The theory of God

[Robittybob1]

 

Sorry,.....

When this doesn't work, I fully expect the ultimate blame for failure to rest on the subject. All those Christians couldn't be ineffective, so it will eventually occur that the subject wasn't worthy. And we're back to square one.

20 atheists will do.

[Phi for All]

20 atheists will do.

 

I don't know what that means. It seems a very vacuous thing to say in this context. Is this humor? I don't get it.

 

Sometimes your posts seem like you're filling the silence with talking, but since you're typing, and capable of editing, it seems weird. Sorry, just an observation.

[Robittybob1]

 

I don't know what that means. It seems a very vacuous thing to say in this context. Is this humor? I don't get it.

 

Sometimes your posts seem like you're filling the silence with talking, but since you're typing, and capable of editing, it seems weird. Sorry, just an observation.

There probably aren't 20 Christians active on the forum, but it doesn't need Christians to run the experiment, "20 atheists will do".

No it is not humour. I was thinking of repeating something that happened over on Sciforums years ago. Where a number of us "prayed" and the event happened. Coincidence you might say, "just a coincidence" but everyone right across the world thought it was such a unexpected outcome.

[Phi for All]

There probably aren't 20 Christians active on the forum, but it doesn't need Christians to run the experiment, "20 atheists will do".

No it is not humour. I was thinking of repeating something that happened over on Sciforums years ago. Where a number of us "prayed" and the event happened. Coincidence you might say, "just a coincidence" but everyone right across the world thought it was such a unexpected outcome.

 

So 20 atheists are supposed to pray for something, and you think that will show something? You don't think that's absolutely worthless since few Christians would consider it valid for atheists to pray?!

[Robittybob1]

 

So 20 atheists are supposed to pray for something, and you think that will show something? You don't think that's absolutely worthless since few Christians would consider it valid for atheists to pray?!

there was more to it than that, we had to agree on the best course of action first. We just made the prayer a single word so it didn't seem wrong just from the choice of words (no God or Lord etc), we will choose the word at some stage based on the outcome we agree on. It seems improbable to me too, but can it be repeated?

Just imagine if someone did pray for the amputee and healed him. Next day a hundred more amputees turn up, now can it be repeated?

 

It is not like the person has done it himself. He will be questioning if it wasn't his words or was it the words he used??. He wouldn't really know what he had done right. So he would be left wondering if he can do it again.

 

I'm not worried about what other Christians think.

[MigL]

Maybe one of those people on Sciforums was telekinetic.

( now that's humor )

 

This is anecdotal and solely based on observation, but cancer patients who have a positive outlook, i.e. a belief that everything will be fine, usually last a lot longer than those who lose all hope and resign themselves to death.

 

And even if not supported by evidence, at least they have a better time in their remaining life.

 

I would add that prayer and religion provide something that the dry facts of science do not...

They provide hope.

And now I'll do another movie quote for which Phi will give me grief...

 

"Hope is a good thing,

Maybe the best of things,

and no good thing ever dies"

 

Andy. But can you guess the movie ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Edited February 24, 2016 by MigL

[Robittybob1]

Maybe one of those people on Sciforums was telekinetic.

( now that's humor )

 

Yes it was a little funny but it didn't make me laugh. By telekinetic do you mean "make things happen on tele"? The event was broadcast on Television.

[PoPpAScience]

Before I write my thoughts down I would just like to specify that this is merely food for thought. It's just an interesting rendition of thoughts I have about the idea of God.

 

Food for thought is the minds favorite meal.

As a god, a creater of all with no physical representation or otherwise with emence enough power to birth an entire universe in relative days you would make your story known would you not. Although the bible seems no different then any other rendition of a creation story turned truth I feel there is truth in it. As is every creation story there is atleast one truth, the universe is created.

 

One must understand that the knowledge of God through history, has been wrapped in stories so that it could survive, and more importantly be used for human purpose. One must dissect these stories to understand God. The physical representation you state as "no", is that what our Reality flows upon. The creative process we perceive as Reality, is only a part of the over all story of God.

Now God is seen as a being but I don't think that's what he is. I believe God just is.

 

There's evidence in the creative process, that God as IS, flowed into BEING. God IS, and transforming into Being, are still ONE thing.

He is life he surrounds us he is the air we breathe he is the water we drink because he is everything. It's almost as if he created everything out of himself and so he is everything.

 

Using "he" contradicts the premise of your OP. Using designated words for creations, i.e. males, should not be used in talking about God as the Only thing.

It's uncomprehendable to the human mind how great this idea is.

 

Not to all minds! To a true philosopher the idea you mainly speak of here, is one of the simplest of idea's. But an even simpler idea, then what you comprehend, is where one must go to find the more coherent story of GOD.

The thought of a force that governs everything with laws of way. It's almost as if he is the force that drives life and death and separates the two. He controls everything and is the reason everything is as we know it.

 

In the more simpler idea I spoke of earlier, God does not need to govern, force, or control Reality, the process of creation takes care of those things. Universal laws are the evidence of the processes of creation, as they stand now, not as the preordained laws people perceive.

Know how things are created isn't magic, there are fundamentals behind it. There are viable blocks that hold everything together. It's held together by actual forms not an invisible glue. It's like if you were to build a tower above the ground it's not going to stay in that place it will fall apart it has to have a foundation holding it together just like anything else.

 

You are right that creation is not magic and has fundamentals to it. There are blocks (forms), but they are held together, by the Actions of Motion, this is the invisible glue you deny. ​

Thanks for reading! I really appreciate any positive feedback and this was really just written to start discussion. (Please excuse any grammer and spelling errors thanks.)

 

I hope my feedback was positive, and hope you come back to see it.

 

[Phi for All]

Not to all minds! To a true philosopher the idea you mainly speak of here, is one of the simplest of idea's. But an even simpler idea, then what you comprehend, is where one must go to find the more coherent story of GOD.

 

How is your preaching different from anyone else's? Why should anyone believe you when you tell them where they must go to "find the more coherent story of GOD"?

 

You're just making it all up like everyone else, aren't you? You have no evidence for anything you say, so why should we believe you? Aren't you just hijacking the OP's idea of god(s) with your own version? And isn't that exactly what every religion does, try to supplant their version for a different version of the same lies?

[Sirona]

 

How is your preaching different from anyone else's? Why should anyone believe you when you tell them where they must go to "find the more coherent story of GOD"?

 

You're just making it all up like everyone else, aren't you? You have no evidence for anything you say, so why should we believe you? Aren't you just hijacking the OP's idea of god(s) with your own version? And isn't that exactly what every religion does, try to supplant their version for a different version of the same lies?

Hah, you're fiesty and so right!

 

I must say, I think fear and force is a more effective method of conversion than pseudoscience; I personally prefer the latter because it's entertaining. But it's a joke that becomes old fast.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Sirona

[PoPpAScience]

Hah, you're fiesty.

 

I must say, I think fear and force is a more effective method of conversion than pseudoscience; I personally prefer the latter because it's entertaining. But it's a joke that becomes old fast.

 

Ya true. I blasphemed atheistic beliefs yesterday, so I have a huge target on my back now. I'll probably be banned quickly, or at least have my posts highly censored. Sad, but it is taboo to speak against atheist beliefs in a science forum, and I should have known better.

[Robittybob1]

 

Ya true. I blasphemed atheistic beliefs yesterday, so I have a huge target on my back now. I'll probably be banned quickly, or at least have my posts highly censored. Sad, but it is taboo to speak against atheist beliefs in a science forum, and I should have known better.

Try and answer the questions Phi for all posed to you. #34 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93659-the-theory-of-god/page-2#entry913404

Edited March 28, 2016 by Robittybob1

[PoPpAScience]

 

How is your preaching different from anyone else's? Why should anyone believe you when you tell them where they must go to "find the more coherent story of GOD"?

 

You're just making it all up like everyone else, aren't you? You have no evidence for anything you say, so why should we believe you? Aren't you just hijacking the OP's idea of god(s) with your own version? And isn't that exactly what every religion does, try to supplant their version for a different version of the same lies?

"find the more coherent story of GOD"? The place is, deep studying on the scientific research books on religions knowledge, there one finds a more coherent understanding of the original knowledge.

 

No amount of evidence would be able to reach your mind, your mind is made up. Your emotional out burst here shows this to be true.

 

Where did I mention god(s)?

 

Your highly speculative conclusions about what I know are emotionally charged and unfounded.

 

Yes my preaching is equal to scientist preaching that there is no God, I agree. There's no difference to stating 'no God' without evidence, as there is stating there 'is God' with out evidence. It's all faith based beliefs.

[Sirona]

 

Ya true. I blasphemed atheistic beliefs yesterday, so I have a huge target on my back now. I'll probably be banned quickly, or at least have my posts highly censored. Sad, but it is taboo to speak against atheist beliefs in a science forum, and I should have known better.

and you didn't learn from your mistake?

[PoPpAScience]

and you didn't learn from your mistake?

 

LOL! I know, can't help myself.

[ajb]

I'll probably be banned quickly, or at least have my posts highly censored.

We often see people on this forum who from the start set out to achieve this. Strange really, but it must be like some badge of honour for crackpots and the like. So, it is up to you if you want to play by the rules of this forum and contribute or you can go your own way and get banned. Like I said, the choice is yours.

 

 

Sad, but it is taboo to speak against atheist beliefs in a science forum, and I should have known better.

I disagree here, upon the proviso you have something intelligent and thought provoking. Just claiming that not having any religious beliefs is a religion in itself is not enough.

 

One objection that atheists typically have with the notion of a god, is well the notion itself, and then the lack of objective evidence of such a thing. You can read this thread for some examples of trying to get clear evidence.

 

The only faith part of atheism is the faith that we can explore our world using observations. That is roughly the scientific method: our understanding of our world must be though our direct probing of the world. So in this sense, there is a philosophy behind atheism, but to call it a religion is false. At any moment god could reveal himself and we would have evidence and thus change our opinions.

[Robittybob1]

...

 

Yes my preaching is equal to scientist preaching that there is no God, I agree. There's no difference to stating 'no God' without evidence, as there is stating there 'is God' with out evidence. It's all faith based beliefs.

There are rules against preaching. No rules against facts.

[PoPpAScience]

We often see people on this forum who from the start set out to achieve this. Strange really, but it must be like some badge of honour for crackpots and the like. So, it is up to you if you want to play by the rules of this forum and contribute or you can go your own way and get banned. Like I said, the choice is yours.

 

 

 

I disagree here, upon the proviso you have something intelligent and thought provoking. Just claiming that not having any religious beliefs is a religion in itself is not enough.

 

One objection that atheists typically have with the notion of a god, is well the notion itself, and then the lack of objective evidence of such a thing. You can read this thread for some examples of trying to get clear evidence.

 

The only faith part of atheism is the faith that we can explore our world using observations. That is roughly the scientific method: our understanding of our world must be though our direct probing of the world. So in this sense, there is a philosophy behind atheism, but to call it a religion is false. At any moment god could reveal himself and we would have evidence and thus change our opinions.

 

I never seek to be banned, but fear it when I see moderators expressing emotional and unfounded judgements.

 

Please show me one time I called atheism a religion, never have in a decade of internet conversation, and never would. I use the definition of 'faith based beliefs'. And I'm always classed as religious for doing so. I have a faith based belief in my ideals as do all others, no matter what classification they use. No knowledge is absolute truth, but expressed with faith that it is so, by majority.

 

Clear evidence has no meaning if ones mind is closed to it. I have never seen in ten years of internet conversation, an atheist discuss God, creation, or evolution, without bringing emotion, and gobbledegook statements into the discussion. Never! Because this is fact, I always look at it that I am offending their faith based beliefs.

