Notices

View Poll Results: Do You Believe In God?

Voters
92. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    34 36.96%
  • No

    58 63.04%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 228 of 228

Thread: Do You Believe In God?

  1. #201  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    Look before the koran was written, similar statements existed
    He's correct. Do your research and you'll find that, like the earth being round, many of those statements existed in the minds of others before Muhammad existed. Although none of them could be scientifically based with mathematics due to the limitations at the time, the philosophy of it was still accurate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    Look before the koran was written, similar statements existed
    He's correct. Do your research and you'll find that, like the earth being round, many of those statements existed in the minds of others before Muhammad existed. Although none of them could be scientifically based with mathematics due to the limitations at the time, the philosophy of it was still accurate.
    Firstly there was Pythagoras (b. 570 BC) says because its a harmonious geometric form was a circle.


    secondly Plato (427 BC - 347 BC) described it as a ball made of leather(so not quite right, but spherical)

    then Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)

    Eratosthenes (276 BC - 194 BC) got the earth circumference to within 2% of todays

    then Claudius Ptolemy (90 - 168 AD)

    and finally Aryabhatta (c. 476 - 550)

    all before the koran and if you read more about their discoverys there amazing themselves and most of these in BC

    heres the wiki

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_earth
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Guest
    Well well, learn something every day. I thought Aristotle was the first. Hah
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    Look before the koran was written, similar statements existed
    He's correct. Do your research and you'll find that, like the earth being round, many of those statements existed in the minds of others before Muhammad existed. Although none of them could be scientifically based with mathematics due to the limitations at the time, the philosophy of it was still accurate.
    CONGRATULATIONS!!! You are our 200th poster in this thread. You win a really big ...

    -EDIT-
    Sorry for that spam, it's just you don't see 200 posts ina thread too often.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Well well, learn something every day. I thought Aristotle was the first. Hah

    i love my science history :-D
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Guest
    Hurray! I'm a 200th poster! Which isn't uncommon for me in threads I like. Now this basically destroys the topic by going off topic...lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Science does agree on ALL of the 'theories' stated within the Qur'an, but does not agree that God exists. Its pretty pathetic in my eyes.
    thats pathetic is you. Science have came up with theories. tis you maniacs who want the quaran to be right so you intepritate it so it is right when it really isnt

    Not talking about the alterations of the bible. talking about the amazing un-altered Qur'an. There are thousands of scientific related verses within the Qur'an. You should check them out
    its a book by man for man to man, therefor it has been altered even if you dont want it to be so


    jagoman realise it, quaran is nothing worth except as fire lighter just like any crappy book
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Science does agree on ALL of the 'theories' stated within the Qur'an, but does not agree that God exists. Its pretty pathetic in my eyes.
    thats pathetic is you. Science have came up with theories. tis you maniacs who want the quaran to be right so you intepritate it so it is right when it really isnt

    Not talking about the alterations of the bible. talking about the amazing un-altered Qur'an. There are thousands of scientific related verses within the Qur'an. You should check them out
    its a book by man for man to man, therefor it has been altered even if you dont want it to be so


    jagoman realise it, quaran is nothing worth except as fire lighter just like any crappy book

    I thought it was a stephen king book
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    thats pathetic is you. Science have came up with theories. tis you maniacs who want the quaran to be right so you intepritate it so it is right when it really isnt
    Zelos! Not fair! You totally stole my statements from another thread, summed them up, cleaned them, arranged them better, and fitted them into one paragraph. Damn you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    thats pathetic is you. Science have came up with theories. tis you maniacs who want the quaran to be right so you intepritate it so it is right when it really isnt
    Zelos! Not fair! You totally stole my statements from another thread, summed them up, cleaned them, arranged them better, and fitted them into one paragraph. Damn you.
    i did? well ive said this all the time about the bible/quaran maniacs who think it has any scientific values
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Forum Freshman jagoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman

    Firstly there was Pythagoras (b. 570 BC) says because its a harmonious geometric form was a circle.

    secondly Plato (427 BC - 347 BC) described it as a ball made of leather(so not quite right, but spherical)

    then Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)

    Eratosthenes (276 BC - 194 BC) got the earth circumference to within 2% of todays

    then Claudius Ptolemy (90 - 168 AD)

    and finally Aryabhatta (c. 476 - 550)

    all before the koran and if you read more about their discoverys there amazing themselves and most of these in BC

    heres the wiki

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_earth
    WOW! what a long list. How about we make a list of the people between all those times (or just between one of them) that stated that the world was flat? Bigger isn't it? Funny how the Qur'an has "choosen" the right stuff to say for ever matter it addresses.

