Could Jesus have been an alien?

[Maniacc]

Dawkins touts evolution as if it even remotely explains human origins (he admits it doesn't) and that human origins have to be a product of something else. Even though he describes evolution as a very intricate and structured process. I don't believe in his evolution version either by the way.

Then you get Christopher Hitchens, who hasn't made a valid argument yet, but gets off of bickering and name calling like a little british school girl. His strongest argument is the expansion of our universe, which only demonstrates that our universe is STILL submissive to the laws of its origin.

Fuck Dawkins and Hitchens. Who gives a shit about them. I know I don't. I do not follow their shit because I am my own God. I am me.

Now let's talk about Jesus and his powers.

Simple hallucinations are very easy to do nowadays. Chris Angels would be considered God if it weren't for scientists and their logical explanations for his tricks. If he performed all the stuff that he has 2000 years ago he'd been crucified too.

It really sucks that I won't be alive to see our society - change from religious people shaking their pompoms at God and look at 'life' for what it really is.

[Maniacc]

Ode to Yahweh (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6S8l4CJnsk)

Check this video out, dudes. It's very entertaining.

[sport_122]

Fuck Dawkins and Hitchens. Who gives a shit about them. I know I don't. I do not follow their shit because I am my own God. I am me.

[QUOTE]Simple hallucinations are very easy to do nowadays. Chris Angels would be considered God if it weren't for scientists and their logical explanations for his tricks. If he performed all the stuff that he has 2000 years ago he'd been crucified too.

Will you go write Chris Angel and see if he has a kill him, and come back to life three days later trick. Maybe he would let you do the beating, the thorns and the crucifying. Of course such a simple hallucination could be performed easily by him.


It really sucks that I won't be alive to see our society - change from religious people shaking their pompoms at God and look at 'life' for what it really is.

that is exactly what the humanists think. The close our society gets to what you wish for, the less likely we are to kill ourselves. Denial of the spiritual side of humanity is denial of a very important part of who you are. It would be like asking a dog to learn how to purr, scratch and climb like a cat.

But you have fun with being your own god. Fair warning. The whole self god thing has historically NOT worked for anyone yet. And since you are your own god you should not fret over what the world is doing. As your own god its about you. Just watch out for other people who are their own god, they are your worst nightmare, especially if you want something they want.

By the way, what you desire and embrace for your life is a struggle for me to rid myself of in mine. Humanism destroys.

[BABY J]

^^ As if Jesus has worked for any1 - LOL

[Maniacc]

that is exactly what the humanists think. The close our society gets to what you wish for, the less likely we are to kill ourselves. Denial of the spiritual side of humanity is denial of a very important part of who you are. It would be like asking a dog to learn how to purr, scratch and climb like a cat.

But you have fun with being your own god. Fair warning. The whole self god thing has historically NOT worked for anyone yet. And since you are your own god you should not fret over what the world is doing. As your own god its about you. Just watch out for other people who are their own god, they are your worst nightmare, especially if you want something they want.

By the way, what you desire and embrace for your life is a struggle for me to rid myself of in mine. Humanism destroys.

Sport, sport, sport. You have no idea how I am in person and how I think. The words that I am posting are my thoughts on the subject -- they don't really reflect on my actions as a person. People like me do not think the way we do to make things work. It's how we live and see life - just like how God plays a role in yours. You live by his rules and except the word of Christ.

Let me ask you this.

What is the meaning of life in your opinion? I'll answer my own question first.

There is no ultimate meaning of life. It's just a ride. What you get out of it you get out of it, but then you die and won't know/remember/care about it anyway. Life is a lot like a dream. It seems so real and so cool but in the end you wake up and can't remember any of it. Is it all for naught? I don't think so. Just enjoy it while you can.

What happened in your life that made you turn to God?

[geoff]

maniac...you asked who created God. NO ONE, and my reasoning behind this is that the universe that is subject to laws of physics and is not infinite can not have created itself cuz nothing has no potential to create anything. as in the first law of thermodynamics, matter cannnot be created nor destroyed in nature. meaning this...the cause responsible for creating the universe is greater than the universe as an effect cannot be greater than its cause. which in the end means the universe was created by someone or something that is above the laws of physics and is infinite.

no God did not give me God like powers. He gave me logic to use science and put the pieces together to know He is real and then He gave me His word the Holy Bible.

how is emptiness different from nothingness?:thinking: deffinition of emtiness: containing nothing; having none of the usual or appropriate contents: an empty bottle.

and you stated that only nothing can come from nothing. you just proved my point...there had to be something or someone that created it all.

you also said f@$k dawkins...atleast he has done studies and uses false scientific theories to explain his beliefs. what are you going off of? i have just given you scientific LAWS as to why God EXISTS and you still deny them. where is your logic? you seem to just be going off of emotions. try to put your logic aside for a second cuz you dont seem to be using it anyway and put your conscience into it. why is it impossible to have a creator? when you look at a painting...did it make itself or was there a painter? tell me WHY God cant exist.

and finally, Jesus and His miracles were not a majic act. raising a man from the dead after 4 days is not majic, it defies all laws of nature and Jesus was able to do it because He is not subject to the laws HE created, He IS GOD! not some majician.

[geoff]

the ultimate meaning to life is to love, to create life ( children), and to worship God our Father and Creator and to love Him and please Him. its a sad day when you believe your here just to die.

and you are your own god? did you create yourself? can you step out on nothing and with nothing and create anything at all? my friend the day you realize that you are just a mere man and are subject to the things of this world maybe then you will see your meant for a higher purpose then to live and just die.

[geoff]

you are not a god. your not you own god. you are subject to the laws of this world and must obey the natural laws. you have no power to create anything. you are a mere mortal man that has an end.

i would like to say this... athiests are right about one thing. when THEY die...nothing happens

[zimabog]

i would like to say this... athiests are right about one thing. when THEY die...nothing happens


so you changed your mind about us going to hell?

[geoff]

no im not one to judge. but for the non believers they experience the second death.

[sport_122]

^^ As if Jesus has worked for any1 - LOL

He works for me. :goodjob:

[Echonova]

Is it possible to prove that God does not exist? Of course, it is not possible to prove that all possible gods could not exist, since we do not possess all possible facts. Although we do not have a complete understanding of the universe, it is possible to prove that certain specific gods could not exist, using logical arguments. However, we are interested if there are proofs that the God of Christianity does not exist. It is important to correctly describe the God of Christianity, since arguing against the existence of a lesser god is not relevant. Therefore, for the sake of accuracy, in arguing against the existence of the Christian God, one must rely upon what the Bible claims as attributes of this God - regardless of whether or not one accepts the Bible as being true.

#1: The theodice problem:

We also have the theodice problem, stated by David Hume: If the evil in the world is intended by God he is not good. If it violates his intentions he is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since God is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Besides, if only God can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) created evil, how can one know that God, and not Satan created the universe?

It is true that God cannot be both almighty and good if you restrict Him to our level - three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. However, this God is not the God of reality or Christianity, since both the Bible and science would indicate that God must exist in more than three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. The Bible says the universe cannot contain God, indicating He must exist and operate in dimensions of space and time other than those to which we are confined. The Bible also says God created time and was acting before time began, confirming that God exists in at least two dimensions of time. A single dimension of time (a line) has a beginning point and can only travel in one direction. Two dimensions of time (a plane) has no beginning or ending so that a being existing in such a plane would be free to move to any point along any line of time within that plane.

