Why doesn't God share His knowledge?

Harold Kelly5 said: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. 🙂

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.

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 It seems like people are still stuck in this outdated, frantic struggle between science and faith, desperately clinging to one while flat-out denying the other.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.

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.

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.)

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.) 🙂

It is a regrettable reality, though I suppose that is simply how things stand. One can’t help but wonder how much further we might have progressed as a society if we weren't constantly bogged down by the endless friction surrounding those two figures—it's quite exhausting, really. Furthermore, consider the sheer amount of progress we've missed out on because certain researchers have gathered substantial evidence supporting reincarnation, only to be met with nothing but condescension and outright dismissal from the mainstream scientific establishment. And frankly, the list of such scientists who have been sidelined in this manner is far longer than most people care to admit. 😢 That kind of behavior—honestly—it just strikes a chord with me in all the wrong ways.

Don't worry—I am quite familiar with those theories. In fact, they serve as the very foundation upon which I have built my own reasoning: If we assume the universe has existed eternally—simply shifting through various states and configurations—then it follows that the cosmos itself must inherently contain everything necessary for its own manifestation. This would include the fundamental "software," such as the laws of physics, that dictates how matter behaves. Ergo, The universe itself is God.Take a simple premise like this: is it ever possible for there to be a break in the continuum of life or consciousness within the history of these universes? It simply cannot be. If such a rupture occurred, you would have a situation where something living could never emerge from something entirely inanimate. The chain would be broken—leaving nothing behind but dead matter. In truth, everything revolves around that singular moment of cosmic origin: at that specific point, either the point itself must possess all necessary properties, or the point itself *is* the Absolute—a philosophical term for God, if you feel like looking it up; it is, without question, the most compelling definition I have ever encountered.

And it has been there all along. Here is why;

Everything presented here points toward a single, inescapable conclusion: the universe has always existed. I realize that this idea feels inherently unsatisfande—perhaps even deeply unsettling—to our current way of thinking, but we must consider that our cognitive framework is likely the very source of the problem. In our corner of the universe, we operate under the unshakable assumption of cause and effect, strictly in that order. Everything within our grasp follows this linear progression; indeed, even our own minds are hardwired to function this way. Our very existence would be impossible if this temporal sequence were reversed. Therefore, when we attempt to wrap our heads around the concept of something that has simply always been, we inevitably fail—we are biologically incapable of grasping it because we reflexively hunt for a "cause" to explain the "effect" of the universe’s existence. The reality is that the universe is fundamentally different from us. It exists within the void, whereas we exist within the universe. In a timeless, eternal, and infinite nothingness, the concepts of cause and effect simply do not apply.
Based on our definition of nothingness—which, by its very nature, is timeless—it follows that for the universe to be contained within it, the universe must always have existed. It is logically impossible for the universe to have been created *within* itself, as such an act would necessitate a specific moment in time, which contradicts the eternal state of nothingness. I am not proposing this idea out of a desire for intellectual comfort; rather, it is simply the only way the mechanics of existence can actually function.
If you find yourself fundamentally unsettled by the concept of things having always existed, then I honestly don't see a way forward—there simply isn't a solution. We are left with a binary choice, really: either we accept that at some point, everything just emerged from nothingness, a perspective which I personally find entirely unacceptable, or we have to conclude that the universe doesn't exist at all. It is one or the other.
Within the descriptions of the Big Bang, there are three primary cosmological models to consider. You have the open universe, which expands indefinitely; the flat model, which eventually reaches a standstill; and the closed model, which collapses—perhaps even "bouncing" back into another cycle of expansion. If the universe is indeed closed, it is entirely possible that it "bounces" back cycle after cycle, eternally. This concept of an everlasting cycle of expansion and contraction is my preferred choice—though I admit, that preference is based purely on aesthetic grounds. I am well aware, of course, that the debates are still ongoing to determine which model holds true.
So, after weighing all the arguments, which model would I choose to describe the origin of the cosmos? An infinitely eternal, unchanging void that has always existed and has always contained a finite yet unbounded, closed universe—one that is constantly changing, yet remains eternal in its own essence. In this framework, the Big Bang doesn't require a singular moment of creation; rather, it is merely one phase in a perpetual cycle of an expanding and contracting universe that carries no special significance in itself. There is no need to search beyond it; the previous cycle is simply "outside" of it.

If you want me to write out a full treatise explaining this in detail, just say the word.
...and I second everything else you wrote.

Everything we’ve discussed might actually provide KeyCode with an answer to the question: why God does not withhold knowledge. He does share it. We uncover Him through every discovery, every realization, and every "new" idea. I put "new" in quotation marks specifically to make my point: everything emanates from Him, and we are simply becoming aware of His laws—whether through science and technology, spirituality, mysticism, and so on. If we are speaking of a pantheistic God (where the universe itself is God), then this holds true regardless. Even if we are discussing the Absolute—which may or may not be solely pantheistic (immanent), but could also be transcendent—then we are at least uncovering a part of Him, or discovering Him indirectly. Anyway, we certainly receive knowledge from Him, because He is the only source possible, given that He is, in fact, the Absolute—everything that exists.

I have nothing to add; well done. 🙂

Nancy Wilson2 said:It is a regrettable reality, though I suppose that is simply how things stand. One can’t help but wonder how much further we might have progressed as a society if we weren't constantly bogged down by the endless friction surrounding those two figures—it's quite exhausting, really. Furthermore, consider the sheer amount of progress we've missed out on because certain researchers have gathered substantial evidence supporting reincarnation, only to be met with nothing but condescension and outright dismissal from the mainstream scientific establishment. And frankly, the list of such scientists who have been sidelined in this manner is far longer than most people care to admit. 😢 That kind of behavior—honestly—it just strikes a chord with me in all the wrong ways.

Don't worry—I am quite familiar with those theories. In fact, they serve as the very foundation upon which I have built my own reasoning: If we assume the universe has existed eternally—simply shifting through various states and configurations—then it follows that the cosmos itself must inherently contain everything necessary for its own manifestation. This would include the fundamental "software," such as the laws of physics, that dictates how matter behaves. Ergo, The universe itself is God.Take a simple premise like this: is it ever possible for there to be a break in the continuum of life or consciousness within the history of these universes? It simply cannot be. If such a rupture occurred, you would have a situation where something living could never emerge from something entirely inanimate. The chain would be broken—leaving nothing behind but dead matter. In truth, everything revolves around that singular moment of cosmic origin: at that specific point, either the point itself must possess all necessary properties, or the point itself *is* the Absolute—a philosophical term for God, if you feel like looking it up; it is, without question, the most compelling definition I have ever encountered.

And it has been there all along. Here is why;

Everything presented here points toward a single, inescapable conclusion: the universe has always existed. I realize that this idea feels inherently unsatisfande—perhaps even deeply unsettling—to our current way of thinking, but we must consider that our cognitive framework is likely the very source of the problem. In our corner of the universe, we operate under the unshakable assumption of cause and effect, strictly in that order. Everything within our grasp follows this linear progression; indeed, even our own minds are hardwired to function this way. Our very existence would be impossible if this temporal sequence were reversed. Therefore, when we attempt to wrap our heads around the concept of something that has simply always been, we inevitably fail—we are biologically incapable of grasping it because we reflexively hunt for a "cause" to explain the "effect" of the universe’s existence. The reality is that the universe is fundamentally different from us. It exists within the void, whereas we exist within the universe. In a timeless, eternal, and infinite nothingness, the concepts of cause and effect simply do not apply.
Based on our definition of nothingness—which, by its very nature, is timeless—it follows that for the universe to be contained within it, the universe must always have existed. It is logically impossible for the universe to have been created *within* itself, as such an act would necessitate a specific moment in time, which contradicts the eternal state of nothingness. I am not proposing this idea out of a desire for intellectual comfort; rather, it is simply the only way the mechanics of existence can actually function.
If you find yourself fundamentally unsettled by the concept of things having always existed, then I honestly don't see a way forward—there simply isn't a solution. We are left with a binary choice, really: either we accept that at some point, everything just emerged from nothingness, a perspective which I personally find entirely unacceptable, or we have to conclude that the universe doesn't exist at all. It is one or the other.
Within the descriptions of the Big Bang, there are three primary cosmological models to consider. You have the open universe, which expands indefinitely; the flat model, which eventually reaches a standstill; and the closed model, which collapses—perhaps even "bouncing" back into another cycle of expansion. If the universe is indeed closed, it is entirely possible that it "bounces" back cycle after cycle, eternally. This concept of an everlasting cycle of expansion and contraction is my preferred choice—though I admit, that preference is based purely on aesthetic grounds. I am well aware, of course, that the debates are still ongoing to determine which model holds true.
So, after weighing all the arguments, which model would I choose to describe the origin of the cosmos? An infinitely eternal, unchanging void that has always existed and has always contained a finite yet unbounded, closed universe—one that is constantly changing, yet remains eternal in its own essence. In this framework, the Big Bang doesn't require a singular moment of creation; rather, it is merely one phase in a perpetual cycle of an expanding and contracting universe that carries no special significance in itself. There is no need to search beyond it; the previous cycle is simply "outside" of it.

If you want me to write out a full treatise explaining this in detail, just say the word.
...and I second everything else you wrote.

Everything we’ve discussed might actually provide KeyCode with an answer to the question: why God does not withhold knowledge. He does share it. We uncover Him through every discovery, every realization, and every "new" idea. I put "new" in quotation marks specifically to make my point: everything emanates from Him, and we are simply becoming aware of His laws—whether through science and technology, spirituality, mysticism, and so on. If we are speaking of a pantheistic God (where the universe itself is God), then this holds true regardless. Even if we are discussing the Absolute—which may or may not be solely pantheistic (immanent), but could also be transcendent—then we are at least uncovering a part of Him, or discovering Him indirectly. Anyway, we certainly receive knowledge from Him, because He is the only source possible, given that He is, in fact, the Absolute—everything that exists.

I have nothing to add; well done. 🙂

Exactly. Nowadays, certain people holding the title of "scientist" spend their time ridiculing ancient ideas and dogmas, yet they are busy peddling their own set of dogmas—not the same ones, mind you, but others entirely. It is pure mental stagnation. For instance, try touching upon the theory of evolution, or simply suggest that you don't personally experience or grasp it in the standard way, and you can expect to be bombarded from all sides, regardless of how solid your arguments might be. It isn't about whether something is true or false—that is what evidence is for—it is about the fact that this crowd preemptively shuts down any possibility of alternative thought. That, quite frankly, is the antithesis of science. You could draw it out for them and prove it fifteen different ways, and they would still just shake their heads because it doesn't fit into their tiny little universe. My criticism is directed at these scientists because, in the West today, they act as the gatekeepers of collective thought. If this were, say, the 17th century, I would be directing my criticisms toward the clergy instead, much like they were a legitimate target for critique back then.

Nancy Wilson2 said:It is a regrettable reality, though I suppose that is simply how things stand. One can’t help but wonder how much further we might have progressed as a society if we weren't constantly bogged down by the endless friction surrounding those two figures—it's quite exhausting, really. Furthermore, consider the sheer amount of progress we've missed out on because certain researchers have gathered substantial evidence supporting reincarnation, only to be met with nothing but condescension and outright dismissal from the mainstream scientific establishment. And frankly, the list of such scientists who have been sidelined in this manner is far longer than most people care to admit. 😢 That kind of behavior—honestly—it just strikes a chord with me in all the wrong ways.

