Religion

[Mike]

^He need not post a citation for an 'interesting idea.' That's all he's claiming it to be; There's no reason someone else's words are any more worthwhile than his own.



Your point about the bible is definitely true. Personally, I think the translation issue (ie. Hebrew + Greek => English) is the worst part; Some claim God would not let His book be tainted...but I don't see how this is possible in a translation. Personal biases are at the heart of the matter. As you're saying, the bible seemingly presents an idea, not fact...or does it? ( ;

Maybe God planned for all the 'mess-ups' and what we're left with is His finished product. I don't believe this to be the case, but I can't say with definite certainty that this is not precisely how God envisioned the bible (namely, having so many translations/versions). Maybe it is.

[demon of darkness]

If you study things about God and history and look at it not fom a scientific point of view but from a supernatural point of veiw, plus try to think like God and connect history together then you will slowly start to understand that God is real and that the relationship between God and man is not one of master and servant but of Father and child. I will explain my understanding of God and things about the christian faith in a future thread. Plus if anyone needs help accepting Christ as your lord and savior then please PM me.

[Mythril Roxas]

Originally Posted by demon of darkness

If you study things about God and history and look at it not fom a scientific point of view but from a supernatural point of veiw, plus try to think like God and connect history together then you will slowly start to understand that God is real and that the relationship between God and man is not one of master and servant but of Father and child. I will explain my understanding of God and things about the christian faith in a future thread. Plus if anyone needs help accepting Christ as your lord and savior then please PM me.

I study such ancient scriptures as a more physical matter than spiritual. The spirits of the realm are to far superior to the realm of matter, they wouldn't waste there time here. Thats why ghosts get tricky when it comes to my beliefs. I just don't know where they'd fit in my theories. But science isn't the way to look at the ancient world or god good comings and goings, no. Science denies there existence, that would make looking at religious scriptures in a scientific way hypocritical.
I believe in God. I also strongly believe in devils, the evil ones whom control the material realm. Thats why the Bible calls Satan the King of the world. But Jesus is something of a puzzle. When one knows enough of everything, he call fully understand it all. Once you've heard what everyone wants you to here, then you can begin to connect the puzzle pieces. Most people view the puzzle of life as boring, or start to put it together, but then stop. Others spend life times trying to find that last puzzle piece. As many of you are putting your together, Mine is nearally finished. Demon of Darkness, I'd like to talk to you about Jesus some time. Really, I want to see if you know anything about the Morning Star....really.
Heres a video on youtube that Youtube is trying to bann because it contains to much puzzle pieces for the common mind.
Heres the first part, the others'll be on the side, so just click the links.YouTube - Zeitgeist: The Movie - Full, Final version
enjoy!

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Mythril Roxas

When one knows enough of everything, he call fully understand it all.

No one, not even Einstein or any other great thinker, (pick your favourite) could ever comprehend God, the afterlife, why we're here, or any metaphysical question. That's by mere definition of what God is (as you said, "Satan rules the material realm" which implies that God, and any other of these questions, lie outside of this realm as Satan has no dominion over them).

That means you, and your puzzle (as well as my form of it) are, and always will be either incomplete, or incorrect (or both).

In a strictly logical/mathematical context, every formal system (including systems of reasoning) is either inconsistent or incomplete (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem).

If you assume your beliefs are correct, one can very mathematically, almost algorithmically, construct a contradiction in your beliefs (and it all begins with the statement that your beliefs are correct). That's the idea behind Godel's proof of his famous theorem (there are 2 infact).

But in other words, God and being incomprehensible aside, if your system of beliefs is consistent (ie. it has no inherent contradictions) you can never prove that it's complete (ie. you know the whole truth)...so there is always that uncertainty.


And Zeitgeist is a walking contradiction...for this very reason, among others.

[Mythril Roxas]

No one, not even Einstein or any other great thinker, (pick your favourite) could ever comprehend God, the afterlife, why we're here

I can. Others can to, it takes logic to comprehend the truth. Plus Einstein isn't that smart, Tesla is smarter than him. Others were to.

