Billbob is having a conversation with his friend, Suzy, who is trying to convince him that God exists.

Suzy: God exists.

Billbob: Bullshit, prove it.

Suzy: Well just look at the universe around you, the earths ecostystems can be looked at as one macroscopically. Why does this have to end at earth? Keep it up with this metaphorical "macroscope", and you'll see the earth revolves around the sun, our solar system revolves around the galaxy's centre, and galaxy's revolve around the centre of the universe (if there is such a thing).

Billbob: What the fuuuuck?

-----------------------------------------

The point I'm trying to make is that the universe is a dynamic body made up of interdependent relationships. Correct me if I'm wrong but most intelligent biologists would admit that many forms of life we might not readily recognize as such.

This being said, someone might use the argument, "what about robots? They're a dynamic body made up of interdependent relationships". Sure sure, but we created them, whereas god (or the universe, reality, everything, any one of those if the word god insults you), created us.

So another startling conclusion, the ladder of authenticity (maybe not the word I'm looking for) of life goes as follows.

-God

-Biological organisms

-technology, created by said organisms.

Continuing on this theory, technology is an extension of us as a species, who are in turn an extension of god.

Am I making sense?

Edit: I edited out the germ analogy, because these intelligent critical people showed me it was unnescessary.

[This message has been edited by great_sage=heaven (edited 03-08-2005).]

I understand exactly what you are saying the only problem is that you have proven merely that God could exist not that he does.

Also following your logic what is God an extention of?

it's important to realize that this notion of god strips him of omnipotence/science.

after all, garry and norbert are tiny little germs... but they are capable of killing billbob.

That's true. Man can also kill God (and has done so to many before), so God is relatively... weak.

Good point

quote:Originally posted by malaria:

That's true. Man can also kill God (and has done so to many before), so God is relatively... weak.

Hmmm now that I think about it, the germ analogy was unnescessary. Still though, if this implies we can kill god, then it's pretty congruent with Nietzche's idea's. Something to think about. However since I don't agree with Nietzche's view on the death of god, I'll scrap the germ part.

I think the last part of my argument is all I need.

quote: Specter: I understand exactly what you are saying the only problem is that you have proven merely that God could exist not that he does.

Yes, this is very relevent. To me, I could be an athiest and still technicaly hold the same view of my surrounding reality. However, the way I've described it, and the awe and humbleness it inspires in me, leads me to see/feel that everything around me is god. Really though it's just two prenunciations of tomatoe, understand?

quote: Also following your logic what is God an extention of?

Good question. I feel that god, as time, space and whatever else it is composed of, is infinite. Even before the big bang, or the creation of a universe as we know it, god was still god. Since god is infinite, through both space and time, god is an extension of nothing, rather the blueprint for everything.

I think the world would be a slightly better place if all atheists were converted to agnostics.



[This message has been edited by great_sage=heaven (edited 03-08-2005).]

I don't think Nietzche said anything about the death of god. I mean, obviously he said "God is dead," but it's not like someone put a knife through his heart. The idea is God is dead, but God can only die if he was never there to begin with. Because he wasn't there, he died. Peter Pan and Tinkerbell and all of those losers wouldn't die if you don't believe unless they're not real anyway. Get it?

Think of things this way, the universe is as it is because we are. I know that sounds like I got cause and effect confused, but I didn't. I'm not saying that the universe exists as it does so that we can live (people often think I am), but rather that if the universe weren't structured exactly as it is, there couldn't be intelligent life to wonder about it. Because the big bang was a singularity (I don't know what a singularity is, but the big bang sure as fuck was one), we cannot know, nor is it relevant to our universe, what happened "before" it. There could have been other big bangs that created universes not suitable for human life.

[This message has been edited by GlitterPunk112358 (edited 03-08-2005).]

I think you misunderstood me Glitterpunk, also I didn't really explain myself. Nietzche was saying god is created by our perceptions, so with the advent of humanism and lack of belief, there is no more god. I wasn't implying any sort of physical death.

quote: Think of things this way, the universe is as it is because we are.

I think we are on the same page here. As an example, the world around us is created by our perceptions. To another species, it looks, smells, feels and sounds different. In other words, perception is only a veil for a sort of plato-esque model of truth. This is about as far as I'll go with existensialism, still very interesting though. Follow?



[This message has been edited by great_sage=heaven (edited 03-08-2005).]

Atheism is logical.

Why?

Because lack of evidence is not evidence in itself, but is reason to believe that the inevidenced subject is false.



There is as much proof as for a god as for undetectable purple cows which fly behind clouds.

Now, by the false logic people use for believeing in a god, we could also believe in these cows.

Prove the cows don't exist, prove that god doesn't exist. Otherwise, by the logic of theists, the cows also exist. And by the logic of the agnostics, the cows might exist.





Anyway, for those who are religious, you cannot debate faith, as, by definition, it is not debatable.

^Be original with your idea's or don't post

I'm not searching for purple cows, I'm talking about the world/universe around me.

As I said if you actually read it, my view of agnostisism is very close to athiesm, practically both sides of the same coin. I just choose to show thankfulness and praise to all that surounds me to the point of calling it 'god'.

Also, as I said, ask any biologist and they will tell you that many forms of life might not be recognizable as such to us. Our universe is a dynamic body of interdependant relationships, just like an organism, ie. my view of god.

[This message has been edited by great_sage=heaven (edited 03-08-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Specter:

I understand exactly what you are saying the only problem is that you have proven merely that God could exist not that he does.

Also following your logic what is God an extention of?

Shit

Being 'everything' doesn't make something a god in my opinion. Were the body a conscious and willing entity, sure, I'd call the universe a god...but for now, I'll just call it the universe.

I never say being everything made god god, where the fuck did you get that from? I said that since 'everything' is a dynamic body of interdependent relationships (I'm getting sick of that line), then we can view 'everything', as a sort of entity, ie. god.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Being 'everything' doesn't make something a god in my opinion. Were the body a conscious and willing entity, sure, I'd call the universe a god...but for now, I'll just call it the universe.

Consciousness and will are largely undefined though. And there are still properties of the universe we do not understand. Whether the universe is conscious or willing remains to be seen.

quote:Originally posted by great_sage=heaven:

^Be original with your idea's or don't post



How is that unoriginal?

Because I've heard the same thing from numerous athiests. Maybe the colour of the cow was different.

Well I thought of it myself, via logic, i.e. the reason other rationalists may have used a similar argument. I've posted the same thing before, have it archived in my folder marked "truth".

So, got an argument against it, or what? Or is its infallability the reason you ignored it due to 'unoriginality'?

quote:

I'm not searching for purple cows, I'm talking about the world/universe around me.



quote: I said that since 'everything/the universe' is a dynamic body of interdependent relationships (I'm getting sick of that line), then we can view 'everything', as a sort of entity, ie. god.

There's my argument. Learn to read.

And nobody tell me anything about concsciousnes or will. An amoeba is a life form with neither of these qualities, yet its a dynamic body of blah blah fuckidy blah fucking blah blah...



[This message has been edited by great_sage=heaven (edited 03-09-2005).]