Kindest regards, PaganProphet!
Very well, pleased to meet you!
About the argument from the first Unmoved Mover. I think it is not founded upon true logical necessity, whatever Aristotle says otherwise. It is not an argument but a pleading to accept an end to the endlessly continuing series of moved and mover, on and on and on... The pleading namely that we all stop the series and just accept someone at the end somewhere, calling Him God.
Considering the day and age in which Aristotle lived, this was one of the first acknowledged philosophical attempts at logically arguing for the existence of a "God". That God was not "necessarily" the traditional monotheistic interpretation of "God." The culture and society in which Aristotle lived was polytheistic. If I understood the story correctly, he was rebuffed by his peers predominantly on those grounds.
Ah… Yes, but to me, God is the concept of the beginning of all things. Unless you think that the universe never started and was always here then there does not have to be a God. One can also believe that God himself could be the universe though.
God as concept...hmm...are you certain you're not a philosophy student?
I will try to explain this to you the best I can having been in physics last year. Energy cannot be destroyed or created. No matter what happens when you use up energy you turn that energy to a different type of energy.
I envy you, what little physics I understand is self-taught. However, perpetual motion is impossible because of friction. That energy may be converted, but it is no longer available for motion. Further, matter in my understanding is another expression of energy. Matter too, is not destroyed, it is changed in form.
To say that energy is being exhausted is like saying that matter is disappearing from reality (matter cannot be destroyed either). I have no idea what astronomical physicists tell you but I have seen much evidence by them that the universe is doing the opposite of what you claim. The universe is expanding. Not only is it expanding but also it is accelerating (meaning that the universe is gaining energy)
Energy is not exhausted or destroyed, yet it is
gaining? I have read a number of articles by "astronomical physicists", and have heard competing claims from and between them. So do I accept your word, on faith? With the next issue of a science magazine, they will posit something different, so if you wait long enough things will change yet again. In other words, astronomical physics is still developing, and what one reads today may be irrelevant or only of passing interest tomorrow.
Who is to even say that God is a being? Why would the creator of life limit himself to the laws of life? If God is a being and is infinite then he must be able to stay alive forever.
Please clarify what it is you mean by "being." I am prepared in my understanding to accept a number of possibilities, any or all of which encompass what you point out here. The metaphor is the potter and the clay. Who is the clay to tell the potter what to do, or assign to the potter anything? Whether a being or not is irrelevant. Whether beyond the infinite or not is irrelevant. Whether able to do anything or limited, is irrelevant. Whether sentient or not is irrelevant. Whether Prime or not is irrelevant. What He is, and His direct relevance to us, is as Creator and "Father" of life on this planet. If more, then so. If not, it doesn't matter
to us as humans in this existence. If He has a cause, it is irrelevant to us. If He answers to any other is irrelevant to us. This is not faith, it is logic. It is logic by our position in the Grand Scheme of things. To the microbe, the ant seems as god, humans are irrelevant. What lies beyond, is out of the sphere of the microbe's realization, and is irrelevant, most especially in this realm of existence.
a tone of spelling errors…
I love this, very punny!
I assume that you don’t think it is imposable to understand God. Though, in the past, (If I’m not mistaken) you continue to say that God is something no one can understand.
I didn't say God was impossible to understand
forever and always. I have said, repeatedly and in different manners, that He is beyond our scope of understanding
in this existence. That we are able to try is in my mind evidence of the generosity He has bestowed upon us, and the trust He places in us. That is my
belief.
I have no proof either way that God is infinite or finite, comprehendible or incomprehensible I don’t even have proof that God is a being a thing nothing or everything. My whole argument was trying to show you that it is Impossible to know for sure how complex or what created the universe. Now I’m not saying that it is impossible to know any answers ever. I’m saying that you can never be sure. Some say, “There are no absolutes.” I then ask them, “Are you absolutely sure?”
It seems to me we are mostly in agreement here. The difference being that I have chosen to move on by faith based experience combined with rational logic, rather than get muddled and mentally bogged down and constricted by mindgames that can never be resolved in this plane of existence. Profundity for the pure sake of profundity is a waste of time and effort.
That is one very good opinion to a section to your meaning of life but let me ask you this: why do you believe that (we are created to love God, jt3)? Upon what evidence is your claim based? To me this seems to be (no offence) fairytale-like. It seems too good to be true.
Then you had a horrible Sunday-school teacher. It's no wonder then, that you have such difficulty with Christianity/Judaism specifically, and monotheism in general.
why not tell us directly of his existence? (I would be able to love him if I knew him)
Ah, but would you, really?
Just because he gave us options does not mean that it allows love.
I'm not sure how you could possibly get this from what I wrote. You are carrying back to your old arguments about and between predestination and free-will. You must step beyond that vicious circle of mental self-defeatism in order to fully understand.
…Think of someone you love. Do you know this person? (See them, feel them, and know what there like) Do you think you would still love this person the same way if you did not know them? (If you could not see them, feel them, and know what there like) It seems to be unbelievable to me in my opinion.
If you (brotherly) loved your (unseen) neighbor as yourself, then yes. So you only believe seeing is believing? And that love can only come from seeing? You cannot see the universe expand, yet you believe? The scientists cannot see the edge of the universe, they cannot
absolutely say the universe is expanding. Because you personally cannot see love, it doesn't exist? Or because you cannot see your "brother" in Africa, you are not required to love him, indeed cannot? Your opinion seems to me unbelievable.
Furthermore, ... that is similar to saying that God has limits and therefore not infinite.
Please show me where I have emphatically stated that God can do anything? I sincerely do not recall ever making any such statement, it is contrary to my "belief." The only time I recollect anything close was in response to your assertion about God being confined by time within an infinite universe. I am beginning to think the futility in this discussion lies in arguing non-sense with more non-sense.
But how is one supposed to know that unless that person is Christian or reads the bible?
What does the term, "by nature" mean to you? If morality is naturally inherent, your argument is moot.
If one does not believe or practice this through there own logic and reason then is that person going to hell?
Yes. No matter how rational, no matter what religion, if a person cannot be moral to his fellow human beings, ultimate destruction is the final outcome. The universal IS, the Grand Scheme, will not long tolerate opposing force. You can only swim against the current for so long, before you are exhausted and swept away.
So Basically you mean: As long as you look for truth you will find answers in the afterlife.
Rather simplistic and not all-inclusive, but if that's what floats your boat, yes.
Is it possible to do anything you don’t want to do?
Yes, I don't want to sneeze, and I just did. Want is relevant to possibility only in the case of the impossible. Or, as stated in Admiral's Law, "nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it." I dream whether I want to or not. I breathe, my heart beats, my blood circulates, I get hungry, whether or not I want to. I require food, shelter, clothing, water, whether or not I want them.
I thought you were arguing against free-will? Or was it predestination, I forget now... So, if everything is a choice, then you choose whether or not to be moral towards your brothers and sisters. If you choose not to be, then you have chosen your fate. You have chosen to swim against the current, and by doing so you have chosen to suffer the consequences. You choose whether or not to pay attention to the little whisper in your ear called a conscience. You choose whether to abide by your natural inclinations, or to override them with irrelevant reasoning.
No one (sane) does not want to know truth (or the meaning of life).
Uh, I've met a few insane people who
KNEW the truth and the meaning of life. And they were only too happy to jump up on their soap boxes. Likewise I know perfectly sane people who can't be bothered, so your argument here is seriously flawed.
If everyone is looking for truth accept about .000001% of the people then what is the point of hell? What is the point of not sinning if everyone looking for truth would go to heaven?
How can you tenuously apply the search for truth to hell? I stated, emphatically, DOING the teaching of the truth. This will lead to a path of understanding.
Satanists are looking for truth. Do they get to go to heaven?
Do they love their brothers and sisters (literal and figurative), neighbors (literal and figurative) and spouses, in a properly moral way? Do they observe the natural and inherent morality? You are struggling to confuse issues, to no end purpose but your own confusion. How can I be certain of what it is you specifically mean by "satanist."
Furthermore, your last statement claimed that “this is a promise that love leads” however, I don’t see why you assume that you will ever know the answer.
Do you have a difficult time grasping written concepts? Not intended as a slight, I specifically stated that was my
belief based on prophecy. It is an assumption, one I am willing to take on, as a portion of the path of wisdom I have chosen. This is a portion of my intuitive experience.
What is the point of life if we are going to be given the answer later on anyway? What is the point of life if it does not matter what we do with this life? According to the total of your arguments life is pointless and the afterlife (of which is a belief) is where we will gain the answers. Maybe I’m wrong in thinking that this is what you believe so please correct me if I’m wrong.
Maybe the point of life is to prove yourself worthy of that period of learning. If you are not worthy, why should you be taught? And I have not stated we will learn ALL truths at that time, but we will learn those truths we are capable of handling
in that plane of existence. So life in this existence is not pointless.
I believe it is entirely up to interpretation and individual experience. Otherwise I agree.
Yet you argue from the stance of logic/rationality. Experience/intuition is fundamentally belief, because your senses can be deceived.
