Defining God ?
In the beginning was the word, and the word was God and the word was with God, a trinity of relationships.
This is pure original research and that is the thesis that God the alpha and the omega is [ ], or 'nothing'. But saying nothing defeats its existence, suggesting that 'nothing' in the pure sense existed only in the beginning and will exist in that pure state in the end.
While this is a parameter for God, this does not describe or define it except in some minor logical parameters.
To prove God exists, moving beyond the argument that incredible probability of complex organizations and con-incidences is based on some 'great powers', the existance of God can be proven by proving that the 'devil' exists. There is a mathematical concept that deals with this relationship, it might be in the arena of 'relations', but here is the argument.
The Bible, shares one story with all three major religions, Muslims, Christians and Jews, and that is the deception of the garden of eden, where mankind was deceived by the devil. A somewhat unbelievable story, except for the interesting reality that there is a negative side to truth that has gone undetected since time began...or at least since human time began, and that is that a truth, that is part of the truth can lie, or in biblical terms
a fruit from the tree of knowledge while still true, ignores the reality of all the other fruit still on the tree.
To say that God is nothing, is somewhat in error, for nothing does not exist in that pure state anymore, since we have something. This raises additional questions, as to where is something relative to nothing and other questions that still leave something to the imagination.
Caesar J. B. Squitti
2006-10-25
16:39:01
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Caesar J. B. Squitti
1
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
As half-truths go, and there are many new types that you can discover on wikipedia.com, 'nothing' as a concept exists, a pure abstract concept, but as a concrete item it does not; unless nothing creates something.
Its like sweet and sour...
2006-10-26
02:41:36 ·
update #1
Now remember truth changes in time...so that 'nothing'...does not exist in that pure state...only in the beginning and only in the end...
2006-10-26
03:04:40 ·
update #2
Here is the on-line book...that contains the information ...
The Jesus Christ Code.
http://www.jesuschristcode.com
2006-10-27
04:14:27 ·
update #3
Sit back and look at nature and how organized it is or how you have the ability to heal yourself or to love someone. Do you actually think that all this would have just fell in place at random?
God exists and understanding him is your best bet.
2006-10-26 13:39:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
beginning with 4th paragraph each of mine matches with the argument you raise. your premise is that the world is not eternal I'm not sure why the second premise is even there but when you get into calculus you learn that: [infinity - 1] < [infinity] as [infinity]/[infinity - 1] > 1 I don't agree with spontaneous ?generation?(the word for this escapes me) but the thing is that your statement, even with your definition of a cause, is still untrue. If it has no cause and can as such be caused by anything, yet at the same time given any set of initial conditions, it has a very low probability, there would be an ever increasing amount of energy but not infinite. This premise requires the belief that there was a time of creation(the world is not eternal), also that there was nothingness before that time(big bang believes there was a concentration of matter and energy). I completely agree yet the thing is that most people do agree we don't know enough about quantum mechanics and as such we continue to research it. I don't see how this statement either debunks quantum mechanics or proves God. If anything it shows how both are based upon faith and neither have been proven. From what you say here, I'm assuming you mean to say that God cannot be proven but is more likely than other beliefs about creation? That may very well be true but I'd like you to show logically why God is more likely.
2016-05-22 14:39:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Elizabeth 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The argument is nonsense and proves nothing. Even if one were to posit that the devil exists, this would not in and of itself require the existence of a god, and of course one need not posit any such thing. Perhaps the definitive work on the subject was done by Catholic theologian Hans Kung, who, in a huge book entitled Does God Exist?, concluded (correctly, in my view) that neither the existence or non-existence of god can be established based on logic or evidence. Hence, any theory of the existence or non-existence of god is irrefutable. But it can be proven that an irrefutable theory can predict nothing: all such theories are useless. Hence, it is logically a lot simpler to assume that god does not exist, and avoid cluttering up the scene with superstitous nonsense.
2006-10-25 16:47:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Honey you hurt my brain cell.....but really I know what you are trying to say,but people have this tendency to try and put God in a human life style,and treat him as if he thinks and does things as we do, really the only thing we got from God that he wanted us to have is what we have right now ,noticeably our looks.....but God is so beyond our ability to think of him that we have a problem believing what has been put down about him,it's so far over our heads and we want know the real truth till we die....but he did create a beautiful world til the humans came and messed up the neighborhood.
2006-10-25 16:50:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by purpleaura1 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nothing in science can prove or disprove the existance of God.
Demanding scientific proof for something that cannot be proven, while at the same time dismissing scientific proof that some religious assertion is false is basically trying to have your cake and eat it.
2006-10-25 16:42:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
OK. Interesting.
Even with my new usename (formally answering questions as Faith) I still say we will never prove or disprove God’s existence scientifically. We can learn a great deal through study and prayer but I doubt we are capable of really comprehending while we live our brief human lives.
Through faith we will come closer to comprehending than through any amount of scientific advancement.
2006-10-25 17:04:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Please read my words carefully:
If you see footmark in the sand, you'll say that someone passed from here...
If you see a piece of dog sh*t on the ground, you'll say that a dog passed from here...
So what about the enormous universe, the sky, stars, planets, earth and all the beauty in it, doesn't it lead to that someone made it?!!!
Some people say that everything is created by itself after the big-bang... I won't ask you about what caused the big-bang, but I'll ask you a simple question:
If you take all the letters of the alphabet, multiples of them, and you threw them randomly on the floor. Do you expect (by a chance of one in infinity) to get a poem like shakespear's??!!
Can't you see how organized our universe is, the planets, the eco-system on earth, look even in your own body... Can you control your heart-beat? Can you control your breath while you're sleeping? Who stopped your eye-lashes from growing after reaching a certain length? Who told the baby turtles to move towards the sea and not to the earth after they come out of their eggs? Who taught the bird how to make nests?
My friend, think with your heart and brain. If you're still lost, think about the following:
Do you know how to play safe?
Your point:
If there's no God and you do all what you want in life, then nothing will happen to you after life. But if there was God and you were mistaken, then you'll blame yourself FOREVER...
Believer's point:
If there's God and I followed His commands in life, then I'll be in Heaven after life FOREVER. But if there was no God and we're mistaken, then nothing bad will happen to us after life...
Now you know how to play-safe, in case you're not convinced?
2006-10-26 01:27:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by toon 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Literary interpretation or criticism is not evidence in favour of determining the existence of a supreme being.
And I agree with RHsaunder...
2006-10-25 16:58:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by psicatt 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No your theory if flawed in that Almighty God named Himself, I AM. Making Himself the first reality. Father God also said He would use His wisdom to confound the wise, as it appears to have done in your case.
2006-10-25 16:49:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by martha d 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
If nothing does in fact not exist, this doesnt have any bearing on whether or not God does or does not exist.
2006-10-25 16:42:47
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