Flores, What Is Your "Working Model" of God?

[Balerion]

There's no excuse not to answer now, Flores. Tell me, what exactly you meant when you said you use a "Working Model" when it comes to deciding if there is a God or not?

I will reply to this post every day until you do, just to make sure you can't hide from it. I want an answer.

JD

 

[Flores]

Despite your obsession, rudeness, aggression, violence, ect, I have decided to respond, and I don't have to, I can get your thread closed and butt kicked if I wanted to very easily...RIGHT CRIS AND JAMES???, but I will ask that CRIS and JAMES give you a break and not close your obsessive thread. I have decided to explain my perception of god further, not because you have demonstrated any ability to understand or reflect, but because I like to confirm my understanding of things by revisiting my notes and attempting to explain it to others, plus I have nothing to loose.

Where would I start. Such great information already exist about the oneness of god. I am not inventing the wheel here. I'll try to summarize other information mainly from the pearls of wisdom site for consistency purposes, so that I can help you understand.

EVERYTHING in this universe points out to the oneness of god. It's one big working model that points out in all ways to unity.
Whatever exists gives the message, and you'll have to either believe that each 'particle' possesses almost infinite knowledge, will and power or One who has such knowledge, power and will creates and administers each particle. Which stand do you assume. I believe that one particle can not possess the infinite knowledge and thus an exterior power or order is administering all of us in an extremely orderly fashion.


Let's examine some very important features that mark our universe.....May I direct your slow heavy head to the meaning of the word universe. UNI is ONE. A universe is a ONE not many shape or body that contain many things. Back to the feature of our universe that point to the oneness of god:


It is impossible to attribute existance to more than one originator:

since the countless fruits of a tree depend on one law of growth from one center, they are as easy and cheap to grow as one single fruit. In other words, the multiplicity of centers requires for a single fruit, as much hardship, expenditure, and equipment as for the whole of the tree, as to manufacture the military equipment necessary for a single soldier all the factories required for the whole army are necessary. That means, when a single result related to numerous individuals is dependent on a multiplicity of centers, as many difficulties as the number of the individuals involved arise. Thus, the extraordinary ease clearly seen in all species arises from unity.

The finite nature of things points to a ONE god with no beginning or end:

Everything in the universe is finite and changeable. Anything changeable is contained by time and space; it has a beginning and end. Anything which has a beginning needs a without beginning one who brings it into existence. For the one who has a beginning cannot be the originator of things, since such a one will, evidently, need another originator. As an unending regress through the originator of each originator, is unacceptable, reason demands one who is infinitely self-existent and self-subsistent, who undergoes no change, namely God.

The order of the univrse points to unity:

From tiniest particles to huge spheres and galaxies, everything in the universe and the universe as a whole display a magnificent harmony and order. ONE order, not many orders. Not only in things themselves but also between all things there is a harmonious relation, so much so that as the existence of a single part necessitates the existence of the whole, so also the whole requires the existence of all its parts for its existence. The deformation of a single cell may lead to the death of a whole body; similarly a single pomegranate demands for its existence the collaborative and cooperative existence of air, water, earth, and the sun and a well-balanced cooperation between them. This harmony and cooperation in the universe point to a creator of order, who knows everything in all its relations and with all its characteristics, and who is able to put everything in order. That creator of order is God.

Death is an argument for the existance of a divine oneness:

All live matter on our universe testify to god's Unity, eternity and permanence through their decay and death. Truly, just as the beautiful, delicate creatures that are renewed and recruited along with the alternation of day and night, and summer and winter, and the passage of centuries and ages, certainly show the existence, Unity and permanence of an elevated, everlasting One with a continuous display of beauty, so too, the decay and death of those creatures together with the apparent causes for their lives, demonstrates that the (material or natural) causes are nothing other than a mere veil. This is a fact, which decisively proves that these arts, these inscriptions, these manifestations, are the constantly renewed arts, the changing inscriptions, and the moving mirrors of an All-Beautiful One of Majesty.

To conclude:
When attributed to unity, all things become as easy as a single thing, while if they are ascribed to causes, a single thing becomes as difficult as everything. Do you understand what that means. It means that to the creator of all things, we are simple singles, while to us singles, everything around us is as complex as a while. Because of that, the extraordinary cheapness and facility observed in the universe and endless abundance before our eyes display the stamp of Unity like the sun. If these fruits which we obtain in such plenty and for so little cost were not the property of the One of Unity, even if we gave the whole world in payment, we would not have a single fruit to eat, since it requires the purposeful and conscious co-operation of as many and universal elements as earth, air, water, and the light and heat of the sun, an the seed, which are all unconscious and act at the disposal of a Single Maker, Who is Almighty God. The cost of a single particle or any other fruit is the whole universe.

