You Don't Know God -- How Sad
-
Just saw this on Facebook:
Facebook response:
Wow, I'm sorry that Joe is so biased against God. If he actually knew God this conversation would have been TOTALLY different. So sad. :(
I decided to stay out of that discussion because it was going nowhere fast (I'm not the Joe referred to by the above quote). Curious though... what do you think it means to "know God"? To add some context, the Facebook status that started the never ending replies was "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God quite literally IS love." That seems kind of meaningless to me, but I'm not religious by any measure. Maybe some of you have an interesting perspective. Hopefully we can keep this civil. ;)
Driven to the ARMs by x86.
AspDotNetDev wrote:
To add some context, the Facebook status that started the never ending replies was "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God quite literally IS love."
Makes me wonder where hate fits in there. Presumably God created it. If not then it limits God. But if God did create it then seems that one could know God via hate just as well. Certainly seems like some people chose that avenue.
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
To add some context, the Facebook status that started the never ending replies was "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God quite literally IS love."
Makes me wonder where hate fits in there. Presumably God created it. If not then it limits God. But if God did create it then seems that one could know God via hate just as well. Certainly seems like some people chose that avenue.
-
Just saw this on Facebook:
Facebook response:
Wow, I'm sorry that Joe is so biased against God. If he actually knew God this conversation would have been TOTALLY different. So sad. :(
I decided to stay out of that discussion because it was going nowhere fast (I'm not the Joe referred to by the above quote). Curious though... what do you think it means to "know God"? To add some context, the Facebook status that started the never ending replies was "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God quite literally IS love." That seems kind of meaningless to me, but I'm not religious by any measure. Maybe some of you have an interesting perspective. Hopefully we can keep this civil. ;)
Driven to the ARMs by x86.
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
That seems kind of meaningless to me
Yeah, because if God is literally love, then the phrase could just as easily go, "Whoever does not love does not know love" which I suppose is true?
- F
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
If he actually knew God
What, like I know my neighbour or my wife? I just love that believers spew out a never ending smorgasbord of meaningless platitudes as if that'll convert me to their fantasy or as if, somehow, you can only love if you believe in the sky pixie. Don't know what happened to Stan but he believed that if you were an atheist you were, by definition, amoral.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
-
-
Just saw this on Facebook:
Facebook response:
Wow, I'm sorry that Joe is so biased against God. If he actually knew God this conversation would have been TOTALLY different. So sad. :(
I decided to stay out of that discussion because it was going nowhere fast (I'm not the Joe referred to by the above quote). Curious though... what do you think it means to "know God"? To add some context, the Facebook status that started the never ending replies was "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God quite literally IS love." That seems kind of meaningless to me, but I'm not religious by any measure. Maybe some of you have an interesting perspective. Hopefully we can keep this civil. ;)
Driven to the ARMs by x86.
I had a BBQ Kangaroo shank with God last week. He is a good guy and a great cook, I don't understand what is all the fuss about! Maybe it's because of all those jealous wannabe God too? But God told me not to worry, he got the situation figured it out! ;P
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
-
Just saw this on Facebook:
Facebook response:
Wow, I'm sorry that Joe is so biased against God. If he actually knew God this conversation would have been TOTALLY different. So sad. :(
I decided to stay out of that discussion because it was going nowhere fast (I'm not the Joe referred to by the above quote). Curious though... what do you think it means to "know God"? To add some context, the Facebook status that started the never ending replies was "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God quite literally IS love." That seems kind of meaningless to me, but I'm not religious by any measure. Maybe some of you have an interesting perspective. Hopefully we can keep this civil. ;)
Driven to the ARMs by x86.
AspDotNetDev wrote:
because God quite literally IS love
The guy on FB has just finished reading "The Man fom Mars" by RH, this is a quote from the book.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
because God quite literally IS love
The guy on FB has just finished reading "The Man fom Mars" by RH, this is a quote from the book.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
She's actually a gal. And it's also a bible passage.
Driven to the ARMs by x86.
-
Just saw this on Facebook:
Facebook response:
Wow, I'm sorry that Joe is so biased against God. If he actually knew God this conversation would have been TOTALLY different. So sad. :(
I decided to stay out of that discussion because it was going nowhere fast (I'm not the Joe referred to by the above quote). Curious though... what do you think it means to "know God"? To add some context, the Facebook status that started the never ending replies was "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God quite literally IS love." That seems kind of meaningless to me, but I'm not religious by any measure. Maybe some of you have an interesting perspective. Hopefully we can keep this civil. ;)
Driven to the ARMs by x86.
Whatever philosophy you live by, there should always be room for Jesus, because Christ is for life, not just for Dogmas! I'll get my coat.
-
Just saw this on Facebook:
Facebook response:
Wow, I'm sorry that Joe is so biased against God. If he actually knew God this conversation would have been TOTALLY different. So sad. :(
I decided to stay out of that discussion because it was going nowhere fast (I'm not the Joe referred to by the above quote). Curious though... what do you think it means to "know God"? To add some context, the Facebook status that started the never ending replies was "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God quite literally IS love." That seems kind of meaningless to me, but I'm not religious by any measure. Maybe some of you have an interesting perspective. Hopefully we can keep this civil. ;)
Driven to the ARMs by x86.
AspDotNetDev wrote:
what do you think it means to "know God"?
While I don't subscribe to anyone's dogma, I do believe there is enough physical evidence to support our little universe being the work of an intelligent Creator. Having said that, I'll also say this: We're more likely akin to fish in an aquarium in the best-case scenario, or a stain in a petri-dish in the worst case. God (for lack of a better name) created man, but man created religion. Just my opinion.
XAlan Burkhart
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
what do you think it means to "know God"?
While I don't subscribe to anyone's dogma, I do believe there is enough physical evidence to support our little universe being the work of an intelligent Creator. Having said that, I'll also say this: We're more likely akin to fish in an aquarium in the best-case scenario, or a stain in a petri-dish in the worst case. God (for lack of a better name) created man, but man created religion. Just my opinion.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
I do believe there is enough physical evidence to support our little universe being the work of an intelligent Creator.
Such as?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Such as?
I tend to believe that the Big Bang theory is at least a somewhat accurate description of how our existence began. However, while we've been able to theorize with a reasonable degree of certainty on what happened immediately after the BB, we're still clueless as to what went on before it. My thinking is that if the universe began with the massive explosion of a super-dense object, that object also must have an origin. If we someday explain the origin of that object, then we must also try to explain the origin of the matter that became said object. At some point, there must be a "first" entity of some sort - someone / something that existed literally before anything else existed. By definition, such an entity would be eternal because it exists in spite of having no origin. It would exist outside of time as we know it. Such an entity would necessarily be static. It did not and does not evolve. The BB required that an object be in a state of constant change, collapsing in on itself until it blew itself apart. But with an entity that does not change such a spontaneous event would be impossible. Logic demands therefore that a conscious act on the part of the static entity was required to begin the process of creation. Such an act requires intelligence. This being could be called a god, or creator, or something similar. Probably not supernatural in the traditional sense, but sufficiently beyond us that it/he/she would appear as such. As to those who fantasize about a loving, all-knowing God that miraculously looks just like us... I have difficulty with that. As I said earlier, I think we're likely akin to fish in an aquarium in the best case, or a stain in a petri dish in the worst. As to physical evidence, the fossil record not only makes a case for evolution but also for intelligent design. Virtually all life on the planet appears to be based upon one of several models. It is not that much of a stretch to think that the DNA in all living things was engineered to change over time and lead to the development of new species as required by changing environments. And it's certainly no more of a stretch than to say it all happened by "accident." Anyway, you asked. :)
XAlan Burkhart
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Such as?
I tend to believe that the Big Bang theory is at least a somewhat accurate description of how our existence began. However, while we've been able to theorize with a reasonable degree of certainty on what happened immediately after the BB, we're still clueless as to what went on before it. My thinking is that if the universe began with the massive explosion of a super-dense object, that object also must have an origin. If we someday explain the origin of that object, then we must also try to explain the origin of the matter that became said object. At some point, there must be a "first" entity of some sort - someone / something that existed literally before anything else existed. By definition, such an entity would be eternal because it exists in spite of having no origin. It would exist outside of time as we know it. Such an entity would necessarily be static. It did not and does not evolve. The BB required that an object be in a state of constant change, collapsing in on itself until it blew itself apart. But with an entity that does not change such a spontaneous event would be impossible. Logic demands therefore that a conscious act on the part of the static entity was required to begin the process of creation. Such an act requires intelligence. This being could be called a god, or creator, or something similar. Probably not supernatural in the traditional sense, but sufficiently beyond us that it/he/she would appear as such. As to those who fantasize about a loving, all-knowing God that miraculously looks just like us... I have difficulty with that. As I said earlier, I think we're likely akin to fish in an aquarium in the best case, or a stain in a petri dish in the worst. As to physical evidence, the fossil record not only makes a case for evolution but also for intelligent design. Virtually all life on the planet appears to be based upon one of several models. It is not that much of a stretch to think that the DNA in all living things was engineered to change over time and lead to the development of new species as required by changing environments. And it's certainly no more of a stretch than to say it all happened by "accident." Anyway, you asked. :)
XAlan Burkhart
Alan Burkhart wrote:
I tend to believe that the Big Bang theory is at least a somewhat accurate description of how our existence began. However, while we've been able to theorize with a reasonable degree of certainty on what happened immediately after the BB, we're still clueless as to what went on before it.
My thinking is that if the universe began with the massive explosion of a super-dense object, that object also must have an origin. If we someday explain the origin of that object, then we must also try to explain the origin of the matter that became said object. At some point, there must be a "first" entity of some sort - someone / something that existed literally before anything else existed. By definition, such an entity would be eternal because it exists in spite of having no origin. It would exist outside of time as we know it.
Such an entity would necessarily be static. It did not and does not evolve. The BB required that an object be in a state of constant change, collapsing in on itself until it blew itself apart. But with an entity that does not change such a spontaneous event would be impossible. Logic demands therefore that a conscious act on the part of the static entity was required to begin the process of creation. Such an act requires intelligence.
This being could be called a god, or creator, or something similar. Probably not supernatural in the traditional sense, but sufficiently beyond us that it/he/she would appear as such. As to those who fantasize about a loving, all-knowing God that miraculously looks just like us... I have difficulty with that. As I said earlier, I think we're likely akin to fish in an aquarium in the best case, or a stain in a petri dish in the worst.
As to physical evidence, the fossil record not only makes a case for evolution but also for intelligent design. Virtually all life on the planet appears to be based upon one of several models. It is not that much of a stretch to think that the DNA in all living things was engineered to change over time and lead to the development of new species as required by changing environments. And it's certainly no more of a stretch than to say it all happened by "accident."
Anyway, you asked. :)Say this conscious, intelligent being, in the unimaginable vastness of it's creation, created only one single planet with life of infinite complexity and creatures with intelligence. Would such a
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
I tend to believe that the Big Bang theory is at least a somewhat accurate description of how our existence began. However, while we've been able to theorize with a reasonable degree of certainty on what happened immediately after the BB, we're still clueless as to what went on before it.
My thinking is that if the universe began with the massive explosion of a super-dense object, that object also must have an origin. If we someday explain the origin of that object, then we must also try to explain the origin of the matter that became said object. At some point, there must be a "first" entity of some sort - someone / something that existed literally before anything else existed. By definition, such an entity would be eternal because it exists in spite of having no origin. It would exist outside of time as we know it.
Such an entity would necessarily be static. It did not and does not evolve. The BB required that an object be in a state of constant change, collapsing in on itself until it blew itself apart. But with an entity that does not change such a spontaneous event would be impossible. Logic demands therefore that a conscious act on the part of the static entity was required to begin the process of creation. Such an act requires intelligence.
This being could be called a god, or creator, or something similar. Probably not supernatural in the traditional sense, but sufficiently beyond us that it/he/she would appear as such. As to those who fantasize about a loving, all-knowing God that miraculously looks just like us... I have difficulty with that. As I said earlier, I think we're likely akin to fish in an aquarium in the best case, or a stain in a petri dish in the worst.
As to physical evidence, the fossil record not only makes a case for evolution but also for intelligent design. Virtually all life on the planet appears to be based upon one of several models. It is not that much of a stretch to think that the DNA in all living things was engineered to change over time and lead to the development of new species as required by changing environments. And it's certainly no more of a stretch than to say it all happened by "accident."
Anyway, you asked. :)Say this conscious, intelligent being, in the unimaginable vastness of it's creation, created only one single planet with life of infinite complexity and creatures with intelligence. Would such a
MatthysDT wrote:
...created only one single planet with life of infinite complexity and creatures with intelligence. Would such a creator not be extra fond of this part of his creation?
If that's the case, then it's entirely possible. But we don't know that just yet. Who's to say at this point whether there is other life out there? If even one of the UFO "sightings" is true, or if (snickering derisively) Whitley Strieber[^] really was abducted, then we are not alone in the universe. I'd say that given the size of the universe and the number of stars, odds are that other civilizations exist.
XAlan Burkhart
-
MatthysDT wrote:
...created only one single planet with life of infinite complexity and creatures with intelligence. Would such a creator not be extra fond of this part of his creation?
If that's the case, then it's entirely possible. But we don't know that just yet. Who's to say at this point whether there is other life out there? If even one of the UFO "sightings" is true, or if (snickering derisively) Whitley Strieber[^] really was abducted, then we are not alone in the universe. I'd say that given the size of the universe and the number of stars, odds are that other civilizations exist.
XAlan Burkhart
Alan Burkhart wrote:
If that's the case, then it's entirely possible. But we don't know that just yet.
Fair enough. This world probably has an equal amount of nutcases as it has cover-ups. Also remember, that, although relatively small, the part of the universe that mankind has explored via telescopes (etc) includes hundreds of thousands of planets (please forgive my lack of a more precises estimation), and in all that, not a single planet capable of supporting life has been discovered (to my knowledge). But come the end of your life, say 30 - 50 years from now (or tomorrow), and the truth still remains obscured from you, would you not tend to lean toward the existence of God, rather than scientific coincidence, knowing that it is in fact possible that you possess a soul, and that its fate could well be determined by what you believed? Is it worth the gamble?
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
If that's the case, then it's entirely possible. But we don't know that just yet.
Fair enough. This world probably has an equal amount of nutcases as it has cover-ups. Also remember, that, although relatively small, the part of the universe that mankind has explored via telescopes (etc) includes hundreds of thousands of planets (please forgive my lack of a more precises estimation), and in all that, not a single planet capable of supporting life has been discovered (to my knowledge). But come the end of your life, say 30 - 50 years from now (or tomorrow), and the truth still remains obscured from you, would you not tend to lean toward the existence of God, rather than scientific coincidence, knowing that it is in fact possible that you possess a soul, and that its fate could well be determined by what you believed? Is it worth the gamble?
MatthysDT wrote:
Is it worth the gamble?
First, I cannot imagine how one could simply say, "Given the current situation, I think I shall believe such and such." What we believe (or not) is based upon what we experience as we go thru life. I cannot simply tell myself to believe in an immortal soul because there might be a Hell. Hell by the way is a myth based upon a garbage dump outside Jerusalem. Sad but true. That said, I do embrace the possibility of an afterlife. There is some evidence here and there of those who persist after physical death. But if this is the case, it would be a natural thing. There is no "supernatural" side of existence, and I rather doubt that even the most vile criminal would be consigned to a "Lake of Fire" for all eternity. These are tales conjured up thousands of years ago to scare people into good behavior.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
I tend to believe that the Big Bang theory is at least a somewhat accurate description of how our existence began. However, while we've been able to theorize with a reasonable degree of certainty on what happened immediately after the BB, we're still clueless as to what went on before it.
My thinking is that if the universe began with the massive explosion of a super-dense object, that object also must have an origin. If we someday explain the origin of that object, then we must also try to explain the origin of the matter that became said object. At some point, there must be a "first" entity of some sort - someone / something that existed literally before anything else existed. By definition, such an entity would be eternal because it exists in spite of having no origin. It would exist outside of time as we know it.
Such an entity would necessarily be static. It did not and does not evolve. The BB required that an object be in a state of constant change, collapsing in on itself until it blew itself apart. But with an entity that does not change such a spontaneous event would be impossible. Logic demands therefore that a conscious act on the part of the static entity was required to begin the process of creation. Such an act requires intelligence.
This being could be called a god, or creator, or something similar. Probably not supernatural in the traditional sense, but sufficiently beyond us that it/he/she would appear as such. As to those who fantasize about a loving, all-knowing God that miraculously looks just like us... I have difficulty with that. As I said earlier, I think we're likely akin to fish in an aquarium in the best case, or a stain in a petri dish in the worst.
As to physical evidence, the fossil record not only makes a case for evolution but also for intelligent design. Virtually all life on the planet appears to be based upon one of several models. It is not that much of a stretch to think that the DNA in all living things was engineered to change over time and lead to the development of new species as required by changing environments. And it's certainly no more of a stretch than to say it all happened by "accident."
Anyway, you asked. :)Say this conscious, intelligent being, in the unimaginable vastness of it's creation, created only one single planet with life of infinite complexity and creatures with intelligence. Would such a
MatthysDT wrote:
Say this conscious, intelligent being, in the unimaginable vastness of it's creation, created only one single planet with life of infinite complexity and creatures with intelligence. Would such a creator not be extra fond of this part of his creation? On scales of creation, would this fondness not translate to love for the minuscule self-aware creatures residing on this planet, especially considering that they have no prove whatsoever that another planet like their own exists. Would such a creator not be able, or even likely, to purposely, in the infinite complexity of the creation of this single planet create it's most intelligent occupant in his own image?
Your example ignores the possibility that although there is only one planet in this case that being has 100 billion test tubes where each each tube has a universe with one planet which has intelligent life. Also completely ignores the point that if such a entity is able to create life, intelligence and a universe to contain it all that it isn't necessarily the case that the ability of creation is special. After all a 4 year old thinks that driving a car is 'special' but most commuters stuck in 3 hour traffic jams are unlikely to think that driving itself is 'special'.
