There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Robert.Evans]

Can we not get past the beginning yet?

Surely it is simple and then complex. That is demanded, is it not? Funny how we are stuck on the first page... what then of the rest of the book

 

[Iti oj]

Can we not get past the beginning yet?

Surely it is simple and then complex. That is demanded, is it not? Funny how we are stuck on the first page... what then of the rest of the book

Well we have lots of crimes.against humanity and.a.bunch of unsubstantiated claims, idten conflicting with.the physical evidence.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Well we have lots of crimes.against humanity and.a.bunch of unsubstantiated claims, idten conflicting with.the physical evidence.

can't say I understand any of that or what its point is, sorry. And why all the fullstops?

 

[Iti oj]

can't say I understand any of that or what its point is, sorry. And why all the fullstops?

Using a different phone. And you asked about the rest of the bible. I said it contains crimes against humanity. I also said it is full of unsubstantiated claims that often conflict with the physical evidence. Its a direct response to your question.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Well we have lots of crimes.against humanity and.a.bunch of unsubstantiated claims, idten conflicting with.the physical evidence.

William Shatner is taken aback by your impersonation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

William Shatner is taken aback by your impersonation.

:jester3::jester3::jester3:

Thanks for making my day!

 

[jonathan180iq]

I have such a good time on this forum. It's the least I could do.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Using a different phone. And you asked about the rest of the bible. I said it contains crimes against humanity. I also said it is full of unsubstantiated claims that often conflict with the physical evidence. Its a direct response to your question.

Ahh, ok. Never occurred to me you were on a phone
We answer to God my friend. And it is us who do these things.
I don't see anything that is unsubstantiated, I see things misunderstood. But each to his own I guess.

 

[Iti oj]

Ahh, ok. Never occurred to me you were on a phone
We answer to God my friend. And it is us who do these things.
I don't see anything that is unsubstantiated, I see things misunderstood. But each to his own I guess.

I.have only to answer to myself. That's more then enough to keep me "moral" I set high standards of compassion and ethics.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Using a different phone. And you asked about the rest of the bible. I said it contains crimes against humanity. I also said it is full of unsubstantiated claims that often conflict with the physical evidence. Its a direct response to your question.

Ah... ok, I see now. The idea of 'book' was more philosophy than the literal Bible. We have an argument, and it appears we cannot get off the first point... that is all.

 

[Iti oj]

Ah... ok, I see now. The idea of 'book' was more philosophy than the literal Bible. We have an argument, and it appears we cannot get off the first point... that is all.

Sure, but the rest would follow.the same. So maybe it. Doesn't matter.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If you are talking about human suffering, then we should stop doing it I think.

 

[Iti oj]

If you are talking about human suffering, then we should stop doing it I think.

Well I wasn't, but I.agree. completely. I think it is up.to us to.end.

 

[Serenity7855]

I don't think he said in his post that he had.

No I didn't but that wouldn't stop Bunyip from saying I did. I said that he was using the idea of a multiverse to explain away the fine tuning of the universe. That is just wrong

But I have seen some of Cox's documentary, and we must remember that he is a scientist and they hold a lot of sway. That is why people follow Dawkins. You think they would follow him if he was a road sweeper? (apologies to road sweepers).

And when I heard it that is exactly what I thought. People will believe himjust because of who he is

Nor did Cox say that he could prove it.

Cox never does. He speculates and uses conjecture but rarely commits himself.

Personally I agree with the idea of a multiverse

The idea of a multiverse is fine. I am inclined to believe it aswell, however, to use it to take anything away from the omnipotence of God, which is his objective, being of the same ilk as Dawkins, is dishonest and wrong

 

[Ouroboros]

haha... I like the last part. But i would say that that is AFTER change and not before. Before there was no change in the way we would think of it, just an existence.

And I don't think there's a true before or after. Linear time is an illusion. There always was, and there never was a before.

If you take a bowling ball and roll it. Which side is up? It's all about a moment and subjective preference which and where a certain part of it is up or not. Before and after is just our view of a world we can't fully comprehend.

Put it this way. If God is non-temporal, it means that now, yesterday, next week, are all at the same moment for God. There never was and never will be a now because all is now simultaneous.

But to me, God is not just that, God is all this too. Not just the substrate of existence, but also the result, the being and becoming all in one. That's a "bigger" god than just this thing or that thing. Think of it this way, if God is only something that is not this universe, then God is only that part, half of what all is. But if God is both that substrate of existence and including this world that is the result, then God is whole, omnipresent and omnipotent. The external monotheistic God is not complete. You have to complete the picture by accepting both the canvas and the painting on it, both.

 

[Ouroboros]

Can we not get past the beginning yet?

Surely it is simple and then complex. That is demanded, is it not? Funny how we are stuck on the first page... what then of the rest of the book

Define simple and define complex. Has it anything to do with entropy, chaos, order, and such?

Perhaps complexity is eternal, but the expression of it is now.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

@Robert Evans you didn't respond to my last post for you. (the one before the latin)

 

[Robert.Evans]

No I didn't but that wouldn't stop Bunyip from saying I did. I said that he was using the idea of a multiverse to explain away the fine tuning of the universe. That is just wrong



And when I heard it that is exactly what I thought. People will believe himjust because of who he is


Cox never does. He speculates and uses conjecture but rarely commits himself.



The idea of a multiverse is fine. I am inclined to believe it aswell, however, to use it to take anything away from the omnipotence of God, which is his objective, being of the same ilk as Dawkins, is dishonest and wrong

It is certainly a Dawkins argument. He knows as we all do, that the odds of this universe are ridiculous (even though some say it is no matter!!) and uses it (with no solid evidence) to shore up his own ideology, an ideology that makes him very important and sort after, and rich.

 

[Robert.Evans]

And I don't think there's a true before or after. Linear time is an illusion. There always was, and there never was a before.

If you take a bowling ball and roll it. Which side is up? It's all about a moment and subjective preference which and where a certain part of it is up or not. Before and after is just our view of a world we can't fully comprehend.

Put it this way. If God is non-temporal, it means that now, yesterday, next week, are all at the same moment for God. There never was and never will be a now because all is now simultaneous.

But to me, God is not just that, God is all this too. Not just the substrate of existence, but also the result, the being and becoming all in one. That's a "bigger" god than just this thing or that thing. Think of it this way, if God is only something that is not this universe, then God is only that part, half of what all is. But if God is both that substrate of existence and including this world that is the result, then God is whole, omnipresent and omnipotent. The external monotheistic God is not complete. You have to complete the picture by accepting both the canvas and the painting on it, both.

Well..... I don't think I can disagree with that

 

[Robert.Evans]

Define simple and define complex. Has it anything to do with entropy, chaos, order, and such?

Perhaps complexity is eternal, but the expression of it is now.

I say simple and complex, because God works in a fractal way. Thus he can show us who he is (to a degree). Thus the universe had to develop, and life developed. This means also that he did. So whatever that Existence was, it was simple. That is why it works this way.
The development of that Existence, was consciousness, and it is that which we live within and indeed, are.

If you look at the definition of eternal, it means an 'age' or 'aeon'. So, though you might be using it as a figure of speech, I would say that the One we think of as God just IS. That seems to be in line with your thinking (I think) but everything else then is to do with the aeons. And aeons are time, in many different realities.
The thinking of yours though is good though.

I have to ask, do you believe in the Mashiyach (Christ) Is your thinking based on the Bible and the Abrahamic God as mine is?