Both of these descriptions of God are confirmed by what we know from science. According to particle physics and relativity, at least nine dimensions of space existed at the creation of the universe. God must be able to operate in all of those nine dimensions in order to have created the universe. A verse from the book of Hebrews indicates God created the universe out of some of the dimensions of space and time which are not visible to us. Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time. Not only space, but also time has a beginning - at the moment of creation. Therefore, if God created the universe, He was acting before the creation of time, indicating He exists in at least two dimensions of time. If God existed in only one dimension of time, then He would have had to have been created at one point. The Bible says God was not created, but has existed from eternity past to eternity future.

The main problem with this argument is a lack of understanding of the reason for the creation of the universe. The universe was not created to be good. God created the universe as a temporary testing site for creatures to choose to love Him or reject Him. God is good, but He has allowed His creatures free-will to do whatever they want within their limited dimensionality. God has designed the universe to operate under a set of physical principles, which He, only occasionally, suspends. If God were to suspend the laws of physics on a regular basis the universe would be a universe of chaos and unpredictability. Such as universe would not be a good testing ground for confused mortal beings. The purpose of the universe is to allow God's creatures the choice to love Him. Love is not possible without free-will. Therefore God chooses to allow His creatures the ability to do evil for the purpose of permitting them also to love. If God controlled everything we did, we could not demonstrate love, since we would be pre-programmed to respond. A computer cannot love, but free-will beings can.

The temporary nature of the universe and created beings requires that the universe operate under the law of entropy. If there were no entropy, we could not be tested since we would, by definition, be eternal and not have to face the mortality of our existence. Such an existence would not require our dependence upon God, since we would never have to face Him. The law of entropy guarantees our mortality and that we will suffer pain and death at some point. Neither pain nor death is evil from a Christian perspective. For example, pain is a necessary function in our lives. If we could not feel pain, we would end up causing serious damage to ourselves. Whenever I get burned, I move my hand rapidly away from the source of the pain. If I had no pain receptors, I would probably continue to burn my hand until I noticed the smoke. This would obviously not be a good thing to do. Likewise, death is required in a universe governed by entropy. Without animal death, very soon all the carbon on the earth would be bound in living organisms, with none available for photosynthesis.

Most atheists define evil according to their own interpretation. By defining evil as things they don't like, they have created a circular argument guaranteed to "prove the non-existence" of God. The Christian definition of evil is anything done by one of God's spirit beings (humans or angels) against Him (or His created beings). As such, God is never responsible for evil - only His created spirit beings.

Atheists say that since only God can create, therefore He must have created evil. However, at this point the atheist has redefined the meaning of create. Evil was not created. Evil is manifested (committed) by free-will beings. Nice play on words, but it doesn't stand up to examination.
#2: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies only to humans, since we a restricted to only one dimension of time. God, existing in two or more dimensions of time can know all properties of all particles, since He can exist at any point on our line of time any numbers of times. Therefore, God can measure both the position of a particle, remain at the same point on our line of time, then measure the speed of the same particle. Two dimensions of time allow one to do some pretty awesome things. Think about the implications of this characteristic of God.

#3: The ontological evidence

It is necessary that God is a being that is worth worshipping, so if there is no being worth worshipping there cannot be a God. Not any of the existing religions can provide such a God. Well if there is a being that has either failed or not tried to communicate with us that being is not worth worshipping either, so the ontological evidence against God holds, even without complete knowledge of the world.

There are several hundred million Christians who believe the Christian God is worth worshipping. However, there are other religions which worship other Gods. Therefore, this cannot be a valid criteria for determining whether God exists or not.

God both has and continues to communicate with humans. Men with which He has communicated have written His words in the Bible. Those who are born-again Christians communicate with God on a daily basis. When I was an agnostic, I didn't believe this could be possible. However, when I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, His Spirit indwells me and talks to me (The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, Romans 8:16).

There is a test, based on the ontological evidence against God, that you can do to try the existence of God. Pray, and ask God to provide you with a clear proof for his existence within a week. After that week, if you have got a proof that God exists, send me the evidence. If not, there are only three reasons I can think of that are plausible: (1) God does not exist, (2) God does not want to or (3) God can't give you this evidence. Because of the ontological evidence, alternative (2) and (3) are not worth your worship and thus they equal alternative (1). So if you get no response there is no God.

I am surprised that this example is listed as a test for the Christian God. There are some major problems with the validity of this test, since the Bible tells us this test will fail. The Old Testament tells us not to test God. This concept was reinforced by Jesus when He was tempted by Satan, who told Him to jump off the temple wall. Jesus cited the same verse from Deuteronomy not to test God. Therefore the only thing this test proves is that God is not the God of some non-Christian religion.

However, there is a test you can do which will give valid results. Jesus said, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16) "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him." (John 14:21) This is the only valid direct test for the Christian God's existence. However, it will cost you your life, and require you to bend your knee in submission. I can tell you from experience that Jesus will follow through with His promise and reveal Himself to you, and surprisingly, you will be filled with great joy.

"God is defined to be infinite, in which case it is not possible for there to be anything other than God because "infinite" is all-inclusive. But if there is nothing other than God then either God cannot be said to exist for the reason just explained, or God is the known world, in which case, by definition, God is not a God."

The Bible never defines God as infinite, but defines Him as existing beyond the limitations of our four dimensional universe. This does not mean that He is infinite. Some Christians have said that God is infinite, but this concept cannot be supported biblically. The only characteristic of God described as infinite is His knowledge or understanding. Therefore, the argument does not hold, since the God of Christianity is not described as being physically infinite.

#4: Occam's razor

Occam's razor was formulated by William of Occam (1285-1349) and says: "Non est ponenda pluralites sive necessitate" or in English: "Do not multiply entities unless necessarily". It is a principle for scientific labor which means that one should use a simple explanation with a few explanatory premises before a more complex one.

Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent God. A God which stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in himself has his own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning.

Occam's razor is actually a good argument for the existence of God. I will explain shortly. Contrary to the statements above, the universe cannot replace God as explanation for its own existence. The universe is finite in both size and time. The universe had a beginning in finite time at the moment of the Big Bang. How did this universe decide to create itself? How did the universe design itself with physical laws and parameters exactly fine tuned to support life? The laws of physics are designed with such precision that it is almost inconceivable that they could be the result of chance. For example, take the ratio of the number of electrons to protons. This ratio must be exactly equal to one to one to better than one part in 1037 (10 to the 37th power, or "1" followed by 37 zeros), otherwise electromagnetic forces would have superseded gravitational forces and no galaxies, stars or planets would have ever formed in the entire history of the universe. The likelihood of this occurring by chance is described below:

One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billion of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037.

Other constants of physics, such as the expansion rate of the universe, are fine-tuned even more delicately, as small as one part in 1055. Random chance does not design such a well-crafted universe. All the atheistic explanations for such an exquisitely defined universe require the presence of trillions of other universes, of which ours is the one which happened, by chance, to have the exact physics required for the formation of galaxies, stars and planets. Therefore the atheistic explanation actually goes against Occam's razor since it requires some mechanism by which universes can sprout from some super universe and randomly change their laws of physics. If one were to calculate the number of universes required, by chance, to have the exact physics required for the formation of galaxies, stars and planets, it would exceed 1010000 (talk about multiplying entities!). The mechanism by which physical laws could randomly evolve would add further complexity. Design by an intelligent designer is obviously a much simpler explanation. Check these papers for some of the other parameters for both the universe and our planet, which are designed to exact standards.

The statement that "the world stands above time" is false. The universe stands within time, having come into existence at time = 0. See Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.

