Wilgrea7:


Ok... Very interesting.

So if I may ask, what is this pure, untainted and objective truth, and what methods did you use to arrive at it?

I'm talking about objective truth in regards to religion and the existence of a god/gods

Even from the origin of the word “god”, you’ll know it comes from mythology.

Wilgrea7:


I think I get it now. So basically, your understanding is, if someone is questioning their belief, it's best to get the answers from someone who knows more about said belief.

So for example, should a christian who questions the origin of the bible go to a historian as opposed to a pastor

I'm not religious so I can't relate properly, but I Believe the bible and other religious manuals have their traces in history, but when it gets to a juncture where there is doubt then one should lean unto his/her supernatural reference for guidance..
that is why it is better to approach God from a spiritual angle than a religious angle.
I would have said that there is no God and religion is just a tool to enbondage the gullible, but my personal encounter with God as a spirit has subdued all rational or logical / religious standard of belief

Akakanfirstclass:


I'm not a religious so I can't relate properly, but I Believe the bible and other religious manuals have their traces in history, but when it gets to a juncture where there is doubt then one should lean unto his/her supernatural reference for guidance..
that is why it is better to God from a spiritual angle than a religious angle.
I would have said that there is no God and religion is just a tool to enbondage the gullible, but my personal encounter with God as a spirit has subdued all rational or logical / religious standard of belief

And I bet that personal encounter was with one of the Abramaic gods.

Maynmann:


And I bet that personal encounter was with one of the Abramaic gods.

I dont know as They didnt tell me their origin..
or maybe I was to afraid to ask..

mind you, when I say personal encounter I mean a physical witnessing of three beings standing before me, in my room with a shape of man but no a man's body rather a nature of light like a white florescent light..

not a vision or dream but they came to me while I was in a very conscious state..

although I was too afraid and puzzled to ask questions then, because I was younger back then.
so I pretended to be a furniture covering my face while Shivering but they didn't seem to buy the idea.

my greatest wish is that they come to me again let us talk man to man or man to spirit.

pls these beings were not ghosts..

although after many years apart, I ater read the Christian book of revelation where Christ appeared to John, and it reminded me of my encounter because John was so afraid that he fell down as though he was dead.

although the three beings I saw dis t exactly match John's description but they were just like man but with a florescent light in nature not man's body. .

so I can't tell whether it was abrahamic God or not but I Believe they maybe many gods but one Almighty God irrespective of religion. .

I have had several other encounters that is beyond scientific explanations hence my believe in God.

Akakanfirstclass:


I dont know as They didnt tell me their origin..
or maybe I was to afraid to ask..

mind you, when I say personal encounter I mean a physical witnessing of three beings standing before me, in my room with a shape of man but no a man's body rather a nature of light like a white florescent light..

not a vision or dream but they came to me while I was in a very conscious state..

although I was too afraid and puzzled to ask questions then, because I was younger back then.
so I pretended to be a furniture covering my face while Shivering but they didn't seem to buy the idea.

my greatest wish is that they come to me again let us talk man to man or man to spirit.

pls these beings were not ghosts..

although after many years apart, I ater read the Christian book of revelation where Christ appeared to John, and it reminded me of my encounter because John was so afraid that he fell down as though he was dead.

although the three beings I saw dis t exactly match John's description but they were just like man but with a florescent light in nature not man's body. .

so I can't tell whether it was abrahamic God or not but I Believe they maybe many gods but one Almighty God irrespective of religion. .

I have had several other encounters that is beyond scientific explanations hence my believe in God.

Revelation an apocrypha book that was almost left out of the CANON?
It was allegedly said to be John the Patmos, hope you know the author of the book?

Maybe you were in a trance.
God is a title not a person. You are sounding like a monotheistic, You are telling on yourself gradually.

Dtruthspeaker:


And this is where your "I don't want God," The Intelligent Being shows,

I never said I don't want “God".

For how long are you going to wait to see the clear and undisputable answer before you?

What exactly is this clear and undisputable answer?.. i said if you're going to go from “a first independent cause" to a “God", then there needs to be some sort or proof for it. Because the idea of a God seems to try to explain the nature of this independent first cause, and therefore, it needs to provide some proof to back up it's claim.

This is the proof of rejection I had warned you about which blinds you I wanna be atheists from accepting The Truth right before your eyes.

