Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
|God As "HE" And Why Won't "IT" Talk To Me?
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Phil.o.Sofir on February 9, 1999 17:30:35 UTC
: : It is hard to counter your arguments when you definition of god is thoroughly considered. From how you present him, he is constantly an exception to any rules that : governs us. You cap him over as an absolute in any statement we submit. From what I understand of your beliefs, God and the universe is a dualistic arrangement. : God looking over the fish bowl and us in it.
: Your right, you can't encapsulate an almighty God; who is above and beyond any scope of our imagination. For if you could, you would be defining God on your : own terms and in a sense would be defining yourself as deity. I want to be careful how I define and explain the following concerning your statement, "...he is : constantly an exception to any rules that govern us." First off, God is revealed in his creation as He states in His Word, however He is not confined nor oppressed by : His creation. He however, does operate within the laws that He has created in nature, but He is not confined to do so. This is what defines both examples that : God displays Himself to be; both natural and supernatural. If He were only natural within the confines of His creation then God would thus had to have been : created, thus eliminating him, as its defined, the term god. It takes Gods supernatural nature to create something from nothing, period. This is the supernatural, : this is design.
: The idea of God is that of holy (set apart from evil), perfect, just and logically congruent. He does not defy logic nor lie so as to undermine who He really is. God : cannot lie, cannot be evil at the same time He is perfect. This is an opposite I would like to expound upon.
: This is my reasoning regarding God as THE absolute of all absolutes. God could never be anything against His very nature. He cannot be evil at the same time : He is good. This is my argument against yours that in a sense you suggest that an absolute is variable. How in the world do you come to this assumption? Doesn't : pure logic fly in the face of this? This is one of many truth tests that test the internal and external inconsistencies of all world religions.
: " I can sit here and believe that there is an opposite to God based on the corruption of my logic. Just because MY religion says so." and you know what, your : exactly right; you can sit there and believe anything you wish, but in the bottom of your heart you have to come to grips with reality and what logic defines. You may : hold fast to a corrupted logic, but why? Why not hold to something that is congruent with what reality defines? You may come back and say, " Well, it is our : perception of reality that leads us to what is logical or not, thus who is to say what is reality?"... My friend this is relativism and is a eager approach to bury our heads : in the sand and then suggest that the sand is now all that constitutes reality. God has given us a mind to think, reason and therefore be without excuse for the glory of : His creation that we observe. We are not an illusion; i'm not suggesting you state this, but many pantheistic world views see this. i.e. buddhism.
: : I can sit here and believe that there is an opposite to God based on the corruption of my logic. Just because MY religion says so. At this point I believe that we'll : have to understand our "social" construction of reality, logic, and beliefs. But since God is always a BIG exception to the process, I'll have to be throw that out the : window.
: : Should I admit my naturalist tendency now?
: I think we all have tendencies towards naturalism. I, not in a strict sense of the word, would define my observations in the world to be rather naturalistic also. But see, : this is where we tend to desire to "throw God out the window" because He doesn't fit 'our' model. This to me is insane. We have now just defined ourselves as god : then; ignoring all of reality we observe, we now come to the conclusion that an absolute God does not exist because God is not congruent with reality. Oh really? So : God is not reality? Just because God doesn't fit our purely naturalistic perception of reality we then throw God out the window? Hmmm... Seems our very : human nature that desires to be like god (knowledge of how 'we' define what is right or wrong) starts coming through. Just because God uses the very laws of nature : he has created doesn't mean that He now does not exist. You see, apart from God we are nothing in the first place. Apart from our 4 dimensions that we constitute : as reality, there is void. There are no natural laws. Now that God created the laws He has, because they seem like second nature to us because we live by them, it : does not give us the authority to do away with the original creator, does it?
: : : It has proven that what belies the obviousness of what surrounds us, what makes sense to us, ryme or reason, is always an opposite. Can you disprove to me the : opposite? As I have said before, the manifest(time, entropy) give birth to each other (yin and yang). It is logical to me. Can the answers be so complex?
: Yes, there is an opposite to everything. There is an opposite to logic, there is an opposite to truth. There is an opposite to good, and there is an opposite to design. : What are they? Respectively, illogical, lie, evil and the antithesis of intelligent design is "chance".
: My question to you is, what has this proven? Does it undermine that what is logical, perfect, truthful and designed? I think it only serves to display the opposite to : obedience, and this is rebellion.
: P.S. I do not wish to sound condescending. I thoroughly enjoy talking with you and everyone else. : ) May it always be, God bless not God less. : )
***My first question is why God is referred to as a "HE", is this a matter of convienience or does "IT" have some kind of masculine characteristics? And if so, is there a feminine counterpart to "ITS" characteristics or is there another entity, suggesting polytheism or even the suggestion that "she" is lower in power or even the expression of bad or evil? The second question which bugs the tar out of me is how "IT" is supposedly "Known" to exist, this is through contact is it not? And those who it contacted to validate its presence or existance, then why not to me when I searched in vain for years. Another funny part of this is that "if" I thought I did personally recieve communication from something of this nature, it would be considered blasphamy by the organized religion, lunacy by most "belivers" and in the scientific arena, emotionally decieved or coming to the wrong conclusions about my experiance even if I could not rationally explain it. Lastly, if such an entity did exist, who is to say that we did not misinterpret its meaning and that the messiah will be coming to reveal itself "himself" again in a peaceful manner (not to judge but to reveal again) or that it is the first time... What properties did those who were "chosen" have that I did not, or what situation were they in for God to pick these specific people to "show or prove" its/his existance? Oh, and how close have we come to Azero, and warping "space". Thanks, P.O.Sofir
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins