They are attributes of motor vehicles. All those attributes can be traced back right to a defining moment.
Regards Tony
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Examining the evidence there is of God
They are attributes of motor vehicles. All those attributes can be traced back right to a defining moment.
Regards Tony
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Whooossshhh!!
So if God and existence are fundamentally tied together and if we are using sound logic and reason, are we able to make the two ideas directly incoherent with one another?
Regards Tony
Exaltist Ethan
Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
(1) Godhood and divinity is a quality of a being, not the being itself.
(2) Different changes of beings allow things to raise and lower their divinity.
(3) Certain evolutionary adaptations, especially of those acquired by humans, make them possess divine characteristics.
(4) Those that possess the most divinity can adapt and exist in any environment.
(5) Therefore, those that evolve to adapt towards other environments the best become God.
It is a logical and reasonable assumption. What proofs can it be based upon?
Regards Tony
I do not see a conflict of logic with any of that.
It does raise a lot of philosophical tangents.
Regards Tony
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I am an atheist but the existence of intellect that can reason and possess qualities of character does suggest that there could be a root cause of these things that possesses the same qualities and attributes.
Why would existence be anything less than what is made by it; such as character, reasoning, and intellect? It would be magical poofing to suggest that only purely physical processes is responsible for these attributes.
The idea that these things just appear naturally isn't really addressing my question. Neither evolution, nor physics, nor abiogenesis explains anything of the sort. Those subjects address the fact that things happen naturally, but only explain how things happen naturally from a surface viewpoint. They can't delve into why things such as reason, character, and intellect do appear.
Purely physical explanations can never address that question. You'll have to go into philosophy and reason back from those evidences as to what might be the reasons for the existence of character, intellect, and reasoning capability.
That would be the first step to inquiring about a general existence of a God, or many such living entities.
However things like benevolence, and total omniscience can be ruled out.
Why would existence be anything less than what is made by it; such as character, reasoning, and intellect? It would be magical poofing to suggest that only purely physical processes is responsible for these attributes.
The idea that these things just appear naturally isn't really addressing my question. Neither evolution, nor physics, nor abiogenesis explains anything of the sort. Those subjects address the fact that things happen naturally, but only explain how things happen naturally from a surface viewpoint. They can't delve into why things such as reason, character, and intellect do appear.
Purely physical explanations can never address that question. You'll have to go into philosophy and reason back from those evidences as to what might be the reasons for the existence of character, intellect, and reasoning capability.
That would be the first step to inquiring about a general existence of a God, or many such living entities.
However things like benevolence, and total omniscience can be ruled out.
Exaltist Ethan
Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
Yet humans have the capability to possess infinite benevolence and sagacity. Nature does not. Divinity comes from both intelligent life and nature. What one can't do the other can.
Exaltist Ethan
Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
Your prophet, Baha'u'llah, was able to create a world religion while exiled and in prison. That is the sign of extreme adaption. Baha'u'llah is among the greatest people that ever lived, his story unfolding and unraveling with the translations of his works to English and other languages to this day. He is truly the Glory of God. If he didn't sacrifice his life to progress theology and religion, the world would be in a much darker place than it is today. Baha'u'llah is a prime example of one the greatest, and most unique, stories of human plight ever told.
They are very kind words, which would attest to your own attributes, and words which indicate a high sense of justice.
Regards Tony
You CAN'T have a logical conclusion whenever you open an argument with "If..". What you are doing is speculating. You are assuming some premise, and speculating about what relaity would be like if it was true. This generally acknowledges the "If.." isn't true. If Santa Claus didn't come down chimneys, how would enter our houses? See what I mean?
We don't know that any Gods exist, so any reference to a God is speculative.
Even the title of this thread suggests God is not known to exist. You don't ask about evidence for bananas, that's because we all acknowledge they exist in reality.
It already has. Science only refers to singularities as a mass of energy, not any supernatural phenomenon.
I suggest you take debates like this more seriously. It was considered insulting and disrespectful on your other thread to not take the topic seriously and ignore sincere questions asked of you.
Last edited:
Hmm. An interesting question for exploration. Thank you.
There are a couple theological paradigms that so closely marry gods and existence that it would seem at first brush an impossibility to make them incoherent with one another.
The first is theology that posits a transcendent creator god, whereby existence cannot be present (or is dependent upon) without another concept designated as "god."
The second is theology that posits a fully immanent pantheistic god, whereby gods and existence are referencing the same thing; the word "god" is used to attribute a sense of the sacred and wondrousness to all existence.
There might be more than just these two, but these are the two that readily come to mind. Through paradox, would it be possible to make god and existence incoherent with each other under these two theological paradigms? That I'll have to think more on, but I consider other attributes that are then added to these god-concepts. These additional complications to what "god" is can create that incoherence, as with, say, the "problem of evil" if one also posits either of these gods are benevolent. So perhaps the more complex the theology, or the more attributes one places onto the gods, the more likely it becomes for its existence to seem dubious to us?
That if is for those that doubt. Regards Tony
Most replies in the last OP, were not on topic and continued to try to drive the topic on to proofs.
This OP can explore the evidence using logic and reason, from the evidence sources mentioned in the last OP.
Yet others still may offer other sources of evidence that can be examined.
Regards Tony
rational experiences
Veteran Member
No machine exists first.
Everything else does.
Every thing. Not no thing.
Men want machines to come alive. Said I must invent electricity. For a non existent machine.
So two bodies he says he wants to extract from gods mass. One body science. Planet earth. Entombed not alive as life to live be alive is with light.
Today he says I think humans own carbon about 18.5 per cent in bio body mass.
Coal owns about 80 per cent.
Notice coal isn't God. God is rock.
Notice oxygen is mass...we aren't.
Notice carbon is mass...we aren't.
Notice water is mass...we aren't.
Now notice just a man says I want to control own god.
So knows God is not a man.
What you ignore the testimony said no man is God.
So man builds the machine in full awareness it's not human.
He knows he puts electricity absorbed by the machine body both types not humans.
Yet his new machine owns no resource.
Next moment he claims humans are part machine.
God our planet never built a machine...men did.
Did you build a machine with intention a human owning carbon inside a heavens can be my resource data gain carbon...as a Jesus end of life biology theme?
Or do you want heavens carbon mass contacted?
Then you'd ask what do you use to make all contacts?
He says transmitters or fallen God on the ground. Not a crop circle not carbonised crops.
Okay is the fallen God transmitters?
No he says it was sin holes in gods mass. Jesus on ground where a machine his built came from.
Oh not coal...a carbon event to disintegrate mass?
Yes.
Why men as holy men...holy by self intention. Said so it's my duty to protect life on earth from satanic minds of men...theists is real.
As no man is mass God.
Everything else does.
Every thing. Not no thing.
Men want machines to come alive. Said I must invent electricity. For a non existent machine.
So two bodies he says he wants to extract from gods mass. One body science. Planet earth. Entombed not alive as life to live be alive is with light.
Today he says I think humans own carbon about 18.5 per cent in bio body mass.
Coal owns about 80 per cent.
Notice coal isn't God. God is rock.
Notice oxygen is mass...we aren't.
Notice carbon is mass...we aren't.
Notice water is mass...we aren't.
Now notice just a man says I want to control own god.
So knows God is not a man.
What you ignore the testimony said no man is God.
So man builds the machine in full awareness it's not human.
He knows he puts electricity absorbed by the machine body both types not humans.
Yet his new machine owns no resource.
Next moment he claims humans are part machine.
God our planet never built a machine...men did.
Did you build a machine with intention a human owning carbon inside a heavens can be my resource data gain carbon...as a Jesus end of life biology theme?
Or do you want heavens carbon mass contacted?
Then you'd ask what do you use to make all contacts?
He says transmitters or fallen God on the ground. Not a crop circle not carbonised crops.
Okay is the fallen God transmitters?
No he says it was sin holes in gods mass. Jesus on ground where a machine his built came from.
Oh not coal...a carbon event to disintegrate mass?
Yes.
Why men as holy men...holy by self intention. Said so it's my duty to protect life on earth from satanic minds of men...theists is real.
As no man is mass God.
Critical thinkers can see that gods are manifest in the minds of believers. There is no compelling evidence of any gods.
Your description of what evidence is in that other thread was incorrect. Most of that threat dealt with your incorrect beliefs about evidence in geneeal, and how much evidence lacks for what you assert and believe.
The other thread did just that by critical thinkers and you were offen distressed by what they revealed. Will this thread be any different?
Frankly I'm skeptical, because I doubt any new evidence has been gathered in the last few days. The other thread gave many Baha'i opportunities to present evidence and arguments, and it was not a success for Baha'i.
You invite examination until it happens by critical thinkers. Just remember that.
Hmm. An interesting question for exploration. Thank you.
There are a couple theological paradigms that so closely marry gods and existence that it would seem at first brush an impossibility to make them incoherent with one another.
The first is theology that posits a transcendent creator god, whereby existence cannot be present (or is dependent upon) without another concept designated as "god."
The second is theology that posits a fully immanent pantheistic god, whereby gods and existence are referencing the same thing; the word "god" is used to attribute a sense of the sacred and wondrousness to all existence.
There might be more than just these two, but these are the two that readily come to mind. Through paradox, would it be possible to make god and existence incoherent with each other under these two theological paradigms? That I'll have to think more on, but I consider other attributes that are then added to these god-concepts. These additional complications to what "god" is can create that incoherence, as with, say, the "problem of evil" if one also posits either of these gods are benevolent. So perhaps the more complex the theology, or the more attributes one places onto the gods, the more likely it becomes for its existence to seem dubious to us?
I see no flaws in the reasoning you put forward, it resulted in valid questions.
It may be that our logic and reason are very limited and no matter what, we are not able to arrive at the knowledge God, or If we approach this from a scientific perspective, we are not able to find the essence behind creation.
As such we are influenced greatly by our nature and nurture, when we come to examine the evidence of why we exist. Incoherent logic may be born from that attachment, making our own Gods, or the opposite, of having no God at all.
Regards Tony
The mind is what manifests all reasoning and logic from the given evidence. That was the point of the Evidence Thread. We have to use our rational mind to determine the evidence given by God.
So if some one was to offer that, "I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven...." what evidence would we expect?
From the statement, it offers a possession of Innate knowledge. That is something that can be tested and gauged by rational and logical minds.
Regards Tony