[Mike]

I did say to pick your favourite...Tesla can't comprehend it either.

It does indeed take logic to comprehend...however inherent in one's own logic are assumptions. (EVERY system of logic is based on axioms, a.k.a. assumptions)

So by a great theorem in logic (as I mentioned, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem), your belief system is either incomplete, or inconsistent. It doesn't even fully adhere to the laws presented in our reality, how could you possibly hope it adheres to those in a higher reality?


Take for instance, the proof that there's no proof of God...very very simple logic:

Case 1: God does not exist;
Then there is no proof, as there is no truth in God.

Case 2: God does exist;
Then if a proof of God exists, then man can manipulate God (ie. God/miracles/whatever can be repeated and evaluated)...and thus God is not supernatural as man has dominion over Him. This is contradicting the fact that we're assuming God exists.

Thus there is no proof of God.


Thus your belief in God or an afterlife is an assumption, or Axiom if you will, as it is unprovable...so your beliefs are either inconsistent or incomplete, and thus you haven't 'pieced together the whole puzzle.'

In other words, the best one can hope for is to either 'fall short of the whole truth' and not know the whole story...or be wrong.

For instance, if I were to say "God is real." and that were my only belief, then if God is real, I'm correct...however there is certainly more to know (ie. my beliefs are Incomplete), like perhaps, if/where heaven lies, if/where hell lies, etc. The second I start asking these questions, I have the possibility of being wrong (I may be Inconsistent)...and the second I throw in the fact that I assume I'm correct, it's game over (I'm definitely Inconsistent)...Godel kicks in and we're contradicting ourselves.

[Mythril Roxas]

Your F'ing smart my friend. U used complete logic and a little bit of elbow greese to come to your conclusions, I like your style. But not everything can be used through logic, 90% of the time it is absolute, but when dealing with things such as God's existence, things we can't neccesarilly see with our eyes must be found to exist "outside our realm".

I did say to pick your favourite

Tesla is my favorite....^_^

...Tesla can't comprehend it either.

You never know, he did find some crazy stuff according to some "conspiracy theories", Anti-Gravity Matter, the 'peace-ray', and his "obsesive compulsive dissorder" with the number 3. Such things are what truth seekers seek once they know the complete truth, or at least as much truth this realm has to offer. Tesla was a great man, and possibly one of the smartest to ever live in my opinion.

It does indeed take logic to comprehend...however inherent in one's own logic are assumptions. (EVERY system of logic is based on axioms, a.k.a. assumptions)

Most logic is based on "common knowledge" and assumptions, but not all beliefs come from logic. Logic is a good tool to use in such things as debates, and like I said, most of the time smarter people have a belief system based more on logic than the common man. But such things as God can't have logic applied to them. Sight is often used in logic, but if you see something with your mind your often thought crazy, or you'd ignore it completely and not think it was anything in peticular. But, if you see something with your heart, if you feel something in your soul that tells you there is a god, then you have enough "proof" for yourself. If someone doesn't feel god is "real", or he doesn't exist and they need "evidence", then they haven't had that feeling yet. Most people never really have that feeling in many lifetimes, but those whom are lucky will truly get that feeling. So, you see, you can not apply logic to emotions, because emotions are in and of themselves a deity of mystery.

So by a great theorem in logic (as I mentioned, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem), your belief system is either incomplete, or inconsistent. It doesn't even fully adhere to the laws presented in our reality, how could you possibly hope it adheres to those in a higher reality?

your logic statements only apply to logic, and as I've stated, logic isn't what most people use in moral belief systems 100%. Logic is absolute, thats why its a great tool, and your bringing up good points about how theories based on logic can only take you so far, but thats my point. To find the rest, you must use a different method.

