God does exist.

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Supernatural indicates more than natural, not of the laws of nature, unless you have experienced it, how can you know what to expect?
It may be direct perception, applicable only to the person involved, and therefore evidence would not be needed.

Given your explanation how then do I, as a person who has not experienced the supernatural, give credence to anyone else's claims? There are so many people out there who claim to know the 'truth' regarding such things. How do I know who is lying, who is mistaken or deluded, and who is telling the truth?

Please tell me, as you obviously have some idea, what is a supernatural entity?

A being that exists beyond the laws of nature.

And the fact that you find it highly improbable and incredibly presumptuous

Well seeing as there is no evidence of such things and many refutations of various claims. Well, it's a lot like the story of Chicken Little:

Chicken Little
Stood around
Underneath a tree.
Something fell and
Hit her head.
She said, "Goodness me!"

"Oh my goodness!"
She did screech.
"The sky is falling!"
She ran around
Yelling out,
"We must tell the king!"

Here's the whole story: http://www.edsanders.com/chickenlittle/

But it is a common place occurrance, there are millions of eye witness testimonies.

Millions? Indeed. And for all of these claimants where is the proof? Did you know that there are approximately 60 million clinical cases of schizophrenia world-wide. This of course does not include milder cases of delusion. Should we take their claims at face-value? How about people who are willfully trying to deceive others or maybe are stretching the truth just a bit to gain some attention? See Jan, the problem I have with this is not that there might be some people who are telling the truth but that if all we have to go on is their 'word' then we have no way to discriminate a true story from a false one.

That is quite a silly question, as you, me and every living thing is the definition of life

What a wonderfully explicit definition! Life is living things.

In the beginning of creation, the Lord of all creatures sent forth generations of men and demigods, along with sacrifices for Visnu, and blessed them by saying.

Proof? Oh sorry, I forgot, you don't need proof of the supernatural... how convenient.

Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that I am both its origin and dissolution.

F everything material and spiritual knows this then why did he have to tell anyone?

I see what you mean, primitive tribesmen, puh! they are of little importance, what do they know eh?

How like you to completely miss my point. To reiterate, I find it exceedingly strange that you find the "extraterrestrial visitors" hypothesis to be more reasonable than a more commonplace hypotheses, like maybe they talked to a human who had some of this knowledge or that the myth was interpreted with bias.

Sneaky visits?

Well they certainly aren't declaring their visits on CNN now, are they? They come down here mostly at night it seems... to scare and abduct people in remote locations.

Useless knowledge?

I said, "practically useless knowledge." Or does the orbital period of Sirius-B have some practical use that I'm not aware of?

The germ theory of disease?

Yea, you know, that silly scientific theory that disease is caused by "germs" (viruses, prions, mold, and bacteria) that revolutionized medicine and surgery. The theory has been refined over the years but it was a gigantic step forward at the time.

Not really, very ordinary.

Not in my neighborhood.

And modest with it too!

Of course.

There is nothing wrong with critical analasys, as we speak I am critically analysing the theory of evolution.

Funny, but you seem to be rather particular as to where you apply it.

It is just that some things cannot be empirically proven, it is just not possible, life being one of those things. As human beings we have more ways of accessing knowledge than with our eyes.

Indeed, some things cannot be proven. Of course, I find asserting such things as absolutes to be quite presumptive. How is it that you know what cannot be proven. I also find the assertion that life is one of these things to be a bit preclusive. How do you know what can or cannot be proven by empirical analysis?

We have talked about love, which is very real, but cannot be proven to anyone other than the lover and beloved.

Actually, as you have it, it can only be known by the person who feels it. Everyone else is assuming... even the beloved.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
Given your explanation how then do I, as a person who has not experienced the supernatural, give credence to anyone else's claims?

Why should you want to give credence to someone’s claim, without fully understanding what it is they are claiming?

How do I know who is lying, who is mistaken or deluded, and who is telling the truth?

Use your intelligence.

A being that exists beyond the laws of nature.

Good boy!

You say you don’t find the notion of one impossible, so how is it you find it highly improbable and the assertion of one to be incredibly presumptuous?
Have you considered every single option?
Do you know for a fact that life generates purely from chemicals with no interaction from a supernatural entity?

You say it is “incredibly” presumptuous.”
I think it is presumptuous of you to think that life comes from chemicals, when you clearly do not have an absolute definition of life, nor any real proof of your claim.

Millions? Indeed. And for all of these claimants where is the proof?

Are you saying that unless a claim has been evidently proven for all the world to see, it is an untruth, even to the person who is making the claim, whether or not the person wants to share?
So everybody who claims to have experience with ET’s, actually didn’t, they are goo-goo-gah-gah?

Did you know that there are approximately 60 million clinical cases of schizophrenia world-wide.

Did you know that this world consists of billions of people.

Should we take their claims at face-value?

I wouldn’t recommend you take anybodys claim at face value, use your intelligence, there has to be some kind of relation to yourself, even at the elementary level of their claim.

How about people who are willfully trying to deceive others or maybe are stretching the truth just a bit to gain some attention?

You get those type of people in all walks of life, this is why you have powers of discrimination, everybody gets conned at some time in their lives, but hopefully you learn how to avoid situations like that in the future.

See Jan, the problem I have with this is not that there might be some people who are telling the truth but that if all we have to go on is their 'word' then we have no way to discriminate a true story from a false one.

You affirm life comes from chemicals, you have never seen this occur, you have never completed such an experiment, there are no records that indicate this is a fact, how have you come to this conclusion, if not from someones word?

What a wonderfully explicit definition! Life is living things.

Rather like you definition of a supernatural entity.

Proof? Oh sorry, I forgot, you don't need proof of the supernatural... how convenient.


Then why bother ask me about BG?
If you’ve noticed, I’m really not that bothered about discussing God, in any detail, with you, as it is obviously a waste of time.

F everything material and spiritual knows this then why did he have to tell anyone?

To awaken the dormant spiritual consciousness which becomes covered due to identification of the material body and everything in relation thereof/in.

To reiterate, I find it exceedingly strange that you find the "extraterrestrial visitors" hypothesis to be more reasonable than a more commonplace hypotheses, like maybe they talked to a human who had some of this knowledge or that the myth was interpreted with bias.

I find it strange you think life emerged from chemicals rather than “life,” but what I find strange has no real importance in these particular discussions, and neither does what you find strange. To me anyways.

I don’t believe there was enough knowledge available, to give such precise descriptions, at that time. Sure, you can point me to all kinds of modern skeptical websites regarding the subject, but the truth is, they are only guessing, plus I find that these type of (skeptical) peoples are very oppressive, and will stop at nothing to make light of such matters, that is not to say they do not have anything of value to say, just that i'm a bit cautous of their intention.

Well they certainly aren't declaring their visits on CNN now, are they?

Are you from the US?

Actually, as you have it, it can only be known by the person who feels it. Everyone else is assuming... even the beloved.

How is it possible to assume something that is known?

Not in my neighborhood.

I wasn’t aware it was a neighbourhood thing.
My experience happened many years ago, there were no bright lights, trances, waking up to find I’d been asleep for a week, it was, BLAM!!! Broad daylight.

In fact I’ll tell you what happened;

I was about twelve, staying at my aunts house.
It was about 1 o’clock or so in the afternoon, the sun was shining, my aunt and myself were upstairs, she was in the sewing room and I helping her with some sewing. I decided to go downstairs…………..

Bloody hell, is that the time, gotta dash seeeya!

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[whatsupyall]

when the lights deam, and their final breathe took place, the first words coming out from atheists mouth would be "Theists are right, you are real! Now can I start over again, go back to earth and live a morally good life taught by Jesus instead of being pridefull and self centered? Please, God...."...then the next words will be "hhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!" for all eternity..........

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Use your intelligence.

What is it you think I've been doing?

You say you don’t find the notion of one impossible, so how is it you find it highly improbable and the assertion of one to be incredibly presumptuous?

Because I see no evidence that suggests to me that God is needed. Nor do I see evidence that one exists. And I find it presumptuous to claim "knowledge" without supporting argument or evidence.

Have you considered every single option?

Probably, not. So please do present me with the correct one because the one's I've come across thus far are lacking.

Do you know for a fact that life generates purely from chemicals with no interaction from a supernatural entity?

No. But I see no reason to believe otherwise. I understand how things work fairly well and I see no need to make the leap to a supernatural explanation.

I think it is presumptuous of you to think that life comes from chemicals, when you clearly do not have an absolute definition of life, nor any real proof of your claim.

