Is God really real? page 48

1460 posts

Flag Post

It’s all in the mind, ask yourself are ghost real…? or maybe i’m wrong, who knows..

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:

What are all these ideas about what God is, and is not, supposed to do based on.

It’s not what an over-god is supposed to do, or what an over-god is, or is not. It’s simply a reasoned, logical, internally consistent look at matters from all angles, not just those of the propaganda of a single deity.

You have to admit, if the human body was designed, whoever designed it was drunk, and probably high when they designed it. We are simply very, very poorly engineered.

It’s very clear in the New Testament that the earth, the material world, is in an entropic state.

And science agrees with you.

We are brought into this world corruptible, earthy, but we will be raised up incorruptible, otherworldly.

Not necessarily. If you accept the physical body as a larval form, there are a lot of corrupted larvae out there. The adult form is dependent on the state of the larva it grows from.

 
Flag Post
It’s very clear in the New Testament that the earth, the material world, is in an entropic state.

it’s very clear to who? I’m sorry, but there are a lot of Christians that would disagree with you. So who is it very clear to? And how, from the bible did you decide it was very CLEAR?

We are brought into this world corruptible, earthy, but we will be raised up incorruptible, otherworldly.
is this something that is also very clear? Who said that? Who decided that is what the bible said?

Does it matter if God is the source of the problem?

of course it matters if HE is the source. Seriously? You think HE makes the problem and then it’s all sweet and dany because, oh hey, look, HE’s also the solution?
No way, that’s the worse logic I have ever heard.

 
Flag Post

Does God exist? Yes. Simply put, when we look into the cosmos with our telescopes, we see that the farther away we look the more basic the universe appears, until we look so far back, in distance and years, that we see giant super bright stars from the beginnings of the Creation. This ‘beginning’ indicates the necessity of some sort of ‘power’ that ‘exists’ outside of time. Like ‘an object in motion stays in motion’, there is this need for some initial creative force to start everything including time. This theory was proposed a number of years ago, IIRC. I do not know of any strong or recent challenges against it. It is the state of science at this point. Thus, it would be reasonable to debate the super-nature of god/God.

 
Flag Post
This ‘beginning’ indicates the necessity of some sort of ‘power’ that ‘exists’ outside of time.

That doesn’t mean there’s a deity. You are assuming that it does.

 
Flag Post

I suppose it depends on what you consider a deity, which is exactly why I made the jump to God’s existence. Which, I do, indeed, believe in. Because this ’power’s’ nature is to ‘exist’… because it is outside of time, and because it is outside of time, I would say this would qualify as monotheism. Aristotle came to the conclusion that such a being exists. I do not know why we would avoid calling it ‘god’ or ‘God’. Interestingly, this seems to rule out various types of natural religions (Earth worship and so forth).

 
Flag Post
Because this ’power’s’ nature is to ‘exist’

But there again you are assuming this ‘power’ is a God…that is merely an assumption on your part.

 
Flag Post

It seems like you’re splitting hairs. As I said, the next step is the discussion of the super-nature of this god/God, or, since you refuse to accept the term, this ‘power’.

It is fascinating that Mose, the author of Exodus, scribed the name of this Being as “I AM WHO AM” long before Aristotle. I suppose if one was trying desperately to avoid that nature of this God to be ‘personal’ they could assume that this ‘knowledge’ was achieved by Moses through is privileged upbringing in the royal house of one of the great kingdoms of the Earth… thousands of years ago. It starts to get far fetched… however.

 
Flag Post

This ‘beginning’ indicates the necessity of some sort of ‘power’ that ‘exists’ outside of time.

There is no necessity. That’s your claim, a hypothesis.

Like ‘an object in motion stays in motion’, there is this need for some initial creative force to start everything including time. This theory was proposed a number of years ago, IIRC. I do not know of any strong or recent challenges against it. It is the state of science at this point.

Yeah. The big bang.

 
Flag Post

I’m not splitting hairs, your proof for God so far is that there was a power that ‘needed’ to exist…I’m stating that this jump to defining this ‘power’ as a God is an assumption and erroneous proof for God.

 
Flag Post

@Darkruler2005
No, that’s actually the state of the science. In simple terms, the ‘nothing’ that existed before the Big Bang needed some action taken on it for things to exist. This includes ‘time’.

@FlabbyWoofWoof
You’re working semantically against the use of the word ‘God’… I went on to describe the distinction that professionals might use in such a discussion of whether or not god is personal or impersonal. You have a problem with the term ‘god’ at this point in the discussion, which I attempted to cede for purposes of furthering the discussion, while simultaneously pointing out that calling such a ‘power’ a ‘god’ in general seems a good fit for the term ‘god’ and would have been used in other venues throughout time without regarding it as ‘loaded’. I could perhaps, say that this ‘power’ is a ‘god-like power’ which I could further simplify when speaking theoretically to ‘god’.

