• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

God exists as a Creator because all living beings have fathers and mothers

Quag said:
My question was who is the mother and father of the heavenly mother and father?
Click to expand...

We have a veil over our memories so there is no way of knowing exactly who they are. Suffice to say They are an exalted man and an exalted woman married for eternity. Let me say this is all theory as a lot has not been revealed on all this. While I'm confident in my assumption that our Heavenly Father has a Father and Mother, and They had Parents, etc, etc to infinity, it is conjecture.
 
laska said:
We have a veil over our memories so there is no way of knowing exactly who they are. Suffice to say They are an exalted man and an exalted woman married for eternity. Let me say this is all theory as a lot has not been revealed on all this. While I'm confident in my assumption that our Heavenly Father has a Father and Mother, and They had Parents, etc, etc to infinity, it is conjecture.
Click to expand...

Of course it is all conjecture, all theology is. Dont get me wrong I am not trying to put down your faith. I admire people who not only have faith but also admit it is faith not fact.
 
Quag said:
Of course it is all conjecture, all theology is. Dont get me wrong I am not trying to put down your faith. I admire people who not only have faith but also admit it is faith not fact.
Click to expand...

From my point of view revealed knowledge of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is fact. I state the belief that Heavenly Father has a Father and Mother is conjecture because it has not been clearly revealed by LDS scriptures and prophets to my knowledge. It is more implied knowledge from the theology.
 
laska said:
From my point of view revealed knowledge of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is fact. I state the belief that Heavenly Father has a Father and Mother is conjecture because it has not been clearly revealed by LDS scriptures and prophets to my knowledge. It is more implied knowledge from the theology.
Click to expand...

Do you consider the revealed knowledge as fact because it has been proven or because you have faith?
 
laska said:
From my point of view revealed knowledge of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is fact.
Click to expand...

Your point of view will not make it real. Does the Hindu point of view make Krishna and Shiva real?
 
Quag said:
Do you consider the revealed knowledge as fact because it has been proven or because you have faith?
Click to expand...

Faith, spiritual evidence, and personal revelation. That is where my testimony comes from. I do believe there is a ton of secular evidence in support of the Book of Mormon as an ancient document, and if the Book of Mormon derives from the 600 BC Middle east then the most likely scenario is Joseph Smith was telling the truth. Well respected LDS scholars with the necessary skills and experience have scientifically tested it over many years for forgery using modern well established techniques and imo the Book of Mormon passes with flying colors and is an obvious ancient text and not a forgery. I would love for unbiased non LDS scholars to rigorously test it but that is something that has never happened. But my testimony does not come from this type of secular evidence. If I was a 19th century Mormon before all of this secular evidence in support of the Book of Mormon that has come out in our current day, I would still believe it based on faith, spiritual evidence, and personal revelation. At the end of the Book of Mormon it gives a promise that those who read and humbly pray and ask God in faith if the book is true, that the Holy Ghost will reveal the truth of it to a person. There are other promises in the scriptures that those who follow in faith God will reveal Himself to them. The problem is the vast majority of people will not do to this. Just simply pray and ask.

If you are going to ask me the evidences in support of the Book of Mormon not being a forgery, I've posted a ton of this on this site already and do not want to again have this debate. One of the better resources on the net is Jeff lindsay's Book of Mormon evidences site that anyone can google.
 
zyzygy said:
Your point of view will not make it real. Does the Hindu point of view make Krishna and Shiva real?
Click to expand...

No, real is real. Some people believe truth, some people believe error. Some people believe people who believe in truth are in error when their own judgement of this is in error. Each their own.
 
laska said:
No, real is real. Some people believe truth, some people believe error. Some people believe people who believe in truth are in error when their own judgement of this is in error. Each their own.
Click to expand...

So there is no way that you could be wrong?
 
zyzygy said:
So there is no way that you could be wrong?
Click to expand...

I humbly state I know I am right as far as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints being true. But I don't expect anyone to believe just because I state that to also believe it. I also know I am likely not right on a lot of things. But I know the LDS is true. The only way to come to a sure knowledge is for God to reveal it to an individual through the power of the Holy Ghost.
 
Ancient Herald said:
Wow.

i think you just created a circular argument with the assertion of God MUST exist.

Because if he MUST exist, then he can't deny his destiny.

And if he can't deny his destiny, then he has no real free will.
Click to expand...

The OPs argument is circular, the classic redifining of "God" so that he/she/it MUST exist by definition, but in the end the definition isn't even close to the "traditional" god. I'm just showing that god does not exist by definition in this case unless you want to loosen the definition up to the point that you can accept god as simply a set of circumstances.

I really can't make any sense out of your destiny/free will comment
 
shagg said:
The OPs argument is circular, the classic redifining of "God" so that he/she/it MUST exist by definition, but in the end the definition isn't even close to the "traditional" god. I'm just showing that god does not exist by definition in this case unless you want to loosen the definition up to the point that you can accept god as simply a set of circumstances.

I really can't make any sense out of your destiny/free will comment
Click to expand...

Do you still not know me?
 
Kelfuma said:
Otherwise, why do children have fathers and mothers? Why do bacteria have a parent bacteria that underwent binary fission? Why do plants originate from other plants? Why do our body cells undergo mitosis to produce more body cells? Why do body cells need other body cells to be created? Why can't we just be born from only rocks and trees because we have a lot more of those than we have humans? And if God didn't exist, we wouldn't be saying God doesn't exist because saying that implies God exists but you're only denying such existence. We cannot think of something that does not exist so God exists simply because we think of God even when denying God.

In this context, God means a universal Creator. The First Source and Center, the first action, the infinite and the eternal, the one thing we can never fully understand because we can never fully understand everything.

I think we are all too confused when it comes to the word 'God'. I propose that we divide God up into different terms according to the Urantia Book.

God could be a Father, a Devil, a sadistic scientist, a universal constant, a judge, a law, a Supreme Being, a creation of Man and the list goes on and on.
Click to expand...

Missing the point. Information is being stably propagated from one generation to the next, in seeming violation of the laws of entropy. That's the point.

There is structure in the universe, that's the point. There are "natural laws", that's the point.

Fathers and mothers are irrelevant, the point is that information is being propagated and perpetuated, and kept in stable form from one generation to the next.

It's pointless to wallow in arrogant self-certitude when there's so much unknown and so much left to discover.

Just get busy, that's the best strategy. We discover how God works by performing experiments, not by sitting on our butts philosophizing about it.
 
ballantine said:
Missing the point. Information is being stably propagated from one generation to the next, in seeming violation of the laws of entropy. That's the point.

There is structure in the universe, that's the point. There are "natural laws", that's the point.

Fathers and mothers are irrelevant, the point is that information is being propagated and perpetuated, and kept in stable form from one generation to the next.

It's pointless to wallow in arrogant self-certitude when there's so much unknown and so much left to discover.

Just get busy, that's the best strategy. We discover how God works by performing experiments, not by sitting on our butts philosophizing about it.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with philosophising. The Greeks did a lot of it.
Some were even opposed to experimentation, in principle I seem to recall.
The only knowledge which is pure is that which can be derived by logical thought.
All else is mere contrivances
 
Last edited:
Manny said:
Nothing wrong with philosophising. The Greeks did a lot of it.
Some were even opposed to experimentation, in principle I seem to recall.
The only knowledge which is pure is that which can be derived by logical thought.
All else is mere contrivances
Click to expand...

See? The Greeks were arrogant. It's the same thing as talking about "God", no one can even define what "God" is, so why should we waste any breath talking about it?

Anthropomorphic arrogance is the only way anyone can even conceive of "God". And our best guess leads to stuff like the Cargo Cults.

Buddha was right. When asked whether God exists he said, "That is an irrelevant question." Which means, it doesn't matter to YOU one way or the other, you have no power over that equation in either direction. You have power over yourself, you can choose to live in the best possible way, but how can anyone possibly put God "in a box" by trying to define the box? It's a non-sensical proposition.

This is why there's science in the world. People "believe" stuff like the earth is flat, or there are monsters under the bed, or whatever - but science depends on independent observation and repeated experimentation and consistency of results across time and space. The only knowledge which is pure is that which is derived from the senses. That which is derived from "logical" thought is susceptible to human logical fallacy - for instance - while the Bible may at one point have been the "word of God", the only versions we have access to are the word of God "as translated by man", and that latter part is where all the imperfections and mistranslations occur. All logic depends on the validity of the fundamental assumptions, you can use perfect logic but if your assumptions are bad then your conclusions will be in error.

And there is very little in the way of "assumptions" we can actually make, about "God". If you want to get right into it, we can pick apart any of the organized religions and show quickly and unequivocally how the tree of belief is self-contradictory. Simple things: a universal God is either everything, or He is nothing. So, God therefore can not be "good" - because being everything, He must of necessity encompass "bad" as well. "Good" is an anthropomorphic value judgement, it has no meaning whatsoever to anyone but a human being. It's an example of "anthropomorphic arrogance".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom