Is needing or wanting to worship a God a human defect or benefit?

by Greatest I am Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:23 pm

First topic message reminder :

Is needing or wanting to worship a God a human defect or benefit?

Gods have no needs or wants that man can assuage. Gods are said to be so high above us that for any God to have such a need would be like man craving the adoration of germs.

I see us as just as foolish as germs and the creatures shown in this clip as we act the same way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4a_uwyY_H4

I can see where at one time it would have been profitable to bend the knee to King/Gods as in the original archetype city states, as used in the original Eden myth written by the Jews, but not today.

That myth I think was written of the following reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ9cvYB7Tes

Our present secular systems of governance have bested the Gods in the moral and legal senses and only the really right wing theists would want to live under the laws of the old barbaric Gods.

I am not an atheist and seek God to appease what I recognize as my spiritual side. But not to bend the knee or adore; just to improve any defect in my thinking; if I have one.

I know that there are way more followers out there than leaders but cannot fathom why someone would want to lower themselves to adore even a God unless it is strictly as a self-serving action that we hope God will recognize and reward.

That is hardly being good for goodness sake. God would know and send such hypocrites to hell. Which scriptures say is where the vast majority of us will end up regardless.

That means that you, even if you pray daily and hard, are likely going to hell along with most of those you know. In a sense, you should feel sorry for those few who make it to heaven as they must spend eternity watching their loved ones in purposeless torture. That would drive any moral person insane.

Gods have no needs or wants and has no rewards to give in exchange for what Gods have no need or want of.

The Godhead I know certainly disavows such a need or want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkT1-N0VqUc

Why then, if you are a believer, do you need or want to worship a God if not for the reward you think it will bring you?

Is your need to adore a God a defect or benefit?

Regards
DL

by JP Cusick Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:58 am

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Most human societies are inherently racist, and always have been, does that mean we should just accept this human flaw and never try and address it?

I do not see any such comparison between racism and gender differences.

As they say = You are comparing apples to oranges - because they are 2 different things which do not compare.

What I said about Patriarchal societies instead of Matriarch is that there is historical evidence that both genders want it to be Patriarchal.

For me I like the British Queens and I expect to vote for Hillary Clinton to be the next US President, but I did NOT like Margarette Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. So my own view of gender is not rigid.

In racism we do not have any race who wants to be subordinate, but evidence shows us that females like it when the males take the lead - and that appears to hold true both in the animal world as it is in humanity, and that is not an insult because evidence shows that the Ladies control which Man takes their lead.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
You're claiming to know what most of half the human population want, based on what? Three examples that you've cherry picked from an era when such behaviour was the norm.

Those were three (3) big huge examples, so they do count as big huge evidence.

You are free to tell of any example(s) to the contrary - if you can imagine any such thing.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:We see it in animal life too, as one male lion with 5 - 10 female lions, and that happens by design and by intent of all involved, and that is not done by some masculine manipulation or control over the females.
Well female spiders generally eat their male mates, as do the praying Mantis, if we're going to cite animal behaviour as a moral guide and abandon our own reason then we may be in trouble.

I did not give it as some "moral" guide, as I gave it as realistic evidence.

Kind of a huge distinction there.

Not a moral guide but realistic evidence.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Again just because historically something was the norm, slavery, racism, rapine, doesn't excuse our not fighting to change it, and the underlying human attitudes that cause it.

That is fine, as I am all for fighting any injustice.

But one must first find out that the people them selves view it as an injustice.

Here in the USA they want Women to be treated equal in the military, and yet I know many Women who do not ever want to be drafted or sent into any war, and they do not want that for their children either.

In fact my view is that being drafted for war is horrible for anyone including horrible to do to young men, so I say asking for equal rights for females regarding warfare is absolutely inhuman and perverted.

Any nit-wit male or female who wants to volunteer then yes sure - but do not draft any of them.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
So a democracy that allows women to act as they choose then, unlike strict Muslim countries, try and imagine a woman wearing mak up and a mini skirt with high heels, bear with me, wlaking down the street in saudi Arabia or Tehran, of course the men there would simply say it was her right to decide how to live. I think not...

That sentence is almost completely incoherent and incompetent - just FYI.

What you describe is a distortion and injustice done to females here in the West, and it would not be done in any Islamic Country.

Idea

by JP Cusick Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:15 am

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I think you're incorrectly using the word proof when you mean evidence, there is no proof for the existence or non-existence of any deity. As for evidence for the existence of a Christian god, there certainly isn't any empirical evidence, and as an Atheist I'm not sure what other kind of evidence has any validity here, since the usual claim of experiential evidence would make all claims for all deities equally valid. I wonder if you could list a few "Atheist beliefs" for me as well, as an Atheist if I'm guilty of using belief rather than logic and reason I'm unaware of it, and would certainly like to eliminate such spurious thought processes from my reasoning, so it would be a great help.

The Atheist belief or science belief (or fact if we must) of the "Big Bang" is a proof that there really was a creation day, and of a singular entity, and it is a proof of infinity which thereby denotes both a God / Creator along with immortality.

That can be denied, but the evidence is still there.

Plus I like to point out that the earth circling around as a round ball in empty space being held by invisible force is a far grander miracle then any such miracle in any religious book.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:There were lots of people as like the Abolitionist who preached that God did not support slavery.