 

[Balerion]

Despite your obsession, rudeness, aggression, violence, ect,

Please, Flores, you were the one who did all the childish name-calling. Are you really that dilusional?

have decided to respond, and I don't have to, I can get your thread closed and butt kicked if I wanted to very easily

Ha! I'd like to see you try! Do it! Please! I'm begging you! If they let your post stand, they should give me a gold medal for this one.

I have decided to explain my perception of god further, not because you have demonstrated any ability to understand or reflect, but because I like to confirm my understanding of things by revisiting my notes and attempting to explain it to others, plus I have nothing to loose.

...Orrrr maybe a week later you finally gathered enough information to answer the question?

EVERYTHING in this universe points out to the oneness of god. It's one big working model that points out in all ways to unity.

Ok, right off the bat you are being subjective. If you don't believe in God, then the whole universe might point to the Big Bang.

Whatever exists gives the message, and you'll have to either believe that each 'particle' possesses almost infinite knowledge, will and power or One who has such knowledge, power and will creates and administers each particle. Which stand do you assume. I believe that one particle can not possess the infinite knowledge and thus an exterior power or order is administering all of us in an extremely orderly fashion.

What you aren't taking into consideration here is that we didn't start as complex or "orderly" as we are today. Over time, what was simple became complex little by little. On top of that, none of the complexities added were justified by the end result--ie, what we are today--but they all had their own benefits at the times they were implimented.

Because natural selection acts upon every improvement, it sort of dampers your idea of "infinite knowledge" held in each "particle," because such knowledge would not be necissary; the only thing to be decided is what is the most immediate, beneficial adaptation.

UNI is ONE. A universe is a ONE not many shape or body that contain many things.

No shit, Sherlock. But no scientist will tell you that we are the only universe, or the first, or the last. Jim Hartle and Stephen Hawking proposed the No Boundries universe, which is finite, but does not begin with a singularity. And the Anthropic universe theory, proposed by Brandon Carter and Robert Dicke in the 1960s states that there are/have been many universes, and we just happen to be the right formula.

It is impossible to attribute existance to more than one originator:

It is also impossible to attribute existance to an originator at all.

Everything in the universe is finite and changeable. Anything changeable is contained by time and space; it has a beginning and end. Anything which has a beginning needs a without beginning one who brings it into existence. For the one who has a beginning cannot be the originator of things, since such a one will, evidently, need another originator. As an unending regress through the originator of each originator, is unacceptable, reason demands one who is infinitely self-existent and self-subsistent, who undergoes no change, namely God

You are saying that anything in the universe that has a beginning requires something without a beginning to create it, correct? Sorry Flores, but that isn't true. See, whoever came up with that did all the research believing in God already. They did not come up with this stuff and then decide God existed, they were biased going in. Otherwise, they would not have come to that conclusion.

Anyway, if your "reason" demanded an infinite creator, why can't the universe itself be that entity? Taking the jump from the theory we have to a God is completely uneccisary. And without merit, as well.

From tiniest particles to huge spheres and galaxies, everything in the universe and the universe as a whole display a magnificent harmony and order

That can't be true. If that were true, then comets wouldn't have hit the earth or moon or any other planet, nor would there be an asteroid belt or asteroids at all. And, above all that, what evidence is there that such an idea is even remotely true? I can see that you're just cut-and-pasting from other websites, so none of these ideas are your own, but please, if you can find it somewhere, find me the evidence. That isn't fact, Flores...it's dilusional, romantic bullshit.

Not only in things themselves but also between all things there is a harmonious relation, so much so that as the existence of a single part necessitates the existence of the whole, so also the whole requires the existence of all its parts for its existence. The deformation of a single cell may lead to the death of a whole body;

Wrong again. I stepped on an ant today, but the world didn't end.

similarly a single pomegranate demands for its existence the collaborative and cooperative existence of air, water, earth, and the sun and a well-balanced cooperation between them.

So what exactly are you saying? Are you saying that every single particle in the universe has to be in order, or that the conditions (for which there is a wide berth) in the universe are prime for life? There is a difference, Flores.

Just to clear your mind, it's the latter. Conditions, at least in this part of the universe, are prime for life. Not that there is a specific balance required, as our planet's orbit could be quite a bit wider, or quite a bit tighter, and we could survive.

And consider that maybe life would find a way no matter the conditions! After all, if there was a set of strict rules for life that could not be circumvented or broken, then there would be no diversity in life, would there? There would either be no deep ocean life...(or no land life, you chose) Life finds a way.

This harmony and cooperation in the universe point to a creator of order, who knows everything in all its relations and with all its characteristics, and who is able to put everything in order.

But why is that neccisary? Why is the model in existance now not good enough? This "harmony and cooperation" that you speak of may just be a coincidence, and life itself found a way in spite of it. Who's to say? Certainly not you.

That creator of order is God.

Again, I ask "Why?" Why does the "order" involved in the existance of life have to be attributed to God?

