I´ve been an atheist since the age of 10

i just kept pondering on the paradox that is god.



How can "god" possibly exist?

I mean god must be there for a reason

but who created god?



There just isnt logic in religion.



I´ve laughed at luther for becoming a monk

I laughed at jesus for starving himself during 40 days

And i also laughed at Ghandis "simple" life.

These people just dont make sense.

No. It's scientifically non-falsifiable.

ok then

is there the smallest hint in ordinary life

that there is a greater being?

quote:Originally posted by Naminator01:



but who created god?



There just isnt logic in religion.



"who created god" is the same as "what created the expanding universe." An existential look as though existence is not the same as reality might provoke a similar effect.

There isn't a whole lot of logic in much of anything, the possible exception being why religion is crucial to our world. Religion is a kind of brainwashing that soothes the masses and convinces them that punishment will follow for acts which oppose our system. People would have less reason to obey laws (i.e. murder) without the thought of eternal damnation hanging over them. Don't laugh at these people. No matter how much you disagree with what they did, you should respect them as people and the impact they indirectly have on your life.

The thousands of children who die of starvation everyday.

The horrible wars we have.

People killing eachother because of differing religious beliefs.

Innocent men sent to prison for life.

Ohhh wait... You wanted reasons why god exists. Cant help you there

quote:Originally posted by Naminator01:



And i also laughed at Ghandis "simple" life.



gandhi was a patriot trying to achieve freedom for his country, not a religious zealot, genius.

but in response: I can't give you a reason that God in the commonly understood sense exists. However, if you believe in any accepted scientific theory of the creation of the universe, you know that it was born of a massive amount of energy - spread about, concentrated to a point, whatever. Pretty much, everything that is was born of this one essence.

If that doesn't describe God, I don't know what does.

[This message has been edited by pipedream (edited 12-15-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Naminator01:

ok then

is there the smallest hint in ordinary life

that there is a greater being?

God speaks to us in many ways.

Most of us simply fail to pay attention.

quote:Originally posted by gmail:

The thousands of children who die of starvation everyday.

The horrible wars we have.

People killing eachother because of differing religious beliefs.

Innocent men sent to prison for life.

Ohhh wait... You wanted reasons why god exists. Cant help you there

Human choices falsify a god? I don't see the logic.

And no, nobody can prove to you a god exists.

I can prove my definition of a god...but then again, I don't believe in some mythical old man that judges people for the shitty choices they make.

My God is all present, all powerful, and all experiencing. I didn't use omni because that typically implies 'infinitely'. I don't know whether or not existence is infinite or not.

Here's the proof -

1) Any distortion in matter or energy will eventually cause a distortion in all other matter and energy.

2) All existence is thus connected as one system.

3) This system contains the totality of energies and matters - thus containing all the power in existence (all powerful).

4) This system is all that is - thus present in all dimensions, all matter, all energy (all present).

5) Any distortion in any area of this system will disrupt all other areas of the system, it experiences everything (all experiencing).

6) According to the transitive property (God = Apow, Apre, Aexp; System = Apow, Apre, Aexp; God = System), God is the totality of existence.

This is just according to the definition of all powerful, all present, all experiencing...anything past a natural god becomes theology/retardation. This proves no divine will, or anything of the sort...just one definition of God.

To simplify the threads above...No. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

you cant prove God exists, its either somthing you belive or dont. i do..i figure it this way, i would rather take 2 days of my time to go to church and worship God (and i actually have fun doing so..its my thing.) and figure out he dont exist when i die, rather than live life and die and figure out im screwed.

quote:i would rather take 2 days of my time to go to church and worship God (and i actually have fun doing so..its my thing.) and figure out he dont exist when i die, rather than live life and die and figure out im screwed.



Another fool fallen victim to Pascal's wager. That logic can be applied to anything that offers eternal damnation for not believing in it and eternal happiness in believing in it - Do you also believe in Allah? If you are to be consistent in your reasoning you should; it is just as bad to die and figure out you are screwed by Allah as it is to die and figure out you are screwed by the Christian God. Or are you just inconsistent and irrational?

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:



6) According to the transitive property (God = Apow, Apre, Aexp; System = Apow, Apre, Aexp; God = System), God is the totality of existence.

That isn't the transitive property; not even a reasonable bastardization of it. First learn what the transitive property is, then try to sell your bullshit...

I'm agnostic, I'll try to help you out on this one though...

No one can prove to you that God doesn't exist, however you CANNOT prove to anyone that he doesn't.

Threads like this make no sense. It's impossible to prove either way.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

That isn't the transitive property; not even a reasonable bastardization of it. First learn what the transitive property is, then try to sell your bullshit...

