Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
NuttyKaks

What does God look like?

1,050 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Jeanne dArc

not me. i just know god doesn't look like that and if he did it wouldn't matter.

How do you know? Surely that means that you're (even subconsciously) deeming a particular view to be better evidenced than another: though of course I believe your standards of evidence are extremely poor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeanne dArc

Why keep on demanding food when you are not ready to eat? I have the evidences for the existence of the Primal Cause and I have given them here more than several times and atheists are not ready to feed themselves on them because of their preconceived notions implanted in their own nature. The universe for instance could not have caused itself to exist. Since it exists, it must have been caused to. Obviously it was caused by something else from outside of it. What could it have been if not some thing of the "size" of the Primal Cause?

Except that the reason your "evidences" fail is because your fundamental premise (that the universe could not have caused itself to exist) has not been proved. If one of your premises is not demonstrated, then your conclusion will be equally faulty. That's not proof. True, we have no instances in our current universe of the law of cause and effect being violated: but the origin of the universe was a singularity, a circumstance in which cosmic laws do not apply. Your "primal cause" is not necessary, and certainly hasn't been evidenced, even if perhaps it did exist. There is no evidence of it whatsoever. Physicists such as Stephen Hawking Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, etc., all agree that the universe required no "cause", and could certainly have originated without a "prime mover". Your "evidences" fail logically. Try again? ^_^ haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Subjective evidence, again, is dangerous. Christians may have subjective reasons to believe in God, but evidence is a more objective matter.

You may not accept subjective evidence and think it "dangerous", but as noted earlier this section isn't here to argue that point. The question of this thread is "what does God look like". Your answer - God doesn't exist therefore doesn't look like anything - has been noted. Asking others to support their answer with evidence is not the purpose of this section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philangeli

If someone says, God looks like a fish, then, so what? That is their view. What else is there to say in this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan McDougall

You may not accept subjective evidence and think it "dangerous", but as noted earlier this section isn't here to argue that point. The question of this thread is "what does God look like". Your answer - God doesn't exist therefore doesn't look like anything - has been noted. Asking others to support their answer with evidence is not the purpose of this section.

Hi,

I think Jeanne continued disrespect and mocking rhetoric in this forum has gone far enough and though I am not a moderator as a member I suggest she either tries to be more polite or get a slap on the hand by you.

I was guilty of the same type of disrespect to others, especially to Daniel a faithful and long time valuable member of the forum, and have asked for his forgiveness and retracted all my negative comments about the Mormon faith. Especially in light of the undeniable fact I have absolutely no idea what Gods looks like.

From now on I promise to refrain from this type of unnecessary unpleasantness.

However unlike her I at least did not write long involved posts, that mocked the ideas of nearly everyone on this thread. She presents herself albeit subtly as some sort of a scientist, which I know by the content of her posts she decidedly is not.

Her posts go like this. "You have HA HA HA absolutely no idea what you are talking about", which I find offensive to the extreme.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

This can often be applied to both sides of a heated discussion...

duty_calls.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

It's kind of boring when multiple threads are hijacked by the usual suspects who divert them to the same tired old argument in each. I'm all for freedom of expression and all that. Yet, If one wishes to entertain diverse topics and multiple points of view and not drive the participants away until one is down to the usual handful, some things have to be taken in "moderation".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

How do you know? Surely that means that you're (even subconsciously) deeming a particular view to be better evidenced than another: though of course I believe your standards of evidence are extremely poor.

i guess you missed the part, where i said it didn't matter if he did look like you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeanne dArc

However unlike her I at least did not write long involved posts,

If my posts are long, it is because I actually put thought into them ^_^ (That, and on a complex issue, explanations/descriptions of things sometimes have to be long)

She presents herself albeit subtly as some sort of a scientist, which I know by the content of her posts she decidedly is not.

And how would you presume to know that? I'm an evolutionary biologist: a subject about which you have demonstrated no knowledge. I can't recall a time when I've been "subtle" about my profession if it was relevant to the conversation.

Her posts go like this. "You have HA HA HA absolutely no idea what you are talking about", which I find offensive to the extreme.

I'm sorry if you find my laughter offensive, but I have a sense of humor different from yours: imagine that. And I'm sorry, I tell it like I see it: if you clearly don't know what you're talking about, then I have little reason to sugarcoat that fact.

Edited by Jeanne dArc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeanne dArc

i guess you missed the part, where i said it didn't matter if he did look like you said.

I didn't miss that part, it just wasn't important to my counterpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xeno-Fish
tumblr_ltj24u8QAD1qj26eao1_500.jpg
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Only

I remember going to the SF Warped Tour back in 2002 with my friend, and we heard this band KrunK playing to no audience on a little side stage. We thought they kicked ass, so stayed and rocked out to the whole set;. It was great, like our own private concert by some no name band that were awesome. After the set, the singer/guitarist handed us both a CD of theirs for watching their set, and I must have played that CD so many damn times. It's a nice memory.

It wasn't until years and years later that I remembered about KrunK, and a little searching brought up that the band had since changed their name to Kottak, same as the lead singer/guitarist's last name. James Kottak, the drummer for Scorpions. I also learned that the hot chick drumming in the back was his then wife, and the sister of Tommy Lee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pwrblnc

In my dream, God didn't show himself, herself or itself at all. I had died, in this dream, and found myself in a broken down world of souls that spent their entire existence watching living beings live their lives here on earth. I asked a young lady, "Why are you just watching the living and not enjoying your heaven". She said that there was no shining light at the end of the tunnel, no lord to greet them and no brilliance in this world. They were so disappointed that they were trying to let the living know that heaven was not what they expected. I looked around and there were building and structures all around, falling into ruin like there was an existence here at one time. I reached out to the lady with my arms open and asked her to dance. She asked why? I said I wanted to show her something. I felt her hand in my hand, my hand on her waist and I asked if she could feel my body. She said yes. We danced for a while and she appeared to enjoy it very much. I then asked if she could fly. She said yes, but it wasn't really necessary as there was really nowhere to go. I found myself able to fly and asked her to fly with me. I asked all of those nearby to fly with us and they did. After flying around this supposed heaven, we all landed in an field. There were no flowers growing and the land was bare. I asked if they ever tried to plant something there. As soon as I spoke these words a flower came up from the ground in front of me. I soon noticed that the others had taken notice and were doing the same thing. The field soon sprouted with flowers and trees. Before I woke up, I told them this, and I don't know where it came from.."You can build a life here....you can build a heaven, but the work is yours, the creating is yours to choose. Build your heaven and pay attention to what you have and don't dwell on those you left behind... This dream of mine was real and I felt obligated to share it with others......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

Except that the reason your "evidences" fail is because your fundamental premise (that the universe could not have caused itself to exist) has not been proved. If one of your premises is not demonstrated, then your conclusion will be equally faulty. That's not proof. True, we have no instances in our current universe of the law of cause and effect being violated: but the origin of the universe was a singularity, a circumstance in which cosmic laws do not apply. Your "primal cause" is not necessary, and certainly hasn't been evidenced, even if perhaps it did exist. There is no evidence of it whatsoever. Physicists such as Stephen Hawking Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, etc., all agree that the universe required no "cause", and could certainly have originated without a "prime mover". Your "evidences" fail logically. Try again? ^_^ haha

If my fundamental premise that the universe could not have caused itself to exist has not by Logic been proved, why don't you give me an example of some thing that has caused itself to exist? If you don't know, at least by default, it has already been proved. You are a demonstration of my premises yourself. Have you caused yourself to exist? Of course not! There!.

About the law of cause and effect being violated, we have in our universe plenty of evidences. When a babe sticks its hand into the fire and get a burnt finger, that came about as the result of a violation to the law of cause and effect. The child will learn never again to violate that law. You got the idea... I hope.