All live matter on our universe testify to god's Unity, eternity and permanence through their decay and death. Truly, just as the beautiful, delicate creatures that are renewed and recruited along with the alternation of day and night, and summer and winter, and the passage of centuries and ages, certainly show the existence, Unity and permanence of an elevated, everlasting One with a continuous display of beauty, so too, the decay and death of those creatures together with the apparent causes for their lives, demonstrates that the (material or natural) causes are nothing other than a mere veil. This is a fact, which decisively proves that these arts, these inscriptions, these manifestations, are the constantly renewed arts, the changing inscriptions, and the moving mirrors of an All-Beautiful One of Majesty.

Ok, if I'm reading this garbled, fantasy bullshit correctly, then what you're (or, the person who REALLY wrote it) saying is, death proves God, because no matter the cause, everything dies. Am I right?

If I am, then you're (or, the person who REALLY wrote it) wrong. There is a reason the life expectancy for a human has grown over the years. Medicine lets Man live longer. Medicine can save the lives of Men and animals alike. There is nothing that says we even have to die at all. Granted, that is an opinion, but it's based on the fact that life expectancies have grown, and there is nothing saying that it has to have a glass ceiling.

When attributed to unity, all things become as easy as a single thing, while if they are ascribed to causes, a single thing becomes as difficult as everything. Do you understand what that means

Sure. It means that if it's simple, it must be right.

It means that to the creator of all things, we are simple singles, while to us singles, everything around us is as complex as a while. Because of that, the extraordinary cheapness and facility observed in the universe and endless abundance before our eyes display the stamp of Unity like the sun

OK, you have to forgive me for not being sure on what you mean here, seeing as your grammar isn't the best. NOT AN INSULT, I understand that English is your second language, I'm not knocking you, seriously. But this paragraph is kind of hard to disscern.

It looks like you're saying that the higher the view, the smaller things look. I don't get the rest of it, though...

we would not have a single fruit to eat, since it requires the purposeful and conscious co-operation of as many and universal elements as earth, air, water, and the light and heat of the sun, an the seed, which are all unconscious and act at the disposal of a Single Maker, Who is Almighty God. The cost of a single particle or any other fruit is the whole universe.

OK, but again, I have to point out that the foundation of your belief is flawed. There is evidence that our planet could be outside or inside of it's current orbit and still survive. There are species that live near the bottom of the ocean that live with no sunlight at all. We didn't think it was possible until we found them.

So saying that there is a set harmony in the universe is wrong, or at least as far as I can see, it is. That, and the fact that evolution points to life adapting to it's enviroment, rather than life being born into an enviroment perfectly suited for it. All this says to me that this harmony you speak of is just a romantic notion.

And to make the jump from harmony to God is beyond me. I don't see how you make that judgement based on the evidence. It's obvious that you believed in God long before you made this stuff your working model.

Thanks for answering, finally.

JD

 

[Flores]

The problem JDAWG is not in the fact that I believe in god. It's in the fact that YOU STRONGLY BELIEVE that I believe in a misconception absurd identity of a god, which in turn makes you a believer in your own understanding of what god is, and you're fighting your own shadows.

I understand your position, because I was once their. I was an Atheist for the most part of my life, because my understanding of god was limited to what I thought others think of him. I though others think that god is a man in the moon striking lightening, ect, and I fought that concept. But since I was fighting absurd notions to start with, I was not really fighting the concept of god, just what others think of what god is. I thought others made up stories, I though others were dillusional. I thought others were lying on purpose to serve their agenda. I was not about to believe in what others believe and that made me an Atheist. But after some reflection, I found the common theme for my confusion. I was in the word OTHERS. I never questioned myself once about the real reasons for creations, the purpose of mylife, the order in the universe, the cleanliness of the universe, the purity of the universe, the oneness of our universe. Do you ever question yourself, or is it easier to chase me and others around to make you feel good. The problem though, I was not thinking for myself about god, I was looking through others glasses and not liking what I saw....Much like you are trying to do now, which is look through the Flores glasses. You interrogate Flores and suck the juices out of her so that you can critice her understanding of god, and you are not really criticizing the concept of god, nor my understanding of god, only my writing abilities about god. And my glasses are not good for you, they're only good for me.

JDAWG, you believe in a god too, not the same god that I believe in, but a non existant absurd god in your imagination that your limited ceiling understanding could take you to, and you think everybody else who is religious believe in, and you are fighting your own misconceptions and disbelieves...It's so ironical, I don't know how to write about it. The trick for you is not to come up with a new idea or model, but to escape the misconceptions in your head. I'll say it again, and I hope you don't take it as an insult. Think for yourself, and come up with the model that will work for you. Only then, will you be 100% sure like me that this is YOUR truth and you'll be selfish as hell to keep it to yourself.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

JDawg
I could have sworn you were a theist, what the hells going on? Or am I thing of Jcarl?

 

[Jenyar]

originally posted by JDawg
And consider that maybe life would find a way no matter the conditions! After all, if there was a set of strict rules for life that could not be circumvented or broken, then there would be no diversity in life, would there? There would either be no deep ocean life...(or no land life, you chose) Life finds a way.

Then why has life stopped originating so completely that we can't even recreate its origin under the any conditions?

 

[Balerion]

Flores, apologies for the time between posts; I've been busy.

The problem JDAWG is not in the fact that I believe in god. It's in the fact that YOU STRONGLY BELIEVE that I believe in a misconception absurd identity of a god,

Almost; the problem is that you believe at all, one way or another. You can say--and do so proudly--that there is a god and you refuse to do any research whatsoever. My problem with you and your kind is that you follow blindly, and refuse to ask questions. That promotes and begets ignorance, and the fact that you're a part of it disgraces the human race.

which in turn makes you a believer in your own understanding of what god is, and you're fighting your own shadows.

Bullshit. I don't have a belief in any god...what you're doing here is trying to turn me into the Christian oppressor, but that's not who you're dealing with here. I cannot say if God exists, because there is no evidence for one. That said, I have no preconcieved notion of what one would be if it existed.

I understand your position, because I was once their. I was an Atheist for the most part of my life, because my understanding of god was limited to what I thought others think of him.

No you weren't. I would bet money you were never an atheist, because being an atheist requires an objective, reasonable mind, and you have shown none of that. An atheist is a person who has questioned the existance of god and is unsatisfied enough with what they've found in organized religion's answers that they are comfortable saying that they do not believe in the god put before them.

You, ma'am, are someone who is too afraid of reality to question god's existance, so I highly doubt you ever doubted your god's existance, or supposed power over you. So drop that load of crap right now; you aren't me, and you never have been like me.

though others think that god is a man in the moon striking lightening, ect, and I fought that concept. But since I was fighting absurd notions to start with, I was not really fighting the concept of god, just what others think of what god is

Did I call it, or what? You never really were an atheist, you just didn't find these perceptions of god comfortable. What did you do then? You simply found one that fit. Rather than question it's existance at all, you merely shopped for the one that was cozy. How so typically ignorant of you and your kind.

But after some reflection, I found the common theme for my confusion. I was in the word OTHERS. I never questioned myself once about the real reasons for creations, the purpose of mylife, the order in the universe, the cleanliness of the universe, the purity of the universe, the oneness of our universe.

OK, let's first talk about this supposed "Purity" and "Cleanliness" of the universe...last time I checked, things aren't exactly in order out there. For example, according to one of the laws of the universe, there should be an equal amount of matter and anti-matter, yet as far as we can see, there is an overwhelming amount of matter, while there is little anti-matter. Not exactly what you'd call "cleanliness."

Let's touch on purity. What information do you use to come to that conclusion? How do you know the universe is pure, and what exactly is pure about it? What does pure mean when applied to the universe? Do you just make these things up?

The problem though, I was not thinking for myself about god, I was looking through others glasses and not liking what I saw....

Exactly. And you still haven't started thinking for yourself. You have yet to question the existance of god. You just move until you find the one that fits your needs.

Much like you are trying to do now, which is look through the Flores glasses. You interrogate Flores and suck the juices out of her so that you can critice her understanding of god,

Wrong. I think for myself, which is why I ask questions. If I were to base my beliefs the same way you do, I would never ask a single question, and I would believe things I've made up in my mind! What a sad existance you live, when you consider someone who asks questions someone who doesn't think for themselves. Sad, loney existance.

And I do not question your understanding of god, more like god itself! Your understanding of god as a supernatural, spiritual being is a nonpoint, because all that matters is the fact that you believe in god at all. The concept of god is at odds with logic, not your understanding of it.

By the way...I would never suck the juices out of you. Sicko.

you are not really criticizing the concept of god, nor my understanding of god, only my writing abilities about god.

Are you blind? All I question is the concept, not the understanding. I could care less which god you believe in, only the idea of god in general. See, you're making a generic argument here, and it isn't even correct. You could be talking to anyone EXCEPT me with that statement.

And my glasses are not good for you, they're only good for me.

That's because they're too dark to see out of...

JDAWG, you believe in a god too, not the same god that I believe in, but a non existant absurd god in your imagination that your limited ceiling understanding could take you to

Again, Flores, I must stress that just because you have never questioned the existance of god doesn't mean others haven't. I do not believe in any god. I have no faith in any deity. I search for the answers, yeah, but I don't hold any preconcieved notions about it. I simply don't believe; that doesn't mean I wouldn't should the evidence present itself.

And let's not talk about "limited understanding," because I don't feel like thrashing your intelligence level right now.

and you think everybody else who is religious believe in,

Again, it doesn't matter what god you believe in. Just that you believe in a god at all. It could be a pink dinosaur that poops lollipops, or a tyrannical villian who kills bunnies; I simply don't care about your idea of what god is.

It's so ironical, I don't know how to write about it.

At least you are complimenting me here...Saying that this circumstance is ironical is saying that, according to Dictionary.com, my understanding is an ironic fate for such a clear thinker. Seriously, though, of course you don't know how to write about it. You don't know how to think about it, how do I expect you to write about it?

The trick for you is not to come up with a new idea or model, but to escape the misconceptions in your head. I'll say it again, and I hope you don't take it as an insult. Think for yourself, and come up with the model that will work for you. Only then, will you be 100% sure like me that this is YOUR truth and you'll be selfish as hell to keep it to yourself.

Right, so let's do this: Let's not agree with the common conception of god, then we can just imagine a new god, one that fits my needs and wishes, one that is comfortable and affordable, one that will never waiver because it's morals are the one's I've instilled. It's your self-made savior, and of COURSE you couldn't go wrong! How can you be dissatisfied with the deity you've created FOR YOURSELF?

I am incapable of doing such things, because if I were to do that, I would be ignoring the fact that there is no way to tell one way or another. See, by creating your own self-serving god, you are putting a blanket over yourself and hiding from the truths that fly all around you. Right now, to say for sure that there is a god, or there isn't a god, is an unreasonable shot in the dark. Say either one of those with conviction and get it right, you're only right because you got lucky with a guess, not because you knew.

JD

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by JDawg
Right, so let's do this: Let's not agree with the common conception of god, then we can just imagine a new god, one that fits my needs and wishes, one that is comfortable and affordable, one that will never waiver because it's morals are the one's I've instilled. It's your self-made savior, and of COURSE you couldn't go wrong! How can you be dissatisfied with the deity you've created FOR YOURSELF?

It's not a self-made savior. As I told you before, I believe in the power that make the universe tick, that combines physics, biology, and chemistry so well together without writing a single equation and make an ant carry a load of rice grain. I believe in the harmony of nature and the power of the universe and I call that my god. I'm happy and comfortable with my belief and it inspires me to do the right thing for my family, my environment, my community, ect...because I believe we were all created and are subject to the power of the same universe. My faith humbles me not satisfy my wishes. My faith have nothing to do with my wishes, It's my reality and the realities of all those around me.

 

[Esoteric]

Originally posted by Flores
Let's examine some very important features that mark our universe.....May I direct your slow heavy head to the meaning of the word universe. UNI is ONE. A universe is a ONE not many shape or body that contain many things. Back to the feature of our universe that point to the oneness of god:


It is impossible to attribute existance to more than one originator:

quick questions, where is the multi-verse in this "uni"?. And how will you change your philosophy when we get more concrete evidence for the multi-verse?.

two, An orginator implies cause and effect. So if we did have an "originator", then who was the meta-orginator, and the metameta-orginator etc.?.

and three, why do you create entire fantasy worlds for our imcomplete knowledge, why can you admit we just dont know?.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by Esoteric
quick questions, where is the multi-verse in this "uni"?. And how will you change your philosophy when we get more concrete evidence for the multi-verse?.

Multi- who? Esoteric, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about?. Please stop speaking in tounges, it's showing. In any case the multiplicity of the universe orignates from a one cell, just like a huge maple tree with thousands of seeds originates from a single seed that originates from another seed that originates from god.

Originally posted by Esoteric
two, An orginator implies cause and effect. So if we did have an "originator", then who was the meta-orginator, and the metameta-orginator?.

An orginator doesn't imply a cause an effect at all. You don't get it do you? Something must start the process, and that start is the originator.

Originally posted by Esoteric
and three, why do you create entire fantasy worlds for our imcomplete knowledge, why can you admit we just dont know?.

I happily admit that we don't much about the creator of the universe.

 

[Esoteric]

Originally posted by Flores
Multi- who? Esoteric, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about?. Please stop speaking in tounges, it's showing. In any case the multiplicity of the universe orignates from a one cell, just like a huge maple tree with thousands of seeds originates from a single seed that originates from another seed that originates from god.

When i hear "multi-who" in a debate, i usually go to sleep, but i want you to clear some things up.

Where is the seed which orginated god (the first tree)?. Seems like you conveniently omitted that to fit your picture of cause and effect.

"evertyhing had a caused which created and effect, but the first cause was GOd (the first tree), none prior".

So then evetrything doesnt have cause, maybe it could ahve been just a qunatum fluctuation, not GOd. Do you understand why your picture is a fallacy?.

Originally posted by Flores

An orginator doesn't imply a cause an effect at all. You don't get it do you? Something must start the process, and that start is the originator.

what i get from this definition is, Orginator---> started Process(big bang)=Universe. So what was the meta-process which created the originator?. Or did the originator come into existence with the universe?.

Originally posted by Flores
I happily admit that we don't much about the creator of the universe.

So why assume the orginator started the process?, could it have been quantum fluctuations?. Thats the best answer we have, if not that, why creat fantasy world for which you have no evidence of?.

