Happy Sunday people,

One common topic that gets brought up in discussions between theists and non-believers, is the existence of a God, who created everything we know to exist. After all, why is there something rather than nothing?

Theists usually consider the design of the universe, the intricacy and complexity of everything, as evidence for an omnipotent, intelligent, and complex designer.

Common attributes assigned to this creator often include;

1. Eternal
2. Complex/Intelligent
3. Singular
4. Conscious
5. Personal
6. Omnipotent/ infinitely powerful

My question is, why exactly does it have to be this way? Based on our current observation of the universe, we can accept that it was intelligently, or consciously designed. But the attributes of the alleged creator, seem like a bit of a jump to me.

I'll give some examples below.

1) A SINGULAR GOD

Why exactly does the creator need to be a singular entity? All attributes we can observe, like conscious or intelligent design, can exist perfectly fine if there are 2, 3, 10 or even 100 creators. Why does the concept of a creator need to be singular?

People often say if there were multiple creators, they would run into conflict. Why exactly do multiple higher entities have to fall into conflict with each other? The fact that humans and other life forms on earth do it doesn't mean they (the alleged creators) need to do it.

And even if they do, how do we know it's not something that's bound to happen in the future, and we just don't know yet?


2) AN ETERNAL GOD

Why exactly does our creator, if it exists, need to be eternal. From our current observation, the universe began about 14 billion years ago. What law is stopping our creator from having another creator? What stops our creators from being 30 billion years old, or even 300 billion years old?

A common objection is the infinite regress fallacy. Which is to say that if you say a creator needs a creator, then you go back infinitely needing creators, which is illogical.

Except of course we don't necessarily need 1 generation of a creator. We could have 3, 4, or even 100 generations of creators. Of course there's no way to prove it. So why do we come to the conclusion that any creator we have, happens to be eternal and timeless?


3) A PERSONAL GOD

People often assume that if we were created, whoever created us MUST care for us, or be kind, and loving and whatnot. But what exactly stops the alleged creator/creators of the universe from being evil, sadistic, or simply, not caring.

We could be created just for the sake of spectatorship, where the creator/creators just want to watch the universe and see what happens. We could have creators who derive joy in seeing civilizations from different planets develop and fight each other, like in an arcade game. Or simply creators that just don't care very much. What rule is there that said a creator needs to be good, caring, loving and so on?


4) AN OMNIPOTENT / INFINITELY POWERFUL GOD

Certainly, whatever made our current universe needed to have been powerful enough to create it. But that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be infinitely powerful. You can get a universe from an infinitely powerful cause. You can also get a universe from a cause just powerful enough to create 2 universes, and not more.

On what basis do we grant omnipotence or infinite power?


I have a couple more, but I'll leave it at this for now. Please note if you're proving any point, you need to back it up with some verifiable evidence. Quoting scriptures does not equate to evidence.

Over to you guys

Simple gods don't exist..they are man made nonsense..

I don't even know what to say


Well, during my secondary school days, a girl died and was shown hell, she came back to life and wrote a book about it, well, that's on her and I still see her almost everyday on my street, I might walk up to her one day and get more insight about her experience

But, I believe there's someone behind the creation of this world, this world can't just manifest like that

"For everything, there's a creator"

~ Mitchell

MITCHELL96:
I don't even know what to say


Well, during my secondary school days, a girl died and was shown hell, she came back to life and wrote a book about it, well, that's on her and I still see her almost everyday on my street, I might walk up to her one day and get more insight about her experience

But, I believe there's someone behind the creation of this world, this would can't just manifest like that

"For everything, there's a creator"

~ Mitchell

I also agree that there's something behind the existence of anything rather than nothing. But figuring out what that thing is, is where things get a lot more complicated.

I'm happy your friend came back to life. But one issue i have with alleged visions of the afterlife like this, is that they're often based on what someone already had an idea of.

If you check most people with near death experiences like this, it's often with someone who has either heard of, or believed in the existence of something like that.

Stories like this exists among all religions, so it really makes you wonder.

Wilgrea7:


I also agree that there's something behind the existence of anything rather than nothing. But figuring out what that thing is, is where things get a lot more complicated.

I'm happy your friend came back to life. But one issue i have with alleged visions of the afterlife like this, is that they're often based on what someone already had an idea of.

