Let me first state that I believe in Occam's Razor -- The principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; that the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred.

One of the strongest arguments in favor of God's existence IMO is that Earth is a complex object of some sort, a very complex mechanism. The argument makes the assumption that complex objects always have a creator. Therefore our universe's complexity implies an intelligent creator --- God.

This argument can be summarized with the simple question "If god doesn't exist, then why are we here?"

However, I see a gaping flaw with the argument. God is itself a complex object and thus according to the assumption made by the argument God needs a creator.

We can give God a creator, but then that creator needs a creator so we regress into an infinite paradox of causality.

So we'll just have to accept that not EVERY complex object needs a creator, that certain extraordinary objects can just poof into existence.

So we have 2 theories:

1. God 'poofed' into existence and created the universe.

2. The universe 'poofed' into existence.

Occam's Razor says the 2nd theory is superior.

Many people counter this argument by saying that god has special properties, that he is beyond causality and that asking "what created god?" or "what came before god?" is inane. But why can't these same properties simply be applied to the universe?

Perhaps god is the universe and you're thinking about things all the wrong way.

Or perhaps he's not a douche that randomly redefines words to mean other things in order to sound like he has a point.

Perhaps god is the universe and you're thinking about things all the wrong way.

Pantheism much?

Time is what the dimension directly above you seems to be. If we were 2nd dimensional creatures, instead of 3rd, the 3rd dimension would appear to be 'time'. 'Time' is how we try to interpret the 4th dimension.

When everything is viewed as a point in the tenth dimension (God), there is no 'time', there is only existence. So there is no 'before' reality, there only is reality. Or as some say, there is no 'before' God, there only is God.

So...third theory?

3. Reality (God) is.

Or perhaps he's not a douche that randomly redefines words to mean other things in order to sound like he has a point.

It doesn't sound random to me. A pantheists version of God makes much more sense then the definition used by most totsean atheists. Namely one very similar to the Christian God.

It actually sounds like he has thought a lot about the subject, and made an actual point.

Not just a pointless insult that actually contributes nothing, like some douche.

I don't believe in god because he doesn't exist.

I don't believe in god because he doesn't exist.

^^...definition used by most totsean atheists. Case in point.

Time is what the dimension directly above you seems to be. If we were 2nd dimensional creatures, instead of 3rd, the 3rd dimension would appear to be 'time'. 'Time' is how we try to interpret the 4th dimension.

When everything is viewed as a point in the tenth dimension (God), there is no 'time', there is only existence. So there is no 'before' reality, there only is reality. Or as some say, there is no 'before' God, there only is God.

So...third theory?

3. Reality (God) is.

Sounds like complete bullshit to me. time is an illusion, it is only what we make it to be. All time is is a measure of change. Our day is just measured by the Earth orbiting the sun. For there to be no time, there would have to be no change.

Sounds like complete bullshit to me. time is an illusion, it is only what we make it to be. All time is is a measure of change. Our day is just measured by the Earth orbiting the sun. For there to be no time, there would have to be no change.

Space and time are illusions, only because All is One. And time is a measure of change, or duration. Just like how we experience the 3rd dimension as one position in 2D space 'folding' to another position, the 4th dimension can be experienced as one position in 3D space 'folding' to another position.

The Tenth Dimension is all...there are no more positions...or 'time'.

This video (http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php) and book really help to explain this concept.

Space and time are illusions, only because All is One. And time is a measure of change, or duration. Just like how we experience the 3rd dimension as one position in 2D space 'folding' to another position, the 4th dimension can be experienced as one position in 3D space 'folding' to another position.

The Tenth Dimension is all...there are no more positions...or 'time'.

This video (http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php) and book really help to explain this concept.

Just watched the video, and it seems the guy is taking this string theory and applying vivid imagination to it. From what I have heard, people are starting to think the string theory in itself is bullshit, I'll post where I read it if I can find it again.

Just watched the video, and it seems the guy is taking this string theory and applying vivid imagination to it. From what I have heard, people are starting to think the string theory in itself is bullshit, I'll post where I read it if I can find it again.

The book is philosophical in nature.

So do you doubt the existence of length width and depth?

And string theory is not a single 'thing', its a collection. Not all of the smaller theories work with the others. Lots is still in debate.

edit-

I really don't understand how you can't see time as just another dimension. The tenth dimension is a collection of one through nine (or however you choose to interpret it). At the tenth dimension, which is all(as in all, or as some say, God), there is no 'time', there is no 'change'. There certainly isn't any before either.

