God always existed

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/how-was-god-created.226121/page-4#post-6355987

#71 paarsurrey

xxxxxxxx xxxx said: ↑

This question again. 

Listen you, this is simple. To be God means to be eternal. To be eternal means to be outside of time, as in there was no “before” you always existed. If you have to make an origin story, God was born among shapeless undifferentiated matter. Why that way? Because all of us humans replicate that in the womb. But it is important to not that God wasn’t created by anything (to be God, by definition is to be the original cause of things) but rather was born one day. If God in fact ever did not exisr (again, eternal).

“To be God means to be eternal. To be eternal means to be outside of time, as in there was no “before” you always existed.”

Paarsurrey wrote:

I agree with one on what I have colored in magenta.
When we have specified “G-d” the being who always existed, from eternity to eternity, it is unreasonable to go against the starting specification. There is no Scientific justification to do that futile exercise. Science, as I understand, only deals what had already got created, is being created or will be created (by G-d). If not, then anybody please quote from Science in this connection.
I agree with one on what I have colored in magenta.
Anybody, please

Regards
___________
[14:11]قَالَتۡ رُسُلُہُمۡ اَفِی اللّٰہِ شَکٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ یَدۡعُوۡکُمۡ لِیَغۡفِرَ لَکُمۡ مِّنۡ ذُنُوۡبِکُمۡ وَ یُؤَخِّرَکُمۡ اِلٰۤی اَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّی ؕ قَالُوۡۤا اِنۡ اَنۡتُمۡ اِلَّا بَشَرٌ مِّثۡلُنَا ؕ تُرِیۡدُوۡنَ اَنۡ تَصُدُّوۡنَا عَمَّا کَانَ یَعۡبُدُ اٰبَآؤُنَا فَاۡتُوۡنَا بِسُلۡطٰنٍ مُّبِیۡنٍ ﴿۱۱﴾
Their Messengers said, ‘Are you in doubt concerning Allah, Maker of the heavens and the earth? He calls you that He may forgive you your sins, and grant you respite till an appointed term.’ They said, ‘You are but men like ourselves; you desire to turn us away from that which our fathers used to worship. Bring us, then, a clear proof.’
https://www.alislam.org/quran/14:11

Science never took the issue that “How was G-d created?”

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/how-was-god-created.226121/page-4

#62 paarsurrey

xxxxxxxx said: ↑

Can’t say… What objective, tested, peer reviewed evidence do you have for this hypothesis?
NB: quoting ancient writings isn’t evidence — they’re not research based, tested or vetted, either.
No, nature did, through known processes.

“objective, tested, peer reviewed evidence”
Paarsurrey wrote:
It doesn’t make sense.

• Science never took the issue that “G-d did not exist”. Why put this question to deaf and dumb science when it never related to it, please?
• Science never took the issue that “G-d exists”. Why put this question to deaf and dumb science when it never related to it, please?
• Science never took the issue that “How was G-d created?”. Why put this question to deaf and dumb science when it never related to it, please?

Science is a tool that deals in physical and material realms and leaves the ethical, moral and spiritual questions to deal with. Right, please?

Regards
____________
[6:104]لَا تُدۡرِکُہُ الۡاَبۡصَارُ ۫ وَ ہُوَ یُدۡرِکُ الۡاَبۡصَارَ ۚ وَ ہُوَ اللَّطِیۡفُ الۡخَبِیۡرُ ﴿۱۰۴﴾
Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware.
[6:105]قَدۡ جَآءَکُمۡ بَصَآئِرُ مِنۡ رَّبِّکُمۡ ۚ فَمَنۡ اَبۡصَرَ فَلِنَفۡسِہٖ ۚ وَ مَنۡ عَمِیَ فَعَلَیۡہَا ؕ وَ مَاۤ اَنَا عَلَیۡکُمۡ بِحَفِیۡظٍ ﴿۱۰۵﴾
Proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever becomes blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a guardian over you.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/6:104

 

“God does not exist” can be dismissed without evidence

“I do not believe God exists.

I have found no evidences/proofs that “God exists”.

“God does not exist”

I have found many evidences and proofs that God cannot exist.

Post 24:

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=901183#901183

Religion 

I also have a section dedicated to religion – Christianity in general. YES, it does belong in the fantasy category too!