When you only consider the evil preaching by evil people then you will never get your self enlightened.
The problem of course is that the bible clearly gives examples in the OT of god endorsing slavery, and the abolitionists were a minority that changed the attitudes of a majority, in countries that were almost exclusively Christian anyway, so claiming the abolitionists were Christians is a bit like claiming half of them were men.

Your last sentence is illogical as it's a moral duty to consider whether other peoples claims and actions are good or bad, right or wrong. Evil itself is a human concept borne of human logic and reason after all.

As I have already said - slavery in the Bible is equivalent to the modern day employment, of course it is not the same but linguistically and historically adapted they are equivalent.

As to the racist African slavery in the USA then the minority Abolitionist changing the evil way of the majority is what we call as a miracle indeed.

As to my "last sentence" then I said "only" as in = to only consider the evil preaching is wrong.

She is only considering the evil preachers as if the evil ones control the world, while it was the morally upright who improve the entire world.

thumbsup

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:20 am

JP Cusick wrote:As they say = You are comparing apples to oranges - because they are 2 different things which do not compare. What I said about Patriarchal societies instead of Matriarch is that there is historical evidence that both genders want it to be Patriarchal.

Obviously the analogous connection is that the behaviours are inherent in most human societies, which is the reason you used to try and justify gender inequality. wrote:Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD
Evidence shows us that females like it when the males take the lead - and that appears to hold true both in the animal world as it is in humanity, and that is not an insult because evidence shows that the Ladies control which Man takes their lead.

Evidence shows you perhaps, I think you're limiting your \"evidence" to personal experience, and cherry picking the bits that support your view as well. Unless you're actually claiming to know the thoughts and wishes of half the human population, are you? You certainly have given that impression. wrote:Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
You're claiming to know what most of half the human population want, based on what? Three examples that you've cherry picked from an era when such behaviour was the norm.
Those were three (3) big huge examples, so they do count as big huge evidence.

You are free to tell of any example(s) to the contrary - if you can imagine any such thing.

Of course I can, but that again misses the point, my personal experience is no more a valid representation of the wishes of women than yours. I just maintain that a just society would treat everyone equally, and never discriminate because of gender, regardless of whether individuals feel it's acceptable. wrote:Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:We see it in animal life too, as one male lion with 5 - 10 female lions, and that happens by design and by intent of all involved, and that is not done by some masculine manipulation or control over the females.
Well female spiders generally eat their male mates, as do the praying Mantis, if we're going to cite animal behaviour as a moral guide and abandon our own reason then we may be in trouble.
I did not give it as some "moral" guide, as I gave it as realistic evidence. Kind of a huge distinction there. Not a moral guide but realistic evidence.

You cited animal behaviour as evidence to justify gender inequality in human society, my examples show that animal behaviour is no guide, obviously you don't like my examples as they refute your premise, but that's irrelevant. You're again trying to cherry pick which pieces of evidence you want to accept to prove your point and which you want to ignore. wrote:Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Again just because historically something was the norm, slavery, racism, rapine, doesn't excuse our not fighting to change it, and the underlying human attitudes that cause it.
That is fine, as I am all for fighting any injustice. But one must first find out that the people them selves view it as an injustice.

Not really, that's fallacious reasoning, discrimination is simply wrong. Besides I don't accept the premise that people want to be discriminated against, and you've certainly showed no compelling evidence to validate that either. wrote:Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD
Here in the USA they want Women to be treated equal in the military, and yet I know many Women who do not ever want to be drafted or sent into any war, and they do not want that for their children either. In fact my view is that being drafted for war is horrible for anyone including horrible to do to young men, so I say asking for equal rights for females regarding warfare is absolutely inhuman and perverted. Any nit-wit male or female who wants to volunteer then yes sure - but do not draft any of them.

Entirely irrelevant as I never mentioned the military or the draft, and besides no one is forcing those women into the military, so again your point isn't logical. Also describing people who spend their lives, and in many cases lose their lives to protect you and the society you live in as \"nitwits" is egregiously rude, and very ungrateful wrote:Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
So a democracy that allows women to act as they choose then, unlike strict Muslim countries, try and imagine a woman wearing mak up and a mini skirt with high heels, bear with me, wlaking down the street in saudi Arabia or Tehran, of course the men there would simply say it was her right to decide how to live. I think not...
That sentence is almost completely incoherent and incompetent - just FYI.

What's incoherent about my sentence? It seems grammatically correct to me, and it's axiomatically true as well. wrote:Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD
What you describe is a distortion and injustice done to females here in the West,

What is an injustice done to women in the west, their right to wear what they like? That's just silly. wrote:Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

and it would not be done in any Islamic Country.

If you're talking about women having the right to wear whatever they like then of course it wouldn't, that was precisely my point, and a clear example of the kind of misogynistic attitudes prevalent in many Muslim societies.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:49 am

JP Cusick wrote:The Atheist belief or science belief (or fact if we must) of the "Big Bang"

Science is based on empiricism, it requires no belief, empiricism is the very antithesis of faith based belief wrote:Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD
is a proof that there really was a creation day, and of a singular entity, and it is a proof of infinity which thereby denotes both a God / Creator along with immortality.

Those are just assumptions, for which you offer no evidence, again. wrote:Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD
That can be denied, but the evidence is still there.

What evidence? You've offered nothing but assumption, which you've tried to tack onto a scientific theory. wrote:Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD
Plus I like to point out that the earth circling around as a round ball in empty space being held by invisible force is a far grander miracle then any such miracle in any religious book.

Which directly contradicts biblical scripture, and which the Christian church tried to suppress, even threatening Galileo with the inquisition, torture, excommunication and death wrote:Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:There were lots of people as like the Abolitionist who preached that God did not support slavery.

When you only consider the evil preaching by evil people then you will never get your self enlightened.
The problem of course is that the bible clearly gives examples in the OT of god endorsing slavery, and the abolitionists were a minority that changed the attitudes of a majority, in countries that were almost exclusively Christian anyway, so claiming the abolitionists were Christians is a bit like claiming half of them were men.

Your last sentence is illogical as it's a moral duty to consider whether other peoples claims and actions are good or bad, right or wrong. Evil itself is a human concept borne of human logic and reason after all.
As I have already said - slavery in the Bible is equivalent to the modern day employment, of course it is not the same but linguistically and historically adapted they are equivalent.

Pure assumption again, you make claim after claim and offer no evidence. Even a cursory read of the old testament disproves your assumption as well wrote:
As to the racist African slavery in the USA then the minority Abolitionist changing the evil way of the majority is what we call as a miracle indeed.

No, it was an example of the transient nature of human morals being influenced by reason and logic, and based on the premise that all humans should have the same basic rights. None of which is salient to the point you made about abolitionists being Christians, which I refuted, and which refutation you've ignored with this wishy washy nonsense. wrote:
As to my "last sentence" then I said "only" as in = to only consider the evil preaching is wrong.

She is only considering the evil preachers as if the evil ones control the world, while it was the morally upright who improve the entire world.

Again you ignore the point made, it's your opinion that one preacher is right and another wrong, and that god wants A not B, you can't prove this, which is the point being made. wrote:

by Bellatori Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:55 am

JP Cusick wrote: ... but there is far more proof in a God then there is opposed.

How often do we see this comment? Actually frequently but somehow, when it comes down to the nitty gritty the proof either never materialises or does not stand up to real scrutiny.

There are a number of issues that this one short sentence raises.

Firstly if any religion had 'proof' of the existence of God then it would simply swallow up all the others and there would be one religion. The fact is that in the last two hundred years we have invented Mormonism, Moonies, Scientology and a whole host of others including cults like Heaven's Gate. Which one is the true one? If we go for the 'argumentum ad populum' fallacy then we would say Christianity so long as we assume that the 10000+ sects actually belong to the same religion (a moot point at best Smile

) or should we say Islam as it seems to be converting the world at the point of a gun again with the proviso about sects?

Secondly there is the issue of 'than [sic] there is opposed'. I would refer you to here which deals with the evidence that there is no god. There is none. Why? Because a non-existent entity cannot leave evidence Smile

by AW Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:38 am

JP Cusick wrote:
Here in the USA they want Women to be treated equal in the military, and yet I know many Women who do not ever want to be drafted or sent into any war, and they do not want that for their children either.

And the men who don't?

Since when has equality of treatment being the same as what individuals 'want'? A person can certainly want to be treated unfairly if it is to their advantage (and even when it isn't).

by Sam Hunter Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:09 am

JP Cusick wrote:The Atheist belief or science belief (or fact if we must) of the "Big Bang"

It's not a belief, it's a tentative conclusion made by scientists based upon the currently available evidence.

JP Cusick wrote:is a proof that there really was a creation day, and of a singular entity, and it is a proof of infinity which thereby denotes both a God / Creator along with immortality.

How does a definite beginning of our universe show that there was a creation day (the word "creation" being used here to presumably denote a creator)?
How is it evidence of a singular entity? Why not multiple entities?
Why is it proof of infinity and why does infinity denote both a God (does your capitalisation indicate the Christian deity?) and creator? Why is immortality indicated?

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:20 pm

JP when did your god create earth? and when was your bible written, could you please tell.

by Heretic Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:19 pm

polyglide wrote:
If you believe in Jesus then you will automatically lead a decent life and ignore that which you know to be wrong, just as you would avoid putting your hand in a fire knowing the consequences of doing so, the choice is ours.

I'm sure you believe this is true but the experience of many with Christians is far different to what you describe. Many Christians lead despicable selfish lives and since the only evidence there is for the existence of God is in the lives of those that claim to of been changed by him.

Until Christians can show everyone whose claim to being a Christian is false they cannot be taken seriously.

This is similar to the need there is for moderate Islam to cast from their midst those that are misleading their youth into terrorist groups, until they do this seriously they will all fall under suspicion.

Heretic

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:38 pm

Well said Heretic, with your usual calmness that becomes you in all your posts,and are known for.

by Bellatori Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:21 pm

JP Cusick wrote:... "Big Bang" is a proof that there really was a creation day, and of a singular entity, and it is a proof of infinity which thereby denotes both a God / Creator along with immortality.
That can be denied, but the evidence is still there ...

