God or No God?

Started by mahasattva96 pages
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
God is a "He."

The concept of God did not descend from religions. Both religion and god are the inventions of man. They both evolved as human intellect kept growing.

I believe in reason. I would not accept anything that is irrational and contradicts logic. The existence of human (even animal) spirit may not be verifiable in labs and by our scientific methods yet, but the important thing is that it is not against reason. There are many realities that are beyond human reason, i.e. you cannot reach them by reason alone. Yet the point is that they should not be unreasonable either.

Existence of God as a Reality or a Principle cannot be determined by scientific methods and it is beyond reason. It is not unreasonable, in fact it is very reasonable to assume that there is a principle underlying the creation. But the existence of a deity, as described by Semitic religions, is utterly unreasonable. Although the characteristics of this deity has changed gradually and the god of Moses who was a smoke-like anthromorphic god and the god of Rumi who is an unknowable essence are not the same, the general concept of this god has not changes. God in all these religions is a “being”. It is no more a physical being, and it may not be even a spiritual being, but it is still a being. It is a god that resembles humans. We don’t envision him any more as an old patriarch but we attribute to him our own human characteristics. He is no more imagined in our physical semblance, and some even hesitate to call him with a gender-biased pronoun. Yet in our subconscious mind God is our father, best friend, someone to pray to, someone to worship, someone to rely upon, and someone who loves us. We assume that God is intelligent, loving, caring, mighty, wise, help in peril and someone who would eventually come to succor us if we knocked on his door supplicating with utmost humility and meekness. He is a god that worries about us, who sends messengers to guide us, who rewards us either by giving us access to his paradise or by allowing us to associate with him more intimately when we die.

But this god is also a jealous god and is very paranoid. He does not like us worshiping another god and feels restless when we busy ourselves, making a living or enjoying life and forget to bow in front of him, (who is apparently everywhere) constantly. His messengers tell us that we should worship him for our own sake. But you don’t have to be Freud to realize that he actually enjoys being known and worshiped. In fact, if you fail to do so, he is offended so much that would take you to his cosmic rotisserie and barbeque you forever. That is a long time, I say. Don’t you think so?

His messengers tell us that he has sent them to teach us to be righteous. Apart from the fact that for this mighty task he often chooses men who do not walk their own talk and themselves live less than honorable lives, which in the case of his favorite Prophet was scandalous, he has made it clear that living righteously is not enough. We have to recognize him also through his messengers. Without that recognition, none of our good deeds would count. But the problem does not end there. Despite the fact that each time he sends a messenger he makes it clear, in one way or another, that this messenger is the only and exclusive way to him or that he is the last one, he surprises us by sending new massagers at the least expected moments and in the most unlikely places, often choosing the less educated and the most ignorant among the men. Then he expects us to find these new messengers with the purity of our own heart but without the use of our brain. If we fail to do so, even if we already praise him, all of our worships become null and when we die we are given a one-way ticket to hell.

To know god is a very serious business. If you make a mistake you know where you end up. So you are left on your own to find your way through this maze.

Life is merely one of the expressions of existence. There is intelligence, love, justice and many other qualities that more evolved animals, especially we humans posses. These qualities if not entirely absent in the inanimate world of matter their existence is negligible. Wherefrom these faculties come? A religious minded person might exclaim “God”. But a purposeful God as i demonstrated above, as described in the Semitic sacred books, has no role in the evolution. All these attributes are part of the Single Principle. The universe therefore is not chaotic but an orderly one. It has not been created by an intelligent being, but there is a Principle underlying its creation. Law and order govern all things. A Single Principle permeates all the existence. The Principle defines how things happen and the evolution is the process of that eternal happening. If you feel comfortable and do not confuse that Principle with Allah or Jehovah, you may call it God. But the Principle is not a being. This God is neither a he nor a she. It is IT. You cannot talk to God nor God talks back to you. God does not send messengers nor he cares bout you. God is not intelligent but it is Intelligence. God is not loving but It is Love. God is not wise, compassionate, merciful or just but It is wisdom, compassion, mercy and justice. God dose not have attributes because God is not a thing. It is not a being. God is a non-being. The non-being is the mother of all beings. God is the Principle and the evolution is the process. God is HOW and the rest is WHAT! That is all there is, HOW and WHAT.

God cannot be defined, but it can be understood. There are two ways to understand God. One is through the reflection of the world within, the inner world, and the other is by observing the world without, the outer world. The first method is through meditation and the second is by scientific observation. We can know God and we can experience God but no one can lead us to It.

I agree that there is a superior intelligence and a principle that make this world go round. There is a Single Principle underlying the creation. The Universe is governed by natural laws that are eternal.

You may ask WHAT caused these laws to appear. The answer is nothing! If these laws are eternal then they cannot have any cause. Now you may say that any law needs a legislator. Then I ask you who created that legislator? You see? It is much easier to accept that laws are self-subsisting than accept that there is a self-subsisting legislator. If we are going to accept the existence of God as a dogma, something for which we have no evidence but accept it anyway, then why not accept the dogma that natural laws have been there always? This is far easier to digest. For example, 2+2=4. This is a principle. It will not change and it is eternal. Now isn't it more logical to believe that this law exists on its own and no one created it than assume that a deity made 2+2=4? If God did not exist and the universe did not exist could it be possible that 2+2 be something different than 4?

Originally posted by mahasattva
The concept of God did not descend from religions. Both religion and god are the inventions of man. They both evolved as human intellect kept growing.

I believe in reason. I would not accept anything that is irrational and contradicts logic. The existence of human (even animal) spirit may not be verifiable in labs and by our scientific methods yet, but the important thing is that it is not against reason. There are many realities that are beyond human reason, i.e. you cannot reach them by reason alone. Yet the point is that they should not be unreasonable either.

Existence of God as a Reality or a Principle cannot be determined by scientific methods and it is beyond reason. It is not unreasonable, in fact it is very reasonable to assume that there is a principle underlying the creation. But the existence of a deity, as described by Semitic religions, is utterly unreasonable. Although the characteristics of this deity has changed gradually and the god of Moses who was a smoke-like anthromorphic god and the god of Rumi who is an unknowable essence are not the same, the general concept of this god has not changes. God in all these religions is a “being”. It is no more a physical being, and it may not be even a spiritual being, but it is still a being. It is a god that resembles humans. We don’t envision him any more as an old patriarch but we attribute to him our own human characteristics. He is no more imagined in our physical semblance, and some even hesitate to call him with a gender-biased pronoun. Yet in our subconscious mind God is our father, best friend, someone to pray to, someone to worship, someone to rely upon, and someone who loves us. We assume that God is intelligent, loving, caring, mighty, wise, help in peril and someone who would eventually come to succor us if we knocked on his door supplicating with utmost humility and meekness. He is a god that worries about us, who sends messengers to guide us, who rewards us either by giving us access to his paradise or by allowing us to associate with him more intimately when we die.

But this god is also a jealous god and is very paranoid. He does not like us worshiping another god and feels restless when we busy ourselves, making a living or enjoying life and forget to bow in front of him, (who is apparently everywhere) constantly. His messengers tell us that we should worship him for our own sake. But you don’t have to be Freud to realize that he actually enjoys being known and worshiped. In fact, if you fail to do so, he is offended so much that would take you to his cosmic rotisserie and barbeque you forever. That is a long time, I say. Don’t you think so?

His messengers tell us that he has sent them to teach us to be righteous. Apart from the fact that for this mighty task he often chooses men who do not walk their own talk and themselves live less than honorable lives, which in the case of his favorite Prophet was scandalous, he has made it clear that living righteously is not enough. We have to recognize him also through his messengers. Without that recognition, none of our good deeds would count. But the problem does not end there. Despite the fact that each time he sends a messenger he makes it clear, in one way or another, that this messenger is the only and exclusive way to him or that he is the last one, he surprises us by sending new massagers at the least expected moments and in the most unlikely places, often choosing the less educated and the most ignorant among the men. Then he expects us to find these new messengers with the purity of our own heart but without the use of our brain. If we fail to do so, even if we already praise him, all of our worships become null and when we die we are given a one-way ticket to hell.

To know god is a very serious business. If you make a mistake you know where you end up. So you are left on your own to find your way through this maze.

Life is merely one of the expressions of existence. There is intelligence, love, justice and many other qualities that more evolved animals, especially we humans posses. These qualities if not entirely absent in the inanimate world of matter their existence is negligible. Wherefrom these faculties come? A religious minded person might exclaim “God”. But a purposeful God as i demonstrated above, as described in the Semitic sacred books, has no role in the evolution. All these attributes are part of the Single Principle. The universe therefore is not chaotic but an orderly one. It has not been created by an intelligent being, but there is a Principle underlying its creation. Law and order govern all things. A Single Principle permeates all the existence. The Principle defines how things happen and the evolution is the process of that eternal happening. If you feel comfortable and do not confuse that Principle with Allah or Jehovah, you may call it God. But the Principle is not a being. This God is neither a he nor a she. It is IT. You cannot talk to God nor God talks back to you. God does not send messengers nor he cares bout you. God is not intelligent but it is Intelligence. God is not loving but It is Love. God is not wise, compassionate, merciful or just but It is wisdom, compassion, mercy and justice. God dose not have attributes because God is not a thing. It is not a being. God is a non-being. The non-being is the mother of all beings. God is the Principle and the evolution is the process. God is HOW and the rest is WHAT! That is all there is, HOW and WHAT.

God cannot be defined, but it can be understood. There are two ways to understand God. One is through the reflection of the world within, the inner world, and the other is by observing the world without, the outer world. The first method is through meditation and the second is by scientific observation. We can know God and we can experience God but no one can lead us to It.

I agree that there is a superior intelligence and a principle that make this world go round. There is a Single Principle underlying the creation. The Universe is governed by natural laws that are eternal.

You may ask WHAT caused these laws to appear. The answer is nothing! If these laws are eternal then they cannot have any cause. Now you may say that any law needs a legislator. Then I ask you who created that legislator? You see? It is much easier to accept that laws are self-subsisting than accept that there is a self-subsisting legislator. If we are going to accept the existence of God as a dogma, something for which we have no evidence but accept it anyway, then why not accept the dogma that natural laws have been there always? This is far easier to digest. For example, 2+2=4. This is a principle. It will not change and it is eternal. Now isn't it more logical to believe that this law exists on its own and no one created it than assume that a deity made 2+2=4? If God did not exist and the universe did not exist could it be possible that 2+2 be something different than 4?

I would like to respond to this post but I am not sure WHERE to begin. What is your point? Please don't write a verbose response just tell me in a few lines what your point is.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Are these your words Templares?

🙂

Normally when im bored and dont want to repeat stuff, i quote Louis Cable's compilation because its concise and straight to the point.

You are asking me this because . . . . .?

Originally posted by Templares
Normally when im bored and dont want to repeat stuff, i quote Louis Cable's compilation because its concise and straight to the point.

You are asking me this because . . . . .?

It just didn't sound like something that you would write. The length of it kind of gave it away to. I have not seen you write long, verbose posts.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It just didn't sound like something that you would write. The length of it kind of gave it away to. I have not seen you write long, verbose posts.

🤨

And here i was thinking that you had a counter argument . . . . .

Originally posted by Templares
🤨

And here i was thinking that you had a counter argument . . . . .

I gravitate to shorter posts that are succinct.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I gravitate to shorter posts that are succinct.

THATS. JUST. TOO. BAD.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I gravitate to shorter posts that are succinct.

Ooo, my irony alert just went of.

Anyway, since we are comparing the size of our posts (damn that sounds like an innuendo, though it wasn't intended as such) - are you saying that you post in a shorter, more succinct manner, or that you prefer it if other people post in a shorter, more succinct manner?

Yes, there is a god. For the world is all part of Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, the Absolute and Universal Soul (Paramatman). He is omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, just, merciful, glorious, mysterious, and yet full of love. He is the Creator, the Ruler and the Destroyer of this universe. This is what the holy scriptures, the Vedas, declare.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
God is a "He"

Does he have a penis ? Testicles? A Prostate ?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
God is a "He."

Then god is limited.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I would like to respond to this post but I am not sure WHERE to begin. What is your point? Please don't write a verbose response just tell me in a few lines what your point is.

Oh my... do you know how many times I have had that same thought when reading your full page posts?

Until the day he returns for his children, there will be christians. Thank goodness.

Re: Re: What Do You Believe God Would Be Like?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Powerful.

He's powerful alright... He created man and woman from sand and a rib. 🙄

Re: Re: Re: What Do You Believe God Would Be Like?

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
He's powerful alright... He created man and woman from sand and a rib. 🙄

So... It is laughable that the Bible claims the same origin of man that Evolution does? Evolutionary theories of the origin of man have some primordial state that evolved from the "dust of the earth" evolving into man.

You should avoid attacking portions that are in line with current scientific stances. Now the rib, I can laugh at as well, but then perhaps this held the genetic material needed to clone and manipulate the material such to produce a female counterpart.

Not necessarily my belief, but possible. Biblical text doesn't conflict with science, some interpretations of the text do.

Edit: Just noted the time stamps on this and the two previous responses. Sorry, sometimes I'm easily amused 😉

Re: Re: Re: Re: What Do You Believe God Would Be Like?

Originally posted by Regret
So... It is laughable that the Bible claims the same origin of man that Evolution does? Evolutionary theories of the origin of man have some primordial state that evolved from the "dust of the earth" evolving into man.

You should avoid attacking portions that are in line with current scientific stances. Now the rib, I can laugh at as well, but then perhaps this held the genetic material needed to clone and manipulate the material such to produce a female counterpart.

Not necessarily my belief, but possible. Biblical text doesn't conflict with science, some interpretations of the text do.

Edit: Just noted the time stamps on this and the two previous responses. Sorry, sometimes I'm easily amused 😉

1st, I respect your opinion. You seem like a smart dude, and i'm not the quickest of cat's, in the best of times, but... Scripture and science do conflict. There really isn't any comparison between creationism and evolution. Creationism never will be in-line with any scientific stance. Simply because supernatural theories are not testable by the scientific method. I'm not an expert in biology, but hell, I have a basic education. And I'd say that homo sapiens didn't evolve from sand, or were they carved out of driftwood. I'll go along with sand being a building block... I'll choose common descent, and billions of years of change, over 6 days of magic. That's laughable, and there is no comparison between the two, at least not on any logical level. Come on... Just look at a fossil record for pete's sake.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What Do You Believe God Would Be Like?

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
1st, I respect your opinion. You seem like a smart dude, and i'm not the quickest of cat's, in the best of times, but... Scripture and science do conflict. There really isn't any comparison between creationism and evolution. Creationism never will be in-line with any scientific stance. Simply because supernatural theories are not testable by the scientific method. I'm not an expert in biology, but hell, I have a basic education. And I'd say that homo sapiens didn't evolve from sand, or were they carved out of driftwood. I'll go along with sand being a building block... I'll choose common descent, and billions of years of change, over 6 days of magic. That's laughable, and there is no comparison between the two, at least not on any logical level. Come on... Just look at a fossil record for pete's sake.

There is no reason to believe that God would not have used evolution as the tool of creation. It is possible for some creationist's views to be anti science, but it is an interpretation of the text. The Bible does not state the method of creation, and does not necessitate anything unscientific in regards to the method.

i believe in god and i dont.see when some one says "he" i dont like because i think god is not a he or she.i imagine him as life itself and i think that if god were a boy hhe would let us no

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What Do You Believe God Would Be Like?

Originally posted by Regret
There is no reason to believe that God would not have used evolution as the tool of creation. It is possible for some creationist's views to be anti science, but it is an interpretation of the text. The Bible does not state the method of creation, and does not necessitate anything unscientific in regards to the method.

But you cant be entirely literal about any religion text. The Bible says that the earth rests on four pillars. I'm sure other religious texts (if taken literally) have the same issues.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What Do You Believe God Would Be Like?

Originally posted by Alliance
But you cant be entirely literal about any religion text. The Bible says that the earth rests on four pillars. I'm sure other religious texts (if taken literally) have the same issues.

I agree, all religions have to have issues with science if interpreted in specific manners.

Literal or non literal, it makes no difference. If an interpretation is in direct conflict with fact it is wrong. Unless of course nature is not evidence of God, as many Christians suggest it is. Facts tend to trump guesses, which are what most interpretations are.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What Do You Believe God Would Be Like?

Originally posted by Regret
I agree, all religions have to have issues with science if interpreted in specific manners.

Literal or non literal, it makes no difference. If an interpretation is in direct conflict with fact it is wrong. Unless of course nature is not evidence of God, as many Christians suggest it is. Facts tend to trump guesses, which are what most interpretations are.

If you took the Lotus Sutra (the text of my religion) literally, you would be one very lost person. It wasn't written to be literal. Literal meanings get lost over time, but fugitive meanings last for as long as the human race lasts.