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/

Absolute verities manifest in the Universe are attributes of ONE-God

Thread: “Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ….?”
Forum: Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 33:

paarsurrey1 wrote: Muslims don’t believe in Jesus-God or Holy-Spirit-God or that Jesus was son-of-God or that Mary was wife of God or that Jesus died on the Cross or that Jesus could forgive sins of the people. R—–1 wrote: The god that spoke to Muhammad was not the same one that spoke to Moses (Musa) and Jesus (Isa)? If portions of those books are false, all of the religions that I mentioned are effected. paarsurrey1 wrote: It is OK if he made some money by tricking the non-believers. As I already showed, money was not his goal. Why should we believe that the pursuit of truth was not his goal? Did he ever stray from that goal? Quote: The god that spoke to Muhammad was not the same one that spoke to Moses (Musa) and Jesus (Isa)? paarsurrey1 wrote: The One-True-God is ONE irrespective of whether one believes in Him or not. God of the Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism people is the same ONE, though they deny Him and though He does not Converse with them. The Absolute and positive verities found and manifest in the Universe are His attributes, these verities exist and everything else is under the concept of relativity having been bestowed temporary existence by Him. Please correct me if I am wrong. Right, 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?

“Arguments for the singularity of a deity”

Just to share the debate I have joined in “https://redd.it/6p8kyx” on the  topic “Arguments for the singularity of a deity”.

 Doombringer1000Norse Heathen

Hello all. I have realized lately that I have never seen an argument for the singularity of a deity. By this I mean that all arguments I have seen for the existence of any god works equally as well for the existence of many. Of course, you can’t make the leap from “there is a god/gods”, to “this/these god/gods are the only true god/gods because my holy book/elders/religious tradition says so”. I’m looking for logical arguments for either a singular god or a singular pantheon, as I can’t find any.

Of course, as a Norse Heathen, I am a polytheist myself, but I welcome any thought provoking answers to this question. So, if you think I missed some arguments let me know! after 4 UCT I will be at work, so it might take me awhile to respond; however, I will attempt to get back to every top level comment I receive.

Thank you in advance, and best wishes.

 

We see that the Universe works in a system, this is possible only if there is only one God, if there would be many gods then there would be no system and hence no sciences. Right? Please. Regards

[–]paarsurrey -1 points 2 hours ago 

 

Can you please explain your train of thought? As it is, your statement is incoherent.

[–]SadoBlasphemismanti-theist 

 

I don’t think my point is incoherent. Sciences are based on the system in the things or properties of them. If there won’t be any fixed properties or systems in the things there would be no sciences. This requires that some being has endowed these properties to the things in the universe. Right? Please Regards

[–]paarsurrey1 point8 minutes ago

If there won’t be any fixed properties or systems in the things there would be no sciences.

Correct. At least in the sense I think you mean, which is we must have unchanging physical laws in order for scientific predictions to be accurate.

This requires that some being has endowed these properties to the things in the universe.

The only rational answer to this is “I don’t know”, but let’s try and see if there’s anything that is favored, logically.

No one has ever observed “the universe” from the outside. We can make no claims to its nature. It doesn’t seem to follow that a god is necessary because if we introduce magic, then science is irrelevant and we’re all wasting our time.

So actually, the negation of your argument seems to support your conclusion. Not the argument you actually made.

[–]SadoBlasphemismanti-theist | ex-christian

 

I don’t agree with you, please. Only One-True-God is outside of the Universe in the sense that He has created it when it never existed and He has claimed it and there is no other claimant. If there is some other claimant, please mention it. Regards

[–]paarsurrey

 

That’s fine. Until you make a supporting argument, I genuinely do not care.

[–]SadoBlasphemismanti-theist | ex-christian

 

[–]paarsurrey

The supporting evidence is the claim of One-True-God that He has created everything in the universe and assigned properties to the things: [6:2] All praise belongs to Allah Who created the heavens and the earth and brought into being every kind of darkness and light; yet those who disbelieve set up equals to their Lordhttps://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=6&verse=0 There is no compulsion for one to believe the above but unless one brings another claimant of having created the universe my arguments will remain valid. Right? Please. Thanks and regards.

OOOOOOOO

 

On may like to participate in the discussion at reddit  “https://redd.it/6p8kyx” on the  topic “Arguments for the singularity of a deity”””

Which God or no-god is Truthful?

