The God Thread

[Inkidu]

50 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

‘God’ then seems to be a placeholder term. 
 

The Bible is clearly a book written by men, possibly added to by a woman, but nevertheless isn’t some book of truths handed down by some deity. 
 

The universe itself is inside all of us and simultaneously a subjective and objective experience. 
 

Subscription to any book that is clearly lacking in thought, forethought, hindsight, shouldn’t be something that one ought to subscribe to, with or without pop-ups. 

 

Yes that's what I was trying to say. It's up to the individual to decide the nature of that internal experience. "Sacred" writings are the records of those who believed their insight reached some threshold, whether of Godlikeness or something spiritual but impersonal yet worth sharing.  

 

They didn't live a vacuum though and were influenced by others who were also inspired to share their inner experiences before them, or by those who just made them up for more nefarious reasons. But that's what happens when personal experiences are socialized--they tend to become garbled and confused. Few minds are up to the task. Maybe none are---yet. 

 

But still, fragments of real truth squeaks through. That's probably where we differ. 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Inkidu

[Sharpshooter]

36 minutes ago, Inkidu said:

 

Yes that's what I was trying to say. It's up to the individual to decide the nature of that internal experience. "Sacred" writings are the records of those who believed their insight reached some threshold, whether of Godlikeness or something spiritual but impersonal yet worth sharing.  

 

They didn't live a vacuum though and were influenced by others who were also inspired to share their inner experiences before them, or by those who just made them up for more nefarious reasons. But that's what happens when personal experiences are socialized--they tend to become garbled and confused. Few minds are up to the task. Maybe none are---yet. 

 

But still, fragments of real truth squeaks through. That's probably where we differ. 

Thanks for your reply. I’m glad we agree on things. 
 

Where we differ however, is your comment on “living in a vacuum”. 
 

I contend and can say assuredly, that those that lived around the few thousand years before the Bible was written or ‘inspired’ and then at least a thousand or so years afterwards, lived in a vacuum of ignorance. Not that ‘ignorance’ is a pejorative term in that sense. They simply weren’t able to know what we know now. 
 

The other part that I disagree with is that ‘inspiration’ is usually code for having revelation by a deity. If that’s not what you meant then I’ll retract this disagreement. 
 

If you believe ’inspiration’ is something given by ‘God’ then we differ on that. 
 

Look, we know a lot about Science, how the world and Universe works currently. We also know that mental illnesses aren’t just a product of modern society. I only suggest this because there likely was mental health issues since the dawn of ‘man’. 
 

People that propagated ‘stories’ now and then could have had an underlying mental health issue. 
 

Look at the corner of Georgia and Granville streets if you need a modern day example. 

 

Thus far, there hasn’t been a shred or less than a shred of evidence for the existence of a Creator that was a personalized deity, with a mind and feelings and all the things ascribed to humans. 
 

There has been many humans, however, that have attempted to ascribe their ‘gods’ or forces of things that they can’t explain to a creation of their personal and collective thought processes. 
 

Hope that makes sense to you and others. 
 

 

[Inkidu]

3 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Thanks for your reply. I’m glad we agree on things. 
 

Where we differ however, is your comment on “living in a vacuum”. 
 

I contend and can say assuredly, that those that lived around the few thousand years before the Bible was written or ‘inspired’ and then at least a thousand or so years afterwards, lived in a vacuum of ignorance. Not that ‘ignorance’ is a pejorative term in that sense. They simply weren’t able to know what we know now. 
 

The other part that I disagree with is that ‘inspiration’ is usually code for having revelation by a deity. If that’s not what you meant then I’ll retract this disagreement. 
 

If you believe ’inspiration’ is something given by ‘God’ then we differ on that. 
 

Look, we know a lot about Science, how the world and Universe works currently. We also know that mental illnesses aren’t just a product of modern society. I only suggest this because there likely was mental health issues since the dawn of ‘man’. 
 

People that propagated ‘stories’ now and then could have had an underlying mental health issue. 
 

Look at the corner of Georgia and Granville streets if you need a modern day example. 

 

Thus far, there hasn’t been a shred or less than a shred of evidence for the existence of a Creator that was a personalized deity, with a mind and feelings and all the things ascribed to humans. 
 

There has been many humans, however, that have attempted to ascribe their ‘gods’ or forces of things that they can’t explain to a creation of their personal and collective thought processes. 
 

Hope that makes sense to you and others. 
 

 

 

Yes but too close to gametime to give an adequate answer, first game and all. 

[Sharpshooter]

4 minutes ago, Inkidu said:

 

Yes but too close to gametime to give an adequate answer, first game and all. 

#MeToo

[Inkidu]

47 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

#MeToo

 

And here we go!

[Doogie]

19 hours ago, RupertKBD said:

Disagree. I know that Noah didn't live to be 950 years old, even though the bible says he did.

