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 -
Probe

God and Universe

1,208 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Zuri1

I believe God and the universe are the same thing, and we are not separate from it. Underneath the superficial self, which pays attention to 'this and that', there's another self, more really us, than I. In saying that, all answers are unique to each entity. There is no definitive answer and so the Universe, being neutral and only a reflection of your definition of it, will reflect your belief. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel

Asking if God came first presupposes that God actually exists. There's no logical reason to believe that a god exists, or has ever existed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

This old geezer makes a compelling argument with the two key questions to rock the boats ...
 

Quote

 

~

Sadhguru - Great Religions of the World can't Withstand 2 Logical Questions | Mystics of India #MOI - YouTube

[00.07:58]

~

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

Any form of spiritual awakening, if there is such a thing, has nothing to do with knowledge. Only when we come to the end of knowledge is there a possibility of awakening to something beyond our conventional experience. 

there is no path to truth, only when we set aside everything, when there is nothing left to consider... Well, all words and concepts have ended, and what are we left with? 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
On 12/29/2018 at 6:24 AM, Mr Walker said:

Science can demonstrate that all living things die, and also explain how and why this is the case.

While my response was in reply to the question on whether one can prove the existence of the eternal.  So my reponse was a generalization of the principle which do provide the evidence of things not seen.

But I will take you up on your claim that science can demonstrate that all lving things will die, and explain how and whiy provided the substance used to demonstrate  is objective which doesn't one to believe things not seen as evidence.  

On 12/29/2018 at 6:24 AM, Mr Walker said:

If you are arguing that we cannot prove future events, this is in part true, but also untrue,

 Not my position at all, but I would say that knowledge of a future or past event which is not supported by the evidence of a principle(s) is not knowledge but a presumption.  

For example, Could Jesus ride a motorcycle across a 300 foot river?   

While I suspect that those who don't believe he could walk on water are not going to believe he could have ridden a motorcycle across the sea of Galilee (which was actually a fresh water lake).  And they will claim science is the reason that they know that motorcylce couldn't travel 300 feet across a river because many have tried and many have failed but in reality what does that prove other than science only proves what a person believe and not what is true.

Bt if man can walk on water then wouldn't it be possible that even if the water was in the liquid state that a motorcycle could be riden from one side of a 300 ft river to the other side? 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
On 12/29/2018 at 4:22 AM, XenoFish said:

So you've got nothing. 

I told you what I had but you couldn't even comprehend what it was so what would be the point of trying to explain something to someone who couldn't recognize the principle was the answer.

 

Edited by 029b10
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10

 

18 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Asking if God came first presupposes that God actually exists. There's no logical reason to believe that a god exists, or has ever existed.

What is logical about believing something doesn't exist or ever existed unless one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist.  Absolutely nothing.  

Moreover, it is totally illogical to conclude that if one could prove God does not exist that it would prove that God did not exist.  

Do you believe that Caesar existed? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
42 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

I told you what I had but you couldn't even comprehend what it was so what would be the point of trying to explain something to someone who couldn't recognize the principle was the answer.

 

You've got nothing useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You've got nothing useful.

So what is it that you didn't see before when you said I had nothing if you now say is something which is nothing useful?

 

Edited by 029b10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
Just now, 029b10 said:

So what is it that you didn't see since you said I had nothing that you now say is a thing not useful?

 

Everything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Everything. 

I believe you are right, at least in principle.

Edited by 029b10
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
On 12/29/2018 at 8:09 AM, Zuri1 said:

I believe God and the universe are the same thing, and we are not separate from it. Underneath the superficial self, which pays attention to 'this and that', there's another self, more really us, than I. In saying that, all answers are unique to each entity. There is no definitive answer and so the Universe, being neutral and only a reflection of your definition of it, will reflect your belief. 

If you believe the universe is God then why do you think Satan was kicked out of heaven?

I heard it was because when Satan first saw the universe he asked Jesus why his balls were different sizes....

The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools.Prov 26:7
 

 

 

Edited by 029b10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, 029b10 said:

While my response was in reply to the question on whether one can prove the existence of the eternal.  So my reponse was a generalization of the principle which do provide the evidence of things not seen.

But I will take you up on your claim that science can demonstrate that all lving things will die, and explain how and whiy provided the substance used to demonstrate  is objective which doesn't one to believe things not seen as evidence.  

 Not my position at all, but I would say that knowledge of a future or past event which is not supported by the evidence of a principle(s) is not knowledge but a presumption.  

For example, Could Jesus ride a motorcycle across a 300 foot river?   