"Most theists agree that God has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created God's nature? If we just accept that God has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?"

God is uncreated, therefore His nature is just as eternal as He is. Although it is possible the universe and the physical laws could exist without a cause, 1 in 1010000 is not exactly what one would call good betting odds. It would be much more likely that your car's engine would thermodynamically reverse itself (i.e., freeze solid instead of warm up) every time you started it.
#5: Some things are impossible to do

There are things that are impossible to do. For example nobody can cover a two-dimensional surface with two-dimensional circles, without making them overlap. It is impossible to add the numbers two and two and get 666. You can not go back in time (without passing an infinite entropy barrier). The number of things that are impossible to do are almost infinite. If God were to be almighty he would be able to do them, but it's impossible to do so.

Contradictions are not possible by definition. Therefore they are impossible by definition in this four dimensional universe. All the things that are impossible in our universe are so because they are defined to be impossible. If you restrict God to our four dimensional universe, He would, likewise, be unable to do those things. However, God is not restricted to our universe. In addition, God can do anything if He changed the laws of physics, which He promises to do in the New Creation.

Some people say that he can only do things that are logically possible to do, but what is? Is it logically possible to walk on water? Is it logically possible to rise from the dead? Is it logically possible to stand above time, space and all other dimensions - and still exist? I'd say that everything which violates the laws of physics are logically impossible and thus omnipotence is logically impossible. Besides if omnipotence is a relative quality there is no way to tell omnipotence from non-omnipotence. For omnipotence to be a valid expression it must be absolute, but we have no objective criteria to measure omnipotence so the word itself is useless.

Definition of miracle: Something that violates the laws of physics. God can suspend the laws of physics to provide proof for His existence. He does this on occasion, but not routinely, since routine suspension of physical laws would drive us crazy - nothing would be predictable. Not only is it logically possible to stand above our dimensions of time and space, it is required, according to particle physics studies, for the universe to have come into existence.
#6: God's omniscience restricts His free will

Also, if God knows everything, he knows what he will do in the "future" (in any dimension, not necessary the time dimension). He must have known that from the very start of his own existence. Thus God's actions are predestined. God is tied by faith, he has no free will. If God has no free will God is not omnipotent. Another way to put it is that to be able to make plans and decisions one must act over time. If God stands above time he can not do that and has no free will. Indeed, if God stands above all dimensions God is dimensionless - a singularity, nothing, void!

The Christian God exists in at least two time dimensions, therefore His free-will is not hindered by our dimension of time. He stands both above and within our time line, since our line of time runs through His plane of time. The argument totally falls apart at this point.
#7: God cannot be almighty and allow free will simultaneously

Besides there can exist no free wills at all if God is almighty. If you had a free will, God wouldn't know what you would do tomorrow and wouldn't be omnipotent.

The two dimensions of time take care of this one, too. God knows what each person will do and can put him anywhere in our time line to accomplish His purposes. Complete free-will and complete predestination is possible in two dimensions of time. However, this concept may require some time to think about.

#8: God must be created so why does the universe need a Creator

If everything must have been created, then God must have been created as well. If God is not created, then everything mustn't have a creator, so why should life or cosmos have one?

The Christian God exists in two dimensions of time, by definition being uncreated. The universe exists in only one dimension of time, which Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose tell us must have begun at the moment of the Big Bang. Therefore the universe must have been created at the beginning of our dimension of time. Most scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. It is possible that some multiverse (super-universe) created our universe, but there is no observational evidence to support this idea. Despite the lack of evidence, most atheists who know anything about cosmology believe in the existence of some kind of multiverse.

[Echonova]

Had to break it into two sections:

#9: If God created time and space, he must live outside of time and space. Thus he is non-existent.

The logical conclusion is that God must live outside of our dimensions of time and space in addition to living within our dimensions of time and space. The unstated assumption that God cannot live both within and outside space and time simultaneously is false. Since science tells us for God to exist and to have created the universe, He must exist in at least 11 dimensions of space and time (the four within the dimensions of our universe and at least 7 outside of those dimensions). Therefore He is extradimensional, and probably not composed of ordinary matter, but this does not make Him non-existent. The Bible is also clear that God exists both within our universe and outside of it.
#10: God has never contacted me. He must not exist.

We would never notice God: This is not an evidence against God, but rather describes the lack of sense in praying to a God who stands above time.

However, the Christian God exists both within and outside of our single dimension of time. Existing in at least two dimensions of time, God is not restricted to always following our time line, but can, through His second dimension of time, spend as much time as He likes at any point on our time line. This concept is stated biblically in 2 Peter. Therefore, if 100 million people are praying to Him simultaneously, He is able to stay at that point in our time line for as long as necessary to hear and respond to their prayers.
#11: God cannot be involved in our universe if He stands above our time dimension

If God stands above time and created time and space he can not be the first link in a time dependent chain of events. Rather he would affect every step in all chains, and we would only see God in the laws of physics (Davies, 1983, chapter 4). This God is an unnecessary entity to describe the world and should be removed with Occam's razor.

Again, the author fails to recognize the Christian God exists in at least two dimensions of time, as such He is not bound by the chains of events tied to our single dimension of time. Davies book is out of date and he lacks understanding of Christian doctrine. His later comments reflect a different understanding of the universe and its design:

* "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
* "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

#12: If God existed, prayer would have already changed the world into the best possible world.

If somebody would pray to God and God would listen, the laws would change to achieve the desired result. Thus the world would be different and the prayer would never have been said. Besides God would already (in an "above time" sense of view) know that you would pray, and already have changed the world. Prayers would be totally meaningless. We would already live in the best world possible, and any prayer would be to doubt the wisdom of God.

Again, a complete lack of understanding of the Christian reason for prayer. Prayer is communication with God. Communication is a two way conversation, not a monologue of telling God what to do. If Christians were perfect, every prayer would be answered because we would always be within the will of God. However, as most people are well aware, Christians are not perfect and often pray against God's will. God will not do anything against His will and therefore will not grant our selfish requests. I could pray that God would let me win the lottery (if I played it). However, God knows that I would become greedy, buy all kinds of computers and gadgets, and ignore Him. It is in my best interest that I remain middle class (it might even be better for my spiritual life if I become poor - I hope not!). The main problem is that we are stupid and selfish creatures, and don't really know what is best for us. However, God, being omniscient, does know what is best for us. Therefore, the purpose of prayer is not to tell God what to do, but to be conformed to the will of God (i.e., listen to Him).
#13: Only things that can be sensed with the five senses are meaningful to discus. Therefore, all discussion about God is meaningless.

Logical positivism is based upon the verification principle, which states that for a statement to be meaningful, it has to be either true by definition or verifiable by one or more of the five senses. This means that all discussion about God should be considered meaningless. However, the verification principle itself fails its own test, since it cannot be verified by any of the five senses. It is a self-refuting principle, and, therefore, logically flawed.
Nobody really believes in God

Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the SoulMany atheists tend to stereotype Christians as stupid, uneducated people. However, I personally know dozens of scientists who are Christians, and not only believe in God, but can rationally present evidence for His existence. In our department at the Research Institute of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center we have no atheists - although we have one agnostic. All the other people - 4 M.D.'s, 2 Ph.D.'s, 3 R.N.'s, and the others, with B.S.'s or M.S.'s - are theistic. Christianity specifically calls people to use their brains. As Robert Griffiths (Heinemann prize in mathematical physics) stated:

"If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use."

