Is there a God?

[Torp]

well, as i understand it, satan is the god of THIS world. 

So there's more than one god?

and God is the God of the next kingdom to come.  so satan's power will be limited in the next, whereas he has been given more freedom now. 

Who has given him more freedom (i.e. power) now?  If your god willfully stands by the side and lets another god run amok over his creation, we simply must question the real "omnipotence" of that god.

when eve chose the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil - she was in effect choosing satan to be her god (because she listened to him).

.... He can't be like satan who was a murderer from the beginning of our world ...

Seems to me that Eve chose the truth.  She chose knowledge. (something, btw, that every organized religion seems to want people not to have)  Satan was not the murderer, god was/is.  For every death that Satan supposedly is responsible for, god must bear the truth of it.  If he has the power to stop it and doesn't, he's complicit.  God is the greatest mass murderer of all time.  He makes Hitler and Stalin look tame by comparison.  According to the Bible, god is the only being that has ever been truly successful at genocide.

[leahcim]

People who dismiss this problem easily simply haven't understood it.  Others intuitively get near this - long ago I was fishing with my pastor and we got into some whitewater above our skill level, wrecked the canoe and lost all our gear, but were unharmed.  My very young child asked "How come God could save Daddy but not the canoe?"  Good question, and a facile answer does no good.

I think it's fairly easily dismissed from some points of view.

The most obvious one. Someone who doesn't believe in God probably doesn't have a dilemma about what God does or doesn't do.

But, even without the atheist viewpoint. Deciding that you believe in God, and then adjusting the definition of what that might mean e.g "Is omnipotent, has a beard, burns bushes, male...hmm perhaps not omnipotent.." sounds fair enough.

But when you mention 'deep thinkers' and dilemmas, that's usually navel gazing. Which seems to parallel the way that early "science" dreamt up baloney by similar navel gazers deciding what the the shape of the earth was, people were made of and so on.

In that sense, the dilemma might be considered merely the result of a belief that introspective, beard scratching thought can provide valid answers to things by itself and that the dilemmas created by those thoughts can be sorted out by thinking a bit longer.

Which ,as you say, is the kind of dilemma that deep thinkers are going to struggle with almost by definition "Why do the things I think up not make any sense? Hmm, let me think... "

[ted]

Timothy42b:

Yes, I am inclined to agree that, if we assume God is an actual being not entirely ignorant of human feelings, and not a personal concept, partially negating the omnipotence premise is, in emotional and human terms, more satisfactory than tampering with the goodness premise, although the latter course is, logically speaking, quite valid.

Suppose I see an animal of low intelligence in great distress. If I have any practical say in the matter I shall choose to alleviate its suffering. On the other hand, I may not have the power to help it, or I may choose to inflict further suffering. The animal’s nature, its brain size, as far as we know, does not allow it the remotest conception of me, my world or my moral choice, never mind any ability to distinguish between the last two intentions. There is no reasoning that I can see which would disprove the existence of beings consciously relative to us as we are to the animal, and there is every chance they may be as fallible in their own way as I am in mine.

So yes, in that sense, the sense of mind and language, I can see what you mean. Jacob Bronowski considered this desire we have for absolute certainty to be a wholly bad thing and, in the light of human history and looking at the world today with its odious growth of blind fundamentalism and cruelty in both religion and economics, it is hard to fault his prescience.

I reiterated the age-old dilemma in this light of personal inadequacy rather than with any intention of debate or conclusion. I have long since decided that other things are more important. While questions exist which cannot be answered, I have my consciousness, however brief. I have the choice to alter the world for good or for ill – probably to a very slight degree, but the fact that I perceive such a choice at all is rather miraculous whether or not God exists. 

Sarahlein:

What meaning I personally attach to the God word is of no consequence in this discussion. I was simply stating my difficulty with one particular aspect of  the existence of God as a good, omnipotent being, which is the way most conventionally religious people choose to view God. 

leachim:

I must confess that I rather like woolly thinkers. I am a woolly thinker myself most of the time; whether through choice or limitation I cannot say.

[pianistimo]

dear torp, leahcim, and ted,

truth would be choosing God's word which equals life =the tree of life.  that's how i see it.  we may think God unfair by 'testing' us...but that's how anyone becomes strong.  you can't gain perspective without it.  a canoe trip would be a good example.  if you go through a 'hair raising' experience you learn to #1 call on God when you need some help #2 thank Him for rescuing you and not worry about the extraneous lost items #3 learn something from the event (i will not go canoeing in that area, i will manage around that spot...etc).

the only absolute certainty in this life is that we are going to die.  yet, the hope of our salvation is what keeps us going.  if Christ returns in our lifetime - not all will die - but all will be changed.  that sounds better than dying - just going from one state to the next - but in any case - this body is corruptible.

as i see it, evil is a situation that requires thought and choice.  if no evil existed, people would say - God gave us no choice but to be good.  i think He chose us to be tempted so He would know what is in our minds.  if we would choose good or evil.  it's a choice every day.  evil would not exist if it did not take root.  that goes for everyone whether christian or not.  to choose good over evil.  to reject evil.

regarding what God is like.  we don't have to imagine.  He wrote several descriptions of Himself in the bible.  seems that we should have 'fear' (reverence and respect) for His holiness and try to be 'like ' Him as much as we can. 

