God Did It! The rest is post modern chatter!

a reply to: cuckooold
One of my favorite memes.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Heh...
I said there..
that Lucifer was not God...
Nor you or I...
For none of us are the creator of the Universe...
Therefore none of us are God by definition...
I assure you I am accurate in saying so...
the fact you can't understand me points to the fact you are not God nor am I...
or we would be of like mind...
You are not God even if you are his expression...as you liken yourself to be...
Because by your own admission God has to express you in order for you to be...

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2
What other logical and valid answer that can rival or even surpassed what I said?

There is no logic in having God as your answer because you can't explain God. In fact explaining God and the complexity to try and explain God is way more difficult than it would be to explain the Universe. So if you can't explain the Universe you certainly can't explain God. You're just making up something more difficult as the answer to a problem you also can't solve.

That why everything used to be attributed to God like storms or drought or disease or the stars before we had answers for those things. When you can't answer something it's easy to just say it's magic or miracles or Gods. But that doesn't make it true.

Yes it is logical because the alternative is nothing, absolute nothingness - not even vacuum can / exist.

It's more difficult to expalin. In fact impossible to explain even conceptualize how an absolute nothing produces something.

You have no other laternative.

Of course, you can try to explain it here.

originally posted by: edmc^2

I read what you said several times and it still didn't make sense.

It's either Nothing or Something. Both can't occupy the same space.

Can you explain in another way what you just said?

Nothing occupies no space.

When you say "It's either Something or Nothing" what is "It's" in that sentence. Because whatever "it" is must be something as It cannot be Nothing. Nothing can be Nothing.

What I'm saying is that Nothing cannot exist. Because to exist is to be something. So Something must exist always because the alternative would be Nothing and Nothing cannot exist.

I'm also not saying that there absolutely cannot be God. There is no way of knowing that. I guess there could be but I see no reason for there to be and to assume there is or was a God is even more difficult to explain than just there being something like energy. But it seems just as reasonable to assume there was always Something like energy or a singularity as it is to assume there was always God. And once again, trying to explain an Eternal God is more difficult than explaining eternal somethingness.

The universe is just electricity. All mass is the accumulation of vibrating frequencies that break down to a basic electrical form.
Somehow "life" happened when mass started "capturing" the energy inside and using it to kick-start pure evolution.

"We" "life", evolved our mass into individual perpetual motion machines. Well, perpetual as long as you keep eating. Once an "organism" quits eating it usually "dies" and the energy leaves the mass.

Life has evolved and the human race had some help form other highly evolved lifeforms as well.

We invented God as our minds and societies developed but even God has evolved over the years. We now mostly have it down to just one god and that god usually demands that you worship it/him.

We think we are so smart with our light bulbs and microchips, and we are.

But we're not alone...

a reply to: Joecanada11

That is proof of nothing. Anyone can look outside and say the earth hangs on "nothing"

Yet it was only very recent when we finally confirmed that the earth is "hanging upon nothing". We found out when we sent space ships to outer space. But the Bible writer didn't even have the technology to confirm what we know now. So how was able to say what he wrote - thousands of years before the advent of modern science?

As to the rest of what you said - they are all explainable in a very logical way. Unfortunately, this is not the post/forum to do it.

a reply to: edmc^2

The problem here is you are talking about what you believe, while science talks about what can be measured, and verified. You can not have religion with out belief, you can't have science with out evidence. However you can have religion with out evidence, and science with out belief. They don't have to be mutually exclusive endevours, but they should not influence the other.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: vethumanbeing

5StarOracle: Heh... I said there.. that Lucifer was not God... Nor you or I...
For none of us are the creator of the Universe.

You do not KNOW THIS as fact; this is your supposition.

5Star: Therefore none of us are God by definition.. I assure you I am accurate in saying so..

Where, from what Oracle does this factual fairy tale come from?

5Star: the fact you can't understand me points to the fact you are not God nor am I...or we would be of like mind...You are not God even if you are his expression...as you liken yourself to be...Because; by your own admission God has to express you in order for your to be.

I validate IT as a Being IT allowed for any creation existing at all; that is all that IT wants from the human. You fail in this very simple exercise called "recognition". God needs the human to salute It's being. Lucifer is a non-player; why give any credence unless you fear this creature; or mentioned (on your radar screen)?

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Neighbour you do not concentrate very well it seems. You are attributing things to me which i have not said. Science has yet to point to the need for a supernatural phenomenon.

I don't seek all my answers in science, I've been bluntly honest about my spiritual side here. I just don't need to bring it into my science, or my science into my religion. They do not relate to one another.

Now post evidence of the proof of God in science. If you insist that it is needed in it, show it is so.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

I read what you said several times and it still didn't make sense.

It's either Nothing or Something. Both can't occupy the same space.

