Does God Exist?

In the car with Miles yesterday, he suddenly chirps up: “Daddy, does God really exist?” As I’m formulating a response, he answers his own question with some flavor of techno-contemporary agnosticism: “I bet not even Google knows the answer to that!”

Indeed.

Of course, the same question WRT Santa is very much on his mind right now. It’s unclear whether he puts Santa and God on the same or different epistemological / mythological levels. I know he knows that not all grown-ups believe in God; I’m not sure he realizes the same about Santa.

I think he thinks that grown-ups do believe Santa is real – interesting that he would question God’s existence before Santa’s (I promise I’ve had no hand in that!), though I guess it’s understandable since he sees Santa all over the place. God, not so much.

Music: Wilco :: Spiders

68 thoughts on “Does God Exist?

  1. David Huff

    I guess it’s understandable since he sees Santa all over the place. God, not so much.

    Heh. Yeah.

    Of course, now we’ll have to hear once again from the “put Christ back in Christmas” killjoys (heck, I am a lifelong Christian of the Episcopalian tribe and those folks still annoy the hell outta me… ;)

  2. i, squub

    I just noticed the banner adds running at the top of this post in comment mode. “Examine the Evidence Yourself… Click here for a free Book of Mormon.”

    Anyway, that’s an inspiring post for me as a father trying to figure out the best approach for raising my daughter in regards to the god question. Now I just gotta figure out what you did exactly to get him to that question and self-supplied answer. ;)

  3. baald

    {[…since he sees Santa all over the place. God, not so much]}

    i bet he does see god all over the place — you just haven’t let him in on the secret. (i’m pretty sure you see god all over the place too…)

    baald

  4. shacker Post author

    @squub: Nothing in particular – we’re wide open with this kind of thing. When he asks about God, we say “Some people believe…” but kids want answers, that’s what makes it hard. Because we don’t have any to give him. Funny thing is, I want his belief in Santa to continue, as that seems like a playful/innocent charade, and he’s not going to hate us when the truth is revealed. But the God question is in a different category. You can’t exactly say “God exists” when he’s young and then take it back when he gets older. It’s a tough one.

    As for his belief in Google as the ultimate oracle, he’s been like that since he was three. Any time he wanted to know whether a particular dinosaur was a carnivore, or what Batman looks like, or whatever, Google always knew. “Any science sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.”

    @baald:
    i’m pretty sure you see god all over the place too

    Are you now?! Wow.
    Well, I see something, but I don’t think I’ll ever give it a name!

  5. mneptok

    Context is everything, and we only hear what we’re prepared to hear. More on context, presentation, perception in the piece.

    I’m not sure God is there, either. But I blame me, so I try harder to see. I probably never will, but I don’t think we get worse for trying.

    And I’m with baald. This thing goes deep, start him mapping.

  6. shacker Post author

    I’m not sure God is there, either. But I blame me, so I try harder to see.

    I’ve heard elves real, but just can’t manage to see them. I blame myself.

    This thing goes deep, start him mapping.

    Agreed!

  7. Jonathan Perret

    Scot,
    I’ve been in somewhat the same situation as you telling kids about God vs. Santa.

    One funny anecdote : once, when asked about God, I began with the classical “Some people believe that there is a God that lives in the sky…” (because kids should form their own opinions) but added “Personally, I think it’s silly. It’s impossible to live in the sky !” (because I don’t see why I shouldn’t give mine !).
    I was rewarded with a condescending look and a “Duh, it’s not silly at all. Don’t tell me you don’t know that Santa lives in the sky !”. I had no reply…

    Cheers,
    –Jonathan

  8. mneptok

    “I’ve heard elves real, but just can’t manage to see them. I blame myself.”

    They’re called the tuatha de danaan, and they form a core part of the Irish mythological cycle.

    If you’re positive they don’t exist, good for you. But if you believe in evolutionary theory, you’d better accept that you’re a glorified baboon, and you might just not have all the answers. And your five sense may not be the sine qua non of discovering the world around you.

  9. i, squub

    Nobody has to be positive they don’t exist. Not believing in something does not equal being positive that that something does not exist. All it means is “show me some evidence that there are elves.” Really, it’s okay. You don’t have to believe in everything anyone says might possibly exist.

  10. shacker Post author

    Well put, squub. We live our lives on the basis of evidence, and that’s all an atheist or scientist really wants.

    This segues into another point about evidence-based thinking, though, that I’ll have to reserve for another post another day. There’s a great article at Salon right now – an interview with theologian John Haught. I have to say, reading his thoughts on ways of looking and ways of asking was an eye-opening experience. I’m going to read it again and post on it soon.

  11. baald

    I <3 John Haught :)

    he says, much more eloquently, precisely what i’ve been trying to argue every time atheism is brought up.

    i feel like i can relax now.

    baald

    (oh, and shack, i don’t care about names, and i am NOT sure about you, but i suspect that children see “g–” often until the adult world installs blinders on them)

  12. mneptok

    “Nobody has to be positive they don’t exist. Not believing in something does not equal being positive that that something does not exist.”

