Sometimes an ocean or large expense of water doesnt necessarily means what is understood by it today. It could also mean universe itself with "water" as its unidentified substance.
In the Beginning...
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
Well even the theory of evolution is evolving so I dont see any need why it should square with Bible.
O.K. I have just read the first few lines from Genesis and its clear the account of creation is a methaphore and interpretative and not any exhausting description of what happened. But so is our theory of evolution to some extent simply becouse we dont know the whole formula and equation for the existence. The demand for explanation calls for religious, scientific, philosophical interpretations and there is likely to be a truth in all of them.
The claim that there is a singular infinite Source for everything seems perfectly natural becouse of the many various harmonies in existence. Only the interpretation of what is its nature can be seen differently depending if looked at through religion or science.
Actually you cant have no god at all. Just like this universe is expanding the human nature is build around the same dynamics. If you refuse God or gods your own ego or desires are going to be playing that role.
Since when? I manage just fine without one.
Since when? I manage just fine without one.
No you cant live without it. Just like I have put it above: if I take your desires and your ego away you are as a human being finnished. What you can do fine without is a certain interpretation of what God is which is fine because while there may be some practical truth there it cant describe/represent the whole.
I've been atheist for most of my life. While I read fiction books for fun, I don't live my life by fictitious characters. And to me, God is a fictitious character.
Why not? We can observe that in nature too some processes can be speed up and there are some occult processes going on as well.
The thing is that God is essentialy a Spirit or consciousness and matter is therefore an inverted form of it. The natural laws to manipulate matter are innate to infinnite consciousness while the opposite way it happens only through long and ardous process - an evolution.
Occult?! Links, please, to reputable scientific journals where these observations are reported.
Water can't turn into wine all by itself, and no, it doesn't happen by magic.
Thats fine but your desires arent and thats why you dont hesitate to satisfy them by reading a fiction...
I've been atheist for most of my life. While I read fiction books for fun, I don't live my life by fictitious characters. And to me, God is a fictitious character.
Fiction is just another name for dream, vision or mental expansion and visualisation. We have to imagine first what we want to achieve and then only we can try to accomplish it. God simply represents both highest vision and supreme accomplishment.
I give you personal story instead and then you can link some reputable scientific journals which explaine my experience.
Some years ago I have developed pain in my upper back rather suddenly. It lasted for almost two weeks and made me quite misserable at work. I gave up the idea it will eventually go away and started making arrangments for doctor when my colleague who worked only very irregulary appeared and who happend to be a some sort of a healer. Well he just put his fingers on the affected spot and in a second the pain was gone. The end.
I dont believe in magic. What I believe is that there are various natural forces which are to our knowledge and nature supernatural but which are eventually bound to become completely normal in the process of evolution. Than even turning water into wine may look like something quite ordinary.
If we're positing an omnipotent God, he absolutely could do that, no questions asked. No one has ever adequately said why, other than conforming to the Genesis narrative.
An issue with the 'omnipotent god' is that anything actually conscious is separated in some degree from what it is conscious of. It can be one with it or the whole being its own (eg our body is our own) but then it isn't omnipotent in this manner, much like we aren't omnipotent/conscious of our own bodies cells morphing in time, or a myriad other developments in out body past some level. At least in human-think. So even if an omnipotent god exists, the term would not be tied to the one we have, and effectively be meaningless imo.
I am agnostic, yet i really doubt an 'omnipotent' being is possible in this way, if we mean a conscious being. Maybe a god as in tautology with the whole of the cosmos is more logical (view of Parmenides, etc).
I am agnostic, yet i really doubt an 'omnipotent' being is possible in this way, if we mean a conscious being. Maybe a god as in tautology with the whole of the cosmos is more logical (view of Parmenides, etc).
The term itself, 'god', is part of the meaning. And it likely the term and its undercurrent is not common to all people, past some epidermic level (like with any other term). 
One could suggest it is a notion tied to limits.
One could suggest it is a notion tied to limits.
This is just more pretzel-twisty reasoning to make the Bible "accurate"... I have been hearing this kind of thing since I was a kid. Whenever the Bible is clearly, obviously, wrong, the folks who are obligated to believe that it is infallible will say that its not wrong, its just a metaphor for something else. So everything that is right is literal, and everything that is wrong is not wrong, its just metaphorical. "Earth" doesn't mean the planet Earth, it means the universe... or it means the dry land only, and not the water or the land underneath the water... "And "water" doesn't mean "water" it means space, or the universe, and "heavens" doesn't mean the sky, it means space, or some extra dimensional plane of existence...
I'm sticking with the simple explanation that the Genesis account should be interpreted literally, and the person who wrote it meant it as a literal explanation for the origin of the universe. It made perfect sense to him at the time, based on his very limited understanding of the world around him when he wrote the story, and that's fine. But now we know that his story is obviously wrong.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,644
Why are you equating desires and ego with a God? That makes no sense. In any case, you could take away my desires and ego by bashing my head in with a rock and leaving me in a vegetative state. Yes, as a human being I would be finished, but the Universe would carry on just fine. Where's the necessity for God in any of this?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
The people who were writing these passages could not have really known about the universe as a concept and as such worded Genesis in terms the target audience would be most comfortable with. Their target audience were likely not scientists or philosophers, just regular folk who farm goats or something. It didn't need to be 100% logically accurate, it just needed to convey the desired meaning to a relatively uneducated group of people: In the beginning God created everything. The details were not as important, as long as the story more or less made sense. Who was going to question God anyway? The story conveys the intended message well enough and that's all the original authors cared about.
That's a pretty funny joke, or rather a completely non-funny joke.
Millions of people live just fine without God.
Lexicus
Deity
It is not that much of a mystery. We know the atmosphere has oxygen in it because of photosynthesis by cyanobacteria, for example. We know the ocean probably started out as vapor, largely expelled from the planet's interior by volcanic eruptions, and - when it was cool enough - condensing into clouds and falling as rain (for hundreds of years) to become the oceans. The atmosphere itself was formed by the action of volcanoes.
God is understood to be not only the creator but also the preserver. If you look at our human psychology you will see we need something to fulfill our lives to function properly. This fulfilment usually takes form of an expansion. I dont need to bash your head with rock to send you to vegetative state but I can do the same if I find a way to take away your ego and desires unless you find away to function dynamicaly without an ego in some desireless state of consciousness. And that is precisely what spirituality claims about God. But before one can be in that state of mind one usually needs to go through the desire process. In a sense God is preserving our lives through our desires.
Fiction = stories. My "desires" are none of your business. I read fiction because it's enjoyable. Just because I read The Handmaid's Tale, that doesn't mean I want to live in the Republic of Gilead. Far from it; that's a horrible place to live. You might like it, though.
I also read nonfiction. My goal is to learn things, when I read nonfiction.
Apparently you do believe in magic. And no, I'm not going to link anything to explain your experience. I'm not a psychiatrist, and I'm not a doctor. I have no business diagnosing you or offering medical advice, and in fact, doing so is frowned on, on this forum.
So if supernatural natural forces are eventually bound to become completely normal, including turning water into wine, why haven't all the oceans and lakes and rivers turned into wine? By your "logic" all you need is water and time, right?
I'm no wine-maker. I don't even drink the stuff. But I do know that to make it, you need more than just water and a magic spell.
Thats true if God would mean only some silly mental conception but I doubt thats the case.
Similar threads
