How do you explain this with regard to an all-powerful god?
-
Peace,
He is a god teacher and a good teacher ....and if He really sucks like you say, how then is it that you like the things you have learned in life? You are happy with understanding reality don't you? Otherwise you wouldn't have professed them on this forum.....
-
Peace enq
The energy and eternal thing we will agree to disagree on that bro...
My evidence is from my own experiences bro,not just emotions....How do you get evidence for things dealing with infinity through life-experiences? I'm just wondering. What does that exactly mean? Please give us an example, because I'm sure what you're saying is insightful, I just don't understand
-
Peace openmind and arnold,i should be on tommorow,until then take it easy....I enjoyed todays discourses.....I will try to respond tommorow sun handshake peace elektro
ps;excellent last question openmind... bravo -
Peace Enquirer
No I do not fear you, but you really did not answer my question. I said "Please give an example of it and how it upsets the balance of harmony." Your response was "Would you suggest nuclear waste,child-abuse,oppression,murder,poverty,famine and mans disobedience towards gods so-called laws/decrees are harmony....?" You asked me a question and suggested that these are the examples you would give, not explaining why.
Take it easy.
Joe
-
Peace openmind and arnie.
Openmind; How i personally verify something as infinite from life experiences is as follows;
When we burn a substance or try to destroy it there is always residue,even if a very small amount...When a person dies there is always residue after decay...When anything in life is seemingly destroyed or dies there is always residue of some sort,and this is empirically verifiable....Further,with advances in microscopes and scientific progress when can verify that even if we THOUGHT we completely destroyed/eliminated a substance or thought it went out of existence,that the substance will still have residue which is not pereceived by the naked eye....
Now on to death,even when a human dies the memory of that person in other peoples memories does not cease,and so their residue lives on.....Further,when we sleep (the closest real-life experience of death we routinely go through.) we get a mini taste of death....Now if the larger physical death is of a similar nature,then we may physically die/change,but our conciousness may live on....I however verify one thing for sure,i always will exist in some form or another (i have yet to see matter completely destroyed without a trace.) and im sure we have always existed as well,as ive yet to
see anything appear from nothing or from no prior cause without any raw materials....I verify we have always been raw material in one form or another and always will be...arnold and openmind; The teacher issue; I have learnt from others,myself,my surroundings and experience....Some things i learnt have been wrong,and some right.Some things i learnt from relatively good teachers,and others taught me badly and were relatively bad teachers... I fail to see the correlation between teacher and student when the so-called teacher (god.) takes no responsibility at all for any of his pupils failures....Seems the old geezer is above reproach....
-
Peace
So, enq, you're telling me you'd debate what arnold said
As for the first mover, you have to understand that only a thing bounded to time can move. Something eternal, as by thus infinite cannot be affected by time, so energy cannot be eternal, this has been adressed by the greatest minds on earth. Energy moves, and by thus, it is not infinite. It lies in infinity itself. So infinity lays outside the term cause and effect. To believe energy is eternal goes against all laws of nature. As for being part of God, while not being eternal ourselves, it is God who allows us to 'borrow' His energy and He can take it away when he wants to, so the idea that we have to be eternal to then is wrong.
..Using this "evidence"
When we burn a substance or try to destroy it there is always residue,even if a very small amount...When a person dies there is always residue after decay...When anything in life is seemingly destroyed or dies there is always residue of some sort,and this is empirically verifiable....Further,with advances in microscopes and scientific progress when can verify that even if we THOUGHT we completely destroyed/eliminated a substance or thought it went out of existence,that the substance will still have residue which is not pereceived by the naked eye....
Good luck with that. This would upset me if I was debating you.
What you're saying is profound, indeed. But using it in this sense does not make sense and is not productive.
Peace
-
Peace openmind. Thats fine...As you may know,im not a 'traditional' or orthodox debater in any fashion...
By the same token,arnolds post on something eternal not moving,makes no sense to me,because it implies god being eternal moves other things without himself moving.....Now that has never been verified and goes against all the thinking i know...How does something beyond cause and effect,and without movement cause the world to move.....?
