|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:06 am
How did God come into being? if the universe is not eternal then why should God be? The theory is that God created everything, therefore if everything must be created then God must have been created, if God was not created he is then eternal but if God is eternal then why can nothing else be eternal. If God was created then how did he come into being? we can now apply the same argument you did for the creation of the universe.
of course while we do know that the universe was created, we do not know wheather God was or was not. I also agree with Chase's opinion on how the big bang was merely an alteration, so duely corroborating with this theory is my theory that the universe is constantly renewing itself much like a phoenix.
Of course this still dosn't explain how or if it came into being but hey why not an eternal universe instead of an eternal God.
God offers redemtion and happiness blissfull afterlife... but when when you think about it why can't two unexplained phenomena exist simultaniusly, why must God be our explanation for the creation of the universe just another dweller like us... just better. To help us on our way through the amazing journey that is Death.
and even though it seems to lessen the importance of our presence here on Earth Isn't it better then explaining one unexplained phenomena with another one. on the other hand although the Importance of our presence may be decreased the Wonder and Incredibility of it is only Increased.
I mean it's much more amazing to say "I was created out of freak chance yet I am one of the most amazing and important creatures on Earth" than to say "I was planed and made by God and therefore I am one of the most amazing and important creatures on Earth"
"Cogito ergo sum" "I think therefore I am"
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:15 am
I think that my own opinion lies between yours and the conventional. I agree that there is no reason to decide once and for all a single explanation for God or existence, in fact to do so would be a folly, if we have not witnessed It then all we have is conjecture and perhaps the words of another person, who could have been fooled or even fooled themselves into false beliefs. if we have witnessed It then we have seen it from our own point of view and no single perspective can be a full explanation, it is only a partial truth. I am not religious but i see value in the many religions though i often do not like the manifestation of such by the adherents. i also have seen blind stubbornness in both theists and atheists. To Atheists i would say, " Maybe the reason that you find such fault in God is that IT is not what you think It is." and to theists i would say, "How, in It's great glory, could God be only what you think It is?" in both you can find great self importance and arrogance to assume that they in such a short span of time fully understand god and that thier understanding and opinions will not change.
As an answer to your question, perhaps creator and creation are simultaneous, they exist in union. that there is a force behind all that we see and some people tend to believe that it is personal and they attribute human attributes to it to feel close because they are unable to step outside their own form enough to have union with a greater one. That we are not purely accidental, the result of millions of years of chance, nor are we planned like a book already written or a manufactured existence. more that we are the result of an unfolding from the simplest forms to more complex and refined ones, perhaps back to the simplest again. for more on this topic you could read about the hindu faith, some aspects of such were scientifically refined long before christ, much of the fuel of the western enlightenment also came from ancient texts gathered from the east. I particularly like the Yoga Sutras of Pantajali, especially if you get a good translation, mine is by Ramamurti S. Mishra. Also try Ken Wilber, a modern american philosopher who has developed a system of philosophy that has room for everything and many perspectives.
can god be proven? perhaps only in a subjective sense, proof of god can only be found by those who sincerely seek it and the proof is your own and cannot be transferred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:27 pm
My picture of God as an all powerful being leaves him (for lack of a better pronoun) bodyless in a traditional sense. An energy that pervades and controls the universe through the manipulation of particles at an atomic/subatomic level. Which leads me to my theory of motivation. People want concrete proof of God. They want to be able to see, touch, hear God directly in order to believe in him. But, even with my limited knowledge of science, I know that it is not always possible to view things directly. Sometimes the proof of somethings' existence lies in being able to determine how it reacts with other particles or the behavior it creates on a larger scale. If God exists then, assuming that we could track the movement of every particle on the planet (ideally the universe, but even the planet's a stretch), then proof of God could be found by searching for an identifiable pattern or motivating factor amid the teeming chaos that is subatomic kinetics.
