God botherers, I want your opinions.

[danerd100]

Other animals communicate

They can only commnicate through body language, they don't talk to each other. They can communicate, but not nearly to the extent of Humans

There are also more than 3 dimensions

Side note, I heard about this somewhere, and I was curious if you knew a book I could read about this, because it seems like an interesting topic

[killbot1000]

Since you seem to be very logical I will answer that with a quote from NASA. They have a saying; "The mere absence of evidence, is not evidence of no existence"

I understand this justification, but frankly it does not hold up to logic. If I say that I have genetically engineered a flying pony in my house, but that I cant show anybody what it looks like right now, do you really think anybody would sit there and say "oh well theres no evidence he has the pony, but that doesn't mean the pony doesn't exist."Seriously, unless there's any kind of evidence to indicate god's existence, then why are we even starting in that direction, why is the possibility automatically accounted for even before any evidence is presented? why are we naturally starting in that realm of thought instead of starting with an impartial view, seeing the lack of evidence, and then not believing that view because there's nothing but pages of recycled stories to back it up.My answer is probably the right one but probably the most obvious, human beings in general WANT a god to exist (for various reasons), and we are more willing to entertain this possibility because we WANT it, if however there is evidence to support that god doesn't exist, then we will need a lot more evidence comparatively to believe it.I'm saying that if a human being takes the WANT of god out of their lives, the shabby evidence which holds up that want, the faulty scaffolding finally collapses.

They can only commnicate through body language, they don't talk to each other. They can communicate, but not nearly to the extent of Humans.

Dolphins. Dolphins have been shown to call each other BY NAME. There are dolphins who have been found to rape other dolphins, just like people, and it has also been found that these animals have sex for pleasure just like human beings. But I'm sure even this isn't good enough to satisfy as well. I guess I have to find a fully fledged talking alien that looks just like us for you to even THINK about changing your point of view on the world.

[QuietOC]

You keep ignoring the fact that people didn't just wake up one day and suddenly decide to start a religion. These things all formed out of myths and popular stories of that day and age. Everything in the christian religion can be traced back to basic astrology, myths and pagan beliefs...

Who is ignoring what? Of course the Bible contains myth. Do you know what myth is? It is a genre of literature. Something being myth does not mean it is false. You seem to want to use the current uncritical opinion about myth be your crutch for denying the Bible. This is just uncritical historical arrogance.

[Maxintosh]

They can only commnicate through body language, they don't talk to each other.

Not true. Elephants for example talk to each other through VERY low frequencies. The sound can travel for miles. Humans cannot hear these frequencies but they know it happens through scientific audio machines. Giraffes do the same thing. Just because we humans are unaware of something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I heard about this somewhere, and I was curious if you knew a book I could read about this, because it seems like an interesting topic

Yes, very interesting I first learned about this from a PBS science special. I'll dig around and see if I can find a link for you

Who is ignoring what?

YOU are ignoring the FACTS. Is that short and sweet enough for you to understand?

Of course the Bible contains myth.

It goes even deeper than that. The bible was literally BORN from myths. In other words, it owes its existence to myths.

It is a genre of literature.

Glad you understand.

Something being myth does not mean it is false.

Those are your words, not mine. Where do you think the whole idea for churches came from? They are there to show each ritual as an enactment of myth.

[QuietOC]

It goes even deeper than that. The bible was literally BORN from myths. In other words, it owes its existence to myths.

Oh, no! next you are going to tell me that the Bible is largly based solely on oral tradition!

 

Yet somehow people have read these earthy stories as relevant and perhaps holy for at least 2500 years, but who knows--we're in a culture with little desire to deal with the messy particulars of history, and so your vague notions of transcendence might fly for a while.

[Maxintosh]

I understand this justification, but frankly it does not hold up to logic.

Sure it does. It's actually quite a simple concept. Haven't you ever found money laying on the ground? Before you found it were there any clues that you would find it laying there? Of course not, but you still discovered it

 

Likewise just because there is no direct evidence (for you) of Gods existence 'yet' - doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It just means that we as a species haven't found any evidence "yet". Nothing more, nothing less

 

Can you give us some examples?

