Are you Certain There is no God?

[Skywalker]

Actually they only say that he existed. I don't see how that supports the current Gospels over the gnostic ones.

The teachings of Jesus in the New Testament are not gnostic. Jesus Vs Buddha: 9 Major Differences | Reasons for Jesus

 

[Subduction Zone]

The teachings of Jesus in the New Testament are not gnostic. Jesus Vs Buddha: 9 Major Differences | Reasons for Jesus

Perhaps you are misusing the term gnostic.

Let's get back to the Ten Commandments.

 

[Trailblazer]

Where does the Bible say that spirit cannot become flesh? God spoke the universe into existence. Why couldn't He become flesh?

Where does the Bible say that God became flesh? The following verse is the one that Christians cite that they believe means that God became flesh.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

What this verse means is that when God sent Jesus, Jesus was “manifested” in the flesh and Jesus dwelt among us. God did not become flesh, but rather the divine perfections of God were manifested in Jesus who came in the flesh and revealed the Word of God to humanity.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

You can't get it any plainer than that. God was manifest in the flesh, not incarnated in the flesh. If God had been incarnated in the flesh then God would have become flesh and we would be able to see God; but Jesus said no man has ever seen God.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

How could a person be sinless? Nobody can keep the Ten Commandments. If people could keep the Ten Commandments they wouldn't need a Savior. That is how weak people are.

Manifestations of God are not weak and they do not sin. God determines what a sin is, and no Manifestation of God is a sinner in God's eyes.

 

[Trailblazer]

Daniel wasn't giving Jesus the title like the Son of Man, he was giving a description of what he saw in the celestial realms.

According to your interpretation of the verses.

 

[Trailblazer]

God is the only Redeemer there is. That's why Jesus being the world redeemer makes Him the Messiah.

Both Jesus and Baha'u'llah were Messiahs. Jesus redeemed individual souls by the cross sacrifice, but Baha'u'llah was the world redeemer who came to redeem humanity as a whole.

“Wert thou to consider, for but a little while, the outward works and doings of Him Who is the Eternal Truth, thou wouldst fall down upon the ground, and exclaim: O Thou Who art the Lord of Lords! I testify that Thou art the Lord of all creation, and the Educator of all beings, visible and invisible. I bear witness that Thy power hath encompassed the entire universe, and that the hosts of the earth can never dismay Thee, nor can the dominion of all peoples and nations deter Thee from executing Thy purpose. I confess that Thou hast no desire except the regeneration of the whole world, and the establishment of the unity of its peoples, and the salvation of all them that dwell therein.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 243

 

[Trailblazer]

Is the title the Son of God a reference to the virgin birth itself or are there other connotations behind it? The virgin birth isn't a reference to biological offspring it was a miracle.

Son of God signifies the relationship Jesus had to His Father. Jesus was as a son is to his father.
The virgin birth was simply a miracle.

1637. Christ, Virgin Birth of

"First regarding the birth of Jesus Christ. In light of what Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá have stated concerning this subject it is evident that Jesus came into this world through the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, and that consequently His birth was quite miraculous. This is an established fact, and the friends need not feel at all surprised, as the belief in the possibility of miracles has never been rejected in the Teachings. Their importance, however, has been minimized."

(From a letter dated December 31, 1937 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)

Lights of Guidance/Christ - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith

 

[viole]

Thanks for the reply.

Would you be willing to give the proof or evidences of your truth claims?

The sources that you have studied and found to be truthful?

I am always open to hearing a matter out. Otherwise, absolute truth would be a lie...

Joy


“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”
‭‭Numbers‬ ‭23:19‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Well, we all (scientific literate) know that the genome is what determine the phenotypes. Ergo, the form of your body, including hands, etc. And the process that leads from instructions to final body is a natural one. And that is why some twins are identical.

basically, we are what a sequence of bits determined.

so, if you look for evidence, I would open a standard biology book.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

You would have to go back to the laws of physics on forward to the genome. The genome is already in place and is an intelligent program. You are just turning on and off bits that sequence with the specific function without understanding how it was formed.

And then you would have to determine that the laws of physics have no programming.

