What is your justification for believing in a God?

Moontanman · April 12, 2012

ok....

I wrote... showed... lines from Genesis...

The Bible mentions all of this.. the creation of matter..and its division / speration into bodies in space. Read it.. Verse 2 : And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Waters?

here... we see... the earth.. was without form... literally. space was dark... and space... is described as the waters... and gods spirit.. moved upon it.. as in, added energy too. Verse 3 : And God said, let there be light: and there was light.

As compelling as you think that interpretation is i see no reason to assume you are correct, in fact I do not see this at all.

here... LIGHT FORMS.... and is described in a most primitive form, as god said... words.. sounds.. being vibration.. added to space.,,, hence making light.

Verse 4 : And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

(perhaps this is 6D, where the developed photons convert to something more.)

How could there have been light and dark with no earth, no sun and no moon?

 THIS EVEN FITS BIG BANG.... LIGHT... BECOMING MATTER... sub atomic particles. Verse 6 : And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

So here...mass was formed... within the waters... which is space.

Water is outer space? That a pretty big leap of faith don't you think?

(A firmament, a mass in 7D, and 8D where that mass was then divided out into space, the ether, being a tranindental fluid, being the waters.) 
 Verse 7 :

There is no either, and water is not space, space is a vacuum.

And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the water which were above the firmament: and it was so. (9D, 10D, 11D) 
that mass... is then distributed across space.

The firmament is clearly the sky, there is no water above the sky.

 Verse 8 : And God called the firmament heaven, and the evening and the morning were the second day.

There is no water above the sky or heaven.

the heavens.. as we know them.. deep space is complete.... with all matter in place... as we know them... galaxies.. etc.

I see no mention of any of this in Genesis.

(The heavens are complete, 8D threw  15D, atoms exist, and planets and the bulk of the heavenly bodies began to form…) 

so...

right here... we can see that Moses... said it first... and Big Bang... copied him.

So.. now...

First of all... I do not base my belief in god based on this ... no...

I base my belief.. on the fact that superclusters... are spirally expanding clouds.. made of.. galaxies...

and galaxies.. are spirally expanding clouds of stars...

and stars... spiral in the same fashion...

and atoms.. likewise have orbitals.

the differences being seen as the super-clusters... would of started expanding first...

then galaxies were born... AS PROVEN BY THE HUBBLE TELESCOPE... to start as small balls... which expand outward into spiral clouds.

stars... also follow this pattern but the evidence is not in... on exactly how they form...

but..

but... based on the evidence shown.. it is likely that they start as large neutron like masses which explode with great spins.. to form the spinning clouds that form those solar systems... as is also evidenced that galaxies look... as if they did the same thing.. and the giant core masses... (some call black holes) at the center.. would seem to be that original mass that exploded to become galaxies...

atoms.. likewise.. have this aspect.. of electron emission...

the issue is then of scale.. and quality.. which appears to transcend ... change... and vary in degrees from super cluster formation to galaxy formation.. to star formation and atom formation...

it is this pattern.... of formation... clearly in evidence..

which... then suggests a dimensional progressive pattern I propose as field theory... and that field theory... of dimensional motion.. can have only one cause.. which would be the application of energy from some outside (outside our universe) source.... and that source.. for lack of a better term.. would be GOD.

So that.. is why I believe.. because the evidence suggests it.... and theory... makes sense of it... all of which.. suggests a source of energy..

and most importantly... that source of energy.. would of had to have a specific quality... a quality that resulted in our universe.. exactly as we know it.

This... has nothing to do with evidence for god... or views about god... what it is.. is justification for believing a god probably exists.. as the source of energy in creation.... and that is all.

and that... is significant .... very.

-Mosheh Thezion

Mosheh Thezion, while I respect your right to your own beliefs, i do not respect your right to your own reality. you are simply twisting scripture to fit your own beliefs. you are changing the meaning of words to make your need to believe in god fit. If you believe this even though it is obviously a twisted interpretation of scripture then have at it, but the bible does not say these things or at least not what you seem to think they mean. You cannot have your own reality. The bible clearly does not mention galaxies or super clusters or even stars as anything but lights in the sky, in fact the bible clearly says the stars can be moved by storms and come down and fight with humans.

Your web site failed miserably as does your interpretation of Genesis, I can't even give you points for trying, you leave out much that conflicts directly with reality and twist the rest to fit. epic failure but believe what you will...

as such... it cannot be used to dis-prove god either.

and if you read... you will see... my belief is not based on the bible...

I respect the bible... because it is my view.. that Genesis... at least.. is very fitting to science and evidence... if you can get past your biases.

yes it can, the bible is clearly not true, if gods supposed word is clearly not true then that is evidence he does not exist, god is made up by men as is the bible. you cannot have it both ways, either the bible is true and as such evidence of god or it is not and as such is evidence against the existence of god.

my belief is not based on the bible

This is simply dishonest, either you are using the bible as evidence or you are not you cannot do both. You claim scripture as evidence then say you do not... which is it?

