CowboyGH wrote:




CowboyGH,
right now you generalize and try to hide behind it this arrogant and sinful claim abt God .

I gonna ask you again :
Are you a new born prophet /5th one on the earth/ to whom God talk and said that he hates homosexual people or you lie about it and then I expect your apologies for such unchristian hate to the people who you get for different and who "your father" created as they are !

I hate no one nor do I spread hate. I answered your question. EVERYONE has been told of this. Some listen, some ignore, some don't believe, ect.

I think what you are asking is "If God is a spirit, then how is he the creator of the universe and all life?" and "How do you know that God is a spirit?"

If so, I would answer this way "If the universe has a creator, then that creator cannot be material. Whoever or whatever created the universe cannot be part of the universe and must somehow be separate. The creator of the universe must exist within it's own dimension of time, because the dimension of time that we exist within is co-terminus with our universe. Physicists of various stripes have proved that the universe had a beginning and will have an end. They have also proved that because of dark matter and dark energy, the universe is not cyclical and therefore not eternal. This means that a being must have decided to create the universe. So what we come up with is a being that isn't physical (the creator created all material), doesn't exist in our universe, is eternal (exists in it's own dimension of time). In English, we would call such a thing a spirit."

There are lots of other ways of explaining things. Parables and allegories contain the inherent danger that they are misunderstood, or plain and simple derstood. (Not understood.)

We don't know why God chose a way to explain His incredibly important messages in a way that is unclear and leads to arguments and wrong interpretation. But I am sure he has the reason, or the reasoning ability, or at least the ability to explain rationally why He did this explaining this way and not the other way.

We become the temple for the Holy Spirit. God lives within those who love him. So if we don't understand a parable or allegory, God can lead us towards the correct understanding.

I agree with the above a hundred percent. I can only add the thought that while spirit creates matter, the same way matter creates spirit; Man (which is made of matter) creates spirit (God) which survives the holocaust of the demise of matter, and then Spirit creates matter, which later, a few billion years into its existence, creates God again.

Thus, just like the above poster said, the physical world is not infinite, and not cyclical either; Instead, the universe is di-polarly cyclical in a manner of matter creating spirit and spirit creating matter in an infinite cycle of bi-partizan existence,

Maybe.

But if only those who love god can understand the allegories, then how do people get convinced to love god?

And if those who love god get the explanation by being lead by god towards the correct undersanding, then why bother with the allegory in the first place?

I still say that we can't handle this allegory thing, and God only can teach us.

Because understanding and allegory is a mental exercise, to explain it is another mental exercise, then god can only make us understand the allegory by increasing our mental capacities, short of providing additional information.

Yet people who have accepted god and love him, have their IQs not increase in leaps and bounds from one IQ level to a higher one. I hain't seen that happen yet anyways.

I think God has his reason of hiding the truth, and we can only find why he hides the truth when we find the truth outside of God.

I don't think God has hidden the truth...

Some within mankind have done so with the intention of controlling us through faith.

"It has been said

that the Bible is so deep

that theologians cannot touch the bottom,

yet so shallow that babes cannot drown."

WoW!!!...that's heavy man.

I would disagree with several of your conclusions here:

You say:


But there is really no reason at all to suggest such a thing. On the contrary this is not at all in harmony with known science. What our best scientific theories suggest today is that this entire physical universe we see is indeed a manifestation of 'energy fields' which apparently have no 'physical properties' other than they contain the laws of physics.

In other other words, your claim that we are "separate" from that which manifests our existence is not in harmony with modern scientific theories.

Our modern scientific theories and observations support a pantheistic (or panentheistic) view of nature. Not at all the kind of "separate" physical existence that you are suggesting.

What you're speaking of would have been a more classical (or Newtonian) view. Not a modern scientific view.

You also say:


But that too is a bit misleading. Whatever 'time' is, our experience of it must necessarily be a subset of whatever actually exists.

Therefore we would not be existing in a "time" that is separate from the creator, but rather we would simply being experiencing a very limit part of the creators experience of "time".

To say that this universe is not eternal is as meaningless as saying that a wave on the ocean is not eternal. The wave is nothing more than an undulation on the ocean surface. And in a very similar manner all of physical existence would be nothing more than an undulation of God.

Of course it's transient in form, but not in essence.

So all of these concepts of physics are far more in line with a pantheistic or panentheistic view of life, and do not support the idea of an actual 'physical universe' that is somehow 'separate' from God.

In short, all of physical reality is necessarily a manifestation of spirit, just as the Eastern Mystics have suggested.

That would be my assessment of current scientific knowledge and observations with respect to any ideas of 'spirit'. And I believe that this is also the very of most physicists who consider these concepts.

It's definitely panentheistic in nature, and not separate.

You are absolutely right, cerieserose, this is heavy.

But this is even heavier:
I agree with the above a hundred percent. I can only add the thought that while spirit creates matter, the same way matter creates spirit; Man (which is made of matter) creates spirit (God) which survives the holocaust of the demise of matter, and then Spirit creates matter, which later, a few billion years into its existence, creates God again.

Thus, just like the above poster said, the physical world is not infinite, and not cyclical either; Instead, the universe is di-polarly cyclical in a manner of matter creating spirit and spirit creating matter in an infinite cycle of bi-partizan existence,

CowboyGH wrote:




read again your words and



Tell me here .. do you like/love a sin ?

Spidercmb wrote:






Give me proof for a spirit which created something material.




In this way you make God to appear an abstraction and fiction
or the most easy way to"hide " his absence .

And your idea leads to another question : who created his dimension and Him




nah....they did only a model in which they guess that our universe has an end ...but they said also that the end is
dynamic due to тхе continuous of the process of matter - anti-matter in their interaction.






Hence here God appears with limited ability not like God creator of all but like all have been created by a natural process.





Here I'm agree ...Its a spirit ... not God.

No, you are mixing junk science with science. And seriously, the laws of physics aren't "physical properties".



What theories? You haven't mentioned any, you just gratuitously refuted my statement. And from what I know of your crackpot theories, you believe the universe created itself. That's a direct contradiction of Causality.



What junk science are you basing this on? You make these statements, but you have to know I'm going to call you on it. Causality requires that everything in our universe has a cause. So the cause of the universe cannot be from within the universe.



I say you are basing your refutation on junk science, until you actually mention some theories that support your gibberish.



Once again, causality requires that whatever created our universe couldn't have started out as part of our universe. So God would have to have, at least at some point, existed separate from our universe. Since time is a dimension of our universe, whatever dimension of time that God exists in, couldn't be the same one we exist in.



Absolute nonsense, as I've already explained above.



What "modern scientific theories" is this based on? I would guess something that Depak Chopra wrote and sold to rubes for $24.99.



It's actually quite funny that you come to a conclusion without offering a single argument, theory or fact that supports that conclusion.

While that belief does have an odd symmetry, I don't agree. This suggests an endless cycle, of God creates man, man creates God, God creates man. While this would be good scifi, one does have to wonder what was the beginning? Not of the universe, but of the cycle. To put it simply, a cycle has a beginning, middle and end, then it repeats. It's possible to believe that the universe could be cyclical in nature, going from big bang to big crunch back to big bang, because it's all subject to one set of laws. But then to believe that the universe could go from existence to non-existence and back into existence...that pill is too big to swallow.

The Bible presents God as unchanging and eternal. This concept, while probably beyond our ability to fully comprehend, does give us a plausible creator of the Universe. And while it does have the impossible to understand eternal, omnipotent creator, it is far less complex (and therefore more likely) than your suggestion.

People's ignorance of science is not my problem. There are entire colleges, textbooks, and even books published at laymen levels to educate people on science.

Of course, I don't expect you to understand that because you clearly push for ancient Hebrew mythology as the basis for reality.

Your biased agenda is crystal clear.



Quantum Mechanics. The central pillar of modern science.

No 'causality' required. Only potentiality and probability.

So unless you're prepared to call people like Neils Bohr, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, Richard Feynman, and many others, "crackpots" you accusations are meaningless.

The concepts you're supporting belong to "Classical Physics", not "Modern Physics"

Sure would be nice if everyone were up to speed on what modern science actually knows.

Quantum Mechanics is a branch of science, not a theory. What THEORIES support what you posted.



And yet physicists cannot agree on quantum theories. In fact, some physicists still believe that causality does apply on the quantum level.



Fallacy: Appeal to Authority.

You have yet to mention a single theory that supports your statements, so now you just list a bunch of names. Why don't you tell me what theories support the idea that the universe created itself?

That's waaay out there man!!!

You're thinking waaaay too hard.

Man does not possess the power nor capability

to create a perfect God.

The Lord's attributes are sooo supreme;

our gray matter is too limited

to add a fraction of a thought to the

mind of The Almighty.

We can borrow ideas from one another share ideas,

but we don't possess the mental mechanics

to execute the makings of a God.


Simply put...

We don't have the wherewithal and

we don't own the copyrights.

Sorry that you're having such difficulty with comprehension Spider.

First off, I never stated that the "universe created itself", so that's a totally misguided fallacy on your part. I simply pointed out that whatever created the universe is itself the universe, just like when waves are created on the ocean, nothing new is created other than the waves themselves. But the waves are nothing but the ocean itself undulating.

That was my analogy.

Also, I have indeed mentioned a theory, clearly you aren't even paying attention.

It's the theory of Quantum Mechanics.

Plus, this "theory" is not merely a mathematical guess, or hunch, but rather it's an experimentally verified mathematical description of how reality actually behaves.

Therefore the panenthesitic nature of reality has been scientifically and observationally verified to be the true mathematical description and nature of reality.

Panentheism is a scientifically verified fact.