elevator

I agree. But do we need God to display "helpful lovingness"?

ohmi

I have never claimed to know better than anyone else , you are mistaken.

On the contrary, the few saints are given to know all truth in this life, and I am no saint.

I simply read ALL the scripture , by means of which it not only interprets itself [needing no additions from me or anyone else, as it says] ,and the result, somewhat surprising at first, is thats scripture negates the whole dogma of modern 'christianity' ;

The reason for this falling-away [apostasy] is also stated in scripture , making it clear that it has to be so, that prophecy is valid, and that the scripture was not written or wholly adulterated by vested interests of the non-Hebrew [Romanised] churches (as some claim)

The scripture prophesies that too

I have never asked anyone to believe me, I am simply discussing my own current position.

The scripture , unlike religions, does explain the plan of God for our future... one is free to ignore it . It matters not whether one is moved by the words or not at this time [since if true than God will reveal all truth to all men in due course making the role of divided religions completely different than their stated roles]

I have never claimed Love is a religious concept... very many religionists just like to talk about Love ,cos' it sounds good to do so, before diving back into dogma and unlovingness ... again this is inevitable at this time according to scripture.


God is not 'supernatural' , it is simply that most people are understandably currently ignorant of the whole nature of the natural ... consider how what is 'supernatural has already changed dramatically in human history... the concept itself is thus useless!

Unlike faith in religions, faith in Love [in God] is given by God ... it matters not when it is given so it matters not who believes, who misbelieves, who cannot yet see ... all will be revealed at the right time for all-knowing of all, which is not now...

That's a grand start, but the saints have to go further and love everyone [much harder] ... but it matters not for now and acknowledging that one does not yet know is certainly more honest [to oneself] that the ones who profess belief in religions through superstitious fears generated by [sinner] preachers

So tell me what you think that our place in the universe is

Your faith in your knowing about love seems strong to me, I do not see things as clearly as this world descends toward chaos at last.

That seems like counting as faith in God to me, God could hardly expect most people to believe in Him before He reveals Himself through all His truth to all [Joel 2:28]

I call them 'sinner-christians' because they admit that they are sinners, yet claim to be Christians , yet their own scripture says that all who actually follow Christ depart from sin in life , become saints, no longer sinners ...

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Thus over a billion people follow the teachings of men whilst claiming that they believe the scriptures which ,if they even read what Jesus said, would show them that as sinners they are not following him at all.

What use in saying one believes in Jesus if one ignores what he says ?

The scripture, uniquely among so-called 'sacred texts', does explain the meaning to God of all lives , and it is very different from that expressed by modern apostate 'christianity' of sinners :

Rom 14:7 For none of us liveth to himself,
and no man dieth to himself.
8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord;
and whether we die, we die unto the Lord:
whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.
9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived,
that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

...the scripture explains that God requires but a few first to be His priests later on when all truth is revealed to all men [after resurrection of all sinners] ... not everyone can be a priest of God's covenant because not everyone needs to be a priest , one really needs only so many priests ... but obviously the self-ordained divided priesthoods of today have a very different role, as explained in God's plan .

There is no question of compulsion here, one either longs for return to God [as I do] or does not ... it matters not who does and who does not, since we do not all have the same role in life and all are redeemed in due course, progressively, not all at once ... but in stages ... firts the priesthood has to be perfected before they can begin serving the many redeemed later [Rev 7:9-10]

You have not really shown examples of this, with the exception of explaining how to translate the metaphorical version of "chaff" into its literary format.[/QUOTE]

It has taken me thirty years to come to integrate some things in scripture without interpretation ... it is not clear why I was moved to do this, since God will reveal all truth to all in due course, making my effort rather puny and somewhat redundant except in what I learned from the doing of it...

We can discuss some more of the results in due course, if you wish it, but the method itself is simple: Just search the scripture to find the explanation of any symbol one finds, Typically the explanation is a long way from its use ,the key often being a metaphor or simile .

Example: - the explanations of the meaning of the symbol of waters of the seas :-

Revelation 17:15 And he saith unto me—The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are, peoples and multitudes, and nations and tongues

Jude 1:13 13 Wild waves of sea, foaming out their own infamies, wandering stars, for whom the gloom of darkness age-abiding hath been reserved.
No!

It is not my book, it is addressed to the House of Judah [Jews, keeping Judaism] and the [non-Jewish, idol-worshiping] House of Israel

You do not understand, they say that theybelieve it, but it contradicts what the then say they believe by following their sinner-'priets' [a mockery of God, that sinners ordain sinners as mock 'priests' when they do not even have a covenant to form such priesthoods]

The scripture is in part simply a written record, as required to prove that God declared the end from the beginning ... If one detects an apparent ambiguity or contradiction, that is the basis for more intense scrutiny of the real meaning using the rest of scripture ... it is a slow process that few bother ti undertake, but has its rewards when one uncovers the causes of the misunderstanding using the scripture alone.

Jesus himself explained that scripture is not actually incoherent, but simply not understood by many because of its symbolism , a necessary interlock on understanding for a while:-

Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand

The same technique is used in the OT to provide the timing of God's plan, even with the Jews and their prophets [whom they still largely ignore to this day] :-

Isaiah 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

elevator

For you to claim that everyone else is wrong in their interpretation of scripture, you must have the belief or impression that your interpretation is better, right?

Again, you must believe in biblical authority for this even to make sense.

That’s exactly my point. Who should we believe (if any) when there is no evidence to support the accounts of any of the groups mentioned above, including believers in the bible?


So you understand then, that is is perfectly reasonable for me (and anyone else) to reject your claims based on the lack of evidence?

If God is not supernatural, ohmi what is it? I gave you the dictionary definition of the term "supernatural" in a previous post. You didn’t object to it then. Explain to me, then, how God is not supernatural. Explain how the bible with its prophesies for the future and claims to divine knowledge is not supernatural?

And yes, I agree, the fact that concepts previously thought to be supernatural are not considered supernatural anymore should be a powerful testament to the fact that no supernatural entities may exist at all, including the concept of a God.

All evidence suggest that we are living in an average corner of the universe orbiting around an average star, living on an average planet. All evidence suggest that our place in the universe is purely a matter of chance not that of divine engineering.

That is a secular way of thinking ohmi. If you’re keeping God out of the things you do (including moral actions) then those actions are secular. If God revealed himself in all his glory today I might certainly be motivated to belive in God, but all my actions up until that point would have been entirely of a secular motivation.

No single human are perfect; morally or otherwise, regardless of religious adherence or secular philosophy. In fact there may be no such thing as moral perfection, and as far as I know, a concept such as moral perfection hasn't been defined - not even in the bible.

There is no reasons to go rounds on this anymore. The only thing we disagree on is the existence of God and the authority of the bible. We both find sources or meaning in our lives, we both find a source of moral knowledge, we both firmly believe that religious dogmatism is a bad thing. The only difference it seems is that you use God (and the bible) as a basis for living your life; I don't.

ohmi

[quote=elevator;5408265]For you to claim that everyone else is wrong in their interpretation of scripture, you must have the belief or impression that your interpretation is better, right?

Simply eliminating the inconsistency [and hypocrisy] of popular sinner religion using the scripture is a rather obvious better way of seeing what scripture actually says, but it is not better than any other way because God Himself has promised to reveal all truth to all eventually [and to a few now]... clearly then the saints have the best knowledge and mine cannot reach that level by simply eliminating inconsistencies [reproof]

The authority is the spirit of God [which we know as Love] ... Even the words of the saints and prophets can only go so far in expressing that [and the scripture underlines that most people cannot listen now, they are certainly not meant to do so , as Jesus and Isaiah have said [quotes above]

God does not give faith in Love to more than His few at this time , there is every reason to believe that people will accept false beliefs at this time as we can see that divided religion dominates belief [and logically it is false because it is divided , but also it contradicts the scripture]

So you understand then, that is is perfectly reasonable for me (and anyone else) to reject your claims based on the lack of evidence?

I am not making any claims for anyone else to believe , simply pointing out what the scripture actually says consistently [which is so very different than all the tales of sinner 'christians'] ... it is wise to reject religion because of its inconsistency, but the scripture is a very different matter , and the evidence is in one's own reading of scripture that awakens the heart of Love and explains the otherwise bizarre apostasy of religion ...

It matters not, but the evidence is plenteous to those moved to seek it and one cannot , nor desires to, make people see who do not want to look ... but if one examines the nature of 'evidence' , it turns out not to be an authority after all anyway!
An example, the prophesied antichrist will convince "all the world" to worship him on evidence of his undoubted miracles and wonders , yet it will be proven a false belief even though based upon the evidence and convincing almost everyone...