In what way does the 'Big Bang' prove the existence of god? scratch

Even if we assume that the Big Bang took place (something I am happy to concede Exclamation

) and that your idea of a creation 'day' is hyperbole for a less than Plank time creation instant thumbsup

, it still does not prove what you suggest thumbsdown

. You are assuming that there has to be some instigator pharoah

; that you cannot get something from nothing Sad

. Unfortunately science says otherwise Exclamation

and we have cosmological evidence that this is true. We know that matter/antimatter pairs form out of 'nothing' thumbsup

. They exist for a very short time before annihilating Sad

.

Pragmatically a universe that cosmically bootstraps itself is a simpler hypothesis than one where you have to create some omnipotent being to do it for you therefore, by Occams Razor Idea

, the former is more likely ergo the Big Bang is no proof of god... Smile

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:37 pm

Well said Bellatori, but no doubt JP will come back a little like our old friend bradders i'm afraid. It will be a case of banging one's head against the proverbial wall. headbang

by JP Cusick Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:05 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:If you're talking about women having the right to wear whatever they like then of course it wouldn't, that was precisely my point, and a clear example of the kind of misogynistic attitudes prevalent in many Muslim societies.

I do believe that my point was that process is done here in the Western societies.

And that Women are far more highly valued and respected in the Islamic Countries.

I realize that the Western mentality thinks that if Muslim Women would take off their clothing as done by the Western Ladies then that would make them more liberated - but that would also make them more degraded.

====================================

Bellatori wrote:
JP Cusick wrote: ... but there is far more proof in a God then there is opposed.
How often do we see this comment? Actually frequently but somehow, when it comes down to the nitty gritty the proof either never materialises or does not stand up to real scrutiny.

Well you conveniently deleted the evidence (or proof) that was given - duh.

As like the "Big Bang" is a proof of a creation day (or creation "moment" if you must) and that a "singularity" is equivolent to claiming a mono-God, and that infinity is synonymous with immortality.

It is okay to disagree, but to hide it is not okay.

====================================

AW wrote:Since when has equality of treatment being the same as what individuals 'want'? A person can certainly want to be treated unfairly if it is to their advantage (and even when it isn't).

I do believe that when we do what people "want" then we call that as democracy.

But when we do NOT do what the people want then we call that as tyranny.

====================================

stu wrote:JP when did your god create earth? and when was your bible written, could you please tell.

I have no idea when those things happened.

Plus that info is really meaningless and irrelevant to me.

If you know the answers and you can tell why it is relevant then I am open to being informed.

====================================

stu wrote:Well said Bellatori, but no doubt JP will come back a little like our old friend bradders i'm afraid. It will be a case of banging one's head against the proverbial wall.

The problem there as I see it is that you are blaming the brick wall, instead of your self for banging it.

afraid

by Shirina Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:16 pm

JP Cusick wrote:I realize that the Western mentality thinks that if Muslim Women would take off their clothing as done by the Western Ladies then that would make them more liberated - but that would also make them more degraded.

You seem to think that the word "degraded" is synonymous with "empowered." I find nothing "degrading" with how most Western women dress. Yes, there are those who take things to the extreme, and I'm not at all fond of extremists. What you seem to advocate is the opposite extreme where women have to dress in a tent with eye holes.

In addition, this isn't just about clothing. It's about human rights and civil liberties. How many Muslim men, for instance, have you seen or heard about that were buried up to their necks and then stoned to death simply for falling in love with someone from the wrong tribe or religious sect? How many Muslim men are lashed repeatedly for being seen in public with a woman who isn't a member of his immediate family? How many Muslim men do you see walking three steps behind his wife? How many Muslim nations prohibit Muslim men from driving? From having a job? From voting? How many Muslim men have to walk around in a black sack like some twisted parody of Casper the Friendly Ghost?

I think you know the answer to those questions.

by AW Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:17 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
AW wrote:Since when has equality of treatment being the same as what individuals 'want'? A person can certainly want to be treated unfairly if it is to their advantage (and even when it isn't).
I do believe that when we do what people "want" then we call that as democracy.

But when we do NOT do what the people want then we call that as tyranny.

Then you have no understanding of these words. Persons want very different things: and if we do what one wants, we do what another does not want.

Democracy (in principle at least) is the rule by the people (Demos) or, more usually, rule by their elected representatives. It says nothing of personal liberty. Democratic Governments often do what people do not want them to do.

Tyranny, on the other hand, refers to government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power: a tyrant.

So you are completely wrong and this is totally unrelated to my point. My point was about equality, and not about the form of government which imposes or allows such equality or lack of it.

by Bellatori Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:19 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
Bellatori wrote:
JP Cusick wrote: ... but there is far more proof in a God then there is opposed.
How often do we see this comment? Actually frequently but somehow, when it comes down to the nitty gritty the proof either never materialises or does not stand up to real scrutiny.
Well you conveniently deleted the evidence (or proof) that was given - duh.

If that was the case then it was written in invisible ink... I saw only claims unsupported by any evidence. - duh

JP Cusick wrote:As like the "Big Bang" is a proof of a creation day (or creation "moment" if you must) and that a "singularity" is equivalent to claiming a mono-God, and that infinity is synonymous with immortality.

In fact a bit like that one. The equivalence you suggest is merely supposition unsupported by evidence and you make a false analogy between between infinity and immortal. These are not equivalences.

What you HAVE done is ignore the point that I made regarding Occams Razor and the two hypotheses and stated as fact some unsupported suppositions whilst applying Occam's Broom , that is sweep inconvenient things under the carpet. Not what I would call a telling post.

by JP Cusick Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:22 pm

Sam Hunter wrote:How does a definite beginning of our universe show that there was a creation day (the word "creation" being used here to presumably denote a creator)?
How is it evidence of a singular entity? Why not multiple entities?
Why is it proof of infinity and why does infinity denote both a God (does your capitalisation indicate the Christian deity?) and creator? Why is immortality indicated?

The definite beginning of the universe showing a creation day (or creation time) is self evident and self explanatory.

I did not really say that shows a Creator, but a Creator is implied, even if that creator is called Nature or natural or called some law of physics.

And I am quite happy to include multiple entities as the Creator, as that is in fact what I do view.

And I do not denote the Christian Deity even though the generic name of "God" is used by Christians too.

Infinity denotes immortality because we know that infinity is unfathomable, and it repeats itself as infinite forms of infinity, and that repeating means that things go on forever which thereby means immortal too.

=========================================================

Heretic wrote:
polyglide wrote:
If you believe in Jesus then you will automatically lead a decent life and ignore that which you know to be wrong, just as you would avoid putting your hand in a fire knowing the consequences of doing so, the choice is ours.
I'm sure you believe this is true but the experience of many with Christians is far different to what you describe. Many Christians lead despicable selfish lives and since the only evidence there is for the existence of God is in the lives of those that claim to of been changed by him.

Until Christians can show everyone whose claim to being a Christian is false they cannot be taken seriously.

This is similar to the need there is for moderate Islam to cast from their midst those that are misleading their youth into terrorist groups, until they do this seriously they will all fall under suspicion.

Heretic

Both of you are wrong, as in anyone can believe in or even know about Jesus and of God and still do wrong and keep sinning and defy everything.

Christians might live evil lives but that has nothing to do with Jesus Christ being real or not.

Muslims who do wrong does not change the reality of Islam.

And whether anyone believes in God or not then that too has absolutely no connection or relevance as to the real existence of the God thing.

Idea

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:21 pm

JP my good sir, you say in your last post regarding the creation of the universe. You say a creator was implied, seeing as the earth is in the universe, when do you believe the creator created it?

by Sam Hunter Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:34 pm

JP Cusick wrote:The definite beginning of the universe showing a creation day (or creation time) is self evident and self explanatory.

I get that it's a beginning, I'm just not sure why you need to refer to it as a creation.

JP Cusick wrote:I did not really say that shows a Creator, but a Creator is implied, even if that creator is called Nature or natural or called some law of physics.

Well, yes you did say that it shows a creator as this quote from your earlier post shows:

JP Cusick wrote:[The Big Bang] is a proof of infinity which thereby denotes both a God / Creator along with immortality.

You use the phrase "God / Creator. This is a strange phrase to use if you're applying it to something natural. So if you do mean a God / Creator as opposed to nature, why does the Big Bang imply or denote it?

JP Cusick wrote:And I am quite happy to include multiple entities as the Creator, as that is in fact what I do view.

What is your view of these multiple entities as the Creator? If I'm going to consider your beliefs then it would be best to first know what they are.

JP Cusick wrote:And I do not denote the Christian Deity even though the generic name of "God" is used by Christians too.

I'm used to thinking of the word "God" as the Christian deity and the word "god" used as the generic form.

JP Cusick wrote:Infinity denotes immortality because we know that infinity is unfathomable, and it repeats itself as infinite forms of infinity, and that repeating means that things go on forever which thereby means immortal too.

Why does infinity denote immortality? Immortality is normally applied to a living being.
Is infinity unfathomable? Mathematicians consider it, as do some scientists.
Can infinity repeat itself in infinite forms? Doesn't repetition need the end of one cycle and the beginning of another.
Why does repetition mean that things go on forever, and why does that mean immortality?

by JP Cusick Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:37 pm

stu wrote:JP my good sir, you say in your last post regarding the creation of the universe. You say a creator was implied, seeing as the earth is in the universe, when do you believe the creator created it?

As I said - I have no idea when those things really happened, and that info is meaningless to me.

I do accept what science tells me that the Big Bang (creation of the universe) began about 14 billion years ago.

That works for me.

I think they say that the earth is about 4.5 billions years old so I accept that as true too.

The claim of a 6,000 year old earth is ridiculous, and the Bible does not really say that.

I also accept the archeology of prehistoric man that there were other kinds of "Man" before the homo sapiens came along.

Even the idea of "evolution" is fine to me, but I see evolution as God in the creating process.

Idea

by snowyflake Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:54 pm

Hi JP

When, in our evolution, human evolution, would you say God revealed himself to man? Was it during Homo habilis or homo erectus or perhaps he showed himself to Homo neanderthalensis? I always thought that man created gods. That early man thought god was speaking to them through their own dreams and the concept of a spirit world arose from that, evolved, and was found to be powerful because humans are basically quite superstitious. Would that scenario seem more reasonable than the other way around?

