One God

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

If there is only one God and we cannot know his true nature....it should not matter how we imagine or address him. Our prayers will automatically be heard only by that one God.....simply because there is only one God.

It is obviously wrong to say that.... there is only one God and that is the one I worship. 

Just a thought.

Cheers

Sriram

[Sriram]

Thanks NS for moving the thread. 

[Sassy]

Hi everyone,

If there is only one God and we cannot know his true nature....it should not matter how we imagine or address him. Our prayers will automatically be heard only by that one God.....simply because there is only one God.

It is obviously wrong to say that.... there is only one God and that is the one I worship. 

Just a thought.

Cheers

Sriram

What matters is that there is a God.  We know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did make himself known. PROOF was the rainbow and the reason for it. We have the future her forecast but the 12 tribes of Israel and how only 2 remain the tribe of Israel has the tribe of Benjamin and the tribe of Judah the tribe Christ born from.

We know God told his people they would have no God but him. We have to trust in his word. Not the words of man through false gods. We need to listen and learn.

[Enki]

It matters to you obviously, but it doesn't to me. As far as the biblical god goes, there is no 'proof' at all. As far as trusting goes, I find the words of humans for the existence of any god to be not much more than 'sounding brass' with or without 'love'.

[Sassy]

It matters to you obviously, but it doesn't to me. As far as the biblical god goes, there is no 'proof' at all. As far as trusting goes, I find the words of humans for the existence of any god to be not much more than 'sounding brass' with or without 'love'.

Enki,

You have the right to believe as you will, You have no proof but you cannot speak for others.
What is right for you is not right for us who know God and whom God speaks to.

If you cannot seach for truth then how will you ever know differently?

[Enki]

Enki,

You have the right to believe as you will

Obviously

You have no proof

Proof of what? I didn't say that God can't possibly exist. I do need evidence however for its existences and you can't provide the evidence that God exists.

but you cannot speak for others.

I didn't say I was speaking for others. What part of 'but it doesn't to me' don't you understand?

What is right for you is not right for us who know God and whom God speaks to.

I didn't say it wasn't right for you. I'm quite sure that you believe that God speaks to you.

If you cannot seach for truth then how will you ever know differently?

My point exactly. So I assume you will now take your own advice.

[Free Willy]

Obviously
 

Proof of what? I didn't say that God can't possibly exist. I do need evidence however for its existences and you can't provide the evidence that God exists.

I didn't say I was speaking for others. What part of 'but it doesn't to me' don't you understand?

I didn't say it wasn't right for you. I'm quite sure that you believe that God speaks to you.

My point exactly. So I assume you will now take your own advice.

Myself, I don't see why something that created nature or was fundamental to all of it would be susceptible to naturalistic investigation or why that constitutes a problem for God rather than a limitation of naturalism..

[Gordon]

Myself, I don't see why something that created nature or was fundamental to all of it would be susceptible to naturalistic investigation or why that constitutes a problem for God rather than a limitation of naturalism..

So what method of investigation would you advise if, as you suggest, naturalism doesn't apply?

[Enki]

Myself, I don't see why something that created nature or was fundamental to all of it would be susceptible to naturalistic investigation or why that constitutes a problem for God rather than a limitation of naturalism..

Okay. So what method(s) do you suggest which have less limitations than natural evidence? And if you can't give me one(or more) then why should I accept that there is a god(s) in the first place?

[Sriram]

What matters is that there is a God.  We know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did make himself known. PROOF was the rainbow and the reason for it. We have the future her forecast but the 12 tribes of Israel and how only 2 remain the tribe of Israel has the tribe of Benjamin and the tribe of Judah the tribe Christ born from.

We know God told his people they would have no God but him. We have to trust in his word. Not the words of man through false gods. We need to listen and learn.

Yes.....I believe there is a God. However that's not the point I am discussing here.

My point is that there is one God. Obviously then he/she/it has created the whole world....including Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains and Christians.

We can't see or know him directly so we imagine him in different ways and pray in different ways. God is obviously aware of the different ways in which people imagine and worship him. 

