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.

 

We want REASONS for God!!!!!

page: 9
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'm from Saskatchewan. Either which way the point of the verse being quoted shows that God's prophet Elisha could have chosen a better way but he decided to send a bear attack on people. Perhaps the translations need to be better so that the proper intent is put across. However the way I read it whether it be KJV or NIV reads that some young people called Elisha Baldy and he sent bears to attack them.

This poses two problems. First nobody actually can call bears to attack people at their whim. Secondly what kind of a loving God would do that instead of using any other method. God could have just made his presence known to the young men but instead he attacks them with bears?




posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: akushla99




reply to Q1: What 'property' is 'essential'?


A property is essential if it is an attribute or set of attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity.

So for example, a square necessarily has 4 sides. Having 4 sides is an essential property of squares as without four sides add more or less its not longer a square.





No. They may just be entertaining delusions...and that's ok...as long as we understand that they would have no way of knowing what a Gods' morality IS.


Ok, but what reason do you have for believing such a thing? Could not an omnipotent being grant us this knowledge


...unless that 'square' that is being posited, is actually a cube, seen flat-on...then, what 'it fundamentally is...' cannot be its essential property/ies...if you are working backwards from 'It is a square', then working forwards to 'these are its attributes'...the gun has been jumped.

"Ok, but what reason do you have for believing such a thing?'

...because you would need to be privvy to the omni-everything of the personality that possesses such qualities - and anyone who claims that is either a liar or needs professional help...

Delusions are not pretty, but they are allowed - all you need to remember is that an OMNI-everything is the Source, which means everything will truck along just fine and no-one needs to be saved from a non-existent arch enemy sprung from the awesome OMNIness who didn't see it coming, or did, and was/is only playing deus-chess with its pieces...

Whether anyone believes it, or not - is irrelevant...

Å99
edit on 8-4-2016 by akushla99 because: adding irrelevancies



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

There is also a link to a youtube playlist where that video is used in the appropiate context (but the reason or point for that video was already made at the end of what I quoted about the word "God" in the comment before it, which I was quoting 1 line from, or are you talking about the first video?). The link under the word "God" has more details regarding the attributes of God just below what I have quoted so far from that source, which I mentioned in my previous comment (you probably lost attention towards the end, including the section "Proofs of the existence of “the living God.”". The whole thing is a response to what I quoted and helps with understanding how the words "God", "god" and "gods" are used in the bible; which is required to gain any understanding as to what the word "God" means depending on who is using it and in which context, it's also beneficial to know for those here who neglected to respond to what I quoted from Rex282 while they expressed their beliefs in God. Just like any other word out there, it's beneficial to be aware that words can be used in different ways, which is why dictionaries will have multiple definitions listed for 1 word. Don't blame me for not explaining anything when you're keeping your mind shut to avoid understanding and allowing your emotions and attitude towards knowledge (a familiarity with facts) to not look beyond my immediate words in the comment or what you can see at the figurative 'surface'. Or are my links simply not working? Please confirm if the links under the word "God" and the sentence "Real science, knowledge about realities compared to philosophies and stories" are working or not (anyone can do that for me).
edit on 9-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Please define energy because my understanding of energy is that it is a number in kinematics.


Just a number?




posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'll bite on "how do you know what God is like?"

It's my favorite ontological issue of all time.

Now, I usually ask Christians three questions, as the following questions are typically
held to be true:

1) Do you believe that God is omniscient?
2) Do you believe that God is omnipotent?
3) Do you believe that God is omnipresent?

Typically Christians, and in fact most people answer Yes! to all 3.

So then i ask this final question:

So if God wanted to lie to you, you'd have no way of knowing that you were being lied to?



God is also OMNI-Benevolent (Pure/Holy/Perfectly Good) so God would not deceive people.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: arpgme

just remember that omnipotence means "almighty" or "all-powerful", it does not mean, can do anything, including breaking the laws of logic and performing contradictions (see Titus 1:2 and remember that logical contradictions are lies, God can also not be a party to a lie, or take part in a lie, that would be included in the statement at Titus 1:2).

Omnipresence is another lie about what the bible says about God, copied by the major religions of this world from Pagan religious philosophy (pantheism and/or deism, there's some overlap but I guess Deism emphasizes more how God doesn't interact with his creation anymore, but there are Deists out there who teach or express their beliefs that God is everywhere or everything, or in everything).

The Bible’s Viewpoint: Is God Everywhere?:


In several Bible verses, “the heavens” are mentioned as God’s “established place of dwelling.” (1 Kings 8:39, 43, 49; 2 Chronicles 6:33, 39) However, one Bible account describes the magnitude of Jehovah God with the following terms: “Will God truly dwell with mankind upon the earth? Look! Heaven, yes, the heaven of the heavens themselves, cannot contain you.”—2 Chronicles 6:18.

“God is a Spirit,” says the Bible. (John 4:24) Therefore, he resides in a spiritual realm independent of the physical universe. When the Bible refers to “the heavens” as God’s dwelling place, it is referring to the loftiness of the place where he resides in contrast with the material environment in which we reside. In any event, the Bible teaches that God’s abode is, indeed, clearly distinguished from the physical universe but is at the same time a very specific location.—Job 2:1-2.


Oh, seeing the bad translations online I'm afraid I'm going to have to quote Titus 1:2 from a proper translation anyway (NW):

and is based on a hope of the everlasting life that God, who cannot lie, promised long ago;

I was hoping you could just look that one up but the first 2 results in google give me the NIV, which says "who does not lie" and the KJV can't even get the English grammar right with "that cannot lie" (God is not a "that").
edit on 9-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
The reason for God is there's no reason. God and human relation is simply like master to slaves. When slaves want to be happy, they obey and follow the master. When slaves want to be free, the master will f*ck them up. I believe in God, cos ive seen unexplained things (probably alien, or ghost, or whatever, i dont know what they were). I was an agnostic. Now im religious. I guess im just playing safe. I had been a rebel, and it just proved me that rebellious life didnt make me happy, as if there's a higher energy up there who always crashed my life path over and over, and then lead me back to a straight path when i repent. My life purpose is to be happy, and im happy so far living as i am today.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

What part of that explosion are you implying is energy?



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: akushla99




unless that 'square' that is being posited, is actually a cube, seen flat-on...then, what 'it fundamentally is...' cannot be its essential property/ies...if you are working backwards from 'It is a square', then working forwards to 'these are its attributes'...the gun has been jumped.


This goes to show that you are not even speaking in the realms of ontology. Its not about what if I saw a cube on a flat blah blah blah...its about the nature of a square. It is essential for a square to have 4 sides. Thats indisputable as that is part of what it means to be a square.




..because you would need to be privvy to the omni-everything of the personality that possesses such qualities - and anyone who claims that is either a liar or needs professional help...


Why would I need to be privy to the omni-everything in order to have moral intuition given to me by this being?





Delusions are not pretty, but they are allowed - all you need to remember is that an OMNI-everything is the Source, which means everything will truck along just fine and no-one needs to be saved from a non-existent arch enemy sprung from the awesome OMNIness who didn't see it coming, or did, and was/is only playing deus-chess with its pieces... Whether anyone believes it, or not - is irrelevant...


Define the Source all you did was take a term you made up and gave it some vague meaning your not being clear and precise with your thoughts at all.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




This goes to show that you are not even speaking in the realms of ontology. Its not about what if I saw a cube on a flat blah blah blah...its about the nature of a square. It is essential for a square to have 4 sides. Thats indisputable as that is part of what it means to be a square.


A square doesn't actually exist, except in concept....on paper, so to speak. It can't have "a beingness".

The first real object that can exist in our reality/dimension is the tetrahedron. It has four sides, but unlike a square and your concept of god, it actually exists, solidly in the real world.





edit on 9-4-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: akushla99




unless that 'square' that is being posited, is actually a cube, seen flat-on...then, what 'it fundamentally is...' cannot be its essential property/ies...if you are working backwards from 'It is a square', then working forwards to 'these are its attributes'...the gun has been jumped.


This goes to show that you are not even speaking in the realms of ontology. Its not about what if I saw a cube on a flat blah blah blah...its about the nature of a square. It is essential for a square to have 4 sides. Thats indisputable as that is part of what it means to be a square.




..because you would need to be privvy to the omni-everything of the personality that possesses such qualities - and anyone who claims that is either a liar or needs professional help...


Why would I need to be privy to the omni-everything in order to have moral intuition given to me by this being?





Delusions are not pretty, but they are allowed - all you need to remember is that an OMNI-everything is the Source, which means everything will truck along just fine and no-one needs to be saved from a non-existent arch enemy sprung from the awesome OMNIness who didn't see it coming, or did, and was/is only playing deus-chess with its pieces... Whether anyone believes it, or not - is irrelevant...


Define the Source all you did was take a term you made up and gave it some vague meaning your not being clear and precise with your thoughts at all.


tell me...to begin your little experiment, please tell me what the 'nature of god' is by which you are determining the 'fact' of its squareness...or perhaps you could begin with its squareness - and proceed to its nature...pfffft...you've really got no idea what you're saying...

Å99



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 04:44 AM
link   
a reply to: aphon




The reason for God is there's no reason. God and human relation is simply like master to slaves.


God is not just a "slave-master" relationship. God is a Friend...

"11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you."
- John 15:11-15

and God is Our Father Who Art in Heaven...

"35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful."
- Luke 6:35-36


"44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
" - Matthew 5:44-46

Yes, God is called "King" but the Heavenly view of "King" is not the same as the selfish worldly version. Here is how Jesus sees it:

"24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
" - Luke 22:24-26


God does not turn you into a slave. God sets you free from the path of death (pain/suffering/darkness) and helps you stay on The Narrow Path of Life:

"12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
" - Matthew 7:12-14



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




A square doesn't actually exist, except in concept....on paper, so to speak. It can't have "a beingness".


Abstract Concepts have a nature. Part of their essential nature would be that they are immaterial and another part would be that they exists necessarily. If you have the knowledge of the abstract concept, "square", then you understand that a square cannot possibly have 3 sides. All shape concepts work this way.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




A square doesn't actually exist, except in concept....on paper, so to speak. It can't have "a beingness".


Abstract Concepts have a nature. Part of their essential nature would be that they are immaterial and another part would be that they exists necessarily. If you have the knowledge of the abstract concept, "square", then you understand that a square cannot possibly have 3 sides. All shape concepts work this way.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Yes, but abstract concepts exist in another dimension, not in the reality in which our physical bodies exist. You're proposing a god that exists, by necessity, in our physical reality, or dimension, as well as every other reality or dimension.

You haven't, in my mind, proven that god exists in our physical reality.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




Yes, but abstract concepts exist in another dimension, not in the reality in which our physical bodies exist.
You're proposing a god that exists, by necessity, in our physical reality, or dimension, as well as every other reality or dimension.


I am proposing that Maximally Great Being exists in the actual world, that does not necessarily entail that he be expressed physically in the same way we are. I would also present the idea that the Kalam Cosmological Argument leads to the existence of an unembodied mind. See again you are looking to refute the argument on the basis that you have never observed a Maximally Great Being physically. This does nothing to refute the first premise of the argument, your lack of observation does not make it impossible that a Maximally Great Being exists.




You haven't, in my mind, proven that god exists in our physical reality.


I haven't made the argument that a MGB exists in reality in the same way we exists in reality. I have simply argued that in some way it must necessarily exists in the actual world based solely on its essential nature.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




See again you are looking to refute the argument on the basis that you have never observed a Maximally Great Being physically.


On the contrary. The solar system actually exists and is exponentially a greater "being" than myself. Then you have the Milky Way Galaxy, and on and on........So, it would logically follow that a "Maximally Great Being physically" would be the physical body of all that exists in total; The Universe. Ergo, ipso fatso..the Universe is God's body.

Am I right?

We are made of "God's body" and our mind is a piece of the mind, the consciousness that arises naturally from the body of the universe, of God.

God is not anywhere. God is everything and everything is God.


edit on 10-4-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




On the contrary. The solar system actually exists and is exponentially a greater "being" than myself. Then you have the Milky Way Galaxy, and on and on........So, it would logically follow that a "Maximally Great Being physically" would be the physical body of all that exists in total; The Universe. Ergo, ipso fatso..the Universe is God's body.


Those things are only greater in quantitative sense not a qualitative sense. Meaning they are only greater in the sense that they are larger not in the sense that they have more great making properties than you. Also the universe is a contingent entity in that in began to exists. I would offer the Kalam Cosmological Argument there.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




Those things are only greater in quantitative sense not a qualitative sense.


They are when you're talking about the physical universe. Now, if you're, again, talking about a conceptual reality, which exists separately then the physical reality, then "quality" can be conceptualized by the observer, from the observer's perspective (opinion) only. 4 is always greater than 3 in the physical reality. However, one may prefer 3 over 4 in a conceptual reality, opining that 4 is too many, for example.



I would offer the Kalam Cosmological Argument there.


And I would offer that the Big Bank was merely an exhale in a universe that is continually self creating and has no beginning or end, essentially being timeless.


edit on 10-4-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




They are when you're talking about the physical universe. Now, if you're, again, talking about a conceptual reality, which exists separately then the physical reality, then "quality" can be conceptualized by the observer, from the observer's perspective (opinion) only. 4 is always greater than 3 in the physical reality. However, one may prefer 3 over 4 in a conceptual reality, opining that 4 is too many, for example.


Wrong even if your talking about the physical universe nothing about a solar system necessarily entails that it is greater than you in an ontological sense. 4 is not always greater than three but 4 is always higher than three ina quantitative sense. You again are using an equivocation fallacy in order to strengthen your position.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join