Greatest Proof of a Lack of a Deity?

[Susma Rio Sep]

When man was a child, God was no problem to imagine in man's mind. He was just a greater guy usually lurking behind the bush, sometimes being mischievous just for His fun; if you are lucky He might just favor you.

The Jews started monopolizing Him and convinced themselves and have been trying to convince everyone else that He has chosen them to be His own people. They even tell the rest of mankind of the contract they and God entered into, sealed by the cutting of their foreskin.

Things got complicated when people got to think more and more and had to imagine God to be bigger and bigger until He got to be infinite.

Now, we are really in trouble, God has become a negative concept: He's not this and He's not that, because He's not delimited in any way in quality and in quantity, if we may speak of quantity -- for even quantity is denied Him.

About the argument from the first Unmoved Mover. I think it is not founded upon true logical necessity, whatever Aristotle says otherwise.

It is not an argument but a pleading to accept an end to the endlessly continuing series of moved and mover, on and on and on... The pleading namely that we all stop the series and just accept someone at the end somewhere, calling Him God.

Tell me if I am wrong: A series can go on and on and on if you think of a circular series. Now, physicists here, tell me if I am wrong: In a circular series the chain can go on and on and on: moved and mover; but would not energy be exhausted? Is that why astronomical physicists tell us that the universe is dying. God is dying?

When God dies, the cadaver would still be around in a melt-down universe...?

See? We don't know nothing.

Just continue in the habit of believing in God's existence. It's more soothing; and never stop thinking, and save your liberty against charlatan preachers and would-be monopolizers of God who handle Him like He were their Man Friday.

Susma Rio Sep

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Pagan-prophet

“What then is all this discussion about God? Futile exercise to keep our brain cells alive and active?”

I am doing this because I’m looking for meaning… And its fun…

Given that we have minds that attempt to be rational and thoughtful, it is only right that some among us pursue to understand concepts beyond our immediate perceptions.

So what is God’s meaning of life?

I was taught God created us to love him. Forced love is not love. Given choice to love Him or not, we demonstrate to Him our desire and ability to conduct ourselves within the "proper flow" of the universal IS, or not.

Looked at another way, what is love? Disregarding physical love for the moment, what is brotherly love and love of "God"? Why is brotherly love and love of God? These things exist, but cannot be forced. If they are forced, they are not love. Love is a choice. It exists because the choice is made to exist. Because it exists, the benefits of love are realized. Without love, those benefits would not exist, mankind would be loveless, and little more than animal in his disposition.

“Stated another way, if one uses logic solely and only to form their faith, they come away with one of a few belief systems (science, philosophy)”

But the funny part is, is that I have not told you what my faith is. How can I argue in favor of my faith if my faith is not involved. I am merely introducing a concept that nobody seems to agree with (at first it was for the sake of debate).

I perceive a misunderstanding. I had not intended to assign to you any faith or system of belief. In noting the two dominant types of belief systems (logic/reason and intuition) in my full original quote, I allowed a general observation of all possibilities I am aware of.

...God wants you all to believe in him and go to heaven. If someone does the best one can with what one understands and ends up not believing in the Christen God (assuming for sake of argument that it is the one true religion) then is it really that persons fault for going to hell? The person did the best they could to what God has applied to them… This means that reason is preventing many people to not believe in him. If God limits a persons abilities to believe in him by giving them too much or not enough reason then is it not God’s fault for making that person to go to hell? If what you say is true then God (according to the Christen religion) predestines people to damnation. This makes him flawed.

Ah, I understand. I do argue predominantly from a Christian perspective (it is the perspective I am most familiar with). So if you will humour me, there is a passage in the book of Romans I love to use to address such things. Christians in my general experience overlook and avoid this passage, because it speaks of works and tolerance. Romans chapter 2, beginning around verse 12, paraphrases something like "You who have the law do what you can to circumvent the law. These who have not the law (gentiles) do by nature the things in the law. Who will God look more favorably on, you who have the law and do not the things therein, or these who have not the law and by nature do the things therein?" In the end then, it is not what we believe, it is what we do with what we believe.

I am coming to the opinion that there are several roads that lead to understanding, provided they are traveled by justice, temperance and morality. I take on faith the prophecies that tell us (as Christians and Jews) that there will be a time when all of those who sought truth in the proper attitude and spirit, that is, those that DO the things contained in the law, regardless of the specific path taken, will be brought together and taught properly. This is a promise I look forward to. And it is towards this promise that love leads.

I accept this is not a wholly rational answer, yet the question is not a wholly rational question. Therefore, some aspects are left to individual experience and interpretation. If we cannot know, then we take our best guess and hope for the best outcome.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Juan writes:

I was taught God created us to love him. Forced love is not love. Given choice to love Him or not, we demonstrate to Him our desire and ability to conduct ourselves within the "proper flow" of the universal IS, or not.