What is wrong with smashing the idols?
sub-title: Which God or no-god is Truthfu

My most cherished discussion forum 

I give here my posts and posts from others, mentioning the post numbers without giving the names of the other persons whose posts I wrote my comments on. Please click the post numbers to get to know the persons.

#705 paarsurrey wrote:

What is wrong with smashing the idols?
sub-title: Which God or no-god is Truthful? (reference post #701 to #703 )

No-God cannot create anything from nothing. Right? Please
The truthful God is ascertained from the attributes of a religion (or no-religion) given in its scripture that are the verities or His attributes reflected in the nature, created by Him. Please
Regards

Scientific Method: God

Post #397

Paarsurrey wrote:

Can science disprove the existence of God?

It is not a question that relates to “scientific method”, scientific method is incapacitated. Right?Please
Regards

ben d likes this.

Post #354

Paarsurrey wrote:

Please read my post #397 in this connection.
Regards

ben d likes this.

Did G-d have direct conversation with the Jewry?

Please view and comment on my post at <www.religiousforums.com >  <Thread : Judaism>. One may like to join the discussion by clicking on the post # below.

Post #155

Friend Tumah quoted Deuteronomy – Chapter 4:12 to prove that G-d spoke directly to the Israelite nation as a whole.

Tumah said: ↑

12 The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no image, just a voice.

Deuteronomy does not supersede the points given in Exodus. Deuteronomy cannot change the event as narrated in Exodus, as the event was just happening at that time. Deuteronomy was exhortation addresses of what had already happened.

The points mentioned by me about Exodus Chapters 19, 20 in my post # 21 <Judaism: no mass revelation of G-d with Jews mentioned in Exodus Chapter 19 and 20 | Page 2 | ReligiousForums.com>, therefore, remain still valid.

The text of the chapters 19,20 of Exodus indicates that:
• neither the people went up the mountain (only Moses and Aaron went as per the text) none other went,
• nor YHWH descended to the masses to talk with them directly,
• the masses were afraid of the YHWH lest He wreaks at them. (What chosen people they , the Jews, claim to be?)
• there was a barricade for the Jews, they could no cross it.
• The conversation was between YHWH and Moses in direct manner up at the mountain.
• It is therefore evident that the communication was indirectly conveyed to masses by Moses.

That proves my point.

Moses wanted to save the Jewish people from the iniquities they could perform in future. The Jews disobeyed Moses and as a people acted against the commandments given to them through Moses by God as mentioned in Deuteronomy.
Instead of being a select people, the Jews became the worst people.

This chapter four of Deuteronomy served as a future charge-sheet given to the Jews by Moses himself.

Regards

Jesus not G-d

< www.religiousforums.com > <How can God be Jesus, and the father, yet Jesus not be the father?>

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/how-can-god-be-jesus-and-the-father-yet-jesus-not-be-the-father.176806/#post-4283209

1. Post #2
2. Topic: How can God be Jesus, and the father, yet Jesus not be the father?
   
   Paarsurrey wrote:

   Jesus was never a G-d. It is a wrong notion.
   Regards

   Post #4

disciple said: ↑

I believe that Jesus is a manifestation of the father. So, you are correct, He was never a ///separate god.

Paarsurrey wrote:

You mean that Jesus was a manifestation of G-d like Abraham, Moses and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908? Please elaborate.

Regards

1. Post #7
   

   disciple said: ↑

   Jesus as a ‘man’ is not literal, that is why He doesn’t have a father

   Paarsurrey wrote:

   What do you mean by literal? Do you mean Jesus was not real?
   Regards

    Post #14

disciple said: ↑

When we talk about Esa, we are regarding His deific nature. He could very well have an Israelite, a ‘man’, however, his nature is that of a Deity. This is why He is regarded as G-d, by Xians. The non-Human form of Jesus, is also Jesus, yet we clearly know that He is Deific; so, ”real”, here is not what Jesus adherents would be completely focused on, we don’t worship a man. We worship His Deific form, nature, regardless of Him being part man or a manifestation of G-d.

This really depends on how you are defining ”real”.

Paarsurrey wrote:

All prophets/messengers of G-d like Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Socrates, Muhammad and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) being in the image of G-d were endowed this deific nature; Jesus/Esa had no distinction whatsoever in this connection.

Regards