Tell me why my personal belief is wrong

[PearlSeeker]

What atheism implies is that there's neither tangible evidence nor a need for God as an explanatory factor, so it falls into the same category as pink unicorns.

It can be a rational concept. Philosophical "arche"/"substratum" is not the same category as pink unicorns. And it's also not the same as the anthropomorphic Biblical God.

 

[gnomon]

Please, in your own words.

Why is my personal religious belief wrong?

I can't read your mind so now what.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It can be a rational concept. Philosophical "arche"/"substratum" is not the same category as pink unicorns. And it's also not the same as the anthropomorphic Biblical God.

Nicely said. That is Brahman in my Advaita (non-dual) view. It is not just philosophical; IMHO, it is the reality.

 

[PearlSeeker]

@Heyo That is not even true. You can also find it in other cultures, but it is not Judeo-Christian as such.

Truth, reason, logic... is universal to all humans. Even myths came from this. It was the human reason that was asking questions like: How did the world begin? The Greeks only moved to the next step of explanation and knowledge.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

OK, there we have a believe that is most probably wrong and I can explain why that is so.
First a question: how do you think a god created the earth? Sneezing out, formed from a giants head (or similar matter) or conjured from nothing by a magic spell? Or something entirely different?

What?
“how do you think a god created the earth?”
Through harnessing energy and creating matter from it.
Science has shown that matter and energy are just two sides of the same coin.

Tell me, how did natural methods do it?
Besides, on a directly related topic, gravity does not *put* objects in orbit, it only maintains their orbit.

In fact, gravity would work against it. Again, science can be used to explain something: experiments have shown that it takes intelligence to “put* satellites in orbit.

 

[Heyo]

What?
“how do you think a god created the earth?”
Through harnessing energy and creating matter from it.
Science has shown that matter and energy are just two sides of the same coin.

Harnessing energy from where? Do you know how much energy is needed to form earth?

Tell me, how did natural methods do it?

Earth - Wikipedia

 

[PearlSeeker]

Nicely said. That is Brahman in my Advaita (non-dual) view. It is not just philosophical; IMHO, it is the reality.

Yes. It's the monist view. Your Brahman is physical energy. According to some other advaitists physical (empirical/pragmatical) reality is not the ultimate reality - Brahman is pure consciousness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

According to some other advaitists physical (empirical/pragmatical) reality is not the ultimate reality - Brahman is pure consciousness.

Yeah, I could never understand it. That is a very woolly concept. Whose consciousness?

But, I agree, beyond 'physical energy' it remains woolly. Perhaps not a question for our age. Something which could be discussed after a few decades (or centuries).

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yeah, I could never understand it. That is a very woolly concept. Whose consciousness?

Physical description of reality is what we are most familiar and comfortable with. When science moved to more fundamental levels the reality showed as more and more abstract ... At the same time we had the digital revolution...

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Truth, reason, logic... is universal to all humans. Even myths came from this. It was the human reason that was asking questions like: How did the world begin? The Greeks only moved to the next step of explanation and knowledge.

We don't know!
You are a seeker of truth. So am I, but apparently we individually use different methodologies.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Please, in your own words.

Why is my personal religious belief wrong?

You mean Baha'i teaching?

One thing I noticed is twisting other religious truths and scriptures to adjust them to Baha'i teaching. For example Baha'is suppose in the Bible Jesus didn't actually resurrect from dead, Jesus won't actually return, "the Comforter" isn't the Holy Spirit..., in B. Gita Krishna didn't teach actual reincarnation etc.

Such "acceptance" of world religions is fake and disrespectful.

 

[Valjean]

What?
“how do you think a god created the earth?”
Through harnessing energy and creating matter from it.
Science has shown that matter and energy are just two sides of the same coin.

Tell me, how did natural methods do it?
Besides, on a directly related topic, gravity does not *put* objects in orbit, it only maintains their orbit.

In fact, gravity would work against it. Again, science can be used to explain something: experiments have shown that it takes intelligence to “put* satellites in orbit.

[/quote]??????
How so?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Harnessing energy from where? Do you know how much energy is needed to form earth?

Yes. That’s what Jehovah consists of, “vast dynamic energy”, “awe-inspiring power”, who “never tires out or grows weary”. — Isaiah 40:26-28.

Since the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that “in a closed system” (which obviously, the sum of everything, is) “energy can neither be created nor destroyed”, Jehovah being the source of the Big Bang is the only reasonable way it’s origin can be understood.

(And as a side point, it explains how God has always existed. So the question, “who created God”, is rendered moot.)

Earth - Wikipedia

Unfortunately, this article is full of conjecture. (Which are statements of belief, AKA philosophy.) And it doesn’t even begin to explain how gravity *initially set* the Earth in its orbit.

Take care, cousin.

 

[Heyo]

Yes.

No, obviously not.
Your post contains so much ignorance and false reasoning that it's hard to know where to begin.

1. You didn't answer my question. I asked for the specific amount of energy needed. You could have applied the energy-mass equivalence, E = m c² to answer that. But you didn't.

2. You stated the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and promptly failed to apply it. Since Earth formed about 4.543 billion years ago, i.e. 9.3 billion years after the Big Bang, the energy must have already been in the universe. You also stated that god "harnessed" the energy, not that it had it stored. So, also no answer to where the energy came from or how it was harnessed.

Unfortunately, this article is full of conjecture. (Which are statements of belief, AKA philosophy.) And it doesn’t even begin to explain how gravity *initially set* the Earth in its orbit.

With your understanding of physics you shouldn't critique a Wikipedia article as "conjecture". You simply don't understand it.
(Btw.: Earth wasn't "set in it's orbit" by gravity. In a way it was always there.)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No, obviously not.
Your post contains so much ignorance and false reasoning that it's hard to know where to begin.

1. You didn't answer my question. I asked for the specific amount of energy needed. You could have applied the energy-mass equivalence, E = m c² to answer that. But you didn't.

2. You stated the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and promptly failed to apply it. Since Earth formed about 4.543 billion years ago, i.e. 9.3 billion years after the Big Bang, the energy must have already been in the universe. You also stated that god "harnessed" the energy, not that it had it stored. So, also no answer to where the energy came from or how it was harnessed.


With your understanding of physics you shouldn't critique a Wikipedia article as "conjecture". You simply don't understand it.
(Btw.: Earth wasn't "set in it's orbit" by gravity. In a way it was always there.)

I answered the questions, it must’ve made too much sense….
Some debaters always respond with a touch of vehemence & resort to attacking the person’s ‘knowledge’ or ‘understanding’ when they have no adequate rebuttal.

It reveals a closed mind, my cousin.

 

[Valjean]

Yes. That’s what Jehovah consists of, “vast dynamic energy”, “awe-inspiring power”, who “never tires out or grows weary”. — Isaiah 40:26-28.

Since the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that “in a closed system” (which obviously, the sum of everything, is) “energy can neither be created nor destroyed”, Jehovah being the source of the Big Bang is the only reasonable way it’s origin can be understood.

Your whole world-view is based on a mythological narrative. You're trying to squeeze a round mythology into a square reality.
This whole Jehovah idea lacks support.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Your whole world-view is based on a mythological narrative. You're trying to squeeze a round mythology into a square reality.
This whole Jehovah idea lacks support.

Actually, almost everything I see in this world, supports what Jehovah’s Word states, not only about these Last Days, but who’s in control.

It explains why we see so much fragmentation not just in this world system, but also in Christendom, by orders of magnitude greater than other religions!

 

[dybmh]

“in a closed system” (which obviously, the sum of everything, is)

From a religious, not scientific, point of view how can it be known and obvious that creation is a closed system? If God is infinite, eternal, never-ending, then creation could be an open system? Am I missing something?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

From a religious, not scientific, point of view how can it be known and obvious that creation is a closed system? If God is infinite, eternal, never-ending, then creation could be an open system? Am I missing something?

A closed system is one in which there are no outside influences.
By saying “the sum of everything “, I was including everything: the universe including Jehovah God Himself. That would be a closed system… you could call it the ultimate one.

 

[dybmh]

A closed system is one in which there are no outside influences.
By saying “the sum of everything “, I was including everything: the universe including Jehovah God Himself. That would be a closed system… you could call it the ultimate one.

OK. Thanks for explaining your point of view.