Just for my curiosity,why would you be upset with my post in a debate...? Also,just because we havent verifed or understood a post for ourselves doesnt make the post wrong.....It just makes no sense to some....I remember when i first read posts by idolfree and others i couldnt make heads or tails of what they were saying,or even begin to agree with thim....But when i really thought deeply and correlated their posts with my own empirical evidence i began to see what they were saying was,on some occasions,right on the button....But i still had to verify for myself. You must realise we all have different levels/angles of logic which others might not always see easily,also just because posters are eloquent or bring 'evidence' that suits traditional methods,does not make their posts,conclusions or evidence always correct..... peace -
Peace
God, in definition, is eternal. That's what the idea of God is. This cannot be applied to things within this universe, or the universe itself, because it isn't God.
I would be upset because it wouldn't respond to my argument.
Also, you are right. So out of curiosity, could you show me the whole argument using that evidence? Connect them together, please. Thanks.
Peace
-
Peace openmind. Just because god by definiton is supposed to be eternal doesnt make this definition correct in the traditional sense....After all,these definitions come from fallible human attempts at interpretation/conceptualisation....
What do you want me to connect together,im not following that part of your post...? And on which statement do you think i am right? peace -
Peace
When you say "if God is supposed to be eternal, why can't we say the same for the universe," that doesn't make sense. Because this IDEA of God you are arguing about is in definition eternal.
You are right about people learning at their own pace.
Also, evidence is brought up in a debate, correct? And your evidence is your life experiences, but I've never actually seen you bring your evidence (life-experiences) in a debate. So I'd just like to see that done, for once.
Peace
-
Peace openmind. Im going to say now,that if you think in straight lines you may miss a lot...I know that sounds patronising,but hey it has to be said...
The concept of god uniquely being eternal is mans interpretation,not verifed or proven...Just because a dictionary says god is defined as uniquely eternal,doesnt make it so....You have to understand that or you will keep referring back to these arbitrary standards...Or these 'appeals' to authority...
You havent seen me bring evidence/life experience in my posts.....? Just check back four posts ago,and my response to verifying how matter is all eternal...Remember the residue...?
I thought you said you would read my posts properly? How do you think i verified in real life that when you try to destroy a substance (eg by burning.) that it leaves a residue behind..... ? Its when you ask such questions as this,and make accusations and assumptions about my posts that i wonder if you are reading with much understanding of what i am saying,and this is why i stop discussing with you and others now and again......insight my friend,insight..... peace -
enquirer,
i dont seem to understand how you take the law of conservation of matter/energy and take that to mean that matter is eternal, i.e. will continue to exist even after the end of time. that is a purely speculative induction.
and to use any laws concerning physics to attempt to explain God's nature is certain folly, since it is presupposed that God is beyond the laws of physics, which is part of the basis for belief in God in the first place! A God who is subject to and limited by the physics of the universe is no God. If we were pure materialists like you are suggesting, there would be no point in believing in God in the first place.
-
Peace,
enq, openmind did read your 'residue' theory, he even tried to discuss it
Peace
So, enq, you're telling me you'd debate what arnold said
As for the first mover, you have to understand that only a thing bounded to time can move. Something eternal, as by thus infinite cannot be affected by time, so energy cannot be eternal, this has been adressed by the greatest minds on earth. Energy moves, and by thus, it is not infinite. It lies in infinity itself. So infinity lays outside the term cause and effect. To believe energy is eternal goes against all laws of nature. As for being part of God, while not being eternal ourselves, it is God who allows us to 'borrow' His energy and He can take it away when he wants to, so the idea that we have to be eternal to then is wrong.
..Using this "evidence"
When we burn a substance or try to destroy it there is always residue,even if a very small amount...When a person dies there is always residue after decay...When anything in life is seemingly destroyed or dies there is always residue of some sort,and this is empirically verifiable....Further,with advances in microscopes and scientific progress when can verify that even if we THOUGHT we completely destroyed/eliminated a substance or thought it went out of existence,that the substance will still have residue which is not pereceived by the naked eye....
Good luck with that. This would upset me if I was debating you.
What you're saying is profound, indeed. But using it in this sense does not make sense and is not productive.
Peace
But this is no science you use, but picking and choosing. One moment you use the scientists as 'proof', and then you refuse their findings. Sorry friend, but your residue theory is not a real scientific answer, it is even kindergarten science. The laws which the energy follows lay outside its boundaries and can only be explained by a Creator that made those laws for the energy to follow. Cause and effect laws proof, that laws can only be based on intelligence.