If you check most people with near death experiences like this, it's often with someone who has either heard of, or believed in the existence of something like that.

Stories like this exists among all religions, so it really makes you wonder.

Precisely, it's when you try to know who the actual creator is and how and when it was created, that's when you get more confused.

It's better we just believe God exists, as time goes, more things will Unfold.

To be honest with you, they're sometimes I even pray that God should kill me and bring me back to life again, sounds funny, just to see what life after death looks like, with this I'll really know if all those things I learnt while growing were true, like heaven and hell and stuffs like that and also to see and experience what the bare eyes can't see.

Read about CS Lewis’ “Mere Christianity “ he answered a lot of this questions you ask. Take time to read it too.

TAYO124:
Read about CS Lewis’ “Mere Christianity “ he answered a lot of this questions you ask. Take time to read it too.

Thanks for the recommendation. I must admit that I don't have the time to go through the entire book. But I have been going through the summary of each chapter on Litchart (I'm still at chapter 5). And while I appreciate the book, it doesn't really seem to answer my questions.

Now, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. In the beginning chapters, C.S Lewis argues for the existence of a God, from morality. He says regardless of where we are born, and our society, all humans have an innate knowledge of what good and bad are, and the moral law imbibed in our nature, is just as real as any natural law, like the law of gravity.

The issue with the argument for morality, is that it is so skewed, it is difficult to build a specific case on it. Sure, I agree that humans all throughout history have had concepts of right and wrong, even though they disagree on what things are right and wrong sometimes.

But the fact that people disagree fundamentally on things like that, only shows that if morality is indeed a natural law, it is not a well defined law. To say that right and wrong exists, while simultaneously doing nothing to explicitly define what things should be right, and what should be wrong, is not a really strong point in my opinion.

It seems similar to saying that there are objects that are black, and there are objects that are white, except in this case, people consistently disagree on what things are black, and what things are white. And the objective standard for determining these things is not in any way clear.

Secondly, I still don't see how those arguments address the fact that the creator of the universe could have its own creators, or how we can't have multiple creators, or why the creator/creators, if they exist, have to be personal in the way I defined.

For example, in the case of multiple creators, all they need, to create a moral law, just like any other natural law (which C.S lewis claims) is to simply agree on what it should be, before creation. I'll use the analogy of a car. All it takes for a car to have certain dimensions, is for the engineers working on it, to agree on those dimensions.

I'm not explicitly saying it has to be multiple. It could as well be single, as C.S lewis claims, but his analogy works perfectly well if they are multiple as well.

I'll keep reading through, and I'll mention any other issues I find as i progress in the book. Thanks

Wilgrea7:

My question is, why exactly does it have to be this way?

Because, THAT IS WHAT CREATORS DO!

iPhone is created exactly how its creator intended to be made. Same for mannequins, cars, houses, interior decorations, gardens etc.

Dtruthspeaker:


Because, THAT IS WHAT CREATORS DO!

iPhone is created exactly how its creator intended to be made. Same for mannequins, cars, houses, interior decorations, gardens etc.

I don't think you understood my point. I'm not arguing about why things are created the way they are. I agree that in a controlled scenario, things get created the way the creator/creators intend.

What I'm asking is why the attributes of the creator theists believe in, are that way. Based on our observation of the world, the attributes of the creator can be many different ways, and not just the ones most monotheists believe in. So how exactly did they arrive at the conclusion that a God, if it exists, HAS to be that specific way

TAYO124:
Read about CS Lewis’ “Mere Christianity “ he answered a lot of this questions you ask. Take time to read it too.

There was another example which he gave, that really got me thinking. It was about witch burning in the medieval times. And he said something along the lines of "If we knew someone conspiring with the devil, we'd want to burn them too". And that got me thinking.

And this is my own perspective. In the absence of the god factor we're trying to prove, we term something good, if we think it is good, and bad, if we think it is evil. Now, I know that sounds cliche, but hear me out for a minute.

When we think of the devil, we think of the most evil being imaginable, and we think of evil, we think of things that reduce happiness, or the human condition. Theft, hunger, Pain, suffering, etc. If we saw something as evil, we would feel justified to destroy it. The witch burnings happened because the people thought they were expunging evil from their society, even though technically, "thou shall not kill" was supposed to be part of the golden commandments.

