₦airaland Forum

Wilgrea7:
Ok... Now to iron out the issue of the big bang.

I do not see how a God creating THIS universe, means the God itself could not have been created. The problem I see with people claiming that whatever caused the big bang had to have certain properties, like spacelessness, timelessness, immaterial and so on, is that they are based on claims about something we have absolutely no idea about.

No one knows what happened outside, the big bang. We don't have the slightest clue.

Sure, our universe and everything within it, which we can observe started then, but what lay outside then is something we don't just know. Space is not just an empty void. It is a thing that can actually stretch and squeeze. And the nature of what exists outside it, or if anything exists outside it at all, is simply something we don't know at the moment.

Imagine you as a very powerful human creates a world, made of sand. Everything in the world, is sand-based. Same with the organisms there. Let's also say it is impossible for the organism to ever see outside the sand-based universe you created. To it, everything sand-based is matter. Let's also say that from the organism's perspective, sand was created at something similar to the big bang, which was the origin of it's world.

The organism could of course say that you, the creator, were immaterial. But all that would mean, is that you are not sand-based. I don't know if I'm making much sense.

From our perspective, everything began 14 billion years ago. Space, which we know, and matter, and energy which we can observe. We also have no access to things happening outside or before the big bang, so we say the big bang is the beginning of time, matter and space. For us, sure. But when talking about a being that exists outside of these things, saying the being is immaterial, and spaceless and timeless really has little meaning.

To me, It's a fancy way of saying "whatever caused the big bang, would not have properties based on the observed effects of the big bang." which of course I can agree with to an extent. Immaterial, timeless and spaceless are not properties. There are non-properties.

It's like saying non-blue, or non-yellow. Non-blue is not a specific color. It is a term used to describe something that is simply not blue. Immaterial is not an attribute, It is a word used to describe things not made of what we understand to be matter. But what that thing is really made of, we don't know. All we know, is that it is NOT made of the matter we know.

God.. How do I put this. We are trying to describe a being, which exists outside all we know, based on what we know. It's like someone being in a room, who has never left or ever seen outside the room, trying to describe the things outside the room based on the things he sees in the room.

You can describe things outside the room as non-chairs, non-tables and non-ceiling fans for example. And while you wouldn't be wrong, you wouldn't be describing anything specific either. You'd just be describing things outside the room, as things not in the room.

I noticed you used the terms “our universe” and “this universe”. Ideas like that exist solely in fiction. There cannot be more than one universe. Multiple universes would constitute one universe, because definitionally universe means one. The totality of physical existence is the universe. This includes time, space, matter and energy.

Other than that I find we agree on God’s properties with respect to the universe. You restate that God is timeless and immaterial and transcends space and change the context to a room rather than the universe which is everything that exists (for instance comparing sand to matter which is anything that has mass and occupies space). If you keep the universe as the context you’ll find we agree entirely.

On the topic of the necessity of omnipotence for God, I should point out that omnipotence doesn’t mean infinite power, it denotes being all powerful or the most powerful. Hence, only one being can be omnipotent. Suggesting otherwise would require the impossibility of conflict among these all powerful beings, something that smacks suspiciously of trinity (or other form of divine oneness) if these beings are gods in the theistic sense (meaning they have personal agency). This is enough reason why the world couldn’t have been created by several gods concurrently, because this would require that some of them be lesser gods or godlings which I’ve already addressed.

Further, when it comes to the existence of several gods in succession, this reminds me of a notion I had as a child, a notion shared by the ancient Gnostic sect. It entails that God was created by another God and so on. The problem with this formulation is that infinity is a mathematical idea that doesn’t exist in reality. There can be no infinite succession of anything because infinity is impossible. Imagine a stick with one (or worse, no) ends to get an idea of infinity in real life. Thus a never ending chain of gods must ironically terminate at one god. While we have no reason to believe such it doesn’t invalidate theism in the least.

I’ll let you respond.

Endtimer:
I noticed you used the terms “our universe” and “this universe”. Ideas like that exist solely in fiction. There cannot be more than one universe. Multiple universes would constitute one universe, because definitionally universe means one. The totality of physical existence is the universe. This includes time, space, matter and energy.

I think you misunderstood me. When I said "our universe" I'm not trying to imply the existence of a sort of multiverse you see in sci-fi movies. When I say our universe, I simply mean the very one we exist in right now, which we have observed to have begun about 14 billion years ago.

Other than that I find we agree on God’s properties with respect to the universe. You restate that God is timeless and immaterial and transcends space and change the context to a room rather than the universe which is everything that exists (for instance comparing sand to matter which is anything that has mass and occupies space). If you keep the universe as the context you’ll find we agree entirely.

