My doubts (God complicates things)

[godfree12]

who should be the high priest of it, you?

In the middle ages(which some consider the golden age of catholicism) religion was not considered a separate sphere of social life. Catholicism was not a religion, it was the innate nature of life. Today, you call it a religion, so therefore the nature of Catholicism has evolved. Religions have separated themselves from modern society’s social behavior. Men and women work at their job and then attend church on Sundays. Religion’s only significance in the 21st century is on Sunday. Do I want to be high priest of a powerless, futile religion? No.

concepts are created, but they are not existent, as a physical creation is.

So, atheism was created, it therefore has purpose.

why must concepts be innate in nature? if so than every concept ever to exist would be known by every man.

No because concepts,ideas, and knowledge have evolved with humanity. The internet is a result of that evolution, and the comprehension of the formerly unknown. You are typing into an evolving science–virtual reality.

keep thinking

my thoughts must have purpose

if atheism is innate than why do we find indigenous tribes have their own religions separate from anything the rest of the world when they are first contacted?

It’s all a part of the evolution undergone by humanity, civilization, and their gods.They are the same as the Goths which sacked Rome who now call themselves Catholics. It is a natural evolution: caveman-polytheism-monotheism-atheism(which could be skipped)-what’s next?

and evolution is a theory describing the minute changes biological systems under go in response to their environment, thereby changing over the course of time.

how is that innate to human nature?

It is innate as it is existent. Existence is innate as it exists. Evolution is a progression, not just ‘minute changes’. Looking at it from a long term perspective evolution is an incredible development over adversity. For example: Democracy evolved out of a monarchy. An environment of oppression produced an armed revolt against the oppressors. It was an evolution.

again this idea is betrayed by indigenous religions, there is no record of any indigenous peoples had any concept of atheism, but rather they all had some religion.

it seems that you simply dont like religion, so you are looking for a way around it, you call atheism selfih and then call for a new spirituality

this is the classic search for G-d

and here He is, He has been waiting on you. You will continue to run for a number of years, but He will still be here.

someday, you will do great things for Him. even if you don’t think so now.

The indigenous peoples are quite a ways behind the evolution of human society don’t you think? They haven’t created an internet.

Perhaps it doesn’t have to be a ‘new’ spirituality. Perhaps we’ve known what it is all our lives, but it just hasn’t had the opportunity to surface. I’ve found God. We can kill ‘Him’ or become ‘Him’.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In the middle ages(which some consider the golden age of catholicism) religion was not considered a separate sphere of social life. Catholicism was not a religion, it was the innate nature of life.

i need some evidence more than you simply claiming it was. it has always been a religion, just at that time it was also temporal power, as a result of the power vacuum when the western roman empire failed, check your history.

you keep saying things are innate to the nature of life, either you misunderstand the term ‘innate’ or you are trying to avoid having to prove it.

the things you seem to be calling innate are all things that are taught, not inborn.

Today, you call it a religion, so therefore the nature of Catholicism has evolved. Religions have separated themselves from modern society’s social behavior

.

we have always called it a religion. religion is the cornerstone of acceptable social behavior, almost all law is based on it.

Men and women work at their job and then attend church on Sundays. Religion’s only significance in the 21st century is on Sunday.

i take it you werent raised as a Christian, if you were than you would know that we are expected too act in the confines of our faith at all times, not just sunday. you may be misled by people who we call ‘sunday Christains’ but indeed that is not what we are called to be.

Do I want to be high priest of a powerless, futile religion? No.

funny that you would call more than a billion Catholics powerless,

So, atheism was created, it therefore has purpose.

it is not existent, it has no physical form,or as you might say it has no innate purpose

i tire quickly of word games, make logical arguments or admit you are wrong.

No because concepts,ideas, and knowledge have evolved with humanity. The internet is a result of that evolution, and the comprehension of the formerly unknown. You are typing into an evolving science–virtual reality.

earlier you said they were innate, now you say they arent, which is it?

my thoughts must have purpose

you have yet to offer any evidence of the validity of your thoughts

It’s all a part of the evolution undergone by humanity, civilization, and their gods.They are the same as the Goths which sacked Rome who now call themselves Catholics. It is a natural evolution: caveman-polytheism-monotheism-atheism(which could be skipped)-what’s next?

sounds like a fable, no grounding in reality at all

please offer proof.

It is innate as it is existent. Existence is innate as it exists.

circular reasoning, means nothing

Evolution is a progression, not just ‘minute changes’. Looking at it from a long term perspective evolution is an incredible development over adversity. For example: Democracy evolved out of a monarchy. An environment of oppression produced an armed revolt against the oppressors. It was an evolution.

democracy is as old as monarchy, the ancient greeks and romans practiced both, one is no the evolution of the other, they are just different concepts, democracy is now in vogue, history shows that it will not last. or at least it never has before.

The indigenous peoples are quite a ways behind the evolution of human society don’t you think? They haven’t created an internet.

thats the point if any of these concepts are innate to human nature that they should be born with a basic understanding of them , but they arent, which means you are wrong, these concepts are not innate to human nature

Perhaps it doesn’t have to be a ‘new’ spirituality. Perhaps we’ve known what it is all our lives, but it just hasn’t had the opportunity to surface

.

what 'what ’ is?

I’ve found God. We can kill ‘Him’ or become ‘Him’.

only a G-d you seem to understand, the one that billions of others worship is nothing like what you are proposing.

do you know leela? frankly i suspect you of being that poster. if you arent then you should send her a message, your ideas are very much like hers and like a concept called MOQ. you would probably find a kindred spirit as opposed to those of us who use reason and evidence to promote our arguments,

you wont find much satisfaction here without providing some evidence, this aint a philosophy 101 class, here you will find some serious thinkers.

please provide actual evidence for your assertions

 

[godfree12]

i need some evidence more than you simply claiming it was. it has always been a religion, just at that time it was also temporal power, as a result of the power vacuum when the western roman empire failed, check your history.

Catholicism was the only thing people knew in the middle ages. In the year 800 there was no other option than Catholicism, so there was no other way of life. People could not consider other religions because there weren’t any other, so they didn’t call their religion “Catholicism” they called it “a way of life”.

you keep saying things are innate to the nature of life, either you misunderstand the term ‘innate’ or you are trying to avoid having to prove it.

the things you seem to be calling innate are all things that are taught, not inborn.

If they are taught it is in the innate existence of humanity to teach them. These things that are taught evolved from some conclusion that they needed to be taught.

.

we have always called it a religion. religion is the cornerstone of acceptable social behavior, almost all law is based on it.

Alright: The Holy Roman Empire ruled Europe, or at least most of it in the middle ages. Every ruler of every nation not part of the Holy Roman Empire paid tribute to the Pope, and the a Holy Roman Emperor was a servant of the Pope. There was no other religion. There were no Protestants, and no atheists; everyone else was burned at the stake as heretics/infidels. Religion was not considered religion, it was considered life. The purpose of life was to repent for your sins and nothing else really mattered. Today, religion is a separate sphere of life: Separate from the U.S. government, separate from economics, and separate from whatever wage is earned from one’s job. Religion is not the purpose of life as it was in the middle ages. If it was it would not be called religion. It would be called life.

funny that you would call more than a billion Catholics powerless,

Quite powerless in controlling the “Holy land”?

it is not existent, it has no physical form,or as you might say it has no innate purpose

i tire quickly of word games, make logical arguments or admit you are wrong.

You, sir, grow tired from the insolent explanations placed in your mind by a dying religion. If something exists than why would we think it does not exist? It is innate for that thing to exist. Therefore it has an innate purpose.

earlier you said they were innate, now you say they arent, which is it?

Oh my goodness. It is innate in the existence of the human race to progress to a certain point where through a collaboration of innate thoughts things like the internet can be created. Concepts such as black holes can be realized.

It is innate to solve problems, so it is innate to collaborate thoughts and progress them from generation to generation to solev a constant problem. Like how to connect the world, so the internet was the solution to that problem. It is an evolution of knowledge.

you have yet to offer any evidence of the validity of your thoughts

You have yet to offer any evidence on the validity of your arguments. You argue the same thing every time.: That human society does not undergo evolution.

Evolution is so much more than a single cell adapting to its environment. Every man’s mind evolves from childhood to adult hood.

democracy is as old as monarchy, the ancient greeks and romans practiced both, one is not the evolution of the other, they are just different concepts, democracy is now in vogue, history shows that it will not last. or at least it never has before.

You are incredibly short sighted. Universal suffrage, if you study history, was not an ideal of the Greek or Roman REPUBLICS. Universal Suffrage evolved out of humanity’s constant struggle with dictators, absolutists, and closed minded parliaments.

thats the point if any of these concepts are innate to human nature that they should be born with a basic understanding of them , but they arent, which means you are wrong, these concepts are not innate to human nature

Your view is so confined it’s incredible. You have proved the short sightedness of Absolutism.

When I say humanity I refer to the evolution of humanity as a whole, not a biological evolution of man’s body, but an evolution of humanity’s thoughts, ideas, and knowledge. The internet was not created by one man’s evolution, but by an evolution of humanity’s technology.

The internet was not God’s gift, it was the innate evolution of humanity’s understanding, and innovation. What you are typing through is blasphemous.

It’s like you are completely alienated just by the concept of evolution. The word does not belong to Charles Darwin it belongs to the progression of human thought.

.

you wont find much satisfaction here without providing some evidence, this aint a philosophy 101 class, here you will find some serious thinkers.

Seriously confined thinkers. Philosophy is not Catholic Theology, it is the unbound freedom of thought. Your minds are enslaved by an organization that thinks it knows everything. It reminds me of the matrix.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Catholicism was the only thing people knew in the middle ages. In the year 800 there was no other option than Catholicism,.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

godfree12:

You are incredibly short sighted. Universal suffrage, if you study history, was not an ideal of the Greek or Roman REPUBLICS. Universal Suffrage evolved out of humanity’s constant struggle with dictators, absolutists, and closed minded parliaments.

universal suffrage is not what makes a democracy, and further, it is not as yet, a proven concept, in fact there are many calls to abolish it. it is a new experiment in the great view of history. but it is still not what defines a democracy.

Your view is so confined it’s incredible. You have proved the short sightedness of Absolutism.

my view is confined to that which is supported by reason or evidence, as yours will be as you gain understanding of the world outside a philosophy 101 class.

When I say humanity I refer to the evolution of humanity as a whole, not a biological evolution of man’s body, but an evolution of humanity’s thoughts, ideas, and knowledge. The internet was not created by one man’s evolution, but by an evolution of humanity’s technology.

thats the nature of science, not people. if monkeys dolphins or cows could practice applied science they would come to similar conclusions too. it is not an innate quality of humans it is an innate quality of the scientific method

The internet was not God’s gift, it was the innate evolution of humanity’s understanding, and innovation.

how is it not G-ds gift?, where do you think we got the intelligence necessary to innovate?

i would say that it is directly G-ds gift, for without that gift no science would be possible

What you are typing through is blasphemous.

how is the internet or my computer blasphemous?
thats not what we believe

It’s like you are completely alienated just by the concept of evolution. The word does not belong to Charles Darwin it belongs to the progression of human thought.

then please make it clear when you wish to use a common word for one of its less popular meanings, all this is done by reading, you have to be clear i cant see you or hear you so what you type is the only information i get.

nor am i alienated by the concept, how can you get that?

Seriously confined thinkers.

yes, they too are confined by providing proof, evidence, or logical arguments

Philosophy is not Catholic Theology, it is the unbound freedom of thought.

funny, but i thought it was a search for the truth of things, principles and laws,

not this pink elephants are, because pink elephants must be, because pink elephants are, style of circular reasoning,

further it seems that your ideas change to support your position, leading me to believe that philosophy may not be ones goal, but rather simply an attack on what one believes religion to be.

and the burden of proof is on you, i only argue for the status quo you are arguing strange and exotic ideas

Your minds are enslaved by an organization that thinks it knows everything. It reminds me of the matrix.

the church does not claim to know everything, where do you get that idea?

disagreeing with your rather unorthodox philosophy hardly makes me enslaved. you can check that by all the other people who disagree with you

 

[godfree12]

Mr. Petey, your rhetoric remains condescending, but you have not proved anything. Christianity’s God is based on a book, ‘miracles’, the weight of a 1 billion member crowd, and circular reasoning.

A star is given purpose by its own existence.

Its nature is to react through nuclear fusion, and through this reaction produces light, energy, etc.

A star’s existence is, in itself, to react, therefore it has a purpose to exist.

Nobody put the star there to produce light. Nobody created the matter by which the star reacts. Nobody started the reaction. A star is only concerned with its own existence, while it is subject to the forces of the universe.

It has come to be, therefore it exists. It exists, therefore it makes light.

Why has it come to be? For what purpose?

It was naturally brought into being, and its purpose is to act in those same laws of nature that brought it into being.