A common mistake in my opinion is that cause and effect are often looked at without a view on motivating factors. If I mix aqueous HCL and KOH, the resulting reaction is a matter of science and simple cause and effect. Mixing acids and bases leads to a reaction. However, the particles didn't just randomly move together. The motivating factor behind the event was my will. This is what I suggest could prove God's existence. If it could be shown that not all of the movement and flow of energy in the universe was random, then the existence of a being capable of doing such could be proven. This would not actually prove any religion right or wrong. Only prove that some all powerful being exists. Well, I'm done for the night. I'd like to know what you guys think.
On a side note, yay for no tv to disrupt my flow!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:19 am
H20edDownAzn, good post, i like your logic and willingness to mix supposed incompatible areas of knowledge. i am very fond of the prospect of using scientific procedure and knowledge to better understand spirituality and religion. many people claim them incompatible but i think that there are many facets of reality and that changing your perspective allows you to understand things better, and multiple perspectives of one thing does not mean one is true and the others are false but that each has a relative truth. unfortunately we cannot even tell where one atomic particle is at any point in time we can only observe where they have been, they will have already moved by the time we can observe them. i do think that god lies here and every where as you said and that It's existence lies in between the lines of what we can observe as far as objective and accepted science goes, but i think that a scientific mindset applied to religious and spiritual technology and techniques can afford, if not concrete proof, at least personal proof of existence of a higher power, not one that controls existence as that implies god being outside of it as a child playing with a toy, but that this is Gods body all that is is a part of gods being. there are forms of Hindu that claim to be scientific, the science of religion, it is worth looking into. here are some links to articles but it is best to do some research of your own. good day The Holy ScienceKriya Yoga
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:31 pm
This is a bit confusing. It says in the bible that God has always been and always will be. In other words, you have to think of him as a circle. We don't question the fact that a circle has neither a beginning nor end, and yet when one thinks about it, it is true. These kinds of questions are asked through-out the world, however, you have to realize that there are some questions that can never be known while one is still on earth.
I'll give you some examples. It is said that God is three in one. Jesus, Lord, and Holy Spirit are all the components of God and we worship all three, but if you take one away, none of them exist. They are all different beings, with different roles in the Christian practice, however, one can't exist without the other two. It's impossible to come up with an example to display this. So how can this be?
Another example is that Jesus performed miracles. Even modern medicine can't fully restore the sight of a man who has been blind his entire life simply by touching him. How could this be?
There are a lot of things that can't be understood by us in our mere state. It's as silly as worrying about the apocalypse. If you're saved by Jesus, what worries do you have!? You've got a nice spot in heaven waiting for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:02 pm
Firstly, I very much agree with this; Quote: perhaps creator and creation are simultaneous, they exist in union. that there is a force behind all that we see and some people tend to believe that it is personal and they attribute human attributes to it to feel close because they are unable to step outside their own form enough to have union with a greater one. I likes muchly. Quote: We don't question the fact that a circle has neither a beginning nor end, and yet when one thinks about it, it is true. Actually, a circle, an actual circle, does have a beginning and an end. It has a beginning in time - the point at which it is drawn - and an ending in time - the point the picture decays, or the line is rubbed out, etc.. There are two different sorts of beginning and endings. A circle, properly speaking, is not a line with a beginning and an end. But it is, as a thing, something with a beginning and an end. A circle without a beginning and an end may be possible, outside of existence, but if you argue that God has no beginning or end in this way, then you're saying he doesn't exist. If you're saying God has no end or beginning like a circle, then it sounds to me like you are saying God is a geometric shape... which I don't think you'd actually agree with. Or would you? So, yeah, genuine question; How could a being, even God, exist - within what we actually consider existence to be - without a beginning or an end? What do people think? Also, while I accept that this is possible; Quote: you have to realize that there are some questions that can never be known while one is still on earth. I don't find that to be any reason why we should stop asking the questions. I don't plan on stopping asking because it might be a question that remains a mystery! wink Besides, according to most Christians, I don't have a spot in heaven at all. Being as I want to ask questions and follow the answers I find, and none of my answers have led to Christ, I don't follow him. So, I am told, he won't save me. It is late, so I may be phrasing this badly... but basically I want to point out the difference between a beginning in time, and a beginning in space. A circle definitely has one. Which one does God not have? Also, I wonder what kind of blindness Christ cured. Given that we have a translation of a translation of the Bible, which was apparently written many years after the events it is said to contain, even assuming that it is a true account of what happened, how can you be sure the translation is even close to the original? Perhaps the blindness was blindness of spirit? Which science can't cure, but science may have no place for/in spirit. Science isn't perfect or all-encompassing, lets be honest. Urgle. Too much Kant... *prints off essay on Kant's space/time theories and falls asleep*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:47 pm
Haloquine Firstly, I very much agree with this; Quote: perhaps creator and creation are simultaneous, they exist in union. that there is a force behind all that we see and some people tend to believe that it is personal and they attribute human attributes to it to feel close because they are unable to step outside their own form enough to have union with a greater one. I likes muchly. Quote: We don't question the fact that a circle has neither a beginning nor end, and yet when one thinks about it, it is true. Actually, a circle, an actual circle, does have a beginning and an end. It has a beginning in time - the point at which it is drawn - and an ending in time - the point the picture decays, or the line is rubbed out, etc.. There are two different sorts of beginning and endings. A circle, properly speaking, is not a line with a beginning and an end. But it is, as a thing, something with a beginning and an end. A circle without a beginning and an end may be possible, outside of existence, but if you argue that God has no beginning or end in this way, then you're saying he doesn't exist. If you're saying God has no end or beginning like a circle, then it sounds to me like you are saying God is a geometric shape... which I don't think you'd actually agree with. Or would you? So, yeah, genuine question; How could a being, even God, exist - within what we actually consider existence to be - without a beginning or an end? What do people think? Also, while I accept that this is possible; Quote: you have to realize that there are some questions that can never be known while one is still on earth. I don't find that to be any reason why we should stop asking the questions. I don't plan on stopping asking because it might be a question that remains a mystery! wink Besides, according to most Christians, I don't have a spot in heaven at all. Being as I want to ask questions and follow the answers I find, and none of my answers have led to Christ, I don't follow him. So, I am told, he won't save me. It is late, so I may be phrasing this badly... but basically I want to point out the difference between a beginning in time, and a beginning in space. A circle definitely has one. Which one does God not have? Also, I wonder what kind of blindness Christ cured. Given that we have a translation of a translation of the Bible, which was apparently written many years after the events it is said to contain, even assuming that it is a true account of what happened, how can you be sure the translation is even close to the original? Perhaps the blindness was blindness of spirit? Which science can't cure, but science may have no place for/in spirit. Science isn't perfect or all-encompassing, lets be honest. Urgle. Too much Kant... *prints off essay on Kant's space/time theories and falls asleep* I can see what you're saying, but let's add some symbolism to this. A circle doesn't have a beginning or end unless created by someone. When you draw a circle/oval, yes it does have a beginning. But in this case, the artist or "creator" of the circle would represent an even higher being than the entity we believe in. Seeing that one doesn't exist, we must a assume that this circle was not created. If not created, then it has either been around forever, or it doesn't exist, and someone just made up god. So, with that in mind, to us believers, we have to assume that there was no beginning point to this circle. Think of it this way. If you look at a piece of paper with a circle printed on it, you can't point out where the beginning point was and thus, to you, there is no beginning, only what you assume is the beginning. You could say there was a beginning point, but we don't know what it is, and you're welcome to think that. That's a seemingly logical statement that you use in order to fill in the question with an answer. But that is your own belief and I have nothing to prove it wrong, seeing that its truth is based on faith as opposed to fact. Now you said that a circle has at least one beginning. You are correct. My example falters there. God is only like a circle to a certain point, because he truly doesn't have a beginning in that sense. I know what I'm saying doesn't seem to make much sense, but that's because I don't have the rest of data to fill in my holes. Only the big man himself has that data. And now to your other point in saying we shouldn't stop asking questions. There's nothing wrong with that either. You're a curious person who likes answers. Keep in mind, however, that you could be spending your thinking time in something more productive, such as.... Accepting Christ! XD I understand where you're coming from in the blindness point. When it comes to interpretations of the bible, we Christians are usually pretty big fundamentalists. Which comes to my next point. We Christians have a lot of faith! XD And we need it too. None of the things Jesus did can be redone, such as bringing the dead back to life, so many people assume that he truly never did it. The thing is, this isn't a fact, it's a belief, and as I stated earlier, the basis of a belief is faith, not proof. So as you can see, in order to believe an entire book of usually about 1000 pages we Christians need a whole lot of faith. It's why you can't prove religion. It's a belief and NOT a fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:55 pm
no one can prove or disprove the existence of god. if god could be empirically proven, there would be no need for 'faith'. and since god can be neither proved or disproved, then likewise neither can atheism.
