Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Can God be in more than one place at once?


Recommended Posts

Posted
20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Atheist: "There IS no purpose"

I don't know of atheists that argue this as a dogmatic principle of faith. Can you reference some for me?

Posted
2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh, it's technology you want, is it?

 

Huh?

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok so God has a constant ZOOM connection with all humans simultaneously, with a God-O-CAM attached so He can see you and your thoughts and feelings any time you wanna talk.

He's not THERE but doesn't have to be, if his presence is required he hops into the God -O- Mobile, and is instantly knocking at your door.

Do you let Him in?  :)

Or will a similarly equipped God-O-Bot do for now?

Quick, He's a busy Guy... ;)

But we don't yet have his technology so we make up stories like this one to explain the mechanism, which is actually irrelevant.... you want HOW answers instead of WHY answers.

That is the real problem ;)

Does that help?

 

 

I am not taking a pro omnipresent position.  Just pointing out what Classical, Orthodox, Historic Christianity believes.

Posted
1 minute ago, Teancum said:

I don't know of atheists that argue this as a dogmatic principle of faith. Can you reference some for me?

Hmmmm, so Atheists believe the earth and humanity have a purpose?

That is called "secular religion "

You don't need God to have religion.

Google "secular religion "

It's omnipresent ;)

 

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 

Huh?

I am not taking a pro omnipresent position.  Just pointing out what Classical, Orthodox, Historic Christianity believes.

I don't think you get the idea of a justifiable paradigm.

Technology is another justifiable paradigm for God. Lotsa Mormons are into it.

I forget the term...

Edit: Mormon Transhumanism

https://transfigurism.org/primer-mormon-transhumanism

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Hmmmm, so Atheists believe the earth and humanity have a purpose?

That is called "secular religion "

You don't need God to have religion.

Google "secular religion "

It's omnipresent ;)

 

Purpose can be found without God.  But my comment was can you reference an atheist that has the position that there is no purpose as a dogmatic proposition of faith?

Posted
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Hmmmm, so Atheists believe the earth and humanity have a purpose?

That is called "secular religion "

You don't need God to have religion.

Google "secular religion "

It's omnipresent ;)

 

So God travels by means of a starship that has warp speed technology.  Got it.😋

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Purpose can be found without God.  But my comment was can you reference an atheist that has the position that there is no purpose as a dogmatic proposition of faith?

There is no other way to postulate that "there is no purpose" and that every thing exists due to random events.

Such a paradigm cannot be  "proven".  There is always room for God.  Both positions require "faith" in a "non-provable" position.

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Hmmm I am not sure that [a very different set of "physical" laws being in play beyond the earth plane] is correct. What evidence is there of another set of physical laws. 

I thank you for the polite wording you chose to express your skepticism.  

I was replying to someone who is apparently a believer in LDS teachings, and was thinking of the scripture in the D&C (section 130 I think) that talks about "all things past, present, and future" being "continually manifest".  So I was attempting to speak "Mormon".  Obviously that's not going to constitute "evidence" to someone who does not accept the LDS scriptures.  

Nor is my wording necessarily precise, even within an LDS paradigm.

If I was trying to make a case for things like locality and time being very different "beyond the earth plane" to someone who is agnostic and skeptical, oboy that would be an uphill battle.  Does "beyond the earth plane" (or something beyond what we can presently observe) even exist?  I believe there is "evidence" of such which does not rely on religion, some of it in the form of near-death experience accounts, including the following from atheist/agnostic medical experts in relevant fields: 

Here is a neurologist describing her near-death experience:  https://youtu.be/-IuJKabyx_g?t=55

And, here is a neurosurgeon describing his:  https://youtu.be/qbkgj5J91hE?t=1020

My own belief that there is something beyond our normal physical-world reality is based more on personal experience than on other people's experiences, but I doubt that such would have any credibility here because I can bring neither credentialed expertise nor documentation.  

Just for the record, I respect your skeptical and analytical approach.  And I likewise have great respect for the purity and practicality of a morality which is based on neither the hope of reward nor the fear of punishment, but rather is free to seek and embrace what I would call Light without the need for reconciliation with an external creed or dogma.  

 

Edited by Olmec Donald
Posted
34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There is no other way to postulate that "there is no purpose" and that every thing exists due to random events.

Such a paradigm cannot be  "proven".  There is always room for God.  Both positions require "faith" in a "non-provable" position.

So you have no reference that there atheists have this as a dogmatic assertion of faith.  So it is your position that without a God being there is no purpose to existence.  Does a wolf, a bear, a dog or cat or fish have purpose?  Do the have meaning in life without God?

Posted
39 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

I thank you for the polite wording you chose to express your skepticism.  

I was replying to someone who is apparently a believer in LDS teachings, and was thinking of the scripture in the D&C (section 130 I think) that talks about "all things past, present, and future" being "continually manifest".  So I was attempting to speak "Mormon".  Obviously that's not going to constitute "evidence" to someone who does not accept the LDS scriptures.  

Nor is my wording necessarily precise, even within an LDS paradigm.

