God can be proven

[citizen]

Those aren't even the same concepts, and why should your being offended be considered? *mostly ignores theist quote*

[cripple]

This blog should be deleted.

[bokeh]

Those aren't even the same concepts, and why should your being offended be considered? *mostly ignores theist quote*


thats the thing.. essentially, they are the same concept

[spitfire]

The universe has no beginning and no end.

Is this what you believe? Is it what you know? I'm not sure what you mean here. Physicists know that our universe has not always existed. They have a good understanding of how it escalated into being and they are almost certain how it will end.

[MacGuffin]

A pox on your houses!

[1199]

I won't talk about physics, but if there was no god and no judgement day that would mean:That our existence is a *coincidence,a mistake or has no meaning or purpose*and this can't be true cause the universe we live is organized and precise so nothing exists without a reason all the things that exists in this world is important for the balance of life. Which means that our existence can't be a coincidence or a mistake in this organized and precise world. I am not trying to convince any one this is just what i think.

[Spookygray]

God can be proven.

1.absolute nothing creates absolutly nothing.I believe in the big bang but something had to cause it. That means a first which some call God.

2.People then say the universe has always been here. Well if any thing existed from eternity without a creator it would have no design, shape, form or description it would just exist. It would be the first cause without any influence or design.

edited: Because some people are missing the point. I'm trying to prove God not the bible.

Who says nothing creates nothing?
If there's nothing... there's NO RULES!

Yep, that's my rationalization for the day.

[Hera]

Where's the facepalm emoticon? Do you mean to tell me there's no facepalm emoticon?!

[PenguinHunter]

Ask and He shall provide: :facepalm:

[dee64]

What came first, material or vision ? Is there intelligence in all matter ? Just as we create does matter also create ? Could matter and vision be simultaneous ?

[Hera]

Ask and He shall provide: :facepalm:

My hero.

[Tlalocone]

Yeah god REALLY does excist, but sadly enough he/she/it cannot be proven for people who only believe what they can measure.

Beacuse God probabaly can not be measured, god created the universe with the big bang creating matter FROM nothing or almost nothing OR of him-her-itself!!!

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bang.gif

[jyng1]

Yeah god REALLY does excist, but sadly enough he/she/it cannot be proven for people who only believe what they can measure.

Beacuse God probabaly can not be measured, god created the universe with the big bang creating matter FROM nothing or almost nothing OR of him-her-itself!!!

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bang.gif

God was created by a huge fart from the Devil... Then He created the Big Bang.

[Tlalocone]

God was created by a huge fart from the Devil... Then He created the Big Bang.

:) Typical INTP answer for the theme...but gladly I was prepared for it, almost expected this kind of answer.

I respect your diabolical answer, the sad thing is that it is wrong, the WORLD is bad and the devil, and NOT god.

[YHWH]

ban it ban it ban it ban it

[fripping]

would you cut down the redwoods?

[Tlalocone]

would you cut down the redwoods?

did ya mean this video by saying cut down the redwoods???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZKA71VuidQ

[fripping]

Tlalacone no! you are the redwoods!

[Tlalocone]

Tlalacone no! you are the redwoods!

Should I regard that as a compliment or an insult???
In the 2nd case...:=// maybe I should report you to the mods!!!?
>XDDĐ

[fripping]

>XDDĐ

WHERE DOES THE TONGUE BEGIN AND THE HORROR END

[Tlalocone]

Should I regard that as a compliment or an insult???
In the 2nd case...:=// maybe I should report you to the mods!!!?
>XDDĐ

Iask again fripping .WHICH ONE,,,

[fripping]

you are a Legacy Poster and need to be protected from Predatory Banning Policies.

[Tlalocone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoopQzy-sBg&feature=related

See it from 3:08!!!

[Reepicheep]

An 'Existence of God' thread! Oh goody!

How did I know I'd find one of these here? :rofl:

[PenguinHunter]

One?

[Reepicheep]

One?

Heh... yeah... silly me!

One wonders what God or the Lack Thereof thinks of these endless threads... like watching fleas convening a discussion on the existence of dogs.

[shadow1986]

So basically, you're wasting our time as well?

Hardly. Peter and Paul were not profits, and I doubt they thought their letters would be read by an audience further away than Turkey.


WRong... they both made the church a lot of money.



I admire your tenacity watch.


Though, this thread shows what a bunch of Kants INTPs can be sometimes. But hey, you grab some religious guy and drop him into an island full of thousands of INTPs (INTPc), and this is what's bound to happen. It's almost like a sitcom.

[Tlalocone]

Nietche was infamous for his ateism.

There is a hungarian, modern joke about Nietche's ateism!!!(I hope that my mirror translation won't do any damage to the joke's meaning. XD)

"Comes an SMS on the cellphone/mobilephone, which says: GOD is dead;
signature: Nietche.
A few minutes later another SMS comes, which says: Nietche is dead;
signature: GOD. "

:Đ

[fripping]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoopQzy-sBg&feature=related

See it from 3:08!!!

gimli's hungarian voice actor is truly a talented fellow.

[Tlalocone]

gimli's hungarian voice actor is truly a talented fellow.


Yes, and it is also funny because in this parody he(Gimli) says in hungarian: "I will f*ck you on yar mother's back"!!!

:DxD

[fripping]

Yes, and it is also funny because in this parody he(Gimli) says in hungarian: "I will f*ck you on yar mother's back"!!!

:DxD

is amstel light really that bad?

[Tlalocone]

is amstel light really that bad?

Nope, i think the author of the parody meant not being sober rather than not liking amstel.
By the way it could be a much worse beer:

http://www.lacsiboltja.hu/dbgen/showimage.php?image=%2Fuploadedimages%2F8348.jpg
(235 Ft / db 0.5 Liter)
So about 1,3 $ for half a liter beer, and the taste is reaaly awful, so...XDĐ

[fripping]

Nope, i think the author of the parody meant not being sober rather than not liking amstel.
By the way it could be a much worse beer:

http://www.lacsiboltja.hu/dbgen/showimage.php?image=%2Fuploadedimages%2F8348.jpg
(235 Ft / db 0.5 Liter)
So about 1,3 $ for half a liter beer, and the taste is reaaly awful, so...XDĐ

light beer doesn't even count as drinking. parody fail!

[Tlalocone]

light beer doesn't even count as drinking. parody fail!

It's not my work, you should tell yar opinion to the author, not the "herald"...XDDĐ

[Tlalocone]

Where are you fripping??? Did I really scare ya away??? *sobs an entire Amazon* I do not want to...

Plz come back and use yar passive agressive ways...pleaase!!!

I am missing you and your cinical attitude!!!
:D

[fripping]

Where are you fripping??? Did I really scare ya away??? *sobs an entire Amazon* I do not want to...

Plz come back and use yar passive agressive ways...pleaase!!!

I am missing you and your cinical attitude!!!
:D

i ran out of things to criticize. :(

[Tlalocone]

i ran out of things to criticize. :(

Than it is a stalemate, i guess... :(

:-)

[synthesiafirefox]

The most convincing evidence of God i've ever read was the book "God is not dead" by amit goswani, which provides proof of a God from the physicist and philosopher's point of view.. what it generally says is something about how God would arise based from "Quantum Physics", specifically quantum consciousness(if you've analyzed it, classical mechanics cannot account for consciousness, obviously) but this new field of quantum physics can account for a lot of phenomena we experience in our lives, and part of this is how consciousness can affect "matter", which says that if their is a God, he doesn't need to actually be there to influence our world, all he has to do is "think", you may think this is far-fetched but scour the net for evidences/experiments, you'll find lots of them(although this study is still in it's infancy)

- and in opposition to that, i've read some books written by atheist advocators, which according to my view is very shallow, where the author's view only arises from a logical point of view(which in many cases is not viable), especially when we talk about things like "universe" or god, the existence of other dimensions alone, disqualifies the impossibility of the existence of a God, and moreover, we can't disprove the existence of God until we've discovered "everything", scoured every place, dimension, universe and multiverse which i doubt any existing man can do, especially those who are not well-versed in astrophysics(IMO... at this point it's irrational to conclude their is no God)

[jyng1]

Makes me wonder how desperate you have to be to try and find evidence for something which is not directly observable.

What exactly is the point?

[euterpenc]

Makes me wonder how desperate you have to be to try and find evidence for something which is not directly observable.

What exactly is the point?

Can have a big impact on human life, open up experiences that otherwise would not be conceived as possible, etc.

Gravity is not directly observable, nor is electromagnetism.

[jyng1]

Can have a big impact on human life, open up experiences that otherwise would not be conceived as possible, etc.

Gravity is not directly observable, nor is electromagnetism.

You're not talking about gravity or electromagnetism, which actually have a big impact on human life.

You're talking about God, The Almighty, of which there is no evidence of any influence on the fundamental laws of physics.

If you're talking about the impact of a concept, then by all means discuss away...

[PenguinHunter]

Phew! I was worried this thread had been forgotten.

*watch appears in 10, 9, 8. . .*

[synthesiafirefox]

the four fundamental forces affect all of us, of course that's a given
but if it would be that there was a "God" behind any of these forces then, i think it would have a big implication
like acknowledging a being far superior than us, it would surely change our way of living and thinking
these things are not directly observable, it's the equivalent of saying that our universe is the other side of a giant black hole which initiated the big bang
obviously there's no way of knowing if that's true(for now)

[euterpenc]

You're not talking about gravity or electromagnetism, which actually have a big impact on human life.

You're talking about God, The Almighty, of which there is no evidence of any influence on the fundamental laws of physics.

If you're talking about the impact of a concept, then by all means discuss away...

What I'm saying is that forces that affect things are not always visible. Gravity and electromagnetism as forces were not and cannot be directly observed. They are validated through mathematics. Though it might be blasphemy to our secular temple of materialism, it may be that there are other forces at work other than those privy to our methods of mathematics and empiricism.

[jyng1]

No ones arguing about the possiblity of other forces. The argument is that there's no evidence of a God or that He/She influences our lives in any physical way or that He/She has changed the laws of physics as we currently understand them.

[Deckard]

The most convincing evidence of God i've ever read was the book "God is not dead" by amit goswani, which provides proof of a God from the physicist and philosopher's point of view.. what it generally says is something about how God would arise based from "Quantum Physics", specifically quantum consciousness(if you've analyzed it, classical mechanics cannot account for consciousness, obviously) but this new field of quantum physics can account for a lot of phenomena we experience in our lives, and part of this is how consciousness can affect "matter", which says that if their is a God, he doesn't need to actually be there to influence our world, all he has to do is "think", you may think this is far-fetched but scour the net for evidences/experiments, you'll find lots of them(although this study is still in it's infancy)
How does one go from a speculative hypothetical idea like quantum consciousness (whatever that means) to "proof of a God"?

[Tlalocone]

http://www.hallvworthington.com/Image_Files/hubblejesus.jpg


Why Jesus is the Way to Union with God

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach,
because we trust in the living God,
who is the Saviour of all men,
specially of those that believe.
1 Timothy 4:10

http://www.hallvworthington.com/whyjesus.html


Interesting wrighting...Interesting indeed...:gm:

[euterpenc]

No ones arguing about the possiblity of other forces. The argument is that there's no evidence of a God or that He/She influences our lives in any physical way or that He/She has changed the laws of physics as we currently understand them.

Could be. I think there is difficulty if the only notion of God we have is an anthropomorphic one (He/She, etc.). This seems to be the notion that is most often approached and presented with a lack of evidence. However, there are other notions of 'God' about that are not explicitly or implicitly anthropomorphic. As I've said in other threads, it might even be improper to speak of God as a 'thing' at all. Which is to say, perhaps some difficulty lies in claiming that God is a 'being.' Of course, this is very vague, but it is a question that has not been treated so much as the idea of an anthropomorphic deity residing outside of, but interacting with the physical world, particularly by modern Westerners.

[Deckard]

Could be. I think there is difficulty if the only notion of God we have is an anthropomorphic one (He/She, etc.). This seems to be the notion that is most often approached and presented with a lack of evidence. However, there are other notions of 'God' about that are not explicitly or implicitly anthropomorphic. As I've said in other threads, it might even be improper to speak of God as a 'thing' at all. Which is to say, perhaps some difficulty lies in claiming that God is a 'being.' Of course, this is very vague, but it is a question that has not been treated so much as the idea of an anthropomorphic deity residing outside of, but interacting with the physical world, particularly by modern Westerners.
The reason much of the discussion is centred around an anthropomorphic God is that this is Christianity's claim. So if we're discussing the existence of God with Christians, it makes sense to engage them where they're at.

Your approach to God seems a little different: you seem to be starting with an empty word, and you are hesitant to assign it any properties or traits, which of course makes it more difficult for anyone to say God doesn't exist. The problem with this approach is that we could find God anywhere, depending on how we choose to define it. All we've really done is attribute something in the universe to "God". That's invention, not discovery.

[jyng1]

Could be. I think there is difficulty if the only notion of God we have is an anthropomorphic one (He/She, etc.). This seems to be the notion that is most often approached and presented with a lack of evidence. However, there are other notions of 'God' about that are not explicitly or implicitly anthropomorphic. As I've said in other threads, it might even be improper to speak of God as a 'thing' at all. Which is to say, perhaps some difficulty lies in claiming that God is a 'being.' Of course, this is very vague, but it is a question that has not been treated so much as the idea of an anthropomorphic deity residing outside of, but interacting with the physical world, particularly by modern Westerners.

OK... so we're moving from an understanding of a God as a creator who in the time of civilisation has created floods, parted seas, provided bread and fishes, healed the occasional person, created plagues, punished some more people etc to an ephemeral concept that might be an unknown and currently unprovable and vague force behind the universe...

Has He/She retired?

[synthesiafirefox]

How does one go from a speculative hypothetical idea like quantum consciousness (whatever that means) to "proof of a God"?
it's more like a theory rather than a hypothetical idea, like i said, it's a branch of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics, it's not speculative, actually they've had an ample number of experiments already.
the idea goes like this, the idea first came out when people tried to explain "consciousness", here's a good example of why, the comparison of a computer and the human brain, a computer can interpret/compute through symbols, but not it doesn't know it's meanings, simply because it lacks consciousness and the ability to "think", so all it can do is simple computation on a very large scale/speed
But here's the catch, our brain can do the same thing, it can receive information, do some computation, but the difference is, we can "interpret" the results, we all know that information comes in the form of "matter"(neurons), but consciousness is non-material or transcendent, so how does something non-material, affect material information.
After going into some research and experiments, people found out that, at the sub-atomic level, this law doesn't necessarily apply, there are some research that indicate that "photons" were able to affect each other without sending signals, now that's new(This experiment was call the "Aspect Experiment",it's in the internet and it has been verified more than once) ,another fact from quantum physics is, what affects the micro world affects the macro world, now if affecting matter doesn't necessarily require signals, and if the small affects the large, then all god has to do is to think(and we all know a "God" would have extremely high levels of intelligence and brain power, necessary to affect macro things)
now, i know there are some missing details on my statements, it's part of what i don't understand, and don't get me wrong i'm not a God believer(maybe for now), but i find this VERY interesting, this book is not that easy to comprehend, so what i gave was an explanation according to my understanding

[Deckard]

it's not speculative, actually they've had an ample number of experiments already.
You are conflating quantum effects like entanglement with some other very different ideas. Unless you can cite experiments that demonstrate evidence for this so-called "quantum consciousness", I'm officially calling bullshit on this. Not on the entanglement part, just the "quantum consciousness" and "proof of a god" parts.

And no, the fact that computers do not yet possess the cognitive ability of humans is absolutely not evidence that "consciousness is non-material or transcendent".

[euterpenc]

@ Deckard and jyng1:

My starting point is actual experiences I've had which are beyond my capacity to describe. I suppose I am choosing to use the word God to designate something that transcends human understanding and is incapable of being fully comprehended, which I have experienced, on several occasions, in different manners and details. However, it is very difficult to work backwards from such experiences and bring them to others. How does one communicate experience of any kind? So, I suppose in trying to work my way back to that sort of experience or the contents of such, I am making the first step by making a distinction between the traditional notion of the anthropomorphic God and other potential notions which have yet to be clearly defined, or have been hinted at in the works of various thinkers.

It's a work in progress. I'm pretty sure we are all somewhat fed up with the standard Christian's notion of God and realize that it is largely bs. However, I might argue that such individuals have strayed from the initial stimuli that may have given birth to such notions. (Of course, there could be many occurences of the emergence of the notion of God, and they could be from very difficult experiences or intentions). The foundation has been lost, which is part of why I think it is said that God is dead. When God was anthromorphized, God became subject to mortality, like mankind. The primal experience of God has been lost, and so there is little evidence anymore. So I suppose I wish to ask the question of God again, in a new light, not strictly informed by religious dogma, but rather by experience and study of the literature from all sides, religious, scientific, and philosophical.

[Deckard]

My starting point is actual experiences I've had which are beyond my capacity to describe. I suppose I am choosing to use the word God to designate something that transcends human understanding and is incapable of being fully comprehended, which I have experienced, on several occasions, in different manners and details.
Isn't it kind of arrogant to assume that your experience surpasses human understanding, based merely on the fact that you could not comprehend it?

Don't you think it's a bit meaningless to label an uncomprehended / incomprehensible experience "God"? Why the need to apply that label -- a label which has been applied to countless other entities/ideas with wildly differeng and often contraditory properties? Why not simply call it "my experience"?

[edit] I'm also interested in hearing about your experiences, in whatever way you feel you can best describe them.

[euterpenc]

Isn't it kind of arrogant to assume that your experience surpasses human understanding, based merely on the fact that you could not comprehend it?

Don't you think it's a bit meaningless to label an uncomprehended / incomprehensible experience "God"? Why the need to apply that label -- a label which has been applied to countless other entities/ideas with wildly differeng and often contraditory properties? Why not simply call it "my experience"?

[edit] I'm also interested in hearing about your experiences, in whatever way you feel you can best describe them.

Perhaps. The particular character of the experiences was in line, and perhaps in some ways a 'result' of, what I was reading at the time: a combination of Heidegger, Spinoza, and a couple texts of Kabbalah. The latter describe methods of meditation as well as theoretical aspects of creation. In my explorations with this I came to experience things similar to what was described. I use the word God to avoid having to explain what I've read and the distinctions that are made in such texts. Elohim, Adonai, and YHWH, the traditional manifestations of God in the Bible are seen to be emanations of Ain Sof, 'without limit,' 'no limit,' the Infinite.

When I use the term 'God' I mean to designate a class of experiences that deal with such levels of meditative experience beyond the normal range of average everyday human experience. At a certain level, I think there is something intuitive about the use of the term. Like when someone takes mushrooms and experiences 'God.' This is not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God, but it is a concept or feeling that is intuitively understood, at least by those having similar experiences. Experiencing God is not isolated to speaking with a bearded jerk-off who sends people to hell, despite what many believe.

I suppose that I am seeing God not as a label, but as 'something' that transcends normal human description and the classification of an entity. I am trying to point to something by using the term, even if the term, or words altogether, fall short of what I am trying to express.

As for describing the experiences, I may be able to try, but the specific experiences I refer to happened over a year ago. They still linger in my memory, and I can recall them readily, however, the force of them may be lacking since I've been far from such states. Only now am I starting to open up to experiences of that sort again; and not just ones dealing explicitly with the above, but of things in general that transcend my rational ability of processing as, for instance music.

[Tlalocone]

The best pack of series for atheists. IT ALMOST converted me to actually be an atheist...well, as I have said, just almost!!!:ph34r:

But this theory still wins, like this theory is the best "spiritual weapon" against my faith and religion. :sadbanana:
So IT somehow threatens me, although I kinda dig this AAT.(Ancient Astronauts Theory.):devil:

AJaEzAYWdFw:gm::theclap:

[Wise Fool]

How does one go from a speculative hypothetical idea like quantum consciousness (whatever that means) to "proof of a God"?
Abstract-Negative-Concrete;

Hegelian dialectic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic): being + nothingness = becoming(/God [non-anthropomorphic]?)



The reason much of the discussion is centred around an anthropomorphic God is that this is Christianity's claim. So if we're discussing the existence of God with Christians, it makes sense to engage them where they're at.

Your approach to God seems a little different: you seem to be starting with an empty word, and you are hesitant to assign it any properties or traits, which of course makes it more difficult for anyone to say God doesn't exist. The problem with this approach is that we could find God anywhere, depending on how we choose to define it. All we've really done is attribute something in the universe to "God". That's invention, not discovery.

I don't see why it needs to be a problem, not in the long term at least; if its a problem (doesn't fit the conventional standards of 'proof') it's temporary until it is resolved by "invention".


OK... so we're moving from an understanding of a God as a creator who in the time of civilisation has created floods, parted seas, provided bread and fishes, healed the occasional person, created plagues, punished some more people etc to an ephemeral concept that might be an unknown and currently unprovable and vague force behind the universe...

Has He/She retired?

He/She (a particular anthropomorphized version of God [becoming]), a metaphysical representation of Self-hood, has become out dated, out grown, ineffective - except in regard to dying and being dead. This puts us in limbo with regards to a widely accepted and agreed upon model of becoming. A lot of models of becoming that we see in action today take their purpose to be the dismantling of previous models in such a way that alternative models are inversely related to one another. Conflict and synthesis arise interdependently. Conflict is the negation of "the other", synthesis is a process of recreating ones model of becoming in such a way that incorporates "the other". This is assuming that any objective state is ephemeral.

The process, I think, will likely repeat itself: we will eventually consolidate a revised definition/understanding on "God", or becoming, and it will be useful. I welcome such a consolidation, even if it eventually becomes defunct and/or a useful tool of corruption, or -perhaps even more precisely- because of it.


Isn't it kind of arrogant to assume that your experience surpasses human understanding, based merely on the fact that you could not comprehend it?

Don't you think it's a bit meaningless to label an uncomprehended / incomprehensible experience "God"? Why the need to apply that label -- a label which has been applied to countless other entities/ideas with wildly differeng and often contraditory properties? Why not simply call it "my experience"?

[edit] I'm also interested in hearing about your experiences, in whatever way you feel you can best describe them.

Why not simply call it "my experience"? Because to do so is alienating. At least according to how "my experience" is usually interpreted - subjective as opposed to objective. There is more meaning behind "my experience" that needs to be emphasized. In a perfect world there would be no need to say or do anything: not only would it be adequate to call it "my experience", it would be adequate to not call it anything at all, because it is already understood for what it is - there would be no cause for debate, no cause for communication, as it is already internally implied.

Personally, overcoming the fear of being perceived as arrogant is a necessary component of Becoming, especially when in a world which favours being so much more over becoming. /slave morality being perceived to be more prevalent than master morality

I do not think it is meaningless to label an uncomprehended/incomprehensible experience as "God", not absolutely meaningless at least, relatively meaningless - yes. The meaning of such is to denote the areas which are the cause of, or ripe for, "Becoming". Becoming is so immediate it is difficult to pin down, anytime you think you've got it, you screw yourself because it doesn't stop for you. It would be detrimental to the fulfillment of the potential of the experience to prematurely label it anymore specifically than "God".

But I am of the mind that an uncomprehended experience does not necessarily mean the experience is incomprehensible. Furthermore, I am of the mind that there is no such thing as uncomprehended experience; all experience is comprehended otherwise it would be impossible to experience it.

I'm also interested in hearing about your experiences, enterpenc. I've had a few experiences myself; I will explain one of the most profound:

I experienced Oneness. It was completely unlike natural experience, it was supernatural. I had 360 vision. I was the environment. I was the sky and the earth, in union. I worked myself up into this experience. After a fairly rigorous hike to the top of a small mountain, I rested, and I took in the beauty. I breathed deeply and appreciated my surrounding, as I began to introspect. I came to think of everything that went into making me what I was. These thoughts came increasingly fast, and as they did, their interconnections became more apparent, as if there were a symbiotic relationship between processing speed and awareness of interconnections*. Still while consciously breathing and appreciating my surroundings, I became mentally engrossed with uncovering finer and finer interconnections and interdependencies which make me what I am. I eventually, very naturally, without thinking of it, closed my eyes, which brought me into a deeper introspection, as the progression continued to accelerate. Eventually, my linear line of thoughts came at such a speed so as to be change state of thought; much like as temperature is added/removed to/from water it remains liquid until it reaches its threshold (0/100 degrees) at which point it changes into a qualitatively different state of matter. It was as if my thought patterns went from being a slide show to being a movie. I simply rested in that state, I appreciated the blissfulness of it, which eventually led me to open my eyes even more naturally than I had closed them, and I was completely awestruck by 360 vision - oneness. There was no separation between myself and everything else, and I was awestruck for a while, until the question, "What is this?" eventually popped up in my consciousness, and as soon as it did the experience faded. I've come to understand that it faded because the question implied a division between myself and the divine. The desire to prove God is of an "oedipal" nature.

*this relationship between awareness of interconnections(/dependencies) and processing speed reminds me of something I read in starjot's "universe inside a blackhole" thread, particularly in regard to the universe being created out of nothing, taken in conjunction with (the assumption of) an accelerating universe: the question the situation bears is what is the originating force which began the (self-sustaining) acceleration? The answer I would be implying in this instance is that introspective self-awareness is the force that (exponentially) yields the ability to recognize/appreciate/create/maintain finer levels of interconnections.

The old God gave us fractional reserve banking, based on external interest. The new God, I believe, will give us, or is already giving us, something which negates the concreteness of that abstraction, based on internal interest.

