The concept of a god

[photon propeller]

That's bullshit. God doesn't need to exist in order to explain the cause and effect phenomena we observe in the universe.

 

Actually the evidence shows that the Universe is completely mechanical and is governed by chemical reactions and that God just isn't needed anymore to explain any of this.

 

People by their very nature just don't want to die and they want life to get better for them so they invent God but this is just their wishful thinking and it doesn't actually prove that any God exists except in their selfish imagination.

Where do you think the energy of our universe came from? What was there before the singularity of the big bang? and before and before. Of course it is infinity. What is the purpose of life? The universe is governed by several physical constants, predetermined laws that govern cause and effect. Where do they come from? I believe they come from the supreme lawmaker, I believe the purpose is enlightenment, I know it is my choice. If you want your life to get better then assume responsibility for it and get of your duff and change it. I do not believe in an afterlife but know we are all forms of one energy and will return to that common denominator. Heaven or Hell is the plight of the living here on earth. Which will you make your home?

[Moontanman]

Where do you think the energy of our universe came from?

Where do you think it came from?

What was there before the singularity of the big bang? and before and before. Of course it is infinity.

What do you think was there? Infinite what?

What is the purpose of life?

Why must life have a purpose?

The universe is governed by several physical constants, predetermined laws that govern cause and effect. Where do they come from? I believe they come from the supreme lawmaker, I believe the purpose is enlightenment, I know it is my choice. If you want your life to get better then assume responsibility for it and get of your duff and change it. I do not believe in an afterlife but know we are all forms of one energy and will return to that common denominator. Heaven or Hell is the plight of the living here on earth. Which will you make your home?

This is just proselytizing, please read the rules... Edited May 15, 2013 by Moontanman

[seriously disabled]

Where do you think the energy of our universe came from? What was there before the singularity of the big bang? and before and before. Of course it is infinity. What is the purpose of life? The universe is governed by several physical constants, predetermined laws that govern cause and effect. Where do they come from? I believe they come from the supreme lawmaker, I believe the purpose is enlightenment, I know it is my choice. If you want your life to get better then assume responsibility for it and get of your duff and change it. I do not believe in an afterlife but know we are all forms of one energy and will return to that common denominator. Heaven or Hell is the plight of the living here on earth. Which will you make your home?

 

The sad news for me is that I'm completely powerless to change anything about my stinky life. I'll probably be long dead from starvation or commit suicide before I'll manage to change anything about my stinky life.

 

Western Capitalism is not for people like me and I'm feeling trapped, chained and imprisoned by this cut-throat socio-economic system.

 

Maybe death is really the only option left for me since this world really has nothing to offer for me anymore.

 

I think this song describes my feelings towards my life perfectly:

 

Edited May 15, 2013 by seriously disabled

[swansont]

I wonder what skeletons must lie in your closet that compel your denial of accountability.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Personal observations and attacks are not going to be tolerated.

 

One the topic of forbidden posting styles, neither proselytizing nor appeal to personal incredulity are acceptable, either.

 

[Prometheus]

The sad news for me is that I'm completely powerless to change anything about my stinky life. I'll probably be long dead from starvation or commit suicide before I'll manage to change anything about my stinky life.

 

Western Capitalism is not for people like me and I'm feeling trapped, chained and imprisoned by this cut-throat socio-economic system.

 

Maybe death is really the only option left for me since this world really has nothing to offer for me anymore.

 

I think this song describes my feelings towards my life perfectly:

 

 

 

You are not alone...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMssuZsXv4

[photon propeller]

!

Moderator Note

 

Personal observations and attacks are not going to be tolerated.

 

One the topic of forbidden posting styles, neither proselytizing nor appeal to personal incredulity are acceptable, either.

 

Poor choice of words on my part, my apologies Moontanman. I am certainly not trying to convert non believers. I have given my opinion on thread topic, I have defined my responses and have analyzed the thoughts of others.

