The morality of the Bible?

[stahrwe]

God is necessary for existance but existance is not necessary for God.

A) Existence is necessary for God if you believe that a God exists.

B) And if you don't believe that a God exists, then "existence is not necessary for God" because you lack belief in the existence of a God. So which is it?

Does God exist, yes or no?

YHWH

[tat tvam asi]

Does "YHWH" exist, yes or no?

And to type YHWH means yes. "I am" conveys a meaning of "to be, to exist", "I am".

[Interbane]

God is necessary for existance but existance is not necessary for God. Admittedly it is a bit of a challenge as a concept but it is not difficult.

This isn't challenging. It's false, analytically false.

Existence is a binary concept in an apodeictic statement, such that a concept applies only to one of two states. If you say that existence is not necessary for God, then you are showing, analytically, that god doesn't exist. This truth rests within the definitions of the words, and no amount of intelligence would change that. God would agree, in other words, that you're wrong.

[Robert Tulip]

Hey Robert, did you get through all of this video on white holes, the big bang, and multiverse? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39qmbl7mpJQ ... I like to look at the new science and then figure out how religion would have to react to each new potential discovery. They had to react to the sun being confirmed as the center of the solar system in due time, the earth confirmed as round in due time, and they'll have to react to the universe as but one of many in due time as well if it's established as hard fact by new data.

Prof Kaku says in the video that the multiverse is the new Copernican revolution. His comments are rigorous, but I think he misses the real new transformation of cosmic consciousness, which is the recognition of the temporal pattern of the earth indicated by the Great Year. Multiverse is far too speculative and distant to make any difference to human life.

Copernicus transformed our religious vision. Copernicus established a frame in which the sun does not move, heliocentrism, but the Great Year provides the measure of the apparent movement of the sun, back by one degree per human lifetime. The next big step in transforming our cosmic religious vision will be to place our understanding of terrestrial time within the framework of the Great Year.

[stahrwe]

God is necessary for existance but existance is not necessary for God. Admittedly it is a bit of a challenge as a concept but it is not difficult.

This isn't challenging. It's false, analytically false.

Existence is a binary concept in an apodeictic statement, such that a concept applies only to one of two states. If you say that existence is not necessary for God, then you are showing, analytically, that god doesn't exist. This truth rests within the definitions of the words, and no amount of intelligence would change that. God would agree, in other words, that you're wrong.

Nonsense! The fundamental concept of YHWH is that He is. He is self existant period. He needs nothing outside of Himself to exist. Given that, existance comes from Him and He fills existance but to jump to the conclusion that He is existance is wrong. All of existance may go away but God will remain.

[Interbane]

All of existance may go away but God will remain.

If everything suddenly ceases to exist, then nothing would exist. Which means, god wouldn't exist. You can't avoid this.

Nonsense! The fundamental concept of YHWH is that He is.

Then, obviously, the concept is wrong, or you're interpreting it incorrectly. Or both.

[johnson1010]

tat tvam asi wrote:

Stahrwe wrote:
God is necessary for existance but existance is not necessary for God.

A) Existence is necessary for God if you believe that a God exists.

B) And if you don't believe that a God exists, then "existence is not necessary for God" because you lack belief in the existence of a God. So which is it?

Does God exist, yes or no?

Stahrwe wrote:
YHWH

that is funny.

again we see the ultimate issue that blocks reality from making contact with your brain, star.

The fact that that word exists, is not itself proof of the concept which it represents.

YHWH does not equal truth simply for having been put on paper.

The concept of existence is indeed inclusive of all that exists. That is why we use the word. It describes everything that exists. All things that exist, both which we know to exist and those things that we don't yet know of, but do exist independant of our knowledge fall in this category.

YHWH would be a word we might use to describe god, if it existed. which it does not.

[stahrwe]

tat tvam asi wrote:

Stahrwe wrote:
God is necessary for existance but existance is not necessary for God.

A) Existence is necessary for God if you believe that a God exists.

B) And if you don't believe that a God exists, then "existence is not necessary for God" because you lack belief in the existence of a God. So which is it?

Does God exist, yes or no?

Stahrwe wrote:
YHWH

that is funny.

again we see the ultimate issue that blocks reality from making contact with your brain, star.

The fact that that word exists, is not itself proof of the concept which it represents.

YHWH does not equal truth simply for having been put on paper.

The concept of existence is indeed inclusive of all that exists. That is why we use the word. It describes everything that exists. All things that exist, both which we know to exist and those things that we don't yet know of, but do exist independant of our knowledge fall in this category.

YHWH would be a word we might use to describe god, if it existed. which it does not.

You are stuck in the Star Warz universe of dualism where there is no good and evil just the force and its dark side. With proper instruction one can become a Jedi channeling the force in godlike ways.

That's the oldest lie in the universe. The idea that humans can become like God and it leads to the mistake that the real of existence is necessary for God. That is not the way it is. When He was asked for His name (essentially asked who or what His nature was) God replied, "I AM". Is it really so hard to understand that God can be without there being anything other than Him?

[Interbane]

Is it really so hard to understand that God can be without there being anything other than Him?

It's not a matter of understanding. It's a matter of how that understanding references our world in an objective way. I understand the implications behind 2+2=5. It's not hard to understand such a thing. That does not mean it is true.

[tat tvam asi]