In every culture and community, God has revealed himself indirectly in various ways and there have been miracles and revelations of different kinds. There have been sages, prophets and saints in all communities. People have found peace, love and salvation in all communities.

Why then do some communities insist that only their way is the right way and their image of God is the right one? It just doesn't make sense.

If there are multiple Gods then there is some meaning in insisting that one is better or superior to the others.........not if there is only One God.

[ekim]

Proof of what? I didn't say that God can't possibly exist. I do need evidence however for its existences and you can't provide the evidence that God exists.

Then you need to seek for that evidence but be careful.  Sol appears in the Heavens every morning.  He brings warmth and light to the world.  However, do not gaze directly upon his countenance as He will blind you.  Also, if you go on a pilgrimage to the holy site of Costa del Sol and remove all your clothing in worship, beware, if like me you have a white skin and you do not exercise respect and moderation, He turns you red and burns the Hell out of you.

[Enki]

Then you need to seek for that evidence but be careful.  Sol appears in the Heavens every morning.  He brings warmth and light to the world.  However, do not gaze directly upon his countenance as He will blind you.  Also, if you go on a pilgrimage to the holy site of Costa del Sol and remove all your clothing in worship, beware, if like me you have a white skin and you do not exercise respect and moderation, He turns you red and burns the Hell out of you.

I'm sure this God would have done that already.   I'm reminded of the cartoon where a bolt of lightning is just about to strike a golfer but zig zags away at the last second as the golfer says, "but then maybe there is a god after all"

[Free Willy]

Okay. So what method(s) do you suggest which have less limitations than natural evidence? And if you can't give me one(or more) then why should I accept that there is a god(s) in the first place?

With all due respect to you and Gordon, your request for a method to proceed with investigating God is no sequitur to the realisation that natural methods have an inbuilt filter. Science does not do God as they say. It isn't equipped, although in pondering simulated universe theory it has come so close to a God figure some scientists have spotted the incursion into the religious domain.

It's rather like being told that Phonographs are not multimedia equipment and asking what you are meant to be doing with your old 78 rpm records.

You hold a good number of beliefs which you arrived at by means other than empirical methods. By conscience, moral compass, reason, zeitgeist etc so science is not the only means we have at our disposal.

[ProfessorDavey]

With all due respect to you and Gordon, your request for a method to proceed with investigating God is no sequitur to the realisation that natural methods have an inbuilt filter. Science does not do God as they say. It isn't equipped, although in pondering simulated universe theory it has come so close to a God figure some scientists have spotted the incursion into the religious domain.

I disagree unless you are arguing for a completely non-interventionalist god that never interacts with the natural world. But that certainly isn't the god claimed by christians.

So if god interacts with the natural word he/she/it will leave an imprint on the natural world that is perfectly amenable to detection by science. In fact science is very good at detecting the presence of something, not directly, but indirectly via changes in something else. There are countless examples, but here in one - we detect the presence of planets orbiting far off stars not directly but due to their impact on the light from that star as the planet passes in front of it.

So while god has no interaction with the natural world we may conclude that god is not detectable by science, but as soon as there is interaction god will become amenable to science. Problem for you is that despite the claims of folk like you that god readily interacts with the natural world, there is absolutely zero credible evidence for that interaction and therefore zero credible evidence that this god exists.

[Free Willy]

I disagree unless you are arguing for a completely non-interventionalist god that never interacts with the natural world. But that certainly isn't the god claimed by christians.

So if god interacts with the natural word he/she/it will leave an imprint on the natural world that is perfectly amenable to detection by science. In fact science is very good at detecting the presence of something, not directly, but indirectly via changes in something else. There are countless examples, but here in one - we detect the presence of planets orbiting far off stars not directly but due to their impact on the light from that star as the planet passes in front of it.

So while god has no interaction with the natural world we may conclude that god is not detectable by science, but as soon as there is interaction god will become amenable to science. Problem for you is that despite the claims of folk like you that god readily interacts with the natural world, there is absolutely zero credible evidence for that interaction and therefore zero credible evidence that this god exists.

