Why is God alive?

[Curious George]

God does not meet the criteria or definition for life, neither in science or philosophy.

What Is Life? | Issue 101 | Philosophy Now

So what is it then that makes God alive?

God cannot speak talk reproduce or interact in any direct tangible way, it's hopelessly locked away in people's minds to where a person needs to act as a proxy on behalf of God. In another word, playing entirely as the voice, hand, and ears of God.

So what is the demonstrable quality attributable to God alone, as being alive, communicable, and Interactive when the definition of life does not apply?

Good question. While I believe no god exists, I do not think life is a requirement for a god concepts. Though we don't often associate consciousness with non living entities, I am not sure that consciousness entails life. What do you think?

 

[Katzpur]

But there you have my entire point! If God is God, then He is 100% able to make known to me, to you, to George and Suzie and Ahmed and Gurpreet and Suzuki and Zhao Zhu, and everybody else, what He wants us to know! There is ZERO barrier to that supposition. So why the Hell does He need prophets to write fuzzy and difficult to interpret junk that we're all supposed to figure out -- AND (history proves this) ALWAYS GARBLE? Is God not capable of figuring out that that's what going to happen? How dumb is He?

Sorry, but I don't see that as stupidity on God's part, so I really can't give you an answer that will satisfy you. Maybe He has a reason for making us have to figure a few things out for ourselves. Has it ever occurred to you that, if there is a God, He might just be a tad smarter than you are and might be going about things differently than you would?

No, that is a painting of me, done about one year ago. Oddly, my grade 9 roommate at boarding school in 1961 recognized it immediately. (Though I didn't have a moustache in 1961.)

I wish I could find the picture of my dad your picture reminds me of. It's a photo, and he would have been roughly your age now when it was taken. If I run across it, I'll have to post it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And I sincerely think that is very often true -- that many believers cling to notions they were taught to believe as children, even though their critical faculties ought to tell them that it is ridiculous. I have had too many arguments with Christians who find every possible reason to believe that it was right to order the slaughter of all the Cananites, including the children, except the virgin girls who might be kept for some purpose (we'll never guess what, will we?). Let me try to be quite clear about this: NOTHING IN THE UNIVERSE -- NOT EVEN GOD -- IS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WANTON SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT CHILDREN (or of anyone else, for that matter). If you can make a "religion-centered argument based on the Bible" that such a thing can be right and good, then truly, you are not using your reason.

So, I would ask you to do some exegesis on that very point -- the slaughter of the Canaanites, and the keeping of the virgin girls for your own sexual use -- that shows it to be right. Do not forget to include those biblical verses that enjoin you to love your enemy and do good to them that despitefully use you, because that's going to have to be factored in, or your exegesis will be decidedly incomplete and deliberately slanted.

Do some further exegesis if you will, and discuss how, if God knows who sins and who does not, and in view of the fact that God proved in Egypt that he could be very precise with his ability to kill (only the first-born, in that case), he could not have found a way to kill only those who deserved it in the flood, rather than sparing only 8 humans (all adult -- 0 children) in the deluge. And even those 8 survivors didn't turn out to be all that perfect either, did they?

Back to exegesis again -- how much of the Bible do you actually have to ignore to make that claim?

Okay, so when you try to decide whether a woman can speak or teach in the church, do you consult 1 Timothy 2:12? If your unmarried daughter turned out not to be a virgin, would you consult Leviticus and have her stoned to death? Or having lived yourself, do you perhaps have some small understanding of the natural drives that are so powerfully built into us, and forgive?

You can find many places in the Bible that tell you that the correct answer is one of those, or the other -- and I cannot for the life of me think how you can reconcile those opposites -- except by choosing to ignore the Bible and go with your own instincts.

And I truly think -- on thousands of just such questions -- that's what most people do. (While still denying it and claiming that they are biblically-guided, oftentimes, when obviously that is not true).