I have written the odd article over the last few years. If you’re a fundamentalist Christian they’ll probably bring out the so-called righteous anger of God in you… either that or you will block your ears as so many Christians do and shout out “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you!” or make silly claims that I’m misrepresenting the bible when I’m not. If you’re an atheist or agnostic you’ll be sure to get plenty of chuckles. If you’re none of the above, then hopefully they will at least give you food for thought.

https://reckersworld.jimdo.com/

“What is God? “

Please join discussion/debate:Thread: “What is God? ” Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Christianity and Apologetics

Post 132:

[quote=”——-“] ——- wrote: [Replying to post 110 by paarsurrey1] Quote: I understand that the positive verities found in the Universe are attributes of One-True-God. This is where we differ slightly in understanding. All consciousness, even the negative types, are part of the overall aspects of First Source Consciousness. Separating GOD from negative aspects of consciousness is unfruitful and most often leads to disunity. In relation to consciousness within this universe, yes – the positive manifestations of goodness are reflective of the attributes of FSC (One-True-God) and the negative manifestations can be linked to individuate consciousnesses in form which misunderstand this concept by manifesting negative action in the name of any ideas of GOD, or for that matter even in the name of ideas which are founded on the principles of materialism where no GODs are recognized as applicable. ♦ The Dangers of Separating Human Consciousness From Any Idea of GOD ♦ Separating any idea of GOD from All other Consciousness.  Quote: paarsurrey1 wrote: I don’t agree with one. ——- wrote: Which one don’t you agree with and why don’t you agree with it? Simply stating you don’t agree isn’t helpful, please. Quote:paarsurrey1 wrote: Please clarify, is one’s response based on Science or on Revelation from God? ——- wrote: Both. Quote: paarsurrey1 wrote: If not, then it is just a conjecture, please. ——- wrote: Oh there is still conjecture, regardless. That is the nature of this particular experience of being human. We are not born with full knowledge or even any knowledge of a prior existence, so it is par for the course that conjecture also plays a part in nutting things out. ——- wrote: paarsurrey1 wrote: [Replying to post 121 by ——- :] Quote: Paarsurrey wrote: Quote: I don’t agree with one. Please clarify, is one’s response based on Science or on Revelation from God? Which one don’t you agree with and why don’t you agree with it? Quote: ——- wrote: Simply stating you don’t agree isn’t helpful, please. William wrote: Both. paarsurrey1 wrote: For religion, please quote from the truthful revealed religion one believes in, with the reasons given by that religion in the word-revealed supporting it . For science, please quote from a text-book of science or from a peer-reviewed article published in a science journal of repute.Also, please mention the discipline of science that deals God. Regards ——- wrote: What is your question or concern in relation to whatever it is I said in which you do not agree? Quote: ——- wrote: This is where we differ slightly in understanding. All consciousness, even the negative types, are part of the overall aspects of First Source Consciousness. Separating GOD from negative aspects of consciousness is unfruitful and most often leads to disunity. paarsurrey1 wrote: What I don’t agree with one is: The negative-verities are not Absolute-Verities on their own these are creation of the One-True-God for us and are given the names “Devil” or “Satan” or “Iblees” this personification is just for our identification and these instigate us on doing bad things. Similarly “Angels” and “Holy Spirit or Gabriel and or other Angels” are creation of One-True-God and this personification is just for our identification and these prompt us for doing good things. The concepts of good and or evil/bad are for the humans to reward or not to reward by God for the deeds done by us humans. I don’t agree that the above are part of the One-True-God, It is wrong to state that any of the above or they all together are part of One-True-God or Allah or YHVH. Separating God from negative verities is most meaningful and fruitful, and I believe it to be the reality. While replying to this post: 1. For religion, please quote from the truthful revealed religion one believes in, with the reasons given by that religion in the word-revealed supporting it . 2. For science, please quote from a text-book of science or from a peer-reviewed article published in a science journal of repute.Also, please mention the discipline of science that deals God. 3. If it belongs to neither of the above, it will be just one’s opinion that one has a right to have and I respect one’s right, but sorry, I cannot buy it, please. Regards

God hypothesis

“The party line among scientists — believers and nonbelievers alike — is that science and religion are what Stephen Jay Gould called “non-overlapping magisteria.” In 1998 the US National Academy of Sciences issued a

statement asserting “Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”

“Yet according to a survey the same year, 93 percent of the members of the academy do not believe in a personal god.

Since about the same percentage of all US citizens say they do believein a personal god, it makes one wonder what, if not their science, leads the elite of US scientists to differ so dramatically from the general population.”

Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.

The God Hypothesis

By Victor Stenger

 

Paarsurrey says:

While “science” is neutral, the scientists are not?

“Your best argument that god exists”

Please view my posts and join the discussion < www.religiousforums.com >.

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/your-best-argument-that-god-exists.176665/page-9#post-4283461

Post #162

Skwim said: ↑

Simple as that.

Identify your god and convince us that it exists. ​

Paarsurrey wrote:

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim. Our G-d is identified by many attributes or these good attributes identify him. I give some of His attributes:

[2:256]Allah — there is no God but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that will intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them; and they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth; and the care of them burdens Him not; and He is the High, the Great.
Quran : Chapter 2
​

He has existed always and has communicated with righteous persons in every region of the world and in all ages.
His communication identifies that He exists.

Regards

Post #165

Skwim said: ↑

Okay, but citing attributes aren’t an argument, and they’re certainly aren’t going to convince. Sorry.

Paarsurrey wrote:

I don’t agree with you.
The attributes are at work in the Universe/s since inception hence it is good and valid argument.
I am not convincing anybody per force and I don’t have to.

Regards

Post #174

Aupmanyav said: ↑

The last one through Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Mujaddid (divine reformer), the promised Messiah and Mahdi. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared that Jesus had in fact survivedcrucifixion and migrated to Kashmir, where he died a natural death and that the notion of his physical return was therefore erroneous. He claimed to have been divinely appointed as the Messiah, in the likeness of Jesus in fulfilment of Islam’s eschatological prophecies. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a ‘non-law-bearing’ prophet within Islam. (Based on Wikipedia article on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad).

Paarsurrey wrote:

Yes , he was the end-time reformer as prophesied by all the religions. G-d spoke to him as He has always spoken to the righteous people in all regions of the world and at all times. Converse/communication by G-d is a strong argument for existing of G-d.

Thanks and regards

How to define G-d?

Please join an interesting discussion on my post in <www.religiousforums.com> under the topic<Do theists disbelieve the same God as atheists? Topic open for everyone>

Post #203 http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/do-theists-disbelieve-the-same-god-as-atheists-topic-open-for-everyone.176672/page-11#post-4282014

Windwalker said: ↑

Define God according to what you believe God to be and let’s see how I feel about it.

Paarsurrey wrote:

We know G-d from His attributes, the attributes define Him.
Some of the attributes of G-d that define Him are given below:

[112:1]In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:2]Say, ‘He is Allah, the One;
[112:3]‘Allah, the Independent and Besought of all.
[112:4]‘He begets not, nor is He begotten;
[112:5]‘And there is none like unto Him.’

Regrds

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/do-theists-disbelieve-the-same-god-as-atheists-topic-open-for-everyone.176672/page-11#post-4282014

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/do-theists-disbelieve-the-same-god-as-atheists-topic-open-for-everyone.176672/page-11#post-4282014

Why converse of G-d is needed by humans?

1. One many like to comment on my posts on the forum <www.religiousforums.com>, one is welcome to do so even of one differs.

   http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/why-converse-of-g-d-is-needed-by-humans.176683/#post-4278553

   Why converse of G-d is needed by humans?

   Post#2

2. paarsurrey said: ↑

   This is because logic and reasoning alone cannot lead to the perfect cognition of G-d.

   Everyone’s thoughts are welcome whether one belongs to a religion or no religion.

   Regards

   Post #3

3. Nakosis said: ↑

   I’m not even sure conversing with God can lead to perfect cognition. Enough folks who talk with God seem a bit off. You get cult leaders who are certain they are prophets and unfortunately enough people who follow their lead.

   Paarsurrey wrote: If converse between two human being could lead to cognition of one another; why converse between man and G-d cannot lead to perfect cognition of G-d by a human ? Please

   Regards

One-True-God is not a human construct

One may like to comment on my post<www.religiousforums.com> in the topic <Is there anything in the concepts of deity that is not arbitrary?>. Even different views are welcome.

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/is-there-anything-in-the-concepts-of-deity-that-is-not-arbitrary.174283/page-8#post-4253299

Post #166

paarsurrey said: ↑
One-True-God is not a human construct.

LuisDantas said: ↑

I see no evidence whatsoever that it is not.

Paarsurrey wrote :

And your evidences that One-True-God is a human construct, please

Regard

Actually, There Is Evidence that God Exists

paarsurrey wrote:

January 3rd, 2014 at 4:57 pm
I agree with you if you mean by it the One-True-God Allah Yahweh. The Christian god or son of god sometimes Trinity or named Jesus is a myth invented by Paul posthumously; Jesus never claimed to be a literal god himself.

Fide Dubitandum

Many atheists are fond of saying that there is no evidence that God exists. In fact, a great many seem to have no other argument for atheism than variations on that.

Of course, when one presents evidence, one is promptly told that whatever one presented isn’t evidence. This being the case, I’ve made a point of asking such people what standard of evidence is being used to make that judgment.

After more than fifty requests across dozens of conversations, no one yet has even attempted to answer that question.

I think this is key. Really, it is a decisive failure of the argument if it turns out that no standard other than “I don’t agree that this is evidence” is being used. As such, I think it is worthwhile to point out why the “there’s no evidence” meme is nothing more than a meme.

Let’s start with dictionary.com’s understanding…

View original post 970 more words