Transitive property is a=b, b=c, a=c. I used it properly, so suck a cock, Rust.

quote:Originally posted by Naminator01:

Can anyone prove to me God exists?

No.

That said, if you don't find the truth about God now, you will later.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Transitive property is a=b, b=c, a=c. I used it properly, so suck a cock, Rust.

What you used is nothing close to the transitive property; it's not even logical. You merely mentioned three properties (which you just said are the same I should add) on both items, and have then concluded that they are equal. That is false. If you believe that that is at all logical, then you must undoubtedly believe that if A and B are red, A and B have four wheels, A and B have seats, they must be equal.

A: http://tinyurl.com/yj75u6

B: http://tinyurl.com/y9jsjo



To put it in other terms, if we were to draw the Venn Diagram of this situation, it would look something like THIS (http://tinyurl.com/yzrdlk). Just because A and B have elements in common, does not make them equal. A and B are equal if and only if all elements of A are present in B, and all elements of B are present in B. Claiming that "god" and "system" are both all-present, all powerful and all-experiencing does not mean that they are the same.

The only way you'll "prove" this is by redefining "system" to be simply another word for god, which makes your pathetic attempt at a "proof" not only unnecessary, but utterly hilarious.

Again, please learn what the transitive property is (hell, what "equal" means!), then try to sell your idiotic bullshit.

P.S. As for your suggestion, no thanks.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 12-16-2006).]

Except both my definition of God and proofed attributes of the Universe are one in the same; if you can find any other attributes of existence other than all powerful, all present, and all experienced, please, enlighten me.

I'll be waiting for eternity...

...I'll say again, suck a cock, Rust.

Normally, insults are resorted to when one is wrong and cannot argue; but here, I backed my claim and insulted you...now why would I do that? Oh yes, because you're a master of logic AND fellatio. When you're done licking up down there, be sure to powder my boys also.

I didn't falter in my usage of the transitive property - they possess exactly the same properties, none extra, none lacking. Existence is equal to my definition of a god (which is subjective, so fuck off if you don't agree?), thus I call it God. Redundant? Yeah. Do I give a shit? No. So then, again...suck a cock. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

PS: Have a nice day, too, cocksucker.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Well, there's your proof OP.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:



I didn't falter in my usage of the transitive property - they possess exactly the same properties, none extra, none lacking.

That's exactly what you didn't prove. For your ridiculous assertions to be true, and for you to prove that they are actually equal, you don't just have to prove that they supposedly share some characteristics in common, but that they share all characteristics in common. You haven't; you merely mentioned three characteristics which you claim they share in common. That proves nothing. I've mentioned three characteristics that a red toy car and a red Ferrari have in common; they are not equal because of the other characteristics which they don't share. You've failed to show that "the universe" and "god" don't have any other charasteristics that they do not share; or in other words, that all elements in A exist in B and all elements in B exist in A. Thus, you've failed to prove that they are equal, and consequently failed miserably in applying the transitive property.

These pathetic "insults" of yours (one can hardly call them that) aren't going to change this. Either prove that they share all characteristics in common (the very definition of what "equal" is - which you apparently didn't even know) or kindly shut the fuck up.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 12-16-2006).]

Existence is all that is, right? All that is would be all powerful, all present, all experiencing - no other qualities CAN exist. Being all that is, it possesses all power, is present at all locations, and experiences all occurences. If it happens to have a will, too, then there would be something higher than my current definition of God, thus becoming the 'new' God to me...when really, it's just something else I've learned about my god.

So again, Rust, suck a cock.

Thank you for proving my point entirely.

What you used wasn't the transitive property because simply "showing" (you didn't even do that to begin with, I'm assuming you did for your sake) that they both are "all-powerful, all-present, and all-experiencing" does not mean that they are equal as you must also prove that they don't possess qualities which they do not share in common - something which you failed to do in your initial post and our now desperately trying to rationalize.

No one in this forum, no one in this world can tell you for sure if god exists or if he/she/it doesn't. But when I die and find there is no god, I will be sad if I feel anything at all. But my question to you sir: What happens when you die and find there is?

quote:Originally posted by blackarmchair:

No one in this forum, no one in this world can tell you for sure if god exists or if he/she/it doesn't. But when I die and find there is no god, I will be sad if I feel anything at all. But my question to you sir: What happens when you die and find there is?

You just logically stated that no one can tell us for sure if God/gods exist or not, and now you're asking "What happens when you die and find there is?" Do you not realize that no one can answer that question either?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Thank you for proving my point entirely.

What you used wasn't the transitive property because simply "showing" (you didn't even do that to begin with, I'm assuming you did for your sake) that they both are "all-powerful, all-present, and all-experiencing" does not mean that they are equal as you must also prove that they don't possess qualities which they do not share in common - something which you failed to do in your initial post and our now desperately trying to rationalize.

Holy shit Rust, really, you are so fucking uptight. Maybe snort some heroin to relax?

I'm not trying to do shit with this. Here's some more shit for you to take serious:

I believe in myself as one god among trillions.

The god above me is my family.

Above them is the neighborhood. Above that, the city. Above that, the State. Above that the nation. Above that, the planet. Above that, the sun. Above that, the solar system. Above that, nebulae. Above that, galaxies. Above that, the universe. Above that, the supreme.

The supreme spat up the universe; which spat out galaxies, which spat out nebulae, which spat our solar systems, which spat out suns, which spat out planets, which spat out nations, which spat out States, which spat out cities, which spat our neighborhoods, which spat out families, which spat out people. With an empty stomache, each god grows hungry for that which it has spat up.

I am indebted to my family. They will consume me first. Then, I and my family will be consumed by the hunger of those around us. Then, the city will grow hungry and consume the neighborhood. Then the State will grow hungry and consume the city. Then the nation shall grow hungry and consume the State. Then the planet shall grow hungry, and consume the nation. Then the sun will grow hungry, and consume the planet. Then the nebula will grow hungry, and consume the sun. Then the galaxy will grow hungry and consume the nebula. Then the universe will grow hungry and consume the galaxy. Then God shall hunger, eat the universe, and crap out the seventeenth trillion iteration of existence in a massive cycle of expansion and contraction. Much like your puckering anus as you're reamed to bleeding by taking the shit people say as anything other than pathetic musings to prevent the suicidal thoughts that enter an idle mind.

Have a nice day, and again, suck a cock.

It's highly amusing how angry you get by me pointing out a simple fact (that you failed miserably at showing how they are both equal), go into a tirade revealing your deep homosexual fantasies and then call me uptight!

Keep up the show, please.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It's highly amusing how angry you get by me pointing out a simple fact (that you failed miserably at showing how they are both equal), go into a tirade revealing your deep homosexual fantasies and then call me uptight!

Keep up the show, please.

Thing is though, I'm just killing time and not really angry nor homosexual. I was really hoping for a more fun response though. :/ Oh well, can always wank to Rachael Ray on the food network while I sacrifice chickens for extra virility.

Right.

This officially entertains me more than you: http://tinyurl.com/y5bpsa

I don't think God can be proven or not. However, I also don't think God is an old, fatherly type figure who wears robes and lives on a cloud.

It really matters what you mean by God when you ask if God can be proven. I think over time God has ment many things. At some point in time, to someone or some people, God has ment anything from great natural disasters, to planets and stars, to alien beings.

God could mean the collective consciousness of all humanity. A larger 'God' would be the collective consciousness of all life. Or even larger, the collective of all that exists. All consciousness, all matter and energy. All of reality, in multiple dimensions and possibilities and alternates.

That is what I think God is, in its highest, purest form. What could be greater then everything? That is why there are bad things and good things. Its balance. Up close, from our insignificant perspective, we see bad things and good things happening sepereatly. But from far away, the events are one, just two sides to the same coin. Just as how a smooth surface may become rough looking when the perspective zooms in 1000X.

Can that ever be proven? That there are alternate realities and possibilities, that there are multiple dimensions to space time and consciousness...? And that they are all reall just One, and that singular is God?

I don't know.

But this is some fairly interesting information about the mystical experiance and infinate consciousness:

quote:

Verification of the Mystical Experiance

By Ian Williams Goddard

1994

"The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

Albert Einstein



I. WHAT DOES THE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE "TEACH"?

The mystical experience primarily "teaches" that consciousness is infinite in space and eternal in time. This infinite consciousness has been called God, Brahman, Buddha mind, nirvana, cosmic consciousness, etc.

During the mystical experience consciousness appears to instantaneously span the entirety of space and time,

consequently it appears that all distances across space and time equal zero. This "zero" space-time is the formless

"void" spoken of by Eastern mystics. So the primary lesson of the mystical experience is that distances across space

and time equal zero. From this lesson arises the theory that space and time are "illusions."



II. HOW DO WE PROVE THE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE?



To prove that the mystical experience is valid we must prove that all distances across space and time equal zero. Sound

impossible? Not quite: to prove that all distances equal zero we must simply establish that the process of the

measurement of space and time is * symmetrical.* If the process of the measurement of space and time is symmetrical, the equal but opposite components of this measurement, expressed as equal but opposite numbers, will neutralize one another so that the sum equals zero.



III. SYMMETRY OF MEASUREMENT

Distance across space and time is measured by * motion * from point (a) to point (b) in either space or time. The motion of this measurement is described mathematically by a sequential progression from zero: 0 1 2 3 4 -->. Each number marks a unit of space or time across which motion has occurred.

