I think that answered prayers are a prime example of the universe being God. Just think of how many people actually had to come into play to make a prayer answered. Do you think that all of those people were whispered into their ears by a spirit? I beleive that humanity is all connected through their thoughts which are energy, and can easily bring a person the answer to their prayer.

because to prove their god they need disprove your god.....



'god' is the universe.... new-age at its best! all these years and still the same grasping at straws that gave abraham's apparition a kick at the can.

edit: answered prayers are like lottery winners... look at how many don't win for the real picture.

Nothing to criticize...

As long as one's approach to spirituality or religion is based on ego, then it is spiritual materialism, which is a suicidal process rather than a creative one.
I have always felt that if you follow organized religions, the bible, or any religion promising salvation, miracles, liberation, you are bound by spiritual materialism.
We are living a life based on a perceived reward, when in fact the reward is already in front of us.
Many follow the bible or organized religions based on this seduction, and I for one see through this illusion.
My most disappointing realization is that we must give up expectations rather than build on the basis of our preconceptions.
I have allowed myself to be disappointed.
See ego for what it is.
Look for the confirmations and encouragements without the expectations or material gains The world is your oyster, and you must LIVE your life, not be a witness to it.

Hear, hear, Turtle!

so we are at differing levels of letting go of constructs, Hyper you didn't put your definition of god??? namaste sheri

Zero? Definition? So we can discuss God's "origins"??

It could be a location... we simply dont know.



No, theres no "semi-proven" Theres only unproven, and proven. When you're in the process of proving something, its because it is so far unproven. When you accomplish that process, it will be proven. Something can, however, be supported either very well, or very weekly. In either case, that thing remains unproven, yet in one case you can be confident that its probably the truth (since its close to being the truth) and in the other, it could go either way.



Like what?



Now, to debunk that source with one swift blow to show its lack of credibility and its corruption of verses:



Job 26:10: He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters
for a boundary between light and darkness.

That really means nothing.

Prov 8:27: I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

Once again, it means nothing. Hmm... seems to be a bit dishonest here...

Amos 9:6:
he who builds his lofty palace [a] in the heavens
and sets its foundation on the earth,
who calls for the waters of the sea
and pours them out over the face of the land—
the LORD is his name.

And this proves the Earth is round how? Hmm...

And now to seal it.

Isaiah 40:22: He sits enthroned above the [b]circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Circle, hmm? A circle is a flat 2d figure. The earth is closer to being a sphere.

So, I believe I've established that this site is quite dishonest in their interpretations...



Doesnt even work for me.



Well, look at the first claim they make:



This just suggests that the only reference is up to a far stretched interpretation of a minority seeking to interpret it to mean that theres references to dinosaurs.



Look up during the night.

This site is a joke and has been debunked may times.



It seems all of your sources talk about this. I have already shown that the Earth is not a circle.

So much of these "facts" are stretched by interpreting passages in order to fit a certain goal its funny.

And btw, you're also underestimating the knowledge and intelligence of humans in the past. You really should take a look at what the greeks came up with in the BCE. Some of their theories were quite advanced for their times... that doesnt mean god told them, does it? Who are you to judge when humanity had a capacity to know certain things?

If you want to use the Bible to prove it's self valid why can't the Bible be used against it's self?
Using your own "proof" against it's self (Bible) upset you?

Good point, it could be. However, it is something in our brains, an effect of our nervous systems. I doubt we can travel to the past for example, because, once again, it's not a location. Time doesn't flow, so how can you travel to an invariant "location"?
edit: Physically, you can't. It's obvious.

Read one of those sources again. It shows that it doesn't mean an actual "circle" because it was translated into the word circle but had a different meaning before being translated.




Hmm, makes sense, I guess I could agree with this.

Dude, that's what I was saying. The bible can be used against itself, but the same can be said about that, it's being interpreted to fit the person's beleifs wether it's to proove or disprove the bible.

EDIT: Or was it this one. http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html


Also, is that the only thing you have a problem with in source 1?



I didn't say that, I said they did not discover those things yet.

EDIT: Just read another that is based on almost the same thing as the link above if the first wasn't enough. http://www.trueorigin.org/flatearth01.asp

And yada yada yada, so what if I like sources, nothing wrong with reading, eh? That's how people learn. =D

So "dude" you freely admit the Bible is not infallible?



No....It gives you an indication how accurate the web site is...

What are you refering to? Time?



Well, I assume its possible that the past is a location (or rather, an amalgamation of locations) just like altitude is. We may simply be travelling from one end of the other (not our physical bodies though, because our physical bodies could exist as part of that location). I'm not quite sure how to explain it other than that.



Believe me, I've looked into this MANY times on on this forum alone. You're right to say there wasnt a word for "sphere" back in the day... However, there was a word for "ball", and a word for "circle". The two words were "chuwg" and something else which I dont remember off the top of my head. In either case, when Isaiah described a round, ball-like object, he used the hebrew word for ball. He didnt use that word to describe the Earth though, he use the word "circle".



Erm, yes they did... if what you claimed were "facts" in the bible were actually facts, then that would mean they did discover those things... and some of which would have been rediscovered later on. Your argument, whether you meant to present it that way or not, is based on the idea that humans back then were incapable of making those discoveries.

Yes, and the past specifically. We cannot physically travel to an invariant "location", it is not comparable to altitude. Time doesn't flow, we are the ones that do that essentially.

And one of the links I posted after "Edit" tackles what you just said. Read it.




I'm saying they're considered facts now, not back then, because they did not discover them yet.(Well, God knew they were facts). I didn't say they were incapable, and I don't see how you got that. I only ment they did not discover them yet. If that's not how it was presenting then my bad, but that's what I ment. But if you're going to argue as if I ment they were incapable of discovering those things, I won't even try to reply because you're replying to what I really ment so there would be no point.



Dude(I like the word), I was only saying the bible CAN be interprated different ways. Alot of things can be.


Not trying to end any of these arguements, but just going to remind everyone how off-topic we are.

Im not quite sure by what you mean "time does not flow"

And I know altitude isnt a very good example, but I cant think of any better way of explaining it.



God I hate the edit button. I'll read it in a bit.



Well there was a thing called the dark ages in which much scientific knowledge was lost. It is not uncommon for things to be discovered, forgotten, then discovered again.

Zero learning is process by which you assimilate facts or data , real learning or learnig of any merit or long term is based in experience, you are looking to beleif in something you've chosen religon and it makes no sense now that you are thinking about it so you are are afraid to make your teachers wrong Parents ,clergy ,whoever grandma, so your using the mind to carry on in your beleif structure nothing deep going on here, we've all done it, the idea is why not let go of the constructs the beleifs and see what you find , if nothing then your belief system will be waiting for you. At this point you argue any other idea except your own inherited beleifs , you have said it perfectly you are interpreting your bible according to your beleifs that are biblical, Step out side of the book for a moment see what you find, thats thinking for ones self namaste sheri

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/physics_pr.html
It doesn't flow in any direction, time is a "constant".

Sherri, then why not let go of your beleifs? And no one you named taught me, I read the bible, read other's opinions on it(Not just those wich agree with it) and I've come to my own conclusion. An interpratation of the bible does not mean it's a wrong interpratation. Stop making assumptions.


How do you people have social lives when you have all of this information on all of these different subjects XD. THAT is a good question.

a conclusion based on your bible beleifs , Whoever covers alot of territory, you deny alot Zero, I don't see you as stupid i see you as growing or trying to!! relax, I'm not the bad guy here . What is an assumption by the way Namaste Sheri

Read your own posts and you'll see what an assumption is.

And funny, I see you the same way.




I use it so I don't have to double post.

Thats your religious upbringing the need for "bad" gals or guys thats fine I am not concerned I know there is no truth to it. Zero my ideas about you come directly from you, on one post you are professing your love of me and now this Zero are you trying to break up with me???? Zero it woyuld help our dialog if you shared your understanding of assumption namaste Sheri

I think you're the one that needs to tell me what you think an assumption is. You keep saying things like

Then when I ask you to stop assuming things, you act as if you didn't.

Breaking up with you? Professing my love to you? What? I never said I hated or disliked you.


I do like older women sometimes, and if you look anything like the chick in your avatar :: grr ::... XD Just kidding.

No you weren't

why do you get defensive on all my "assumptions" Its not important my definition of assumption we aren't talking about me you say I assume alot about you,
your definition of assumtion can be alot of things in all fairness it helps me to know what that is to address the issue you have, i don't have the issue get my point zero. namaste Sheri

So now you're saying I have issues?


Why does it matter if I get defensive when it comes to your many assumptions?

I do it because every post you make is mainly based on your assumptions wich aren't true, so I'm actualy trying to help you out.

Actually bible interpretations, religious and spiritual interpretations are really all just assumptions of trying to figure the universe/god out...

sheri, to answer your question on what a god is:

the long answer can come from looking at topics i have started in the past such as:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...topic=37692&hl=
"what makes a god a god"

however, the short answer is:
'god' is an attribute defined by the user and assigned to that which he/she finds fitting. yes, this sounds rather vague but we are dealing with a constuct designed to 'fill the gap' for the anecdotal thinking superstitious individual.

Zero why make everything so personal, this is a forum to swap ideas and in this section these ideas get dissected and scrutinized , Its not personal we can just go around and around but I have no need to be right today so nice chatting with you Namaste sheri

Hyper thank you my friend i will go and read up on the link , I find that to be the best definition of God I have ever read, I agree 100% i just am not of the literary genius you are Yet. Namaste Sheri

You're the one who made it personal.

Alot of your posts are saying personal things about me that you don't even know are true or not.

I think that the last few posts emphasises just how ambiguious the english language is. We are all 'assuming' what emphasis the other person could be using with a word, but 75% of understanding comes from body language. Little wonder we all have different interpretations with the bible.

PSST Sheri.....Little does zero know, his assumptions that he posts are not true either!

I do it to pick back at her if you couldn't notice.

I find it ammusing. =D

I wish I could say the same about you..........

(whispers) thanks Zannie Namaste Sheri

Rainbow, you are right. It is hard to figure out what someone is saying especially without seeing their face or body. That is why I use smilies. It helps people know whether or not I am happy or sad. I think we all have these moments of happy and sad or even pissed. I mean sometimes when I am pissed I am sad so it sounds like I am sad but really angry also. I guess it is so hard to do that with the Bible to. Because they do talk different and use different words and expressions. I guess that is why study bibles are so important if you haven't went to theologian school.

BTW I haven't yet found a person from Austraila I don't like.

oops posted in the wrong topic

Opps right back.

Thanks darls!

Did anyone ever think that God and The Big Bang both exsisted. That God created the Big Bang in the universe to form which also brought about our solar system and mother earth. It does say in Genisis that when God first started this creation that he created the universe with the stars and all in it. That is where the Big Bang came in.
Now as far as God always being there-I beleive he always has been. It's hard to beleive that a Big Bang happened out of nowhere and formed the planets and stars and the only beautiful liveable thing to come out of it was mother earth. And the reason for that is cuz it was in God's plan to create earth from the other planets or else we'd see life on other nonliveable planets.

yet believing something has just always has been there is so much easier?

'see life on other nonlivable planets'? i assume you mean other LIVABLE planets, and by that i mean livable to life forms born of those environs.

Sounds like someone is trying to rationalize their beleif structure to me.

I don't find it hard to beleive something has always been there. Some beleive whatever sarted the big bang was always there, even if it wasn't God. It's the idea of it just "happened to happen for no reason".


Let's put our beleifs aside for a second. Doesn't it seem odd that after all we've learned, and how far we've advanced, that the only alternative to a creator that's widly accepted, was the big bang wich had a VERY VERY ETC, small chance of happening. Both ideas are pretty far out(get what I mean), so we can't really look down on eachother. But of course, this is just my opinion.

Hmmm, I've thought about that. I don't see why not. =D

Dammit.... I double posted again. >>

Did you come up with this on your own Zero or found this in the bible??These arguments aren't very original, Zero, Hypers a big boy Namaste Sheri

Why does it matter to you?

I tire of answering your millions of questions that come shooting my way.

Answer me one thing, how does the bible teach me this? Hyper is a big boy? Why are you telling me this.

Honestly, I'm very confused at what you're talking about, lol. Alot of people say the big bang had a VERY small chance of happening, but "it did".

The bible doesn't say exactly HOW God made the universe, so it's possible that he did create the big bang.

Zero this has been a thouroughly discussed topic the big bang, you are saying somehow you missed it and the reference to Hyper is there are those arond here that are intellegent and well versed Jmpd myself, curiousity Zannie Etvisitor and so far you have shown very little respect and I'm saying this is my friend and i ask that you respect him, I'm saying this is enough you full well know of the big bang, religion I see right through you , clearly you need alot of attention this is for debates not to coddle and humour Zero so debate enough with the oh woe is me. Namaste Sheri

You get weirder and weirder. How did I disrespect hyper? I like hyper. I don't need attention, hell you post more than I do. Why do you keep coming up with different things to say about me? You make a big deal out of every post I make, seriously. I was just stating my opinion and you have something to say about my posts AGAIN.

I was agreeing with the big bang, saying it's possible.

Seriously, why do you always saying something about my posts? Sherri, with all respect, it is getting a tad bit annoying. I havnt' done the least bit to disrespect hyper, so why are you saying that? I only dissagreed with him. If that's disrespectful then hell, what are these forums for?



This is what you say about me in a nut shell:

I'm lonley. I need attention from my parents. I need attention on these forums. I'm too young to know certain things. I need to grow more. You can see right through me. Etc etc......


Why do you keep saying these things? None are true, btw. You get all defensive when I tell you you're wrong when you say those things about me. Why?

so are we agruing based on omission now? the bible says next to nothing in specifics making ANYTHING possible. However, a book that answers nothing is worth nothing. You can't have it both ways.