It would be better for the both of us if you just went to the library and picked up a copy of the PBS special The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell. It is in both DVD/VHS and book form. This review might help you. I recommend the DVD if you can get it. Everything that you're looking for is in there

 

P.S. - if you don't live by a library then contact PBS in your area. This series is so powerful that they have been rerunning it from time to time even though it is 14 years old. Once you see this program everything will come into focus for you. It is that powerful. Many people feel that one of the major TV networks should air it and I wholeheartedly agree. I tried to find a transcript for you but they only go back to the year 2002, and the show originally aired in 1988. If I do find anything else I'll be sure to post it here for you

 

next you are going to tell me that the Bible is largly based solely on oral tradition!

I wouldn't say solely, but myths ARE based on tradition. In fact, tradition is the fiber of myths. This might help you

[QuietOC]

This[/url] might help you

Sorry, you haven't offered anything new here. Moving on...

[killbot1000]

Sure it does. It's actually quite a simple concept. Haven't you ever found money laying on the ground? Before you found it were there any clues that you would find it laying there? Of course not, but you still discovered it

 

Likewise just because there is no direct evidence (for you) of Gods existence 'yet' - doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It just means that we as a species haven't found any evidence "yet". Nothing more, nothing less

It would be better for the both of us if you just went to the library and picked up a copy of the PBS special The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell. It is in both DVD/VHS and book form. This review might help you. I recommend the DVD if you can get it. Everything that you're looking for is in there

 

Haha I laughed when I saw the Joseph Campbell thing because I have seen that exact video, loved it.

 

On to the logic of finding money on the ground, your analogy doesn't work because we know that money does exist, but finding it on the ground is simply that...finding something that already exists, and something which has evidence for its existence.

 

let me mess with your quote a little bit here:

 

"Likewise just because there is no direct evidence (for you) of a Flying Pony's existence 'yet' - doesn't mean that flying pony's don't exist. It just means that we as a species have found any evidence "yet".

 

Sure, I don't know if flying pony's really do exist, but until I encounter evidence which indicates the possibility, I am not even going to go there, or try to go there.

 

God is no different than a flying pony, technically possible, yet unlikely (given what we know).

[Maxintosh]

Sorry, you haven't offered anything new here.

More walls. Typical

[unohoo]

a few thoughts:

1. The Nag Hammadi Library is a set of gospels (not in the edited/manufactured Bible) which Christian Gnostics read before they were persecuted by established Christians. The problem was that Gnosticism does/did not need Bishops - hmm

2. A belief in a Supreme Being does not need a Religion

3. Muslims do not have free will - the will of Allah is paramount

4. If life teeters on the unsustainable on this earth how are we to survive as a species? Does the Godhead rescue the species? Or do we get off our backsides and do something?

5. Do God believers have a minimal carbon footprint or are they just as culpable?

6. Is the Godhead going to stop the Sun from exploding? And if not does he/she provide the emegency transport?

[Maxintosh]

Haha I laughed when I saw the Joseph Campbell thing because I have seen that exact video, loved it.

Yeah it is a great video. Might start a new tread about it so others can get a chance to see it too

 

your analogy doesn't work because we know that money does exist

Of course it does If a child found that money BUT they hadn't learned what money was yet, does that mean that they didn't find money? Of course not, it's money whether the person realizes it or not. Likewise evidence of God could be staring us right in the face, but we just might not know it yet. The point is, just because something hasn't been discovered, doesn't mean that it's not there to be discovered.

 

2. A belief in a Supreme Being does not need a Religion

Exactly! God/Supreme Being/etc. does NOT need religion. Religion has been leaching off of God for ages, but God does not need any form of religion. It is the other way around. Religions try to interpret God, but interpreting God simply isn't possible for a human to do. We try to cloth God in our language as a way to describe God, but language is impotent for such a thing.

 

3. Muslims do not have free will - the will of Allah is paramount

Wow that is sad, and a waste of life

[killbot1000]

If a child found that money BUT they hadn't learned what money was yet, does that mean that they didn't find money? Of course not, it's money whether the person realizes it or not. Likewise evidence of God could be staring us right in the face, but we just might not know it yet. The point is, just because something hasn't been discovered, doesn't mean that it's not there to be discovered.

 

 

I know this, but again, to assume that it does exist is in itself flawed as well. Despite how I speak on this forum, I am pretty neutral on the subject, I understand that our understanding of the universe is naive at best. I also understand that there MAY be a god (whether its energy or an entity, etc.) but whether there is or not doesn't really matter, theres no way at present to know if there is one, theres no way to know what it wants (if anything), and there's nothing we can do to fight it/love it, so until theres any kind of possibility or discovery of this, I feel that it is in everyone's best interest to not assume what it wants (if anything), and that people should use their own judgment when it comes to morals, etc. NOT somebody else's. If they can't fall back on somebody else's point of view then the only way for them to derive a point of view is through SOME KIND of reasoning (whether that be flawed or superb) I feel that this is the quickest way for our society to move into the future, where everyone is educated, the majority is intelligent, and the world is approaching utopia.

 

If however a god/energy presented itself and was indeed all powerful, it would be in my best interests to try not to {censored} it off. I would also be wary of such a being from the get-go because I would not put it past a very powerful, knowledgeable being passing themselves off as god.

 

With enough research, drive, time, and knowledge, I believe we as a species can accomplish almost anything we can imagine (without god's help).

[Alessandro17]

God is the one who made the category.

 

 

Really? Can you give me his telephone number?

 

 

Who defines who and what God is: God, or you? And if you get to create the definition, who is really God? You.

 

I didn't try to define God. I only said: "A credible God must be very different and beyond our comprehension" that is not a definition, that is only common sense, admitting that we are too limited to know God. If ants had common sense, they would say: "we can't understand humans"

And in any case:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta#Brahman

 

Brahman

 

According to Adi Shankara, God, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Brahman (pronounced as /brəh mən/; nominative singular Brahma, pronounced as /brəh mə/) is the One, the whole and the only reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are false. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being. Brahman is often described as neti neti meaning "not this, not this" because it cannot be correctly described as this or that. It is the origin of this and that, the origin of forces, substances, all of existence, the undefined, the basis of all, unborn, the essential truth, unchanging, eternal, the absolute. How can it be properly described as something in the material world when itself is the basis of reality? Brahman is also beyond the senses, it would be akin a blind man trying to correctly describe color. It (grammatically neutral, but exceptionally treated as masculine), though not a substance, is the basis of the material world, which in turn is its illusionary transformation. Brahman is not the effect of the world. Brahman is said to be the purest knowledge itself, and is illuminant like a source of infinite light.

 

Due to ignorance (avidyā), the Brahman is visible as the material world and its objects. The actual Brahman is attributeless and formless (see Nirguna Brahman). It is the Self-existent, the Absolute and the Imperishable (not generally the object of worship but rather of meditation). Brahman is actually indescribable. It is at best "Sacchidananda" (merging "Sat" + "Chit" + "Ananda", ie, Infinite Truth, Infinite Consciousness and Infinite Bliss). Also, Brahman is free from any kind of differences. It does not have any sajātīya (homogeneous) differences because there is no second Brahman. It does not have any vijātīya (heterogeneous) differences because there is nobody in reality existing other than Brahman. It has neither svagata (internal) differences, because Brahman is itself homogeneous.

 

And:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirguna_Brahman

 

 

My post is addressed to every single person in the conversation, with quotes and responses to each conversant. Everyone would benefit to review it all.

 

Thanks for your generosity and for explaining the Truth to us poor demented.

[Maxintosh]

I know this, but again, to assume that it does exist is in itself flawed as well.

