Science says Bible and Quran are equivalent

[DBT]

The context of the given verses relate directly to the status of non believers in relation to the teaching of the New Testament or Quran and attributed to to the will of God, Jesus or Muhammad.

They instruct the faithful (or any reader) on the position of non believers in the eyes of the Creator according to the authors of the text.

You are conflating non believer with atheist.

It refers to those willfully and knowingly against the direction of GOD.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Nonsense. You are setting your own terms and conditions. The quoted verses make no mention of willful non belief. They just say those thqt 'believeth not' or 'unbelievers' - which says nothing about the reasons for not holding a belief in the existence of the god being touted in this or that holy book.

If someone realizes that what they once believed is most probably not true, they are not going as you put it ''willfully and knowingly against the direction of GOD'' because they no longer believe in the existence of this god.

So called apostates then fall into the category of atheists. Atheists being those who see no evidence for the existence of god to justify a belief in the existence of god.

Hence neither party, the former or the latter, can be said to ''willfully and knowingly go against the direction of GOD'' - because they do not believe in the existence of ''God'' - whatever that is.

It's beside the point anyway, all the verses specify unbelievers, those who 'believeth not' with no mention of willfully and knowingly turning against God....which can only be done if one believes in the existence of God, but turns away.

Your objections have no merit, sorry.

 

[Juma]

being religious is equated with being an idiot. The religious person is an archetype of people holding false beliefs purely out of ignorance.

And rightly so. To believe in gods is deluded.

 

[popsthebuilder]

You are conflating non believer with atheist.

It refers to those willfully and knowingly against the direction of GOD.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Nonsense. You are setting your own terms and conditions. The quoted verses make no mention of willful non belief. They just say those thqt 'believeth not' or 'unbelievers' - which says nothing about the reasons for not holding a belief in the existence of the god being touted in this or that holy book.

If someone realizes that what they once believed is most probably not true, they are not going as you put it ''willfully and knowingly against the direction of GOD'' because they no longer believe in the existence of this god.

So called apostates then fall into the category of atheists. Atheists being those who see no evidence for the existence of god to justify a belief in the existence of god.

Hence neither party, the former or the latter, can be said to ''willfully and knowingly go against the direction of GOD'' - because they do not believe in the existence of ''God'' - whatever that is.

It's beside the point anyway, all the verses specify unbelievers, those who 'believeth not' with no mention of willfully and knowingly turning against God....which can only be done if one believes in the existence of God, but turns away.

Your objections have no merit, sorry.

I guess it boils down to context, bias, and intended reader.

Scripture speaks of non Believers as those who know but don't believe.

John 3:16 puts into perspective a little.

The word believe in that context and throughout the bible and Qur'an refers to believing wholly and as such acting accordingly in all you do. Not acting accordingly is considered non belief. A lot of Christians have trouble with this too. But it says in Scripture to not believe with your mouth but with everything. To Believe something wholly is to know it to be true and base your actions off of it as if it was true. And yes, though on can sin, they can always repent, unless it's non belief in this specific context also known as blasphemy.

You can think I'm wrong if you want. It makes little difference to me. The word atheist was from Greek and would have been incorporated at some point. The word is not in reference to them. Pretty much all where spiritual to some degree or another 2000 years ago.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

1)never "saw" GOD

Let me rephrase that, you encountered GOD.

Spiritual/mystical experiences typically defy verbal description. They're just too weird. Once (on Ayahuasca) I tried explaining something to a friend. But I had a problem with pronouns. In my experience I was one with the universe. Me and him was one, as well as everything else. That experience/feeling is impossible to put into words in a meaningful way. Just one of the many times I've felt I encountered GOD.

2)my experience was in utter subriety. The seemingly otherworldly nature of things one may think they experience while on mind altering substances is not really similar to what happened to me.

Psychadelic drugs are only exploiting chemicals already present in the brain. You don't need drugs to have the same experiences. It's just hard to trigger them. Usually it requires pretty extreme mental states. Especially stress can trigger these states.

Religious mystics throughout history disagree with you as well. All religion is intimately connected with drugs. Especially psychedelic drugs. We know that people around the Mediterranean from about 500 BC would use Marijuana heavily in religious ritual. Some strains are highly psychadelic. Before that they'd use Ergot. As well as psychadelic shrooms. It was so standard back in the day and so associated with religious ritual that anthropologists are struggling with explaining why we, in the modern world, stopped.

As if the ultimate causal force didn't have to be caused. If all one observes is effectual then it has a cause. Going all the way back to the source is not possible through our capacities as infinity is indeed outside of our full understanding. Neither does an all knowing thing have to be observably all controlling. Some may think it does, but that is applying vanity to GOD, a human, negative trait. This is a false addition to GOD.

Seriously, snap out of it. If we assert that everything must have a cause. That is obviously true for the unmoved mover as well. Not doing so is special pleading which also breaks your logic. So your assertion has failed. There's an obvious solution to this problem. Obviously everything doesn't have to have a cause. Obviously nature is weirder than we've supposed so far. This isn't a free pass to insert whatever. This a cue to adopt some humility and accept the fact that there's lots in the world humanity has yet to figure out.

I recommend Googling the Cosmological Argument. The Wiki page neatly summarises the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

Aristotle knew his theory was dumb even when he first came up with it. He could see the flaw in his own argument immediately.

Your statement about the ready observability and scientific testability of GOD are too derived from vanity. As if science or even mathematics has explained away all that is.

I didn't say that. What I said was, we can't trust our own senses. Human perceptions are so weird and fallible that we are dependent on science to verify our perceptions. If you think you've experienced something true, and which nobody else can verify, I'd say you're the vain one. But sure, yes, science has been able to explain away any religious experiences they've tested. Of the simple reason that there's always been a pretty mundane neurological explanation for them.

To think all is strictly material in nature and as such observable, is very closed minded in my opinion. Even if literally all was theorized through equation, it would only verify the very nature of all. That nature would be that of precision and intelligence. Geometry in nature is quite grand, I must admit. That lends credence to GOD, not the absence of it.

It isn't refuted by science in any way, and I am confident that our scientific understanding of existence and the origins there of will continue to point to an ultimate creative force with time, if we have enough anyway.

Do you still think that I'm the vain one here? We (science) haven't even been able to make the Theory of Relativity work with Quantum Mechanics. There's clearly lots of stuff science hasn't figured out yet. Yet you predict that you'll get your private pet theory vindicated eventually? You're making Napoleon look humble by comparison.