Here's where I think we disagree. When you talk of God being immaterial, timeless, and spaceless, you refer to these as properties of God. And I disagree. I said these things are not properties. They are non-properties. I gave the example of the room and everything else outside the room.

Even using the room, or in this case, the universe as our context, the words still don't describe what God is... They only describe what God is NOT

Let me reference the room example again. Let's say the person in the room was told to describe what outside would be like, and they say, it would be a non-chair. Non-chair is not a thing. It tells you absolutely nothing about the nature of what is outside, except that it is simply not what is inside.

Literally any and everything outside the room can be called a non-chair... but that doesn't define anything. A palm tree... a river.. an ant hill... these are words that have meaning. Words that signify something. A non-chair signifies nothing other than it is not a chair, which is not a lot of information to go by at all.

Based on our position in the universe, from our perspective, space, time and matter began at the big bang. Anything existing outside of it would be described as non-space (spaceless), non-time (timeless) and non-matter (immaterial). These are not words that describe what something is. They are words that describe what something ISN'T.

That's why I said, even when you reference a God as timeless or spaceless or immaterial in relation to the big bang, you're not defining what that God is, you're only defining what it isn't.

Saying God is spaceless and timeless and immaterial is just the same as saying that God is NOT the universe. Which really does nothing to define God.

Also, just as you can have 2 non-chairs, like a palm tree, and an ant-hill, both of which would be described as non-chairs from the perspective of the room. Similarly, you can have multiple spaceless, timeless and immaterial beings. Because these are not properties, they are non-properties.

That's the point i was trying to make

Wilgrea7:
Here's where I think we disagree. When you talk of God being immaterial, timeless, and spaceless, you refer to these as properties of God. And I disagree. I said these things are not properties. They are non-properties. I gave the example of the room and everything else outside the room.

Your insistence on these features as non properties baffles me. You are needlessly trying to estrange negative adjectives from their associated part of speech. It is common knowledge that to be cold connotes a lack of heat, to be slow demands that one lack speed just as light necessarily precludes the presence of darkness. Does this mean that cold is in fact not a property, or that sickness is not a state. I understand that this is not your main point so I’ll focus on addressing that now that I’ve touched this. However the distinction I’ve made here is important as I’ll reference it again. In plain terms all properties are negative properties. A theist could refute your argument by pointing out that we are in fact non-immaterial, non-timeless and non-spaceless. This is foundational if we are to understand one another.

Wilgrea7:
Based on our position in the universe, from our perspective, space, time and matter began at the big bang. Anything existing outside of it would be described as non-space (spaceless), non-time (timeless) and non-matter (immaterial). These are not words that describe what something is. They are words that describe what something ISN'T.

On the contrary, doing so would definitely give you a definition of what that thing is. In this case, you mention that God is immaterial, atemporal and spaceless and state only lines later that to be those things is to not be something else. While you are correct logically, your fixation on inconsequential semantics distracts you from seeing the bigger picture and has, in fact, derailed the argument. God is certain things that are not other things, just as everything is something that isn’t something else. We can know ourselves by knowing that we are not immortal, that we are not perfect, that we are not immaterial, omnipotent, atemporal, omniscient, eternally happy, ever-young etc. That those are things we are not doesn’t mean that they tell us nothing about ourselves, because on the contrary they do. You can demonstrate this to yourself by fully describing anything and making the adjectives negative.

I also don’t find your room analogy particularly apt. It seems to be an attempt at faulty equivocation. There is little need to use new terms when the ones available are sound. We shall continue to discuss in terms of the universe. I’ve already addressed the point it makes but thought this important to point out.

Wilgrea7:
Also, just as you can have 2 non-chairs, like a palm tree, and an ant-hill, both of which would be described as non-chairs from the perspective of the room. Similarly, you can have multiple spaceless, timeless and immaterial beings. Because these are not properties, they are non-properties.

This last point is entirely welcome in theism. We believe and endorse the existence of several spaceless, atemporal, immaterial beings. We just call them spirits.

I’ll conclude with a point of my own. The existence of God (singular and capitalized) is philosophically infallible from where I stand. I’d much rather intelligent people such as yourself debated whether to attend mass or Salvation ministries than fight something minds finer than ours have failed to resist. This is just my personal opinion but it would be more productive to dig deeper into more serious concerns with the Christian faith than spend time on easy pickings like this for sport.