[dumbbloke]

To me, a God is a perfect being, who knows all things and obeys all laws. They are just and merciful, they cannot lie or be decieved, and live in a state of unending joy. The purpose of our mortal existense is to qualify to return to their presence and share their existence in every respect. IE: Become like them, share in their power and glory, and do the things that they do. Those whom fail the challenge of life will be less happy than those whom succeed, each according to his desires of his own heart and whom/what he follows. The purpose of religion is to provide the authorised ordinances and covenants necessary for the salvation to all who desire them, that by fulfilling the requirements they might be found innocent of sin at the last day, and not suffer for their disobediences to the perfect laws of a just God, which would cause them to be forever shut out of his presence and be less happy forever. That men might not suffer the penalties of the broken laws, we preach among them, that they might freely choose to accept the divine gift offered freely, or reject it as they please, and recieve a just reward of blessing for obedience or condemnation for disobedience. Men are free to choose their actions, but having chosen, are bound to the consequenses. God will never force the human mind, he will only invite.

Edited May 17, 2013 by dumbbloke

[Moontanman]

To me, a God is a perfect being, who knows all things and obeys all laws. They are just and merciful, they cannot lie or be decieved, and live in a state of unending joy. The purpose of our mortal existense is to qualify to return to their presence and share their existence in every respect. IE: Become like them, share in their power and glory, and do the things that they do. Those whom fail the challenge of life will be less happy than those whom succeed, each according to his desires of his own heart and whom/what he follows. The purpose of religion is to provide the authorised ordinances and covenants necessary for the salvation to all who desire them, that by fulfilling the requirements they might be found innocent of sin at the last day, and not suffer for their disobediences to the perfect laws of a just God, which would cause them to be forever shut out of his presence and be less happy forever. That men might not suffer the penalties of the broken laws, we preach among them, that they might freely choose to accept the divine gift offered freely, or reject it as they please, and recieve a just reward of blessing for obedience or condemnation for disobedience. Men are free to choose their actions, but having chosen, are bound to the consequenses. God will never force the human mind, he will only invite.

 

Which God?

[dumbbloke]

The concept of the trinity is false.

The terms God, Christ, Father are used in the biblical texts interchangably. but in reality there are 3 separate entities in the Godhead: Elohim, the Father; jehova, the Christ; and the Holy Ghost-whom is a personage of spirit. These three govern as one the universe(s) we have, and Elohim is Father of our spirit bodies which we had prior to mortality. Christ becomes our father as we accept him as our saviour, and we become his sons and daughters spiritually.

Edited May 17, 2013 by dumbbloke

[Moontanman]

The concept of the trinity is false.

The terms God, Christ, Father are used in the biblical texts interchangably. but in reality there are 3 separate entities in the Godhead: Elohim, the Father; jehova, the Christ; and the Holy Ghost-whom is a personage of spirit. These three govern as one the universe(s) we have, and Elohim is Father of our spirit bodies which we had prior to mortality. Christ becomes our father as we accept him as our saviour, and we become his sons and daughters spiritually.

 

 

I suggest you read the the forum rules then the OP, meanwhile why should anyone believe your concept of god over any others?

[photon propeller]

I will offer this quote from someone most scientist respect, "science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind" Albert Einstein

[krash661]

but why is christ the savior when there were gods before ?

and humanity existed before the,

" rib of man " (according to christianity.)

there's data that shows humanity existed before religion was brought into the picture of life.

 

so i'm lead to this question,

(which i hope you may have an answer for),

that question is,

 

tell me the difference between a god that exists but does not manifest in this reality and a god that does not exist.

[Moontanman]

I will offer this quote from someone most scientist respect, "science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind" Albert Einstein

 

 

Offer it as many time as you wish it is still an appeal to authority... and as such a logical fallacy...

 

Since you seem to like appeals to authority so much here is another quote from Einstein....

 

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Moontanman

[photon propeller]

Heres a good quote from a well-known religious expert. "The laws of Nature are changeless, unchangeable, and there are no miracles in the sense of infringement or interruption of Nature's laws." "God is that indefinable something which we all feel but do not know ." Mohandas Gandhi

[MonDie]

"God is that indefinable something which we all feel but do not know ." Mohandas Gandhi

I would be less hesitant to believe in that.

