But that doesn't change the fact that it does exist (if that were the case)... "A rose, by any other name, would still smell as sweet" - My man Shakespeare
Energy doesn't have to be God though, I worded it wrong. Potential and possibilty would be a better word instead of energy. That means it could even be nothing. Some could view it as God and others as not God. So that would mean that potential and possiblity exist- but God is pure speculation.
I would like to add that I am beginning to see where the confusion comes out- my use of misnomers is terrible... But thank you guys for helping me understand this concept even better, I never thought about it like this before.
I'm beginning to think that this concept of existence vs non-existence is lost among some of the members here. Its a concept that is so simple and easy to understand, yet some of you are so deep into your beliefs that you feel the need to over-complicate everything.
I can see how some might view possibility as God (though I'd prolly think they were a little out there)... But we're talking about an entity (whether it be energy, a spirit, a supreme being, whatever) "God". It either exists, or it doesn't. We're not discussing a possibility, but an actual entity called "god". Either "god" exists, or "god" doesn't exist. And no matter what the case, "it" does so (exist or doesn't exist) regardless of what anyone believes about "it". Get the point? EDIT: And if "God" is just potential or possibility, then the entity of God doesn't not exist - it is mere possibility or potential. There's a possibility I'm eventually going to log off and go smoke a bowl... Does that mean that possibility can be accurately referred to as "god?" -- I don't believe so.
I'm going to try one more time.... Keep in mind, this is only my personal opinion. For those who believe in god, what is greater than god? I'll tell you....complete nothing, or absolute nothing. Mr.GoodStuff, you say that because god is all-powerful and that it is possible for him to completely exist, as well as to completely not exist....even at the same time. However, for "god" to be able to truly make himself/itself 100% not existent....he/it would have nothing to bring him/it back into existence. Even in this so called "non-existent" state, he/it would have to exist in some form or another, otherwise he/it would cease to exist all together. God would have to rely on whatever makes existence possible for him/it to exist as well. There is always something that can trump something else, there is no absolute something....only absolute nothing. You cant trump absolute nothingness by the addition or subtraction of more nothingness. Therefore, I dont believe God exists because it is impossible for anything to be the trump card of everything else...unless that trump card is complete nothingness. The possibilites of the existent are endless, while there are no possibilities for the non-existent, at least thats how I view things. Is that crazy? I dont know...I gave it a shot.
JesusC - I think he's arguing more so along the lines of the ideal of God, or the possibility or potential of God - not an actual entity. If that's the case, his arguments make a lot more sense... I could be wrong though...
Just because a concept is "so simple and easy to understand" does not mean it's any more right then one that is complicated and hard to understand. One concept works for one person, another concept for another person, etc. Although I would agree that simple usually does mean better, but that's for layman's terms. Have you ever considered that you too may be so deep into logic and rationality that anything else would seem complicated? I know some of the things I say can be usually very misunderstood, because the "ideas" behind them can be complicated and hard to convey. It would be beneficial if people could read in between the lines in such matters, because it really doesn't make any sense. God, does not make any sense.
Well, dude, I mean it just shows the history of the Christian religion. I don't believe in prophesies. So, it's all pretty pointless to discuss. But prophesies are pretty, uh, hard (if not impossible) to prove. It's a logical fallacy. A occurs (the prophesy), B occurs (the supposed prophesy fulfilled), A caused B. That's what Christianity purports. That the prophesy of the messiah had been fulfilled. The bible in the context of the talmud, makes a lot more sense. That is all. And thus, it is pretty easy to disregard it. Did you study logic in bible college? ps. My parents wanted me to go to bible college.
"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field." Mathew 13:44
I don't know why we're really discussing prophecies... Only reason I brought it up was because 1.) you were giving false info 'bout the OT, and 2.) you said that no Jews believe Christ was the messiah (which some do because the Christ of the NT fulfills the prophecies of the messiah of the OT - again, lots of deep shit that I don't really feel like getting into, lol). Nope. Why do you ask? I scored quite high in logic on my ASVAB for the Marine Corps, so I'm pretty confident in my logical ability
Dude, you don't have to take everything literally. Most jews don't believe in jesus christ as messiah. Yeah I was a little bit off bout the OT. I am not fond of the OT. I meant Symbolic and Mathematical logic, though. According to Kant, all logic can be proved mathematically. Just a thought. It may have been helpful trying to prove/disprove the bible.
Yes that is what I'm talking about. "Entity" would mean something. I don't believe an all-powerful God is something. Logically speaking something that is all is not something. It is everything. The second it becomes something; it no longer has all-power which is the potential for anything. That is why I think we are God in self-limited form, so we could be something instead of everything. (or nothing, however you look at everything without anything to compare it to) I know it's confusing but I think the best description and best representation of something confusing is something confusing. If the concept is undefined you must define it as undefined. That is why I use contradictory statements, they are irrational representations of irrationality. *damn that's confusing LOL When I want to represent something rational I use rational statements. When I want to represent something irrational I use irrational statements. Irrational does not mean stupid or not thought out. It actually can mean not comprehendable or no definition. (mathmatics) That is why why describing something without a definition- I use irrational statements. Something without definition is irrational or undefined. It's mathmatics more than logic. *It's a lot like some Dr. Seuss if you ask me- "it's mathmatics more than logic, but the mathmatics can prove the logic in irrationality" LOL (not Dr. Seuss, but his crazy fan Mr.GoodStuff) Trying to make sense of something that makes no sense? Better to use no sense to understand it. Maybe you just can't "sense" it. LOL I sound like I'm on acid
I don't. But when it comes to scripture, a literal interpretation fits better than a metaphoric one. When thought out, it makes reasonable and logical sense that an intelligent God would leave His creation a literal guide of what He expects? No? (this assuming the Bible is correct, which I don't really believe it is - just making a point ) Really -- How could God hold his creation accountable to metaphores? That in of itself would be contradictory. So IF there were a God, who left us His word, I'm pretty sure He'd mean for it to be taken literally vs. metaphorically - otherwise there'd be no point in leaving us His "word" -- see what I'm sayin? Yeah - same logic they test you for on the ASVAB then... It's actually how I came to the conclusion I did... Using mathematics. Jesus = God. God = Omniscient. Therefore by the transitive property (If a = b and b = c, then a = c), Jesus = Omniscient. So if Jesus != Omniscient, then Jesus != God. There you have it. The Bible disproved by using simple math EDIT: Mr.GoodStuff -- I see what you're saying, and it makes a lot more sense when you put it that way.
They weren't supposed to! An accurate representation after all! If God made sense, I could make sense of Him! *I would like to add however, If it does make sense in a way to you- you have a mind like my own.
That's one I've thought about as well. I believe the verse is 24:36. The translation I've got here doesn't happen to have the extended verse where the question arises, but instead the verse reads "But of that day and hour, no man knows, nor the angels of heaven, but my Father only." I'm not sure which translation has it, but I've run across it before. If we get into the etymology of the term used for "know": "eido", we see that the literal translation is "to see". I believe here the Christ says "No man sees the time, nor the angels, but God alone". That is to say, no one is present for the time, but God alone. When wondering why He would leave Himself out of this, recall that God limited Himself in many ways when becoming the Christ, a knowledge of all things being one of them presumably, but also it is implied that while on Earth, Christ was seperated from the Father, choosing to show to us the traits that a Christian should have, being exactly like Him. We are instructed throughout the New Testament that this is in fact the case, Jesus being both "the first of the brothers, and the High Priest of God". Think of God saying "Look, this is how you do it." He couldn't say He was a good example if He weren't like us. We would still have no idea what He was talking about, or would think "Well that's nice that He says those things, but certainly they don't apply to me." So here we see that Christ reaffirms His position to us, as being God, but limiting Himself in the role of the Son.
hmm... That does not make sense to me for some reason... If Jesus = God, then how can Jesus != God. How can you start the proof by saying Jesus = God in the first place? That is not logical, no? You cannot say that Jesus = God at all, just bc it says so in the bible. Kinda a weird way to start a proof isn't it? idk, my logic is rusty, LOL. I'm not a mathematician, LOL. and then you jump to God = omniscient, but there is no proof of that, either. You can't make jumps like that and call it logic. Logic, unfortunately can NOT be used to prove/disprove the bible. That was where I was going with that. and therefore, the bible is not logical.
Well of course there is no proof, there is no proof of anything Christianity claims. But, we are going by the Bible and what the Bible says... Logic can most certainly be used to prove or disprove the Bible. Quite frankly, logic and reason have blasted the Bible out of the proverbial waters. I do agree with you, the Bible is not logical.