The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

Then what you are saying is that it is a matter of semantics. The universe is God. Would this not be the proper conclusion?

I stay shy of using the term 'God' because of the many interpretations and images it implies. But it should be noted that the universe is not just the visible universe, but the invisible background that it is seen against. This is important because the visible part, being illusory, is not a creation, but a manifestation that comes out of that invisible background, in which the visible universe is first 'on', then 'off' and so on forever and ever, while the background is there in perfect stillness.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

I stay shy of using the term 'God' because of the many interpretations and images it implies. But it should be noted that the universe is not just the visible universe, but the invisible background that it is seen against. This is important because the visible part, being illusory, is not a creation, but a manifestation that comes out of that invisible background, in which the visible universe is first 'on', then 'off' and so on forever and ever, while the background is there in perfect stillness.

So, then there is a distinction between that which is created and that which is uncreated. So, I would propose that that which is uncreated (God, how ever you see him/her/it) is responsible for bringing into existence/reality that which is created (the Universe).

 

[godnotgod]

So, then there is a distinction between that which is created and that which is uncreated. So, I would propose that that which is uncreated (God, how ever you see him/her/it) is responsible for bringing into existence/reality that which is created (the Universe).

No, because creation necessitates the need for the material of which 'reality' is composed, and we get back to the age-old problem, both for science and religion, of the source of the original material. An illusion that is manifested as something 'real', however, does not have that problem. So no, there is no 'creation' as such.

You are still separating the creator from the created, and in so doing, are creating (excuse) the duality of 'self and other', when reality has no such divisions. The problem you have is in finding out where the creator leaves off and his 'creation' begins. To do so then creates (excuse) the universe as an artifact; a created 'thing', as pot is to potter, and being created, is subject to destruction. A manifested universe, on the other hand, where the Absolute is one and the same, means a conscious universe, one that is alive, and is not subject to creation or destruction; it is unborn, and therefore, not subject to death. It is like a light bulb that is first on, then off, but the potential for 'on' is always present. It's just that in the unmanifested state all things are not being expressed.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

No, because creation necessitates the need for the material of which 'reality' is composed, and we get back to the age-old problem, both for science and religion, of the source of the original material. An illusion that is manifested as something 'real', however, does not have that problem. So no, there is no 'creation' as such.

You are still separating the creator from the created, and in so doing, are creating (excuse) the duality of 'self and other', when reality has no such divisions. The problem you have is in finding out where the creator leaves off and his 'creation' begins. To do so then creates (excuse) the universe as an artifact; a created 'thing', as pot is to potter, and being created, is subject to destruction. A manifested universe, on the other hand, where the Absolute is one and the same, means a conscious universe, one that is alive, and is not subject to creation or destruction; it is unborn, and therefore, not subject to death. It is like a light bulb that is first on, then off, but the potential for 'on' is always present. It's just that in the unmanifested state all things are not being expressed.

I have no problem with the idea that that which is uncreated as able to bring forth that which is created. For I believe there was a time in which that which is now created did not not exist accept in the mind of the uncreated and he spoke into being. I therefore extend into faith because my finite mind can not fathom the infinite thus noting a distinction between my perceived reality and that which is.

 

[godnotgod]

I have no problem with the idea that that which is uncreated as able to bring forth that which is created. For I believe there was a time in which that which is now created did not not exist accept in the mind of the uncreated and he spoke into being. I therefore extend into faith because my finite mind can not fathom the infinite thus noting a distinction between my perceived reality and that which is.

Do you sense that you possess a divine nature within, or are you merely a creat-ure at the mercy of a 'maker'.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Do you sense that you possess a divine nature within, or are you merely a creat-ure at the mercy of a 'maker'.

I would state for myself the latter only because I do not meet the understood requirements(by some) for which divinity must possess. This is if you would mean that I belive myself to be a god.

 

[godnotgod]

I would state for myself the latter only because I do not meet the understood requirements(by some) for which divinity must possess.

Requirement? Is God's love unconditional or not?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

I would state for myself the latter only because I do not meet the understood requirements(by some) for which divinity must possess. This is if you would mean that I believe myself to be a god.

On the otherhand, I do possess within me the very nature of God. That is God dwells within me and I am subject to him.

 

[godnotgod]

On the otherhand, I do possess within me the very nature of God. That is God dwells within me and I am subject to him.

Does God dwell within you as a separate entity apart from yourself, or does his essence infuse every pore of your being? Is, in fact, God your very next breath?

