Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Dave3712,

I've read a bit more closely and see that you are comparing Elijah to Jesus. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. There is no comparison. Jesus is God's Son. Elijah is God's son too, but a lesser. Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest man who ever was born of women and He also meant he was greater than Elijah. Elijah was great, but what of Elisha who asked for double the spirit of Elijah? You know I love Elijah very much, but consider what you say. Do not let the importance and stature of Jesus Christ sink so low as to compare Him to Elijah. Maybe Christ's forerunner. Be careful what you think. Elijah is not equal to Christ Jesus. No, not on this earth or the next.

ThanksSoMuch Dave3712,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Dave3712,

You, I see, are trying to say that Jesus is Elijah, and that the Messiah will come yet? Is that it?? Don't think that Dave. C'mon, I thought you were cool. Think twice. Jesus said John the Baptist was spiritually Elijah coming before His first coming to earth.

Jesus is coming again a 2nd time. That's all I have to say that you can handle. Let us Praise His Holy Name,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

C'mon People,

Tell me if you KNOW THE TRUTH!! You atheists can forget it, 'cause you don't know. But I'd like to know from this person from Santa Monica knows what the heck he/she is talking about. You are far from right. Dave3712, I would worry about the earthquake that's going to hit you hard instead of whether Elijah is Christ or not. I want to let you know that Christ is WAY MORE THAN Elijah! You GOT IT!!?? You are an impaired to think different. Your worst earthquake will happen after Phoenix's GRAND earthquake. Be aware and advised of that. You've been told and warned. Let us see what happens?!! OK??

MichaelCadry

 

[Jukia]

C'mon People,

Tell me if you KNOW THE TRUTH!! You atheists can forget it, 'cause you don't know. But I'd like to know from this person from Santa Monica knows what the heck he/she is talking about. You are far from right. Dave3712, I would worry about the earthquake that's going to hit you hard instead of whether Elijah is Christ or not. I want to let you know that Christ is WAY MORE THAN Elijah! You GOT IT!!?? You are an impaired to think different. Your worst earthquake will happen after Phoenix's GRAND earthquake. Be aware and advised of that. You've been told and warned. Let us see what happens?!! OK??


MichaelCadry

Do you have any specifics on the earthquakes?

 

[Ben Masada]

Religions will generally tend to suppose a knowledge of the unknowable, its what they do after all.
Atheists otoh won't usually claim to have any ultimate answers, instead what is unknown is allowed to be called just that, an "unknown". It doesn't need to be dressed up in fancy clothes and supposed supernatural beliefs, or even believed in.

I don't know why supposing a "creator" might for some reason even be considered as an acceptable answer to anything at all?
Or why a "creator" can happily be presumed to have always existed and an answer but physical matter/energy always existing can't?
Atheists don't believe in gods, most will not claim to know there is/are no god(s)/creator(s), there is simply no specific belief in gods.

"Creator" is simply your word for "unknown" because it is nevertheless unknowable. I think it just gives religionists more scope for dressing up their particular "unknown" in some fancy made-up religious regalia.

But why do most atheists claim to KNOW that God does not exist? If they are so sure they imply that they do know what or who caused the universe to exist. The theory of the BB fixed that 2,300 years old mistake that the universe always existed. Today most scientists and astrophysicists in general adopt the BB as the closest to the truth theory ever formulated albeit they hold back the info that the Bible has been saying so for over 4000 years in Gen.1:1.

 

[Ben Masada]

So you can't conceive of matter or the universe causing itself to exist, but you can conceive of a self creating God? Seems a little inconsistent.

Well, first answer my question. Can you conceive that matter or the universe caused itself to exist? With regards to God, if He was a self creating god He would not be God because it is only logical that the Primal Cause could not have been caused or He would not be the Primal Cause. But I turn to my question can you or can you not conceive that the universe could have caused itself to exist? You do give me the impression that you believe it could. Is that a fact or you are just trying to jump the line?

 

[Ben Masada]

You seem a little confused about what Einstein actually said on the subject. Maybe a further look at his words will make clear.

Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954:

Einstein clearly did not believe in the god of the bible or give the bible any credence whatever. Regarding not wanting to identify as an atheist I understand his dilemma. I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the terms atheist, atheism, atheistic or any descriptor with "theis" in it which takes theism as the default position and prefixes "A" to describe those who do not subscribe. I too do not want to be labelled by someone else's evidence free beliefs.