The wars of israel in the bible are often justified by christian apologists, by saying they were fighting against evil people, and sinners. But when we look deeply at what this evil is supposed to be, it turns out to be things we don't like, or in other cases things that worsen the human condition.

For example, if i asked you, if you would shoot a random person walking on the street, you would probably say no, and say that it's a bad thing to do. But if I asked you if you would shoot someone in self defense, to protect yourself and your family, I'm guessing you would say yes.

As another example, most people wouldn't steal from the poor woman hawking tomatoes down the street. But if given the opportunity, they would still from a politician they believe to be dubious, to give the woman selling tomatoes. Because they believe the politician to be a bad person, who probably steals from people in the first place. They would do something considered bad (stealing) in order to combat something else (a lying, stealing politician) and still feel justified by it. Even though we can all agree that we don't like it when our things get stolen.

I'd like to say this is me just thinking out loud, and nothing more. As time goes on, and as I read more, my views may change. But i do think it's something to think about.

Some of these acts we consider bad, like murder, become justifiable when we do them against things we consider bad.

Wilgrea7:
Happy Sunday people,


My question is, why exactly does it have to be this way? Based on our current observation of the universe, we can accept that it was intelligently, or consciously designed.

My own observations don't lead me to accept that conclusion. My understanding of the physical laws of the universe around us shows that what we call order is the effects of these laws stacking up on themselves, one could almost say the universe is reiterative with reiterations producing sometimes novel effects. There doesn't appear to be any conscious drive in this order/stacking/reiteration nor does it appear to be intelligent, just repetitive. I would like to know why your own observations leads you to accept such a conclusion.

Each person can create his/her own God depending on how he/she feels, you have done just that by making your mind over to believe in your own understanding. So no amount of argument or debate can change what you've concluded in your mind.

The one and only true God didn't leave those seeking Him in the dark that's why He gave us a book of books called "Bible"
This book contains 66 little books having 1189 chapters and 31,200 verses.

Of course there are many other books people do claim are inspired of one God or another so the true God gave us an indisputable evidence that no other book can meet up.

The God of the Bible promised that by the time politics has eating deep into the minds of humans and they're killing themselves over politics {Revelations 6:3-4} He will dispense His active force to gather faithful and peace loving people throughout the earth under one umbrella!

Despite the fact that there are many religions claiming they know God yet fighting and killing their neighbours how will the true God do this?

He promised that His active force will begin operating on a group of people {Joel 2:28-30} they will start going to meet their neighbours {Malachi 3:16} and using His word (Bible) to preach and teach one another {Isaiah 2:2-3} then what they learned will begin to manifest in the way they reason so that instead of thinking about past errors they will resolve all their racial disparities among themselves, they will divert their resources into the production of food and information materials, they will stop producing, marketing or using weapons against their fellowman and they will never think of war again! Isaiah 2:4 compare to Psalms 46:9

So while others are using force to stop their fellow humans from engaging in wars the true God will use His active force to stop Wars in the midst of His own worshipers globally as they will be thinking of how to make peace reign like Him! John 17:22

Has this been fulfilled today?
YES it's happening live as in our generation is witnessing the fulfilment of this words.
So if you can't see any sense in that then your God (heart) is enough for you just as each person has his/her own heart to trust instead of this wise God! Proverbs 3:5-6

May you have PEACE!

LordReed:


My own observations don't lead me to accept that conclusion. My understanding of the physical laws of the universe around us shows that what we call order is the effects of these laws stacking up on themselves, one could almost say the universe is reiterative with reiterations producing sometimes novel effects. There doesn't appear to be any conscious drive in this order/stacking/reiteration nor does it appear to be intelligent, just repetitive. I would like to know why your own observations leads you to accept such a conclusion.

For me, I think it all falls back to the question “why is there something". But by something.. i don't just mean physical things.. i mean any and everything.

If there are laws of nature, for example, gravity, why do they exist at all. I've peeked a bit into quantum mechanics.. and most things, most laws and forces we observe, seem to be in one way or the other related to fields.

But why then do fields these exist, and why do they do so the way they do? Why do the fundamental units of reality have the values they do? I've heard of the multiverse theory.. but it still doesn't answer the question.

If the units of reality can have varying degrees, then why? And if they can't, then why not? What exactly is a value? Why are units the way they are?

The questions in my head keep going on and on. The existence of anything at all.. laws.. concepts.. units of nature and so on.. to such intricacy, makes it hard for me to accept that there isn't something behind it.

I'm not necessarily saying that things is a god/gods.. I'm simply saying I don't know. But the theists claim to know.. that's why i ask them questions like this

Wilgrea7:

I don't think you understood my point. I'm not arguing about why things are created the way they are. I agree that in a controlled scenario, things get created the way the creator/creators intend.

Creators control all the scenarios when creating a thing.

Wilgrea7:

What I'm asking is why the attributes of the creator theists believe in, are that way. Based on our observation of the world, the attributes of the creator can be many different ways, and not just the ones most monotheists believe in. So how exactly did they arrive at the conclusion that a God, if it exists, HAS to be that specific way

I answered you showing you that A Land/House cannot be ruled by as little as 2 Landlords not to talk of more than 2.

As to the other attributes, I think they are covered under The Law and Rights and Powers of Creators"

And besides these, there is no valid other.

The questions you ask about the personality of God, whether He is a particular gender or another, whether singular or otherwise. I doubt you will meet anyone alive who can answer these.
The issue is either you take it or leave it.
I am not being assertive or doctrinal here.
Some issues are best left unexplored.
For example in the field of astronomy, more galaxies are being discovered so that there is no end to discoveries. Yet on earth there are many problems we have to address but we simply ignore practical problems we can solve while trying to mess our heads with issues far beyond our reach. The world is not designed to be “Anthropocentric” after all.

Dtruthspeaker:


Creators control all the scenarios when creating a thing.

I answered you showing you that A Land/House cannot be ruled by as little as 2 Landlords not to talk of more than 2.

As to the other attributes, I think they are covered under The Law and Rights and Powers of Creators"

And besides these, there is no valid other.

I understand your analogy of the house and the landlord. And I don't disagree with it. But like I said earlier in our previous discussion, it's not about rulership. It's about creation. The act itself. We had a disagreement on what the different things equate to. How being the owner of a house, does not necessarily equate to being the builders (laborers, electricians, plumbers, painters etc).

This topic is about the existence of a "creator God", not an "owner God". Sure, we've agreed that they can be one and the same. But I've also pointed out that it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. And besides, I'm more focused on the aspects of creation, rather than ownership.

The reason I used the words "Creator God", is because most monotheistic beliefs attribute the universe to being the literal creation of a supreme being. Not a case of a supreme being telling angels or servants to create things on its behalf. No. Most talk about a supreme being, creating everything BY ITSELF. Which is synonymous to the landlord doing every single bit of work by himself. The painting, tiling, plumping, wiring, etc.

In addition to that, while I applaud your landlord and house analogy, it is not the only analogy through which a thing can be created.

For example, a baby needs 2 adults of the opposite gender to be able to create it. In this case, you can't argue for a single right to rulership.

A group of people, can for whatever reason, agree to work on a project. We're still dealing with multiple people, but right to rulership can be debated. It can also be disputed.

A single person can also gather tools for example, and create something like a box, or a watch.

I am not trying to argue that these cases HAVE to be true. I agree that any of the cases, including the one you believe in, may be true. My question is, with the existence of multiple scenarios and possibilities like this, through which a universe could exist, on what basis do people who hold specific beliefs, like the monotheist, or polytheist one, base their conclusions.

Wilgrea7:

I understand your analogy of the house and the landlord. And I don't disagree with it. But like I said earlier in our previous discussion, it's not about rulership. It's about creation.

Creationship always brings rulership. They are inseparable like object and shadow.

Wilgrea7:

The act itself. We had a disagreement on what the different things equate to. How being the owner of a house, does not necessarily equate to being the builders (laborers, electricians, plumbers, painters etc).

This was you making an issue over a thing that is and was not an issue. As you said "labourers etc" are not the owners.

But without dispute, an Owner of A House can employ or recruit or even create labourers. Simple.

And these things are settled. No reasonable person makes an issue out of this, but here comes you.

Wilgrea7:

This topic is about the existence of a "creator God", not an "owner God". Sure, we've agreed that they can be one and the same. But I've also pointed out that it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. And besides, I'm more focused on the aspects of creation, rather than ownership.

