There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Robert.Evans]

Thanks for pointing that out, because that is a core point of our disagreement: your conception of God is yours alone. It neither needs nor can reasonably be expected to make any sense for anyone else, even another theist.

Deities are personal like that.

I am not sure if anyone agrees with me... you might be right.
The consciousness is what it is... and we reflect it. So deities are indeed like that. Even you follow your own, even if you don't know it or beleive it.

Indeed. Deities are never an answer, except perhaps at a purely emotional level.

I suppose you are speaking now on a physical level. They are always the answer, for they are all things. As Man, you can get through life without such thoughts, sure, but that is as far as it will get you.

 

[Robert.Evans]

But saying that there must be a creator is no answer at all, except perhaps to some esthetical sense. Where would that creator come from?

where does natural come from? You have the same problem.

Ultimately, existence simply is. I realize that many people feel some degree of need for a "cause" or "creator", but that is not a solvable need.

If by need you mean it is some kind of comfort, then that is wrong. It is God given. Existence is because that is what we are. God who is the Existence simply IS. I love the way you steal such a concept and make it natural, whatever that is.

Yet the available evidence all but assures us all that it has indeed turned out to form accidentally.

so accident and luck bring about everything? Is that what your saying? Your god natural is not much use is he .. haha. I find that a hard concept to think. It is way to complex.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Why do you insist on something like anthropomorphizing processes? Why it not enough to consider that the universe and the things In it have properties and what happens is the working of those properties? If there is gravity, a ball rolls downhill without need of intention on the part of any entity at all.

God-thinking disables human intellect.

But where do those properties come from? How do those processes arrive. Please don't say it is natural. I guess they come about through accident and luck..

 

[Robert.Evans]

"Although Einstein wasn't religious, and didn't believe in a personal God, he called the genius behind the universe “an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”"
Has Science Discovered God?

Interesting.

All that a scientist can do is try to figure out how it all works.

Exactly.. haha, spot on.

And apply that existing property of this God created universe to his advantage, or disadvantage, whatever it may be. They add nothing to it, and they take nothing from it. God makes the tree, and the scientist cuts it down to make a boat out of it. Scientists marvel at themselves for creating a map, yet God creates that which is mapped, whatever it is, whether it be the earth, a planet, or DNA, etc.

Correct again sir.
The problem, you see, is not with science, it is the inability to understand scripture fully, so the excuse of science is used to explain things they cannot explain.

Let me see you accidentally create life. You can never do such a thing by accident.

Right again sir. Somewhat of a problem I think. Perhaps it is too big a problem to comprehend.

As has been pointed out, we will not all believe exactly the same thing, but at least we all sit at the same table to eat.

 

[LuisDantas]

where does natural come from? You have the same problem.

In a sense you are right. The difference is that God is supposed to have a will, while nature is not.

The problem, however, seems to exist entirely in your expectations that things have to have a creator or purpose.

For better or worse, reality just doesn't seem to care about that kind of expectation.

If by need you mean it is some kind of comfort, then that is wrong. It is God given. Existence is because that is what we are. God who is the Existence simply IS. I love the way you steal such a concept and make it natural, whatever that is.

Are you sure you mean what you just wrote here? It is a difficult piece of text to parse, but you seem to be implying that I somehow have to power to make natural things that are not.

so accident and luck bring about everything? Is that what your saying? Your god natural is not much use is he .. haha.

I have no god whatsoever, so I suppose he has no use whatsoever either, for whatever that is worth.

find that a hard concept to think. It is way to complex.

Chaotical systems do have a tendency to self-organize, from drops of water becoming quasi-spherical of their own to biological speciation.

There are probably those who see that as an evidence for a creator God, although I am not among them. But the fact of the matter is that they do.

 

[Robert.Evans]

In a sense you are right. The difference is that God is supposed to have a will, while nature is not.

Thank you for seeing it sir (and mentioning it).

Do you not then think it is strange that we do not keep having discussions about 'natural' and how natural can bring about everything in the same way that atheist do about God?

God has a will, but he also is conscious. What develops is that consciousness.

Natural just seems to be some sort of energy that changes into other energy that produces processes and laws that can shape part of it into everything we see, with all its complexities. I think that is a harder pill to swallow than saying there is a God and requires blind faith. Funny how we don't question these things. I suppose it is because the physical is right in front of us.

Ultimately you rely on accident, luck, chance, coincidence, randomness and chaos etc. That is just not plausible for anything we see around us that we build, not a car, a house, a street. Yet when we project it onto bigger things, the universe, apparently it is fine. You-no-find-that-funny?

 

[metis]

Thank you for seeing it sir (and mentioning it).

Do you not then think it is strange that we do not keep having discussions about 'natural' and how natural can bring about everything in the same way that atheist do about God?

God has a will, but he also is conscious. What develops is that consciousness.

Natural just seems to be some sort of energy that changes into other energy that produces processes and laws that can shape part of it into everything we see, with all its complexities. I think that is a harder pill to swallow than saying there is a God and requires blind faith. Funny how we don't question these things. I suppose it is because the physical is right in front of us.

But just because we don't know exactly what created our universe/multiverse, this doesn't mean that "God" did it. Also, please note that you have made assumptions dealing with the supposed characteristics of "God" that have no objective supporting evidence.

Note that I'm not saying you're wrong with your conclusions but that you really are jumping to conclusions to arrive there.

 

[Robert.Evans]

But just because we don't know exactly what created our universe/multiverse, this doesn't mean that "God" did it. Also, please note that you have made assumptions dealing with the supposed characteristics of "God" that have no objective supporting evidence.

Note that I'm not saying you're wrong with your conclusions but that you really are jumping to conclusions to arrive there.

According to one definition that I saw in Encarta Dic; a 'god' can be anything we give such importance to as to make it so.

Thus I say that there then is a God that is everything we see, even if we can't agree what or who that God is, or whether it does or does not have intelligence.

I think it is normal to expect something complex to have been created by something with intelligence. I don't think that is a strange thought. Perhaps we rely too much on the physical, and what we experience with our eyes, that we cannot accept other things.

I appreciate your comments, but for me it is either consciousness, or accident/luck. I don't see how anyone can choose luck over intelligence. It would make no sense. To use the argument then that that still does not make it so, could just as easily be put the other way round, to the one who thinks accident and luck with suffice.

Spiritual discernment is not jumping to conclusions. It is God given. But then of course, all things are.

I will stick with a God with a mind before a God without.

 

[Robert.Evans]

By the way, I do not say that God did it, I say that all things are: evolving consciousness that we experience in physical forms. Science theory says the same thing in different terms. Perhaps one day it will be accepted as science fact. I think it will be a difficult one to accept for some though, as it leaves the door right open to God... BIG problem.....

I do not think that 'Natural did it' is a better answer... unless of course you can show me this 'Natural' that brings all things into being

 

[Ouroboros]

According to one definition that I saw in Encarta Dic; a 'god' can be anything we give such importance to as to make it so.

That's my view.

Thus I say that there then is a God that is everything we see, even if we can't agree what or who that God is, or whether it does or does not have intelligence.

Which means that what we see is natural in nature is what God is doing.

Nature is God's right (or left?) arm. Who are we to question how God does things?

I think it is normal to expect something complex to have been created by something with intelligence. I don't think that is a strange thought. Perhaps we rely too much on the physical, and what we experience with our eyes, that we cannot accept other things.

Except that it brings about a contradiction. If intelligence is complex, and it's too complex to come about by itself and need intelligence to be created, then that intelligence must also be complex and must be created. Just because something is complex or difficult to understand doesn't necessitate a more complex and difficult explanation.

I appreciate your comments, but for me it is either consciousness, or accident/luck. I don't see how anyone can choose luck over intelligence. It would make no sense. To use the argument then that that still does not make it so, could just as easily be put the other way round, to the one who thinks accident and luck with suffice.

I think accident, luck, consciousness, ... all of it is one thing ultimately. We can't understand how, but it is so.

Spiritual discernment is not jumping to conclusions. It is God given. But then of course, all things are.

I will stick with a God with a mind before a God without.

[/quote]
Or a God with many minds...

 

[Ouroboros]

By the way, I do not say that God did it, I say that all things are: evolving consciousness that we experience in physical forms. Science theory says the same thing in different terms. Perhaps one day it will be accepted as science fact. I think it will be a difficult one to accept for some though, as it leaves the door right open to God... BIG problem.....

To me, God and Nature is one, which makes it possible for me to consider similarities and differences between religion, faith, spirituality, and science without having to leave or drop one. They can all co-exist, but it requires an integration of thinking and believing completely different than the reductionistic apologism that is predominant currently in religion.

I do not think that 'Natural did it' is a better answer... unless of course you can show me this 'Natural' that brings all things into being

Unless the natural is God's nature.

 

[metis]

According to one definition that I saw in Encarta Dic; a 'god' can be anything we give such importance to as to make it so.

Thus I say that there then is a God that is everything we see, even if we can't agree what or who that God is, or whether it does or does not have intelligence.

