@case-sensitive Don't mix up God and religion. God isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a valid one. I like this one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_becomes_the_Universe
There is only 1 undenyable fact = I AM . Science and religeon are both belief . The only real difference is that science says ........ ' It happened because it had to happen ' ...... and religeon says ......... ' It was done ' .
This is the foundation of your statements. You feel superior when you see listen people rejoice from God's grace but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Dumb people? FYI there are many smart brilliant people, scientists included, who believe in God.
I know that but coming from you on this context clearly shows your arrogance. Being arrogant does not imply something is untrue.
I think God intervenes once in a while or maybe constantly, not in the macrocosm but the microcosm. Creating new life forms, evolution? Don't know.
Oh right God can only be a small part of and things can be obtained like a vending machine with the right currency. Just screams flawed human thinking! I used to conceptualize God as operating outside reality, but the more I look at it the more obvious it is that if it does exist then it's everything everywhere.
It would be good if somebody could actually define "god"... Else we are debating - ermmm... what exactly?!? So, how do you define "god"? Inductively? Hardly, as "god" can not be a mere sum of all the parts of the Universe. Deductively? How, as there is no higher notion than "god"?!? So, clearly: "much ado about nothing"...
"There is only 1 undenyable fact = I AM" By knowing that you know GOD. That simple. Issue resolved. Next one, please. The insight you have when you say "I am" does not rely on an object in your mind. An object which could be conceptually understood. There is 'first', a 'precondition' that makes 'you' possible to recognize and define conceptual objects. If you anyway still think the recognition of "I AM" relies on an object in your mind, then you have to evaluate that thoroughly. Is Being per se an object of mind? There is a good bit in the bible (although religions mostly do 'talk' about a conceptual idea of GOD =their idols). God answered when being ask who he is: "I am that I am". Asking this question makes no sense per se, because only what you get back is 'something' about an idol. An idea of GOD. This is the reason why the 'viscous circle' all about GOD cannot have an 'end'. There will be always new conceptions about GOD. Coming and going. But the 'background' on which they appear IS already. So how to 'create' an access? Since somebody usually 'gets' something through the conceptual mind and ideas, the phrases, metaphors, parables 'about' GOD can be only recognized as pointers to GOD. They work in a way to focus there 'where' "I am" is perceived before I am this or that and this is this or that follows. Also prayers and meditation, any focus inside works that way. This always leads to 'odd' explanations so the phrases, metaphors, parables are. Like" Focus rather on the space in which objects appear than on the objects themselves..." Or as a 'method' GOD is 'described' as something that cannot be an object, a concept in your mind, even because to point on that fact that GOD cannot be a concept in one's mind. As 'Stillness'. "Be still and recognize that I am GOD." "The peace of God, which surpasses all understanding..." When you translate this bit back from German language it even gets more precise. "The peace of GOD which is greater than any (human) Reason (Vernunft)" So what exactly do you want to 'know'? There is another way of 'knowing' and recognition. Another focus on consciousness. You have to figure it out yourself. As long as one 'did not get IT' all those explanations, the phrases, metaphors, parables appear as odd and senseless repetitions of the same old....well BS To accept 'GOD' or deny 'GOD' you have to create a concept. And any-thing what you then accept or deny is not GOD. This is true for the deniers AND believers and hence reason for all the 'issues'.
Perhaps if you actually informed yourself on those debates at the right level, it might actually help your "thinking" on the subject - otherwise, it's like this: - "let's debate" - "oh, what about?" - "never mind that - let's debate" - "yeah, but we can't debate if we do not know what we are debating..." - "ach, you spoilsport, let's just debate..." Swell...
The question is assuming 1) there is a God and 2) it's omniscient No one asked you to define God, just take it from that point!
yen ........ a lot of people have difficulty understanding things ........ so i try to write them in an as easy way as possible ....... so that even people like gorski have a small , at least theoreticle chance of understanding . When i think about whats going on and why ( the meaning of life and my part in it ) i have two possible starting points = ME ....... i think therefore i am ........ or ........ science and the beginning of everything . Subjective / objective . Direct eperience / theory . We start with ' The big bang ' ........ and work backwards . Where did it / we / reality / the chance for existence come from . How . Why . In what space . With religeon and with science we describe the same thing ........ but in different terms . Neither disqalifys the other ........ and both come back to a starting point = a space that doesnt and cant exist in a space that doesnt and cant exist ......... but does . There are two possible answers = Science = It exists because it has to and there is no begining and no end ...... or ...... Religeon = it exists because god made it and there is no begining and no end. or we start with me . Observation 1 = I exist . That's undenyable .......... Observation 2 i'm watching and experiencing something happening / moveing ........ through time ( but even that is an asumption ) . Observation 3 is it me experiencing seperate things or is it all me ? Solipsism . ( Something exists in a space that cant exist in a space that cant exist ...... that's so big it becomes aware of itself ....... and gets bored and lonely ....... and invents a game to play with itself ......... it realises ....... i am ....... = Theres no such thing as nothing . Nothing is the absence of something ......... and asks itself ' Am i alone ' ...... ' Am i everything ' ? ........ and spends its time entertaining itself ........ looking for itself ....... and looking for another ) Sounds like your gurus talking about science ? pinky ....... that post is typical for you = circle wank logic that disapears up its own arse . Theres no point in talking with you because ........ you dont talk ....... you dont reason ....... you dont explain ...... because you cant and your blinded by your own ignorance . In a proper debate people make statements and each statement is discussed ........ and either both sides agree or they agree to disagree ........ and say on what and why . You dont . All you do is present nursery school philosophy . ...... and never come to a conclusion / an end ........ like a little kid at a pantomine shouting ' Oh yes it is ' over and over again
And so he, Pinky, does at coronavirus thread where he demonstrates how well his teachers shove up of his a*** dozens of dictionaries only, yet no critical thinking to understand anything.
Crikey! A little bit of elementary logic would do you good here. Anything to do with "god" (omniscience or otherwise) must mean consensus on what or who "god" is and yet we all know that no 2 people would agree on this point, i.e. they would not be able to define this phenomenon, for reasons given. So, go on, talk about something as if you know what it is, end up in knots and meaningless drivel, where anyone can say anything and "it's all cool, dude"... Back to school, for the lot of yous!!!
' I have seen the Tao and travelled the middle way. I have heard the word and spoken the word. I have lived in the flesh and I have eaten the flesh. I have been blinded by the light... And now I believe in the supreme and mystic darkness of nothing, in the deepest reaches of the immaculate void, in infinite nothing, in the unremitting realms of nothing, in the abundance of nothing, in the incomprehensible infinity of untold nothing, in absolute nothing. '