What Is Your Definition of "God"?

[sage]

TO IACCHUS
It seems that our ways of thinking have diverged so much that we cannot understand what the other is saying. I confess that I do not understand a word of your reply, and from the little that I did understand, it seems you have missed my point entirely. So I think we should begin this debate from a more basic level. First let us state what we believe to be true. Then let us state why we believe what we do as clearly as possible. Then let us debate the strength and weaknesses of our beliefs. First my turn.
1)God-does not exist
2)soul-does not exist
3)consciousness-can be loosely defined as a set of interactions between the neurons of our brain that helps us to ‘ become aware’ of our surroundings and react to it suitably. This process of becoming aware has been explained in detail in the example of the cat. As you see the brain only needs to be programmed to memorize and making associations in order to ‘become aware’. This programming has been achieved through evolution. No supernatural explanation need to be sought here.(see thread HOW DO I KNOW? In philosophy forum)
4)mind-it is also the same as consciousness. Hence can be defined as a set of interactions between neurons in the brain.
5)evidence-I accept only objective evidence as opposed to personal experience which is unreliable especially if it occurs during meditation as it is a pseudo dream-like state.
in short I believe that everything on this universe can be explained without invoking god, soul,spirituality etc. about which objective evidence is lacking. The world makes perfect sense without invoking an omnipotent creator. Humans do not require souls to explain their actions and motives .
next your turn to state your beliefs. Please be clear. After that I shall explain the basis of my belief.

TO GASPAR

But, in general, I will ask: What's the point of EXISTENCE if one doesn't "know" it? And I "will elaborate if YOU wish" -- or do NOT wish -- when time permits.

well, that was vague enough, don’t you think?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by sage
TO IACCHUS
5)evidence-I accept only objective evidence as opposed to personal experience which is unreliable especially if it occurs during meditation as it is a pseudo dream-like state.

I am the summation of "all" of my experience. Have you checked my reply in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2764&perpage=15&pagenumber=2"

 

[M. Gaspar]

To Sage:

Oh.

Later.

 

[sage]

JUST STATE YOUR BELIEFS ONE BY ONE IN A REPLY.WE CAN DEBATE ABOUT THEM LATER.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by sage
JUST STATE YOUR BELIEFS ONE BY ONE IN A REPLY.WE CAN DEBATE ABOUT THEM LATER.

Great idea!

"God" -- as a commonly held concept -- is bogus. Apparently, we, as a species, has a deeply imbedded need for "hero worship" and a propensity for "ritual". We also love to make up stories...and then BELIEVE them!

I prefer to "believe in" the Universe Itself -- NOT as "God" -- but as a "living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts." And, additionally, as "an eternal Entity of ENERGY that's EVOLVING...with and through its "parts" (us included).

The Universe (unlike "God") is NOT "all-powerful" or "all-knowing": It must "work with" the inherent forces, processes and ingredients of Its own "body"...and It hasn't a "clue" what we -- or anything else -- is going to do next . Why would It WANT to: It's "out to have an Experience"...not "walk through a pre-determined play"!

It does know (is SELF-AWARE) of everything that's going on...but the element of INTENTION (of coherent sub-systems like ourselves) on the "lynchpin" of "randomness" keeps It from "knowing" the future.

It's "life cycle" is actually (ha, ha) a series of endless cycles twixt Big Bangs and Big Crunches...existing as a Singularity only "momentarilly" in between .

One does not have to "pray to" or "worship" the Universe. One may simply "communicate with" and "appreciate" our Source.

 

[Ace-of-Spades]

?Huh?

I cannot understand how ANY rational mind (especially one that studies science) could deny the existence of a creator?

If you ask me, denial of the fact that a God exists is in most cases a reaction to the guilt one feels as a result of amoral behaviour.
If anyone were to think rationally about the question
(which as scientists we should be doing), we would conclude that without a doubt that there must be a God, and the universe must have been created.

- Sorry I'm confused, was I meant to post this here, or simply state my beleifs here?

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
I cannot understand how ANY rational mind (especially one that studies science) could deny the existence of a creator?

If you ask me, denial of the fact that a God exists is in most cases a reaction to the guilt one feels as a result of amoral behaviour.
If anyone were to think rationally about the question
(which as scientists we should be doing), we would conclude that without a doubt that there must be a God, and the universe must have been created.

i do not understand why you are saying this. why must a scientist believe there is a god? and how is it a rational belief in any way?

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
I cannot understand how ANY rational mind (especially one that studies science) could deny the existence of a creator?

If you ask me, denial of the fact that a God exists is in most cases a reaction to the guilt one feels as a result of amoral behaviour.
If anyone were to think rationally about the question
(which as scientists we should be doing), we would conclude that without a doubt that there must be a God, and the universe must have been created.

- Sorry I'm confused, was I meant to post this here, or simply state my beleifs here?

Perhaps you're stating your beliefs, but your prejudices and lack of knowledge of most atheists are showing. No insult intended.

The vast majority of people in jail (in the US) are christian. This is not an aspersion against christianity, only a reflection of the population. It is, however, a demonstration that many people can believe in god, yet be quite amoral. Thus, rejecting a belief in god is hardly needed to be amoral.

The vast majority of atheists I know, became such because they saw not reason to conclude there was a deity and their character would not allow them to live a lie by acting as if there were. The fact that they are seriously derided because of this belief, yet stuck to their convictions, is some evidence to their character. The vast majority of atheist have a strong moral code, it's just not one given to them by the bible. The large majority of rules they live under are probably identical to yours, minus the worshipping the lord and not cussing on sundays. To claim they are atheist because they want to be amoral is both a cheap shot and is, intellectually, quite lazy.


I have studied science and religion. The criteria I use to consider what's true is such that I cannot say I believe in a god. I am sure you're experiences lead you to believe in a god, but mine are at least as strong in the opposite direction. One thing you may not be taking into account it that all your observations are colored by your belief in a deity (as mine, perhaps, in the opposite direction).

I have seen nothing, whatsoever, that would lead me to conclude there is a deity. If you have evidence, by all means, I am open to a discussion of the topic, keeping in mine that it needs to be evidence we both consider valid. Biblical quotes would be less the worthless in convincing me of anything.

 

[Ace-of-Spades]

There are so many reasons why a God must have been involved in the creation of the universe, that I wouldn't even know where to start! You must have heard all the arguments?
Do you really want me to list them?

I will give a few points here, but these are only based on scientific evidence (which I'm sure you'll find it easier to relate to) I could give various historical arguments, as well as personal arguments which convince me that there is a God.
Each of these points have numerous sub points but I'm not going to list all of them.

For one thing the odds of a stable universe forming at all out of the big bang are incredibly small, and dependent on a number of parameters.

For another the conditions a planet must meet in order to sustain life are extremely tight!

For another the formation of complicated Organic Compounds eg. Proteins, from their elements is an extremely complicated process. While it might be possible for these to form by themselves, the odds of the right conditions occurring for this to happen are also extremely small.

For another thing, it is ludicrous to think the formation of life (or organic beings that have self-awareness, are able to think and reason) from organic compounds, could just happen by itself.

I can't understand how anyone would believe that chemicals can suddenly get clever, and figure out a way of carrying out the processes that the simplest living things do, such as: eat, react, digest, excrete, reproduce, defend itself, move around, sense its environment, sense similar organisms, etc.
And then on top of all of this, over the years these beings begin to refine themselves, they become more advanced, until ultimately, they are so advanced that they can invent, think, reason, feel, experience emotion, comprehend their environment and how and why the world around works.

You surely don't need me to tell you that there is no possible way ALL of this could have happened by itself, by chance.

Sure I believe in evolution to an extent, there are a lot of surprisingly common features between all the mamals for example.
I believe the big bang, or something like it must have happened, to trigger everything we know into existence. But I cannot believe that all this could have happened by itself, without some greater being controlling it.

I'm happy to enter into this discussion with anyone, but as you can see, its a huge discussion! So I suggest we talk about only one point at a time

 

[Ace-of-Spades]

Sorry It appears we posted at the same time, so I didn't see your post before I made mine!

I'm really sorry If I've insulted you in anything I've said, I didn't intend to. (Maybe I shouldn't have expressed my views in such a harsh manner)

I'm not suggesting that this is proof that there must be a God,
I'm only saying that with all this before us, I battle to believe otherwise.

Thanx for replying though
I look forward to continuing
this discussion with you!

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
There are so many reasons why a God must have been involved in the creation of the universe, that I wouldn't even know where to start! You must have heard all the arguments?
Do you really want me to list them?

I will give a few points here, but these are only based on scientific evidence (which I'm sure you'll find it easier to relate to) I could give various historical arguments, as well as personal arguments which convince me that there is a God.
Each of these points have numerous sub points but I'm not going to list all of them.

For one thing the odds of a stable universe forming at all out of the big bang are incredibly small, and dependent on a number of parameters.

With regards to the post that followed - no offense taken.


This assumes a number of things, but I'll address the crux right off.
Probability.

To win the lottery is much less likely than getting hit by lightning, but people still win. The problem with probabilities, is it says nothing about a single instance, once that instance is there, unless the instance is impossible. One more example, If I ask you to pick a number between 0 and a google, and you do so at random, the chances of you picking that number are 1 in a google - but you still picked that number, irrespective of the probabilities. It may be that our universe is improbable, but we don't know that we didn't occur anyway. We also don't know if innumerable other universes are and have been created with all sorts of properties, ours with the properties allowing life, such that in this universe we can wonder how we came about, while in the others no life is available to ponder it in that universe.

The second question that arises concerns an implicit assumption - that many of the characteristics/laws/constants of this universe were independent of the creation event, therefore the values are obtained randomly. This, I need point out, is an assumption. Being an assumption, this pushes your argument into the 'god of the gaps' flaw of explaining creation - i.e. since we don't know the reason, god did it.

For another the conditions a planet must meet in order to sustain life are extremely tight!

For another the formation of complicated Organic Compounds eg. Proteins, from their elements is an extremely complicated process. While it might be possible for these to form by themselves, the odds of the right conditions occurring for this to happen are also extremely small.

For another thing, it is ludicrous to think the formation of life (or organic beings that have self-awareness, are able to think and reason) from organic compounds, could just happen by itself.

I can't understand how anyone would believe that chemicals can suddenly get clever, and figure out a way of carrying out the processes that the simplest living things do, such as: eat, react, digest, excrete, reproduce, defend itself, move around, sense its environment, sense similar organisms, etc.
And then on top of all of this, over the years these beings begin to refine themselves, they become more advanced, until ultimately, they are so advanced that they can invent, think, reason, feel, experience emotion, comprehend their environment and how and why the world around works.

You surely don't need me to tell you that there is no possible way ALL of this could have happened by itself, by chance.

This too suffers from the same problems with probabilies mentioned earlier. Also, there is the fact that the universe has vast numbers of 'chances' to form life, so the idea we arose isn't as improbable as you make it sound. An extremely low probability times an extremely high number of chances doesn't translate into an extremely low probability.

It also is a 'god of the gaps' argument.

Sure I believe in evolution to an extent, there are a lot of surprisingly common features between all the mamals for example.
I believe the big bang, or something like it must have happened, to trigger everything we know into existence. But I cannot believe that all this could have happened by itself, without some greater being controlling it.

Given common ancestors, I'd be surprised if we didn't have many common features.


On a general note, it seems that there is the underlying "argument by design" in what you're saying. Argument by design has an incredible flaw, no matter how much it seems that the universe must have been designed, the proposition of a designer would make the designer suffers from this even more. It has traditionally been answered by the copout - god has always existed, but this is hardly an acceptable answer, being it circumvents the rebuttal rather than addressing the fact that the same concerns would be raised by the designer - hence the invocation of Occam and his nasty razor...

I'm happy to enter into this discussion with anyone, but as you can see, its a huge discussion! So I suggest we talk about only one point at a time

Good idea, gives me time to squeeze some work in occasionally.

 

[Ace-of-Spades]

Man... I'm sorry I wrote such a huge post okay?
Doesn't mean you have to get back at me by
writing a huge one in return! (lol)

- Just give me a few years while I read
through this alright?

 

[Ace-of-Spades]

Okay here's some of my reply...

First of all I know about probabilities, and I know
that they don't prove anything, but as I said earlier...
I'm not trying to prove anything, I was only pointing out
for your sake that there *probably* is a god.
I for myself believe in God beyond a shadow of a doubt, but
that is based on personal reasons and not science.

ps. A google is not the largest number named to date
(that honour belongs to the googleplex = (google)^google)

I know that scientifically
I will never be able to prove the existence of a God, simply
because science was designed to explain the world around us,
without having to pin things up on the supernatural, and other
unexplained events like they did a few 100 years ago.

An extremely low probability times an extremely high number of chances doesn't translate into an extremely low probability.

I don't think you realize just how low these probabilties are?
Sure there are a lot of galaxies, which have a lot of stars in each,
but this number doesn't come close to the immeasureable odds of things falling together in just the right manner to get life!

Being an assumption, this pushes your argument into the 'god of the gaps' flaw of explaining creation - i.e. since we don't know the reason, god did it.

Look, I could have set out my arguments correctly, but I didn't have all day!

I'm not saying that because we don't know the reason for these things PROVES that God was involved. I was simply saying that the fact that these constants fell in just the right place for life to form, only multiplies the immeasurably small odds of life occurring by a small number once again.

Once again all of these arguments don't prove there is a God, they only give us good reason to believe there is one. I can continue bringing up similar probability discussions as to why a God probably exists, but I would have to turn to historical discussions.

In a similar way, it is impossible to disprove the existence of a God, so can you see that scientifically our argument can get no where.

ps. I only wish we could argue this in a more scientific way, instead of using philosophical arguments.
(I only took one semester of it at university so you'd probably kick me at philosophy hands down, never the less I do understand how to argue as well as what proves something and what doesn't)

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
There are so many reasons why a God must have been involved in the creation of the universe, that I wouldn't even know where to start! You must have heard all the arguments?
Do you really want me to list them?

I will give a few points here, but these are only based on scientific evidence (which I'm sure you'll find it easier to relate to) I could give various historical arguments, as well as personal arguments which convince me that there is a God.
Each of these points have numerous sub points but I'm not going to list all of them.

For one thing the odds of a stable universe forming at all out of the big bang are incredibly small, and dependent on a number of parameters.

For another the conditions a planet must meet in order to sustain life are extremely tight!

For another the formation of complicated Organic Compounds eg. Proteins, from their elements is an extremely complicated process. While it might be possible for these to form by themselves, the odds of the right conditions occurring for this to happen are also extremely small.

For another thing, it is ludicrous to think the formation of life (or organic beings that have self-awareness, are able to think and reason) from organic compounds, could just happen by itself.

I can't understand how anyone would believe that chemicals can suddenly get clever, and figure out a way of carrying out the processes that the simplest living things do, such as: eat, react, digest, excrete, reproduce, defend itself, move around, sense its environment, sense similar organisms, etc.
And then on top of all of this, over the years these beings begin to refine themselves, they become more advanced, until ultimately, they are so advanced that they can invent, think, reason, feel, experience emotion, comprehend their environment and how and why the world around works.

You surely don't need me to tell you that there is no possible way ALL of this could have happened by itself, by chance.

Sure I believe in evolution to an extent, there are a lot of surprisingly common features between all the mamals for example.
I believe the big bang, or something like it must have happened, to trigger everything we know into existence. But I cannot believe that all this could have happened by itself, without some greater being controlling it.

I'm happy to enter into this discussion with anyone, but as you can see, its a huge discussion! So I suggest we talk about only one point at a time

ah... it seems truth is stranger than fiction.

are you familiar with the anthropic principles? i would suggest you research them, as they are excellent examples of scientific inquiry into such questions.

i would also remind you of another factor of probobility: size. in a universe infinite in size or time (and i am not suggesting ours is) things like these would be inevitable. our universe is very large. (<<<< a great understatement <<<<<) and so it is not difficult to concieve of such improbobly events happening.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
Okay here's some of my reply...

First of all I know about probabilities, and I know
that they don't prove anything, but as I said earlier...
I'm not trying to prove anything, I was only pointing out
for your sake that there *probably* is a god.
I for myself believe in God beyond a shadow of a doubt, but
that is based on personal reasons and not science.

This disregards any probabilities that are needed to explain god.
Re: Argument by design

ps. A google is not the largest number named to date
(that honour belongs to the googleplex = (google)^google)

I wasn't trying to go for the largest named number, merely trying to prove a point about always getting someplace, no matter that anyone of them had a low probability.

I don't think you realize just how low these probabilties are?
Sure there are a lot of galaxies, which have a lot of stars in each,
but this number doesn't come close to the immeasureable odds of things falling together in just the right manner to get life!

[this response is restricted to discussions of probabilities of life, not the universe - that is handled in the next paragraph]

This all depends on which set of assumptions you make and accept. Fifteen years ago, the probabilities of life, not just intelligent life were given at a distinct level. With todays assumptions they have fallen. These assumptions have changed just in the last few years, so the idea they will change again, when our knowledge is greater, is high.

Look, I could have set out my arguments correctly, but I didn't have all day!

I'm not saying that because we don't know the reason for these things PROVES that God was involved. I was simply saying that the fact that these constants fell in just the right place for life to form, only multiplies the immeasurably small odds of life occurring by a small number once again.

