photon propeller Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 God created the realm and the rules. We are the players. The game is choice. Science does not disprove God. It investigates truth and reveals the methods of creation. Those who seek knowledge, seek God. Infinite potential has existed since the beginning. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 That is a collection of almost entirely unevinced assertions. Do you plan to justify any of them, or should we just close the thread? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 Are we not born with the power to choose? Shall we create or destroy? Who created this realm if not the creator? These ideas are at at the root of religious debate and I intend to do just that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekan Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Perhaps God created us. And thought we'd be little players, in a game designed for His amusement. If so, God made a big miscalculation. He thought He could control the game. But we have discovered Science. That will enable us to bust God's ass off - Boy did He get it wrong! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 We control the game, that is choice. We do not make the rules. The rules are physics. Like I said, science reveals the method of creation. The "rules". It is not a game of amusement, it is a journey of enlightenment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwagen Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Are we not born with the power to choose? We are also born with the power to scream real loudly, until our parents wish they had put on a rubber. Doesn't prove there's a god. Shall we create or destroy? We'll get back to you on that. Neither answer requires a god though. Who created this realm if not the creator? What makes you think there's a "who"? Why not a "what"? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 I agree, the creator can be who or what. It is human error to personify God, for God is the sum of all that exists. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 "God is the sum of all that exists."That's a weird definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 Is it weird? Or is it obvious. Energy and mass are different forms of the same thing. Are we not all concentrated forms of shimmering energy? We are all constituents of a universal one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 It's weird. Why do you think we have the word "universe" to mean everything if "God" is the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 Was the universe not present before the words of mankind labeled it? Words are mans attempt to describe something that already exists. The only diffference is the words used to describe it, and those words are a product of environment and tradition. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Unless you can find a dictionary that agrees with you the idea that "God is the sum of all that exists", it's an odd definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwagen Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Unless you can find a dictionary that agrees with you the idea that "God is the sum of all that exists", it's an odd definition. One could also say that we're all part of this god, since we're all part of the universe. The implications, of course, is that we might as well remove God from the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) “God is the sum of all that exists” We all know the answer to this sum, 42 of course... As a side note I’d like to suggest a variance to Godwin’s law ‘Give any religious thread long enough and somebody will quote Douglas Adams’ I win Edited March 30, 2013 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Unless you can find a dictionary that agrees with you the idea that "God is the sum of all that exists", it's an odd definition. Regrettably is this not the god that Spinoza describes, the one made famous (or not apparently) by Einstein? I say regrettably as saying this may be misconstrued to be lending credence to the rest of this babble in the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) Well, here's the definition “On God” begins with some deceptively simple definitions of terms that would be familiar to any seventeenth century philosopher. “By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself”; “By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence”; “By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.” It's so general as to be meaningless (as Pwagen noted) It was so clearly counter to the common view of his people at the time that he was thrown out of the church for it. It's a variation on this theme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument and isn't generally accepted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Criticisms_and_objections My favourite answer to the ontological argument is that I can easily imagine an entity which is greater then the current "God"- specifically, I can imagine one that provides me with a pizza. Since no God-given pizza is available to me there is no "perfect God" (any God which does exist is clearly imperfect since I lack pizza). If you define your God as "the sum of all things" then He includes pizza delivery. There is no pizza: ergo there is no God. It's a piss-poor God who can be outdone by a pimply youth on a moped with a box on the back. So, I stand by my assertion that it's a weird definition of God. Edited April 1, 2013 by John Cuthber 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted April 1, 2013 Author Share Posted April 1, 2013 Its not meaningless John, as obviously Einstein understood. Its just above your paygrade. -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 If you were a scientist then, rather than insulting me, you would explain why I'm wrong or accept that I'm right. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 I agree, the creator can be who or what. It is human error to personify God, for God is the sum of all that exists. God could also be the epitome of confirmation bias. We convince ourselves that the shadows hold unseen things, and enough of them do to make us wary. But even when we're shown there's nothing there, sometimes that just makes us even more certain something is. We also become convinced that, since we create with our wonderful hands and tools, there has to be a creator like us for everything. As the gaps in our knowledge shrink, the need for supernatural explanations shrinks as well. It's human error to assume there is a magic sky fairy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted April 12, 2013 Author Share Posted April 12, 2013 People have used the term "God" to explain the unexplainable. In this way God is a coping mechanism for the unknown. An answer to the questions of forever. Even though they did not and still do not have all the answers, people do understand the idea of infinity. If we define God as infinite knowledge, we realize that the more knowledge we discover the more our perception of God grows. It is called spiritual divinity, ones sense of existence, the vastness we perceive when we close our eyes. Knowledge is not magic, it is reality. Science is the religion of God. God is all that has been, all that is, and all there could ever be. God is forever! How much will we know of God before our time is up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 People have used the term "God" to explain the unexplainable. In this way God is a coping mechanism for the unknown. An answer to the questions of forever. Even though they did not and still do not have all the answers, people do understand the idea of infinity. If we define God as infinite knowledge, we realize that the more knowledge we discover the more our perception of God grows. OK, I can get behind that. God is a mechanism, a construct that allows people to cope with what they don't understand yet. But if this is the case, why assign God the role of creator? Isn't that like making up an imaginary friend and then giving him credit for making the wind blow? It is called spiritual divinity, ones sense of existence, the vastness we perceive when we close our eyes. Knowledge is not magic, it is reality. Science is the religion of God. God is all that has been, all that is, and all there could ever be. God is forever! How much will we know of God before our time is up? Science is not the religion of God. Science considers God to be supernatural, since God chooses to be unobservable by scientific means. Science attempts to explain natural phenomena, so the supernatural is simply ignored until such time it manifests itself into something testable. You have a very preachy style that doesn't help much in a discussion. I get the feeling you have all these canned answers that allow you to ignore what everyone else involved is saying. Nothing personal, just an observation about your arguments. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Nothing explains the unexplainable. God explains the unexplainable God is nothing. Looks OK to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted April 17, 2013 Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 Could we all agree that humankind should put aside their differences and join the race for knowledge? As that knowledge grows so will our perception. The hunt for knowledge is the quest for meaning. The quest for everything, not nothing. It is our only chance to survive. How many countless alien civilizations may have already destroyed themselves? Will we do the same, or shall we grow as our knowledge does? In a universe of equilibrium, an intrinsic balancing of positive and negative forces, it is the power of the living to choose to create or destroy. Like a feather falling on one end or the other which may teeter the grand scale of the universe into oblivion or perpetual growth. Humility is admitting we dont know everything, and it is the path to knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Could we all agree that humankind should put aside their differences and join the race for knowledge? It would be a good start. Do you understand that many variations on the theme of religion are at odds with that idea? The Bible tells us that we were doing fine until we sought the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Many scientists (and others) have been persecuted over the years for investigating truth. So, it seems to me that a good way to make progress towards the goal of improving knowledge would be to get rid of religion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted April 17, 2013 Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 (edited) It would be a good start. Do you understand that many variations on the theme of religion are at odds with that idea? The Bible tells us that we were doing fine until we sought the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Many scientists (and others) have been persecuted over the years for investigating truth. So, it seems to me that a good way to make progress towards the goal of improving knowledge would be to get rid of religion. The words of man will always be proportional to mans knowledge. Realizing this fact will allow us to redefine religion as the search for knowledge. If we can cooperate, if we can compromise, if we can live long enough, the pursuit of knowledge will answer all our questions. Isn't the pursuit of knowledge the focus of all religions? The big question now becomes, do you believe in the master of infinite knowledge? I do. I believe that master is God. Edited April 17, 2013 by photon propeller -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now