Does God Exist?

It would seem that Satan was the embodiment of the sacred feminine that was corrupted when male chauvinists took over Judaism.

Well, Rex says he knows the Bible.
I am interested in his take
Apparently, he is not up to it.

Next you will tell me the ectoplasms may hve breached the bork field.

Did I miss something, could you ask again what it is you want me to comment on?

Yes,
We were discussing the plasm categorization of RL.
You know, ecto, endo, cyto, neo, proto, etc.
Just exactly what is his cerebral makeup?

Or, you could read to see which simple question you have declined to address.

I did not answer it because it seemed like you were just making a joke. Sci-fi Linda Blare, ghost busters.. I really thought you were not serious.

Whatever God is it seems that it took billions of years for God to materialize atoms and elements so other than child birth (which takes 9 months) I think, "poof there it is" is not a method of God's manifestations.

Where does the Bible back up what I just said? It probably doesn't that is because the Bible is not right about so many things including science and reality.

Angels appearing out of thin air all, spirits, ghosts, demons... all superstition.

The only angels are people, and they are angels because they have within themselves by a free will decision chosen a path of empathy and love over one of selfishness and hate.

There is a lot of science in the bible Rex, I was listening to this preacher explain a lot of it. It even talks about how to have an abortion.

The joke is on you, Rex.
You actually know what the Bible says.
Yet you are so fixated on your desire for license, you grasp at any straw to discredit it. Paul's words at 2 Corinthians 2:4 certainly apply here.
" . . . among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through."

I find it amazing how adding to letters to a paragraph can change the whole meaning of the truth at hand.

. among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the believers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through."

neologist have you ever seen how to instantly freeze water?

Yea and the glorious light of God was so bright it also blinded the writers of the Bible... So now where does that leave us? Believing in lies...

I see no joke in this...

CHRISTIANITY



The belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you
Live forever if you symbolically Eat his flesh and telepathically Tell him that you accept him As your master, so he can Remove an evil force from your soul That is present in humanity because A rib-woman was convinced by a Talking snake with legs to eat from a magical tree.

Makes perfect sense!

Just a second, if you define God as a set of contradictions, it is obvious that He cannot exist, not only as physical presence, but as math logic constract as well. Nothing that is self-contrading can exist in logic.
My understanding of God is not after your representation: 1. Omnipotent 2. Omniscient 3. Omnipresent and 4. Good-willed 'Old Man', who is somehow concerned about us and is obliged to protect us from ourselves and from the nonsence we are doing every day.
Actually nothing that is omnipotent can exist in math logic (we are not talking about the physical world yet).
Suppose you are almighty. Can you make a clonning of yourself - obviously yes. This clonning is exact copy of you, so he is almighty as well. If you are still almighty can you beat him in wrestling. Yes. But if you beat him is he still almighty - no. Even accepting that you both are all the time equal, can you change this situation - no.
So you can't make a clonning of yourself, hence you are not almighty, hence an almighty being cannot exist in our understanting of the world, hence the very assumption that God is almighty has as an objective to preset its inability to exist.
What about 'knowing everything'. Can you know the things that are unknowable? Is you knowledge 'stationary' or dynamic? If it is stationary there is no way to get knowing newly appeared things? If it is changing and improving by continuously acquiring new knowledge & skills, your past knowledge could not have been classified as ''all-knowing'.
What about the omnipresence? Can s.th of the physical world be in such quantum state that it is present everywhere at one and the same time? The whole Universe will comprise this thing, only this and nothing else.
What about the good will. Why are some good people suffering and good things happen to bad people? Can a world exist in which good things will happen to good people only, and bad people will be striken by thinders. What will happen when some people are good to some people, and bad and evil to some other people?
The very assignment of the definition of God presupposes that such thing or being or whatever cannot exist. Isn't that Jesuitism: I will present a watermelon rind as a definition of s.th. and then I will prove that this s.th. cannot be anthing else, but a watermelin rind.

Welcome to the forum, Herald. I'm sure you will find it to be a fun place. I have lots of questions for you; but first just one:

What the heck is s.th?

H, as apodictical existential pantheist I incline to your viewpoint, dismissing various paradox and contradiction with the assertion that She, It, is a perfectly natural and inevitable outgrowth of the idea that nothingness itself is somehow contradictory. She is here and everything is the way it is becuse It simply has to be this way

Perhaps creation turns out an unnecessary concept, She's been around, in one form or another, forever

To them who maintain She can't exist in the typical or Christian form because She would have done a better job, it should be suggested that's because She can only do what's possible, cannot do the impossible because the impossible can't be done. Hence war, crime, disease, eventual burnout of the sun

Maybe not but we can zero in on it. Admittedly there's something about the Entire Megillah that we don't yet know or can't yet intelligently discuss: For instance the idea that whether or not there's a "God" depends entirely upon how one defines Her

In a sense the pantheist agrees with the Christian; She is everywhere at all times. But we differ from him by a more general approach where the Universe is Her body and all the activity therein Her mind

Precisely

In the first place good-badness are relative concepts. The porker for instance, might consider us manifestly evil, intelligence a vice

Depending of course on whose def

So H what do you think

RE: What the heck is s.th.
s.th. is something

RE: on the theme
IMV God exists, but we should fix the definition a little bit.
If we remove the aboslutics (the absolutic representation of God) and define God as:
To great extent Omnipotent / Omniscient / Omnipresent & Good-Willed all the contradictions that may be submitted will fall into the remaining part of the Extent ... and everything will be O.K. ... BUT yet I still have a question:
If God (if exists) is to a great extent Omniscient (knowing everything) why should he like ... and even love the stupid guys. All smart teachers hate the stupid students (not to say that the stupid teachers hate the smart ones). Why should God take a fancy to retards? There is no logic in this.

RE: ... depending on whose definition
The definition of Theism. This is the official 'science' dealing with these issues.
The renouned distionaries accept also somilar definitions:
Merriam-Webster's: the supreme or ultimate reality as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
The Farlex Dictionary: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
Dictionary.com: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe, etc.
It is obvious that these definitions are not sustainable and should be amended and fixed ... if we want for God to be acknowledged and taken seriously by the other sciences (besides the theology).

RE: What do I think
I was wondering why do you call God She, everywhere in the Bible it is He, Him, His Grace, His Mercy, etc. You are intorucing chaos and inconvenience to the discussion by this She ... which is actually purely formal identifier and is irrelevant to the topic,
... unless you are wondering how does God make sex?

Hmm.. Well, this is the way I look at it if anyone cares to read this. I'm being serious but don't expect anyone to agree.

Does God exist?

If we use the bible as proof that there is a God then why are there so many versions and why is it so cryptic. So many religions etc.

If this was proof of God then why isn't it clearer? In reality, and this is from a practical point of view only, there is about as much proof that God exists as there is that God doesn't exist. Science is trying to tip the balance, but even if they do prove that there was some evolution in the human like species etc then this still doesn't prove that there is no god. If there is a God, we couldn't necessarily discount the science either because one could say that what we have is too much to be coincidental.

Therefore, there is a possibility that something greater than us exists but is it a singular unit, such as 'a God' or is that greater force or something else. I can't see any proof that God is what we think he/she/ or it is, but I feel there is something greater than us. Maybe I need to to feel secure, maybe I'm brainwashed to think like that or maybe I feel deep down that this really can't be it. When I die, is that really it.. Come on.. It can't be. I knew a psychic lady once, and yes they do exist despite the skepticism surrounding this phenomenon, about what they see and feel. There's definitely something else there but our need to commoditize or to give it a physical being is probably wrong because there's no proof. I would think, and I personally believe, that all that science says about evolution and the big bang etc is correct, but not a result of coincidence and chance. There had to be a push at some stage, and that's my point of departure from a skeptic to a possible believer.