Who is Gods creator?

reply to post by SamaraTen


"Worship me so I can save you from what I would do to you if you don't worship me!!"

That's the impression I get. Very psychologically damaging.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I should be able to make my own choice. I deserve to choose my own destiny and not be punished.

You are able. How is it you even know what you deserve ? And your own destiny? I can't imagine even making a decision like that. I always thought of destiny to be something that has to find you, with a lot of luck. As for being punished ?

The wages of sin is death and it's already been appointed for each man once to die. Whether or not you experience the second death is where you have made your choice in this life..I truly believe, this is how atheists get exactly what they were hoping for all along anyway. Ceasing to exist. Just as before they were born, life becomes a space between two nothings. The tuff part is what they see before they get there wish. Apparently.
This is my take on it after all my years and everything seems to fit rather well but who knows ? I seek and must remain humble. Cause I don't know squat. No matter the amount of reading or knowledge or anything ! I don't know Jack.

Forgot to proof read !

reply to post by randyvs

You are able. How is it you even know what you deserve ? And your own destiny? I can't imagine even making a decision like that. I always thought of destiny to be something that has to find you, with a lot of luck. As for being punished ?

If we do not choose "God", we choose eternal damnation. No matter how our lives turn out. Isn't that right?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

eternal damnation

I'm sure you're aware of the many definitions. Does constant torment in hell fire for eternity sound like mercy to you ?
Does it sound just ? Righteous ? No one would follow that kind of God willingly. Therefore this can not be true.

You are cut off from God.

reply to post by randyvs

I'm sure you're aware of the many definitions. Does constant torment in hell fire for eternity sound like mercy to you ?
Does it sound just ? Righteous ? No one would follow that kind of God willingly. Therefore this can not be true.

You are cut off from God.

How many times did Jesus mention hellfire? And if that isn't the case, then why is it taught in churches all over the world?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

How many times did Jesus mention hellfire? And if that isn't the case, then why is it taught in churches all over the world?

I'm guessing 53 but you most likely know. They may be teaching Gods exact word, with just enough spin on it, to make people fear anything other than what the church tells them. You know this stuff.

reply to post by randyvs

I'm guessing 53 but you most likely know. They may be teaching Gods exact word with just enough spin on it to make people fear anything other than what the church tells them. You know this stuff.

Then what makes any of the rest of it any more reliable?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Then what makes any of the rest of it any more reliable?

Woe hold up there now ! I did not say they changed anything. This is why I seek God on my own. Between translations is enough for me. Then you get someone one else's interpretation of the message that has been translated ? Uh uh nope !

I can read.

Seems it was only about 15 times that Jesus mentioned hell while he was on earth. So I wasn't even close.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by SamaraTen

 

"Worship me so I can save you from what I would do to you if you don't worship me!!"

That's the impression I get. Very psychologically damaging.

John 4:23-24

23:Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24: For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth."

Worship Definition

1. (a.) Excellence of character; dignity; worth; worthiness. 2. (a.) Honor; respect; civil deference. 3. (a.) Hence, a title of honor, used in addresses to certain magistrates and others of rank or station. 4. (n.) The act of paying divine honors to the Supreme Being; religious reverence and homage; adoration, or acts of reverence, paid to God, or a being viewed as God. 5. (a.) Obsequious or submissive respect; extravagant admiration; adoration. 6. (n.) An object of worship. 7. (v. t.) To respect; to honor; to treat with civil reverence. 8. (v. t.) To pay divine honors to; to reverence with supreme respect and veneration; to perform religious exercises in honor of; to adore; to venerate. 9. (v. t.) To honor with extravagant love and extreme submission, as a lover; to adore; to idolize. 10. (v. i.) To perform acts of homage or adoration; esp., to perform religious service.

SPIRIT Definition

1 : an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms 2 : a supernatural being or essence

TRUTH Definition

sincerity in action, character, and utterance

In other words:

Worship is keeping it real and being sincere to something greater than yourself.

reply to post by SamaraTen


That's a Bible dictionary. It's not objective nor is it consistent.

Merriam-Webster definition:

1wor·ship
noun ˈwər-shəp also ˈwȯr-
Definition of WORSHIP
1
chiefly British : a person of importance —used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
2
: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
3
: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
4
: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

And truth:

c : the body of true statements and propositions
3
a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality

In other words:

Worship is keeping it real and being sincere to something greater than yourself.

By the way, sincerity and veracity are two completely different things. A truth is not required for belief. You should know that.

This.....again....

Who made God? Incomprehensibly to humans locked in three dimensions plus time, the creator of the universe exists outside of time. So without time, the term “beginning” has no meaning, the term “end” has no meaning, the term “now” has no meaning, and the term “eternity” has no meaning.

The statement "God requires a creator" implies an infinite regress. Applying an infinite regress to science...let me go ask a top notch scientist "Who created the big bang?"

Edit to add: The question doesn't merit an answer. You have just asked what I refer to as "a dumb question". It has no valid answer and leaves one at the brink of simply stating their opinion or remaining silent on the matter which in turn lets you say "aww you don't know...?"

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Modern Homo Sapiens has existed for 500,000 years - in stark contrast to the Earth's 4.5 billion years of age. Exactly how far did we expect to get in the relative split second we've existed in our scientifically capable capacity? Especially with these nagging superstitions dragging us down...

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Not "how far did we expect to get" rather..."how far have we come"...

A2D

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Not "how far did we expect to get" rather..."how far have we come"...

A2D

Hello my good man !

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by SamaraTen

 

That's a Bible dictionary. It's not objective nor is it consistent.

Merriam-Webster definition:

1wor·ship
noun ˈwər-shəp also ˈwȯr-
Definition of WORSHIP
1
chiefly British : a person of importance —used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
2
: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
3
: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
4
: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

And truth:

c : the body of true statements and propositions
3
a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality

I don't give a # what your idea of worship is. Worship has become detrimental to the psychological condition of the human mind. We have less confidence in ourselves and more confidence in our imaginary friends.

edit on 23-3-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Your #2 definition says the same thing.

reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power

REVERENCE Definition

A feeling of profound awe and respect and often love; veneration. See Synonyms at honor. An act showing respect, especially a bow or curtsy

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
reply to post by AthlonSavage

 

Divine Being started all of this as imperfect within itself, and never should have foisted this upon innocents thinking the human would complete ITSELF (that is/was the plan all along).

shadow herder
What is the aim of the incarnation of spirits?

"It is a necessity imposed on them by God, as the means of attaining perfection. For some of them it is an expiation; for others, a mission. In order to attain perfection, it is necessary for them to undergo all the vicissitudes of corporeal existence. It is the experience acquired by expiation that constitutes its usefulness. Incarnation has also another aim, namely, that of fitting the spirit to perform his share in the work of creation; for which purpose he is made to assume a corporeal apparatus in harmony with the material state of each world into which he is sent, and by means of which he is enabled to accomplish the special work, in connection with that world which has been appointed to him by the divine ordering. He is thus made to contribute his quota towards the general weal, while achieving his own advancement."

The action of corporeal beings is necessary to the carrying on of the work of the universe; but God in His wisdom has willed that this action should furnish them with the means of progress and of advancement towards Himself. And thus, through an admirable law of His providence, all things are linked together, and solidarity is established between all the realms of nature.

Who are you quoting AGAIN. I dont disagree. Repeated incarnations are to correct past Karma (in the worst case) or to further the progression/progress of the individial soul (in the best case); part of soul group higher selves being those past lives.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Well, for those of us who are simple minded in this respect, God is that intelligence that was responsible for our creation.

I am a middle aged Jewish man, fairly conventional. I roam a little outside the mainstream in a couple of areas. I believe much of what we are told detail wise about our world may not be accurate; the reality of our nuclear arsenal, the reality of the Apollo moon landings, the true history of the events constituting the Holocaust. Where I do roam outside the mainstream, I find myself making my commitments based on facts. This isn't a Holocaust thread, but to make my point, what I mean by that is we now know more like 1.5 million people were murdered by Nazis in Auschwitz during Hitler's reign of terror, not 4 million as was originally advertised. This is a fact, and so when I do go outside the mainstream as is the case with my Holocaust position, it is a pretty safe and well supported mainstream. In the case of the Holocaust, the facts tell us it did happen, these are the facts after all. But there is the Holocaust mythology that stands apart from the facts, a sort of official story that endorses a certain orientation and world view, a very much pro Israel one. It is important when dealing with these matters to not confuse the two, the facts on the one hand and the official mythology of grand world events; "Apollo and the Moon Landings", "The Holocaust" , "The Building of the American Atom Bomb and the Development of the American Nuclear Arsenal",

But with religion and views about our origins, this type of thing is not even possible. And such views about our origin is in fact what we mean by "GOD". God is that which created us. God is the creative power, what ever it is, that accounts for our being here. There are only two options. That power is fundamentally intelligent=religion=my Judaism, or that power is an entirely natural, mindless, directionless entity. It cares not for whether you are here or not. By their very definition, both of these creative forces cannot be held by one person as both being responsible for his or her life. The God of Genesis made us, or the God of Darwin made us. And the philosophies are mutually exclusive. (By God of Genesis I do not mean literally the God of the Jews. I mean an intelligent being that had the power to create and did create this Universe. The Jews may not be the chosen people. The intelligence that made the universe may not be Yaweh. But if that is the case, it does not mean that another intelligent being could not have made me.)

"God" is the she, he, it, responsible for our creation. This is what we mean by the term in its most important and fundamental sense. And sadly, and most difficultly, one is forced to commit to choosing one or the other, Yaweh vs Darwin, outside of any collection of facts. And for me personally, it turns out that here I am conventionally Jewish. I suspect I think as I do because of my parents, strong personalities. I am God's creation, as is this entire Universe. That is what I think, about myself and the universe. This is what it means to fundamentally to be Jewish, or Christian, or Muslim. I know about it from the Jewish perspective, but compare notes with my gentile friends.

I have seen other postings by writers more articulate than I am who know more of biology so I will not say too much here. But as far as I can tell, no one has brought up this important point and I would like to emphasize it. Whether we admit it or not, and this includes the most atheistic of scientists that march to Darwin's beat, we all pretty much go it by way of faith, no matter what, and kind of crazily, what is expected of us is this sort of schizophrenia, a splitting of oneself. We wind up with an illogical mess of a perspective until you get strong enough to make the big choice.

Those of us that go to college, or graduate school even as I did, we all know and are expected to parrot that we are the product of evolution. That God or the creative power in this universe is nature herself. We were all made without any intentionality whatsoever by a blind, undirected, uncaring, thoughtless process. But on Saturday in Temple I am expected to go along with this idea that I was created by a loving intelligence as were all of the people now reading these lines. But the two cannot be held as true by the same person if that person is to have any self respect and intellectual integrity. And so those of us who do think and feel about this conundrum wind up letting one of the "Gods" go, either the Jewish God of the Book of Genesis, or the natural creative force first described by Charles Darwin.

I wound up letting Darwin go. I cannot base my choice on facts as I do with trying to understand other controversial issues. No one saw God create me. No one saw a fish become a reptile become a bird, and there is no detailed fossil record to support such was the case. So you play a hunch or just go with what feels better in terms of deciding who created you.

On some level I prefer to see myself as that beautiful human being created with intention and purpose as opposed to being the end product of a mindless natural process. I think I chose as do many on more or less a preference as there are no real facts to go on. There is no hunch to play for me either way, although I suspect for some people there might be a sense of hunch. There are no facts to appeal to except the fact that I like myself better as the creation of God as an intelligence as opposed to "God" as a mindless creative force in nature.

It is an aside, but I think we could end the debate about prayer in school and teaching evolution vs creationism in school by simply pointing this out and going with it. We all acknowledge evolution as it is usually taught in high school has a fight to pick with Judaism in that they are incompatible with respect to the difficulty described above. We can talk about that in class and I think the problem is so solved.

my two cents

reply to post by vethumanbeing


If God created Humans in a mortal body which ages doesnt that indicate the envitable entrophy of the body and mind with age. Does this point away from perfection?
Could it be possible God created Humans as perfect against his image in the form of a first born. Then as we age and progress we become less and less perfect?

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Not "how far did we expect to get" rather..."how far have we come"...

Not nearly far enough to act so high and mighty. There is no reason to act as though we are the ultimate and final species to dominate this planet. In a couple million years, we'll be lumped in with the Egyptians and Mayans, and in a few billion years, we will probably be regarded as a higher functioning manifestation of the dinosaur era. We are no more permanent than any other species or civilization that came before us. We are not immortal, and it terrifies us that we might be forgotten in the passage of time, that we might be no more significant than an insect corpse left moldering in the attic. Perhaps, then, we should take the time to act like the gods we hold so dear - or better yet, better gods than the ones we hold dear. Perhaps we should give ourselves more credit, and thus become inclined to make more of an impact. The future won't direct itself.

Originally posted by Sleepwalk85
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Leaving this quote for reference.

God would indeed have an explanation for His existence, but it would be in the necessity of His own nature.

Which is a complete guess and shows your inference is not true. If god exists as per that inference, then he must follow it. #2 cannot be proven. If you can prove it, then you have a CHANCE at #5 being true. If the universe has an explanation, it could be ANYTHING that we don't know about yet. Throwing a god into the equation is guesswork. We don't know the answer. There are plenty of hypotheses on what caused the big bang but nothing based on objective evidence. God is a guess.

No, you couldn't because pink unicorns, flying crocodiles, etc., wouldn't be able to produce universes fine-tuned for intelligent life. They wouldn't possess any explanatory power.

How do you know this? How do you know that god can? It's just guesswork.

Are you saying premise 2 is false? Otherwise, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. If all of the premises in a sound deductive logic are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily.

Yes, #2 is a guess. Can you prove that the cause of the universe is god? If you can't, then #2 is speculation and can't be used as objective evidence. Prove #2 and we're in business. If you cannot, the inference is logically debunked.

The moral argument:
If there are no objective moral values, then by what standard are you going measure your conduct? How could one say so-and-so is a "good" person if "good" is completely subjective?

Ask a Buddhist how they manage to follow morality and have empathy without a creator. Measuring your conduct is easy based on empathy. You live and let live. Treat others as you would like to be treated. If you are not causing suffering to others, then you are doing the right thing. It's not complicated. You don't need a written code to realize this in today's day and age that hurting others (mentally, physically, or financially) is wrong.

You can try and be a good person with or without belief in God, but that's not what is being talked about. What is being talked about here is called moral ontology. The existence of objective moral values. If there were no objective moral values, then by what standard would you be able to say empathy is "good"? Why couldn't somebody just as easily say empathy is "evil"?

Empathy is understanding how another person feels. It is the metaphorical, "take a walk in my shoes". If you can put yourself in another's shoes and use that to decide how to treat them, then it's a win. By that definition, it cannot possibly be evil, since you are treating them how they want to be treated.. By "objective moral values" I'm assuming you mean, "Do this, or burn forever in hell"? If only there was evidence to confirm that. Since there isn't, it cannot possibly be objective. It is one camp's guess on the "rules" based on ancient texts. Empathy surpasses ancient rules, texts and guidelines because it is the ultimate guideline and the only "objective" one that matters and can directly measured in how people react and feel about various situations.

Once you understand what God is then it follows that if the existence of God is even possible, then He exists. The reason is because to say God is possible is to say He exists in at least one possible world. But if a necessary being--a being who cannot fail to exist--exists in one possible world, then it follows that He cannot fail to exist in all the other possible worlds, which would include ours.

That doesn't sense! What do you mean he exists in a possible world? He either exists or he doesn't. Possible does not equal real, unless you are saying he exists in your head. But just because he exists in your possible head, does not make him exist in everyone else's. "A necessary being that cannot fail to exist". Again, please prove this as it is the primary assumption that your inference relies on. You are saying, if he can exist, he exists. That's the bottom line, and it's not logical in the least. It is deception to sell religion, nothing more. This is beyond debunked now unless you've got evidence to back up what you are saying.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

for reference

Which part is an assumption? The fact that our universe is incredibly improbable and possesses certain properties that are balanced on a knife's edge and allow for it to sustain life? Or the possible explanations for the universe possessing these properties?

#1 = assumption. There could be other factors involved. #2 = assumption. You cannot prove it is not due to physical necessity or chance(naturalistic). You also cannot prove that the universe was fine tuned by an intelligent being. You are guessing that, because that's the way it is. If the universe was fine tuned for life, god did a terrible job since life is only capable of existing in .00000001% of the universe. You'd think the universe would be oozing with life if created by intelligence for that specific purpose, but we still haven't found any other life other than planet earth. So much for fine tuned.