The Nature Of God:
- Thread starter Gaidin109
- Start date
Consciousness is the result of electrical impulses in the brain. The rest of your post sounds like it is straight out of the mystics handbook.
If this were the case would we not feel something instantaneously (or at least before we are told) when a large number of people die or when a loved one dies? Take Hiroshima for instance, 120000 people killed in seconds, their were no reports of people all over the world 'feeling' it. It's not logical and there is no evidence for it.
Pffff, it's all linked, but not in a tangible or logical way, you gotta think outside the box!
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
The Pantheon of Gods, Godesses and Demi-Gods are in all reality as fickle as we are. The machine that is the Universe on the other hand is not. It's a cold hard machine.
I can make anything up then
I believe there is a pink elephant in the room next to me, but your not allowed to look and check, and even if you did you wouldn't be able to see it because it's invisible, and you wouldn't be able to touch it because it's non corporeal. Nothing you can do or say will make me stop believing in itWhat? That makes the least sense so far. Your assuming that the bible (which was written down by people) is correct. That would mean their is more 'god' in a big rock than a person, the moon has more 'god' than the whole of humanities biomass. Christians believe their god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. The combination of these three don't even allow free will to exist.
One more thing, two unknowns aren't necessarily explained by the same thing ie you can't use holes in science to back up religion.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 1,468
Religion the biggest cults in the world.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
God is vengeful, vain and evil.
He will smite you if you do not worship him. He will destroy and kill everyone you hold dear and then he'll come for you!
At least that's the implicit result of being an 'all powerful God'.
He will smite you if you do not worship him. He will destroy and kill everyone you hold dear and then he'll come for you!
At least that's the implicit result of being an 'all powerful God'.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
God is for where science doesn't have the answer. Isn't this the real reason why most of us don't follow a faith? In the days before science there were more religious people of today. It's a bit like not believing in Santa.. The truth trumps faith.
Do I believe in a universe within myself. No, not going by what I eat.
Do I believe in a universe within myself. No, not going by what I eat.
As a Christian, I must say that that book is pure heresy. It's basically written as though this guy had some conversation with God in which he said "These are my problems with you and with Christianity" and God said "None of those things are true, do whatever the hell you like and it's all good." which doesn't really marry up with the Bible or any set of Christian beliefs.
Feel free to read it, but don't believe it would be in any way accepted by Christians who know anything.
my thoughts on the bible
I am neither a Christian or naive enough to take a Christians view on what is heresy or not. Heresy is a fallacy perpetrated by a faith system with no answers to educated criticism. I'll read the book and make up my own mind as to it's relevence, I do not need a belief structure created by people who were relatively uneducated and ignorant compared to modern standards to tell me what to think. While everyone has the right to believe what they wish, that right does not extend to telling others what to beleive.
Last edited:
Why thank you sir!
I actually find that complementary. 
I shall don my robe and meditate. 
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I can make anything up then
If it's invisible then why does it matter if it is pink? Did the elephant tell you it was pink? If so then why are you taking the word of an invisible talking elephant?
Personally I'm agnostic about your pink invisible (and possibly talking) elephant, it may exist and it may not but I have no proof regarding its veracity so I do not dismiss it (except that you've just admitted to making things up) and perhaps more importantly I don't need to care about it as it impacts on my life not one single iota.
I thought that heresy was a fairly defined term i.e. it is heretical to believe position X as it goes against the Bible, in which case a Christian is probably reasonably well placed to confirm or deny that aspect of it. Whether you accept them as speaking for a broad base of Christians is something else entirely.
I'd also say you've got the right to tell others what to believe (right to free speech and all that) but not the right to compel others to believe in what you suggest (that would interfere with their right to freedom of belief), subtle difference perhaps but quite an important one.
Are you really agnostic in this particular context? If so, then you do not lean one inch towards it's existence or nonexistence. You're honestly 100% impartial to the existence of said elephant?
It's one of the huge misunderstandings regarding the term atheist, it means that one operates one's life under the idea that no God(s) exist. Agnosticism is being totally in between, 50/50 regarding belief or unbelief and you literally have no inclination either way. As an atheist, I do not know that there is no God (to me there is no entity to be neither proved nor disproved), yet I operate my life assuming that there isn't one.
What constitutes heresy and to what degree would depend on which branch of Christianity you referred to. It isn't just "x is against the Bible" therefore it's heresy. The Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches each have their own dogma/tradition/interpretations and as such will view dissenting opinions differently. Papal infallibility is part of the Catholic church and is rejected by the other branches of Christianity.
I would hazard to guess that the churches often contradict each other when it comes to a belief consituting heresy.
At many times in history the Churches themselves have debated issues such as the trinity, the nature of Christ and the difference between the God of the Old Testament and that of the New Testament. Heresy like a lot of other church doctrine changes as time goes by, acts that were once considered sinful become acceptable... One could even say the church and it's doctrine evolve, in the sense of adapation, to the circumstances it finds itself in. E.g. persecuted sect, fad for Roman nobles, divine leader of the Western world, irrelevance.
Last edited:
Really? Yes, the only 'science' with any 'proof' is mathematics, but it is not unreasonable at all to dismiss something which nobody has ever documented or observed. With all of our incredible observations, we haven't seen elephants fly, and we have no evidence of any invisible large mammal, so its logical to reasonably say that it doesn't exist. This differs from the idea of a god since, as aforementioned, you might not be able to measure a god via observation if it exists outside of our space and time, which is a fair point.
When people ask me if evolution is factual or true, I retort with 'the chance of evolution, as we currently understand it, being factual is of the same likelihood as the sun rising tomorrow'.
I think people can get too carried away with the 'you cannot prove anything' stance.
Last edited: