Posts from God... Truth or fiction? Auto-translated

Of course, to promote one's religion, one must possess charisma. Without it, it's impossible. But Muhammad truly believed that Allah created everything, so he wasn't trying to deceive anyone. He simply shared his faith. Yes, I believe in what is written in the Bible. And the Old Testament is just as important in Christianity as the New Testament. Because it is the foundation. Jews and Christians, as you know, believe in one God; the only difference is that Christians recognized Christ, while Jews did not. That's the only difference (besides some customs and traditions). So, saying that Christians shouldn't use the Old Testament is as silly as telling Saruman not to call himself a Christian because he believes the world was created by an absolute being. Isn't that silly?

Guys, what are you arguing about? Religion or Faith? These are somewhat different concepts...
First, define the subject of the conversation...
otherwise, you keep switching from one to the other and then back again... that's not right...

Sincerely.

Ugh, I never have enough time for a proper philosophical debate... Wiz, I'll probably answer tomorrow about the absolute and who rules the world. And I have something to say to Mugaisu too... Kyle, well, during a conversation, the topics often change...

... Kyle, during a conversation, the topics often change...

No, this isn't a change of topic... it's an involuntary substitution of concepts... That's why I intervened, so they would return to a single line of discussion...

Nowizard, then I feel truly sorry for you! :eek: The poor guy thinks his ancestors were Adam and Eve. And that dinosaurs and all sorts of trilobites never existed at all. And you're probably waiting for the Last Judgment.

I want to give an example. In the USA, 70% of the population are believers. However, unlike most Russians, who are believers in words only and view church holidays as just another excuse to drink. Americans firmly believe that the end of the world could come tomorrow and live every day as if it were their last. Furthermore, 30% of adult Americans believe that God created humans and all animals. And only 5% of Americans adhere to the theory of evolution.

And such widespread belief in god among them is not due to high spirituality at all, but rather to own general illiteracy and ignorance. Most Americans have simply never even heard a word like "evolution," let alone know who Charles Darwin is or what australopithecines are.

So much for belief in god...

Nowizard, then I feel truly sorry for you! :eek: Poor thing thinks his ancestors were Adam and Eve. That dinosaurs and all sorts of trilobites never existed at all. And you're probably waiting for the Last Judgment.

I want to give an example. In the USA, 70% of the population are believers. However, not like most Russians, who are believers in words only and view church holidays as just another excuse to drink. Americans firmly believe that the end of the world could come tomorrow and live every day as if it were their last. Furthermore, 30% of adult Americans believe that God created humans and all animals. And only 5% of Americans adhere to the theory of evolution.

And such widespread belief in god among them is not due to high spirituality, but rather to general illiteracy and ignorance. Most Americans have simply never heard a word like "evolution," let alone know who Charles Darwin is or what australopithecines are.

So much for belief in god...

Mugais, with this very post, you have declared your own ignorance. Belief in God does not deny evolution. It seems you've never even held a Bible in your hands. Firstly: the claim that people in Russia believe in God only in words is complete fiction. Yes, such people exist, but they are overwhelmingly fewer among Russian Christians. Secondly: our ancestors, though they were intelligent people, had never heard of what evolution was and took the phrase "creation of the world in seven days" too literally. After all, for God, an entire era is like a single day. So there are your seven days: Jurassic, Cretaceous... You need to think with your head, not take every written phrase on faith :p

And as for Darwin and everything else...

This opinion is completely erroneous. In our Russia, it is a legacy of the perceptions of superficially educated people of the 19th century, cleverly used by modern propaganda of godlessness. This opinion can only be held by people unfamiliar with the way of thinking of the greatest scientists.

From ancient times to the present day, among the most prominent scientists, the number of believers has always significantly exceeded the number of non-believers. Even in the middle of the 19th century, when materialism reached its highest development, those at the pinnacle of science were mostly believers in God. Not all of them belonged to one particular Christian denomination, but they recognized God as the Creator of the universe.

When the spread of materialistic ideas intensified particularly in the mid-19th century, it seemed to many that materialism was capable of solving all the world's mysteries, explaining all obscurities, and thereby turning the universe into a giant machine controlled by human will. The dissemination of such a view was greatly aided by the unprecedented development of technology over a relatively short period, which allowed for the boldest assumptions about the future and fostered the boldest hopes.

During this time, well-known materialists such as Vogt, Büchner, and Moleschott wrote their books. Their books seemed new and important then, but in our day they have completely lost their significance. The main works of Marx and Engels also belong to this period, whose views are now just as outdated as those of the aforementioned materialists. Their philosophical worldview retained significance only because it was linked to certain political currents that managed to attract many supporters who adopted the materialistic convictions of their mentors.

Furthermore, in so-called Marxist "dialectical materialism," the materialistic essence was skillfully masked by a dialectical method borrowed from the idealist Hegel. This method allows dialectical materialists to defend their theory even now, when its materialistic foundations have been, one might say, half destroyed by scientific development at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, when the very possibility of a scientific defense of materialism was called into question.

The splitting of the atom, the conversion of mass into energy—that is, the destruction of what from the point of view of consistent materialism was considered matter, the basic substance and foundation of all materialistic philosophy—the theory of relativity, which shook the building of classical physics, and much more: all this would probably seem like some "devilish delusion" to the "classics" of materialism of the last century. It is clear that the modern development of science led to a mass departure of scientists from materialism, for they became convinced of their idol's impotence to withstand the pressure of the newest scientific discoveries. In any case, this can be said about people who have not lost freedom in thought and action.

Materialism as a teaching based on scientific data should have been buried long ago, but it remained the official worldview of the Marxist party for a long time. It is clear that wherever this party held power, materialism was proclaimed the most advanced and scientific worldview. Of course, under such conditions, none of the Soviet scientists dared to openly declare their religiosity or their belief in God as the Creator of the world, thereby renouncing materialism. Only the greatest scientists with world renown, which protected them to some extent from repression, dared to do this. Among such scientists, the most famous is the renowned Russian physiologist I. P. Pavlov ( 1936 ). After his death, Soviet propaganda tried by pitiful and ridiculous means to prove his atheism and disbelief in God. But anyone who knew Pavlov also knew of his deep religiosity, which he maintained until the end of his days.

There were many such cases among famous professors of medicine, whose persecution would have been undesirable for the Soviet regime. Their religiosity was simply kept quiet, and no one knew about it except those close to them.

In the 30s, a survey on belief in God was conducted among the most prominent representatives of science and art—members of the famous French Academy of Sciences. It showed that the number of non-believers there was completely negligible. This survey was conducted quite freely: there could be no question of pressure in France. If we assume that some French academician hid his godlessness out of shame to admit it, this can only serve as proof that in our time disbelief in God represents something shameful for scientists.

True, the process of realizing the backwardness and unscientific nature of the atheistic-materialistic worldview, after its thorough collapse even in the last century, is gradual; among mediocre, ordinary scientists, the percentage of non-believers is still quite high; it is even higher among semi-scientists, people with a superficial education, but gradually the revolution in scientific perceptions is influencing them as well.

The remarkable, comprehensive mind, German scientist, philosopher, mathematician, and philologist Leibniz said in his work "Confession of Nature Against Atheists" that a superficial engagement with science creates a deceptive impression of the imminent possibility of knowing all the secrets of creation and distances man from God. On the contrary, deepening one's knowledge of science leads a person to recognize the Divine Reason governing the world.

The famous English philosopher F. Bacon held the same opinion. Indeed, it is enough just to look through the names of the greatest minds, the most prominent scientists of ancient and modern times, to be convinced that the overwhelming majority of them were believing people who recognized God, the Spiritual Principle, and the Supreme Reason as the beginning of the world. From the multitude of judgments of great scientists on religion, we will provide a few as examples.

Aristotle, the greatest mind of antiquity, says: "By the testimony of all mankind, God is the cause of everything" [Metaphysics. II, II, 820]. Plato, Aristotle's teacher, asserts: "The sun, the earth, the whole world, the change of seasons prove the existence of a Deity" [Laws. Book 9]. This is the voice of two of the greatest minds of antiquity. And here is what Nicholas Copernicus, the father of modern astronomy—whose teaching, according to godless people, supposedly refuted the truth of Christianity—says: "Who can gaze upon the wonderful order of the universe governed by God and not feel an urge to contemplate above all the Creator Himself" [Copernicus N. On the Motion of the Celestial Bodies].

Louis Pasteur, who created the science of bacteria and gave modern medicine a scientific foundation, said of himself that he believes in God and in all divine truths like a simple Breton peasant. He emphasized that it was precisely his scientific pursuits that gave him the basis for such a deep conviction in the existence of God. It is common knowledge that luminaries of physics such as Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Volta, and Ampère were all deeply believing people.

The famous naturalists Linnaeus and Cuvier believed in God, as did Lyell, the father of modern geology. Even Darwin himself, whose name was so often abused by godless people for their own purposes, by no means denied the existence of God with his theory, but on the contrary, considered Him the first cause of everything, the first impulse of beginning evolutionary development.

The striking Russian natural genius Lomonosov, who was our "first university," was never the non-believer that Bolsheviks often wish to depict him as. He was a religious man, as is evident from his "Reflections on God's Majesty." These verses of his, set to music, were even sung in Old Believer monasteries in his homeland.

As we have already said, modern great scientists for the most part believe in God; among them, let us name such figures as Einstein, Bergson, Planck, Ginne, Lodge. From this, it is evident that the claim of anti-religious propaganda regarding the incompatibility of belief in God with scholarship is completely unfounded.

It's good that you believe in evolution :) I have nothing better to do than sit and look for hidden meanings in the Bible. You're the one who divided seven days into eras for yourself and then presents it as though it's common knowledge to everyone except me.

You, on the other hand, apparently haven't interacted with real people. "Normal Orthodox Christians" are supposed to live by the commandments. Yes, indeed, our people only believe in God in words! We have bandits, oligarchs, and politicians — very religious people. Ask anyone. They even go to temples and churches. And drunken thugs also wear crosses around their necks. Or there's this trendy thing — the "save and preserve" ring. Every third person wears one! And we have a very, very large number of such types in the country. They don't think about God! They just do it because it's "necessary," and that's it! I hope that in about five years, you'll see this for yourself. When a person who wanted to enter a theological seminary screams profanities in the middle of the street and, in his free time, gets drunk and beats up fans of teams he doesn't like.

Wearing a cross doesn't necessarily mean someone is religious. The same goes for a ring. Nowadays, it's just a fashion statement, and sometimes it's really hard to tell the difference between a Christian and someone who's just showing off. The fact that criminals and bandits go to church can be understood. This is actually faith in action, not just in words. If all Christians lived strictly according to the commandments, we could all be considered saints. Everyone sins. However, you made a superficial statement about criminals. Yes, they are criminals and bandits, but you asked why. Imagine a non-believer who got involved in "

I don't have time to read the whole thread, so I'll just share my opinion.
God exists, but I also accept Darwin's theory, as there is much evidence in its favor. However, there is an inconsistency: chemical evolution could not have created life on its own and transitioned into biological evolution. At that moment, it was "pushed" forward.
However, since I have come to the conclusion that God exists, He could have deliberately created evidence in favor of the theory of evolution to test the faithful...;)

No, it's just that God is a genius. God said that animals should appear from the water on Earth, and there you go! Anyone who knows the history of evolution will understand. And regarding the origin of humans from monkeys, Darwin never said that. He only said that all animal species are similar and originate from each other. "And some are still crawling around," my dad jokes sometimes.

Saruman, in your opinion, can a cluster of energy create something? Think about it: here sits a cluster, and it just sits there. It is absolute, and therefore it doesn't need anything; what reason would it have to create something? What reason could serve as the basis for the absolute to create the universe? Loneliness? But it is absolute, a cluster of energy that doesn't feel the emotions inherent in mortals. It is absolute, it is self-sufficient. So, what then? Just out of boredom? But it is absolute, it is above that. A higher mind that doesn't need anything. Maybe then, curiosity? What kind of curiosity can there be for something that already knows everything? I don't think so.

