Show me proof that God does not exist.
HeadlyvonNoggin, why do you not have a place for comments? Are you afraid of having all of your ideas ripped apart? I'll try keep this short and simple. The Bible does not coincide with science of explain any scientific discovery. The way Genesis is written it would be a complete stretch to match that with known discovered prehistory. You could do that with just about every nonChristian creation myth in history, stretch it's version with science to say, "here' see, the good book says just like science does..." Look, you can believe in your God and your Bible, but what you could never do is get us to believe Your God is anything but the product of someone's imagination. There are over 20 different religions, the only reason Christianity is the most popular is because they tried to kill off everyone else.
I do have a comment section. So, please, rip away. That's why I'm here. I see no error in it, but that doesn't mean there aren't errors. So, I bounce it off of others. I'm here to learn, not to teach.
Many have tried, just as confident as you seem to be, ready to rip it apart, picking at this and that, bringing much more compelling arguments than the standard 'you could do that with any creation myth', only to leave not as certain.
This isn't some off the cuff, willy-nilly, undertaking. This is a life-long obsession to reconcile my faith in God and my fascination with science/life/existence. Both are absolutely certain in my eyes. Like St. Augustine, I too believe God reveals His nature both through the 'book of scripture' and the 'book of nature', and that if at any time the two seem to conflict, it's human interpretation that is wrong. He also says, "interpretation of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge." I whole-heartedly agree. The thing is, considering he lived in the fifth century, I have a much more detailed 'book of nature' to draw from.
This is my personal belief on public display. If I'm wrong about something, I want to know about it.Okay, I admire your position. I tried to do the same thing at one point in my life. Reconcile Science and my belief in God... eventually, after trying to define God and define his position in the universe using my education in High School and College, I had to dismiss my belief in God as a fanciful fantasy. I could not find a need for God or the evidence to support such a beings existence. Even Scriptures, an interpretation of the beliefs of peoples of that time period, in all their superstitions and ignorance and very real observations and their interpretation of their observations (that can make them seem valid) were nothing but fantasies. There are over 20 different religions in this world, and 16 crucified saviors before Jesus and many different religions appearing in today's world. What are they based on? Emotional desire. Not reality. You must ask yourself, is my belief in God based on facts and evidence or emotional need and desire for something greater than yourself to take care of you now that you are an adult that must take care of yourself?
Evidence? The whole darn universe plus your body, even if circcumstantial, it's more proof than what the atheist have! Do you have more circumstantial evidence than what intricately support you and one morning view into the heavens? Are you arguing against first cause? Well, it overwhelmingly support believers. So, can you even give me more circumstantial evidence that God doesn't exist?
That's not proof of anything. All you have done is replace one unknown for another. What is I say it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster?...prove I am wrong.
It's "circumstantial evidence" not absolute defining proof in which I stated. There is a great difference between the two. Although, the universe and your complicated functioning body carries a lot of weight as far as circumstantial evidence. Can you match it? You should review how initial circumstantial evidence has affected our lives. Our entire scientific development has depended on initial circumstantial evidence...research and development.
Are you remaining totally insensitive to the circumstantial evidence? If so, than you have a problem.
It is impossible to please God without faith. Simply put, God is too big to be completely comprehended by a human mind. So, inductive thinking in the natural is king for a human mind. So, to believe that one can absolutely prove or disprove something that is infinite using finite world attributes is stupid, but we do have indicators that God exist rather than not exist. For if we have indicators that God exist, than the indicators also is evidence that God doesn't exist is not true.At the very least, we are aware of what constitutes circumstantial evidence, which is not anything that you're talking about.
And yet, you're here along with all the other believers to comprehend God for us.It doesn't take a rocket scientist when presented with a medical report of how a part of body is functioning and one look into the heavens to wonder who created it all. I would think common sense would dictate a Creator made it, rather than "man, I done see the Creator; so, prove that there is or not a creator." One can avoid common sense only for so long.
That's "actively comprehending God", not I am giving you the whole big picture nor are we introducing the person of God like "Herree......Johnny God!" because we are all seeking God. Why are we seeking God? It's because God rewards abundantly now and forever if one diligently seek Him.No, the Earth is not flat, and neither is the world. Common sense didn't even remain flat. c
Common sense is not perfect, but it's still the winner over all. Contrary to common belief, common sense is not easy to acquire many times. Although, acquiring the truth about the round Earth, the bible had scripture who stated that God hanged the earth as a ball hanged on nothing long before scientist established the fact that the Earth was round. Wouldn't you think that we are looking at faith in the Word of God?
- It's hilarious how believers redefine words to defend their irrational beliefs.
It's hilarious how Troubled Men will run away from any argument they put forward that is immediately shown to be fallacious, and then just pretend like it never happened.
The person who can always change subject can never lose a debate... in his own mind.Oh, our belief is very rational. We can prove so by observing you. You can't jump to the moon; can you? Your legs can only carry you so far until you are completely exhausted. You have no idea of who sent you here or for what purpose. You avoid the thought of death or can you generate a life that you can avoid death, ect.,...ect.
I conclude that you were not responsible for your being. Well, who? I suggest that you consider first cause.
Oh, can you tell me a better moral code for man to live peacefully?
The only thing an atheist can do is to deny the obvious, and not understand why believers say what they say.
I also add that word's true definitions are from God. Who else covers all territories or considerations?...the fullness of truth...the maximum magnitude.There has never been any truth to God or the Bible, the entire history of man and what he has done in the name of his God is evidence of this as well as the fact that the entirety of Jesus is a plagiarism. You can ignore actual history and reality and you can make up whatever "truth" you want and believe whatever you like, I would rather believe what is true and real.
You are a very boastful young man claiming things you haven't the slightest knowledge of.
You wouldn't know 'truth' if it hit you like a brick in a hurricane.
Please provide your resources for all such claims you posted above seeing as you're so proud of your conclusion.
I would like to see what you base for your 'evidence'.
If you don't have resources, I'll gladly accept an excuse, but please note I will bring it to light as this is not elementary.
All in conversation,
-V- YOU are asking for evidence and sources to support claims?
Don't worry about replying.
I've already activated your free pass below, please disregard all of the above.
The same can be said for those seeking to write legible sentences.
Are you surprised? Are you content at that magnitude? If so, you are very lucky, and evidently unmolested. Virgin?
Extremely content! I don't have to blame some boogey man for my bad choices, nor praise an invisible spook for my good ones.
It still amazes me just how simple the mind of the theist is....as well as their lack of spelling and sentence formation...
OMG!!! Do you actually mean all theist? I suggest that you stick with grammar and spelling.
No I am not saying that all stupid people are theists....i'm just saying all theists are stupid....
Religion was started by open minded cave men. Research and development by scientist starts with a hypothetical posed, and looks for supporting circumstantial evidence and vice versa...hypothetical predicts what which becomes circumstantial evidence. If scientist had used only what they could see or even prove, than research and development would have been severely retarded. We would still be in the stone age.
It is just as reasonable to pose GOD, and observe supporting circumstantial evidence and vice versa such as GOD created everything.- <--- coveted double laughie award
It would appear your understanding of science is still in the stone age. There's that "Believers Dictionary" rearing it's ugly head again with a new twisted version of "reasonable"Funny you would acknowledge that it exist. Thanks for a change.
(Religion was started by open minded cave men)
Well, as they say, it takes one to know one.AKA, in the final analysis you're a stoned out nut.
Once again all you are doing is replacing one unknown for another. You are using caveman logic to define your world, "hmmm me not know...must be god." If you are satisfied with that very small intellect, have at it.
Proof of what? Evidence for what, that's the problem, for all the evidence in the universe you still cannot say it has anything to do with God, (including the Bible even when it says it was written by God). Why, because you cannot find a fingerprint on something and say it belongs to someone unless you match their prints, there is nothing science has found that anyone can match to the existence of a creator or of a God... why? The way science works... if it was caused by one thing then science looks for it and tells you what they find, then they tell you what they found was found and so on.... it's like following an infinite train... you'd expect to eventually find a train that has an engine where God is the conductor.... however, this train is self powered, so what we now must do is trace the parts, the parts should tell us where they came from, yet they don't have an end... even in string theory it isn't powered by an "intelligent designer" in fact if there was such a person, he must have died long ago and fell to dust long ago. But then he would also not be omnipotent...
What is God? Define God. For every definition ever given to science of God has been shown to be invalid. Even the Bible has been shown flawed under scientific scrutiny and any statement to the contrary is simply wishful thinking. The Simple fact is God has NO evidence for his existence and what you call circumstantial evidence for his nonexistence is also circumstantial for his even remotest possible existence. There is no evidence God exists and all the evidence you may give can only be called the self same. You have evidence of a crime but you don't have a criminal, hey it might have been a suicide but to you it looks like a murder because you know that person is incapable of killing himself.Believe it or not! What science finds in the natural is confirming something in the supernatural. Life is supported by the material world, not created by the material world. Test tube life is a facilition of existing component. I am a strong believer in the "Torch Theory" of life. One life started a series of lives with one producing others. God is first cause.
Referring to science, Albert Einstein and many other scientist, believed that they were searching to know the after thoughts of God, our Creator.
Science in general is the search for knowledge, knewledge of whether or not God is the reason for all of this or if it was something else. Einstein was a very smart man and knew not to debate such a silly issue, God is a personal belief and should stay that way. If you believe in God, great, if you don't, great, but the reason any of us are talking about it is because we have made it more than personal. Because people won't leave us alone on what we believe in, the fact is, if you believe in God, that's really none of my business, if I don't believe in God, that's none of your business. But because people, not necessarily you or I, have made it their business then it is our business as Americans to fight for our rights to believe what we choose to believe. I choose to believe in what has evidence. You choose to believe in things based on faith. Scientists in general are of either one or the other persuation but the professionals don't let their personal preference interfere with the pure science of discovery. The religions of the world are all just myths based on human beliefs, wants, needs, desires, hates, etc. But Knowledge has no prejudices and looks to find what is there. If it be God then it's God, if it be something else then it's something else. The fact is there is no evidence for the existence of God and the belief in God will never be anything more than personal preference.
I am sure that all atheist in America have the right to establish their churchs without religious people attacking them. Religious people have freedom of speech as any other group or special interests.
If one doesn't believe in God, than fine with me. I will associate with that person the same as one that does believe in God. But with all courtesy, I feel that I can exercise my freedom of speech. After all, my content of speech have been confirmed by billions of people over time.Debating something is not the same as confirming it. Believing in something again is not the same as confirming it. The two are very, vastly, extremely different things. Confirmation requires that it be proven beyond fact. If the Bible had been proven beyond fact by billions of people already, then it would never have been up for debate in the first place.
There is no issue with exercising your freedom of speech. There is however a problem with trying to force others to listen. This is the metaphorical shoving down peoples throats that is heard so often. Talking is fine. Saying what you wish is fine. Trying to force others to listen to you or believe that you are the only one that is right, is a problem. With all due respect, I haven't seen anything yet besides the things from science that have been laid down, that is substantial proven and confirmed facts. God has not been proven..not disproven, but not proven either. Do we find evidence of the supernatural? Almost constantly. Being more specific as to the study of supernatural, it is a mix of quantum and meta physics. In essence it is a scientific study of magic. However, that by it's very nature is outlawed by the Bible. Only those chosen by God (like moses) are allowed to wield magic according to it. Magic as many already know though, can neither prove or disprove God either. There for it is neither confirmed or unconfirmed, by any people, any where in time. Thus the uncompromising power of belief comes into play.If there is no problem with exercising one's speech, than I must ask where is the force to listen? I don't recall any loud speakers in the public domain nor at the work place.
Christians believe in giving their employer a full days work. I have heard no problem with Christian employees standing and preaching to the office workers because when at work they work, and they have a very good record of doing so. Would not you think that outlawing Christian content between two persons in a friendly conversation is suppressing freedom of speak? What harm is it? Other people are continuously trying to sale one everything under the sun.Addressing confirmation, Christians do not claim to have proven God; our goal is to strengthen our faith. If something has been proven without a doubt, than no faith exist. One can not please God without faith.
Since I have faith that God created the universe, than I am sure that scientist are discovering the after thoughts of God.
We do speak of the supernatural in the spiritual realm alone with what you referred to in the physical realms as magic. In the physical realm all magic shall eventually be proven as a physical phenomenon; not so in the spiritual realm.Everyone who is smart believes in giving their employers a full days work. That is only common sense. If you don't, you'll be fired and there for be out of work. As I have seen the case of some Christians (note I said some, by no means all) they believe god has a better plan for them and stumble along for years out of work waiting for their god to provide something for them instead of actually looking. No one is saying that Christian content between two persons in a friendly conversation shout be outlawed. You would have to then outlaw all conversation in any type of religious context which is ludicris. However, I've worked at places where Christians thought it ok to go around preaching to people during their lunch break and try to convince them to change their religion. Should this be allowed to go on? Should people be allowed to go around telling you that you are going to burn in hell because you don't think along the same lines they do? That is outlandish. Outlandish is the fanatics that are the Westboro Baptist Church going around screaming thank god for dead soldiers. The same people that went to Harrisburg Illinois with the intent to scream out thank god for dead babies. Things like that, should be outlawed. They should not EVER be allowed. Yet and still, because we allow freedom of speech, they continue to go on.
The thing is that it does take faith. Some people's faith lies elsewhere. Do they not have the right to place their faith where they will without the fear of persecution? Should they be preached at because their faith lies elsewhere? The answer is no.
There it is though, all wrapped in a neat little package. You believe God created the Universe. There for you believe that science can prove nothing but God's afterthoughts. The problem though is that all science can do is establish facts. They cannot establish a belief as real or unreal. Those findings will be interpreted by many people in many different ways in order to attempt to prove or disprove beliefs.
Speaking of the Supernatural in the spiritual realms alone is a problem. There is no one person that exists both in and out of the spirit realm at the same time, so no one person knows what happens in the spirit realm. Attempting to know the spiritual realm before was deemed the realm of the shaman. Now days it most commonly referred to as High Magic. What we know about the spiritual is nothing. We cannot know it and the harder we try to, the further from knowing it we will become. It is not something you can put facts and figures to. It is not something that can be proven or disproven to exist. All that can be done is to have assumptions in hope that they will be right.Yeah, I admit that a few Christians may choose to exercise their faith by waiting for God to give them a better job. Rush and take any job is from the world's sense of survival and self Independence which is good.
A few Christians does become overbearing and must be told to leave your personal space. In the case of "thank God for dead soldiers..." is very offensive and crosses social bounds. This preacher, the leader, has been admonished by many Christians including myself. This is why it creased. We forgive because no one is perfect.
We have a physical body for support of our life in the natural world. Life is spirit, and we all are submerged in the supernatural. The Word of God, the Living Word of God, is supernatural. Jesus is all about the supernatural so that we all know in a general sense what to expect.
If man waited for perfection, than we would not go anywhere.Admonished I would believe, especially as his own son stands against him. However he has not ceased one bit, recently they were in Vegas spouting their non-sense. Their stopping didn't happen. Much as the AFA hasn't stopped either. I do not hold you responsible for their doings however. You are a different person then they are, and as you tend to add substance to the conversations your in, I do respect you.
As for the supernatural, I do believe it is there, and tend to track it and follow it in my own way. I will not say that God absolutely does not exist as I don't know that and cannot prove it even if I did. I also cannot prove that he does though. The choice to believe though belongs to each person individually, we should not attempt to make those choices for them and we should not attempt to make them believe.
Unfortunately, perfection does not exist. It likely never will. It's not a matter of waiting or trying to achieve it. It's a matter of no 2 people have the same idea of perfection. This will prevent any kind of perfection from ever happening in and of itself.Thanks for telling me the "old Rev" and his bunch is still at it.
I agree that the supernatural happens in one's mind more often than a cosmic display. I do believe in God's Holy Spirit which is supernatural, and it happens in the mind of individuals.
I don't expect perfection without God intervening. Jesus never claimed to be perfect alone, only when he continue to listen to every word from his Heavenly Father; being in fellowship nor being an absolute, and believe it or not, would not even claim to all good. Surprised! He said that only His Heavenly Father was good.
Christians are accused of being spaced out loonies believing in fairy tales, but once an individual comes to understand God's Will, and begin to eat "spiritual meats", progressing from "milk drinker", than Christianity becomes very practical. How much more can one identify with human emotions than to run the merchants out of the Tabernacle with a whip and turned over their tables. He was pissed. Jesus ran the gambit of human emotions. Christianity is a personal relationship with God.
Sorry, but all Christians are commanded to spread the goodnews, but they should do it as a servant rather than as an authority while talking condescending to others.I like making sure that people are informed. What they are doing ends up reflecting poorly on Christians as whole and a lot of people believe that all Christians are like that. I personally know better but I can't speak for others on that.
That is your choice, and I can respect that. I do know that there is a power behind belief and that power is generally uncompromising. Can we achieve perfection through your God? Perhaps. Perhaps there are other ways of doing so as well. Will we ever know the truth of it? Probably not, all we can do is strive to be better than what we have been and see where it leads. Doesn't matter how we choose to do it, only that we do so. Then one day we might see perfection.
Some do accuse Christians of such. I personally don't and I apologize to anyone who thinks that when I say Christian mytho's and such that I'm trying to do that. I just look back at the different deities and religions and refer to them all that way in order to keep my own perspective on things. I agree that one can say Jesus identified with human emotion when he got angry. Something that if I'm not mistaken he even apologised for. However you also have Hercules who lead his whole life as a human and went around helping human kind. Experience anger, love, passion, hate, forgiveness, and many other things that cover then entire scope of human emotion. All these before he ascended to take his place beside his father. His tales were legends in the time of Jesus as he was older. Does this make Zeus and God one and the same person then? Perhaps it does, but you cannot consider one a mythology without considering the other such as well.
The stories are there throughout history of various Saviours of different types amongst different peoples. Though the stories vary they tend to encompass much the same ideals. Calling one false is to pretty much call them all false. This is why I consider them all mytho's. We can neither prove or disprove any of them. However if we choose to accept one, then we must choose to accept them all. We can eat of the "spiritual meats" and learn, grow, and understand. We must accept however that there are several types of "meats" and it is up to each person to choose which type they will eat.
I can agree with that as well. Jesus was all for humility after all, shouldn't those spreading his word be about such as well?Thanks for so eloquently explaining your belief of not all Christian doing bad things.
I would describe Zeus as an incomplete God, not addressing all the present, pass, and future potentialities of the human mind or life if I may. All displays of attributes of God I accept. The one who displays such attributes shall receive their blessings for displaying the Godly attributes. The full blessing of the Holy Spirit comes only from Jesus who paid our sin debt by dying for all of us on the cross. Of course, this is my faith. After all, God teaches thru all of our experiences.
Yes, Jesus was a servant to all of us. He has been falsely shown as an authoritarian many times in the pass. Jesus expressed explicitly that only God was the Authority.
God is timeless and an Absolute who is omniscience. This is why some statements by faithful believers such as God created man at once just the way we are now which sounds ludicrous to nonbelievers. Since God is omniscience and omnipotent when and what he thinks already exist because nothing can alter what He has thought from coming into being. Time is change; there must be dynamics, but God see from the end the beginning. He knows everything at one moment which never changes. So, believers accept the existence or promise of God before it happen because there is no chance of it not occurring.
Example: Lets say that you saw a car and filled out your financing papers, but still hadn't decided to purchase the auto. Later, you decide to purchase the auto, and call the sale man to say get the car ready; I am coming to get it. When did you own the car? When you told the sale man on the phone or when the sale man gave you the keys to drive the vehicle home? Hypothetically claiming the vehicle on the phone was timeless; time was needed to get to the vehicle.
Never contested your right to say whatever silliness you like or believe in.
Does anyone think that humanity is on top of the evolutionary scale?
How old is the earth compared to the rest of the universe?
Unless mankind was first, there has gotta be a civilization out there which has a million years or so "Head Start" as far as inteligance is conscerned.
How smart might we be in another 100 years or a 10000 or more?
Ya think we might be able to create a planet, 10,000 years from now if we last that long?
It just seems to me, looking from a purely scientific prospective, there has Gotta be a higher level being,
And our scriptures say that they communicate with us.
And I know that it does.I know life exists elsewhere in the universe and I am sure that somewhere is a life form far more advanced than ours, probably even flying through space... as far as visitors or aliens that have communicated with us anytime in our history.... I don't believe that. No evidence that such a thing has happened or is probable.
Man is NOT on top of the evolutionary scale, ants are, proof, when we die out ants will still be here, ants have also been here long before we were. Unfortunately so were roaches.
artblack, you still haven't given me the slightest evidence weighting toward "No God". I have given you the entire universe as circumstantial evidence. Do you even have any?
