Re: About God

Peter wrote:
On Mar 11, 10:17 pm, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:
Peter wrote:
On Mar 11, 3:02 pm, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:
Peter wrote:
On Mar 11, 12:15 pm, Remus <roamu...@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 9, 2:00 pm, Peter <Poakfi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 9, 2:02 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Peter <Poakfi...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
3d1afbe3-6327-4447-be22-ab6f61abf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 9, 10:08 am, tadchem <tadc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 9, 8:31 am, Peter <Poakfi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Some physicists have difficulty conceiving the existence ofGod: an
infinite, immaterial being, who had no beginning and will have no end.
They find this hard to believe, but we have three examples of things
that appear to have exactly the same characteristics, and that we
usually have no problem accepting: Space, time, and energy: Space and
time, we realize, could not have had a beginning, and cannot have an
end: they are necessarily infinite, and, evidently, they are not
material. And physics teaches us that energy is conserved: it cannot
be created, and cannot be destroyed. Whatever amount of energy exists
now in the universe, must have always existed, and will continue to
exist forever: it is infinite. And energy in its radiant form
(photons) is not material, it has no mass, weight, or volume. Although
we cannot see it (we can only feel its effects), it affects powerfully
everything it touches. In other words, it has characteristics similar
to those ofGod.
The above arguments will probably not be accepted by some people who
have made a religion of not believing in anything, except atheism,
which is silly. It is easy to dismiss the existence ofGod, but doing
so, we are left with the difficult problem of explaining our own
sometime painful existence.
"A Brief Dialog onGod," by Thaddeus Stout (1969)
Q: "DoesGodexist?"
A: "If you think so."
I will take the liberty here of expanding on Stout's observation:
Q: "What do you mean by that?"
A: "I mean that it depends on what YOU personally mean by the word
'God,' and whether you personally accept that meaning as descriptive
of something that exists."
Q: "Are you being evasive?"
A: "I am saying that 'God' is a highly idiosyncratic term, perhaps the
most idiosyncratic term in all human language. No two people agree
completely on its meaning. Therefore any detailed analysis of that
meaning is itself meaningful only to one person."
Q: "Then are you trying to be scientific aboutGod?"
A: "Not at all. Science requires replicability and independence from
the observer. I am asserting that neither can be achieved in any
discussion of 'God'. One simply cannot be scientific about 'God' in
the absence of the logical requirements of science."
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Godis a spirit. Science, which deals with matter and material things,
is not the appropriate tool to investigate about things in the
spiritual realm. The spiritual realm is clearly in a different
dimension. We had no way to know aboutGodif He had not revealed
Himself. But there is ample historical evidence of His revelation.
Why does he only reveal himself to uneducated sheppards
and peasant's daughters?
Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That has not been the case at all.Godhas revealed Himself to many
people: extraordinary leaders, like Abraham and Moses, which, of
course, could not have had PhDs, because there no universities at the
time. But he has also revealed Himself to people with great talent and
education, and many of them have been made saints, like St. Thomas
Aquinas, St Augustine, and many others.
There are several different definitions ofGod
that are used in various conditions.
There is theGodof Deism that is equated
with nature and the physical universe and
the nature of physical law.
There is the general principle of goodness
which can sometimes be equated with
various phenomenon at times.
There is also theGodof the Bible, the
Torah, the Koran, or other religious books,
as well as gods in various polytheistic
religions such as Hinduism or some of the
more ancient religions.
Under many Deistic conceptions ofGod,
physics it the one true way of most directly
knowingGodfirsthand, by direct observation
ofGod'sprinciples in the handiwork thatGodhas generated. The Bible and organized
religion, by relying on secondhand text and
doctrine not founded upon direct observation,
leads men astray and divorces men from the
only true way that people may knowGod
to begin with.
There are a lot of different definitions ofGodthat are used at different times. There
are also a lot of people who consider the
Bible or other religious books to be spurious
and false, and to not in any way be truer
than a dime store novel. Under such
conditions, quoting from such texts
is meaningless, for one ends up
trying to prove a point by referencing
something that is considered to be
false to begin with.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It is not easy, but it is not impossible to learn something aboutGod.
We have to use our head.
In other words, you just make it up.
Yourgodis a minor one as most of the world's population is not aware
of him or pays any attention to him. Clearly then he is not omnipotent.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I told you,Godgave as complete freedom. But if we pay no attention
to His good advice, we usually get into trouble. I just think it is a
good idea to heed Him.
What about the other 2/3 of the world that does not acknowledge him?
Is he going to use them to play with or extract vengeance upon?
For a minorgod, he sure has pretensions of glory and power.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You made me laugh. God is our father, and He loves us, no matter what.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: About God
    ... infinite, immaterial being, who had no beginning and will have no end. ... have made a religion of not believing in anything, except atheism, ... 'God,' and whether you personally accept that meaning as descriptive ... "I am saying that 'God' is a highly idiosyncratic term, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: About God
    ... infinite, immaterial being, who had no beginning and will have no end. ... have made a religion of not believing in anything, except atheism, ... 'God,' and whether you personally accept that meaning as descriptive ... "I am saying that 'God' is a highly idiosyncratic term, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: About God
    ... infinite, immaterial being, who had no beginning and will have no end. ... have made a religion of not believing in anything, except atheism, ... 'God,' and whether you personally accept that meaning as descriptive ... "I am saying that 'God' is a highly idiosyncratic term, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: About God
    ... infinite, immaterial being, who had no beginning and will have no end. ... have made a religion of not believing in anything, except atheism, ... 'God,' and whether you personally accept that meaning as descriptive ... "I am saying that 'God' is a highly idiosyncratic term, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: About God
    ... infinite, immaterial being, who had no beginning and will have no end. ... have made a religion of not believing in anything, except atheism, ... 'God,' and whether you personally accept that meaning as descriptive ... "I am saying that 'God' is a highly idiosyncratic term, ...
    (sci.physics)