But Professor as you know all sorts of weird and wonderful things are claimed at the quantum level and this could  be where God is intervening. It's therefore the theists God versus your "Hey presto!" or "Bob's your uncle" explanations

[Enki]

With all due respect to you and Gordon, your request for a method to proceed with investigating God is no sequitur to the realisation that natural methods have an inbuilt filter. Science does not do God as they say. It isn't equipped, although in pondering simulated universe theory it has come so close to a God figure some scientists have spotted the incursion into the religious domain.

It's rather like being told that Phonographs are not multimedia equipment and asking what you are meant to be doing with your old 78 rpm records.

You hold a good number of beliefs which you arrived at by means other than empirical methods. By conscience, moral compass, reason, zeitgeist etc so science is not the only means we have at our disposal.

With all due respect, I would remind you that I was responding to Sassy's idea that there is 'proof' that God 'made himself known' by stating that there is no evidence that God exists.

It was you who latched on to the idea that 'natural investigation' has limitations, a suggestion which I readily agreed with. However, as I thought, the only alternatives you list above have even more glaring limitations(e.g. the origins of one's moral compass could well be that it is an evolutionary development) and therefore fail miserably as evidence for God's existence.

The fact that you justify your beliefs to yourself is of no import to me. I am not here to challenge your sense of belief at all. I simply suggest that, rationally, I have no reason to believe in the existence of any god.

[Sriram]

I disagree unless you are arguing for a completely non-interventionalist god that never interacts with the natural world. But that certainly isn't the god claimed by christians.

So if god interacts with the natural word he/she/it will leave an imprint on the natural world that is perfectly amenable to detection by science. In fact science is very good at detecting the presence of something, not directly, but indirectly via changes in something else. There are countless examples, but here in one - we detect the presence of planets orbiting far off stars not directly but due to their impact on the light from that star as the planet passes in front of it.

So while god has no interaction with the natural world we may conclude that god is not detectable by science, but as soon as there is interaction god will become amenable to science. Problem for you is that despite the claims of folk like you that god readily interacts with the natural world, there is absolutely zero credible evidence for that interaction and therefore zero credible evidence that this god exists.

Science has indeed detected such intelligent interventions. They are however dismissed as random variations and random events.

[ProfessorDavey]

Science has indeed detected such intelligent interventions. They are however dismissed as random variations and random events.

They haven't dismissed anything - they have (as science does) looked at the observations and evidence (including random variation in things) and have developed theories to explain observations - the theory being the best explanation based on the current evidence. If 'god' was the best explanation for the current evidence science would posit 'god' in their theories. But weirdly it never seems to be - wonder why that might be.

[Free Willy]

With all due respect, I would remind you that I was responding to Sassy's idea that there is 'proof' that God 'made himself known' by stating that there is no evidence that God exists.

It was you who latched on to the idea that 'natural investigation' has limitations, a suggestion which I readily agreed with. However, as I thought, the only alternatives you list above have even more glaring limitations(e.g. the origins of one's moral compass could well be that it is an evolutionary development) and therefore fail miserably as evidence for God's existence.

The fact that you justify your beliefs to yourself is of no import to me. I am not here to challenge your sense of belief at all. I simply suggest that, rationally, I have no reason to believe in the existence of any god.

I dispute though that there is no reason to believe there is a God. One can believe in a necessary entity and either believe it has characteristics derived through reason or one can abandon reason on the altar of committed atheism and call it the Universe  with all the problematic contingency and invite that demands.

[Sriram]

They haven't dismissed anything - they have (as science does) looked at the observations and evidence (including random variation in things) and have developed theories to explain observations - the theory being the best explanation based on the current evidence. If 'god' was the best explanation for the current evidence science would posit 'god' in their theories. But weirdly it never seems to be - wonder why that might be.

God is a loaded word and means lot of different things to different people.  I am not suggesting that 'God' should be a scientific explanation.

But 'intelligent intervention' of some kind is certainly a possibility. Randomness creating such complexity and order, again and again, at millions of different points...is absurd.

We may not know what that Intelligence really is or how it works.....but that it exists is quite clear and has certainly been detected.   