Villain · April 12, 2012

yes it can, the bible is clearly not true, if gods supposed word is clearly not true then that is evidence he does not exist, god is made up by men as is the bible. you cannot have it both ways, either the bible is true and as such evidence of god or it is not and as such is evidence against the existence of god.

Either you have to agree that the Bible is from God and therefore proves that God exists or you have to disagree and therefore it proves nothing about whether God does or doesn't exist. Supposing relates to the individual that supposes. If God created humans then He exists whether or not you suppose.

immortal · April 12, 2012

The oral traditions of the indigenous Australians say that a giant snake created the earth and that droughts are caused by a greedy frog which drinks all the water in the land. Those of the Abenaki native Americans say the continents are giant turtles and corn was created by a man dragging a woman across the land by her hair, etc, etc, etc.

Oral traditions have not inherent "truth" simply by being oral traditions, which means you need a criteria by which to decide which you will pay attention to and which you won't.

In the same sense "revelations/revealed truth" is an appeal to authority: http://rationallyspe...al-fallacy.html

At some point you need to trust the authority which has revealed this "truth" exclusively to you.

There's a subjectively defined leap of faith at some point, regardless.

My beliefs are not illogical, they are non-logical and non-rational.

Kant held that synthetic a priori judgments were possible in mathematics and physics but not in metaphysics. Thus he thought it a mistake for metaphysicians to attempt to go beyond sense experience in order to define concepts like God, freedom, or the immortal soul. All theoretical knowledge consists in applying the categories to perceptual material located in space and time, and these concepts lie outside the spatiotemporal categories.

Kant strongly criticized metaphysicians and the empirical sciences for attempting to conclude things about God based on logic, reason and empiricism for a God who is beyond rationalism and empiricism itself.

I have no problem if anyone doesn't believe in God but if one goes by the reasoning of Kant there are no logical and rational reasons for not to believe in God.

As far as my criteria for choosing on what things we need to invest our time and what not to, I go by the criteria of Broad, there is just too much debate on this particular topic.

Broad focuses completely on the credibility of the experience and any claims related to it. He states that it is reasonable to agree that when there is a core agreement in the religious experiences of people in different times, places, and traditions, and when they have the same rational interpretations of the experiences, it makes sense to conclude that they are all in contact with some objective aspect of reality, unless there is positive evidence otherwise (Broad 2008, 216–217).

http://dlicorish.hubpages.com/hub/Religious-Experience-An-Analysis

There is just an amazing amazing degree of similarity between the oral traditions of Gnostic Valentinians, Kabbahalists, the tradition of the Upanishads and other ancient traditions, they all were from different cultures, places, traditions who interpreted their contact with the numinous nature of God based on a rational interpretation of the human psyche across centuries of time, being a rational being I just cannot dismiss them as delusions. I just cannot.

I have no problem if no one believes in it but if one goes by the reasoning of Kant and Occam's Razor its inevitable that one needs to have a weak belief in God in order to bring positive evidence of God in the first place.

This is my justification for a weak belief in God.

**mooeypoo** · April 12, 2012

Who are you?

and are you able to discuss things that Mooeypoo refuses to do?

You.. are correct that what i wrote in 1994, is flawed... to be sure.

but luckily god... is not based on things I have written.

you cannot use my mistakes as an argument against a god.

The discussion... i attempted to have with mooeypoo.... was about evidence... evidence in the heavens... and how genesis... fits guite well.

I suggest you respond to that... if you are going to talk to me, as that, is what I would want to talk about.

The question is asked... what justification do I have for believing in a god.???

Well.. if you are not willing to discuss that... then why are you responding for mooeypoo?

Should I repeat myself... or can you scan back and read it yourself?

I showed evidence... of super clusters.., galaxies.. and stars... and related it to genesis.

-Mosheh Thezion

Mosheh,

It's very hard to know where to start answering your claims. One of the reasons is that we've been through the "claims" you raise about 10 times already (I asked that you look 'randomness' up in the forums for a reason), the second is that it is ... very... hard to.... read the.... sentence... when... you seem to.... ignore the... need.... to use.... complete and understandable.... sentences....

I know you think I'm mocking you. I really don't. You came to this forum and you're putting your claims, but you don't seem to want to cooperate on a proper argument. When I answered other claims of other people, you quoted me as if I answered your own, lashed out at me as if I am cursing you when all I asked is that you participate in the discussion in a manner that will actually allow us to answer you.

I've answered your claims about the randomness. I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly when you seem to insist to stomping your feeet on the floor and repeat the claims.

Here's the crux of it (Which, with due respect Mosheh, you would have read already if you had the tiniest degree of respect to read this thread more fully) :

Evidence for the existence of God that come FROM THE BIBLE are circular. You first need to prove the bible is correct before you use the bible to prove god's existence is correct.
It seems that religion tries to claim the bible is correct because it's the word of God, and then show God exists because of what the bible says. Clearly, that's not good evidence.
The problem with evil will not go away just by ignoring it.
I don't need to prove god doesn't exist. You need to prove god exists; that's how science works -- when there si a claim there should be evidence and support for the claim. That's a very big distinction.
Please do not argue about evolution (or what you *think* evolution is) in this thread, because
- It's irrelevant. Even if evolution is false, it doesn't automatically means God is true.
- It's confusing the argument of what we're trying to focus on in this thread.

And lastly, it seems to me that you are allowed to be passionate about your belief in god, but I am not allowed to be passionate in my disbelief. You attack me on answers that are polite (but blunt) -- we are not in a theology seminar, and you're not here to pass me through my bar mitzvah (Or bat mitzvah); We're discussing, and we need to remain civil on both ends.

If you think I was rude to you, use the "report" button; in this particular thread I am not a staff member, I"m just a debater like you, so *other* moderators will take a look at your reasons and complaints and will deal with it.

But it's very frustrating to start considering where I should begin answering a completely nonscientific collection of very hard to read half-sentences when you also add into it some nicely peppered personal attacks.

That's why I didn't bother answering the claims up until now. If you want to play, I can play, but let's both play nice.

Undermining your belief system by asking you tough questions is not being not-nice; it's part of this forum. If you don't like it, don't post in the religion forum. If you can handle it, then please get off the branch a bit and we can continue debating.

I don't want to assume anything, but I suspect from the name you use that you might have the ability to read the "old" testament in its original hebrew/aramaic language. That actually gives us equal footing, and I'd love to continue debating with you, but I really can't if I feel like every word I say will start a lash-fest.

Let me respect you, by you respecting me too. I think that's a fair request.

Yom tov,

Moriel

as such... it cannot be used to dis-prove god either.

and if you read... you will see... my belief is not based on the bible...

I respect the bible... because it is my view.. that Genesis... at least.. is very fitting to science and evidence... if you can get past your biases.

Genesis can be fitted into science if you try, but it's not automatically describing science. There are probems in the order of creation that contradict science.

For example, light was created before the sun. Of course, if God exists, this is easy to explain by saying that the concept of light was created first. Sure, why not.

Another example is that plants were created before the sun. Of course, plants need sun to survive, so that is a bit weird. Of course, that can be explained that if God exists, he kept the plants alive until the sun was created. Sure, why not.

the problem here, though, is that you need to "excuse" things in order for them to fit science. That happens in the bible a lot -- you seem to need to interpret the words slightly differently and use a loose definition of "symbolism" to make the bible fit science.

But even if the bible does fit science, here's something that always bothered me: It's all retroactive.

Doesn't that bother you?

I mean here that if 500 years ago, a theologian who studies the bible incredibly well (and perhaps one that is also appreciative to science, there are lots of those especially back then) would discover the theory of Quantum Mechanics because of the bible -- I would be impressed.

If 1000 years ago, the theory of electromagnetism would have been described and discovered scientifically *because* of the bible, well, then we'd be going somewhere.

But you claim that those truths exist in the bible, yet you claim that *after* the discovery was made by science. So either God is being so vague it's impossible for anyone to understand him (in which case, what's the use to even try?) or maybe, perhaps, we're just trying hard to reinterpret lines in the bible to fit discoveries that science makes independently.

One day a friend of mine and myself sat with Anna Karenina (which, I admit, I can't stand reading fully, but he has, twice, cover to cover) and he showed me how the book can be used to learn about quantum mechanics. It was surprising, but he did it, because when you try hard, you can find interpretation for anything.

He did it after-the-fact though. If someone would've discovered quantum mechanics just by reading and studying Anna Karenina, now, THEN you and I both would be impressed, wouldn't we?

There are many questions in physics that are still in need of an explanation. Scientists don't go to the bible to find the explanation, they work by the scientific method, research, and discover it independently of the question of God.

The fact theologians later go BACK to find mentions of these (interpreted, mind you) in the bible, is a separate issue.

And lastly, Mosheh, the final reason why the quotes you brought forth from genesis are not as impressive as you'd want us to think, is because they're vague. If even one of those quotes said "In the beginning, there was a rapid expansion of matter and energy, resulting in fluctuations in the quantum field taht will lead to the WMAP" (or any other phrasing for it) -- well, we'd have much less of an argument now, wouldn't we?

But it's vague, it can be interpreted many ways, and it's done after the fact. That's not proof. It might be a "cool thing to read" or an "interesting anecdode" but it's not evidence.

Now, please -- please -- answer my points as I've answered yours. Respectfully. The fact I challenge your belief and your scripture does not constitute disrespect, just like when you challenge mine it doesn't constitute disrespect.

We can have a civil debate.

~mooey

Either you have to agree that the Bible is from God and therefore proves that God exists or you have to disagree and therefore it proves nothing about whether God does or doesn't exist. Supposing relates to the individual that supposes. If God created humans then He exists whether or not you suppose.

Even if you agree that the bible is from God, that shouldn't be enough to constitute a PROOF of God. It can be enough to have a strong personal belief, but it's not *proof*.