God cannot be proven because God is a being which is a representation of the highest conception of Becoming that is conceivable; God is the source of all proof, but itself -as a whole- cannot be proven, because it is too slippery - it is always becoming. blah blah blah blah, blah blah.

[Deckard]

Personally, overcoming the fear of being perceived as arrogant is a necessary component of Becoming, especially when in a world which favours being so much more over becoming.
Honestly I tried writing a serious response to your post, but I couldn't get past the sheer amount of bullshit in this sentence.

Does it worry you that you're starting to sound like aphemix? Allowing your ego to validate every thought that feels good, no matter how ridiculous, will lead to delusions of grandeur and, well, insanity. To be blunt, if you're validating thoughts like the above, I would be concerned that there is some underlying schizoaffective or delusional disorder. Is this something you're open to considering?

[Wise Fool]

Honestly I tried writing a serious response to your post, but I couldn't get past the sheer amount of bullshit in this sentence.
what?, you never heard of someone being afraid to fulfill their potential? Fear of being perceived as arrogant can be a legitimate block to realizing one's greater potential. Fear is irrational, as is your reactive response to my bullshit sentence - you tragically humble bastard.

To get over the fear of being perceived as arrogant isn't a license to be arrogant.


Does it worry you that you're starting to sound like aphemix?
Does it worry me that you think I'm starting to sound like aphemix? No, I like aphemix, I understand myself to understand aphemix better then most others do, and I appreciate his process as essentialy positive and complementary to my own. I'm more interested in why you feel the need to attempt to degrade the internal validation system of both aphemix and myself, by attempting to externally impose your own internal validatation system onto us - instead of being able to respond seriously and reasonably. I get the feeling you and aphemix don't like each other very much, but at the same time I get the sense that you two are more complementary to each other's perspective/way of being than either of you would like to admit -- I might say you fear your potential.


Allowing your ego to validate every thought that "feels good", no matter how ridiculous, will lead to delusions of grandeur and, well, insanity.
I agree, however, this is not (all of) what I am doing. I do not forget to validate every thought that "feels horrible", for instance. Ego (being) is not doing the validating, becoming (id-ego-superego) is, at least ideally, or at least in the long term. Ego is incapable of authentic validation except in the affirmation of an absurd-negation of authentic growth potential.


To be honest, if you're validating thoughts like the above, I would be concerned that there is some underlying schizoaffective or delusional disorder. Is this something you're open to considering?
I have considered it extensively, which is why I consider myself to be relatively more cognizant of the insanity and delusion of grandeur which we are all part of. My "divine" experience, which I'm sure you are jealous of - lol, demonstrated my insanity directly; interestingly, it seems you and I attribute the source of my insanity to directly opposite factors: you attribute my insanity to the seriousness by which I attribute 'Godliness' to my experience, while I attribute my insanity to the lack of 'Godliness' in my everyday experience (demonstrated by my incapability to sustain the experience due to the alienating presupposition that ego is, or necessitates). So while it seems you are criticizing me and my methods for an overabundance of ego, I consider my objective and that of my methods is to dismantle the ego, which will no doubt be faced with resistance from the ego.

There is such a thing as psychiatric dogma, it stems from upholding the capability of its application in areas it is not qualified to address. The psychiatric community itself is egoistic. Anyways, where I'm going with this is this:
Self-diagnosis is frowned upon; I'm sure I would qualify for some mental disorder if I were to be honest enough and went deep enough into my experiences and what drives me, I am positive that a qualified (though I would say, irresponsible) professional could diagnose me with some DSMV recognized mental disorder, which would be enough for many to write off my views as crazy, simply because the breadth of my experience - the experience of one human being - is not completely addressed by the field of psychiatry, and everything that cannot be accounted for, has the potential to be addressed by dogma.

[Deckard]

what?, you never heard of someone being afraid to fulfill their potential? Fear of being perceived as arrogant can be a legitimate block to realizing one's greater potential.
So just to recap, euterpenc had a spiritual experience that he could not comprehend, and made the leap that his experience "transcends human understanding and is incapable of being fully comprehended". I suggested it might be arrogant to assume that just because he couldn't comprehend something, nobody else can either.

Your suggestion is that we need to overcome this "fear of being perceived as arrogant". Your motivation behind this (which you are apparently unaware of) is that you're looking for a license to continue validating all these grandiose daydreams that you have. You delight in the indulgence of these ideas, and what you *really want* is to be able to continue this indulgence without being shackled to rationality, and without feeling guilty or criticised or persecuted.

To that end, you've come up with this argument: the fear of being perceived as arrogant is a block to the realisation of potential. Ok, so if euterpenc overcomes this fear, what potential has been realised? The potential to make unjustified logical leaps where he projects his incomprehension onto the rest of humanity? That's not really a good thing. But I can *definitely* see how it fits with your desire to validate all your grandiose thoughts & ideas, especially the ones that require arrogance or leaps of logic.


I'm more interested in why you feel the need to attempt to degrade the internal validation system of both aphemix and myself, by attempting to externally impose your own internal validatation system onto us - instead of being able to respond seriously and reasonably.
If you are genuinely interested in why I'm bringing up the way you validate your ideas, I will explain: Reason 1 is that your post was bordering on incoherent, and would have required an extended discussion to untangle it all -- a discussion which would have been impeded by this self-validating quirk that you have. I feed you an idea and it spawns a cascade of new ideas, none of which are filtered out by the kind of "bullshit filter" most people maintain. Reason 2 is that I am seeing signs of mental illness (delusions), and a strong indication that you are only interested in indulging in this. I don't know you very well, but it's concerning in the same way that aphemix's delusions are concerning. Delusional & schizophrenic people are not generally happy, and have a high risk of self-harm, especially when undiagnosed & untreated.


I get the feeling you and aphemix don't like each other very much
This is actually not true, I think we have kind of an affection for one another, although we're often at odds, and I find his indulgences frustrating. He does clearly have some undiagnosed delusional disorder. This in itself isn't a problem; the problem is the consequence of indulging in it rather than taking it seriously and treating it. Lower quality of life, potential for self-harm and harm of others.


I agree, however, this is not (all of) what I am doing. I do not forget to validate every thought that "feels horrible", for instance. Ego (being) is not doing the validating, becoming (id-ego-superego) is, at least ideally, or at least in the long term. Ego is incapable of authentic validation except in the affirmation of an absurd-negation of authentic growth potential.
This is kind of incoherent to me, and it seems like you might have missed my point, which was that the ego is what drives one to indulge in arrogance, and to validate grandiose ideas.



you attribute my insanity to the seriousness by which I attribute 'Godliness' to my experience
This is an incorrect assumption. To begin with I didn't say you were insane; I said you were showing signs of a schizoaffective or delusional disorder. Not because you attributed an experience to God -- people do this all the time, and it's more of a cognitive mistake (attribution error).


Self-diagnosis is frowned upon; I'm sure I would qualify for some mental disorder if I were to be honest enough and went deep enough into my experiences and what drives me, I am positive that a qualified (though I would say, irresponsible) professional could diagnose me with some DSMV recognized mental disorder, which would be enough for many to write off my views as crazy, simply because the breadth of my experience - the experience of one human being - is not completely addressed by the field of psychiatry, and everything that cannot be accounted for, has the potential to be addressed by dogma.
You're validating your desire to indulge again -- this time by dismissing the entire field of diagnostic psychology. Here's the thing: your views aren't really that crazy. Arguably the views of most organised religions are crazier. The reason I am saying you are showing signs of mental illness is your indulgence in every flight of fantasy, every grandiose idea, and the incoherence of these ideas once presented. You are clearly not applying your capacity for critical thinking to your thoughts, and the obvious reason is that it would get in the way of you indulging in those thoughts. As a result you are writing a lot of incoherent stuff. Of course, there are interesting philosophical ideas mixed in with the incoherent stuff, but I would say over time the signal:noise ratio is decreasing, which is somewhat worrying.

[euterpenc]

Thought about it a bit, and I think what I meant was not that my experience per se could not be comprehended and reasonably understood, but what I experienced was beyond human comprehension.

[Deckard]

my experience per se could not be comprehended and reasonably understood

but what I experienced was beyond human comprehension.
What is the difference?

2nd question: how do you claim to differentiate between the two?

[Marc]

so you're saying that a creator initiated the big bang and thus all of existence...
ok.

I have a theory.

Energy is God, think about it.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred.
Positive energy is can usually breed good results, whereas negative energy breeds bad results.
Morality isn't an issue because the energy can be gathered by anyone

In terms of the beginning of time, possibly all the energies of the universe moving caused some sort of friction and subsequent explosion of creation, same thing along the lines of sexual reproduction.

[euterpenc]

What is the difference?

2nd question: how do you claim to differentiate between the two?

Human experience as such may be comprehended but that which is experienced is something else. That is, the 'content' of the experience. We may be able to understand the formal laws of experience as such, but this does not mean that we can understand all that is experienced under such laws. Or I could narrow my definition of 'comprehension' to mean the 'comprehension' of certain 'rational' approaches of modernity. There are ancient texts dealing with such experiences that are 'sciences' in their own right. The Hindus for instance had a science of consciousness, the Jewish mystics theirs, etc.

Also, from a practical perspective, it would be very difficult if not impossible for others to comprehend my experience as it is since they cannot have my experience. I am the only one privy to my experience, and what others know of it is limited to my capacity to express it, and even then, it all can't be expressed in entirety.

[euterpenc]

so you're saying that a creator initiated the big bang and thus all of existence...
ok.

I have a theory.

Energy is God, think about it.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred.
Positive energy is can usually breed good results, whereas negative energy breeds bad results.
Morality isn't an issue because the energy can be gathered by anyone

In terms of the beginning of time, possibly all the energies of the universe moving caused some sort of friction and subsequent explosion of creation, same thing along the lines of sexual reproduction.

I don't know about the first part, but I'd say that Energy being God is not too far from what I mean, though it is very broad and there are a lot of subtleties when dealing with such matters.

[Relefax]

@euterpenc: Would God by any other name be as omnipresent? God's a very loaded term that's been staked out already. If you had an awesome transcendent experience that didn't involve hearing voices commanding you to trim the skin off the end of your penis to please them, it may be clearer to call it something different and equally mystical, like the Beyond, the Ultimate, the Noumenon, True Reality, Transcendent.

[euterpenc]

@euterpenc: Would God by any other name be as omnipresent? God's a very loaded term that's been staked out already. If you had an awesome transcendent experience that didn't involve hearing voices commanding you to trim the skin off the end of your penis to please them, it may be clearer to call it something different and equally mystical, like the Beyond, the Ultimate, the Noumenon, True Reality, Transcendent.

Makes sense I suppose. I'm pretty sure one of my experiences was of Shekhinah, and another was the beginnings of Chakmah consciousness. Terms like those you listed above I would use instead Ain Sof, 'without limit' 'the Infinite' etc.

I use God because it is a term that includes all these different manifestations and is more familiar (for better or often worse, apparently) to layman who aren't versed in the sort of meditation that I've practiced.

[Relefax]

I see. Yeah, putting things in layman's terms loses a lot. For me, reading about deep Theravada Buddhist meditation is like taking an engineering course.

[euterpenc]

I see. Yeah, putting things in layman's terms loses a lot. For me, reading about deep Theravada Buddhist meditation is like taking an engineering course.

I know what you mean. That stuff is really specific and worked out. I've done a lot of reading in Kabbalah and its sorts of meditation. What gets me is that it is not a matter of 'belief' so much as a practical guide to mystical experience/meditation.

I am starting to think that all life is a meditation or series of meditations. There are many different ones, some better than others. Many people cannot remain focused enough for deep meditation of any sort, whether its this really esoteric stuff or doing some sort of focused craft or handiwork, which I would also consider a meditation of sorts.

Edit: I've also come across a notion of 'preparatory thinking,' which I understand to be a thinking that prepares the way for things to happen, be felt, or thought, etc. In a certain way, the thinking itself brings about what is to be, or at least allows things to happen. This is very simplified explanation of it, however. But I really do think that how you think conditions your experience and what happens in your life. For instance, practicing music prepares me for various performances, planned or unplanned. Certain patterns of thought prepare the way for certain patterns of behavior, interactions with others, etc. I think this is part of the importance of critiquing modes of thought and paradigms: to prepare the way for new ways of thinking and experiencing.

[Wise Fool]

So just to recap, euterpenc had a spiritual experience that he could not comprehend, and made the leap that his experience "transcends human understanding and is incapable of being fully comprehended". I suggested it might be arrogant to assume that just because he couldn't comprehend something, nobody else can either.
He said he had an experience that was beyond his capacity to explain. He said he chose to use the word "God" to designate that which transcends human understanding and is incapable of being fully comprehended. You suggested that (1) it might be arrogant to assume that because he couldn't comprehend something, nobody else could, (2) that it might be a bit meaningless to label an uncomprehended experience as "God", and (3) that the label "my experience" is perhaps more suitable.