To agree that the universe required no "cause" is a demonstration of stupidity. You probably did not understand what they meant by that.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

I didn't miss that part, it just wasn't important to my counterpoint.

with out it. it ,makes me look stupid and i am niot stupid. i put disclaimers like that in when needed. they are part of my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

In my dream, God didn't show himself, herself or itself at all. I had died, in this dream, and found myself in a broken down world of souls that spent their entire existence watching living beings live their lives here on earth. I asked a young lady, "Why are you just watching the living and not enjoying your heaven". She said that there was no shining light at the end of the tunnel, no lord to greet them and no brilliance in this world. They were so disappointed that they were trying to let the living know that heaven was not what they expected. I looked around and there were building and structures all around, falling into ruin like there was an existence here at one time. I reached out to the lady with my arms open and asked her to dance. She asked why? I said I wanted to show her something. I felt her hand in my hand, my hand on her waist and I asked if she could feel my body. She said yes. We danced for a while and she appeared to enjoy it very much. I then asked if she could fly. She said yes, but it wasn't really necessary as there was really nowhere to go. I found myself able to fly and asked her to fly with me. I asked all of those nearby to fly with us and they did. After flying around this supposed heaven, we all landed in an field. There were no flowers growing and the land was bare. I asked if they ever tried to plant something there. As soon as I spoke these words a flower came up from the ground in front of me. I soon noticed that the others had taken notice and were doing the same thing. The field soon sprouted with flowers and trees. Before I woke up, I told them this, and I don't know where it came from.."You can build a life here....you can build a heaven, but the work is yours, the creating is yours to choose. Build your heaven and pay attention to what you have and don't dwell on those you left behind... This dream of mine was real and I felt obligated to share it with others......

it wasn't heaven but the other place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Sounds more like a Purgatory, then a Heaven.

Purgatory...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory

LImbo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

Places that are bad, but not Hellish, and from which the souls eventually make their way to Heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

God looks like millions of stupid people not killing each other over politics, and religious differences shoved in our face by those politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeanne dArc

If my fundamental premise that the universe could not have caused itself to exist has not by Logic been proved, why don't you give me an example of some thing that has caused itself to exist? If you don't know, at least by default, it has already been proved. You are a demonstration of my premises yourself. Have you caused yourself to exist? Of course not! There!.

Hahaha, I take it you didn't read any of the authors I mentioned? Or listened to any of their lectures? :lol: Okay.

I don't have to show you an example of something causing itself to exist in order to know that the claim "nothing can possibly cause itself to exist" is not demonstrable. This argument is riddled with logical inconsistencies. Claiming a "first cause" which is exempt from causality is simply special pleading: meaning that you do indeed admit that something can exist cause-less. Why can the universe not be such a thing? Why can the universe itself not be your "uncaused cause"? You have not given any reason for such a thing.

About the law of cause and effect being violated, we have in our universe plenty of evidences. When a babe sticks its hand into the fire and get a burnt finger, that came about as the result of a violation to the law of cause and effect. The child will learn never again to violate that law. You got the idea... I hope.

That's an almost laughably bad analogy, but okay :rolleyes: A child sticking its fingers into a fire has absolutely nothing to do with causality. At all, haha. And as for causality being a general rule, yes, that is quite apparent: what is also apparent from mathematics and physics is that the universe originated in a singularity, a circumstance in which causality does not apply. And given we are talking about the origin of the universe, not its current state, bringing causality into the scenario is simply unwarranted: it does not apply to the beginning of the universe. Or it almost certainly did not, I should say.

To agree that the universe required no "cause" is a demonstration of stupidity. You probably did not understand what they meant by that.

No, I understood it quite well, because they were quite unambiguous ^_^ If all you have to rebut them is to claim that I misunderstood them, then I have to assume you haven't read/listened/seen any of their materials at all. Or at best were incredibly selective. Again, causality does not apply to a singularity: attempting to argue that it does is simply ignoring the very definition of a singularity: that being that effectively none of our present cosmic rules apply to it. It didn't need a cause, because most likely there was nothing preceding it: because time did not exist until the Big Bang.

it wasn't heaven but the other place.

How would you know that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SpiritWriter

40"The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

*

35For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'37"Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?38'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40"The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

Edited by SpiritWriter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeanne dArc

40"The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

*

35For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'37"Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?38'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40"The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

I don't much care if I did it for Jesus, I care when I do it for a real person ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SpiritWriter

I don't much care if I did it for Jesus, I care when I do it for a real person ^_^

And the question is what does God look like. Jesus gave us a good understanding of that right there in that text. Your right, the real person, is the God we are looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

I have to thank Jeannc 'dArc for doing the legwork of refuting the misrepresentation of the evidence that we saw. I debated doing it but decided I don't have the time and it's mostly pearls before you know what. This is all available on many scholarly web sites, but dogmatic Christians refuse to be bothered any study of opposing views.

As a Buddhist (not a very dogmatic one) I don't know what to think of NDE's, but as someone of a rational set, I am suspicious of such wishful things. I tend to give Buddhist tradition more of a benefit of the doubt than other religions, naturally enough, and I know nothing in Buddhism similar to these reports.

Really?!?!?!?

Many of the Buddha's run ins with other beings and even his face of with Mara under the tree were accomplished in states that were very closely related to OBEs. Possibly some people may think that the stories are all allegorical, but since modern people experience very similar things and indeed shamanic practice is older than all religions and is full of OBEs even based upon them, NDEs and OBEs are integral. Now it should be understood that NDEs were very very rare ( but not unheard of ) just 100 years ago. And this fits nicely with a spiritual theory of NDEs. Life saving technology has gotten better and better at pulling people away from the brink of actual death. It's to be exapected that the incidence would improve and historically there would be very few. If you had a heart attack anytime before this century in all likelihood you were a goner. Even with today's tech it's still hard to save people.

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Afterkeys

not like him a thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada
Hahaha, I take it you didn't read any of the authors I mentioned? Or listened to any of their lectures? :lol: Okay.

Why should I? I am not that fallacious to appeal to authorities whom I cannot feed back. If you have read them, you must know. So, give me yourself an answer to my question or admit you don't know.

I don't have to show you an example of something causing itself to exist in order to know that the claim "nothing can possibly cause itself to exist" is not demonstrable. This argument is riddled with logical inconsistencies. Claiming a "first cause" which is exempt from causality is simply special pleading: meaning that you do indeed admit that something can exist cause-less. Why can the universe not be such a thing? Why can the universe itself not be your "uncaused cause"? You have not given any reason for such a thing.

Because the universe is made out of caused elements. If the Primal Cause was caused, It could no longer be the Primal Cause and, the universe cannot be composed of only caused elements without a cause.

That's an almost laughably bad analogy, but okay :rolleyes: A child sticking its fingers into a fire has absolutely nothing to do with causality. At all, haha. And as for causality being a general rule, yes, that is quite apparent: what is also apparent from mathematics and physics is that the universe originated in a singularity, a circumstance in which causality does not apply. And given we are talking about the origin of the universe, not its current state, bringing causality into the scenario is simply unwarranted: it does not apply to the beginning of the universe. Or it almost certainly did not, I should say.

Are you part of the universe or are you not? Have been caused or have you not? How can the universe be composed of caused parts and be uncaused itself? I think you have a hard time to understand Logic.

Again, causality does not apply to a singularity: attempting to argue that it does is simply ignoring the very definition of a singularity: that being that effectively none of our present cosmic rules apply to it. It didn't need a cause, because most likely there was nothing preceding it: because time did not exist until the Big Bang.

Please, explain what you know about singularity and I will tell you how much it is related to matter.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.