Life is not an absolute term. Life is a quality that certain objects possess to a lesser or greater extent, there does not seem to be an absolute dividing line. As with many things in the Universe, humans have a tendency to categorize and perceive dualities where none actually exist. There is no real dividing line between biochemical reactions and life which, to me, is really one of the main reasons that do not believe a supernatural agency or quality is involved. Note that when something 'dies' it does not die all at once. A human may "die" yet their cells may live on individually for weeks. Similarly with the cells themselves. We can stop a cell from functioning and technically it is dead, we can even remove parts and insert new ones and then start the cell functioning again. Death, life, and non-life are not distinct states.

Are you saying that unless a claim has been evidently proven for all the world to see, it is an untruth, even to the person who is making the claim, whether or not the person wants to share?

No, It's not necessarily false, simply unproven.

So everybody who claims to have experience with ET’s, actually didn’t, they are goo-goo-gah-gah?

Not at all... although some are. IMO most are simply mistaken. Some have also been erroneously convinced of these experiences through regressive hypnotic "therapy".

I wouldn’t recommend you take anybodys claim at face value, use your intelligence, there has to be some kind of relation to yourself, even at the elementary level of their claim.

You keep calling up intelligence as if it's some mystical force that allows one to determine truth from falsehood without the use of any method or principle...

You affirm life comes from chemicals, you have never seen this occur, you have never completed such an experiment, there are no records that indicate this is a fact, how have you come to this conclusion, if not from someones word?

Because I understand what life is and how it works. Life blends slowly and softly to non-life (or is it the other way around? ). I see no gap in the process that needs filling. There are many things that I understand yet cannot reproduce... the two are not equivalent.

If you’ve noticed, I’m really not that bothered about discussing God, in any detail, with you, as it is obviously a waste of time.

I am sorry for being disrespectful but this is frustrating for me too. The quotes you gave were fine but they really don't tell me much. God is life and life is God. God is the source of all things. There's nothing new there for me and there's nothing that really gets explained.

To awaken the dormant spiritual consciousness which becomes covered due to identification of the material body and everything in relation thereof/in.

Why is it dormant? Why this opposition of the soul and body? If material existence is so troublesome for us then why did God manifest it?

Sure, you can point me to all kinds of modern skeptical websites regarding the subject, but the truth is, they are only guessing

No, not all of them are guessing. People have researched the topic further and found problems with the original interpretation.

plus I find that these type of (skeptical) peoples are very oppressive, and will stop at nothing to make light of such matters, that is not to say they do not have anything of value to say, just that i'm a bit cautous of their intention.

There is no doubt that some people undertake this kind of thing only in order to disprove it... I too am wary of these types of people. But honest skeptics and scientists are not looking to do this. In fact, I would say most are not because if they could prove it... if they could find convincing evidence they would be famous. Einstein's theories were not happily accepted by the scientific community. They were ridiculed, disbelieved, and blasted. But evidence is king of science and Einstein could not be disproved.

Are you from the US?

Yep.

How is it possible to assume something that is known?

That's just the point... it's not known except by the person feeling it. It is an entirely subjective experience.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by whatsupyall
when the lights deam, and their final breathe took place, the first words coming out from atheists mouth would be "Theists are right, you are real! Now can I start over again, go back to earth and live a morally good life taught by Jesus instead of being pridefull and self centered? Please, God...."...then the next words will be "hhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!" for all eternity.

One wonders why God needs to resort to punishment and scare tactics. Hardly what I would consider the actions of a "perfect" being. I also wonder why you are so set on atheists being "pridefull and self centered" I know many atheists who, according to their actions, make better Christians than many Christians that I've met.

~Raithere

 

[Voodoo Child]

when the lights deam, and their final breathe took place, the first words coming out from atheists mouth would be "Theists are right, you are real! Now can I start over again, go back to earth and live a morally good life taught by Jesus instead of being pridefull and self centered? Please, God...."...then the next words will be " hhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaa

What a long and incoherent way to say "you'll get yours when you die".

 

[seesaw]

Originally posted by whatsupyall
when the lights deam, and their final breathe took place, the first words coming out from atheists mouth would be "Theists are right, you are real! Now can I start over again, go back to earth and live a morally good life taught by Jesus instead of being pridefull and self centered? Please, God...."...then the next words will be "hhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!" for all eternity..........

Damn man that is the funniest thing I have ever heard.

When your lights deem, and your final breathe takes place you will not see Jesus, or heaven because your will be dead. Dead people don't see.

And lets say your god is real lol I know I wouldn't be saying I’m sorry and can I have another chance. I choose my life, and I love my life I believe it's ok how my life is, and I'm a good person, but if your god doesn't like it, or think it's good enough fine I will go to hell.

