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

Dear Itisnowagain, let us talk about how God is terrific with achieving the Big Bang some 13.8 billion years back.

I read that Christians and Muslims also admire God's achievement in the Big Bang, but they are both after getting something from Him, like their getting rich and having plenty of babies like the number of sand in the shores of oceans etc. etc. etc.

What do I say about that?

You can only imagine.

a reply to: Pachomius

Asked you a question.

So. What faith that you mislabel as religion have you proven to be false?

I now have the rational certainty and it is not a matter of faith, but of investigation on existence, namely, that God and existence are identical.

a reply to: Pachomius

You

I now have the rational certainty

That you claim in a being is everywhere, but contradict yourself in that being does not dwell in love? And creates without love of creating?

A being that created everything? But contradict yourself by stating hate and love are solely a construct of humans? And they don’t get the love of creating from their creator?

You

certainty and it is not a matter of faith

But that is all you have. Faith in your own circular logic.

but of investigation on existence

You haven’t investigated squat. You invited a god in your mind, and justify your own self by discrediting other person’s faith and experiences by crapping all over them.

namely, that God and existence are identical.

Still not an answer to “ So. What faith that you mislabel as religion have you proven to be false? ”

a reply to: Pachomius

I would think an investigation to justify you little g god would be a sound and thorough investigation into the gods of other faiths, and an actual thorough debunking of each.

But. Your saying the god of creating couldn’t be fluid, transform to appear as needed to different creatures of its creation to facilitate specific reactions and understanding.

Say logic to one person. Service and sacrifice to another? Music and sound to another? Force of nature to another. Spirituality to another.

Are you willing to box your little g god into a pigeon hole who’s existence is bigger and has more dimensions than your material mortal mind can handle?

Well, Neutron, you have your ideas, and I have mine.

My ideas are founded on investigation of existence, yours are founded on your reading of the Bible.

I wish you the best reward from your God of the Bible.

a reply to: Pachomius

You

My ideas are founded on investigation of existence, yours are founded on your reading of the Bible.

Blatant falsehood concerning myself, my experiences, and what I have posted.

There is a reason why people think your a self centered joke.

Anyway.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
And maybe your God only exists because someone or some book told you about it.

More like for me personally. I have felt God’s presence from hiking mountains all by myself, to working wheel chair ramp building and home rehabilitation mission trips, and in pray. A faith of spirituality that dovetails with the Bible while trying to be the hands and feet of God. Being part of the body of God.

Producing something tangible.

Now. What impact has Pachomius god made on lives?

—————

Now. Answer your questions

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Pachomius

You

I now have the rational certainty

That you claim in a being is everywhere, but contradict yourself in that being does not dwell in love? And creates without love of creating?

A being that created everything? But contradict yourself by stating hate and love are solely a construct of humans? And they don’t get the love of creating from their creator?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Pachomius

Asked you a question.

So. What faith that you mislabel as religion have you proven to be false

a reply to: neutronflux

That you claim in a being is everywhere, but contradict yourself in that being does not dwell in love? And creates without love of creating?

A being that created everything? But contradict yourself by stating hate and love are solely a construct of humans? And they don’t get the love of creating from their creator?

Please find and copy and paste a quote where Pachomius said that hate and love are human constructs.

I can't seem to find any post where Pachomius even mentions the word 'love'.

originally posted by: Pachomius
On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas. Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear colleagues here say?

[Please everyone, bear with me, I still have to re-learn how to write in ATS forum, as I used to know some over two years ago.]

1. If this is an infinite multiverse, god exists. Because in an infinite multiverse, at least one universe was created by a creator.

2. Science can not, and will never be able to prove the origins of the universe. Which means any theory about a creator is just as valid as a theory about space explosions.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux

That you claim in a being is everywhere, but contradict yourself in that being does not dwell in love? And creates without love of creating?

A being that created everything? But contradict yourself by stating hate and love are solely a construct of humans? And they don’t get the love of creating from their creator?

Please find and copy and paste a quote where Pachomius said that hate and love are human constructs.

I can't seem to find any post where Pachomius even mentions the word 'love'.

Hello. I have provided the quote only too or three times.

Star here. If your not too lazy to read what is actually posted.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Itisnowagain

And again...

quote]originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Itisnowagain

In fact. The better question is this. What faith has Pachomius proven has being a false religion?

a reply to: neutronflux
This?

When and if ever you get to see the big picture of things, i.e. on the realm of existence above all other realms, that realm of existence where God dwells, there is neither good nor evil, it is all pure existence.


Good and evil, that is what humans do to fellow humans, and starting with evil or with good feelings and deeds toward one another.

I can read.

If your not too lazy to read what is actually posted

I read what was actually posted.......many times.....seeking for the word love......where is the love?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
This?

When and if ever you get to see the big picture of things, i.e. on the realm of existence above all other realms, that realm of existence where God dwells, there is neither good nor evil, it is all pure existence.