Does it matter why the star came into being? No. Does it matter when then star came into being? No. Does it matter what the star’s made of? No. Who created the laws of nature? Nothing. The laws of nature are their own laws.

The star exists. So does man. Life, intelligence, concepts of gods came into being on Earth and they do whatever their inherent nature prescribes them to do. That is existence.

Look outside the realms of humanity.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Mr. Petey, your rhetoric remains condescending

i havent meant it to be, asking for evidence is not meant to be condescending, its to actually see evidence of these theories that you talk about. if any other competent authority holds them, then offer that, but you need something more than your own opinion

but you have not proved anything.

you are putting forth theories, leaving the burden of proof on you.

Christianity’s God is based on a book, ‘miracles’, the weight of a 1 billion member crowd, and circular reasoning.

the belief is based on our actual, traceable knowledge of the actions of Christ, in fulfillment of dozens of convergent prophecies, it is all bu a mathematical certainty, if only 7 of those prophecies are fulfilled that can bring the odds against Christ being the divine messiah to 1 in 1x10(38). and there are many more prophecies than that.

those miracles have been experienced by millions, are you saying that all those people are crazy or hallucinating?

that book is not a ‘book’ it is a collection of many books written by many people over the course of millennium, in different places, by people who wrote in different languages, lived in different cultures, etc. yet they all point to the same G-d, they all converge in the person of Christ.

if you are a man of reason, then use that reason to see the truth, atheism asks you to ignore what is reason and go by what is popular, fight the crowd, there is a reason that we outnumber the non-believers so badly, you are no more intelligent, educated, or open minded than us, so why do you disbelieve what most people see to be evident?

do you have an example of this circular reasoning in theology, frankly i have found you rather uninformed on what religion is and is not.

A star is given purpose by its own existence.

one creates a lamp to give light, a lamp doesn’t just appear from nothing

Its nature is to react through nuclear fusion, and through this reaction produces light, energy, etc.

the fusion cycle is not a quality of the star, it is a quality of the gravity of the star. fusion will occur anywhere matter is packed dense enough by gravity to commence the fusion reaction

A star’s existence is, in itself, to react, therefore it has a purpose to exist.

the same objection as above.

Nobody put the star there to produce light. Nobody created the matter by which the star reacts.

than what mechanism did the matter come to exist?

Nobody started the reaction. A star is only concerned with its own existence, while it is subject to the forces of the universe.

a star is only an accumulation of matter, it has no concerns whatsoever

It has come to be, therefore it exists. It exists, therefore it makes light.

this is circular reasoning, the flaw that people keep trying to tell you about in your argument, if you dont know its called MOQ and has already been destroyed twice on this board in the last month or so.

Why has it come to be? For what purpose?

it was created for G-ds purpose, to provide light, navigation aids, to provide its role in the cosmic interaction of forces that hold together the very heavens. just to be a beautiful part of G-ds tapestry.

It was naturally brought into being, and its purpose is to act in those same laws of nature that brought it into being.

thats just it, by what manner was it brought in to being, by what mechanism? it did not pop out of nowhere.

Does it matter why the star came into being? No. Does it matter when then star came into being? No. Does it matter what the star’s made of? No. Who created the laws of nature? Nothing. The laws of nature are their own laws.

no matter how hard you try, you cannot get around the fact that things do not create themselves. nothing justs pops into existence from nowhere

The star exists. So does man

two entirely different things, one has free will, the other does not

Life, intelligence, concepts of gods came into being on Earth and they do whatever their inherent nature prescribes them to do. That is existence.

this is one of the parts that you need some proof for, nothing just comes into being from nothing

this is where people start to laugh, it simply makes no sense.

Look outside the realms of humanity.

what am i to look for?

you seem to be saying that things pop into existence from nowhere. and it doesn’t matter why, it only matters that they behave according to some inherent qaulity that causes their behavior?

do you mean some kind of non-causal mathematical determinatism?

i still think your talking about MOQ

further, you seem to be biased against religion. you dont really seem to understand it but you offer diatribes against it, or at least what you think it is.

if you wish to be taken seriously you need to offer us something more than just your opinion, if anyone else of a competent authority has supporting evidence, than present it.

remember, you are trying to prove theories that are unorthodox to say the least, if you cannot offer evidence to support them, people will not solely accept your opinion as an authority on the subject.

so please offer sensible evidence for your opinions or retract them.