    Then why the absolute *vehemence* and comparison to belief in elves when someone mentions the possibility that God exists? Or even mentions they’re not sure about it?

    It goes beyond “I don’t know” to a kind of certainty usually only displayed by religious zealots.

  13. shacker Post author

    Are you suggesting that belief in God is epistemologically different from belief in elves? (they might be epistemologically different, I’m not sure – just curious what you think).

  14. mneptok

    I think the questions about, and searches for, a Creator or creative force are different than a search for Keebler-style elves. My opinion.

    A belief in God is something someone has come to either by their own search, or through birth, marriage, or other external forces. If they augment rather than interfere with my search and opinions, I’m very satisfied with where their beliefs have taken them, regardless of what they may be or where they may have their genesis.

    And I just worked in a Pentateuch reference. Bam.

    You talk of evidence, but the only evidence we have that our parents are indeed our parents is some paperwork and their word for it. A lot of people have religious convictions based on that evidence.

    And I, for one, don’t need the DNA test done. I’m happy to go with my gut on that one.

  15. shacker Post author

    Playing devil’s advocate here, in the interest of doing philosophy:

    I think the questions about, and searches for, a Creator or creative force are different than a search for Keebler-style elves.

    The question is, *how* is that a different kind of search? What makes it categorically different from a knowledge gathering perspective?

    A belief in God is something someone has come to either by their own search, or through birth, marriage, or other external forces

    I would argue that coming to a particular religion through birth or marriage is epistemologically lazy. If you’d agree that choosing a religion or a view on God is one of the most important decisions a person can make, then coming to it through birth or marriage is the opposite of coming to a decision – it’s just accepting the defaults, questioning nothing, failing to make an investigation.

    You talk of evidence, but the only evidence we have that our parents are indeed our parents is some paperwork and their word for it. A lot of people have religious convictions based on that evidence.

    But you *can* get evidence that your parents are your parents any time you like. You can’t do that with God. You don’t have to accept your heritage on faith (even before DNA testing we had other ways of gaining proof (though less solid) such as photographs, witnesses, documentation, etc). You have to accept God on faith. To me, that seems to put God and Elves in exactly the same category.

    So I’m still wondering whether there’s a good reason to think of belief in God as categorically different from belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The FSM argument is very powerful, and I’m open to sound philosophical reasons to discount it.

  16. i, squub

    It’s easy to make slippery reasons to discount the FSM type arguments; I think people like that Haught guy you linked would make those kinds of arguments. FSM is a corporeal kind of THING, “God” is a not-thing, a super-above-thing, an everything-thing. Those kinds of arguments always fall into semantics, and invariably involve wriggling the definition of “God” around in order to make the God-exists side be able to say, “But you just don’t GET IT, you haven’t studied, the god you’re arguing against isn’t God.”

    As far as the “are your parents actually your parents” argument — the point there is that we have all the proof we need that our parents are our parents, whether they adopted us or birthed us or kidnapped us when we were 3 months old. The “fact” of whether or not your mother is the person who gave birth to you and your father is the person who impregnated her is really trivial in normal life circumstances. In other words, it’s not something I’ve personally got any reason to investigate; they do what parents should do, and serve that role in my life. They’re demonstrably there. If it comes down to it I’d certainly have no problem saying I’m agnostic about the actual factuality of my genetic lineage, leaning toward believing what my parents have actually told me based on photographic evidence and my experience that they’re trustworthy people.

    Believing in the existence of “God” CAN be that same kind of thing, I’m sure. “It doesn’t matter whether there’s evidence or not because I live my life the way I live my life, and the fact that I believe in the existence of God has no actual impact on how I do that.” I’ve really got no problem with that, although I still don’t know how a person gets to that point instead of just saying, “I’ve got no idea, but haven’t seen evidence.”

    What I do have a problem with is the masses of folks who use that belief in God to shoehorn into their lives a whole pile of tangential, counter-logical beliefs or values that DO actually have a substantive effect on how they act and live their lives.

    And finally, Scot, I’m really hoping you’re still planning on a further post about that Haught interview. I have my own thoughts about it (hinted at above,) but it’s another good seed for discussion, I think. (Sorry if my prompting in this way is irritatingly out of line — just wanted to let you know I’m interested in reading your thoughts on it.)

  17. mneptok

    You know, once you’ve decided there’s no magic in the world, and that humans have rational explanations for everything, and that if we monkeys can’t prove something, then it probably doesn’t exist … there’s not much anyone can do.

    Baald alluded to this, I think.

  18. harji

    Does God Exist?

