Why do people continuaously ask how we are lucky enough to be in the right position so that we dopn't freeze to death or burn to a crisp. It's lucky that we are the perfect distance from the sun with resources that are usable. Think of the trillions and trillions of planets that weren't so lucky. In the limitless amount of planets out there, at least one was going to have the right conditions (and who knows, it may be possible to be based on other elemnts other than carbon, which would make it even more likely that it is a coincidence we are here)
Okay, god or not god.
There is something that is not within our understanding. To do so, would not make it comprehensible and therefore not god. God in my opinion is just a name for reference. It could be called Spirit, Universe, Source, SPOT,...What ever this thing may be, it is not and I repeat not something that punishes you. The only punishment is what you give it, since your actions come back on you. If you want to call that god, that is god. Otherwise it is you. If it is you, than you are just as important as god is.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Okay, god or not god.There is something that is not within our understanding. To do so, would not make it comprehensible and therefore not god. God in my opinion is just a name for reference. It could be called Spirit, Universe, Source, SPOT,...What ever this thing may be, it is not and I repeat not something that punishes you. The only punishment is what you give it, since your actions come back on you. If you want to call that god, that is god. Otherwise it is you. If it is you, than you are just as important as god is.
I agree.
Our thinking is just too linear. And this are not as such. We don't know many things. We don't even know which reality we belong to, what is our true nature, how many universes there are, how many other things in the universe there are, when did time begin, what was here before space...etc.
There are an enormas amounts of things we do not and can never comprehend.
God may be one of those things. Seeing how we don't even have a clear definition of what It is.
Judeo-Christian and Muslims god, amongst others are just personification of something we may never understand or be able to comprehand...maybe.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I agree.Our thinking is just too linear. And this are not as such. We don't know many things. We don't even know which reality we belong to, what is our true nature, how many universes there are, how many other things in the universe there are, when did time begin, what was here before space...etc.
There are an enormas amounts of things we do not and can never comprehend.
God may be one of those things. Seeing how we don't even have a clear definition of what It is.Judeo-Christian and Muslims god, amongst others are just personification of something we may never understand or be able to comprehand...maybe.
I thought Debbie was stating the obvious.
Crediting--or discrediting!--the existence of a supreme being as "absolute" truth is impossible. We human beings are not "transcendent" of truth; rather, we are products of truth. In layman terms, we are not "outside the box." In so, our ability to acquire knowledge is limited, which brings us back to my opening statement: "Crediting--or discrediting!--the existence of a supreme being as 'absolute' truth is impossible."
However, with what knowledge is available, we are free to make "practical" decisions as to what is fact. For example: the sun in our solar system is--yep, you guessed it--hot! And we naturally affirm that others stars throughout the cosmos are hot. The reasons are many, but we will never know for sure. For some, this may be a pathetic example--and you may be right--but, hopefully, you understand the logic behind my statements, for it is important. Bear with me, please.
The Bible states in Psalm chapter 14 verse 1: "The fool hath said in this heart, there is no God." Humbly speaking, I believe that statement to be true, and we do not need a PhD in molecular biology, astronomy, astrophysics, or any other scientific discipline and/or field to understand why. We don't even need the Bible.
I think all persons--outwardly or secretly--embrace the existence of a supreme being; those who claim different lie to themselves, and are desperately trying to convince themselves of such intellectual suicide. Emotions do not determine truth. Denying a supreme being is fueled by "philosophical" reasoning, not "objective" reasoning (as many claim).
No one, on the face of the planet, would associate the assembly of a 757 Boeing to the blasting of a tornado through a junk yard. Nor would any one man attribute the works of Bach or Beethoven to the tossing of pots and pans down a flight of stairs. Such notions would require a great amount of ignorance on one's part, in my view. Many reading these words understand the sobering impact of my examples, namely their complexity. The odds are so remote--not to mention staggering for such complexity--that we readily except intelligence as the sum of all presented, never chance. One would seemingly have to have the I. Q. of a pop corn fart in order to believe hieroglyphics are the products of natural erosion. And yet, when such complexity is seen in nature, logic no longer applies--chance produces intelligence and chaos produces fine-tuning.
As previously stated: "Crediting--or discrediting!--the existence of a supreme being as 'absolute' truth is impossible." Regardless, I am willing to conceded that a supreme being does in fact exist. Belief in a supreme being works with logic, not against it.
The fact that zero evidence for any supreme being existing is not something that should make the idea more mystifying.
Think about other items for which there is no real evidence.
presumed response: Its untestable and incomprehensible to man
To which I reply presumptuously:
What else can you think of that is untestable and also claimed to be "unknowable". Does the incontestability of a claim make it more or less likely to be true.
I think someone needs to explain why "It could be called Spirit, Universe, Source, SPOT" should not be subject to the same logical standards that every other thing is.