And I am saying, creation proves ownership and ownership proves creation. Eg iPhone proves Steve Jobs and Steve Jobs proves the iPhone.

Like object and shadow, they are inseparable.

Wilgrea7:

The reason I used the words "Creator God", is because most monotheistic beliefs attribute the universe to being the literal creation of a supreme being. Not a case of a supreme being telling angels or servants to create things on its behalf. No. Most talk about a supreme being, creating everything BY ITSELF. Which is synonymous to the landlord doing every single bit of work by himself. The painting, tiling, plumping, wiring, etc.

I believe that Christians would have answered you by saying that we really don't care for such things.

We just wanted to know Who Rules and Governs this our mighty House that we call the world and universe, so that we may avoid His Troubles.

Wilgrea7:

In addition to that, while I applaud your landlord and house analogy, it is not the only analogy through which a thing can be created.

For example, a baby needs 2 adults of the opposite gender to be able to create it. In this case, you can't argue for a single right to rulership.

Now you have forgotten flowers and crops are single parents who bear babies.

Which is why I asked the most singular question which you refused to directly answer without controversy which is "can a thing create itself eg a phone, car, tree, animal, person, land, water etc?

Wilgrea7:

A group of people, can for whatever reason, agree to work on a project. We're still dealing with multiple people, but right to rulership can be debated. It can also be disputed.

A single person can also gather tools for example, and create something like a box, or a watch.

I am not trying to argue that these cases HAVE to be true. I agree that any of the cases, including the one you believe in, may be true.

And this is one of my problems with you, are these case not True already or already True whichever you prefer? (Another crazy argument coming up)

Wilgrea7:

My question is, with the existence of multiple scenarios and possibilities like this, through which a universe could exist, on what basis do people who hold specific beliefs, like the monotheist, or polytheist one, base their conclusions.

As you see, there is no valid multiple scenario at all.

I just want to say that despite our difference in opinion, I do appreciate your responses

Dtruthspeaker:


Creationship always brings rulership. They are inseparable like object and shadow.

This was you making an issue over a thing that is and was not an issue. As you said "labourers etc" are not the owners.

But without dispute, an Owner of A House can employ or recruit or even create labourers. Simple.

And these things are settled. No reasonable person makes an issue out of this, but here comes you.

And I am saying, creation proves ownership and ownership proves creation. Eg iPhone proves Steve Jobs and Steve Jobs proves the iPhone.

Like object and shadow, they are inseparable.

I think the major source of our disagreement, is on whether or not rulership entails creation, and vice versa. I understand your analogy of the landlord, and the analogy of the iphone. But I still disagree that owning something, is the same as creating it.

Let's take the iphone for example. It's owned by apple, and was founded by 2 people, not one. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. They both had shares in the company. It was never a 100% ownership thing. It was always a combined partnership. Today, apple has tons of shareholders.

There's an issue with the idea that just because someone employs or pays some people to create something, that automatically makes them the creators. The issue I have is that for something/someone to qualify as a creator, it needs to have extensive knowledge on how to create that thing.

For example, a landlord can employ bricklayers, without knowing how to lay a single brick. He is still the owner of the structure, even though he has absolutely no idea how to make it. He paid someone else to do the work for him. And that's fine. But that doesn't mean he is equal to the person who engaged in the physical processes that brought about that thing.

Take a phone for example. You bought the phone you're using right now. While you may not own the cell phone company, that specific device, that specific model, with that specific serial number, belongs to YOU. you are the ruler of the phone to a reasonable extent. You choose what apps go in, and what apps don't. You choose to make calls and receive them, play songs etc.

You didn't build the hardware, or software, but you dictate how things run since you paid for it. Does that automatically make you the creator of the phone? Even though you didn't pay the engineers directly, you paid for the finished product. Which is similar to if someone bought a house. If you bought a house today from someone else, doesn't that make you the new landlord? Would you say that equates to creating the house?

That's the point I'm trying to make. Simply ruling something, or calling the shots does not equate to creation, in the physical sense. I go to the store and tell the barista exactly how I want my coffee. I would never call myself a barista. I have neither the skills nor the equipment to make the coffee. I own the coffee since I paid for it, but I am certainly not the one who made it.

