I really do appreciate your quality review. There
is one major element you seem to be missing though.
Every question posed by me are rhetorical. I have
read more than just a couple of books on the subject
of God, both religious and philosophical. They all
admit to a lack of “knowledge” while I do not. My
idea is about knowing without detecting based on
what we do know and can detect.
Non-fiction / Theology for the New Millenium
Until now, belief in God has required some level of faith. Why? Because there has been no way to completely explain, describe, or prove the concept of the Creator to one of the created (us). You may wonder “why then are so many of us willing to believe in God without complete explanation, description, or proof?” The answer is simple. Without conscious recognition, many of us have been aware of the need for a creator of the universe.
“Why does the universe need a creator?” you may ask. It is because everything that has magnitude is measurable, and measurement begins with the supposition that whatever is being measured has not always existed. I must repeat that. Everything that has magnitude is measurable, and measurement begins with the supposition that whatever is being measured has not always existed. Let me explain.
In order to measure anything, you must have a beginning. You may think that the beginning is the first unit or increment of whatever is being measured, but you would be wrong. That first is what you initially recognize as reason enough for measurement. The actual beginning is always none (beginning with any numerical value is a continuation or partial measurement). Before there can be a first of anything, there must be none.
I’ll illustrate this point to you with a little participation. Make the motion as if you are about to start counting with your fingers. You don’t start off with an open hand or with one finger up. You start with a closed fist ready to flick your first finger out once the counting commences. You see, without even noticing, you were bearing witness to the fact that everything that can be measured has not always been. This includes those not willing to accept some form of God.
If atheists can see this is true, then what does the idea of there being none before there is a first have to do with belief in God? Plenty. First of all, it establishes a need for a creator. Secondly, it begins the description, explanation, and proof that there is a God.
Recognition of none being before a first establishes the need for a creator because something must exist in order to accomplish anything, and I think creation is in itself an incredible accomplish since no one or no thing in the universe has ever done it. If something must be in order to do, then there can be no self-creation; therefore, everything that is measurable must have a creator.
Everything in the universe has magnitude and consequently must be measurable, so the only way for us to define the Creator is through the mental negation or subtraction of all that is within or a part of the universe. Take away everything, and you are left with… Now, I’m sure your first reaction is to say or think “nothing”, but this concept is such a hard pill to swallow that I don’t want to make it any harder by getting into a debate over semantics. Let us just say with words that you are left with God, but think in reality absolutely none of anything else (no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no light, no positive, no negative, etc.).
You may want to stick with that word I wish to avoid in order to challenge me by saying what you are left with is the “nothing” from which God created all other things, but I must warn you not to make such a mistake. If God and (let’s just say) the Remainder are not one and the same, then God would be a part of the created magnitude instead of the Creator. Notice the contradiction?!
God, the Creator, and the Remainder must be one and the same in order for there to be no contradiction in your belief. I understand the automatic assumption to think in larger and grander terms when we think of greatness that holds us from thinking of God in the way I just mentioned. Understand this, bigger and more is generally better in terms of possession because it means you are farther from being without. If you think in terms of consumption, then you will understand that too much is a bad thing and perfection is a state that comes from the exact balance between positive and negative, which is represented by the numeral zero (0).
God is not great. God is Perfect. It is the desire to think of God in terms of magnitude that begins in contradiction, leads to confusion, and ends in atheism. The key to worship in any form is to first no who or what you are worshipping. If your true desire is to worship the only one worthy of such devotion, I have just given you the key. Open the door and come inside.
You need to log in to urbis or create an urbis account to review this writing.
Reviews
Sort Reviews by Newest | Oldest | Highest Quality | Lowest Quality | Newest Comments |
southernbaroque reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
I must commend you for undertaking a worthy and very lofty task. And you have done so fairly well. Most of the logic seems to be sound, and for the most part explained in a way that is easy to understand. I do however, have a slight problem with the “voice” of the piece. In places, it seems a bit condescending to the reader. Using terms like “I must repeat that.” and “but I must warn you not to make such a mistake” make unfair assumptions about the reader and could insult the intelligence of some. Other than that, I think the piece is worthy of further reading.
- add/view comments (0)
inspiredcontent reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
Hmmm, this one requires some consideration. I think it is well written although I do believe you’ll have to make your points more clearly to persuade an audience. I feel as though we’re going in circles at some parts. I doubt you’ll find many atheists willing to accept this view, but I wish you luck in your endeavors.
brookelynne reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
okay, this coming from someone who went to three semesters at a community college, i had trouble following it entirely, but there are many,many people much,much smarter than me that will read this with ease. i pretty much enjoyed it otherwise. it’s crazy to me that you’ve basicaly explained the concept of ‘god’ in a mathmatical way. very interesting piece. and of course you’re well worded, and so, bottom line, i like it, you’ve talent my friend, and i never, ever want to get into a debate with you, lest my brain melt out my ears…=]
ldeniseb reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
I love this.. I have tried to explain to my athiest friends that God is bigger than time and space. He is outside our reality, we have no concept of Him. Just as you don’t miss chocolate if you’ve never eaten chocolate, you can’t comprehend God’s massiveness because we’ve never encountered anything like it.