It is the atheist who now denies the implications of modern cosmology and physics because they imply the existence of a Creator. Those who believe the Big Bang correctly describes the origin of the universe, must admit that the universe had a beginning in finite time and space. Did it just pop into existence on its own? Did it just happen to have exactly the right physical laws and constants required for life? It is the atheist who must believe in miracles to explain our existence. Therefore, John Gribbin, an atheist physicist has stated:

"The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is philosophical - perhaps even theological - what was there before the bang?"

The primary objection to the Big Bang and its implications is this "God problem," not because of a lack of scientific evidence. Geoffrey Burbidge, astronomer from U.C. San Diego has recognized the implications of the 1992 COBE satellite discoveries, when he complained that his fellow astronomers were rushing off to join, "the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang."

The fact that the evidence in support of the existence of God has increased in recent years is also a problem. According to atheists, science is supposed to get rid of the gaps, so that there is no longer any room for a "god of the gaps." This evidence has convinced some famous atheists to become deists (e.g., Antony Flew) or even Christians (e.g., Frank Tipler).
If God exists, how can we know what religion properly describes Him?

If God is so mysterious, how can we know anything about him? Through the Bible? How do we know that the Bible and not the Koran or the Vedha books, for example, are the words of God? (or the Bible if you believe in any of the other two books). Considering the cruelties that have been made in the name of God, how do we know that not all religions are made by Satan?

The God of the Koran and Hindu Vedas are Gods restricted to the time and space dimensions of this universe and, therefore, are logically impossible (check out some of your own proofs). In addition, most of these books contain scientific absurdities. All the so-called holy books base their claim of authority on the basis of fulfilled prophecy. Most of these prophecies are either vague or conditional, making them essentially untestable. The highest percentage of prophecy fulfillment, other than the Bible is 50%, with many other prophecies proven to be false. In contrast, the Bible names people, places and dates in remarkable detail, with 2,000 of the nearly 2,500 prophecies already fulfilled, and none provably false. The remaining prophecies are reserved for the end-times, which have yet to have happened.

I absolutely agree with atheists who say that many atrocious things have been done in the name of God, even in the name of Christianity. However, these atrocities were not perpetrated by God, but by evil human beings. Remember the words of Jesus:

"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'" (Matthew 7:22-23)

Not all who claim the name of Jesus are actually His disciples. My guess is that in even the best of Christian churches only about half of the people truly are Christians. Christianity should be judged on the basis of what Jesus said and did, not on the basis of what people do who merely claim to be Christians.

[sport_122]

Sport, sport, sport. You have no idea how I am in person and how I think. The words that I am posting are my thoughts on the subject -- they don't really reflect on my actions as a person. People like me do not think the way we do to make things work. It's how we live and see life - just like how God plays a role in yours. You live by his rules and except the word of Christ.

Let me ask you this.

What is the meaning of life in your opinion? I'll answer my own question first.

There is no ultimate meaning of life. It's just a ride. What you get out of it you get out of it, but then you die and won't know/remember/care about it anyway. Life is a lot like a dream. It seems so real and so cool but in the end you wake up and can't remember any of it. Is it all for naught? I don't think so. Just enjoy it while you can.

What happened in your life that made you turn to God?

you are right. I have no earthly idea how you are in person. And all I can do is formulate based off of your posts.

To answer your question: The meaning of my life and the purpose of my life are not the same so I will give both.

I believe that the purpose of this life is to love and learn to understand the God of our universe. I often wonder if it is about getting us ready to experience his universe in a greater scope. But I believe that I am supposed to learn how to understand myself in relation to him. To learn who he is and to experience him in a way that is not available to all creation. This was a very long path for me to become a believer and it still continues now. I spent lots of time discussing thing with my professors, church pastors and friends who are in or went to seminary. I have studied and read tons on apologetics and I have read a ton on atheism and alternative theories.

I find that the alternate theories do not work for me. They leave very large holes for faith and confusion and question, but refuse to acknowledge the evidence of a God out of spite and denial. Even Steven Hawkins changed his initial big bang theory because it left a very large gap in logic that was (even to him) only logically filled by a transcendent God. So in order to avoid God, he changed his theory. To me this is error and fallacy beyond belief. He made scientific observations, and changed them not because his observations were flawed but because he did not like the conclusion. I could not accept this because I would know that every time I discussed God, I was not really arguing in disbelief, I would be arguing in denial of the evidence and denial of what is demonstrated by EVERYTHING we have known, and will know in the future. Knowing that some of the greatest minds who were arguing against believers were sitting in their labs observing our universe and seeing evidence in the cosmos that supported the arguments of the apologists yet lying on stage and in books to people like you and me.

But as i have said the evidence is there.

My life is becoming dedicated to making sure that the believers in my church are NOT ignorant. That they understand their reasons for faith and that they embrace knowledge in all arenas as it is ALL evidence of God, and his love for us. This is joy for me, and I am strengthing every time I discuss these things with a believer or non-believer, because when you are on the side of truth, you do not have to fear, as truth always survives and it stands on its own.

[sport_122]

very nice...LOOOOOOONG, but good read.

[Echonova]

Yea.. I couldn't fit it into one post. Apparently anything over 20,000 characters is too long.


Lulz.

[zimabog]

It was cute, at most.

[sport_122]

Yea.. I couldn't fit it into one post. Apparently anything over 20,000 characters is too long.


Lulz.



and I don't know if anyone else knew that rule until now.

[geoff]

so we now have all these peices of evidence that God does exist. studies, physical laws, ect... where are the athiests now? where is your scientific proof or evidence? all i have seen is the believers providing everything they have and the athiest simply saying, " thats stupid and cant be right". that is the extent of their proof.

[Maniacc]

I am not even going to bother with that huge wall of text.

Geo can you cut down all the evidence that proves God really existed and post it in a quote format.

[quickdodge®]

so we now have all these peices of evidence that God does exist. studies, physical laws, ect...

Lolol. I left the thread because there will never be scientific, actual, materialistic evidence of the existence of God. Later, QD.

[geoff]

for someone that wanted scientific evidence and wanted us to provide you with everything we had your gonna sit there and not even take the time to read it? that shows me you have no genuine desire to know the truth or to hear evidence of it. you just believe whatever you WANT not what is proven so in that case it really doesnt matter how much proof we provide. it will never be enough for you cuz you truly dont desire or care to know

[Maniacc]

for someone that wanted scientific evidence and wanted us to provide you with everything we had your gonna sit there and not even take the time to read it? that shows me you have no genuine desire to know the truth or to hear evidence of it. you just believe whatever you WANT not what is proven so in that case it really doesnt matter how much proof we provide. it will never be enough for you cuz you truly dont desire or care to know
I do care.

I just have to be at work at 3pm and don't have time. Just do it, Geo. In the name of God.

[TheProfiteer]

for someone that wanted scientific evidence and wanted us to provide you with everything we had your gonna sit there and not even take the time to read it? that shows me you have no genuine desire to know the truth or to hear evidence of it. you just believe whatever you WANT not what is proven so in that case it really doesnt matter how much proof we provide. it will never be enough for you cuz you truly dont desire or care to know

I havent seen a single piece of "proof" all ive heard is you blabbering like an idiot.


lol see sig for "proof"

[d993s]

Lolol. I left the thread because there will never be scientific, actual, materialistic evidence of the existence of God. Later, QD.

I came back to the thread cause it's still funny.
Of course there is no scientific, actual, or materialistic evidence. :rolleyes:
It's impossible to extract all that from BELIEF OR FAITH, NO MATTER HOW STRONGLY YOU BELIEVE OR HOW MUCH FAITH YOU HAVE!
THE END!

