Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

The odds of two people firing guns at each other having their bullets collide in midair is laughably small. However, after the American Civil War people found more than one pair of bullets that did exactly that.

Should actually make one wonder how often many were prepared to hit eachother with their bullets instead of the bullets hitting eachother ... and that just as many bullets like you described might just as easily be found today if another American Civil War occurred ... :|

 

Edited by TDD123
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hiya folks. Science is not about truth. Scientists do not claim to hold the truth. Science is merely the art of not BS-sing yourself or others, while trying to understand things and make predictions b

The term "genocide" was coined in 1944. Historians researching wars prior to then will never find the word "genocide" in accounts of those times, so it takes more careful analysis of the historical re

Posted Images

14 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

If life is too complicated to evolve without a creator, how did the creator, which logically would be more complicated, come into being?

Just because evolution or God are to complicated for us to fully understand in no way proves either are false.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

Just because evolution or God are to complicated for us to fully understand in no way proves either are false.

   The burden of evidence is on the one who makes the claim. God does not exist, because there's no proof; none has been produced in millennia. What proof has been produced in that time is that having an imaginary friend after whom you can create a cult with the express purpose of accumulating wealth and power through prosecution is profitable. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   The burden of evidence is on the one who makes the claim. God does not exist, because there's no proof; none has been produced in millennia. What proof has been produced in that time is that having an imaginary friend after whom you can create a cult with the express purpose of accumulating wealth and power through prosecution is profitable. 

In this whole "God debate" thread, like all the other similar threads I remember, nobody is bothering to provide a definition of what God is. There seems to be a default assumption of the Judeo-Christian God as would seem to be described from a simplistic reading of those scriptures; however, this is by no means the only way of thinking about "God."

If we define God as "the organizing force of the Universe" there has to be a God if we assume the Universe exists and has some form of organization. However, nothing about that statement requires that "God" be separate from the Universe, much less being a God that "has to be answered to" as Natales was maintaining before that line mysteriously disappeared from the original post.

Edited by Theresa Tennyson
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kids get told there is a Santa until they are old enough to know better, a tooth fairy until they are old enough to know better.. Jack frost, the pumpkin guy and all these others..

After being lied to about all those others,  it's a wonder religion is really doing so well.. hehehe

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Orwar said:

God does not exist, because there's no proof;

Since when is this true. Many things we can prove today, were not provable in the past.  Did those things not exist until we were able to prove them?

Edited by Talligurl
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Kids get told there is a Santa until they are old enough to know better, a tooth fairy until they are old enough to know better.. Jack frost, the pumpkin guy and all these others..

After being lied to about all those others,  it's a wonder religion is really doing so well.. hehehe

It's also an open question as to how many of the people of the cultures that originated the religions we know actually took the teachings to be literal truth. It would be interesting to see if at some point in the far future whether scholars think we believed that Luke Skywalker was a real person.

Meanwhile, we have the unique opportunity of watching a new religion evolve in real time right now - that religion being known as QAnon.

Edited by Theresa Tennyson
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

It's also an open question as to how many of the people of the cultures that originated the religions we know actually took the teachings to be literal truth. It would be interesting to see if at some point in the far future whether scholars think we believed that Luke Skywalker was a real person.

Meanwhile, we have the unique opportunity of watching a new religion evolve in real time right now - that religion being known as QAnon.

A lot of people think Christianity took off right away..  It was actually like 400 to 500 years later.. So nobody was around to really  get any first hand information.. hehehe

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

In this whole "God debate" thread, like all the other similar threads I remember, nobody is bothering to provide a definition of what God is. There seems to be a default assumption of the Judeo-Christian God as would seem to be described from a simplistic reading of those scriptures; however, this is by no means the only way of thinking about "God."

If we define God as "the organizing force of the Universe" there has to be a God if we assume the Universe exists and has some form of organization. However, nothing about that statement requires that "God" be separate from the Universe, much less being a God that "has to be answered to" as Natales was maintaining before that line mysteriously disappeared from the original post.

Prokofy did supply a definition of what God is:

"St. Anselm, who wrote that God is that "than which no greater can be conceived."

The quote by Natales is still there underneath the quote by MollyMews:

"These are scientists that are loath to admit a mistake and there is a prime agenda to avoid having a god one has to answer to." 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

Since when is this true. Many things we can prove today, were not provable in the past.  Did those things not exist until we were able to prove them?

   God is a man-made theory, nature isn't.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Orwar said:
47 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

Just because evolution or God are to complicated for us to fully understand in no way proves either are false.

   The burden of evidence is on the one who makes the claim. God does not exist, because there's no proof; none has been produced in millennia. What proof has been produced in that time is that having an imaginary friend after whom you can create a cult with the express purpose of accumulating wealth and power through prosecution is profitable. 

If I decided God said it was okay to murder you and take all your money this has nothing to do with whether God exists -- this would only mean I have used my own perception of God to justify my actions.

God does exist when you define God as that "than which no greater can be conceived", as Prokofy quoted St. Anselm. There is a recognition in this that I, Luna, am limited as a human, and that there are greater things in this world beyond my small self. It is not having an "imaginary friend" to realize I can attempt to connect with a bigger picture of reality than what I normally possess, in order to guide my life in a better way. I need no proof other than the realization that yes, my life is better when I am guided by this connection.

Quite obviously, if one believes stealing from others to provide for the needs of the smaller self is justified they are not really connecting to "the big picture". It takes a lot of self-examination to make sure one is doing what is best.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding  is, everything that exists in the universe is natural..

That everything on this side of the big bang or in the universe is the physics that we do  know.. where on the outside, other side of the bang, are the physics that we don't know..

Supernatural sounds like something that would be on the other side rather than within..

I mean if we're just looking at the book of books god, then right away in the first book, that god wouldn't be within the universe..

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Caroline Takeda said:

I just wondered how Philip would look like on a cross..

On of those...obviously.

   This is what Photoshop is for. Just saying! 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Orwar said:
32 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

Since when is this true. Many things we can prove today, were not provable in the past.  Did those things not exist until we were able to prove them?

   God is a man-made theory, nature isn't.

That there exists a reality beyond what our limited human brain can conceive of is not a man-made theory.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   God is a man-made theory, nature isn't.

That of course is an unprovable assumption. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

source please

Gospel of Thomas. Different translations render it slightly different but the core remains the same:

(29) Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty."

https://www.marquette.edu/maqom/Gospel of Thomas Lambdin.pdf

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Prokofy did supply a definition of what God is:

"St. Anselm, who wrote that God is that "than which no greater can be conceived."

I remember St. Anselm from my time taking required courses at a Catholic university - he was debating a strawman he called a "fool." I remember thinking that the fool proved himself a fool by agreeing to that definition.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Orwar said:

you can create a cult with the express purpose of accumulating wealth and power

Lots of things are abused, we do not reject all forms of them. Abuse of alchohol does not make one a tetotoaler. Abuse of sex does not make one abstainate, Abuse of government does not make one an anarchist. Much good had been done in the name of religion as well, but that heys ignored by those who want to reject it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Gospel of Thomas. Different translations render it slightly different but the core remains the same:

(29) Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty."

https://www.marquette.edu/maqom/Gospel of Thomas Lambdin.pdf

But He doesn't say that it didn't.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Theresa Tennyson said:
21 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Prokofy did supply a definition of what God is:

"St. Anselm, who wrote that God is that "than which no greater can be conceived."

I remember St. Anselm from my time taking required courses at a Catholic university - he was debating a strawman he called a "fool." I remember thinking that the fool proved himself a fool by agreeing to that definition.

I don't know anything about St Anselm really...the definition just resonated with how I conceive of God, that God is the reality beyond what our limited human brain can conceive of. I believe through various practices, both spiritual practices and those advocated by Transpersonal Psychology, we can (to a degree) learn to tune in to what is often outside of normal consciousness and transcend our limited self (ego) in varying degrees.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't know anything about St Anselm really...the definition just resonated with how I conceive of God, that God is the reality beyond what our limited human brain can conceive of. I believe through various practices, both spiritual practices and those advocated by Transpersonal Psychology, we can (to a degree) learn to tune in to what is often outside of normal consciousness and transcend our limited self (ego) in varying degrees.

Everone knows only Shaolin monks can do such things..

Who knows?

everyone.gif

hehehe

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ceka Cianci said:
6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't know anything about St Anselm really...the definition just resonated with how I conceive of God, that God is the reality beyond what our limited human brain can conceive of. I believe through various practices, both spiritual practices and those advocated by Transpersonal Psychology, we can (to a degree) learn to tune in to what is often outside of normal consciousness and transcend our limited self (ego) in varying degrees.

Everone knows only Shaolin monks can do such things..

Who knows?

everyone.gif

lol, well not talking about levitating and transcending space and time necessarily.

I'm more meaning to learn to have more love in one's life, which is one of the biggest miracles in my book given all the difficulties we must face in this life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't know anything about St Anselm really...the definition just resonated with how I conceive of God, that God is the reality beyond what our limited human brain can conceive of. I believe through various practices, both spiritual practices and those advocated by Transpersonal Psychology, we can (to a degree) learn to tune in to what is often outside of normal consciousness and transcend our limited self (ego) in varying degrees.

St. Anselm's argument was that the God that "could be conceived" had to exist because it was greater to exist than to not exist.

(I'm not sure if I actually referred to St. Thomas Aquinas as a "Papal hatchet man" in an official paper for that class or if I just thought it.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...