• 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!

The Word of God

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Thank you! I can't get around rhetorical and/or sarcastic questions (not you, just in general) to make a point. It's ironic. I try to do the same but never gets that way.

There is no god. I'm assuming those who answer the question assume there is in order to answer the question. God doesn't need to exist to ask questions about it, though. Right?

We are on the same page re:god.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Define eternity, define god, provide sufficient objective evidence for both.
Eternity: encompassing all of time and beyond.

God cannot be defined, although certain things can be ascribed to him, such as being the Creator, the Source underlying the universe.

Eternity is simply a vocabulary word. There is neither sufficient evidence to objectively prove the existence of God or to prove that he does not exist. It is left to the individual and their experience and perceptions.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Way cool. I can live with that. God cannot be verified to exist and it is a matter of belief independent of evidence?
It's not that it is independent of evidence. It is that the evidence is not sufficient for proof.

For example, the apparent beauty and organization of the universe intuitively implies a designer. If we found a computer on Mars, we would conclude it was created by an intelligent being because it implies design. This implication of design can be very compelling evidence for a great many people. But it is not sufficient to be overwhelming proof. For example, the entire idea of beauty could simply be an accidental by-product of our evolution and we may be seeing design where non exists, much in the same way we see faces where none exist.
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
It's not that it is independent of evidence. It is that the evidence is not sufficient for proof.

For example, the apparent beauty and organization of the universe intuitively implies a designer. If we found a computer on Mars, we would conclude it was created by an intelligent being because it implies design. This implication of design can be very compelling evidence for a great many people. But it is not sufficient to be overwhelming proof. For example, the entire idea of beauty could simply be an accidental by-product of our evolution and we may be seeing design where non exists, much in the same way we see faces where none exist.
At the end it takes faith but faith with some evidence is at least not blind.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
It's not that it is independent of evidence. It is that the evidence is not sufficient for proof.

For example, the apparent beauty and organization of the universe intuitively implies a designer. If we found a computer on Mars, we would conclude it was created by an intelligent being because it implies design. This implication of design can be very compelling evidence for a great many people. But it is not sufficient to be overwhelming proof. For example, the entire idea of beauty could simply be an accidental by-product of our evolution and we may be seeing design where non exists, much in the same way we see faces where none exist.

I should have stated it more succinctly. It is a belief based insufficient good evidence. There is "evidence" for unicorns as well....it's just not sufficient or good enough to warrant belief.

Beauty is a human construct. Nothing in the universe is inherently beautiful or ugly. That is a quality assigned by the observer. So the things we might describe as beautiful are only so because we say they are so.

Also, If the beauty and organization we see in the universe is evidence for a god, then the disorganization and ugliness we find in the universe must be taken as evidence for the absence of that god. And there is both.

Your computer analogy fails right out of the gate. It is just the old watchmaker argument from hundreds of years ago.
We know the computer has a designer because we are the designers. we can find blueprints, wiring diagrams, factoriis, we can talk to the workers in those factories. So we have knowledge of how it is made.

The argument also fails because you are differentiating it from everything around it and saying it stands out because it was obviously created by an intelligence. Well, why didn't you choose the rock it was sitting on instead??? If everything was created intelligently, how were you able to single out the computer???
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Can god exist without his words?

Edit. Is god and his word/scripture are one and the same and cannot exist without each other?

The "Word" had a beginning. God does not have a beginning nor an end. Two different entities. The "Word" depends of God, God does not depend on the "Word". The "Word" was a creation, created for a specific result.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I should have stated it more succinctly. It is a belief based insufficient good evidence. There is "evidence" for unicorns as well....it's just not sufficient or good enough to warrant belief.

Beauty is a human construct. Nothing in the universe is inherently beautiful or ugly. That is a quality assigned by the observer. So the things we might describe as beautiful are only so because we say they are so.

Also, If the beauty and organization we see in the universe is evidence for a god, then the disorganization and ugliness we find in the universe must be taken as evidence for the absence of that god. And there is both.

Your computer analogy fails right out of the gate. It is just the old watchmaker argument from hundreds of years ago.
We know the computer has a designer because we are the designers. we can find blueprints, wiring diagrams, factoriis, we can talk to the workers in those factories. So we have knowledge of how it is made.

The argument also fails because you are differentiating it from everything around it and saying it stands out because it was obviously created by an intelligence. Well, why didn't you choose the rock it was sitting on instead??? If everything was created intelligently, how were you able to single out the computer???
The evidence for unicorns is next to nothing -- it is merely anecdotal, which we know to be incredibly shoddy. Thus this is a completely inadequate model.

I would agree with PearlSeeker: Belief in a Designer absolutely is a faith thing, but it is not blind faith.

The computer analogy would stand even if we did not construct computers, even if there were no designs or factories, etc. It would stand because it is obviously designed by intelligence.

The rock is also designed, but on a much more subtle level. It is usually when we see rocks formed into extraordinary features such as canyons or mountains, or when we explore their chemical analysis or geological history, that we become awed. I remember when I took Geology 101 and how awed I was! I considered changing my major to Geology! LOL

To look at the evidence of the inherent order and beauty of the universe and yet still posit there is no design and thus no designer is equally an item of faith based on inadequate evidence. If you want to remain an agnostic, that would be a different sort of thing. But most agnostics still do have a preference for theism or atheism.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Word as in christ or scripture?

The "Word" was the Word of God, such as true Scripture, not the testimony of false prophets. As for Yeshua, he was the "Word" made flesh, in as he came to fulfill the Law and the prophets (scripture). (Matthew 5:17). A casual glance at Scripture should assure you that he, as the "son of man" (Mt 24:39), left things undone, to be finished later to check on your good fruit/works (Matthew 3:10)
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
The "Word" was the Word of God, such as true Scripture, not the testimony of false prophets. As for Yeshua, he was the "Word" made flesh, in as he came to fulfill the Law and the prophets (scripture). (Matthew 5:17). A casual glance at Scripture should assure you that he, as the "son of man" (Mt 24:39), left things undone, to be finished later to check on your good fruit/works (Matthew 3:10)

True word?
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Can god exist without his words?

It's actually a pretty good question. Yes, things exist in the environment of words. Furthermore, how do we know that languages (the 'whole' behind sets of words) aren't the real organisms, making humans only the means for their communication? Think about it. Languages seem to compete in the world for space, both physically (through the human host and what it writes) and sonically. The deity concept in the words might be a sort binding agent, in order to help give languages a more cohesive sort of power. Languages seem to have specific important words, but what really decided their importance? Languages also seem to have goals, as they have important words that represent specific concepts, that are 'important.' So are humans following where the language lead, or are the humans mastering these powerful forces?
 
Last edited:
Top