    Here is the answer

    1. His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence

    2. Human faculties of conception, perception and learning, and attributes of volition, intuition and apprehension cannot catch sight of His Person or fathom the extent of His Might and Glory

    3. Reason and sagacity cannot visualise Him

    4. His Attributes cannot be fixed, limited or defined

    5. None can fully understand or explain His Being however hard he or she my try

    6. His Worth cannot be described even by the greatest rhetoricians of all times

    7. Intelligence, understanding and attainment cannot attain the depth of knowledge to study or scrutinise the Godhead

    8. He is so absolutely Pure and above nature, that nothing can be added to or substacted from His Being

    9. There is no difference between His Person and His Attributes, and His Attributes should not be differentiated or distinguished from
    His Person

    10. Whoever accepts His Attributes to be other than His Person then actually forsakes the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality ( He and His Attributes). Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in Parts. One who holds such a faith cannot form a true concept of God, he is ignorant and will always try to believe in some creation of his or her imagination as his or her god

    11.There do not exist words in any language to specify or define His qualities, peculiarities, characteristics and singularities

    12. He is with everything but not physically and bodily

    13. No physical eye has and will ever see Him

    14. He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being yet He has not prevented them from realising His Presence

    well wisher

  19. shacker Post author

    @harji – And how is it that you can say any of these things with certainty? You speak as if you know things that no human could know, as if god’s existence was a foregone conclusion. You need to start by finding a way to convince someone that god exists. Then you can start finding ways to say things about it.

  20. harji

    Yes shacker,
    for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/index.htm
    begin with sermon number 1

    Here are some more extracts, for example,

    “No imagination can fathom the reality of His attributes and no mind can grasp the mode of His entity. He is such a One that division or splitting into parts of His entity cannot even be imagine. The creation of universe caused Him no mental exertion. He has been existing since the eternity when there was no space devide into galaxies and no universe ( and no time also);
    He destine matter and energy to be dissolve into time. He so arranged and consolidated these factors – matter, time and space that the intensity of their diverse and opposing properties was reduced….., to have their existence relative to and dependent upon time, thus giving matter time, and therefore,space a continuum that one cannot exist without the other two.”

    “He made every part of universe and everything in it dependent upon others, so that none could exist without the other ; time cannot exist without space or matter, similarly space cannot exist without time and matter and matter cannot exist without space and time and this triple alliance or triangle or interdependence is the general relativity.”

    ” Remember that His Being is so far beyond range, and grasp of human knowledge, experience, reason, and visualisation that imagination cannot conceive Him and profound thinking cannot understand Him; however deep human mind may try to probe the secrets of God-head it cannot apprehend them and however keen and sincere may be the desire of human heart to grasp realities of His Attributes it cannot envisage them, He has so ordained that every attempt and endeavour to understand the Divine Nature has failed and will always fail. And man is force to realise that the Being of God and His Might, Glory and Power cannot be understood by him with the limited mental capacity that nature has granted him and with equally limited knowledge at his disposal.”

    There is also one more book where You can find out more,
    http://www.al-islam.org/mufaddal/3.htm

    some more, extracts,

    “He said, “O Mufaddal! The waverers failed to grasp the mysteries and causes underlying the genesis of the creatures, and their intellects remain unaware of the faultless ingenuity subsisting underneath the creation of the varied species of the sea and the land, the level and the rough.”

    “If abiogenesis (spontaneous creation without specific design) can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of error ad perplexity, since these two are opposed to abiogenesis.
    Such a statement is highly absurd that order and rectitude should come about without a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and fate should suppose a Creator. He is unaware who says this, because anything produced without design will never be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. God is far above what they say.”

    “In their misguided blindness and bewilderment they are like the blind people groping right and left in a well-furnished, well-built house with fine carpets, luscious articles of food and drink, various kinds of clothing and other necessities of essential use, all adequately supplied in proper quantity and placed with perfect decorum and ingenious design. In their blindness they fail to see the building and its furnishing. They move about from one room to ,another, advancing and retreating. If by chance, any one of them finds anything in its place to supply a need, and not knowing the purpose for which it is set there and unaware of the underlying ingenuity, he might begin to reprimand the architect of the building in his offensive rage, whereas, as a matter of fact, the fault lies with his own inability to see.”

    “This analogy holds good in the case of the sect who deny the creative factor and the argument in favour of Divine Design. Failing to appreciate the merit of their provision, the perfection of creation and the beauty of design, they start wandering in the wide world, bewildered by their inability to grasp with their brains the underlying causes and principles.”

    “They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator – a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise.”

    best wishes

  21. shacker Post author

    Whoa, hang on – Now you’re just throwing around thoughtless nonsense. Please answer my questions above. I welcome a thoughtful discussion, but the above is just religious spam. I’m interested in your theological arguments, not a bunch of metaphysical hooey.