I was a child, just like you, just like everybody else. I heard what I was fed in Sunday School, as you did. But my life was not like yours. I was a *******, orphan, tossed from home to orphanage and back again, beaten, nearly killed -- and I compared my experience of the world (and the Christians in it) with what I was taught. And it was an easy call that what I was taught was obvious rubbish.

I'd ask you to do some reading on human psychology, especially the more modern stuff. I'd ask you to consider crowd dynamics, and what people are capable of doing -- and later being monstrously ashamed of having done so -- just because "everybody else was doing it."

I have found that people who place a great deal of confidence in "bible teachings" have little or no knowledge of the science which h has been so carefully built up. Humans are a social species, programmed by nature and evolution to respond to their social environment in ways that get them raised to adulthood and parenting. That's what I think is "more likely."

This is something that you obviously believe, but have no way of demonstrating. And I will say this, too: many Americans make the same claim, and yet still support the death penalty, even for those who have confessed and who should -- by that very reasoning, be considered to be forgiven and cleansed. They justify that, of course, by supposing, "but we don't mean here on earth, we mean in the afterlife," to which they have precisely zero access, and therefore precisely zero means of establishing the truth of. So it's just something they say they believe.

A foolish saying, if you ask me -- meaningless and, once again, entirely unsupportable by anything that you can know.

I guess Isaac Newton didn't use his powers of reason then....Milton, Keppler and others, too.

Lol.

 

[Trailblazer]

Assuming that God is the same forever and ever, and assuming that the conditions in the world are always changing, resulting in people being confronted by decisions that weren't even possible a few hundred years ago, I'd say that if God ever communicated to us through prophets, there is no reason why He would suddenly decide to speak to one last person and then simply step aside and leave us to our own devices after that one individual died.

It is my belief that God, the All-Knowing Physician, has revealed and will continue to reveal messages to humanity through Prophets throughout all of eternity, according to the needs of the times. That is called Progressive Revelation.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I guess Isaac Newton didn't use his powers of reason then....Milton, Keppler and others, too.

Lol.

Yes and no. In many ways, I agree with you, and it is certainly true of all humans. It is extremely difficult to dispense with a deeply-held belief, and every human -- myself included -- succumbs in part. But Newton used his reason to develop Calculus and his optics and laws of motion. There was nothing in his mystical beliefs (and he had many) that contradicted those things. Yet still he pursued alchemy and tried to find hidden Bible secrets.

All that we can do is try our best to see truth where it exists, to recognize contradictions when they come up, and try to think our way through them. I say "try our best" because our prejudices will still put up a strong battle to prevent being smothered.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sorry, but I don't see that as stupidity on God's part, so I really can't give you an answer that will satisfy you. Maybe He has a reason for making us have to figure a few things out for ourselves. Has it ever occurred to you that, if there is a God, He might just be a tad smarter than you are and might be going about things differently than you would?

But how deeply are you thinking? It's easy to say "maybe He has a reason" or "if there is a God, He might be..." well anything at all.

Instead of wondering what God (or gods) "might be like," instead I look at the existence in which I find myself, which many claim to be the work of that God or those gods, and try to see what it tells me. For the purpose of this argument (I am talking about religious revelation and whether it is a trustworthy source of knowledge of God and what we ought to be and do), I think that the real world absolutely denies the existence of any of the theologies I've been presented with.

For example, think about the wars of religion -- and here I am talking only about the Christian religion. The Reformation, Counter-Reformation. All those Christians burned by other Christians for believing the wrong way, or interpreting this passage or that text differently. Every theology I've read (and I have NOT read them all) tells me that God wants us to know right from wrong, wants us to know Him -- and yet in telling us about him through "prophets," the very fact of all those wars, of all the difference world religions (not to mention just the 38.000 Christian sects) tells me He has failed miserably. How do you reconcile that?

 

[Katzpur]

But how deeply are you thinking?

Probably a lot deeper than you're giving me credit for.

It's easy to say "maybe He has a reason" or "if there is a God, He might be..." well anything at all.

You're right; it is. I have really tried to be open-minded in considering the possibility that there is no Higher Power, that there was no cognizant being involved in creation, but I just can't go there. Since I can't fathom the universe and particularly human life (and I'm not just speaking of the intricacies of the human body) came about independently of a creator, I have to give this creator credit for being infinitely more intelligent than I am. I have to recognize that there is no conceivable way I could ever expect to be able to explain why He has done what He does. My religion (Mormonism) does have an explanation for all of the evil in the world and for all of the hardships we have to endure. It's an explanation that makes sense to me, and that fills in the puzzle pieces the rest of Christianity seems to have misplaced. But since I know full well that I could not possibly hope to convince you that it's a valid, legitimate explanation, I just don't see a lot of point in wasting my time trying.

Instead of wondering what God (or gods) "might be like," instead I look at the existence in which I find myself, which many claim to be the work of that God or those gods, and try to see what it tells me. For the purpose of this argument (I am talking about religious revelation and whether it is a trustworthy source of knowledge of God and what we ought to be and do), I think that the real world absolutely denies the existence of any of the theologies I've been presented with.

For example, think about the wars of religion -- and here I am talking only about the Christian religion. The Reformation, Counter-Reformation. All those Christians burned by other Christians for believing the wrong way, or interpreting this passage or that text differently. Every theology I've read (and I have NOT read them all) tells me that God wants us to know right from wrong, wants us to know Him -- and yet in telling us about him through "prophets," the very fact of all those wars, of all the difference world religions (not to mention just the 38.000 Christian sects) tells me He has failed miserably. How do you reconcile that?

I don't spend much time "wondering what God might be like," actually. Since I believe He exists, I have to go with what my gut tells me makes sense in terms of what He's like, and I've found that my religion has provided answers that make sense to me. I can't prove that it's right, but there are a couple of things about it that pretty much differs from all other Abrahamic religions that I find particularly compelling. If you really want me to go into detail about what they are, I will. But if you're just going to turn around and tell me that I've undoubtedly just got my head in the sand, I don't want to bother. But I will give you the bottom line: I believe, like you said, that God does want us to know Him. And I believe that sooner or later, all will have the opportunity to do so. It just won't happen for everybody during this mortal life. For some, it won't happen until after this life is over. In the end, though, it won't really matter.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Probably a lot deeper than you're giving me credit for.

I hope you will forgive me, but I'm about to challenge that...

I have really tried to be open-minded in considering the possibility that there is no Higher Power, that there was no cognizant being involved in creation, but I just can't go there. Since I can't fathom the universe and particularly human life (and I'm not just speaking of the intricacies of the human body) came about independently of a creator, I have to give this creator credit for being infinitely more intelligent than I am. I have to recognize that there is no conceivable way I could ever expect to be able to explain why He has done what He does. My religion (Mormonism) does have an explanation for all of the evil in the world and for all of the hardships we have to endure. It's an explanation that makes sense to me, and that fills in the puzzle pieces the rest of Christianity seems to have misplaced. But since I know full well that I could not possibly hope to convince you that it's a valid, legitimate explanation, I just don't see a lot of point in wasting my time trying.

The most fascinating thing you've said here is that you just can't fathom the wonders and complexity of the creation you see, and as a result you default to the assumption that there was something even more wondrous and complex -- which you then do not even attempt to fathom, but rather accept as necessarily true.

To me, this is preposterous. "I can't understand X, but I'll accept an even less understandable Y to explain it and move on!" And more to the point, you can't say why you accept Y, except that it ends the discussion.

 

[Katzpur]

I hope you will forgive me, but I'm about to challenge that...

And I hope you'll forgive me, but I don't see your comments as a challenge so much as an insult.

The most fascinating thing you've said here is that you just can't fathom the wonders and complexity of the creation you see, and as a result you default to the assumption that there was something even more wondrous and complex -- which you then do not even attempt to fathom, but rather accept as necessarily true.

To me, this is preposterous. "I can't understand X, but I'll accept an even less understandable Y to explain it and move on!" And more to the point, you can't say why you accept Y, except that it ends the discussion.

Well, I don't know what I can say. It is what it is. I don't expect you to be able to understand. The fact that you say it's "preposterous" pretty much just makes me want to discontinue the conversation. I mean it's really a condescending thing to say to someone. No hard feelings. I just have nothing more to say.

 

[Thief]

Guess God still isn't alive. Even the narrative shows Moses saying, "I Am" instead of God himself. Probably because it's easier to convince people that way since God can't speak being he's not alive.


Of course, The laws of Moses for which additionally, people had said Moses had done that. At present, Moses himself is dead so it's actually an account made in the Bible.

so...you think Moses was talking to himself......?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

many believers cling to notions they were taught to believe as children, even though their critical faculties ought to tell them that it is ridiculous.

That certainly describes myself and my atheist upbringing, but we all come of an age where we reassess our given beliefs and form our own, which may or may not be similar to our parents/ teachers-
we both did this right? But I don't look down on your belief as inherently inferior, lacking critical thought- you seem perfectly rationale and intelligent to me. I also think you are looking at the Bible from a particular cynical perspective which certainly does not reflect the impression most readers get from it, and hence does not reflect it's practical impact on the modern civilization it largely helped establish.

. We can accuse Tolkien of citing violence against innocent people- he wrote from the context of the 2nd world war, good and evil existed then as now, one cannot exist without the other

I have had too many arguments with Christians who find every possible reason to believe that it was right to order the slaughter of all the Cananites, including the children, except the virgin girls who might be kept for some purpose (we'll never guess what, will we?). Let me try to be quite clear about this: NOTHING IN THE UNIVERSE -- NOT EVEN GOD -- IS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WANTON SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT CHILDREN (or of anyone else, for that matter). If you can make a "religion-centered argument based on the Bible" that such a thing can be right and good, then truly, you are not using your reason.


So, I would ask you to do some exegesis on that very point -- the slaughter of the Canaanites, and the keeping of the virgin girls for your own sexual use -- that shows it to be right. Do not forget to include those biblical verses that enjoin you to love your enemy and do good to them that despitefully use you, because that's going to have to be factored in, or your exegesis will be decidedly incomplete and deliberately slanted.

Do some further exegesis if you will, and discuss how, if God knows who sins and who does not, and in view of the fact that God proved in Egypt that he could be very precise with his ability to kill (only the first-born, in that case), he could not have found a way to kill only those who deserved it in the flood, rather than sparing only 8 humans (all adult -- 0 children) in the deluge. And even those 8 survivors didn't turn out to be all that perfect either, did they?

Back to exegesis again -- how much of the Bible do you actually have to ignore to make that claim?

Okay, so when you try to decide whether a woman can speak or teach in the church, do you consult 1 Timothy 2:12? If your unmarried daughter turned out not to be a virgin, would you consult Leviticus and have her stoned to death? Or having lived yourself, do you perhaps have some small understanding of the natural drives that are so powerfully built into us, and forgive?

You can find many places in the Bible that tell you that the correct answer is one of those, or the other -- and I cannot for the life of me think how you can reconcile those opposites -- except by choosing to ignore the Bible and go with your own instincts.

And I truly think -- on thousands of just such questions -- that's what most people do. (While still denying it and claiming that they are biblically-guided, oftentimes, when obviously that is not true).

I was a child, just like you, just like everybody else. I heard what I was fed in Sunday School, as you did. But my life was not like yours. I was a *******, orphan, tossed from home to orphanage and back again, beaten, nearly killed -- and I compared my experience of the world (and the Christians in it) with what I was taught. And it was an easy call that what I was taught was obvious rubbish.

I'd ask you to do some reading on human psychology, especially the more modern stuff. I'd ask you to consider crowd dynamics, and what people are capable of doing -- and later being monstrously ashamed of having done so -- just because "everybody else was doing it."



A foolish saying, if you ask me -- meaningless and, once again, entirely unsupportable by anything that you can know.

As before, you are quoting the old testament, Christians specifically recognize the new Testament as supplanting much of it.- and again the actual practical impact of Biblical teachings is something entirely different than academic critiques of the old testament. You said yourself that preachers don't preach 'the bad stuff' from the old testament.. Well exactly... of course they don't. So we both recognize and are glad of this, yes?

Before Christianity, Romans, -arguably the most advanced civilization on earth at the time-, considered the public wanton slaughter of innocent people and sex slavery as perfectly acceptable daily entertainment-
Same when Columbus arrived in pre-christian America, the Caribs were wrapping up a systematic genocide of the Arawaks, keeping some alive for sex slaves and food
Canibalism was commonplace throughout the globe.

The irony is here that the moral compass you use to judge old testament stories, was largely instilled in you by Christianity and the Bible, it was so successful it's easy to take for granted today.

Even in the last few generations, more people were killed by atheist states like USSR, N Korea, Communist China, than every religious conflict in the history of humanity combined. Yet I don't look down on atheists as condoning this by association, or being intellectually lacking, I know and love many

I have found that people who place a great deal of confidence in "bible teachings" have little or no knowledge of the science which h has been so carefully built up. Humans are a social species, programmed by nature and evolution to respond to their social environment in ways that get them raised to adulthood and parenting. That's what I think is "more likely.".

I disagree, I don't think evolution is particularly scientific- plenty of other threads for this! But we all believe in something, as long as we acknowledge those beliefs, our faith as such, we can all get along! The problems begin when faith is denied and 'undeniable truth' is claimed. Any other belief is then inherently 'intellectually inferior' - that's the dangerous part

This is something that you obviously believe, but have no way of demonstrating. And I will say this, too: many Americans make the same claim, and yet still support the death penalty, even for those who have confessed and who should -- by that very reasoning, be considered to be forgiven and cleansed. They justify that, of course, by supposing, "but we don't mean here on earth, we mean in the afterlife," to which they have precisely zero access, and therefore precisely zero means of establishing the truth of. So it's just something they say they believe.

Why do you believe that God would chose to discard our consciousnesses? to limit our experiences to existing only within physical bodies? extraordinary claims...

A foolish saying, if you ask me -- meaningless and, once again, entirely unsupportable by anything that you can know.

You have the free will to believe this also- point being, - salvation, absolution from sins, doing unto others... forgiveness, passages like these in the Bible resonate will people far more than your scary old testament selections. You call them ' a few passages people pick to make themselves feel good/ ignoring the bad stuff' That's Great, I'm glad they do


I may be slow to respond on some of these but I appreciate your thoughtful responses meanwhile

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And I hope you'll forgive me, but I don't see your comments as a challenge so much as an insult.

Well, I don't know what I can say. It is what it is. I don't expect you to be able to understand. The fact that you say it's "preposterous" pretty much just makes me want to discontinue the conversation. I mean it's really a condescending thing to say to someone. No hard feelings. I just have nothing more to say.

I am sincerely sorry that you feel that way, because no insult at all is intended.

And yet, my argument still stands: if somebody were to say to me "I don't understand what causes epilepsy, because it's so weird and unexplainable, so I have to assume that Satan causes it just to be malevolent," I would have to ask a host of followup questions. Questions like: "well if Satan is so malevolent, and can do that, why not do it to everybody?"

I am told -- by religious believers very often here and elsewhere -- that this universe, OUR universe, exists because a loving God created it, and felt that it was good. And yet -- it does contain epilepsy. It does contain all manner of horrors that make no sense if benevolent deistic creation is your theory of existence.

Honestly, to truly explain the world as we humans understand it today in light of theistic creation would require theodicies beyond anybody's capacity to create.

You may not like my questions, and you may no longer wish to communicate with me, or try to answer them, but my questions are 100% legitimate, and asked -- in all humility -- because they are legitimate. ​

 

[Twilight Hue]

so...you think Moses was talking to himself......?

Same as people talk with themselves today. Assuming he existed.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

. We can accuse Tolkien of citing violence against innocent people- he wrote from the context of the 2nd world war, good and evil existed then as now, one cannot exist without the other

Tolkien was openly and self-consciously writing FICTION -- making zero claim to any reality. Therefore, I do not think the suggestion if [in]citing violence is reasonable.

As before, you are quoting the old testament, Christians specifically recognize the new Testament as supplanting much of it.- and again the actual practical impact of Biblical teachings is something entirely different than academic critiques of the old testament. You said yourself that preachers don't preach 'the bad stuff' from the old testament.. Well exactly... of course they don't. So we both recognize and are glad of this, yes?

Go back and read again. I quoted both OT and NT -- and in any case, are they all not "the Bible?" If Christians believe the NT supplanted the OT, then of course they have to accept my citation of 1 Timothy 2:12, because it is decidedly in the NT.

Before Christianity, Romans, -arguably the most advanced civilization on earth at the time-, considered the public wanton slaughter of innocent people and sex slavery as perfectly acceptable daily entertainment-

Will you no deny Christian slaughter of innocent people by burning? And sex slavery is just as applicable to the woman forbidden to divorce her abusive husband, but instead submit to his demands. Not so?

Same when Columbus arrived in pre-christian America, the Caribs were wrapping up a systematic genocide of the Arawaks, keeping some alive for sex slaves and food
Canibalism was commonplace throughout the globe.

Presumably, a globe created and informed by the same God, as you seem to believe. How is this possible? Think that through, please. God was somehow congenitally unable to talk to Caribs and Arawaks, and so had to let them do as they want until He could arrange shipping for Christians to come and explain it all? Really?

The irony is here that the moral compass you use to judge old testament stories, was largely instilled in you by Christianity and the Bible, it was so successful it's easy to take for granted today.

Sorry, but here you are assuming something about me that you have no way to know -- and your assumption is absolutely incorrect. My "moral compass" is -- and has always been -- my own version of the Golden Rule: "I wouldn't do that to you, why would you do it to me? Never changed, throughout my life."

Even in the last few generations, more people were killed by atheist states like USSR, N Korea, Communist China, than every religious conflict in the history of humanity combined. Yet I don't look down on atheists as condoning this by association, or being intellectually lacking, I know and love many

This is a common mistake. These were not "atheist states." They were, and are, states that have adopted one dogmatic truth or another -- and it does not matter whether they contain God, or not. It matters only that the supposed dogmatic truth cannot be challenged, and therefore permits any despicable treatment of those who do challenge it.

I disagree, I don't think evolution is particularly scientific- plenty of other threads for this! But we all believe in something, as long as we acknowledge those beliefs, our faith as such, we can all get along! The problems begin when faith is denied and 'undeniable truth' is claimed. Any other belief is then inherently 'intellectually inferior' - that's the dangerous part

I do not mean to be disrespectful, but I have read many of your posts, and I understand that you do not have a very good grasp of science at all. And you do, in point of fact, claim "undeniable truth" -- your version of God. And "that's the dangerous part."

Why do you believe that God would chose to discard our consciousnesses? to limit our experiences to existing only within physical bodies? extraordinary claims...

No idea what you're referring to, as what you ask has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Look again....

You have the free will to believe this also- point being, - salvation, absolution from sins, doing unto others... forgiveness, passages like these in the Bible resonate will people far more than your scary old testament selections. You call them ' a few passages people pick to make themselves feel good/ ignoring the bad stuff' That's Great, I'm glad they do

But if they are all part of the same scripture, how on earth do you decide which ones are true and which are not -- or more to the point, which ones you/re gonna go with, and which you/re not?

And that's always been my question.

 

[Thief]

Same as people talk with themselves today. Assuming he existed.

so...you are the source of your own morality?

your own little voice is all there is?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

God does not meet the criteria or definition for life, neither in science or philosophy.

What Is Life? | Issue 101 | Philosophy Now

So what is it then that makes God alive?

