HOLY LAND MAN Explaining GOD (reads the original Bible in the Word of GOD of Biblical Hebrew). One of the few people in the world that understands the vibration of the 22 characters of the Biblical language and hence the code2GOD. AMAZING. juravin.com/SPIRITUALITY facebook.com/HolyLandMan
IS GOD EVIL OR UNWORTHY OF OUR TRUST?
Of the bet in Genesis, HOLY LAND MAN noticed that GOD warned Adam and Eve that they will die if they eat of the forbidden fruit. Eve decided to eat and die. Yet, GOD did not keep his word and decided to make her, and the female generations to come, suffer.
That by itself is evidence of a mean, cruel GOD that is not trustworthy. Unlike the GOD which we trust, love, and respect.
GOD has told us many things, through the Torah and the prophets: that he created the world, that he oversees it, that there is no GOD but him, that he has chosen us for a virtuous people, that he gives reward and punishment and more. But how does he tell us the truth? How can we know that he is not lying to us or deceiving us? After all, we have no way of verifying his words. What if our whole belief is built on lies?
This question can be extended even further, beyond the credibility of the Bible. Suppose there is a Creator for the world; who said he is good? Maybe he is bad or indifferent? Maybe he created humans to abuse them? How can one know?
Let's start by saying that for many people, this question does not begin at all. They existentially and utterly experience the goodness of GOD, and their faith in Him is unquestionable. They do not have a mental answer to these questions, but they do not need such an answer, just as a mentally healthy person is not bothered by questions like "Maybe I do not exist?". It is an illustration of the tension that exists on many issues between existential certainty and intellectual skepticism. The mind is able to raise doubts about everything, but existential certainty ignores these doubts because it is clear to them that they are wrong.
The discussion below is therefore intended only for those who do not share the same existential certainty, and want to receive an intellectual answer to their question: How do you know that GOD is not evil?
The truth is that it is impossible to know, but it is precisely from this that it becomes clear why this question should not bother us.
HLM will explain things.
Suppose for the sake of the matter that GOD, the Creator of the world, is indeed wicked or indifferent to the desires of human beings. In such a case, we were created by an almighty power that shaped us as He wills, and He is able to do to us as He pleases. The thing is, if that is the case, then that power can also deceive us to such levels that we can never discover the truth. It can program our minds so that our logic is wrong, implant us with false memories, and direct our senses so that they show us a distorted picture of reality, without us having any idea about it. In other words, if we assume that GOD is evil, what is in doubt is not only the credibility of the Bible but the credibility of our most basic tools of cognition: the senses, reason, memory, conscience, and so on. We can rely on nothing, even scientific evidence and the most convincing logic, because they too can be a hoax. Who said 2 + 2 is really 4?
Divine deception of this magnitude is not something that can be bypassed or eluded. This is not the Truman Show or The Matrix, in which the minds of the people function properly and only the artificial reality around them deceives them. After all, GOD is the one who created and designed both reality and the human mind and consciousness, including their most basic functions. If he wants to deceive us, there is no way we can ever discover the truth, just as there is no way a comic book character can discover the truth about its creator on its own. Foolish fantasies about man's rebellion against the GODs, in the style of Prometheus, can exist when it comes to limited Greek "GODs," not the unlimited Creator of all: "Did the ax boast of the carver in it?" The illusions of evil machines, sorcerers, or scientists may be overcome, but not of those who designed and created both the universe itself and our c
IS THERE A GOD? ANY GOD? #8 Conclusion
Holy Land Man has demonstrated to you, using seven different scientific methods of evidence, the existence of GOD. Holy Land Man has proven the existence of a very intelligent designer of life and of probably this universe.
At this stage and for the purpose of this research of "Is There a GOD?" Holy Land Man has not made any further conclusions (and you should therefore not intuitively assume) that:
That GOD belongs to any religion. HOLY LAND MAN concluded that GOD is "merely" the one responsible for our existence. HOLY LAND MAN has not aimed to prove here that the Bible is true or that any religion is right.The fact that HOLY LAND MAN's conclusion is that there is a GOD, responsible for our creation, doesn't mean that He/She/It is still responsible for our existence.Concluding that there is a GOD doesn't conclude that GOD is anything that any religion tells usEven if there is a GOD, there is no reason to become religious because HOLY LAND MAN has not concluded that GOD has influence over our daily livesHOLY LAND MAN have merely established that we are part of an intelligence design and that we are not here by coincidenceHOLY LAND MAN is yet to establish what God wants and if we do what God’s wants, will it better our lives
As noted at the outset, around each of these evidences was written an entire polemical literature of criticisms, responses to criticism, evidence and counter-evidence. Anyone who is interested in refuting them is invited to be respectful and first of all seriously study the subject, and read the books and articles written about it. Unfortunately many atheist polemics do not bother to do so, but are content to present a "straw man" of the claim in order to reject it with contempt.
Even if none of the evidence is absolute proof, their great power stems from putting them together. In fact, they can be seen as a move that reveals a series of unexpected "jumps" within reality.
The first leap is in vain: the very fact that something exists and nothing does, and that something that appeared after it did not exist (the cosmological evidence). The second leap is a chaos to order: the emergence of a permanent law according to which all parts of the universe move (the evidence from the laws of nature). The third leap is inanimate to the living: the emergence of living organisms, which are the most complex works in the universe (evidence from design or complexity). The fourth leap is from life to consciousness: the emergence of consciousnesses in general, and of human consciousness in particular, capable of understanding the universe (the evidence from consciousness). The fifth jump is from consciousness to morality: the existence of moral intuitions that indicate the existence of absolute good and evil (the evidence from morality). The sixth leap is from an ordinary experience to an experience of religious revelation (the evidence from the revelation), and the seventh leap is the leap from ordinary human existence to the unique existence of the people of Israel, as predicted in the Torah (evidence from the history of the people of Israel).
Atheists want us to believe that all these jumps happened by chance, that they are the result of inanimate particles of matter and blind natural forces and nothing more. In case the universe appeared, in case it has a permanent legitimacy, in case life appeared out of matter, in case they developed consciousness, in case moral sense appeared and so on. But how likely is it to believe that all this happened by chance?
If we were to ask someone who has no idea about our universe, what he thinks a planned universe should look like and what a randomly created universe would look like - he would probably answer that a planned universe will have laws, complexity, diverse creatures, consciousness and constant progress, while in an unplanned universe - if in general,
IS THERE A GOD? ANY GOD? #7
It is said that the King of France once asked the philosopher Belz Pascal to give him evidence of the existence of GOD. Pascal replied without hesitation: "The Jews, Your Excellency."
The existence of the people of Israel, its survival throughout history and above all, its return to the land and the establishment of a renewed state, deviate so much from the laws of history known to other peoples, that they astonished quite a few historians and thinkers from the nations of the world like Mark Twain, Lev Tolstoy, Nietzsche, Ernest Renan, John Adams, Woodrow Wilson and others expressed their amazement at the miraculous existence of the people of Israel and their contribution to humanity beyond all proportion to its size. And all of this, even before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.
The unique history of the people of Israel would have been preached even if the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) had not foreseen it in advance; The very fact that the Torah did foresee it, and described it in a clear and unambiguous and unambiguous prophecy, (at the end of Deuteronomy, chapters 28-21), clearly testifies to the truth of the Torah and that it was given by GOD.
Only a supreme power that controls history could have ensured the existence of the people of Israel when it was scattered in exile, under conditions in which every other people was soon assimilated or destroyed; Make sure he always stays small and persecuted and does not find rest in the Diaspora; To keep his country desolate in anticipation of his return despite the attempts of many to conquer and settle it; And ultimately to gather the outcasts of Israel from all corners of the globe, bring them back to their land, and help them establish a prosperous state while overcoming armies stronger than them, absorbing mass immigration and many other problems.
Some people claim they would believe in GOD if they saw a miracle. But what greater miracle than the history of the people of Israel? Isn't the return of Zion a much greater and more impressive miracle than a fire descending from the sky or a sea split in two?
Whoever does not see the wonders of these events, it is likely that even if he had witnessed the parting of the Red Sea he would have seen only the mud at his feet and the sweaty shoulders of the marcher in front of him. True, the history of the people of Israel was conducted in so-called natural ways, and not in masterpieces that transcend nature, but their anomaly compared to other peoples indicates that divine providence is what accompanied the course of events so that all prophecies appear in the Torah will be fulfilled.
This evidence testifies not only to the existence of GOD as some abstract "supreme power", but to the existence of the GOD and GOD of the GODS involved and the providence described in the Bible, and hence the truths of the Torah and the obligation to refer to it a source for GOD's existence.
"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one quarter of one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.
His contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine and abstruse learning are also very out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world in all ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself and be excused for it. The Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greeks and Romans followed and made a
IS THERE A GOD? ANY GOD? #6
This argument for the existence of GOD is very simple: we know that GOD exists, because many people have testified that they have met Him. Even if we have not seen it ourselves, the very existence of evidence on the matter is evidence. It may not be the GOD of Moses, Mohamad, or Jesus or a GOD that is affiliated with any religious sect, but "a GOD".
For a moment, let's not think of GOD as a religious GOD but as an entity which is superior to us. It can even be a particle. Crowds of people throughout history have described experiences of divine revelation they have had, religious or mystical experiences, visions, prophecy, and the like. Some of those experiences occurred in daydreaming, during routine activities, and some were achieved as a result of activities like meditation, or in exceptional situations like near-death experiences.
There are many differences between the same experiences, but also many similarities are common, as William James demonstrated in his book "The Religious Experience to the Issue." Professor Yehuda Jerome Gelman, in his book "Experience of GOD and the Rationality of Theistic Belief," presented a philosophical argument that the accumulation of so much evidence constitutes proof of the existence of a GOD, just like any other phenomenon that we accept for its existence based on evidence.
Many find it difficult to accept this argument. They claim that while the people who have experienced divine revelations believe in their truth, it is possible that these are all hallucinations caused by various reasons. The hallucinations can be very tangible and make a great impression on the person who experienced them, and yet they exist only in his head and not in reality.
The problem with this critique is that if we doubt tangible experiences that seem certain to us, and treat them as hallucinations - what can we say is true? Maybe the reality we are experiencing at the moment is also a dream or a hallucination?
Although it seems completely tangible to us, so do the religious experiences for those who experience them. If these can be hallucinations, then our perception of reality can also be such. It will not help us to turn to other people and verify with them that they too see what we see, because those same people can be part of our hallucination, like the people we see in a dream ...
In other words, our default is to assume that what we perceive to be true is indeed true, unless proven otherwise. There are things that seem real to us at the time, like dreams or hallucinations resulting from drug use, but once they pass we recognize that they never really came true.
Religious and mystical experiences, on the other hand, are often perceived by those who experience them as real even decades after the experience. Anyone who claims against them "perhaps it is a delusion" can equally direct this claim towards the reality he is experiencing at the moment and question it; But if he does not do so, and does not provide an objective criterion that makes it possible to distinguish between reality and hallucination, then our default is to believe in experiences that seem real to us and treat them as part of reality. Whoever wants to claim otherwise, has the burden of proof.
I say, they are similar in the experience but different in the interpretation and the methods of what pleases their GOD. I also believe that most religions manipulate "GOD's will" so it will fit their political agenda in the form of "in the name of GOD". For me, only the source matters, the original Word of GOD in the original language of the Bible, Hebrew. Everything else is only human interpretations and self-interest manupulations.
Some argue that religious experiences cannot be trusted because they contradict each other: some describe a revelation or encounter with the Jewish GOD, others with the Christian, Muslim or Hindu GO
IS THERE A GOD? ANY GOD? #5
Most mentally healthy human beings have basic and very strong moral intuitions embedded in them. They have intuitions that things like murder, robbery, and harm to innocents are negative. The way in which the same moral intuitions are applied varies, of course, from society to society, as do the definitions to whom moral rules apply, but there is no society in history that has not recognized the existence of morality and justice even at the basic level. Not only do people feel intense moral feelings, but they also lead their lives by them, sometimes with significant concessions to pleasures and satisfaction to the point of self-sacrifice. They even go to war against those they perceive as behaving immorally.
A careful examination of those moral intuitions leads to the conclusion that we perceive morality not as a subjective emotion but as an objective, absolute, and binding reality. If morality was a purely emotional and subjective matter, there would be no room for moral controversy. Just as taste and smell should not be argued, so there is nothing to argue about personal feelings that reflect only the person's feelings. And if morality is subjective, there is also no room for criticizing people or companies who behave differently from us - for they are not really wrong or bad, but simply have different preferences.
Yet although many outwardly claim that morality is indeed relative and not absolute, very few actually believe it. Most people feel deep down that groups like the Nazis and ISIS are utterly wicked people with blatantly corrupt morals, and not just "different from us." Not only do we feel that way, but as mentioned we will be prepared to go to war against such figures and force them to change their behavior. All this because we tend to perceive morality as an objective reality.