You've not shown me any sort of evidence for this “truth"

We don't see you waiting for any alternative as to who is the creator of the Toyota or the iPhone

Very good analogy. No one disputes the fact that the iphone was created.. however, who created the iphone is another question entirely.

The reason we KNOW who created the iphone, is not because we looked at the iPhone and assumed.

It is because we have proof of the human ideas, and activity, which brought about the production of the iphone.

But when it comes to God, now, you are seeking for options which of course we reasonable know and see that it is based on your personal wishes and desires.

Saying things like “when it comes to God" only presupposes the idea that you have proof that a God, was the independent first cause, and not something else.. which is what I'm looking for the proof of

So, you see, it is not because you do not know The Truth but because you do not want to accept the Truth.

If you want to label something as truth.. there needs to be objective proof of it. If you have such, I'd be happy to see it

Maynmann:


Revelation an apocrypha book that was almost left out of the CANON?
It was allegedly said to be John the Patmos, hope you know the author of the book?

Maybe you were in a trance.
God is a title not a person. You are sounding like a monotheistic, You are telling on yourself gradually.

whatever God is, I don't know
and I wasn't on trance. it wasn't like the book of revelation. it was as real you holding your phone consciously to read these texts.

well, whatever.

but whatsoever is beyond scientific explanations is supernatural and God is supernatural..

what would you say about scenarios where I dream things, I write them down or tell it to people and later it Happens in exact manner which I dreamt it or sometimes these scenarios have already happened to people but I didn't have the slightest idea about it, but if I dream and tell them, they confirm that exact thing has or is happening to them.

I further researched on these ability as it has happen countless times, infact I dream every time, these days I don't even sleep but I am dreaming, dreams that matches real life scenario..
from my research I arrived at two alternatives..
some people call it clairvoyance while other calls it trance or visions, but I am not a prophet..
hence such scenarios have proven to me that there is a supernatural side in existence and if there is, then there must be God

Akakanfirstclass:


whatever God is, I don't know
and I wasn't on trance. it wasn't like the book of revelation. it was as real you holding your phone consciously to read these texts.

well, whatever.

but whatsoever is beyond scientific explanations is supernatural and God is supernatural..

what would you say about scenarios where I dream things, I write them down or tell it to people and later it Happens in exact manner which I dreamt it or sometimes these scenarios have already happened to people but I didn't have the slightest idea about it, but if I dream and tell them, they confirm that exact thing has or is happening to them.

I further researched on these ability as it has happen countless times, infact I dream every time, these days I don't even sleep but I am dreaming, dreams that matches real life scenario..
from my research I arrived at two alternatives..
some people call it clairvoyance while other calls it trance or visions, but I am not a prophet..
hence such scenarios have proven to me that there is a supernatural side in existence and if there is, then there must be God

god and God, deity and Deity means same thing and they are TITLE. If you like put capital letter, na you know.
You had a personal encounter with an unknown something and you think it’s a deity. Okay bro
Better don’t use an apocrypha book to justify your trance.

Akakanfirstclass:


I'm not religious so I can't relate properly, but I Believe the bible and other religious manuals have their traces in history, but when it gets to a juncture where there is doubt then one should lean unto his/her supernatural reference for guidance..

what makes a supernatural reference an source of absolute truth in this situation? If someone turns to the specific religion/belief system they're having doubts in for objective proof, isn't that biased? And how exactly is that objective?

that is why it is better to approach God from a spiritual angle than a religious angle.
I would have said that there is no God and religion is just a tool to enbondage the gullible, but my personal encounter with God as a spirit has subdued all rational or logical / religious standard of belief

What exactly is a "spiritual" angle, and how does it differ from the religious angle? Also, approaching a "God" from a "spiritual" or "religious" angle already assumes that you have an idea on who or what this god should be. On what basis did you arrive at those ideas, and how are you sure they are objectively true?

Wilgrea7:


what makes a supernatural reference an source of absolute truth in this situation? If someone turns to the specific religion/belief system they're having doubts in for objective proof, isn't that biased? And how exactly is that objective?



