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 -

Proof of God (Gnosticism = Knowledge is Power)


InvestigativeThinker
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

 

13 hours ago, oslove said:

 

I am not into the history of man's encounters with god(s).

 

I am into what today with my intelligence and rational faculty and reasoning process, I have come to the reality i.e. existence of God, not only as an idea, but truly as objectively present in the world which He created.

God is everywhere and all the time: with us and in us, so that without God there is only nothingness: no you and me and no all members of UM, also no UM.

God exists and He created everything, that is why we are existing in reality, not only as ideas in God's mind.

God and existence of God are identical, God is existence and existence is God.

Everything in existence, like you and me, is created by God.

How does God create us? By sharing His existence with us.

Why does God create us? Because He loves to create, He enjoys creating. He is an artist - an artist's essential instinct is to create, otherwise He is not realizing His nature.

Oslove at this point the claim is more of one misusing language for ex: saying I know g?d without any evidence is the equivalent of stating you believe in g?d on faith.

 

By all means, if it serves you to believe in the g?d of your imagination all the best to you. But, for me to accept the claim as a justified true belief 
 

 it will require some basic things such as relevance, no contradictions or circular reasoning, the claim has to be replicable, testable and (one has to control for limiting conditions) such as the aspects that are part and parcel of human cognition such as bias, ones vested interest and uncontrolled outside influences, the important thing is in the accounting for the aforementioned one then does away with ‘em. 
 

At this point, your claim is at belief status an “experiential expectation” you have about the g?d of your beliefs for you to say your g?d is a known as in a “justified true belief” it will require enough evidence of some kind that warrants the confidence one puts into it.  
 

So let’s proceed what is your evidence? 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2022 at 12:19 AM, Guyver said:

I don’t believe there’s any such being as Satan.

Actually I'm Satan or one of many.  Natasha = Ah Satan..

  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Saru said:

If the multiverse (let's call it) exists eternally without being created, then why does the sub-universe need a creator ?

Natural processes within a multiverse could give rise to sub-universes just as natural processes in our universe give rise to stars and planets.

 

Because if the universe of time didn't exist as a part of the eternal past, then it would have to be initiated by a creating entity that then initiates the natural processes that give rise to the evolving universe that didn't exist before in the eternal past.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Because if the universe of time didn't exist as a part of the eternal past, then it would have to be initiated by a creating entity that then initiates the natural processes that give rise to the evolving universe that didn't exist before in the eternal past.

Space and time typically come together as a package - you can't really have one without the other.

If the universe has always existed, then so has time - it wasn't something that was created afterwards.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

Except that it can also be argued that the universe is made up of different parts.

One part always existing with God, timeless in eternity without ever being created.

And another part created only since the initiation of time and existing within eternity.

For that to be true and knowing physics suggests that the remaining 7 dimensions in our universe are compactified down to 10 to the negative 33 meters AND HAVE NO EFFECT on our universe then that places your hypothetical God as part of that at the same scale. 
 

BTW we’re talking about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 METERS. 
 

cormac

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Saru said:

Space and time typically come together as a package - you can't really have one without the other.

If the universe has always existed, then so has time - it wasn't something that was created afterwards.

 

Yes, space and time come together as a package. But that doesn't mean that space and time always existed in the eternal past.

Having a beginning in our own human lives makes it hard to contemplate something existing without ever having a beginning. But that doesn't mean that the universe didn't already exist in the eternal past without the universe of time and space having been initiated.

 

 

Edited by Will Due
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Saru said:

Space and time typically come together as a package - you can't really have one without the other.

If the universe has always existed, then so has time - it wasn't something that was created afterwards.

I think a bigger item that most are unaware of is that the 13.7 billion year lifetime is for our OBSERVABLE universe only and has no bearing on the greater Universe as a whole which cosmologists have suggested is a minimum of 250 times larger and currently undated/undatable. The question being how does spacetime apply to the Unobservable universe. 

Source:  Applications of Bayesian model averaging to the curvature and size of the Universe  (2011)

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Yes, space and time come together as a package. But that doesn't mean that space and time always existed in the eternal past.

