It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God And My Beliefs

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: bucsarg
I have decided it's not worth it to me to reply to your ongoing sarcastic replies you have been exhibiting to me and the others on this Post.
a reply to: TzarChasm



my sarcasm? i was being honest. although honestly, narcissistic psychopaths with delusions of grandeur do tend to bring out the wiseass in me. people like that take themselves too seriously and are begging to be humbled. but yeah okay, ill find something else to do. this thread is almost dead anyway. deuces!

edit on 21-5-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: bucsarg
I have decided it's not worth it to me to reply to your ongoing sarcastic replies you have been exhibiting to me and the others on this Post.
a reply to: TzarChasm



my sarcasm? i was being honest. although honestly, narcissistic psychopaths with delusions of grandeur do tend to bring out the wiseass in me. people like that take themselves too seriously and are begging to be humbled. but yeah okay, ill find something else to do. this thread is almost dead anyway. deuces!


Perhaps the poster failed to notice your narcissistic psychopathic delusion of grandeur username???

Tzar Chasm....the tzar of sarcasm. I got it the first time I saw it. So why expect less of you than sarcasm?

Perhaps others don't get the reference in the portmanteu? It is a clever username, though.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

House of Seed. BEN / Son in Hebrew



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Hmm. The difference is this....

I use a Wacom Bamboo Tablet to draw images of people.

Wacom...invented
Drawing...creation

I don't invent people, I create them. I don't have the power to make them come to life, but I can make the images animated. Then it seems they are alive. But I didn't invent them.

Necessity is the mother of invention.
Mother of Invention...Frank Zappa's band.



edit on 5/21/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Illumin
a reply to: bucsarg

If mankind created religion, and God created mankind, then who created God?

It's the same problem I have with the Big Bang, and that is nothing comes from nothing!



Do you assume that God must be created because you are?

How about this, God exists whether you do or not.


"The universe couldn't come from nothing therefore god"

"Then where did god come from?"

"God doesn't have to be created silly"

"But...but you just said..."

That's how the conversation goes. When logic defies your hypothesis, introduce supernatural forces and suddenly you don't even need to test the hypothesis anymore. It becomes theology.

This is the most accurate reply I've read on ATS today



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: bucsarg




Mankind wrote the Bible. Not God. I do not trust all of mankind. Mankind is usually out to gain something for themselves.


Yes the Bible was put on paper by men. If these men were really told these teachings by the Spirit, how else would you expect them to record God's teachings? I don't trust mankind either, but I also don't believe in coincidences. Lets thinks about how badly communications were back in biblical times; then lets look at the number of authors, where all the authors were located, and how long of a timeframe the Bible was written over. Then ask yourself what are the chances all of these people would have told the same story? Look into apocalyptic prophecy in relation to the some of the more likely conspiracies . The Bible told us Israel would become a nation again. We saw this occur in 1948. The Bible warns that the government in the end times will be a global government divided in to 10 regions. They started this in 1972. The Bible also tells us that there will be one currency. Follow the economic cycle of a nation and you will see that economies rise, fall, and then reset there currency and rise and fall ..and so on...when countries reset there currency they normally share currency with other countries like all of Europe is on the Euro. We will find that once our economy crashes hard enough the institution of the Amero, and the cycle will continue until there is only one. That one will then be converted into a microchip or electronic tattoo. This is the Mark of the Beast. In Hosea 4, we read "There is swearing, deception, murder, stealing and adultery. They employ violence, so that bloodshed follows bloodshed. Therefore the land mourns, And everyone who lives in it languishes Along with the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky, And also the fish of the sea disappear," and here you will find a list of these occurrences and they seem to be increasing in frequency. I could ramble for days about the things we can see occurring all around us. Lately I have been looking into the Large Hadron Collider. Something strange is going on there. If you haven't seen there symmetry video I suggest you watch it. Its quite odd..
edit on 22-5-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Good lord.

Human logic is not a universal law--and your individual logic is certainly not one either. It is absolutely hilarious when people dismiss God or make claims like "it occurred to me when I was younger that there is a 98% chance God doesn't exist."

Let's play with logic though.
What sounds more logical?
A. The universe coming from nothing or at least having no designer and morphing into what we see here.
B. The universe being created by God.

