If God exists, where is he? (Page 6)

And about that piece of toast; it's definitely not going to get buttered in zero seconds.

Some mistakes have been made on here. If my denial of history is that I don't agree with historical mythology by anonymous male authors and of those that came after them that a (in reality imaginary) god named God is, was and always will be around somewhere then yes I'm in denial of making historical fantasy my own assumed and false reality. Claims and reality don't always match up. John was one of the imaginary prophets. There is no need for all of the excessive dashes/hyphens. Revelator still isn't a proper word. If there was any kind of god around then is it just possible that one would have more than one word ? Don't use the word 'word' the wrong way, besides it should be in the lower case use anyway. That book of John did originally have a different name, that is correct. There is no such thing as a true Revelator in the upper or lower case use of the word and there is no manifestation, not Manifestation of anyone. No one did what has been claimed. A comma shouldn't be in front of the word and also. As for the word of a god, so far as everyone knows there is no word of any god, there's also no sign of a god around anywhere right now also.

No one is a word of a god. Mormons are Christians and Jesus Christ (which is a medieval name like that of the other god named God in English) is made up.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof indeed. Mormons don't have any proof and neither does Zanjan. Yes, none of it can get past scrutiny.Everything claimed by Zanjan except her last sentence about Mormons also applies to her. Any claim about a made up god named God always will be severely tested.

What I have mentioned so far is proof of everything that I have mentioned so far. Everyone should do their research without prejudice so Zanjan should do it instead of being a hypocrite about something that she herself does not do. Now, in the past and in the future there is no excuse not to do it. I check things up thoroughly, including things that go against what I think.

No one can protest before a god named God is impossible due to the fact that he is made up. I can't accept the presence of someone who is imaginary. The word is his, not His by the way. The word and should never be at the start of a sentence and there was no need for a semi-colon also.

Ghost: “What does being outside of time mean if it doesn't equate to an absence of time?”

Being outside of time means “timeless”. The spiritual realities are timeless – that is, they endure regardless of what happens on the physical plane. They don’t take up space either.

The unsullied attributes of generosity, truthfulness, kindness, forgiveness and mercy – all these are ancient spiritual powers, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Most powerful of all, genuine love is unbounded.

These powers emanate from God; our souls were made to receive and radiate them in various degrees as spiritual light to others. No one argues this, however, one would do well to remember it.

You understand how a radio works, right? We don't confuse the broadcast with the device. Similar to that, every human is like a candle - some candles are lit, some aren't but none of them can light itself. They light up when touched by the Holy Spirit.

“And if time is absent, how can anything happen?”

Time isn’t a physical object – it can’t prevent anything from happening or cause anything to happen. It‘s just a form of measurement. You’ve read statements by physicists about time and space, in particular that the universe is space expanded. This suggests there’s no “space” outside of the universe.

Well, no one has seen the edge of the universe so there can’t be any plausible theories about that. What we see through space telescopes is a very crowded universe with countless galaxies, whose light has come to us from a time when the universe was a much smaller space.

God is beyond all of that, including toast.

Since we’re addressing flights of fancy, I just wanted to mention the ‘Many Worlds Interpretation’ which has had scientists postulating the multiverse theory. This crazy notion goes back to the 70s and plays on alternate realities. Essentially, all outcomes are accidental, ruling out other possibilities. That makes it an implausibly ridiculous guess!

We can fall back on one authority: God says there’s only ONE reality. We should keep that in mind as we wade through quantum data.

Science has waffled about the shape of the universe so many times, we’re at the point where opinion changes every two years. The problem, says science, is the inconsistencies between the data.

Shouldn’t we answer that question correctly before building our sand castles?

Say we go with the flat universe theory, as opposed to the closed universe (spherical). Similar to the flat earth theory, we fly our spaceship to the edge of the universe then fall off, into the void. Gravity says you can’t do that. So, what if we hover there, , roll down the window and stick our arm out in the ‘void’. What would happen? Would our hand would disappear? Does that mean it dissolves or that we just wouldn’t be able to see it?

How could something be pulling on our universe at all points simultaneously?

Science says space is expanding rapidly with everything flying away from each other; the multiverse theory has it that another universe ( a failed experiment) is pulling our universe towards it – how could that be acceptable? I mean, whatever the shape of our universe, that sort of pull would have our universe looking like chewed up piece of gum, stretched thinly at one end, almost like baby snot. Puuleeeeze!