I think it is normal to expect something complex to have been created by something with intelligence. I don't think that is a strange thought. Perhaps we rely too much on the physical, and what we experience with our eyes, that we cannot accept other things.

I appreciate your comments, but for me it is either consciousness, or accident/luck. I don't see how anyone can choose luck over intelligence. It would make no sense. To use the argument then that that still does not make it so, could just as easily be put the other way round, to the one who thinks accident and luck with suffice.

Spiritual discernment is not jumping to conclusions. It is God given. But then of course, all things are.

I will stick with a God with a mind before a God without.

First of all, you sorta walked around what I posted. To put what I was saying another way, we can't even establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a God, and yet you give all sorts of descriptions on what this God is supposedly like. But let me very briefly explain my drift, and if you're interested, we can discuss this from there.

Even though I have a theistic background, I eventually got to the point about 10 or so years ago whereas I had difficulty accepting any traditional theistic position with any religion. Instead, I gravitated in this direction: Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call "God" and pretty much leave it at that. However, I do have a "leaning", and that's sorta along the line of Spinoza's naturalistic approach.

I do not agree with you in that there has to be an intelligence prior to "creation" largely because the nature of energy and matter is to combine, split, and recombine with other forms, thus creating all sorts of possibilities. On top of that, it is conceivable that sub-atomic particles may go back into infinity, which is slightly older than I am.

Secondly, there is a serious question as to why it is that some accept God as a starting point and yet can fathom the question as to why this rule doesn't apply to God or Gods? If they're "spirit" that defies sensing, then exactly how do we know it/they exist? And how could we possibly know how many?

But please realize that my comments are questions-- not answers. One thing I've gotten used to in my old age is that there's many questions that I'll never know the answer to, and I have come to live with that.

Thanks for your comments as well, and I do appreciate your demeanor.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That's my view.


Which means that what we see is natural in nature is what God is doing.

Nature is God's right (or left?) arm. Who are we to question how God does things?


Except that it brings about a contradiction. If intelligence is complex, and it's too complex to come about by itself and need intelligence to be created, then that intelligence must also be complex and must be created. Just because something is complex or difficult to understand doesn't necessitate a more complex and difficult explanation.

I don't think so. I think there is a Singularity of Existence. I think therefore I AM. It evolves within its own Self. It starts from something simple, not complex. By necessity it is there. It develops, it changes, it evolves. It becomes more complex. It learns. That is what we do. As all things replicate what already is, then the example is us a babe. We know nothing and then learn... we are created in the Image of God.

I think accident, luck, consciousness, ... all of it is one thing ultimately. We can't understand how, but it is so.

I think 'ultimately' you are right.
But the idea that atheist evolutionists have that everything comes about through accident and then certain processes evolve that make things random non-random, is what happens in the Primordial Monadic Singularity that is the Existence of all things. That is in Source, not here in Image. Here we follow what has gone before. There is nothing new under the sun.

Or a God with many minds...

Like it. To me that is the expansion of the concentric circles of the One Mind that is everything. Each realm is its own Existence (created in the Image) each realm has its own God, therefore its own Mind. An Existence with a multidimensional existence of its own Self, that Reflects in many minds. This even reflects in us... created in his Image. Nice

 

[metis]

By the way, I do not say that God did it, I say that all things are: evolving consciousness that we experience in physical forms. Science theory says the same thing in different terms. Perhaps one day it will be accepted as science fact. I think it will be a difficult one to accept for some though, as it leaves the door right open to God... BIG problem.....

I do not think that 'Natural did it' is a better answer... unless of course you can show me this 'Natural' that brings all things into being

I don't quite see it that way as someone's pet rock likely does not show positive when subject to an e.e.g. Hypothetically at least, consciousness could have evolved into existence from that which doesn't exhibit it. This is not to say that this is what happened, however.

BTW, I have to leave shortly, but please remind me to mention the Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard's theory, as it is fascinating. Write anything, even if it's a burp, so I'll remember to get back on this thread tomorrow.

 

[Robert.Evans]

To me, God and Nature is one,

I don't have a problem with that... until I start to think about it.. haha. On a deeper level of debate, there are inherent differences, as he is higher, and there are higher levels of God, that in that sense are nothing to with us. Something has to be pure... you see

which makes it possible for me to consider similarities and differences between religion, faith, spirituality, and science without having to leave or drop one. They can all co-exist, but it requires an integration of thinking and believing completely different than the reductionistic apologism that is predominant currently in religion.

No problem

 

[Robert.Evans]

I said:
I do not think that 'Natural did it' is a better answer... unless of course you can show me this 'Natural' that brings all things into being

You said:
Unless the natural is God's nature.

Yes, that would be fine. And correct I think, as that is all there is. But the word natural in worldly terms, is not thought of that way.

 

[Robert.Evans]

First of all, you sorta walked around what I posted. To put what I was saying another way, we can't even establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a God, and yet you give all sorts of descriptions on what this God is supposedly like.

haha, Ok. But it sounds to me when you say that we can't prove it, that you are looking for something physical. That in turn will be seen through the outer five senses, mostly the eyes. Either way, it ends up in the mind, and the mind tells you its there. That is backed up by others saying the same, which also ends up in your mind, and you have to accept, otherwise you would go insane. My point is that all things ultimately belong in the mind, as Mind is all there is.
Sure, one could come up with wacky ideas then, but that is life. We have what God gives us, because he gives us what we are.

To start from a premise that it is spiritually discerned I cannot help, as it comes from him. It lines up with scripture, history, science.

But let me very briefly explain my drift, and if you're interested, we can discuss this from there.

Fine

Even though I have a theistic background, I eventually got to the point about 10 or so years ago whereas I had difficulty accepting any traditional theistic position with any religion. Instead, I gravitated in this direction: Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call "God" and pretty much leave it at that. However, I do have a "leaning", and that's sorta along the line of Spinoza's naturalistic approach.

No problem. There are different levels of existence. The highest level of Self with the Higher Consciousness is what you are thinking more about. The lower one is more personal, the God of flesh.

I do not agree with you in that there has to be an intelligence prior to "creation" largely because the nature of energy and matter is to combine, split, and recombine with other forms, thus creating all sorts of possibilities. On top of that, it is conceivable that sub-atomic particles may go back into infinity, which is slightly older than I am.

We have that word 'nature'. What does it mean? It is 'natural'? What does taht mean? What makes it do that ''naturally''? Do you see? It appears using the word 'natural' allows to accept things for which you have no answer, to prevent you from thinking of other things... if you don't mind me saying

Secondly, there is a serious question as to why it is that some accept God as a starting point and yet can fathom the question as to why this rule doesn't apply to God or Gods? If they're "spirit" that defies sensing, then exactly how do we know it/they exist? And how could we possibly know how many?

But please realize that my comments are questions-- not answers. One thing I've gotten used to in my old age is that there's many questions that I'll never know the answer to, and I have come to live with that.

Thanks for your comments as well, and I do appreciate your demeanor.

I am not sure what you mean with the last comment on God or Gods

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't quite see it that way as someone's pet rock likely does not show positive when subject to an e.e.g. Hypothetically at least, consciousness could have evolved into existence from that which doesn't exhibit it. This is not to say that this is what happened, however.
.

When you go down to the smallest level on the Planck scale, all things are seen as one (by some scientists). It is an ocean of Existence that we are part of. We are malleable waves within it, shaping as we go.

What we see is what we are, for we created it. Every wondered why we can explain so much of the universe as mere apes?!? strange is it not. Perhaps less strange if we had something to do with it.

We did not create it directly, anymore than I knew or did what my great great grandfather did. But we are conscious reflection of 'that' which did, and as such, it is inherent within us. Thus as fractal processes, we see this also within the inherent traits that are past down biologically from our parents.

It is a fractal process of existence that brings about its own Self. We see error within this realm though as we are the lower aspects or attributes of that existence.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't have a problem with that... until I start to think about it.. haha. On a deeper level of debate, there are inherent differences, as he is higher, and there are higher levels of God, that in that sense are nothing to with us. Something has to be pure... you see

Sure, that's why I sometimes use the term Panentheist (-en- for beyond or more than), which is to many a problem since "pan" already means everything. How can something be more than all that is?

Anyway, I think we've exhausted our little discussion. Good talking to you, and I appreciate your level-headedness in it. :bow:

 

[Bunyip]

Robert Evans

But the idea that atheist evolutionists have that everything comes about through accident and then certain processes evolve that make things random non-random, is what happens in the Primordial Monadic Singularity that is the Existence of all things. That is in Source, not here in Image. Here we follow what has gone before. There is nothing new under the sun.*

None,of that has anything whatsoever to do with atheism I'm afraid Robert. Atheism has no position on evolution, on the origins of life or o the origins of the universe. Atheism is the lack of belief in a theistic god - not biology, cosmology or abiogenesis.

Your idea that atheists belief that everything happens by accident is completely false, it is a misconception of yours that you seem unable to grapple with - evolution, abiogenesis and the formation of the early universe have nothing to do with accident or random chance.