I've told you this several times, but not thoroughly enough I guess, seeing the thread in B&M.

You cannot believe that God is reality, and call yourself a Christian/Catholic. Simply because, as Catholics, we believe that God created our reality, and most believe that that was the "Big Bang."

Now, a LOT of evidence goes toward the Big Bang theory, so much as it is almost fact in many minds, and I'm guesssing yours as well. Now being that God is an infinite being, as we Catholics believe, stating that God is reality, or just the clash of Catholicism and Pantheism is flawed. For there was a time when there was nothing but God. Yet if God was reality, then there would have been no God, thus rendering him non-infinite. Infinity has no beginning or end, but we believe reality does have both....

Please, reconsider all that you believe about God=reality.

he calls himself muslim

This should be good. I've been working on a monster reply to Rust that I might was well just post here.

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

Please, reconsider all that you believe about God=reality.

You realise the implication of your request is to believe that God is not something?

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

You realise the implication of your request is to believe that God is notsomething?tangible, or comprehensible by our means of reality

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

tangible, or comprehensible by our means of reality

Are you willing to think about it?

No matter how you look at it, if God is not reality, he cannot be infinite. If God is not ANYTHING he cannot be infinite.

Because infinity doesn't mean something that's forever expanding, if it that was the meaning of infinity, it could soon expand to fill up the empty spot left by rejecting Abrahim's definition.

But infinity isn't expanding. Because if it was increasing, whatever it is NOW is less than what it CAN be. And if it's less than it can be, it's not infinite.

So infinity must be unchanging. It must simply be everything - this is the hardest thought I have EVER wrapped by head around.

It must be everything in the past, everything in the future, everything in the present, everything that ever existed, will exist, everything that could conceivably exist and all of that is simply a teardrop in the ocean compared to what must be possible yet incomprehensible to an imagination that is bound by the arbitrary laws of logic that govern our universe, not to mention the computational ability of our brain.

EVERYTHING.

If god is infinite, there is nothing that he is not. There is nothing that is not a part of "infinity", or else "infinity" could not exist. And if "infinity" cannot exist, God cannot be infinite.

And if God cannot be infinite, something is conceivably greater than him - so how can he be "God"?

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

You realise the implication of your request is to believe that God is not something?

How in the world did you get that idea? God not being all of reality, doesn't mean that god is not something. Are you all of reality? By your logic, since you obviously aren't, you are not "something".

You are taking the word "infinite" too far. I stated God as being an infinite being, not infinite in EVERY ASPECT. If we look at it through your eyes, then God is infinitely cruel, evil, and heartless, as well as infinitely kind...quite contradicting.

Because God created all things, He is before all things and beyond all things. He is not reality, He can't be confined to our definition of "real,"as in having to touch or feel Him.

"So infinity must be unchanging. It must simply be everything - this is the hardest thought I have EVER wrapped by head around."

I apologize that this is so hard to understand for you. But this is the mathematical definition more or less... God has no beginning or end, therefore He is infinite in that aspect.

And also, to claim that God IS the universe, or is IN the universe, says that God is not one being, and is not self-aware, which is obviously not true.

Catholicism is 100% AGAINST pantheism, and panentheism.

Edit: reply to rust

God is infinite, therefore god is everything, therefore god is reality...and everything else as well.

imperfect circle is not infinite, reality is just one of the many things he isnt.

well, thats how i read it anyway

[This message has been edited by Niceguy (edited 07-01-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

How in the world did you get that idea? God not being all of reality, doesn't mean that god is not something. Are you all of reality? By your logic, since you obviously aren't, you are not "something".

Hello Captain Pedantic Semantic

You're gonna get roasted in the B&M thread. I still love you http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) But you piss me off just as much http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)

Anyhow I'm personally taking a stance of disengagement from you in this thread. Consider it a victory if you want, I don't mind.

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 07-01-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Niceguy:

Edit: reply to rust

God is infinite, therefore god is everything, therefore god is reality...and everything else as well.

imperfect circle is not infinite, reality is just one of the many things he isnt.

well, thats how i read it anyway



Read my post again. I never once mentioned the word "infinite", and neither did imperfectcircle (at least in what I'm quoting, which is what I am specifically replying to); you shouldn't either.

I'm saying that simply because something is not equal to reality, doesn't mean that it isn't something or part of reality, which is what I seemed imperfectcircle was saying.

In other words, just because she said that Abrahim should reconsider that "God =Reality" doesn't mean that the conclusion is necessarily that god isn't something. That's ridiculous. I'm not equal to reality, but I'm certainly something.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Hello Captain Pedantic Semantic

Thanks for the greeting, Captain "Says stupid things and then gets angry when someone calls him on it".

The fact is that what she said does not mean that god must not be something, as you so ridiculously claimed. That has absolutely nothing with Semantics, or with being pedantic. That's accurate reading of what was stated. Does saying that X does not equal reality, mean that X is not something? Of course not.

P.S. Spare me your excuses. I don't give a shit why you don't reply.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-01-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Thanks for the greeting, Captain "Doesn't say what he really means and then gets angry when someone calls him on it".

Good call http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) We'd have a fucking great time getting shitfaced together man

quote:It's not my fault if you're not writing what you actually mean. The fact remains that what she said does not mean that god must not be something, as you so ridiculously claimed.

I'm philosophically repressed, what can I say?

quote:P.S. Spare me your excuses. I don't give a shit why you don't reply.

Yeah you do http://www.totse.com/bbs/cool.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/cool.gif)

I left a story in the other thread,

I love imperfect circle so much, the post above shows that you have grasped the concept I am trying to tell these people when you said:

"So infinity must be unchanging. It must simply be everything - this is the hardest thought I have EVER wrapped by head around. It must be everything in the past, everything in the future, everything in the present, everything that ever existed, will exist, everything that could conceivably exist and all of that is simply a teardrop in the ocean compared to what must be possible yet incomprehensible to an imagination that is bound by the arbitrary laws of logic that govern our universe, not to mention the computational ability of our brain. EVERYTHING. If god is infinite, there is nothing that he is not. There is nothing that is not a part of "infinity", or else "infinity" could not exist. And if "infinity" cannot exist, God cannot be infinite.And if God cannot be infinite, something is conceivably greater than him - so how can he be "God" ?"

And what an excellent journey!

I would like to add you to my MSN Messenger or AIM, Yahoo Messenger lists if possible because I really tremendously appreciated all your comments on my behalf and I hope to see more, you are wonderful! Thank you SO Much!

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-30-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

You are taking the word "infinite" too far. I stated God as being an infinite being, not infinite in EVERY ASPECT. If we look at it through your eyes, then God is infinitely cruel, evil, and heartless, as well as infinitely kind...quite contradicting.

Because God created all things, He is before all things and beyond all things. He is not reality, He can't be confined to our definition of "real,"as in having to touch or feel Him.

"So infinity must be unchanging. It must simply be everything - this is the hardest thought I have EVER wrapped by head around."

I apologize that this is so hard to understand for you. But this is the mathematical definition more or less... God has no beginning or end, therefore He is infinite in that aspect.

And also, to claim that God IS the universe, or is IN the universe, says that God is not one being, and is not self-aware, which is obviously not true.

Catholicism is 100% AGAINST pantheism, and panentheism.



I call it Reality, then I define it in a long post, but the reason the posts are long is because they attempt to explain and clearify what I mean by Reality, because I don't mean the universe only, or what you can feel and touch, but also everything you know and don't know, can possibly think and can never even imagine, all being encompassed by God, made of God, existing only by God, God essentially being what is was and ever will be, God is One, nothing is seperate, all is within, nothing is without.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

I call it Reality, then I define it in a long post, but the reason the posts are long is because they attempt to explain and clearify what I mean by Reality, because I don't mean the universe only, or what you can feel and touch, but also everything you know and don't know, can possibly think and can never even imagine, all being encompassed by God, made of God, existing only by God, God essentially being what is was and ever will be, God is One, nothing is seperate, all is within, nothing is without.



What religion do you consider yourself to be?

And if that is what you truly consider reality, even still, God CANNOT BE REALITY. I'm waiting to see what religion you are to go any further. Please do reread my post though.

Oh, and Rust, it's a T not an L (I'm a male http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif))

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

What religion do you consider yourself to be?

And if that is what you truly consider reality, even still, God CANNOT BE REALITY. I'm waiting to see what religion you are to go any further. Please do reread my post though.

Oh, and Rust, it's a T not an L (I'm a male http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif))

My definition of Reality is not "The Universe" only, but what the Universe is within, what the big bang was within. Something can not occur in nothing, nothing has no capacity to hold an event or allow it to occur. The universe is within Reality, this Reality and all Realities are within Ultimate Reality, All are made of and dependant on God completely, God is the Ultimate Reality, One.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

...can possibly think and can never even imagine, all being encompassed by God...



I can think that God doesn't exist. Therefore, "God not existing" is part of reality according to your definition. God doesn't exist.

Your idiotic proposition has just refuted itself.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-01-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

What religion do you consider yourself to be?

And if that is what you truly consider reality, even still, God CANNOT BE REALITY. I'm waiting to see what religion you are to go any further. Please do reread my post though.

Oh, and Rust, it's a T not an L (I'm a male http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif))

Potentgirt, I want you to come to a realization about God then I want you to explain what about Catholicism, if You're Catholic, you will hold on to, to deny the truth? I've, in Theophany's post, posted a long thing about the Blasphemy and Misleading statements in Christianity which you might like to read.

I'd like you to completely understand, I am not claiming God is what came after the big bang (The Universe) I am claiming The Big Bang Occured within God, and everything is within God. Tell me how you like the story I wrote in the other thread, I can copy paste it here as well, it might be relevant here: Sometimes I like to copy paste something in topics where it also applies, rather than linking people who then have to scroll and look for it, if someone has already read it, they can ignore it, if someone would like to read it there then they can:

A long time ago there was a civilization, a community of men and women: They in the center of their city had a structure and within it was an idol. A wizard came upon this city, I must say, he was dashingly handsome, a beautiful man...he walked through the city and came to the structure with the idol in it. The Wizard asked a man walking by "What is that idol in there?" The man replied "That is God" the Wizard then asked "How is that God?" the man replied after examining the statue "well you see, it has those eyes all around its head, that means it can see all, and it has those arms with different things in it, that means it controls all" The Wizard asked "Do you really believe that's God?" the man replied "No! That's just what my ancestors called God, they built the statue, I don't really believe in any God"

The Wizard smiled and thanked the man for his time and walked closer to the structure, he examined this massive statue that stood at a tremendous height, it looked heavy, firm. The Wizard noticed a man dressed strangely walk from behind the statue, the Wizard smiled at the man and asked "What is this statue here?" the man answered "That is the King, the Controller of All, The Father of Worlds, The Mighty, Some call him Tothar, Others call him Ufolith, and yet some others call him Redorax" The Wizard then asked "What is he?" The man replied "Well that is the supreme being, nothing is mightier than it, look at its eyes, they go around his mighty head and see all, look at his arms, they are the control of all things" The Wizard said "And where is he?" The man replied pointing at the statue "Well he is right there!" The Wizard looked up at the statue, the statue frozen seemed to look down with a grin, the Wizard said "Do you believe THIS is the Supreme Being?" The man replied "Well no, I don't believe in this statue, it is what we all call God though, but no, no I don't believe there is such a thing."

The Wizard thanked the man for his time and continued away from the statue, across from it was a beautiful courtyard, gardens, and a well crafted structure, the Wizard walked towards it but saw infront of him a little child all alone, the Wizard asked "Are you alright?" The Child replied "Alright" the Wizard asked "Are your parents nearby? Are you lost?" The Child Replied "Nearby" The Wizard asked "What are you doing out here away from your parents?" The child replied "Away!" The Wizard looked at the child strangely, the child was beginning to scare him with his strange responses, the Wizard asked pointing back to the statue behind him "Do you see that statue over there?" The child said "There!" pointing, the Wizard asked "What is that?" The child didn't reply, but bent to the earth under him and grabbed it in his hand and showed it to the Wizard. The Wizard smiled and asked "What does your parent call that statue?" The Child replied "Parent!" The Wizard asked "Why?" The child replied with a shrug, then the Wizard asked "What is God?" The child began to spin with his arms widespread and ran away. The Wizard got a shiver down his spine from the strange child, but continued on his way into the beautiful courtyard to the well crafted structure.

In the beautiful courtyard garden there was an elderly person tending to the flowers and the trees, the Wizard said "I'm sorry to bother you but may I ask you a few questions?" The Elder turned and smiled peacefully "Yes." The Wizard thanked the Elder and asked pointing backwards to the statue "What is that?" The Elder replied "A Story made of Stone" The Wizard asked "What is the story?" The Elder replied "That it is God" The Wizard asked "Is it God?" The Elder replied "That is what my fathers said" The Wizard asked "Did they believe what they said?" The Elder replied "I couldn't tell" The Wizard asked "Do you believe that is God?" The Elder replied "I spend my time in this garden, if not here then in the forest. Sometimes when I walk and the wind rustles in the trees and the breeze so gently comes over me, I say a word" The Wizard asked "What is that word?" The Elder replied with a smiling, peaceful sigh "God..."

The Wizard smiled and thanked the Elder and walked into the well crafted structure, inside, a portion of the building was dark, a portion was brightly lit, the Wizard walked on the floor which was tremendously cold, he began to hear some raised voices and then saw an opening to portion of the building which he entered. He saw inside a large circular room that had seats winding down low to the center, men and women sat on most of the seats, and were yelling down to a man in the center who was yelling up, what they were saying was barely distinguishable, nor were any words that the Wizard managed to hear, recognizable. The Wizard walked down a set of stairs that were before him down to the center where the man in the center turned and tired from screaming walked towards the Wizard saying something indistinguishable and with a sore throat, he patted the Wizard on the back and walked up the stairs, the Wizard entered the center, all the commotion stopped. The Wizard said "I am a traveler and" one of the men in the audience interrupted "A traveler from the stairs, yes we saw" and laughed. The Wizard continued "I had some questions" a woman interrupted "Don't we all?" and laughed. The Wizard wondered if this was the temple of the self amused, and then continued "I want to know about the Statue that is in the structure outside and I" a child interrupted "There are many statues outside in structures, I'm sure you know this" A man asked "Which statue do you mean?" a woman said "This world is full of statues and men who do not move" another man spoke "I had a statue once, then we divorced!" Another spoke "The statue under my robe is the only one that counts!" Another screamed "There is no Statue! This man is imagining things!" Another screamed "Will you tell us which Statue?" The Wizard was disturbed by this audience and nervously thought how he might answer to them, and while he did they continued to scream at him and one another, laughter, and anger could be heard as a wind sweeping round the arena. The Wizard said "I mean to say the Statue called God!" One replied in a scream "There is no Statue that is God!" Another screamed "There is no God!" Another screamed in a muffled voice "I am God!" The Wizard said "What is God?" They screamed in unison "The Statue Outside!" The Wizard said "Is it true?" A portion screamed "Yes!" a portion screamed "No!" One then screamed "What is God, Traveler?" The Wizard thought for a moment, he looked around the room at the frowns and the grins, the wind eyes, the circle, the roof, and around the seats, he was spinning, becoming dizzy, he said in a sigh as he felt faint "God..." and slowly made his way up the stairs and out of that temple of the self amused.

The Wizard saw a man with many scrolls walking briskly towards another end of the structure, the Wizard said "I'm sorry to bother you but may I ask you some questions?" The man with the scrolls replied "No, I'm sorry, but I'm on my way to the House of Laws and Decrees" The Wizard asked "May I come along? I am new here" The man with the scrolls began to walk and said "Yes yes, sure"

The Wizard walked with long paces keeping in line with the fast walking man with scrolls. Finally they reached the enterance to the house of Laws and Decrees, portions of it darkened, contrasted, like most of the structure, with bright and glorius portions. Many old men and women sat inside writing things, and reading things. The Wizard approached one from behind and noticed the elder was only pretending to read, his finger going back and forth over the same line of text while the elder looked at something on the table. The Wizard asked politely in a whisper "What are you looked at?" The elder jumped in his seat being surprised and saying somewhat loudly "God!" The Wizard said "I'm sorry to startle you, I noticed you were looking at something on the table other than that scroll." The elder turned and point to the table "Take a closer look, its an ant!" The Wizard smiled and said "Wow! That is a beautiful ant" the elder said "and I was thinking, as it came to my attention, I am a maker of the laws of the World, the World I live in, yet ruler or not, I can not even make an ant aware of my Laws, and I thought of how long it has been, that I have been in this House of Laws and Decrees, reading and writing, I havent even seen the sun rise or set, this ant has told me this." The Wizard said "How long have you been here?" The elder replied "So long that my last clear memory is that old mans face" He pointed to an elder snoring with his hand and pen still moving. The Wizard smiled "May I ask you a few questions?" The elder replied "Yes! It has been so many years since yesterday that I have been asked a question by something I didn't write!" he removed his finger from the scroll. the Wizard said "Can you tell me of the statue that is in the structure outside?" The elder thought to himself for a moment and then seemed to remember "Yes!" he said "I recall now that it was built many many years ago, that one from when I was a boy, believe it or not, my father was large part of the production of that statue! I used to ask him what it was for, and he would say "For people to see" and because I was little I used to say "How does it make them see? Can't they already see?" and he would say "To make them see what they can't see" and I would say "Why can't they see?" and he would say "In some things, people are blind" Then as a young man before my permanent station here I would eat my food outside looking at that massive statue and wondering what it was that people saw in it, so I would ask people who passed by, some said it was God, some said it was just a Statue, others said it was the King, others said it was nothing!" The Wizard asked "What do you think it is" The elder replied "It must be what my father told me! Something to help blind people to see! I don't know how though! There is a law about it somewhere here in fact, let me find it" The elder got up, a new kind of energy seemed to be in him and he quickly scanned his surroundings and then ran over to a pushable ladder and scrolled it to a shelf, climbed, and brought down a scroll, running back to the table. He spread the scroll, it had a large text which read "BY LAW AND COMMON DECISION OF MEN OF CIVILIZATION THIS IS GOD" under it were a few lines of description and then a drawing of the statue!

The Wizard asked the elder "Do you agree with this law?" The elder said "Yes, because it is, as it reads here" the elder put his finger on the scroll "a law of the common decision of men of civilization" he continued "If I didn't agree, I would be an outcast!" The Wizard asked "May I take this outside to examine it in the sunlight?" The elder looked around and said "Yes" and the Wizard asked "Would you like to come with me?" The elder replied "Yes!" So they left the House of Law and Decrees and passed the still shouting Temple of the Self Amused and walked through the corridor a portion dark, a portion light, and the elder had tears in his eyes as he walked bravely towards the exit, and finally upon entering the courtyard, a sigh of relief, he had to shut his eyes at first, the light was so bright, and then slowly he opened them and upon opening he saw a familiar face, the elder of the garden, and he smiled and shouted "My Brother!" The Elder of the garden turned and shouted in joy and ran as fast as he could manage towards his brother! The Wizard laughed at this sight he was filled with joy, he could feel it as though it was coming from his heart and filling his chest, through his head and down his legs, his whole body was joy. Then came running by the child, spinning his way towards the reunion, the Elder of the Garden said "This is my grandson!" The elder of the House of Laws and Decrees smiled and bent to the bow saying "It's very nice to meet you!" then breathing the fresh air said "How much I've missed consumed by text" the Elder of the Garden said "How much I've missed consumed by nature" the child said "Missed!" and ran across the courtyard towards the statue, the Wizard followed, in his hand the law, and he walked firmly and upright towards the statue, in a noble fashion, he stopped at the statue, looked up, and then turned around, infront of him was the child, the elderly brothers, and some others walking by, the Wizard opened the scroll and said loudly "You have seen a God, that is not This God, but greater." They looked at him in question, a crowd slowly gathered to wonder at this loud stranger, he continued "Each of you, has seen a God that is not this God but Greater, some of you in things smaller than this statue, the size of an ant, or in the might of the wind which makes the leaves rustle, which can bring both peace and serenity, destruction" a wind blew violently rattling the scroll, the crowd had increased" "You think this stone of your own creation stands firm due to its foundation, and indeed, the foundation is strong, but what is stronger?" a mild rumbling in the Earth could be felt by some, perhaps their legs were shaking due to the wind becoming stronger "Call all your men and women to bear witness to this" A messenger from the audience ran into the well crafted structure "Today is a day when your eyes will be opened, only some will see" Those from inside the well crafted structure, including the self amused, walked in congregation through the courtyard and towards the statue, they stood, recognizing the Wizard one of them screamed in jest "God is a dizzy man!" and laughed. The Wizard said "Bear Witness to Your Law of your own Invention" He rose up the law "and what are you without it?" He tore the scroll as a violent wind swept through and blew the two pieces away, the elders of the house of laws and decrees screamed in horror and tried their best to capture the papers as they swirled on the ground like serpents in the sea. The Wizard continued "This God of yours, most of you do not believe in it, but it stands firm, there is no other God in your minds, and because of it, no God at all" The Wizard placed his hand on the statue and said "How firm with might it is, how large, how agreed upon by the law of common man in civilization!" The Wizard pushed with little force, and the statue began to tilt backwards and forwards "How easy does it fall!" The statue began to tilt violently forward and backwards, hitting a pillar on one side and losing balance, the crowd began to scatter, the Wizard jumped from the structure and ran a distance from the range, all stood and witnessed the Idol move, imbalanced, they were in awe, they had known it firm for so many years, and their fathers before them, and none believed, though they never pushed it, finally it cracked through a pilled and fell towards the people smashing into the ground with a tremendous noise that shook the Earth they stood on, lifting dust into the air. The Wizard spoke "Full of might, can it make itself stand?" the Wizard continued "That is not God!"

Many in the crowd looked lost, confused, dazed, some smiling, some frowning, some crying, some nervously laughing, some shouting, some somber, some distressed, some sighing with relief.

"That God was of your own invention, within a form, within a structure, within the world, within the universe, and what is the Universe within? That is God. Infront of you, behind you, around you, within you, without you, Did you invent it? Did it invent you? Is there anything more powerful? Can you make it fall? You can see it everywhere, you can not escape it. What control did this statue have, it could not even save itself from falling, but the True God is what all are dependant on, utilizing every moment, waking and sleeping, there is no God greater, there is no God but that, can you not see?"

The elder from the House of Laws and Decrees seemed to recieve a spark and said "That is what my Father was trying to say!"

The Elder from the garden said "That is the God I met in the forest!"

The Child spun happilly saying "God!"

The Wizard smiled.

One of the Temple of the Self Amused screamed "That is Meaningless! That is not God! There is no God! What shall we do about your God! What Can we Do?"

The Wizard replied "Open your Eyes, Your Ears, Your Heart, Your Mind, Submit, let it come over you, and you will find peace"

The elderly brothers and the child bowed down in prostration, not towards a statue, or the wizard, or the sun or the moon or the sky, but they submitted, within themselves, and the peace came over them, they were of those who understand, the believers.

The Wizard too bowed, and some of the crowd followed, and others turned away, walking.

The sun had set now, and the city lit up with lanterns and fires, and when the Wizard rose up from prostration, and so did the elder brothers and the boy, the crowd had dispersed and continued on with how they used to be. The Message was at least given, and they did bear witness.

The Wizard enjoyed the rest of his stay there, teaching what he could to the two brothers and the boy, and in the morning he was gone on his way to continue his travels.

As he walked, and a warm breeze came past him, and the rustling of the trees in the distance, and a feeling of peace from within, The Wizard sighed and smiled saying "God...

And now, since it might be hard to find in Theophany's long topic, I will copy paste my Christianity Blasphemy Article for those who wish to read it and find it here:

To Theophany and All Christians: Please Read the Following with an Open Mind, Do not Close your eyes or ears or mind or heart to this, this is for your life, be wise.

Christianity promotes OPEN Blasphemy against the Sublime and Supreme nature of the One God. They say God came to Earth as a Man, God is in the image of Man, God had a Begotten Son who is Him, God is 3 in 1, God was a baby, God had a Mother, God died, The blood of Jesus forgives the sins of all people, etc.

Firstly, God is One, One whole, Essentially God is all there is and ever was, God is here there and everywhere within without you are dependant on it.

Secondly, God is not a man, nor is God in the image of Man, Men are not the Children of God, God does not have Children, Men are Men, they are part of God, existing within God and only By God.

Thirdly, Jesus is not a God, Jesus was in the image of a man because he was a man, I do not believe Jesus ever claimed to be God or the son of God despite what the New Testament invents about him. Jesus was a man, born as a baby, grew into age, he was a part of God as much as a tree or a grain of sand, he was no more than a human, he brought the people a message, the message was ignored as it is now.

Fourthly, Blood does not forgive sins, nor does someone ELSE dying, the Jewish tradition of Scapegoat does not apply, it was the tradition to kill a lamb or goat and forgive the sins of a village, Jesus is called the Lamb of God for this reason, to say that the death of something can forgive those who do not ask for forgiveness is a blasphemy, Jesus is not a Savior, No man can save another man, we can only save ourselves, we are our own saviors, it is up to us to communicate with the Supreme God and ask for forgiveness, there are no intermediaries, Jesus Jonas Jack and Jill can not forgive you, not by dying, not by living, not by anything, they have no power, to God is all the power.

Christians would be wise to CEASE and DESIST in the promotion of BLASPHEMY against the ONE GOD by inventing LIES about the NATURE of GOD and REALITY.

Science should have no conflict with the True God, The True God is where all things inside and out of this universe came from.

Do not be Stubborn, You are wise enough to understand that there is a God, you should be wise enough to accept the true nature of God and not to BLASPHEMY repeatedly about the SUPREME AND ULTIMATE Nature of God.

Their arguments are to make you lose God, Do not Lose God, God is not what you have been imagining or inventing in your imagination, nor is God a man or a woman or a thing created, God is infront of you at all times, open your eyes and see, you are living God, existing because of God, and it is to God you return. There is no Escape, Jesus is nothing but a man and a servant of God, one who submitted himself and accepted the Truth, he made no claims to divinity, he was not a Blasphemer, Cease and Desist.

They can break your idols, so break your idols for them, God is not an Idol, nor does God have an image, but all images are within God.

You are not the Children of God, you are the Creation of God, God in all majesty and wonder manifested you, and developed you slowly, and this earth, and evolved you, Do you not see the intricacy and beauty, will you not submit to the Reality of which you are completely dependant?

God is the originator of all things, Do not say that God did not Create some things, God manifested all things, existing and non existing, seen and unseen, known and unknown, there is NO creator but God, all men can do is manipulate what they have available, invent what is possible, the possibilities provided and manifested by God.

Drop the Blasphemous Book, the New Testament, Which Invents lie after lie about God and Jesus. You do not lose God by dropping a book full of blasphemy, Go on a journey to find the truth, or come to me and I will show you the truth, abrahimesker@hotmail.com on MSN, abrahim_esker@yahoo.com, abrahimesker on AIM.

There is one Religion and there has always been one Religion, with One God, and man repeatedly mutates it into something new, go to the root and it is one truth.

For the sake of your own being, and for your own benefit in this life and the next, cease and desist in uttering blasphemy about God with little knowledge and understanding, you are only harming yourself by promoting blasphemy, God is far beyond what many invent, but God should not be beyond understanding, God is apparent for those who choose to see, and that is a minority.

There is no Being in the Sky that is Worthy of Worship, the only worthy of Submission is the One God, Not some man in an alternate dimension but the Ultimate Reality which holds your very existance and the existance of all things with all might. All Power Belongs to God. God is not 3, God is One, Nor does God have 3 parts, If you will make divisions, then Divide God for all God's innumerable aspects, and All that is within God. God is One, Reality is One, All is One, Submit.

I am not a promoter of an Evil Word, I am not a servant of blasphemy, I wish for you to Cease and Desist in Blasphemy, if you have even a fraction of good and sense in you, you will see what I am saying as the truth. I am not Satan or the Enemy of God or Jesus. I am the enemy of Blasphemy.

A pattern I see.

People state a belief, do not present evidence of said belief, and when all else fails refuse to respond to questions regarding said belief, avoid the question, give misleading statements that do not regard said question, or/then leave entirely.

Note I reread what Abrahim wrote and he does not appear to be going along with what I'm saying, but since I don't feel like erasing what I just wrote, here it is anyways.



"I think I do understand the "logic" behind Abrahim's weird belief.

Correct me if I'm wrong, your saying:

God (1 god no other spirits etc) created all of existance withen it's self. So we are all in god? Meaning reality exists withen god, so we are all part of god. So hitler existed in god, ghandi existed in god, my shoes are made in god, my urine is in god? We all are withen god? Is that what your saying?

In the respect that everything is in god, I do not see how this is any less likely as wether or not god exists, it is also equally likely god is a giant flying spaghatti monster.

Interesting idea to play with but I don't see anything coming from it other than mental masterbation. It makes no difference wether god encompases reality or exists withen reality. Both ideas (one being yours and one being the accepted one) are useless if god exists. Thats right if god exists it does not matter wether reality is withen god or not. If god doesn't exist it is equally useless.

I guess technically he could still be catholic and have his irrelevant belief, due to the fact, it is irrelevant."

That was before I relized he said drop the new testement etc, because he can't be catholic without the new testement.

I personally think he is a troll, or crazy.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 07-01-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:



It makes no difference wether god encompases reality or exists withen reality. Both ideas (one being yours and one being the accepted one) are useless if god exists. Thats right if god exists it does not matter wether reality is withen god or not. If god doesn't exist it is equally useless.



First, neither of those ideas you spoke of are accepted in the Church. But yes, both are useless if God exists, which He does. Actually, a lot of your post just made no sense/contradicted itself/repeated nonsensically.

quote:

That was before I relized he said drop the new testement etc, because he can't be catholic without the new testement.

I personally think he is a troll, or crazy.



Now that, I believe in^^^ (troll or crazy)

And Abrahim, you didn't answer my question, instead you just posted a massive story, which most likely supports your heretic ideals. That is, if you are Catholic. So please, just in case you missed it earlier...

What is your religious affiliation, dear Abrahim?

^^

quote:Originally posted by Omar Abd Al-Qaadi:

he calls himself muslim

^^ Although he doesn't possess many Muslim characteristics. I think he's trying to create his own Religion. And I think he is counting on the evangelical tune of his posts to collect followers.

In my four years at these forums, I've never witnessed another poster put more time, effort and aggression into converting others.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

A pattern I see.

People state a belief, do not present evidence of said belief, and when all else fails refuse to respond to questions regarding said belief, avoid the question, give misleading statements that do not regard said question, or/then leave entirely.

Note I reread what Abrahim wrote and he does not appear to be going along with what I'm saying, but since I don't feel like erasing what I just wrote, here it is anyways.



"I think I do understand the "logic" behind Abrahim's weird belief.

Correct me if I'm wrong, your saying:

God (1 god no other spirits etc) created all of existance withen it's self. So we are all in god? Meaning reality exists withen god, so we are all part of god. So hitler existed in god, ghandi existed in god, my shoes are made in god, my urine is in god? We all are withen god? Is that what your saying?

In the respect that everything is in god, I do not see how this is any less likely as wether or not god exists, it is also equally likely god is a giant flying spaghatti monster.

Interesting idea to play with but I don't see anything coming from it other than mental masterbation. It makes no difference wether god encompases reality or exists withen reality. Both ideas (one being yours and one being the accepted one) are useless if god exists. Thats right if god exists it does not matter wether reality is withen god or not. If god doesn't exist it is equally useless.

I guess technically he could still be catholic and have his irrelevant belief, due to the fact, it is irrelevant."

That was before I relized he said drop the new testement etc, because he can't be catholic without the new testement.

I personally think he is a troll, or crazy.



I find that it is quite important, the difference between God being something WITHIN Reality (Reality being what it is confined within) or God being the Ultimate Reality in which this Reality is part of and within.

Yes I'm saying Hitler, Your Shoelace, Urine, and every single thing, including your thoughts, "thunk and unthunk", all possibilities, everything exists within Ultimate Reality and that it is God.

Furthermore that there is NO God but this God, the most powerful. No it is not a Spaghetti Monster, A Spaghetti Monster is confined to a form, within Reality, so a Spaghetti Monster can never be the ultimate God, only God is the ultimate God.

Am I a heretic? Maybe to some Churches, but I find them to be the Heretics, claiming things that God is far beyond such as "God is a Father" "God has a Son" "God is in the image of man" "God lived as a man" and much more. Loyalty to a Church won't save you on Judgement Day, nor will any priest or pastor, not even Jesus can save you, Religion is meant to be a connection, directly, between God and the Individual, no intercessors and middle men.

I am saying strip everything and it will be in the image of Nothing, but it isn't Nothing, It is Reality, God. The Proof is Us, Existance, the FACT that we exist, that the Universe Exists and appeared. Something can not come from or exist within or appear by Nothing. Nothing is and always will be Nothing, and it has never existed, if it did, so too would it still be nothing. What has and always will exist is what all things are currently within, Ultimate Reality: You are made of it, completely dependant on it, and you would find peace by submission to it. It is not a flying spaghetti monster, but what allows the idea of a flying spaghetti monster to exist!

My God is limitless and infinite, all limits are within it, its space is boundless, all things exist within it, and the possibilities are infinite, we will never encompass them, only it can.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

^^ Although he doesn't possess many Muslim characteristics. I think he's trying to create his own Religion. And I think he is counting on the evangelical tune of his posts to collect followers.

In my four years at these forums, I've never witnessed another poster put more time, effort and aggression into converting others.



Imagine a lantern made of many different pieces of colored glass.

If you looked at it from one angle, it would appear to be one color. And if you looked from another angle, it would be a different color.

But the source of the light itself is just one thing, white.

I think Abrahim's position is not in fact religious, he's simply trying to convey the core message common to all religions.

Personally I have the same view. I don't consider myself religious, though.

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

First, neither of those ideas you spoke of are accepted in the Church. But yes, both are useless if God exists, which He does. Actually, a lot of your post just made no sense/contradicted itself/repeated nonsensically.

Well since we contradict ourselves etc. then can you give me proof? You just stated god exists. It is only fair to want to believe the truth so present evidence of your claim.

Also please point out where I just contradicted myself, since apparently I do all the time, or did you group me in with every other poster on totse?

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 07-01-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Imagine a lantern made of many different pieces of colored glass.

If you looked at it from one angle, it would appear to be one color. And if you looked from another angle, it would be a different color.

But the source of the light itself is just one thing, white.



I think your describing reality not religion.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

I think your describing reality not religion.

You can take it as a metaphor for subjectivity of perspective, but that's not the point I was making

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I can think that God doesn't exist. Therefore, "God not existing" is part of reality according to your definition. God doesn't exist.

Your idiotic proposition has just refuted itself.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Rust FTW

How could you all look right over this, Abrahim's theory is blatantly wrong.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I think Abrahim's position is not in fact religious

I'd suggest re-reading all his posts, visiting with him further on messenger, and then re-thinking that statement.

He is actively converting people to follow his beliefs and realize the current error in their thinking. I see what you're saying, though. He's a swell guy with only the purest of intentions. If he weren't so damned likeable and easy to converse with, we could easily mistake him for just another naked internet religious zealot.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Am I a heretic? Maybe to some Churches, but I find them to be the Heretics, claiming things that God is far beyond such as "God is a Father" "God has a Son" "God is in the image of man" "God lived as a man" and much more. Loyalty to a Church won't save you on Judgement Day, nor will any priest or pastor, not even Jesus can save you, Religion is meant to be a connection, directly, between God and the Individual, no intercessors and middle men.

ONce more a threat: "Loyalty to a Church won't save you on Judgement Day, nor will any priest or pastor, not even Jesus can save you".. What version of reality is this, is Judgement day a reality? What do we need to be saved from? God's wrath? Then one would worship from fear, and perhaps the bs hell you preach would be preferable to spending the same eternity in the presence of tyranny!



quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

I am saying strip everything and it will be in the image of Nothing, but it isn't Nothing, It is Reality, God. The Proof is Us, Existance, the FACT that we exist, that the Universe Exists and appeared. Something can not come from or exist within or appear by Nothing. Nothing is and always will be Nothing, and it has never existed, if it did, so too would it still be nothing. What has and always will exist is what all things are currently within, Ultimate Reality: You are made of it, completely dependant on it, and you would find peace by submission to it. It is not a flying spaghetti monster, but what allows the idea of a flying spaghetti monster to exist!

My God is limitless and infinite, all limits are within it, its space is boundless, all things exist within it, and the possibilities are infinite, we will never encompass them, only it can.



Take God from your statement and one arrives at this: we, the universe, the all, exists because it is impossible for nothing to exist. Therefore existence is the imperative, being cannot come from non-being, neither can existence come from non-existence. Being cannot become non-being, existence cannot become non-existence. We have being, we cannot have come from non-being, being has always been, it is eternal and self existent, infinite for there can not be ever non-being. There is no beginning, there is no ending, for there cannot be nothing. We exist because we must, there is no alternative, our being is infinite and eternal. What need then of Allah? What difference between the ultimate reality you espouse and the reality of this moment? There is no division, there cannot be, in the absence of an alternative to existence, existence stands alone, 'one', there is but one existence, one reality. What need do you have to divide that by adding the term "ultimate reality" and calling that god?

You seem to make the same error as so many others in needing to give identity to the mystery of life. In so doing your mind seems to be bound by the past and the future, and these inform your version of reality. Sweep those things away, clear your mind, focus your senses on this one moment, become aware of the input of all your senses in this one moment. Observe, you are the awareness, that which remains when thought has gone. Can you put a name to that, an identity, no that would take thought, but the awareness, the observer is only present when thought is not, therefore it is indescribable, indefinable. IN this context there is oneness, the infinite nature of mind, and the 'empty/full' state of awareness. This can not be spoken, it is beyond words, it brings self-realisation of the oneness of all.

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I can think that God doesn't exist. Therefore, "God not existing" is part of reality according to your definition. God doesn't exist.

That's correct.

God/reality does not exist, and god/reality does exist.

Something defined as infinity neccessarily transcends our petty universe with it's arbitrary laws, and thus the logic that our monkey brains derived according those arbitrary laws is not a constraint upon it.

The Buddhist concept of shunyata deals with specifically this issue, of non-existence as the principle of existence. The philosopher Nagarjuna developed a philosophy that partially explains this:

quote:As for Nagarjuna's fundamental message in his philosophical works, it is important first to realize the object toward which his criticism is directed--namely, the notion of independent being, or self-existence (svabhava). The fact that his doctrine has been termed the doctrine of insubstantiality (nihsvabhavavada, literally, 'the doctrine that refutes svabhava') emphasizes Nagarjuna's characteristic rejection of the notion of self- existence. Nagarjuna rejects self-existence by examining relativity, or interdependent origination, in a critical, dialectic way, beginning with the idea of self-existence, going on to the idea of relativity or the absence of self-existence, and terminating with the idea of emptiness (shunyata). These three steps--from self-existence to non-self-existence, and finally to emptiness--are developed through three types of investigation: (1) the investigation of causality, (2) the investigation of concepts, and (3) the investigation of knowledge.

quote:Let us first look at the Madhyamaka critique of causality. Madhyamaka philosophy arrives at the insubstantiality and relativity of all phenomena through an examination of interdependent origination. In this context it is shown that, insofar as all things exist dependent on a combination of causes and conditions, they have no independent self- existence and are therefore empty. The classical example is that of the sprout, which exists dependent on the seed, earth, water, air, and sunlight. Inasmuch as the sprout depends on these factors for its existence, it has no self-existence and is therefore without self-existence. And being without self-existence, it is empty. This is the simplest and most direct Madhyamaka investigation of causality, and it leads us straight to the notion of emptiness. But for the Madhyamaka, emptiness also means non-origination, non-production. In the Perfection of Wisdom literature, as we saw in the Heart Sutra, the idea of non-origination and non-cessation occurs very frequently. Here, too, in the Madhyamaka philosophy, emptiness means non-origination--the non-arising in reality of all phenomena. Nagarjuna explains this particular consequence of emptiness through the dialectic method. Here we see again the fourfold dialectical analysis that appeared in the fourteen inexpressible propositions which the Buddha rejected.

quote:There is also a Madhyamaka critique of concepts--the concepts of identity and difference, existence and nonexistence, and so forth. All these concepts are relative; they are mutually conditioning. Let us take the concepts of short and long. The ideas of short and long are relative one to the other. We say that A is shorter than B or that B is longer than C, so the concepts of long and short are relative. If I put two fingers side by side, we can say that one finger is longer than the other, but if I put out a single finger, unrelated to anything else, we cannot say anything about it being long or short. This is another kind of interdependence. Just as we have material dependence in the origin of a sprout that is dependent on a seed, the earth, sunlight, and so on, here we have conceptual dependence, the dependence of one concept on another. And just as short and long are dependent one upon another, so identity and difference are dependent, or relative, to each other. Identity only has meaning in relation to difference, and difference only makes sense in relation to identity. The same is true of existence and nonexistence. Without the idea of existence, nonexistence has no meaning, and without nonexistence, existence has none. This is also true of the three divisions of time--past, present, and future. Depending on the past, the ideas of the present and future are conceived; depending on the past and future, we speak about the present; and depending on the present and the past, we speak about the future. The three moments of time--like short and long, identity and difference, and existence and nonexistence--are all concepts that are interdependent, relative, and empty.

quote:Finally, the analysis of relativity is applied to knowledge, or to the means of acquiring knowledge. This is an important application of the Madhyamaka critique because ordinarily we accept the reality of phenomena on the basis of perception. For example, we say that this cup which I have before me undoubtedly exists because I perceive it--I can see and touch it. We have knowledge of things through the means of knowledge. Traditionally, in India, there were four means of knowledge: (i) perception, (ii) inference, (iii) testimony, and (iv) comparison. For the sake of simplicity, let us take the case of perception. Suppose something is established by perception, that it is through perception that we accept the existence of the cup: What, then, is it that proves the existence (or truth) of the perception itself (i.e., the means of knowledge itself)? One might say that perception is proved by itself. In that case it would not require proof, but since when can something be accepted without proof? Alternatively, one might say that perception is established or proved by other means of knowledge, but in that case we have an infinite regress, as in the old story of the philosopher who, when asked what the earth stood on, replied that it stood on a great tortoise, and when asked what the great tortoise stood on, said that it stood on four great elephants, and so on and so forth. Nowhere can we find a firm foundation for perception if perception is proved by other means of knowledge. Finally, if perception is established by the object of perception, then perception and its object are mutually established and interdependent. This is, in fact, the case: The subject and object of perception are interdependent. They are mutually conditioned. Perception is therefore in no position to prove the existence of its object, and that object is in no position to prove the existence of perception, since they depend on each other. Thus knowledge--like cause and effect and mutually related concepts--is interdependent. It lacks self-existence, and is therefore empty.

http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dsantina/tree/ch18.txt

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

ONce more a threat: "Loyalty to a Church won't save you on Judgement Day, nor will any priest or pastor, not even Jesus can save you".. What version of reality is this, is Judgement day a reality? What do we need to be saved from? God's wrath? Then one would worship from fear, and perhaps the bs hell you preach would be preferable to spending the same eternity in the presence of tyranny!



You couldn't have misunderstood his point more spectacularly.

The notion that loyalty to a Church is necessary to save us from some terrible judgement day is the fundamentalist point of view, which he is rebutting.

I'm astonished at how misunderstood Abrahim is.

Edit: by the way, according to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said pretty much the same thing as the bit you quoted from Abrahim

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 07-01-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I'd suggest re-reading all his posts, visiting with him further on messenger, and then re-thinking that statement.

Abrahim and myself actually have a remarkably similar attitude towards spirituality.

It is a PHILOSOPHICAL one, not a religious one.

quote: If he weren't so damned likeable and easy to converse with, we could easily mistake him for just another naked internet religious zealot.

What makes him different from a religious zealout is the fact that he is willing to question and discuss his beliefs in an open minded fashion with people who disagree, and respond with a smile when people attack his beliefs rather than evade the question or spout dogma.

Not everyone believes that redshift equals distance.

quote:Originally posted by Eric:

Not everyone believes that redshift equals distance.

Because they believe it equals acceleration. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Lol you got me.

I don't want to start a scientific debate in the religion forum. We all know how that always ends up. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

[This message has been edited by Eric (edited 07-01-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Eric:

Lol you got me.

I don't want to start a scientific debate in the religion forum. We all know how that always ends up. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)



Yeah, with me naked!

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

That's correct.

God/reality does not exist, and god/reality does exist.

Something defined as infinity neccessarily transcends our petty universe with it's arbitrary laws, and thus the logic that our monkey brains derived according those arbitrary laws is not a constraint upon it.

You might as well just smashed your face into the keyboard, as the outcome would have been the same. In other words, his ridiculous beliefs are so ridiculous, that we need to abandon all logic and reason. It's not that his idiotic comment is self-refuting, but that I'm foolishly using logic and reason, and he is not! My fault, I'm sorry!

If you lack an impetus to use logic and reason when making your claims, then so does anyone else. Therefore, I'll retort in the same inane manner:

You and Abrahim are wrong, because God told me that you're wrong. What evidence do I have of this? That I say so.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-02-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You might as well just smashed your face into the keyboard, as the outcome would have been the same. In other words, his ridiculous beliefs are so ridiculous, that we need to abandon all logic and reason. It's not that his idiotic comment is self-refuting, but that I'm foolishly using logic and reason, and he is not! My fault, I'm sorry!

If you lack an impetus to use logic and reason when making your claims, then so does anyone else. Therefore, I'll retort in the same inane manner:

You and Abrahim are wrong, because God told me that you're wrong. What evidence do I have of this? That I say so.





True Nothing does not Exist or We would not Exist. Strip away all that is within Ultimate Reality and you are left with Ultimate Reality, in the image of nothing, posessing no images, but it is still what all things originate from, can originate from, exist within, can exist within, etc.

I believe it is more illogical to say The Universe Sparked out of no where within Nothing. If there was Nothing first, so too would there be Nothing now, because Something can not Occur Within Nothing.

I am saying that the Originator and Manifestor, the place of Manifestation, was what encompasses all possibilities, Ultimate Reality. That nothing has no ability to manifest, nothing can only be nothing and nothing can exist while there is nothing, nor can anything happen.

My God is Ultimate Reality, Infinite, within it are all realities, all things, all possibilities, everything, innumerable and un ending. My God is what you are completely dependant on and should be indebted to, but little appreciation do many have, and my God does not require anything from you, my God sustains itself and always has and always will, nothing can harm it or benefit it. You can harm yourself, and benefit yourself, and it would be better for you and your mind to benefit yours, to be thankful and submit to God, you will find peace from within and without. Ignorance is not Bliss, Bliss is in the Truth, an understanding.

I'm not denying the beauty of the Universe or all the magnificent mechanisms within it, I am trying to show you the Originator, right infront of you, behind you, around you, within you, you are completely dependant, fall prostrate and appreciate.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

True Nothing does not Exist or We would not Exist.

We're discussing if something, not "nothing", exists or not. Your illogical beliefs would mean that something does not exist.

quote:I believe it is more illogical to say The Universe Sparked out of no where within Nothing. If there was Nothing first, so too would there be Nothing now, because Something can not Occur Within Nothing.

1. There is nothing illogical about the belief you just cited, as that belief does not break any rules of logic in and of itself. Saying that something can both exist and not exist at the same time, which are mutually exclusive concepts, does violate a rule of logic.

"Something does not come from nothing" may be a rule of Nature, and you can certainly argue that (even though it would be futile since the Big Bang would be a catyclismic event where the laws of Nature as we know them might have been null and void) but it is not a rule of logic.

2. Whether I, or anyone else here, believes that "the universe came out of nothing" is irrelevant, as that is not being debated.

3. Even if all of us had that belief, and that belief were illogical (which it isn't, at least not inherently) it would not change the fact that your ridiculous statements are self-refuting, unreasonable, unsubstantiated and illogical. Your beliefs must stand on their own merit, not on other unrelated beliefs failing.

---

The rest of your post is nothing but a rehash of the same rants you keep spamming across the board. They still remain unsubstantiated, they still remain illogical, and they still remain meaningless.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-02-2006).]

*Sticks my robot penis in Rust's robot butt*

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. There is nothing illogical about the belief you just cited, as that belief does not break any rules of logic in and of itself. Saying that something can both exist and not exist at the same time, which are mutually exclusive concepts, does violate a rule of logic.

"Something does not come from nothing" may be a rule of Nature, and you can certainly argue that (even though it would be futile since the Big Bang would be a catyclismic event where the laws of Nature as we know them might have been null and void) but it is not a rule of logic.

2. Whether I, or anyone else here, believes that "the universe came out of nothing" is irrelevant, as that is not being debated.

3. Even if all of us had that belief, and that belief were illogical (which it isn't, at least not inherently) it would not change the fact that your ridiculous statements are self-refuting, unreasonable, unsubstantiated and illogical. Your beliefs must stand on their own merit, not on other unrelated beliefs failing.

---

The rest of your post is nothing but a rehash of the same rants you keep spamming across the board. They still remain unsubstantiated, they still remain illogical, and they still remain meaningless.



When did I state that my God doesn't Exist, I state repeatedly that it is the only that that Exists, and though I repeat it, that concept has still not penetrated?

"(even though it would be futile since the Big Bang would be a catyclismic event where the laws of Nature as we know them might have been null and void)"

A Big Bang Can Not Occur in Absolute Nothing, Only Nothing can Occur in Absolute Nothing, Nothing does not have the capacity to hold any such event or allow it to occur. For the big bang to occur, first there would need to be a system which allows it to occur.

Why is "Something Coming From Nothing" Not the debate? It is a good part of the debate, because I am state that Ultimate Reality, God, Imageless, Formless, Limitless, Infinite, possessing all Realities within it, made from it, is what the big bang occured within and allowed it to occur. That if there was absolute nothing, still would there be absolute nothing, because something can't happen in nothing, nor can it allow anything to happen. You and I are proof that nothing doesn't exist.

When did I ever say to abandon logic? Logic is wonderful, my God is fully compatible with Logic. Is it logical to say that from absolute nothing, something occured? No, because absolute nothing doesnt have the capacity to allow anything to occur.

Perhaps you still imagine God as some being which needs to be created, but I'm not telling you to worship any such thing, you are a being, God is what all beings exist within. God is what is and always was and will ever be, there is nothing BUT God.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

What makes him different from a religious zealout is the fact that he is willing to question and discuss his beliefs in an open minded fashion with people who disagree, and respond with a smile when people attack his beliefs rather than evade the question or spout dogma.

He claims that other religions are blasphemy to his God. He's gotten better about answering questions without copying and pasting from the Qur'an, and sure - he's more fun than a barrel fulla Christians. But dogma is present, and it's been spouted.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

He claims that other religions are blasphemy to his God. He's gotten better about answering questions without copying and pasting from the Qur'an, and sure - he's more fun than a barrel fulla Christians. But dogma is present, and it's been spouted.

Dogma!? I prefer Cutema!

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-02-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You might as well just smashed your face into the keyboard, as the outcome would have been the same. In other words, his ridiculous beliefs are so ridiculous, that we need to abandon all logic and reason. It's not that his idiotic comment is self-refuting, but that I'm foolishly using logic and reason, and he is not! My fault, I'm sorry!

If you lack an impetus to use logic and reason when making your claims, then so does anyone else. Therefore, I'll retort in the same inane manner:

You and Abrahim are wrong, because God told me that you're wrong. What evidence do I have of this? That I say so.

That's the worst response I've ever seen you make to one of my posts.

1) I never said that logic should be abandoned, kindly remove your words from my mouth.

I said that the laws of logic cannot apply to something existing beyond our universe.

Is it theoretically impossible for even a single universe to exist with different natural laws than our own?

No.

If it had different natural laws than ours, in particular causality, would they even comprehend our logic?

No.

So are the laws of our logic a constraint on the possibility of anything that could exist in such a universe?

No.

Now ask if it makes even the slightest bit of sense to assume that our logic should be a constraint on something that is conceptually infinite, the sum of all possible universes and everything they contain, etc.

2) You didn't even bother addressing my point about the Buddhist philosophical concept of shunyata. I expect it is beyond your intellectual capabilities, pedantic and petty as they are.

The Buddhist philosophers who have developed this notion of Emptiness being the source of existence have done so THROUGH REASON AND LOGIC, clearly you did not even bother to read the passages on Nagarjuna that I quoted or read up on the topic.

I believe that god/infinity/etc simultaneously exists and does not exist.

quote:Originally posted by F. Scott Fitzgerald:

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.

3) Your supposed proof against god's existence has the merit of the ontological argument FOR god's existence. What a weak effort.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

When did I state that my God doesn't Exist, I state repeatedly that it is the only that that Exists, and though I repeat it, that concept has still not penetrated?

Had you bothered reading the whole thread, and not just the posts that masturbate your ego, you'd know why I said what I did.

If you define reality as anything we can possibly think of, and even that which we cannot imagine, then "God doesn't exist" is part of reality, because it is something that we can definitely think of (or if you believe it is somehow impoissible to think that, then it would be something we cannot imagine). As such, your own definition makes it so that God doesn't exist in reality.

It allows for reality to include that which makes your definition of god impossible. It contradicts itself.

quote:

A Big Bang Can Not Occur in Absolute Nothing, Only Nothing can Occur in Absolute Nothing, Nothing does not have the capacity to hold any such event or allow it to occur. For the big bang to occur, first there would need to be a system which allows it to occur.

Why is "Something Coming From Nothing" Not the debate? It is a good part of the debate, because I am state that Ultimate Reality, God, Imageless, Formless, Limitless, Infinite, possessing all Realities within it, made from it, is what the big bang occured within and allowed it to occur. That if there was absolute nothing, still would there be absolute nothing, because something can't happen in nothing, nor can it allow anything to happen. You and I are proof that nothing doesn't exist.

It's not part of the debate, because it has nothing to do with whether your own theory stands or not. If the Big Bang theory falls, yours doesn't magically gain acceptance. It has to stand on its own merits, not on whether other theories, superfluous ones, fall or not.

Moreover, that you keep saying "You and I are proof that nothing doesn't exist" shows quite nicely how you either haven;t bothered to read what I said, or have failed miserably in understanding it. I'm not saying that nothing exists.

quote:

When did I ever say to abandon logic? Logic is wonderful, my God is fully compatible with Logic. Is it logical to say that from absolute nothing, something occured? No, because absolute nothing doesnt have the capacity to allow anything to occur.

1. Again, it is not illogical to say that, because that does not break a rule of logic.

2. Your theory is not compatible with logic because it refutes itself by allowing reality to be something which contradicts the existence of god. A contradiction is illogical by definition.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-02-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

1) I never said that logic should be abandoned, kindly remove your words from my mouth.

You may have not said that, because it makes the idiocy of you beliefs even more blatant, but that's the only possible conclusion given that you deem it possible to violate the fundamental law of logic, the law of non-contradiction.

If the law of non-contradiction falls, then the system of logic as we know it falls. Just because you decide not to follow this to its ultimate conclusion, doesn't mean that it is not the conclusion of your statements.

quote:

Is it theoretically impossible for even a single universe to exist with different natural laws than our own?

No.

If it had different natural laws than ours, in particular causality, would they even comprehend our logic?

No.

So are the laws of our logic a constraint on the possibility of anything that could exist in such a universe?

No.



All which is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

1. You've yet to show that we're actually dealing with something outside our universe. Speaking hypothetically doesn't prove anything.

2. "Existence" and "non-existence" are defined in this universe, as mutually exclusive concepts. Whether they are defined differently in another universe is wholly irrelvant because it is in this universe where the contradiction lies!

3. His ridiculous "theory" would mean that even mundane things would exist and not exist at the same time. Mundane things, that are not supernatural in the least; things which exist in this universe. As such, the point still stands regardless of the possible universes your mind may day-dream of.

quote:

Now ask if it makes even the slightest bit of sense to assume that our logic should be a constraint on something that is conceptually infinite, the sum of all possible universes and everything they contain, etc.

It doesn't make sense, hence why it is illogical to assume that such a thing exists. You abandon logic in order to allow for such a thing to exist in the first place, which is exactly what I said.

quote:

2) You didn't even bother addressing my point about the Buddhist philosophical concept of shunyata. I expect it is beyond your intellectual capabilities, pedantic and petty as they are.

I didn't bother addressing them because they are utterly meaningless in determining whether what you're saying is true or false, hence irrelevant to my desires.

Thank you for proving once again that you're severely allergic to logic, since you see no problem in making such wonderfully ridiculous allegation against me, one which is nothing but a pathetic logical fallacy. Just because I decided not to respond to your irrelevant quotations doesn't mean I didn't read them or that I did not understand them; it means that I decided not to respond to them. Given that your theory must stand on its own merits, and not on ther Buddhist concepts standing (whether they actually stand to scrutiny or not is yet to be determined), I see absolutely no reason why I should formulate a reply to those quatations.

quote:That's the worst response I've ever seen you make to one of my posts.

Given your penchant for abandoning logic and reason at any moment it inconveniences you and your silly beliefs, I take that as a compliment. Thank you.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-02-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:



If god is infinite, there is nothing that he is not.



What about Satan and hell? If God is in everything, yet hell is a place with the complete absence of God, and Satan is the being with a complete absence of God, then something is amiss here...

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

What about Satan and hell? If God is in everything, yet hell is a place with the complete absence of God, and Satan is the being with a complete absence of God, then something is amiss here...

Which is the point I'm trying to make. It doesn't even have to deal with Satan or Hell. His definition of "reality" includes that which would make his definition of reality impossible!

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

What about Satan and hell? If God is in everything, yet hell is a place with the complete absence of God, and Satan is the being with a complete absence of God, then something is amiss here...

Either infinity is something that exists, or not. I don't mean this in the emptiness/existence sense earlier, I mean in simple terms.

If it does exist, then God, Satan, and so on MUST exist, not just in some other universes, but in an infinite amount of universes (just like there must be an infinite amount of universes identical to this one).

That means there are universes where "God" (in the Christian sense, or that of any other monistic representation) and Satan play the banjo in a titty bar, universes where Satan rocked up to Heaven and killed "God", universes where Satan crossed into another universe, etc and so on, in an endless set of permutations.

As for the existence of alternate universes, there's a very compelling case made for an infinite number of them made by a physicist called David Deutsch, arguing his case on quantum mechanical, evolutionary, computational and epistemological grounds. The book is called "The Fabric of Reality : The Science of Parallel Universes and Its Implications", here's the Amazon link:

http://tinyurl.com/lyx2h

I know nobody is going to rush out and buy it (although it's a fantastic read), so here is an academic article laying out some of the arguments for the existence of parallel universes:

http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/multiverse.pdf

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

You couldn't have misunderstood his point more spectacularly.

The notion that loyalty to a Church is necessary to save us from some terrible judgement day is the fundamentalist point of view, which he is rebutting.

I'm astonished at how misunderstood Abrahim is.

Edit: by the way, according to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said pretty much the same thing as the bit you quoted from Abrahim



I'm obviously not alone in 'misunderstanding' Abrahim, he is so full of missionary zeal he disrespects others by making assumptions on what they believe based upon his understanding of the catholic faith. It seems that those Roman concepts have been tattooed on his brain and he does not understand how radically different many people view the message of Christ. He relies on hypothesis for which he has not presented logical and reasonable proofs.

The Gospel of Thomas directly contradicts Abrahims message: Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." (Gspl Thomas 77) To understand this passage understand the gnostics who wrote it thought of the all as the 'substantial reality' similar to Abrahims concept of 'ultimate reality:

quote:"THAT which is the Fundamental Truth-the Substantial Reality-is beyond true naming, but the Wise Men call it THE ALL." -The Kybalion.

"In its Essence, THE ALL is UNKNOWABLE." -The Kybalion.

"But, the report of Reason must be hospitably received, and treated with respect." - The Kybalion.

The human reason, whose reports we must accept so long as we think at all, informs us as follows regarding THE ALL, and that without attempting to remove the veil of the Unknowable:

(I) THE ALL must be ALL that REALLY IS. There can be nothing existing outside of THE ALL, else THE ALL would not be THE ALL.

(2) THE ALL must be INFINITE, for there is nothing else to define, confine, bound, limit or restrict THE ALL. It must be Infinite in Time, or ETERNAL,-it must have always continuously existed, for there is nothing else to have ever created it, and something can never evolve from nothing, and if it had ever "not been," even for a moment, it would not "be" now,-it must continuously exist forever, for there is nothing to destroy it, and it can never "not be," even for a moment, because something can never become nothing. It must be Infinite in Space-it must be Everywhere, for there is no place outside of THE ALL-it cannot be otherwise than continuous in Space, without break, cessation, separation, or interruption, for there is nothing to break, separate, or interrupt its continuity, and nothing with which to "fill in the gaps." It must be Infinite in Power, or Absolute, for there is nothing to limit, restrict, restrain, confine, disturb or condition it-it is subject to no other Power, for there is no other Power.

Im sure you see the similarities and you will understand that I cannot agree that Abrahims theory agrees at all with The Gospel of Thomas which has Jesus say quote:"It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all.

Blasphemy according to Abrahim, what say you?

One more thing re 'emptiness': understood as empty of form, or formlessness, lack of division, unity, egolessness, the paradox is understood -- the universe is both full and empty.

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

The Gospel of Thomas directly contradicts Abrahims message: Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." (Gspl Thomas 77)

Yes, and he also said this:

quote:The Gospel of Thomas

Jesus said, `I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become drunk from the bubbling stream which I have measured out.... 12

He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him.' 13

The point of the Gospel, like the gnostic faith, is that knowledge of the divine should be a direct, unmediated personal experience.

Which is the exact thing Abrahim was saying in the original post I quoted from you.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Either infinity is something that exists, or not. I don't mean this in the emptiness/existence sense earlier, I mean in simple terms.

If it does exist, then God, Satan, and so on MUST exist, not just in some other universes, but in an infinite amount of universes (just like there must be an infinite amount of universes identical to this one).



You didn't answer the problem he points out, which was prety much exactly mine, except he's seeing it strictly from a Christian perspective.

He's saying that if Hell is an absence of god, then god cannot be hell (or exist within hell) which would be a consequence of what Abrahim is saying. Thus, he's pointing out, as I did, how illogical his statements are.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



You didn't answer the problem he points out, which was prety much exactly mine, except he's seeing it strictly from a Christian perspective.

He's saying that if Hell is an absence of god, then god cannot be hell (or exist within hell) which would be a consequence of what Abrahim is saying. Thus, he's pointing out, as I did, how illogical his statements are.

Christian perspective or not reality can't be god, because if evil exists and god can't be evil then god can't be reality.

I only say that because they could say well exists outside or reality.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 07-02-2006).]