Same goes for other things. The cars we buy. The foods we order at restaurants. Ownership gives you rights over something. But it is still different, from creating that thing. That's the point I've been trying to make. Sorry for the lengthy descriptions.

Now you have forgotten flowers and crops are single parents who bear babies.

Yes, and I don't dispute that. These are 2 examples of how things can come to be. A plant from a seed of a bigger plant. A child from 2 parents. 2 different mechanisms of creation. One involves one creator. the other involves 2 separate creators. I'm not saying one has to be right. I'm simply showing that a thing can logically exist through several means, and not necessarily through a single entity.

Which is why I asked the most singular question which you refused to directly answer without controversy which is "can a thing create itself eg a phone, car, tree, animal, person, land, water etc?

I've answered. No. A thing cannot create itself.

And this is one of my problems with you, are these case not True already or already True whichever you prefer? (Another crazy argument coming up)

Have you heard the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I'm honest enough to admit that the world we see could have come into existence through a number of different ways. There doesn't seem to be evidence for a particular way, like the one you guys believe in. And that's my point. I'm not against any particular belief system. I'm simply asking, why people believe in the specific one they do? I'm asking for the evidence that shows the world exists through a specific way, as opposed to the other ones.


As you see, there is no valid multiple scenario at all.[/quote]

Dtruthspeaker:


As you see, there is no valid multiple scenario at all.

Another thing I wanted to talk about, was the rulership aspect. For example, the world we see today has rules. And according to your belief, those rules are set by a single entity. And if i'm understanding your argument well, if multiple entities existed, they would disagree over the rules of the universe, and hence, it is impossible. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

While I do accept the argument, I'm still proposing that laws, and rules, can still exist, even with the existence of multiple entities. Let's take a car door for example. It can have several dimensions. On the drawing board, the engineers in charge of making the car can put forward different ideas on how the car will look, or what dimensions it will have.

But in order for them to progress and actually make the car, they need to unanimously, or by majority, agree on a specific dimension or set of values. Your analogy is great, but it assumes that if multiple entities were involved in creation, they would not at least, have had a sort of drawing board to put ideas on, or a sort of voting process in order to agree on how the universe is eventually created.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

There are thousands nf gods, these gnds have their own people. Those gods too know who is the most powerful among them. Every land and tribe have a gnd(s). Sn not one. Each god tends to show their power through their people. Listen, science is a god on it own and has die hard follower who only listen to the voice of their prophets (scientist). The confusion on earth is everyone claim to be a follower of the most powerful.

Wilgrea7:


For me, I think it all falls back to the question “why is there something". But by something.. i don't just mean physical things.. i mean any and everything.

If there are laws of nature, for example, gravity, why do they exist at all. I've peeked a bit into quantum mechanics.. and most things, most laws and forces we observe, seem to be in one way or the other related to fields.

But why then do fields these exist, and why do they do so the way they do? Why do the fundamental units of reality have the values they do? I've heard of the multiverse theory.. but it still doesn't answer the question.

If the units of reality can have varying degrees, then why? And if they can't, then why not? What exactly is a value? Why are units the way they are?

The questions in my head keep going on and on. The existence of anything at all.. laws.. concepts.. units of nature and so on.. to such intricacy, makes it hard for me to accept that there isn't something behind it.

I'm not necessarily saying that things is a god/gods.. I'm simply saying I don't know. But the theists claim to know.. that's why i ask them questions like this

its a good thing to ask question so please keep asking and please dont ever fill in the gap and eventually you will understand that no one knows anything and there is no answer anywhere to all the questions you have and will have and at that point you will embrace obervatisim and the beauty/fun of cosmolgy/astronomy/quantum mechanics and simply observe without taking a single side and only then will there be absolute peace...there is nothing to prove bros just enjoy the show and dance of beauty

