Close - I agreed with Elledan that there are 2 possibilities: God Exists OR Everything could one day be explained.
And it isn't blind faith that there is a god - not really. I can observe that there is a cause-less, omnipotent, eternal, etc something that exists. We then can't know for sure that this "existance" is sentient, so believing either way about it is not absurd. In fact, I can conclude within reason that there could well have been intent in the creation of the universe, and intent implies sentience.
So believing in a sentient deity is not absurd, nor is it "blind".
<< That's essentially what I'm saying. We still do not understand how everything in our universe works. >>
Yes, but our lack of comprehension has no ability to prove or disprove an independant deity's existance. Your likelihood is that we WILL figure everything out, both physical and "spiritual" (spiritual would have to be proven physical, like just chemicals and energy). MY likelihood is that we will figure out most, if not all of the HOW, but the WHY... the "meaning" is deeper and the result of a deity.
<< To blindly assume a supernatural being exists (and has always existed) is, imho, insanity. >>
Blindly, yes - but my conclusion/belief is not at all blind.
<< A debunk: God is said, in the Bible, to have provided manna from Heaven for the Jews escaping Egypt. Well, sorry, it was just edible leavings from insects indigenous to that area (learned that in a Scripture class in high school). Just one example of how man created the idea of a God because of a lack of scientific knowledge. >>
It could have been edible insect droppings, but we have yet to observe such a thing that fits the description. Even if it was, the placement, number, and movement of those insects could well have been influenced by the same deity that created it. The manipulation of creation by a deity is not hard to fathom, if indeed a deity exists and can create.
And it isn't blind faith that there is a god - not really. I can observe that there is a cause-less, omnipotent, eternal, etc something that exists. We then can't know for sure that this "existance" is sentient, so believing either way about it is not absurd. In fact, I can conclude within reason that there could well have been intent in the creation of the universe, and intent implies sentience.
So believing in a sentient deity is not absurd, nor is it "blind".
<< That's essentially what I'm saying. We still do not understand how everything in our universe works. >>
Yes, but our lack of comprehension has no ability to prove or disprove an independant deity's existance. Your likelihood is that we WILL figure everything out, both physical and "spiritual" (spiritual would have to be proven physical, like just chemicals and energy). MY likelihood is that we will figure out most, if not all of the HOW, but the WHY... the "meaning" is deeper and the result of a deity.
<< To blindly assume a supernatural being exists (and has always existed) is, imho, insanity. >>
Blindly, yes - but my conclusion/belief is not at all blind.
<< A debunk: God is said, in the Bible, to have provided manna from Heaven for the Jews escaping Egypt. Well, sorry, it was just edible leavings from insects indigenous to that area (learned that in a Scripture class in high school). Just one example of how man created the idea of a God because of a lack of scientific knowledge. >>
It could have been edible insect droppings, but we have yet to observe such a thing that fits the description. Even if it was, the placement, number, and movement of those insects could well have been influenced by the same deity that created it. The manipulation of creation by a deity is not hard to fathom, if indeed a deity exists and can create.
cmin7:
No, no - the second set of proofs in that post are St.s Augustine and Aquinas. I wish I had half thier brain power!
I copied that section from a post I made a couple months ago, where I asked if anyone knew where they were from. Athanasius knew of course! Sorry, should have added the origin of the arguments in there...
No, no - the second set of proofs in that post are St.s Augustine and Aquinas. I wish I had half thier brain power!
I copied that section from a post I made a couple months ago, where I asked if anyone knew where they were from. Athanasius knew of course! Sorry, should have added the origin of the arguments in there...
Optimus - I've read all your posts in this thread, and you bring up some very interesting arguments -- some that I've never heard before used in debating the existance/non-existance of a God.
There's a couple of things I must ask you:
1.) You said that: "MY likelihood is that we will figure out most, if not all of the HOW, but the WHY... the "meaning" is deeper and the result of a deity." My question is, why have you implied that there must be a "why"? If this is your stance, can you provide reason?
2.) Are you Christian (or other religion), or do you believe that there must be a God, but not necessarily a Christian God (for example)?
There's a couple of things I must ask you:
1.) You said that: "MY likelihood is that we will figure out most, if not all of the HOW, but the WHY... the "meaning" is deeper and the result of a deity." My question is, why have you implied that there must be a "why"? If this is your stance, can you provide reason?
2.) Are you Christian (or other religion), or do you believe that there must be a God, but not necessarily a Christian God (for example)?
<< Science is an interesting faith. Usually, those who understand it the least have the greatest faith. Why do we think our little brains can understand all? Arrogance. We are limited beings. Look at a dog. Do you think by properly educating it, it will understand all we do? No, it has a limited capacity, Yet the difference between us and that dog isn't so great. We use the same mechanism to store memories, solve problems, etc. Since have with a brain a bit larger, we can qualify to be all knowing? Is there a God? I have no idea and neither do you. Would we know even if we saw God? If a fly lands on you, does it think Oh yeah thats a person, one of those tool using bipeds? It doesn't "get" it. Neither would we. The problem with God many have is that by definition, a god is superior in all things. Beyond us forever. And we don't like being limited do we? A chauvinism, but that is the nature of most people it seems. >>
I agree with
Hayabusarider.
optimus ... in reference to science explaining the work of God ... I was referring to the *how.* we can only start to grasp *why* God loves us so very much.
voodooguy ... you make a valid point which I do partially agree with. i'm sorry if i was not clear before.
There *have* been a few "lunatics" who have inspired some die for what they believed was truth. however, these lunatics were lunatics to the whole world, save the gullible few. you and I saw David Koresh and those others on television and found them to be what they truly were ... lunatics. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't give any credence to them.
Well then, what makes them any different from Jesus Christ? it's up to you to decide. He is either on the level of a lunatic (such as L Ron Hubbard, as you forementioned), a magnificent liar (and has been quite the magnificent because millions have put their lives into serving or dying for Him), or ... He is the true Son of God and God Himself. You've got to decide.
voodooguy ... you make a valid point which I do partially agree with. i'm sorry if i was not clear before.
There *have* been a few "lunatics" who have inspired some die for what they believed was truth. however, these lunatics were lunatics to the whole world, save the gullible few. you and I saw David Koresh and those others on television and found them to be what they truly were ... lunatics. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't give any credence to them.
Well then, what makes them any different from Jesus Christ? it's up to you to decide. He is either on the level of a lunatic (such as L Ron Hubbard, as you forementioned), a magnificent liar (and has been quite the magnificent because millions have put their lives into serving or dying for Him), or ... He is the true Son of God and God Himself. You've got to decide.
The existence of God or a God can be proven to exist. Idepense on your personal belief system in one sense but here goes...
For everything that is created their must be a creator.EX: Man creates computers and they can now assume what some like to call artificial life.
In order for us to exist we had to have beginings and some force beyond the means of human understanding began life in a way that man will never be able to understand or copy. It is in human nature to doubt or question the things in life we can't understand and in some casses dismiss the subject matter or matters totally.
Please ask yourself logically. How can something come from nothing? Death is the physical proof that in some rhelm their exists a superior being. Some would call the creator of man God.
If you want me to further expand I can go on forever.
For everything that is created their must be a creator.EX: Man creates computers and they can now assume what some like to call artificial life.
In order for us to exist we had to have beginings and some force beyond the means of human understanding began life in a way that man will never be able to understand or copy. It is in human nature to doubt or question the things in life we can't understand and in some casses dismiss the subject matter or matters totally.
Please ask yourself logically. How can something come from nothing? Death is the physical proof that in some rhelm their exists a superior being. Some would call the creator of man God.
If you want me to further expand I can go on forever.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
I'd say the athiest that made life better for millions of people through his/her work in a 3rd world country or an invention is 300x better than the religious person who spends his/her entire life ensuring eternal happiness for themselves.
From what I was told by a self-proclaimed "good Christian," that atheist would go straight to hell, while the believer would enjoy eternal bliss. They even said that if Osama bin Laden were to truly convert to Christianity, he'd go to Heaven, but the atheist would still go to hell. Makes sense to me.:frown:
Most of what I hear from preachers, followers, etc, is that God is omnicient and omnipotent. So he's got infinite power and infinite knowledge. This poses several interesting problems/situations. One is that there is NOTHING he cannot do; and doing one thing would take no more effort than another. To an infinitely powerful being, creating a grain of dust should be no more difficult than creating a million universes. Yet this being needed to rest after creating one planet? Uh huh....
Knowing everything: that means he knows what he's going to do in a few minutes. But knowing that he knows what he's going to do in a few minutes might change that future, which he now knows as well. His infinite brainpower would be cancelled out by having an infinite amount of knowledge to fill it and process.
Having infinite power requires by nature simply being everything. If anything is not a part of God, that means that God is not infinite. So just remember that - the next time you use the toilet, you're crapping out God all over God inside the toilet made of God.
From what I was told by a self-proclaimed "good Christian," that atheist would go straight to hell, while the believer would enjoy eternal bliss. They even said that if Osama bin Laden were to truly convert to Christianity, he'd go to Heaven, but the atheist would still go to hell. Makes sense to me.:frown:
Most of what I hear from preachers, followers, etc, is that God is omnicient and omnipotent. So he's got infinite power and infinite knowledge. This poses several interesting problems/situations. One is that there is NOTHING he cannot do; and doing one thing would take no more effort than another. To an infinitely powerful being, creating a grain of dust should be no more difficult than creating a million universes. Yet this being needed to rest after creating one planet? Uh huh....
Knowing everything: that means he knows what he's going to do in a few minutes. But knowing that he knows what he's going to do in a few minutes might change that future, which he now knows as well. His infinite brainpower would be cancelled out by having an infinite amount of knowledge to fill it and process.
Having infinite power requires by nature simply being everything. If anything is not a part of God, that means that God is not infinite. So just remember that - the next time you use the toilet, you're crapping out God all over God inside the toilet made of God.
Optimus,
<< And it isn't blind faith that there is a god - not really. I can observe that there is a cause-less, omnipotent, eternal, etc something that exists. We then can't know for sure that this "existance" is sentient, so believing either way about it is not absurd. In fact, I can conclude within reason that there could well have been intent in the creation of the universe, and intent implies sentience.
So believing in a sentient deity is not absurd, nor is it "blind". >>
(emphasis mine)
Query: how can you observe this? You keep repeating it, but so far you've given no explanation.
Fact: there's a part in the Human brain which is responsible for certain experiences which can be linked to 'spiritual' experiences.
Conclusion: if you simply felt that your conclusion, based on your observations (what kind of observations?), is right, then it's very well possible that this part of your brain is more active than by, for example, agnostic people.
Taking this a bit further, then we can say that this 'spiritual' center of the brain is the main cause of blind faith.
Conclusion: until you can sufficiently and in a (scientifically) satisfying way explain your reasoning and provide your observations on which you based that reasoning, blind faith remains the only logical explanation.
<< Well, a deity would have to be its own meaning and end to existance - i.e. supreme unto itself.
Or maybe the answer to your question is the why God created us - not that he needed us, or lacked us, but its god's nature to create. A builder.
Hmmmmmmm.... >>
In that case this supernatural being would be only partially aware of its own existance. It would be reduced to a mere force of nature, a part of physics, and everything but sentient.
I would think some more about it if I were you =)
<< And it isn't blind faith that there is a god - not really. I can observe that there is a cause-less, omnipotent, eternal, etc something that exists. We then can't know for sure that this "existance" is sentient, so believing either way about it is not absurd. In fact, I can conclude within reason that there could well have been intent in the creation of the universe, and intent implies sentience.
So believing in a sentient deity is not absurd, nor is it "blind". >>
(emphasis mine)
Query: how can you observe this? You keep repeating it, but so far you've given no explanation.
Fact: there's a part in the Human brain which is responsible for certain experiences which can be linked to 'spiritual' experiences.
Conclusion: if you simply felt that your conclusion, based on your observations (what kind of observations?), is right, then it's very well possible that this part of your brain is more active than by, for example, agnostic people.
Taking this a bit further, then we can say that this 'spiritual' center of the brain is the main cause of blind faith.
Conclusion: until you can sufficiently and in a (scientifically) satisfying way explain your reasoning and provide your observations on which you based that reasoning, blind faith remains the only logical explanation.
<< Well, a deity would have to be its own meaning and end to existance - i.e. supreme unto itself.
Or maybe the answer to your question is the why God created us - not that he needed us, or lacked us, but its god's nature to create. A builder.
Hmmmmmmm.... >>
In that case this supernatural being would be only partially aware of its own existance. It would be reduced to a mere force of nature, a part of physics, and everything but sentient.
I would think some more about it if I were you =)
"Therefore, if Jesus existed and told the truth, He is God and there is a God. That is the only other option. =)"
I don't get your reasoning behind this. You give 3 options but I see more than 3 options on the playing field. How about these:
4) Jesus' apostles and other scribes were not on the same thought level as him, continually misinterpreting what he said or making stuff up to entice the story. (NOTE: Bible was NOT written by jesus)
5) The bible is poorly translated or not correctly translated from Hebrew. Ever considered that, like most things, the translation loses meaning and therefor makes even less sense than it was originally intended to? Jesus was a Jew afterall...
6) Jesus had a multiple personality disorder, some sort of mental retardation, dillusion, an overinflated ego, etc. I recalled once hearing that there is a fine line between genious and insanity, why is it hard to believe jesus was walking that line? Why is it easier to believe he was god?
7) Jesus fluffed his own story knowing it was the only way to give people hope.
Yes I realize some of these are far fetched, but they don't see so far fetched when we look at the accepted story now (gods mortal form - pfft).
"optimus ... in reference to science explaining the work of God ... I was referring to the *how.* we can only start to grasp *why* God loves us so very much."
We can't grasp that there even is a god so how can we grasp that god loves us? I think your misusing this word grasp. See, to be able to grasp something it must be within reach, the knowledge needed to backup the things you are saying is not 'within reach' right now. And if god doesn't exist, the knowledge to backup what you are saying will never be within reach.
FreeAgent,
"In order for us to exist we had to have beginings and some force beyond the means of human understanding began life in a way that man will never be able to understand or copy. It is in human nature to doubt or question the things in life we can't understand and in some casses dismiss the subject matter or matters totally."
Your argument assumes so many things. First, I hate that fact that you assume we will NEVER be able to understand these things, what a depressing viewpoint. Second, I don't see how you go from saying there must have been a force that started our existance and then link that directly to a god. You could link that to many things, aliens or unknown science come to mind.
"Please ask yourself logically. How can something come from nothing? Death is the physical proof that in some rhelm their exists a superior being. Some would call the creator of man God. "
How the hell is death proof of another realm where a superior being exists? If you choose to expand on this and go on forever at least make the expansion have some sort of reasoning when you throw around terms like proof and understanding.
Optimus,
I hope you get a chance to respond to a few of the things I've posted. You have an interesting view point.
Oh yea, one other thing. Why does an all powerful and perfect god, need to make billions and billions of imperfect planets just to make one suitable for life, but is happy only populating 1 of those planets with imperfect species. I mean if all he wanted to do was have us worship him, he only needed to make 1 galaxy or even only 1 planet and a sun. To me the fact that planets can be so inhospitable shows me that they were created at random by something that doesn't think or act intelligently.
I don't get your reasoning behind this. You give 3 options but I see more than 3 options on the playing field. How about these:
4) Jesus' apostles and other scribes were not on the same thought level as him, continually misinterpreting what he said or making stuff up to entice the story. (NOTE: Bible was NOT written by jesus)
5) The bible is poorly translated or not correctly translated from Hebrew. Ever considered that, like most things, the translation loses meaning and therefor makes even less sense than it was originally intended to? Jesus was a Jew afterall...
6) Jesus had a multiple personality disorder, some sort of mental retardation, dillusion, an overinflated ego, etc. I recalled once hearing that there is a fine line between genious and insanity, why is it hard to believe jesus was walking that line? Why is it easier to believe he was god?
7) Jesus fluffed his own story knowing it was the only way to give people hope.
Yes I realize some of these are far fetched, but they don't see so far fetched when we look at the accepted story now (gods mortal form - pfft).
"optimus ... in reference to science explaining the work of God ... I was referring to the *how.* we can only start to grasp *why* God loves us so very much."
We can't grasp that there even is a god so how can we grasp that god loves us? I think your misusing this word grasp. See, to be able to grasp something it must be within reach, the knowledge needed to backup the things you are saying is not 'within reach' right now. And if god doesn't exist, the knowledge to backup what you are saying will never be within reach.
FreeAgent,
"In order for us to exist we had to have beginings and some force beyond the means of human understanding began life in a way that man will never be able to understand or copy. It is in human nature to doubt or question the things in life we can't understand and in some casses dismiss the subject matter or matters totally."
Your argument assumes so many things. First, I hate that fact that you assume we will NEVER be able to understand these things, what a depressing viewpoint. Second, I don't see how you go from saying there must have been a force that started our existance and then link that directly to a god. You could link that to many things, aliens or unknown science come to mind.
"Please ask yourself logically. How can something come from nothing? Death is the physical proof that in some rhelm their exists a superior being. Some would call the creator of man God. "
How the hell is death proof of another realm where a superior being exists? If you choose to expand on this and go on forever at least make the expansion have some sort of reasoning when you throw around terms like proof and understanding.
Optimus,
I hope you get a chance to respond to a few of the things I've posted. You have an interesting view point.
Oh yea, one other thing. Why does an all powerful and perfect god, need to make billions and billions of imperfect planets just to make one suitable for life, but is happy only populating 1 of those planets with imperfect species. I mean if all he wanted to do was have us worship him, he only needed to make 1 galaxy or even only 1 planet and a sun. To me the fact that planets can be so inhospitable shows me that they were created at random by something that doesn't think or act intelligently.
Good morning gang!
OK, let's see how much time I can throw at this post:
Skace:
<< The problem I have with your logic is the underlying assumption that humans are at the peak of their knowledge. Science knows everything there is to know and if something doesn't fit within the laws set in motion now then that must prove the existence of god. The problem here is that laws in the world of science are constantly broken or built upon. All it takes to break a law is continually proven theory otherwise. I think I can safely say that as we progress more laws of science will adapt, expand and some even break. >>
Yes they certainly will! But we MUST make our conclusions about the world around us based upon what we know now. We have no idea what we might know in the future, but for right now we do mase our ideas and beliefs about things on what we know here and now. As a species we have no other way of knowing things.
Also, my theories aren't based on the weaker scientific concepts and observations - we are talking about the fundamentals of our universe such as cause and effect, time, and motion. Everything is based squarely on those and other key principles - there aren't many scientists expecting us to disprove cause and effect anytime soon, although our understanding of it changes, the principle remains the same (effects are caused).
<< How about this explanation? The big bang wasn't the start but the end. It was an alien-caused chainreaction of explosions born through galactic warfare with world-destroying weapons. Aliens were in the same stalemate with world destroying weapons as we are with nukes. Someone broke the stalemate and the chainreaction caused the destruction of the entire universe and the creation of our own. >>
Interesting and possible. Who can know?
But in relation to my theory on deity - where did those aliens come from? Are they eternal, cause-less causers?
Or are they a product of a deity?
<< The one thing I hate about people turning to a god to explain big bang or creation is that its so medeival. It's like we as a species havn't learned anything from history, we pinned things we couldn't explain on god back then and we still do it now. Back before people understood anything about space, they thought god lived in the sky. Now we know better, but since we don't know a whole lot about our creation, some people decide to pin that on god once again. >>
Again, using God as a substitute for understanding of our physical world is indeed kinda medieval. But I think we make another mistake swinging too far the other direction and proclaiming our spiritual sides as mere chemical reactions... that everything we think, feel, know, love, etc is just chemicals reacting in our brains.
Belief in a deity and our own spirituality is the belief that we are more than a mere collection of atoms, water, and chemicals reacting away with no real self and control.
<< These 2 points make for a huge reason why people feel the need to discuss religion. I don't see why that wasn't blatantly obvious. >>
Yes exactly! We are capable of making things up and not believing them. In fact, religion may well be the only thing we believe that could be "made up"... why? Is it a defect as Elledan thinks, or by design? If by design, is it nature's design? Why would nature instill that in us? Or is it by the design of, and some possible evidence of, a deity?
<< I still don't understand why proof of god would mean the demise of free will. What if proof of god also meant proof that heaven didn't really exist? What if proof of god meant he didn't really create us? He was just a superior being we've been praying to and in his free time he likes making crop circles in random southern states. Even if we had proof god existed, we still wouldn't be forced to follow him. >>
If you KNEW - really KNEW, you'd really have no more choice to believe in a god than you do about gravity. Could anyone in thier right mind defy an all powerful deity? Even if a few could, many actually could NOT - the decision would have been taken from them.
Proof of God wouldn't cause a deity or its realm to cease - it would just take away our power to reasonable disbelieve (freedom).
<< I hope you get a chance to respond to a few of the things I've posted. You have an interesting view point. >>
Well thanks - so do you!
<< Oh yea, one other thing. Why does an all powerful and perfect god, need to make billions and billions of imperfect planets just to make one suitable for life, but is happy only populating 1 of those planets with imperfect species. I mean if all he wanted to do was have us worship him, he only needed to make 1 galaxy or even only 1 planet and a sun. To me the fact that planets can be so inhospitable shows me that they were created at random by something that doesn't think or act intelligently. >>
Ah - don't assume all christians have any issues with alien life. I sure don't. Actually the Catholic Church's official stance is that there could well be aliens with the same sentience and spiritual duality we have.
Personally? I think we are just ONE of many such creatures... the physical nature and history of which I can't begin to guess at!
Jeff7:
<< From what I was told by a self-proclaimed "good Christian," that atheist would go straight to hell, while the believer would enjoy eternal bliss. They even said that if Osama bin Laden were to truly convert to Christianity, he'd go to Heaven, but the atheist would still go to hell. Makes sense to me. >>
Sadly many "christians" know less about their own faith than several atheists I know. Again - some people's ignorance on a topic does not invalidate the existance of the topic - otherwise computers would cease to exist!
<< Most of what I hear from preachers, followers, etc, is that God is omnicient and omnipotent. So he's got infinite power and infinite knowledge. This poses several interesting problems/situations. One is that there is NOTHING he cannot do; and doing one thing would take no more effort than another. To an infinitely powerful being, creating a grain of dust should be no more difficult than creating a million universes. Yet this being needed to rest after creating one planet? Uh huh.... >>
Well, you are right about the act of creation being no harder for a million planets than a grain of sand. But you are taking the Bible literally with the "rest" thing - it doesn't mean he literally flopped into a chair and mopped his brow, it means god "finished" the act of creation and began maintaining it - allowing it to unfold. He stood back and allowed what he created to progress.
<< Knowing everything: that means he knows what he's going to do in a few minutes. But knowing that he knows what he's going to do in a few minutes might change that future, which he now knows as well. His infinite brainpower would be cancelled out by having an infinite amount of knowledge to fill it and process. >>
The key flaw there is putting god inside time - a deity that created (creates?) time is not bound by it. He simply is - the beginning and the end, alpha and omega. Sorry, not trying to quote the Bible at you, just illustrating that god is not bound by his creation (time).
<< Having infinite power requires by nature simply being everything. If anything is not a part of God, that means that God is not infinite. So just remember that - the next time you use the toilet, you're crapping out God all over God inside the toilet made of God. >>
Everything is of god and belongs to god - it all exists within his creation and being, so in a sense yes - everything is part of god. God created our crapping system - he isn;t offended by it! However, if your intent was to symbolically crap on god, I'm sure he'd notice that.
BOK:
<< 1.) You said that: "MY likelihood is that we will figure out most, if not all of the HOW, but the WHY... the "meaning" is deeper and the result of a deity." My question is, why have you implied that there must be a "why"? If this is your stance, can you provide reason? >>
I believe there is a "why" because I believe we are more than just chemical reactions, with no real self or control. I.E. - Do you really think you are nothing but a set of chemical reactions that you can't control, because your "control" - your decisions, feelings, love, etc are just chemical reactions that happen in the reactor you call a brain? If so these chemical reactions happen and follow the laws of reaction and physics, then you have no control - in fact "you" doesn't even exist, its just a chemical reaction that feels like "you". You become nothing, absurd, and pointless. We all do. We have no will, no love, no emotion - we are just hapless, random chemical reactions.
I don't believe thats the case. And some will well say thats an escape, that I feer being nothing and absurd. Well, I don't think anyone wants to be nothing and absurd, but I would contest that it too is an escape. If we are just reactions - another hapless species with no self, no free will, no emotions, no love, etc then we never have to feel guitl, responsibility, or emotional pain... as its all meaningless and we happen in a millisecond in the timeline of the universe.
<< 2.) Are you Christian (or other religion), or do you believe that there must be a God, but not necessarily a Christian God (for example)? >>
I am a practicing Roman Catholic, and I believe that there is a deity, that it is a loving deity, that this deity wants us to know it, that it therefore revealed(reveals) itself to us, and did so through sacred writing. After studying sacred texts, the Old Testament carries through to Catholicism a straight uninterrupted line from creation to now. A nutshell of whay and what I believe, so to speak.
Elledan:
<< Query: how can you observe this? You keep repeating it, but so far you've given no explanation. >>
Yes - reread my original post.
1) Everything has a cause - observe the universe, read the observations of others. Find something that acts without any cause... nada. Now go back to the beginning - what was the first "cause"? And what caused it? If it was the first, nothing - a cause-less causer in violation of cause and effect.
2) Time - we can observe time all around us, and even manipulate it. But everything has an existance in time, and we can observe back through history as events unfold. Go far enough back to see the origins of the universe... now keep going. If time had a beginning, what was its beginning, and what did it come from? And if time had no beginning, what has always existed?
3)Space is infinite, and filled with matter and energy. Or it is empty space... but if empty space can be said to "exist", then it is in itself infinite. So either space itself, or whatever preceeded or caused it, must be infinte and omnipresent.
etc...
What is your theory on the origins of the universe? What started it all, what has always existed? What was the cause?
<< Fact: there's a part in the Human brain which is responsible for certain experiences which can be linked to 'spiritual' experiences. >>
Again - we go back above to the reduction of self and spirit to chemical reactions. Could be true, although it reduces us to absurdities. But I respect your belief that its all we are in the end... sacks of mostly water with uncontrolled chemical reactions dictating everything we do, think, and are.
<< Conclusion: if you simply felt that your conclusion, based on your observations (what kind of observations?), is right, then it's very well possible that this part of your brain is more active than by, for example, agnostic people. >>
That a bad thing?
Or maybe there is a part of myself that exists independantly of the chemical reacotr known as my brain - something that feels, thnks, knows, and loves and can mostly control the chemicals zooming around in my head. Again - back to a fundemental belief difference between us (simply chemical reactions vs. spiritual existance).
<< Taking this a bit further, then we can say that this 'spiritual' center of the brain is the main cause of blind faith. >>
You keep saying "blind" faith - do you think all faith is blind inherently? And that no leap of faith can stem from observation and fact? Because I insist to you again that although my faith comes into believing in a sentient god and into believing we have real spirits, there are observable facts and defendable reasons to have such a faith - and therefore it is not "blind".
<< Conclusion: until you can sufficiently and in a (scientifically) satisfying way explain your reasoning and provide your observations on which you based that reasoning, blind faith remains the only logical explanation. >>
Read above.
<< In that case this supernatural being would be only partially aware of its own existance. It would be reduced to a mere force of nature, a part of physics, and everything but sentient. >>
Why only partially aware? If part of a deity's nature was a desire to create, it could be completely sentient and have full knowledge of that desire. As I hold that creation is an act of love, it would actually only be a part of the deity's nature to love.
<< I would think some more about it if I were you =) >>
Ditto. And duh, I'm always thinking about these things - questioning, debating, wondering...
OK, let's see how much time I can throw at this post:
Skace:
<< The problem I have with your logic is the underlying assumption that humans are at the peak of their knowledge. Science knows everything there is to know and if something doesn't fit within the laws set in motion now then that must prove the existence of god. The problem here is that laws in the world of science are constantly broken or built upon. All it takes to break a law is continually proven theory otherwise. I think I can safely say that as we progress more laws of science will adapt, expand and some even break. >>
Yes they certainly will! But we MUST make our conclusions about the world around us based upon what we know now. We have no idea what we might know in the future, but for right now we do mase our ideas and beliefs about things on what we know here and now. As a species we have no other way of knowing things.
Also, my theories aren't based on the weaker scientific concepts and observations - we are talking about the fundamentals of our universe such as cause and effect, time, and motion. Everything is based squarely on those and other key principles - there aren't many scientists expecting us to disprove cause and effect anytime soon, although our understanding of it changes, the principle remains the same (effects are caused).
<< How about this explanation? The big bang wasn't the start but the end. It was an alien-caused chainreaction of explosions born through galactic warfare with world-destroying weapons. Aliens were in the same stalemate with world destroying weapons as we are with nukes. Someone broke the stalemate and the chainreaction caused the destruction of the entire universe and the creation of our own. >>
Interesting and possible. Who can know?
But in relation to my theory on deity - where did those aliens come from? Are they eternal, cause-less causers?
Or are they a product of a deity?
<< The one thing I hate about people turning to a god to explain big bang or creation is that its so medeival. It's like we as a species havn't learned anything from history, we pinned things we couldn't explain on god back then and we still do it now. Back before people understood anything about space, they thought god lived in the sky. Now we know better, but since we don't know a whole lot about our creation, some people decide to pin that on god once again. >>
Again, using God as a substitute for understanding of our physical world is indeed kinda medieval. But I think we make another mistake swinging too far the other direction and proclaiming our spiritual sides as mere chemical reactions... that everything we think, feel, know, love, etc is just chemicals reacting in our brains.
Belief in a deity and our own spirituality is the belief that we are more than a mere collection of atoms, water, and chemicals reacting away with no real self and control.
<< These 2 points make for a huge reason why people feel the need to discuss religion. I don't see why that wasn't blatantly obvious. >>
Yes exactly! We are capable of making things up and not believing them. In fact, religion may well be the only thing we believe that could be "made up"... why? Is it a defect as Elledan thinks, or by design? If by design, is it nature's design? Why would nature instill that in us? Or is it by the design of, and some possible evidence of, a deity?
<< I still don't understand why proof of god would mean the demise of free will. What if proof of god also meant proof that heaven didn't really exist? What if proof of god meant he didn't really create us? He was just a superior being we've been praying to and in his free time he likes making crop circles in random southern states. Even if we had proof god existed, we still wouldn't be forced to follow him. >>
If you KNEW - really KNEW, you'd really have no more choice to believe in a god than you do about gravity. Could anyone in thier right mind defy an all powerful deity? Even if a few could, many actually could NOT - the decision would have been taken from them.
Proof of God wouldn't cause a deity or its realm to cease - it would just take away our power to reasonable disbelieve (freedom).
<< I hope you get a chance to respond to a few of the things I've posted. You have an interesting view point. >>
Well thanks - so do you!
<< Oh yea, one other thing. Why does an all powerful and perfect god, need to make billions and billions of imperfect planets just to make one suitable for life, but is happy only populating 1 of those planets with imperfect species. I mean if all he wanted to do was have us worship him, he only needed to make 1 galaxy or even only 1 planet and a sun. To me the fact that planets can be so inhospitable shows me that they were created at random by something that doesn't think or act intelligently. >>
Ah - don't assume all christians have any issues with alien life. I sure don't. Actually the Catholic Church's official stance is that there could well be aliens with the same sentience and spiritual duality we have.
Personally? I think we are just ONE of many such creatures... the physical nature and history of which I can't begin to guess at!
Jeff7:
<< From what I was told by a self-proclaimed "good Christian," that atheist would go straight to hell, while the believer would enjoy eternal bliss. They even said that if Osama bin Laden were to truly convert to Christianity, he'd go to Heaven, but the atheist would still go to hell. Makes sense to me. >>
Sadly many "christians" know less about their own faith than several atheists I know. Again - some people's ignorance on a topic does not invalidate the existance of the topic - otherwise computers would cease to exist!
<< Most of what I hear from preachers, followers, etc, is that God is omnicient and omnipotent. So he's got infinite power and infinite knowledge. This poses several interesting problems/situations. One is that there is NOTHING he cannot do; and doing one thing would take no more effort than another. To an infinitely powerful being, creating a grain of dust should be no more difficult than creating a million universes. Yet this being needed to rest after creating one planet? Uh huh.... >>
Well, you are right about the act of creation being no harder for a million planets than a grain of sand. But you are taking the Bible literally with the "rest" thing - it doesn't mean he literally flopped into a chair and mopped his brow, it means god "finished" the act of creation and began maintaining it - allowing it to unfold. He stood back and allowed what he created to progress.
<< Knowing everything: that means he knows what he's going to do in a few minutes. But knowing that he knows what he's going to do in a few minutes might change that future, which he now knows as well. His infinite brainpower would be cancelled out by having an infinite amount of knowledge to fill it and process. >>
The key flaw there is putting god inside time - a deity that created (creates?) time is not bound by it. He simply is - the beginning and the end, alpha and omega. Sorry, not trying to quote the Bible at you, just illustrating that god is not bound by his creation (time).
<< Having infinite power requires by nature simply being everything. If anything is not a part of God, that means that God is not infinite. So just remember that - the next time you use the toilet, you're crapping out God all over God inside the toilet made of God. >>
Everything is of god and belongs to god - it all exists within his creation and being, so in a sense yes - everything is part of god. God created our crapping system - he isn;t offended by it! However, if your intent was to symbolically crap on god, I'm sure he'd notice that.
BOK:
<< 1.) You said that: "MY likelihood is that we will figure out most, if not all of the HOW, but the WHY... the "meaning" is deeper and the result of a deity." My question is, why have you implied that there must be a "why"? If this is your stance, can you provide reason? >>
I believe there is a "why" because I believe we are more than just chemical reactions, with no real self or control. I.E. - Do you really think you are nothing but a set of chemical reactions that you can't control, because your "control" - your decisions, feelings, love, etc are just chemical reactions that happen in the reactor you call a brain? If so these chemical reactions happen and follow the laws of reaction and physics, then you have no control - in fact "you" doesn't even exist, its just a chemical reaction that feels like "you". You become nothing, absurd, and pointless. We all do. We have no will, no love, no emotion - we are just hapless, random chemical reactions.
I don't believe thats the case. And some will well say thats an escape, that I feer being nothing and absurd. Well, I don't think anyone wants to be nothing and absurd, but I would contest that it too is an escape. If we are just reactions - another hapless species with no self, no free will, no emotions, no love, etc then we never have to feel guitl, responsibility, or emotional pain... as its all meaningless and we happen in a millisecond in the timeline of the universe.
<< 2.) Are you Christian (or other religion), or do you believe that there must be a God, but not necessarily a Christian God (for example)? >>
I am a practicing Roman Catholic, and I believe that there is a deity, that it is a loving deity, that this deity wants us to know it, that it therefore revealed(reveals) itself to us, and did so through sacred writing. After studying sacred texts, the Old Testament carries through to Catholicism a straight uninterrupted line from creation to now. A nutshell of whay and what I believe, so to speak.
Elledan:
<< Query: how can you observe this? You keep repeating it, but so far you've given no explanation. >>
Yes - reread my original post.
1) Everything has a cause - observe the universe, read the observations of others. Find something that acts without any cause... nada. Now go back to the beginning - what was the first "cause"? And what caused it? If it was the first, nothing - a cause-less causer in violation of cause and effect.
2) Time - we can observe time all around us, and even manipulate it. But everything has an existance in time, and we can observe back through history as events unfold. Go far enough back to see the origins of the universe... now keep going. If time had a beginning, what was its beginning, and what did it come from? And if time had no beginning, what has always existed?
3)Space is infinite, and filled with matter and energy. Or it is empty space... but if empty space can be said to "exist", then it is in itself infinite. So either space itself, or whatever preceeded or caused it, must be infinte and omnipresent.
etc...
What is your theory on the origins of the universe? What started it all, what has always existed? What was the cause?
<< Fact: there's a part in the Human brain which is responsible for certain experiences which can be linked to 'spiritual' experiences. >>
Again - we go back above to the reduction of self and spirit to chemical reactions. Could be true, although it reduces us to absurdities. But I respect your belief that its all we are in the end... sacks of mostly water with uncontrolled chemical reactions dictating everything we do, think, and are.
<< Conclusion: if you simply felt that your conclusion, based on your observations (what kind of observations?), is right, then it's very well possible that this part of your brain is more active than by, for example, agnostic people. >>
That a bad thing? Or maybe there is a part of myself that exists independantly of the chemical reacotr known as my brain - something that feels, thnks, knows, and loves and can mostly control the chemicals zooming around in my head. Again - back to a fundemental belief difference between us (simply chemical reactions vs. spiritual existance).