Anything after this will be in PS: format.

[geoff]

for the two above me. obviously you two have not learned to read. there is the proof. put your eyes to the posts and try to use your brain to comprehend it. i promise its not that difficult. and im sorry profiteer but that is how you spell conscience. and maniac to quote all the evidence would be to just repost what i had said, sport had said, and the other guy. take the time to read it after work if you trully do care. its really good stuff. and +1 to you for actually having interest instead of just writing it off cuz you just dont care

[geoff]

i know its long to read maniac but if your trully seeking all the evidence in both sides of the arguement to be able to come to your own logical conclusion then please do read from pages 12-14 of this thread. God bless

[quickdodge®]

and +1 to you for actually having interest instead of just writing it off cuz you just dont care

Yeah because I'm just writing it off. Later, QD.

[geoff]

QD i respect you man, mostly cuz your car is nasty, but if you trully want to seek knowlegde you have to take ALL of it into consideration. what part do you want me to explain exactly as it is all there in these posts?

[quickdodge®]

QD i respect you man, mostly cuz your car is nasty, but if you trully want to seek knowlegde you have to take ALL of it into consideration. what part do you want me to explain exactly as it is all there in these posts?

I'll be honest dude. You don't have to explain anything to me. I will guarantee that it won't change my mind. Like I said, I believe God may be out there. We came from somewhere. But I'm just the type that likes to have claims backed up with real evidence. All I see are interpretation of what people get from stuff written hundreds of years ago. To me it's just like sitting in English Lit. class and having my assignment be to write down my interpretation of a Shakespeare play. I believe some of your beliefs about things are way off base, but it's all good. Later, QD.

[d993s]

for the two above me. obviously you two have not learned to read. there is the proof. put your eyes to the posts and try to use your brain to comprehend it. i promise its not that difficult. and im sorry profiteer but that is how you spell conscience. and maniac to quote all the evidence would be to just repost what i had said, sport had said, and the other guy. take the time to read it after work if you trully do care. its really good stuff. and +1 to you for actually having interest instead of just writing it off cuz you just dont care

Yes, you're absolutely right. Somebody WROTE that.
That's the proof, isn't it?...that somebody wrote it.
Well fuck, in that case I'm not doubting it one bit! :lmfao:

[geoff]

well i respect you for that man. we are each entitled to believe what we want with the evidence provided. i have alot of claims to back me up. studies from all kinds of scientists, natural laws, ect...if your looking to use your 5 senses to believe in God then your in for dissapointment. you cant touch, feel, taste, smell, or hear the laws of causation or thermodynamcs yet you know that they are real cuz of the natural world around you.

and just curious QD, you dont have to go into detail if you dont want, but you said that you believe some of my beliefs are way off base...what would those be?

[geoff]

d993s...if you look at all scientific evidence the way your interpreting it then that means we cant trully believe in anything. How do you know that gravity is real if you cant feel it or touch it or hear or smell or taste it? because in some point in time a man did a study and WROTE down his findings to explain it and you believe that man yes? i have said it once and i will say it again, for you there is no such thing as enough evidence. when you die, as we all do, and stand before your maker then you will believe.

[d993s]

d993s...if you look at all scientific evidence the way your interpreting it then that means we cant trully believe in anything. How do you know that gravity is real if you cant feel it or touch it or hear or smell or taste it? because in some point in time a man did a study and WROTE down his findings to explain it and you believe that man yes? i have said it once and i will say it again, for you there is no such thing as enough evidence. when you die, as we all do, and stand before your maker then you will believe.

Simple: THERE IS UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP

My makers were my mother and father. Again, EVIDENCE.

[quickdodge®]

well i respect you for that man. we are each entitled to believe what we want with the evidence provided. i have alot of claims to back me up. studies from all kinds of scientists, natural laws, ect...if your looking to use your 5 senses to believe in God then your in for dissapointment. you cant touch, feel, taste, smell, or hear the laws of causation or thermodynamcs yet you know that they are real cuz of the natural world around you.

All the scientific studies conducted show there is something around us alright. But it doesn't point to anything in particular.


and just curious QD, you dont have to go into detail if you dont want, but you said that you believe some of my beliefs are way off base...what would those be?

One of them being the other discussion...about animals. Later, QD.

[geoff]

to your first comment: yes all evidence points to there being something else...in the end its your faith to believe that that something/someone else is God. just the same as you have faith to believe that the law of thermodynamics or gravity is real.

second comment: about the animals. i could be wrong...i honestly dont know.

[quickdodge®]

to your first comment: yes all evidence points to there being something else...in the end its your faith to believe that that something/someone else is God. just the same as you have faith to believe that the law of thermodynamics or gravity is real.

second comment: about the animals. i could be wrong...i honestly dont know.

Kudos to your entire post, man.

I do hope everything you believe is what it is. And in a way, I believe the same. Just too many questions make me seem to be a total non-believer. Later, QD.

[geoff]

i have plenty of questions too man. i wonder alot of things and it seems that no one or nothing can answer them. we just all have to have some faith in something at one point or another in our lives. my faith is in the bible and in God. for others its in themselves. the point is that to every question there is but one absolute answer.

[d993s]

i have plenty of questions too man. i wonder alot of things and it seems that no one or nothing can answer them. we just all have to have some faith in something at one point or another in our lives. my faith is in the bible and in God. for others its in themselves. the point is that to every question there is but one absolute answer.

Do you ever wonder if you would ride a horsecock if god asked you to???
I asked you this earlier. (are you considering it???)

[TheProfiteer]

d993s...if you look at all scientific evidence the way your interpreting it then that means we cant trully believe in anything. How do you know that gravity is real if you cant feel it or touch it or hear or smell or taste it? because in some point in time a man did a study and WROTE down his findings to explain it and you believe that man yes? i have said it once and i will say it again, for you there is no such thing as enough evidence. when you die, as we all do, and stand before your maker then you will believe.

the 5 sense are what culminate to what we call perception. In order for humanity to even come up with laws of thermodynamics and causation the effects of such laws need to be perceived. So your argument right there is thrown out the window.

God, Heaven, Hell, The Holy Spirit, cannot be perceived at all, not even indirectly, so the only proof that god exists, exists in faith.

Tell me thats not true, that faith is really the only driving force behind all theological movements.

[sport_122]

the 5 sense are what culminate to what we call perception. In order for humanity to even come up with laws of thermodynamics and causation the effects of such laws need to be perceived. So your argument right there is thrown out the window.

God, Heaven, Hell, The Holy Spirit, cannot be perceived at all, not even indirectly, so the only proof that god exists, exists in faith.

Tell me thats not true, that faith is really the only driving force behind all theological movements.

That is NOT true.

You are trying to walk the middle while playing for one side. But you still are ignoring that there is reason for faith. Based on your logic, faith is the driving force behind ALL things as all things in and of themselves require us to have faith in. But if people of faith are able to see reason and logic as demonstrated in their very universe then we can draw a reasonable conclusion that the universe itself is giving off evidence to drive the theological debate.

Just like in science. there are reasons to believe in some theories that have not been tested or demonstrated, and there are reasons to not believe in some. And usually when science finds evidence that something is going on, a process is discovered, or better understood. So based on your definition science is just as much about faith as anything else.

So if the 5 senses lead to perception then when does perception ever become reality. Because beyond those senses we have nothing left to understand our universe with. Are you suggesting that our entire universe is all perception. If that is the case then you have no reason to ever ask for proof because ALL things are interpreted by men using the same five senses which (according to you) only give us perception but never any truth.

