There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[metis]

RE, I think we've arrived at an impasse because there's simply no response that I can give to the above, which is not to state nor imply you're wrong, btw. I think it's clear that each of us tend to seek our own spiritual identity, however defined, and it's obvious that you and I have our own beliefs or leanings, and I certainly do not have a problem with that. I many return back to this thread later, but for now there's simply nothing more that I can say.

shalom

 

[Robert.Evans]

RE, I think we've arrived at an impasse because there's simply no response that I can give to the above, which is not to state nor imply you're wrong, btw. I think it's clear that each of us tend to seek our own spiritual identity, however defined, and it's obvious that you and I have our own beliefs or leanings, and I certainly do not have a problem with that. I many return back to this thread later, but for now there's simply nothing more that I can say.

shalom

Ok.
Btw:
the First cause is from something simple which creates concentric circles of consciousness. BUT if we lift them up, we find them make a cone shape, which is basically a triangle. That is masculine. That looks within the feminine waters and see its own self, another triangle, this time the feminine. Now we have the left and right. Push them together, and you have the masculine and femine complete.... the Star of David.

 

[metis]

Ok.
Btw:
the First cause is from something simple which creates concentric circles of consciousness. BUT if we lift them up, we find them make a cone shape, which is basically a triangle. That is masculine. That looks within the feminine waters and see its own self, another triangle, this time the feminine. Now we have the left and right. Push them together, and you have the masculine and femine complete.... the Star of David.

Yes, but what I had to wear a cone-shaped hat back when I was in school, I think it mean something different.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes, but what I had to wear a cone-shaped hat back when I was in school, I think it mean something different.

haha... Ok. I think it is good. It is the fundamental of God, and it shows all things in a nutshell... the star of David.... that is neat!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

All posting seems to have stopped as no one knows where anything is now.. haha.

I think I shall put this to start the topic again: what is in the beginning? What is the First thing? What is the first cause? What is God?

Is he simple or complex? I say he is simple that moves to complex. It is seen in everything we see in this universe.

My post was along the lines of

How do you know that the correct god is the Christian god? What about the Christian god or religion makes you feel that this is the correct or at least most correct version? It can't be belief or spiritual experience because there is a lot of that in EVERY religion (and even in non-religious situations).

 

[Robert.Evans]

My post was along the lines of

How do you know that the correct god is the Christian god? What about the Christian god or religion makes you feel that this is the correct or at least most correct version? It can't be belief or spiritual experience because there is a lot of that in EVERY religion (and even in non-religious situations).

All roads lead to Rome... but it is which part of Rome you will be in, and what role you will serve which is important. All faiths are part of the divine (as ultimately we all are) but Yahshuah showed the right way. He is the door. He is the culmination of everything.
It is certainly better to believe than not... so I can't really argue what your saying. Belief in intelligence is better than belief in luck I think

 

[Monk Of Reason]

All roads lead to Rome... but it is which part of Rome you will be in, and what role you will serve which is important. All faiths are part of the divine (as ultimately we all are) but Yahshuah showed the right way. He is the door. He is the culmination of everything.
It is certainly better to believe than not... so I can't really argue what your saying. Belief in intelligence is better than belief in luck I think

My question is if all roads lead to Rome then why is there any negatives? According to Christianity the Muslims will burn as badly as an Atheist. But Islam states that Christianity is wrong. If they are all roads to the same place why do they seem to be going in different directions?

But why is belief in intelligence better than believing in observable phenomenon?

 

[Robert.Evans]

My question is if all roads lead to Rome then why is there any negatives? According to Christianity the Muslims will burn as badly as an Atheist. But Islam states that Christianity is wrong. If they are all roads to the same place why do they seem to be going in different directions?

Because everything is an evolving consciousness. There is within that divine consciousness, good and evil. As the consciousness (logos) gets further away from the light, there is more error.

When it comes to Hell, it is a big subject with not much written on it. There are many levels of self. some are destroyed and some are not. What is burnt off, is of no use and no concern. All houses are swept clean.

But why is belief in intelligence better than believing in observable phenomenon?

Because the observable phenomenon has to come from somewhere. If you are saying it is 'natural' then I will ask, What is natural? What is it? How is, Natural did it, any better than God did it? Do you see? At least we have intelligence involved. The complexitities that create you reality are all one big accident ultimately, as you don't believe in intelligence being the answer

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Because everything is an evolving consciousness. There is within that divine consciousness, good and evil. As the consciousness (logos) gets further away from the light, there is more error.

When it comes to Hell, it is a big subject with not much written on it. There are many levels of self. some are destroyed and some are not. What is burnt off, is of no use and no concern. All houses are swept clean.

So god is not all good? And it is an evolving and changing being?

Because the observable phenomenon has to come from somewhere. If you are saying it is 'natural' then I will ask, What is natural? What is it? How is, Natural did it, any better than God did it? Do you see? At least we have intelligence involved. The complexitities that create you reality are all one big accident ultimately, as you don't believe in intelligence being the answer

How is jumping to any conclusion based on ignorance better than claiming ignorance? I don't know what caused the big bang. But I am not content with just accepting "goddidit" as an answer. "Naturedidit" isn't an acceptable answer either. Its "I don't know". Then we can go and try and find these answers.
why does it rain? "Goddidit" was the answer till we figured out the answer. Similarly I feel we will have the same situation with some of our current questions.

 

[Robert.Evans]

So god is not all good? And it is an evolving and changing being?

I like your thinking There are many reflections of the ONE God. So which are you speaking of, would be the question. We think we speak of the One, but we don't, we speak of a reflection of the One. When it moves from its own position, there is error. There always will be, has to be... there can only be one original painting... all others are consided to be copies (images)

How is jumping to any conclusion based on ignorance better than claiming ignorance? I don't know what caused the big bang. But I am not content with just accepting "goddidit" as an answer. "Naturedidit" isn't an acceptable answer either. Its "I don't know". Then we can go and try and find these answers.

fine

why does it rain? "Goddidit" was the answer till we figured out the answer. Similarly I feel we will have the same situation with some of our current questions.

but we never figured out the answer, only the physical process within this physcial realm. All anyone ever explain in science is how things happen here. We should perhaps question more, how it is that they can explain so much anyway, considering we are apes that have stood up on our hind legs. Sounds a bit far fetched, if I wasn't here to prove it.

Explaining that natural did it, explains nothing, unless you see something bigger than that. Explaining that he domino before this one, knocked it over (and so on) does not explain the finger that knocked over the first one.

Luck is not an acceptable answer to life, to the universe, to the quantum vaccum, to the multiverse etc.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I like your thinking There are many reflections of the ONE God. So which are you speaking of, would be the question. We think we speak of the One, but we don't, we speak of a reflection of the One. When it moves from its own position, there is error. There always will be, has to be... there can only be one original painting... all others are consided to be copies (images)

Sounds very deistic.

but we never figured out the answer, only the physical process within this physcial realm. All anyone ever explain in science is how things happen here. We should perhaps question more, how it is that they can explain so much anyway, considering we are apes that have stood up on our hind legs. Sounds a bit far fetched, if I wasn't here to prove it.

Explaining that natural did it, explains nothing, unless you see something bigger than that. Explaining that he domino before this one, knocked it over (and so on) does not explain the finger that knocked over the first one.

Luck is not an acceptable answer to life, to the universe, to the quantum vaccum, to the multiverse etc.

What if god is a process and part of nature? I see no reason to assume if there is a god that he would be "outside of nature". "I don't know" is my current answer a bout "what caused the big bang" and such questions. But I know it has to be phenomenal and I don't think there is any way we could currently even guess as to how awesome the real answer is.

Now to bring something into the argument that most people don't like. You are talking about the chain of events and really want to get down to the first cause. We know "why" it rains. We know all the way back to the regression to the big bang of "why" things happen (or at least a good idea). But we don't know what caused the big bang. The Multiverse is a natural conclusion after looking at the way the quantum world behaves and the next logical step after realizing that our universe "came into existence". But lets say for just an instance it was "god". What caused "god"? Most theists fall back on the "god" is an exception to the rule sort of argument. "He is existence itself" "He is existence fulfilled" "He is all powerful" "He is timeless" ect ect ect. However lets skip those and really answer to me why "god" would have to be an entity rather than a quality?

AND from that jump why would it ever have to be iintelligent Is it that hard to accept that we may have come about inconsequentially?

 

[Robert.Evans]

...

Sounds very deistic.

It is all things. None are right, none are wrong. They belong in their own reality of existence

What if god is a process and part of nature? I see no reason to assume if there is a god that he would be "outside of nature".

You are speaking of a lower god not The God. Fine Ok.

"I don't know" is my current answer a bout "what caused the big bang" and such questions. But I know it has to be phenomenal and I don't think there is any way we could currently even guess as to how awesome the real answer is.

The multiverse idea of an infinite amount of many worlds is scriptural to me. That is the logos.. the evolving consciousness.