I can tell you why God hasn't been refuted by science yet. It's because the God hypothesis is unverifiable. It's like hypothesising a Flarge. A Flarge is a large purple elephant that only appears wherever nobody is looking. You can't refute my Flarge hypothesis either scientifically. Still doesn't give it any credence. GOD is just a Flarge.

A what if at a dinner setting? No, it's backed by the conscience, morality, and is deeply ingrained in man since before written word to the point of them willingly dying for it. Altruism comes to mind, another observable trait in nature, the same nature that GOD set in motion and guided from before the start.

I recommend reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Evolution doesn't spread individuals. When you die only your children matter to evolution. Evolution only cares about spreading genes. That explains the value of altruism. Just as the title alludes to, altruism is actually being selfish. It's also the reason why you've been programmed by your genes to think altruism is a virtue.

1) I heard of Jesus and, or God when I was a young child, in school, up until mid first grade. My inmmidiate family was not religious. My father was a quite atheist that I didn't learn of until much later. My mother was Christian but we never spoke of God, read th bible, went to church or any of that. I think it was seeded in her like you talk about maybe at some bare minimum, maybe to appease her mother, but she really didn't even go through the motions from my recount.

We have on record 6000 gods that have at some point been worshipped throughout history. Don't you think it's odd that when you had your religious experience it brought you to the same kind of God that is dominant in your culture? If God really did reach out to you it could have been any of the 6000 gods. Most of which are not unmoved movers nor are omnipotent. Most of them are utter cunts and need to be appeased not to cause trouble. But as it happens it just happened to be the one god you already were familiar with. Most familiar with. As well as encompassing traits you must have been taught about as a child.

2)At a very young age I figured there was no God based on observation of pain and atrocity. The religious hipocrite bit didn't come until later.
3) I didn't realize anything of the sort.
I was born in 81. I was given proof of God on a personal level in '11, and not by my doing.

So I messed up step three. But the point was that you had already been taught about God as a child. You must have been familiar with the concept of salvation. So when you had your experience you made that connection. I'm not saying you couldn't have made that connection anyway and that you didn't have a genuine encounter with God. All I'm saying is that it's not particularly likely. There are other explanations that make more sense (to me)

Of course my personal experience, revelation, salvation is refutable. I never said I could proove anything else for anyone else.

Aren't you at least curious? Have you tried to refute it? That's what all good scientists do. After they've found support for an idea, the next step is to try to disprove their own theory. Have you?

I've had "traumatic" experiences, or at least what others would call such. The experience that resulted in my Faith was the opposite.

Try "overwhelming" as a better word.

Again, you succeed in insult; I wasn't an fn theist when it happened. I was and am a skeptical thinker with a decent iq and no social skills, allowing for time for thought. This has always been the case and I have always had a fascination with science and an alright laymens understanding of it as it does interest me and always has.

I wasn't trying to be insulting. It's just that newly converted people keep showing up here convinced that their experiences are unique or bulletrpoof. But their arguments are always stuff that has been refuted a million times over. Which they would know if they only could be bothered to do some research. I'm sorry to say that the same goes for your experience. It's pretty standard actually. The fact that you used to be an atheist doesn't prove anything. All it means is that you were an atheist for the wrong reasons.

The boring thing is that the theists aren't particularly creative. It's always the same couple of things. Here's a good summary of all the different variations.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/

 

[DBT]

Nonsense. You are setting your own terms and conditions. The quoted verses make no mention of willful non belief. They just say those thqt 'believeth not' or 'unbelievers' - which says nothing about the reasons for not holding a belief in the existence of the god being touted in this or that holy book.

If someone realizes that what they once believed is most probably not true, they are not going as you put it ''willfully and knowingly against the direction of GOD'' because they no longer believe in the existence of this god.

So called apostates then fall into the category of atheists. Atheists being those who see no evidence for the existence of god to justify a belief in the existence of god.

Hence neither party, the former or the latter, can be said to ''willfully and knowingly go against the direction of GOD'' - because they do not believe in the existence of ''God'' - whatever that is.

It's beside the point anyway, all the verses specify unbelievers, those who 'believeth not' with no mention of willfully and knowingly turning against God....which can only be done if one believes in the existence of God, but turns away.

Your objections have no merit, sorry.

I guess it boils down to context, bias, and intended reader.

Scripture speaks of non Believers as those who know but don't believe.

John 3:16 puts into perspective a little.

The word believe in that context and throughout the bible and Qur'an refers to believing wholly and as such acting accordingly in all you do. Not acting accordingly is considered non belief. A lot of Christians have trouble with this too. But it says in Scripture to not believe with your mouth but with everything. To Believe something wholly is to know it to be true and base your actions off of it as if it was true. And yes, though on can sin, they can always repent, unless it's non belief in this specific context also known as blasphemy.

You can think I'm wrong if you want. It makes little difference to me. The word atheist was from Greek and would have been incorporated at some point. The word is not in reference to them. Pretty much all where spiritual to some degree or another 2000 years ago.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

John 3:16 does not support your claim.

If someone knows that something exists, how is it even possible to not believe what one already knows is true?

Delusion might do it, but delusion is not the ''wilful denial of God'' that you claiming.

So you have made a claim; that the quoted verses only relate to those who know God exists but no not believe God exists, now you need to support your claim with references to scripture that support your contention.

John 3:16 does not support your claim because it says that ''whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life'' which means anyone who 'believes in him' is saved, but anyone who does not believe in him (believeth not), is excluded.

There is no nothing here to support what you say.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The word atheist was from Greek and would have been incorporated at some point. The word is not in reference to them. Pretty much all where spiritual to some degree or another 2000 years ago.

The word atheism has been used to mean different things in different times. In most of its history is was used to refute a single faith. So if there's a dominant faith, an atheist is just somebody who refutes that particular faith. Regardless of what they believe. It's hard to pinpoint the modern use of atheism. I don't think we have a fixed definition yet. It's still pretty much all over the place. But Shopenhaur and Marx were early with using atheism as a rejection of all faiths. Which is what modern people mean. But people are still using the term to mean either strong or weak atheism without bothering to explain which one. It's also often used interchangably with agnosticism, apatheism and ignosticism.

 

[DBT]

atheism (n.)
1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god" (see atheist). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." Ancient Greek atheotes meant "ungodliness."

atheist (n.)

1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-).

The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell. [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Tom Sawyer,

Your manner of inquiry actually did put a smile on my face. Thank you for your general demeanor, or at least the politness or level of mutual respect. It is generally needed fo productive conversation on either end, and I thank you with sincerity.

