• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Questions of curiousity rather than debate

P

popsthebuilder

Active Member
nothead said:
Start with the opposable thumb. I think opossums have em. If he don't crack then, maybe he never will. Face it, he more comfortable WITHOUT a God at all.
Click to expand...
Comfortable?

Do you think we are here for our own comfort? Do you think that the mathematical, ordered precision of all existence was put in motion with us at the observable top merely for our comfort? We are unique, significant, free, and have great potential as a whole. We weren't given all for our own greed or comfort.
 
P

popsthebuilder

Active Member
Carlita said:
You're right. It doesn't fit within my undestanding. You're wrong. I'm not ignoring it. It is just foriegn because it doesn't fit my understanding. It is not my view of reality. It's non existent in my noodle.

That's like calling an atheist ignorant or insulting him for ignoring answers to a question about gods existence he odviously wants to know about even though it may not fit his understanding given he is an atheist. Putting down an atheist for asking a question to find some level of common foundation to talk about god.

Also, you can't expect people to have the same knowledge as you do whether right or wrong.

That, and like many other non believers and atheists, we don't deny any god. That makes no sense whats so ever.

If you look at it from not believing in god (or your concept of god) point of view and pretend for a minute your concept does not exist, how would you deny it?

How can you deny something that does not exist? You can deny the claim but if it is not in your level of understanding (which does not need mean you are ignorant, just it's not in your way of thinking about reality, then of course you wont understand it.

Hence why so many people here ask about god in one way or another. We are trying to grasp in our as well as the other person's level of understanding who or what god is. That is, if it's important for some people to know this. Others like to talk about it because they are curious. Others, like myself, like to challenge what I dont believe to understand why people do believe.

:leafwind:

Kinda get where I'm going?

Specific scientific and philosophy (it's been awhile studying philosophy) knowledge is not within my understanding. I do not know it. I cannot talk about something I know nothing about unless you are educating me through respectful dialogue and not insulting my intellegence and pointing out my ignorance.

Very direspectful.

:leafwind:

On a lighter note,



Explain respectfully, do these studies prove god exists? What did they start with, in layman's terms, when they decided to ask questions about god's existence?

You talk about mathematics and cosmology. What did they use in these two fields that had some sort of result success or fail that concluded anything about god's existence?

You dont have to write a book. Just don't insult me.
Click to expand...
Pointing out ignorance on any matter, in it's self shouldn't be seen as an insult as much as pointing to an area of knowledge that one could expand on. Going into some defensive state is a sure way to not absorb any new information.
 
P

popsthebuilder

Active Member
lostwanderingsoul said:
Maybe the first question for "science" would be to explain how "something" could come from "nothing" unless there was some greater power that they can not explain. Most scientists point to the "big bang" as the start of the universe but they do not explain where the material and power in the big bang came from. Maybe it took the power of "God".
Click to expand...
"Let there be light"
 
P

popsthebuilder

Active Member
Laika said:
As far as I know the only way this can be done is:

i) defining "god" as a form of dis-embodied consciousness
ii) demonstrating that consciousness is a product of natural processes, i.e. the brain
iii) assuming that nature is uniform and therefore that consciousness can only develop from natural causes.

This leads to the conclusion that a dis-embodied consciousness, such as a soul or god, could not therefore exist and therefore gods existence is impossible.

This involves a fair amount of philosophy in addition to scientific evidence that this can even be demonstrated. it would almost certianly qualify as "scientism" or "scientific materialism" nowdays but it intriguing none the less.
Click to expand...
The question was how would it be proven, not denied. The conscience is natural from before birth. It is neutered through society. It has the capacity to guide man under God. It is our direct link to existence, and as such, the creator of said existence. Attempting to state that the conscience is a product of nature, yet somehow not of God is nonsense. Read a few 4000 year old scriptures without biased and you will find the conscience is exactly what I say it is. It is our personal connection to God and direction under It, much like the direction of all other existence under God.
 
P

popsthebuilder

Active Member
Laika said:
Any form of consciousness that exists independently of the brain basically. I think the next question that follows on from that is "how do you define consciousness?" and that really depends on whether you define it based on your own subjective experience, or by attributing it an objective source (the brain). i.e. this involves assuming consciousness comes from a physical process in the first place. It's one of those things you have to assume is true and can then only confirm it.
Click to expand...
If you actually research it you will find that the chemical reactions of the brain are not solely the cause of consciousness. Emotion, and instinct are both causal and effectual for cognitive thought and chemical balances in the brain which, in turn, can lead to further, more developed cognition.
 
P

popsthebuilder

Active Member
It is not a proposition, nor is it based in any one religion. I agree that ones perception can , and in most cases, is clouded or wholly askew, not allowing for the observation of reality on some level. This is the intention and work of the powers that be or principalities for there own selfish gain.
 