Of course, it can be argued that the fact that we feel that morality is objective and binding does not prove that it is. It is possible that our moral intuitions are a feeling that has evolved in us for evolutionary reasons, and although they make us feel that morality is absolute, it is only an illusion. There is no objective and absolute morality, but only gut feelings and desires that we project onto reality. This approach is called the moral error theory because all talk of morality or moral laws is wrong because such things do not exist.
Unsurprisingly, many proponents of error theory are atheists, for, in a world that has nothing but inanimate matter and blind laws of nature, there is no reality that can be a source of objective morality. All that exists are molecules, and since the laws of morality are not made of molecules, they do not exist.
It is possible to adopt such an approach, but the price it charges the person is enormous. Adopting the theory of error will force us to deny some of the most intense existential feelings burning among us, and to treat our greatest and noblest ideals as personal gut feelings altogether - feelings that are neither better nor right than those of the most wicked and corrupt people in our eyes.
This means that we will not be able to pass a moral critique on any person or any company, because there is nothing to argue about personal taste, and everyone can act according to their personal preferences. And if we eventually decide to go to war with people or values different from ours, it will be coercion that has no moral justification other than our personal desires.
While it is possible to pay these prices, many are not willing to do so. It is not for nothing that many philosophers, including atheists, try to find a basis for the existence of an objective and realistic morality that matches our basic intuitions instead of denying them. However, most of these attempts fail. In a world that is perceived as entirely material and blind, it is difficult to suddenly bring in ad hoc absolu
IS THERE A GOD? ANY GOD? #4
The human consciousness is an absolute wonder. It is the thing through which we think, understand, and perceive reality, create, feel, experience, and feel. It is in fact the only thing we experience directly, in the first person, with absolute certainty. And yet, the essence of consciousness itself is a mystery. Its very existence is an appeal to the materialist worldview, which holds that the only thing that exists is a matter, and an acknowledgment of a mystery that opens up the possibility of a more spiritual worldview, which may include GOD as well.
Materialists claim that consciousness is nothing but a product of matter, something that appears in some way from brain activity, just as the kidneys excrete urine, so the brain excretes consciousness. Not only does such a claim sound very strange on the face of it, but it also has no end to the explanation of how it happens. Of course, it is clear that there is a correlation between brain processes and mental processes, and that influence on one leads to influence on the other. This has been known since the first man struck his friend's head and caused him to lose consciousness, and the neurosciences have not renewed anything essential here except for the refinement of the subtleties of that correlation.
But where does the very consciousness in which those mental processes take place come from? We assume that simple chemicals have no consciousness, and if so how can a certain complex organization of theirs lead to the appearance of something so different from them? It would be similar to the claim that if a sufficiently complex card tower is built, at some point the cards will be able to speak and play on their own.
While there are features of complex things that are not in the details that make them up, So-called emergencies (like the moisture of the water, which does not exist in the individual molecules but exists in the whole). But in these cases, the transition from the individual to the whole is clear and scientifically understandable to us.
Consciousness, on the other hand, is so fundamentally different from matter that there is no explanation for how it supposedly "grows" out of it. The materialist claim that matter is capable of producing consciousness expresses only a blind belief and provides no explanation or justification for its claims.
Not only is the very existence of consciousness a miracle that is not understood in a materialistic world, but also its ability to understand the universe. Through our minds, we are able to understand the universe, the laws of nature, and the way they operate, from the subatomic level to cosmic processes. The same laws require mathematical understanding and high abstraction ability, and it takes many years to learn and understand them, while scientific knowledge itself is advancing.
Is it obvious that the human mind will even have a chance to understand the universe? After all, according to the atheist worldview, consciousness is something that evolved evolutionarily only because it had some survival benefit. But it is clear that there is no need for consciousness to survive, and certainly not all the secrets of the universe need to be understood to do so.
Countless species on earth, such as insects, do not have real awareness as far as we know, and yet they survive and thrive for much longer than human existence in the world. Think of an ant for example it has no mental capacity to understand even the tip of the iceberg of the universe in which it lives. For her, it is a foreign and clearly incomprehensible place, And it amounts to a few inches that she is able to feel and pursue food. It does not prevent it from surviving and reproducing successfully.
Compared to the whole universe, our size and our brain size are no different from those of the ant. Where then did we get the ability to understand the universe?