God we can understand

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

religious faith in God is a lot more than just trusting or having confidence in Him. Otherwise, it would be no different than one’s feelings toward a favored politician or doctor.

But this aspect of faith (I imagine) is similar to that, except that a politician or doctor didn’t “create the universe”. It seems strange to personify this Creator as a being. It could just as easily (assuming it exists) be a force or set of forces, including a form of karma. If we imagine that all of the four dimensions of the universe exist “already” – we are navigating through an existing 4-D landscape – then karma becomes more powerful, as it could operate backwards and forwards through time.

Like I just said in another post, I’ll wait for proof that the universe was created instead of just happened.

If “God” is a force and not a being, then that’s basically an atheist explanation in a nutshell, and there really is no God. Admit it.

The four dimensions of the universe belong to the universe, and thus were not there waiting for a universe to happen, but rather came along with it.

[Simon Paynton]

I’ll wait for proof that the universe was created instead of just happened.

That’s basically impossible, either way, for the foreseeable future.

If “God” is a force and not a being, then that’s basically an atheist explanation in a nutshell,

Maybe you’re right.

[Davis]

Then we will have to wait a very long time to confirm anything.

[Unseen]

Davis wrote:

Then we will have to wait a very long time to confirm anything.

In the meantime, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and God, as described, is, well, a pretty extraordinary being. That the universe “just happened” or “happened for reasons beyond our ken” is a more likely supposition even though these explanations are beyond proof as well. That said, if you combine the two alternative explanations, you end up with basically what most cosmologists believe, that for reasons we can only conjecture about, the universe happened (or from our point of view, “JUST happened”).

 

[Simon Paynton]

This is a very interesting programme on BBC Radio 4: “The Nature of God”.  At time of posting it’s still on air for another 7 minutes.  After that it should be available on listen again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00082dt

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

This is a very interesting programme on BBC Radio 4: “The Nature of God”. At time of posting it’s still on air for another 7 minutes. After that it should be available on listen again. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00082dt

Does that discussion include gods like Hanuman, Aura Mazda, Zeus, Odin, etc., or just the Abrahamic god?

[Simon Paynton]

Krishna’s in it.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

Was there a theologian speaking? Did they know the nature of God or were they just guessing?

[Davis]

the universe [simply] happened

This is pretty much the default explanation. And it isn’t an incredible claim. It’s the most succinct. And there is nothing inherantly irrational about it. But then the human brain is built with every mechanism possible to resist this and fight it through bad reasoning as well as deeply, passionately and emotionally.

[Simon Paynton]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Did they know the nature of God or were they just guessing?

You’d have to listen to find out.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

Hmm…I am always curious to hear how these people have discovered the nature of god, why I am denied access to such information and then disappointed to find that they are are only pretending to know things that they  cannot possibly know. I will venture that they are merely but guessing at it as mere mortals can only do. I suspect they will dress their vocabulary up in the garbled verbiage of theology and rifle the writings of Aquinas and Anselm to give it a veneer that bedazzles the befuddled minds of theists who crave for it all to be true. It must be true for them. I mean the Universe could not “just happen”. That would imply we are of no long term significance and that just cannot be. I mean why else do we have a soul and a yearning to grow strong spiritual foundations. There must be more!!

OK, I will listen to it in the hope of being amazed with how different it is to all the other conversations I have endured. I look forward to concise and reason argument, healthy debate and mature adults making sense.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

The first of the trinity of theologians calls God “love or divine mystery”. The second was amazed by water droplets on a tree and the third say “If you want to talk about god you are not going to get very far with clear and distinct ideas”.

Speaker 1. “God is both in the vastness and beyondness of things but fully and completely revealed in the person of Jesus Christ”.

Speaker 2. “God is a very dear friend who sits right next to me in my heart and supports all the choices that I make and at the same time god is that supreme personality of godhead from whom all creation and all experiences emanate”.

Speaker 3. God is a presence that runs in and through all things for me but is quite still and powerful in that presence and stillness.

Captain, it’s the engines here. Scotty can’t take anymore. That’s a trinity of minutes gone forever.

[PopeBeanie]

The nature of God derives directly from the nature of man. Period!

Or maybe

The natechu of Gahd dewives fwom the natechu of man. Peewiod!

• This reply was modified 6 years, 7 months ago by PopeBeanie. Reason: Typos, believe it or not

[Author]

Posts