What if the ‘void’ was another dimension? What if it was pushing instead of pulling?

Let’s say we’re surrounded by that dimension which invisibly impacts our universe. Like a giant thumb (or Thor's Hammer) pressing down on a grape, wouldn’t the grape eventually squish and splat out everywhere at once? That fantasy seems more plausible to me.

“Update: July 15, 2020
New measurements of the cosmic microwave background by the Atacama Cosmology Telescope find that the universe is flat, with a density matching the critical density. “We find no evidence of deviation from flatness,” the ACT scientists write, “supporting the interpretation that the [deviation seen by Planck] is a statistical fluctuation.” (Quanta Magazine)

Incidentally, Ghost, cosmologists say time doesn't flow.

Some mistakes were made by you, they were the usual kind of mistakes.You can't prove all that you have claimed, I see that the dashes/hyphens were used for no reason again. Now I see everything is back to the medieval named god named God.

Unless you have evidence that proves everything that you claim is true is true Zanjan then you are just guessing that you are right.

I'm guessing you've made some very serious errors so far.

For sure, you continue to make mistakes in punctuation and grammar so quit calling the pot black. Normally, I wouldn't say anything but since you're always ragging on it, I thought it was time to point out to you that our silence doesn't at all imply your ineptitude is welcomed.

This is a Public Service Announcement. Don't think for one minute we believe you'll ever pull up your bootstraps. So, relax, no pressure.

Back to science's blind spots:

"The world as we know it has three dimensions of space—length, width and depth—and one dimension of time. But there’s the mind-bending possibility that many more dimensions exist out there. According to string theory, one of the leading physics model of the last half century, the universe operates with 10 dimensions."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/our-continued-existence-means-other-dimensions-are-probably-super-tiny-180970487/

Why, pray tell, would they think ALL dimensions are tiny, just because string theory is? Why not look up? I see no reason to believe "depth" is the highest dimension. Seems to me our 3-D world floats around the middle, that we're surrounded by greater, much larger dimensions.

We know there's a working 6th sense in animals and man; that's not physical but it can cause physical feelings. There's a prophetic sense in some religious and artistic folks, and this has been proven. So let's start with what we do know. You can't have 3 without two; consequently, to have 3, there must be 4; we know there's 4 so there must be 5 and so it goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.

As knowledge expands, it has to go in all directions - up, down, sideways,over, under and around. It must envelop old knowledge. Wherever it reaches, God is there, in His own dimension, with all other dimensions being among the lesser.

Let us keep things simple and stay with the classic dimensions of length, width, depth and time. If one of the first three has a value of zero then you have a two-dimensional object. Reduce two to zero and you have a line and with three collapsed to zero you end up with a point. So what happens to that point if the time dimension is also zero?

Does it disappear?

Nothing that contains energy is “outside of time.” The reason is that the energy of any object is linked, by quantum physics, to the rate of oscillation of its wave function. Thus, if you have energy E (including any rest energy mc2), then your quantum wave function is oscillating with frequency f=E/h where h is Planck’s constant. So if you exist (and I take that to mean that you have some non-zero energy) then you vary in time.

[ www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/06/09/is-it-possible-to-exist-outside-of-time/?sh=4253bde211a2 ]

So if God is outside of time he's not very energetic.

Any theistic view of the world includes some notion of how God is related to the structures of the universe, including space and time. The question of God’s relation to time has generated a great amount of theological and philosophical reflection. The traditional view has been that God is timeless in the sense of being outside time altogether; that is, he exists but does not exist at any point in time and he does not experience temporal succession. What may be the dominant view of philosophers today is that he is temporal but everlasting; that is, God never began to exist and he never will go out of existence. He exists at each moment in time.

Deciding how best to think of God’s relation to time will involve bringing to bear one’s views about other aspects of the divine nature. How a philosopher thinks about God’s knowledge and his interaction with his people within the temporal world shapes how that philosopher will think about God’s relation to time and vice versa. In addition, other metaphysical considerations also play important roles in the discussion. For example, the nature of time and the nature of the origin of the universe each have a bearing on whether God is best thought of as timeless or temporal.

[ https://iep.utm.edu/god-time/ ]

The claim that God is timeless is a denial of the claim that God is temporal. First, God exists, but does not exist at any temporal location. Rather than holding that God is everlastingly eternal, and, therefore, he exists at each time, this position is that God exists but he does not exist at any time at all. God is beyond time altogether. It could be said that although God does not exist at any time God exists at eternity. That is, eternity can be seen as a non-temporal location as any point within time is a temporal location. Second, it is thought that God does not experience temporal succession. God’s relation to each event in a temporal sequence is the same as his relation to any other event. God does not experience the first century before he experiences the twenty-first. Both of these centuries are experienced by God in one “timeless now.” So, while it is true that in the thirteenth century Aquinas prayed for understanding and received it, God’s response to his prayers is not something that also occurred in that century. God, in his timeless state of being, heard Aquinas’ prayers and answered them. He did not first hear them and then answer them. He heard and answered in one timeless moment — in fact, he did so in the same timeless moment that he hears and answers prayers offered in the twenty-first century.

[ https://iep.utm.edu/god-time/ ]

"So what happens to that point if the time dimension is also zero? "

Actually, I don't view time as a dimension anymore than I do this wooden ruler. You can count; would you call that ability a dimension? If so, then every thought you have would be a dimension unless you could prove otherwise.

Scientists think the source of the universe was a very small, unimaginably dense point. No proof though.

How small can a point be? Wouldn't you have to gauge that relative to its surroundings? If nothing surrounds it, how can it be small or big?

You can say this>>> ________________ is two dimensional but actually, it isn't. Look closer.

I don't think there can be a zero dimension in the universe. That would be like counting the year zero before flipping to the next millennium on the calendar. So no, one of the first three can't have a value of zero, ever.

Dimensions wouldn't disappear simply because of the universal law that once something is created it can never become uncreated. It would have to transform.

"So if God is outside of time he's not very energetic. "

God thinks a thing and it comes into being. Different kind of energy. He created the whole universe with the power of love.

We have yet to discover the inherent nature of unconditional love and the things it can do. Maybe one day there might be a university that would use this kind of love as their theme.

The problem with theological and philosophical reflection is their insistence that God exists IN existence, saying He is IN heaven. They've latched onto that like a dog with an old sock. However, existence is that which has been created.

Since God was never created, He can't be stuffed into the creation box. He can only be "Pre-existant. That certainly isn't temporal.

Sorry for not using your slack version that you consider to be right. I realize that because of that you think that you know when and where I made errors. i’m not the one that uses Him in the middle of sentences, sure I use the with a capital when I sometimes refer to a Bible or to some other fantasy book that you are a fan of. A god though is still just god in the lower case use of the word and God is still a name for an imaginary God. A name that so far I haven’t even found any evidence for as far back as 1,400 years ago.

Whoever believes that any god is around somewhere right now has to factor in that everything that they think is true must be proven to be true. Can you actually do that ? Myself and others have Christians, yourself and other religious people telling us everything that their god who they think is around is capable of doing. There’s also the fact the religious people reckon that that their god who they cannot work out is a made up god actually was able to do everything that they claim. So how can you prove that their is a god when so far every shown indicates that the god that you refer to is made up ? A god was never created just means that you don’t know if the god was created. Why is the god so shy that he doesn’t show anyone that he is around somewhere right now ? In summary you don’t know what you’re on about.

Keep in mind that God's Pre-existence is so far beyond these dimensions, there can be no direct connection or binding tie between Him and His creation. God could dispense with all of us if He chose.

Scriptures say God was alone but desired to be known. Therefore, He created man, a being who could perceive His glory and appreciate His beauty. He loved the idea of man so He created the whole universe to that end.

Understand that our perception of perfection is an indirect conveyance - we can't see that automatically by ourselves so have to be taught.

As it is, we can't even wrap our minds around a being that wasn't born and didn't have a beginning. We don't have to though; the aim is to focus on His enduring presence and even then we miss a lot. This is why discussions about God will never end.

We need the assistance of God's Messengers (Revelators). They were specially created to be divine Physicians and Educators; these infallible Souls are Mediators Who bring the world of God into relation with the world of man. To us, they're God's emissaries, bearing His supreme authority on earth.

So, all that we can know of God can only be known through these Messengers.

Science has profound limitations because it studies only the phenomenal world; but, we should pay attention to its discoveries. Science can help sift out crazy superstitions and absurd religious notions that defy the laws of nature, laws that God, Himself, created.

