First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply God does not exist. Get over it.
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/2/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:

It is really agnosticism. I admit that it could exist, but the knowledge that I possess does not support its existence. So in that sense there is no reason to give the theory credence. I am agnostic to the theory that I was created 10 minutes ago by a monkey named Tim. I can not prove that did not occur, but without evidence why give it respect? I do not believe do to lack of evidence. I still admit it MAY be true but we can't act that way on most claims, or else no one would ever agree on what was untrue. If we don't dismiss something’s then truth itself will cease to exist.


Well, now we’re discussing how a scientist knows what questions are blocked by Ockham’s Razor and which ones are actually worth asking. Well, in modern scientific thought there are three criteria that a question must meet before it’s worth asking.

1. Is it possible? (You wouldn’t ask, “What if 1+1=5.)

2.What lead up to the inquiry?

Curiosities engendered by scientific thought should be answered by scientific investigation. So:

“Does a monkey named Tim who created Magnus exist?”

“Is it possible,”
“Err…well, I guess, yeah, technically.”

“Science -is- technical you twit, why are we asking?”

“Because Magnus popped it out of his back-side in a debate with that egotistical Alford kid over the internet while in an allied atheist group made for the community of childish Japanese anime-watching that make up the visitors of a website for streaming Asian videos to the masses.”

“Oh, okay, well then lets get back to finding a cure for cancer.”

“Does God exist?”

“Is it possible?”

“Yes,”

“Why are we asking?”

“Because the Laws of thermodynamics, certain mathematical theorems, historical documents, the order of the universe, and certain other aspects of science suggest that he might,”

“Crap, now we’ll be here all dang night asking bloody questions! Why can’t you just get your pay-check and pretend to be researching atoms like the rest of us?! You know how many screeching religious twits and atheistic zealots we’re going to have to hear about this from?”

Alas, we’re not talking strictly science. So, how should we know which inquiries are worth asking ourselves, on a personal and private level? Well, this depends on who you are. I have two standards. The first thing I ponder about an inquiry is: “Does it make a difference?”

The history of Western Philosophy:

Once, three of the worlds most brilliant minds went to the park for a walk. On their way the trio paused to watch two squirrels running around a tree. They watch for a while and then begin to discuss:

“Each squirrel circumambulates the tree,”

“Yes, I agree”

“Does, then, each squirrel circumambulate the other?”

“No because they’re always in motion and neither animal ever laps the other.”

“No, wait, yes they do-because circumambulation is a transitive relationship. If two items circumambulate the same axis they must therein circumambulate each other.”

So, then they begin to argue and wind up killing each other out of sheer frustration.

It’s not just as a religious person that I choose to ask questions that make a difference. Many atheists follow this same standard. Sartre, for example. Sartre wanted to know why the purpose of life was supposed to be living in harmony and preserving the Human race. He liked what Dostoyevsky had to say.


“If there is no God then everything is permissible but nothing is meaningful,”

-Fiódor Mijáilovich Dostoyevsky (Yes, I copied that name off of a wikipedia website, and can you bloody well blame me?! O_O)

Freud also knew that it was an important question. He classified religion as a form of collective insanity-which it is if God doesn’t exist. Peter Kreeft, while giving the argument from which I’ve been stealing all of this, gave an example I love.

I once played Dr. Sanderson in a play from the 1940’s called Harvey. I wasn’t the main character, but I did win medals for my performance (Boast-boast.) In this play the main Character, Elwood P. Dowd sees a giant pucca. This creature is named Harvey. He takes the form of a six-foot tall rabbit that only Dowd can see.

Now, the play has been done two ways. In one way Harvey does exist. In the other he does not. The theme to the play is completely changed in these two ways. The former shows that great things can exist. The latter simply says that normality isn’t all that important.

So the complete theme of this play is entirely changed by this “negligible” detail. An invisible being with no lines, that the audience is oblivious of, completely changes the play!

Here we are, standing on the stage of life…. So, asking this question does make a difference.

So then, it’s logical to ask the question because science raises this curiosity. It’s appropriate to ask the question because it’s the answer is extremely important to you and all of existence.


It is really agnosticism. I admit that it could exist, but the knowledge that I possess does not support its existence. So in that sense there is no reason to give the theory credence. I am agnostic to the theory that I was created 10 minutes ago by a monkey named Tim. I can not prove that did not occur, but without evidence why give it respect? I do not believe do to lack of evidence. I still admit it MAY be true but but we can't act that way on most claims, or else no one would ever agree on what was untrue. If we don't dismiss somethings then truth itself will cease to exist.


Now we’re playing semantics.


Yes but there is historical evidence for Greek fire in your example. That is different than a claim that has no evidence to support it. Even if it was a good analogy I should still assume that it is false until I have seen the evidence. Accepting things on faith is still silly. In most cases not believing in things that are not supported by the facts will make you right.


I suppose you’ve read this evidence, seen it personally? You’ve personally research Greek Fire? So, why do you believe there is evidence if you haven’t personally seen it? Because you’ve been told by people of authority that there is. That’s blind faith in authority, which is no difference than the Catholic’s and their blind faith in the Church. Physician! Heal thyself…apparently you’re being silly.


A clever play on words but you are failing to understand. I do not have evidence to support magic, so I think that it is not real. The same is true of unicorns. My belief that they are not real is really disbelief based on the lack of evidence. To say that you do not believe something is real since there is no evidence is the default position I was attempting to describe.


That wasn’t a play on words. I’m sure we can both agree on all the definitions of these words, and I’m using them very concretely. A play on words is toying with definitions, but I didn't.



So you claim. Prove it. See my thread "Did Jesus Exist". many scholars think he was actually supposed to be a metaphorical being. We get evidence of this from Paul in his letters, which as I am sure you are aware rarely mention teh ole boy.


Well, we do know that the theme and messages of the bible were very revolutionary concepts of the time. They were incredibly creative, else they wouldn’t have been paid much mind (unless Christ really was doing miracles.) They were the things that only a great teacher could invent. So, now you’ve led us to this:

Were the ideas and teachings of the NT the invention of a great teacher, or were they the accounts given by witnesses who really believed they had seen Christ?

Well, the former possibility is hardly a possibility. Does a good teacher take into account his audience before he begins a speech? Does a good teacher purposefully use poetic language when he knows his listeners are going to take it literally? Not at all.

Basically I’m saying it couldn’t have been the invention of a great teacher, because a great teacher teaches the intended message. In this case you’re suggesting that a great teacher failed -all- of his followers for thousands and thousands of years.

No, no, we know the bible was intended to be taken literally on at least certain aspects.

So now we have to ask, are the scriptures a reliable source for history? The answer is a OBVIOUSLY, CERTAINLY, and DEFINANTLY…maybe.

That is to say, it depends what you compare them too. Compare them to a mathematical statement, and no, they’re not reliable. Compare them to the accounts from which we gather that Caesar conquered Gaul, and yes. They are. They’re supported by outside sources. We have the Quelle, the Apocryphal texts, The Gospel of Thomas, letters of the martyrs, journal entries, ext. We even have Roman legal documents.

So why is the bible devalued? Because religious opinion and belief has snuck its-way into historians. They religiously believe that miracles cannot happen, and so sources that have miracles can’t be historically accurate. However, there’s no proof that miracles can’t happen, so it’s still a religious opinion.

We know Jesus Christ was a real man just as much as we know Caesar was a real man, just as certainly. This is, of course, not speaking religiously, but secularly.

Once again we’re caught in a circular argument.


So Jesus saved humanity by causing nuclear weapons to be invented. Awesome.


I know. It's funny as hell. The three pieces of the preservation of the Human species are: 1. Religion, 2. Nukes, and 3. Global Warming. Ironic?


You should look up Peter Kreeft. None of my argument was original. Almost all of it was borrowed directly from him. I couldn’t compare to his genius though, he’s proven actually proven that Jesus is divine. (Given that you accept the historical statement he really existed-so, technically not a proof, but if you assume that fact then it’s flawless-his argument. A perfect piece of logic.)
Member
464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Denmark
Offline
Posted 4/2/08 , edited 4/18/08

shibole wrote:


saywhaat wrote:
Nothing can be disproven/proven completely 100%, but that doesnt make it suitable to be agnostic about everything..
because something as unicorns cant be disproven completely doesnt make me an agnostic about unicorns, i am an Aunicornist.. (wow that sounded terrible)

Well, the problem is, at what non-zero probability of something existing does it become worthwhile to acknowledge something as possible?

The more arbitrary details you add to something the lower the chance of that thing existing as it now needs to meet more and more criteria. But as you strip away details, the chances of something existing somewhere increases.

I'm not sure that it's necessarily bad to be "ultimately agnostic" about most unknown things as long as you can acknowledge that certain things "effectively" don't exist according to all the information you currently have. For example, even if there is some creature vaguely like a unicorn in some other galaxy somewhere, it effectively doesn't exist because we're never going to come anywhere near it. It makes sense to proceed with your life with the assumption that unicorns don't exist.

My main problem with people is that it seems like they stop asking questions too soon and too easily. They essentially decide that something doesn't exist without even first trying to figure out exactly what it is that they're saying doesn't exist, or in what way something has to exist (for example, an idea vs. a physical object) to "exist" for some practical purpose.


Okey i want to make my definition of god clear so that you can see i can easily say the probability for gods existence is equal to that of unicorns.
When i say god i also mean the abrahamic gods (though it goes for all monotheistic/polytheistic faiths that claim the very same), not some weird deist definition of god! i mean omnipresent, omniscient etc
ofcourse saying god is nature is hardly something you can argue against, or to say god just looks on earth from above with no intention whatsoever to interfer with mere humans! And you get the idea.
If you cant see the probability for something as that exists is very low then i dont know what to say! Also the agnostics i cant get is those who claim that because something cant be proven false it means we have no say in it, meaning it automatically provides a 50% chance for its existence! i think it is wrong to be agnostic about the Abrahamic gods. I perfectly know what i am arguing against, the very same definition of god the majority of "the abrahamic children" use for god.
if you want to say god is some abstract idea or something other than what the scriptures and its adherents claim, then you are arguing with a set of definition that the majority does not use! Everything we know about god is from "holy scriptures" and that is that god i am arguing against, those who have some sort of definition, characteristics or story that is claimed truth! because if we didnt have that, what are we arguing against?

For Christians who use the deists god to claim the biblical god exists is just not real, why not fight for something you actually believe in?

Cheers
Member
464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Denmark
Offline
Posted 4/2/08 , edited 4/18/08

I suppose you’ve read this evidence, seen it personally? You’ve personally research Greek Fire? So, why do you believe there is evidence if you haven’t personally seen it? Because you’ve been told by people of authority that there is. That’s blind faith in authority, which is no difference than the Catholic’s and their blind faith in the Church. Physician! Heal thyself…apparently you’re being silly.


Scientific method made easy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/2/08 , edited 4/18/08

saywhaat wrote:


I suppose you’ve read this evidence, seen it personally? You’ve personally research Greek Fire? So, why do you believe there is evidence if you haven’t personally seen it? Because you’ve been told by people of authority that there is. That’s blind faith in authority, which is no difference than the Catholic’s and their blind faith in the Church. Physician! Heal thyself…apparently you’re being silly.


Scientific method made easy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14


*May have just shouted a few words that God might not have been so happy to hear.* Crap, I was going to write a book called “The Ten Commandments of Scientific Thought,” but apparently that’s already taken. But again, you only further my point. As I said, the opinion is that miracles can't happen, so the bible isn't respected as a historical source, but that same "scientific method," said that "opinion is not fact," and "you must back your statement with evidence," and "Cite your sources," but you can't prove that miracles can't happen (in my opinion because they can) so it's an opinion, and thereby-by this standard, not fact. You don't have evidence to show miracles can't happen. You don't have reliable sources to cite.


EDIT: Also, cited sources don't mean anything, you don't need to cite your sources if you can evidence your statement.
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/2/08 , edited 4/18/08
Magnus, I’m disappointed with your reply. You don’t seem to have really made attempt to refute my argument, you simply call out “No, you’re wrong,” but don’t point out why. You’re just making statements with no real arguments or source, and I’m disappointed, because I’ve been active in this topic because I wanted to engage in a Socratic discussion in order to uncover the truth and find education.

For example, you said that it’s only my feelings on the universe that support God and you try to back your claim up by citing names of authority. You don’t actually argue, however. I can actually go through and -show- you where physics supports God or a God like entity.