[leahcim]

if you go through a 'hair raising' experience you learn to #1 call on God when you need some help #2 thank Him for rescuing you and not worry about the extraneous lost items #3 learn something from the event

Yes, that would be my worry. That the child learns passivity or engages in time wasting pleas to non existant deities in the face of danger. At least during the period when there is time to think rather than react to the situation.

[rc]

I'm sorry to come in mid-7th page here, without really reading a lot of the replies so far. But just recently I remember talkin to my old man (a right wing lunatic) about the concept of god, and he made a very good point... In that regardless of religious background, it seemed that EVERYONE believed in some kind of omnipotent being. Even my own skeptical self has experienced times where I was convinced that there was some kind of 'spiritual' unity between all things.

Sometimes I think that all the laws of nature work together (naturally) to build the life and society that we've come to know, all on its own. Not because it's pre-determined, but that things happen because they make sense at the time. Totally random, but looking back it all seems to fit together.

[pianistimo]

you mean like fossil fuel, technology that mimics insects abilities, things like that.  yes! i'd agree. but, predetermined good and evil?  no.  that wouldn't leave us choice.  God probably knows how our hearts are somewhat set after a certain age - but there is a possibility of change. especially if He gives us a hair-raising situation and we can't do a thing to save ourselves.  take for instance a helicopter accident i saw on ER or something last night.  a guy is pinned down with one leg under a helpcopter.  (everyone in the helicopter miraculously survived).  there weren't enough people to get him out from under - so they tried to extinguish the flames around the accident so he wouldn't blow up.  (miraculously the helicopter didn't blow up - despite it taking awhile to put out the flames), then several park rangers hike down to help - and get the idea for a wench tied to a tree to move the helicopter off of him.  at just the right time - more people are deployed and help loosen him from under the helicopter by pulling on the rope. 

you CAN pray and act at the same time.  i have often done this in many many situations.  but,there gets to be a point where it is in God's hands.

as soon as the helicopter was lifted, he lost even more blood.  this kind of touch and go situation can make a person realize that people can only do so much.  it didn't say if he prayed or not - but he is alive today - despite losing his limb (had to have an amputation because of the serious nature of his injury).  which is worse, though, losing a limb or losing your life.  i would thank God in any case - but losing a limb must be a severe test of faith. 

[pantonality]

take for instance a helicopter accident i saw on ER or something last night.  a guy is pinned down with one leg under a helpcopter.  (everyone in the helicopter miraculously survived).  there weren't enough people to get him out from under - so they tried to extinguish the flames around the accident so he wouldn't blow up.  (miraculously the helicopter didn't blow up - despite it taking awhile to put out the flames), then several park rangers hike down to help - and get the idea for a wench tied to a tree to move the helicopter off of him.  at just the right time - more people are deployed and help loosen him from under the helicopter by pulling on the rope. 

I found the visual of a wench tied to a tree especially stimulating. I don't know how that would help a guy trapped under a helicopter, perhaps the sacrificial virgin thing. I'm sure pp meant winch, but I got a good laugh from her use of the term wench.

I'm sorry to come in mid-7th page here, without really reading a lot of the replies so far. But just recently I remember talkin to my old man (a right wing lunatic) about the concept of god, and he made a very good point... In that regardless of religious background, it seemed that EVERYONE believed in some kind of omnipotent being. Even my own skeptical self has experienced times where I was convinced that there was some kind of 'spiritual' unity between all things.

Sometimes I think that all the laws of nature work together (naturally) to build the life and society that we've come to know, all on its own. Not because it's pre-determined, but that things happen because they make sense at the time. Totally random, but looking back it all seems to fit together.

How kind of you to join us RC. Most do believe in some kind of deity and thiose that don't do so because the one they were taught about doesn't make sense. A good example would be ted's thoughts on evil. I respect that, I also respect pp's Biblical take on things. I don't personally buy either viewpoint, but that's freewill.

rc had some interesting thoughts. It's been said we create our reality with our thoughts, words and deeds. I find that to be true. How many times have you come up to a traffic light and the thought popped into your head it's going to turn red and just then it did? I've been actively thinking "stay green" lately and that seems to work 90% of the time too! It seems the universe reflects our thinking back at us. The key to success with this is not having any doubt, so if the light's been green a long time and you notice that then try to alter reality by thinking it to stay green the doubt caused by your initial thought will prevail. While the traffic light concept may seem trivial (and it is) this line of thinking can be extended to our lives in general. If you think you can never get ahead then you won't. If you say you'll try something then you don't really believe it, as Yoda said, "There is no try, there is only do." So RC why not add some of that discipline to your thinking about this unity between all things which you say you've observed?

[gruffalo]

what you guys dont understand is that science is just as un proven as God is. so you can bring on loads of arguments to prove that he doesnt exist, but at the same time there is so much uncertainty about the scientific facts discovered to this day. even old theories which were so accepted are all the time being proved wrong. it took one man to convince people the earth was round. and dont forget, all that time he was seen as an idiot.

[Torp]

yet, the hope of our salvation is what keeps us going. 

I'm afraid you are projecting your own views onto me.  I have no hope for salvation and see no need for it in order to live a fulfilling life.

You had asked me earlier to reconsider my position.  I can honestly say that considering and RE-considering my position is exactly how I have come to feel the way I do.  I have seen nothing in the "arguments" for god or salvation that have any credence in my world.  On the other hand, the thoughtful viewpoints of the "non-believers" (if you will) continue to show me that greater knowledge and peace can be obtained by continuing on my present course.

I am not besieged with the necessity of creating some sort of anthropomorphic construct to explain things that are otherwise unexplainable.  I am comfortable with ambiguity and find, actually, a tremendous amount of comfort in the mystery of life.  Paradoxically, I am also fascinated with the scientific process that attempts to explain it all.

[pantonality]

There is a fascinating article in today's edition of the Wall Street Journal. I can't post a link because the Journal requires you pay to subscribe even for online articles, so I'll do my best to give the Reader's Digest version.

The headline is:
Despite appearances, science doesn't deny the existence of God.

The basic premise is that science doesn't rule out the existence of God, but supernatural explanations do not help science explain natural phenomena. Science is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science cannot use supernatural causation in its explanations because supernatural forces are outside the provenance of science.

Although it "sounds as though science rules out the supernatural from the get-go, what actually happens is that working scientists simply find that entertaining a supernatural explanation doesn't get them very far... Science doesn't presume the supernatural distinction; it generates it by dividing what works from what doesn't." Science strives for testable explanations and predictions, including supernatural forces does not help us gain deeper understanding or predictive power.

For example if you want to credit the divine with designing human beings then you have to ask why it included autoimmune diseases, put remnants of old viral DNA in our genes, spliced repetitive br4eakage prone DNA that causes awful diseases, and took away one enzyme in the biochemical pathway that makes vitamin C, but left the rest to hang around uselessly. The "working in mysterious ways" explanation is insufficient, a scxientific explanation must account for why one thing happens and another doesn't.

That science foregoes the supernatural shouldn't bother believers. "God is not a micromanager." Explaining wonderous phenomena naturally expands our understanding of creation. If science ever does explain the supernatural it won't be to the liking of believers, we'll then have reliable, predictive knowledge and it will become just another explicable, predictive force of nature, stripped of its awe and majesty.

I'm not sure about the last part of the article, just because we have some understanding of black holes doesn't mean they're not awesome.

Steve

[Torp]

Despite appearances, science doesn't deny the existence of God.

I couldn't agree more.  Though the explanations that science puts forth often challenge the foundation of religious belief systems.  Ultimately, whether god does or doesn't exist has nothing to do with the religions that purport god's existence.  If science were to effectively disprove "everything" in the bible that still doesn't disprove the existence of god.

I'm not sure about the last part of the article, just because we have some understanding of black holes doesn't mean they're not awesome.

Again, I couldn't agree more.  In fact, I often find the explanations lead me to a greater sense of fascination and awe.


The funny thing about discussing god and science is that very often the discussion is not talking about the same thing.  I liken it to the discussion about abortion (and no, I don't wish to include that necessarily in this thread, but just by way of example).  When people discuss pro-life versus pro-choice, they're not even talking about the same things.  One side of the discussion has to do with whether an act is moral or not; the other side has to do with who's right it is to make that decision for the affected party.

The science vs god discussion seems a lot like this to me.  Science, as the article mentioned, "assumes" a certain premise, i.e. can phenomena be explained using only natural causes?  Science has done much to explain many things.  There are, obviously, errors along the way.  The fact that errors have been made doesn't undermine science in any way.  As a matter of fact, it is one of the major differences between a scientific thought process and the religious viewpoints.  Science leaves room for error and thus better explanations as better data is discovered.   Religion, on the other hand, assumes something to be infallible and then tries to mold everything to fit that.  The fact that science has continually proven itself to be wrong about things is the very strength of the system.  The fact that religion cannot admit when it's wrong is its weakness and will be its ultimate downfall.

Should religions actually fail, this still has nothing to do with whether god actually exists or not.

[I Love Xenakis]

Science says there is no god.

I've seen atoms.


I've never seen a big angry white guy with a beard throwing lightning at people from the clouds.

[Torp]

I've never seen a big angry white guy with a beard throwing lightning at people from the clouds.

You've obviously never interacted closely with psychedelic drugs.

[prometheus]

Science says there is no god.

I've seen atoms.


I've never seen a big angry white guy with a beard throwing lightning at people from the clouds.

This is all incorrect.

First off, science doesn't say that there is no god. And the fact that it doesn't is also irrelevant.

Second, you haven't seen an atom.

Third, the fact that you haven't seen doesn't matter either. The existence of atoms can be proven. We don't have to actually see them to observe them.

[pianistimo]

i enjoyed the article, pantonality. 

being that i am not a scientist - i cannot prove this scientifically, but God, to me, maintains the earth and heavens and if he knows 'every hair on our heads' he's got the ability to keep up with so much information.  he tells us to 'go to the ants' since he has preprogrammed them to be 'workers' and a trait example.  he may have set it all 'rolling' at creation - but imo He says he 'works' - so if He is actively working - what is He doing?  that's my take.

   

[prometheus]

I'm not sure about the last part of the article, just because we have some understanding of black holes doesn't mean they're not awesome.

I skimmed your post really fast. I think the point is that 'supernatural'-believers just demand stuff to be unexplained because they just like that for some reason. I totally disagree with them. The more you know about something the more impressive it is. But to some people mystery is more appealing. So these people will be dissapointed when science explains their 'supernatural things'.

so if He is actively working - what is He doing?

Nothing we can observe in our world, that is for certain. So very probable she is doing something that has nothing to do with us and our reality/world. Or she is doing nothing. Or she doesn't exist. It has been 'proven' God doesn't maintain the heavens and the earth since we can explain most things about the heavens and the earth without accounting the influence of God. So there either is no divine influence at all, or it is totally irrevelant for our models, ie the influence is neglible, which would be very strange.

If you don't like this then you can whine to God about it, maybe she will change it for you.

To me it also makes no theological sense. Why would god create a heavens and earth that needs maintenance. To me it seems that to claim this is to downplay gods ability. And why? Because 2000 years old people wrote something that contradicts that what we observe today. Well, I don't really care, but I just find it very strange.

[ted]

I'm afraid you are projecting your own views onto me.  I have no hope for salvation and see no need for it in order to live a fulfilling life.

You had asked me earlier to reconsider my position.  I can honestly say that considering and RE-considering my position is exactly how I have come to feel the way I do.  I have seen nothing in the "arguments" for god or salvation that have any credence in my world.  On the other hand, the thoughtful viewpoints of the "non-believers" (if you will) continue to show me that greater knowledge and peace can be obtained by continuing on my present course.

I am not besieged with the necessity of creating some sort of anthropomorphic construct to explain things that are otherwise unexplainable.  I am comfortable with ambiguity and find, actually, a tremendous amount of comfort in the mystery of life.  Paradoxically, I am also fascinated with the scientific process that attempts to explain it all.

Yes Torp, that is a very concise summary of my feelings on the matter too. I enjoy philosophical speculation but, as we can see, I'm not very good at it and would probably do well to engage in more constructive activities - music is a good one.

[Derek]

I sometimes wonder if I am a Christian at all, for I see God in the following manner:

Disclaimer: These are strictly personal views of mine:

God is and has always been a tremendous mystery to me. I feel that it is a near insult to God himself if I were to say to him: "I KNOW you are there." If he could speak (in plain english to my face), he would probably say: "Um, you're kinda missing the point, Derek. =D"

For me, having a relationship with God means appreciating the mystery in a deeper way than I could imagine without the Christian theology behind it. I begin with the assumption that the reason the universe exists and how it exists must have very non-trivial answers. It seems to me that believing in perhaps the most ridiculous possibility (an actual thinking being) creating the universe in a sense must be the most probable given how stupefyingly mysterious the universe truly is.

In addition to those reasons, Christian theology, writing, the Bible, and fellowship with other Christians is a great augmentation and a positive self-fulfilling prophecy that helps me to lead a sensible, joyous, and fulfilling life.

It is simply the greatest possible self fulfilling prophecy (in the sense of improving my life and how I see the world) I have yet encountered.

I can't speak for other people of course, but I highly reccommend it to anyone who would like a spiritual boost or connection.

[Derek]

I'd like to add I have great respect for Science but I shy away from allowing any part of it to become a religious entity in my life, as it has for so many people. Most people take it absolutely for granted that Science will explain absolutely everything some day. To me, this is equally thoughtless as people who refer to the Bible in every other sentence.

[I Love Xenakis]

This is all incorrect.

First off, science doesn't say that there is no god. And the fact that it doesn't is also irrelevant.

Second, you haven't seen an atom.

Third, the fact that you haven't seen doesn't matter either. The existence of atoms can be proven. We don't have to actually see them to observe them.

1-Jesus Christ how stupid are you?  Quantum Mechanics disputes the theory of a being of greater power.  Quantum Mechanics=science=me right and you stupid/pulling *** out of your ass because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

2-Do you know what an electron microscope is?

