Not at the current moment but it's the career path of choice for me.
Proof of the existence of God
- Thread starter Jason.Marshall
- Start date
Not at the current moment but it's the career path of choice for me.
Once you can see the singular effort that unifies all differences in any context, then you all will be at peace.
Unification.
Unification.
Thanks Deepak Chopra.
Just saying, other cultures have different definition of God, than being the original cause/creator, does not make it so.
An example wouldn't go amiss.
jan.
Kim Jong Il (Korea)
Emperor Hirohito (Japan)
He is another false god.
How do you know?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Ok, let's go with a dynamic self operating universal computer as a premise. We'll get to the rest later.
Does it function in a stochastic or deterministic manner?
Is it intelligent or pseudo-intelligent?
Is it sentient?
Is it self-aware?
Is it emotionally involved with the exchange of information?
Is my computer sentient when it is turned on, or does it just process bits of data?
.
.
Taken from the first line...
"An imperial cult is a form of state religion in which an emperor, or a dynasty of emperors (or rulers of another title), are worshipped as demigods or deities."
Like I said, there is a difference in definition, between god an God. and sticking your head in the sand isn't going to change that.
jan.
God is a deity. Same thing. You are the one sticking your head in the sand.
They're worshiped as demi-gods, not God, it say's so in your link.
Wiki..
"In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[1] The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, while in deism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer, of the universe."
jan.
Sometimes, sometimes not. And those are general descriptions that do not fit all cases. Human culture is diverse, and so are it's religious ideas, but you are stuck on the monotheism of the middle east and India as representative of all the world's religious thought, and it's about time you gained a wider sense of it.
You have a habit of only picking the definitions that fit your argument, aren't you...
To requote: ""An imperial cult is a form of state religion in which an emperor, or a dynasty of emperors (or rulers of another title), are worshipped as demigods or deities.""
But you select just the notion of them being worshipped as demi-gods rather than deities?
And you have a habbit of being irrational.
Regarding Hirohito...
''In ancient Japan, it was customary for every clan to claim descendancy from gods (ujigami), and the royal family or clan tended to define their ancestor as the dominant, or most important kami of the time.''
Taken from link.
Regarding Kim Sung, it is only a rumour that claims North Koreans are taught that he created the world, and his son controls the weather. Either way they are not worshiped as God, but as great leaders.
You're both wrong.
Get over it.
jan.
I'm not talking about religion.
If you cannot separate religion from God, then maybe this discussion isn't for you.
jan.
A couple of questions for Jan:
(1) Is it true that you define God as the cause of the "Big Bang" - BB, the creation of time and mater? Here I assume the word "god" is so defined - has more meaning than a three random letter word like: "Qet." Or would you be equally happy with "Qet" defined as the cause of the BB?
Reason I ask is I think you do more than just define God as the creator of the BB. - You assign characteristic to God but not to Qet. (All knowing, All powerful, sin-free, etc.)
(2) Has God done anything since the BB? Or have the natural laws ruled all subsequent evolution of mater? - IE Do "miracles" (by definition, violation of the natural laws) exist or not ?
PS In Q2, I of course mean within our universe - God may have created other universes, if he/she made the one we can explore. - No way for us to know.
(1) Is it true that you define God as the cause of the "Big Bang" - BB, the creation of time and mater? Here I assume the word "god" is so defined - has more meaning than a three random letter word like: "Qet." Or would you be equally happy with "Qet" defined as the cause of the BB?
Reason I ask is I think you do more than just define God as the creator of the BB. - You assign characteristic to God but not to Qet. (All knowing, All powerful, sin-free, etc.)
(2) Has God done anything since the BB? Or have the natural laws ruled all subsequent evolution of mater? - IE Do "miracles" (by definition, violation of the natural laws) exist or not ?
PS In Q2, I of course mean within our universe - God may have created other universes, if he/she made the one we can explore. - No way for us to know.
Last edited:
Regarding question 1: God is defined as the original cause/creator. Make of that what you will.
Question 2 is irrelevent at this point in time, until we honestly establish, and accept the definition of God, not gods.
jan.
I have no problem with idea the Big Bang had a cause or that for convenience, we can name (or define) that cause God or Qet. That is I do accept that Qet (or God) is defined as the cause of the BB.
My problems arise when with no evidence you (or others) state characteristic of Qet such as is "all knowing" "sin-free" etc. There is no reason to accept these assigned characteristics any more than: the "cause of all sin," or "cause of all evil," etc. which some others assign to Qet (God).
Question 2 is not "irrelevant." It simply asks has this causal agent, Qet or God (or any other name you care to use) done anything inconsistent with the natural laws since the BB? I.e. has even one miracle occurred due to the intervention of Qet in the operation of the natural laws?
This is a very simple question, with "yes" or "no" as the possible answers, but if you would justify either, that would be helpful.
Last edited: