1 Like
for all i know i may well father many children 
some may even be to single blackish mothers 
people throughout history have believed in god because it was fundamental in the running of your everyday life and the lines of morality which ruled your life . it was drilled into them , its only very recently in terms of history that the western world has become more liberal in religious areas and have begun to question the idea of a god .
That being said if believing in God helps you sleep at night and rest easy with a direction in life that involves helping others . Go for it . But lets be honest you believe in god because your parents believe in God you did not come to your decision through independent questioning and reasoning you came to it through you your up bringing .directly or indirectly , If you was born in Pakistan you would not be christian .
ill just leave that there
1 Like
I think that he meant single mother parenthood, but then his Christian extremism kicked in and ârampant sex out of marriageâ was the outcome.
What the fuck are you talking about?
you understand that it is not the sex part that important in your argument, right?
Also that part where you would be burned alive for raising any doubts about deity loud may have played a role too.
For fuckâs sake a third of my countrymen - all Christian - were murdered by the Catholics for having just a few very minor different viewpoints on certain things.
1 Like
Right, Iâm a Christian extremist, despite not once bringing up by religious beliefs, every single one of these arguments have been started by the resident atheists.
Rampant sex outside of marriage, leads to an increase in sexually transmitted disease, increase in out of wedlock births, and on average the more sexual partners you have outside of marriage, the more likely your marriage is to end in failure.
Apparently seeing these as negatives make me a christian extremist.
Muslims make up 5% of the British population.
Capital punishment for heresy was the rule of the secular authorities in Medieval Europe. The inquisition would only hand over heretics for execution if they determined the heretic in question strayed out of hostility to the flock, majority of heretics were brought back into the fold.
Your countrymen openly rebelled against the crown. No fucking shit they got executed, do you think anything different would have happened if the authorities werenât Catholic?
Treason has always been punishable by death. The punishment for heresy was about keeping the power in the hands of the nobility since heresy is questioning the rulers authority (right to rule came from god in their minds) not about the church making sure Europe stayed Christian.
Inquisition was formed in Spain because the secular authorities were executing people for ridiculous charges, most people tried by the inquisition were not killed, most were given a penance.
Nope, you can go as far back as ancient Greece to find people criticising the idea of a deity, and religion in general.
Most of the founders of America werenât religious either.
You could say that for just about any belief or ideology, i know plenty of atheists who were brought up that way, most people tend to share similar beliefs with their parents.
And once again we come back to the smug atheist attitude of âIâm an enlighted beingâ crap, âyou only hold your beliefs because you were brainwashedâ. I was an adult when i made my choice, and i thought about it for years.
correct you can find examples of these people but they were a tiny minority . Bit like i can find examples of gay people as far back but they were hardly a common sight
i would disagree , most peoples Grandparents (mine included ) are religious . its only really my parents generation on wards where it has begun to die off .
I am highly enlightened i know , no need to keep pointing it out youâre making me blush .
okay what age was this and what brought you to the belief you currently hold ?
Depends on the time and place, religion was no where near as important to the average populace in Greco Roman society, as it was to Medieval Europe.
Again time and place, homosexuality in pagen societies wasnât a taboo thing for many of them. Just look at the Greeks.
What exactly are you disagreeing with me on ? I never claimed the world isnât becoming less religious (although the youngest current generation is less atheistic than millennials).
Very common problem with most atheists. Out of all of the ones ive had talks like this with, probably only one was capable of understanding the other point of view and not acting like a smug prick about it.
Most people get confirmed ( confirmation is a Catholic sacrament, which is basically you reaffirming as an âadultâ that you want to be apart of the faith) i waited till i was 18, which was my choice. I took a year long class to be understand it before i made my decision.
I was borderline Agnostic for a decent chunk of my life from 8 onward. I was displeased with my life because things werenât going well, and me being young failed to realise everyone had bad shit to deal with in life, so i found the concept of god, and Christianity unlikely, and didnât really care much about it.
I didnât really start thinking deeply about this stuff till i was around 16-17 ( had a very strange experience). Christianity became important to me again, because i love western history, and our civilisation, and the morals of said society are Judaeo Christian, as were many of the important people in our history. I realised it was a big part of who are regardless if youâre a believer or not.
And yes i do have a âfeelingâ inside me that i cannot explain call it a longing, call it faith, what ever, but it pulls me back to the religion.
And yes i think believing the Universe sprouted from nothing is absurd, and even many scientists are beginning to go with the intelligent design theory (they arenât using the word god though). Genesis explains the big bang, and creation of the universe to a tea, yet it was written thousands of years prior to us finding proof of it.
This was a good post in Troll cave one on the matter
The response to this.
What happened in the big bang? do you know off hand? You should since youâre quoting it as if its common knowledge, but allow me to elaborate.
The BB starts at 10(-43) (43 decimal 0âs then a 1, of a second), the then unified forces until 10(-36), at which point the the strong force separates from the electronuclear force,
At 10(-12) the weak force separates, and we have the 4 known forces, still .00000000001 second after the earliest condition we can observe.
Which by the way, should tip everyone off, if we canât observe the initial conditions, that is because they happened before/beyond/above the BB, which is consensus, everyone accept that, but they donât seem to accept what it implies.
Anything before/beyond/above/after the universe is what by definition? Iâll give you a hint, our universe is ânaturalâ. So what is before/beyond/above/after it? By definition, something(s) âSupernaturalâ or simply âsuper natureâ. Just want to point to our âsupernatural originsâ before proceeding to the actual point.
Nature is a byproduct of Super Nature, that is all but a scientific fact, and only because we cannot âdirectlyâ observe/verify. Indirectly, on the premise of what can and has been verified and accepted by scientific peer review, this is inferred and there is no âvalidâ contrary explanation to date.
Also I forgot to mention, between 10-36 and 10-32, we have the inflationary epoch. Where our universe increased its size by 10(26) (again thatâs 26 0âs, not sure how to use proper symbols), âat leastâ, if not more, possibly much more, and its volume by 10 to the 78 at least. So our universe increased its volume at least;
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times overs in much much less than 1 second, not even a fraction of a second, this all happened virtually instantly based on our perception of time.
Light dominated the universe for the first 379,000 years, light, pure energy, was so dense, it could not shine, there was no âdarknessâ, no absence of light, it was until it expanded, cooled, and became âdilutedâ that it began to form the âimpureâ forms of energy (those containing mass, as you likely know, light contains no mass, it is the only form of pure energy known to man). Which gradually evolved in to the universe we see today, including all forms of energy/matter, governed by âunseen forcesâ we call âlaws of natureâ.
Force/Laws of Nature, are in reality, by definition, are supernatural as well. We still have yet to directly observe dark energy/matter, black holes, even gravity, these are called âforcesâ because they âgovern/dictateâ how nature acts. Now Iâm not saying all of these are for sure supernatural. But science loves to infer/assert that they are all ânaturalâ without any evidence/verification which meets their own standards, and in fact contrary to every bit of evidence we do have on the forces because none of it even infers that these may be directly observable.
Again, thereâs a fine line Iâm tight roping here between what is proven, what is inferred based on what is proven, and what is simply beyond verification. Iâm attempting to establish a middle grounds, as to say essentially what is most likely, or most valid, based on evidence today, it doesnât mean its not subject to change, but I find this approach more intellectually honest, to credit what appears to be supernatural as in fact supernatural contrary to asserting that it is natural, and we just havenât developed the technology, or obtained the knowledge, or observational methods to verify it.
That is an appeal to ignorance, until it happens, its nonsense. Equally nonsensical is me asserting it is supernatural without direct verification, however Iâm simply conveying the point that it is at this point in time, more logical, valid, and consistent with accepted scientific theories than the contrary view that is often propagates in supposed âscience videosâ, and by scientists.
What needs to be understood and emphasized is what Science is. Science is the ânaturalâ study of the universe, based on ânaturalâ observations, and thus can and only will conclude ânaturallyâ, never supernaturally, as that would contradict the scientific standard which requires empirical/tangible/physical evidence, observation and verification (natural).
You will often hear things like âWe donât fully understand this phenomena âyetââ which implies, one day we will, scientifically, naturally, ect, which may be true, or it may not be. And it is often used to propagate a material world view in contrast to religion/spirituality, but the two are not mutually exclusive, theyâre in fact separate jurisdictions.
Supernatural evidence canât be obtained (direct evidence), however it is more than a fallacy, to suggest that because of our ânaturalâ inabilities, and subjective perception of ârealityâ, that there is no such thing as âsupernaturalâ based on lack of evidence.
So what youâre seeing here is a couple of fallacies (invalid logic). Namely, circularly reasoning, the universe is ânaturalâ therefor its natural, comparable to the âgod of the gapsâ argument used by some theists to claim God is real because He is God.
Appealing to ignorance, and appealing to authority.
Ignorance: Is when we postulate certainty, or even suggest or infer more validity here than there, based on lack of knowledge or lack of evidence, or simply, not knowing, and/or being beyond the possibility of knowing, i.e. âsupernaturalâ.
Authority: Is when we claim that because a or multiple scientists or scholars âbelieveâ something, like âGod isnât realâ, that it makes it more valid, or more likely.
These fallacies are not logically valid, yet theyâre thrown around the scientific community because many scientists, including world renown scientists are atheists, so active anti-theists who directly attack and mock religion. It is imposed with a sort of school-yard bully mentality to tell people theyâre stupid if they have a difference of opinion/belief.
When in reality, if these so called âauthoritiesâ had any evidence that indicated there was no God, or that origins could be explained alternatively, it would be world news and everyone would know.
Instead what we have, are equally supernatural speculations, regarding what is beyond the universe, based on direct evidence, because it cannot be had, which violate scientific principals such as Occamâs Razor which states essentially âdonât over complicate the solution beyond what is required to solveâ, which is more relevant than every considered origins are supernatural.
Occamâs Razor is a way to predetermine logical validity of a hypothesis, and when it comes to origins of the universe, hypotheses is all we have past the initially 10-43 as explained in the BB Theory. Anything beyond that cannot be directly observed/measured/verified which is required by scientific standard, and thus cannot be established as valid scientific theory, ever.
Understand that when playing into concepts like a multi-verse / infinite infinite universes all happening in infinite possible ways at once in various dimensions ect. And also theories like âsomething from nothingâ, propagated by a well known anti-theist Lawrence Krauss, who is intellectually dishonest to say the least, in his definition of ânothingâ.
Science has never observed ânothingâ, and believes there isnât even âempty spaceâ, which technically still wouldnât be ânothingâ, every tiny scale pocket of space has particles in it, there is something. Nothing is a theoretical concepts which describes what exists beyond âeverythingâ, which is the only way to define it, in relation to all that is, because it isnât a thing.
By definition, it cannot interact with, let alone create/cause and/or a/effect something, or it demonstrates itself not to be nothing, and must be something, as it can then be described in relation to other things, which is how we measure/define things in the first place.
And its been well established since BC times that âfrom nothing, comes nothingâ, its an illogical paradox to suggest nothing can influence something. Itâs also an illogical paradox to say the universe created itself, itâs either eternal, thus requiring no âCreatorâ, as the Greeks proposed 2500 years, accepted unanimously up until about 100 years ago with the discoveries of the BB, Relativity, and Thermodynamics, as well as related discoveries such as background radiation you mention, which led us to conclude the universe is not eternal, it is in fact expanding.
Every piece of evidence in the universe is presumably evidence of cause/effect, every effect has a cause, there has never been a causeless effect, everything was created by something, everything which begins, by definition was created, and we know our universe began 13.8-9 bil years ago.
Back to the main point before I rant on forever.
Light separated and formed the universe as we know it.
Doesnât that sound an awful lot likeâŚ
âGod said âLet there be lightâ and it was soâŚâ.
âGod separated the light from the darknessâ
just before he
âCreated the heavens and all of their hostsâ
Which eventually leads to the creation of Earth.
So here you are claiming that a theory is contrary to the Bible, when in fact, the contrary theory already has been used as a counter to religion for 2500 years and everyone believed it, then we proved it wrong, verified what the Bible had been saying all along, there was a beginning, the universe was âcreatedâ (by definition anything which begins, was created, it doesnât have to imply consciousness) and even down to specifics with light prefixing space/time prefixing the Earth, all verified to be written long before (2500+ years) any science, or technology, or knowledge was able to observe and verify these claims directly.
Which brings us back to the point that these things a propagated as mutually exclusive options, when in fact, thatâs just an ignorant, narrow minded, and likely bias assumption/assertion. All God had to create was the initially conditions, everything else could be natural through His design.
And in fact, a good example of this is evolution/abiogenesis, also used as a contrary to God creating life. Yet the Bible tells us âThe sea brought forthâ, and âThe earth brought forthâ the living respectively. Whom reproduced âin their (own) likenessâ bringing ânew kindsâ
That is abiogenesis and evolution in a nutshell. And it gets deeper but this is already too long. Just pointing out that if you read literally, the first page of the Bible (OBJECTIVELY), you would see that concepts you have for what must be true or not true in order to prove God created vs naturally created are likely wrong, based only in ignorance, and a predisposition/bias to assert âGod is not realâ, regardless of any evidence.
And its been demonstrated by nearly if not every atheist Iâve ever talked with, they all either openly admit bias, or demonstrate it without realizing it by what they say. They dismiss any/all evidence/logic that disagrees with their bias predisposition, and accept any/all evidence which agrees with their opinion/belief, with little to no concern for what is actually true, with all emphasis being on convincing themselves theyâre logically justified in a âfaithâ (belief without proof/evidence), which contradicts the very premise of their beliefs.
And, the universe could not have been naturally created, that is âself-createdâ, the universe is natural, anything beyond it is supernatural, if it was naturally created, and has natural origins, that would be it created itself without any outside influence which is an illogical paradox.
Just one more logical reason to agree the universe has âsupernatural originsâ, regardless of what âsupernaturalâ is, whether its God or not, it is definitely supernatural, or weâd be able to observe it, just as we observe 10-43.
A few more notes:
Bible states God expands the heavens constantly/consistently, only recently did we discover âdark energyâ which we find is perpetuating the expansion of space/time, before which we speculated a âBig Crunchâ which the universe would eventually cool, and slow expansion to a point where it would recombine and collapse and cycle.
It names the heavens to be âlike a curtain/fabricâ, today scientists all call the heavens âthe fabric of space/timeâ
The singularity is described (based on recent discoveries) as being "much more liquid-like than previously imagined). And its well established that it is a chaotic state. The Bible tells us The spirit/breath of God, hovered/breathed over the sur/face of the âprimordial watery chaosâ before saying âLet there be lightâ.
A good portion of history is based on the Bible as the only/original source, many people/events/places were doubted by historians initially, and since have been verified historically/scientifically beyond a reasonable doubt, such as the existence of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, King Nebechadnezzar /II, Sodom & Gomorah, and much much more. Many places/names are so because of what the Bible refers to them as 3000 +/- years ago, originally were not accepted and thought to be fictional, until archaelogical data verified biblical claims.
One religion & science. Almost all major scientific theories that are attributed to the technology, knowledge, and general state of society today, came from theists, mostly Christians over the last 2000 years. I find it ironic that the type of thinking that led to Science, is not being criticized by ignorant people just because God âdoesnât make sense to themâ, which is another fallacy.
Science describes who/what/where/when and if weâre lucky, and if its local enough to make consistent observations and test until we understand a great deal, we might get a little insight as to âhowâ, but âwhyâ is only inferred by the conscious mind, which is subjectively interpreted and opinionated.
Itâs another fallacy to assert that because science can describe who/what/when/where, that how/why doesnât matter and/or isnât needed, which is essentially what is being said.
Do you believe in purpose? Do you believe that any 1 thing happens for a reason? If so, you believe in God, because a universe that was created ânaturallyâ, is so by âchanceâ, without any design, thought, or purpose, it means everything which is a byproduct of it, is meaningless, there is no reason for it, it simply is what it is, where it is, when it is, who it is, and how it is,. there is no such thing as why, its a man made construct of our imagination.
Which ironically I believe is enough to infer purpose, the fact that we have consciousness in which we create purpose. And we observe purpose all the time, the entire universe is symbiotically related to the entire universe, from tiny micro scales, to the entire collective universe and the forces which govern it, its all working together, all with unique individual and collective purpose, which all adds up to 1 collective purpose, which takes it back to the supernatural source of all that purpose, which infers design, which infers consciousness.
Also, what is hard to believe about God? Is it that He wasnât created / always existed? That is easy, He is eternal, as anything supernatural is because its beyond space/âTIMEâ. That is the null hypothesis of anything supernatural, based on relativity, time is relative to space, and space is with in and/or is the universe, it requires multiple assertions to place time beyond the universe.
You must assert either space is also beyond space, or time beyond space isnât relative to space but some other thing we canât observe or measure ect. Indirectly, we have about all the verification weâre ever going to have on the subject, and it infers that beyond space there is no time.
Which also infers beyond space there is no cause/effect, because C/A is a byproduct of space/time. Without time, there cannot be cause/effect, which creates another paradox for ânatural originsâ which it cannot solve without making âsupernatural assertionsâ beyond what is observable and verifiable via scientific methods.
Or maybe its because He is infinite? What is time? A measurement, duration, of which, what is eternity? =Infinite. Theyâre essentially one and the same, and eternity is just saying âinfinite durationâ, having no beginning or end. Thus, requiring no âCreatorâ, no âCauseâ is required for something which is eternal, because it did not âbeginâ.
Our universe however, did, and thus, requires a Creator, thus implies a Creator of supernatural origins. Again, this doesnât have to be âGodâ, but it aligns with God, w/e it is must have all of Gods qualities/attributes/abilities in order to be capable of creating the universe outside of space/time.
It must be conscious and choose to create, because there is no ânatural cause/effectâ, outside of nature, outside of time.
It must be eternal/infinite by null hypothesis, because there is no space/time.
Which tells us there need only be and even may infer there only can be 1 source, one âsupernaturalâ thing which is literally âeverythingâ, all encompassing entity.
Or in other words, it must be âAbsoluteâ, we know there must be absolute origins, otherwise we have infinite regress, which is an illogical paradox. And Absolute again parallels and agrees with the preceding concepts of eternal/infinite, I believe they all go hand in hand and must be one and the same.
Which agrees with the hierarchy structure of the universe, earth inside a solar system, inside a galaxy, inside a universe full of 100bil-500bil+ galaxies, some of which contain over 100 trillion stars, and thus potential solar systems, which means the numbers of planets is likely a multiple of that number with in them.
It is likely with in another structure, possibly many, but back to Occamâs Razor, as well as my previous points, we only need 1 absolute source, it only needs to be 1 step above, any inference beyond that violates Occamâs Razor which determines the logical validity of a hypothesis in the absence of empirical evidence.
It also must be omni potent/present/scient, again backed by the previous premises. omnipotence (power/energy) is a given, it must equal, or more likely exceed the universe in power/energy which is also information mind you, which gives us omnipresence and omniscience, it knows everything the universe âknowsâ and then some, which infers its presence, because without direct observation, as we know via scientific standard, you canât âknowâ anything.
But that doesnât infer human like consciousness, or necessarily anything weâre capable of imagining. Also it is the source of all of it, so thatâs all basically a given as âillogicalâ as it mind sound to you if youâre unable to imagine it rationally and/or if you have a bias predisposition to disagree regardless.