Now… I’d watch some of the big words bunched together. Don’t remove them just move them farther apart so the reader (if they don’t understand them) doesn’t have to work as hard.
The other thing is the run on sentences. I do this alot and work very hard to get them out. Grammar needs some work, but only in a few places. (Sorry not my strength.)
Keep writing it is interesting, and I hate non-fiction for the most part.
anaphylaxis reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
Grammatically, there are too many instances of run on sentences or sentences where ideas seem hopelessly cramped together. Some misspelled words and such litter the piece. The argument itself is speculative at best and is not self substantiating. It feels like you just spat this out one day and decided to post it. Let me explain: we go from “Until now, belief in God has required some level of faith.” Are we to assume the converse then? to -> ” God is not great. God is Perfect. It is the desire to think of God in terms of magnitude that begins in contradiction, leads to confusion, and ends in atheism.” What is the point youre trying to make?
When you revise, first find out what you want to say, present your idea in the context of supporting points then elaborate on points that substantiate your claim, then create a final summation of the piece for a closing. And please, put it in blogging or journalism, we dont want to step on any toes in places where we respect the beliefs of others. Remember, racism isnt funny, atheist bashing isnt either.
“and measurement begins with the supposition that whatever is being measured has not always existed.” – I dont know how you were able to draw this conclusion.
Jacquie reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
Your confidence in your method of conveyance shoudl increase as more people read this piece and understand it. I found it very readable and understandable – I think that your goal, yes? It’s a puzzle, the verbiage and for that reason held my interest and captured my attention. One has to pay close attention to this to get the message. Hope this is what you were asking for in terms of a review.
h03t reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
I loved this. I am the same kind of person you are, expressing my thoughts best in writing. I’ve written many of these types of things.
I think you did a great job. The flow and unfolding of ideas slowly explained itself well.
I understood what you were talking about the entire time. If you weren’t expressing you thoughts throughly and understadably, I wouldn’t have been able to keep up.
The only part where I got lost is when you started talking about “Remainder”. What is the Remainder. Also, the paragraph that starts out as “God, the Creator, and the Remainder”, I think, should be deleted. It kind of wonders away from the topis, or either you didn’t explain it as well as you could have.
And a few errors.
“itself an incredible accomplish” – “accomplishment”
“is to first no” – “know”
Keep writing these types of essays. They are interest. I’d like to see how you would explain “How God doesn’t need a Creator” through logic. :)
the_engaged_few reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
For a first time writer, you’ve definitely decided to jump in the deep end, haven’t you? You have a good educational style that’s easily understood, even if someone needs to go back and read it a couple times to wrap their brain around it. Here are a couple issues I saw that may help you out a bit:
“of the Creator to one of the created (us)”—“of the Creator to the created” sounds a little better to me, but that’s an opinion.
I would stop with the “you may” stuff and just write the questions out as is.
“I must repeat that.”—I disagree. You’re not giving a speech; they can re-read it if they don’t understand.
“incredible accomplish”—“incredible accomplishment.”
You seem to be trying to explain God empirically, which, as you alluded to in the beginning, isn’t really possible. I don’t know what you’ve read on the subject; I myself have only read a couple books because they tend to be ponderous. But I would suggest a book called “A History of God,” which I’ve been reading and have found to be an excellent source of information about humanity’s evolving perception of the First Cause, as philosophers have called God. It explores God from the POV of the philosophers, mystics, and others, and it might help you in your quest to understand what I call The Illusion of Distance.
jlcampbell reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
This was certainly an interesting concept. I can’t say I agree wholeheartedly with the theory, but I don’t think that’s your intention for writing it … so I’ll save us the debate. I think this piece could really shine if you chose to reread it and edit out all the parts where you repeat yourself. Especially the part in the beginning where you say … “I must repeat this …” and then you do. Why must you repeat this? It takes away from your point. Consider your average reader to be somewhat educated and remove the redundancy from this piece and it will shine more brilliantly. Not to say that it won’t spark controversy, but that’s what will make it famous … There are several other instances where you just keep saying the same thing over and the reader will find themselves babbling inside of their heads and losing your point. Couple of typos I noticed was accomplish instead of accomplishment and no instead of know. Otherwise provocative and enjoyable enough read. Best of luck to you and write on!
J.L. Campbell
www.jlcampbellbooks.com
Edaurdo reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
Great write full of excellent ideas.
Showing 1 - 10 of 12
Next →
Review item
Add to favesCreator
Relevant Links
Item Stats
GENERAL
12 Reviews 3 Comments
Version 1
Latest Activity: over 2 years ago
REVIEW QUEUE
Appeared in Queue: 0 Times
Skipped: 0 Times
Ratings & Rankings
