it awoke is premature, in my opinion. We've at least evolved enough to be waking up to the fact that whatever beliefs our ancestors held were wrong.
But what's this god thing?
I don't believe I said anything about anything being "wrong?"
Right and wrong are relatives. (I don't mean "kin" : )
Now, lets get back to the question.
Why would one believe in something that can only be imagined and differs in definition in as many ways as there are those who believe in it...and all those definitions exist as but opinions without any factual foundation?
What really blows my mind, is that people actually guide their lives by what they imagine to be "true!"
It's worth saying again that we humans are easiy fooled and led.
Why do you say I'm "scoffing" at learning?
My goodness, I'm, just like my ancestors, I'm asking for someone to define this abstract concept of a god thing in a form other than just opinion! "Where's the beef?"
I'm curious and want to know too.
To use the terms god and logic in the same sentence is an oxymoron i.e. "giant shrimp."
Go for it! :
I don't know what flavor quark you are, but I'm beginning to see which one you aren't.
I don't believe in the 'god' thing, as you put it. So I couldn't help you with a definition. Sorry. But, it seems logical to me that the fact that everyone perceives the answer differently is a big part of the answer to the question.
"...it seems logical to me that the fact that everyone perceives the answer differently is a big part of the answer to the question."
I can only answer that with an AMEN!
As I have said before, it is my determination that Qwark has some deep seeded conflict with "this thing called god." It is evident in his or her consistent denial of the fact that we as human can not explain everything. The age old question of "where did we come from" is due to a psychological product of our brain that separates us from other mammals. We think abstractly no other life on this planet does, why not?To dismiss the scientific explanation or the religious explanation with out undeniable proof would be considered "silly" to me Qwark. You ask how people can believe in God and follow their lives according to this belief, I ask how can you believe in The Big Bang and live your life according to that belief. You are being highly hypocritical and it is really affecting your response in a negative way. You comments seem to be fostered by anger rather than logical, belief, or intelligence.
You haven't figured out what I said yet!
My goodness, you are a hard learner...
I thought my adolescent kid was hard to teach!
He didn't compare with redpill!
Enuf of this! Whew!
I get the impression qwark has spent a great deal of time in contemplation of what he calls ' the god thing'; hence his frustration with, what he perceives as, less than thought provoking answers.
I don't begrudge him the seemingly belligerent comments. We all degrade into that at times, to varying degrees, when discussing it with others. It's an impossible question which we adamantly wish to resolve in line with or own philosophies.
Oh my, a smart person in the room, thank "GOD" for Emile R
Very nice, except it insults all the other posters!
I wouldn't take it to heart. I believe the comment was offered as tongue in cheek sarcasm.
Edit: haha. I'm slow. I realize you were saying my comment was insulting. I apologize. I respect the intelligence of others, but I'm inclined to agree with qwark. Any debate on the subject is silly. It is all opinion.
i hope in a god . there might not be one tho.If there is .i think its not logical to assume it knows were here. Or in the position to play supper hero.
People DO cry to God on their death bed. Some people will not acknowledge their parents.. until they are in dire straits. Not believing in God is what really requires a stretch. Go look in a mirror.
Do you think this amazing body, full of intricate circuits, organs, and checks and balances is a totally random act of nature? Believing it's random requires setting aside the laws of nature. Go look at a snow flake or a human cell under a microscope. Why is ANYTHING in a totally random universe inclined to form complex forms? Absolutely NOTHING should exist, as we know it. Nature proves the existence of God, unseen forces like gravity and magnetism prove the existence of God, even mathematics proves the existence of God. How can such beautiful numbers in deep mathematics exist? (Aside from scientists, mathematicians tend to be Believers)
There is no OPINION about it. I myself am living proof of God, just as each of you are proof of your parents. The FACTS are all there, but many pretend not to see them because a GOD would make them responsible for the the crazy things we all do.
Exactly. People aren't stupid animals... and should be held accountable as such for their motivations and behavior. For some, believing in evolution minus God may simply be that excuse they use for their lives of self destruction and criminal impulse.
There are many more christian criminals than atheist criminals, fact.
And there are many more christians than atheists. Christians are simply people who make an effort to do right. But they are also the ones, according to the Bible, who must suffer the greatest temptations.
Untrue. They make an effort to do what they are told to believe is right? Big difference when reality sets in.
Actually it's very true. I see nothing in the ten commandments I disagree with. I see nothing that my conscious wouldn't tell me is wrong, religion or not. No one has to 'tell' me right from wrong. Try to get close to God and see if the temptations don't increase tenfold. I know from experience. What do you base your belief on?
What do you do with the other 603 commandments? Ignore them?
Actually yes. The other 603 PLUS a lot more were added by the Levi Priests and other men. Unless you follow the rules of Judicia, none of those rules apply, even the Nazarite laws.
Those who learned the doctrine and those who dismissed it are equally estranged, my man.
603? Yes, we were also given the Laws of the Covenant, but many of these laws and rules were later supplanted by the ten commandments in the New Testament, as many of them had to do with sacrifice and the preparation of food.
Actually it's not and you saying it is, doesn't make it so. I have seen more Christian people, act against their pathetic righteous teaching bible. And, had they actually followed the teaching as it was intended, getting the real meaning from it, if that is at all possible, wouldn't be the people they are today. So please..
I am positive that's all you see. That's the problem.
Please do learn more. You're showing a little bit of a mental ineptitude, in the above statement. There happens to be a difference between "consciousness" and "conscience". Which, apparently you have yet to learn. Don't worry, I've written several hubs on the topic.
I am sure your parents did. So give it a break.
I didn't mention a belief. I base my life on the purpose I gave myself. I based that purpose on understanding myself. It has given me the integrity I need to get the job done. It has given me the love that I have for myself and for complete strangers.
If you want something I believe? Please don't ask, because I only share my beliefs with people who are close to me and you are not one of them. You don't deserve my belief. You deserve my knowledge and the wisdom I've come to know as discerned truth.
Unfortunately you cannot see beyond the Christian aspect. This topic is NOT about Christianity, or whether or not I'm a Christian, or whether I believe in the Bible. It's about whether or not one should assume that the belief in God is logical.
I'm not sure how a 'pathetic righteous teaching Bible' can be so vile to you one sentence and something that -if- followed would make people so much better the next sentence.. Write with your head and not your hatred.
I can tell you've had some bad experiences with folks claiming to be Christians. Haven't we all. Even the disciples were constantly berating the priest and teachers of the temples. And unfortunately there are some really nasty souls hiding behind the banner of Christianity. But at the same time, don't assume I'm a simpleton because I happen to be a Believer. For example.. Conscience is the EXACT word I meant to use. I would think if you are so 'knowledgeable and wise', as you say, you would know the difference. eg.. My 'conscience' guides me in discerning right from wrong, not my 'consciousness'... Maybe you should double check those hubs.
And lastly, if you come to the forums you have to be prepared to share your beliefs, of all sorts, or you have nothing to offer. You are right about one thing, I am glad to read about your knowledge and wisdom, and I definitely don't deserve your belief, thank goodness....
No sh!t sherlock.
It was not written with hatred, but I guess you're not intelligent enough to make that distinction.
But, you are.
Again, your own intelligence is on the line, yet you cannot even see or understand that I was already pointing out that there was a DIFFERENCE, in what you were saying. DUH!
I gave you both words or did you overlook that? You used the word "conscious" and that is NOT the same as "conscience". Got it? Or do I have to put it into other or even smaller words for you to grasp.
WOW! If that is not the most absurd statement I have ever heard on the forums, then I guess it would rank right up there with- Is the existence of God logical. You do know, people don't always spread their beliefs like you, they actually spread opinions too. Or did you overlook that too, because you're too busy feeding your ego. Other people also do spread knowledge and wisdom...something you wouldn't know about, since all you see is beliefs.
Mocking, just like a good little religious believer.
Aren't we a little testy today... I would include a smiley face after that statement, but you wouldn't see the humor.
It's not my intelligence that's on the line. The way I see it... it's my soul that's on the line. If you don't believe that way, it's perfectly OK with me. I'm not going to hate on you for your 'belief'... I'm not spreading my belief. I'm giving my 'opinion' on the question, just as you did. Don't worry, I'm not trying to convert you... Like most folks, I have enough problems keeping
my own life in order.
You see me as narrow minded, and I see you the same way. You see me as not very wise, and I see you the same way. So, we need to agree to disagree.
I saw no gods in the mirror, what exactly am I looking for there?
Actually, it wasn't just a random act of nature, that is not what evolution states.
Again, I see nothing in a snow flake or a human cell that would indicate gods were at work. And, while you say the universe is "random" it also follows laws that explain snowflakes and human cells.
From where would you get that notion?
Since you have not made any connections or provided any explanations to your conclusions of so-called proof of your god, we can assume you're speaking from a faith based position of belief and not reality.
Yes well, if the facts are all there, why haven't you presented any? Perhaps, the pretending is on your part that they are there. Usually, people don't pretend things aren't there when they obviously are.
Read my other posts today. All the facts are there. If you don't see anything in a mirror, or a snowflake, or a human cell, then your aren't actually looking. Again, and no one seems to be answering MY question, how did all this just 'happen'. How did we assemble? Evolution itself is assemblage in an orderly fashion... a progression from one state to another with intelligent design. It's NOT just an accident.
These ARE the facts. The very FACT that we are typing this on HubPages and having an intelligent discussion proves the existence of intelligence in the universe. Intelligence didn't just 'happen'. If a hundred dollar bill appears on my kitchen table, I can't simply say.. 'oh well, it just happened I suppose.." Someone put it there... Maybe I didn't see them, but it certainly doesn't change the FACT that someone had to have put it there.
You're standing in the middle of a poppy field and trying to convince me that flowers don't exist because you can't see them all around you. If you look into a mirror and you see NOTHING it's because you don't want to see anything. It doesn't serve any purpose for you to read my posts because I'm not going to change your mind.
I am not speaking from a faith base.. This is speaking from a purely logical base. This IS reality. Again, if you want to see my proof, look all around you at the wonders of God and nature.
To quote you... "And, while you say the universe is "random" it also follows laws that explain snowflakes and human cells"..
Where did these 'laws' come from? Who dictated that there should be 'laws' in the universe. Thanks... You're proving my point for me ;-)
I must say.. your statements almost make sense...except for a few things..
Humans need a few things to survive...
Air to breathe
Water and Food
If you take away any of those things and humans will die...Intellegence has nothing to do with that...It is simply a matter of all the right ingredients are in place to allow humans to exist.
And this applies for all other things as well...Fire...needs Fuel, heat and Oxygen...take away any of those and you no longer have Fire...
There is many wonderful things in our universe...That does not prove that it was created by "God". So far the only thing we know for sure...is that we cannot prove where anything came from for sure and until we can...We are always going to point to an unseen Divine power as the explaination.
Intelligence is the 'big picture'... 'Someone or Some Thing' knew we needed air to survive, and provided it... 'Someone or Some Thing' knew we needed water and food, and provided it. Yes, humans die regardless of whether we have these things or not. But simply putting water and food on a planet doesn't create an intelligent human being. The fact that there ARE wonderful things in our universe DOES prove the existence of God.
If God didn't create it.. who did?
As I said in an earlier post today... throw some dirt and water and air in a box, come back in a few million years, and see if you find an intelligent human being sitting inside playing a beautiful melody on a cello... Because everyone who doesn't believe in God would have me believe THIS is what happened. What an unbelievable stretch...
No..the things in our universe provide the possibility of a Divine Being...Not Proof...
And if dirt, water and air was tossed into a box in a million years there could be a lifeform present...but since we don't live that long...that can't be proven either way.
Agreed that Humans die...that is part of a life cycle...but not regardless of if we have food, air and water or not... if we have them we can still die from other factors....but remove one of the basics of life and we all will die in spite of other factors...that is fact.
We do not know where our universe came from...at this point we have no way to confirm anything...
Could it have been created by God...Yes...
Could it have evolved from existing matter...Yes...
You have no trouble believing in something you cannot see...firm in your belief that this being created everything...
And yet you find it hard to believe in a possible scenario that differs from you based on plausible theories...
I agree with "Intelligence is the big picture" However, if you disregard all theories other than your own...and based your opinion on only the spiritual or "Religious" side, without taking the physical or science side of the facts...then you are not using intelliences...you are using Biased opinion with only a partial picture of all facts or possiblities...
Well... dirt, water, air, and LIGHTNING - the crucial ingredient. Then we might be cookin.
What if the unseen tapped you on the noggin and said "Hallooo, down dere!." Would that clarify it for you? One question for the smarties in the forum: Why do we still have an appendix, and when can we expect not to? My Dr. won't leave me alone about this. Asked it several times...no answer yet. Any takers?
Millions of years ago, our appendix allowed our ancestors to eat plants, providing a valuable addition to their diets which allowed them to prosper when game was scarce. Today the only time the appendix plays any role in our lives is when we get appendicitis and it has to be removed. In evolutionary terms we have moved beyond the need for this organ, and through the mechanism of natural selection eventually it will atrophy and then vanish, without long-term effects. This process may take hundreds of thousands of years to occur, but the harm caused by the appendix is minor, and easily fixed by medical science.
http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.8. … .1663.html
The Doc says "bullpuckey". He tells me that a new bird species has been studied for the last thirty years on the Galapagos. They developed from another species identified by Darwin when he was there. The species which Darwin studied has vanished., leaving this new one inhabiting that niche. Conclusion of the study: Evolutionary change can take place in just a few generations. The Doc says also that the appendix is from a time before we were meat eaters, and it was mainly for the processing of nuts and berries. NOT vegetation in general.
Doc sounds like he is carrying a card for a belief system.
It is well known that some species evolve quickly and why.
I am not sure about how he differentiated the berry and nut thing, but I doubt he could prove that.
Is he by any chance religious?
Right on Earn!
It's called a "vestigial remnant."
In time, it will disappear.
Wouldn't it be amazing if others'd do their homework?
PS...If they'd check, they'd find the vestigial remnant of a "tail" too. It's called a coccyx. :
Why is it that it is assumed a person doesn't believe in a divine being just because they offer a different point of view to the topic at hand. Do we learn by hearing the same things over and over...or do we learn by hearing new things and approaching our own ideas from a different angle?
The answer is: We still don't know that answer. Can't you just be satisfied with that until we find the answer...or can you not think outside of your rigid indoctrination?
That analogy does not describe an atheistic view of the world. This analogy explains delusion...something believers suffer from.
If I look in a mirror, I do see SOMETHING! That something is my reflection. If I see something other than that, then it is purely conjecure or delusion.
One man's reality is another man's garbage.
That line of thinking is narrow, and requires nothing but elementary reasoning...and is NOT proof. NO.
Just where is your proof that your God did any of these things that you speak of?
And your proof consists of unproven theories...which, ahem, does not constitute proof. This is why continental drift is no longer labeled a THEORY. Catch the drift?
Truthfully, the only thing requiring a narrow point of view is seeing the complexities of God all around us.. and saying " I see nothing".
There isn't any rigid indoctrination.. I believe in God because of my personal relationship with him.
I've been exactly where you are... in denial because I didn't want to even consider that there was a greater power, and that I could be 'forced' to do things that I didn't want to do, like live a virturous life, sit in church on Sunday and sing boring hymns, and have a set of rules to guide me aside from the rules I made for myself. You cannot say anything to me that I have not considered of others... at one time.
I don't attend church, although I should, but I've had some unpleasant experiences in churches and with some of the folks who proclaim to be Christians. I can understand how some intelligent people would want to avoid that. But I'm not going to allow their shortcomings to deny me my relationship with my Maker.
Double Scorpion, you and I are not far apart. There are several of you who acknowledge a 'power' or 'force' or intelligent design. You said " I agree with 'Intelligence is the big picture' " Well, in my little world God is that intelligence. That's the name I give it. If you don't want to call it God, I don't have a problem with that.
I cannot and will not try to define God. Whatever force created our time and space, in whatever manner they created it, represents God. To me, if this force is capable of intelligent design, then this force is worthy of my admiration..
To me, the true 'narrow thinking that requires nothing but elementary reasoning' is in believing there is nothing intelligent in our growth. That everything, including evolution, is purely happenstance. Even evolution, which I believe in, is orderly and intelligent. Nothing which we actually NEED has disappeared.
When we no longer needed web feet, they disappeared. When we no longer needed a tail, it too disappeared. Without intelligent design, why didn't something important to us, like our eyes or fingers, vanish?
Why does evolution have anything to do with the existence of God?
Some folks use it like an arguement to deny the existence of God. To me, it confirms it. The Bible says the world was created in 6 days.. but it also says a second to God is like ten thousand years. I have no problem with God taking millions of earth years to CREATE everything we know.
I think some of you simply have a problem with Christianity. There are millions of Jews who are not Christians who believe in God, so please don't confuse Christianity with our discussion of God. It's hard for me to take you serious if you want to challenge my 'religion' or my 'secular beliefs' when we are simply having a discussion about whether or not we believe 'God' existed before time and was instrumental in our development.
'Something' had to light the fire...
Hey, do you happen to know where the Bible says that one second to God is ten thousand years? gracias
Sorry I took so long getting back.. I thought I remembered the bible saying ten thousand years, but the version I am taking this from is the King James version... 2 Peter 3:8 reads:
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. "
You are still locked into the same nonsensical thnking. Why can't you understand that you are only stating your nonsensical, and very narrow, opinion?
Oh yea there is! You have been thoroughly programmed.
Did you learn of this God on your own, or did you read some holy book? If you learned of this God from some holy book, then, you have been indoctrinated.
No, this force does not represent any God.
OK, go ahead and admire the force, but leave your silly God out of it.
Considering that you believe in childish fairytales, it would be reasonable that your logic would be along these lines.
But what does this have to do with your silly God?
Goddunnit, I suppose, is the answer you are fishing for.
Then it also confirms the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
An eternal being cannot be affected in any way by time. Apparently, the ignoramouses who wrote the bible were not aware of this flaw.
Purely delusional. YOUR God had nothing to do with any of this.
All Gods are inventions of man, so they are all the same as for as existence...they are imaginary.
So which God lit the fire?
It's hard to take you seriously when you insist that something had to start the fire, yet you are willing to believe that whatever stated the fire was eternal.
I could tell you of my 'personal' relationship with God, but that's not the purpose of this thread. To try to tell me that some 'force' didn't exist in the beginning would be silly and totally irrational on your part, and I think you're much more intelligent than that.
I've had many people tell me " Yes, I believe that SOME force was responsible for lighting the fire, but it wasn't a God". They are willing to admit that they believe in SOME sort of force, but they don't want to name it. Again, I'm OK with that. I see this intelligent design in everything. If you don't... you don't.
Your problem is not that you can't see the intelligent design, it's that you are anti-religion. Again, this thread is not about religion, it's about whether we believe in a Creator. It's about whether or not we believe that there was design and purpose behind creation. IF there was, then to me, that's God.
"An eternal being cannot be affected in any way by time.." It can if it was responsible for the creation of time. And if you believe there was a beginning and will be an end then SOMETHING is responsible.
I know that believing in God requires a stretch. And NOT believing in God (intelligent design) requires an even greater stretch.
I want someone on this forum to discuss something other than their belief that religion is indoctrination, and that believing in intelligent design is 'delusional'... I want someone to step up and tell me where I'm wrong believing in intelligent design, the same design I CLEARLY see throughout the natural world, the universe, mathematics, science.
The points I'm trying to make are scientific, but several of you guys are trying to make it spiritual. You keep referring to YOUR God, like I have some exclusitivity on the force behind this intelligent design. Let don't make this discussion about me and my belief... let's make it about whether or not you (and me) believe that everything we are is purely random or whether or not there is some design and purpose behind it. As I said in another post, I call this force God.
Thanks for the subtle insults. However, I never said a force didn't exist in the beginning. I said YOUR God is silly.
Do you comprehend the definition of eternal? There is no beginning and no end. I hope you are intelligent enough to grasp that.
But you have nothing but an indoctrinated opinion as to why the existence of a creator is logical.
If you notice, you are the one bringing religion into the debate.
Could you, thoroughly, explain that to me?
Again, do you understand the concept of an eternal universe? Your lack of basic understanding is standing in your way of grasping better answers.
That was indoctrinated regurge.
But that being your line of reasoning, does it not take an even greater stretch to NOT believe in the Pink Unicorn?
you speak primarily from your indoctrination, then cry foul when someone calls you on it...then you, deceptively, pretend that you are actually arguing from a purely logical basis.
What a load of rubbish.
Just because you have a presupposition that a superhuman created the universe does not make your point scientific.
It IS YOUR GOD, because it is a figment of YOUR IMAGINATION.
Believing in Intelligent Design is only your inability to grasp any other concept beyond your limited parameters.
Do you see how your last sentence just contradicted the rest of your statement?
You are making this precisely about you and your delusional beliefs.
Your last two posts have been entirely about ME.. This thread is not about me. It's not about religion. It's about whether or not we 'believe' in a God/Force. I do, you don't.
As I've said, you an a couple of others want to make this about religion and religious indoctrination. It's not. I have been on the very same end of the spectrum you are on now. I've denied intelligent design, I've denied God. I was willing to admit that there MIGHT be some mysterous force that brought everything together, but that's as far as I would commit. I didn't want there to be a God.
"Do you comprehend the definition of eternal? There is no beginning and no end. I hope you are intelligent enough to grasp that."
Even the agnostics and atheists in in the world of science acknowledge the big bang. They almost singularly agree THAT was the beginning. I hope you're intelligent enough to understand that...
I honestly believe you are. No insult intended. It's as if you and I have served on a jury, heard the evidence, and cannot agree on a verdict. I've seen enough evidence to convince me there was, and is, intelligent design . You haven't seen enough to convince you. I don't have a problem with that. I can't change you mind, and you certainly can't change mine. All we can do is agree to disagree.
Not entirely. Go back and read.
Do you not realize that it is YOU making this thread center around YOU and your outlandish beliefs? NOT ME!
OK, so why haven't you answered any questions that struck at the foundations of your absurd beliefs?
For example, I asked you to thoroughly explain how an eternal being could be affected by time? Let's hear your scientific answer.
And there still is no proof that there is a God. You only think you have proof.
BTW, this is not about you, remember, so stick to the facts.
I, personally, see the Big Bang as a logical contradiction of an eternal universe.
There is no evidence to validate the existence of a creator. With your logic, you would convict an innocent person.
OK, I agree as well...I just hope you never serve on a jury where I'm the innocent defendant!
I like this guy carruth00, he's bringing some heat to the discussion! Keep it up man, I see you!
Hilarious. You appear to have some completely different concept to what comprises, "looking" at something. Yes, I can look at those things and not see any indication of gods whatsoever.
Are you referring to a label stamped on them that says, "Made By God"?
You are asking questions and offering fallacious answers. Try understanding what it is you're talking about first because clearly it appears you have no clue.
Once again, your ignorance of evolution is abundantly obvious. Your example is silly and has nothing to do with evolution.
How can you change anyone's mind when you haven't a clue what you're talking about. It is ridiculous to state that one cannot see flowers in the middle of a field of flowers.
I see only nature and no gods whatsoever. Yes, you are speaking entirely from a faith based position. Our reality does not show gods. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Funny how you would say that when nothing I've said proves anything you've said. No one dictated the laws, that's just completely ridiculous.
There may as well be a 'made by God' stamp on it. And I'm not speaking from a faith based religion. You don't have to be religious to see the complexities in everything we see and are.. To think that all this grew from nothing requires a real stretch of the imagination. And yes, my explaination of evolution was accurate. Evolution only changes what is necessary. There is an ORDER to evolution, just as there is an order to the universe, and to nature. An order to the tides, and the sun and moon. I could go on and on, but to what use...
Flowers were simply an analogy. To me, you're standing in the middle of a field of intelligent design, and can't see the intelligence. And that's OK... It's sort of like looking at one of the 3-D pictures from about 15 years ago that you had to stare at to get the picture to come into focus. Some folks could see it, and some couldn't. If you can't see it, I don't have a problem with that. I'm not going to shove it in your face and try to make you see it.
Even science acknowledges that there are 'laws' throughout the universe. I have to ask.. 'who wrote them?' I think I know. Unfortunately, many people choose to ignore the laws, as they may be forced to reckon with something they don't want to address.
But, there aren't any labels, there is just nature and nature reveals evolution and not gods.
Yes, you are, entirely and completely.
True, but you could remain ignorant and instead use a faith based position to fabricate stories about it.
No, that wouldn't be thinking, that would be a lack of thinking.
I agree, you are providing nothing of substance whatsoever and are just stringing words together.
No, you are fabricating such things based on your religious indoctrination.
No need, your imaginative "picture" simply isn't there.
No one wrote them, they were discovered.
Like you for example? Why do you ignore reality and fabricate things that simply are not there?
Your decision to believe in God or not rests on your shoulders. I am not looking to convert you or anyone else regarding the existence of God. I will however give you some food for thought. Most people referring to nonbelievers are not really looking for God but rather they are looking for proof of God's existence-As If That Matters. Even shown the miracles by Jesus people still did not believe and it would be no difference if God were proven 100%.
On television a pastor talked about creation his question was "how can there be creation without a creator?" Automobiles don't build themselves, computers don't program themselves some intelligent life force had to do these things.
You presented the question of gaseous which is indeed valid another question to ask is where in all the universe did life begin and how?
I understand and respect your stance Span and I agree with the nonbelievers comment as well as the "where did life begin and how?" As far as the gases go I could lean in the direction that they just literally 'appeared out of thin air,' but the question then still remains where did life come from? No way we are sitting here discussing our origin with a mind that has evolved from gases. That is an incredibly lazy theory if you ask me. These scientists need to do better than that.
Apparently instead of accepting what we do know, and seeing it as progressive knowledge, it makes more logical sense to believe that an invisible entity made itself, came back as it's own son, then killed itself to correct the mistakes IT made.
Sure, that's a logical improvement on scientific method!
I 'think' God exists I do not 'know.' No matter how much faith anyone has no one knows for sure. As far as the bible story goes I don't really believe it, the bible was made by man. Could be just a great novel that has stood the test of time. Makes sense because there are a more plot holes than "Transformer 2". But believing that gases created planets, life evolved in essence from those gases, and we now have the brain power to question and study the origins of our own existence is sooooo logical as well. For my next trick I will be turning water into wine!
Until their is definitive proof to support either claim, it would be wise of us all to say that we don not know how the universe was created, we all just have strong opinions on the theory that we find most logical or rational? Does anyone agree? Otherwise we have the blind dissing the blind. Both parties do not have definite proof to support there argument.
Both parties do not have definite proof to support there argument.
That couldn't be a more truer statement. Unfortnately in the end either the non-believer is right or the believer is right. Since the God I serve isn't asking believers to prove him but trust him I personally wouldn't want to be a non-believer on that day.
Proof? Proof of what? creation?
Creation is a consummated event, so can only be explained, cannot be proven. So if anybody can explain creation rationally(that is, without contradiction), then it accept it. But the three creation theories, creatio-ex-nihilo, creatio-ex-deo, and creation-ex-materia are contradiction and cannot happen. So the logical, default position will be space and matter is eternal, as creation is contradictory. Where is the need for a creator, for eternal matter?
We are all sitting on a one-man jury, aren't we. Both sides believe they have convincing 'evidence' to support their case. Unfortunately, ALL the 'proof' I've seen on this forum is subjective... mine included. We take a look at the evidence and interpret it the best we can... Then, hopefully, we're willing to stand by our decision. Creation or not.. who knows? I cannot present evidence beyond a single doubt to support creation and you cannot present evidence beyond a single doubt to the contrary. At the end of the day, we are all left with only our own personal belief.
This is my last response to this
thread" unless someone can DEFINE THIS DANGED GOD THING YA'LL ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IN A FORM OTHER THAN OPINION!
If ya can't, yer just guessing, hoping dreaming and wishin' and "it" can't considered to be anything but an imagined abstract concept which isn't worth considering.
Is there a God. This was an interesting read and it sure got alot of responses. my answer is No. I have seen to much to let me think there is a God looking out for us. The bible is nothing but a good story. If it is true I will ask 2 questions and see if they can be answered. First, if God is so forgiving, why did he not forgive Eve? Second. If Adam and Eve started it all and they only had several sons, where did the sons wives come from?
"Believer's'll have an answer for ya. Be ready for unreasoned and illogical responses by the dozen...:
qwark admit it you can't stay away from here? This forum calls you!! Just like magic, or something else that can't be explained!!! Either that or you are starting to question your own theories, hmmm. I'm going to go with the latter especially with James in here standing his ground and making more since than I ever could. Cheers.
I followed up to this point: "standing his ground and making more since than I ever could. Cheers."
Thats a "nonsensical" comment. What is the point yer trying to make?
I'm ALWAYS questioning my theories. I'm always asking questions hoping that I'll get a logical and well reasoned response, that I can consider, that MIGHT seriously challenge my beliefs.
But it never happens.
I'm a pragmatic realist who has sought "input" for more than 50 yrs and has created concepts relating to just about everything, that few can follow (read my profile.)
You seem to be a young fellow who is questioning and trying to make sense of life.
You are at a stage of seeking and understanding which is resulting in confusion and bigotry.
Keep gathering data/trivia, sorting and organizing and fitting all that you've gathered together so that a "concept" begins to appear that creates an epiphany!
Your engendered concepts will be built upon a foundation of "fact" and there will be few in life who can challenge the knowledge you have gained of ALL that surrounds you!
You and I are members of a young and immature species of life which has evolved an anomaly we call "consciousness," THAT makes us unique amongst all life.
Because of that "uniqueness" we are not "adapting" well.
"Mother Nature" requires that all life "adapt or perish."
How do you think we are doing?
qwark I agree with this statement from you and I really like it:
"You and I are members of a young and immature species of life which has evolved an anomaly we call "consciousness," THAT makes us unique amongst all life."
After this last reply I can honestly say that I think that we are very similar in theory and belief with one of the biggest differences being ironically what you accused me of 'bigotry'. I challenge you to show me proof of any bigotry in any of my forum post, that includes the original question. I respect everyones opinion while also trying to get mine across. You on the other hand make cynical comments in an attempt to belittle anyone in here who has a different opinion than your own. Please challenge me to prove it, all I have to do is copy and paste any one of your replies. qwark at the end of the day all that you have shown me with this latest post is that my initial impression of you was correct. You are angry about something that happened in your life, here is where you confirm my theory:
"I'm ALWAYS questioning my theories. I'm always asking questions hoping that I'll get a logical and well reasoned response, that I can consider, that MIGHT seriously challenge my beliefs."
"But it never happens."
qwark, your anger and frustration is forcing you to turn your otherwise in my opinion, intelligent rebuttals into constant contradictions. I, like yourself am also a realist looking for answers, and yes I am young but, my mind is advanced beyond the comprehension of many people who have walked this planet longer than me. Point blank what I am saying is, this last post has shown me that your not an idiot, in fact it has shown me that we think alike. Stop being so angry with people in here (especially me) and listen. There is a strong possibility that if you stop looking at some of your questions with angry eyes, you might be able to find what your looking for. It's like when you lose your keys and get so angry about it you stop looking in rational places and start checking places that make no sense. This sets your search off course and prolongs the realization of the possibility that they are probably in your pocket.
Ahhh, theredpill, my young friend, you mistake my "disgust" in mankind for anger.
I can understand that. So many do.
I doubt that you have read my "profile."
Reading it might, if you are interested, give you a better understanding of the "human creature" you are chatting with.
