Who is God?

[Josephhasfun01]

I contend that the existence of a single, non-deity rabbi in Jerusalem is of no importance to debate, regardless of his name. The Jesus of the gospels, on the other hand, who brought a man back to life, rose from the dead, and raised a horde of zombies from a nearby cemetery upon his resurrection, did not exist.

So you say that there is no way God in the flesh could perform miracles or conquer death?


I copied this from a "Rational Response Squads" website.
There is a problem in your perception

Submitted by jkhagel on May 15, 2007 - 1:23am.



I will agree that the piece is well written, but...Jesus (Joshua in Hebrew) would have been a delicate topic to Jewish historians and of little importance to the Romans.

1. The Jews did not believe him to be the messiah and would have therefore excluded him as being a radical and a blashemer. For a such an important position for a Jew to hold as a historian it would have been social suicide to write anything about him except that a man existed. The fact that Josephus documents the lives of Jesus's contemporaries is quite an indication to this. As for Philo not recording events such as the miraculous birth of Christ...even the Bible proclaims that many believed him to be a bastard. Even his brothers did not believe until after his death.

2. Jesus's trial would not be recorded in Jewish scripts because it was an illegal one according to Jewish law. Any document found to state the contrary would mean the levitical preisthood would therefore be null and void.

3. Romans would not have recorded the death because Pilot would have been executed for his trial and eventual execution of Jesus. The only thing they would be at liberty to report back to Rome would have been that a man was executed for treason and sedition to the empire. Hence why his placard read "Jesus, King of the Jews" and not as the pharasee's demand "He claimed to be God". Jewish religious matters where of no business to Rome...as indicated by Pilot denying the trial in the first place.

4. As for the authorship of the gospels...only 2 were written by those who were with Jesus throughout his 3 year ministry; Matthew and John. Mark was written by John Mark, the nephew of Barnabus (who discipled Paul) and would have gained his account through conversations with Peter and James. Luke draws heavily on the book of Mark and also in his time with Peter and James in Jerusalem. The statement you make that Mark was the first penned is a supposition and it is believed that Matthew actually may have been the first...and only an abbreviated copy of an earlier work penned in Aramaic as noted by Eusebius. Matthew is also the most meticulus in it's detail as he was a tax collector and would have been required to be so in his work.

5. As for religious works in general, you would be hard pressed to find empirical evidence to suggest anything about the head figures. Mohammed's existence is debatable, Buddha never recording anything in writing and the writings about his life date far further than those of the life of Jesus.

6. As for christians....Ghandi said it best "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. YourChristians are so unlike your Christ."

Historically, the Romans and Jews referred to this sect as "the way". Christianity, as we know it today, was a compromise by Rome after they realized they couldn't erradicate them (see Nero). The Romans in turn saw a tool they could utilize in motivating the people. Thus is born what we now know as Catholisicm and the birth of "religion". Some questions before I'm done:

1. How many churches did Jesus start?



None, he simply said " I am the way, the truth, and the light and no man comes to the father. but by me." And "In me you will find torrents of living water..."

2. How many commands did Jesus give?



Two...love God, and love eachother



3. Who was Jesus the hardest on?



Those who saddled the people with unrealisic religious demands and tradition. Those who used God as a platform for money or politics. Those who denied the weak and reviled the poor. Those who thought that through vain repetition and idle musings would attain favor with God. Jesus came to comfort the weary, and to lift up the broken. He came to understand what it was like to be human, to walk in your shoes. He came to seek you and tell you that you are the most precious thing to him. But, he also came as an offense to those who think themselves wise and a hard concept to those who think themselves mighty.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Why is it not important? You have ruled out Jesus' existence because of miracles? did I get that right?