3-So you admit that there are indeed atoms.  You're right; the existance of atoms CAN be proven.  It HAS been proven.  Science is right!  Thank you for making my point here ^^  God has not been proven.  Science has.  Science disproves god, and science has been proven, therefore, suck it, idiot.


Blind faith is for the blind =P

[prometheus]

I am afraid you have no idea what you are talking about and aren't making any effort either. Any real scientist like myself knows you are blabbering nonsense. Whenever I agree with the final conclusion or not is totally irrelevant. This is also something you do not seem to realise since it seems you assume I am a christian because I do not let you get away with inaccurate reasoning. You do not understand. I do not care for conclusions. I only care for the accurateness of the reasoning. Since yours it obviously nonsense, which you probably know yourself, I reject it.

[I Love Xenakis]

I am afraid you have no idea what you are talking about and aren't making any effort either. Any real scientist like myself knows you are blabbering nonsense. Whenever I agree with the final conclusion or not is totally irrelevant. This is also something you do not seem to realise since it seems you assume I am a christian because I do not let you get away with inaccurate reasoning. You do not understand. I do not care for conclusions. I only care for the accurateness of the reasoning. Since yours it obviously nonsense, which you probably know yourself, I reject it.

So you're a scientist?  Please tell me what field you work in and what type of degree you have, and where you got it from.

[I Love Xenakis]

Actually, now that I think about it, don't even waste your time trying to come up with some BS answer.  Nobody who's ever graduated highschool will ever use the "word" "accurateness".

[prometheus]

Isn't it obvious that english isn't my primary language?

Since you don't even want to discuss about anything I think I will ignore your troll.

[I Love Xenakis]

Something really emo that I make up off the top of my head as an excuse to not be put in the position of being found out that I'm a total liar and I make sh*t up about myself just to gain some sort of inane leverage in a pointless conversation on the internet.

Nobody is falling for it.

[leahcim]

It's been said we create our reality with our thoughts, words and deeds. I find that to be true. How many times have you come up to a traffic light and the thought popped into your head it's going to turn red and just then it did? I've been actively thinking "stay green" lately and that seems to work 90% of the time too!

Stick a pint of bleach in a wine bottle and see how many of your guests that believe it to be wine enjoy their meal.

[Use creme de menthe if your think your new skill of thinking "green, green, green" will affect the one we all supposedly have to turn things red]

[prometheus]

I've been actively thinking "stay green" lately and that seems to work 90% of the time too!

This just shows how easy it is to delude yourself. Humans are just very very superstitious. Even Einstein did it.

[Derek]

"You don't learn by having faith. You learn by questioning, by challenging, by re-examining everything you've ever believed. And yet, all this is a matter of faith--the faith that there is a truth to be found.  It is another paradox: To truly question, you must truly have faith."   --CS Lewis

[rc]

Hopefully one day I will have 17 hours to read this whole thread. Skimming through I see a lot of interesting things. Hilarious things as well

rc had some interesting thoughts. It's been said we create our reality with our thoughts, words and deeds. I find that to be true. How many times have you come up to a traffic light and the thought popped into your head it's going to turn red and just then it did? I've been actively thinking "stay green" lately and that seems to work 90% of the time too! It seems the universe reflects our thinking back at us. The key to success with this is not having any doubt, so if the light's been green a long time and you notice that then try to alter reality by thinking it to stay green the doubt caused by your initial thought will prevail. While the traffic light concept may seem trivial (and it is) this line of thinking can be extended to our lives in general. If you think you can never get ahead then you won't. If you say you'll try something then you don't really believe it, as Yoda said, "There is no try, there is only do." So RC why not add some of that discipline to your thinking about this unity between all things which you say you've observed?

This line of thinking could lead to trouble. Often our beliefs in things become the be-all-end-all, so that whatever happens I will see it in supporting my belief. So in hindsight, it's easy to think that you control the trafficlights. Using this example, a problem with this theory is that people in all ends of the intersection would be willing the light to be green for them... Then the universe would implode, and we can't have that.

The idea of creating reality with thoughts is more in the sense that thought leads to action. Thinking of a sandwich doesn't make it magically appear, but it makes you get up and construct the sandwich. So the thought did lead to a sandwich, not magically, but as a chain of events. That's why it's so important to think good thoughts, it's why the pessimists will always be losers and ignorance is so prone to bad results (how they pave the road to hell). You already know these things, but I wouldn't go so far as to think I could literally control things with my thoughts, though that's an interesting idea. Here's something neat: https://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tel

Now, the unity of the universe is a big idea. I'm not sure how to go about understanding such a thing, or what I would do with that understanding. It's something to chew on for a long time, right now all I can really do with such an idea is play with it in a faith-based way, just act as if I knew it was so. But then, what to do with such things? try and share the findings I suppose, and use the ideas for any personal goals.

Someone mentioned Einstien, who wrestled with these grand ideas. His purpose was to discover them and explain it very well through science, a lofty ideal that lead to great achievement. Another might work to the end of creating a great life for himself and to hand down to children, possibly someone in a future generation will be able to explain them.

