-->
@janesix
I think there is objective evidence for a created solar system
Would you agree with the scientific explanations of how solar systems are created?
I'm not convinced - why are you?
Posts
Total:
165
-->
@Goldtop
I am not an astrophysicist. But I don't really have any reason to disbelieve the current theory of solar system creation.
-->
@janesix
It's not created.
-->
@Mopac
It's not created.
what isn't created? The solar system?
-->
@janesix
The Ultimate Reality is not created.
If you know what Truth is, you know what The Ultimate Reality is. And it is by the spirit of Truth that this witness is made.
Father
Son
Holy Ghost
It is through this belief in the threeness that a confession of the Oneness of the creator of creation can be made with sincerity and truth.
How can you know God? Through a glass, dim and dark. A smudgey lense.
The realest existiest truest reality. God. Your relationship with God is through the medium of creation. You are in the meat suit.
-->
@Mopac
what is Truth?
-->
@janesix
The state of being the case. Actuality. Reality. As it truth is.
The Truth.
If you know what this means, you know what God means.
-->
@Mopac
Ok so what does not mean? You said you know what the ultimate truth means what exactly does it mean? So far you have not told us what it means only that it is what it is.
-->
@Mopac
I have tried to understand what you are talking about. I give up.
-->
@janesix
That's unfortunate, because it is not my intent to mystify, but edify.
You believe the solar system exists. You believe the solar system is true.
You already believe in truth, so what is hard to understand about what I'm saying?
I find it difficult to believe you are earnestly trying to understand what I'm saying. Maybe it's too simple for you, who may be used to overcomplicating things.
-->
@secularmerlin
You want a grand unified theorem. Anything short of this is not an acceptable answer to you. You have made that clear.
Whatever Ultimate Truth is, that is, whatever fulfills that definition, is what Ultimate Truth is.
It's not that difficult to understand why I don't say anything else. It would certainly be haughty.
But I will say that this is what the concept of God means in theology. The Ultimate Reality.
-->
@Mopac
Without an explanation of what it means your definition is effectively meaningless. I guess 3ru7al is right about quanta being mostly meaningless.
-->
@secularmerlin
Well, unfortunately, neither of you have passed the kindergarten lesson, so all you get is what God means.
Since you can't even accept and go forward with that, you are both cursed to lean on your own understanding. Until that real humbling moment comes, I can't really do much else.
Life is a classroom. Eventually you both will get there, that is my hope.
-->
@Mopac
I am trying to figure out what you believe. I don't understand what you are saying. Perhaps that is my own fault, perhaps you are not being clear.
What is God to you? You say the Ultimate Reality. If you mean that God is everything, and includes everything, I can understand that. But I'm not sure if that's what you mean.
-->
@Mopac
I have no one else's understanding to rely upon. Even my understanding of someone else's understanding would only be my own understanding.you are both cursed to lean on your own understanding.
-->
@janesix
You could say that God is in everything and that everything has its existence in God. However, I wouldn't call a tree God, so I can't say God is everything. I also cannot say that the sum of everything is God, because if everything is destroyed, then God is nothing.
God comes before the universe, the universe exists within God. If there is a "multiverse" even, all of these worlds exist in God. If there is reality to something, it is because of God. If there is no reality to something, it doesn't exist.
If nobody believed in God, God would still exist. The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on anything else, everything is contingent on The Ultimate Reality.
I am a monotheist, I am expressing the monotheist position. But if I were to simplify the difference between "God is everything" and what I am saying, it is the difference between pantheism and panentheism.
I am not trying to be obscure, so if I am unclear, be patient with me as I will be patient with you. Clarity really is my intention.
-->
@Mopac
Thank you for your detailed response. I am always interested in other's beliefs and how they compare to my own.
-->
@janesix
Whatever The Ultimate Reality actually is....
That is God.
So the point is that the existence of God is not actually something that should ever come into question.
-->
@Mopac
Except for those who don't believe that that God is the ultimate reality.
-->
@janesix
Well, then you aren't actually respecting the concept. You are talking about something else when you use the word "God".
What other reason is there to do this but strife?
-->
@Mopac
Well, then you aren't actually respecting the concept. You are talking about something else when you use the word "God".
I don't claim to understand God. I can only make guesses based on my experiences, and from what I can research in terms of what appears to be creation. God could be the ultimate reality, and the creator of everything. I find it highly likely.
-->
@janesix
Perhaps you are having trouble distinguishing between what God is and what people say God is.
You aren't going to find any less confusion distinguishing between whatbis true and what people say is true. What is reality and what people say is reality.
The concept means Ultimate Reality. Don't be confused by the unrealities attached to God.
The Ultimate Reality means God, that is what the concept has always meant, and it is both a universal concept and one that has been understood as a concept for thousands of years. There is no benefit to denying this, and in every way it is harmful.