Don't worry—I am quite familiar with those theories. In fact, they serve as the very foundation upon which I have built my own reasoning: If we assume the universe has existed eternally—simply shifting through various states and configurations—then it follows that the cosmos itself must inherently contain everything necessary for its own manifestation. This would include the fundamental "software," such as the laws of physics, that dictates how matter behaves. Ergo, The universe itself is God.Take a simple premise like this: is it ever possible for there to be a break in the continuum of life or consciousness within the history of these universes? It simply cannot be. If such a rupture occurred, you would have a situation where something living could never emerge from something entirely inanimate. The chain would be broken—leaving nothing behind but dead matter. In truth, everything revolves around that singular moment of cosmic origin: at that specific point, either the point itself must possess all necessary properties, or the point itself *is* the Absolute—a philosophical term for God, if you feel like looking it up; it is, without question, the most compelling definition I have ever encountered.

And it has been there all along. Here is why;

Everything presented here points toward a single, inescapable conclusion: the universe has always existed. I realize that this idea feels inherently unsatisfande—perhaps even deeply unsettling—to our current way of thinking, but we must consider that our cognitive framework is likely the very source of the problem. In our corner of the universe, we operate under the unshakable assumption of cause and effect, strictly in that order. Everything within our grasp follows this linear progression; indeed, even our own minds are hardwired to function this way. Our very existence would be impossible if this temporal sequence were reversed. Therefore, when we attempt to wrap our heads around the concept of something that has simply always been, we inevitably fail—we are biologically incapable of grasping it because we reflexively hunt for a "cause" to explain the "effect" of the universe’s existence. The reality is that the universe is fundamentally different from us. It exists within the void, whereas we exist within the universe. In a timeless, eternal, and infinite nothingness, the concepts of cause and effect simply do not apply.
Based on our definition of nothingness—which, by its very nature, is timeless—it follows that for the universe to be contained within it, the universe must always have existed. It is logically impossible for the universe to have been created *within* itself, as such an act would necessitate a specific moment in time, which contradicts the eternal state of nothingness. I am not proposing this idea out of a desire for intellectual comfort; rather, it is simply the only way the mechanics of existence can actually function.
If you find yourself fundamentally unsettled by the concept of things having always existed, then I honestly don't see a way forward—there simply isn't a solution. We are left with a binary choice, really: either we accept that at some point, everything just emerged from nothingness, a perspective which I personally find entirely unacceptable, or we have to conclude that the universe doesn't exist at all. It is one or the other.
Within the descriptions of the Big Bang, there are three primary cosmological models to consider. You have the open universe, which expands indefinitely; the flat model, which eventually reaches a standstill; and the closed model, which collapses—perhaps even "bouncing" back into another cycle of expansion. If the universe is indeed closed, it is entirely possible that it "bounces" back cycle after cycle, eternally. This concept of an everlasting cycle of expansion and contraction is my preferred choice—though I admit, that preference is based purely on aesthetic grounds. I am well aware, of course, that the debates are still ongoing to determine which model holds true.
So, after weighing all the arguments, which model would I choose to describe the origin of the cosmos? An infinitely eternal, unchanging void that has always existed and has always contained a finite yet unbounded, closed universe—one that is constantly changing, yet remains eternal in its own essence. In this framework, the Big Bang doesn't require a singular moment of creation; rather, it is merely one phase in a perpetual cycle of an expanding and contracting universe that carries no special significance in itself. There is no need to search beyond it; the previous cycle is simply "outside" of it.

If you want me to write out a full treatise explaining this in detail, just say the word.
...and I second everything else you wrote.

Everything we’ve discussed might actually provide KeyCode with an answer to the question: why God does not withhold knowledge. He does share it. We uncover Him through every discovery, every realization, and every "new" idea. I put "new" in quotation marks specifically to make my point: everything emanates from Him, and we are simply becoming aware of His laws—whether through science and technology, spirituality, mysticism, and so on. If we are speaking of a pantheistic God (where the universe itself is God), then this holds true regardless. Even if we are discussing the Absolute—which may or may not be solely pantheistic (immanent), but could also be transcendent—then we are at least uncovering a part of Him, or discovering Him indirectly. Anyway, we certainly receive knowledge from Him, because He is the only source possible, given that He is, in fact, the Absolute—everything that exists.

I have nothing to add; well done. 🙂

Precisely! 😁

Susan Green15 said:What could possibly be the noble reasoning behind an omniscient God choosing not to share the kind of knowledge that could save millions of lives or simply make our existence less of a struggle?
During the Middle Ages, countless millions perished from the plague and various other ailments, not to mention the periods of famine caused by things like potato blight wiping out crops.
Why didn't God explain the mechanics of the plague or how to treat it, instead just watching silently as millions died, leaving us to stumble upon the cures entirely on our own?

Why do people continue to praise Jesus for miraculous healings rather than criticizing him for using his knowledge and abilities for his own promotion and glory, instead of teaching humanity medicine so we could actually heal ourselves—both in greater numbers and long after his passing?

The thing is, the kind of knowledge being offered to humanity is often rejected—people ignore it because it clashes with their desires, or they just brush it off. This isn't the kind of knowledge meant for this world; it’s not even *of* this world. So, your example doesn't really hold water. You're operating under the default assumption that Earth is the primary stage for human life, but it isn't. If a person wants everything they need while they're here—including health—they have to let go of their "human" self (that worldly seed) for the sake of their heavenly (spiritual) self and the heavenly (spiritual) land.

If you actually want to ask me anything about this, you really need to read the New Testament Gospels and the texts in my signature to understand where I'm coming from. Without that, we aren't really having a discussion; I'd just be stating facts, because any debate without that foundation would just end up being about tearing down your own preconceptions and assumptions.

Susan Green15 said:What could possibly be the noble reasoning behind an omniscient God choosing not to share the kind of knowledge that could save millions of lives or simply make our existence less of a struggle?
During the Middle Ages, countless millions perished from the plague and various other ailments, not to mention the periods of famine caused by things like potato blight wiping out crops.
Why didn't God explain the mechanics of the plague or how to treat it, instead just watching silently as millions died, leaving us to stumble upon the cures entirely on our own?

Why do people continue to praise Jesus for miraculous healings rather than criticizing him for using his knowledge and abilities for his own promotion and glory, instead of teaching humanity medicine so we could actually heal ourselves—both in greater numbers and long after his passing?

1) He isn't seeking His own glory anywhere; He's seeking the glory of the One who sent Him.

2) He taught people how to fish, but He didn't just feed them fish. The whole point of His coming was to break down the barrier between man and God so that the two could become one—allowing man to possess everything that God possesses.

The kind of "knowledge" you're talking about implies the growth of an evil seed, so it couldn't possibly come from God. As we can see, the call to conversion and following God guarantees health and all the other blessings a person truly needs. Don't get me wrong—I feel for human suffering, I really do—but you can't fix it with a new delusion. There is only one way as a complete solution.

Hannah Thompson2 said:The thing is, the kind of knowledge being offered to humanity is often rejected—people ignore it because it clashes with their desires, or they just brush it off. This isn't the kind of knowledge meant for this world; it’s not even *of* this world. So, your example doesn't really hold water. You're operating under the default assumption that Earth is the primary stage for human life, but it isn't. If a person wants everything they need while they're here—including health—they have to let go of their "human" self (that worldly seed) for the sake of their heavenly (spiritual) self and the heavenly (spiritual) land.

If you actually want to ask me anything about this, you really need to read the New Testament Gospels and the texts in my signature to understand where I'm coming from. Without that, we aren't really having a discussion; I'd just be stating facts, because any debate without that foundation would just end up being about tearing down your own preconceptions and assumptions.

1) He isn't seeking His own glory anywhere; He's seeking the glory of the One who sent Him.

2) He taught people how to fish, but He didn't just feed them fish. The whole point of His coming was to break down the barrier between man and God so that the two could become one—allowing man to possess everything that God possesses.

The kind of "knowledge" you're talking about implies the growth of an evil seed, so it couldn't possibly come from God. As we can see, the call to conversion and following God guarantees health and all the other blessings a person truly needs. Don't get me wrong—I feel for human suffering, I really do—but you can't fix it with a new delusion. There is only one way as a complete solution.

If that were the truth, then we wouldn't be writing songs like this:

Benjamin Taylor6 said:If that were the truth, then we wouldn't be writing songs like this:

But what does a poet or a poem have to do with any of this?

Do you really want God as your teacher? — regardless of the cost.

And do you honestly think you can handle the truth?

God shares His wisdom, but only with those who have Faith, while the rest of us just get screwed over.

bluebison25 said:God shares His wisdom, but only with those who have Faith, while the rest of us just get screwed over.

Then you see someone reaching into a believer's pocket, acting like their uncle handed them cash personally... I mean, the whole religious code basically says you shouldn't be stingy. 🙂

Alright, man, just translate it so I can actually wrap my head around what's going on here 😁

Hannah Thompson2 said:But what does a poet or a poem have to do with any of this?

Do you really want God as your teacher? — regardless of the cost.

And do you honestly think you can handle the truth?

Well, that depends entirely on what kind of "truth" we're talking about here. In my view, truth ought to look something like this:

Some people face the truth and manage to walk away from it alive. Beyond that—experts even claim they develop better character traits afterward:

But then you have to wonder... why isn't this happening more often? It's almost as if God is running low on holy oil to pour out His grace. 😕

bluebison25 said:Alright, man, just translate it so I can actually wrap my head around what's going on here 😁

http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stubborn

bluebison25 said:Alright, man, just translate it so I can actually wrap my head around what's going on here 😁

It feels foreign to me too, but I guess it's fine...
What I mean is, nobody is being cheated out of knowledge if God only grants it to the faithful—especially since their whole code of conduct is about spreading that knowledge, not hoarding it. They aren't supposed to be stingy; they're meant to share... 😛

Morgan Brown5 said:It feels foreign to me too, but I guess it's fine...
What I mean is, nobody is being cheated out of knowledge if God only grants it to the faithful—especially since their whole code of conduct is about spreading that knowledge, not hoarding it. They aren't supposed to be stingy; they're meant to share... 😛

Just don't hand me that specific kind of "wisdom"

Also, if we’re getting serious about this, the term believer is incredibly broad. You’ve got a point there... even guys like Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Paracelsus, Newton, and Tesla were believers.
It feels like ever since Tesla, everything has just been some variation on an old theme—just expanded versions of ancient ideas. Especially when it comes to how scientific methods are actually applied... though more often than not, it's just pseudoscientific nonsense wrapped up in fancy talk about progress and knowledge.

Morgan Brown5 said:Also, if we’re getting serious about this, the term believer is incredibly broad. You’ve got a point there... even guys like Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Paracelsus, Newton, and Tesla were believers.
It feels like ever since Tesla, everything has just been some variation on an old theme—just expanded versions of ancient ideas. Especially when it comes to how scientific methods are actually applied... though more often than not, it's just pseudoscientific nonsense wrapped up in fancy talk about progress and knowledge.

That is the fundamental issue with a religious believer; they mistake their specific faith based on the supernatural for the universal concept of belief itself.

A believer will say: I believe in God.
I would say: I believe I'll grab a coffee tomorrow. (I might, or I might not; it depends on a dozen factors, mostly my own whim).
Those two things are not the same, but Zlaja is aggressively "brainwashing" people, forcing them to swallow whatever his twisted mind believes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUo6jHfxsJQ

bluebison25 said:That is the fundamental issue with a religious believer; they mistake their specific faith based on the supernatural for the universal concept of belief itself.

A believer will say: I believe in God.
I would say: I believe I'll grab a coffee tomorrow. (I might, or I might not; it depends on a dozen factors, mostly my own whim).
Those two things are not the same, but Zlaja is aggressively "brainwashing" people, forcing them to swallow whatever his twisted mind believes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUo6jHfxsJQ

Faith isn't some kind of anticipation or a mere assumption about what might happen later... You’re taking the concept a bit too lightly. Faith... How would you label them—religious faiths?

Of course, when we talk about Faith, we’re talking about an inherent human need... one that shows up in all sorts of ways, often in pretty negative ones, but that’s on us, not on Faith or God. It’s just human nature. We look toward the divine as a way to connect with a reality we're already part of. For some, believing in God or the Creator is just a natural extension of being alive—seeing ourselves as pieces of a much larger whole. Some people view this force through specific lenses, attributing qualities like superintelligence or omniscience to it... seeing it as a power so vast that it actually authored the very laws governing our universe...

But that’s also such a deep philosophical concept... it really taps into that massive spiritual legacy shared by all religions... ToLook, someone who actually possesses a creative spirit doesn't get it wrong when it comes to faith. For them, it isn't some abstract, intellectual concept. It’s a conviction... a rock-solid Faith that simply can't be shaken within a person. They know exactly what they're thinking and feeling, yet they remain human. Often, their perspective is shaped by their own context and level of understanding, which might sound incredibly naive to an outsider—especially if they were handed a certain book at a young age and told it contains nothing but absolute truth, regardless of who actually penned those "truths"... On the other hand, philosophical systems aren't naive at all. They speak to the exact same phenomenon, just through a very specific type of logic regarding the totality that this forum is dedicated to. But those thinkers aren't meant for the masses. Their knowledge won't change the world any more than modern materialistic science can, despite all its inventions, theses, hypotheses, and theories. Art and organized religion won't change it either. Still, everyone contributes something... some more, some less, whether it's positive or, more often, negative. But that negativity stems from people... and from the flawed way humans operate, which is where all our problems truly begin...

Religious fanatics have never been good for their own kind, let alone anyone else...

Religion isn't just about faith; it’s part of our shared cultural heritage and how we evolve as thinkers. But honestly, we should be looking at religious dogma with the same critical eye we use for scientific dogma. These two sides seem to be at odds, sparking endless debates, websites, and movements, both fighting for intellectual dominance. There’s value on both sides, but the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, dialectically speaking... We need to scrutinize them both just as much as we do ancient mythology. Of course, nobody is born with a fully developed critical mind. It’s something that develops through curiosity and, I suppose, a certain natural intuition...
Science still seems to hold some kind of monopoly on what we consider "truth." Most of that comes through the public school system, which—if you ask me—does more harm than good. It’s less about actual learning and more about indoctrination, acting just as dogmatic as any religious doctrine...

There can only be two evils at odds with one another. Positivity... by its very nature, just doesn't have an opposite...

Theists versus Atheists... it really just boils down to person versus person.

Where exactly is the claim that God refuses to share knowledge? 😕
Everything was recorded for us in His Book—to ensure we could actually understand things and avoid being ignorant—so that we might possess true knowledge.
The real issue, I suppose, is our own laziness; we can't be bothered to actually pick up a book and seek out wisdom. Instead, we prefer chasing distractions or simply copying the thoughts and ideas of others from their texts.
So, really, it comes down to us. It seems rather foolish to complain and try to shift the blame onto God when we are the ones responsible for neglecting the knowledge He offered ☕
. Still, we are all still here, breathing, which means there is still time to study and learn 🙂
.

Modern society seems to have developed this strange craving for instant gratification, where everyone expects everything handed to them on a silver platter without ever breaking a sweat.

Ronald Nelson2 said:Modern society seems to have developed this strange craving for instant gratification, where everyone expects everything handed to them on a silver platter without ever breaking a sweat.

