Son of GOD EXISTS

smr wrote:Question: Why do you care if someone believes in God (the creator)?

We don't.

It's when they force those beliefs onto others that problems are caused.

smr wrote:Question: Why do you care if someone believes in God (the creator)?

I really don't.

Are they hurting you by the belief in a higher power?

That depends entirely on how they live their beliefs, doesn't it?

If you believe that homosexuality is unnatural and a sin and that sinners should be punished, then you're hurting others. If you believe that life is sacred and that, as a result, women should not have bodily autonomy, then you're hurting others. If you believe that true morality can only come from religion (specifically, your religion), then you're insulting me personally.

Why are you wasting your valuable time trying to sway another human being that they are wrong? That seems strange to me. Could it be that somewhere in your soul that a tiny part of you fears and/or believes in a creator.

cthia, for example, could do proper, useful work in research or engineering. Instead, he's wasting time on something impossible.

That's just sad.

Imaginos1892 wrote:You believe in an invisible magic man living in the sky without reason or cause.

(tilts head to one side) And you know I have no reason or cause for my belief because... ?

Although, for the record, I've never stated God lived in the sky.

Imaginos1892 wrote:There is no evidence that your god, or any god, exists in any sense.

Acknowledged from the beginning.

Imaginos1892 wrote:I can create a rainbow in my back yard by spraying water under a light source and looking at it from the correct angle.

Yep - I can do that too. Create the physics behind it... nope, not in my toolbox.

Imaginos1892 wrote:My start point is reality.

Your answer seems "Yes", then. Thank you.

Imaginos1892 wrote:How is it arrogant to observe that there is only one reality?

But was not what was wrote, now is it. It was specifically stated "there is one valid worldview, the one that accurately reflects reality." To phrase it a little differently, it seemed to be declaring that reality (that which is) and an individual's worldview (a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world) must be one and the same... and, to me at least, they are not. Things one is ignorant of that exist in reality are not part of one's worldview. Things one dreams of are part of one's worldview, but not necessarily a reality.

Imaginos1892 wrote:How could any worldview which does not conform to that reality, which seeks instead to deny that reality, be valid?

I'm sorry, but how does a belief in an Almighty Creator deny the existance of the Higgs boson? Does a particular belief in God / Shiva / Buddha deny Ohm's Law? What part of Reality is it that you think my personal belief denies?

I get that there are those that have no use for Religion. I simply have had a difficult time following why it is felt is necessary to declare another is wrong in their belief simply because you (generaly, not specific) have no need for what they believe. I have no need for solipsism... does that mean I am right to declare it "wrong" for all simply because it's wrong for me?

Imaginos1892 wrote:And look down your nose at me for not having ‘faith’.

I look down my nose at no one. As I said, each has their own path to follow, I have mine. - I cannot walk your path for you, nor can you walk mine for me.

Exidor wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:I choose not to waste my time on any of them.

No? If you would - why are you here, in the message forum of a man who writes delusions for a living?

Because he doesn't pretend his delusions are Absolute Truth, and seek to impose them by force on the whole rest of the world.[/quote]

So then, one may only have such "delusions" as you approve?

You might note that I've not been pretending I have the Absolute Truth (as far as it goes, I have what works for me), nor am I seeking to impose my beliefs by force (or otherwise) on the whole rest of the world - not on you, not on cthia, not on David.

I merely shared some of what I believe, with no demands that anyone accept the same as >heh< Gospel truth - and you are welcome to reject them in whole, that's your choice.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Indeed, he demands that we PAY for his delusions! But we do, because they're so much fun.

Actually... (looks left, then right) these days I check them out from the library, though I have taken advantage of Baen's free library as well.

Imaginos1892 wrote:If God existed, he'd bitch-slap all those idiot creationists for making him look bad.

Probably going to regret the asking , but why do you believe that?

gcomeau wrote:A defining characteristic of a delusion is thinking it is real.

Fiction engaged in for entertainment purposes does not fall in that category.

>heh< I'm going to differ, considering some of the conversations I've glanced through here on ship types, fleet strategies, and hardware of the Honorverse (and elsewhere, in discussions on Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Firefly, to name a few). While typically a delusion may a symptom of mental disorder, the way we suspend our disbelief to accept David's version of reality in his various series does constitute a delusion - which is not a bad thing (IMO), it's simply one of the way we entertain ourselves.

gcomeau wrote:

exidor wrote:And I think I've possibly figured out why we are currently in disagreement - I feel that Religion does indeed hold answers,

Not according to my understanding of that term.

I think you just comfirmed my point.

gcomeau wrote:What God exactly is is undefined.

You feel "Creator of all" to be lacking as a definition? To be honest, me too.

gcomeau wrote:How his powers operate are undefined.

Agreed. But, there again, I don't see the need to know how Beethoven created his symphanies in order to simply appreciate them.

gcomeau wrote:What his ultimate motivations are are undefined.

Again, agreed, as stated earlier.

gcomeau wrote:Unless you would like to try to argue that you grasp and understand the mind and powers of God?

If I was going to attempt that trick, I kinda think I'd have started out that way. But it's beyond my mind to fully understand the mind of another human being, let alone grasp the omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipowerful being that I believe is the Almighty Creator.

gcomeau wrote:You can try putting that down on a test in a class...

I learned long ago that the secret to passing a test (in addition to studying the material) is to give them the answer they are looking for, whether or not I might think the answer correct.

gcomeau wrote:...and try to convince your teacher you "answered" a question about where rainbows come from but I doubt you will get very far in your persuasion.

The worst argument I ever had with a teacher was with a substitute junior-high science teacher on the topic of whether or not the Moon rotates on an axis. His position was that because the "face" of the moon was always towards Earth, it did not (note, this was not based on a textbook). Oddly, my position was that because the "face" of the moon was always towards Earth, it does. Same "evidence", different interpretation. And if you want know who lost that argument - it was me (though I later found out from the actual science teacher when he returned that this was called "synchronous rotation").

That situation was where I learned some individuals in authority cannot stand to have themselves questioned (though, I'm afraid I had to learn that lesson a couple times). I was later told that I should have simply agreed with him and I would have avoided the detention.

It's also why I learned to give the test / teacher the answer it / they wanted, whether or not I felt it was the correct answer. But, thankfully, it never stopped me from learning.

The E wrote:If you believe that homosexuality is unnatural and a sin and that sinners should be punished, then you're hurting others.

I think someone simply holding the belief isn't harming anyone - it's what actions are taken because of that belief that determines harm has been done.

Exidor wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Not according to my understanding of that term.

I think you just comfirmed my point.

Not really. A side point about different understanding of terminology interfering with shared understanding of a subject maybe, but not the primary point of religion not having answers in a *meaningful* sense of the term "answers".

I mean if you want to define an "answer" as a response which confers no knowledge or understanding of the topic the question was asked of you can do that and then claim that by that definition religion has lots and lots and lots of "answers"... but what's the point?

gcomeau wrote:What God exactly is is undefined.

You feel "Creator of all" to be lacking as a definition? To be honest, me too.

Incredibly lacking...

gcomeau wrote:How his powers operate are undefined.

Agreed. But, there again, I don't see the need to know how Beethoven created his symphanies in order to simply appreciate them.

True.

But you do need to know at at least some level how he created them to be able to make a claim that you have the answer to the question "how were Beethoven's symphonies created?"

gcomeau wrote:Unless you would like to try to argue that you grasp and understand the mind and powers of God?

If I was going to attempt that trick, I kinda think I'd have started out that way. But it's beyond my mind to fully understand the mind of another human being, let alone grasp the omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipowerful being that I believe is the Almighty Creator.

So the sum total of the religious "answer" to how or why anything they say God did happened is, when broken down to what it actually *means*...


Undefined.


The end.


So why not just say "we don't know" and be honest about it instead of trying to pretend to knowledge by slapping a name on that total lack of knowledge or understanding of a subject and acting like by calling it "God" you've somehow explained that subject?

(And then, inevitably, because you've gone and anthropomorphized and assigned an identity to that state of ignorance, proceeding to project other things on it like wants and desires and things it expects you to do... because why the hell not while we're just making up stories right?)

gcomeau wrote:You can try putting that down on a test in a class...

I learned long ago that the secret to passing a test (in addition to studying the material) is to give them the answer they are looking for, whether or not I might think the answer correct.

Which could spark a whole other discussion about educational standards and methods, but isn't really the point here...


And FYI, the moon actually does rotate around its axis... all tidally locked bodies (aka bodies in synchronous rotation) do, the period of rotation around the axis must match the period of revolution around the body it is locked to. Which in the case of the moon, it does. It rotates around its axis once every ~27.32 days, and it completes a revolution of its orbit around the earth once every ~27.32 days.

So if you feel like it feel free to look your old teacher up on Facebook or something and say I told you so...

cthia wrote:THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING

Yes, we all saw your pseudo-scientific gobbledygook the last time you posted it, but thanks for pointing us back to it again I guess.

You and Deepak Chopra would get on great. He also likes to pretend he has deep insight on things by throwing the word "quantum" around in ways that might look as if they almost make sense to people who don't know what they're talking about.


Even he would probably not churn out something like "turn your soul into a conductor, if you wish to conduct and truly feel the evidence of proof" though.


(Well... no... to be honest he totally would.)

To be honest I wish that I had a belief. It would help to just know that there was someone oversighting me, and obviously it would be nice to not go raging into that dark night, but live in bliss forever. Unfortunately however my logical mind just won't accept blind faith.
Public profession of personal faith seems to be a US thing. Even the devout here don't normally mention it.