Peace
-
Wow what great a great discussion/debate.
Enquirer, I believe you got upset when someone here assumed to know what exactly your beliefs about God are, so I'd like to start by asking you that. Next, correct me if I'm wrong and I mean no offense, but it seems like you have animosity towards God yet at the same time seem not to believe in the existence of God. I guess your views would help me reconsile the perceived contradictions. Regarding your original post about how could God possibly exist with all the chaos that we see in this world, I guess we'd have to go back to the story of the creation in the Quran. Adam and Eve were living in paradise. They had nothing but bliss...but still they proved that we as humans are not yet ready for it. There's a valuable lesson of betrayal and deception in the story that shows that we need this experience here on earth and we need all the good and bad that goes along with being here on Earth to truly be ready for the hereafter. In some posts you seem to be of the belief that there is no God and even if there is a God then he really sucks because of all the death and destruction that goes on this world. You ask why god doesn't step in and stop these incidents. Then you use fatherhood as an analogy to the creator. Where is the mercy the compassion that God proclaims to have? That seems to me to be what your hardest problem with believing in God is. Well, this life is merely a test for us. This life is what is going to decide our fate in the hearafter. Basically the hapiness and sadness of this life is of no consequence exept for how we respond to our individual hardships and hardships as a society. Do we hold firm our beliefs and trust in God to make things better for us in the hearafter if we abide by Gods system, or do we reject God and his system and suffer the consequences.
Arnold, your views are really interesting to me. I'd love to know more about your views and how they mesh with the Quran. Particularly regarding the hereafter. Do you believe hellfire is meant literally or did you get some other meaning out of it? Also, what are your views on the creation according to the Quran?
-
Peace lowtech,shuaib,arnold and all.
Lowtech; My views on the concept of one 'all-powerful' god is that he does not exist at all,except as an idea in peoples heads...If i come across as being bitter about god,its not really that,im just annoyed at the concept of one all-powerful god which is used by many to justify suffering,murder and all manner of unlikely and illusional/harmful ideas...My posts are not really indicative of a crisis of belief or lack of faith...I simply dont believe in one all-powerful god...I discuss suffering,disharmouny and such topics to show the unlikelihood of such a being existing,not to criticise a non-existent being.....However i dont discount all conceivable possibility that there could be a possibility of such a being existing,just as the yeti,bigfoot,martians and the loch ness monster may also exist,but on probability,balance and the state of the world,i would say categorically that god is dead,never was or is not concerned with us...
On the other hand,if you re-define the concept of god to fit with observable/verifiable/empirical reality,then i would agree if you said god is nature or reality,with us obviously being a part of this nature/reality....I find aspects of arnolds,tays and idolfrees definitions of god plausible,but i do not see how us being a part of god equates with the disharmouny and suffering i see in the world....These fellows have not explained to me yet how we can be a part of god,yet still these parts seem to fight,disagree and clash with each other.....? Free-will is not an acceptable answer for me,so you could ask them if they have any more explanations...
And for the record,me not believing in god doesnt mean i have no morals,standards or principles to live by,in fact i feel myself having much more practical standards now i have discarded 'belief' in favour of reality...Arnold; You know my friend,re-read some of your posts and just ponder on them,and analyse your current mindset....I have spotted much inconsistency and intellectual fallacies along with biased/questionable science.....I havent got the time or inclination to point out all these things to you,so please you and others dont start saying where are the inconsistencies etc,just be honest and look at your recent posts.....Danish and magi really gave you lots of food for thought,yet you seem to be stuck in your old ways of thinking....You are a very intelligent guy,but please dont get caught inside a box of assumptions,you know full well much of the stuff you say is only a possibility and is in no way completely solid or irrefutable...(just as some of my ideas are fallible too.) So please lets stop the acting as if we have the final or superior word in debates,and the false appeals to authoritative science.....At the end of the day empirical verification goes on,and doesnt stop at you quoting a few verses,opinions and scientists...
( ps;im sure you also told me you thought all matter was eternal in another older post...?)Shuaib; Please,think outside the box man...; If god is beyond physics,then how can you give real evidence for his existence except for faith and metaphysics? As for the eternal nature of energy,i find it baffling that you,arnold and open-mind cant understand this verifiable practical concept....Show me one example of matter being destroyed with no trace,or matter coming into existence from nothing...? Show me one VERIFIABLE example of something not being subject to the laws of cause and effect?
peace
-
enquirer,
thanks for the advice to think out of the box, but you need to realize what parameters and assumptions your argument is based on.