That's if you define a god as strictly benevolent, which Abrahim apparently does not.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

He's saying that if Hell is an absence of god, then god cannot be hell (or exist within hell) which would be a consequence of what Abrahim is saying. Thus, he's pointing out, as I did, how illogical his statements are.

No, "Hell" is the absence of a Christian "god", which is certainly something that can exist in a possible universe. Quite possibly this one, as it happens.

When I say "god", and I suspect Abrahim will agree, I am using it as shorthand for "infinity" or "the sum total of all possible universes and everything they contain at all points in their timeline".

To say that a "hell" must exist as the counterpoint to this is equal to saying "god" does not exist as I use the term - which I have already said is true.

To deny that "infinity" exists is to deny that this world exists for a start. It also denies a number of plausible theories in modern physics.

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 07-02-2006).]

The point being that he's not asking whether or not hell exists, but merely pointing out how illogical it is for god to be within (or actually be) a place which is absent from god!

In other words, he's pointed out the exact same logical inconsistency I have, which while you have admitted to it, you have yet to reconcile your beliefs with it save for basking in absurdity by doing away with logic all together.

Convinetly doing away with logic when you want to "prove" your statements, isn't a valid reply. If it is, I will redirect you to my initial reply, in which I tell you that you're wrong because god told me so - an equally illogical statement. You cannot expect to constraint someone who has been chosen as god's messenger with logic... It makes no sense! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The point being that he's not asking whether or not hell exists, but merely pointing out how illogical it is for god to be within (or actually be) a place which is absent from god!

Again this is a monistic "god".

The question does not arise with my use of the term "god", because if a place exists, it is a part of the sum of existence.

"Hell" only makes sense with reference to a monistic "god".



quote:Convinetly doing away with logic when you want to "prove" your statements, isn't a valid reply. If it is, I will redirect you to my initial reply, in which I tell you that you're wrong because god told me so - an equally illogical statement. You cannot expect to constraint someone who has been chosen as god's messenger with logic... It makes no sense! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Give me a logical rational explanation for why God has told you this which is as convincing as the logical rational explanation for the existence of an infinite number of parralel universes, and then your objection will have two legs to stand on.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Again this is a monistic "god".

The question does not arise with my use of the term "god", because if a place exists, it is a part of the sum of existence.

"Hell" only makes sense with reference to a monistic "god".

Which is why I said he was looking at this through a Christian perspective. However, the problem it exposes is the same. It still points out how the statements are illogical as they would require that something exist and not-exist at the same time (what he's referring to as an absence of god and presence of god in a Christian perspective).

quote: Give me a logical rational explanation for why God has told you this which is as convincing as the logical rational explanation for the existence of an infinite number of parralel universes, and then your objection will have two legs to stand on.

That's not how this works at all. Not only have you made the claim in the first place, but you're deliberately ignoring conclusion of your statements which would require that everything (not just god) both exist and not-exist at the same time (since these are 'things we can think of', or if you believe that's impossible, 'things that we can never imagine'); they would result in a total abandonment of logic. You've given absolutely no resolution to that problem save for implying that logic doesn't apply in that case, which is not a valid argument at all.

Either give a resolution to that problem, or my statement remains as logical as yours. Like I said, if you lack an impetus to use logic as a restraint in your arguments, then so does anyone else. If you're allowed to hold a blatantly contradictory statement as true, then I can use circular logic at will.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Either infinity is something that exists, or not. I don't mean this in the emptiness/existence sense earlier, I mean in simple terms.

If it does exist, then God, Satan, and so on MUST exist, not just in some other universes, but in an infinite amount of universes (just like there must be an infinite amount of universes identical to this one).

That means there are universes where "God" (in the Christian sense, or that of any other monistic representation) and Satan play the banjo in a titty bar, universes where Satan rocked up to Heaven and killed "God", universes where Satan crossed into another universe, etc and so on, in an endless set of permutations.

As for the existence of alternate universes, there's a very compelling case made for an infinite number of them made by a physicist called David Deutsch, arguing his case on quantum mechanical, evolutionary, computational and epistemological grounds. The book is called "The Fabric of Reality : The Science of Parallel Universes and Its Implications", here's the Amazon link:

http://tinyurl.com/lyx2h

I know nobody is going to rush out and buy it (although it's a fantastic read), so here is an academic article laying out some of the arguments for the existence of parallel universes:

http://www .hep.upenn .edu/~max/ multiverse.pdf (http: //www.hep. upenn.edu/ ~max/multi verse.pdf)



Why MUST they exist? Infinity is a concept, a function of the mind, it doesn't have material existence. It's like saying either love exists or it doesn't, and if it does, it means that every life form in existence MUST love every other life form in existence. How exactly do you know this?

He doesn't know.

Given an infinite amount of time, a random number generator will produce an infinite amount of numbers, arguably it could produce all the number in the number line. It however, will never produce a letter.

If it is impossible for Satan and Hell (or anything else for that matter) to exist in the first place, then not even an infinite amount of universes or an infinite amount of attempts, is going to result in Satan or Hell existing. He's assuming that it is not impossible, which he bases on absolutely nothing.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

your statements which would require that everything (not just god)

By saying "not just god" you demonstrated that you are not talking about my definition of "god".

There cannot be a notion of "everything" that does not include god.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

By saying "not just god" you demonstrated that you are not talking about my definition of "god".

There cannot be a notion of "everything" that does not include god.

It demonstrates that I don't accept it as a meaningful disctinction if it merely serves as a placeholder for the word "reality".

The point stills stands. It would require that my car both exist and not exist.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:



Why MUST they exist?

Frankly I've become more involved in this thread than I wanted to become. I have my own views on this subject that are similar but very different to Abrahim's. In fact I'm writing a book about it, whether it will ever be finished or not I don't know because I'm still exploring the question. But not only am I not ready to go into detail about my views more than I already have, the ideas aren't fully formed yet themselves, so I'll probably bow out at this point since the debate is focusing more on my views than Abrahim's.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It demonstrates that I don't accept it as a meaningful disctinction if it merely serves as a placeholder for the word "reality".

The point stills stands. It would require that my car both exist and not exist.

You win, congratulations.

Win what exactly? You've just wasted my time by making ridiculous allegations an then leaving before you back them up. That's not a win. You've successfully fucked me out of quite a few minutes of my immensely valuable life.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You've successfully fucked me out of quite a few minutes of my immensely valuable life.

Then I win. Awesome.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

This should be good. I've been working on a monster reply to Rust that I might was well just post here.

quote: Frankly I've become more involved in this thread than I wanted to become.

Look, Rust! Your time was not entirely wasted.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Had you bothered reading the whole thread, and not just the posts that masturbate your ego, you'd know why I said what I did.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Look, Rust! Your time was not entirely wasted.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)



Double K.O.!

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Look, Rust! Your time was not entirely wasted.

That's something else, the points that I made in the B&M thread were based on three subjects:

- the correspondence theory of truth

- the coherence theory of truth

- aspects of kantian metaphysics, specifically his theory of judgement

the response I mentioned earlier is still being written, I'm simply expanding my previous points in terms of their formal arguments. It's taking a little longer to write than your average post.

Edit: btw I'm studying philosophy in university, so this won't be a copy and paste

Edit2: I'm not fucking around, if I don't have the response up by this time next week I'll post my password in SG.

Rust is going to get an ass fucking.

He'd get one here, except that arguing the issue is exponentially more time consuming than the thread in B&M.

If I ever do get my book published, you'll be in the acknowledgements though Rust.



[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 07-03-2006).]

Thanks for taking over since I left, Rust. Everytime I saw imperfectcircle's response, I was about to post something, only to find you had said the same thing I planned to.

uhh High Five?

Rust eats poop.

quote:Originally posted by lollercoaster:

Rust eats poop.

God's poop

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

What about Satan and hell? If God is in everything, yet hell is a place with the complete absence of God, and Satan is the being with a complete absence of God, then something is amiss here...

I don't believe there is any place in any dimension that is absent of God, God is what everything is made of and exists within. Nothing can exist without God. Satan is completely dependant on God, so is Hell.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Christian perspective or not reality can't be god, because if evil exists and god can't be evil then god can't be reality.

I only say that because they could say well exists outside or reality.



All that is "Good" and All that is "Evil" and All that you Know, and What You do Not: Exists within God, is Made of God entirely, Can not exist without God, From God it is that you originated and all you send for, From God it will be that you return, and all you sent forth.



[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

I don't believe there is any place in any dimension that is absent of God, God is what everything is made of and exists within. Nothing can exist without God. Satan is completely dependant on God, so is Hell.



Yet if we can think of such a dimension, then it exists as part of reality according to your ludicrous definition. Hence, the logical contradiction.

quote:Originally posted by lollercoaster:

Rust eats poop.



You're not entertaining.

I say there is no such thing as No Thing, because clearly there are things, and if there ever was a time there was No Thing, there was still God, not some being, but the plain in which all things exist, including us.

The Universe exists within it and is dependant on it and the limitations which are part of this universe.

There could be an infinite number of alternate realities and universes and laws that are completely different than the laws of our universe, all are still within Ultimate Reality.

Ultimate Reality, stripped of everything within it and made of it, would be in the image of Nothing, nor would it have a form save "infinite" but it is not really pure "Nothing" if it was, it still would be nothing. Why? Why would it still be nothing? Because true nothing can't do anything, nor can allow anything to happen, nor can anything exist within it, there is no such thing as Nothing, the only thing that is and ever was and will be is Ultimate Reality, infintie Knowledge which allows for everything to exist, manifestor of all possibilities, but there is no possibility that exists without it, because it is what all things exist within, it is the Ultimate, It is the only thing worthy of being called God.

That's right, ignore the problems that have been presented, and ramble on with even more incoherent nonsense. Trolling at its finest.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I eat god's poop

I always knew you were a kinky one

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

That's right, ignore the problems that have been presented, and ramble on with even more incoherent nonsense. Trolling at its finest.

What problems? That if my God exists so too does my God not exist according to my definition? My God's definition isnt some being within and confined to reality but what all beings and realities are confined within.

That God and Nothing can't exist at the same time? Yeah, that's right, because there is no such thing as Nothing, there is only God.

What other problems have people presented or could present: How can hell exist of hell is the absence of God? Hell isn't the absence of God, there is no such thing as the absence of God.

Any other problems? God Can't be Reality because Reality is just a concept for the universe we exist within: What does the Universe exist within, where did the big bang occur? Within Reality, this Reality is within and made of and existing by and dependant on God, the Ultimate Reality of which all are within and nothing is without.

Any other problems presented other than the statements: Your theories are absurd, you're crazy, your theories are illogical, to accept what you are saying is to defy logic, etc.

I don't find that anything I say about the nature of God and Reality is absurd, illogical, or crazy.

I repeatedly state simple concepts which should be easy for most to grasp:

There is no God Greater than My God: Not a man or a woman or a being confined to an image within Reality: God is what all images are within, God is the Ultimate Reality the Originator. Go to the top top top top top top top of the hierarchy of all things and that is God, there is nothing higher or greater, all is within it, it is all there is.

There is no such thing as Nothing, if there was, there would be nothing.

No single Thing within Reality can be God, because if it exists, it is dependant on the True God in order to exist, that is Reality.

By the term Reality I don't mean perception or this Universe alone, but what it all exists within, what allows you to exist, think, what gives you all the possibilities you have available, what has all the possible things you could possibly think or do available.

Why must this be God? Because there is nothing greater than what I say is God.

Why must we worship it? You don't have to if you don't want to, but it would be better if you did.

Why? Peace through understanding and submission, following the path of the Tao, the eightfoldpath to Nirvana, the straight path, if you don't want it, you don't have to follow it, but following it would be best for you.

What is it? It is something that has been mentioned over and over in history.

The concept is not a new one, in fact it is very ancient found in some of the earliest religions and repeated around the World.

Any other bullet point issues you want to bring up? Feel free! I think I missed them again probably. Many of the issues people find with what I'm saying may be from a misunderstanding of the words I'm using.



[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-03-2006).]

So what is the problem?

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

What problems? That if my God exists so too does my God not exist according to my definition? My God's definition isnt some being within and confined to reality but what all beings and realities are confined within.

... which is another way of saying you have absolutely no answer to the problem, so instead you've repeated a bunch of non-sense.

The fact remains that if we take your absurd definition of reality as true, then we can imagine a set of circumstance (X) which contradict your theory as a whole and according to you, that set of circumstances, X, would exist in reality, effectively refuting all that you have just said.

Your definition of reality makes it so that god isn't reality; it makes it so that everything you've said is wrong. You haven't even begun to justify that, but instead, you keep making nonsensical replies that desperately avoid the issue at hand.

Reality is not God.

Reality is not an entity. Reality is not conscious. Reality does not create nor destroy. Reality does not love nor hate. Reality does not reward nor punish. Reality is not God.

Reality is simply All That Exists.Reality is not self-aware.Reality requires the presence of a sentient being to recognize it's existance. Merely because living beings exist within reality does not imply that reality is alive any more than a fish bowl would be alive because the fish within it are .

Reality is not aware, therefor it cannot be a God.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Reality is not God.

Reality is not an entity. Reality is not conscious. Reality does not create nor destroy. Reality does not love nor hate. Reality does not reward nor punish. Reality is not God.

Reality is simply All That Exists.Reality is not self-aware.Reality requires the presence of a sentient being to recognize it's existance. Merely because living beings exist within reality does not imply that reality is alive any more than a fish bowl would be alive because the fish within it are .

Reality is not aware, therefor it cannot be a God.

but yet that concept is quite central from an eastern perspective. you are looking at it from a western/monotheistic perspective so of course it doesn't make any sense.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Reality is not God.

Reality is not an entity. Reality is not conscious. Reality does not create nor destroy. Reality does not love nor hate. Reality does not reward nor punish. Reality is not God.

Reality is simply All That Exists.Reality is not self-aware.Reality requires the presence of a sentient being to recognize it's existance. Merely because living beings exist within reality does not imply that reality is alive any more than a fish bowl would be alive because the fish within it are .

Reality is not aware, therefor it cannot be a God.

This is why I copy paste:

I have a document that answers those statements.

Do you mind if I copy paste it here? I think its relevant to what you said!

It uses many of the words you used if you scroll down:

"God is The Reality, there is no God but this. People say they will believe when they see some large being come down from the sky? Yet any large being that may come down from the sky is within reality, made of reality, limited by reality, thus Reality remains the True and Ultimate God.

The Ultimate Reality is where we exist, where this universe is, essentially it is the only thing, that ever was or will be.

Nothing does not exist, what I mean to say as, True, Absolute Nothing, does not exist, as something (this) can not come from Nothing. Nothing always remains as Nothing, it has no capability to manifest.

On the other hand, Ultimate Reality has always existed, there is nothing beyond it, it is all there is and ever was, it is the manifestor of all possibilities, all realities, including this one.

It is "alive" if it were dead, inactive, then so too would we be non active, incapable, non existant, All things are in motion constantly.

God is The Reality, all things are part of the Reality, made up of the Reality, dependant on the Reality. You can call it anything, from God, Allah, The Tao, The Force, The Brahman, its one thing, all of the above were words to describe it but some ended up humanizing it. It is not a human, it has no form, it is infinite, it has no limits, it is the only power, the ultimate power.

Why would one deny evolution and the processes of this universe? They are made manifest and clear. But to deny Reality would be the mistake, and Reality is the only God, the Ultimate God. The sustainer of Worlds, the Supreme "King", The Provider of all things.

Prove to me Reality does not exist? You can't without blatant denial of yourself and all that is within and without you. Reality is God, the Only God. We are all within it, and Nothing is without it.

Originally posted by truckfixr:

I can agree with you up to a point. Reality exists. Beyond that, you are stretching things a bit.

Reality is not a sentient being, thus it honestly cannot qualify as being a God. You're calling it so is based on your opinion/belief. Not on emperical evidence.

I'm not saying it is sentient in the way we are sentient:

Here is the definition from www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)

sen·tient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snshnt, -sh-nt)

adj.

Having sense perception; conscious: “The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage” (T.E. Lawrence).

Experiencing sensation or feeling.

____________________________________________

Everything is made of Reality, including our feelings, and our ability to be sentient. Everything is within Reality, everything is in constant motion. Reality is not "dead" or else that would mean it would be nothing and not exist at all, nor would any thing manifest, exist, or manipulate, or even have a plain on which to exist, nor would or could anything manifest, appear or even move.

Reality is "Alive"

a·live ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lv)

adj.

Having life; living. See Synonyms at living.

In existence or operation; active: keep your hopes alive.

Full of living or moving things; abounding: a pool alive with trout.

Full of activity or animation; lively: a face alive with mischief.

Main Entry: alive

Pronunciation: &-'lIv

Function: adjective

: having life : not dead or inanimate

Clearly Reality is Animate, we and everything is proof of this.

Ultimate Reality is "Aware" of all things existing within it, the proof of this is in the manifestation of all the available possibilities for us and our ability to execute them, furthermore our personal Awareness being proof of "Reality posessing Awareness". Besides all that, if Reality were not "Aware" those things it is "Unaware" of would not exist.

Aware

adj 1: (sometimes followed by `of') having or showing realization

We and everything around us are the Realization of Reality.

re·al·i·za·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l-zshn)

n.

The act of realizing or the condition of being realized.

The result of realizing.

Manifestation:

man·i·fes·ta·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mn-f-stshn)

n.

The act of manifesting.

The state of being manifested.

An indication of the existence, reality, or presence of something: A high fever is an early manifestation of the disease.

man·i·fes·ta·tion (mn-f-stshn)

n.

An indication of the existence, reality, or presence of something...

Main Entry: man·i·fes·ta·tion

Pronunciation: "man-&-f&-'stA-sh&n, -"fes-

Function: noun

: a perceptible, outward, or visible expression

There is your "Creation" The Manifestation of this Reality which is within Ultimate Reality, which is the Manifestor. To call it the "Manifestor" is not innacurate as clearly, we are manifest and here to prove it.

The funny thing is "We are witnesses unto ourselves" what I mean to say is "we are the proof against ourselves" So is everything else!

So to Recap, We and All that is, ever will be, ever was, ever can or will be, in this or any other reality, belongs within Ultimate Reality. Ultimate Reality is what we are "Manifest" within. There is no Diety or God greater or mightier than this, and it is not a humanoid or anything of the sort, nor does it operate or think like us, it is infinite, the proof of its life is in the movement of all things, the proof of its awareness is in our being manifest. If it did not "know" we would be "dead" or inactive in it. know ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n)

v. knew, (n, ny) known, (nn) know·ing, knows

v. tr.

To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.

To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.

To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.

dead ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dd)

adj. dead·er, dead·est

No longer in existence, use, or operation.

We are the proof amazingly, yet we look everywhere for something that doesn't exist, when "God" is right infront of us, we are operating through it. We are sufficient proof of it. The Ultimate Reality, we are within it, it is without us, self sufficient, be it that we exist or not, it is ever living, before and after. Call it what satisfies you, it is one undeniable thing, to deny it is to Deny the Truth, Yourselves, The Reality which you exist within.

ex·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zst)

intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists

To have actual being; be real.

It is one God that has appeared throughout history, constantly mutated by the minds of men which belong to it completely, for their form to the possible thoughts they can possibly think. Even the most ancient hunter gatherer societies have this most ancient concept ingrained into their personal religions, even so, athiests deny it due to their definitions of God which they base of the corruptions of humans. God is and has always been "The Ultimate Reality" Never has "God" been a man in the sky, some being with a form, or anything possible within Ultimate Reality because it, itself is Ultimate Reality and all things are within it, not without it.

Its been called many things, though it is one thing, and so too are we, who all belong in it and exist only within it and because of it, are one with it, yet we deem ourselves self sufficient, we are completely dependant. We are under its controls by its limitations. It is beneficent in its gamut of options which it has bestowed us, to do what we wish, and all things having their cause and effect.

People claim that this world is IMPERFECT, do they see glitches? Does your computer screen suddenly dissapear forever with no explanation right before your eyes? The System is Perfect, This Reality is Perfect, Ultimate Reality is Perfect, if it is incapable of one thing it is Imperfection, as Imperfection is Nothing, it can not manifest.

All Religions are an attempt to explain this truth in a way people can understand. Many get close. Christianity tries in its own way but its humanizations mislead.

The first beliefs understood this, it was understood all was a part of Reality, then each part, to explain the phenomena was accounted a spirit of action, originally accepted as part of the One, but later misrepresented through alagory and explanation as its own part, and all beliefs have this core, as does human existence, since it is undeniable.

Each Religion from the most ancient to the new says it in their own Way and tries to make the message clear. It is one Message. There is only One Religion.

The only dispute and matter of "Faith" should be in an afterlife or ressurection.

But even so, that concept is there, once again reflecting ultimate Truth, that to everything there is a Cycle, even so to this universe, it expands and will collapse and restart. The Night and the Day and the Night and the Day. The land grows dry and dead and then rains bring out the life again. A million metaphors to represent the ultimate cycles within Reality.

Please read the above post if you havent!

Reality is obviously not aware in the way we are but Reality is aware, the fact that we exist being that awareness manifest. If not we would not exist, but true that to us sounds humanization, but I don't mean it that way AT ALL.

en·ti·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-t)

n. pl. en·ti·ties

Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.

The fact of existence; being.

The existence of something considered apart from its properties.

If anything, in that case, Reality would be the only Entity, what we all exist within, what only exists, what we are all made of. That would only be according to definition 2 of the word. In any case, everything is within and part of one thing, and that is Reality, it is infinite, essentially it is all there is.

in·fi·nite ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nf-nt)

adj.

Having no boundaries or limits.

Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.

Mathematics.

Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.

Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.

Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

I thought it was relevant since the word Manifestation was used, Creationists can simply say that the Bible uses metaphor to teach in the case of the story of our creation. Then they can take science as the fact, the story as the metaphor representing the science. I don't know why they would defend something untrue when they can just as easy take it as metaphor.

I'd LOVE to talk to you on an IM program! Which one do you use? I am MSN, AIM, and Yahoo. Which do you use? How can I add you?

Yeah I didn't understand what the phycedelics was reffering to:

did you mean:

psy·che·del·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sk-dlk)

adj.

Of, characterized by, or generating hallucinations, distortions of perception, altered states of awareness, and occasionally states resembling psychosis.

Hope to see you soon on one of the IM's I'll add you, or you could add me at abrahimesker@hotmail.com , abrahimesker , or abrahim_esker@yahoo.com

Originally posted by truckfixr:

We are aware. Reality is not.

Consider this. If all life in the universe were to cease to exist, any and all awareness would also cease to exist. Reality would remain. There would simply be no one to observe.

If we are Aware, Reality "posesses" Awareness. If it did not, we would not be Aware. Its language trickery maybe, but its literal too.

You are right about the second part, Reality would remain.

Most of what happened yesterday is unknown and unremembered, unverifiable, unproveable.

Were we created?

Were we manifested?

Were we molded by evolution?

Why can't people understand whatever the case, they are all the same, and the proof is that we are here.

We are manifestations, manifested within Reality and this Universe, and molded/created by evolution, a process which was originally manifested as a possibility within Reality and this Universe. The argument goes into semantics, language, and philosophy. There is only One God worthy of Worship, Understanding, Submission. There is no Being within this Universe or outside it worthy of worship save the one thing.

The one thing has been described in a billion ways over history by different people, and it is always an attempt to explain the one thing which EVERYONE knows willingly or unwillingly. There is no Elephant, Bearded man, Spirit Being, or any other explanation of the One thing.

The One Thing is not seperate from anything, or any of us, we are within it, a part of it, manifested by it, within it, and are completely dependant on it.

Some call it "What is Real" some give it other images and forms, thus limiting it in peoples minds and ruining the original concept.

Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, they all talk about the one thing and describe it in various fashions. Even Zoroastrianism, even Athiests can't deny the One Thing, they all call it by different names, it has no name save a name we give it.

Even the oldest religions, the most ancient hunter gatherer beliefs try to describe this one thing and mention it in their various fashions.

I call it "Reality" what encompasses all of us, objective, subjective.

Hindu's call it brahma (nominative singular), brahman (stem) (neuter[1] gender) means the concept of the Supreme transcendent and immanent Reality or the One Godhead or Cosmic Spirit in Hinduism; this is discussed below.

The Vedas depict Brahman as the Ultimate Reality, the Absolute or Universal Soul (Paramātman) [6]. It is the ultimate principle who is without a beginning, without an end, who is hidden in all and who is the cause, source, material and effect of all creation known, unknown and yet to happen in the entire universe.

Bhuddists include this belief as well as other religions that have sprung from Hinduism.

"Ishvara (ईश्वर in devanagari script, pronunciation /ī:sh vərə/), also variously transliterated (romanized) as Īshvara, Īshwara, Īshwar, Īśvara, etc. (Sanskrit: "the Supreme Lord, and hence the Cosmic Controller") is a Hindu philosophical concept of God meaning that entity or the Supreme Being which is the lord and the ruler of everything. It is also used in Buddhism to mean 'lord' or 'master', eg, Avalokiteshvara."

The same goes for "The Tao" in Taoism.

The same with "Allah" in Islam, it is a description of Ultimate Reality.

Everyone from the beginning of our attempts to explain things, have been attempting to explain one thing, which we exist within, interact with, are controlled by, has an infinite potential of aspects (manifestations) but is One, call it what you want, Reality, Tao, The Brahman, Allah, God. It is one thing, and it is One. Nothing is outside of Reality, it is infinite and all encompassing, the most powerful thing. No big man in the sky, beast, or alien creature is worthy of Worship, the most powerful thing is this Reality. It is one Religion, it has always been one Religion, people have tried to describe one thing over and over and people tend to misunderstand it over and over again: They seek what can only exist within their minds, and EVEN THAT is within the bounds of the One Reality, The Ultimate Reality.

"Pantheism (Greek: pan = all and Theos = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God

Debate

Some critics argue that pantheism is little more than a redefinition of the word "God" to mean "existence", "life" or "reality". Many pantheists reply that even if this is so, such a shift in the way we think about these ideas can serve to create both a new and a potentially far more insightful conception of both existence and God."

This forum is for religious debate, it has a name that is very cute: My God can beat the Shit out of Your God, while both are attempts to describe one singular thing.

The other point people can debate on is the afterlife, something which no one has proof or knowledge about or for, what we know is now, and we should use it to the best of our advantage.

Understand: New and Old, attempts have been repeatedly made to describe one thing, there is nothing else we know but Reality, it was what we live in and are made of and are completely dependant on.

The Qur'an says it, Hinduism says it at its core, and Taoism said it too.

It has no name so call it what you want, it is one thing and it is undeniable.

There is no Diety or God but the Reality we exist within. There is no man sitting in the sky waiting for you, there is no man who is God, there is One Ultimate Reality, all that is within it is a part of it equally.

You are all manifestations within Ultimate Reality, this is obvious because here we are, debating what is obvious.

Nothing can threaten the True Religion, and it is one, and nothing can destroy it either because it is True. You can attempt to deny the undeniable, but it is futile because even to deny it you utilize it to do so and are completely dependant. The best you can do for yourself is to humble yourself to it, submit to it, attempt to become one with it, at peace with it, do right: Islam, Taoism, Hinduism, Bhuddism all suggest the same thing. Judaism and Christianity also attempt to describe the path of becoming at peace with Reality.

Do what you know is right, and good for you, good for others, you know it, I know it, we may do it differently. What is wrong is bad for us and others, what is right is good for us, and good for others. Use common sense.

Being human and living in Reality is an automatic religion, you breath, you walk, you talk, you fight, you write, you laugh you cry, you argue about one thing with different names.

All Polytheistic Religions from the past were originally an attempt to describe what is known, and what is unknown. To describe Reality which is one, they gave it aspects, which became known as spirits or Gods, which controlled each aspect, but are all part of the "Creator" or "King" or the "Master" God which is Reality, and all were manifestations of it.

The One Truth, Reality exists, internal or external, we are all here and manifested by it, dependant on it completely.

Why call it God? Because thats the only thing worthy of submission, the strongest ultimate factor in your life, there is no Man or Being so why would you believe in such a thing or even consider for a moment that some THING can be God when God encompasses ALL Things, all THINGS dependant on God.

If it can "appear" in a singular form in reality, it is NOT God, but a part of God as much as a doorknob or a molecule or a thought.

How much more apparent do you want it? But you act deaf and blind and without senses when you have your senses, you can't see it? Can't you hear it? Won't you understand?

"No, that's not God" they say "God is not Reality it is just an idea people created to feel good" Really? Reality was created by human thought? If you stripped the entire universe and all that is within it, there would be nothing, nothing but Reality, which is what we exist within, it is in the image of nothing if you strip it of all that it is within, but it is not nothing, it is the Manifestor of Worlds.

Nothing can only do nothing, if there was ever pure nothing, so too would there now be absolute nothing. Nothing has no capacity to hold anything, have anything manifest, or basically do anything.

Is Reality Dead? Inanimate? Senseless? Can you not see how what is within it is in constant animation every moment, that if it was dead it would not exist and so too would nothing exist? It has no sense? Are you senseless? You're the proof against yourselves, it is the posessor of "Sense".

Every thought you can possibly think is possible because of it held within it, manifested by it, you utilize it and are dependant on it every moment of your life. But someone told you a man who was a baby is God? So you fight it, and rightly so, but then you're so stuck on the idea that you blind yourself to the Reality, to the Real God, the Original, and the Originator.

Its so easy and so obvious and so clear. There is no God but the God I am telling you about, and there is nothing greater than it, it is what you should submit to, the submission will bring inner peace.

Its easy to say there is no God when you've invented some idol to break. When you say it to me its like you're speaking something completely absurd, like saying "We exist in Nothing, and Nothing only Exists" A Lie. Prove it? You are the proof, I am the proof, Everything is the Proof.

There was no Being molding things like a man, nor is God in your image, but you are images within God.

Science and Religious Truth has NO CONFLICT save those who lie and make conflict. To deny what is Real to Defend a False Idol, Christianity has really made an error, and so to have the other religions eventually when at their core their message should be essentially be the same.

From the most ancient hunter gatherer religions and polytheistic religions the idea is one idea which becomes mutated by people. "There is Reality, It has Many Aspects, It is where we come from, All things are dependant on it but it is self sufficient" Then from the One True God does it slowly evolve, each aspect is named, then metaphorically described to help people understand in a humanistic way and soon a whole pantheon of Gods develop from the One, Hinduism still has this history of how its religion evolved and that its root is monotheistic and its God is Reality.

People did not Develop the original idea of God, it was an understanding of what is Real and True which later in explanation transformed into something very misleading and false.

God makes the rain fall, no the weather does, All in the same.

God makes the universe expand, no thats just an effect due to certain aspects of the universe, All in the same.

Exchange the word God for Reality as it should be, it is one word.

But how can God be Omnipotent?

om·nip·o·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-np-tnt)

adj.

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at

Reality is. You are completely dependant on it, as is everything in this universe and all possible universes.

But how can God be omniscient?

om·nis·cient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nshnt)

adj.

Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

And of Knowledge, All things are Made. Information, Mathematics, What Knows everything other than what Everything is within and made of?

This is God, You are the Witness, You are the Proof, You are the one that testifies.



[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

but yet that concept is quite central from an eastern perspective. you are looking at it from a western/monotheistic perspective so of course it doesn't make any sense.



No, I'm looking at it from a logical standpoint.

Until such time as emperical evidence is presented to indicate that reality is self-aware, there is no reason to assign to it such qualities.

