Do you pray? Why?

[Jhony5]

There is still much unknown to science... I started a thread someplace on this site about good and evil... maybe it has relevance since in science positives and negatives are the norm and we kind of like the norm of electricity and automobiles and so on that work on the theory of positive and negative. If good and evil exist then the need for a creator exist regardless if it was manufactured by man or in reality. My point is this... if good and evil exist as positives and negatives in electricity, the poles and so on then one outcome is a generator and the other is a motor as a generator produces power from the differences and the motor uses the power produced by the same differences. Perhaps a higher being determines which will be.

If the need for a god is no longer there then there is no basis for moral law. Why should killing yourself be against the law? Why should we not ignore everything that causes a change of our peace of mind like the link in my last post? If so we wouldn't have bothered Saddam when he invaded Kuwait for we just gave it back and if he wanted our land we could give it back to him too. If there is no reprisal why do we spray all mosquitoes and not seek out the one that bit our ankle? Why not just black flag our enemies and be done with it... it seems equal to the positives and negatives in nature. Are you saying size matters? We can kill mosquitoes in mass for comfort but we slid out of the swamp with science based right and wrong when dealing with people? Why not nuke all the people that are trying to harm us? Or on the other hand why upset ourself if they take our land? Based on generator or motor it is nature and either way should be acceptable without moral laws.

I'd like to take a second and review this short cut to thinking.

If good and evil exist, then the need for a creator exists...

Why? What scientific merit do you have for that assumption? Good and evil are laws of nature and subject to opinion as to what these terms are defined as.

...if good and evil exist as positives and negatives in electricity, the poles and so on then one outcome is a generator and the other is a motor as a generator produces power from the differences and the motor uses the produced by the same differences.

Who says good and evil exist as electrical properties? I'm afraid your logic for the E.O.G. (existence of god) needs some explanation.

If the need for a god is no longer there, then there is no basis for moral law.

Again, what? So god is the one who instills each individual with a moral code. I always thought it to be each persons upbringing and culture that formed morals. The idea of god is merely a way of reinforcing the moral code with threat of reprisal ( sin & punishment ).

According to conventional christian, muslim, jewish, and catholic account of god, god has no creator. If these accounts are true, then nothing/nobody caused god to exist.

Hypothetically, if god existed & was created, we would then regard this creator of god as the true god. True god = god with no creator.
If god made the universe then it contradicts scientific understanding that something cannot come from nothing.

1) What did god make the universe from?
2)Was it always there, or did he make that?
3)If god made that, what did he make it out of?
4)Was it always there, or did he make that too......etc.

To walk out of the boundaries of Hawkings' pshyical science and assume an entity created the first piece of matter and set it into motion raises one question after another and another and infinity, which defies logical science.

 

[tizz]

I still think prayer should be intended as a personal reflection and meditation. If you are lucky you will get a little help finding answers to your questions but more often than not the answers are right there and that reflection will make them clear.

 

[tizz]

Well science can only answer what it can at the moment and that grows and changes and redefines itself daily. Science as a concept is still in it's infancy. True infinity will drive you nuts, but beliefe in God is personal faith and that requires the ability to believe without physical proof. True god might be nothing but a simple way to explain the unexplainable and sure science might actually someday find a way to completely disprove the existence of anything greater than ourselves, but it is also true that science may someday prove the theory that there exists and higher more complex energy than our own with intelligence and power. Where I think we screw up is defining god by human standards and using simple adjective. I think it is too simple to apply concepts like compassionate, vengefull loving or anything else to something that exists on some higher plain than humans. It is one thing to use what you have to explain something but keep in mind that these are simply human explanations for something we do not yet and probably will never understand. If you can grasp the fact the if there is a god, it is so far beyond our existence that all the holy books and churches and bullshit are useless. Why must we constantly make god human? That is just so silly really.

 

[MR. DR.]

Deism, founded by Thomas Paine, is the belief that God created the world and created Nature to keep the world going. Here:http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

 

[ALLAH IS GREAT]

'1) What did god make the universe from?
2)Was it always there, or did he make that?
3)If god made that, what did he make it out of?
4)Was it always there, or did he make that too......etc.

To walk out of the boundaries of Hawkings' pshyical science and assume an entity created the first piece of matter and set it into motion raises one question after another and another and infinity, which defies logical science.'