    Unless you can prove that god exists, nothing you say about god has any meaning. And since no one on the face of the earth throughout the entire course of humanity has ever succeeded in proving that god exists, I’d say you’ve got quite a challenge on your hands

  22. harji

    I do understand what you mean shacker, I am also in the same boat like you. I also have kids , and it is not easy to convince them, but like you said “It’s a tough one, We live our lives on the basis of evidence, and that’s all an atheist or scientist really wants.” It took me more than 25 years of reading The holy Bible,The holy Quran and other books etc. and still what I have learned is like a drop of water in the sea. This things do take time. We have to take it easy and slowly, I would recommend this book which deals with the atheist first http://www.al-islam.org/mufaddal/3.htm
    However if think “you’re just throwing around thoughtless nonsense” then I would only say, I was just trying to help.

    well wisher

  23. rinchen

    see, seeing, seen
    in saw many words
    slingslang nunsense

    to quoth another Good Book:

    Mere man’s mime:
    God has jest. The old order changeth and lasts like the first.
    Every third man has a chink in his conscience and every other
    woman has a jape in her mind. No v, fix on the little fellow in my
    eye, Minucius Mandrake, and follow my little psychosinology,
    poor armer in slingslang. Now I, the lord of Tuttu, am placing
    that inital T square of burial jade upright to your temple a
    moment. Do you see anything, templar?
    —Joyce, Finnegan
    http://mv.lycaeum.org/Finnegan/viewpage.cgi?page=486&like=God

  24. harji

    Can we realize, if does God Exist through the medium of the five senses ?

    A thoughtful discussion between an atheist and a believer .

    Atheist : “The existence of various things of the Universe whether real or not could only be determined through the medium of the five senses. Eyes with which we see, ears by which we hear, nose by which we smell and hands and feet with which we touch and feel”. Continuing the chain of his (atheist) arguments to the extent of his self-made principles, he (atheist) said, “Now I have never known God through any of the above mentioned senses, and cannot therefore believe in Him.

    Believer : “Because”, I (believer) replied, “things are ‘murakkab’ (compound, made of parts). Every murakkab possesses shape and colour that attracts the senses. Therefore, that which is felt or known by the senses, having shape and colour, cannot be God. Your argument for disbelief is foolish, because God cannot be like any of the things perceived by the senses, nor can He be said to bear any resemblance to anything which has to undergo an ordeal of change and decay. For, everything is under the one and the same law-the law of transformation and decline. God, our creator cannot be perceivable by the five senses you mention; for, He is not a thing-which is murakkab or created. ……………If He was visible to the eye, and perceivable to the senses, He would have resembled the things that are visible and perceivable to the senses on account of their being murakkab and created, and in that case He would no longer have remained a creator”.

    for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/short/halila/

    well wisher

  25. shacker Post author

    well wisher – Why do you presume that atheists believe only what their five senses tell them? Do you think they don’t also think about the universe and consciousness, and about the limits of what can and what cannot be thunk or said?

  26. harji

    Shacker – I do not presume that all atheists believe only what their five senses tell them, they do also think about the universe and consciousness, and about the limits of what can and what cannot be thunk or said
    This was example for only one type of atheists, however there are also other types of atheists. Here is an example, I am a blogger on one of the blog tittle, “does God exist.” This is the response I got –
    1. “If we can’t ever know or understand, or even detect a god, then how does anyone know it has those 14 properties?
    What if some rival religion only likes 13 of them? Or a religion invents a 15th?
    How can you even ask? it’s like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    I have a pin right here. You get the angels and we’ll settle this once and for all.”
    2.”Wow, “we” do have a VIVID IMAGINATION, don’t “we”?”

    This is my respond to them –
    Yes, you are certainly right!
    “we” do indeed have a VIVID IMAGINATION,
    let me tell you that the senses can not know anything except through the mind’s medium. The mind is the true guide. It is the mind which brings all things into close affinity.
    for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/short/halila/

    well wisher

  27. harji

    “Well, wait – if the existing thing already exists, where’d *it* come from?
    It’s turtles all the way down?”

    Let us apply this to both of them. – A. = God. B = Universe.

    A. God….answer is – His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence, and He is NOT dependent upon time, matter and space.

    B Universe…..answer is – Its Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence, and It is dependent upon time, matter and space.

    So what’s the difference ? Well, “NOT” in the middle is the difference.

    A. God is NOT dependent upon time, matter and space.

    Whereas

    B Universe is dependent upon time, matter and space.

    NO turtles all the way down!

    well wisher

  28. shacker Post author

    and He is NOT dependent upon time, matter and space.

    …and on what basis would you assert that God either is or is not dependent on time, matter, space? Conjecture? Someone else’s writings about God?

    That’s a good example of attempting to say something about that which we can’t know anything about.

  29. harji

    This was the actual extract from the book.
    Reasoning between the Atheist and the Believer.
    I want you to ponder on it and enlighten me of your understanding of the subject.

