Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's all limited expression of God's infinitude, and God being limitless and Its expressions being limited they can't be perfect. In fact that would defeat any purpose and meaning behind expression. Besides, any expression of God is in fact God, and being limitless that's all It has to work with - Itself.
As to why something and not no thing, who knows? Before that's dismissed as a cop out I ask how materialists explain reason and purpose of existence?
So we can rage out of fear at a God we don't believe exists but what does that get us? Does it relieve suffering or just perpetuate it? And how does believing all the suffering is the cruel mechanics of nature help us cope with suffering?
For a moment let's assume there is only nature, only the material. Might belief in a Higher Power be an evolutionary coping mechanism born out of high intelligence and self-awareness? If that's destroyed what replaces it?
You can speculate, make faith -claims and make stuff up and throw accusations at atheists as to what motivates them, but none of that does a thing to make a case for a god. Not a solitary thing.
As to what we do know, natural processes are all we see. If you see anything else, validate it with some credible science, not appeals to unknowns and strawman arguments about perfection. Nobody would expect a world to be perfect, it would just have to be one that looked like it was intelligently designed, not naturally evolved.
You can speculate, make faith -claims and make stuff up and throw accusations at atheists as to what motivates them, but none of that does a thing to make a case for a god. Not a solitary thing.
As to what we do know, natural processes are all we see. If you see anything else, validate it with some credible science, not appeals to unknowns and strawman arguments about perfection. Nobody would expect a world to be perfect, it would just have to be one that looked like it was intelligently designed, not naturally evolved.
It's an exercise in futility to use science to explain the spiritual and spirituality to explain the scientific. I'm comfortable with both domains and see no inherent conflict.
Speaking of accusations isn't that the entire gist of this thread and speaking of strawmen isn't defining Divinity in such a narrow interpretation (personal and intelligent designer) a construct meant for easy toppling by the scientific method?
Don't you wish When I first arrived here in (as is spelled out in bullet holes in my front door) 2006 it was popular to assert that 'The Spiritual' could reach the parts that science ne er could, and that science was forever and by definition barred from those Mystical areas. I initially accepted that premise.
But as time has gone on, I have seen science propose explanations of morality and ethics that completely deflated the Theist -apologetics 'Absolute Morality' blimp, explained instinct in terms of DNA, and is delving into the mechanisms of human consciousness, much to their alarm.
I may also say that, early on, a discussion with poster 'Matrix' (with input from Mystic phd) provided valuable insights into why 'Revelation' was more likely to be an evolved survival mechanism and thus intended for survival, not to tell the truth, and was no more reliable than 'flawed human perceptions' and probably a damn' sight less so, especially when those perceptions are verified (or not) by scientific testing.
Which is the reason why the Faith -claims of Theism are being eroded, and they do not like it up 'em sir. Oh yes, they would like to declare the 'Spiritual' a No -go area where they can float their Gaps for God without fear of them being shot down in flames, but thy are under fire, old son, and will go the way of all the old apologetics - Genesis, Exodus (oh yes..the 'Hyksos' apologetic is whitened bones in the Sinai of debate), the Assyrian seige of Jerusalem, the 'Prophecies' of Tyre and Babylon, as well as Daniel, the 'Fatima' "Miracle" (that was a good one ), ID of course, struck down in Law at Dover, the Nativity (the 2nd census argument having been pretty much demolished, the Gospels 'prophecies' the resurrection, Acts, the parables the transfiguration (oh you becha ) and...most of the rest of the Book.
There are really only Three valid Gaps for God - Cosmic origins, origins of Life and Consciousness. Origins of life isn't much of a gap at all frankly. We are at the Higgs -Boson stage before it was actually proven; all the evidence was that it ought to be there. Cosmic (stuff - as the BB is Not the argument, though some theistic dumbells seem to think it is) origins is not (on logical probabilities) looking too good for the god -bods these days, and the 'Goldilocks - zone' apologetic rather fell under the 'Extinctions' response.