To use a purely materialistic argument against those who do not believe in absolute materialism is not going to convince us of anything. I doubt there is anyone here who used purely materialistic means to arrive at a belief in God. Yet you set out to disprove the existence of God by using purely materialistic arguments.
As far as giving evidence for God, I don't believe it is necessarily a thing that can be proven through logical argument. But I think one of the biggest things that no materialist can ever explain is the human soul. Here is something that is composed of entirely physical components, yet it is much more than the sum of its parts. The soul is unique, unpredictable, and I think it is its existence that is one of the biggest "signs."
Show me one example of matter being destroyed with no trace,or matter coming into existence from nothing...? Show me one VERIFIABLE example of something not being subject to the laws of cause and effect?
What are you trying to prove by restating the physical law of conversation of matter/energy??? We all know this, its taught in every elementary school! I fully accept that there is a law that governs this, and I believe in a big bang theory, and I also accept physicists ideas that laws of physics break down at singularity.
I very strongly believe in the laws of cause and effect. Neither of these 2 things negate in any way the existence of God, but nor are they necessarily proofs for his existence. To prove His existence is a personal journey, done through reflection of things both within and without. And if after that, you cannot accept the existence of God, then so be it. To you your way to me mine, but don't be deluded enough to think that you have disproven the existence of God.
-
Peace,
Dear enq, what saddens me every time, is that you always use this. I found 'inconsistencies, but i'll not point them out', if you have time to read them, then you also have time to point them out for us. And of course there will be some small inconsistencies or mistakes as i'm human and my ideas are evolving every day. But does this have anything to do with our discussion? None which so ever. Like you pointed out, i know psychology, and i see a lot of psychology going on here. Sometimes i believe you just argue just for the sake of arguing. You don't see me pointing to 'inconsistencies' or whatever, i just answer the questions. See the difference?
I would like to see the 'questionable science' you are refering to. You cannot debate matters, you pick and choose what suits you. But you don't have the background to discuss them. You have read a book here and there, but to discuss science needs a bit more then that. So i'll leave that discussion for now, as it is an uneven debate. If you would study quantum field theory, you wouldn't say it was just an assumption. To believe energy is eternal is the most background theory to believe, who is hanging on to old views?. And i never told you matter was eternal in another post, and if so, it is a typo, but never ever did i believe matter was eternal, as the laws which energy follows must be before the energy itself.
Magi and Danish never proved anything yet. Danish showed his non-knowledge and his anger against everyone and everything, and none could answer how all of these facts ended up in one book.
Science was the thing that showed me there was a Designer, but it was my heart who accepted it. Without the second one, the first one doesn't matter. Everybody is on his own path and level, i respect that. Explore your path bro, i'll explore mine.....
Peace
-
Peace enquirer, all,
I find aspects of arnolds,tays and idolfrees definitions of god plausible,but i do not see how us being a part of god equates with the disharmouny and suffering i see in the world....These fellows have not explained to me yet how we can be a part of god,yet still these parts seem to fight,disagree and clash with each other.....? Free-will is not an acceptable answer for me,so you could ask them if they have any more explanations...
Just to be clear, brother, I don't recall ever "defining" God. The best I can do is offer my opinion on what I believe is the nature of humanity's relationship with God. But even this opinion is constantly evolving, and may never be accurate, because so many apparent paradoxes manifest as we jump from the world of human logic and physical law to the world of metaphysics and the infinite.
Any objective observer knows that both exist, but from this vantage point (being stuck in the physical realm) the ability to comprehend is severely limited. The only way to really "know" anything about the metaphysical is to transcend the physical. Once you do this, you "know" without words, and this information of the infinite can't be brought back to the finite. It doesn't fit.
So we're stuck with nuts-and-bolts definitions and concepts. People who have transcended in one way or another can usually get the point across to each other because the experiences are similar and the worldy definitions trigger memories and understandings of the unworldly. But as long as one remains stuck in the physical vantage point, no amount of eloquence or articulation can express the infinite.
Please don't take offense to this, but I really find it ironic that you're telling others to think outside the box while you yourself remain barricaded.
May peace be upon you,
Tay