Beautifully put. But if you don't love God, He will consign you to everlasting hell, where the fire burns so fiercely you will scream and gnash your teeth from sheer agony. Guys with no teeth, not to worry, God will provide.

Hehehehe (grimly).

Best regards.

Susma Rio Sep

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, PaganProphet!

Stated another way, if one uses logic solely and only to form their faith, they come away with one of a few belief systems (science, philosophy). But there are matters in this existence that reason seems to not address fully to our satisfaction. "Beyond reason" does not emphatically mean "beyond existence." There are matters that can be understood intuitively, that can tend to seem contrary to logic. In the end, one does the best one can with what one understands, and tries desperately to make sense of it all.

I believe I see now where the miscommunication lies on my part. You have my humble apologies. I sincerely meant to expound upon the attributes of both basic belief systems, logic/reason and intuition/experience. It seems I overlooked expanding on the intuition/experience line, and that could have created a miscommunication. Again, I apologize, I had no intent to assign any specific form of belief to you.

If it helps in any way, I find myself juggling the two systems in my own faith. There are matters I find incredible to believe by faith alone. And there are matters I have experienced as real that make no logical sense. Blind faith, in my experience, is dangerous, leaving a person in denial of factual truths when they conflict, and often creating an intolerant attitude toward others with different views. Blindly clinging to logic leaves a person wanting for emotional realities, like beauty, mercy, and dare I say, love. Rational people can still experience these things, but they are hard pressed to explain them rationally.

Originally Posted by Susma

But if you don't love God, He will consign you to everlasting hell, where the fire burns so fiercely you will scream and gnash your teeth from sheer agony. Guys with no teeth, not to worry, God will provide.

Kindest Regards, Susma!

I realize this mental image is latent in the typical Christian psyche, but it "only" dates to Dante's "Divine Comedy" (Dante's Inferno).

Your mission, should you choose to accept:
Get a Strong's Concordance and look up the Greek words; Hades, Gehenna, and Tartaros, keeping in mind that Tartaros is only used once. I forget now the Hebrew word, but it corresponds directly with Hades.
This might pose an interesting new thread.

In short, while I know my view is in the Christian minority, once again I must respectfully agree to disagree. Banishment and destruction, yes. Eternal torment, no.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Susma!

I realize this mental image is latent in the typical Christian psyche, but it "only" dates to Dante's "Divine Comedy" (Dante's Inferno).

Your mission, should you choose to accept:
Get a Strong's Concordance and look up the Greek words; Hades, Gehenna, and Tartaros, keeping in mind that Tartaros is only used once. I forget now the Hebrew word, but it corresponds directly with Hades.
This might pose an interesting new thread.

In short, while I know my view is in the Christian minority, once again I must respectfully agree to disagree. Banishment and destruction, yes. Eternal torment, no.

That is a good point. I think that hell isn't so much a punishment as an alternative. I don't think that God wants to force us to follow his laws. He also wants us to return to heaven. But he can't allow sin in heaven (Knowingly not following his laws) so hell is the alternative. Not so much fiery torment but rather a complete separation from God. Complete absence from God's love has got to be a horrible experience. Especially when you’re surrounded by sinners who are all sinning thus hurting each other. Also, am I right in saying that the bible in the New Testament only refers to fire in hell when it uses the term Gahanna. This to the best of my knowledge was a trash dump just out side the walls of Jerusalem where the trash where constantly being burned. And often the dead bodies of people considered sinners. So he was warning that if you sin your body would be discarded into the burning fires of a trash dump. Am I right in this? Any way I have found one passage in the Old Testament that talks of flames in reference to the netherworld. That is Sirach 51:3-5 " ...you have delivered me in great mercy. From the scourge of a slanderous tongue, and from lips that went over to false hood. From the snare of those who watched for my downfall, and from the power of those who sought my life; From many a danger you have saved me from the flames that hemmed me in on every side; from the midst of unrelenting fire, from the deep belly of the underworld..." this however could be referring to the actual burning of the body or the flames could be a metaphor for danger. This leads me to my beliefs on hell.

Originally Posted by [b

Pagan-prophet[/b]]
God wants you all to believe in him and go to heaven. If someone does the best one can with what one understands and ends up not believing in the Christen God (assuming for sake of argument that it is the one true religion) then is it really that persons fault for going to hell? The person did the best they could to what God has applied to them… This means that reason is preventing many people to not believe in him. If God limits a persons abilities to believe in him by giving them too much or not enough reason then is it not God’s fault for making that person to go to hell? If what you say is true then God (according to the Christen religion) predestines people to damnation. This makes him flawed.

I believe that this is a misunderstanding by Christians of something Christ said. I'm not sure where it is but I believe it goes along the lines of "To enter heaven you must go through me" or something like that. (Could someone find it?) I think that has been misinterpreted that those who do not believe in the teachings of Christ are dammed. People reading this fail to remember that Jesus is in fact God thus it could be understood that you can't get into heaven without God's approval. I think that in the Catholic faith tradition says that some one can be baptized in three different ways by water, blood, and ignorance. Water being of course actually being baptized. Blood, intending to be baptized but dieing before hand. Ignorance, not being taught about God. Am I right in thinking this example falls into the last category?

