Because in my opinion the gods worshipped by humans have no credibility. Anyway you and I will never see eye to eye on this topic so we will have to agree to differ.
-
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!
How was god created?
- Thread starter JJ50
- Start date
Because in my opinion the gods worshipped by humans have no credibility. Anyway you and I will never see eye to eye on this topic so we will have to agree to differ.
Why do you think it is illogical? I believe God is spirit and love, as the Bible tells. I don’t think He was created or born.
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24
He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8
Have you actually read that not so good book? The god character featured there is evil, if it exists and everything attributed to it is true.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You are again contradicting yourself.
These "represntatives, prophets and messengers", as you call them... are humans, yes?
So god can't communicate with humans, but he can communicate with those humans?
And these "messengers" - just humans. Humans making indefensible and unverifiable claims. Many such humans will make such claims which you won't be believing either. I'm sure you don't consider some cult leader who orders a mass suicide to be one of these "messengers" - yet they claim to be and those following the cult believe it.
In reality off course, we have NO WAY of differentiating between those humans claiming to be messengers/prophets/etc and "real" ones. And that's assuming that there actually are real ones to begin with - which I have no reason at all to believe.
So all in all:
- you claim it's unknowable and then proceed to make knowledge claims...
- you claim humans can't communicate with gods and then proceed to make claims about humans who received messages from gods
Can you see how none of this sounds particularly convincing to me?
That is, if you believe the claims concerning these "manifestations". For which you don't seem to have rational reason to.
I have no reason to believe that this guy knows what he is talking about.
He sounds like all the others - many of whom you don't believe either.
And what he says is indistinguishable from claims of rivaling and mutually exclusive religions and "prophets".
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I think it's perfectly sensible.
Religious beliefs have been with us for millenia, yet in all that time not a single individual ever succeeded in demonstrating anything related to their religious supernatural beliefs. That covers the part that nobody on earth knows about a god. I guess it could be that someone could objectively demonstrate God and just doesn't share it - but that seems quite unlikely.
So, what we observe are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of mutually exclusive religions and god images, none of which have any real rational evidence going for them.
That is quite consistent with the idea that inventing religions and gods that don't actually exist, is just what humans do. If the Gods that the various peopl eof earth believe in don't exist, then we would expect exactly such data to observe: many different and mutually exclusive god beliefs, none of which that can present rational evidence and a psychology that can serve as a feeding ground for "inventing" such beliefs.
Looking around, that's exactly what I see.
- many, many religions and other forms of superstition
- zero rational evidence for anything supernatural
- a human psychology that is very prone to engaging in type 1 cognition errors (the false positive) and a tendency to falsely infuse agency into otherwise random events.
These observations of the world are completely consistent with a human species that has a tendency to invent religions out of thin air.
These observations are not consistent with any religion being "the correct one".
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
So make up your mind, then. Do they do exist or don't they exist?
That's a bit disengenious imo, and borderline quote mining.
"they only exist in the mind of believers" is quite clear in terms of what is being meant.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Because it's the null hypothesis.
Things are assumed to not exist until they can be shown to exist (or supported or what-have-you).
Just like things are assumed not to be connected causally until the causal relation is demonstrated.
Consider a court of law.
"not guilty" is assumed until shown otherwise.
If you accuse someone and then bring no evidence, the person will be set free and not ruled guilty.
In those terms, you could say that we rule god to be "not guilty" of existing.
...in people's imagination.
Darth Vader "exists" as a character in a story.
Darth Vader doesn't "exist" in reality.
Surely you comprehend that. It doesn't seem very honest to simply ignore the words "...in the mind of believers" and only focussing on the "god exists" words that preceeded it to try and make the point that the person who said those words believes that god exists.....................
I truly sympathise with you because when I was a fanatical atheist I too travelled the journey you are travelling so I know where you’re coming from but I’m fortunate in that I discovered I was wrong, and that God most definitely exists without any doubt whatsoever.
All I can say is when you search hard enough and if you’re sincere then you’re mind will be opened and you will see the truth. But your journey is your journey. I can’t travel it for you. I can only assure you that if you are sincere then you will find out that what I have said is true but that is for you to discover as I have already found the truth.
I too opposed religions and religionists and the concept of God like you are now doing but I found out I was wrong.
I know God exists and am very happy that I found that out 45 years ago.
The Prophets and Messengers only come in human form but their souls were not born in this world but were conceived in another world in other words They are pre existent and Their souls were created to be able to withstand a form of direct communication with God that we are incapable of.
If you study Their Lives you can easily see that They weren’t just ordinary human beings but had a power not of this world that has enabled Them to change the course of civilisations and even today thousands of years after Their passing billions model their daily lives on These Wondrous Educators.
Every nation has been entirely influence by Their teachings. In India Krishna, in the Middle East Muhammad, in the west Christ and in Asian countries Buddha. No greater Beings such as These have ever existed.
I thought it was just a load of nonsense too until I did some serious open minded research and I was very surprised to find that I was so dead wrong about things.
So from a former atheist all I can suggest is to continue to passionately try and disprove God because the more I found that I tried the more evidence came to light that I was so, so wrong because I had to know for 100% certain one way or another and now I’m 100% dead sure.
But I can never convince you, it would be wrong. All the hard work I did and you get the wages and reward? If you don’t search you won’t find and if you do you will be guided but it’s for each to earn his or her reward from his own search and not from what others say or do.
If you are so sure God does not exist then keep that thought as I did and I was never going to ever believe that God existed until I found out for myself my own way.
I have read it and I think God is not evil. He is the best and only good.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"default position must be that they don't exist"
It is a wrong surmise until one gives "evidences" and "proofs" as the Atheism people demand from the believers. Right, please?
Regards
No. You don't understand what a default position is.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
Atheists ask for proof because the theists make an extraordinary claim and insist that it's correct. That puts the burden of proof on them.
Atheists themselves have no burden of proof because they make no claims. They have nothing to prove.
Nothing; no claim, is the default position; the starting position.
Last edited:
Firemorphic
Activist Membrane
All you're doing here is describing the concept of Logos, in relation to Monad ("The One" or "The Father"). Even if you don't yourself see it, you are merely undermining your own intentions here.
I'm clearly not a Christian but if you (presumably) are trying to attack that, then you have the Neoplatonic axiom presented there straight in John 1:1, which presupposes a relation between a Demiurge of some kind ("The Son") and God itself ("The One", "The Father").
The problem here is vertical vs horizontal thinking. One makes sense, the other doesn't. And in continuity with what I've said, your post furthermore demonstrates an Atheistic dualism that is no better answer than literalist Theistic dualism, both of which fail under the weight of their own absurd presumptions.
Nice thread though, not in the way you think it to be, the concept of "God above God" (Gnostic and Neoplatonic in origin) is good brainfood, if you know what I mean