Nobody disputes the relative values of religion as a life-style. But it does not stop there. Theocracies are not known for humanism. Did the Abrahamic account of Genesis not put it squarely at odds with science? It is only relatively recent that a pope declared evolution to be true. Even then it was a qualified admission. At what point is there even a comparison? The OT has no history. What can you say about 13+ billion years of evolutionary processes in 6 days? The only true statement of the OT is "In the beginning was the WORD" i.e. the expression of a universal language in a dynamic environment, that rests on inherent relational values (potentials) and functional processes. And then it begins to make sense, imho.
There is no science, or war if God never created this reality. Do you see that the human race would not exist at all if omnipotence didn’t allow the true fallen angel to exist? In creating nature there is no middle ground, you create all of us, or there is no nature. In not creating a messiah, the messiah itself would be special, and then it would save itself from renegade scientist.
You don't think that God created our reality? Who or what did it, then? No. Omnipotence can do whatever it wants. Omnipotence can create a reality with or without a fallen angel, with or without humans etc. Are you telling me your omnipotent God was constrained, somehow? That he was forced to create certain things? That is inconsistent with his being omnipotent. Why couldn't the omnipotent God not save itself? Is it not omnipotent after all? Also, what threat could a renegade scientist present to an omnipotent god, so that the God needed to save itself? You're not making a lot of sense.
Too right. And may the Great Octopus continually bless all who praise Him and his Holy name. For in the days to come, when the oceans boil and all the doritos go stale in the cupboard, the unbelievers will surely see that He is God. That'll show 'em.
To Sarkus: God is not apparent in the matter we perceive. He can only be know through logic and mathematics, less so empiricism. God is real because he is proven using logic. That is why I adhere to this belief. This is a gnostic perspective. It's a guiding principle.
That's not quite how it works; inasmuch as "God is real" according to "logic", you seem to be inflating the value of what that means. As Diderot explained, "Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths". Two hundred seventy-seven years later, people still pretend otherwise, for reasons as complicated as they are straightforward.
Yes. Humans invent or introduce a class of prescriptive concepts, ideas, and principles which do not seem to be directly abstracted from natural regularities and situations. These could arguably be labeled "immaterial" to whatever extent that they only exist as cogent descriptions rather than mutable spatiotemporal objects. Some of these (if not all) might be considered "psychological viruses" -- information patterns capable of socially spreading and replicating. Especially in the domains of politics, religion, morality, philosophy, conspiracies, etc. But although a deity thought-virus (God, gods) may contingently be declared lofty in power, it can actually only influence the world through the behavior of the human hosts that it inhabits. It is limited by their limitations. (An exception might be when pantheism or whatever conflates an impersonal God with Nature or the cosmos and its regulatory agencies.) The reproducing concept can be culturally programmed into an individual from childhood. Otherwise, an older potential carrier must be receptive to it, the person must be persuaded by the propaganda or advertising of the information pattern's disciples. Or by stored messages (literature, video or audio recordings, etc). Of course, a theocracy can also force a majority of citizens to be inviting of a divine infection that the state favors. Or at least that the population outwardly conforms speech and conduct-wise as if they were host organisms. _
I wonder if the question of a belief in a deity(or related concepts) is built into the evolution of a sentient species. If there was another species whose intelligence,socialization and culture evolved sufficiently might we expect to see signs of a belief system appearing there where before it was not apparent? In the species that we do know (our own) are there cultures where "religious" belief systems have never taken hold? Is the key to understanding all this to note that ,with the death of a valued member of the group psychological ad practical adjustments have to be made and at some point an organized group will likely adopt formal practices to recognise and institutionalise those events? When the leader of a group dies ,perhaps a piece of the body or possessions could be set aside and the next leader might display it prominently to remind all in the group that he is the new leader(always a male,of course-which would make sense, perhaps)
Because belief isn’t just a sense of things, it is nature itself and without it you go to natural hell. Belief in life is the thing that regulates the health of our environment, and brings joy, and non-harm into our lives. Faith in love is outward, it’s a perfect union & bond, it is not fickle. Take faith in love, and place it in life, that is belief.
The law of conservation of mass and energy proves that mass needs to be created to exist. Something created the mass, energy and space in the universe, it’s not optional! Creation is the only way… And the only thing that makes any logical sense to me, is that the laws outside the universe might be different to the laws inside the universe. Where and how do cyclical/loop/etc… models begin? They still need to be initially created…
No, they don't. They imply that for a closed system, i.e. one where there are no transfers in or out of mass or energy, the massand energy of the system remain constant. I.e. can be neither created nor destroyed. They are laws that apply to an existing closed system, but they say nothing about how that system came to be. As far as we know the universe came into being at the Big Bang. Questions of Who, Why, How that occurred are matters of belief, not logic. It could by cyclical, a loop, who knows. If it is a closed system then energy and matter can not be created nor destroyed, which would suggest it has always been, right? That would be a logical inference of the meaning of those words, would it not? Okay, but you're going to need to show the "logic" behind the claim that it makes "logical sense". Otherwise it can be taken to simply be a matter of belief on your part. Which is okay, but please then recognise it for what it is. What are your premises, and what is your conclusion? Let's take a look. Bear in mind also that logic can only take you from your assumptions to a conclusion. It can't tell you the truth of your assumptions, and therefore the truth of your conclusions, rather only give you a conclusion that is validly supported by the assumptions. Valid (deductive) logic is not the same as sound (deductive) logic, for example. Take this: P1: all dogs have 5 legs P2: John is a dog C: John has 5 legs This is valid logic, but not sound. To be sound the logic must be valid AND the premises must themselves be true. Do they? It's an assumption you're making that you're not supporting, and it is leading to logic that is question-begging, such as in: P1: all types of universe are created P2: ours is a cyclical (or any other type of universe you care to example) universe C: our universe was created. Note how your premise P1 is assuming the truth of the conclusion? That's question-begging. In summary, if this was an attempt to show how logic and maths somehow proves God, or shows how He can be known, I'm afraid you'll have to try again. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, it proves that they currently exist (self-evidently so). Creation (ex nihilo rather than eternally cyclic etc) would be an assumption on your part, which you would have to argue for rather than just assert.