Jumi

Jumi

Well-Known Member
popsthebuilder said:
It is not a proposition, nor is it based in any one religion.
Click to expand...
It is a proposition and an objectively unprovable one. It is not based on one religion, but a group of religions that accept the proposition. Although they don't go about it in an identical way, even within one religion. There are other religions that do not propose one creator as well as people.

popsthebuilder said:
I agree that ones perception can , and in most cases, is clouded or wholly askew, not allowing for the observation of reality on some level. This is the intention and work of the powers that be or principalities for there own selfish gain.
Click to expand...
Disagreeing doesn't mean the other party is dishonest or selfish and we can as easily turn around who is selfish.
 
P

popsthebuilder

Active Member
Jumi said:
It is a proposition and an objectively unprovable one. It is not based on one religion, but a group of religions that accept the proposition. Although they don't go about it in an identical way, even within one religion. There are other religions that do not propose one creator as well as people.


Disagreeing doesn't mean the other party is dishonest or selfish and we can as easily turn around who is selfish.
Click to expand...
It isn't a proposition to me because it was proven to me by the grace of God. Ignorance and being mislead are not at any fault for anything. Anyone willing to learn and set aside bias can definitely gain knowledge. To assume that knowledge, truth, significance, and following the path destined by the One Creator must be verifiable through strict material evidence is in itself naive. When science literally proves that all is strictly of the physical and observable, then people may have doubt. But that will never happen.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
popsthebuilder said:
Pointing out ignorance on any matter, in it's self shouldn't be seen as an insult as much as pointing to an area of knowledge that one could expand on. Going into some defensive state is a sure way to not absorb any new information.
Click to expand...

Good point. It would seem like that. I read it over, and the statements themselves are insultive whether or not I am defensive over it doesn't change that. I can give examples, but I'll keep it simple. If you're talking about X and the other party does not know you do not know about X, the best way (or one of many) ways to tackle someone else's knowledge is asking whether they know much about X. Indirect statements in the context of another pereson's ignorance rather than lack of knowledge of the subject is insultive to any person.

There are many indirect statements used negatively while making it an active statement may make it more powerful but the other party gets what you mean. Indirect statements makes people defensive because it goes around the bush (indirect). It could be about anything.

Indirect statements used negatively (aka one word for it could be sarcastic) can make the other person highly attentive. Which is normal when you do not know where that indirect statement comes from other than what the words say. Since it is indirect, it hides what the statement means (Hence the reason for zillions of posts to understand one concept). As such, it makes people confused. A lot of people react to confusion. That is normal.

Take a relationship. The husband thinks the wife didn't clean the kitchen because she's lazy. She comes in from work, and he says "so you didn't clean the kitchen, I notice". The wife's eyebrows pulls in. "What? What do you mean". "You should have known to clean the kitichen before you left out."

"What are you saying?" (What are you implying by the way you phrased your questions)

"Clean the kitchen" The husband says.

"You should have said that in the first place."

Indirect statements hurt. Whether or not they are taken as insults, doesnt just depend on the person. Some statements phrased in certain ways are, in themselves insults.

I don't care for insults and I hate indirect statements. If someone wants to educate me (as I am a teacher, I educate others), they tell me directly what they want me to know. I don't tell my adult class "Looks like you haven't read your books last night." or "maybe if you have read your books, you would have got the question right"

What you said makes sense. The example above any student can learn from. It's more appropriate to send the same message by asking the students if they completed work X and working with them if they have not.
 
Last edited:
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
popsthebuilder said:
If a believer claims to know all, they are misleading and being mislead.
Click to expand...

Yes. I'd say it's the way and intent of the believer that makes him either stating "his truth" in a direct way "I am right" (which Implies this is my belief). It could mean, instead, "I am right and you are wrong."

I wish it was taken the former way. A lot of times its the latter.
 
P

popsthebuilder

Active Member
We should all work to be both respectful and direct in comunication and action. Progress and understanding are much better than confusion, anger, spite, fear, division and the lack of progress.
 
LionofJuda

LionofJuda

Member
To prove that God exist, I would cite one reason. the existence of EVIL and GOOD. That there must be reward for doing good and punishment for doing evil. Now maybe you will say, doing good and evil is punishable by human laws so no need of the judgment of a certain God. If we dont believe in God, there is so much INJUSTICE on this earth why? because there are deeds by humans which were not caught by lawmen due to his very limited knowledge. Do we get the point? There are plenty of unsolved crimes wherein the pepetrators are still at large. and remain uncaught even up to his death. Where is now JUSTICE?
 
Jumi

Jumi

Well-Known Member
popsthebuilder said:
It isn't a proposition to me because it was proven to me by the grace of God.
Click to expand...
Others believe their gods have proven other things to them which are not equal to your beliefs.

You assume your one creator god is the only one. For scientific proof as in the OP what method would you propose in proving your god aside from adopting your religion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top