 

[teachccd]

This is actually more entertaining than a van load of clowns plowing into a bus load of hippies! Just place godfree12 in a foxhole and have him explain his “being is in itself” theory to those around him. He’s doing an awful lot of work trying to prove that evolution brought humanity to a point where they can rationalize the non-existence of their Creator. Funny thing about all of this, godfree12’s plan has him spending a great amount of time on a Catholic website trying to prove us wrong. If we are wrong, we lose nothing. If he is wrong, he loses everything…Check out Blaise Paschal…teachccd

 

[godfree12]

It is irrelevant how the star came to produce light.

The laws of nature prescribe it to do so.

Therefore it produces light.

Does it really matter how the matter came to be?

Matter, and substance comprise the universe. The universe is all there is. So matter and substance are all there is.

The the only argument creationists have on their side is that matter

did not pop out of nowhere

But, by you saying God created matter, you are saying matter popped

out of nowhere

.

If that does not prove my point then I do not know what will.

 

[Coleski]

If God is the ultimate, His creation by something other would mean He is not God. The universe, that scientists have come to understand, is not eternal. It had a beginning, what scientists call the big bang, some thirteen billion years ago. The universe began, will grow, and then die. Like all its parts, it is not eternal. The Sun will burn out in a few billion years as our bodies die in our few allotted decades Entropy predicts all created things eventually burn out to that disordered randomness called death.

Einstein’s theory of General Relativity predicted a universe with a beginning. This bothered Einstein because he wanted to believe in an eternal universe, not for scientific reasons, but because he didn’t want to believe in a God who allowed Nazi death camps. He came up with a cosmological constant that allowed an eternal universe to fit his equations. This was bad science in introducing a big fudge factor to make the universe static and unchanging as he wanted it to be. Hubble’s discovery of the red shift proved Einstein’s theory, undoctored by fudge factors, was correct in predicting a finite universe. Its good science when theory is verified by experiment. The universe had a beginning that lives through expansion and is fading into a disordered heat death.

The most necessary thing in reality then is God, the infinitely great intelligence. Matter, energy, and space are contingent and not necessary. Created things integrate and then disintegrate, from dust you came and to just you will return, or as Jesus said in the Gospel of John, the universe will pass away; but my word is eternal. The Word, not matter, is eternal. Scientists are discovering that information is more essential for existence than material. Man, only when attached by Gods love, can live eternally. To achieve this, we must obey the greatest commandment to Love God with our all. We need God, He does not need us. This love is not achieved by calling God an unnecessary complication. Our choice is eternal life or eternal death. We must remain attached to vine or perish. If God complicates things for us, we will all get a chance to tell Him so with our God given free will. God allows us to separate from the vine, He will not force love. God then, is a complication I gladly live with. If the choice is between God and world, I choose God. I choose life over death.

 

[godfree12]

If God is the ultimate, His creation by something other would mean He is not God. The universe, that scientists have come to understand, is not eternal. It had a beginning, what scientists call the big bang, some thirteen billion years ago. The universe began, will grow, and then die. Like all its parts, it is not eternal. The Sun will burn out in a few billion years as our bodies die in our few allotted decades Entropy predicts all created things eventually burn out to that disordered randomness called death.

Einstein’s theory of General Relativity predicted a universe with a beginning. This bothered Einstein because he wanted to believe in an eternal universe, not for scientific reasons, but because he didn’t want to believe in a God who allowed Nazi death camps. He came up with a cosmological constant that allowed an eternal universe to fit his equations. This was bad science in introducing a big fudge factor to make the universe static and unchanging as he wanted it to be. Hubble’s discovery of the red shift proved Einstein’s theory, undoctored by fudge factors, was correct in predicting a finite universe. Its good science when theory is verified by experiment. The universe had a beginning that lives through expansion and is fading into a disordered heat death.

The most necessary thing in reality then is God, the infinitely great intelligence. Matter, energy, and space are contingent and not necessary. Created things integrate and then disintegrate, from dust you came and to just you will return, or as Jesus said in the Gospel of John, the universe will pass away; but my word is eternal. The Word, not matter, is eternal. Scientists are discovering that information is more essential for existence than material. Man, only when attached by Gods love, can live eternally. To achieve this, we must obey the greatest commandment to Love God with our all. We need God, He does not need us. This love is not achieved by calling God an unnecessary complication. Our choice is eternal life or eternal death. We must remain attached to vine or perish. If God complicates things for us, we will all get a chance to tell Him so with our God given free will. God allows us to separate from the vine, He will not force love. God then, is a complication I gladly live with. If the choice is between God and world, I choose God. I choose life over death.

God is a necessary step to something much greater. God is a tool of social control. God can be said to say whatever is wanted, by the interpretor, to be said.

Matter is never created or destroyed. Energy is never created or destroyed. It just gets infinitely small from infinitely big. Evidence: f(x) = 1/x Graph

Were you Einstein’s biographer?

Man, only when attached by Gods love, can live eternally. To achieve this, we must obey the greatest commandment to Love God with our all. We need God, He does not need us.

That is why individuals must be their own God(s).

 

[Sarpedon]

This is a circular argument. If he is right, then there is nor reason…to acknowlege his argument This is why circular reasoning is bad…it comes back around to BITE you …on the butt

I thought about this some more, and I though of a clearer way of explaining it.

You are absolutely correct. If our “minds are chance arrangements of atoms”, then there is absolutely no reason to believe Lewis, atheism, theism, or anything else for that matter. Hence, Lewis argues that such belief, that “minds are chance arrangements of atoms”, is irrational because if it is true, then there is no way for us to know it is true and everything becomes circular.

It’s only through acknowledging that the mind is not unguided that we can break the circle.

 

[teachccd]

God is a necessary step to something much greater. God is a tool of social control. God can be said to say whatever is wanted, by the interpretor, to be said.

You are a very big person who knows so much. Is it God, then who controls you? Is He your tool by which you speak? Or are you too good and too intelligent to need this “social tool” that all of us mere mortals need to survive? How does your god make sense? Why do you NEED something called god? Or maybe you don’t because you have all of the semantics to move around your Creator. Are you god? If you are god then who am I? If I am also god, then are we one and the same? Am I then you? Are our intelligences equal or are we all gods of different caliber?

If God is a “step to something much greater” then why do we need him? Where exactly does he fit in to your equation, or does he?

Matter is never created or destroyed. Energy is never created or destroyed. It just gets infinitely small from infinitely big. Evidence: f(x) = 1/x Graph

Were you Einstein’s biographer?

That is why individuals must be their own God(s).

By what authority do you speak? Why should I believe you?? Who exactly are you who knows so much? Your first statement that matter is never created or destroyed is said by what authority? Don’t give me some mathematician’s equation because I can give you Genesis Chapter One. Why should I believe anything that you say? Are you God? If you are then you are just a stepping stone to something greater. And what is greater may have nothing to do with you. So, by what authority do you speak?

How do you know sooooooo much? And how can you prove that God , as our Creator, does not exist? You, who claims to know so much …teachccd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is irrelevant how the star came to produce light.

The laws of nature prescribe it to do so.

Therefore it produces light.

nothing proscribes it to do so, it occurs because certain conditions initiate a fusion reaction

Does it really matter how the matter came to be?

yes, it may be the only thing that matters.

purpose does not come from existence. that denies basic causality.

one needs more light, so he creates a lamp to fulfill that need or desire, the lamp didnt come from nowhere, its purpose is not independent of its creators needs and desires, purpose is contingent on need or want, not on existence.

Matter, and substance comprise the universe. The universe is all there is. So matter and substance are all there is.

hey !, we finally agree on something, i happen to be a materialist too!

but you misunderstand that the universe is not infinite or eternal, it had a big bang, a beginning

a mathematical regression from current conditions runs into infinite values at 1x10(-35) seconds after the big bang, cosmology posits an ‘infinite moment’ for lack of a better word, when neither time nor physical laws existed, from that we can infer that prior to the expansion, prior to 1x10(-35) seconds there was a self existent infinity. though we cannot directly say that was G-d, it is suspiciously like the qualities that we claim for G-d, infinite and self existent,

so if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quaacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

The the only argument creationists have on their side is that matter

is that matter was created as shown in the big bang

But, by you saying God created matter, you are saying matter popped.

no, we are saying that G-d created it, not that it popped out of nowhere. that it arose from a self existent infinity. not “nothing”

If that does not prove my point then I do not know what will.

in science, if you cannot confirm your hypothesis, you change the hypothesis,

so if you cant make your point, then maybe your point is wrong.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If God is the ultimate, His creation by something other would mean He is not God. The universe, that scientists have come to understand, is not eternal. It had a beginning, what scientists call the big bang, some thirteen billion years ago. The universe began, will grow, and then die. Like all its parts, it is not eternal. The Sun will burn out in a few billion years as our bodies die in our few allotted decades Entropy predicts all created things eventually burn out to that disordered randomness called death.