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:04 pm

Please forgive me JP, you say you are going by what the scientists tell you. So you do not believe what your bible tells you? could you please inform my goodself as to which religion you worship sir?

by JP Cusick Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:06 pm

Sam Hunter wrote:I get that it's a beginning, I'm just not sure why you need to refer to it as a creation.

I say creation because I believe in the Creator, whatever that Creator might happen to be?

Plus I use that word to stick-it to those that deny the Creator.

Sam Hunter wrote:You use the phrase "God / Creator. This is a strange phrase to use if you're applying it to something natural. So if you do mean a God / Creator as opposed to nature, why does the Big Bang imply or denote it?

Nature (or small case nature) is just another name for a God or for the God.

Some thing being "natural" means that nature did it and thereby nature is being used as a God.

Nature can not do anything unless nature has its own abilities to do.

Sam Hunter wrote: What is your view of these multiple entities as the Creator? If I'm going to consider your beliefs then it would be best to first know what they are.

I do not see you and I being on the same field to discuss that.

As in a "son of God" / daughter of God would be other entities, and angels / archangels, or even Demons and spirits having their place in the hierarchy as other entities.

Plus God by other names are based on other entities even if united - as in Ra, Yahweh, Buddha, Allah, Elohim, and more.

Sam Hunter wrote:I'm used to thinking of the word "God" as the Christian deity and the word "god" used as the generic form.

I understand that and I respect it, but I use the upper case for all Gods simply because I see the lower case as disrespectful.

Sam Hunter wrote:Why does infinity denote immortality? Immortality is normally applied to a living being.

It just does.

Plus I have embraced the new science of parallel universes as that explains so much about God and about what is really happening here in life.

Sam Hunter wrote:
Is infinity unfathomable? Mathematicians consider it, as do some scientists.

Consider it all they want - but infinity is still unfathomable.

I realize the human imagination is super far reaching so we can fathom the unfathomable but we must not let our imagination to over step its outer most boundary line.

Sam Hunter wrote:Can infinity repeat itself in infinite forms? Doesn't repetition need the end of one cycle and the beginning of another.
Why does repetition mean that things go on forever, and why does that mean immortality?

It simply does.

Some things simply defy our ability to answer.

If we imagine the Big Band expanding in every direction 3D then it goes every direction into infinity and even if it ends in every direction then another infinity begins again.

If human beings are a true part of that then we too begin again and again into infinity which thereby means immortality.

Idea

by snowyflake Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:07 pm

Hi stu

Welcome to Cutting Edge. I'm glad you made it alright from Amazon. You can post emoticons and you tube clips, photos and links much easier from here than on the Amazon forum. Hope you enjoy yourself here and hopefully some of the others will join us here as well.

Best wishes Mrs. F. Snowyflake Smile

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:14 pm

Snowyflake, evolution certainly does not depend on god showing himself to us, otherwise there would be no-one on earth.thank-you though for your very kind welcome,and I am sure I will enjoy it on here with everyones friendliness

by JP Cusick Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:17 pm

snowyflake wrote:Hi JP

When, in our evolution, human evolution, would you say God revealed himself to man? Was it during Homo habilis or homo erectus or perhaps he showed himself to Homo neanderthalensis? I always thought that man created gods. That early man thought god was speaking to them through their own dreams and the concept of a spirit world arose from that, evolved, and was found to be powerful because humans are basically quite superstitious. Would that scenario seem more reasonable than the other way around?

I believe that God spoke to everyone from the very beginning and still speaks to anyone today.

We our selves shut out God from communicating with any of us.

And it is truly scary to do otherwise.

As such I really say that the very ancient people were far more in-touch with God then are people today.

I even say that we are far more superstitious today then they were long ago, because long ago their superstitions had more merit then our blind denials of today.

==========================================

stu wrote:Please forgive me JP, you say you are going by what the scientists tell you. So you do not believe what your bible tells you? could you please inform my goodself as to which religion you worship sir?

I confess that I like all religions but I do not belong to any religion.

And I do not believe in "worship" either as the real God has no use in worship, as the real "God" is so much bigger than that.

Parts of the Bible are very important to me, but large parts of the Bible are not very important at all.

Idea

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:41 pm

So not a typical American then JP

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:54 pm

We our selves shut out God from communicating with any of us. wrote:JP Cusick

That's illogical, how can a mere human shut out a message from a being with limitless power unless that being wishes it so, that's axiomatically false.

As such I really say that the very ancient people were far more in-touch with God then are people today. wrote:JP Cusick

Ancient people though intelligent, were extremely ignorant by today's standards, and consequently extremely superstitious. So they may seem more "spiritual" but that's just a wishy washy way of saying they were ignorant and superstitious.

I even say that we are far more superstitious today then they were long ago, because long ago their superstitions had more merit then our blind denials of today. wrote:JP Cusick

Hilarious, you really do love to make grandiose and statements with out offering a shred of evidence. Let's try a little basic research:

Superstition is a pejorative term for belief in supernatural causality: that one event leads to the cause of another without any natural process linking the two events, such as astrology, religion, omens, witchcraft, etc., that contradicts natural science.

Now does that sound like scientific empiricism, or atheism to you?

I confess that I like all religions but I do not belong to any religion. And I do not believe in "worship" either as the real God has no use in worship, as the real "God" is so much bigger than that. Parts of the Bible are very important to me, but large parts of the Bible are not very important at all. wrote:JP Cusick

As I said earlier you're not a Christian, and you're in fact inventing your own superstition, which is your choice, as one may believe whatever one wants. However your observations are not very well informed, your attitude extremely hostile to opinions that differ from yours, and your bias is blinding you to all evidence.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:17 pm

I do believe that my point was that process is done here in the Western societies. And that Women are far more highly valued and respected in the Islamic Countries. wrote:JP Cusick

Nonsense, this video shows a young girl flogged by Sudanese police in a strict Islamic culture for the crime of wearing trousers, you're talking rubbish I'm afraid.

I realize that the Western mentality thinks that if Muslim Women would take off their clothing as done by the Western Ladies then that would make them more liberated - but that would also make them more degraded. wrote:JP Cusick

You keep ignoring this FACT every time you're told, but women are not told what to wear in the west, they are told what to wear in Islamic countries, that's the difference, and the consequences are dire for those who try to resist. See the video above for ample proof of that, your claim as with all the assertions you make remains entirely unevidenced opinion.

Well you conveniently deleted the evidence (or proof) that was given - duh. As like the \"Big Bang" is a proof of a creation day (or creation "moment" if you must) and that a "singularity" is equivolent to claiming a mono-God, and that infinity is synonymous with immortality. wrote:JP Cusick

Oh dear, you can't differentiate between opinion and evidence, you can't simply claim something as you do above, and then say the claim is evidence on it's own merits, it's simply not. Try harder... Rolling Eyes

You remind me very much of another poster on the Amazon site called Slade. He always made grandiose claims and never troubled with evidence.

I do believe that when we do what people \"want" then we call that as democracy. wrote:JP Cusick

Do you really? It seems your knowledge of the democratic process is as ignorant as your knowledge of what constitutes evidence. Try typing democracy into a Google search and the type definition after it.

Never mind I'll post it up for you...

de·moc·ra·cy
Noun
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
A state governed in such a way.

But when we do NOT do what the people want then we call that as tyranny. wrote:JP Cusick

So people who resisted Fascism in the 30's against the wishes of the majority of the population of those countries were tyrants? You're reasoning is not very cogent here, as elsewhere.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:18 pm

Plus I use that word to stick-it to those that deny the Creator. wrote:JP Cusick

You're not "sticking it" to anyone, on the contrary your unevidenced claims just make you look foolish.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:22 pm

Some thing being "natural" means that nature did it and thereby nature is being used as a God. Nature can not do anything unless nature has its own abilities to do. wrote:JP Cusick

Any empirical evidence for your first claim? headbang

Your second claim is bordering on the fallacious "god of the gaps" polemic. Though again you offer no evidence for your assertion. The evidence that nature can drive itself without god is of course the FACT that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence that anything metaphysical is involved.

by stuart torr Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:53 pm

Hi Sheldon does JP REMIND you of anybody? two people mixed together.

by JP Cusick Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:06 pm

stu wrote:So not a typical American then JP

I am not a typical anything.

If I joined a Church then I would be right to some and wrong to others.

If I aligned with any religion then I would be wrong to some and right to others.

But if I stand alone with my own personal faith then I become double and triple wrong wrong and very wrong to everybody.

It is a no-win situation.

Like a Star @ heaven

by JP Cusick Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:16 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Some thing being \"natural" means that nature did it and thereby nature is being used as a God. Nature can not do anything unless nature has its own abilities to do. wrote:JP Cusick
The evidence that nature can drive itself without god is of course the FACT that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence that anything metaphysical is involved.

I will try to explain it more simply for you.

As in rain and snow are natural phenomenon.

So nature created or caused the rain and snow.

As such the nature is being given a human attribute of causing something to happen, and a God characteristic of controlling the weather.

Call it as a "nature-God" but you just shortened the phrase.

Like a Star @ heaven

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:35 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Some thing being \"natural" means that nature did it and thereby nature is being used as a God. Nature can not do anything unless nature has its own abilities to do. wrote:JP Cusick
The evidence that nature can drive itself without god is of course the FACT that there isn't a shred of empirical evidence that anything metaphysical is involved.
I will try to explain it more simply for you.

As in rain and snow are natural phenomenon.

So nature created or caused the rain and snow.

As such the nature is being given a human attribute of causing something to happen, and a God characteristic of controlling the weather.

Call it as a "nature-God" but you just shortened the phrase.

Your first "explanation" was as simple as it's possible to get, it wasn't complex, just nonsense, your second attempt is equally devoid of both cogent reasoning and evidence. Now I'll try a second time:

There is not one single shred of empirical evidence that anything metaphysical exists at all, let alone that is drives or created life on this planet. You can claim the opposite as many times as you like, without evidence it's not a valid assertion.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:36 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
stu wrote:So not a typical American then JP
I am not a typical anything.

If I joined a Church then I would be right to some and wrong to others.

If I aligned with any religion then I would be wrong to some and right to others.

But if I stand alone with my own personal faith then I become double and triple wrong wrong and very wrong to everybody.

It is a no-win situation.

You could try substituting empirical reason and logic for belief and superstition.

by Dan Fante Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:33 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
And that Women are far more highly valued and respected in the Islamic Countries.

Can I ask you something? Would you like to be so highly respected and valued that weren't allowed to drive a car?
Or would you prefer to be so highly respected and valued that you were too afraid to report to the authorities that you had been raped because you feared that you would be publicly flogged for doing so?
Or maybe you'd liked to be forced to marry a man much older than you before you'd even gone through puberty?
Or perhaps you'd like to have part of your clitoris and labia removed for no good reason and without an anesthetic?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:14 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
And that Women are far more highly valued and respected in the Islamic Countries

We can see some muslim men dishing out that respect in video I linked above. Which you have pointedly ignored. As per usual you're making claims that are entirely wrong and entirely refuted by the evidence. You will no doubt now accuse me of not understanding again, or claim my post is childish. What you won't do is make any attempt to address either the evidence presented or the reality of the situation. Preferring blinkered fantasy where any theists can do no wrong.

by JP Cusick Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:04 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:You could try substituting empirical reason and logic for belief and superstition.

I agree.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:There is not one single shred of empirical evidence that anything metaphysical exists at all, let alone that is drives or created life on this planet. You can claim the opposite as many times as you like, without evidence it's not a valid assertion.

Actually since we can often see and surely do feel the ghost and spirits and the Demons then that is empirical evidence indeed.

And not just that as things like knowing about the Big-Bang being the day that the universe was created - that too is empirical evidence.

=======================================

Dan Fante wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:
And that Women are far more highly valued and respected in the Islamic Countries.

Can I ask you something? Would you like to be so highly respected and valued that weren't allowed to drive a car?
Or would you prefer to be so highly respected and valued that you were too afraid to report to the authorities that you had been raped because you feared that you would be publicly flogged for doing so?
Or maybe you'd liked to be forced to marry a man much older than you before you'd even gone through puberty?
Or perhaps you'd like to have part of your clitoris and labia removed for no good reason and without an anesthetic?

Those are not common events, and we really could list atrocities done to females here in the west which are every bit as horrendous.

As like Monica Lewinsky who committed adultery with a married man who had a wife and a minor child and afterwards she is not punished and instead the adulteress is cheered on as a celebrity - this is an example of how we in the west degrade Women.

I see your Islamic bigotry as hypocritical, and definitely contrary to long established morality.

===============================================

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:JP Cusick wrote:
And that Women are far more highly valued and respected in the Islamic Countries

We can see some muslim men dishing out that respect in video I linked above. Which you have pointedly ignored.

I ignored that video because it is lame.

It gives a prejudicial reason as to why the woman is being punished, so the truth is not included.

Secondly smaller and poorer Countries can not afford prisons and jails, so the punishments have to be quick and decisive.

Plus here in the West we put females into prisons and we execute females, so we are not better than other societies.

And I happen to know that very many if not the vast majority of prisoners in the USA would be happy to exchange their prison sentence for a one time whipping, because the whipping is fast and done, while the long prison terms do a greater harm to them.

Idea

by Norm Deplume Mon Oct 14, 2013 7:20 pm

JP Cusick wrote:Actually since we can often see and surely do feel the ghost and spirits and the Demons then that is empirical evidence indeed.

You may claim to have experience of ghosts, spirits and demons but I can assure you that it is not universal. Can you produce anything to substantiate these assertions?

JP Cusick wrote:And not just that as things like knowing about the Big-Bang being the day that the universe was created - that too is empirical evidence.

You have this backwards - the empirical evidence is the expanding universe; this leads to the best explanation for its existence, the big bang theory. The empirical evidence indicates that at least one universe exists and does nothing to validate claims for the supernatural.

JP Cusick wrote: ...here in the West we put females into prisons and we execute females, so we are not better than other societies.

In this part of "the West" the death penalty was abolished years ago. From your statement by implication, then, the UK is better than other societies including some parts of the USA.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:03 pm

Actually since we can often see and surely do feel the ghost and spirits and the Demons then that is empirical evidence indeed. wrote:JP Cusick

So you don't have the remotest clue what empirical means, why am I not surprised. You're talking about experiential "evidence", which has entirely the same validity as sailors claiming they've encountered mermaids, and lone farmers in Montana claiming they've been beamed onto the mother ship by aliens.

And not just that as things like knowing about the Big-Bang being the day that the universe was created - that too is empirical evidence. wrote:JP Cusick

I really am not sure I can be bothered to explain it again, but no it's not empirical evidence of creation, jesus wept.

Those are not common events, and we really could list atrocities done to females here in the west which are every bit as horrendous. As like Monica Lewinsky who committed adultery with a married man who had a wife and a minor child and afterwards she is not punished and instead the adulteress is cheered on as a celebrity - this is an example of how we in the west degrade Women. I see your Islamic bigotry as hypocritical, and definitely contrary to long established morality. wrote:JP Cusick

Your a sexist misogynist, and that's as clear as day...

I ignored that video because it is lame. It gives a prejudicial reason as to why the woman is being punished, so the truth is not included. wrote:JP Cusick

What's lame is your pathetic attempt to justify the public flogging of young girl for wearing trousers, by Islamic thugs. Pathetic, but utterly predictable, as I said precisely how you'd react. Blinkered religious bigots are easy to predict.

by Sponsored content