And to be clear, I understand the saying "That which ceases to change ceases to exist." But what is our understanding of existence? The root (http://roadwaffles.com/index.php?c=2003-6-30) of existence is someone else observing that you exist :). However, at the tenth dimension, all is one. Try to examine a part of the tenth dimension, and that will instantly collapse into the lower dimensions. It seems that state archived through calm abiding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calm_abiding) and other techniques (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_spirit6.shtml), some times called the void (http://www.erowid.org/spirit/writings/spirit_writings1.shtml), seems to be 'equal' to that of the tenth dimension. Or at least a good teacher.

if you would actually read the bible, time is nothing to God, we created time to help name things and use it as a guide for ourselves...time is nothing.

If you would actually read the Bible, you'd realize that it's full of all kinds of horrible, horrible shit. But then, you're too much of a fuckstick for that, aren't ya?

If you would actually read the Bible, you'd realize that it's full of all kinds of horrible, horrible shit. But then, you're too much of a fuckstick for that, aren't ya?

If you would read the Bible you'd realise that it was filled with some good examples on how to live your life. But then, you're too much of a fuckstick for that, aren't ya?

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.

^^...definition used by most totsean atheists. Case in point.

Sad but true.

Of course the followers of Abrahamic religion on the forum aren't much better. It's like 2 equally retarded armies trying to kill eachother with rubber bands.

"If you would read the Bible you'd realise that it was filled with some good examples on how to live your life. But then, you're too much of a fuckstick for that, aren't ya?"

Sorry, but the "be excellent to each other" is kind of overshadowed by things like genocide and slavery. There are better works of fiction to get ideas on how to live from.

Sorry, but the "be excellent to each other" is kind of overshadowed by things like genocide and slavery. There are better works of fiction to get ideas on how to live from.

something seriosuly went wrong in his life and likes to take it out on religion. =P
i think he's pissed because some pyscho mentally ill catholic priest raped him. lol.

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.

I approve of this post.

Wrote knowledge is worthless unless you "fit it in" to your perception and "open up" your judgment instead of closing it off.

Sorry, but the "be excellent to each other" is kind of overshadowed by things like genocide and slavery.

"The people's good is the highest law."

I think that there will always be enough anti-social people with no conscience for this to work properly. It's a shame, because people are supposed to have "heart" and, as KMFDM put it, "can you govern your soul?"

Using a knife makes it dull but saving one is wasting a fine edge.

Basically people generally fall into a mean of "averege"-ly acceptable behavior.... but the people on the behavioral fringes change everything. They exist and meddle in both good and bad ways in regards to the general populous' plans. Therefore, everything you do is bound to have an unforseen consequence and provoke a reaction in others.

NOTHING can be accepted by everyone, because in the land before time, putting one foot in front of the other was a necessity. Now we have so much ego and such specific roles with high amounts of intellegence distributed in unbalanced chunks, that conflict, strife, and douch-ality is a certainty.

I am going off topic?.!.?.!

One interesting question is why do we perceive time as 'flowing' in only one direction?

Is it possible for consciousness to perceive time flowing 'backwards'?

...why do we perceive time as 'flowing' in only one direction?

Perhaps its because we are complex organisms which evolved from processes moving in that direction.

All basic chemical processes have an equal logic when viewed in the reverse order. Lets say we have a particular reaction "A plus B always equals C". In a reverse-time world, then, C minus B would always equal A, regardless of whether C minus B is a reaction that can occur within our current perception of time.

Since we evolved from processes moving in one direction...is it possible something could have evolved moving in the other direction?

God didn't "poof" into existance. God has always existed.

[I]Since we evolved from processes moving in one direction...is it possible something could have evolved moving in the other direction?

Interesting concept. I doubt it, though. Even if precesses move in an "other" direction, it is still a "one" direction involving a series of events.

Wholes seem to fragment, and wholes are reformed in altered states though reactions and collective fragmented parts. Functions are altered on a realistic level while retaining an underlying elemental consistency.

I can even really imagine something going sort of "anti-time" like you say... it hurts my brain to prod at how that would work. That principle is the connotation of the word oxymoron.

Brain's all "let's see here, that would have to....wait... WTF!"

Why can't series of events take place in 2 directions?

In the 5th dimension, there are a multitude of endings which our universe could experience from its current position. A 'Big Crunch' for example, when viewed on a reverse time line, would appear to be similar to a big bag, no? Could that not be a spring board for another kind of life? What about a cold death, where everything floats off into nothingness?