 

[matnay]

Flores,

To conclude:
When attributed to unity, all things become as easy as a single thing, while if they are ascribed to causes, a single thing becomes as difficult as everything.

In other words, when you simplify all things to a single cause, it becomes easy to understand and therefore more likely in your mind, but when you attribute things to multiple causes, things become really confusing for you...sooo, therefore it must not be true. You'd make a great meteorologist- "Well folks, there's a hurricane forming.... it's a direct result of the unity of weather..... crafted from God himself."

Do you understand what that means. It means that to the creator of all things, we are simple singles, while to us singles, everything around us is as complex as a while. Because of that, the extraordinary cheapness and facility observed in the universe and endless abundance before our eyes display the stamp of Unity like the sun.

You just love that word- "unity". You can describe anything under the context of unity, but that doesn't make it meaningful. It seems you have an obsession with the concept of unity and the number one. Everything in your path of logic gets obsessively narrowed down to your favorite number... one. And at the end, confined to a dark recess of your mind, there sits your God, nodding his head at you with a cheap smile on his face, conveniently holding one finger into the air.

 

[Jenyar]

Esoteric and matnay, you are proving Flores' first point beautifully. When you want to ascribe God as the impersonal cause of anything you run into all kinds of trouble, including with the concept of God. But God created everything. He is not a cause as in the idea of "cause and effect". He created and maintains the very system of cause and effect.

You see, we don't believe in God to be able to explain all kinds of things. That's why we have science. In terms of explanation, God is an unneccessary complexity, as many have realized. You won't find God by delving deeper and deeper into the universe. He isn't on the other end.

You will find that in science, the ultimate goal is to find the unity of everything - the theory of everything. Why should theists be ridiculed for believing in a greater unity than even the observable universe could present?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by JDawg
My problem with you and your kind is that you follow blindly, and refuse to ask questions. That promotes and begets ignorance, and the fact that you're a part of it disgraces the human race.

That is purely an attack on the individual. What gives you that right?

Bullshit. I don't have a belief in any god...

She didn't say that, she said it makes you a believer in your own understanding of what God is. (or isn't)

That said, I have no preconcieved notion of what one would be if it existed.

Then why are you arguing? The truth then must be you arguing against something of which you have no idea. That's silly.

....because being an atheist requires an objective, reasonable mind, and you have shown none of that.

Being an atheist requires nothing of the sort. It basically means you don't believe in God. The atheists who have a reasonable and objective mind are so, because they are reasonable and objective people, not because they are atheist.

An atheist is a person who has questioned the existance of god

Are you saying that no theist questions the existence of God?

You, ma'am, are someone who is too afraid of reality to question god's existance, so I highly doubt you ever doubted your god's existance, or supposed power over you.

Hey Flores! I would say nothing as from this post, it appears you know nothing, not even what you are feeling and thinking. Let this man do your thinking for you.

YOU ARE NOTHING...YOU HEAR ME...NOTHING!!!!1

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Balerion]

Flores,

As I told you before, I believe in the power that make the universe tick, that combines physics, biology, and chemistry so well together without writing a single equation and make an ant carry a load of rice grain

How do you know what makes the universe "tick?" That said, how can you possibly believe in whatever this power is as god, let alone the Muslim god? You're skipping a step here, Flores.

I believe in the harmony of nature and the power of the universe and I call that my god.

Wait, so if you believe in the "power of the universe," how do you know that power is a living entity or being?

I'm happy and comfortable with my belief and it inspires me to do the right thing for my family, my environment, my community, ect

Ok, that's fine. I don't wish to try and take that away from you, because if that makes your existance bearable, that's fine. But what you forget is that for people who are not you--ie. people who are inspired to search for universal answers and discover new things--religion is an enemy. Religion never says "Go find the truth for yourself," as a matter of fact, it says quite the opposite. In the Bible, people weren't allowed to utter questions which implied that God might not be God after all. Their punishment? Eternal damnation.

For you, there is nothing wrong with this belief. You'll never ask the big questions, as you "happily admit" that we know little about the universe. You obviously never wanted to ask those questions--or worse, face the answers--which is why you found religion. You found religion, and now you simply can't question your existance.

Jenyar,

Esoteric and matnay, you are proving Flores' first point beautifully. When you want to ascribe God as the impersonal cause of anything you run into all kinds of trouble, including with the concept of God.

OK, bullshit. What happens when you really dissect nature and the universe, it can be a bit confusing. That's where you, as theists, stop. Scientists, however, and logical people, continue on. They ask, and test and find and prove becuase they didn't stop. They aren't afraid of the answers like you are.

See, you refuse to put this question to God simply because the facts don't match your argument. Flores, for example, believes in the unity and oneness of the universe based on her "Fruit of the tree all comes from one seed" idea. But the fact is, you can't say that it all comes from God using that model, because then God himself would have to come from somewhere, from a seed.

It's a bit confusing now, right? Yeah, this is the part where you curl up in the fetal position and hide.

