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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I avoid drama queens. You have shown yourself to be nothing more. Even though I have tried to make peace with you, my attempts didn't meet your needs and I am ok with that. However you seem to be trying to get a reaction out of me that would resort to hostility of some sort (drama).No, I didn't. I quoted Jesus elsewhere to someone who claims to be a Christian, but my way has always been "you reap what you sow," and I don't pretend otherwise.
See above. If you don't like the reception you've gotten, perhaps you should work on how you present yourself.
Precisely how did you try to make peace? Armchair psychology?I avoid drama queens. You have shown yourself to be nothing more. Even though I have tried to make peace with you, my attempts didn't meet your needs and I am ok with that. However you seem to be trying to get a reaction out of me that would resort to hostility of some sort (drama).
Instead just as you feel the need to aggravate anyone who offends your own opinions, I have the right to ignore you and wish you a peaceful ado.
How do you want me to respond to this? Are you expecting me to get mad and rant?
We have been told for years God doesn't exist so much so the world is in turmoil, and my opinionated post about God offends a fellow believer?
How am I making you or anyone else look bad? I am commenting on my own thoughts and beliefs. I'd like to call your offended nature projection.
I am sorry I offended you, please forgive me, God bless.
Deflection of criticism, armchair psychology, more arrogance, and the kind of "apology" that places blame squarely on the recipient.how is this not?
My logical thinking started when I ask about the big bang, why did it happen?
ofc, the answer is IDK.
The next logical thought should be, could it have been natural or manually influenced? again IDK.
Next should be, is there signs that would prove this occurrence to be manual or natural?
I have claimed that the Fibonacci sequence seems like a good start to some form of an answer. I also claim that it seems to be more of intellect than nature. Which could add to the possibility that our universe was programmed in some fashion.
The next logical question would be to ask is if our existence was proved from natural events or manually influenced.
Which should be answered "without the evolution of the universe, earthly evolution would not exist and therefore we exist solely to the birth of the universe and the reasons that started it."
Again, denying God because we cant prove him is illogical to me and my thinking
Are you saying that atheists only claim God to not exist only because he doesn't fit into their personal logic instead of a scientific logic?
I don't disagree and that's why I have been here making posts, it is also why I titled my post the way I did. I needed other peoples beliefs more than I need my own for some things I am researching.
I understand, I knew it was going to be a challenge when I wrote it.
Honestly I worded it the way I did hoping the people who feel strongest about their beliefs would come in to challenge mine seeing as it would grab attention pretty fast.
I cant change any ones belief unless they choose to change it themselves.
I am non religious so don't expect quotes from scripture.
I will answer all questions with scientific answers or scientific hypothesis on why a creator exists.
You all seem so closed minded.
Research conscious energy before you doubt what I say. Its is a form of science.
I still don't understand the point of this thread. What is the purpose of this post, OP?
Don't put words in my mouth.The one and only event in history that has a reaction without an action? Why is it easier for you to accept that the universe came from nothing instead of having a creation? Don't take that the wrong way, I really want to know why you personally deny a creator.
I can think of a few different ways to take that question, but none are relevant to this discussion, AFAICT. You'll have to explain better what you're driving at.True or false we can find the origin of most physical matter?
Looked into what? The Fibonacci sequence? Sure - we covered it in math class.have you not looked into it?
False dichotomy. Intelligence is part of nature.There is more reason to believe that it was created by intelligence than by nature.
No, they don't. And the processes at work in the universe aren't random anyway, so having "random" (however you're defining this) raw material for these processes doesn't necessarily imply that we should expect a "random" universe now.Evolution and the big bang theorize randomness is the birth of life in our universe
Irrelevant.yet natural consistencies are far more common than most believe to be true.
IOW, "if I'm wrong, does that make me less right?" Well, yeah... it kinda does.Even though I may be wrong to believe it's truly Gods signature, does that take away from the realization that it's there?
My point was that if we accept claims without valid justification, then we're likely to end up believing a lot of false things.Oh, I'm sorry. What was your point then?
No actually its intellect, without intellect we couldn't even spell architecture. I never said Gods possibility is anything other than a conscious energy. Which may be a form of intellect.
I can't help you find answers you closed yourself off to.
I will always resort back to God being a conscious energy. If thoughts are energy my theory may not be wrong.
Just because I use magnetic energy as an example, it doesn't mean its the only source of unexplored energies. Not to mention physicists cant explain the origin of magnetism, only how some of its properties work.
I find it absurd and childish to believe that something was created from nothing.
It's not cool to call it God if it's already called intellect. God should have a definition of its own! Stop redefyning the concept or he will go mad.
Energy is not a substance: it has nothing to be conscious with.
One needs to be wary of the new-age balderdash that is floating around these days. A statement sounding all sciencey, does not necessarily mean it is valid.
I am non religious so don't expect quotes from scripture.
I will answer all questions with scientific answers or scientific hypothesis on why a creator exists.
You all seem so closed minded.
Research conscious energy before you doubt what I say. Its is a form of science.
Conscious energy / fundamental consciousness holds no merit. First of all, there is no reason it needs to exist and it is not inferred, but I will come back to that. If there is some conscious spirit under everything, if consciousness is fundamental, then everything in reality would have to be conscious. Atoms are not conscious, plants are not conscious, stars are not conscious, the Earth is not conscious, the theory has already been shredded.
Nothing implies fundamental consciousness or any other related, new agey, quantum mystical concept. True that some fundamental aspect of reality is logically inferred, but nothing says it is likely or necessary that it is conscious. Consciousness is a product of brain activity, it cannot exist without a brain. Non-physical spirit can not possibly be conscious when consciousness needs a physical cause.
Fundamental aspect of reality? Highly plausible. Fundamental consciousness / spirit? Nothing more than a comforting last grasp at some divine reality.
Also, our big bang is not an uncaused event, nor would that logically be possible. The cause / effect argument is conmpletely valid, but it in NO WAY IMPLIES ANYTHING LIKE FUNDAMENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS. People need to start realizing this and accepting it. The belief that there is such a thing is simply explained. It gives us purpose, a shoulder to cry on, infinite love, meaning, etc.
creator
If our universe wasn't made out of consciousness the scientific laws used to govern it wouldn't exist. The laws of nature change as the universe needs them to through trial and error. How is that not conscious?
No, my post said this:Your post is about a religious god, and only indifference of religion has caused war.
People who think God is on their side do more evil, more frequently, than those who think God is against them. Address that directly.History proves Man does far more evil when he believes he has the backing of God than when he thinks he acts alone and can be judged wrong.
I believe someone more famous than me said something of that nature before.
Because peace will not be achieved through believing a lie, even if everyone agrees to it.Who is to say what would have happened if they just tolerated each others beliefs and accepted God as conscious energy?