    Simple question (so simple answer please, hehe), if these scientists proved the Earth was round all those years ago, why does columbus get all the credit? Why didn't those scientists travel the world to physically prove it? Why wasn't their mathematical precision enough? All credit to them, but if you ask your regular day man 'who discovered the world was round?' who'd you think they'd say? My point is there were many possible sources the 'human auther' of the Qur'an could have got their information from, some right, many wrong. And its an amazing coincedence they choose the right ones everytime.
    Make that a couple of simple questions, lol.

    By the way, sorry I didn't go through all the websites, I did go through the first 3 though

    Wohoo 200+ posts!
    Ignorance is Bliss ... till death
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jagoman
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman

    Firstly there was Pythagoras (b. 570 BC) says because its a harmonious geometric form was a circle.

    secondly Plato (427 BC - 347 BC) described it as a ball made of leather(so not quite right, but spherical)

    then Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)

    Eratosthenes (276 BC - 194 BC) got the earth circumference to within 2% of todays

    then Claudius Ptolemy (90 - 168 AD)

    and finally Aryabhatta (c. 476 - 550)

    all before the koran and if you read more about their discoverys there amazing themselves and most of these in BC

    heres the wiki

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_earth
    WOW! what a long list. How about we make a list of the people between all those times (or just between one of them) that stated that the world was flat? Bigger isn't it? Funny how the Qur'an has "choosen" the right stuff to say for ever matter it addresses.

    Simple question (so simple answer please, hehe), if these scientists proved the Earth was round all those years ago, why does columbus get all the credit? Why didn't those scientists travel the world to physically prove it? Why wasn't their mathematical precision enough? All credit to them, but if you ask your regular day man 'who discovered the world was round?' who'd you think they'd say? My point is there were many possible sources the 'human auther' of the Qur'an could have got their information from, some right, many wrong. And its an amazing coincedence they choose the right ones everytime.
    Make that a couple of simple questions, lol.

    By the way, sorry I didn't go through all the websites, I did go through the first 3 though

    Wohoo 200+ posts!
    hmmm

    Apart from some eccentric English nut in Victorian times who started the flat earth society, can you name anyone who believed the earth was flat?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Forum Freshman jagoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

    Sure. However those quotes state nothing of the atmospheric layers, and only ambiguously states that there is a canopy of sorts over the heavens (which in most languages means "sky"). Also I'd like to know where those responsibilities are stated in the quran, as I'm not finding them via the internet.
    Surah Fussilat (12)

    "In two days He determined them as seven heavens and releaved, in every heaven, its own mandate...."

    Please read the verses before and after the quoted verse to better understand what is being said, if you are confused.
    Ignorance is Bliss ... till death
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    i did? well ive said this all the time about the bible/quaran maniacs who think it has any scientific values
    And I jokingly gave you a complement for doing so. Didn't ya notice? haha

    WOW! what a long list. How about we make a list of the people between all those times (or just between one of them) that stated that the world was flat? Bigger isn't it? Funny how the Qur'an has "choosen" the right stuff to say for ever matter it addresses.
    Actually, it didn't choose to. You're just choosing to interpret it that way.

    Simple question (so simple answer please, hehe), if these scientists proved the Earth was round all those years ago, why does columbus get all the credit? Why didn't those scientists travel the world to physically prove it? Why wasn't their mathematical precision enough? All credit to them, but if you ask your regular day man 'who discovered the world was round?' who'd you think they'd say?
    They didn't travel the world physically because for 1; that would take years 2; more money than anybody had minus the kings or queens 3; scientists are smart enough to not waste their time. "Sure you SAY you went around the globe, but are we sure you didn't just wait somewhere and come from the other side of the continent?" or something like that.