Consciousness has perhaps received a lot of attention recently, though NDE's has Not turned out to be the 'Unquestionable Evidences' they hoped it would be. But that is certainly an area that was once considered the preserve of the Spirit, but is now just research -territory for science. I see that Gap closing fairly quickly.
Oh yes - the only 'god' that concerns us is a personal or .what was it...oh yes, I/D god, in terms of debate, aside from the gods of various religions. Another apologetic that had done the 'released nozzle' balloon - Act is the 'have you looked everywhere in the universe?' Idiocy.
A god at the other end of this Universe, concerns us no more than a possible race of intelligent aliens on a planet in the 'Sombrero' nebula. If it isn't here, it isn't significant. That apologetic failed with UFOs and fails with gods. It is a personal god that matters and a remote deistgod is quite irrelevant.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-07-2021 at 07:58 AM..
God is purported to be pefect - all knowing, past, present, future etc. It is also that he is attributed with creating the Universe and all within, including Earth, the plants, the animals and The Salty ones, too.
One wold expect that a perfect creator would produce a perfect work-product, or at the very least a near perfect output that moves towards perfection.
However, examination of this "worked product" reveals that life of all sorts is riddled with flaws, weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Diseases of every type, genetic, pathogenic, and everything in between. I often use the human eye as an example, for it is easy to see, or at least see with. But i abounds with "issues".
Nearsightedness, Farsightedness, non-sightedness, color blindness of several different flavors, cataracts, detached retinas, astigmatism, on and on. The situation is the same all over the body, and not just humans.
So I ask you, how or why did such an ostensibly-perfect creator come up with such crappy work-products, and why, pray tell, when the flaws became evident, didn't he fix his screw-ups. Frankly, it is an embarrassment to have such crappy work for all to see.
Unless, of course......... (you finish the sentence, believers).
PS No cop outs such as god works in mysterious ways....
Don't you wish When I first arrived here in (as is spelled out in bullet holes in my front door) 2006 it was popular to assert that 'The Spiritual' could reach the parts that science ne er could, and that science was forever and by definition barred from those Mystical areas. I initially accepted that premise.
But as time has gone on, I have seen science propose explanations of morality and ethics that completely deflated the Theist -apologetics 'Absolute Morality' blimp, explained instinct in terms of DNA, and is delving into the mechanisms of human consciousness, much to their alarm.
I may also say that, early on, a discussion with poster 'Matrix' (with input from Mystic phd) provided valuable insights into why 'Revelation' was more likely to be an evolved survival mechanism and thus intended for survival, not to tell the truth, and was no more reliable than 'flawed human perceptions' and probably a damn' sight less so, especially when those perceptions are verified (or not) by scientific testing.
Which is the reason why the Faith -claims of Theism are being eroded, and they do not like it up 'em sir. Oh yes, they would like to declare the 'Spiritual' a No -go area where they can float their Gaps for God without fear of them being shot down in flames, but thy are under fire, old son, and will go the way of all the old apologetics - Genesis, Exodus (oh yes..the 'Hyksos' apologetic is whitened bones in the Sinai of debate), the Assyrian seige of Jerusalem, the 'Prophecies' of Tyre and Babylon, as well as Daniel, the 'Fatima' "Miracle" (that was a good one ), ID of course, struck down in Law at Dover, the Nativity (the 2nd census argument having been pretty much demolished, the Gospels 'prophecies' the resurrection, Acts, the parables the transfiguration (oh you becha ) and...most of the rest of the Book.
There are really only Three valid Gaps for God - Cosmic origins, origins of Life and Consciousness. Origins of life isn't much of a gap at all frankly. We are at the Higgs -Boson stage before it was actually proven; all the evidence was that it ought to be there. Cosmic (stuff - as the BB is Not the argument, though some theistic dumbells seem to think it is) origins is not (on logical probabilities) looking too good for the god -bods these days, and the 'Goldilocks - zone' apologetic rather fell under the 'Extinctions' response.
Consciousness has perhaps received a lot of attention recently, though NDE's has Not turned out to be the 'Unquestionable Evidences' they hoped it would be. But that is certainly an area that was once considered the preserve of the Spirit, but is now just research -territory for science. I see that Gap closing fairly quickly.
Oh yes - the only 'god' that concerns us is a personal or .what was it...oh yes, I/D god, in terms of debate, aside from the gods of various religions. Another apologetic that had done the 'released nozzle' balloon - Act is the 'have you looked everywhere in the universe?' Idiocy.
A god at the other end of this Universe, concerns us no more than a possible race of intelligent aliens on a planet in the 'Sombrero' nebula. If it isn't here, it isn't significant. That apologetic failed with UFOs and fails with gods. It is a personal god that matters and a remote deistgod is quite irrelevant.
irrelevant and no proof are two different things.
This post is what i have been saying all a long. It is the reason you haver to set limits on what we talk about. The militant's atheist "There is no proof" and "lack of evidence" based on gaps fail when we walk out side and start point to things.
If the site was called ... atheist against religion ... I would be your star player. But i am not lying by omition to anybody.
It's all limited expression of God's infinitude, and God being limitless and Its expressions being limited they can't be perfect. In fact that would defeat any purpose and meaning behind expression. Besides, any expression of God is in fact God, and being limitless that's all It has to work with - Itself.
As to why something and not no thing, who knows? Before that's dismissed as a cop out I ask how materialists explain reason and purpose of existence?
So we can rage out of fear at a God we don't believe exists but what does that get us? Does it relieve suffering or just perpetuate it? And how does believing all the suffering is the cruel mechanics of nature help us cope with suffering?
For a moment let's assume there is only nature, only the material. Might belief in a Higher Power be an evolutionary coping mechanism born out of high intelligence and self-awareness? If that's destroyed what replaces it?
Yes, thats what I have beaning say for years to the militants here. They limit the type. They limit the observations, and they limit how we can present it. Then they run around and accuse us of "strawmwanning", twisting, and changing what they are saying.
We can't clarify it because they break off saying "Thats not relevant to why we are here." or the ever popular "you said it meanly". That last one makes me laugh.
people have to decide if thats what rational people do.
OK so, Why don’t YOU buckle up and create a nearly perfect product, if not perfect?
Perhaps you can start with creating a functioning wing of a mosquito?
I mean, you can’t even stop yourself from farting a few times a day, yet you think you have the amount of knowledge to judge God, who according to you knows it all?
Think about it, what is worth and value of YOUR knowledge in front of someone who knows it all?
And yet you want God to operate and create things as per YOUR satisfaction? lol
Engineers are developing digital cameras that will soon surpass the capabilities of the human eye, and NOT be subject to all the flaws in the flesh version, so yes, we are improving.
I never purported myself to be a creator, much less of the Universe.
Also, as you seemed to miss, I don't want "god" to do or be anything inasmuch as he/she/it doesn't exist. My efforts here are merely to demonstrate the futility and stupidity of believing such an entity exists. It is part of my case against the existence of a deity.
Try to broaden your understanding, i.e. get the "big picture" and you'll, in time, understand. People have asked me for my evidence, and I am presenting it in the form of gross inconsistencies and incompatibilities between dogma and reality. Sorry if it ruffled your feathers, well, not really!
Speaking of mosquitoes, the deadliest animal on earth, why would a god create such a thing. Yearly, it and the diseases they spread, kills millions. Riddle me that, believerman. Dennis Prager, hi, Dennis, can't even figure that one out. Again, not the work product of a loving creator, IMHO.
Don't you wish When I first arrived here in (as is spelled out in bullet holes in my front door) 2006 it was popular to assert that 'The Spiritual' could reach the parts that science ne er could, and that science was forever and by definition barred from those Mystical areas. I initially accepted that premise.
But as time has gone on, I have seen science propose explanations of morality and ethics that completely deflated the Theist -apologetics 'Absolute Morality' blimp, explained instinct in terms of DNA, and is delving into the mechanisms of human consciousness, much to their alarm.
I may also say that, early on, a discussion with poster 'Matrix' (with input from Mystic phd) provided valuable insights into why 'Revelation' was more likely to be an evolved survival mechanism and thus intended for survival, not to tell the truth, and was no more reliable than 'flawed human perceptions' and probably a damn' sight less so, especially when those perceptions are verified (or not) by scientific testing.