an atheist cannot (and I dont think one would even try) prove god doesnt exist. how can one prove something doesnt exist anyway? proof requires some kind of evidence and if there's nothing to prove then there's no evidence to prove it with. they could present facts pertaining to the material universe according to science, but that doesnt prove anything on a spiritual level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:46 am
To answer your question to weather or not god can be prove i ask you another
Try and prove it? can you do it? what prof do you have on that?
my opinion all we can prove is something did something and somehow you exist. it is up to us to determine in our minds how the ******** that happened, and why we even have the ability to do so in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:48 am
what ever the truth might be is will remain the same no matter what we think and likely it is so sublime that our minds cannot imagine it, though perhaps we can experience it. such accounts are littered through the history of every old religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:18 pm
Calypsophia no one can prove or disprove the existence of god. if god could be empirically proven, there would be no need for 'faith'. and since god can be neither proved or disproved, then likewise neither can atheism. an atheist cannot (and I dont think one would even try) prove god doesnt exist. how can one prove something doesnt exist anyway? proof requires some kind of evidence and if there's nothing to prove then there's no evidence to prove it with. they could present facts pertaining to the material universe according to science, but that doesnt prove anything on a spiritual level. You'd be rather surprised about how many atheists try to prove God a myth. While what you say is 100% true, there is still spiritual evidence that seems to support Christianity, thus supporting the existence of God. I'm not saying that's evidence enough to make that conclusion, but it is fairly good evidence of God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:24 pm
AbrAbraxas what ever the truth might be is will remain the same no matter what we think and likely it is so sublime that our minds cannot imagine it, though perhaps we can experience it. such accounts are littered through the history of every old religion. On the contrary, depending on what you believe in, it does make a difference. It is proven that strong believers in the Christian faith are happier than a commonplace atheist. In addition, Atheists are the least trusted "group" in the nation. In other words, if you're an atheist, then people will be more apprehensive to trusting you than they would with Christians or Jews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:25 am
Mr Answer I can see what you're saying, but let's add some symbolism to this. A circle doesn't have a beginning or end unless created by someone. When you draw a circle/oval, yes it does have a beginning. But in this case, the artist or "creator" of the circle would represent an even higher being than the entity we believe in. Seeing that one doesn't exist, we must a assume that this circle was not created. If not created, then it has either been around forever, or it doesn't exist, and someone just made up god. Quote: So, with that in mind, to us believers, we have to assume that there was no beginning point to this circle. Think of it this way. If you look at a piece of paper with a circle printed on it, you can't point out where the beginning point was and thus, to you, there is no beginning, only what you assume is the beginning. You could say there was a beginning point, but we don't know what it is, and you're welcome to think that. That's a seemingly logical statement that you use in order to fill in the question with an answer. But that is your own belief and I have nothing to prove it wrong, seeing that its truth is based on faith as opposed to fact. Quote: Now you said that a circle has at least one beginning. You are correct. My example falters there. God is only like a circle to a certain point, because he truly doesn't have a beginning in that sense. Quote: I know what I'm saying doesn't seem to make much sense, but that's because I don't have the rest of data to fill in my holes. Only the big man himself has that data. Quote: And now to your other point in saying we shouldn't stop asking questions. There's nothing wrong with that either. You're a curious person who likes answers. Keep in mind, however, that you could be spending your thinking time in something more productive, such as.... Accepting Christ! XD
One woman once said something that horrified me; I was fundraising, and she came up to me and said " I just wanted to let you know that, I'm a Jehovah's witness, and I know Jesus is coming soon to save us. So I wanted you to hear that so maybe you'd understand that we don't need to do anything to fix these problems. God will save us. I hope that gives you peace of mind." (Words very close to these.) While I appreciate that she wanted to offer me consolation, this attitude seems to me to be a good recipe for letting the world go to hell. What if Jesus is already here, working through everybody. God is saving the world a piece at a time by working through people in the world... she even said "if everyone believed what I do, no-one would try to fix anything, we'd all trust God." Yeah, no-one would fix anything, and everything would crash and burn, because, even if everyone believed in God and accepted Jesus, there would still be a huge number of people bent on doing whatever they want and they would trash the place, and feel justified while doing it!!! /horrified rant.
So yeah, sometimes, accepting Jesus can help cause more harm than anything good. Is waiting for someone to save you really productive? I'll get back on track now.
Quote: I understand where you're coming from in the blindness point. When it comes to interpretations of the bible, we Christians are usually pretty big fundamentalists. Which comes to my next point. We Christians have a lot of faith! XD And we need it too. None of the things Jesus did can be redone, such as bringing the dead back to life, so many people assume that he truly never did it. The thing is, this isn't a fact, it's a belief, and as I stated earlier, the basis of a belief is faith, not proof. So as you can see, in order to believe an entire book of usually about 1000 pages we Christians need a whole lot of faith. It's why you can't prove religion. It's a belief and NOT a fact.
To be fair to AbrAbraxas, I think his point still holds. What we mere mortals believe isn't likely to effect what is actually the Truth. It might effect how we experience reality, but thats not necessarily the same thing. There are also more religions than Christianity or Judaism, there is no reason to conclude that it is that specific God that makes people happy. And, just because people within society trusts people who follow religion doesn't make religion more true, it just makes it more acceptable (Christianity doubly so, mostly because in the past it was coupled with Rome which forcably wiped out other religions, and people have been brought up within it because they had to be - not a criticism of the religion, just an historical observation).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:49 am
MrAnswer Calypsophia no one can prove or disprove the existence of god. if god could be empirically proven, there would be no need for 'faith'. and since god can be neither proved or disproved, then likewise neither can atheism. an atheist cannot (and I dont think one would even try) prove god doesnt exist. how can one prove something doesnt exist anyway? proof requires some kind of evidence and if there's nothing to prove then there's no evidence to prove it with. they could present facts pertaining to the material universe according to science, but that doesnt prove anything on a spiritual level. You'd be rather surprised about how many atheists try to prove God a myth. While what you say is 100% true, there is still spiritual evidence that seems to support Christianity, thus supporting the existence of God. I'm not saying that's evidence enough to make that conclusion, but it is fairly good evidence of God. a wiccan could say there is evidence in nature that proves the existence of both god and goddess. the fact is, if you already have a spiritual or religious conviction you can easily find 'evidence' for it just about anywhere. but it's not proof. it's more like circumstancial evidence as opposed to cold hard fact, and much of this evidence can be interpreted in many different ways. christians commonly try to prove their beliefs thru the words of the bible. but I say you cant prove such things thru the myths that represent them. granted, the bible isnt all myth.. there is history there. but that just tells me the bible is more of a historical fiction. for example just because Herod was a real king doesnt automatically mean that the miracles Jesus supposedly performed were real as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:35 am
Calypsophia a wiccan could say there is evidence in nature that proves the existence of both god and goddess. the fact is, if you already have a spiritual or religious conviction you can easily find 'evidence' for it just about anywhere. but it's not proof. it's more like circumstancial evidence as opposed to cold hard fact, and much of this evidence can be interpreted in many different ways. christians commonly try to prove their beliefs thru the words of the bible. but I say you cant prove such things thru the myths that represent them. granted, the bible isnt all myth.. there is history there. but that just tells me the bible is more of a historical fiction. for example just because Herod was a real king doesnt automatically mean that the miracles Jesus supposedly performed were real as well. halleluh! wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