Are you aware that as the circumstantial evidence stacks up, the more the hypothesis becomes more reality rather than the antithesis and vice versa. (inductive reasoning)Actually, the entire universe has no evidence whatsoever to suggest gods had anything to do with it, circumstantial or otherwise.
The universe suggests a cause.
If you make a list of all ways that the universe could have come about, God falls under the list of cause. As there must be a cause, there is evidence as to the possibility of some form of God.It's logical evidence, and I just provided it.
For every effect there must be a cause. For the universe to come into being, there must have been a cause.
The idea of 'God' is one of the possible explanations that fits that cause. That is the evidence of the possibility.
We don't have any way to empirically prove or disprove God at this point.Or, giant lizards, or celestial teapots, or...
*queue lengthy list of imaginary super beings, fairies and boogeymen*Not logical at all to take in consideration imaginary beings as a source of anything. Now if you'll merely have your particular god pop in here and back up your position I'll be pleased to hear him out. Otherwise, he falls in the category with the Easter Bunny and the Tortoise carrying the world on its back. What? You don't believe they are real?
No, YOU do.
So, does everything else that can be conjured from the imagination from giant lizards to flying spaghetti monsters to celestial teapots. Of course, scientists don't sit around imagining such ridiculous and childish lists. Yes, about as much evidence as a giant lizard, or a flying spaghetti monster, or...Science does.
No, because giant lizards don't fit the model of being the cause for the universe, nor do celestial teapots, nor do flying spaghetti monsters.
The basic idea of God is some form of intelligence that created the universe, or acted as the cause.
If you want to think that this intelligence was in the form of a celestial teapot, then that's your prerogative.
Again, your appeal to ridicule doesn't apply to the principle. None of those fit the requirement of there being a cause.
If you find something that looks like it's been made, the logical conclusion is that a form of intelligence made it.So, first it was the universe and now it's science? Can't make up your mind?
Nor, do gods. The models are actually based on General Relativity.
The prerogative of a celestial teapot has is as much valid as the prerogative for gods, because neither has a shred of evidence.
If you say so.
Yes, you would jump to that conclusion as do so many other believers.Science is the study of the universe. By studying nature, we have found that every effect has a cause. There is no contradiction there.
Yes, the idea of a creator causing the universe fits the model of being a cause for the universe.
No, because the idea of a celestial teapot doesn't necessarily indicate being the creator. The idea of God does.
So, the definition of a giant lizard is 'creator of the universe'?
Yes, I would jump to that conclusion.
I would never assume that a wallet I found outside just happened to spring into existence through chance. I would assume it was made. Sorry for being so rational.That's nice. What that has to do with your silly claims is still a mystery.
Oh yes, it does. A celestial teapot is omniscient, omnipotent and loving. It created the universe through a series of Divine Teabags. It would be quite dishonest to compare a wallet to our universe through the use of a logical fallacy.
But hey, that pretty much sums up your arguments.See, this is you changing topic. You tried to ridicule me for saying that the universe suggests a cause, and science suggests a cause. I showed how science is just an attempt to understand the universe, so your argument there is sadly lacking. But it's ok, cause you can just change what you are talking about like nothing ever happened.
The fact is, there was a cause. God is a possible explanation for what caused it.
You're getting closer, nice try. Notice I said doesn't *necessarily* indicate. That's the big key point. The idea of God is creator, without that, it's not God. I know you can't understand how the idea of a creator could explain how something was created, but trust me, it does.
Don't start on logical fallacies, you always claim them, never name them, never explain them, and use them often.
A wallet is something that has never been found to simply come into existence through chance.
Life also, has never been found to come into existence through chance.
The logical conclusion is that it is more likely that life was created, just like the wallet.
Yup, I present arguments, you misrepresent them/laugh at them/ignore them.
Then change topic.Oh yes, I trust your judgement about reality and science.
Like I said, I trust your judgement about reality and science or anything logical.And, in the same fell swoop, you ignore anything that science has discovered about the universe by diminishing it to a wallet found on the ground.
If it weren't so dishonest, it would be hilarious.
Oh wait...Some theorists claim that Aliens were the "creator" of the universe. They use myan history/mythology to prove such. The God of the Myan people came down to earth, according to their Mythology and explained to them how things began. They also say that their God taught them things such as architecture, math, astrology and so forth.
Under what you've put forth about a cause, Aliens are just as much to do with it as the Christian God. Do we know which one is correct? No. Will we ever? Not likely. Claiming support for something on a just because basis doesn't actually support it. I'll give you that it is possible. However there are other answers that fit into logic as well and each of them takes a leap of faith, or the power of belief, to be willing to understand.
I have done grad work in the fundamental science disciple of physics. I think you would hold the sole position among all the under grads in the physics department that the universe doesn't suggest a Creator. Even Einstein acknowledged that it suggested a Creator, and searched to discover the after thoughts of the Creator who we call God.
- There's a whopper of a tale. Why is it believers have to resort to such tactics as if they believe we're just as gullible as they are.
Would you like bacon and cheese with those whoppers?Now you are denying truths without discovering the facts. Such practice is not even popular among all atheist.
Yeah, right. For anyone who has ever studied even high school physics would know you've never worked on physics. It is highly debatable that you even graduated high school based on your posts and hubs.
You then go on making obvious false statements about other physics students and Einstein.
Seriously dude, do you actually think we're so stupid to not know you're lying?
The burden of proof is on the believer, circumstantial evidence doesn't point to the existence or even possible existence of a God, can you give me an example, where you can prove something that doesn't exist really doesn't exist? You can't because the fact is it doesn't exist.
You choose to believe, he exists in your mind. That is all. You could NEVER prove the existence of God because he doesn't exist, so how can you ask me for evidence that he doesn't exist, prove that I don't have a million dollars in my pocket.... it's just silly and so is this whole argument.
You can believe what you like, I would rather believe what is true. End of story.No it ain't the end because the things seen in this world reveals the things unseen which are eternal even unto the Godhead so that people are without excuse.
(you still haven't given me the slightest evidence weighting toward "No God". I have given you the entire universe as circumstantial evidence. Do you even have any?)
wilmiers77,
I give you the entire universe as cicumstantial evidence that there is no god or gods.
There, take that!OMG!!! The same long living atheist...blind as a bat!
OMG!!! The same long living theist...deluded to the hilt!
Incidently bats "see" better, though the mechanism they use is different.True! But the question is will the bat love God?
Psst the OP states :
Show me the proof that God does not exist?
So looks like the onus is on you to do the proving
Winston..just sayin..(So looks like the onus is on you to do the proving Winston)
Eaglekiwi,
Of course, it is the argument from ignorance stated as a question - but undaunted, I will answer it with as good of argument against as it has for.
Here are the words from my holy book: Catch-22, Chapter 12, page 123
"Open your eyes, Clevinger. It doesn't make a damned bit of difference who wins the war to someone who's dead."
There, I just proved it. I cannot help it if you deny what is plain as day.AKA, I DITTO Brent Hale's comment. If I had the intellectual power to recognize anything that is perfect, than I am sure that I would state Hale's comment as being perfect.
AKA, my man, sounds as if you have been hitting the sauce too much since we last debated. "...the whole universe prove that there is no God???"!!!! LOLOL!!! Sober up and look up and observe part of the orderly universe.
wilmiers77,
Your arguments are empty and meaningless. Go preach to an idiot - he may think you are special.Since ID is out of the question for you, how do you theorize how the human body came today, originating from RNA in a primordial soup, the organs working in harmony with the others and consciousness being introduced into the brain?
It's very easy, the one who designed the intelligent designer had the blueprint!
Lol...yeah that;s the one they just can't get around. If everything needed a creator..who created their mythical god?
Of course it does. Why follow your argument through to it's logical conclusion when you can just contradict it? Makes perfect sense to me.
Millions of years of evolution. Very small changes over vast stretches of time.
You make it sound like it all happened in fortnight.There are parts, organs, of a life form which had to be developed simultaneously, causing the probability to exceed reality. Why are these organs on a giraffe with his long neck. It's a valve at the top of their head which maintain blood pressure for his brain between heart beats, needed due to his long neck. Heart and valve were both needed at the same time or giraffe would die. Can you give me any explanation how they both by chance were instantaneously developed in small increments by chance? Remember, scientist has deemed the probability to not be in the realm of reality, meaning it would never material by chance.
Deleted
If evolution can not be proved and it is clever how can I put all of my faith into believing it? And, I understand the scientific info because I am a science grad. Sure, species are changing as they are exposed to their environment, but evolutionist must content with something from nothing. This is where my God can not be ignored. First cause?
But it has been proved! And evolution has never talked about something from nothing! Get your facts right! And "your God" remains to be proved, which is why this whole forum post is silly: you can't disprove something until it has been proven.
You are denying the inevitable. People are concerned about whole life happiness, not scientific facts only. Love is the primordial desire of all humans. This is spiritual and not technical. Since overwhelmingly spiritual, religion has more to do with the affairs of the human heart than technology or science.
Incorporated in Christianity are the traditional beliefs which have been codify in law and all other disciplines alone with the more updated codifications of our contemporaries. An individual's life is valued by his spirit; how the individual feels. Yes, one's material status and environment does affect one, but it is only collateral...mind over matter applies if I may.
Even if everyone agrees that evolution is a fact, it would only be collateral to fulfilling one's life with happiness. Joy and happiness is of the spirit."If God doesn't like the way I live, let him tell me, not you."
"evolution has been proved..."? I don't think so; research a little farther. You have been getting info from the moderate evolutionist. The radical evolutionist has challenged "first cause" which brings us back to something from nothing. Lets not confuse specie adaptation to environment with first cause of specie.
Something from nothing? Like where your invisible sugar daddy came from? Oh but that's different, eh?
You can't have it both ways dude, no matter how badly you want to. The odds you have chosen the right god are at least 4000 to 1 and probably much higher than that. Did you inherit your religion or did you ever know anything about the many others?
Well, you did think of God. You are still using finite logic and applying it to an infinite, eternal existence. This is why Christianity and the Holy
Scriptures don't make sense to you. We are thinking about the supernatural which is spirit. You are thinking about your homies and your worldly experiences.Nope! I'm thinking about facts and scientific research. You, on the other hand, are putting your faith in ignorant myths made up by illiterate goat hereders who didn't have a clue how lightening was formed nor knew the earth was round at the time.
And sorry, but I cannot believe you have any kind of science degree unless you attended some religious institute for your diploma. In that case, your posts would be understandable.
Why? Are you so lazy as to not look that up yourself? Considering, you haven't any understanding of physics, evolution or anything about science, what reason do you have for wanting such an explanation when it's so obvious the explanation will baffle you?
What possesses you to constantly spew that garbage? Seriously dude, what is your problem?Now, you are hidding and throwing rocks, stone man.
You mean to tell me that you call factual discourse garbage when you can do a little research and verify? Hopeless. This is why some people remain in the stone age.
There is nothing factual about your posts at all. Why should I do your homework for you when you can't even form simple logical ideas and concepts and lie about doing physics research when it's blatantly obvious you have little to no understanding of the very elementary basics of science.
Yeah, right.What? You mean to tell me that you know everything, and do not have to do any research? LOLOLOL!!!
You've already shown me that you're not interested in hearing or learning anything, which is exactly what I suspected all along.
So are you telling me that organs were once not fully formed before because the changes happen over vast stretches of time? A incomplete organ could never work and all organs would have to be evolved fully to work together. So how did that work? How did consciousness evolve?
Can you give me a basic step by step progress on how evolution caused RNA to form DNA which eventually assembled itself into the complex cell and then suddenly without any consciousness just turned into bodies.
Rivals the Adam and Eve story.Gradual steps. The eye for example would first evolve a photosensitive cell, followed by aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve, then an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin with the pigment cells forming a small depression and then a deeper depression while the skin over the depression takes on a lens shape eventually allowing the muscles of the lens to adjust. All of these individual steps would also be broken down into smaller steps taking hundreds of thousands of years and many generations to occur. Does that make sense to you, Claire?
In very much the same way. All organs evolved in similar ways.
In very much the same way as above. The problem here is that you assert things "suddenly" appear and "just turned into" other things. It's one of your key giveaways that you have no understanding of even the very basics of evolution.
I'm sure it would to those who never took the time to get their nose out of the Bible.Are you telling me that this slow development over eons of time was all random chance? Are you actually telling me that by random chance a light developed on the head of a fish who lives a mile beneath the sea for him to see? Trouble, you make it easy for me to believe in God because believing you would be 10000 X 10000 much harder! LOLOLOLOL!!!!!
No, that would be the assertion of someone who didn't understand evolution.
Yes, I understand you have no understanding of evolution, no need to remind me. And, it would appear that my suspicions of your questions were accurate, and that you were not sincere at all, that you really weren't interested in hearing them, that you had no desire to learn something.
You only offer ample reason why it's a complete waste of time to explain things like that to believers.Well Trouble, you explain the evolution of a fish with a light on his head since you have the knowledge of evolution. Also, you haven't touched on the subject of the long neck giraffe who has a blood pressure valve on his head to compensation for his long neck that had to develop simultaneously with the heart and neck? Now, don't continue to give me BS! Just give me an explaination for both or either if you really can.
(Can you give me a basic step by step progress on how evolution caused RNA to form DNA which eventually assembled itself into the complex cell and then suddenly without any consciousness just turned into bodies)
Claire,
This is where evolution-deniers miss the point: the fact that science cannot now (and maybe never will be able to) provide a perfect blueprint for each incremental change that occurred and led to life as we know it today does not support an argument for a creative intelligence.
I am fairly confident you are well-enough read to know that the "argument from ignorance" is fallacious.
What is termed microevolution is fact - it happens. That these microevolutionary processes over enough time can produce larger changes is an extrapolation from that data - admittedly. But it is an extrapolation based on evidence and reasoning.
Creation has no such evidence or reasoning behind it. It is simply a narrative supported by the fallacious argument from ignorance.
Believe at your own risk.The most complete example we have in the fossil record of a transition in vertebrate classes is the transition from synapsid reptiles to mammals. Being one of the more recent examples with numerous specimen represented, much is known about the physical changes, but nothing is known about the transition from species to species. Physically, changes can be seen in the jaws and skull that would later be unique to mammals. Changes that would not serve a purpose for many generations.
Not to mention the outside forces that along the way allowed for mammals to develop the way they did. There was an explosion of changes during the Permian period. Warm-bloodedness evolved, reptiles were at least 10 times more diverse, and entire super-classes of animals appeared and disappeared within a few million years. At the end of the period came the Permian-Triassic mass extinction that killed 90% of all life on earth, though it left the ancestors of both dinosaurs and mammals virtually unscathed. The cause of this mass extinction is unknown.
Throughout the Mesozoic Era Dinosaurs developed into the dominant species. The mammals that did first begin to appear towards the end of Triassic remained small and insignificant throughout the Mesozoic Era. Then came the K-T mass extinction that wiped out 80 to 90% of all sea life and 85% of all land animals, including the dinosaurs, but left early mammals, birds, and many reptiles unharmed. The cause of this mass extinction is not known either. This mass death of the dominant dinosaur species allowed mammals to thrive.
All throughout earth's history there have been different forms of mass extinctions that shaped life as we know it, though little is known about many of them. The two most recent wiped out the majority of life on the planet, yet appear to have been rather selective in what it killed and what it didn't. Kind of like how Noah's flood is described. Some are selected to carry on, including pairs of many animal species, the rest in the region were wiped out. The biblical flood is described as a kind of 'edit' to steer the progression of life, much like the 'edits' throughout earth's formation steered the progression of life in significant ways. Without them, mammals would not have developed the way they did and we never would have been here.What reptile did a cheetah, for example, come from? Why haven't sharks evolved for millions of years?
Cheetahs came from synapsid reptiles, as did every other mammal. Sharks simply evolved early on into an already very efficient specimen, long before any animals made their way onto land. Little could be improved beyond being a swimming eating machine. By the time early fish were first forming jaws, there were already sharks. When a species can always find the necessities of life to live, and rarely if ever have a natural predator hunting them down, no changes are necessary. In other words, nothing in their natural element forced them to change.
Can you give me a brief timeline of the process of how a synapsid reptile evolved into a cheetah? What fossils exist that can prove this? How did the fish survive without jaws? How did a rapture survive without perfect eyesight from the beginning?
I can give a timeline easy enough, but it's the 'how' part that gets tricky. We just don't know. As I stated before, the transition from reptiles to mammals is one of the best documented and best represented in the fossil record simply because it's the most recent class change. Soft tissue doesn't last that long, so we only have skeletal remains and DNA evidence (depending on how old the remains are) to go off of in most cases.
Just do a search on proto-mammals. That is where the changes began. We have enough evidence from the fossil record to see skeletal changes progressively become more mammal-like. Mammals have specific skeletal features, especially in the skull and jaw, that are unique to mammals. This is why all land animal life is broken into those two groups, sauropsids and synapsids. Reptiles, dinosaurs, and birds are on the sauropsid branch, mammals and 'mammal-like reptiles' are on the other branch.
Proto-mammals first appeared about 225 mya. Some synapsid reptiles began to show early versions of openings in the skull found in mammals much later. The thing is, these changes wouldn't serve a purpose for many generations. Muscles, nerves, blood vessels, and such use this opening, but that couldn't be the reason alone as these features were in no way beneficial to increase the probability that these traits would pass on. In early proto-mammals, this opening was no more than a kind of dent in the skull that slowly opened wider over many millions of years.
The first actual mammals appear about 205 million years ago, but they're rodent-sized because dinosaurs and such are the dominant species. Once the KT mass extinction (65.5 mya)wiped out the dinosaurs, that's when mammals really thrived. Placental mammals, which cheetahs are, first began to develop during the Paleocene epoch (65.5 to 55.8 mya), followed by the appearance of most early modern mammals during the Eocene epoch (55.8 to 33.9 mya). Proper cheetahs wouldn't have appeared until very late in the process. My hub has pictures that better illustrate all of this in detail.
Jawless fish lived for many millions of years. They didn't require jaws to live. They didn't eat large prey. They didn't have to chew. I believe there are still examples of fish and marine life today that still don't have jaws and don't need them.
As for eyes, obviously because soft tissue doesn't last this is all speculation, but 'perfect eyesight' didn't have to be from the get-go. Any ability to see, no matter how imperfect, was better than not being able to see. The better the site, the better it served the purpose of survival, so those that could see better were more likely to live to pass on their better vision. Eventually, it became more and more like what we perceive today to be perfect.
Other questions you've asked about developing organs and such I imagine were the same way. Obviously, an ill-formed partial organ would not sustain life, so the organism wouldn't survive long enough to procreate. Organs formed as functional pieces early, just much simpler and smaller as the organisms were simpler and smaller. Then, like the proto-mammal skulls above, they adapted, but continued to fully function. The more efficient qualities were the ones more likely to pass on, and so on.
The 'how' is the tricky part in a lot of this. Obviously, if you haven't gathered already, I believe God created evolution. Allowing life to form through struggle and adaptation just seems like God's style to me. Each of our individual lives are shaped by struggle and adaptation. It's a good teacher. It's a good system. The fossil record is pretty undeniable. Changes happened gradually. We can see the changes and we can piece together a pretty accurate timeline. It's the 'how' part that theories try to explain.
So I assume barracudas only came around when fish got jaws?
Eagles cannot survive without perfect eyesight.
Having the evidence of evolution yet not knowing how is like having the evidence of God's creation but not knowing how.
Thanks for the effort researching this.Yes, those first jawed fish were distant ancestors of barracudas.
The eyes of an eagle formed through hundreds and thousands of generations that preceded eagles. There were many generations of species of birds that came before eagles that all had eyes. Before that, there were many generations of dinosaurs who were direct descendants who also had eyes. Before that, numerous generations of reptiles, before that amphibeans, etc. By the time eagles came about, that branch of creatures had highly developed eye sight, forged over ages of existence.
I'm not just making this stuff up and the sources I draw from aren't either.
You're right, 'how' is the key. But the progression of life is undeniable. 'Evidence of evolution' and 'evidence of God's creation' are one and the same. If you believe that existence is God's creation, as I do, then one concrete piece to that creation is that all life came from the sea and physically developed over numerous generations, adapting and changing along the way. We have physical evidence that confirms it. What we don't have is concrete evidence that explains how it happened.
Genesis describes God commanding life to come from the sea, to become birds and grazing animals and humans and all of that. So, according to that, God imbued a will into all living things. Every individual creature along the way participated in realizing God's commands, without even knowing they were doing so. All of life worked as a collective to comply. Like a colony of ants that works together without first having to meet and discuss how to do it. They just do it.Thanks for your comment. Why do some people have poor eyesight? Why should a rapture succeed in having perfect eyesight through evolution and not us?
I think it's simply a matter of perfect eyesight not being as necessary to ensure survival in humans as it would be for eagles or raptors. While 'imperfect' eyesight is probably most often a genetic issue, the ancestors who passed on those flawed traits were able to survive in spite of it.
In this way you could actually view things like medical and dental healthcare as a detriment to future generations of humans. Who's to say humans many generations from now through the natural order of selection and survival of the fittest wouldn't have perfect teeth that were much more resistant to rot or breaking down genetically? Technically, by taking care of those kinds of problems now, or aiding the survival of people who have genetic disorders that cause health issues that otherwise would have ended their life, we're changing the course of evolution.
Note: After making a comment like that I do want to specifically note that I'm not suggesting anything here other than making a point. I don't want to hurt the feelings of anyone who's loved ones suffer from illnesses. Just to be clear, I am in favor of both medical and dental health care.
(So are you telling me that organs were once not fully formed before because the changes happen over vast stretches of time?)
Claire,
Btw, you are aware I presume that the only objective evidence we have that this is possible is by means of evolution - that it occurred is not even up for debate since mankind deciphered DNA.
How and in what sequences and for what reasons did a creator construct all the minute differences seen in nature? What purpose was served by the 99% of once-living creatures that no longer inhabit the earth if it weren't for the process of evolving? Did god simply build in a default obsolete model? If so, how were the changed creatures created and to what purpose?
Science gives us a tentative answer to all these questions - god does not. To believe the god story, we have to disbelieve facts (funny how creationists do just that, isn't it?).Nature tells us how God works. The same patterns can be seen in the formation of life as can be seen at the cellular level. Look at the formation of the human hand in the womb. Life just works this way. Way more cells than what are ultimately needed form. All the cells that develop between the fingers ultimately die off and disappear. They serve a purpose, their purpose was done, they go away. The same type of over-building of life can be seen throughout the formation of life. Changes that are necessary, numerous species that served their purpose, then died.
All of life works as one big system, like the way cells work together. Humans too could be one large organism working harmoniously with nature. The only thing is we all have our own individual free will and we get ideas. Ideas that we can improve something, or make something easier. Only we cling to life as if that's all there is because we're aware that it ends. We try to preserve and extend our individual lives, each of us feeling too important to simply serve some seemingly menial role, then die.
We're just learning. Having our own minds we struggle when we don't understand. When we can't understand we have to have faith that what cannot yet be known still has purpose so we have purpose.
Though some are content to think of our existence as nothing more than a brief flash in the universe's timeline when beings existed made up of particles of the universe that somehow became aware of itself, then ultimately vanished as quickly as it sprang up.Why wouldn't God make minute differences seen in nature? Once living creatures can be extinct, you know. Conditions change. Can you give me an example of what creatures no longer exist that has been scientifically proven as fact to have evolved into another creature?
I'm not God, either. I don't know how it happened. All I know is that a cells cannot assemble itself by it's own without a designer. No blueprint means no assembled working product. A foetus groves not randomly but according to a genetic DNA blueprint. I tend not to believe that people and animals just appeared out of thin air like fundamentalist Christians seem to believe. I just don't know. Perhaps abiogenesis is true according to a sequence programmed by God!
There is no fact that proves that cells and ultimately bodies just evolved without divine intervention. Imagine a car just assembling itself without people with skills and knowledge designing and creating it. Impossible.
(Since ID is out of the question for you, how do you theorize how the human body came today, originating from RNA in a primordial soup, the organs working in harmony with the others and consciousness being introduced into the brain?)
Claire,
Sorry, but I didn't see your question until today. My answer is simple: I have no answer. I do not know.
I do know this much, though. The only mechanism we have any evidence for is based on the fact that there are incremental changes, and those changes could in theory lead to larger changes - in other words, the evolutionary process.
As for abiogenesis, no one knows. But it is known that virtually every discovery of science has been at a loss to superstition - the god of the gaps has fewer gaps to fill today than he did in the 13th century.
We may never know the answer to abiogenesis, but my bet is that if we ever do find out, the answer will once again come at a loss to superstition.Not a problem. I also miss certain replies because my e-mail account doesn't give all notifications from comments.
Incremental changes can only happen over millions of years. An organ for a heart, for example, needs to be fully formed to work. It can't just start off as cells and remain that way until it "evolves" fully into a heart.
Here's an interesting piece of information for you. Homo erectus lived in Africa 1.5 million years ago. They remained unchanged for quite some time. Then suddenly 200 000 year ago, there was an abrupt upgrade to homo sapiens. They could now speak languages and they human brain increased significantly. Then 35 000 years ago there was another sudden upgrade. I think you know scientists call this the missing link ignoring the theory that incremental changes happen over millions of years ago. The answer lies in ancient pagan texts. The Sumerian tablets say that the Annunaki visited the earth in their space crafts and genetically modified humans to their liking. The Bible says, "Let us make make in OUR image". Elohim means Gods. The literal translation of the Old Testament is very different to what is in the Old Testament.
My view is a bit different. I do not believe that humans before the Annunaki were unsophisticated human beings that just grunted. I believe they were untainted human beings made by God. The Elohim were evil and genetically modified them to have the propensity to be evil. The apple, I believe, symbolizes people realizing that good and evil existed because they could sin themselves. It is theorized that Adam and Eve represent the first genetically modified human beings. If they were made in the image of the Elohim, they would only want to do evil. To be slaves and question no evil. I believe God, through Jesus, enabled them to have free will. In the beginning the word was Jesus. I believe in another dimension, Jesus had already defeated death and evil and only thousands of years later did it replay in the physical world. Being capable of doing good again, man rebelled. The Elohim were angry and said, "Go doing your own thing and find your own food!" When they were losing control over the population, they sent the Great Flood to reduce the number of people.
This probably sounds extremely crazy and for a moment I thought, "Am I really writing this?", but if you want to listen to lecture on the original translation of the Old Testament watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MXLB6S … CJxw1wDtoq
The Sumerian origin of humans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … lccvSikr0w
The Jesus part is pure speculating and would have no idea if that happened or not because there isn't anything to verify to that but Jesus being the word from the beginning.
I think Darwin's theory of evolution has really weakened over the years prompting people like Richard Dawkins to admit that aliens may have genetically modified humans long ago.
DNA Nobel prize winner, Francis Crick, believed this, too.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc … _adn08.htmHi Claire Evans, nice to meet you
If you don't mind answering a few questions for me. I'd appreciate it.
1) Could you tell me what the sudden upgrade was 35,000 years ago.
2) Are the 'Elohim/Annunaki 'Gods'? (supernatural) or something resembling vastly superior beings relative to humans?
3) Are you saying Jesus is God, or is Jesus a creation of God (perhaps God could create a second physical version of himself?) or is Jesus an entirely different persona capable of doing things differently to God (but obviously wouldn't)
Thanx!Nice to meet you also.
We became homo sapiens sapiens.
Homo Sapien
"The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins"
Homo sapien sapien
"Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile....
It's a sub category of homo sapian and shows the upgrade.
The Annunaki are physical beings. You could call them aliens but the Elohim are inferior to them. They were in charge of genetically modifying humanity and controlling them.
Jesus is God in the flesh being the son of God at the same time on earth. He assumed the role of a person experiencing the same things as us. He could be considered a creation of God since we say our parents created us. Jesus was given free will like the rest of us and thus could do things contrary to God's will but He didn't. He withstood temptation. The gospels show us how to have a relationship with God through Jesus. We could not know this without Jesus.
Hope this is good enough!Ok I guess I now have three other questions.
1) There are two theories, yours and the other theory that you see differently, in other words your take. is it your theory that only the 'evil' Elohim are capable of genetically modifying humans or that both the Elohim and the Annunaki have the ability to do so?
2) Are you saying that the 'physical' Annunaki are more powerful than the Elohim gods? or am I misunderstanding their attributes?
3) So God created Jesus, who at this point is a separate entity, one could assume that if we were in the presence of God that we may also see Jesus alongside of God at the same time? If so Jesus could now be considered his own self, If so, shouldn't we say Jesus is not God should we call him Jesus (obviously knowing that there are two separate entities) and stop calling him God? The reason I say there should be a distinction is that unless Jesus isn't capable of independent thought then it would be like saying he isn't 'real' he is 'just' a representation, sort of like a hologram. If he is now 'real' then yes I understand he would act like his father, but I feel he should not be his father.
Sorry if that sounds confusingSince you brought up Elohim, it's important to point out that in hebrew that word has a lot of meanings. It means God, Gods, Angels, Demons, sons of God, as well as a few other things. Trying to inference it is what was done during bible creation, how it was actually meant no one actually knows as no one knows the mind of the writers. All that is drawn from it is assumptive conclusions.
Not saying that the way its translated is necessarily incorrect, just pointing out that without knowing the minds of the writers it hard to be conclusive about.I made a mistake. The Elohim and the Annunaki are synonymous. It is said they are both good and evil although I do not believe the former at all.
I don’t think create is the correct term as Jesus is God in the flesh. We will never be able to see God. His brilliance is too great. Jesus is the link between us God and seeing Him is seeing God.
The concept of the trinity is rather complicated. I understand that Jesus was God in the flesh and the son of God simultaneously. He was given the gift of independent thought and free will because if He didn’t have that ability He’d be like a programmed robot. God had to assume the role of the son to show us how to have a relationship with Him; how important faith in God is. This probably is going to sound really confusing but I’ll try my best.
Say I was God and I saw that my creation did not understand me because of lies that we told about me depicting me as evil. I know that the only way I could reconcile with my people is to explain myself who I really am. Since I am a brilliant spirit I cannot speak to my people directly. Therefore I make the decision to make myself come in the form of a person to preach the truth. If I wanted to teach people how to pray and have faith, I cannot come as God because God can’t have trust in God and exercise faith and be vulnerable to sin. If I made a subordinate representation of me, I could now feel what it is like to feel tempted and be human. I know that as God I could not be in the presence of evil but a human form of me can take on the sin of the world. What would be the victory of the resurrection if Jesus had not exercised His final test of faith and resisted the temptation to be saved from hell?
This is why Jesus says He had come to witness to the truth and why He is the only way to the Father. Whatever you go through in life, God has been through the same. He is compassionate because He knows what it is like to be tempted, angry, grief-stricken, loving and full of joy. He is not a distant God indifferent to us.
(AKA, my man, sounds as if you have been hitting the sauce too much since we last debated.)
Wilmiers77,
You must be hallucinating again. I don't spar with the handicapped and I don't joust against Jerry's kids.
The reverse is true also. The more the hypothesis is revealed as a reality; the less the antithesis appears to be a reality. (they are inversely proportioned)
The position of "you haven't proved that God exist" becomes a lonely position as the circumstantial evidence stacks up.I cannot prove to you that God doesn't exist because HE really exist in every second and inch of our lives. In simple and complicated things, God is with us. Emmanuel. I believe you too feel that someone has higher being than human.
Just your opinion, of course. No more worthy than mine, and perhaps less well informed, unfortunately for you.
If God exists then God is a failure.
Even the bible says that God is a failure.
That is if you believe in the bible(s)Anyone who proof to that God does not exist is an enemy of God. Have you asked yourself how you came to being?how you die?forget about whatever movie or books you must have read, does anything speak to you when you are alone? Have you asked yourself who that person is? God does exist.
-
Through the process of conception, pregnancy and birth, how about you? If not the same way, I can only conclude you might have been hatched from an egg.
The body ceases to function, it's a biological thingy.
No, I don't have schizophrenia or other such mental disorder in which I hear voices speaking to me.
Have you ever sought professional help for the voices in your head? You really should read through the reasons people don't believe in a God, and as far as who talks to us when we are alone? We do, we think to ourselves, we talk to ourselves out loud, if we are schizophrenic some other personality talks to us and we believe that they are actually there...
If you talk to God and he talks back to you chances are you are probably Schizophrenic.
Based on your knowledge of....because...
I seeIt's perfectly ok to talk to yourself. Most psychologists recommend it actually. However, when you start to reply, they will flat out tell you that you are crazy and need some medication, and when that doesn't work, an institution.
Actually, Believers are taught to amplify the small, still voice in our conscience, and to have the ability to distinguish the Lord's voice. Atheist don't have God; so, they become schizophrenic.
Ah yes the ole, "if not god then what" argument..the theist default argument...they never grow tired of that one.
Just wait... When that doesn't work, it's back to stonings and witch hunts.
God never changes, only our human understanding of Him changes. God IS concrete proof. He IS the Ultimate Truth. God is The Law.
Science is merely a human attempt at explaining absolutes. God is the only absolute. Therefore, science seeks to explain God.(Science is merely a human attempt at explaining absolutes. God is the only absolute. Therefore, science seeks to explain God)
It would seem, then, that by extension science seeks to explain Brent Hale, as he has all the answers. Perhaps that is why he chose the name: Hail, Hale? Hale, yes!
Common sense would also dictate our believing the world is flat. Not saying there is no god, but one can simply not fall back on common sense or the heart for matters of science and finding truth. God has always filled in the gaps of knowledge when we didn't know. As we learn more and more about life and the universe, god sometimes has to take a back seat. I seek truth. If that truth is a god created all there is, so be it. If that truth is that is just is (as god would also have to be), then I'll take that.
Yes, I agree to a certain extent that common sense is not an absolute determination of truth, but putting God in the back seat for any time the created or existing truths which are incomplete becomes insufficient for the hope of the people.
A sea of people don't wait for another truth in science to glorify them. A belief such as your without God or waiting for the truth of God to be established shall become acidity and fall on hard times with little hope...hitting the rocks which than becomes susceptible to a heavy handed government. I think that history will support what I have posed. The multitude of people always need sufficient hope.I agree that people need hope. This I think is one of the reasons for religion in the first place. All religions give people some type of hope. When ever people start to get down in life we tend to look for the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel which is in and of itself nothing more than hope. I actually find that it tends to be something important to have for everyone. Everyone takes hope in something, whether its religion, themselves, or other people, it's still hope.
- MP50posted 13 years ago
0God does exist and it can be proven, not by anyone else, only by yourself. If only people would stop talking about it and start listening instead, the proof will be revealed.
Listening to what? What voices are you hearing out of interest?
Not hearing voices, just listening, don't take my word for it. If you want proof that God does exist.
Get quiet and listen, no talking or thinking just listen. This takes hours and hours and years and years of practice, try it for yourself I can't prove it to you, you have to prove it to yourself.
welcome to HP.I read on your profile that you're a dialysis patient for which I'm sorry to hear. My Grandfather invented the first dialysis machine; he believed in god (loosely); however it was his attitude and attitudes like it that have shaped our understanding of the world and our current place in it; however he would never have been on the side of those who ask questions like 'show me proof that god doesn't exist' he was too intelligent for questions like that - practicality dictates that what we see before us in plain view is all that exists or you can forget any inventions or scientific discoveries.
Thanks for taking the time to read my profile, this can sometimmes be rare. We are capable of seeing much more than we actually do see, our eyes have been closed through distraction for so long, it takes a little time to start seeing properly again.
Imagination is a wonderful thing.... Schizophrenia is a terrible thing....
If you are hearing voices you should get professional help my friend...
- Chasukposted 13 years ago0
Few atheists claim to have proof that God does not exist. I am a typical atheist, and I certainly don't make that claim.
the proof is in the pudding... and since we have pudding that means we have proof.
you're welcome world!All the signs we're seeing on earth shows that GOD exist. If you say God does not exist, can you stay on earth forever?
But where does God exist, other than in the mind of the believer?
Whew! Glad to hear that! I was worried about having to spend eternity in heaven with you guys! That would be my idea of hell!
For the sake of sanity, I will inevitably find myself in hell. At least there's something to do there, heaven seems oh so boring.
it's a free show sponsored by the internet.
You mean I don't have to buy tickets to watch these 2 geniuses proverbially beat on eachother? I thought it would be on pay-per-view...
All in the name of self gratification, I assure you. I'm the kind of person that laughs at his own witticisms. If their not funny to me, their not funny at all.
I don't tell jokes so that others will laugh, it's all for my own amusement. It's a form of selfishness and I enjoy it very much.
As do I, If i'm not already clinically insane I will never be considering the fact that I am my own comedian.
My psychosis is awesome, I get to laugh at my jokes and share tea with... myself as well. I guess it works out, no matter how I look at it.
All atheists are insane because they can't see or hear God.
I believe Christians are jealous because I can hear colors almost as well as i can taste them.
LMAO! The "proof" for god keeps getting more ridiculous all the time. Now because we can't live forever it's "proof" of a god. I am so glad scientists rely on better "proof" than this.
Arguing with a holy rolling christian is like arguing with a wall. Logic has no basis in anything. The bearded guy riding a cloud in the sky knows all.
OMG!!! .......blind as a bat. Every think that there are things beyond what you can see in front of your nose? Using logic for everything...? Wake up!
Sure, but what would that accomplish other than delusion to believe there were?
Well, you could learn something, for one. Look at it this way... How long did humanity exist without knowing that there are frequencies of light and sound that go beyond our senses capability to detect them? If you only allow for what you can currently see to be all there is, then you can't progress. There's more out there, whether you believe in God or not. There's plenty we can't see yet.
Perhaps, but certainly not from anything you've posted.
It's hilarious when believers use the most elementary and obvious logical fallacies to support their irrational beliefs without even batting an eye.Well, obviously, you see a fallacy in my logic that I cannot see. Here's a perfect example of a situation where you could actually make a useful statement. Don't just point and laugh at me. If I can't see it, help me see it. Explain the fallacy so maybe then I can understand. That would be useful.
Of course, believers only "logic" is the use of logical fallacies.
You stated quite emphatically in another thread that this was a site for writers. As a "writer" you should understand fully the various logical fallacies and how not to use them in arguments as those would be some of the very basic requirements for being a writer.And thus, A Troubled Man firmly and undeniably states his insincerity, his unwillingness to rationally discuss and share ideas with others, and his dedication to trolling and ridiculing anyone he chooses to.
Trolling is his only pleasure...so sad really. Borders on pathetic some would even say.
Honestly, I can understand the joy of trolling.
It is a joy that is only surpassed by... say... eating food, or watching tv, or reading a book, or spending time with your family, or playing games, or hiking, or taking up golf, or learning photography, or performing your own dental work.
You sound like a fellow that wouldn't have believed Daniel Boone if he had told you about the future parts of the USA because you hadn't seen it.
A loud horn rips through my ear drums - Red
A loud sound flattulates from under me - Green
I shove a Habenero in my mouth - Red
I joyfully play with a Sour Apple Jolly Rancher that is in my mouth - Green
Its not hard to come up with answers. Even the Hear No, See No and Speak No Monkeys can be trained. After all, what was a color to begin with but one mans take on said color. Does anyone really, truely know that red is red or green is green? Or do we just take it on faith?that would be impossible to do. If He didn't exhist-Im wouldn't be here to prove anything.
"It's a fool who says in his heart that there is no God."
Allah agrees with you! And so does Krisna! Gods of a feather!
This whole thread is making my brain hurt.
Worst. Thread. Ever.
What is this, like 5 pages of nonsense now? Obviously any resemblance to an actual discussion ended long ago. Why keep going?
How about this, maybe the answers can at least get more interesting ...
The conscious human mind. We all experience it. We all know it's there. We all know it consist of memories, associations, logic, reason, images, words, shapes, colors, sounds, etc.
Other than being able to do things like track oxygenated blood flow, there's very little we can do to actually detect what's going on in the conscious mind. These forums should be proof enough that conveying a mindset or particular point of view can be difficult because there's no way to see or detect someone else's thoughts. In other words, the conscious mind exists beyond all doubt, but is completely undetectable in any sort of way scientifically, even when you can talk face to face with people who experience it first-hand. We can scan them with every tool imaginable, yet we still know very little.
We know we're made up of the same stuff as the rest of the universe.
So, if something as dynamic and as capable of creativity and as undetectable as the human conscious mind exists, does it not stand to reason, mathematically or otherwise, that it's not the only thing in existence that is just as dynamic, just as capable of creativity, yet just as undetectable? Whether it be lesser developed beings? Life on some distant planet? Or something much more advanced?