First of all.. I appreciate your attempt and understanding this. You've made very good points... But i still feel as though you're missing my point

Endtimer:
Your insistence on these features as non properties baffles me. You are needlessly trying to estrange negative adjectives from their associated part of speech. It is common knowledge that to be cold connotes a lack of heat, to be slow demands that one lack speed just as light necessarily precludes the presence of darkness. Does this mean that cold is in fact not a property, or that sickness is not a state. I understand that this is not your main point so I’ll focus on addressing that now that I’ve touched this. However the distinction I’ve made here is important as I’ll reference it again. In plain terms all properties are negative properties. A theist could refute your argument by pointing out that we are in fact non-immaterial, non-timeless and non-spaceless. This is foundational if we are to understand one another.

It's not like I'm trying to define these characteristics as non-characteristics. It is that the words themselves imply that. As always.. let me try to explain.

Cold and heat are measures of temperature. Slow and fast are measures of speed. Minutes and seconds are measures of time.

When we refer to something as cold.. we are referring to a property of an object on the temperature scale. If the object is on the far left of it, we call it cold.. if on the far right.. we call it hot, or at least relatively hot. Same with speed

Slow and fast are measures of speed or velocity, which is distance/time. When someone exhibits low velocity.. we call it slow. When it exhibits high velocity.. we call it fast.

If we call something non-temperature for example.. we are NOT referring to cold. We are simply saying temperature, as we define it, is NOT a property of that object. Same with speed.

A non-speed, or should i say speedless object is NOT the same as a slow object. It is simply an object that lacks attributes we define as speed. We would call such an object.. stationary. If you ignore Einstein's general relativity for a second, you will see that being stationary is NOT a measure of speed. It is the absence of it.

When we talk of immaterial.. or spaceless.. we are not referring to the same things as hot or cold.

Being material, or having space is not a measure of any other property. There is no scale, like in speed or temperature where you can grade the words “material" or “space" on. Because that is all we know.

When we call something immaterial.. we don't mean it has low material. It means it has NO material.. at least in context of how we define the word material.

Same with spaceless.. we don't mean it has low or less space. If means space is NOT a characteristic of the object. It cannot be defined by any point in space as we know it. Since space to us, began at the big bang.

These attributes (immaterial, spaceless and timeless) by their definition, are negatives. They are not measures of something else like heat and cold would be measures of temperature.. or like slow and fast would be measures of speed.. They are definitions of what something is NOT.

It's not me trying to be sneaky with words. It's me just simply defining things are they are.. or in this case.. as they are NOT.

Sorry this got long. I'm just trying to explain this as comprehensively as i can.

If one say that their religion is the only path to God and that other paths lead to hell, I have one humble question for them. This question applies to followers of every religion without any trace of partiality. The simple question is: Today I have heard about their religion and if I follow it, I reach God while if I refuse, I will go to the hell for my own fault. This is very much reasonable. But before their ancestors discovered the country I come from, the scriptures or even the name of their religion was not known to My ancestors and they could not reach God for no fault of theirs. On the other hand, their ancestors followed their religion and reached God at that time. Even if I assume that My ancestors will take rebirth in the present time and will follow their religion to reach God, such a possibility is ruled out because they say that there is no rebirth for the soul. Thus My ancestors suffered forever for no fault of theirs. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that God must be partial. Had God been impartial, He would have revealed your religion to all countries at the same time. Had that happened, My ancestors might have also reached God as their ancestors did. Therefore your statement proves your own God to be partial.

The only way to make your God impartial is that you must accept that your very God appeared in all the countries in various forms at the same time and preached that only true path of your religion, in various languages. He did not appear in the same form everywhere and neither did He preach in the same language. However the subject matter was the same—divine knowledge. The syllabus and explanations were one and the same, though the media of instruction (languages), external looks and names of teachers were different. Thus the religion that God gave to your people and country is not different from the religion that the same God gave to other people in other countries in different languages. Can you give any alternative reasonable answer to my My question other than this? Certainly not! Whenever you claim your religion to be the one and only path to God and whenever you condemn other paths, remember that any person belonging to any religion can pose this question to you.

Moreover every religion claims that their God alone created this world. Unfortunately this world is only one and every God cannot create the same world; there are not many worlds to justify each God creating His own world. Therefore any human being with an iota of commonsense has to agree that there is only one impartial God who created this one world. He alone came in different forms to different countries and preached the same path in all the languages, simultaneously at one time.

Endtimer:
On the contrary, doing so would definitely give you a definition of what that thing is. In this case, you mention that God is immaterial, atemporal and spaceless and state only lines later that to be those things is to not be something else. While you are correct logically, your fixation on inconsequential semantics distracts you from seeing the bigger picture and has, in fact, derailed the argument. God is certain things that are not other things, just as everything is something that isn’t something else. We can know ourselves by knowing that we are not immortal, that we are not perfect, that we are not immaterial, omnipotent, atemporal, omniscient, eternally happy, ever-young etc. That those are things we are not doesn’t mean that they tell us nothing about ourselves, because on the contrary they do. You can demonstrate this to yourself by fully describing anything and making the adjectives negative.

I'd like to say several things here.

First of all.. I'm not trying to imply that defining something as a negative is pointless. I'm trying to say that it tells you very little, almost nothing at all, about what it is you're trying to define.

You, me, a house, a dog, a cow, a tree, a car and every other thing apart from a chair, is a non-chair. Describing things as non chair tells you very little about the nature of that thing, apart from the fact that it is simply not a chair.

Non-chair is not a property we use when we want to define something. If i asked you to define a dog, calling it a non-chair does nothing to describe what a dog actually is.

It is not to say that your definition is wrong. It is just to say that it tells us next to nothing. Let me use the example you gave.

You said you, Endtimer are not immaterial, spaceless, timeless, omnipotent, and so on. But how well does that define you? As the individual.

You know what else is NOT spaceless and timeless and omnipotent? Literally every other creation in existence. You, me, the 7.8 other billion people on earth.. every dog, cat, sheep, rat, goat, and other animals, and insect that ever lived.

If someone says “I summon a NON-spaceless, NON-timeless and NON-omnipotent being".. they are not referring to you in particular. They are referring to literally every other creature.. including you.. you see my point now.

It's not that these things tell us nothing. It's that they hardly tell us anything substantial to go by.

I also don’t find your room analogy particularly apt. It seems to be an attempt at faulty equivocation. There is little need to use new terms when the ones available are sound. We shall continue to discuss in terms of the universe. I’ve already addressed the point it makes but thought this important to point out.

Okay

This last point is entirely welcome in theism. We believe and endorse the existence of several spaceless, atemporal, immaterial beings. We just call them spirits.

Okay. So here's my question to you... How can we know how many of these atemporal, spaceless beings exist.. and what exactly prevents multiple of them from creating our universe rather than one?

I don't have issues with theism believing these things. I have issues with theism claiming these things to be true, while also being unable to prove them.

I’ll conclude with a point of my own. The existence of God (singular and capitalized) is philosophically infallible from where I stand. I’d much rather intelligent people such as yourself debated whether to attend mass or Salvation ministries than fight something minds finer than ours have failed to resist. This is just my personal opinion but it would be more productive to dig deeper into more serious concerns with the Christian faith than spend time on easy pickings like this for sport.

The existence of a first cause as far as i know.. is what i consider to be philosophically sound. Saying this first cause is singular, for example.. is something i fail to see.

Also, things like attending mass, or salvation ministries, are things based on beliefs, which are in turn based on supposed knowledge these alleged deities. So if we can't even at least define them properly, then how will we substantiate the other claims on which he base our beliefs, and in turn, our actions?

MaxInDHouse:
The New Heavens and the new earth aren't literal as most religionists think.
HEAVENS spiritually is the place from where all blessings flow so it refers to the government to whom people are looking forward to receive good things regarding their present and future life.
EARTH spiritually means different races who makes up the inhabitants of planet earth so they keep anticipating a better tomorrow from their governments (heavens) just as the earth depends on what the sky produces like rain and sunshine.

Both has been corrupted due to sin so God is making a New heavens (Government) to be headed by Christ Jesus and his 144,000 co-rulers who are all chosen from the earth. And they're to rule over obedient mankind not rebellious humans, it's this obedient people that is forming the new earth.

Regarding this planet God has sworn never to destroy it again {Genesis 8:21-22} He promised to renovate it {Psalms 67:6-7} and as for those making it a bad place they will be removed completely from it! Psalms 37:9-11; Proverbs 2:20-22

God said He created this planet to last forever! Psalms 104:5; Ecclesiastes 1:4

So the New Heavens and the New Earth means something totally different from what most readers of the Bible think!

This is not Scriptural.

Forgive me for not seeing this earlier.

Endtimer:
On the topic of the necessity of omnipotence for God, I should point out that omnipotence doesn’t mean infinite power, it denotes being all powerful or the most powerful. Hence, only one being can be omnipotent. Suggesting otherwise would require the impossibility of conflict among these all powerful beings, something that smacks suspiciously of trinity (or other form of divine oneness) if these beings are gods in the theistic sense (meaning they have personal agency). This is enough reason why the world couldn’t have been created by several gods concurrently, because this would require that some of them be lesser gods or godlings which I’ve already addressed.