I suggested that labeling an uncomprehended experience as "my experience" may be alienating relative to labelling it as "God", because it is relatively/commincatively meaningless/useless to say you have experienced something which you are unable to comprehend. But to the extent that he does comprehend his experience, I agree that "my experience" would be a more suiting and meaningful than using "God", but I thought he meant to refer to more.


Your suggestion is that we need to overcome this "fear of being perceived as arrogant". Your motivation behind this (which you are apparently unaware of) is that you're looking for a license to continue validating all these grandiose daydreams that you have. You delight in the indulgence of these ideas, and what you *really want* is to be able to continue this indulgence without being shackled to rationality, and without feeling guilty or criticised or persecuted.

I did not suggest that "fear of being perceived as arrogant" is something "we" have to overcome. I simply said that it was perspectival issue of mine. And who are you to tell me what my motivation is? The righteous messenger of science?! Your perspective of my motivation is completely right, from your perspective, even if it is a bit dogmatic.

However, from my perspective - the authentic authority over my motivation (from my perspective; tautological, right?) - my motivation for overcoming the fear of being perceived as arrogant, is to be free of being perceived as arrogant in order to accommodate the becoming of my self-made truth. I find this to be necessary because I perceive the general perception of truth to be externally pre-existent, or metaphysical. Religion as an ordering principle was largely displaced by Science; this progression represents a move away from the metaphysical, but generally, I still find science to be too metaphysical. Allowing myself to be perceived by "science" as "arrogant", means allowing myself the freedom to pay serious consideration to ordering principles which are beyond the grasp of science as it currently finds itself, which I find to be more immediate and less metaphysical. Artistic license, if you please.

You are right to say that I delight in the indulgence of these ideas and what I really want is to continue in this indulgence without being shackled to rationality and without feeling guilty, criticized, or persecuted. You'd be even more right if you specified the rationality as anyone's but my own.

The way I understand rationality, is that it is tied to an objective; it isn't some metaphysical divine authority (except it is), it is the rules which make the objective what it is, it is the rules which brings the objective down to earth.


To that end, you've come up with this argument: the fear of being perceived as arrogant is a block to the realisation of potential. Ok, so if euterpenc overcomes this fear, what potential has been realised? The potential to make unjustified logical leaps where he projects his incomprehension onto the rest of humanity? That's not really a good thing. But I can *definitely* see how it fits with your desire to validate all your grandiose thoughts & ideas, especially the ones that require arrogance or leaps of logic.

My suggestion was meant to implicate that euterpenc may have already overcome this fear. The fulfilled potential is that he was able to say what he did: that he experienced something humanity (as he knows it - it must be assumed) cannot comprehend. He was able to admit a connection to God, or an experience of God. He was allowed to speak of what he didn't know based upon what he knew, as flawed as his conceptions may be; this is to open himself up to examination and critique, change and growth. To utilize the term "God" in favour of "my experience" is to suggest that there is more meaningfulness to it than "my experience" typically conveys. I'm suggesting the Godly nature of "my experience"/perspective in general, which I find isn't commonly appreciated, but more often than not misconstrued as arrogance. Think: Ptah.

Some things may not be considered good, but are necessary nevertheless. Longview: that which is necessary is good. "Unjustified logical leaps" seems like an oxymoron to me. Logical leaps are justified by definition. Only in hindsight, from a metaphysical position, can logical leaps be deemed as unjustified, but such a position has no authority whatsoever over the leap itself, rather the opposite.


If you are genuinely interested in why I'm bringing up the way you validate your ideas, I will explain: Reason 1 is that your post was bordering on incoherent, and would have required an extended discussion to untangle it all -- a discussion which would have been impeded by this self-validating quirk that you have. I feed you an idea and it spawns a cascade of new ideas, none of which are filtered out by the kind of "bullshit filter" most people maintain. Reason 2 is that I am seeing signs of mental illness (delusions), and a strong indication that you are only interested in indulging in this. I don't know you very well, but it's concerning in the same way that aphemix's delusions are concerning. Delusional & schizophrenic people are not generally happy, and have a high risk of self-harm, especially when undiagnosed & untreated.

I appreciate your concern. I do have a high risk of self-harm. I have this delusion that violence is extremely unacceptable which has had a history of putting me on the unfortunate side of violent situations. A couple of times I got beat up on account of trying to relieve what I perceived to be unjust violence, although a couple times I was successful in stopping unjust violence. I welcome authentic action no matter what the consequences - hero/victim/perpetrator. My level of happiness is not a concern -- I am generally happy and magnanimous; I hold no resentment towards those that have harmed me, nor no resentment towards myself for bringing myself to harm. Perhaps my level of happiness would be a problem if I were unable to obtain basic fundamental goods, but I'm fairly secure in that regard. And I'm getting better at avoiding self-harm by gaining a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying reasons for my past self-harm. But to absolutely extinguish any possibility of self harm would be to resign oneself to live in a metaphoric straitjacket.

Otherwise, I think you are reacting to the persona I have chosen to adopt on this forum - the oxymoronic Wise Fool. Incoherence comes part and parcel with my wisdom! I find it accentuates my overall objective, in a fun authentic way. So much of my constitution is relatively incoherent, I would do a disservice to myself to not express it as I saw it.

I affirm that everyone has their own unique self-validating quirks, and this is good.


the problem is the consequence of indulging in [delusional disorders] rather than taking it seriously and treating it. Lower quality of life, potential for self-harm and harm of others.

I agree.



Allowing your ego to validate every thought that "feels good", no matter how ridiculous, will lead to delusions of grandeur and, well, insanity.
I agree, however, this is not (all of) what I am doing. I do not forget to validate every thought that "feels horrible", for instance. Ego (being) is not doing the validating, becoming (id-ego-superego) is, at least ideally, or at least in the long term. Ego is incapable of authentic validation except in the affirmation of an absurd-negation of authentic growth potential.This is kind of incoherent to me, and it seems like you might have missed my point, which was that the ego is what drives one to indulge in arrogance, and to validate grandiose ideas.
I didn't miss your point, I reaffirmed it, while implying that the indulgences of my ego are balanced by super ego (though i don't really subscribe to Freud's ideological system). From my perspective I am repudiating grandiose ideas. Are you going to tell me again what I am truly doing?


This is an incorrect assumption. To begin with I didn't say you were insane; I said you were showing signs of a schizoaffective or delusional disorder. Not because you attributed an experience to God -- people do this all the time, and it's more of a cognitive mistake (attribution error).
Okay, you didn't say I was insane, but you implied it, given insanity and delusional disorders are interconnected and are both matters of degree, rather than black and white, when not dogmatic.


You're validating your desire to indulge again -- this time by dismissing the entire field of diagnostic psychology. Here's the thing: your views aren't really that crazy. Arguably the views of most organised religions are crazier. The reason I am saying you are showing signs of mental illness is your indulgence in every flight of fantasy, every grandiose idea, and the incoherence of these ideas once presented. You are clearly not applying your capacity for critical thinking to your thoughts, and the obvious reason is that it would get in the way of you indulging in those thoughts. As a result you are writing a lot of incoherent stuff. Of course, there are interesting philosophical ideas mixed in with the incoherent stuff, but I would say over time the signal:noise ratio is decreasing, which is somewhat worrying.

My indulgence in every flight of fantasy, every grandiose idea, and the incoherence of these ideas once presented - is exactly what I want to express - so that those presented ideas must be met with the adequate capacity for critical thinking, along with the patience required for "an extended discussion to untangle it all", if they are to be responded reasonably to at all.

[durentu]

read 'denial of death' by ernest becker. It's all in there.

[synthesiafirefox]

You are conflating quantum effects like entanglement with some other very different ideas. Unless you can cite experiments that demonstrate evidence for this so-called "quantum consciousness", I'm officially calling bullshit on this. Not on the entanglement part, just the "quantum consciousness" and "proof of a god" parts.

i thought stating the name of the experiment was enough,
here it is: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/Q/quantum_entanglement.html
look up: Aspect Experiment


And no, the fact that computers do not yet possess the cognitive ability of humans is absolutely not evidence that "consciousness is non-material or transcendent".
actually, this is only part of the explanation, here's more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness
It only suggest that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness, but this hypothesis offers a good explanation

________________________________________________________________________________
and a little more explanation from the author himself:http://twm.co.nz/goswam1.htm
it might be clearer when he says it.

[Tlalocone]

Művészet és idegsebészet együtt a hitben / Art and Neurosurgery United in Faith
http://www.polc.hu/konyv/muveszet_es_idegsebeszet_egyutt_a_hitben__art_and_neurosurgery_united_in_faith/712851/

http://static.polc.hu/products/00/71/28/712851.jpg
http://tvbooth.com/service/pict/BrainHrt.jpg
http://tvbooth.com/service/pict/Homer09.jpg
http://tvbooth.com/service/pict/Homer01.jpg
http://tvbooth.com/service/pict/Homer05.jpg
http://tvbooth.com/service/pict/Homer06.jpg
http://tvbooth.com/service/pict/Homer07.jpg
http://tvbooth.com/service/pict/Homer02.jpg
http://tvbooth.com/service/pict/Homer11.jpg
http://tvbooth.com/service/pict/Homer03.jpg
http://tvbooth.com/service/pict/Homer04.jpg
http://tvbooth.com/service/pict/Homer08.jpg
http://tvbooth.com/service/pict/Homer10.jpg
http://tvbooth.com/service/pict//LostFile.gif

[euterpenc]

read 'denial of death' by ernest becker. It's all in there.

Some, but not all, I'm sure.

I think many of you are missing the mythic, and therefore functional, aspect of divinity.

[Karma_Harvest]

Elephant balls.

[aphemix]

I think many of you are missing the mythic, and therefore functional, aspect of divinity.hey,

it has come to my attention that you recently had some sort of mystical experience that led to a profound shift in perspective....? This interests me, but I'm too lazy and/or unequipped to go looking for its details. Would you mind pointing me to any description you may have given of these events?


This is actually not true, I think we have kind of an affection for one another, although we're often at odds, and I find his indulgences frustrating. He does clearly have some undiagnosed delusional disorder. This in itself isn't a problem; the problem is the consequence of indulging in it rather than taking it seriously and treating it. Lower quality of life, potential for self-harm and harm of others.poppycock!

[Deckard]

poppycock!
Hah, which part?

[aphemix]

Hah, which part?the undiagnosed delusional disorder part. First of all, it's diagnosed. I went to a psychiatrist looking for free disability a while back and described a clinician's rendition of my mental state that sounded remarkably similar to schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. I was then expertly diagnosed with something called schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. But really, my psychology from two years ago or so was anomalous. It came, I exacerbated its psychosis as it persisted, and it went. Granted, I'm still nutty, and I don't think it's going anywhere, but it isn't because my perception is fundamentally compromised; I just give more credence to certain aspects of reality than empiricism does or can, on purpose.

but nah, I like you too, buddy, no worries. :D

[Deckard]

Ok I concede, I guess you are diagnosed after all. What do you mean by, "and it went"? Schizoaffective disorder is characterised by episodic psychosis, so one would assume episodes of psychosis would come and go.

[aphemix]

Ok I concede, I guess you are diagnosed after all. What do you mean by, "and it went"? Schizoaffective disorder is characterised by episodic psychosis, so one would assume episodes of psychosis would come and go.well, all I meant is that it only occurred in one instance and has not reappeared over the course of two years. I guess, for fun, we could say the psychosis is indefinitely episodic and has yet to recur, but, even then, I do not meet the criteria for schizoaffective disorder; it's just the most applicable condition I've been able to find. This doesn't necessarily mean anything to me; the present understanding of the disorder could easily be insufficient and I would not be surprised. Either way, the only point I even care to clarify is that I do not experience a persistent psychotic state; aside from that, your guess is as good as mine, really.

I didn't do anything with the diagnosis, and I don't take it seriously anyway, so, even if it is accurate, it is functionally equivalent to having no diagnosis.

I would actually be very pleased if my mania returned. I'd handle it differently, sure, but wow, would I be pleased.

[Deckard]

well, all I meant is that it only occurred in one instance and has not reappeared over the course of two years. I guess, for fun, we could say the psychosis is indefinitely episodic and has yet to recur, but, even then, I do not meet the criteria for schizoaffective disorder; it's just the most applicable condition I've been able to find. This doesn't necessarily mean anything to me; the present understanding of the disorder could easily be insufficient and I would not be surprised. Either way, the only point I even care to clarify is that I do not experience a persistent psychotic state; aside from that, your guess is as good as mine, really.

I didn't do anything with the diagnosis, and I don't take it seriously anyway, so, even if it is accurate, it is functionally equivalent to having no diagnosis.

I would actually be very pleased if my mania returned. I'd handle it differently, sure, but wow, would I be pleased.

So you don't find it interesting to explore the reasons why your mind might be acting "abnormally"? Personally I find it fascinating to work out how and why these god-delusions manifest from a neurological / psychological point of view. In all spectrums of people, not just the psychologically atypical. Far more interesting than escaping to fantasy land by indulging in a delusion or a manic state. Not that it's a bad thing to escape to fantasy land, it's just that indulging in delusions resulting from mental illness is a dangerous way to do it. We can escape without compromising our rationality / sanity / wellbeing (e.g. with psychadelics).

[aphemix]

So you don't find it interesting to explore the reasons why your mind might be acting "abnormally"? Personally I find it fascinating to work out how and why these god-delusions manifest from a neurological / psychological point of view. In all spectrums of people, not just the psychologically atypical. Far more interesting than escaping to fantasy land by indulging in a delusion or a manic state. Not that it's a bad thing to escape to fantasy land, it's just that indulging in delusions resulting from mental illness is a dangerous way to do it. We can escape without compromising our rationality / sanity / wellbeing (e.g. with psychadelics).I still haven't resolved my episode; there's a lot of analysis yet to be done on it and I'm not exactly scheduling my life around it. But, tentatively speaking, from my perspective, what happened to me occurred through a largely deterministic process in which my perception and logical processing reacted accordingly to explicit rules of psychological causation. I believe I was essentially programmed by concrete factors, some of which included my psychological responses themselves, and that the symptoms which arose in my viewpoints, my demeanor, and my manners of evaluating input were all byproducts of my psychology responding deterministically to this programming. To this day, without delusion, I believe a large part of this programming originated outside myself and clearly observe precursors similar to those unique to my experience being integrated more and more comprehensively into the public's consciousness as time passes. I even see similar results emerge in the minds of those who indulge them, which cements my conviction on these matters. The understanding that my previous position, if nurtured, could have served to facilitate an end times scenario coupled with the persistent belief it was programmed, in part, by extraneous, deliberate factors played an enormous role in my acceptance of Christianity and a biblical worldview.

I'm in no hurry to indulge delusion or fantasy, but the mania, itself, was great. The energy, the productivity, the whole disposition.....shit, man, that was ace. Five stars, would buy again.

I don't do psychedelics any more. I don't even smoke weed. I've accepted I already sit on the edge just exploring some of the wacky shit in my head, so I keep it on a leash when I must.

[Deckard]

I'm in no hurry to indulge delusion or fantasy
It really seems like you are still indulging in it, just minus the psychosis and delusions of grandeur. Now it's plain vanilla Christianity you're indulging in -- legitimised delusional fantasy.


but the mania, itself, was great. The energy, the productivity, the whole disposition.....shit, man, that was ace. Five stars, would buy again.
Yeah, I've heard mania can be fun.


I don't do psychedelics any more. I don't even smoke weed. I've accepted I already sit on the edge just exploring some of the wacky shit in my head, so I keep it on a leash when I must.
I should have clarified, psychadelics are a good way to temporarily explore fantasy land for some (most?) people, but perhaps not so good for people who are predisposed to schizoaffective disorder.

[aphemix]

Now it's plain vanilla Christianity you're indulging in -- legitimised delusional fantasy.oh, you're silly. Maybe someday if you're lucky you'll realize facts don't determine beliefs. It's the other way around: our beliefs in what is sensible determine what we consider facts. Since becoming a Christian, man, I've heard so many arguments from so many people resentful of God and his terms. They say it's malicious to grant us intellectual faculties and a scientifically compelling universe when salvation is granted only in reward of denying what observation dictates. Pfff. I'll tell you what, empiricism and atheism alike are pretty easy to disregard without the implicit assumption man's ability is fit to conclude what is, following naturally from the belief my own assessments are necessarily relevant. It's ridiculous. Hell, sometimes I feel like psychosis is the most enlightening thing that could've possibly happened to me. Took the legitimacy of my perception down a notch. Like a fuckin' cloud lifted from my eyes. Shit is wild.

but oh well. I don't really believe in making much of a case anymore. I'm convinced God provides opportunity. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+2%3A25-26&version=NIV) Maybe if I'm lucky I prod it along.

nice talking to you, though, in any case; I haven't had a chance to verbalize a lot of this stuff in a while and I always appreciate an ear.

[Deckard]

You might be surprised at how much of your post I agree with:

> our beliefs in what is sensible determine what we consider facts

Sure. If we're talking about "what we consider facts", then that arises from belief, which may or may not arise from evidence & the interpretation thereof.

> Took the legitimacy of my perception down a notch.

That's a good thing. Perception is all we have, but it's often not to be trusted.

> empiricism and atheism alike are pretty easy to disregard

Totally agree there; we can disregard any worldview or epistemology given a premise that contradicts it.

So, on to the stuff I disagree with:

> I've heard so many arguments from so many people resentful of God and his terms

If you're talking about atheists, it seems kind of a non-sequitur. It's like saying we're resentful of the Easter Bunny. How can one be resentful of a fairytale character?

> salvation is granted only in reward of denying what observation dictates

I don't know if this is even the case for many christians. Many people simply have poor ability to interpret information and apply consistent logic. According to modern interpretations of christianity, one only needs to accept Jesus to receive salvation. So we don't necessarily need to deny facts; just buy into a set of claims for which there is no evidence. And of course, if you have experienced God / Jesus / Thor / whomever, then perhaps that does constitute a kind of evidence, which you may interpret as genuine. Either way, denial of observation doesn't seem to be necessary for salvation.

Denial of observation might be necessary if we're to resolve some of the apparent contradictions of the bible, however this is seen as tangential to salvation by many christians.

> oh, you're silly. Maybe someday if you're lucky you'll realize facts don't determine beliefs. It's the other way around:

This reminded me of a quote I saw on reddit:


It doesn't matter whether a sorcerer can actually create change from the standpoint of causing changes to reality which could be measured in a lab. If the practitioner himself is transformed by ritual, and by extension he interacts with the world differently, the consequences may well be the same.

This seems to be a common idea among modern practitioners of Magick. It's a very self-centred approach, in that it only considers what matters from the perspective of the magick practitioner. If we're assuming an external reality exists and contains other conscious entities, then it would seem that it does matter whether the practitioner can create change to the external world, or just change to how they personally see the world.

If a person acts on a belief that aligns with the facts, this produces different consequences to if the belief had been a delusion that doesn't align with the facts. If those consequences are suitably "metaphysical" or open to interpretation, the deluded believer is shielded from this distinction. That's the problem you've presently gotten yourself into.

[aphemix]

So we don't necessarily need to deny facts; just buy into a set of claims for which there is no evidence.yeah, I agree. I guess I was just referring more broadly to the act of diverging from strictly observational analysis.


If those consequences are suitably "metaphysical" or open to interpretation, the deluded believer is shielded from this distinction. That's the problem you've presently gotten yourself into.you'd be surprised. The consequences are not particularly ambiguous to me.

[Deckard]

you'd be surprised. The consequences are not particularly ambiguous to me.
Care to elaborate? I won't tear apart your experience / interpretation, I'm just curious about what you're referring to.

[aphemix]

Care to elaborate? I won't tear apart your experience / interpretation, I'm just curious about what you're referring to.I can see my psychology. I understand how psychological mechanisms function in relation to each other. I am able to do the math between biblical instruction and Christ-likeness. So, when I believe this or that, or when I act in x, y, z manner in response to a belief, it fits into a comprehensive model; it has a particular place where it belongs and its conformity to my expectation produces context that legitimizes the model. I have a lot of tasty philosophical food of this sort that I could bring to the table, but I'm too tired to get into it; I'm about to pass out as it is. Maybe tomorrow I could try to bring something up when I'm not half asleep, but it usually takes engaging discussions like this to get me in the mindstate to do it, so I don't even know. Feel free to ask specific questions if you have any, though, because that's generally a lot easier for me to respond to.

[Deckard]

When you said, "The consequences are not particularly ambiguous to me" I thought you were referring to some spiritual experience or the result of an action (prayer?) that unambiguously pointed to Christian God. That's what I was hoping you'd elaborate on.

[Faust06]

aphemix, a few questions.

You once mentioned that non-believers fundamentally cannot understand the bible, since we we need faith as a guide. This assumes prior or "instant" faith. Lets assume one has no prior knowledge of Christianity and decides to read it. This is a vehicle for understanding Christianity; it dictates what one must have faith in to begin with, so why then would we need faith prior to undertaking it? Even someone with a vague understanding does not have proper faith beforehand. I can only imagine a complete acceptance of what is being read simultaneously to the reading, which doesn't happen. Faith tends to develop upon some degree of reflection, after the fact. If your idea holds true, then the first read cannot offer "true" understanding.

Second, the Qu'ran exists. The Vedas. The Buddhists scriptures. Hell, the book of Mormon. Most are undeniably mutually exclusive; they deny one another by virtue that they are the true way. Is your attitude towards these something quite typical along the lines of "it doesn't matter which you subscribe to as long as you accept God" or is it "King James B all the way"? If you have such zeal and faith in what you read you could just as easily be a muslim. The way most religious today approach this problem seems to be that in order to protect their own credibility they don't attack the credibility of others, since it all falls into question. You can't all be right, of course. In this way, people accept a diluted version of their own religion so as to accept others as being equally true or having the potential to be. They can only be equally true if you change the meaning. You've mentioned that catholicism is a bastardization; you accept the bible only, so I imagine you accept it completely and thus reject rival religions. They lose credibility. How then do you protect the credibility of your own religion?

[watch]

Wow this thread still up, I still agree and believe my original arguments, but wish I would of acted more mature about it, gonna read the missed posts in 2012.

[Space Orphan]

I think that faith is the same as believing, but not the same as knowing. you can know that your friend is trustworthy and will catch you in a trust fall, but you aren't practicing faith, or believing, until you actually commit to the trust fall and let him catch you.

[Polemarch]

This shit thread is back? Aww helllllll naw

[Fonduman]

I doubt if God existed he'd make himself provable. That'd make faith obsolete. An educated guess would be the closest I think he'd allow.

[Polemarch]

I doubt if God existed he'd make himself provable. That'd make faith obsolete. An educated guess would be the closest I think he'd allow.

Notsureifsrs.... but if so:

Why? So the great mystery of existence would be some kind of guessing game? So He could get a good laugh?

Are you saying that God's great motivation is to see whether or not human beings can be persuaded to believe in him without evidence? That's the point of the universe?

[Fonduman]

Notsureifsrs.... but if so:

Why? So the great mystery of existence would be some kind of guessing game? So He could get a good laugh?

Are you saying that God's great motivation is to see whether or not human beings can be persuaded to believe in him without evidence? That's the point of the universe?

I'd think of it more like a test of character than an end in itself.

[Polemarch]

I'd think of it more like a test of character than an end in itself.

I would think the most fitting test of character would be to construct one's own mythology, such that it is useful to their own goals, and live consistently within it. I don't see how being persuaded to accept someone else's mythology on faith demonstrates character whatsoever.

[Fonduman]

I would think the most fitting test of character would be to construct one's own mythology, such that it is useful to their own goals, and live consistently within it. I don't see how being persuaded to accept someone else's mythology on faith demonstrates character whatsoever.

that would be a test of character based on your own determinations of value.

Assume, for a moment, that everyone has a sense of God instilled within them, and that signs of his existence will come to attention. Then, the test would be connecting these, and bridging the remaining gap of belief with faith. Of course, it could be said that a sense of God is just a kind of human need for spirituality coupled with the ability of humans to conceive of their mortality, which is why it is just a subjective choice to believe in one over the other.

I should point out the difference between belief and fact. Believing something is fact is a choice, but it seems a lot of "christians" confuse this with objective fact, as though it's reasonable to expect, or even demand, that everyone else believe it too, because it is, after all, a fact :stupid:

I definitely hold by my original statement in either case. If God existed and wanted everyone to know him as objective fact, it would be so incredibly easy to prove himself. Instead, even events that purport to be miracles are never conclusive proof. Conclusion: God either doesn't exist, or he does not want there to be proof of his existence. And if he existed as all-powerful, then designing the world to be lacking proof would be easy.

[SensEye]

If God existed and wanted everyone to know him as objective fact, it would be so incredibly easy to prove himself. Instead, even events that purport to be miracles are never conclusive proof. Conclusion: God either doesn't exist, or he does not want there to be proof of his existence. I couldn't agree more. My rational mind cannot resolve any upside to a God existing and yet hiding this existence. Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

[Polemarch]

I couldn't agree more. My rational mind cannot resolve any upside to a God existing and yet hiding this existence. Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

I am not even saying God doesn't exist - I don't know either way. Maybe there is some kind of upside we just can't grasp. I file this away in "things that are unknowable".

I just think that it is arbitrary to believe that an all powerful God that created the universe gives a shit whether we believe in Him or not, or that He'd need to play games about it. The idea that God would have designed the game of life as a test to see if we'd be willing to embrace superstition... I haven't found a good reason to embrace such a belief.

[Etherealsage]

Saying there is no god without any degree of proof is equally faithful as saying there is a god.

[Deckard]

Saying there is no god without any degree of proof is equally faithful as saying there is a god.
I hope you're holding all the Santa-deniers to this same standard. If anyone says Santa isn't real, clearly they're displaying as much faith as the true believers. We can't have the deniers thinking their position is somehow the more reasonable one.

[Etherealsage]

I hope you're holding all the Santa-deniers to this same standard. If anyone says Santa isn't real, clearly they're displaying as much faith as the true believers. We can't have the deniers thinking their position is somehow the more reasonable one.
That's quite the straw-man. Two things: Firstly, I am speaking only of the possibility of a Creator (because you are lying if you say there is indisputable proof regarding what created matter), not religion (I don't believe any religion). Secondly, your analogy is absurd, and you ought to know why. You have no real reason to feel offended by my statement, and if you are not offended, you have little rational reason to assault my stance by attempting to insult me.

[Deckard]

That's quite the straw-man. Two things: Firstly, I am speaking only of the possibility of a Creator (because you are lying if you say there is indisputable proof regarding what created matter), not religion (I don't believe any religion). Secondly, your analogy is absurd, and you ought to know why. You have no real reason to feel offended by my statement, and if you are not offended, you have little rational reason to assault my stance by attempting to insult me.
That was the point -- reductio ad absurdum. I wasn't intending to insult you.

[Etherealsage]

That was the point -- reductio ad absurdum. I wasn't intending to insult you.
The two are not relate-able, thus it is silliness to imply such. The modern Santa Claus is no mystery because his existence is facilitated by parental deceit through story-telling and falsifying identity. The creation of matter IS a mystery, and no current possibility is ruled out. Belittling my stance with absurdity doesn't prove me wrong.

[Deckard]

The two are not relate-able, thus it is silliness to imply such. The modern Santa Claus is no mystery because his existence is facilitated by parental deceit through story-telling and falsifying identity.
You said that with such a straight face, I'm going to have to call Poe's law. You must see the irony..?


The creation of matter IS a mystery, and no current possibility is ruled out. Belittling my stance with absurdity doesn't prove me wrong.
It's reductio ad absurdum, not belittling your stance. If you're unable to conduct a debate without taking everything personally, I suggest trying www.enfpforum.com .

The idea I was conveying with the reductio ad absurdum was that: "god doesn't exist" and "god exists" are not equivalent statements in terms of faith & justification. Now you're saying "the creation of matter is a mystery", as though I contradicted that, so I have to wonder who's strawmanning whom.

[Etherealsage]

This is draining, not entertaining. It's also not me taking it personally, but I don't really care if you assume such. Creation is a matter of mystery and the creator hypothesis has not been disproven, thus it is a matter of faith to take a definitive stance. There is no need for facilitation. Once again, saying that he or she exists in the present and imposes his or her will is NOT an argument I'm making and that you seem to be adding on. That is why the two are not relate-able (and why I find this argument draining).

[aphemix]

gah....

God is doing us a huge favor by being unverifiable except through the avenue of purposeful devotion. Haven't any of you, in the course of loving someone enough to hold them accountable, realized your continued presence in their lives was prompting them to take extreme measures in order to dissociate and guard their own wrongdoing? Haven't you ever hurt someone just by being able to see them? Where calling them out just caused them to lie, and overtly caring about them just made you their enemy? This has happened to me dozens of times and it's the same general principle. In fact, many times I've encouraged people to just look over something useful I've written rather than demanding direct interaction and obligating a response. I mean, sometimes it's easier that way. No pressure. No imperative to defend oneself clouding the perception of simple information. No hurry, either. Look at it whenever you want; there it is. Doing this is what first got me to consider God's reasoning could be similar.

people like to argue it's counterproductive. Like the primary effect of God's choosing to be invisible is just our confusion, and he's just doing it for fun because he's an asshole. Or it accomplishes nothing, and maybe there's a better way any idiot could come up with. I laugh, because there's always a few key details missing from standpoints like these. For one, we're all completely disingenuous and malignant pieces of shit. We have absolutely no desire to do good beyond instances in which we are either compelled by our own feelings and rationalizations, able to interpret our good will as a convenience to ourselves, or both at once, as behaving in a way that is congruent with our ideal conceptualization of ourselves spares us discomfort and cognitive dissonance. No exceptions. Sorry guys, but your altruism just isn't real. Especially when your preferred method of enacting good will is by allowing yourself, this person to whom these conditions apply, to attribute it value and carry it out. Makes no fuckin' sense. Sorry. You're a malignant piece of shit and egocentric selfishness governs your every impulse. How do you think you'd feel knowing for sure an all-powerful God was watching your ass as you went about your life like this? What if his gaze was as unignorable as the great sky hanging over your head? And while your own heart unambiguously convicts you of wrongdoing, you don't even know this God loves you; you just know he's there. Fuck that shit. Being able to doubt is such a luxury. You've got it all wrong.

another thing people seem to believe is that God showing his face would serve his purposes and redeem the human race better than his current plan of just hanging out in the background. I mean, it's reasonable for us to act this way, right? We don't know any better! Of course, this only makes sense if you assume inadequate evidence is the reason we don't just take him seriously and do what he asks, and that only makes sense if you choose to ignore the role of your own egocentric selfishness because you don't like the discomfort and cognitive dissonance. Which, I might add, is exactly the same way we ignore God, but I digress. Realistically, the evidence is already adequate. We have inbuilt moral compasses and creation itself evidences a creator. It's not complicated. However, this accomplishes nothing, because we choose to attribute value to lines of reasoning which trivialize this very simple experiential data. Why? Do we have to prop up this reasoning? It's not like food and water, is it? We're not dying, are we? No, we just want to fucking do it, and it's an indication of where our hearts are as people. God showing his face won't change a damn thing. Our hearts are against him, right now. But hey, maybe, throughout the course of his hanging out invisible in the background, our hearts change. Herp derp, pretty novel idea, right? One way works, the other way doesn't.

I know some of you think we don't choose to believe some information over others, that evidence actually determines everything and that's why we think reality is what it is, blah blah blah, but that's just false. Sorry. Because omniscience is unachievable, and because likelihood of truth is a variable determined exclusively by context, concession, and not intellect or observation, is the only avenue to belief. You decide whether information is sufficient enough to evidence truth. Look, see, Richard Feynman knows about it, listen to him, I'm getting sick of typing, fuck this thread.

wMFPe-DwULM

[Faust06]

I'm surprised you haven't answered me after all this time.

[aphemix]

I'm surprised you haven't answered me after all this time.yeah, didn't I even explicitly specify I would answer you ASAP? Man I'm so lazy, I have to be in specific moods to do anything.

[Faust06]

I can relate.

[Zephyrus055]

Nature operates as expected without a god hypothesis. If you want your epicycles, great. But if your hypothesis fail to be:

1. Agreeable with experience
2. Logically consistent
3. Testable
4. Coherent with established scientific theories
5. Parsimonious

Then as far as I am concerned, fuck your hypothesis. It's a childish response, but it's the only possible response when the argument reduces to: is chocolate or vanilla ice cream better?

[Roger Mexico]

Saying there is no god without any degree of proof is equally faithful as saying there is a god.

I don't fully agree. While you are correct that a conclusive statement saying God does not exist implies faith (proving a negative is virtually impossible unless one can prove the impossibility of the proposition being negated), I don't see how it involves an amount of faith equal to that implied by a conclusive statement that a god does exist. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the assumption that no creator exists seems like the more skeptical of the two.

The atheistic position on the creation of the universe, beyond those causal mechanisms already postulated by science to have occurred as suggested by evidence, seems to fall back on a maxim that "shit happens." We know the universe exists; we don't know that someone deliberately created it, nor do we know that such an entity even exists. Therefore the maxim "shit happens" (i.e. that the explicability of the universe's existence is rendered self-evident by the fact that it exists) involves less speculation than the presumption that a heretofore unseen creator must exist simply because the nature of the universe makes us want to look for a creator--in the latter case we seem to be making more assumptions, since once we have adopted the premise we then have to determine the attributes of this creator from our own imagination.

Put another way--I understand why people think the universe "must have" been intelligently designed, because the "shit happens" approach is emotionally unfulfilling. We don't want things to work that way because we feel that the universe (which includes ourselves) deserves a more elegant explanation. Thus we keep looking for an alternative to "shit happens" even if we have to invent one.

Personally I find the theistic "answer" really creates more questions than it resolves, which makes it emotionally appealing but logically unconvincing. Basically I feel a need to know God's backstory--if God is the answer to where the universe came from, where did God come from? This seems an eminently reasonable question--it follows from the basic logic that anything which exists must have been created, and nothing can be created without a creator. I have yet to be given a satisfactory explanation for why God should be exempt from this rule. (Sometimes known as the "God is outside of time" exemption.) If we get to just decide at some point in the chain that we've had enough and we're not going to apply the rule anymore, then again the "shit happens" route of simply applying this exception to the universe itself is the furthest we can go without having to answer the next round of the question with pure speculation.

This might be why I find monotheistic religions more boring and intellectually aggravating than other types of religion. With Buddhism you get a clear distinction between two alternatives--the human/physical realm is subject to causality and time, the spiritual realm that we all come from originally is not, so our time-realm is just kind of surrounded by a timeless realm and regardless of when we enter here it's all the same if we ever get back out there. (I.e. time and causality are just contingent illusions like everything else on this plane of existence.) Alternately, with most types of paganism you get an extensive genealogy of gods that at least makes an effort to take the issue I described in the last paragraph seriously--the gods are subject to time, change, origin and even sometimes death just like we are. In both the Norse and Greek myths you learn that the gods ruling our present epoch were not always in charge--they had to overthrow a previous regime to get there. (In the Norse myths the present Aesir gods displaced the previous Vaenir gods--the Vaenir are generally personifications of large-scale, inanimate natural forces, while the Aesir are gods of more human-related things like commerce, technology, and warfare.) The Greeks did have a god who was "outside of time" and is more or less the beginning of the chain, but it's worth noting that this god actually is time--Kronos. So on the metaphorical level it is time itself that begets all subsequent causality--without time there is no change and thus no causation, so accordingly all the "prime movers" in universal history are products of time, its "offspring" so to speak. (Not sure suddenly, but it's possible that Kronos may actually have begat everything else by mating with Chaos, so basically "nothing + time=order/everything" is the explanation for existence.)

Trying to prove God by saying "everything happens for a reason, except God; God happens for no reason" is just kind of weak.

IMO

[Deckard]

Creation is a matter of mystery and the creator hypothesis has not been disproven, thus it is a matter of faith to take a definitive stance.
Right, I totally agree with this. My issue was with this statement:


Saying there is no god without any degree of proof is equally faithful as saying there is a god.

"Both positions require fath" != "both positions require an equal degree of faith"

[Etherealsage]

I don't fully agree. While you are correct that a conclusive statement saying God does not exist implies faith (proving a negative is virtually impossible unless one can prove the impossibility of the proposition being negated), I don't see how it involves an amount of faith equal to that implied by a conclusive statement that a god does exist. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the assumption that no creator exists seems like the more skeptical of the two.

The atheistic position on the creation of the universe, beyond those causal mechanisms already postulated by science to have occurred as suggested by evidence, seems to fall back on a maxim that "shit happens." We know the universe exists; we don't know that someone deliberately created it, nor do we know that such an entity even exists. Therefore the maxim "shit happens" (i.e. that the explicability of the universe's existence is rendered self-evident by the fact that it exists) involves less speculation than the presumption that a heretofore unseen creator must exist simply because the nature of the universe makes us want to look for a creator--in the latter case we seem to be making more assumptions, since once we have adopted the premise we then have to determine the attributes of this creator from our own imagination.
One could go as far as hypothesizing that our universe is a part of a larger universe still that we do not have the capacity to currently perceive also, and that ours was created through the actions of that. But then you run into a similar problem of "well what created that", same as "well then what created god".


Put another way--I understand why people think the universe "must have" been intelligently designed
For the record, I do not.


because the "shit happens" approach is emotionally unfulfilling. We don't want things to work that way because we feel that the universe (which includes ourselves) deserves a more elegant explanation. Thus we keep looking for an alternative to "shit happens" even if we have to invent one.
I don't see how it would be more fulfilling to determine that, primarily because you then have to work out why the world is in such a sad state. It implies that whatever god or gods are, they are not interested in or able to interfere in our world in any meaningful way. I would find that LESS emotionally fulfilling than shit happens.


Personally I find the theistic "answer" really creates more questions than it resolves, which makes it emotionally appealing but logically unconvincing. Basically I feel a need to know God's backstory--if God is the answer to where the universe came from, where did God come from? This seems an eminently reasonable question--it follows from the basic logic that anything which exists must have been created, and nothing can be created without a creator. I have yet to be given a satisfactory explanation for why God should be exempt from this rule. (Sometimes known as the "God is outside of time" exemption.)
As I said, I do not find it emotionally fulfilling. But from here one can ask a few questions to point in the right direction. 1.) How can new matter be created? (We don't know, or it is not possible.) 2.) Is it possible to have consciousness without matter? (Yes, the question is absurd, but so is every hypothesis of creation, to me at least.)


If we get to just decide at some point in the chain that we've had enough and we're not going to apply the rule anymore, then again the "shit happens" route of simply applying this exception to the universe itself is the furthest we can go without having to answer the next round of the question with pure speculation.
Not entirely related, but one could also hypothesize that infinity is applicable to time and that matter always was and always will be.


This might be why I find monotheistic religions more boring and intellectually aggravating than other types of religion. With Buddhism you get a clear distinction between two alternatives--the human/physical realm is subject to causality and time, the spiritual realm that we all come from originally is not, so our time-realm is just kind of surrounded by a timeless realm and regardless of when we enter here it's all the same if we ever get back out there. (I.e. time and causality are just contingent illusions like everything else on this plane of existence.) Alternately, with most types of paganism you get an extensive genealogy of gods that at least makes an effort to take the issue I described in the last paragraph seriously--the gods are subject to time, change, origin and even sometimes death just like we are. In both the Norse and Greek myths you learn that the gods ruling our present epoch were not always in charge--they had to overthrow a previous regime to get there. (In the Norse myths the present Aesir gods displaced the previous Vaenir gods--the Vaenir are generally personifications of large-scale, inanimate natural forces, while the Aesir are gods of more human-related things like commerce, technology, and warfare.) The Greeks did have a god who was "outside of time" and is more or less the beginning of the chain, but it's worth noting that this god actually is time--Kronos. (What created time to begin causation? /humor) So on the metaphorical level it is time itself that begets all subsequent causality--without time there is no change and thus no causation, so accordingly all the "prime movers" in universal history are products of time, its "offspring" so to speak. (Not sure suddenly, but it's possible that Kronos may actually have begat everything else by mating with Chaos, so basically "nothing + time=order/everything" is the explanation for existence.)
I can agree that monotheistic religions are fairly frustrating. I don't think I can agree with any religion, even with the new-found knowledge of those mythologies (even if I were to research them more extensively). If everything here is ultimately an illusion, the spiritual world would STILL be subject to these questions. For the rest, I cannot imagine natural forces having actual personalities. But it is interesting.


Trying to prove God by saying "everything happens for a reason, except God; God happens for no reason" is just kind of weak.

IMO
Absolutely.


"Both positions require faith" != "both positions require an equal degree of faith"
From my subjective perspective, it does, because I'm speaking only identifying the cause of creation. I consider hows and whys another matter. In all honesty, I think if we ever get closer, we'll have to figure out how before we figure out why, which we'll figure out before what could cause it.

[Deckard]

From my subjective perspective, it does, because I'm speaking only identifying the cause of creation.
I thought you were talking about the existence of God.

[dubbeltop]

God cannot be proven

Meeh...just my 50 cents of intuition. Was God once like Jesus an earthling? What was the reason he left the earth to us and how did he do it?

Today I saw a woman(children tv host) with an IQ of 159 and that made me happy. To see that amount of raw intelligence succeeding in life by a large margin. Now imagine God being a (insert lifeform) with an IQ of 2000 plus and then some more. The difference between intelligence is created by making less mistakes and using the masses. In fact if God doesnt makes mistakes he probably creates (mistakes for) us, Then wtf are we doing here? Exactly...

Capiche. God doesnt need prove. We need prove. A whole lot of it just to get were God was a billion or 4,5 years ago when he created the Earth knowing we humans would arrive one day and started searching....he left after like 7 days. ...we were just a mistake

What do the people think of that possibility?

[Etherealsage]

I thought you were talking about the existence of God.
If a god created matter, then he, she, it existed at that time at the very least. And yes, I spoke in present tense, which honestly was poor writing (and expression) on my part.

Edit: To clarify, what I probably should have written to give an accurate impression of my actual thoughts was "To say a creator does not exist and never did is a stance of faith." But I have to admit I have am not often one to take care in how I word something because I do not always think about how it will be received. Moreover, I often do not care because I assume (which is indeed a mistake) that someone will filter out any technical mistakes I make in my wording. (And I am being very careful in how I'm wording this for once.) Communication, I suppose, is not one of my strong points.

[Deckard]

If a god created matter, then he, she, it existed at that time at the very least. And yes, I spoke in present tense, which honestly was poor writing (and expression) on my part.

Edit: To clarify, what I probably should have written to give an accurate impression of my actual thoughts was "To say a creator does not exist and never did is a stance of faith." But I have to admit I have am not often one to take care in how I word something because I do not always think about how it will be received. Moreover, I often do not care because I assume (which is indeed a mistake) that someone will filter out any technical mistakes I make in my wording. (And I am being very careful in how I'm wording this for once.) Communication, I suppose, is not one of my strong points.
Ok, so the problem of first cause. Thanks for clarifying. IMO it's a very different claim to say "There must have been a creator, since matter exists" than to say "God must exist because matter exists". I think both statements have problems. Your position is essentially an argument from ignorance: "I can't imagine how matter could exist without a creator". That isn't to say you are ignorant, or that the argument has no merit whatsoever; it's just considered fallacious to draw absolute conclusions with this reasoning.

Some other options off the top of my head are:
- Matter is self-actualising
- Time is cyclical, and matter always existed.

Trying to apply our intuitions about causation to the origin of the universe is fraught with assumptions & speculation. We can't just produce an ultimatum: "if matter exists there must have been a creator", and claim to have settled the matter. Philosophers & scientists have struggled with this problem for centuries and made little progress in support of the "creator" hypothesis.

[Etherealsage]

Ok, so the problem of first cause. Thanks for clarifying. IMO it's a very different claim to say "There must have been a creator, since matter exists" than to say "God must exist because matter exists". I think both statements have problems. Your position is essentially an argument from ignorance: "I can't imagine how matter could exist without a creator". That isn't to say you are ignorant, or that the argument has no merit whatsoever; it's just considered fallacious to draw absolute conclusions with this reasoning.
My position is one of ignorance in that I openly state I have no way of knowing and thus take no conclusive stance. (A stance of agnosticism.) I also will point out to everyone that does that they don't really know, whether be it a religious or atheist stance. Whether you consider that flawed logic is purely up to you.


Some other options off the top of my head are:
- Matter is self-actualising
- Time is cyclical, and matter always existed.
I have had similar thoughts to number 2 (see in my post to Roger Mexico), though not as much about time being cyclical as being infinite and that matter has always existed. From there, I wonder if the universe can, in fact "die" in a figurative sense or if matter will eventually either condense into a single point and explode such as with the big bang (which is cyclical, but has no likely exact repetition of the current universe) or if it can continue on this way indefinitely.


Trying to apply our intuitions about causation to the origin of the universe is fraught with assumptions & speculation.
Unfortunately.


We can't just produce an ultimatum: "if matter exists there must have been a creator", and claim to have settled the matter. Philosophers & scientists have struggled with this problem for centuries and made little progress in support of the "creator" hypothesis.
And there will never be unless we figure out a way to create new matter, which may be an impossibility to start.

[Deckard]

My position is one of ignorance in that I openly state I have no way of knowing and thus take no conclusive stance. (A stance of agnosticism.) I also will point out to everyone that does that they don't really know, whether be it a religious or atheist stance. Whether you consider that flawed logic is purely up to you.
Ok, I think I misread something you said earlier, sorry about that. I thought you were saying that a creator must exist because matter exists. I agree that taking an absolute stance on the existence of a creator requires faith, but I disagree that the propositions, "a creator exists" and "a creator doesn't exist" requires equal faith. Especially if we start getting specific, e.g. calling it a conscious god, or the christian god, etc. It's like if I had a box with 100 pieces of paper marked 1 to 100 -- if you picked one, would you say that it requires equal faith to say "it's the number 27" than it does to say "it's not the number 27"? Same principle with gods & the origin of the universe.

[Etherealsage]

Ok, I think I misread something you said earlier, sorry about that. I thought you were saying that a creator must exist because matter exists. I agree that taking an absolute stance on the existence of a creator requires faith, but I disagree that the propositions, "a creator exists" and "a creator doesn't exist" requires equal faith. Especially if we start getting specific, e.g. calling it a conscious god, or the christian god, etc. It's like if I had a box with 100 pieces of paper marked 1 to 100 -- if you picked one, would you say that it requires equal faith to say "it's the number 27" than it does to say "it's not the number 27"? Same principle with gods & the origin of the universe.
Well considering I was arguing against atheism without ever saying what I actually believed and only argued that both absolute stances take faith, I can see how you came to that conclusion.

I agree it would take more faith to get into specifics. And the number analogy does make sense and I'd have to agree. I think most people think of it as a dichotomy (falsely) though.

[UniversalMagnetism]

I've been wondering about something lately.

Philosophy of mind is divided on just what constitutes the self. Is it our body or our mind? And what's the extent of that? To what part does our genes play into who we are as well as our free choice? It seems that explaining the paradox would require that they all be true at the same time...so what would that mean?


Buddhism suggests that our self is not our ego; the ego is said to form an illusion of the world that gives us a bad faith. But this would be ignoring the aspect of reality that the ego creates; without the ego, there really is no point in life because that ego is what colors the lifeless world, assuming there is a point to begin with (otherwise what is the point of anything? which is a begging the question fallacy).

Other religions such as Christianity attempt to use aspects of good and evil in an attempt to define sin and allow the ego to flourish by alleviating or avoiding suffering altogether. By avoiding sin we remain pure and we go to Heaven even; but this would ignore the other truth of reality that good and bad and suffering can also be assigned by us and taken away by choice, since it is an association we've decided due to unconscious influences; and our egocentric view of ourselves ignores the metaphysical relationships we have to other people apart from ourselves.


People often disagree not only on what they value, but in why they have come to value. How is it that two people with a similar genetic makeup can reach different conclusions on what they associate as truth or even as having more intrinsic value than other things? How is it that two beings with a completely different genetic makeup can reach the same conclusions on what they associate as truth or even as having more intrinsic value than other things?


To reconcile this, it would seem that all possibilities of the world need to be able to occur. All religions need to have the potential to be true, as well as false; and this should be possible in the same instant even. The explanation for all possibilities might imply an all-inclusive meaning of life.


So if we separate mind from body and look just at the body, we see that the world has a body aspect to it that includes everything about it and yet has no form or conception of itself because it has no ego. An ego would serve a purpose of allowing that form and conception of itself to take place because it would perceive it as something from what is otherwise nothing. The purpose then of the ego is to allow qualia and thought, which gives this body a meaning. Life is about the ego and qualia and it fills this body, which it is intrinsically a part of, with a color of itself. Therefore, every color and any color is both meaningful and desired by this body, which all egos/life is a part of.

Then it's not a question of what is right or wrong (unless you want to make it about that) or anything else (unless you want to make it about something specific), but importantly that thought and perception occur. Life serves the purpose of understanding that body, which it is a part of. Take time to infinity and all possibilities occur and this body is not only defined, but fully realized.

Does anyone understand what I'm saying? If you think so, does it make sense?

[Novbett]

Universe is God, by your logic. Not provable. Next.

[UniversalMagnetism]

Universe is God, by your logic. Not provable. Next.

Why is the universe God by my logic? And what do you mean by not provable? Without answering these questions, this is an assumption to anyone that can't read your mind.

Epistemology is the basis for why some things are treated as proofs. But proofs aren't a substitute for certainty about anything; rather we use reason to make assertions; but those assertions need to remove contradictions, refute and correct logical errors, and not stray into logical fallacies before they garner the attention to be deemed a proof.

I avoided the use of the word God in my post because it implies its own logical fallacy - a false dilemma. To have the thought of God implies that God has the potential to be understood by our thoughts; but to then explain God as something that is or isn't is to assume that God can't be both, and even worse forces God only into paradigms of competing edification. By integrating both, there is nothing to be assumed, only potentially overestimated.

[Novbett]

Why is the universe God by my logic? And what do you mean by not provable? Without answering these questions, this is an assumption to anyone that can't read your mind.

Epistemology is the basis for why some things are treated as proofs. But proofs aren't a substitute for certainty about anything; rather we use reason to make assertions; but those assertions need to remove contradictions, refute and correct logical errors, and not stray into logical fallacies before they garner the attention to be deemed a proof.

I avoided the use of the word God in my post because it implies its own logical fallacy - a false dilemma. To have the thought of God implies that God has the potential to be understood by our thoughts; but to then explain God as something that is or isn't is to assume that God can't be both, and even worse forces God only into paradigms of competing edification. By integrating both, there is nothing to be assumed, only potentially overestimated.

Why the universe? What else is so vast and all knowing, ever expanding that even comes close to "the idea of God"?
Ignoring assertion and belief. Going by logic, God is not provable nor disprovable, yet. Right or wrong does not play a part in deciding that factor. Nor does morality.

There is no sequential reasoning nor abstract sequential reasoning to apply when creating the logic behind the existence of "God". What is your ground work? Assumption that God is all knowing and assumption that God can be both, is the same ground work. "Belief". It's assumption based on experience.

And not just _your_ logic, more like the integrated ideology behind _all_ logic that even begins to prove or disprove this "God". It _IS_ something to be understood or deduced. But not possible, as of yet.

[square]

Why is it that out of all the religions, it is Christianity that is so strongly under attack around the world? It is not really proof but is very suggestive, in my view.

[D33P7HR047]

Why is it that out of all the religions, it is Christianity that is so strongly under attack around the world? It is not really proof but is very suggestive, in my view.

Are you suggesting that because Christianity is currently "under attack" that it somehow vindicates it's confirmation of God in the "Western society?" Are you forgetting that the very same (G)od is also professed to exist with the Muslims and Jews? How have trends come along since BC?

Religion is not confirmation of God but rather the absence of such a thing.

[djm]

Why is it that out of all the religions, it is Christianity that is so strongly under attack around the world? It is not really proof but is very suggestive, in my view.

It isn't any more 'under attack' than most other faiths. Possibly it is more in decline than other faiths, I would put that down to it having been the dominant faith in nations that have outgrown religion (chiefly in Europe).

[square]

Are you suggesting that because Christianity is currently "under attack" that it somehow vindicates it's confirmation of God in the "Western society?" Are you forgetting that the very same (G)od is also professed to exist with the Muslims and Jews? How have trends come along since BC?

Religion is not confirmation of God but rather the absence of such a thing.

My view is that God, Jesus and Satan exist. God wants people to come to him and Satan wants to prevent people coming to God. From a Christian perspective, Jesus (Christianity) is the way God established for people to come to him and all other religions do not lead people to God. According to this perspective, Satan should attack Christianity because it leads people to God but refrain from attacking other religions because they lead people away from God.

This seems reasonable if one accepts the existence and above motivations of God, Jesus and Satan.

Can you come up with an alternative explanation for why Christianity is under much greater attack than other religions that does not include God, Jesus or Satan?

[D33P7HR047]

My view is that God, Jesus and Satan exist. God wants people to come to him and Satan wants to prevent people coming to God. From a Christian perspective, Jesus (Christianity) is the way God established for people to come to him and all other religions do not lead people to God. According to this perspective, Satan should attack Christianity because it leads to God but refrain from attacking other religions because they lead people away from God.

This seems reasonable if one accepts the existence and above motivations of God, Jesus and Satan.

Can you come up with an alternative explanation for why Christianity is under much greater attack than other religions that do not include God, Jesus or Satan?

Well, considering the use of propaganda in the news and how we were duped into going to war with the Middle East; I must also take many other factors into consideration. How many times have I heard about soldiers from "the West" peeing, shitting, and otherwise degrading the holy book of the Muslims?

We have destabilized the region and embargoed them. We have destroyed the infrastructure that existed in partial that would have been somewhat sustainable, and we depleted the population of the area. Taken into account the obvious hatred of the West, I can't be entirely sure the attacks from Muslims in the West are "fanatical Muslim" hatred. After all we are all humans.

It has been argued that Iran is in fact influenced from extreme radicalism with goals of usurping control over Israel, and with interest in spreading extreme views. How much is taken out of context or misplaced fear mongering, I have no idea.

[square]

You are saying that Islam is also a religion that is under considerable attack. There is evidence to support that claim. I am sure that many religious Islamic people would feel and say that Islam is under attack.

I would not characterize Western military intervention in the Middle East as being an attack on the religion of Islam. It might have the effect of weakening Islam but I would argue that that is not its intended effect. However, I do accept that an Islamist would view foreign military intervention and the imposition of democracy as an attack on their religion.

In contrast with Chrisianity, the religion of Islam is all about avoiding comitting sinful acts by resisting the temptation to sin. Preventing people from being exposed to things that will tempt them to comit sinful acts is very important in helping the to resist temptation. The intrusion of Western secular ideas and images is therefore a big threat to Islam. Again, this will have the effect of weakening Islam, but I don't think it is the intention.

[D33P7HR047]

You are saying that Islam is also a religion that is under considerable attack. There is evidence to support that claim. I am sure that many religious Islamic people would feel and say that Islam is under attack.

I would not characterize Western military intervention in the Middle East as being an attack on the religion of Islam. It might have the effect of weakening Islam but I would argue that that is not its intended effect. However, I do accept that an Islamist would view foreign military intervention and the imposition of democracy as an attack on their religion.

In contrast with Chrisianity, the religion of Islam is all about avoiding comitting sinful acts by resisting the temptation to sin. Preventing people from being exposed to things that will tempt them to comit sinful acts is very important in helping the to resist temptation. The intrusion of Western secular ideas and images is therefore a big threat to Islam. Again, this will have the effect of weakening Islam, but I don't think it is the intention.

You are then recognizing Islam as a group identity and the effects of the West merging onto (infiltrating?) their way of life? Imagine the USA or Australia having an imperialistic China say they want to venture further into how we recognize them as a future power, and we are then left prostrate before them, as though pillaged?

Our dollar is declining and they want to use gold standard for oil trading? How dare they not think about US!

Think about it though; you have Iran whom had their King forced out by the West and then a lot of bad things happen. New powers emerged and we return with a trade. We were playing Machiavelli and sold chemical weapons to both sides. We further allow the perception of being the "good guys" to give the false impression we had no intent of doing anything about Iraq doing what it was doing in the Middle East. We kind of played a Pearl Harbor on perception and made it "our right" to do what we did irregardless of prior public perception. Likewise we used false information and coerced testimony; along with killing off weapon's inspectors in the process.

[Intresis]

The only thing that doesn't make me sure about ateism is that "nothing happened to nothing", respectively how was the smallest and first particle(s) (and from what) created. Given enough time I think mother nature is capable of everything. But what was the substance which everything originated from. I HATE THE WORD GOD, because it makes impression of some kind of inteligence or "person", which - in my opinion - is an utter absolute bullshit. Randomness and looooooots of time = order - you cannot deny that.

There is no god unless we call god the first tiny something. What the hell was it?

EDIT: I'm talking about the "first time ever", way before big-bang - just to make things clear
EDIT2: God as a "person" originated in times when people had no freaking idea what is going on - For example Indians and Egyptians calling sun a god in the sky. SUN? And religions build on that idea!!! - religions with "persons" (Allah, Jesus) are just plain idiocy, but if we think only about the rules of these religions have, I don't think there is anything wrong with them because there was a lot of time to think them trough and create a system without mistakes, unless they make you kill people or deny their possible imperfection. (Islam - behead people who don't believe in it -Koran)
EDIT3: I'm an atheist, but I spend one month in a flat with 6 islamists who didn't (!) believe in Allah and their lives were based only on the rules of Islam and believe me or not, they were almost the best people I've ever encountered in terms of "living" together. I'm pretty sure that some of their other opinions were pretty fucked up, because you can always find holes in religions.

[square]

You are then recognizing Islam as a group identity and the effects of the West merging onto (infiltrating?) their way of life? Imagine the USA or Australia having an imperialistic China say they want to venture further into how we recognize them as a future power, and we are then left prostrate before them, as though pillaged?

Our dollar is declining and they want to use gold standard for oil trading? How dare they not think about US!

Think about it though; you have Iran whom had their King forced out by the West and then a lot of bad things happen. New powers emerged and we return with a trade. We were playing Machiavelli and sold chemical weapons to both sides. We further allow the perception of being the "good guys" to give the false impression we had no intent of doing anything about Iraq doing what it was doing in the Middle East. We kind of played a Pearl Harbor on perception and made it "our right" to do what we did irregardless of prior public perception. Likewise we used false information and coerced testimony; along with killing off weapon's inspectors in the process.

Western (the US and its allies) imperialism in the Middle East is certainly a reality. Maddie could also probably give lots of examples of US imperialist acts in South America. I suppose every super power is going to be imperialistic. Russia under communism certainly did not respect the sovereignty of its neighbors. In ancient times, Babylon was brutal. England had a tactic of controlling a colony by selecting a minority and appointing them to administrative positions. They would be loyal to England because they feared the majority of their own country. However this left lingering resentment between the majority and minority and has created many problems for these countries after colonialism ended.

It is not nice or fair but it is the reality. Superpowers are able to be behave badly if they want to because their is no such thing as an international policeman to prevent them.

Again, I don't see imperialism in the Middle East as an attack on religion. I do, however, believe that Chistianity is under attack. You though might have a different view.

[Novbett]

Intolerance combined with lack of respect is why they pee on those books. Bible or Quran. Have you read the 2? There's not a LOT of difference in terms of moral obligations mentioned in such books. The underlying principles of each such book are all the same. They all point towards having a better, moral life. It was necessary back in the days when it was created. Because people themselves were neither educated nor were as knowledgeable as they are today.

Today, one can be perfectly ethical and moral without ever having to read such books. It comes as a common sense, as a part of the upbringing and as part of education. That is why Christianity as well as any other religion is "under attack".

people don't see the reason to abide by the other parts of those books. The parts that were useful and necessary for the "old society". Makes no sense to them.

And thus I conclude that, blind faith is a disease. The cure to effectively eliminate the disease is the acceptance of unhampered knowledge.

[SensEye]

Can you come up with an alternative explanation for why Christianity is under much greater attack than other religions that does not include God, Jesus or Satan?I think it is just perception because you are an english speaker living in a predominantly Christian culture. So it is natural that most of the discussion on religion (pro and con) would focus on Christianity.

As well, many of the other countries dominated by other religions have cultures that are more traditional, less well educated, and less open. Free thinking is not necessarily tolerated, so religious discussion is suppressed.

IMHO, Islam deserves every bit as much criticism as Christianity, I don't know enough about Hinduism to comment, and Buddhism gets a pass as that religion is not evangelical as far as I know.

[Sea]

God can be proven.

1.absolute nothing creates absolutly nothing.I believe in the big bang but something had to cause it. That means a first which some call God.

2.People then say the universe has always been here. Well if any thing existed from eternity without a creator it would have no design, shape, form or description it would just exist. It would be the first cause without any influence or design.

edited: Because some people are missing the point. I'm trying to prove God not the bible.

Thats just talk. no proof.
Which is understandable because there is no god.

I joined this forum to get to talk to logical people. Not more fools.

[Works]

Thats just talk. no proof.
Which is understandable because there is no god.

I joined this forum to get to talk to logical people. Not more fools.

The specific post you are responding to is a few years old....

[Sea]

The specific post you are responding to is a few years old....

Well, I am a little late. :)

[bass_n_treble]

I shall rest comfortably, protected by the burden of proof, for the next 50-60 years. Then, I will die. And in that time, I will still not be convinced there is a cosmic being who just up and said, "Let's make other stuff and torment the living for eternity for my own folly and never tell a soul what it means."

I prefer to think we are the most fantastic accident that has ever occurred, in a universe of infinite knowledge. To sit back and assume some Bronze Age pricks who wanted to enslave the world had it right is fucking absurd. I spit on you, I think you have thrown away your life. May you live your life in ignorance, and may your money be stolen by tax-exempt organizations.

[Godscollie]

Trying to prove God not the Bible has merits. The Bible is a guide not the law man has placed on the book ie: direct word of God and not open to interpretation. This is the past mainly under the guise of the elite containing the masses through religion. A step back from the book and appraisal of civilisation and science means a new appraisal of who God Almighty and Jesus actually are needs to take place. I am Angel i know about such things :)

[Godscollie]

I shall rest comfortably, protected by the burden of proof, for the next 50-60 years. Then, I will die. And in that time, I will still not be convinced there is a cosmic being who just up and said, "Let's make other stuff and torment the living for eternity for my own folly and never tell a soul what it means."

I prefer to think we are the most fantastic accident that has ever occurred, in a universe of infinite knowledge. To sit back and assume some Bronze Age pricks who wanted to enslave the world had it right is fucking absurd. I spit on you, I think you have thrown away your life. May you live your life in ignorance, and may your money be stolen by tax-exempt organizations.

Maybe you should acknowledge the books of power have maybe three thousand years of human interference to contend with. History has shown the Bible can be used to enslave the masses to prevent revolt against the elite. But it has survived the test of time and risen to top in orientation (western world). Its your spit at you comment maybe your grasp extends beyond your reach. I am an Angel i know about such things :)

[aphemix]

A step back from the book and appraisal of civilisation and science means a new appraisal of who God Almighty and Jesus actually are needs to take place.
Maybe you should acknowledge the books of power have maybe three thousand years of human interference to contend with.you're not an angel.




http://i.imgur.com/hs7of.gif
http://i.imgur.com/Y2qVX.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/Y2qVX.jpg)
http://www.biblewheel.com/Canon/SynopticSolution.asp