Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
A bonus:
“[“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “Who is, and Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty.”]” (Revelation 1:8)
Guys, please note that the exposure is in the singular!‘Solo’, “Elohim” is not a ‘real plural’; it is a Thrinity (huge difference…)
-
@solo said:
Cornel, the bible refers to the Deity as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods."
Not really. It depends on how it is used in the grammatical context. You might check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
-
@unknownuser said:
I've a friend from Srii Lanka who is a Tamil and worships several gods. His gods are different from his wife's gods who's also Tamil.
Ah! Same here. My god's Beer, whereas my girlfriend's called Shoes.
My god gives. Hers only takes.
-
Cornel it makes only sense if you believe that Bible is the only holy book and it is the only source of all truth.
You say you are an architect. I would really like to see your designs. I am intrigued now. -
There's some in the gallery, Sid.
-
aha... need to see that...
interesting ... I would never connect this two personalities. -
Cornel seems to have an even narrower view of things.
Not only is his Bible the only source of the truth, his interpretation of its contents is the only correct version of that truth.
This is a stupefying silly position to adopt.
To take it to its logical conclusions...
Any other version of that Bible [let alone another holy book] is by definition inferior to his own copy - therefore any older OR newer editions cannot be as 'truthful' as the copy he has ? Therefore there can be no 'evolution' of his interpretation, because it is a source that can never be improved upon ?
Because his interpretation of that book's 'truth' is the best there is [or can ever be] then all earlier interpretations must be less valid than his [even those by the most highly regarded theologians throughout history] and any future interpretations will also be less valid that his - because he says so !
If his opinions are not wholly taken from his personal [aka 'true'] interpretations of his own Bible, then they must be invalid and he should disregard them: however, few men are an island, so I suspect that many of his opinions are hand-me-downs from others, and are therefore no more valid that anyone else's. He can only espouse opinions that he has reached through his own efforts and thinking - without reference to external commentators on 'his' Bible - who have probably not even got the same text as his, have disparate views and are unlikely to be in full agreement anyway. If he cherry-picks ideas from others [or his Bible] then he is not presenting a true and proper interpretation of the material...
etc etc
In conclusion, Cornel has not got a valid opinion on the matter of God/Gods and the Universe and Creation, unless he presents a proper argument... 'It's like this because someone told me it is...' doesn't cut the mustard... -
Well and logically put Tig...
-
-
-
Of course logic doesn't matter here!
But we're still talking. Out of logic. Out of the Word! Out of Logos>logic. I already warned you but who's listening.
What an inconsistency is this, please tell me.
-
Well, is anyone any further on since the change of title? It was always to be expected that it would simply go around in circles; it's an unanswerable question...because it's unfalsifiable.
There's no evidence that a god or gods did create the universe; but it's impossible to prove that he/they didn't either.It was also inevitable that it would develop into a question of whether there is a god at all...as that's kind of crucial to the original question. I guess it was also inevitable that our resident creationist would chime in at some point too...the irony and hypocrisy of decrying modern science whilst simultaneously using it to post his 'message' onto the internet passing completely over his head.
-
Speaking of logic, since it was brought up by the atheists among us, how would an atheist account for the existence of logic from your worldview?
-Brodie
-
Just as an interesting side note (and taking this from the back of my head hoping I remember things correctly).
So there is the universe be it the result of a Big Bang or Creation from nothing. Scientists still do not now what will happen to it. Will it be expanding forever and eventually, due to entropy, cool down, turn into dead matter or the amount of matter is enough to slow it down and eventually start bringing it together with gravity into one, ultimate singularity (the "Big Crunch")?
Now if this latter one, what will happen then? Another Big Bang or nothing? If another Big Bang, the universe may be pulsating and our only problem is that we will never know because there is no info from before the Big Bang.
And this is where god or gods come into the picture. The Judeo-Christian theogony would satisfy the one, single Big Bang and then singlée Big Crunch theory. Some eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism) however teach that there are worlds created (well not really as we'll see) and they die and recreated again - which would be similar to that pulsating universe. Interesting in these teachings too that there gods are not eternal either - just are created first and die last therefore for everyone "in-between" they seem to be eternal.
I do not care if the universe was created by god(s) or only popped out from nothing based on some physical thing. Both are so inapprehensible that I doubt that we'll ever have the answer in this earthly world. Scientists now already thinkthey know what happened (milliseconds) after the Big Bang but not at the beginning. And they say that even physical laws formed then and by chance, they could have formed differently. What's this if not speculation - just like how many archangels God has or why is the Father always depicted as a bearded, angry looking old man?
-
To answer Mike's question:
In all likelihood, no. When compared to science's, the thesis religion provides us with, appears hole-ridden and shoddy.
@unknownuser said:
Speaking of logic, since it was brought up by the atheists among us, how would an atheist account for the existence of logic from your worldview?
I don't quite understand what you mean. Could you elaborate any further?
-
@unknownuser said:
I don't quite understand what you mean. Could you elaborate any further?
There exist certain laws of logic or thought ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought ) which are absolute. For example the law of non-contradiction, "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."
Given an atheistic worldview, I wonder how one might account for logic to exist at all.
-Brodie
-
@ ‘TomDC’. Thank you that you remember about my posts in “Gallery”!
@ David. You’re right: “It depends on how it is used in the grammatical context”, but when “Elohim” is translated as ‘the Creator’, ‘the Almighty’, the ‘Supreme Judge’, etc. there is no room for wrong interpretation. When used with plural verbs and adjectives “elohim” refers to "gods", “angels”, etc.
@ TIG You’re right also..., saying: “Cornel seems to have an even narrower view of things”, but remember that verses:
“[The wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS”; and again, “THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS.”]” (see 1 Chorintians 3:19-20) -
@unknownuser said:
Given an atheistic worldview, I wonder how one might account for logic to exist at all.
Logic is man-made. It's that simple. Or did I misunderstand you?
-
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
Given an atheistic worldview, I wonder how one might account for logic to exist at all.
Logic is man-made. It's that simple. Or did I misunderstand you?
i might think logic is just there as it is. like Alan said once, "...the fact that it is...".
man just invented how to utilise it. and later on picturing and develop sort of systematic of it.
it's something natural within creatures. -
Advertisement