 

I also know that Evolution is real and Natural Selection is a thing...even though I've never read On the Origin of Species....

 

16 hours ago, StrayDog said:

By that argument you can't argue that Odin is real/ not real unless you've read the Edda.

 

7 hours ago, MeanSeanBean said:

Sure you can. I've never read 'Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy' by Sir Isaac Newton, but I'm still sure it proves gravity is real and I'd be willing to argue that.

My argument’s not about proving the absolute truth or falsity of the Quran or Bible but about understanding their perspectives before trying to critique them. 
 

Evolution and gravity like any scientific theory is supported with empirical evidence and you can use secondary sources to understand these concepts. Throughout grade school, high school and university we’ve touched on these topics, so there’s acceptance and a better understanding. The Quran and Bible on the other hand are philosophical, moral and existential. In order to argue for or against you need direct engagement otherwise any argument lacks depth. It’s about informed discussion, without understanding the concepts or text within the Quran or Bible, any argument lacks credibility. 
 

Whether you’re looking for an answer or wanting to argue a position a suggest you directly engage. It’ll make for a far more engaging discussion. 

[RupertKBD]

36 minutes ago, Doogie said:

My argument’s not about proving the absolute truth or falsity of the Quran or Bible but about understanding their perspectives before trying to critique them.

 

But that's what we were commenting on.

 

Perspective is one thing, but when someone claims that the mere existence of the bible proves the existence of God, we don't have to have read the thing from stem to stern to see that the argument is flawed....

[Doogie]

16 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

But that's what we were commenting on.

 

Perspective is one thing, but when someone claims that the mere existence of the bible proves the existence of God, we don't have to have read the thing from stem to stern to see that the argument is flawed....

I understand that, but to meaningfully discuss and critique the ideas in the Bible or Quran we need to understand what’s actually in them.
 

I’d argue against and challenge the notion that it’s a flawed argument. Having read both, I found the mere existence of the Quran does, for me, prove the existence of God.

 

I’m more than happy to engage in a factual and respectful discussion without trying to impose our views on each other. 

[Alflives]

3 hours ago, Doogie said:

I understand that, but to meaningfully discuss and critique the ideas in the Bible or Quran we need to understand what’s actually in them.
 

I’d argue against and challenge the notion that it’s a flawed argument. Having read both, I found the mere existence of the Quran does, for me, prove the existence of God.

 

I’m more than happy to engage in a factual and respectful discussion without trying to impose our views on each other. 

So because the Koran exists therefore God exists? 
Isn’t the existence of God based on faith? And faith, in this context, is to believe in something that can’t be proven? 
So how does a piece of literature prove God’s existence, when faith is required to believe the text? 
Seems to me one’s belief in God is 100% based on faith, regardless of the existence of any book or books. 

[StrayDog]

4 hours ago, Doogie said:

 

I’d argue against and challenge the notion that it’s a flawed argument. Having read both, I found the mere existence of the Quran does, for me, prove the existence of God.

 

I'm curious. What is it about the Quran that makes you believe? As opposed to what's in the Bible (or the Torah, for that matter)?

[RWMc1]

People should be able to critically analyze their own opinions as well as the opinions of others. Not to refute but to examine.

 

Most if not all people who reject the idea of a higher power believe in evolution.

 

Humans and their brains have evolved over billions of years.

The majority of human brains believe in a higher power.

Belief in a higher power is a sign of mental illness or a need to organize the physical universe in a comprehensible way.

 

The implication of this viewpoint is that 72% of mankind have less evolved brains and the ones who reject the notion of a higher power do so because of a more evolved brain. That's some pretty lofty arrogance.

 

The burden of proof is on the believer. I don't have to read any ancient texts because they are all made up crap. The implication is that you demand proof while refusing to examine any info or data provided. Obviously the evolved minds have their conclusions. That's somehow different than the Bible says so though.

 

A good God vs suffering. According to the Bible there is no suffering or pain in Heaven. Earth is not the real world according to the Bible. It is a mirror image, but is a pale comparison. The reason we are here is to purify ourselves to be "acceptable" in Heaven. People are "judged" by their actions. I think the Rapture is where a lot of misinterpretations are made on both sides. Many christians believe that all of them go up at once. That's not true. Only the firstfruits go. God's chosen ones. They rebuild the world for 1000 years at which point all people will be raised up and "judged". At that point they still have the freewill to accept or reject the Father. Suffering on Earth is part of the being in the physical world.

 

[Playoff Beered]

11 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

People should be able to critically analyze their own opinions as well as the opinions of others. Not to refute but to examine.

 

Most if not all people who reject the idea of a higher power believe in evolution.

 

Humans and their brains have evolved over billions of years.

The majority of human brains believe in a higher power.

Belief in a higher power is a sign of mental illness or a need to organize the physical universe in a comprehensible way.

 

The implication of this viewpoint is that 72% of mankind have less evolved brains and the ones who reject the notion of a higher power do so because of a more evolved brain. That's some pretty lofty arrogance.

 

The burden of proof is on the believer. I don't have to read any ancient texts because they are all made up crap. The implication is that you demand proof while refusing to examine any info or data provided. Obviously the evolved minds have their conclusions. That's somehow different than the Bible says so though.

 

A good God vs suffering. According to the Bible there is no suffering or pain in Heaven. Earth is not the real world according to the Bible. It is a mirror image, but is a pale comparison. The reason we are here is to purify ourselves to be "acceptable" in Heaven. People are "judged" by their actions. I think the Rapture is where a lot of misinterpretations are made on both sides. Many christians believe that all of them go up at once. That's not true. Only the firstfruits go. God's chosen ones. They rebuild the world for 1000 years at which point all people will be raised up and "judged". At that point they still have the freewill to accept or reject the Father. Suffering on Earth is part of the being in the physical world.

Shower thoughts.

[RWMc1]

5 minutes ago, Playoff Beered said:

Shower thoughts.

No. I'm considering taking my leave of this place and wanted to address some of the points being made.

 

Most of the posts in here are construct a strawman, bash the strawman or conjecture and refutation of conjecture.

[Playoff Beered]

3 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

No. I'm considering taking my leave of this place and wanted to address some of the points being made.

 

Most of the posts in here are construct a strawman, bash the strawman or conjecture and refutation of conjecture.

Ok, I'm not seeing that but if that's how you read the thread I feel ya.

[Jester13]

14 hours ago, Doogie said:

I understand that, but to meaningfully discuss and critique the ideas in the Bible or Quran we need to understand what’s actually in them.
 

I’d argue against and challenge the notion that it’s a flawed argument. Having read both, I found the mere existence of the Quran does, for me, prove the existence of God.

 

I’m more than happy to engage in a factual and respectful discussion without trying to impose our views on each other. 

 

I'd be interested to hear you explain why/how what the Quaran says proves the existence of God.

[Doogie]

16 hours ago, Alflives said:

So because the Koran exists therefore God exists? 
Isn’t the existence of God based on faith? And faith, in this context, is to believe in something that can’t be proven? 
So how does a piece of literature prove God’s existence, when faith is required to believe the text? 
Seems to me one’s belief in God is 100% based on faith, regardless of the existence of any book or books. 

 

Sorry the existence of the Quran does prove the existence of God because of the content and context found in the Quran. The mere existence of the Quran proves there is a God. 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Doogie

[Alflives]

Just now, Doogie said:

The existence of the Quran as a physical book doesn't directly prove the existence of the Quran its the profound content and context found in the Quran that does. 

So how does that profound text prove there is a God, when it requires faith the accept those words as truisms? 

[Doogie]

8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

So how does that profound text prove there is a God, when it requires faith the accept those words as truisms? 

Sorry Alf, I'm working a few things at the same time so wasn't able to articulate correctly. I've edited my original post. I wanted to say the Quran exists therefore God exists and this is because of the context and content of the Quran. 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Doogie

[StrayDog]

9 minutes ago, Doogie said:

Sorry Alf, I'm working a few things at the same time so wasn't able to articulate correctly. I've edited my original post. I wanted to say the Quran exists therefore God exists and this is because of the context and content of the Quran. 

Can you elaborate on the content and context? Otherwise it's no different than because the Bible exists then it proves God exists, or because the Iliad exists that Zeus, Ares, Athena, etc also exist.

I will admit to not having read the Quran, so I'm curious how you can make that claim

 

[Jester13]

7 hours ago, RWMc1 said:

People should be able to critically analyze their own opinions as well as the opinions of others. Not to refute but to examine.

 

Most if not all people who reject the idea of a higher power believe in evolution.

 

Humans and their brains have evolved over billions of years.

The majority of human brains believe in a higher power.

Belief in a higher power is a sign of mental illness or a need to organize the physical universe in a comprehensible way.

 

The implication of this viewpoint is that 72% of mankind have less evolved brains and the ones who reject the notion of a higher power do so because of a more evolved brain. That's some pretty lofty arrogance.

 

The burden of proof is on the believer. I don't have to read any ancient texts because they are all made up crap. The implication is that you demand proof while refusing to examine any info or data provided. Obviously the evolved minds have their conclusions. That's somehow different than the Bible says so though.

 

A good God vs suffering. According to the Bible there is no suffering or pain in Heaven. Earth is not the real world according to the Bible. It is a mirror image, but is a pale comparison. The reason we are here is to purify ourselves to be "acceptable" in Heaven. People are "judged" by their actions. I think the Rapture is where a lot of misinterpretations are made on both sides. Many christians believe that all of them go up at once. That's not true. Only the firstfruits go. God's chosen ones. They rebuild the world for 1000 years at which point all people will be raised up and "judged". At that point they still have the freewill to accept or reject the Father. Suffering on Earth is part of the being in the physical world.

 

Who claimed this in this thread?

[Sharpshooter]

7 hours ago, RWMc1 said:

No. I'm considering taking my leave of this place and wanted to address some of the points being made.

 

Most of the posts in here are construct a strawman, bash the strawman or conjecture and refutation of conjecture.

May I suggest avoiding threads that could be a trigger, and just enjoy Canucks Talk?

 

Well, maybe not yesterday’s GDT/PGT. 
 

Even I was triggered by that 10-0 stomping. 

 

Leaving an entire Forum over choices you control about what you read or don’t read, seems like you’re cutting your nose to spite your face. 
 

Enjoy the things here you enjoy. Avoid the things you don’t. 
 

 

 

[Doogie]

16 hours ago, StrayDog said:

I'm curious. What is it about the Quran that makes you believe? As opposed to what's in the Bible (or the Torah, for that matter)?

 

The bible is not the original word of God its been corrupted by man as was the Torah. They both contain contradictions and scientific errors; if they were the literal words of God they would be free from errors and contradictions (you'd hold God to at least those standards, no?) . There are many scientists, theologians and scholars you can look into that highlight the discrepancies and contradictions in these texts. What was revealed to Jesus (PBUH), Abraham (PBUH) and Moses (PBUH) is not what you have today. 

 

Now before I jump into the Quran I want to highlight there are two texts in Islam: the Quran and Hadith. Everything you hear in the media, the quotes etc., taken out of context, are from Hadith which are a collection of stories, words, actions etc. of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) written/compiled 200 years after his death. So you can take it with a grain of salt. 

 

The Quran on the other hand remains unchanged in its entirety from revelation to today. The oldest copy of the Quran I believe is at the University of Birmingham which was radiocarbon dated to the time of the Prophet and revelation and it's the same you have today; completely unchanged. 

 

This is why I believe when trying to prove the existence of God, the Quran, as opposed to the Bible and Torah would make for a more compelling and consistent argument. 

 

Now that I have that out of the way I'll explain who Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was to give you context before diving into the content of the Quran. It's relevant to why the Quran proves the existence of God. 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Doogie

[Doogie]

I'll be brief with explaining who the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) but again its relevant to why the Quran is the literal word of God and how its existence as well as its content proves the existence of God. 

 

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), was a merchant who before revelation "was known for his honesty, integrity and moral character, earning him the titles of "Al-Amin" (the trustworthy) and "As-Sadiq (the truthful) among his peers." He couldn't read or write, meaning he was illiterate; he received revelation orally over approximately 23 years that he would convey orally to his companions, who later transcribed it into writing. In pre-Islamic Arabia literacy was not widespread and people relied on oral communication and memorization for transmitting information. The illiteracy of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is a testament to the miraculous nature of the Quran. You'll understand this point as I explain the composition and content of the Quran. 

 

Now I'll jump into why the Quran is the literal word of God and how its existence as well as its content proves the existence of God. But I'll do that tomorrow as its time for bed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jack Gordon]

 

[Jester13]

9 hours ago, Doogie said:

 

The bible is not the original word of God its been corrupted by man as was the Torah. They both contain contradictions and scientific errors; if they were the literal words of God they would be free from errors and contradictions (you'd hold God to at least those standards, no?) . There are many scientists, theologians and scholars you can look into that highlight the discrepancies and contradictions in these texts. What was revealed to Jesus (PBUH), Abraham (PBUH) and Moses (PBUH) is not what you have today. 

 

Now before I jump into the Quran I want to highlight there are two texts in Islam: the Quran and Hadith. Everything you hear in the media, the quotes etc., taken out of context, are from Hadith which are a collection of stories, words, actions etc. of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) written/compiled 200 years after his death. So you can take it with a grain of salt. 

 

The Quran on the other hand remains unchanged in its entirety from revelation to today. The oldest copy of the Quran I believe is at the University of Birmingham which was radiocarbon dated to the time of the Prophet and revelation and it's the same you have today; completely unchanged. 

 

This is why I believe when trying to prove the existence of God, the Quran, as opposed to the Bible and Torah would make for a more compelling and consistent argument. 

 

Now that I have that out of the way I'll explain who Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was to give you context before diving into the content of the Quran. It's relevant to why the Quran proves the existence of God. 

Here's a great scene in Monty Python's The Life of Brian where a row of men are all standing on a ledge and talking to peasants about morals and "the way" of their religions, all vying for crowds to accept theirs over others:

 

 

 

I think it's important to take any ancient text or prophet's ideas with a grain of salt.