Ok, put down all the arguments you know of for the existence of god(s). (By god i mean a supernatural being with a high degree of power etc.)

Lets see if there's anything that can't be refuted.:cool:

Bible said so.

It is the only one I know, and according to my friend, it is full-proof and irrefutable.

I doubt the sanity of my friend.

Design- Wow only God could make <thing>

Ontological- Wow a God must exist

Trademark- Where do you think the idea of God came from?G

Cosmological- What caused the universe?O

Moral- How do we know what is right/wrong?D

Bible- Bible says, idiot do.

Pascal's Wager- It IS a good bet.

Is a few of them.

Is there order?

Before you say that order doesn't prove a supreme being, look carefully at what supreme being necessitates: It does not necessitate consciousness nor will nor action. It necessitates only the existence of that which cannot be defied...ya know...reality.

Do you have to call reality 'God'? No. Do you have to worship it? No. Do you have to talk to it? No.

For me though, it is part of my experience that reality is conscious, has a will, and does act. But that's MY experience. Reality is probably a completely different experience for you...but it's still what it is. It is supreme, and it is in a state of being. It is god.

It does not necessitate consciousness nor will nor action. It necessitates only the existence of that which cannot be defied...ya know...reality.


Who the fuck told you that? That may be what you've conveniently decided to define it as but it sure as hell isn't what the vast, vast majority of people think when they speak of a "supreme being".

^ True. Perhaps he should have worded his post better.

Anyway: Arguments for the existence of God without having to personally explain them myself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_for_the_existence_of_Go d

Better yet, he shouldn't redefine "god" or "reality" to fit his needs.

He essentially just found another word for reality. It reeks of someone that is desperate to pin theism to everyone else, so they redefine "god" just so they can say "Aha! You believe in a god too!". The OP made it perfectly clear that he was talking about a being with specific attributes ("supernatural being with a high degree of power") and not "reality" so this was nothing more than propaganda on Hex's part.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."

By god i mean a supernatural being with a high degree of power

Well thats silly. Why would God mean that?

Just because elite religious 'authorities' have deemed it to be so for thousands of years? Thats no reason.

Or maybe because God isn't actually a common natural being, so supernatural. The high degree of power may have something to do with God's you know, infinite power.

It is silly to think anything other than God being a powerful supernatural being.

Or maybe because God isn't actually a common natural being, so supernatural.

By being, do you mean an entity seemingly separate from the rest of reality, with intentions and emotions much like a human being? By supernatural, do you mean things that do not exist as a part of nature/'reality'?

What reasons do you have to believe God is accurately represented by this description?

The high degree of power may have something to do with God's you know, infinite power.

I agree that God is all powerful, but that does not make God a magical old man in a toga sitting on a cloud located outside of reality somewhere. I don't see how God, or anything, could be 'supernatural' either. Why would anything go beyond natural?

Why would anyone who has come to terms with the lies of the religions from around the world continue to insist that God must be as is described by those religions?

Prove god exists!
Ok, prove he doesent!
Ok, you prove he DOES!

And so on.

Cant, shant,wont?!

By being, do you mean an entity seemingly separate from the rest of reality, with intentions and emotions much like a human being? By supernatural, do you mean things that do not exist as a part of nature/'reality'?

What reasons do you have to believe God is accurately represented by this description?



I agree that God is all powerful, but that does not make God a magical old man in a toga sitting on a cloud located outside of reality somewhere. I don't see how God, or anything, could be 'supernatural' either. Why would anything go beyond natural?

Why would anyone who has come to terms with the lies of the religions from around the world continue to insist that God must be as is described by those religions?

Just because God is a supernatural being or all powerful doesn't mean he is an old man in a toga, it doesn't create any image. God must be something other than this reality because he is the source of it. God could hardly be of this world considering how it is finite God is infinite and this was created by God or at least caused by God, so must come after God. That is why supernatural, if he exists at all.

I do not suppose it has to have emotions, but I would not see any point in worshipping or even paying attention to a God without intentions. I mean if it cannot intend to do anything you have no reason to worship it. It would be like talking to a brick wall. Not that I am saying praying is ever not like that.

God must be something other than this reality because he is the source of it.

Since you appear to be the authority on the limitations of supreme beings which you don't even see any reason to believe in yourself, I might as well pretend I have some authority over the subject myself.

Why must God be outside of reality? If something exists, is it not a part of "what is" ... a part of reality? Where would such a being exist ... "non-reality"? If you decide that whatever you limit 'our' reality to exists somehow 'inside' of God's reality, what is the 'God' for our God? And for that God? Where would it end?

If God is a supreme all powerful being, then whatever you limit 'reality' to, could not be separate from God. If it is, God would not be the supreme being ... it would be lacking. If that is what God is, supreme, then God must be all-encompassing. God must be all ... reality.

But of course, I can't know that anymore then you can know that God must be separate from the rest of reality.

God could hardly be of this world considering how it is finite God is infinite and this was created by God or at least caused by God, so must come after God. That is why supernatural, if he exists at all.

If an electron could posses thought, it may consider a being as complex as a compound molecule to be supernatural. If a white blood cell could, it might consider a being as complex as a human and the complexity of our thought patterns and cultures to be supernatural as well.

But are they? No. They are just different parts of reality ... different levels of complexity. They are all simply, what is.

Is what you have limited to reality finite? Will it end? Of course it will, because what you have limited reality to includes a time line. We expereince 'reality' as a line of events rather then one event.

But if God is all, then wouldn't 'our reality' really only be a very small, comparatively insignificant part of a collection of alternative realities? A part of God?

If God is supreme, then God is all. Nothing comes 'after' God, because it would have to be included within God ... otherwise God is not all. Time does not exist at that level of 'allness' ... there just is what is. And at that level, God doesn't seem 'supernatural' at all. God just is what is.

I do not suppose it has to have emotions, but I would not see any point in worshipping or even paying attention to a God without intentions.

I do not think God gives a shit what you do, and I do not think it matters if you 'pay attention to' or even think about God at all either.

Hey I am no authority I am just using logical thinking.

God, creator. Created the universe and everything in it. If God created everything how can God be everyting? If it was created by God how can God be part of it?

This is why God cannot. God cannot be part of reality because he created reality. I have no idea where he would or your other questions. It is just logically impossible that he be what he created.
--------------^^^
If an electron could posess thought it would not think molecules are supernatural. It would be able to detect them empirically. However somehow this all pervading force in everything which according to you is everything is yet to be seen. If God was everything he may as well be nothing. There would be nothing special or worthy about it at all. If it is just this thing with no intention, empotion or will. It can have no power it cannot be supreme as it cannot do anything except be. A comatose God.

supreme -> all is no good. Supreme does not mean all, everything or any variation. It means top, most powerful etc. These are two entirely different concepts.
The winner of whatever sports leage is the supreme team, it is only one team not all of them. The most supreme country is the most powerful, not all of them. Everything comes after God that is what makes him worthy.

I am just using logical thinking.

So am I.

God, creator. Created the universe and everything in it. If God created everything how can God be everyting? If it was created by God how can God be part of it?

You're still thinking that God is a part of the same time line "our reality" appears to flow along. That there was a time when there was just God, and then a time when God 'created' everything.

If God is supreme and ultimate and all powerful, then God is all. There is nothing 'before' or 'after' God, because that thing would have to be included as a part of all, of God. There is no time for God.

Another reason for your misconception may be the word 'creation', which implies a process, a time line, and also separation ... materialism. Or the assumption that what is experienced is reality. Can you really know anything at all, besides that you do exist?

You cannot, you have no reason to believe anything other then I AM, to believe that anything is real other this 'oneness' within. If you do choose to assume that other individual things can exist, it would be logical to assume a 'oneness' resides within every other individual 'being' as well ... they would not exist otherwise, would they? This 'being' in the root of all things, this 'oneness of all', would be the soul, or God. This is how God is the creator of all, how God is all, how God is the oneness of all.


It is just logically impossible that he be what he created.

If God existed on a time line creating beings separate from itself. And there is no reason to believe thats the case.


... somehow this all pervading force in everything which according to you is everything is yet to be seen. If God was everything he may as well be nothing. There would be nothing special or worthy about it at all. If it is just this thing with no intention, empotion or will. It can have no power it cannot be supreme as it cannot do anything except be.


Is it yet to be seen? I see it everywhere. I see it in me. Even if I can not see, I am it.

Why does it matter if God is 'special' or 'worthy'? God is what is, and does not give a shit.

'Being all' is certainly supreme and absolute, what could be more? What could be more powerful then being everything that can be? There can be no such thing, because simply by existing, it would have to be a part of all.

supreme -> all is no good. Supreme does not mean all, everything or any variation. It means top, most powerful etc.

What is 'on top' of everything that is? What is more powerful then all?

The winner of whatever sports leage is the supreme team, it is only one team not all of them. The most supreme country is the most powerful, not all of them. Everything comes after God that is what makes him worthy.

And God is not a 'part of the league'. God does not exist 'within' a reality, 'within' a time line as you continue to insist it does, without reason. God is 'the league' ... God is 'reality' ... God is all.

And worthy? Of what?

Worthy of our worship.

Can God be the Universe and Everything in it?