No problem. I always try and make a point of waiting until at least my tenth post in a thread to begin comparing someone to Hitler and making gratuitous sexual comments about their mother. That's just good manners.

A false positive would have to come from a bias of some sort. Admittedly, at that particular point in time I was not biased in favor of God or against it. Thinking about it; it would have been a rather peculiar state no longer being against the consept of God, yet not being for it, or believing it. Really I wasn't putting much thought into it, and never really had, not compared to how I am now anyway. A false positive. I wasn't looking for anything. I wasn't actively seeking God or refutation of it. In fact, I thought I was in a tolerable, if not thriving state without God really being in the general though process. It takes a peculiar breed indeed to put some thought of God in the forefront of thought and desision making. Still now, I don't. I surely didn't then.

There's no bias or subconscious desire required to get a false positive. All that's needed is for someone to make a mistake. You had an experience and came to a conclusion as a result of that experience. A false positive simply means that your conclusion is wrong and it doesn't care about why it happens to be wrong.

What was I shown?...well...uhm...first, I was driving. The radio that always worked, faded out. Peculiar. I adjusted the knobs for volume and station with no change. Strange, but whatever, right?
The next thing I can recall is what I can only describe as the lifting away of burden or weight. It literally felt like a load had been taken from my shoulders. I had been in a wholly loathsome state for years. Full of contempt, hatred, anger, and malace towards myself and civilization or society in general. It consumed me to the point that I literally used it as motivation or energy. That is why I say I was not really aware that I needed anything, or that I was incapable of change on some levels. Again though; at that time I was more humbled or aware of my inability to change in some areas, and also had realized that I wasn't quite as in control of myself as I had previously thought. This must sound like crazy ramblings. Let me try to clarify more; though I was generally always pretty strong willed and well adapted to pain and anger to the point of seemingly thriving on them, I was, at that point still somewhat unsuccessfully battling a severe crack addiction. Also though I thought I was ok being bent constantly, I nearly killed someone. Though I didn't harm them in any way at that time, the level of blind determination and false justification of such is now, in retrospect, quite negative and would have been detrimental to the lives of many.

Ok, sorry.

So my anger and pain that consumed me where taken away instantly. This brought about a sense of utter gratitude and humility. Joy, pure and utter joy is the best way I can describe it I guess. After this I was shown that every turning point in my life when I thought I was alone, God was there. Everything that I thought had happened by chance and my own hand was understood to have been predestined and for a reason. Namely, that moment of revelation. I was shown that my very existence, and struggle throughout was ordained and laid out prior to my very conseption. I was shown that every part of me was for a particular purpose. Every trial, experience, and observation were for a reason and understood in a new way that on some level was always there, sorta subconsciously I guess. Still utterly grateful and filled with new joy, and hope and appreciation for life, many things sorta came to the for front of thought or consiousness in regards to morality, sociey, right and wrong, and the general direction of man as opposed to the supposed direction. I sorta came back to and the radio faded back in. I continued home . Upon getting there I searched for something to write on/ with fervently. I was thinking of was going to record what had happened, but what was written was more of like a moral code of sorts. I still have it, and it's dated. Ever so often I add to it in ways.

And other people have had far more detailed and involved alien abduction experiences due to momentary hallucinations and the psychological mechanisms behind this sort of experience are well documented and understood. Why should anyone give more credibility to what you say you experienced over what they say they experienced? Now, when I say "what you say you experienced", I'm not implying any kind of lie on your part, it's simply accounting for the possibility of an error. Why should anyone take your account to be a factual conclusion about what happened over other people's similar accounts - which I assume you feel are fictional?

I can't say for sure why I was shone these things. I think I has to do with falling exceedingly low, or being tried often. I think God gives us freedom. Life is a gift. What sort of gift is unquestioned adherance or obedience with no option. It is imprisonment. To be strictly lead along a singular path is to not know of any alternative route. It would be equivelent to a vegitable or in animate object to me. I believe most may be veiled by upbringing, society, and greed in varied ways. Please don't think I'm calling you greedy. I am not. Simply stating what could limit ones perception or understanding. I'm sorry. This subject is very hard to convey without seeming insinuated insult. Please know that that isn't my intentions. Also, the previous part must sound arragant. Again; I try not to sound that way, I am not at all arragant or proud. It is just somehow conveyed through the subject matter. Again, I apologize.

I do not think that those who have searched for God in hope, humility, suplication, and mercy are denied such. But also I don't think God comes to our understanding by our command either. I don't think that those who have sought God and not found it on some level aren't cursed to damnation at all. It is a common misconception of scripture. If one looks in the manner I just described with patience and perceverance then what fault is it of theirs for not finding such. At very least one would find an inner morality known as the conscience which is a guiding system. To realize such and ignore it may be cause for judgement, not simply never coming to any conclusion. Our freedom is key to our eventual understanding as one must learn from mistakes.

I am not safe from judgement in any way, quite the contrary.

I cannot say for certain why GOD doesn't guide all like rocks in space. I can say that it is related to our gifts of freedom, potential, and the responsibility that comes with such.

Thanks, I know I'm all over the place. Just ask me to clarify anything and I will try.

Ya, that needs a whole lot of clarification. You have stated that blaspheming against God is a big no-no and not accepting his existence after being made aware of his existence results in prolonged torture. I do not have any idea what your basis for making that statement was. You explanation for God is basically "It's a mystery" and yet you're asserting that there's a guy who'll torture you for not accepting the claims about him despite his being really cagey about the reasons as to why anybody should accept those claims. This is in spite of the fact that you feel that he can clearly demonstrate the validity of those claims to anybody he wants at any time in a manner which they will accept as factual. There are a lot of holes in this logic.

 

[popsthebuilder]

DrZoidberg,

What I experienced wasn't equivalent to a trip, or psycodelic in any way. I have eaten acid before. I have eaten shrooms before. I have smoked pot before. None of which are really similar to what happened that day. You say mystics historically disagree with me. About What? I didn't say someone couldn't confuse an imbalance of chemicals in the brain with some sort revelation, just that it wasn't the case for me.

There you go wig that unmoved mover stuff again. If you can explain how all came to be then I'm all ears. Otherwise you are just asserting opinion.

If you can't trust your own senses then fine. That isn't generally the case for me.

What private pet theory?

Universal reconsiliation is not a private made up theory. It is spoken of in most scripture I have read.

Evolution doesn't care about anything. It is a theory to explain the adaptation and continuation of life within its habitat. Descriptions can't care, only describe.
Altruism isn't selfishness. It is assurance of continued existence on a non individual level.