Knowing as much as we do about the sheer size and scope of the universe, is it really the more logical stance to assume our conscious mind is the only thing in all of existence that's like it? That it's just a fortunate one time occurrence that showed up for an instant during the multi-billion year duration of existence, then disappeared? A small window where one small piece of the universe actually became aware of itself? Is this really the MORE logical conclusion?I actually have one I started way back on the 24th of January, but there's a reason I named my website 'Prompt Procrastination'. Maybe sometime before the world ends in December I'll actually publish it.
No one really does...it just makes them feel better to say they do. Deep down inside in places they hate to admit...they know it's all BS.
The proof is in the pudding, we having pudding therefore we have the truth.
I also loved Brent Hale's comment.The best argument against Christianity…is the story of Christianity.
http://www.atheismresource.com/2012/the … ristianityI wonder when these questions will get old. There is no proof and i highly doubt their ever will be! There will always be people who disagree
Flat earth was also the cutting edge of the science of the day. Actually, very few people in those times believed that. The chinese and japanese people of that time didn't believe flat earth. The Vikings knew that was false, if they ever heard it. The P'iri Reis maps, possibly in possesion of Columbus when he sailed shows that others also didn't believe it. The Polynesians certainly never heard of a flat earth. I think you believe too much of the invented history which you were taught. Atheists still think many things which aren't true...like we are the biggest baddest thing in the whole danged universe, which is essential believing in man as the center of the universe. Childish understanding occurs within religion and science...we really don't have enough data yet to say what is what. The beginning of wisdom is to admit that we know squat.
I don't think the Vikings ever cared if the world was flat or not. I think their concern was more of whether or not they had sailed every part of the sea.
Denial isn't a river in Egypt. There is tons of evidence of activities before 6800 BC. Blindness isn't an atheistic monopoly.
CE,
brilliant!
their own stories/fables defy their argument, in favor of it.
almost laughable.
from all their 'evidence' not once has an ultra-subatomic unit 'misfired'.
considering physics and result of suspending atomic units, should just one unit of 'hydrogen' divide and collide, it results in:
how many units of energy make up a 'hydrogen' atom...
to the 'smallest' Nth, the numbers are staggering and practically impossible, by human measurements to even conceive. Evolution is a farce. So is carbon dating used as the catalyst to 'prove' evolution.
James.And, here we have a post in which ridiculous assertions are based on false premises followed by ignorant conclusions and childish dismissals. Not just a denial of science and reality, but a blatant misrepresentation of them.
No more blatant than your steadfast, immovable, but 'certainty' of your belief system (aka religion). But, don't pout, their religion isn't any better than yours. lol.
Granted, both are vastly entertaining, visually stimulating.
But, both are truly unnecessary for the betterment of humanity, place he lives and places he desires to visit 'millions' of miles away.
dear me, no wonder why you are so conflicted. [snorts in laughter].Once again, the dishonest must somehow defend their irrational beliefs by redefining words to suit their agendas and lie about concepts they have no grasp to understand.
Yes, quite true, you have described yourself -yet again. lol
-snorts.
The words/texts of your religion are as equally defunct as any sensationalistic religion. You call your religion 'common sense' or 'science' --even to the extreme of calling it logical. BAH! That is hysterical.
The concepts are written in history for everyone to see.
Your crew splitting atoms, inventing theorem evolution, and the like --or their crew splitting verses, inventing theorem afterlife are equally irrational.
Fables & Stories, yes. Entertaining and Inviting, yes & yes.
True and valid, no.
What you call evidence is merely indoctrinated acceptance of subjective information. No validity apart from human documentation exists to prove your calculations, measuring tools, time lines, etc regarding the when-if of this planet -not to forget the ones millions of 'years' away. Neither is there any evidence from sensationalists without woo-woo-la-la.
Practical Faith is beyond you both, because it would ruin your capitalistic ventures and mental slavery.
Just because these concepts or 'facts' work -from either side- doesn't make them true. It makes them marketable.
Two peas in a pod, the saying goes.
Such is the marriage of humanism.
Sadly, your bastard child, called Quality of Life, is more dangerous than you both. It thinks it has reunited this estranged couple and found the 'truth' combining them both. BAH! again.
But, not to worry, my good friend, humanism is nearly dead and your kid is about to get a wake up call.
The iChurch or the Church of Si-Fi. No difference -imo.
One temple of stone for another temple of steel.
How many trinkets hang on both walls?
How much blood from both is between every brick or in every sewer.
The bones of the living and the dead, displayed proudly next to images of 'mistakes' and 'achievements'. But, instead of crucifixion, now you have odorless, colorless, bio warfare, food modification, hormone inception, etc etc etc. At least the Romans were a wee bit more merciful...
and no matter how pathetically you 'logicians', 'technicians', 'sorcerers', 'prophets', 'preachers' or 'physicians' try to justify your deeds or the deeds of your leaders, there are some of us who see what is actually there.
All hail the gods called science & sensation (pause,pause,pause) Not!
snorts, again, in laughter
James.More irrational paranoid garbage from the dishonest "who see what is actually there". Yeah, sure you do. Hilarious.
Yes, I do see your paranoid delusional garbage here on these forums completely void of any "rational and logical observance".
But hey, keep snorting, whatever it is you're snorting.
Spoken like a true indoctrinated individual. snorts
Err, you do know Haite-Ashbury is not over (by any means) nor the battle over GND, now displayed by yoga loving, iPhone sporting, peace & credit score yuppies as a sign of coolness jewlry. The age of Aquarius is now Transgender Brachiosaurus Metaphysics in a little purple pill, with a twist of Vimeo, downloaded across the planet in seconds to Jesus-my-homie-built-my-hot-rod-wallpapered, silicone (or Botox) injected 4D machines.
The new priesthood, baby! Their coming out, quantum corpses blazing!
I have no reason to be paranoid about it. Merely observance -rational and logical observance. And again, you cannot hide what your beliefs have done -neither can they. Just because you may be trying for social, ethical or moral redemption from those works, doesn't cleanse the hands (not by a long shot).
Sorry sport.
...snorts in laughter
James.
AND A TROUBLED MAN FOR THE WIN!!!
jach is definitely going to heaven. -snorts in laughter-...thinks i made a friend...
Hello and welcome to HubPages, from a fellow New Yorka & former foodie!
looks like 'hub-snorting' could become a trend.
James
Trouble, are you NUTS! CE was stating basic fact of beginning physics.
Show me that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. You can't do it. The burden of proof lies in the one providing the existence of something, not the other way around. Prove Isis, Zeus or Thor doesn't exist. Stop with the stupid and baseless conjecture, please.
I have a degree in philosophy, and have studied it for over 20 years. No, I'm no genius, not intellectually superior, either, but I have learned that you cannot are "well, prove this DOESN"T exist!". You can only say "prove this DOES exist!".
It's an easy argument when you fight the religious on their own terms and attack them at their strongest point by offering them the exact same question, but just change the name. That way you don't get into all the hyperbole these religious nuts try to pour on you. Hey, if they can't disprove Bacchus or Osiris, then they automatically lost their own argument.
Silly christians...No matter how much sense that makes, it doesn't work. Go through thread and you'll see that it's been tried. They don't really care about what makes the most sense. If it conflicts with their beliefs, it's rejected..period. This would be much easier if all you had to do was make sense. That's just not the case here.
With all of you philosophy please enlighten me to something that you stand-for that is not encouraging anarchy or saving people from Jesus. Us Christians have a social system; please explain how your is superior if you can?
this intermission brought to you by the fine folks of youtube
I Remember You -Skid Row
Happy Spring Folks.If we survive and progress for a thousand years, we may discover how to intelligently engineer life on another world. If we were to do this, wouldn't the most intelligently engineered life be designed to adapt? If we survive another ten thousand years, maybe we will discover how to build our own planet to deposit our intelligently engineered lifeform of our own creation. What if there is a civilization out there that is a million years old? A billion? Why are our scientists considering an off-earth origin for life if that weren't a possibility, and what has led them to this conclusion? God's universe was created perfect....mathematics backs this up.
- I suspect an ostrich with his head buried in the sand would have more understanding of the world around him than that.
Through out the bible your god claims to be a god of love. He also states that he is a vengeful god and promotes murder of those that are different. He uses and abuses the gift that is magic through out the entire bible to achieve his own ends. Then he tells you to kill anyone else that uses it for him. This of course makes no sense to me as a god of love and mercy shouldn't be one of cruelty and murder. However he repeatedly shows himself as such, to the point where he sacrifices his own son! He gets mad at Cain for slaying his brother, then he kills his own son. I mean really? think about what it is that your serving. The more I contemplate the bible, the more I believe that it is something that is more likely to be written by the great evil that is satan according to its own words. Blind faith (also known as fanaticism) tends to keep what should otherwise be self-evident hidden from us though.
If one wants to find the devil, all one needs to do is read the bible and believe it. "The devils in the details", as they say. The bible was just another novel, written by people with too much time to think.
This is why context is important. Understanding Adam wasn't the first human clears up that whole shift from the old testament to the new testament, as well as those actions you're referring to.
God chose a specific bloodline and gave them 613 specific laws that only applied to them that had to do with who they had children with and what they ate. Very specific rules that protected that bloodline from impurities. In some cases the children of Israel were told to wipe out whole other populations, men, women, and children. As barbaric as that sounds, it ultimately protected the bloodline against threats of impurity through intermingling. Other times they were kept isolated from other populations, like the 40 years they spent in the desert.
Like He said in Genesis 6, "My spirit will not contend with humans forever" as He was explaining that intermingling between the 'sons of God' and the mortal 'daughters of humans' would decrease their lifespans. A gradual decrease that can be seen in subsequent chapters. Abraham, just a few generations later, only lived to 175.
These actions were to ensure Jesus could be born. Once the savior was in place that hands-on approach changed and all of those rules no longer applied. Then God could step back and let free will run reckless.
God didn't kill Jesus, humans did. He just knew that's what would happen. Before free will everything worked according to His will. Once free will was introduced He had to take action to ensure an outcome. Once Jesus was born it was no longer necessary. He made hard decisions the way any parent has to.The only thing I'm going to comment on is where you say once Jesus was in place the rules changed. Never once, through out the entire bible, does it say anywhere that Jesus came to abolish the old laws. It says he came to fulfill the law. Man doesn't want to follow those laws finding them to restrictive and has changed them. Jesus's birth was nothing more than to prove that they could all be fulfilled. Believing otherwise is a choice, but is in no way stated or implied in the Bible.
There were 10 actual commandments given to the Israelites. According to Jewish law in those days, gentiles who lived in Jewish land only had to adhere to the 7 Noahtide laws.
Unlike these, the 613 Mitzvah laws were very specific to them. Like the laws that have to do with how they interacted with the Moabites. The ones regarding food seemed to have a lot to do with impurities and disease. Like not eating animals with the life blood still in it.
The others seemed to have everything to do with protecting against incest or dealt with not deluting the 'holy seed' like it says in Ezra. Basically the laws ensured they keep the bloodline 'in the family', but not with family that's too close.
Understanding they were in a land heavily populated by naturally evolved humans not 'of Eve' only further clarifies this. Like I pointed out in Genesis 6, God specifically says His spirit will not contend with humans forever. There's a spiritual element there as well. He explains that the mortality of humans will eventually overcome the spirit of God in them, which is followed by that gradual decrease of lifespans. Not deluding that 'holy seed' was of the utmost importance.
Something interesting I noticed while trying to make sense out of that whole 'sons of God' thing. The popular consensus is that the 'sons of God' in Genesis 6 and in Job is referring to angels.
What I found is that throughout the old testament (and the bits of the New Testament before Jesus was crucified) God only refers to the Israelites as His 'sons'. He describes them as his 'sons' when conveying a message to the Egyptian Pharoah, and then again when talking about Solomon. And in Luke it explains that the people thought Jesus was the 'son of God' by way of his anscestors, listing each as son of name, son of name, and ending with son of Adam, son of God. It's never angels.
But in the new testament after the crucifixtion that changes....
John 1:12 – But as many as received him [Jesus Christ], to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.
Romans 8:14 – For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
1 John 3:1 – Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.
This is that spirit of God Genesis was talking about. It was present in Adam and his descendants, but not in mortal humans. And it was ultimately deluted to nothing just as He says. So the majority of God's creation was without His spirit.
However, once Jesus was crucified and ressurrected, it was different. Then just believing his name embued a person with that spirit. Now it was available to everyone. Before retaining that spirit required eating a particular way, breeding within your own kind, and sacrificing 'pure' or clean animals. Now, with the one ultimate sacrifice, it only requires belief.
Of course people of the Jewish faith do not believe in Jesus as the son of God, so they continue to adhere to the majority of these laws, deeming some irrelivant, some not required (like animal sacrifice), and some still the law.
This is all speculation on my part, of course. This is how I read it, though I'm always open to the input of others. I never assume I'm absolutely right and am always looking to learn and know better.Can you point out one instance in which Jesus said that his being there or that his crucifixion abolished the 613 Mitzvah in any way? I don't remember him ever saying that he abolished the law or changed it at all.
I'll give you that perhaps he made us all son and daughters of Israel. That would however imply that we still had to follow the order of the law as it was then in order to be like him. If he changed though (which I don't remember reading anywhere that he did) then please point it out to me.There's nowhere that I'm aware of that it is stated by Jesus or anyone else that he abolished those laws. I should be more clear that I'm reading it as I see it. Using what I feel is an accurate historical context to apply to what's being described, I'm attempting to find clarity in what the books of Moses are really talking about.
From the viewpoint of Adam being created separate from, and placed into, an already populated planet brings to light some pretty fascinating possibilities when re-reading the rest of the story. For example, things like this ....
Ezra 9:2 - For they have taken their daughters for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands; yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass."
As I'm sure I've pointed out before, The beginning of Genesis 6 says that God's spirit will not 'contend' with humans forever, and explains they're mortal and only live 120 years. So, the 'sons of God' are immortal, living longer than 120 years. The chapter right before lists generations of Adam's descendants living well beyond that, meaning that Genesis 6 makes it clear that lifespans beyond 120 years is something more than mortal. Hence, Adam and his descendants were something more than mortal. This also draws a clear distinction between Adam and his descendants and 'humans'.
This, combined with the idea of lifespans declining gradually over a handful of generations as the two bloodlines blended suggests a very real distinction regarding themes elsewhere in the bible regarding the weakness of the flesh and the purpose of a holy spirit. The latter being something that is stated directly as making someone a 'son of God'.
So, my view regarding the 613 Mitzvah laws is coming from that perspective. When you read through them, they're very specific to that particular group of people. Many of them are specifically for the priests, some specify permitted behavior with specific groups of people (namely the moabites) in close proximity, and some were laws that required things like menstrating women sleeping outside of the camp.
When you chip those away the primary laws that seem to be the most universally applicable boil down to what's specified in the 10 commandments. What's left beyond that are what draw my focus. These are the ones regarding primarily things like food and procreation.
Like it says in Ezra, 'spreading the holy seed' was frowned on. Many very
specific laws detail basically just how close you can keep it in the family as the lines are drawn very clearly. The food had a lot to do with whether it was 'clean' or 'unclean'. And even some of those seem to have a kind of spiritual suggestiveness to them, like the one about not boiling a calf in its mother's milk.
This is why I suggest the birth of Jesus could mean the end of these. Because to me they seem to have everything to do with preparing and protecting the chosen bloodline that Jesus came from.
Though this would technically mean the Sabbath still stands, and is even one of the 10 commandments, though I know of no Christians who adhere to this one, myself included. I am pretty consistently lazy and prone to stay in on Sundays, but I'm not sure that counts.That's what I'm saying though. A great many Christians are assuming that the laws were changed or abolished. However they weren't. The laws are still in effect and still hold true. If they hold true then, the Christian populace is severely lacking as none outside of the Jews (as far as I know) adhere to them. Feelings are good, but even the belief in God generates a feeling all it's own. In order to be accurate in what we say, and in order to say the bible is undeniably true accounts, you must accept that you are not doing as you were suppose to be doing to begin with.
As for the Sabbath, by the Calendars then and Now it would be Saturday as the week begins on Sunday.
God is all those things according to the Old Testament was mostly written by occultists. God was actually "the gods" as opposed to God, the Holy Spirit. Yes, it is Satan that is being represented in the OT. That cannot be disputed. Why? Because Jesus Himself contradicted the Old Testament. "God" preached revenge and murder while Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek" and "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword".
Therefore the God of the OT is not one of the same of the Father of Jesus. The OT is a conspiracy in its majority a spin off of pagan stories. If God really was the way He is depicted in the OT, I'd be a sicko for serving Him.
God did not kill His own son. The Pharisees, High priests and Jesus' enemies through the Romans, condemned Him to death for witnessing for the truth. There is no greater love than one who lays down his life for another.Jesus didn't contradict the OT. He quoted it. He explained himself to be the fulfillment of the prophecies it spoke of. The OT was simply 'the law' during Jesus' time. Everyone in that region lived by it. Studied it. To simply dismiss it as a 'pagan conspiracy' doesn't make sense. You can't accept Jesus and all he said and lived by as gospel, yet reject the OT.
And God did not 'preach' revenge and murder. He said the same thing Jesus did. Only God has the authority and the wisdom and understanding to make that kind of decision. In the cases when he told His people to kill or divorce or whatever, it was to protect the bloodline that Jesus would ultimately come from. Everything on the planet is by God's design. Everything on the planet works according to His will, except for humans, which is also by design. He gave us free will. That free will would sometimes jeopardize the bloodline that would ultimately bring about the savior of all the world.
When the priests questioned Jesus in an attempt to reveal him as illegitimate, they asked him which commandment was the most important. Jesus simply said "Love God, love one another". This is the best way you could possibly sum up the 10 commandments given. Recognize God as the authority, the only being in existence who understands existence to the point that He can make decisions we're not qualified to make. Every other commandment had everything to do with how to treat each other. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't sleep with someone else's partner. The golden rule is in the OT as well, which Jesus also quoted.
The OT and the NT are consistent and compliment each other. It's more possible to live by the OT and reject the NT, which would make you Jewish, or live by the alternate OT as told by the prophet Mohammad and reject the NT, which would make you Muslim, but to reject the OT and attempt to live by the NT alone simply doesn't work. Without the OT, there would be no NT.
Sure He quoted it. It wasn’t all wrong. He did contradict many teachings like “You have heart it said you shall repay your neighbour with an eye for an eye but I say love your neighbour”. You and many others ignore the fact that I said MOST of the Old Testament is occultic and based on paganism. Not all by any means.
In the OT, God does appear to have bipolar. How does asking Abraham to murder his own son protecting Jesus blood-line?!! Something is very wrong here. Jesus was not instructed by God to kill those who tried to kill Him before He was crucified therefore preventing the resurrection? The planet is sold out to Satan. It goes according to His world because of our sin. God reigns supreme in the lives of those who love Him but He doesn’t have control over the affairs of the world.
Claire the problem we run into here is that God in the old Testament is where God in the New Testament came from. Jesus never referred to God, he always referred to his father. As we here nothing of Joseph he could simply be referencing what he feels that Joseph wants. Joseph was a carpenter in his time which would account for the temple (the one he threw the merchants from) as well. Without using the OT and the predictions of the Messiah there in, you can not safely draw a conclusion of Jesus ever referencing God. Hence why they are considered to go hand in hand.
HeadlyvonNoggin where as I respect your views and opinions, this is an area where it is perhaps better that we agree to disagree. In the old testament God specifically told the people "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and other such phrases. Some referred to the Gentiles, and some referred to other things. They were however commandments from God on what they should do. You could attempt to chalk this up to imagitive wanderings of the people from that time, but then you run into the brick wall that Claire is trying to over come when she says that the old testament are pagan stories. God doesn't say that I will take care of the witches and gentiles, instead he says that they have to take them out, remove them from their lands, etc. That's a lot of anger and stirs up a lot of anger and pity when reading. WBC is a perfect example how people become misguided by the things in the OT.
I said the majority of the OT is written by occultists. That does not mean the “Christian” God doesn’t feature at all. The prophets understood God as much as they could. Sometimes God was depicted as both good and evil and sometimes just plain evil. It is extremely murky and that is why it was imperative for Jesus to come.
I would never suggest to dismiss the Old Testament entirely for Jesus certainly didn't do that! The prophecies about Him were in the Old Testament.
Jesus was certainly not referring to Joseph when He spoke about His Father. I don’t think Joseph heard Him when He said on the cross:
Luke 24: 46
“Jesus called out in a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”
Matthew 27:43 says:
“He trusts in God. Let God rescue Him now if he wants him, for he said, “I am the Son of God.”
So not only is God the Father but Jesus is the son of God out of His own admission.Good to know that you wouldn't just dismiss it then.
The passage from luke can be scratched as again he says father and you can only infer that he's talking about God.
This passage from Matthew is very tricky as you must assume everything written there in an absolute in order to believe that someone heard Jesus say this, which is what is happening. Someone is saying that they heard Jesus say this, though it is not recorded anywhere that he actually I am the Son of God. He even refuted the rabbi's and priests when they made the claim by saying he was the son of man as I pointed out elsewhere. They question then becomes though, who was he talking to when he said and who overheard it?Jesus often referred to God as His father. He said the Father and me are one. Is he really talking about Joseph?
This is what is recorded:
John 5:19-27
9 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.
We can now see that the Son of God is interchangeable with the Son of Man. The latter represents Jesus’ humanity; Him coming to redeem mankind.
They heard it at the “trial” before the Sanhedrin. It was one of the elders who said, “He trusts in God. Let God rescue Him now if he wants him, for he said, “I am the Son of God” and the elders were there when Jesus was dying on the cross.
Mark 14:60-62
60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Again we see an example of the “Son of God” being interchangeable with “The Son of Man”.
None of them would have cried, "Blasphemy!" if Jesus had just claimed He was the son of man and not God, which is considered the ultimate blasphemy.
The OT was written by Occultists? Isn't that the basis for your entire belief.... or are you not Christian? My assumption if you aren't and I apologize. And isn't Jesus supposedly from the OT... I don't understand how someone can dismiss the OT and then take the NT seriously as well.
I understand that, but is funny to me is that since we are supposedly his "creation" aren't we all supposed to be God's children... I am sure that is a moot point but I still don't take either seriously nor do I believe, in fact I know that Jesus is not the "savior" as "foretold" in the OT.(Sigh)...I said the MAJORITY of the Old Testament is written by occultists. Everywhere you look are numbers and numerology is a practice of the occult. There are prophecies of Jesus by the prophets and there are signs of God in the Old Testament, i.e, "I don't want your frikkin' sacrifices!" in Jeremiah. These are genuine. No way do I dismiss the whole of the Old Testament.
Interesting about the prophecies is that not all of them were accurate. Yes, Jesus' side was pierced but He did not become the King of Israel.
I get what you're saying. This is a topic that definitely peaks my interest, but something I haven't looked into specifically yet. Though your views here bring a couple of thoughts to mind I feel are worth mentioning.
The fact that the books of Moses address something like this specifically first off adds credibility that this was something real, at least to some extent. As I've illustrated in other posts, a lot of the books of Moses, especially through Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, had to do with protecting that group of people. Adhering to the laws set forth by God were of the utmost priority. Like in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, God opted to destroy entire cities that endangered the 'holy seed'. Nearby cities rampant with sexual misbehavior could have a strong adverse affect when considering the meaning of the 613 mitzvah laws.
In this case, magical practices of witches, whether real magic or slight of hand trickery of perception, these could be viewed as seducers of the people from their allegiance to God. A big part of those laws, and of the 10 commandments, was to not shift their focus from anyone but God as the ultimate authority.
As evidenced by Sodom and Gomorrah, there was apparently no higher priority of the God who created the entirety of existence and every living being in it than to protect this one group of people and to make sure they adhere to His specific laws. So, like many other examples throughout, the severity of the punishment suggests a higher priority here that superseded merely allowing these people to live and do what they do. And much like those other laws, they only seemed to really be applicable in that time and place. Jesus didn't reiterate these things in His time.
The story of the Egyptians turning their staffs into snakes was always a really intriguing story to me because I could never understand how or why they would have that capability. Obviously, in our modern age stories like this are hard to swallow. But like we've discussed here previously, I don't just completely dismiss this.
Considering the only things we really know about the Egyptians is what we can learn from the stone materials and structures that are actually durable enough to last until our age, we're only getting a very fractured and incomplete picture of them. But there are things said in their writings and things about their structures and what we know they were able to do that suggests they were very advanced considering when they existed. There's some things they did we still don't understand. Like we still don't know what the purpose of the great pyramid of Giza is. We just know it wasn't a tomb. Yet it's size, it's exactness in correlation to the heavens, and the level of effort required to create it alone suggests a very important and deliberate purpose.
Again, I know next to nothing about magic and haven't made my mind up about its legitimacy, however I want to put this thought out there for you to consider. Kind of like we were discussing yesterday regarding multiple dimensions. I'll use that as an example.
What if magic were real, and what was actually happening was that a conscious being found a way to invoke an alternate dimension that actually changes existence so that the staff that was once in their hand is now a snake? In other words, in the alternate reality this person evoked to make this appear to happen that had always been a snake.
Obviously this is going off the deep end speculation wise, but I'm using it as an example. Basically, what if we were capable of magic, yet were completely incapable of really understanding the full weight of our use of it? The full effect? We could be causing harm far outside of our capability to even grasp.
This is just where my mind went when reading your comment. Just thought it was worth bringing up for discussion sake and I'd be interested to hear your take.Actually you bring up a very good point here in your contemplations and thoughts. The burden of any and all those that magic, no matter what form they use it in, is the burden of morals and ethics. They have to know what's going to change, how it's going to change, what effects this change is going to have, and whether or not it is truly for the better.
There was no creator, there was no creation. The simple logic that destroys the mythology of Genesis (and mathology of Big Bang) isn't rocket science: Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.
This is a rather simple axiom, logically self-evident since any who might dissent must believe in things that don't exist. Existence in the absence of change is possible, change in the absence of existence is not. The fact that existence is required in order for change to occur explicitly means cause and effect is a function of (derived from) the phenomenon of existence. This is the antithesis of the fable of "Creation", the very opposite of the premise that existence is derived from cause and effect.
If change is a function of existence, then the Universe wasn't "Created"; it didn't suddenly transform from a condition of non-existence into a state of physical being because existence isn't a condition and it's not a state of being, it's the phenomenon of being, itself. No phenomenon can be the product of its own subordinate derivative, so the fallacies that belie any premise of creation are obvious:
1) All hypotheses of creation resolve into endless redundancies.
If there ever was a time when non-existence prevailed then neither matter nor energy (basically the same thing according to Einstein) nor space (ibid spacetime) would have existed. The cosmos would not have just been empty, there would have been no cosmos and no place for existence to begin.
If we disregard this absurdity and continue to presume the physical presence of the Universe was created, the implied precedence of some form of creative impetus suddenly violates the contention that nothing pre-existed the event of creation.
Even if we ignore both of these logical incongruities, the contention that existence requires creation means that whatever sired the Universe must have been the product of a predecessor which, in turn, had to be similarly predated by an eternal procession of ancestry.
The perpetual spiral of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy that results from every cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning.
2) Argument without logic is pointless.
When the tenets of logic invalidate your argument you must avoid them entirely, so there are those who would suggest whatever created the Universe wasn't subject to logic or the laws of nature. Theologians profess an omnipotent deity brought forth the heavens and the Earth in a miraculous act of divine inspiration. Cosmologists tout the progressive red shift of elemental markers in spectra from distant galaxies as proof that a Big Bang Universe is still spewing from the bowels of some spontaneously spawned singularity in a process not governed by the laws of physics as we know them today. Both hypotheses are equally specious. It's one thing to admit there is much we don't know, but it's quite another to conjure theories which violate those few basic principles we know to be true. Once the canons of logic are repealed anything is possible, even the absurd; and if we allow even one exception to those rules, why should we expect the rest of the cosmos to abide by them. You may freely choose to suspend reality in favor of whichever belief system you might wish to embrace, but thereafter and forevermore don't try to profess that your argument is logical.
If the creator of the universe is what you call "GOD', then the proof that it does not exist is incontrovertable.Do you believe the universe always existed? Anyway, existence didn't just come into being without nothing existing prior. If God didn't exist then existence couldn't come cause and effect. It is surmised that there are parallel universes which contain life. Perhaps existence from there tuned into our frequency and become physical in our universe?
It is surmised that the universe was not created but merely reborn. The death of a universe when it collapses brings out rebirth. A universe that has died goes back into a singularity, as theorized, and another Big Bang occurs that create a new universe.
Isn't this an argument in favour of God always existing as being superior which would result in existence? I suppose your logic debunks the theory of Abiogenesis because nothing can't come from nothing.
Everything in existence comprises of frequencies and so it is not illogical to consider that the universe is an extension of God being the highest frequency. I'm not sure this makes sense.
Do you believe the experiment trying to emulate the Big Bang by the Hadron Collider is a waste of time?
One of the objectives to test for the existence of the hypothesized Higgs boson, a fundamental particle, which in theory gave mass to the universe after the Big Bang resulting in the creation of gravity and the formation of stars and planets, and new particles predicted by super-symmetry.
Scientists claim to have detected traces of this Higgs boson
Also consider that the supernatural defies natural laws.
I think you should consider that an omnipotent God does not have to follow logic. It is imprudent to assume that if something isn't logical then it cannot be so.I love it when people of "faith" try to use logic to explain nonsense by asking something like "do you believe the Universe always existed?"
Of course while at the same time they believe their invisible friend "God" always existed....This is what Jack McNally wrote:
"Existence in the absence of change is possible, change in the absence of existence is not."
Are there not changes in the universe? If the universe did not exist before these changes then how did it change if it is not possible in the absence of existence?Time and space are a function of the universe. There was no time "before" the universe's creation - Time was created at the same instant as the universe was.
The universe happens in infinitesimal increments of time, as do all things within and of it.
The concept of time began as soon as there was movement. Dynamics is necessary for the concept of time. Infinitely increments gives one a scaler field of time.
There are limits to our perception, we realy only believe what we want to.
There are limits to our perception and what we believe to a certain extent, but there are defines in the natural world which are very rigid.
To believe what we want to believe is good for starters because human intuition plays a role which has proven very useful in the past.
Einstein and other physicists of his time had different ideas about time. They believed that time was not linear as most tend to believe. If time is not linear, then time always was, always is, and forever will be.
No, it simply mean that the yard stick that we use to measure time changes length; time being a varible instead of a constant.
So who is right? You or Jack? He says the universe was always there and you said it was created.
Something has always existed or there would not be anything now. That's only logical.
So you have a choice. You can believe in a god that has always existed, or you can choose to think something else may always have existed.
A good candidate for an alternative to a god is energy. We know it can't be destroyed or created. Even in the Big bang scenario energy existed as a compressed point. In fact the theory suggests that all the energy now in the universe was there.
The singularity or point of compressed energy expanded.
Now in recent months another discovery has been made and new theories are coming to light. They suggest that there was not one expansion but many, making the universe much older than we thought and possibly eternal. In other words it may never have been a point at all or if it was that was far more than 14 billion years ago.
Until some one shows proof of their god, my opinion is that energy has always existed in one form or other and therefore no god is required.
At least we have evidence of energy/mass, while we have no direct evidence of a god.God can be defined as energy. He is an entity, I surmise, that is of high frequency and there is energy in frequencies. Frequencies never are created so God was never created. He has always be around.
Yes Claire, you can define God to be whatever you want. Fantasies have no bounds.
Just to let you know, most christians disagree with you. But what the heck, if you want to call energy god then metaphorically I have no issue with that. But I do have an issue with assuming it has intelligence or is an entity. There is simply no evidence of that.
We all have energy and are made up of frequencies. I'm not articulating myself very much. I didn't mean to say that God is only energy or just a bunch of frequencies. He is an all knowing and supernatural. His make up is of energy and frequencies.
This is the best way I can describe what God is comprised of.But how do you know that? You really can't.
When people see spirits or ghosts manifest themselves to people they have just tuned their frequency into our frequency range so that we can see them. That's the supernatural. If everything is made up of frequencies then it doesn't seem so far-fetched to think God is also.
Read this:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/energy.htm
Ghosts and many other spiritual entities are made up of energy and frequencies as well. As science has show the brain reacts and can tap into energies and frequencies about it, it would therefore be reasonable to state that we can all tap into God.
What you referring to when "tapping into God" means that is how we can have a relationship with the Holy Spirit. That is how we can "talk" to us through our conscience as well.
Both are wrong answers in the context given. To give any of the two answers is foolish since not even the smartest physicists claim to know that answer. Some say the universe began in the big bang some say it always existed and before the bang was the big crunch but certain evidence makes both uncertain.
There was not a time when the Universe didn't exist.
You can't have an 'After', with out a 'Before"This is bizarre. Surely if the universe will one day perish it had a beginning? How does entropy come into play?
Entropy is the reason the universe has order. It's complicated so I wrote a hub about it if you are interested.
So, who invented entropy? I think you have mounted a horse in the middle of the stream.
Entropy is also a no-brainer. If you take a finite number of particles randomly vectored within a finite volume, eventually all collisions that can occur will occur and eventually all particles will be moving away from each other...some collisions will occur outside the volume, but still within a finite distance. But the Universe (my GOD) IS NOT finite. And SHE is real. She is neither good nor evil. She will kill a child that steps off a cliff just as soon as comfort another in his mother's arms. She doesn't need your obedience, her laws are inviolable. She doesn't desire your worship or praise. She rewards those who understand her and those who don't are not so fortunate.
You're still jumping on horses in the middle of the stream. You are ignoring a higher order that makes your entropy principle true. The universe is an after thought of God inwhich we can learn of His Character.
Wouldn't you think that the physical laws (gravity) of the universe is teaching us of the infallability of our Creator, first cause of all. You must admit that they have conditioned our mind.
Science studies why, what, when, and how of absolutes. God is the only absolute; therefore, science is attempting to learn of God.
Why does all cultures create a higher power?
UFO's and their drivers are real. Think about all the people that don't believe that they exist. LOLOL!
Oh! About your particle example, I think entropy is more of an energy law, a spacial prescription based on the conservation of energy law.Think about all the people who don't believe UFO's exist, you must also consider all those who Believe there is not just one God and those that do not believe in Jesus. They are not absolutes unless everyone believe in them, which means they are not absolutes. Just because you believe God to be an absolute, doesn't mean that he is. It is a way to try and foil an argument, but it doesn't make it any more true or real.
As for Gravity, who says gravity exists? There is a mathematical formula for gravity yes. I'm sure that some of us even know what that formula is. However, Yogi's and priests in the east defy gravity all the time. Just because we think gravity exists, doesn't mean it's absolute either. We can establish that there are varying amounts and we can use a mathematical formula to try and guess what that amount is. We cannot however explain how only a few can fly or levitate and the rest cannot. In fact it tends to be those who do not believe in the Christ mytho's that are able to achieve such feats.
There is much in the world we do not know and may never know. The existence of any Gods or Goddesses of any type are an unknown. They are not absolutes though those who believe in them tend to believe they are. Arguing your god as an absolute holds no credibility except to those who already believe.Absolutes are real whether people are aware, believe, or not believers.
Gravity is not an absolute alone. God is the only absolute. If one speak of gravity as it identify with God, than those words are about an Absolute which doesn't change; therefore, making them an absolute themselves. The Word of God is an absolute. Don't confuse scripture that record true history for relevance or context.
Christians have levitated in the pass. After all, Jesus levitated Himself into the clouds and went into another dimension called heaven. Levitating objects has been done by many people; religious or not. I believe this is based on faith; furthermore, faith without doubt can move a mountain. Jesus told us so.
Everything is relative to God's Absoluteness. Most people are blind to it.
No one invented it. What you should ask is who invented your god.
God of gods always. Faithful believers believe that we all are little gods (sons and daughters) just as the atheist believe, only that we look to God, our Creator, as our source, and the atheist has chosen himself. Man,the atheist is minute and fragile compared to the other powers in this world, not considering the powers that could exist in the supernatural.
We will NEVER become little Gods. Now you are speaking like a New Ager.
Not even the bible claims that universe or even the planet will perish. It only says that certain amongst it will be taken and others left to fight. It doesn't even say what the end of the fight will be!
People are migrating to the big bang theory. It makes more sense.
You're getting there; a few more steps to God.
Existence didn't "come into" being - it IS being.
Existence is the source of cause and effect, not the result of it.
Actually particle physicists are seeking opposing particles - separate entities - when they should be identifying those opposing qualities within each entity that makes it a unique instance of null value.Existence didn't "come into" being - it IS being. I believe you are going to have a much more difficult time proving such than to prove God. I also believe that you have just defined God. God IS. God is a Spirit, and for our human senses God is love.
If persons oppose God than why shouldn't God roll heads? If we can love our Earthly fathers and our Earthly fathers loves us while they exact disciplinary measures against us if we rebell against them. Go to any police station of a major US city and research the number of cases where father kill son. Also, verify if father loved son and son loved father but son rebells and an explosion of violence took place.It is defined that way in Webster...no problem with the documentation
So, you are saying that Webster supercedes God?
Rebelling doesn't and shouldn't cause such violence unless there is hate involved. I rebelled as many kids did. I never hated my parents but at that age I wanted to be my own person, however ignorant I was of what that meant, the bird must fly the coup and learn eventually. I am glad I did and so are my parents, they realize they were trying to be too involved in who I was gonna be. My kid understands this about me and he hasn't come close to being the rebel I was at his age because we have given him no reason to think that we are too involved and that we don't want him to be his own person. 4 more years though till we find out if he does go through some sort of rebellious stage. As far as I can see he is already a good man.
As far as God is concerned, in your very vague definition, you can define God however you want but the word God in my vocabulary is always gonna be a fictional being that some silly people believe created everything. They believe this because they are missing something from their lives that most of us atheists are NOT missing.I feel that you desire good and is trying to stay on the good road, but I also know deep in my heart, my conscientious, that you are going to miss arriving in good town. You could use a course correction by the Living Word Of God, Jesus.
Oh, Jesus is more real to me than any other person. He appears to be dead in you. But He can rise!!!
Then you don't believe the universe came into being rather that it always existed since the universe isn't the result of something existing before? Is that correct?
The universe may or may not always have existed. But the that which all things are made of probably has in one form or other.
APPLAUSE... it is not temporal in nature. It's always been here - always will. The phenomenon of existence is explained by a simple principle, not a process. www.theory-of-reciprocity.com
Have you ever entertained the multiverse hypothesis?
One multiverse hypothesis states that our uni-"verse" is merely one Big Bang among an infinite number of simultaneously expanding Big Bangs that are spread out over endless distances (open space).
Each "verse" may be either matter or antimatter, with an equal number in existence at any given time. As the "verses" expand they collide and matter and antimatter annihilate, releasing energy. Heat death of a finite universe would be predicted as entropy increases; however, the infinite size of the multiverse and the infinite number of "verses" could mean that new "verses" would be formed as old "verses" were annihilated.
The chain reaction of Big Bangs would continue to expand as Big Bang fuel is consumed. If the multiverse is open and the fuel is infinite, then the chain reaction would expand forever.
Scientists believe there was a inflationary phase of our Universe before the Big Bang. So the Big Bang was not the start of universe.Words mean things. Universe means everything that exists. You can qualify it by saying "observable universe" or the "universe of elephants" but in the overall Universe says it all.
Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being the result of cosmic expansion. Strangely, it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears and at the very 'fringes of the Universe', the red shift indicates galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light...and accelerating.
This is a burdensome inconvenience to contemporary cosmologists, and they have tried to explain it away by proposing that the seemingly extra-logical phenomenon is an illusion caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they seek to substantiate. Furthermore, the cosmic expansion premise relies heavily on the presumed existence hypothetical dark energy. That existence is pure speculation. This is sloppy science at best. The mathematical incongruities of any falsely premised theory can easily be reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results.
When we evolve to the point we can document the changes that occur within 14B year old light waves, we might get some idea where the red shift comes from....and it is probably not Doppler related.(we might get some idea where the red shift comes from....and it is probably not Doppler related.)
Jack,
Thank you. It is refreshing to see someone who understands the problems and can think rationally rather than parroting the latest Science Today article.Sorry, but cosmological redshift does explain that galaxies are all moving away from each other and that the most distant galaxies can be moving away from us at rates that appear faster than light, although they aren't really moving at those speeds, just like our galaxy is not moving at those speeds, but most certainly would be observed as such from those distant galaxies.
If you believe there is gravity and we can't see it but you believe. Wonderful things around is obvious but we can't see who made it but we feel there must be someone.
Feel God and He will touch your heart and mind.
Blessed are those who know God.
If you don't know God and you can't feel His presence then we must all pray that someday you will.
Blessings to you all!Lol, the ole gravity argument....I guess they are running out of lame arguments and are starting to recycle (-;
Okay once again...gravity can be proven, so can air.Gravity ain't no big mystery. Ever notice when two masses get close to each other the space between them shrinks....That is exactly what happens. The masses don't magically move, the space between them gains density and loses volume and motion occurs. This is pretty simple stuff, people. Dont need no steeeenkin particle accellerators
Interesting theory. What is the effect we "feel" when standing on the earths surface where there is no space between the bottom of our feet and the surface of the earth? And, what property of space gains density and loses volume?
"Interesting theory. What is the effect we "feel" when standing on the earths surface where there is no space between the bottom of our feet and the surface of the earth?"
99% of the volume of Earth IS space. The more compact the mass, the more it shrinks spatial volume. You could say what we experience is SPACE SUCK...lol...even on the surface of a counteracting solid platform.
And, what property of space gains density and loses volume?
Space is hard to examine. Nobody claims to have isolated a particle (or cloud) of it so far. Remember we are barely out of Neanderthal phase in the history of our species. Trying to decipher the mysteries of the cosmos may be like trying to teach calculus to a cow...likely the cow will die before class is dismissed.That makes some sense, but aren't you referring to the space that is occupied between the neutrons and electrons in atoms? In other words, you're referring to the micro world as opposed to the macro world?
And then, to take that concept further, why does a black hole still maintain it's gravitational field if ALL of the properties of matter and space have been literally "squished" out of it with only the mass, charge and angular momentum remaining?
Unfortunately, that particular "particle or cloud" weighs heavily on supporting your theory. The properties of space include homogeneity and isotropy and the fact it is constantly expanding. None of these properties would support your theory."You humans...when are you going to learn that size doesn't matter" - MEN IN BLACK...lol. Space is space - a molecule of water is the same material as an ocean of it.
Mass is a property and (according to uncle AL) interchangeable with the property of energy (I still have a major problem with sqrt -1...I see it as an error indicator. Negativity is a QUALity...what is the sqrt of red?) I long ago lost the ability to encode thoughts into accepted mathematical symbolism...and Latin...and French (but I retained mastery of Spanish because I use it all the time...it's all just encoding in one form or another). When it comes to Black Holes, we haven't had anywhere near enough time or data to begin to understand their attributes...I mean particle physicists haven't even yet discovered a certifiably "fundamental" particle.
Space may be inert but not homogeneous...we/they don't know. As for cosmic expansion - LOL - excuse me, I find it humerous. The cosmos is infinite. Expansion means increasing a limit. An infinite universe has no limit... sorry, too long to explain here - www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/bigbang.htmBut, space is a vacuum and a molecule of water or an ocean of water is not, it is mass.
Mass and energy are not properties, they contain properties.
But, we do understand the properties Black Holes contain and don't contain when compared with the properties of mass and energy.
That's fine, but that still doesn't explain your theory about space getting denser as an explanation.
Yes, we do know that space is homogeneous and isotropic, that is what helps to support Einsteins postulates that the laws of physics are the same and the speed of light has the same value in all inertial frames of reference. If space was not, then those postulates would be invalid.
The universe is considered to be finite but boundless, which means that there is a finite amount of matter and energy contained within but there are no bounds to the expansion of the space that contains that matter and energy.
I saw a lot of hand waving and uniformed opinions there, but nothing of any substance. It showed no understanding at all of cosmological redshift and used an example (cue ball and cranberry juice) that had nothing to do with it.Used property instead of "condition"...my misspeak
Space occupies volume, so it exists. It is just not material in nature.
The fact we cannot discern the subtle fattributes of space doesn't preclude their existence. And yes, even Uncle Al can be wrong.
Existence is not temporal in nature. The cosmos has always been here. .. and it would have died an entropy death long before now if it contained finite matter and energy.Yet, certain properties of space (permeability and permittivity) determine the speed of light, for example. Other properties of space can be changed so that objects following straight lines (geodesics) move through space in curved patterns.
And yet, we can.
The universe is young and entropy will change it, but it won't be for a very long time. Yes, our universe does contain a finite amount of matter and energy, that is a pretty much fact.The simple logic that destroys the mythology of Genesis and mathology of Big Bang isn't rocket science:
Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.
This is a rather simple axiom, logically self-evident since any who might dissent must believe in things that don't exist. Existence in the absence of change is possible, change in the absence of existence is not. The fact that existence is required in order for change to occur explicitly means cause and effect is a function of (derived from) the phenomenon of existence.
Conditions are temporal in nature, existence is not. It didn't begin. It can't end. It can only change.Sorry, are you claiming Big Bang theory is mythology? And, your reasoning is the simple premise of existence, which you argue cannot have a beginning or end?
Sorry dude, I don't buy it. It ignores facts about cosmology and physics.Existence is not the product of a process, it is the source of cause and effect not the result of it. If existence is eternal - not temporal in nature, AND, as some cosmologists predict, the cosmos is comprised of a finite amount of substance expanding into an unbounded cosmos, it would have suffered entropy death an eternity ago.
There are a lot of THEORIES about cosmology and physics I don't agree with, but most of the data is probably fairly reliable. It is the interpretation that sucks.
Dude, Big Bang is, by its very nature, a "creationist" premise.
AND REMEMBER, we only have until December 21st to debate this.
As for hand waving ... spontaneously expanding space - way out there but not locally. Dark and invisible forces and materials that are undetected but just HAVE TO exist in order for cosmic expansion to be true. Using cosmic expansion to prove cosmic expansion - else the speed of light is compromised.
The mathematical incongruities of any falsely premised theory can easily be reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results.Sorry Jack, but I really have no idea what you're talking about now.
Cosmic expansion is not an argument for cosmic expansion, not sure where you got that notion. The speed of light is not compromised by expansion, only the energy, hence the frequencies, the speed remains the same.
We cannot conclude that the universe is not infinite or finite. And as for expanding, you misunderstand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsPqeS5I_QM
As reference to what that means and what is going on in the explanations for this...Scholars are quick to point out that infinity doesn't exist - and they are absolutely correct. But that doesn't mean the Universe is finite.
Infinity is the non-existence of a limit, and if a non-existence existed it wouldn't be a non-existence. There is obviously a finite distance between every two points in the Universe, but there is no point, however distant, where the Universe ends. Some mistakenly believe that if there is a finite distance between every pair of points then the farthest point in the cosmos must be a finite distance away. What they don't understand is that just defining two points sways the realm of their consideration from the infinite back to the finite. When dealing with infinity, there is no limit, there is no 'farthest' and there is no 'all'. The fact that no defined point of infinity exists serves only to further validate the concept.
Only three independent values (XYZ coordinates) are necessary to uniquely specify any point of existence within the Universe - so there are said to be three 'dimensions' (more accurately, three axes). If the Universe were finite, then at any given instant and for any given point there must exist another point within a finite distance at which travel in any direction will not increase the distance between the two.
The old 'balloon ploy' is often put forth as a three-dimensional example of cosmic expansion in a four-dimensional hyperverse. So long as the balloon is expanding faster than anything can traverse it, a subject can travel forever without hitting a boundary. Stroking the ego of the unwary layman for his ability to understand a hypothetical abstraction, pundits propose this as an example of a Universe that is finite but unbounded. But it doesn't hold water. At any given instant there DOES exist a point on the balloon at which motion in any given direction will not increase the distance between the two. It is a limit, the boundary of the ability to increase distance exists.
If someone wants me to believe the universe is finite, then all they have to do is simply convince me that for some given instant the value of at least one of the XYZ coordinates has or had a limit. And if anyone wishes me to believe there are more than three dimensions, then show that there are locations in the cosmos which cannot be specified within those coordinates.
Saying infinity expands is trying to apply a relative term (infinity expands relative to WHAT?) to a non relative situation. To expand is to increase the value of some limit and only that which has a LIMIT can expand. And we (see above) have already defined Universe as everything that exists (not just the KNOWN universe).
The very definition of the terms that foolishly try to explain a 'finite but unbounded' universe are self-contradictory. Finite explicitly means a limit and either that limit exists or it does not. There is no limit that is somehow unlimited due to some esoteric process. If a limit exists, you can point to it because it must have a specific location relative to you at EVERY instance of time.
Expansion is a myth with scholarly credentials.
I agree with you, EinderDarkwolf. We forget that Jesus and the Disciples were all Jews who believed in the laws. Good point.
It doesn't mean that Jesus has to be any less real. Just means that if your going to follow someone (as Christian means follower of Christ) that you should at least try and understand them.
Look man, you want an explanation? That's silly. We don't have one, they evolved that way, how it happened? We don't know that but that doesn't mean some omnipotent being that no one has ever seen or ever will see and who no one has any evidence for, did it. We don't know everything but we do know that some dude didn't just make it happen. When something evolves it does it for a reason and because of the laws of conservation (not the same as the conservation of matter law) a life form that ceases to need something will often lose it, like the Flightless Cormorant, explain why a God would "create" a creature that should fly but can't? Life evolves, it's been proven. How and why isn't always clear but maybe you should ask an evolutionary biologist, I am sure they can tell you a lot we can't.
I'm not sure who your response is to, coz I haven't been following your particular thread, but maybe he doesn't micro manage everything?
And, I thought that you were a scientific man, and was a prove-it man.
It's clear you have no idea what that means.
I was responding to this..."explain why a God would "create" a creature that should fly but can't? ...My point was if God was going to make everything perfect, then free will and all imperfections would all be gone and we'd have no reason, or rather we'd be incapable of choosing a side, (which means 'no free will' kinda robotic) moral or immoral. coz we'd be perfect and so would everything, we'd in effect be in la-la-land. Although I do have to say some people are already there lol
Amen. Yes, God made us and gave us free will to choose Him. Like you said, if we were created perfect free will would be nonexist. Thanks!
Is God Omniscient? If he is then Freewill does not exist even if God says it does, because if God knows what will happen as The Bible and many Christians claim then God is wrong in saying that there is free will, in that if God knows what will happen then everything we do is predetermined and predetermination negates free will. If you believe in destiny then there is no free will, if you believe in prophesy then there is no free will. God either is a liar or he doesn't exist.
This is actually one of the reasons that the theory of God is under such a great debate. Logic states that if any being knows what is going to happen then there no free will. However, Christians tend to maintain that it effects nothing because he doesn't directly interfere. Though I don't know what you would then call him sending Jesus into the world and sending prophecies through others that he was to come would be. Nor do I know what you would consider Revelations if not prophecy (no matter how inaccurate it may be).
I believe we were created perfect but were tainted by Satan.
Actually, if that were a thought, by definition, there would be thinking involved, which would lead to questioning based on knowledge and understanding as opposed to blind acceptance.
(My very thoughts.)
So that's where they are. I wouldn't bother to ask for them back.
"My point was if God was going to make everything perfect, then free will and all imperfections would all be gone and we'd have no reason, or rather we'd be incapable of choosing a side," How does creating a creature that can't fly but should be able to have anything to do with free will or US choosing something. Perfecting is an unrealistic quality. What is perfect to one person is imperfect to another. If perfection is a quality then everything created as "perfect" would have no flaws, nature is full of flaws. But even in a "perfect" world, one can find choice in quantity and I believe that is the direction your argument should have gone as far as freewill is concerned. To choose to do something and to choose not to do something..... if you have two choices and both are equally good choices but you are told to not choose one thing over the other then when concerning free will you could make the wrong choice and perfection has nothing to do with this what so ever.
If there are two perfect things and you only are able to choose one then why would you be incapable of choosing a side? By merely having two choices your lack of knowledge is what causes you to choose one side over the other merely by not having experience of either side.
Take politics, Communism, Socialism, Capitalism... all three work and depending on who you talk to anyone of these systems can be claimed as working better than the other.... it's all a matter of prospective. If you had a bad experience with one and not the other then you would choose the one you did not have a bad experience with, even if that system was not necessarily to blame.
Morality or immorality also has nothing to do with perfection or imperfection. What is immoral or moral is in the action of doing something for which you have been told is wrong... if no one cares does that make it immoral? Freewill comes from preference, we don't all like the same colors, so we choose different colors....
Utopia, the perfect world is an unrealistic place because what is perfect to one will never be perfect to everyone, hence why free will would exist without a God saying so.You did a really bad job of responding but I'll try to answer what I could make sense of.
You said; "How does creating a creature that can't fly but should be able to have anything to do with free will or US choosing something"
My response; You're looking at it in a very narrow minded way. You have to look at the bigger picture and the question you asked in the first place which was, "explain why a God would "create" a creature that should fly but can't?"...Your question was in the context that inferred God doesn't exist because why would an all powerful God design a bird that can't fly, meaning he doesn't exist. That's called a non sequitur.
Just because there are imperfections in some organisms or just because an animal including humans aren't made without flaws, doesn't lead to the conclusion that God doesn't exist, so in the bigger picture, it isn't just about one species of bird that can't fly. I went on in my previous response to explain the mechanics of how I think that works.
To illustrate my point let me ask you a question. If everything in the world was a utopia, then what is the difference between you/mankind and a robot? For instance you/we couldn't have any reason to complain, life would always be fantastic until you/we just dropped dead one day (same with a robot because free will wouldn't be necessary becuse everything would be perfect) and by 'free will' I mean the free will to choose between right and wrong relative to how you conduct yourself towards others.
What I'm saying is we have free will for a reason, the reason is so we can make ethical and moral choices. We couldn't make those choices in 'utopia' there would be nothing to choose, everything would be perfect, there would be no need for God.
However the fact is, some birds don't fly, some children have nothing to eat, some people are murdered, some people are born blind, in other words the world is far from perfect, in other words this isn't just about a bird that can't fly, it's a collective problem, it's about the fact that as humans we are extremely limited about how we can solve all these problems, we are weak, God is not, God or a pantheon of gods can solve all those problems, but the only way we are going to know that we need God/s is to have those problems in the first place. so it doesn't mean God made a bird that can't fly, what it means is that God allows us to fix the bird that can't fly, can we? no. Can we make blind people see? no. Can we we stop every murder?, no. Can we feed every child?, no Can we solve every dilemma that faces mankind?, no. God didn't make all those problems, but God/s can fix them.
If none of that makes any sense to you, then are you saying it's just too bad because there is no God or intelligent designer?, because for that matter what difference would it make in the long run (I'm talking about billions upon billions of years from now) if you and your family were murdered tomorrow, because someone felt like it, it's just too friedrich niezstche for me.Thanks for thinking I did a bad job of commenting. Was it because I thought you had too many assumptions like you are making in this next comment? I may seem "narrow minded" to you, but it's only because I am unwilling to make uneducated assumptions about the nature of nature. I base all my reasons on facts and evidence not on anthropomorphic ideas of nature.
I did not infer that the entire existence of God was based on the existence of animals that don't have abilities they should, the idea of or against "perfection" was the argument. The reason for the nonexistence of God is the lack of evidence for his existence or necessity for the existence of the entire universe. But that's not what we are talking about is it (reading comprehension?).
I am not about to complain about the nature of existence nor do I have a complaint about life in general, I'm a rational, logical mind so your arguments don't apply to me in the sense you are trying to make them.
Your defense of God seems merely on the moral existence of man, which to me is just a drop in the bucket for the argument in general and pretty much irrelevant to the existence of God as a whole.
My point was that whether or not Society was "perfect" it would still become imperfect on it's own. You mentioned if we were robots, robots break down, as do we...
One thing about our ability to make mistakes, about our perceived lack of "perfecting" is that you must learn from your mistakes not fall back on, "I can't do it, I'll just pray to God for guidance"... it doesn't work that way. We are who we are because of our ability to make and learn from our mistakes.
You like to assume I have made certain arguments that I have not.
These problems that we have, you say God can fix them but according to not just your Bible but the length of time in the whole of human history, God causes more problems than he solves, and not directly (except in the Bible) people cause these problems in his name? Nature creates problems, and God does nothing to help....
However, none of these things are reasons for my not believing in God.
My reason for not believing in God has nothing to do with anything we have even discussed (between me and you anyways).... you'd have to read my hub on "Intro My Atheism" to understand at least part of how I became an atheist.
As far as Friedrich Nietzsche, I think you take the words of other philosophers too seriously and need to look at it more logically than philosophically.Here is the latter portion of your first paragraph;
"I base all my reasons on facts and evidence not on anthropomorphic ideas of nature."
What facts and evidence" do you speak of?.
Here's what you said a couple of comments ago, (Bold mine.)
"Look man, you want an explanation? That's silly. We don't have one, they evolved that way, how it happened? We don't know that but that doesn't mean some omnipotent being that no one has ever seen or ever will see and who no one has any evidence for, did it. We don't know everything but we do know that some dude didn't just make it happen. When something evolves it does it for a reason and because of the laws of conservation (not the same as the conservation of matter law) a life form that ceases to need something will often lose it, like the Flightless Cormorant, explain why a God would "create" a creature that should fly but can't? Life evolves, it's been proven. How and why isn't always clear but maybe you should ask an evolutionary biologist, I am sure they can tell you a lot we can't"
You in fact did infer that God does not exist and one reason you gave was because you couldn't resolve the existence of the flightless cormorant/bird if God was real. So I don't know where you got a "reading comprehension" comment about something I said?, please tell me what I'm mis-comprehending, are you not saying that if God existed, would he not have created flightless birds? If so, I already explained that twice. You may not accept what I said, but that's different from reading comprehension, ya know?
More of what you said, "Your defense of God seems merely on the moral existence of man, which to me is just a drop in the bucket for the argument in general and pretty much irrelevant to the existence of God as a whole" nope, my "defense of God" isn't "merely" on the moral existence of man, but you and I haven't gone there yet, or am I missing something.
More of what you said, ""I can't do it, I'll just pray to God for guidance"... it doesn't work that way" I agree and I don't pray to God for guidance to fix 'things,' I try to fix things myself, so I think we're in agreement here.
More of what you said, "You like to assume I have made certain arguments that I have not." I do!? I did!?, where and when?
More of what you said. "God causes more problems than he solves" he does? hmm, like what? religious wars?, I thought it was because people make choices and act on them, you're blaming God for wars? isn't that like saying if there's a gun laying around, then blame the maker of the gun and not the person that pulls the trigger?
Your final comment, "As far as Friedrich Nietzsche, I think you take the words of other philosophers too seriously and need to look at it more logically than philosophically." Thanx for the admonition, however I do both
All of us do not know why we were born, maybe we were born by God
- Ryan-Morganposted 13 years ago0
Religion is dying, and deep down I think every Christian, Jew, Muslim etc. knows it, unless they live in some isolated village in the middle of nowhere. Evolution has been proved, with evidence, time and time again, but you believers can't accept you came from primates millions of years ago. There are plenty of things science is yet to answer, but at least the scientific community can hold its hands up and admits there are gaps.
If God were to exist, and Christians have every confidence he does, and that he will protect them if they worship him, why do church steeples have lightning rods on them? If Christianity is a religion of peace, then why did Protestants and Catholics engage in conflict?
You choose to believe in a god simply because you're too lazy to understand the finer details of how and why we exist; why the Earth exists, and why the Universe exists. A don't want to criticise religion, but I will if the theists churn out complete nonsense to support their nonsense beliefs.You don't know the faith.
Religion is losing popularity until it is badly needed.
You consistently apply finite logic and reasoning to an infinite entity."Religion is losing popularity until it is badly needed."
It's needed only when people stop learning, when education is taken from us and we are too ignorant to know anything else. Faith is for those without the knowledge to better themselves without the aid of an imaginary friend."Religion is the opiate of the masses."
It's that and much more for the human race and each temporary member.It is more to those that assign it that quality for themselves. Religion is not necessary and provides comfort only to those that lack in the knowledge of possibilities. You say it's that much more for the human race... but that is only so if every single member of the human race needs it, it's not a necessity like air, food, water, shelter and sleep, it's only for those that want it for lack of anything better in their lives.
Most politicians in DC have a faith, and they are leading our country. You have faith twisted; men of faith have a superb record for positively influencing their community.
You spoke only to the material world, and not the spiritual. If you are not aware that it exist, than I understand.Faith in the existence of something is not affirmation of it's truth, and people of faith making decisions good or bad is no reflection on whether someone does something positive in their community, people of faith have also done negative in their community as do people who lack faith have done both positive and negative for their community.
As for speaking of only the material, you cannot speak of something which you don't believe or for which you have no evidence for without looking stupid to many whose belief in the spiritual is different or nonexistent.
If you are aware of something then you must also have reason for it that goes beyond faith. Awareness means having knowledge of something, if you can have knowledge of something that you can give sufficient evidence to convince someone else who is unaware of it to be aware of it... do you?
"If Christianity is a religiom of peace, then why did Protestants and Catholics engage in conflict?"
Well, lets take at look at just how erroneous your views are from this statement alone.
One - Catholics and Protestants. Should tell you something right there right? I mean they're first title isn't even Christian because of conflict. Different denominations are an effect of conflict to begin with, lol. What did you expect, for them to act Christian when they can't get along with each other?
