God Debate

[pandamonk]

Oy vey.... let me waste 5 minutes of my life to post something you will ignore.
Adam and Eve had free will and knew right and wrong. The "tree" is symbolic of the dominion over good and evil.... it is not knowledge that this passage speaks to, but dominion.

God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

So, again.. there is no "paradox".... just a lack of understanding of what Scripture teaches.... and this could be said for 99.9% of your posts.

You'll just ignore this and move on to your next attack. Best of luck.

Scott

Why do you think i will "just ignore" your post? I never/try to never ignore a post. " it is not knowledge that this passage speaks to, but dominion." why is it called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" if it is not knowledge that the passage speaks to. I'm sorry but I take scripture as I see it, not as someone tells me to see it. I do not see how anyone can accept what someone else tells them is what is meant by each passage. How ever do they know? Or they just see the mistake are try to rectify it? 99.9% of my posts? Emm i usually do not include scripture in my posts, i argue about widely accepted attributes of God. Not much of what I have argue has actually been shown to be wrong, but people like you don't accept it, as it conflicts with what you have been taught. Why does an "all-loving" god demand submission? Sorry, but as I am not as well educated as you I do not know what you mean by this " "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom." Please explain, or "dumb-down" a bit so I can understand what I will attempt to argue against.

 

[pandamonk]

The above example negates your "and cannot do or command anything of any harm"

"And if not, you are talking absolute tripe, and nothing you say can be of any interest in this debate, so i will merely ignore you until you start talking sense. "

Ok i see my mistake and i will change my wording. "and cannot do or command anything of any great harm"

tripe is stomach tissue of a ruminant and especially of the ox used as food; how can I "TALK" tripe ?

I don't know, but you seem to manage it quite well, lol. Is it a miracle, of have you just eat too much of it, and it's coming back up? lol

and nothing you say can be of any interest in this debate, so i will merely ignore you until you start talking sense. "

That is a shame; because I was beginning to think that that is the only method for dealing with you - but unfortunately, I realize that you cannot help thinking the way you do; and it is up to me (as well as the others on this forum) to try to show you the errors of you ways...........

Ok then, show me without a doubt my errors. If I admit you are right and become Christian, then you have accomplished your task.

Now to look at the Bible. Hmm, don't have to look very far to find an instance of this unfair behavior. (Gen. 3:16-19)

God constantly acts in an un-loving way throughout the bible, as i showed in the first post here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16259

If we're into talking about talking about parts of animals, I would respond "Cod's wallop" - but I shan't, because that would be lowering myself to your level.........

The thing is, you never actually showed me what is "Cod's wallop" about that.

 

[pandamonk]

Further to the problem of semantics, logic also suffers from hidden defects that may not be known from the link between the two premises. This is due to the fact that the conclusion is not directly sensed but is built upon two base thoughts that may or may not have been sensed. So for example we could state oxygen is gas at room temperature and that hydrogen is also gas at room temperature thus we can conclude that oxygen combined with hydrogen would produce a gas at room temperature. But this is not the case for hydrogen combined with oxygen produces a liquid at room temperature. Such hidden defects can not be noticed when building thought upon thought and thus logic can not be used as the basis of building conclusions.

This is not the logical conclussion. Logic cannot be used in this way. Rational thought would(if not scientifically minded)suggest that "oxygen combined with hydrogen would produce a gas at room temperature".

 

[Scott1]

I'm sorry but I take scripture as I see it, not as someone tells me to see it.

Then you should keep it to yourself next time... if you only wish to preach about your beliefs and discount any opinions to the contrary, you are just proselytizing... which is not allowed here.

Please explain, or "dumb-down" a bit so I can understand what I will attempt to argue against.

Why bother?... you've proven that you are not here to engage in a civil discussion with anyone.

Preach on.

 

[pandamonk]

Then you should keep it to yourself next time... if you only wish to preach about your beliefs and discount any opinions to the contrary, you are just proselytizing... which is not allowed here.
Why bother?... you've proven that you are not here to engage in a civil discussion with anyone.

Preach on.

I am not preaching about my beliefs! I am attempting to have a civil discussion but keep getting people like you telling me I am ignorant etc. I am young and trying to learn. I put forth my arguments so that people can argue against them and we can all learn. When people give arguments against, I go through what they said to see if i can pick a fault with it(so we don't get faulty information, so we can learn the truth)I am not saying I am right and everyone is wrong, many of the things you and other theists have said is quite right, but I do like to argue my case. "Why bother?" Emm so I know what you mean and so i can accept it. If I do not know what you mean i cannot take it as anything of any merit. I am here to angage in a civil discussion with everyone. I put forth an argument and wait for someone to reply and then discuss until we come to a conclussion. I look at arguments other have given and discuss with them why I do not agree with them and discuss until we come to a conclussion, or someone gives up. I do not put forth an argument then immediately accept the first reply given to me. I look at it, I think through it, and quite often find faults. I mention these faults, and then get an assault like yours. So it seems that you are not willing to have a civil discussion, you want to have it your own way and when someone disagrees, it's them who are ignorant. I'm only 17 so do not understand everything everone is saying, but I'm trying my best. And occassionally ask what someone means. If you have said anything I do not understand and it is anything of any merit then it would seem courteous of you to explain. Unless, even you do not know what you mean, and are just trying to confuse?

 

[pandamonk]

Then you should keep it to yourself next time... if you only wish to preach about your beliefs and discount any opinions to the contrary, you are just proselytizing... which is not allowed here.

I'm sorry but i can do nothing but take scripture as I see it. I am not Christian, so do not go to church. I have no way of knowing how you read the bible until you tell me. But you have not told me, you have only told me that I am ignorant of biblical teachings, and you do not seem to understand that I do not know biblical teachings as I have never gone to church. So it is you who is ignorant of Atheists(or me anyway).

 

[Mike182]

I'm sorry but i can do nothing but take scripture as I see it. I am not Christian, so do not go to church. I have no way of knowing how you read the bible until you tell me. But you have not told me, you have only told me that I am ignorant of biblical teachings, and you do not seem to understand that I do not know biblical teachings as I have never gone to church. So it is you who is ignorant of Atheists(or me anyway).

do you want a crash course in reading the bible?

i think a lot of it is allegories for a deeper truth - parts of it i do believe happend literally - this is one reason for why i am hoping to learn the orignal languages the scriptures were written in because i dont trust translations

you just need to read it and if you dont understand any of it or how something is possible (like the first story in genesis) ask about it

which part of the bible are you struggling with? because until you tell us that we cannot help you - not because we are ignorant but because its a blooming big book

God Bless

 

[michel]

I'm sorry but i can do nothing but take scripture as I see it. I am not Christian, so do not go to church. I have no way of knowing how you read the bible until you tell me. But you have not told me, you have only told me that I am ignorant of biblical teachings, and you do not seem to understand that I do not know biblical teachings as I have never gone to church. So it is you who is ignorant of Atheists(or me anyway).

Pandamonk - there is only one way to learn something; just DO IT! - I had hardly opened a Bible before I joined this forum. Perhaps I had a slight excuse that when I was younger, there was no internet, no tools to help you understand, no sites on which people explain passages that are hard to understand.

Boy, If I can learn, so can you. Open the bible, open your heart, an READ! - that is, if you really want to understand!

 

[pandamonk]

Pandamonk - there is only one way to learn something; just DO IT! - I had hardly opened a Bible before I joined this forum. Perhaps I had a slight excuse that when I was younger, there was no internet, no tools to help you understand, no sites on which people explain passages that are hard to understand.

Boy, If I can learn, so can you. Open the bible, open your heart, an READ! - that is, if you really want to understand!

I have read, well most of it anyway. And, to me, it all seems like fantasy.

do you want a crash course in reading the bible?

i think a lot of it is allegories for a deeper truth - parts of it i do believe happend literally - this is one reason for why i am hoping to learn the orignal languages the scriptures were written in because i dont trust translations

you just need to read it and if you dont understand any of it or how something is possible (like the first story in genesis) ask about it

which part of the bible are you struggling with? because until you tell us that we cannot help you - not because we are ignorant but because its a blooming big book

God Bless

But how do you know which are definite allegories and which are literal? They ones that seem like fantasy? But why not just take the whole thing as one Big allegory? Why not read as as just a guide and that maybe none of it true?