It's fairly adorable how many people would answer "A." Really?

It's far more logical, I would argue, that pre-existing consciousness and intelligence--God--created the universe than for the universe to simply exist out of nowhere, unintelligently. Science asks you to BELIEVE and have FAITH...yes I know how much you atheists despise the idea, but nothing about the Big Bang and the origin of life according to science is logical. It requires belief. The difference between my belief and yours is that you think a random, non-intelligence resulted in this conversation we are having. I believe that an eternal consciousness and intelligence that is ultimately infinite and mostly beyond our comprehension (though we may know God in some ways) designed and created the universe.

We're left with:
A. Random, non-intelligence of an eternal (or not? Out of nowhere...? Gee that doesn't help) universe resulted in the complexities and order that we witness here. Life came out of inorganic material somehow and resulted in the Intelligence and consciousness that we have. All of this came from this random, non-intelligence.

B. Eternal intelligence and consciousness of a God beyond our full comprehension. Intelligence, consciousness, and life eternally existed through God.

Ultimately, SOMETHING has always existed. We are forced to accept either A or B... Atheists and many on ATS go with non-intelligence and randomness as the origin of all things.
But as for myself, I'm going with B.
edit on 22-5-2015 by Achilles92x because: typos



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Septimus
Strange how there perspective changed after the emergence of the evolution theory and changed "form" to "soul". If they said that originally I think most people would see how relative the book actually is. However like all religions, ideology changes when relative truths emerge, a reactive form merging outdated truths with current accepted truths. Without doing this the church would struggle to encourage new believers. Like I say constant reactive statements diminishes the validity of all religions, undermining the core concepts that formed the religion initally



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Achilles92x

I don't agree with the big bang, but it is logical. Logic has no faith based system. The big bang theory is based on logic, derived from science and maths and observable and measureable phenomenon. The fact you would argue your idea of creationism as more logical is bat shet crazy. Like I say I don't quite like the BB theory, however it EXPLAINS the universe. No religion does, it explains the creation of earth



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'm glad servants back...his posts do bring joy. I only join these posts in hope he posts his ideas.

Bible said Israel will become a nation again...They were correct 1900 years later.....priceless.

The bible was meant for the Israelites and them alone. In those days, as an outsider of God's people you would not have been accepted, as referenced many times in the bible. You would have been forced as a slave because God condoned it.

You are a professional nit picker



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Achilles92x
RANDOM mutations allowed this conversation to take place. Let's assume you are sane and believe current measuring tools we have are fairly accurate (give or take a million years) you believe and intelligent "god" created the universe billions of years ago, to then create humans only 200,000 years ago. Does this sound correct to you?

Oh god you played the beyond our full comprehension card....jeez...very similar to the "randomness" stance of atheists. Neither party can explain how/why/when. But in all fairness science based atheists (generally speaking) adleast try to answer these questions with quantifiable theories.

Nothing personal, but you realise most people say A, simply because, it is more logical



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: rossacus

Religions don't explain the creation of the universe? Genesis doesn't directly tackle it for a super obvious reason. The Genesis creation account possesses theological truths. It wasn't intended to be a science textbook. Do you honestly think an appropriate revelation to people 2000+ years ago would be for God to explain it exactly how it happened? 1. There wouldn't have even been WORDS in the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic languages to tell that story! 2. How EXACTLY God created the universe is totally irrelevant to the ancient peoples. What mattered mostly was that he did create it. The rest of the universe itself, beyond earth, was totally off topic and irrelevant to speak in depth about. 3. Having scientific explanations and going into detail about the Big Bang and Evolution (the latter of which I accept through Intelligent Design) would have baffled the living hell out of the ancients and even if their languages' words could articulate the story, people would have thought it totally bizarre, sensational, and absurd, it might have even pushed believers away.

Yes I did say beyond our comprehension. The existence of a creator/origin of all things is ultimately the biggest question. To expect science or human logic or the human brain to fully prove/disprove such a thing is arrogant and foolish.