As I have tried to explain, the meaning of the word 'supernatural' depends upon what one sees as natural... so lok at history and see that the meaning has changed , this is not a fixed concept ... what is 'supernatural' to some today will not be so in the future... it is a useless concept then , with all knowledge given by God, God will seem 'natural' [albeit spirit, not physical in our current sense]

Well, you may choose to extrapolate like that, but it is only a myth, a propaganda... the fashion for faith in current physical theories is based upon shifting sands, the foundations are full of holes ,even paradoxes [more honestly called contradictions] , men's rather puny relative [conditional] 'knowledge' is disputed at many levels right down to the base, it is not at all a valid basis for defining the 'natural' , it is not even sound according to its own methodologies... and the whole house of cards is not just shaky, and its axioms disputed, but is wholly dependent upon faith in these disputed axioms... in short it is a mess , but has been given the status of a 'god' by means of propaganda.

The formation of our unusually large moon alone makes this planet rare indeed, and that is shown necessary to stability for life here to be able to evolve , the earth may yet be shown to be unique.
Since God is timeless, He hardly goes in for 'engineering' either [which takes time]

Since religion is demonstrably inconsistent, the word 'secular' is not very useful here, but the god who reveals himself in all glory to this world is no god at all according to scripture, but is the manifestation of Satan who will thus deceive all the world [bar a few saints] ... so your criterion for belief is not sound really ...

Jesus himself gave up unlovingness as an option and expects all who follow him to do the same :-

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

It has nothing to do with religion or secularity, it is simply a matter of ceasing to be unloving to become perfect.

[quote=ohmi;5407557]

elevator

So what the heck are we discussing then? You believe your claims. I don’t (or state that I don’t know the answers to certain claims). You are not trying to change my mind. I am not trying to change yours. So what are we arguing again? Semantics? Definitions? Existence of God?

Supernatural is that for which there is no natural explanation (see earlier definition). The existence of God is one of those supernatural topics. I repeat; the fact that so many concepts that were previously thought of as supernatural, are now considered natural should be a powerful testament to the fact that no supernatural entities may exist at all. Is God just one more of those supernatural concepts that may some day be considered defunct?

How can the rejection of God or the agnostic stance on the existence of God be considered a myth or propaganda? Seriously? You’re the one who are presenting the claim that God exists. I am just showing you that there is no evidence to back that up. So tell me which one of us are presenting the mythical claims ohmi?

Ganymede, Callisto, Titan, and Io are all larger than the moon. Pluto’s moon Charon is proportionally bigger compared to Pluto than the moon is compared to Earth. Even a tiny (in an astronomical context) body such as asteroid Ida can have a moon (Dactyl). The fact that almost every large body forms moons (with the exception of Venus and Mercury which are both very close to the Sun) should be testament to the fact that moon formation (even large ones) aren’t as rare as you give the impression of. If you are talking about planet and moon formations in other solar systems, there is really no point in talking about it because we have no extrasolar systems to compare to (at least not any where earth size planets and their moons are observable or detectable from earth with current technology).

As for a timeless God, sure, the bible talks about a creation event in time (i.e. seven days) that you may interpret how you want (and I am sure you can). But like we have discussed before; if you want to contend that God is timeless; it is equally valid from an empirical standpoint to contend that the universe itself is timeless.

Why is the word "secular" not useful? Secular is simply that which is nonreligious. It doesn’t matter how inconsistent a particular religion is. I presented no criterions for belief, I only asserted that my decisions are not motivated by the belief in any particular religious doctrine or biblical wisdom. The presence of belief in God (or the acceptance of the authority of scripture) is in no way a prerequisite for morality (or moral perfection if you’re even able to define it).

"Simply a matter of ceasing to be unloving to become perfect"? Define unloving and perfect please. What does it mean to be unloving. What properties does a perfect being exhibit? Without these definitions the statement is absurd. Is biblical scripture required for this? If perfection is possible with the bible, why can’t perfection be possible without the bible?

ohmi

We seem to find several topics and different levels of discussion where our current beliefs can interact to mutual benefit... certainly semantics is a much-overlooked area for discusssion, people typically overestimate the validity of language. Definitions can be useful so long as one allows them to evolve.

As to the existence of God, we cannot even prove that we exist , and my belief is that we do not exist [not as our selves , not as time-dependent consciousness] because time is unreal to God and our reality is spirit [so that our apparent reality is virtual , the passage of time is an illusion]

Yeah, but it ain't useful as a definition because the term 'natural' isn't well-defined , it changes with time.

... Or just as possibly God becomes 'natural' because our understanding changes yet again .

To extrapolate the reduction of some measure of the number of supernatural concepts [even to zero] as in any way indicating the absence of God is not valid , that is what I indicated.

Agnosticism is simply the acknowledgment of ignorance , which is a good start. Atheism however is rather curious since instead of investigating what one believes it supposedly investigates what one doesn't believe ... given that denial is one of the most powerful aspects of the human psyche, that appears significant to me.

One can tear religion to shreds , since it is inconsistent in extreme , but it is a serious error to think that that disproves God in any way ...

My evidence for God is overwhelming , what I cannot find is any evidence for 'physical reality' not being simply virtual, illusion.

I know what I came from to become apparently separated as an individual from the wholeness of God ,and even in deepest depression about the massive absence of love between people, I never stopped longing to return to wholeness of the spirit, never stopped my respect and admiration of Love ... that Love is within all, as psychologists have determined, but most do not make it a complete reality in their lives, so dwell in conflict with ourselves, denying our deepest desire to love and be loved ... clearly that cannot be explained in evolutionary terms , it is a terrible handicap to our species which is now the basis on which we destroy our own home and thousands of species that we depend upon within it... mankind is demonstrably insane then and the only explanation on offer is in the scripture [but not in religion]

Pluto is tiny [one fifth of our Moon] and very much a binary system with Charon . The unusual aspect about our moon is the planetary size of both elements in the collision that created it [the Moon being only the aggregated debris from that collision]

Time may well be an illusion , so that the universe is time-less in the real sense [of the spirit] , that change is not possible.

Interestingly some physicists are working to do away with the concept of time because of its inconsistencies , we'll see eventually what they come up with .

But maybe this is not what you meant by timeless?

I am non-religious , non-secular, and believe in God ...

Examining ethics one finds that the systems proposed are relative and subjective ... Love of all on the other hand cannot be conceived of as wrong and thus is an absolute and objective [despite that very many are in denial of their Love due to societies] ... belief in Love qualifies as belief in God according to the scripture , thus perhaps the confusion here is simply that you are conflating the gods of religion with the God of scripture?

There is only one absolute morality , the rest is just the mess societies make of people [just as is prophesied that they will!]

The scripture states explicitly that perfection is possible without the scripture [or indeed any knowledge of Jesus for that matter]

As for unlovingness, one's conscience tells one when one is being unloving , when one doesn't ignore it ... and perfection would be when one never ignores one's conscience and always does what it says...

elevator

Yes, I agree. Your definition of God is quite different from most people I have debated in that you seem to reject religious dogmatism as much as I do. But at the same time it makes the definition of God a slippery slope and notoriously difficult to define and discuss besides the question of existence or non-existence.

Much like the Matrix movie blockbuster? I would feel much more comfortable believing that I exist. I can feel, touch and experience myself and all other physical objects around me. What we perceive as reality is the only verifiable framework we have around us to serve as a reference point to distinguish what is real from that which is not. It is a purely philosophical question whether or not our perception of reality is real, but even if it wasn’t; there is nothing to suggest that God is real. Whatever framework we define ourselves within; the concept of God always seems to exist in another framework (supernatural to the one in which we define ourselves); and as such always remains unverifiable.

The two are mutually exclusive. Either you have a natural explanation for something or you do not. What qualifies as supernatural is, according to the dictionary, something: of or relating to existence outside of the natural world, attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces, of or relating to a deity, of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power or the miraculous. If it doesn’t meet these criteria it is defined as natural. If you have a different definition, please feel free to present it.

And of course it changes over time. But the fact that it changes over time looks bad for the believers of the supernatural. As we explain more and more phenomena and mechanisms that were previously through of as supernatural within a natural framework, the domain of the supernatural is continuously shrinking. Observing this one would be tempted to conclude that there is no such thing as truly supernatural entities; just our (current) lacking ability to explain these entities through natural reasoning.

Atheism can also be the default position of non-belief until such time as proper evidence can be given to warrant belief. This is not a curious position to me. I consider it ignorant to claim to know that "God does not exist". It is very similar to the claim that "God does exist". Both assert a knowledge of something and as such must be asked to furnish evidence for their position. But many atheists simply refuse to believe because the claim they are asked to believe has no evidence to suggest it to be any more truthful than any other (sometimes conflicting) claims they are asked to believe. That I acknowledge that I don’t know is done in the light that science has no explanation either! Science cannot tell me for sure how the universe started, if it is eternal or if it was the result of some not-yet-understood event such as the big bang. Religion cannot either. There are many things science can’t explain and many things which religion asks you to believe without sufficient evidence to do so. In cases like those I find it far more logical to claim ignorance that to pretend to know the real answer one way or the other.

But it doesn’t affirm God either.

That’s a pretty big fly in the soup don’t you agree? The fact that billions of believers of various religious doctrines have such vastly different experiences with their deity(ies) of choice adds to this illusion. What is real and what is not? If you cannot convince anyone of your position then your entire philosophy might as well be an illusion. You must see that unless I can peek inside your brain and experience what you do, then I might as well consider any other religion to be right or any other religious or moral philosopher to be right. The scientist believing in "M Theory" might be right, the nonbeliever might be right. There is no mechanism for me to experience your reality unless I simply decide to, one day, accept your good word and believe you blindly. This I cannot do. I couldn’t even do that if my own wife or daughter asked me to. There is something inherently intellectually dishonest to pretend to know something which I do not. You may believe that you know for sure; but there is no way for me to verify this and so the logical and honest position from my standpoint is to state that I do not know.

The moon may have assembled much like the three jovian moons and Titan. The reason there are more moons in the jovian system is because more debris is collected by the gravitation force of the larger planets. And if a tiny planet (ahem… Kupier Belt object) like Pluto can assemble and maintain a moon almost half its own size, it’s not unreasonable to believe that larger planets can do the same. There are many scientific theories to explain the formation of the Earth’s moon. This is a classic God of the gaps claim. We know so much about the formation of the solar system and the mechanisms that drive it. The fact that a few elements remain subject of scientific discussion is not evidence that those elements were created by a God.

No you were the one who said "God is timeless" (post 164). So that’s a definition you have to make. I just assumed that you meant a God for which the notion of time is absurd (such as something that is eternal). But as we argued in dept before (together with Steve) if we can introduce the concept of a timeless (or eternal) God, why not introduce the concept of an eternal universe and cut out the middleman? Occam’s Razor again as explained by George Hathaway.

Buddhism and Hinduism talks about Karuna the process of unselfishly reducing the suffering of others through a display of compassion and mercy. Metta is another Buddhist concept that involves unconditional love (without any sexual connotations) towards all sentient beings. Bhakti is yet another Hindu concept where the love is directed towards a deity. The Naradabhakti sutra in Hinduism talks about several different ways of loving. Moral Philosophy is a broad and interesting subject and present in all cultures throughout the world. But my point is that the belief in a God is not necessary for morality. While I find great inspiration in the writings of ancient religious moral philosophers as well as the writings of secular moral philosophers, I see no connection between believing in God and the capacity for moral knowledge.

We agree on that.

So basically; all one really needs to achieve perfection, in your mind, is a solid ethical framework?

ohmi

... if we attempt to define God then it is obviously only in terms of what we know , so, as with religion, we should end up with false images , 'idols' in fact.
Thus God troubles to instruct not to attempt this [bearing in mind that God commits to revealing Himself by His own means in due course to all] :-

Deuteronomy 5:8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:

If one is seeking security in this apparent reality , as most appear to be [even sinner 'christians' pretend that they can carry on being unloving] , then likely one's mind will accommodate this with suitable barriers ... but these are never wholly solid , the 'cracks' in this apparent reality are many and diverse [and that can hardly be an accident or of no significance]

The ,admittedly painful and isolating, path is to see that neither science , nor religion, nor 'authority of men', has the answer , that the blind will lead the blind until they all die of ignorance that they refused to acknowledge [despite that it is largely written by a few in both scientific documents, poetry, and scripture ... among other places]

There is a witness to each one of us, within us... a quiet still 'voice' about what we truly want to be , how we would live if only others would allow it ... that is the knowledge of Love, and it is simply suppressed by current society in the name of 'practicality', 'progress', whatever ... in the end one comes to see through the 'propaganda' of religion and science , both faulted at their very roots, both abused terribly by men who seek ower to make others do what they insist is right [although they are 'kicking against the pricks' themselves too, not at peace with themselves]

We have then a system that creates false 'gods' of various kinds [even 'science', 'reason'] and then gets men to choose between them ... a cunning trick since all have within us the 'voice' which tells us not to choose any of these, but for now it is a quiet voice, easily ignored ...

My point is that this collection of words is not a definition at all, but rather that 'supernatural' is not a well-defined concept because what is 'the natural world' is something which changes continually ... the concept is thus not fixed and very misleading therefore when used to discuss the future [when what is 'natural' will be different from what it is today (as if anyone knew anyway what 'natural' means !)]

Exactly my point, that God will become 'natural' to us when we understand the spirit wholly [for most people only when God explains the spirit and all truth to us]

But you make a mistake to think that reasoning is natural , it is acquired , and its foundations contain paradoxes , it is flawed , even by its own measure [e.g. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem], it is not a worthy 'god' ...

The problem extends also to language , something even many philosopher's overlook...

One would need proof of atheism too, if one were truly skeptical... but the default is not even agnosticism since we are born with a conscience and knowledge of Love [which our parents and teachers quickly over-ride with the false values of our various societies]

As I have tried to explain, belief in 'evidence' has [demonstrably] been misleading people astray for millenia and will do so in the future ... eventually one has to question what evidence is and whether it is a valid way to carry on [demonstrably not so]

Responding to being asked to believe is the first mistake human beings make, so it is hard indeed to get back from there :-

Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

1 John 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

1 John 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols

It is quite true that neither religion nor science has the answers , despite that some pretend that they do ... but the stranger thing is that the means to know all is within us in the desire to Love , the thing we never get around to listening to and doing wholly, the only way to be at peace with oneself but which almost all people do not do because of the world...


Untiil God affirms Himself to all, the affirmation of god is first knowing where one comes from [which most forget] and second in the Love within [which most ignore as 'impractical' in an increasingly evil world]

One has eventually to ask "Believer in what?" ... To have belief in this or that creed invented by sinners is a step away from God , one is better off without it despite the sadness it causes to understand how many are deceived in this world by the 'blind leading the blind'.

If one measures how many that are deceived in the end, then the scripture says that it will be the whole world [Rev 13] bar only a very few saints ... it means that one cannot guage the truth by what others do, even when the world finally unites in one compromise religion with a leader doing great wonders and having enormous power ... very few indeed will resist this kind of united propaganda and 'proof' ...

Once one sees the 'cracks' in our concocted 'physical reality' it is not hard to admit that the reality is the spirit .

The scripture says that one cannot convince anyone with words , it seems a decent test to try to do so and see if it works or not, despite my lack of faith in language , phenomena, and reason. It would be most surprising and very interesting if anyone reached the same position at the same time as I have...

But you will discover that conviction comes from within ... one cannot actually be convinced by anyone else in the end [not least that all else but the more-or-less-ignored Love within will be seen to be the only thing which works in the end, despite that almost all will put faith in other things -not least money, religion, reason...]

Except that you could peek in your own heart and understand that way what I am saying. [and then perhaps what the loving people who wrote the scripture were saying]

I think 'blind faith' is an oxymoron, a conn trick, but then most people will conn themselves , indeed already have done so [despite the unhappiness of conflict that it causes]

I do not know whether one can alone break through the denial of one's own heart of Love, it may be that the scripture is correct and [for almost all] God is required for one to do that [so that most cannot break through to peace of heart, the 'kingdom of heaven' - God's ruling of one's life by Love]

But in any case God has promised to reveal all truth to all [albeit after death and resurrection for most] , so acknowledging that one does not know is perhaps as honest as most can be with themselves at this time - not knowing is essential in the many at this time according to scripture , integral to the function of God's plan [that many will experience the failure of the evil ways that we believe in, institutions that we allow our lives to be lived by ] :-

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

...rather , at least in my limited understanding, it is that only so many objects comparable to the size of earth are created in any solar system and they do not often collide [as in one proposed method of creation of the Moon] ,since the system creates them in widely separated orbits as a function of the very nature of gravity and friction.

... because creation is seen to be of a virtual reality and that cannot be done without the 'middleman' ?

Besisdes that talk is cheap and efforts in this direction are palpably not reducing the world's suffering [which is increasing in exponential run-away fashion], the scripture explains why [apparent] suffering is necessary , and is thus at least more consistent with what we are experiencing [increase in evil, loss of love, accelerating suffering]

Love is a truly great principal, but Love is subject to trial , and the scripture predicts exactly how few will come through this earth's trial with their Love intact

Love of God is simply to do Love [rather than just talk about it] , that is to eradicate all unlovingness in one's life [something which isolates one from most people because most people hold to unloving principles, institutions, etc]

Again, religions love to talk about Love, but still very few people [saints
manage to do it continually

Unstrangely adding many words to create subjective ethics does nothing to improve people's obedience to their consciences, rationalisations are no match for the power of denial in the human psyche...

Agreed (again).

Examine the change of conscience, of almost all humans, by the world , where does the [culturally independent] commonality come from of faith that Love cannot be wrong ?

So basically; all one really needs to achieve perfection, in your mind, is a solid ethical framework?
[/QUOTE]

Love is not a creed, not an 'ethical framework' ... one cannot re-acquire Love , even after one finds that it is what is missing from one's life ... that is one thing that one needs the external witness of God to be able to do .

Not even understanding this solves the problem of being unable to do it... faith in Love, destroyed in our world, can only be restored by God.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

This then one way to look at the timing of God's plan, why God apparently delays the giving of all truth to all..

elevator

Well if we have to define God in terms that we don’t know; isn’t the question of the existence of God unknown as well?

But then God might really be anything; including the universe itself.

I fail to see how Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems have anything to do with the definition of that which is natural as opposed to the definition of that which is supernatural?

Only if the atheist makes the claim that "God does not exist". You must see that affirming God’s nonexistence is different from defaulting to a position of non-belief in God until such time as proper evidence can be given to warrant belief. This is how our legal system works. If someone claims that John Doe killed Jane Doe, then John Doe is assumed to be innocent (by default) until such time as evidence can be presented to suggest that John Doe did in fact kill Jane Doe. As such, I think atheism (someone calls this weak atheism) is a perfectly reasonable position.

As far as conscience and knowledge of love. These can be concepts entirely evolved. Daniel Dennett has given a few really good lectures on consciousness (available on richarddawkins.net) and it is easy to see how concepts such as love, altruism and morality may have evolved as societies shifted from roaming hunter/gatherers to fixed settlements of increasing sizes.

What I am saying is that it is not as easy as simply saying "God did it".

What is more natural than to use the real world in which we live as a framework for defining our existence?

Asked to believe in a figurative sense; and many people even feel the need to proselytize directly to all groups of non-believers. Seeing that atheists are the most despised demographics in the United States; people automatically assume something dark, almost inherently evil about atheism. It is almost like you must believe in some kind of supernatural force to be accepted into normal social discourse. This, I think, is a mistake because apart from the belief in a God; a non-believer is equally capable of all the moral knowledge, love and altruism that religionists want to preserve as something inherently divine.

I am glad that you acknowledge that neither has the answers. Agnosticism then should be the default position until such time as an answer exists? This is of course purely in regards to the "existence"-question. The philosophy of morality and love is a topic that has been argued before, but I just want to reiterate my position that love is not a supernatural property. As I have said countless times before, there is no reason to imagine anything to possess supernatural properties.

Again, billions will disagree with you. I firmly agree with you that the world would be a better place without religious dogmatism. I have taken that position throughout our entire debate. But why replace religious dogmatism with yet another supernatural claim for which there is no evidence? Can’t we just implement these moral standards without the need to invoke God?

Seeing that all spiritual claims have, as of yet, remained just beyond our physical reach, I find it very hard to admit the reality you present. Why imagine there to be any other reality than the one we can experience? I also resent the term "concocted physical reality" because there is nothing concocted about physical reality. Instead it should be "observed physical reality". Because that’s exactly what it is: reality around as as we observe it. The concocted reality is that which we imagine without evidence to suggest its existence.

I understand perfectly well what you are saying, and, like I said before, I agree with most of it. What I don’t agree with is the need to invoke God.

Faith is by definition something believed on insufficient evidence. The refusal to examine the counterevidence is "blind faith". So if you choose to believe something despite massive evidence to suggest the opposite; then you are exhibiting blind faith. There is nothing contradictory or dishonest about this definition. If you have a different one, let me know.

Again, this is all good and dandy only if you go into it with the preconception that God exists and you believe it. You already know my position; I don’t think belief in God is necessary for morality or for love. No need to argue this into infinity.

The amount of material is massive. There is an asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. There is a mssive collection of objects outside the orbit of Pluto called the Kupier Belt and beyond that another massive collection of objects called the Oort cloud stretching as far out as a third of the way to the nearest star!

Formations of bodies are not entirely explained, all we know is that the majority of larger bodies form moons of various sizes. Larger planets, because of their gravitational force, attract more material and form either many smaller moons or a few larger ones. There is also no reason to believe that an Earth size planet couldn’t support life with a much smaller moon. There is also equally no reason to believe that a sufficiently large moon around a gas giant couldn't form life and reap similal gravitational benefits from the gas giants as provided by the moon on earth. The possibilities are endless; the only thing limiting this is the fact that we have only one solar system to examine; namely our own.

Then why even imagine this virtual reality? Occam’s Razor again. You assume that this virual reality must exist.
Is God necessary then for this love that you speak so passionately of?

ohmi

One can know of the existence of something without knowing exactly what it is [made worse with gd because our words are about this world, not about the spirit]

The universe appears to be running down [ever-increasing entropy] so it seems not to be eternal or time-less , but finite in every way.

The Theorem is a formal presentation of the Liar paradox, showing that in any sufficiently complex language that one cannot assume for instance that what is not not true is true ... people however do assume this all the time in science, religion ,philosophy, everyday life , formally incomplete languages are used as if they were complete... rationally absurd , and a general rigourously-proven problem with usage of reason, language, logic...

The point I was making is that language and reason are not fit [as used] to be trated with the respect they are given [to some reason has become a 'god. ,that which they respect most ... but it is inconsistent , unreasoning, to ignore Godel's proof as they do.

On the basis of your method, it would seem inconsistent to deny the possibility of existence of God until one has proof... the default is agnosticism, not atheism.

The legal system is not a sound analogy here.

If they had "evolved" as concepts then they would be apparent , but they are almost wholly not.

It seems a reasonable theory when one considers the predictive value of prophecy and that nothing else explains the mass hypocrisy of sinner 'christianity' religions.

The 'theory' of god is the only one to tackle explaining the conflict and denial in mankind, the absurdity of all men desiring to Love and be Loved, but not doing this that they most want to do... no animal but mankind has this problem, it has negative evolutionary value and so should not exist, but it does not just exist, it is the norm in mankind.

I can sympathise with the victims of this religious hypocrisy, but one should note that atheists cannot explain why it exists, God in the scripture can and does.

As I have said, I do not need science or religion for my belief in God , it comes as-it-were from 'inside' not from 'outside' , from spirit, not from the world.

Once one is given the truth then God will be 'natural' , so in fact He never was 'supernatural' since the concept itself only expresses a state of ignorance of the observer, not anything about God.

We can observe that God predicted correctly, that the world is increasingly evil, not tending toward adopting any morality whatsoever [not that it can find one to agree upon, nor can any implement love-for-all (except the few saints)

Thus as God has said, the solution is the mass death that mankind has engineered and we are close to fulfilling in destruction of the viability of our planet ... the point is that without resurrection of the dead [to the body] the imminent death of billions at the hands of a few greedy men would be insane and pointless

So God simply takes a few aside for a priesthood for the new earth and uses death and resurrection to 'reset' everyone else ready fr a very different life of love for many in the new earth :-

Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

This simply is not possible without God , as far as I can see ... so atheists, and agnostics too perhaps, would work enormously much harder to prevent mankind destroying our home if they really believed this is all we have.

... and clearly God will not intervene in what seems already to be an unstoppable destruction of the life which supports our own

http://www.marine-phytoplankton-work...e-6dec2006.htm

It ain't imagination, I 'remembered' it at moment of first conciousness , something that has never left me [and the deep longing to be 'back']

Equally this reality makes no sense whatsoever except as a proof that evil causes premature failure of the support of the life of mankind ... not even the evil can imagine that this makes any sense at all... but the scripture exlains its 'purpose'

Study 'perception' and you will see that the 'reality' that we perceive is indeed concocted ... it is constructed using the very same apparatus that makes our dreams , but simply uses a different data feed ... there is no rational evidence that it is anything but concocted, so according to your principle, this should be the default until some evidence is possible to the contrary

Also the 'virtual reality' theory of the physical explains how God can be separate and yet have total apparent 'control' [something which puzzles soem people]

I understand perfectly well what you are saying, and, like I said before, I agree with most of it. What I don’t agree with is the need to invoke God.

Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven formally.

Blind faith in an idea is to believe it without doubt or question.

Thus e.g. - Reason is a blind faith in axioms which are not universally accepted.
- Language is formally incomplete , so normal use of it [as if it were complete] is an inconsistent act of faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_F...ambiguation%29

But, again, you cannot explain the failure of morality [even of personal subjective moralities] nor the failure of almost all men to do the Love that they desire more than anything to do [and so to be loved by all].

For a planet large enough to sustain life as we know it, the size of the earth's moon is relatively enormous [supposedly formed after a collision with an object the size on Mars] ... one effect of this massive moon is to substantially stabilise the earth from flipping over so often, a feature which allows life to evolve further between the catastrophic flips.

Collisions by such massive objects seems to be a chance occurrence , not like the systematic aggregation of debris in an orbit perhaps then astronomically unlikely ?

Occams razor doesn't apply since the two 'theories' are not equivalently powerful.

Yes, because men are incapable of doing it until God resets the truth in one's mind [after its corruption by the world]

1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.