What exactly is a "spiritual" angle, and how does it differ from the religious angle? Also, approaching a "God" from a "spiritual" or "religious" angle already assumes that you have an idea on who or what this god should be. On what basis did you arrive at those ideas, and how are you sure they are objectively true?

by spiritual reference and spiritual angle...
you should understand that I mean you must have seen this God or hear from him and then communicate to him..
and if you see,hear supernatural events that is out of the ordinary should you not believe that there must be God or a supernatural being ?...

in summary we should stop directing our questions of God's existence to historians or religious schoolars but rather we should seek those that claim to have encounter God and ask them our questions or ask God thru them..

and secondly, an encounter with a supernatural being or events is the beginning of proofs that there is God.
because seeing is believing

Akakanfirstclass:


by spiritual reference and spiritual angle...
you should understand that I mean you must have seen this God or hear from him and then communicate to him..
and if you see,hear supernatural events that is out of the ordinary should you not believe that there must be God or a supernatural being ?...

in summary we should stop directing our questions of God's existence to historians or religious schoolars but rather we should seek those that claim to have encounter God and ask them our questions or ask God thru them..

and secondly, an encounter with a supernatural being or events is the beginning of proofs that there is God.
because seeing is believing

And that Particular Deity is from Middle East? Cliche

Akakanfirstclass:


by spiritual reference and spiritual angle...
you should understand that I mean you must have seen this God or hear from him and then communicate to him..
and if you see,hear supernatural events that is out of the ordinary should you not believe that there must be God or a supernatural being ?...

in summary we should stop directing our questions of God's existence to historians or religious scholars but rather we should seek those that claim to have encounter God and ask them our questions or ask God thru them..

and secondly, an encounter with a supernatural being or events is the beginning of proofs that there is God.
because seeing is believing

I think these are very important points you've made here. There are several things I would like to address.

First of all, what do you mean by God? If someone has an experience that seems out of the ordinary, how exactly does it prove that a certain "God" exists? A supernatural experience only shows that certain things which cannot be currently explained, have actually occurred.

Let's say for example, I'm in my house, and I suddenly see 5 different people appear and disappear into thin air before my eyes. How exactly does this prove the existence of a "God" .. The experience simply shows that something which seems to defy my current understanding of reality, has happened.

Does this mean you take anything which defies your current concept of reality as a proof of a God?

Wilgrea7:

I never said I don't want “God".

Action speaks louder than words!

Wilgrea7:

What exactly is this clear and undisputable answer?.. i said if you're going to go from “a first independent cause" to a “God", then there needs to be some sort or proof for it. Because the idea of a God seems to try to explain the nature of this independent first cause, and therefore, it needs to provide some proof to back up it's claim.

It was you who raised this “first independent cause" thing and I did not go this way.

Following your "Anything which begins to exist has a cause. I agree

But then, what is the cause? " I asked

"Therefore, standing on this Truth does it not mean that A thing is created because an Intelligent Creative Being brings it from "No thing" to "something?"

And you refused to answer this but went on to the search of "other possibilities" without laying any real one.

This is of course a clear act of avoidance!

Dtruthspeaker:


Action speaks louder than words!

I fail to see the point here.

It was you who raised this “first independent cause" thing and I did not go this way.

Following your "Anything which begins to exist has a cause. I agree

But then, what is the cause? " I asked

"Therefore, standing on this Truth does it not mean that A thing is created because an Intelligent Creative Being brings it from "No thing" to "something?"

And you refused to answer this but went on to the search of "other possibilities" without laying any real one.

This is of course a clear act of avoidance!

I think there's a misunderstanding here. To say that there are "other" possibilities, denotes the idea that there are other possible ways to explain the first independent cause. And if there are, what makes them not worth the consideration?

Doesn't it make more sense to analyse all possibilities based on the current evidence and draw a conclusion based on it? If you currently believe in one specific possibility, what makes it objective? There has to be some sort of evidence, or logical reasoning that brought you to the acceptance of that first possibility, as opposed to other ones.

If there is a first independent cause, then it's important to know what that cause is.

When searching for the details of this cause, we need to make sure we're considering all the necessary parameters before we draw a conclusion. And the conclusion needs to be based on some sort of evidence. Do you agree?

you made the statement that the cause must be an intelligent creative Being. That's 3 attributes you just assigned to this cause.

You've gone from "there is a cause", which we both agree on for the sake of this discussion, to "the cause has this, this, and this attributes". And now, I'm asking, on what basis did you arrive at the conclusion that this cause needs to have the attributes you listed here.

First is intelligent, second is creative, and third is singular (being, not beings).