You've made a great point. And I like how you've defined omnipotence as not infinitely powerful, but the most powerful. Although, I don't see how this negates the possibility of multiple creators.

I'll go with your most powerful analogy. And I'll try to explain it with mathematics.

We have several numbers (9, 6, 5, and 4). Of all these numbers, we can all agree that 9 is the biggest, or greatest number. But in order to form 24, all numbers need to be added together. Of course, you can also get 24 by subtracting it from a much bigger number, like 924.

The point I'm trying to make is, when you talk of a being that is "most powerful", it is only so in respect to other beings around it as you've defined.

When you're building a car, I think we can both agree that the person who designed the engine is far more important than the person who designed the seat-belt, or the back seat. Not that the latter is useless, but the former is just more important, or we could say more "powerful". Having a difference in power does not eliminate the possibility of said multiple entities working together to create the universe.

Now, If you've noticed, by my analogy, I've almost seemed to imply that multiple creators would mean each individual one was not powerful enough to create the universe all by itself. And yes, that is exactly the example I'm giving.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that it has to be that way, or that it has to be true. But if we try to infer the cause of creation from the creation, both a being powerful enough to create it all by itself, and several beings coming together to create it jointly, are equally plausible possibilities.

I'm not trying to blaspheme or demean your God. I'm just laying out different scenarios that show that a universe is not necessarily evidence of a single creator. Just as you can get 24 by adding 9, 6, 5 and 4, you can also get 24 by from subtracting it from 924.

Religious sentiments aside, Just as you can get a universe from a being powerful enough to create it all by itself, you can also get a universe from several beings, just powerful enough to create it through combined effort.

Further, when it comes to the existence of several gods in succession, this reminds me of a notion I had as a child, a notion shared by the ancient Gnostic sect. It entails that God was created by another God and so on. The problem with this formulation is that infinity is a mathematical idea that doesn’t exist in reality. There can be no infinite succession of anything because infinity is impossible. Imagine a stick with one (or worse, no) ends to get an idea of infinity in real life. Thus a never ending chain of gods must ironically terminate at one god. While we have no reason to believe such it doesn’t invalidate theism in the least.

I’ll let you respond.

What you're referring to, is known as infinite regress. And yes, it's a philosophical dilemma we try to avoid when talking about creation. An infinite regress is problematic, I agree. But the idea of infinite regress and the notion of our creator, if any, being the first cause is one I see as a false dichotomy.

You could have 2 generations of creators, or 3, or 10, where a God creates another God, and the line goes down to the 10th, or even 50th generation. Infinite regress is avoided, but it still doesn't show that the one who created us has to be the ultimate "first cause".

Also, the infinite regress does not attempt to address the number of Gods. It only addresses the origin. that is, whether or not a God was created.

My question to you now is this. If we can have a single uncreated God to avoid the infinite regress, why can't we have multiple? Why can't we have multiple uncaused agents? Why does the first uncaused agent have to be singular?

Wilgrea7:
Now, If you've noticed, by my analogy, I've almost seemed to imply that multiple creators would mean each individual one was not powerful enough to create the universe all by itself. And yes, that is exactly the example I'm giving.

This is interesting theological speculation. It would make for an entertaining novel. I’ll add that while it is sound, we have no need for that hypothesis. You agree that these beings cannot have equal power, but that one must be greater than the rest. In that case, we agree on that. I also agree that it would be possible for several beings of different levels of power could predate the universe. My problem with that formula is that it is unnecessary rather than wrong. It doesn’t even invalidate theism. Let me ask you this, the being with power of magnitude 9 could simply create a sub-universe alone. One that pales in comparison to this one. At the very least we are left speculating on minor details despite agreeing on the bigger picture.

Wilgrea7:
You could have 2 generations of creators, or 3, or 10, where a God creates another God, and the line goes down to the 10th, or even 50th generation. Infinite regress is avoided, but it still doesn't show that the one who created us has to be the ultimate "first cause".

Once again, you’ve conceded to theism and are focused on details. You must be a new atheist. You agree on the ultimate first cause and if we presuppose theism there are arguments as to why the first cause would necessarily be more powerful than others, and that morality would come from Him and given personal agency, it must be His will to allow the lesser gods to do whatever they wish. I don’t claim to be sure about these details but I don’t want to focus on speculation. I feel we’ve come to agree on the broader points and that’s enough. Like I said before we should only focus on details when we’ve come to agree on the bigger issues. I suppose that’s a topic for later.

On your point of the first cause possessing non-properties, insofar as these non-properties cohere with the traditional idea of God and inform us of the feasibility of a first cause who is the greatest conceivable being it matters little what we know specifically. We know enough to agree that it is necessary for such a being to exist. At this point, we are on the cusp of religion itself rather than metaphysics.