 

[Mike182]

But how do you know which are definite allegories and which are literal? They ones that seem like fantasy? But why not just take the whole thing as one Big allegory? Why not read as as just a guide and that maybe none of it true?

things like the crusifiction and ressurection of christ is not an allegory - that happend (imo)

genesis 1 is an allegory from my understanding of it becaues if taken as an allegory you can see how it fits with big bang theory

off hand i dont know a list of stories that are allegories, which are symbolic, and which are real

at the end of the day, we dont know beyond a doubt which are true and which are symbolic - thats why its called faith


god bless

 

[Aqualung]

I have read, well most of it anyway. And, to me, it all seems like fantasy.

But how do you know which are definite allegories and which are literal? They ones that seem like fantasy? But why not just take the whole thing as one Big allegory? Why not read as as just a guide and that maybe none of it true?

You read it. You ponder it. And then you pray about it. Have you ever actually done that? Have you ever even read the Bible? Then, have you thought about what you have read? And then have you actually asked if it were true? I mean, really asked, not just sat down and said "okay, if there is a god, make my hair catch on fire so I will know you have power. Or something else. As if there really is a god. Yeah right." and then you get up and roll your eyes and critisise yourself for your stupidity. That's not the same. Because I guarutee you, if you read and ponder and ask God to tell you if it is true, you will get an answer. I know, that may sound like a load of, to use one of your words that I have become especially fond of , tripe, but you're probably just scared that you won't get the answer you're expecting, and that you'll have to change a lot of things in your life. Try it. It works, and it is unshakable testimony.

 

[pandamonk]

Religious Forums disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material in Religious Forums.

I am going to re-post some of my arguments because I feel most were ignored.

Perfection vs creation argument

Version 1
1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants
4. If any being created the universe, then it must have had some need or want to do so
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4)
6.Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)"

Version 2
1. If God exists then he is perfect
2. If God exists he is the creator of the universe
3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect
4. But the universe(although complex) is not perfect
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be creator of the universe (from 3 and 4)
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

The immutability vs creation argument

1. If God exists, then he is immutable
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe
3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention
4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it
5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4)
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

The immutability vs omniscience argument

1. If God exists, then he is immutable
2. If God exists, then he is omniscient
3. An immutable being cannot know different things at different times
4. To be omniscient, a being would need to propositions about the past and future
5. But what is past and what is future keeps changing
6. Thus, in order to know propositions about the past and future, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 5)
7. It follows that, to be omniscient, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 4 and 6)
8. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be omniscient (from 3 and 7)
9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8)

The immutability vs all-loving argument

1. If God exists, then he is immutable
2. If God exists, then he is all-loving
3. An immutable being cannot be affected by events
4. To be all-loving, it must be possible for a being to be affected by events
5. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be all-loving (from 3 and 4)
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

The transcendence vs omnipresence argument

1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time)
2. If God exists, then he is omnipresent
3. To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space
4. To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space
5. Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4)
6. Therefore it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

The transcendence vs personhood argument

1. If God exists, then he is transcendent
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being)
3. If something is transcendent, then it cannot exist and perform actions within time
4. But a person (or personal being) must exist and perform actions within time
5. Therefore, something that is transcendent cannot being a person (or personal being) (from 3 and 4)
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

The nonphysical vs personal argument

1. If God exists, then he is nonphysical
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being)
3. A person (or personal being) needs to be physical
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3)

The omnipresence vs personhood argument

1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being)
3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being)
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3)

The omniscient vs free argument

1. If God exists, then he is omniscient
2. If God exists, then he is free
3. An omniscient being must know exactly what actions he will and will not do in the future
4. If one knows that he will do an action, then it is impossible for him not to do it, and if one knows that he will not do an action, then it is impossible for him to do it
5. Thus, whatever an omniscient being does, he must do, and whatever he does not do, he cannot do (from 3 and 4)
6. To be free requires having options open, which means having the ability to act contrary to the way one actually acts
7. So, if one is free, then he does not have to do what he actually does, and he is able to do things that he does not actually do (from 6)
8. Hence, it is impossible for an omniscient being to be free (from 5 and 7)
9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8)

