Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So the universe is God? Because that is what you are claiming. Personally I find nothing offensive about that but you might wish to consult with your fellow Christians since they tend to give God properties like sentience and omnipotence that the Universe does not really posses. Most Christians I have talked to look at the Big Bang as something God set in motion, not something that God is.
You mentioned the term "a singularity", and God is singularity as in He is one. That's what I acknowledged. I didn't say your description is 100% correct, but at least you are getting some notion correct about God. That is not easy and I commend you.
You damn me with faint praise. Toodles.
You mentioned the term "a singularity", and God is singularity as in He is one. That's what I acknowledged. I didn't say your description is 100% correct, but at least you are getting some notion correct about God. That is not easy and I commend you.
Is there any chance your God concept is incorrect, or is your opinion infallible?
But if several dozen credible witnesses report it, and stick to their story even under torture and death, it has to be at least worth giving some consideration to it...
Roonwit
Can you give any evidence to support this claim, or was it just made up after the fact by atheists wanting to disbelieve?
Roonwit
If God manifested himself, how would you know that it was God?
How can someone extract data from something unless information is coded into that thing? How then, can statistical data be extracted from atoms if measurable information is not encoded in them? And where does the information in atoms come from? Did information exist out of nothingness?
Then I see no reason why they should argue for something that is impossible to evidence.
It's only more plausible if you start from the a priori assumption that the Resurrection could not have happened... and then your argument is just circular.variant said:I didn't say that I could positively evidence that the story is incorrect.
You asked for a more plausible explanation of the Resurrection story than a resurrection.
My assertion is that it is more plausible that people are making up the story or that a real story got sincerely distorted in retelling than a resurrection.
My personal conclusions has not changed my initial influences. My expectations are a result of what theists have told me and continue to tell me about GodHmm ... interesting response. Thank you for responding.
Okay so let me ask then ...
Where do you think you get these expectations from ? I'm not talking about your initial influences which you've already addressed, rather, your after-the-fact influences so to speak. IOW ... now that you've come to personal conclusions concerning the nature of Christianity claims, etc, where do your current standards for what a "God" would be come from do you think ? And why do you have them, in your opinion ?
the name "God" doesn't make people think of an individual very often as an identifying "name" in a simplistic fashion, rather, they arguably associate it with qualities or a type of "office". Almost like a title. Like a Prince, or King, etc.
And yet many people still use the term "God" in a personal way, as though it were the identifying "name" of the one they claim to believe in,
I realize that the God of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures has many names and titles (Yahweh, Elohim, the Father, etc) ... yet the term "God" ... why can't it be yet another name ? Why does it typically associate with a sort of office, or title, even amongst atheists I wonder ?
Suppose you actually meet an entity or being that somewhat resembles concepts of "God" and this entity simply tells you, "No, I'm not a god, I'm 'God' ... that's my name .... I'm the only one, so I'm not a species you can compare anything to ... " lol.
Lastly ... I'm curious why your definition of God would involve being the Creator of the universe, and could not be an evolved being, nor ever created nor dies. It sounds somewhat like an "alpha" type or apex type of being ... the first, unchanged, never ending. Why is that important ?
I want to point something out about the idea of meeting a being that was the Creator of the Universe, was itself not created, and never ceases to exist in a living capacity (never dies) ... unless you could somehow be at the beginning of known causality to see the proof for yourself that this being was not created, and was the creator of the universe, you would arguably have to take that being's word for it.
So here's a question for all to ponder: Suppose that God manifests himself in some sort of physical or spiritual revelation, to you personally, you and a group of people, or to the entire planet. How would you know that this was God? How would you know, for instance, that it wasn't some sort of alien with super-advanced technology pretending to be God?
A follow-up question for antitheists: If a personal manifestation/appearance of God wouldn't prove to you that God exists (since there could always be another explanation - aliens or whatever), then what sort of proof would you accept that God exists?
Thanks for all your responses to me ... it's been an enlightening conversation for me. Thank you sirMy personal conclusions has not changed my initial influences. My expectations are a result of what theists have told me and continue to tell me about God
I agree! I see God as a title.
Christians are known to do that. For most religions God is a title but he is referred to by his name; Allah, Vinishu, Thor, Zeus etc.
Christians often use the title God and the name God interchangeably
If he told me, I would believe it. But HE would have to tell me first.
That is how theist described God to me.
That is true. If such a being convinced me he was God, I would believe on faith everything he had to say. If he told me something different than what the Theists have been telling me about God, I would assume those theists were in error; not God.
Ken
I merely used the example you gave to illustrate that inanimate things like matter cannot start a chain of events without the work of an external agent. The universe, mostly made up of inanimate particles, cannot form stars and systems without the work of an external agent drawing matter together using gravity or other forces we observe. Just like how metals and minerals on Earth do not form into complex materials on their own for our use.
I still fail to understand why the above is hard to understand.
It's only more plausible if you start from the a priori assumption that the Resurrection could not have happened... and then your argument is just circular.
Roonwit
Yes, that is because they don't know that things in the spiritual realm can impact the physical realm. If not, why all the exorcisms by a Christian evangelist or Catholic priest? Exorcisms aren't superfluous, they are real events.
Yeah and we call that singularity God Himself (though the description doesn't fit 100%, but still its worth acknowledging), so what's the disagreement? Or is it just offensive that we call something God?
You really didn't, but it doesn't appear that you are interested in exploring it further so I'll let it go.variant said:You defied me to give you a more plausible explanation for the resurrection stories, I did.
You really didn't, but it doesn't appear that you are interested in exploring it further so I'll let it go.
Happy Christmas
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?