You seem to be mixing the probabilities of life, with the universe as given, and that of the universe existing as it does (with the given constants). The former I addressed in the prev paragraph.

The argument over the current universe existing with it existing constants is based on assumptions over how the constants were arrived
at. This is a seriously flawed assumption. We have seen, in the past, many times where apparently independent variables were found to be dependent on each other. To assume they are independent here is a large leap. Any argument based on this is an argument with a foundation of sand (to borrow a biblical metaphor ).

Once again all of these arguments don't prove there is a God, they only give us good reason to believe there is one. I can continue bringing up similar probability discussions as to why a God probably exists, but I would have to turn to historical discussions.

I realize you are not going for a proof, but I also disagree that they give us good reason to believe so. I see no reason to believe or disbelieve in a god, so without compelling evidence I have no belief. But if you really accept that you are looking at the evidence open-mindedly, with no preconceptions interfereing with your accepted truths, let's look a little deeper. Unless I'm mistaken, your beliefs include more than simply a god that existed and created the universe. I would guess you also believe in a god exists now, has rules we are to follow, and occasionally interacts with us. None of these things have any of the remotest unequivocal evidence to support it, yet you accept them as true. Your beliefs are yours, and I am not trying to change them, but I do think that it's given you accept these, they are very likely to color how you interpret many of the current conditions in the universe to support you belief in a god.

In a similar way, it is impossible to disprove the existence of a God, so can you see that scientifically our argument can get no where.

With your view of god, and for most [sane] people I know, this is quite true. There are a number of fundamentalist views of god that can be disproved, by the same mechnisms that allow us to prove there are no spherical cubes, but that's neither here nor there. I'm not trying to change your accepted truths, in any way except concerning beliefs, that a non-believer, from his/her POV, can rationally see the existence of a god or gods as having extremely little evidence. [My high school english teacher would have had a coronary over that last sentence]

ps. I only wish we could argue this in a more scientific way, instead of using philosophical arguments.
(I only took one semester of it at university so you'd probably kick me at philosophy hands down, never the less I do understand how to argue as well as what proves something and what doesn't) [/B]

Perhaps, perhaps not. I've not taken any courses in philosophy, though I am quite familiar with the rules of informal logic.

For a much better rendition of the problems inherent in the Argument For Design, go to http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#design.

 

[Owl]

Define God: God is everything. Me, you, them, that and those. We are made up of the cows, pigs, chicken and the animals or other means of food we eat. The animals we eat are made up of the grass, insects and other animals they eat. That leads to the grass and fruits that are made up of the ground and water of this earth. The cycle just keeps getting deeper. In my head it makes much sense but i am not one who explains in great detail to help others understand my views.

We are all one as a life force. A force that is in all particles. So once we no longer produce enough energy to stay in our living form our life force will be released back into the earth. Although in my beliefs there is no utopia or heavens when we die it does not mean that the void of no longer being able to think or feel is all that bad.

Who created us? My answer would be there was no creation. The life force has always existed. You can probably see my point by my eairler examples of that we are made up of ground and water. heh.. the bible was close to the theory of first humans being clay. So with conversion of the paricles and the universe making up our existence there should be no question of creation.

 

[carla]

I have a growing admiration for Yahweh or YHWH (?) which, as I understand it, is exactly that...a ? which can not be reduced to a mere human model, concept, idea, understanding

which always leaves things open and room for improvement

:)

 

[amp]

Good Point Carla,

By the way howdy everybody, been away for awhile(ONLY HAVE ACCESS AT MY YOB and was locked out the web) God, is just a title to describe a concept of existence that's inexpressible. I once heard Yahweh literally means 'causes to be' an attribute of this entity. By way of definition, this entity is most difficult of comprehension not withstanding explanation. Consider though, if there is a being of such manifold ability then it at least stands to reason it would make an attempt to communicate. There is evidence that there have been a few attempts at just that. Unfortunately, these directed exchanges were modified by people with an agenda toward selfish gain. I suppose knowing this would happen this entity communicated at various times in mankinds history, to refresh the info - so to speak. Perhaps, we are about due for another revalation. Peace. Amp

 

[mikelus]

god is acually everything the thoughts you run from and the reasons why. God is the grass that your feet tread upon outside. god the reason why we pass on and also the reason why were born. god is the answer to the unanswered question.

 

[Shyam]

I think that the term "god" is a belief more than anything. U can explain that the Earth and planets were created by the BIg bang but can you explain how was the first ever particle was created. That is beyond the dimensions of physics.