They are guesses Zanjan, you use capitals more than I do when I shouldn't, it isn't a good thing. I like do it in regards to some books, television shows, certain countries and so on. Every god, including one that got the new name God sometime after 1,400 years ago, created nothing. Every creator god defies the laws of nature. Humans were born after they evolved and then long after that they couldn't work out how things came about so they made up gods and everything about every god under the false belief that all of it is true. Is the believed in God even the same god that each one who believes in ? Don't you have different beliefs about the one that you think is around right now than that of those of other religions that use the name God for the main god that you all believe in ? Those that didn't understand what elohim means ended up following contradictory stories about what the word elohim means. The result is the false belief that it's a reference to one god only even though it's not.

"They are guesses Zanjan"

I get my information from official scientific sites and from all the Holy Scriptures. I don't see you making similar contributions.

Truth can't be extracted through differences of opinion. My beliefs are based on the same things all religions teach, not on individual views or cultural traditions.

So it is scientifically proven that there is a god around somewhere right now ? It is also scientifically proven that not only is a god around right now but he also was able to create various things from nothing, as well some life forms, then it was also scientifically proven that spontaneous generation happened more than once ? I’d love to see those scientific sites that prove all of that and prove that a god is around right now who also never had an origin. All holy scriptures, no matter if you highlight them with capitals, prove any of that, nor does anything prove that a virgin became pregnant without artificial insemination or sex.

Beliefs are made about what is thought to be right, undeniable evidence proves whatever is right no matter what anyone perceives/believes to be true. I believe that there is possibly a god around somewhere right now even though I cannot prove that. It’s still possible but the possibility that there isn’t even one god around anywhere right now. That was an odd way of using the word truth. The truth can’t be found in many ways and some religious leader telling me that something is true even though it cannot be proven will not convince me. Of course I don’t take information from the same sources as you do, the reason is because they all are misleading sources. Some things about various religions are good, I will admit that.

No such thing as spontaneous creation. When God says "Be", there's no timestamp between His utterance and the moment WE recognize the appearance of that creation.

Science has proven the base form of life is chemistry; it takes eons to develop a single-celled creature from a combination of chemistry and exactly the right environmental conditions.

There is, however, spiritual "regeneration", which is part of God's Divine Plan. The launch is quick yet it takes several hundred years for its waves to spread and permeate society.

"a virgin became pregnant without artificial insemination or sex."

That has scientifically been proven to occur in the animal kingdom when there aren't any healthy males around. Female mice are born pregnant.

" I’d love to see those scientific sites that prove all of that"

Most of your questions will be answered in one place if you read "The Seven Mysteries of Life" by award-winning science author Guy Murchie. The book is rather old now but it's still a good general introduction and enjoyable read.

Otherwise, Google your request for hard, cold facts. If you don't get results, rephrase your request, asking for one item only. You'll never find truth as long as you believe all credible sources (such as I identified) are misleading.

Don't you mean there is no such thing as spontaneous generation as well spontaneous creation of any other kind ? If so then I do agree. Here's something that stumps a god with no origin fans, my next question. If the creator god had no origin then how can he have an origin if there is also a beginning if he really is around right now ? Both cannot be right, do not put it down to the beginning of all that he created. I haven't seen anywhere that it just has an all that he created passage. God is not the word, God is the name, a fairly recent name, the word god is the word of god literally. I actually asked how a virgin became pregnant without artificial insemination or sex, it's totally different to the way you took it out of context. It's also a case of you'll never find the truth, not you'll never find truth.

The Bible, now right there, if I want to look at something misleading then I'll read that. The Seven mysteries of life ? I wish I had TheismIsUntenable on here right name (as much as I dislike that name) because he'd now if Guy Murchie was from The Creation Institute or something like that. I'll read it if I can find a way to get it though.

Guy Murchie (Jr.) son of Ethel A. and Guy Murchie (Sr) was a Chicago Tribune photographer, staff artist and reporter, who had served as a war correspondent in England and Iceland from 1940 to 1942. He was briefly married to Barbara Cooney.

He was a flight instructor and a practising member of the Bahá'í Faith. His books included Men on the Horizon (1932), Song of the Sky (1954), Music of the Spheres (1961) and The Seven Mysteries of Life (1978). Murchie also illustrated his books with etchings and woodcuts of his own making. The American Museum of Natural History awarded him the John Burroughs Medal in 1956 for Song of the Sky.

[ https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/222121.Guy_Murchie ]

The thing to note is that he was a practising member of the Bahá'í Faith, just like Zanjan.

God thinks a thing and it comes into being? Mmm, yes, but thinking is an activity and requires time as an ingredient. So if God is located someplace unspecified where time is absent then He is incapable of thought and cannot create.