Zone1 What exactly did Jesus mean when He said "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do"?

[Meriweather]

Your religious beliefs are subjective.

And here we return to the spiritual where there is no physical/objective material.

No one can prove beauty, they can only point out what they find beautiful.

Religious beliefs point to a way of living life. My life cannot prove Biblical teachings and commandments work; it can only be a testimony that they do--or more specifically, have for me.

 

[Meriweather]

I have more respect for Christians like you who don't appeal to reason and admit that their belief is based upon a subjective experience.

Keep in mind, my knowledge is objective to me, because I have witnessed it. My belief is subjective to you, because you have not seen/experienced what I have. As I said, testimony, not physical evidence.

 

[ding]

I have more respect for Christians like you who don't appeal to reason and admit that their belief is based upon a subjective experience.

And yet God can be known through the light of human reason by studying what he created. Why would you dismiss that? It's the only tangible evidence at our disposal.

 

[BreezeWood]

This question is always posed by people who read the story but never studied it. They expect everyone to see the story as literally as they do.

the crucifiers wrote their 10000 pg document in the 4th century for that very purpose for their kind to find what they wrote - meriweather.

and those that do not study their book ...

as jesus are persecuted and victimized than to live in servitude to a false messiah as nothing in their book has the value reflecting the liberation theology, self determination those people in the 1st century were more than willing to die for.

 

[Red Front]

And yet God can be known through the light of human reason by studying what he created. Why would you dismiss that? It's the only tangible evidence at our disposal.

There's nothing in the physical world that points to a personal deity as asserted by Christians. If you're an eclectic new-ager I really have nothing to debate with you about. My criticism is directed at those who appeal to "inerrant" holy books and religious dogma as "rational proof" of their beliefs. They claim to have faith but then claim to have objective, empirical evidence for their faith, in the form of an "inerrant holy book" and other supposed scientific proof. They have no evidence for their Christian mythology. None. Zero.

If you're a "spiritual person", a new-ager, or an eclectic mystic, I won't waste my time debating you. You can believe the moon is made out of swiss cheese if you want to. When you start claiming that there is scientific evidence that the moon is made out of swiss cheese, then I will feel compelled, and motivated to step into the ring, otherwise, believe whatever nonsense you want to believe in. Do you want to believe in a personal GOD individual or being and in an afterlife? Be my guest. Believe.

 

[ding]

There's nothing in the physical world that points to a personal deity as asserted by Christians. If you're an eclectic new-ager I really have nothing to debate with you about. My criticism is directed at those who appeal to "inerrant" holy books and religious dogma as "rational proof" of their beliefs. They claim to have faith but then claim to have objective, empirical evidence for their faith, in the form of an "inerrant holy book" and other supposed scientific proof. They have no evidence for their Christian mythology. None. Zero.

If you're a "spiritual" person, a new ager, or an eclectic mystic, I don't even waste my time debating such people. You can believe the moon is made out of swiss cheese if you want to. When you start claiming that there is scientific evidence that the moon is made out of swiss cheese, then I will feel compelled, and motivated to step into the ring, otherwise, believe whatever nonsense you want to believe in. Do you want to believe in a personal GOD individual or being and in an afterlife? Be my guest. Believe.

Again... God can be known through the light of human reason by studying what he created. Why would you dismiss that? It's the only tangible evidence at our disposal.

 

[Red Front]

Again... God can be known through the light of human reason by studying what he created. Why would you dismiss that? It's the only tangible evidence at our disposal.

There are too many assumptions in your statement. You presuppose that what exists is created by a super-entity or personal GOD and yet that may not be the case at all. You can't even prove that GOD is an individual person or a disembodied mind..etc. We don't know if there is a GOD and we don't know what or who he is, assuming he exists.

If there is a necessary or non-contingent reality behind this material world, that caused this universe to exist with all of its laws.etc, that doesn't imply that it resembles the Christian, biblical deity.

Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Maybe the future is causing or at least influencing the past from God's perspective and God Himself is a person only when persons are created through a natural process within the space-time continuum. So in a way, the GOD PERSON or SUPER-ENTITY, emerges in the future, when a trillion-trillion minds unite as ONE, then what emerges from that union is GOD THE PERSON. Now what exists, within space and time, isn't a divine, individual SUPER-ENTITY, but rather a God that is evolving, unfolding, growing, expanding..etc. We are part of that GOD.

