There is a god

"Yet, it could still theoretically (if you would have had the information of every particle in the universe including every cell of my brain) to completely forsee I would do this. The trick is, you can't have all that information."

Zap,

This is reflective of the Holographic Paradigm; simplified it states that the Universe acts as a piece of holographic film...containing the entire "image" (or information) in even the smallest piece (or particle) of the holographic film (Universe).

Pretty cool theory.

 

V-Darthavich-Lenin wrote
"So, could God choose to cease to exist, if he wanted to?"

G-D can never cease to exist. G-D knows this. Even if He is able to cease to exist, it can never be forever. If he ever chose to be nonexistant, He knows He'd exist again at some point.

and...
"If yes, what would happen if he so chose?"

Well, being unbound by time means He can cease to exist when He wants and have what seems like an eternity to review any timeline...seeming to never ever have been away from any timeline...err. That is a bit tough to explain properly. Maybe a few drinks are in order.

and
"If no, doesn?t it thus limit his power?"

First I'd say I highly doubt, even if having the choice, G-D would ever want to cease to exist again. Second, I'd say there is no power in nonexistence. There is power in existence. Therefore nonexitence does not equate a loss, or limit, of power. How does that sound, Darth Dane?

MasterZap wrote
"Yet, it could still theoretically (if you would have had the information of every particle in the universe including every cell of my brain) to completely forsee I would do this. The trick is, you can't have all that information."

The trick is to veil everything you know so deep that it seems things are chaotic and random. Having all the information is simple. The second trick is in maintaining that veil...i.e. subconsciousness to the nth degree. Eluding to the holographic film, even though all the information is on the film, the trick is developing it in way that the only known is the history. Hmmm develop the holographic film along a timeline? Sounds nice.

G-D

 

For those who know a little special relativity and string theory, the concept of unfolding dimensions is nothing new.

My personal theory is that the time dimension is unfolding and expanding, just like the spatial dimensions have been measured to do (and string theory predicts it does), i.e. it's an ever growing loop.

The loop point at which the "new" time is created is what we call "now". Hence all time exists as a loop with the end point in "now" going all the way to the past to the Big Bang, where it loops back onto itself, meaning, the Big Bang is exactly one unit of planck-time into the future, always, indefinitiley.

This makes ultimate causality null and void because what causes the Big Bang is everythign and anything that happens in the now, and all that matter and energy you had trouble what it "came from", well, it's the same matter and energy that is here and now.

Of course, there are more dimensions to this, and you have to keep in mind that according to special relativity, the only permissible speeed in the universe is the speed of light.

/Z

 

I am an acsist (if you can spell please correct me)
And my theroy is people always have relgion to explain the un explainable

Like the indians they had a sun god cause the couldnt explain the sun ect.

Well no one understands existence and death so thats were the new agee relgions come with only 1 god instaed of 100 gods

 

the uncertainty principle can be dispelled as an argument against determinism, i think, due to the fact the uncertainty is... uncertain -- because of us, the limitations of our brain and how we can percieve things with our senses and the manner in which we must set up experiments and so forth. then there's that whole muliverse thing, too.

 

The multiverse idea kind of sort of allows for free will as well... technically all possibilities of every action, not just human ones, but the movement of subatomic particles and other extremely minute actions, take place. Thing is, each variation designates a new universe, and it's next to impossible to predict which exact possibility will happen in "our" universe.

 

Where did God come from?

 

The overactive imagination of cavemen.

It was a commendable, yet ultimately flawed, first staggering step on the path to understanding the world around them. (That some still stick to that path baffles me)

/Z

 

The overactive imagination of cavemen.

The striking similarity readily observable when comparing the gods and goddesses of ancient peoples can hardly be attributed to chance.


I thought this interesting.

J. Garnier writes: ?Not merely Egyptians, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans, but also the Hindus, the Buddhists of China and of Thibet, the Goths, Anglo-Saxons, Druids, Mexicans and Peruvians, the Aborigines of Australia, and even the savages of the South Sea Islands, must have all derived their religious ideas from a common source and a common centre. Everywhere we find the most startling coincidences in rites, ceremonies, customs, traditions, and in the names and relations of their respective gods and goddesses.?

?The Worship of the Dead, London, 1904, p. 3.

 

Could you perhaps give specific examples that we can debate and maybe better hope to understand?

 

I would also be interested to see more on this.

I do not think it is at all surprising to see different groups of the the same species grapple with this fundamental idea of our role in the universe, and how it all came about. It would be stranger if we hadn't all thought about it.

Each society seems to have created explanations based on the world they saw around them - scaled up and given a 'universal' significance. For example, taking the attributes of animals - strength, stealth, cunning etc, and creating 'ideal' versions embodied in animal like entities, or perhaps in gods which took a human form. These gods may have been independent of each other, or they may have been placed in a context - a society of gods essentially based on a human society (ie one god acting like a King or tribal chief, with dominion over a number of lessor gods).