You are ultimately reverting back to logic but though I played with logic in my first post, I stated that it is not a universal law. What about the Big Bang is logical? Please elaborate. Logic and science do require faith. You're placing faith in your own logic and mind, despite the fact that you are not the most intelligent human being who has ever lived. Even if you were, seeing we we still struggle discovering things infinitely less immense than the question of God, you still wouldn't be able to comprehend it. You can scoff at the "beyond our comprehension" all you want, but unless you're a Nobel winning String theory physicist, I'd argue there's quite a bit beyond your and my comprehension that some people are out there studying right now. Even if we could grasp what they discover, the way in which they accomplish these discoveries is likely beyond our comprehension. The question of a creator of all things dwarfs any of that... It is the ultimate question and only faith--FAITH--by the common definition allows you to think you can comprehend it. It's totally arrogant to assume that you or the human race itself can logically grasp and therefore disprove God when we cannot fully comprehend questions infinitely smaller at the moment. When we've totally mastered biology, chemistry, and physics and literally there is nothing else to understand and everything has been fully tested and affirmed, then maybe we can take a shot at the biggest question without being arrogant.

Science requires faith for two reasons: 1. Firstly, the scientific method doesn't prove things without a doubt. Hypotheses only get supported by evidence and maybe get to the point where they're upgraded to a theory due to heavy support. You may define faith as "believing without evidence," but that is not how I define faith nor does it describe the faith I have in God and Jesus Christ. I would define it more as a deep, moving and powerful trust. In the same way as the faith I am describing, faith must be invested in the current scientific understanding which most scientists--the ones who aren't arrogant--know could be totally toppled and shown to be wrong. It has happened and will happen again, yet we place faith in our understanding being correct and further build upon the assumption that our understanding is correct in order to further observe, study, and research things.
2. Science secondly requires faith because unless you're the one doing the research, you don't know for SURE that it's even true. This is a conspiracy website, so I'm not out of line here. You're trusting that there is nobody out there looking to trick or misguide the population, and that the science being conducted is legitimate.

The scientific method and logic are only useful with right knowledge and tools. To expect it to be able to "prove" the ultimate question of God at our progress point is naive. What about atoms and molecules is logical? Before we had the tools to observe, they would not have been shown true by the scientific method. Plenty of things in history's past were not "logical" and could not be proven by the scientific method but ultimately with appropriate advancement, they were shown to be provable.

Have you ever read what that Nobel prize winning microbiologist said about the possibility of all what they were discovering happening by chance? I can't recall his name at the moment. But life randomly happening on its own from inorganic matter is akin to throwing a bunch of scrap metal onto the ground and expecting it to assemble itself into a fighter jet complete with fuel and soar away. That is far from logical. Before you claim he was a biased believer, his last statement was that on philosophical grounds he could not accept the idea of a creator to be true despite this enormous impossibility.

Most people here would say A, but most people around the world still believe in a creator. You said most people (here) would say A. because it's more logical... Does this now mean that you agree it's more logical to answer B since ultimately beyond ATS the consensus would be B?


You seem to have a very confused understanding of the Bible. The Old Testament Juidaism was exclusionist, but in no way shape or form was Jesus and the New Testament that way.
edit on 22-5-2015 by Achilles92x because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: rossacus

"Beyond our comprehension" is no way similar to the randomness stance of an atheist. I would know, I used to be an atheist when I was younger, and I had significantly better arguments than the hogwash people often post here (not directed toward you).

We are forced to accept the this universe exists in one form or another (let's not delve into the holographic crap).
We can either accept that:
A. It exists for no reason, something came from nothing, there are laws and such that simply have always existed but in a non-intelligent form. This non-intelligence eventually resulted by random chance into organic matter from non-organic matter, which further developed into consciousness and intelligence.
B. It exists for a reason. Intelligence and consciousness has always existed (God) and all things resulted from it. This provides insight to how inorganic matter resulted in organic matter (which no, science has no real explanation for), and how that organic matter became intelligent and conscious... since life, consciousness, and intelligence always existed though God.

You mentioned the universe being billions of years old but humanity only being around for 200,000 years. That is a horrible argument friend. A creator is not confined to time. He would be outside of time. Assuming that the universe exists only for humanity (which I do not believe), the recent lifespan of the human race being dwarfed by the lifespan of the universe does not discredit God whatsoever. That's also assuming that a person fully accepts the age of the universe.

As for myself, I believe in other intelligent life. I believe that there are the physical laws of the universe (including genetics) and I believe that God created them. I have no qualms with God USING the laws he established to create the universe... It's not like he's restricted by time. Thus, I view science as a form of revelation into the wonder of God in an age where we can grasp that beauty (unlike 2000 years ago) and it is relevant to us. God created the laws, and seeing as he is outside of time, I don't see a need to believe that he would break the laws he established to instantaneously create the universe. Being outside of time, he did technically instantaneously create the universe by his standing point, though that's hard to grasp. But by our standpoint restricted by time, it is not instantaneous.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Achilles92x


It's far more logical, I would argue, that pre-existing consciousness and intelligence--God--created the universe than for the universe to simply exist out of nowhere, unintelligently. Science asks you to BELIEVE and have FAITH...yes I know how much you atheists despise the idea, but nothing about the Big Bang and the origin of life according to science is logical. It requires belief. The difference between my belief and yours is that you think a random, non-intelligence resulted in this conversation we are having. I believe that an eternal consciousness and intelligence that is ultimately infinite and mostly beyond our comprehension (though we may know God in some ways) designed and created the universe.


What you're saying is that you believe in something eternal using magic to will the universe in to existence.

Science does not ask anyone to Believe or have Faith. Religion asks that. Science has evidence to support it's claims but you have to read and look at that evidence to know what it is.

When you say "Something from Nothing" you also aren't using the same definition of "nothing" that physicists use.

For something "mostly beyond our comprehension" you sure do claim to "know" a lot about it.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Achilles92x


It's far more logical, I would argue, that pre-existing consciousness and intelligence--God--created the universe than for the universe to simply exist out of nowhere, unintelligently. Science asks you to BELIEVE and have FAITH...yes I know how much you atheists despise the idea, but nothing about the Big Bang and the origin of life according to science is logical. It requires belief. The difference between my belief and yours is that you think a random, non-intelligence resulted in this conversation we are having. I believe that an eternal consciousness and intelligence that is ultimately infinite and mostly beyond our comprehension (though we may know God in some ways) designed and created the universe.


What you're saying is that you believe in something eternal using magic to will the universe in to existence.

Science does not ask anyone to Believe or have Faith. Religion asks that. Science has evidence to support it's claims but you have to read and look at that evidence to know what it is.

When you say "Something from Nothing" you also aren't using the same definition of "nothing" that physicists use.

For something "mostly beyond our comprehension" you sure do claim to "know" a lot about it.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Achilles92x


It's far more logical, I would argue, that pre-existing consciousness and intelligence--God--created the universe than for the universe to simply exist out of nowhere, unintelligently. Science asks you to BELIEVE and have FAITH...yes I know how much you atheists despise the idea, but nothing about the Big Bang and the origin of life according to science is logical. It requires belief. The difference between my belief and yours is that you think a random, non-intelligence resulted in this conversation we are having. I believe that an eternal consciousness and intelligence that is ultimately infinite and mostly beyond our comprehension (though we may know God in some ways) designed and created the universe.


What you're saying is that you believe in something eternal using magic to will the universe in to existence.

Science does not ask anyone to Believe or have Faith. Religion asks that. Science has evidence to support it's claims but you have to read and look at that evidence to know what it is.

When you say "Something from Nothing" you also aren't using the same definition of "nothing" that physicists use.

For something "mostly beyond our comprehension" you sure do claim to "know" a lot about it.


Your usage of the word magic and the implied definition really demonstrates your open mindedness to this idea and ultimately limits the conversation. God is not "magical."

I was hoping someone could clarify exactly what their claim would be from an atheist perspective. My apologies for not using the correct definition... Care to provide some info on it? I'm familiar, but it's been a while.

Unless I mistakenly left out my full statement about "beyond our comprehension," or maybe confused this with another thread, I believe I stated that we can know God in many ways, but ultimately God in His entirety cannot be fully known and comprehended via human logic and mental understanding. One way I believe one can understand God, and personally experience God, is emotionally. Another is through scripture. And I also think that we can express limited understanding through logic and reasoning---though clearly not all of us agree on logic and reasoning.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: rossacus




Bible said Israel will become a nation again...They were correct 1900 years later.....priceless.


Well the predictions were pretty spot on:

Amos 9:14-15
I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,” says the Lord your God.

Never to be uprooted again...remains true

Ezekiel 37:10-14
So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet--a vast army. Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’

Consider this occurred 3 years after the Holocaust.

Isaiah 66:7-8
“Before she goes into labor, she gives birth; before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son. Who has ever heard of such a thing? Who has ever seen such things? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children.”

Born in a day. True as well.. doesn't matter how long after the prophecy occurred and it means the last days are here. The signs are all around you. The warning is clear.




The bible was meant for the Israelites and them alone. In those days, as an outsider of God's people you would not have been accepted, as referenced many times in the bible. You would have been forced as a slave because God condoned it.


I don't think you understand the historical context of the area of the Bible you are talking about. Slavery in ancient Judaism was a form of debt payment, and because people willingly entered into slavery God set rules upon it. Kidnapping or taking someone against their will was forbidden and punishable by death.

Exodus 21:16

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."

I also guess you forgot God's promise to Abraham:
“I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”

The bold portion is a reference to the gift extended by Christ, and its not just for Israel its for the nations of the world.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Achilles92x

Your usage of the word magic and the implied definition really demonstrates your open mindedness to this idea and ultimately limits the conversation. God is not "magical."


So he used what??? A hammer and nails, maybe some construction paper and markers to make the universe????


I was hoping someone could clarify exactly what their claim would be from an atheist perspective. My apologies for not using the correct definition... Care to provide some info on it? I'm familiar, but it's been a while.


Here is a link to a lecture about it from Krauss. It's a bit long so you may want to skip ahead to find what you're looking for but if I remember right he talks about what that means in this lecture. But basically when a physicist uses the term "nothing" it's not exactly nothing as in absolute nothingness. It involves quantum mechanics and is a little complicated. But basically "nothing" is used in two different ways depending on if it's a scientist or a philosopher saying it.


Unless I mistakenly left out my full statement about "beyond our comprehension," or maybe confused this with another thread, I believe I stated that we can know God in many ways, but ultimately God in His entirety cannot be fully known and comprehended via human logic and mental understanding. One way I believe one can understand God, and personally experience God, is emotionally. Another is through scripture. And I also think that we can express limited understanding through logic and reasoning---though clearly not all of us agree on logic and reasoning.


I don't think you can. Knowing means being able to show or provide demonstrable evidence for why you know it. You cannot do that with God so therefor it is a belief. A step further would be to say that that belief is also not demonstrable and therefor based on faith. Feelings or emotions you feel do not amount to evidence of anything other than you have emotions. Scripture is also not evidence of anything other than some people wrote some stuff down. I don't think belief in God is found through Logic and Reasoning but just the opposite. Using logic and reasoning should lead you away from belief and faith rather than the opposite.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Achilles92x

Your usage of the word magic and the implied definition really demonstrates your open mindedness to this idea and ultimately limits the conversation. God is not "magical."


So he used what??? A hammer and nails, maybe some construction paper and markers to make the universe????


I was hoping someone could clarify exactly what their claim would be from an atheist perspective. My apologies for not using the correct definition... Care to provide some info on it? I'm familiar, but it's been a while.


Here is a link to a lecture about it from Krauss. It's a bit long so you may want to skip ahead to find what you're looking for but if I remember right he talks about what that means in this lecture. But basically when a physicist uses the term "nothing" it's not exactly nothing as in absolute nothingness. It involves quantum mechanics and is a little complicated. But basically "nothing" is used in two different ways depending on if it's a scientist or a philosopher saying it.


Unless I mistakenly left out my full statement about "beyond our comprehension," or maybe confused this with another thread, I believe I stated that we can know God in many ways, but ultimately God in His entirety cannot be fully known and comprehended via human logic and mental understanding. One way I believe one can understand God, and personally experience God, is emotionally. Another is through scripture. And I also think that we can express limited understanding through logic and reasoning---though clearly not all of us agree on logic and reasoning.


I don't think you can. Knowing means being able to show or provide demonstrable evidence for why you know it. You cannot do that with God so therefor it is a belief. A step further would be to say that that belief is also not demonstrable and therefor based on faith. Feelings or emotions you feel do not amount to evidence of anything other than you have emotions. Scripture is also not evidence of anything other than some people wrote some stuff down. I don't think belief in God is found through Logic and Reasoning but just the opposite. Using logic and reasoning should lead you away from belief and faith rather than the opposite.


I can certainly know God on an emotional level, with evidence. I may not be able to prove that to you, but to me it is something I legitimately feel like a sensation and is therefore evident to me. This sensation I experience can also be tested and repeated, but since only I have access to my mind and emotions, it's not something I can properly articulate to a nonbeliever

You're making the mistake of assuming that human logic--particularly your logic-- is a universal law. It isn't. It's flawed. My logic =/= your logic.

To me, it's more logical to say:
1. God has always existed. God is beyond the universe. God created all things and all things have eternally been within him. God is intelligence and consciousness. We experience intelligence and consciousness and that stems from pre-existing intelligence and consciousness. God.
2. It does not make logical sense for the universe to have no intelligence behind it. Through God, eternal, pre-existing consciousness and intelligence, the universe exists. Through him, life, our consciosness and intelligence exists. It does not make sense for life, our consciousness and intelligence to have spawned from non-intelligence and randomness.

Essentially, we must both accept that the universe indeed exists and that our consciousness/intelligence exists (well, at least one can know one's own exists). Atheists believe that the universe's energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so in a way, the universe just is, but non intelligently and purposelessly. The only difference is that I replace the word "universe" with "God" and conclude based on the existence of life, consciousness, and intelligence that those things have always existed as well through God and were not created randomly.
edit on 22-5-2015 by Achilles92x because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Achilles92x
I can certainly know God on an emotional level, with evidence. I may not be able to prove that to you, but to me it is something I legitimately feel like a sensation and is therefore evident to me. This sensation I experience can also be tested and repeated, but since only I have access to my mind and emotions, it's not something I can properly articulate to a nonbeliever

You're making the mistake of assuming that human logic--particularly your logic-- is a universal law. It isn't. It's flawed. My logic =/= your logic.


A feeling you have is not demonstrable evidence and that is what I'm talking about. It is also not even something verified by you. How do you know that feeling is God? Have you examined it or tested it to make sure and validate that it's not just gas, or cancer, or a brain abnormality, or something else??

I'm not assuming anything about logic nor asserting logic as a universal law of some kind. There are different forms of logic. When I say logic I mean the process used to validate or invalidate some theory which I can demonstrate or show why I'm making each step. That would be a form of evidence. That is how you prove something. Because let's be honest, Nobody cares what you or I think. They do care about what you or I can prove.


To me, it's more logical to say:
1. God has always existed. God is beyond the universe. God created all things and all things have eternally been within him. God is intelligence and consciousness. We experience intelligence and consciousness and that stems from pre-existing intelligence and consciousness. God.
2. It does not make logical sense for the universe to have no intelligence behind it. Through God, eternal, pre-existing consciousness and intelligence, the universe exists. Through him, life, our consciosness and intelligence exists. It does not make sense for life, our consciousness and intelligence to have spawned from non-intelligence and randomness.


Doesn't seem logical to me at all. You are inserting God because you want to. You could just as easily say the Universe is Eternal so there is no need for God to come first to create it. You're still left with the same dilemma too. Where did an Eternal Universe come from?? or Where did an Eternal God come from??

It's easy to just claim an Eternal God Creator but you can't explain how such a thing could even exist so to claim that as true is a lie. You can't show any proof or evidence of God but you go even further and claim to know the attributes of God also. That is hardly logical.


Essentially, we must both accept that the universe indeed exists and that our consciousness/intelligence exists (well, at least one can know one's own exists). Atheists believe that the universe's energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so in a way, the universe just is, but non intelligently and purposelessly. The only difference is that I replace the word "universe" with "God" and conclude based on the existence of life, consciousness, and intelligence that those things have always existed as well through God and were not created randomly.


Yes, I will agree that we exist and we share that existence in basically the same way. Like I said earlier, you choose to replace Universe with God. Actually you don't even replace them at all you just put God before Universe. But anyway, I don't see the reason to do that other than because you want to.

Don't make the mistake of saying "Atheists believe....." There is no collective beliefs with Atheists other than they "lack belief in God". That's all. Other than that Atheists believe all kinds of different things.

BTW, you skipped over how God created everything if it wasn't magic.
edit on 22-5-2015 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join