    “If you are inclined to persist in your obstinacy, do so; but at least assure me as to when this halila ( fruit ) (or Universe for that matter) created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards? If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created. The purpose of your assertion would be that the halila made itself twice. It would mean that its first endeavours consisted in creating itself, and when it was quite ready and created, it created itself again. This is the most absurd and impossible theory-the acquisition of what is already acquired (tahsil-e-hasil). If you say that it created itself before it came into existence, it is really silly. Because it was absolutely nothing before it came into existence. How is it possible for a non-existing thing to create another thing? You consider my belief in an existing thing that creates another non-existing thing as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing, as absurd and silly. Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational”.
    for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/short/halila/

    well wisher

  30. shacker Post author

    Atheists do not claim to be able to answer questions about ultimate origins — religionists do. Atheists refuse to speculate about what cannot be known, while religionists seem willing to speculate (by calling it God, etc.)

    It’s simple: Don’t make metaphysical claims and you won’t risk falling down the well of speculation.

  31. harji

    Thanks shacker,
    Just few days ago, I came across these 2 statements, the first one was made, by one of the scientist – Albert Einstein, and the second one was made, by one of the muslim religious leader, Imam Jafer Sadik (as).

    I want you to ponder on these 2 statements, and enlighten me, of your understanding of the subject.
    particularly, what did -Albert Einstein meant by “illimitable superior spirit” ?

    “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
    -Albert Einstein

    “They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator – a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise.”
    -Imam Jafer Sadiq (as)

    well wisher

  32. JOHN CLEMENTS

    Atheists seem to take the position that God cannot exist since no proof is
    available. They have essentially stopped their inquery where others have only begun their search. There is much evidence pointing to a God as the creator of this planet and all things. The probabilities of chance being the first cause are beyond rational thinking.

  33. shacker Post author

    @harji – My understanding is that Einstein was not an atheist, but neither did he believe in a personal god – he was for the most part agnostic.

    @Clements:
    Atheists seem to take the position that God cannot exist since no proof is available.

    This is not at all correct. Atheists feel that is it is nonsensical to talk about what cannot be proved as if it is real. This is the “flying spaghetti monster” argument – there is no evidence that a flying spaghetti monster exists, so why would anyone live their life as if it were true anyway?

    There is much evidence pointing to a God as the creator of this planet and all things.

    Huhn???? What are you talking about?

    The probabilities of chance being the first cause are beyond rational thinking.

    A) A scientist/philosopher will not speculate about first cause beyond what there is evidence for. It’s not correct to suggest that atheists believe probability is synonymous with first cause.

    B) Suggesting that some sort of intelligent being is behind existence is much farther beyond the scope of rational thinking than is simply saying “We don’t know and can’t know.”

  34. harji

    Theist : “Your denial of God, then is because, I have NOT provide objective evidence concerning the existence of a divine creator is actually true. But my belief is as strong as your disbelief, both cannot be right; do you admit this?”

    Atheist : “Most certainly” “Either you are mistaken or I am”.

    Theist : “Very well”, If you are right, there is no danger for me in threatening you with God’s displeasure for your disbelief”.

    Atheist : “No”, “You shall be in no danger.”

    Theist : “If I am right”, “Do you not think that you will suffer the punishment for your disbelief, and I shall receive a reward, for being away from your opinions?”

    Atheist : “Quite possibly”

    Theist : “Will you tell me”, “which of us is the wiser, granting the possibility of both the situations?”

    well wisher

  35. rinchen

    Attributing concepts like displeasure & the will to punish disbelievers to a deity sounds limiting, mean, and unnecessary. I mean if we discussed a ruler of a nation in such terms we would probably call him or her a despot.

  36. harji

    rinchen:
    You mean, if the ruler of a nation behaves in such terms like, for example, Somebody commits crimes againt you and the ruler of a nation sends him/her to prison, then that ruler is a despot?
    rather the ruler should reward the the crimal with a reward so as, not to become a despot?
    You mean if I become the devil or a traitor for that matter, than the ruler should reward me so that He does not become a despot?

    You mean the ruler should be just or unjust?

    well wisher

  37. rinchen

    We were discussing belief and disbelief, not criminality.

    The idea of an omnipotent deity, who is the source of this universe and all possible universes, to me seems incompatible with limiting, emotional concepts like displeasure and the will to punish.

    Basically, if you have an idea of deity as the source of all substance, that deity must be unconditional, right? Then why would such deity become limited to experience, which is a transient phenomenon?

    To say that an intangible deity experiences displeasure because beings do not believe in him (or her or them–we can see the limits of language here)is to attribute the vagaries of conditional thought & emotion to that which is unconditional.

    To further suggest that the unconditional has a will to punish unbelievers for what could only be called ignorance of the unconditional, is to limit the unconditional & make it conditional.

    “Only one Force, Love, links and makes infinite worlds alive”–Giordano Bruno
    http://www.theharbinger.org/xvi/971111/birx.html

  38. harji

    rinchen:
    God gave us the intellect ( to ponder ) not the ignorance.
    If we chose ignorance, it’s from our own free choice.

    God says in the Quran :
    29:40 …. It was not for God to wrong them, but they wronged themselves.

    28:16 He prayed: “O my Lord! I have indeed wronged my soul! Do Thou then forgive me!” So (God) forgave him: for He is the Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

    16:33 …… But God wronged them not: nay, they wronged their own souls.

    well wisher

  39. harji

    rinchen:
    “We were discussing belief and disbelief, not criminality”?

    Criminality is part of belief and disbelief.
    For example, If you tell me – Belief me my friend, do not commit a CRIME by stealing somebody’s car, you will get 2 years prison sentence, the laws of criminality are very harsh in this country.
    So either I have to believe in you or disbelieve in you.
    Criminality is part of belief and disbelief.

    well wisher

  40. babaji

    Well I think that there is actually a scientist sittin outside the universe and we r his or hers or its experiment……
    Actually he or she or it had a younger scientist mind first…..thats why we had dinosaurs on earth….
    and when he or she or it got aged (more responsible)…..he or she or it made brainy monkeys…..then he or she or it got more aged so he or she or it made more brainy ape-men….and at last he or she or it became an adult (more experience in his or her or its field) so he or she or it made us……and now what will happen to us in future….that future will tell….
    Statutory Warning : Dont take this information on heart n brain or u will get mad….
    This is purely Imaginational…..n if after ur death….this imagination comes true…then believe me guys…..comprimise with yourselves that it was coincidental!!!
    One more thing guys….I dont believe in religions…all these r actually our ancient politics to control citizens….we only created them!!!

  41. harji

    Do you believe in the following statement of Einstein?
    “Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations”
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Einstein

    secondly do you believe he had a proper reverence for the wonders of reality and the LIMITS OF HUMAN INTELLECT.

    If yes – “LIMITS OF HUMAN INTELLECT”.
    Do you see any contradiction with the statement i posted “….the Being of God and His Might, Glory and Power cannot be understood by him with the LIMITED MENTAL CAPACITY that nature has granted him and with equally limited knowledge at his disposal.”
    -nahjul balagha
    “14. He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being YET He has not prevented them from realising His Presence” http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/index.htm

    Does this mean, GOD IS BEYOND LIMITS OF HUMAN INTELLECT?

    “They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator – a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise.”
    -Imam Jafer Sadiq (as)
    well wisher

  42. shacker Post author

    Do you believe in the following statement of Einstein?
    “Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations”

    Yes, I believe that.

    secondly do you believe he had a proper reverence for the wonders of reality and the LIMITS OF HUMAN INTELLECT.

    No, I don’t believe most people do have proper reverence for the wonders of reality.

    Do you see any contradiction with the statement i posted “….the Being of God and His Might, Glory and Power cannot be understood by him with the LIMITED MENTAL CAPACITY that nature has granted him and with equally limited knowledge at his disposal.”

    The only contradiction is that you’re suddenly leaping from “the wonders of reality” to assuming some kind of being or intelligence. You’re even going so far as to know its sex (“Him/His”). That’s where you get off the spirituality train and onto the metaphysical nonsense train (nonsense because you’re making assertions about things you can’t possibly know, i.e. that what lies beyond is some kind of intelligent creature, and that it has a gender). No one — NO ONE — has any basis whatsoever for believing that. People are free to believe whatever they like, but if they mistake their unsupported beliefs for truth, they are suddenly in philosophical la-la land, and may as well posit any outlandish thing they can think of as if it were truth.

  43. harji

    shacker:
    I was busy blogging on some of atheist blog and … , have dealt with this subjects, you may check them out.

    the following are links where i blog
    http://www.progressiveu.org/013240-if-god-exists-who-created-him#comment-267083
    go somewhere in the middle and find my name – harji

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLlSySWuoiA
    find my name – 1tabligh you may have to go back looking for it

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI&feature=user
    find my name – 1tabligh you may have to go back looking for it

    best wishes

  44. Melanie Stefine

    I hate breaking into your heated discussion like this, But.

    In the Spring of 2006, God sent a message. It is about the meaning of First is Last and Last is First. The message is this:

    In the morning I go to Heaven. In the afternoon I live my life. In the evening I die, death.

    What does this mean? It means that Birth is Last and Last is Birth. God also gives and example so that you can understand this better. Example: Mike Douglas died on his Birthday. (Note: Mike Douglas and Michael Douglas are two different people)

  45. Melanie Stefine

    God also said that there are number of people that have been deceived by false prophets. Two of them are blogging here. God did not write in the book they speak of. He also does not pick on any one Religion or Church. Many have been deceived. Yet, he does not condemn those that have been deceived.

  46. shacker Post author

    Melanie, I can’t make heads or tails of your comments. Are you trying to say something meaningful? If so, I’m afraid you’ve completely lost us.

  47. harji

    shacker:

    (..even going so far as to know its sex (”Him/His”)..)