 

[James R]

Jan:

<i>Why do you think ET's wouldn't come to earth?</i>

Because I know how big the spaces between star systems are, and I know how much effort wand energy would be required to traverse them.

<b>Probably</b> this means ET will never visit Earth, though that doesn't mean we will never know it is out there. If I was an alien, radio contact would be an easy option.

On the other hand, never say never. ET <b>might</b> visit Earth at some stage. If that happens, we'll all know about it. There would be no reason for alien visitors not to make their presence here unambiguously known to the whole of humanity.

 

[MarcAC]

No, you didn't. You told me where you think it comes from (god) and also told me that I don't know what love is. You did not define it, so.....?

1 John 4:7-20 My dear friends we must love each other. Love comes from God and when we love each other, it shows that we have been given new life. We are now God's children and we know Him. God is love, and anyone who doesn't love others has never known Him. God showed His love for us when He sent His only Son into the world to give us life. Real love isn't our love for God, but His love for us. God sent His son to be the sacrifice for which our sins are forgiven. Dear friends, since God loved us this much, we must love each other. No one has ever seen God. But if we love each other, God lives in us, and His love is truly in our hearts. God has given us his spirit. That is how we know that we are one with Him, just as He is one with us. God sent His Son to be Saviour of the world. We saw His Son and are now telling others about Him. God stays when with everyone who openly says that Jesus is the Son of God. That's how we stay one with God and are sure that God loves us. God is love. If we keep on loving others, we will stay one in our hearts with God, and He will stay one with us.C.E.V.Translation? God is love. Love comes from God. If God isn't in our hearts, then neither is true love. As you said French. Love has many definitions, that is one. The Seeker of Truth illustrated another for you. If you don't remeber it look it up. Love would be non-descript to you, because you don't know God.

And he expects me to do this, why? Doesn't he realize that us reasonable people like to have a reason for doing something. None of us humans will seek out anything that they don't believe will help them, seriously. Even the most generous missions are only a quest to appease their own mind's hunger for that good I-helped-people feeling.

French, you ask for evidence. A reasonable scientist will have a hypothesis in his head, maybe with a few mathematical equations, but that's all they are until he gets some tangible evidence. That reasonable scientist will not sit and say in a Barney tone; "Duh, hey you know what? I'll just sit and wait until I see, duuuuuh, spiral galaxies combine to form, duuuhh, elliptical ones". He will go out and utilize the Hubble or the Keck's or the surfeit of other telescopes out there and try to find his hypothesis in action. I will give you the benefit of the doubt French - you are reasonable. So...

What The Hell are you talking about?

You may soon find out. But that aside, Botswana, Serengeti plains? - these are places in Africa where wild animals dominate the landscape.

Any you DO place faith in your reasoning too. What else would you use to decide you have faith in god? You wouldn't be able to interpret those voices in your head you call god.color=blue][?Such arrogance][/color] you would simply not survive if you didn't trust your reasoning. Your reasoning GIVES you the power to trust and distrust. It is like not trusting in your lungs, you die without them.

I have faith in God. Through my faith in God, I will trust my reasoning, as I believe God is working through me.Psalm 118:8 It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in manN.I.V.Interestingly, this is the central verse of the modern Christian bible. Translation? Place more trust in God than man. This must be one brain twister for you huh?

"you are a narrow-minded ass." [supposedly posted by MarcAC in this context]
French's characteristic retort. Hmm.... not an insult I suppose?

This is the full, verbatim quote; "Just make sure you understand them French or you are going to provide evidence which will increase the probability that you are a narrow-minded ass." Thus, when people like this (French) post something, ... "sciforumians"..., make sure you investigate it thoroughly, because it will more than likely be errant, misleading crap. Why do you always take things out of context French? It makes you look like a veritably stupid ass and makes people distrust you posts.

I would still exist, it just wouldn't be the me I thought it was.

True. But would you really think?

NO, by definition, an opinion cannot be proven. A fact can be proven (true or false).

You see French, I am now tempted to assume every dogmatic statement you post is crap. So you have to prove it to me before I can accept it. Or is it something like god? I would love to see your definition of opinion - the one in your head. But anyway everyone knows an opinion is not necessarily fact but it can be proven as such. So just accept your typical mistake and drop it.