All of these qualities are required for anything capable of creating a universe, whether its ânaturalâ or not.
In reality, it is truly, âabsolutelyâ natural, we are a by product of it, and thus âlesser naturalâ, it is only from with in our subjective perception, with in our subjective reality, which is our ânatureâ that we classify our nature as standard, and anything beyond as super nature/al.
And that about covers it I believe, I may have skipped a few things, but you get the point, it doesnât have to be âGodâ, but it has to be exactly like Him, which gives a lit of weight to the idea that it is Him.
In conclusion, your concept of silencing/destroying religion/spirituality is based only in ignorance and/or bias. It stems from a material âworldâ (universe) view. In a universe, which we know, was born, from non-material. Think about itâŚ
Youâre essentially asserting that our reality > the reality which is responsible for us, âactual realityâ or âactualityâ or âabsolute realityâ.
Now I agree to the extent that the material world, and thus science, is more pertaining to our material world interests, and weâre all confined with in reality, its all we know, where as super nature is beyond our ability to know, so more emphasis on what can be proven, less on what cannot, I agree with in some ways.
But to go as extreme as to say that it is the reason for our progression halting, is laughable and baseless. Theists, mostly Christians, are responsible for the science in the first place. Atheists didnât think this stuff up, those thinking about God, keeping God in mind constantly, are the ones who had âopen eyesâ and were able to see the world through a different view.
And in reality, spirituality/religion is associated with morality, something which science lacks and needs, as we have witnessed the effects of science and technology and the immorality behind much of it.
We create via science, and we donât always have moral accountability or ethics attached to ensure not only human safety, but world safety. Our technology has been used with such a disregard for its a/effects on the Earth, that weâve destroyed much of it, put a hole in our ozone layer, a barrier keeping us alive, protecting us from the dangerous radiation from the sun. Weâve chopped down 97-98% of the worlds rain forests, we pollute on a daily basis, in China its so bad you canât see 15 feet in front of you. There is so much immorality and in turn, negative/harmful effects of science/technology/knowledge, that it demonstrates it needs some kind of spirituality, in the least logical morality and accountability.
Even then, what can of accountability could there be? Nuclear power plants mess up and the entire world is radiated. I donât mean if someone does something bad they should be punished accountability, I mean we need to restrict people from doing bad before it happens.
Which touches on the corruption of wealth and businesses. Businesses are designed to make money, the system out lives and even evolves beyond its designer(s), and grows perpetually more evil over time. All that matters in the end is $$$ signs.
And youâre suggesting that we need to get rid of the one thing that occasionally forces us to remember morality, and focus purely on technology/science, in a monetary system which rewards the cheaters and liars who can profit the most regardless of what that does to people and the environment.
And I realize I may come off derogatory, but understand this is out of love, I want to help you evolve your beliefs in logically consistent ways, and be more objective and open to see things from more than your single narrow subjective perception and opinions.
Hopefully I was able to sway your opinion, and open up your perspective to a broader view/range, as well as anyone else leaning that direction who reads this. Arguing over unfalsifiable/verifiable premise such as whether God exists or not is fruitless, there are common grounds between theists and atheists.
And Christianity (I canât speak for other religions) boils down to belief in âTruthâ, âRighteousnessâ, and âLoveâ, which it proclaims is âGodâ âAbsolutelyâ, âSupernaturallyâ, âEternallyâ, âInfinitelyâ, âBefore/Above/Beyond/Afterâ the Universe (heavens) and the Earth.
You essentially disagree with that being âGodâ, but as far as the rest goes, I think we could agree, pursue truth/love/morality (righteousness is the extreme which is likely unobtainable by âmanâ). And like it or not, if you believe in those things, and put priority on those things over the material reality, youâre essentially following the Christian âTruthâ. You believe the same things, your just caught up on the âGodâ part where Iâm not, only difference.
From biblical perspective, focusing on those things, is focusing on God, keeping Him in mind, which leads to moral accountability internally, which leads to shame/guilt from immoral action, which leads to repentance (changing your mind/state/actions) accordingly to correct your admitted flaws on a moral basis.
And I believe anyone with a little bit of life experience can reflect on where âkarmaâ got the best of them, where their immoral actions perpetuated into their reality and eventually came full circle whether a moment later or years later. Which is evidence of the purpose I mentioned, and the âAbsolute Truthâ which is âRighteousnessâ which is âLoveâ (unconditionally/absolutely) which is âGodâ (In my humble opinion =)
it would appear that way because they worshipped completely different beliefs . Medieval Europe was pretty much entirely under the Vatican .
Greco-Roman societyâs certainly were very Religious but the beliefs varied massively , some worshipped the Greek gods , others the roman gods and many other new emerging Cults and again dictated how many lived there lives .
youâre arguing against a point we have agreed on many times in front of LGBT supported on here @SirWarriant dont argue for the sake of arguing you know damn well being gay was not a popular choice through history , yes it happened of course but it was never mainstream like today .
im arguing against you point that most people follow their parents , but clearly my parents generation did not .
well its easy to act like a smug prick when debating about someone on whether a mystery man sits on the clouds controlling peoples lives .
So basically youâre a prime example of my belief in why people are religious , you got lost in life realised you couldnt find your purpose and was missing something and believing in a god filled that void .
so you think the idea of the world being created through science is absurd by the idea of something sitting in âŚwell nothingness creating our known world today completely believable ?
i enjoy ricky gervais comparison between the two theories .
Vatican did not hardly control Europe. They were a powerful entity for sure, especially when dealing with a weak monarch, but there are plenty of cases of them being defied, like the ban on Crossbows, which no one upheld, and not to mention William of Nogaret, literally slapped Pope Boniface the 8th in a public banquet.
There is much more of a moral structure to Christianity than most pagan religions, hence why it was much more apart of their daily lives.
I supported you in the context of the middle ages, because open homosexuality was certainly not something you got away with unless you were extremely powerful. But Greco- Roman societies had very different views on sexuality, and bisexual and homosexuality were not uncommon at all. The greeks were especially faggy. Sexual relation ships between Spartan boys and their trainers were common.
Never said a mystery man sits on clouds and controls peoples lives. You literally ignored the entire thing i posted because it makes you uncomfortable, so you resort to the typical âyou actually believe in god her hurâ.
I believe the Universe was created through intelligent design, and a being capable of doing that would be a god which is defined as supernatural being having control over nature.
Yeah except my memory is good enough to recall you once claimed the only reason people were religious was because they were terrified of death.
Any explanation i give will just be met with your arrogant smugness, and armchair psychology. You cannot accept the motivator behind my beliefs isnât fear of death, or loss of purpose in my life, so there is no point in me trying to convince you otherwise.
Science is simply the study of the natural world.
The universe and everything in it, is ânaturalâ, which would make anything beyond or outside the universe super natural.
The universe (which encompasses everything we can feel, taste, touch, see ect) was formed roughly 13 billion years ago, with it expanding to its almost infinite size(, by our perceptions) instantly.
So prior the formation of the universe, there was ânothingâ according to Atheists, even though nothing is just a word. Even in empty space there are atoms, particles, ect. Something cannot come from nothing, so the universe had to have been created, because there was quite literally nothing before it.
So lets recap, you believe that the entire natural universe, spawned from literally nothing, (itâs hard to even truly comprehend what nothing is) and i believe it was created.
And since we have observed things being created, but never observed something coming from nothing, itâs more likely that intelligent design was responsible for the creation of the universe.
I strongly suggest you read that large text i posted, but i doubt you will. And again, this doesnât prove the existence of a god, but it does heavily point towards intelligent design, and anyone/anything capable of of creating the universe would fit the definition of god.
For a long time scientists thought the Universe was simply eternal, and had no beginning or end, but this was disprove when the big bang theory (thought up by a Catholic monk) was proven and the universe does indeed have a beginning. And if you actually read the first page of the bible with an open, and objective mind, you would see the big bang, and formation of the universe being described the same way scientists do today.
No, there is no such thing as ânothingnessâ which is my point, so if the universe was created by a being, there clearly was not ânothingâ before hand, which is what many atheists and anti theists suggest.
I will participate in this discussion later, right now I don´t have time, but I have strutural thoughts about it.
âMoralâ isn´t the right choice to solve problems of the modern complex society.
i dont âbelieveâ anything i follow what is proved and discovered about what we know as life and the universe .
correct , thats my belief . missing purpose scared of the unknown .
this paragraph suggests differently , you suggest here that religion offered you a way out of this mindset .
incorrect . we simply know what we know and anything outside of that is currently unknown . We do not offer answers to things we do not known .
thats rubbish .
"atheists " do not hold a belief . we follow what we discover through science . the question of what came before the big bang has never been given a definite answer . many including Eisenstein have attempted to answer the question but all remain theories .
incorrect , i dont know what the universe spawned from and i do not attempt to guess . i am happy with having unknowns .
thats because they are changes that happen over millions upon millions of years . evolution .
Again this is incorrect , this question has never been answered by science . we can only see so far into the universe as the light from the big bang has not reached all areas we only have theories in regards to the boundaries of the universe , if it has any at all .
what created the being if something cannot become from nothing ?
You are an anti theist, and constantly maintain and state there is no god, and that Christians are stupid. That is a belief. What you just described is Agnosticism, which is by far the most neutral belief.
No i left that mind set, prior to returning to religion.
Actually we do all the time, theyâre called theories. That is the whole point of science is understanding the unknown and the natural world.
The whole âSomething came from nothingâ was the slogan of anti theists for many years, and i still see atheists reiterate it.
The big bang formed the universe, which encompasses literally everything, which indicates there was ânothingâ by our terminology before it, since everything that is something exists within the universe.
And thatâs fine. But you attempt to argue and belittle people who believe it was created through intelligent design, so youâre not the fence sitter you claim to be.
You just implied that something can indeed come from nothing, which is absolute nonsense, since ânothingâ does not exist. Evolution is the changing and adaptations of species, over billions of years. You cannot evolve from nothing, there was always something before it.
Nope, we know the universe is not endless, and it is in fact still rapidly expanding.
And if something is formed and created, it cannot be infinite, it would have boundaries eventually, even if they are rapidly changing.
Good question.
The being in question, would not be of this universe, which contains all the rules of the universe. Things like, time, gravity, physics, nothing cannot turn into something, ect.
So if a being did create this universe and all the rules in it, itâs likely to assume the being does not have the same rules as we do. It could have a set of incomprehensible natural rules, or none at all. We know in this universe that everything has a beginning, and an end to some degree, but that might not be the case for the creator, since these are the rules for our universe.
In the same sense that a game developer creates the rules of his game, but is not bound to them in the way the characters in the game are.
You cannot have a functioning society without morals. Without morals, there is no right or wrong. How would you solve it? Logic maybe? It would be the logical choice to euthanize all mentally disabled people since most offer no benefit, and are a drain on society, but it would be a morally repugnant thing to do.
with todays current knowledge the idea of a god is stupid. no proof has been provided im open minded enough to be proven wrong however .
from a 3rd party view point it seems you turned back to religion because you became lost .
A theory is very different to knowing .
you cannot group every atheist into one , that would be like me grouping Christians with Hindus
you should work for NASA you just cracked the universes biggest question in a single forum post .
i belittle anyone presenting an argument without evidence .
correct gases and chemicals which formed life . which forms the process in which we use to discover life on other planets . the fundamental ingredients needed for life to form . it did come from nothing it came from an Atom .
correct but expanding into what and will it expand forever ? all question we will likely never answer .
some in the science world even believe there may be more than one universe . in the grand scale of things we know nothing .
but the game developer is created from something in the same way a god must be created from something .
another theory
Thats right. Bur morals are solution and problem at the same time. More moral doesn´t mean more good in the society, but more dispute. And it is not the moral, that makes the solution. Moral only shows, that there is a problem.
But I use another definiton of moral than you.
I would like to answer on this in details, but I assume a detailed answer would take several hours, and here it is already very late. I will come back to it later, hopefully tomorrow.
Again, youâre extremely arrogant. Many people far more intelligent and educated believe and have believed in god both today and years past.
There is nothing that invalidates the existence of a creator. On the contrary BB, validates most of genesis, despite genesis being written thousands of years prior to BB being accepted as how the universe formed.
Didnât intend to imply that, but i did not turn back to religion because i became lost.
Fair point.
And where did i do that?
No because an Atom is not nothing. Nothing does not exist.
Also says that in genesis.
But those are the rules for this universe. The natural rules, may not apply in the place where said being may have originated from, because here nothing cannot morph into something, itâs literally impossible.
That still does not explain where, those universes came from. Nothing cannot form into something, so it had to have originated somewhere, via non natural process, since everything has to come from something.
Simply put you can never explain the formation of the universe through natural means, since it cannot be observed, what came before it if anything.
And why does genesis describe the formation of the universe to a tea?
Iâll just repost this again, since Iâm guessing you did not read it. Does a far better job explaining than i could.
