I commented on a discussion on one of Don's recent posts, but wanted to make this its own thread as well.  The post is long but hopefully is worth while to read.

As for Hawkeye's request for proof that God exists, I will throw in my two cents.  First off what I'm going to argue for is an inductive proof; meaning given these lines of evidence it is more likely than not that God exists, not a deductive proof like one might find in geometry or calculus.  So from the outset Hawkeye may disagree with me since he is trying to set up impossible ground rules it seems.  But if he / others are willing to think logically, built on evidence, then inductive proofs can more than lay a solid groundwork for a faith that is very reasonable.  In other words, I believe based on scientific and historical evidence that it makes more sense to be a Christian than an atheist, agnostic, scientific materialist, or new ager.
  First off, there is a beginning to the universe.  We know from experience that everything that begins to exist has a cause.  The universe began to exist.  And therefore the universe must have a cause.  However we also know through physics that the moment of the big bang was the beginning of space and time.  There was no time before the beginning of the universe, in our sense of the word time.  So our universe was literally began by something that is beyond space and time.  We also know that this thing chose to have this event happen.  We know roughly this was a choice because we could have not had a universe at all.  So what this shows is that something caused the universe to come into existence, that seemed to be operating with a choice, that was outside our physical causality, space, and time.  Making a choice implies that this is a person; a personality.  This personality is immaterial, incredibly (all?) powerful, and eternal, as in not bound by space and time.  Does this mean it was the Christian God?  Not at this point no; it could have been a pantheon of Gods at this point that caused these events; or another version of God altogether.
  Secondly we know that the laws of the universe, and the constants that were set up in these laws, were fine tuned for the possibility of life.  One example would be the constant that is in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.  I believe the example that Stephen Hawking gives is that if the constant was one millionth stronger (a very small amount), than the universe would have collapsed back in on itself after the big bang, and if it was something like one millionth weaker (again, a very small amount lesser than what it is), then we would have a universe where stars and planets wouldn't form; a universe of Hydrogen and Helium gas.  This is one example among hundreds however; there are many, many of these examples of constants being set at just the right value to allow for life, and the idea is called the anthropic principle.  The more we learn scientifically the more we learn that our universe has been fine tuned for life.  So then, as we update our conclusion, we know that something exists that is immaterial, eternal, incredibly if not all powerful, astoundingly intelligent, and a creator in the sense of setting up the laws of the universe in a sensible way that allows for the possibility of life.  This doesn't prove God deductively in the way that Hawkeye is looking for (deductive) proof, but it does start to give powerful indications of what caused our physical, material universe.
  Third I would argue that morality exists.  There are actions that are clearly right or clearly wrong.  It is wrong to torture babies for fun.  So the question arises, where does this morality come from?  Or more correctly, what is the basis of morality?  I would argue that the basis of morality lies in the existence of something that is absolutely (not relatively) good; a moral code or expectation of behavior.  A counter argument here is that our morality is governed by societies that we live in.  The problem then is that societal morality degenerates quickly into moral relativism.  One's society cannot be better than one other's society if moral relativism exists; they are simply competing claims to who is right.  In other words, I could say that in the society that I live in, it is fine to torture babies for fun, and you would have no justification to argue against that.  However, if we are being honest with ourselves, we know that torturing babies is simply wrong.  One could argue that this is because of the society that I grew up in; I would argue that society does play a role, but torturing babies for fun is objectively, absolutely wrong.  If there is something that is absolutely wrong, then there must be a line to judge that problem against; a right type of expected behavior to judge the wrongness against.  This implies that there is a goodness to the universe that is inherent in the universe as well.  I would say that this suggests, but doesn't prove, that this being that is immaterial, incredibly powerful and intelligent, outside of time, and able to cause physical reality changes, also has put into place a code of conduct for the universe.  Yes, this code is usually not black or white, but sometimes it is black or white.  This implies a law giving component of whoever this being or beings are that are immaterial, incredibly powerful, outside of space and time, and creators.
  Fourth I would argue that life and moral choices have meaning.  Make no mistake; if God and the afterlife don't exist, than life is meaningless.  Worse yet, it is a sick joke for most of humanity that is suffering.  The only way that life has any meaning at all is if it matters how we treat others.  If it doesn't matter at all, then there is no value to anything; there is nothing of lasting permanence, there are no real achievements and suffering is not meaningful or redemptive; it simply is sick.  There are about 3000 kids who die from malaria every day.  These kids just have short lives of suffering with no setting of things right; no chance at betterment, no justice, and their lives have absolutely no meaning.
  Lastly the life and example of Jesus is the example of the character of this creator that is incredibly powerful, intelligent, outside of space and time but able to affect space and time, and a creator who is also a lawgiver.  It's hard to dismiss Jesus; he is a polarizing figure.  As C.S. Lewis pointed out, Jesus claimed to be God, and that gives us three logical responses.  Option one is Jesus was not God and knew it; he was a liar.  Option two is Jesus was not God and was confused about that fact; in that case he was insane.  And the last logical option is that Jesus is who he said he was; God incarnate.  Those really are our only 3 logical options.   Just to say that Jesus was an 'ascended master', or to call him a prophet like the Muslims do, or just make him out to be a moral teacher is logically ridiculous; because he also, along with leading the most incredible exemplary human life, he also claimed to be God incarnate, taking on human weaknesses, and perfectly demonstrating how we should live our lives, and saving humanity in the process as well.  He is not simply a nice guy, or someone who can fit into other systems of thought; he is either the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.  Nice guy is not an option.  So from this we can update our view of God, based on science and history:  God is immaterial and eternal (but can influence and cause events in our physical universe), is incredibly intelligent (if not all knowing), incredibly powerful (if not all powerful), a creator, a lawgiver, and gave a perfect example of his character through his human life here on earth, the life of Jesus.  Much more about God's character is revealed through the life of Jesus.  This is a proof of God's existence, and proof that Christianity is more logical, and makes more sense, than any other option; although it is not a deductive proof.  So if one is willing to read with an open mind then they may take something from this; but if you are looking to argue than maybe not.  Many people react negatively towards Christianity or Jesus; they claim to be tolerant towards everything but are very intolerant towards Christianity.  I'm open to semi constructive debate or criticism.  By the way if you want to hear someone who is much better than explaining these things than I am, download any of William Lane Craig's debates in mp3 format.  He has debated popular figures as well as academics; including Richard Hitchens as an example.

With lord, liar or lunatic being the only choices available, by default I'll choose Lord...but I was under the impression that the Christ said we were all God as was he and we too could do as he did, we too could follow his example and live the life he led.  Would this not require some manner of attention in the debate?

Pratekya:

Regarding morality, I believe a key is the golden rule, due unto others as you would want done to yourself.  The other day I read about a man who had been raping a 13 month year old girl for several months (which means she was younger when he started doing so).  Any moral relatavistic argument that would condone such behavior is absolute BS, and I don't care what country, planet, galaxy or universe somebody comes from.

If you don't treat another with love and respect, then it's wrong, regardless of what a supposed channeler such as Neale Donald Walsch claims (if you believe what God supposedly told him, it doesn't matter what we do).

I believe it is more likely that near death experiencers receive words from a divine being during their NDEs than it is likely that Walsch actually conversed with God. Near death experiencers often state that it is very important how we live our lives while here, and it is important to live according to love. They state that during their live reviews they experience how they caused others to suffer. They don't tend to share a bunch of moral relativism.

If we aren't able to see that there are modes of being that are preferable and positive and modes of being that aren't, how are we going to be able to recognize and appreciate that which is positive?

Regarding Jesus being God because this is what the Bible says, in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke he speaks as if God is a being other than himself. Some people would say that he states that he is God in the gospel of John, but there are numerous times within John when he speaks as if God is a being other than himself. There is also the matter of how accurately the Gospel of John represents what he said. Video recorders and such didn't exist when Jesus was here in this world.

Whatever the case, I figure that an incredibly wise being such as God or Christ understand why some people aren't able to conclude that a few verses in John prove that Jesus is God. I believe that people who are afraid to conclude differently are more likely to say that the gospel of John shows that Jesus is God, rather than people who don't allow fear to determine how they discriminate things.

Divine will is really important to me. I don't want to do something that is opposite divine will. I figure that if I pretended that I believe Jesus is God because I'm afraid not to do so, I don't serve divine will in such way. I believe that we serve divine will the best when we allow ourselves to see truth as it is, even when doing so requires us to question concepts that many people are afraid to question.

If Jesus is a magnificient soul rather than God himself, perhaps it is a bit much to expect him to play the role of God. How can he share love with other souls completely if people deify him in a way that is inaccurate?

Regarding how this universe is set up in just the right manner that enables it to function, I have a few things to add, but I have to find the article before I can do so (I don't remember the precise details).

Here are some more thoughts about Jesus (a part of what I wrote in the past). Is it true? Each person should decide for his or her self.

When considered from a Biblical perspective, I earlier stated that Elaine Pagels wrote that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke speak of Jesus as if he was a divine messenger, and the Gospel of John speaks of him as God himself. The latter point isn’t completely true, because in the following Gospel of John verses Jesus speaks as if God is a being other than himself: John 3:16, 17, 18; 4:23, 24, 34; 5:17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 45; 6:27, 29, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 57, 65; 7:16, 17,18, 28, 29, 33; 8:16, 18, 28, 29, 38, 42, 49, 50, 54; 10:15, 17,18, 25, 29, 30, 32, 36, 38; 11:41; 12:26, 27, 28, 44, 45, 49; 13:20, 31, 32; 14:2, 6, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 31; 15:1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, 23, 24, 26; 16:5, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32; 17:1-25; 18:10; 20:17,21.

Jesus often referred to God as his father. In the following verses he stated in some way that God sent him: John 3:17; 4:34; 5:24, 36, 37; 6:38, 44, 46,57; 7:16, 18, 29, 33; 8:42; 10:36; 12:44, 45, 49; 13:20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:28; 20:21. Jesus also said prayers to God: John 11:41-2 and 17:1-25. He stated that he acts according to God’s authority: John 5:26-27, 36, 10:18. In John 8:18 he stated, “I am one witness, and my father who sent me is the other. He stated that God is greater than he:

John 14:28, “Remember what I told you: I am going away, but I will come back to you again. If you really loved me, you would be happy that I am going to the Father, who is greater than I am. I have told you these things before they happen so that when they do happen, you will believe.”

Also:

John 14:8-14, Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.”
Jesus replied, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don’t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me. Just believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. Or at least believe because of the work you have seen me do.
I tell you the truth, anyone who believes in me will do the same works I have done, and even greater works, because I am going to be with the Father. You can ask for anything in my name, and I will do it, so that the Son can bring glory to the Father. Yes, ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.”

The second set of verses can either support or contradict what I’m suggesting, depending upon which words you focus on. When Jesus says, “The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me” and speaks of bringing glory to the father, certainly he speaks as if God is independent of him. On the other hand, when he states, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” he seems to state the opposite. I believe the answer to this quandary can be found by considering the meaning of the words “Just believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”  Also the words from John 14:20, “When I am raised to life again, you will know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.”

Also, from John 15:1-8, “I am the true grapevine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch of mine that doesn’t produce fruit, and he prunes the branches that do bear fruit so they will produce even more. You have already been pruned and purified by the message I have given you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. For a branch cannot produce fruit if it is severed from the vine, and you cannot be fruitful unless you remain in me.
Yes, I am the vine; you are the branches. Those who remain in me, and I in them, will produce much fruit. For apart from me you can do nothing. Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a useless branch withers. Such branches are gathered and piled to be burned.  But if you remain in me and my words remain in you, you may ask for anything you want, and it will be granted! When you produce much fruit, you are my disciples. This brings great glory to my Father.”

When Jesus speaks of people remaining in him while he remains in them, certainly he doesn’t mean his personality and the body he made use of for a short number of years. He meant his nature in a universal and spiritual sense. The real Jesus is the divinity that comes from God. This divinity exists in everything including us! When we live according to love, we allow ourselves to live according to this divinity. Jesus had reached the point where he lived according to love and divine will so completely, he abided in God’s being, and at the same time God abided in him. This enabled him to understand about God’s wisdom and what God wanted.

Perhaps it doesn’t matter which viewpoint we believe in, it is more important that we live according to the principles Jesus taught. Eventually a day will come when we will find out the truth. Whatever it is, I figure it is glorious.

A late P.S.

Quite obviously I didn't consider the matter of who Jesus is according to the limiting parameters set by C.S. Lewis.

Ask any religious person for proof that God exists and they will only be able to give you two main answers:

1. Look around you and see the amazing world which HAD to have been created by divine inspiration.

2. The bible is proof.

Yeah, I don't agree with either one of these answers personally. But these are the two and ONLY two answers a follower of Jesus and or the God of Abraham can give.

Hey, you could always worship RA, that way people will think your crazy yet at the same time you can be like... well, you can SEE my God. Just look up. Where's YOUR GOD???? HUH? HUH? HUH???

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT!!!!!!

The Golden Rule period. God or no God, Jesus or no Jesus, the Golden Rule rocks and helps us lower our spiritual entropy. I mean I guess that's important though it has occurred to me that if we ever wind up with 0 entropy will be S O L. Of course if one accepts that the soul is eternal then entropy reduction becomes a matter of choice. The word "God" really annoys me. It so lacks imagination.

This says it all  ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ25Ai__FYU&feature=related

In my experience, being a person who has denied the existence of a greater power and adapted strictly to science and reasoning for half of his life, the only true way to find evidence of God is to find it yourself. One of the biggest problems with people (especially atheists) is that they want to sit back and let other people do the work for them and offer them the proof. This is so feeble to me. If you want to understand what God is and experience it without what you were taught from a book, then get off your arse and find the truth. It is in ignorance and only ignorance which defeats the truth. The entire point is that the spirit lives within us and it is within ourselves we will find the answer. If you want to find God, then start looking. If you don't, then don't even bother with the subject at all. If I can find spirituality with all that I've been through, I believe anyone can. You don't even have to believe strictly in what a certain religion says. Just know and understand that there is a great power and presence in the universe and you only exist because it exists.

One thing I've noticed about most arguments for the existence of a god, is that they're arguments for the existence of something more powerful than we are.  That doesn't *have* to be a god - it could be some very,very advanced alien beings, a committee of bored super-beings, any number of things other than a god.  Not necessarily saying that's what it is, but nothing about most arugments I've seen sya it couldn't be, either.

I remember a guy years ago commenting on the beauty and majesty of the Grand Canyon, saying "How can anyone look at that and say there is no God?"

All I could think was that the Grand Canyon was exactly what you'd expect from a large river running for a million years over that much sedimentary rock.  Now, if that river had run in that location for that long, and *not* created the Grand Canyon, I might have seen it as evidence for some supernatural intervention.  But as it was, the argument made no sense.  And even if I'd bought that it was the result of some beyond our ken intervention, that in itself does not imply a god.  "Not A" does not imply "B" - it only implies "Not A".

Kathy's link gets right to it. Jung said it just as John Lennon stated it too. You just know. And when you do you don't need anyone else's explanation for how God behaves or what God is called or whether Jesus was more than you are. Understanding leads to knowing and knowing is king. Words are not the answer. The words of another will ultimately lead to fear if they go unchecked because we all have our own path. I can't follow your map from where I am standing so to speak.

Well, as I said, there no proof here. Not that I personally need proof of God. I opened my heart to him many years ago. That said, I cant proof it. Nor can anyone here anymore that they can prove the afterlife. That was the point of my comment. Said after seeing a member demanding proof, and without having it dismissing the possibility of the afterlife. Well, as I asked, prove there is a God. Its just not possible for one or the other. Its faith. I have read the Bible and have never found a Book of Jesus. Written by Jesus. His personal words. But of course there are many instances of others proclaiming to be writing what he said or what he believed. Again, it comes back to faith. I have asked for no more proof of God than many have asked for regarding proof of the afterlife, yet I know it will never come. Well not for a few more years anyways.
God made the universe? What?... Says who? There wasn't even a Christion type God before their were humans to believe there was that possibility. And most likely at the beginning, God was fire, or light, or food.  Time as we have in the phyical universe didn't exist before the big bang. Well who the heck cares. That was a long while ago, long befor there was thought of any kind, yet alone one of God. God creating the universe,  thats ridiculous. That's like saying God created woman out of a rib. (And if he did, good thing he didn't use a McRib from McDonald's.)  When it comes to morality or the ten comandments, its a survival instinct. To survive is far easier to do so by living together. Therefor the need for social structure. Not because God said so. Collectively working together to get food and shelter. If you kill your neighbour your not going to have help. If you sleep with you neighbour wife you not going to work together, etc...All about social structure and there is nothing in the ten comandments that wasent already going on before the ten were put in place with the exception of the him being at the top and before all others. Or else!! Whamo!! That God does nothing with those who kill or hurt babies. Social structure does that. Have you read any papers lately or heard the news. Being "good" sure as hells got nothing to do with Christianity or God. Perhaps you would leave your children with the local Christian priests for a sleep over, but I sure wouldn't. Even the Pope may have his hands dirty. Its time for people to wake up and smell the coffee.  Throughout hundreds of years, even thousands of years, people have been using God and religion as a means of the reasoning behind exploitation of others. Including war, murder, sexual molestation, human sacrifice, the list goes on and on and on. Yet still no proof of Gods existence, as what is demanded of the afterlife. I have nothing against  Jesus, God, Holy Spirit, any of them,etc. But that doesn't mean I am going to bend over and present my backside to them and take it, just because someone says I have to because I should believe and have "blind" faith, and that I should except the fear of God being put into me. I'm a feared alright.., just like the countless children who have been the brunt of sexual exploitation by those good old boys who are so close to God and have that blind faith in God. Along with their higher ups who are helping them get away with it. The beliefs, without proof, is what makes people vulnerable. Fear of a God having wrath upon you if you dont do as instructed by one who is closer to him. I guess the Christian God doesn't mind that children are getting molested. Perhaps he approves of it, or he would have smacked these people down. Perhaps it should be passed off as a test of their faith? Ya, thats it, a test. Yet another test.
I have "faith" that there is God. My God. Hes not a religious God. Hes a personal God.  I also have "faith" in the afterlife. Both are "faiths", through personal experiences. I still have no differant proof other than to my self. So if you ask for proof of the afterlife, be expected to prove your beliefs as well. 
Perhaps people should quit looking for proof outside of themselves. The truth is within all of us. It dosent come from a book.   

Usetawaz –
Jesus did basically say that he was the example, and we are expected to follow his lead, including being the catalysts for good so that miracles can work through us.  The difference is that we are not creating the miraculous; we are not God as a new ager might say.  We become adopted sons and daughters of God in a way.

Recoverer –
  I largely agree with most of what you have posted.  Sequentially I want to address some of the things that you have written.


Quote:

If we aren't able to see that there are modes of being that are preferable and positive and modes of being that aren't, how are we going to be able to recognize and appreciate that which is positive?

  Jesus said that "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (Luke 12:47-49)

I’d say that it seems like you and Jesus are largely in agreement while approaching this from a different tack.  Someone who is born into an abusive family, grows up without love, and dies young – much less will be expected of that person than someone who had been born into a loving family and had a lot handed to them.


Quote:

Whatever the case, I figure that an incredibly wise being such as God or Christ understand why some people aren't able to conclude that a few verses in John prove that Jesus is God. I believe that people who are afraid to conclude differently are more likely to say that the gospel of John shows that Jesus is God, rather than people who don't allow fear to determine how they discriminate things.

  I would argue that I’m trying to learn honestly about the truth here, not really letting fear determine how I discriminate things.  Honest people disagree with the exact semantics of whether Jesus was God’s Son, God’s representative, or God incarnate.  I fall into the God incarnate / Son camp, although this creates a problem that you address later.  The example that C.S. Lewis gives (yes, C.S. Lewis) is a fair one I think.  Jesus clearly has the power to forgive sins (in the synoptic gospels no less), and his Jewish audience clearly has it right; who has the power to forgive sins but God alone?  Note C.S. Lewis’ example here is from the book of Matthew:


Quote:

(Matt 9:2-7)Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven." 3At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!" 4Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." 7And the man got up and went home.

Quote:

Divine will is really important to me. I don't want to do something that is opposite divine will. I figure that if I pretended that I believe Jesus is God because I'm afraid not to do so, I don't serve divine will in such way. I believe that we serve divine will the best when we allow ourselves to see truth as it is, even when doing so requires us to question concepts that many people are afraid to question.

  I totally agree.  I believe that God values honesty, and clearly sees and judges our inner selves which often times is at odds with our outer selves that we portray to others.  The afterlife will not be that way; there will simply be our inner selves interacting, with no lying or two faced activities allowed.


Quote:

If Jesus is a magnificient soul rather than God himself, perhaps it is a bit much to expect him to play the role of God. How can he share love with other souls completely if people deify him in a way that is inaccurate?

  I suppose you are being consistent here.  If Jesus is not God’s Son, or God incarnate, or another function of God (an avatar of God if you will), then it is too much to expect him to play the role of God.

Your listing of quotes that get at Jesus’ identity is impressive.  I think the value that you place in viewing Jesus as not God helps to emphasize his humanity, which has its benefits; it makes him seem more like an example we can follow rather than ‘God putting on a man suit’ so to speak.  It validates Jesus’ weaknesses and sufferings, just like ours.  And again it points to the things that a human being can achieve when they are wholly in tune with what God wants, which I believe Jesus intended; he wanted Peter to get out of the boat and walk on water over to him for instance.  Jesus wants us to live extraordinary lives, living in God’s love.  I do also think Jesus was an incarnation of God, but I think that honestly our differences have very little net effect on the outcomes of how people should live their lives.


Quote:

Perhaps it doesn’t matter which viewpoint we believe in, it is more important that we live according to the principles Jesus taught. Eventually a day will come when we will find out the truth. Whatever it is, I figure it is glorious.

  I think you are right on here.  We may agree, or not, on nuances, but at the end of the day we will not be judged on our fine dissection of theological ideas but how we treat others.

Starcraft:
My arguments are neither of the two that you posted; good job on not only not reading what I’ve written but completely mischaracterizing me into an idiot.  You are fighting a straw man argument here; I did not propose what you’ve lumped me into, and my arguments are based on science and history largely.  Yes, one of my 5 arguments does depend on the bible as a historical document, but taken as a whole it provides a solid inductive argument, as opposed to the joke of an example you provided to show my idiocy.  Maybe I shouldn’t even respond to your post.


Quote:

But these are the two and ONLY two answers a follower of Jesus and or the God of Abraham can give.

Scroll up, and read, before you post on the net and make yourself look like the idiot you are trying to portray others as.

Lights:
I’m at work right now on break and unfortunately cannot hear the dialogue on this computer because it has no audio device.

Cricket:
As for your first point, I actually make the same argument through my points – that the creator need not be one, need not be the Christian notion of God even, just incredibly powerful, outside of space / time, a creator, a lawgiver, eternal in being, but having a personality – an ability to choose.  I included the idea that the conclusion need not even include monotheism at that point.  However taken together with the 5th argument; the argument from the historical recorded life of Jesus, and a lot of those attributes become fleshed out in the character of God as evidenced in the life of Jesus.  I suppose if you want to reject the bible or the historical recorded life of Jesus as being valid, then you are simply left with something that is incredibly powerful, outside of space / time, a creator, a lawgiver, eternal in being, but having a personality – an ability to choose – and you can flesh that out with whatever details you find to be more to your liking.  The trouble is though that you may be trying to make God in your own image; looking for something more palatable.  If that doesn’t correspond to reality then you may be simply creating a substitute to not deal with the aspects of Jesus’ life and claims on our lives that you don’t like.

I teach high school Physics, Biology, and Chemistry, and fully believe in evolution.  I believe the Grand Canyon was made by the erosion of the water running through sedimentary rocks.  I also believe that evolution is a mechanism that the creator of the universe has put in place for creation and for the renewal of creation.  Science and belief need not be at odds; you probably know it’s called a false dichotomy (i.e. either you’re a believer in science or a believer in some form of faith / spiritual system).

Beau:
I agree that experiencing God is incredibly more important than talking about God.  However, I would argue that ideas matter, and having false ideas about God and spirituality can impede one’s spiritual progress.


Quote:

The words of another will ultimately lead to fear if they go unchecked because we all have our own path. I can't follow your map from where I am standing so to speak.

  Maybe.  Not all religious or spiritual ideas cause fear.  These arguments for the existence of God have given me not fear, but more peace in my life.  I know I can talk with rational, educated people and I have not only an experiential faith but one that is reasonable; in fact in my opinion, my faith is more reasonable than not.  In the face of worldviews and ideas that attack and demean, one can disengage, as it seems like you are doing, or one can combat these ideas head on.  Because if you tend to start to become more exposed to say, Scientific Materialism for instance, and have no way of refuting it, your faith can start to wither and die as a result.  Maybe saying something like “words are not the answer” might work for someone who totally wants to disengage, but for people who want to search for truth logically as well as experientially it wont work.

Absolutely false ideas will wreck your spiritual path. Very perceptive. The truth lies in the beholder and the truth is beautiful when fully perceived.

Jesus did not write the bible and that tells me all I need to know about it. I resent that I was taught Christianity at birth until I was in my teens. It really screwed up my path. That fear doctrine is a hard one to break. Jesus went on his gut and so shall I. When they find something HE wrote I'll surely take note. Otherwise I say the Bible (buy bull) is a bastardized version of someone else's truth written by the elders who wanted to control a people and that this mere book reflects some elements of truth and a whole lot of human fallacy. It's just my take.

Sorry to offend, but it is a discussion group.

Two thumbs up.

When we -- seriously -- stop referring to 'God' as a 'he' over and over and over and over, I might become a lot more interested. Until then, what a mystery. Endless, endless mystery.

And another thing, I think organized religion is the perfect example of the Pack Mentality. Maybe one can find enlightenment that way, but in my experience that is not the case.
Going to a Centuries old source for primary spiritual guidance is like going to Plato for advice on building a helicopter.
As our decision space grows so must our sources of information otherwise the whole process of gaining understanding is moot.

Isn't that one of the reasons its all so screwed up? Its thought of as a "he". ...Kidding of course. I would understand how it has worked for all these years if it was a woman.  An angry,  sometimes pissed off God. Sort of a bad day, PMSing sort of God. ;)
I use "him" or "he" but only out of not wanting to use "it." My God has no "sex". God is All.

A menopausal God. Scary.

Would a hermaphrodite be menopausal?

Curious are you meaning a God period or the God of the bible most people believe in?

My main beef with the God of Abraham / Jehova is that... well... the earliest records of this God and the bible aren't that old.... seriously.

The Hammurabi Codex predates Christianity by some 1700 years. It is one of the earliest artifacts containing rules and civil law.

The Atrahasis Story predates the biblical Genesis account by over 1,000 years or more. Both of these creation accounts predate Christianity and the Judeo/Christian Bible by centuries. Both reveal there were "GODS" not "One God." This is where the Jews made mistakes, along with the many contradictory scriptures. It is glaringly obvious the Judeo/Christian Bible is not the word of "God." The foolish bible thumping idiots rant and rave how "God is perfect." Right there is another contradiction.

I am showing information from the following web sites:

http://www.exposingchristianity.com/Old%20Testament.html

http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/flood/flood1.html

Basically, the Sumerian God Enki predates the bible by a long time. So either Enki is actually the same God of the bible OR the God of the bible was in fact created from a hodge podge of great stories and ideas and was accepted by kings and society and pumped out there like a best seller and revered until generations and generations of people passed and now it's "THE BOOK" "THE GOOD BOOK" ETC.

I speak of my God. I don't know if the Bible had adopted mine as being the same as theirs. Although its possible that whoever really wrote the Bible might have been inspired by my God. That goes for Enki as well. As for the Johova one...if its the one that has inspired the Jehovah Witness Cult to allow their children to die needlessly instead of receiving blood transfers, no, thats not my God. If the one in the Bible inspired child molestation by their followers, then it wouldn't be that one. Although my God might forgive them, I dont believe my God would approve of those kind of Gods.

Personally I am agnostic, because, in order for me to believe in God I need him to prove it. When I say prove it I mean like suddenly the space odyessy music plays duuuuuuun duuuuuuuun duuuuuuuuun DUN DUN!!!!!!

and like WHAM! bright lights and I hear God speaking to me. Now... okay, I suspect God is way too busy to come to each and every person and perform like this but that is what I NEED to believe. I have no faith and will never have faith. Sure, it sucks, but that's the way I am.

Please note: Agnostic means I am willing to accept that a God may exist, I just need ultimate super proof.

What if enlightenment is a self study process and just like in the classroom we are not supposed to look on the other kid's paper, or use an answer just because another kid came up with one, but use our own experiences to teach ourselves. I know ...radical.

I think you have hit it right on the head Beau.Thats what its all about.

I really can't express enough of what I said in my last post. Until people understand that, they will always deny and be confused. I know I was an atheist because I was ignorant and immature. I denied atheism when it was proven to me that spirits exist. This of course posed the theory "If spirits exist, then another world exists, and if another world exists, a great power exists." The more a person theorizes existence, the closer they will come to an understanding of this great power and increase their consciousness of it.

One very large problem I see is religion as a whole. Bertrand Russel said "“It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion”

Religion I believe has served its purpose. If people really believe religion is the only thing keeping morality in check then they are very silly. The next obvious step for evolution is the human being which knows and practices morality without religion. Religion existed to maintain order and basically scare people into being moral, and the more acceptable ones teach more of just improving ourselves, our lives, the lives of others, and the earth.

I still maintain the question "What did Jesus really die for? What was he saving?" The answer usually responds to "our souls, our sins, etc." Well I'm not sure if you noticed, but it was after Jesus death that the worst things in humanity were committed. Protestant reformation, Spanish Inquisition, Holocaust, all of the wars. There is a list. If God thought humanity was bad before the sacrifice of Jesus....then well. HA! Do you see what I am saying? The worst things humanity has ever committed was associated with religion.  If you argue that with me, you would do much better to save your words because I will consider you a fool.

Now that should not be taken as an insult to religion. It is simply a fact which must not be ignored. Other facts which are often ignored? That there are mythologies which existed before Christianity which have many comparisons to the tales of Jesus. The egyptian god Horus draws the most comparisons. This information can be found in many areas, but for a place which gives only information and not a one sided argument I recommend http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm and there is more on that site on the subject.

I used this information very strongly in my arguments against Christianity. Ignorantly, of course. I saw it as evidence that Christian myths were borrowed. But I now see that the information cannot prove anymore than science can prove that God exists. If you consider every religion in the history of the world, you will notice the biggest things attributing to it is the location in which it was formed and the people it was formed under. Religion has never really been administered to the world unless through great violence by the hands of humanity. I believe this states that religion is indeed administered specifically to the differences of people.

You can't get people to act right today by saying "God will punish you for this." But you could when that was first written. And eventually it wasn't even God that people had to fear. It was humanity itself.

But another thing you will find interesting of religion throughout history is just how many similarities there are, whether modern or pagan. This suggests somewhat of a puzzle. And to solve the puzzle, you must break from the confines of a single religion and study and accept the rest for their positive impact and teachings on humanity.

Having done a little of this, I have begun to understand that whole "we are connected" phrase. Open. Your. Mind. That is the absolute only way you will find evidence of god. yes, a lot of things get repeated to the point that its difficult to listen to, but here comes another one: Knowledge is power. Our greatest power as human beings. We are still in an early stage of our mental development and understanding of things which can't be explained by science and would actually explain science. That's the entire point. "God" isn't going to toss the answers in a book. We have to discover them with each other and through time and discovery. Just as people have accepted "Zeus" or "Odin" were not what was believed, I think one day people will also understand that "Jesus" serves more as a symbol for what we need in our lives in order to improve it.

If you want scientific proof or evidence of God, you're going to have to wait for a good while until humanity reaches that point. Maybe consider things are willed this way the same way the laws of the universe are. If you truly want to find out for yourself and only want to be able to say "I know that this great power exists," then that is entirely possible because I have done such a thing. I can't explain what that power is, I just know that it exists.

But if you're not spiritual already and are not religious, the first thing I think one needs to do is separate "God" from what has already been taught to them.

ONLY IGNORANCE will stop you from whatever answers you want.

I agree religion has given people the command to bear arms against others that are sinners and unbelievers killing an extreme number of people... I am agnostic which means I do not believe in God, yet, I hate guns and war. If I had my way guns would be gone. I am an extremist, and I feel that killing and hurting others is wrong, period. If someone attacks me I will attempt to run away but I will not fight back because in my heart I know that evil does not make evil ok. Just because someone takes a gun and kills me or my family does NOT give me the right to become the same as them, period. Ironically if EVERYONE would agree with me the world sure would be a better place.

wrote on Apr 1^st, 2010 at 7:09pm:

I agree religion has given people the command to bear arms against others that are sinners and unbelievers killing an extreme number of people... I am agnostic which means I do not believe in God, yet, I hate guns and war. If I had my way guns would be gone. I am an extremist, and I feel that killing and hurting others is wrong, period. If someone attacks me I will attempt to run away but I will not fight back because in my heart I know that evil does not make evil ok. Just because someone takes a gun and kills me or my family does NOT give me the right to become the same as them, period. Ironically if EVERYONE would agree with me the world sure would be a better place.

And Jesus taught this. Buddha taught this. It's a fundamental understanding that love and respect is the only thing that matters and is the key to improvement of everything. But there must also be discipline for without discipline there cannot be order and without order there is only chaos. But if every parent showed their kids that love and respect, we would have less criminals. Less crime.

It's difficult for me to see this great plan working anytime soon. Maybe 2012 will have a large affect on increasing consciousness. Maybe it won't. I have to hope that it will.

A lot to respond to… here we go.
Hawkeye:

Quote:

God made the universe? What?... Says who? There wasn't even a Christion type God before their were humans to believe there was that possibility.

It seems like you are saying that God is a creation of humanity.  There is a chain of causality for the entire universe that I have pointed out that extends beyond our space and time, suggesting that actually God exists independently of our universe, and independently whether or not someone believes in Him.  Your point is like saying if all humanity stopped believing in a law of gravity, it would cease to exist, which is nonsense.

Quote:

When it comes to morality or the ten comandments, its a survival instinct. To survive is far easier to do so by living together. Therefor the need for social structure. Not because God said so. Collectively working together to get food and shelter. If you kill your neighbour your not going to have help. If you sleep with you neighbour wife you not going to work together, etc...All about social structure and there is nothing in the ten comandments that wasent already going on before the ten were put in place with the exception of the him being at the top and before all others. Or else!! Whamo!! That God does nothing with those who kill or hurt babies. Social structure does that.

What you are talking about is called sociobiology, and just because it provides a reason for how these ideas originate has no bearing on whether these ideas of morality are true or not.  I write later in this post to Starcraft about the genetic fallacy, which is what you are falling into here.  Of course sociobiology exists; that fact is totally irrelevant to the validity or falsity of the 10 commandments however.

Quote:

Have you read any papers lately or heard the news. Being "good" sure as hells got nothing to do with Christianity or God. Perhaps you would leave your children with the local Christian priests for a sleep over, but I sure wouldn't. Even the Pope may have his hands dirty.

  As a former Catholic, I’m taking these news reports harder than my friends I find.  I personally think any church official who protected a pedophile in their midst should serve jail time, including the pope.  These sickos are a false representation of Jesus however.  If you are truly claiming being ‘good’ has nothing to do with Christianity then you have no idea what Jesus was about.

Quote:

Throughout hundreds of years, even thousands of years, people have been using God and religion as a means of the reasoning behind exploitation of others. Including war, murder, sexual molestation, human sacrifice, the list goes on and on and on.

your point doesn’t prove Christianity is wrong, it simply proves people are bad.  I’m in agreement by the way.  I believe Christianity provides satisfactory answers for why evil exists (not that I like evil), while the absence of Christianity generally just is a witness to utterly meaningless suffering.

Quote:

I have nothing against  Jesus, God, Holy Spirit, any of them,etc. But that doesn't mean I am going to bend over and present my backside to them and take it, just because someone says I have to because I should believe and have "blind" faith, and that I should except the fear of God being put into me.

I wouldn’t accept blind faith either, and I don’t.   I have carefully thought out reasons for what I believe, and if it didn’t make sense, I wouldn’t believe it.  As for fear, is it wrong to warn someone of an impending disaster?

Quote:

I guess the Christian God doesn't mind that children are getting molested. Perhaps he approves of it, or he would have smacked these people down. Perhaps it should be passed off as a test of their faith? Ya, thats it, a test. Yet another test.

  No, we are given a temporary, limited amount of freedom to do what we want during our lives, and the results of that will determine what kind of trajectory we will be on for the afterlife.  For people to have real freedom, real ability to make choices, they must be allowed to choose evil as well as good.  And most do.  Is that what God wants?  Read the parables of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke and see if you can honestly say that God wants people to suffer.

Quote:

So if you ask for proof of the afterlife, be expected to prove your beliefs as well.

Actually I haven’t asked for your proof, and I have given a pretty comprehensive overview of my belief of an inductive argument for the existence of God.
Beau:

Quote:

Jesus did not write the bible and that tells me all I need to know about it. I resent that I was taught Christianity at birth until I was in my teens. It really screwed up my path. That fear doctrine is a hard one to break. Jesus went on his gut and so shall I. When they find something HE wrote I'll surely take note. Otherwise I say the Bible (buy bull) is a bastardized version of someone else's truth written by the elders who wanted to control a people and that this mere book reflects some elements of truth and a whole lot of human fallacy. It's just my take.

  There are a couple statements like this first sentence from a couple of the recent posters, and honestly I’m not sure if there is a way to prove to someone like you that Jesus said these things.  If there was somehow an old movie recording Jesus with sound dubbed in?  Jesus wasn’t actually saying those things.  What if there was a more modern movie with sound?  Someone was modifying the analog or digital format.  If there was something written in blazing handwriting across the sky, signed as Jesus and God?  Oh it’s just a mass hallucination, or strange atmospheric effect.  Maybe I’m wrong, but sometimes skeptics are simply insatiable.  Let’s just say I’d argue there is great evidence to support the gospels as being mostly reliable.  I can come back to this if this is questioned.  Jesus talked about this insatiable skepticism as well.  The familiar parable of Lazarus in hell, Jesus concludes with the same idea about human nature:
Quote:

27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'  29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'  30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' 31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

And of course the truly crazy thing is that we do have a claim of Jesus being raised from the dead in recorded history, and people are not willing to listen.  Jesus’ characterization of human nature seems to be fulfilled in this sequence of posts.
As for the bible being a book about wanting to control others; I would argue that it has been handled and interpreted in those ways, but that is not the intent of Jesus.  In fact Jesus’ harshest criticism (like yours and others’ here) was for the religious leaders of his day.  Jesus was actually very anti establishment; his old wine in new wineskins parable can be seen as a challenge to Judaic rule; his overturning of the tables and anger at Jewish selling of items viewed as necessary to get close to God, and he eventually wanted to break oppressive governmental control through a nonviolent change in people’s hearts; not necessarily through violent or controlling means.
Lastly, Jesus talked more about hell than he did heaven.  Just bear with me for a moment, and imagine that maybe, just maybe, there is a hell that actually exists.  And that we could warn people about it.  Don’t you think a loving thing to do would be to warn people about it, even if it entails talking about a scary concept?  Or put another way; imagine my friend is driving towards a cliff.  I see the cliff and he doesn’t.  I shout at him, ‘hey, watch out for that cliff dead ahead, over the slight hill!”  And he yells back at me, ‘hey, shut the hell up about negative things; I don’t want to live my life in fear!” 
B2:
I’m guessing you already agree with this, but God is spirit and is beyond gender.  To put it bluntly, God has no sex organs.  However the masculine and feminine aspects of life are actually both represented in God in the Judeo-Christian faith.  Jesus goes so far as to use a feminine image to refer to himself, virtually unheard of! 
Quote:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! (Luke 13:34)

The word for Wisdom, Sophia, as I understand it, has a feminine aspect of God implied, although I’m no Hebrew scholar.  I think the male has been emphasized so much because God needed to work with a more patriarchal society in the past (not saying that that is necessarily a good way for society to be, but it was reality), and I would guess that if Jesus chose to incarnate today as opposed to Roman times he might have even incarnated as a woman.  Our societies have progressed (in some parts of the world at least) to be open to hearing it.  Additionally, Jesus greatly elevated the status of women in his time.  There are a few examples of this I can point to later if you like.
Beau again:  I think your pack mentality concept may be right for you; you seem to have such a revulsion for anything that has to do with organized religion that maybe organized religion is simply poison to you.  I just want to point out I am not arguing that you should get involved in organized religion.
Starcraft:
To address what you are saying philosophically, I want to make an argument by analogy.  So please follow along with my example.  I teach high school Physics.  Let’s say one day I tell my students about Maxwell’s laws that have to do with electromagnetism, but I don’t say that I got these laws from Maxwell.  Lets say one of my students discovers this, and begins shouting at me “LIAR!  THEIF!  YOU DIDN’T’ COME UP WITH THESE IDEAS YOURSELF!  THEY MUST BE FALSE!”  Can you see the fallacy here?  Maybe the ideas weren’t originally mine.  Maybe I borrowed ideas from somewhere else.  Maybe its even helpful to point out that these ideas historically came from Maxwell originally, not myself.  However, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not these concepts about the universe that Maxwell discovered are true or not.  It is simply a fallacy to say that those laws are false because knowledge of them have clearly arisen from a path that has been discovered.  Can you see where I’m going with this?  If the bible has drawn ideas from other societies, myths and religions (it has by the way), that has absolutely nothing to do with whether the concepts mentioned are true or not.  What you are committing here is called the genetic fallacy in philosophy.

Quote:

The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.  The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.[1] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits.

This is my answer to some of your post and the links provided (which is also why I started typing in all caps as the first site often does).  So there are other sources that also cite there was a huge flood.  So what?  There being multiple accounts of this just seem to me to support the idea that there was a massive flood.  It doesn’t mean that the bible is false, or that because the bible wasn’t the only take on the matter that there wasn’t a flood.
Hawkeye:
Agreed, nicely stated.
Starcraft again:
Please see my above description to Beau, with the parable that Jesus tells, that I believe hits the nail on the head for you.  You will never believe, because you will never be satisfied with the proof that is given you.  There is nothing that can be done to convince you and people like you, and Jesus not only anticipated that he commented on it in a parable.
Beau again:
About making our own path towards enlightenment: I think you are somewhat correct, but people tend to sink into moral relativism with that freedom.  In other words, they create belief systems for themselves that justify their own actions and make life easy.  Life is hard, and living life in a way that is selfless and loving is even harder.  Saying “I’m going to make up my own belief system” oftentimes is simply a justification for “I’m going to do what I want and feel good about it in the process, with nothing negative hindering my path such as guilt or obligation”.
Stone Cold True:
You are right in saying there is great value to trying to develop spiritually by oneself.  I agree with you that for some people (like you, and maybe myself somewhat) religion has served its purpose and run its course, but not for all.  It’s true that much evil has been committed in the name of religion, but that fact doesn’t do much but simply emphasize the problem of evil, which is resolved with the idea of free will and the fact that God values character development (and its natural opposite, character devolvement) for a time over temporary suffering and pleasure.
Starcraft Again:
You are right, if everyone in the world was a pacifist like yourself, the world would be a much, much better place.

prateyka, I do agree that even though I don't believe in the bible as being the truth it doesn't matter if it makes people do good things. I can't really argue that point. But I'd rather follow something more solid and even without the bible and God I consider myself a very good person.

Another web site anyone considering the bible should definitely check out is:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Yes, I am sure a lot of you have seen this site before. It basically nitpicks the entire bible. I don't agree with everything they say but as I go through the long lists there are some bible absurdities that stand out to me as, well, downright ridiculous and confusing! Either way, I suggest ANYONE that wishes to worship the God of the bible should at least listen to both sides of the story.

Personally, if God exists I don't think anyone is condemned as long as there is goodness in they're heart. (Regardless of accepting Jesus.)


P.S. The stories of the bible...... IN LEGOS!!!!!

http://www.thebricktestament.com

Prateyka,

It is true that I see no need for organized religion and to suggest that because a person isn't following your way they will fall into moral relativism makes little sense to me. Anyone can fall into it. Plenty of people who are staunchly aligned with their religions practice moral relativism and the Christians are some of the worst. Look at most any war fought in the last 2000 years.

And as far as Jesus actually saying the things he is associated with, I just don't know. Why  didn't he write something down or at least one of the disciples? No one from the period (I'm aware of the Luke and Mark argument, but there is no solid proof that Luke wasn't at least 60 to 80 years removed from the source.) In just a year after someone's death a lot of things can get blurred. We are talking about a book that had stories passed down verbally for thousands of years before putting the pen to paper on this stuff. Relying on it above your own mind which is truly the greatest and most reasoning gift we are given in this life to me seems ludicrous. We are training to be greater than we are, not training to be sheep. And we may already be greater than we are and simply come down here to get a breather from being gods. I find being open to the possibilities much more rewarding than trying to pin everything on ideas that predate me and my own take on it.

I don't quite understand how a movie of Jesus saying these things would make much difference to me. 'Love your neighbor as yourself"--he may have said that, he certainly wasn't the first to say it but since it reflects the golden rule I have to say that it is beautiful. I believe he also said "love the lord your God with all your heart"... I have no problem with that as long as no one gets to define God for me.

You call me disengaged but I say it is the people who follow who are disengaged...from thinking and to me that is what a consciousness is for. My proofs don't have to be scientific, but they have to resonate with the core of my being. "Why am I like this?" That's what I wonder and in a deep meditation I get an answer. I don't fly out of my body much, but my dreams are more vivid when I'm thinking for myself than when I am taking on someone else's ideas without putting them through my own truth o meter.

I know I get rather hostile when organized religion comes up, but there are things about Christianity that are good, but those things are not original to the religion and I am seeking the source if I am going back 2000 years then I am going back 10000 years or even 20000. To me, going back there is coughing up the same old answers that haven't gotten the job done.
If Jesus comes back AND he embraces the Christian Religion (Which I highly doubt--no offense meant to anyone) AND he tells me he is the son of God (and I"m not taking about some guy in Venezeula with his own talk show) I will reconsider my stance.
My problem is not with the idea of Jesus, it's with the portrayal of Jesus in the story of his life by people who never knew him.
If we write a book or make a movie about someone famous even today with all our world wide communication we still don't get it right. The urge to make the story entertaining will always win out over the truth. I learned valuable lessons from Robin Hood too. I'm just saying.

As a young person I can attest that I see more and more young people denying religion every year. Those that are religious more often only use it as a label but do not truly pay attention to it or make it a large part of their life. Whether you see it or not, religion is starting to filter out in this country with further generations. As we evolve more people are becoming conscious and wanting to reason with everything. This I believe is a very big step in improving the world.

I have always had a large problem with faith. I still do. I have attributed faith to ignorance because it is simply "I believe this, but I do not know it and I am content with that." Faith has always been believing without knowing. Now of course there are those religious people which can say "I know God exists." I can respect this so much more. But generations are finding the Bible harder to reason with and from observation this leads to a lot of anger and negativity. God is very much an individual discovery, and it is becoming damaging to limit the interpretation of it. I have plans for helping people discover their spirituality without religion. It is still important to find God. My life has quickly improved since I did so.

I know that there is a God. I have no scientific evidence or proof. The understanding lies completely in the level of your consciousness. I still have plenty of questions concerning the nature of this God but the knowledge of the existence is enough to make me content. I will use my experience of discovery to help others. It is part of the path I have set for myself and possibly that of God.

In a sense our true reasoning is difficult because it is so simply digital if you think about it. A whole bunch of yes/nos to reach an understanding. If we accept someone else's YES without open minded skepticism then we are cheating ourselves of a vast learning experience which will lead to our own understanding. I try not to think of my process as educating others but of being an example of that open minded skepticism. Then that process becomes a collaborative effort of an ensemble (to use yet another acting term). I just find theatre to be the best metaphor for spiritual understanding and through that understanding comes the growth whether it agrees with someone else or not.

I agree with you. And I think even more importantly is for us not to hold back on our ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. This is why I type so much and why all my posts by now could contribute to a book  ;D

We need to have opposing theories and ideas in order to make that whole decision of "Ok, this works for me but this does not, and this why I think so" which will in turn either allow a second person or more to rethink their initial statement or find a valid way to counter the point. This is just part of the process of learning. What would we really know if we didn't argue points and share our thoughts and discoveries? And there we are back to that greater connection between all of us.

Very true Stone,

I think there does reach a point where we have to accept that some people have a smaller or larger decision space for enlightenment then we do and we have to privately acknowledge that and move on with the hope that we can increase our own awareness by recognizing those with the larger decision space. There in lies the rub for me.

Prateyka, It seem by your posts that you beleave that belief in the Christian God is a necessity for all. What about the many other religions and beliefs?  God is not a creation of humanity. Belief systems are. Some believe that the physical universe, and all within it, was created in a week. (Genesis) Why? Because they have been brainwashed, or have faith that because it is written in the Bible it must be true. Most likely its a story written in an effort to show the strength and power of one God over all other possibilities. Some have even said that they don't believe the first part of the Bible...but beleave in the rest of it. What ever suits your beliefs I guess. Use only those parts.

Yes I am talking about sociobiology. My point exactly. I am not saying that the ten commandments are invalid. Just that beliefs existed far before they were put into print in the bible or on any text. My disagreement is putting one God or belief in a God above anothers. Above "all" others.
No, you don't have to be Christian to be good. I believe your mistaken. Even a non believer in Christ or the Christian God can be good.
There is nothing wrong in informing anyone of impending disaster. But if your saying I am to follow blindly with what the Catholics say, or the JWs, or , or Mormans, or, or, then your wrong. How many times have the JW's  informed the world of its demise and the second coming of Christ is upon us? Even with certain dates. They just cant seem to get the darn date correct. So..lets just change it then. Pick a date and stick with it. Then we have some branches of the Mormons. How many wives does a man need in the eyes of their Lord? You got to bring those girls up right. Get them married off young. Most often to the one who donates the most to your church. Kick the boys out early. Don't want any competition for those young girls.Real young better if you want into their heaven I guess. Or the Muslims. Their God is right and everyone else is wrong. Better kill non believers off. You know what they say about wives. Beat your wife every day, She will know why. I find the trouble with organized religions is that its all about chicken little. The sky is falling!  The sky is falling!
When it comes to child molestation and freedom of determination. Are you saying that God has decided that these children are ripe for the molesting for the sake of a lesson about freedom of choices? to pick good or evil? God wants these perverts to make that choice? To me it sound like justification of it. God told them to rape that child. He gave them that choice. Thats sick.That belief is wrong. My God says its evil, and not to do it. Those priests and those bishops , and the Popes who have allowed this to go on are evil. Evil. And using confessional as a means to not inform the police along with moving of the perverts to new locations to do it all over again, is evil. Think about it. If I was a priest and I raped a little girl or boy and got caught. My bishop calls me into his office and informs me of the complaint or investigation. I ask for a confessional and spill my guts about it. Now they cant do anything about it. It came out in confession. Their hands are tied. Ten Hail Marys, no pay for a week, and your out of here. Penance all done. Well how convenient for the church. I wonder how many of those confessionals have happened? I wonder how many the Pope heard when he was investigating these people? If your beliefs run along the lines that its just fine for this sort of atmosphere to carry on so that people can choose good or evil, I want nothing to do with your religion or beliefs. In fact, its driving people away from religion all over the world.
I can proof no afterlife. Just like I see  no proof of the existence of God through your statements. But I don't expect you to. I know there is God just as I know there is an afterlife. But I also see organised religion can be used for evil, and has been for many hundreds and even thousands of years. Not all evil, but plunty of it. This evil, and the allowing of it to continue and go unpunished, is pushing people away from God.

And I'm also holding out some hope to all the information I've found which suggests the 2012 thing is actually just the events taking place now and to come in order to increase the consciousness of many, many others.

And in response to the length of time it took to create the world, I've been told it states in the Bible or somewhere that one Earth day is equivalent to like 1000 years in eternity. It feels just like 1 day, but hell I don't know. I ignored the statement and didn't acquire the knowledge haha. But either way I've always thought of that and figured one day to God was not like one day to us.

Also hawkeye, I think your entire statement is right on the money. But I also ask "why is this way?" It's pretty obvious. Humanity. Humanity. Humanity. NOT God. That's the whole damn point and problem with religion. It is humanity's doing. Every single thing that made us go "wait...thats not right" was because some jackass human wrote it that way to establish order by their will. This doesn't just occur in religion. Governments as well. The governments do crap that doesn't make any sense all of the time. It's not for the good of humanity, it's for the good of their power and their control or how it benefits all of the sins running rampant.

I believe God has left part of itself in many aspects of the world, including religion. But its greatest desire is not for us to discover through conventional means. I could not be more confident in understanding that. I know it to be true.

But I must also profess my theory which has been with me for some time. As it brings a good question this thread. Are you looking for evidence of our creator, or are you more interested in the nature of our creator?

My theory for some time has been that "God" is inconceivable. We can come to an understanding of its existence, but never its nature in this life. That nature is beyond the power of our imagination. Now that my friends...is a magnificent entity.

But while this is my theory, it is not a theory I enjoy. I actually have hope that our creator is of a conceivable nature. That its presence is possible of sustaining in the mind. But then this hope brings to me another theory. Is God and our creator the same entity? Perhaps our creator is of a conceivable nature, and its creator is not. Things to think about.

I really recommend everyone read this essay if you haven't already, as it serves many valuable arguments and forces deeper thoughts on our discussion. It was highly inspirational for me at one point.

"Why I Am Not A Christian" by Bertrand Russel.
http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

Also I must recommend this essay as well for I think it corresponds with a few of you which do not limit yourselves to religion.

"What Is An Agnostic?" by Bertrand Russel

http://www.solstice.us/russell/agnostic.html

Stone and Beau:
I have read the first essay, and found all of the arguments weak and answerable.  It's interesting how I've actually refuted a lot of Russel's arguments in this thread and it doesn't really matter, does it?  I guess people have pretty well defined belief systems, and honestly I think there are people on this site who claim to be open to discovering any truth they can on their own but the reality is, that is not the case.  I think Beau and Stone should be more honest with themselves and anyone; they are interested in exploring any ideas that don't have to do with Christianity or have similar explanations.  My point is, isn't that excluding a huge possibility?  I understand; here come the responses - fear, oppression, history, evil.  My final response?  Don't pretend to be as open minded as you think you are, because at the end of the day you won't accept anything that might trigger emotional hangups concerning your hatred of organized religion.  If fluffy bunnies exist outside of this realm, and beam down thoughts through aliens, and it doesn't involve a church group, than its plausible.  At the end of the day, everyone is free to make up their own minds, no matter what the limits are that are placed on their thinking.  Lastly, I want to briefly mention something I get into Hawkeye about down below a little more clearly:  I am not arguing on behalf of organized religion.  I think the knee jerk reactions I'm getting are kind of tiresome.  I know organized religion sucks many times, and most of the people on this board hate it.  I get it.  I'm not arguing for organized religion.  Actually I believe myself to be pretty open minded as well.  I have read the Koran.  And the Bhaghavad Gita.  And translated the Lotus Sutra for a graduate class.  And earned degrees in both science and religion.  But because I also think Jesus is cool, I'm not thinking freely enough, or discovering enough on my own.  I get it.  Charge ahead bravely on your own path I guess, because I'm such a cookie cutter Christian who is just mindlessly following along as a sheep with no thought put into anything.

Hawkeye:  You miss the point that I made earlier about sociobiology reducing into moral relativism, and illustrate it beautifully with the statement
Quote:

My disagreement is putting one God or belief in a God above anothers. Above "all" others.

  There is the moral relativism.  If you take that and run with it to extremes, the concept breaks down.  Because there is absolutely no way to arbitrate between groups of conflicting beliefs, and because the majority can oppress the minority.  For instance:  the German people as led by the Nazi's believed that Jews were inferior forms of humanity and needed to be wiped out.  In their society, it was acceptable to torture and kill Jews.  Most of humanity would agree from their standpoint that this is wrong.  But if there is no God, then there is no way to justify this.  In other words, if there is no God, society simply determines right and wrong, and society can be very, very twisted and evil.  In other words, there is absolutely nothing wrong, if we accept your worldview, with putting 12 million people through torture and genocide.  However, I would say the moral conscience that most people have would argue against this.  You may disagree, and consider that you do then live in a universe where might makes right, the minority can always be exploited, and there is nothing that is absolutely wrong and right.  Anything that you consider to be good could be made evil by some society, and vice versa.  The paradigm becomes madness.


Quote:

No, you don't have to be Christian to be good. I believe your mistaken. Even a non believer in Christ or the Christian God can be good.

  A couple things here.  First I'm not sure where you are getting this idea because I don't argue nor believe that assertion.  The most moral friend I have is not a Christian.  Secondly, how are you judging someone to be good?  By what standards?  I would argue that in your belief system there is no absolute standard of good or evil, and honestly there is no way for you to judge someone as being 'good' or 'evil'.  One society's version of good could be one other society's version of evil.


Quote:

There is nothing wrong in informing anyone of impending disaster. But if your saying I am to follow blindly with what the Catholics say, or the JWs, or , or Mormans, or, or, then your wrong.

Again, you are fighting a straw man here.  I never argue for following some belief system blindly.  I think skepticism is good.  However I don't think skepticism alone will work.  At some point we must make a choice based on the preponderance of evidence.


Quote:

When it comes to child molestation and freedom of determination. Are you saying that God has decided that these children are ripe for the molesting for the sake of a lesson about freedom of choices? to pick good or evil? God wants these perverts to make that choice? To me it sound like justification of it. God told them to rape that child. He gave them that choice. Thats sick.That belief is wrong. My God says its evil, and not to do it. Those priests and those bishops , and the Popes who have allowed this to go on are evil. Evil.

I am about to give up on this discussion because its so ridiculous.  Please address my points, or read what I say, or quit arguing against things I wouldn't say.  Of course these actions are evil.  Sigh.  My point, if you can read what I've written, is that we have some free will currently.  And there is evil.  And God could put a stop to the evil, such as abuse of children, but that would put a stop to the free will on Earth.  God has chosen to allow it for the time being, and so that shows that God values our ability to make choices, so much so that he is willing to allow evil for the time being.  That doesn't make abuse right, or mean that God wants people to abuse others, or that I'm arguing that raping babies is what we should all do.  So for the time being, we are all on this ship of Earth together mixed in - good, bad and in between, which is what makes this mode of existence special, and we have some degree of free will.

You, others on this thread, are not arguing with my points, you are arguing with my imaginary points.  I am not here to defend religion.  Is that clear?  I am making belief statements based on science, history, and philosophy that can be reasoned for or against using logic.  I haven't argued anywhere that someone should go to church or pay money to some group, or raping kids in the name of God is good.  If you continue to use the straw man fallacy there is no point in me answering any more, seriously.

I have my own unique view on religion , over the years I have moved away from any exclusive fundamental beliefs I am now areligious but I still retain a strong belief in God . The activities I see on TV TBN make my stomach churn where they are selling little bottles of holy water that was supposed to come from the river Jordan

The hypnotic hysterics of Bennie Hinn is a disgusting parody on the purity that man should have for god and god for man

Peace and light

Alan

pratekya,

"And there is evil.  And God could put a stop to the evil, such as abuse of children, but that would put a stop to the free will on Earth.  God has chosen to allow it for the time being, and so that shows that God values our ability to make choices, so much so that he is willing to allow evil for the time being.  That doesn't make abuse right, or mean that God wants people to abuse others, or that I'm arguing that raping babies is what we should all do."

My pet project is allowance - I very much would like to understand this concept fully and completely - freedom within limits. I reckon one element of freedom is consent. When dealing with child abuse, my view gets very black and white - it's extremely non-consentual. Any adult talking about consent in the regards to sex with a kid I'd say have repressed and twisted their sexuality to the point of being extremely dark and destructive. It's horrificly wrong, and I don't need a god to see that. I've read numerous times of religious and non-religious people going into those terrerories, so religion/belief in a god doesn't automatically eliminate perversion. And in the case of child abuse, that's one area where I think turning the other cheek enable pervs to do what they do, because in that line of thinking limits are removed.

In the case of beliefs, as long as they don't restrict others' freedom by opposing consent, and by forcing others to believe the same, happy go lucky. You speak about being open minded and then this comes along "If fluffy bunnies exist outside of this realm, and beam down thoughts through aliens, and it doesn't involve a church group, than its plausible" - and examplify likes and dislikes still apply when stating one is open minded.

Can't speak for others - which to seem to be popular: I have realized that I do shake off belief structures, I have shaken off, and it would surprise me if I didn't encounter both major and minor belief structure shake-offs in the contiuation of my path. To some extent, that seem to be one of the functions of the "afterlife".

Pratekya,

I've never made any claims as to what you are or called you a sheep and whatnot. I don't believe that of any Christian. I have no animosity for the religion or its people. I simply believe it has served its purpose and is no longer needed. I have explored as far into Christianity as I need to and I have taken the most fundamental aspects of it back with me. I live very much in the way that a Christian does, I just do not share the beliefs or completely put faith into the Bible. Am I open that Jesus was indeed that which he said he was? Yes I am. But what does it really matter? What is really the point of whether I adhere to a religion or not? There is no point. So long as that I am still spiritual, have a belief in a higher power, and know that love and compassion are important to life...religion serves absolutely no purpose for me other than its fundamental teachings. So I don't see what you're even arguing. I am as open minded as I think I am. I have no doubt of that.

But even if it were offered in complete proof that everything in the Bible was absolutely true, I would still find Christianity uninteresting to practice strictly. I'm very much aware that much of the Bible is in allegory and metaphor. I have attributed the concepts to my life. Am I finished with its teachings? No. I know there are things I have missed. I will discover these. You bring up emotional hangups on belief...but is it not completely plausible that every individual has to believe PRECISELY what they need to which is reasoned the best with their mind? I can't even imagine being any other way.

The Golden Rule works perfectly well without embellishment. The way I see, the Ten Commandments break the Golden Rule. Once you make a law you render the one RULE meaningless. The Golden Rule encourages open mindedness. You can make that Nazi argument all you like as it has been made hundreds of times on this board, but the Germans did what they did for fear of their own lives being taken if they didn't. We can see this mentality other places in the world today. It is happening. I am not saying that open mindedness makes living in a physical world easier or safer, but I am saying that it that in my own personal case it has made my spiritual decisions my own.

I take no issue with other ways but they are not my ways and if I give an opinion that is what it is. I think Jesus MAY have existed, but I see within the bible definite character inconsistencies within Jesus. Again, my opinion. I don't think he would  have claimed to be more than me. I see that as an invention of the church to control the masses. And mostly I see the Bible as a means of control. Every one has their own path. No one will ultimately follow anyone else's path. They may try but it is impossible to do it because we all have the ability to reason for ourselves and I'm sure there is a reason for that.

My comments are not against you, they are FOR me.

My parents are strong Jehovah's Witnesses and by the way they are very good people. My mother is... well she is perfect to me.

They always say they messed up with me, they say that they had fallen out of the faith and I wasn't raised with it....

So basically they are saying that when I was young and willing to believe anything they said THAT was the best time to mold me into a perfect little worshiper. And it does happen, kids can grow up and be told that God exists so much that they believe it, without a single doubt in they're mind.

Does that make it right to do that?

Does that mean that God exists?

Nope!  ;)

Hi Beau,

I think I know what you mean by the golden rule but can you reiterate what it means for you ? Thanks.

Dave

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love your neighbor as yourself." I hate to bring it up but even Hitler did not want to be exterminated, so he broke that rule. If we have no examples of the rule being broken then what is the point of having the rule? It is perfect in its simplicity the Golden Rule. I liken it to E=MC(2). Did you know that relative to the light itself it has no speed? I just learned that yesterday in a Peter Russell lecture on consciousness.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here could'nt that result (in theory) in a person who enjoys pain (i.e. a masochist) giving pain to another who does'nt enjoy it, he's doing unto others...

Would'nt an even more basic injunction be don't impose one's will on another....

D

Well, there ya go. My impression of what you said is taking the rule literally as one action equals the same action When I think of it, its a trade of actions. If I don't like this and you don't like that I won't do that to you.

The masochist perhaps doesn't like tickling so out of dread of being tickled he doesn't cause pain to one who hates pain. And of course that is a highly simplistic example.  I guess it is left up to the other's free will... I always think of the Golden Rule as not opposing another's free will, but I like the poetry of the other way of expressing it. It is general I know and you made me think it through. So like you said that's very good.

Pratekya, Thank you for you clarifying your view point. I am happy to see that you have an open mind about beliefs. To me that's extremely important. I also keep my mind open, although recent events all over the world have caused me to no longer believe in the good of many involved in organised religions. There are big problems, unlikely to go away any time soon, if ever. That said, these same problems have brought me closer to my God. If I read to much into your previous post, that you didn't mean, I apologise.
I beleave it important to keep beliefs fluid. Hopefully avoiding any personal entrapment in a BST once my time comes to be over there. I am a strong believer in my God. I am also a strong believer in your right to beleave in what you perceive to be God as well. They may well be the same God. I think part of my point is that even if we do look upon God from different view points, both our beliefs are as good as gold. Both correct.   It goes right to the top. I will go back to your post and reread it.   

Yes, Pratekya the points I have made also are not meant to make you feel that your postings are wrong, just that I find that they limit my perspective if I engage them for much time. I have considered much of what you write of in my life and I am the result of that consideration. It's all good.

Reading "Voyages into the Afterlife" last night I came across a passage as communicated to Bruce by a non physical friend he had earlier met at TMI. Many here probably remember reading about Ed Carter. (Ed was alive when Bruce originally met him at TMI and helped Bruce get his books published through Hampton Books.) One thing that he mentioned to Bruce while Bruce was attending his second X27 excursion at TMI was, (page 266) and talking about the coming shift in awareness (and lowering of the population levels on earth), "Between my fingers is the vast majority of human beings who will have difficulty with the coming shift of awareness. the biggest percentage of those people will have difficulty making the shift because of their religious beliefs. It's difficult to shift out of such a strong belief system, as you know."
That statement confirms others that also feel as I do about the need for fluidity in beliefs. I beleave it nessassary for my well being to believe in my God but not in organised religions. Once the change comes, our biggest recovery chore may well be helping get those entrapped within religions free of their perceived beliefs so as to enable them to find themselves and God/The Creator.

Yes. It's weird to me that I even know what you're talking when I really don't. It's hardly been a few months since I started to believe in a higher power, and a couple of weeks ago I started to getting this epiphany that I needed to help people understand what I'm going through and how to introduce it to them very casually. I'm a young person who is pretty involved with many people who appear to have no higher conscious or realization as to why they are here, nor the ability to want to learn. I have peeked a few interests at my thoughts so its a start.

Also, those of you that mention who does and does not have an open mind need to check yourself and recognize the difference between

"Keep yourself open to all considerations" (while of course using thought and reasoning to what strikes you as practical and impractical)

and

"Keep yourself open to THIS belief"

That isn't open mindedness.

"You're not open minded because you're not open to what I believe, which I have discovered is the best path" is a fool's thought. Respect all of the posters thoughts and beliefs and quit being pretentious. We're all here together to learn and share ourselves about a very powerful part of life. Debate is only healthy, but it gets pretty obnoxious when someone starts trying to form a line.

Two hundred years ago, the biologist William Paley published a huge book called Natural Theology. It contains detailed descriptions of hundreds of animals, birds, fish and plants — the carefully collated results of a lifetime spent studying and cataloguing nature.

Its detail is staggering, and Dr Paley’s book remains a landmark in historical biology.

But he didn’t intend it as a work of science. In fact, Paley was setting out to demonstrate something quite different: his idea was to prove beyond any doubt that God exists.
The book starts with a simple parable. Imagine you’ve just found a watch in the middle of a field — one of those old-fashioned clockwork pocket watches, presumably.

Now, what is it about the watch that makes it different from the stones and pebbles lying around?
The answer is design.

It’s obvious that the watch has been carefully constructed by a human watchmaker. The wheels, pinions, coils and chains inside the watch’s metal casing are shaped and assembled with a specific purpose in mind: telling the time. If the parts had been different, or fitted together in different ways, it wouldn’t do anything of the sort.

The chances of a watch being constructed by blind chance are astronomically small. Where we have something that’s clearly been designed for a specific purpose, we can safely say that a Designer gave it that purpose. Where there’s a watch, Paley points out, there must be a watchmaker.
Now Paley invites us to draw the comparison between the watch and the world of nature.

A fish’s eye is much larger and rounder than a mammal’s eye, with a crystalline lens that’s good at concentrating rays of light passed through water. As Paley wrote, “what plainer manifestation of design can there be than this difference?” Surely, if someone designed the watch, then by the same logic someone designed the fish? And the same goes for every other creature whose design is painstakingly described in Paley’s book.

Of course, Paley was hardly the first to come up with this idea. People throughout history have looked around them at the wonders of nature and intuitively asked themselves, “How else can we explain all this except by God?”

But these days there’s a problem. In the mid-19 century, Charles Darwin came along with an idea that changed the face of biology forever. His theory of evolution by natural selection did very nicely what Paley thought was impossible: it described how apparent design in nature can arise without any hint of a Designer. (Nature, to quote a modern-day Darwinian, is ‘the blind watchmaker’.)

Darwinism is no real threat to our faith. After all, the Genesis story can be illuminating and meaningful, even if it’s not literally true. But it is a problem for Paley, although he can’t be blamed — he was writing 50 years earlier than

Darwin. So was he barking up the wrong tree?
Well, surely there’s more in the universe to be explained than the design of a fish’s eye? If we agree that we don’t need God to explain the design of life on Earth, even then there are some puzzles. For instance, scientists tell us that the universe itself looks ‘designed’, and Darwinism can’t explain that.

The universe contains life. But not just any old universe would allow life to develop in the first place. To get life, you first need spatial dimensions, matter, energy, chemistry, atoms, stars, planets, gravity (and. antigravity, as it happens).

Luckily, our universe has all these things, and in precisely the right amounts to make it possible for life to develop. But without each of these key values being exactly as they are, there would be no atoms, no stars… no life. Can we really attribute the nature of the universe to coincidence? The odds against life are astronomical — a conservative estimate reckons the chance of generating a universe with just the right setup is about one in a billion. And yet — gasp — here we are!


So we’re forced to believe both that God exists, and He designed the universe in order to create human life, or that we owe our existence to an astronomically huge coincidence.

For a hardened atheist, the second option might look tempting. But think about it. Imagine that your next-door neighbor wins the lottery jackpot every single week for a year. Do you go on your merry way, thinking nothing of it? Maybe? (“Ah well, it’s an astronomically huge coincidence, but never mind!”)

Well, what if, one day, you find out that your neighbor’s brother works in the Lottery office and is in charge of handing out prizes? Do you still go on your merry way, without suspecting a thing? Of course not. A much better explanation for your neighbor’s ‘winning streak’ presents itself — that the whole thing is a fix.


The situation with the universe is similar. I suppose it’s remotely possible that the universe is special ‘just by chance’, in the same way that it’s remotely possible that my neighbor could have won the lottery every week for a year just by being very, very, very lucky.

But, as good scientists, we should prefer any alternative that doesn’t depend on such ridiculous coincidences. Dr Paley was a good scientist, so maybe he wasn’t so far wrong after all?

hi our planet formed as the result of the collision of the two planets,and then god took over and he created all spirit in the living things of this planet as all planet are solid mass,water and like jupiter continuious storms raging on and on for centuries and only god could have put the spirit into living things.

god is the creator of spirit as he is the all divine spirt of all creation.

i'm not sure but i think it was darwin that wrote of evolution but that is just the planet renewing all physical existence here but only god placed the spirit into this ongoing evolution,the planet is just god's garden of all living things and thats all.

without god we would all be like the planet,void of feelings and love, animals and plant life,trees and humans possess god's loving spirit because the divine spirit made things right.

love and god bless   love juditha

I'm just finishing up Hawking's A Short History of Time and I have to say it is stupendous. It's a short read and well worth that bit of time. It's not too heady but he explains why god could be possible and how the universe could be growing infinitely without a creator that intervenes with us day to day from a physics stand point and a few other possibilities.

Did Hawking entertain the possibility that there indeed can be a God who created everything out of nothing, including we humans, but Who didn't provide for our continuing survival after death?

Can we accept the existence of God without the existence of the afterlife?

The afterlife might simply be the creation of our own ego, which cannot grasp nor accept its eventual extinction.

R

I haven't quite finished the book but Hawking allows for the possibility that there was a creator, but so far he doesn't appear to entertain the idea that that creator interferes in anyway with the day to day function of the universe ...well ours anyway. I wish I had read this before reading Campbell's My Big TOE, because Tom discusses some of this theory and parts of his presentation were a little over my head, but Hawkings work surprisingly is a bit easier to understand even though he makes no argument for the afterlife. And really we know that experience of the afterlife is subjective at best and anyone who doesn't or refuses to make the effort for that subjective experience will never find their "personal" empirical evidence. It's a good quick easy read, A Brief History of Time. I dreaded cracking it open but it has been a true pleasure to read it.

I think God's true design is in nature itself. It didn't just happen overnight or in a week as we know it to be. The design was in nature and its balancing between order and chaos and its system includes the process of evolution. Also implemented to this balance is that love and order fuels all things that is good and chaos the opposite. Both create the balance, but what started with chaos develops with order.

Notice that all mammals appear very capable of love as we know it. If one considers protection to be love, perhaps it could be attributed to all life. Everything has a purpose. It's a very carefully designed system.

Even if you were to believe there is no cognitive influence on the systems of the universe, just to imagine an incognitive influence which can develop these systems is possibly even more remarkable. This would basically mean that while the universe may not be sentient, it would work as an incredibly complex and powerful computer capable of developing systems which are imperfect and perfect themselves over long periods of time. 

Our hope though, is that this system accounts for the consciousness of sentient life. Seeing as how everything is designed the way it is, I imagine that design has indeed implemented our eternal soul into its structure as means for assisting in the development for that design.

Or the other understanding is that we do not live on. The system is developed to account only for each being's one life and the design of our consciousness and mind is only for the purpose of continuing the system.

This would also mean that our psychics, mediums, and meditators are actually insane and have unlocked an incredible ability through the imagination by way of the attack on the ego to deal with mortality.

Being someone who has both physically seen (with witnesses to attest) apparitions of a human being and experienced paranormal activities, I find it very difficult to believe that there is not more to this one life or that I will never ever get to truly understand why there is life and what was responsible for it.

Perhaps it may be pushing the envelope to say "I know there is a God." As we truly do not know the meaning of that word and the nature of god. "God" is simply a word which has a different meaning between individuals. What I really mean to say when I say "God" is that
"I know there is a designer."

The designer could indeed be a sort of super computer developed from energy over a period of time which constitutes numbers we haven't established yet, and in itself developed its own systems of design.

The designer could indeed be that of a higher sentient life form(s) so evolved it genetically engineered us but also developed the means to eternal consciousness through evolution and biological life.

Or as I have theorized most often, the nature of the designer is beyond our ability to imagine and we do obtain consciousness after death solely to experience the power of this designer and evolve to be one with it or become just like it and develop our own universes.

Or it is just as we have read in books and one of the many religions of history was right all along.

Complex virtual simulations, alien engineering, yada yada yada. The theories are many. Sorry my posts are long but it is necessary for me. I'm going to post beneath this one to develop further on my personal theory.

Quote:

4696862636A63060 link=1270067144/55#55 date=1270470972]Did Hawking entertain the possibility that there indeed can be a God who created everything out of nothing, including we humans, but Who didn't provide for our continuing survival after death? Can we accept the existence of God without the existence of the afterlife?

Hi Rondele,

Stephen Hawking has always been a committed absolute atheist, so much so the his first wife, a firm believer in God, divorced him

Alan

Hawking may be an Atheist, but in his book, he supposes many times of the possibility of a god and speaks of the Church's intentional meddling with what is now obvious. My point is he does not write that "there can be no god and this is why". He chooses science of evolution over a guided evolution perhaps, but there is no evidence of his taking that side in the book.

Reading the book will make for much more rewarding comments, I imagine. It is a quick read for sure.

Regardless of Hawking's view it has instilled in me a greater respect for some kind of creation process, that involves a god or otherwise.

Sounds like Hawking is more like an agnostic to me. Atheists believe firmly that there is not a god. I think they are silly, as most of them seem to make their definition of god the same as the Christians. A lot of atheists find they don't agree with Christianity and then go "I don't believe in God." And thats as far as they take it, and they consider that being an atheist.

But to even have any concept of God, even as just a theory, is not atheism. An atheist says "I do not believe in god, a creator, or a conscious/cognitive designer. I believe in science."

Not having a full belief and being open to the concepts of everything including religion and science, makes one an agnostic. Agnostics are just people who are open to all possibilities, but use self reasoning, evidence, and thought to decide what is personally practical. I am an agnostic.

I've never met an atheist or a fundamentalist who was actively engaging the process of how it is that we came to be and are here. They have made up there minds with little to no evidence and thus can rarely be swayed by dialog.

Right. I became an atheist at 13. I did so because I defied Christianity, and since that god was the only one I could conceive of at the time and decided I no longer wanted to believe in it, an atheist was my option. That was as far as I thought it through. From there it just became entertaining to see how many Christians I could unsettle with my beliefs. Ah. To be young.  ::)

But as I have gotten older I have begun to question more. Though I never got as deep as I can get now, I would say I never left the subject behind. Atheists tend to leave the subject completely behind and just go with their belief with no evidence, reason, or intellectual thought to support it. Believing only in science, and more often actually having no idea what science is anyway or that it can actually teach a lot about forming a belief system.

But sometimes I guess it does require something physically evident to break the conscious of an atheist. Based on what I've seen, all atheists that changed their views experienced something of a spiritual significance. For me it was haunted places and seeing ghosts. At that point I could no longer sit comfortably as an atheist. I developed an open, agnostic view and allowed that openness to construct itself for a few years. Now here I am, looking for conclusive answers and exploring my mind.

Here is what is really weird, though. I've seen the word "New Age" tossed around a bit and I have ignored it. But I came across the word again while looking at an artist's work and decided to find out what it meant.

After reading more about it, I just discovered that a lot of where my belief system is heading is quite comparable to the New Age movement. I didn't choose it that way, it's just kind of developed on my own and as I've read the wikipedia on it so far I was kind of like "Huh? Now that's strange I didn't know about this."

Though i've seen some more or less negative comments directed towards the New Age stuff, or maybe I misunderstood that. Just pretty much reading the first paragraph on Wikipedia tells me I've become a "New Ager" and had absolutely no idea.  :-?

Great...I'm a hippie. Haha. I suppose I already knew that though. Once you've combined drugs with a deep thinking mind, there really isn't any way of going back.

A  few months ago we had a popular thread in here about atheists and Supermodel pointed out that she was an atheist who believed in an afterlife and there were some who questioned that and even poked a little fun at the idea, but actually there is nothing out of line with that thinking unless you believe in the fundamental god of most organized religions. If an atheist can believe in the afterlife I had to reevaluate myself a little because I had never considered it really.

But it makes a lot sense to me. More sense than a god with human ego qualities made in man's own image.

I kind of like the idea of everyone pitching in as in the old adage "it takes a village to raise a child".

I might have poked a little fun at her too. Well maybe not in that sense. But it sounds to me like she was giving "atheist" her own definition. Which I suppose there is nothing wrong with that, but then she can't get out of shape if people argue with her because her definition does conflict the mass understanding of the word. She would definitely be the first atheist I've come across that believed in the afterlife.

But though her view may more often be argued against, I can understand it. Atheists tend to believe that all which exists just kind of happened, without any influence from a higher consciousness.

If you really think about it, if they find the concept of a conscious designer too "fantastical" or "magical" I find the concept that everything was created without conscious influence much, much more "fantastical" and "magical." Considering how well everything is designed and how all of the systems are structured, for everything to have been created without any conscious influence would be so incredibly miraculous that the comprehension is beyond human capacity. It's straight up magic.

Now as an agnostic, I cannot debunk such a theory. Our whole thing is consideration. But using the knowledge and thought provided to me, I would argue that only something of consciousness/cognition could design so elaborately.

Again, this is strictly based on what humans understand. The sense of magic and lack of conscious creation is completely against anything we find evident. Its interesting that when an atheist really pushes with their beliefs they may find that their view actually paints a very magical and powerful concept.

I usually think of them as just wanting to ignore everything beyond their material life and what they can read and experience physically. But if they really try to establish their philosophy, they will see it contradicts any belief that "magical" or "surreal" elements do not exist. So this opens me up to a different view of atheists. Though they rarely practice their own philosophy.

Yeah this is all very interesting to me. Since I had never considered an afterlife without a creator I had to look at it and I guess since I believe it all comes back to ONE thing ultimately, and yes that is a belief that I use to get from one idea to another, I had to admit that a creator is the most logical idea, though it is unknowable in so many respects. I, however, am not at all opposed to the idea that the creator is a collective process rather than in anyway operating outside of our own consciousness.

Its just difficult for me to imagine it without a creator. It seems to be that the people who have a problem imagining a creator usually try to interpret its nature, rather than just focusing on it existing at all. Like trying to figure out what something looks like before even accepting if that something is even real.

The nature is left completely to our imagination, and I think this is probably true after death as well. The will of things is left to our own minds and perception. It could be that our biological/physical existence is from a physical source (like aliens/advanced races) and our soul/spiritual existence is from a spiritual source. Basically saying that creation is a team process and not from one single entity or source.

I actually like that concept better than most others. My imagination has come up with very extreme interpretations to the nature of god. Like that our existence is actually a single thought produced from the universe/god/creator. Time works separately to it, so while a thought is only a moment for us, a thought from this being lasts the billions of years the planet has existed. But thats an extreme rationalization brought straight from my imagination.

I do very much think it is impossible to conclude on the nature of the "universal designer" in the physical world. That information is left for us to explore after death.

Now it could be that we discover the truth to how the physical world/Earth was manifested and the source to it. But the information as to what lies beyond the physical can only truly be accessed from beyond the physical.

Nah mean?

I don't see any reason to connect a creator and an after life.  You could easily have one with out the other...that has pretty much always been my belief...I know there's an afterlife, I've seen far too much evidence.  I've never seen any evidence at all of a creator, though of course you can't prove a negative.

One doesn't really require the other, anyway.

..... some have argued that a creator adds in an extra (unnecessary) thing to explain i.e. the creation of the creator !

Relative to our "reality" (C1) consciousness is most likely fundamental so it could easily preclude a creator ...relative to us anyway.

I'm just saying that everything is way too incredibly designed to trust that there is absolutely nothing that willed it that way. I don't see why you wouldn't see any reason for a designer to exist, as there is nothing evident in this world to back any theory that something can be created without an influence. Otherwise you are completely believing in magic. That something can just appear or happen without a valid cause. Sorry, but the Big Bang doesn't really support the Afterlife and it can't be truly proven anymore than God. The Afterlife was also clearly designed. Designed by spirits? It's still a conscious entity. And how did the spirits come into being?

It doesn't matter that one thing creates a question because there will always be a question until a valid answer is provided to it all.

Based on everything we know, does it make more sense that everything was designed by a conscious source or that it just happened by a random chance? A random chance that has created a multitude of very complex, unique, and nearly perfected systems.

There is absolutely nothing on Earth that is created without the influence of something else. Nothing. I feel like someone that can't comprehend how incredibly well designed nature is, is ignoring something very special. The Earth/physical world is no illusion. You can find the beauty of design just about everywhere if you look for it.

I would say that the beauty of a design in EVERY where. I have to address that in such a way as to conclude that physical reality IS a hologram and that is why it constantly reflects back on itself.  I can't go back to before the big bang or even right at it. so I might argue that consciousness was always present in some form relative to US, but I do think consciousness has always evolved as Campbell says toward lower entropy or Love. Reason would dictate however that if it is evolving even now then it must have been created along a line of existence somewhere. I think however that it happened before the big bang and is completely unknowable, so relative to us in the state such as we are that beginning is undefinable.

[b]E:\Thomas Aquinas Arguments for the Existence of God.htm

Thomas Aquinas: Five Arguments for the Existence of God.
Summa Theologiae, Question 2, Article 3:[/b]

It seems that God does not exist, for if one of two contrary things were infinite, its opposite would be completely destroyed. By "God," however, we mean some infinite good.

Therefore, if God existed evil would not. Evil does exist in the world, however. Therefore God does not exist.
Furthermore, one should not needlessly multiply elements in an explanation.

It seems that we can account for everything we see in this world on the assumption that God does not exist. All natural effects can be traced to natural causes, and all contrived effects can be traced to human reason and will. Thus there is no need to suppose that God exists.

But on the contrary God says, "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:14).
Response: It must be said that God's existence can be proved in five ways.

The first and most obvious way is based on the existence of motion. It is certain and in fact evident to our senses that some things in the world are moved. Everything that is moved, however, is moved by something else, for a thing cannot be moved unless that movement is potentially within it.

A thing moves something else insofar as it actually exists, for to move something is simply to actualize what is potentially within that thing. Something can be led thus from potentiality to actuality only by something else which is already actualized.

For example, a fire, which is actually hot, causes the change or motion whereby wood, which is potentially hot, becomes actually hot.

Now it is impossible that something should be potentially and actually the same thing at the same time, although it could be potentially and actually different things. For example, what is actually hot cannot at the same moment be actually cold, although it can be actually hot and potentially cold.

Therefore it is impossible that a thing could move itself, for that would involve simultaneously moving and being moved in the same respect. Thus whatever is moved must be moved by something, else, etc. This cannot go on to infinity, however, for if it did there would be no first mover and consequently no other movers, because these other movers are such only insofar as they are moved by a first mover.

For example, a stick moves only because it is moved by the hand. Thus it is necessary to proceed back to some prime mover which is moved by nothing else, and this is what everyone means by "God."

The second way is based on the existence of efficient causality. We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause. If it were, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.

Nevertheless, the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity, for in any such order the first is cause of the middle (whether one or many) and the middle of the last. Without the cause, the effect does not follow.

Thus, if the first cause did not exist, neither would the middle and last causes in the sequence. If, however, there were an infinite regression of efficient causes, there would be no first efficient cause and therefore no middle causes or final effects, which is obviously not the case. Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God."

The third way is based on possibility and necessity. We find that some things can either exist or not exist, for we find them springing up and then disappearing, thus sometimes existing and sometimes not. It is impossible, however, that everything should be such, for what can possibly not exist does not do so at some time.

If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed. If this were true, however, then nothing would exist now, for something that does not exist can begin to do so only through something that already exists.

f, therefore, there had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever have begun to exist, and thus there would be nothing now, which is clearly false. Therefore all beings cannot be merely possible. There must be one being which is necessary.

Any necessary being, however, either has or does not have something else as the cause of its necessity. If the former, then there cannot be an infinite series of such causes, any more than there can be an infinite series of efficient causes, as we have seen.

Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."

The fourth way is based on the gradations found in things. We find that things are more or less good, true, noble, etc.; yet when we apply terms like "more" and "less" to things we imply that they are closer to or farther from some maximum.

For example, a thing is said to be hotter than something else because it comes closer to that which is hottest. Therefore something exists which is truest, greatest, noblest, and consequently most fully in being; for, as Aristotle says, the truest things are most fully in being.

That which is considered greatest in any genus is the cause of everything is that genus, just as fire, the hottest thing, is the cause of all hot things, as Aristotle says. Thus there is something which is the cause of being, goodness, and every other perfection in all things, and we call that something "God."

The fifth way is based on the governance of things. We see that some things lacking cognition, such as natural bodies, work toward an end, as is seen from the fact hat they always (or at least usually) act the same way and not accidentally, but by design.

Things without knowledge tend toward a goal, however, only if they are guided in that direction by some knowing, understanding being, as is the case with an arrow and archer. Therefore, there is some intelligent being by whom all natural things are ordered to their end, and we call this being "God."

To the first argument, therefore, it must be said that, as Augustine remarks, "since God is the supreme good he would permit no evil in his works unless he were so omnipotent and good that he could produce good even out of evil."

To the second, it must be said that, since nature works according to a determined end through the direction of some superior agent, whatever is done by nature must be traced back to God as its first cause. in the same way, those things which are done intentionally must be traced back to a higher cause which is neither reason nor human will, for these can change and cease to exist and, as we have seen, all such things must be traced back to some first principle which is unchangeable and necessary, as has been shown.

Comments anyone?

Alan

I would only replace God with the word Consciousness since none of this implies that what was first is firstly still in charge outside of what we know and can observe. As for Good without Evil ( of which I believe in neither ), that is a mighty big assumption. There is nothing in my view that supports the duality of consciousness, it just is.

Beau wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 3:07am:

I would only replace God with the word Consciousness since none of this implies that what was first is firstly still in charge outside of what we know and can observe. As for Good without Evil ( of which I believe in neither ), that is a mighty big assumption. There is nothing in my view that supports the duality of consciousness, it just is.

Hi Beau,

What about night and day, black and white, positive and negative war and peace, good and evil, life and death, joy and sorrow,night and day.

The, infinite mind, the all, God or super consciousness generates enormous waves of vibratory energy through the effort of his will and manifests the sub-atomic and atomic particles of which all manifested matter in the universe is made. All matter is obviously subject to Gods will and efforts and behave according to firmly established known, and unknown laws of physics

Regards

Alan

I have thought about these things Alan. Night is not a creation, it is a physical cause of matter blocking the Sun's rays. As for the other instances you mentioned,  War and Peace and such are not creations of anything but the physical mind reacting to fear which is the choice to overcome ego or be ruled by it. Our existence in this plane is dual, that I would certainly grant you, but ultimately there is only what is and that is consciousness. As for your above post Super Consciousness suits me fine as a definition as long it does not imply a separation relative to us of that consciousness. Again, I would have to substitute Consciousness for a god in this theory we are discussing. Unknown Laws of physics, well yeah, there you go. Our C1 Consciousness is a subset of our greater consciousness as the Actor self is the greater portion of the character we portray here. The need for a separate god at the center does not seem necessary to me, but to assuage our own ego. This a fairly new line of thought for me so I'm working it out. I think there is a hierarchy of something within consciousness that gives us the incentive to pull our selves up by our boot straps, but that is creation of consciousness and that it may only be relevant here in C1 as we attempt to grow the whole of consciousness or what you call God. Based on this I would have to resolve that Super Consciousness or God is evolving always and not stagnant though relative to us this great thing can appear already perfect.

Beau- concepts which are scary and empowering at the same time... interesting stuff !

Beau wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 5:11am:

I have thought about these things Alan. Night is not a creation, it is a physical cause of matter blocking the Sun's rays. As for the other instances you mentioned,  War and Peace and such are not creations of anything but the physical mind reacting to fear which is the choice to overcome ego or be ruled by it. Our existence in this plane is dual, that I would certainly grant you, but ultimately there is only what is and that is consciousness. As for your above post Super Consciousness suits me fine as a definition as long it does not imply a separation relative to us of that consciousness. Again, I would have to substitute Consciousness for a god in this theory we are discussing. Unknown Laws of physics, well yeah, there you go. Our C1 Consciousness is a subset of our greater consciousness as the Actor self is the greater portion of the character we portray here. The need for a separate god at the center does not seem necessary to me, but to assuage our own ego. This a fairly new line of thought for me so I'm working it out. I think there is a hierarchy of something within consciousness that gives us the incentive to pull our selves up by our boot straps, but that is creation of consciousness and that it may only be relevant here in C1 as we attempt to grow the whole of consciousness or what you call God. Based on this I would have to resolve that Super Consciousness or God is evolving always and not stagnant though relative to us this great thing can appear already perfect.

Beau,

Are you really an atheist that would be a strange person in this forum of whom mostly are all believers in god each in our own unique way?

My near death experience made me move away from atheism, I believe the entity that accompanied in that event was an angel of some sort or a representative of the infinite one. In my opinion we are all separate molecules with the great infinite eternal ocean which we call god

Alan, I'm not even an agnostic ...I feel a god is part of all consciousness, there is no separation so to identify with something separate from me or you makes no sense to me. that's all I"m saying.

The problem that many people have with God is caused by their natural tendency to humanize Him.

They think of God as a benevolent father figure and then get upset when bad things happen to good people and get angry and blame God for not protecting us.

Someone said God isn't Love, but Love is God.  That sounds about right at least to me.

If that's the case, I don't know how anyone can worship Love.  Yes, we can try as best we can to act loving toward others, as difficult that is most of the time.

In fact, maybe loving others IS the way we worship God.

R

Right ON Rondele! That's the ticket!

The good and evil one is easy. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. One cannot exist without the other. There is no positive without negative. No yin without yang. You can only IMAGINE one without the other. You can imagine a world with nothing but good and a complete absence of evil. But how could that good have come to be? It would not even be good. It would just be the nature of that world, and nothing there would even be able to conceive that its nature was actually "good" because there is absolutely nothing else to compare it to and no one would have pure free will.

But by introducing evil, you expand the choices of free will to man. The consciousness can decipher on its own to choose one or choose both and decide the extremes of each. Evil has to exist to develop the consciousness towards its very own full understanding of both and how they contribute and affect us. It makes perfect sense to me. A world without evil is an imaginary world. Without evil our entire nature would change and free will would be more limited. Evil does not exist because "God" created it. Nothing ever told anyone "be evil!" The human makes that decision. It's all part of free will. Period.

And I agree about humanizing God. I have difficulty doing this. Unless Jesus really is the humanized version of God. Which I don't think so. My interpretation is that we won't even know its nature after death, but will know it exists and that it is truly the most miraculous thing which is possible to conceive. Our evolution in the Afterlife will be to merge with it. This won't happen immediately. It's another free will choice that must be developed.

"Maybe loving others IS the way we worship God."

I don't think there is a maybe to that. I think it's certain. What do we know to be the most powerful emotion, and most significant power in our lives? Love. Absolutely. If love is our greatest power, and "God" is the greatest power, then love is God. But love is not forced to us. We can acknowledge or ignore it. More of the wonderful thing that is free will.

Now if you want to argue that "knowledge," "thought," or "consciousness" are our most significant power, I would ask you to re think that. There are many creatures on this planet that do not display any of those things the same that we do. But one thing we can see of significance for most creatures is love. 

Is it just instinct that an animal protects its young? Or that herds, packs and prides protect, clean, and feed each other? Then you could argue that love is only an instinct. Fine. Then it's an instinct. You know love when you see it, and you know what comes from it.

But i'll do you one better than "God is love." God is love. God is knowledge. God is thought. God is imagination.

God is all that is good in the universe and everything we need to advance our planet, our species, and ourselves. That is God, and you would do really well to recognize it.

Beau wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 12:04pm:

Alan, I'm not even an agnostic ...I feel a god is part of all consciousness, there is no separation so to identify with something separate from me or you makes no sense to me. that's all I"m saying.

I somewhat agree with this, and I think I get your concept now and I want to maybe expand on it.

"God" is the universe of all which is, and it does not have its own individual consciousness but is actually a complete collective consciousness of all that exists. I'm God. You're God. We are all part of God. Everything that does exist makes up the existence of God, and thus everything is connected through the systems which make up the "anatomy of God." That is its nature.

We aren't going to find an individual entity, source, or establishment for God because we have already found it. We are it. We've been it. To find God you need look no farther than your hand. A blade of grass. A tree. Your best friend. But to truly see God you must look with all that is good. Even the Afterlife is God. It's just the next part of transcending and getting closer to it. We certainly can't be perfect here. So we shed the caterpillar for the butterfly and keep flying until perfection is the only thing that exists.

Is this maybe close to your interpretation? Because I can get down with this. I rather like it, and it makes sense to me. I kind of like the irony it could present to people too. Everyone looking or thinking of this single source for existence that is hanging out somewhere, when all they really needed to do was look around. It makes so much sense, and just the idea alone can expand our consciousness.

I do just want to make one more point regarding our world. I really don't think trying to interpret it as a "virtual reality" is necessary beyond the means of a metaphor because believing it is such is believing that it isn't real. This isn't an illusion, a dream, or a video game. It exists with or without you, and it doesn't exist as a prison or without purpose. It may be inferior to what we want it to be, but everyone needs to accept that there is nothing beyond humanity that makes life unacceptable for the individual. We need only look at ourselves, the people around us, and the rest of the world to see what contributes to life not being satisfactory. The world is real and its our responsibility to take care of it and each other. This place exists so that we can make these connections. It exists so that we know pain. We know hate. We know remorse, grief, despair, and everything we wish abolished. It exists so that we know love, beauty, gratitude, and everything that makes us smile. It exists so that we have complete freedom to find God. Or to not find God. This place is in the hands of nature, and we are part of nature while we're alive here. To think it an illusion is to disrespect it. It serves so much more purpose than to just inhabit.

And I just think that if you don't have gratitude for your life here and whats around you and only want to focus on the world beyond this one, that it's a mistake. I ask everyone reading to consider that.

Good posts Stone,

I would just say that believing the world to be a virtual reality is only a metaphor. It is real relative to our existence in it. There are no flaws in the program that one would easily pick up on. It's not the same as a video game but the use of a physical body to get around in is the only thing that makes it real to the consciousness. It is a reality frame, just like dreaming or OOB. We give more attachment to it because we are hardwired to feel that way just like we are in a non lucid dream. When we are lucid in the physical reality dream then and only then do we see things for what they are. Consciousness is the only true experience is really what I'm saying. How consciousness interprets data brings this or any other reality to life. I'm not talking about the separation edge of consciousness that is really an ego thing. I mean the part of our consciousness that is fundamental.

Beau wrote on Apr 9^th, 2010 at 4:32am:

Good posts Stone, I would just say that believing the world to be a virtual reality is only a metaphor. It is real relative to our existence in it. There are no flaws in the program that one would easily pick up on. It's not the same as a video game but the use of a physical body to get around in is the only thing that makes it real to the consciousness. It is a reality frame, just like dreaming or OOB. We give more attachment to it because we are hardwired to feel that way just like we are in a non lucid dream. When we are lucid in the physical reality dream then and only then do we see things for what they are. Consciousness is the only true experience is really what I'm saying. How consciousness interprets data brings this or any other reality to life. I'm not talking about the separation edge of consciousness that is really an ego thing. I mean the part of our consciousness that is fundamental.

I had a very large discussion with my brother about this tonight. He was telling me about his fears and insecurities and things he wished he could absolve in his mentality, and I went into a deep explanation that this was due to the fact that his ego was in the driver seat of his life and the only natural method to changing this was to increase his consciousness and allow it to overpower the ego. Once he could do that, the ego would be much easier to control and the relationship between his increased consciousness and ego would make life much easier and more enjoyable.

I told him consciousness was the perception, understanding, and observation of everything outside of the mind and the best method for now at increasing it is to focus your thoughts away from the ego every day. Focus on nature, and bring the who? what? when? why? and how? to as many things as you find curious which does not involve yourself. Do this every day and as often as it is convenient and you will eventually notice the change.

Someone said to me once that increasing consciousness was basically to just become a philosopher. I didn't completely disagree but there are shades of gray. You kind of require the ego to increase the consciousness, but that's part of it. The two create an amazing balance when they work together. You really don't want to have one without the other. But I would agree you want to give more leverage to the consciousness and keep the ego at bay, which is pretty easy once the consciousness does ascend the ego.

But i've been able to see how most of people's problems are due to not having a leash on that ego. Increasing my consciousness was the true assault on my depression. My ego does still get away from time to time, but over time I expect a really good balance to be made.

Do you think being a philosopher implies operating from a belief? And one that you want to share kind of out of ego? I thought you might be hitting on that a bit. I like to think of myself as trying to make a scientific sense out of my subjective experiences but without the need to reach out to others for approval of it. Well, maybe Descartes didn't care for approval either. Not sure, of course.

But naturally there is an element of philosophy connected with anything in the realm we discuss, huh.

And yes, we certainly do require the ego to function here, no doubt. I guess it comes down to who is doing the driving, the chauffeur ego or the Self passenger. I want to tell my driver where I'm going. :D

I've been reading the bible a lot lately and one overall theme I see is God is constantly telling people I will deliver them into your hands and go kill all of those people and kill these people kill kill kill and then I stop and think about the current world and even though we still kill people we generally don't do mass slaughters of people today. I think many humans have evolved into a level of life in which we know better than to go wantonly killing.

My point is, you would think God would be happy about this and would maybe give us a heads up that we are doing pretty well. I mean here in America people kill other people sure, but we don't make armies and go attacking large tribes of people and killing them. When I think about it, it looks more and more like these famous people in the bible are all just using the name of God to "ok" they're fighting and help trick the stupid and gullible people into believing the war is God's war and therefore improving morale.

I just don't think killing is right, period. But Yahweh/Jehovah definitely approves of killing. (According to the bible.)

Edit: Actually God went from saying we shalt not kill to saying oh yeah kill those people they are bad. WTF?

Starcraft,

Ignore the Old Testament God. You and I both know that is not a god worth worshipping. If its possible to think of God in any aspect that you think is more flawed than yourself, then obviously it isn't so great and therefore is no more worth worshipping than any Pagan god. Just think of ole Yahweh as the most recent Zeus. He was created specifically as a means for order and control, especially for that time period.

If there just HAS to be religion, then I would at least hope that one day we get a god who people can no longer have conflictions with and truly signifies the perfection of all that is.

Beau,

I think a philosopher implies reasoning and deep thought to create a belief, theory, or general understanding of anything. A good philosopher relies on both the ego and the conscious to operate with. The best philosophers in my opinion, were agnostics. I think even agnostics deny being agnostic just because it contains a label. I've been like that before. I usually just tell people I'm not religious and I keep an open mind, but by the definition I would be considered an agnostic. Agnostics are much more complex than most people realize.

Atheistic philosophers constantly argue and create their thoughts from the opposition of religions. They don't focus enough on conscious thoughts mixed with finding what best suits the ego. It's all about trying to disprove religion. Because their belief is formed around not believing in a god, so is all of their thoughts, theories, and opinions.

But I don't think a philosopher has to operate on or from belief at all. I create theories that I deduce from knowledge, observation, and reasoning. I never turn these theories into beliefs because that would require closing my mind to the concept. I instead only share them to provoke thought and consciousness in others, and allow them to assist with the development. Not sharing the idea is much more egotistical. Never give but always offer.

As for the car ride, the ego is constantly wanting to drive. This is the problem with most people, in that they cannot control the ego like a parent unable to control a child. But if they would allow the conscious to drive a little they would see that it tames the ego. Everything I've read of the Afterlife, the focus levels, and all that stuff seems to imply the ego does not die with our bodies, but depending on how much control it was given will be the deciding factor in what happens next.

Yeah Stone,

I would say the ego no more dies than the character dies as they are both kind of the same thing, but the character, in many cases more and more, is trying to understand it's own consciousness so that is a step in the better direction, I think. I do think the ego if less powerful at the transition because it has to take a back seat to the new discoveries.

It's definitely less powerful. It doesn't so much "die" or disappear at any point in time, but with the rise in consciousness it can no longer remain on its own. If the ego is the character, then the character comes to the realization that it is the actor and thus removes the limitation of the character life. That movie The Truman Show does really well at giving a visual aesthetic to the metaphor.

I completely agree with you about the Truman Show. Jim Carrey is a very spiritual guy. He's totally into Tolle.

Tolle is essentially pulling from the Sant Mat tradition.

I read all that but the gist of it seems to be that you are saying God created the beginning of space and time and God was not created, God always existed.

Your main reason is because everything has a cause.

What caused God?

Knowing the cause of creation will always be an unknown until you are once again one with the whole. It's like trying to do calculus in 2nd grade sort of. The mechanics of how the math works are just such foreign ideas at the time. Here we are a subset with a a much larger superset that makes it impossible to know ourselves fully beyond what we perceive from the physical. We just have to keep plugging along ...or not. Our free will is where our choice lies right now and not in greater knowledge when we are not experiencing a non physical reality per se.

It's really just a question that cannot be answered. Bottom line. If there's an afterlife, I imagine that is when we can discover the real answer to these bigger questions beyond "does God exist?" For now, that is really the only question we need to focus on and until you can answer that for YOURSELF, the questions following aren't the issue.

wrote on Apr 10^th, 2010 at 1:55am:

I read all that but the gist of it seems to be that you are saying God created the beginning of space and time and God was not created, God always existed. Your main reason is because everything has a cause. What caused God?

Starcraft -
  Just a couple main points here to respond to your post.  First, as for your statement that

Quote:

Your main reason is because everything has a cause.

Actually that's not what I'm saying; I'm being more precise than that.  I'm arguing that everything that comes into existence has a cause.  This is called the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and is supported by the experience of all of humanity.  So again, the universe came into existence, and so it had a cause.  God did not come into existence, and so your following question

Quote:

What caused God?

misunderstands the finer point that I am making.  God is the ultimate uncaused agent you could say.  There is a first cause, something that prevents us from arguing back to infinity from now.  By the way, this is Kalaam's Cosmological Argument as recently championed by William Lane Craig.
  An additional point to get at what you might be implying (that we can have an infinite amount of causes), let me explain why an infinity of causes has been shown to be a false idea.  First of all, there is not an infinite number of physical things in the universe.  The thing I would guess we have the most of in the universe might be say an electron, or a proton, or maybe some quark.  But there is a finite number of even those.  There is no physical thing that we have an infinite amount of in the universe.  In terms of events (= time) being the infinite number of things that we are talking about, that is false as shown by something called Hilbert's Hotel (you can look this up for more examples of what I'm about to talk about if you like).
  Imagine for a moment that there is a hotel with an infinite amount of rooms, with an infinite amount of occupants in those rooms.  Suppose someone walks up to the manager, and asks if he could have a room.  Certainly the manager replies, I have an infinite amount of rooms.  Everyone shuffles from one room to the next: room 1 goes to 2, 2 to 3, and so on, and since there is an infinite number of rooms then it simply won't matter; we won't be limited.  So the new guest can take the first room.  However, isn't there a contradiction?  Aren't there more people in the hotel after the new guest added?  But in another sense there are still the same amount of people; there are still an infinite amount of hotel guests.  The solution to the contradiction is that at least one of the premises are false.  Our premise here is that you can have an infinite amount of hotel rooms, and hotel guests.  Clearly then we would say the premise is false.
  Or a more extreme example; say with the same hotel you wanted to make room, and got rid of all of the odd number room guests.  You would still have the same number of guests, an infinite amount!  But how can this be?  We just got rid of a multitude, an infinity of guests.... it leads to a contradiction, meaning in philosophical terms that our premise must be false.  In other words, there can not be an infinite number of things in the universe because it leads to contradictions, including things such as events.  I would say on top of this, we know scientifically that the universe had a beginning.
  So the question
Quote:

What caused God?

is simply incorrect, because you cannot have an infinite regression of things, and because my argument for the existence of God does not rest on an infinite regression as you seem to be suggesting.  God is what you get when you stop the regression; the initial first cause of everything, or as has been said before, the ground of all existence.

That theory suits if this is the only universe. A god could have been created just as you have been. It is an unanswerable question from in side the subset of this universe, just as your intestines have no idea about the origin of you. The intestines exist surely, but within a lessor decision space.

I think the stuff about "infinite" is spot on. The only thing that is infinite is the ONE and because of its infinity it must remain unknown to us.

And it is only relatively infinite most likely. Just as we must seem infinite to the cells in our intestines, or wherever in your body you want to put that emphasis.

Quote:

That theory suits if this is the only universe.

That is true in a sense; this is the only universe we know of and only one we will ever have the possibility of knowing anything about, and so its fair to say that we should confine our knowledge of the situation at hand and the chain of causality that extends out of this physical universe.  Who knows, maybe there is another universe made up of purple dinosaurs that love children.  We have no way of knowing, and so to make that comment simply is distracting, because if there are other universes they will never have any bearing on this discussion besides speculation.  To say 'this theory suits if this is the only universe' should be something like 'this theory suits', although I hesitate to put words in your mouth.  I'm just saying alternate universes are worse than useless; they are a distraction from searching for truth in a given situation that we are in.

Quote:

A god could have been created just as you have been. It is an unanswerable question from in side the subset of this universe, just as your intestines have no idea about the origin of you. The intestines exist surely, but within a lessor decision space.

This falls under the fallacy of infinite regression.  If you want to delay an ultimate godhead, I suppose that is doable for a while, but eventually there must be one first cause if we are to avoid the fallacies I have pointed out.
  What is answerable though about our universe is that a chain of causation exists that leads out of it.
 
Quote:

And it is only relatively infinite most likely. Just as we must seem infinite to the cells in our intestines, or wherever in your body you want to put that emphasis.

I think the analogy is appropriate; God is above us even more than we are above our intestines, however the relatively infinite comment is again speculation and delaying the inevitable God that must exist as a first cause.

There is no reason to make the assumption that a god exists outside of ourselves. It is an assumption, the same as assuming there isn't one. It could be that everything has a beginning. It is beyond my pay grade. My point is: It is all speculation. For me it is speculation that you exist as I'm sure it should be the same for you that I do. When you use a word like "speculation" as a premise for ignoring one thing and then all the while defending your own speculation it is kind of annoying. I'm just saying.

Beau -
  I disagree.  It is speculation to suggest there are alternative universes that operate with different rules, or that what we call God is simply a sub God with a greater God in a parent universe, etc.  However it is not speculation to suggest there is a God because of the evidence of the universe that we are in points to one.
  As for my evidence-based (non-speculating) reasons for why I believe there is a God, as a recap: 1/ the chain of causation that extends outside of the universe being discussed here 2/ the anthropic principle; how the universe has been fine tuned for life 3/ the existence of morality as understood by experience suggesting there is an absolute good and evil 4/ near death experiences 5/ the historical evidence of the life of Jesus Christ and incredible historical impact he had including the message he taught.  Note nothing of what I've argued here is based on speculation.  On the other hand, I don't see any reasons for pretty much anything mentioned here except reasons beginning with things like "I think that...".  It seems this site encourages speculation, encourages simply people just making up whatever they believe to be true because it seems nice to them, rather than discovering truth even if it is unpalatable or not what they imagine or want things to be like.  I guess my question is, is the afterlife/God there to be discovered, or is the afterlife/God simply our creation?  I say discovered, based on evidence, but I think a lot of people here act as if it is to be created, to suit their tastes.
  By the way, your statement that

Quote:

There is no reason to make the assumption that a god exists outside of ourselves.

ignores the current discussion of the universe being caused by something outside of space and time, and being incredibly powerful, intelligent, law giving, and desirous of life.  Something that is not us, that is not in the physical universe.

Yes my statement does ignore that argument. But I wholly admit that it is speculation as is everything you have stated. Anything besides subjective (known only to the experiencer) is speculation. That Jesus is the son of a god and we are not is speculation by some. The universe (physical) was most certainly created, but by what means does not point directly to a god. My reason for arguing this point with you is that you present your case as though it is some kind of fact by using the word "Evidence" in a fashion that suggests you KNOW something to be true. That's all I'm saying and people on this board offer their opinions with varying degrees of civility and conscience, but I would much rather read someone's opinion than have the truth thrust upon me. And I'm sure I"m not alone on that score.

The short of it: Everything on an afterlife board is speculation.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but thats what it is. Evidence is a loaded word. You're not the only one throwing it around, but still, a "belief" is not evidence.

The word "God" should also be understood for the individual. I use that term simply because it the most universally understood term, though as I have argued the nature of God is left only to imagination. You could say "the Supreme", "the Universe", "The creator," "The designer." However you really want to interpret it. I never associate my understanding of the term "God" with any religious characters. It is simply the supremacy of my spirituality. I don't know the nature, but I am certain of its existence.

I believe Jesus is separate from this supremacy in nature at least. I'm not going to say Jesus was not or is not the human manifestation, because I could not say that with knowledge. I can however, offer my opinion and understand Jesus to be very important to this world and the next in some way, shape, or form but not acknowledge him as the original source. I don't make that from any desire but from logic conducted through education and reasoning. He just doesn't fit the God bill for me. If I'm wrong, then I'll give him a hug and apologize. No big deal.

There's a bit of speculation I have discovered that the "Afterlife" is actually what Earth will one day become. Souls are welcome to stay in it, but encouraged to return to the physical world to play a part in furthering the development of the world, other souls, and themselves. I couldn't prove this beyond it being a belief, but it makes sense to me.

And not to belabor the point but for those who feel this board is too open minded in it's skepticism, here is the Monroe Institute Creed. I found it in an interview with RAM shortly before he moved on.

As public and private Policy, the Institute:

- does not practice or endorse any particular religion. However, it does not attempt to dissuade any one from a religious belief of their choosing.

- does not support any particular political stance or party. It also does not attempt to divert others from any such positions they may take.

- does not hold any bias regarding race, age, or sex.

- does hold high the performance of any one who delivers constructive results regardless of personality.

- does not recommend or endorse any product, process, individual, publication, organization or finding without specific investigation, knowledge and approval of the Group Executive Committee, Board of Directors or Board of Advisors.

- does consider the investigation of any individual, concept, technique, or idea that may be demonstrable and has the potential of constructive change not only in Human evolution but in the Earth Life System itself.

So maybe, just maybe, that's why so many people express their views as opinions here and don't try to pass off the unknowable as fact or evidence. Okay, I'm through flogging this horse. I just wanted to be clear.

Beau -
  I've been too busy to respond but will soon.  I don't think we agree on the meaning of evidence.  Also in terms of skepticism, I'm not arguing against skepticism.

I'm sorry pratekya, I had forgotten that you had started this thread. Of course you are entitled to your definition of "evidence" when it's your own thread, but I would be curious to know what your definition is when you have the time.

Yours,
Beau :)

Beau and Others -
  There may be no point to continuing the discussion, because I don't think that you will support using logic and evidence to either consider or refute an argument.  It seems like the only consideration you give as to whether something is true or not is defendant on your personal experience, or the personal experience of those you agree with or think support your worldview.

Quote:

Anything besides subjective (known only to the experiencer) is speculation.

  I guess as an educator this type of thinking scares me for the future of America, because I run into a lot of people it seems who either do not or cannot value reason, evidence and logic.  At the end of the day, it simply doesn't matter if one has evidence, reason, and logic supporting what they are saying, because it becomes impossible to reason with people would rather disengage, stick their fingers in their ears, and say 'lalala it doesn't matter because I'm not willing to consider anything that could be true that is different than my paradigm, and forget all of that logic and evidence stuff anyways, I just want to create my own reality as I see it'.
  To specifically address that quote, I would say that the sentiment is flat out wrong.  For instance the scientific method as well as deductive and inductive reasoning have given us all of our technological advances that we enjoy, and we would never know much about the universe if we limited ourselves to only validating things that could be experienced directly.  Even things that are not controversial would be rejected by this statement.  In other words, if you had never been to China then it would be speculation to say that a place called China exists.  Or more abstractly, the United States would simply not exist either (as a concept) because we would not experience an abstract concept directly with our senses.  How about if we were on drugs, or hallucinating - do those things experienced automatically exist?  Or could you experience something that you thought was there based on some bad dinner the night before?  Some neuroscientists will note that the only thing we truly directly experience anyways is our brain.  So clearly limiting ourselves to what is true about the universe to the things that one can experience is not an effective way to learn about the universe or judge what is true.
  Some concepts we directly know because we can deductively prove, such as arithmetic or geometry.  Other things we inductively know to be likely true, as I mentioned earlier.  It seems that you are looking at my inductive proof and assuming or misconstruing me to have a deductive type of proof conclusion:

Quote:

My reason for arguing this point with you is that you present your case as though it is some kind of fact by using the word "Evidence" in a fashion that suggests you KNOW something to be true.

  I think what you are doing is confusing deductive proof with inductive proof.  I am not arguing that I have proved God exists or so on as a deductive proof.  I am saying that the massive body of evidence out there suggests that the existence of God is very likely.  Put another way: I cannot 'prove' to you deductively that the sun will rise up tomorrow morning.  What I can do is show that based on evidence, it is very very very very likely that the sun will rise up tomorrow as an inductive proof.  That is my case here; taken together all of these lines of evidence that have not been refuted make it very likely that God exists.


Quote:

That's all I'm saying and people on this board offer their opinions with varying degrees of civility and conscience, but I would much rather read someone's opinion than have the truth thrust upon me.

  No, what you mean is that you would rather not have your worldview challenged with lines of evidence that threaten that worldview, and be forced to consider that a/ you might be wrong and b/ you basically have no lines of evidence to back up your ideas other than personal belief or experience, and should we not forget, lets toss in a healthy dose of hatred for anything that might relate to organized religion.  You want to be the captain of your own ship, to design the universe and afterlife as you see fit, as it is most palatable to you.  I'm saying that that view should be different; the universe is as it is and God is as it is independent of what you think of it; you are not the creator.  Truth is truth, independent of how that tastes to you.  We are discoverers of truth, not creators of it.


Quote:

The universe (physical) was most certainly created, but by what means does not point directly to a god.

  Not true; my inductive argument taken as a whole most certainly points to a God.  My argument has shown (and it hasn't been refuted or even really diluted by anyone here) that this being or beings is 1/ eternal from our perspective, outside of space and time /2 the beginner or cause of space and time 3/ incredibly intelligent assuming it was desired to create a universe that permitted life.  In conjunction with my other arguments due to the existence of absolute good and evil, and the life of Jesus, we can conclude that this being is most likely a God that is portrayed as the Father by Jesus, simply from the physical, scientific, and historical evidence that all my arguments inductively depend on and tie together.  What have you used to justify any alternatives?  I see nothing here.

I've run out of time.  I think we probably are done though; I don't see how anything constructive can happen moving forward.

I think we were done before we started on this thread, but I wanted to see who you really were. Now I can take it easy relax and know that you will be in  good company here...

Organized religion is a bother to me, tis true. I've been there and now I'm not, but I certainly grant you the right to your opinion here and didn't mean to imply that I think you should know you are wrong. But you've cited no evidence except for some C1 metaphors IMHO. But there are others here you will get along with very well. All the best, and I mean that--

Yours,
Beau

And perhaps this will clarify the last point:

spec·u·la·tion   [spek-yuh-ley-shuhn]  Show IPA
–noun
1.
the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in speculation on humanity's ultimate destiny.
2.
a single instance or process of consideration.
3.
a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These speculations are impossible to verify.
4.
conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.

Objective science is always grounded in subjective experience. Without subjective experience, there would be no experience at all. In order for objective science to exist it must be experienced. I don't know why this should be irrational. It's just a basic philosophic thought. Irrational for example it is to state that what someone experiences is someone's brain, when the same scientists who state this say that we are our brain. The brain experiences the brain. Aha.

Spooky

pratekya wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 4:19pm:

Not true; my inductive argument taken as a whole most certainly points to a God.  My argument has shown (and it hasn't been refuted or even really diluted by anyone here) that this being or beings is 1/ eternal from our perspective, outside of space and time /2 the beginner or cause of space and time 3/ incredibly intelligent assuming it was desired to create a universe that permitted life.

I agree with all of this, and my logic and reasoning gives me these three points as well.

As for organized religion, I'm just going to have to sit with my belief that religious folks will be back after death to get the experience of a free mind which discovers God without the limitation of religion. You can mark my words that there will be a time when religion becomes extremely rare. I can see this very clearly in the younger generations. There will instead be more of a divide between just spiritual people and non spiritual people. This is absolutely necessary. Completely. I don't perceive it means "giving up on Jesus." I'm not a Christian, but I support the messages of Jesus and find there is a good bit to learn there pending everything isn't taken literally. So whose the Jesus people speak of in the afterlife? I would suppose its a divine being which disguises itself as what the individual finds most comfortable. Even Howard Storm called out before he even saw this being. He just imagined what he understood to be the most comforting figure, and that's what appeared.

Regardless it's just a being of love and light. It doesn't really matter how you want to perceive it.

Agreed Stone. I don't know if fundamental religious person has to come back or not, but perhaps the humility comes right at the stroke of death. I just don't know, but I only know what I know and it's just for me unless someone wants to chime in on it and make it even better and more productive.

I see no "massive body of evidence" as pratekya suggests, that there is a God. Only faith of Gods existence. I have faith. That said, I have my personal experiences to pull from. Those experiences I can share, but I can have no expectation that others would come to the same conclusions about God that I have. Nor would I want them to. This is where beliefs in religion and God separate. There is no need of organised religion. They have proven themselves to be the center of much evil over the centuries. But people who believe they have never found God, or never realised that God doesn't need to be found, that he/she/it/they are there in your consciousness already. They seem to have a need for Gods love. They are willing to be led like sheep to the slaughter in order to have God within their existence. Willing to kill. Willing to control. Willing to give everything they own. Willing to watch their children die. Willing to except being molested. All in an effort to have something that they believe someone else has, and that they don't. Organised religions and some of their cronies use this to their benefit. They are attempting to sell you a love from God that already exists for you. You don't need religion to have God in your life. You don't need to pay a church to connect you with God or for God to love you. Proof of God is a personal thing. It can not be proven by any individual or religion. I hope that anyone who has not already found their God will look inside of themselves and see that God is, and always has been with them. I see the most valuable thing with organised religions as being charity. Other than that..well I am not so sure.   

To me God is the entire ensemble of Director Actor and Character, even Scenic and Lighting designer, Props ...you name it. For me, that is the proof I need that God exists within me and everyone and everything. To make this god or perhaps my god a separate entity is to deny God his show. I am ...period.

oh yeah, and so are you. its kind of a Me'n u driven thing.

Yours,
Beau

Come on people. Do you think it is more than a fuzzy belief when you, at a point where all knowledge fails, imagine an "entity" (what is that in this regard?) and give it the name "God"? In philosophy it's called "making a hypostasis". You thought up something and make an "entity" of it. Do a little journey in philosophy and you will see that all these "arguments" have been already brought foward long ago and nothing has remained of it.

Spooky

I think every imaginable argument has been brought forward. The truth is that "God" is a power in which we will never truly understand while we live in this world.

Quit worrying about the director and get back to acting and exploring the stage.

But here's a decent read on the subject http://spiritualagnosticism.blogspot.com/2008/05/more-on-existence-of-god.html

Came upon this doing some looking around. Pretty interesting but I take everything with grains.

http://www.urantia.org/en/urantia-book-standardized/paper-1-universal-father

I booked marked the page. I have a busy day today but I will read it in the next 24 hours. At a glance I can only say that thinking of God as one, A male and two as something separate from us, thus saying that God is the creator of consciousness doesn't really fly with me. I think we all bring each other up because it is in everyone's best interest to do so in the long run.

Bear in mind I haven't read it yet but that was my initial take. Looking forward to checking it out in its entirety.

Yours
Beau

It's interesting read but as I kept going I kept getting the thought that someone with a very deep imagination and a lot of free time had contrived this for the purpose of creating a concept and aspect of religion which fit more traditional standards.

I too kind of find the idea of God being "one" and particularly as a male figure (although maybe its only in the same reference that we refer to the planet as "Mother Earth") to make less sense than the idea of multiple conscious beings bringing about creation. That is the general idea of our evolution according to the Maya afterall. That we reach the "conscious of co-creation." We all develop the ability to create, and that could be the life constant of sentient beings.

I find it easier to believe that "God" is more than just one being or force, but I also could not deny it as one. Being one would certainly make it much more magnificent but it makes it sound like the lonely puppet master that made living puppets to keep from being lonely. I like the idea more that consciousness was never alone.

Alone = The One Lie, Consciousness is ALL ONE.

There is no evidence possible to prove God's existence... it is a matter of faith... following a path of setting aside the personal ego... by annihilation, ignoring it or allowing it to find it's spiritual counterpart and then surrendering it to God in 'Yoga'... one experiences God directly...

S.

I agree with Seraphis. If there were evidence all would have the opportunity to know God. The evidence is slight to none. We all find our god on our own.That makes a god no less real to the ones who find this said god, but if it brings you fear you are barking up the wrong tree. God is great ...well, good anyway. Good for those that need one. You Are ...period. That can be your god. Placing something above yourself will hold you in the immortal struggle of "right and wrong". You will judge by what you have been "Taught". See that you are already Everything and you will find your god. And it is within you.

Prat--you are the evidence that God exists. You are a god among many. You may not be one who can accept that, but I swear to you it is as true as anything I can put into words. Look at the letter Y. We all start at the bottom. Some choose left and some choose right on the way up through evolution. One is of fear and the other is of love but both evolving ultimately its just that one is a much longer road., But what if there were a way to make a third line right up the center of that Y going straight up. Now encircle the  Y and turn it upside down and what have you got? You see balance is the key. Not black or white, light or dark, it's all about being in the gray so that you can evolve with the knowledge of why you evolved in the first place.

yours,
Beau