HamaticBabylon
Deity
I get it, working curts shift!
Prove God Exists - Act Three
- Thread starter Perfection
- Start date
- Status
Perfection
The Great Head.
Just figure that out?HamaticBabylon said:
Blasphemous
Graulich
I haven't got anything personal against the concept of god...CivCube said:
I just require logic before I am to accept something, and the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, infinite, self-aware, sentient being existing and doing stuff seems to me to be a foolish, primitive answer to primitive man's questions. There is no real evidence or logic to support it, and so I choose to say that I simply don't know how the universe came to be (etc), rather than claiming that some deity did it.
Mise
isle of lucy
I had an epiphany last night! I'm so pleased with myself. It came to me in a moment of clarity. We all have guardian angels which help us to do stuff we couldn't do ourselves. These guardian angels are dead loved ones or dead alturists. Collectively, these dead people form "God". Also, when you die, time ceases to be important, and you exist beyond linear time. Hence, our dead spirits are with us now, and "God" was created when the Universe was created. These dead spirits also have the choice of simply dissapearing into nothingness whenever they want, never to return, so you don't get many evil dead spirits. Additionally, religious books are simply people trying to write down in words what they feel in their hearts when they know there is a "God" within them, which is why it doesn't make much sense (ever tried expressing in words a feeling? never comes out right...).
So, to recap:
1. "God" is the collective will of a load of dead people.
2. Religious books are written by people, not by "God", and shouldn't be taken as the be all and end all.
Anyone wanna join my religion
!
(That'll be $20,000 please...)
So, to recap:
1. "God" is the collective will of a load of dead people.
2. Religious books are written by people, not by "God", and shouldn't be taken as the be all and end all.
Anyone wanna join my religion
!(That'll be $20,000 please...)
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
HamaticBabylon said:
Nope, checking to see if anyone had remembered my birthday!
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
Mise said:I had an epiphany last night! I'm so pleased with myself. It came to me in a moment of clarity. We all have guardian angels which help us to do stuff we couldn't do ourselves. These guardian angels are dead loved ones or dead alturists. Collectively, these dead people form "God". Also, when you die, time ceases to be important, and you exist beyond linear time. Hence, our dead spirits are with us now, and "God" was created when the Universe was created. These dead spirits also have the choice of simply dissapearing into nothingness whenever they want, never to return, so you don't get many evil dead spirits. Additionally, religious books are simply people trying to write down in words what they feel in their hearts when they know there is a "God" within them, which is why it doesn't make much sense (ever tried expressing in words a feeling? never comes out right...).
So, to recap:
1. "God" is the collective will of a load of dead people.
2. Religious books are written by people, not by "God", and shouldn't be taken as the be all and end all.
Anyone wanna join my religion
(That'll be $20,000 please...)
Such a religion already exists. It's called Voodoo
the mormegil
Emperor
Yes. I can quite accept the possible existence of a God, but certainly not how a God as described by Christianit/Islam etc. 'Cause that just don't make make sense (like Blasphemous said).CivCube said:
It all comes down to the definition of 'God'.
Curt! 
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
My simple point was that you cannot say "Well, the believers can't prove that God exists" and then claim victory for athiests, which is what this thread, and its predecessors, have been about.
Mise
isle of lucy
Voodoo eh? Hmm, I'll need to be a bit more original next time....Aphex_Twin said:
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Mise youre new religion, while interesting, is not new (few things are these days). Its ancestor worship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestor_worship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestor_worship
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Hasn't this been done to death to everyone's satisfaction yet? *FINE*...
Speaking only for the Christian and Jewish God Jehovah, as described in His Word the Bible, the following is true:
He desires people to worship Him based on faith, and to back that faith with works (IE investiture of time and effort on God's behalf for no apparent or tangible benefit.)
He has tried flashy miracles and showy displays of God-like power, and the Israelites (Jewish) would not remain true, even in the face of total proof. He allowed His Son a few miracles (sort of a God's Son ID check--ok, you can raise the dead, you are in fact God's Son, so what's He want?) to get the ball rolling, but ever since that early time, no miracles have been allowed, nor anything else that might interfere with the whole faith process.
Given the above, no one on earth will ever be able to prove the existence or interest of God. All we can do is take it on faith, and that's the whole point.
This thread, and all others like it, are complete wastes of time.
Speaking only for the Christian and Jewish God Jehovah, as described in His Word the Bible, the following is true:
He desires people to worship Him based on faith, and to back that faith with works (IE investiture of time and effort on God's behalf for no apparent or tangible benefit.)
He has tried flashy miracles and showy displays of God-like power, and the Israelites (Jewish) would not remain true, even in the face of total proof. He allowed His Son a few miracles (sort of a God's Son ID check--ok, you can raise the dead, you are in fact God's Son, so what's He want?) to get the ball rolling, but ever since that early time, no miracles have been allowed, nor anything else that might interfere with the whole faith process.
Given the above, no one on earth will ever be able to prove the existence or interest of God. All we can do is take it on faith, and that's the whole point.
This thread, and all others like it, are complete wastes of time.
King Alexander
Universe explorer
I approach this from another point of view:
If I accept what the believers say, that god/satan exists, I'd still ask; so what? They want followers to worship them? Let them continue trying. I am a being with free will and I chose neither side.
It reminds me what political parties want: votes. I won't vote neither of them.
I'll search to find another "god", MY "god", who doesn't care of worships and wants nothing in return because he doesn't need it.
A "god" who'd be interested to improve the human nature from kill each other for territory control/expansion/strategic sources capture.
A "god" who wouldn't allow people to die from starvation.
A "god" who wouldn't claim that innocent people die because that's "god's will".
If I accept what the believers say, that god/satan exists, I'd still ask; so what? They want followers to worship them? Let them continue trying. I am a being with free will and I chose neither side.
It reminds me what political parties want: votes. I won't vote neither of them.
I'll search to find another "god", MY "god", who doesn't care of worships and wants nothing in return because he doesn't need it.
A "god" who'd be interested to improve the human nature from kill each other for territory control/expansion/strategic sources capture.
A "god" who wouldn't allow people to die from starvation.
A "god" who wouldn't claim that innocent people die because that's "god's will".
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
The Christian God is not the god you are describing, KA. It sounds a lot more like the Catholic God.
King Alexander
Universe explorer
FearlessLeader2 said:
1) Do you mean that a Catholic God, isn't a Christian? Maybe he makes lough with his believers, then.
2) Do you know ANY God from ANY religion, that DOES(not, could he) those I mentioned in my previous post?
Perfection
The Great Head.
Then why did you post in it?FearlessLeader2 said:
Garbarsardar.jr
subtitled
THE PROOF(piso goriles) in 7 easy steps.
1.I close my eyes and I imagine a flock of birds.
2.I open my eyes.
3.I saw a number of birds more than 1 and less than 20.Therefore their number should be between 2 and 19.
4.If god exists, since he knows everything he knows also the exact number of birds I saw.
5.I did not saw 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...etc 19 birds.
6.There is no number between 1 and 20 that is not 2,3,4,5,6,7,...19.
7.Therefore god exists.
1.I close my eyes and I imagine a flock of birds.
2.I open my eyes.
3.I saw a number of birds more than 1 and less than 20.Therefore their number should be between 2 and 19.
4.If god exists, since he knows everything he knows also the exact number of birds I saw.
5.I did not saw 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...etc 19 birds.
6.There is no number between 1 and 20 that is not 2,3,4,5,6,7,...19.
7.Therefore god exists.
the mormegil
Emperor
Come again?
Free Enterprise
The return stroke.
Mise said:
I do not see why or how you make an analogy of the casual link to the chicken-egg question. To me, the chicken egg question does have an answer. The answer is that whichever one first appeared in existence came first. The idea or concept is another matter. If the universe is viewed as either the chicken or the egg in the analogy then what is the equivelant of the other?
I am somewhat certain what I am about to say in this section of this post is not exactly regarding the same topic as what you are speaking about however I will try to make some useful points.
I see some problems with viewing time or the casual chain as a circle or link.
1) Everything would seem to have to repeat itself in exactly the same manner each time the loop occurs. 2) If any variables changed at any time you would then have something that is changing from a circle into something else. Perhaps changing into an s shape or a line however that would mean if you claim the universe is infinitely old then by now 3) it should not be a loop anymore which would eventually lead to the break down of the cycle. If that were to occur that event would nullify the loop theory. 4) Also, if one claims that everything repeats itself according to a cycle then one must claim that a copy of each human has existed before and has repeated gone through stages of disolution and reforming. 5) Another problem with claiming that everything has repeated itself infinitely is that it returns to the problem of the infinite regress of events. 6) If one were to view each event going one step back at a time I do not think that one would find any type of loop. 7) That goes against observed notions of events and time.
The universe seems to be governed by casual laws and does not control them.
I do not see how you make the analogy of the universe to life on earth or the formation of the earth or the chicken-egg paradox. The life on earth and the earth are definitely caused by an event or events. I do not see how you can take for granted the existence of the universe without having a cause. It sounds somewhat like you have a theory in which there is an uncaused cause. I have never seen any solution to the casual link that does not include a cause or source that is uncaused.
Mise
isle of lucy
@Free Enterprise:
Well, to clarify, I have said before that I believe the Universe started from one point, and finishes at that same point. That is, the Universe started with the big bang and will is expanding. It will expand until some turning point, when it will start to collapse. It will collapse until it reaches a singularity. This singularity is unstable, and will go bang again, causing the universe to expand again, etc etc.
Which came first, the Universe, or the creator of the Universe is what I meant when I said the chicken and the egg. You think that either the chicken is created by the egg, or the egg is created by the chicken, whereas I assume that they both create each other. In a similar (but admittedly, not perfectly clear) way, the Universe created the creator of the Universe, which is itself!
And also, physics laws (such as the uncertainty principle) mean that things don't HAVE to repeat themselves in each subsequent Universe, and more than that, they CANNOT repeat themselves exactly, since the Universe can't predict (and therefore can't control) the position of a particle and its momentum exactly. But I don't see this as a problem, since it's not the individual particles that have to repeat themselves, but the overall motion of the Universe that has to repeat itself, i.e., it will always expand from a point then contract to a point.
Well, to clarify, I have said before that I believe the Universe started from one point, and finishes at that same point. That is, the Universe started with the big bang and will is expanding. It will expand until some turning point, when it will start to collapse. It will collapse until it reaches a singularity. This singularity is unstable, and will go bang again, causing the universe to expand again, etc etc.
Which came first, the Universe, or the creator of the Universe is what I meant when I said the chicken and the egg. You think that either the chicken is created by the egg, or the egg is created by the chicken, whereas I assume that they both create each other. In a similar (but admittedly, not perfectly clear) way, the Universe created the creator of the Universe, which is itself!
And also, physics laws (such as the uncertainty principle) mean that things don't HAVE to repeat themselves in each subsequent Universe, and more than that, they CANNOT repeat themselves exactly, since the Universe can't predict (and therefore can't control) the position of a particle and its momentum exactly. But I don't see this as a problem, since it's not the individual particles that have to repeat themselves, but the overall motion of the Universe that has to repeat itself, i.e., it will always expand from a point then contract to a point.
Things had to be created, if there was no creator there would be no creation. So who or what created it all? That is what God is the creator. I don't see how any one in a healthy state of mind could say that there is no God, that all this came from no where.
- Status