Having been raised as a foster kid and having no one to advise/guide my life, I've had to do it the "hard way."
I learned many years ago, in my youth, that anger is detrimental to success in life.
I harbor no anger, it has been replaced by "disgust."
Evidently that disgust is radiated to a reader in my choice of words and the way I compose them.
Those words are offered honestly and bluntly and based soley upon that which I view as being reality and that reality has been my guide in life. It has served me well.
Yes I used the word "bigot" to describe your fervent attempts to convince others that there is a god thing to be considered i.e.
"Either way, how did the original something come to be!"
God struck a match and lit the fuse. That is that! The only LOGICAL explanation to creation and evolution.
theredpill wrote in response:
Friendlyword, what you said in your reply is basically the whole reason I started this forum. I feel the same way. It does seem like that is the only LOGICAL explanation.
I do not believe in God through FAITH, I believe in God through LOGIC. Nothing else makes sense at this point. Even neither science nor religion can prove or disprove the existence of God the belief in him has stood the test of time."
Until you can define this, incorporeal, unknowable, metaphysical "god thing," in terms other than in your highly abstract opinion, which you claim to be based on "logic," this "god thing" exists only as an abstract concept in the mind of the fool.
The intent of your "thread" question is silly.
Yes! You got this right. I can't stay away from these forum threads.
I AM ADDICTED...DAMNIT...:
Lol, yes qwark it is hard for an opinionated person to resist a debate. Especially in a forum full of plenty different views to choose from. At the end of the day no matter if we get the answers we want or not, the communications, interactions, and conversations with other opinionated human beings will force us to have a reason for being. Since science was birthed by Philosophy, I think it's logical to believe that discussions like the one we're having produced the basis for the scientific theories that you and I hold in high regards right now. With that being said, who knows, maybe someone in this room may come up with a new theory that makes more sense than those we presently have. Just like our lives begin and end the same way, it seems like all questions rather scientific or otherwise, also end up right back at the beginning...Philosophy. "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust."
1. Who says he didn't forgive her? There is no reference to her not being forgiven. Actually the text suggests strongly that forgiveness was not in order, cleaning up the mess was.
2. Again, people misread the time line of events. All these Genesis events did not happen in a small period of a few minutes or days. Tanakh/Torah explains this greatly, if people would actually learn to read correctly. Accordingly, the time line Adam was in "The Garden" would be approximately 1,000 years -if the analogy of Petra is acceptable [ 1,000 years = 1 Day ]. Adam/Eve were made the 6th Day..
PS, if those two questions are the core of why you choose not to believe in "a g/God" or that it is not rational to believe that Creator exists, I wonder how deep into the doctrines of religion and science you have gone, to come to that 'rational' conclusion. And also for curiosities sake, how far you were expelled/catapulted away from either/or, and especially the hang time.
I'll take a stab at the questions you presented.
The Judeo-Christian God does say he is a forgiving God he however also says he is a just God. This is to say what kind of God which he be if he simply allowed evil to go on? His forgiveness can be seen every day because he has not removed mankind altogether this sentence we commit every day. The fact that God is giving us an opportunity to turn away from our sins and returned to him and to those people will have a life without end.
I can speculate regarding your second question in respect to other people on the planet during Adam and Eve existence, which would be relationships within the family but I am going to sidestepped that question for someone who is much more scripturally minded than myself.
The Old Testament is a history of the Jews by the Jews. As I understand it Adam and Eve is an allegory which aims to explain the soul.
When it says man is made in God's image it means man's soul is made in God's image, God being a spirit rather than flesh and blood.
The soul is what gives us self-consciousness because it is self-knowing. At some point God gave man a soul, meaning that his self-consciousness would have been awakened; that's the symbolism in Adam and Eve suddenly realising they were naked. An animal is a slave to its instincts, but the human animal makes choices and becomes culpable.
James is right that the point is not to blame Eve. The Puritans enjoyed blaming women for man's first sin. They even questioned whether women had souls at all. It's all in the interpretation.
I believe in God but just like you I don't believe the bible stories, too many plot holes. They should have proof read the novel before they released it to the general public...oh wait they did it's called the King James Version!
This is a difficult question to answer because most of us are heavily influenced by dualistic philosophy that started all the way back with Plato and his cave analogy. We separate faith and reason, religion and science, values and facts, supernatural and natural. In essence, we have placed naturalism at the level of absolute truth, and this, in turn, has made faith, religion, values, etc. all personal preferences and nothing more. They are just illusions. Unfortunately, this also means that beauty, love, morals, etc. are also just figments of our imaginations. As long as you accept this dualistic view of the world, it will be difficult to accept that the existence of God is logical. And, if you're honest with yourself, you'll also have to give up morals, beauty, love, and significance as anything more than happy thoughts.
A Christian worldview, on the other hand, is holistic and doesn't force us to make an irrational leap of faith to live as if beauty, love, morals, etc. are real even though we know they are just figments of our imagination. Christianity is grounded in a historical fact (the resurrection) which can be verified/refuted and in design within the cosmos and biology that is obvious to everyone. So, if you don't start with dualism and the depressing assumption of naturalism, then the existence of God can be very logical.
Sorry, are you saying raising people from the dead is obvious to everyone and is in design with biology? Seriously?
Are you saying reality is depressing and based on that depression, it's easy and logical to believe in gods?
No. I didn't say that the resurrection was obvious. I said that as a historical fact it could be verified or refuted. And yes, I did say that design is obvious. Most arguments against design start by saying that it appears that there is design.
And yes, naturalism is depressing (but I didn't say that was proof for God). If you're intellectually honest, naturalism implies that in addition to being no God, there is also no purpose, love, meaning, beauty in life. It's all just an illusion. The irrational person is the person who claims that naturalism is true, but then lives as if life matters.
Well, it certainly can't be verified as the bible is the only source. To refute it would be to invoke biology, which would show such an event to be entirely impossible.
Design is just another word for creationism. Of course, design is not obvious at all. If it were, you'd easily be able to verify it.
Sorry to hear that. Have you consulted with professionals on your depression? What is the cause of it?
Funny how you got that turned around the wrong way. To be intellectually honest means to think honestly, not just believe in doctrines of one particular religion.
And of course, you are entirely wrong that to dismiss your god is not to dismiss purpose, love, meaning and anything else this world has to offer. That's just plain silly.
Most likely, your depression is a result of your religious indoctrination. Free yourself from it's shackles and you'll free yourself from depression.
If one lives life as if it matters, then they are most certainly going to base that on an intellectually honest decision about the world around us and not a decision based on indoctrinated religious beliefs.
"Design is just another word for creationism. Of course, design is not obvious at all. If it were, you'd easily be able to verify it."
Thanks again for proving our point... When you look at a leaf, for example, you see design. It's NOT some totally random pattern. There's consistent shape, size, color, and coordination .. Isn't it amazing that this could occur in a totally random universe, which you would have us believe that we live in. The same order exist throughout science and nature. That's why there are 'laws' of science and nature. It exist throughout mathematics in particular. You're an intelligent guy, and I'm sure you'll agree ( he says tongue in cheek) Laws are written, laws are defined, and laws should NOT exist unless they were 'designed'. They didn't just 'happen'.
This ISN'T about religion or religious indoctrination, It's about the obvious. And the obvious is the real 'intellectual honesty' you speak of. Anything else is denial.
That's quite the vivid imagination you have there, no one is proving your point, though.
No, YOU see design.
No, you mistakenly believe we live in a totally random universe based on your lack of knowledge of the world around us.
Yes, they did just happen, they were not designed. If you actually took the time to understand science and nature, you would understand that, too.
However, at this time, you clearly know very little if nothing about those topics, which show in spades here on these forums. You're far better off trying to argue your beliefs with a bible than you are trying to argue with science and nature.
I agree with carruth00, this topic is not about a belief based on religion or its many feelers. This discussion is about the existence of Creator being LOGICAL.
By all definitions of rationale, thought, reason, thinking -- ad infinitum thesaurus the answer would be yes, because logic supersedes reason. Reason is the collective priori :::
Granted, the edicts of science and religion can be injected/disputed, by the same rationale, the human mind and its many perceptions, but the question remains the same.
Try answering the question, not injecting the variables to create an irrational equation or sensation to make it 'appear' rational. And please do not argue and say you cannot without injection, because that would mean you have never experienced a genuine critical thought, in your brain, and have only superfluous observations/conclusions based on either-or indoctrination.
How are you using logic here? "Good sense"? "Deductively or inductively-arrived at"? You can make valid deductive arguments for God's existence (Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument comes to mind) and you can also make inductive arguments as well.
From the discussion I'm reading, it sounds like you're defining logic as "what makes sense to me..."
Deductive [reasoning] is the applied/injection;
Good sense is also the injection of sensation based on an applied equation; So, in response, neither can actually be considered.
Bottom line.. there isn't an answer to tHErEDpILL's question. All any of us can do is present the evidence, as we understand it. As I've said in several other posts, I can walk outside and see intelligent design everywhere. I SEE it. That's pretty good proof to me. It's perfectly LOGICAL for me to assume there was a Creator to go along with the design.
It's a deduction based on reason.
But, someone else will look at the same evidence and not see a thing. That's why the court system has hung juries. A group of people, looking at the very same evidence, come to entirely different conclusions. It's human...
Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument definitely figures into my line of thinking. There must either be an infinite regression of causes or a first cause. I believe there was a first cause. Most of the scientific community today believes in a first cause (big bang). Thirty years from now they may believe in something else. But I'm sticking with my belief in a Creator, and as I told someone else yesterday, my Creator is called God. It's not a religious thing, it's not a christianity thing... it's just a, to me, perfectly logical thing.....
It's not relevant to my question which was in what sense is logic being used in discussing whether or not belief in God is logical.
You're taking tHErEDpILL's question a step further. We are having enought problems defining his question... (smile) I understand, but we cannot possibly agree on what is logical and what is a belief. We are ALL "defining logic as 'what makes sense to me...'"
I look at the universe, I see intelligent design everywhere, and the next 'logical' step, to me, is to believe in a Force behind intelligent design. Logic to me, subjective belief to someone else. That's why we should NEVER discuss religion, science and politics...
carruth00: Perfectly said. The action taken regarding Creator is not in question. And yes, sorting out Red Pill's question takes a minute.
Actually, according to theological history, the concept of G/gods did not begin in religion. The concepts were added due to certain practices/theories of early astronomy, apothecary and observation of nature.
Hey James, it looks like we have a dilemma here then.
It appears as if "theological history", is no longer a valid source, since it willingly deceives people and needs to be rooted out of our thought patterns. It appears that you have helped me prove G/gods are non-existent.
With present day knowledge, the "theory" of a G/god existing can actually be ruled out. I am of the understanding that there really isn't a need for a belief, based on the theory of G/gods.
And, it has now become clear that those who chose to maintain a belief, based on "early" knowledge, apparent lack understanding of their own individual life. Not to mention, like YOU have said in the past- it's a "need to know" that continues to drive humankind and you blame humans disconnect from Creator on consciousness.
At least, that is what I've learned from what you've said. I also remember, you saying that we should strive to fix that disconnect. How to go about fixing it? Isn't something you've managed to tell me or at least I have not heard(seen) you say it in the forums.
However, saying all that, I would have to say that the existence of G/gods or even a Creator, would be illogical. The theory is no longer valid, because of all knowable knowledge available in present day. Maybe 3000 years ago it was logical, but not now.
I do not want to fill the thread with too much, nor go off road, so much of what you asked/mentioned might have to be discussed at length in a different one.
But, for this topic:
The words theological and theory come from the same rootstock. I I mentioned in another thread, I can prove the god of science and religion are the same. A tiny bit of that proof is this:
"theos". Theo or theos is a Greek word meaning God or the Concept of Deities, To rise To Power, also (funny enough) to go Up In Smoke. (this reference generally means that of a fire or the ash from a volcano.). So, the two primal words used to "apply" both science and religion stem from the same thing.
Now, theological history is altogether a different thing than religion, as Torah is. It is a reference to events, leading up to the history of one particular cluster of people --the Hebrews. Yes, I have said this a thousand times, g/Gods do not exist. But g/Gods are not the same as Creator. G/gods stem from the Need To Know, the consciousness, the mind of humans. Take your pick on the thousands of applications of it. Ironically, the historical record points directly to this problem, exemplified by humanity (adam) indulging his consciousness -his Self, "the Knowledge of". In short, he plunged headlong into his own brain. Knowledge, as we are aware, is thinking, reason. Logic exceeds the scope and parameters of reason. Why? As said before, "It is not necessary...(to consider a question nor an answer. Both are relative parallels within the Need To Know Syndication).
Logic has no necessity. Logic is understood. Logic's root is Philos, Wisdom. Again, ironically the historical documents "testify" to this a hundred thousand times.
Now, I cannot indulge your request for the full how to restore the connection here, because at the moment, it is 492.5 pages long. and growing.
Yes, as we agree there is no need to believe because a need lacks logic and rational faith. Any necessity does.
3,000 --even 5,000 years ago, life was much different, simpler. Longevity well, longer; population more connected, united than today. I am inclined to believe they were well aware (conscious) to a much greater capacity the dysfunction of their indulgence ( reason, thinking, bombardment of light frequencies in their heads ) which by all terms was a form of madness. What better way to temper that madness than to theorize and design fantastic concepts, design machines, wonder at the stars, build temples, cities and more. anything to distract them from the reality of their own demise. As said before, science and religion were fashioned to temper the senses, temper the reasoning of man --by man.
It is a long-time question of humanity to ask how the universe got here. The theist response might leave us with more questions than answers, but the non theist response is the haunt of the desperate, because there is nothing more absurd than asserting that the universe "just exists" (for the non theist who believes the universe is eternal) or that it came from nothing (for the non theist who believes the universe had a beginning).
Yep I know, Hawkins and Krauss are just uneducated losers!
If the theist response leaves us with more questions than answers, how on earth can the atheist response be more absurd than that?
The atheist response is that 'we don't know'
What is so absurd about that?
Often discoveries will raise more questions and an increase in knowledge also increases the range of our questions. Who do you think had more pertinent astronomical questions? Ptolemy or Thombaugh? A good theory should answer more questions that its competitor, but a good theory may also increase the number of questions.
And anyone who is being honest with themselves to begin with will automatically learn that all questions have answers. You will also learn that not all questions need be answered.
Not to mention, you will also learn that the answer to some questions, is that the questions does not need to be answered.
You make a great point.
Case 1: An eternal universe--if the universe is losing energy and slowing down due the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why hasn't it stopped already? No matter how much energy the universe had in the past, it would have none now after an eternity.
Case 2: A universe with a beginning--who started it? If something other than a self-existing force/God, then who started that?
And, the theist response about an invisible super being waving his magic hand isn't absurd when compared to the theories that support the hard evidence?
I thought of another case.
Case 1: A universe without a beginning
Case 2: A universe with a beginning
and Case 3: Naturalism has to be true because it's the foundation of my entire worldview, so I'm going to ignore Case 1 and Case 2.
One could argue that either one of the theories is absurd, depending on the person. What can not be argued is the fact that neither of the answers is definitive. The scientific explanation just seems more plausible based on our history and relationship to science as human beings. AT the end of the day they are both "theories." Until we know the answer for sure I don't think it's illogical at all to believe either, but if asked to pick one I would go with God> Here is why:
If I am going to go with a theory that takes gases that appeared out of thin air and somehow evolved them into the species that we are today. I'm a going to go with the slightly more supernatural theory over the unexplainable scientific one.
The expression "it's just a theory" is misleading. Many people confuse "theory" with hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess. Theories are actually very concrete explanations based on a lot of solid evidence and interpretation. Saying something is a theory is actually a compliment, because that's about as validated as something can get.
The religious explanation doesn't have much evidence to be considered a theory.