You still want to act as if a particular named God came to me after I have repeatedly stated otherwise. You just don't want to hear it.

The only consept of God I was familiar with on any level other than mythology was Christ. What I witnessed had little to do with Christ and made absolutely no distinction in name or other particulars other than general nature. You are making grand leaps based on things I never said for your own motives.

No I tee rally wasn't familiar wig the concept of salvation. I already told you that I didn't attend church, read scripture or associate with believers. More blind leaps on your part.

I've tried to refute and test it since it happened. Why would you assume otherwise. As if reading ancient scriptures of numerous cultures and discussing things with all walks of life isn't in itself testing such. Past that I contemplate related things nearly constantly.

The experience was somewhat overwhelming. I don't deny that at all. You can surmise it was brought on by stress of you want. However generally a breakdown is followed by an inability to function hence the word breakdown or traumatic. This experience actually helped me in many ways and hurt me in none. Not exactly synonymous with breakdown.

I'm not a new convert. It was five years ago. How can one be atheist for the wrong reasons? What is the right reason to you? I did fluctuate from hard atheism to agnosticism at times I suppose.

If it a the same couple of things then that lends credence to it. You could view it as boring, perhaps they aren't made up and that is why they seem similar and boring to you.

At this point you seem to be refuting what I say in any manner possible. Again you are all over the place attempting to discredit me by any means possible. However, I am irelevent and not causal to the salvation of any, so by all means continue in your desperation. It's quite obvious to at least me that your arguments aren't genuine, nor do they have substance. That's the problem with just rewording others opinions.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I guess it boils down to context, bias, and intended reader.

Scripture speaks of non Believers as those who know but don't believe.

John 3:16 puts into perspective a little.

The word believe in that context and throughout the bible and Qur'an refers to believing wholly and as such acting accordingly in all you do. Not acting accordingly is considered non belief. A lot of Christians have trouble with this too. But it says in Scripture to not believe with your mouth but with everything. To Believe something wholly is to know it to be true and base your actions off of it as if it was true. And yes, though on can sin, they can always repent, unless it's non belief in this specific context also known as blasphemy.

You can think I'm wrong if you want. It makes little difference to me. The word atheist was from Greek and would have been incorporated at some point. The word is not in reference to them. Pretty much all where spiritual to some degree or another 2000 years ago.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

John 3:16 does not support your claim.

If someone knows that something exists, how is it even possible to not believe what one already knows is true?

Delusion might do it, but delusion is not the ''wilful denial of God'' that you claiming.

So you have made a claim; that the quoted verses only relate to those who know God exists but no not believe God exists, now you need to support your claim with references to scripture that support your contention.

John 3:16 does not support your claim because it says that ''whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life'' which means anyone who 'believes in him' is saved, but anyone who does not believe in him (believeth not), is excluded.

There is no nothing here to support what you say.

There is a difference in willful denial of God as in willful atheism and not following the known will of GOD. Knowing and doing are two different things.

Let me rephrase that, you encountered GOD.

Spiritual/mystical experiences typically defy verbal description. They're just too weird. Once (on Ayahuasca) I tried explaining something to a friend. But I had a problem with pronouns. In my experience I was one with the universe. Me and him was one, as well as everything else. That experience/feeling is impossible to put into words in a meaningful way. Just one of the many times I've felt I encountered GOD.

2)my experience was in utter subriety. The seemingly otherworldly nature of things one may think they experience while on mind altering substances is not really similar to what happened to me.

Psychadelic drugs are only exploiting chemicals already present in the brain. You don't need drugs to have the same experiences. It's just hard to trigger them. Usually it requires pretty extreme mental states. Especially stress can trigger these states.

Religious mystics throughout history disagree with you as well. All religion is intimately connected with drugs. Especially psychedelic drugs. We know that people around the Mediterranean from about 500 BC would use Marijuana heavily in religious ritual. Some strains are highly psychadelic. Before that they'd use Ergot. As well as psychadelic shrooms. It was so standard back in the day and so associated with religious ritual that anthropologists are struggling with explaining why we, in the modern world, stopped.

As if the ultimate causal force didn't have to be caused. If all one observes is effectual then it has a cause. Going all the way back to the source is not possible through our capacities as infinity is indeed outside of our full understanding. Neither does an all knowing thing have to be observably all controlling. Some may think it does, but that is applying vanity to GOD, a human, negative trait. This is a false addition to GOD.

Seriously, snap out of it. If we assert that everything must have a cause. That is obviously true for the unmoved mover as well. Not doing so is special pleading which also breaks your logic. So your assertion has failed. There's an obvious solution to this problem. Obviously everything doesn't have to have a cause. Obviously nature is weirder than we've supposed so far. This isn't a free pass to insert whatever. This a cue to adopt some humility and accept the fact that there's lots in the world humanity has yet to figure out.

I recommend Googling the Cosmological Argument. The Wiki page neatly summarises the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

Aristotle knew his theory was dumb even when he first came up with it. He could see the flaw in his own argument immediately.

Your statement about the ready observability and scientific testability of GOD are too derived from vanity. As if science or even mathematics has explained away all that is.

I didn't say that. What I said was, we can't trust our own senses. Human perceptions are so weird and fallible that we are dependent on science to verify our perceptions. If you think you've experienced something true, and which nobody else can verify, I'd say you're the vain one. But sure, yes, science has been able to explain away any religious experiences they've tested. Of the simple reason that there's always been a pretty mundane neurological explanation for them.

To think all is strictly material in nature and as such observable, is very closed minded in my opinion. Even if literally all was theorized through equation, it would only verify the very nature of all. That nature would be that of precision and intelligence. Geometry in nature is quite grand, I must admit. That lends credence to GOD, not the absence of it.

It isn't refuted by science in any way, and I am confident that our scientific understanding of existence and the origins there of will continue to point to an ultimate creative force with time, if we have enough anyway.

Do you still think that I'm the vain one here? We (science) haven't even been able to make the Theory of Relativity work with Quantum Mechanics. There's clearly lots of stuff science hasn't figured out yet. Yet you predict that you'll get your private pet theory vindicated eventually? You're making Napoleon look humble by comparison.

I can tell you why God hasn't been refuted by science yet. It's because the God hypothesis is unverifiable. It's like hypothesising a Flarge. A Flarge is a large purple elephant that only appears wherever nobody is looking. You can't refute my Flarge hypothesis either scientifically. Still doesn't give it any credence. GOD is just a Flarge.

A what if at a dinner setting? No, it's backed by the conscience, morality, and is deeply ingrained in man since before written word to the point of them willingly dying for it. Altruism comes to mind, another observable trait in nature, the same nature that GOD set in motion and guided from before the start.

I recommend reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Evolution doesn't spread individuals. When you die only your children matter to evolution. Evolution only cares about spreading genes. That explains the value of altruism. Just as the title alludes to, altruism is actually being selfish. It's also the reason why you've been programmed by your genes to think altruism is a virtue.

1) I heard of Jesus and, or God when I was a young child, in school, up until mid first grade. My inmmidiate family was not religious. My father was a quite atheist that I didn't learn of until much later. My mother was Christian but we never spoke of God, read th bible, went to church or any of that. I think it was seeded in her like you talk about maybe at some bare minimum, maybe to appease her mother, but she really didn't even go through the motions from my recount.

We have on record 6000 gods that have at some point been worshipped throughout history. Don't you think it's odd that when you had your religious experience it brought you to the same kind of God that is dominant in your culture? If God really did reach out to you it could have been any of the 6000 gods. Most of which are not unmoved movers nor are omnipotent. Most of them are utter cunts and need to be appeased not to cause trouble. But as it happens it just happened to be the one god you already were familiar with. Most familiar with. As well as encompassing traits you must have been taught about as a child.

2)At a very young age I figured there was no God based on observation of pain and atrocity. The religious hipocrite bit didn't come until later.
3) I didn't realize anything of the sort.
I was born in 81. I was given proof of God on a personal level in '11, and not by my doing.

So I messed up step three. But the point was that you had already been taught about God as a child. You must have been familiar with the concept of salvation. So when you had your experience you made that connection. I'm not saying you couldn't have made that connection anyway and that you didn't have a genuine encounter with God. All I'm saying is that it's not particularly likely. There are other explanations that make more sense (to me)

Of course my personal experience, revelation, salvation is refutable. I never said I could proove anything else for anyone else.

Aren't you at least curious? Have you tried to refute it? That's what all good scientists do. After they've found support for an idea, the next step is to try to disprove their own theory. Have you?

I've had "traumatic" experiences, or at least what others would call such. The experience that resulted in my Faith was the opposite.

Try "overwhelming" as a better word.

Again, you succeed in insult; I wasn't an fn theist when it happened. I was and am a skeptical thinker with a decent iq and no social skills, allowing for time for thought. This has always been the case and I have always had a fascination with science and an alright laymens understanding of it as it does interest me and always has.

I wasn't trying to be insulting. It's just that newly converted people keep showing up here convinced that their experiences are unique or bulletrpoof. But their arguments are always stuff that has been refuted a million times over. Which they would know if they only could be bothered to do some research. I'm sorry to say that the same goes for your experience. It's pretty standard actually. The fact that you used to be an atheist doesn't prove anything. All it means is that you were an atheist for the wrong reasons.

The boring thing is that the theists aren't particularly creative. It's always the same couple of things. Here's a good summary of all the different variations.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

No problem. I always try and make a point of waiting until at least my tenth post in a thread to begin comparing someone to Hitler and making gratuitous sexual comments about their mother. That's just good manners.

A false positive would have to come from a bias of some sort. Admittedly, at that particular point in time I was not biased in favor of God or against it. Thinking about it; it would have been a rather peculiar state no longer being against the consept of God, yet not being for it, or believing it. Really I wasn't putting much thought into it, and never really had, not compared to how I am now anyway. A false positive. I wasn't looking for anything. I wasn't actively seeking God or refutation of it. In fact, I thought I was in a tolerable, if not thriving state without God really being in the general though process. It takes a peculiar breed indeed to put some thought of God in the forefront of thought and desision making. Still now, I don't. I surely didn't then.

There's no bias or subconscious desire required to get a false positive. All that's needed is for someone to make a mistake. You had an experience and came to a conclusion as a result of that experience. A false positive simply means that your conclusion is wrong and it doesn't care about why it happens to be wrong.

What was I shown?...well...uhm...first, I was driving. The radio that always worked, faded out. Peculiar. I adjusted the knobs for volume and station with no change. Strange, but whatever, right?
The next thing I can recall is what I can only describe as the lifting away of burden or weight. It literally felt like a load had been taken from my shoulders. I had been in a wholly loathsome state for years. Full of contempt, hatred, anger, and malace towards myself and civilization or society in general. It consumed me to the point that I literally used it as motivation or energy. That is why I say I was not really aware that I needed anything, or that I was incapable of change on some levels. Again though; at that time I was more humbled or aware of my inability to change in some areas, and also had realized that I wasn't quite as in control of myself as I had previously thought. This must sound like crazy ramblings. Let me try to clarify more; though I was generally always pretty strong willed and well adapted to pain and anger to the point of seemingly thriving on them, I was, at that point still somewhat unsuccessfully battling a severe crack addiction. Also though I thought I was ok being bent constantly, I nearly killed someone. Though I didn't harm them in any way at that time, the level of blind determination and false justification of such is now, in retrospect, quite negative and would have been detrimental to the lives of many.

Ok, sorry.

So my anger and pain that consumed me where taken away instantly. This brought about a sense of utter gratitude and humility. Joy, pure and utter joy is the best way I can describe it I guess. After this I was shown that every turning point in my life when I thought I was alone, God was there. Everything that I thought had happened by chance and my own hand was understood to have been predestined and for a reason. Namely, that moment of revelation. I was shown that my very existence, and struggle throughout was ordained and laid out prior to my very conseption. I was shown that every part of me was for a particular purpose. Every trial, experience, and observation were for a reason and understood in a new way that on some level was always there, sorta subconsciously I guess. Still utterly grateful and filled with new joy, and hope and appreciation for life, many things sorta came to the for front of thought or consiousness in regards to morality, sociey, right and wrong, and the general direction of man as opposed to the supposed direction. I sorta came back to and the radio faded back in. I continued home . Upon getting there I searched for something to write on/ with fervently. I was thinking of was going to record what had happened, but what was written was more of like a moral code of sorts. I still have it, and it's dated. Ever so often I add to it in ways.

And other people have had far more detailed and involved alien abduction experiences due to momentary hallucinations and the psychological mechanisms behind this sort of experience are well documented and understood. Why should anyone give more credibility to what you say you experienced over what they say they experienced? Now, when I say "what you say you experienced", I'm not implying any kind of lie on your part, it's simply accounting for the possibility of an error. Why should anyone take your account to be a factual conclusion about what happened over other people's similar accounts - which I assume you feel are fictional?

I can't say for sure why I was shone these things. I think I has to do with falling exceedingly low, or being tried often. I think God gives us freedom. Life is a gift. What sort of gift is unquestioned adherance or obedience with no option. It is imprisonment. To be strictly lead along a singular path is to not know of any alternative route. It would be equivelent to a vegitable or in animate object to me. I believe most may be veiled by upbringing, society, and greed in varied ways. Please don't think I'm calling you greedy. I am not. Simply stating what could limit ones perception or understanding. I'm sorry. This subject is very hard to convey without seeming insinuated insult. Please know that that isn't my intentions. Also, the previous part must sound arragant. Again; I try not to sound that way, I am not at all arragant or proud. It is just somehow conveyed through the subject matter. Again, I apologize.

I do not think that those who have searched for God in hope, humility, suplication, and mercy are denied such. But also I don't think God comes to our understanding by our command either. I don't think that those who have sought God and not found it on some level aren't cursed to damnation at all. It is a common misconception of scripture. If one looks in the manner I just described with patience and perceverance then what fault is it of theirs for not finding such. At very least one would find an inner morality known as the conscience which is a guiding system. To realize such and ignore it may be cause for judgement, not simply never coming to any conclusion. Our freedom is key to our eventual understanding as one must learn from mistakes.

I am not safe from judgement in any way, quite the contrary.

I cannot say for certain why GOD doesn't guide all like rocks in space. I can say that it is related to our gifts of freedom, potential, and the responsibility that comes with such.

Thanks, I know I'm all over the place. Just ask me to clarify anything and I will try.

Ya, that needs a whole lot of clarification. You have stated that blaspheming against God is a big no-no and not accepting his existence after being made aware of his existence results in prolonged torture. I do not have any idea what your basis for making that statement was. You explanation for God is basically "It's a mystery" and yet you're asserting that there's a guy who'll torture you for not accepting the claims about him despite his being really cagey about the reasons as to why anybody should accept those claims. This is in spite of the fact that you feel that he can clearly demonstrate the validity of those claims to anybody he wants at any time in a manner which they will accept as factual. There are a lot of holes in this logic.

Thanks again.

I do not expect any to give my experience any more thought than anyone else's. I tend to stay away from it because I find it irrelevant. My personal experience in no way should dictate the knowledge or opinion of others. I simply tried to summarize it because you asked.

Thanks. Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What I experienced wasn't equivalent to a trip, or psycodelic in any way. I have eaten acid before. I have eaten shrooms before. I have smoked pot before. None of which are really similar to what happened that day. You say mystics historically disagree with me. About What? I didn't say someone couldn't confuse an imbalance of chemicals in the brain with some sort revelation, just that it wasn't the case for me.

Now I'm talking for all mystics in history. I apologise to them for that. But there's no shortage of religious mystics that have used drugs to communicate with GOD. These people all think that being high is the proper way to talk to God. They'd take issue with your claim that this is misunderstanding on their part. I don't think a religious experience on drugs in any less genuine than if a person is sober.

There you go wig that unmoved mover stuff again. If you can explain how all came to be then I'm all ears. Otherwise you are just asserting opinion.

I can't. But here's the interesting bit. Neither can you. You've just made an assertion. Or rather, you've asserted what the problem is, and then insert a nonsensicle solution that breaks your initial assertion. If everything has to have a first cause, that would also apply to the unmoved mover. If it doesn't then your initial assertion is wrong.

Also, we do have scientific hypothesis that can explain this. They're not proven. They're still just hypothetical. But they're at least possible without the need to resort to magic. Stephen Hawkings' a Brief History of Time sums these up nicely. It's a bit dated now. But the list of possible theories is still valid.

If you can't trust your own senses then fine. That isn't generally the case for me.

I'm guessing you're human. I took a course in human perception and common brain failures at university. It's not that we don't know how the human mind is fallible. It's been extensively studied. Human brains suck. We're built for speed and survival. Not accuracy. The maxim when our brains were built was just good enough. We get it wrong all the time. Since you are human I know you can't trust your senses. It's just a fact of life for our species. We need to find external methods with which to corroborate whatever shit pops into our brains. And if you don't, you will be wrong a lot.

What private pet theory?

That science will eventually vindicate your scientifically unsupported whims.

Universal reconsiliation is not a private made up theory. It is spoken of in most scripture I have read.

I don't understand what this is a response to.

Evolution doesn't care about anything. It is a theory to explain the adaptation and continuation of life within its habitat. Descriptions can't care, only describe.
Altruism isn't selfishness. It is assurance of continued existence on a non individual level.

I'm sorry for being sloppy with the language. Quite correct, in that evolution doesn't care. It's just a blind mechanic that just happens to work.

Here's the author himself explaining what he means. Way better than I ever could:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9p2F2oa0_k

Within biology today this is generally accepted as how it works. Altruism is just another way of being selfish.

You still want to act as if a particular named God came to me after I have repeatedly stated otherwise. You just don't want to hear it.

The only consept of God I was familiar with on any level other than mythology was Christ. What I witnessed had little to do with Christ and made absolutely no distinction in name or other particulars other than general nature. You are making grand leaps based on things I never said for your own motives.

No I tee rally wasn't familiar wig the concept of salvation. I already told you that I didn't attend church, read scripture or associate with believers. More blind leaps on your part.

Monotheism, ie the one creator God, is a historical anomaly. Most religion that has ever existed is animist. So most religious people, if we take everybody that has ever lived, shared this belief. Your GOD isn't animist. The second most popular one is paganism. In this one there's typically a creator god. But among a bunch of other gods. Neither of which are omnipotent or omniscient. How come you didn't pick these? Monotheism pops up right at the end of recorded history and is just the most popular the last thousand years. It's the pop of religion, if you will. Still, this is where you ended up.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Now I'm talking for all mystics in history. I apologise to them for that. But there's no shortage of religious mystics that have used drugs to communicate with GOD. These people all think that being high is the proper way to talk to God. They'd take issue with your claim that this is misunderstanding on their part. I don't think a religious experience on drugs in any less genuine than if a person is sober.

There you go wig that unmoved mover stuff again. If you can explain how all came to be then I'm all ears. Otherwise you are just asserting opinion.

I can't. But here's the interesting bit. Neither can you. You've just made an assertion. Or rather, you've asserted what the problem is, and then insert a nonsensicle solution that breaks your initial assertion. If everything has to have a first cause, that would also apply to the unmoved mover. If it doesn't then your initial assertion is wrong.

