imhotep:

Good questions. Now you see the limits of logic. Logic CANNOT completely explain the physical universe. What can you learn from this?


In this case A = Albert Einstein.
B = God at work behind the scenes in the universe.

No one has ever studied the structure of the universe more than Einstein; and he contemplated God at work behind the scenes.

Many other scientists are still studying his works till this day. What can you also learn from this?

for godssake it is a LOGICAL FALLACY. I'll let this one go, since I'm obviously not making sense to you.

JayFK:

for godssake it is a LOGICAL FALLACY.

Now you are getting dogmatic.

JayFK:

I'll let this one go, since I'm obviously not making sense to you.

You can start by disproving, improving or extending one of Einsteins theories comprehensively. Then I can start listening to you.

imhotep:

Now you are getting dogmatic.


You can start by disproving, improving or extending one of Einsteins theories comprehensively. Then I can start listening to you.

lol you're a joker, you don't deserve to be taken seriously

No dude you're the one invoking Einstein as probability that god exists and I'm getting dogmatic?
"The first person to accuse the other of sophism is usually the sophist"

How does disproving the theory of relativity prove that there is god? This is ludicrous

You've managed to mention that one scientist may or may not believe in god and therefore it is right? The quotes I've posted there refute your horsecrap.
How about the other notable scientists who do not believe in god?

lol I'm not pursuing this argument any further, because you've failed to make any sense whatsoever.

JayFK:

lol you're a joker, you don't deserve to be taken seriously

No dude you're the one invoking Einstein as probability that god exists and I'm getting dogmatic?
"The first person to accuse the other of sophism is usually the sophist"

How does disproving the theory of relativity prove that there is god? This is ludicrous

The man who developed relativity believed in a non-personal God who is rational and organized. He rejected quantum mechanics because (in his words) "God does not play dice".

Belief in God (though a non-personal God) was no hindrance to Einstein being the father of modern physics.

JayFK:

You've managed to mention that one scientist may or may not believe in god and therefore it is right? The quotes I've posted there refute your horsecrap.
How about the other notable scientists who do not believe in god?

Many of their works are heavily based on the works of Einstein, who believed in a non-personal God. Ouch,

JayFK:

lol I'm not pursuing this argument any further, because you've failed to make any sense whatsoever.

Like I said, disprove one of Einstein's great theories, and I will listen to you.

Imhotep,

May I just ask, in what sense do you think Einstein understood God? Is it in the same sense as you or was it in a metaphoric sense?

huxley:

Imhotep,

May I just ask, in what sense do you think Einstein understood God? Is it in the same sense as you or was it in a metaphoric sense?

He believed in a non-personal God who is at work in the universe --- a universe he studied for decades on end. He was later to become the father of modern physics.
Many other atheist-scientists have based ALL of their works on Einstein.

To hold that rejecting ALL notions of God would NECESSARILY lead to better science is baseless to me.

imhotep:

He believed in a non-personal God who is at work in the universe --- a universe he studied for decades on end. He was later to become the father of modern physics.
Many other atheist-scientists have based ALL of their works on Einstein.

To hold that rejecting ALL notions of God would NECESSARILY lead to better science is baseless to me.

Let's assume he was right as you seem to suggest, given he was such a clever guy. In what sense is a non-personal God useful to anyone?

huxley:

Let's assume he was right as you seem to suggest, given he was such a clever guy.

He was entitled to his opinion about God. Its a free world.

huxley:

In what sense is a non-personal God useful to anyone?

To Einstein, this meant that the universe was deterministic and could be modeled with the right equations/theories.

He flatly rejected quantum mechanics because of its resorting to probabilistic models of the universe.

BTW, quantum mechanics is heavily based on relativity.

imhotep:

He was entitled to his opinion about God. Its a free world.

To Einstein, this meant that the universe was deterministic and could be modeled with the right equations/theories.

He flatly rejected quantum mechanics because of its resorting to probabilistic models of the universe.

BTW, quantum mechanics is heavily based on relativity.