The nature of the motion of measurement is * relative.* As Albert Einstein said, "Every motion must be considered only

as a relative motion."

Relative motion is * symmetrical.* Describing the symmetry of motion, Einstein observed that as you fall down to the

Earth (-), it is equally true that the Earth rises up to you (+). Thus, the event of your falling = {(+) + (-)} = symmetry.

Motion through space is mechanically equivalent to motion through time: as you move from second (1) toward second (2)

--> (+), it is simultaneously true that second (2) moves symmetrically toward you <-- (-). The flow of time is symmetrical: this moment is passing by into the past. Your forward motion into the future (--> ) *is* the backward motion (<--) of this moment into the past. Thus time flow = {(<--) + (--> )}.

As measurement is motion, and as motion is symmetrical, all measurements are symmetrical. (For graphics, animations, and

info about the symmetry of nonuniform motion, e-mail:

igoddard@cap.gwu.edu.)



All measurement is motion

Motion is symmetrical

Thus: all measurement is symmetrical

As the motion of all measurements of space and time is symmetrical, the mathematical description of all measurements is symmetrical progressions from zero:

[-- 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 --]

the structure of all measurements

Every measurement of one unit of space or time is composed of *two symmetrical states of motion.* These symmetrical states of motion, being equal but opposite, are described mathematically by the equal but opposite numbers 1 and -1. As two equal but opposite numbers are derived from every measurement of one unit of space or time, the complete calculation of every measurement of one unit of space or

time = {(1) + (-1)} = 0.

All measurements are symmetrical

Symmetry = 0

Thus: all measurements = 0

Traditional measurement theory describes only * half * of the symmetry of measurement and then erroneously assumes the complete calculation of a measurement to be nonzero. If the nature of X is (+) & (-), then X = {(+) + (-)}. As the nature of motion is (+) & (-), and as measurement = motion, measurement = {(+) + (-)}.

IV. CONCLUSION

What was required to be proven -- that the measurement of space and time is symmetrical and thus equals zero -- has been proven. By proving that all measurements of space and time equal zero, all measurements of all physical phenomena

must also equal zero, for space and time are the basis of all physical measurements. That the experience of space and time *seems* to contradict an absolute zero sum is a consequence of misunderstanding what "zero" means and does not alter the logical proof which dictates that space and

time equal zero.

As all measurements of space and time must equal zero due to the symmetry of relative motion, logic clearly dictates that the claim arising from the mystical experience -- that all distances across space and time equal zero -- is true.

Unless it can be shown that relative motion is not symmetrical, logic dictates that the mystical experience must be the experience of the truth.



I left out the counter-arguments, but can get them if someone really wants to read.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

This officially entertains me more than you: http://tinyurl.com/y5bpsa

But you're not a homosexual. Got it.

I can tell you who created god.

Humans.



"God" is just an idea used to provide security and peace of mind to individuals who cannot handle reality.

You can't prove God exists and you can't prove he doesn't.

But, he does and he doesn't through faith. It doesn't matter whether he does or doesn't, it matters that you truly believe in something or not.

sigh...look Rust you idiot, he is DEFINING God subjectively. His definiton? All of existence. So what does it come down to? belief.

quote:Originally posted by Naminator01:

I´ve been an atheist since the age of 10

i just kept pondering on the paradox that is god.



How can "god" possibly exist?

I mean god must be there for a reason

but who created god?



There just isnt logic in religion.



I´ve laughed at luther for becoming a monk

I laughed at jesus for starving himself during 40 days

And i also laughed at Ghandis "simple" life.

These people just dont make sense.

Dude, show some respect for Ghandi. Im pretty sure he was one of the smartest people to have walked the earth even while living his "simple" life.

There is no way to prove that God exsists. If you could prove it 100%, there would no need for faith.

That would defeat the purpose.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Existence is all that is, right? All that is would be all powerful, all present, all experiencing - no other qualities CAN exist. Being all that is, it possesses all power, is present at all locations, and experiences all occurences. If it happens to have a will, too, then there would be something higher than my current definition of God, thus becoming the 'new' God to me...when really, it's just something else I've learned about my god.

So again, Rust, suck a cock.

Existence is a bunch of chemical-electrical impulses sent from parts of your body, through the nervous system, into the brain where, by some process still unknown, the sensations and experiences we have get mixed into what we percieve as reality.

the only thing i can say i KNOW isnt true, because i HAVE infact been there, is that you dont really go to heaven, hell, or meet "god" right after you die.

quote:Originally posted by Clevmire:

"who created god" is the same as "what created the expanding universe."

That is so wrong. "Who created god" is a question with no answer. "What created the expanding universe" is already solved: the big bang. And there are a few good theories about what was before the big bang: a universe filled with a very reactive gas. They have found proof of the universe before the big bang in the sense of leftover backgroundradiation.

I do however agree with most of the rest of your post.

Saying god is the big answer to life's questions is bullshit, as god itsself is nothing more than a question mark hidden under an abstract concept. We just need to accept that there are things we don't know. Science will keep solving questions and discovering more and more things untill our civilisation gets ruined (pretty soon I think) but every discovery will create a new qestion. To want, to seek and to find answers is good, but to need answers is bad.

God is a word.

If you're looking for the actual thing. Look for less words and more actualities!

you have to make a leap of faith. leap, as in you yourself have to make a strive toward your faith.

but faith begins percisly where thinking leaves off..

quote:Originally posted by Naminator01:

I´ve been an atheist since the age of 10

i just kept pondering on the paradox that is god.



How can "god" possibly exist?

I mean god must be there for a reason

but who created god?



There just isnt logic in religion.





You are closer than you know. Let's look at some etymology and relate that to the bible. Take the first verse of The Gospel John "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God". "Word" is a translation of the original greek the new testament writers used and the greek for "Word" is Logos. So in the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God".

Logos is defined by the Concise Collins dictionary thus:

logos (noun) 1.philosophy: reason, regarded as the controling principle of the universe. 2. the divine Word, the second person of the Trinity. Originally from the Greek meaning word or reason.

Now let's use 'reason' in place of 'word'.

"In the beginning was Reason, and Reason was with God and Reason was God". See the difference? What is the "highest principle" of your mind, what is it you use to determine how to live your life and what to believe and what not to believe?

Here's a further defintion of God from the Concise Collins: God (noun)1. a supernatural being who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universeor some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force.

From the above: 'god' is the personification of 'reason' regarded as the highest or controlling principle of life, meaning: those who use the power of reason as the controlling principle of life are in essence, without consciously realising it, sharing in that which is called 'god'.

That is a very different view of god to the one's given by organised religions, that god does not exist; except in the minds of those who allow dogma, tradition and fear to rule over their power of reason and thus their false belief becomes their controlling principle or god - a false god.

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

quote:Originally posted by l33t_looser:

you cant prove God exists, its either somthing you belive or dont. i do..i figure it this way, i would rather take 2 days of my time to go to church and worship God (and i actually have fun doing so..its my thing.) and figure out he dont exist when i die, rather than live life and die and figure out im screwed.

LOL my thoughts exactly

quote:Originally posted by Clinks and Drinks:

Existence is a bunch of chemical-electrical impulses sent from parts of your body, through the nervous system, into the brain where, by some process still unknown, the sensations and experiences we have get mixed into what we percieve as reality.

That would be an individual's perception of existence, of reality. We live a virtual life - the degree of accuracy to which our virtual perception mimics reality is up for discussion.

quote:Originally posted by TruthWielder:

sigh...look Rust you idiot, he is DEFINING God subjectively. His definiton? All of existence. So what does it come down to? belief.

Really? Maybe that's why I said...

"The only way you'll "prove" this is by redefining "system" to be simply another word for god, which makes your pathetic attempt at a "proof" not only unnecessary, but utterly hilarious."

I understand what he is doing, "you idiot", that was part of my point: not only that he failed to prove that they were equal using the transitive property (which he trotted out in a sad attempt to make his "proof" look more official and then failed miserably in applying it) but that it ultimately is a redefinition of the word god, thus not necessitating a "proof" to begin with.

How about next time you actually read what I say before you call me an idiot? It spares you these embarrassing moments.

Why would you be telling me something that I outright said before I even bothered typing that bullshit in?

quote:I can prove my definition of a god...but then again, I don't believe in some mythical old man that judges people for the shitty choices they make.

Whether you yourself are aware of your own stupidity, does not mean others are; nor does it mean you actually understand the depth of it. The fact that you go on to "prove" (I use that word lightly) your definition shows how either you're trying hard to conjure up some "authority" for your sad definition or that you don't even understand how unnecessary and worthless a "proof" would be if you're simply redefining the word to begin with - both compelling reasons for me to reiterate how you're simply redefining a word and then why that's idiotic at best.

But like I said, there were two points to my post...

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 12-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by g0d00:

you have to make a leap of faith. leap, as in you yourself have to make a strive toward your faith.

but faith begins percisly where thinking leaves off..

You don't have to do any of that, it's not something that either happens or doesn't.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Another fool fallen victim to Pascal's wager. That logic can be applied to anything that offers eternal damnation for not believing in it and eternal happiness in believing in it - Do you also believe in Allah? If you are to be consistent in your reasoning you should; it is just as bad to die and figure out you are screwed by Allah as it is to die and figure out you are screwed by the Christian God. Or are you just inconsistent and irrational?

Just a point: The Qu'ran (And by extension God) often mentions how the christian and ismalmic god are exactly the same. Also says to make sure that you're nice and good to the People of the Book, in other words any followers of the Abrahmic God.

That said. Your point still stands. And also pascals wager doesn't in fact make people believers.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Whether you yourself are aware of your own stupidity, does not mean others are; nor does it mean you actually understand the depth of it. The fact that you go on to "prove" (I use that word lightly) your definition shows how either you're trying hard to conjure up some "authority" for your sad definition or that you don't even understand how unnecessary and worthless a "proof" would be if you're simply redefining the word to begin with - both compelling reasons for me to reiterate how you're simply redefining a word and then why that's idiotic at best.

But like I said, there were two points to my post...



Rust, I know it's entirely unnecessary. If I said to someone that I can prove to them my definition of a God, it's more than likely (from my experience) that they're going to want to hear the proof...even if it's non-sensical to begin with.

And what's sad about defining a god as the totality of existence? Would that not be the highest of powers? The most present? The most experienced? Sure, the construct itself is all in my head, but I have a reason for having created it, and I've yet to decide whether or not I'm going to destroy or replace the mental construct called 'God'.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Rust, I know it's entirely unnecessary. If I said to someone that I can prove to them my definition of a God, it's more than likely (from my experience) that they're going to want to hear the proof...even if it's non-sensical to begin with.

That you would say to someone "I can prove my definition of god" makes it quite evident that you don't understand just how stupid it is.

quote:

And what's sad about defining a god as the totality of existence?

The word "everything" comes to mind.

It brings absolutely no benefit. It does not help us to understand, question, experiment or investigate anything. It is fruitless and unnecessary; it is sad.

That you would say to someone "I can prove my definition of god" makes it quite evident that you don't understand just how stupid it is.

Read some of my other recent posts - you'll see that I understand very well how worthless and ignorant it is. You see my definition of a god as if it's something I believe to exist.

The word "everything" comes to mind.

It brings absolutely no benefit. It does not help us to understand, question, experiment or investigate anything. It is fruitless and unnecessary; it is sad.

Fair enough, but existence is as fruitless and unnecessary - it benefits nothing, not even the individual...it too is sad, but I don't see you bitching about that.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:



Read some of my other recent posts - you'll see that I understand very well how worthless and ignorant it is. You see my definition of a god as if it's something I believe to exist.



The fact that you keep mentioning every time you get, and go on to "prove" it, again, shows otherwise.

quote:

... but I don't see you bitching about that.

Perhaps because I don't agree with that idiotic sentiment of yours...

I have been thinking the same thing

if god accepts all into his hands

how can he reject those who have sinned?

and if your dead how can you feel eternal pain in hell? and do you just chill in heaven FOREVER or reincarnate? its an impossible subject to acutally answer correctly

If God created man, and man has flaws, then God has flaws. If he does exist, and when we die... Then he should accept us no matter what. I for one do not believe in him, but if I'm wrong I will use my intelligence of paradoxes to force him to accept me into his world. It's all his fault and we should not have the consequences of his mistakes. If he does exist, then we truly do not have "free will", otherwise he has no control.

I don't really care though. I'm just going to go through life the way I want, and no one is going to change me.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

That isn't the transitive property; not even a reasonable bastardization of it. First learn what the transitive property is, then try to sell your bullshit...

If someone hasn't already covered it-

If A is congruent to B and B is congruent to C then A is congruent to C.

A=B & B=C => A=C is substitution.

quote:Originally posted by Runaway_Stapler:

If someone hasn't already covered it-

If A is congruent to B and B is congruent to C then A is congruent to C.

A=B & B=C => A=C is substitution.

You should have read more of the thread before you posted this.

quote:Originally posted by Runaway_Stapler:

If someone hasn't already covered it-

If A is congruent to B and B is congruent to C then A is congruent to C.

A=B & B=C => A=C is substitution.

... I know what the transitive property is; what part of my post implied, in any way, shape or form, that I didn't understand what the transitive property is?

He "proved" (I'm assuming, for the sake of simplicity, that his reasoning is valid) that they share three characteristics in common. That does not mean the two are equal; if he didn't prove equality, then he didn't even come close to using the transitive property.

Like The other dude said, there is no way to prove God exists. But there is now way to prove he doesnt exist.

For example,

If the earth had .1% more oxygen in the atmosphere, the earth would burst into flames.

If the earth was 1 inch to the left or right on its axis, it would either be too hot or too cold.

For all of this to happen by chance just isnt possible.

quote:Originally posted by GatorWarrior:

Like The other dude said, there is no way to prove God exists. But there is now way to prove he doesnt exist.

For example,

If the earth had .1% more oxygen in the atmosphere, the earth would burst into flames.

If the earth was 1 inch to the left or right on its axis, it would either be too hot or too cold.

For all of this to happen by chance just isnt possible.

Actually... The chance of it being a perfect place for humans isn't as small as you think. We would only be different. There are many planets that do not have OUR needs. But if our planet didn't, then there would be another planet that did. And we would have eventually been evolved into almost what we are now, only on THAT planet.

the universe consistently expanding gives reason to prove that it is omnipotent. given omnipotence designates divinity, the only true 'god' that we can scientifically evaluate is the universe..

in any case, a moon that comes to eat in at the pizza place i work for told me that if you were to find something as obscure as a brain on the moon, would it not prove that there was a god?

granted i don't know his mechanical thought process behind it - he makes a valid point.

i believe the universe to be the only supreme being that our entitous... bodies are subject to influence from. the christian messiah, the holy trinity, all that jazz is irrelevant when it boils down to the cold hard mathematics of the fact that BIRTH SIGNS dictate MAJOR life decisions. given horoscopes are usually very general in their descriptions, they can be HIGHLY accurate when combined into the numerological analysis of many numerologists. so in conclusion, the only proof for a god is the omnipotence behind the energy propelling the expansion of the universe.

have fun disecting that one.

INCOMING WRECKING BALL!!

The empiricists wrecking ball question:

How do you know God exists?

You guys do realize, that god was made up right? Yeah, someone had to write that fucking book.

I agree with whoever said Humans created god. Theres no god, and you can still have as much faith in one as you wish, but that doesn't make god real.

I can prove my god exists, and here's how;

1)Put your hand over your chest

2)Feel your heart beat

3)Observe the rhythm with which it is beating

The rhythm of life. You just found god http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

dex user - you did what i did. you interpreted god into your own definition. he's talking about the religious icon :/

i wish someone would evaluate my thesis on a deity.

[This message has been edited by eXo5 (edited 12-22-2006).]

A flower.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

God speaks to us in many ways.

Most of us simply fail to pay attention.



This is the kind of bullshit that I hate. Pretending to be some mystical genius means nothing.

How about you put up some real proof. Obviously the OP is paying attention, so tell him (and us) how he can "listen" and prove the existence of god.

quote:Originally posted by bobsled:

This is the kind of bullshit that I hate. Pretending to be some mystical genius means nothing.

How about you put up some real proof. Obviously the OP is paying attention, so tell him (and us) how he can "listen" and prove the existence of god.

Bender: Do you think what I did was wrong?

God: Right and wrong are just words. What matters is what you do.

Bender: Yeah, I know. That's why I asked if what I did w-oh, forget it.

You can't prove something to exist that leaves no evidence. And if I do present evidence like historical records etc., you'll say it's not enough...so why bother?

quote:Originally posted by gmail:

The thousands of children who die of starvation everyday.

The horrible wars we have.

People killing eachother because of differing religious beliefs.

Innocent men sent to prison for life.

Ohhh wait... You wanted reasons why god exists. Cant help you there

This is what makes me mad. People think that God is going to do everything for them and when he doesn't, it's all his fault. God isn't your baby-sitter, he has to let some things be. If everything were perfect, we wouldn't have anything to do. It's just like JFK, but insted of, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" its, "ask not what God can do for you, ask what you can do for God"

quote:Originally posted by thehighway:

INCOMING WRECKING BALL!!

The empiricists wrecking ball question:

How do you know God exists?

quote:God created suffering and heartache, so that joy might be known as their opposite. Hidden things become manifest through their opposites. But God has no opposite; so he remains hidden. Light is known as the opposite of darkness. But God's light has no opposite. Thus we cannot know him through our eyes.

-Rumi, "Masnavi"

Rumi’s conception of God is not able to be seen, how else to know?

quote:

Do not think of God as isolated from his creation. Do not think of God as bound by rules. Do not compare God with any other entity. Beware of thinking of God as remote.

You are not God; and you are God. You see him in the essences of all things; yet he is boundless.

-Ibn Arabi, "Fusus al-hikam"

this subject has been raised often on TOTSE, here’s a couple of examples:

quote:It's extremely difficult to communicate such broad and powerful ideas within the limited scope of parameters that are presented by the arguments of most people who want you to "prove God exists"....Primarily their presupposition as to the definition of "God" and the predisposition to disbelieve anything they do not quite grasp.... ChaosWyrm TOTSE sorry can’t cite the source but believe it would be at a similar time to:

quote:Dear friend, if you look for meaning in life, don't look for it in religions, don't go from one cult to another, or from one guru to the next. You can expend all your life, or look for eternity, and will find nothing but disappointment, and disillusionment. Look instead in service to humanity. You will find "meaning" in your love for other human beings. You can experience God, when you help someone who needs your help. The only truth that counts is the love that we have for each other. This is absolute, and real. The rest is mirage, fancies of human imagination, and fallacies of your own making.

Volare TOTSE http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/000746-4.htm

profound!

quote:

7. In the beginning of this physical plane, the Gods produced mortals, but now mortals produce their own gods. We call the god produced by mortal mind the demiurge. It is the demiurge that most mortals worship, but the demiurge should worship mortals, for they are his creators. Mortals say that their gods created them, but in reality, they created their gods. http://www.thepearl.org/Principles_of_the_New_Covenant.htm



when will we realise our humanity? when will we truly cognise the unity of the human family and resolve the divisive issues based on imperfect knowledge?

The stoics believed: quote:

The universe is a living thing, endowed with soul and with reason.

It is evident there must always have been existence in some form either as energy or matter but most likely cycling between those states in an infinite ‘dance’. It is also evident there is consciousness, mind. Life and mind, being and mind, inextricably bound with existence - as there is no alternative! There can be only existence, existence exhibits life, life exhibits consciousness, consciousness exhibits higher and lower aspects, the highest being when help is given, when and where it is needed without thought of return or reward. This, the highest principle, brings forth the highest and noblest acts of humankind.

Love is a law, a process, a way of being that centers the mind on the highest principle “Three things will remain forever, faith hope and love and the greatest of these is love". Intangible yet real, love, that is real love, not the modern debasement of love – emotional sentimentality mixed with need and dependence. Charity, love in action! Love is supportive, non-judgemental, has no fixed position therefore is patient, love is a way of being, a path of life, a, perhaps the, key principle. God is Love?

Whatever God is, the intangible creative force, the mind, the spirit of life, GROUND OF BEING, whatever description humans give it, the divine essence is not something that can be seen "through our eyes"! Each individual needs discover an answer that satisfies.

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

Try reading... The Cognitive- Theoretic Model of the Universe by Christopher Michael Langan. It's rather interesting, though I find it hard to understand. He basically justifies the "We are all God; one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively" concept, I think.

Quit calling "everything" god. That's fucking annoying. Unless "reality" has a big book that lists the people it likes better and wants to live forever, don't call it "god".

quote:Originally posted by blackarmchair:

But my question to you sir: What happens when you die and find there is?

It is rather simple, really. There are two possibilities:

1) God is all-loving.

2) God is not all-loving.

Many Christians (etc) believe that 1) is correct. If this is true, Hell or any other form of eternal punishment would not exist nor would there be a need for its existence. God would love all persons equally, sinner and saint, atheist and theist. Thus, it is absolutely irrelevant what you do, say, or believe throughout your life - an all-loving God would not condemn a person to everlasting torment.

If 2) is correct, then you are worshiping a sadistic tyrant who can, at any time for any reason, condemn you to everlasting torment regardless of what of you do, say, or believe. Thus, it is absolutely irrelevant what you do, say, or believe throughout your life - God does whatever he/she/it wants to whenever he/she/it feels like it.

Thus, in either case, the answer is: nothing.

nobody can prove that god is real. I am a buddihst, and we do not believe in such a god. God is really a psychological trick that people play on themselves.

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Rumi’s conception of God is not able to be seen, how else to know?

Can you see air? No but its still there

Can you see radio waves? no but there still there

Can you see wind? no but you can see the effects of wind.

God is like wind, You may not be able to see Him but you can see his effects.

No, you can't prove "God" exists.

I guess to me, it depends on both how you interpret events that occur in the physical world (reality?), as well as the events that occur within you, the feelings, the thoughts, the inspiration...

There is zero proof in the physical world of "God", the only proof that exists is within the mind, through interpretation of experience, and the use of "logic".

It's quite clear you can't stick "God" under a microscope to determine existence and properties, it's all about how it appears within you, and this is basically what doubting materialists fail to recognise; God is not going to "prove" himself to the universe. Also, if you enter into finding/understanding what people call "God" with a disbelieving, proof-demanding attitude, chances are you're not going to experience owt.

Same with all paranormal things really, people who are determined that eleves do not exist generally do not see them, but in reality this says nothing about whether they exist or not.

To me, "God" is a personal dillema like this, but as to what God is, and how "it" interacts with me, and the universe, I have no idea. However, I don't take the lack of proof as lack of possibility that "God" exists, infact I frequently feel I am "piecing together" things which allow a greater understanding of my relation to the universe, and esentially "God".

I can't "prove" any of this, but I still have FAITH in myself that it is relevant, interesting, and something that will benefit me to explore.

As to whether everyone experiences God, and yet may not realise it, this certainly can't proved, but by golly you can believe it with all your heart and soul, and even start religions over your beliefs http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)