I guess that your problem with theism is lack of certainty. You agree with basic theistic principles. I’ll just say that there is little we are completely sure of and that we can get a clearer picture if we take the leap of faith into religion proper rather than battle over philosophical details.

I think we’ve covered all the bases. Good luck to you.

Endtimer:
This is interesting theological speculation. It would make for an entertaining novel.

Thanks

I’ll add that while it is sound, we have no need for that hypothesis. You agree that these beings cannot have equal power, but that one must be greater than the rest. In that case, we agree on that.

I don't necessarily think they cannot have equal power. What i was saying was, the existence of a most powerful being, in relation to all it's peers does not preclude the existence of multiple creators.

I also agree that it would be possible for several beings of different levels of power could predate the universe. My problem with that formula is that it is unnecessary rather than wrong. It doesn’t even invalidate theism. Let me ask you this, the being with power of magnitude 9 could simply create a sub-universe alone. One that pales in comparison to this one. At the very least we are left speculating on minor details despite agreeing on the bigger picture.

We're saying almost the same thing. It is just as possible for a single being to create a universe, as it is possible for multiple beings to do so too. And there's absolutely no way we would know.

Once again, you’ve conceded to theism and are focused on details. You must be a new atheist. You agree on the ultimate first cause and if we presuppose theism there are arguments as to why the first cause would necessarily be more powerful than others, and that morality would come from Him and given personal agency, it must be His will to allow the lesser gods to do whatever they wish. I don’t claim to be sure about these details but I don’t want to focus on speculation. I feel we’ve come to agree on the broader points and that’s enough. Like I said before we should only focus on details when we’ve come to agree on the bigger issues. I suppose that’s a topic for later.

While I don't necessarily agree with the claim for morality, I will admit this has been a rather productive discussion. I appreciate your time. If you feel like clashing intellectual swords on other topics, just give me a mention, and I'll be happy to engage.

elated177:
El Elohe Yahshrael!

There are over 5000 Gods being worshipped by humans, how do you know that your God is the Creator?


I won't really say the "right one" because, to every worshipper, his or her God is the "right" one. But I will say the "Creator" because there can only be one Creator. So, even if you say your God is the right one, it doesn't mean he/she/it is the Creator. It means, therefore, that knowing the Creator is one thing and chosing to worship him or not to worship him is another.

The heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them were created. Man did not fall down from the sky. Man was created. Even the sky itself was created.


So, of all the gods, over 5000, according to some people, how do you know that your own God is the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them?

El Elohe Yahshrael! Hallelu YAH!

The taste of the pudding is in the eating. God must be supernatural for Him to be the creator of all that exists. He has to exist outside of everything else but nothing exists outside of Him. If this axiom is accepted then we must also accept that the only way to know the truth about who God is is examine the religions that grant practitioners access to the supernatural. The religions that Grant's access to the supernatural are the religions that provide a means for it to be falsified or corroborated and that narrows down the religions. Next there are two alternatives. We could decide to investigate the spiritual practitioners of religions that grant access to the supernatural and do a personality comparison or we could venture into these religions with supernatural access starting with the oldest of them.

It is only in a diligent examination of the supernatural implications of a religion can we know which is the truth.

elated177:
El Elohe Yahshrael!

There are over 5000 Gods being worshipped by humans, how do you know that your God is the Creator?


I won't really say the "right one" because, to every worshipper, his or her God is the "right" one. But I will say the "Creator" because there can only be one Creator. So, even if you say your God is the right one, it doesn't mean he/she/it is the Creator. It means, therefore, that knowing the Creator is one thing and chosing to worship him or not to worship him is another.

The heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them were created. Man did not fall down from the sky. Man was created. Even the sky itself was created.


So, of all the gods, over 5000, according to some people, how do you know that your own God is the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them?

El Elohe Yahshrael! Hallelu YAH!

YAHUAH ELOAH of Yishrael is the CREATOR

Shalom! The Elohim of Yisrael is the creator

efficiencie:
The taste of the pudding is in the eating. God must be supernatural for Him to be the creator of all that exists. He has to exist outside of everything else but nothing exists outside of Him. If this axiom is accepted then we must also accept that the only way to know the truth about who God is is examine the religions that grant practitioners access to the supernatural. The religions that Grant's access to the supernatural are the religions that provide a means for it to be falsified or corroborated and that narrows down the religions. Next there are two alternatives. We could decide to investigate the spiritual practitioners of religions that grant access to the supernatural and do a personality comparison or we could venture into these religions with supernatural access starting with the oldest of them.

It is only in a diligent examination of the supernatural implications of a religion can we know which is the truth.

You sounded there like chieveboy. Are you him? Could you throw more light on the emboldened?

elated177:
You sounded there like chieveboy. Are you him? Could you throw more light on the emboldened?

LoL I Function here as this handle only. To corroborate on that quote, instead of trying to investigate practitioners of a religion why not investigate this deities yourself? Any one can do it. The major problem is thinking you cant.

The taste is usually in the eating, not someone eating for you. Eckankar had made public means and tools you can use to explore any plane, planet or destination without having to use spaceships.

Eckankar says you are a spaceship of sorts that's billions of miles more fantastic than a man-made spaceship or even the ones the gods built (chariot of fire)

chieveboy:
LoL I Function here as this handle only. To corroborate on that quote, instead of trying to investigate practitioners of a religion why not investigate this deities yourself? Any one can do it. The major problem is thinking you cant.

The taste is usually in the eating, not someone eating for you. Eckankar had made public means and tools you can use to explore any plane, planet or destination without having to use spaceships.

Eckankar says you are a spaceship of sorts that's billions of miles more fantastic than a man-made spaceship or even the ones the gods built (chariot of fire)

I have seen, felt and tasted the path that I am traversing and confirmed it to be true and the ultimate one. I will continue to see, feel and taste the greatness of the power associated with this path - the path of righteousness of YHVH Almighty, the one and only true God and the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them. No better path exists.

On the bolded, what were you saying there?

elated177:
I have seen, felt and tasted the path that I am traversing and confirmed it to be true and the ultimate one. I will continue to see, feel and taste the greatness of the power associated with this path - the path of righteousness of YHVH Almighty, the one and only true God and the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them. No better path exists.

This right here is all the matters. You walk the path because that is what you must thread as far as your current state of consciousness is concerned, but of course I e couldn't have done otherwise. That's why evangelism is indeed a futile effort.

On the bolded, what were you saying there?

A path is indeed a means to a destination and can only lead there. The bolded is a meaningless comment as it were.

Wilgrea7:
As usual... Unwilling to discuss

Why do i even bother?

You won't get anywhere near getting a level headed, cerebral discourse with these lots. Some of them attempt to have a discourse, but a great deal of them are plain thick headed. And these 2 are as thick headed as they come

APART FROM MALARIA INFECTION, THE ONE WHO INSTRUCTS ME RIGHTLY IN MY DREAMS IS MY GOD.
MAY ALL HONOUR AND GLORY BE HIS FOR EVER AND EVER. AMEN.

chieveboy:
This right here is all the matters. You walk the path because that is what you must thread as far as your current state of consciousness is concerned, but of course I e couldn't have done otherwise. That's why evangelism is indeed a futile effort.

A better state of consciousness than the one associated with the Path of Righteousness of YHVH Almighty, the one and only true God and the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, does not exist. Seeking such is like seeking a better or more powerful energy than the Sun.

chieveboy:
A path is indeed a means to a destination and can only lead there. The bolded is a meaningless comment as it were.

Hmmmmh! A better Destination than the Kingdom of YHVH Almighty and his Son doesn't exist.

jaephoenix:
You won't get anywhere near getting a level headed, cerebral discourse with these lots. Some of them attempt to have a discourse, but a great deal of them are plain thick headed. And these 2 are as thick headed as they come

What have you got to offer? Here is your chance, present it? Or is it only useless and meaningless attempt at insults?

elated177:
A better state of consciousness than the one associated with the Path of Righteousness of YHVH Almighty, the one and only true God and the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, does not exist. Seeking such is like seeking a better or more powerful energy than the Sun.




Hmmmmh! A better Destination than the Kingdom of YHVH Almighty and his Son doesn't exist.

The point I am driving is: if a path is okay for you, that's all that matters. Learn all you can as you give it your your best in the YHVH path

elated177:
El Elohe Yahshrael!

There are over 5000 Gods being worshipped by humans, how do you know that your God is the Creator?


I won't really say the "right one" because, to every worshipper, his or her God is the "right" one. But I will say the "Creator" because there can only be one Creator. So, even if you say your God is the right one, it doesn't mean he/she/it is the Creator. It means, therefore, that knowing the Creator is one thing and chosing to worship him or not to worship him is another.

The heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them were created. Man did not fall down from the sky. Man was created. Even the sky itself was created.


So, of all the gods, over 5000, according to some people, how do you know that your own God is the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them?

El Elohe Yahshrael! Hallelu YAH!