According to your way of reasoning, you should also infer then that God has been programmed, too. For, how do you determine She is not? In the same way I cannot determine the laws of physics are not programmed?

unless you beg the question that there are things unprogrammed (God) and things programmed (the laws of physics). But that would be totally arbitrary, and rely on the definition of something for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

but you have no way to do that without incurring in circular reasoning. For the simple fact that all philosophical arguments for the existence of God reduce to circular reasoning, all of them if you dig deep enough. I accept any challenge in that area.

so, my suggestion is that theists restrict to the tenets of their faith as evidence of God. Flying horses, resurrecting Messiahs, prophets living in big tunas, or whatever. That would also have the advantage of justifying why the pray to Flying horses God and not to the One with a kid, for instance.

ciao

- viole

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I am certain there is no good reason for me to believe in God.
Do you feel compelled to believe in God?
Do you feel belief is necessary?

I don't see it but perhaps you can explain it.

Silly question. What is a "god" to you? Where does your definition of a god come from? Your statements seemed to be heavily centered around the Christian bible interpretation of such, is there a reason for that? From where do you derive the idea that a "god", based on the definition you give, needs anyone to beleive it in?

 

[viole]

Silly question. What is a "god" to you? Where does your definition of a god come from? Your statements seemed to be heavily centered around the Christian bible interpretation of such, is there a reason for that? From where do you derive the idea that a "god", based on the definition you give, needs anyone to beleive it in?

All definitions of God come from the culture that made Him/She up. So, since I am a true ecumenic, they are all equally plausible.

ciao

- viole

 

[Ehav4Ever]

All definitions of God come from the culture that made Him/She up. So, since I am a true ecumenic, they are all equally plausible.
ciao
- viole

That may be important to distinquish then because one definition of a god may completely contradict another and thus make them not the same thing. Some cultures may take offense at the word god and what it means in English because their word(s) may contradict the meaning normally associated with the English word god. Further, someone's definition may actually not require faith or beleif and it is always possible that a particular religion's god, on paper, disagrees/disapproves with said religion and all others for that matter.

Thus, what I am saying is that in respect to the OP what does the author of the OP define as a god.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Of course you don't. I already presented examples - all of the gods and the tales can be approached without mythological literalism and grasping "gee, maybe this is an allegory to tell the story in a more accessible way?" That you don't/can't see that is not something you're interested in overcoming based on this sort of response.

I understood this thread to be about the existence of gods -- not about the existence of ideas about gods. I'm willing to concede the latter.

Harry Potter was largely about friendship, just told with witches and wizards. I accept that friendship exists, and the books do a good job of depicting how friendship works. I do not accept, however, the existence of witches and wizards except as a literary device.

And that seems to be all that you are sayng -- that you can use the ideas of gods as a literary device to tell a story. But that is a very different matter from asserting the existence of real gods.

I happen to read a very great deal, and have done all of my life. I've got very broad tastes and have read everything from the Bible to science fiction and fantasy. I am especially fond of reading Shakespeare. But my reading of Shakespeare, while it may bring Oberon and Titania to life in my mind, does not make them King and Queen of the Fairies in this real world in which I am doing my reading.

 

[Quintessence]

And that seems to be all that you are sayng -- that you can use the ideas of gods as a literary device to tell a story. But that is a very different matter from asserting the existence of real gods.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Not sure where I messed up that communication.

The gods (in most cases) are greater-than-human forces and powers. Storytelling is used as a vehicle for teaching people about them in cultures worldwide. When people tell these stories, they can make use of literary devices to communicate various things about these (to them) very real gods. It paints the landscape in a way that is easier to understand while also conveying important information about right relationships, ritual practices, cultural values, etc. Again, Eos is the dawn. Just because the story is told in a way that anthropomorphizes doesn't change that. Oberon and Titania aren't referencing very real aspects of the apparent world. The gods are. The gods are nature, the universe, and everything in polytheistic theologies. If you believe nature is real, you believe these gods are real, period. If you want to believe nature isn't worthy of worship or the title "god" that's another story.

 

[Nakosis]

Silly question. What is a "god" to you? Where does your definition of a god come from? Your statements seemed to be heavily centered around the Christian bible interpretation of such, is there a reason for that? From where do you derive the idea that a "god", based on the definition you give, needs anyone to beleive it in?

Anything one would worship as a higher power.

 

[Nakosis]

That sounds nice.

You sound like a nice guy.

I am not nice, in me there is no good. Girl I'm bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, I'm nationwide. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.

Do you really think everyone should get to go?

Even the REALLY bad guys?

I'm thinking of a guy from Washington State.

Satan and his angels from the abyss?