Having a beginning in our own human lives makes it hard to contemplate something existing without ever having a beginning. But that doesn't mean that the universe didn't already exist in the eternal past without the universe of time and space having been initiated.

Even “if” one separated Time from 11-dimensional spacetime anything “existing” in 10-dimensional space would not nor could it be recognizable, LET ALONE UNDERSTOOD, by humans. That pretty much blows a comprehensible God out the window. 
 

cormac

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Source:  Applications of Bayesian model averaging to the curvature and size of the Universe  (2011)

cormac

 

Curvature? You mean like in an ellipse?

urantia2.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Curvature? You mean like in an ellipse?

urantia2.jpg

No. 
 

cormac

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Curvature? You mean like in an ellipse?

Curved space-time. The four dimensional space-time continuum itself is distorted in the vicinity of any mass, with the amount of distortion depending on the mass and the distance from the mass.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Curved space-time. The four dimensional space-time continuum itself is distorted in the vicinity of any mass, with the amount of distortion depending on the mass and the distance from the mass.

Not sure why you quoted me but he’s trying to validate the UB and his idea of “the center of the universe”. 
 

cormac

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Not sure why you quoted me but he’s trying to validate the UB and his idea of “the center of the universe”. 
 

cormac

Because the post looked like he said it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Will Due said:

Perhaps the most basic attribute ascribed to God throughout history is that he is eternal. It might even be the one universal thing people have thought of when they think of God as the First Source of everything. 

Even in the most primitive of times.

"In the most primitive of times" they had many gods.

Monotheism started rather recent.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

But that doesn't mean that space and time always existed in the eternal past.

Cormac's covered the more interesting physics side, from just a straightforward semantics side yes 'eternal past' does mean that time existed because the word 'eternal' doesn't mean anything without the concept of 'time'.  If you just mean 'very distant past' and not 'eternal' then you're right back where you and oslove started:  all of the arguments you have that you think indicate that the universe had to be created/caused by something else apply to God also.  I think that's kinda where this argument has sat for centuries now, without any rebuttal of that point.

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

"In the most primitive of times" they had many gods.

Monotheism started rather recent.

On top of which even the gods in those pantheons weren’t eternal. From a textual perspective Yahweh never reached that claim until AFTER the Babylonian Exile. 
 

cormac

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

Having a beginning in our own human lives makes it hard to contemplate something existing without ever having a beginning. But that doesn't mean that the universe didn't already exist in the eternal past without the universe of time and space having been initiated.

Without time there can be only space, without time AND SPACE there is NOTHING relevant to our universe. 
 

cormac

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In eternity, time doesn't exist. For us, time is an on ramp to eternity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

In eternity, time doesn't exist. For us, time is an on ramp to eternity.

Eternity means nothing without time, at least as it relates to our universe. It’s even in the definition of eternity: 

Quote

infinite or unending time

cormac

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When I googled the definition of eternity, this is what popped up:

 

"a state to which time has no application; timelessness."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Will Due said:

When I googled the definition of eternity, this is what popped up:

"a state to which time has no application; timelessness."

It’s wrong, Merriam-Webster defines it as: 

Quote

infinite time

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, we are living in our universe, and it has a beginning, so that implicates the existence of an entity that exists permanently and is all powerful - we call this entity God, He caused the universe to come to existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oslove said:

Hi everyone, we are living in our universe, and it has a beginning, so that implicates the existence of an entity that exists permanently and is all powerful - we call this entity God, He caused the universe to come to existence.

It doesn’t imply that at all as there is no such thing as “nothing” since space is NEVER really empty but in fact has virtual particles shifting in and out of existence all the time. And since the Big Bang is evidence of the start of our OBSERVABLE universe only and NOT the Universe as a whole the NON-observable Universe may either exist without the element of “time” or alternately our universe may be a subset of the greater Multiverse. NONE of which shows evidence of creation REQUIRING a God. 
 

cormac

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has become a Woo thread, scientific and mathematical principals being discussed without a shred of real science and no mathematics, whatsoever. This is what happens when otherwise intelligent people allow themselves-quite inadvertently-to be pulled down to the level of the least informed posters. Pull back and regroup!

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.