THE QUESTION OF WHETHER ANY GODS EXIST...

[evince]

I can see the Border Collie in him. We have some on our golf courses...to get the Canada Geese moving. We try to keep the mementos geese leave behind at a minimum. Really interferes with the putting!

Border collies seem to have no end to energy.

and are brilliant

the beautiful, brilliant, black talking girl I spoke of earlier was a border collie mix

[evince]

Let me be sure I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying that there cannot be gods...unless the god are like the gods we humans have worshiped?





If they are gods...they are gods whether the insignificant dominant beings on this relatively insignificant planet realize it or not.

then they are not gods


they are merely a unknown species that is more powerful than us


we don't care much about ants and if we step on them


that doesnt make us gods


it merely makes us a much more powerful species that does not care and can cause death or misery to ants on a whim

[Frank Apisa]

then they are not gods


they are merely a unknown species that is more powerful than us


we don't care much about ants and if we step on them


that doesnt make us gods


it merely makes us a much more powerful species that does not care and can cause death or misery to ants on a whim

I think you are being much more dismissive than necessary, but it goes to the topic...so I'd like to discuss it.

And once again, I'll ask a question first (If you have any for me, please ask them):

Are you saying something as complex as a "GOD"...even a CREATOR GOD...is something that we humans must be able to understand in order to exist? If we cannot understand it...or even conceive of it...it cannot exist?

Do you think, for instance, that ants recognize what we humans are the dominant species on planet Earth...or have any comprehension of the vastness of what we humans call the universe? Because they don't (I'm assuming that would be your answer)...would that mean that we cannot exist?

By the way (as an aside)...I would never intentionally step on an ant...or destroy an ant hill...or kill a spider...or unnecessarily kill or "torture" any of the lesser animals with whom we share the planet.

I just don't. No moral compulsion...I just prefer not to do it.

At times I have to...because I deem it necessary. (The yellow jackets who insist on making their nest alongside the plank supporting our hot tub realize this too late each year.)

[evince]

we are smarter than ants

that is true

we can conceive of a more powerful being

that is why we ponder the ideas of God

man created the idea of god at a time when mankind had very limited knowledge of the things around us


man has a brain designed to question the things around them

man invented the idea of god to explain all the unexplained things in their lives


we are at a point now that that old myth is beginning to have facts to explain what it was designed to do.... soothe the minds...that conflict with the old myth


religion has changed its self to stay relative (flat earth) and it can do so again if it wants to survive.


stop wishing for a complete destruction of this world


quit telling everyone who doesn't share your religion that they will BURN IN HELL FOREVER.


its evil stuff

[Frank Apisa]

we are smarter than ants

that is true

we can conceive of a more powerful being

that is why we ponder the ideas of God

man created the idea of god at a time when mankind had very limited knowledge of the things around us


man has a brain designed to question the things around them

man invented the idea of god to explain all the unexplained things in their lives


we are at a point now that that old myth is beginning to have facts to explain what it was designed to do.... soothe the minds...that conflict with the old myth


religion has changed its self to stay relative (flat earth) and it can do so again if it wants to survive.


stop wishing for a complete destruction of this world


quit telling everyone who doesn't share your religion that they will BURN IN HELL FOREVER.


its evil stuff

Not sure to whom this was directed, Evince...but I hope not to me.

[evince]

sorry I did diverge on that one

I ended by speaking to the Christians I run across to life

[Ralph]

you are shaming your religion


this is America

we are allowed to not believe YOUR religion


when we discuss what WE BELIEVE it is not an insult of YOUR beliefs


it is the only way to tell others what we believe and why


you just think people should not have discussions that don't PRAISE what you believe.

I don't believe in a god


that is not an attack on you


its stating what I believe

further discussion of why I came to believe what I believe will have to include why I found god centered religion lacking


others who do not believe what you believe are allowed to discuss what they believe


you see threats everywhere

grow up


and be a better representative of the great philosopher your religion is based on

Don't believe.....its your soul not mine, you are endowed with free will....but your NON FAITH effects my faith....how? You are hardly defined (according to your inarticulate records) as a brilliant philosopher. Anyone that claims that such as this (*) disgraces all formats of Physical Science.

*: the UNCAUSED CAUSE..i.e., the Universe. Just like all atheists you attempt to discredit those of faith by declaring your NON-FAITH ....by attempting to side step the actual question (FYI: the topic of this thread) and ignoring 2 primary laws of Logic and Physics 1. The Law of Cause and Effect which has never in history been breeched in its logical statement by men such as PLATO, etc., great minds of history all agree in relation to the Law of Cause and Effect when it comes to physical science. 2. The Law of Thermodynamics.

Example: W.T. Stace, a professor of philosophy at Princeton University authored "A Critical History of Greek Philosophy"....is quoted as such, "Every student of logic knows that this is the ultimate cannon of the sciences, THE FOUNDATION OF THEM ALL. If we did not believe the truth of causation, namely, everything which has a beginning has a cause, and that in the same circumstances the same things invariably happen, all the sciences would at once crumble to dust, every scientific investigation this truth is assumed...." i.e., THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT.

Now you are deflecting away from the science of asking the question....what caused the effect known as the physical universe by suggesting the UNIVERSAL was an effect caused by an unknown and Uncasued cause? Really?

But then again....I suppose you are much more intellectual than either Plato or Aristole.....no? Reality: The Universe physical exists therefore it must have CAUSE. 2. The Laws of thermodynamics demonstrate that the energy that drives the universe is slowly decaying/dying. Yet you can't explain nature via natural laws.....in essence making anyone's claim of being an atheist.....a laughable scam. If everything were natural as your personal philosophy suggests...then nature could explain and define its own CAUSE. Logically speaking......only a Super (natural) to Nature caused the effect of physical reality.

Who Caused God? God is not physical, he's a spiritual entity and therefore not bound by natural laws. As I said....until you or anyone can prove beyond doubt there was no supernatural Cause....the prima facie evidence of existence stands as truth to a creating cause. My personal faith is not BLIND like yours.

[Frank Apisa]

The Universe physical exists therefore it must have CAUSE.

First of all, Ralph, thank you for taking the topic seriously...and for contributing.

That said, if I may intrude on this comment you made to Evince, with a question about your comment above:

Let me preface the question by saying that I do not agree with the underlying assumptions you made to get here...namely that the physical universe exists as a result of having "begun" to exist...thereby necessitating a "cause."

The assumption is gratuitous. Everything that EXISTS...may always have existed. The conservation of mass and energy theorems of the scientists you cite...indicate that this may well be the case. Mass and energy in a closed system cannot be created or destroyed...and "all of existence" may well be a closed system. It may be that everything always was...even if in a different form.

Anyway, putting that aside...let us suppose you are correct that it came into existence...and that it had a cause...

...the agnostic position would be: "And we do not know what that cause is."

You seem to be headed toward, "The cause was a god...and a particular god at that...the god of Abraham."

If I am wrong about that, I apologize.

If I am correct...why would you not adopt the agnostic position, which appears to be markedly superior?

[Ralph]

First of all, Ralph, thank you for taking the topic seriously...and for contributing.

That said, if I may intrude on this comment you made to Evince, with a question about your comment above:

Let me preface the question by saying that I do not agree with the underlying assumptions you made to get here...namely that the physical universe exists as a result of having "begun" to exist...thereby necessitating a "cause."

The assumption is gratuitous. Everything that EXISTS...may always have existed. The conservation of mass and energy theorems of the scientists you cite...indicate that this may well be the case. Mass and energy in a closed system cannot be created or destroyed...and "all of existence" may well be a closed system. It may be that everything always was...even if in a different form.

Anyway, putting that aside...let us suppose you are correct that it came into existence...and that it had a cause...

...the agnostic position would be: "And we do not know what that cause is."

You seem to be headed toward, "The cause was a god...and a particular god at that...the god of Abraham."

If I am wrong about that, I apologize.

If I am correct...why would you not adopt the agnostic position, which appears to be markedly superior?

Again....you don't accept Physical Science as a reality....do you? Science proves that the universe had a beginning as evidenced via the demonstrable fact that it is dying. Nothing eternal dies. Emotion and Logic never serve one another....its like water and oil. You either believe in Science Actual as I do....or you do not, nothing is more objectively quantifiable than SCIENCE ACTUAL.

I am not much on the pseudo sciences that live within the realms of philosophy...i.e., theory, conjecture and speculation..... Science never contradicts truth...it confirms it. This circular ride is now officially over. There is nothing within the laws of physics that prohibits my faith (as its based upon evidences not blindly) in the God of Creation, call it what you want. But the Scriptures within the Chistian/Judea philosophies are the only scriptures that remain "UNBORKEN" after 3500 years of existence.

[Frank Apisa]

Again....you don't accept Physical Science as a reality....do you?

Sure I do. I have some problems with the way you are interpreting it, but....I do.

Science proves that the universe had a beginning as evidenced via the demonstrable fact that it is dying.

Existence may not be dying. This thing we humans call "the universe" MAY be dying...but if it is, that does not mean that everything is dying.

Nothing eternal dies.

Okay.

Emotion and Logic never serve one another....its like water and oil. You either believe in Science Actual as I do....or you do not, nothing is more objectively quantifiable than SCIENCE ACTUAL.

If you think science works...stop distorting it. There is no way for any scientist of today to know whether the entirety of the universe is "dying"...even if they could prove without a doubt that this thing we humans call "the universe" is dying. They cannot prove the universe is dying...it may be in a stage that we have no way of knowing anything about.

I am not much on the pseudo sciences that live within the realms of philosophy...i.e., theory, conjecture and speculation..... Science never contradicts truth...it confirms it. This circular ride is now officially over. There is nothing within the laws of physics that prohibits my faith (as its based upon evidences not blindly) in the God of Creation, call it what you want. But the Scriptures within the Chistian/Judea philosophies are the only scriptures that remain "UNBORKEN" after 3500 years of existence.

Go back to my question. Make the assumption that "the universe" came into existence.

Then tell us why the god you think exists was the cause...rather than "I have no idea of what the cause was."

And for the sake of everything reasonable...stay away from talking about science...and "the God of Creation" and scripture.

[evince]

Don't believe.....its your soul not mine, you are endowed with free will....but your NON FAITH effects my faith....how? You are hardly defined (according to your inarticulate records) as a brilliant philosopher. Anyone that claims that such as this (*) disgraces all formats of Physical Science.

*: the UNCAUSED CAUSE..i.e., the Universe. Just like all atheists you attempt to discredit those of faith by declaring your NON-FAITH ....by attempting to side step the actual question (FYI: the topic of this thread) and ignoring 2 primary laws of Logic and Physics 1. The Law of Cause and Effect which has never in history been breeched in its logical statement by men such as PLATO, etc., great minds of history all agree in relation to the Law of Cause and Effect when it comes to physical science. 2. The Law of Thermodynamics.

Example: W.T. Stace, a professor of philosophy at Princeton University authored "A Critical History of Greek Philosophy"....is quoted as such, "Every student of logic knows that this is the ultimate cannon of the sciences, THE FOUNDATION OF THEM ALL. If we did not believe the truth of causation, namely, everything which has a beginning has a cause, and that in the same circumstances the same things invariably happen, all the sciences would at once crumble to dust, every scientific investigation this truth is assumed...." i.e., THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT.

Now you are deflecting away from the science of asking the question....what caused the effect known as the physical universe by suggesting the UNIVERSAL was an effect caused by an unknown and Uncasued cause? Really?

But then again....I suppose you are much more intellectual than either Plato or Aristole.....no? Reality: The Universe physical exists therefore it must have CAUSE. 2. The Laws of thermodynamics demonstrate that the energy that drives the universe is slowly decaying/dying. Yet you can't explain nature via natural laws.....in essence making anyone's claim of being an atheist.....a laughable scam. If everything were natural as your personal philosophy suggests...then nature could explain and define its own CAUSE. Logically speaking......only a Super (natural) to Nature caused the effect of physical reality.

Who Caused God? God is not physical, he's a spiritual entity and therefore not bound by natural laws. As I said....until you or anyone can prove beyond doubt there was no supernatural Cause....the prima facie evidence of existence stands as truth to a creating cause. My personal faith is not BLIND like yours.

I am telling people what I believe


you declaring your belief would be an INSULT to me then too huh


you are a faith fascist


if god is not physical why is it a he?

[evince]

remember why its been declared a FAITH folks


because to believe you have to use faith huh

[PostmodernProphet]

One of them is an Episcopal Bishop. If you want to claim that an Episcopal Bishop IS NOT A CHRISTIAN...not much can be accomplished.

if you are telling me he rejects what is found in the Bible I have no choice but to claim he's not a Christian.......of course I have only your word that he rejects it.....was the conclusion of this agency unanimous or was the the bishop merely out voted?.....

[Frank Apisa]

if you are telling me he rejects what is found in the Bible I have no choice but to claim he's not a Christian.......of course I have only your word that he rejects it.....was the conclusion of this agency unanimous or was the the bishop merely out voted?.....

I gave you a link to an article detailing how the decisions were made.

You will find that most of the words of Jesus from the Gospel of John...is suspect. But that is to be expected,because that is the opinion of most scholars. John is a very unreliable source, differing drastically from the synoptic gospels.

Read it, PP...it is interesting.

[PostmodernProphet]

I gave you a link to an article detailing how the decisions were made.

You will find that most of the words of Jesus from the Gospel of John...is suspect. But that is to be expected,because that is the opinion of most scholars. John is a very unreliable source, differing drastically from the synoptic gospels.

Read it, PP...it is interesting.

the article doesn't state how the Bishop voted, only that a majority of those who voted didn't believe the Bible's statements to be true.......the article also did not state how many attendees were atheists or whether any of them had degrees in theology or even graduated from high school.........it does not surprise me that you do not believe the gospel of John.....as I recall you are on record as not believing in beliefs.........

correction......I did find this in the article linked by the OP....

Of the 74 [scholars] listed in their publication The Five Gospels, only 14 would be leading figures in the field of New Testament studies. More than half are basically unknowns, who have published only two or three articles. Eighteen of the fellows have published nothing at all in New Testament studies. Most have relatively undistinguished academic positions, for example, teaching at a community college.