Einstein’s theory of General Relativity predicted a universe with a beginning. This bothered Einstein because he wanted to believe in an eternal universe, not for scientific reasons, but because he didn’t want to believe in a God who allowed Nazi death camps. He came up with a cosmological constant that allowed an eternal universe to fit his equations. This was bad science in introducing a big fudge factor to make the universe static and unchanging as he wanted it to be. Hubble’s discovery of the red shift proved Einstein’s theory, undoctored by fudge factors, was correct in predicting a finite universe. Its good science when theory is verified by experiment. The universe had a beginning that lives through expansion and is fading into a disordered heat death.

The most necessary thing in reality then is God, the infinitely great intelligence. Matter, energy, and space are contingent and not necessary. Created things integrate and then disintegrate, from dust you came and to just you will return, or as Jesus said in the Gospel of John, the universe will pass away; but my word is eternal. The Word, not matter, is eternal. Scientists are discovering that information is more essential for existence than material. Man, only when attached by Gods love, can live eternally. To achieve this, we must obey the greatest commandment to Love God with our all. We need God, He does not need us. This love is not achieved by calling God an unnecessary complication. Our choice is eternal life or eternal death. We must remain attached to vine or perish. If God complicates things for us, we will all get a chance to tell Him so with our God given free will. God allows us to separate from the vine, He will not force love. God then, is a complication I gladly live with. If the choice is between God and world, I choose God. I choose life over death.

nicely said

 

[teachccd]

It is irrelevant how the star came to produce light.

The laws of nature prescribe it to do so.

Therefore it produces light.

Does it really matter how the matter came to be?

Matter, and substance comprise the universe. The universe is all there is. So matter and substance are all there is.

The the only argument creationists have on their side is that matter

But, by you saying God created matter, you are saying matter popped.

If that does not prove my point then I do not know what will.

The HUGE difference that the effect of your matter popping out of nowhere had NO cause. For every effect there has to be a cause. Yes, God created matter from nothing but you say that without a cause matter came from nothing. That is infinitely different. By regression you would have to go to the cause of the effect of the “big bang”. Your only conclusion is that matter is eternal. Prove that to me…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

If God is the ultimate, His creation by something other would mean He is not God. The universe, that scientists have come to understand, is not eternal. It had a beginning, what scientists call the big bang, some thirteen billion years ago. The universe began, will grow, and then die. Like all its parts, it is not eternal. The Sun will burn out in a few billion years as our bodies die in our few allotted decades Entropy predicts all created things eventually burn out to that disordered randomness called death.

Einstein’s theory of General Relativity predicted a universe with a beginning. This bothered Einstein because he wanted to believe in an eternal universe, not for scientific reasons, but because he didn’t want to believe in a God who allowed Nazi death camps. He came up with a cosmological constant that allowed an eternal universe to fit his equations. This was bad science in introducing a big fudge factor to make the universe static and unchanging as he wanted it to be. Hubble’s discovery of the red shift proved Einstein’s theory, undoctored by fudge factors, was correct in predicting a finite universe. Its good science when theory is verified by experiment. The universe had a beginning that lives through expansion and is fading into a disordered heat death.

The most necessary thing in reality then is God, the infinitely great intelligence. Matter, energy, and space are contingent and not necessary. Created things integrate and then disintegrate, from dust you came and to just you will return, or as Jesus said in the Gospel of John, the universe will pass away; but my word is eternal. The Word, not matter, is eternal. Scientists are discovering that information is more essential for existence than material. Man, only when attached by Gods love, can live eternally. To achieve this, we must obey the greatest commandment to Love God with our all. We need God, He does not need us. This love is not achieved by calling God an unnecessary complication. Our choice is eternal life or eternal death. We must remain attached to vine or perish. If God complicates things for us, we will all get a chance to tell Him so with our God given free will. God allows us to separate from the vine, He will not force love. God then, is a complication I gladly live with. If the choice is between God and world, I choose God. I choose life over death.

