God: Real, or not?

[201ajgrant]

I wish to enter into this time-old debate.

I see it no where else here ... and it seems *some* of you wish to align "god" with time travel ...

Present some arguments for/against - and I will do same later.

 

[KerrTexas]

This subject was discussed in depth in a thread entitled, " God? " in the Time Travel Discussion forum. Will take some time to read through, as the "God?" Thread is a bit lengthy.

God? | Time Travel Institute

 

[KerrTexas]

I moved the God? thread to this forum. However, that thread contains so many posts, might be better to continue ( or restart ) the discussion in this thread.

The foundation of the God? thread wasn't necessarily intended to be a discussion of whether God exists or not - (which the thread did become) - the premise of the God? thread was this :

" There were many brilliant scientists in the past and just because the name God surrounds their thoughts does not mean what they wrote is without value. "

All debates regarding God's existence are simply this : " God exists" <---- > "God doesn't exist" with a lot of stuffing in-between with no resolution ( to date ) for either side of the debate.

Religion worships the creator. Science worships the creation.

The paradox facing religion is that the creator is all; and creation is nothing.

The paradox facing science is that creation is all; and the creator is nothing.

These two extremes are the bars of a prison cell - for all souls on Earth.

Until we realise that we are all gods, and that we are the source of our OWN creation ... thus will remain all of the problems currently facing humanity. [quote\]

 

[KerrTexas]

I would equate what you wrote in the latter portion of your post to mean that we each have the potential to evolve through our own efforts.

Exactly what your definition of a god may be, that I don't know. Anything that creates = a god ?

Even if that were true, still doesn't prove whether God exists or not.

As far as God relating to time travel, I would refer back to what the foundation of the God? thread was in the first post of that thread :

" There were many brilliant scientists in the past and just because the name God surrounds their thoughts does not mean what they wrote is without value. "

That the Bible(s) and other ancient texts written within a theological/religious format do contain information that could be used for time traveling (and other scientific inquiries) is a concept that I believe to be valid.

 

[Gpa]

Religion worships the creator. Science worships the creation.

Half right.
Science seeks to "understand" the creation, not worship it.

The paradox facing religion is that the creator is all; and creation is nothing.

Religions I am aware of believe that creation is the Glory of the Creator.
Read the words in the song "How Great Thou Art".

The paradox facing science is that creation is all; and the creator is nothing.

I can't speak for all science but for my small part in it, I see understanding the creation as better understanding the Creator, not negating Him.

These two extremes are the bars of a prison cell - for all souls on Earth.

"Your belief" in the existence of these extremes may well be bars affecting your soul but, you over reach by claiming they affect "all" souls. Mine is free and unafraid.

Until we realise that we are all gods, and that we are the source of our OWN creation ... thus will remain all of the problems currently facing humanity.

Secular humanism... why yes, of course "that" will fix the ills in the world. (sarcasm, Sheldon)

 

[201ajgrant]

^No religion believes that creation is the glory of the creator. That is an ellission[?] on the text.

Half right.
Science seeks to "understand" the creation, not worship it.

Wrong. Science believes that creation is all, as it worships matter. "Matter" is not important for a soul to grow.

Religions I am aware of believe that creation is the Glory of the Creator.
Read the words in the song "How Great Thou Art".

Modern-day ellisions on olden-day texts are of no use to anyone. As are such interpretations as well.

I can't speak for all science but for my small part in it, I see understanding the creation as better understanding the Creator, not negating Him.

You are worshipping at two altars. Not one. How can you find a path, by travelling two ways at once?

"Your belief" in the existence of these extremes may well be bars affecting your soul but, you over reach by claiming they affect "all" souls. Mine is free and unafraid.

I *feel* that yours is more blind to the trap, than it is "free and unafraid". Science cannot truly observe what is important to all souls, as it has self-imposed blinders to truth. You only "suppose" what you see, based on inherently false inputs.

EDIT
Perhaps I could "reword" that this way ...

In the absence of complete and accurate data, anyone observing a phenomenon will assume - or hypothesise - explanations in an attempt to make sense of the data.

[/edit]

Conversely, organised religions all fail to observe comparative truth, as they are blind to viewing all things as a living [and interactive] whole. Secondly, their "belief" in there being a single "creator" is a falicy, as they relinquish all responsibility for their own thoughts, and actions, to said creator.

Secular humanism... why yes, of course "that" will fix the ills in the world. (sarcasm, Sheldon)

Secularism may well be a way out of the hypnotic trap for you (I've yet to find mine). It is not what I imply at all.