All is not powerful. All is just stuff. What is more powerful than all? A meaningless question. All does not have a power. It is a collective term for individual things. Being everything that happens to exist in the universe is not supreme. You can always add just one more of these things to it. Oh look it is better. Vapourise something and it is worse. We could, maybe we are even, slowly destroying the universe are we slowly destroying God? The fact that the universe changes at all shows it cannot be God.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????
If God is the most ultimate, perfect being how could it ever change? To change would mean that either the new or old version was lesser. Therefore not God. Unless you are now going to claim the universe is static this is the largest problem IMO logically speaking.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????
Also God is infinite. How can he be our finite universe? But then this is also pretty damning. Unless you actually believe the universe to be infinite.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????

Why does it matter if God is "special or worthy"?

Would you pray to a rock for forgiveness?
Would you worship your shoes?
Can you not see why somehting should be worthy of your worship? Why waste your'e life praising and worshipping something not worthy? Why waste your life praying to something unconcious that will never know? Why waste your life worshipping something that does not care? I mean it does not care so what is the point.


Something more powerful than everything? Something that can destroy it all and bring it back in the blink of an eye.

Who the fuck told you that? That may be what you've conveniently decided to define it as but it sure as hell isn't what the vast, vast majority of people think when they speak of a "supreme being".

A dictionary. It's really useful in understand denotation (that is, the actual definition of a word, rather than connotation, which is what people think of in connection to a word).

The truth is that reality is in a state of being and it is entirely supreme in its order. It is supreme being. It is god. Does it matter what you think of when you hear those words if they're being used with strict diction? No, it doesn't. Could I have worded it differently? Yeah, but I didn't. If you don't like it, you can go fuck yourself.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supreme%20being

Clearly nothing even remotely close to your convenient redefinition, and let's not forget that the OP had already established what 'supreme being' was to mean in this thread.

However, I don't underestimate your ability to scour the ends of the world for a dictionary definition that you can rape into somehow supporting your delusional bullshit.

The point is you were making statements about what a supreme being necessitates, as if it were an absolute fact. The vast majority of the world disagrees. Seems rather ego-centric of you to maintain that your definition is correct, and not that of nearly everyone else.

Are you 'thinking your perception is an accurate measure of reality when you've wholly known less than a billionth of the currently living people, let alone those that have lived and will live' (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9684052&postcount=46) and disagree with the vast majority of them on what the characteristics of a supreme being are?

Wuji (no poles) refers to the state where nothing is distinguished from anything else. A state of total neutrality, no forces are pulling away from center. In this state mind can see clearly, because of emotional neutrality, events are responded to appropriately, noninterference from emotions and preconceptions. Any need that may be is filled as if you weren't there. Wisdom mind (Yi) alone controls actions. It is only in this neutral state that Yi can reach a high state of completeness. Complete, Round, Full, unable to be destroyed by any force, nor can it be judged nor evaluated. No gap or defect which can be used to divide it. To be in a state of wuji, no extremes are present.


In Wuji state Yin and Yang are not distinguished, fore their is only one Qi, one universal energy. Transparent to the entire universe. When this level is reached your spirit will enter a state of nothingness (absolute clarity). This is the Dao (natural state of everything), this is returning to the origin.This is not the state we are in now (actually it kinda is, meh nevermind). Two poles have been derived from the state of Wuji. This implies some existing "grand ultimate" (Taiji) power or force in the Dao. Taiji makes the YinYang state return to its Wuji state. When Yin and Yang are discriminated from Wuji, Yin stands for soft, dark, feminine, internal. Yang stands for hard, bright masculine, external. Everything is partly Yin and partly Yang. Together they form the two poles or extremes between which all of creation lies. As a unit, they are referred to a Taiji, the supreme ultimate or extreme power of the nature.

So you see, regardless of whether one is in a state of Wuji (no poles) or YinYang (two poles), there is still only one Qi. This Qi may vary, but it is still the same Qi which fills the universe and is responsible for all living things.

Do you see?
Is Wuji God? kinda
Is YinYang God? kinda
Is Taiji God? kinda
WTF is God then? You could say Qi is God.
If you want to look at it that way.
Personally I don't use the term God.
Oneness works for me.

Worthy of our worship.

Why waste your time doing that?

All is not powerful. All is just stuff. What is more powerful than all? A meaningless question. All does not have a power. It is a collective term for individual things. Being everything that happens to exist in the universe is not supreme. You can always add just one more of these things to it. Oh look it is better.

If you can add to it, you clearly aren't talking about all yet.

If something is more powerful then all, then you aren't talking about all at all, are you?

The fact that the universe changes at all shows it cannot be God.

I never said the incomprehensibly small part of reality you declare as being 'the universe' is God. The fact that it changes from one universe to a slightly different one every second, or that I can imagine a variety of alternative universes, shows it is not very close to being 'all'.

If God is the most ultimate, perfect being how could it ever change?

Because "the universe" is nowhere near being close to all?

Because we expereince a very, very small amount of 'reality' compared with what there actually is? Because we are a part of reality ourselves? Because reality is so complex, we expereince it in 'parts' instead of as one?

Also God is infinite. How can he be our finite universe? But then this is also pretty damning. Unless you actually believe the universe to be infinite.

I certainly believe reality is, which is what I have been saying this whole time instead of your "the universe".

Can you not see why somehting should be worthy of your worship?

No, I cannot. Why should I worship anything? Why should I pray to anything for forgiveness? Why waste my life worshiping at all?

Its not like God gives a shit.

Something more powerful than everything? Something that can destroy it all and bring it back in the blink of an eye.

And how does this something avoid being included within 'everything' itself?

Oh my god! Supreme being means god? How intense. Now let's look at the definition of god: "the creator and ruler of the universe"

'creator' -something that creates
'something' -person or thing of some value or consequence

Okay, so now we've seen that supreme being means god, and god means creator. And a creator is something that creates, and that something is a person OR a thing with some value.

Now then, let's go to ruler:
'ruler' -sovereign
'sovereign' -holds supreme power

Okay, so now I've established that ruler means sovereign, which means holding of supreme power.

Thus, we have, 'something that creates and holds supreme power'. If you can fucking POSSIBLY come up with an understanding of reality ('reality' -something that exists independent of opinion) that you can evidence or experience, which doesn't meet the qualifier of 'something that creates and holds supreme power', then you've successfully proven me wrong.

However, you can't. So I repeat, Rust. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself. Dictionary: 1 Reason: 1 Rust: 0

Edit: Let's not forget that 'supernatural being', in the dictionary, means an 'existing entity above nature', with 'above' meaning greater than. So then, reality exists, and nothing in nature disobeys it, thus it holds power over, thus is greater than, thus my argument meets all qualifications and you're still a retard.

Actually I need only find the definition of "reality" and notice it doesn't come close to that ridiculous definition of yours. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reality)

In any case:

"However, I don't underestimate your ability to scour the ends of the world for a dictionary definition that you can rape into somehow supporting your delusional bullshit."

Simple grade-school reading: 1. Reason: 1. Hexadecimal: 0.1

You get 0.1 for effort!

@obbe

Firstly the universe is everything, it is our reality. It is all we experience apart from our dreams. Or do you have some other definition? It seems like a valid alternative to me for your reality. What more is there than the universe?

How can reality be infinite? Our experience of it is finite. Our histories are finite. Our experiences are of finite things. We all know nothing in the world lasts forever. What makes you think it would be infnite?

I do not think you understood my point about it changing. It cannot change if it is the most supreme perfect thing around. To take something from it would make it lesser. To add something to it would mean it was not supreme in the first place. You say something cannot be added to the universe because as it is everything it must have been already there. But what about life? Every new person is something new and unique added to this "reality" it is changing, it cannot be perfect.

You say everything is God and that reality is God. Reality is an experience. Everything is loads of separate little things most of which bear little relation to each other. The ultimate being the God is the best of these things. Not a collective.

Ultimately though IMO your "God" is pointless. It is everywhere in everything yet it does nothing. It can't do anything anyway because it has no intent. It might as well be the force. What is the point of it?

Firstly the universe is everything, it is our reality. It is all we experience apart from our dreams.

Why would our dreams not be apart of the universe?

Nevermind that dictionary.com says this of reality in 5a: 'something that exists independently of ideas concerning it'

Wow Rust...that's ridiculously far off and TOTALLY doesn't come close to 'something that exists independent of opinion'. Rust, now you're not only trying to defend your pride, but you're lying and misleading to do it.

Now then, let's go through reality on dictionary.com, since you apparently can't muster up the effort to grab a binded book and turn a page:

'the state or quality of being real' reality
'being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary' real
'the fact of existing; existence' being

Okay, so even in this definition of 'reality' we have 'the state of objective existence'. Wonderful.

Actually, Dictionary.com comes pretty fucking close to what a binded and inked dictionary says 'reality' means.

"But what about life? Every new person is something new and unique added to this "reality" it is changing, it cannot be perfect."

It is all just reorganized energy. Nothing was lost or added.

Apparently you can't even follow your own argument.

You don't have to prove reality is "something that exists independent of opinion". You have to prove that reality "creates and holds supreme power". You haven't done that, and that I, lets assume for the sake of argument, can't 'come up with an understanding of reality ... which doesn't meet the qualifier of 'something that creates and holds supreme power' doesn't suddenly prove your point. One would think you would be able to grasp such a simple concept - especially since you keep trying to use the concept of "reason" to insult me - but alas it seems that you cannot.