This has got to do with the mindset of people and the general acceptance that god is a supreme being. Assertions can't be made as to what physics has to do with god.

This is my personal opinion...

 

[hamlet69]

god

is everything and nothing , maybe a constant state of a qutam universe a particle here then not!

maybe just a belief in a god so we can justife to ourselfs that the devil does evil things 9when we actual do) and GOD would put it right

but whatever god is or was because he/she/it could have died the thought of this is still with us to this day

 

[ThOrNe]

I think that god is just a scapegoat for the causes of unexplainable events in the universe. We just don't understand everything (and those of us alive now never will). There used to be gods of nearly everything but as we realized the true reason for these events/objects then we generally stopped believing. I'm fairly sure that eventually whatever god you may worship now will eventually be debunked as mere ignorance or just forgotten. However there is one aspect of god that may never be forgotten...we may never know what caused this universe to begin it's existence(/the cause of the big bang or w/e you prefer), and whatever that cause is, is what i believe is truly god.

 

[Loren Booda]

Maybe God is the being who is undefinable (i. e., unconfinable), despite our attempts.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The moral of Job seems to be that it's blashphemy to defend God against the problem of evil; theodicy is impious. Because to do it, you have to "explain God's ways to man", and that presumes you know and understand God's ways, and that is an offense against the Almighty.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
The moral of Job seems to be that it's blashphemy to defend God against the problem of evil; theodicy is impious. Because to do it, you have to "explain God's ways to man", and that presumes you know and understand God's ways, and that is an offense against the Almighty.

Well, I do understand his ways. He said he wouldn't take offense as long as I didn't tell anyone else.

 

[MasterKung]

i believe in God, he's defined as omnipotent, oniscient...whatever. that's come across so many times, it will be easier if i just said i agree with the people who already said it. (omni-words are hard to spell )
really what i want to say is that its fun asking intelligent people religious questions, i didnt read all the posts because, well, there are a lot of them, but for the most part i like what i hear. in case you didnt figure it out I am new to this forum, and I am amazed, there's discussion about religion without heated debate and childish name calling.
Have you ever asked a fully religious person about what he believes in, he regurgitates what he's been told, or what he's learned, when you ask a man of science about God he tells you things that actually make you want to believe, and then supports himself with whatever idea would be most effective. Its great.
Ok, I am done ranting, i just think an internet forum like this, empty of imbeciles, is refreshing.

 

[amp]

Welcome to PF MasterKung

I feel the need to add that though 'God' is all those Omni-words there are things that it won't do and at least one thing it can't do which creates a paradox of sorts since the omni thing posits nothing being impossible for 'God'. "God' has volition and does its own will as far as that goes and it limits itself in the moral sense to only being good in a way we still don't get. It cannot be less than what it is-the impossibility. Yet,it creates and sustains and cannot diminish.

 

[himanshu121]

Jesus once took a little boy beside him and said: If anyone should cause even one little child to lose faith in the Almighty, you shall have to pay for it. Do not let even one of these get lost. If a man has a hundred sheep and one gets lost, he leaves ninety-nine sheep and goes in search of the lost one. Similarly, not even one of these little ones is to leave the chosen path.

I believe those who don't believe GOD should try meditating and try to be one with the supreme being . You guys will definitely find the difference b/w the tranquility thus achieved.

 

[Rader]

God is wisdom

God is wisdom, which we do not have, otherwise we would be the God.

 

[UltraPi1]

ONE

 

[Loren Booda]

NEO

 

[Danae Legrow]

God is the lover of our souls, and he will love you forever. He will never let you down and will always be your friend. He loves you on days you hate the world, on days you get an F on a test or midterm, he loves you when your happy, angry, sad, he loves you always. he will forgive you if you ask him. he is our creator.

 

[KALI]

Hi, I see god as a process, a way to relate our spiritual selves, not a devine being overseeing our conduct. Whatever gods or godesses one needs to identify with this I'm all for.
Ingat ka,

 

[Canute]

Perhaps God is just a muddled externalisation of what we really are.

 

[Janitor]

Danae,

Your insistence that God loves all humans is probably a majority view among Christians. As a youth I spent many thousands of hours in a church that taught that way.

Your post above doesn't identify your denomination. But I wonder, what are your thoughts on Calvinism, which has it that God loves only the "elect," and that he passes by those who were not predestined to salvation?