Now to bring something into the argument that most people don't like. You are talking about the chain of events and really want to get down to the first cause. We know "why" it rains. We know all the way back to the regression to the big bang of "why" things happen (or at least a good idea). But we don't know what caused the big bang. The Multiverse is a natural conclusion after looking at the way the quantum world behaves and the next logical step after realizing that our universe "came into existence".

But if you are saying it is natural, then what are you saying? The question then is, What is natural?

But lets say for just an instance it was "god". What caused "god"? Most theists fall back on the "god" is an exception to the rule sort of argument. "He is existence itself" "He is existence fulfilled" "He is all powerful" "He is timeless" ect ect ect.

God comes fro within his own Self. Their is an Existence which develops what we think of as God. In taht sense, God at one time did not exist.... of course he did really, but not that we would recognise him (if I can put it that way)

However lets skip those and really answer to me why "god" would have to be an entity rather than a quality?

'quality' can also mean the essential property of something... what then is the difference?

AND from that jump why would it ever have to be iintelligent Is it that hard to accept that we may have come about inconsequentially?

Yes. The odds and complexities of the universe are huge.

As for your argument, that is fine when we speak of the original consciousness from which all things later reflect.

Dawkins answer to life is, If it did not turn out that way, it would be another.

That is not so. It turns out that way because that is what it is.

What he is speaking of (ignorantly) is the initial primordial consciousness

 

[Monk Of Reason]

...
It is all things. None are right, none are wrong. They belong in their own reality of existence

That sounds to relative to be truth. What you mean to say is they are all wrong in the specific sense.

You are speaking of a lower god not The God. Fine Ok.

No. THE god.

But if you are saying it is natural, then what are you saying? The question then is, What is natural?

By our account everything is natural. "Unnatural" or "supernatural" simply are fancy words given to things that we are ignorant about and cannot explain. Everything we "know" is natural. So why would god be any different?

God comes fro within his own Self. Their is an Existence which develops what we think of as God. In taht sense, God at one time did not exist.... of course he did really, but not that we would recognise him (if I can put it that way)

Why could that not be a quality of the universe or the multiverse if the universe came from a multiverse?

'quality' can also mean the essential property of something... what then is the difference?

You have stated that there is a conscious being. That would require it to have qualities rather than be a quality of something else.

Yes. The odds and complexities of the universe are huge.

I know but that doesn't mean an intelligent being created it. In fact if the multiverse exists then there would be an infinite number of universes and we would have to be one of them which reduces the odds argument to nothing.

Dawkins answer to life is, If it did not turn out that way, it would be another.

That is not so. It turns out that way because that is what it is.

What he is speaking of (ignorantly) is the initial primordial consciousness

No. We developed. There is no "goal" and there is not "end point" for evolution. There was a time when the human population was around five thousand. That was a dark time in our evolutionary history. Had this group been around a volcano and it erupted and killed them its possible our species wouldn't exist. Then life would look different on the planet today.

If you wish to state that there is a track that we are on and following we will need evidence.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That sounds to relative to be truth. What you mean to say is they are all wrong in the specific sense.

No. THE god.

you may say it is The God, but you are not speaking of that one, trust me

By our account everything is natural. "Unnatural" or "supernatural" simply are fancy words given to things that we are ignorant about and cannot explain. Everything we "know" is natural. So why would god be any different?

that is not the normal understanding of the words. Natural normally means not supernatural or manmade

Why could that not be a quality of the universe or the multiverse if the universe came from a multiverse?

You have stated that there is a conscious being. That would require it to have qualities rather than be a quality of something else.

I know but that doesn't mean an intelligent being created it. In fact if the multiverse exists then there would be an infinite number of universes and we would have to be one of them which reduces the odds argument to nothing.

it exists because it is a reflection of the consciousness that it is. It is something we might get sufficient evidence for one day, as it is close to the physical realm. That will be sufficient for atheist to think that there is no God. they will only be explaining one page of a very long book

No. We developed. There is no "goal" and there is not "end point" for evolution. There was a time when the human population was around five thousand. That was a dark time in our evolutionary history. Had this group been around a volcano and it erupted and killed them its possible our species wouldn't exist. Then life would look different on the planet today.

It could turn out no other way because it is following its own Self. It is consciously evolving

If you wish to state that there is a track that we are on and following we will need evidence.

meaning what? Evidence comes in many forms. I have given you some.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

you may say it is The God, but you are not speaking of that one, trust me

How would "the god" be unnatural? In what way specifically?

that is not the normal understanding of the words. Natural normally means not supernatural or manmade

I give you the "not manmade" on certain occasions. But it is still a natrual and understood phenomenon for man made things. "Supernatural" simply means unsubstanciated and not understood. There is not a single verified "supernatural" finding. There are all kinds of findings that we have attributed to supernatural that we found out later to be natural.

it exists because it is a reflection of the consciousness that it is. It is something we might get sufficient evidence for one day, as it is close to the physical realm. That will be sufficient for atheist to think that there is no God. they will only be explaining one page of a very long book

How do you know that it is a reflection of anything? What specifically is the reason for your belief? Substanciated or not I would like to hear your own reasoning.

It could turn out no other way because it is following its own Self. It is consciously evolving

All evidence to the contrary my friend. If it were evolving consciously then we wouldn't have the trial and error system of natural selection as well as the majority of species being extinct.

meaning what? Evidence comes in many forms. I have given you some.

So far you haven't. You've claimed it but you haven't given any evidence. Hows about an example of something evolving consciously and how you know it was consciously evolved rather than through a process ?

 

[Robert.Evans]

How would "the god" be unnatural? In what way specifically?

he is not.
The point, if I recall correctly, was that people associate supernatural with God, and therefore natural outside of that.

I give you the "not manmade" on certain occasions. But it is still a natrual and understood phenomenon for man made things. "Supernatural" simply means unsubstanciated and not understood. There is not a single verified "supernatural" finding. There are all kinds of findings that we have attributed to supernatural that we found out later to be natural.

it is a misused word that is for sure. It merely means anything 'above and beyond' the norm. Thus atoms could be said to be super - natural. But they are never going to be called that as people will think that is to do with God.

How do you know that it is a reflection of anything? What specifically is the reason for your belief? Substanciated or not I would like to hear your own reasoning.

it is spiritually discerned.

All evidence to the contrary my friend. If it were evolving consciously then we wouldn't have the trial and error system of natural selection as well as the majority of species being extinct.

Yes we would... that is exactly what we would expect. Don't you ever make mistakes? Did you have to learn as a child? Are you still learning now? Do you have a consciousness?

So far you haven't. You've claimed it but you haven't given any evidence. Hows about an example of something evolving consciously and how you know it was consciously evolved rather than through a process ?

I have given you evidence spiritually discerned. I think perhaps you are trying to draw this into the physical from the metaphysical, which will not do. We can speak of physical processes if you like, but what does that prove?
Process and evolving consciousness.... what is the difference?

The world calls it a process because they think it is not conscious. They use process as an artificial intelligence.

This you either accept or you don't, it won't be shown physically the way you want, only in shadows and types.

 

[outhouse]

I have given you evidence spiritually discerned.

Not credible. Not in any way other then personal that would also apply to imagination.

 

[outhouse]

it exists because it is a reflection of the consciousness that it is.

Applies to imagination equally.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Not credible. Not in any way other then personal that would also apply to imagination.

Sure it is personal, so are all things... they belong in the mind. Metaphysical things will not be seen in the physical world. What is invisible is what is important not what is seen... that is just the way it is. It is hidden... long story

 

[Monk Of Reason]

he is not.
The point, if I recall correctly, was that people associate supernatural with God, and therefore natural outside of that.

Which means we can classify that "supernatural" simply is a label we put on things we don't yet understand

it is spiritually discerned.

How so?

Yes we would... that is exactly what we would expect. Don't you ever make mistakes? Did you have to learn as a child? Are you still learning now? Do you have a consciousness?

No. If we had a "purpose" or somewhere we were going we would see a clear indication of that. For example the evolution of the computer is very specific and goes in a direction. We continually get better and better with our technologies. However the leaps in design were not obtained through trial and error such as biological advancements.

It is indicative of a process that will generate new life over time but not a process that specifically creates "us" intentionally.

I have given you evidence spiritually discerned. I think perhaps you are trying to draw this into the physical from the metaphysical, which will not do. We can speak of physical processes if you like, but what does that prove?
Process and evolving consciousness.... what is the difference?

The world calls it a process because they think it is not conscious. They use process as an artificial intelligence.

You have given me your opinion without telling me why you even hold that opinion. Why do you hold this opinion? If it is spiritually discerned then how was it done?

If you wish to say that the water cycle is more than just a process but is divinely produced you will have to tell me why you think that. Why is it assumed on your part that there is a consciousness present? Is it simply esoteric in nature?

This you either accept or you don't, it won't be shown physically the way you want, only in shadows and types.

Then I will always find opinions based upon supposed esoteric based claims to be lacking in sufficient evidence.