Ignoring all of this, I again find myself repeating the fact that I don't underestimate your ability to rape dictionary definitions until you can string things together to support your delusions. You've proven that you're quite capable of this numerous times before. That was never the point.

"But what about life? Every new person is something new and unique added to this "reality" it is changing, it cannot be perfect."

It is all just reorganized energy. Nothing was lost or added.

My personality?
My appearance?
My actions?
edit--
The position of physical things?
That movement exists at all. If this thing were perfect why would it need to reorganise itself?

Firstly the universe is everything, it is our reality.

Is it really, my friend? ;)

Is what you perceive and experience reality? Or could it be false?

Could it be an illusion? Could you be unaware that it is an illusion?

Would you be able to know? Could everything be fucking fake?? :eek:



You cannot know that. You cannot know anything. You can't even know that is true, maybe everything you thought you knew you really DO know! But you can't know for sure!!

But there is this 'you'. This existence, this 'being'. Is it who you think you are, the Aeroue?? No. Because who you think you are is a result of your experience, which you cannot know is real or an illusion.Your ego is just a mask worn by that single 'existence', that 'being', and it could be just as false as your experience could be. Even your ability to think about this could be a part of a false human mind. A flower doesn't need to, in order to be. A rock is simply being.

All you can know for sure is that you are. You be. 'I am', from your perspective.

How can reality be infinite?

Well, you cannot know what you perceive to be reality to be true or not. But you could certainly choose to assume that whatever you perceive could be possible. It is possible for your perceptions to exist.

And if these things do exist, then it would be logical to assume that as with the root of your own existence, anything you perceive as being an individual 'being' could posses this 'existence', this 'being' that you do, as well.

Another person. A tree. A rock. An atom. A book. A wall. A house. A nail. A chimpanzee. An ant colony. Earth, and all of its life as one. The universe.

Anything you perceive could be perceived as individual and separate 'being'. Anything could be perceived as being a part of a larger 'being' as well, just as the organ groups, cells, DNA, molecules, atoms, etc. in your body could actually be part of 'you', your 'existence' or 'being'.

But, you still can't know that what you experience is real. Who knows what is?

Just as it is possible for what you expereince to be real, it is possible for anything you could imagine to be real.

Alternate results depending on what you decided to do next with your life. Alternate 'world lines' where you could have made a different choice in the past, or maybe became a paraplegic. Alternate families and situations you could have been born into, different people you could be. And theres a nearly, if not infinite amount of different possibilities.

Completely different universes, a nearly, if not infinite amount. Hell, universes with completely different expressions of matter, things incomprehensible compared with what we have experienced. And an infinite amount of them too.

Any thing or reality that could possibly exist, would also logically have an individual 'being', the root of its existence.

And all could exist too.

Perhaps all could exist as one, organized into different possible arrangements of dimensions of reality, as explained by some of the theories of 'string theory', and nicely explained in layman's terms as a possible arrangement of 10 dimensions in this video (http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php)(which mentions absolutely nothing about God or spirituality). Maybe 'all' is chaotic. Anything is possible!!

All could exist as one. As one 'being' at the root of the existence of all. This oneness of all would be God. Being all, God would exist outside of time ... time would be a component of God.

It is entirely possible that you are God, perceiving the complexity of God. God looking at God from a pinpoint location amongst the various possible dimensions that create reality, that create all. God experiencing the limits of the parts of God possible to be aware of from that location.

It is possible that we are all God, experiencing our different possible perceptions of God all at once. That God, as the 'oneness of all' which all of our seemingly individual 'souls' could possibly be, is experiencing all perceptions of all, at once!

Thats how reality, all, could be infinite. Its also how God could be the oneness of all. I believe this, because all I know is that I am. My mind, my ability to 'believe' and 'know' and 'think' may even be false, but I am currently expereincing it and can(and do) choose to use it to try and makes sense of all this. And thus, can assume that my experiences could exist as reality, that other things/experiences could exist as reality and that all could exist, as well!

I choose the last, all, because all creates the perfect unity, the perfect balance, the perfect oneness. The same oneness and balance that I know exists within me, and can assume would exist within you and the rocks and trees and any 'part' of the rest of all if all exists ... and I believe it does, as I believe all is the source of the perfect oneness and balance I know is real.

I dunno if I should address the rest of your post ... I probably covered whatever I would address up there.




And sorry everyone, for appearing as if I have some actual authority over the subject of God and reality ... of course I know nothing more then anyone does, all I can know is that I exist. These are, of course, just the beliefs of the personality I might actually exist as. Aeroue just seemed to believe he possessed some authority over what is and is not, and wanted to understand my reasons for having beliefs contrary to his own.

This "being" sounds more to me like a property of existence than a God. It doesn't do anything except exist within everything that exists. It is just possibilities in the world. It is what is happening, what could be happening and what has, am I right? It is my every thought. Everyones every thought. I think we get the point.

This is great and all. Surely though something able to make all this would be greater.

Just because there are infinite possibilities or at least so many that it appears that way to us. If you believe in that string theory there are still only 10 dimensions. If they are finite what makes you think what is within those dimensions is infinite? Even if there were infinite possibilities it does not mean that reality is infinite. You can't accomplish all possibilities. Sure whatever you imagine can potentially become real but all those things that you do not do, stay in your head. Sure they may exist in your mind but with your death it is gone. Every possibility can never possibly happen.

And again with the changing problem. *If this "all" is perfectly balanced if you are why do you change?* You can only move from balance to out of balance. Why do you call it a God when there are no Godly characteristics?

I already said I have no authority fool. Though I have been studying Descartes for the last few months. So am well aware of the problems of illusion and uncertainty of what is real. It does not matter if my experiences happen to be illusions. It would still be my decision my action and my experience.


You didn't touch the points in my last post they were better. But basically the same as change and balance in this one.

people, people.. why do you do it again!

same old question "IS THERE GOD"?

some people say

1) yes there is

2) no there is NOT. you should be fucking out of ur mind.


the both above statements are WRONG.

bye.

see it was simple..

You have to prove that reality "creates and holds supreme power".

I don't need to reprove what science has been able to demonstrate hundreds of times over in every single field of science. And not only that, these supreme powers hold true whether we understand them or not...gravitational law didn't suddenly come into existence just because Newton decided to describe it in gravitational theory. Thus, they fit the definition of being 'real', and being part of existence's state, they are part of reality. Oh my god! Reality creates and holds supreme power! Again, you fail.

Sorry but "I don't need to reprove what science has been able to demonstrate" is nothing but a cop-out. If Science has been able to demonstrate it, then it should be incredibly easy to prove it! Go right head. If not I could make an equal yet opposite claim: You're wrong and I don't need to reprove what science has been able to demonstrate (i.e. that you're wrong).

Either do so or admit that you cannot (or will not) and spare me the bullshit. It's as simple as that.

That's of course ignoring how meaningless it would be to prove that since I already stated I don't doubt your ability to rape definitions until they support your delusions. You're a pro. A master. Simply unmatched in that arena. Given enough time you will pummel a definition until it feeds your needs. That was exactly my point: How convenient and self-serving you're being with definitions; and you just gave the best example that is humanly possible!

P.S. You failed to understand what your burden of proof was, you failed to fulfill it and failed in trying to use reason. If I were you I wouldn't be saying anyone else failed...

Surely though something able to make all this would be greater.

If there is something other then all, then are you really talking about all in the first place? No, because that 'something' would have to be included within all.

Why would all have to 'be made' in the first place? Why must there be a 'creation' and a time line on which it takes place?

For the oneness of all, there would be no time. All would just be. Time exist would exist within all.

At that level of complexity of reality which could entirely be possible, all, there is no time scale for change to occur on ... all already is. All possible change, all possible 'different times' are already included within all.

It is possible that all simply is.

If you believe in that string theory there are still only 10 dimensions. If they are finite what makes you think what is within those dimensions is infinite?

I never said that I believed there were only ten dimensions. I said that string theory, and that video, provide us with some different possible ways of organizing reality. The various possible ways that all could be organized or 'thought of' are nearly, if not infinite.

Why do I think the possible individual things which can 'be', all the 'parts' of all, are infinite? Because nothing else could be infinite, except for all. Because I am able to imagine the concept of 'infinity'. Because 'infinity' is possible, all must me infinite!

Just look around you. You are looking at infinity. Where does 'the universe' end? Where does it 'stop'? What about the other away around ... where does the universe 'begin'? You can divide reality down smaller then electrons, to things most of us don't know a name for ... hell, even planck length (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=define%3A+planck+length&btnG=Search&meta=) could be divided in half. Don't think so? Well I just imagined it, so it is possible, it is a part of all. I just imagined half planck, quarter planck ... it can go on for infinity!

Every possibility can never possibly happen.

Thats possible. But, that is only one possibility itself, of an infinite collection of possibilities of all. And, compared with all those other possibilities, how probable does it seem? :D

Besides, what reason do you have to believe that all cannot exist? That only some of the possibilities actually do exist? Because you only expereince some of them? How do you know what you experience is real? How do you know you have not experienced other possibilities before, and forgotten? How do you know you will not forget this one, and expereince others as well?

And again with the changing problem. *If this "all" is perfectly balanced if you are why do you change?* You can only move from balance to out of balance. Why do you call it a God when there are no Godly characteristics?

The 'oneness of all', or God, would be one perspective to have on reality ... the perspective of all. Perfect balance, perfect 'oneness'. As it would be the perfect oneness, that is why I also believe it is the same oneness which I know I am. And it is also why I believe all the 'parts' which make up all would have this oneness within them too, because if they were to truly exist (although I cannot know that), they would require it.

I believe 'change happens' because the I believe in the oneness of all, and that the oneness of all is only one possible perspective of reality ... be it the perspective of all, or the 'oneness' deep within any 'part' of reality, doesn't matter - they are equivalent, there is no difference between them.

There is also an infinity of other perspectives. The perspectives of each and every possible 'part' of all viewing the rest of all to the best of its limited capabilities.

Change between these various perspectives happens, because these various perspectives are possible. Because each one of these possible perspectives of all would have that 'being', that oneness deep within them, because they are all one. Or so I have come to believe.




Why do I call the oneness of all God? Because it is all. Because it is me, because it is you. Because it is absolute, because there is nothing else.

Because, even though I cannot ever know that all even exists, I do know that I exist ... I do know that oneness and perfect balance exists. And because I know that exists, I believe all exists, because the oneness of all would be the same oneness that I am. And I know that I am.

Thats why I have come to believe the oneness of all is God ... and why I even believe in reality, in all.

I already said I have no authority fool.

You believe you know that the existence of every possibility is impossible. That certainly seems authoritative. And it seems foolish, given that you cannot know any such thing.

It does not matter if my experiences happen to be illusions. It would still be my decision my action and my experience.

Nothing matters. It does not matter if God exists, if the oneness of all exists.

You didn't touch the points in my last post they were better. But basically the same as change and balance in this one.

Well then, they should be acknowledged now.

My personality?
My appearance?
My actions?
edit--
The position of physical things?
That movement exists at all. If this thing were perfect why would it need to reorganise itself?

Who said it needs to reorganize itself?

Nop. You didn't explain change at all. You just went into some random rhetoric.

I just want you to asnwer how this perfect balance/reality can change yet remain perfect. It is an impossibility.

This reality is changing constantly. If it is perfect to change is to move from perfection/balance. How?


Also memory is irrelevant to the possibility thing. Ok, I see 2 possibilities. Finish this post or think fuck it there is no point. But am going to finish it. The unique possibility of me thinking fuckit in moment in space time whatever is gone. Never to return. That is why the fact that all possibilities cannot happen is not a possibility but a certainty.

Sorry but "I don't need to reprove what science has been able to demonstrate" is nothing but a cop-out. If Science has been able to demonstrate it, then it should be incredibly easy to prove it! Go right head. If not I could make an equal yet opposite claim: You're wrong and I don't need to reprove what science has been able to demonstrate (i.e. that you're wrong).

Either do so or admit that you cannot (or will not) and spare me the bullshit. It's as simple as that.

That's of course ignoring how meaningless it would be to prove that since I already stated I don't doubt your ability to rape definitions until they support your delusions. You're a pro. A master. Simply unmatched in that arena. Given enough time you will pummel a definition until it feeds your needs. That was exactly my point: How convenient and self-serving you're being with definitions; and you just gave the best example that is humanly possible!

P.S. You failed to understand what your burden of proof was, you failed to fulfill it and failed in trying to use reason. If I were you I wouldn't be saying anyone else failed...

Here, I will prove that science has demonstrated that reality creates and holds supreme power:

Here is a small list of some scientific laws; laws that exist and hold absolute power over the various processes in which nature reorganizes its energy configurations...as per creation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_laws_named_after_people

You can click any one of those links to get a specific example of an existing process that holds supreme power and is part of creation. There are pieces not yet known or described, but like all things that constitute reality, THEY EXIST INDEPENDENTLY OF IDEAS OR OPINIONS CONCERNING THEM. Again, Rust: If you don't like it, go fuck yourself.

your ability to rape definitions

By the way, I've provided ample evidence from a dictionary...ya know, 'a book containing the meanings, etymologies, inflections, and pronunciations of various words, typically listed in alphabetical order'...as to how I haven't raped a single definition in my argument. You're being very dishonest in making that claim, especially after quoting direct dictionary definitions of the words I've used.

You failed to understand what your burden of proof was, you failed to fulfill it and failed in trying to use reason. If I were you I wouldn't be saying anyone else failed...

I know exactly what my burden of proof is. I posted a link to support my exertion that science has already proven that reality holds to being the 'creator and ruler of the universe', thus holds to the definition of 'god', which holds to the definition of 'supreme being'; and also, since it is creator and ruler of the universe (thus exists and is above nature), also fulfills the definition of 'supernatural being'. Please take notice that being does not denote consciousness.

All that taken to account, I shall say this the second time in one post: If you don't like it, go fuck yourself.

Argument á la celeb magazine: If our readers-most-popular doesn't exist, and shit..... we've never actually seen any photos, then we're going to have one holey-moley of a law suit on our hands. Heh, well, billions can't be wrong!

Argument á la common sense: We can't prove God doesn't exist...

Something like gravity is not supreme power. Which gravity is it the earths? Suns? Even if you got all the matter in the universe to create the largest gravity field possible it would not be supreme power. It would not be infinite.

How is this reality the creator if it does not create? Simply happening is not creating. To create requires consciousness. A rock was not "created" it just happened. A painting is created or music. Also how does this unconsious thing "rule the universe"?

Being may not need consciousness but the route there does.

I just want you to asnwer how this perfect balance/reality can change yet remain perfect. It is an impossibility.

This reality is changing constantly. If it is perfect to change is to move from perfection/balance. How?

Try re-reading this part of my last post:

The 'oneness of all', or God, would be one perspective to have on reality ... the perspective of all. Perfect balance, perfect 'oneness'. As it would be the perfect oneness, that is why I also believe it is the same oneness which I know I am. And it is also why I believe all the 'parts' which make up all would have this oneness within them too, because if they were to truly exist (although I cannot know that), they would require it.

I believe 'change happens' because the I believe in the oneness of all, and that the oneness of all is only one possible perspective of reality ... be it the perspective of all, or the 'oneness' deep within any 'part' of reality, doesn't matter - they are equivalent, there is no difference between them.

There is also an infinity of other perspectives. The perspectives of each and every possible 'part' of all viewing the rest of all to the best of its limited capabilities.

Change between these various perspectives happens, because these various perspectives are possible. Because each one of these possible perspectives of all would have that 'being', that oneness deep within them, because they are all one. Or so I have come to believe

If you still do no understand my opinion, I could try rewording it.

Or simply ... I believe that we are expereincing change because the oneness of all is only one possible perspective. The infinitude of 'parts' of all have perspectives of all as well. But these perspectives are limited to their 'location' within all. When not expereincing the oneness of all, we experience parts of all ... that infinitude of other possible perspectives.


Also memory is irrelevant to the possibility thing. Ok, I see 2 possibilities. Finish this post or think fuck it there is no point. But am going to finish it. The unique possibility of me thinking fuckit in moment in space time whatever is gone. Never to return. That is why the fact that all possibilities cannot happen is not a possibility but a certainty.

Hahaha, I would say not, because can you really say you know its really gone? Can you know the option really ever presented itself, or is the past an illusion? I don't believe that you can know any of that.

Try this possibility on for size: Imagine yourself, three dimensionally. Your current self. Lets add another dimension, time.

Now 'you' are like a long snake, stretching out from your fetal self to your current self. This is your 4th dimensional self. It links all the events and choices in your life together ... it links the self from five minutes ago to the self who decided to go ahead and reply to me.

Now, getting to my point, lets add another dimension ... lets call this one choice. Think of it like branches of the 4th dimension ... whenever you are presented with a 'choice' along your 4th dimensional 'path', your path could branch out in a number of directions, depending on what you choose. Your 4th dimensional "self from 5 minutes ago" chose to reply to me ... on another path which exists in the 5th dimension, you made the other choice. From a 'higher awareness of reality', both possibilities exist together in the 5th dimension to create the dimensions above, just as the all of the possible different positions of the 1st and 2nd dimensions exist everywhere in the 3rd dimension.

As the dimensions increase in complexity, more and more possibilities and 'positions' are added, until every possibility exists as all. I just used examples from that video I posted earlier, I suggest watching it if you want a clearer understanding. But remember that it is only one possible way of organizing reality itself, out of an infinity.

Something like gravity is not supreme power. Which gravity is it the earths? Suns? Even if you got all the matter in the universe to create the largest gravity field possible it would not be supreme power. It would not be infinite.

Wow, you totally missed the argument. It is gravitational law that is supreme, not the individual gravitational pulls of various masses (which exist in accordance and adherence to gravitational law and theory).

How is this reality the creator if it does not create?

When did creation require consciousness? Creating is just causing to be. Asteroids colliding creates a cloud of dust. Consciousness is not necessitated.

Simply happening is not creating.

Umm, yes, it is.

To create requires consciousness.

No. It doesn't. Creation only requires consciousness if you're talking about creating by will. Such as arts, construction, etc.

A rock was not "created" it just happened.

Really? Nothing caused it to be? No volcanos? No cooling of magma? No shattering of larger rocks? No landslide? Nothing caused it to become? It just appeared from thin fucking air, with no causality behind its being?

A painting is created or music.

Yes.

Also how does this unconsious thing "rule the universe"?

Have you heard of scientific laws? Ya know, vast sets of observations that hold rule over the happenings of the universe. How it rules it? Well, that's scientific theory...how the laws operate, function, and effect the universe.

Personally though, and this is aside from my argument, it is my experience that this supreme being does have a consciousness. That though, I cannot argue by evidence nor reason, so I'm not doing so in this thread as that is not what was asked of me.

Something like gravity is not supreme power.

No, it is not all, but it certainly is very powerful.

There is something called the gravitational constant. It has changed, very, very slightly over time since the beginning of The Universe. Very slightly. Some people believe that indicates our universe traveling along 7th dimensional lines, but that doesn't need to be discussed ...

However, if the gravitational constant had been much different in the beginning of the universe, matter could not exist as you know it to. Differences in this number, would result in an unimaginable variety of possibilities. Hell, alternate universes with 'universal constants' completely different then anything we would understand.

Gravity is just one of these universal constants. But they are clearly very powerful.

It would not be infinite.

All would be.

Here is a small list of some scientific laws; laws that exist and hold absolute power over the various processes in which nature reorganizes its energy configurations...as per creation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_laws_named_after_people

You can click any one of those links to get a specific example of an existing process that holds supreme power and is part of creation. There are pieces not yet known or described, but like all things that constitute reality, THEY EXIST INDEPENDENTLY OF IDEAS OR OPINIONS CONCERNING THEM. Again, Rust: If you don't like it, go fuck yourself.

None of those laws prove anything you said. They do not prove "reality creates" nor do they prove "reality has supreme power". They are laws that describe the universe, that's it.

Now please, either support what you said with something - anything! - or kindly admit that you cannot and stop wasting my time with your delusional bullshit.


By the way, I've provided ample evidence from a dictionary...ya know, 'a book containing the meanings, etymologies, inflections, and pronunciations of various words, typically listed in alphabetical order'...as to how I haven't raped a single definition in my argument. You're being very dishonest in making that claim, especially after quoting direct dictionary definitions of the words I've used.Except of course you had to scour the dictionaries to find those fringe definitions that the vast majority of the population do not agree with - thus nullifying the fundamental reason for a dictionary in the first place which is to hold the common definitions of words used by speakers in a speaking community - in order to support your inane bullshit.

Does the vast majority of the world agree with the definitions you're using? No. Was the OP - who set the whole tone and meaning of 'supreme being' in this thread- using those definitions? Again, no.

Like I said, I don't underestimate your ability to beat the living shit out of a dictionary in order to support your delusions. That was exactly my point, and you've just proven it. That you even think a list of scientific laws proves "reality creates and has supreme power" already shows how deep in shit you've defined yourself into, and how low you're willing to go. It's pathetic.


I know exactly what my burden of proof isRight.... which is why you have failed to fulfill it, tried to argue that it would be fulfilled if I didn't prove the opposite, and then went on a rant about how reality is "something that exists independently of ideas concerning it" when nobody said anything remotely concerning that - all the while calling me retarded mind you, as if the irony wasn't great enough as it is?

P.S. If an omniscient being were to tell you that you are wrong, would you believe it? Would you change your mind?

Maybe instead of raping a dictionary to find words with definitions which match his ideas as if this would somehow increase anyones support of those ideas, he is just trying to find the right way to communicate something that is difficult to communicate?

Maybe but this idea is stupid. And you are wrong about the possibilities. Only one could happen it IS irrelevant about my memory even if i remember wrongly, only one decision could be made in that point in time.

It doen't matter whether I know or not. It is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE that I had done both of those things. Hence that possibility is gone never to be seen. Please try and argue how I could do both at the same time.

"I believe 'change happens' because"

On change, did you just admit this "all" changes? It sure read like you did. Which means you pretty much debunked yourself. God cannot change. You can't change perfection.

On creation, creation implies will. So does ruling.

Because there are scientific laws doesn't mean shit. It is just how the universe works and how things happen to interact. If they are a part of creation they cannot be supreme power, whatever created them is.


IMO a better supreme power for you would be matter, without matter there would be nothing but space with nothing but that I don't think many of those supremely powerful laws will be doing much. They are subject to something else. Whereas if you destroy the whole universe, everything in it, the whole of "reality" my idea of God can just think fuck it click his fingers and mix up a new one.

Maybe but this idea is stupid. And you are wrong about the possibilities. Only one could happen it IS irrelevant about my memory even if i remember wrongly, only one decision could be made in that point in time.

Yes, one point in time.

Time is what I labeled the 4th dimension as in my last post to you. And while it is true that only one choice could have been made in the 4th dimension, they both can exist in the 5th dimension. Reality can continue to increase complexity until you reach all possibilities ... all.

It doen't matter whether I know or not. It is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE that I had done both of those things. Hence that possibility is gone never to be seen. Please try and argue how I could do both at the same time.

You do not see it as logically possible, because you do not understand how time could be just another component of reality like length, width and depth, a component of other more complex dimensions as we work our way up to all.

I have already explained this. Please try to comprehend it. I even posted a short video, explaining a possible way to organize reality, using the very examples we are talking about now. Try watching it.

I have already explained how both possibilities could exist. Not at the same 'time', or 4th dimension, but within the 5th dimension.

You believe that 'to know' is so trivial? Is that why you believe you know all possibilities would be illogical? Why you believe you know your opinion is 'right' and mine is 'wrong'? Because you can't know any of that, you can only believe that you do.

On change, did you just admit this "all" changes? It sure read like you did. Which means you pretty much debunked yourself. God cannot change. You can't change perfection.

Then you need to improve your reading comprehension.

I believe that we are expereincing change because the oneness of all is only one possible perspective. The infinitude of 'parts' of all have perspectives of all as well. But these perspectives are limited to their 'location' within all. When not expereincing the oneness of all, we experience parts of all ... that infinitude of other possible perspectives.


I'll try to be very clear on my beliefs on change:

What is change? It is going from one state to another, right? Or having one perspective exchanged with another.

Now, this oneness of all which I believe in, is only one possible state or perspective.

There is also an infinitude of possible states or perspectives within all. These would be the infinitude of possible 'parts' which contribute to all.

We expereince all these states, not just the oneness of all, because they are all possible.

'Change' is the flow of one state or perspective to another. We do not expereince only the 'oneness of all' state, because it is only one possible state of an infinitude of other possible states. We do not experience change, or time, during that state because it is the state of all; of one; or of the oneness of all.

We do expereince change in the other states, because these states are in constant flow with their relation to other dimensions and other states ... for instance, with every passing 'moment' of time along a 'line' in the 4th dimension, we expereince the change from one possible 3rd dimensional state of 'the universe' to another slightly different 3rd dimensional state.

On creation ...

I've said this:

If there is something other then all, then are you really talking about all in the first place? No, because that 'something' would have to be included within all.

Why would all have to 'be made' in the first place? Why must there be a 'creation' and a time line on which it takes place?

For the oneness of all, there would be no time. All would just be. Time exist would exist within all.

At that level of complexity of reality which could entirely be possible, all, there is no time scale for change to occur on ... all already is. All possible change, all possible 'different times' are already included within all.

It is possible that all simply is.

Because there are scientific laws doesn't mean shit. It is just how the universe works and how things happen to interact. If they are a part of creation they cannot be supreme power, whatever created them is.

What would that be? What could that be? ... besides the oneness of all?

IMO a better supreme power for you would be matter, without matter there would be nothing but space

You cannot know matter is real, all you can know is that you are, that there is this 'oneness' that exists. If anything else were to exist, it would require that oneness or 'being' as well.

Maybe thats what you mean by 'matter'?

Whereas if you destroy the whole universe, everything in it, the whole of "reality" my idea of God can just think fuck it click his fingers and mix up a new one.

And what exactly is this God? If it is not part of reality, how does it exist to 'create', as you prefer to think a God would? How does it exist? Where does it exist?

In a 'higher' reality? Well what governs that? What 'created' your God? Hmmm? Where would this cycle end?

Nothing created this God. It is the perfect God.
It is infinite, it has always existed and always will. It exists outside of this time.space/reality. It is infinitely powerful so it can do anything.


If I need to improve my reading comprehension you need to explain,

"I believe change happens because" to me or improve your writing. You say that the "one" is just one view. That there are many persectives to "look" from. Which I take to mean there is one current reality but many many alternatives that could be should events pan out. Though they are not what we see they are part of this "one" too. But they are not they are just a web of possibilities, nothing real just things that might happen. They are nothing tangible, not comparable. Nothing like the first "view of reality" They are not reality they are potential.

I can KNOW certain things. Logical impossibilities are included in this. I have watched the video. I understand the concept of time perfectly. 5th dimension not so sure. Maybe you should explain it again, But I do not see still how it would be possible I could do two things at once.

And you said earlier you don't believe in this string theory, so how come you keep citing it?