Also, we do have scientific hypothesis that can explain this. They're not proven. They're still just hypothetical. But they're at least possible without the need to resort to magic. Stephen Hawkings' a Brief History of Time sums these up nicely. It's a bit dated now. But the list of possible theories is still valid.

If you can't trust your own senses then fine. That isn't generally the case for me.

I'm guessing you're human. I took a course in human perception and common brain failures at university. It's not that we don't know how the human mind is fallible. It's been extensively studied. Human brains suck. We're built for speed and survival. Not accuracy. The maxim when our brains were built was just good enough. We get it wrong all the time. Since you are human I know you can't trust your senses. It's just a fact of life for our species. We need to find external methods with which to corroborate whatever shit pops into our brains. And if you don't, you will be wrong a lot.

What private pet theory?

That science will eventually vindicate your scientifically unsupported whims.

Universal reconsiliation is not a private made up theory. It is spoken of in most scripture I have read.

I don't understand what this is a response to.

Evolution doesn't care about anything. It is a theory to explain the adaptation and continuation of life within its habitat. Descriptions can't care, only describe.
Altruism isn't selfishness. It is assurance of continued existence on a non individual level.

I'm sorry for being sloppy with the language. Quite correct, in that evolution doesn't care. It's just a blind mechanic that just happens to work.

Here's the author himself explaining what he means. Way better than I ever could:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9p2F2oa0_k

Within biology today this is generally accepted as how it works. Altruism is just another way of being selfish.

You still want to act as if a particular named God came to me after I have repeatedly stated otherwise. You just don't want to hear it.

The only consept of God I was familiar with on any level other than mythology was Christ. What I witnessed had little to do with Christ and made absolutely no distinction in name or other particulars other than general nature. You are making grand leaps based on things I never said for your own motives.

No I tee rally wasn't familiar wig the concept of salvation. I already told you that I didn't attend church, read scripture or associate with believers. More blind leaps on your part.

Monotheism, ie the one creator God, is a historical anomaly. Most religion that has ever existed is animist. So most religious people, if we take everybody that has ever lived, shared this belief. Your GOD isn't animist. The second most popular one is paganism. In this one there's typically a creator god. But among a bunch of other gods. Neither of which are omnipotent or omniscient. How come you didn't pick these? Monotheism pops up right at the end of recorded history and is just the most popular the last thousand years. It's the pop of religion, if you will. Still, this is where you ended up.

I already stated that I don't refute polytheism, and understand lesser "gods" to be subsidiary to the One Creator GOD.

And no, an omniscient, omnipotent thing is the pony thing that could possibly be without cause.

Just because the observable is an effect of a cause doesn't mean that which is outside of the observable must to abide by the very nature it formed.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Thanks again.

I do not expect any to give my experience any more thought than anyone else's. I tend to stay away from it because I find it irrelevant. My personal experience in no way should dictate the knowledge or opinion of others. I simply tried to summarize it because you asked.

But you're saying that it's important information which can help us avoid a prolonged session of torture if we use it to help us come to a correct conclusion. Don't you think that that justifies something ... more?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I already stated that I don't refute polytheism, and understand lesser "gods" to be subsidiary to the One Creator GOD.

Maybe an example will make it more clear. Chronos is the creator god of Greek Paganism. Not technically the creator. He just splits the "world egg" apart. There's no mention of who created that egg. Later Zeus rebels and topples Chronos power. So now the creator God is a subsidiary god to the main god. Hinduism has three creator gods. There is a pattern. The further back in history you go the weirder the creation myths are. Abrahamism has really cleaned it up.

The One Creator GOD is monotheism. This is a product of Abrahamism. I can't think of any other religions with an equivalent. Since you believe in the One Creator God I conclude that you believe in the Abrahamic God.

And no, an omniscient, omnipotent thing is the pony thing that could possibly be without cause.

Just because the observable is an effect of a cause doesn't mean that which is outside of the observable must to abide by the very nature it formed.

So then there is something that doesn't need a cause? How can you not see how that breaks the premise? Once you've introduced an entity that doesn't have to follow the rule you asserted you've just opened it up for more entities that doesn't have to follow the rules. Remember that this is still just hypothetical musings. Anything we can't eliminate stays. And you, my friend, can't eliminate shit. All you've done to solve the problem is introduce a joker. I'm sorry, but that joker doesn't have to behave in any way by necessity. You have nothing to deduce anything from.

Until Einstein discovered the theory of relativity we had no clue that this is how it worked. Prior to Einstein nobody believed that this is how it worked. This is how science usually develops. New discoveries come in from left field and take everybody by surprise, completely ruining it for everyone. Based on this my prediction is that when we (science) do figure out how causation in the universe works it'll be something so bizarre and mind-bending that nobody had thought of it before.

Here's a contemporary example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtdE662eY_M

Doesn't understanding string theory hurt your brain? It certainly hurts mine. Hundred bucks on that the theory that explains causation will be way more complicated than that one.

I don't think science will finally vindicate anybody. I think science will one day prove absolutely everybody wrong including the guy who makes the discovery

 

[popsthebuilder]

Maybe an example will make it more clear. Chronos is the creator god of Greek Paganism. Not technically the creator. He just splits the "world egg" apart. There's no mention of who created that egg. Later Zeus rebels and topples Chronos power. So now the creator God is a subsidiary god to the main god. Hinduism has three creator gods. There is a pattern. The further back in history you go the weirder the creation myths are. Abrahamism has really cleaned it up.

The One Creator GOD is monotheism. This is a product of Abrahamism. I can't think of any other religions with an equivalent. Since you believe in the One Creator God I conclude that you believe in the Abrahamic God.

And no, an omniscient, omnipotent thing is the pony thing that could possibly be without cause.

Just because the observable is an effect of a cause doesn't mean that which is outside of the observable must to abide by the very nature it formed.

So then there is something that doesn't need a cause? How can you not see how that breaks the premise? Once you've introduced an entity that doesn't have to follow the rule you asserted you've just opened it up for more entities that doesn't have to follow the rules. Remember that this is still just hypothetical musings. Anything we can't eliminate stays. And you, my friend, can't eliminate shit. All you've done to solve the problem is introduce a joker. I'm sorry, but that joker doesn't have to behave in any way by necessity. You have nothing to deduce anything from.

Until Einstein discovered the theory of relativity we had no clue that this is how it worked. Prior to Einstein nobody believed that this is how it worked. This is how science usually develops. New discoveries come in from left field and take everybody by surprise, completely ruining it for everyone. Based on this my prediction is that when we (science) do figure out how causation in the universe works it'll be something so bizarre and mind-bending that nobody had thought of it before.

Here's a contemporary example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtdE662eY_M

Doesn't understanding string theory hurt your brain? It certainly hurts mine. Hundred bucks on that the theory that explains causation will be way more complicated than that one.

I don't think science will finally vindicate anybody. I think science will one day prove absolutely everybody wrong including the guy who makes the discovery

Could you give reference to where in the Bhagavad Gita it is claimed that there are three equal creator gods? I they do seperate a God of justice and war from the God of creation. It seams most division of gods in polytheism is an attempt to explain different things. But I really haven't seen what you are talking about in the Gita, so could you point me towards it? I don't need you to quote it, just listing the chapters would be good enough.

Also you went off about what Einstein discovered without really stating it's relevance in reference to a singular creative force. I honestly don't know too much about string theory. The idea that all is of one similar substance and connected is telling. That all presumably physical things are actually best described as a singular thing with variable vibrations pretty much refutes materialism. Again mathematics and geometry only back up some level of intelligent design to me personally.

This seems to be veering into contention. Not what I am interested in.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DBT]

John 3:16 does not support your claim.

If someone knows that something exists, how is it even possible to not believe what one already knows is true?

Delusion might do it, but delusion is not the ''wilful denial of God'' that you claiming.

So you have made a claim; that the quoted verses only relate to those who know God exists but no not believe God exists, now you need to support your claim with references to scripture that support your contention.

John 3:16 does not support your claim because it says that ''whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life'' which means anyone who 'believes in him' is saved, but anyone who does not believe in him (believeth not), is excluded.

There is no nothing here to support what you say.

There is a difference in willful denial of God as in willful atheism and not following the known will of GOD. Knowing and doing are two different things.

You are just repeating your assertion while ignoring the problems I have raised. The quoted verses do not support your claim.

 

[popsthebuilder]

There is a difference in willful denial of God as in willful atheism and not following the known will of GOD. Knowing and doing are two different things.

You are just repeating your assertion while ignoring the problems I have raised. The quoted verses do not support your claim.

I'm not ignoring anything. I understand if you don't get that true belief is with all of ones being and as such one should act accordingly as in being faithful to GOD. Most Christians aren't weren't even aware of this for uhm, a really long time.

I'm not ignoring what you said. You are separating belief from Faith and action, but there is no division of such if one actually believes a thing such as the teachings and example of the Christ.

If you believe you will eventually die, would you act as if you had infinite time? If you believed your child to be I'll would you not seek some remedy? If you believe your life to be in danger would you not take steps to avoid that danger? The same is true for believing the teachings of Christ... One is to act as if they actually believe which is to abide by the teachings and the command.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You are just repeating your assertion while ignoring the problems I have raised. The quoted verses do not support your claim.

I'm not ignoring anything. I understand if you don't get that true belief is with all of ones being and as such one should act accordingly as in being faithful to GOD. Most Christians aren't weren't even aware of this for uhm, a really long time.

I'm not ignoring what you said. You are separating belief from Faith and action, but there is no division of such if one actually believes a thing such as the teachings and example of the Christ.

Wait a minute. How do you define "faithful to GOD"?

You've said that you ignore vast swaths of the Bible when passages from it which disagree with your premise have been quoted to you and you've said that your personal experience isn't meant to dictate the opinion or knowledge of others. If someone were to ask you "How do I be faithful to GOD?", how would you answer him and what would be your basis for that answer?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Could you give reference to where in the Bhagavad Gita it is claimed that there are three equal creator gods? I they do seperate a God of justice and war from the God of creation. It seams most division of gods in polytheism is an attempt to explain different things. But I really haven't seen what you are talking about in the Gita, so could you point me towards it? I don't need you to quote it, just listing the chapters would be good enough.

The Hindu creation gods are called the Trimurti. Lo and behold, wikipedia delivers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti

There's links and references to all of it via the page.

It's actually really really complicated. Here's the simple story.

Brahma creates souls. Just multiplies them. All he does. Or has done. Brahma has now stopped. Does fuck all now. But that's his one job in the Trimurti.

Vishnu is an interesting one. Vishnu is the "self creator". Vishnu is the only god (or anything) that has created itself. This of course makes no sense. BTW, Hinduism loves this shit. It's just full of intentional paradoxes. I've always seen it as a hint that this is all metaphorical. I don't think the people who wrote this stuff believed in it literally. I think there's nudges and winks all over it. This is one of them. Hinduism holds up mathematics as a sacred discipline, and believes that maths is a kind of language of the gods. I guess similar to Pythagorean worship of the sacredness of numbers. This might explain why gods in Hinduism often seem to follow mathematical rules rather than rules of anything concrete. Like Vishnu. It was Indians who invented the zero and the decimal system. They've fetishized the zero in particular. If you keep that in mind that explains a lot of temples and Hindu thought. The ultimate goal within Hinduism is to annihilate your soul and stop the rebirth. They have no heaven. A zero is without being. Being without being anything. How's that for mind blown? Hindus just eat this stuff up.

And then Shiva. Who creates and destroys the world. And why does Shiva do that? Well... the point is that it's only the soul that matters. The rest is just superficial bullshit. Shiva is in charge of the superficial bullshit. I think there's a point made with making a single god in charge of creating almost the entire universe. Just this one thing Shiva didn't create, the soul. And that's the one thing that really matters. Also, a powerful metaphor if there ever was one. Again, I don't think this is supposed to be taken literally.

Also you went off about what Einstein discovered without really stating it's relevance in reference to a singular creative force. I honestly don't know too much about string theory. The idea that all is of one similar substance and connected is telling. That all presumably physical things are actually best described as a singular thing with variable vibrations pretty much refutes materialism. Again mathematics and geometry only back up some level of intelligent design to me personally.

This seems to be veering into contention. Not what I am interested in.

There's a lesson we can draw from science. My point is that reality never ends up being what people earlier thought. The truth of the matter is always something which just blew everybody's mind. Whatever truth will eventually emerge about the initial cause it'll most likely be something nobody has ever imagined before. It'll be something bizarre. Like string theory or the theory of relativity. Come to think of it when Newton first proposed gravity that to was just too weird for the scientific community to accept. It took many years for it to sink in. Because it came from left field. Nobody saw that coming.

How likely do I think that a bunch of iron age sheep herders nailed it on the first go? Not very.