Basically, most God's are not worshipped as the creator. Ogun worshippers or Amadioha worshippers do not necessarily consider them as their creator. Must religious people believe in a creator but we understand him differently.
And we call him by different names.

tctrills:
Basically, most God's are not worshipped as the creator. Ogun worshippers or Amadioha worshippers do not necessarily consider them as their creator. Must religious people believe in a creator but we understand him differently.
And we call him by different names.

I am interested in establishing something from your assertion.
What do you know about the worship of those gods that you mentioned? Can you do a little explanation?

chieveboy:
The point I am driving is: if a path is okay for you, that's all that matters. Learn all you can as you give it your your best in the YHVH path

I have always been, and will always be, of the opinion that people are free to worship whoever or whatever they like, so long as it doesn't involve spilling human blood. Your soul, your life.

However, this is about knowing which God is the Creator.

elated177:
I am interested in establishing something from your assertion.
What do you know about the worship of those gods that you mentioned? Can you do a little explanation?

You want me to describe how the above hids are worshipped?

elated177:
I have always been, and will always be, of the opinion that people are free to worship whoever or whatever they like, so long as it doesn't involve spilling human blood. Your soul, your life.

However, this is about knowing which God is the Creator.

In lay man terms, knowing which God is the creator does not cook beans. In other words, above knowing which God is the creator is knowing yourself as Soul. This is called 'Self Realization'. It means to see yourself in you true image beyond your lower bodies (physical, astral, causal, mental and etheric).

When you have this experience, you will be in a better position to place YHVA et al in their rightful places.

tctrills:
You want me to describe how the above hids are worshipped?

Yap.

chieveboy:
In lay man terms, knowing which God is the creator does not cook beans. In other words, above knowing which God is the creator is knowing yourself as Soul. This is called 'Self Realization'. It means to see yourself in you true image beyond your lower bodies (physical, astral, causal, mental and etheric).

Are you not putting the cart before the horse? Knowing which God is the Creator is not for "cooking beans". There are sources of energy for accomplishing such trivial task. Depending on your belief, bordering on afterlife, it is very important to know the God one is worshipping.

If you place ascertaining the God you worship below "soul/self realization", haven't you placed your god below you? As in, if you see soul/self-realization as more important than knowledge of your Maker, haven't you succeeded in putting the cart before the horse? Is it not the knowledge of one's Maker that opens one's eyes to true "self-realization"? Failure to do this could expose one to demonic influence, which may lead to bogus self-realization. Can one achieve "self/soul-realization" on one's own without the help of the supernatural?

IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE CREATED TO GIVE A PLACE TO HIS OR HER CREATOR. THAT IS WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR IDOLS.

chieveboy:
When you have this experience, you will be in a better position to place YHVA et al in their rightful places.

Do you know about YHVH Almighty?

When you experience the greatness, awesomeness, gloriousness and magnificence of YHVH Almighty, the Creator of the ends of the earth, you will realize who and what you truly are. It is only then that you will be able to place yourself properly.

elated177:
Are you not putting the cart before the horse? Knowing which God is the Creator is not for "cooking beans". There are sources of energy for accomplishing such trivial task. Depending on your belief, bordering on afterlife, it is very important to know the God one is worshipping.

If you place ascertaining the God you worship below "soul/self realization", haven't you placed your god below you? As in, if you see soul/self-realization as more important than knowledge of your Maker, haven't you succeeded in putting the cart before the horse? Is it not the knowledge of one's Maker that opens one's eyes to true "self-realization"? Failure to do this could expose one to demonic influence, which may lead to bogus self-realization. Can one achieve "self/soul-realization" on one's own without the help of the supernatural?

IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE CREATED TO GIVE A PLACE TO HIS OR HER CREATOR. THAT IS WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR IDOLS.





Do you know about YHVH Almighty?

When you experience the greatness, awesomeness, gloriousness and magnificence of YHVH Almighty, the Creator of the ends of the earth, you will realize who and what you truly are. It is only then that you will be able to place yourself properly.

I know the being referred to as "YHVH" too well. One of the training in the ECK study is to meet this being who is the channel for the creation of the worlds of creation, and by this extension CAN be said to be the creator...

It's why we can place him where he belongs in his God-assigned place with regards and regardless to and of his accruing power, majesty and all that. Some people fall for that splendor but we move on beyond his realm with the help of the Supreme Deity which functions as the 'Mahanta the Living ECK Master'. I am sure this may sound like tales by moon light to you, but the things of the Holy Spirit goes without an external approvals and beliefs...

Please disregard whatever I have said here that you think is bullocks and move on with your current path giving it your all. Like I said earlier, that's all that matters (for now).