Alternatively the ideal attributes, including most importantly the power over life and death, could be personified in a single figure. In any event it seems that the 'gods' take their form from the emerging society that creates them - a spiritual world which reflects the very material world our ancestors saw all around them. Its a fascinating topic.

 

I've always had this analogy of God to a abusive husband. He beats us down with circumstances and events in our life, then when we ask questions, we are dismissed as being unworthy and having uncomprehending finite minds that should appreciate all the vagauries of his existence he has given us.

I know he exists, because of a experiance that's recently happend in my life. I just haven't been capable of mustering the intellect to refute my own misconception of the God/abusive husband comparison.

<[-]> Saber

 

Now we see before us the essense of what drives humanity to feel the connection to it all. The Force.
The energy that all matter is made of. We are made of the same fundamental energy as the water we drink, as the sun that tans our skin, as the moon above...we are part of everything...that is what we have been striving to understand since the dawn of civilized man.

Why "God"? Because that notion helps us to relate. The personification gives the human mind something to relate to. The reality is ...all matter is nothing more than frequencies of energy. "There is no spoon."

 

Could you perhaps give specific examples that we can debate and maybe better hope to understand?

Not sure I understand what it is you are asking.
Could you please clarify?

 

The overactive imagination of cavemen.

PPOR.

Unless you have a) spoken to cavemen, or b) read documents that they wrote, I would appreciate you not making up statements like this in an attempt to ridicule the other side of an argument without any proof to back it up. I realize that to do this would require you to rethink your entire debating style, but give it a shot. You might just like rational and respectful discourse.

M. Scott

 

Michael, check out my much more elaborate discussion on this issue (more specifically, the faith of the African San people - "Bushmen" in laymens terms) over in ye olde atheists thread.

/Z

 

Qui-Rune said...
" Now we see before us the essense of what drives humanity to feel the connection to it all. The Force."

Ive said time and time again that the Force, as described in Star Wars, is as close as it gets. I dont mean using the abilities to move objects or anything, though the system is highly capable of such actions, but in that the Force encompasses everything. And more importantly, everything is connected to everything else. The Force is with you...use it...but dont abuse it.

and...
" Why "God"?"

Something else I've said is that to many people, G-D is undefinable because to them G-D incorporates, or handles, the things they dont know about. I'd propose that if you were to ask any scientist to use the word G-D to describe their unknowns, no matter how much they'ce uncovered, there'd be G-D all over the place. To some, G-D is the frequency which somehow tells you everything is part of everything else. It's like hearing some theories about strings and only one of them rings true. Or, if you will, spoken in tongues.

SaberGiiett wrote...
" I've always had this analogy of God to a abusive husband.... I just haven't been capable of mustering the intellect to refute my own misconception of the God/abusive husband comparison. "

Well, no need for intellect, really. In fact there's never ever been a need for reason or anything but thats a whole separate thread. In your statement, you openly admit to thinking your analogy is misconceived. You dont need anyone to point out why or how to change your analogy. You seem to already know it's a misconception. But try this. It seems to me that your analogy stems from original sin and that we're, as you say, beings to be dismissed or kept down. All I can do is add a different option. There are some fathers, mothers, parents who are intrigued to learn what their children learn. That a 70 year old dad, instead of abusing their child, asks what that child has learned. Not to intrude, but to learn or get a more in depth sense of things. That parent encourages their child to do what they want and letting that child know there is nothing to fear....there can be no wrong. So, as far as the parental analogies go, maybe thats another way to see things.

G-D

 

darthOB1

I mean specific examples of the "coincidences in rites, ceremonies, customs, traditions, and in the names and relations of their respective gods and goddesses." Maybe upon debate it would be found that some of those things are obvious or a stretch to say that they probably came from a common source, or maybe we will find that they are so similar that there had to be some connection (maybe that connection will be travelers, maybe that connection is a god).

 

Well Ok.

The only thing is that the statemnet I made earlier was an extremely brief summary of the correlation. This is going to be rather lengthy, so stay with me.

The evidence of Scripture points to the land of Shinar as the post-Flood birthplace of false religious concepts. Undoubtedly under the direction of Nimrod.

After God confused the people languages they were scattered throughout the earth. However, Nimrod apparently remained at Babel and expanded his dominion, founding the first Babylonian Empire. As for the scattered people, wherever they went they carried their false religion with them, to be practiced under new terms and in their new language and new locations.

Today, there is hardly a nation on the earth that does not have a legend concerning a global flood, and traces of the tower-building account are likewise to be found in the legends of mankind.

Now let's examine some of the different cultural aspects of deities. Keeping in mind the dissention of world powers throughout time.

Babylonian Deities

After the death of Nimrod, the Babylonians reasonably would have been inclined to hold him in high regard as the founder and builder and first king of their city and as the organizer of the original Babylonian Empire. Tradition has it that Nimrod died a violent death. Since the god Marduk (Merodach) was regarded as the founder of Babylon, it has been suggested by some that Marduk represents the deified Nimrod. However, the opinions of scholars as to the identification of deities with specific humans are quite varied.