The justice vs mercy argument

1. If God exists, then he is an all-just judge
2. If God exists, then he is an all-merciful judge
3. An all-just judge treat every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves
4. An all-merciful judge treats every offender with less severity that he/she deserves
5. It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves
6. Hence, it is impossible for an all-just judge to be an all-merciful judge (from 3-5)
7. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 6)

The perfection argument

1. A perfect being is not subject to change
2. A perfect being knows everything
3. A perfect being that knows everything always knows what time it is
4. A being that always knows what time it is, is subject to change
5. A perfect being is subject to change
6. A perfect being is not a perfect being
7. Therefore, there is no perfect being
8. Hence, God being perfect, cannot exist

God and the best possible world

1. If God exists then this is the best of all possible worlds
2. If this is the best of all possible worlds, then worlds worse than this one are logically possible
3. A logically possible world is any world the existence of which is compatible with logical necessity
4. If "God exists" is necessarily true, then "Then world which exists is not the best of all possible worlds" is necessarily false. (That is, if the proposition "God exists" is necessarily true, then any proposition inconsistent with it is necessarily false. But since God's existence, in Leibniz's conception, entails that this is the best of all possible worlds, it also entails that "The world which exists is not the best of all possible worlds, it also entails that "The world which exists is not the best of all possible worlds" is false. Thus if "God exists" is necessarily true, " The world which exists is not the best of all possible worlds" is necessarily false.)
5. If "The world which exists is not the best of all possible worlds" is necessarily false, then no world which is not the best of all possible worlds is a logically possible world. (That is, if "God exists" is necessarily true and if it is His nature to create only the best of all possible worlds, then it is logically impossible that any lesser world could have come into existence-again, assuming that all things depend for their existence on God.)
6. Given that this world is the one God chose to bring into existence, if no world worse than this one is logically possible, then it is not the case that this is the best of all possible worlds
Conclusion: If this world was created by a necessarily existing Perfect Creator, then it both is and is not the case that this world is the best of all possible worlds. Therefore, it is not possible that world was created by a necessarily existing Perfect Creator.
To put the point another way, it is impossible for God to create any world less good than the best of all possible worlds, but since God is the only possible source of existence, worlds less good than the best of all possible worlds cannot possibly come into existence. Therefore, the world God created cannot possibly be better than other possible worlds.

Religious Forums disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material in Religious Forums.

 

[pandamonk]

Religious Forums disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material in Religious Forums.

God's Greatness

1. God is a being than which no greater being can be thought
2. Greatness includes greatness of virtue
3. Therefore, God is a being than which no being could be more virtuous
4. But virtue involves overcoming pains and danger
5. Indeed, a being can only be properly said to be virtuous it if can suffer pain or be destroyed
6. A God that can suffer pain or is destructible is not one than which no greater being can be thought
7. For you can think of a greater being, that is, one that is nonsuffering and indestructible
8. Therefore, God does not and cannot exist

Evil vs all-goodness vs omnipotence argument

1. If God exists, then he is all-good
2. If God exists, then he is omnipotent
3. An all-good being wishes only good things
4. An omnipotent being has total power to do whatever he wishes
5. yet there is evil
6. It is impossible for an all-good, omnipotent being to exist and allow evil (from 3 and 4)
7. Seeing as there is evil, it is impossible for an all-good, omnipotent being to exist (from 5 and 6)
8. Therefore it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 7)


Evil vs all-goodness vs omniscience vs the creation of the universe

1. God exists and created everything ex nihilo and in time
2. Prior to creation there was nothing but God
3. Subsequent to creation there is nothing which is not casually dependent upon God
4. If God had not created there would be nothing but God
5. God is the greatest possible good
6. If God had not created there would be nothing but the greatest possible good
7. God need not have created
8. If God had not created there would be no evil(God being omniscient would know this)
9. God could and must prevent evil by not creating
10. God created
11. God is either not all-good, not omniscient, or not the creator of the universe(you choose,lol)
12. God is not a god
13. Therefore it is impossible for God to exist