The Steven Strogatz book 'Sync' describes many instances where order seems to spontaneously spring from disorder in the universe, and in nature. Some of the processes this groundbreaking book touches upon could conceivably result in life forming on the reverse-timeline coming back from a clod death universe.

Although it is probably very unlikely, lets imagine how a war between our people and an alien civilization living on a reverse-timeline/worldline would work.

Lets say they land on our planet in our year 3000 and decide they really like it. By the year 2500 they have increased their population greatly. But small groups of pesky beings called humans begin appearing, who resit the alien invaders, and by 2010 the aliens are no more.

Our version of the events, would be quite the opposite. small groups of very odd beings with unexplainable behavior would begin appearing and attacking. We would fight back as best we could but unfortunately by 2500 we are no more and the aliens win.

Could there be a scenario where both races win? Lets say the aliens arrive to Earth on their time/world line 5 minutes ago. They could go off into our past fighting humans for about 10,000 years and take over the backwards planet.

But it would not effect us, as we are already on a time/world line where that did not happen, and we would never have any knowledge of these backward alien beings.

10 is too clean a number, plus, it has been proven that the universe isn't made of lots and lots of strings.

apparently bananas prove god, but what about pineapples?

Meh, even if there is a god, which there isn't, I still don't feel the least bit bad when someone chooses to shove an aborted fetus into their rectum in a futile attempt to feel the joy of childbirth.

come to think of it...I wonder if anybody has ever done that...

Isnt it more logical that the "Humans" that created God through literature and exagerations meant for religion to be a moral guide to a peaceful living standard?

The definition of God as the creator of the universe is completely Bogus in an ongoing illusion attempt at surrendering at the mercy of this supreme force in order to obey the basic principles of morality. (you believe those in power, so if he tells you to be good and don't jack off, you'd listen lols)

Maybe the realistic defintion was that God was just a human, a good hearted human, maybe a 100% heart-full- of-gold human, maybe a human that means no harm, a human that is incapable of producing verbal/physical harm, maybe just a human that helps others and nothing else. Thus acting as a role model of perfection in morality or anything that has no ties into evil what so ever.

Maybe the idealistic creationistic but realistic god is not a person in form, but an on going force, a force that keeps moving, the force of Nature. Nature is god. Nature created the universe. Nature made the worlds. Nature gave you life.

Maybe believing in god was meant to be believing in yourself in which case you'd have a better chance at nailing a quadroople summersault if you believed in yourself and your skills rather than this god himself.
Maybe everytime you pray to the gods, this completely respecful illusion towards god makes you incapable of lying, you find out the truth, you ask yourself if what your doing is right or wrong, sometimes you may not know whats right or wrong, you can't always know, your not "him". So in this case you'd just do the "right" thing to the best of your abilities. So this praying act allows you to not lie to yourself but in actuality if your truthful to yourself, you need not even pray.

Oh yea I still believe in gods because my knowledge of "Religion History" is mostly non-existant and I don't wanna speak of something I know not of. Parzun myz gramzr.

Wth is everyone talking about 'dimensions' for? Has anyone ever experienced anything besides 3-dimensional objects? Even 2d is just an illusion and any basis of talking about '4d' or 10d is just spouting off on things never experienced. It's not even like you're talking about things that could be contigently experienced at this point.
And for those of you speaking of 'god' in a pantheistic manner should just exit the forum now, because you are not speaking of any meaningful entity.

In the 5th dimension, there are a multitude of endings which our universe could experience from its current position.


You and your dimensions. :)
Any chance you could post a thread explaining what all 10 dimensions are about?

Let me first state that I believe in Occam's Razor -- The principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; that the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred.

One of the strongest arguments in favor of God's existence IMO is that Earth is a complex object of some sort, a very complex mechanism. The argument makes the assumption that complex objects always have a creator. Therefore our universe's complexity implies an intelligent creator --- God.

This argument can be summarized with the simple question "If god doesn't exist, then why are we here?"

However, I see a gaping flaw with the argument. God is itself a complex object and thus according to the assumption made by the argument God needs a creator.

We can give God a creator, but then that creator needs a creator so we regress into an infinite paradox of causality.

So we'll just have to accept that not EVERY complex object needs a creator, that certain extraordinary objects can just poof into existence.

