I find this an intriguing topic, let's hear how you define God. Hopefully your own unfiltered version.
God is power, energy. Cannot be destroyed nor created.
Something could not come from nothing. Therefore, something has always existed. If that something is not alive, it could not create life. Therefore, something that is alive created life. Because all forms of life that have a beginning eventually die, a form of life must exist that did not have a beginning and will not die. Also, this form of life must be able to create other forms of life. Therefore, God has always existed and He creates other forms of life.
You know this makes no sense - right? The bible says god created something from nothing. Therefore majik is the answer?
Interesting comments, but not much factual information in them.
"Something could not come from nothing" Yet it does all the time; subatomic particles pop in and out of space on a constant basis. In your experience in the macro world your statement may be true, but you certainly don't have total knowledge of the subject and there is no indication that it true even there. There is absolutely no indication that anything existed before the big bang - your statement to the contrary includes no supporting evidence and can only be opinion based on your ignorance of that event.
"If that something is not alive, it could not create life" is unsupported as well. There is no indication that a collection of the proper chemicals in the proper environment cannot come alive; it is an assumption only.
"Because all forms of life that have a beginning eventually die" When does an amoeba die? As with any animal reproducing asexually it is impossible to determine which of two is the parent and which is the offspring - how do you know the "parent" ever dies?
While your statements may logically follow from the premises you offer, none of those premises are actually factual - they are based on incomplete or nonexistent evidence and on opinion. Thus the logical conclusion is worth just what the premises are - nothing. Your argument, although logical, relies on the GIGO principle.
All particles, no matter how small, are still something. And particles must have existed that caused the so-called big bang. The big bang theory is just that - a theory. If it happened, no one knows exactly what caused it to happen, but it would only have caused chaos in its surrounding environment.
It is absurd to believe that a group of chemicals could somehow come together and create life. Creativity is attributed to life, meaning that life is the causative force responsible for creation. People who believe otherwise are forgetting the most important aspect of creativity, which is thought. Particles or chemicals without thought could not even accidentally produce life with the ability to think.
When does an amoeba die? The question should be, how was the first amoeba created? And how would anyone know if any amoeba lives eternally?
All theories about life are really based on the faith of the believer. And that faith should be based on common sense, not the GIGO principle.
Particles are indeed something no matter how small. And they pop into and out of existence all the time. They don't exist, and then they do. Out of nothing.
The big bang did not cause chaos in it's environment because there was no environment. It made it's own environment (which was indeed chaotic).
It may be absurd to you to think that chemicals might come together to cause life, but that doesn't make it so. You haven't done any probability studies of the chance, you don't what it would take, and you have no idea of how common the necessary chemicals were. Assuming these statements are correct, how can you then declare it absurd?
Creativity is attributed to life, but only creation of a predetermined object, such as a painting. Inanimate objects created the earth itself in a millions year long series of collisions and it required no thought whatsoever, The correct combination of chemicals could have created the first life in the same manner. Note that I don't claim they did - I only say that, in my ignorance of any evidence to the contrary they could have.
My comment on the death of an amoeba was in response to your own comment that all life dies which was a part of the logical structure of your post. As an amoeba never truly dies it destroys a part of that logical structure.
No, theories should be based on observable evidence, not on the faith of the believer. All too often that faith is simply what the believer wants to believe instead of what observation and evidence tells them.
Nor should it be based on common sense as that is usually based on an extremely limited set of observations and again on what the believer wants to be true (usually coupled with stories from experts, such as parents).
The GIGO principle comes into effect when a perfectly logical and reasoned conclusion comes from a set of flawed assumptions. Put Garbage Into the logical deduction machine and get Garbage Out.
The bottom line is that your logical proof of Gods existence is flawed because all the premises and assumptions used to provide the logical structure are flawed as well. Those assumptions are faith based instead of evidence based and therefore the final conclusion can only be considered faith based.
There may have been original particles and chemicals that were not created. And if so, these would have formed an environment, and the Big Bang, if it happened, would have caused a change in that environment.
However, I believe the probability of any chemicals somehow coming together to create life is about the same as an explosion in a paint factory producing a copy of the Mona Lisa painting.
Not all life dies; forms of life that did not have a beginning eventually die, including an amoeba.
No one living on Earth observed the Big Bang or the creation of the Earth. Therefore, what one believes regarding these phenomenons has to be based largely on ones faith. What would destroy that faith would be evidence to the contrary.
In regard to the creation of the Earth, there is no evidence that God did not create it. This opposes the opinion that God did not create the Earth, and justifies the opinion that He did.
The bottom line is this: Life itself was not created by inanimate particles or chemicals because these had no ability to do so. The structure of life forms and the universe indicates that their creation was not accidental.
A theory regarding the creation of life is only flawed if evidence disproves it. The existence of God cannot be disproved yet millions attempt to prove that He does not exist, and that somehow life itself was created without Him.
There is no evidence that God did not create the earth, therefore He must have done?
This is not logical reasoning, because there are an infinite number of possible gods, therefore your god is - at best - infinitely improbable. Infinity:1 does not seem like a good bet to me. You just believe - why not leave it at that instead of this nonsensical reasoning?
Do you not have to deine God beore you can say that God does not exist?
Your definition of what God is may well be false.
God is who or whatever created life on earth.
God is of a higher level of inteligance than mankind is capable of achieving.
God comunicates with us from a different dimension of reality.
I can only describe God as my experience of him allows.
There is much I have not yet experience. Ssooo there is much that I do not know.
You have experienced that which you know.
Just because you and I have not experienced something does not mean that it isn't there for us to become aware that we might know.
To assume ourselves all knowing is foolishness.
Please stop calling me foolish because I do not believe the nonsense you believe. Thank you. Meaningless definitions such as the nonsense you just said at me do nothing to define this Invisible Super Being.
The Star Goat is as likely as your god. Infinitely improbable. You cannot define your god. Yet you argue that believing is the same as not?
This is why your beliefs have caused so many conflicts. People like you arguing nonsense.
I said; To assume ourselves all knowing is foolishness.
= - == -- == --
You answered ... Please stop calling me foolish
= -- == - -
Your answer implies that you think that you are All Knowing.
Otherwise I didn't call you foolish.
Dear me. Please stop lying at me Jerami. You called me foolish. You also said I must be all knowing to reject your ridiculous religious beliefs. I do not need to be all knowing to reject your nonsensical religion. I really wish your religion taught ethics instead of this. Maybe you wouldn't cause so many conflicts?
Passive aggressive attacks as you just made at me are the cornerstone of the behavior exhibited by people who follow your religion. Will I be persecuting you by asking you to stop attacking me now?
Evolution Guy wrote
. You also said I must be all knowing to reject your ridiculous religious beliefs.
-- == --
Can you show me where I said any such thing?
== -= -- -=-
Passive aggressive attacks as you just made at me are the cornerstone of the behavior exhibited by people who follow your religion. Will I be persecuting you by asking you to stop attacking me now?
== -- =- =-
If you could read these things which I have said; without interpretating them ... or adding to them you might see that I am not attacking you nor am I causing conflict.
Do I cause conflict simply by existing?
That wouldn't be my doing.
"Your answer implies that you think that you are All Knowing.
Otherwise I didn't call you foolish."
I implied no such thing. You stated that it is foolish to claim to be all knowing. You also implied that I was foolish because I did not believe your religious nonsense, therefore I must be all knowing therefore I am a fool.
What a shame your religion does not teach ethics.
I apologize for the error in the third paragraph. It was supposed to read:
Not all life dies; forms of life that had a beginning eventually die, including an amoeba.
The Creator God is the being to whom all the praise belongs, He is most Gracious, the Merciful and He is Master of the Day of Judgment.
God is the voice in our heads, that searches for meaning and sees patterns and coincidence as having greater significance than they really have. It is the mind's way of creating purpose from the meaningless and which creates the impression that we are not alone.
God is the Source of Creation. Since we are part of creation, knowing God is not somethng we can objectively do. It has to be purely subjective. So I find it funny when peope present their preferred speculations as fact.
He says as he presents his speculations as fact.
This is the problem with believing nonsense. You don't know what you are saying half the time.
I'm not presenting anything as fact. The question was 'how do you define God?' And that's my answer. I didn't try to summon the Book of Psalms as my single, solitary proof of my beliefs. But since you're in obvious need of scripture:
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move."
-Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (Chapter 9, Verse 14)
Sorry. My mistake. I thought you stated something as a fact. LOLOLO As I said - this is the problem with believing nonsense. You state something as fact like "God is the Source of Creation," and then think you did not state it as a fact. You even Capitalized It to Show It is Truth.
Good old Douglas Adams. You almost had me believing you are not a believer.
It is a fact that this is what I believe. No more no less. And if I want to revere something for one reason or another, what does it matter? And if its nonsense from your perspective its really no concern of mine. Just like people who tell me the Jesus argument and cite the NT as physical undeniable proof of his godliness also dont concern me. I was not trying to present evidence or proof of anything.
As I said. People who believe nonsense tend not to be aware of what they are saying. This is your irrational belief - OK. You do not think it is fact. Gotcha. I would not have a problem with it were it not for the fact that people who believe this are in massive denial and do not know what they are saying much of the time.
It obviously does concern you or you would not have bothered telling us that God is The Source of Creation. Nor would you be responding to majikal Super Being threads.
So - you clearly do not know what you are saying. This is of concern to me because there are enough of you doing this that you are a threat to yourselves and others around you.
Do you tell children that God is The Source of Creation with Capital Letters To Show it is The Truth?
And you do know it is a meaningless definition - right?
As a matter of interest - how can you revere something you are unable to define properly?
Pursuing truth or insight in regard to something I cannot define is always of interest to me. That is simply the way I am. I was raised an atheist and it simply didn't satisfy me. My belief in a source of creation is simply that. A belief. I do not perform rituals, worship idols or belong to a faith-based organization. And no I do not tell children about the Source of Creation as you put it. I respect parents and the choices they make regarding how they raise their kids and this includes systems of belief. Even if I strongly disagree with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc., I respect the parents' right to instill their belief system of choice into their children. If it appears to be presented as truth, it is truth that exists in my mind and I have no delusions about that. And I don't play the gotcha game. If you want to play the gotcha game, then go back to arguing with the Christians. This is simply a belief and I believe it because I find comfort in it. There is nothing more to it than that.
Why do you denigrate Christians? I find comfort in my belief as well, yet you want to make a statement about Christians such as you have. I do not perform "rituals" as you put it, or worship idols. You may have some vague concept of creation or whatever but I know what creation is and have a clear concept on how it came about. Go on the Shintoist or Hindu forum if that is what you believe Heathen.
Exactly where do I give you the impression that I 'denigrate' Christians? I simply said that I have strong disagreements with the tenets of traditional monotheist religions. That does not mean I find no value in them. And it certainly does not mean that I have any intentions of threatening or changing your beliefs. And if atheists can come share their beliefs on this thread, then so can I. And I have shared my beliefs on alternative threads and with my Hindu friends and I must say none of them are nearly as defensive towards me as most of the Christians I have met. And I find it very alarming that the concepts of tolerance, acceptance and forgiveness are so rarely heard by people who claim the Bible and the teachings of Jesus as the Holy Word of God. And calling me a heathen or lord satan has zero effect on me, so I hope for your sake you are saying that for your own benefit.
Yes I am saying that for my own benefit. I hope that God sees that I am doing his work down here so He will finally listen to my prayers and come down to face me for killing my son. The reason you do not feel the concepts of tolerance, acceptance, or forgiveness from Christians is because there isn't much left from God to go around. After He killed my son and made me an alcoholic I know this. I just feel that you and others like you might mess up my chances to have God come down and face me for what he did to my life. I want a chance to go toe to toe with him and make Him accountable for what He did to my son and me.
Ok, first of all, I am very sorry for the loss of your son. No parent should have to bury their child. I'm sure nothing I can say or do would be any comfort to you so I wont take that any further. It also has nothing to do with my beliefs or your beliefs. However, I see no benefit in blaming God for what your life is. You have the power within yourself to change your life for the better. This is something I truly believe. If you want your life to change, only you can truly acheive that.
At least you are honest that it has no basis in reality and makes you feel better. I wish I could do the same, but believing things that make utterly no sense because they make me feel better is beyond my skill set.
I do not respect parent's rights to abuse their children by indoctrinating them in to fear-based irrational belief systems. I always find it odd that people who believe in "creators" are OK with that. For too long, religion had an automatic "get out of jail free," card. You claim to believe nonsense - the moment you state it - I will point out how ridiculous it is. Keep it to yourself and I say nothing.
You did not answer my question though. How to you revere something you cannot define?
And it was not me who put it. It was you. See? This is why belief in Invisible Super Beings rots your brain. You said "Source of Creation," not me.
There is now enough empirical evidence and supported theory to know how we came to be.
There are entire peer reviewed televised lectures and interviews with the likes of Krauss who can explain our beginnings eloquently.
People don't read things that don't fit their religion is all.
Krauss? Too Late To Cry is great albumn, earnest, but I dont see how it explains our origins. She is one hell of a fiddle player nonetheless.
God is an anthropomorphic being who created all of us and the universe and all of its planets etc. He is responsible for everything that happens on this earth and on any others. He killed my son and caused me to be an alcoholic which is what I will be writing about in my soon to be published article. I am and always will be a firm believer so you atheists can just give up on trying to convert me which a couple have already tried to do. I just want God to be accountable for what he did to me. I feel that He should now answer for sitting on the sidelines while we, His creations have suffered for him. I want to see him face to face and have ado with him for his actions in causing my life to go into a downward spiral.
I do not think man can defined or even know what God is , As the more closer you claim what is God, the more elusive and evasive God becomes
All I know is the consensus say that 90% believe or think there is a God. I do sense and have experience higher energy often enough. How I do it is by tapping into that higher energy by reaching towards the stars and then see what I can come back to earth with.
Yeah it works, if you don’t like my life, go_______yourself.
God is what is explained in the bible. That is no claim, that is what God IS. Next time you reach up to the stars and come back to Earth with God, let me know, I want to have a few words with him for what He did to my life.
I think every one is God, look within your self, first.
Most people on earth are not aware of your God from the Bible, and they do alright.
Everyone is not God. Did you create the universe? NO? Then you are not God. Did you kill my son? No? Then you are not God. God is the one who made me an alcoholic after he killed my son.
Please, stop blaming lord satan, there is a reason for everything
How am I blaming Satan? I know who killed my son, and it was not Satan. He has not the power to do such things. There is no reason for the death of my son, except to cause me suffering.
God is a figment of the imagination that people unable to tell the difference between fact and fantasy subscribe to.
When you reach for the stars, you could call that fantasy,
When this spiritual act or call it fantasy reaches the stars then it manifests itself into my ego self as it becomes a fact of reality, time after time again
Everything I have achieved was all once imagined, imagination is about the closest connection with word God or so called God that I have experience
"How do you revere something you cannot define?"
Just like my other responses, this one is also subjective to my own experience. I find fascination in what I do not understand or cannot know. I have always valued the pursuit of knowledge and that which I am yet to understand or may never know in this life is the fuel of said pursuit. That being said, anything I am exploring, reading about, examining, etc., that I do not fully understand may take on a larger than life quality to it that feeds my interest in it. Case in point would be our solar system. When I was a preschooler, I used to take my uncle's star atlas and get totally lost in it. I used to imagine what it would be like to live on Saturn. This was of course a completely wild concept. Of course, as I got older and realized that Saturn was not a place humans could inhabit the fascination I had towards the planet began to fade. I know my personal debate about God or Source is a lifelong one and I'm quite ok with it. As for keeping it to myself, now, why would I bother to do that? If I meet one person who has similar or compatible beliefs then it is quite worth meeting a thousand others who feel that my beliefs are irrational or 'a threat to myself and others' or think I should just shut up.
Although I do appreciate your wanting to have an actual debate on the issue instead of just calling me a heathen and then running away.
Well - that does not really answer the question. I revere the solar system and nature, but they are there for me to see. You claim to revere something you do not understand and cannot see or define. That is not the same thing at all.
You do also - I hope - understand that - every time you say "God is the Source of Creation," all the religionists get a pat on the back from you for validating their beliefs. Despite the fact that this is an essentially meaningless statement.
But as I seem to be talking to a believer who can think for a change, I will ask you a question all the Kristians avoid.
To have been "created," there must have been a time when existence did not exist. How did you come to this conclusion exactly?
Religionists hate this question and never answer me.
ok, first of all, I find it hard to believe that traditional monotheists have any kind of celebration when I talk about my beliefs in the Source of Creation. Have you seen the way the Christians and Muslims go after me? They call me heathen, satanist, 'we'll leave your wrong beliefs where they are' and so on.
And if I didn't provide a satisfying answer to your question then I guess I do not have an easy 'sum it all up' kind of answer for you. The same with pre-existence. No easy answer for that. I could imagine pre-existence, but it would purely a pontification of my own mind. And as an artistically minded person (as opposed to scientifically minded) I'm quite alright with that. Being that we exist and especially that we exist in a specific physical and finite form, the concept of pre-existence or non-existence is purely an exercize of the imagination. It is hard enough to imagine the next phase of human evolution let alone our role in existence or if we even have one. I find greater comfort in believing we have a specific role. And I could only speculate on what that role is. And yes, I do have spiritual beliefs and also accept the theories of evolution. To me the two are not incompatible. I do feel the need to acknowledge my belief in a creator or source of physical life and to express gratitude for my existence and all that I experience in life. I do not consider that the same thing as belonging to an organized control structure that insists upon submission to a rigid ideology.