Abrahim, the concept of god=reality is interesting(mildly). The problem is that you provide nothing more to support your assertions than Christianity, or any other religion does. Why should I accept your perception of reality over over my own? You have repeated the same rant over and again, without providing any evidence that your assertions are any more valid than any made by other religions.

It is irrelevant that the concept is not a new one. Being an old concept does not give it merit. The earth being the center of the universe is an old concept. Old and wrong.

What real evidence can you provide to show that you are correct and every other religion is wrong? Quotes from a holy text are not proof , by the way.

god, religion, and really any kind of spiritualism is not within the realm of science.

except that we have isolated specific regions of the brain that coorelate with religious experiences and can reproduce them with specialized equipment.

so stop asking for physical proof of god, it is not possible. everybody knows this.

religion is something generally outside of the realm of science and logic. so just because you can not prove a certain point of view is 99% likely to be true, does not invalidate or nullify other peoples religious or spiritual experiences. just because we can categorize and label religious experiences does not make them without value either.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

No, I'm looking at it from a logical standpoint.

Until such time as emperical evidence is presented to indicate that reality is self-aware, there is no reason to assign to it such qualities.

Abrahim, the concept of god=reality is interesting(mildly). The problem is that you provide nothing more to support your assertions than Christianity, or any other religion does. Why should I accept your perception of reality over over my own? You have repeated the same rant over and again, without providing any evidence that your assertions are any more valid than any made by other religions.

It is irrelevant that the concept is not a new one. Being an old concept does not give it merit. The earth being the center of the universe is an old concept. Old and wrong.

What real evidence can you provide to show that you are correct and every other religion is wrong? Quotes from a holy text are not proof , by the way.



The reason my statements are true is because I am stating that whatever is and should be "God" can not be limited to a form and many other repeated things I have stated which is why Christianity and other religions which believe in form Gods are wrong and I am right. This is an opinion though, as you can call a dollar God, or anything else, but it is not the Supreme and One True God worthy of Worship which all is within. Then I explain what All is within.

I said Reality Posesses Awareness, if it didn't, you wouldn't be able to be aware.

What knows everything? What can possibly know everything? Really know it, completely...

Only what Everything is Within and Made of Entirely and Existing By can Know absolutely Everything.

You want proof? You're the proof. You're not satisfied with that? Then Logic is the proof: That something can not happen by for or within Nothing, and Nothing remains Nothing always. Think about it for a while, how can anything happen within nothing? Nothing only has the capacity to hold nothing. So I am saying Go beyond that, What was there when there was nothing? What is still here? What can not be destroyed? What was before you and will be after you? Reality. The Reality which allowed the big bang to occur and which the universe is made of and exists within. What is that Reality in if there are other possible Realities? Ultimate Reality, what all is within and nothing is without, that is the ultimate thing, there is nothing Greater, that is the only thing worthy of being God, what all your inventions and invented Gods are dependant on and existing by and within.

Not good enough? You still want proof? The proof is everywhere, but how can you see with your eyes closed? Plug your ears? When you block your mind?

What proof do you want? You want me to show you God? I'm showing it to you, and you're seeing it, everywhere all the time, sleeping and waking, in constant relation and experience utilizing God. But that's not God right? You would rather I prove to you an idol that is not worthy of worship?

Originally posted by kenwith:

quote:god, religion, and really any kind of spiritualism is not within the realm of science.

except that we have isolated specific regions of the brain that coorelate with religious experiences and can reproduce them with specialized equipment.

so stop asking for physical proof of god, it is not possible. everybody knows this.



Electrochemical reactions within the brain do not equate to evidence of the supernatural. Also, where exactly did I ask for physical proof of a god?

quote:religion is something generally outside of the realm of science and logic. so just because you can not prove a certain point of view is 99% likely to be true, does not invalidate or nullify other peoples religious or spiritual experiences. just because we can categorize and label religious experiences does not make them without value either.



The problem with religion is that you cannot prove it to be even 1% true, much less 99%. Religion is based on faith, which requires the abandonment of logic and reason. Having faith in that which defies logic and reason is foolish, to say the least. Logic and reason are the only tools you have available to determine what is truth.

Originally posted by Abrahim:

quote:The reason my statements are true is because I am stating that whatever is and should be "God" can not be limited to a form and many other repeated things I have stated which is why Christianity and other religions which believe in form Gods are wrong and I am right. This is an opinion though, as you can call a dollar God, or anything else, but it is not the Supreme and One True God worthy of Worship which all is within. Then I explain what All is within.



This is in no way evidence that you are correct and that others are wrong. All you provided was your opinion of what constitutes a god.



quote:I said Reality Posesses Awareness, if it didn't, you wouldn't be able to be aware.

What knows everything? What can possibly know everything? Really know it, completely...

Only what Everything is Within and Made of Entirely and Existing By can Know absolutely Everything.



Reality does not possess awareness. Awareness is possessed by sentient beings. Sentient beings existing within reality do not make reality aware any more than fish in a bowl make the bowl alive.

Nothing or no one knows everything. Knowledge is possessed by individuals. Each having their own portion .Reality does not know anything, as it is not a sentient being.



quote:You want proof? You're the proof. You're not satisfied with that? Then Logic is the proof: That something can not happen by for or within Nothing, and Nothing remains Nothing always. Think about it for a while, how can anything happen within nothing? Nothing only has the capacity to hold nothing. So I am saying Go beyond that, What was there when there was nothing? What is still here? What can not be destroyed? What was before you and will be after you? Reality. The Reality which allowed the big bang to occur and which the universe is made of and exists within. What is that Reality in if there are other possible Realities? Ultimate Reality, what all is within and nothing is without, that is the ultimate thing, there is nothing Greater, that is the only thing worthy of being God, what all your inventions and invented Gods are dependant on and existing by and within.



Reality does not allow anything to happen. The fact that things happen is reality. Reality is not an entity, therefore is not something worthy of worship. What is the point of submitting to and worshipping that which cannot be aware of your worship?



quote:Not good enough? You still want proof? The proof is everywhere, but how can you see with your eyes closed? Plug your ears? When you block your mind?

Your interpretation of your environment is in no way proof. Your assertions of reality = god is based on emotion. Not reason. Your argument is not sound.



quote:What proof do you want? You want me to show you God? I'm showing it to you, and you're seeing it, everywhere all the time, sleeping and waking, in constant relation and experience utilizing God. But that's not God right? You would rather I prove to you an idol that is not worthy of worship?



Sorry, but you have failed miserably in your effort to deify reality. Unless you can show evidence that reality (not beings within reality) is self-aware, your argument is worthless.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:



except that we have isolated specific regions of the brain that coorelate with religious experiences



When I've taken mushrooms/LSD/any hallucinogen there have been reactions in isolated specific regions my brain, but that doesn't make the hallucinations and images I see real.

Just a thought.

fun fact: the big band was not big and it was not a bang

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Originally posted by kenwith:



Sorry, but you have failed miserably in your effort to deify reality. Unless you can show evidence that reality (not beings within reality) is self-aware, your argument is worthless.

I think you completely misunderstood the statement: "What can know everything save everything itself" "What can be everywhere that is not everywhere?" "What can truly, completely, know something, understand it, encompass it better than anything save what it is, exists within, is made of entirely"

These are basic concepts for your understanding.

There is no being or sentient entity within Reality worthy of Worship or Submission. There is nothing greater than what I call God.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

...There is no being or sentient entity within Reality worthy of Worship or Submission.

At last. Something that we can agree on!

quote: There is nothing greater than what I call God.

What you call God is not a sentient entity. This negates the possibility of it being God. Therefore it is unworthy of worship or submission.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Electrochemical reactions within the brain do not equate to evidence of the supernatural. Also, where exactly did I ask for physical proof of a god?



"physical proof" by which i meant scientific or emperical data in laymans terms. sorry if that was unclear.

i am not trying to argue one side or the other. i am just saying that we all know there is no proof of god and spirituality. the only evidence we can draw on are our own experiences, which could be dismissed as hallucinations, delusions, and insanity if we desire.

my point wasn't that brain activity proves there is a god, i was just pointing out that cat scans and epilectics are about as close as science can come at this time to understanding the religious experiences.

quote:

The problem with religion is that you cannot prove it to be even 1% true, much less 99%. Religion is based on faith, which requires the abandonment of logic and reason. Having faith in that which defies logic and reason is foolish, to say the least. Logic and reason are the only tools you have available to determine what is truth.

faith is very important to religion.

however, you can not deny that people do have certain experiences that they interprete in certain ways. just because you have not had such experiences, presumably because you have not sought them through meditation, does not mean others do not have them.

most spiritual experiences, in any case, are self-validating. you can go into it just like a science experiment. "well, i don't know about these religious nutjobs, but i want to see if there is something to it after all. let's see, this guy says that if i learn to meditate i will start to have some crazy shit happen. i guess i'll try it in the interest of science and see what happens..."

if you don't seek, you will never find.



fyi, i'm an athiest.

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

When I've taken mushrooms/LSD/any hallucinogen there have been reactions in isolated specific regions my brain, but that doesn't make the hallucinations and images I see real.

Just a thought.



my point wasn't that it proves there is a god, only that it is as close as science can come to analyzing religious experiences at this time. sorry i can see how that was unclear.

besides, drugs are not analogous to religious experiences. except mabye dmt, but i've never done that so i don't have enough data to make a judgement on that.



[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 07-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

"What can know everything save everything itself"

"What can be everywhere that is not everywhere?"

"What can truly, completely, know something, understand it, encompass it better than anything save what it is, exists within, is made of entirely"

These are basic concepts for your understanding.



If by basic concepts you mean complete nonsense. I'm trying not to look to deep into those quotes, so forgive me for not "understanding" them...

quote:There is no being or sentient entity within Reality worthy of Worship or Submission. There is nothing greater than what I call God.



Are you saying that what you call "God" isn't worthy of worship? Or are you saying that because God is not sentient, then we should submit to it.

What does your God DO?

ANYTHING? What does it want from us?

That's one huge part I haven't seen you explain about your "God"

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

What you call God is not a sentient entity. This negates the possibility of it being God. Therefore it is unworthy of worship or submission.



Why is a non sentient not worthy of worship?

sen·tient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snshnt, -sh-nt)

adj.

Having sense perception; conscious: “The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage” (T.E. Lawrence).

Experiencing sensation or feeling.

con·scious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knshs)

adj.

Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.

Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.

Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.

Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.

Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly.

I believe that if God were not conscious, nothing would exist or be able to happen, because God is what we exist within and what we utilize and operate by, if it were not Awake or On, then there would be nothing, nothing would move, nothing would happen, nothing would exist.

It is the ultimate Sentient, the only Sentient in that it, having all within it and made of it, is the only thing that can claim to know, experience, and feel everything, if you want to humanize it to that degree.

You are saying that it may be Alive but it is not Aware of itself:

I'm saying that it is completely aware of everything, not as a limited form through the looking glass, but in that it exists, is alive, and that everything is in motion and operating perfectly, the All Aware. A Synonym to Aware is Awake.

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

Are you saying that what you call "God" isn't worthy of worship? Or are you saying that because God is not sentient, then we should submit to it.

What does your God DO?

ANYTHING? What does it want from us?

That's one huge part I haven't seen you explain about your "God"



My God does absolutely everything, and it is to my God you are completely indebted for every thought you can possibly think, every action you can possibly perform, your freedom and your limitations, your existance and your life in every aspect.

My God has no need for you, nor is it dependant on you. My God is self sufficient, nothing can harm it or impede it, nothing can benefit it. My God doesn't need you, you need it.

You Submit to my God: Willingly or Unwillingly. You should come to terms with it and submit willingly, with understanding, perhaps you will find peace, perhaps there will be benefit in it for you.

To my God, you are nothing more than a tree or an ant or any other creation, you are made of the same stuff, but how you walk the Earth with arrogance, full of pride.

It would be best for you to be thankful to My God, Submit to my God, let it come over you, the Ultimate and Most Powerful, Destroy your False idols, they can do nothing to harm or benefit you, my God is the one in which the control of all things rests.

Send forth what is good and have it come back on you, advice and a warning, submit to my God, it is the only God.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

My God does absolutely everything, and it is to my God you are completely indebted for every thought you can possibly think, every action you can possibly perform, your freedom and your limitations, your existance and your life in every aspect.

My God has no need for you, nor is it dependant on you. My God is self sufficient, nothing can harm it or impede it, nothing can benefit it. My God doesn't need you, you need it.

You Submit to my God: Willingly or Unwillingly. You should come to terms with it and submit willingly, with understanding, perhaps you will find peace, perhaps there will be benefit in it for you.

To my God, you are nothing more than a tree or an ant or any other creation, you are made of the same stuff, but how you walk the Earth with arrogance, full of pride.

It would be best for you to be thankful to My God, Submit to my God, let it come over you, the Ultimate and Most Powerful, Destroy your False idols, they can do nothing to harm or benefit you, my God is the one in which the control of all things rests.

Send forth what is good and have it come back on you, advice and a warning, submit to my God, it is the only God.





Weak. I find your "god" incredibly heartless. At least stop using the word "God." You are absolutely butchering the accepted definition of the word.

You say that your "god" has no need for us and doesn't care about us. You say that nothing can harm it or impede it, yet we need to submit to it, for what reason? Since we are nothing to him, and obviously have no effect on him, would he notice that we weren't "accepting" him? This is all assuming, on your behalf, that he is self-aware, which many of us have pointed out, that it is an impossible/illogical quality of a non-living idea...and more.

Quit copy pasting things, quit saying the same thing over and over again, and quit trying to explain your god without logic or at least rationality. Actually take in what others are saying, as we have already pointed out several reasons why your "religion" not only is illogical/impossible, but contradicting, and finally, useless.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Why is a non sentient not worthy of worship?

Is a rock worthy of worship? It is rediculous to worship or submit to anything non-living and non-sentient.

quote:Blah,blah blah...[b]

quote:[b] More ranting nonsense...

quote:You are saying that it may be Alive but it is not Aware of itself:

No.That is not what I am saying at all. Please pay attention. It's really not difficult to comprehend:

Reality is not a living being. It cannot be self aware because it is not alive.

Merely bacause living beings exist in reality does not mean that reality is alive, or possesses life. Like I've said before, the fish bowl is not alive just because the fish within it are alive.

Anything inanimate,non-living,and non self-aware does not fit the critera as to what constitutes a god.



quote:I'm saying that it is completely aware of everything, not as a limited form through the looking glass, but in that it exists, is alive, and that everything is in motion and operating perfectly, the All Aware. A Synonym to Aware is Awake.

Think again of the fish in the bowl.

Containing life and motion does not give the attributes of life to the container, and at the basest level, reality is simply that- a container. It's not a god.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

My God does absolutely everything, and it is to my God you are completely indebted for every thought you can possibly think, every action you can possibly perform, your freedom and your limitations, your existance and your life in every aspect.

My God has no need for you, nor is it dependant on you. My God is self sufficient, nothing can harm it or impede it, nothing can benefit it. My God doesn't need you, you need it.

You Submit to my God: Willingly or Unwillingly. You should come to terms with it and submit willingly, with understanding, perhaps you will find peace, perhaps there will be benefit in it for you.

To my God, you are nothing more than a tree or an ant or any other creation, you are made of the same stuff, but how you walk the Earth with arrogance, full of pride.

It would be best for you to be thankful to My God, Submit to my God, let it come over you, the Ultimate and Most Powerful, Destroy your False idols, they can do nothing to harm or benefit you, my God is the one in which the control of all things rests.

Send forth what is good and have it come back on you, advice and a warning, submit to my God, it is the only God.



More unsubstantiated lunatic ranting.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Think again of the fish in the bowl.

Containing life and motion does not give the attributes of life to the container, and at the basest level, reality is simply that- a container. It's not a god.



Reality isn't a bowl: If it were the opposite of alive, it would be dead, if it were dead, not a thing would exist.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Reality isn't a bowl: If it were the opposite of alive, it would be dead, if it were dead, not a thing would exist.



the opposite of living is technically non-living

dead implies previous life...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

the opposite of living is technically non-living

dead implies previous life...

It is ever living, it can not die.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

It is ever living, it can not die.

No, I wasn't talking about your god-thing, I was simply backing up trukfixr's fishbowl analogy. And disproving your reply to that as well

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

No, I wasn't talking about your god-thing, I was simply backing up trukfixr's fishbowl analogy. And disproving your reply to that as well

Why are you against my superior God?

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Why are you against my superior God?

You have yet to prove to anyone WHY he is superior, first off. You also have yet do DISprove the huge contradictions and just plain nonsense dealing with what you have named "god."

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Reality isn't a bowl: If it were the opposite of alive, it would be dead, if it were dead, not a thing would exist.



Sorry man, but you blew it again.

There is an immeasurable amount of non-living matter which exists within reality. If all life were to cease to exist, the non-living matter would still remain. It would not cease to exist. The motion would continue. Stars would continue to form and time would continue to pass.Rivers would continue to flow and the sun would continue to shine. There would simply be no one present to observe it.

Life is not necessary for things to be real.

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

You have yet to prove to anyone WHY he is superior, first off. You also have yet do DISprove the huge contradictions and just plain nonsense dealing with what you have named "god."

Could you repeat in bullet point form what the huge contradictions are?

My God is not a being within Reality, but what all Realities are within, and made of, and existing by. Any being constrained to a form within Reality, and not Consisting of Reality is limited, not everywhere, not worthy of worship.

My God is the Ultimate God, there is no greater God, it is what all imaginary Gods that you can possibly think of exist within and by, it is what allows you to think walk and breath, it is the most powerful and it has no partners. There is nothing greater than my God.

Okie dokie. I see a peaceful solution for all this.

From now on, Abrahim and his followers call their reality god "Reality" with the capital R, and the leftovers call it God if they refer to the Christian god, Allah of the muslim, and each accordingly.

I personally think Abrahim was wiping his ass one day and pulled a steel chain out of his ass. Very miraclish.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

...There is nothing greater than my God.

Nothing except your lack of reasoning ability.

quote:Originally posted by Navicalist:

Okie dokie. I see a peaceful solution for all this.

From now on, Abrahim and his followers call their reality god "Reality" with the capital R, and the leftovers call it God if they refer to the Christian god, Allah of the muslim, and each accordingly.

I personally think Abrahim was wiping his ass one day and pulled a steel chain out of his ass. Very miraclish.

Allah is my God, Ahuramazda, The Brahman, The Tao, God, there is no God but this.

022.006

This is so, because Allah is the Reality: it is He Who gives life to the dead, and it is He Who has power over all things.

Some people have reffered to my concept of God as somewhat alien also stating "That is not God" "You are redefining God"

as if they have some predefined concept of God that God must fit into.

My Personal Concept of God comes from the Qur'an. God is Reality. God is Encompassing Everything. Surrounding Everything.

022.006

This is so, because Allah is the Reality: it is He Who gives life to the dead, and it is He Who has power over all things.

022.062

That is because Allah - He is the Reality; and those besides Him whom they invoke,- they are but vain Falsehood: verily Allah is He, Most High, Most Great.

023.116

Therefore exalted be Allah, the King, the Reality: there is no god but He, the Lord of the Throne of Honour!

031.030

That is because Allah is the (only) Reality, and because whatever else they invoke besides Him is Falsehood; and because Allah,- He is the Most High, Most Great.

069.001

The Reality!

069.002

What is the Reality?

069.003

Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Reality is?

003.120

If aught that is good befalls you, it grieves them; but if some misfortune overtakes you, they rejoice at it. But if ye are constant and do right, not the least harm will their cunning do to you; for Allah Compasseth round about all that they do.

008.047

Be not as those who came forth from their dwellings boastfully and to be seen of men, and debar (men) from the way of Allah, while Allah is surrounding all they do.

041.054

How! Are they still in doubt about the meeting with their Lord? Lo! Is not He surrounding all things?

004.126

But to Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth: And He it is that Encompasseth all things.

005.054

O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things.

011.092

He said: "O my people! is then my family of more consideration with you than Allah? For ye cast Him away behind your backs (with contempt). But verily my Lord encompasseth on all sides all that ye do!

017.060

Behold! We told thee that thy Lord doth encompass mankind round about: We granted the vision which We showed thee, but as a trial for men,- as also the Cursed Tree (mentioned) in the Qur'an: We put terror (and warning) into them, but it only increases their inordinate transgression!

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Nothing except your lack of reasoning ability.

Why is it unreasonable to say what I am saying?

Ok , so now we are down to *My holy book can beat the shit out of your holy book*.



Religious texts are not evidence in support of your claims.

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

I've told you this several times, but not thoroughly enough I guess, seeing the thread in B&M.

You cannot believe that God is reality, and call yourself a Christian/Catholic. Simply because, as Catholics, we believe that God created our reality, and most believe that that was the "Big Bang."

Now, a LOT of evidence goes toward the Big Bang theory, so much as it is almost fact in many minds, and I'm guesssing yours as well. Now being that God is an infinite being, as we Catholics believe, stating that God is reality, or just the clash of Catholicism and Pantheism is flawed. For there was a time when there was nothing but God. Yet if God was reality, then there would have been no God, thus rendering him non-infinite. Infinity has no beginning or end, but we believe reality does have both....

Please, reconsider all that you believe about God=reality.

My dear potentgirt,

i 've knowen abrahim for a long time,and i all ways read his thread and in all of the topics he made he never said he was a Christian or a Catholic so before you start to talk make sure you know what are you talking about because as far as i know abrahim is a fine moslem.

P.S:a Christian/Catholic dont belive in the bing bang theroy



G - man

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Ok , so now we are down to *My holy book can beat the shit out of your holy book*.



Religious texts are not evidence in support of your claims.

nor rationality behind your (Abrahim) rambling.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Ok , so now we are down to *My holy book can beat the shit out of your holy book*.



Religious texts are not evidence in support of your claims.

Navicalist should understand the book in which Allah is mentioned says the same thing I am saying.



[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-04-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Why is it unreasonable to say what I am saying?

The answer to this question has been presented to you in all of the posts in this thread. Go back and reread them. I, unlike you, have little desire to flood this thread with repetitive copy/paste responses .

quote:Originally posted by KING G:

My dear potentgirt,

i 've knowen abrahim for a long time,and i all ways read his thread and in all of the topics he made he never said he was a Christian or a Catholic so before you start to talk make sure you know what are you talking about because as far as i know abrahim is a fine moslem.

P.S:a Christian/Catholic dont belive in the bing bang theroy



G - man

I've known Abrahim for awhile now too, and I recall him first introducing himself and debating on the part of a Catholic. I was just wondering about that part.

P.S. You are an idiot, we DO believe in the Big Bang because it supports our theory that life began at creation. God was behind the Big Bang. That is where we tend to differ from science

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

The answer to this question has been presented to you in all of the posts in this thread. Go back and reread them. I, unlike you, have little desire to flood this thread with repetitive copy/paste responses .

I second this. Abrahim, You seem to glance over OUR posts, and not answer them, yet you copy paste massive stories that we most likely have NO interest in reading/don't answer our question/have nothing to do with the question presented.

edit: and you expect us to read them^

[This message has been edited by potentgirt (edited 07-04-2006).]

to understand the consciousness of a rock...

It's easier to side step the issue at hand when you shotgun information. One must sift through the irrelevant and the nonsense to find whether any valid argument is included.

This has been fun, but us old guys require at least a little sleep. I'm done for tonight.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

017.060

Behold! We told thee that thy Lord doth encompass mankind round about: We granted the vision which We showed thee, but as a trial for men,- as also the Cursed Tree (mentioned) in the Qur'an: We put terror (and warning) into them, but it only increases their inordinate transgression!



So .. Allah sets up trials for men, "puts terror (and warning) into them",

........

"but it only increases their inordinate transgression!"

Your God seems to be a little unsuccessful in the application of omnipotence.

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:



Weak. I find your "god" incredibly heartless. At least stop using the word "God." You are absolutely butchering the accepted definition of the word.

You say that your "god" has no need for us and doesn't care about us. You say that nothing can harm it or impede it, yet we need to submit to it, for what reason? Since we are nothing to him, and obviously have no effect on him, would he notice that we weren't "accepting" him? This is all assuming, on your behalf, that he is self-aware, which many of us have pointed out, that it is an impossible/illogical quality of a non-living idea...and more.

Quit copy pasting things, quit saying the same thing over and over again, and quit trying to explain your god without logic or at least rationality. Actually take in what others are saying, as we have already pointed out several reasons why your "religion" not only is illogical/impossible, but contradicting, and finally, useless.

Why? Can your God be harmed? Can you benefit your God? What kind of God is that? Using its creation as Crutches? My God doesn't need you, but you need it, it is best for you to submit, why is it best for you? Because it is beneficial to come to a proper understanding, to find peace and become one, just as suggested in Chinese Philosophy, becoming one with the Tao, or in Islam, Submitting to God, or in Bhuddism, following the eightfold path to Nirvana...Why? Because its good, its best for you, it will help you.

Do you believe in a God that needs you? That is dependant on you? What needs is not worthy of worship, it is a thing dependant. My God is Self Sufficient, You are not. You are completely dependant on my God waking and sleeping.

My God is not Dead, if it were Dead, so would there not be a single thing in motion or existing.

If My God were not Aware, there would not be a motion made in the entire universe, nor would a single thing manifest.

Is the Bowl with the fish in it what manifested the fish? No. Nothing can create or manifest save my God. My God is the originator of Everything subjective and objective. Every thought you can possibly think, every action that can possibly occur, is possible only because the possibility was manifested and is available within this Reality, This Universe, which is within my God, the Supreme, the Infinite, the Only, The One.

Explain your God reasonably if your God is not my God, my God is superior to every and all Gods, any image, any being that can possibly exist. There is no God greater, it is without partner or comparison.

Am I butchering the definition of God? Or am I smashing false idols invented by Man with little understanding.

Name a God greater than mine, there is none, mine is the greater.

Is it dead? Are not all things in motion?

Is it unaware? Can those without thought, think?

For my God it is simply Be and it is, Manifestor of Realities, Systems, Ideas, Worlds.

Controller of every single aspect of life, not a thought can be thought without my God.

My God is far beyond having Children and Begetting a "Son" which dies for the sins of men. For Every man is his own responsibility, and to submit to my God is a triumph, to be one with it, to follow what is right and good, to be an upright man.

It is all absurd? Insane? Crazy? These concepts are mad? Illogical? Unreasonable?

Show me a God that is Greater that I shall worship and submit myself to. There is none that I know of Greater than my God. Submit and you will find peace.

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Originally posted by Abrahim:

017.060

Behold! We told thee that thy Lord doth encompass mankind round about: We granted the vision which We showed thee, but as a trial for men,- as also the Cursed Tree (mentioned) in the Qur'an: We put terror (and warning) into them, but it only increases their inordinate transgression!



So .. Allah sets up trials for men, "puts terror (and warning) into them",

........

"but it only increases their inordinate transgression!"

Your God seems to be a little unsuccessful in the application of omnipotence.

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

All things are from God, the good, the bad, God is the originator of everything, God is what expands the Universe, what makes and allows the leaf to fall from the tree, what gives you vision and thoughts. How? God is what everything is made of, God is what manifested all possibilities for this Reality, God is what it is all within.

Imperfectcircle, you don't need to bow out for these people! I so appreciated your input, you belong here and your posts are welcome! What do you think about what I'm saying? I liked when you would explain how they are misunderstanding my simple statements as if they are flying right over their heads lol.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

It is all absurd? Insane? Crazy? These concepts are mad? Illogical? Unreasonable?

All that, except insanity and craziness seems to be the norm around here, so that's just a given. I'd suggest punctuating that sentence with "Unnecessary", since that best captures it for those of us who are getting a bit accustomed to the absurdity of religious convictions sweeping away the reason and logic of thinking human beings.

I can't believe we're still kicking this dead horse around.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

All that, except insanity and craziness seems to be the norm around here, so that's just a given. I'd suggest punctuating that sentence with "Unnecessary", since that best captures it for those of us who are getting a bit accustomed to the absurdity of religious convictions sweeping away the reason and logic of thinking human beings.

I can't believe we're still kicking this dead horse around.

I find it is necessary to a better understanding of life and the universe and beyond, a better concept of God to incorporate into what I find a more reasonable spirituality.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

What do you think about what I'm saying? I liked when you would explain how they are misunderstanding my simple statements as if they are flying right over their heads lol.

Well I share similar convictions to you, as I have already said, although the details are different.

I personally haven't presented my beliefs like you have, because as I said I am writing about them and there is far too much to say for me to paraphrase, and I'm still figuring things out.

But if I can give some advice, I think that people are reacting negatively to you because of the way you present your ideas, not so much the ideas themselves.

For instance, saying things like this:

quote:You Submit to my God: Willingly or Unwillingly. You should come to terms with it and submit willingly

can ONLY provoke a negative reaction to what you're saying. I think many people hear your tone as arrogant and fundamentalist, which I know is not true, but when you make comments like the one I quoted it's how they perceive you.

Also, I think that people react negatively because you describe your ideas in religious terms. There are many reasons why this is unlikely to be well received, which is a shame because I believe your views are more philosophical than religious. But people see that you claim to be religious, and you are attempting to make people accept your point of view - to they instantly label you as an evangelist, and they stop listening to your message, instead focusing on the words (lol, which is like yous message about religion itself!)

Lastly, I think that people react negatively because you are very verbose in your explanations. I understand that you do this to properly articulate your views, but most people will not take the time to properly read through something lengthy if they are already convinced they won't like it anyway. I think you would be much more successful focusing on questions, and short directive observations, because this would be immensely more effective.

I don't mean any of this as a criticism, not in the slightest because I understand and value your contributions here greatly. These are just my suggestions that I think could help you get your message across more effectively.

Thank you for the suggestions, I think if I take your advice it will help to make the message more effective, but the reasons my posts get lengthy is because while writing I seem to get caught up in it all and tend to enjoy what I'm saying to the point where in a matter of minutes I have a large essay typed out lol, really I loved your contributions to these posts though and I've missed you since you said you bowed out so I'd like it if you continue to contribute and maybe be my voice of reason here? Perhaps you could assist to interpret what im saying to clearify it for these folks? I really appreciate everything you've done so far and I hope to see more from you in here! Don't let them frustrate ya, you were awesome and making sense too!

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

the reasons my posts get lengthy is because while writing I seem to get caught up in it all and tend to enjoy what I'm saying to the point where in a matter of minutes I have a large essay typed out lol

I know what you mean, I often do the same thing myself. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

I haven't been on MSN recently but I'll be adding you next time I go on.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

The problem with religion is that you cannot prove it to be even 1% true, much less 99%.

I just want to interject with a brief comment about that.

The problem with the mind is also that you cannot prove it to exist. And yet you believe it is true that it does exist. Why? Intuitive recognition of the fact.

Descartes, the father of Western scientific thought as we know it, faced the same problem when asked how he could PROVE the "I exist" part of cogito ergo sum. He responded the same way, that it was an intuitive recognition.

For people with spiritual, rather than dogmatic religious, convictions the existence of a supreme being is an equally obvious intuitive fact, it is something felt.

I agree though that attempting to justify this recognition rationally is an extremely hard task.

But do you believe it is true that other people possess a mind?

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 07-04-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

besides, drugs are not analogous to religious experiences. except mabye dmt, but i've never done that so i don't have enough data to make a judgement on that.





This is true, drugs aren't the same as religious experiences, but they're both reactions that occur in the brain that alter ones perception and convictions.

