God exists

[MagisterCultuum]

I usually find Mechanicalsalvation's posts nonsensical, but he is right on this one.

16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

Calvinists do seem like they would have to fall into the liar category, not only because of their attitude towards humans but also because they tend present the deity as pretty much the worst monster imaginable.

 

[Tahuti]

"Love God and hate man" is a pretty fair summary of Calvinism.

I sincerely doubt we embraced Calvinism in the past because of its theological views. Rather, because it probably was easier to lapse from Calvinist theology than to lapse from Papal authority.

 

[Naokaukodem]

My point is that if you study the thoughts people have about an object and not the object instead - you are going to learn what people think about the object.. and not anything about the object itself.

As such what you learn might or might not correspond to reality, since you didn't study it. It does however correspond fully to other people's thoughts, which is fine, but you can't claim otherwise.

There is a set of logics in people thoughts. Logic is the same for everybody. Now you can still make objections, but you will do it only if you have already a conviction. (or a doubt in its place) And convictions are obtained mostly by talking to your entourage as you integrate slowly what is said, being agreed or making objections.

Basically most objections have been made throught history, you are not a particular case. And an answer have been found for each of them. It's mostly about which one will you hear first or well, after having reach a particular degree of sincerity / understanding / faith.

Also, every thought on the word of God contains the word of God, so you can study it all you want.

 

[warpus]

I am not sure what you are trying to say, but I've read through it twice and it doesn't seem to be related to what I was trying to say. So I'm going to assume that there's a misunderstanding happening here of some sort.

 

[Traitorfish]

I sincerely doubt we embraced Calvinism in the past because of its theological views. Rather, because it probably was easier to lapse from Calvinist theology than to lapse from Papal authority.

Well, it probably helps that the Scots hated everyone before the Reformation, so it didn't require any great revision to our habits or attitudes.

 

[bhavv]

There is a set of logics in people thoughts. Logic is the same for everybody. Now you can still make objections, but you will do it only if you have already a conviction. (or a doubt in its place) And convictions are obtained mostly by talking to your entourage as you integrate slowly what is said, being agreed or making objections.

Basically most objections have been made throught history, you are not a particular case. And an answer have been found for each of them. It's mostly about which one will you hear first or well, after having reach a particular degree of sincerity / understanding / faith.

Every thought on the word of God contains the word of God, so you can study it all you want.

No you are wrong. No two people are going to have the exact same idea of what god is, unless they are listening to and simply following the ideas of others (religion). God is purely a thought construct only, the possibility of such a concept as described by the abrahamic religions being real is incredibly unprobable.

 

[Narz]

Each of us begins somewhere with at least one unprovable assumption, often more. From there we build our world views and ideas on god, religion, science and evidence.

God (or Dog if you prefer) alone is REAL: Infinite, eternal, permanent and unchanging.

Nothing is "Infinite, eternal, permanent and unchanging" so God must be nothing.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I usually find Mechanicalsalvation's posts nonsensical...

Well

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Nothing is "Infinite, eternal, permanent and unchanging" so God must be nothing.

Great, God is Nothing then .Or you could say everything is "limited, perishing and mutable" so God must be everything...

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

There is a set of logics in people thoughts. Logic is the same for everybody. Now you can still make objections, but you will do it only if you have already a conviction. (or a doubt in its place) And convictions are obtained mostly by talking to your entourage as you integrate slowly what is said, being agreed or making objections.

Basically most objections have been made throught history, you are not a particular case. And an answer have been found for each of them. It's mostly about which one will you hear first or well, after having reach a particular degree of sincerity / understanding / faith.

Every thought on the word of God contains the word of God, so you can study it all you want.

Since God isnt just a mental concept what makes you say that logic has a last say on it?

No you are wrong. No two people are going to have the exact same idea of what god is, unless they are listening to and simply following the ideas of others (religion). God is purely a thought construct only, the possibility of such a concept as described by the abrahamic religions being real is incredibly unprobable.

Any religion or spiritual path in its outer form is just something to get you started. The actual God-discovery isnt happening on purely mental plane (even thought that too is true) but through supramental or overmental understanding. Intelect is amazing but its not the end of terestrial evolution and sooner or later there will be manifeted more potent ways for us to understand truth and reality which for now arnt inteligeble to most of us.

 

[Borachio]

I have this theory (actually it isn't mine, but I forget where I first heard it) that everyone is God but me.

Clearly I'm not God. I mean, I've not one miracle to my credit, I'm plainly not omniscient, nor omnipotent, and I'm not particularly benevolent. I think we can all agree on that.

So, go on God, admit it. It's you, isn't it?

Now, about this hell you've created for me...

Spoiler :

I was joking! In fact, parts of it aren't at all bad. So, nice work, you!

 

[bhavv]

So something isn't happening even though its true?

Please stop, your posts are indeed nonsensical, as I find all theists to be. You couldn't convince me into your way of thought even if you were Jesus.

 

[bhavv]

I have this theory (actually it isn't mine, but I forget where I first heard it) that everyone is God but me.

Clearly I'm not God. I mean, I've not one miracle to my credit, I'm plainly not omniscient, nor omnipotent, and I'm not particularly benevolent. I think we can all agree on that.

So, go on God, admit it. It's you, isn't it?

Now, about this hell you've created for me...

Oh its from one of those moral stories, I cant remember which either.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I have this theory (actually it isn't mine, but I forget where I first heard it) that everyone is God but me.

Clearly I'm not God. I mean, I've not one miracle to my credit, I'm plainly not omniscient, nor omnipotent, and I'm not particularly benevolent. I think we can all agree on that.

So, go on God, admit it. It's you, isn't it?

Now, about this hell you've created for me...

Spoiler :

I was joking! In fact, parts of it aren't at all bad. So, nice work, you!

My theory is that humans were created by a divine intern.

 

[bhavv]

But which came first, the sperm or the egg?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Both came at the same time. The divine photocopier was working, which is a miracle all in itself.

 

[Borachio]

I think I'm going with the egg came first. But I'd have to consult a microbiologist to be sure.

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=10321

Hmm. Well. Mebbe.

 

[bhavv]

My qualifications say I am one of those, but I have no way of telling which one originally came first.

 

[Borachio]

Ah. But are you a practicing microbiologist? Or do you "just" have a first degree in it?

 

[bhavv]

I haz a BSc! I am intelligent.

Right original reproduction would have been asexual / genderless, but then what about when the genders diverged? Egg first or sperm?