God exists, there are many testimonies concerning that... First the bible proves it, two :
scientific investigations have also proven it, an organization known as the near death experience research foundation has proven the existence of an afterlife, mainly reported by people who at a point in their lives faced death and were certified dead, only to be resusicated , 75% of them reported seeing themselves traveling through a tunnel or dark void at incredible speed, they reported seeing a bright light a million times more glorious than the sun.
Although this light was so bright, they somehow could look at it, they reported being overwhelmed by an incredible sense of peace and wellbeing, the purest form of unconditional love that they felt at the presence of this light moved them to tears, they somehow could converse telepathically with this light or higher self as some reported.
Others reported seeing Jesus Christ, seeing large meadows with the greenest of green, flowers of incredible colors with millions of colors never seen on earth, crystal streams and rivers, "everything seemed to be alive" an experiencer claimed. They were often given or shown a review of their lives from when they were born to their present state. One reported "I saw everything i had ever done, the words i said, the help i rendered, i also saw the consequences and ripple effects of my actions, i felt the emotions of those i hurt like i was the one being abused, i felt so miserable, it was a hopeless feeling i never want to experience again, i decided there and then to change my ways and life for the better". Every single individual who experinced an nde( near death experience) came back a changed person with a quest and zeal to impact humanity selflessly and with love." God is love, he is the purest indescribable form of love you can ever imagine" an experiencer said.....
To listen to compelling nde stories you can go to the near death experience research foundation website: www. nderf. org or simply download spotify , go to the podcast section and search for nde stories, i bet you your perspective on life and what lies beyond life would be challenged.

Wilgrea7:

While I do accept the argument, I'm still proposing that laws, and rules, can still exist, even with the existence of multiple entities. Let's take a car door for example. It can have several dimensions. On the drawing board, the engineers in charge of making the car can put forward different ideas on how the car will look, or what dimensions it will have.

But in order for them to progress and actually make the car, [b]they need to unanimously, or by majority, agree on a specific dimension or set of values. Your analogy is great, but it assumes that if multiple entities were involved in creation, they would not at least, have had a sort of drawing board to put ideas on, or a sort of voting process in order to agree on how the universe is eventually created.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

And I am saying real-eyeity and real living conditions have shown that agreement (consensus) is impossible when the players are equal.

Which is why real-eyeity has shown that there is a Veto Power, an Overriding Decision Maker, The Capo-tu-ti-capo, if not, that door will never be created.

Wilgrea7:
I just want to say that despite our difference in opinion, I do appreciate your responses

That is nice to hear. People usually do not like my response because people hate hearing the Truth.

Wilgrea7:

But I still disagree that owning something, is the same as creating it.

When you create a thing are you not the owner of it as proven by Steve Jobs and Mr Toyoda?

Wilgrea7:
I
Let's take the iphone for example. It's owned by apple, and was founded by 2 people, not one.

Still proving my case. iPhone belongs to Apple which is owned by 2 people who created them Creating and Owning Proved!

Wilgrea7:
I
There's an issue with the idea that just because someone employs or pays some people to create something, that automatically makes them the creators.

You are the one making an issue where there is none for these things are clear.

There is no employment and payment (Contract) when a Steve and Woz created their things.

Neither is their an issue when Steve and Woz paid Okey in Aba to create iPhone for them. This is Contract and it is clear the iPhone is still owned by Steve and Woz (as you have finally confessed "He is still the owner of the structure" when they have paid Okey for it. Simple and end of story. No issue.

Now you are confusing yourself with what is called Contract.

Wilgrea7:
I
I've answered. No. A thing cannot create itself.

So if a thing can not create itself, how then is a thing brought to existence eg iPhone and cars and mannequins?

Wilgrea7:
I..There doesn't seem to be evidence for a particular way...

Even the natural living evidence in front of you, you find it difficult seeing it so it is quite understandable when you say you do not see the evidence, because we obviously see that you have plenty of problems with your eyes and thinking.

Dtruthspeaker:


That is nice to hear. People usually do not like my response because people hate hearing the Truth.

It's always a pleasure to exchange ideas, regardless of whether or not i agree with them. Debates like this can help open people up to new perspectives, and broaden their knowledge.

When you create a thing are you not the owner of it as proven by Steve Jobs and Mr Toyoda?

Yes. But according to your argument, if someone pays me to do the creation, then they're technically the owners.. and not me.

Ok.. i have another question. What if multiple people contribute to pay me to create something.. who then is the owner?

Still proving my case. iPhone belongs to Apple which is owned by 2 people who created them Creating and Owning Proved!

Exactly... Now you're getting my point. The case of apple is a case where multiple people can create something, instead of one. Other companies exist that were created by 3, 4 or even 10 people. That's the point I've been trying to make.