As I expressed in one of my previous posts, that would be a form of pantheism. All of the potential and whatever is actualized of that potential is GOD. GOD is EVERYTHING, EXISTENCE ITSELF. That which actually IS, IS GOD. God is the state of being alive and existing. God is the potential behind the actual as well, so God is both the potential and the actual. In the future maybe God will be the SUPER-ENTITY and person but that is far from the Christian idea about God. Silly, shallow Christian theology asserts that God was in the past, "before" the universe, as a fully evolved person with Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, playing cards or something.

God wasn't a creator or a king of a kingdom, he was just a father, and Jesus was the son and the spirit was just there with them. It's just primitive, silly mythology. What I just said about a possible God is more scientific. The natural precedes the spiritual. The natural world comes before the spiritual world. Before the physical, there is only potential. A power and system of principles, that are necessary or a so called "brute fact". That simple, necessary deity isn't necessarily a person in the Christian sense, but simply a type of divine nervous system.

My body right now is functioning, and it will continue to function even if I'm asleep and unconscious. My heart beats, my liver and kidneys are functioning, and my hair and nails are growing. I don't have to be a person or conscious for that to happen. So maybe GOD, in the beginning, is just a type of divine nervous system. God exists, but not as a person in the Christian sense. In order for the divine person to exist there has to be a process of natural creation and evolution ("natural selection"), within the parameters of the laws of physics/natural laws and the space-time continuum. Nature precedes the existence of the conscious Spirit or divine personhood of GOD.

GOD THE PERSON emerges in the future, from a body of trillions upon trillions of minds united in selfless love. God is the alpha and omega. The alpha is simple, the omega is complex. God is both the simple alpha point and the complex omega point. In both points of existence there is no space or time. Space and time only exists in the process from one point to another. God is essentially EVERYTHING, and God the person is pulling the past to Himself, that it may become actualized in the "omega-point-complex" or in the complex point of omega.

​

All of the above is just speculation. I don't know if it is true, hence I don't really affirm or even believe it, but a part of me says "maybe that's possible". So unlike Christians who can tell you what color tie God wears and whether he likes his eggs sunny side up or scrambled for breakfast, I don't have that level of understanding and the claim that they do, on the basis of their "bible book" is just absurd. I'm an atheist because I don't have enough information to conclude anything about God. What I just wrote above about GOD is just my imagination. I don't know if it is true. It's just a mere "suspicion" (no verdict). The case is thrown out of court. Not enough evidence. Interesting but, no verdict, no conviction, hence I'm an atheist.

 

[Red Front]

​

 

[Red Front]

Some theists appeal to what is "self-evident". God is supposedly "self-evident", yet if I as an atheist appeal to what is clearly true, you accuse me of being subjective. You know what is self-evident to me as a human being and atheist? That I want to live and not perish. I have a natural impulse to survive and thrive, and not die. So it's self-evident, assuming we are intelligent mortal beings, that there are patterns of thought and behavior that are conducive for life (our survival) and there are patterns of thought and behavior that undermine our lives and wellbeing. You and I share an "orientation" towards survival, hence we can identify, through a process of observation, analysis, and dialogue, what is and isn't "good" for us.

What is "good" is self-evident and those who fail to identify those good patterns of thought and behavior, adopting negative, destructive patterns of thought and behavior will pay the price by undermining their health and lives. It's pretty clear to most people, what is good and what isn't, it's "self-evident". Even less intelligent animals that us can more or less figure out what is good behavior and what isn't.

Is Christian, religious dogma "self-evidently" true? No. Is it self-evident that the bible is the inerrant word of almighty GOD? No. Is it self-evident that as human beings we should value our lives, the lives of our fellow human beings, and to a certain extent, all life on this planet? Yes. Is it clear what type of mindset and behavior we should have to co-exist peacefully with one another and contribute to our growth and progress? It is, when we observe, reflect, ask questions, and listen to each other with an open mind that is committed to finding the truth. I don't need mythology, fairy tales, or religious dogma, to be a moral, good person. I don't even need it to feel at peace and come to terms with the possibility that there isn't life after death. Life is still worth living and beautiful, even without an afterlife. I love life, that is my highest value. Life.