True you are correct, religion is not a theory, I used the wrong wording there but, although theories are more respected when all is said and done, after the bright lights go off a theory is still an explanation that is unproven, just like a religious 'belief', right or wrong? See people I can admit when I am wrong and someone else is right, it's not that hard to do.
Heres the recap:
I agree that religion is not a theory but a belief or an 'unconfirmed explanation' but, I also stated that scientific theory is also an 'unconfirmed explanation,' the difference being the fact that scientific theory has 'more supportive evidence.'
It's not about proving with absolute certainty that the theory is true.
Let's take gravity as an example. We have many physical and mathematical evaluations that provide evidence that gravity is a relationship between the mass of an object and the force the object "pulls" with. That's a theory, but it's not 100% confirmed without a doubt.
That opens up other alternatives. One could be that gravity is actually a bunch of invisible and untouchable pixies that pull everything down towards the earth. But not only does this explanation have no evidence, it also has no way of being tested. How can you prove the existence of an invisible, untouchable bunch of pixies?
That's the main characteristic of a theory - it can be tested and falsified. The pixies, much like the claim of an invisible, omniscient being, cannot be tested or falsified, and like many religious claims, have almost no evidence supporting them.
Yet, you embrace the religious belief and dismiss the theory. Does that mean you have more evidence of proof for your gods existence than scientists do with theories?
If we can successfully send a probe to Jupiter and Saturn or land a probe on Mars based on Newtons theories, would you agree there is some validity in a theory? Has anyone ever landed men on the moon based on a religious belief?
Religion is not a theory. It has nothing to do with theory!
Theories have scientific methods applied to them to ensure they hold up against all the other theories across all the sciences.
Religion is a belief that a myth is truth with NO supportive evidence.
The "evidence" offered for religion is offered by the religious tome itself.
God is true because the god book says so is a long way from theory!
No scientific methods is involved in believing that the three bears or the invisible super fairy dunnit, and should form the basis of a life plan!
Mindless contradictory dribble is not theory.
Religion is an unconfirmed explanation, scientific theory is an unconfirmed explanation with supportive evidence that makes it more logical to believe but, is still not a confirmed or definitive answer to a question.
Do you have some problem with comprehension, or do you dismiss all the scientific theory that has been used to arrive at such complexity as the Internet you use daily? Theories are proved up or dissed.
Religion has nothing to do with theory.
Theory becomes practice or is dismissed in favour of theories that complete the cycle of scientific method, peer review and actual function in our lives.
Not quite the same as an assertion that a hate filled pile written by the terminally ignorant 2,000 years ago to service the terminally gullible. That's a bit hard to compare with scientific method. Look it up.
It would appear that mrpopo and Earnest here have already explained to you the concept of a theory, so I don't need to go there.
In other words, what you're saying is that you have no understanding of the scientific explanations whatsoever, which is quite evident in your posts, hence you will embrace the magical explanation that has been solidified by indoctrination.
Yeah, I get that.
YouI don't get anything I said, it appears that it has gone over your head sir. Your intelligence is being clouded by your bias of religious belief. In other words you are saying that YOU have no understanding of the scientific explanation whatsoever. Do me one favor please I beg you. Without changing the subject or double talking your response, give me a simple YES or NO answer to this question:
Is a scientific explanation a unquestionable, definitive, final answer to a theory?
There is a unquestionable, definitive, final answer to the question I just asked, that I assure you, and if you answer it wrong, you will be exposed as a person who simply has a "beef" with religion and attempts to say what he can to conform those who are weak minded to agree with you. Batter up Beelzdad, I just put you on center stage.
Funny, I could have sworn I was referring to you.
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." ~~ Einstein
In other words, every theory MUST have the capacity for falsifiability, hence a single experiment can falsify any theory. Does that answer your question?
So, does your religious belief in the supernatural possess the same capacity for falsifiability or are your beliefs absolute, no matter what?
As predicted you could not give me a yes or no answer. Your answer is NO, but you will not simply say NO because you know it will expose your biased and illogical answer to this Forum's original question. Yes sir you answered my question, in fact you answered it better than I could have ever imagined.
That is because a yes or no response is not sufficient to answer a loaded question, which was your intent to provide.
You are free to believe that. I could care less if you don't wish to understand the scientific method and continue to embrace your supernatural answers. I also noticed you did not answer my question.
Watch how easy this is:
To answer your question, NO my belief in God (God only not the rest of religion) is not absolute. It is open to be denounced just as the scientific explanation is. The problem is neither of these can be proven right or wrong, so it is illogical to say that one is absolutely RIGHT or WRONG.
By the way I laughed at your theory that my question is loaded, it does appear that way, but it's not. I am just trying to get you to realize that neither of us is right or wrong. And my position could change tomorrow with convincing evidence from either side.
Then, it would appear you are not a firm believer in your religion.
Sorry, but one is based entirely on evidence while the other is based entirely on faith, and NO evidence.
Of course, the evidence from science prohibits your god from existing. That should refute your belief right there.
Sorry, but science isn't out to prove anything, it is a method for understanding the world around us and the evidence prohibits your god from existing and has found zero evidence to support their existence.
I doubt that. You already ignore or deny the evidence that prohibits your god from existing in the first place, so it;s unlikely more evidence will sway you from your position of faith.
The cat is well out of the bag. No religionist has ever used logic to explain scientific method, and what is obvious here is they simply don't want to understand the difference between theory and belief.
This is ignorance by choice.
The only way religion works is if one denies reality, science, truth and knowledge.
Not in the question being asked.. Religion involves devotional and ritual observances. If you believe in God as Creator, and you worship God, THEN you're turning God the Creator into a religious object. Many folks used to worship the Sun. But when I refer to the Sun, there's nothing religious intended. I referring to the Sun as a source of light. And I'm referring to God as the source of intelligent design.
No. God doesn't require religion. God does require spirituality. The difference is along the lines of the difference between speaking and writing. One is of the spirit, the other of material form. Religion isn't required for spirituality. Religion is what was created to explain "I Am"
tHErEDpILL, I think you made the statement early on that..
"The Big Bang theory is similar to the question, 'what came first the chicken or the egg?'"
An article in New Frontiers explains it this way..
“A chicken and an egg are lying in bed. The chicken is smoking a cigarette with a satisfied smile on its face and the egg is frowning and looking put out. The egg mutters to no one in particular, "I guess we answered that question." ”
Sorry, I couldn'd resist...
Maybe a nap. This discussion will never be closed until we find out the truth. Until then there will always be new discoveries that will question everyones beliefs. It will never end!!!!
Considering that: The entire universe is mathematically perfect, and in that perfection of mathematics all things must be mathematically predictable, then all that has, is or will transpire is 100% predictable, the possibility of a controlling force cannot be ignored. Further, if said force can be demonstrated to exist outside of the relativistic effects of this time/space, then the probability of such a force cannot be definitively proven to exist, or not exist, until such time as our technology is able to move beyond the event known as the Big Bang. (There actually was no "bang" as there is no sound in a total vacuum) Looking inwardly, what Mankind is, why we are so different, yet not so different at all, (The Mar-1 gene is the only gene common to just MAN) and, the obvious holes in Darwin's theory, how we came to be here is a touch problematic. That one gene has to be responsible for an awful lot, or we are kidding ourselves about the other species here. Given the considerations of string/membrane theory, then, we also cannot conclude beyond any doubt, that the universe itself is not a living thing. Can life rear it's head anywhere if the universe itself is not geared for it? Can something w/ no life in it, harbor life? That, is illogical. It does not compute!!! My head is startying to smoke!!! AAARRGHASD
Sorry...touch of gas. Here is an idea. Let's remove the Mar-1 gene and see what we get. There's no science like MAD science!
This is a well put together argument in my opinion. No bias here, just stating the truth.
Given that faith is the opposite of logic, a leap beyond the known facts, I would not expect any god to be easily deduced by logic.
Could be...but with me, something happened which I witnessed, and the only other possibility would be telepathic aliens. Sorry, not much into flying saucers. And, no, that isn't what I saw. God became the logical way to go, if you can imagine.
How is faith the opposite of logic???
Faith can only be logical and expressed rationally, else it is not faith.
The absence of faith is doctrine/reason by theos and lacks logic.
Faith is believing in something regardless of the evidence to the contrary. First, I momentarily believed by faith alone, then I saw PERSONAL proof, and knew...we are not alone.
I disagree. The textual representation of faith states it os this:
The stuff we hope to see and the proof of hat seeing.
Simply said it is seeing it before it happens -like a vision and then manifesting the vision exactly as it was envisioned. No aloofness, blindness included. In fact, through the entire text, nearly 10,000 times, faith is described as rational, not pseudo.
Again, precognition is NOT a mystical origin, but is an energy or information transfer. It is often expressed (action of cognition) using senses currently not recognizable or known immediately to the individual. Any dream, vision, idea -any thought really- is "precog". It is then expressed by words, physical action.
In the case of rational faith, the cognition continues, unaltered, unchanged until the exact vision is manifest.
Technically, just by seeing the future you alter it. Kind of like the observer's bias.
Unless that future is deterministic, which poses other problems like choice and such.
One can alter the future, yes. The observer is ultimately the controlling factor. And indeed, the deterministic approach is in fact the choice conundrum, also known as reason. Choice comes by altering the outcome of the original vision, which voids faith. Logic and faith are free flowing as observe and do, by their very 'nature'. Faith becomes a ritualistic practice then, based on the effects of sensations or equations, instead of a logical understanding end to end (alef-tov; beginning-completion). This is one of the many downfalls (if not the actual downfall) of religion and science. Altering nature, attempting to alter the super-nature and in essence altering the human worth & purpose.
I have coined that The Ism. A massive interconnected network of thoughts that once served as a tool to process the vision into reality, without having to engage the tool itself. By applying or giving the processor itself power/authority to determine the course, humanity fell into amnesia/madness and forgot/lost the original vision/outcome for a while...
Definition of FAITH
firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
On the contrary, I would say that illogic is the opposite of logic. Faith is the foundation of logic. We can only reason from presumptions, and we have a firm belief in these presumptions even though we don't have proof.
The dictionary and a few thousand years of theology disagree.
Psycheskinner, I think we might be misunderstanding each other.
When we use logic, we start with an assumption and use reason to get to an idea, and then we use reason again to get to another idea, and so on...
So, in order to even use logic, we have to first exercise a firm belief in that first assumption for which there is no proof.
So I'm not sure how this disagrees with the definition you quoted above.
But I think you're close to the truth in saying it disagrees with a few thousand years of theology. I would reword this to say that 'faith and logic working together in a holistic manner to help us understand reality' is in disagreement with the dualism that came out of Greek philosophy, and so it also disagrees with Christian theology wherever dualism has corrupted the theology.
I won the HubNuggets contest! Thanks to everyone who voted for me. Maybe now I can get some more respect around here. Score one for the rookies!
Why do people thank God when they win something? Are they under the impression that an all powerful being gave them some kind of magical abilities that made them better than everyone else? Or are they simply responding the way they've been trained to? Either way, if these people are correct, this would actually be a negative thing for two reasons:
1. If God is helping your favorite sports star win a championship, this means that, instead of helping a doctor cure cancer or AIDS, he's making that ball go into the goal for the win. Instead of helping a scientist come up with a way to cure world hunger, he's helping your favorite actor get an Oscar.
2. If they have just been trained since childhood or told by their A&R's to thank God when they win, isn't that kind of demeaning? It's as if you didn't do anything right, your success is all due to the grace of God.
What do you guys think about this?
Thank you Beelz, I'm just throwing my opinions out there again. This world needs people that will ask these questions. Even though we disagree, I value your constant combative nature towards religion. It is necessary that ALL things be questioned, until we have the answers.
What everyone finds so easy to orget is .....
the question of the existance of a one true GOD; and the credability of the multitudes of religions, ARE not the same issue in any regard.
Religion, being a man made institution, is soo easy to press charges aginst.
Even if someone can discredit (100%) a particular religions teachings and doctrines; this does not mean that the
brooklin bridge doesn't exist, nor does it prove that an inteligent, ultimate power does not exist,
Nor does discrediting religion prove that my dirty socks stink, or smell like a mountain spring.
Finding fault in religions prospectives does not say a word about that which religion "professes ?" to be talking about.
Innit? There4 god du8nnit innit wot. Lijk wot u sed, Innit LOLOOLLL Kunt Sez an U dint no - so it ios innit
orget innit wot.
U would nt gettit.
god set innit
As u sed
jERAMI SAYS to Evolution Guy
Was that a texas sideways two step behind the barn or what ?
Are you goung to argue the post or the contents there of ????
from the point that I was making.
Great debate tactic .... if I was bebating.
BUT I was just making a statement of FACT!
If you could disprove mt postulation.
come on with it.
It is childish behaveior like this that makes me want to hang my head in shame for humanitys sake.
Evolution Guy, I would ask you now to read my comment that you trashed earlier.
Read it and let me know what you disagree with and why.
Can you do it,???
Going to go jump in the middle of the kiddie pool that is hidden in plain sight in the picture where my smile should be.
3000 gal of water at 80 deg. feels pretty good on a 100 deg. sun afternoon.
Anything can be reasoned by the human brain as being logical. The brain has a wonderful way of making things fit with its view of the world. Logic can be used to prove the existence of the tooth fairy or the flying teapot, which orbits Mars. However, being logical is not the same as being evidential. There is no proof of the existence of God, and anything taken as proof exists only within the brain and not in the physical universe. Actual evidence shows that evolution is fact, but I am not aware of any scientific observation or experimentation which even suggests at the existence of God.
Are you certain you mean logical in this context? We can use logic only to determine whether a valid inference has been made. It can say nothing about whether an assertion is true. An argument may be logically valid, but the premises untrue, or it can be logically invalid but the premises true. For example:
all unicorns are pink
the animal in my garden is a unicorn
therefore the animal in my garden is pink
This argument is logically valid. The conclusion necessarily follows on from the premises (if all premises where true the conclusion would have to be true). However the premises are untrue. So although the argument is logically valid, it the assertion is still untrue. Compare with:
all dogs are mammals
the animal in my garden is a mammal
therefore the animal in my garden is a dog
This argument is illogical. The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises (you could conclude the animal in my garden is a cat without contradicting any of the premises). So it is an invalid inefrence. However, all dogs are mammals and it may in fact be true that the animal in my garden is a dog.
So logical/illogical bears no relation to the truth/falsehood of an argument. One does not indicate the other. Suggesting the assertion that a deity exists is logical does not indicate the assertion is true. Likewise, suggesting the assertion is illogical does not indicate the assertion is untrue. Logic alone does not allow us to reach either conclusion.
Is the existance of God Logical?
Yes. (and scientifically proven to be true)
by Alem Belton 5 years ago
Is the existance of God Logical?After an internal debate between science and philosophy I am leaning towards an answer of yes. This is due to the fact that the scientific explanation for the existence of life is greatly flawed, which leaves only one other possible solution. I usually...
by Debra Allen 9 years ago
When god or the creator of the universe made humans, why was He a He? What happened to the other's that we were made into their image? Why doesn't the Bible ever speak of these things?
by Retrohawaii 6 years ago
I believe in a God not necessarily in what the bible discusses
by Cagsil 6 years ago
Hey Hubbers,I was digging through some of my research and since a lot of it is philosophy based(meaning it's about answering questions and reasoning), I happen to cross an interesting tidbit I figured I would share with others and see what exactly that they thought about it.It seems like a lot of...
by JP Carlos 3 years ago
What is the best way to explain the existence of God to an atheist?I've heard people try to convince atheists that there is a God by quoting the Bible or some other holy book. But quoting from such materials won't work. You have to believe in them before you can accept them as plausible...
by Bill Akers 4 years ago
If nothing can only produce nothing, how did our universe start from nothing without God? There are many unanswered questions in the science and astronomy fields. Since these fields can not have God as an answer, they toss out data that disproves their belief about a Creator. Actually a Creator...
Copyright © 2018 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. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|