Opinion Theology Debate

[GremioPower]

If there is a Christian god, I'm pretty sure he has forsaken the Gold Coast a long time ago!

As a hobby, GremioPower writes some opinions and publishes them in a blog. Since you have entered in this subject, I actually have said something about it. The link can be found here: From Beyond the South: "There is no God". Still, I'm leaving the full text below:

“THERE IS NO GOD”
(“From Beyond the South:” I, 6)

It is not a secret that I am moving toward becoming a practicing Catholic, whatever it may mean. It is also not a secret that my wife is Atheist, and she has no interest in changing her position. Still, I pray to my kids every night and I invite them every Sunday to go to the mass with me.

We have our compromises, and, so far, after a decade living as a couple, in three different cities, in two distinct countries, with two kids, so good. The key is to keep finding common grounds and to move from there.

It is not always easy, it almost never is, but we both love each other and we both want this family to be successful. Hence, even both thinking the other’s position to be, let’s say, weird, we are able to make arrangements good enough for both of us.

Last Sunday morning, before leaving for the mass, I could not resist [badly] writing [something that could be mercyfully understood as] a poem. It shows that our beliefs are not far apart. Me, as a Catholic, and her, as an Atheist, we both believe “There is No God:”

God does not exist.
God is no thing.
God is nothing.

Any thing is a thing.
Any thing does exist.
Anything is God.

Loving God is Absolute Love.
Loving nothing is Absolute Love.
Loving no thing is Absolute Love.

One must not love any thing as if it were God.
One shall have no other god before God.
One must love God above all things.

“There is no God” is the ground of the First Commandment.​

Hence, if someone is Christian or Jew, for him, there can be no God. Whenever an Atheist says “there is no God”, we can all gladly agree: “you are right.”

After all, there is no God, because God is not “there.” One cannot touch, see, smell, hear, or taste God. One cannot possess God. One cannot know God. One cannot be God. Because one exists, while God has no existence.

There is no God. It simply “is.”​

 

[Pedro59]

As a hobby, GremioPower writes some opinions and publishes them in a blog. Since you have entered in this subject, I actually have said something about it. The link can be found here: From Beyond the South: "There is no God". Still, I'm leaving the full text below:

“THERE IS NO GOD”
(“From Beyond the South:” I, 6)

It is not a secret that I am moving toward becoming a practicing Catholic, whatever it may mean. It is also not a secret that my wife is Atheist, and she has no interest in changing her position. Still, I pray to my kids every night and I invite them every Sunday to go to the mass with me.

We have our compromises, and, so far, after a decade living as a couple, in three different cities, in two distinct countries, with two kids, so good. The key is to keep finding common grounds and to move from there.


It is not always easy, it almost never is, but we both love each other and we both want this family to be successful. Hence, even both thinking the other’s position to be, let’s say, weird, we are able to make arrangements good enough for both of us.

Last Sunday morning, before leaving for the mass, I could not resist [badly] writing [something that could be mercyfully understood as] a poem. It shows that our beliefs are not far apart. Me, as a Catholic, and her, as an Atheist, we both believe “There is No God:”

God does not exist.
God is no thing.
God is nothing.

Any thing is a thing.
Any thing does exist.
Anything is God.

Loving God is Absolute Love.
Loving nothing is Absolute Love.
Loving no thing is Absolute Love.

One must not love any thing as if it were God.
One shall have no other god before God.
One must love God above all things.

“There is no God” is the ground of the First Commandment.​

Hence, if someone is Christian or Jew, for him, there can be no God. Whenever an Atheist says “there is no God”, we can all gladly agree: “you are right.”

After all, there is no God, because God is not “there.” One cannot touch, see, smell, hear, or taste God. One cannot possess God. One cannot know God. One cannot be God. Because one exists, while God has no existence.

There is no God. It simply “is.”​

Good to find common ground with the wife...
.....but your premise is that because you can't see or touch God he doesn't exist?

 

[GremioPower]

Good to find common ground with the wife...
.....but your premise is that because you can't see or touch God he doesn't exist?

No. It is the other way around. All I am saying is that anything that can be touched, tasted, smelled, seen, or heard, that is not "God". If one will look for God in the wordly things, in the things of the cosmos, he won't find It.

The key is on the meaning of the word "existence", which is narrowed down to a quality of things perceived by the senses. The point here is that which we call "God" does not exist in the same way that other things exist. It is the reason why one cannot prove the existence of "God" by any natural scientific method known by men.

Still, that does not matter at all. That which we call "God" would merely be the background of all that exists. In other words, that which we call "God" is what makes "existence" possible. Everything that exists exists in "God".

P.S.: "But, then, how would you explain Jesus?! As a Catholic, you should believe he is God, and he could be touched, seen, heard..." Good question! Being both God and man, Jesus is the manifestation of the everlasting link between each existing thing and that which "Is". In many senses, Jesus is "Everyman", (meaning you, me, everybody), since human beings are the only thing that are able to experience and acknowledge such a link.