Two- What they do doesn't define Christianity... [Why is everybody so ignorant of this fact??] Christ Jesus didn't teach or tell them to "...engage in conflict..." -- He said to love your enemy.. Now you tell ME why they done it. If you can't see they WEREN'T following the Christian doctrine now then I give up and your a hopeless case.
Three- Religion isn't dying. At least not Christianity -- And though there may be many such as in your example who claim to know Christ, they obviously do not. Wouldn't you say? You should take a look at the charts again. There may be more bold atheists now than ever, but that doesn't mean anything except they're coming out of the closet like the gays. The more atheists who speak, the more atheists who feel 'empowered'. Doesn't mean the iceburg was never there, just that you failed to register that most of it was under the surface.
Now, I love you just like I love every other person and I know someone might claim me not acting Christian. But I hate to tell you this is a kind post after reading some of your statements about people who don't see things 'your way'. I didn't address the rest because I know you'd be upset, and lets be honest -- I prefer to be humble, but that doesn't mean I won't address things that don't make sense such as the points I attended to.
Please explain, btw, the "finer details" of how and why we exist as I believe that is EXACTLY what you atheists in your evo scheme are missing.
All in conversation,
-VIt seems like you could learn a thing or two from Jesus yourself. As far as the different denominations, Catholics were the original Christians, this is confirmed by historians, deny it all you want (I know you will)... I have yet to see a Christian who has followed the words of Jesus except to say they believe in Jesus and they are not perfect.... I mean really? How hard is it to follow those simple things that Jesus wanted people to follow.
As far as defining "Christianity" even the Bible doesn't do a very good job of this, hence why I stopped being a Christian... How does Jesus feel about those "enemies" of himself? Well, look at revelations... love they enemy? Jesus should practice what he preaches. But that's the long gone fictional account that never came to pass. You say it one day will and many believers seem to take much comfort in revelations coming to pass. Harold Camping believes this, he's done his darnedest to try and predict it, but the problem with that and the failure of the Bible is that Revelations WAS supposed to have happened in the life time of Jesus' disciples...
As far as Why we exist in our "evo" schemes? Didn't your parents tell you that they had sex?Did you just hit puberty? How many posts on sex must you submit?
Or maybe you haven't learned the term reproduce yet.
Not to mention you are cluttering the thread with things you've repeated without end. Paroting your feelings doesn't make things reality. Teach me on denominations and think daring me to deny it makes what you say true?
You completely, and not surprizingly, ignored by request and went babbling on about your little hatred theme.
Consider objective conversation and please quit attempting to teach me about the Bible. That is called hypocricy and your notions are absurd.
I'm near to the point of completely giving up posting in some forums because of your endless paroting...
Ryan-Morgan,
"You choose to believe in a god simply because you're too lazy to understand the finer details of how and why we exist; why the Earth exists, and why the Universe exists. A don't want to criticise religion, but I will if the theists churn out complete nonsense to support their nonsense beliefs."
When have knowledge of a scientific explanation of why we exist; why the Earth exists, and why the universe exists become the solution that heals all the social ills among the people.
Think, what if two men love deeply the same beautiful women. Will scientific explanations keep the other from desiring to kill the other or use some deviate means to get rid of his competition? Will men stop going to war if religion was banned? Hell no!Christianity encompasses the entire human experience of physical and spiritual; therefore, only Christianity can solve all social ills. I said "can" because there will always be people that oppose God, and you don't really want to put your trust in them!
It has been 2000 years..."Socials Ills" haven't gone away only adapted to current times.
Christianity is one religion amongst many that encompass the entire human experience of physical and spiritual. A lot of your arguments revolve around the fact that you believe. Strip away your belief and look at your arguments and you see how truly one sided they actually are. Christianity cannot solve social ills. No religion can. Only people can solve them and as long as each religion believes itself an absolute, there will be a barricade in the way of doing so.
God can not be proved using finite and secular reasoning. Faith is developed just as legitimately as a photograph. Christ Jesus CAN solve all social ills. Religion innately represent peace and love among mankind whether they take heed or not. Remove a positive and you get a negative.
I think you are focusing on the reactionary aspect of Christianity by people who have harden hearts against God while disbelieving in your heart.I think you grew up in Christianity and it's all you've ever known, therefore other Religions scare the living hell out of you. The things is, having studied and been apart of many different religions, including many forms of Christianity, I have a fundamental understanding of how each of them promote peace and kindness amongst all mankind. They all have the same flaw as well, each believes that theirs is the only right and absolute religion. This is the inherent problem in ALL Religion. Religion in and of itself doesn't represent anything, it is a word. Others represent their religion and saying that your own is the only possible right one is about the biggest problem I've ran into with them all. Wiccans believe theirs is the only right one, while Christians believe theirs in the only right one, while Jews believe theirs is the only right one, while Muslims believe theirs is the only right one, this list could go on with listing the many religions and they themselves believing theirs is the only right one. If any of them would take the time to put that aside, and put the differences of religion aside all together, the world would become a much better place. People don't put differences of Religion aside though. Thus we have many of the Social Ills that exist now. You think that I'm focusing on the reactionary aspect of Christianity who have hardened their hearts. The truth is that even you believe your Religion to be the only correct one and your willing to challenge anyone and everyone who says otherwise. This shows exactly the point I was making about trying to put that aside. I can see the good in the many religions because I was not scared to step away from the many and say that I am and I will. It's a shame to find that many many others are still scared, even petrified and have hardened hearts towards that which they do not know and do not understand. Not wishing to understand makes a prime example of that.
There will be a one world religion. Those religions will be of the past one day. I don't think evolution is natural. I believe we are genetically engineered by aliens, curiously enough, a theory shared by Richard Dawkins and Freemasons according to ancient texts. Even if the conventional theory of evolution was true, how does it negate God's existence?
Don't be silly now. We have to be practical in this life. What sense of responsibility would we have in God just answered our every pathetic whim? You second question is easy. There are many people who say they love Jesus when they don't. That no way negates God's existence.
Blanket statement.Clare. Would you care to prove the existence of God to me, or any other mythical being that possesses such awesome power they are able to impregnate a woman without semen, or create an entire planet in just 6 days?
I can prove the creation account in Genesis is scientifically accurate and that it doesn't say it was in '6 days'. Is that sufficient? I have a hub that illustrates it in detail. It's only one of 2 hubs, so it's easy enough to find.
So who actually documented god's creation efforts then, bearing in mind that most of it was allegedly done before he created the first humans?
When you say "scientifically accurate", do you mean hard facts that would be accepted by peer review in say "Scientific American", or are you talking about your interpretation of how it might possibly relate.
Also, other religions have different versions of the creation myth - what makes your version the correct one?Yes, I compare Genesis to the widely accepted views of current scientific understanding in relation to earth's history. It's more a shift in context and perspective in which Genesis is written than my interpretation. It more has to do with consciously removing all the preconceived notions that so heavily permeate how each of us read it that come from the traditional interpretations we've all heard so that you can read it for what it actually says.
In verse 2 when it explains that 'God's spirit was over the surface of the waters' it establishes the point of view as from the surface. The beginning of that same verse describes the state of the earth clearly enough to pinpoint what era in earth's history it's speaking of. Then just go from there keeping those two things in mind and it lines right up with how earth geologically formed, then with how life biologically formed. To simply say it's 'my interpretation' kind of sells it short.
As for who documented it, that is not known, but I can tell you how I see it. Genesis depicts God walking and talking to Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. This thought always makes me wonder how many times Adam could have told that story over a fire in his 900+ years of existence, surrounded by scores of grandchildren 6 and 7 generations deep.
Also, Genesis 1 in particular is thought by many to be a song, both because of it's structure as well as the symbols incorporated into the Hebrew language that denote musical notes, which would explain how something passed down verbally for so many generations could remain so accurate.
In those days I imagine stories like this were pretty compelling considering there weren't many others. Similar to the guys in ancient Greece that would travel from city-state to city-state reciting the entirety of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey and whatever else people would pay them to speak, all from memory.
I've looked into other creation myths and none match up so accurately to what we now know earth's history to have been. But there are similarities here and there, kind of like what you'd expect in a game of telephone, which in my mind lends credibility to the idea that each civilization that sprang up in the centuries following the rise and fall of ancient Sumer started with the introduction of Noah's descendants spread out throughout the world. Each would be familiar with both the creation tale as well as the flood story. Each had different languages. And each had knowledge of building, of civilization, of agriculture, and free will.With respect, everything you have said is opinion: "how I see it", "Adam could have", "in those days I imagine", "which in my mind lends credibility". etc.
Now there's nothing wrong with having an opinion - everyone has them, but "scientific proof" they are not. Anything written in the above subjective terms would not get near any peer-reviewed scientific journal.
As I said, It's nice to have opinions, but without proper proof they carry no more weight than anyone else's opinions.
Regarding how the creation process could have been documented when there were no humans there to do it.
I could, of course come up with a suggestion that, maybe the process was somehow holographically etched onto the clouds and then when humans had been formed, god instilled the skills of language and writing, provided them with pencils and paper, and then replayed the creation story to them from the holographic recording in the clouds - in full technicolor!
Yes this is an explanation, an interpretation, and if I was to pass this on to other people as "truth" no doubt a certain percentage would believe it and pass it down to others.
Unfortunately, no matter how much I may believe it, or how much I believe it "fits" with scientific knowledge, it is nevertheless just a story. Just my opinion.
Opinions aside, the simple logical fact remains that such a creation could not have been documented, because there was no one there to do it.Yeah, I acknowledged the part about how exactly that description of events was conveyed to humans was my opinion. Those who knew where they got the story from and how didn't bother to share.
But it's the fact that somebody from over 3000 years ago wrote this detailed account, stating specifically that it's an account of God's creation of the earth, that's the significant bit. We could come up with all kinds of really imaginative ways that this depiction could have been known. That's the part that makes this so compelling, no human should have known these things. In the context of the story in which it's a part, God is the only being that could have knowledge of these events.
Now if we in this modern age had determined the universe had no beginning, or that the earth had just always been here, or that the oceans were not the first thing to form, or that humans predate the animals, we wouldn't be discussing who wrote it down and who could know that because it would be wrong. But that's not the case. They were right.
That isn't just my opinion or my interpretation. Once you understand what the point of view is and where the starting point is in relation to earth's history, it's hard to miss. It very specifically lists the correct order in which each element of this earth that's relevant to humans came about, and manages to do so from a particular point of view.
So, just as you said, "the simple logical fact remains that such a creation could not have been documented, because there was no one there to do it." That's the part that makes this so fascinating. It's not possible. So how'd they get it right? The only other option is to dismiss the creation account as nothing more than a lucky guess."How did thwy get it right"? - They didn't ! - Your interpretation maybe maybe works for you - But it is way off the mark as far as I can see.
It's like me saying that according to the ancient Egyptians, the god Ra masturbated the universe into existence - This is obviously a metaphor - They were using Ra's orgasm as a metaphor for "the big bang" - How could they have possibly known in those ancient times, that the universe
began this way? - The answer is of course that they didn't.
Interpretation can make anything fit anything. When it appears in a peer reviewed science journal, then I'll believ it.You obviously either haven't read it or are so certain going in that it won't work that you can't see it.
It's as plain as day. And no mention of ejaculation being involved. Nothing of the methods used to make it happen even mentioned or matter. Only physical things that we know exist, that we grasp how they exist and when the developed, all of which are mentioned specifically and in the right chronological order. It's not some interpretation that twists around words and alternate translations. Just what it says and nothing more. The context is real history and the point of view is specifically addressed.
Just comparing it to Ra and Egyptian mythology tells me you either haven't read it or don't see it because you're mind was made up going in. Because if you did you'd know how disconnected that comparison is.It's a nice try but it's still conjecture, unconvincing, and "made to fit". The statement that professes to explain the "let there be light" statement (who was there to hear him say this by the way?). First YOU decide that this means just the surface of the earth, and not the concept of light generally, and then you say,"the sun’s estimated brightness at the time was somewhere between 70 and 80% what it is today, there would be very little light reaching the surface, if any". - So there may have been a bit of light, or then again maybe not. Again this is just guesswork.
You quote things like
"Genesis 1:9 – And God said, “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear”, and try to imply that this is just another way of explaining the Proterozoic Eon and the appearance of the first stable continents. Rubbish. Even primitive man could work out that to have land, the water had to be in one place and the dry bits in another
Genesis 1:10 – And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good".
Did he really? - He spoke english then?
You say "Here the position of the continents and the point of view of Genesis" - (the point of view of genesis according to your interpretation that is) - "come into play again. Obviously God did not create the sun, the moon, and the stars the ‘day’ after plant life and three ‘days’ after light". (obvious to whom? - fundamental christians might disagree about this one), "As it states, on ‘day’ 4 He set them in the sky to provide light, to divide day from night, and to be used for signs and to track seasons, days, years".
I think it's pretty damn obvious that, as the earth orbits the sun, then the sun must have been there before the beginning of the earth - the other stars certainly were, as for them being placed there to allow us to track seasons. days, years - No they weren't - this relationship is simple enough for even unsophisticated people to work out through observation.
Trying to say that the creation myth is valid by desperate comparisons with known science is spurious. This is the sort of literary back-engineering that is used to try and make Nostradamus's writings look like valid predictions.
I could go on and on, but I'm getting bored now - if you really think that this has any scientific merit, why not offer it to a peer review publication like New Scientist, or Scientific American. If they publish it, that will be good enough evidence for me, and I'll be happy to agree that you're right.First off, I want to say how much I appreciate you taking the time to look into this and address it directly, rather than simply dismissing it without consideration.
In the hub I illustrate 13 specific details given in order ....
The heavens, earth, oceans, darkness, light, atmosphere/water cycle, land, plant life, position of sun/moon/stars, life from the sea, birds, mammals, and humans.
Land you mentioned, but didn't appear to contest as incorrect chronologically. This leaves just 3 (darkness, light, sun/moon/stars) of the 13, or 23%. Even by scientific standards, 87% uncontested is far from dismissible as rubbish.
Specifically about 'let there be light', this idea that this is God creating light as a concept is the number one answer I hear. Even though it says right after that God 'saw the light'.
Illustrating how this describes an actual known event in earth's history based on the point of view that Genesis (not me) specifically states just one verse before is deemed by you as unconvincing conjecture and guesswork. Yet this meaning that God created the concept of light 3 days before creating a source that even ancient man understood provides light is the more likely meaning?
The bit about the atmosphere blocking the sun from reaching the surface is not something I'm guessing at. It's the most commonly agreed upon state of the earth during that age.
The common view is that the growing proto-earth heated to the point of turning to magma, causing outgassing that remained in the atmosphere from the time the planet was large enough to retain one on, then cooled and hardened at the surface layers. During this age the sun's light would not get through as the earth's first atmosphere was not translucent. The oceans formed from the water vapor trapped in the air cooling and condensing.
Sunlight (and oceans) was required both for establishing the earth's water cycle and was a necessary ingredient used by the photosynthetic algae that oxygenated the atmosphere. So, it's known that between these two states in the earth's history, the sun began to shine through to the surface. In my hub I provide a link that verifies the same. The sun has continued to shine on the earth's surface every day from that age all the way until now, making that a monumentally important event as everything that came after (except maybe land) required the sun.
If you'll notice, nowhere does it say that God 'created' or 'made' the light. He simply said 'let there be light'. As for who was there for Him to be talking to, His creation was there. He created it by speaking it into existence. This is what Genesis is illustrating.
As for the sun/moon/stars not being created on day 4, you're right, many fundamentalist christians actually disagree with that. They'll contest that the sun was created 1 day after plantlife, basically siting God's ability to do whatever He wants as their reasoning.
The very first verse said He created the 'heavens'. What exactly would that mean to humans in the age Genesis was written if not the sun, the moon, and the stars?
If I understand correctly, you seem to interpret these verses to mean that though these were primitive people, they understood both light as a concept and empty space apart from visible heavenly bodies. This is a common answer I get from both believers and non-believers.
It's clear the focus of the day 4 portion involves how the sun/moon/stars are positioned so that they can serve a specific purpose. Should it not at least be counted as an enormous coincidence that the portion of earth's history that falls directly between plantlife on land and life emerging from the sea, which is where day 4 sits in Genesis, happens to coincide with the age that the entirety of the earth's continental land mass drifted up from underneath the planet to the side where the sun/moon/stars would actually serve the purpose specifically stated from a landbased perspective?
Something else I didn't cover in the hub is the transition of the earth's atmosphere from translucent to transparent. This is something I'd like to know more about before including it, but I feel it's worth noting here. This would be particularly relevant in the case of the stars. If I understand correctly, this process would be greatly aided by plantlife on land, which just happens to be the event that preceded this one.
Contesting only 23% of my claim, when the 3 you contested actually coorilate chronologically with events in known history that match these descriptions, is far from dismissible, and way better than the Egyptian creation tale would fair.
I'll look into submitting this for peer review. I started off discussing with people like yourself who do not agree with me to test its validity and see if it's sound. I've heard many arguments from many different perspectives, and grow only more certain. Maybe submission through the proper channels is the next step.I wouldn't do so without finding out everything you could about the Mayan creationist theory. I say this not to dissuade you from such action, but because at least some of what you say seems to correlate with what they said.
The Mayans are definitely becoming a more prominent focus. The part I find interesting apart from what appears to be some similar themes in their mythology though they were half a world away is the the fact that they didn't seem to get the 'awareness of their nakedness' gene. They never quite bloomed into full-on 'civilization' status, but did seem to make some other rather significant strides.
Yeah right.. Like I say get it peer reviewed then we will all know it's valid.
zzron,
using the logic that atheists use. You know good & well that "proof is existence" not the other way around. Nice try sheep. Although, miracles do happen that are unexplained by science which is where I will leave it.
You show me proof that Extra-terrestrials do no exist and then do they worship a figure? Laugh all you want but JPL scientists (astronomers), commercial pilots, and govt knos they exist. Now you show me the divine does 100%Laugh?
The God I believe in is called our 'creator'...
I suppose your waiting for the little green slimy things to come fill in evolution's gaps? Don't hold your breath.. lol
A creator by nature, would what class? CREATE.
We speak of angels. People laugh, even with testimonies from nearly every decade on record of written paper. Your green things, well, not so documented.. That's a modern thing.
And WE are the ones grasping at straws?
Sorry, I think your stand is fully based on your already set notions.
I know your point of view - been there - and I know the other side as well..
Btw, the grass really is greener. But no one believes it 'til they eat it.Gaps???? There aren't any gaps that any of us are waiting for so here I have no idea what you mean. Your creator has been shown to be absent of being necessary to "his" creation. I wouldn't call it creation anyway.
As far as Angels.... and whatever this green thing is supposed to be... life on Other planets has been shown to be not only possible but probable... waiting is not necessary especially for any unanswered questions except "how will they be different as far as "their" evolution, which has nothing to do with ours, and we all realize, or most of us that aren't UFO conspiracy nuts, that space travel from one planet to another in a distant solar system in anyone's lifetime is unlikely. However, science has discovered many planets capable of supporting life, and with the universe as big as it is, it's unlikely that there are no alien life forms out there, (even if God existed it would be stupid of him to make so much space filled with lifeless planets that have been shown to have all the same elements as our own)... Angels? Documented? HA, that's the biggest laugh there is, how many people in need of mental health are there? Too many, look up schizophrenia. Yes you are grasping at straws, creating straw man arguments and attacking people with them. And then you say we generalize about Christians and say we are the ones using bad examples? May I introduce you to the Pot and Kettle one calls the other black you know. Hypocrisy. You say you have had such a point of view? May I also call you a liar? Because I do. You say the grass is greener? Yes it is and I was on the other side, I was raised a Christian, if you don't believe me I can introduce you to my mother (who is still a Christian) if you like. I am more than happy to have guests over for dinner even if we don't see eye to eye.... most of my family is like that... Christians of all sorts, believers and nonbelievers of all sorts... you say WE don't know your side? 99% of us were RAISED on your side of the fence.- I give up.....
Dare I say three decades you haven't lived and you know more than Methuselah...
Or at least you think you do.
99 percent you say?
Please continue.. I'm learning so so much young master......
You are too headstrong to accept anyone attempting to be kind. If I were to attempt to reply, you'd just continue on your little rampant tongue parade...And what am I supposed to have learned? That your imaginary friend is real? Good luck with that. You can also talk to my father who was once a right wing Christian who became a socialist atheist. I read the letters, maybe I should do a hub on that.
Subtract 30 and you have how long he's been an atheist.
It's impossible to prove whether he exists or not. That's the point.