Originally Posted by [b

Pagan-prophet[/b]]


But the funny part is, is that I have not told you what my faith is. How can I argue in favor of my faith if my faith is not involved. I am merely introducing a concept that nobody seems to agree with (at first it was for the sake of debate)..

I don't mean to be rude but this may be one of your biggest problems when arguing your Ideas. You never seem to have one perception of God. You are constantly changing the way you see God in you writings. Sometimes as an all powerful being others as one of many and with little influence. Other times he is the only God but is not very involved. I think it would be best for your arguments and or at least understanding of them if you clarified what you consider God.


_________________________________________________
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

[juantoo3]

Kindest regards, JJM!

Also, am I right in saying that the bible in the New Testament only refers to fire in hell when it uses the term Gahanna. This to the best of my knowledge was a trash dump just out side the walls of Jerusalem where the trash where constantly being burned. And often the dead bodies of people considered sinners.

That is effectively correct by my understanding. Although my understanding was it to be a place where occasionally bodies of executed criminals were thrown. Perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge could shed some light on the particulars, but effectively "the smoke ascended forever."

Sirach 51:3-5

I am not familiar with this book, what Bible is this in?

Not so much fiery torment but rather a complete separation from God. Complete absence from God's love has got to be a horrible experience. Especially when you’re surrounded by sinners who are all sinning thus hurting each other.

That "absence" is from a complete destruction. If one were to carry out the Gehenna analogy, the "trash" when burned up (the cause of the "wailing and gnashing of teeth") would turn to ash and disappear/go away/be of no relevence to what comes after. Likewise, it is foretold that Lucifer will one day "be turned to ash from within." I will have to find the passage to support that, but that is my understanding.

For those that didn't do their homework, Hades (and the Hebrew word Sheol) simply means the grave, or pit.

Tartaros, only used once (I believe in 1 Peter) means a place of confinement for the fallen angels.

Don't be too hard on PaganProphet, s/he is only trying to understand. I would like to believe we all are. It is one thing to believe a path is correct, it is another to know a path is correct. When we know, we close our minds to other possibilities. Even if we don't accept those possibilities, we allow through a spirit of tolerance a respect that is necessary towards all peoples.

[juantoo3]

I'm not sure where it is but I believe it goes along the lines of "To enter heaven you must go through me" or something like that.

John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father, but by me."(KJV) As a diligent student, my question is, is this because Jesus is God, or is this because Jesus as a prophet is showing the way by example? In other words, was Jesus "just" a man who happened to have great connections, or was he actually a manifestation of the Divine? Of course, this question has been circulating for some time.

I'm having some trouble looking up the other passage, and I'm pressed for time. Later.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest regards, JJM!


That is effectively correct by my understanding. Although my understanding was it to be a place where occasionally bodies of executed criminals were thrown. Perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge could shed some light on the particulars, but effectively "the smoke ascended forever."


I am not familiar with this book, what Bible is this in?


That "absence" is from a complete destruction. If one were to carry out the Gehenna analogy, the "trash" when burned up (the cause of the "wailing and gnashing of teeth") would turn to ash and disappear/go away/be of no relevence to what comes after. Likewise, it is foretold that Lucifer will one day "be turned to ash from within." I will have to find the passage to support that, but that is my understanding.

For those that didn't do their homework, Hades (and the Hebrew word Sheol) simply means the grave, or pit.

Tartaros, only used once (I believe in 1 Peter) means a place of confinement for the fallen angels.

Don't be too hard on PaganProphet, s/he is only trying to understand. I would like to believe we all are. It is one thing to believe a path is correct, it is another to know a path is correct. When we know, we close our minds to other possibilities. Even if we don't accept those possibilities, we allow through a spirit of tolerance a respect that is necessary towards all peoples.

Sirach was written in Hebrew between 200 and 175 BC by a man named Jesus son of Eleazer, son of Sirach obviously not Jesus Christ. He lived in Jerusalem. His grandson latter translated it into Greek. It is also known as "Liber Ecclesiasticus" or just "Ecclesiasticus" which I believe means "Church Book". Chances are you aren't familiar with it because you have a protestant bible (Many Protestant don't believe it is divinely expired so it is often excluded) if you want to read it go pick up a Catholic Bible.



As for Pagan prophet I don't mean to be hard on him/her it just that he often uses the Term God and then states that he thinks there is more then one god if so then he needs to clarify which god he speaks of because if he is referring to the Jewish/Christian/ Muslim God then he can't automatically switch to polytheistic views. I think he normally does this to win arguments.

__________________________________________________ ________
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

[Pagan-prophet]

Susma Rio Sep said,

About the argument from the first Unmoved Mover. I think it is not founded upon true logical necessity, whatever Aristotle says otherwise.

It is not an argument but a pleading to accept an end to the endlessly continuing series of moved and mover, on and on and on... The pleading namely that we all stop the series and just accept someone at the end somewhere, calling Him God.

Ah… Yes, but to me, God is the concept of the beginning of all things. Unless you think that the universe never started and was always here then there does not have to be a God. One can also believe that God himself could be the universe though.

Tell me if I am wrong: A series can go on and on and on if you think of a circular series. Now, physicists here, tell me if I am wrong: In a circular series the chain can go on and on and on: moved and mover; but would not energy be exhausted? Is that why astronomical physicists tell us that the universe is dying. God is dying?

I will try to explain this to you the best I can having been in physics last year. Energy cannot be destroyed or created. No matter what happens when you use up energy you turn that energy to a different type of energy. To say that energy is being exhausted is like saying that matter is disappearing from reality (matter cannot be destroyed either). I have no idea what astronomical physicists tell you but I have seen much evidence by them that the universe is doing the opposite of what you claim. The universe is expanding. Not only is it expanding but also it is accelerating (meaning that the universe is gaining energy)(in one million years we will not be able to see the nearest galaxy with the space telescope). Right now astronomical physicists can only guess as to why the universe is defying our laws of physics. If you wish I can talk more about this but it hardly seems like the place or time to do so.

When God dies, the cadaver would still be around in a melt-down universe...?

Who is to even say that God is a being? Why would the creator of life limit himself to the laws of life? If God is a being and is infinite then he must be able to stay alive forever.

See? We don't know nothing.

That’s a double negative, meaning, “See? We do know something.” Sorry I just had to point that out. I know I’m probably being a hypocrite because I don’t even check my own posts and I most likely have a tone of spelling errors…
-----------

juantoo3 said,

Given that we have minds that attempt to be rational and thoughtful, it is only right that some among us pursue to understand concepts beyond our immediate perceptions.

Because you said “immediate” I assume that you don’t think it is imposable to understand God. Though, in the past, (If I’m not mistaken) you continue to say that God is something no one can understand. I think that that is only a belief. Because you believe that God cannot be comprehended I disagree. I have no proof either way that God is infinite or finite, comprehendible or incomprehensible I don’t even have proof that God is a being a thing nothing or everything. My whole argument was trying to show you that it is Impossible to know for sure how complex or what created the universe. Now I’m not saying that it is impossible to know any answers ever. I’m saying that you can never be sure. Some say, “There are no absolutes.” I then ask them, “Are you absolutely sure?”

I was taught God created us to love him. Forced love is not love. Given choice to love Him or not, we demonstrate to Him our desire and ability to conduct ourselves within the "proper flow" of the universal IS, or not.

Looked at another way, what is love? Disregarding physical love for the moment, what is brotherly love and love of "God"? Why is brotherly love and love of God? These things exist, but cannot be forced. If they are forced, they are not love. Love is a choice. It exists because the choice is made to exist. Because it exists, the benefits of love are realized. Without love, those benefits would not exist, mankind would be loveless, and little more than animal in his disposition.

That is one very good opinion to a section to your meaning of life but let me ask you this: why do you believe that? Upon what evidence is your claim based? To me this seems to be (no offence) fairytale-like. It seems too good to be true. And even assuming you are correct then that leaves out many unanswered questions such as, why not tell us directly of his existence? (I would be able to love him if I knew him) Just because he gave us options does not mean that it allows love. …Think of someone you love. Do you know this person? (See them, feel them, and know what there like) Do you think you would still love this person the same way if you did not know them? (If you could not see them, feel them, and know what there like) It seems to be unbelievable to me in my opinion.

Furthermore, if you where to say that God can to anything but force love towards him through us then that is similar to saying that God has limits and therefore not infinite.

Ah, I understand. I do argue predominantly from a Christian perspective (it is the perspective I am most familiar with). So if you will humour me, there is a passage in the book of Romans I love to use to address such things. Christians in my general experience overlook and avoid this passage, because it speaks of works and tolerance. Romans chapter 2, beginning around verse 12, paraphrases something like "You who have the law do what you can to circumvent the law. These who have not the law (gentiles) do by nature the things in the law. Who will God look more favorably on, you who have the law and do not the things therein, or these who have not the law and by nature do the things therein?" In the end then, it is not what we believe, it is what we do with what we believe.

But how is one supposed to know that unless that person is Christian or reads the bible? If one does not believe or practice this through there own logic and reason then is that person going to hell?

I am coming to the opinion that there are several roads that lead to understanding, provided they are traveled by justice, temperance and morality. I take on faith the prophecies that tell us (as Christians and Jews) that there will be a time when all of those who sought truth in the proper attitude and spirit, that is, those that DO the things contained in the law, regardless of the specific path taken, will be brought together and taught properly. This is a promise I look forward to. And it is towards this promise that love leads.

So Basically you mean: As long as you look for truth you will find answers in the afterlife.

Let me ask you this: Is it possible to do anything you don’t want to do? Think about that for a minuet. The answer is no, It is impossible to do anything you don’t want to do. (dieing and getting sic do not apply.) For example, You don’t want to go to work but you know that if you don’t you will get fired. You go to work anyway because you rather not get fired over staying at home. So you wanted to not get fired. You wanted to go to work over staying at home. Nobody has to do anything accept when they die or something relative to that nature. Everything is a choice. No one (sane) does not want to know truth (or the meaning of life). Thus, everyone is looking for truth. If everyone is looking for truth accept about .000001% of the people then what is the point of hell? What is the point of not sinning if everyone looking for truth would go to heaven? Satanists are looking for truth. Do they get to go to heaven? Furthermore, your last statement claimed that “this is a promise that love leads” however, I don’t see why you assume that you will ever know the answer. What is the point of life if we are going to be given the answer later on anyway? What is the point of life if it does not matter what we do with this life? According to the total of your arguments life is pointless and the afterlife (of which is a belief) is where we will gain the answers. Maybe I’m wrong in thinking that this is what you believe so please correct me if I’m wrong.

I accept this is not a wholly rational answer, yet the question is not a wholly rational question. Therefore, some aspects are left to individual experience and interpretation. If we cannot know, then we take our best guess and hope for the best outcome.

I believe it is entirely up to interpretation and individual experience. Otherwise I agree.

Again, I apologize, I had no intent to assign any specific form of belief to you.

No problem.
-----------------

JJM said,

I think that hell isn't so much a punishment as an alternative.

I struggle to fathom why you believe this. This is how I have imagined hell to be knowing that it is described as in the bible:

Take all the best emotions in your life ever. All the best feelings anyone can have. Now imagine the absence of all of them. That is what hell is described as in the bible at least. If God is love, then the absence of God must be hate, Sadness, depression. I will never, ever believe that hell is an “alternative” because to me it will always seem to be a place of over-kill punishment. The concept of hell is disgusting and I refuse to believe that an all loving being would allow its existence no matter if it is keeping sinners out of heaven or not. (an all powerful being could find a better alternative to keeping sinners out of hell.) Hell is the first reason why I turned away from Christianity (not completely though).

But he can't allow sin in heaven (Knowingly not following his laws) so hell is the alternative.

Originally Posted by Pagan-prophet

If you say, God is not Omniscient, Omnipresent or Omnipotent then God has a limit to what he can do, thus he is not flawless. Also if you use the term, “God cannot” then you are also stating that God has a limit.

Not so much fiery torment but rather a complete separation from God.

But if all good is God then the absence of God is the also the absence of all good?… Right?

Complete absence from God's love has got to be a horrible experience. Especially when you’re surrounded by sinners who are all sinning thus hurting each other. Also, am I right in saying that the bible in the New Testament only refers to fire in hell when it uses the term Gahanna.

I will find my gospel track and show you how many times they describe the place as being fiery. They have about 20 different quotes about how horrible it is though…

Any way I have found one passage in the Old Testament that talks of flames in reference to the netherworld. That is Sirach 51:3-5 " ...you have delivered me in great mercy. From the scourge of a slanderous tongue, and from lips that went over to false hood. From the snare of those who watched for my downfall, and from the power of those who sought my life; From many a danger you have saved me from the flames that hemmed me in on every side; from the midst of unrelenting fire, from the deep belly of the underworld..." this however could be referring to the actual burning of the body or the flames could be a metaphor for danger. This leads me to my beliefs on hell.

But you must admit that a place without God (God being all good) would be bad…

I don't mean to be rude but this may be one of your biggest problems when arguing your Ideas. You never seem to have one perception of God. You are constantly changing the way you see God in you writings. Sometimes as an all powerful being others as one of many and with little influence. Other times he is the only God but is not very involved. I think it would be best for your arguments and or at least understanding of them if you clarified what you consider God.

No problem. I was wondering when someone would find this out. I did that on purpose. I am trying to stay as neutral as possible. I am never satisfied with just one view of God. I do change my view about him/her/it because I don’t actually KNOW him/her/it. I am mostly agnostic. Meaning I think it is impossible to KNOW of God for sure. I have strong beliefs but I always, always, always, have doubts. I think its 50% agnostic, 25% pagan (only because I agree with many moral principles, and other reasons other than just their God), and 25% everything else. Though that is my belief it is 100% intuition and interpretation. My opinion is also constantly changing. The reason why I have debated with anyone in this thread is to make them step outside of the restraints of faith and take a look at all the views as a whole. I say restraints because faith to me seems like a one sided view of an invisible object. To me, most forms of faith (blind belief) is for the blind. (no offence to anyone with a strong faith its just my opinion).

