Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
Just because you believe in 'a' god doesn't mean there is 'a' god!!

False argument by you. Quote where posted there is no God.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
Just because you believe in 'a' god doesn't mean there is 'a' god!!

False argument by you. Quote where posted there is no God.

You believe or have faith there is a God..........but it does not mean there really is a god.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
Just because you believe in 'a' god doesn't mean there is 'a' god!!

False argument by you. Quote where posted there is no God.

You believe or have faith there is a God..........but it does not mean there really is a god.

If that is what you have faith in, go for it.

As for me, I have faith there is a God.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

And it might not be like a judgement situation. Or it might be. But everyone’s spirit stands before the creator’s spirit upon our physical death.

MONO



Dear Neutron, can we talk about something else, like do you know you exist and how you know you exist - and no more on your stock knowledge and information from your very own most personal reading of the Bible.


Dear readers and my fellow honest intelligent productive thinkers and writers, the man will revert again to me being dishonest, a hypocrite, the language to communicate with God, dictionary meaning of faith, etc etc etc...

And he also tells me that I am getting more attention than I deserve - false modesty aside, I need that, thanks!

(Softly, hehehehehehe...)

a reply to: Pachomius

How many posts did you post concerning asking people the definition of god or faith.

After people posted a definition of god or posting a definition of faith....

Now its your turn.

You don’t think god can communicate? Isn’t that the bases of an intelligent being. Communication?

Please define the language of god in fifty words or less?

———————

Funny. People would provide a definition of god or faith on your fool’s errand. But you cannot even attempt to define the language of god in fifty words or less?

a reply to: Pachomius

You

Dear readers and my fellow honest intelligent productive thinkers and writers, the man will revert again to me being dishonest, a hypocrite, the language to communicate with God, dictionary meaning of faith, etc etc etc...

I have cited and quote where you were “ dishonest, a hypocrite” is that false.

Cite and quote where I have posted dishonest or hypocritical posts.

There are factually many different gods! Definitely don't assume the Christian God is the one true God, or the only God, as there is no evidence of that anywhere.

I can tell you for a fact that the Christian God is NOT a universal God, or else one wouldn't have to be baptized to be under Him. A universal God rules over all, regardless of whether they are baptized or not.

So even if Gods or God exists... you still have to prove that the Christian God is the correct one. Which will be even harder to do. There are many other Gods throughout history, and even in the world today, that are worshipped just like the Christian God is.

I think Christians want to prove their God is the "correct" one for everybody so that they can force others to think their way for some reason. But the chances of this are extremely low.

In the end, in America, we live in a nation where church and state are separate, so the Christian God has no authority over the citizens of the U.S. unless they submit it to Him with their own free will.

In America, authority is given to facts, evidence, and science. Look at our court system, for example. It relies on evidence, not prayer and prophecy, to determine verdicts. Laws made from prayer and prophecy are to be reserved for the various churches.

Believing that the Christian God has authority over those who don't give it to him of their own free will is a pipe dream.

Christians need to return to their churches and stop trying to rule over people who are not part of their flock.

a reply to: darkbake

I can tell you for a fact that the Christian God is NOT a universal God, or else one wouldn't have to be baptised to be under Him.

Baptism is not “control”. Jesus in the Bible had command over demons without the aid of baptism.

Is that false.


According to the Bible and the lord “ every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.”. And that is not dependent on baptism. Is that false.

If you don’t believe in the Bible that is your choice. But your view is not a true representation of what the Christian scriptures state about baptism, the nature of baptism, or the control of the Lord.

MONO




Dear darkbrake:

Thanks for coming over, it is good that I come across a new face, have you been here before?

Anyway, I seem to have experienced some kind of a eureka, and I am - embarrassingly, so excited to share my finding with everyone, who will just focus also with me on existence.


Why on existence?

Because it is the most entire whole total complete picture of reality that mankind has and there is no other such a picture.

If you can’t accept existence is the most complete picture of reality, tell me what is more complete, okay?

So, I now see very clearly that Stephen Hawking and Bertrand Russell and all humans who talk about this and that and say there is no God, whatever they mean by God, they are not into honest intelligent productive thinking, but playing tricks with incomplete picture of reality.