Who can say with certainty, that the universe isn't expanding in multiple directions ... and the same with time?
We can see only that which we see.I can say that. The Universe is infinite...without limits. To expand is, by definition, to increase a limit. It just doesn't apply.
PS: Forget that esoteric finite but unbounded doubletalk.
www.theory-of-reciprocity.comAccording to Albert Einstein, time is just an illusion and that the past, present and future are happening simultaneously.
I think that the universe could have been the result of something else before that like the death of enough universe. Even though our universe didn't always exist it didn't come from nothing.Have you wondered where all that stuff that goes into a black hole goes.
Don't know why I said that, tried to not ... but couldn't.They (scientists, astrologists or whoever) perhaps shouldn't call them black "holes," as it often gets confused with wormholes, which are two totally different things.
This simple minded old country boy is just thinkin out loud for a minute.
I'm aware that worm holes and black holes are two different things yet I wonder.
?? A worm hole is believed to bridge different places and/or dimensions of the universe (question)
So wouldn't a black hole be doing something very similar bridging
(for lack of proper word) bridging between the condition/plane of expansion and retraction,
Or something like that ???? I don't know?
If the potential to expand is infinate would the oposit also be posible?
Which I believe would be saying that there an infinate range of posibilities of an infinate number of subject matters.
Of which we are aware of almost nothing, except for what we can see, feel, taste, smell or hear; in this tiny place which we call home.
And what conclusion does this bring me to?
I Don't Know! I don't think it does. I think I just got dizzy.I believe that black holes create spiral galaxies; just think of a gravitational pull so strong, that it literally rips atoms apart.
I know, it appears from afar that galaxies are twirling down a toilet, into some other dimension or universe of some sorts, but that is where it gets confused with a so-called "wormhole." Wormholes haven't been proven to exist, but I'd like to think that they can, mainly because I have a creative imagination and I'm a science-fiction buff, like many of y'all.
LOL! You said that you just got dizzy! Hey, we are all spinning, technically... Ha!
It is believed that matter gets crunched into a singularity. Some even say it goes to a parallel universe.
Really? A "black hole" does all that? My Gawd, this particular universe defies the laws of God, then... Beam me up, Scotty; it's a madhouse down here!
Until we find the other end of the universe, I think all bets are on the table. Someone has to call. If there is no end, then the "Big Bang" can't be the beginning. Infinite doesn't work that way. If God exists, and God has always existed, then the light was always with God, and creation was more God discovering what already existed within God. A journey which is ours also.
The big bang theory is based around the idea that there are Multiple Universes. This would suggest that even if you did pass out side of this universe, you would never know it. Again though, it is theory and has not been proven. Just as God has not been proven.
Claire Evans wrote:
According to Albert Einstein, time is just an illusion and that the past, present and future are happening simultaneously.
================
I like this thought, and have even thunkIT before i knew it was thunked before.http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm
This would explains Einsteins theory.
Many of Einsteins theories are just now starting to be proven correct. His theory of relativity for example was only recently proven to be correct. Einstein though believed that there was such thing as immortality of the body, not the spirit. He believed there would come a day when this would actually be the norm. Something that defies the Christian belief of spiritual immortality.Einstein's theory also supports the idea of God being omnipotent and omnipresent. Being that God is described as existing before the universe, meaning He exists outside of the dimensions of both time and space.
It's like that illustration of how to imagine the idea of multiple dimensions. From the perspective of a higher dimension, lower dimensions are simpler. Like how the first dimension from our perspective is a single dot. From outside the dimensions of time and space, both would be viewed as a single point.
We are within the dimension of time, where the 'illusion' to our perspective is that time is linear and only moving in one direction. While actually both beginning, end, and everything in between is actually an instant. From our perspective, this would make everything that exists beyond those dimensions present in every moment everywhere.Actually yes, it dos support that Idea. However, it also supports alternate realities and the fact that something somewhere has to make a move in order for their to be a change. By defining this, it becomes inertly apparent that God could be a something and not just a divine "spirit"* to go and do what it will when and where it will.
Time could well be an illusion, and a powerful as Einstein himself has said. Of course the Eastern Yogi's and Priests show us that Gravity is an illusion to be over come when levitate and such in the streets. Many believe this to be an optical illusion much like the slight of hand Magic you see from the likes of David Blaine and Cris Angel. However, if you were to see it in person as some have, you would not think it to be such.
*I use the term spirit here as many don't believe that there is truly any type of flesh to God. It is not meant as a derogatory or any such thing. Its use is to simply help form the context of what I was trying to say.That's interesting, your point about the support of alternate realities and the relation to something having to make a change. This is how I see free will.
Free will actually allows us to make our own decisions apart from the will of God. If you think of an existence that totally conforms to the will of God, then any action or decision made by someone who possesses a will of their own that deviates from that reality in essence would create an alternate reality. Kind of like how the serpent said to Eve that eating the fruit would make her 'like god'. The knowledge of both good and evil and the ability to choose either.
Obviously this is rampant speculation on my part, but if that were the case, if we were truly capable of creation on that level, then it stands to reason that there could be something to the idea of a conscious being bending the rules a bit, like a budhist monk who can stand on a cain suspended between two chairs that should break under his weight, or plant his feet so that four men can't move him.
I'm constantly back and forth on that sort of thing, half the time feeling ridiculous for even considering it. But I've also had those moments in life when time slowed down in a moment of clarity. What some refer to as being 'in the zone'. Or that palpable connection you feel playing in a band that has a kind of chemistry where 3 or 4 individuals transcend their individual selves and think and play as one. Those moments you can't really put into words and feel ridiculous trying to explain. Kind of like now as I type this.Your thinking is a long a good path though. You shouldn't feel ridiculous about it in any way. There are those who want to believe in the sorcery of the type written into fantasy books, that are in movies, and that you see some of in the bible. To take the bible as completely accurate, you have to acknowledge magic because it was put before Moses in Egypt. Taking that into account how could it have been accomplished? Reality would have to in some way bend to encompass this.
While I'm on this subject, to those who left Christianity just to practice Magic, there was no need to do so. Never once is magic forbidden anywhere in the Bible. Though many would like to think so be the statement though shalt not suffer a witch to live, it's actually not forbidden. That statement applied to those who were believed to be involved with Satan and openly made claims to such. This was forgotten over time (the witch trials make a good example of it) but it does not mean that Magic in and of itself is forbidden.
Your right about conforming to the will of God as well, to do so would negate free will. Even Jesus called those following him around his "flock" which would denote that they were acting as sheep. In other words acting as if they didn't have free will. Doing exactly as your told and only what your told without ever questioning things is almost exactly as sheep do. We know they have fear as the bay and run from wolves. However when the Shepard is around they don't question they just follow and obey. This may also be why many atheist refer to those who believe as sheep. Mainly being that they don't take the time to question they are just taking it at face value.
All of science begins with Speculation. And what better place to speculate on theories of a higher being than on a philosophy forum? Philosophy is all about ponderings and speculation after all.I’m sorry, but God does not condone the occult at ALL. Anything that invokes demons cannot possibly be from God. You are doing something very dangerous here trying to encourage people to practice magic. Please don’t allow Satan to use you. You say that magic is not forbidden in the Bible? That is not true:
Galatians 5:19-21
“The acts of a sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, idolatry and witchcraft…I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the Kingdom of God.”
Revelation 9:21
20 The rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk. 21 Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts.
It’s also forbidden in the Old Testament.First off, you consider all Occult to be of a satanic nature when it indeed is not. In fact, magic is only included in the occult for the fact that it is hidden knowledge. There is a lot more to the Occult than magic and saying they are the same thing goes a long way to show just how little you bother looking into things yourself.
Witchcraft has nothing to do with magic except that it is one version of it. There are many many more and almost none of them involve summoning demons. While we are at it though, how can you speak for what they called witches and witchcraft at that time? Have you travelled to the past and lived as one of then to know such things? I rather think not which leaves the interpretation open to the reader.
As for revelations, as nothing was ever revealed to him and he only over heard bits and pieces it makes it very hard to follow. But then even when science proves the Apocrypha date as old as the other manuscripts from which the bible was taken mainstream Christians argue that they are all lies and fakes.
As for allowing Satan to use me, first you would have to believe there is a Satan, which I don't and never have. Sounds like to many other bed time stories that were made up to scare kids into doing what adults wanted them too.
As for Magic being forbidden in the old testament, Moses and many others like him should've have been killed directly then for they used it. Just as Jesus himself used. Saying that it was a Miracle in the name of God does not take away from what it actually was. It was magic plain and simple. They drew upon a deity (much like modern magic practitioners do) and performed what they called miracles and the rest of us call magic. Whether you choose to be blind to that is up to you but don't worry about trying to argue it as you've obviously pointed out that you've never bothered to even attempt understanding such things.Why is it hidden knowledge? What are they hiding? What branch of the occult do you think is harmless?
You can’t be serious. So are you telling me you just chant to Mother Gaia and the like?
Definition of witch-craft:
witch•craft/ˈwiCHˌkraft/
Noun: The practice of magic, esp. black magic; the use of spells and the invocation of spirits.
This is not one version. Witch-craft has primarily been this since ancient times.
How can YOU speak for witches at that time?
What is the “harmless” side to witch-craft?
And your point is? What is says about magic is the same as what it is said in the New Testament.
Satan is very real and perhaps in a way you are lucky to never have been persecuted by him because it is hell. Satan doesn’t need people to believe in him to do his work. In fact, the more ignorant, the better.
Didn’t I say the OT is manipulated by occultists? Not surprised Moses is depicted as a magician. Sorcery was rampant in Egypt and Moses is said to have grown up in an Egyptian household. Are you telling me Jesus was a magician? Difference between magic and miracles is that the former is from the devil. It is the manipulation of the supernaturaI and is the invocation of demons. Is it not true that magic is synonymous with sorcery? The Bible never referred to Jesus as being a magician for good reason to because magic is recognized as sorcery:
Celsus was a second century historian and opponent of Christianity. This is what he wrote about Jesus:
"Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain [magical] powers... He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god... It was by means of sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders
which He performed... Let us believe that these cures, or the resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a few loaves... These are nothing more than the tricks of jugglers... It is by the names of certain demons, and by the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of [miraculous]"Why is it hidden knowledge? What are they hiding? What branch of the occult do you think is harmless?"
It's a club!!! People don't have to discuss what they do in a club! I'
m in a club but I'm not going to tell you what we discuss, does that make us some sort of cult?
You could always "infiltrate" the club, they aren't dangerous, you could join, find out what it's about and then quit when you find out they are a club built on the idea of masonry and god... in order to join you have to believe in a god and they don't discriminate between Jews or Christians, or Muslims.....
As for witchcraft? That lame idea came out of Judeo/Christianity's idea of all other religions, all nonbelievers in the Christian God were thought to be Satan worshippers, even though it was them believing in some other God. Modern Witchcraft and Satanism is basically a protest or rebellion and a joke, not against God but against modern Christianity.Starting at the beginning. The word Occult actually means secret or hidden knowledge. This definition has changed and now means pretty much anything Supernatural or Paranormal thanks to those like John Haggae who refused to take the time to actually learn anything. Why do I think it's harmless? I don't know, I've only been studying the Occult and things connected to it for the last 17 years, so I shouldn't really have any idea what I'm talking about at all.
Actually I'm deadly serious. Witchcraft, also known as just The Craft, is a secular practice of Magic that deals specifically with those known as "Witches" and "Warlocks". It in NO WAY encompasses all magic of every kind. Though John Haggae, Rod Parsley, and many others would love to disagree with you over it.
The Witches Craft or Witchcraft has not been anything like this since ancient times. This is an assumption that's being made because of what the Catholic church has propagated over the years. This again comes in where refusal to learn takes over. It got the people good and scared as well as obidient. Exactly what they wanted.
Celsus was writing about his own theories and conclusions that he drew as he wanted to. Just because you want to agree with him just to attempt to disprove doesn't make it any more factual. They are still only his theories and conclusions. Nice attempt though.
So the difference then between magic and miracles to you is that one can only come from Satan and the other can only come from God. Therefore those studied in the ways of Magic are all wrong and always will be just because of your belief? I highly doubt that. Magic is magic no matter what way you slice it. If you believe Jesus performed Miracles, then you believe that he performed Magic, all your doing is changing the name so your more comfortable with it. It does not however, change what it actually is.Now we are playing a game of semantics here. To study the occult, you need to possess knowledge of the secrets of the supernatural. Often this is restricted to secret societies. This was the opposite of Jesus who taught in parables. He did not teach His disciples, nor anyone else, occultic secrets.
So describe this secular practice of magic. What does it entail? What’s the harmless side to it? Why is there a harmless and dangerous side?
And he was drawing his own conclusion alright, desperately trying to write off Jesus’ miracles.
If we are talking about magic like the "sleight of hand" then, no, that is just an illusion trick. I'm talking about magic that involves invoking spirits to perform the trick.
This is a brilliant example of the difference:
The two words magic and miracle might appear similar in their connotation, but strictly speaking there is difference between the two. It is generally believed that magic is the act of a human being whereas a miracle is the act of God.
Miracles rely to a great extent on the will of God. This is the reason why you cannot expect miracles to happen time and again. They happen very rarely in your life if at all they are destined to happen. Magic on the contrary is nothing but manipulation of nature of objects.
You try to suppress the real nature of objects or things while performing magic whereas miracles have nothing to do with suppression of nature of things or objects. You tend to use the so called energy available around you in the performance of magic. Miracles do not involve the use of energy. A miracle is all about the power of God.
It is important to note that the performance of magic is personal. Thus magic does not depend on the will of God. Magic is something wielded and something impressed upon. It happens in front of your very eyes much to your delight and astonishment.
Miracles do draw your astonishment and delight, but you think about the Almighty upon experiencing them. On the other hand you do not think about the Almighty upon experiencing magic before your eyes. You would at the most appreciate the skill of the magician. You would praise and applaud him. You would praise the Lord if you experience miracles.
The skill of the magician or the performer becomes evident in the act of magic, whereas the power of God becomes evident in the act of miracle. Hence it is for sure that these two words cannot be interchangeable since they show great differences between them.
What theory?
That is a meaningless statement.
Gibberish.If you had actually read my post before you would know what the conversation was about. The theory is posted there.
Most everything seems meaningless to you I've noticed. Such is your right though.
I think what was said in the movie dogma basically sums it up, "It doesn't matter what you believe, only that you do believe."I read the link and saw a lot of meaningless hand waving there that didn't support any of Einsteins theories, if that's what you meant.
There's a lot of meaningless gibberish here, or haven't you noticed?
I think it rather amusing that you dismiss something as gibberish it is actually a legitimate theory. Read:
http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm
http://www.mysticalblaze.com/OtherDimenConcept.htm
You're just showing your ignorance.- Sorry Claire, there's nothing there that supports any of your ridiculous claims. Plenty of hand waving, if that's what you consider "legitimate theory"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfqTYeGi … re=related
This whole forum thread has become a complete joke as far as I am concerned and I am pretty much done with it.
Claire, energy is many things, it's not necessarily electrical, atomic or kinetic... You make the claim that God is energy and that he has always been around. There are many assumptions to this statement. You assume that one God is/exists, two that God must then be energy and that three that if God exists "he" has a gender.
Many people want so much for something to be they can't imagine that it doesn't actually exist. People who accept that something isn't or don't know whether or not something is don't miss it or care that it's possible or impossible. Hence why God is in the product of the imagination.Speculating about God does not mean God is imaginary.
Lack of evidence for his existence and then speculating does.
It's not a lack of evidence. Some just don't know how to interpret it.
The bible, contrary to popular belief, has been the subject of massive revisionism....don't believe everything you read. Ever hear the story of the Roman soldier Pantera?
Very true statement. That doesn't mean that at least some of it doesn't hold the value of truth, at least on a spiritual level. Just that one shouldn't take it at face value.
Their is very little truth to the Bible the authors of the Bible aren't even the people who experienced the events from the Bible. Mathew, Mark Luke and John aren't actual witnesses... In fact they are probably the same person.
I found a video take it how you want it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLUF1le … AAAAAAACAAI prefer to read rather than watch videos. I will take a look at it however.
I'm not implying there is any truth at all on a historical level in the bible. I honestly could not make such a claim as I don't believe most of what is in it myself. That does not however mean that there aren't things in it that I personally find enlightening on a more spiritual level rather than physical.
Why I reject religion in favor of spiritual awareness. Many forum commentators say "religion" when they mean christianity, and tend to lump anyone who believes in God into the christian camp. Too many assumptions. Sokay to not believe in UFOs, but to think that we are the only or the best intelligent species in the universe is flat earth center of the universe BS. We aren't even the only self aware species on this planet. Neanderthals conceived of an afterlife as evidenced by their burial practices, so it isn't something specifically conceived by man. You are aware that there is none of the neanderthal genome mixed in with ours, which makes them a separate species.
Burial and honoring of dead is actually believed by many to have begun with Homo heidelbergensis, which is the species that both Neanderthal and homo Sapiens came from. They date as far back as 530,000 years ago.
Well, that time frame is getting a little crowded, because modern human teeth were found last year that date to 4oo,ooo years ago. Just sayin', not trying to make a point.
That's interesting. So, when you say 'modern humans', do you mean homo sapiens, or homo sapiens sapiens?
The reason I ask is because some believe human speech developed in Homo heidelbergensis as well. This has something to do with the makeup of the inner ear and it's ability to decipher sound frequencies being more honed or fine-tuned or whatever.
However, according to DNA evidence, humans and neanderthals diverge genetically about 400,000 years ago, so that kind of makes sense.
Honoring of the Dead and burial are far from being the same thing. Burying the dead began when the mind began to process that with dead bodies laying around we began to get sick and die. It had pretty much nothing to do with belief in an after life. It was self preservation. The same reason that the dead have always been blocked off in some way from the society at large. Preserving the many from sickness and death.
I'm not saying that it has nothing to do with honoring the dead, as many to honor the dead in this manner but that is by no way the reason that it began.I agree, and should have made the distinction. The place I heard that did not make that distinction. I believe it was a doc called 'Becoming Human', by either Discovery of the History Channel. The point I wanted to address is similar to what you're saying, burying the dead does not necessarily equate to a belief in the afterlife.
One additional thought. Who's to say that burial practices represent an awareness of an afterlife? Or even self-awareness? Could that not also simply be indicative of an affection towards someone you knew who is now inanimate? An honoring of a fallen tribe member? Or even burial simply because it wasn't very cool to watch the carcass of your fallen friend picked apart by scavengers?
God do exist even we can't see him. There are things in this life that we can't see but we believe because we can observe or feel them.
Gravity, heat, energy, current, radiation, abstract energy, love, etc.
Those are invisible but we have it.
We see and react to what we see. This energy is strange.You're confusing reality with your God fantasies, they are not the same at all.
The dellusion is the illusion, that we have any idea what's really going on. If one had anymore than an idea, someone would have him/her crucified or institutionalized.
"Gravity, heat, energy, current, radiation, abstract energy, love, etc."
All of these things with the exception of love which is a subjective emotion, can be measured, so we know they exist. I can't believe you keep falling back on this lame argument...very weak.
That statement is highly assumptive. I could say that a snake gave us that ability but it doesn't make it any more true.
Related Discussions
- 14
Atheist say that they can't prove that God do not exist,so....
by Apostle Jack 13 years ago
Atheist say that they can't prove that God do not exist,so.......that make them just as ignorant about the matter as those that they say can't prove that He does.That is a clear view of the Pot calling the kettle black.Do you agree.There is more proof that He does exist than He doesn't.They don't...
- 883
Believers Have to Prove the Existence of God
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 4 years ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
- 212
Today it was proven that God does not exist.
by cooldad 8 years ago
What if this happened today. All the news networks, all the world leaders, all the scientists, all the leaders of churches announced that it was proven that God does not exist. Proven beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever.What would you do? How would society and the world react?
- 686
Here's the twist... How can you prove that God doesn't exist?
by Eugene Geminiano 15 years ago
You base your answers as much as possible with Science...
- 25
Can you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?
by M. T. Dremer 9 years ago
Can you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?I know this question sounds like I'm trolling but I assure you I'm trying to ask it legitimately. I see questions all the time on HubPages like "Do you believe in god?" and "If god doesn't exist, prove it." I would say...
- 86
Well , come on anti- christians ....are you ?
by ahorseback 12 years ago
Look at the general similarities in all of the inter- related Anti- God posts and you see a huge underling motive ! For one ; Finding proof is not the same as the seeking of ,or having of - faith ! Please go and look up the meaning of each if you have to , But stop...