 

Just as in your post, you express as if an non atheist can not look at observations in reality and come to conclusions not different then science, but different then atheists. So I ask, are you saying that only atheist can see the knowledge of science?

[swansont]

I'll probably be banned quickly, or at least have my posts highly censored.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

You will be suspended, banned or censored if you break the rules. But this is not the topic of this discussion, and staying on-topic is one of the rules. (You might note that this offending sentence has nothing to do with your religious views.)

 

Responding to this modnote would also be off-topic

[ajb]

Please show me one time I called atheism a religion..

You said "Atheism is a faith based belief system, and can be as dogmatic and emotional as religion" in a post that is now in the trash can.

 

A 'faith based belief system' is more-or-less the definition of a religion.

 

 

So I ask, are you saying that only atheist can see the knowledge of science?

Of course not. The problem is that people do not apply their logic and scientific understanding to all aspects of life. Not that everything should be based just on science, the question of the existence of something you cannot detect is just ignored by religious scientists.

[Strange]

Sad, but it is taboo to speak against atheist beliefs in a science forum, and I should have known better.

 

Nonsense. The problem was simply that you hijacked another thread to do it, rather than starting your own.

Yes my preaching is equal to scientist preaching that there is no God, I agree.

 

Not sure why you mention "scientists" here. I assume you meant anti-theists. There are religious scientists, atheistic scientists, agnostic scientists and antitheist scientists.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Strange

[Phi for All]

Yes my preaching is equal to scientist preaching that there is no God, I agree. There's no difference to stating 'no God' without evidence, as there is stating there 'is God' with out evidence. It's all faith based beliefs.

 

What about people like me, who don't think about god(s) much at all? I don't state there aren't any, but I see no evidence to support their existence, so I'll wait until there is. In the meantime, trying to say I have "beliefs" about god(s) because I don't participate in any belief system is like saying I'm anti-stamp collecting just because I don't collect stamps.

 

Weak atheism and Humanism aren't a set of beliefs. Just like bald isn't a hair color.

[Strange]

And I am never going to win a gold medal for lack of interested in golf. (Do they even have medals in golf? No, don't answer that. Because, you know what, I don't care.)

[Phi for All]

And I am never going to win a gold medal for lack of interested in golf.

 

I'm thinking back to all those times you never mentioned that you don't believe in Tiger Woods....

[PoPpAScience]

You said "Atheism is a faith based belief system, and can be as dogmatic and emotional as religion" in a post that is now in the trash can.

 

A 'faith based belief system' is more-or-less the definition of a religion.

 

 

 

Of course not. The problem is that people do not apply their logic and scientific understanding to all aspects of life. Not that everything should be based just on science, the question of the existence of something you cannot detect is just ignored by religious scientists.

 

It is not more-or-less. It stands alone. Religion is a collection of works that are worshiped. Religious people can become very emotional and dogmatic. But individuals can make statements in a perceived factual manner that are strictly based on their faith that it is so. I find atheists, do this a lot when talking against certain subject matter, just as I did when I was an atheist.

 

A perfect example of this is, you have a member posting in every philosophical or religious thread. When ever the word God is printed he/she responds with the same posts over and over again. He/she says; I have no interest in if God is or isn't, but here is my emotional and gobbledegook response anyway. The repeating of these posts is very dogmatic, and faith based. For if one has no interests in the subject matter, then they are ignorant of the subject, and regurgitate their faith based beliefs only.

 

Faith, based, and beliefs, are not words belong to the subject of religion only. They are words that can related to the speech of individuals or groups outside Religion. All fall in to the category of faith based beliefs, because we all are not all-knowing beings and science is on the endless path to knowing.

 

Thus when I witness over the last 10 years, atheists expressing their faith based beliefs on a subject matter, and they call me religious for doing so, I react. Not to stir trouble, but it does, but to be philosophical about the situation.

Edited March 28, 2016 by PoPpAScience