You may or may not care, but I think it is worth noting that people out of love for others have been killed and tortured to death over proclaiming this message.
-->
@Mopac
I am not denying that God is the ultimate reality. I am claiming that I do not know if it is true. There is a big difference.
-->
@SkepticalOne
I neither believe in God's existence nor God's nonexistence, and I am not particularly well-schooled in theological topics, so perhaps I am not the best person to comment on this question. Those caveats known, it seems to me that the question of God's existence is fundamentally different from, say, the existence of gnomes. When people ask whether God exists, they are asking whether existence or the universe has an origin instantiated in some being or force. The arguments which attempt to demonstrate or trace God's existence are akin, in some sense, to working backwards to the starting point of the celestial map. Understood in this quasi-geographical, temporal sense, I think we can differentiate gnomes from God. God is the originator, gnomes postdate the start of existence or the universe. Gnomes are unprovable because there is no quality of them which is independently analyzable and potentially provable. This is not the case with God, as the question of whether there is or is not an origin is potentially provable (and at least arguable).
Hopefully that makes some sense...
-->
@bsh1
I think we can differentiate gnomes from God. God is the originator, gnomes postdate the start of existence or the universe.
Is there any evidence to show that gnomes were not around before God, or possibly it was a gnome who created the universe? Maybe gnomes created God? Adam and Eve may have been gnomes?
Notice how it is impossible to differentiate God from gnomes without making bald assertions of either one?
-->
@Goldtop
If you define God as possessing the property of origination, then it would be semantically impossible for any being to predate God. Similarly, if gnomes possessed the property of origination, then they would be gods and could be shown to exist via that property. Your argument, then, misunderstands my own.
-->
@bsh1
I neither believe in God's existence nor God's nonexistence, and I am not particularly well-schooled in theological topics, so perhaps I am not the best person to comment on this question. Those caveats known, it seems to me that the question of God's existence is fundamentally different from, say, the existence of gnomes. When people ask whether God exists, they are asking whether existence or the universe has an origin instantiated in some being or force. The arguments which attempt to demonstrate or trace God's existence are akin, in some sense, to working backwards to the starting point of the celestial map. Understood in this quasi-geographical, temporal sense, I think we can differentiate gnomes from God. God is the originator, gnomes postdate the start of existence or the universe. Gnomes are unprovable because there is no quality of them which is independently analyzable and potentially provable. This is not the case with God, as the question of whether there is or is not an origin is potentially provable (and at least arguable).
Very balanced post, great job. People don't think about their claims and comparisons much at all when they wish to categorize Creation/God with silly absurdities. They haven't thoroughly finished their homework and what it means to consider an intelligent, conscious first originator. To them it is absurd to believe in a Creator, so they believe and label it along with other things they think are nonsense. It is very unfortunate in all honesty.
I neither believe in God's existence nor God's nonexistence, and I am not particularly well-schooled in theological topics, so perhaps I am not the best person to comment on this question. Those caveats known, it seems to me that the question of God's existence is fundamentally different from, say, the existence of gnomes. When people ask whether God exists, they are asking whether existence or the universe has an origin instantiated in some being or force. The arguments which attempt to demonstrate or trace God's existence are akin, in some sense, to working backwards to the starting point of the celestial map. Understood in this quasi-geographical, temporal sense, I think we can differentiate gnomes from God. God is the originator, gnomes postdate the start of existence or the universe. Gnomes are unprovable because there is no quality of them which is independently analyzable and potentially provable. This is not the case with God, as the question of whether there is or is not an origin is potentially provable (and at least arguable).Hopefully that makes some sense...
I just want to expand a bit on the above passage. I wasn't sure if my original post was clear.
Suppose that, for the sake of argument, we define a gnome thusly: a 3-foot tall, bearded human who wears a green hat and possesses magical powers. None of the traits with which a gnome is identified can be independently demonstrated in a way which necessitates a gnome's existence. The elements of a gnome are (1) 3-foot tall, (2) bearded, (3) human, (4) wears a green hat, (5) possesses magical powers. I could prove that green hats exist and are worn, that there are 3-foot tall humans, even that magic exists. But proving any of these things in isolation is insufficient to demonstrate that a gnome exists. There could be many non-gnomes which are 3-feet two, many humans which are not gnomes, and even (theoretically at least) users of magic which are not gnomes.
Now suppose we define God as the origin of all creation. There is here a trait with which God is identified that can be independently demonstrated in a way which necessitates God's existence. That creation has an origin could plausibly and potentially be demonstrated via argument (indeed, that is the whole project of the Kalam Cosmological Argument). And, if creation is shown to have an origin, by definition, God must exist. Nothing like this (a necessary and sufficient element to prove its existence which is theoretically demonstrable) is the case for the gnome.
Very balanced post, great job.
Thank you.
-->
@janesix
Why doubt?