TBH I think you have an interesting view of actual "reality" and the possibilities it holds. But really there is no concept of God there at all. It doesn't matter even if your arguments make sense because there is no concept of God there anyway. Why bother believing in the most useless God ever?

Nothing created this God. It is the perfect God.
It is infinite, it has always existed and always will.

Wow. So is what I have described.

It exists outside of this time.space/reality.

What reason do you have to believe anything can exist 'outside' of reality? If it exists, is it and its location not a part of reality?

You say that the "one" is just one view. That there are many persectives to "look" from. Which I take to mean there is one current reality but many many alternatives that could be should events pan out. Though they are not what we see they are part of this "one" too. But they are not they are just a web of possibilities, nothing real just things that might happen.

Then you are incorrectly interpreting my description. No worries, its difficult to describe.

The 'one' you mentioned would be what I believe is the 'oneness of all'. Imagine that big web of possibilities as if they all existed. I believe this state of 'oneness of all' is the perfect balance, and is equivalent to the state of 'oneness' I know exists. I believe that there is no difference between the 'oneness' and 'oneness of all', and that it is really the same perspective.

Those other perspectives, or states, are all of the possible 'parts' of all.

The biggest mistake in your understanding of my belief, is when you limit reality to your expereince:

"Which I take to mean there is one current reality but many many alternatives that could be should events pan out."

What you believe is 'current reality', is a constant change from one state of The Universe to slightly different states of The Universe along a line of time, which we could call the 4th dimension if we were to organize reality into dimensions similar to those described in that video. You believe that the limit to 'reality' is the time line you have expereinced. I believe that this is only a very, very small part of reality.

"But they are not they are just a web of possibilities, nothing real just things that might happen."

I believe that they are just as real as what we expereince, only that we experience small parts of reality when not in the state of 'oneness of all'. I believe that alternate possibilities exist within higher dimensions that are not included in our 'current' perspective of reality. And that reality in its fullest extent, all, contains all possibilities. Reality is this 'oneness of all'.

They are nothing tangible, not comparable. Nothing like the first "view of reality" They are not reality they are potential.

How do you know what you expereince is real? And if that were possible, how would you know there is nothing missing, too? That your perspective is 'complete'?

I can KNOW certain things.

You certainly believe you can.

Maybe you should explain it again, But I do not see still how it would be possible I could do two things at once.

Again, I will explain to you time.

They are not happening 'at once'. They are not happening on the same 4th dimensional 'line of time'.

They would both exist on separate 4th dimensional lines, along with an infinitude of other possible time lines, within the 5th dimension.

You believe there can be only one time line. This would be like believing there is only length:

When we limit ourselves to one dimension, length, it certainly seems as though only one line can exist. But when we add the 2nd dimension, width, we realize there is an infinitude of 1st dimensional 'lines' existing along this 2nd dimensional plane. If we were to add the 3rd dimension, depth, reality jumps up another notch in complexity and we realize that there is an infinitude of 2nd dimensional planes existing along the depth of the 3rd dimension, and that each one of those planes has its own infinitude of 1st dimensional lines.

I would hope you already understand basic geometry.

And you said earlier you don't believe in this string theory, so how come you keep citing it?

Because its easy to understand and explain to others. That doesn't mean I believe it is the way of organizing reality, I believe it is one way of an infinitude of different possible ways reality could be organized.

But really there is no concept of God there at all. It doesn't matter even if your arguments make sense because there is no concept of God there anyway.

What do you mean? It is within everything, its is everything, it is the cause of all that is, there can be nothing greater then it ...

What would be 'more Godly'?

Why bother believing in the most useless God ever?

Whats useless about it? It is all.

If you believe life, reality ... existence ... are all useless, then why are you still alive?

Whats useless about it? It is all.

If you believe life, reality ... existence ... are all useless, then why are you still alive?

He said God is useless. Your view of God being everything, is obviously not his view.

He did not make the ridiculous assumption you have made for him. He never said he believes life, reality and existence is useless. YOU SAID THAT, not him. Welcome to strawmanville.

Even so, how can you even accuse someone else of believing reality to be useless, when you yourself believe EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE with the SOLE EXCEPTION of the self is an illusion?

Aeroue, it can be frustrating to Obbe back in his place.

He said God is useless. Your view of God being everything, is obviously not his view.

He was referring to my conception. C'mon BP, give reading a try! Its a Hoot!

Even so, how can you even accuse someone else of believing reality to be useless, when you yourself believe EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE with the SOLE EXCEPTION of the self is an illusion?

I do not believe that. I believe that I cannot know otherwise.

But I do believe that all exists.

He was referring to my conception. C'mon BP, give reading a try! Its a Hoot!

I see. It seemed that, in that cuntish way you have, you were twisting his words. I don't care enough to read the entire ebb and flow of your post to find the truth of it.

This is of course b/c I have no need to hear what you preach b/c your philosophy is very 8th grade, simple, and complete. Or is it.......

I do not believe that. I believe that I cannot know otherwise.

But I do believe that all exists.

Unless you have changed your aforementioned 8th grade concept.....

Do you still believe that...

The only thing anyone can ever know is that I AM, and EVERYTHING else is an illusion?

If you don't believe that anymore, congrats on growing up a tiny bit. If you do still believe that then I stand by my original post and will your above quote here very bullshitty.

Which is it?

I don't care enough to read

Tis a shame, you end up making yourself look like a bigger dick then you try.

This is of course b/c I have no need to hear what you preach b/c your philosophy is very 8th grade, simple, and complete. Or is it.......

But you feel a great urge to attempt to hurt me, while constantly stating your disapproval of my beliefs?

This may be a sign of insecurity. Theres no need to be, if you don't want to read it ... then don't.

Theres nothing forcing your eyes to go over these words, except your own hostility, your need to shut me down.

The only thing anyone can ever know is that I AM, and EVERYTHING else is an illusion?

Try reading it?

I believe that there is no difference between illusory experiences and real ones.

I know that I exist, a oneness.

I believe all exists.

The only thing anyone can ever know is that I AM, and EVERYTHING else is an illusion

The above was your motto, your tagline, your belief awhile back ago. It is a FACT. NOW.....Do you still believe that or not?

Simple question Obbe.


As far as me not reading your rantings...if your beliefs are different NOW than what they WERE...then there may be a point in reading what you have to say, but seeing how you refuse to answer a simple yes or no question, I assume you have not matured at all and still cling to your childish beliefs, thus no point in reading what I had thought of and dismissed when I was 13 years old.

I am not insecure. I am bored at work, and I noticed a troll (you) attaching itself to a great number of threads. I felt complelled into a bit of action. Now you appear to be a name calling angry troll. The goal would be a reproached sad absent troll.

Do you still believe that or not?

Simple question Obbe.

It seems quite pertinent to you.

I believe there is no difference between illusions and reality.

I believe all exists.

Thats not an answer.

Yes, yes it is.

I am bored at work

My, what a productive and truly meaningful way to alleviate yourself.

And when you're done playing on the internet, could you have those papers on my desk by five?

I am not insecure. I am bored at work, and I noticed a troll (you) attaching itself to a great number of threads. I felt complelled into a bit of action. Now you appear to be a name calling angry troll. The goal would be a reproached sad absent troll.

Whenever I see a troll (you) attaching yourself to a great number of threads, I ignore it and go on about my business.

P.S. Why do you let things rile you up?
I don't think your really as angry as you seem, you just come off that way on the internet.

Whenever I see a troll (you) attaching yourself to a great number of threads, I ignore it and go on about my business.

P.S. Why do you let things rile you up?
I don't think your really as angry as you seem, you just come off that way on the internet.

Well I will assume that since you did not ignore this and continue about your business, that you don't think I am a troll. :)

(think before you write)

P.S. I am really not as angry as I may seem. I am genuinely bored at work and I have a passion for things like science, common sense, naturalism, and a world without an imaginary friend for grown ups.

I believe there is no difference between illusions and reality.

Then you do not understand the definitions of either.

Having re-read that, I must say I am surprised that you were ABLE to become more of a joke.

You still failed to be clear; so you still believe your initial philosophy....the I AM one? It seems you do not believe the only thing that one can know is I AM, b/c you seem to KNOW that illusions and reality are the same.

Then you do not understand the definitions of either.

No, you just believe that some things are, and some things aren't.

You still failed to be clear; so you still believe your initial philosophy....the I AM one?

All I know is that I am.

I believe all exists.

It seems you do not believe the only thing that one can know is I AM, b/c you seem to KNOW that illusions and reality are the same.

You really, really should try that reading thing again. Really.

I said I believe there is no difference.

No, you just believe that some things are, and some things aren't.

NO. You FAIL to understand, or you choose to ignore the definitions of the words you are using. I could post the definitions to prove my fucking point if you like.

Shall I educate you?

All I know is that I am.

I believe all exists.

What do you base this belief that all exists? Certainly it CANNOT be on what you know.

You really, really should try that reading thing again. Really.

I said I believe there is no difference.

Forgive me, it has been some time since I entertained your simple minded "philosophy". It is difficult to keep up with your nonsense. I apologize.

You can see how nonsensical it becomes, in that you believe something, without any reason to do so whatsoever. At least a Christian has a physical book of Jewish folk tales to go on, and SOME historical evidence for the places in their delusion.

