Jan, do you believe God needs to be "worshipped" in order to continue "His" benevolence, and if you don't worship Him, He will bring His wrath down on you? Or would you agree that, assuming God is the creative force, *It* has no emotional stake in it's creative powers and is just an all pervading *implaccable" permittive/restrictive condition, essentially mahematical in its creative (as well as destructive) functions, to which I would hazard a guess, everyone will agree needs to be respected? I believe everyone recognizes that there is an essential aspect (essence) to this condition, i.e. the law of "cause and effect". As humans are an effect (result) of billions of years of probabilistic (potentially permitted) evolution, why should this *function* need to be worshipped at a personal level? If I recall your own words "God just is", why would He favor a theist (believer) who may worship Him, over an atheist who does believes that the law of cause and effect does not favor one thing over another, but just IS and functions in an implacable way that needs to be understood and respected in order to avoid pursuing a cause with undesirable (side) effects. Indications are that, even as theists (of one kind or another) are in the majority, the billions of sincere prayers have absolutely no effect on how the Wholeness functions and is expressed in *our* reality. Do you believe prayer has ANY effect on Universal functions? If we prayed for an eternal sun (one of the main causes of life on earth), will that persuade God against allowing the sun to burn itself out and swallow up the entire earth and all life thereon? Who then will be left to worship Him? If I pray hard enough, will that prevent my car from ending up rusting in a junk yard? So clearly, from our knowledge of How universal laws function, prayer is a useless exercise in terms of influencing how God (the Wholeness) functions. I don't dispute that prayer has a personal emotional effect on people, but don't expect to find a divine ear which can offer salvation. The historical evidence argues against that notion. So, if God does not respond to our wishes and desires, the logical conclusion is that God is not a motivated benevolent creator "who cares" and we cannot ascribe any emotional properties to God. So then we are left only with an implacable function of cause and effect. But that contradicts all theistic propositions of a sentient and motivated creator, who favors humans over say, mindless insects, which have already proven that belief in a god is not necessary to be *selected* as the most successful and persistent animated organism in the entire history of the earth. If you have not already seen it, I recommend "The Hellstrom Chronicle" and old but historically true account of the amazing adaptive powers of insects. To humans they are just pests to be exterminated, but if I were a god, I would considere the insect as my greatest creation.
The first alternative (there was a beginning) is the correct scientific POV. The scientific POV about the "kick start" is that there was a statistical fluctuation in the zero energy total, much like electron / positron pairs are being created out of the “nothingness” of the vacuum, but this original "kick start" experienced an immediate intense / rapid "inflation" so the equal amounts of positive energy and negative energy could not re-combine to zero as electron/positron pairs do. The positive energy was without mass, but it was expanding (much slower than the inflation period of the big bang) so cooling, When the temperature got low enough, quarks formed, then later three at a time united themselves into protons and neutrons, and electrons were created to keep charge neutrality (zero net charge). I. e. the number of protons was equal to the number of electrons (and sames happened for their corresponding anti-particles). With still more expansion this initial 100% ionized plasma began to from neutral matter (mostly hydrogen and some helium). This matter had mutual gravitational attraction, so stars formed (the first ones were hundreds of time more massive than our sun, which formed much later) The formation of neutral matter had another effect: The plasma no longer contained within its self the internal radiation (that any body at any temperature has). Initially this radiation temperature (in a black body distribution) was very high, but it decreased as the universe expanded. We now see that this “cosmic background radiation” is much, much cooler, with a temperature of only 2.7K (as I recall) So if what you call the statistical fluctuation, the "kick start" and inflation, that immediately followed is: "God" I can agree with that. But clearly it has no consciousness, or will, or purpose, or characteristic like “all knowing” 'loving,” etc. - It was just a statistical fluctuation that with prompt inflation created the universe, while preserving total energy and charge at zero, etc. The positive energy I spoke of above is exactly equal to the negative energy created in the big bang but only recently has it been identified as Dark Energy and known to be why the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down under the mutual gravitational attraction of matter. I. e. the net force of the Dark Energy, now at least, is over powering the mutual gravity attraction of the matter created from the positive energy.
