Why doesn't God share His knowledge?

Nancy Williams58 said:Total nonsense. Killing an Arctic fox for its fur, if it's used to keep a person warm, is no different than slaughtering a pig for food. Besides, why don't you show me one single verse in the Bible that forbids killing an Arctic fox?

The fact that you immediately jumped to the conclusion that someone’s wearing fur just as a fashion statement is a whole different story.

To stay warm? Sorry, but aside from some high-fashion accessory, I haven't actually seen anyone relying on them for warmth. Arctic fox populations are already incredibly low. We have plenty of other animals killed for food whose meat, fur, and hides are more than enough to keep us warm without needing to skin an arctic fox. I was reading recently that even those sources aren't so scarce that they'd start making coats out of human skin. If I can track down that article, I'll post the link.
Is this normal, or is it just sick? Ask yourself...☕

Kobra 11 said:😕
God sent His only Son to die for all mankind...

To those who believe in His Son, He reveals love—and truly, love is the most precious knowledge of all!🙂

Ronald Nelson2 said:To stay warm? Sorry, but aside from some high-fashion accessory, I haven't actually seen anyone relying on them for warmth. Arctic fox populations are already incredibly low. We have plenty of other animals killed for food whose meat, fur, and hides are more than enough to keep us warm without needing to skin an arctic fox. I was reading recently that even those sources aren't so scarce that they'd start making coats out of human skin. If I can track down that article, I'll post the link.
Is this normal, or is it just sick? Ask yourself...☕

You're bringing up the Bible, and we're talking about the Old Testament written thousands of years ago. Of course, in a biblical sense, it’s totally normal and justified to kill an arctic fox to get its fur for human use.

You're totally missing the point here. What, you think someone living in the Arctic three thousand years ago had access to goats? Since when do goats live in the Arctic wilderness??? 🙂

Susan Green15 said:The gentleman was simply poorly phrased; he likely meant hypocritical. You believers achieve success in the real world because you actually employ logic, reasoning, and observation to survive. If you applied the same thought process used for faith to your daily lives, we’d all be dead within thirty minutes. Essentially, you operate under a double standard. When it comes to religion, you choose to believe whatever feels comfortable rather than what can be backed by evidence.

For instance, you've decided that God is good, omnipotent, and just, primarily because it makes for a pleasant belief system, regardless of whether any actual arguments support it.

Just imagine if you convinced yourself in the real world that humans could fly simply because you wished it were true. If you religious folk firmly believed you could fly without bothering to check if it made any sense, the entire population would be wiped out in a matter of days.

But when it pertains to faith, you allow yourselves to think however you please—inventing concepts without any logical foundation and justifying contradictions—all without facing any immediate consequences.

An atheist, on the other hand, applies the same set of standards whether they are discussing faith or reality. An atheist remains consistent in their way of thinking.

So, what you're saying is an atheist isn't capable of being irrational?

Why is an atheist supposedly so consistent in their reasoning?

And honestly, what is the actual rational advantage of that consistency compared to the inconsistency—the hypocrisy—of a believer?

Harold Doyle3 said:So, what you're saying is an atheist isn't capable of being irrational?

Why is an atheist supposedly so consistent in their reasoning?

And honestly, what is the actual rational advantage of that consistency compared to the inconsistency—the hypocrisy—of a believer?

Of course not. I suppose some people might irrationally believe that politicians actually have their best interests at heart, or convince themselves that weight isn't an issue simply because they enjoy eating too much. But I would argue those should be the exceptions rather than the rule; after all, they are still human beings. However, in the vast majority of cases, they rely on the brain—logic, reasoning, observation, probability assessment, and everything else upon which science and human progress are built, regardless of the subject matter at hand.

Harold Doyle3 said:So, what you're saying is an atheist isn't capable of being irrational?

Why is an atheist supposedly so consistent in their reasoning?

And honestly, what is the actual rational advantage of that consistency compared to the inconsistency—the hypocrisy—of a believer?

As I explained to you earlier. It is because they apply the same logic and methodology to every topic. It isn't as if they choose to believe whatever sounds pleasant when discussing religion, while switching to what is most probable and logical when dealing with real life.

Harold Doyle3 said:So, what you're saying is an atheist isn't capable of being irrational?

Why is an atheist supposedly so consistent in their reasoning?

And honestly, what is the actual rational advantage of that consistency compared to the inconsistency—the hypocrisy—of a believer?

There isn't one; in fact, I might go as far as saying it's a disadvantage. I suspect believers might lead a higher quality of life because they feel someone is watching over them and protecting them. They don't fear death because they don't expect an end, but rather the beginning of something beautiful and new. Believers spend their lives living within a lovely little fairy tale they've constructed for themselves—a sort of comfortable bubble that shields them from many grim truths: that life may lack inherent meaning, that death is final, and that the suffering you endure now will never be rewarded.

That is precisely the point of faith, and why so many subscribe to it. They either refuse to or cannot face reality, so instead of investigating what is actually true, they manufacture a truth that suits them best. In my view, faith can even be positive in its own way. The problem arises when you find people (politicians, clergy) who pretend their commands come directly from God to intimidate and manipulate the public. That is how a cozy little bubble transforms into bloody crusades, suicides, and discrimination against women and LGBTQ+ individuals. Everything falls apart, and ultimately, thanks to the believers, we end up with a world that is realistically even worse—for women, for minorities, for victims of violence, and for scientific progress—than a world run by atheists.

Nancy Williams58 said:You're bringing up the Bible, and we're talking about the Old Testament written thousands of years ago. Of course, in a biblical sense, it’s totally normal and justified to kill an arctic fox to get its fur for human use.

You're totally missing the point here. What, you think someone living in the Arctic three thousand years ago had access to goats? Since when do goats live in the Arctic wilderness??? 🙂

My dear friend, don't pin this on me if you don't understand the point. I am talking about today. I'm talking about the modern world where humanity has actually progressed, not what was happening three thousand years ago.🙂

Ronald Nelson2 said:My dear friend, don't pin this on me if you don't understand the point. I am talking about today. I'm talking about the modern world where humanity has actually progressed, not what was happening three thousand years ago.🙂

Sweetie, let me just repeat back what you said here:

"Yeah, but God didn't create animals just for us to torture them. They exist for meat and other products. Not so we can kill off an Arctic fox just for some fur piece.
You honestly don't get it at all.Read the Bible, talk to a priest, and maybe things will start making sense to you."

So, you're bringing up the Bible—a book written three millennia ago that, obviously, reflects how people saw the world back then. Sure, according to the Bible, God made the Arctic fox to provide humans with fur. He didn't have to go hunting for goats to get the job done. Back in those days, people weren't just out there slaughtering animals for fun unless they needed food or were performing a sacrifice—again, to someone, specifically to God. Interestingly enough, the Bible doesn't actually forbid animal sacrifice, provided you aren't offering them to the "wrong" God.

Susan Green15 said:The question was actually framed around the idea that believers constantly insist God is both good and just, yet simultaneously allow children to die from illnesses despite having the knowledge required to prevent it.
I personally have no issue with the theory that God granted us intelligence and left us to struggle through life on our own terms. However, we cannot claim such a being is good or righteous if He sits idly by without intervening. It really boils down to contradictions that believers simply choose to ignore.
Imagine you were dying in the street after a car accident, and instead of helping, passersby just walked right past you—or worse, they stopped to grab a burger and a soda, sat down next to you, and watched you expire rather than calling 911 on their cell phones. I am merely pointing out that such people are cruel.
By that same logic, if God created the world along with the early viruses and bacteria that cause us to fall ill and die, then He designed a world specifically intended for suffering and misery. In my view, that is the hallmark of an evil being.

And just how far should He go in preventing the death of every single individual?
Maybe we should just grant humanity immortality...☕

Susan Green15 said:Of course not. I suppose some people might irrationally believe that politicians actually have their best interests at heart, or convince themselves that weight isn't an issue simply because they enjoy eating too much. But I would argue those should be the exceptions rather than the rule; after all, they are still human beings. However, in the vast majority of cases, they rely on the brain—logic, reasoning, observation, probability assessment, and everything else upon which science and human progress are built, regardless of the subject matter at hand.

As I explained to you earlier. It is because they apply the same logic and methodology to every topic. It isn't as if they choose to believe whatever sounds pleasant when discussing religion, while switching to what is most probable and logical when dealing with real life.

There isn't one; in fact, I might go as far as saying it's a disadvantage. I suspect believers might lead a higher quality of life because they feel someone is watching over them and protecting them. They don't fear death because they don't expect an end, but rather the beginning of something beautiful and new. Believers spend their lives living within a lovely little fairy tale they've constructed for themselves—a sort of comfortable bubble that shields them from many grim truths: that life may lack inherent meaning, that death is final, and that the suffering you endure now will never be rewarded.

That is precisely the point of faith, and why so many subscribe to it. They either refuse to or cannot face reality, so instead of investigating what is actually true, they manufacture a truth that suits them best. In my view, faith can even be positive in its own way. The problem arises when you find people (politicians, clergy) who pretend their commands come directly from God to intimidate and manipulate the public. That is how a cozy little bubble transforms into bloody crusades, suicides, and discrimination against women and LGBTQ+ individuals. Everything falls apart, and ultimately, thanks to the believers, we end up with a world that is realistically even worse—for women, for minorities, for victims of violence, and for scientific progress—than a world run by atheists.

Why is someone who calls himself an atheist even bothering to ponder theism and belief in God? Isn't that whole thing settled?
Doesn't their presence here, debating believers (from a common-sense perspective), look a bit like a sober man trying to argue with a drunkard about the dangers of alcohol?

Susan Green15 said:Of course not. I suppose some people might irrationally believe that politicians actually have their best interests at heart, or convince themselves that weight isn't an issue simply because they enjoy eating too much. But I would argue those should be the exceptions rather than the rule; after all, they are still human beings. However, in the vast majority of cases, they rely on the brain—logic, reasoning, observation, probability assessment, and everything else upon which science and human progress are built, regardless of the subject matter at hand.

As I explained to you earlier. It is because they apply the same logic and methodology to every topic. It isn't as if they choose to believe whatever sounds pleasant when discussing religion, while switching to what is most probable and logical when dealing with real life.

There isn't one; in fact, I might go as far as saying it's a disadvantage. I suspect believers might lead a higher quality of life because they feel someone is watching over them and protecting them. They don't fear death because they don't expect an end, but rather the beginning of something beautiful and new. Believers spend their lives living within a lovely little fairy tale they've constructed for themselves—a sort of comfortable bubble that shields them from many grim truths: that life may lack inherent meaning, that death is final, and that the suffering you endure now will never be rewarded.

That is precisely the point of faith, and why so many subscribe to it. They either refuse to or cannot face reality, so instead of investigating what is actually true, they manufacture a truth that suits them best. In my view, faith can even be positive in its own way. The problem arises when you find people (politicians, clergy) who pretend their commands come directly from God to intimidate and manipulate the public. That is how a cozy little bubble transforms into bloody crusades, suicides, and discrimination against women and LGBTQ+ individuals. Everything falls apart, and ultimately, thanks to the believers, we end up with a world that is realistically even worse—for women, for minorities, for victims of violence, and for scientific progress—than a world run by atheists.

🙂
So the question also touches on why one uses the exact same logic and mindset regardless of the subject matter.

For instance, how do they approach things like art, love, morality, ethics, joy, or humor? Do they reduce all of that down to a specific set of premises and then draw a conclusion based solely on that?

Susan Green15 said:Of course not. I suppose some people might irrationally believe that politicians actually have their best interests at heart, or convince themselves that weight isn't an issue simply because they enjoy eating too much. But I would argue those should be the exceptions rather than the rule; after all, they are still human beings. However, in the vast majority of cases, they rely on the brain—logic, reasoning, observation, probability assessment, and everything else upon which science and human progress are built, regardless of the subject matter at hand.

As I explained to you earlier. It is because they apply the same logic and methodology to every topic. It isn't as if they choose to believe whatever sounds pleasant when discussing religion, while switching to what is most probable and logical when dealing with real life.

There isn't one; in fact, I might go as far as saying it's a disadvantage. I suspect believers might lead a higher quality of life because they feel someone is watching over them and protecting them. They don't fear death because they don't expect an end, but rather the beginning of something beautiful and new. Believers spend their lives living within a lovely little fairy tale they've constructed for themselves—a sort of comfortable bubble that shields them from many grim truths: that life may lack inherent meaning, that death is final, and that the suffering you endure now will never be rewarded.

That is precisely the point of faith, and why so many subscribe to it. They either refuse to or cannot face reality, so instead of investigating what is actually true, they manufacture a truth that suits them best. In my view, faith can even be positive in its own way. The problem arises when you find people (politicians, clergy) who pretend their commands come directly from God to intimidate and manipulate the public. That is how a cozy little bubble transforms into bloody crusades, suicides, and discrimination against women and LGBTQ+ individuals. Everything falls apart, and ultimately, thanks to the believers, we end up with a world that is realistically even worse—for women, for minorities, for victims of violence, and for scientific progress—than a world run by atheists.

Aren't the real culprits actually the ones who don't even have to believe in anything? I mean, the atheists who use common sense—or rather, sheer manipulation—to pull the strings by exploiting the irrationality of believers?

Susan Green15 said:The gentleman was simply poorly phrased; he likely meant hypocritical. You believers achieve success in the real world because you actually employ logic, reasoning, and observation to survive. If you applied the same thought process used for faith to your daily lives, we’d all be dead within thirty minutes. Essentially, you operate under a double standard. When it comes to religion, you choose to believe whatever feels comfortable rather than what can be backed by evidence.

For instance, you've decided that God is good, omnipotent, and just, primarily because it makes for a pleasant belief system, regardless of whether any actual arguments support it.

Just imagine if you convinced yourself in the real world that humans could fly simply because you wished it were true. If you religious folk firmly believed you could fly without bothering to check if it made any sense, the entire population would be wiped out in a matter of days.

But when it pertains to faith, you allow yourselves to think however you please—inventing concepts without any logical foundation and justifying contradictions—all without facing any immediate consequences.

An atheist, on the other hand, applies the same set of standards whether they are discussing faith or reality. An atheist remains consistent in their way of thinking.

Using "you believers" is a massive overgeneralization. Which believers are we talking about? What worldview? What social standing, economic status, or cultural background? All of those factors shape how one perceives faith.

Susan Green15 said:The gentleman was simply poorly phrased; he likely meant hypocritical. You believers achieve success in the real world because you actually employ logic, reasoning, and observation to survive. If you applied the same thought process used for faith to your daily lives, we’d all be dead within thirty minutes. Essentially, you operate under a double standard. When it comes to religion, you choose to believe whatever feels comfortable rather than what can be backed by evidence.

For instance, you've decided that God is good, omnipotent, and just, primarily because it makes for a pleasant belief system, regardless of whether any actual arguments support it.

Just imagine if you convinced yourself in the real world that humans could fly simply because you wished it were true. If you religious folk firmly believed you could fly without bothering to check if it made any sense, the entire population would be wiped out in a matter of days.

But when it pertains to faith, you allow yourselves to think however you please—inventing concepts without any logical foundation and justifying contradictions—all without facing any immediate consequences.

An atheist, on the other hand, applies the same set of standards whether they are discussing faith or reality. An atheist remains consistent in their way of thinking.

Arguments are absolutely necessary. Do you honestly believe that every single believer relies solely on blind faith without some kind of real, direct experience—or at least a hint of something like God? What everyone keeps glossing over in this debate is lived experience: that tangible, undeniable encounter that forces a person to conclude there is something more than just mere matter. The thing is, you don't find that experience at a flea market; you acquire it by keeping an open mind.

And then, of course, there is rational thought to assist the process. For example, I have yet to see or hear of a physical law stating that something can spontaneously emerge from absolute nothingness. Scientifically speaking, that is nonsense. In any equation, the input must be equivalent to the output. Therefore, if the universe, matter, energy, consciousness, and intelligence exist, they must have originated from something that also possesses or consists of those very elements. In the absence of a more precise term, we call that "God."

Consequently, belief—starting with belief in God and moving beyond—can certainly have both rational and experiential foundations. That doesn't mean it *always* does, let's be clear on that. Also, just because something cannot be proven experimentally doesn't mean it isn't real. I can't provide experimental proof that I was lying in my bed at 11:48 last night. But I know, through experience, that I was. Do you follow me? 😉

Harold Kelly5 said:Using "you believers" is a massive overgeneralization. Which believers are we talking about? What worldview? What social standing, economic status, or cultural background? All of those factors shape how one perceives faith.

Arguments are absolutely necessary. Do you honestly believe that every single believer relies solely on blind faith without some kind of real, direct experience—or at least a hint of something like God? What everyone keeps glossing over in this debate is lived experience: that tangible, undeniable encounter that forces a person to conclude there is something more than just mere matter. The thing is, you don't find that experience at a flea market; you acquire it by keeping an open mind.

And then, of course, there is rational thought to assist the process. For example, I have yet to see or hear of a physical law stating that something can spontaneously emerge from absolute nothingness. Scientifically speaking, that is nonsense. In any equation, the input must be equivalent to the output. Therefore, if the universe, matter, energy, consciousness, and intelligence exist, they must have originated from something that also possesses or consists of those very elements. In the absence of a more precise term, we call that "God."

Consequently, belief—starting with belief in God and moving beyond—can certainly have both rational and experiential foundations. That doesn't mean it *always* does, let's be clear on that. Also, just because something cannot be proven experimentally doesn't mean it isn't real. I can't provide experimental proof that I was lying in my bed at 11:48 last night. But I know, through experience, that I was. Do you follow me? 😉

Well, I found myself dwelling on that very subject yesterday—that absolute nothingness that preceded the universe and the sheer mystery of how everything came to be. For reasons I can't quite put my finger on, my intuition seemed to nudge me toward a few specific corners of the internet. These were the links that caught my eye:

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%...rse%20from.htm
Imagine an infinite, eternal, and immutable void—a state of absolute nothingness that has existed since before time itself. Within this stillness, there exists a finite yet unbounded closed universe; a system that is perpetually in flux, characterized by constant change, even while the vacuum containing it remains eternally unchanged.
Imagine a balloon—if you can even wrap your head around the concept—that is in a state of perpetual, restless transformation. It shifts constantly from a single, infinitely dense point into the vast entirety of the cosmos we observe, only to collapse and begin the process all over again. And again. And again. It is a relentless, rhythmic cycle—a constant state of equilibrium where everything exists in perfect balance against nothingness. A truly infinite loop.

And then, some inner demon practically compelled me to click on this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4nhLpWahLE Starting from 7:00 PM—actually, let's make that 7:45 PM—and moving forward... I don't quite follow—you've only provided a fragment. If you have a full post or a specific message you need me to rework, please send it over. I'm ready to get to work once I have the substance.( 😲 The point I was just beginning to dwell upon—that specific thread of thought—is laid out clearly from the 20:15 mark onward.

What is the actual point here? Look, it’s all well and good to have faith—really, it is—but for God's sake, let's apply a little logic to the situation. We don't exactly need some deity or supernatural figure stepping in just to explain how the world works.

I used to hold onto this notion of some sort of "intelligent nothingness"—a concept I found somewhat compelling at one point—but after everything that has unfolded, I have officially abandoned the idea.

Nancy Wilson2 said:Well, I found myself dwelling on that very subject yesterday—that absolute nothingness that preceded the universe and the sheer mystery of how everything came to be. For reasons I can't quite put my finger on, my intuition seemed to nudge me toward a few specific corners of the internet. These were the links that caught my eye:

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%...rse%20from.htm
Imagine an infinite, eternal, and immutable void—a state of absolute nothingness that has existed since before time itself. Within this stillness, there exists a finite yet unbounded closed universe; a system that is perpetually in flux, characterized by constant change, even while the vacuum containing it remains eternally unchanged.
Imagine a balloon—if you can even wrap your head around the concept—that is in a state of perpetual, restless transformation. It shifts constantly from a single, infinitely dense point into the vast entirety of the cosmos we observe, only to collapse and begin the process all over again. And again. And again. It is a relentless, rhythmic cycle—a constant state of equilibrium where everything exists in perfect balance against nothingness. A truly infinite loop.

And then, some inner demon practically compelled me to click on this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4nhLpWahLE Starting from 7:00 PM—actually, let's make that 7:45 PM—and moving forward... I don't quite follow—you've only provided a fragment. If you have a full post or a specific message you need me to rework, please send it over. I'm ready to get to work once I have the substance.( 😲 The point I was just beginning to dwell upon—that specific thread of thought—is laid out clearly from the 20:15 mark onward.

What is the actual point here? Look, it’s all well and good to have faith—really, it is—but for God's sake, let's apply a little logic to the situation. We don't exactly need some deity or supernatural figure stepping in just to explain how the world works.

I used to hold onto this notion of some sort of "intelligent nothingness"—a concept I found somewhat compelling at one point—but after everything that has unfolded, I have officially abandoned the idea.

Sure, it’s an interesting hypothesis, but it trips over a few logical hurdles. For instance, how do you account for the laws of physics themselves? They seem to act like a pre-written "program" that runs the whole show, creating and destroying the cosmos over and over. Were those laws also created? And if they were, by what mechanism? Most importantly, could they have just popped into existence on their own?
Furthermore, the whole argument collapses when you reach the singularity. At that moment, there is no "before" or "after," which implies there must be some framework existing OUTSIDE—if I can even use a spatial term like that—of space and time itself. It all seems to circle back to that "intelligent nothingness" concept you mentioned. I must say, I quite like that phrase.🙂