So we have 2 theories:

1. God 'poofed' into existence and created the universe.

2. The universe 'poofed' into existence.

Occam's Razor says the 2nd theory is superior.

Many people counter this argument by saying that god has special properties, that he is beyond causality and that asking "what created god?" or "what came before god?" is inane. But why can't these same properties simply be applied to the universe?

I am sorry but the whole basis of your argument is flawed and therefore null, unless you have a different response. Here is the reason, the law of causality works only if you use it correctly. The law of causality is that every EFFECT must have a cause. An eternal object does not need to have an effect, especially if it is something that has the power of being within itself. Aristotle will back me up on this one. Therefore occams razor would not be proper here because God would again be the simple definition. Do not feel to bad though, John Stuart Mill, whose idea you are promoting here, said the exact same thing and he was an acclaimed philosopher, and a good one at that and he got it wrong as well. I am not saying all of this to put you down, I just want to make sure that the truth is reached and to do that proper definitions must be used.

Then you're assuming god exists in another system, which is not based on causality? Either way, even if the system is non-causal, god still must have 'poofed into existence' if it is indeed a being which can create itself, either way it is superfluous and the argument still holds it seems.

the idea of god as a creater is bullshit. I refuse to except the fact that there is a being "above" me. I agree with some of the posters before me who said god is one.

energy is the basis of everything. we have yet to discover a place where energy does not exist

therefore

god=energy

energy=reality (since energy is the basis for everything)

god=reality

god is just a personification of reality, you believe in it, you just call it logic or something like that.

10 is too clean a number, plus, it has been proven that the universe isn't made of lots and lots of strings.

I am unaware of this proof.

It doesn't have to be 10, some have said 12, some have said 14, some have said other numbers. Its all depends on how you choose to interpret the system. It doesn't always have to be "line, break, fold, new triad" either.

But in my own opinion, 10 dimensions and their interactions are very easy to explain, and do a better job then other theories.

Its much better to have fluid beliefs then solid ones.

Wth is everyone talking about 'dimensions' for? Has anyone ever experienced anything besides 3-dimensional objects?

How do you know you've experienced anything at all? What reality really is? That you exist?

Have you ever taken salvia?

And for those of you speaking of 'god' in a pantheistic manner should just exit the forum now, because you are not speaking of any meaningful entity.

How is it not meaningful?

You and your dimensions.
Any chance you could post a thread explaining what all 10 dimensions are about?

I think I have before, but I probably will again sometime soon. I've posted a video which explains the 10 dimensions themselves (without lots of stuff added by me, like the system in its entirety being God), just the basics...if you're interested and I'm taking too long to write something up, check that out.

I refuse to except the fact that there is a being "above" me.

Why? I mean, if its a fact and all...:D

But seriously...does the existence of your body have anything to do with whether or not your cells accept the fact that they are part of it?

To the OP, clearly you are ignorant of enlightenment, luckily, the One true God is loving and forgiving http://www.itchstudios.com/psg/other/fsm.jpg

Then you're assuming god exists in another system, which is not based on causality? Either way, even if the system is non-causal, god still must have 'poofed into existence' if it is indeed a being which can create itself, either way it is superfluous and the argument still holds it seems.

No I am not. The assumption is that the universe had to have a cause ... not God. Therefore God or something eternal, would exist in this system, not its own system. And since it would be eternal there would not be any poofing ... thus the word eternal. I have no idea what you mean by a "being that can create itself" I simply said it had the power of being within itself, but a better way to put it would be existing without having to be created because an eternal object does not need a cause.

To the OP, clearly you are ignorant of enlightenment, luckily, the One true God is loving and forgiving http://www.itchstudios.com/psg/other/fsm.jpg

C'thulhu? Or Spaghetti God?

No I am not. The assumption is that the universe had to have a cause ... not God. Therefore God or something eternal, would exist in this system, not its own system. And since it would be eternal there would not be any poofing ... thus the word eternal. I have no idea what you mean by a "being that can create itself" I simply said it had the power of being within itself, but a better way to put it would be existing without having to be created because an eternal object does not need a cause.

Why can't we simply make the universe an eternal object, instead of making an eternal object that went ahead and created the universe?

Alot of people are ignoring the last statement of my argument, which is crucial.


Many people counter this argument by saying that god has special properties, that he is beyond causality and that asking "what created god?" or "what came before god?" is inane. But why can't these same properties simply be applied to the universe?

"Alot of people are ignoring the last statement of my argument, which is crucial.