Crikey - you dodged that question almost as well as the Kristians. The concept of pre-existence is pretty crucial to the concept of creation. Without the lack of existence - there is no need for a creation. You do agree that this is basic to your beliefs - yes?
This must come before a creation, therefore you must have decided that there was a point where existence did not exist.
How do you reach this conclusion?
Like I said, it is not easy for me to provide you with a concrete answer to your question. Atleast not without me telling you my entire life's story. I guess at some point in my education, in learning about the Universe being comprised mostly of space just like a cell, I addressed the possibility that the Universe at some level exists as a unified whole. In having the debate with friends between that point of view and the point of view of the Universe being eternally expanding and infinite, I gave some thought to both arguments. Entertaining the theory of a finite Universe existing like an organized macrocosmic cell caused me to believe that it was at some point created by something other than itself. While entertaining an infinite everexpanding Universe, I gave some thought to its infancy. But if the Universe is infinite, how could it have begun? It couldn't have. Which also lead me to a belief that it was created by something other than itself or evolved out of something other than itself. This of course leads to the question of what created the source of creation and what created that and so on. Ultimately, I decided if there is such a diverse range of physical matter that there must be a similar range of non-physical energy, or atleast an existence beyond what we conceive of in the physical universe. And yes I realize these are simply adventures I am having in my own mind but it is how I cope with what I have merely a vague conception of. Of course, if they ever prove the existence or non-existence of God or Source, no one will be more disappointed in that finding than I will be, for it would simply be another mystery that science has conquered and it would no longer allow us to endlessly speculate the limitless possibilities of what could be true. Of course, if that does happen, there will likely be another unknown even more perplexing and unlimiting in its subjectivity to an individual's mind.
So - basically you did not reason your way at all. You decided there must have been a creator, therefore there must have been a time when existence was not, therefore the Universe is finite and had a beginning.
Now you have also added a new component of a non-physical existence that must be there because there is a physical existence.
This sounds awfully like the unreasonable arguments from the Kristians.
Limitless possibilities and you have decided on one.
"Limitless possibilities and you have decided on one. "
I have decided on one possibility for now. Like I said, I was raised by atheists who were very specific about getting it through to me that there is no god. Obviously, I did not choose to keep that belief and I certainly cannot say I believe what I believed say ten years ago. For me it is a frequently changing thing.
I see. No reason involved. At least you are honest about that aspect. A lot of people choose to believe nonsense because it makes them feel better and then they argue that they are using logic and reason to make this decision. I hope this god does not start telling you things into your head like all the ones with a personal relationship.
Yes, Mark. Obviously the Source of Creation told me to annoy you. So, you'll just have to forgive me for now as I am doing Source's work.
You are not annoying me. I much prefer honesty to the nonsense the Kristians spout trying to justify their beliefs. You do not do that. Good for you. If we could all agree this nonsensical belief was only in your head we would have a lot less conflict.
Well, yeah, of course I'm not going to fall into that trap of saying something ludicrous like there's proof of god's existence or anything. Which is why the concept of organized religion is such an incompatible concept for me eventhough I believe in a supreme being. Everybody (well, a lot of people atleast) has varying concepts of what god is or whether or not such a supreme being exists. I get the same circular argument from the traditional monotheists who condescend to my beliefs and respond with, 'well, the good book says, etc.', but never dare to pontificate or even mildly share what they actually think or what they feel in their own hearts. This seems to be a discomfort to them, but I'm usually not asking them to justify anything, I simply dont believe that they simply take the Bible as read and say 'yep, good nuff for me'. There are certain aspects of the 'Good Book' that I find some value in. But I've read a lot of good books and I find value in them too.
You do realize that the concept of organized religion stems from the exact same irrational need for there to be a supreme being that you possess? Right? The next logical step is that this Supreme Being must have created you for a reason. And Voila! Religion is born. Without reason, religion is the natural course.
