What is GOD?

These aren't really what I would call "attributes" -- they're abstract concepts. You're not answering the question "What is GOD?" There has been no shortage of vague abstraction answers to the question here on the forum.What I would like to know is what this God actually IS. I assume in some level of consciousness, some dimension, some brane (M Theory anyone? ), in some universe, there must be this God. As they say, "If one is, one must be."I'd like to hear your explanation of that God, not necessarily the physical per-se but the real description. *cough*Bush*cough*

---

"Look, the Bible is VERY clear. [...] It warns repeatedly against believing what the 'world' says, what the 'wise' of the world, the philosophers or thinkers of the world say." -- Faith

Well, from your sarcasm I guess you took my reply as less than genuine. I was being serious. Agreed. And a creation can't know its creator? Why not? The bible tells us specifically to know him, why can't we really know him? If the entire physical world is a computer matrix it ceases to be a physical world. In the same respect, I'd want to know who or what programmed this world. If someone told me love and truth programmed the matrix, I'd probably be just as skeptical.

No problem. I am genuinely interested in these discussions and the viewpoints of all sides. Picturing infinity is difficult, truly understanding it literally is most likely impossible, I will give you that. However, most modern theory has phased out abstract concepts of infinite regions in place of explanations of infinite travel (as in, the region isn't infinite but the perception is). I do love truth, that's why I attend the university that I do and study the things that I study, as well as search deeply in philosophy for higher meaning. As for goodness, I consider myself to be a good person, even though I am agnostic. I don't believe that you need religion to tell you how to be a good human being, in fact I believe there are a lot of obstacles put up by Christianity that prevent followers from being truly good to all people (if they follow the letter of the bible literally).I cannot love truth if I'm not a believer? Did I read that right? I would say agnostics and atheists are often extremely in love with the pursuit of truth.I don't get the opportunity to know God, who could potentially "save" me, unless I am a believer? That's somewhat chicken-&-eggish and seems counter-productive. If we were to learn our universe is a matrix it would most certainly nullify the reality and existence. Science sometimes nullifies previous correct information with contradictory information which substitutes the earlier discoveries. When we learn new things from observing the universe and experimenting we come to conclusions and say "Ooohh!" not "Ooooh, but that flat Earth theory is still very valid since the illusion was just as good as the real thing."Basically, ignorance may be bliss but it doesn't automatically qualify something as reality. Well yes, the ultimate goal for any agnostic is coming to a unifying conclusion. However, adopting Christianity and letting it dictate your perceptions of reality goes against the reasoning and logic that the agnostic often stands for. I don't know where you got that, I would never say such a thing, nor would any cosmologist (or any other field of science for that matter).I look at the universe and see a enthrallingly complex, beautiful and stunning masterpiece of nature. Warm, rich and elegant with vast unknown spaces that continue to intrigue me every single day with new information.edited to fix a /qs tag typo for formatingThis message has been edited by dsv, Thursday, June 09, 2005 07:19 PM

It means that the concept of infinity is explained in science, usually we use it for concepts of space/time that seem infinite. When you describe "infinity" in biblical terms (is there infinity in the bible?) you seem to be saying that it's infinity in the sense of being utterly unexplainable and inconceivable -- almost a "don't even try, just give up" impossibility of understanding. This is not the same infinity that science uses.As for perfection, in science I would have to pick symmetry as what I would call "perfection" in nature. So the answer is, yes I do know perfection, it is symmetry. You won't find *perfect* symmetry on large scales. It is important to quantum mechanics, though. I think what you're really seeing is a rejection of specifically organized religion and modern (meaning human) religion. This does not mean they're a nihilist necessarily. You are correct that most agnostics do not accept Christianity as a valid option, that's not because they're nihilists, that's because of the mountain of evidence that contradicts the bible.Many -- if not most -- agnostics are open to a higher intelligence and higher being beyond our own. Not necessarily after-life, but some kind of "God" or whatever you want to call it. But most believe that if one was able to snap your fingers and know everything about everything, the conclusion might include a higher-power "God" type entity but the conclusion would remain natural. I don't agree. I don't believe there is definitive Good and Evil polars that we could judge people on. If anything, your god should show you this, since he apparently heals people but people also die horrible horrible deaths, including very young children. I would call this evil.We make decisions that may be good or evil and it is what it is. If god's reality is all that he knows and he can make seemingly evil decisions that we don't understand, why would he judge us on our seemingly evil decisions when our reality is only all that we know? Did that make sense? Heh, it made sense in my head, i swear... The difference is the lines of code are emulating the laws of physics to create a realistic world. Now if we found out that the laws of physics were "code" written by a God then of course nullify the reality that we once held. Sure, we could go on living as if we had no idea -- just as people do in the matrix (you're even given a choice, red or blue bill -- but most scientists would take the red pill, I assure you.

Do dolphins and elephants fear the unknown or are the content with their existence?

This might need to be my new signature (attaching my current signature for your reference). How does this work exactly? You didn't suppose the Bible was true, then you believed in this untrue (to you) book, thus it is now true.This is not unlike the schizophrenic, who when he is on his medication realizes full well that his delusions are of his own creation and has the ability to show reason -- however when he goes without his medication and starts believing everything he sees, suddenly his delusions are very real and are no doubt considered truth to him.Wouldn't it be more beneficial to one's existence to be open to all sorts of world-views and not limit themselves to one religion -- putting blinders on in the process and proudly proclaiming a lack of reason and logic?

---

"Look, the Bible is VERY clear. [...] It warns repeatedly against believing what the 'world' says, what the 'wise' of the world, the philosophers or thinkers of the world say." -- Faith

I agree with you Mike. Where are they though? I did see Benny Hinn live in Miami once.However I don't believe we have seen this evidence in miracles, healings and whatnot because they have not happened. I agree that if such things were to be proven, the case for a God as described in the Bible would be that much easier to accept. I suppose you're talking specifically about how God acts as per Judaism, Islam, Christianity and the Baha'i, which all originated from the God of the ancient Israelites and Abraham. As for the other areas of the world and other religions, you do not have correlating stories. Our information infrastructure is far too vast now and taints the research, so we have to look to earlier times to examine your hypothesis.What we find is that religion was molded as per the society. Asia, (native) America, Africa, Middle East -- under your theory we should have seen a common belief in God, the Holy Spirit, and possibly even the other "secrets" of the Bible as expressed through God to the believers.Since we don't, the conclusion would be that the religion of a people was shaped by the civilization they lived in, their experiences, their environment, etc. and not from the supernatural. The God of the Christian Bible would have had the same abilities He had in the land of Abraham, all over the world. Quite the opposite. I would suggest that you examine all evidence before making a decision.

I was going to ask you the same question. I was looking for the closest thing to real-life modern-day miracles I could fine. Unfortunately, all I could come up with is the quackery of Benny Hinn. His followers do believe he heals people and he is a Christian. Ah, I do apologize, I see what you mean now. One thing I'd ask you is do you think having read the Bible, and you yourself have stated that you must believe BEFORE you can "know" -- does that not in some ways nullify the claim that all the experiences are the same?There was a very interesting documentary on Benny Hinn that suggested (among many other things) that the attendees were so caught in the moment and already had knowledge of what was "supposed" to happen when Mr. Hinn touched them on the forehead, that it would just happen.Possibly even unconsciously for them. They expected it so much, it was.Anyway, this might be getting off topic. The problem with your definition of evidence is it provides nothing to a point, so why even have or consider evidence?I could say proudly proclaim "I have felt the energron of our Lord Megatron, leader of the Decepticons and ruler of worlds inside my inner being!"This is fine, one is certainly entitled to believe in Megatron and the Decepticons, but to call that evidence is just incorrect -- no matter how you slice it. Your personal belief is not evidence because one can believe whatever they want to. Nothing is "proven" in the scientific studies you're referring to. We rely on evidence to make decisions and conclude theory accordingly. Black holes, dark matter, evolution, et cetera, are not proven. In science this is different than how, for example, Michael Jackson was not "proven" guilty. It means that if you pick up a burger and it's drenched in tabasco sauce, you don't need to take a bit to know that you'll be sorry. You can analyze the evidence and come to a conclusion.ON EDIT: I've been called much worse than "Chump." This message has been edited by dsv, Tuesday, June 14, 2005 01:02 PM

Thank you for the suggestion lfen. I was considering this to be the end of this particular thread as Mike hasn't really provided any kind of new information in his most recent rebuttal.Unless he brings to the table something other than "my evidence is better than your evidence because only I know my evidence" I don't see any reason to continue going in circles.I'm hoping my thread on post-darwainism gains some attention so I can spend more time there.BTW lfen, I very much enjoy your posts, in this thread and others. I've learned a thing or two from them indeed.This message has been edited by dsv, Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:34 PM

I know there are very good preachers out there that inspire a lot of people, no question. They're not healing people's illnesses though. Benny Hinn is, if you believe him (which I doubt anyone here does).If you believe in the Bible and Jesus I don't see why it would be such a far stretch to believe that Benny Hinn can make someone well. It would also be an excellent evidence ground for the Bible. I believe it even states specifically that believers will be able to heal other believers (I can look this up).Why can't Benny Hinn be legit if you're already believing everything else in the Bible?

I enjoyed the debate Mike, at any rate. Don't get hung up.No worries.