I'm saying that you can distinguish between the two people. The first is a Jewish rabbi that died but did not come back three days later. Arguing about whether or not this man existed is pointless. The second is a god who is his own father (and thus has no male chromosome), lead a death cult that no one is able to verify existed before Paul talked about it decades later (and Paul, by the way, didn't think Jesus existed on Earth, but in a heavenly realm, much like Zeus), did a bunch of things that no one thought important enough to write down as they were happening, and then had his biography written and rewritten and cut and translated and re-translated and cut down again for some 300-odd years before a council of men decided they had a story they liked.

I'm saying the likely hood that the second Jesus existed is exactly equal to the chances that the Buddha ascended into Nirvana, Sikhs and Hindus will reincarnate upon death, a magical fairy will trade my baby teeth for coins, a plesiosaur still lives in a Scotland, the Chupacabra is terrorizing homes in Puerto Rico, and the reason the Nile floods and dries up every year is because of Osiris's continued death and rebirth.

There is no reason to believe in their validity, and is much easier to say that they don't exist/don't happen. If you can prove me wrong on any of these subjects, using verifiable evidence, then I will admit my error.

Your new post does nothing to contradict what I said in my first. You can try to create new arguments where there were none, but do not believe that assuming what Josephus's motivations were or what he would or would not have written does anything to change that the one time he did mention the second type of Christ, historians consider a forgery.

The rest of your post is the same-old apologetic drivel that tried to go around the problem, but never deals with it.

 

[tuxbox]

Josephus talks about at least 20 different people all named Jesus, with only one possible being about THE Jesus. This one passage is considered a forgery for two reasons:

1) Josephus was extremely detail oriented; he would spend entire chapters on a single mugging case if it caught his interest. Why would this same man only spare a paragraph for a man who could cure the blind and walk on water?

2) The paragraph is littered with Christian phrasing and terminology, odd for a devout Jew.

Arabic version: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after the crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. "

Some say the above is more accurate if Josephus indeed wrote about Jesus at all.

Greek version (one that is considered unauthentic): "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Tacitus mentions Jesus as that guy all those cannibalistic atheists worshiped, whom were destroying Rome from the inside. Tacitcus was repeating the Christians belief that a man named Jesus had been crucified 60-some-odd years ago. There were no official records of his crucifixion, so it would have been impossible for Tacitus to know that Jesus had been crucified.

There are modern historians still writing about Thomas Jefferson. So the 60 years later argument does not make it an invalid source.

A quote from the Annals

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

Your claim he was just repeating what the Christians believed, is just that, a claim. Also, just because we have not found an official record of his crucifixion, does not mean it did not take place.

I contend that the existence of a single, non-deity rabbi in Jerusalem is of no importance to debate, regardless of his name. The Jesus of the gospels, on the other hand, who brought a man back to life, rose from the dead, and raised a horde of zombies from a nearby cemetery upon his resurrection, did not exist.

Perhaps, but I am bored.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Arabic version: <snip>

Both are considered forgeries per the first qualification, and if I were willing to grant that this is 100% accurate and Josephus himself wrote it down, so what? You have contemporary evidence that there was a guy named Jesus who was a pretty chill guy, and his followers invented stories after his death. He says nothing about a HORDE OF ZOMBIES storming Jerusalem or any of the other miracles of the gospels any chronicler would have at least mentioned in passing. Remember, I don't care about a Jewish rabbi living circa 20 CE, I'm talking exclusively about the Jesus of the gospels, the guy who RAISED A MAN FROM THE DEAD, and NO ONE thought it was important enough at the time to write it down.

There are modern historians still writing about Thomas Jefferson. So the 60 years later argument does not make it an invalid source.

You could not have picked a worse person for this comparison. Jefferson wrote an autobiography, was featured in news articles across the US, was a prolific writer on the founding of the nation, other people that lived during his time wrote about him, he had many portraits commissioned during his life, and people can still track their lineage to him. Oh, and he was the President of the US for 8 years. All of that leaves historians a trail to follow.

Jesus has NONE of that. Nothing. No contemporary writings (other than a possible, "eh, Jesus is a pretty cool guy, he's virtuous and doesn't afraid of anything) were written during his time, and yes, that included Tacitus. He was born 20 years after Jesus was supposedly executed, and without ANY RECORDS of his life or death, Tacticus had to rely on the beliefs of Christians for this history. There was no independent way for him to know of Christ, and even then, he STILL doesn't offer any evidence as to the accuracy of his claims or miracles.

Also, just because we have not found an official record of his crucifixion, does not mean it did not take place.

The time to start believing things is when we have sufficient evidence. Not a moment before.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

"energy could be considered as an element but energy may or may not be a compound"

I guess energy is immaterial also. So you actually help my argument for the existence of immaterial. We know it exists yet we cannot directly see it.

The objection is not with the immaterial, but with your babbling comparison between an Immaterial Object and an Abstract Concept. Two basic, fundamental subject covered in any two-bit Philosophy book you pick up, because those two statements are central to the entire Philosophical history into the inquiry of deities and divine beings.

You speak of "God" as if he's an immaterial object - but you've yet to show he meets the criteria for something that does, indeed, exist but simply is immaterial (such as Energy or Electromagnetism. Or the fabric of Space (and Time, if one considers themselves a Whooligan)).

Show us, logically and realistically, how the God, Yahweh, is on a comparable level with Light. Or Electromagnetism.


Everyone, don't allow him to parry this discussion with his dancing. Like I said, this topic is the core pivot of his argument. Allowing him to ditz around it is just letting him off.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

You got your 'therefore' in a little early there. This particular fallacy is known as the non sequitur, which translates directly from the Latin as 'does not follow'. In short, your argument is invalid.

I don’t see why. Immaterial exists. God has been defined in my argument as being an immaterial consciousness. Immaterial things exists. God is immaterial. Therefore God exists. It follows pretty well I think.

I still have never seen anyone successfully debunk this:

Prepare to be dazzled, then.

Premise #1 The natural laws in which the physical universe follows are immaterial.

The universe doesn't follow natural laws. Natural laws are our expressions of how what we observe behaves. They are descriptive, not prescriptive.

There is a problem with your objection to my first premise. I don’t understand how something that does not exist can still be observed. How many non existent things have you observed lately? The universe adheres to natural laws. Our descriptions do not keep our universe from collapsing.
Apparently I’m not the only one who see’s a problem with your statement. The Devils Advocate also weighed in on your blunder bussing statement below.

Hackenslash wrote:
“The universe doesn't follow natural laws. Natural laws are our expressions of how what we observe behaves. They are descriptive, not prescriptive.”

Devils Advocate wrote:
“I've just got to try to underline the full impact of this statement. If this is strictly believed to be true, then there's no distinction between accidental generalization and a "law of nature". For example "All copper conducts electricity" is equal to "All the candy in my drawer are M&M's". Both are generalizations supported by evidence and both statements hold the same logical structure, but in reality no one would hold the latter to be a law of nature. The difference is that the former statement is held to support counterfactuals. Strict empiricism as an epistemology doesn't have tools to make that distinction though, so it is a bit of a problem.”

Premise #2 God is by nature immaterial so He is immaterial.

You misstated the second premise. Premise #2 God is by nature ‘unmade’ so He is immaterial.

Fallacy of blind assertion combined with the question-begging fallacy. The question being begged, of course, is the existence of this entity, the entity contained in your conclusion. Yet another argument that could have been written with a pair of compasses.

God has no physical existence. When you say existence you forget that ‘exists’ is not a characteristic of God. God is ‘unmade‘. A blind assertion is not applicable here. We can’t see God directly even though we are in His direct presence. There is no entity in my conclusion. You are not following the premise I have given. You are simply giving a refutation using your own definitions. That is fallacious on your part.



Conclusion: God exist.




In order for something to be immaterial it must be self existent. It does not depend on anything material else to exist. Therefore it is independent of time and material.

Slight problem there. The example you chose in your 'syllogism' (if such an appellation is actually warranted), namely the natural laws, is conceptual in nature, thus it is contingent on the mind, which itself resides on physical, material stratum. Moreover, because said laws describe behaviour of physical entities, they are contingent upon the existence of the physical, and indeed of time, because time is required in order for processes (the things those laws describe) to occur.

You are correct to say that the natural laws of the universe are conceptual. This however supports the immaterial existence of a sentient God. Reason being is that we are made in Gods’ image. God has no physical form so the ‘image’ we are made in is that of consciousness. We are self aware. The fact that we’re able to do science solely relies on a transcendent eternal sentient God.

“ laws describe behaviour of physical entities, they are contingent upon the existence of the physical, and indeed of time, because time is required in order for processes (the things those laws describe) to occur”.

Of course time and physical entities are required in order for us to observe how the universe behaves. That is not in question. It’s merely the fact that there are transcendent rules in place that are found through studying science of how physical entities interrelate. Our thoughts did not put the universe into motion. Everything pertaining to physical existence and actions and reactions thereof, are contingent on rules. If something is in motion it is following a rule of motion. All rules and laws of the universe therefore imply a rule setter and a law giver. My problem with many secular theories is how can nature, having no intelligence, set laws and rules in place in order for the universe to exist? It seems as though you would need to attribute intelligence to nature. Even if over eons of time the universe failed to come into existence randomly an infinite number of times and finally got lucky and did it right for once, it still begs the question. A question that is unanswerable. Therefore it gets deduced as luck being causal. But luck is not an entity. Luck is a description. To say that we lucky is merely a description of chance. That’s why Einstein once stated that God does not play dice.

The natural laws which the physical universe follows are immaterial. Immaterial is defined as not having physical form as it is not made of material, thus, is not a concrete object. We can not see the natural laws the universe follows directly. We describe them by observing how the physical universe behaves. We cannot describe something that does not exist so we know that laws of the physical universe do exist even though we do not see them directly because we see how the physical universe runs according to laws they follow. This very same concept is how we can know God exist. We can see that God exist because of how He effects humanity.


No, the idea of god has had this impact, not god. Note the subtle distinction. This does not provide evidence for god, only for the fact that people will believe whacky stuff.

Ideas huh? Where do idea come from? Our minds. So how did our minds come up with attributing our existence to God? We just did not know about a great many things yet right? God of the Gaps, right? Then why have and do, great scientific minds believed and still believe in God?


We can find the pieces to the puzzle of God spread throughout many different beliefs from the Hindu religion all the way to Lawrence Kraus theory of a Universe From Nothing.

Krauss is an atheist, so how does that work?

It does not matter whether or not he believes in God. It’s the part of his theory that is a piece of the puzzle. Diversity can be unified while omitting the pieces that don’t belong.

The Hindus believe God exists as nature. The universe is God is what the believe. This belief is negated as a scientific explanation for the cause of the existence of the universe. The Hindus concept that God exist in nature is derived from one of the theistic aspects of Gods omnipresence. God is everywhere. Hindus mistakenly take this aspect of the omnipresence of God and posit that God is in nature. That’s why they believe in reincarnation. They believe when our souls pass on they inhabit physical forms of nature from a tree, to a butterfly, or a cow ect.
The reason the Hindus belief in God is not scientifically supported is because if God were confined to His creation, then He would need to have been created by something else. For example, a painter creates a painting therefore the painter is not the painting. That was a very simplified explanation but I feel it’s sufficient.


Well, the paucity of your understanding of Hinduism aside, Hinduism actually knocks holes in your argumentum ad antiquetatem above, not least because it's a good deal older than christianity, or indeed any of the main monotheisms.

Laurence Kraus has a theory called 'Something Form nothing' where in his explanation he states that long ago all that existed where numbers.

Which tells me that you haven;t actually read the book or watched the lecture, because Krauss says no such thing. You should be aware that I know Lawrence Krauss, and we converse fairly regularly.

All these numbers swirled around until they started forming into mathematic formulas and eventually the mathematic formulas formed the universe.

Err, no. This isn't remotely representative of the theory, which is little surprise, given the abject ignorance with which you approach every topic thus far.

You say no I am incorrect but give no refutation other than a firm no? this indicates I am either right or you don’t really know what Krauss’ hypothesis is. Or you are just incapable of explaining what the correct hypothesis is. Then there is the laziness factor where you just did not feel like given a correction after stating my understanding of Lawrence’s is wrong.

Actually, if you'd read the book or watched the lecture (which I know has been posted here specifically in an attempt to address your ignorance), you'd know that what Krauss posits is not that the universe came from nothing, but that 'nothing' is an impossible state. Apart from anything else, it massively violates Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

As you have already been advised, many of us here are highly conversant with physics and cosmology. You should bear that in mind before exposing the forum to such intellectual flatulence.

Given your lack of understanding of the laws of the universe among other things, I remain un-intimidated by the proposed intelligence of the community within the LOR.

When God breathed the universe into existence there were numbers comprising mathematic formulas that took nothing and created something from it. God pronounced the universe into existence. This is proposed in the bible where it states in Isaiah that God breathed the universe into existence. Our God is a star breathing God. He is still your God too, whether you accept it or reject it.

All of which, including my acceptance or rejection, would require that this entity actually exist, a conclusion not in evidence. In any event, even were this entity to actually exist, it wouldn't be mine. I have no want or need of a deity. What do you do with one anyway? Stand it in the corner, like that guitar you bought when you were thirteen and always promised yourself that you'd learn to play? Wheel it out at parties as a conversation starter?

You can stand on the promises He gives. You can trust in the hope that He brings. He can transform your life into something greater than you could imagine. When the your world comes crashing down around you, you can rest in His love. His grace will sustain you in the storms that life brings. That’s just for starters.

No, this god, regardless of whether or not it exists, is not mine, and I'm not its.

Foolish!


We live in a world where much of secular society rejects absolutes. This is the belief of people who don’t want to find out the truth. I have debated with people who propose there can be an infinite number of possibilities as to how the universe came to be.

The problem there is that it is far from having been established that the universe ever came to be. Still assuming conclusions not in evidence.

All the kinetic energy in the universe is going through entropy since the universe was set into motion. No energy has been lost but only transferred9conservation) As a result of the transfer of kinetic energy, entropy increases(second law of therodynamics). Entropy will eventually led the universe to heat death. Something that infinitely exists will not have an end. Apparently the universe will eventually end. Therefore the universe had a beginning and thus had a cause.

This is completely false as it is self defeating. ONLY possibility as to how the universe came into existence is that there are infinite possibilities. This makes no sense. First problem this means that there could only be multiple truths for the explanation of the universe when logically only one can be true.

On the contrary! There are several possibilities, including the very real possibility that the universe is simply a brute fact.

This passivity of yours is very concerning. The universe exists therefore the universe exists. That is circular reasoning.

According to laws of logic something cannot be both true and a false at the same time in the same context.

No problem with that.

Are you sure? You are unaware of Dillingers cat then? This just shows the erroneousness of quantum theorists.
Therefore there can only be one true explanation for the cause of the universes existence.

Of course, but the problem is that it hasn't been demonstrated that the universe had, or indeed required, a cause.

So you refute the assertion that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago?

 

[australopithecus]

I don’t see why. Immaterial exists. God has been defined in my argument as being an immaterial consciousness. Immaterial things exists. God is immaterial. Therefore God exists. It follows pretty well I think.

It doesn't follow at all. Not even slightly.

Blue exists. Unicorns have been defined in my argument as being blue. Blue things exist. Unicorns are blue. Therefore Unicorns exist. Same logic, yet I don't see no blue unicorns walking around, and no, before you inevitably try, this isn't a straw man. I've taken nothing you've said out of context, I'm simply using your line of "logic".

Y'see, both of these fall down at exactly the same point. You can't infer the existence of something because you claim it has properties that can be shown to exist independently of what you're trying to claim exists. It doesn't work, and it is terrible reasoning. You've back yourself into a corner by claiming God is immaterial and therefore cannot be evidenced. Now you're left with cod-philosophy that doesn't even follow any basic premise of logic.

If this is the best argument for the existence of God, then if I were God and do exist, I'd be embarrassed for you.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

wow! Nice rebuttal! I shall have to reconstruct that argument. thanks

 

[australopithecus]

Sarcasm is a gift you clearly lack. Along with reasoning skills.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Sarcasm is a gift you clearly lack. Along with reasoning skills.

sorry but what what I said was not sarcasm. I don't why you continuously feel the need to put me down. Were you constantly put down and made to feel unintelligent as a child? My post was sincere. I was comending you. Just forget it!

 

[australopithecus]

sorry but what what I said was not sarcasm.

That much was obvious.

I don't why you continuously feel the need to put me down. Were you constantly put down and made to feel unintelligent as a child?

Your lack of intellectual honesty for one, and no I wasn't made to feel unintelligent as a child.

My post was sincere. I was comending you. Just forget it!

I seriously doubt anything you've posted here has been sincere, and why commend me exactly? I was just repeating the same point everyone else has pointed out to you. Why are you only now taking it on board? Perhaps you should commend everyone else as well.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

sorry but what what I said was not sarcasm.

That much was obvious.

I don't why you continuously feel the need to put me down. Were you constantly put down and made to feel unintelligent as a child?

Your lack of intellectual honesty for one, and no I wasn't made to feel unintelligent as a child.

My post was sincere. I was comending you. Just forget it!

I seriously doubt anything you've posted here has been sincere, and why commend me exactly? I was just repeating the same point everyone else has pointed out to you. Why are you only now taking it on board? Perhaps you should commend everyone else as well.

Apparentley your the only one that drove it home!
If you don't like compliments than I aplogize. I have a serious problem of being polite to people even after they cannot show me the same courtesy.
Must be that unconditional love from the Father.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

To adress the implausible existence of mythological Gods and Godesses I concede that since they are all based on stories made up to address constellations that they are finite and thus are not plausible for creating the universe as they are in the universe. It's the same logic as saying that a paper bag made a plastic bag.

 

[australopithecus]

Assumes the pagan gods were based on constellations, and not that constellations were based on pagan gods. Again, your "logic" fails.

 

[Prolescum]

Ah, the Battlestar Galactica fallacy.

I used to love that one.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

You got your 'therefore' in a little early there. This particular fallacy is known as the non sequitur, which translates directly from the Latin as 'does not follow'. In short, your argument is invalid.

I don’t see why. Immaterial exists. God has been defined in my argument as being an immaterial consciousness. Immaterial things exists. God is immaterial. Therefore God exists. It follows pretty well I think.

1. There are black cats
2. Steve is a cat
C. Steve is black
Or is he?

The universe doesn't follow natural laws. Natural laws are our expressions of how what we observe behaves. They are descriptive, not prescriptive.

There is a problem with your objection to my first premise. I don’t understand how something that does not exist can still be observed. How many non existent things have you observed lately?

Straw-man. How does on observe that which doesn’t exist? You don’t.
You do not observe natural laws, you observe the behavior of things.
You have been corrected on this, several times.

The universe adheres to natural laws. Our descriptions do not keep our universe from collapsing.

“Natural Laws” are our description of the Universe. What makes the Universe behave the way they do is the content within it.

God has no physical existence. When you say existence you forget that ‘exists’ is not a characteristic of God.

1. no physical existence = does not exist
2. ‘exists’ is not a characteristic of God = God does not exist
This means that God does not exist, you dumbass.

Conclusion: God exist.

1. Non-sequitur.
2. Logical absurdity given previous statment.

You are correct to say that the natural laws of the universe are conceptual.

If only you would remember this.

This however supports the immaterial existence of a sentient God. Reason being is that we are made in Gods’ image. God has no physical form so the ‘image’ we are made in is that of consciousness. We are self aware. The fact that we’re able to do science solely relies on a transcendent eternal sentient God.

Non-sequitur.

Everything pertaining to physical existence and actions and reactions thereof, are contingent on rules. If something is in motion it is following a rule of motion

No, it is not. If something is in motion it is not following a description of its motion that you hold your head, things are not capable of holding care much less care for what the fuck you think. A rule is a concept!

All rules and laws of the universe therefore imply a rule setter and a law giver. My problem with many secular theories is how can nature, having no intelligence, set laws and rules in place in order for the universe to exist? It seems as though you would need to attribute intelligence to nature.

Even if I were to grant you the absurd notion that things literally follow rules, it is simply a non-sequitur to postulate a mind to set those rules. In fact it is completely incoherent given that a mind is a highly complex system that would require rules in order to work.
So from this it follows that:
a. It could have not have been a mind.
b. or we drop your usage of “rules” and thus making your argument invalid.
So your argument is either invalid or invalid. Take your pick.

To say that we lucky is merely a description of chance. That’s why Einstein once stated that God does not play dice.

Quote-mine. Einstein said this in response to the apparent probabilistic nature of quantum theory, not that this should bother quantum theory as it so far agrees with experiment.
Either you like it or not that is how it really works. You don’t like? That’s too bad, ok!

Then why have and do, great scientific minds believed and still believe in God?

The academic credentials are no measurement of correctness in terms of matters that are not put through rigorous study.

All these numbers swirled around until they started forming into mathematic formulas and eventually the mathematic formulas formed the universe.

This is by far the most stupid thing I have ever heard in my entire life. I have heard pretty stupid shit but this one takes the retard cake home.

Given your lack of understanding of the laws of the universe among other things, I remain un-intimidated by the proposed intelligence of the community within the LOR.

Says the man without any scientific credentials and an education below 5th grade.

Are you sure? You are unaware of Dillingers cat then? This just shows the erroneousness of quantum theorists.

???
Did you mean Schrödinger’s cat? What about it? Just because you can’t wrap your head around it and therefore refuse to accept it, it doesn’t mean that it is wrong.
Intuition is useless in science.

Therefore there can only be one true explanation for the cause of the universes existence.

Even if the preceding phrase wasn’t absurd, this is a non-sequitur + false dichotomy.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The reason I ask 'who is God' is because there are many different beliefs about God. There's mythology stemming from a Pagonis tic view. Then there is other beliefs in God like the Hindus, Zen Buddhism and New Age, belief. They believe in a pantheist God. this pantheist view believes God is nature. Mythology has it wrong as most all of mythological gods are deemed finite. They can die. Most have not been claimed to have created the universe. Logically gods in this view can be ruled out as plausible.
As for the belief in a pantheist god, this to can also be ruled out because god is cannot exist as material and also immaterial. God cannot create the universe as himself being the universe. That is the equivalent to a painter creating himself into the painting.

I think you're somewhat confused here.

The creation has been described in Christian theology as "a manifestation of God".

This is clearly the same as Nature being synonymous with God.

To explain this more fully, let me define the positions of Theism and Deism respectively.

Theism holds that a God created the universe "out of His own Being" - God is described as "permeating His creation".

This means that the universe - Nature - wholly resides within God's Being: God is everywhere - both without and within the universe (Nature).

Our souls, the "spirit plane", etc, all reside within God's Being.

Deism, on the other hand, contends that a God created a purely naturalistic universe - no souls, no "spirit plane", no life-after-death and no intervention by God.

This means that God's Being does not permeate His creation.

Think of a Deistic God as a lump of Swiss cheese with just one spherical "hole" in it.

Thus we have "God" and "Not God" (where the naturalistic universe's "hole" resides).

This is incidentally why Deism fails the ontological argument, since, if God is "the most perfect being", He can't be less than perfect - but if there's somewhere where God doesn't exist, then He's less than perfect.

What you're saying above means that you don't hold the theistic view but the deistic one - which your next statement then contradicts...

The only logical view is that of a theist God. A personal God. This leaves the Christian view, Judaism and the Islamic view as the last of tangible views.
Now we have the task of deciphering which of these three are the correct view. This is not hard to do either. God allowed His prophets' to do miracles.

There is no evidence that these miracles occurred - the fact that such are written into the text does not mean that they did. Many things which appear supernatural are explainable by naturalistic means, which the people of that time simply would not have understood - as the Greeks' belief that thunder and lightening were due to Zeus shows.

No where in the Islamic bible did Mohammed do any miracles.
In fact there is no evidence Mohammed even existed.

That is clearly not the case - as (secular) history attests.

As for Judaism this one can be discounted too. They believe that obeying the law is what God commanded of them. There is so much infighting as to what Judaism entails that no one agrees on anything in this belief.

As others have noted, there are over 30,000 - I believe it's nearer 37,000 - versions of Christianity in America alone, which would undermine your dismissing Judaism quite substantially.

Christianity is the correct view of God because it is the most tangible as far as it's belief in Jesus as the son of God.

The term "son of God" has a different meaning than that believed by most Christians - it simply means a "holy man" or "one who abides by God's (Mosaic) Law".

The sacrificial lamb. The bible is the only holy book.

That is simply not the case: there are no "holy" books - only religious texts which their adherents' believe to be "holy".

The bible has stood the test of time and many hammers have been broken over it as it's anvil still holds strong today. In fact many have tried to disclaim the bible and all have failed.

Another series of fallacious claims.

It is the Word of God. God wrote the bible. Not man.

This is not the case.

If we have God-given free will then God cannot intervene in any way, shape or form to cause, "inspire" or actually write the bible without breaking our free will, since any intervention robs us of it.

God is defined as a great spirit who is infinite in power. Also omnipresent and omniscient.

There are problems with those properties being contradictory.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Assumes the pagan gods were based on constellations, and not that constellations were based on pagan gods. Again, your "logic" fails.

So you assert that mythologic beliefs porporting the idea that gods and goddesses drawn out to form constellations were based on actual gods and goodesses and not made up stories about the constellations. You have the burden of proof Austra. Let's hear it!

We have the stories as they were written by humans not stars.

 

[australopithecus]

So you assert that mythologic beliefs porporting the idea that gods and goddesses drawn out to form constellations were based on actual gods and goodesses and not made up stories about the constellations.

No, that's not what I'm asserting at all. I'm not discounting the possibility that constellations were based on things that ancient people considered to be gods. I'm unconvinced that this is the case, seeing as there is just as much evidence for this scenario as there is for your God, however it is a possibility.

You have the burden of proof Austra. Let's hear it!

I've made no positive claim, I've just stated there is another option besides your false dichotomy.

We have the stories as they were written by humans not stars.

Stories like the Bible which was also written by humans.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Assumes the pagan gods were based on constellations, and not that constellations were based on pagan gods. Again, your "logic" fails.

So you assert that mythologic beliefs porporting the idea that gods and goddesses drawn out to form constellations were based on actual gods and goodesses and not made up stories about the constellations. You have the burden of proof Austra. Let's hear it!
We have the stories as they were written by humans not stars.

No, he does not assert. He simply pointed out a flaw in your argument, it is rather your argument that assumes a specific perspective of pagan Gods (one which by the way is incorrect) in order for your argument to work. He only has to point an alternative perspective, which you can't dismiss in order to render your argument ineffective. He doesn't need to prove that it is the case, he only has to show that it might be the case.
He is not defending the position that there were actual existing pagan Gods in which those constellations were named after. He is pointing out that your arguments are ineffective to dismiss those Gods, thus forcing you to either:
a. Admit that your concept of God is indistinguishable from any other God.
b. Bring better arguments that actually are capable of dismissing those Gods, but by doing so also forces you to dismiss your God.