Which is the reason why the Faith -claims of Theism are being eroded, and they do not like it up 'em sir. Oh yes, they would like to declare the 'Spiritual' a No -go area where they can float their Gaps for God without fear of them being shot down in flames, but thy are under fire, old son, and will go the way of all the old apologetics - Genesis, Exodus (oh yes..the 'Hyksos' apologetic is whitened bones in the Sinai of debate), the Assyrian seige of Jerusalem, the 'Prophecies' of Tyre and Babylon, as well as Daniel, the 'Fatima' "Miracle" (that was a good one ), ID of course, struck down in Law at Dover, the Nativity (the 2nd census argument having been pretty much demolished, the Gospels 'prophecies' the resurrection, Acts, the parables the transfiguration (oh you becha ) and...most of the rest of the Book.
There are really only Three valid Gaps for God - Cosmic origins, origins of Life and Consciousness. Origins of life isn't much of a gap at all frankly. We are at the Higgs -Boson stage before it was actually proven; all the evidence was that it ought to be there. Cosmic (stuff - as the BB is Not the argument, though some theistic dumbells seem to think it is) origins is not (on logical probabilities) looking too good for the god -bods these days, and the 'Goldilocks - zone' apologetic rather fell under the 'Extinctions' response.
Consciousness has perhaps received a lot of attention recently, though NDE's has Not turned out to be the 'Unquestionable Evidences' they hoped it would be. But that is certainly an area that was once considered the preserve of the Spirit, but is now just research -territory for science. I see that Gap closing fairly quickly.
Oh yes - the only 'god' that concerns us is a personal or .what was it...oh yes, I/D god, in terms of debate, aside from the gods of various religions. Another apologetic that had done the 'released nozzle' balloon - Act is the 'have you looked everywhere in the universe?' Idiocy.
A god at the other end of this Universe, concerns us no more than a possible race of intelligent aliens on a planet in the 'Sombrero' nebula. If it isn't here, it isn't significant. That apologetic failed with UFOs and fails with gods. It is a personal god that matters and a remote deistgod is quite irrelevant.
Your obsessive desire to see things through your atheistic lens results in this kind of unsupportable overstatement of the state of affairs in favor of atheism. You seem to be a firm believer in the old adage "state your beliefs and desires as facts as often as possible and they will gain greater traction." It clearly pleases you to see things through your atheistic rose-colored glasses. You are in for such a HUGE surprise, my friend.
Yes, thats what I have beaning say for years to the militants here. They limit the type. They limit the observations, and they limit how we can present it. Then they run around and accuse us of "strawmwanning", twisting, and changing what they are saying.
We can't clarify it because they break off saying "Thats not relevant to why we are here." or the ever popular "you said it meanly". That last one makes me laugh.
people have to decide if thats what rational people do.
A more honest approach from the scientific perspective is while there's no evidence supporting God or Divinity there's also no evidence negating God or Divinity, so the answer is I simply don't know. It's no different than the multitude of topics honest scientists admit they haven't a clue.
I'll be the first to say I don't believe in the traditional personal Gods for the obvious reason if multiple religions say theirs is the correct version then something's obviously gotta give. They can't all be right but they can all be wrong and the latter is far, far more likely. At best it's a product of the times, society and culture they were founded in. A poetic representation of something beyond comprehension and description.
Sometimes humility requires admitting we not only don't know but most likely can never know. Perhaps when the extraterrestrials several millions years more advanced make contact they'll clear it all up. LOL!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"We demand that you can't keep us out"
When I first arrived here in (as is spelled out in bullet holes in my front door) 2006 it was popular to assert that 'The Spiritual' could reach the parts that science ne er could, and that science was forever and by definition barred from those Mystical areas. I initially accepted that premise.
), ID of course, struck down in Law at Dover, the Nativity (the 2nd census argument having been pretty much demolished, the Gospels 'prophecies' the resurrection, Acts, the parables the transfiguration (oh you becha 
) and...most of the rest of the Book.
