So WHY did God create Man and the Universe?

Could you explain how it's daft, please. I'd like to know, specifically, the difference between a supernatural creature called yahweh, and a supernatural creature called unicorn. And I'm not talking about the differences CLAIMED by the myth makers, I'm talking about the actual, practical difference. Many thanks

 

Because they do not share your kind of "transcendant love of god".

As for good deeds, altruism is not the exclusive domain of religion, nor are evil deeds the exclusive domain of atheists.

.

Elephants. They exhibit individual personalities, mate for life thru thick and thin and grieve their dead.

I used "acceptable" in lieu of your incorrect use of "legitimate".

Nonsense.
Consider your very own emotions.

Yes, no evidence required means that anything can be believed, from a god to ghost.

Tangible proof of love for another? Read any classical literature lately? How about greek or roman mythology? Gone to any movies?
Looked around your church?

I don't know about "isolated", but for sure love can be observed.
Behaviour, hormonal reactions, EEGs, emotional responses to various scenerios, etc.

You are the one that equated romantic love with love of god.
I am sorry your romantic love has faded away. After 41 years,sadly I suppose its just around the corner for me.

Emotions do not require reason and yet they are an integral part of our person.

And atheism is to be shunned by the religious community because it does not conform to their tenets of what is and is not reality, and don't forget that the sky is blue.

 

Strawman. It has nothing to do with the love of God.

So what?

I don't know what mating and grieving has to do with the definition of the love I'm talking about.

This doesn't answer my question.

So you agree that even though some things are not based on reason, they nevertheless are "acceptable."

Only according to the atheist's standard of evidence.

You call that evidence? None of the above adheres to the scientific principles and axioms regarding evidence.

I mean, one can easily ask you if you've ever read the Abrahamic texts, or prayed, or looked around the universe for "proof" of God.

That just shows me the science behind love. Similarly, I can argue that God created all things, even though we can only observe the science behind the making of these things.

Um, no. Again, I wasn't even talking about romantic love, let alone equating it to the love of God. You are all over the place.

Excellent, you agree then!

So why is it that atheists disregard the notion of the existence of God simply because it cannot be proved through reason?

I can argue the same for the belief in God.

But unlike the atheist, some religious people can think, love, and believe. It's just a case of applying all three appropriately, rather than using one set of tenets for all things.

 

What is daft is claiming to be able to prove that God is something other than a unicorn ?

Can you prove that God is something other than a unicorn ?

 

God by definition is something other than a unicorn.

 

Yes, God must be Reality, itself.

We KNOW this because Jesus said, "I am the Truth, and the way and the life."

Truth is the SON of Reality which sires it as reality unfolds moment by moment.
Truth is the image of Reality, too.

And Truth is the reason Reality "created Man and the Universe, so man could would see Truth.

 

Who's definition ? That some silly human creates a definition and calls it God does not make that definition correct.

 

Pick any of the great theologians from any of the big monotheistic religions you like. I’m not saying any of their definitions is necessarily correct. But before attacking their positions it’s probably wise and honest to make sure one knows what they are. None of these guys had a concept of God that comes anywhere near the various concepts humankind has had about unicorns.

And frankly: the New Atheists' silly unicorn so frequently gallops through this forum that I’m getting bored by it. By now I just see it as an indicator that somebody is either uninterested or incapable of having a proper discussion. Bit surprised and disappointed to see you letting the unicorn out of its stable, though. I had you down as a poster one doesn’t have to go back to the very basics with, in an ever recurring groundhog day.

 

Reality as the almighty is both factually true and sane for people who believe it.

 

Einstein liked the God described by Spinosa which was Reality, and makes sense, even though neither of these men realized that scripture says exactly this same thing.

If Spinosa had understood the Bibles better, he would have seen that when Jesus said, "I am the Truth, ... the way and the life," he was actually defining the Hebrew god as the Reality.

Reality is what Truth must correspond too, one-to-one.
Reality gives birth to Truth in its wake, as it unfolds moment by moment.
And Reality was the creator of the the beginning, when the heavens and the earth appeared at the Big Bang.

 

9000 'theologians' can say whatever they like about a god (and frankly, none has ever offered anything like a useful definition), but not one of them KNOWS gods aren't unicorns. let's not forget that when you decide to place your myth outside of detection, you forfeit the right to claim to know anything at all about it.

the unicorn demonstrates the flimsiness of your claims very neatly. and using devices such as this are indeed, 'proper' discussions. further, this is an excellent moment to point out that your god stuff sounds just as silly to us as the unicorn does to you. literally, there is no difference at all - and THAT is the point of the exercise.

 

How odd. Do you usually contradict yourself so blatantly?

merely responding to your narrow declarations.

You don't know what mating for life and mourning the death of a mate has to do with the definition of love? Pity.

yes it does.

Of course.

That is if you equate an atheist's standard to that of the entire scientific community, then I guess that statement could be construed as correct.

Yes, I call the enormous volume of literature and history that demonstrates ample and tangible evidence of love of another. From the stories of "dying of a broken heart", to sacrificing life for a loved one, to the myriad descriptions of phyiscal and emotional responses to loved ones.

As for adhereing to the "scientific principles" regarding evidence, of course it does. Not only does it lay out observed examples for examination, but it also provides a road map for researches to explore the physical and mental reactions and motivations of human emotion and behaviour.

yes, no, and always.

I believe you do claim that. Of course, that claim is not even an hypothesis, its pure speculation based on a belief in the supernatural.

read your posts again. Seems you're articulation is not as precise as you think.

Huh? Perhaps because emotions do not describe the physical universe of which all of our being is a part? Perhaps because Because emotions are simply REACTIONS to specific stimuli?

Again, atheists REJECT the notion of the existence of god because they reject the underlying notion of the supernatural. Couple that with a rejection of religious mythology and man made rituals and it equates to a rejection of the concept of god.

No actually you can't. Unless you are suggesting that belief in god is entirely emotionally based.

atheists can't think, love or believe? What a crock.

 

I am not an atheist. What is irritating however is those who claim to know things about God and in particular the mind of God as a matter of fact.

No human speaks for God ... not the Pope, not the Imam, not those folks who "speak in tongues", not some Book, and certainly not our local preacher.

 

The only fact you can be sure of is that you have no clue about the nature of "the almighty" or even if one exists.

One of the only facts you can be sure of is that the rules that govern your existence dictate that you must kill life in order to live.

 

Your statements contradict one another.

In the first statement you declare "the only fact you can be sure of is......"
In the second statement you declare "one of the only facts you can be sure of is...."

Self defeating statements you have made.

 

There is no contradiction, unless you can prove it.

Your response is entirely irrelevant (no surprise).

Lol, elephants do not exhibit the same love humans do. You must really be off to think that elephants to experience the same love that humans do:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dlife-film-maker-reveals-animals-like-us.html

We are not animals, despite how much atheists want us to be.

So let's get this straight; you agree that even though some things are not based on reason, they nevertheless are "acceptable." Does this not go against science?

Yes, but where is this Love? I don't see it. I see people experiencing it, acting on it, and so forth, but I don't see it.

Replace Love with God, and you will begin (hopefully) to see my point.

Makes sense, given that prayer is probably one of the only means that one can "connect" with God.

Only because you don't believe in God.

Specific stimuli? How depressing the atheist community is...

A married couple who have lived together for decades are not responding to specific stimuli. The love between them is beyond that.

And what about morals? Science can't explain why some things (by their very nature) are bad, now can it?

Of course they reject it- it is inevitable that they would. The readily assume that anything outside the realms is baloney. The sad thing is that they think they are right in doing so.

Sure I can; look up the Islamic term "fitra", for example. Why would it be entirely emotionally based if the belief in God was integral to human beings?

I put "and" in there for a reason. They can certainly can think and love, but they are unable to believe.

 

What about Spinoza...?

He said "God" really means what is essentially the force behind the unfolding Reality


According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers, when Spinoza wrote "Deus sive Natura" (God or Nature) Spinoza meant God was Natura naturans not Natura naturata, that is, "god is a dynamic nature in action,"...
This is what we call Reality today, "a growing and changing, not a passive or static thing."

 

Since you cherry picked the post you lost the point.

 

Since you fail to even make an attempt at refuting what I have pointed out, you lose double the points.

 

Ironic from a person who never refutes points....merely debates semantics and engages in solipsism.

 

Such irony from a person who promotes science yet ridicules the science of semantics.

 

guess you can't keep track of what you say from post to post.

my response to your irrelevant response is irrelevant. I know you are but what am I?

Well, the fact elephants don't indulge in casual sex does not in any way mean that they do not experience love.
The fact that elephants mourn their dead demonstrates that they know what death is.

And we are most definitely animals that have evolved from other animals over millions of years. We are simply the apex predator of the animal kingdom. this religious conceit that somehow homo sapien sapiens is not a mammalian animal demonstrates how ignorant such religious perspectives can be. Might want to refresh your knowledge of genetics and anthropology.

No not at all. Are you not aware of the science of pyschology?

false analogy since human emotions are integral to our being, well documented and scientifically proven to exist

the suggestion that god exists by inference of the behaviour of its believers is yet another example of the circular logic employed by theists.

that sucks. But I guess such a creature would have to limit access to himself and even then, he sure doesn't answer a lot of prayers.

Well of course. I reject the speculation that the supernatural exists.

spec·u·la·tion noun \ˌspe-kyə-ˈlā-shən\ : ideas or guesses about something that is not known

I see you cannot differentiate between the science and the experience. Typical of theists.
A married couple that have lived together for years still respond to certain stimuli. It may be well worn stimuli, but it prompts appropriate feelings. And, after such a time, it does not have to be external stimuli, memories are more than sufficent. (I know of what I speak here).

Surely you are not confusing emotions with morals?
What morals cannot be framed by science and common sense?

No it is not sad at all.
Rejection of wholly imaginary supernatural locations/beings/events should not be a subject for pity or sympathy, since it is nothing more than acceptance of our microscopic place within our physical universe.

belief in god is "integral" to human beings? theists do love to couch their speculations as definitive statements, regardless of truth.

Of course atheists have the ability to believe. Atheists like all other humans have the capacity to believe in all sorts of things, they just don't happen to believe in the supernatural, gods, or religious dogma.

 

Then clearly you do not believe in Reality, and deny that sticking one's hand in the fire will get it burnt.

The alternative to accepting reality is to favor some Fantasy you have replaced it with, and then ignore t=he Facts-of-Life, which are based upon Modern Science.

 

The example would be a human who loves his enemy, not his neighbor and friend:

Matt 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Do not even the muslims so?

 

One of the greatest hypocrisies of christianity.

It's a teaching that is dyametrically opposed to our basic human nature.
IIRC there hasn't been a single "christian" nation that has practiced it.

You can be damn sure that conservative christian america doesn't practice it in any way, shape or form.