Can you explain in another way what you just said?

Nothing occupies no space.

When you say "It's either Something or Nothing" what is "It's" in that sentence. Because whatever "it" is must be something as It cannot be Nothing. Nothing can be Nothing.

What I'm saying is that Nothing cannot exist. Because to exist is to be something. So Something must exist always because the alternative would be Nothing and Nothing cannot exist.

I'm also not saying that there absolutely cannot be God. There is no way of knowing that. I guess there could be but I see no reason for there to be and to assume there is or was a God is even more difficult to explain than just there being something like energy. But it seems just as reasonable to assume there was always Something like energy or a singularity as it is to assume there was always God. And once again, trying to explain an Eternal God is more difficult than explaining eternal somethingness.

Ok - I think I got what you're saying now. So, in a way we both agree that "something" must ALWAYS exist in the first place to create the what we know as the material universe.

Only difference is - your "something" is just "something" as opposed to mine is "someone" not something.

a reply to: Noinden

OK explain how energy exists contrary to "natural means"... use all the science you can...
When all natural means are exhausted feel free to introduce supernatural means in your method of thinking...
Go ahead concentrate really hard...

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

The problem here is you are talking about what you believe, while science talks about what can be measured, and verified. You can not have religion with out belief, you can't have science with out evidence. However you can have religion with out evidence, and science with out belief. They don't have to be mutually exclusive endevours, but they should not influence the other.

To me, they both complement each other.

Like what Einstein said:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Religion without evidence is blind faith and science without evidence is blind science.

In other words, I don't rely on Faith to know that there's a Creator but the evidence points me to him.

a reply to: edmc^2

You still have yet to explain the lack of evidence supporting the bible.

Exodus ?
The first born of Egypt being killed yet no record of that ever happening.

The impossibility of the Ark and flood story being as the bible said.

Not too mention if Christ's miracles were true including the resurrection then the religion would have grown much faster than it did. Instead it wasn't until Rome added some lies (virgin birth , miracles and ressurection) and made it the official state religion that things really changed for Christianity.

originally posted by: edmc^2

Ok - I think I got what you're saying now. So, in a way we both agree that "something" must ALWAYS exist in the first place to create the what we know as the material universe.

Only difference is - your "something" is just "something" as opposed to mine is "someone" not something.

Right. Wow, you came to that conclusion very quick which almost never happens. Either I must have explained it much better this time or you are just able to understand it better than most. Which ever it was I'm glad because this usually just keeps going in circles.

But yes, basically that's it. Like you say, nothing can't exist. Not even a void because a void is a space where something goes. Even that space is something.

The only difference I think is that when you say the alternative to God is Nothing I would disagree and say the alternative to Nothing is Something, or Anything actually. So you don't need God as the Alternative to Nothing, you just need Anything, Everything, Something....Basically anything and everything is an alternative to Nothing.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

It's called a dictionary... that's where this factual information comes from... Do you deny this definition to be a part of reality?


[god]
noun
1.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

Understand now?

If you want further proof of the flaw in your method of thinking you are the one who said Lucifer is God not I...

You said that when you said we were God because we are God's expression...
Because Lucifer is an expression of God...
So it is you who liken Lucifer unto God along with himself through your own statements...

a reply to: Joecanada11
You are killing it (revealing the fallacies).

a reply to: edmc^2

No no no. As I said it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the sky and say there's nothing out there. That is a very vague statement. Just like the prophecies and other proofs. They are vague. And please explain my other points in a logical way. I would love to hear that. You made this about the bible in the OP. You said the bible says God did it. If the bible has errancy in any part then how do you know what is truth and what is not.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I cannot deny the possibility of a creator being. That would be silly of course it's a possibility. But the bible being 100% accurate well the bible does a good job or disproving itself in that matter.

a reply to: edmc^2

As a counter point Galileo and Darwin (who was a religious sort) dealt with a large heaping loaf of bollocks due to religious institutions sticking their beak into the science.

The thing about religion is you don't NEED proof to know it is so. It is about gnosis (spiritual knowledge, which is based on belief) while science relies on eidein (this is intellectual knowledge).

While it might work for you, taht you see the evidence pointing to creators, others will interpret it differently. However scientific evidence is scientific evidence. The 5 kilograms of the target pharmaceutical I am trying to make is the 5kg or it is not. No "well I feel it is so, so it must be".

a reply to: Joecanada11

So do you think any mistranlations misinterpretation things taken out of context used as examples and not being things which are relevant like needing to have transpired for the example to be fitting...
Well do any of those things tell you that God wrote the books contained in the Bible? Do you put the blame for these things on God? or the people truly responsible?
If you can not come to the conclusion that God wrote the bible how could any inconsistencies in your mind be attributed to him?