Login

~~fr0d0~~ · May 10, 2009 at 8:01 am

(May 10, 2009 at 7:32 am)Giff Wrote:
(May 10, 2009 at 7:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Nope, I ignore no parts. I just don't assume all are literal, or all are poetic, because that would be stupid. It's spiritual truth first and foremost. Read it like that and it makes sense.

So killing those who don't believe in God is a spritual truth?

That would be like me taking the word "who" out of your sentence and trying to analyze your meaning using only that.

Quote:
(May 10, 2009 at 7:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The definition is of the Christian/ Judaic God, If you want to know how that god is defined then it works for you.

What is the definition of the christian/judaic God that works for everybody?

Again, I already said it Giff. The Bible defines God in that statement (I Am = God exists outside of time), that everyone can use as a given definition of that god.

(May 10, 2009 at 7:44 am)LukeMC Wrote:
(May 10, 2009 at 7:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Yours really isn't a statement. The Genesis statement is positive and asserts something. Yours asserts a negative and is pointless. Bronze Age bonehead 1: LukeMC 0

Nuh-uh. That's God saying he wasn't there in the beginning. He came along later (y)

hehe

(It doesn't work still does it)

Giff · (This post was last modified: May 10, 2009 at 8:19 am by Giff.)

Quote:That would be like me taking the word "who" out of your sentence and trying to analyze your meaning using only that.

But still it says so in the bible. It says loud and clear that no one should believe in god and not to belive in him is a sin. Is that something you can justify? And is that spirutal truth?

Quote:Again, I already said it Giff. The Bible defines God in that statement (I Am = God exists outside of time), that everyone can use as a given definition of that god.

Does it says that literrally? Or have you interputated it like that?

How can something be regarded as truth when there's just one book as a source?

Quote:Yours really isn't a statement. The Genesis statement is positive and asserts something. Yours asserts a negative and is pointless. Bronze Age bonehead 1: LukeMC

How do you know that the "Bronze age bonehead" asserted something? He/her maybe just wrote something down when he/she was bored at a coffee brake. That person maybe not even belived in what she wrote, it perhaps where just ficition?

~~Edwardo Piet~~ · May 10, 2009 at 9:46 am

(May 10, 2009 at 1:41 am)g-mark Wrote:
EVF Wrote:The supposed supernatural creator(s) of the universe.

What substance do you think this supposed creator consists of?

How should I Know? I know of no evidence of any "God" or gods at ALL...

Basically I am defining God(s) as the supposed supernatural creator(s) of the universe. And everything else is optional.

EvF

~~g-mark~~ · (This post was last modified: May 10, 2009 at 11:08 pm by g-mark.)

frodo Wrote:The substance is known as God.

This is very broad.

What is that substance?

And why Jesus and not Mohameed, or any of the other prophets?

EVF Wrote:How should I Know? I know of no evidence of any "God" or gods at ALL...

Basically I am defining God(s) as the supposed supernatural creator(s) of the universe. And everything else is optional.

This is very broad.

You have a definition, but you don't know what that thing is?

~~Edwardo Piet~~ · May 11, 2009 at 8:55 am

Of course I don't. Once again: How [the fuck] should I know?

I no of no evidence of God. So how would I know of any evidence of what SUBSTANCE he is if I know of no evidence whatsoever of HIM?

I am just saying that whatever substance God is; and whatever kind of God be it deistic or theisitc - I define God(s) as the supposed supernatural creator(s) of the universe. Everything else is optional. ( Because I know nothing about 'HIM' - because I don't even know of any evidence that HE exists! If I did - I'd believe).

EvF

~~fr0d0~~ · May 11, 2009 at 5:24 pm

(May 10, 2009 at 11:08 pm)g-mark Wrote:
frodo Wrote:The substance is known as God.

This is very broad.

What is that substance?

And why Jesus and not Mohameed, or any of the other prophets?

Unfair! I gave you a few rational summations. You picked out only one!

The substance already has a name.. it's 'God'.

What can we know.. The substance isn't known in reality. Are you after a theoretical element for example?

You asked me the question so I answer from my perspective. If I were to answer from another perspective I'd answer differently. But then why ask me if you want someone else's answer? To me Mohamed isn't a prophet. Well maybe a false one. Mohamed doesn't present the truth to me. I see the logic for him is flawed. I can't honestly present an idea I find to be flawed.

I don't dismiss blindly. If I think an idea is sound I'll believe it until that idea is revealed as flawed, then I'll move on.

~~Edwardo Piet~~ · May 11, 2009 at 5:28 pm

How is the Bible any more (or less) likely to be true than the Koran? How do you differentiate there fr0d0?

EvF

**LukeMC** · (This post was last modified: May 11, 2009 at 5:38 pm by LukeMC.)

(May 10, 2009 at 11:08 pm)g-mark Wrote:
frodo Wrote:The substance is known as God.

This is very broad.

What is that substance?

In fr0d0's defence, this question would present immense difficulty when asking a physicist to describe the substance of an electron, quark, photon, etc. If it cannot be broken down then it is what it is. For example:
What is the substance of an atom?
It is most commonly a combination of protons, neutrons and electrons.
What is the substance of an electron?
An electron is charged matter-type stuff...
What is the substance of matter?
Matter is... it's made of... well uhhh... it has mass and volume... is that substance?
What is the substance of mass?
Worship

i surrender

Something as profound as a god would necessarily be mind-boggling to assign substance to, just like in the example of the electron/matter (unless a physicist would like to correct me here. I'd be happy to concede).

~~Edwardo Piet~~ · May 11, 2009 at 5:42 pm

Which God are we talking about? Tongue

I guess it's possible though that if "God" existed that he could be made of ordinary matter but be intangible (although I'm not sure that would involve) not necessarily MADE from stuff more complicated (He IS the stuff I assume) - just working together really complicated, and organized really complicated.

I dunno that what he is MADE of would necessarily be mind boggling ....necessarily....but HE as sure hell would be! And whatever he is made of would be 'organized' bloody complicated that's for sure!!

But how could we know what this stuff is? If we don't even know what he is? If we don't even know of any evidence of this "God".. in the first place! (God as in the supernatural creator(s) of the universe(s)).

EvF

**LukeMC** · May 11, 2009 at 5:48 pm

Aye. The difference between matter and God is that although it gets tricky to say what matter is, we at least know it is there and can see it and interact with it. God on the other hand cannot be sensed or known, cannot be interacted with or deduced. It is rather odd to believe in something which you cannot be sure exists while also given the fact that if it did exist you wouldn't even know what it is :L

The reason I said the substance of God would be mind-blowing is that we can assume god isn't made of matter nor energy, and is therefore not physical in any sense. Now that we know what God isn't, how can we know what God IS when we've discounted all of the substance our brains can conceptualise? What can we envisage which isn't made of matter of energy? I don't think our brains can do that, because they haven't been exposed to anything other than this.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me