The need for GOD...

The Creator and Ruler of the universe; the Supreme Being.
Click to expand...

The creator :

The universe thus God was created spontaneously from nothing therefore God cannot consider himself as the creator only as that which was "created" ( the universe) which has the ability to create.

Ruler of the universe:

In your context I would say no. The universe is automatically self governing.

The supreme being:

Being meaning single self contained entity. If the universe is considered as self contained entity then it is in a state of being.

Supreme as in being supreme above all else in this universe then yes supreme as in the universe as entire is greater than a single part of the universe.

Superior with regards to human abilities I would say yes but superior as in humanity being inferior as a part of the universe I would say no.

A bit like looking at you hand and saying that your hand is inferior to it's owner..... a bit silly I think.

The hand may think that the owner of the hand is superior to it but the owner of the hand would not consider the hand in this way.

In a way I liken this relationship in human terms as an Autocratic democracy.

Not all unlike the relationship of the queen of England to the parliment of England. In that the queen has the power to intervene but chooses not to. By her Grace so to speak.

It is only in times of major crisis that she would use her supremeness and only to pursue a solution to the crisis.
 
It's worth saying that all opionions as to the definition of God are valid as God is your opinion.

Atheistic views and religious views are all justifiable and valid, and this is the nature of God.

For every opinion there will be a contrary opinion and yet both are valid.

If you feel that God is the supreme ruler of the universe and creator then you are quite right, he is, but he is also much more than that for he is everything, every word, every action. every thought, every part and all with out any qualification or condition.

When something is everything then everything is absolute with out any exceptions. It is only when we think there are exceptions to God then we find our selves in a stew.

AS soon as you apply an exception, God is now limited in your opinion and God is not limited to your opinion.
 
Ok!!.

Quantum you lost me here:

It's worth saying that all opionions as to the definition of God are valid as God is your opinion.
Click to expand...

If god is my opinion then I'm god!!. that is my opinion!!.

Atheistic views and religious views are all justifiable and valid, and this is the nature of God
Click to expand...

Qua? what? que?..

The whole point of been an atheist is that god is not part of nature!!. Hence an entity which is denied do to the lack of evidence or emperical proof.

For every opinion there will be a contrary opinion and yet both are valid
Click to expand...

Ok!.

If you feel that God is the supreme ruler of the universe and creator then you are quite right, he is, but he is also much more than that for he is everything, every word, every action. every thought, every part and all with out any qualification or condition
Click to expand...

God is shiet, lard, fart, bugers, murderer, molester, etc...
I don't think many religious people would see it this way. Wait is this not pantheism?..

When something is everything then everything is absolute with out any exceptions. It is only when we think there are exceptions to God then we find our selves in a stew.
Click to expand...

I'm in a pork belly stew, cause I do see and find exceptions to the notion of god. To me god is a word with no identity, hence an invented entity with no identity given. Other than by "faith" alone I have to believe that this entity exists, yet no one can explain what god is, nor where god is at, nor that he/she/it exists!!.

AS soon as you apply an exception, God is now limited in your opinion and God is not limited to your opinion.
Click to expand...

Qua?what? que?.

This is plainly non-sequirtus, it completely does not make any sence.
As soon as I apply an exception to the notion of god, my opinion is based to the lack of evidence such a beign exists, or need exist.


Godless.
 
Look i think the problem here is simply that you are thinking of God a s a single minded entity, to which he can make single decisions as a powerful entity.

There are over 6 billion persons on this planet alone and all are making decisions and thinking etc all the time. God is all those decisions all those action etc. 3 billion at least simultaneously.

Look into the universe and do a few estimates, the number of decisions thoughts etc could very well be infinte in number all happening simultaneously.

Every single action and decision is part of God. Not one is singulary God's but all are.

So if people can only let go of this notion that God is in some way able to make a single decision with single focus then think again.

I would suggest that the mind of God if there is any ability to call it a mind is a very busy place.......
 
Some where on earth there will be a measurment of an anomoly to do with time that does not make sense. Possibly where time over distance has lost it's reference such as light speed "c"
Click to expand...

Just a thought.

There is a post by MacM in the physics forum just posted called

Earths' rotation is speeding up.

I must admit that it pricked my interest. enough to read the article url......just coincidence i guess.......( chuckle )

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20031229/atomicclock.html

No ....I don't use this as evidence......I can't prove i didn't read it before can I
 
R U sure?..

Every single action and decision is part of God. Not one is singulary God's but all are.
Click to expand...

Then by this analogy god is not benevolent, cause you should well know that many decisions are evil, and actions of war, slaming to buildings, carpet bombing cities, incest, rape, murder, pillaging, are all decisions that are part of god!!?.





I must admit that it pricked my interest. enough to read the article url......just coincidence i guess.......( chuckle )
Click to expand...

Thanks for link, very interested. Though at my job work time is not feeling any shorter!.

:rolleyes:

So if people can only let go of this notion that God is in some way able to make a single decision with single focus then think again
Click to expand...

Then god is not omnipotent!!.

Godless.
 
Omni present yes
Omni knowing yes
Omni potent no
Omni omni yes

Omni potent no

( but I think he's learning to be......)

Every bad deed, every evil , every good, every beauty, everything is "god"

Omni potent in a single minded sense ...no
Omni potent in a multiplistic sense....yes
 
The more I think about it, the more I'm sure (although I also think in probabilities) that we are manifestations of God, limited to material world for experiences we choose.

No, this is not because of fear of death. It is the only thing that makes sense to me. If there is no sense, fine with me.

I don't make claims about God. I'm afraid he only knows in this reality what I know, what you know. That God knows itself only through our self consciousness.

Oh well... laundry still waits.
 
well there you go...if all life are manifestations of God then God must have a multiplistic consciousness/sentience.

Any ideas what having an infinite amount of decisions to make at any moment must be like?

In other words we are his decisions all his decisions manifested in our decisions and all the universes sentient decisions.

By golly thats alot of decisions.....would be a bit distracting for a single minded entitiy I would think:)
 
all possibilities are manifested. That's not so hard. It's like

10 x = random nr
20 print x
30 goto 10

It's like playing Doom, only difference: being the guy with the shotgun (only use the shotgun, the other weapons are wuss only)

It's like God is the circle, not able to know itself, cause there is only circle. God projects himself in an infinite number of points, us, and these points will become circles again. In the points, God can experience.

It's like Manson who says: I went to God just to see, and I was looking at me. Which is the arrogant way of looking at it. (I like to judge)

It's like typing these lines, and recognizing yourself.
 
Quantum Quack wrote
The creator :

The universe thus God was created spontaneously from nothing therefore God cannot consider himself as the creator only as that which was "created" ( the universe) which has the ability to create.

Ruler of the universe:

In your context I would say no. The universe is automatically self governing.

The supreme being:

Being meaning single self contained entity. If the universe is considered as self contained entity then it is in a state of being.

Supreme as in being supreme above all else in this universe then yes supreme as in the universe as entire is greater than a single part of the universe.

Superior with regards to human abilities I would say yes but superior as in humanity being inferior as a part of the universe I would say no.
Click to expand...
It’s okay if we disagree, Quantum Quack. I see that you consider God to be part of the universe as well as part of humanity, where I consider God is a being of supreme intelligence and power that exists outside our dimension of time, space, and matter, but is capable of intersecting and intervening when He chooses. On the one hand, a god who is an integral part of the universe and humanity is impersonal and without morals. On the other, a god who is an entity outside our dimension is an intelligence with standards and laws that govern the universe He created (Creator, meaning the one who creates, the one to cause other things to be in existence, the one who makes something from nothing). This entity, this God, can only be understood if He intersects or intervenes into our dimension. And this is the God we can find proof of His existence.
 
To me God is a physical entity of this dimension and is in fact this dimension and all dimensions. He is was he creates and is not separate to what he creates or created.

God is both sides of the reflection and the mirror as well.

It is humanity who take the position of being the reflected ( in a mirror ) were as God is all and both, the reflected. the relector and what is reflected.

and yes of course it is ok to disagree

The question is with regard to the need for an existential form of God and this is where there is debate. The need and proof of a God that is only one side of his reflection.

To me the question is moot in that teh need for god is like the need for air in that without the air we cease to exist as physical.

It is no question of need but a question of necessity the universe needs it's self and every part thereof, but the use of the word need is no longer valid as this relationship is self- evident and not subject to dispute or question.
It's a bit like saying " an apple needs to exist to be an apple" and tends tp make a mockery of reasoning with it's simple circular logic.

So for me , to argue that there is a need for God is
a bit like saying you need your hand to be able to use your hand or you need to walk to be able to walk etc etc.
 
I didn't ignore it I just thought I would elaboprate it in a way that makes clearer sense to me in the hope that makes clearer sense from another angle to others....




Why do I think God is not omnipotent is that he doesn't fit in with the terms of reference as to what omnipotent means.

If one thinks of the universe as being sustained by God then one would have to say he is rather omnipotent but if one thinks of miniscule individual action type omnipotence then this only occures when all the universe is in accord with such action of omnipotents, and this is very rare that God is in accord enough to act. Seeing as all of humanity is involved and more, one individual act of omnipotents is unlikely to occur.

The last time a major concordance happened was about 2000 years ago and that was a real mess but served a purpose all the same.

A mess....why?
A guy ended up on a cross dead as a young man and his parents lost a son..... that's why.
 
Last edited:
But that person rose again from the dead, which is the evidence of God's action.
 
Whilst I believe a guy died 2000 years ago as a martyr i have no comment to make as to what happened after his death.
 
Godless wrote
Basically there's no evidence that Jeus rose from the tumb, any evidence given comes from the bible scriptures trherefore as much of the bible not reliable information.
Click to expand...
Actually there is more than just bible information to indicate that the resurrection of Jesus was an historical event.
The Talmud, which consists of Jewish traditions handed down orally from generation to generation, was organized by Rabbi Akiba before his death in 135 A.D. The writings in the Talmud embrace the legal, ritual and exegetical commentaries that have developed right down to contemporary times. In Sanhedrin 43a, reference to Jesus is found. "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."If Jesus had been stoned, his death would have been at the hands of the Jews. The fact he was crucified shows that the Romans intervened. The Talmud also speaks of five of Jesus' disciples and recounts their standing before judges who made individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. No deaths are recorded.
Other Talmud references to Jesus indicated that Jesus was "treated differently from others who led the people astray, for he was connected with royalty." These Talmud accounts were written long before the New Testament was assembled. They provide clear evidence that Jesus did live. The Talmud does not embrace Christ as a deity and would have no reason to sanction his existence. The Talmud also states that Jesus was 33 or 34 years old when he died. The risen Christ is the foundation of Christianity. But Christ would have to have lived and died before His resurrection could become an historical factor.
http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html
Click to expand...
Also look at these articles at the following websites.
http://www.wcg.org/lit/jesus/davis.htm#Davis
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/bodily.html

The resurrection of Jesus was an historical event. There is no other logical explanation for the empty tomb, the rapid growth of Christianity during the 1st century, and the unwavering witness of His disciples to that fact.
 
Ok thanks for links, however these are writen by nonother than theist believers, the talmut is not a perfect book either, I have different sources that say other wise.

“And if thou (John) wouldst know concerning me (Jesus), what I (Jesus) was, know that with a word did I (Jesus) deceive all things and I (Jesus) was no whit deceived.” Jesus Christ to John

“Then he (Jesus) said unto them (his disciples), O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken…” (Lu 24:25 )

"The critic of Christianity cannot evade the necessity of making Christianity contemptible." German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ § 57


This is a very interesting site you may not like it!! however keep an open mind.

http://www.bare-jesus.net/etricksindex.htm

Godless.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the question " The need for God?" should now be posed as "The need for Jesus?"

What was the need for Jesus to come to be?

What need was he fulfilling do you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top