Hi. Firstly i'd like to apologise if anything I ask has been mentioned previously. This is my first day and post here so some of this ground might already have been covered. 1) I wonder why there's planets other than Earth. Perhaps God made a few mistakes and started from scratch several times? If that's the case I'd say he didn't get it that much better in the end Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But seriously, can anyone answer me why the other planets are there? I have failed to find major reference to the other planets, (Jupiter/Mars etc), in the bible. I looked in the bible because that seems a religious folks only source of information. It seems slightly bizarre to me. 5000+ years ago the Sumerians explained all about the cosmos. They explained each planet, including Pluto. Without going into too much detail they did what is, without any possible return argument, known to be impossible. Since then mankind has proven to be true that which the Sumerians stated. That is what I consider evidence, fact. The bible is a mere collection of stories that so many millions believe without question, and yet without asking questions. Explain to me please, the purpose and reasoning for the other planets existence. 2) Having said all that might aswell continue with reference to the Sumerians. It is a fact that a lot of the bible was in fact written by the Sumerians way before its later conversion and 'adoption' into pretty much every single religion. The story of Noah is from Sumerian scripture. It is widely regarded that Genesis is in fact completely based upon original Sumerian literature. Sumerian cities such as Ur are mentioned within the bible. Having now said this would anyone consider it as valid with significance to your particular belief? So many people on so many different forums are so eager to spout text from the bible as if it were written solely for those who 'belong' to the christian religion. We can all sit down and sing hymns to our hearts content but surely there must come a time where we start asking questions and seeking real truths instead of hiding behind our own mortal fears and believing anything without hesitation? I am currently writing a book which I'd be willing to share with anyone here, (via email only though). It sums up my belief, based solely on evidence and facts, not 'faith' as you lot so admirably put it. I have faith i'm gonna stop smoking this year... the evidence suggests otherwise. Much that it's nice to have faith, it cannot compare to evidence. 3) I was fostered as a child and eventually adopted. From records it transpires I was fostered around 7 times. During those years I must have seen several different religions all preaching different beliefs. Examples: * Religion 1: Many Gods, Visible beings who directed the weather, life and death, and so forth. * Religion 2: 1 God, an invisible entity who created the world and all upon it during a busy week and now sits back and laughs at his creation. * Religion 3: 1 God, a big 6 armed blue dood. (Btw, these are all just random examples) My point is thus: One of the above is wrong. As you can see there's no chance they can all be right. So you tell me which of these is wrong... Tell me what makes them wrong and why you, or a specific belief is the correct one. Have you ever considered it could actually be you who is wrong? Have you ever considered the possibility you're sitting there singing hymns and handing out money for roof fixtures for nothing? Plz, this is my final question... just tell me which religion is correct and why. Regards.
This one, it answers everything, no I have never considered the possibility that I'm wrongPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
God is the creator - but you just assume He is sitting back doing nothing. It's the old "clockmaker" fallacy. God created a complete universe. One which makes sense scientifically. The way the earth was formed has to be true - consider other planets "witnesses" to the fact. If the earth were the only planet and the sun the only star, our existence would probably have been very unfortunate. Just consider the impact only the moon has had on human thought...
Snakelord, while I sympathize with your search to find the "right god", I don't know wether you have already decided which religion you like or dislike most. After "I don't know", you have two possibilities: 1) There is no God - which is probably an insurmountable bias. There's nothing to learn from here. 2) There is a God, and you want to form an opinion about Him. Let's You have to variables in this equation: You and God. You're simply trying to establish the connection. Now, for God to be God, you have to be His creation, and a creation is always indebted to its creator for creating it. It's the first rule of possession. You belong to who has created you. To whom does a work of art belong primarily - the artist, or the buyer? We are God's intellectual property. Now look at yourself. You have this urge in you not to conform, not to be a blind follower of masses - to be a true individual. On the other hand, you are aware that you have an intrinsic uniqueness anyway, but are part of the human race. So you are caught inbetween asserting your individuality and accepting the uselessness of it. You can't escape society. And society needs co-operation to function. Chaos is counterproductive. Yet it exists. You'll find that in yourself around every turn. You now smoking is bad for you, but you can't seem to grasp that belief enough to change your natural urge. The same with sleeping around. All over you see something good that has fallen into society and been diluted and to the point of being robbed of meaning. Why can we see how things are supposed to be and not reach it? Because we can't overcome ourselves. Monks of all religgions try to overcome this - and hope they will overcome the result of everything in the process: death. Death is the only universal property of life - and yet it doesn't fit. Yes, it's natural - but what's the point of life if it ends in death anyway? The cop-out would be: there is no point, no meaning - we create it ourselves. But then you're back to square one. Remember, we are on the premise that God created us. He created our bodies and our minds. What use is function in one, when the other has no meaning? Only God can give meaning. If you were the last living thing on earth - your life would still have meaning. Then what is God's plan for us? We are trapped, and surely He doesn't want us to be. He is our spiritual father, and we are he spiritual children. We are evidently not doing the right things, because there is evil all around us! Even people who seriously want to live right, are guilty in their own conscience most of the time (especially people who try the hardest). And God is greater than our conscience! He knows the difference between right and wrong because He is unbiased. There isn't a place for many gods who behave like humans. The only way out is a God that has mercy, who delights in forgiveness, but knows our guilt and struggles. He has to be able to provide a way for all of His creation to know Him and to be reconciled with Him. When would He have started this plan? As early as possible, in the beginning. And as our father, He wants to provide what we need. Wen He sends guides - prophets (people who know Him) and laws (actions that know Him) - He sends them with a purpose: to tell us what is right and wrong and to point us toward His plan for salvation. OK, you probably disagree with me on most of these points. Let's hear it, then...
I wish you good luck on your book writing endeavor and also in your search for God. It is said that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. I believe the proof is in the pudding so-to-speak. In other words, it's proof enough for you or it isn't. Here is Anselm's Arguement. It had nothing to do with my decision but I know it did for some others. Anselm begins by defining the most central term in his argument - God. Without asserting that God exists, Anselm asks what is it that we mean when we refer to the idea of "God." When we speak of a God, Anselm implies, we are speaking of the most supreme being. That is, let "god" = "something than which nothing greater can be thought." Anselm's definition of God might sound confusing upon first hearing it, but he is simply restating our intuitive understanding of what is meant by the concept "God." Thus, for the purpose of this argument let "God" = "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." Within your understanding, then, you possess the concept of God. As a non-believer, you might argue that you have a concept of unicorn (after all, it is the shared concept that allows us to discuss such a thing) but the concept is simply an idea of a thing. After all, we understand what a unicorn is but we do not believe that they exist. Anselm would agree. Two key points have been made thus far: 1. When we speak of God (whether we are asserting God is or God is not), we are contemplating an entity whom can be defined as "a being which nothing greater can be conceived."; 2. When we speak of God (either as believer or non-believer), we have an intra-mental understanding of that concept, i.e. the idea is within our understanding. Anselm continues by examining the difference between that which exists in the mind and that which exists both in the mind and outside of the mind as well. What is being asked here is: Is it greater to exist in the mind alone or in the mind and in reality (or outside of the mind)? Anselm asks you to consider the painter, e.g. define which is greater: the reality of a painting as it exists in the mind of an artist, or that same painting existing in the mind of that same artist and as a physical piece of art. Anselm contends that the painting, existing both within the mind of the artist and as a real piece of art, is greater than the mere intra-mental conception of the work. Let me offer a real-world example: If someone were to offer you a dollar, but you had to choose between the dollar that exists within their mind or the dollar that exists both in their mind and in reality, which dollar would you choose? Are you sure... At this point, we have a third key point established: 3. It is greater to exist in the mind and in reality, then to exist in the mind alone. Have you figured out where Anselm is going with this argument? A. If God is that than greater which cannot be conceived (established in #1 above); B. And since it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone (established in #3 above); C. Then God must exist both in the mind (established in #2 above) and in reality; D. In short, God must be. God is not merely an intra-mental concept but an extra-mental reality as well. But why? Because if God is truly that than greater which cannot be conceived, it follows that God must exist both in the mind and in reality. If God did not exist in reality as well as our understanding, then we could conceive of a greater being i.e. a being that does exist extramentally and intramentally. But, by definition, there can be no greater being. Thus, there must be a corresponding extra-mental reality to our intra-mental conception of God. God's existence outside of our understanding is logically necessary. Sometimes, Anselm's argument is presented as a Reductio Ad Absurdum (RAA). In an RAA, you reduce to absurdity the antithesis of your view. Since the antithesis is absurd, your view must be correct. Anselm's argument would look something like this: 1. Either [God exists] or [God does not exist]. 2. Assume [God does not exist] (the antithesis of Anselm's position) 3. If [God does not exist] (but exists only as an intra-mental concept), then that being which nothing greater which can be conceived, is a being which a greater being can be conceived. This is a logical impossibility (remember criterion #3); 4. Therefore, [God does not exist] is incorrect; 5. Therefore [God exists]. Rene Descartes, 1596 - 1650, is also credited with formulating a version of the ontological argument. One possible presentation of the Cartesian argument is as follows: 1. If there is a God it is a perfect being; 2. A perfect being possesses all possible perfections; 3. Existence is a perfection; 4. Therefore, God necessarily possesses the quality of existence. Simply, God exists.
Jenyar: Thanks for the psych evaluation it was interesting to read. Just so you know it's ok, I have my beliefs- just as concrete solid as anyone elses i guess. I asked my questions for a purpose other than 'finding myself' among this chaotic life but either way i did like what you wrote. Question 1 about the planets... I asked that because my book starts with mention of the planets. The second bit... Well thats harder to explain. Much that the bible does have extreme historical significance it has now been adapted so many times in order to point out moral lessons to future people. I am more interested in the historical side of the bible than the moral side. I don't need a God to tell me what's wrong or right- my wife tells me that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As for the third, and it's such a shame there was no answer. All the psychological profiles were nice but an answer to a simple question would have been better. Bridge has been nice enough to give a speech on Anselm although I would have preferred his own thoughts. None of these answer this question. It is an impossibility that every religion is right. Ok fine, the moral lessons it teaches are all wonderful but purely for the God aspect there needs to be some that are wrong. How so? Well as the easiest example: Christianity holds firmly the belief in one creator. Other religions believe in many creators, many Gods. As you can see one of those two would need to be wrong. I'm just curious as to which one. I didn't say God doesn't exist, I merely asked who was wrong. I guess that's the eternal battle between believers and non-believers. One of you must be wrong. It is at this stage where your own 'faith' and 'belief' come into play. Which is exactly my way of thinking.... Faith and belief are nice, but that's not an answer to anything unless it drives us to ask questions, to find truths. The serious problem to this is that no truths can be found in books. Books such as the bible are so open to interpretations that no concrete validity can be established. Where some people see God, others see Aliens. That is my problem in life.. wanting to find answers to things which are pretty much impossible Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It doesn't matter how great it would be if God exists. The fact that it might be great doesn't in any way mandate existence. Anselm's argument doesn't hold up.
Re: Anselm's argument doesn't hold up. Well James.... We're waiting. Why doesn't it hold up? Because you say so or do you actually have a counterpoint?
I have heard so many different takes on peoples religions that I no longer question who is right. I feel that no one is right. Religion is a persons attempt at making sense of this life and feel safe living in this slowly decaying society. Everyone has a unique take on religion and it has become a dick measuring contest to see whos right. Well, no human can be truely right. We are all imperfect, therefore we could never know all the answers. Although I'm not saying people shouldn't continue asking questions, people just need to accept that they will never know all the answers. I will say though that I do believe in a god, but the only way I can back that up is the fact that I live. I am alive therefore I feel that there must be some "being" out there.
Re: Re: Anselm's argument doesn't hold up. "God" = "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." The universe fits this definition, if you leave the word 'being' out. Anslem's proof is only considered 'somewhat' valid when it has no qualifications except for 'nothing greater can be conceived'. A. If God is that than greater which cannot be conceived (established in #1 above); B. And since it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone (established in #3 above); C. Then God must exist both in the mind (established in #2 above) and in reality; D. In short, God must be. God is not merely an intra-mental concept but an extra-mental reality as well. Strawson: To form a concept, however rich, is one thing; to declare it instantiated is another. Logical or analytical necessity relates solely to the connection of concepts with one another. No concept can logically guarantee its own instantiation in something [that is] not itself a concept." Even more simply, I'd rather define "alf = an alien from mars than which nothing greater can be concieved". Alf must exist. 1. If there is a God it is a perfect being; 2. A perfect being possesses all possible perfections; 3. Existence is a perfection; 4. Therefore, God necessarily possesses the quality of existence. Simply, God exists. I personally do not see existance as 'perfection'. Descartes was basing his 'proof' on a personal opinion. The problem with both of these is that they assume an idea must be valid because we can think about it. Kant and Thomas Aquinas explaine this in depth. Unless you consider this a proof for Alf also, it isn't a proof for God either. I can attach whatever conditions to the definiton I want and show that the proof does not work. You only option is to take 'being' out of the equation, in which case you are talking about the universe.
I want to know why everyone sees god as this perfect being. How can he be all powerful? Can he create a rock that he cannot destroy?
Snakelord It is a fact that a lot of the bible was in fact written by the Sumerians way before its later conversion {{{{{{{{{{{{ }}}}}}}}}}}} I have heard this before, but let me offer an explaination for these "facts" that appear to lead to this conclusion. First about the origin of Genesis...It was given to Moses, by God Himself along with the first 5 books. The word Genesis is actually two words, "Gene" or "Seeds"and "sis" or "two". It is the recorded beginning of the "Two Seeds" - Two Races., The Sons of God and the Sons of Men. It's reference to Ur and events that are also recorded in Sumerian history are also no surprise, because it tells the truth. It IS NOT in any way derived from Sumerian "scripture". The Epic of Gilgamesh is Fiction, whether an actual King Gilgamesh existed or not. It may be "based" on recounts of actual events, but I'll cover that later. Don't assume because of the date Moses received this (1800-2000 B.C.), that because Sumerian culture pre-dates this (2500 B.C.) that "Genesis" came from them. The events scribed down by Moses as He received it from God tell of events back to 4000 B.C. and far outdate anything else on record. They tell the story of what actually happened before the flood in the anti-deluvian world, and before that to the begining of creation. The Bible has been written in such a way as to Seal or hide much of it's knowledge from people in the past, until it was to be revealed in this day. If you read this following exerpt from a previous post (Pre-Flood History), it can explain many of the similarities you see in ancient texts.
"the excerpt" In the garden of God, the Serpent walked upright, talked to Eve, and eventually beguiled her into disbelieving God's word and believing the devil's lie. This Serpent however was merely an animal, and therefore could be possessed and used by the devil, for it did not have a soul like a Man. The Serpent was the closest member of the animal species to Man. Adam was created in the image of God, an attribute of God's own genes, a Son of God. And like a son grows up to reflect the image of his father, Adam was to reflect God's image , to manifest God in this physical realm. He was created the first of a new species, higher in power and authority than the angels," The Sons of God". But Adam fell - these sons of god were suposed to be brought forth by the spoken word, like Adam was, and like Jesus was, not by sex...Thats why Jesus had to come by the spoken word to redeem these fallen sons. Eve was not in the original creation, but was taken from Adam, a by-product, this is why she could be deceived. Lucifer had stated "he desired a kingdom more glorious than Michael's" , and said "I will ascend up and set as God and be worshipped as God". The scriptures say he deceived one-third of the angels in heaven, and when he spoke through the serpent to deceive Eve he was trying to carry out his plans to destroy God's future kingdom and create his own "Satan's Eden ", where he sits as God, and is worshipped as God, by all the peoples of the earth. Science, education, and modern civilization are all a part of his plan to get people to lean on their own understanding, instead of faith in God, who is the Word (1 john 1:1-14 ). The Serpent said to Eve, "surely you shall not die, but your eyes shall be opened and you shall be like gods". Adam was created by the spoken Word. Satan can not create something from nothing, he can only pervert something God has already created, so he used the serpent to seduce Eve and thereby create a hybrid race. It's been documented many times that a woman can have sex with two different men within a 24 hour period and conceive by both of them ,giving birth to twins, both of different fathers. The scriptures say "Cain was of his father the wicked one", And after being with the serpent, Eve went to show Adam this that she'd learned, the bible says" Adam knew his wife Eve, and she bore him a son, Cain, and then bare his brother Abel. So there are two sons representing two separate races, The Sons of God, (Adam and Eve's real children, made in the image of God - Jesus said: "You call them gods whom the word of God came to, and they were"....He was speaking of the prophets...The Word of God came to the Sons of God before the flood too....Enoch and Noah are examples....and with lifespans of nearly 1000 years), and the Son of Men (from which the came the giants, the serpent was larger than man). So you have two races on earth befor the flood which mixed together right before the "destruction". The Sons of God, (Jesus said they were "gods" whom the Word came to)....These had lifespans of an incredible 900+ years. And The Sons of Men, (Giants and the desendants of Cain's linage) who without the faith inf God as the other race had, lived by the "knowledge of Good and Evil" their own understanding upon which they leaned....The length of their lifespans are not recorded. These mixed before the flood, and Noah and his three sons carried over on the ark the genes of both......as recorded in the actions of his son Ham. If the length of the lifespan of Cain's linage was much shorter, as it probably was ..the other would have seemed immortal, even though they did eventually die. ("a day to god is a thousand years", and they did die the "day" they sinned). Now think of the various legends and accounts in the worlds ancient history that "fit" this setting.... TheVisitor
Persol wrote: I'm almost sure I saw Alf laying on the side of the road today with his legs sticking straight up. If he's still there on the way home I may grill him. Any recipes?
It is easy to say why any religious theory of everything is false by checking it against reality. That is why all Holy Bible religions are false. Hawaiian polytheism beliefs have landmarks and historical events in the past 100 years. Every religion has beliefs. The theory of everything may be false but the actions of gods might be tangible. That is why gods are not necessary for miraculous events. GodLied.
Anselm was the first philosopher to put forward the ontological argument (an ontological argument is concerned with being it is an a- priori argument for the existence of God). A priori – is like a triangle or bachelor. One use of the a priori god hinges on the fact that god is “the greatest bla bla bla… therefore must be greater than just an imagined thing”. The fact it is an a-prior argument means that if the argument is wrong then it is completely wrong. In the philosophy of religion it is one of the strongest arguments, if not the strongest, for the existence of God. Here’s a modern version by Hartshorne where "N(A)" means "it is logically necessary that A," "~A" means "it is not the case that A," "-->" is strict implication, "v" means "or," and "g" means "God exists": 1. g --> N(g) 2. N(g) v ~N(g) 3. ~N(g) --> N(~N(g)) 4. N(g) v N(~N(g)) 5. N(~N(g)) --> N(~g) 6. N(g) v N(~g) 7. ~N(~g) 8. N(g) 9. N(g) --> g 10. g This argument is valid. Furthermore, given an Anselmian conception of God, premises one and five are sound. Premise two is just the law of the excluded middle, and premise three is a law of the modal logic S5. Premise nine is obviously sound, so this leaves premise seven as the only premise to question. Premise seven says that it is logically possible that God exists. If you were to change it to: 7'. It is possible that God does not exist. Then using premise one, and 7', one gets this conclusion: 10'. God does not exist. Therefore, one must have a good reason to prefer "it is possible that God exists" over "it is possible that God does not exist." However, there does not seem to be. Therefore, with two premises of equal prior (epistemically) likeliness leading to opposite conclusions, the conclusion is that Hartshorne's argument cannot succeed. Or another, Alvin Plantinga's ontological argument is similar to Hartshorne's, and falls to the same attack. Plantinga's argument is based on the semantics of "possible worlds." For him, logically necessary existence means "existing in all possible worlds," logically possible existence means "existing in at least one possible world," and logically impossible existence means "existing in no possible worlds." A modified version of Plantinga's Argument follows: 1. The proposition that a thing has maximal excellence if and only if it has maximal excellence in every possible world is necessarily true. 2. The proposition that whatever has maximal excellence is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect is necessarily true. 3. There is a possible world in which the property of possessing maximal greatness is exemplified. 4. Therefore, the property of possessing maximal greatness is exemplified in every possible world. 5. Therefore, God exists. Again, this argument can be critiqued similar in a way to Hartshorne's, by using this premise: 3'. There is a possible world in which the property of possessing maximal greatness is not exemplified. Combined with 1, we get: 4'. Therefore, the property of possessing maximal greatness is exemplified in no possible world. From this, we can conclude that God does not exist. Since both 3 and 3' are equally likely and lead to opposite conclusions, the conclusion is that Plantinga's ontological argument does not succeed. Here are some books: The Question of God: An Introduction and Sourcebook The Ontological Argument, from St. Anselm to Contemporary Philosophers God, Freedom, and Evil The Ontological Argument Websites: Ontological Arguments Anselm on God's Existence Ontological arguments
From the Stanford url: They certainly are fascinating. Anselm's is the one that sticks with me but I appreciate you pointing out the others. Thanks Michael.