Omniscience vs MEEEEE

1. To be omniscient, God needs to know everything I know
No one other than me knows that what I know in knowing that
2. I am making a mess
The closest others may get is knowing that
3. Lee Brady (or pandamonk) is making a mess
or

4. he (indicating me) is making a mess
5. What they know when they know 3 or 4 is not what I know in knowing 2
6. It is impossible for God to know what I know in knowing 2
7. It is impossible for God to know everything I know
8. It is impossible for for God to be omniscient(omniscience is impossible)
9. Therefore it is impossible for God to exist

A Disproof of the God of the common man (If you do not accept my definition of God)

1. If Got exists, God has not had the feelings of lust or envy
2. If God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows
3. If God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows, God knows lust and envy
4. If God knows lust or envy, God has had the feelings of lust and envy
5. God exists.
By hypothesis
6. God has had and has not had the feelings of lust and envy (from 1-5)
7. Therefore, God does not exist

(If there is any argument you wish me to go into more detail to explain, or otherwise, let me know and i will. And also, if there is any argument which you wish to argue against, i will be happy to show the strength and validity of each argument)

Religious Forums disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material in Religious Forums.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

God's Greatness

2. Greatness includes greatness of virtue​

Anthropomorphic nonsense. It makes about as much sense as arguing that greatness includes the greatest possible breasts or penis. (See primitive fertility figures.)

Evil vs all-goodness vs omnipotence argument

1. If God exists, then he is all-good​

Bullpuckie. Again, who made up that rule?

Evil vs all-goodness vs omniscience vs the creation of the universe

5. God is the greatest possible good
​

Been there / done that. See above.

Omniscience vs MEEEEE

6. It is impossible for God to know what I know in knowing​

Circulus in demonstrando.

A Disproof of the God of the common man (If you do not accept my definition of God)

No, but thanks for sharing.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

Anthropomorphic nonsense. It makes about as much sense as arguing that greatness includes the greatest possible breasts or penis. (See primitive fertility figures.)

Wait, are you saying that greatness doesn't include those things? Damn, I feel old-fashioned.

 

[ottoman]

‘Or do they think creation came out of nothing? Or were they creators themselves? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay they have no firm belief'. [The Quran 52:35-37].

We shall focus on two main areas,

and on and on and on... But WOW. What great arguments. 'If there is any argument you wish me to go into more detail to explain, or otherwise, let me know and i will. And also, if there is any argument which you wish to argue against, i will be happy to show the strength and validity of each argument'
Lets see you in action then pandamonk. The stage is all yours. :shout Knockout

 

[ottoman]

“God is back among intellectuals” Aleksander Smolar, a leading European thinker who heads the Stefan Batory Foundation in Warsaw and teaches at the Sorbonne in Paris. coldheat's argument is bulletproof.

 

[Pah]

“God is back among intellectuals” Aleksander Smolar, a leading European thinker who heads the Stefan Batory Foundation in Warsaw and teaches at the Sorbonne in Paris. coldheat's argument is bulletproof.

I'm sorry that I have not posted in this thread before. Coldheat's (or alokab's, going by the date which the "proof" was submitted) is full of erorrs. A fine piece of cheese fit for gourmet taste but full of holes, - definetly a "second-hand" cheese.

The first error is the definition of proof. It is not in accordance with Epistemology. Proof (or truth) is a value judgement of evidence in accordance with criteria the best being Correspondance or Coherence to reality. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/article.php?a=35 The best the premise of "coldhearts" post can muster is revelation.

Scientific proof is one that passes repeatablity.

Thomas Aquinas did not use an example of a watch in the middle of the desert - that is chronologically impossible. Paley put forth that argument hundreds of years after Aquinas. Dawkins, from Darwins work, refuted that argument and I have yet to see it successfully challanged.

The first cause is not shown to be, in fact, God, to which so many allude, or the Creator. Further, it has not been shown that a creator must exist. It is a leap of faith to suppose a creator and faith is not, by definition, an epistemological proof or truth.

