Political Crossfire Forums

[nopostonsundays]

I've been thinking, and I want your thoughts.

Does God exist? They ask the question like I know the answer; but they know that they’re not looking for the truth- only a heated argument.

What would existence mean to them?

When treading the unstable platform of religion, people see the truth as black or white, like two sides of a coin. God to them is usually the Christian God, and existence is something that can be seen, heard, felt, or experienced.

Existence is a state of being. Linguistically, when something exists, then it is used with the word “is”.

(If elves are green, then I am under the assumption that elves exist)

My religion provides an explanation for the birth of man, and yet, this explanation comes under conflict with virtually every other religion. Look beyond the different customs these religions adopt, and see that each provides a God-like being responsible for creation.

To understand my argument, view God as the symbol for creation. God is not old man with a white beard and a toga, he exists as creation and everything else provided within the religion’s moral boundaries.

Maybe one day, a group of scientists may discover that the collapse of positive and negative matter somewhere in space caused the Big Bang, or the creation of the universe. I would be perfectly fine with that scientific thesis, because it doesn’t violate what or who God is. God would be the motive behind all those scientific formulas, like a symbol or the figurehead for the birth of the universe.

You see, I don’t have to touch or see God to believe in his existence. Because he just is, and there is nothing to prove.

[usuchamp]

I can't quite gather your thoughts because they seem to be spread all over the place; I can't even tell if you believe in God or not based on your different arguments. So, I'll just pick out some points.

I have no problem with God being an old man with a white beard and a toga/robe. Though conventional, this depiction is perhaps the one that people could be most comfortable with.

The world exists, and people exist, so somehow we were created. Are we the result of the Big Bang, subsequent neutrino decay, the cooling of the universe, the formation of stars, supernova activity, density layering, volcanic activity, phospholipid formation, cyanobacteria formation, and subsequent mutation and evolution? Did a Higher Being play a role in such creation, or are such events simply mechanisms of His power?

I think God is tangible but selective as to whom He appears to. As for being black and white, God either is or is not. If He is, then He must have certain indisputable attributes. If He is not, then that's that. Either way, our lack of knowledge makes us question what God in reality is or is not, thus the debate can not be settled unless we have a perfect knowledge.

[nopostonsundays]

usuchamp wrote: I can't quite gather your thoughts because they seem to be spread all over the place; I can't even tell if you believe in God or not based on your different arguments. So, I'll just pick out some points.

I have no problem with God being an old man with a white beard and a toga/robe. Though conventional, this depiction is perhaps the one that people could be most comfortable with.

The world exists, and people exist, so somehow we were created. Are we the result of the Big Bang, subsequent neutrino decay, the cooling of the universe, the formation of stars, supernova activity, density layering, volcanic activity, phospholipid formation, cyanobacteria formation, and subsequent mutation and evolution? Did a Higher Being play a role in such creation, or are such events simply mechanisms of His power?

I think God is tangible but selective as to whom He appears to. As for being black and white, God either is or is not. If He is, then He must have certain indisputable attributes. If He is not, then that's that. Either way, our lack of knowledge makes us question what God in reality is or is not, thus the debate can not be settled unless we have a perfect knowledge.

I was probably too diluted or unclear when I started this thread.

Basically, I am portraying God as the motion of action that leads up to the creation of man. (This is why I moved away from His traditional image)

I can't refute your argumentation on contrasting the appearances or behaviors of God (or gods). I don't think it can be proven under symbolic language (and I have to agree that humans aren't ultimate arbiters of knowledge).

All that I am advocating for the possibility of God to exist in a scientific world, simply because he is like a theoretical force (kinda like freedom or world peace), existing, but outside the scope of human minds.

[DynamicUno]

nopostonsundays wrote:

I was probably too diluted or unclear when I started this thread.

Basically, I am portraying God as the motion of action that leads up to the creation of man. (This is why I moved away from His traditional image)

I can't refute your argumentation on contrasting the appearances or behaviors of God (or gods). I don't think it can be proven under symbolic language (and I have to agree that humans aren't ultimate arbiters of knowledge).

All that I am advocating for the possibility of God to exist in a scientific world, simply because he is like a theoretical force (kinda like freedom or world peace), existing, but outside the scope of human minds.


I strongly suspect that it is only a matter of time (perhaps a great deal of time, but time nonetheless) before science answers the questions posed by religion.

[thebreadloaf2003]

DynamicUno wrote: nopostonsundays wrote:

I was probably too diluted or unclear when I started this thread.

Basically, I am portraying God as the motion of action that leads up to the creation of man. (This is why I moved away from His traditional image)

I can't refute your argumentation on contrasting the appearances or behaviors of God (or gods). I don't think it can be proven under symbolic language (and I have to agree that humans aren't ultimate arbiters of knowledge).

All that I am advocating for the possibility of God to exist in a scientific world, simply because he is like a theoretical force (kinda like freedom or world peace), existing, but outside the scope of human minds.


I strongly suspect that it is only a matter of time (perhaps a great deal of time, but time nonetheless) before science answers the questions posed by religion.

i can't say for sure that i think that science will, but if it does, and has irrefutable evidence to support what science proved, then i have a feeling there will be a lot more termoil in the world, at least for a period of time

[DynamicUno]

thebreadloaf2003 wrote:
i can't say for sure that i think that science will, but if it does, and has irrefutable evidence to support what science proved, then i have a feeling there will be a lot more termoil in the world, at least for a period of time

Quite likely, but that will certainly bring a dose of maturity to the issue, which should quickly settle things out.

[connermt]

DynamicUno wrote: nopostonsundays wrote:

I was probably too diluted or unclear when I started this thread.

Basically, I am portraying God as the motion of action that leads up to the creation of man. (This is why I moved away from His traditional image)

I can't refute your argumentation on contrasting the appearances or behaviors of God (or gods). I don't think it can be proven under symbolic language (and I have to agree that humans aren't ultimate arbiters of knowledge).

All that I am advocating for the possibility of God to exist in a scientific world, simply because he is like a theoretical force (kinda like freedom or world peace), existing, but outside the scope of human minds.


I strongly suspect that it is only a matter of time (perhaps a great deal of time, but time nonetheless) before science answers the questions posed by religion.

I agree. Speaking specifically about Genesis & Garden of Eden, Adam & Eve were kicked out of the Garden because the disobeyed God & ate for the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE. People are finding out more & more about our world & how it has come to be & what we are made of, so, assuming the human race doesn't destroy themselves, we will find more knowledge about you & what we are & were we are from (even though there is still A LOT we don't know).