There are many other things I do not believe in, such as : fairies, leprechauns, pixies, ghosts, psychics.... and so on. Yet I do not identify as a Aleprechaunist or Apixist.

Like Einstein I don't buy any of it. I'm a sceptic, nothing more.

I am well aware of Einstein's words on that letter to Erick Gutkind. It does not change a bit of my views on the subject as I adopt them. And they say nothing about the non-existence of the Primal Cause. God in the mental agenda of Einstein and mine for that matter is the same. Just a title. It makes no difference to hear that it means nothing to him. The point is that men like Einstein and Spinoza were not atheists and that they never could be one. Even Nietzsche referred to Spinoza as a man intoxicated with God. Somehow they both thought of the universe as related to the Primal Cause. Furthermore Einstein referred to the expansion of the universe as God at His work of Creation. Also from his book, "Out of My Later years."

I understand that you don't buy anything of the Scriptures because I too don't buy anything from the mouth of an atheist who claims to be sure of what he does not know.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Jukia,

Yes, the greatest ever, ever earthquake will be in Phoenix and the one in Hollywood/L.A. shall follow not so far after that.

You asked. I provided. Give it some time.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Ben Masada,

Good for you! I am with you on this. Prepare for an onslaught of atheists to pervade this thread. They work in packs, like wolves. Beware.

Much Love in God,

Michael

 

[alwight]

I understand that you don't buy anything of the Scriptures because I too don't buy anything from the mouth of an atheist who claims to be sure of what he does not know.

Where do you get this rather daft idea that atheists claim to be sure of what is not known?
Atheists don't have to provide answers or try to convince you of a supposed alternative "Truth", they usually are well aware that they don't actually have any, unlike religionists perhaps. Atheists may however ask believers to explain their claims, supposed answers and what might make believers so sure, usually to no avail in my experience.
The whole point about unknowns is that you can't claim to be sure of anything other that it is unknown. Putting faith in a supposed cause as an explanation is what religionists do, I can't and don't put any faith in an unknown, it would be pointless and rather silly imo.

 

[Hedshaker]

I am well aware of Einstein's words on that letter to Erick Gutkind. It does not change a bit of my views on the subject as I adopt them. And they say nothing about the non-existence of the Primal Cause. God in the mental agenda of Einstein and mine for that matter is the same. Just a title. It makes no difference to hear that it means nothing to him. The point is that men like Einstein and Spinoza were not atheists and that they never could be one. Even Nietzsche referred to Spinoza as a man intoxicated with God. Somehow they both thought of the universe as related to the Primal Cause. Furthermore Einstein referred to the expansion of the universe as God at His work of Creation. Also from his book, "Out of My Later years."

I understand that you don't buy anything of the Scriptures because I too don't buy anything from the mouth of an atheist who claims to be sure of what he does not know.

Believe what you want. Einstein clearly was not a theist and said as much, numerous times.

You surly are more confused than ever. How can anyone be sure of what they don't know? Sounds like a oxymoron.

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear Jukia,

Yes, the greatest ever, ever earthquake will be in Phoenix and the one in Hollywood/L.A. shall follow not so far after that.

You asked. I provided. Give it some time.

How much time? Be more specific.

 

[gcthomas]

Well, first answer my question. Can you conceive that matter or the universe caused itself to exist? With regards to God, if He was a self creating god He would not be God because it is only logical that the Primal Cause could not have been caused or He would not be the Primal Cause. But I turn to my question can you or can you not conceive that the universe could have caused itself to exist? You do give me the impression that you believe it could. Is that a fact or you are just trying to jump the line?

It seems you have a problem with why there is a God at all. If god caused everything else, why is there a God rather than no God? Where did that huge complex existence originate? Why?

I CAN conceive of a self consistent non-caused, finite universe. I have no way of knowing if is a true conception, but the thought of such a thing does not fill me with horror. And if you accept an existence without a cause, as you seem to, why can't the Universe be uncaused instead of a god?

 

[noguru]

Believe what you want. Einstein clearly was not a theist and said as much, numerous times.

You surly are more confused than ever. How can anyone be sure of what they don't know? Sounds like a oxymoron.

Einstein was either a pantheist or a panentheist. Most likely the latter. I do agree that he was not a theist in the traditional sense of his time. If you look at the sum total of all he wrote, I think that becomes quite clear. I think he saw that, based upon mounting discoveries in science, the traditional (of his time) human conceptions of what God was and how God influenced the universe was inaccurate.

 

[noguru]

It seems you have a problem with why there is a God at all. If god caused everything else, why is there a God rather than no God? Where did that huge complex existence originate? Why?

I CAN conceive of a self consistent non-caused, finite universe. I have no way of knowing if is a true conception, but the thought of such a thing does not fill me with horror. And if you accept an existence without a cause, as you seem to, why can't the Universe be uncaused instead of a god?

It cold also be that both are uncaused. We have physical evidence for the physical universe. What kind of evidence would you expect for a spiritual universe?

 

[Silent Hunter]

It cold also be that both are uncaused. We have physical evidence for the physical universe. What kind of evidence would you expect for a spiritual universe?

What is a "spiritual universe" . . . exactly?

 

[gcthomas]

It cold also be that both are uncaused. We have physical evidence for the physical universe. What kind of evidence would you expect for a spiritual universe?

If the universe can be explained without a god hypothesis, what role for a god? There is no evidence for things spiritual except for people's feelings on the matter and weak circumstantial evidence. With only subjective feelings, and opinions free of independent evidence, to support a non-material god, why would you believe it?

BOTH could be uncaused? A material universe AND the non-material one in your head? I strongly suspect that the imaginary spiritual world is 'caused' directly by human psychology.

 

[Hedshaker]

Einstein was either a pantheist or a panentheist. Most likely the latter. I do agree that he was not a theist in the traditional sense of his time. If you look at the sum total of all he wrote, I think that becomes quite clear. I think he saw that, based upon mounting discoveries in science, the traditional (of his time) human conceptions of what God was and how God influenced the universe was inaccurate.

Einstein never claimed to be a panentheist. I think Spinosa's conceptual idea would be acceptable to any none theist since it is basically about standing in awe and majesty at the natural universe. I know Dawkins has no problem with it.

In my opinion we already have a word for Spinosa's god: nature.

 

[dave3712]

...God is an euhemism for the Forces behind the ever unfolding Reality...

...God is an euhemism for the Forces behind the ever unfolding Reality...

I am well aware of Einstein's words on that letter to Erick Gutkind. It does not change a bit of my views on the subject as I adopt them. And they say nothing about the non-existence of the Primal Cause. God in the mental agenda of Einstein and mine for that matter is the same. Just a title. It makes no difference to hear that it means nothing to him. The point is that men like Einstein and Spinoza were not atheists and that they never could be one. Even Nietzsche referred to Spinoza as a man intoxicated with God. Somehow they both thought of the universe as related to the Primal Cause. Furthermore Einstein referred to the expansion of the universe as God at His work of Creation. Also from his book, "Out of My Later years."

I understand that you don't buy anything of the Scriptures because I too don't buy anything from the mouth of an atheist who claims to be sure of what he does not know.

Yes, Einstein and Spinoza agreed as do I, that what people have called by the word "God" is an inexplicable Shechinah, the spirit of the interactive web of Natural Laws, which is the force behind the instantaneous and ever changing next frame of Reality within which we exist and are nurtured.

 

[dave3712]

.. motherNature is not Father creator...

.. motherNature is not Father creator...

Einstein never claimed to be a panentheist. I think Spinosa's conceptual idea would be acceptable to any none theist since it is basically about standing in awe and majesty at the natural universe. I know Dawkins has no problem with it.

In my opinion we already have a word for Spinosa's god: nature.

Mother Nature is the moment, the bliss, the present scenario of one pause in the ever changing Reality which eternally unfolds.

We can not place our faith in the present beauty of a Mother Nature.
"She" is subject to the Forces of eternal change which al life must anticipate and prepare to adapt to in the future, less the species experience the second death of extinction.

Our God creates tomorrow, fill of al the good and evil that we must respect and bow down to:

Isa 45:7
I, (almighty Reality), form the light, and create darkness:
I, (both Friend and Foe of the living), make peace, and create (the environment for possible great misfortune), evil:
I, (both Friend and Foe to life and man), the LORD, (of the living), do all these things, (naturally, through the environmental forces).