The sun shines on all the earth. On whom does its ray not extend? Every man of every nation feels it. If one dares to behold the beauty of it for too long, it will burn the light from his eyes forever.

But, there the sun stands, immovable. What could make such an amazing wonder? For though it is many millions of miles away, it heats deserts and kills men! What could make such an amazing wonder!

The sun puts mans attempts at creation to shame. Oh man, are you even wiser than the magnificent One who created the sun? If you are, then replicate it. Make one yourself oh man; if you are so powerful. Go ahead, if you know better than God. Not even! If you know just, as much as God; do it!

Oh man, from where does your pride come? God made hundreds times hundreds of thousands of these suns, and you cannot fathom just one. Be humble you man, and take awe in the God who created the sun!

mm interesting food for thought and pretty powerful

Very uplifting.

However, the sun is not immovable. The sun moves constantly in a dance with the other stars, much the way the earth and planets dance around our sun.

Sol is the creation of God, no doubt in my mind, but it's rays also shine past earth onto the millions of other planets systems, and galaxies, but only we get to see it for its true brilliance.

I have no problem in beliving in God.

But that's not going to send me running off to believe in Zeus, or any other mythological stories.

Arguments that there 'must be a God' do not serve or support any particular religious doctrine because they apply to all religions and spiritual philosophies equally.

Pantheism – It not only brings you morning sunshine but it also brings you romantic moonlight as well.

(Not trying to sell a particular religion or philosophy. Just stating the obvious, that Sol belongs just as much to pantheism as it belongs to any other religion or philosophy)

The “must be a God” arguments only work on atheists, and they can even give really great arguments against it.

They simply say, “Well if the universe must have had a creator, then God must have had a creator” – it’s just a continuation of the same logic. Claiming that there must be a God to explain creation doesn’t explain where God came from. So it’s a meaningless argument. It just pushes the problem up one level. It doesn’t solve a thing.

Not true at all. You post very poorly thought out statements and ignore all refutation. This is one of the most poorly thought out statements you have made in awhile.

Care to elucidate?

I fail to see your point. There are many religions that believe in the 'god' concept and/or mystical spirituality which is the same thing.

Are you trying to claim that if there is a god that only one religion can be true?

Which one would it be pray tell? Zeus? Apollo? Aphrodites, Wankan Tanka? Amen - The God of the ancient Egyptians???

Allah? The God of Islam?

I'm sure there are many others. So which one is special? And why that one?

You said "Arguments that there 'must be a God' do not serve or support any particular religious doctrine because they apply to all religions and spiritual philosophies equally. ", that's not true. If the argument is that God must have created the universe, then it would be illogical to believe that the universe was God. Therefore, all pantheist religions go out the window. Science can easily disprove many religions, there is no world tree, for instance. There is no titan holding up the earth. There is no turtle on who's back we live. Relgions can very easily be widdled down to just a handful of possibly true religions. The Anthropic principle itself points strongly to the existance of God and specificially to the God of Judaism and Christianity.

This is totally untrue.

Pantheists believe that God created the universe by becoming the universe.

The universe is a manifestation of God.

God is omniscient.

Everyone doesn’t need to restrict themselves to the ancient archcia idea of external egotistical Gods that created a universe to rule over like as if it is their kingdom and the people living in it are the pets or unworthy subjects of a fascist Godhead. That’s the basis for many manmade mythologies.

The real God is probably quite a bit different from that picture. And the pantheistic picture certainly would not be ruled out. It is a perfectly plausible picture.



You’d have to give specific reasons for this. It just sounds like a wild claim to me. Also why would Islam be left off this list?

From what I understand of the Antropic principle it can apply to pantheism with absolute equality.

Why would it not? I’m willing to guess that it’s probably because you don’t understand pantheism.

One thing for certain. I never said much about atheist's in this thread. I'm not a very wise man probably not near as intelligent than abracadabra. But I was simply stating that the God who DID create the sun must have been a magnificent One! I know who that God is and have come to know Him by His loving kindness and grace. I cannot have a philosophical discussion about His existance or why my God is true and other's aren't I just know it to be true. And wanted to express one of my writings on my oberservations of this God I have come to know.

The Antropic Principle was written to explain why there was this HUGE elephant in the room and why it wasn't an elephant.

The Anthropic Principle is an attempt by physicists to explain why the universe appears to be finely tuned. They attempt to explain how I universe can exist without a God. Their attempt was unconvincing and their research is now used by Christians to support creationism. One of the authors became a deist, because he could no longer deny the existance of God after he saw the actual unlikelihood of the universe existing at all.

So why didn't I mention Islam? For one major reason, Allah states in the Qu'ran that the Jews tricked him. Any god who is not omniscient could not be God, in my opinion.

As to why I think the Anthropic Principle supports Christianity and Judaism is that both believe in a God who is eternal, external to the universe and all-powerful. I suppose that could also apply to some pantheists, those who believe in a sentient god anyways. But the Anthropic Principle works against those pantheists who don't believe in a sentient god.

Again this is totally untue. I actually explained this to you several months ago, but obviously you didn't understand it then. I'll try again very briefly.

The "Christian Creationists" have this weird idea that God would need to guide the universe along every step of the way. That God needs to baby-sit the universe.

The pantheistic picture of God that most scientists believe in says that God designed the universe in such a way that "evolution" would naturally proceed on its own. No need for a baby-sitting God.

So your whole objection here rests on the idea of a baby-sitting God. But there’s no need for that.

Pantheism has all bases covered Spider. It doesn’t conflict with science. It doesn’t conflict with reason. It certainly doesn’t conflict with the Antropic Principle. And it doesn’t require an external all-loving God that is appeased by blood sacrifices.

The pantheistic view of God says that God truly is all-loving and has truly unconditional love (not the extremely conditional love of the biblical God).

The pantheistic view of God says that God truly is all-wise and has designed a universe where no souls are lost to eternal damnation (not like the biblical picture of an seriously unwise God who has to drown out his creation on one occasion and then have himself nailed to a pole to appease himself later on)

The pantheistic view of God says that God truly is all-powerful and doesn’t have any fallen angels who have are at war with God in the belief that they can overtake his kingdom.

The pantheistic view of God is perfet.

The biblical picture of God is far from perfect.

That’s not an attack on anyone’s personally belief. That’s just an observation about two differnt possible views of God.

I didn't see anything in that post which suggested any doctrine or religion. He just said that we need to recognize that there is a Creator.
A creator who is the same for everybody regardless of religion.
Honestly, i don't see why to even mention doctrines at all.

Very true...we live by a simple faith & leave the intellualizing to those who are still too carnal to understand it. God at some point in my life said..."Why do you always resist Me?" LOL How great is our God? AWESOME!!!! :)

Any perspective offered in a malignant distortion of another is disengenuous.

Any perspective offered on it's own merits is credible for it's own tenets.

Hinging any belief on the deconstruction of a corrupted distortion of another is at best suspect.

There exists this principle in all reasonable discourse.


Conclusory perceptions of what constitutes perfection and unconditional love is a judgement that precludes the possibility that there is irrefutability to any doctrinal preposition.

That is a prejudicial conclusion that only closes the possibilities.

What is irrefutable to one is not a license to demand that it is also so for another.

especially at the expense of marginalizing one to establish the correctness of another.


Pantheism is not yet defined when defined arbitrarily at the offense and insult of Christianity to establish its credibility.

It stands alone on its own merits or it fails miserably to stand at all.

Christianit has proved that it is a viable truth that has withstood the test of time and been embraced as truth and inspiration by many innuerable men of greatness throughout history, despite the malignant distortions of infamous men throughout history.

Chrsitianity does not require that pantheism not exist as a viable choice.

But pantheism as described here is relying on the deconstruction of the merits of Christianity to stand.

That is not a convincing argument for pantheism.

It is a veiled insult to Christianity and all through time that have embraced its truthes and it's beneficence.

Christianity has always prevailed to survive and thrive despite all of the historical malignities and distortions it has endured and remains the greatest inspiration in man for mankind's good.

It does not stand at the expense of other beliefs, but endures and continues to expand in the world as truth.

That shall never change until God changes it.

It shall always stand to cleanse itself because God keeps it alive as viable, not man.

God testifies of Christianity to the individual.

And there are too many individuals that testify to God being embraced in the tenets of the true faith to offhandedly ignore that it is truth.

No other faith has every remained so intact for so long in recorded history.

None shall.

It is the culmination of God's revelation of that which pleases Him most.; the words of Jesus.

You are changing the subject. The Anthropic Principle was written to suggest that the universe didn't have to be designed. The Anthropic Principle is actually strong evidence to support design. A non-sentient god could not design anything. I have said nothing about God having to manipulate everything every step of the way, I have argued against that point many times. I wish for once you could stop trying to argue and just discuss the issues at hand.



What? I'm sorry, but you are going to have to back that up. Most scientists are pantheists? Says who?



No, that is a strawman created by you. Please Abra, you are smart. TRY. TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC. Try to address what I post.



You are so disengenuous, it's disgusting. You insult and mischaracterize my views and pretend that you are building bridges. I'm really getting close to just ignoring you completely. Stop the strawmen. Stop the insults to my religion.

Sorry, Miguel, I just came from a couple other threads this gentleman started.

Here’s clearly here to preach and ‘save’ people.






His agenda is clear Miguel.

I make no excuses for how I am responding to him in light of the fact that he has already voiced his agenda.

Here’s clearly here to establish relationships for the express purpose of leading up to evangelism.

And he’s starting out by trying to suggest that here MUST BE A GOD, and that man is unable to explain things without God.

Good place to start for an evangelist I would think.

His agenda is clear, and self-confess Miguel.

As Pilot once said "I wash my hands of this." These things are getting way out of hand.

Look you can't even get two people of the same faith to agree on their faith. Baptists and Methodists veiw things just as differently as Jews and Muslims, there is no "right way." For those of you who cling to a literal interpretation of the bible, remember this. It wasn't written until 400 years after the authors deaths. Paul wasn't around, John wasn't around the eleven weren't around. It is a collection of oral traditions that were passed down until written. Artistic liscence had to have been used on several occasions. I sure can't tell the same story twice in the same way, what makes you think the humans that wrote these did. And what of translation errors (i.e. Sea of Reeds)? Get out of the box, think with what God (yours not mine) gave you. It's not the book that's important, it's the message of how we should treat our fellow man that is. When you can remember that, then maybe think about spreading your thoughts on the rest.

Even the most skeptical of historians agree that the oldest copies we have of the Gospels were transcribed in the early 200s. Most historians agree that the Gospels were written between 70 AD and 120 AD. We have fragments that have been dated to 50AD. Your sources are failing you.

It's definitely "Red Sea", there are carvings in the area in an early form of Hebrew that were ancient in Jesus' time. There is one carving that is an abridged version of the Exodus and claims to have been made on the point of the crossing. The "Reed Sea" controversy has been settled in all but the most determinedly difficult minds. When "Yam Suph" appears in other parts of the Bible, there is no doubt that the Red Sea is being discussed, so why should we assume that it was mistranslated in Exodus?

For those of you who were not aware, the History Channel's specials on the Bible are extremely slanted. The majority of historians disagree with their evidence and conclusions. Simply go online and look around, you will see what I'm talking about. I bought into the "Reed Sea" bit when I saw it on the History Channel, then I found out that the controversy was only on the fringe of Biblical scholarship. The majority see no controvery at all, it clearly says "Red Sea".