Does any of his equation contain a God coefficient? How is the concept of God useful in explain and understanding quantum mechanics, relativity, etc? Deterministic or probabilistic; does that require a god for understanding?

huxley:

Does any of his equation contain a God coefficient? How is the concept of God useful in explain and understanding quantum mechanics, relativity, etc? Deterministic or probabilistic; does that require a god for understanding?

His contemplation of God led him to remain deterministic in his approach, not probabilistic.



More Einstein quotes:

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts. The rest are details."


"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres"


"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views."


"What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos."

what does this tell you about him?

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

Einstein = Pantheist

JayFK,

Back to the topic of this thread. While you will learn a great deal from any of the books/authors I mentioned above, my particular favorites are David Eller and George Smith. They both have two very good books about atheism.

I received the latest of David Eller's book today, called Atheism Advance and am very impressed with the first few pages I have read. This first book on the subject, Natural Atheism, is also very good.

As a philosophy student, you might also fine Michael Martin's treatment interesting. If you can afford it, get them from Amazon. In fact, the US prices are very enticing to a bibliophile like myself.

Another avenue to investigate is popular science books in cosmology, biology, evolution and geology. Book I have found of great interest in the last few months are;

1) Finding Darwin's God, Kenneth Miller
2) Wrinkles in Time, George Smoot
3) At the Water Edge, Carl Zimmer
4) When Life nearly died, Michael Benton

Other title well worth checking are;

1) The language of God, Francis Collins
2) Relics of Eden, Daniel Fairbanks, http://www.amazon.com/Relics-Eden-Powerful-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1591025648/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207695069&sr=8-1

Einstein != Atheist

The following scientists where Jesuits (Roman Catholic priests and brothers):

-François d'Aguilon-Belgian mathematician and physicist who worked on optics.
-Giuseppe Asclepi-Italian astronomer.
-Joseph Bayma-He did work relating to stereochemistry.
-Giuseppe Biancani-Astronomer and selenographer who wrote Sphaera mundi, seu cosmographia demonstrativa, ac facili methodo tradita
-Bonaventure Berloty-first director of the Ksara Observatory in Lebanon.
-Wenceslas Pantaleon Kirwitzer-Astronomer and missionary to China.
-Franz Xaver Kugler-Most known for his study of cuneiform tablets he was also a chemist.
-Antoine de Laloubère-Mathematician who studied the properties of the helix.
-Eugene Lafont- Founder of the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science
-Charles Malapert-Known for observing the stars of the southern sky and being against Copernicus.
-Paul McNally-American astronomer who was a director of the Georgetown observatory.
-Christian Mayer-Czech astronomer known for pioneering study of binary stars.
-Juan Ignacio Molina-Chilean ornithologist and a botanist with a Author citation (botany).
-Alexius Sylvius Polonus-Polish astronomer.
-Franz Reinzer-He wrote about comets, meteors, lightning, winds, fossils, metals, etc.
-Matteo Ricci-Mathematician, math translator, and noted for importance to the Jesuit China missions.
-Giovanni Battista Riccioli-He wrote several works on astronomy and was the first to note that Mizar was a "double star."
-Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri-A mathematician who was perhaps the first European to write about Non-Euclidean geometry.
-Christoph Scheiner-Astronomer noted for a dispute with Galileo Galilei over the discovery of Sunspots.
-Gaspar Schott-He wrote on various mechanical and scientific topics, example gear, but little original research.
-Angelo Secchi-He discovered the existence of solar spicules and drew an early map of Mars
Gerolamo Sersale-Selenographer, the crater Sirsalis (crater) is named for him.
-Ignacije Szentmartony-"obtained the title of royal mathematician and astronomer" and used his astronomical knowledge in mapping parts of Brazil
-André Tacquet-His work prepared ground for the eventual discovery of calculus.
-Pierre Teilhard de Chardin-French Palaeontologist and philosopher involved in the discovery of the so-called Peking Man.
-Franz de Paula Triesnecker-Austrian astronomer.
-Theodor Wulf-Among the first experimenters to detect excess atmospheric radiation.
-Niccolo Zucchi-Italian astronomer known for his study of Jupiter and work on telescope design.
-Giovanni Battista Zupi-Italian  astronomer who discovered that Mercury had orbital phases.

===

More here => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists

imhotep:

The following scientists where Jesuits (Roman Catholic priests and brothers):

-François d'Aguilon-Belgian mathematician and physicist who worked on optics.
-Giuseppe Asclepi-Italian astronomer.
-Joseph Bayma-He did work relating to stereochemistry.
-Giuseppe Biancani-Astronomer and selenographer who wrote Sphaera mundi, seu cosmographia demonstrativa, ac facili methodo tradita
-Bonaventure Berloty-first director of the Ksara Observatory in Lebanon.
-Wenceslas Pantaleon Kirwitzer-Astronomer and missionary to China.
-Franz Xaver Kugler-Most known for his study of cuneiform tablets he was also a chemist.
-Antoine de Laloubère-Mathematician who studied the properties of the helix.
-Eugene Lafont- Founder of the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science
-Charles Malapert-Known for observing the stars of the southern sky and being against Copernicus.
-Paul McNally-American astronomer who was a director of the Georgetown observatory.
-Christian Mayer-Czech astronomer known for pioneering study of binary stars.
-Juan Ignacio Molina-Chilean ornithologist and a botanist with a Author citation (botany).
-Alexius Sylvius Polonus-Polish astronomer.
-Franz Reinzer-He wrote about comets, meteors, lightning, winds, fossils, metals, etc.
-Matteo Ricci-Mathematician, math translator, and noted for importance to the Jesuit China missions.
-Giovanni Battista Riccioli-He wrote several works on astronomy and was the first to note that Mizar was a "double star."
-Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri-A mathematician who was perhaps the first European to write about Non-Euclidean geometry.
-Christoph Scheiner-Astronomer noted for a dispute with Galileo Galilei over the discovery of Sunspots.
-Gaspar Schott-He wrote on various mechanical and scientific topics, example gear, but little original research.
-Angelo Secchi-He discovered the existence of solar spicules and drew an early map of Mars
Gerolamo Sersale-Selenographer, the crater Sirsalis (crater) is named for him.
-Ignacije Szentmartony-"obtained the title of royal mathematician and astronomer" and used his astronomical knowledge in mapping parts of Brazil
-André Tacquet-His work prepared ground for the eventual discovery of calculus.
-Pierre Teilhard de Chardin-French Palaeontologist and philosopher involved in the discovery of the so-called Peking Man.
-Franz de Paula Triesnecker-Austrian astronomer.
-Theodor Wulf-Among the first experimenters to detect excess atmospheric radiation.
-Niccolo Zucchi-Italian astronomer known for his study of Jupiter and work on telescope design.
-Giovanni Battista Zupi-Italian  astronomer who discovered that Mercury had orbital phases.

===

More here => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists

This does not ameliorate or mitigate the fact that the Roman church set itself against the advance of science throughout most of it's history. It does not excuse the persecutions suffered by the likes of Galileo and Giordano Bruno to mention but two. And you seem to totally misunderstand not only Einstein but also Christianity itself. Not to mention the topic of this thread which is about atheist authors and modern day philosophy and not about the relationship of christianity to science.

Pastor AIO:

This does not ameliorate or mitigate the fact that the Roman church set itself against the advance of science throughout most of it's history. It does not excuse the persecutions suffered by the likes of Galileo and Giordano Bruno to mention but two. And you seem to totally misunderstand not only Einstein but also Christianity itself. Not to mention the topic of this thread which is about atheist authors and modern day philosophy and not about the relationship of christianity to science.

The list also shows that religion/theology is no obstacle to the most advanced forms of science. You DONT necessarily have to be an atheist to be a scientist. Being an atheist does not necessarily make one a better thinker/scientist.

imhotep:

His contemplation of God led him to remain deterministic in his approach, not probabilistic.

na wa for you o!  So now you know Einstein so well that you understand the inner mental processes by which he arrived the conclusion that the world is deterministic.  Maybe you were there with him when he was contemplating God and thereby came to the conclusion that the world is deterministic.  

Yes Einstein had a bias towards a deterministic understanding of the world which is why the findings of quantum mechanics confounded him so much.  Einstein did not reject quantum reality he just believed that, in spite of evidence to the contrary, it could be explained deterministically.  But he simply didn't know how to do it.  

Now I personally believe that while the world is partly bound by deterministic laws that it is possible that chance events can occur that are outside and above these laws.  I've mentioned the action of Grace in previous posts. I find it curious that you as a christian would find it so hard to accept that there are agencies that influence the world outside of deterministic laws and principles.  Spontaneity.

the notion is not just christian.  In yoruba land for instance we have something called Asegbe.  That is an action that bears no consequences.  determinism states that every action has a consequence or reaction.  Asegbe contradicts this.  Grace contradicts this.  The Buddhists speak of us being bound by Karma.  Karmic laws is simply the law of Cause and Effect, in other words it is determinism.  It states that what happens today is a product of what happened yesterday and so on in an unending sequence.  Buddhism seeks to transcend Karma too.  

I could go on about determinism but this isn't the thread for it really.

imhotep:

The list also shows that religion/theology is no obstacle to the most advanced forms of science. You DONT necessarily have to be an atheist to be a scientist. Being an atheist does not necessarily make one a better thinker/scientist.

Yes but what has this to do with the subject of discussion?

Pastor AIO:

na wa for you o! So now you know Einstein so well that you understand the inner mental processes by which he arrived the conclusion that the world is deterministic. Maybe you were there with him when he was contemplating God and thereby came to the conclusion that the world is deterministic.

Yes Einstein had a bias towards a deterministic understanding of the world which is why the findings of quantum mechanics confounded him so much. Einstein did not reject quantum reality he just believed that, in spite of evidence to the contrary, it could be explained deterministically. But he simply didn't know how to do it.

When confronted with a probabilistic model of quantum mechanics, Einstein said ==> "God does not play dice"

Pastor AIO:

Now I personally believe that while the world is partly bound by deterministic laws that it is possible that chance events can occur that are outside and above these laws. I've mentioned the action of Grace in previous posts. I find it curious that you as a christian would find it so hard to accept that there are agencies that influence the world outside of deterministic laws and principles. Spontaneity.

the notion is not just christian. In yoruba land for instance we have something called Asegbe. That is an action that bears no consequences. determinism states that every action has a consequence or reaction. Asegbe contradicts this. Grace contradicts this. The Buddhists speak of us being bound by Karma. Karmic laws is simply the law of Cause and Effect, in other words it is determinism. It states that what happens today is a product of what happened yesterday and so on in an unending sequence. Buddhism seeks to transcend Karma too.

I could go on about determinism but this isn't the thread for it really.

Some people have tried to understand this using "Chaos Theory".

Pastor AIO:

Yes but what has this to do with the subject of discussion?

A whole lot. Follow the links, read the books and articles. I am addressing the background music.

I do not think there is any reaction without an action. Neither can an action be without consequences. It is possible though that we are unaware of a reaction or lack the instrument or faculties necessary to measure or percieve a reaction. It is also possible that we are unable to follow the whole process starting from the origin of an action to its maturity into consequences. The inability to measure a consequence is not the same as their are no consequnce. Similarly the inability to consciously see the action that lead to a consquence does not mean that their is no action in the first place. My view is that our inability to survey the entire processes of action and reaction is the reason why we assume that in some instances, their is a negation of the law of action and reaction. I think that grace and similar things still fall within the law of action and reaction.

m_nwankwo:

I do not think there is any reaction without an action. Neither can an action be without consequences. It is possible though that we are unaware of a reaction or lack the instrument or faculties necessary to measure or percieve a reaction. It is also possible that we are unable to follow the whole process starting from the origin of an action to its maturity into consequences. The inability to measure a consequence is not the same as their are no consequnce. Similarly the inability to consciously see the action that lead to a consquence does not mean that their is no action in the first place. My view is that our inability to survey the entire processes of action and reaction is the reason why we assume that in some instances, their is a negation of the law of action and reaction. I think that grace and similar things still fall within the law of action and reaction.

So you see . . . you are in the same kind of mindset as Einstein. That is not such a bad thing as he is widely recognised as a genius. However if you were to be brutally logical about it you would see that in fact your faith in determinism is in fact just an instinct. It is a product of the way your mind works. To be specific it is the product of the way the Left Side of your brain works. You start with the presumption that there are deterministic laws at work and then you proceed to seek these laws out. If anything occurs that contradicts your presumption you retort with, 'yes, but there must be a logical explanation'. I'm not saying that there isn't often a logical deterministic explanation for events. I'm just drawing your attention to the fact that even before you have evidence of it, you already make an instinctive presumption that there is.

Einstein was the same. He claimed that he didn't believe that God played dice with the universe. It confounded the way he believed the world worked. I do not hope to convince you otherwise cos I know that your stance is not something that can be shaken by argument but rather it is very deeply ingrained to the point that even evidence will not shake it. Even if you were to see a burning bush not get consumed you would insist that there has to be a deterministic explanation. What you have is a Win Win position. You win if you can explain it and you still win if you can't because you are sure that though you do not have the explanation yet you will one day have it.

I believe that the agency of determinism has a great influence on the world but that there are also super-deterministic agencies. In other words I believe that Spontaneity is possible and not everything is a predictable product of it's history.

The fact is that it is impossible to know everything and to see and measure everything. So therefore there can be no conclusion to this argument for as long as there are things you don't know you can always claim that maybe the cause lies within the things you don't know.

I wonder if I can get you to concede a possibility (however remote) of spontaneity existing alongside a deterministic model of the universe.

@Pastor AIO

Thanks for your submission. No, I will not concede to the possibility of spontaneity if by that you mean consequences or reactions without an action or actions for the following reasons:

1. Spontaneity when observed in physical and no physical events is because the time lapse between action and reaction is so fast that the end of action or actions dovetails with the beginning of a reaction. All that is needed is to slow down the process in real time, the process can be followed from its begining, the intermediate steps and the reaction. Slow motion photograhy is already providing some insights into what at least in the physical world is considered as spontenous events. In the spiritual world, the same principle apply as in the case of miracles since due to a gift granted to an individual by God, what might have taken a thousand years of development may happen in seconds. If each individual frames in the miraculous happening is slowed down so that it is possible to observe in real time the various development spanning a thousand years, then it will also become clear that even a miracle has logical steps.

2. I assume that you believe in God as I do. If my assumption is correct, then God is perfect, omniscience and omnipotent. Perfection eliminates any possibility of arbitrarly events or chance. If God is perfect, then it is logical that his laws are also perfect since imperfect laws or laws subject to exceptions can not issue from a perfect God. I believe that God is perfect and his laws are also perfect. It is my view that the law of cause and effect is one of the laws of God. This law of cause and effect manifests depending on the density of the substance that it imprints itself. Thus the same law can have different manifestations with respect to spiritual substance and material substance. It is the variation in the manifestation of this basic law in different enviroments that confuses people and make them to think of exceptions, chance and things like spontaneity. If an individual can see the various movements generated by the law of cause and effect in various worlds (material, words, thoughts, action, spiritual etc), then he has the whole picture. A person observing this law in the material as most scientists do will draw some wrong conlusion since they are dealing with only a part of the manifestation. It is when all the individual parts are brought together do one see the whole and it is very possible for the whole to be observed. Thus for instance it is possible for a bush to burn without being consumed as you suggested. It is a question of an interplay of the manifestation of these laws both in the material and non-material worlds.

3. The brain is the seat of the intellect and can only survey things that are material. It is very possible to probe logically spiritual manifestations even when no electrical impulses are recorded in the left part of the brain. The spirit has its own faculties with which it can survey non earthly realities. Indeed much of the causes of many a consequence lie in the spiritual and the brain is oblivious of it. That is one of the reasons why some events are considered as chance or spontaneous since the brain is unaware of the cause or causes. If we start to use spiritual faculties God endowed us with, then many of the unexplained mysteries will become as clear as the daylight.

4. Whatever a man sows, that he shall reap is a law of God and in my view this sowing and reaping does not allow or permit chance. It would indeed be dramatic and funny if at harvest time, people go to feilds expecting to harvest corn when they have not sowed anything. Much worse is to sow and look forward to the harvest time only to see an empty field. Even more melodramatic is to sow corn and then reap grass or sow mango and reap banana. Give God his honour of perfection and justice and it will be possible to solve all the riddles of human existence. Many atimes we condem atheists but many become atheists because the concept of God presented to them looks so illogical and is ridden with imperfection, injustices and arbitrarly action that any thinking man will reject it. My view is that God is the creator of the universe, he is perfect and he is just and it is not late for people to still find the true God whose activities manifest in justice and love.

4.

Goodness Gracious Mr. Nwankwo. Where do I begin? I don't think that I have yet met anyone on Nairaland as contrary to me as you are.

m_nwankwo:


2. I assume that you believe in God as I do. If my assumption is correct, then God is perfect, omniscience and omnipotent. Perfection eliminates any possibility of arbitrarly events or chance. If God is perfect, then it is logical that his laws are also perfect since imperfect laws or laws subject to exceptions can not issue from a perfect God. I believe that God is perfect and his laws are also perfect.

whoooa! I think we need to halt right there. First that word God. It is my experience that though it is a commonly used word whenever I probe into people's meaning of God I find that they are referring to something so utterly different from me that we cannot really be put in the same category.

Therefore I could not tell you that I believe in God as you do.

Secondly, that word 'perfect'. Perfection is a human concept that needs to be qualified by agreed upon criteria. For instance a perfect Circle does not make a very good square. Neither will a perfect square do as a circle. First you need some criteria before you can talk of something fulfilling that criteria perfectly. If pollution and mess are the criteria that we are referring too then I would agree with you that the world we are living in is a perfect mess.

To say God is perfect you need to tell me according to what criteria. It is an empty waffle to just say he is perfect. Is he a perfect beast? A perfect man, a perfect machine?

Further more, this is the first time since I've known the word perfection that I've heard that it implies or means an elimination of possibility of arbitrarly events or chance.

You have to be very careful of idolatry! It is often the case that man tries to mold God into his own image. Whether cast in structures of stone, wood, metal, or even conceptual structures, an idol remains an idol, that is a work of man.

This crafting of God into definitions and structures based actually on your own mind and way of thinking with all it's limitations amounts in fact to idolatry.

Furthermore if we allow for the empty notion that God is 'perfect' and consider that he created everything then you then have a problem explaining how something imperfect (the world) emerged out of something perfect when as you say[b]' since imperfect laws or laws subject to exceptions can not issue from a perfect God'.[/b]

m_nwankwo:


1. Spontaneity when observed in physical and no physical events is because the time lapse between action and reaction is so fast that the end of action or actions dovetails with the beginning of a reaction

Do you believe in free Will? Do you think that we actually have choices? Free Will is directly opposed to determinism. If nothing is free from deterministic laws then the decisions that we make are mere products of our history. We are bound to make the choices we make by our circumstances. However if you believe that we can choose our futures based on faculties that are not influenced by our history then that means that we can supercede Causality.

m_nwankwo:


It is my view that the law of cause and effect is one of the laws of God. This law of cause and effect manifests depending on the density of the substance that it imprints itself. Thus the same law can have different manifestations with respect to spiritual substance and material substance. It is the variation in the manifestation of this basic law in different enviroments that confuses people and make them to think of exceptions, chance and things like spontaneity. If an individual can see the various movements generated by the law of cause and effect in various worlds (material, words, thoughts, action, spiritual etc), then he has the whole picture. A person observing this law in the material as most scientists do will draw some wrong conlusion since they are dealing with only a part of the manifestation. It is when all the individual parts are brought together do one see the whole and it is very possible for the whole to be observed. Thus for instance it is possible for a bush to burn without being consumed as you suggested. It is a question of an interplay of the manifestation of these laws both in the material and non-material worlds.

I'm glad that you admit that what you wrote above is just your view because it is the most spurious theorising that I've ever read. And I've read a lot of wacky stuff. 'The law of cause and effect manifests depending on the density of the substance that it imprints itself'?!!! Is this Science? Or some kind of spiritual metaphysics that we haven't heard of?