What is real, because now we are hitting on the philosophical arguments that tell us that we can only have faith in our senses to define reality, if we understand our universe to be submissive to an external laws and forces, which logically have to have existed before our universe started (as demonstrated by the expansion of our universe). This law tells us that it is safe to say that we know something is going to happen because our universe behaves with a specific set of guidelines and does not act outside of those rules. So our observations can logically be turned into knowledge. If you reduce human understanding down to the five senses then you close the door to understanding the part where those senses have to come together and generate some sort of response.

[TheProfiteer]

That is NOT true.

You are trying to walk the middle while playing for one side. But you still are ignoring that there is reason for faith. Based on your logic, faith is the driving force behind ALL things as all things in and of themselves require us to have faith in. But if people of faith are able to see reason and logic as demonstrated in their very universe then we can draw a reasonable conclusion that the universe itself is giving off evidence to drive the theological debate.

Just like in science. there are reasons to believe in some theories that have not been tested or demonstrated, and there are reasons to not believe in some. And usually when science finds evidence that something is going on, a process is discovered, or better understood. So based on your definition science is just as much about faith as anything else.

So if the 5 senses lead to perception then when does perception ever become reality. Because beyond those senses we have nothing left to understand our universe with. Are you suggesting that our entire universe is all perception. If that is the case then you have no reason to ever ask for proof because ALL things are interpreted by men using the same five senses which (according to you) only give us perception but never any truth.

What is real, because now we are hitting on the philosophical arguments that tell us that we can only have faith in our senses to define reality, if we understand our universe to be submissive to an external laws and forces, which logically have to have existed before our universe started (as demonstrated by the expansion of our universe). This law tells us that it is safe to say that we know something is going to happen because our universe behaves with a specific set of guidelines and does not act outside of those rules. So our observations can logically be turned into knowledge. If you reduce human understanding down to the five senses then you close the door to understanding the part where those senses have to come together and generate some sort of response.


Hey there man, dont go drawing conclusions on my behalf. You turned a simple comment into something unnecessarily deeper. We can have a discussion on reality, but this is not the thread for it.

I simply stated, that scientific discoveries, theorems, hypotheses, ect ect are initially derived from the perception of an occurrence. IE: Rain, a shooting star, an earthquake, a flood, birth, ect ect. So in order to logically draw a conclusion said occurrence must be observed and studied. Nothing in religion can be observed and studied, other than its detrimental effect on society and the world.

Religion, and I say this with emphasis, MODERN ORGANIZED RELIGION. Serves you a cold plate of "their truth." This is whats right, you will believe this, if not well then you burn in hell."

I say this now, and I will say it again. Christianity, Islam, and Judiasim, to a lesser extent because they are not as evangelical as the other two, are a blight to the world and are inhibiting the progress of humanity. The very nature of man, the most significant thing that separates us from animals is our thirst for knowledge, the drive to question is put in jeopardy because of religion. When we ignore the fact that we do not have the answer to where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going. We stop looking, because the teachings of philosophers of the past were bastardized and manipulated into a societal tool to maintain social cohesion, that is what we know as religion. Its a processes thousands of years old, and humanity has reached an age where the slow yet sure demise of religion is at hand. It will not happen in our life time but centuries from now religion will see its darkest days.


"Faith: not wanting to know what is true." Friedrich Nietzsche

[trini_gsr]

Hey there man, dont go drawing conclusions on my behalf. You turned a simple comment into something unnecessarily deeper. We can have a discussion on reality, but this is not the thread for it.

I simply stated, that scientific discoveries, theorems, hypotheses, ect ect are initially derived from the perception of an occurrence. IE: Rain, a shooting star, an earthquake, a flood, birth, ect ect. So in order to logically draw a conclusion said occurrence must be observed and studied. Nothing in religion can be observed and studied, other than its detrimental effect on society and the world.

Religion, and I say this with emphasis, MODERN ORGANIZED RELIGION. Serves you a cold plate of "their truth." This is whats right, you will believe this, if not well then you burn in hell."

I say this now, and I will say it again. Christianity, Islam, and Judiasim, to a lesser extent because they are not as evangelical as the other two, are a blight to the world and are inhibiting the progress of humanity. The very nature of man, the most significant thing that separates us from animals is our thirst for knowledge, the drive to question is put in jeopardy because of religion. When we ignore the fact that we do not have the answer to where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going. We stop looking, because the teachings of philosophers of the past were bastardized and manipulated into a societal tool to maintain social cohesion, that is what we know as religion. Its a processes thousands of years old, and humanity has reached an age where the slow yet sure demise of religion is at hand. It will not happen in our life time but centuries from now religion will see its darkest days.


the man has a point :D

sport122 is taking the discussion on a deeper level - it does boil down to the philosophical debate between materialism and idealism as far as describing our reality. i'm an idealist, by the way. but profiteer is right, that's a discussion for a different thread.

the problem i have with 'religions' is that they are too static. as we gain a better understanding of the universe around us, it's natural that our views on the supernatural/spiritual are going to change too. I believe that God is dynamic and rational, and we have the drive to discover the secrets of our universe because we were created as rational beings. But while science will give us the "how", it will never answer the question of "why". this is what spirituality is for.

i see what you're getting at, profiteer, but to say that religions are a blight to the world and inhibit progress is taking it a bit too far. religion plays a key role in stressing the importance of morality in a society - i would argue that this too is needed to create the right environment for intellectual progress, although the merits of it might not be as tangible. remember too that religion is a social construct created by the same humans who you say are thirsting for knowledge and striving for progress ;). it may be flawed (which one of our social constructs aren't?) but it serves its purpose.

[TheProfiteer]

the man has a point :D

sport122 is taking the discussion on a deeper level - it does boil down to the philosophical debate between materialism and idealism as far as describing our reality. i'm an idealist, by the way. but profiteer is right, that's a discussion for a different thread.

the problem i have with 'religions' is that they are too static. as we gain a better understanding of the universe around us, it's natural that our views on the supernatural/spiritual are going to change too. I believe that God is dynamic and rational, and we have the drive to discover the secrets of our universe because we were created as rational beings. But while science will give us the "how", it will never answer the question of "why". this is what spirituality is for.

i see what you're getting at, profiteer, but to say that religions are a blight to the world and inhibit progress is taking it a bit too far. religion plays a key role in stressing the importance of morality in a society - i would argue that this too is needed to create the right environment for intellectual progress, although the merits of it might not be as tangible. remember too that religion is a social construct created by the same humans who you say are thirsting for knowledge and striving for progress ;). it may be flawed (which one of our social constructs aren't?) but it serves its purpose.

no, I dont think so. You see religion drives morality through fear. "be good or, or what we define as good, or you will burn in hell"

Instead morality should be taught from a human perspective, a respect for human life as well as all the life around it. The moral teachings of religion are only enforced by the threat of hell. While societies intrepertation of morality is enforced by a set of laws and consequences, which is how it should be.

[trini_gsr]

no, I dont think so. You see religion drives morality through fear. "be good or, or what we define as good, or you will burn in hell"

Instead morality should be taught from a human perspective, a respect for human life as well as all the life around it. The moral teachings of religion are only enforced by the threat of hell. While societies intrepertation of morality is enforced by a set of laws and consequences, which is how it should be.

how is this different from the government saying "follow these laws and pay your taxes...or else you're going to JAIL"??? are they not driving obedience (aka "enforcing") through fear too?

most religions do exactly what you've mentioned...teach respect for human life and all of God's creation. and not all of them teach that there is punishment (hell) after death. not even all CHRISTIAN denominations believe in hell/torment.