Also, who is making the distinction between 'you' and 'God'?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Does God dwell within you as a separate entity apart from yourself, or does his essence infuse every pore of your being? Is, in fact, God your very next breath?

I like the fact that you worded this way because I believe as scripture says that God breathed breath into man an made him a living soul. I understand God to trascendent and is above all things and is not part of his creation, but as one who believes in him he is present with me.

 

[godnotgod]

I like the fact that you worded this way because I believe as scripture says that God breathed breath into man an made him a living soul. I understand God to trascendent and is above all things and is not part of his creation, but as one who believes in him he is present with me.

That sounds contradictory: God breathed his own breath into man, making God's essence indwelling, but then you say that God is not part of his creation. You sound as if you are saying God is an entity apart from you. God is either with you or he is not. Which is it?

To be continued.....

 

[Heathen Hammer]

let me try again. with fruit or god? fruit would be easier so I will offer that here. However, if you would rather I would use God, just say so; and, I will do so in another post.

Premise 1: Apples can exist
Premise 2: The bag will fit an Apple

Conclusion: Either an apple exists in the bag or an apple does not exist in the bag

this is not begging the question because there is no implicit premise in the conclusion that is presupposed. rather this is more closely linked to the law of non contradiction. In fact, so much so that we can state my conclusion is meaningless because all I have proven is law of non contradiction based on the law of non contradiction. If you are suggesting that this was begging the question I can see your point however since this is a fundamental rule of logic it is not illogical to state.

I have already explained everything plainly. You're not going to listen in any case, and my argument stands. You were not as successful as you keep claiming and attempt to move past as if it were done. But it's ok.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Then assuming I was putting forth the beginnings of Pascals argument, I do not believe any professor has counted pascal as begging the question. When he said that God exists or God does not exist.

Whether they called it begging the question is irrelevant, as I said you were begging the question, and i showed how.

And, since Pascal's Wager is refuted by professors, it makes no nevermind what goalposts you move. I said it was logically poor, and it is called so by professors. but, more importantly, here, by me. Since that's where you are.

Calling in phantom people to agree with you smacks of desperation.

 

[Curious George]

Whether they called it begging the question is irrelevant, as I said you were begging the question, and i showed how.

And, since Pascal's Wager is refuted by professors, it makes no nevermind what goalposts you move. I said it was logically poor, and it is called so by professors. but, more importantly, here, by me. Since that's where you are.

Calling in phantom people to agree with you smacks of desperation.

Pascal's wager is refuted on many terms but no one calls it question begging. You say I did not show how I was not begging the question and I say I did. Assuming that I might be in error I asked you to specifically tell me what implicit premise was used in my conclusion in order to prove my argument. You said the specificity of Apples. And I say you are wrong because the Specificity of apples were provided for already in the premise of the argument. I should not also have to point out that you did not explain how the specificity of apples was an implicit premise nor did you go on to show that part of the conclusion proved itself. I bring up the phantom people because after failing to communicate with you I figured perhaps someone else would have the answer. Searching Pascal's Wager I found many arguments against it. All of these were based on probability which I did not use. Furthermore, you suggested that your claim had nothing to do with probability. In order to say that my inference is wrong you must be able to illustrate the fallacy. You cannot just shout out a logical fallacy such as begging the question and then never illustrate how I beg the question. I am more than happy to admit that I am wrong when and if you can illustrate this. But so far you have not. I have however illustrated that my statement is the same as reiterating a fundamental rule of logic. Thus, continuing to claim it is illogical is not doing your cause any good. Simply put either and apple exists in the bag or an apple does not exist in the bag. This is not illogical. Not only have you not shown how it is illogical your specific examples have completely been nullified. While I have no problem admitting that I can use logic erroneously, I am beginning to think you do. For your claim my friend is illogical.

 

[starlite]

also most atheists and the like tend to believe they are entitled to scientific proof , evidence , sources etc.. to prove the existence of God.

If an atheist can come up with a better idea for our existence I am all ears, but the usual old 'we are because of the laws of physics' etc.. just doesn't cut it.