    Gender and pronoun!
    The deficiency lies in all the languagesof the world, None of them have a word to define the gender for God. The word He, She, Thou, Thy, It….etc are all merely substitutes, they do not represent the gender of the One who does not have a gender.

    Melanie Stefine:
    (….number of people that have been deceived by false prophets. Two of them are blogging here….)

    Since the names of those TWO are not mentioned by names in YOUR holy book, its open to INTERPRETATION.
    How did you know? Are YOU God?
    more then billions of people on this planet can give you all different types of names.
    What makes you think, YOU and only YOU have the right to INTERPRETATION excluding the rest of mankind.

    well wisher

  48. Melanie Stefine

    Correction: To the meaning of First is Last and Last is First. It means that Birth is Last and Birth is First. Sorry for the error. God talks in symbols and opposites at times so it takes time to figure out what he is saying. Some of his messages are clearer than others, plus they have multiple meanings.

  49. Melanie Stefine

    To Harji,
    I think you are confused about who God is. God is both Mother and Father. And yes many have been deceived by false prophets. A false prophet will give himself away by his acts or words. A prophet that talks about sex alot, has many wives and takes a 9 year old child as a bride is most likely a false prophet. If you want to find God you need to realize that everything you believe is true is really false.
    Your not God either. But he talked to me and not you, so I know better than you do.

  50. shacker Post author

    Melanie – I’m sorry to hear about your state of mind. You might consider seeing a psychologist about the hallucinations.

  51. Melanie Stefine

    If you talk to God, your religious.
    If God talks to you, your psychotic.

    Shacker,
    I guess you would agree with that.

  52. shacker Post author

    I didn’t use the word psychotic. I would say that either one (God talking to you or you talking to God) would indicate delusional behavior.

  53. harji

    shacker:
    “You might consider seeing a psychologist about the hallucinations”

    I 100% agree with you, Melanie Stefine seriously needs a special therapy before it’s too late.

    Melanie Stefine:
    “But he talked to me and not you, so I know better than you do.”

    Can you produce evidence?

    Anybody on this planet can say “But he talked to me and not you, so I know better than you do.”

    wish you well on your Psychotherapy!

  54. harji

    FREE VIDEO DEBATE:

    THEIST VS ATHEIST “DOES GOD NOT EXIST?

    Search on the internet, Ex- on google etc.!

    “hasnain rajabali atheists”

    OR

    SEE IN MY FAVORITES

    well wisher

  55. Melanie Stefine

    Here is one small piece of proof.

    Like I said earlier, the Holy Spirit talked to me, besides his message about First is Last and Last is First, he had something to say about “Who Killed JFK”. Christ tells me that the man who shot JFK is a policeman. He also tells me the name of the shooter, but it is in a jumbled word. The word is “Fritters”. I see the name F. Ritter right off so I think that is the name of the killer. Now God has lots of other messages for me to figure out, so I put “who Killed JFK” on the back burner for over a year. A year or more later , just recently, I have more time to look for F. Ritter. I can’t find a policeman with that name who lived in Dallas, Texas in 1963. So I am searching for information about who killed JFK and there is a picture of a policeman by the name of JD Tippit. Now Tippit kind of looks like Ritter. Now I unjumble the letters of Ritter to TIRRET. Now TIRRET looks more like TIPPIT. Now I make the R’s stand at attention, I get TIPPET. One problem is that the I and the E are not the same. So I do some research on the family name TIPPIT. Turns out that in the late 1800’s JD Tippit’s grandfather changed their name from Tippett to Tippit. So the next step I change the E to I. So Tippet is now Tippit.
    Now I have FS Tippit and JD Tippit. The first two initials are not the same. Next I go to Wikipedia there I find; “Some thought that J. D. stood for Jefferson Davis. However JD does not stand for anything. That means his name is just J D. So the initials F S, do not stand for anything. I just have two initials that do not stand for anything. Are you following me?

    Next what does FRITTERS mean. If your following my thinking here, God is going to tell you what happened to JD Tippit after he was shot. Fritters are a dough that is deep fried. Bread also means body, like in the last super Christ takes the bread and says this is my body. Look in the dictionary, PIT means HELL. TIP means money paid, gratuity. There are other meanings to.

    JD Tippits body (dough) is placed in the deep fryer (lake of fire). Now I think this clue (Fritters) was ingenius. After all God came up with it. I think he does have a sense of humor too. Kids now have a new game to play. They can play God. Pilsbury dough boy fry’s in the lake of fire. You get HELL! fry baby fry!

    If you think this is just crazy. Remember I am just the messenger. Jesus is the one that had to talk about JFK. So he had a reason for doing that. Chirst is telling you who killed the president so that you will believe that his messages are from God. Remember only God knows who killed JFK. He told me and I am telling you. I had forgotten about the case years ago. This is a cold case now, it been 45 year since the shooting. Nov. 22 is the anniversary.