    It wasn't enough because people were still heavily religious in those days. The bible says the earth is flat. It continually makes references of four corners, etc. So naturally HUMAN science is wrong from the start.

    Why does history still teach columbus discovered america rather than the vikings or other cultures that arrived prior?

    "In two days He determined them as seven heavens and releaved, in every heaven, its own mandate...."
    I see "seven heavens" as in "seven skies". Not "seven layers of the heavens". Rather than one sky, also known as one atmosphere, he states there are seven. Then to each of those seven skies an instruction. So rather than layers, he's talking about seven different skies.

    It's also possible that it can both mean "sky" and "heaven" depending on the context or grammar used in the language. Anybody here know more on linguistics? If it does literally mean "heaven" as in the place where god and/or angels reside (which in ancient hebrew and other languages it tends to depending on the context) then you have a serious problem.

    This is an example of how it can be interpreted. You're interpreting it on a guess, I just interpreted it in literal fashion based on the grammar.

    By the way: I just double checked. Wiki says there are *FIVE* layers of the atmosphere. DUN DUN DUN!!!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Forum Freshman jagoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    By the way: I just double checked. Wiki says there are *FIVE* layers of the atmosphere. DUN DUN DUN!!!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere
    The Ozone Layer lies within the Stratosphere, and the ironized gases within the Thermosphere form a layer within called the Ionosphere. That adds up to 7 layers. These two layers are very much worthy of being called a layer, unlike such 'buffers' as the Tropopause which cant count as a layer, because it has no accountable duty. Wanna try find another and make it 8 lol. Its right again, DUN DUN DUN!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    I see "seven heavens" as in "seven skies". Not "seven layers of the heavens". Rather than one sky, also known as one atmosphere, he states there are seven. Then to each of those seven skies an instruction. So rather than layers, he's talking about seven different skies.
    Please tell me how this interpretation is different from mine?
    Book says: Seven skies each with instructions to do something
    Reality: Seven layers around the earth each with its own responsibilities

    Which every way you interpret it, how ever you read it, how ever much you deny it, its got it right. And that was only from a couple of verses.
    Ignorance is Bliss ... till death
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jagoman
    The Ozone Layer lies within the Stratosphere, and the ironized gases within the Thermosphere form a layer within called the Ionosphere.
    That's cute, now you're distorting science. Those layers are actually cotegories insinde the main layers, normally to describe the properities of those layers. In fact this website says there are 5 too.
    http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin...re/layers.html

    Which, by the way, is exactly whay they are. Counting them as "their own layers" would mean you could count every layers "layer", which would add up to more than 10 or 20 detailed sections if you went through it in a very detailed fashion, with a few buckets of research. Quit distorting science to match your needs.

    Please tell me how this interpretation is different from mine?
    Book says: Seven skies each with instructions to do something
    Reality: Seven layers around the earth each with its own responsibilities
    I said: Seven skies, which mean seven skies. Not one with a bunch of atmospheric layers. Interpret it literally. Geeze you fail at language comprehension. Even worse than I usually do.

    Reality: There are five layers, and layers inside those layers help explain what the main layers do. Which, by the way, actually means there are more than 10 layers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Reality: Seven layers around the earth each with its own responsibilities
    its a human definition of seperating parts in our atmosphere with different propeties but its not like after 50km a new layer begin or so. its a slow transition between this propeties and therefor cant be true layers as you claim. also as Jeremyhfht showed its about definition. youre constantly intepritating things so it matches your "holy" quaran. realise it. its nothing but a fairy tale
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Forum Freshman jagoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    88
    10 or 20 detailed sections, huh? Your bending science to dismiss the verses. The Ozone and the Ionosphere are very well known layers and with very important duties. Your only assuming there could be more of equal importance. Again I give the example of the Tropopause, it not a layer but its there between two. If you wanna count that then its 8, there could be a bunch more, so lets make it about 17 'detailed sections'. But of them there are only 7 actual layers. Or you could say 5 if you dont count the important inner-layers.

    This ain't no fairy tale.
    Ignorance is Bliss ... till death
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    36
    I absolutely believe in a god(s) or some omnipotent intelligent deity(ties) of some kind, but absolutely do not believe anyone has ever talked with it, or knows what it wants or expects of us.

    Furthermore, I don't believe it does expect anything, much less a particular behavior, apart from how we're designed, nor are we built physiologically to understand the purpose of anything.

    I see it much in the same way a dog might see us. A dog just doesn't possess the brain power or capacity to understand TV's, computers, shovels, tires...etc. They sniff around and absorb information as they are built to absorb it.

    I see humans the same way. We sniff around and absorb information as we are built to absorb it, without really understanding what all of this is for or what it's about. In fact, the explanation of the universe is a short-sighted man-made inquisition. It's all we're capable of thinking.

    Just like a dog doesn't contain the marbles to ask "Why am I here?" - "What's my purpose in life?". We're also not smart enough to know the right question to ask. It's not our fault, it's just the way it is. In my humble opinion, of course....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jagoman
    10 or 20 detailed sections, huh? Your bending science to dismiss the verses. The Ozone and the Ionosphere are very well known layers and with very important duties. Your only assuming there could be more of equal importance. Again I give the example of the Tropopause, it not a layer but its there between two. If you wanna count that then its 8, there could be a bunch more, so lets make it about 17 'detailed sections'. But of them there are only 7 actual layers. Or you could say 5 if you dont count the important inner-layers.

    This ain't no fairy tale.
    You're bending science to fit your beliefs. There are FIVE layers and many sub-layers that are part of those layers. I gave you two links to prove this.

    Quit being ignorant you fat bastard.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Forum Freshman Kosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    86
    If we face this question logically, it is unreasonable to state that there must be a GOD or that there cannot be a GOD. To state either of those absolutes implies that one has a very firm grasp on the workings of the universe and creation.

    The fact is, if all the knowledge of the universe was put on a scale of 1-10, I do not think our understanding of it would register a 1. We do not know enough to make such claims. You cannot prove one way or another.

    (i.e. perhaps our belief that something cannot come from nothing is wrong? How would we know? Maybe the creation of the Universe is an exception? )

    The point is, we are dealing with a question that is so far beyond our ability to answer with an absolute. The only reasonable and logical answer to this question is that GOD could exist, but he also could not. We just do not know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Kosta
    If we face this question logically, it is unreasonable to state that there must be a GOD or that there cannot be a GOD. To state either of those absolutes implies that one has a very firm grasp on the workings of the universe and creation.

    The fact is, if all the knowledge of the universe was put on a scale of 1-10, I do not think our understanding of it would register a 1. We do not know enough to make such claims. You cannot prove one way or another.

    (i.e. perhaps our belief that something cannot come from nothing is wrong? How would we know? Maybe the creation of the Universe is an exception? )

    The point is, we are dealing with a question that is so far beyond our ability to answer with an absolute. The only reasonable and logical answer to this question is that GOD could exist, but he also could not. We just do not know.

    with me i "believe" there is not a god and thats based on my opinion and observations etc. And thats the whole point, its the belief thing

    Its like i believe im a good man, based on my opinion, i could be wrong and be really nasty but from my prespective and opinion i feel im right, others opinions may differ from that

    To me thats not an absolute
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Kosta
    GOD could exist, but he also could not. We just do not know.
    Or, y'know...God doesn't exist, but he also could. The way the sentence is arranged means a lot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Forum Freshman Kosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    Quote Originally Posted by Kosta
    If we face this question logically, it is unreasonable to state that there must be a GOD or that there cannot be a GOD. To state either of those absolutes implies that one has a very firm grasp on the workings of the universe and creation.

    The fact is, if all the knowledge of the universe was put on a scale of 1-10, I do not think our understanding of it would register a 1. We do not know enough to make such claims. You cannot prove one way or another.