Well, I guess I’m somewhat of that person too.🤷
Maybe the author is actually hinting at the idea that God should have just hardwired all our knowledge from birth... so we wouldn't ever have to learn anything... basically being omniscient from day one.😕 🤷
But if that were the case, what would we even do?... without the need to learn, grow, or fulfill our inner selves?
Isn't it better this way—actually feeling alive while trying to uncover true knowledge?
Others might disagree, I suppose, but this seems like the only logical way to look at it...
especially since it's widely understood that God's plan for humanity wasn't to create robots pre-loaded with some perfect motherboard... the intention was much grander than that.
At least this way, we can experience that sense of joy and satisfaction when we master something new—and that feeling is quite good... you know, that whole "getting better every single day" thing.😍

Maria Robinson2 said:Well, I guess I’m somewhat of that person too.🤷
Maybe the author is actually hinting at the idea that God should have just hardwired all our knowledge from birth... so we wouldn't ever have to learn anything... basically being omniscient from day one.😕 🤷
But if that were the case, what would we even do?... without the need to learn, grow, or fulfill our inner selves?
Isn't it better this way—actually feeling alive while trying to uncover true knowledge?
Others might disagree, I suppose, but this seems like the only logical way to look at it...
especially since it's widely understood that God's plan for humanity wasn't to create robots pre-loaded with some perfect motherboard... the intention was much grander than that.
At least this way, we can experience that sense of joy and satisfaction when we master something new—and that feeling is quite good... you know, that whole "getting better every single day" thing.😍

In a biological sense, humans are definitely equipped with everything needed for growth. That evolutionary programming exists regardless of the millions of years it takes to unfold, but it doesn't just happen on its own. It needs specific triggers and developmental stages. It isn't strictly predetermined, but there is an entire latent flow that we need to reach.
On a fundamental level, every individual carries everything they need right inside them. There's a potential within us that we don't even need to step outside of; it's tucked away in our genetic predispositions—and I don't just mean physical DNA, but spiritual capacities that, while invisible, still exist within certain material boundaries. Still, you have to work for it through personal spiritual growth. If you look at it that way, everything has been there from the start... though there's always a chance to push past even those genetic limits.
Knowledge itself has no boundaries. The only limit is our creativity. And since humans possess this unrestrained creativity fueled by free will, there really aren't any limits to what we can know or how much we can grow. It's just that we live in a civilization that's stifled, underdeveloped, and frankly, pretty uninspiring when it comes to actual progress.

If people think evolution is just amino acids rearranging themselves based on external temperature, pressure, and other random factors—sure, environmental factors shape our bodies, but they don't drive phylogeny; they just support or hinder it—and if they believe some fluke of biochemistry turned humans into such uniquely intelligent beings... then they probably need to think a little deeper about the whole thing.

Morgan Brown5 said:In a biological sense, humans are definitely equipped with everything needed for growth. That evolutionary programming exists regardless of the millions of years it takes to unfold, but it doesn't just happen on its own. It needs specific triggers and developmental stages. It isn't strictly predetermined, but there is an entire latent flow that we need to reach.
On a fundamental level, every individual carries everything they need right inside them. There's a potential within us that we don't even need to step outside of; it's tucked away in our genetic predispositions—and I don't just mean physical DNA, but spiritual capacities that, while invisible, still exist within certain material boundaries. Still, you have to work for it through personal spiritual growth. If you look at it that way, everything has been there from the start... though there's always a chance to push past even those genetic limits.
Knowledge itself has no boundaries. The only limit is our creativity. And since humans possess this unrestrained creativity fueled by free will, there really aren't any limits to what we can know or how much we can grow. It's just that we live in a civilization that's stifled, underdeveloped, and frankly, pretty uninspiring when it comes to actual progress.

If people think evolution is just amino acids rearranging themselves based on external temperature, pressure, and other random factors—sure, environmental factors shape our bodies, but they don't drive phylogeny; they just support or hinder it—and if they believe some fluke of biochemistry turned humans into such uniquely intelligent beings... then they probably need to think a little deeper about the whole thing.

Are you actually living by this, or are you just quoting a textbook?
Sorry, but you're being a little vague. 🤷
I've read enough books in my life to recognize this... I've also grown tired of material that starts out saying something meaningful only to lose its way and become utterly nonsensical (what was the author actually trying to say?).

Come on, tell us so the rest of us common folks can understand you. 🤣
Sorry, just a little joke at your expense, but I'm sure you'll survive it, right? 🙂
I mean, some people joked about my views too, and well, I'm still standing. 😍