If I was trying to make a case for things like locality and time being very different "beyond the earth plane" to someone who is agnostic and skeptical, oboy that would be an uphill battle.  Does "beyond the earth plane" (or something beyond what we can presently observe) even exist?  I believe there is "evidence" of such which does not rely on religion, some of it in the form of near-death experience accounts, including the following from atheist/agnostic medical experts in relevant fields: 

Here is a neurologist describing her near-death experience:  https://youtu.be/-IuJKabyx_g?t=55

And, here is a neurosurgeon describing his:  https://youtu.be/qbkgj5J91hE?t=1020

My own belief that there is something beyond our normal physical-world reality is based more on personal experience than on other people's experiences, but I doubt that such would have any credibility here because I can bring neither credentialed expertise nor documentation.  

Just for the record, I respect your skeptical and analytical approach.  And I likewise have great respect for the purity and practicality of a morality which is based on neither the hope of reward nor the fear of punishment, but rather is free to seek and embrace what I would call Light without the need for reconciliation with an external creed or dogma.  

 

You are a good person and fine example of civil discourse.

Posted
2 hours ago, Teancum said:

So you have no reference that there atheists have this as a dogmatic assertion of faith.  So it is your position that without a God being there is no purpose to existence.  Does a wolf, a bear, a dog or cat or fish have purpose?  Do the have meaning in life without God?

I never said anything even like that.

Those are my interpretations and replies to those positions.

No, people don't usually see the errors and weaknesses of their own beliefs.  You need to learn how to refute the arguments, not the sarcastic overtone

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

My own belief that there is something beyond our normal physical-world reality is based more on personal experience than on other people's experiences, but I doubt that such would have any credibility here because I can bring neither credentialed expertise nor documentation. 

Gosh, you are so much nicer than I am!  Good for you!

Empirical Theology based on Radical Empiricism is really starting to take off!

https://www.religion-online.org/article/empirical-theology-a-revisable-tradition/

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Gosh, you are so much nicer than I am!  Good for you!

Empirical Theology based on Radical Empiricism is really starting to take off!

https://www.religion-online.org/article/empirical-theology-a-revisable-tradition/

See this as well

https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/philosophy-and-religion/judaism-biographies/mordecai-menahem-kaplan

"By "evolving," Kaplan means that Judaism should be considered from a pragmatic, historical point of view, rather than a metaphysical or revelational one. All concepts and rituals should be measured by their usefulness in sustaining individual and communal growth. The focus of Jewish life has to be the Jewish people, its needs and its response to challenge, rather than reliance on "revealed" texts or metaphysical constructions. Kaplan argued that the Jewish people will not and should not rely on a static theory of Judaism. After responsible study, each Jew must contribute his own understanding to solving the perplexities of life. Tradition must guide but not dictate. Kaplan fully embraced the pluralism inherent in his conception. He understood that his own naturalistic approach can be only an option. Henceforth, Jews will have to learn the art of compromise and how to orchestrate their differences with mutual respect."

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I never said anything even like that.

Those are my interpretations and replies to those positions.

No, people don't usually see the errors and weaknesses of their own beliefs.  You need to learn how to refute the arguments, not the sarcastic overtone

You need to learn to communicate so people can understand you. There was no sarcasm in my comments.  

Posted
9 hours ago, Teancum said:

So God travels by means of a starship that has warp speed technology.  Got it.😋

I see what you did there. Thank you for bringing up that painful memory.

Posted

this discussion is like asking a bunch of pre-schoolers to explain love and romance. I suspect we are as far removed from comprehending the nature of God as an ape is removed from understanding advanced algebra. We know time is relative to where you are and how fast you are moving. We also know that we really know nothing of the word around us. I suspect that, as mortals, we lack the intellectual capacity to understand the true nature of the universe just as apes lack the capacity to understand algebra. It is a pointless of academic exercise. Does a being as advanced as god require face to face personal contact to build a relationship? Perhaps communication and social bonding works differently, just as communication and social bonding differs between an infant and an adult.

We are trying to judge the nature of God based only upon our mortal experience. We are left to impost mortal standards of emotions, time, methods of communication and so forth upon an eternal being that is not bound by the laws of physics as we understand them. And no, I am not saying God is not bound by the laws of physics. Science is in its infancy, in 500 years from how we will laugh at the peer reviewed physics papers of today. 

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Freedom said:

And no, I am not saying God is not bound by the laws of physics. Science is in its infancy, in 500 years from how we will laugh at the peer reviewed physics papers of today. 

Why wait?
And not just physics.

7m02.gif

Edited by JLHPROF
Posted
7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I see what you did there. Thank you for bringing up that painful memory.

No, no. You need hypnosis therapy so you can confront the memories of the abductions and heal!

Posted
4 hours ago, Nofear said:

No, no. You need hypnosis therapy so you can confront the memories of the abductions and heal!

No, I got over that years ago. Watching Star Trek V though. That is something you don’t come back from.

Posted
51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, I got over that years ago. Watching Star Trek V though. That is something you don’t come back from.

Well, it's an odd number movie.  Somebody should have warned you.

Posted (edited)

Has anyone heard "How can you be in 2 places at once when you're not anywhere at all?" By Firesign Theater. It's comedy from the late 60s.

Or watched the movie Interstellar?

Edited by rodheadlee
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...