What happened in the big bang? do you know off hand? You should since youâre quoting it as if its common knowledge, but allow me to elaborate.
The BB starts at 10(-43) (43 decimal 0âs then a 1, of a second), the then unified forces until 10(-36), at which point the the strong force separates from the electronuclear force,
At 10(-12) the weak force separates, and we have the 4 known forces, still .00000000001 second after the earliest condition we can observe.
Which by the way, should tip everyone off, if we canât observe the initial conditions, that is because they happened before/beyond/above the BB, which is consensus, everyone accept that, but they donât seem to accept what it implies.
Anything before/beyond/above/after the universe is what by definition? Iâll give you a hint, our universe is ânaturalâ. So what is before/beyond/above/after it? By definition, something(s) âSupernaturalâ or simply âsuper natureâ. Just want to point to our âsupernatural originsâ before proceeding to the actual point.
Nature is a byproduct of Super Nature, that is all but a scientific fact, and only because we cannot âdirectlyâ observe/verify. Indirectly, on the premise of what can and has been verified and accepted by scientific peer review, this is inferred and there is no âvalidâ contrary explanation to date.
Also I forgot to mention, between 10-36 and 10-32, we have the inflationary epoch. Where our universe increased its size by 10(26) (again thatâs 26 0âs, not sure how to use proper symbols), âat leastâ, if not more, possibly much more, and its volume by 10 to the 78 at least. So our universe increased its volume at least;
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times overs in much much less than 1 second, not even a fraction of a second, this all happened virtually instantly based on our perception of time.
Light dominated the universe for the first 379,000 years, light, pure energy, was so dense, it could not shine, there was no âdarknessâ, no absence of light, it was until it expanded, cooled, and became âdilutedâ that it began to form the âimpureâ forms of energy (those containing mass, as you likely know, light contains no mass, it is the only form of pure energy known to man). Which gradually evolved in to the universe we see today, including all forms of energy/matter, governed by âunseen forcesâ we call âlaws of natureâ.
Force/Laws of Nature, are in reality, by definition, are supernatural as well. We still have yet to directly observe dark energy/matter, black holes, even gravity, these are called âforcesâ because they âgovern/dictateâ how nature acts. Now Iâm not saying all of these are for sure supernatural. But science loves to infer/assert that they are all ânaturalâ without any evidence/verification which meets their own standards, and in fact contrary to every bit of evidence we do have on the forces because none of it even infers that these may be directly observable.
Again, thereâs a fine line Iâm tight roping here between what is proven, what is inferred based on what is proven, and what is simply beyond verification. Iâm attempting to establish a middle grounds, as to say essentially what is most likely, or most valid, based on evidence today, it doesnât mean its not subject to change, but I find this approach more intellectually honest, to credit what appears to be supernatural as in fact supernatural contrary to asserting that it is natural, and we just havenât developed the technology, or obtained the knowledge, or observational methods to verify it.
That is an appeal to ignorance, until it happens, its nonsense. Equally nonsensical is me asserting it is supernatural without direct verification, however Iâm simply conveying the point that it is at this point in time, more logical, valid, and consistent with accepted scientific theories than the contrary view that is often propagates in supposed âscience videosâ, and by scientists.
What needs to be understood and emphasized is what Science is. Science is the ânaturalâ study of the universe, based on ânaturalâ observations, and thus can and only will conclude ânaturallyâ, never supernaturally, as that would contradict the scientific standard which requires empirical/tangible/physical evidence, observation and verification (natural).
You will often hear things like âWe donât fully understand this phenomena âyetââ which implies, one day we will, scientifically, naturally, ect, which may be true, or it may not be. And it is often used to propagate a material world view in contrast to religion/spirituality, but the two are not mutually exclusive, theyâre in fact separate jurisdictions.
Supernatural evidence canât be obtained (direct evidence), however it is more than a fallacy, to suggest that because of our ânaturalâ inabilities, and subjective perception of ârealityâ, that there is no such thing as âsupernaturalâ based on lack of evidence.
So what youâre seeing here is a couple of fallacies (invalid logic). Namely, circularly reasoning, the universe is ânaturalâ therefor its natural, comparable to the âgod of the gapsâ argument used by some theists to claim God is real because He is God.
Appealing to ignorance, and appealing to authority.
Ignorance: Is when we postulate certainty, or even suggest or infer more validity here than there, based on lack of knowledge or lack of evidence, or simply, not knowing, and/or being beyond the possibility of knowing, i.e. âsupernaturalâ.
Authority: Is when we claim that because a or multiple scientists or scholars âbelieveâ something, like âGod isnât realâ, that it makes it more valid, or more likely.
These fallacies are not logically valid, yet theyâre thrown around the scientific community because many scientists, including world renown scientists are atheists, so active anti-theists who directly attack and mock religion. It is imposed with a sort of school-yard bully mentality to tell people theyâre stupid if they have a difference of opinion/belief.
When in reality, if these so called âauthoritiesâ had any evidence that indicated there was no God, or that origins could be explained alternatively, it would be world news and everyone would know.
Instead what we have, are equally supernatural speculations, regarding what is beyond the universe, based on direct evidence, because it cannot be had, which violate scientific principals such as Occamâs Razor which states essentially âdonât over complicate the solution beyond what is required to solveâ, which is more relevant than every considered origins are supernatural.
Occamâs Razor is a way to predetermine logical validity of a hypothesis, and when it comes to origins of the universe, hypotheses is all we have past the initially 10-43 as explained in the BB Theory. Anything beyond that cannot be directly observed/measured/verified which is required by scientific standard, and thus cannot be established as valid scientific theory, ever.
Understand that when playing into concepts like a multi-verse / infinite infinite universes all happening in infinite possible ways at once in various dimensions ect. And also theories like âsomething from nothingâ, propagated by a well known anti-theist Lawrence Krauss, who is intellectually dishonest to say the least, in his definition of ânothingâ.
Science has never observed ânothingâ, and believes there isnât even âempty spaceâ, which technically still wouldnât be ânothingâ, every tiny scale pocket of space has particles in it, there is something. Nothing is a theoretical concepts which describes what exists beyond âeverythingâ, which is the only way to define it, in relation to all that is, because it isnât a thing.
By definition, it cannot interact with, let alone create/cause and/or a/effect something, or it demonstrates itself not to be nothing, and must be something, as it can then be described in relation to other things, which is how we measure/define things in the first place.
And its been well established since BC times that âfrom nothing, comes nothingâ, its an illogical paradox to suggest nothing can influence something. Itâs also an illogical paradox to say the universe created itself, itâs either eternal, thus requiring no âCreatorâ, as the Greeks proposed 2500 years, accepted unanimously up until about 100 years ago with the discoveries of the BB, Relativity, and Thermodynamics, as well as related discoveries such as background radiation you mention, which led us to conclude the universe is not eternal, it is in fact expanding.
Every piece of evidence in the universe is presumably evidence of cause/effect, every effect has a cause, there has never been a causeless effect, everything was created by something, everything which begins, by definition was created, and we know our universe began 13.8-9 bil years ago.
Back to the main point before I rant on forever.
Light separated and formed the universe as we know it.
Doesnât that sound an awful lot likeâŚ
âGod said âLet there be lightâ and it was soâŚâ.
"God separated the light from the darkness"
just before he
"Created the heavens and all of their hosts"
Which eventually leads to the creation of Earth.
So here you are claiming that a theory is contrary to the Bible, when in fact, the contrary theory already has been used as a counter to religion for 2500 years and everyone believed it, then we proved it wrong, verified what the Bible had been saying all along, there was a beginning, the universe was âcreatedâ (by definition anything which begins, was created, it doesnât have to imply consciousness) and even down to specifics with light prefixing space/time prefixing the Earth, all verified to be written long before (2500+ years) any science, or technology, or knowledge was able to observe and verify these claims directly.
Which brings us back to the point that these things a propagated as mutually exclusive options, when in fact, thatâs just an ignorant, narrow minded, and likely bias assumption/assertion. All God had to create was the initially conditions, everything else could be natural through His design.
And in fact, a good example of this is evolution/abiogenesis, also used as a contrary to God creating life. Yet the Bible tells us âThe sea brought forthâ, and âThe earth brought forthâ the living respectively. Whom reproduced âin their (own) likenessâ bringing "new kinds"
That is abiogenesis and evolution in a nutshell. And it gets deeper but this is already too long. Just pointing out that if you read literally, the first page of the Bible (OBJECTIVELY), you would see that concepts you have for what must be true or not true in order to prove God created vs naturally created are likely wrong, based only in ignorance, and a predisposition/bias to assert âGod is not realâ, regardless of any evidence.
And its been demonstrated by nearly if not every atheist Iâve ever talked with, they all either openly admit bias, or demonstrate it without realizing it by what they say. They dismiss any/all evidence/logic that disagrees with their bias predisposition, and accept any/all evidence which agrees with their opinion/belief, with little to no concern for what is actually true, with all emphasis being on convincing themselves theyâre logically justified in a âfaithâ (belief without proof/evidence), which contradicts the very premise of their beliefs.
And, the universe could not have been naturally created, that is âself-createdâ, the universe is natural, anything beyond it is supernatural, if it was naturally created, and has natural origins, that would be it created itself without any outside influence which is an illogical paradox.
Just one more logical reason to agree the universe has âsupernatural originsâ, regardless of what âsupernaturalâ is, whether its God or not, it is definitely supernatural, or weâd be able to observe it, just as we observe 10-43.
A few more notes:
Bible states God expands the heavens constantly/consistently, only recently did we discover âdark energyâ which we find is perpetuating the expansion of space/time, before which we speculated a âBig Crunchâ which the universe would eventually cool, and slow expansion to a point where it would recombine and collapse and cycle.
It names the heavens to be âlike a curtain/fabricâ, today scientists all call the heavens "the fabric of space/time"
The singularity is described (based on recent discoveries) as being "much more liquid-like than previously imagined). And its well established that it is a chaotic state. The Bible tells us The spirit/breath of God, hovered/breathed over the sur/face of the âprimordial watery chaosâ before saying âLet there be lightâ.
A good portion of history is based on the Bible as the only/original source, many people/events/places were doubted by historians initially, and since have been verified historically/scientifically beyond a reasonable doubt, such as the existence of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, King Nebechadnezzar /II, Sodom & Gomorah, and much much more. Many places/names are so because of what the Bible refers to them as 3000 +/- years ago, originally were not accepted and thought to be fictional, until archaelogical data verified biblical claims.
One religion & science. Almost all major scientific theories that are attributed to the technology, knowledge, and general state of society today, came from theists, mostly Christians over the last 2000 years. I find it ironic that the type of thinking that led to Science, is not being criticized by ignorant people just because God âdoesnât make sense to themâ, which is another fallacy.
Science describes who/what/where/when and if weâre lucky, and if its local enough to make consistent observations and test until we understand a great deal, we might get a little insight as to âhowâ, but âwhyâ is only inferred by the conscious mind, which is subjectively interpreted and opinionated.
Itâs another fallacy to assert that because science can describe who/what/when/where, that how/why doesnât matter and/or isnât needed, which is essentially what is being said.
Do you believe in purpose? Do you believe that any 1 thing happens for a reason? If so, you believe in God, because a universe that was created ânaturallyâ, is so by âchanceâ, without any design, thought, or purpose, it means everything which is a byproduct of it, is meaningless, there is no reason for it, it simply is what it is, where it is, when it is, who it is, and how it is,. there is no such thing as why, its a man made construct of our imagination.
Which ironically I believe is enough to infer purpose, the fact that we have consciousness in which we create purpose. And we observe purpose all the time, the entire universe is symbiotically related to the entire universe, from tiny micro scales, to the entire collective universe and the forces which govern it, its all working together, all with unique individual and collective purpose, which all adds up to 1 collective purpose, which takes it back to the supernatural source of all that purpose, which infers design, which infers consciousness.
Also, what is hard to believe about God? Is it that He wasnât created / always existed? That is easy, He is eternal, as anything supernatural is because its beyond space/âTIMEâ. That is the null hypothesis of anything supernatural, based on relativity, time is relative to space, and space is with in and/or is the universe, it requires multiple assertions to place time beyond the universe.
You must assert either space is also beyond space, or time beyond space isnât relative to space but some other thing we canât observe or measure ect. Indirectly, we have about all the verification weâre ever going to have on the subject, and it infers that beyond space there is no time.
Which also infers beyond space there is no cause/effect, because C/A is a byproduct of space/time. Without time, there cannot be cause/effect, which creates another paradox for ânatural originsâ which it cannot solve without making âsupernatural assertionsâ beyond what is observable and verifiable via scientific methods.
Or maybe its because He is infinite? What is time? A measurement, duration, of which, what is eternity? =Infinite. Theyâre essentially one and the same, and eternity is just saying âinfinite durationâ, having no beginning or end. Thus, requiring no âCreatorâ, no âCauseâ is required for something which is eternal, because it did not âbeginâ.