Quote:
Many people counter this argument by saying that god has special properties, that he is beyond causality and that asking "what created god?" or "what came before god?" is inane. But why can't these same properties simply be applied to the universe?"

Ok I will I will start by saying youre a moron in believing in magic (magic is a good word for nothing becoming something with no help from something that has the ability to do such acts) it is so illogical to assume that a natural thing can be around forever however I believe in an all powerful being who has been around forever(because an allpowerful being is the only thing that can be around forever).

Ok I will I will start by saying youre a moron in believing in magic (magic is a good word for nothing becoming something with no help from something that has the ability to do such acts) it is so illogical to assume that a natural thing can be around forever however I believe in an all powerful being who has been around forever(because an allpowerful being is the only thing that can be around forever).

Wow, you seem to very limited.

"Alot of people are ignoring the last statement of my argument, which is crucial.

Quote:
Many people counter this argument by saying that god has special properties, that he is beyond causality and that asking "what created god?" or "what came before god?" is inane. But why can't these same properties simply be applied to the universe?"

Ok I will I will start by saying youre a moron in believing in magic (magic is a good word for nothing becoming something with no help from something that has the ability to do such acts) it is so illogical to assume that a natural thing can be around forever however I believe in an all powerful being who has been around forever(because an allpowerful being is the only thing that can be around forever).

So your belief in a magic man up in the sky is not moric, yet the poster that you say believes in magic is? Sammy, it is people like you that drive intelligent people away from religion in droves - did you realise that?

Learn to type sentences Sammy. It won't make your ravings any more sensical to us, but at least we will be able to read them a bit easier.

I dont believe in a "magic man" thats like saying because I have the ability to lift a chair and a snake cant im magic.

I dont believe in a "magic man" thats like saying because I have the ability to lift a chair im magic.

You don't believe in a magic man? Who's this guy that can see all, knows everything, creates everything, and can basically do anything?

Your right though. Mabey magic isn't the right word. Lets go for "Sammies imaginary omipresent all-seeing all-knowing friend in the sky". Is that better?

I mean, it's not like you have any proof your friend is real, do you?

EDIT: I see you edited your post. "I dont believe in a "magic man" thats like saying because I have the ability to lift a chair and a snake cant im magic."

A snake could well say that is magic, but at least he could see you doing it. Thats called proof. Not the stuff you have been brainwashed into believing.

You people seem to say the same thing over and over again and that saying is "your brainwashed" you have no proof of that so stop making baseless sayings.

And your response to my comment your statement dosnt mean anything because your assuming the snake can see me and that is such a retarded comeback, are you telling me if the snake didnt see me it didnt happen or if you have no proof I can lift a chair i cant?

Edit: If I had proof it would just be accepting fact and no faith which is what religion is about and if you cant accept that this is really a waste of time.

You people seem to say the same thing over and over again and that saying is "your brainwashed" you have no proof of that so stop making baseless sayings.

And your response to my comment your statement dosnt mean anything because your assuming the snake can see me and that is such a retarded comeback, are you telling me if the snake didnt see me it didnt happen or if you have no proof I can lift a chair i cant?

Edit: If I had proof it would just be accepting fact and no faith which is what religion is about and if you cant accept that this is really a waste of time.

Yes, this is a waste of time. But it is fun, isn't it?

Now, if a snake see's you lifting a chair, it could assume you are magic because he couldn't do it himself. Whats hard to understand there? The snake doesn't need faith - HE SAW YOU DO IT!

And organised religion is brainwashing in my opinion. You just blindly accept what a bunch of people have told you, and defend it to the end. Thats pretty close to a definition of brainwashing for me.

"Now, if a snake see's you lifting a chair, it could assume you are magic because he couldn't do it himself. Whats hard to understand there? The snake doesn't need faith - HE SAW YOU DO IT!"

Now your assuming he saw me do it but I asked the question if he didnt see me do it does that prove I cant if he dosnt see me does that mean I dont exist, the answer is no.

"You just blindly accept what a bunch of people have told you, and defend it to the end. Thats pretty close to a definition of brainwashing for me."

That is absolutely false.

BTW http://www.answers.com/topic/brainwashing?cat=health dont say all religious places brainwash that is simply a horrible thing to do.

Now your assuming he saw me do it but I asked the question if he didnt see me do it does that prove I cant if he dosnt see me does that mean I dont exist, the answer is no.

Sammy - your question was "I dont believe in a "magic man" thats like saying because I have the ability to lift a chair and a snake cant im magic." You didn't say he didn't see you do it......

