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.
I don't know.
An intelligent reason as to why I don't know?
I don't know, because nobody has solved that riddle yet.
How could I know?
Can we safely say that the origin of all of this defies our logic?
The only logical explanation we know about the origin of the universe is creation.
You can't logically assume something can create itself.
You can only trust (or refuse to trust) a being that you believe to exist.
The universe can't logically be uncaused or self-caused, therefore, the universe was caused
...therefore, the universe was caused by an uncaused being
There seems to be a presumption that someone should know; that someone has to have figured it out. This isn't helpful, in my opinion, because it draws people toward those who pretend to know; that is, those who confidently pontificate on the matter without ever having touched a book on cosmology.
St. Thomas Aquinas - Summa Theologica
Seriously, this is basic reading for someone who wants to understand the metaphysical concept of God. It looks like you guys have never read something about what you're discussing.
People are discussing this, like, for more than 5000 years.
True, but keep your mind open to the possibility that finite mind is fallible.
If you ever become dissatisfied with yourself and sincerely turn to the Father fragment that indwells you, it is waiting patiently for that glorious day but always respectful of your true will. The Father responds to the faintest flicker of faith.
The impersonal laws of physics which originate in the Infinite and Eternal I AM.
I hope this isn't too much to read:
Relativity of Concept Frames
"Partial, incomplete, and evolving intellects would be helpless in the master universe, would be unable to form the first rational thought pattern, were it not for the innate ability of all mind, high or low, to form a universe frame in which to think. If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, then will such mind unfailingly postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a means of logical thought within the frame of these mind-created postulates. And while such universe frames for creature thought are indispensable to rational intellectual operations, they are, without exception, erroneous to a greater or lesser degree.
Conceptual frames of the universe are only relatively true; they are serviceable scaffolding which must eventually give way before the expansions of enlarging cosmic comprehension. The understandings of truth, beauty, and goodness, morality, ethics, duty, love, divinity, origin, existence, purpose, destiny, time, space, even Deity, are only relatively true.
God is much, much more than a Father, but the Father is man’s highest concept of God; nonetheless, the Father-Son portrayal of Creator-creature relationship will be augmented by those supermortal conceptions of Deity which will be attained in Orvonton, in Havona, and on Paradise. Man must think in a mortal universe frame, but that does not mean that he cannot envision other and higher frames within which thought can take place." UB 1955
This reiterates a commonly accepted truth: that our elaborated theories/models of the world are imperfect, and that the empirical data on which they are based is impoverished.
I think it's important to emphasise that, as imperfect as our best models are, they do tend to become more sophisticated over time, and so our understanding grows.
Regarding religion, however, I'm skeptical as to whether our present-day theological models are any better than they were 2000 years ago. Whereas in science the errors or shortcomings of a model are regularly discussed, in religion, the theological model is sacrosanct and discussion of its shortcomings is often suppressed, sometimes with violence.
Many even consider their preferred theological model to be perfect, without error, infallible, and unnameable. They don't accept what the UB says here about their model being "relatively true;" they believe it is absolutely true; that it cannot, and should not, be questioned. This is why many people question whether such strident religious faith is reasonable: how do you reason with someone who won't even entertain the possibility that their model could be wrong?
Again you are absolutely correct! The religions of "authority" while motivated to preserve truths important to them in one age, end up petrifying those truths AND adding their own speculative interpretations about those truths, speculations which ALSO become part of the now diluted and compromised truth, which is further preserved in scripture, which is further edited and refined by still other adherents to "the only truth". So we end up with what we have in the collection of Bible books, a layer cake of preservation, revision, reinterpretation, additional revelation, preservation, revision, prophecy, revision, reinterpretation, editing etc. Its exactly what we should expect to find.
The inconsistency and evolution in the so called "scripture" add to their authenticity rather than detract in my opinion. There is evidence of real confliction in the authors between the old ways and the new with the audience in mind.
The church is afraid that if you discover inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the record, that it may lead one to loose faith, when in fact their pride and cover up has lead directly to the very thing they had hoped to avoid!!! Religion lags behind in reformation, it must have change forced upon it!
Given all that, and absent any objective means for reliably sorting truthful revelations from false ones, would you consider agnosticism to be an appropriate response?
No, because God can be found in your heart, you don't need to go through an established religion. I know plenty of people in a 12 step program who found a God of their own understanding outside of religion. Or, you could continue to pick at the flaws of religion as an excuse not to establish a relationship with a God personal to you.
So you are encouraging everyone to look into their hearts to find "a God of their own understanding." Is there any stage in this process where people critically examine their understanding of God?
That's your choice, my experience has been that when a group of people are free to do this, when they get together they share similar experiences with this God of the heart. You will know.
People who follow conventional religion also report similar insights coming "from the heart" when they gather together in communal prayer. Many also say that they know. Yet their shared understanding of God differs, often significantly, from the shared understanding of people of a different religion who also report divine insights manifesting in the heart. Once again, given the lack of an objective means for determining which understanding "from the heart" is genuinely divine, why wouldn't agnosticism be an appropriate response?
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?