[sport_122]

no, I dont think so. You see religion drives morality through fear. "be good or, or what we define as good, or you will burn in hell"

Instead morality should be taught from a human perspective, a respect for human life as well as all the life around it. The moral teachings of religion are only enforced by the threat of hell. While societies intrepertation of morality is enforced by a set of laws and consequences, which is how it should be.

It is very difficult to even start to talk about morality from the religion (or for me, the christian) perspective without talking about justice.

Morality from the human perspective does not work. This is demonstrated by justice systems all over the world. As the climate of society changes in a culture then so does the quality of its justice system along with this change is a shift in morality (look at Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Russia, southern states of America with regards to blacks and slavery, or Rome etc). So what happens when you want to base morality on the human perspective is that you get an ever changing system of rules. This eliminates the certainty aspect of law and leaves it open to corrupt interpretation. This is a part of the humanistic approach and has lead to some of the most horrible times in our recent history. This mentality has infiltrated the faith systems of our world and is what is usually the first thing that comes to mind when people discuss the legalistic nature of the Christian faith.

And all systems drive morality the same way. But what you call fear can be attributed to the idea of some of our hedonistic traits and the idea of a deterrent. This is not a manmade construct. We learned to do this because it is what God does with us. To demonstrate to us that He is Just and just as his law has not changed neither will his character. In fact, this is the very reason that we believe death comes to all men, because all men have broken the laws of an eternal God. Basically, both the hedonistic and deterrent principles tell us that people will seek out the road of less pain in order to achieve their goals of having more pleasure in life. These concepts guide justice systems around the entire world and they drive ALL concepts of morality. I believe this is for the reason I just stated, that we are acting not out of our development, but we are acting out of the fabric of our existence.

Even the very concept of justice is based off of these principles. Justice encompasses rule of law, punishment for breaking the law. Without the punishment for breaking any law, that law becomes void and is ignored. There is no punishment, there is no pain or nothing bad that will happen if you break the law, so you just do what you want to do. At that point there is NO justice and NO law. The opposite is what you see heavily demonstrated in religions, not because its about fear but because the laws are not subject to change as the ones made by humans. This is one of the reasons why I would argue that God is not dynamic, but he is very static. I would also argue that this is the problem that many in our society have with him, that his law is not subject to the same types of free passes as our court systems. And as we change, we really want our decline in morality to be supported by all, but the people who subscribe to a spiritual, eternal law cannot rightly make these changes. We cannot rightly say that we agree with homosexuality, we cannot say we agree with abortion, we cannot say we agree with many things because we believe the moral code of our universe is violated by these things.

[TheProfiteer]

how is this different from the government saying "follow these laws and pay your taxes...or else you're going to JAIL"??? are they not driving obedience (aka "enforcing") through fear too?

most religions do exactly what you've mentioned...teach respect for human life and all of God's creation. and not all of them teach that there is punishment (hell) after death. not even all CHRISTIAN denominations believe in hell/torment.


true, but I am mostly referring to the evangelical zealots, and there is a high number of them too.

Government exists out of necessity, religion also sprang up out of necessity, but the need for our static religions like you said is dying.

Now that we have religious freedom in our age, new beliefs and faiths are springing up, some crazy and loony creations of centuries ago like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, to some more modern religions like Scientology.

There are other religions that put an emphasis on the faith of self discovery, such as Buddhism, and have never waged war on behalf of their religious figure head.

Christianity's and Islam's history are riddled with crusades and Jihads and just nonsense blood shed and genocide. Along with events such as the Spanish inquisition. With this history in mind every time a holy rolling jesus freak ever preaches the power of his all powerful and benevolent god, all I hear are words of hypocrisy.


Christianity and Islam really are bad religions, maybe not because of their teachings, but definitely because of their history.


Remember at one point Hitler claimed his conquest was for god.

[TheProfiteer]

It is very difficult to even start to talk about morality from the religion (or for me, the christian) perspective without talking about justice.

Morality from the human perspective does not work. This is demonstrated by justice systems all over the world. As the climate of society changes in a culture then so does the quality of its justice system along with this change is a shift in morality (look at Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Russia, southern states of America with regards to blacks and slavery, or Rome etc). So what happens when you want to base morality on the human perspective is that you get an ever changing system of rules. This eliminates the certainty aspect of law and leaves it open to corrupt interpretation. This is a part of the humanistic approach and has lead to some of the most horrible times in our recent history. This mentality has infiltrated the faith systems of our world and is what is usually the first thing that comes to mind when people discuss the legalistic nature of the Christian faith.

And all systems drive morality the same way. But what you call fear can be attributed to the idea of some of our hedonistic traits and the idea of a deterrent. This is not a manmade construct. We learned to do this because it is what God does with us. To demonstrate to us that He is Just and just as his law has not changed neither will his character. In fact, this is the very reason that we believe death comes to all men, because all men have broken the laws of an eternal God. Basically, both the hedonistic and deterrent principles tell us that people will seek out the road of less pain in order to achieve their goals of having more pleasure in life. These concepts guide justice systems around the entire world and they drive ALL concepts of morality. I believe this is for the reason I just stated, that we are acting not out of our development, but we are acting out of the fabric of our existence.

Even the very concept of justice is based off of these principles. Justice encompasses rule of law, punishment for breaking the law. Without the punishment for breaking any law, that law becomes void and is ignored. There is no punishment, there is no pain or nothing bad that will happen if you break the law, so you just do what you want to do. At that point there is NO justice and NO law. The opposite is what you see heavily demonstrated in religions, not because its about fear but because the laws are not subject to change as the ones made by humans. This is one of the reasons why I would argue that God is not dynamic, but he is very static. I would also argue that this is the problem that many in our society have with him, that his law is not subject to the same types of free passes as our court systems. And as we change, we really want our decline in morality to be supported by all, but the people who subscribe to a spiritual, eternal law cannot rightly make these changes. We cannot rightly say that we agree with homosexuality, we cannot say we agree with abortion, we cannot say we agree with many things because we believe the moral code of our universe is violated by these things.

you see the problem with your logic is this

to you the hierarchy of the universe follows like this.

God----->Man-------->Everything else.

You are putting your self and humanity so close to god, when in reality you have no idea what God is.

[trini_gsr]

you see the problem with your logic is this

to you the hierarchy of the universe follows like this.

God----->Man-------->Everything else.

You are putting your self and humanity so close to god, when in reality you have no idea what God is.

If you start with the assumption (like I do) that God is a rational being, then it follows that we as humans and any other beings out there with cognition "think" in the same rational manner that he does. When you look at it, humans can do everything (miracles aside) that the Bible says God can do - from the range of emotions, to creating and destroying. it's really just a matter of what scale we're talking about. hence why it is said that God made us in his image.

as far as sport's comment on God being static. i disagree. God is perfect so his RULES are static, just like the natural laws that govern the universe are static and unchanging. But the universe is changing every single moment. Change is one of the few constants in the universe, it permeates down to our everyday lives. So to say that God is static when the universe he created and everything in it is dynamic doesn't make sense to me. God has to be dynamic because his creation is dynamic. Even the very act of God creating a universe to begin with implies change (from God existing as a singular unity -> God+universe+everything in it).

