Do you believe in God ?

[Franco Verum]

You seem to have taken on the assumption, common in much of traditional Christianity, that God is a creator, completely outside and separate from "his" creation. But what if what we call "God" is really the "soul" of the universe, completely and intimately intertwined in all that is? In other words, inseparable, that there is no separation between the "creator" and the "created," that they are in fact one and the same, acting and moving in unison?

So how do you account for "Evil?"

And you seem to be on the assumption, common in eastern religions, that there are mystical dynamics at work where a God is not working or needed.
I practiced Buddhism when I left my Christian faith and I also know eastern beliefs to understand where you're coming from.

 

[Franco Verum]

Why should there even be this question, "WHO is this God?". If God is supposedly all powerful and can do anything and everything; all knowing who knows everything and how to do everything; is ever present and everywhere present, why is there absolutely zero empirical, direct, unambiguous evidence for this God? Backing into it with circumstantial or coincidental explanations is not evidence. I mean seriously, show the fuck up and actually be real for once. It can't be that hard if he can create a whole universe.

And no, I do not believe we are a simulation. People need to stop thinking we're "The Matrix".

The theories I named are not circumstantial and it takes more faith to believe these are all theories with a lot of coincidences than believing they give credence to a "God."

The Simulation Theory is a scientifically valid theory.
It's interesting and is probably the premise the Matrix movies are based on.

 

[opinterph]

There's enough scientific "hints" for a God

Science is a human invention.

"Simulation Theory" ... basically says that we are players in a game design

I think "game design" is a misleading characterization of simulation theory. It might help to dispense with the notion of trying to figure out who or what created the simulation and focus on its relative plausibility. Do you think reality is the ultimate truth and do you agree that the fundamental level of reality is based on non-algorithmic understanding?

how do you account for "Evil?"

God and evil can logically coexist.

 

[Rickrock]

You seem to have taken on the assumption, common in much of traditional Christianity, that God is a creator, completely outside and separate from "his" creation. But what if what we call "God" is really the "soul" of the universe, completely and intimately intertwined in all that is? In other words, inseparable, that there is no separation between the "creator" and the "created," that they are in fact one and the same, acting and moving in unison?

I think that you may be onto something here.

 

[Franco Verum]

Science is a human invention.

True, but scientific theories (I also love Quantum Entanglement, Gödel's Ontological Proof, and the Infinite Regress Theorem) can show there is a SOMETHING that is beyond ourselves.
My thinking is that since "God" is a SUPER natural being by His very existence, why think the natural sciences would prove his existence?

I think "game design" is a misleading characterization of simulation theory. It might help to dispense with the notion of trying to figure out who or what created the simulation and focus on its relative plausibility. Do you think reality is the ultimate truth and do you agree that the fundamental level of reality is based on non-algorithmic understanding?

It's a simplistic way of explaining the theory and no, I don't believe our existence in this reality is the ultimate truth. How would it be?

God and evil can logically coexist.

My point.

 

[opinterph]

I don't believe our existence in this reality is the ultimate truth. How would it be?

Human comprehension is somewhat limited to the biological systems with which we observe the universe. For instance, our senses do not enable us to perceive X-rays or radio waves, but that does not imply they are not present in the environment at times. Our conscious experience tends to develop a set of assumptions that facilitate our interpretation of the world we inhabit and our exploration of the meaning and existence of lived experience.

Reality encompasses the entirety of existence, excluding imaginary entities. Although imagination can be considered real, the extent to which we rely on it to determine truth corresponds to the extent to which we incorporate those imaginings into our assumptions.

Your reference to “this” reality suggests the possibility of multiple realities. While it is plausible that each individual has interacted through their experiences to create their own unique reality—as my mind imagines it—a global reality encompasses all of these individual viewpoints and comprehensions. In my opinion, we all reside within the same reality, although we may not necessarily arrive at the same interpretations or conclusions. To the extent that we possess knowledge and a proper understanding of reality, we are better equipped to live contentedly and attain desired outcomes.

Essentially, reality excludes imaginary entities. It is understood through observation. Imagination is a process that generates mental images of things that are not perceived by the senses or deemed to be real.

Our existence in reality is how we discern what is authentic.

 

[Franco Verum]

Human comprehension is somewhat limited to the biological systems with which we observe the universe. For instance, our senses do not enable us to perceive X-rays or radio waves, but that does not imply they are not present in the environment at times. Our conscious experience tends to develop a set of assumptions that facilitate our interpretation of the world we inhabit and our exploration of the meaning and existence of lived experience.

Reality encompasses the entirety of existence, excluding imaginary entities. Although imagination can be considered real, the extent to which we rely on it to determine truth corresponds to the extent to which we incorporate those imaginings into our assumptions.

Your reference to “this” reality suggests the possibility of multiple realities. While it is plausible that each individual has interacted through their experiences to create their own unique reality—as my mind imagines it—a global reality encompasses all of these individual viewpoints and comprehensions. In my opinion, we all reside within the same reality, although we may not necessarily arrive at the same interpretations or conclusions. To the extent that we possess knowledge and a proper understanding of reality, we are better equipped to live contentedly and attain desired outcomes.

Essentially, reality excludes imaginary entities. It is understood through observation. Imagination is a process that generates mental images of things that are not perceived by the senses or deemed to be real.

Our existence in reality is how we discern what is authentic.

A few random points.

We don't all completely share the same reality outside of biology, the flesh, and rock. In part, it's subjective because each of us processes reality differently, with each individual having unique filters that shape their own reality. Is your reality more real than mine? Is mine more real than yours? "Reality" is not static like you believe. I claim tangible proof that my life has undergone a radical transformation, thanks to what I call a divine Christian intervention. My "reality" is shared by untold numbers of people across time and existences that had no contact with each other. How is that possible? How do you explain that with the sciences? You can't.

You say "imaginary beings," but can you prove these beings don't exist? No, you can't. You can only go as far as saying you assume they don't exist because they don't exist for YOU, but you can't say they don't exist.


Years ago, I stopped doing two things. Debating the existence of a God to unbelievers in my faith because I saw it as wasting my time, and debating believers in my faith who believed we needed to follow the old rules of the Hebrew Bible. If a common premise isn't established (believing IN a God or living FOR a God outside dead laws of the Abrahamic texts), I don't see the point of arguing for Jesus, the Son of God, or the acceptance of homosexuality from the Bible if you're just going to keep running to Leviticus.

I'm going to go back to that because I've had my fill of years with having these types of endless debates.

 

[Araucaria]

I have thought about responding to some of the things you have said, but I'm not sure that's the best approach at this point. You'll respond to something I said, and then I'll have to respond to your response, etc. It's probably due to the human ego, but we always seem to think we can out-argue each other to the truth, as if that in itself is the way to "salvation." But that's largely illusion, because people will always see things differently.

Coming in these religion threads is sort of like the Just Us Boys equivalent of the apostle Paul debating at the Areopagus. It is widely regarded as his best philosophical speech (aside from I Corinthians 13, of course). But it is also generally regarded as an instance in which he was least effective. Why? Do you remember the response of the Athenians? "Cool, dude! Come back tomorrow and talk. We love having someone we can argue with." He didn't win too many converts there. As for the Religion and Philosophy Forum, many of the JUB members that congregate around these threads tend to be worldly-wise and skeptical, and non-religious if not anti-religious.

But if you pay attention, there do seem to be a good number of JUBBERS who are Christians, they just don't do a lot of posting, at least in the religion and philosophy threads. They might say something general like "I believe in God" and then disappear from the threads. There are also members in the Member Appreciation Forum that might occasionally mention something like they plan to attend church. They don't like to argue, they just have their quiet faith. Trust me, they're here.

 

[opinterph]

each of us processes reality differently, with each individual having unique filters that shape their own reality.

Or to put it another way …

​

Our conscious experience tends to develop a set of assumptions that facilitate our interpretation of the world we inhabit and our exploration of the meaning and existence of lived experience.​

"Reality" is not static like you believe.

I challenge you to search this entire online forum and find a single instance where I posted the term, “I believe” outside the context of quoting someone else.

You say "imaginary beings,"

Again, you seem to be responding to something that isn't present in the discussion. Only 1 member has posted the term “imaginary beings” in this thread and that was about 9 years ago.

 

[Franco Verum]

[/QUOTE]
"... You seem to be responding to something that isn't present in the discussion. Only 1 member has posted the term “imaginary beings” in this thread and that was about 9 years ago."
[/QUOTE]

You wrote "imaginary entities." Beings, entities, is there a distinction I'm missing?

 

[Franco Verum]

I have thought about responding to some of the things you have said, but I'm not sure that's the best approach at this point. You'll respond to something I said, and then I'll have to respond to your response, etc. It's probably due to the human ego, but we always seem to think we can out-argue each other to the truth, as if that in itself is the way to "salvation." But that's largely illusion, because people will always see things differently.

Coming in these religion threads is sort of like the Just Us Boys equivalent of the apostle Paul debating at the Areopagus. It is widely regarded as his best philosophical speech (aside from I Corinthians 13, of course). But it is also generally regarded as an instance in which he was least effective. Why? Do you remember the response of the Athenians? "Cool, dude! Come back tomorrow and talk. We love having someone we can argue with." He didn't win too many converts there. As for the Religion and Philosophy Forum, many of the JUB members that congregate around these threads tend to be worldly-wise and skeptical, and non-religious if not anti-religious.

But if you pay attention, there do seem to be a good number of JUBBERS who are Christians, they just don't do a lot of posting, at least in the religion and philosophy threads. They might say something general like "I believe in God" and then disappear from the threads. There are also members in the Member Appreciation Forum that might occasionally mention something like they plan to attend church. They don't like to argue, they just have their quiet faith. Trust me, they're here.

I'm not sure what you're saying here? This debate is someone making a claim for a God, and the other giving his opposing view. I see nothing wrong with having a CIVIL discussion about God in a JUB "Religious/Spiritual" forum MEANT SPECIFICALLY for this discussion.
If you read the end of my post, you would see that I AM the one ending this debate and I give the reason why.
They just aren't fruitful.

I also don't understand you bringing up other Christians on this site? Did you think I believe I was the only Christian here? There's probably more than I think. In no way, shape or form, was I arguing. Show me where you think you see it?
I do have the unique position of being in ministry, and that separates me from other Christian believers here.

 

[opinterph]

You wrote "imaginary entities." Beings, entities, is there a distinction I'm missing?

Regarding imaginary beings, I acknowledge that the terms “beings” and “entities” can be used interchangeably.

I do not assert the nonexistence of imaginary entities. Rather, I contend that they are not integral to reality, although they manifest in the minds of individuals who conceive of them.

Perhaps a more precise statement would be that all forms of mental imagery are not part of reality, while I do recognize conscious experience as being a component of reality.

If individuals in my vicinity believe in the existence of God, then God’s energy is present in the location where I find myself. Does this imply that God is a part of reality in that specific location?

If a tree falls in a forest without any human presence to perceive it, does it produce a sound?

 

[Franco Verum]

I said I wouldn't continue this.
Please understand me, I have a reputation on social media of ripping a new asshole to the "anti-gay Christian." I came here for respite of the "Christian" hate I get, but I also knew that what I would not be well received here. I KNOW the hurt many here have, rightfully, received from the "Ugly Christian" that poisoned them to the God of the Bible, but it was that same Bible God that saved my life:

Blog Author's Story

gay christian

www.rottenqueerchristian.com

I don't know what to say after this.

I was a broken toy. It took a man named Jesus to put those pieces together.