<< Taking this a bit further, then we can say that this 'spiritual' center of the brain is the main cause of blind faith. >>
You keep saying "blind" faith - do you think all faith is blind inherently? And that no leap of faith can stem from observation and fact? Because I insist to you again that although my faith comes into believing in a sentient god and into believing we have real spirits, there are observable facts and defendable reasons to have such a faith - and therefore it is not "blind".
<< Conclusion: until you can sufficiently and in a (scientifically) satisfying way explain your reasoning and provide your observations on which you based that reasoning, blind faith remains the only logical explanation. >>
Read above.
<< In that case this supernatural being would be only partially aware of its own existance. It would be reduced to a mere force of nature, a part of physics, and everything but sentient. >>
Why only partially aware? If part of a deity's nature was a desire to create, it could be completely sentient and have full knowledge of that desire. As I hold that creation is an act of love, it would actually only be a part of the deity's nature to love.
<< I would think some more about it if I were you =) >>
Ditto.
And duh, I'm always thinking about these things - questioning, debating, wondering... << Optimus will have to quit his day job to get back to all of you! >>
Just about!
Actually, I really need to get a lot of work done so everyone will have to forgive me if I have to limit my participation a little.
<< bling bling! God's probably chillin in his navigator in the sky and pimpin those angels. >>
You're getting confused with JAY(z)HOVA, the "god of rap".
<< Elledan:
<< Query: how can you observe this? You keep repeating it, but so far you've given no explanation. >>
Yes - reread my original post.
1) Everything has a cause - observe the universe, read the observations of others. Find something that acts without any cause... nada. Now go back to the beginning - what was the first "cause"? And what caused it? If it was the first, nothing - a cause-less causer in violation of cause and effect. >>
This argument is easily nullified:
two words: virtual particles. They appear and disappear randomly. Even in a vacuum they appear and disappear randomly.
<< 2) Time - we can observe time all around us, and even manipulate it. But everything has an existance in time, and we can observe back through history as events unfold. Go far enough back to see the origins of the universe... now keep going. If time had a beginning, what was its beginning, and what did it come from? And if time had no beginning, what has always existed? >>
You mean you understand what time is?
Look at it this way: during the Big Bang, all dimensions, including time, were created. Time started from that moment. Nothing could have caused the Big Bang, because there was no time-dimension to take care of such 'issues'. You're oversimplifying things.
<< 3)Space is infinite, and filled with matter and energy. Or it is empty space... but if empty space can be said to "exist", then it is in itself infinite. So either space itself, or whatever preceeded or caused it, must be infinte and omnipresent. >>
This universe is not infinite. It's clearly finite. If string theory is correct, then the universe is filled with matter only, because these strings would consist out of matter and matter only.
<< What is your theory on the origins of the universe? What started it all, what has always existed? What was the cause? >>
Why should there be a cause?
There are multiple theories:
- Big Bang: all matter was concentrated in one single point, which expanded, after which all dimensions were formed and the universe as we know it slowly formed.
- The Big Bang as a white hole: if black holes can transform into white holes, then the 'Big Bang' was in reality a white hole, which released all of the matter in it, thereby forming the universe. This could be part of an infinite cycle. The universe could have 'fallen' into black holes, to be 'spit out' again by white holes countless times.
- something else.
<<
<< Fact: there's a part in the Human brain which is responsible for certain experiences which can be linked to 'spiritual' experiences. >>
Again - we go back above to the reduction of self and spirit to chemical reactions. Could be true, although it reduces us to absurdities. But I respect your belief that its all we are in the end... sacks of mostly water with uncontrolled chemical reactions dictating everything we do, think, and are. >>
So far there's been no evidence to suggest otherwise.
<<
<< Conclusion: if you simply felt that your conclusion, based on your observations (what kind of observations?), is right, then it's very well possible that this part of your brain is more active than by, for example, agnostic people. >>
That a bad thing? >>Perhaps, but if it makes you happy.... they say that ignorance is bliss, don't they?
<< Or maybe there is a part of myself that exists independantly of the chemical reacotr known as my brain - something that feels, thnks, knows, and loves and can mostly control the chemicals zooming around in my head. Again - back to a fundemental belief difference between us (simply chemical reactions vs. spiritual existance). >>
.. and again there's the fact that there's an overwhelming amount of evidence which tells us that we're merely a complicated collection of chemical reactions.
<<
<< Taking this a bit further, then we can say that this 'spiritual' center of the brain is the main cause of blind faith. >>
You keep saying "blind" faith - do you think all faith is blind inherently? And that no leap of faith can stem from observation and fact? Because I insist to you again that although my faith comes into believing in a sentient god and into believing we have real spirits, there are observable facts and defendable reasons to have such a faith - and therefore it is not "blind". >>
Faith is a requirement to live. Without faith, one would die from pure desperation, because one would have no goal in life.
Blind faith is when someone accepts something which is not even worth it to be called a theory, usually something which is not based on observations, experiments and sane reasoning. This is very similar to superstition.
<<
<< Conclusion: until you can sufficiently and in a (scientifically) satisfying way explain your reasoning and provide your observations on which you based that reasoning, blind faith remains the only logical explanation. >>
Read above.
>>Sorry, but your explanation was unacceptable. You should really try to stay away from metaphysics.
<<
<< In that case this supernatural being would be only partially aware of its own existance. It would be reduced to a mere force of nature, a part of physics, and everything but sentient. >>
Why only partially aware? If part of a deity's nature was a desire to create, it could be completely sentient and have full knowledge of that desire. As I hold that creation is an act of love, it would actually only be a part of the deity's nature to love. >>
You're aware of your own existance, right? Now think further. What happens after you die? You say you'll experience some kind of afterlife. Although it's a totally illogical assumption, we'll continue on it, for argument's sake.
What's the meaning of an afterlife? Living for all eternity? Doing what? Feeling love and happiness? An afterlife would be a rather dull experience in that case.
But even if your god has some kind of big plan in mind, would it matter?
Say that your god does some funny stuff with all of these souls he has created, would it matter what it does with them? Of course not. It's totally meaningless.
Now, if a supernatural being exists, and it's sentient, plus all-knowing and all-powerful, it must have realized by now that its existance, the existance of everything in the universe, the universe itself, it's all meaningless.
If a sentient being realizes this, then it must fall back on faith, to avoid dying from desperation in the face of the nothingness which is its existance.
The existance of every sentient being in this and every other universe is without any meaning. Faith is the reason that they haven't died from sheer terror after realizing this.
Faith, mixed with silent desperation, like a predator sinking its claws in your intestines, is what fills our existance.
- If a supernatural being is sentient, then its existance is filled with the same thing, but that would prevent it from being 'supernatural', since its faith will limit its ability to perceive the meaning of its existance.
- If a supernatural being is only partially aware of its existance, or merely acts on instinct, it's ability to perceive will be limited as well.
In both cases the supernatural being is reduced to a mere force, which either tries to find something meaningful in its empty existance, or does things because its 'genes' tell it what to do.
<<
<< I would think some more about it if I were you =) >>
Ditto.
And duh, I'm always thinking about these things - questioning, debating, wondering... >>You're not the only one. You're not the only one.
Be aware, though, that in order to see clearly, you must uncover your eyes and let go of any expectations.
hey watup skace. =) glad to see you're still around.
actually, it wasn't my reasoning. it was thought out by cs lewis. however, i see no holes in the reasoning itself. as for the possibilities you described...
4) Jesus' apostles and other scribes were not on the same thought level as him, continually misinterpreting what he said or making stuff up to entice the story. (NOTE: Bible was NOT written by jesus)
first of all, I think the teachings of Christ were quite straightforward and simple. He came to teach and reach everybody ... not just the scribes and not even just the "upstanding" Pharisees. He used parables, short stories with a moral, that all people could understand. if you've ever read through the gospels, you'll understand what I mean. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people followed this man to listen to His teachings ... and they would not go away. And they were not all the smart kind of people.
As for misinterpreting or making stuff up. Misinterpreting would be quite difficult. Within the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, some of the same events were recorded. No inconsistencies exist there.
People have tested the credibility of the Bible for as long as it has been around. You are correct in that the Bible was not written by Jesus. The Bible is composed of 66 different books authored by 40 different authors ... these authors (1) didn't all necessarily live at the same time and (2) were from many many different walks of life. No inconsistencies. Amazing, isn't it? More than 40 different people.
The not so amazing thing to date has been that there has not been. No one has found that the Bible "proves itself wrong" or is flawed. It stands up historically and otherwise. It is the all time best seller. =)
5) The bible is poorly translated or not correctly translated from Hebrew. Ever considered that, like most things, the translation loses meaning and therefor makes even less sense than it was originally intended to? Jesus was a Jew afterall...
a possibility. enormously great care is taken into the translation of the Bible. you might want to look up the history of the New International Version (NIV), a popular translation.
if you care to read this paragraph ... here is a brief synopsis of how the NIV came to be. It was a project that was begun in 1967. The group was then multinational and interdenominational. After all the finances and other things had been taken care of, the translation started with each book being assigned to a team of scholars. Following this step, one of the Intermediate Editorial Committees revised the inital translation of each book, with constant reference to the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. This work in turn then went to one of the General Editorial Committees, which checked it in detail and made another thorough revision. This revision was carefully reviewed by the Commmittee on Bible Translation, which made further changes and then released the final version for publication. In this way the entire Bible underwent three revisions, during each of which the translation was examined for its faithfulness to the original languages and for its English style. After publication, it has gone under more revisions as recommendations have arisen and are reviewed.
Even so, with all this care, perhaps it has lost some of its meaning. I for one would like to learn Aramaic so I could read the Bible in its original language. I don't think that will ever happen, so I must take the next best thing. Better to have someone tell me "get out of the boat before it sinks" in English than in Aramaic.
6) Jesus had a multiple personality disorder, some sort of mental retardation, dillusion, an overinflated ego, etc. I recalled once hearing that there is a fine line between genious and insanity, why is it hard to believe jesus was walking that line? Why is it easier to believe he was god?
Walking between genius and insanity, being delusional, and so on ... I believe would fall under Jesus Christ being categorized as lunatic, which I do not think He does. I think it at the least a bit unfair to pass someone off as crazy though they showed no signs of it. <U>Nothing</U> in the teachings or actions of Jesus Christ reflected that of some crazed person. They reflect quite the opposite. One that showed compassion for humanity. You must make your own choice to either pass Him off as a crazed man or one who told the truth .. God.
7) Jesus fluffed his own story knowing it was the only way to give people hope.
I don't see how dying a sacrificial death ... and reappearing three days later alive is "fluff."
Yes I realize some of these are far fetched, but they don't see so far fetched when we look at the accepted story now (gods mortal form - pfft).
That's the beauty of God. His love is so incomprehensible ... "far-fetched." I don't understand why He'd save someone like me, but He did. And it was because of love. Perhaps one can't imagine or understand because one is not God. And who is one to put himself in God's place. If you were God, you may have done it differently. But you're not. So the "why" He did it ... what Optimus and I were discussing ... I still don't know ... but I love Him for it. He's at the very least my King.
actually, it wasn't my reasoning. it was thought out by cs lewis. however, i see no holes in the reasoning itself. as for the possibilities you described...
4) Jesus' apostles and other scribes were not on the same thought level as him, continually misinterpreting what he said or making stuff up to entice the story. (NOTE: Bible was NOT written by jesus)
first of all, I think the teachings of Christ were quite straightforward and simple. He came to teach and reach everybody ... not just the scribes and not even just the "upstanding" Pharisees. He used parables, short stories with a moral, that all people could understand. if you've ever read through the gospels, you'll understand what I mean. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people followed this man to listen to His teachings ... and they would not go away. And they were not all the smart kind of people.
As for misinterpreting or making stuff up. Misinterpreting would be quite difficult. Within the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, some of the same events were recorded. No inconsistencies exist there.
People have tested the credibility of the Bible for as long as it has been around. You are correct in that the Bible was not written by Jesus. The Bible is composed of 66 different books authored by 40 different authors ... these authors (1) didn't all necessarily live at the same time and (2) were from many many different walks of life. No inconsistencies. Amazing, isn't it? More than 40 different people.
The not so amazing thing to date has been that there has not been. No one has found that the Bible "proves itself wrong" or is flawed. It stands up historically and otherwise. It is the all time best seller. =)
5) The bible is poorly translated or not correctly translated from Hebrew. Ever considered that, like most things, the translation loses meaning and therefor makes even less sense than it was originally intended to? Jesus was a Jew afterall...
a possibility. enormously great care is taken into the translation of the Bible. you might want to look up the history of the New International Version (NIV), a popular translation.
if you care to read this paragraph ... here is a brief synopsis of how the NIV came to be. It was a project that was begun in 1967. The group was then multinational and interdenominational. After all the finances and other things had been taken care of, the translation started with each book being assigned to a team of scholars. Following this step, one of the Intermediate Editorial Committees revised the inital translation of each book, with constant reference to the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. This work in turn then went to one of the General Editorial Committees, which checked it in detail and made another thorough revision. This revision was carefully reviewed by the Commmittee on Bible Translation, which made further changes and then released the final version for publication. In this way the entire Bible underwent three revisions, during each of which the translation was examined for its faithfulness to the original languages and for its English style. After publication, it has gone under more revisions as recommendations have arisen and are reviewed.
Even so, with all this care, perhaps it has lost some of its meaning. I for one would like to learn Aramaic so I could read the Bible in its original language. I don't think that will ever happen, so I must take the next best thing. Better to have someone tell me "get out of the boat before it sinks" in English than in Aramaic.
6) Jesus had a multiple personality disorder, some sort of mental retardation, dillusion, an overinflated ego, etc. I recalled once hearing that there is a fine line between genious and insanity, why is it hard to believe jesus was walking that line? Why is it easier to believe he was god?
Walking between genius and insanity, being delusional, and so on ... I believe would fall under Jesus Christ being categorized as lunatic, which I do not think He does. I think it at the least a bit unfair to pass someone off as crazy though they showed no signs of it. <U>Nothing</U> in the teachings or actions of Jesus Christ reflected that of some crazed person. They reflect quite the opposite. One that showed compassion for humanity. You must make your own choice to either pass Him off as a crazed man or one who told the truth .. God.
7) Jesus fluffed his own story knowing it was the only way to give people hope.
I don't see how dying a sacrificial death ... and reappearing three days later alive is "fluff."
Yes I realize some of these are far fetched, but they don't see so far fetched when we look at the accepted story now (gods mortal form - pfft).
That's the beauty of God. His love is so incomprehensible ... "far-fetched." I don't understand why He'd save someone like me, but He did. And it was because of love. Perhaps one can't imagine or understand because one is not God. And who is one to put himself in God's place. If you were God, you may have done it differently. But you're not. So the "why" He did it ... what Optimus and I were discussing ... I still don't know ... but I love Him for it. He's at the very least my King.
optimus: This universe is not infinite. It's clearly finite. If string theory is correct, then the universe is filled with matter only, because these strings would consist out of matter and matter only.
