This is only my deffinition, and I don't carve this in stone it just seems to make sense...God is everything and everyone, including you and me, but you and I are not God. We are only a part of the creator, the creator is us...make sense to you?
God is the marvel of nature, it is the intelligence behind the driving force.
But to get directly to the point of your question. God is the answer to why. Science can tell us how things come to exist, and what steps made them possable. But it can not tell us why.
God is why in my opinion.
God is a concept
Thanks, I appreciate it.And I'm not saying God doesn't exist, just that frankly, it doesn't matter to me cause I'm gonna die at some point either way.
Again very eloquent. I agree. It doesn't matter because it changes nothin.g
Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more?
When people talk about god they seem to be talking about one of two things.
They are either talking about a "real", physical god, a divine being whose powers or type of existence transcends normal scientific law, or they are talking about a state of total perfection/supreme power
When people talk about god they seem to be talking about one of two things.
They are either talking about a "real", physical god, a divine being whose powers or type of existence transcends normal scientific law, or they are talking about a state of total perfection/supreme power
AliJ, et al,
The belief in "God" is in the realm of the spiritual and supernatural. It is not based on reality in the sense that it is a physical object which can be presented for scientific study.
"God" has no universal definition. Its existence cannot be proven and is not self-evident.
The question itself implies that "there is a God;" a belief in existence.
Each of these human assigned qualities and characteristics presents its own paradox. But the debate on the existence of a SB is a theological exercise; not scientific.
Most Respectfully,
R
The belief in "God" is in the realm of the spiritual and supernatural. It is not based on reality in the sense that it is a physical object which can be presented for scientific study.
"God" has no universal definition. Its existence cannot be proven and is not self-evident.
(COMMENT)
The question itself implies that "there is a God;" a belief in existence.
The term (The God) generally implies a single Supreme Being (SB), an immortal with supernatural powers, and a Being which is both omniscient and omnipotent (implying omnipresence); the essence representing eternal truth and the source of infinity.
In most cultures, the mental premise holds that the SB is a benevolent creator of the human soul, the grand designer of life (intelligent design), and the source of first motion (responsible for the Universe and all its composition). The SB has a direct connection to (concept of) the eternal soul; establishing a direct relationship to man.
In most cultures, the mental premise holds that the SB is a benevolent creator of the human soul, the grand designer of life (intelligent design), and the source of first motion (responsible for the Universe and all its composition). The SB has a direct connection to (concept of) the eternal soul; establishing a direct relationship to man.
Each of these human assigned qualities and characteristics presents its own paradox. But the debate on the existence of a SB is a theological exercise; not scientific.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
I completely agree, there is no scientific descussion to have about God because there is no science that could ever or will ever prove anything regarding god. God can only exist if something could exist with no proof, since proof is necessary God can not exist in the strictest sense. Just like belief has no place in science, science has no place in belief as well
Agreed. Everything that is, ever was and ever shall be. An entity which encompasses all that is the Natural Universe and all that is outside of it. An entity so vast, that it is as impossible for mankind to comprehend as it is for an amoeba to comprehend the Earth.
This is a nice way of saying all religions are simply one facet of God. There is no such thing as "the true religion". They are all simply human perspectives of God.
God likes to kill. He wanted his 'chosen few' to slaughter men, women, oxen, and asses in the cities that he gave permission for the Israelites to 'cleanse'. Of course, the bounty (meaning gold, sliver, and copper) were to be taken for his glory, and the virgins to be raped (if they were worthy, meaning young and good looking). Damn, even I can get behind this religion. I have no idea why squares are into it...
Does that mean you are going to file a complaint?
First, the Bible was written by men, so by that very nature it's biased and not an exact or completely truthful depiction of God.
Second, calling a person who believes in God a "square" is not only biased itself, but oddly archaic.
First, the Bible was written by men, so by that very nature it's biased and not an exact or completely truthful depiction of God.
Second, calling a person who believes in God a "square" is not only biased itself, but oddly archaic.
Similar threads