[sport_122]

as far as sport's comment on God being static. i disagree. God is perfect so his RULES are static, just like the natural laws that govern the universe are static and unchanging. But the universe is changing every single moment. Change is one of the few constants in the universe, it permeates down to our everyday lives. So to say that God is static when the universe he created and everything in it is dynamic doesn't make sense to me. God has to be dynamic because his creation is dynamic. Even the very act of God creating a universe to begin with implies change (from God existing as a singular unity -> God+universe+everything in it).


The very nature of God in his transcendent state would have to be such that it is not that HE is changing as much as our understanding of who He is changes as he is revealed to us. This is also demonstrated in the part of God's character that is able to function outside of time.

It is a very far stretch to say that because the universe is changing or is in motion that God has to also be dynamic in the same sense. This is a false correlation. Also, to say that God is dynamic that would also mean the he is subject to change based on responses and a developing understanding of our universe as these are the things that develop change in all things that we know of now. So basically how could you explain that view of God, where he is changing and responsive to the universe, even though his character is timeless, all knowing and all powerful. I just can't see where there is room for a "developing" God.

As a matter of fact I believe this characteristic of God also lends validity to his existence. We cannot argue a transcendent God as the originator of all things if we also believe that he is constantly learning, changing, and that he may be different tomorrow. If this is the character of God then we would have problems because even the very Bible or our very world that we use to define him would be subject to being outdated and unreliable.

However, with my world view, I do see how God who is beyond our understanding is not changing and has always been the same, is revealing himself to us and as we learn about him we are having to alter our perspective and way of thinking to reflect that understanding. I cannot find an instance in my life, in the Bible, in other pieces of writings about God, that would make me think that God is ever changing and developing. Our understanding of him does not define him. Our understanding of him tells us how we interact with him, but it does not tell us exactly who he is.

Philosophically these cannot be characteristics of a transcendent God who is omniscient, omnipresent, and sovereign in the universe. Could you tell me what about Gods character is different now than it was 2000 years ago, or at the point of creation, or what we expect to be different about him 100 years from now? Maybe that would help me understand your view.

Lastly, I think the reason many people would say that God is changing is because somehow we hope to be able to put him in our personal bubbles. In our attempts to know him, we must be careful about limiting him to our own understanding, which we already know is limited to say the least.


you see the problem with your logic is this

to you the hierarchy of the universe follows like this.

God----->Man-------->Everything else.

You are putting your self and humanity so close to god, when in reality you have no idea what God is.

Well even in your statement you put Everything else close to man. As if we have a clue what everything else is, but we don't. In fact, which of any of these three topics do you think we really understand? We don't understand God, ourselves, or anything else. We can only use our logic so far as God has revealed himself to us.

and speaking of logic, if we don't put a transcendent mind first then I am still puzzled how we could assume that anything is logical. At that point what defines logic? Without a grounded worldview, logic is no more valuable to man than the rocks in the dirt because it would only be about the individual otherwise and there would be no grounds for anyone to test and affirm their logic.

[trini_gsr]

duplicate...

[trini_gsr]

The very nature of God in his transcendent state would have to be such that it is not that HE is changing as much as our understanding of who He is changes as he is revealed to us. This is also demonstrated in the part of God's character that is able to function outside of time.

i agree that our understanding of God changes as we grow as a species. i'm with you here...



It is a very far stretch to say that because the universe is changing or is in motion that God has to also be dynamic in the same sense. This is a false correlation. Also, to say that God is dynamic that would also mean the he is subject to change based on responses and a developing understanding of our universe as these are the things that develop change in all things that we know of now. So basically how could you explain that view of God, where he is changing and responsive to the universe, even though his character is timeless, all knowing and all powerful. I just can't see where there is room for a "developing" God.

As a matter of fact I believe this characteristic of God also lends validity to his existence. We cannot argue a transcendent God as the originator of all things if we also believe that he is constantly learning, changing, and that he may be different tomorrow. If this is the character of God then we would have problems because even the very Bible or our very world that we use to define him would be subject to being outdated and unreliable.

now you're putting words in my mouth :) i never said God was constantly learning or even that he might be 'different'. and i certainly don't think that God changes as our understanding of him evolves. i think you're misunderstanding what i mean when i say God is dynamic.

consider this. even though our universe is constantly changing, the laws that govern it remain the same. we can reliably predict the behavior of bodies in motion, know how fast light travels, etc. as we discover more about our universe, we might revise our understanding, but those laws remain timeless. you could say the CHARACTER of the universe remains the same despite the constant changes.

i look at God in the same manner. His CHARACTER remains the same, even as more and more of it is revealed to us as we continue to grow and learn as a species. So in that sense God is static and the rules He has put forth to define morality, etc are timeless. His character is definitely unchanging.

but that doesn't preclude God from being dynamic, because the universe and everything in it is an expression of, a part of who and what God is. the divine (but finite) "breath of life" that exists in all of us and connects us to God changes and grows as we trod through the journey we call life. so as we experience, in a sense, God "experiences" too. it doesn't change WHO God is at all, but i believe He finds joy in this. much like we find joy in watching our children grow into adults, but that doesn't mean it has to change the nature of who WE are individually.

this explains (to me at least) why the Bible says God finds joy in faithful beings, and why sin makes God sad, etc. it may even give us insight into one of the grand purposes of creation in general. i have more opinions on this but i don't want to go off too far on a tangent.

i appreciate that everyone might not see it the way i do, so we'll may have to agree to disagree on this one :D. i hope that by sharing you can come away with something positive, i know i have from your posts. some reps are coming your way...

[sport_122]

i agree that our understanding of God changes as we grow as a species. i'm with you here...




now you're putting words in my mouth :) i never said God was constantly learning or even that he might be 'different'. and i certainly don't think that God changes as our understanding of him evolves. i think you're misunderstanding what i mean when i say God is dynamic.

consider this. even though our universe is constantly changing, the laws that govern it remain the same. we can reliably predict the behavior of bodies in motion, know how fast light travels, etc. as we discover more about our universe, we might revise our understanding, but those laws remain timeless. you could say the CHARACTER of the universe remains the same despite the constant changes.

i look at God in the same manner. His CHARACTER remains the same, even as more and more of it is revealed to us as we continue to grow and learn as a species. So in that sense God is static and the rules He has put forth to define morality, etc are timeless. His character is definitely unchanging.

but that doesn't preclude God from being dynamic, because the universe and everything in it is an expression of, a part of who and what God is. the divine (but finite) "breath of life" that exists in all of us and connects us to God changes and grows as we trod through the journey we call life. so as we experience, in a sense, God "experiences" too. it doesn't change WHO God is at all, but i believe He finds joy in this. much like we find joy in watching our children grow into adults, but that doesn't mean it has to change the nature of who WE are individually.

this explains (to me at least) why the Bible says God finds joy in faithful beings, and why sin makes God sad, etc. it may even give us insight into one of the grand purposes of creation in general. i have more opinions on this but i don't want to go off too far on a tangent.

i appreciate that everyone might not see it the way i do, so we'll may have to agree to disagree on this one :D. i hope that by sharing you can come away with something positive, i know i have from your posts. some reps are coming your way...

Okay, I can see your perspective now. I just didnt understand it before because I view the term dynamic in a much different way. Thanks for elaborating. I don't think we are that different, maybe just the way we understand the words.

I guess for me I would describe it more as the side of God that is intimate with us on our level with the understanding of where we are as we go through our own growth in developing our understanding of who He is as it has been revealed. For instance, God knows that we don't know everything about Him and everything about our universe which is why he does not always command us to respond to those things that are beyond what he has given us the ability to understand.