The universe is complex, without a doubt, from the galaxies, down to the atoms. But does complexity always have to entail intelligence? Let's say for the sake of the argument, it does.

Next is creative. What proof from the universe do we have that the cause must have been a creative one? Creativity deals with ideas. To say that the cause of the universe was creative, meaning the cause had to explore it's own mind and thoughts, to bring about the concept of the universe which it created. What proof do we have of that.

Third is singular (you said being). What proof is there that the cause of the universe, was a singular one, rather than a plural one. For example, what proof is there that multiple independent phenomena didn't come together to create the universe, and rather that it must have been a single one?

I'm not trying to avoid "God" in this situation. I'm just trying to approach any conclusion about the cause of the universe from an objective view.

Wilgrea7:


I think there's a misunderstanding here. To say that there are "other" possibilities, denotes the idea that there are other possible ways to explain the first independent cause. And if there are, what makes them not worth the consideration?

1) Simply because whenever we are searching for something we want eg when you thirst and you find a bottle of Nestle Water to drink, you do not divert
from that place to go searching whether there might be Ragolis or Eva Water.

UNLESS YOU HAD ALREADY MADE UP YOUR MIND (PRE-JUDGED) THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE THE NESTLE WATER YOU FOUND.

Which means that you already know nestle water (so it is not an enquiry) and you already had decided against it by your own personal parameters, hence your response of rejection of it.

That is why you are biased even before you found the Nestle water.

And this is on top of the fact that you have still refused to attend to the question I put to you

"does it not mean that A thing is created because an Intelligent Creative Being brings it from "No thing" to "something?"

2) When engaging in a truthful search, we are already acting on the available settled Truths which is why I asked, "does it not mean that A thing is created because an Intelligent Creative Being brings it from "No thing" to "something?" which you have avoided answering.

And you already know that answering or refusing to answer reasonable questions also shows all of us, what is True!

And your response query to my response on it being based on an intelligent creative Being, can not be taken without you answering the question.

So, bear in mind all your queries and supply your answer to my question first. Then I will deal with both your answer and your query, if any.

Maynman:


Yes it’s a mythology, have you read epic of Gilgamesh?

A little bit of it..

Yes they are all mythology. Including the Jewish one.

We should concentrate on the message in them which is consistent..
Not the story. That is why it is writen somewhere that the letter killeth.

sonmvayina:


A little bit of it..

Yes they are all mythology. Including the Jewish one.

We should concentrate on the message in them which is consistent..
Not the story. That is why it is writen somewhere that the letter killeth.

We should also concentrate on the message of other mythologies especially our region own and not just Mesopotamia mythology in the Middle East.

Dtruthspeaker:


Simply because whenever we are searching for something we want eg when you thirst and you find a bottle of Nestle Water to drink, you do not divert
from that place to go searching whether there might be Ragolis or Eva Water.

UNLESS YOU HAD ALREADY MADE UP YOUR MIND (PRE-JUDGED) THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE THE NESTLE WATER YOU FOUND.

Which already means that you know nestle water and you already had decided against it by your own personal parameters, hence your response of rejection of it.

That is why you are biased even before you found the Nestle water.

This is a nice analogy, but it really doesn't relate to the situation at hand.

Your idea of the existence of both Nestle, ragolis and eva water implies that there are subjective solutions to the problem of thirst.

For example, if someone else found ragolis instead of Nestle, does that mean that Nestle water is fake water? Or is it less worthy of being used to quench my thirst?

Here's a much better analogy.

Let's say you're walking down the street, and you see a bird, flying in the air. The flight of the bird must have been caused by something.
Here are some very possible explanations.

1. The bird was hungry, and going to look for some food
2. The bird was being chased by something, and decided to fly away
3. The bird went in search of materials to build a nest
4. The bird went in search of a mating partner
5. The bird was simply in an uncomfortable environment, and wanted to go somewhere more conducive
6. The bird was going back to it's nest after searching for food.

I think you get the point. I could go on and on with the possibilities in regards to why the bird is flying. No one disputes that the bird is flying, or that a certain event made the bird begin flying. There was obviously a cause.

Whatever possibility we come to accept as true, needs to have sufficient proof to back up its claim. Now to the universe.

The search for the nature of the independent first cause, is something that must be objective. You can't have multiple contradictory explanations for the cause of the universe, that are all true. There has to be a true and objective explanation.

Whatever conclusion you arrive at, must be based on some credible amount of evidence, or else, you're just speculating. Nothing wrong with speculation. But if you can't prove it, then it remains what it is. A speculation.

For the sake of the argument, I agreed with you that the universe had a cause. The reasons for this cause however, need to be proven. You claimed the cause was an Intelligent, Creative being. That is a possibility of course. But in order for anyone to objectively accept it as truth, there needs to be some sort of proof for it.

Hope you get my point now. No one is avoiding the possibility you're talking about. But without any sort of proof, it simply becomes one among many possibilities.

Maynmann:


We should also concentrate on the message of other mythologies especially our region own and not just Mesopotamia mythology in the Middle East.

Yes i agree with you. I am doing just that.
But one thing I have come to discover is the stories are the same, the only difference is who is telling themz with a little recast here and there butthe motiffs is still there..

The mesopotamian might use Gilgamesh
The Jews might use Samson
The Edo's/Bini's might use Aruahan.

It does not matter, the message in the story is what we should take home...

Or
The Norse might use Thor throwing he hammer
The Jews use David with his catapult
Or the Bini/Edos use Eweka,
It does not matter, the message is that the god inside of us is greater than the obstacle in front of us..

Wilgrea7:


This is a nice analogy, but it really doesn't relate to the situation at hand.

Your idea of the existence of both Nestle, ragolis and eva water implies that there are subjective solutions to the problem of thirst.

For example, if someone else found ragolis instead of Nestle, does that mean that Nestle water is fake water? Or is it less worthy of being used to quench my thirst?

Here's a much better analogy.

Let's say you're walking down the street, and you see a bird, flying in the air. The flight of the bird must have been caused by something.
Here are some very possible explanations.

1. The bird was hungry, and going to look for some food
2. The bird was being chased by something, and decided to fly away
3. The bird went in search of materials to build a nest
4. The bird went in search of a mating partner
5. The bird was simply in an uncomfortable environment, and wanted to go somewhere more conducive
6. The bird was going back to it's nest after searching for food.

I think you get the point. I could go on and on with the possibilities in regards to why the bird is flying. No one disputes that the bird is flying, or that a certain event made the bird begin flying. There was obviously a cause.

Whatever possibility we come to accept as true, needs to have sufficient proof to back up its claim. Now to the universe.

The search for the nature of the independent first cause, is something that must be objective. You can't have multiple contradictory explanations for the cause of the universe, that are all true. There has to be a true and objective explanation.

Whatever conclusion you arrive at, must be based on some credible amount of evidence, or else, you're just speculating. Nothing wrong with speculation. But if you can't prove it, then it remains what it is. A speculation.

For the sake of the argument, I agreed with you that the universe had a cause. The reasons for this cause however, need to be proven. You claimed the cause was an Intelligent, Creative being. That is a possibility of course. But in order for anyone to objectively accept it as truth, there needs to be some sort of proof for it.

Hope you get my point now. No one is avoiding the possibility you're talking about. But without any sort of proof, it simply becomes one among many possibilities.

What kind of life empirical proof do you require ?

If it is your senses, then it is going to be a long road. And I doubt if anybody will walk it with you. Know that it is a dead end..

In my opinion I think I agree with you, it is just speculation and nothing more.

Except we can witness the creation of another universe.

Dtruthspeaker:



And this is on top of the fact that you have still refused to attend to the question I put to you

"does it not mean that A thing is created because an Intelligent Creative Being brings it from "No thing" to "something?"

2) When engaging in a truthful search, we are already acting on the available settled Truths which is why I asked, "does it not mean that A thing is created because an Intelligent Creative Being brings it from "No thing" to "something?" which you have avoided answering.

And you already know that answering or refusing to answer reasonable questions also shows all of us, what is True!

And your response query to my response on it being based on an intelligent creative Being, can not be taken without you answering the question.

So, bear in mind all your queries and supply your answer to my question first. Then I will deal with both your answer and your query, if any.

I'm not avoiding your question. You're tying to ask me a question based on a presupposing idea you already have. So in a way, your question is biased.

We agree that a thing (in this case, the universe) had a cause. Is it possible that an intelligent creative being is the cause? Of course it's possible. But without any evidence, any claim you or I make here, will remain a claim, until proven.

Relating to the example i gave, what if I said "Does it not mean that if the bird is flying, that it is in search of some food?". Of course it is a possibility. But it is certainly not a necessity, since there are other possibilities.