Why does it have to be one or the other? A person can be neutral, open to the possibility, which I believe you already said you are. You're saying that God can't exist just because you haven't personally had an epiphany, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it simply means that you haven't yet discovered what someone else may have already. Everyone has different experiences in life, why should how or when we find God be any different?

 

theres no way at present to know if there is one

God is a personal thing. If person A has an experience, but person be has not, does that mean that the experience never happened? Of course not, but person B has yet to experience it. There is a big difference in saying that something doesn't exist VS. that "for person B" it doesn't exist

 

I feel that it is in everyone's best interest to not assume what it wants (if anything)

Yes, this is the great hypocrisy of religion. Religions all try to define God as this or that, but they don't have a clue as to what God may or may not be. The ancient Hindus used to say "no word has reached the definition of God" and I believe that is true.

[psudocanuck]

Okay. Why do we as human beings have to personify natural forces of the Universe as dieties? Five thousand years ago the sun was a god to the egyptians, yet we know that it is nothing more than a ball of hydrogen, helium, and other trace elements undergoing nuclear fusion. The moon was a goddess to numerous cultures, yet today we know that it is the remnants of a mars-sized planetary body that collided with Earth shortly after it (Earth) was formed 4.2 billion years ago. The omnipotent, omnipresent god that is being described sounds like energy in its purest form, so why personify? Why not just call the sun the sun and energy energy.

 

Just to clear things up, time is not 'some kind of fourth dimension' it is the fourth dimension. Therefore it had it's start at the big bang, just like everything else. Time is not measured by the orbiting of our planet around our star it's measured by the increasing entropy of our universe. Or in layman's terms the propencity of disorder to increase. Now we've established that time and space had a common start at the big bang thanks to Hubble and Einstein. So if god created the universe, where was he standing when he did it?

[Alessandro17]

Now we've established that time and space had a common start at the big bang thanks to Hubble and Einstein. So if god created the universe, where was he standing when he did it.

 

 

So your idea of God is that of a huge giant needing to stand somewhere in space and time while creating the universe.

[Maxintosh]

Can you give us some examples?

The bible doesn't hide this fact, but you have to know where to find it as they don't advertise the fact. The second letter of Peter states that: "those forms which were mythological forms in the past, are now incarnate and actual in our savour."

 

Five thousand years ago the sun was a god to the egyptians, yet we know that it is nothing more than a ball of hydrogen, helium, and other trace elements undergoing nuclear fusion.

The sun was the basis for many myths, and incorporated into many religions...

 

So if god created the universe, where was he standing when he did it?

Why does God have to be standing?

 

So your idea of God is that of a huge giant needing to stand somewhere in space and time while creating the universe.

Didn't you hear? He looks like a hippie, has a long white beard and a very deep voice

[psudocanuck]

Let me clarify. I am as atheist as they come. If there was no space time before he created it, where was he when he did? One of the properties of omnipresence is being EVERYWHERE, if you created everything (including everywhere) how can you be omnipresent? You can't. Our universe is what is called a 'closed system', meaning nothing in it can leave, and nothing outside of it can have an effect on what is in it. So say just for arguments sake that god did have a place to be in order to create our universe,he couldn't have been in it because it didn't exist. So he had to be outside of it. Therefore after creation could not have had influence or knowledge of what happened inside it, and is irrelevant. In physics the simplest answer is always the right one. And the simplest way to solve this conundrum is for god not to exist.

[danerd100]

Simple answer, Heaven is a different realm.

[QuietOC]

Just to clear things up, time is not 'some kind of fourth dimension' it is the fourth dimension. Therefore it had it's start at the big bang, just like everything else.

General Relativity has slightly bigger implications. Saying time is a separate dimension form some other three of space is not exactly correct. Time itself is relative to an inertial frame. Two seperate points in space-time can have several relations, they can be elsewhen to each other--as in outside of a past or future relationship to each other. In reality the present of anything real in space-time disappears since we have no real consistent ineritia frames of reference.

 

You may assume that time is a separate dimension in your personal experience, but it is only a rough approximation, and those little errors can produce much different results. So, we can be confident that unbiased earthy research will understand all the minutae of space-time, even if most of it is strictly beyond our observation or influence.

Our universe is what is called a 'closed system', meaning nothing in it can leave, and nothing outside of it can have an effect on what is in it.

You are confusing someone's model of the universe with reality. One can only model behavior of closed systems, so naturally the universe is assumed to be a closed system. It would be pointless to assume it to be open.

 

Speculation about God's relation to space-time, is mainly speculation, but given our current understanding (general relativity, special relativity, quantum mechanics) we can lay down some boundaries for what that relationship must be. A unified, closed, singular space-time continuim doesn't pose any problems for the interaction of an omnipresent being for whom the entire space-time is more consistently present than we are present with even our own minds.

[Maxintosh]

If there was no space time before he created it, where was he when he did?

First of all you're making an assumption, and secondly you're using human logic. The current state of human logic isn't going to cut it. For example; the Earth was once believed to be at the center of the universe, which obviously we now know isn't true.

[3nigma]

Really? Can you give me his telephone number?

He can hear you when you talk, you don't have to dial =).

I didn't try to define God. I only said: "A credible God must be very different and beyond our comprehension" that is not a definition, that is only common sense, admitting that we are too limited to know God. If ants had common sense, they would say: "we can't understand humans"

What you gave was a definition, according to your human, "common" sense. Even if it is "common sense," it is a definition. (1) God could reveal himself to humanity, if he wanted to. (2) Proverbial "ants," if they had a language, could describe and try to understand humans with ant-metaphor and understanding (fictional "ants" with the example you provided, obviously).

Thanks for your generosity and for explaining the Truth to us poor demented.

Don't be so upset Alessandro, you used to like me on these forums =). I'm only pointing out that if we are the ones that get to pick and choose what does and does not constitute a God, then God is dictated on OUR terms, therefore who is really in charge? That doesn't make sense.

 

-3nigma

[Maxintosh]

I'm only pointing out that if we are the ones that get to pick and choose what does and does not constitute a God, then God is dictated on OUR terms, therefore who is really in charge?

Just because someone 'thinks' they know what God may or may not be, doesn't make it so, therefore, none of us are in charge.

[Alessandro17]

He can hear you when you talk, you don't have to dial =).

Yeah, but you said that "God is the one who made the category" (sin).

In order to be so sure, you must be in touch with Him.

 

What you gave was a definition, according to your human, "common" sense. Even if it is "common sense," it is a definition. (1) God could reveal himself to humanity, if he wanted to. (2) Proverbial "ants," if they had a language, could describe and try to understand humans with ant-metaphor and understanding (fictional "ants" with the example you provided, obviously)......

I'm only pointing out that if we are the ones that get to pick and choose what does and does not constitute a God, then God is dictated on OUR terms, therefore who is really in charge? That doesn't make sense.

 

Isn't what you are saying quite a bit contradictory?

OK, I'll make an extra effort and try to understand what you probably mean: God revealed Himself in the Bible, thus we can know Him.

Even if the Bible weren't an obvious work of human fiction, and even if it didn't contain countless contradictions, there is still a serious flaw: our brain is far too small to conceive God.

Even if the Bible were reliable, that would be like trying to know everything about a human being from a (poor quality) picture.

 

Don't be so upset Alessandro, you used to like me on these forums =).

 

Yeah, I know. I bitterly regret ever writing that. Probably you weren't discussing religion when I did.

[djet]

Okay guys. This topic has gotten way off topic from when it was supposed to be only about free-will.....

 

You know guys, you can come up with all the reasons for and against god, all the logical evidence, but ask any of the Christians here about why they believe what they believe and none of them will say reason, if so then they really need to reexamine their faith. The reason that I devote my life to him is because of my personal experiences, not because of facts and evidences. He did something extradonary in my life that is unexplainable by words.