Whatever those two argue, they’re outnumbered and outclassed by the opposition. Just a brief list of some people who would contradict Dawkins and say the science, physics, and our current understanding of the universe do at least suggests divinity if not prove it: Bohr, Kreeft, Galileo, Davies, Lewis, Augustine, Bacon, Newton, Eccles, Dirac, and Einstein.

Also, you should take to note that I am a deistic Christian so my argument-does-support my image of God.


I know they are very nomral theists arguments.


Not at all, Kreeft is a bloody genius. He’s by far Dawkins’ intellectual superior. You’re just blindly assuming that.

Anyway, since you don’t really have an argument presented in your post, I’ll leave mine at this for now.


Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/4/08 , edited 4/18/08
I see you editted your post, okay them, more reply:


As for the laws of thermodynamics, there is no reason to think that the universe's energy got here because god created it. We do not know what happened before the big bang, and have no reason to make unsupported assumptions about god and energy.


A) There is reason to believe that the universe's energy got here because "God" created it.

B)We do know what happened before the bigbang.

C) You're logic is the one making the unsupportedassumption, not mine.

That's about what your last response amounted to before the edit. You see how irritating that is? Just making a statement without supporting it? Well, I'm just making a point, behold the rest of my post:

Let’s analyze this with logic. Logic dictates that one of the following three statements must be true, and if one is true than none of the others can also be true:

1. The universe has always existed.

2. The universe came into existence at a given point.

3. The universe does not exist.


Has the universe always existed? No, it has not, and -yes- we have proven this. The laws of thermodynamics show that the universe is not and cannot be eternal. Thus it cannot have always existed.

So, the universe was created. However, the universe is bound by its own laws-which dictate that nothing can be made from nothing. Nothing can be created, only transformed from on form to another.

What do we gather from this? We gather that something not subjected to the laws of physics must exist in order for the universe to have been created, and the universe must have been created for the universe has not always existed, and thus my proof is perfect. There must be a device, entity, or artifact in which exists on a higher level than the laws of the universe-on a supper natural level-and we have given this “item” the name God.

We cannot prove the nature of God, but we can prove the existence of a thing that we might call God.

As far as not knowing what happened before the big bang…you’re wrong, we do know what happened before the big bang, unless you make that unsupported assumption about God. So, what happened? Nothing happened, because nothing existed, not space and not time. I could go through and explain this to you, but it’ll take like twelve pages, and I’d rather not have to teach you about physics-even this elementary subject. Suffice to say, you clearly aren’t aware of what exactly the big-bang is and what it implies.

Moderator
1783 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / California
Offline
Posted 4/4/08 , edited 4/18/08
"Humans through their millions and millions eons of evolution have no reached the stars; in what was once a feat so unimagineable it is now done by them in nothing more than a thought. They learned the ways of transforming the body into pure energy, breaking themselves down to littles cells that can travel faster than anyone or anything could before it.

"Mankind, has traveled to every planet possible. Taking the planets energy to fuel their young, as they have always done. But no planet has ever in the history of mankind been more mysterious than Multi-vac. A computer so massive that curls around the very air above and beyond a single planet. It was first discovered by a man, who's name has been lost through the ages. But he believe Multi-vac held all the knowledge ever containted and ever will be contained in its broken macro-chips.

"A team was put together to call all the humans back together again. From all the billions of different planets the trillion different people heard and responded, to work once again on a project so profound every last one of them believed all the eternal knowledge existed in it's eon's old rust. The people so desperate stopped trading with other planets and closed themselves off to the rest of exists. The humans were resented and scoffed at for their blind work ethic.

"Millions and millions of years go by, the humans have forgoten in the first place way their ancient fathers brought them here. The excitment of discovery has turned them sour, worker bees with no joy in what was to come. Billion of tiny little hands, patching and replacing parts and wires, ever grumbling about the hardships of being once person in a rusted cave working on something they know nothing about.

"Eventually, they forget to speak to one another without their mouths, telepathy is now a spooky magic trick that's spit upon. They start speaching into languages other areas of Multi-vac don't understand. Their bodies can no longer be turned into pure energy, the worlds outside of Multi-vac became distant and alien. And every hundred years they attempt to turn on Multi-vac's wide, broken screen; only to find their work once again goes without fruitation.

"More years pass, and even more. Mankind has once again joined each other in telepathy, pure energy has returned once again to their bodies. They have settled every star and colonized every plant and animal on them. They are still resented. This virus in waiting; these humans.

"Mutli-vac hums. Their eons and eons of rebuilding has come to this. All that's left is to flip the switch and the eternal knowledge will be placed on them.

"War breaks out over that switch. Not just on Multi-vac but on all of the other planets mankind inhabits. The rest of the universe is sick of them and their meaningless war.

"A side is choosen to flip the switch. Multi-vac's hum can be heard all across eternality. The screen lights up and a voice loud enough to split stars says right before Multi-vac explodes, "Let there be light.""
- Issac Asimov

I say this could be true too. There's proof to support it. ^_^
Moderator
1783 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / California
Offline
Posted 4/4/08 , edited 4/18/08
Please pardon all the typo-s.
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/4/08 , edited 4/18/08
Huh?
Moderator
1783 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / California
Offline
Posted 4/5/08 , edited 4/18/08

SeraphAlford wrote:

Huh?


Exactly.

But joking aside. What are you "huh"ing about?
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/5/08 , edited 4/18/08
Yeah, I know what you mean…actually, I don’t…I don’t drink. Still, glad you’re back and sober. This is fun, maybe within a few days we’ll actually venture into some new ground. That’d be cool. Hell, maybe we’ll wind up proving or disproving divinity and we’ll both be famous. Ha, dreams. Anyway:

I think I really am going to have to explain all of this. What a pain… Oh well, for the sake of debate we can give an effort. Your argument is broken. Although energy is not destroyed it is transferred to places where it cannot be accessed and transformed into unusable sources.

In English the laws of thermodynamics state that there is a finite supply of order in the universe, and ever second that amount of order declines-thus, entropy increase. Remember, entropy is just a measure for the level of chaos within a system. Chaos, however, is not a usable energy. It’s like anti-energy.

Lets say you have one measure of entropy and you throw it at one measure of order-useable energy-well, now you have nothing. Like 1+(-)1=0. You can’t use that negative number to do anything except drop further down.

To demonstrate this let’s go into an imaginary experiment. We’ll call it Pandora.

We have a glass box and place two chemicals inside of it. Chemical A and chemical B. The two substances react. They change colors, produce heat, and bubble like a rabid beast. However, the changes begin to slow. Eventually they’re slower than Paris Hilton. Energy is turning into entropy-chaos-unusable energy.

Then, they stop. Nothing changes, they just sit there. Energy is still there, but we can’t use that energy unless we open the box or act on the box with an outside source. All the energy has become entropy-and cannot be changed back without an outside source. The box has hit the ‘heat-death’ a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, we have to expand if anything else is to happen.

The only way to escape the heat-death is to expand, to move to a higher level-and therein you find the supper natural entity, artifact, item, or event that we call God.

So, again, the laws of thermodynamics show us that the universe is not eternal, and thus it can’t have existed for all eternity. Thus, it was created. This argument may seem genius, but again this is all common-ground. Not my argument, not even my imaginary experiment. You see, right now I’m simply regurgitating information.

Also, just because you can’t destroy energy doesn’t mean you can’t remove it from space and time. In fact, the heat death will probably do just that. Everything in the universe will collapse to the pull of its own gravity. Gravity represses space and slows time. Eventually that gravity gets so strong that time stops, space ceases to exist, and we have a singularity-wherein everything is consumed into itself.

As far as proving what happened before the big-bang, technically I guess you’re right.

It can’t be mathematically proven-but, it can be proven to the same degree of any historical fact. You’re arguing against the fiery birth of the universe, you’re saying that the big-bang did not create the universe-that the universe was already there, the big-bang just acted on it.

However, if that’s true then the big-bang wouldn’t be the big-bang, it would be something else. In this case it has the same name, but at its definition it’s not a fiery creation of the universe-it’s a fiery evolution of the universe. Once again you’re contradicting yourself. You’re inventing an entirely new item, ignoring Ockham’s Razor. You’re creating an unnecessary complexity to avoid an apparent but uncomfortable simplicity.