Only this universe is considered finite. There is M-theory which predicts multiple universes. If God is the creator of this universe (and universe was hardly thought of from early Abrahamic tought) then there are other "creators" and it is absolutely possible that the "creator" was created.

You can not conclude from "reality" that a creator is unique - it is only acheivible from faith.

Water does not always boil at 100 degrees Celsius. It is still water at higher and lower pressures by virtue of it's chemical composition.

Socio evolution shows the organizing principles of society and all society's manifestations. The is no need to postulate a creator or God which can only be taken on faith.

Just a few of the faults I find in coldheat's, or more properly, alokab's argument.

 

[hrsweet]

A: Do you believe in God?



B: That depends. Are you talking about the god that was created in man's image, as the cynics put it, or are you talking about something less personal?



A: Either way. It is something that can't be proved. You just have to believe.



B: You can't prove or disprove the unknown but you can reach a rational conclusion. Let's start with the concept of God. Are we agreed that God is the source of creation?



A: Yes.



B: Are we agreed that everything in creation has form – can be described – has limits and attributes?



A: Yes.



B: This would include matter, energy, space, time and anything else that science might someday discover. But as source of creation as opposed to the creation itself, God can be none of these. Thus without form, this would clearly rule out gender. Furthermore, speech being a complex of sounds or vibrations would also be a part of creation and therefore confined within the creation. If God had ears to hear and eyes to see or any other attributes, he would be a part of the creation and not the source of creation. In other words, he wouldn't be God.



So this rules out vocal or verbal communication between an individual within the creation and the god source of creation. It even rules out the possibility of thought communication or prayer. Why? Because all thoughts are word combinations that help us interact with the discrete content of the creation. The source of creation would therefore not be reachable with a vehicle that was developed to enhance the functioning within the creation.



A: Could God come to earth and interact with men?



B: Any entity that interacted within the creation would necessarily have to be a part of that creation and, by definition, would be non-God. Or to put it another way, it is an illogical premises to state that God has created himself.



The whole idea of God coming to Earth goes back thousands of years to the time when it was commonly believed that the Stars in the Heavens were Gods. This, BTW, is the foundation of Astrology. God or gods could therefore come to earth from the heavens and deified individuals could likewise go from Earth to the heavens. This was a common belief that went beyond Christianity. Another footnote – angles. These mythical emissaries between heaven and earth are winged creatures so as to enable them to make the commute.



We now know that stars are not gods and outer space is not habitable yet we have clung to these comforting ideas.



And there is good reason to have held to these outmoded notions. The belief in god and afterlife is virtually ubiquitous throughout the world and throughout history. To understand why, we need to understand ourselves.



At some point in our evolution, self awareness developed. The look in the mirror or, its predecessor -- a reflecting pool of water, produced the thought that "I" exist. Greatly enhancing the ability to conceptualize notions such as "I" was the development of speech. It has been observed that babies, which have not yet developed speech, do not interact with mirrors in the way that the rest of us do.



Also in man's developing consciousness came the awareness of the reality of death.



Now we have two conflicting concepts to deal with -- "I" and death. So the rationale developed that if the "I" is real and death certainly is real, then the "I" must survive death.

Any examination of history will show that this rationale, that in some way, the "I" survives death, is virtually universal



As for the universal belief in God or a hierarchy of gods we need only look to our own biological heritage and that is the social structure of not only man, but the higher primates as well. In both cases the social structure is pyramidical with an "alpha" monkey, king or president at the top. Therefore it is logical to extrapolate that social structure to a personified source of creation.



A: So what does this mean for the soul, belief and salvation?



B: The notion of soul is based on the awareness of self, that moment that the concept of "I" jelled somewhere in late babyhood. The idea that "I" exist is universally taken as self-evident and given little thought. It simply overtakes our awareness that every thing within creation comes into and goes out of existence. While we believe that, we don't want to apply that belief to ourselves.



Once the awareness of self dawns, it becomes an awareness that seems impossible to let go. Thus the afterlife belief has become the necessary vehicle to calm the desperation caused by this rationalization. On the other hand, as we all know, everyone wants to go to heaven; it's such a better place than the place that we now have to deal with. But, then again, no one wants to go now. What this all points to is that believing is really not much different that wishing.