So "God" refers to a feeling, or that which is being felt, but not necessarily anything that exists independent of us.

In that case, I would say the mistake of virtually all religion is to associate this feeling with nonreferring words and empty concepts.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Moontanman]

Heres a good quote from a well-known religious expert. "The laws of Nature are changeless, unchangeable, and there are no miracles in the sense of infringement or interruption of Nature's laws." "God is that indefinable something which we all feel but do not know ." Mohandas Gandhi

 

Yet another meaningless appeal to authority that is nothing but what someone else believes, belief does not equal knowledge...

[MonDie]

I think PP is trying to show that Einstein's god isn't very different from what most theists believe in. I wouldn't agree. I wouldn't even agree that Einstein was theistic.

 

I don't know exactly what Einstein's god is, but it seems to be one that requires less faith (if any). I have noticed that some people's gods require more faith than others. For example, some gods merely set up the world like a self-sustaining machine, whereas other gods set up the world and actively interfere with it on the behalf of those they like. The former makes fewer assumptions and requires less faith. This brings up another issue, namely the malleability of the word itself. As one makes their god more realistic, they tend to make it less god-like.

 

---

 

More Einstein Quotes:

 

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

 

"It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities."

 

"Ich glaube an Spinozas Gott, der sich in der gesetzlichen Harmonie des Seienden offenbart, nicht an einen Gott, der sich mit Schicksalen und Handlungen der Menschen abgibt.

Translation: I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

 

 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

 

He seems to be quite the chameleon. For a person who used the word "God" in reference to something, he implied atheism quite a bit. I can't make heads or tails of it.

 

---

 

I will offer this quote from someone most scientist respect, "science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind" Albert Einstein

 

If you read the WikiQuote article section "Science and Religion (1941), he explains what is meant by "religion" and how it relates to science.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Science_and_Religion_.281941.29

Hopefully, I can sum it up without doing too much damage. He thought that science provides truth and religion provides values, and that scientists should hold values even though their "superpersonal" character cannot be justified rationally.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[krash661]

the spinoza's thing,

 

he means the thought of it,

 

" lawful harmony of the world, "

referring to humanity

 

" not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind. ",

referring to gods and such.

Edited May 18, 2013 by krash661

[photon propeller]

the spinoza's thing,

 

he means the thought of it,

 

" lawful harmony of the world, "

referring to humanity

 

" not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind. ",

referring to gods and such.

He is not referring to humanity. The lawful harmony of the world he refers to is the physical laws of nature and the complex association by which they are governed. Simply put, and my main point, laws of such harmony and predetermination reflect a supreme lawmaker. That is what all Deists believe. Nature is self evident of God.

[krash661]

I'm am sick of getting negative points for supplying accurate info.

 

should i go through all your post photon propeller and give you negative points on every single god post you make ?

 

photon propeller,

my advise.

try reading idea's and opinions by alan lightman.

 

and understand it before you try to quote eisenstein

with your own inaccurate interpretation of his words.

[photon propeller]

I'm am sick of getting negative points for supplying accurate info.

 

should i go through all your post photon propeller and give you negative points on every single god post you make ?

Your interpretation of Spinoza was completely inaccurate. I gave you the accurate interpretation but you still havent grasped the concept. You continue to disregard everything Ive said as if you havent even read it.

[krash661]

Your interpretation of Spinoza was completely inaccurate. I gave you the accurate interpretation but you still havent grasped the concept. You continue to disregard everything Ive said as if you havent even read it.

I did not say spinoza..

pay attention here ,learn to comprehend.

simple.

 

you are doing nothing but reiterating what a book say's..nothing more.

the concept you are referring to , is just that..nothing more.do you even acknowledge other religions ?

do you realize they all say the same in a sense.

do you realize that there's evidence of humanity existing long before religion was introduced to humanity ?

there's no empirical source what's so ever,

only books and hearsay. nothing more.