Bottom line, when confronted with questions that go against your religious books, you refuse to even consider them. You say "It's too complicated," or "We don't know a damn thing about our creator," but in truth, you know that it doesn't add up, but you are too afraid to admit that. So you simply fall back on your belief, and say that God is above all that, even if it goes against your entire model for God.

JD

 

[Jenyar]

Bottom line, when confronted with questions that go against your religious books, you refuse to even consider them. You say "It's too complicated," or "We don't know a damn thing about our creator," but in truth, you know that it doesn't add up, but you are too afraid to admit that. So you simply fall back on your belief, and say that God is above all that, even if it goes against your entire model for God.

Believing in God does not magically simplify the universe for us, and I don't think that. And that is what I was saying: science doesn't "add up" or "reduce down" to God. Whe can happily go on exploring the universe and continue to learn how God made it, without ever reaching God himself. And why shouldn't God have made the universe according to rules we could discover?

I think your main issue is with the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. I bet there are many people who wish all Christians were fundamentalists so that they could all be debunked in one fell sweep. But the Bible doesn't allow itself to be a science handbook for much further than you can throw it.

You can't, and never will be able to disprove its God based on scientific discovery. I tried to show that in a discussion about God's separation of light and darkness into "day" and "night" a while ago, but I guess it didn't come through. It seems if I refuse to be either completely fundamentalist or completely interpretive, I am completely ignored.

religion never says "Go find the truth for yourself," as a matter of fact, it says quite the opposite. In the Bible, people weren't allowed to utter questions which implied that God might not be God after all. Their punishment? Eternal damnation.

In the Bible, people are instructed to live in the truth. Even somebody who is completely ignorant of everything else, can still be compelled to lie or to tell the truth about the small amount they know. But instead of always learning and never finding the truth, we accept God as the only reliable source of truth.

We don't doubt that there are many truths and facts out there that we don't know about yet, but we affirm the truth that there is a God. The Bible also never promised "eternal damnation" to people who question God's existence - it simply calls them fools.

As Paul says: we can't do anything against the truth - it will be what it will be - but we can do something for the truth. You can live by truth even if you haven't dicovered it yet, even if you never discover it.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena

YOU ARE NOTHING...YOU HEAR ME...NOTHING!!!!1

Love

Jan Ardena.

I thank you Jan.

How much do I owe you for this excellent much needed grounding service.?

Thank you JENYAR for affirming what I'm saying, but the bad news is nothing was accomplished here because these souls are looking for the wrong god to start with. I'm afraid that they'll either stay Atheists, which I prefer for them, but more likely they'll all turn into zealot pagans worshipping the wrong god they have found.

I'm done with this stinking thread.

 

[Esoteric]

Originally posted by Flores
but the bad news is nothing was accomplished here because these souls are looking for the wrong god to start with. I'm afraid that they'll either stay Atheists, which I prefer for them, but more likely they'll all turn into zealot pagans worshipping the wrong god they have found.

I'm done with this stinking thread.

Zealot means part of a fanatical sect, arent all religons fanatical sects?, you must be to follow lack of evidence...

Anyway, of course nothing was accomplish, you said nothing of substance, other then your own little philosophy which goes against cause and effect, and without one shred of evidence. If you want to believe that is how the universe/multiverse orginated then fine, its truth for you, but do not try to pass it off as universal truth, because then i must require you to prove it with emperical data, and of course you cant.

next time you start a senstence regarding this, start with "this is me creating a fantasy world because of our incomplete knowledge blah blah..."

btw, all that pagan crap you spewed, please remember not everyone needs religion. I do things for this world, nothing for the sake of Gods.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by Esoteric
Anyway, of course nothing was accomplish,

Blame the author of the thread who is an idiot. Actually any reqeusts on accomplishments should be directed to the stupid Jdawg who started the silly thread, and the title of the thread is a reflection of the stupid lack of self understanding for the Atheists who would rather ask others than hold up the mirror. Yeah, Flores, What is your belief? Instead of looking in the mirror and getting a grip of themselves for a change.

Originally posted by Esoteric
you said nothing of substance, other then your own little philosophy which goes against cause and effect, and without one shred of evidence.

That's your stinking opinion that goes against the reality of life and have absolutely no bearing or stand on it's own. Perhaps for a change you can explain how your potential energy of being all you can be can be so easily be erased by death. Would you perhaps show us how much energy do you possess at this time, please include all your static, kinematic, and potential energy, and explain to us what happens to this energy when we inject you with a lethal fluid. Of course I forgot that you don't believe in Conservation of energy or Momentum.

Originally posted by Esoteric
If you want to believe that is how the universe/multiverse orginated then fine, its truth for you, but do not try to pass it off as universal truth, because then i must require you to prove it with emperical data, and of course you cant.