While I suspect that those who don't believe he could walk on water are not going to believe he could have ridden a motorcycle across the sea of Galilee (which was actually a fresh water lake).  And they will claim science is the reason that they know that motorcylce couldn't travel 300 feet across a river because many have tried and many have failed but in reality what does that prove other than science only proves what a person believe and not what is true.

Bt if man can walk on water then wouldn't it be possible that even if the water was in the liquid state that a motorcycle could be riden from one side of a 300 ft river to the other side? 

 

 

 

A subtle difference between this 

Science can demonstrate that all living things die.

and this,

 science can demonstrate that all living things will die

I am having some trouble following your thoughts in the rest of the post.

It seems a very mixed metaphor, with one problem being that motorcycles did not exist at the time.

  Theoretically if Christ could walk on water, then he could have ridden an ass across the water.

  Different 'miracle, " but same quality .

Miracles are merely feats we do not have a current scientific understanding for ATM,  and any technology beyond our understanding is indistinguishable from a miracle 

If christ had ridden a motor cycle across the sea of Galilee, the people at the time would first have had to comprehend the miraculous beast upon which he was seated   

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

A subtle difference between this 

Science can demonstrate that all living things die.

and this,

 science can demonstrate that all living things will die

Science can demonstrate that all living things die

Only if science asks us to believe.  If science cannot prove that there are not any other life forms alive in the universe, then neither can they prove that those life forms aren't the same life forms which have been living since the beginning.  Likewise, just because of the weakness of one side of any argument doesn't prove that there are life forms in the universe which have always be alive. 

Science can demostrate that all living things will die.

Only if science asks us to believe.   How can you demonstrate something which has yet to occurred?  

Then again, that would only prove that the can demonstrate that all living things die, including that all living things will die by if one learns to read and believes since it is written in Eccl 3:1-2 that there is  " a time to every purpose under the heaven:  A time to be born, and a time to die;"  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I am having some trouble following your thoughts in the rest of the post.

It seems a very mixed metaphor, with one problem being that motorcycles did not exist at the time.

The fact motorcyles didn't exist isn't relevant to the question on whether a motorcycle could be ridden 300 feet across the surface of a lake or river consisting of water in the liquid state 2,000 years ago since the same principle which would define that it could would be the same principle today, or any time in the future if applied under the same enviromental conditions.

(The video you showed was a motorized ski.   I was speaking of a motorcycle identical to the one pictured below, also know as a dirt bike.  Plus, they wouldn't have known about motorized skis back then because they didn't have motorized boats. :lol:)

Related image

 

 

Edited by 029b10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10

If one doesn't believe it is possible a motorcycle could be driven across a river that was 300 foot wide, then there is no need to look at the spoiler.

If if one knows that something is not true then they could tell us why it couldnt' be done.  So if one knows that something can't happen then they wouldn't need to see what they know isn't true.

But I believe based upon what is know and can be seen, the fact that many have tried and many have failed doesn't mean that it is not true.  

Spoiler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 hours ago, 029b10 said:

The fact motorcyles didn't exist isn't relevant to the question on whether a motorcycle could be ridden 300 feet across the surface of a lake or river consisting of water in the liquid state 2,000 years ago since the same principle which would define that it could would be the same principle today, or any time in the future if applied under the same enviromental conditions.

(The video you showed was a motorized ski.   I was speaking of a motorcycle identical to the one pictured below, also know as a dirt bike.  Plus, they wouldn't have known about motorized skis back then because they didn't have motorized boats. :lol:)

Related image

 

 

lol. actually it is relevant.

Anything which did not exist in Christ's time could not be ridden, without a prior miracle creating  the thing/motorbike before the miracle of riding it on water. 

Miracles are NOT abstract philosophical points for discussion They are real powerful physical interventions in the lives of people and in the natural environment A real miracle is real and physical, with clear and physical effects.

Sure, YOU know that is a form of  motorised ski, but what would a person from Christ's time think when they saw it skimming the surface of the sea of Galilee?

MIracle!!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 hours ago, 029b10 said:

If one doesn't believe it is possible a motorcycle could be driven across a river that was 300 foot wide, then there is no need to look at the spoiler.

If if one knows that something is not true then they could tell us why it couldnt' be done.  So if one knows that something can't happen then they wouldn't need to see what they know isn't true.

But I believe based upon what is know and can be seen, the fact that many have tried and many have failed doesn't mean that it is not true.  

  Hide contents

 

 

I am surprised he got that far, but the physics involved  explains why it is possible for it to happen.

Travelling at a high enough speed, a motor bike can jump through the air for over 300 feet. The existence of the water is actually irrelevant, although it might help sustain  forward motion and lift.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, 029b10 said:

Science can demonstrate that all living things die

Only if science asks us to believe.  If science cannot prove that there are not any other life forms alive in the universe, then neither can they prove that those life forms aren't the same life forms which have been living since the beginning.  Likewise, just because of the weakness of one side of any argument doesn't prove that there are life forms in the universe which have always be alive. 

Science can demostrate that all living things will die.

Only if science asks us to believe.   How can you demonstrate something which has yet to occurred?  

Then again, that would only prove that the can demonstrate that all living things die, including that all living things will die by if one learns to read and believes since it is written in Eccl 3:1-2 that there is  " a time to every purpose under the heaven:  A time to be born, and a time to die;"  

Once you understand  why the sun appears to rise and set at our horizon, you can  " know"  that this will happen every day, unless some major outside force intervenes Thus one can KNOW that certain future events are certain, because we know how they occur, and the forces which cause them. 

If you understand the nature of life, including cellular growth and decay, then you can know that all living things will die Some may live an incredibly long time  and for some death may only occur due to changing external variables 

The one exception is single celled organisms, which divide to propagate. In a real sense these are immortal unless killed .  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Anything which did not exist in Christ's time could not be ridden

Since Christ's time is from everlasting to everlasting, so everything which can be ridden could have been ridden

 

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Travelling at a high enough speed, a motor bike can jump through the air for over 300 feet.

It isn't just the speed at which the motorcycle is traveling that is necessary for it to make a 300 foot jump.  
 

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Once you understand  why the sun appears to rise and set at our horizon, you can  " know"  that this will happen every day, unless some major outside force intervenes

Of course if you understood why the sun stood in the midst of heaven and hasted not to go down the whole day as written in the book of Jasher then you can 'know' what made the two great lights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 12/29/2018 at 7:33 PM, StarMountainKid said:

Any form of spiritual awakening, if there is such a thing, has nothing to do with knowledge. Only when we come to the end of knowledge is there a possibility of awakening to something beyond our conventional experience. 

there is no path to truth, only when we set aside everything, when there is nothing left to consider... Well, all words and concepts have ended, and what are we left with? 

 

That which we began with.  Uncertainty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
15 hours ago, 029b10 said:

 

Related image

 

 

A happy place.

Edited by Guyver
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid
3 minutes ago, Guyver said:

That which we began with.  Uncertainty.

I rather think some kind of certainty. Knowledge is always incomplete and never at rest. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
11 hours ago, 029b10 said:

Since Christ's time is from everlasting to everlasting, so everything which can be ridden could have been ridden

 

It isn't just the speed at which the motorcycle is traveling that is necessary for it to make a 300 foot jump.  
 

Of course if you understood why the sun stood in the midst of heaven and hasted not to go down the whole day as written in the book of Jasher then you can 'know' what made the two great lights.

While i respect beliefs, belief -based understandings are flawed.

Belief exists where knowledge does not not.

The two can not coexist 

Thus one might believe that the earth stood still and the sun remained moistness but one would have to disregard all known science to do so and engage in magical thinking. In my opinion that is dangerous because it leads one to believe  in things which are physically impossible  This is different from knowing and experiencing things that others believe to be impossible.

So if i experienced the earth stopping rotating and the sun motionless in the sky without disastrous physical effects then  i would know it was possible even if i did not understand how.

However i could never believe via faith that it was possible

Plus, time is linear Ancients may not have understood just how linear, but no one, and nothing, can exist outside of time and still interact within a time line.

Again one has to believe in magical thinking to accept that gods may exist outside of time or space.   

ie at least until time and dimensional travel is proven possible :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
029b10
3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

While i respect beliefs, belief -based understandings are flawed.

Belief exists where knowledge does not not.

I agree, a person doesn't know when they must believe and person who believes doesn't have faith without some reason which is evidence of the hope.  

So why do you think that I even suggested that the earth stood still from my quote or were you merely making an unfounded assumption?

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Thus one might believe that the earth stood still and the sun remained moistness but one would have to disregard all known science to do so and engage in magical thinking. In my opinion that is dangerous because it leads one to believe  in things which are physically impossible  This is different from knowing and experiencing things that others believe to be impossible.

Have you ever read the scriptures?  

Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.  Josh 10:13

I guess if one believes that the sun rotates around the earth then the fact that the sun does not move from it position in the middle of the solar system, then the fact the sun does not go down about a whole day could be above their pay grade.    But 'about a whole day' is not 'a whole day' yet the sun doesn't go up or down any day since it remains it the same position year after year.   But then again I am sure you believe that the rotation of a day is 23 hr 56 minutes which is about a whole day.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.