What does your personal view have to do with this thread???? You are kidding!? I get it now you are playing hide and seek. Thats ok I will hide. Alex
1] I think about God as much as I think about many other things. Such as Russell's Teapot. Every argument you make starts with the premise that it is an objectively existing thing you are discussing. That is a logical fallacy. 2] I am pointedly not covering my ears. I am here, discussing it. What claims am I making exactly, other than drawing attention to flawed logic?
No I'm not kidding. How does my personal view enter into proving that God exists? My theism plays as much a role as your atheism, if that is where you're going. Not at all. I'm laying my cards on the table with regards to the theme of the thread. Jan.
1] You know perfectly well that is a logical fallacy. You are attempting to shift the burden. 2] I am not here to prove God doesn't exist. 3] If I chose to, I would need no more prove God does't exist than I need to prove Russell's Teapot doesn't exist. Any attempted proof must presuppose its existence. You are exhibiting almost Magical-Realist-level argumentative tactics. You know perfectly well that the onus lies on the claimant, and you know perfectly well that the concept of souls was your contribution.
Are you really discussing God? Or are you simply try to show that God does exist, by NOT discussing God. Jan.
You have claimed that God doesn't exist in post 865, yet you seem unable to discuss God, let alone back up your claim. Saying "God doesn't exist" doesn't mean you are correct. I haven't made any claims. You have. You're the one who has made a claim. Does that mean anything to you? Regarding souls... you do realise we are discussing God? Jan
Ah. Well that's a very narrow definition of God. Far more narrow than I was expecting. Which scriptures?
You did not read the post, did you? You should not try to refer to something you have not checked out. As I said, all I have done is call attention to a logical fallacy you committed. I made no assertion about whether or not God exists. I have (and continue to) show that your argument (that we must first have a detailed description before drawing conclusions) is false - something even you agreed with. You admitted that Russell's teapot surely doesn't exist, basing it on only as much information as you needed to draw your conclusion. There's no need to go around in circles; it is extant in my posts and yours, for anyone to read, including you.
That is the question put to you. Do you realize we're discussing God and not the (diversionary*) topic of souls? * your label, your topic; I simply concur Staying on topic please. Talking about God please.
Oh, Jan, after all this teasing our curiosity with saying that you are not relying on the *common* interpretation of God, you come up with an assertion that scripture is proof of God? I have 4 bibles and could find no proof of the existence of God in any of them. I was hoping for a less banal answer, something deeper, more fundamental. I gave you an avenue by citing Bohm, who after deep discussions with Einstein and several Eastern sages, did come up with a novel way of looking at the universe and its creation and evolution as an hierachical ordering from the very subtle to gross expression in our reality with a central causality, which he called "insight Intelligence", but not God. Obviously you are NOT here to investigate the possible existence of a non-scriptural God, or you would have latched on to that expression of *insight intelligence*. Did you even bother to learn anything about Bohm's philosophy, which was based on science? Personally, I am pretty sure Bohm did not mean a biblical God with that expression of *insight intelligence*, but for those who seek an alternative to scriptures it widens the scope of thinking of causality and how the universe orders itself. But apparently you are not interested in any discussion of the nature and properties of a God other than a scriptural God.. So I am left with three possible motives for your presence: a) You are a hard theist trying a new approach to induce aheists or agnostics to admit they cannot disprove a biblical God. A duplicitous tactical approach. b) You are actually confused by the scriptural assertions of a God who can create miracles, such as mysteriously impregnating and producing a male child from a virgin, which is scientifically impossible and which would be encouraging, as it shows some doubts about the reliability of scripture. c) You are just a lost *mindl* trying to earn a special divine reward at the end of your life by rejecting the "evil" of science. Which comes closest to the real Jan? Are you able to look inward and ask yourself; "God exists, because......(something else than scripture) or ; "could I live without a scriptural God to worship?", as most living things on earth do.