Even they know they can't go to the Kingdom of God.

"And suddenly they cried out, saying, “What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the appointed time?”​

It's not up to me. If there is a God, it is up to God. Whatever God says goes, I'd assume at least.
Not that I'm likely to be given a choice be if I am, I'll have to tell God, I just can't do it.

 

[Love God]

Well, we all (scientific literate) know that the genome is what determine the phenotypes. Ergo, the form of your body, including hands, etc. And the process that leads from instructions to final body is a natural one. And that is why some twins are identical.

basically, we are what a sequence of bits determined.

so, if you look for evidence, I would open a standard biology book.

ciao

- viole

Which writer of which ‘standard biology books’ should I read?

I remember well, back in the day, when ‘they’ taught proof of evolution by using the example of the ‘simple amoeba’.
Where is that book now...?
Turns out the amoeba ain’t so simple after all.

Next, I am positive that Shakespearean literature was an accident of a ‘simple’ typewriter that exploded in a room filled with paper.

(None of which explains where the typewriter, room, and paper came from in the first place.)

The idea that the universe ‘came from nothing’ is in direct violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics:
Neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.
Energy can only be transformed or transferred.

I am by no means a ‘scholar’ of anything, but, like the next human, I have the ability to study, learn, and understand what is being taught.
I, too, sat in the same educational system as most of my fellow humans...

However, the educational system teaches ‘lack of diversity’, ‘intolerance’ and where is that whole ‘critical thinking’ thing?

The educational system hates the very idea of ‘absolute truth’, and any who believe in ‘absolute truth’.
The very educational system that touts ‘tolerance, inclusiveness, free-thinkers’ requires intolerance, silencing, and mocking of those that differ!
The irony is almost too much.

I was once part of that ‘educated’ tolerant, hating Jesus-freaks, shut your pie-hole crowd. I was a top-notch, top of the class, self-indulgent, self-serving, mouthpiece.

Until I picked up that detestable book, aka the bible, read it, and read it some more, to see for myself, what all the fuss was about.

Turns out, people lie. Turns out, people do not liked to be called out on their lies.

Turns out that people that lie create so much noise about one book, a book that many refuse to read, because it says things that they ‘DON’T LIKE’.

People run around saying ‘I am offended’ because that book says my sin is sin and sin is bad! But I love my sin and who are you to judge!

So yeah.

If a standard biology book says you are ‘evolving’ and came from ‘nothing’ (therefore making all truth relative), and humans are only getting better as time goes on...
verses a book that says ‘all have sinned’ and you might have to look closely at your own stuff and decide what that may mean...

which book is more popular?
which book is more scorned?

Joy

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭3:23‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[viole]

Which writer of which ‘standard biology books’ should I read?

I remember well, back in the day, when ‘they’ taught proof of evolution by using the example of the ‘simple amoeba’.
Where is that book now...?
Turns out the amoeba ain’t so simple after all.

Next, I am positive that Shakespearean literature was an accident of a ‘simple’ typewriter that exploded in a room filled with paper.

(None of which explains where the typewriter, room, and paper came from in the first place.)

The idea that the universe ‘came from nothing’ is in direct violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics:
Neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.
Energy can only be transformed or transferred.

I am by no means a ‘scholar’ of anything, but, like the next human, I have the ability to study, learn, and understand what is being taught.
I, too, sat in the same educational system as most of my fellow humans...

However, the educational system teaches ‘lack of diversity’, ‘intolerance’ and where is that whole ‘critical thinking’ thing?

The educational system hates the very idea of ‘absolute truth’, and any who believe in ‘absolute truth’.
The very educational system that touts ‘tolerance, inclusiveness, free-thinkers’ requires intolerance, silencing, and mocking of those that differ!
The irony is almost too much.

I was once part of that ‘educated’ tolerant, hating Jesus-freaks, shut your pie-hole crowd. I was a top-notch, top of the class, self-indulgent, self-serving, mouthpiece.

Until I picked up that detestable book, aka the bible, read it, and read it some more, to see for myself, what all the fuss was about.

Turns out, people lie. Turns out, people do not liked to be called out on their lies.

Turns out that people that lie create so much noise about one book, a book that many refuse to read, because it says things that they ‘DON’T LIKE’.

People run around saying ‘I am offended’ because that book says my sin is sin and sin is bad! But I love my sin and who are you to judge!

So yeah.