[Enki]

I dispute though that there is no reason to believe there is a God. One can believe in a necessary entity and either believe it has characteristics derived through reason or one can abandon reason on the altar of committed atheism and call it the Universe  with all the problematic contingency and invite that demands.

I didn't say that there is no reason to believe in God, though. I said that rationally I have no reason to believe in God. I can think of many reasons why a person might believe in God.

I have no idea what 'committed atheism' is supposed to mean or why I should call the universe God? I suspect that this is you wandering off the subject.

[Free Willy]

I didn't say that there is no reason to believe in God, though. I said that rationally I have no reason to believe in God. I can think of many reasons why a person might believe in God.

I have no idea what 'committed atheism' is supposed to mean or why I should call the universe God? I suspect that this is you wandering off the subject.

We could go on like this all day you say that there is no rational reason and I say that's wrong, with examples, then you
just say there are no reasons to believe in God and so it goes.

[Enki]

We could go on like this all day you say that there is no rational reason and I say that's wrong, with examples, then you
just say there are no reasons to believe in God and so it goes.

All day and every day most likely.  Mind you, you seem to be trying to twist my words again. I didn't say there are no reasons to believe in God or even that there were no rational reasons to believe in God. All I said was that I(myself,me) find no rational reason to believe in God, because of lack of evidence for its existence. As for your 'examples', I assume you mean, 'conscience, moral compass, reason, zeitgeist etc '. Each of these can have alternative sources to the input of God, such as the make up of the human brain, influence of culture, influence of evolution, social influences. To suggest that they are in some way dependent on God begs the question of whether this god actually exists and you're back to square one which is where is the evidence for God's existence?

A question which you seem quite unable to answer.

[Free Willy]

All day and every day most likely.  Mind you, you seem to be trying to twist my words again.

Again??!!??

I didn't say there are no reasons to believe in God or even that there were no rational reasons to believe in God. All I said was that I(myself,me) find no rational reason to believe in God,

OK  let me get this straight, You believe there could be reasons out there but they haven't been presented to you?

because of lack of evidence for its existence.

Ah well here I think you are confusing reason with empirical evidence. In other words many scientific theories of the past were wrong but they were not unreasonable

As for your 'examples',

Not sure why the inverted commas are there

I assume you mean, 'conscience, moral compass, reason, zeitgeist etc '. Each of these can have alternative sources to the input of God, such as the make up of the human brain, influence of culture, influence of evolution, social influences.

Yes, I used to think that adequately explained things but there are a couple of aspects to  them 1) How do they arise ? 2) What about the explanatory gaps.In other words how do we get from say intelligence to consciousness. The answer was by leaps of faith,
 I believed as you do that science would have the answer, and that is inescapably a belief, that science has the answer

To suggest that they are in some way dependent on God begs the question of whether this god actually exists and you're back to square one which is where is the evidence for God's existence?

A question which you seem quite unable to answer.

No I have given the argument from contingency and have pointed out that beliefs such as empiricism, scientism(faith in science)and naturalism are themselves unevidenced beliefs although they work as tools in certain contexts and your confusion of reason and empirical evidence

[ProfessorDavey]

God is a loaded word and means lot of different things to different people.  I am not suggesting that 'God' should be a scientific explanation.

But 'intelligent intervention' of some kind is certainly a possibility.

But science doesn't dismiss intelligent interventions at all. A plausible explanation for many observations may be that what was observed was created deliberately by human action or the action of other species - and therefore intelligent intervention.

Randomness creating such complexity and order, again and again, at millions of different points...is absurd.

We may not know what that Intelligence really is or how it works.....but that it exists is quite clear and has certainly been detected.

Nope, what is absurd is the notion that something complex must always have been created by something more complex. Now firstly that logically cannot be applied consistently without infinite regress. Secondly it is typically based on a subjective anthropocentric notion of 'complexity' that somehow posits that a human is more complex than a tree, or a weather system or the sun etc etc. And thirdly it defies evidence, where we see time and time again what we would describe as complexity arising spontaneously through fundamental energetics and random variation. Snow flakes anyone?