" The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is developing a multilegged robot that walks like a scorpion, and engineers in Finland have already developed a six-legged tractor that can climb over obstacles the way a giant insect would. Other researchers have designed fabric with small flaps that imitate the way pinecones open and close. Such fabric adjusts to the body temperature of the wearer. A car manufacturer is developing a vehicle that imitates the surprisingly low-drag design of the boxfish. And other researchers are probing the shock-absorbing properties of abalone shells, with the intention of making lighter, stronger body armor. Engineers have developed an artificial compound eye that fits 8,500 lenses into a space the size of a pinhead. But, each eye of a dragonfly is made up of some 30,000 lenses. So many good ideas have come from nature that researchers have established a database that already catalogs thousands of different biological systems. Scientists can search this database to find “natural solutions to their design problems,” says The Economist."

The evidence of a God is all around us in creation....and, who, may I ask, is the maker of those laws of physics you spoke of?

 

[crocusj]

" The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is developing a multilegged robot that walks like a scorpion, and engineers in Finland have already developed a six-legged tractor that can climb over obstacles the way a giant insect would. Other researchers have designed fabric with small flaps that imitate the way pinecones open and close. Such fabric adjusts to the body temperature of the wearer. A car manufacturer is developing a vehicle that imitates the surprisingly low-drag design of the boxfish. And other researchers are probing the shock-absorbing properties of abalone shells, with the intention of making lighter, stronger body armor. Engineers have developed an artificial compound eye that fits 8,500 lenses into a space the size of a pinhead. But, each eye of a dragonfly is made up of some 30,000 lenses. So many good ideas have come from nature that researchers have established a database that already catalogs thousands of different biological systems. Scientists can search this database to find “natural solutions to their design problems,” says The Economist."

We have been doing this since we wore animal skins to keep warm. This natural world is full of wonders, of which we are one.

The evidence of a God is all around us in creation....and, who, may I ask, is the maker of those laws of physics you spoke of

The evidence of nature is all around us, that is undeniable. Who, you may ask indeed, or even what? Personally, I have no idea but - as you so rightly say - we can search this data base to find natural solutions.

 

[Thief]

Whether they called it begging the question is irrelevant, as I said you were begging the question, and i showed how.

And, since Pascal's Wager is refuted by professors, it makes no nevermind what goalposts you move. I said it was logically poor, and it is called so by professors. but, more importantly, here, by me. Since that's where you are.

Calling in phantom people to agree with you smacks of desperation.

Desperation is felt by all, as we breathe our last.

You believe in some kind of god....
nothing but phantoms for your testimony?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Pascal's wager is refuted on many terms but no one calls it question begging. You say I did not show how I was not begging the question and I say I did. Assuming that I might be in error I asked you to specifically tell me what implicit premise was used in my conclusion in order to prove my argument. You said the specificity of Apples. And I say you are wrong because the Specificity of apples were provided for already in the premise of the argument. I should not also have to point out that you did not explain how the specificity of apples was an implicit premise nor did you go on to show that part of the conclusion proved itself. I bring up the phantom people because after failing to communicate with you I figured perhaps someone else would have the answer. Searching Pascal's Wager I found many arguments against it. All of these were based on probability which I did not use. Furthermore, you suggested that your claim had nothing to do with probability. In order to say that my inference is wrong you must be able to illustrate the fallacy. You cannot just shout out a logical fallacy such as begging the question and then never illustrate how I beg the question. I am more than happy to admit that I am wrong when and if you can illustrate this. But so far you have not. I have however illustrated that my statement is the same as reiterating a fundamental rule of logic. Thus, continuing to claim it is illogical is not doing your cause any good. Simply put either and apple exists in the bag or an apple does not exist in the bag. This is not illogical. Not only have you not shown how it is illogical your specific examples have completely been nullified. While I have no problem admitting that I can use logic erroneously, I am beginning to think you do. For your claim my friend is illogical.

This is all bollox, mate, I did in fact describe all the hows and why's where you say I did not. Im not doing it again to humor some repetitious gallop on your part.

Let me repeat, since it seems you cannot read: Pascal's Wager is not begging the question, though you did cite it; PASCAL'S WAGER IS NOT LOGICALLY SOUND BECAUSE IT IS A FALSE DICHOTOMY.

YOU WERE BEGGING THE QUESTION USING THE APPLE EXAMPLE IN WAYS I ALREADY DESCRIBED.

Were you able to read that?
Everything else was already covered

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Desperation is felt by all, as we breathe our last.

You believe in some kind of god....
nothing but phantoms for your testimony?

Dude, save it and stay on topic. It's getting old.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The evidence of a God is all around us in creation....and, who, may I ask, is the maker of those laws of physics you spoke of?

There need be no maker of such laws if they are self-sufficient.
Whether there is a maker or makers is the thusfar-baseless assertion that needs to be proven first.