Thus your belief in God or an afterlife is an assumption, or Axiom if you will, as it is unprovable...so your beliefs are either inconsistent or incomplete, and thus you haven't 'pieced together the whole puzzle.'

lol, apply logic to religion in general. The beliefs and mythologies, not the unified theory of "god's existence", and in those mythologies you will find the truth of why earth exists, or rather "The heart (re-arange the letters of earth, you get heart) of the universe." The puzzle is never complete for anyone until they die. In death, you see god, and then return to another vessel on earth. Its a complicated system of karma and reincarnation that our souls live through in punishment of a choice we once made as spirits. Thats the system of the afterlife, I've got that much figured out. There is many more puzzle pieces, but like I said, no mortals puzzle can be complete until after death in the realm of matter. And that applies to only those who've puzzled all they could in this world. Some of them don't even get that last piece. So, in conclusion, we are all only sinful men and women, so not all of us can really solve every answer, but some can. Some sinners find the light in the cave of the underworld, and they reach for it. Once you find the light, you'll wanna dig yourself out of that cave. This process is when you have the puzzle pieces in your hands, and start to connect them.

For instance, if I were to say "God is real." and that were my only belief, then if God is real, I'm correct...however there is certainly more to know (ie. my beliefs are Incomplete), like perhaps, if/where heaven lies, if/where hell lies, etc. The second I start asking these questions, I have the possibility of being wrong (I may be Inconsistent)...and the second I throw in the fact that I assume I'm correct, it's game over (I'm definitely Inconsistent)...Godel kicks in and we're contradicting ourselves.

Only a "quitter" thinks like that. As to where heaven and hell are, why they are the two realms of course. Paradise is the spirit realm, and hell is the realm of matter. I asked myself those questions, I studied books, religion, many other works of ancient scriptures and such and came to the conclusion of the truth using logic. I asked the questions, and i wasn't inconsistent. I then "assumed I was correct", but I was. And I found puzzle pieces, what more could i get out of asking simple questions, using logic and a little elbow greese to come to concluding truthful answers? Nothing more.

[demon of darkness]

O'k God cannot be proved by science becase science can only prove things in our realm. But i'm talking about a relationship with God. I can't explain in a scientific term because the spirit is not a thing that can be explained by science. It's hard to explain it in a short term but i'll make a more detailed thread explaining what a relationship with God is like. Trust me my relationship with God is explained unlike how most christians would explain it.

[Mike]

@Mythril_Roxas: You didn't quite see the main idea in my post, so I'll try to tone down on some of the mumbo jumbo and put a more philosophical twist on it.

The short philosophical answer is: If God exists, then God gave us the gift of human reasoning. Should we then ignore this gift in the search for Him? Or should we utilize it?

Basically the idea is similar to what you've said: Human logic is insufficient to comprehend God. The theorem I've cited, Godel's theorem has two implications (which I won't go into so much detail about):

1) We cannot 'build' other human beings capable of being adaptive and responsive to their environment...at least not without being unable to grasp what's going on. (Not with a 'computer-like' or programming method)
2) It brings up an inherent flaw in our sense of reasoning...The proof in some sense is deeper than the theorem (and usually requires about 4 months to go through for the first time in a university course), Godel was a brilliant man. He has effectively shown that we can 'never' rectify this error in our reasoning, no matter how much more we learn about math/logic.

So this leaves us to wonder: what else can we not do/not comprehend?

You'd be surprised how good a tool like logic is for modelling beliefs. Infact, the 'axioms' part is pretty solid. We can always label, or pin down what our assumptions are. These are quite literally, the things that defy logic/can't be proven. I have a theory I'm trying to work with (although it seems rather nontrivial, yet clear) that every belief system can be axiomatized. It seems clear, just nail down your assumptions / beliefs and call them axioms. Your may or may not already have an inconsistent system just based on axioms, some inherent contradiction:

Kind of a stupid math example is if I take as an axiom 2 + 2 = 4, and another with 5 - 2 = 2, then I have a contradiction...because by the 2nd axiom 2 + 2 must equal 5, but my first axiom says it's 4 (which is an inconsistency/contradiction).

This is where logic is sound, and how we can use logic to analyze our belief systems (and this is where the contradiction lies should one assume their beliefs are correct, as an axiom). If we go beyond this, then as you've said, this is a problem...however I haven't gone above and beyond this point yet.

The thing we are missing/can't capture are the 'rules of inference.' How do we make decisions in our system? Like for instance, suppose "God exists" is our axiom. What comes next? What do we actually 'believe' about God? This is the personal, cognitive element that comes into play.

The problem is a human is adaptive, while a computer program is not....but whatever the formal system, it cannot assume its own truth. We cannot 'know' we are right for certain...because then it would be an Axiom and Godel would apply...so the best we have is to believe we are correct, but acknowledge that we may fall short of the truth.

This is why I don't think it's for quitters: it's for the humble. I don't consider myself (or other human being) to be on the same level of intellect that He is (or anywhere close, allowing them to perceive what He is, or where He is, etc). I've demonstrated why I have every reason to believe we're inferior by using "This sentence is false."

And now the part I've deliberately left for the end: gut feelings/impulses, or feeling things in your heart. Don't worry, I get these too so I know exactly what you're talking about...the sort of uplifted feeling you get when you think about something you know in your heart is true. (Ironically, I feel like my 'axiomatization' is a big breakthrough, haha)

However, we need to make 2 assumptions to ensure our gut feelings are what they are:

1) We exist (seems trivial, but important! And chances are you've already assumed this)
2) We're in sound health (ie. not crazy)

It's probably pretty obvious why we need those, so I won't explain. But essentially what it comes down to is a differing type of belief.

If your gut tells you something about God or heaven, or whatever it may be, then yes I can't argue that it is indeed the truth...however, I can argue that now you have a belief in the fact that this is a sign from God, and not something else like a crush on a girl or even just gas (sorry, I had to make that joke).

Take home point is that the belief, or axiom aspect shifts from being about God to being about oneself...I hope I've explained enough, I'm running a bit late so I had to cut it short.

Now about myself:

Even though I believe I'll never know exactly who God is in this life, I still aim to get as close as I can. God is 'magnetic' in some sense.

I try to shy away from details like whether or not Christ lived because they don't ultimately affect my personal relationship with God (personally I believe in Jesus, the Trinity etc. but mostly because I'd like to believe God is that nice, not because I have any particular reason to believe someone walked the earth 2000 years ago). This is where I differ from many Christians.

The reason I differ is because of the following (yes indeed) logic:

If God made human beings with such a distinct selection process, one belief, one geographical area, etc. then it's impossible for some to get to heaven. Thus since God created people outside of this one geographical area, then God made people with the knowledge that they are predestined for Hell...doesn't this imply that God's sinning?

I know some people will argue otherwise...but the core of my beliefs is that God exists and is perfect. It seems to me that if God could create everyone so that everyone goes to heaven (which He certainly could have, He can do anything) then why is creation of only a select few going to heaven sufficient? It's an imperfection...

That's my reasoning (it may look like I don't believe in a Hell, but it's more like I don't believe in a permanent Hell).



If you like kooky logic/mathy theories, ask away...I've got like 100 of em. Including why if we have any hope of knowing science is correct, then God (or at least some supernatural power) must exist, and another one about how God may have infact created everyone for heaven (eventually).

Both have kind of a math-ish flavour to them.

[demon of darkness]

Mike you are wrong about one thing. God did not originaly make man seperate from himself. He and man were connected until Man sinned and this sin caused a seperation. If God is perfect and sin is imperfect then when man sinned they became imperfect. Therefore they cannot be with God in his perfect heaven. Thats where Jesus comes in. Jesus died to wash our sins away, If we accept forgiveness our sin will be destroyed and thus Jesus reconnects us with God and we once again become perfect. So only those who refuse Jesus, those who refuse forgiveness will be sent to hell. It's not God's fault people go to heaven, it's the induviduals fault. If they refuse to accept christ and get forgiveness then how can God let a lost sinner enter heaven. Sin would ruin a perfect heaven and so we must seek forgiveness to enter heaven. I'll explain this in much greater detail in my Relationship with God thread.