I just see certain ideas as useful, like the metaphysics of how thoughts can create reality, but others I'm not so sure what could be done with... It's definitely something to chew on! I do think this universal-unity is possible, and maybe even there is some benevolent force behind it all, "God" if you will. It would be nice to be able to understand these things through more reliable explainations than blind faith.

Here's another very interesting story from the same site, guaranteed to get the gears grinding: https://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal

Now, I'd better be off, to use my thoughts to build the ultimate tuna sandwich .

[ryguillian]

Pop goes the weasel!

—Ryan

[ahinton]

Pop goes the weasel!

—Ryan

We know there's Pop - and plenty of it - but "Is there a Weasel?" (no predictable answers, please!). If so, will it justify a new thread?

To return to the topic, Stravinsky, late in life, was asked if he believed in God and he answered in the affirmative; when asked why, he replied "because it's so ridiculous!". Quite where that might leave his Symphony of Psalms I leave others to speculate...

Best,

Alistair

[cowgirl]

yes there is a God and His name is Jesus Christ!!!!

Southern by the grace of God,
cowgirl

[pianistimo]

well, we may disagree about the north and south bit, and if lincoln truly was or wasn't for slavery - but, if you believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior - and that God the Father and God the Son are one through the work of the Holy Spirit emanating from both (since Christ couldn't send it until He was ressurrected to the Father - and the Comforter of the Holy Spirit would be that replacement of Himself to us) - then you have a chance to understand things that science can't work out.  namely, love.  how do you explain if someone did something by his/her own power or work - or by God's power.  as i understand it, we are all selfish beings - and most of our motives are purely to serve ourselves.  to go outside of this - we ask for God's help through prayer to become more like Him.  he is concerned every day for our well being.  for our minds and thoughts to be like His - without violence and strife.  to have peace.  science hasn't stopped war.  only God can, imo.  this is a loftier goal than just knowing everything.  (that's a clanging cymbal without love).  i think He will ultimately reveal everything to us at the right time.  after all, He tells us that we have a reward coming - not just of life - but of seeing Him 'as He is.'  no man has seen God yet, but when we can actually look at Him and be with Him - we'll understand what it means to be like - and think like God.  we are called 'sons of God'  and yet it does not appear to us what we will be like.  butterflies are the closest example we can see - except that Christ was ressurrected first (as a firstfruit of the harvest).  we should try to be in the FIRST ressurrection - over which death (eternal) has no power.  science can't save us.  just helps us understand our surroundings and helps us in many ways in medicine - etc.

[pantonality]

Everything ever done by any human began as a thought (which then led to action). So in a macro sense thought does indeed create reality. the question is not whether God exists, but what are we in relation to God? So as long as we're posting links perhaps you'll find this entertaining. This is channeled material, that means devout Christians should avoid it because it's the Devil's work. To skeptics all that means is that it was made up. To those who believe in spirituality that extends beyond religion it is food for thought and possibly has some bearing on reality. Be careful, I sent this to a friend who has since avoided me.
 

https://www.kryon.com/k_chanelhowbig.html

Steve

[pianistimo]

that's ridiculous to christians.  God is in all and through all.  He doesn't need angels to manage his creation - He is the life of it all.  the sole purpose of the angels is to look out for man, and to serve man and God.  not the other way around.  we are not angels!  we are sons of God.  for now the angels are above us.  but after the ressurrection, we will be above them.  they were created for a good purpose, but 1/3 fell away.  they are NOT all going around with the same purpose.  they've thwarted their purpose against God and against man.  if you let demons channel you - you're just allowing yourself to be used.

as far as electronic channelling - i think that when it comes down to God knowing his own - He'll let us know when the time is right to stop functioning as we have been in the realm that we know.  imagine this is when the book of revelations, and the seals are close to being complete.  it says that the angels that serve God will be 'sealing' Christians so that at Christ's return - we will actually see him return in the clouds and not be 'ashamed.'  there is an element of worship there.  we don't worship angels and we acknowledge God as our saviour (and not them).  if an angel asks you to worship him or follow his ways (different than the bible) he is not an angel of 'light.'  rather, an angel of 'darkness.'

[timothy42b]

- and that God the Father and God the Son are one through the work of the Holy Spirit emanating from both

From both?  That is far from noncontroversial you know.  Well, you probably don't know.

You are quoting the Nicene Creed, specifically the phrase called the Filoque Clause.  That wasn't in the original, it was added several hundred years later.  Many denominations disagreed and refused to change the wording - I believe the Eastern Orthodox among others don't agree.  If it were found in scripture there would be no argument, but it is not. 

[pantonality]

that's ridiculous to christians.  God is in all and through all.  He doesn't need angels to manage his creation - He is the life of it all.