What is clear is that the individual like every other entity within the creation, exists only for a discrete period within the field of space and time – both being grosser aspects of the creation itself. Another way of looking at the creation is that it is the manifestation of the underlying transcendent or god source. In other words, there co-exists both an underlying Transcendent Reality and the world of change, the relative world of individuality that awareness has become locked on to.



The story is not over, though. This is because the human being has evolved to the point where it is possible to transcend the limitations of the relative world. This transcendence disconnects the awareness from the world that the senses have lead us to believe is the ultimate reality.



If you still think that world is indeed "real", then reflect on what we have learned from science. We have learned that mater and energy are interchangeable. We have learned that time and space is a "continuum". We have learned that at the quantum level, the reality of our everyday experience is turned on its head. We have learned that, prior to the "Big Bang", time did not exist. From this we can conclude that the model of reality constructed by the brain that is based on information from the senses, while obviously useful, is still illusionary.



When we disconnect consciousness from the everyday world to the world in which there is no object of focus, consciousness becomes independent of any object of focus. It becomes stands alone consciousness so to speak. Here individuality and individual consciousness do not exist. What does exist is Consciousness. This is the true Reality that is beyond time, space, matter and energy. This awareness is the true salvation. Anything less is simply delusionary.





Q: So if transcendence is real and the world of our senses is not, then shouldn't we just transcend and "live in the transcendent"?



A: No. This does not mean that one should strive to "live in the transcendent" as some kind of an escape from life because at the level of the manifestation – that is the level of space, time, matter and energy, discrete entities including yourself certainly do exist – at least for a while. What the experience of the transcendent provides is a sort of a grounding on which activity within the manifest creation is based. It creates an inner stability which enriches activity so that life loses its desperation.

 

[pandamonk]

Sorry I haven't posted for a while, I've been away on holiday(vacation)

Anthropomorphic nonsense. It makes about as much sense as arguing that greatness includes the greatest possible breasts or penis. (See primitive fertility figures.)

Would you agree with me that God is a being than which no greater can be thought? If not, please explain why not? Is God not perfect? If not, what makes him worthy of anyones worship? If God is perfect, that means that nothing greater can be thought, which means anything greater, be it virtue, breasts or penis? If he is not the greatest of virtue I can think of a being greater than him and therefore he cannot be a god. The virtue, courage is considered in greatness anyway. Who would you consider more deserving of their position, someone born into a rich family who never has to work a day in his(or her)life, or someone born into a poor family who has, against all odds, worked their way through almost impossible circumstances and became successful? I would say the latter, but that's my opinion. I would say thewy were very courageous and that it was great that that person came through so much and was successful. So Greatness includes the virtue courage, so greatness includes virtue. So if you read back, no being can be a being than which no greater can be thought, and therefore no god can exist as they are, supposedly, perfect, the greatest, the being than which no greater can be thought. No being can be a god. God cannot exist.

Bullpuckie. Again, who made up that rule?

Well theologians, the founders of your religions. And why worship a being that is capable of evil? And back to, is God not perfect? If not, it is up to you to explain what you believe he is, and why you worship him. If he is then he is that which no greater can be thought. So if he is not all-good then i can think of a greater being. A being which all-good! So it up to you, again, to explain what he is and isn't and why you worship him and why I should too.

Been there / done that. See above.

yup, See above.

Circulus in demonstrando.

Ok I've looked up what that means and got a page which says "We know that God exists because the Bible tells us so. And we know that the Bible is true because it is the word of God." Circular reasoning, why did you not say so, in a way I could understand. Please explain why it is circular? I don't believe it is. I believe that I know "I" am making a mess and that , hypothetically, God can only that Lee, or he, is making a mess, so cannot know what I know. What is circular about that? Is it circular because it is something God cannot know but that you believe there is nothing he cannot know? Not really an excuse. Sorry for assuming, but that is the only reason I can think of due to your utterings with no reason.

No, but thanks for sharing.

Thanks for sharing what? If you do not accept my definition of God then the least I can do is try to accommodate everyone(or at least as many as possible)'s beliefs.