 

like the question that i asked you to answer,

 

tell me the difference between a god that exists but does not manifest in this reality and a god that does not exist

 

tell me the differences.

 

simple.

[photon propeller]

I think PP is trying to show that Einstein's god isn't very different from what most theists believe in. I wouldn't agree. I wouldn't even agree that Einstein was theistic.

 

I don't know exactly what Einstein's god is, but it seems to be one that requires less faith (if any). I have noticed that some people's gods require more faith than others. For example, some gods merely set up the world like a self-sustaining machine, whereas other gods set up the world and actively interfere with it on the behalf of those they like. The former makes fewer assumptions and requires less faith. This brings up another issue, namely the malleability of the word itself. As one makes their god more realistic, they tend to make it less god-like.

 

---

 

More Einstein Quotes:

 

 

He seems to be quite the chameleon. For a person who used the word "God" in reference to something, he implied atheism quite a bit. I can't make heads or tails of it.

 

---

 

 

If you read the WikiQuote article section "Science and Religion (1941), he explains what is meant by "religion" and how it relates to science.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Science_and_Religion_.281941.29

Hopefully, I can sum it up without doing too much damage. He thought that science provides truth and religion provides values, and that scientists should hold values even though their "superpersonal" character cannot be justified rationally.

What im saying is that no matter how many different perceptions (religions) of God there are, they do not change the nature of God. Words are meager attempts to describe something which already exists. Laws that govern cause and effect are self evident in nature. God is the same for everyone, the origin of one complex energy, in which everything is a constituent.

I did not say spinoza..

pay attention here ,learn to comprehend.

simple.

 

you are doing nothing but reiterating what a book say's..nothing more.

the concept you are referring to , is just that..nothing more.do you even acknowledge other religions ?

do you realize they all say the same in a sense.

do you realize that there's evidence of humanity existing long before religion was introduced to humanity ?

there's no empirical source what's so ever,

only books and hearsay. nothing more.

 

like the question that i asked you to answer,

 

tell me the difference between a god that exists but does not manifest in this reality and a god that does not exist

 

tell me the differences.

 

simple.

You quoted Spinoza "lawful harmony of the world" and miss-interpreted him, "referring to humanity". In answer to your question, God manifests in everything that exists because everything is a part of one complex energy. Your question has been answered many times already but you have failed to understand. The words of man do not change the nature of what already exists, they are only attempts to describe it. The only thing ive said that comes from a book are the quotes I offered.

Edited May 19, 2013 by photon propeller

[krash661]

Your question has been answered many times already but you have failed to understand.

not at all.

you have not told me a difference.

simple.

they are only attempts to describe it.

exactly.

now ponder this if your mentality is capable to do so.

think about the lack of knowledge language and mentalities of back then.

You quoted Spinoza and missinterpreted him.

not at all,

again,

learn to comprehend.

simple.

 

look, you asked,

More Einstein Quotes:....

...He seems to be quite the chameleon. For a person who used the word "God" in reference to something, he implied atheism quite a bit. I can't make heads or tails of it.

were you not referring to einstien ?

i thought you were, so i responded with,

the spinoza's thing,

 

he means the thought of it,

 

" lawful harmony of the world, "

referring to humanity

 

" not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind. ",

referring to gods and such.

which i was referring to einstien.

simple.

 

does this make sense now ?

Edited May 19, 2013 by krash661

[photon propeller]

not at all.

you have not told me a difference.

simple.exactly.

now ponder this if your mentality is capable to do so.

think about the lack of knowledge language and mentalities of back then.not at all,

again,

learn to comprehend.

simple.

 

look, you asked,were you not referring to einstien ?

i thought you were, so i responded with,which i was referring to einstien.

simple.

 

does this make sense now

I obviously have pondered the idea because i made the statement, "words are the meager attempt of man to describe what already exists." Those are my words! You misinterpreted "lawful harmony of the world", doesnt matter who said it. You referred to a quote not made by me but by monday assignment die. You dont even know whom your responding to. It is clear who needs to "comprehend" whats being said.