Next, I can prove the big-bang with your logic. You argue that if somebody has evidence to support their claim that you believe it and its fact. For example, you believe Cesar conquered Gaul, that Greek Fire existed. Technically, however, these aren’t proven.

There are countless documents suggesting them, a mass of evidence of them, but ultimately somebody could have planted all that evidence just to screw with us. Well, similarly if the big-bang “theory” stood on the claims of Hubble and Einstein alone it would’ve been cast aside a long time ago. However, in this case there is strikingly massive amounts of evidence.

However, this evidence isn’t something that could’ve been planted by Humans or even aliens. The only thing that could’ve possibly planted this evidence is something that stands above space and time-and once again we have God. So, now in this light I’ve either proven God or a more or less spontaneous beginning of the universe. Either way my point is made.
Moderator
1783 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / California
Offline
Posted 4/5/08 , edited 4/18/08

SeraphAlford wrote:

So, now in this light I’ve either proven God or a more or less spontaneous beginning of the universe.


So in other words, "God" could be a human looking all powerful being, or it could be the fart of some space Dog colliding with a star.

Either way, the idea that a "god" created everything on purpose never set well with me. It's my thought that God made everything on accident. (But i only say this thinking on the other side of the spectrum, since i don't necessarily believe in god).

I put that story up in my last post to show a third point of view of what could've been the big bang. But i see this thread has moved onto a more scientific direction, and in my shame, i can in no way keep up; since my best subject has always been English.

I get that something can't be created out of nothing, but i think calling whatever that created the first something out of nothing; God, needs to be seen less than an all loving being. Whatever the "item" that created the universe, may not have made humans. I never could stand that people believe it was the same being that has made both.
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/14/08

Joliame wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

So, now in this light I’ve either proven God or a more or less spontaneous beginning of the universe.


So in other words, "God" could be a human looking all powerful being, or it could be the fart of some space Dog colliding with a star.

Either way, the idea that a "god" created everything on purpose never set well with me. It's my thought that God made everything on accident. (But i only say this thinking on the other side of the spectrum, since i don't necessarily believe in god).

I put that story up in my last post to show a third point of view of what could've been the big bang. But i see this thread has moved onto a more scientific direction, and in my shame, i can in no way keep up; since my best subject has always been English.

I get that something can't be created out of nothing, but i think calling whatever that created the first something out of nothing; God, needs to be seen less than an all loving being. Whatever the "item" that created the universe, may not have made humans. I never could stand that people believe it was the same being that has made both.


Well, I was arguing devil’s advocate. I realized that nobody here was really going to have much of a grasp on theoretical physics and I took advantage of that. The fact is, however, that my argument omits certain facts and details.

Namely that the laws of thermodynamics only apply to isolated systems. The “collapse of a singularity,” argument was silly-but the fact is that entropy can be reconverted back to energy by gravity. As I’ve said before, entropy is useless energy. However, nothing is isolated from the pull of gravity-gravity can pull entropy, which gives entropy kinetic energy, and thus that entropy -can- cause change.

The only question that remains? “Is gravity isolated, is it subjected to the laws of thermodynamics?” Well, we have some ambiguous evidence that says yes, but that evidence is…ambiguous. We don’t really know.

Assuming, however, that there is a God who did created the universe we also know that he did create us, however circuitously, because of what we call causality. He may not have been -directly- responsible for us, but he would be responsible for the system from which we were birthed.

Now, as far God being Human-looking…I believe he is and he is not.

Biblically speaking whenever God was asked who he was he simply said I AM. I wont go too deeply into this explanation, but essentially in saying that he was declaring that he was an “awareness,” an “I-ness,” an “ego,” so to speak. The bible says we were made in his image-and I believe this is true in that we are also sentient beings with self-awareness.

I don’t believe that if there is a God he’s a physical being-because if he was a physical being then he’d be limited to the laws of physics, which absolutely obliterates everything I’ve been explaining.

This being said you may devalue my belief based on the fact that it’s centered around what Christ taught. However, I can (if you like,) logically justify this too-thanks to Peter Kreeft, though I will admit that the belief was originally founded on my automatic assumption-which was directly engendered from western culture.





First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.