    (i.e. perhaps our belief that something cannot come from nothing is wrong? How would we know? Maybe the creation of the Universe is an exception? )

    The point is, we are dealing with a question that is so far beyond our ability to answer with an absolute. The only reasonable and logical answer to this question is that GOD could exist, but he also could not. We just do not know.

    with me i "believe" there is not a god and thats based on my opinion and observations etc. And thats the whole point, its the belief thing

    Its like i believe im a good man, based on my opinion, i could be wrong and be really nasty but from my prespective and opinion i feel im right, others opinions may differ from that

    To me thats not an absolute
    There is a very fundamental distinction that you bring up- Faith vs. Knowledge. Faith is believing for one's self. Knowledge is undeniable truth. Having faith in God does not mean he exists or vise versa.
    I find it interesting that you say God does not exist simply b/c of what you have observed. We all know that our senses very often lead us astray. For example, on a hot day; one will often see water on the road where there is none. When I place a fork in a glass of water, it seems that the fork has seperated at the water line. We know this to be untrue.

    What I';m saying is that although our senses show us one thing, we have found them to be unreliable and another explaination must be found.

    When I ask myself whether GOd exists or not, I look around and see no evidence of GOD yet, I can never convince myself with certainty. All I do know, is its possible.

    To say otherwise implies one knows something impossible to know at this point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    10
    I wrote this on another discussion but its more appropriate in this one so I've just copied and pasted.

    I have this way of thinking that nobody seems to understand...I'll try and explain it to you guys and you can tell me weather or not you can comprehend what I'm trying to say or if you think it's really stupid.

    Imagine if we were to build a computer like we see in futuristic films. One that could speak, have a memory, one that could judge and so forth. Now I know we probably already can but imagine if we built one that was far more advanced then anything we've ever built. One that had a purpose such as controlling the security of a building or something really cool like that.

    So we have this artificial intelligence that functions on its own and is clever but it has its own purpose and doesn't communicate with us nor is it aware of anything other then its own existance, it only does what it was built to do. Now would this computer ever be able to figure out or try to understand who/what made it? Or be able to guess anything about our (it's makers) existance? How we have skin, teeth, a nose, how we need air, how we drive cars? etc?

    I just think that if there is a God then similar a concept probably applies to us. God is something completely and utterly different from us and there is no way that we could even possibly begin to imagine what God's existance would consist of..nor what God would think etc etc.

    I know this may be a wrong way of thinking but I think of God as an alien and when I say alien I don't mean a creature of somesort from another planet but a completely different form of existance. Something thats beyond the universe, what we know and definately something that is uncomprehendable by us. If there is a God then I don't believe God exists in the universe because thats where our existance is.

    Just how we'd be able to see everything the computer was doing and be "all around" it, yet the computer would be oblivious to this because whatever kind of life it had would be "in" the computer. I'm NOT saying we're in a computer I'm just saying that perhaps (just perhaps), similar principles may apply.

    Anyways I'm not going to go too deep into it because whenever I try to explain to my friends they never understand and I end up look really stupid. I am quite young so I can't help but think into these things. I just find it SO hard to believe that there is no God. I think the thing which makes it difficult for skeptical people to understand is religion and it's whole elaborate story which makes something thats already hard to understand impossible to even accept. I don't know if I believe in religion and I wouldn't even know what God would want from us and how God would behave then again who's to say that God would even have a behaviour?

    Does anyone understand? Or am I just being really stupid?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Guest
    Galant, those beliefs would work if you were a deitist and not tied to a specific religion, but religious texts end up describing god in numerous cases (behavior, looks, power, etc). Thus, the indescribable gets described, supposedly by god himself. So much for that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    gelanti, I replied to you on that other thread and this is what I said.


    I don’t think you are being stupid at all, gelanti.

    The problem our mundane earthly people have is trying to define God in mundane earthly terms which can only make approximations. But we do not even know which approximations are close to accurate.

    If God exists and is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Yahweh described in the Bible, it must be considered that his original spiritual world of eternity operates on a vastly different economy from our time-space continuum.

    When it becomes obvious that God cannot be defined in mundane, earthly terms, many just shuck it off by disbelieving anything beyond their observed knowledge base can exist.

    William’s original question concerned what there is about God’s character that is worthy of worship. My recollection immediately goes to Rev. 4:11 which says that God is worthy to receive glory and honor because he has created, has all things created.

    So, if the Bible is your guide, it is not God’s character which makes him worthy, but rather his creative genius alone is enough to elicit worship.

    Most people who post on this forum, however, will demean your willingness to think beyond your knowledge base into that which they cannot comprehend.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Wow this topic is like 7 months old almost.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •