What "if" you are wrong

[Spice]

Yes, very. I think I can name the band and the singer without Google. My answer would be The Fifth Dimension and David Clayton Thomas (just confirmed that and learned two things - Clayton was not his middle name, but the first part of a hyphenated last name, and that he was white; I always thought the band was all black).

Now that needs to be corrected. That comment was based on this picture of him:
View attachment 89317

So I looked up the band again, and found this picture. Not white after all:
View attachment 89318

Nice song. Why did you mention it?

It's actually by Blood, Sweat, & Tears and I mentioned it here because you brought up song lyrics here, but it's mostly an addendum to my response to you in post #238.

 

[ppp]

There are many Muslims who believe in Hell who are not otherwise cruel.

I was going to argue that simply believing is not cruel. But no. Believing is cruel when one acts or fails to act based on that belief. No contention.

 

[Valjean]

True but to he same principle could be applied to any religion. What you haven't done is shown that selecting a religion is necessary for a belief in God. Do that then I'll feel like responding to you point.

A blanket belief in "God" won't necessarily suffice. Christianity often requires the belief in the Christ allegory for salvation, Other theistic religions have their own orthodox requirements,

Pascal's wager is a disengenuous, self-serving, strategic gamble, which any god would easily see through -- and be annoyed by.

 

[Valjean]

My God is not bound by definition, nor at the head of any one religion. He is so abstract that He must exist, for He is the Infinite One. The Alpha and the Omega. But if human logic is so off the mark that there is no such thing as infinity, then I'm still quite comfortable in the path I took as being right for me. My belief is Omnist -- no one religion has all truth, but all have bits of truth. Certain aspects of Christianity and Buddhism are the strongest for me, thus far, but I'm open and still explore theological/philosophical thought from many sources.

He must exist because He is the infinite one; the alpha and omega? How does that follow?
I could just as well say Vishnu must exist because he has four arms or blue skin.

 

[Spice]

He must exist because He is the infinite one; the alpha and omega? How does that follow?
I could just as well say Vishnu must exist because he has four arms or blue skin.

Think physics and logic rather than religion. There's a beginning somewhere unfathomable.

 

[ppp]

Think physics and logic rather than religion. There's a beginning somewhere unfathomable.

Neither physics nor logic support your position

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Think physics and logic rather than religion. There's a beginning somewhere unfathomable.

And you fathomed the unfathomable well enough to be able to point to it and say "that's God"?

Neat trick.

 

[Spice]

Neither physics nor logic support your position

I am neither a scientist nor a mathemation, I'm not even all that smart, but I did catch on to the elementary explanation of an unknown beginning with no end, whether it's with numbers:
...-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., space, or time. Whatever caused the intellectual creation in which we exist back to the infinite beginning, I am in awe of, so therefore it is my God. And that intellectual creation is balanced on a few points I have some basic conception of: cause & effect, and the circle of life, both being baseline aspects of "religion."

"The original formulation of infinitesimal calculus by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz used infinitesimal quantities. In the second half of the 20th century, it was shown that this treatment could be put on a rigorous footing through various logical systems, including smooth infinitesimal analysis and nonstandard analysis."
From dear ole Wikipedia

 

[Spice]

And you fathomed the unfathomable well enough to be able to point to it and say "that's God"?

Neat trick.

Yep, in my fallible humanness. See post #248.

 

[SeekingBalance]

I am neither a scientist nor a mathemation, I'm not even all that smart, but I did catch on to the elementary explanation of an unknown beginning with no end, whether it's with numbers:
...-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., space, or time. Whatever caused the intellectual creation in which we exist back to the infinite beginning, I am in awe of, so therefore it is my God. And that intellectual creation is balanced on a few points I have some basic conception of: cause & effect, and the circle of life, both being baseline aspects of "religion."

"The original formulation of infinitesimal calculus by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz used infinitesimal quantities. In the second half of the 20th century, it was shown that this treatment could be put on a rigorous footing through various logical systems, including smooth infinitesimal analysis and nonstandard analysis."
From dear ole Wikipedia

Hey Spice,

Nothing to debate here but you were talking about Newton and he was in lockdown because Cambridge closed not because of COVID-19 but the Plague. One story that has nothing to do with this debate but just Newton was Neptune. Newton had these new-fangled calculations but they were not working for Uranus. Verrier was like yeah but what if there is another planet messing around with Uranus... if such a planet existed it would be right here per Newton. They looked and there it was. (Within a single degree, an oversimplification but Newton was a genius.)

I hope all is well!

 

[InChrist]

To all that believe a god does exist and those that believe(or lack belief) a god does not exist.....
What if you are wrong? Will it matter?

If the implications of belief in God and Jesus Christ in particular, which according to the biblical scriptures is the only Savior, have an eternal consequence, then I think it matters. Eternity is forever.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yep, in my fallible humanness. See post #248.

Sounds like it wasn't that unfathomable, then.

 

[Trailblazer]

Think physics and logic rather than religion. There's a beginning somewhere unfathomable.

The beginning of creation is certainly unfathomable.
Maybe some Bahais understand what the following passage means, but I have never been able to figure it out!

“As regards thine assertions about the beginning of creation, this is a matter on which conceptions vary by reason of the divergences in men’s thoughts and opinions. Wert thou to assert that it hath ever existed and shall continue to exist, it would be true; or wert thou to affirm the same concept as is mentioned in the sacred Scriptures, no doubt would there be about it, for it hath been revealed by God, the Lord of the worlds. Indeed He was a hidden treasure. This is a station that can never be described nor even alluded to. And in the station of ‘I did wish to make Myself known’, God was, and His creation had ever existed beneath His shelter from the beginning that hath no beginning, apart from its being preceded by a Firstness which cannot be regarded as firstness and originated by a Cause inscrutable even unto all men of learning.

That which hath been in existence had existed before, but not in the form thou seest today. The world of existence came into being through the heat generated from the interaction between the active force and that which is its recipient. These two are the same, yet they are different. Thus doth the Great Announcement inform thee about this glorious structure. Such as communicate the generating influence and such as receive its impact are indeed created through the irresistible Word of God which is the Cause of the entire creation, while all else besides His Word are but the creatures and the effects thereof. Verily thy Lord is the Expounder, the All-Wise.” Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140

 

[ppp]

Whatever caused the intellectual creation...

There is no physics or sound logical syllogism that supports that assertion. Which renders anything that follows from your assertion unjustified.

 

[Spice]

The beginning of creation is certainly unfathomable.
Maybe some Bahais understand what the following passage means, but I have never been able to figure it out!

I'll type in the way I attempt to simplify 19th century English and see if I can understand. I can give up right now if it is going to sound James Joyce-like. LOL

“As regards thine assertions about the beginning of creation, this is a matter on which conceptions vary by reason of the divergences in men’s thoughts and opinions.

"As far as your opinions on the beginning of creation goes, this is one of those topics that is difficult simply because of men's individual perceptions.

Wert thou to assert that it hath ever existed and shall continue to exist, it would be true; or wert thou to affirm the same concept as is mentioned in the sacred Scriptures, no doubt would there be about it, for it hath been revealed by God, the Lord of the worlds.

"Were you to assert that it has always been and always will be, that would be true; or were to agree that the version given in Scriptures gives no doubt, as it does comes from God.

Indeed He was a hidden treasure. This is a station that can never be described nor even alluded to.

"God is certainly a mystery that can not be described or guessed about.

And in the station of ‘I did wish to make Myself known’, God was, and His creation had ever existed beneath His shelter from the beginning that hath no beginning, apart from its being preceded by a Firstness which cannot be regarded as firstness and originated by a Cause inscrutable even unto all men of learning.

"So with this opinion that God wanted to make Himself known, God created a beginning beneath His dwelling that has no beginning. That is except for infinity, and just how it originated which all men, even those of learning, scratch their heads on.

That which hath been in existence had existed before, but not in the form thou seest today. The world of existence came into being through the heat generated from the interaction between the active force and that which is its recipient.

"What was created was in existence before, but not in the same form. The world came into being from friction between an active force and it's counterpart.

These two are the same, yet they are different.

"These two forces are the same, yet different.

Thus doth the Great Announcement inform thee about this glorious structure. Such as communicate the generating influence and such as receive its impact are indeed created through the irresistible Word of God which is the Cause of the entire creation, while all else besides His Word are but the creatures and the effects thereof. Verily thy Lord is the Expounder, the All-Wise.” Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140

"So the Great Announcement -- the irresistible Word of God -- communicated the influential impact that generated the entire creation, while everything else are the effects...."

There you go. That's how I break it down to today's English. Now what it means in further context, I have my comprehension, but like all Holy Texts, comprehension must come to the reader in their own prayer/meditation.

Helpful?

 

[Spice]

There is no physics or sound logical syllogism that supports that assertion. Which renders anything that follows from your assertion unjustified.

The big bang theory, was that totally debunked? I don't keep up like I used to try to.

 

[ppp]

The big bang theory, was that totally debunked? I don't keep up like I used to try to.

You did not reference the big bang theory.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'll type in the way I attempt to simplify 19th century English and see if I can understand. I can give up right now if it is going to sound James Joyce-like. LOL

There you go. That's how I break it down to today's English. Now what it means in further context, I have my comprehension, but like all Holy Texts, comprehension must come to the reader in their own prayer/meditation.

Helpful?

Yes, that was very helpful, thanks. I copied that and pasted it into my Word doc that has that quote to refer back to later.

 

[Spice]

You did not reference the big bang theory.

No, but that would be physics.

 

[ppp]

No, but that would be physics.

Then why did you bring up the big bang theory? Just saying random stuff?