Proof and evidence are definitions of science. If you don't want to go by the scientific method when judging your own belief that is perfectly fine, but I think our problem here is that many religious people insist that it IS scientific (and logical).

The only claim made here in this context is that it's not. The fair thing to do if one has circular belief (The bible comes from god therefore proves god) is to admit it's non scientific.

There's nothing wrong with having a strong belief despite of evidence. It's your right to have it.

~mooey

Villain · April 12, 2012

Even if you agree that the bible is from God, that shouldn't be enough to constitute a PROOF of God. It can be enough to have a strong personal belief, but it's not *proof*.

Proof and evidence are definitions of science. If you don't want to go by the scientific method when judging your own belief that is perfectly fine, but I think our problem here is that many religious people insist that it IS scientific (and logical).

The only claim made here in this context is that it's not. The fair thing to do if one has circular belief (The bible comes from god therefore proves god) is to admit it's non scientific.

There's nothing wrong with having a strong belief despite of evidence. It's your right to have it.

~mooey

I could see how you might come to the above conclusion when my post is read out of context but I quoted the passage above it for a reason.

**mooeypoo** · April 12, 2012

I could see how you might come to the above conclusion when my post is read out of context but I quoted the passage above it for a reason.

I saw what you quoted, but I think I might've misunderstood your point, then, because I am not sure why what I answered is out of context?

I apologize if it is..

Villain · April 12, 2012

I saw what you quoted, but I think I might've misunderstood your point, then, because I am not sure why what I answered is out of context?

I apologize if it is..

I probably could have written it better... My point was that assuming God used man to write the Bible means that God must exist (if God didn't exist then how could he have used man to write the Bible?), while assuming that man wrote the Bible on his own accord is not evidence that God does not exist, but merely evidence that He didn't use man to write the Bible.

**mooeypoo** · April 12, 2012

I probably could have written it better... My point was that assuming God used man to write the Bible means that God must exist (if God didn't exist then how could he have used man to write the Bible?), while assuming that man wrote the Bible on his own accord is not evidence that God does not exist, but merely evidence that He didn't use man to write the Bible.

I agree.

Lala · April 13, 2012

i have belief in god and UFO's

i just dont think of god in the same way most do

i think the book he gave us

makes god sound like this

something with an IQ of a mil +++++

try'n to tell us

where and how we were made

it even says

i took a rib from man to make woman

god could not say other words because

we would not of understood them

many other things talked about in the book

makes it sound like a daddy talking to a child

try'n to make that child understand

and it even says that it never rained there

where man and woman were 1st made

that tells me we started in a lab

not out in the world

because god 1st made the world

and said let there be light and rain and so on

By Olala ^.^)/

Mosheh Thezion · April 14, 2012

GESH... talk about closed minds...

YOU (Atheists here) BASE YOUR VIEW ON science... but it seems.. you take everything as perfect and adopt big bang as absolute truth.. which is nonsense, as our science is only 300 years old, and it is illogical to presume, the first theory of creation (big bang) would be accurate and perfect.

IN FACT.... MANY ... MANY SCIENTISTS WILL AND HAVE... OPENLY OPPOSED BIG BANG... and refute it... as NOT PROVEN... NOT PROVEN BY A LONG SHOT, IN FACT.. UN-PLAUSIBLE.

SEE --> http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

read that....

also..

let me say this...

From : http://empiricalchurch.org/createvolutionism/

Basically, what I propose here, as part of theory, is itself, reflective of the dimensional progression proposed for universal development. As it is found the +pos Photons from our sun, our star, applied to our closed system planet, have what can be called a right hand twist in it’s nature and this twist also happens to be found in all the Amino acids used by life forms. So all proteins are also right hand twisted, as is DNA and centrioles, which control cell mitosis. Thus, the progressive dimensional nature of life form development is clearly evident, manifested in increasing levels of complexity in molecular structure, and then cell parts, where the earth as a whole could be thought of as one big cell, then individual cells & then organizational multi-celled forms et

c...

And.. even if.. my views on land animal formation is completely wrong... in general... it fits... as a predestined evolution based on natural laws. laws.. predestined since the birth of the universe.... hence... PRE-DESTINED TO OCCUR... ON PLANETS... LIKE OURS... OF WHICH.. THERE MAYBE MANY.

also...

NOW, along this line we can consider Genesis, and its proposals.

( Note: The bible never actually says the world is 6000 years old.)

BIBLICAL RELATIONS -king James- Genesis : chapter one

Verse 1 : In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ( 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D)

Verse 2 : And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

(perhaps 4D, and we see how the applied energy might be imagined as the application of Gods spirit, since its moving apon the waters, would be the applied force of creation.)

Verse 3 : And God said, let there be light: and there was light. ( 5D)

Verse 4 : And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (perhaps this is 6D, where the developed photons convert to something more.)

Verse 5 : And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night, and the evening and the morning were the first day. (Still in 6D… but moving through 7D)

Verse 6 : And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (A firmament, a mass in 7D, and 8D where that mass was then divided out into space, the ether, being a tranindental fluid, being the waters.)

Verse 7 : And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the water which were above the firmament: and it was so. (9D, 10D, 11D)

Verse 8 : And God called the firmament heaven, and the evening and the morning were the second day. (The heavens are complete, 8D threw  15D, atoms exist, and planets and the bulk of the heavenly bodies began to form…)

Verse 9 – 13 Day three, we see the formation of the earth, the forming of seas, and the growth of plants such as grasses, herbs yielding seeds, and trees of fruit…

Verse 14- 19 Day four, we see clearly a discussion regarding the brightening of what are called the stars and sun, where by in theory it relates, to how it was the increase in potential energy from our sun, in its early years, that drove the rise of the nerve in plant and bacterial forms that existed earlier, which would give rise to all mobile forms of life.

Verse 20- 23 Day five, we see the seas give rise to the moving creature, such as bugs, and then specifically he mentions birds next, which as we know today, are the ancestors of the dinosaurs, and says how they filled the earth.

Verse 24 – 31 Day six, it’s said again that more animals were made, to include cattle, and then mankind is made, where its seems we are given dominion over all other forms, of life, which we know today is due to our human design. Our brain.. And it’s said, how we, these animals made are to replenish the earth, which suggests that somehow the earth was emptied of life, allowing for new forms to emerge, to refill that earth, which is all well in evidence today, as mass extinction’s of the past, which allowed the mammals, us, to rise up, rather than simply being eaten by the dinosaurs.

Verse 29, I find to be very interesting, for it states specifically that we, mankind are supposed to eat plants, as our meat… and it just so happens that modern biology shows that indeed mankind, by design, is a vegetarian animal, from the design of our teeth, to the enzymes in our stomach, and shape of our intestines, none of which is meant to handle meat, even today. The only reason we modern humans can eat meat is because we cook it, which breaks down the structure of the muscle, making it possible to digest it. But without cooking, raw meat is not digestible and potentially sickens us with germs and parasites.

Then jumping ahead, we see how Adam and Eve, for reasons, ate that which was in the midst of the garden, the tree of knowledge, and immediately there after, they left the forest, chapter three, and were wearing animal skins for cloths. Well there is only one place to get animal skins. From the hide of dead animals, killed, skinned, and most likely eaten. Which is what I propose that the tree of knowledge represents, and it was this massive increase in fat and cholesterol that allowed mans eyes to be opened, or made conscious, for our brain is basically a big slab of fat and cholesterol to begin with. Thus with such a diet, it could reach its full potential, or even grow beyond it natural levels for a vegetarian diet.

This image shows that my proposal for a dimensional progressive pattern... is not really a new idea.

So now again.... its not perfect... as a theory or proposal... but.. it shows.. Genesis is not far off from what modern science shows us.

Even if you modify these images to show big bang.... it would still fit... generally.

and.. so...

MOONTANMAN,

As you argued... you see no waters... ok sure.

but... Genesis is 300O YEARS OLD... they had little knowledge... and it is easy to see that Moses, when referring to the waters... was talking about deep space, as he could see it.... from the earth.... THE DEEP.

The bible... is full of metaphors.... to describe things... with words they can relate too...

THEY COULD NOT USE TERMS LIKE "space-time"... or deep space.... AS THEY DID NOT KNOW THOSE WORDS... THEY DID NOT EXIST with any meaning which would of been worthwhile to use.

They used.. primitive terms... to describe things in primitive terms, which YOU... AND I... would call something else.

I suggest you open your mind, and consider that for a 3000 year old theory of creation... its still pretty darn cool and fitting.

THEY HAD NO MODERN SCIENCE... no telescopes... no Hubble... but we do, and yet... Moses did a damm good job describing it all.

If you cannot see that, then clearly you are not even trying.

-Mosheh Thezion

**mooeypoo** · April 14, 2012

Did you even read what I wrote to you?

Seems a bit odd to post claims about the big bang (After we explained why that's irrelevant, same as 'evolution' or 'singularity', etc etc ad nauseum) and then quotes from Genesis (after we explained why that's not explaining anything in this context) if you read what I wrote. Did you?

Please try to go back and read my post, Mosheh. I took time to answer you for a reason. You're getting to the point where it's really not quite worth it if you're not interested in a discussion.

We're really not here to listen to you preach.

hypervalent_iodine · April 14, 2012

2. Don't use attacks on evolution, the big bang theory, or any other widely acknowledged scientific staple as a means of proving religious matters. Using scientific reasoning is fine, but there are certain religious questions that science cannot answer for you.

3. Do not post if you have already determined that nothing can change your views. This is a forum for discussion, not lectures or debates.

!

Moderator Note

Mosheh Thezion,

I suggest you read the above very carefully and take them on board in future. We do not allow preaching and I would ask that if you are going to reply to someone, that you read what they have said before you reply to it.

You should also be aware that your pet theories don't belong anywhere expect Speculations. Since you already have a thread about this particular hypothesis of yours, I would ask that you confine it there and not introduce it anywhere else.

I also ask that you...stop using...ellipses...every second...or third...word. It makes...things...very hard...to read.

J.Nassar · April 14, 2012

Well, I've read about NOUS in philosophy, which I believe gives reason to existence because nothing is born of the void, it makes sense in philosophy, that's the main cause I believe in God.

Moontanman · April 14, 2012

Pretty much says it all....

ooops wrong thread...

Edited April 14, 2012 by Moontanman

Athena · April 14, 2012

The unknown God is an essential element of our consciousness. It is like the X in algebra. The problem comes with the mythology we call religion. If we just accepted the unknown God, that would end a lot of useless discussion, and from there these discussion could address the mythology of religion and make some progress.

Atheist are not helping the matter with their insistence on using the Christian definition of God, and attaching all the mythological superstition to the word "God", instead of questioning the mythology.

A concept of God is quite essential to liberty and our understanding of democracy. Morals are a matter of cause and effect, and science gives us a good perspective on determining morality. However, atheist are as bad as Christians in preventing us from doing this. Rule by reason, based on truth is what democracy is about, and both Christians and atheist prevent this from happening.

**mooeypoo** · April 14, 2012

The unknown God is an essential element of our consciousness. It is like the X in algebra. The problem comes with the mythology we call religion. If we just accepted the unknown God, that would end a lot of useless discussion, and from there these discussion could address the mythology of religion and make some progress.

If it was essential, everyone would "have" it, or require it in their consciousness.

I don't, and I seem to not be the only one who doesn't, so I wouldn't say it's essential. It might be for some. Definitely not for everyone.

Atheist are not helping the matter with their insistence on using the Christian definition of God, and attaching all the mythological superstition to the word "God", instead of questioning the mythology.

A concept of God is quite essential to liberty and our understanding of democracy. Morals are a matter of cause and effect, and science gives us a good perspective on determining morality. However, atheist are as bad as Christians in preventing us from doing this. Rule by reason, based on truth is what democracy is about, and both Christians and atheist prevent this from happening.

Atheists use nothing; Atheists don't believe in God. "A" (non) "Theism" (belief in god). The fact we argue about the christian belief of God is a matter of convenience in this *particular* thread, because those are the claims that were raised.

Look into the religion thread, there are quite a lot of threads discussing different definitions of God and some discussing the issue of spirituality in general (without a "definition" of god per say, but rather as the concept of a bigger force). We even have discussions about polytheism.

Also, I would be careful in making the generalization on Atheists. We're trying to avoid generalization on christians (and religious) , I think it's fair (and smart) to avoid doing so for Atheists.

Case in point, I'm an agnostic atheist, and I don't quite fit to anything you described. 90% of my friends don't either, despite the fact we vary in our opinions about what, who, why and how a god (any ,or multiple) might, should or could operate.

~mooey

Athena · April 14, 2012

If it was essential, everyone would "have" it, or require it in their consciousness.

I don't, and I seem to not be the only one who doesn't, so I wouldn't say it's essential. It might be for some. Definitely not for everyone.

Atheists use nothing; Atheists don't believe in God. "A" (non) "Theism" (belief in god). The fact we argue about the christian belief of God is a matter of convenience in this *particular* thread, because those are the claims that were raised.

Look into the religion thread, there are quite a lot of threads discussing different definitions of God and some discussing the issue of spirituality in general (without a "definition" of god per say, but rather as the concept of a bigger force). We even have discussions about polytheism.

Also, I would be careful in making the generalization on Atheists. We're trying to avoid generalization on christians (and religious) , I think it's fair (and smart) to avoid doing so for Atheists.

Case in point, I'm an agnostic atheist, and I don't quite fit to anything you described. 90% of my friends don't either, despite the fact we vary in our opinions about what, who, why and how a god (any ,or multiple) might, should or could operate.

~mooey

:lol: Now do you want to argue X is not essential to consciousness of alebra?

How well do all the other discussions go with no concept of God? How can you argue there isn't a God without having a concept of what is not? There is nothing? Okay, and how far can discussion of nothing go? Seriously, I am having a problem following your logic.

This is a fair explanation of why God is essential to our consciousness. The problem with it is, it seems to assume Christian mythology, instead of using a philosophical understanding of God.

http://www.the-real-...uk/need_god.htm 

<a name="reference" class="mceItemAnchor">WE NEED A FIXED, EXTERNAL REFERENCE POINT

Unless we have some fixed, external reference point to guide us we are in a moral wilderness. Before the days of radar and satellite communication, sailors depended upon the stars to navigate, particularly the North Star which never moved its position. If we reject belief in moral absolutes given to us by a Creator who cares about our well-being, then we are adrift in a chartless ocean, with nothing to guide us. Just as political anarchy begins when people reject human authority, so moral anarchy results from thinking we can set our own rules of behaviour.

The above argument is lacking in an understanding of moral being a matter of cause and effect. The consequences of our words and actions are what they are, so there is absolutely no setting of our own rules. We might want to change the rules, but we can not.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Athena

mississippichem · April 14, 2012

Now do you want to argue X is not essential to consciousness of alebra?