 
Flag Post

Beegum, you are using the term ‘power’ interchangably with the term ‘God’…they are not the same. But, forget that, you assume too much in your opening sentences when you said that this power ‘needed’ to exist…needed to? You are giving human emotions to something that has no human emotions. The Big Bang did not have a ‘need’ to exist.

 
Flag Post

I disagree… I think you’re picking apart the language I use without actually addressing the science of what I am talking about. There is a ‘need’ for a force to cause the Big Bang. Suppose a marble is resting on a washer. In order to have the system make sense that it is moved off of the washer, the system ‘needs’ a force to act on the marble/washer system. I’m not sure why the word ‘need’ must be an emotional one, or why it is inappropriate for use here. Do you have a term that you would prefer?

ASIDE (and I mean that, we should not address this until the previous bit is discussed): Also, I disagree regarding the nature of God, for, if Good, then it is His nature of give Himself, thus, a ‘need’ for the Big Bang to exist, but this is much beside the point for the purposes of our more rudimentary discussion regarding science.

 
Flag Post

In simple terms, the ‘nothing’ that existed before the Big Bang needed some action taken on it for things to exist. This includes ‘time’.

Perhaps, but it is less arrogant to claim you don’t know than to claim you do know without evidence. You do the latter.

 
Flag Post

I actually often make the argument Beegum makes, however I too think it’s somewhat silly to apply personal pronouns to the force that initiated the big bang, or to imply that the force that initiated the big bang must exist. Considering the bang potentially created time itself, the assertion of cause and effect is false. That said, who knows what the mind or even personage of that potential force is? I certainly have never heard anyone claim to hear the voice of gravity. There’s a jump from science to myth, and you’re not addressing it.

 
Flag Post

@TheBSG
You said, “Considering the bang potentially created time itself, the assertion of cause and effect is false.” Is this a type of the cyclical universe theory? I think this doesn’t work out mathematically, because the Universe appears to be ‘dispersing’ via dark matter/energy accelerating expansion.

You move onto the nature of this force. As evidence I have pointed out that Moses wrote down a very long time ago the name “I AM WHO AM”, which seems to be sufficient evidence that God is self revealing and personal. The contrary could be that Moses had a privileged royal education and was a philosophical master himself, which is almost certainly true, but would not likely convince people that the name “I AM WHO AM” was something other than God revealing his nature long before the state of philosophy could have reached such a conclusion… as Aristotle did much later.

 
Flag Post

If not the only source you have is the Bible, do prove to us that Moses wrote down those words.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

If not the only source you have is the Bible, do prove to us that Moses wrote down those words.

What is your point if it was not Moses, do you think this defeats the argument? I do not think so, but, neither do I see it as reason to doubt a generally impeccable history book, though, the author is actually implied to be Moses and passed down as such by religious tradition. I need not rest on the assertion that the author is Moses.

 
Flag Post

… or Moses was full of shit? One dude said the universe spoke to him and that it said something vaguely comparable to what you think our scientific understanding of that universe is? Well I’ll be damned. I’ve apparently talked to the universe several times.

Applying your particular flavor of religiousness to the potential aspect of force that initiated the big bang is a complete jump.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

… or Moses was full of shit? One dude said the universe spoke to him and that it said something vaguely comparable to what you think our scientific understanding of that universe is? Well I’ll be damned. I’ve apparently talked to the universe several times.

I wouldn’t say vaguely comparable. It actually insists on our philosophic knowledge (Aristotle for instance) plus more. It is this additional information that is obviously difficult to accept. It is apparently so far ahead of its time that it would be reasonably if not obligatory for an expert to explain such an apparent discrepancy in the development of man.

 
Flag Post

No one has ever said some profound shit about the universe after eating mushrooms before, you’re right. Moses was a revolutionary. The grammar of a single line from a book is indication that the “creator” is a person, and you just happen to worship the right one. Give me a break.

 
Flag Post

Just because a book features several historical facts also documented by other sources does not mean the other claims in that same book are perfectly accurate.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

No one has ever said some profound shit about the universe after eating mushrooms before, you’re right. Moses was a revolutionary.

Although, mushrooms could explain many parts of the bible…Revelations seems like a really bad mushroom trip.

 
Flag Post

Just the start of an evidential review.

 
Flag Post

the point is that he cannot be conclusively disproved, ergo you cannot say that god isn’t real, the problem lies in the fact that technically we can’t prove his existance either, so we’re at a stand still until the end of time… but atheist theories range from sounding exactly like god to being rediculous(abiogenesis is both)