Harold Kelly5 said:Sure, it’s an interesting hypothesis, but it trips over a few logical hurdles. For instance, how do you account for the laws of physics themselves? They seem to act like a pre-written "program" that runs the whole show, creating and destroying the cosmos over and over. Were those laws also created? And if they were, by what mechanism? Most importantly, could they have just popped into existence on their own?
Furthermore, the whole argument collapses when you reach the singularity. At that moment, there is no "before" or "after," which implies there must be some framework existing OUTSIDE—if I can even use a spatial term like that—of space and time itself. It all seems to circle back to that "intelligent nothingness" concept you mentioned. I must say, I quite like that phrase.🙂

The universe isn't being "created" or "destroyed"; it is all energy, obviously. It merely shifts form—it can never be birthed from nothing nor truly extinguished, making it infinite and immortal. Our linear, limited minds struggle to grasp infinity, so we reflexively insist that everything must have a beginning or an end. What actually happened? Perhaps as the previous universe reached its "end," it began to collapse; the volume decreased further and further until, according to evolutionary theory and relativity, it culminated in a new (or another one, several times over) singularity. Given the nature of spacetime, the attractive force of gravity changes—it ceases at those extreme densities—causing the collapse to halt. Those forces then pivot, creating a repulsive force, and everything begins anew. There is no breaking point; these processes have always existed. That is simply how nature functions—through balance and cycles. It follows the logic laid out in the link I provided.

No God or external intelligence is required to explain this. It is quite simply nature—creation in action, manifesting itself. Unless, of course, you believe that nature and the universe are one and the same. In that case, pantheism wins. 😁 A God that creates Himself—if He is "omnipotent," why not? What would be the purpose of this repetition? New experiences for living beings. Is life not, ultimately, just an experience? And who is the one experiencing it? Consciousness. Now, as for what consciousness actually is, I wouldn't dare claim it is merely a function produced by the brain; there is simply too much evidence suggesting otherwise. From what I have read regarding quantum mechanics and unified field theory, consciousness appears to be fundamental to nature. However, I suspect scientists would need to approach this with far more open minds to investigate it properly. If the universe operates with such perfection, I see no reason why life itself wouldn't be equally perfect—meaning it never truly "vanishes," but rather shifts into a form suited for higher dimensions. I once heard a fellow forum user suggest that "energy becomes matter in higher dimensions," which is a compelling thought. If that holds true, then this entire process of rebirth exists solely to gather new experiences for the infinite field of consciousness/intelligence that permeates everything.

But then again, we don't know everything yet... we'll live to see. I am merely recording my current thoughts; I trust no one takes offense.

edit: My 400th post, by the way, 🙂 😁

@Nancy Wilson2

Exactly—when I talk about the "destruction of the universe," I’m not talking about wiping out energy itself. I mean the destruction or transformation of form, like matter.🙂

Now, this part is spot on: "Simply nature/creation at work, creating itself." But here’s the catch—for anything to have the capacity to create, it has to possess the "tools" to do so. I don't mean mechanical tools, obviously. I mean conceptual or mental tools, if such a term even works here (it feels a bit too anthropomorphic, but I’ll use it since there isn't a better way to put it). Therefore, this universe must be "alive" or "intelligent." This makes the universe itself a creator, at the very least. However, I would argue it goes much deeper than that, reaching toward a transcendent God rather than just an immanent one (panteistic, for those following along). Why? Because of Plato and his theory of Forms. Anyone who truly understands this can't just skip over it; if you try, you're left with a massive hole in your logic. To put it simply: if you have dog X, dog Y, and dog Z—each with different traits, none of them perfect, yet each unique—then there must exist an "idea" or a blueprint of the ideal dog somewhere. In other words, the actual dogs we see are merely "copies" or "shadows" of that ideal. This points directly to the fact that everything exists first in the world of ideas. It's obvious that something inanimate and unintelligent cannot produce an idea. Thus, whatever created all of existence (even by transforming itself) absolutely had to possess intelligence.

Yes, the book "The Conscious Universe" comes to mind—along with several others similar to yours. Essentially, the tool you are describing is consciousness itself. According to modern science and quantum physics, this field permeates everything in existence, from subatomic particles to those massive clusters of galaxies. This field is our origin and our destination after death; though, I suspect that being in alignment with the source doesn't necessarily mean seeing nothing but light and feeling pure love. Rather, you simply *are* conscious—you "feel" (meaning, you ARE) peace. In that state, the time we perceive here on Earth ceases to exist. It could last for a few seconds or a hundred years; it is irrelevant. I have read extensively on the subject and maintain an open mind—I have no issue accepting these concepts—but there is one small hitch: it all feels a bit like a New Age spike. Personally, I would much rather see serious scientists tackling this head-on... I truly don't know what they are waiting for 😢
. I find myself somewhat in agreement with your assessment. When I suggested there was no need to introduce God into the equation to explain certain phenomena, I was referring specifically to the version of God presented by KeyCode—that personified entity who supposedly conjures this entire universe out of light in a matter of days. In my view, that is sheer nonsense.
However, I suspect you may not have scrutinized the links I provided quite closely enough: the universe has always existed; it has merely shifted its form. From the initial singularity to everything we observe today, it has been a continuous process. Whether consciousness drives these cycles or if it is simply a fundamental natural function—well, I cannot say for certain. Both possibilities remain on the table. Perhaps consciousness generated the process, which subsequently became a natural function in its own right.

I was watching a documentary just a moment ago where a man argued that "normal" explosions are fundamentally different from the Big Bang, because the latter was an "ordered" event involving the precise distribution of energy and forces. And where does this order come from? We talk so much about "randomness," yet we are expected to believe that, out of a void of infinite nothingness, something happened "once"—an explosion occurred, and voilà, here is everything we see. But "nothingness" implies a total absence of everything, including time and space across any dimension; yet an event requires time, which does not exist in a void, nor ever will. Actually, all of this is detailed in the links I shared. Things are so perfectly ordered in their very essence that it only reinforces my earlier point. And yes, I realize this is entirely off-topic. Therefore, I should probably wrap this up—I have no desire to earn another strike over trivialities.

Here is what the Quran says about the universe

"We built the heavens with Our power, and indeed, it is We who are expanding it." (Az-Zariyat, 47)

"Do those who disbelieve not see that the heavens and the Earth were once a single entity, and then We separated them? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
(Al-Anbiya', 30)

"Night and day, the sun and the moon—all float within their celestial orbits." (Al-Anbiya', 33)

This was written 1,400 years ago. How could any man back then possibly know that the heavens and the Earth started as one single unit?

blueeagle22 said:Here is what the Quran says about the universe

"We built the heavens with Our power, and indeed, it is We who are expanding it." (Az-Zariyat, 47)

"Do those who disbelieve not see that the heavens and the Earth were once a single entity, and then We separated them? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
(Al-Anbiya', 30)

"Night and day, the sun and the moon—all float within their celestial orbits." (Al-Anbiya', 33)

This was written 1,400 years ago. How could any man back then possibly know that the heavens and the Earth started as one single unit?

And you really think it matters that some imaginary being is playing around with the planets? Seriously? Is that where we are now?

The idea of heaven and earth being one... honestly, if you want to dive into that, go ahead and try exploring some Eastern philosophy instead!

Check out this video about miracles found in the Quran http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=temQ6bd3Cuk

What kind of insight should we actually expect from God? Perhaps just something like this:

According to the Maslowian definition, individuals who have reached self-actualization tend to exhibit these specific traits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
* An efficient perception of reality
* Acceptance of oneself, others, and the natural world
* Spontaneity, simplicity, and humility
* A focus on problem-solving rather than just dwelling on them
* A genuine need for solitude and privacy
* Independence from the surrounding culture and environment
* A constant freshness in how they perceive things
* Peak experiences—those profound, oceanic feelings
* An innate desire to help humanity
* Deeply meaningful connections with a small circle of people
* A natural inclination toward democracy
* A sharp ability to distinguish means from ends
* A sense of philosophical humor
* Creativity
* Resistance to cultural conditioning

Nancy Wilson2

Don't worry about it. A few minor tangents are perfectly fine if they actually serve the topic at hand. In fact, I intend to tie those points back into this post myself, so there really isn't an issue here. 🙂

Nancy Wilson2 said:Yes, the book "The Conscious Universe" comes to mind—along with several others similar to yours. Essentially, the tool you are describing is consciousness itself. According to modern science and quantum physics, this field permeates everything in existence, from subatomic particles to those massive clusters of galaxies. This field is our origin and our destination after death; though, I suspect that being in alignment with the source doesn't necessarily mean seeing nothing but light and feeling pure love. Rather, you simply *are* conscious—you "feel" (meaning, you ARE) peace. In that state, the time we perceive here on Earth ceases to exist. It could last for a few seconds or a hundred years; it is irrelevant. I have read extensively on the subject and maintain an open mind—I have no issue accepting these concepts—but there is one small hitch: it all feels a bit like a New Age spike. Personally, I would much rather see serious scientists tackling this head-on... I truly don't know what they are waiting for 😢
. I find myself somewhat in agreement with your assessment. When I suggested there was no need to introduce God into the equation to explain certain phenomena, I was referring specifically to the version of God presented by KeyCode—that personified entity who supposedly conjures this entire universe out of light in a matter of days. In my view, that is sheer nonsense.
However, I suspect you may not have scrutinized the links I provided quite closely enough: the universe has always existed; it has merely shifted its form. From the initial singularity to everything we observe today, it has been a continuous process. Whether consciousness drives these cycles or if it is simply a fundamental natural function—well, I cannot say for certain. Both possibilities remain on the table. Perhaps consciousness generated the process, which subsequently became a natural function in its own right.

I was watching a documentary just a moment ago where a man argued that "normal" explosions are fundamentally different from the Big Bang, because the latter was an "ordered" event involving the precise distribution of energy and forces. And where does this order come from? We talk so much about "randomness," yet we are expected to believe that, out of a void of infinite nothingness, something happened "once"—an explosion occurred, and voilà, here is everything we see. But "nothingness" implies a total absence of everything, including time and space across any dimension; yet an event requires time, which does not exist in a void, nor ever will. Actually, all of this is detailed in the links I shared. Things are so perfectly ordered in their very essence that it only reinforces my earlier point. And yes, I realize this is entirely off-topic. Therefore, I should probably wrap this up—I have no desire to earn another strike over trivialities.

Honestly, right now, I have this overwhelming urge to just go out and start shooting. If I could pick one, I’d go with something heavy-duty—maybe a .50 cal. Just to get it over with. 😛 I find myself uttering that specific word some 85,676 times a day. It’s an obsession born of pure consciousness—whether it's the will of God or just someone else's influence—yet the actual meaning remains frustratingly elusive. It never truly clicks.

Nancy Wilson2 said:Yes, the book "The Conscious Universe" comes to mind—along with several others similar to yours. Essentially, the tool you are describing is consciousness itself. According to modern science and quantum physics, this field permeates everything in existence, from subatomic particles to those massive clusters of galaxies. This field is our origin and our destination after death; though, I suspect that being in alignment with the source doesn't necessarily mean seeing nothing but light and feeling pure love. Rather, you simply *are* conscious—you "feel" (meaning, you ARE) peace. In that state, the time we perceive here on Earth ceases to exist. It could last for a few seconds or a hundred years; it is irrelevant. I have read extensively on the subject and maintain an open mind—I have no issue accepting these concepts—but there is one small hitch: it all feels a bit like a New Age spike. Personally, I would much rather see serious scientists tackling this head-on... I truly don't know what they are waiting for 😢
. I find myself somewhat in agreement with your assessment. When I suggested there was no need to introduce God into the equation to explain certain phenomena, I was referring specifically to the version of God presented by KeyCode—that personified entity who supposedly conjures this entire universe out of light in a matter of days. In my view, that is sheer nonsense.
However, I suspect you may not have scrutinized the links I provided quite closely enough: the universe has always existed; it has merely shifted its form. From the initial singularity to everything we observe today, it has been a continuous process. Whether consciousness drives these cycles or if it is simply a fundamental natural function—well, I cannot say for certain. Both possibilities remain on the table. Perhaps consciousness generated the process, which subsequently became a natural function in its own right.

I was watching a documentary just a moment ago where a man argued that "normal" explosions are fundamentally different from the Big Bang, because the latter was an "ordered" event involving the precise distribution of energy and forces. And where does this order come from? We talk so much about "randomness," yet we are expected to believe that, out of a void of infinite nothingness, something happened "once"—an explosion occurred, and voilà, here is everything we see. But "nothingness" implies a total absence of everything, including time and space across any dimension; yet an event requires time, which does not exist in a void, nor ever will. Actually, all of this is detailed in the links I shared. Things are so perfectly ordered in their very essence that it only reinforces my earlier point. And yes, I realize this is entirely off-topic. Therefore, I should probably wrap this up—I have no desire to earn another strike over trivialities.

I honestly don't know anymore. It seems like people are still stuck in this outdated, frantic struggle between science and faith, desperately clinging to one while flat-out denying the other. They just can't seem to find a middle ground. If you look at history, it’s clear: the most brilliant civilizations were built on an integrated worldview. They possessed a unified perspective that gave humanity purpose and meaning. They didn't spend their time fragmenting or pitting fundamental pillars—like science and faith—against one another. Such division only serves to weaken us.

Nancy Wilson2 said:Yes, the book "The Conscious Universe" comes to mind—along with several others similar to yours. Essentially, the tool you are describing is consciousness itself. According to modern science and quantum physics, this field permeates everything in existence, from subatomic particles to those massive clusters of galaxies. This field is our origin and our destination after death; though, I suspect that being in alignment with the source doesn't necessarily mean seeing nothing but light and feeling pure love. Rather, you simply *are* conscious—you "feel" (meaning, you ARE) peace. In that state, the time we perceive here on Earth ceases to exist. It could last for a few seconds or a hundred years; it is irrelevant. I have read extensively on the subject and maintain an open mind—I have no issue accepting these concepts—but there is one small hitch: it all feels a bit like a New Age spike. Personally, I would much rather see serious scientists tackling this head-on... I truly don't know what they are waiting for 😢
. I find myself somewhat in agreement with your assessment. When I suggested there was no need to introduce God into the equation to explain certain phenomena, I was referring specifically to the version of God presented by KeyCode—that personified entity who supposedly conjures this entire universe out of light in a matter of days. In my view, that is sheer nonsense.
However, I suspect you may not have scrutinized the links I provided quite closely enough: the universe has always existed; it has merely shifted its form. From the initial singularity to everything we observe today, it has been a continuous process. Whether consciousness drives these cycles or if it is simply a fundamental natural function—well, I cannot say for certain. Both possibilities remain on the table. Perhaps consciousness generated the process, which subsequently became a natural function in its own right.

I was watching a documentary just a moment ago where a man argued that "normal" explosions are fundamentally different from the Big Bang, because the latter was an "ordered" event involving the precise distribution of energy and forces. And where does this order come from? We talk so much about "randomness," yet we are expected to believe that, out of a void of infinite nothingness, something happened "once"—an explosion occurred, and voilà, here is everything we see. But "nothingness" implies a total absence of everything, including time and space across any dimension; yet an event requires time, which does not exist in a void, nor ever will. Actually, all of this is detailed in the links I shared. Things are so perfectly ordered in their very essence that it only reinforces my earlier point. And yes, I realize this is entirely off-topic. Therefore, I should probably wrap this up—I have no desire to earn another strike over trivialities.

Keycode is Keycode. They’re always going to push their own specific vision of God, regardless of whether that vision holds any water or not. It’s just how they operate. But honestly? That shouldn't even matter. At the end of the day, every individual needs to find God on their own terms—whatever makes sense to them personally. People need to find a definition or a platform that actually rings true to their own experience. There are infinite worldviews out there, so there will be an infinite number of ways to perceive the Divine. Some people won't even use the word "God." They'll call it "The Spirit," "The Totality," or "The Singularity." Whatever works for them.

Nancy Wilson2 said:Yes, the book "The Conscious Universe" comes to mind—along with several others similar to yours. Essentially, the tool you are describing is consciousness itself. According to modern science and quantum physics, this field permeates everything in existence, from subatomic particles to those massive clusters of galaxies. This field is our origin and our destination after death; though, I suspect that being in alignment with the source doesn't necessarily mean seeing nothing but light and feeling pure love. Rather, you simply *are* conscious—you "feel" (meaning, you ARE) peace. In that state, the time we perceive here on Earth ceases to exist. It could last for a few seconds or a hundred years; it is irrelevant. I have read extensively on the subject and maintain an open mind—I have no issue accepting these concepts—but there is one small hitch: it all feels a bit like a New Age spike. Personally, I would much rather see serious scientists tackling this head-on... I truly don't know what they are waiting for 😢
. I find myself somewhat in agreement with your assessment. When I suggested there was no need to introduce God into the equation to explain certain phenomena, I was referring specifically to the version of God presented by KeyCode—that personified entity who supposedly conjures this entire universe out of light in a matter of days. In my view, that is sheer nonsense.
However, I suspect you may not have scrutinized the links I provided quite closely enough: the universe has always existed; it has merely shifted its form. From the initial singularity to everything we observe today, it has been a continuous process. Whether consciousness drives these cycles or if it is simply a fundamental natural function—well, I cannot say for certain. Both possibilities remain on the table. Perhaps consciousness generated the process, which subsequently became a natural function in its own right.

I was watching a documentary just a moment ago where a man argued that "normal" explosions are fundamentally different from the Big Bang, because the latter was an "ordered" event involving the precise distribution of energy and forces. And where does this order come from? We talk so much about "randomness," yet we are expected to believe that, out of a void of infinite nothingness, something happened "once"—an explosion occurred, and voilà, here is everything we see. But "nothingness" implies a total absence of everything, including time and space across any dimension; yet an event requires time, which does not exist in a void, nor ever will. Actually, all of this is detailed in the links I shared. Things are so perfectly ordered in their very essence that it only reinforces my earlier point. And yes, I realize this is entirely off-topic. Therefore, I should probably wrap this up—I have no desire to earn another strike over trivialities.

Don't worry, I’m well aware of those theories. In fact, that’s exactly where I built the foundation of my own logic: if the universe has always existed, simply shifting its form and shape over time, then the universe itself must contain everything necessary for creation—including the "programming," such as the laws of nature. Therefore, the universe itself is God. Take this for example: can there ever be a moment in the history of these universes where the continuum of life or consciousness is broken? It’s impossible. If it were, you couldn't have something living emerge from something absolutely lifeless. The chain would snap, leaving us with nothing but dead matter. Everything essentially revolves around that single point of origin: at that specific point, either the point itself must possess everything required, or the point itself *is* the Absolute. (That’s a philosophical term for God, by the way; look it up if you feel like it. It’s easily the most convincing definition I’ve ever come across.)

Nancy Wilson2 said:Yes, the book "The Conscious Universe" comes to mind—along with several others similar to yours. Essentially, the tool you are describing is consciousness itself. According to modern science and quantum physics, this field permeates everything in existence, from subatomic particles to those massive clusters of galaxies. This field is our origin and our destination after death; though, I suspect that being in alignment with the source doesn't necessarily mean seeing nothing but light and feeling pure love. Rather, you simply *are* conscious—you "feel" (meaning, you ARE) peace. In that state, the time we perceive here on Earth ceases to exist. It could last for a few seconds or a hundred years; it is irrelevant. I have read extensively on the subject and maintain an open mind—I have no issue accepting these concepts—but there is one small hitch: it all feels a bit like a New Age spike. Personally, I would much rather see serious scientists tackling this head-on... I truly don't know what they are waiting for 😢
. I find myself somewhat in agreement with your assessment. When I suggested there was no need to introduce God into the equation to explain certain phenomena, I was referring specifically to the version of God presented by KeyCode—that personified entity who supposedly conjures this entire universe out of light in a matter of days. In my view, that is sheer nonsense.
However, I suspect you may not have scrutinized the links I provided quite closely enough: the universe has always existed; it has merely shifted its form. From the initial singularity to everything we observe today, it has been a continuous process. Whether consciousness drives these cycles or if it is simply a fundamental natural function—well, I cannot say for certain. Both possibilities remain on the table. Perhaps consciousness generated the process, which subsequently became a natural function in its own right.

I was watching a documentary just a moment ago where a man argued that "normal" explosions are fundamentally different from the Big Bang, because the latter was an "ordered" event involving the precise distribution of energy and forces. And where does this order come from? We talk so much about "randomness," yet we are expected to believe that, out of a void of infinite nothingness, something happened "once"—an explosion occurred, and voilà, here is everything we see. But "nothingness" implies a total absence of everything, including time and space across any dimension; yet an event requires time, which does not exist in a void, nor ever will. Actually, all of this is detailed in the links I shared. Things are so perfectly ordered in their very essence that it only reinforces my earlier point. And yes, I realize this is entirely off-topic. Therefore, I should probably wrap this up—I have no desire to earn another strike over trivialities.

You aren't off base, and here is why: everything we have discussed provides KeyCode with the answer to that fundamental question regarding why God doesn't withhold knowledge. He isn't withholding it; He is distributing it. We uncover Him through every single discovery, every moment of insight, and every "new" idea we stumble upon. I am putting "new" in quotation marks intentionally to make my point: everything originates from Him. We aren't inventing anything; we are simply becoming aware of His laws, whether we approach them through science and technology or through spirituality and mysticism. If you subscribe to a pantheistic view—the idea that the universe itself is God—then this logic holds up perfectly. Even if we are talking about the Absolute, which might be more than just immanent but also transcendent, we are still discovering parts of Him, even if only indirectly. Regardless, we absolutely receive knowledge from Him, because He is the only possible source. If He is the Absolute, then He is essentially everything that exists. Now, if using the pronoun "He" feels too patriarchal for your taste, feel free to swap it out for whatever terminology suits you better. I’m sticking with it because I see no reason to reinvent the wheel just to satisfy modern sensibilities. 🙂

(I hope I didn't overwhelm you too much.) 🙂