Our universe however, did, and thus, requires a Creator, thus implies a Creator of supernatural origins. Again, this doesnât have to be âGodâ, but it aligns with God, w/e it is must have all of Gods qualities/attributes/abilities in order to be capable of creating the universe outside of space/time.
It must be conscious and choose to create, because there is no ânatural cause/effectâ, outside of nature, outside of time.
It must be eternal/infinite by null hypothesis, because there is no space/time.
Which tells us there need only be and even may infer there only can be 1 source, one âsupernaturalâ thing which is literally âeverythingâ, all encompassing entity.
Or in other words, it must be âAbsoluteâ, we know there must be absolute origins, otherwise we have infinite regress, which is an illogical paradox. And Absolute again parallels and agrees with the preceding concepts of eternal/infinite, I believe they all go hand in hand and must be one and the same.
Which agrees with the hierarchy structure of the universe, earth inside a solar system, inside a galaxy, inside a universe full of 100bil-500bil+ galaxies, some of which contain over 100 trillion stars, and thus potential solar systems, which means the numbers of planets is likely a multiple of that number with in them.
It is likely with in another structure, possibly many, but back to Occamâs Razor, as well as my previous points, we only need 1 absolute source, it only needs to be 1 step above, any inference beyond that violates Occamâs Razor which determines the logical validity of a hypothesis in the absence of empirical evidence.
It also must be omni potent/present/scient, again backed by the previous premises. omnipotence (power/energy) is a given, it must equal, or more likely exceed the universe in power/energy which is also information mind you, which gives us omnipresence and omniscience, it knows everything the universe âknowsâ and then some, which infers its presence, because without direct observation, as we know via scientific standard, you canât âknowâ anything.
But that doesnât infer human like consciousness, or necessarily anything weâre capable of imagining. Also it is the source of all of it, so thatâs all basically a given as âillogicalâ as it mind sound to you if youâre unable to imagine it rationally and/or if you have a bias predisposition to disagree regardless.
All of these qualities are required for anything capable of creating a universe, whether its ânaturalâ or not.
In reality, it is truly, âabsolutelyâ natural, we are a by product of it, and thus âlesser naturalâ, it is only from with in our subjective perception, with in our subjective reality, which is our ânatureâ that we classify our nature as standard, and anything beyond as super nature/al.
And that about covers it I believe, I may have skipped a few things, but you get the point, it doesnât have to be âGodâ, but it has to be exactly like Him, which gives a lit of weight to the idea that it is Him.
In conclusion, your concept of silencing/destroying religion/spirituality is based only in ignorance and/or bias. It stems from a material âworldâ (universe) view. In a universe, which we know, was born, from non-material. Think about itâŚ
Youâre essentially asserting that our reality > the reality which is responsible for us, âactual realityâ or âactualityâ or âabsolute realityâ.
Now I agree to the extent that the material world, and thus science, is more pertaining to our material world interests, and weâre all confined with in reality, its all we know, where as super nature is beyond our ability to know, so more emphasis on what can be proven, less on what cannot, I agree with in some ways.
But to go as extreme as to say that it is the reason for our progression halting, is laughable and baseless. Theists, mostly Christians, are responsible for the science in the first place. Atheists didnât think this stuff up, those thinking about God, keeping God in mind constantly, are the ones who had âopen eyesâ and were able to see the world through a different view.
And in reality, spirituality/religion is associated with morality, something which science lacks and needs, as we have witnessed the effects of science and technology and the immorality behind much of it.
We create via science, and we donât always have moral accountability or ethics attached to ensure not only human safety, but world safety. Our technology has been used with such a disregard for its a/effects on the Earth, that weâve destroyed much of it, put a hole in our ozone layer, a barrier keeping us alive, protecting us from the dangerous radiation from the sun. Weâve chopped down 97-98% of the worlds rain forests, we pollute on a daily basis, in China its so bad you canât see 15 feet in front of you. There is so much immorality and in turn, negative/harmful effects of science/technology/knowledge, that it demonstrates it needs some kind of spirituality, in the least logical morality and accountability.
Even then, what can of accountability could there be? Nuclear power plants mess up and the entire world is radiated. I donât mean if someone does something bad they should be punished accountability, I mean we need to restrict people from doing bad before it happens.
Which touches on the corruption of wealth and businesses. Businesses are designed to make money, the system out lives and even evolves beyond its designer(s), and grows perpetually more evil over time. All that matters in the end is $$$ signs.
And youâre suggesting that we need to get rid of the one thing that occasionally forces us to remember morality, and focus purely on technology/science, in a monetary system which rewards the cheaters and liars who can profit the most regardless of what that does to people and the environment.
And I realize I may come off derogatory, but understand this is out of love, I want to help you evolve your beliefs in logically consistent ways, and be more objective and open to see things from more than your single narrow subjective perception and opinions.
Hopefully I was able to sway your opinion, and open up your perspective to a broader view/range, as well as anyone else leaning that direction who reads this. Arguing over unfalsifiable/verifiable premise such as whether God exists or not is fruitless, there are common grounds between theists and atheists.
And Christianity (I canât speak for other religions) boils down to belief in âTruthâ, âRighteousnessâ, and âLoveâ, which it proclaims is âGodâ âAbsolutelyâ, âSupernaturallyâ, âEternallyâ, âInfinitelyâ, âBefore/Above/Beyond/Afterâ the Universe (heavens) and the Earth.
You essentially disagree with that being âGodâ, but as far as the rest goes, I think we could agree, pursue truth/love/morality (righteousness is the extreme which is likely unobtainable by âmanâ). And like it or not, if you believe in those things, and put priority on those things over the material reality, youâre essentially following the Christian âTruthâ. You believe the same things, your just caught up on the âGodâ part where Iâm not, only difference.
From biblical perspective, focusing on those things, is focusing on God, keeping Him in mind, which leads to moral accountability internally, which leads to shame/guilt from immoral action, which leads to repentance (changing your mind/state/actions) accordingly to correct your admitted flaws on a moral basis.
And I believe anyone with a little bit of life experience can reflect on where âkarmaâ got the best of them, where their immoral actions perpetuated into their reality and eventually came full circle whether a moment later or years later. Which is evidence of the purpose I mentioned, and the âAbsolute Truthâ which is âRighteousnessâ which is âLoveâ (unconditionally/absolutely) which is âGodâ (In my humble opinion =)
I use the actual definition of the word moral. I know leftists think words have floating definitions but they donât.
How exactly is that? Our morals tell us stealing and murder is wrong, yet this is somehow problematic for you?