Atheists: A God Might Not be Impossible

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Does your God teach people to hate? I hope not - oh wait...

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Some people cant' be taught is what I'm discovering..

And no, my God teaches love even in the face of hatred.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Really? My parents were told to go to hell by a pastor. Hundreds have died by the religion that teaches "love in the face of hate".

We turned it into hate in the face of love, because we need something to use against the world and the Bible has just a few too many loopholes...I wonder why?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Please do not be persuaded to hate the God of Love, that's a mistake.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


The "God of Love" says my parents, friends, and myself are going to hell. With all due respect, your god can shove it.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

The "God of Love" says my parents, friends, and myself are going to hell. With all due respect, your god can shove it.

Hmph, that's not what I'm saying in the other thread you're participating in.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I know exactly what you're saying, that's why I don't agree with it. If you want to redefine the words "love", "unconditional", "justified", "equal", "hypocrite", "contradiction", and "spirit", go right ahead. Just don't expect me to rewrite logic because of your insecurities with the nature of reality.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Take life out of the equation in your reasoning of Gods - now we just have a universe with matter in it - is there a specific "way" this universe should "be"? Hate and love wouldn't exist or good and evil. Such abstract concepts only exist in the presence of life. Pick some galaxy far far away that is entirely devoid of life (hypothetically for this post). Does this galaxy contain evil, or love? How would your God interpret this galaxy? It just IS. Human kind creates love, hate, good, and evil. If anything, I would say the source/creator/God intended for us to be able to utilize such faculties. You may perceive this post as evil, and I perceive it as good, and God may very well just see it as a post and nothing more.

Actually, right now, I have the ability to perceive this post as any one of the three possibilities or all of them simultaneously. So which is it - is this post good, evil, both, or neither?

Originally posted by adjensen
There are fundamental laws of physics that govern this reality. They are the same here as they are on the other side of the galaxy, and the same today as they were a billion years ago. If they were to somehow change, even by a little bit, it would destroy the universe, and if they were a little different originally, the universe would never have formed.

No, no, I not saying change the laws of physics. I'm saying how can we be sure we have all the laws right? We've made thousands of corrections over the years. Who's to say we have it all tucked away nice and neat now?

reply to post by jiggerj


Ugh, I lost my post...

Long story short - we will always be re-writing physics for small corrections or new discoveries until we are no longer viewing our universe from the 1st person.

Think of this: CERN smashes particles together to see what happens, and they learn from it.
Also: Computers send out pings to network devices to "learn" about their network environment.

In the second example, as a human being and not a computer, I am a 3rd person observer of the computer networking. I already KNOW the network topology, the computer has to do things to figure it out on its own (which includes poking around in the dark essentially).

In the first example, we are 1st person observers like the computer. We are just plugging things in to see what comes out. Now if only we could become 3rd person to the universe, we would have every answer to physics or what have you without the poking around.

Just to add: Sometimes I feel like this process can't go upward, but only downward. E.g. I can be 3rd person to the reality of a computer, but I can't be 3rd person of a structure above me.

Originally posted by hidden0
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Ugh, I lost my post...

I HATE when that happens!

Long story short - we will always be re-writing physics for small corrections or new discoveries until we are no longer viewing our universe from the 1st person.

Think of this: CERN smashes particles together to see what happens, and they learn from it.
Also: Computers send out pings to network devices to "learn" about their network environment.

In the second example, as a human being and not a computer, I am a 3rd person observer of the computer networking. I already KNOW the network topology, the computer has to do things to figure it out on its own (which includes poking around in the dark essentially).

In the first example, we are 1st person observers like the computer. We are just plugging things in to see what comes out. Now if only we could become 3rd person to the universe, we would have every answer to physics or what have you without the poking around.

Just to add: Sometimes I feel like this process can't go upward, but only downward. E.g. I can be 3rd person to the reality of a computer, but I can't be 3rd person of a structure above me.

Everything you wrote makes a lot of sense for TODAY. A thousand years ago the people couldn't even make this statement because computers weren't invented yet. So, how can you (or any of us) make a statement on what we don't know YET? What technology will be available a thousand years from now? What new discoveries will there be in physics? We can only think in 21st century terms.

While the theme for god might not be impossible, the converse is that you should have darn good proof that it exists before one misleads half the planet to worship something they have yet to show the world.

I'd suggest show the world god before one tries to influence the athiest rejection of the religion games about god.

You got god, then introduce him without all the word games and then your problem is solved.

If not, then your quest is a waste of everyone's time.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Annee

 

Pheromones are sex, not love.

Tell that to a teenager.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Define "god" without including Christianity.

I believe I did.

And how many people will agree with this definition? My point is, you came up with that definition. That is how YOU define god, no one else. Therefore, you can completely redefine god in your mind, because there is no solid definition. No universal definition. Admittedly, it's a loose word, but whatever.

Do as you will.

We'll see.

When others begin to see the difference in the two.

reply to post by Annee


I suppose we will. But the question will be, on that day, which one will they take?

Because they will have to choose. They will hesitate. It will be hard for them to leave their beloved insurance behind. They will have the most difficult time choosing...

That will be the day we see how strong our species is at heart.

reply to post by Annee


We're not teenagers, so let us not mix the two in this discussion.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Annee

 

Do you teach her to hate the idea of God as well, I sure hope not..

Which God concept would you have me teach?

Here is one from the Pawnee. It even has Love in it.

Tirawa-Atius

The Power Above, creator of the heavens and the earth.

In the beginning Tirawa-Atius called the gods together to announce his plan to create the human race and promised the gods a share of power for their help. Shakura the Sun was assigned to provide light and heat, Pah the Moon was assigned the night, and Tirwara-Atius placed the Evening Star, the Mother of All Things in the west. The Morning Star he set to guard the east. After the gods had raised dry land from the watery chaos, Tirawa Atius told Sun and Moon to make love, and they gave birth to a son. He then told Evening and Morning Star to make love, and they gave birth to a daughter. So the human race was made.

All would have been well if Coyote had not stolen a sack of storms from Lightening. Opening the sack, Coyote loosed the storms and so brought death into the world. www.firstpeople.us...

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Annee

 

We're not teenagers, so let us not mix the two in this discussion.

This is not about me. I know my concept of Love.

My response was about teaching fact to my 12 year old granddaughter. Attraction to a partner is a physical built in mechanism. Its purpose is to ensure survival of the species.

It took me a long time to learn "attraction" is not Love.

I've had experiences since birth. I do not need some New Ager throwing out: "What About Love". If they are going to do that - - let's hear them define it.

reply to post by Annee


Love is caring about a person's happiness. That's about it.

Now, the degree of love it takes for marriage, or a relationship, or for bonding during intercourse, etc...that's depends completely on the individual.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Annee

 

I suppose we will. But the question will be, on that day, which one will they take?

Just so you know - - I fully understand what you are saying.

However - - it is important to me to continue presenting the separation.