    I also read the part about giving false prophesy. God says false prophets go to Hell or something like that. I only repeat what God told me. Now what I wrote above is from God. He told me who killed JFK in 2006. The above is not a lie or a joke and I am going to HEAVEN without fear.

    Before I forget. Gods messeges usually have more than one meaning. F S could also stand for “Fence Shooter”.

    Who are the co-conspirators? Turns out that there are two policemen named Tippit, and one other Tippett working in the Dallas police Department that same year(1963). Back to the clue word Fritters. That is plural, you know about plural. We have two fritters. The co-conspirators name is Gayle M. Tippit.

    Now the Dallas Police Departtment obviously covered up and framed Oswald. He was the Patsy. They did it cause it is very possible that one of the other police officers rushing to the scene saw Tippet fleeing the scene carrying a rifle. They covered it up because of the embarrassment of one of their own was the man that killed JFK? And the Warren commission must have also figured that out so they stuck with the Dallas Dept. story saying that it was Oswald. It could have been a National embarrassment. Now if you look at the evidence like I did. It is easy to see that the DAllas Police Dept tampered with the evidence over and over again. And they did a very bad job of it too.

    Now this is my opinion, not Gods. I think God is behind the creation of the Internet. I could never have been able to figure out a lot of his messages without the use of the Internet. People on the Net have been a big help to me. God talks to other people too, they just don’t know it. God let me know it was him.

    This is proof because it is impossible for any one to do what I did with the clue word FRITTERS. I made it look easy. I can do that over and over again in all of God’s messages. It is impossible for anyone to do what I do.

    Gods messenger, Melanie Stefine

  56. Melanie Stefine

    Are Fritos deep fried like Fritters? Or are they baked? I don’t think God is a CEO at Fritto Lay. I would like to deep fry Harji. I bet he comes up all brown and crispy the same as he went in. No change. Goes in brown comes out brown.

  57. Jeb

    re: “God, I love Fritos.” (FB 25)

    I used to drive by the Frito factory in our town. It was an amazing sight to see the giant Frito semi-trucks tilted up at a 45 degree angle. All colorful with cabs on the high side and the back doors to the trailers swung down, wide open. Water cannons blasted the interiors, keeping them spotless like a massive Frito enema. Almost looked like yellow and red missiles on launch pads pointed to heaven (or Russia.)

    God told me to tell you that he loves you too Scot. Or maybe he told me to tell you Fritos love you too. One or the other.

  58. harji

    @Melanie Stefine:
    “Are Fritos deep fried like Fritters? Or are they baked? I don’t think God is a CEO at Fritto Lay. I would like to deep fry Harji. I bet he comes up all brown and crispy the same as he went in. No change. Goes in brown comes out brown.”

    O Look!
    Who is talking frying people. A Godly person to whom God spoke “But he talked to me and not you, so I know better than you do.”

    But God did not EVEN talk to Jesus (peace be upon him) directly, but He is talking to the third person in the bible Matthew 3:17 “And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

    YET this God goes out of His way and chooses to talk directly to Melanie Stefine?
    I think you need more Psychotherapy!

    When the angels said: O Mary, surely God gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the ‘. christ, JESUS son of Mary, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to God).
    The Koran 3:45

    Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah (God), He is the Messiah, son of Marium (Mary); and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.
    The Koran 5:72

  59. shacker Post author

    Jeb, that description of the Frito trucks getting cleansing enemas is de-lovely. Like a gleaming altar scene to a false god. Thanks for that – I’ll never look at a Fritos bag the same way again.

  60. Melanie Stefine

    God, I need a Frito Lay. Please back the truck in my driveway, ring my bell and hand me a bag. Thank you, Jesus

    Harji, in Heaven I am going to deep fry you. Why? Cause I just don’t like you and I have the power to do it. So, if you have any more nonsense to say I am just going to fry you until your extra crispy. I am going to fry your Koran too.

  61. Melanie Stefine

    Harji,
    You wrote, “I think you need more Psychotherapy!” to me.

    What I wrote above was a work of genius. A silly clue word like “Fritters” is ingenious. Harji, it is impossible for you to do what I did with this word or any word in proving who the shooter was on Nov. 22, 1963. Now I gave you proof and you just didn’t get it. All that means is that your not capible of understanding. Now I don’t want to torture the less able by frying them. Maybe I will be more human and just make you vanish.

    Then if you want to say your sorry for the junk you had to say to me. I might forgive you. God is forgiving, so am I.

  62. harji

    @Melanie Stefine:
    “But he talked to me and not you, so I know better than you do.”

    And who is more unjust than he(or her), who forges a lie against God, or says: It has been revealed to me; while nothing has been revealed to him and he who says: I can reveal the like of what God has revealed? and if you had seen when the unjust shall be in the agonies of death and the angels shall spread forth their hands: Give up your souls; today shall you be recompensed with an ignominious chastisement because you spoke against God other than the truth and (because) you showed pride against His communications.
    The Koran Chapter 6, Verse 93

Comments are closed.