EMPIRICAL....You are such an idiot? Do you even understand what the word empirical mean? Empirical derivations are the most inaccurate ways of proofing any concepts. So you propose that we gather a bunch of random events and use them to proof a concept??? Do you have any understanding of how science advances? Empirical equations and strategies too often try to make all systems meet all possible conditions and forcing things into patterns. In so doing, you ignore the evolutionary sequence that created the systems and their unique response potentials. The next scientist would come along and add more data to refine the equation, and the equations would remain inaccurate for all other uses and data that was not used in the development phase....Empirical systems have no hierarchical assement approach for things. They are silly prediction systems that very rarely work, and offer no organized procedure for determining things.

Originally posted by Esoteric
btw, all that pagan crap you spewed, please remember not everyone needs religion. I do things for this world, nothing for the sake of Gods.

No one is asking you to do anything for the sake of god, but when you are laying on your death bed knowing that you're dying, yet without the capacity to tell others that you're so vulnerable, that you can smell your own stinch of death, and as you stare your end in the face and deal with the biggest reality of this life which is death, remember that you did things for this world and not for god, perhaps at this time you can ask this world if it can pay you back a favor and request mercifull maggots to eat the rest of your worth.

Yeah....you offer a great prespective on the purpose of life.....You can't even begin to comprehend or explain to us how such huge potential energy found in humans...energy that can build bridges, dams, start wars, ect....can be lost and consumed by maggots in a very short time......I guess all Atheist believe contrary to science that energy is not conserved, but destroyed and lost to maggots and lower forms of life.

 

[Esoteric]

Originally posted by Flores
That's your stinking opinion that goes against the reality of life and have absolutely no bearing or stand on it's own. Perhaps for a change you can explain how your potential energy of being all you can be can be so easily be erased by death. Would you perhaps show us how much energy do you possess at this time, please include all your static, kinematic, and potential energy, and explain to us what happens to this energy when we inject you with a lethal fluid. Of course I forgot that you don't believe in Conservation of energy or Momentum.

i accept reality. YOu are the one that needs to accept reality, the reality that we have an incomplete knowledge and this is why you have the need to create fantasy worlds to accamodate that incomplete knowledge. Everyone does it, at least people like me i try to keep to a minumum.
We dont just dissapear when we die. Like all life, we're part of Earth's chemistry, put together and taken apart by the great cycles of the universal chemistry. At least that is my beleif (and we have evidence for that).

Originally posted by Flores
EMPIRICAL....You are such an idiot? Do you even understand what the word empirical mean? Empirical derivations are the most inaccurate ways of proofing any concepts. So you propose that we gather a bunch of random events and use them to proof a concept??? Do you have any understanding of how science advances? Empirical equations and strategies too often try to make all systems meet all possible conditions and forcing things into patterns. In so doing, you ignore the evolutionary sequence that created the systems and their unique response potentials. The next scientist would come along and add more data to refine the equation, and the equations would remain inaccurate for all other uses and data that was not used in the development phase....Empirical systems have no hierarchical assement approach for things. They are silly prediction systems that very rarely work, and offer no organized procedure for determining things..

from the person who does not understand quantum fluctuations and who makes up personal definitions of Cause and effect.

"The beauty of thought, from birds all the way to Einstein, is the way we can approximate answers that aren't absolutely perfect, but that are good 'working models'."

Originally posted by Flores
No one is asking you to do anything for the sake of god, but when you are laying on your death bed knowing that you're dying, yet without the capacity to tell others that you're so vulnerable, that you can smell your own stinch of death, and as you stare your end in the face and deal with the biggest reality of this life which is death, remember that you did things for this world and not for god, perhaps at this time you can ask this world if it can pay you back a favor and request mercifull maggots to eat the rest of your worth.

I am not against the ideas of an afterlife or God, etc. The difference between me and you is that i accept there is no evidence for them. YOu on the other hand, because you are afraid of your own mortality, accept it with lack of evidence for peace of mind, its a weakness, not somehting one should look up too.
Besides, i am not looking for rewards, this beautiful earth is enough of a reward and we need to do everything to make sure it survives. This idea that earth is not really important( or some sort of test), only the "reward of an afterlife, is exactly what drives people to fly planes into buidlings for 70 virgins and to kill each other for a meaningless pocket of land.

"I can not accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I can not prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar."

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

Eintein quotes, soak it in.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Flores
Yeah....you offer a great prespective on the purpose of life.....You can't even begin to comprehend or explain to us how such huge potential energy found in humans...energy that can build bridges, dams, start wars, ect....can be lost and consumed by maggots in a very short time......I guess all Atheist believe contrary to science that energy is not conserved, but destroyed and lost to maggots and lower forms of life. [/QUOTE]

that "energy" is the brain. And my purpose of life is whatever purpose i give it, only little children and trained rats need a preset meaning they can follow.

btw, im not asking you to dispose of your belief, that is your truth, that is what gives you purpose. But it is complete egoism when you try to pass it off as universal absolute truth for everyone.