That while a thing can be created by 1 person, it can also be created, and owned, by multiple people.

There is no employment and payment (Contract) when a Steve and Woz created their things.

Neither is their an issue when Steve and Woz paid Okey in Aba to create iPhone for them. This is Contract and it is clear the iPhone is still owned by Steve and Woz (as you have finally confessed "He is still the owner of the structure" when they have paid Okey for it. Simple and end of story. No issue.

Now you are confusing yourself with what is called Contract.

Yes.. i completely agree with your point here. A contract proves that the person paying is the owner in this situation.

So if a thing can not create itself, how then is a thing brought to existence eg iPhone and cars and mannequins?

It is created by some other thing, or things.

Even the natural living evidence in front of you, you find it difficult seeing it so it is quite understandable when you say you do not see the evidence, because we obviously see that you have plenty of problems with your eyes and thinking.

I'm not arguing against creation. I'm only showing multiple ways through which it can take place. Theists believe it happened through a specific way.. I'm simply asking why it has to be that way.

Btw.. i apologize for the delayed response.. things have been real busy recently

Dtruthspeaker:


And I am saying real-eyeity and real living conditions have shown that agreement (consensus) is impossible when the players are equal.

Which is why real-eyeity has shown that there is a Veto Power, an Overriding Decision Maker, The Capo-tu-ti-capo, if not, that door will never be created.

I understand your point.. but i think you're making the assumption that just because conflict or disagreement exists, then it always has to exist.

Let me use the car analogy. If conflict between the engineers prevented them from choosing dimensions for the car door, then the car door would not exist. The fact that it does, only shows that no matter how many engineers worked on it, they finally agreed on what dimensions it would have.

Similarly, in the event of multiple Creators.. if they disagreed on the laws of the universe, the universe would not exist for us to judge whether or not they agreed. The fact that we exist, is proof that no matter how many creators were involved.. they at least had to agree for things to be the way they are.

Sure, equal power can cause disagreements.. but it doesn't always do. Understanding is what causes mutual agreements.. not necessarily an imbalance in power. It can work both ways

Wilgrea7:

I understand your point.. but i think you're making the assumption that just because conflict or disagreement exists, then it always has to exist.

That is the certainly of real-eyeity. We have Seen the action and we have seen that all other actions that people have imagined have never occurred, therefore, the action that has been Seen rules.

Which is why all other conjectures that have not happened remain in the darkness and uselessness of speculations and fabrications.

And Truth is not about speculation and fabrications but about what things are Seen aka real-eyeity.

Wilgrea7:

Similarly, in the event of multiple Creators.. if they disagreed on the laws of the universe, the universe would not exist for us to judge whether or not they agreed. The fact that we exist, is proof that no matter how many creators were involved.. they at least had to agree for things to be the way they are.

And all the disagreement is resolved because One vetoed it. So you have only proven and supported my case.

MITCHELL96:
I don't even know what to say


Well, during my secondary school days, a girl died and was shown hell, she came back to life and wrote a book about it, well, that's on her and I still see her almost everyday on my street, I might walk up to her one day and get more insight about her experience

But, I believe there's someone behind the creation of this world, this world can't just manifest like that

"For everything, there's a creator"

~ Mitchell

You are the creator it just that you forget that you are, remember all "I" is the centre of the universe, without the observer there is no observation the two are intertwined, note matter is not fundamental only consciousness is fundamental and there is no two just one acting as all at the same moment.

Wilgrea7:


I also agree that there's something behind the existence of anything rather than nothing. But figuring out what that thing is, is where things get a lot more complicated.

I'm happy your friend came back to life. But one issue i have with alleged visions of the afterlife like this, is that they're often based on what someone already had an idea of.

If you check most people with near death experiences like this, it's often with someone who has either heard of, or believed in the existence of something like that.

Stories like this exists among all religions, so it really makes you wonder.

Try to know consciousness the maker of all that their is is like trying to heat up fire with fire, it like trying to bite your teeth with your teeth, it like trying to see your eyes with your naked eyes it not just possible the highest is to go into the silence in meditation. You see existing is like a dream and you are the one making it up, existence is not fundamental but consciousness. How do you know that their is a world without observation?