But not you. You have NOTHING to base your BELIEFS on, do you? I had not thought it possible, but you seem to have outdone yourself.

Shall I educate you?

Nope, because I never asked you to.

How do you expereince an unreal expereince?

How do you determine what is not reality, without knowing what is?

What do you base this belief that all exists? Certainly it CANNOT be on what you know.

It is indeed.

You have NOTHING to base your BELIEFS on, do you?

Oneness.

Finally, the quintessential Obbe...

One-liners without explanation, you may find on a fortune cookie.

You Fail at any explanation as always. You almost had me fooled, for a second, I thought there may have been some kind of ephiphany or maturity on your part, and what you had to say might actually be relevant.

But your mystical one-liners are quintessentially the whole of your "philosophy".

I think we are done, for now.

Finally, the quintessential Obbe...

One-liners without explanation, you may find on a fortune cookie.

You Fail at any explanation as always.

Feel free to read through this thread, I don't want to retype it.

I think we are done, for now.

C'mon BP ... this was over before it even started.

Feel free to read through this thread, I don't want to retype it.

Honestly, what more is their to read?

All that one can know is that I AM, everything else is an illusion.

You cannot really add ANY FUCKING THING else to that one sentence that sums up the whole of your spirituality can you?

I have to get off work and you, troll, need to get back into your box.

Honestly, what more is their to read?

Quite a lot, for you at least.

everything else is an illusion.

You cannot know that. You can certainly believe it, if you want.

I believe all exists.

I have to get off work and you, troll, need to get back into your box.

You never needed to talk to me in the first place, dip shit.

Is it really, my friend?

Is what you perceive and experience reality? Or could it be false?

Could it be an illusion? Could you be unaware that it is an illusion?

Would you be able to know? Could everything be fucking fake??

I have perused through your thread a bit, and found plenty of your old rhetoric.

Because, even though I cannot ever know that all even exists, I do know that I exist ... I do know that oneness and perfect balance exists. And because I know that exists, I believe all exists, because the oneness of all would be the same oneness that I am. And I know that I am.

Here is something new. You prattle on and on about ALL, and the oneness. How can you know that oneness and perfect balance exists. All you KNOW is that you exist. You "new" belief then falls on it's ass.

You never needed to talk to me in the first place, dip shit.

Never said or implied that I NEEDED to talk to you. Try to keep up.

How can you know that oneness and perfect balance exists. All you KNOW is that you exist. You "new" belief then falls on it's ass.

I know oneness exists, because the oneness is I. I am the perfect balance.

I believe that it is possible for other things to exist. But I cannot know they do. It is possible for all possibilities to exist, as one.

I would imagine that all, as one, would also be a perfect balance. The 'oneness of all'.

I believe that perspective and the oneness within me would be the same. So I believe in all.

Never said or implied that I NEEDED to talk to you. Try to keep up.

You implied it was a burden, keeping you from your work.

Yet here you are, reading this once again.

Got bored but thought I should reply again. Not read any of this new shit only up your last post Obbe.

Ok

No your idea of God cannot. Your "God" cannot "do" anything it can happen things can happen but happening is not doing. IMO just like create, "do" requires a will. Your God has no will. As it has no will it has no power. At least in a meaningful sense, sure it may be powerful but only in the same way as a waterfall, not say a King. Same word maybe different concept.

My other point on possibilities. You finally admitted the difference. However small it is one. Different 4th dimensional lines. It may appear the same in every way bubt ANY difference makes it a different event.


When I call your God pointless I am not calling everything in the world pointless, obvously. Just your concept of God. This is because it might as well not be there.

To be honest when I read what you write I find a lot of rhetoric and little real information. Maybe you do it accidentally with your style of writing, but you do not put your ideas simply.

I mean

"I know oneness exists, because the oneness is I. I am the perfect balance."

That is meaningless. Sure you can say no it is not and explain it but in that form that is meaningless.

Arguments for god's existence? I dont know which god you are referring to, but i refuse to believe in a god who tells us how to live, think and do. I believe in something, that just gave us life. I believe we humans have more power than the gods in any books. Our intended natural purpose is to survive, and breed. Nothing else, I believe religion, cultures and traditions are just excuses to hide what our real purpose in life is.

If there really would be a god figure, the only thing he has done by now is made it impossible to fly for us humans, or read minds etc. I think the only thing our creator wanted us to do is: Breed, Enjoy life and have fun.

But then again, if a true god really existed, we wouldnt need a book to justify our beliefs, we would just know.. Wouldnt we? i think the real 'holy book' hasnt been written yet. If he were around us, i dont think the present homo sapiens understands every aspect of life, while most holy books claim to explain everything.

Im kinda tired.. I want to write more, but just cant

No your idea of God cannot. Your "God" cannot "do" anything it can happen things can happen but happening is not doing. IMO just like create, "do" requires a will. Your God has no will.

Rather, as I believe, anything that could be 'done' is a part of God. God does all. I could argue that all will is Gods will.

As it has no will it has no power.

Rather, I believe it has all power.

My other point on possibilities. You finally admitted the difference. However small it is one. Different 4th dimensional lines. It may appear the same in every way bubt ANY difference makes it a different event.

Uh, I never tried to 'hide' different 4th dimensional lines.

You just never understood it.

You still don't seem to, because in the reality I am describing as possible, both your decisions and their separate time lines still exist. Just as how an infinitude of 1st dimensional lines exist on a 2nd dimensional plane.

When I call your God pointless I am not calling everything in the world pointless, obvously. Just your concept of God. This is because it might as well not be there.

If you mean it is pointless to believe this concept, I would disagree. What would make another concept more believable?

If you mean that even if my concept is true, that it is just ultimately pointless and might as well not even exist, then nothing would exist.

That is meaningless. Sure you can say no it is not and explain it but in that form that is meaningless.

I didn't explain the meaning. If BP would read through this thread instead of asking me to repeat explanations, maybe he would find out the meaning on his own.

I didn't explain the meaning. If BP would read through this thread instead of asking me to repeat explanations, maybe he would find out the meaning on his own.

Reading through this thread, I have found nothing BUT repeat explanations. There is no more meaning here in your philosophy than there ever has been.

The only thing you can know is that I AM. Everything else is an illusion.

The I AM teaches you that you are in perfect balance with a oneness, that is All (or God).

That's about it. You have graduated from a philosophy that can fit on a fortune cookie, to one that needs two fortune cookies.

Nothing life changing or very interesting in your new age garbage you repeat in cryptical one liners throughout this thread.

I am just wondering when you are supposed to use the crystals and pyramid hat?

There is no more meaning here in your philosophy than there ever has been.

No, you just continue to believe that it is meaningless.

Thats fine.

I am just wondering when you are supposed to use the crystals and pyramid hat?

I am wondering when you are going to become indifferent to the the beliefs of others. Or at least, become respectable enough to pretend you're respectful of others?

I am wondering when you are going to become indifferent to the the beliefs of others. Or at least, become respectable enough to pretend you're respectful of others?

Telling someone I disagree with their baseless assertions, is not disrespectful, it is just common sense.

Telling someone I disagree with their baseless assertions, is not disrespectful, it is just common sense.

And you have done much, much more then that. You intend to be an asshole.

And you have done much, much more then that. You intend to be an asshole.

I engage in assholery, good sir, when provoked.

One thing that I find provoking is nonsensical abstract pretentious bullshit (ie most everything you say)

Don't act sad about it now, you laughed and relished when you admittedly shat on one of my threads with your nonsense.

This little innocent routine is tiresome, but completely expected from a child.

I engage in assholery

Yes. Its disrespectful.

Don't act sad about it now, you laughed and relished when you admittedly shat on one of my threads with your nonsense.

Please, try to remember correctly. I admitted to attempting to piss you off, not that I spread nonsense.

I admitted to attempting to piss you off.....

Yet, you wish to dub me disrespectful?

I will be as much of an asshole as another person requests of me. How is that being disrespectful?

Yet, you wish to dub me disrespectful?

Yes, because you have that one thread, VS every conversation I have had with you.

Not to mention that my reason for being disrespectful in that thread had nothing to do with how your beliefs compare with mine.

It was about being an asshole to an asshole. And I think I remember I had a point too, that was lost on everyone else.

I will be as much of an asshole as another person requests of me. How is that being disrespectful?

Then you should be nearly a saint to me, because I don't think I've ever been disrespectful of your beliefs. Or lack thereof.

And I think I remember I had a point too, that was lost on everyone else..

All of your points are lost on nearly eveyone else. That is pretty much an Obbe standard.

Then you should be nearly a saint to me, because I don't think I've ever been disrespectful of your beliefs. Or lack thereof.

You should re-read that thread you shat on, if it is still around. You will find that I attempted to keep my thread on track for some time, without becoming an asshole.

@ Obbe

Don't try to tell me what I do and do not understand. Sure the 4th dimensional string is practically identical but it is not completely. There may be an inifitude of 1st dimensional lines in the 2nd dimension but each one is different. If it is distinguishable it is different. Some basic Philosophy from Leibniz there. Also I wonder why you seem to rest upon an unproven and un-falsifiable theory for your idea of God. According to Karl Popper unfalsifiable = meaningless.