 

[matnay]

Gino wrote:
Not only do I believe in God, but also Jesus and the Holy spirit. Staying on track with the God subject, lets address a subject like astronomy. This is a good one. Look through a telescope. What does one see? Trillions upon trillions of stars and galaxies that follow a set path of natural laws. Nothing happened by chance. There is a set order to everything. Some would say the big bang was chaos from nothing, or was it? Science can prove even it followed the process of natural laws. Science is not a bad thing. It explains much about the world we live in. The possible anomousity you have about science is shared by me. It is when people use the knowledge of science as a tool to debunk the existance of God, desipite all the physical evidence to the contrary, and raise science up as some tin plated god to be worshiped, that guys like me are going to come out of the woodwork and start defending God.

Does God follow a "set order"? In other words, does God and all his power function within a "set path of natural laws"?

If so, then wouldn't that conflict with the proposition that God is all-powerful? If he is contrained by nature then maybe it is nature we should be worshipping. If however, God is not bound by nature, then how is it possible that he exists if he has nowhere TO exist in?

 

[MarcAC]

Does God follow a "set order"? In other words, does God and all his power function within a "set path of natural laws"?

If so, then wouldn't that conflict with the proposition that God is all-powerful? If he is contrained by nature then maybe it is nature we should be worshipping. If however, God is not bound by nature, then how is it possible that he exists if he has nowhere TO exist in?

God controls the laws of nature themselves, thus He must exist beyond them. God functions withing the 'set path' of love. If we are to assume that because God exists beyond the laws of nature, there is nothing for him to exist in then we would be assuming that there is nothing which exists beyond the laws of nature. Now some define laws of nature as laws which govern all existence, yet quantum physicists hypothesise universes which my exist separate from our own and follow completely different 'laws'. Now what would these universes 'exist in'? The corollary, what are the laws of nature? Do we know how they function? If other universes exist that follow completely different laws then we would have no idea of what the laws which govern all existence are. So what really are the laws of nature? Do we know? If we don't we can't begin to know anything about how they would govern God or how God would function within them - we can assume - but they'd just be that, assumptions

 

[matnay]

MarcAC wrote:
So what really are the laws of nature? Do we know? If we don't we can't begin to know anything about how they would govern God or how God would function within them - we can assume - but they'd just be that, assumptions

So you too agree that ultimately God does exist within a larger universe with it's own laws. It would then be reasonable to deduce that God does not rule this ultimate nature of the universe, but that nature rules him.

How can anyone, or anything, that is confined within a larger construct claim to be all-knowing? For example- how does God truely know that his moral system is right? Perhapes he himself is governed by even higher Gods with a completely different moral system. So who's right?

How can one God govern the moral world of a people who's very existance resides in a universe with completely different physical laws? How can God possibly understand what it's like to be human(or even care), any more than we can understand what it's like to be an insect? If we ever claimed to truely understand what it's like to be an insect, then we'd be deceiving ourselves. We could never understand- no more than we could understand what it's like to be a God.

 

[matnay]

continued from my last post...

So what gives God the right to create life? What gives God the right to sit back and judge, punish, or reward? And in the end, isn't it our right to rule ourselves? Imagine what it would be like if we treated our dogs or other pets like God treats us. He chews up a sock, and you beat him for eternity. It doesn't seem right. But you might say- "Oh, but the dog had free will- he didn't have to chew it up- he knew it was wrong". But he's JUST A DOG. He isn't human! Just as we AREN'T Gods and shouldn't be judged as so. Think about it. Does the punishment really fit the crime? If someone doesn't believe in God, is eternity in hell a justified punishment. If you would say yes, then I would say that YOU are the evil one. And I don't need to look that up in a bible. I make my own moral judgment, and it seems to me that I am much more forgiving and understanding than God.

Just because you have the power, doesn't mean you have the right to use it.

 

[Binary]

MarcAC get a new bible, because those interpertations are really flat, as in they're wisdom is no longer "manifold".

I'd like to start first by saying those of you on both sides who believe that the existance of god can not be proved through reason are wrong.

Now with that said I guess I should show you.

To scientific Atheist:

After considering the arguement that the existance of god could be neither proved nor disproved, I came to the conclusion that this was false and based on a logical but incomplete train of thought.
Firstly, it is deterimable that given the current scientific theorys of existance that there arises the possibility of infinite possibilty. Also it is a widely accepted theory that everything in the universe can be represented numerically and therefore capable of being understood by us. Given a universe, of this or like structuring, would it not be possible that a being capable of thought could have been assembled randomly from particles during the "big bang". An even if not, then would it not still be possible by the theory of evolution that beings such as ourselves could ultimately come to understand the universe in the entirety of its workings?
If so, then is there any law that would prevent us from creating our own universe or recreating the one were in? And if a race were to acheive perfection would they not be again one, being that there is only one perfection acheivable in a universe? Seeing that they understand all things, and have created there own universe, would they not be eqaul to god?

Ok, now lets go a little futher. Lets say we where this race that had reached perfection. An after that we had come to know this perfect undersatnding, we did not create our own universe because we reconized the perfection(meaning here with out error) of our own universe and ourselves, due to that there is no laws dictating its course or our actions, by which being incomparable we are perfect. An being that in our universe, no matter how expressed, there is only one correct solution to a problem(in other words only one perfect way for something to be done or happen). Would not we now being infinite due to our perfect knowledge, be to men as ourselves, like god?

Inlight of your recent post MarkAC, what you said is impossible. It is not that god exist in another universe, (I'm glad you brought it up) but simply that he is the only one that exist indepenet of law, therefore he is the law with out cotradition.

As for what gives god the "right" to judge or in general have dominion over us, can be summed up simply by this; he can do what he wants with himself. (If you don't understand this please consider my post a bit more before asking me.)

Jots for those who want to read them and hopfully understand:

The words in our world are not sounds nor symbols, for these are merely references to the existances, and patterns of which they
are comprised.

p.s. As usual I have condensed my statement through precise wording meant only to allow you to complete the reasoning yourself. I believe this is the best way to learn.

 

[Cris]

Gino,

In scripture it says God is a God of order, not chaos. Pretty strait forward in black and white scriptural context. Why can't the order of nature be proof of a higher power, or master clock maker if you know what I mean? Without order, where would physics, math, chemistry, biology, etc. be? These are disclipines of order. High order. Do you believe they evolved by chance?

You must agree that God represents a very ordered being. Using your logic we must conclude that God was also created since order is evidence of a creator.

What then created God? This being would of course be ordered and hence would also require a creator, and that would require a creator an so on. The result is an infinite series with no beginning, in essence an impossible state.

To avoid this paradox there must be a point where there is a basic set of laws that have always existed. Since we have already observed an ordered set of rules in physics then there seems no need to invent a supernatural realm and a creator.

 

[matnay]

Binary wrote:
As for what gives god the "right" to judge or in general have dominion over us, can be summed up simply by this; he can do what he wants with himself.

We are not part of God. He supposedly gave us souls and free will. We are our own selves, with our own lives. Just because we are simple compared to God, that does not give him the right to rule us- it simply gives him the power to. Just because we were made FROM him, doesn't give him the right to rule us. If you don't consider yourself a soviergn being, then maybe you should let God rule you.

I'd like to think that if we humans ever gained the ability to create life, that we wouldn't judge it by our own standards and punish it when we deem it as doing wrong. We might have the power to do so, but would it be right?

 

[Binary]

I was attempting to avoid the spiritual do to the FACT that most people would not be able to comprehend it due to nonphysical laws. I tried qiute hard (with out getting typing cramps) to explain one dimensional physics in my string called reason, but I now realize that although far simplier in that it only incorporates physical laws(as far as I can see) that it is still to complex to be comprehended by the average individual.

I considered replying to your post but now having read it again it is to ignorant. Please re-read my post and follow the full thought process before answering. Not just what I wrote, because I only intended it to be enough to point you in the right direction.

p.s. Although my post may be rude in bluntness, I meant it in no way as a offense.

 

[matnay]

Binary,

I did understand what you said. At least I'm pretty sure- you're saying that God has evolved into the perfect being and that there is no subjective version of perfection, only the single universial truth that is God's idea.

Am I right, or on the right track?

Why would you assume that God is absolutely perfect(that there is even such a thing as absolute perfection), or that his perfection has any relevance to how we live our lives? Just as our understanding of basic morals or self-awareness holds no value with how bees live their lives.

 

[GB-GIL Trans-global]

Hvnt w. wstd engh tim + bndwdth lrdy? Pls, smbdy, clse ths thread.

 

[matnay]

Binary,

I hope you'll find my last post worthy of a response this time. I'll try to work with you, but in order for intelligent debate to happen there has to be some compromise. Please at least humor my points even if they are not in sync with your theory of everything. Thanks.