They are dishonest because they don't factor in the whole complete picture of reality, for example, with Hawking, he says that gravity, laws of physics, etc. etc. etc. together dispense with the existence of God, but I ask you, Does he have a complete picture of reality, when he does not or he dispenses with such questions as where do the laws of physics come from, where does gravity come from, etc. etc etc.

With Bertrand Russell, he hoodwinks all the time simple folks with derailing the issue God exists by funny analogies to God, like orbiting teapot in space, and his emulators continue with flying spaghetti monster.

And he is dishonest in not factoring in the fact that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years go, for he says that if there be an entity without beginning or existing from itself, then it can be the universe than God - whatever his concept of God which he compares to an orbiting teapot in space.

Russell and Hawking, they are in awful need to be examined by psychologists than by honest intelligent productive thinkers.


Anyway, dear darkbrake, what is your most complete, entire, full, whole, total picture of reality?


And I feel embarrassingly excited, and so glad to meet a new face, because it seems - false modesty aside, there used to be several posters here very busy but sad, busy in derails than in honest intelligent productive thinking, I shall not mention one persistently busy but totally outside any complete picture of reality - (softly hehehehehehe).

And I must credit this ATS website for their great attitude of letting me develop my ideas here, what with a lot of websites whose moderators are so busy with their self-grandiosity of their power platform, I can't even break a little wind and they are already locking up my threads.



a reply to: darkbake

a reply to: Pachomius

You

Russell and Hawking, they are in awful need to be examined by psychologists than by honest intelligent productive thinkers.

In a free country, people that don’t agree with you are clinically insane? Seems like your modern version of the spanish inquisition?

You want to infringe on free will and free thought granted by the creator?

Hi Pachomius,

Thank you for the kind welcome!

I agree with your theory of everything.

And yes, to answer your question, I believe that there has always been existence in some form.

I have heard it said before that God is both Everything and Nothing.

And the way I make peace with this paradox is to view nothing or no-thing as a state of pure potential and within this state of no-thing, everything is possible.

In this way, God is both everything in existence and pure potential as well.

Have you by chance read the Kybalion? It is said to contain wisdom passed down in ancient times by Hermes/Thoth. I found it very helpful in developing my understanding of God and our Reality.

You can find the pdf of this book online for free. Here is the link that I used:
www.pdfdrive.com...

Thanks again for putting together such an interesting and fun thread!

MONO



Dear mankind:

What do you say about my concise clean easy expatiation* to the existence of God from the fact of existence, thus:

1. There is the fact of existence, for example, the nose on our face.

2. There are things with a beginning, for example, you and I.

3. This is my concept of God: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

4. Things with a beginning owe their existence to ultimately an entity that exists without a beginning, meaning this entity exists from itself, by itself, for itself, in itself, through itself, i.e. this entity is self-existing.

5. Wherefore: God exists in concept as defined in step 3.

6. And the proof is in step 4.

Please dear readers, present your objections or comments.


.

Thanks dear OwenandNoelle, for your kind words.






a reply to: OwenandNoelle



*For readers who are honest intelligent productive thinkers.

.

MONO




I have put in time and labor to study Dawkins' lie aka dishonesty, falsehood on his blah blah blah complexity and improbability, with his conclusion that it is improbable that God exists.

He should were he truly into honest intelligent productive thinking, instead of lying with blah blah blah about complexity and improbability, start with the fact that there is the existence of the nose on his face, and wherefore there is the fact existence is everywhere and all the time, no need to talk blah blah blah about complexity and improbability which are all inside his mendacious heart and mind...

From that point onward to the existence of things with a beginning, and then inevitably from logic to the existence of an entity that is self-existing.

There, he would have come to the existence of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

That is the core trouble with die-hard atheists, like Bertrand Russell and Stephen Hawking and now with Dawkins, they lie all the time, playing tricks with language and concepts, all spuriously manipulated inside their lying heart and mind, when they should have just get started with the fact of the nose on their face, i.e. with existence itself, such a simple idea that is always in the conscious experience of man.

MONO



I am putting my neck out, let the die-hard atheists see if they can chop it off, with their mendacious blah blah blah of complexity and improbability and etc etc etc and also deep deep deep deep and high high high high and abstract abstract abstract abstract abstract mathematics, which is plenty of mathematricks, just let them have the honest intelligent productive heart and mind to deny that there is the existence of the nose on their face and balls between their thighs - unless they, sad, don't have them balls between their thighs: because it can be that them balls have not descended downward as to hang from their groin - an abnormality.

Anyone not coming out first and foremost with the fact of existence, any honest intelligent productive thinker can and is sure this anyone not coming out first and foremost with the fact of existence, he is the proverbial satan father of lies, or a henchman of satan.


NOT SOFTLY - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

MONO



I have now my theory of everything in existence.

But I have not answered the question, What is the purpose of existence, even though I have come to certainty to the existence of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

At this point I posit the distinction between the God of reason and the God of religion, the God of reason is for me, and the God of religion is that of Neutron - Neutron has according to his own kind of evidence, a personal relationship with God, that evidence is his faith in his God as he knows God from his kind of Bible mastery.

I say my God is the God of reason, but I do not say that I disown any God of religion, my position is that my God of religion is of a religion that I might for the present call DNH Christianism, meaning Do No Harm Christianism.

And what is the purpose of God in my DOH Christianism? God just loves to create, period.

originally posted by: Pachomius

MONO



Dear mankind:

What do you say about my concise clean easy expatiation* to the existence of God from the fact of existence, thus:

1. There is the fact of existence, for example, the nose on our face.

2. There are things with a beginning, for example, you and I.

3. This is my concept of God: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

4. Things with a beginning owe their existence to ultimately an entity that exists without a beginning, meaning this entity exists from itself, by itself, for itself, in itself, through itself, i.e. this entity is self-existing.

5. Wherefore: God exists in concept as defined in step 3.

6. And the proof is in step 4.

Please dear readers, present your objections or comments.



a reply to: OwenandNoelle



*For readers who are honest intelligent productive thinkers.

.

In my estimation, "God" is like a self-writing, self-editing computer code - a logical progression, ever advancing within the bounds of possibility, but with no particular meaning other than the functions it produces. Which makes us basically a product (or perhaps by-product) of this eternally changing code. Associating "God" with mammalian feelings (another by-product serving only reproductive/survival purposes) is way off course. God doesn't "care" per se ... God just does what God does.

MONO



Dear DeReK DaRkLy:


I am very disappointed with you, because you have not started with existence, please write again and start with existence, okay?

As we humans are the only live entities discussing God exists or not, then we mus start with existence of me and you and him her it - why it, also? because there could be another live entity which is like us humans i.e. with intelligence and free will, and occupied with the question, Is there a God?


So, dear DeReK DaRkLy, start with studying existence, touch the nose on your face for an example of what is existence, okay?

originally posted by: DeReK DaRkLy

In my estimation, "God" is like a self-writing, self-editing computer code - a logical progression, ever advancing within the bounds of possibility, but with no particular meaning other than the functions it produces. Which makes us basically a product (or perhaps by-product) of this eternally changing code. Associating "God" with mammalian feelings (another by-product serving only reproductive/survival purposes) is way off course. God doesn't "care" per se ... God just does what God does.

a reply to: Pachomius

Humans are the only living thing existing that speaks on Gods behalf. We judge other people in the name of God.

We speak as if we are Gods.... With all knowledge... We speak as if we are the only living thing with a mind.

We treat all other living thing that is not human as non worthy living bodies. We treat them as Game, and we treat them as our property. We have no respect for our own existance and we show no respect for any other living thing. And yet we speak on Gods behalf....

a reply to: spy66

We treat them as Game,

Like predators? Like a cat with a mouse? Like a pack of wolves? Oh. I guess wolves in a pack can at least work together?

Like a:

Rare Footage Shows Beautiful Orcas Toying with Helpless Sea Turtles

www.livescience.com...

What animal would torment helpless sea turtles. Oh, never mind.

————-
If you believe in only evolution, and no god with no moral authority. Only humans could label natural behavior from evolution seen in humans as “evil”

Was Hitler evil? Or just a product of evolution?