OBVIOUS EXISTANCE OF GOD

I'm not saying the bible is false...and i'm not saying it is true... because there is alot of truth in it, yet it is a stumbling block.. the bible has been tampered with...one word being misinterpreted could destroy the most faithful person...let me show you why....if you'll understand that is...

In Genesis it says that eve ate from the tree of "knowledge of Good and evil"....

now God told both adam and eve that if they ate from the tree that they would die......now their knowlede was only of good things before right?.....anything that was touched, tasted, smelt, etc...was "good"...Now after hearing a statement like that thay you will die if you eat of something....then I gather that they would know what evil is....it is good if you eat from any other tree...yet if you eat of the other tree you will die... from that point on they knew what evil was, yet they had no name for it.....from that point on curiousity was spawned... but i'm not going to get into all of that right now back to what I was saying....

So they knew what "evil" was before eve even tasted of the tree so eating of the tree would be pointless...she already knew!....from that deduction do you disagree?..... if you know that touching fire is bad....you know what a bad thing is... you already have a knowledge of that thing without touching the fire....therefore your actions will only be spawn out of curiousity.....for the next truth....will I get burned...in eves case will I die!.....the knowledge was already there......

^^tried to explain...hope you get it.....Now the way the name of that "tree" needs to be said is..."the tree of knowledge, which is good and evil"
Knowledge is a good thing it gives you insight on alot of subjects...situations...but it's evil because it confuses things... it deadens the spirit searching so much...it muddles the being with questions that are already answered..... knowledge is what caused the fall of man....do you still think Knowledge is power??.......I'll stop here and make you think about it and reply if you want to.....The bible has been tampered with sir...there's still alot of truth in it...but it's not a platform you should be happy to stand on....

"Being is not knowing!"

I believe there to be a difference between death and evil. You are saying that the two are the same thing. The introduction of evil occured once the fruit was eaten.

I don't think that the Bible has been "tampered with" as you say. That implies that a person deliberately changed something. I don't think this has occured. Are there differences in the translations? Well of course there are. There are many different English translations, each is different. The question is not what are the differences in the words used, but the meaning of what is said. If I say "I ate an apple an hour ago," is that the same thing as "60 minutes earlier than now I consumed an apple."? Well the words used are not the exact same, but I find the meaning to be the same. If I say either one you would know that there was an apple eaten an hour ago and I was the one who ate it.

^^^I understand what you're saying...but the words are not the same when i'm referring to meaning......

and death and evil aren't the same thing......let me try to break it down further...

"Thou shalt NOT eat of the tree"...the death factor was not what was evil, it was the spiritual intent....going against a "not"...disobedience....they knew of wrong because it was what was against Gods wishes..........death is the conclusion not the beginning.......do you kind of understand....death was only a reaction from curiousity...... they already had that knowledge, that God doesn't want us to do something...so there is something that is NOT good.....and what is NOT good is evil........understand somewhat??

and for the words.....

the tree of Knowledge of good and evil.... this is learning something...learning what both good and evil is... the difference between each ultimate.... how could eve have learnt that from eating the fruit when she already knew it from understanding the factor of disobedience?....

the tree of Knowlede which is good and evil... this states that knowledge is both good and evil...... the stress is more on knowledge in this wording than in the other......

#1 says that she gained a knowledge of good and evil
#2 says that knowledge is good and evil....

know through common rationality....if they knew what good was then knowing good from the tree would be irrelevant....and if they understood wrong by understanding Gods will then knowing evil from the tree would be irrelevant.....understand?...

and the bible being tampered with is not an intentional thing... it's a natural loss of information as much as it has been reinterpreted through its history..........you said it yourself... so many different ways to tell the story...yet not all of them have the same amount of truth........ that's why i'm saying there is truth IN the bible...but the bible is NOT truth....

"Being is not knowing!"

This subject keeps coming up - and unfortunately, I can't stay away from it either.

730 - you explain scripture very well - think of scripture as poetry and then you will find it believable and full of wise instructions. You will never understand the bible if you turn it into a history book, or a book of scientific calculations or facts. It will be wrong every time and you won't understand it.

But to just observe life, there are just to many things one can observe as evidence to an intelegance greater than our own involved in this creation thing.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

Exactly, the bible is more or less symbolism.

I believe that there is no reason great enough, for us to understand something we do not yet know.

If your speaking of a parallel universe, or a spiritual world...how can you expect to know it by using only your mind and physical evidence?

What is also so terrible, is that this is all we know to use...so it does limit us to an extent. We just have to live in the best of our abilities...and wait to see what happens.



730-knowing and understanding are two different things.

Eve knew God was good, because she was told this. She knew that everything she had was from God. The opportunity to disobey was present, because if she wasnt able to do so, she could never truly love or respect God.

She understood evil to be what God isnt. Again she was told this. She did not understand the ratio between Good and evil.