I have to agree that this was very well said…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

God is a necessary step to something much greater.

what could be greater than an infinite, self existent G-d, as we belive, he is the alpha and the omega. the beginning and the end

God is a tool of social control

thats out there a ways, there would be nothing to control without G-d, nothing would exist. its like those who are paranoid that the Illuminati are secretly running the world, even if they were so what? even if it is used as a form of social control so what, its good for us

and as we have seen from the atrocities of the last century societies that try to be ‘G-d free’ are absolutely unacceptable in their practice.

they simply exercised social control with execution squads and reeducation camps

so which do you prefer social control via religion, or social control via execution?

because in practice, thats what actually happens.

God can be said to say whatever is wanted, by the interpretor, to be said.

thats exactly why the inquisition started. it is extremely important that no one be allowed to make private interpretations of Holy Scripture, thats also the main problem we have with protestants, they wish to interpret the Scripture as they see fit, thats why there are so many different kinds of protestants.

the Catholic church was founded and given authority by Christ in matthew 16:18. and we still have the bones of the first Bishop of Rome, popularly called the Pope, the Apostle Peter. all others are pretenders to the Seat of Peter, or the authority granted him by Christ.

Matter is never created or destroyed. Energy is never created or destroyed. It just gets infinitely small from infinitely big. Evidence: f(x) = 1/x Graph

i assume you are referring to the cyclic universe as proposed by alan guth, as you should know, that is not a widely accepted theory among cosmologists because it is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. all closed systems tend toward entropy, unless more energy is added. aand calculations currently show that heat death is the end.

further a cyclic universe does not mean an eternal universe. that still leaves it subject to First Cause.

That is why individuals must be their own God(s).

by what mechanism can a man be his own G-d? your will alone cant change the color of one hair ion your head, if you dont breathe for five minutes, you die, in fact you will die no matter what, that is hardly being ones own G-d.

 

[godfree12]

what could be greater than an infinite, self existent G-d, as we belive, he is the alpha and the omega. the beginning and the end

thats out there a ways, there would be nothing to control without G-d, nothing would exist. its like those who are paranoid that the Illuminati are secretly running the world, even if they were so what? even if it is used as a form of social control so what, its good for us

and as we have seen from the atrocities of the last century societies that try to be ‘G-d free’ are absolutely unacceptable in their practice.

they simply exercised social control with execution squads and reeducation camps

so which do you prefer social control via religion, or social control via execution?

because in practice, thats what actually happens.

thats exactly why the inquisition started. it is extremely important that no one be allowed to make private interpretations of Holy Scripture, thats also the main problem we have with protestants, they wish to interpret the Scripture as they see fit, thats why there are so many different kinds of protestants.

the Catholic church was founded and given authority by Christ in matthew 16:18. and we still have the bones of the first Bishop of Rome, popularly called the Pope, the Apostle Peter. all others are pretenders to the Seat of Peter, or the authority granted him by Christ.

i assume you are referring to the cyclic universe as proposed by alan guth, as you should know, that is not a widely accepted theory among cosmologists because it is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. all closed systems tend toward entropy, unless more energy is added. aand calculations currently show that heat death is the end.

further a cyclic universe does not mean an eternal universe. that still leaves it subject to First Cause.

by what mechanism can a man be his own G-d? your will alone cant change the color of one hair ion your head, if you dont breathe for five minutes, you die, in fact you will die no matter what, that is hardly being ones own G-d.

I have killed this ‘G-d’ with a mere thought, and so have many other protestants, atheists, muslims, etc.

God changes definition. There is no one definition of ‘Him’. Even the Catholic definition has changed, more-so evolved over the years.

Here we see that all non-believers are to be condemned by the ‘one’ church:

But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’ — they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Nicean Creed 325 AD

That creed was indeed closer to the time of Jesus, so it would be assumed it was more Holy.

If the concept of God has not changed over the years then George W. Bush and Barack Obama should be condemned publicly by the One church. They certainly do not adhere to the proclamations of the Nicean creed:

Other parts of Nicean Creed: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.

Being very public figures, their condemnation would lead them to repent, in theory.

But, no, the ‘one’ church has not publicly condemned these figures, so the ‘one’ church has indeed changed its policies.

The ‘one’ church has indeed changed its stance on God.

Therefore the concept of God is subject to change.

Therefore it is not a concrete belief.

It is subject to the will and power of Man.

 

[notsmart]

I never spent so much time fighting with God as an athiest. I am blown away by these posts.
I sincerely think that godfree spends more time thinking about God than I did up until recently. Maybe more than I do even now.