If not a Creator, then What?

[Karl]

Such as you are describing about the nature of heaven and God is not in the gospels or the words of Jesus. Here is an example of the way Jesus actually describes it...

 

Luke 17: 20-21

20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”

 

Best wishes.

 

Right, but you subscribe to the idea that Jesus was something other than mortal man ?

I no more take Jesus word as described in the bible that of the bloke I just met driving an electric repair van. I verify it for myself.

I don't look for the Kingdom of God because it doesn't exist. I'm not going to bowed by faith and superstition-I already went there and it's a vacant parking lot.

 

 

[Jeff]

Right, but you subscribe to the idea that Jesus was something other than mortal man ? I no more take Jesus word as described in the bible that of the bloke I just met driving an electric repair van. I verify it for myself. I don't look for the Kingdom of God because it doesn't exist. I'm not going to bowed by faith and superstition-I already went there and it's a vacant parking lot.

 

What is a "mortal man"?  I subscribe to the idea that we all have the same "potential".  Or as the gospel of John says...

 

1 John 1:12-13

 12But as many as received (paid attention to) him, to them gave he power (taught) to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

Parenthesis are my addition.  I think the issue may also be that we have a big difference in the concept of "Kingdom of God" in general...

 

Psalms 82:5-6

 5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

 

The "most high" has no form and cannot be named.

[thelerner]

Right, but you subscribe to the idea that Jesus was something other than mortal man ? I no more take Jesus word as described in the bible that of the bloke I just met driving an electric repair van. I verify it for myself. I don't look for the Kingdom of God because it doesn't exist. I'm not going to bowed by faith and superstition-I already went there and it's a vacant parking lot.

Life would be pretty boring if everyone believed the exact same thing. 

 

This thread is on an aspect of Christianity, better to leave it alone or see if you can pick up any tidbits of wisdom then try to turn it into a 'I Think Religion is Bogus' thread.  Which you can start up elsewhere or add to one of the older ones.  

[Karl]

Life would be pretty boring if everyone believed the exact same thing. 

 

This thread is on an aspect of Christianity, better to leave it alone or see if you can pick up any tidbits of wisdom then try to turn it into a 'I Think Religion is Bogus' thread.  Which you can start up elsewhere or add to one of the older ones.  

 

I don't think. I know. That's the difference.

[Karl]

What is a "mortal man"? I subscribe to the idea that we all have the same "potential". Or as the gospel of John says...

 

1 John 1:12-13

12But as many as received (paid attention to) him, to them gave he power (taught) to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

Parenthesis are my addition. I think the issue may also be that we have a big difference in the concept of "Kingdom of God" in general...

 

Psalms 82:5-6

5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

 

The "most high" has no form and cannot be named.

Mortal man is just that. If you subscribe to the idea that we all have the same potential then this is fine.

 

Man is fallible

Jesus was a man

Jesus was fallible

 

I don't go beyond that syllogism. It is logically accurate and valid unless you believe Jesus was not a man. In which case it is necessary to provide that proof.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Karl

[Aetherous]

Man is fallible

Jesus was a man

Jesus was fallible

 

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone." - Luke 18:19 NIV

[Jeff]

Mortal man is just that. If you subscribe to the idea that we all have the same potential then this is fine.

 

Man is fallible

Jesus was a man

Jesus was fallible

 

I don't go beyond that syllogism. It is logically accurate and valid unless you believe Jesus was not a man. In which case it is necessary to provide that proof.

 

I don't see the relevance of the potential of making a mistake point?  Also, all have the same ultimate potential, but not all realize the same.

 

 

I don't think. I know. That's the difference.

 

Also, what is it that you "know"?

[Karl]

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone." - Luke 18:19 NIV

 

So that is honest to the point of deception. Let me say that another way. No one is good- except the greens genie in the corner. But there is no green genie.

[Karl]

I don't see the relevance of the potential of making a mistake point?  Also, all have the same ultimate potential, but not all realize the same.

 

 

 

 

Also, what is it that you "know"?

 

We all have potential, but do we realise the same potential ? This is not born out by life. If it was we would be a homogenous mass of equals. As we are not that, then we must question that ideology.

 

I know that that a creator ( God) does not exist by logical determinism.

[Aetherous]

So that is honest to the point of deception. Let me say that another way. No one is good- except the greens genie in the corner. But there is no green genie.

 

Ah, an atheist.

[Karl]

Ah, an atheist.

No. That suggests I am simply not accepting God. I have said there is no God, it is a myth. I have been down these roads many times otherwise I would not challenge. I could simply say I do not know, but that is incorrect, I do know. The idea of a God has its benefits from the point of view of self realisation, so I do not cling to the idea that it is wrong, or incorrect. Sometimes it is necessary- it was for me. However this is not what we are discussing. I'm happy to advocate the idea of God if it helps dispel the idea of control. That is one clear benefit, that on can surrender to God. You see there is duality. If it helps, then who cares if it's real or not.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Karl

[Aetherous]

Atheism means you believe/"know" there isn't a God or gods. Being labeled is always a strange experience, because it seems that a word can never sum up who we are, but atheist is literally what you're presenting as here. It has nothing to do with not accepting God...it has to do with thinking that the idea of God, or of gods, is only a myth. For instance, thinking that the Daoist immortals are mythical rather than real in any way. Or that a creator of this earth or even the universe is just a story.

 

Also...for your information, true logic can't disprove the existence of a God. It's been discussed at this forum in the past...these days I'm too busy to comb through the old Logic textbook and get into it. Really, I'm working like 70 hour weeks and also have a multi-hour daily spiritual practice.

 

Many people use the word "logic" without having any knowledge of its workings, aside from thinking it makes them sound more right when saying it. "Logic says that God doesn't exist"...oh really! I suggest the deep study of a textbook on Logic before making such claims, if you're really interested in being truthful and accurate.

Anyway, this whole thing would be better suited to a different thread that you could make. I'm sure people would respond. This thread is on the idea of the "kingdom".

[Karl]

Atheism means you believe/"know" there isn't a God or gods. Being labeled is always a strange experience, because it seems that a word can never sum up who we are, but atheist is literally what you're presenting as here. It has nothing to do with not accepting God...it has to do with thinking that the idea of God, or of gods, is only a myth. For instance, thinking that the Daoist immortals are mythical rather than real in any way. Or that a creator of this earth or even the universe is just a story.

 

Also...for your information, true logic can't disprove the existence of a God. It's been discussed at this forum in the past...these days I'm too busy to comb through the old Logic textbook and get into it. Really, I'm working like 70 hour weeks and also have a multi-hour daily spiritual practice.

 

Many people use the word "logic" without having any knowledge of its workings, aside from thinking it makes them sound more right when saying it. "Logic says that God doesn't exist"...oh really! I suggest the deep study of a textbook on Logic before making such claims, if you're really interested in being truthful and accurate.

Anyway, this whole thing would be better suited to a different thread that you could make. I'm sure people would respond. This thread is on the idea of the "kingdom".

Ok I dig it.

 

I know that tooth Fairies or Father Christmas exist either so what label shall now be thine ? :-)

 

See what I mean. It is not that I don't believe in. It is simply that it is not true, so why create a label ? It needs none.

 

So, then show me God. Point him out. Prove his existence by logic.

 

The universe needed no creator. The universe is and has always been. No thing created it.

 

Then you back off. Create another thread ? Why ? We are here now. Let's do it here. It is the Kingdom of God that is under discussion. So surely it's pertinent ?

Edited July 21, 2015 by Karl

[thelerner]

i don't know if you can see god,

but sometimes you can hear him,

but you have to be real real real quiet. 

even a whisper of thought is too loud.  

[Aetherous]

I told you Karl that I don't have the time. But here is something to whet your appetite: a fallacy of defective induction - argument ad ignorantiam..."it is fallacious to argue that some proposition is true simply because it has not been proved false. It is equally fallacious to argue that some proposition is false simply because it has not been proved true." (Copi and Cohen, Introduction to Logic, 12th Edition)

[Karl]

I told you Karl that I don't have the time. But here is something to whet your appetite: a fallacy of defective induction - argument ad ignorantiam..."it is fallacious to argue that some proposition is true simply because it has not been proved false. It is equally fallacious to argue that some proposition is false simply because it has not been proved true." (Copi and Cohen, Introduction to Logic, 12th Edition)

 

If you want to build your world on all the things that have yet to be proven true then you are going to have a pretty wild ride. In effect you are saying that everything and anything is true until it is proven otherwise. That should incline you to revisit your logic. You are essentially saying you cannot, with any certainty know anything for certain. At which point I must take my coat because further discussion on that basis is an impossibility.

 

Unless you can know reality you will only know suffering. I've been there.

[Aetherous]

In effect you are saying that everything and anything is true until it is proven otherwise.

 

Read the sentence before the one that I italicized.

[Karl]

i don't know if you can see god,

but sometimes you can hear him,

but you have to be real real real quiet. 

even a whisper of thought is too loud.  

 

That's nice, it's a lovely thing, poetic.

However it proves absolutely nothing unless you can define God.

If you are listening to your thoughts from the plane of self awareness then it is not God that you hear. You may call it such, but unless it is defined then it is simply a private thought unconnected with reality.

[Karl]

Read the sentence before the one that I italicized.

 

Yes 'defective induction'. Inductive logic is still fairly unstable, I go with the old fashioned deductive reasoning ;-)

 

In court we have 'innocent until proven guilty'. Your version would be 'guilty until proven innocent'.

 

If I accuse you of killing someone I can simply continue with a whole plethora of arguments against yours. I will always be one step ahead of you. We can do the role play if you wish, then it will become obvious why the fallacy of ad ignorant imam is not for sale.

[Jeff]

If you want to build your world on all the things that have yet to be proven true then you are going to have a pretty wild ride. In effect you are saying that everything and anything is true until it is proven otherwise. That should incline you to revisit your logic. You are essentially saying you cannot, with any certainty know anything for certain. At which point I must take my coat because further discussion on that basis is an impossibility. Unless you can know reality you will only know suffering. I've been there.

 

Karl,

 

Are you familiar with a Higgs field/particle? And how do you explain it?  Also, if the universe is currently "static", how do you explain that it is currently accelerating in growth?  (which would require additional outside energy to support it).

 

Thanks,

Jeff

[Brian]

Just thought this might be appropriate to mention:

 

First incompleteness theorem

 

Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncThe

[Aetherous]

Yes 'defective induction'. Inductive logic is still fairly unstable, I go with the old fashioned deductive reasoning ;-) In court we have 'innocent until proven guilty'. Your version would be 'guilty until proven innocent'. If I accuse you of killing someone I can simply continue with a whole plethora of arguments against yours. I will always be one step ahead of you. We can do the role play if you wish, then it will become obvious why the fallacy of ad ignorant imam is not for sale.

 

I think you didn't grasp my point (and I'm not really grasping yours here). Please revisit and reread my post for anything else, because it says it all. If I comment in this thread again, it will be on the topic of the "kingdom".

[Karl]

Karl,

 

Are you familiar with a Higgs field/particle? And how do you explain it? Also, if the universe is currently "static", how do you explain that it is currently accelerating in growth? (which would require additional outside energy to support it).

 

Thanks,

Jeff

Where did I say the universe is static? It most certainly isn't and that fits perfectly. I leave the physics to the physicists they do a far better job than I could in explaining the how's of a thing. :-) they struggle with the why's of a thing though.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Karl

[Jeff]

Deleted.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Jeff

[Karl]

I think you didn't grasp my point (and I'm not really grasping yours here). Please revisit and reread my post for anything else, because it says it all. If I comment in this thread again, it will be on the topic of the "kingdom".

 

Well, I'm none the wiser and neither are you and it seems you don't want to discuss it further so LOL. I'm not sure where that leaves us. Stranded I expect.