If you really believe this then everything is God and there is nothing that isn't God. We are all one, whether good or evil. Nothing is separate from God and that means WE are God. All the individuals whether people or angels or devils are simply individuations of the eternal. Is that what you mean to say? So you see there's something about what you've said that isn't logical. If God is in and through everything (all) then isn't it all God? How could 1/3rd fall away from something that's in and through everything?

Now you mentioned a few words about channeling demons. Every sacred scripture has been the result of channeling whether it was Moses' burning bush, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy. So are you saying God has stopped talking? Something tells me that isn't the case, people just stopped listening and started looking for God in books. If you want to know what God thinks why not listen within, not to the big voice (the ego), but the little voice behind it, the one that speaks first, but usually gets ignored because what it says is too difficult or hard to believe.

[pianistimo]

my mistake, timothy42b!  i mean Christ had to be ressurrected to send it.  john 15:26 'when the Helper comes, whom i will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me.'   anyway, i meant that we obtain the Holy Spirit by believing in the ressurrection and saving power of Christ (our intercessor) who speaks to the Father on our behalf.  He is our 'high priest' - so we can't omit Him.  We go through Him to obtain the blessing of the Father and the Holy Spirit.  (question:  why did Christ have to return to the Father before the Holy Spirit could be sent if He wasn't an important part of sending it?  i believe that it is because Chirst 'is the way, the truth, and the life'  noone can come to the Father except through Him)

about channelling, in acts 16:16 it says 'and it happened as we were going to the place of prayer, a certain slave-girl having a spirit of divination met us, who was bringing her master much profit by fortunetelling.  following after paul and us, she kept crying out, saying, 'these men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.'  and she continued doing this for many days.  but paul was greatly annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, ' i command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!'  and it came out at that very moment.  but when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they siezed paul and silas and dragged them into the market place before the authorities...'

so you see, christians shouldn't preach the gospel on a business basis.  telling people the future for money.  that is why Christ overturned the money changers tables on the Sabbath.  He was making a point that the 'gospel' is not a business.  we should not make it into a 'channelling' to obtain profit.  chanelling and walking and talking by the Holy Spirit are two very distinctly different things. 

in terms of God being in all and through all - that is 'the breath of life.'  no one but God can create life...or make the seas have their tides and the planets and stars orbit according to His will.  Nothing is seen that wasn't made by Him - therefore His hand is in everything.  He 'upholds all things by the power of His word...' (heb. 1:3)  of the angels he says in heb 1:14 'are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation.'  (psalm 103:20 as well).  the purpose of the demons is to thwart the plan of salvation and say God isn't necessary.  He isn't involved in his creation - let alone the salvation of mankind.  'for this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.  for if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?...God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will...for He did not subject to angels the world to come....'what is man, that you remember him?  or the son of man, that you are concerned about him? you have made him for a little while lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor, and have appointed him over the works of Your hands; You have put all things in subjection under his feet.' (hebrews 2)

[pianistimo]

one more thing that comes to mind is that the words of the slave-girl, although accurate - were repeated over and over as to garner business.  she was known for fortunetelling and wanted to make a profit over knowing who paul and silas were - and making the gospel something to profit from (even though it was true that they preached a gospel of salvation).  truth and lie are always combined when satan is involved. 

[pantonality]

Hey PP,

Who said anything about fortune telling for profit? The information at the link I provided is free, so where's the profit. With regard to your lengthy paragraph  on God being in and through all, your response makes no sense. Because you insist on quoting from the Bible it has no bearing on what I wrote. On the one hand you say God's hand is in everything, then you say that the purpose of demons is to thwart God's will. Well if what you say is true then God's hand is in the demons whose purpose is to thwart his own will. How does that make sense?

I see you also ignored my suggestion that you seek your own answers in your heart. So let me suggest it again, put down the book, close your eyes and pray (or meditate) and ask God if he still talks to humans. If the answer you get is yes, then request that she talk to you (just say please talk to me). You may be surprised at some of what you hear. If the voice ever gets loud recognize that your ego has taken over the conversation and it usually just tells you what you want to hear.

[pianistimo]

the link you provided was probably an excerpt from a paid session for channelling.  i've never seen a fortune teller work for free.  they are listed in the phone book as business.  magic is sold.  truth is free.

as for, 'don't read the bible, just pray' ?  then i wouldn't be a true follower of Christ.  when satan tempted him (after his 40 day/night fast) He was extremely close to God because he resisted at His weakest physical point.  and, he used the words of the bible.  OT verses.  so, even He himself, as God incarnate, spoke only what He knew the Father said.  if God is a judge, we should respect him, and know the laws from which we are judged.  (then we will have judged ourselves - nonetheless sinners - and ask for forgiveness of sins.)

[prometheus]

You are speaking truth there, pianistimo. All those people are charlatans. The sad thing is that some don't even realise themselves that they are. They really believe in their own magic.