You trying to say my will is God's will now? That someones will who opposes me in every way is also God's will. So God wills we kill the whales, he wills we don't. He wills we all die he wills we all live. A stupid idea, God cannot will everything. YOu saying we do not have free will also? If all will is God's will we have none. What use is a scattered unfocused will anyhow? Not very Godlike either. Also you said earlier that God has no intent. So please explain how he has will. Also please note I use "he" non-literally.

So you now need to decide whether or not your God has intent/will or not. You should get your story straight before claiming you have found God. Otherwise you risk dissapointing people, they might think you are making it up as you go along.

It is a pointless concept for the reasons I have said, your "God" is comatose does nothing. It answers no questions traditionally ansered by religion. It is undetectable, unprovable, unfalsifiable. It does not matter whether or not you believe in it. It is just a quality of "being" in everything combined with string theory which is also undetectable, unproven and un-falsifiable.

PS. I never said you tried to hide 4th dimensional lines you tard. I said you admitted the difference between the 2 potential realities. Stop taking things out of context/blatantly re-engineering the meanings. It makes you look silly.

Don't try to tell me what I do and do not understand. Sure the 4th dimensional string is practically identical but it is not completely. There may be an inifitude of 1st dimensional lines in the 2nd dimension but each one is different. If it is distinguishable it is different.

Yes, and the difference between this 4th dimensional line and the other in our example, is that in this one you decided to continue to post, while in the other one you did not.

What is your point?

unfalsifiable = meaningless

Then everything is meaningless, except for my existence.

A stupid idea, God cannot will everything.

Why?

YOu saying we do not have free will also?

When did I say that?

What use is a scattered unfocused will anyhow?

What use?

Everything, maybe?

Not very Godlike either. Also you said earlier that God has no intent. So please explain how he has will. Also please note I use "he" non-literally.

Whats the difference between having every intention possible, and none at all?

So you now need to decide whether or not your God has intent/will or not. You should get your story straight before claiming you have found God. Otherwise you risk dissapointing people, they might think you are making it up as you go along.

Before I start making claims that I have found God? Listen, asshole, you asked me to explain my beliefs. This is what I believe. I don't give a fuck what you think of it.

It is my understanding that there is no reason free will cannot exist, and for all to exist with it.

I said you admitted the difference between the 2 potential realities. Stop taking things out of context/blatantly re-engineering the meanings. It makes you look silly.

When did I ever make it seem that there wasn't?

Can you get off the pedestal?

Better yet, he shouldn't redefine "god" or "reality" to fit his needs.

He essentially just found another word for reality. It reeks of someone that is desperate to pin theism to everyone else, so they redefine "god" just so they can say "Aha! You believe in a god too!". The OP made it perfectly clear that he was talking about a being with specific attributes ("supernatural being with a high degree of power") and not "reality" so this was nothing more than propaganda on Hex's part.

My thoughts exactly.

LAWL no need to get all angsty.

Different 4th dimensional line.
2 choices in 1.
2 choices in the other.
These are 4 possibilities not 2. That is my point. Once I have made my decision in 4th dimensional line 1. The other possibility may happen in dimensional line 2. But that is in dimensional line 2 not line 1 hence it is a different event from had it been in line 1. However small the difference it is there.

So all possible events cannot exist even if there is an infinitude of 4th dimensional lines each one is a different one. That is my point thar.


If you are of the opinion that all you can know is your own existence then yes the unfalsifiable thing could mean that. If you are a realist obviously not.

God cannot will everything cause that would be contradictory. Might as well have no will. If your willing everything your also willing there wasn't everything. It is just silly. Why don't you explain how he can? Consdering how the standard idea of God is more along my lines than yours.


If all will is God's will. God has some measure of control over all will. HArdly "free" So where is ours?

----------------------------------------------
"What use?
Everything, maybe? "
----------------------------------------------
Please explain the everything, maybe bit. That really IS meaningless.
Do you mean it is a lot of use?
Use of everything?
I assume you mean it is useful.
But then you go onto say...

----------------------------------------------
"Whats the difference between having every intention possible, and none at all?"
----------------------------------------------

That was kind of my point. There is none there might as well be no will. So this scattered unfocused will is very useful for everything. But then you also go on to say or at least imply (staying safe?) That it is equivalent to having no will. Which is not much use...


Well you didn't make it seem that there wasn't but earlier on you said that the 4th dimensional threads were all identical so all potentials could happen. Which I touched up top.


Yea before you start making claims that you have found God you need to get your story straight. If your doing it in a public place like this forum and you want people to take you seriously you have to justify them stop bitching. Itallics and question marks don't change what you have typed. "God is all" is a God claim.

Your a pedestal.

Different 4th dimensional line.
2 choices in 1.
2 choices in the other.
These are 4 possibilities not 2. That is my point. Once I have made my decision in 4th dimensional line 1. The other possibility may happen in dimensional line 2. But that is in dimensional line 2 not line 1 hence it is a different event from had it been in line 1. However small the difference it is there.

So all possible events cannot exist even if there is an infinitude of 4th minensional lines each one is a different one. That is my point thar.

Two choices? Four choices? No, you see, thats just where we decided to limit our examples.

At any given 'moment' (or 'location' along a line of time), I have an infinitude of choices ... an infinitude of paths which I could walk upon. I could post, I could not, I could go shower, I could go look for work smelly, I could go bomb a mall, I could just sit here and do nothing, I could move to mexico ... all exist as possibilities in the dimensions above us.

Why do you keep pointing out there are differences between different time lines? Of course there are, thats why they are different. What I don't understand is what you think this changes about what I have said about reality.

You wouldn't say any 1st dimensional line is the same as any other, they are all different as well ... and an infinitude of them exists on a 2nd dimensional plane. So what is your point?

If you are of the opinion that all you can know is your own existence then yes the unfalsifiable thing could mean that. If you are a realist obviously not.

Then try to guess which I am.

Why don't you explain how he can?

I think I already have. God is all, anything you could call 'will' is part of God. When someone intends to kill someone, thats part of God. When someone intends to survive as long as they can, and avoid being killed, thats part of God. As a oneness of all, all those intentions would balance out, yes, it would be like having no intentions.

All will and no will, all intentions and no intentions, balance.

If all will is God's will. God has some measure of control over all will. HArdly "free" So where is ours?

When all things are possible, whats really the difference? When you are god, what is the difference?

Lets say I'm bored and must make a choice. I choose to go for a drive. I have selected that from an infinitude of possibilities, all which exist within God. All which include an 'alternate' me who made a different decision. But I am expereincing the decision I made.

Please explain the everything, maybe bit. That really IS meaningless.
Do you mean it is a lot of use?
Use of everything?
I assume you mean it is useful.
But then you go onto say...

Well, what the did you mean when asking what use it has?

For any purpose you could imagine, that is its use.

That was kind of my point. There is none there might as well be no will. So this scattered unfocused will is very useful for everything. But then you also go on to say or at least imply (staying safe?) That it is equivalent to having no will. Which is not much use...

Or you just fail to see how it is balance. You obviously see how all intentions would balance each other in a oneness of all way, but individual 'parts' of all are clearly not balanced themselves.

Do you understand?

Well you didn't make it seem that there wasn't but earlier on you said that the 4th dimensional threads were all identical so all potentials could happen. Which I touched up top.

When did I say all 4th dimensional lines were identical? How would that have anything do with all possibilities?

The thing that makes different possibilities ... different, is that they are ... different. Not identical.

Your a pedestal.

You're illiterate. You constantly misinterpret things I say, like claiming I believed different 4th dimensional lines to be identical and that silliness would somehow support my belief of all possibilities. I have no clue where you picked that idea up, or how it would even make sense.

Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum.

i believe god exists but assuming god's help in the bible is real...he s too depressed with us to take hand in our affairs anymore. in the bible he helps less and less till hes practically not appearing anymore. (if any of you have cared alot about someone and they continually spit in your face and backstab you you know what i mean)

Yes, yes I am illiterate.
Man you found me out good there.

OF course it could have more to do with your lame rhetoric and shitty explanations that leave everything so open you can just say "no you interpreted it wrong LOLZ u cant reeed"


You said all possibilities exist. They do not. You said they could because of this infinitude of 4th dimensional lines. If as you have said and I have said all along, they are not identical all possiblities do not exist.

Either way this discussion is pointless. Afterall I can neither read nor write and it is very hard to you see you anyhow from my pedestalic position as Emperor of the World.

Though you are the one callin yourself God.

Plus my internet connection is fucked and don't know when I can connect again, so I am out.

You said all possibilities exist. They do not.

I said I believe they do.

How could you know they do not?

If as you have said and I have said all along, they are not identical all possiblities do not exist.

If they were all identical, then how would there be more then one possibility?? If they are all identical?

That doesn't make sense, and I never said it did. Where did you pick up this "an infinitude of time lines must all be identical" stuff? Not from me.

Either way this discussion is pointless.

Quite.

Afterall I can neither read nor write and it is very hard to you see you anyhow from my pedestalic position as Emperor of the World.

Though you are the one callin yourself God.

Yeah.

My view on it is this:
There is no 100% way to prove God, or disprove God. Thats why it is called faith, I personally believe in God, Jesus, Virgin birth, the whole shibang...