How well do all the other discussions go with no concept of God? How can you argue there isn't a a God without having a concept of what is not? There is nothing? Okay, and how far can discussion of nothing go? Seriously, I am having a problem following your logic.

Why should anyone base their conclusion on what lends itself to rich discussion? If "there is nothing" need we go any further?

Mosheh Thezion · April 14, 2012

!

Moderator Note

Mosheh Thezion,

I suggest you read the above very carefully and take them on board in future. We do not allow preaching and I would ask that if you are going to reply to someone, that you read what they have said before you reply to it.

You should also be aware that your pet theories don't belong anywhere expect Speculations. Since you already have a thread about this particular hypothesis of yours, I would ask that you confine it there and not introduce it anywhere else.

I also ask that you...stop using...ellipses...every second...or third...word. It makes...things...very hard...to read.

excuse me... but it seems clear... the members are having a good time talking... discussing.. arguing.. that is what a forum is for,

the only down side... is a mod who thinks they need to control peoples conversations... which is lame and oppressive.

what is the point of sharing thought if a biased mod... will delete content???????? and basically gets in the way of having an open discussion?

There is no point.

I have been on many boards.... many... many... I've been banned I do not know how many times.

but never... never.. have I seen a mod who interfered as much as you.

-Mosheh Thezion

Moontanman · April 14, 2012

May I suggest a continuation of that proud tradition?

Mosheh Thezion · April 14, 2012

THATS SAD.... always atheists do not want to have any argument they fear they cannot win. So why bother.

if you've been around... like i have.

you would see clearly... the boards which allow for full free thought.. can get huge...

the boards who mod too much... and oppress free thought.... go down... as people simply leave for another board which is not oppressed by biased minds.

Moontanman · April 14, 2012

THATS SAD.... always atheists do not want to have any argument they fear they cannot win. So why bother.

if you've been around... like i have.

you would see clearly... the boards which allow for full free thought.. can get huge...

the boards who mod too much... and oppress free thought.... go down... as people simply leave for another board which is not oppressed by biased minds.

What? You have no sense of humor either? Bragging about being banned on multiple forums is absurd and does nothing but show your own ignorance of the subject material. So far you have failed miserably to show any of your ideas as having any basis in reality what so ever. You are so deep in that river in Egypt you would have to be buried in the mud at the bottom. You ignore everyone who attempts to point out the problems with your arguments and keep repeating your self like a small child demanding candy in the check out line.

I've got news for you, repetition does not show you are correct, repeating horse feathers over and over does not make horses covered with feathers...

Edited April 14, 2012 by Moontanman

**mooeypoo** · April 14, 2012

Now do you want to argue X is not essential to consciousness of alebra?

I don't need to. You're the one who made the analogy. I disagreed with it

How well do all the other discussions go with no concept of God? How can you argue there isn't a God without having a concept of what is not? There is nothing? Okay, and how far can discussion of nothing go? Seriously, I am having a problem following your logic.

You don't need the concept of God to explain quantum mechanics, gravity, evolution, the evolution of the universe, the creation and evolution of stars, particle physics, consciousness, biology, epidemiology, medicine, the scientific method and even philosophy.

You *can* use the concept of a higher power or a god, but you don't need it. The discussion goes great without it.

I don't think you follow my logic because you seem to think about it differently than what it actually means. I have absolutely no problems thinking of "nothing", Athena. I am perfectly okay with that concept, and I see no problem with it. If you do, which is perfectly fine, you would want to make something that's "not nothing" and that's fine. But I don't.

What's the problem with "nothing" ? If it's reality, and it exists (yah, "nothing" can exist, just like "infinity" can exist) then even if I have a problem grasping it, it wouldn' mae a difference. It just is.

Also, logically speaking, the mere fact we can't (supposedly) grasp a concept doesn't mean it's not true, and it doesn't mean only one other option replaces it.

For that matter, even if we can't grasp the notion of "nothing" it doesn't mean nothing doesn't exist as a concept, and if it doesn't exist, and there is indeed "something" it doesn't mean that this something is a higher power, or a "God".

You see what I mean?

This is a fair explanation of why God is essential to our consciousness. The problem with it is, it seems to assume Christian mythology, instead of using a philosophical understanding of God.

In this particular thread, just because these are the claims made, but we don't always do that. There are threads in the philosophy forum and the religion forum that deal with a philosophical concept and understanding of God.

Seriously, just go look at the philosophy forum archive. You'll see a whole bunch of discussions about this that go on the philosophical angle. We're not just discussing a particular god.

~mooey

excuse me... but it seems clear... the members are having a good time talking... discussing.. arguing.. that is what a forum is for,

the only down side... is a mod who thinks they need to control peoples conversations... which is lame and oppressive.

what is the point of sharing thought if a biased mod... will delete content???????? and basically gets in the way of having an open discussion?

There is no point.

I have been on many boards.... many... many... I've been banned I do not know how many times.

but never... never.. have I seen a mod who interfered as much as you.

-Mosheh Thezion

The moderation notes you received were not from one biased mod, they were from a concensus of many moderators that insist you read the rules.

There's only one way for this to go if you continue ignoring those request, Mosheh, and that's out the door. We're giving you ample opportunity to cooperate with us based on our rules, which you agreed to when you joined. It's your choice, but if you refuse to, it won't end well. You came here and agree to our rules, it's only fair you follow them.

~mooey

doG · April 15, 2012

THATS SAD.... always atheists do not want to have any argument they fear they cannot win. So why bother.

So far you've presented no argument an atheist couldn't win. So far your only evidence is hand-me-down hearsay.

Athena · April 15, 2012

excuse me... but it seems clear... the members are having a good time talking... discussing.. arguing.. that is what a forum is for,

the only down side... is a mod who thinks they need to control peoples conversations... which is lame and oppressive.

what is the point of sharing thought if a biased mod... will delete content???????? and basically gets in the way of having an open discussion?

There is no point.

I have been on many boards.... many... many... I've been banned I do not know how many times.

but never... never.. have I seen a mod who interfered as much as you.

-Mosheh Thezion

Oh well, I am afraid I have to risk negative repercussions by agreeing with you. Surely one of the main reasons for objecting to religion is all the wrongs the church committed in an effort to maintain power and to control what people think.

Also people can preach without even coming close to religion. I have a sister who preaches the harm of eating wheat, because she is convinced wheat is dangerous, and this is becoming a popular concern. People can preach about anything, including that there is not a god.

What made the Greeks different from all others was the development of critical thinking. Arguments should be based on critical thinking, not the power to prevent someone from being heard. Why do people who do not want want to discuss God, even enter these discussions anyway?

I have not been banned many times, but when I was, it was a mod who could not win agruments about God with me, so he used his power to win, by banning me. That is just so wrong. Just as wrong as the church trying to control what people said and thought.

I wish people would express themselves as freely in The Holy Terrors of Munster thread. It is also about the god question, but no one is participating in that discussion.

I don't need to. You're the one who made the analogy. I disagreed with it

You don't need the concept of God to explain quantum mechanics, gravity, evolution, the evolution of the universe, the creation and evolution of stars, particle physics, consciousness, biology, epidemiology, medicine, the scientific method and even philosophy.

You *can* use the concept of a higher power or a god, but you don't need it. The discussion goes great without it.

I don't think you follow my logic because you seem to think about it differently than what it actually means. I have absolutely no problems thinking of "nothing", Athena. I am perfectly okay with that concept, and I see no problem with it. If you do, which is perfectly fine, you would want to make something that's "not nothing" and that's fine. But I don't.

What's the problem with "nothing" ? If it's reality, and it exists (yah, "nothing" can exist, just like "infinity" can exist) then even if I have a problem grasping it, it wouldn' mae a difference. It just is.

Also, logically speaking, the mere fact we can't (supposedly) grasp a concept doesn't mean it's not true, and it doesn't mean only one other option replaces it.

For that matter, even if we can't grasp the notion of "nothing" it doesn't mean nothing doesn't exist as a concept, and if it doesn't exist, and there is indeed "something" it doesn't mean that this something is a higher power, or a "God".

You see what I mean?

In this particular thread, just because these are the claims made, but we don't always do that. There are threads in the philosophy forum and the religion forum that deal with a philosophical concept and understanding of God.

Seriously, just go look at the philosophy forum archive. You'll see a whole bunch of discussions about this that go on the philosophical angle. We're not just discussing a particular god.

~mooey

The moderation notes you received were not from one biased mod, they were from a concensus of many moderators that insist you read the rules.

There's only one way for this to go if you continue ignoring those request, Mosheh, and that's out the door. We're giving you ample opportunity to cooperate with us based on our rules, which you agreed to when you joined. It's your choice, but if you refuse to, it won't end well. You came here and agree to our rules, it's only fair you follow them.

~mooey

I am sorry. You have an awful lot to say about nothing, and no I don't see what you mean. Nothing is, and if God is nothing than God is.

However, Cicero said, "God and the world of Nature must be one, and all the life of the world must be contained within the being God". Now what is at question is how do we know this God? Cicero would say that by studying nature we can infer something about God. Now perhaps this is addressed else where. I am responding to the question of this thread, by saying this is my justification for believing in a God, and moral laws that are suppose to be the foundation of a democracy. I believe this is essential to our liberty and understanding of democracy. I am sure it is my constitutional right to say so. However, I will also acknowledge these forums are privately owned and the mods do not have to respect our constitutional rights. However, what happens when our constitutional rights are not respected? For how long can we maintain what we value, if do not stand for the what we value? Moral- cause and effect.

I am afraid quantum physic and the other sciences of matter can not explain the most important things for us to consider. You skipped over the explanation of why we need god, so I judge this is going no where productive, and I best stay out of this thread, before things get worse.

Sign In

What is your justification for believing in a God?

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

mooeypoo

iNow

iNow

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information