If a biology book says you are ‘evolving’ and came from ‘nothing’ (therefore making all truth relative), and humans are only getting better as time goes on...
verses a book that says ‘all have sinned’ and you might have to look closely at your own stuff and decide what that may mean...

which book is more popular?
which book is more scorned?

Joy

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭3:23‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The first principle of thermodynamics? Oh dear, are you sure you really wanna do this? Like venturing into thermodynamics, the total amount of energy in the universe, the arrow of time, the range of applicability, etc? If I were you I would be content with your miracles and such to prove God. Are they not enough? Unless you know more physics than biology, of course

The Bible? I would say atheists know the Bible better than Christians, generally. And I was a born again, so I read it. Several tmes.

alas, after a bit of reasoning, I realized that those tales are not more plausible than the tales of Pinocchio, and that if someone had told me, when I was a kid, that it was Pinocchio the truth, and the Bible fiction, I would have probably become a born again Pinocchioist.

for, what is more plausible, talking snakes and prophets living days in a big tuna fish, or wooden children whose nose increase monotonically with rate of lie?

ergo, the Bible is probably one of the best tools to actually becoming atheists, when you realize the nonsense it contains.

ciao

- viole

 

[osgart]

According to your way of reasoning, you should also infer then that God has been programmed, too. For, how do you determine She is not? In the same way I cannot determine the laws of physics are not programmed?

unless you beg the question that there are things unprogrammed (God) and things programmed (the laws of physics). But that would be totally arbitrary, and rely on the definition of something for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

but you have no way to do that without incurring in circular reasoning. For the simple fact that all philosophical arguments for the existence of God reduce to circular reasoning, all of them if you dig deep enough. I accept any challenge in that area.

so, my suggestion is that theists restrict to the tenets of their faith as evidence of God. Flying horses, resurrecting Messiahs, prophets living in big tunas, or whatever. That would also have the advantage of justifying why the pray to Flying horses God and not to the One with a kid, for instance.

ciao

- viole

I don't see how an infinite regression of programmers solves anything. At some point a first programmer would exist. And I cannot invoke supernatural means since there's no evidence of such. If we found anything supernatural it would just be considered natural. I can't ever invoke magic.

I infer purposes exist in nature. But I do not infer that everything serves a purpose. At some point brute fact existence just is. I insist that the jump from none intelligence to intelligent beings is impossible no matter the length of time. Complexity arising from mindless processes to me would only produce garbled messes of complex events and never any order or purpose.

I also can't invoke non physical existence. A spiritual world would have to be an undetectable presence perhaps requiring new physics. Perhaps the physics of the abstract such as space and time. If time is real then its existence can't be tangibly determined by ordinary physical means.

If space and time are not fundamental then how would events in reality occur?

If I draw a straight infinite fixed line from earth to anywhere then there simply can be no end to existence. And since events occur I can measure a duration of time that extends infinitely into the past without beginning even if time was not an existent thing.

Events must occur across a duration of time or no events happen.

Is the universe going to be the same elements and compositions everywhere in infinite existence? I simply cannot tell. An eternally existing life is inferred so I from there consider that the universe had an ultimate beginning and other forms of existence are beyond the one we inhabit to accommodate life.

So I'm betting that mathematics can only tell the truth when physical events can be measured. So I stick to intuition and reason from that.

So my starting point is purpose in existence. I consider things beyond our reality; higher dimensions. I'm simply following my intuitions. There must be intrinsic properties to existence and humans can only measure extrinsic behaviours.

 

[viole]

At some point a first programmer would exist

....one at a time.

Why?

there seems to be a generalized aversion to infinite regress that needs to be addressed. Independently from infinite regression being actualized in our world, what logical reasons do you have to dismiss it?

there has to exist a first,... or there would exist a first... are not logically compelling at all.

ciao

- viole

 

[osgart]

....one at a time.

Why?

there seems to be a generalized aversion to infinite regress that needs to be addressed. Independently from infinite regression being actualized in our world, what logical reasons do you have to dismiss it?

there has to exist a first,... or there would exist a first... are not logically compelling at all.

ciao

- viole

I'm sure infinite regressions do occur. For life though it must be that someone simply is and always has been. That starts with inferring purpose in reality. This sounds like the egg or the chicken came first. I'm betting on life being first. I don't think it necessary to abandon all my intuitions.

My intuitions are absurd to naturalists, so be it. I still have them because purpose is sequitur to me.