Some wise words:

By juantoo3,

Blind faith, in my experience, is dangerous, leaving a person in denial of factual truths when they conflict, and often creating an intolerant attitude toward others with different views. Blindly clinging to logic leaves a person wanting for emotional realities, like beauty, mercy, and dare I say, love. Rational people can still experience these things, but they are hard pressed to explain them rationally.

[Pagan-prophet]

I could not post all of this in one post so I had to brake it up into 2 posts.

--------------

juantoo3 said,

Don't be too hard on PaganProphet, s/he is only trying to understand.

I’m a guy.

---------------

JJM said,

As for Pagan prophet I don't mean to be hard on him/her it just that he often uses the Term God and then states that he thinks there is more then one god if so then he needs to clarify which god he speaks of because if he is referring to the Jewish/Christian/ Muslim God then he can't automatically switch to polytheistic views. I think he normally does this to win arguments.

I understand where your confusion comes from. I did speak of many Gods and one God in the past but I always said it in a way that said, If there where a God/many God’s. This is why I did not apply myself to any one idea. I was only arguing to the opposite side of everyone’s argument because my argument was not necessarily the opposing side but it was that there is no one side on any of these arguments. It is impossible to say that God is infinite and know it is true. It is also impossible to know that God is finite and know it is true. It is impossible to KNOW anything about something that I have never used my senses for other than my intuition.

(When I argued I used a method that was similar to: If what you say is true (God is infinite) then the other concept you also brought up would counter each other (God cannot allow sinners in hell). Other methods I used are: You say this is the only way things can be however if the first point you make (There is only one God) is untrue then your entire argument is also false (God is infinite). I am only pointing out contradictions and incomplete arguments. When I say “God” I am using the concept of God. I am not really sticking to any religion other then Monotheism when I use “God”. My arguments where not detailed enough to only argue against one religion. It was more of a generalization of one God.)

[juantoo3]

Kindest regards, PaganProphet!

I’m a guy.

Very well, pleased to meet you!

About the argument from the first Unmoved Mover. I think it is not founded upon true logical necessity, whatever Aristotle says otherwise. It is not an argument but a pleading to accept an end to the endlessly continuing series of moved and mover, on and on and on... The pleading namely that we all stop the series and just accept someone at the end somewhere, calling Him God.

Considering the day and age in which Aristotle lived, this was one of the first acknowledged philosophical attempts at logically arguing for the existence of a "God". That God was not "necessarily" the traditional monotheistic interpretation of "God." The culture and society in which Aristotle lived was polytheistic. If I understood the story correctly, he was rebuffed by his peers predominantly on those grounds.

Ah… Yes, but to me, God is the concept of the beginning of all things. Unless you think that the universe never started and was always here then there does not have to be a God. One can also believe that God himself could be the universe though.

God as concept...hmm...are you certain you're not a philosophy student?

I will try to explain this to you the best I can having been in physics last year. Energy cannot be destroyed or created. No matter what happens when you use up energy you turn that energy to a different type of energy.

I envy you, what little physics I understand is self-taught. However, perpetual motion is impossible because of friction. That energy may be converted, but it is no longer available for motion. Further, matter in my understanding is another expression of energy. Matter too, is not destroyed, it is changed in form.

To say that energy is being exhausted is like saying that matter is disappearing from reality (matter cannot be destroyed either). I have no idea what astronomical physicists tell you but I have seen much evidence by them that the universe is doing the opposite of what you claim. The universe is expanding. Not only is it expanding but also it is accelerating (meaning that the universe is gaining energy)

Energy is not exhausted or destroyed, yet it is gaining? I have read a number of articles by "astronomical physicists", and have heard competing claims from and between them. So do I accept your word, on faith? With the next issue of a science magazine, they will posit something different, so if you wait long enough things will change yet again. In other words, astronomical physics is still developing, and what one reads today may be irrelevant or only of passing interest tomorrow.

Who is to even say that God is a being? Why would the creator of life limit himself to the laws of life? If God is a being and is infinite then he must be able to stay alive forever.

Please clarify what it is you mean by "being." I am prepared in my understanding to accept a number of possibilities, any or all of which encompass what you point out here. The metaphor is the potter and the clay. Who is the clay to tell the potter what to do, or assign to the potter anything? Whether a being or not is irrelevant. Whether beyond the infinite or not is irrelevant. Whether able to do anything or limited, is irrelevant. Whether sentient or not is irrelevant. Whether Prime or not is irrelevant. What He is, and His direct relevance to us, is as Creator and "Father" of life on this planet. If more, then so. If not, it doesn't matter to us as humans in this existence. If He has a cause, it is irrelevant to us. If He answers to any other is irrelevant to us. This is not faith, it is logic. It is logic by our position in the Grand Scheme of things. To the microbe, the ant seems as god, humans are irrelevant. What lies beyond, is out of the sphere of the microbe's realization, and is irrelevant, most especially in this realm of existence.

a tone of spelling errors…

I love this, very punny!

I assume that you don’t think it is imposable to understand God. Though, in the past, (If I’m not mistaken) you continue to say that God is something no one can understand.