The absolute has existed for so long that we cannot imagine such numbers. It is most correct to say: not for one eternity. But, there cannot be anything static in the Universe. Even stones are destroyed, even the outlines of continents change. Besides, energy cannot be static by definition. Streams of energy created the primary Universe; this did not happen quickly, most likely not for one eternity either, but it did happen. With the appearance of other objects in it, the Absolute could not remain the cluster of energy it was. Changes occurred within it; with the appearance of living creatures, they became even greater; with the appearance of intelligent beings, even more. People, praying to gods, paradoxically change the absolute, creating personifications of the gods, those same clusters of energy that separated from the primary Absolute. The Christian God (and some others???) was a personification of the form that was created before people believed in it. It may be a bit rambling, but there are always many questions in the problem of the beginning of creation:rolleyes:

Pleasure and love. No, brother, love is not pleasure. Meeting a "chick" at a disco and sleeping with her - that's pleasure. But people suffer more often than they rejoice for love. Remember Helen of Troy. I don't think Paris enjoyed seeing his fellow countrymen die because of his love. I've said it before, love is not just "kisses under the moon." It is always suffering, it is always trials. And that is right. And that is wonderful. And it should be that way.

You understand the word pleasure too narrowly: Some of the sufferings for love can, in a sense, be qualified as sublime pleasure (a feeling of light sadness). Pleasure does not mean enjoyment. Trials are natural; often, to obtain any kind of pleasure, one must go through trials. But when you have gone through them, and you are left with your beloved woman, surely you will not experience sublime (moral) pleasure? Rambling again, but it's okay...

Mugaes:
It is foolish not to believe in evolution, but the fact that humans evolved from monkeys does not agree with many signs. It is impossible to interpret gods using a scientific approach, just as it is impossible to describe music with formulas. In the Bible (I will say a terrible thing!), there is almost no truth. It was initially misinterpreted, and then many rewrote it either for profit or out of ignorance. I doubt that even the general meaning has reached our days...

Regarding the absolute – why suddenly? I understand there is an absolute, I understand there are energy flows, but what is it for? Ask Romeo why he drank the poison, ask Paris why he abducted Helen and didn't retreat even when his hometown was set ablaze, and they will both answer in unison: "I did it for pleasure! And besides, I'm a masochist!":D Romeo, upon learning that his beloved was dead, could have continued to live and enjoy all sorts of new pleasures, but he chose the path of suicide because Juliet was that one and only love for him, which he would not find anywhere else in the world. Just as Juliet stabbed herself, although she could have lived a rich and happy life, but she would not love anyone as much as Romeo. Before meeting Helen, Paris was a notorious womanizer and changed women like tunics, but for Helen, he was ready to face the entire Greek army alone, for her... Only for her... He could still have enjoyed other women – he was a prince, and besides, not an heir, meaning he could do whatever he wanted! But no. If pleasure ruled the world, you could now buy a vacation package to Troy. Regarding evolution – I agree and will add that archaeologists have repeatedly found human skulls, found monkey skulls, but NOT ONCE has a single bone of an intermediate stage between a monkey and a human been found, and since we are smart people and don't believe in miracles, the "poof!" version is ruled out:)

Regarding the Bible – the argument is again pointless, everyone has their own opinion on this.

Regarding evolution, I agree and would add that archaeologists have repeatedly found human skulls and monkey skulls, but NEVER a single bone representing an intermediate stage between a monkey and a human. Since we are intelligent people and don't believe in miracles, the "poof!" theory is out of the question.

Conclusion: animals evolved, while God created humans directly in their final form. Did I understand your line of thinking correctly?

In short: animals evolved, while God created humans directly in their final form. Did I understand your line of thinking correctly?

Well, that's just my personal opinion, because the Old Testament doesn't seem to mention any specific animals.

I still don't understand what Nowizard wanted to achieve. He started this discussion, after all. No matter how many quotes and articles he provides, I can find just as many, but I don't think it's necessary. I don't believe in God and I won't until I see direct confirmation with my own eyes.