And even if I didn't know anything about birds at all, and didn't know of any other possibilities, that doesn't mean the assumption you came up with is automatically true.

Let's say for example you're walking down the road with someone who knows absolutely nothing about birds. You both see one flying in the air. And you turn to this person and say "the bird must be in search of food"

Sure the person who knows nothing about birds may not know of any other possibilities, such as searching for a mate, building a nest, running from a predator, etc. But that doesn't make them any less likely.

The only thing that makes your claim objectively true, is if you can prove with evidence that the bird is indeed flying solely because it is searching for food. If you can't prove it with concrete evidence, then your statement is still just a claim.

sonmvayina:


Yes i agree with you. I am doing just that.
But one thing I have come to discover is the stories are the same, the only difference is who is telling themz with a little recast here and there butthe motiffs is still there..

The mesopotamian might use Gilgamesh
The Jews might use Samson
The Edo's/Bini's might use Aruahan.

It does not matter, the message in the story is what we should take home...

The Semitic tribe where Jews originate from were born in a Mesopotamia state.
it was copied from them.
And the Mesopotamia mythology is much other older than any mythology.

Maynmann:


The Semitic tribe where Jews originate from were born in a Mesopotamia state.
it was copied from them.
And the Mesopotamia mythology is much other older than any mythology.

I agree wih you..
Even by more than a thousand years..

Wilgrea7:


I think these are very important points you've made here. There are several things I would like to address.

First of all, what do you mean by God? If someone has an experience that seems out of the ordinary, how exactly does it prove that a certain "God" exists? A supernatural experience only shows that certain things which cannot be currently explained, have actually occurred.

Let's say for example, I'm in my house, and I suddenly see 5 different people appear and disappear into thin air before my eyes. How exactly does this prove the existence of a "God" .. The experience simply shows that something which seems to defy my current understanding of reality, has happened.

Does this mean you take anything which defies your current concept of reality as a proof of a God?

oga, don't get it twisted, remember your thread or the initial question you ask;
"can we question our belief"?

now before you begin to question a belief t is because you are in doubt.
you may question ur religious leaders or historians to prove that there is a being out there as this God of your religion.
now,
if some supernatural beings appear to you and tell you that He is God and he demonstrates his superiority just like in the case of Moses, Samuel, Abraham for example,
is this not the best answer to Ur questions..
what again do u need.
that is the God you were seeking..

it is like few people giving testimonies that a certain man lives in a cave.
but majority haven't seen this man before..
then you beginto ask thes witnesses and historians about the cave man, they give you answers but at some point you find fault in their testimonies..

before now, you have visited the area but you couldnt find the cave man.
what if one day as you visited the cave again and man appears to you, he doesnt look like the the regular town men, he matches the descriptions of the cave man..
and he tells you that he lives there...
is that not proof enough ?..
you have seen a strange being that appeared to you saying he lives in d cave, your are witness, that is ur proof..
it questions are answered..
end of questions, you should be satisfied.

now, by spiritual approach, I mean a supernatural encounter with the suppose God and this alone is a superior proof.
end of discussion.
what you do is go out and give Ur account.

sonmvayina:


I agree wih you..
Even by more than a thousand years..

And I’d we are to take the message of Mesopotamia mythology, we just go further and research about it, where exactly did the myth come from? Who are the Sumerians? They called themselves black headed people.

sonmvayina:

What kind of life empirical proof do you require ?

If it is your senses, then it is going to be a long road. And I doubt if anybody will walk it with you. Know that it is a dead end..

In my opinion I think I agree with you, it is just speculation and nothing more.

Except we can witness the creation of another universe.

If i want to have an honest debate, I can't specifically say what kind of proof I want. Because that only shows I have a bias towards any sort of evidence for the other person's claim.

The person who claims to have proof for their statement, is the one who needs to provide the proof (whatever it may be) which makes them think their statement is true. Then my job is to analyze said "proof" objectively. The burden on proof rests on the person who made the claim to objective truth.

