ForumGarden

FourPart;1486838 wrote: That's the point. It's as far as you're concerned. It is not the case as far as the much older evidence supports. As far as the Jews (which Jesus, himself was one of) are concerned, the (Old) Testament is the Bible. As far as the Sikhs are concerned, the Granth is the Bile, with the Muslims it's the Q'uran, and so on and so forth. These beliefs have been going on long before Jesus' alleged birth. Who are you to say they are all wrong?


They are not wrong, they are just part of the picture, I just see more of the picture than you do.

Mickiel;1486870 wrote: They are not wrong, they are just part of the picture, I just see more of the picture than you do.


Is God real? What do you expect when that question is posed to an Atheist? Or to the world as a whole? Humanity is lost and turned out; just not knowing what to believe. And I understand that; I have an announcement to make; we ALL are predestined to be with God, in his eternity. We will not be any longer left to ourselves. And God will give us ALL; freely give us all eternal life!

And THAT is the true gospel; the real good news!!

You can't have it both ways. Either yours is the TRUE one, or everyone else's is WRONG.

FourPart;1486899 wrote: You can't have it both ways. Either yours is the TRUE one, or everyone else's is WRONG.


Everyone has the same God; there can be only one.

Mickiel;1486919 wrote: Everyone has the same God; there can be only one.
"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" - sounds like plural to me.

"Thou shall not have any other gods before me". Reading that there must have been other gods or it would have been necessary to state that. God is not provable in the scientific or historical context but God is an experiential reality. God does not exist He, She, It is beyond existence. I believe in God as an experiential reality. Nothing to prove. I don't need the Bible to be a contract since that implies that those who do simply don't trust the divine to keep Its word.

There can only be one!

That is not what it implies. "There are other god but I come first." Could well be an interpretation. In fact there was thought to be a council of divine beings as in the story of Job and "the Satan" who was not evil but given permission by God to test Job. If God knows everything why bother testing.

Ted;1487000 wrote: That is not what it implies. "There are other god but I come first." Could well be an interpretation. In fact there was thought to be a council of divine beings as in the story of Job and "the Satan" who was not evil but given permission by God to test Job. If God knows everything why bother testing.




Here's what I go by; in Isaiah 44:6 God speaking about himself;, " I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no other."

This is what I go by. This is good enough for me.

I doubt very much that God said that. It is the words of God placed in Its mouth by the writer.

A bit like the Temptation of Christ - everything recorded verbatim. The question has to be, who by? According to the story there were only to 2 of them out in the middle of the desert. The person who wrote the words was clearly fictionalising things.

Ted;1487030 wrote: I doubt very much that God said that. It is the words of God placed in Its mouth by the writer.


Here's 27 more verses that show its only one God;



Passages that say there is only one God

Then of course there are those passages that imply there are others. For example "Let us make man in our own image . . . "

Ted;1487119 wrote: Then of course there are those passages that imply there are others. For example "Let us make man in our own image . . . "


That image is consciousness.

Mickiel;1487130 wrote: That image is consciousness.
Once again, that is YOUR interpretation, with no indication of that from the wording. The key word that Ted is refering to is "OUR" - plural of "MY" - indicating more than the one God.

FourPart;1487137 wrote: Once again, that is YOUR interpretation, with no indication of that from the wording. The key word that Ted is refering to is "OUR" - plural of "MY" - indicating more than the one God.


there IS ONLY ONE GOD.

That is what most people think today in western culture but the ancients thought otherwise. Parts in the Bible seem to indicate otherwise.

Ted;1487277 wrote: That is what most people think today in western culture but the ancients thought otherwise. Parts in the Bible seem to indicate otherwise.


The ancients were just the beginning of confusion. They thought both ways.

And I agree that parts of the bible seem to indicate otherwise. I think there can only be one; one Lord, one true faith, but the paths to that seem to be many. We can only believe what we believe; I think it all came from the same source;

it all has the same DNA; a common denominator; something VERY powerful; and whatever this source is; we are very fortunate that it seems to have all of our well being in mind for the future. And all indications points to the source, being Good itself.

FourPart;1487076 wrote: A bit like the Temptation of Christ - everything recorded verbatim. The question has to be, who by? According to the story there were only to 2 of them out in the middle of the desert. The person who wrote the words was clearly fictionalising things.


In my view, in my opinion, according to my present understanding, at some point in reality, there was God. At another point that God " Birthed Jesus", and brought him into reality. That is two distinct beings; one is God, the other his birthed son. At another point in reality God, called the Father, directs his son to begin creating angels and other beings. And then at some other point in this reality, humans and the universe are created. The universe first, then I think primordial humans. At some point the primordial earth and humans were discontinued, and then the creation of Adam, after the Ice Age and earth was renewed. I think these newer humans were given consciousness at a high level, and soon civilization sprouted.

I think at some points in the Old testament, it was the Father God dealing with the humans; at other points it was Jesus. So they both were active in the old story; the old books. Is Jesus " A God"? I don't think so, but only because of God himself saying on more than one occasion, that he alone is a God. What Jesus was and now is, I just don't really know; for sure?? He is the only born son of God, he sits next to God on his throne. I think God is the upmost; the highest, the most powerful; and then Jesus.

Where did God come from? How did he come into reality? Again, I don't know; I think God actually created parts of himself. And I think God IS reality; he IS life! And I certainly can't explain it.

NASA - How Big is Our Universe?

The sheer size of the universe , to me; its awesome wonder and space it engulfs, burns at my intelligence that something far superior is at work here. WE COULD TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT, FOR 100,000 YEARS, AND STILL NOT PUT A DENT IN THIS EXPANSE. If something like that could develop from nothing, then a God could develop from nothing; anything could develop from nothing, IF our universe did. It just does not fit that wonder can come from anything less than wonder. That life could come from anything less than life. A God makes it fit. Because if reality does not fit, then we are not real.

Size does matter when we discuss creation, and planning and design, as opposed to happenstance luck or the outcome of incredible chance. The planets and starts either made themselves, or they were deliberately made. One just has to choose what their understanding will point to.

Mickiel;1487483 wrote: Size does matter when we discuss creation, and planning and design, as opposed to happenstance luck or the outcome of incredible chance. The planets and starts either made themselves, or they were deliberately made. One just has to choose what their understanding will point to.


And I believe the physical universe, in all its wonder, was the result of another wonder, that we call God, and proves he is real. Wonder gives birth to wonder; life gives birth to life, and design comes from a designer.

As with Algebra, 'x' is the unknown quantity.

To the Religious, who even refer to themselves as sheep, 'x' = 'God'.

As with Algebra, though, 'x' can also = 0.

The question that all the Religious followers (in particular, Creationists) seem to hedge around, of course, is the one of "If God created everything, who created God?". The answer is invariably that God has always been, or that God created himself. That does not answer the question. As with the Algebraic simile, the only way that God can have always been is if 'x' = 0 (i.e. if 'God' ('x') doesn't exist). It also seems bizarre to deny that a physical object can be the result of a chance chain of events, yet a supposedly intelligent 'lifeform' can have supposedly created itself in its entirety.

So, answer the simple question, without hedging as described. Who made God? It's not even a Chicken & Egg problem, as there actually is an answer to that question (unless you're a creationist, of course).

FourPart;1487682 wrote: As with Algebra, 'x' is the unknown quantity.

To the Religious, who even refer to themselves as sheep, 'x' = 'God'.

As with Algebra, though, 'x' can also = 0.

The question that all the Religious followers (in particular, Creationists) seem to hedge around, of course, is the one of "If God created everything, who created God?". The answer is invariably that God has always been, or that God created himself. That does not answer the question. As with the Algebraic simile, the only way that God can have always been is if 'x' = 0 (i.e. if 'God' ('x') doesn't exist). It also seems bizarre to deny that a physical object can be the result of a chance chain of events, yet a supposedly intelligent 'lifeform' can have supposedly created itself in its entirety.

So, answer the simple question, without hedging as described. Who made God? It's not even a Chicken & Egg problem, as there actually is an answer to that question (unless you're a creationist, of course).




No, God created " Parts of himself", other parts have always existed; of which I cannot explain how. But the bible reveals that he " Magnified and improved" parts of himself, that much I know. He " Increased" parts of himself, his glory, his presence, his appearance, his grace and his personal agenda. Even humans can improve on themselves. Its hard to understand infinity when we are finite in our thinking, we must see a beginning and an ending to things.

The same could be said about the Universe. Before the Big Bang even Time didn't exist, so it could also be said that the Universe has always existed and as it is expanding it is increasing parts of itself.

Perhaps "God" is just a term used by primitive Man to refer to the Universe. With ignorance of such matters they would simply attribute some sort of intelligent force to something they didn't understand. Why does rain fall from the sky? Because God commands it. Why does it get dark at night & light in the daytime? Because God commands it.... The list goes on & on. These days we have more & more understanding of such things & know what causes such things to happen, thus proving that it has nothing to a God whatsoever. There are, of course, still many things we don't understand. That still doesn't mean that we should continue to attribute such ignorance to a God figure.

FourPart;1487769 wrote: The same could be said about the Universe. Before the Big Bang even Time didn't exist, so it could also be said that the Universe has always existed and as it is expanding it is increasing parts of itself.

Perhaps "God" is just a term used by primitive Man to refer to the Universe. With ignorance of such matters they would simply attribute some sort of intelligent force to something they didn't understand. Why does rain fall from the sky? Because God commands it. Why does it get dark at night & light in the daytime? Because God commands it.... The list goes on & on. These days we have more & more understanding of such things & know what causes such things to happen, thus proving that it has nothing to a God whatsoever. There are, of course, still many things we don't understand. That still doesn't mean that we should continue to attribute such ignorance to a God figure.




I think it is more ignorant to attribute creation to itself or to nothing. There is no power in nothing; surely no sense in something coming from nothing. God has always been alive , and creation coming from him and his life, makes more sense than life creating itself from nothing. To avoid trying to figure out just when and how life came to be, to avoid infinite regression and trying to track something from nothing in a space that did not even exist in the material world ; we give it a definite birth from a definite power source ; which is God. Relatively simple and full of science , creation explains itself through a creator; design explains itself through a designer.

We should not let the ignorance of those who fail to see this, to rule the human thought process.

Not a creationist here. Quantum physics has shown us that atoms wink in and out of existence all the time. That is something from nothing happens on a universal basis. In my view to try to prove the existence of God in any scientific way is a total waste of time. God can neither be proven or no not. It seems to me that God is an experiential reality and it should be left at that. Many want a definite proof of God for their own security. I do not think that will happen. But to experience God is something different.. For thousands of years God was spoken in anthropomorphic terms. God is not a being with arms legs etc. That was just a reasonable judgment at the time time try to explain this experience. Nor does this God interfere in the daily lives of people.

There is still much to learn but it won't be found in magic and makebelieve.

Ted;1487823 wrote: Not a creationist here. Quantum physics has shown us that atoms wink in and out of existence all the time. That is something from nothing happens on a universal basis. In my view to try to prove the existence of God in any scientific way is a total waste of time. God can neither be proven or no not. It seems to me that God is an experiential reality and it should be left at that. Many want a definite proof of God for their own security. I do not think that will happen. But to experience God is something different.. For thousands of years God was spoken in anthropomorphic terms. God is not a being with arms legs etc. That was just a reasonable judgment at the time time try to explain this experience. Nor does this God interfere in the daily lives of people.

There is still much to learn but it won't be found in magic and makebelieve.




Atoms cannot think. Make believe is to think that Atoms popped into existence on their own, formed a committee , and planned the creation of the universe. Then they got together, over time, and designed water and chemicals. Then they designed a way to create life at a small scale. Then they thought of a way to make this life evolve into a male human, or was the female conceived first?

Make believe.

Now you are arguing with most of the world's quantum physicists. One is Amit Goswami.

Ted;1487836 wrote: Now you are arguing with most of the world's quantum physicists. One is Amit Goswami.




Put him on the phone, I'll go a few rounds with him.

I doubt it.

Ted;1487838 wrote: I doubt it.


Well then you represent him, and I will keep representing who I represent and scream for.

Perhaps you should read a few of his books.

Ted;1487844 wrote: Perhaps you should read a few of his books.


I don't mind a good read, I'll look him up.

Mickiel;1487845 wrote: I don't mind a good read, I'll look him up.




Well at first read, I like this guy Gaswami.

He is definitely an interesting man.

Is God real? Well Polonium Halos is some pretty good scientific evidence;

http://www.halos.com/

Mickiel;1487835 wrote: Atoms cannot think. Make believe is to think that Atoms popped into existence on their own, formed a committee , and planned the creation of the universe. Then they got together, over time, and designed water and chemicals. Then they designed a way to create life at a small scale. Then they thought of a way to make this life evolve into a male human, or was the female conceived first?

Make believe.


Atoms cannot think, totally true - the argument is not that atoms think but that the universe formed according to natural laws rather than being designed so there was no need for atoms to think.

A Hydrogen atom on its own cannot burn.

An Oxygen atom on its own cannot burn.

Put them together & the result can be somewhat explosive.

Bryn Mawr;1488471 wrote: Atoms cannot think, totally true - the argument is not that atoms think but that the universe formed according to natural laws rather than being designed so there was no need for atoms to think.




I think the opposite; I think it would be unnatural for designed things to form without a designer that thought it out. That type of thinking would be the same as saying a ford pickup truck could create itself, naturally, by forming a body and wheels over the years, then forming all the electronics and headlights; and forming a motor and combining all these things together according to natural laws.

I don't buy in to that. Its senseless. Its trying to remove a very important fact of designer being needed.

If that is how you want it go for it. Wishful thinking does not make it a reality.

Look at the intricate mathematical patterns of a snowflake. Each snowflake is unique. Not a single snowflake, though, had a designer.

Ted;1488723 wrote: If that is how you want it go for it. Wishful thinking does not make it a reality.


Your wishful thinking does not make it less of a reality.

"God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." - Joseph Campbell

LarsMac;1488934 wrote: "God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." - Joseph CampbellI'd be very careful before invoking the metaphor, it appears rather arrogant when one would, to say the least.

Quite fitting for those who do, actually.

LarsMac;1488934 wrote: "God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." - Joseph Campbell


I would not call believers in God stupid; God is intellectual, and that is spreading.

How can a non-existent fantasy figure be intellectual?

Mickiel;1489055 wrote: I would not call believers in God stupid; God is intellectual, and that is spreading.The quote doesn't say believers are stupid. It does say they are arrogant, but not "stupid".

FourPart;1489057 wrote: How can a non-existent fantasy figure be intellectual?I agree, but there are those who believe God is an actual being or entity. They can't prove it and indeed their holy book says as much, because belief is based off faith (hope) rather than fact.

I happen to disagree with the idea that faith is a fantasy hope. God is an experiential reality not provable with science and that is problem for some. However religions seem to respond to an inner need to look at areas that science is simply not set up to study. Science does not deal with love, hate, altruism, or any of the emotions.