- Joined
- Oct 9, 2011
- Messages
- 39,861
- Reaction score
- 7,852
- Location
- Turkey
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Could we ignore the proof?
we cant but it doesnt seem to be a belief after finding the proof that god exists.
Could we ignore the proof?
Even if we prove a god exist then next would be to prove which god exist.
Good question. If I could prove the existence of a god I would only throw it to the world if I knew it would not offend any of the way too many religions we have created which would be tough. The God would have to be more distant than all religions bark about so as to not suggest partiality. I would definitely do it if this God told me, "reveal me and I shall shut their damn mouths about me".
This is scientifically unarguable proof. Obviously hypothetical. Would you? My answer? No.
The Conversion Story of C. S. LewisThe Conversion Story of C. S. Lewis
"You must picture me alone in that room at Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me.
In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England" (Surprised By Joy, ch. 14, p. 266).
Who needs faith if Gods were proven to exist?
What is your definition of God? What religion is God?
Whatever "God" is and isn't has no doubt been proven long ago. The proof is obvious and simple. Mankind has chumped itself into searching in the wrong way, in the wrong places. "God" isn't hiding. Mankind has hidden "God". Men and women have hidden "God" behind tall tales, lies, madness, greed, hatred, arrogance, fear and ignorance.
God is love. That's it! Love exists. The existence and the power of love has stood the test of time. It's been scientifically proved.
Love is not Mennonite or Jewish or Druid or Evangelical or Atheist or Catholic or Muslim or Buddhist or Mormon or Taoist or Hindu or Wiccan or any specific religion or non-religion. Love is all of those and more. Pure love is the same for everyone. God is love.
If God is just litearlly "love," then "God" is meaningless, it's not a person, it's a feeling, which is literally on the same Level as .... well ... horniness, boredum, happiness, laughter .... I love Apples, I love Girls and so on .... It's not something anyone should worship, it's not something anyone would pay attention to, since it's just a feeling.
God is love is a biblican concept about the base nature of a spirit PERSON .... If God is not a personal God, or in some way transcendant, then there is no point in using the Word "God" at all.
Actually, I don't use the word "God" unless I'm talking to Christians. I don't mind using it, but I find the concept limiting. To be honest, "God" can't be conceptualized. "God" is ALL. There is nothing but "God" and even ALL is a comparison. Something would have to exist outside of "God" or beyond "God" to which it would be compared. If that were the case "God" would be limited. Love transcends everything. Love is all. "God" is love.
If God is all, then God is nothing, it's a Word that is meaningless, it doesn't deserve any attention at all .... also ALL is not love ... a rock =/= love .... Love is an emotion, and ****, emotions didn't exist before sentient beings existed, nor does love exist anywhere where sentient beings exist, so love doesn't exist in almost all the universe so obviously not God is not All if God is love, if love is all then rape is love, murder is love, but no, those are not love.
Love doesn't transcent everything, when you die Your love dies as well (ecclesiastes 9:5,6) love is an emotion that comes from sentient beings, it's derivative, not transcendent.
God being unlimited doesn't mean God being equated With everything.
Also if God is all, then God can be conceptualized, anyone can think of all, not accurately, but everyone gets the idea, also every can conceptualize love.
This is not theology Your doing, it's nonsensicle wordgames in which you string Words together With no real meaning.
Also "God is love" is a biblican concept, if you're not basing Your theology on biblical exegesis, then on what is it based? If it is, then why do you deny the personhood of God?
That's sentence is about 4 or 5 strung together. I'll do my best to sum up response.
Rock is not all.
Rape and murder are actions that are committed - by humans - as a result of the absence of love. Hatred is the absence of love.
It sounds to me as if you believe in "God" or a supreme being, then might I ask if you believe in an afterlife? Heaven?
Actually it does. If not then it means there are other gods. If not, it means "God" is not omnipotent.
"All" is a comparison.
No, it probably isn't theology. It certainly is not intended to be word games, however.
As I said just above I am not espousing a particular theology. Yes, I do deny "the personhood of God", whatever that means. I have never believed that "God" was a person. That concept would very much limit "God".
Rock is not all, but all includes Rock ....
All also incldues rape and murder .... obviously love is part of all, but so is Rock and Rape and Murder.
I believe in ressurection, I believe in God as the bible reveals him .... personal supreme being.
No .... it doesn't mean that at all, that's a rediculous fallacy.
Empire state building is not all, there are no other Empire state buildings however .....
But the bible talks about other Gods ... it talks about Satan as a God, it talks about angels as gods, it refers to false Gods, it refers to moses as a god ....
Well ... it is meant to be theology, since you are talking about the nature of God and revelation ..... Which is the definition of theology.
Then on what basis do you say "God is love," I know where you got the idea from, the New testament, but it's obvious you don't view the New testament as authority or revelation, so on what basis do you say "god is love?"
Even if we prove a god exist then next would be to prove which god exist.
we cant but it doesnt seem to be a belief after finding the proof that god exists.
There are no parts.
But you don't believe in afterlife or heaven?
How do you know there is no other Empire State Building? Even if there were a building exactly like the Empire State Building and it was called the Empire State Building there would be two, would there not? Now you have an even greater comparison! Even one building would be a comparison.
It's simple set theory.
I understand that. In that context then "God" is limited. God is not omnipotent. Would you agree?
It isn't meant to be theology. Obviously we have different concepts. Also, I don't subscribe to the concept of revelation.
No, I am not getting any of this from the New Testament. As I stated above, I'm not into the concept of revelation either.
Let's say God was already here as Jesus. Even if half the stories are true that he healed the sick, fed the multitudes, turned water into wine, walked on water and raised the dead WHY did he let them kill him? Why didn't he just force them to love Him without them knowing it? Surely it wouldn't have been too difficult for someone who performed all those miracles.
God gave man free will ... and he made them in his own image i.e. as free agents ... Had he done what you propose he would be going against his own decree.
LOL I said the same thing in another thread. And apparently some people think if you believe a fact that the fact in then a belief.
... Yes there are parts of all .... since all is the sumation of everything that is,.
I do. I believe in the ressurection (a type of after life), and that there is a heaven, but I don't believe it's a physical Place or something like that.
How do we determine there is no other Empire State Building? How do we determine there is no other being?Lets assume there is no other Empire State building (not a Wild assumption), in that case ... there is no other empire state building .... Lets say there is only me .... me not being all dosen't mean there must be others.
In other Words it's a logicall fallacy to say "unless something is all there must be more of that type of thing." The conclusion simply doesn't follow, there is no logical Connection.
Depends what you mean by Omnipotent, if by omnipotent you mean he is all powerful to do whatever he must accomplish, then yes, but the bible states there are Things God CANNOT do, he CANNOT lie, he CANNOT abridge his own justice and love, so he cannot do certain Things, but he is all powerful .... meaning there are no Power limits to what he can do in line With his nature.
Taking away personhood from God means taking away agency, if you say God is All, and thus not personal, not even distinct he's not omnipotent, he's most impotent .... he can't do anything, he has no agency, he has no Power ....
This is why theology is important, so you don't end up contradicting yourself all over the Place and make statements about god that sound Nice but are nonsense.
You are making claims about the nature of God, i.e. theology ..... by definition.
Then on what basis do you say "God is love?"
Actually, I don't use the word "God" unless I'm talking to Christians. I don't mind using it, but I find the concept limiting. To be honest, "God" can't be conceptualized. "God" is ALL. There is nothing but "God" and even ALL is a comparison. Something would have to exist outside of "God" or beyond "God" to which it would be compared. If that were the case "God" would be limited. Love transcends everything. Love is all. "God" is love.