@Pastor AIO,

Thanks again for your submission. I am not contrarly to you but my views may be contraly to yours. I agree that it is important to state the meaning of the words we use so as not to misunderstand each other. I will briefly define the meaning or the context of the words or phrases I use. It will be helpful if you do the same as that will also help me to understant what you are saying.

1. God is the creator of the Universe, everything else is dependent on his power but God is independent of everything else.

2. Perfection in the context I use it is something flawless, without error, without contradiction and something that can not be improved upon or subject to further development.

3. Yes, their is free will. What people experience as consequences is a product of their free will. What you call "history" are free will decisions taken in the past and the consequences of that past decisions comes back to us to experience it. A human being makes hundreds of decisions in actions, words, thoughts, motives etc every hour and all these decisions create reactions that interact with each other and influence subsequent decisions. Just an earthly example, if you keep repeating a particular scientific technigue (cloning for instance), a time comes when you do it almost involutarirly and achieve spectacular results and even insights that suprises you. The same also happen with spiritual things too.

4. I do not know why you label my submission as "spurious" or "wacky" All the same it is your own opinion and you are entiltled to it. However it will be helpful if you can give reasons why you think they are "spurious" or "wacky"

5. Even though you did not explicitly mention, it seems to me that you will like to know the source of what I state in my post. My submissions are not my own knowlege. I draw from the work "In The Light of Truth-The Grail Message"

@Pastor AIO

Further to your post. You advised me against idolatry and then went further to state that the concepts I present is according to the working of my mind and is idolatory. All these are accusations and you are free to make them. However can you provide evidence that what I state is the work of my mind. Please define what is mind. How does the mind work? Also, can you define your own conception of God?

M_Nwankwo, thank you for your response. Please excuse me if I came across as being rude. While it might not apply to you It has been my experience that people's Gods are often just an extension of themselves. Usually the most bigoted and biased aspects of themselves. They then create all manner of concepts of God in order to excuse and give authority to their most base actions. It is for this reason that I'm defensive against definitions of God and ideologies of God and all manner of speculative religionism.

m_nwankwo:

@Pastor AIO

Further to your post. You advised me against idolatry and then went further to state that the concepts I present is according to the working of my mind and is idolatory. All these are accusations and you are free to make them. . . . . Also, can you define your own conception of God?

m_nwankwo:


1. God is the creator of the Universe, everything else is dependent on his power but God is independent of everything else.


5. Even though you did not explicitly mention, it seems to me that you will like to know the source of what I state in my post. My submissions are not my own knowlege. I draw from the work "In The Light of Truth-The Grail Message"

Sir, I hereby withdraw any accusations I made. I have no intention to cause offence.

I have no ultimate conception of God. A concept is something that is created in the human brain and God is not in the human brain. I say that I have no Ultimate Concept of God yet being human I do form concepts and understandings of God based on my experiences. However time and time again my concepts and thought forms are always being shattered by Reality. So now I am prepared that God will confound whatever it is that I think of him or define as him.

I am not familiar with the Grail Message though i have read of Wolfram Von Eschenbach. Both the arthurian legends and the tales of Parzival.

m_nwankwo:


2. Perfection in the context I use it is something flawless, without error, without contradiction and something that can not be improved upon or subject to further development.

Yet this is so open to interpretation. Again there are no criteria given. A perfect toothbrush makes a very imperfect hairbrush. Perfection implies something that has been created and created to a purpose. For instance if God's purpose is to reward the righteous, Then he can either be perfect in his administration of this task or not. Just like a perfect toothbrush is perfect in so far as it is used to brush teeth. It falls short of perfection when it is used to brush hair. My point is that it is impossible to be 'perfect, flawless and without error' if there are no criteria being referred to. Further more you also unwittingly admit that something that can be said to be perfect or imperfect is also something that can or cannot 'be improved upon or subject to further developement'.

In other words you are admitting that it is something created, or something developed.

Saying he is without contradiction is altogether a different kettle of fish. That one is perhaps too big for this thread or even this forum. So I'll leave it for now.