[clef]

here is a good site, a fair bit of proof that god exists, it is all around, just take some time and seriously, and non prejudimentally, look

https://www.near-death.com/

https://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html

https://www.doesgodexist.org/AboutClayton/PastLife.html

seek and you shall find

[timothy42b]

Yes, read those three seriously, but not gullibly. 

If you do that, when you are done laughing, you will feel bad you wasted the time. 

Their purpose is not to convince, instead it is experiential.  But the logic does not stand up to even a cursory look.  I mean, come on, do you really ask an astronomy professor about DNA?  Do geology professors hate the Bible, but in such an inept way?  That was written by a person who has never been in a college classroom in his life. 

[pantonality]

Yes, read those three seriously, but not gullibly. 

If you do that, when you are done laughing, you will feel bad you wasted the time. 

Their purpose is not to convince, instead it is experiential.  But the logic does not stand up to even a cursory look.  I mean, come on, do you really ask an astronomy professor about DNA?  Do geology professors hate the Bible, but in such an inept way?  That was written by a person who has never been in a college classroom in his life. 

Hi Tim,

I agree with you on the second and third links. The near death link is quite different, it is simply a listing of personal experiences. It is not intended to convince anyone of any particular thing (at least as regards any particular religion), it's intent is to relate the experiences of people who have been clinically dead. I find the descriptions of what comes after death to be significantly at variance with what most Christians believe and for me that is comforting. I know two people who have had near death experiences, they were very real experoiences to them. So I give these descriptions a great deal of credence because people I know have had surprisingly similar experiences.

However, there seems to be a prevailing attitude among skeptics to only believe that which can be proven. It seems almost a point of pride to rely only on the empirical. Logic is a wonderful thing, but it's only capable of so much. Without empirical data logic will lead you down the same type of path as religion, that's the one where you're just making it up. The only difference is the set of assumptions you use to come to your conclusions.

One of the points made in the 2nd link is that science cannot explain everything. I agree with this notion. I only stopped reading when he said the Bible was inerrant (something I personally don't buy). It seems that the more science explores the universe the more things seem whacky. For example did you know that science has proven that the expansion of the universe is accellerating? This is unexplainable by the Big Bang theory and seems to point that much of what we've logically surmised about the origin of the universe is wrong. Indeed it seems the universe is still in creation/expansion mode, else why would expansion be accelerating? My point in all this is when it comes to matters very large or very small logic doesn't work. Given the wackyness of Quantum Mechanics and now the accellerating expansion of the universe it seems logic has proven almost useless. So please do us all a favor and lose the arrogance, because your understanding has no more credibility than anyone else's (OK, I'll give you more credibility than the young earthers, but they ignore facts for fiction, er a book).

Steve

[timothy42b]

Hi Tim,

I agree with you on the second and third links. The near death link is quite different, it is simply a listing of personal experiences. It is not intended to convince anyone of any particular thing (at least as regards any particular religion), it's intent is to relate the experiences of people who have been clinically dead. I find the descriptions of what comes after death to be significantly at variance with what most Christians believe and for me that is comforting. I know two people who have had near death experiences, they were very real experoiences to them. So I give these descriptions a great deal of credence because people I know have had surprisingly similar experiences.


Steve

Steve,

In hindsight you are quite correct and I should not have treated the three links in the same manner.

The second two have sloppy writing, unsupportable logic, and deliberate dishonesty.  You should not be able to read this stuff without your BS meter pegging. 

The NDE on the other hand is fairly well written and describes actual experiences, so though I may disagree with the conclusions I should not have lumped it with the others. 

There is an implicit piece of logic involved in citing the NDE link that I would like to make explicit and object to.  IF there are people who have experiences commonly described as NDE, THEN it follows that there must exist an Afterlife, THEN it follows there must be a Creator, THEN it follows that the Creator must be of the form worshipped by Southern Baptists.  I will agree only with the IF part of that!!!

The other side of the NDE experience is that 1) NDE experiences are commonly reported by people whose medical history when studied carefully indicates they were not actually anywhere near close to death  and 2)  NDE experiences seem to be easily reproduced by drugs, oxygen deprivation and a few other factors.   So the fact that they tend to share common features may mean only that this is the way the human brain reacts under those conditions, not that there is any external reality to what may just be hallucination. 

[pantonality]

Hi Tim,

I'm glad we agree on links 2 and 3 and for the most part on the NDE link. I also appreciate your humor in your IF and THEN statements. I personally go so far as to accept that NDEs would seem to indicate the existence of an afterlife and a creator and ROTFLMAO at your comment about Southern Baptists. I have seen published information  which both agrees with and disputes whether NDE experiences can be replicated and so prefer to withhold judgment on that part. It serves me to believe the experiences are real but of course YMMV. We're all going to find out sooner or later anyway. 

Steve

[donjuan]

We're all going to find out sooner or later anyway. 

well, only if it's true; if it doesnt happen, youll be dead before you have time to say "hey everyone!  it didnt happen!!"

[stevie]

eric cartman summed it up best when he said '*** god'