Philosophy Discussion Forums

Steve3007 wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 9:37 am

Darshan wrote:Earthellism answers is that God is not here on earthell. God is in heaven and not here. God is omnipotent in heaven and God's love radiates here on earthell where God is only omnibenevolent here....

Of all the various ideas as to what constitutes heaven and hell, this Earthellism thing seems to be among the most understandable in terms of human history on the planet Earth.

The notion just looks like another angle on the Sun as god to me, which is fine. The Sun obviously is God.

No one else has put up their h̶a̶n̶d̶ coronal mass ejection for the role. It created the Earth. It keeps the planet alive. It comprises 99.86% of all the mass in the solar system. It protects its system from cosmic rays. And when you die it will, via Earth, will reabsorb you.

God is not recognizable by imagination because he is not similar to anything (known or unknown) that man has experienced or imagined. Nobody knows the unattainable mystery of existence of God. It is better we don't make ourselves unable to discover this mystery. God is not recognizable through his essence that we can ask; what he is or what his similarity is?

Attaching very similarity to God is untrue. He is not similar to any of his creatures neither sun nor other objects. But we can observe his signs in his creatures. For example his kingdom, power and endless ability in the space and greatness of the far or closer galaxies, stars planets, black holes and other wonderful phenomena in the space. Or his knowledge in the biology of animated beings among human. Or the words and language, and ability of human of understanding, speaking, writing, learning, discovering and other things.

We can know God through foods, fruits, plants, animals and the uncountable mysteries of their lives and biology. Sometimes people notice God more than other times, during an earthquake or hard hurricane. Death is the most obvious domination of God on the creatures. This unlovable transformation can remember God to man as well.

However, we can not recognize God via asking, what he is; but we can recognize him relatively via this question, who he is?

When we ask, what he is, it does mean, we are curious to know what shape or physical structure he has, and this is a wrong question because he is out of the circle existence of creatures and man hasn't any capacity, ability or access to know the essence of the existence who is not materially or touchable and he is greater than the capacity of thought and mind of man.

But when we ask, who is he, we are seeking for his character and morality such as his power, ability, knowledge, kindness, anger and the goals of his creation.

So, we can't know him thinking to his quality, but we can realize him (relatively) through thinking to the quality and behaviors of the creatures or the phenomena in the nature that he has created.

If we want to know God more, we should refer to his words that send to man. It is easy to know someone from his talking and words. I wonder why people (especially those who follow philosophy), why they don't study Koran and pay no attention to this scripture and somebodies try to deny it without study it? I say to them, don't worry, Koran has nothing to do with them to interfere their believes. I recommend them to study Koran like other books. God has introduced himself directly or indirectly by talking to man. What makes them worried that avoid to study Koran. It has been translated to most of the languages of the world. Koran is like a perfect mirror that shows the character of God higher than researching about him in the nature and through his creatures.

Greta wrote:The notion just looks like another angle on the Sun as god to me, which is fine. The Sun obviously is God.

No one else has put up their h̶a̶n̶d̶ coronal mass ejection for the role. It created the Earth. It keeps the planet alive. It comprises 99.86% of all the mass in the solar system. It protects its system from cosmic rays. And when you die it will, via Earth, will reabsorb you.

It is that, but not just that. It's also about the fact that the movements and appearance of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars across the sky at various times of the day, month and year can be described and predicted by relatively simple and precise rules, compared to the complex and messy world of the surface of the Earth, with its extremely complex systems such as other people's and other creatures' brains. Our ancestors noticed this thousands of years ago. They built monuments and other devices showing that they, at least instrumentally, understood those rules and could thereby make accurate predictions of those movements.

It seems to me clear that it is facts like this - the stark division of macrocosm from microcosm, coupled with the apparent one-way causality link of macrocosm to microcosm - that led to various religious stories, but particularly to a story like Earthellism.

Darshan wrote:

Earthellism answers is that God is not here on earthell. God is in heaven and not here. God is omnipotent in heaven and God's love radiates here on earthell where God is only omnibenevolent here....

This is a rewording of the Manichaeism heresy. The Manichaeism heresy is a means to get rid of the problem of evil. It also allows us to be both theists and existentialists, and is the best way forward for theistic sects to adapt to science.

Why doesn't God prove himself?

God doesn't appear within the "Matrix" or artificial reality of one's first-person subjective experience in the same way that other people's consciousness...only their bodies can be seen...do not and cannot show itself within your consciousness.

Earthellism answers the question why doesn't God prove himself. This is the best argument for atheism and hard to deny their logic. The book "The Life and Death of Planet Earth" helps answer this difficult question. First earthell is born from the book as they describe a hell on earth from a future Ice age that wipes out 80% of humans followed by a new hell on earth from the ever hotter Sun ending all life here. The endless genocides here and the extreme suffering of both sinners and innocent people here suggests there is no hell below us but here on earthell. If God was here, God would not allow such evil here but this evil is here because God is not here. God is in Heaven and not here on earthell but God's love radiates down among us.
Atheist use the lack of presence of God here to say God does not exist at all. God proves God's existence only in Heaven. Christianity supports this view with Jesus being tortured and murdered here with God not intervening to save his son from such a brutal death. Any loving father would intervene to help their son if they could from such a brutal and painful death.

cynicallyinsane wrote: ↑March 5th, 2007, 11:07 am If there is a god, why doesn't he prove that he exists? Why does he leave us without any compelling evidence of his existence?

This is because science has disproved the biblical hocus-pocus that rendered primitive man superstitious. Real-time enlightenment has replaced sorcery and myths with logic. Try, for example, convincing us of a resurrection today without proof in the form of video footage & a scientific explanation.

If God (any God) thought it was necessary to perform biblical miracles in order for man to believe He exists then He would have performed his conjury to the whole world, not only a handful of Mid-Eastern stumble bums out in some desert oasis.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 5:51 am

Greta wrote:The notion just looks like another angle on the Sun as god to me, which is fine. The Sun obviously is God.

No one else has put up their h̶a̶n̶d̶ coronal mass ejection for the role. It created the Earth. It keeps the planet alive. It comprises 99.86% of all the mass in the solar system. It protects its system from cosmic rays. And when you die it will, via Earth, will reabsorb you.

It seems to me clear that it is facts like this - the stark division of macrocosm from microcosm, coupled with the apparent one-way causality link of macrocosm to microcosm - that led to various religious stories ...

I wonder about the one-way causality links, given that we have found that little old us, three percent of the biomass of the animal kingdom, have changed the entire atmosphere. Or microscopic blue-green algae triggering the Great Oxygenation Event. Or how a tiny Coronavirus entering the system of a 90kg man can result in death. There can be delicate balances within systems and swivel points. While the idea of anything we do, impacting the Sun, we could conceivably bump an asteroid, setting off an unlikely (as in many billions-to-one unlikely) chain reaction, disrupting planetary orbits.

The Dyson Sphere of a Kardashev Type 2 civilisation could, I expect, have a real impact on the Sun. However, if "we" can be thought of as one day building a Dyson Sphere, then microbes can be thought of as having sent their colonies to the Moon in 1969.

Jing or Jang wrote: ↑May 26th, 2020, 1:51 am

cynicallyinsane wrote: ↑March 5th, 2007, 11:07 am If there is a god, why doesn't he prove that he exists? Why does he leave us without any compelling evidence of his existence?

This is because science has disproved the biblical hocus-pocus that rendered primitive man superstitious. Real-time enlightenment has replaced sorcery and myths with logic. Try, for example, convincing us of a resurrection today without proof in the form of video footage & a scientific explanation.

"Video footage". Do you believe and/or trust everything you see and watch on video?

Jing or Jang wrote: ↑May 26th, 2020, 1:51 am If God (any God) thought it was necessary to perform biblical miracles in order for man to believe He exists then He would have performed his conjury to the whole world, not only a handful of Mid-Eastern stumble bums out in some desert oasis.

evolution wrote: ↑May 26th, 2020, 5:18 am

Jing or Jang wrote: ↑May 26th, 2020, 1:51 am

This is because science has disproved the biblical hocus-pocus that rendered primitive man superstitious. Real-time enlightenment has replaced sorcery and myths with logic. Try, for example, convincing us of a resurrection today without proof in the form of video footage & a scientific explanation.

"Video footage". Do you believe and/or trust everything you see and watch on video?

What I believe has nothing to do with it.

Earthellism responds that our Sun is not God. Our galaxy has millions of stars many like our Sun. A star is a thermonuclear mass which provides heat and light. God is the creator of Love which radiates down on us with sunlight. When our Sun dies, God will escort our souls to our next solar system.

It comes down to the fact that there's no evidence of religious claims, but folks want you to believe religious claims--which was a remnant especially of religion having a lot of political power, and it's still a huge economic force, so they spun it as it being "important" to believe the claims despite the lack of evidence.

Darshan wrote: ↑May 26th, 2020, 10:44 pm Earthellism responds that our Sun is not God. Our galaxy has millions of stars many like our Sun. A star is a thermonuclear mass which provides heat and light. God is the creator of Love which radiates down on us with sunlight. When our Sun dies, God will escort our souls to our next solar system.

If there were a god for me, it would radiate love via cool temperatures and overcast skies during the day. Not too much sunlight.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 28th, 2020, 9:47 am

Darshan wrote: ↑May 26th, 2020, 10:44 pm Earthellism responds that our Sun is not God. Our galaxy has millions of stars many like our Sun. A star is a thermonuclear mass which provides heat and light. God is the creator of Love which radiates down on us with sunlight. When our Sun dies, God will escort our souls to our next solar system.

If there were a god for me, it would radiate love via cool temperatures and overcast skies during the day. Not too much sunlight.

Proof enough that there is no god in that context. Religion is based upon superstition that has been embellished through the centuries. Today there are very few true religions at all they are mostly cults.

Let me I pose a question:

Is human able to design and create an elephant?!

No, please ignore answering this question!

Is human able to create a horse?!

please ignore this question too.

Is human able to create a pigeon?!

please ignore this one, as well.

Is human able to create a mouse?!

I think this being is a very difficult and complex thing as well to be created by human with his low knowledge, technology facilities and ability! So let me I ask the last question that it is expected somebody answer it.

Is man able to create a mosquito?