Science is something assumed by humans.
The scientific exlanation for the formation of the universe is 'the big bang'
This is the most stupid theory ever,but I'm willing to understand,so fire away your version of the creation of the universe and what it's made of.I'll be honest I can't answer the questions you listed,'cause God didn't disclose this information to us.

 

[tizz]

Well it is obvious that teh world was created in such a way that in order to exists must exist within the natural laws.

Which came first, nature or god. That's pretty much the chicken and the egg scenario

 

[ALLAH IS GREAT]

Deism, founded by Thomas Paine, is the belief that God created the world and created Nature to keep the world going. Here:http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

well i agree on deism for the fact god created the world,and created Nature to keep the world going,although i believe the world won't go on forever.
do you believe in the hereafter(day of judgement)

 

[ALLAH IS GREAT]

Well it is obvious that teh world was created in such a way that in order to exists must exist within the natural laws.

Which came first, nature or god. That's pretty much the chicken and the egg scenario

God came before nature,God came before everything,not even close to the ''chicken and egg scenario'.

 

[tizz]

Are you sure about that? Could it be that nature existed and god saw a way to manipulate it just enough to creat our planet? And to clarify are we saying nature in the global sense or the universal?

 

[MR. DR.]

I don't believe that the world will go on forever either. Personally, I think that humanity will be the end of the world.

In response to tizz. I was once an atheist/agnostic like yourself until Deism showed me the light. God definitely exists in some form of another but it knows that humans cannot fathom its existance in a pur form. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to choose for ourselves wether it exists or not. God blessed us with rational thought, which sets us apart from the beasts. I choose to believe in God. And yes, before nature there was God.

 

[tizz]

I am not athiest by anymeans and I believe agnostic is simply a definition used to describe those that do not follow organized religion. I am not by definition wither. I believe deeply ina higher being but also acknowledge that it's existence is truly beyond my comprehension and always will be. I do not generally seek to understand god just to understand his presence here and use what tools have been given to lead a better life. As for rational thought and free will, sometimes I think that is not a gift but a challenge to overcome and force us to actually understand and achnowledge our choices as our own. this goes along with a beliefe in a reincarnation of sorts. I actually believe the "beasts" have overcome this challenge and can guide to see how to make better choices if you watch closley enough. What it comes down to is I believe that all answers lie in nature and it just takes time and the ability to view all perspectives to find those answers. God would not drop us here without some sort of guide book that is universal to all beings. The holy books are simply man's perspective given in man's language. Nature on the other hand is the only completely universal concept on earth.

 

[ALLAH IS GREAT]

'Are you sure about that?'

Absolutely,100%

'Could it be that nature existed and god saw a way to manipulate it just enough to creat our planet?'

NO.

'And to clarify are we saying nature in the global sense or the universal?

'

Darling,before each and every speck of sand God existed.

 

[tizz]

OK those are simple answers, care to back them up? If just for teh sake of debate?

Why are you sure?

And why is it impossible that god did not see nature existing and choose to manipulate it in such a way that it would support life?


To clirify here, I believe god is the greater existence that accurs when you have the sum of all parts. It is that unexp[lainable energy that exists and grown withe the combination of parts, this is why god seems to exists stroinger when many people come together and create a stronger energy.

OK now it's your turn. Explain yourself

 

[MR. DR.]

to ALLAH IS GREAT: I do believe in a kind of afterlife, albeit one that exists here on Earth. Those who do good are remembered througout time as shining exaples of the inherent goodness that is people. Martin Luther King Jr. is an example of this, even though he was an adulterer, he is only rmembered for the good things that he did. That reputation will never die(Heaven). Those who are wicked are remembered for their wickedness. Their names become hated and are synonymous with all that is evil. For example, any German youth given the name Adolf will be universally loathed, even if he is not a bad person. Even if Hitler did do some good, that good was eclipsed by his wickedness. His name is synonymous with evil and is permanently tainted (Hell).

 

[MR. DR.]

TIZZ you sound like a Deist in denial

 

[tizz]

I suppose kind of but not quite. I have spent many years trying to define what it is a believe but there doesn't seem to be any definition for me just the ones people assume about me. I suppose deist could be used in a pinch but still not quite it. I don't follow any particular definition just kind of let it be. My beliefes grow and change a bit as I get older and exzperience more of life. Actually change is not the right word so I will stick with grow here. I don't read up about religions or concepts that look good, I really just let my heart and mind come up with it. I believe the energy of god exists in us all and if you are able to allow it, that energy will just kind of let you know when you are on the right track. Simple I know but I don't believe the whole thing is quite as complicated as people want it to be. That is part of that rational thought that seems to screw us all up. Too much freaking thought!! LOL

 

[Jhony5]

'1) What did god make the universe from?
2)Was it always there, or did he make that?
3)If god made that, what did he make it out of?
4)Was it always there, or did he make that too......etc.

To walk out of the boundaries of Hawkings' pshyical science and assume an entity created the first piece of matter and set it into motion raises one question after another and another and infinity, which defies logical science.'

Science is something assumed by humans.
The scientific exlanation for the formation of the universe is 'the big bang'
This is the most stupid theory ever,but I'm willing to understand,so fire away your version of the creation of the universe and what it's made of.I'll be honest I can't answer the questions you listed,'cause God didn't disclose this information to us.

Science is only assumed when held in the context of theory and hypothosis. Once a theory is proved using known control factors it then becomes fact. We know that water is a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. This is not an assumed theory, but rather a proven fact. There is no way to use science to definitivly show that god does or does not exist. Science however, can disprove many of the original biblical assertions about our universe. In short the bible stated many "facts" about the earth itself that have long been shot to pieces by known scientific fact. Carbon dating alone has made a mochery of many of the bibles claims. And if one can find such grevious errors in the bible than it goes towards the overall validity of any of the assertions made in biblical times.

As for the Qu'ran. There is alot of science in the Qu'ran as explained by Mohamed. Incomplete listings of minerals and other natural components can be found in the Qu'ran. Some of it is flawed but it is, none the less, a part of their teachings.

 

[tizz]

johny I just have to tell you that though I firmly believe that the holy books are great observations though extremely DATED!!! and I believe them to be nothing more than man's observations, be careful using carbondating as a proof for your side of it. Man is that a flawed practice. Just a little tip because you will see that come back in your face if you try it withteh wrong person LOL. Carbon dating is getting quite dated itself HEHE

 

[Jhony5]

johny I just have to tell you that though I firmly believe that the holy books are great observations though extremely DATED!!! and I believe them to be nothing more than man's observations, be careful using carbondating as a proof for your side of it. Man is that a flawed practice. Just a little tip because you will see that come back in your face if you try it withteh wrong person LOL. Carbon dating is getting quite dated itself HEHE

True, science re-invents itself and also disproves previously held ideas. Carbon dating has been refined and will continue to get more accurate as time goes on.

The bible, in a historical sense, must be kept within the confines of the region from which it originated. Lets discuss the "great flood" that reportedly engulfed the earth. It is true that around the time of this being written that there was a great flood. It was a massive flooding of the dead sea which swallowed much of that region. So to an ancient people it would seem as though the earth itself had been drowned in the ocean. But that was not the reported word of god (remember, god is omnipotent) The word of god said that it was the entire earth that was flooded. We know now that this absolutly did not happen. We know this from the very sound scientific principal of sedimentary layering theat occurs when water and solid matter come into contact with each other. From this we know that if there was a flood at this time in history, it would have left its fingerprint.

Lets not forget Pangia. For those of you who don't know, Pangia is the original world map where all the continents were touching. Christians have attacked this theory since its inception. In order for Pangia to have been so, the earth would have to be millions/billions of years old. Look at the east coast of Africa. It fits with precision with the west coast of Eurasia.
My thoughts on the bible. If it looks like bullshit and it sounds like bullshit, then it probably is bullshit.

 

[tizz]

OK so a flodd did not cover the earth but then how is it that around the same time the myans believe that their area of teh world was also flooded and have their own noah stories there? When you study any given religion and look into it's actual history, you are always best to study other religions and cultures of the same period and never discount oral histories. Anthropolgists are discovering now that oral histories are far more acurate than written ones. Also the single continent theories are still just that, theories. Becareful not to rely too heavily on science simply because it disproves what you choose not to believe in. Personally I look more to science than religion but also know that religion carries with it often very accurate history even if it is geographically specific. There is a fine line between the two and if you look at both closely you will see more truth in the two combine than wither one seperately.