"You just blindly accept what a bunch of people have told you, and defend it to the end. Thats pretty close to a definition of brainwashing for me."

That is absolutely false.

BTW http://www.answers.com/topic/brainwashing?cat=health dont say all religious places brainwash that is simply a horrible thing to do.

Quoted directly from your link:

Brainwashing - "The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation."

It seems I was pretty much on the money with my assumption, don't you think?

EDIT: spelling.....

Let me first state that I believe in Occam's Razor -- The principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; that the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred.

One of the strongest arguments in favor of God's existence IMO is that Earth is a complex object of some sort, a very complex mechanism. The argument makes the assumption that complex objects always have a creator. Therefore our universe's complexity implies an intelligent creator --- God.

This argument can be summarized with the simple question "If god doesn't exist, then why are we here?"

However, I see a gaping flaw with the argument. God is itself a complex object and thus according to the assumption made by the argument God needs a creator.

We can give God a creator, but then that creator needs a creator so we regress into an infinite paradox of causality.

So we'll just have to accept that not EVERY complex object needs a creator, that certain extraordinary objects can just poof into existence.

So we have 2 theories:

1. God 'poofed' into existence and created the universe.

2. The universe 'poofed' into existence.

Occam's Razor says the 2nd theory is superior.

Many people counter this argument by saying that god has special properties, that he is beyond causality and that asking "what created god?" or "what came before god?" is inane. But why can't these same properties simply be applied to the universe?


Lets apply Occams Razor shall we?

God is.

God is.

There we go.

Oh shit, I posted before I read the whole thread but now I pose a question.

Does anyone else think that "God" (I am a Christian, lets clarify) and all the ideas and theories concerning the nature of Gods existence are somewhat true? For example, God has many different names. Yahweh, Dao, Brahman, Allah. God, being eternal must encompass all facets of existence. Energy and matter, flow, the nature of reality. In all these people can see God.

So arent all these efforts to truly define God by narrow linguistic confines pretty silly? I mean, its ok to speculate but when you see and feel all this...why get angry about it?

Just feel it and try to know God in all facets of existence. Just calm your center, observe and live your life trying to become closer to him/it.

Thats what monks/priests/holy men/gurus spend their lives doing but...we can do it too.

Why can't we simply make the universe an eternal object, instead of making an eternal object that went ahead and created the universe?

When most people talk about this, they are talking about our 3 dimensional universe 'traveling along' a single time/world line in the 4th dimension.

Most people do not think that in the 5th dimension, our time/world line is constantly splitting into many multiples of alternative possible universes, given the previous position.

However, that is something I do think.

I also think in the dimensions of the third triad (7-9), there exist universes with completely different universal constants (speed of light for example), resulting in completely different expressions of matter, memes and consciousness.

So, if you were to think like me, you would think that your argument for a lack of God is incomplete.

If you were to really think like me, you would think that at the tenth dimension (or whichever dimension completes the 'set') there is no more time. There is no time/world line for anything to have been created on. And you would see how this completeness could be called God.

When most people talk about this, they are talking about our 3 dimensional universe 'traveling along' a single time/world line in the 4th dimension.

Most people do not think that in the 5th dimension, our time/world line is constantly splitting into many multiples of alternative possible universes, given the previous position.

However, that is something I do think.

I also think in the dimensions of the third triad (7-9), there exist universes with completely different universal constants (speed of light for example), resulting in completely different expressions of matter, memes and consciousness.

So, if you were to think like me, you would think that your argument for a lack of God is incomplete.

If you were to really think like me, you would think that at the tenth dimension (or whichever dimension completes the 'set') there is no more time. There is no time/world line for anything to have been created on. And you would see how this completeness could be called God.

Well first of all, I believe I've watched that 10 dimensions video and it seemed like they just kept on adding dimensions till it worked out to a nice number. Until it's confirmed with experimental evidence neither have us have any reason to believe 10 dimensions or 20 dimensions exist.

But even if I did think like you, I would just consider the completeness to be another attribute of the multiverse, not god.

So be it.

i dont belive in god for 3 reasons

1. faimily issues

2. moral issues.

3. id rather live today than hope about tomorrow.

God didn't "poof" into existance. God has always existed.

Please elaborate.

Oh shit, I posted before I read the whole thread but now I pose a question.

Does anyone else think that "God" (I am a Christian, lets clarify) and all the ideas and theories concerning the nature of Gods existence are somewhat true? For example, God has many different names. Yahweh, Dao, Brahman, Allah. God, being eternal must encompass all facets of existence. Energy and matter, flow, the nature of reality. In all these people can see God.

So arent all these efforts to truly define God by narrow linguistic confines pretty silly? I mean, its ok to speculate but when you see and feel all this...why get angry about it?

Just feel it and try to know God in all facets of existence. Just calm your center, observe and live your life trying to become closer to him/it.

Thats what monks/priests/holy men/gurus spend their lives doing but...we can do it too.

From what you have stated so far I see nothing that makes you a Christian. It is one thing to believe in a God, it is quite another to believe in the triune God and that Christ, both God and man, came down from heaven was incarnate by the holy spirit in the virgin mary, was crucified died, was buried and was risen on the third day. Through this death and ressurection we are then saved by the gift, not by our own strength but by the GIFT of grace given freely to all. Allah, Brahmin and Dao come nowhere close. It is nice that you are trying to be tolerent, but do not claim your ideas as christian if these things are what you are promoting. Meditation does not save you ... Christ does.

Time is what the dimension directly above you seems to be. If we were 2nd dimensional creatures, instead of 3rd, the 3rd dimension would appear to be 'time'. 'Time' is how we try to interpret the 4th dimension.

When everything is viewed as a point in the tenth dimension (God), there is no 'time', there is only existence. So there is no 'before' reality, there only is reality. Or as some say, there is no 'before' God, there only is God.

So...third theory?

3. Reality (God) is.

Why did it take god 7 days (Pretty sure that is a set amount of time) to create earth/everything.

Why did it take god 7 days (Pretty sure that is a set amount of time) to create earth/everything.

According to what I said, it didn't.

If you want to believe that, then go ahead.

From what you have stated so far I see nothing that makes you a Christian. It is one thing to believe in a God, it is quite another to believe in the triune God and that Christ, both God and man, came down from heaven was incarnate by the holy spirit in the virgin mary, was crucified died, was buried and was risen on the third day. Through this death and ressurection we are then saved by the gift, not by our own strength but by the GIFT of grace given freely to all. Allah, Brahmin and Dao come nowhere close. It is nice that you are trying to be tolerent, but do not claim your ideas as christian if these things are what you are promoting. Meditation does not save you ... Christ does.

lol please please, dont get bothered by my thoughts. My beliefs, though thoroughly residing in the above, have nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. Careful with assumptions.

I imply that regardless of differentiating dogma and squabbling that there is some basic and fundamental at the heart of all the major religions. Something uniform and implying the interrconnectedness of existence and thought. In other words, there is the awareness of the divine, define definity any which way.

I know how I define it and within what bounds, but that doesnt take away from the wonder of the fact that differing cultures and people all manage to grasp a semblance of that same eternal idea. Its a beautiful thing. So I would then say, as long as we can look with tolerance, all ideas should be explored with Gods most precious gift: reason. What defines us as human beings.

For example, God has many different names. Yahweh, Dao, Brahman, Allah. God, being eternal must encompass all facets of existence. Energy and matter, flow, the nature of reality. In all these people can see God.

I know how I define it and within what bounds, but that doesnt take away from the wonder of the fact that differing cultures and people all manage to grasp some semblance of that same eternal idea. . .

Hmm. . . I can't say I agree. Sure, I can see where you're going with this, but that God can be defined by different names i.e Dao, Brahman, Allah is a theological fallacy.

(If you stand by your Christian title) You should understand that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, correct? If that is the theological perspective we're basing this idea on, then there is no possible way that peoples' differentiating concepts of God, whether viewing him as Dao or Allah, can be considered the same.

Why? Because Christianity stands alone in that, as a religion, it consists of the sacrifice of it's own God-Jesus.

Therefore, saying that people are unified under the belief of God whether we're calling "him/it" Dao, Brahman or Allah is wrong. Saying so demeans the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made, seeing as how those other religious deities failed to do the same.

Cheers mate.

Lets apply Occams Razor shall we?

God is.

Fuck Occam's Razor. He should have used it to slit his wrists to spare the future from these pathetic attempts at utilizing the principle behind it.

The principle behind Occam's Razor is not a principle used to decide which explanation is less retarded, it is a tool used in the formulation of theories based on current evidence.

Say for example you find a bloody cloth.
Occam's Razor, at this point, can do nothing more than allow the claim that a linen was soiled with blood.

The truth, in this hypothetical situation though, is that a hooker's throat was slit and the cloth was used to clean up blood. The original posited explanation was 100% correct, but due to incomplete evidence, you arrive at incomplete truth.

It's a tool to prevent oneself from improperly jumping ahead of the evidence available, so that as more is gathered, the truth that is pieced together bit by bit is done so with accurate bits of information rather than imaginative scenarios (such as shit appearing out of thin air, which does fly in another type of speculation I'll get into later).

Occam's Razor, applied to the scenario put forth in the original post leaves us with this: The universe exists. It accelerates outward from a prior super-massive state. The origins of this super-mass is unknown.

That's as far as we can go in the realm of raw logic based speculation; there is nothing to suggest it was either created, always was, was self-propagated, and so on, as there is no evidence available that allows logical speculation into that area. Circumstantial speculation (the activity engaged in on a constant basis in this forum) is unbound by Occam's Razor. Circumstantial speculation, unlike logical speculation, is more of a 'guess and check' method of arriving at a complete 'semi-truth'. Accuracy is not guaranteed to perfection, but completion of the imagined puzzle is.

A mostly unrelated question: Do any of you pay attention to how often your posts are just the 'then' side of if/then statements? Perhaps you wouldn't need to be so focused on an internet religion forum looking for answers and truth if you could concentrate on 'was/is/can be' (ya know, optimism AND realistic outlook!) situations as well as 'if/then' situations?

(Quick example)
If/thens...
If God exists, then there have to be moral absolutes, so on, blah blah blah, so I believe.
If God exists, then there are all these logical contradictions and blah blah blah, so I don't believe.

Reality (and yes, you even have a choice how YOU tackle reality...the thing is, once you make this REAL choice...you know, in REAL life, you can move the fuck on with your life!)
God is. But I don't know much about it other than that. (or you can even pretend like you do...whatever the case, holy shit, go live your life instead of arguing about imaginative traits of something far beyond your chimp brain's comprehension on the fucking internet!)
God isn't. But it's possible. (same as the above parenthetical)

Alright, that's enough from me. I hope some of you learn to interact with the lively world around you soon! Maybe I'll even see you, and get to actually TALK to you. Oh my god! Holy shit! Maybe I can even shake a hand!

God is. But I don't know anything about it. I'm off to go meet something with a pulse...I might even spy a plant or an animal after leaving my fortress of masturbatory solitude.

Hmm. . . I can't say I agree. Sure, I can see where you're going with this, but that God can be defined by different names i.e Dao, Brahman, Allah is a theological fallacy.

(If you stand by your Christian title) You should understand that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, correct? If that is the theological perspective we're basing this idea on, then there is no possible way that peoples' differentiating concepts of God, whether viewing him as Dao or Allah, can be considered the same.

Why? Because Christianity stands alone in that, as a religion, it consists of the sacrifice of it's own God-Jesus.

Therefore, saying that people are unified under the belief of God whether we're calling "him/it" Dao, Brahman or Allah is wrong. Saying so demeans the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made, seeing as how those other religious deities failed to do the same.

Cheers mate.

Yes. Youre absolutely right in that the Christian idea of God cannot be or encompass every facet of "Dao" or "Allah" or "whatchamacallit". Honestly, Im not trying to usurp the nature or meaning of the trinity. As far as Christian beliefs go I am in accord. I just want to point out and say...we're not too different. In each religion and what not.

Im not saying we should all feel like any idea of God is feasible. Thats ludicrous. Only that...well...we all were molded by the same maker and therefore, in the heart of our beliefs there is a basis, a uniformity even, at a fundamental level. Beyond this I understand and concur that people or all religions diverge heavily. Truly. But theres something nice about the fact that we can all recognize God, even if were wrong about his nature. Its nice. Thats all I mean.


To the guy with the lengthy treatise about Occams razor and how we are all dumbasses in our use of logic and fallacious assumptions...yeah. Your right on the fucking ball sir. I tip my hat to you and your devoted post. Living is way more important than subjecting yourself to failure or worrying about irrelevant theorizing. And if you spend enough time living with an open mind...I find that you find something of God by yourself. Not to say that theological knowledge, study, worship, or prayer are unnecessary. Now the christians are going to attack me. But...its true. I think. :)

In fairness, you don't need to go around shouting why you don't believe in god in people's faces. You could just, when the subject of your faith or lack thereof arises, state flatly that you are an atheist and leave at at that.