We want REASONS for God!!!!!

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: aphon

The reason for God is there's no reason. God and human relation is simply like master to slaves.

God is not just a "slave-master" relationship. God is a Friend...

"11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." - John 15:11-15

and God is Our Father Who Art in Heaven...

"35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful." - Luke 6:35-36


"44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?" - Matthew 5:44-46

Yes, God is called "King" but the Heavenly view of "King" is not the same as the selfish worldly version. Here is how Jesus sees it:

"24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve." - Luke 22:24-26


God does not turn you into a slave. God sets you free from the path of death (pain/suffering/darkness) and helps you stay on The Narrow Path of Life:

"12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." - Matthew 7:12-14

I disagree if God's equal as friend. If God were equal as friend, God has equal right and responsibility with human beings, God have no power over human, God need human as much as human need God.

Btw this "15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." - John 15:11-15 "

was not God that has spoken, but it was Jesus, when Jesus was talking about his God.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Wrong even if your talking about the physical universe nothing about a solar system necessarily entails that it is greater than you in an ontological sense. 4 is not always greater than three but 4 is always higher than three ina quantitative sense. You again are using an equivocation fallacy in order to strengthen your position.

No. There is no fallacy in what I have said. 4 is always greater than 3 in the physical universe. This is a fact.

I do exist. I am 1 person. The solar system does exist. It is 1 solar system. The solar system in exponentially larger (greater) than I am, even though we both are only 1 thing (being), by description. This is a fact.

a reply to: windword

No. There is no fallacy in what I have said. 4 is always greater than 3 in the physical universe. This is a fact.

You just committed the same fallacy again bro....your equivocating on the word great to make this appear to be a valid rebuttal when it is not. You are equating a higher quantity with being greater. This is not the way the argument uses the word great. It has nothing to do with the quantity a thing represents. Thats like saying a person who ways 500lbs is greater than a person who weighs 150lbs...this is only true in the sense of quantity not in the sense of the quality of a thing. Its an equivocation fallacy no doubt about it, but I am sure some of the ignorant ones here will fall for it.

I do exist. I am 1 person. The solar system does exist. It is 1 solar system. The solar system in exponentially larger (greater) than I am, even though we both are only 1 thing (being), by description. This is a fact.

And you did it again.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The physical universe doesn't care about your opinion of its various qualities of its "greatness". It is "greatest" because it encompasses all that there is.

Your opinion of what qualities eschew "greatest greatness" exists in a different reality/dimension of this universe that is not physical.

The only way that your god can exist in the physical universe, by necessity is if the physical universe is its body.

a reply to: windword

The physical universe doesn't care about your opinion of its various qualities of its "greatness". It is "greatest" because it encompasses all that there is.

'

But we know thats not the case. The material universe does not encompass immaterial things. Where in this universe can we find the number 2 ? You seem to be forgetting that we are having a conversation. If you want to make your case against the ideas I've put forth you need to quit changing the meaning of words to fit your arguments...

Your opinion of what qualities eschew "greatest greatness" exists in a different reality/dimension of this universe that is not physical.

No what I defined as great was a way of formulating information to exchange to you. There is no word that means to have those and only those properties which are great making properties, or properties that it is better to have than not to have so Plantinga chose to use these words to communicate his idea. Words have usages not intrinsic value.

The only way that your god can exist in the physical universe, by necessity is if the physical universe is its body.

Or the being could be transcendent as implied by the cosmological argument implies as well as having the ability to be imminent as the both all three arguments imply.

I see no reason why there this would be the necessary situation. You seem to think that the universe could have been eternal. What model of the universe are you using if it involves inflation I'd say your definitely not on par with Science.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The material universe does not encompass immaterial things.

I shouldn't have called it the physical "universe". I should have called it the physical "dimension". The universe itself encompasses all dimensions material and immaterial, things like love and ideas.

No what I defined as great was a way of formulating information to exchange to you.

Even by that definition, the universe is the greatest "being" that exists.

Or the being could be transcendent......

"Could be" being the operative phrase. We could be transcendent beings too, transcending to a higher plane of our own consciousness within the universe. And, since we know the universe "could be" self creating and eternal, it could also transcend its own consciousness, thereby creating an even "greater" universe, continually.

What model of the universe are you using if it involves inflation I'd say your definitely not on par with Science.

And "god" is? LOL

(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once. Read more at: phys.org...

a reply to: windword

You and I share a lot of ideas it seems.

I just wanted to say that I agree with everything you've posted thus far. It's really not as complicated as religion makes it out to be. Religion obfuscates what is supposed to be obvious.

The Father is the universal consciousness, the Son is the image of the universe, and the Holy Spirit/Mother is the physical universe that we see.

One gives life, another is that life, and the other is what allows that life to have experience.

It really is as simple as what we are experiencing now, there is nothing to be known outside of what is happening right now. Religion distracts us from the truth that is right in front of us, which is eternal life. We already have it, it's by default.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Great minds think alike!

a reply to: aphon

Btw this "15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." - John 15:11-15 "

was not God that has spoken, but it was Jesus, when Jesus was talking about his God.

Jesus is called "The Word of God" and he says he speaks nothing of his own but what the Father wills for him to say:

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak."

We all have free-will of what we'll believe, though. Some people believe God is not their friend, other people do.


a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

the Holy Spirit/Mother is the physical universe that we see.

Why would The Holy "SPIRIT" represent the physical universe (matter/flesh/body)?

If Jesus is The Word of God and The Light of Life, in the flesh, born INTO The World, then shouldn't the physical universe represent The Son of God since it represents Spirit coming into the flesh/world?

To me, God IS The Holy Spirit. If you're worshiping a God that is NOT Holy or NOT Spirit (Eternal), then you might want to consider if that is actually God, because God is Good (Holy) and God is The Eternal Life (Spirit) which made The Universe.

a reply to: arpgme

I believe that Jesus's the word of God, cos he's God's messenger with duty to ask his people to follow his God.

Yes, people can see God as a friend, like a child see a teacher as friend.

a reply to: aphon

Yes, people can see God as a friend, like a child see a teacher as friend.

I'm not sure why people treat it as mutually exclusive though. Some teachers are friends of the children. They treat them nicely, they talk to them and teach them in a way they'll understand. They reward them for doing good and then encourage them to do better if they grades fall low....

Then there are the teachers that are enemies of the children. They don't reward them if they do good, and don't encourage them to learn and get good grades. They intimidate them which messes up their ability to think clearly and work better. They are always angry and quick to yell, which teaches the children bad social skills, that instead of asking questions and being nice, they learn the behavior of the teacher and throw a tantrum which is not good for their comprehension skills.

Now that I think about it, a good teacher is the same as a teacher that is a friend to the students because only such a teacher is able to communicate closely to them so that they can feel comfortable, have a clear mind and learn better.

The same is true of God.

God has a Perfectly, Holy Nature.

God tells us to love our neighbor and enemy, because God loves everyone. God is kind even to the evil and unthankful (Luke 6:35-36)


God tells us to judge not, condemn not, and turn the other cheek, because God is non-violent.

God tells us not to be hypocrites because God is not a hypocrite.

The best way to teach is to be a perfect example of what you teach.

a reply to: arpgme

I'm under the impression that God is the Holy Spirit as well, I was only using Holy Spirit to get my point across. "Holy" origianlly meant to be "whole/complete", which is a reference to the Trinity in my opinion where all 3 are 1, or "whole"y.

They removed the Mother (Earth/material) in order to profit from her, to turn her into a tool to profit from and to sell.

The Son is where the Mother and Father come together in "marriage". The Son is the child who is both flesh and Spirit, or life itself. What happens when the Spirit enters the body at conception? A new perspective is created, a new point of view within the universe is made. What is that point of view? An image of light, what you see as you read this, that is the image/Son of God, a product of the flesh and Spirit coming together in "marriage" and the image/Son is what we are created in.

The Son is two (Father and Mother/Spirit and flesh) becoming one, which makes three, and all three are one.

a reply to: arpgme

Ill refer God as "It" not because less of respect, but because God has no gender.
God is the most powerful energy in the universe, a fair judge, but it isnt a babysitter who taking care the creations like taking care infants, and speaks baby language to infants.

God is not bad, but not a parent who spoils children neither. To me it is a fair judge and boss.

Human has free will like you said. And God created law of nature, like physic and math for example. Not true neither if it doesnt care about human. God gave human guides and showed us realities through its guide, through his messengers, and his angels, can be religions, can be dreams, inspirations, etc. It's up to us if we want to follow his guide or not, if we follow his guidance then we'll stay on the right path, but if we dont follow his guide we'd be f*cked up (either here or in afterlife), because of the system he created.

Thats what i think.

a reply to: arpgme

God is non violent? That's why he called for so many people to be stoned to death.

God is not a hypocrite ? That's why he said "Thou shalt not kill" and then make laws to have people stoned to death.

Maybe there is a perfect loving and Holy God but the god of the bible certainly is not those things.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

In many ancient religions, they believed in a Mother Earth Goddess (whether they call her Gaia, Ashera, Ki, Ninhursag, or Pachamama...)

But the Mother Goddess did not just represent the physical Earth, but the Spirit of Earth. Usually, the Mother Goddess represented Fertility, Growth, Abundance, and Nature.

Just as the mother nurtures her baby, they say that the Mother Earth Goddess represents abundance, and provides for example, through the fruits that freely grows on trees.


So the "Mother" is not just the physical Earth but Spirit of Earth. She has her own realm.

I think the Mother Earth Goddess is connected to the Fairies and therefore the Fairy Realm (Fairyland, Summerland, Elysium, Paradise, The Beautiful Garden of The Afterlife, etc.), which is why Fairies are said to love nature.





Mother Nature - Queen of Fairies, Heavenly Father - Queen of Angels, Suppression of The Feminine (ATS Thread)

a reply to: windword

shouldn't have called it the physical "universe". I should have called it the physical "dimension". The universe itself encompasses all dimensions material and immaterial, things like love and ideas.

Now your obviously defining words differently so please define. The universe is all existing matter and space as a whole. Where exactly do yo believe this encompasses immaterial things?d We may recognize these things in the universe but the concept of the number two is no where to be found in this world. Nor is the concept of a square ... Nor is love...

Even by that definition, the universe is the greatest "being" that exists.

Please make your argument on that definition then and rather than equivocating .

We could be transcendent beings too, transcending to a higher plane of our own consciousness within the universe. And, since we know the universe "could be" self creating and eternal, it could also transcend its own consciousness, thereby creating an even "greater" universe, continually.

Actually I don't know the universe "could be" self creating, and I definitely don't know that matter could be eternal there are empirical as well as logical reasons with both of those statements. Your obviously defining consciousness differently from the way I would define it so please define.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Now your obviously defining words differently so please define.

No, not NOW. If you read my replies you'll see that I've been careful to define the universe as something that encompasses everything, the physical and the non-physical, through "dimensions". I've asserted this all along.

Thoughts, ideas, feeling and opinions all belong in a dimension, or a reality, that is different than the physical reality. Never the less, those "things", although they be intangible, are still things that exist, that naturally arise from the universe.

Please make your argument on that definition then and rather than equivocating .

The universe is the greatest "being" that exists.

Actually I don't know the universe "could be" self creating

Neither do you "know" that your proposed "god" could be self creating, or possess any of the qualities that you have imagined.

You have yet to prove the existence of your god in the physical "universe" i.e. dimension-reality.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your mind is in a different dimension than the physical dimensions. Your mind creates time and the physical world is effected by time. Your mind (thoughts, dreams, emotions, etc.) is "above" the Earth and is looking "down" onto it.

The entire universe encompasses both your body and mind and you are a piece of the universal body/mind.

You are the way in which the universe exists and you ARE the universe, albeit a fragment of it. You being a fragment does not mean you are any less than it though in the same way that a drop of water is no "less" than the entire ocean because the ocean is just a lot of drops of water forming a body of water.

Aren't there any Satanists, Hindus, Egyptians or ancient Greeks we could argue with? This is just monotonous.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword

On the contrary. The solar system actually exists and is exponentially a greater "being" than myself. Then you have the Milky Way Galaxy, and on and on........So, it would logically follow that a "Maximally Great Being physically" would be the physical body of all that exists in total; The Universe. Ergo, ipso fatso..the Universe is God's body.

Those things are only greater in quantitative sense not a qualitative sense. Meaning they are only greater in the sense that they are larger not in the sense that they have more great making properties than you. Also the universe is a contingent entity in that in began to exists. I would offer the Kalam Cosmological Argument there.

"Great making properties"? What does that even mean? Also, kalam cosmological is useless with(out) the ontological argument which basically says "for these reasons we are going to assume these properties are a thing"

No.