God cannot speak talk reproduce or interact in any direct tangible way, it's hopelessly locked away in people's minds to where a person needs to act as a proxy on behalf of God. In another word, playing entirely as the voice, hand, and ears of God.

So what is the demonstrable quality attributable to God alone, as being alive, communicable, and Interactive when the definition of life does not apply?

Do you believe life can only exist in a material / physical state? If matter and energy are simply two sides of the same coin, why couldn't life exist in an invisible, energy state? If fact, be the source of all material life?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you believe life can only exist in a material / physical state? If matter and energy are simply two sides of the same coin, why couldn't life exist in an invisible, energy state? If fact, be the source of all material life?

There's also question of what exactly life is as we only see a certain perspective of life in the sense of its animation.

Some people have suggested life can manifest slower or a lot quicker well beyond our immediate senses. It's more in the realm of philosophy than in science, but it's an interesting thought all the same.

Some lifeforms in a philosophical context may move so slowly and metabolize so slowly that we don't even notice, or the converse, were it's so quick it's literally indiscernible.

Life in the scientific sense will be more in line with biological viruses. Even tardigrades where they can live apparently "dead and lifeless" up to 30 years some of argued even pass a hundred and twenty years under extreme conditions that normally would kill off all known life including intense radiation and the vacuum of space.

Even down to the level of atoms which piques my interest the most in regards to life, if somebody were to per say, shrink themselves down to the size of the atom and then go on a search for life, it would probably be deemed a lifeless realm even though we know that it's not the case being in the macro world and comprised of those very lifeless things.

I suspect life can be defined in many dimensions rather than through a narrow scope.

It's probably where religion kicks in more than science, but none of its is a belief for me, just educated guesses.

 

[Truthseeker]

Do you believe life can only exist in a material / physical state? If matter and energy are simply two sides of the same coin, why couldn't life exist in an invisible, energy state? If fact, be the source of all material life?

The trouble with this is that God is not made out of energy. He created energy. We should not apply conditions to the existence of a creature to God. God just is, and can't be described.One shouldn't even call God alive because that makes Him a creature.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Tolkien was openly and self-consciously writing FICTION -- making zero claim to any reality. Therefore, I do not think the suggestion if [in]citing violence is reasonable.

Go back and read again. I quoted both OT and NT -- and in any case, are they all not "the Bible?" If Christians believe the NT supplanted the OT, then of course they have to accept my citation of 1 Timothy 2:12, because it is decidedly in the NT.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Timothy 2:12 was the only NT reference, which I quote to my wife often! but seriously, that's a long way from the severity of the OT references- and again, in practice- obviously we have had a lot of christian women teachers for a long time.

Will you no deny Christian slaughter of innocent people by burning? And sex slavery is just as applicable to the woman forbidden to divorce her abusive husband, but instead submit to his demands. Not so?

attend any local church service, nobody is interpreting the Bible as encouraging burning people!

Presumably, a globe created and informed by the same God, as you seem to believe. How is this possible? Think that through, please. God was somehow congenitally unable to talk to Caribs and Arawaks, and so had to let them do as they want until He could arrange shipping for Christians to come and explain it all? Really?

Yes, we have to learn to tell the difference between good and evil for ourselves, they have no meaning otherwise

Sorry, but here you are assuming something about me that you have no way to know -- and your assumption is absolutely incorrect. My "moral compass" is -- and has always been -- my own version of the Golden Rule: "I wouldn't do that to you, why would you do it to me? Never changed, throughout my life."

So had you been born in ancient Rome, or as a pre-columbus Carib- your superior moral compass would have overridden the moral standards, or lack thereof, that you were brought up with? You would have been a notable conscientious objector? Probably not..

Saying Christianity had nothing to do with your sense of morals, is like the son of a rich family saying- "you don't need to work for money silly, just look at me!"

This is a common mistake. These were not "atheist states." They were, and are, states that have adopted one dogmatic truth or another -- and it does not matter whether they contain God, or not. It matters only that the supposed dogmatic truth cannot be challenged, and therefore permits any despicable treatment of those who do challenge it.

I think we have some common ground here, claiming undeniable truth is dangerous- anyone with a different belief becomes a 'denier'- 'justifying' the silencing of their 'inferior' beliefs. This probably killed more people than anything else in atheist/socialist states like USSR

That's why faith is so important- like most people of faith, I acknowledge my faith, beliefs as such- how about you?

I do not mean to be disrespectful, but I have read many of your posts, and I understand that you do not have a very good grasp of science at all.

Again- simply claiming intellectual superiority of your own beliefs is not a scientific argument, it's kinda the opposite really.

But if they are all part of the same scripture, how on earth do you decide which ones are true and which are not -- or more to the point, which ones you/re gonna go with, and which you/re not?

And that's always been my question.

"I understand that you do not have a very good grasp of science at all"

Well there's always something appropriate for the situation

e.g.

"Let him without sin cast the first stone"!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Timothy 2:12 was the only NT reference, which I quote to my wife often! but seriously, that's a long way from the severity of the OT references- and again, in practice- obviously we have had a lot of christian women teachers for a long time.

As a gay man, Timothy 2:12 is 100% useless for me in corralling my life partner.

attend any local church service, nobody is interpreting the Bible as encouraging burning people!

But the question I ask, repeatedly, continually, exhaustively, is "if the Bible can be interpreted by some as saying the opposite of what it can be interpreted as saying by others, how does anybody determine what it actually is that the Bible is saying?" In other words, I am asking every Christian, everywhere, in all 38,000 sects, "aren't you just picking the bits you like, and going with that? And if that is the case, how is that Christianity, and not your own personal do-it-yourself belief system?"

Yes, we have to learn to tell the difference between good and evil for ourselves, they have no meaning otherwise

Good, I agree. We're getting somewhere, and that reinforces my previous point.

So had you been born in ancient Rome, or as a pre-columbus Carib- your superior moral compass would have overridden the moral standards, or lack thereof, that you were brought up with? You would have been a notable conscientious objector? Probably not..

I was born in a Canada that countenanced capital punishment, the locking up of adult females who had sex with men of different ethnic background ("Females Refuges Act" look it up), criminalizing homosexuality, shutting the commercial world up tight on Sunday -- including for Canadians who worshipped Friday or Saturday, or not at all. I "conscientiously objected" to all of those things, and I made my voice heard.

Yes, my moral compass is my own, and I have stood by it all my life -- and all the things listed above are no longer true in Canada. How am I doing so far?

Saying Christianity had nothing to do with your sense of morals, is like the son of a rich family saying- "you don't need to work for money silly, just look at me!"

Oh, Christianity certainly had something to do with my sense of morals -- often enough by strengthening my distaste for the Christian morals I grew up with. (Your analogy of the rich son doesn't apply -- he's just stupid and unable to fathom the circumstances of other people. That's generally a failure of adequate emotional development.)

I think we have some common ground here, claiming undeniable truth is dangerous- anyone with a different belief becomes a 'denier'- 'justifying' the silencing of their 'inferior' beliefs. This probably killed more people than anything else in atheist/socialist states like USSR

YES! All claims of undeniable truth -- religious, philosophical, political -- are dangerous. In a world without God (or where God refuses to intervene and clarify), all such claims are unverifiable and subject to terrible misuse.

That's why faith is so important- like most people of faith, I acknowledge my faith, beliefs as such- how about you?

Exactly the same, except that all of my faith beliefs are backed by something approaching evidence that can meet the test of reason. I do not believe this to the case for the Bible, for the reasons I've written on so often -- and did again in my second sentence at the top of this post.

Again- simply claiming intellectual superiority of your own beliefs is not a scientific argument, it's kinda the opposite really.

If you can find one of my beliefs for which I have claimed no other basis than "intellectual superiority," please point me to it. I make a serious effort to justify everything I say that I believe strongly.

Well there's always something appropriate for the situation

e.g.

"Let him without sin cast the first stone"!

Which is why I never cast stones...remember my view of capital punishment.