 

[Tibbs]

....

One cannot know God. One cannot be God. Because one exists, while God has no existence.

There is no God. It simply “is.”​

Not the place for a religious discussion ... but, John 17:3

Having said that ... Many prayers ascending as we speak to the footy Gods to heal the cherubic Rory! The city of churches will live up to its name this week!

 

[GremioPower]

Not the place for a religious discussion ... but, John 17:3

Having said that ... Many prayers ascending as we speak to the footy Gods to heal the cherubic Rory! The city of churches will live up to its name this week!

I am a Pagan regarding the football gods. I believe them all!

 

[Pedro59]

No. It is the other way around. All I am saying is that anything that can be touched, tasted, smelled, seen, or heard, that is not "God". If one will look for God in the wordly things, in the things of the cosmos, he won't find It.

The key is on the meaning of the word "existence", which is narrowed down to a quality of things perceived by the senses. The point here is that which we call "God" does not exist in the same way that other things exist. It is the reason why one cannot prove the existence of "God" by any natural scientific method known by men.

Still, that does not matter at all. That which we call "God" would merely be the background of all that exists. In other words, that which we call "God" is what makes "existence" possible. Everything that exists exists in "God".

P.S.: "But, then, how would you explain Jesus?! As a Catholic, you should believe he is God, and he could be touched, seen, heard..." Good question! Being both God and man, Jesus is the manifestation of the everlasting link between each existing thing and that which "Is". In many senses, Jesus is "Everyman", (meaning you, me, everybody), since human beings are the only thing that are able to experience and acknowledge such a link.

Yes I understand.

I like a good ernest philosophical debate and enjoy watching the 'penny drop' with recipients some times.

Re non creationists : they always have to start from somewhere and something... ( Big Bang , quarks black holes etc). .... but when you ask them to explain from the start with nothing.....debate over.....has to be a creator/ intelligent design etc...

I usually start along the lines ... So when there was nothing at all including no laws of gravity, relativity physics etc you are trying to tell me that something appeared out of nothing and then before these
laws existed knew what to do and hey presto the universe was created ...

A panel of eminent wise men to compare any garden variety religion ( sorry) with this premise would find the religion more credible than this something from nothing bunkum.

As an ex convent alterboy ha ha I also rebelled against a creator ( our creator could have been from another galaxy ... and the big bang etc could be part of his mechanisms etc etc) but found in my 50s and many friends passing becoming very philosophical and going back to a creator.
Now these days it's fashionable for one's religion to encompass the environment and energetic such as reincarnation and becoming part of the trees and mountains etc etc

But not good enough!

If I choose a religion I want to see my loved ones again and importantly keep my lessons of maturity in life I have learnt
Man if I love a woman for 40 years I don't want to bump into her with at best a five second deja Vue in a future life
( rules out reincarnation religions)

Man I don't want to lose all that love and life lessons and just become a part of the friggen mountains or trees
( rules out American Indian new age type religions)

No when I tell little Johnny whose Dad just died of cancer that he will see him again .... I want to mean it!

So if the religion ( belief system) I choose acknowledging a creator doesn't have an afterlife ... what's the bloody point of it all?

So weirdly in my mid 50s I find myself coming back to Christianity or similar.

Better get back to footy on here ha ha

 

[bomberclifford]

Re non creationists : they always have to start from somewhere and something... ( Big Bang , quarks black holes etc). .... but when you ask them to explain from the start with nothing.....debate over.....has to be a creator/ intelligent design etc...

Debate over? Not even close.

You (and many others before you) have just made something up to fill the gap of what existed before.

At least with science, there's no problem with saying, "We don't know".

 

[snozulu]

The Adelaide news media reminds me of this scene.

 

[Pappagallo]

Debate over? Not even close.

You (and many others before you) have just made something up to fill the gap of what existed before.

At least with science, there's no problem with saying, "We don't know".

But there has to be...

 

[Pedro59]

De

Debate over? Not even close.

You (and many others before you) have just made something up to fill the gap of what existed before.

At least with science, there's no problem with saying, "We don't know".

"debate over" was just my own conclusion ....

As for science saying we don't know ......do they really say that??? no they categorically rule out a creator ... so they are saying they know....

Science is just a labelling device to what can be proven

What can't be proven today may be proven tommorrow...

But in the meantime they indeed don't say "we don't know " there is a creator ( or historically if the world is round and not flat) .... they actually rule it out!

So instead of saying "they don't know "....science also " makes something up" ( the world is flat ... the Big Bang ... evolution....leeches and bloodletting for medicine ... cutting off breasts in case she ever gets cancer ( the YBZ gene something something ) etc etc etc) until more knowledge comes in...

 

[tribey]

Yes I understand.

I like a good ernest philosophical debate and enjoy watching the 'penny drop' with recipients some times.

Re non creationists : they always have to start from somewhere and something... ( Big Bang , quarks black holes etc). .... but when you ask them to explain from the start with nothing.....debate over.....has to be a creator/ intelligent design etc...

I usually start along the lines ... So when there was nothing at all including no laws of gravity, relativity physics etc you are trying to tell me that something appeared out of nothing and then before these
laws existed knew what to do and hey presto the universe was created ...

A panel of eminent wise men to compare any garden variety religion ( sorry) with this premise would find the religion more credible than this something from nothing bunkum.

As an ex convent alterboy ha ha I also rebelled against a creator ( our creator could have been from another galaxy ... and the big bang etc could be part of his mechanisms etc etc) but found in my 50s and many friends passing becoming very philosophical and going back to a creator.
Now these days it's fashionable for one's religion to encompass the environment and energetic such as reincarnation and becoming part of the trees and mountains etc etc

But not good enough!

If I choose a religion I want to see my loved ones again and importantly keep my lessons of maturity in life I have learnt
Man if I love a woman for 40 years I don't want to bump into her with at best a five second deja Vue in a future life
( rules out reincarnation religions)

Man I don't want to lose all that love and life lessons and just become a part of the friggen mountains or trees
( rules out American Indian new age type religions)

No when I tell little Johnny whose Dad just died of cancer that he will see him again .... I want to mean it!

So if the religion ( belief system) I choose acknowledging a creator doesn't have an afterlife ... what's the bloody point of it all?

So weirdly in my mid 50s I find myself coming back to Christianity or similar.

Better get back to footy on here ha ha

 

[Pedro59]

Ha ha

 

[Contested Marx]

Religion *shakes head*

 

[Pappagallo]

De

"debate over" was just my own conclusion ....

As for science saying we don't know ......do they really say that??? no they categorically rule out a creator ... so they are saying they know....

Science is just a labelling device to what can be proven

What can't be proven today may be proven tommorrow...

But in the meantime they indeed don't say "we don't know " there is a creator ( or historically if the world is round and not flat) .... they actually rule it out!

So instead of saying "they don't know "....science also " makes something up" ( the world is flat ... the Big Bang ... evolution....leeches and bloodletting for medicine ... cutting off breasts in case she ever gets cancer ( the YBZ gene something something ) etc etc etc) until more knowledge comes in...

There's a subtle but important difference between categorically ruling out the existence of something and stating that there isn't any observable evidence to suggest it exists.

 

[glitch01]

People are free to believe in whatever imaginary beings they like.......I'd rather not read about it here.......

 

[Pappagallo]

People are free to believe in whatever imaginary beings they like.......I'd rather not read about it here.......

You're right glitch this is really a topic for the Pittard thread.

 

[Contested Marx]

I have somewhat a belief system that I'd be happy to share with you should you want to hear it but not in a thread about biased football media

 

[tribey]

There's a subtle but important difference between categorically ruling out the existence of something and stating that there isn't any observable evidence to suggest it exists.

There's also a stark difference between the scientific definition of 'theory' (the accumulated evidence in that particular topic/field) and the popular definition ("i have a 'theory': darth vader is actually yoda standing on R2's helmet!").

 

[Launchpad McQuack]

You're right glitch this is really a topic for the Pittard thread.

Jasper is love. Jasper is life.

 

[Pedro59]

There's a subtle but important difference between categorically ruling out the existence of something and stating that there isn't any observable evidence to suggest it exists.

Agreed... yes it's Professor Hawkins is it? ....that categorically ruled out a Creator...wrote a book on this?.... ( BTW a creator doesn't have to have a religious / kneeling / homage/ praying connoction ) ....even though he admits he has to start with already existing materials in the universe and can't explain starting from nothing.

 

[Duck Farmer]

Religion *shakes head*

For Rory so loved the Crows, that he gave his only begotten appendix, that whosoever believeth in him should not be tagged, but have everlasting adulation.

Thread back on track.

 

[Dylan8]

God is real and I can now reveal that he has won his fourth best and fairest in a row at Port Adelaide.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Agreed... yes it's Professor Hawkins is it? ....that categorically ruled out a Creator...wrote a book on this?.... ( BTW a creator doesn't have to have a religious / kneeling / homage/ praying connoction ) ....even though he admits he has to start with already existing materials in the universe and can't explain starting from nothing.

So who created the creator then? How did this creator come from nothing?

 

[Garibaldi Red]

So who created the creator then? How did this creator come from nothing?

C'mon, as Eric Idle said "you come from nuffin, end up as nuffin, what have you lost? Nuffin.

 

[Pappagallo]

Jasper is love. Jasper is life.

What Would Jasper Do?

Panic? Go for the consecutive behinds record? Dress with maximum irony? It's one of those I'm pretty sure.