The reason knowledge is evil, is because it presents evil into the already present good, creating the ratio..and leading to understanding the evil. She knew evil, she knew good. She understood God to be good...because he is all there was.

God told her not to eat from the tree because he loved her, but because she was so selfish, the serpent convinced her that God was a liar. Trying to hide all the great things of the world, he felt she couldnt have..and she believed it.

She knew evil, she knew good..she understood God as good. But when she ate from the tree...she knew and understood evil, because she knew and understood its ratio with the Good.

So as the story goes, this is why we know both good and evil, and understand its ratio.

thanks a fuckin bunch eve..

"In this world, we are never lacking. Only losing what we have in hope of gaining what we dont."
[  Edited by ekimup at   ]

i can just picture tmr. eveil genius saying"fool brains thinking womething will happen"... and to the guy on the last page saying "id rather believe god thanevrying a coincidence" COINCIDENCE?????? where the hell did that ish come from... were attached accusmteed to hoew things are as we see them.. but where does coinsidence come from???

"no quote until i copyright it.."

Well, Patape, if you are referring to my comments made earlier about coincidence let me explain. If there is no God, no creator, no supreme entity, then it can only be by mere and extraordinary coincidence that life exists, and that things are and happen the way they do. Is it possible? Yes. However, it is also possible to win the lottery, get struck by lightening, throw a touchdown to win the superbowl, get married, hit a hole in one in golf, and bowl a perfect game all in one day. Neither instances are what I would exactly call likely. Amazingly enough, the latter of the two scenarios is actually more likely to occur.

ok i just saw the second meaingn to the word coincidence.. but id say to us things seem arragned and planned casue were acustmed.. but i can look at it loike a pile of dirst water stuff patterns in it etc.. but its wierd why are we atstonished why does it need a creator and cant just be always be everytihngall the suual substance occuraces by substacnes etc... maybe thers a supereme being.. but its equally for our brains astonismnent to wonder who diesgned or created it.. but thats going t the other debate.. but to finih that ill just asy our brains settle fo simplicity... want a mystry satisfting answer to all agree with.. ev1 open to nkan still

"no quote until i copyright it.."

So uh, where did God come from, and who planned on him planning everything? He sounds like a very complicated (or severly overflowing with these coincidences, including the very ones afore mentioned) being.

I mean, so many people's explanation for the obvious existance God is all this orderly chaos and living beings. Well what is God if not a the same evidence of the obvious existance of an intelligent creator, a creator of God.

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

evidence is not needed with Gods presence..

he is considered ordered chaos, because he is chaos to the logically sound and reasonable minds...but continues to exist and work.


if there were any evidence leading to his existence, it would be that he is not of this world(in the same way shape or form as we are).


and if someone had to plan on him, planning everything..who would have planned on that someone? I believe God is not a single entity, but a spirit. and what we know of spirits is limited.

its typical for you to feel, that a being who transcends all others, is "complicated".

There is no "evidence" enough for us to place in test tubes, or send to a lab. There are no microscopic bits of matter that can tell us who, or what God is and Does. We are limited by the confines of our minds. So if God transcends empirical methods, he would most certainly be outside the understanding of them.


..besides. how could we have true faith if we discovered him via knowledge?-(take adams word for it.)

"In this world, we are never lacking. Only losing what we have in hope of gaining what we dont."

"evidence is not needed with Gods presence.."

Two points, one, the evidence I mentioned is that which others continually use to promote an "obvious existance of God", hence the thread, and two, this notion of no needed evidence sure flies in the face of the point of the Bible and all its claims of evidence of God through actual interaction with God.

"if there were any evidence leading to his existence, it would be that he is not of this world(in the same way shape or form as we are)."

This is entirely speculative, and makes little sense.

"and if someone had to plan on him, planning everything..who would have planned on that someone?"

Very good question, thats why I asked it, my point did not stop at the creation of God, however, its a question that is not getting asked enough by the faithful, who insist on making claims outside the realm of faith.

"I believe God is not a single entity, but a spirit. and what we know of spirits is limited."

Limited indeed, but not so limited, I take it, for you to have beliefs about it, isn't that cute.

"There is no "evidence" enough for us to place in test tubes, or send to a lab. There are no microscopic bits of matter that can tell us who, or what God is and Does. We are limited by the confines of our minds. So if God transcends empirical methods, he would most certainly be outside the understanding of them."

So why do people think they know what their talking about in reference to it.

People have claimed of empirical evidence of God, interaction, stone tablets, miracles, etc.

"..besides. how could we have true faith if we discovered him via knowledge?-(take adams word for it.)"

Uh, like most religions, they are based on "knowledge" passed down from those who claim to have had physical interaction, and or direct knowledge from God.

Take Adams word for it? Well thats just silly. And for many reasons.

"..besides. how could we have true faith if we discovered him via knowledge?"

Oh, you came up with your god concept on your own did you? And while you looked to the stars and figured all this out, did you envision the story of the Bible as well?

That quote makes me ask if you know what faith is, and even what knowledge is.

What do you think people have faith in? Its of their understanding of whatever is in question. Faith is not a word confined to the belief of God, nor is the knowing of God somehow not a form or knowledge, knowledge that was passed to you by others who's words you've taken, and not Adam's either.

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

uhm. ok..i apologize if i didnt give you a knowledgable response to..retain.

..the bible is sybolism.

i did not literally take adam to be a true being of which we can reference.it was more or less a joke.


i didnt say that its claims of evidence were true- but the claims are stated as human interaction with God..so in fact they are "first-had accounts". You do not have to believe them, if your not christian then the christian bible clearly does not apply to you. Religion in fact requires faith. faith is believing in something in which you have no evidence exists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
"my point did not stop at the creation of God, however, its a question that is not getting asked enough by the faithful, who insist on making claims outside the realm of faith."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
im sorry..what is your point?


since the faithful are faithful..and believe God to have created all, there is no question. And if your "assuming" that god has a creator, or that evolution is the core at what we are, then by applying your thought process of continually searching for the source and its creator(infinitaly)...become just as mundane as having faith in a single God.

for you have no proof of either.



...so, without lacking evidence..you could never have true faith.

ofcourse i have beliefs about "spirits"..as yourself do. whether for or against. dont be so sarcastic please.

also, if you would like a symbolic reference as to why lack of evidence is needed for faith...then again, look at adam and eve.

if you continue in your vindictive state, and only choose to understand one side of what im saying.."that there is not proof God exists..and that it is necessary in order to have true faith.." do not ask me why there is no evidence of his existence..and do not tell me he doesnt exist.-for you have no evidence of this yourself.

"In this world, we are never lacking. Only losing what we have in hope of gaining what we dont."

I have made no claims one way or the other, so don't assume yourself, and though you may feel my tounge to be sharp at times no vindictiveness is at hand. Sarcasm however, well, I simply can't seem to help that.

Bible is symbolism, agreed.

"i did not literally take adam to be a true being of which we can reference.it was more or less a joke."

Most people don't speak of this in terms of a joke or as non literal, so thanks for clarifying.

"Religion in fact requires faith. faith is believing in something in which you have no evidence exists.

...so, without lacking evidence..you could never have true faith."

This is where I have to point out again that actually that is not the definition of faith. You are quite able to have faith in existing and non existant objects and entities with or without evidence, religious faith is more specific and along what you mean, however, people argue that the Bible, and the corroboration of the existance of anyone or place that was mentioned in it is evidence to which they have built their faith.

Refering to the notion from the famous saying of how blessed is he who believes but has not seen. I find this fairly pointless, and in its original context highly manipulative. Because of the specific religion it was attached and its intended meaning. It was not said to mean that whatever you believe is ok, only if you believe what they were saying, regardless of any good reason to.

"ofcourse i have beliefs about "spirits"..as yourself do. whether for or against. dont be so sarcastic please."

Ahem, I have no beliefs about spirits, careful with your assumptions young padawan learner (sorry too much Star Wars recently ), I have slight ideas and notions based off of legend lore and the rantings of a zillion religious people, oh, and movies, but no, hold no belief of spirits.

"also, if you would like a symbolic reference as to why lack of evidence is needed for faith...then again, look at adam and eve. "

Huh? What point were you making, it seems to have eluded me. The Dark side has clouded the force......... dammit.

.."that there is not proof God exists..and that it is necessary in order to have true faith.."

Again, I disagree, for this is the religious twist on the word and makes no sense. Are you telling me that people would have less faith in the existance of God if say he appeared and left evidence? Thats just silly.

And if you find that vindictive, well, take a chill pill.

"and do not tell me he doesnt exist.-for you have no evidence of this, yourself."

No evidence, just faith, right?

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"
[  Edited by Ironwood at   ]

infintie creaters (creators creating creators) is no more absurd than time and or space simply existing infinetly...

the question is of the "creator" that we dont see and seem to need put there (u know people follow the bible where someone "god" created everyitnhg)..v etc

"no quote until i copyright it.."

and since their claiming that one specific creator without a creator why? well if you just only follow the bible and say it just is right.. but from logic its like.. our brains fllow this god idea becasue we have a feeling that its wried that everying here just exsits.. but that saem feeling of logic goes exactly for god asweell.. but we dont get there casue thats where we let the bible or whatever take contriol and settle for it just is... if you belive in this "god" dont put logic behind it becasue logic can get you easily.. just say "faith" etc.. casue logic can be turnmed agains god belivers so esily.. so it doesnt back god up by using a little logic (everyting (exept god)must have a creator) i dont know if thats logic.. its not emotion... hmm what would bmake us think that anyway.. godd question,.. ill travel around the wordl and hopefully find some answers...

"no quote until i copyright it.."