 

[201ajgrant]

I would equate what you wrote in the latter portion of your post to mean that we each have the potential to evolve through our own efforts.

Exactly what your definition of a god may be, that I don't know. Anything that creates = a god ?

Even if that were true, still doesn't prove whether God exists or not.

As far as God relating to time travel, I would refer back to what the foundation of the God? thread was in the first post of that thread :

" There were many brilliant scientists in the past and just because the name God surrounds their thoughts does not mean what they wrote is without value. "

That the Bible(s) and other ancient texts written within a theological/religious format do contain information that could be used for time traveling (and other scientific inquiries) is a concept that I believe to be valid.

It proves that god DOES exist ... just not as organised religions dictate. Basically, Yahweh is one of us - and not above us AT ALL.

We were imprisoned here because elsewhere we were no longer needed.

 

[Gpa]

You refer to the word ellission or Modern-day ellisions. Perhaps you mean elisions, but that normally refers to the omission of a part of a word. Contractions are a prime example, can not = can't, etc. Also apparent in some dialects, " I cudda wupped em if 'e hadn't 'ad dat stick." It isn't the best word if your meaning is the revision of original texts. I don't disagree that original meanings may have been altered over time, or to fit the times, i.e. The King James version.

Conversely, organised religions all fail to observe comparative truth, as they are blind to viewing all things as a living [and interactive] whole. Secondly, their "belief" in there being a single "creator" is a falicy, as they relinquish all responsibility for their own thoughts, and actions, to said creator.

Religion is man's interpretation of what he believes God wants or expects from him and, as such, is subject to inaccuracy. The Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims all believe in the same God yet the religious practices are far from the same. I won't argue over religion, as in which one is right. I'm not qualified to decide that... only God is.
With my response to your post I am trying to point out that, it doesn't seem you have any real understanding of science or religion. You think you do... and you demonstrate an overlapping resentment of God and religion and your disdain that anyone or anything might have the power over you to tell you "your wrong". That's why you need to post yourself up as your own God, your own judge.
That is secular humanism, whether you mean to imply it or not.
I'm sure we can argue this till doomsday with no resolution in sight. I am not defending religion or God. He doesn't need me to defend Him. I am disagreeing with your presumption on religion and science.

 

[201ajgrant]

You refer to the word ellission or Modern-day ellisions. Perhaps you mean elisions, but that normally refers to the omission of a part of a word. Contractions are a prime example, can not = can't, etc. Also apparent in some dialects, " I cudda wupped em if 'e hadn't 'ad dat stick." It isn't the best word if your meaning is the revision of original texts. I don't disagree that original meanings may have been altered over time, or to fit the times, i.e. The King James version.

First of all, I commend you for the contained clarity within your post. I'm sure that with some of the truths I am laying down it might just seem hard to maintain such opinions

Seeing as you begin it arguing word corrections, "elisions" also refers to percieved reality. Moreover, the omissions of - or from - a perceived reality. It is within that context that I have used the word. That said, I may be playing with definitions by using it in such a way. Also, the use of the word "omission" would have been more incorrect than my usage of the word "elision". An "elision" is also caused when (white) lies are intermixed between truthful facts.

There are a few fundamental flaws in your argument - and I've this one to be common to all religions. Your religion requires dogged worship by you. It requires of you that you relinquish ALL responsibility for your actions to your god. That requirement alone is not only found in cowards, but is one borne of a slave mentality. Your religion is blinding you to the nearly infinite wonders of creation around you by perpetuating the self-belief that you are "one, under another".

Science is not concerned AT ALL with the creator. A scientist whom attests against that fact is no scientist. They are seeking to have their own delusional version of their god proven right. No scientist has scientific value when they claim to be anything towards a creator. The truth is that science worships matter. When you travel to the end of a universe - concieved by science - you will fall off the edge into an abyss filled with cold, desolate space, and sheer, unrelenting force.
(the infamous "donut" theory, but I forget by whom).

Religion is man's interpretation of what he believes God wants or expects from him and, as such, is subject to inaccuracy. The Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims all believe in the same God yet the religious practices are far from the same. I won't argue over religion, as in which one is right. I'm not qualified to decide that... only God is.
With my response to your post I am trying to point out that, it doesn't seem you have any real understanding of science or religion. You think you do... and you demonstrate an overlapping resentment of God and religion and your disdain that anyone or anything might have the power over you to tell you "your wrong". That's why you need to post yourself up as your own God, your own judge.

I never eluded to being posted up as my own god. That suggests you cannot grasp that which I tell you. I am a god. As are you. We are separate gods. Neither of us is subservient(?) to the other. Yet, YOU have been dogmatically programmed into thinking that you are of lesser stature than that of a god. In fact, as part of that programming process you have been told that it is WRONG to think of yourself as equal to a god. It is WRONG for you to look after yourself before you do so to others. It is WRONG for you to not see it in another alternative way that ultimately leads to the same END.

I hold no such preservations. I feel nothing towards your god; as I equally feel nothing for your opinions on your god. I know that your god is no god that is greater (or lesser) than me. We are equals. We are ALL equal gods. There is no "class system" used in reference to ourselves as gods, either.

 

[Gpa]

You presume far too much. It would seem it is time to take off the kid-gloves. I was trying to be nice but that often proves to be a waste of time with some. "You" are "one" of "the some".
Your lack of education is glaringly apparent in your writing. Not just vocabulary or spelling or proper word choice, we all can have trouble with that sometimes. I am talking about your complete lack of understanding of the subject matter you are so pertinaciously attacking... God... and religion... as-well-as science.
You have serious issues concerning God. Perhaps it stems from some childhood trauma concerning religion or maybe even an adult experience, or both. Needless to say, it is something you will not likely get past with out some type of professional help. I encourage you to seek it. I know several atheists, humanists, and others with no religious opinion. None of them attack God in the manner you seem to "need" to. To say, "I don't believe in a God/Creator" is one thing. To viciously denigrate Him and impugn those that do believe borders on an obsession. I'm sure a good Doctor can give that a proper label for you.
Your statements are for-the-most-part absurd ranting at a Deity you claim doesn't exist, as such. Funny how you spend so much energy attacking a "delusion".
You make a declarative statement that you do not support with any evidence:

Christian values are falsehoods in themselves.

For thousands of years the practice of marriage was not religious-based, nor was it made specific to man-woman relationships [in legal terms]. That is a thing of modern times ("modern" meaning roughly 100AD onwards).

Legalising gay marriage indicates the beginning of the fall of America | Time Travel Institute

Wrong. Science believes that creation is all, as it worships matter. "Matter" is not important for a soul to grow.
Modern-day ellisions on olden-day texts are of no use to anyone. As are such interpretations as well.

I *feel* that yours is more blind to the trap, than it is "free and unafraid". Science cannot truly observe what is important to all souls, as it has self-imposed blinders to truth. You only "suppose" what you see, based on inherently false inputs.

Conversely, organised religions all fail to observe comparative truth, as they are blind to viewing all things as a living [and interactive] whole. Secondly, their "belief" in there being a single "creator" is a falicy, as they relinquish all responsibility for their own thoughts, and actions, to said creator.

God: Real, or not? | Time Travel Institute

OvLrdLegion said: ↑ He has said, this wont go on forever, He will "reveal" Himself to everyone as He is, the I AM who I AM.
He never "revealed" himself in the first place. "Yahweh" is greek/ancient sanskrit for "anonymous". How can you truly believe in a jailor that calls itself "anonymous"?

God? | Page 47 | Time Travel Institute
""Yahweh" is greek/ancient sanskrit for "anonymous"...?" and again you show you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

And yet, here you are propagating christianity as "the way".

Legalising gay marriage indicates the beginning of the fall of America | Time Travel Institute
In none of my posts have I stated Christianity is "the way".

I notice that you didn't address my opening line in that post. I await your response to that also.

Legalising gay marriage indicates the beginning of the fall of America | Time Travel Institute

Since when has mere time spent performing a practice been justifiably usable as a reason for the continuation of that practice?

Legalising gay marriage indicates the beginning of the fall of America | Time Travel Institute
If you mean this one, I let it alone since, for me anyway, it made no sense.

Well, unless you can begin to engage in an intelligent conversation, I see no real reason to continue "casting my pearls before swine", as it were.
and please, feel free to call me Scott.

 

[201ajgrant]

You left it alone, because you have no answer for it - not for the reason of your lack of comprehension of the question/statement.

And I don't care if your name's Jack, or Scott, or Bill ... I won't use it.

Yet ... here we are.

I have no need for evidence to my claims, as much as you have no need for evidence of there being a "god".

What you've espoused - amongst your non-sensical ranting there - is not atheism. Atheism through ignorance is JUST ignorance. I know FAR more athiests that hold militant views against religion than I do of those whom are simply ignorant of religion.

The "lack of comprehension" is on YOUR part. Scientists that claim religion as a basis of being are NOT scientists. Religionists that seek to use scientific evidence as proof are CONVERSLY not religionists. There is NO middle ground in the "Science vs. Religion" debate. Those that *claim* otherwise are detriments to both.

You have no evidence that your god exists - let alone that your god exists as has been indoctrinated ... sorry, "taught" ... to you. Yet here you are willing to argue the case for god, and the meaning of its' existence.

Have you ever questioned why that is so?

I have no answer for that to give to you ... save only that the mentality driving your pursuit is that of a slave.

 

[201ajgrant]

"The origins of this universe, and life on Earth, as discussed in the textbooks I have read, are very inaccurate. The texts – the books – that I have been given relating to the function of life forms contain information that is based on: false memories; inaccurate observation(s); missing data; unproven theories; and superstition.

For example, just a few hundred years ago physicians practiced “bloodletting” as a means to release supposed “ill-humours” from the body, in an attempt to heal, or relieve, a wide variety of physical, or mental, afflictions. Although this has been corrected somewhat, many barbarisms are STILL being practiced in the name of medical science. In addition to the application of incorrect theories concerning biological engineering, many primary errors that scientists make are the result of the ignorance of the nature, and relative importance, of souls as the source of energy, and intelligence, which animate EVERY life form.

The correct information, about the origins of biological entities, has been erased from our minds, as well as from the minds of our mentors. In order to help you regain your own memory, I will share with you some material concerning the origin of biological entities.

You will find “evolution” mentioned in the ancient Vedic Hymns. The Vedic texts are like folktales, or common wisdoms, and superstitions, gathered throughout the systems of the universe. These were compiled into “verses” like a book of rhymes. For every statement of truth, the “verses” contain many: half-truths; reversals of truth; and fanciful imaginings – blended without qualification, or distinction. The “theory of evolution” assumes that the motivational source of energy – that animates every life form – DOES NOT EXIST. It assumes that an inanimate object, or chemical concoction, can suddenly become “alive” - or “animate” - accidentally, or spontaneously. Or, perhaps, an electrical discharge into a pool of “chemical ooze” will MAGICALLY spawn a self-animated entity. There is no evidence – whatsoever - that this is true; simply because it's not true.

Dr. Frankenstein did not REALLY resurrect the dead into a marauding monster; except in the imaginations of the souls whom wrote a fictitious story one dark, and stormy, night.

No Western scientists ever stop to consider: “Who?”; “What?”; “Where?”; “When?”; or “How?” this animation happens. Complete ignorance, denial, or unawareness, of the spirit as the source of the lifeforce required to animate inanimate objects, or “cellular tissue”, is the SOLE cause of failures in Western medicine. In addition, “evolution” does not occur “accidentally”. It requires a great deal of technology and energy. Very simple examples are seen in the modification of farm animals, or in the breeding of dogs. However, the notion that “human biological organisms evolved naturally from earlier ape-like forms” is incorrect.

No physical evidence will EVER be uncovered to substantiate the notion that modern humanoid bodies evolved on this planet."

And you STILL hold to the notion that I "know not of which I speak".

The end statement ALONE makes more sense than all religious dogma in existence today - COMBINED.

 

[Gpa]

And you STILL hold to the notion that I "know not of which I speak".

Without a doubt.

Yet here you are willing to argue the case for god, and the meaning of its' existence.

Please quote my words where I have argued the case for God.
All I have argued is that you have serious issues with God and that you have no clue what you are talking about.

"The origins of this universe, and life on Earth, as discussed in the textbooks I have read, are very inaccurate. The texts – the books –..."

When you use someone else's words you should at least make an attempt to credit the source.
SCIENTIFIC FICTION &laquo; ALIEN INTERVIEW
Still waiting for the intelligent conversation to start.

And please, feel free to call me Scott.

 

[201ajgrant]

Without a doubt.


Please quote my words where I have argued the case for God.
All I have argued is that you have serious issues with God and that you have no clue what you are talking about.

When you use someone else's words you should at least make an attempt to credit the source.
SCIENTIFIC FICTION &laquo; ALIEN INTERVIEW
Still waiting for the intelligent conversation to start.

And please, feel free to call me Scott.

Stop elisioning.

Start an intelligent conversation. Quote sources. Call you "scott". Are you done with ordering?

Start some arguments if you are "awaiting" your ever-searched-for "intelligent conversation". I gaurantee you that I will end your appreciation of your god.

 

[201ajgrant]

Without a doubt.
Please quote my words where I have argued the case for God.

You did so when you "corrected" me. You said that "scientists are more about UNDERSTANDING creation; than they are about it being their all". See? I can create illusions as much as you can.

... that's between you and Him.

Capitalisation of the word "him" denotes your belief. Such a word does not hold a capital letter by itself.

 

[Gpa]

aj;
Can I call you aj?
So anyway, aj;

Stop elisioning.

I could say, "there is no such word", but apparently, you think there is and you think it means something but, whatever you are alluding to, eludes me. I won't bother trying to correct your grammar anymore.

Start an intelligent conversation. Quote sources. Call you "scott". Are you done with ordering?

No, not yet... I'd like a Whopper with cheese, vanilla shake, and onion rings instead of fries.
Ok, I'm done now.

Start some arguments if you are "awaiting" your ever-searched-for "intelligent conversation". I gaurantee you that I will end your appreciation of your god.

aj, it would seem you came here looking for a fight so you could denigrate God and tell anyone, who does believe, that they are ignorant slaves.
Instead all you have accomplished is to display "your" complete ignorance concerning God/religion, and science. As I stated at the beginning of our conversation;

I'm sure we can argue this till doomsday with no resolution in sight. I am not defending religion or God. He doesn't need me to defend Him. I am disagreeing with your presumption on religion and science.

I am not going to argue whether God exists or not with you. KerrTexas stated the un'necessariness for that;

All debates regarding God's existence are simply this : " God exists" <---- > "God doesn't exist" with a lot of stuffing in-between with no resolution ( to date ) for either side of the debate.

I am pointing out that you do not know what you are talking about. You have not offered an intelligent, coherent sentence, to support your position that, God and science can not coexist, that any scientist who acknowledges God, can not be a scientist.
You submit a post which, I can't tell whether you are offering as your own words or as the source of your knowledge.
If you offer a sci-fi site, alieninterview.org, as the source of your knowledge and ask, "And you STILL hold to the notion that I "know not of which I speak".". I am forced to respond, "Well, how could I have doubted your understanding? Alien Interview, as a source of knowledge, is just barely a step below Cambridge."

I gaurantee you that I will end your appreciation of your god.

First, you don't have the capacity to guarantee you can change anything about me. Your statement is meaningless drivel.
Second, at this point in my life, neither you, nor anyone else, could change my beliefs. I am far too set in my ways.

Gpa said: ↑
Without a doubt.
Please quote my words where I have argued the case for God.

You did so when you "corrected" me. You said that "scientists are more about UNDERSTANDING creation; than they are about it being their all". See? I can create illusions as much as you can.

Again, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. How does that argue the case for God? I said;
"Science seeks to "understand" the creation, not worship it."
Is it the word "creation" you have a problem with? If so, it was your word. I was reusing it.

Gpa said: ↑
... that's between you and Him.

Capitalisation of the word "him" denotes your belief. Such a word does not hold a capital letter by itself.

Capitalizing "Him" when referring to God is simply the way I was taught (back when schools were not afraid to mention God in any way). I don't think "he" will be offended if I fail to capitalize a pronoun that refers to "him".
You have no clue what "my" beliefs are although, you keep trying to categorize me by what you think they are.
Again, my argument is with your statement concerning science and religion. You understand neither, while you make allegations concerning both.

 

[PaulaJedi]

I will put a whole other twist on the God debate.

What if God was the unvierse? There are mutlitple universes. This implies multiple gods.
Furthermore, are these universes or "gods" self aware? If so, what would stop them from communicating
with one another?

 

[Einstein]

And what if I invent a time machine. And go back to the beginning. And create the universe. That makes me out to be God.

But what it really boils down to is that "What ifs" are just fiction.

 

[PaulaJedi]

But what it really boils down to is that "What ifs" are just fiction.

"What if we were to travel in space or land on the moon?"

Look what happened.

If there are no "what ifs" then then there would be no technological advances.

 

[vodkafan]

I will put a whole other twist on the God debate.

What if God was the unvierse? There are mutlitple universes. This implies multiple gods.
Furthermore, are these universes or "gods" self aware? If so, what would stop them from communicating
with one another?

I don't see that multiple gods are implicit here. As we do not know enough about god and what his limits are supposed to be, how can any evidence be taken to point to multiple gods? This simply boils down to what you think is a nice tidy solution, a personal opinion.