 

[DudleySmith]

I don't need mythology, fairy tales, or religious dogma, to be a moral, good person. I don't even need it to feel at peace and come to terms with the possibility that there isn't life after death. Life is still worth living and beautiful, even without an afterlife. I love life, that is my highest value. Life.

Sociopaths and Downe's Syndrome babies have all that. I don't recall Communists ever being 'moral' or 'good persons', so obviously you're lying about needing mythology, fairy tales, or religious dogma; you're a cultist, and follow a cult that relies on mass murders and concentration camps as 'solutions' to its social and economic problems. lol Communists don't 'value life' any different than corporate cultures do; it's all about 'economic values' for them and Communists both. That's why all those giant multi-nationals fall all over themselves to do business with the Red Chinese and their Cadre partners. Both share a love for labor racketeering and pampered elites.

 

[ding]

There are too many assumptions in your statement. You presuppose that what exists is created by a super-entity or personal GOD and yet that may not be the case at all. You can't even prove that GOD is an individual person or a disembodied mind..etc. We don't know if there is a GOD and we don't know what or who he is, assuming he exists.

If there is a necessary or non-contingent reality behind this material world, that caused this universe to exist with all of its laws.etc, that doesn't imply that it resembles the Christian, biblical deity.

Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Maybe the future is causing or at least influencing the past from God's perspective and God Himself is a person only when persons are created through a natural process within the space-time continuum. So in a way, the GOD PERSON or SUPER-ENTITY, emerges in the future, when a trillion-trillion minds unite as ONE, then what emerges from that union is GOD THE PERSON. Now what exists, within space and time, isn't a divine, individual SUPER-ENTITY, but rather a God that is evolving, unfolding, growing, expanding..etc. We are part of that GOD.

As I expressed in one of my previous posts, that would be a form of pantheism. All of the potential and whatever is actualized of that potential is GOD. GOD is EVERYTHING, EXISTENCE ITSELF. That which actually IS, IS GOD. God is the state of being alive and existing. God is the potential behind the actual as well, so God is both the potential and the actual. In the future maybe God will be the SUPER-ENTITY and person but that is far from the Christian idea about God. Silly, shallow Christian theology asserts that God was in the past, "before" the universe, as a fully evolved person with Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, playing cards or something.

God wasn't a creator or a king of a kingdom, he was just a father, and Jesus was the son and the spirit was just there with them. It's just primitive, silly mythology. What I just said about a possible God is more scientific. The natural precedes the spiritual. The natural world comes before the spiritual world. Before the physical, there is only potential. A power and system of principles, that are necessary or a so called "brute fact". That simple, necessary deity isn't necessarily a person in the Christian sense, but simply a type of divine nervous system.

My body right now is functioning, and it will continue to function even if I'm asleep and unconscious. My heart beats, my liver and kidneys are functioning, and my hair and nails are growing. I don't have to be a person or conscious for that to happen. So maybe GOD, in the beginning, is just a type of divine nervous system. God exists, but not as a person in the Christian sense. In order for the divine person to exist there has to be a process of natural creation and evolution ("natural selection"), within the parameters of the laws of physics/natural laws and the space-time continuum. Nature precedes the existence of the conscious Spirit or divine personhood of GOD.

GOD THE PERSON emerges in the future, from a body of trillions upon trillions of minds united in selfless love. God is the alpha and omega. The alpha is simple, the omega is complex. God is both the simple alpha point and the complex omega point. In both points of existence there is no space or time. Space and time only exists in the process from one point to another. God is essentially EVERYTHING, and God the person is pulling the past to Himself, that it may become actualized in the "omega-point-complex" or in the complex point of omega.

​

All of the above is just speculation. I don't know if it is true, hence I don't really affirm or even believe it, but a part of me says "maybe that's possible". So unlike Christians who can tell you what color tie God wears and whether he likes his eggs sunny side up or scrambled for breakfast, I don't have that level of understanding and the claim that they do, on the basis of their "bible book" is just absurd. I'm an atheist because I don't have enough information to conclude anything about God. What I just wrote above about GOD is just my imagination. I don't know if it is true. It's just a mere "suspicion" (no verdict). The case is thrown out of court. Not enough evidence. Interesting but, no verdict, no conviction, hence I'm an atheist.

Again... God can be known through the light of human reason by studying what he created. Why would you dismiss that evidence? It's the only tangible evidence at our disposal.

 

[Red Front]

Sociopaths and Downe's Syndrome babies have all that. I don't recall Communists ever being 'moral' or 'good persons', so obviously you're lying about needing mythology, fairy tales, or religious dogma; you're a cultist, and follow a cult that relies on mass murders and concentration camps as 'solutions' to its social and economic problems. lol Communists don't 'value life' any different than corporate cultures do; it's all about 'economic values' for them and Communists both. That's why all those giant multi-nationals fall all over themselves to do business with the Red Chinese and their Cadre partners. Both share a love for labor racketeering and pampered elites.

I disagree with your anti-socialist propaganda.

​

 

[Red Front]

Again... God can be known through the light of human reason by studying what he created. Why would you dismiss that evidence? It's the only tangible evidence at our disposal.

In what way does the "light of reason" establish the existence of God? What "evidence" are you referring to?

 

[ding]

In what way does the "light of reason" establish the existence of God? What "evidence" are you referring to?

The only tangible evidence we have available.... what was created. Specifically how the universe was created - from nothing - in an implausible way, how the universe is implausibly hardwired to produce life and intelligence, the physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature.

 

[Red Front]

The only tangible evidence we have available.... what was created. Specifically how the universe was created - from nothing - in an implausible way, how the universe is implausibly hardwired to produce life and intelligence, the physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature.

We still don't know exactly how the world came into existence or whether it came from "nothing", that's speculation. You don't know if the universe is "implausibly hardwired to produce life and intelligence" or whether the physical laws of our universe were established by a deity. Maybe, maybe not, we don't have enough information yet to conclude anything on this matter. There might be an infinite number of universes and only 1 in a trillion trillion has the properties that give rise to life. More, even if it could be established that this universe was caused by a divine person or entity, that doesn't imply that it is the Christian deity, or the God of the bible. It might be a God that is completely different from what Christians believe.

Furthermore, you don't have any evidence that we survive the death of our bodies. It's possible that there is an afterlife, but we don't have conclusive evidence "proving it".

 

[ding]

We still don't know exactly how the world came into existence or whether it came from "nothing", that's speculation. You don't know if the universe is "implausibly hardwired to produce life and intelligence" or whether the physical laws of our universe were established by a deity. Maybe, maybe not, we don't have enough information yet to conclude anything on this matter. There might be an infinite number of universes and only 1 in a trillion trillion has the properties that give rise to life. More, even if it could be established that this universe was caused by a divine person or entity, that doesn't imply that it is the Christian deity, or the God of the bible. It might be a God that is completely different from what Christians believe.

Furthermore, you don't have any evidence that we survive the death of our bodies. It's possible that there is an afterlife, but we don't have conclusive evidence "proving it".

Red shift, cosmic microwave background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. Atheists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[Clyde 154]

you are collating evolution w/ origin which is not what is found in evolution theory ...

physiology is a metaphysical substance not native to planet earth and evolves through progressive chemical / physical reactions. the reason their test tube will be inconclusive for living beings is the physiology also has a spiritual content that is interdependent and necessary for the spark of life that is not provided in their test tube.

View attachment 763101



the above is the captured evidence of the spiritual content transforming the associate physiology from a land dweller to an avian being.

and is the same for all living beings on planet earth.

Simple; show us the scientific experiment based upon the scientific method that proves evolution to be a law/fact of physics. You can't demonstrate your origins, you can't demonstrate evolution to be a law........you show a single SPECIES adapting to its environment ...........all life was designed to adapt WITHIN SPECIES, if not humanity would have become extinct the first time man contracted a common cold. You present an INSECT from larva to maturity and CRY evolution, yet your insect began as an insect and it will remain an insect all throughout its life in the family of "Cicadidae", each and every generation of this life form will begin as an insect and remain an insect.....with no variation from the previous generation. Show us any animal that has changed species. Show me how a feline became a k-9, how a fish became a warm blooded land creature.

Or are you SUGGESTING that this winged insect will begin a new generation that can fly without experiencing a larva state that can't fly...it will be born with wings? That would be EVOLUTION. You show a snapshot and declare EVOLUTION? Or better yet.........that insect will next become a Bird because it has wings?

All life adapts/evolves........WITHIN SPECIES, just as Pasteur demonstrated........life can only be reproduced from pre-existing life within the same species. Demonstrate though the scientific method....how a-sexual life evolved to the point where genders were required to reproduce.


Question? If you have no foundation............you have no building, buildings do not float, how can something evolve if nothing is what you start with? Again........the convolution exists on the part of the Dogma presented by the Darwinian cultists. Regardless........you can't demonstrate EVOLUTION to be a fact of science, its a theory (an idea that does not possess the Empirical evidences to make it a fact/law of physics.

 

[Clyde 154]

All this CUT and PASTING taking the ideas of others from those gullible enough to purchase the snake oil called Evolution. Priceless. Ad Hominem subjective rhetoric is supposed to be evidence? Evidence of what? People who can't defend their own positions but must cut and paste false information from those who also purchased the snake oil?

 

[Red Front]

Red shift, cosmic microwave background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. Atheists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

How does all of that "prove God"? It is true that the universe has a beginning, and this fact is supported by scientific evidence like cosmic microwave background radiation and redshift. However, this does not prove the existence of God. Roger Penrose, a Noble Prize-winning physicist believes the universe is cyclical:

​

Before the "big bang" of our universe, there was another univese and another big bang for that universe. Where is your personal God?

You also cited the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics to support your claim. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. Perhaps that "form" is a univese. One universe to another, hence how does that prove the existence of your personal God entity? It doesn't.

Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, has been arguing that a closed universe can spontaneously appear out of a quantum field or "foam", of probabilities. Some call that "nothing", I don't see how that is absolutely "nothing". That quantum field might be the source of all power, energy, laws..etc. Where is your personal bible God there? Not there.

You also cited Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations. However, these equations are mathematical models that describe the behavior of the universe. They do not necessarily prove the existence of any God, much less the biblical one. So again, you're back to square one. You haven't presented any conclusive evidence yet for the existence of a God.

So far you've failed to provide any evidence to support the notion that God created the universe. Good luck next time, keep trying.

 

[Red Front]

Simple; show us the scientific experiment based upon the scientific method that proves evolution to be a law/fact of physics. You can't demonstrate your origins, you can't demonstrate evolution to be a law........you show a single SPECIES adapting to its environment ...........all life was designed to adapt WITHIN SPECIES, if not humanity would have become extinct the first time man contracted a common cold. You present an INSECT from larva to maturity and CRY evolution, yet your insect began as an insect and it will remain an insect all throughout its life in the family of "Cicadidae", each and every generation of this life form will begin as an insect and remain an insect.....with no variation from the previous generation. Show us any animal that has changed species. Show me how a feline became a k-9, how a fish became a warm blooded land creature.

Or are you SUGGESTING that this winged insect will begin a new generation that can fly without experiencing a larva state that can't fly...it will be born with wings? That would be EVOLUTION. You show a snapshot and declare EVOLUTION? Or better yet.........that insect will next become a Bird because it has wings?

All life adapts/evolves........WITHIN SPECIES, just as Pasteur demonstrated........life can only be reproduced from pre-existing life within the same species. Demonstrate though the scientific method....how a-sexual life evolved to the point where genders were required to reproduce.


Question? If you have no foundation............you have no building, buildings do not float, how can something evolve if nothing is what you start with? Again........the convolution exists on the part of the Dogma presented by the Darwinian cultists. Regardless........you can't demonstrate EVOLUTION to be a fact of science, its a theory (an idea that does not possess the Empirical evidences to make it a fact/law of physics.

Practically all scientists affirm evolution. Fundamentalist Christians are out of touch with reality.​