I don't have a problem with religion on an individual basis. It's when it becomes authorized or sanctioned by power that it becomes a conflict. Someone who believes in say the Catholic worldview, as an individual I don't see that person as a threat. Especially if that person accepts that worldview for himself because it is the most pleasing to him as an individual. It's when he starts to say, 'The Church says this, therefore it is what I think', and they vow to convert others by any means necessary, that is when the individual becomes dangerous. But ultimately such danger is rooted in the power structure of the Catholic Church. That person of course still has responsibilities of civilized coexistence to acknowledge and should not be so easily lead, but without the power structure (which has a clear agenda and it is NOT to bring about mass spiritual fulfillment) of organized religion, that person does not likely have that coersion being projected at him.
Religion cannot survive without a group. There is no such thing as individual religion.
Finally You agree with that which you have been argueing for so long.
A person who believes in a creator is not necessarily religious unless he belongs to a group system of thought.
Finally you said it yourself.
When I first saw the title of this I was going to write something daft along the lines of God doesn't exist yadda yadda ya. Now, however, although I am an atheist, I am inclined to side with Janco. Evolution guy, the way in which you beligerently hold to your own opinions and ridicule those of others is verging on the kind of prejudice you see between actual religions. I'm by no means suggesting that you are wrong to hold those opinions, I agree with them, for the most part, however in order to have a discussion you need to be open to the opinions of others, otherwise it just comes down to two parties shouting their opinions at each other with no interaction whatsoever. The problem, generally, with science vs religion is that they do not operate on the same path at all, science is empirical and reason-based, and religion is based on faith, the complete antithesis of reason. What's more, empirical facts are not 100%, in the expanse of the entire universe, it may be that our version of science breaks down. You don't know everything, no one does, so maybe you shouldn't hate on people so much
Jonathan name remind me of that movie Jonathan living Seagull
You seems to think in the same line, as I do. Why argue with Nature, why would the tree fight with its own branches or argue with the river flowing.
We cannot fully understand GOD'S working, yet we can co create with it or with the so call word God toward a higher energy and grow towards a closer understanding.
Where as in Religion I do understand how a one-sided GOD will ever get along with the whole flow of nature and work out, within every persons way of unlimited thinking.
There's no hating going and we're both grownups. We're just having a friendly argument. Nothing to be concerned about.
But I don't believe in the hive mentality of religion. I mean, I realize that it exists, but belief is one thing, organized religion is quite another. As a person who believes in a supreme being and does not adhere to a specific religious faith and knows many others who fall into this category, I can assure you there is GIANT leap involved to get from one to the other.
I accept that the two are different, however I'm not convinced it's such a giant leap. Organised religion is born out of individual belief and the human desire to justify one's position.
If nature cannot be justified, why is organized religion justified.
What justifies the cougar eating the coyote and the coyote who eats the rabbit and so on.
Organized religion is justified. Itself by dummying down and feeding on the po
Odd. When I made that same argument you accused me of hating.
Yes, why argue with nature? Nature didnt seem to come into the debate much though. It eventually came down purely to a supreme being alone. Since the thread is called define god that's certainly appropriate. But I have to admit I've always had trouble relating to both tradional religionist and hardline atheists.
I would say nature is justified just by my existence alone according to me.
GOD = All That Is = I AM
This is a topic that has no "facts"! It's completely conceptual, and each person has his/her own Truth of the Matter!
This is "my" humble Truth!
A bit like the Pope giving advice on sex.
If you need to know what meat tastes like, don't ask a vegetarian.
I see you are stubborn and wilful as ever Mark.
The argument in depth and with all the force of the holy book itself is so simple an indoctrinated child can understand it!
Bless you, and may you not rot in hell until god's lust for vengeance is satiated.
How can you not know about god, god alone knows!
Geeze you are just impossible to please for the average normal religious fanatic!
You are being very unchristian wanting truth and facts!
Evidence-Based Faith in the Creator- wt 08 1\1
The Bible stresses the importance of evidence when it defines faith. It says: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Hebrews 11:1) True faith in God should be based on evidence that demonstrates the reality of the Creator. The Bible shows where you can find the evidence.
The inspired Bible writer David wrote: “I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.” (Psalm 139:14) Taking time to reflect on the amazing design of our own body and of other living things fills us with awe at the wisdom of our Maker. Every part of the thousands of systems that cooperate to keep us alive is ideally designed. Also, the physical universe displays evidence of mathematical precision and order. David wrote: “The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.”—Psalm 19:1.
The Bible itself is a rich source of evidence about the Creator. Taking the time to examine the consistency of its 66 books, the superiority of its moral standards, and the unfailing fulfillment of its prophecies will provide you with abundant evidence that its author is the Creator. Understanding the Bible’s teachings will also give you confidence that the Bible is, indeed, the Word of the Creator. For example, when you understand such Bible teachings as the cause of suffering, the Kingdom of God, the future of mankind, and the way to find happiness, you will see an evident demonstration of God’s wisdom. You may come to feel as Paul did when he wrote: “O the depth of God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable his judgments are and past tracing out his ways are!”—Romans 11:33.
As you examine the evidence and your faith grows, you will become convinced that when you read the Bible, you are listening to the Creator himself. He says: “I myself have made the earth and have created even man upon it. I—my own hands have stretched out the heavens, and all the army of them I have commanded.” (Isaiah 45:12) Surely you will never regret making the effort to prove to yourself that Jehovah is the Creator of all things.
Not one iota of evidence historic or otherwise exists for your mythical god other than as a myth.
The biblical god was a psychopathic hater, certainly not any sort of god, with morals worse than those of men.
Using itself as the only proof of it's validity is one hell of a long way from proof!
I don't consider God to be an entity separate from humanity, or any form of life. No one knows how the universe was formed, but its existence was of no consequence until consciousness recognized its existence. God, in my mind, is simply that. The collective consciousness of all life in the universe. As long as life exists, so does it. It was the first rise of conscioiusness. It has been here since the beginning and will exist until the end.
I believe the beginning of the end for all religion was when the first galvanic probe was inserted in the brain and certain negative behaviour patterns were seen to be controlled when an electric current was applied.
The source of any god is the mind itself in my opinion and believe that to be provable.
The slightest change in brain chemistry, and all the belief systems are out the window.
I have seen someone dump their religion after taking MMDA.
If you ask him today, he will tell you he was suddenly brave enough to allow the fear of death to reach his consciousness and saw the connection to his religion and the hold it had on him.
This is one reason MDMA and MDA should be available for use in psychiatry in all countries. It can take years off the therapy by stripping away fear, increasing feelings of tolerance empathy and love as well as making the introduction of new ways of thinking easier without all the fear resistance.
I don't know anything about those drugs, but I do strongly believe that you can't gain any type of enlightment or peace with a fear based philosophy. The world is what it is. You have to accept it, in your own manner. What's the old saying? 'Change the things you can, learn to accept the rest'? We are all different, so that path will be different.
What is the purpose of any philosophy if it doesn't bring you to a point of peaceful coexistence with reality? If you can use religion to attain that goal, then it's good for you. But, I think that in this day and age it's becoming almost impossible. Religion is too far removed from reality.
once a person asked gautama buddha, " does god exist ?" .... buddha answered "No he doesnt." the same day some other guy asked the same question. buddha answered differently. When asked by one of his pupils he answered, " God is just a path for your own enlightenment." ....
To define something takes time and space, there is neither enough time, nor space on the internet to do what is requested in this thread.
I agree with you that humans cannot find time and space to define the Creator God; it is for this that for our convenience He has defined Himself in Quran. I mention from one such place:
[59:24] He is Allah, and there is no God beside Him, the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Peace, the Bestower of Security, the Protector, the Mighty, the Subduer, the Exalted. Holy is Allah far above that which they associate with Him.
[59:25] He is Allah, the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner. His are the most beautiful names. All that is in the heavens and the earth glorifies Him, and He is the Mighty, the Wise.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=23
by jomine6 years ago
1. god is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being2. this being exist3. he has no beginning and there was nothing before him.4. he created everything
by JonTutor8 years ago
In "Hot potato" topic..... Moslems and Christians having literal definitions of "God"..... My question..... Why God gotta be what we want Him to be..... IMO The higher power called...
by Lipót Márton4 years ago
It can be any God purported to exist. None are precluded from inquiry or criticism.
by Kyle Payne5 years ago
How do you define God, good and evil?
by sandra rinck9 years ago
Maybe at some point everyone can agree on something, maybe a good place to start is to define God and Satan. To me Satan = suffering,God = state of bliss, perfect holy state, path to enlightenment, spiritual...
by sandra rinck8 years ago
When has there ever been a time in any part of history where everyone, altogether has given God a chance? And mostly I am talking about the 10 commandment. Period, nothing more, nothing less, no need to tell...
Copyright © 2017 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.