I disagree because I was taught that this is incorrect. Astronomically, within the past few years we have noticed redshifts in galaxies and Type IA supernovae further away from us (as galaxies close to us are invalid due to the Hubble flow). Redshifts indicate movement away from us. Blueshifts indicate movement toward us. Dust and other redshifting effects from galaxies have been found negligible. This was found in 1997. The universe is expanding and is indeed infinite.
realvideo lectures from my astronomy class
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/listings/archive.html?prog=41&group=51
the first article i found on google. theres much more. this is groundbreaking
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/ep/pressrel/garnavich.html
What bearing this has on our discussion at hand ... I have no clue. =) Our universe could still be expanding and there could still be a God. God could have used any way He wanted to create us and this universe. Fact is ... I'm here. And the chances of life being on another planet such as earth could be calculated by (da dum dum) the Drake Equation ... showing a very very small chance. What were the "chances" of us forming through lots and lots of "chance." I don't know. Frankly, none of us have any answers that we can prove firsthand. You either believe in creationism or you don't. Either one takes some degree of faith. Neither is blind ... but both are indeed faith. You can keep searching for answers that will prove either, but I don't think God would have made it that easy. =P
I disagree because I was taught that this is incorrect. Astronomically, within the past few years we have noticed redshifts in galaxies and Type IA supernovae further away from us (as galaxies close to us are invalid due to the Hubble flow). Redshifts indicate movement away from us. Blueshifts indicate movement toward us. Dust and other redshifting effects from galaxies have been found negligible. This was found in 1997. The universe is expanding and is indeed infinite.
realvideo lectures from my astronomy class
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/listings/archive.html?prog=41&group=51
the first article i found on google. theres much more. this is groundbreaking
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/ep/pressrel/garnavich.html
What bearing this has on our discussion at hand ... I have no clue. =) Our universe could still be expanding and there could still be a God. God could have used any way He wanted to create us and this universe. Fact is ... I'm here. And the chances of life being on another planet such as earth could be calculated by (da dum dum) the Drake Equation ... showing a very very small chance. What were the "chances" of us forming through lots and lots of "chance." I don't know. Frankly, none of us have any answers that we can prove firsthand. You either believe in creationism or you don't. Either one takes some degree of faith. Neither is blind ... but both are indeed faith. You can keep searching for answers that will prove either, but I don't think God would have made it that easy. =P
Identical twins have the exact same DNA, yet internally their concious is different.
So who put the concious in them which makes them unique? Not their DNA. (which is the basis of differentiated every single human being)
must be God.
So who put the concious in them which makes them unique? Not their DNA. (which is the basis of differentiated every single human being)
must be God.
OMG
ok here goes.....
Blah blah bleh, bleet bloom blah blah yakakaaka mmmmmblurt. Bleah blah bleh. And....
Yatta yatta yatta, Yakketi shmacketty. Blurt brawr.
Hope that gave you reason to believe in God. Just read, then pick your own destiny, Hey! what about the koran? I hear osama is looking for a new front line?
ok here goes.....
Blah blah bleh, bleet bloom blah blah yakakaaka mmmmmblurt. Bleah blah bleh. And....
Yatta yatta yatta, Yakketi shmacketty. Blurt brawr.
Hope that gave you reason to believe in God. Just read, then pick your own destiny, Hey! what about the koran? I hear osama is looking for a new front line?
From what I was told by a self-proclaimed "good Christian," that atheist would go straight to hell, while the believer would enjoy eternal bliss. They even said that if Osama bin Laden were to truly convert to Christianity, he'd go to Heaven, but the atheist would still go to hell. Makes sense to me.:frown:
I agree with your friend and disagree with Optimus. perhaps this is where our faiths take a split. I am not Roman Catholic. I am a Protestant Christian. I do not believe there is any sin too great that God cannot forgive. I know when I say the word "sin," a lot of people tune out because of the religious jargon. But take it this way ... all wrongs are wrong. Sin is like a drop of poison into a five gallon jug of water. Messes the entire thing up ... even if it is 99.9999% pure ... you've got imperfection. Even if you're holy and perfect 364 days of the year ... that one day ... messes it all up. Nothing short of perfection is good enough for God (look up Romans 6:23 if you need Biblical references). We're screwed then, aren't we? No. =) Jesus Christ <U>gave</U> us forgiveness for this imperfection and made us holy before God ... we only have to accept this forgiveness. That is basically everything in a nutshell.
There's nothing God can't do. If it is not in His power to forgive the wrongs of Osama Bin Laden ... what kind of God is He? Becoming a Christian doesn't make you a better person instantly. It's not a magic pill ... *poof*. It simply means you are forgiven. An athiest (who denies the existence of God) does not accept His forgiveness so doesn't receive the promise of Jesus Christ - heaven. Someone as heinous, in our eyes, as Bin Laden who accepts forgiveness does. Unfair? I don't see how it is so. We are all given the same choice ... to deny or accept Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross as salvation for our sins/wrongs.
I agree with your friend and disagree with Optimus. perhaps this is where our faiths take a split. I am not Roman Catholic. I am a Protestant Christian. I do not believe there is any sin too great that God cannot forgive. I know when I say the word "sin," a lot of people tune out because of the religious jargon. But take it this way ... all wrongs are wrong. Sin is like a drop of poison into a five gallon jug of water. Messes the entire thing up ... even if it is 99.9999% pure ... you've got imperfection. Even if you're holy and perfect 364 days of the year ... that one day ... messes it all up. Nothing short of perfection is good enough for God (look up Romans 6:23 if you need Biblical references). We're screwed then, aren't we? No. =) Jesus Christ <U>gave</U> us forgiveness for this imperfection and made us holy before God ... we only have to accept this forgiveness. That is basically everything in a nutshell.
There's nothing God can't do. If it is not in His power to forgive the wrongs of Osama Bin Laden ... what kind of God is He? Becoming a Christian doesn't make you a better person instantly. It's not a magic pill ... *poof*. It simply means you are forgiven. An athiest (who denies the existence of God) does not accept His forgiveness so doesn't receive the promise of Jesus Christ - heaven. Someone as heinous, in our eyes, as Bin Laden who accepts forgiveness does. Unfair? I don't see how it is so. We are all given the same choice ... to deny or accept Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross as salvation for our sins/wrongs.
Well, you can't prove that God doesn't exist. The only way that you can definitively say that no God exists is if you know everything there is to know about the universe, and no one can possibly know that. For example, if you were to say that you are absolutely certain there are no nails in your house, the only way you can say that is if you've searched every bit of your house and definitively know there are no nails in your house. There's no way that we can know everything about the universe.
Likewise, it takes much more faith to believe there is no God (or no intelligent designer) and everything was created by mere chance than it does too simply accept that there must have been some intelligent designer who created the universe and is in control. I admire those people who say there is no God because they must have incredible faith to believe that. I think the problem is that people don't want to relinquish their pride and their belief that they are completely independent and in control. Which choice is more reasonable? A belief that everything occurred by mere chance, or that God created the universe. A physicist one said, "If we need an atheist to debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use."
Likewise, it takes much more faith to believe there is no God (or no intelligent designer) and everything was created by mere chance than it does too simply accept that there must have been some intelligent designer who created the universe and is in control. I admire those people who say there is no God because they must have incredible faith to believe that. I think the problem is that people don't want to relinquish their pride and their belief that they are completely independent and in control. Which choice is more reasonable? A belief that everything occurred by mere chance, or that God created the universe. A physicist one said, "If we need an atheist to debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter