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.

 

If God Exists

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: reddragon2015

I always thought it was funny how fantasy books that explore the concept of gods interacting with humans tend to explain away this inconsistency by saying that the gods need the humans' faith to survive and thus get their power from it.


Like Stargate SG1's "Ori".




posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Hmm, not sure how much I want to engage in this conversation. But I do want to add that many of you have the wrong concept for what we believe when it comes to God. Well, at least from an Islamic perspective.

Basically in Islam, God doesn't need us at all and "Life" as we know it is simply a set of temporary tests. The point in free will is to see if our spirits are worthy of living in the true realm (Heaven/Jannah), or if our AI programming is defective and should be sent to the "trash realm" (Hell/Jahannam).

My interpretation in modern speak would be that our universe is a 4 dimensional simulation/"sandbox"; our souls are an advanced form of AI; our Creator created the sandbox/simulation and all of the things in it, including the AI programs ("our souls"); and our bodies are the avatars/vehicles that allow the AI to interact in the simulation. Each of our AI will be given enough free will to prove itself or condemn itself. And we'll all be given the same basic set of tests, though in different settings.

For example, each AI program (our "souls") will get tested with thievery in general, thievery when in need, teaching others, abusing or helping others, making war or making peace, forgiveness or retribution, sharing or being stingy, etc. When the simulation is over, the AI programs that "passed" will be allowed into the real existence/dimension, while those that failed will be scrapped. The Creator and some of its programs leave clues in our sandbox/simulation, and sometimes trigger random events for each AI. But it's up to the AI to accept these or reject them.

So Islamically, the best way to pass this simulation is to accept and serve our Creator, while constantly doing good works to prove ourselves to Him. Our "ranking" is literally based on piety, not bank accounts, last names, or any other worldly attribute. Most of the rules in the Qur'an reinforce the basic concepts of treating His other Creations well, being an example of our proposed beliefs, trying to guide others to the same path, and standing up against the things that perpetuate negativity.

Of course, there are many different interpretations of individual Scriptures, including many which contradict what I just said. But we'll see on the Day of Judgment if I'm correct or if they are.

Hope that helps.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

This is very interesting, I have not encountered this explanation before..

How is "God" Himself defined according to this interpretation?



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

He's that Creator, of course lol. And going by my earlier example, the Angels would be apps or programs that He can use at will. Kind of like some of the tools in His toolbox.

In Islam, we don't believe Angels have free will, so they can only do what God instructs them to do. However, Humans and Jinn are some of the only creations that do have free will (note: our free will means "the ability to accept or reject our Creator", not "the ability to make a decision").

In this example, Jinn would be like formless/vessel-less AI that can interact with our own AI/Spirits. Different civilizations on Earth would consider them ghosts, spirits, youkai, demonic possessions, aberrations, hauntings, etc.

Our "Devil" (Shaytan) is simply a powerful Jinn that dedicates himself to misleading Humans and Jinn alike. One of the Qur'an's names for him translates as "the Sneaking Whisperer", since his only "power" is the power of suggestion/persuasion. We literally believe all of the negative thoughts Humans receive originate from Shaytan. So by rejecting our vices and temptations, we are literally rejecting our Devil (Shaytan means "adversary", like the word "Satan").

LOL In modern speak, we have to reject our inner demon in order to "pass" this simulation, while proving this through good deeds.

Edit to Add: Needless to say, you can see that our Devil is no match for our Creator. There is no "balance" between good and evil in Islam. "Good" is guaranteed to win on Judgment Day, and "bad" only exists as tests for each human. Shaytan is guaranteed to fail on the Day of Judgment, and the Qur'an says his "scrapping" has been postponed. That way, he can also try to corrupt as many Humans as he can, and those that follow his suggestions will be scrapped along with him. Islam's actually pretty cut and dry about this stuff lol.
edit on 18-3-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

"He's that Creator", is quite ambiguous..

Is He immortal? Is He a physical being? Does He exist in our time and space, or outside it? Can He be identified?



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

In thoery, He would exist outside of our 4 dimensional sandbox, though He can directly interfere or interact with things in the sandbox if He chooses to. Our belief is that Prophets could only perform miracles if God allowed it. So in this example, it would be like the Creator giving cheat codes to specific AI vessels (the Prophets), then giving those AI vessels instructions on how to interact with other AI vessels (the rest of us). But the Creator can also program Himself directly into the simulation, though He rarely chooses to. After all, too much direct interaction would defeat the purpose in us choosing our paths based on our own free will.

So if He exists outside of the 4th dimension and outside of our sandbox/simulation (the Universe), He would appear immortal to us. Same for the other Creations that exist outside of our 4th dimensional sandbox. So Angels, Heaven, Hell, and the such would be "immortal" beings and realms from the perspective of 4 dimensional creatures (us).

The Qur'an states that Humans literally don't have the capacity to see Him, as He exists beyond our capabilities. But He is also around us all the time and knows everything we think & do. So it's hard to say what He really is. I rationalize it that we 4 dimension beings are like movie clips in a video editor to Him. So those extradimensional beings can see any part of our lives, the same way we can jump to a specific scene in a specific episode of a specific season of a specific TV series.
edit on 18-3-2016 by enlightenedservant because: typos



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: spygeek

In thoery, He would exist outside of our 4 dimensional sandbox, though He can directly interfere or interact with things in the sandbox if He chooses to.


If He exists outside of our time and space, then how can He interfere or interact with things inside our time and space?

He would have to have some physical component existing in our sandbox, to have any influence over it at all.


Our belief is that Prophets could only perform miracles if God allowed it. So in this example, it would be like the Creator giving cheat codes to specific AI vessels (the Prophets), then giving those AI vessels instructions on how to interact with other AI vessels (the rest of us). But the Creator can also program Himself directly into the simulation, though He rarely chooses to. After all, too much direct interaction would defeat the purpose in us choosing our paths based on our own free will.


So He is able to enter and leave our time and space at will.. How is He able to do this?

When He does enter our time and space, how are we able to recognise Him? What physical characteristics does He have when in our universe? How are His actions in our universe distinguishable from natural processes?


So if He exists outside of the 4th dimension and outside of our sandbox/simulation (the Universe), He would appear immortal to us.


You may want to rethink your choice of words here; if he exists outside of our universe, He would not appear to us at all..

I see what you are meaning though: He exists outside of time so is essentially immortal.

If He exists outside of time, how can He recognise or perceive time?


Same for the other Creations that exist outside of our 4th dimensional sandbox. So Angels, Heaven, Hell, and the such would be "immortal" beings and realms from the perspective of 4 dimensional creatures (us).


I understand your meaning, but again, your wording implies that creatures in our universe can perceive creations outside of it, which is not so.


The Qur'an states that Humans literally don't have the capacity to see Him, as He exists beyond our capabilities. But He is also around us all the time and knows everything we think & do. So it's hard to say what He really is.


Understandably, we are unable to perceive anything outside our universe, which would include God.

However, if He is around us all the time and knows everything we think and do, then He must exist inside our universe at all times. For Him to exist in our universe at any time, requires Him to have some conceivable physical characteristics, independent of nature.

How can He exist both inside our universe at all times, and outside our universe?

How is He able to be physically present in our universe and around us at all times, yet beyond our capacity to see Him?


I rationalize it that we 4 dimension beings are like movie clips in a video editor to Him. So those extradimensional beings can see any part of our lives, the same way we can jump to a specific scene in a specific episode of a specific season of a specific TV series.


This rationalisation is flawed, in that He would be in the footage as well, around us at all times and knowing what we do and think. He would in fact be a character on screen, the camera itself, and the audience. Is He both existing materially in our universe at all times, and viewing our universe from the outside, simultaneously?

Is He omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, while also being able to make choices, exist without physicality, and limit His own power? How can He be these things when they are logical contradictions?

How can a being that is beyond our ability to perceive or recognise, or even define with any logical consistency, be said to exist with any certainty whatsoever?

Finally, how can something outside our universe be said to definitely exist, when nothing can possibly known by us about anything outside our universe?

Logic alone can be used to identify what cannot possibly exist outside of our realm of existence, but it cannot be used to identify anything that does exist there: For that, you require evidence, but because the realm in question is outside that of our existence, no evidence is obtainable.

The options become; accept that nothing specific can be claimed to exist in this other realm with any certainty, or have faith in a claim that something specific does exist in this realm, rejecting any logical arguments that might undermine the claim.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

Funny how you quote peoples responses that sound like you were talking to Christians and yet....the threats to the makers of the video were received from a Muslim apparently.

Is there a particular reason why you were reluctant to mention their religion?



The maker of the following video, "Qualiasoup", received death threats after publishing it. It's very unfortunate, although not surprising, considering the above.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: spygeek

There is a difference between controlled contrived religion (the tool of control) and real religion. Modern society and its 'satanic' leaders have muddied the waters. So any 'believer' is now a lunatic with no logic within. Therefore simple arguments against religion will always win on the face of it.


"Leaders" can not control or influence basic logic.
Correct, logic is logic. But leaders control education and the media. They have muddied the waters so that me, a non believer assumes all religious people believe in the same God, that all religious people believe outlandish things which require a leap of faith.


How is the logic of "controlled, contrived religion", different from "real religion"?

When reading the bible as a non believer it becomes apparent that underlying religion is about love. Love for others and helping those in need. That is what I would call real religion. Contrived religion is about controlling people with the threat of sin. Contrived religion is not learned through experience but drummed into is from being young.


How does "real religion" logically justify that a non-physical entity is omnipresent? That an omniscient being is capable of choice? That a "perfect" being requires worship?

That's the thing, it doesn't. I mention the bible above, the underlying message is clear but the idea of worshipping an idol is skewed. It is about worshipping love. So the idea of an omniscient being, creationism, these are to me like the theory of a sonic weapon pulling down the two towers. It serves to distract.




What is the fundamental difference between controlled, contrived religion and real religion?

As above.


In what way does a simple argument against religion win "on the face it", but lose on a another (real?) level?

A bit like what we've just been through. Or going deeper, a believer believes in something which they feel is right and true. Their belief is strong but because contrived religion has muddied the real religion they assume they have to believe (or are conditioned) into believing all the things in taught religion which defy logic.

I'm trying to look at this with an open mind. I'm new to this.
edit on 19-3-2016 by and14263 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: spygeek

Funny how you quote peoples responses that sound like you were talking to Christians and yet....the threats to the makers of the video were received from a Muslim apparently.


I wasn't talking only to Christians, I'm not sure how the few responses I quoted imply that I was..

How do these infer a Christian leaning?
"I was brought up to have faith, and taught that to question one's faith is a sign of weakness".
"why do you ask?"
"it's none of your business what I believe"
"I don't have to justify myself to anyone but God".

I suspect this is your own personal bias being projected here..


Is there a particular reason why you were reluctant to mention their religion?


Not really, I was talking about religious faith in general and I guess it didn't occur to me to single any out. What difference does it actually make what religion they belonged to anyway? Are you attempting to confirm a prejudice or stereotype or something?
edit on 19-3-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: and14263

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: spygeek

There is a difference between controlled contrived religion (the tool of control) and real religion. Modern society and its 'satanic' leaders have muddied the waters. So any 'believer' is now a lunatic with no logic within. Therefore simple arguments against religion will always win on the face of it.


"Leaders" can not control or influence basic logic.


Correct, logic is logic. But leaders control education and the media. They have muddied the waters so that me, a non believer assumes all religious people believe in the same God, that all religious people believe outlandish things which require a leap of faith.


Oh I see.



How is the logic of "controlled, contrived religion", different from "real religion"?


When reading the bible as a non believer it becomes apparent that underlying religion is about love. Love for others and helping those in need. That is what I would call real religion. Contrived religion is about controlling people with the threat of sin. Contrived religion is not learned through experience but drummed into is from being young.


I find it interesting that you state that you get from reading the bible that the underlying religion is about love, and the threat of sin is contrived, when the threat of sin is rather prominent in the bible itself.



How does "real religion" logically justify that a non-physical entity is omnipresent? That an omniscient being is capable of choice? That a "perfect" being requires worship?


That's the thing, it doesn't. I mention the bible above, the underlying message is clear but the idea of worshipping an idol is skewed. It is about worshipping love. So the idea of an omniscient being, creationism, these are to me like the theory of a sonic weapon pulling down the two towers. It serves to distract.


Oh I see, this makes sense.



What is the fundamental difference between controlled, contrived religion and real religion?

As above.


Yeah, I seem to have repeated myself, apologies.



In what way does a simple argument against religion win "on the face it", but lose on a another (real?) level?

A bit like what we've just been through. Or going deeper, a believer believes in something which they feel is right and true. Their belief is strong but because contrived religion has muddied the real religion they assume they have to believe (or are conditioned) into believing all the things in taught religion which defy logic.

I'm trying to look at this with an open mind. I'm new to this.


You are making sense, I think I misunderstood you a bit in your first reply.

You make a good point about people assuming they have to believe or are conditioned to belive illogical things mandated by organised religion. I have a friend who is Catholic. One particular wacky belief of the Catholic Church is transubstantiation. This is essentially the belief that when you take communion, the cracker and the wine are literally, (and I do mean literally), transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

"But it still looks like a cracker", I told my friend, "I know, but it is actually the body of Christ. The appearance doesn't change, or the taste, or the smell, or anything physical. It is a literal tranformation."

"You know how illogical that sounds, right?" "Yes, to a non-believer. I guess that's the difference faith makes".

Wow.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: spygeek




If He exists outside of our time and space, then how can He interfere or interact with things inside our time and space?


According to the Bible God always was and always is. If God always was and always is, then God is infinite.

If God is infinite God is not just existing outside Our Space. God must also be Our Space and everything within it. A God that is infinite can not exist outside anything...God takes up all Space there is...even Our time and Space.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

This means God is time and space itself, as well as anything and everything in it and anything that could conceivably be hypothesised to exist outside of it.

I am God, you are God, my car is God, my cat is God, my toaster, vacuum cleaner, and the mole inside my belly-button, everything is God..

So God is just another term for "existence"? He is not "a being", but being itself? "God" is not a noun, but a verb?

This in effect renders the definition of the term "God" both "everything", and "nothing". There is nothing He isn't, and everything He is. This effectively makes "God" a pointless and nonsensical term for describing anything at all..

Something existing with the property of infinity is not logical. It might as well not exist at all.
edit on 19-3-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
We would love his creation

















posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

-- Yes, It would mean God is Space itself and everything that fills it. God never said "I am" a being. Nothing can be conceivable hypothesied to exist out side of God when God is infinite. How do you do that?

You are not God, you are formed from the Properties of God. Everything that exist as finite is from the Properties of God. Our universe had a beginning and everything that was formed at that time is made from the Properties of God. We are Limited to create, build and explore from only what is within Our universe.

When Our universe was formed all the Properties to form life as we know it today was formed. Evolution proves that to a Limited degree.


--- Yes, God is a verb: I am.



--- When you say: This in effect renders the definition of the term "God" both everything and nothing. There is nothing He isn't, and everything He is. This effectively makes "God" a pointless nonsentical term of describing anything at all.

The definition between finite and infinite is very Limited i Guess. We dont have a full understanding of the definition of infinite, but we have a good grasp of what finite is. It probably would explain why some have problems getting around this.

Our definitions are Limited to Our knowledge.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: spygeek

-- Yes, It would mean God is Space itself and everything that fills it.


So everything, by definition, is God.


God never said "I am" a being.


What exactly does God say about Himself? How can something that is not a being "say" anything to any other being(s)?


Nothing can be conceivable hypothesied to exist out side of God when God is infinite. How do you do that?


I never suggested this. However, for God to have any kind of logical description, it is required to identify what God is, and what He is not. Otherwise He is just 'everything', is not distinguishable from anything, and can not be defined as being anything unique or definable at all.


You are not God, you are formed from the Properties of God.


You just said above that "God is space itself, and everything that fills it", not "space and everything that fills it are properties of God."

What does that even mean, "properties of God"? If everything is properties of God, then what properties does God have that are not everything that exists? This suffers from the same logical flaws as before. Besides defining what properties God has, you have to define what properties he doesn't have, otherwise He simply encompasses all properties, and therefore can't be said to have any defining properties at all.

At this level, "God" simply means 'the material universe'.


Everything that exist as finite is from the Properties of God.


So some properties of God are finite, but not others? What properties does God have that are not finite? What is left of Him when all finite properties are ignored or removed?


Our universe had a beginning and everything that was formed at that time is made from the Properties of God.


So God created the universe out of His own properties of space and time? Therefore God has the properties of being spacial and temporal? How can He also have the properties of being non-spacial and non-temporal, when this is a logical contradiction?


We are Limited to create, build and explore from only what is within Our universe.


Accepted. This is in fact the entire argument of agnostic athiests against the assertion that it can be logically claimed that God can exist.

You appear to believe in something that is both within and without our universe. I would like to know specifically what, (from within our universe, our limitation of exploring), indicates God.


When Our universe was formed all the Properties to form life as we know it today was formed. Evolution proves that to a Limited degree.


When our universe was first formed, no life could exist. It took the solidification of fundamental physical laws, through the interactions of various fields and dimensions, to allow for the formation of matter, which in turn allowed for the properties of life as we know it to exist.

Evolution proves nothing about the original formation of the universe or the original formation of life. It explains how life adapts with its environment and changes over generations.


--- Yes, God is a verb: I am.


Above you claimed that God never said "I am"..

"I am" is a statement of being 'a being'. "I" is a pronoun.

Is God, "am"? Is God "is"? Is everything that has the quality of am or is, God? If not, what makes God's own "is" or "am" unique?


--- When you say: This in effect renders the definition of the term "God" both everything and nothing. There is nothing He isn't, and everything He is. This effectively makes "God" a pointless nonsentical term of describing anything at all.

The definition between finite and infinite is very Limited i Guess.


You are correct; the definition between finite and infinite is limited; specifically it is limited to "finite" having and end point and "infinite" being having no end point.


We dont have a full understanding of the definition of infinite, but we have a good grasp of what finite is. It probably would explain why some have problems getting around this.


We actually do have a full understanding of the definition of infinite; it is the quality of being without end.

There is no getting around the fact that "infinite", like "nothing", cannot literally exist, without the rejection of logic.


Our definitions are Limited to Our knowledge.


Precisely. This is why God is indefinable. What is indefinable cannot be logically hypothesised about, let alone claimed to exist.

You have to come up with some kind of definitive description of what He specifically is, and separate Him from what He is not, otherwise He is nothing at all.

How can something that cannot be defined, be a 'something' at all?



Is God an entity?

If not, what is He?

Actually, that is the question. Forget my entire reply up to this point and simply logically answer the following without contradicting or refuting yourself:

What is God?

and

What isn't God?
edit on 20-3-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Text
a reply to: spygeek





So everything, by definition, is God.


Yes. by definition God is everything, even the Properties of finite.





What exactly did God say about Himself?


God said: "I am what I am".





So God created the universe out of His own properties of space and time? Therefore God has the properties of being spacial and temporal? How can He also have the properties of being non-spacial and non-temporal, when this is a logical contradiction?


God is absolute infinite empty space and absolute time, and is absolute neutral. This gives God a specific ID that can only be related to him. When God is infinite and takes up all Space there is, only God can form finite. Since God is absolute infinite and absolute neutral, finite can only be created by his Choice.

A absolute empty infintie Space will never form finite randomly on its own since a absolute empty infinite Space is absolute neutral as well. That would be common understanding of such a space..... ?? And it would be physically impossible as well for such a Space to form finite randomly.

For People who dont beleive in God will search for other solutions to this. The absolute empty infnite Space can be given many names. But no mather what, its property will never change.




There is no getting around the fact that "infinite", like "nothing", cannot literally exist, without the rejection of logic.


Correct.





Precisely. This is why God is indefinable. What is indefinable cannot be hypothesised or claimed to exist.

How can something that cannot be defined be a something?


I Guess only time can change and update Our defenitions of how much we will know further on. We have just not reached the time yet, to put a accurate defenition on God.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

Text
a reply to: spygeek





So everything, by definition, is God.


Yes. by definition God is everything, even the Properties of finite.


Therefore, I am God. So are you.




What exactly did God say about Himself?


God said: "I am what I am".


This means, "I am a being that is being".




So God created the universe out of His own properties of space and time? Therefore God has the properties of being spacial and temporal? How can He also have the properties of being non-spacial and non-temporal, when this is a logical contradiction?


God is absolute infinite empty space and absolute time, and is absolute neutral. This gives God a specific ID that can only be related to him. When God is infinite and takes up all Space there is, only God can form finite. Since God is absolute infinite and absolute neutral, finite can only be created by his Choice.


Any being that is infinite can not have the power of choice.


A absolute empty infintie Space will never form finite randomly on its own since a absolute empty infinite Space is absolute neutral as well.


So God, as you have described Him above, ("God is absolute infinite empty space and absolute time, and is absolute neutral"), will never infact form finite on His own. You are refuting yourself with this point.


What would be common understanding of such a space..... ?? And it would be physically impossible as well for such a Space to form finite randomly.


There cannot be any understanding of such a space at all, common or not, as it cannot logically exist.

You again are refuting your own claim, as you state that God, by your definition, would be physically impossible.


For People who dont beleive in God will search for other solutions to this. The absolute empty infnite Space can be given many names. But no mather what, its property will never change.


People who do not believe in God generally do not concern themselves with definitions of things like "absolutely empty infinite space", which cannot logically exist and are not required to exist to explain anything they believe. There is no need for them to search for a solution to the problem, as for them the problem does not exist.

Again you refute yourself, stating that the properties of God will never change, which means He is unable to do anything or make any choices.




There is no getting around the fact that "infinite", like "nothing", cannot literally exist, without the rejection of logic.


Correct.


Indeed.




Precisely. This is why God is indefinable. What is indefinable cannot be hypothesised or claimed to exist.

How can something that cannot be defined be a something?


I Guess only time can change and update Our defenitions of how much we will know further on. We have just not reached the time yet, to put a accurate defenition on God.


Accordingly, we have not reached a time wherein we are able to claim that God exists at all; at this point in time and for the foreseeable future, no God of any reasonable definition exists.
edit on 20-3-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: spygeek




Therefore, I am God. So are you.


No, being of God is not the same as being God. That is not even logical. You are not Your mom or Your dad, You are You.
You are who you are With a mind of Your own. You are made in their image With their properties.





This means, "I am a being that is being".


Yes. But God is not a human being. God is all that exists.





Any being that is infinite can not have the power of choice.


That is not logical at all. You are now putting limits on the Power of the infinite. A property that is absolute and is all Space there is. Can never change randomly because, it is absolute neutral.
Every change must be a Choice or there will never be any changes at all. It is absolute impossible for a absolute neutral infintie Space to change randomly by it self.





There cannot be any understanding of such a space at all, common or not, as it cannot logically exist.


I agree that we have problems understanding such a Space. But that is a part of Our limits. Our knowledge of Space and everything that fills it is Limited to time. We need time to learn and grasp, we dont know everything there is at this stage in time. Since we are Limited to knowledge and understanding, should we reject what we dont know or understand right now? I think we should have a open mind.





You again are refuting your own claim, as you state that God, by your definition, would be physically impossible.


I am not saying God is physically impossible at all. I am trying to explain to you what God is. I would say it is we (some more than others) who are physically Limited to understanding this.






People who do not believe in God generally do not concern themselves with definitions of things like "absolutely empty infinite space", which cannot logically exist and are not required to exist to explain anything they believe.


You wanted me to tell you what God is. And i did so. God always was and always is, and never changes. There is only one physicall state that can have this property. I also explained this to you. This state is not true any more. because God formed finite. So Space is not absolute empty any more. But as you agreed earlier.., Finite is not infinite. This means finite never always was and always is.
We know that what we observe and study within Our universe was formed 13,799 billion years ago. So the Logic sense should tell you that what we know is Limited to that time frame. We are also Limited to only study a Limited spec of Our expanding universe. We will never find a absolute empty Space within Our universe. And there is a Logic behind that to.

To compare the finite state within Our universe to a absolute infnite empty Space is not comparable. They are two different physical states. With two totally differnt time frames.
















edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66


originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: spygeek

No, being of God is not the same as being God.  That is not even logical. You are not Your mom or Your dad, You are You.
You are who you are With a mind of Your own. You are made in their image With their properties.


You said "by definition God is everything", not "everything is of God"..

Am I made from God's properties or my parents' properties? Both? How do I know which properties are my parents' and which properties are God's?

Is there any conceivable way to separate God's properties from any properties at all? Do non-God properties exist? If not, than that is not even logical..



Yes. But God is not a human being. God is all that exists.


Is the universe (all that physically exists) a being? What is the difference between the universe and God? Can He be separated in any way, from any thing?

We are still at the level of "God" simply meaning "the physical universe"..



That is not logical at all. You are now putting limits on the Power of the infinite.


If a being is infinite, it encompasses all possibilities and choices. How can it make choices when it already is all choices. How can it be limited to one choice and not another? That is not logical at all.

How can God make choice between A and B, if He already knows He will make choice A before the choice is presented? If God knows in advance all actions that He will take, then He can never be said to have made any genuine choices at all.

Infinity is limited to not being finite. This limitation is self-imposed by its own definition. Something cannot be be infinite and choose to be finite, that is a logical contradiction.


A property that is absolute and is all Space there is. Can never change randomly because, it is absolute neutral.


So God cannot change. He is changeless. He is absolutely neutral and incapable of change or choice, according to your definition.


Every change must be a Choice or there will never be any changes at all. It is absolute impossible for a absolute neutral infintie Space to change randomly by it self.


Therefore God cannot change Himself or His properties without choosing to, but He also cannot choose do this by Himself.



I agree that we have problems understanding such a Space. But that is a part of Our limits. Our knowledge of Space and everything that fills it is Limited to time. We need time to learn and grasp, we dont know everything there is at this stage in time. Since we are Limited to knowledge and understanding, should we reject what we dont know or understand right now?  I think we should have a open mind.


We should reject all claims that are logically impossible. We should reject all claims about beings that we can't ever possibly know anything about.

If we can't even define something because it is beyond our ability to logically comprehend, there is literally nothing to justify the claim that the thing exists in the first place.

No amount of time is going to make the logically impossible possible.



I am not saying God is physically impossible at all. I am trying to explain to you what God is. I would say it is we (some more than others) who are physically Limited to understanding this.


You said "it would be physically impossible as well for such a Space to form finite randomly."

Therefore God, (such a space), is physically impossible.

You have proposed an omnipresent being with no definable physical characteristics, an omniscient being that is capable of choice, and a being that is infinite, these things are all logical impossiblities.

Statements like "we are physically Limited to understanding this", beg the question. Effectively it is the claim that something exists in spite of the fact that we can't even logically define it.

All your saying is "We're human, it's beyond our understanding and ability to define, but it exists and I understand it."

If it is beyond our understanding, how can any of us make any claim about its existence?




You wanted me to tell you what God is. And i did so.  God always was and always is, and never changes.


If He never changes, then He never makes choices, you just refuted what you said earlier.


There is only one physicall state that can have this property. I also explained this to you.


The physical state in question, infinity, is physically impossible.


This state is not true any more. because God formed finite. So Space is not absolute empty any more.


Space never was absolutely empty. I'm not sure why you think it was.


But as you agreed earlier.., Finite is not infinite. This means finite never always was and always is.


The quality of finite means something has a beginning and end, correct. The quality of infinite means something may have a beginning, but does not have an end, it exists in perpetuity.


We know that what we observe and study within Our universe was formed 13,799 billion years ago. So the Logic sense should tell you that what we know is Limited to that time frame.


Agreed. We can make absolutely no claims about any beings existing outside of this time without making numerous assumptions and ignoring logic to support the claim.

If we are going to make a claim about a being that exists inside our time and space, we need to be able to logically define and identify this being.


We are also Limited to only study a Limited spec of Our expanding universe. We will never find a absolute empty Space within Our universe. And there is a Logic behind that to.


Absolute empty space does not exist and never has. Outside of time and space, there is no space. There maybe quantum fields, amoung other things, but not space.

We are limited to exploring our universe, as you rightly say. How can any being that transcends our universe be logically hypothesised, let alone claimed to exist?


To compare the finite state within Our universe to a absolute infnite empty Space is not comparable. They are two different physical states. With two totally differnt time frames.


An absolute empty infinite space is physically and logically impossible. All space is finite, by definition. Indeed, we cannot compare our finite space with a nonexistent, impossible space.

You still have not told me what God isn't. This is the fundamental fatal flaw of such arguments. As soon as you give the quality of 'infinite' to something, you lose any possible way of defining any recognisable characteristics. It simply becomes "everything", or "all that exists".

For something to be logically definable, it must be finite. There must be a line between what it is and what it isn't. If it encompasses everything that exists and anything that could conceivably exists, it becomes so vague and ambiguous as to be pointless.

We have a term already for everything that exists": 'the universe'. It has an effective definition, as it excludes anything that does not exist within it. It has finite boundaries outside of which there is no 'universe'. God, by your definition, excludes nothing and has no such boundaries. Therefore "God" by your definition is an indefinable and meaningless term.
edit on 21-3-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join