It is very very ok to question your beliefs. How else are you going to know.
"My people perish for !ack of knowledge"

Most times God with capital g is used to denote life itself, or existene itself. It is regarded as a single unit. Hence the name "universe".God is the personification of existence itself. It is called different name according to languages. The Igbos it is Chukwu, to te yorubas Eledumare, to the Bini's Osanobua, to the Indians Brahma, to the ancient Egyptian Ra, to the Jews Hashem, to the Babylonians Marduk. To the Romans Jupiter..etc. same idea different nomenclature. While the small g ..God is used to denotes the deities within the universe(God). gods are personification of the laws and principles of life. Which some scriptures refer to as 'sons of God" or angels..,
God(the universe) is one single indivisible entity. The idea of trinity or binity is bollocks..

Maynmann:


And I’d we are to take the message of Mesopotamia mythology, we just go further and research about it, where exactly did the myth come from? Who are the Sumerians? They called themselves black headed people.

Anuñaki..

sonmvayina:


Anuñaki..

That is what what the epic of Gilgamesh said, I’m asking about the history of the Mesopotamia mythology.
Who wrote it?
I’m sure it was also influenced by another epic poem that has his own character names.

Akakanfirstclass:


oga, don't get it twisted, remember your thread or the initial question you ask;
"can we question our belief"?

now before you begin to question a belief t is because you are in doubt.
you may question ur religious leaders or historians to prove that there is a being out there as this God of your religion.
now,
if some supernatural beings appear to you and tell you that He is God and he demonstrates his superiority just like in the case of Moses, Samuel, Abraham for example,
is this not the best answer to Ur questions..
what again do u need.
that is the God you were seeking..

Thank you very much for this question. Really. This is something I've been wanting to talk about for a while. By supernatural I would assume you're talking about something that can't be explained by our current knowledge of the physical universe.

I want to use the example of the burning bush. Let's say I wake up and all of a sudden, my chair is on fire. Although the fire doesn't consume it. And this said fire is talking to me (I swapped out chair for the bush in the story of Moses)

So let me ask a follow-up question. Why do i have to believe a supernatural being which appears before me and performs these "miracles" is telling the truth. Objectively speaking, is there any thing that prevents something which can perform extraordinary feats from lying?

A supernatural being as you've put it, appearing before me and claiming to be "God" is only trying to "defeat a strawman" which is basically disproving a fake argument. What rule is there that says a supernatural event or encounter is needed to serve as proof of a "God"?

If i wanted to prove to you that I built a rocket from scratch, and then proceeded to do a fancy dance, and throw a piece of dynamite on the ground as proof, does that mean I really built a rocket?

Let me use a much more practical example. We are Nigerians. We know what they call jazz or voodoo. If someone performed used voodoo to appear before you, and turned your dog into a chicken, and then said to you "I am your creator.. I created the entire universe".. would you believe the person? I don't think so.

Supernatural experiences are proofs of supernatural experiences. Nothing more. Proof of a supreme independent, and creator God of the universe is completely different from some supernatural experience occurring.

it is like few people giving testimonies that a certain man lives in a cave.
but majority haven't seen this man before..
then you begin to ask thes witnesses and historians about the cave man, they give you answers but at some point you find fault in their testimonies..

before now, you have visited the area but you couldnt find the cave man.
what if one day as you visited the cave again and man appears to you, he doesnt look like the the regular town men, he matches the descriptions of the cave man..
and he tells you that he lives there...
is that not proof enough ?..
you have seen a strange being that appeared to you saying he lives in d cave, your are witness, that is ur proof..
it questions are answered..
end of questions, you should be satisfied.

Of course that would serve as proof... But once again the two analogies are not related. Staying in a cave is entirely different from creating a universe. Or creating anything at all.

Living in a cave is not the same degree of action as creating something. People have gone and seen the man actively living in the cave. No one has gone and seen any sort of deity actively creating the universe.

Let me flip your analogy around for you. Imagine the man goes around telling people he lived (past tense) in a cave. Would you just accept his story at face value, or would you ask for proof?

Now imagine this man started dancing funny and called it "cave dance"... does that in any way validate his claim?

Maynmann:


That is what what the epic of Gilgamesh said, I’m asking about the history of the Mesopotamia mythology.
Who wrote it?
I’m sure it was also influenced by another epic poem that has his own character names.

They are the first..

They where written in stones and bricks..

sonmvayina:


They are the first..

They where written in stones and bricks..

The mythology comes from Akkadian, and they already existed before the Mesopotamia tale was writeen.
It wasn’t the people of Mesopotamia that started writing on stones and bricks. Look up Egyptian hieroglyphs.
Who are the Sumerians?