Need for god ? Has it ? Abiologists will find that their experiment will work . We have discussed this before , pad .
Yes and you still seem confused on many issues and it still hasn't sunk in. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Most all issues that you ever discuss river..... You see while reading is a great past time [I do plenty myself] it is always open to any Tom, Dick and Harry, to abuse and create whatever fatnasy he or she likes. Your Brandeburg nut, and his Atomic war on Mars comes to mind....Von Daniken's nonsensical baseless ancient Aliens crap....the Bermuda Triangle rubbish...Astrology, etc etc etc This also applies to forums such as this......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyone can come here and say what they like, including me. Except of course mostly what I say is supported by evidence and is generally accepted knowledge. But forums are open to all, and some have more lax rules then others. In essesnce, some of the nonsensical claims that are allowed to be made on this forum, are totally banned on others, or they are required to support their stance and answer all questions within a month before the thread is closed. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Evolution of life is a certainty. Abiogenisis is the only scientific answer available, the only argument being what exact mechanism, eg: specifically on Earth, Panspermia etc. Religion and god is simply a way out to many to explain what science at this time cannot explain.But religion raises the same questions and more. see my old mate Professor Sagan and that couragous inevitable question at the 30 second mark.... As usual river, its been a pleasure helping you to put things in the right perspective. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We are told that God created matter and that God was not created, so God cannot be matter, so he can only be mind. But a mind cannot exist without matter, in the same way that software cannot exist without hardware, therefore God (as defined) cannot exist.
Not that I want to lend any credence to this, but: It seems kind of naive to assume that the "mind" of this God is limited by our concept of the mind of humans. As soon as one posits the existence of God, one kind of throws ideas like 'mind cannot exist with matter' out the window. It makes about as much sense as saying 'how could God breathe in space?'
God created heaven and earth . Matter is something else . Earth is made of matter . So the matter was there in a mass of a mixture of compounds , compounds are made of atoms . I believe there is a difference between compounds and atoms which are matter.
It is generally agreed among Christian scholars that our Father created matter and before Creation, matter did not exist. It follows that He is not material. In fact, it is well known that He is made of Spirit. As regards the OP, Spirit is not "software"; it is a substance that exists independently of matter.
God doesn't need to be worshiped. He doesn't have any "needs" as His nature is complete, unlike fallen mortals. We need to worship so as to enter communion with our beloved Father. It is our need, not His.
Where are we told that God created matter? Sure, he might have been the cause of certain arrangements of matter, but where does it say that he actually creates matter? Secondly, your comments above are decidedly paradoxical: you say that God created matter, so He can only be a mind, but then you say that a mind can not exist without matter. So God, a mind, exists and creates that which you say is necessary for a mind to exist? So who created the matter necessary for God (the mind) to exist? You see, a paradox. If a mind cannot exist without matter then matter must have existed no later than at the same time that the mind was created. The mind can not have come first and created the matter that the mind requires to exist, Furthermore, is your interpretation and understanding of God that He sits apart from his creations? That his creations are distinct and separate from Him? That they are not merely manifestations of God? If this is your view then it is but one understanding of God, and so perhaps you need to be a bit clearer on which understanding of God you are referring to.
Where does it say that God created matter, rather than just formed a certain arrangement of matter? As for being generally agreed among Christian scholars, they do not have exclusive rights to the truth of God. At best they, just as anyone else, can believe that what they understand is correct. So if your assertion is one of what these Christian scholars believe, sure, you may well be correct in that they might very well believe that to be true. As for it being well known that God is made of Spirit, I would suggest apt hat at best you can claim that it is well believed that God is made of Spirit (whatever that is). First, to something to be known it is commonly understood that it must be believed and that the belief must be true. So if you wish to demonstrate the truth of that belief, I'll happily concede that it is known. Second, what is "Spirit"? Unless you can adequately define what it is then it seems to be just another term for "I don't know". If you intend it to mean simply something akin to the non-physical, please provide something to justify that anything non-physical actually exists, as you claim, "independently of matter"?
Are all gods disembodied? I think that many of the ancients imagined their gods with bodies. Maybe not bodies composed of the kind of matter that our bodies are composed of (that falls apart) but some superior sort of matter that makes the gods immortal. They are?? Thoughts are "arrangements" and "events"? (I'm inclined to agree.) But... are arrangements and events matter? They seem to me to involve relationships and might be more akin to abstract things like numbers and geometrical shapes. I agree that the human thoughts (and memories and all the things named in psychological vocabulary) are emergent somehow from the functioning of the brain and nervous system. Just as the functioning of machines is emergent from the behavior of their physical structures. But I'm more skeptical that these functions and behaviors are themselves material. Do they have mass? Do they occupy space? Can thoughts have electric charges or any physical properties? They certainly seem to be dependent on and emergent from matter somehow, but I'm not convinced that functions and behaviors are themselves matter. Ok, I agree with all that. But I don't think that the meaning of the Biblical text (or any text) is itself matter. It's something else, something more mysterious. So how would you account for the number three? Are numbers just collections of physical objects: three this and three that, arrived at in each case by some counting process? If so, what does it mean to say that this three over here is the same number as that three over there? What do the two 'threes' share in common? Is it possible for numbers to only exist conceptually, without being instantiated physically? (What about imaginary numbers and peculiar mathematical entities like that?)
Ted Grant was trying to construct a philosophical argument against the existence of God (and for some sort of materialism, it seemed to me). He hasn't convinced me, but it's good to see people trying their hand at philosophizing.