I'm a strong believer in my God, but that includes the belief that faith is faith, not objective fact, and there is no objective way of proving this faith, and anyone who tries to do so is farting in the wind.

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:



This is true, drugs aren't the same as religious experiences, but they're both reactions that occur in the brain that alter ones perception and convictions.

I'm a strong believer in my God, but that includes the belief that faith is faith, not objective fact, and there is no objective way of proving this faith, and anyone who tries to do so is farting in the wind.

What is your God?

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Why? Can your God be harmed?

No, He cannot be harmed.

quote:

Can you benefit your God?



Yes, miracles being a large part of that benifit. And as many people need love and acceptance, they find it in my God.

quote:

What kind of God is that? Using its creation as Crutches?



Crutches? God is Love, and He created us in order for Him to teach us Love, and to Love Him in return.

quote:

My God doesn't need you, but you need it, it is best for you to submit, why is it best for you? Because it is beneficial to come to a proper understanding, to find peace and become one, just as suggested in Chinese Philosophy, becoming one with the Tao, or in Islam, Submitting to God, or in Bhuddism, following the eightfold path to Nirvana...Why? Because its good, its best for you, it will help you.



Sure, it will help you be at peace in this life, but by "accepting" that something huge is there isn't neccessarily going to make you at peace for the rest of your life. Especially something that can benefit you in no way (other than YOUR OWN HAPPINESS, DERIVED FROM YOUR OWN PEACE FROM YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING, none of that truly comes from your god), or something that could care less if you didn't submit to it.

[/b] [/quote]

quote:

Do you believe in a God that needs you? That is dependant on you? What needs is not worthy of worship, it is a thing dependant. My God is Self Sufficient, You are not. You are completely dependant on my God waking and sleeping.



my God isn't dependant on me, or anyone else. He creates to love, and for us to love Him back. His nature and essence IS love, so it is against His nature, not to love us and be concerned for us. There is a difference between relying on and being concerned about. For those that love Him back, he has created a reward known as heaven.

quote:



Is the Bowl with the fish in it what manifested the fish? No. Nothing can create or manifest save my God. My God is the originator of Everything subjective and objective. Every thought you can possibly think, every action that can possibly occur, is possible only because the possibility was manifested and is available within this Reality, This Universe, which is within my God, the Supreme, the Infinite, the Only, The One.



Just because you steal nicknames for your "god" from other religions, does not give it the same meaning, or power. And you do realize by saying all of that, that your "god" is becoming more evil everyday? I think any one of us would agree that the world is full of sin right now, and is only getting worse. Being that your "god" manifests everything, it seems that he is getting worse by the second as well. All analogies break down, so bringing up manifestation in the Fish Bowl example is irrelevant.

quote:

Explain your God reasonably if your God is not my God, my God is superior to every and all Gods, any image, any being that can possibly exist. There is no God greater, it is without partner or comparison.



If my God is not your "god", then your "god" is greater? That is being closed-minded at its finest.

quote:

Am I butchering the definition of God? Or am I smashing false idols invented by Man with little understanding.



HA! False idols invented by man with little understanding? To me, it seems like you have created the idea of your "god" from other religions. You're saying that you are wiser than Man? Because I doubt your "god" has told you anything on the matter of himself, being that he doesn't communicate with us. Your "god" is the ultimate falsehood. Just because you take different views from different religions, and mix them together, it doesn't make it right! Religion is NOT like philosophy in the fact that you cannot think of a type of god, and reason for its existence, and then make it out to be the true religion. Religion requires faith, and faith requires at least SOME guidance and/or reasonable evidence. We have the Bible, Muslims have the Qu'ran, you have your own thoughts and irrationality to guide you. Your "god" consists of your own flawed thoughts.

Name a God greater than mine, there is none, mine is the greater.

quote:

Is it dead? Are not all things in motion?



I can throw a rock, does that make it living?

quote:

Is it unaware? Can those without thought, think?



No they cannot, and your "god" is without thought or awareness. And "Because you say so" isn't valid proof that your "god" is sentient

quote:

My God is far beyond having Children and Begetting a "Son" which dies for the sins of men. For Every man is his own responsibility, and to submit to my God is a triumph, to be one with it, to follow what is right and good, to be an upright man.



So your "god" creates everything, yet has no control? Can he intervene with our lives? Or does he only manifest?

quote:

It is all absurd? Insane? Crazy? These concepts are mad? Illogical? Unreasonable?



It's really all just sad for you becoming so caught up in your ego, and calling it a religion. Philosophy? Maybe, but that still doesn't make it correct.

quote:

Show me a God that is Greater that I shall worship and submit myself to. There is none that I know of Greater than my God. Submit and you will find peace.

Peace in this life is useless, as we have to work hard to attain any type of religious reward. Your "god" seems to be a figment of your imagination, inflated so much as to make it your own personal religion. It seems that your own ego is so big, having conceived this "god" that it fills up all of the cracks in logic, and most importantly, blocks the flaws pointed out to you by others, and also blocks the true God from your sight.

Oh, and imperfectcircle, good job on that post regarding Abrahim's stuff

This is literally a myy god can beat the shit our of your god thread. Argueing about which god provides the most benifits. This is pathetic.

You don't even know if a god exists much less wether god is a personal god or not. Yet you argue as if you know you god personally and your god's personal spokesman.

And worst of all wether or right or wrong, argueing cannot prove it. No matter how much you debate which god is better it is time wasted. Think about it even if one of you are right it makes no difference that you argued about it. And if god doesn't exist then it is still a waste of time.

Besides like stated earlier if god does exist you don't know gods thoughts or anything about god for that matter. Your not god's personal spokesman. None of you can know wether or not your right, and even if you think you do, (this is just your ego talking by the way) there is no way to prove your right.

This debate is pointless so stop wasting your time.

The debate is NOT pointless, and your "arguement" presented loses a lot of its power by misusing YOU'RE, not your.

The debating IS helpful, in knowing our own gods more, but more importantly bringing others into our faith, the one that we feel is the one true faith. Of course, there is no way to prove our religions true, other than evidence, and arguing in defense of our own.

Oh, and what is so bad about having a literal "My God can beat the shit out of your "god"" thread, when it happens to be in the forum with the same name?

Many do know God personally, and many are called to be His personal spokesman.

Are you saying that you have NEVER changed your mind on something after having it proved wrong in an argument or debate? If we argue about it, and prove our point, then it obviously wasn't wasted time. I agree that if a God doesn't exist, that it would be a waste of time....but what have we got to lose if we are wrong? Time. What about those who are wrong, or don't put any time into religion? Maybe they will repent and stuff, but chances are, they lose their soul, and not only this little bit of time "wasted" on argueing, but they lose their whole life.

If God exists, then chances are He has shown us through different ways that He does exist, also showing his nature, and also, what He wants from us.

It isn't our ego talking, in my case at least, lol ABRAHIM. Obviously there is no way to prove our faiths 100% true. But I know that Catholicism can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So little doubt is left, that it actually takes MORE faith NOT to believe that it is true. (I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist, I recommend at least YOU read this book, check it out at the library or something)

A life without God is pointless, so sotp wasting your time.

A greater God?

Surely the creator God is greater than the 'god' which is reality. Surely in saying God IS the reality you leave open to debate where did that reality come from? Something cannot bring about its own existence. Nor can something become that which it created. If God can only be either reality as you claim or a creator as most religions do, the creator is blatantly superior.

Anyway Abrahim you need to hurry up and accept that your argument did in fact die on the first page. It cannot overcome logical contradiction. Logic is the ultimate, it applies to everything equally. Logic even applies to God. God cannot transcend logic as imperfectircle was saying. God cannot add 1 and 1 and get 3. It is rationally impossible.

You also need to keep your posts concise, stop the bullshit and repetition. It only cheapens your theory. Makes it look like your trying to pad it out and obscure the actual argument behind a wall of crap.

Hope this makes sense I kinda skimmed over half of it, and Abrahim doesn't exactly write in an accessible way.

quote:Originally posted by Aeroue:

A greater God?

Surely the creator God is greater than the 'god' which is reality. Surely in saying God IS the reality you leave open to debate where did that reality come from? Something cannot bring about its own existence. Nor can something become that which it created. If God can only be either reality as you claim or a creator as most religions do, the creator is blatantly superior.

Anyway Abrahim you need to hurry up and accept that your argument did in fact die on the first page. It cannot overcome logical contradiction. Logic is the ultimate, it applies to everything equally. Logic even applies to God. God cannot transcend logic as imperfectircle was saying. God cannot add 1 and 1 and get 3. It is rationally impossible.

You also need to keep your posts concise, stop the bullshit and repetition. It only cheapens your theory. Makes it look like your trying to pad it out and obscure the actual argument behind a wall of crap.

Hope this makes sense I kinda skimmed over half of it, and Abrahim doesn't exactly write in an accessible way.

I completely agree with your post.

God is supernatural, outside of nature, so He did indeed create reality, as well as the rest of the Universe.

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

The debate is NOT pointless, and your "arguement" presented loses a lot of its power by misusing YOU'RE, not your.

The debating IS helpful, in knowing our own gods more, but more importantly bringing others into our faith, the one that we feel is the one true faith. Of course, there is no way to prove our religions true, other than evidence, and arguing in defense of our own.

Oh, and what is so bad about having a literal "My God can beat the shit out of your "god"" thread, when it happens to be in the forum with the same name?

Many do know God personally, and many are called to be His personal spokesman.

Are you saying that you have NEVER changed your mind on something after having it proved wrong in an argument or debate? If we argue about it, and prove our point, then it obviously wasn't wasted time. I agree that if a God doesn't exist, that it would be a waste of time....but what have we got to lose if we are wrong? Time. What about those who are wrong, or don't put any time into religion? Maybe they will repent and stuff, but chances are, they lose their soul, and not only this little bit of time "wasted" on argueing, but they lose their whole life.

If God exists, then chances are He has shown us through different ways that He does exist, also showing his nature, and also, what He wants from us.

It isn't our ego talking, in my case at least, lol ABRAHIM. Obviously there is no way to prove our faiths 100% true. But I know that Catholicism can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So little doubt is left, that it actually takes MORE faith NOT to believe that it is true. (I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist, I recommend at least YOU read this book, check it out at the library or something)

A life without God is pointless, so sotp wasting your time.

The fact that you attacked my grammer, only to hypocritically spell stop wrong shows alot about your character. Over looking the faults of your self and your beliefs only to immediately attack the faults of others and thier beliefs.

You are basing everything on your belief system not logic.

And what are you wasting? There is alot at stake if there is no god. Maybe your life wouldn't be worth living if god isn't real. I'm very sorry if thats the case. Thats why you need to live life to it's fullest, not follow rules based on blind faith.

Also you claim it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It can't, and if it can you are more than welcome to do so for us all now. It is no more likely than any other religion or belief. It is just as likely the greek gods created the world, and that is not very likely.

Religion is fundementally flawed, and if you say I should believe because otherwise I will be eternally punished in cruel vial ways when I have done nothing other than not believe something that there is no proof for, then your religous ruler is a cruel insane tyrant.

Perhapse if you took time to read your own bible and see what jesus was saying about helping people, you too would consider doing it, instead of just preaching that you believe in doing it.

What makes you assume I'm athiest? The post you so eagerly attempted to attack without making one valid point was stating this arguement is pointless wether or not god exists, and instead of debating something as pointless to debate as this, maybe you should go positivly change the world. Feed the hungry, volunteer, help people, not preach to them, but actually help them. End some suffering? You don't need a religion to do that.

Why you hate that message so much that you feel the need to attack spelling as a pathetic attempt to dismantle that idea, only to make the same mistake in your post, really shows us all alot about your hypocritical ideals. It is people like you that draw thinking people away from your religion in the first place.

quote:Originally posted by Aeroue:

God cannot transcend logic as imperfectircle was saying. God cannot add 1 and 1 and get 3. It is rationally impossible.



I've got one point to make about that.

If God did exist, in the monistic sense, and he created the universe, he also created the laws of logic and mathematics.

If he created those laws, he could change them as well, and make 1 + 1 = 3 (thus he transcends logic, by necessity).

Going back to Descartes again, he believed this was possible. The problem is also similar to the paradox of whether God could create a stone that he could not lift, for which there are philosophical arguments saying he could. In both cases the arguments are complicated so I'll only type them out if you seriously wish to read them.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Religion is fundementally flawed, and if you say I should believe because otherwise I will be eternally punished in cruel vial ways when I have done nothing other than not believe something that there is no proof for, then your religous ruler is a cruel insane tyrant.

That's an objection to only a few particular religions.

I think any belief system based on fear instead of love shouldn't be called a religion.

I also believe that the Christian church, as it has existed for at least a millenia, is ANTI spiritual.

But the flaws of past so-called religions doesn't mean religion itself is a flawed concept.

The goal of any religion, above ALL else, should be to improve quality of life. Such a religion may yet come along.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

That's an objection to only a few particular religions.

I think any belief system based on fear instead of love shouldn't be called a religion.

I also believe that the Christian church, as it has existed for at least a millenia, is ANTI spiritual.

But the flaws of past so-called religions doesn't mean religion itself is a flawed concept.

The goal of any religion, above ALL else, should be to improve quality of life. Such a religion may yet come along.

Thats exactly what I'm saying. If you believe god wants you to do good, go help people. There are so many starving people in the world, so many homeless, the potential to do good is there.

I think most people use their faith as an excuse to not do those things.

Besides even if god does not exist, which is equally possible as god existing, then thats still no excuse not to help your fellow man. Everyone goes through hardship, why not ease that hardship for someone else?

I don't think someone should think they are rightous enough to not help other people just because they still think they are going to whatever salvation they feel they deserve.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I've got one point to make about that.

If God did exist, in the monistic sense, and he created the universe, he also created the laws of logic and mathematics.

If he created those laws, he could change them as well, and make 1 + 1 = 3 (thus he transcends logic, by necessity).

Going back to Descartes again, he believed this was possible. The problem is also similar to the paradox of whether God could create a stone that he could not lift, for which there are philosophical arguments saying he could. In both cases the arguments are complicated so I'll only type them out if you seriously wish to read them.

I thought you would call that.

However, personally I am not sure that logic is something create-able or or changeable.

I am not sure how to express it, but I see it as more of a necessary constant. Maybe it could be different in one of your other parallel universes but surely in changing 1+1 to = 3 would change a universe beyond recognition, it would be a different universe.

EDIT:

But more to the point, how could it ever be conceivably possible for God to change logical contradiction into something other than blatant falsification?

It simply is completely inconceivable.

Which is why no one who follows a rational line of thought will ever accept this theory.

[This message has been edited by Aeroue (edited 07-04-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Thats exactly what I'm saying. If you believe god wants you to do good, go help people. There are so many starving people in the world, so many homeless, the potential to do good is there.

Well that's definitely a good thing, but it's not what I meant.

Religion should improve quality of life for YOU if you read what it says, and think about its ideas, and so on.

What good does the Christian church do for 90% of people? They're told that their true nature is that they're sinful maggots that will go to hell, unless someone saves them. They sit through mass for an hour and try their best not to fall asleep while an old man recites the words of people who have been dead for a couple thousand years. They are told to say prayers to a God who doesn't reply, and doesn't grant wishes 99% of the time (sometimes people must get what they pray for, if it's not a coincidence then God doesn't like answering prayers too much). Etc etc. Where's the value to the life of each individual?

quote:Originally posted by Aeroue:

A greater God?

Surely the creator God is greater than the 'god' which is reality. Surely in saying God IS the reality you leave open to debate where did that reality come from? Something cannot bring about its own existence. Nor can something become that which it created.

Then you create an issue of where the creater god came from. You all agree nothing can bring about it's own existance then fail to mention how the creater's existance came about.

Also if god cannot become something he created, and jesus was the product of god, assuming mary was a virgin, then jesus could not be god. Yet he was?

These are the logical flaws I'm talking about, and each explanation brings more, but you more than welcome to explain how those two points are possible if a creator can't create it's self or become something it created.

quote:Originally posted by Aeroue:

However, personally I am not sure that logic is something create-able or or changeable.

Logic and reason depend on two things - causality and the properties of space and time (Kant explored this deeply in "A Critique of Pure Reason).

Since those two things are parameters of the physical universe, they could be changed.

WE are the ones who created logic.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Then you create an issue of where the creater god came from.

I'll just back that up by pointing out that the common definition of God is that he is uncreated, so the objection doesn't hold.

Think about it, if something is eternal, you can keep on going back in time for an infinite amount without reaching an end.

If you read what I just posted on page 3, the very same things potentgirt agreed too logically contradict his own religion.

Also which religions don't have eternal punishment. The only ones I can think of are ones with incarnation, which leaves many logical issues it's self.

If we created logic then God cannot change it then can 'he' as it is our creation.

As a result of free will he would not be able to change the way we perceive the world.

Aft3r ImaGe- I know it does bring that question up however I was just answering the question what God would be greater? As posed by Abrahim.

I would answer your questions but I cannot be bother as it is not relevant to this topic, nor am I a Christian so have no reason to defend God. I just don't like Abrahim's theory.

Imperfectcircle- do you disagree that the creator God is better?

Hey Abrahim,

I just thought I would compliment you for being so happy. That's good.

IT'S GOOD THAT YOU ARE A HAPPY PERSON

ABRAHIM. I LIKED YOUR MY SPACE.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I'll just back that up by pointing out that the common definition of God is that he is uncreated, so the objection doesn't hold.

Think about it, if something is eternal, you can keep on going back in time for an infinite amount without reaching an end.

But then heaven and hell cannot be eternal considering they were made by god. By that definition they would also have to have been uncreated, and they are not.

Also that doesn't apply to the the other point I made.

quote:Originally posted by Aeroue:

If we created logic then God cannot change it then can 'he' as it is our creation.

As a result of free will he would not be able to change the way we perceive the world.

Aft3r ImaGe- I know it does bring that question up however I was just answering the question what God would be greater? As posed by Abrahim.

I would answer your questions but I cannot be bother as it is not relevant to this topic, nor am I a Christian so have no reason to defend God. I just don't like Abrahim's theory.

Imperfectcircle- do you disagree that the creator God is better?

You may have just been answering the question and feel no need to defend your responce but potentgirt agreed with you, which I find ironic considering the results of that decision.

Besides if god cannot alter logic he is not all powerful, and it has to be in order to prevent the collapse of the religions people think it wanted.

Abrahim's theory was very flawed and most of us would have left it at that if he didn't keep posting it everywhere, as he did, so I can see where you're coming from.

Also I wasn't asking you to defend those ideals, I was asking a religous person to, more specifically potentgirt, who is going to explain to us all beyond a reasonable doubt, why his religion is right and everyone else is wrong.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

But then heaven and hell cannot be eternal considering they were made by god. By that definition they would also have to have been uncreated, and they are not.

This is not my definition of "god".

But according to the Christian definition, God created heaven and hell, so they are not eternal.

quote:Also if god cannot become something he created, and jesus was the product of god, assuming mary was a virgin, then jesus could not be god. Yet he was?

First point - this is not my definition, this is the Christian definition. I believe Jesus was just a human being. Although again, in the Christian account, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit exist as a trinity, like the three sides of a triangle. So for Christians, God didn't BECOME Jesus, he WAS Jesus.

Second point - still with the Christian definition, God is supposed to be omnipresent. This means he is in all things. He doesn't need to "become" anything. This creates the obvious problem about how he can exist in Hell/Satan, since Christians say they are evil and God cannot be evil, etc.

But as I have said, I do not accept these beliefs.

You should be asking this to Digital Saviour or something, I also find the Christian religion illogical. I just believe Jesus had some good things to say about reality, and the Church warped everything around to suit themselves.



[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 07-04-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I've got one point to make about that.

If God did exist, in the monistic sense, and he created the universe, he also created the laws of logic and mathematics.

If he created those laws, he could change them as well, and make 1 + 1 = 3 (thus he transcends logic, by necessity).

Going back to Descartes again, he believed this was possible. The problem is also similar to the paradox of whether God could create a stone that he could not lift, for which there are philosophical arguments saying he could. In both cases the arguments are complicated so I'll only type them out if you seriously wish to read them.

Afterimage, if this is what you thought I agreed with in the other post, then I screwed up. I was simply talking about Abrahim keeping his posts short, and all of that stuff. I guess I forgot about the 1+1=3 being impossible to change part, because, I do disagree with that.

And please do, read that book I mentioned, or tell me to start a new thread, in which you just ask questions...it's up to you

oh and I spelled "stop" wrong on purpose. And you spelled "grammar" wrong. Let's keep little things out of this though.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I just want to interject with a brief comment about that.

The problem with the mind is also that you cannot prove it to exist. And yet you believe it is true that it does exist. Why? Intuitive recognition of the fact.

Descartes, the father of Western scientific thought as we know it, faced the same problem when asked how he could PROVE the "I exist" part of cogito ergo sum. He responded the same way, that it was an intuitive recognition.



Simply because you cannot see something does not mean that you cannot prove(beyond a reasonable doubt) that it exists. The functions which are attributed to the mind can be tested. Reasoning ability can be tested. Creativity can be tested. Logic can be tested. Thus , the existence of the mind is fairly well proven.



quote:For people with spiritual, rather than dogmatic religious, convictions the existence of a supreme being is an equally obvious intuitive fact, it is something felt.

It is also quite possible that their spiritual intuition could be attributed to their being slightly delusional, and that they are willing to readily accept metaphysical explanation for naturally occurring phenomena.



quote:I agree though that attempting to justify this recognition rationally is an extremely hard task.[QUOTE]



I agree.



[QUOTE]But do you believe it is true that other people possess a mind?



Normally I would say yes, but a few of the posters in this forum cause me to question the notion.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Simply because you cannot see something does not mean that you cannot prove(beyond a reasonable doubt) that it exists. The functions which are attributed to the mind can be tested. Reasoning ability can be tested. Creativity can be tested. Logic can be tested. Thus , the existence of the mind is fairly well proven.

I'm afraid not, the behavioural responses of the brain can be tested and the synaptic activity of the brain can be measured, but the existence of consciousness is simply a hypothesis.

This is a fiercely debated issue in philosophy, illustrated by the "philosophical zombie":

quote:Zombies are exactly like us in all physical respects but have no conscious experiences: by definition there is ‘nothing it is like’ to be a zombie. Yet zombies behave like us, and some even spend a lot of time discussing consciousness. This disconcerting fantasy helps to make the problem of phenomenal consciousness vivid, especially as a problem for physicalism.

Few people think zombies actually exist. But many hold they are at least conceivable, and some that they are ‘logically’ or ‘metaphysically’ possible. It is argued that if zombies are so much as a bare possibility, then physicalism is false and some kind of dualism must be accepted. For many philosophers that is the chief importance of the zombie idea. But the idea is also of interest for its presuppositions about the nature of consciousness and how the physical and the phenomenal are related. Use of the zombie idea against physicalism also raises more general questions about relations between imaginability, conceivability, and possibility. Finally, zombies raise epistemological difficulties: they reinstate the ‘other minds’ problem. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

There has been no resolution of this problem, it basically comes down to whether you side with the physicalists or the anti-physicalists.

Here are a number of papers on the subject if you're curious: http://consc.net/online1.html#zombies

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

Peace in this life is useless, as we have to work hard to attain any type of religious reward. Your "god" seems to be a figment of your imagination, inflated so much as to make it your own personal religion. It seems that your own ego is so big, having conceived this "god" that it fills up all of the cracks in logic, and most importantly, blocks the flaws pointed out to you by others, and also blocks the true God from your sight.



"No, He cannot be harmed."

My God can not be harmed either.

"Yes, miracles being a large part of that benifit. And as many people need love and acceptance, they find it in my God."

Anything that has occured and possibly can occur, from miracles to thoughts, are under the jurisdiction of my God, the provider of all things.

"Crutches? God is Love, and He created us in order for Him to teach us Love, and to Love Him in return."

Within God there is the possibility for Love, Hate, Good, Bad, Right, Wrong, Up, Down, Left, Right, and everything else. Are you exclusive? Do Animals have souls? Man deludes themself in their pride: You are only a creation of God, it would be best for you to submit and find peace, for the good you send forth, so it shall be sent back, God is the Ultimate, God has no Son who can die or did die for your sins, how can something die for something elses sins? You are completely responsible for yourself and what you do, no one can save you other than you, you are your own savior.

"Sure, it will help you be at peace in this life, but by "accepting" that something huge is there isn't neccessarily going to make you at peace for the rest of your life. Especially something that can benefit you in no way (other than YOUR OWN HAPPINESS, DERIVED FROM YOUR OWN PEACE FROM YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING, none of that truly comes from your god), or something that could care less if you didn't submit to it."

From my God are all benefits, turning away is your own loss.

"my God isn't dependant on me, or anyone else."

My God isn't dependant on anything either.

"He creates to love, and for us to love Him back."

My God does not require your love if you do not provide it. It would be better for you to do right and submit and follow the straight path, if not, then you will be rewarded likewise for your turning away from the message.

"His nature and essence IS love, so it is against His nature, not to love us and be concerned for us. There is a difference between relying on and being concerned about. For those that love Him back, he has created a reward known as heaven."

Within God is Love and Hate, to say God is Love is to limit God the infinite the all encompassing, there is much more than Love in God.

"Just because you steal nicknames for your "god" from other religions, does not give it the same meaning, or power. And you do realize by saying all of that, that your "god" is becoming more evil everyday? I think any one of us would agree that the world is full of sin right now, and is only getting worse. Being that your "god" manifests everything, it seems that he is getting worse by the second as well. All analogies break down, so bringing up manifestation in the Fish Bowl example is irrelevant."

The world is full of sin right now, and has been full of it for a long time, but why, if your God is love and concern, does he make and allow it to happen? Life is for you to witness, to test yourself, and to follow the straight path to the ultimate triumph. My God knows all possibilities past present and future, there are no surprises as all is from my God, this life is for you to live, to learn, to know yourself, to witness yourself, so that you can not deny. You can think of it as The Terms of the Contract when you entered this life, and now see how you turn away from the message and believe in a limited falsehood of a God, an Idol, a Graven Image.

"If my God is not your "god", then your "god" is greater? That is being closed-minded at its finest."

If your God is limited, and my God is unlimited, your God is limited by my God, my God is far superior as it encompasses all, even your God, the truth is, My God, is the only God. Your God is a limited concept. Denying my God is to deny the supreme power of the Ultimate God.

"HA! False idols invented by man with little understanding? To me, it seems like you have created the idea of your "god" from other religions."

All religions started with the proper understanding which was later corrupted by the inventions and metaphors of man and then believed as true in later years, you can find the history of how it happened in Hinduism even. Originally it started with Brahma

brahma (nominative singular), brahman (stem) (neuter[1] gender) means the concept of the Supreme transcendent and immanent Reality or the One Godhead or Cosmic Spirit in Hinduism; this is discussed below. Also note that the word Brahman in this sense is exceptionally treated as masculine (see the Merrill-Webster Sanskrit Dictionary). It is called "the Brahman" in English.

My god. Then later in order to explain various aspects of the universe and life other dieties were created by the people as an explanation of the Singular One God.

"You're saying that you are wiser than Man? Because I doubt your "god" has told you anything on the matter of himself, being that he doesn't communicate with us."

My God is in constant communication with everything, some of us listen and learn, some of us turn away, plugging our ears, covering our eyes, and closing our minds. My God has told you about My God since you were in the womb and every moment waking and sleeping till today and will continue to tell you, but will you ever listen?

"Your "god" is the ultimate falsehood. Just because you take different views from different religions, and mix them together, it doesn't make it right! Religion is NOT like philosophy in the fact that you cannot think of a type of god, and reason for its existence, and then make it out to be the true religion. Religion requires faith, and faith requires at least SOME guidance and/or reasonable evidence."

We have the Bible, Muslims have the Qu'ran, you have your own thoughts and irrationality to guide you.

The Qur'an, the book of the muslims, speaks of the same God as me, all encompassing, The Reality, Surrounding all things, infinite, limitless, originator of all.

Here is what the Qur'an says about your God:

004.171

O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Jesus the son of Mary was a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

004.172

The Messiah does by no means disdain that he should be a servant of Allah, nor do the angels who are near to Him, and whoever disdains His service and is proud, He will gather them all together to Himself.

005.073

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

005.074

Why turn they not to Allah, and seek His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

005.075

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

005.076

Say: "Will ye worship, besides Allah, something which hath no power either to harm or benefit you? But Allah,- He it is that heareth and knoweth all things."

019.035

It is not befitting to Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.

019.036

Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight.

112.001

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;

112.002

Allah is on Whom all depend.

112.003

Allah begetteth not, nor is Allah begotten;

112.004

And there is none comparable unto Allah.

"Your "god" consists of your own flawed thoughts."

My God is Allah of the Qur'an, Ahura Mazda of Zoroastrianism, Brahma of Hinduism, The Tao of Taoism, The Ultimate Reality of Truth, God of All, The One. What is your God? If it is not my God, The Only God, then it is nothing but dust in the wind.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

This is literally a myy god can beat the shit our of your god thread. Argueing about which god provides the most benifits. This is pathetic.

You don't even know if a god exists much less wether god is a personal god or not. Yet you argue as if you know you god personally and your god's personal spokesman.

And worst of all wether or right or wrong, argueing cannot prove it. No matter how much you debate which god is better it is time wasted. Think about it even if one of you are right it makes no difference that you argued about it. And if god doesn't exist then it is still a waste of time.

Besides like stated earlier if god does exist you don't know gods thoughts or anything about god for that matter. Your not god's personal spokesman. None of you can know wether or not your right, and even if you think you do, (this is just your ego talking by the way) there is no way to prove your right.

This debate is pointless so stop wasting your time.

This forum is called My God can Beat the Shit out of Your God, this is where these debates are supposed to occur, I am very happy that we are discussing this here, it isn't a waste of time, I find that we can derive some enjoyment from it. You can sit back, relax, and watch the fireworks if you don't feel like contributing.

When you say God doesn't exist, to me its like saying nothing exists, not even me, because I find that it is God which all things are dependant on and relying on in order to exist, that if there was nothing there would still be nothing.

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

The debate is NOT pointless, and your "arguement" presented loses a lot of its power by misusing YOU'RE, not your.

The debating IS helpful, in knowing our own gods more, but more importantly bringing others into our faith, the one that we feel is the one true faith. Of course, there is no way to prove our religions true, other than evidence, and arguing in defense of our own.

Oh, and what is so bad about having a literal "My God can beat the shit out of your "god"" thread, when it happens to be in the forum with the same name?

Many do know God personally, and many are called to be His personal spokesman.

Are you saying that you have NEVER changed your mind on something after having it proved wrong in an argument or debate? If we argue about it, and prove our point, then it obviously wasn't wasted time. I agree that if a God doesn't exist, that it would be a waste of time....but what have we got to lose if we are wrong? Time. What about those who are wrong, or don't put any time into religion? Maybe they will repent and stuff, but chances are, they lose their soul, and not only this little bit of time "wasted" on argueing, but they lose their whole life.

If God exists, then chances are He has shown us through different ways that He does exist, also showing his nature, and also, what He wants from us.

It isn't our ego talking, in my case at least, lol ABRAHIM. Obviously there is no way to prove our faiths 100% true. But I know that Catholicism can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So little doubt is left, that it actually takes MORE faith NOT to believe that it is true. (I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist, I recommend at least YOU read this book, check it out at the library or something)

A life without God is pointless, so sotp wasting your time.

I agree with the above post and we, the preachers, will debate, and like magnets try to bring who we can to one of our sides, and some of you will be on the athiest side, and this will be where all the action is at! My God can beat the SHIT out of Your GOD!

quote:Originally posted by Aeroue:

A greater God?

Surely the creator God is greater than the 'god' which is reality. Surely in saying God IS the reality you leave open to debate where did that reality come from? Something cannot bring about its own existence. Nor can something become that which it created. If God can only be either reality as you claim or a creator as most religions do, the creator is blatantly superior.

Anyway Abrahim you need to hurry up and accept that your argument did in fact die on the first page. It cannot overcome logical contradiction. Logic is the ultimate, it applies to everything equally. Logic even applies to God. God cannot transcend logic as imperfectircle was saying. God cannot add 1 and 1 and get 3. It is rationally impossible.

You also need to keep your posts concise, stop the bullshit and repetition. It only cheapens your theory. Makes it look like your trying to pad it out and obscure the actual argument behind a wall of crap.

Hope this makes sense I kinda skimmed over half of it, and Abrahim doesn't exactly write in an accessible way.

God created this Reality, God is the Ultimate Reality in which all possible Realities exist. My God has always existed, my God is essentially all there is and ever was, the One, Originator of everything, there is nothing but God.

Strip my God of all images within it and it is in the image of nothing.

I am not stating that my God created itself, nothing created my God nor was it ever created, nor is it a "thing" but the manifestor of all things. There is nothing outside of God, God is infinite, limitless, understand, God created time and the limitations of this reality you live in, everything is made of God entirely, nothing is seperate or without God, God is what allows what exists to exist. I find that my God is logical, the most logical. It didn't BECOME what it created, what is created, it created within itself, nothing can exist outside of it, everything is made of it, there is only God.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I've got one point to make about that.

If God did exist, in the monistic sense, and he created the universe, he also created the laws of logic and mathematics.

If he created those laws, he could change them as well, and make 1 + 1 = 3 (thus he transcends logic, by necessity).

Going back to Descartes again, he believed this was possible. The problem is also similar to the paradox of whether God could create a stone that he could not lift, for which there are philosophical arguments saying he could. In both cases the arguments are complicated so I'll only type them out if you seriously wish to read them.

If God was a man who was lifting stones, God would not be God. God is what the man lifting stones exists within, and lifts the stone by. God is one.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

That's an objection to only a few particular religions.

I think any belief system based on fear instead of love shouldn't be called a religion.

I also believe that the Christian church, as it has existed for at least a millenia, is ANTI spiritual.

But the flaws of past so-called religions doesn't mean religion itself is a flawed concept.

The goal of any religion, above ALL else, should be to improve quality of life. Such a religion may yet come along.

Islam and Bhuddism are both religions which attempt to guide people to improve their quality of life by prescribing various things and reccomending certain restrictions on things for ones own betterment.

The Qur'an clearifies that what good they do is for their own benefit, and avoiding harm for their own benefit.

quote:Originally posted by Eloquence:

IT'S GOOD THAT YOU ARE A HAPPY PERSON

ABRAHIM. I LIKED YOUR MY SPACE.

THANK YOU! I'M VERY GLAD YOU READ IT! DID YOU LIKE THE MUSIC!? I STILL WANT TO TALK TO YOU ON MSN OR AIM MAY I PLEASE ADD YOU NOW?

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

But then heaven and hell cannot be eternal considering they were made by god. By that definition they would also have to have been uncreated, and they are not.

Also that doesn't apply to the the other point I made.

Paradise and Punishment, wherever it appears, even in ancient mongolia, has always been a creation of the Chief creator God, for those who enter either one, it is forever according to all those which have it included in their belief system. In ancient Mongolia and China even, a fiery hell like place was created by the Chief God in order to punish the evil doers.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I'm afraid not, the behavioural responses of the brain can be tested and the synaptic activity of the brain can be measured, but the existence of consciousness is simply a hypothesis.



It is also a "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet virtually nobody suggests that this "hypothesis" is wrong. Why? Because we have physical evidence that, at the very least, suggests that it will rise tomorrow. Of course, we could take an extremely skeptic position and argue the possibility that a humongous pink troll wearing a tight purple thong is going to eat the sun tonight; however, the evidence supporting the initial "hypothesis" still stands.

The same cannot be said of a "supreme being". While you may recognize it as intuitive fact, you lack any meaningful form of physical evidence that, at the very least, strongly suggests that your "hypothesis" is true.

Moreover, you don't just want us to admit the remote possibility that a supreme being might exist, as you want us to do with the problem of conscious thought in others. You presumably want us to believe in that supreme being which you suggest, in which case the burden is far more than just analogy of yours. So even if we admit that others might not possess conscious thought, the analogy is worthless in support of your argument if it is coupled with an absence of evidence.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-05-2006).]

Ok, I'm making a response in notepad, so I can reply to all your posts at once Abrahim...do the same, lol, Mr. 5 posts in a row.

quote: originally posted by Abrahim:Within God there is the possibility for Love, Hate, Good, Bad, Right, Wrong, Up, Down, Left, Right, and everything else. Are you exclusive? Do Animals have souls? Man deludes themself in their pride: You are only a creation of God, it would be best for you to submit and find peace, for the good you send forth, so it shall be sent back, God is the Ultimate, God has no Son who can die or did die for your sins, how can something die for something elses sins? You are completely responsible for yourself and what you do, no one can save you other than you, you are your own savior.



No, animals do not have souls, God gave us power over all animals in the beginning, it is not a matter of pride, but privilege. Giving one's life for another IS the greatest act of love possible, so it is only fitting for God to send His son down to earth, suffering and dying for our sins. sacrifice is what it is. It is up to us to accept that from God, his gift of forgiveness. That is only through Jesus, however. The wages of sin is death. Though Jesus never sinned, He bore all of our sins in his body on the cross. Instead of God making us pay for our sins, He did it Himself by becoming one of us.

quote:

My God does not require your love if you do not provide it. It would be better for you to do right and submit and follow the straight path, if not, then you will be rewarded likewise for your turning away from the message.



I seem to be misunderstanding the "reward." You also keep saying that it would be best to submit. What happens if we don't? Or have you not thought of that?

quote:

Within God is Love and Hate, to say God is Love is to limit God the infinite the all encompassing, there is much more than Love in God.



God is love, but God also punishes the sinner and hates all who do iniquity. God is not one sided. He is not simply an infinitely loving God. He is also infinitely just. He must deal with sin. He must punish the sinner.

quote:

The world is full of sin right now, and has been full of it for a long time, but why, if your God is love and concern, does he make and allow it to happen?



I'm not one to clutter my posts, so here is copy+paste potential. http://www.carm.org/questions/whydidGodcreateus.htm

quote:

if your God is limited, and my God is unlimited, your God is limited by my God, my God is far superior as it encompasses all, even your God, the truth is, My God, is the only God. Your God is a limited concept. Denying my God is to deny the supreme power of the Ultimate God.



my God is not limited.

quote:

019.035

It is not befitting to Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.



If you read that God creating us thing, this should be proven false for the most part. Jesus needed to be born of a woman, in order to become a genuine man.

quote:

If God was a man who was lifting stones, God would not be God. God is what the man lifting stones exists within, and lifts the stone by. God is one.

Tossing that God is one in there made me laugh. But why can't God be a man lifting stones? God can do anything right? So what stops Him from becoming part man, and part divine?

You still are posting the same things, unless you were refreshing someone's memory...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It is also a "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet virtually nobody suggests that this "hypothesis" is wrong. Why? Because we have physical evidence that, at the very least, suggests that it will rise tomorrow. Of course, we could take an extremely skeptic position and argue the possibility that a humongous pink troll wearing a tight purple thong is going to eat the sun tonight; however, the evidence supporting the initial "hypothesis" still stands.

The same cannot be said of a "supreme being". While you may recognize it as intuitive fact, you lack any meaningful form of physical evidence that, at the very least, strongly suggests that your "hypothesis" is true.

Moreover, you don't just want us to admit the remote possibility that a supreme being might exist, as you want us to do with the problem of conscious thought in others. You presumably want us to believe in that supreme being which you suggest, in which case the burden is far more than just analogy of yours. So even if we admit that others might not possess conscious thought, the analogy is worthless in support of your argument if it is coupled with an absence of evidence.



Why is not existence:

"ex·is·tence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zstns)

n.

The fact or state of existing; being.

The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.

All that exists: sang the beauty of all existence.

A thing that exists; an entity.

A mode or manner of existing: scratched out a meager existence.

Specific presence; occurrence: The Geiger counter indicated the existence of radioactivity."

proof enough that we are within reality:

"re·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l-t)

n. pl. re·al·i·ties

The quality or state of being actual or true.

One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: “the weight of history and political realities” (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).

The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.

That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality."

which is what the Universe:

"u·ni·verse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (yn-vûrs)

n.

All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.

The human race.

The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

Logic. See universe of discourse.

Statistics. See population."

is Existing within and by, and that God:

"god ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gd)

n.

God

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

A very handsome man.

A powerful ruler or despot."

Is the Ultimate Reality which all Things:

"thing ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thng)

n.

An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.

The real or concrete substance of an entity.

An entity existing in space and time.

An inanimate object.

Something referred to by a word, a symbol, a sign, or an idea; a referent.

A creature: the poor little thing.

An individual object: There wasn't a thing in sight.

Law. That which can be possessed or owned. Often used in the plural: things personal; things real.

things Possessions; belongings: packed her things and left.

An article of clothing: Put on your things and let's go.

things The equipment needed for an activity or a special purpose: Where are my cleaning things?

An object or entity that is not or cannot be named specifically: What is this thing for?

An act, deed, or work: promised to do great things.

The result of work or activity: is always building things.

A thought, a notion, or an utterance: What a rotten thing to say!

A piece of information: wouldn't tell me a thing about the project.

A means to an end: just the thing to increase sales.

An end or objective: In blackjack, the thing is to get nearest to 21 without going over.

A matter of concern: many things on my mind.

A turn of events; a circumstance: The accident was a terrible thing.

things The general state of affairs; conditions: “Beneath the smooth surface of things, something was wrong” (Tom Wicker).

A particular state of affairs; a situation: Let's deal with this thing promptly.

Informal. A persistent illogical feeling, as a desire or an aversion; an obsession: has a thing about seafood.

Informal. The latest fad or fashion; the rage: Drag racing was the thing then.

Slang. An activity uniquely suitable and satisfying to one: Let him do his own thing. See Synonyms at forte1."

is what we Exist within.

[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-05-2006).]

I asked for evidence, not meaningless bullshit that a troll keeps spamming in order to avoid answering any questions. Try harder.

Proof that you stop using the word "God"

in the definition that you posted (which was completely useless, and in this case screwed you) it said that "God" was the ruler of the Universe. So your "god" rules Himself? That doesn't make much sense to me. Why would that be needed?

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

Proof that you stop using the word "God"

in the definition that you posted (which was completely useless, and in this case screwed you) it said that "God" was the ruler of the Universe. So your "god" rules Himself? That doesn't make much sense to me. Why would that be needed?

My God rules himself, and My God is not "The Universe" but what the Universe is made of, and within, what all universes and realities are within, The Ultimate Reality, God.

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:



"No, animals do not have souls, God gave us power over all animals in the beginning, it is not a matter of pride, but privilege."

You are only an animal, but man does have abilities which have allowed us to invent cars and computers, I believe even a plant has a soul, as my definition of soul is life force: what is your definition of soul?

"Giving one's life for another IS the greatest act of love possible, so it is only fitting for God to send His son down to earth, suffering and dying for our sins."

A Loving human would not kill his son for any reason, but protect his son from harm. How can another die and suffer for YOUR sins? You are responsible for your own sins!

"sacrifice is what it is. It is up to us to accept that from God, his gift of forgiveness. That is only through Jesus, however."

I believe God, your originator, who you were created by, and who you will return to, is the only one who can forgive your sins.

"The wages of sin is death. Though Jesus never sinned, He bore all of our sins in his body on the cross. Instead of God making us pay for our sins, He did it Himself by becoming one of us."

The Wages of Sin is Hellfire, and no man or "son of God" can bare the sins of another man, all the responsibility is your own to do right and earn your reward in life and after life, and only the Ultimate God can forgive your sins.

"I seem to be misunderstanding the "reward." You also keep saying that it would be best to submit. What happens if we don't? Or have you not thought of that?"

If you do not submit, the loss is only your own, you will live your life as you live it, and then you will die. On judgement day, when you will be asked why you didn't submit when the message came to you, what will your answer be? That you were told that God had a son who died for your sins, so you shut your eyes to the truth? Transgression and Rebellion and Breaking the Covenant "I hear and I obey", but what you did was invent a lie and took it for the truth.

"God is love, but God also punishes the sinner and hates all who do iniquity. God is not one sided. He is not simply an infinitely loving God. He is also infinitely just. He must deal with sin. He must punish the sinner."

So stop sinning and lying about the nature of God, inventing children, and making graven images, stop disobeying the law and follow the straight path!

"my God is not limited."

Then your God is what everything is within and existing by, and your God has no need for a son to sacrifice.

"If you read that God creating us thing, this should be proven false for the most part. Jesus needed to be born of a woman, in order to become a genuine man."

Jesus was a man. Mary was a woman. God is only God. Jesus is not God, nor is any man the son of God. God is far beyond having sons, you are all the manifestation of God the Creator, the Originator.

"Tossing that God is one in there made me laugh. But why can't God be a man lifting stones? God can do anything right? So what stops Him from becoming part man, and part divine?

You still are posting the same things, unless you were refreshing someone's memory..."

Everything in existence is within God and part of God. No one singular part is the Whole, God is the Ultimate, All Encompassing.





[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-05-2006).]

Seriously, quit it with the tossing nicknames after mentioning your "god." It's gotten pathetic and annoying. I take it you didn't read that link I posted, because several of your rebuttals should have been proven invalid by it.

In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person. But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man. <---CCC

How is there a judgement day with your "god?"

He is not a personal "god," and since he is everyone, why is there a need for judgement? You should return that belief to us, where it makes sense.

My God is not limited, but that does not require Him to BE everything that He created.

Jesus was God, was God's son, and was a man.

No one singular part is the Whole, God is the Ultimate, All Encompassing.

manifestation of God the Creator, the Originator. only the Ultimate God

just how many nicknames you tacked on ^^^

The things I didn't reply to, check them against the article I posted. Most of it having to do with the significance of sacrifice and forgiveness.

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

Seriously, quit it with the tossing nicknames after mentioning your "god." It's gotten pathetic and annoying. I take it you didn't read that link I posted, because several of your rebuttals should have been proven invalid by it.

In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person. But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man. <---CCC

How is there a judgement day with your "god?"

He is not a personal "god," and since he is everyone, why is there a need for judgement? You should return that belief to us, where it makes sense.

My God is not limited, but that does not require Him to BE everything that He created.

Jesus was God, was God's son, and was a man.

No one singular part is the Whole, God is the Ultimate, All Encompassing.

manifestation of God the Creator, the Originator. only the Ultimate God

just how many nicknames you tacked on ^^^

The things I didn't reply to, check them against the article I posted. Most of it having to do with the significance of sacrifice and forgiveness.

The Article agreed with me that God is self sufficient and unlimited. No everyone is not God, everyone is completely dependant on God and existing only because of God by God. A Singular Part is not the Whole. The Whole is within God, made of God. God is One, there is nothing but God. Nothing can exist outside of God.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

The Wages of Sin is Hellfire, and no man or "son of God" can bare the sins of another man, all the responsibility is your own to do right and earn your reward in life and after life, and only the Ultimate God can forgive your sins.



This means we're all screwed. If one sins in any way there is no way for God to forgive, cause the law is the law, and if I kill another human no amount of forgiveness by god, or any other, will change that event and erase that sin.

On the other hand if a human being created a robot and it was supposedly programmed to obey certain laws, but instead it ran amok causing destruction, the creator would be held responsible. For example Ralph Nader and the work he has done to hold resposnible the big corporations and make them pay fines, compensation, and clean up costs. This is the way fallible human justice deals with offenders/sinners. The analogy of course is to an omnipotent, omnsicient creator god, an infallible justice. If the creator of the sinner is the one who is responsible, then why should the creator not pay the fine? If the fine is death, then the creator can only pay that fine by dying.

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Uhh, what about dogs killing humans? Do the owners get killed? I mean, they raised the dogs to be nice...



And Abrahim, I thought you said your "god" is what we all consist of, and that he is within and of everyone. Am I missing something?

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

This means we're all screwed. If one sins in any way there is no way for God to forgive, cause the law is the law, and if I kill another human no amount of forgiveness by god, or any other, will change that event and erase that sin.

On the other hand if a human being created a robot and it was supposedly programmed to obey certain laws, but instead it ran amok causing destruction, the creator would be held responsible. For example Ralph Nader and the work he has done to hold resposnible the big corporations and make them pay fines, compensation, and clean up costs. This is the way fallible human justice deals with offenders/sinners. The analogy of course is to an omnipotent, omnsicient creator god, an infallible justice. If the creator of the sinner is the one who is responsible, then why should the creator not pay the fine? If the fine is death, then the creator can only pay that fine by dying.

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



I believe that God doesn't need to make blood sacrifice to make something happen, thus the True God can Forgive anything or nothing simply "Be" and it is. I'm against the concept of God having sons who need to die for OTHER people's sins.

You seem very selfish then. Giving up your own life/watching your own son suffer is an incredible act of love on God's part.

quote:I'll just back that up by pointing out that the common definition of God is that he is uncreated, so the objection doesn't hold.

The universe - also could have existed for an infinite amount of time going from big bang to big crunch in perpetual motion.

quote:Think about it, if something is eternal, you can keep on going back in time for an infinite amount without reaching an end.

Which is why there is no need for a creator of the universe.

quote:As a result of free will he would not be able to change the way we perceive the world.

1 - We do not have freewill

2 - If there is something God can not do he is not omnipotent.

quote:I also find the Christian religion illogical.

ANY religion of belief involving the existence of a supreme being or supernatural entities are illogical.

quote:Descartes, the father of Western scientific thought as we know it, faced the same problem when asked how he could PROVE the "I exist" part of cogito ergo sum. He responded the same way, that it was an intuitive recognition.

Descartes was wrong. He never realised that he can't prove that 'i' exists because 'i' has the presupposed hidden premise that the thoughts are being generated by himself. In reality all we can know beyond any doubt is that 'there are thoughts'. Descartes also used circular logic later on in his same hypothosis but that is getting off topic.

quote:Simply because you cannot see something does not mean that you cannot prove(beyond a reasonable doubt) that it exists.

Nothing except for the fact that there are thoughts can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

quote:For people with spiritual, rather than dogmatic religious, convictions the existence of a supreme being is an equally obvious intuitive fact, it is something felt.

Descartes was wrong about intuitive facts - as i have already proven, therefore to base the validity of a religious conviction of Descartes error would be invalid reasoning.

quote:When you say God doesn't exist, to me its like saying nothing exists

That is because you have defined God as reality...

quote:because I find that it is God which all things are dependant on and relying on in order to exist, that if there was nothing there would still be nothing.

What if there was always something??

quote:God created this Reality

Prove it - the burden of proof is on you, now back up your claim or state it as your opinion and not fact.

quote:My God has always existed, my God is essentially all there is and ever was, the One, Originator of everything, there is nothing but God.

Prove it. The burden of proof is on you to backup your claims. Either that or admit that you can't and that these ramblings are just your opinion.

quote:I find that my God is logical

Oh no. The very assumption that your conscious reality of a God exists has no place in logic, don't ever claim that and do not ever be so dishonest as to assume it.

quote:The problem is also similar to the paradox of whether God could create a stone that he could not lift

There is something that annoys me about this 'paradox' and that is that it assumes that God would create the rock in an environment where it would have weight - as opposed to the rock having no weight do to there being no gravity... essentially it compares Gods ability to closely to that of man... but anyways...

quote:It is also a "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet virtually nobody suggests that this "hypothesis" is wrong. Why? Because we have physical evidence that, at the very least, suggests that it will rise tomorrow.

Empirical evidence placed into a logially inductive argument - i'm sure i do not need to tell you that inductive arguments are invalid.

quote:The same cannot be said of a "supreme being". While you may recognize it as intuitive fact

Intuitive fact is in no way a criterion of truth anyways - whether they can come up with empirical evidence (which they can't) http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:No, animals do not have souls, God gave us power over all animals

Humans are animals.

quote:No, animals do not have souls, God gave us power over all animals ... nstead of God making us pay for our sins, He did it Himself by becoming one of us.

You can not back any of that up without refering to scripture (which would be circular logic) so propose it all as your opinion or fufill the burden of truth.

quote:my God is not limited.

I'm going to assume that your God is omnipotent and omniscient - in which case your god is limited. The two are mutually exclusive and the argument against this is flawless - if your god knows what it will do it can only do that and so is not omnipotent... therefore limited. Either change the definition or accept the logical reality.

quote:Jesus needed to be born of a woman, in order to become a genuine man.

Why didn't your omnipotent God just make him a man - he did not need a women.

quote:I asked for evidence, not meaningless bullshit that a troll keeps spamming in order to avoid answering any questions. Try harder.

Couldn't agree more.



Infact - i'm sick of everyone making claims about things without backing a single thing up with any kind of evidence, quoting scriptures would be circular logic and that is all you have... either fufill the burden of proof or stop professing what is in actuality your opinion as fact.

The Bible, and the Qu'ran should serve as decent proof to you, unless you can find an inaccuracy or contradiction in the source. If you are not willing to take them with a grain of salt for debate's sake, then GTFO

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Couldn't agree more.



Infact - i'm sick of everyone making claims about things without backing a single thing up with any kind of evidence, quoting scriptures would be circular logic and that is all you have... either fufill the burden of proof or stop professing what is in actuality your opinion as fact.

What evidence are you looking for if all you know for sure is "There are thoughts".

"The universe - also could have existed for an infinite amount of time going from big bang to big crunch in perpetual motion."

That is exactly what I believe in happening, but I do not believe that can happen nor can any physical matter occur nor can a motion be made without the base which is God, alternatively Reality or Ultimate Reality.

"Which is why there is no need for a creator of the universe."

There is need for what allows this and the perpetual motion to exist. I am calling this thing that allows and what all is within and existing by God.

"1 - We do not have freewill

2 - If there is something God can not do he is not omnipotent."

"I'm going to assume that your God is omnipotent and omniscient - in which case your god is limited."

People often imagine God as some being "Doing" things, while God is what all things are done by and within.

"Oh no. The very assumption that your conscious reality of a God exists has no place in logic, don't ever claim that and do not ever be so dishonest as to assume it."

If it didn't exist and was not conscious, not a thing would exist or be able to move.

"There are thoughts" Those are Gods.

"I think therefor I am"

but I say "God thinks, therefor I am"

These are the thoughts manifest, this is only one possibility playing itself out within it many more possibilities.

If God was dead, unconscious, not living, then there would not be anything, nor would there be a movement. God is ever living and has always lived and so to have all possibilities, the ripe plain of infinite knowledge un ending which makes up all things known and unknown (to us).

What evidence do you want? You can find doubt in everything, and a life wasted away with only a question mark to say.

The message is for simply those who will believe it, to give them understanding, to rise them up from confusion and give them an answer.

For me, and maybe Potentgirt too now, this topic is designed for sorting out.

We have sides here too:

The Athiests: There is no God stop hallucinating!

The Semi Athiests: You will never know if there is a God or not so Who cares?

The We Can't Know Anything Guy: All I know is that I don't know.

The Christian: Jesus is your Lord and Savior, simple as that!

Abrahim: Look at your hand! Get it?

and more!

Join in! This is Ragnarok!



[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 07-05-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

People often imagine God as some being "Doing" things, while God is what all things are done by and within.(edited 07-05-2006).]

So in reading that I have found out your 'god' does everything.

If he does everything how do we have free will?

If we don't have free will how is it that you're listening to your 'god' but others are not.



[This message has been edited by Aeroue (edited 07-05-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Aeroue:

So in reading that I have found out your 'god' does everything.

If he does everything how do we have free will?

If we don't have free will how is it that you're listening to your 'god' but others are not.



There is no process that can occur or exist without God. Can you walk across the street or pick a flower from a garden instead? Look up, look down, look left, look right: You are the one looking up and down and left and right, God is what provided those possibilities, enables you to exist, and what you utilize in order to make those decisions and perform those actions.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It is also a "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet virtually nobody suggests that this "hypothesis" is wrong. Why? Because we have physical evidence that, at the very least, suggests that it will rise tomorrow.

This exact question was explored by David Hume, who used the same example himself. He argued that there is no RATIONAL basis to expect the run to rise tomorrow, only an intuitive feeling that it will. Because there is nothing in any a posteriori truth about the causal relationship between two events that is necessarily true, all we can say is that we have frequently observed two certain events coinciding sequentially in the past. This type of problem has nothing to do with the existence of the mind, it's a question for epistemology.



From David Hume's "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"

quote: ALL the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. That the square of the hypothenuse is equal to the square of the two sides, is a proposition which expresses a relation between these figures. That three times five is equal to the half of thirty, expresses a relation between these numbers. Propositions of this kind are discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe. Though there never were a circle or triangle in nature, the truths demonstrated by Euclid would for ever retain their certainty and evidence.

Matters of fact, which are the second objects of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing. The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable to reality. That the sun will not rise to-morrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise. We should in vain, therefore, attempt to demonstrate its falsehood. Were it demonstratively false, it would imply a contradiction, and could never be distinctly conceived by the mind.

quote: All reasonings concerning matter of fact seem to be founded on the relation of Cause and Effect. By means of that relation alone we can go beyond the evidence of our memory and senses. If you were to ask a man, why he believes any matter of fact, which is absent; for instance, that his friend is in the country, or in France; he would give you a reason; and this reason would be some other fact; as a letter received from him, or the knowledge of his former resolutions and promises. A man finding a watch or any other machine in a desert island, would conclude that there had once been men in that island. All our reasonings concerning fact are of the same nature. And here it is constantly supposed that there is a connexion between the present fact and that which is inferred from it. Were there nothing to bind them together, the inference would be entirely precarious. The hearing of an articulate voice and rational discourse in the dark assures us of the presence of some person: Why? because these are the effects of the human make and fabric, and closely connected with it. If we anatomize all the other reasonings of this nature, we shall find that they are founded on the relation of cause and effect, and that this relation is either near or remote, direct or collateral. Heat and light are collateral effects of fire, and the one effect may justly be inferred from the other.

If we would satisfy ourselves, therefore, concerning the nature of that evidence, which assures us of matters of fact, we must enquire how we arrive at the knowledge of cause and effect.

I shall venture to affirm, as a general proposition, which admits of no exception, that the knowledge of this relation is not, in any instance, attained by reasonings a priori; but arises entirely from experience, when we find that any particular objects are constantly conjoined with each other. Let an object be presented to a man of ever so strong natural reason and abilities; if that object be entirely new to him, he will not be able, by the most accurate examination of its sensible qualities, to discover any of its causes or effects. Adam, though his rational faculties be supposed, at the very first, entirely perfect, could not have inferred from the fluidity and transparency of water that it would suffocate him, or from the light and warmth of fire that it would consume him. No object ever discovers, by the qualities which appear to the senses, either the causes which produced it, or the effects which will arise from it; nor can our reason, unassisted by experience, ever draw any inference concerning real existence and matter of fact.

quote: And as the first imagination or invention of a particular effect, in all natural operations, is arbitrary, where we consult not experience; so must we also esteem the supposed tie or connexion between the cause and effect, which binds them together, and renders it impossible that any other effect could result from the operation of that cause. When I see, for instance, a Billiard-ball moving in a straight line towards another; even suppose motion in the second ball should by accident be suggested to me, as the result of their contact or impulse; may I not conceive, that a hundred different events might as well follow from that cause? May not both these balls remain at absolute rest? May not the first ball return in a straight line, or leap off from the second in any line or direction? All these suppositions are consistent and conceivable. Why then should we give the preference to one, which is no more consistent or conceivable than the rest? All our reasonings a priori will never be able to show us any foundation for this preference.

In a word, then, every effect is a distinct event from its cause. It could not, therefore, be discovered in the cause, and the first invention or conception of it, a priori, must be entirely arbitrary. And even after it is suggested, the conjunction of it with the cause must appear equally arbitrary; since there are always many other effects, which, to reason, must seem fully as consistent and natural. In vain, therefore, should we pretend to determine any single event, or infer any cause or effect, without the assistance of observation and experience.

http://eserver.org/18th/hume-enquiry.html

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

This exact question was explored by David Hume, who used the same example himself. He argued that there is no RATIONAL basis to expect the run to rise tomorrow, only an intuitive feeling that it will. Because there is nothing in any a posteriori truth about the causal relationship between two events that is necessarily true, all we can say is that we have frequently observed two certain events coinciding sequentially in the past. This type of problem has nothing to do with the existence of the mind, it's a question for epistemology.

We can say much more than that. We can use Physics, Geometry, and Algebra (what Hume calls Relations of Ideas) to substantiate the "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow. Again I, like Hume, admitted to the remote possibility of it that potentially proving to be false; but that, in and of itself, is irrelevant.

I'm arguing the fact that the hypothesis still has physical evidence to substantiate it, and in doing so, I am contrasting that with your "hypothesis" about the existence of a supreme being, which lacks that physical evidence. Whether that evidence can or cannot remove all possible doubts about another event - in order to make it a contradiction in terms so as to remove all doubt of its possibility - does not change that evidence still exists, which is much more than what we can say of your proposition.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

The universe - also could have existed for an infinite amount of time going from big bang to big crunch in perpetual motion.

Yes, in which case from our point of view there has been an infinite number of universes that existed in the past, and an infinite number that existed in the future.

Since hard determenism is hard to reconcile with quantum theory it's very unlikely that all those universes were and will be indentical to our own.

Even assuming that the laws of physics remain the same each time the universe starts with a Big Bang, given an infinite number of cycles then the permutations of events relative to our world would be overwhelmingly diverse. Anything conceivable within the constraints of physics and logic has already occured, and will occur again an infinite number of times.

However as far as I know, there is are more compelling cases to be made for the origin of this universe. If it was something like an anomalous interaction between virtual particles, or something more exotic like the ekpyrotic scenario, this universe will only have run once.

And if it happened once with our universe by chance, then over an infinite amount of time it will necessarily happen an infinite number of times.

Hence the infinite alternate universes I referred to earlier.

The difference with these alternate universes from the ones earlier is that the would not have the same starting conditions as ours, the total quantity of energy would be the first obvious thing to be variable. Next, why should we assume that every single constant should be identical? There's no reason to assume this, one way or the other. Same thing goes for the laws of physics.

Even Leonard Susskind, the creator of string theory, believes there are an unimaginable number of alternate universes, which have different laws of physics:

quote:Why are physicists taking the idea of multiple universes seriously now?

First, there was the discovery in the past few years that inflation seems right. This theory that the universe expanded spectacularly in the first fraction of a second fits a lot of data. Inflation tells us that the universe is probably extremely big and necessarily diverse. On sufficiently big scales, and if inflation lasts long enough, this diversity will produce every possible universe. The same process that forged our universe in a big bang will happen over and over. The mathematics are rickety, but that's what inflation implies: a huge universe with patches that are very different from one another. The bottom line is that we no longer have any good reason to believe that our tiny patch of universe is representative of the whole thing.

Second was the discovery that the value of the cosmological constant - the energy of empty space which contributes to the expansion rate of the universe - seems absurdly improbable, and nothing in fundamental physics is able to explain why. I remember when Steven Weinberg first suggested that the cosmological constant might be anthropically determined - that it has to be this way otherwise we would not be here to observe it. I was very impressed with the argument, but troubled by it. Like everybody else, I thought the cosmological constant was probably zero - meaning that all the quantum fluctuations that make up the vacuum energy cancel out, and gravity alone affects the expansion of the universe. It would be much easier to explain if they cancelled out to zero, rather than to nearly zero. The discovery that there is a non-zero cosmological constant changed everything. Still, those two things were not enough to tip the balance for me.

What finally convinced you?

The discovery in string theory of this large landscape of solutions, of different vacuums, which describe very different physical environments, tipped the scales for me. At first, string theorists thought there were about a million solutions. Thinking about Weinberg's argument and about the non-zero cosmological constant, I used to go around asking my mathematician friends: are you sure it's only a million? They all assured me it was the best bet.

But a million is not enough for anthropic explanations - the chances of one of the universes being suitable for life are still too small. When Joe Polchinski and Raphael Bousso wrote their paper in 2000 that revealed there are more like 10500 vacuums in string theory, that to me was the tipping point. The three things seemed to be coming together. I felt I couldn't ignore this possibility, so I wrote a paper saying so. The initial reaction was very hostile, but over the past couple of years people are taking it more seriously. They are worried that it might be true. This is his in an interview with New Scientist:

Steven Weinberg recently said that this is one of the great sea changes in fundamental science since Einstein, that it changes the nature of science itself. Is it such a radical change?

In a way it is very radical but in another way it isn't. The great ambition of physicists like myself was to explain why the laws of nature are just what they are. Why is the proton just about 1800 times heavier than the electron? Why do neutrinos exist? The great hope was that some deep mathematical principle would determine all the constants of nature, like Newton's constant. But it seems increasingly likely that the constants of nature are more like the temperature of the Earth - properties of our local environment that vary from place to place. Like the temperature, many of the constants have to be just so if intelligent life is to exist. So we live where life is possible.

For some physicists this idea is an incredible disappointment. Personally, I don't see it that way. I find it exciting to think that the universe may be much bigger, richer and full of variety than we ever expected. And it doesn't seem so incredibly philosophically radical to think that some things may be environmental. http://tinyurl.com/pb38q

Well, transitive property, which is quite logical, says if a = b, b = c, then a = c.

If God is infinite, everywhere, and whatever other property he/she/it has, and reality has the same, God = Reality.

Then again, by calling God reality I hope you realize you're basically creating a lifeless matter and considering all the books to be written about some mindless, basic happenings.

Me, I'm agnostic.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

We can say much more than that. We can use Physics, Geometry, and Algebra (what Hume calls Relations of Ideas) to substantiate the "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow.

What??

The "relation of ideas" are a priori facts, which is why geometry and the like are used to explore them. They cannot be used to substantiate the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow, because it is a "matter of fact", not a "relation of ideas".

quote:The most perfect philosophy of the natural kind only staves off our ignorance a little longer: as perhaps the most perfect philosophy of the moral or metaphysical kind serves only to discover larger portions of it. Thus the observation of human blindness and weakness is the result of all philosophy, and meets us at every turn, in spite of our endeavours to elude or avoid it.

Nor is geometry, when taken into the assistance of natural philosophy, ever able to remedy this defect, or lead us into the knowledge of ultimate causes, by all that accuracy of reasoning for which it is so justly celebrated.



quote:I'm arguing the fact that the hypothesis still has physical evidence to substantiate it, and in doing so, I am contrasting that with your "hypothesis" about the existence of a supreme being, which lacks that physical evidence.

1) If you have read Hume, you wouldn't have said that your physical evidence gives you any rational basis for claiming truth about such a hypothesis.

2) If you had read my posts, you would have seen that I am backing up my notion of "god" with the theories of physicists, who have exprapolated their theories from physical evidence.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

"So infinity must be unchanging. It must simply be everything - this is the hardest thought I have EVER wrapped by head around.

It must be everything in the past, everything in the future, everything in the present, everything that ever existed, will exist, everything that could conceivably exist and all of that is simply a teardrop in the ocean compared to what must be possible yet incomprehensible to an imagination that is bound by the arbitrary laws of logic that govern our universe, not to mention the computational ability of our brain.

EVERYTHING.

If god is infinite, there is nothing that he is not. There is nothing that is not a part of "infinity", or else "infinity" could not exist. And if "infinity" cannot exist, God cannot be infinite.

And if God cannot be infinite, something is conceivably greater than him - so how can he be "God"?"



ok i know i am quoting an old post but i saw a fatal flaw whe you said everything in the past and present and future must be infinity is reality or existence

that means god created himself and if he decides that he wants to destroy existence he destroys himself so he would no longer exist because you say he is reality. so logically if reality is destroyed god is destroyed

i think you are trying to equate god with infinity you say that if infinity doesn't exist then god isn't infinite that is like saying if omnipotence doesn't exist(not in our reality) then god isn't omnipotent god can be what he wants he is god

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

What??

The "relation of ideas" are a priori facts, which is why geometry and the like are used to explore them. They cannot be used to substantiate the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow, because it is a "matter of fact", not a "relation of ideas"

That's if I accept what Hume is saying as completely true, which should be obvious that I do not.

quote:1) If you have read Hume, you wouldn't have said that your physical evidence gives you any rational basis for claiming truth about such a hypothesis.

2) If you had read my posts, you would have seen that I am backing up my notion of "god" with the theories of physicists, who have exprapolated their theories from physical evidence.

1. What a truly moronic thing to say. One doesn't have to agree with Hume by simply reading his writings. It's obvious that I do not agree with the notion that Physics cannot be used to substantiate (note, I'm not saying "prove beyond any doubt") the notion that the sun will rise tomorrow.

2. No, what you're doing is providing evidence that some theoretical Scientists believe in other universes. That hardly substantiates a "supreme being"; certainly not to the degree in which other things being debated here - be it the sun rising tomorrow, or others possessing conscious thought, are.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-05-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

ok i know i am quoting an old post but i saw a fatal flaw whe you said everything in the past and present and future must be infinity is reality or existence

that means god created himself and if he decides that he wants to destroy existence he destroys himself so he would no longer exist because you say he is reality. so logically if reality is destroyed god is destroyed

i think you are trying to equate god with infinity you say that if infinity doesn't exist then god isn't infinite that is like saying if omnipotence doesn't exist(not in our reality) then god isn't omnipotent god can be what he wants he is god

Alright, that quote that was says it was mine was me requoting Imperfectcircle.

I, Abrahim Esker, say that God is the Ultimate Reality, which all things exist within, and if you stripped God of all that is within it, all things, it would be in the image of nothing, not black or white voids, but pure and absolute nothing, but only in image because God is infinite, and the infinite knowledge is what makes up this Reality which is just one of an infinite number of other realities which exist within the Infinite singular God.

God didn't create himself, God has always existed and will always exist, God is all there is and ever was, God manifested the concepts of this reality and this universe including linear time.

I don't mean reality as the universe, I mean it as what the universe exists within, what the big bang occured within. God is what encompasses everything.

quote:Originally posted by Navicalist:

Well, transitive property, which is quite logical, says if a = b, b = c, then a = c.

If God is infinite, everywhere, and whatever other property he/she/it has, and reality has the same, God = Reality.

Then again, by calling God reality I hope you realize you're basically creating a lifeless matter and considering all the books to be written about some mindless, basic happenings.

Me, I'm agnostic.

Lifeless matter? If it was lifeless, so too would you be without a life, and nothing would exist or move.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

That's if I accept what Hume is saying as completely true, which should be obvious that I do not.

That's not my objection.

My objection is that what you said doesn't make any sense, you cannot be familiar with Hume's terms.



quote: 1. What a truly moronic thing to say. One doesn't have to agree with Hume by simply reading his writings. It's obvious that I do not agree with the notion that Physics cannot be used to substantiate (note, I'm not saying "prove beyond any doubt") the notion that the sun will rise tomorrow.

If you want to make such a claim, justify it rationally.

The buren of proof is on you to explain why he is incorrect, he has already presented elaborate arguments for his beliefs, you have simply stated an opinion.

quote:2. No, what you're doing is providing evidence that some theoretical Scientists believe in other universes. That hardly substantiates a "supreme being";

Yes it does, according to the definition of "supreme being" that I have presented.

Your objection wasn't about anything else in this thread, you specifically said it was against MY hypothesis about a supreme being.

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

Uhh, what about dogs killing humans? Do the owners get killed? I mean, they raised the dogs to be nice...



And Abrahim, I thought you said your "god" is what we all consist of, and that he is within and of everyone. Am I missing something?

My God is what everything is made of and exists by. What is it that you thought you might be missing?

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Alright, that quote that was says it was mine was me requoting Imperfectcircle.



but you said that was what you were trying to say you said that he grasped what you were trying to tell everybody. then what about the second part of my post talking about omnipotence

i think you are trying to equate god with infinity you say that if infinity doesn't exist then god isn't infinite that is like saying if omnipotence doesn't exist(not in our reality) then god isn't omnipotent god can be what he wants he is god

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:



That's not my objection.

My objection is that what you said doesn't make any sense, you cannot be familiar with Hume's terms.



Then you should read what I said again. I never once say that Hume agrees with what I am saying; I mention physics, Geometry and Algebra, and comment that these are what Hume calls "relation of ideas". That's it. Had I said that Hume said, or agreed, that "relation of ideas" could substantiate "matters of fact" you would have a point.

As it stands though, I only express my position, not Humes. You have no point.

quote:If you want to make such a claim, justify it rationally.

The buren of proof is on you to explain why he is incorrect, he has already presented elaborate arguments for his beliefs, you have simply stated an opinion.

Sorry, but just because you quoted Hume, and I said I disagreed with him, doesn't mean that I have a burden of proof to explain myself. Why I disagree with what Hume said (to some extent), is not in question.

Moreover, the fact of the matter is that I agree with the vast majority of what Hume said, and that which is most relevant to this debate. Hume never argues that inductive reasoning (which is at the heart of this debate) should be done away with completely, never to be accepted. He argues that we cannot say, to use the sun example again, that it is a logical necessity that the sun rise tomorrow. I accept that. I already told you this. I agree that we can take such an extreme form of skepticism that allows for the existence of a magical pink troll that might eat the sun tonight.

quote:Yes it does, according to the definition of "supreme being" that I have presented.

Your objection wasn't about anything else in this thread, you specifically said it was against MY hypothesis about a supreme being.

Yet my point is that it doesn't have the level of substantiation that the other things being debated here do. Or are you suggesting that the unproven assertions that these theoretical scientists are making have more credibility than the laws of Geometry and Physics which govern the rotation of the planets? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

So you would like, if anything, this concept of God to be proven through mathematics?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

We can use Physics, Geometry, and Algebra (what Hume calls Relations of Ideas) to substantiate the "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I mention physics, Geometry and Algebra, and comment that these are what Hume calls "relation of ideas".

As I already posted in this thread:

quote:From Hume's "Enquiry"

ALL the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic

quote: Matters of fact, which are the second objects of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner

To recap, you are wrong about the following things:

1) Hume's "relation of ideas" are not geometry or algebra, geometry and algebra (for instance) are the methods by which a "relation of ideas" is verified.

"relation of ideas" are a priori truths.

2) You also said that Hume's "relation of ideas" are:

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Physics, Geometry, and Algebra

On top of the fact that you were wrong in the first place as I showed in my first point, only geometry and algebra could be used to verify Hume's "relation of ideas".

Physics could only be used to verify his "matters of fact", which are a posteriori truths.

3) As well as being wrong about what his "relation of ideas" are, you were wrong about what falls into their domain.

You claimed that whether the sun will rise tomorrow or not falls into the category of "relation of ideas" (although you stated it wrongly when you claimed that the methods of verifying "relation of ideas" are the same thing as "relation of ideas"), when you said that the methods of verifying "relation of ideas" can be used to:

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

substantiate the "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Again, as I already posted in this thread, Hume said the opposite (in Part 1 of Section 4, when he is talking about "matters of fact"):

quote:From Hume's "Enquiry"

The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable to reality. That the sun will not rise to-morrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise. We should in vain, therefore, attempt to demonstrate its falsehood. Were it demonstratively false, it would imply a contradiction, and could never be distinctly conceived by the mind.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

To recap, you are wrong about the following things:

1) Hume's "relation of ideas" are not geometry or algebra, geometry and algebra (for instance) are the methods by which a "relation of ideas" is verified.

"relation of ideas" are a priori truths.



Really? You should tell that to Hume then:

"ALL the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. "

They are "relations of ideas". They are examples of them; not the only ones of course, since Hume considers "relations of ideas" to be any 'affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain', but they are still examples of "relations of ideas".

quote:As well as being wrong about what his "relation of ideas" are, you were wrong about what falls into their domain.

You claimed that whether the sun will rise tomorrow or not falls into the category of "relation of ideas" (although you stated it wrongly when you claimed that the methods of verifying "relation of ideas" are the same thing as "relation of ideas"), when you said that the methods of verifying "relation of ideas" can be used to:

I never claimed such a thing. I suggest you read what I say before you continue to make a fool out of yourself. I actually said the oppossite when I said the hypothesis (i.e. "the sun will rise tomorrow") was not a logical necessity. By allowing it to be potentiably false in the future, I'm automatically categorizing it as a "matter of fact".

quote:Again, as I already posted in this thread, Hume said the opposite (in Part 1 of Section 4, when he is talking about "matters of fact"):

Hume says that it is impossible to determine, as a logical necessity (please take note of this), that the sun will rise tomorrow. I agree. A pink troll might come and eat the sun, thus making it so that it doesn't rise tomorrow. As such, it is not a logical necessity that the sun rise tomorrow, and I agree.

What I am doing is making a distinction between proving that something must happen (i.e. that it is a logical necessity), and that something is substantiated (i.e. that there is evidence that suggests this is what would happen - though there exists the potential that this would prove to be incorrect).

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-05-2006).]

When you're in a hole, stop digging Rust http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Really? You should tell that to Hume then:

"ALL the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. "

They are "relations of ideas". They are examples of them; not the only ones of course, since Hume considers "relations of ideas" to be any 'affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain', but they are still examples of "relations of ideas".

You'll notice I already quoted this when I was proving you wrong, odd choice of thing to throw back in my face, odder still that you compound your incompetence with it.

Look real close at the words, and read the following sentence closely:

"relation of ideas" are "every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain"

Do you know what the word "affirmation" means? Here's the dictionary entry for it:

quote:affirmation



SYLLABICATION: af·fir·ma·tion

PRONUNCIATION: fr-mshn

NOUN: 1. The act of affirming or the state of being affirmed; assertion. 2. Something declared to be true; a positive statement or judgment. 3. Law A solemn declaration given in place of a sworn statement by a person who conscientiously objects to taking an oath.

An affirmation is a PROPOSITION of truth.

When Hume says that "Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic" are "OF "relation of ideas", it is the same as saying "geometry is an a priori discipline" - saying that "geometry is AN A PRIORI doesn't make sense.

When Hume talks of the "relation of ideas" / "matters of fact" dichotomy he is using his own terms to describe the a priori / a posteriori distinction:

quote:Hume further distinguished between two sorts of belief. (Enquiry IV i) Relations of ideas are beliefs grounded wholly on associations formed within the mind; they are capable of demonstration because they have no external referent. Matters of fact are beliefs that claim to report the nature of existing things; they are always contingent. (This is Hume's version of the a priori / a posteriori distinction.) Mathematical and logical knowledge relies upon relations of ideas; it is uncontroversial but uninformative. The interesting but problematic propositions of natural science depend upon matters of fact. www.philosophypages.com/hy/4t.htm (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4t.htm)

You clearly learned all you know about Hume from scanning through my link to the Enquiry after I posted it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I never claimed such a thing. I suggest you read what I say

OK.

I'll divide what you said into two parts to prove why you were wrong:

"We can use [-], Geometry, and Algebra" - what Hume said is used to verify "relation of ideas"

"to substantiate the "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow." - which Hume said is a "matter of fact"

quote:before you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

I'm the one who has had university lectures on Hume, you're the one who has a feeble grasp of what he said.

That makes you the fool.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

When Hume says that "Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic" are "OF "relation of ideas", it is the same as saying "geometry is an a priori discipline" - saying that "geometry is AN A PRIORI doesn't make sense.

When Hume talks of the "relation of ideas" / "matters of fact" dichotomy he is using his own terms to describe the a priori / a posteriori distinction:

"Hello Captain Pedantic Semantic"!

When one says that Arithmetic is a priori, then obviously what is meant is that it is an a priori discipline!

Either we consider the discipline itself a "relation of ideas" or a grouping of many different "relation of ideas". The result is the same. Your objection is merely a pathetic grasp for straws, as it is ultimately meaningless in that it fails to refute my argument.

quote:OK.

I'll divide what you said into two parts to prove why you were wrong:

"We can use [-], Geometry, and Algebra" - what Hume said is used to verify "relation of ideas"

"to substantiate the "hypothesis" that the sun will rise tomorrow." - which Hume said is a "matter of fact"

Which you've yet to show how it was an erroneous statement given that:

1. I've repeatedly said that I don't agree with every single thing Hume said. Thus, what Hume categorized them as is rendered irrelevant.

2. I've repeatedly told you that I am making a distinction between "substantiate" and proving something to be a logical necessity, which is what Hume argued was impossible.

quote:I'm the one who has had university lectures on Hume, you're the one who has a feeble grasp of what he said.



They obviously proved worthless because your main objection has been a pathetic one; and this against someone who supposedly just read over a website, as you so stupidly claimed!



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-05-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If I ever admit being wrong my head will crack open http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)

I'm done flogging this dead horse.

The irony is hilarious. Thank you for that.

Alot of Intellectual Masturbation,

No Intellectual Ejaculation.

If I had to guess who was drunk during that debate....

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

If I had to guess who was drunk during that debate....

Woshod wofush yod gez?

quote:The Bible, and the Qu'ran should serve as decent proof to you, unless you can find an inaccuracy or contradiction in the source.

If you are talking to me and my request for proof - how the fuck are the Bible and Qu'ran proof of anything?? If you think they are proof of God then you are using circular logic, what proofs are in either volume of fraud??

quote:What evidence are you looking for if all you know for sure is "There are thoughts".

It is all you know for sure aswell - therefore you can not give me proof can you?? Therefore you should stop professing things as 'fact' when they are only your opinion.

quote:but I do not believe that can happen nor can any physical matter occur nor can a motion be made without the base which is God, alternatively Reality or Ultimate Reality.

Why does reality have to be a conscious God?? I know you can not back up any answer you make to that question but i will wait anyway...

quote:I am calling this thing that allows and what all is within and existing by God.

That is fine - don't claim that your God is conscious though - you are commiting the fallacy of equivocation when you talk of God being reality and then God being the conscious being of the Qu'ran. You should be saying God = a conscious reality. Then explain why reality needs to be conscious because if it is not necessary then Occam's razor will do away with it.

quote:People often imagine God as some being "Doing" things

Does God ever do anything in the Qu'ran?

quote:If it didn't exist and was not conscious, not a thing would exist or be able to move.

Why not?

quote:"I think therefor I am"

but I say "God thinks, therefor I am"

'I think therefore i am' is false...

quote:If God was dead, unconscious, not living, then there would not be anything, nor would there be a movement.

Why??

quote:What evidence do you want? You can find doubt in everything, and a life wasted away with only a question mark to say.

Atleast i am being totally intellectually honest about my ability to 'know' things - which is more than anyone who follows a God can ever say.

quote:The message is for simply those who will believe it

Those nieve ones who you would hope to convert.

As for Hume - Inductive arguments are always logically invalid in structure, by making predictions about future a posteriori events from observations of past a posteriori events. However, this does mean that we should (or even could) do away with inductive reasoning. I agree with Rust that it is more likely that the sun will rise tommorow than there is a supreme being - even if the only evidence is an invalid inductive argument, it is more than we can say for God.

Imperfectcircle - all you achieved in that long post was to indicate that there is a possibility of multiple universes...??I'm not sure if that was your intention or not but the post of mine that you replied to was just offering an alternate universe to the finite one.

Abrahim: In every one of your arguments you have defined reality as God, then proved that if you define god as reality, certain things are true, and god exhibits the characteristics of reality (because you defined him as such).

Why? Just why? What does defining God as reality do? What does it mean?

How is your religion any different from atheism (except for what name you use for reality)?

I hate to suck dicks but I have to say, Abrahim I think you are actually really smart.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Those nieve ones who you would hope to convert.

"It is all you know for sure aswell - therefore you can not give me proof can you?? Therefore you should stop professing things as 'fact' when they are only your opinion."

and since all that can be known, according to you is that "there are thoughts" what is a fact in anything, but if all you believe in are thoughts, that there are only thoughts, I agree, and those thoughts, I call it: God.

"Why does reality have to be a conscious God?? I know you can not back up any answer you make to that question but i will wait anyway..."

because if something is dead, it doesn't exist, it doesn't move, and it doesn't think: I am stating that it is ALIVE, that "There are Thoughts" and those "Thoughts" that there are, that make up everything, I am calling it God.

If it was dead, there would be no thoughts, "Why?" because dead things can't produce thoughts, and according to you "there are thoughts" so it is concious and alive.

"Does God ever do anything in the Qu'ran?"

What do you mean?

To Ian: My religion isn't much different from Athiesm in some senses but I want to fill in the holes, bring athiests to a more spiritual meditative understanding that grasps what is beyond, to destroy the false idols created by people for their religions...

What it means? Its the first lesson in submission, peace, humility: That there is one thing you are all part of, meaning you are no greater than anything.

I am trying to filter out "Those nieve ones who you would hope to convert." for the next steps. I am seeing who is receptive to this concept, who comprehends it, and who might be willing to take the next steps in what I believe in the right direction.

quote:Originally posted by Kleenex:

I hate to suck dicks but I have to say, Abrahim I think you are actually really smart.

Thanks man, I really appreciate that!

Do I have you on MSN yet?

quote:and since all that can be known, according to you is that "there are thoughts" what is a fact in anything

Exactly.

quote:but if all you believe in are thoughts, that there are only thoughts, I agree, and those thoughts, I call it: God.

It is not a 'belief' it is the only logical certainty beyond any doubt. Don't lower it to a 'belief'. What is the difference between refering to them as thoughts and referring to them as God?? It is a nasty trick of equivocation and it is dishonest - you first take something (such as reality) then you redefine it as 'God' which is fine, only, in the process you sneak in the consciousness of God into the originally inanimate object (Reality) and then ignore my questions of why reality must be conscious... for if there is a scenario where reality can exist and not be conscious then Occam's razor would refute your scenario of a conscious reality.

quote:because if something is dead, it doesn't exist,

Been to a morgue??

quote:it doesn't move, and it doesn't think

True.

quote:I am stating that it is ALIVE, that "There are Thoughts" and those "Thoughts" that there are, that make up everything, I am calling it God.

So now you have changed 'conscious' with 'alive'... Saying that reality is alive - by strict definition of the word reality can be alive and not conscious and therefore reality can be alive and not God.

quote:If it was dead, there would be no thoughts, "Why?" because dead things can't produce thoughts, and according to you "there are thoughts" so it is concious and alive.

There is a logical fallacy at the base of your beliefs - it is called the fallacy of division. You are reasoning that if 'reality' is not conscious then nothing that is part of it can be conscious - this is logically invalid and it could be the case that 'reality' is not conscious and yet we, as part of it, are conscious.

Your argument was that 'reality' must be conscious because we are - it has just been refuted.

I don't think anything else matters 'till you can backup your reasoning for reality having to be alive/conscious. This is the base of your beliefs and yet you continue to fail in giving any reasons for it to be so.

[This message has been edited by Daz (edited 07-06-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

There is a logical fallacy at the base of your beliefs - it is called the fallacy of division. You are reasoning that if 'reality' is not conscious then nothing inside it can be conscious - this is logically invalid and it could be the case that 'reality' is not conscious and yet we, inside it, are conscious.

Your argument was that 'reality' must be conscious because we are - it has just been refuted.

I don't think anything else matters 'till you can backup your reasoning for reality having to be alive/conscious. This is the base of your beliefs and yet you continue to fail in giving any reasons for it to be so.

"It is not a 'belief' it is the only logical certainty beyond any doubt. Don't lower it to a 'belief'. What is the difference between refering to them as thoughts and referring to them as God?? It is a nasty trick of equivocation and it is dishonest - you first take something (such as reality) then you redefine it as 'God' which is fine, only, in the process you sneak in the consciousness of God into the originally inanimate object (Reality) and then ignore my questions of why reality must be conscious... for if there is a scenario where reality can exist and not be conscious then Occam's razor would refute your scenario of a conscious reality."

I am stating that if it were not conscious there would be no "thoughts", since there are only thoughts, I am calling that, God then.

"Been to a morgue??"

When you stop thinking, does anything exist? This is why I say that God is Conscious.

"So now you have changed 'conscious' with 'alive'... Saying that reality is alive - by strict definition of the word reality can be alive and not conscious and therefore reality can be alive and not God."

It is alive, it is conscious.

a·live ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lv)

adj.

Having life; living. See Synonyms at living.

In existence or operation; active: keep your hopes alive.

Full of living or moving things; abounding: a pool alive with trout.

Full of activity or animation; lively: a face alive with mischief.

con·scious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knshs)

adj.

Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.

Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.

Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.

Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.

Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly.

Inwardly attentive or sensible; mindful: was increasingly conscious of being watched.

Especially aware of or preoccupied with. Often used in combination: a cost-conscious approach to further development; a health-conscious diet.

How do I know this? Because There are Thoughts.

If there were no thoughts, none of us would be here to discuss how there are only thoughts.

"There is a logical fallacy at the base of your beliefs - it is called the fallacy of division. You are reasoning that if 'reality' is not conscious then nothing inside it can be conscious - this is logically invalid and it could be the case that 'reality' is not conscious and yet we, inside it, are conscious."

Could be the case isn't enough, as what we both know is that there are thoughts, that is all we know, so I am calling it God. Conscious and alive, no divisions, One.

For those who believe in facts more than just thoughts, then I say that thoughts are what make up all realities within ultimate Reality the one, and it is God, the God, the only God, there is no God but it, nothing worthy of calling God other than it, the One, encompassing the whole.

I do fully believe that if it was without thought that not a single thing would operate or exist, nor would we have thoughts, as there are only thoughts, and it is all one.

quote:I am stating that if it were not conscious there would be no "thoughts", since there are only thoughts, I am calling that, God then.

That is your statement but you do no provide any reasoning behind it - you just jump to the conclusion. You are calling 'thoughts' 'god', which is fine but then you say that 'god (thoughts/reality)' is alive and conscious - you give no reasoning for this. Why must 'god (thoughts/reality)' have to be conscious??

I am well aware of the definitions of the two words which is why i stated that reality could be considered 'alive' but not necessarily 'conscious'; the two are not mutually exclusive. Yet you claim that 'god' is conscious and you evidence to back that statement up. Your argument is a conclusion with no premises.

quote:How do I know this? Because There are Thoughts.

There could be thoughts with a non-conscious 'god'.

quote:Could be the case isn't enough

Could be the case is precisely enough, you have stated that 'god' is conscious and assumed that to be the truth without backing it up at all. I merely gave one possible scenario that contradicted your conclusion. So, now, your hypothesis is wrong untill you back up your claims that 'god' must be conscious.

quote:as what we both know is that there are thoughts, that is all we know, so I am calling it God. Conscious and alive, no divisions, One.

Calling it 'god' is fine - but you are yet to answer why 'god' must be conscious. In your attempts you commit the fallacy of division stating that if 'god' was not conscious we could not be either; this is not true as 'god' doesn't have to be conscious for us, as parts of 'god' to be conscious.

quote:I do fully believe that if it was without thought that not a single thing would operate or exist, nor would we have thoughts

Numerous times now you have dodged any attempt to say why it is necessary for 'god' to be conscious for us to be - why do you believe this to be so??

All of my posts are now centered around the question: "Why must 'god' be conscious for us to be conscious, when our consciousness is not dependant on 'gods'???"

How does something that is not conscious think? There are thoughts.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

I agree with Rust that it is more likely that the sun will rise tommorow than there is a supreme being - even if the only evidence is an invalid inductive argument, it is more than we can say for God.

Yet Hume showed that this belief is still one not founded upon reason. For that matter you cannot even prove rationally that yesterday existed.

The best you can do is stick your head in the ground like an ostrich and make a blunt assertion that these things are Moorean facts, explained by Lewis as:

quote:We know a lot. We have all sorts of everyday knowledge, and we have it in

abundance. To doubt that would be absurd…It is a Moorean fact that we know a lot.

It is one of those things that we know better than we know the premises of any

philosophical argument to the contrary

Believing that the sun will rise tomorrow is no more a rational belief than believing in the existence of a god.

quote:Imperfectcircle - all you achieved in that long post was to indicate that there is a possibility of multiple universes...??

Not simply multiple universes, but an infinite number of multiple universes that are not necessarily bound by logic in any way.

This is all that I claimed "god" is in my view, in this thread anyway.

The spiritual side of my beliefs is where I try to connect the above idea with the notion of a consciousness created by, and sustaining, all things in existence, which from its perspective exist as an unchanging infinity of being. It's very similar to the panentheistic notion of god, or the Hindu Brahman. But I'm just saying that as a sidenote, I'm not trying to justify it here.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Yet Hume showed that this belief is still one not founded upon reason. For that matter you cannot even prove rationally that yesterday existed.

What he said was that you cannot prove it to be a logical necessity. Nobody is arguing against that.

But if we take a radical skeptic position on the problem of induction, then you'd freely drink poison because you can't prove that poison is bad for you now, simply because it was bad for you yesterday...

Simply because we cannot prove that it is a logical necessity that the sun rise tomorrow, doesn't mean that we should adopt the opposite position. It means we should look at it as rationally as we possibly can; which certainly does not mean abandoning the physical evidence we have suggesting that the sun will rise tomorrow.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

What he said was that you cannot prove it to be a logical necessity.

Do you even understand what "logical necessity" means? It simply means that it is a certain fact. You're saying nothing by using the term "logical necessity" except rephrasing what I have already stated.

Hume said that the belief the sun will rise tomorrow is SIMPLY A BELIEF. It is not founded in reason, but rather is a product of the imagination.

The following passage is from Bertand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" (page 605)

quote: Hume is thus led to the view that, when we say 'A causes B', we mean only that A and B are constantly conjoined in fact, not that there is some necessary connection between them. 'We have no other notion of cause and effect, but that of certain objects, which have been always conjoined together... We cannot penetrate into the reason of the conjunction.'

He backs up this theory with a definition of 'belief', which is, he maintains, 'a lively idea related to or associated with a present impression'. Through association, if A and B have been constantly conjoined in past experience, the impression of A produces that lively idea of B which constitutes belief in B. This explains why we believe A and B to be connected: the percept of A is connected with the idea of B, and so we come to think that A is connected with B, though this opinion is really groundless. 'Objects have no discoverable connexion together; nor is it from any other principle but custom operating on the imagination, that we can draw any inferences from the appearance of one to the experience of another.'

I expect I've taught you a lot about Hume in this thread, but I'll be generous and not charge you for the tuition.



[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 07-06-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

Afterimage, if this is what you thought I agreed with in the other post, then I screwed up. I was simply talking about Abrahim keeping his posts short, and all of that stuff. I guess I forgot about the 1+1=3 being impossible to change part, because, I do disagree with that.

And please do, read that book I mentioned, or tell me to start a new thread, in which you just ask questions...it's up to you

oh and I spelled "stop" wrong on purpose. And you spelled "grammar" wrong. Let's keep little things out of this though.

The fact that you tried to discredit an entire post because of a spelling is the point I'm making. Spelling is not a measurment of intellegence. By the way you are still welcome to prove beyond reasonable doubt your religion is right.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Do you even understand what "logical necessity" means? It simply means that it is a certain fact. You're saying nothing by using the term "logical necessity" except rephrasing what I have already stated.

...

Hume said that the belief the sun will rise tomorrow is SIMPLY A BELIEF. It is not founded in reason, but rather is a product of the imagination.

I understand what a "logial necessity" is just fine, which is why I am capable of noticing the difference between something being a logical necessity (i.e. that it must happen) and something not being a logical necessity yet still being supported by physical evidence. A distinction which you seem incapable of grasping.

Again, while the "sun rising tomorrow" is not a logical necessity, we can still say that it is the suggested outcome with the physical evidence we have. Whether Hume agrees or not is not important since I'm not basing this on Hume's views (yet another thing you fail to grasp).

Your position is that of an extremely ridiculous form of skepticism which would ultimately be your death (as the example I said shows) - one which Hume never suggests. If physical evidence were meaningless in our human understanding -- if we fell victim to such a ridiculous resolution to the problem of induction -- we'd be drinking poison because we'd fail consider the fact that it had killed people in the past.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-06-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

The fact that you tried to discredit an entire post because of a spelling is the point I'm making. Spelling is not a measurment of intellegence. By the way you are still welcome to prove beyond reasonable doubt your religion is right.

Spelling IS a measurement of intelligence.

I'm really not in the mood to copy paste or write out an entire novel...please check out this (http://tinyurl.com/s6x43) book from your library, or even buy it...it's well worth it, and I would be glad to answer any questions you have anyways.

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

Spelling IS a measurement of intelligence.

I'm really not in the mood to copy paste or write out an entire novel...please check out this (http://tinyurl.com/s6x43) book from your library, or even buy it...it's well worth it, and I would be glad to answer any questions you have anyways.

There are far more reliable measurements of intellegence and many of the greatest minds would not have appeared bright by these methods due to the fact some people speacalize in specific skills and are less well rounded than other people. For example some people may be great with computers but horrible at literature, or someone could be great at physics but horrible at history. So if I say well history is a measure of intellegence, this would be true, but inaccurate, it would not accuratly measure the intellegence of the general population, and would fail to identify a large number of otherwise intellegent people.

Also the fact that you are judging my intellegence alone on spelling could be underminded if I used a spell checker, but because I don't believe spelling is all that important, or in anyway nessessary for portraying ideas as long as the message is still readable and understandable, and if it is unreadable, and not understandable you have the right to ask me to spell check it instead of childeshly saying hehehe im right your wrong because you spelled onomatopoeia wrong, or something to that effect. (yes I did spell Onomatopoeia from memory)

As for that book, if you have proof of god I think it would be revolutionary enough and such a break through it would be worthy of being posted on a website. Most people don't believe as of lack of proof, and some people don't believe because they have their own religion. Even someone who reviewed the book said that the book has further convinced them that gods are the construct of the human mind.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 07-06-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

Abrahim: In every one of your arguments you have defined reality as God, then proved that if you define god as reality, certain things are true, and god exhibits the characteristics of reality (because you defined him as such).

Why? Just why? What does defining God as reality do? What does it mean?

How is your religion any different from atheism (except for what name you use for reality)?

Abrahim, I have asked you this EXACT FUCKING QUESTION so many times. Damn it, answer in an intelligent FUCKING MANNER. No drool. No lame wit. Just why is it so important to define reality as god. IanBoyd asked the question better than I did.

quote:Believing that the sun will rise tomorrow is no more a rational belief than believing in the existence of a god.

Wrong. Hume advcated rational skepticism which is skeptical of claims unless they can be repeatably empirically tested - otherwise, as Hume said, we would all starve to death.

Furthermore, we can apply a probabilistic property as a premise to an inductive propsition about the world which makes the argument valid and therefore rational. This probability is initially low and then strengthens everytime the proposition is verified empirically - in the case of the sun the probability would be extremely strong and therefore the belief that the sun will rise tommorow is more rational than believing in the existance of God.

This is the commonsense position.

quote:Not simply multiple universes, but an infinite number of multiple universes that are not necessarily bound by logic in any way.

I think i understand.

quote:please check out this book from your library, or even buy it...it's well worth it, and I would be glad to answer any questions you have anyways.

I read the synopsis - haha.

quote:All worldviews, including atheism, require faith.

This is the first premise of this book and it is wrong.

Atheism does not require faith, the position of atheism can be justified through the refutation of theist arguments, the implication of occam's razor - also, atheism is better defined as the lack of belief and therefore is a position that is defendible by simply refuting theist arguments.

quote:I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist argues that Christianity requires the least faith of all because it is the most reasonable.

Haha, you read, and believed this??

Let's see - talking snakes, a flood that never happened, a sea split in half, turning water into wine, walking on water, ressurection... How the fuck is that in anyway whatsoever reasonable??? Logically explain to me how these things are reasonable, logically explain to me how the belief in the christian God is reasonable despite the contradictions that exist within the christian God's definition...

quote:Geisler and Turek provide a firm challenge to the previous beliefs of doubters of all sorts.

Show me in a the format of a logical argument how it is reasonable to believe in the Christian God.

To Abrahim -

quote:How does something that is not conscious think? There are thoughts.

Still the fallacy of division. Reality itself does not have to be conscious for things that are contained within it or that are part of it to be.

You are trying to state that for us tobe conscious the whole of reality must be conscious and this is false.

[This message has been edited by Daz (edited 07-06-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

the position of atheism can be justified through the refutation of theist arguments

Just because I can prove something wrong, that doesn't make my argument right. Tell me how we are here today, form a logical, atheist point of view.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

but you said that was what you were trying to say you said that he grasped what you were trying to tell everybody. then what about the second part of my post talking about omnipotence

i think you are trying to equate god with infinity you say that if infinity doesn't exist then god isn't infinite that is like saying if omnipotence doesn't exist(not in our reality) then god isn't omnipotent god can be what he wants he is god

I do think Imperfectcircle grasped what I was saying.

I'm stating that Reality, Ultimate Reality in which all realities and universes and dimensions and possibilities are within is Infinite.

quote:Originally posted by crazed_hamster:

Abrahim, I have asked you this EXACT FUCKING QUESTION so many times. Damn it, answer in an intelligent FUCKING MANNER. No drool. No lame wit. Just why is it so important to define reality as god. IanBoyd asked the question better than I did.

It is important to define God as the Ultimate Reality which Encompasses everything, rather than a being within Reality, because a being within Reality is limited, but Ultimate Reality which all limited realities exist within is the limiter, what everyone utilizes, what everyone exists by, what no one can be without, that is why it is important. This just the first step though, the next is how to understand, submit, and find peace with this God and living a good productive positive life. Can a person live a good productive positive life without ever submitting to this diety? I guess so, but submitting to this diety is part of becoming humble and peaceful and one with the tao, following the eightfold path to nirvana, the straight way.

While parallel universes may exist I still do not think any of them could ever fully defy logic.

I mean a priori logic in language such as a bachelor being un-married making it logically impossible to have a married bachelor.

While language, concepts, pretty much everything could be different, there are still going to be things like the word bachelor which make certain statements logically impossible through that concept alone.

Besides if logic did not exist in one of these parallel universes what meaning would anything have? Without logic a necessary being would not necessarily have to exist. Without logic God would not have to be the most powerful thing around.

However I have smoked too much today and this is confusing. It is hard to imagine what it would be like without logic having experienced it so long.

PS

Abrahim- I have read you wrote several times now that roughly, 'That the universe is made of god/reality but is not god/reality.

How so?

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Still the fallacy of division. Reality itself does not have to be conscious for things that are contained within it or that are part of it to be.

You are trying to state that for us tobe conscious the whole of reality must be conscious and this is false.



"This is the first premise of this book and it is wrong.

Atheism does not require faith, the position of atheism can be justified through the refutation of theist arguments, the implication of occam's razor - also, atheism is better defined as the lack of belief and therefore is a position that is defendible by simply refuting theist arguments."

Well if they know anything more than "There are thoughts" they are deluded, right?

"Still the fallacy of division. Reality itself does not have to be conscious for things that are contained within it or that are part of it to be.

You are trying to state that for us tobe conscious the whole of reality must be conscious and this is false."

You say that, yet you don't know of such a thing called reality, all you know is that there are thoughts, I am calling those thoughts God, the thoughts are what make up "reality", only the conscious can think.

You don't know about any container, all you know is that "there are thoughts", and I know the conscious think, so I'm stating God is those thoughts, in order for thoughts, any thoughts, and the manifestation of those thoughts to occur and be realized, there is consciousness.

Let me repeat it one more time:

"Reality itself does not have to be conscious for things that are contained within it or that are part of it to be."

But you don't know if there is such a thing as that container, all you know is that "there are thoughts", I am calling those thoughts God. I am saying it is conscious because "there are thoughts" if "there were no thoughts" then we would not even be aware.

So for you, as far as your logic allows you to go, you can only allow yourself to know for certain "there are thoughts" I'm calling that God. It is still accurate in applying to other people too who believe and think they "know" more such as the universe and all that stuff, but since the top of the top for you is "there are thoughts" I am stating those thoughts are God.

quote:Originally posted by Aeroue:

While parallel universes may exist I still do not think any of them could ever fully defy logic.

I mean a priori logic in language such as a bachelor being un-married making it logically impossible to have a married bachelor.

While language, concepts, pretty much everything could be different, there are still going to be things like the word bachelor which make certain statements logically impossible through that concept alone.

Besides if logic did not exist in one of these parallel universes what meaning would anything have? Without logic a necessary being would not necessarily have to exist. Without logic God would not have to be the most powerful thing around.

However I have smoked too much today and this is confusing. It is hard to imagine what it would be like without logic having experienced it so long.

PS

Abrahim- I have read you wrote several times now that roughly, 'That the universe is made of god/reality but is not god/reality.

How so?

We're stating that in an alternate reality, in one of the infinite possibilities, the laws of that reality will be completely different, so unrecognizable that we can't even comprehend it, nor will we be able to process it, as we can only understand as much as we can, this Reality and this Universe and its laws which we are part of and have the ability to comprehend it. There are an infinite amount of things human beings will never be able to think of, if they can think of it, then the possibility for them to be able to think of it was already part of this reality.

The reason I say the Universe and all that is within it is made of God, existing by God, dependant on God, but is not God is because I believe God is the Ultimate Reality in which all universes and realities exist within, so I don't believe the universe is the whole of it, not even a fraction of the infinite all encompassing.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

We're stating that in an alternate reality, in one of the infinite possibilities, the laws of that reality will be completely different, so unrecognizable that we can't even comprehend it, nor will we be able to process it, as we can only understand as much as we can, this Reality and this Universe and its laws which we are part of and have the ability to comprehend it. There are an infinite amount of things human beings will never be able to think of, if they can think of it, then the possibility for them to be able to think of it was already part of this reality.

The reason I say the Universe and all that is within it is made of God, existing by God, dependant on God, but is not God is because I believe God is the Ultimate Reality in which all universes and realities exist within, so I don't believe the universe is the whole of it, not even a fraction of the infinite all encompassing.

Alternate realities/universes/demensions are theoretical possibilities. There is no way to determine if they actually exist. As there is no way of observing said realities/universes/demensions, it is ludicrous to state that (if the were to exist)any of them would be be governed by physical laws any different than our own. There could just as easily be an infinite number of realities/universes/dimensione that behave exactly as our's.

Any reality/universe/demensions other than the one we exist in is totally irrellevant to discussion in this forum.The only reality/universe/demensions we can observe are our own. Logic and reason funciton quite well in this reality, and for a claim to be true, it must meet the requirements of logic.

The question now is: Is our reality a self aware, living, conscious God?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the burden of proof falls on those making such claims.

Unless such evidence can be presented to support your assertions that reality is a living, self aware entity, your assertions are without value and should be discarded as worthless.

Please present falsifiable evidence supporting your claims or kindly cease your ranting.



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 07-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Wrong. Hume advcated rational skepticism which is skeptical of claims unless they can be repeatably empirically tested - otherwise, as Hume said, we would all starve to death.

Furthermore, we can apply a probabilistic property as a premise to an inductive propsition about the world which makes the argument valid and therefore rational. This probability is initially low and then strengthens everytime the proposition is verified empirically - in the case of the sun the probability would be extremely strong and therefore the belief that the sun will rise tommorow is more rational than believing in the existance of God.

This is the commonsense position.

(unlike Rust, you're responding to my points as someone interested in debate rather than winning arguments, I'm just saying that so you don't think my tone is personal etcyada)

1) That doesn't address my point that you can't rationally prove the existence of the past in the present.

2) Hume's comment that one would starve to death without relying on inductive reasoning is no different to the Moorean facts I mentioned earlier. The fact that we do not starve is not support for the truthfulness of inductive arguments.

G.E. Moore was a champion of common sense. Did he prove the existence of the external world when he presented his two hands? Certainly not, it is an unsuccessful argument against idealism. Does this mean that if you tried to shake his hand it would not be there? Certainly not.

You made a good point about probability, clearly you’re familiar with his ideas. He said that when repeatedly observing an event, two ideas will be held in the mind, one for each contrary outcome. And each time a person sees one of the outcomes, it strengthens the corresponding idea and makes it more vivid, which in his epistemology makes it more true, specifically truer than anything that the person’s imagination could create.

But here is something you’re not likely to know, unless you’ve read his Treatise on Human Understanding all the way through. The problem is not which idea is more probably true, since this has nothing to do with the imagination. The problem is how we choose the right idea – because this IS determined by the imagination:

quote:From Hume's "Treatise"

Probability arises from an opposition of contrary chances or causes, by which the mind is not allowed to fix on either side, but is incessantly tost from one to another, and at one moment is determined to consider an object as existent, and at another moment as the contrary. The imagination or understanding, call it which you please, fluctuates betwixt the opposite views; and though perhaps it may be oftener turned to the one side than the other, it is impossible for it, by reason of the opposition of causes or chances, to rest on either. The pro and con of the question alternately prevail; and the mind, surveying the object in its opposite principles, finds such a contrariety as utterly destroys all certainty and established opinion.[/b] http://tinyurl.com/jaj5k

So as I said, believing the sun will rise tomorrow is just as irrationally founded as believing in the existence of god.

Accepting this as fact isn’t very conducive to sanity.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

(unlike Rust, you're responding to my points as someone interested in debate rather than winning arguments

Says the moron who was boasting about supposedly proving me wrong in another thread. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

--

You keep ignoring the whole point of what we're trying to say. While the fact that we don't starve to death isn't proof of the inductive argument about then nutritious value of food, it is however support for a common-sense position when concerning problems of induction.

So while we cannot say that it is a logical necessity for food to be nutritious this time because it was so in the past, we can say that this assertion is, at the very least, something suggested by our past experiences. That they might turn out wrong? Of course; but we take the common-sense position of relying on our past experiences in order to not starve to death.

The point being that simply because something is not a logical necessity doesn't mean we abandon the weight we give to physical evidence supporting something occurring.

Both the existence of a god and the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow are not logical necessities. However, just like "food being nutritious", one is suggested by a humongous amount of physical evidence and the other is not. So, just like Hume argues that it is ludicrous to take the position of not eating food because we can't conclude, as a matter of necessity, that food is nutritious now, so is it ridiculous to argue that the sun will not rise tomorrow.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Says the moron who was boasting about supposedly proving me wrong in another thread. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Check the thread again.

LOL

(I'm going for a cigarette, I'll read the rest of your consistently mediocre writing afterwards)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You keep ignoring the whole point of what we're trying to say.

If I were Daz I wouldn't want you speaking for me, he seems to be rather more intelligent than yourself.

quote:While the fact that we don't starve to death isn't proof of the inductive argument about then nutritious value of food, it is however support for a common-sense position when concerning problems of induction.

So while we cannot say that it is a logical necessity for food to be nutritious this time because it was so in the past, we can say that this assertion is, at the very least, something suggested by our past experiences. That they might turn out wrong? Of course; but we take the common-sense position of relying on our past experiences in order to not starve to death.

The point being that simply because something is not a logical necessity doesn't mean we abandon the weight we give to physical evidence supporting something occurring.

Both the existence of a god and the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow are not logical necessities. However, just like "food being nutritious", one is suggested by a humongous amount of physical evidence and the other is not. So, just like Hume argues that it is ludicrous to take the position of not eating food because we can't conclude, as a matter of necessity, that food is nutritious now, so is it ridiculous to argue that the sun will not rise tomorrow.

Did you not read my post?

Or did you not understand it?

Since you seem to have gotten considerably more stupid since when we used to debate months ago, my money's on the latter.

I understood your post just fine, which is why I know that you consistently avoided answering the argument I've given, just as you did now.

Again,

You keep ignoring the whole point of what we're trying to say. While the fact that we don't starve to death isn't proof of the inductive argument about then nutritious value of food, it is however support for a common-sense position when concerning problems of induction.

So while we cannot say that it is a logical necessity for food to be nutritious this time because it was so in the past, we can say that this assertion is, at the very least, something suggested by our past experiences. That they might turn out wrong? Of course; but we take the common-sense position of relying on our past experiences in order to not starve to death.

The point being that simply because something is not a logical necessity doesn't mean we abandon the weight we give to physical evidence supporting something occurring.

Both the existence of a god and the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow are not logical necessities. However, just like "food being nutritious", one is suggested by a humongous amount of physical evidence and the other is not. So, just like Hume argues that it is ludicrous to take the position of not eating food because we can't conclude, as a matter of necessity, that food is nutritious now, so is it ridiculous to argue that the sun will not rise tomorrow.

quote:Just because I can prove something wrong, that doesn't make my argument right.

Unless your argument is that what you proved wrong is wrong.

Atheists do not believe in a diety and so therefore - disproving arguments that support a diety do make the atheist position stronger. Theism and Atheism are mutually exclusive, they can not both be correct - and there is no inbetween it is one or the other, therefore disproving the other sides arguments strengthens your side.

quote:Tell me how we are here today, form a logical, atheist point of view.

I do not know. But that in no way helps your argument for the existence of God because unlike the previous situation where there is only thiesm and atheism as options the question of where we come from has so many possibilities that because we can not answer it just yet does not make the hypothosis of 'God' any stronger.

I hope you see the difference between the two situations.

Also - you abstained from answering the rest of my post http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

quote:Well if they know anything more than "There are thoughts" they are deluded, right?

I am quite happy to argue on others peoples preconcieved assumptions about how the world is. reducing every argument to 'there are only thoughts' whilst logically true - does not get us anywhere, which is why i also referred to 'reality' etc in my reply to you.

However, we can do this debate on my terms if you wish.

quote:"there are thoughts", and I know the conscious think, so I'm stating God is those thoughts

So God is the one who creates/is the thoughts, How do you know this?? How do you know it is not just a large machine inserted into our brains?? You still can not back up your hypothosis of 'thoughts being God' and most of my other arguments now apply to this 'thoughts are God' statement - you have not solved any problems, just shifted the point of topic.

Not to mention the question of 'How do you know that it is your God??'

I'll be gone of a day so won't get the chance to reply to imperfectcircle/Rust.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

So God is the one who creates/is the thoughts, How do you know this?? How do you know it is not just a large machine inserted into our brains??

Alright, lets say its a large machine inserted into our brains, and what is the plain in which the possibility of a large machine being inserted into our brains is possible? But then you'll say we can know nothing other than "there are thoughts", the thoughts that make up everything: it is alive, animated, but I don't believe the one is conscious in the way we might be, but it is certainly not dead, non existant, or not active, it is actively in operation.

Ok could you explain my idea of God back to me from how you've understood it?

You understood it at one point, it seemed, as a container in which all things exist, now as the thoughts which all things consist of.

I am stating that whatever is the greatest thing is God, in my mind the greatest thing is the Ultimate Reality in which all realities and universes exist. This is an imaginary concept for something that is all encompassing and supreme. I believe in objective and subjective realities, but by objective I mean that the sun and the moon, though perhaps a grand illusion, do exist, and so do I, and so do you, so I don't subscribe to total solipsism.

I agree with your statement "There are thoughts" as a completely reductionist and basic statement which applies to my version of reality too, that these are the manifestations, the thoughts, of what I call God.

I imagine God as not a man or a woman or a thing sitting on a cloud but rather an infinite in which everything exists, every possibility, a ripe plain of infinite knowledge and information which makes up every possible realities (and the possibilities never end).

My intention wasn't to remove God obviously, but to replace many people's idea of God with something older and in my opinion more sensible and powerful and likely (in my opinion).

I disliked tremendously hearing statements like "If some big thing came down from the sky and said it was God, I'd believe" and "If God came to me and said he was God I'd believe": To me both of those kinds of statements I find to be really silly. Why? Because people, most probably because of Christian influence, are imagining God as some sort of man who comes and talks to people, I wanted to clearify to the religiously minded that that is not how it is, but rather that God is what all beings operate with and exist by. That God is no single being or man here or there, but that God is the all encompassing, everyone and everything everywhere is made of it, it is ever present at all times, that not a thing can exist or occur without the use of it.

So then the atheists waltz in and say various things such as: "Your God is no different than a Spaghetti Monster" and I say "A spaghetti monster has a form and can only exist within a reality and its possibility must be available so my God is greater" This is because my God is what all forms are within and existing by, imaginary and real, the possibilities provided by what I'm calling God.

Then they say "Your God is useless, whats the point of it if its not a being?" I don't really understand what they mean by that, just like an explanation of air, I am trying to explain what might be greater than the universe allowing us to exist.

Then they say "Prove it" and "If we can't measure it then it is pointless to talk about" I can only make it sound sensible, but you will probably disagree that I've made it sound sensible, and if you could measure it, it would be limited and a factor within your reality rather than what your reality is within.

I think alot of poeple have misunderstood what I'm trying to say but I don't mind because a few people here did understand. My God is for the religiously minded, to clearify their understanding of God so that they stop imagining false idols and beings in the sky. For the athiest, they can choose to come to this semi spirituality or not, those who will understand and believe (who you might call the weak minded) will understand and believe, those who can not comprehend what I'm saying, then to them their own way. I think people are still misunderstanding God and imagining it in a certain way and form which is making it difficult for them to understand what I'm trying to say. I think Imperfectcircle, Kleenex, Purple, Sumerian Dildo, and some others from totse understood my concept and may have accepted it to a degree, and for that, it was worth all the repetition: I want to put my message out there for those who will read it, and those who will understand it. This will bring them to what I feel is a much better understanding of God than believing in a singular image, furthermore it is an early step in what I feel is the right direction towards a balanced life between spirituality and realism/daily life understanding. I don't find it healthy to say to people "We can't know anything" or "All we know is there are thoughts" or "Life is chaotic meaninglessness" or "Live life to the fullest there are no reprecussions for anything after you die" and other things. I want to keep religion alive, make it a healthier and more productive way of thinking, I wanted to break the false idol and replace it with what I feel is better.

Abrahim, I have no problem understanding what you are saying. I simply don't agree with you. I might add also, that I don't believe in any other god either. I find it irrational to deify that which can be explained by natural causation, when no evidence can be found to support said deification.

It's not that I don't understand your assertions. I simply reject them as being without merit.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Then they say "Your God is useless, whats the point of it if its not a being?" I don't really understand what they mean by that, just like an explanation of air, I am

.



Your god is useless because... "if its not a being, how does one have a personal relationship? How may one ever hope to know god without a personal relationship?

You connect your 'teachings' with Islam, and contradict yourself by promoting a factionalised image of god. Understand it is not so much your presentation. Its all very well to speak of your god in terms of Tao, Brahmin etc., however; how does one, rationalise that with Allah, as presented by the Koran, and by the actions of those who call themselves muslim.

Perhaps your failure to understand, comes from your failure to effectively communiate your concepts in terms cognisable by all. Yes you may have reached some minds, but you seem to dodge the difficult questions, spamming your posts with verses from the Koran as though you expect others will automatically see the 'divine' authority and promptly repent.

"trying to explain what might be greater than the universe allowing us to exist" seems an admirable yet naive statement http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

How is it possible? In terms of the universe, our earth is no more than the smallest quantum particle on the screens in front of us. Do you think those quantum particles know what they are a part of?

Yet your mind seems caught up in a vision of the 'ultimate reality', which you teach as being the objective reality, when in fact it is entirely subjective. Thoughts are influenced by many things beyond the conscious mind, ideas implanted before one becomes self aware, thoughts from our subjective interpretations of the bible, koran, et al, and the world around us.

This, 'your subjective reality', you present as "ultimate reality", it seems real to you, and it seems feasible to some, however I just don't get it. You see that there cannot have ever been nothing as clearly as any other, yet then you feel the need to postulate a god/saviour. Yes, despite your denial of the role of saviour, you still turn to Allah too save you! Why?

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

"Your god is useless because... "if its not a being, how does one have a personal relationship? How may one ever hope to know god without a personal relationship?"

Who has said you can't have a personal relationship with God just because God is Ultimate Reality all Encompassing?

"You connect your 'teachings' with Islam, and contradict yourself by promoting a factionalised image of god. Understand it is not so much your presentation. Its all very well to speak of your god in terms of Tao, Brahmin etc., however; how does one, rationalise that with Allah, as presented by the Koran, and by the actions of those who call themselves muslim."

Allah is described in the same was as the Brahman and is similar to the Tao as well.

"Perhaps your failure to understand, comes from your failure to effectively communiate your concepts in terms cognisable by all. Yes you may have reached some minds, but you seem to dodge the difficult questions, spamming your posts with verses from the Koran as though you expect others will automatically see the 'divine' authority and promptly repent."

I'm not sure what difficult questions have been dodged, the spam are usually what in my mind seem like answers to those questions.

""trying to explain what might be greater than the universe allowing us to exist"[/b] seems an admirable yet naive statement http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

How is it possible? In terms of the universe, our earth is no more than the smallest quantum particle on the screens in front of us. Do you think those quantum particles know what they are a part of?"

I believe all those quantum particles are within Reality, the ripe base plain of knowledge which the universe is existing by, and that that is, if not the ultimate, within the Ultimate Reality which contains all possible realities and universes and possibilities.

"Yet your mind seems caught up in a vision of the 'ultimate reality', which you teach as being the objective reality, when in fact it is entirely subjective. Thoughts are influenced by many things beyond the conscious mind, ideas implanted before one becomes self aware, thoughts from our subjective interpretations of the bible, koran, et al, and the world around us."

All the possible things that can possibly exist, past present and future, and all the possible things you can possibly think even, are only possible because the possibility exists, those possibilities are within the realm of Reality which is my word for what encompasses the subjective and objective possibilities of this Universe.

"This, 'your subjective reality', you present as "ultimate reality", it seems real to you, and it seems feasible to some, however I just don't get it. You see that there cannot have ever been nothing as clearly as any other, yet then you feel the need to postulate a god/saviour. Yes, despite your denial of the role of saviour, you still turn to Allah too save you! Why?"

You the individual are the only one who can save yourself in this life by doing right and sending forth positivity.

"Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)"

quote:but I don't believe the one is conscious in the way we might be

What way is it conscious?

quote: but it is certainly not dead, non existant, or not active, it is actively in operation.

It can be alive, active and existant whilst not being conscious. Active operation does not equate consciousness.

quote:Ok could you explain my idea of God back to me from how you've understood it?

God = everything.

quote:so I don't subscribe to total solipsism.

Yet you can not disprove it.

quote:but rather an infinite in which everything exists, every possibility, a ripe plain of infinite knowledge and information which makes up every possible realities

You forgot to mention that you believe it is also conscious. It seems extremely ad hoc for you to add 'conscious' to that definition, especially with no reasoning behind it.

quote:Because people, most probably because of Christian influence, are imagining God as some sort of man who comes and talks to people,

Yet you believe that God wrote the Qu'ran, your beliefs contradict.

quote:This is because my God is what all forms are within and existing by, imaginary and real, the possibilities provided by what I'm calling God.

That is fine - except you still assume consciousness. I would probably be satisfied with your definition of God if it excluded any form of consciousness.

quote:so that they stop imagining false idols and beings in the sky

What if it is you who holds the false idol??

quote:I don't find it healthy to say to people "We can't know anything" or "All we know is there are thoughts" or "Life is chaotic meaninglessness" or "Live life to the fullest there are no reprecussions for anything after you die"

Unhealthy?? What is more healthy than knowing and understanding our limitations to do with knowledge?? What is more healthy than honesty??

What is unhealthy to people is being dishonest, lieing about dieties and afterlifes. Being deliberatly decietful for ones own personal gain. Subscribing to a system of belief that is repressive. These are things that are unhealthy.

quote:I want to keep religion alive, make it a healthier and more productive way of thinking, I wanted to break the false idol and replace it with what I feel is better.

Religion is the false idol.

quote:From Hume's "Treatise"

Probability arises from an opposition of contrary chances or causes, by which the mind is not allowed to fix on either side, but is incessantly tost from one to another, and at one moment is determined to consider an object as existent, and at another moment as the contrary. The imagination or understanding, call it which you please, fluctuates betwixt the opposite views; and though perhaps it may be oftener turned to the one side than the other, it is impossible for it, by reason of the opposition of causes or chances, to rest on either. The pro and con of the question alternately prevail; and the mind, surveying the object in its opposite principles, finds such a contrariety as utterly destroys all certainty and established opinion.[/b]

From the way i understood that - Hume has a problem with the addition of probability to an inductive argument because it provides no certainty - to be honest, i don't find the lack of certainty to be a problem. If we accept the premises that we can't rationally prove the existence of the past then i see no problem with having an object determined to be existant at one point in time and then non existant at another point. Hume assumes that nature is uniform and that something can't be existant at one moment and non existant at the next.

All of you are running around in the same stupid circle.

So do olympic athletes.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Daz:

"Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet."

"having mental faculties"

What I mean by Conscious is that it thinks, these are its thoughts, innumerable.

The reason I deny the statement "It is not Conscious" is that I believe that these are its thoughts manifest, if it did not think, nothing would exist or be able to exist or occur.

"Yet you believe that God wrote the Qu'ran, your beliefs contradict."

I believe the Qur'an speaks the truth but also that every possible sentence, book, or word that can ever exist in this universe is possible only because the possibility is available in this reality and I give credit to...you know what.

"That is fine - except you still assume consciousness. I would probably be satisfied with your definition of God if it excluded any form of consciousness."

I can't exclude consciousness for the reason that "There are thoughts"...but if you want to say it "thinks" but it is not "self aware" (Though I do believe it posesses the ultimate awareness since all is within it made of it.)

I don't mean to say it has a brain and is distantly looking upon itself, but that it is the only thing that truly "knows all" completely, and also thinks, these being its thoughts.

"What is unhealthy to people is being dishonest, lieing about dieties and afterlifes. Being deliberatly decietful for ones own personal gain. Subscribing to a system of belief that is repressive. These are things that are unhealthy."

There are lyrics to a song in the Curious George soundtrack "It's only true, if you believe"

"Religion is the false idol."

Give me something better along with a feeling of safety and protection.