Good and evil, that is what humans do to fellow humans, and starting with evil or with good feelings and deeds toward one another.

I can read.

If your not too lazy to read what is actually posted

I read what was actually posted.......many times.....seeking for the word love......where is the love?

Ok. Good. Love is the extension of good. Is that false.

Now quote where Pachomius said his little g god dwells in love.

What did Pachomius say where his little g god dwells. And was free of?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Done with this game. If you want to worshiping and quote Pachomius as some sort of prophet. That’s your businesses.

Now.

In fact. The better question is this. What faith has Pachomius proven has being a false religion?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
This?

When and if ever you get to see the big picture of things, i.e. on the realm of existence above all other realms, that realm of existence where God dwells, there is neither good nor evil, it is all pure existence.


Good and evil, that is what humans do to fellow humans, and starting with evil or with good feelings and deeds toward one another.

I can read.

If your not too lazy to read what is actually posted

I read what was actually posted.......many times.....seeking for the word love......where is the love?

Love is the extension of good. Is that false.

False.

What did Pachomius say where his little g god dwells. And was free of?

In the realm where there is neither good or bad (evil).

Btw:
It is man that ate from the tree of knowledge of good and bad (evil).....not God.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
This?

When and if ever you get to see the big picture of things, i.e. on the realm of existence above all other realms, that realm of existence where God dwells, there is neither good nor evil, it is all pure existence.


Good and evil, that is what humans do to fellow humans, and starting with evil or with good feelings and deeds toward one another.

I can read.

If your not too lazy to read what is actually posted

I read what was actually posted.......many times.....seeking for the word love......where is the love?

Love is the extension of good. Is that false.

False.

What did Pachomius say where his little g god dwells. And was free of?

In the realm where there is neither good or bad.

Btw:
It is man that ate from the tree of knowledge of good and bad......not God.

Whatever dude.

If you don’t understand love is not able to exist in the absence of good. That if there is no evil, the contrast that makes love possible to exist. That Pachomius was referring that his little g god is beyond human constructs of good and evil and love as an extension, your blinded by whatever crush you have on Pachomius making you brainwashed.

Really pitiful.

Anyway...

Now.

In fact. The better question is this. What faith has Pachomius proven has being a false religion?

I am forever at odds with myself on things like this. By nature I am a very pragmatic thinker, yet I still manage to maintain my faith.

If God created the universe, where was God before the universe existed? And where did God come from? Can God reproduce? Does that mean there is more than one God?

Then there is part of me that wonders about the extreme unlikeliness of something like spontaneous life springing from primordial ooze that evolved into the myriad of fauna we see today. Doesn't seem like there was no 'plan' there, but who knows...

I am the author of this thread on:
"Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not."

And here is the op:

posted by Pachomius on Jun, 25 2020 @ 01:12 PM

On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear colleagues here say?

--------------------------------------
[Please everyone, bear with me, I still have to re-learn how to write in ATS forum, as I used to know some over two years ago.]
edit on 24-6-2020 by Pachomius because: Mistake of sending a post that had still nothing on it - and I just pressed my enter key twice to bring up two empty lines.

So, let us all work as to concur on things needed to resolve the issue God exists or not.

No need to seek my credentials, just see if you everyone writing here, can we all concur on matters that will resolve the issue God exists or not.

First item for us all to concur on is the name God, what does it stand for?

Now, if you anyone seek to convince everyone else that the name God is as funny as the name, orbiting teapot in space (Bertrand Russell) or flying spaghetti monster (Russell's fans), then I would suggest that you go and start your own thread, instead of writing here.

I have thought about the meaning of the name, God, and today my concept of God is as follows:
“God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (22 words)

You notice that in my concept of God, He did and is still doing it, namely, everything that scientists are trying to explain, and also more than scientists are trying to explain, namely, things that scientists don't care to explain at all like the question where does a dead person go upon death.

So, please, as the name God is already very well-known and I for one maintain that my concept of God is generally the common one that English literate people understand to be God, let us concur at least on the name, even though you everyone might want to add to or detract from what God has done and is still doing.

There, what do you say, guys writing here, do we concur on the use of the name God, in re the resolution of the issue, God exists or not?

Someone thinking himself very smart will right away inform everyone that with the concept of God, there is already the circular reasoning on the existence of God.

I tell you, please concur with me, that we will go forth into the universe that is studied by scientists, to seek for evidence that points to the existence of God, starting with the nose on our face, which nose is an example of something that has existence.

So, there is no circular reasoning here.

My concept of God has to do with what I call God from reason, now others here want to talk about their God from religion: well, that is all right with me, except that your God from religion is not worth any attention from mankind unless He has achieved everything that scientists are studying and even more, like continuing the existence of dead people who are supposed to have souls as per the common teaching of people with their God from religion.

Now, dear readers and fellow posters here, see how and what reactions we will read from posters here who have been active in this thread.