Well if it is about the bat as included among the "fowls" of the air, that is not in the scriptures but rather that ignorance of the English translators....the word 'owph, translated "fowl", really is a generic term for any flying creature which even includes insects...if that was not it and it comes to you please share....these are unclean because they feed on death and garbage
What Is God?
- Thread starter workmx
- Start date
workmx
Inactive
God is not part of His creation in that nothing of God is created! Do you see? It really makes perfect sense. And yes God is a non-corporeal Spirit…but can take on form without limiting His simultaneous limitlessness.
All known beings exist in time and space. They are material. We know that only beings can create things. In that case, if god is immaterial how can anything be created by that god? If god is material, then creation is possible. But in that case, who created god?
Further, if god is immaterial, how can interaction with the world be possible? Unless, god is material and immaterial at the same time. Is that possible?
How do we know when this activity is taking place? Do we still see miracles? There are many in the bible, but doesn’t appear to be many these days.
This is quite confusing: how can something be limited and limitless at the same time?
God foreknowing all the choices one will make does not stop one from choosing, nor does it cause one to make that choice and only that choice…
Yes, it does. If there is only one option, there is no choice.
Because He is also omnipotent…
In that case, it seems we should discuss the problem of evil.
Well I commend you that you are an agnostic (not denying the possibility, though you have no empirical evidence to sway you one way or the other) and not an Atheist (a totally un-defensible position)…
I am not sure why you would consider atheism to be indefensible. It is only the lack of belief in gods.
Anti-theism is the position that no gods exist.
But the argument that because something cannot be falsified makes it untrue, or that because something can be falsified makes it true, is sheer absurdity and totally illogical!
That is not what I said. If something cannot be falsified then it is unknowable. It is the difference between guilty and not guilty, versus guilty versus innocent. In a court of law we don’t find a person innocent, we have a burden of proof to find them guilty.
If we cannot meet that burde, we find them "not guilty" not "innocent".
…this is like saying because aspects of Darwin’s theory can be falsified (shown to be in error and not true) would be to you proof that it is true…for you then, non-truth equals truth, and truth= non-truth…
I didn’t mention Darwin and I don’t know why you did.
The word theory is science is not the same as the common usage of the word. In science, theory isn’t a hypothesis. It is the best available explanation for some phenomenon.
All known beings exist in time and space. They are material. We know that only beings can create things. In that case, if god is immaterial how can anything be created by that god? If god is material, then creation is possible. But in that case, who created god?
Further, if god is immaterial, how can interaction with the world be possible? Unless, god is material and immaterial at the same time. Is that possible?
How do we know when this activity is taking place? Do we still see miracles? There are many in the bible, but doesn’t appear to be many these days.
This is quite confusing: how can something be limited and limitless at the same time?
God foreknowing all the choices one will make does not stop one from choosing, nor does it cause one to make that choice and only that choice…
Yes, it does. If there is only one option, there is no choice.
Because He is also omnipotent…
In that case, it seems we should discuss the problem of evil.
Well I commend you that you are an agnostic (not denying the possibility, though you have no empirical evidence to sway you one way or the other) and not an Atheist (a totally un-defensible position)…
I am not sure why you would consider atheism to be indefensible. It is only the lack of belief in gods.
Anti-theism is the position that no gods exist.
But the argument that because something cannot be falsified makes it untrue, or that because something can be falsified makes it true, is sheer absurdity and totally illogical!
That is not what I said. If something cannot be falsified then it is unknowable. It is the difference between guilty and not guilty, versus guilty versus innocent. In a court of law we don’t find a person innocent, we have a burden of proof to find them guilty.
If we cannot meet that burde, we find them "not guilty" not "innocent".
…this is like saying because aspects of Darwin’s theory can be falsified (shown to be in error and not true) would be to you proof that it is true…for you then, non-truth equals truth, and truth= non-truth…
I didn’t mention Darwin and I don’t know why you did.
The word theory is science is not the same as the common usage of the word. In science, theory isn’t a hypothesis. It is the best available explanation for some phenomenon.
Last edited:
workmx
Inactive
So, if god commanded you to kill me, would you do it?
workmx
Inactive
If we cannot see god, why do so many people seem to know what their god wants? If, as BP asserts god is the source of all morality, how can you be moral?
All known beings exist in time and space. They are material.
That is all beings known to you. God IS a being, the necessary being, and as Aristotle deduced the uncaused first cause. Since all “thingness” has a beginning and an ending and God created all that is “thingness” the only reasonable explanation is God has no beginning and no ending…since space and time are qualities of the Universe they did not exist until created and thus it follows their Creator is not subject to them.
We know that only beings can create things.
Created beings within the Universe can create nothing new, they rely on what was already created
In that case, if god is immaterial how can anything be created by that god? If god is material, then creation is possible. But in that case, who created god?
God created materiality…all energy/matter was His idea…God does not have to be material to create anything…He is the uncaused first cause. When there was no Universe…GOD…after Universe…God…God IS
That is all beings known to you. God IS a being, the necessary being, and as Aristotle deduced the uncaused first cause. Since all “thingness” has a beginning and an ending and God created all that is “thingness” the only reasonable explanation is God has no beginning and no ending…since space and time are qualities of the Universe they did not exist until created and thus it follows their Creator is not subject to them.
We know that only beings can create things.
Created beings within the Universe can create nothing new, they rely on what was already created
In that case, if god is immaterial how can anything be created by that god? If god is material, then creation is possible. But in that case, who created god?
God created materiality…all energy/matter was His idea…God does not have to be material to create anything…He is the uncaused first cause. When there was no Universe…GOD…after Universe…God…God IS
Further, if god is immaterial, how can interaction with the world be possible? Unless, god is material and immaterial at the same time. Is that possible?
See here is one of the primary limitations of this line of thought. I will express it by way of analogy. You are speaking as a minute tiny being inside a box that is so vast compared to you that all you can determine is what is inside the box and of that only a tiny portion of that inner-boxness limited by your ability to perceive (a tiny wedge of a huge spectrum) and possibilities of any instrumentation that is developed…and all of this limited potential can only approach or deal with a limited number of possible forms, functions, and inter-dependent forces…God being by nature outside the box cannot be known by studying your minute little corner of the box. How can a created being so much smaller and so much more limited than the box even begin to hope to comprehend the creator of the box you cannot escape?
So one can only know that being if that being reveals Himself in some way to peoples experience or establishes ways we can observe the workings of that being. Perhaps revealing ways we can test what this alleged being says to see that what He appears to have revealed is actually something being revealed. Now the definition of empirical is this…
Empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic; originating in or based on observation or experience; relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory ; capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.
So to believe there is no God one must be in denial of the empirical evidence of millions of people from every walk of life from every culture (both genders) and all different ages throughout time. Do you deny all this empirical evidence? Many have seen Him (though you have not). Many have heard His voice (though you have not). Many have been transformed and forever changed (though not you). Prophecy rebukes the accusation from statistical probabilities (but you cannot see that many things prophesied have come to pass). Too many people have been healed to be blown off by the “mere coincidence “ argument. You can test Him also, and do what He says to do, and see for yourself if you do not get the promised result (but you are afraid and like being your own lord). I could go on but you can see how absurd a position it is to believe with any conviction that God is not. So this is why I am glad you are at least an agnostic (a much more honest position than an atheist).
See here is one of the primary limitations of this line of thought. I will express it by way of analogy. You are speaking as a minute tiny being inside a box that is so vast compared to you that all you can determine is what is inside the box and of that only a tiny portion of that inner-boxness limited by your ability to perceive (a tiny wedge of a huge spectrum) and possibilities of any instrumentation that is developed…and all of this limited potential can only approach or deal with a limited number of possible forms, functions, and inter-dependent forces…God being by nature outside the box cannot be known by studying your minute little corner of the box. How can a created being so much smaller and so much more limited than the box even begin to hope to comprehend the creator of the box you cannot escape?
So one can only know that being if that being reveals Himself in some way to peoples experience or establishes ways we can observe the workings of that being. Perhaps revealing ways we can test what this alleged being says to see that what He appears to have revealed is actually something being revealed. Now the definition of empirical is this…
Empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic; originating in or based on observation or experience; relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory ; capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.
So to believe there is no God one must be in denial of the empirical evidence of millions of people from every walk of life from every culture (both genders) and all different ages throughout time. Do you deny all this empirical evidence? Many have seen Him (though you have not). Many have heard His voice (though you have not). Many have been transformed and forever changed (though not you). Prophecy rebukes the accusation from statistical probabilities (but you cannot see that many things prophesied have come to pass). Too many people have been healed to be blown off by the “mere coincidence “ argument. You can test Him also, and do what He says to do, and see for yourself if you do not get the promised result (but you are afraid and like being your own lord). I could go on but you can see how absurd a position it is to believe with any conviction that God is not. So this is why I am glad you are at least an agnostic (a much more honest position than an atheist).
This is quite confusing: how can something be limited and limitless at the same time?
If a limited being can choose to restrain themselves or pose limits on themselves, to say a limitless being cannot do this is absurd and illogical…such a being has no limits, therefore they are at least capable of purposeful self limitation.
If a limited being can choose to restrain themselves or pose limits on themselves, to say a limitless being cannot do this is absurd and illogical…such a being has no limits, therefore they are at least capable of purposeful self limitation.
I said, God foreknowing all the choices one will make does not stop one from choosing, nor does it cause one to make that choice and only that choice…
You replied, Yes, it does. If there is only one option, there is no choice.
There is not one option only but the one you choose IS the one He knew you would choose, but the choice was always there…you did not HAVE TO think those lust based imaginations toward your co-worker…you could have stopped it sooner and put your mind on other things…but you enjoyed it so you did not…the option was available to you but what you did was what you were going to do…only you were the cause of your choice…
You replied, Yes, it does. If there is only one option, there is no choice.
There is not one option only but the one you choose IS the one He knew you would choose, but the choice was always there…you did not HAVE TO think those lust based imaginations toward your co-worker…you could have stopped it sooner and put your mind on other things…but you enjoyed it so you did not…the option was available to you but what you did was what you were going to do…only you were the cause of your choice…
I said ...the argument that because something cannot be falsified makes it untrue, or that because something can be falsified makes it true, is sheer absurdity and totally illogical!
You replied...that is not what I said. If something cannot be falsified then it is unknowable. It is the difference between guilty and not guilty, versus guilty versus innocent. In a court of law we don’t find a person innocent, we have a burden of proof to find them guilty.
Not capable of falsification does NOT equal it being unknowable....I cannot falsify the moon and I know there is the moon...I cannot prove you false but you are...
...absurd and illogical...
You replied...that is not what I said. If something cannot be falsified then it is unknowable. It is the difference between guilty and not guilty, versus guilty versus innocent. In a court of law we don’t find a person innocent, we have a burden of proof to find them guilty.
Not capable of falsification does NOT equal it being unknowable....I cannot falsify the moon and I know there is the moon...I cannot prove you false but you are...
...absurd and illogical...
I am not sure why you would consider atheism to be indefensible. It is only the lack of belief in gods. Anti-theism is the position that no gods exist.
I know it is indefensible because to know there is no God, one would have to know all things, because God could be within what they do not know. Even if one were to have all the knowledge and experience of say 50% of the Encyclopedia Britannica that would mean that there is 50% they cannot know nor have experienced. So to know God is not one has to know all.
To know there is no God, one would also have to be in all places simultaneously because God could only be revealing Himself in a place you are not.
You would have to have known all and been everywhere during all of the past, the present, and the future in case God was revealing Himself when you were not.
Finally, you would have to be aware of all that which is and/or has been known or experienced by all individuals of all times in case He had revealed Himself to only certain peoples at certain times.
So in effect, to hold a position that there is no God with any sort of conviction, you would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, and in constant communication with any who may be able to receive illumination or revelation that God is. So in other words….to take a stand for atheism with any conviction one would have to be what we call God (which they clearly are not though some think themselves so)….
So this is why I commend you for NOT being an atheist and at least admitting the possibility…
I know it is indefensible because to know there is no God, one would have to know all things, because God could be within what they do not know. Even if one were to have all the knowledge and experience of say 50% of the Encyclopedia Britannica that would mean that there is 50% they cannot know nor have experienced. So to know God is not one has to know all.
To know there is no God, one would also have to be in all places simultaneously because God could only be revealing Himself in a place you are not.
You would have to have known all and been everywhere during all of the past, the present, and the future in case God was revealing Himself when you were not.
Finally, you would have to be aware of all that which is and/or has been known or experienced by all individuals of all times in case He had revealed Himself to only certain peoples at certain times.
So in effect, to hold a position that there is no God with any sort of conviction, you would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, and in constant communication with any who may be able to receive illumination or revelation that God is. So in other words….to take a stand for atheism with any conviction one would have to be what we call God (which they clearly are not though some think themselves so)….
So this is why I commend you for NOT being an atheist and at least admitting the possibility…
workmx
Inactive
Congratulations, you just proved the god doesn’t exist.
If you were an Adolph Hitler or a similar type and God commanded me so I would certainly do it without hesitation...but in the New Covenant this is not commanded in the case of an unbeliever...if I can see you trying to reason about this I am sure He guided you here for a reason...
Not even close my friend...I proved a little g god, who is less than the Universe subject to your limited ability to perceive and limit him, does not exist....
You do know all your wheels have been re-invented over and over...
workmx
Inactive
1. Yes, you can falisfy the existence of the moon. All you need is a laser pointer.
2. Hard solipsism? Really? You want to go there?
Even if you cannot disprove your own existence, that doesn't mean fo all practical purposes you don't exist.
On the other hand, the existence of gods is logically unknowable.
Here is a thought experiment:
- you have three jars (one empty, one filled with jellybeans and one filled with imaginary jellybeans);
- you can falisify the existence of jellybeans;
- the two other jars are, for all practical purposes, the same.
If god does not interact with the world, we can assume (for all practical purposes) that gods do not exist.
workmx
Inactive
We can all hope for tolerance when unbelievers are the majority.
What about an innocent child, would you kill them if ordered to by god?
workmx
Inactive
If god is perfect and can create things, why would that god want to create inperfect non-god objects?
workmx
Inactive
With eternal torture in the mix, your god is playing favourites?
I don’t like your god. In fact, I suspect that your god is fundamentally immoral.
Okay, I'll bite....falsify the existence of the moon...please....
But He does...even though not with you, in a way you will accept....