I didn't say God was impossible to understand forever and always. I have said, repeatedly and in different manners, that He is beyond our scope of understanding in this existence. That we are able to try is in my mind evidence of the generosity He has bestowed upon us, and the trust He places in us. That is my belief.

I have no proof either way that God is infinite or finite, comprehendible or incomprehensible I don’t even have proof that God is a being a thing nothing or everything. My whole argument was trying to show you that it is Impossible to know for sure how complex or what created the universe. Now I’m not saying that it is impossible to know any answers ever. I’m saying that you can never be sure. Some say, “There are no absolutes.” I then ask them, “Are you absolutely sure?”

It seems to me we are mostly in agreement here. The difference being that I have chosen to move on by faith based experience combined with rational logic, rather than get muddled and mentally bogged down and constricted by mindgames that can never be resolved in this plane of existence. Profundity for the pure sake of profundity is a waste of time and effort.

That is one very good opinion to a section to your meaning of life but let me ask you this: why do you believe that (we are created to love God, jt3)? Upon what evidence is your claim based? To me this seems to be (no offence) fairytale-like. It seems too good to be true.

Then you had a horrible Sunday-school teacher. It's no wonder then, that you have such difficulty with Christianity/Judaism specifically, and monotheism in general.

why not tell us directly of his existence? (I would be able to love him if I knew him)

Ah, but would you, really?

Just because he gave us options does not mean that it allows love.

I'm not sure how you could possibly get this from what I wrote. You are carrying back to your old arguments about and between predestination and free-will. You must step beyond that vicious circle of mental self-defeatism in order to fully understand.

…Think of someone you love. Do you know this person? (See them, feel them, and know what there like) Do you think you would still love this person the same way if you did not know them? (If you could not see them, feel them, and know what there like) It seems to be unbelievable to me in my opinion.

If you (brotherly) loved your (unseen) neighbor as yourself, then yes. So you only believe seeing is believing? And that love can only come from seeing? You cannot see the universe expand, yet you believe? The scientists cannot see the edge of the universe, they cannot absolutely say the universe is expanding. Because you personally cannot see love, it doesn't exist? Or because you cannot see your "brother" in Africa, you are not required to love him, indeed cannot? Your opinion seems to me unbelievable.

Furthermore, ... that is similar to saying that God has limits and therefore not infinite.

Please show me where I have emphatically stated that God can do anything? I sincerely do not recall ever making any such statement, it is contrary to my "belief." The only time I recollect anything close was in response to your assertion about God being confined by time within an infinite universe. I am beginning to think the futility in this discussion lies in arguing non-sense with more non-sense.

But how is one supposed to know that unless that person is Christian or reads the bible?

What does the term, "by nature" mean to you? If morality is naturally inherent, your argument is moot.

If one does not believe or practice this through there own logic and reason then is that person going to hell?

Yes. No matter how rational, no matter what religion, if a person cannot be moral to his fellow human beings, ultimate destruction is the final outcome. The universal IS, the Grand Scheme, will not long tolerate opposing force. You can only swim against the current for so long, before you are exhausted and swept away.

So Basically you mean: As long as you look for truth you will find answers in the afterlife.

Rather simplistic and not all-inclusive, but if that's what floats your boat, yes.

Is it possible to do anything you don’t want to do?

Yes, I don't want to sneeze, and I just did. Want is relevant to possibility only in the case of the impossible. Or, as stated in Admiral's Law, "nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it." I dream whether I want to or not. I breathe, my heart beats, my blood circulates, I get hungry, whether or not I want to. I require food, shelter, clothing, water, whether or not I want them.

Everything is a choice.

I thought you were arguing against free-will? Or was it predestination, I forget now... So, if everything is a choice, then you choose whether or not to be moral towards your brothers and sisters. If you choose not to be, then you have chosen your fate. You have chosen to swim against the current, and by doing so you have chosen to suffer the consequences. You choose whether or not to pay attention to the little whisper in your ear called a conscience. You choose whether to abide by your natural inclinations, or to override them with irrelevant reasoning.

No one (sane) does not want to know truth (or the meaning of life).

Uh, I've met a few insane people who KNEW the truth and the meaning of life. And they were only too happy to jump up on their soap boxes. Likewise I know perfectly sane people who can't be bothered, so your argument here is seriously flawed.

If everyone is looking for truth accept about .000001% of the people then what is the point of hell? What is the point of not sinning if everyone looking for truth would go to heaven?

How can you tenuously apply the search for truth to hell? I stated, emphatically, DOING the teaching of the truth. This will lead to a path of understanding.

Satanists are looking for truth. Do they get to go to heaven?

Do they love their brothers and sisters (literal and figurative), neighbors (literal and figurative) and spouses, in a properly moral way? Do they observe the natural and inherent morality? You are struggling to confuse issues, to no end purpose but your own confusion. How can I be certain of what it is you specifically mean by "satanist."

Furthermore, your last statement claimed that “this is a promise that love leads” however, I don’t see why you assume that you will ever know the answer.

Do you have a difficult time grasping written concepts? Not intended as a slight, I specifically stated that was my belief based on prophecy. It is an assumption, one I am willing to take on, as a portion of the path of wisdom I have chosen. This is a portion of my intuitive experience.

What is the point of life if we are going to be given the answer later on anyway? What is the point of life if it does not matter what we do with this life? According to the total of your arguments life is pointless and the afterlife (of which is a belief) is where we will gain the answers. Maybe I’m wrong in thinking that this is what you believe so please correct me if I’m wrong.

Maybe the point of life is to prove yourself worthy of that period of learning. If you are not worthy, why should you be taught? And I have not stated we will learn ALL truths at that time, but we will learn those truths we are capable of handling in that plane of existence. So life in this existence is not pointless.

I believe it is entirely up to interpretation and individual experience. Otherwise I agree.

Yet you argue from the stance of logic/rationality. Experience/intuition is fundamentally belief, because your senses can be deceived.

[juantoo3]

Continued-

If God is love, then the absence of God must be hate, Sadness, depression.

Says who? The absence of moral expression of love is hate, sadness and depression. Those are human characteristics. God is love in the sense that God created love. He loves us, and wants us to love Him. God created other things (and non-things) as well, love is not the sum total of His existence. It is, however, the vehicle by which the universe operates. To lead a loveless life is to swim against the current and prove yourself unworthy. This is not rational, but it is real.

I refuse to believe that an all loving being would allow its existence no matter if it is keeping sinners out of heaven or not. (an all powerful being could find a better alternative to keeping sinners out of hell.)

Who said God is all-loving? He does not want to see anyone turn away, but that is their choice. Forced love is not love. If you vehemently and insistently turn away, what choice do you leave Him? If you choose to demonstrate that you are unworthy, why should you be granted pardon? The choice is yours, not His. He can create "yes-men" all day long, they are called angels (although some of them chose to say "no"). In this, we are granted a wonderful gift. We can choose to lead our lives in a manner fitting to move on to the next level, or we can go to the remedial class in the incinerator.

But if all good is God then the absence of God is the also the absence of all good?… Right?

God is the source of all good, He is also the source of all bad. He is the source of Light, and the source of Darkness. He is the source of peace, and the source of discord. He is the source of love, and He is the source of hate. Ultimately, he is the source of all, and all must eventually return to Him. He has given us a choice as to what form we return to Him in. Astral body, or ashes.

I will find my gospel track and show you how many times they describe the place as being fiery. They have about 20 different quotes about how horrible it is though…

The irony in this statement is astounding. "Gospel track" (sp), by whom? I suspect it is from the "fire and brimstone brigade of the fundamental misinterpretationalist society." Did you ever actually read the Bible? Better still, did you ever actually read the Hebrew and Greek translated directly (Interlinear Bible)? Enlightening stuff, my friend. It will answer your questions better than I can.

But you must admit that a place without God (God being all good) would be bad…

And why should it be otherwise? It is a place of destruction, and thereby cleansing. It is a place for disposing the garbage.

I am trying to stay as neutral as possible.

As am I. But you asked, deliberately and with intent. So my answers are deliberate and with intent.

I am never satisfied with just one view of God. I do change my view about him/her/it because I don’t actually KNOW him/her/it.

This is called being of a reprobate mind. Such a mind is "unstable in all his ways", no slight intended.

I am mostly agnostic. Meaning I think it is impossible to KNOW of God for sure.

I have addressed this as well. Yes, it is impossible, so you go with your gut and do the best you can, and hope for the best in the end.

I have strong beliefs

You may wish to reconsider this statement. "I am never satisfied with one view of God" by definition means you do not have strong beliefs.

...but I always, always, always, have doubts.

Question Authority. It is not improper to have doubts, it is a survival mechanism. It is what you do with those doubts that matters. Do you control them, or do they control you? Do your doubts lead you to a place of better understanding, or do you get lost in them, finding an end in the means?

My opinion is also constantly changing.

Reprobate mind versus strong beliefs.

The reason why I have debated with anyone in this thread is to make them step outside of the restraints of faith and take a look at all the views as a whole. I say restraints because faith to me seems like a one sided view of an invisible object. To me, most forms of faith (blind belief) is for the blind. (no offence to anyone with a strong faith its just my opinion).

I debate for understanding. Depending where you go with this discussion is whether or not I will continue. You have complete freedom to believe as you will. But argument purely for the sake of argument is a waste of time and energy.

...there is no one side on any of these arguments. It is impossible to say that God is infinite and know it is true. It is also impossible to know that God is finite and know it is true. It is impossible to KNOW anything about something that I have never used my senses for other than my intuition.

Likewise, it is impossible to rely on your intuition. So, by your arguments, since nothing can be co