With the passage of time, the gods of the first Babylonian Empire began to multiply. The pantheon came to have a number of triads of gods, or deities. One such triad was composed of Anu (the god of the sky), Enlil (the god of the earth, air, and storm), and Ea (the god presiding over the waters). Another triad was that of the moon-god Sin, the sun-god Shamash, and the fertility goddess Ishtar, the lover or consort of Tammuz. The Babylonians even had triads of devils, such as the triad of Labartu, Labasu, and Akhkhazu. The worship of heavenly bodies became prominent (Isa 47:13), and various planets came to be associated with certain deities. The planet Jupiter was identified with the chief god of Babylon, Marduk; Venus with Ishtar, a goddess of love and fertility; Saturn with Ninurta, a god of war and hunting and patron of agriculture; Mercury with Nebo, a god of wisdom and agriculture; Mars with Nergal, a god of war and pestilence and lord of the underworld.

The cities of ancient Babylonia came to have their own special guardian deities, somewhat like ?patron saints.? In Ur it was Sin; in Eridu, Ea; in Nippur, Enlil; in Cuthah, Nergal; in Borsippa, Nebo, and in the city of Babylon, Marduk (Merodach). At the time that Hammurabi made Babylon the capital of Babylonia, the importance of the city?s favorite god Marduk was, of course, enhanced. Finally Marduk was given the attribute of earlier gods and displaced them in the Babylonian myths. In later periods his proper name ?Marduk? was supplanted by the title ?Belu? (?Owner?), so that finally he was commonly spoken of as Bel. His wife was called Belit (?Mistress,? par excellence)

Assyrian Deities.

Generally speaking, the Assyrian gods and goddesses are identical with the Babylonian deities. However, one deity, Asshur, the chief god, seems to have been peculiar to the Assyrian pantheon. Since Assyria takes its name from Asshur, it has been suggested that this god is actually Shem?s son named Asshur, deified by false worshipers.?Ge 10:21, 22.

Unlike the Babylonian Marduk, who was also worshiped in Assyria but whose seat of worship always remained in the city of Babylon, Asshur?s seat of worship changed as the kings of Assyria took up official residence in other cities. Also, sanctuaries to Asshur were built in various parts of Assyria. A military standard was Asshur?s primary symbol, and this was carried right into the thick of the battle. The winged circle, or disk, from which the figure of a beard

 

Did you just copy and paste another's article without credit? Wow.

Just wanted to chime and commend MasterZap for being the most intelligent forum poster I've ever encountered.

 

Time is not a luxery that I have that much of anymore, but I will find the time in the comming days to read that throughly. Thank you

 

Your welcome

I agree free time is hard to come by.

 

DarthOB1:

Long article, yet, only focusing on religioun in a fairly narrow hypercube of spacetime (i.e. fairly localized to a region, and witin a thousand years of eachother, or much less).

You conveniently miss religions way out of this scope, like native american tribes, bushmen, african religions, chinese, japanese, etc.

Just for the record.


redxavier:

Well thank you. That warmed ye olde heart

/Z

 

Yet in there, you can also find customs and beliefs and stories of a global flood that wiped out man.

Heck even the chinese symbol for ship is derived from the idea of 8 persons in vessel.

Sound familliar?


The book China?A History in Art tells us that one of the ancient rulers of China was Yu, ?the conqueror of the Great Flood. Yu channeled flood waters into rivers and seas to resettle his people.?

Mythology expert Campbell wrote about the Chinese ?Period of the Great Ten,? saying: ?To this important age, which terminates in a Deluge, ten emperors were assigned in the early Chou-time mythology.

Hence, it appears that what we are viewing here may be a local transformation of the series of the old Sumerian king list.? Campbell then cited other items from Chinese legends that appeared to ?reinforce the argument for a Mesopotamian source.?

Aztec mythology spoke of four previous ages, during the first of which the earth was inhabited by giants. (That is another reminder of the Nephilim, the giants referred to in the Bible at Genesis 6:4.) It included a primeval flood legend in which ?the waters above merge with those below, obliterating the horizons and making of everything a timeless cosmic ocean.? The god controlling rain and water was Tlaloc. However, his rain was not obtained cheaply but was given ?in exchange for the blood of sacrificed victims whose flowing tears would simulate and so stimulate the flow of rain.?

(Mythology?An Illustrated Encyclopedia)

 

Yet in there, you can also find customs and beliefs and stories of a global flood that wiped out man.

I smiled at this.

At best, you've got an incompetent God. But more importantly, you've just demonstrated that the Hebrews just thought their god had sent the flood, and explained the naturally occuring phenonomen in terms of divine intervention, something that all these other cultures did with their deities (unless they got the memo that this was from Yahweh...)

This basically reaffirms our belief that this whole god shebang is nothing more than the result of imaginative primitives who used divine intervention as a placeholder. In this case to explain why the house they spent years working on has been washed away... they must have done something to displease the godly one (because God is infallible, it couldn't possibly be that he's bored or a malevolent being could it?)