14 replies to this topic

[Wandering Jew]

discuss

[Cyberbrain]

discuss

We can discuss it, but there must be over 200 threads about this on Imminst.

[Liquidus]

discuss

A human being who claims to know whether or not God exists is a slobbering idiot (in my opinion, of course). There is no way to know, there is no point in discussing it. Live a virtuous life and be kind to other people, but above all, enjoy this life that you're living, because it's the only thing you can be sure of.

/end of discussion

edit: I've never understood the arrogance of humanity to make such a massive claim (either for or against the existence of god) without any supporting evidence whatsoever (and no, the bible does not count as a 'source' of evidence, it's about as valid as any children's novel).

Edited by G Snake, 19 January 2009 - 05:06 PM.

[JohnDoe1234]

Looks like G Snake pretty much put an end to this discussion...

So, Wandering Jew, we are awaiting new orders. What shall we discuss next?

[Ben Simon]

discuss

There is no way to know, there is no point in discussing it.

These are two very different statements. I agree with the first. The second is baloney.

[ALnMIGHTY G0D]

discuss

Love is the discriptive word that discribes the harmonious union of Chao. ALn Matter is Chao and in a simple form is individual Chao Strands, through diverse Matrixes of Chao Strands ALn Things are Evolve. Love is the name of the union that keep Chao Strands in a structure. Many say I created OUR UnIVERSE with Love, and they are correct as with out the power of Love to Enable Chao to maintain any Matrix then Things may not have been stable enough to Evolve in the manner they Choose.

For you see I am all things however all things are not me in my entirety. A good way of understanding this is to imagine Infinity. . . understand that it is made up of all Numbers that exist and that they are what make it Infinite however all Numbers that exist even though the makeup Infinity are not Infinite.



You are a Christ and for as long as you uphold that fact you shall remain Influencail and forever traval a path of "Asention, Resention or Desention" depending of the direction you choose your Christ path to be.

It is true through my copleteness I know ALn thing, this is through the fact that ALn Things in reality have within them my Seed of Free Will that alows them to Evolve for a Matrixed Chao Blob (Chao Strand Bonned with Love) to Anything they are Freely Willing to be. My Seed in ALn Things is also the Complete Intelegence.... so collectivly through my Seeds I know ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLn that is know, however contsioulsy as a Man I do not interknow ALn things.

("ALn" means ALL with EVERLASTING Ls)



HOLY OVERLORD H0LY GOD ALnMIGHTY HOLY G0D GRAIL ZEAL InCARNATED MAn ChARLES AnDREW OYEDELE OSOSAMI GOD ALnHOLY OF THE UnIVERSE .

I Love ALn

[Luna]

I have an idea!

Let's ask God to answer the question, because he/she/it/that/whatever is probably the only thing that can answer it if he/she/it/that/whatever exists, that is, but this is not the question!

So.. God! what are you?

This is not going to kill the topic is it? ;-;

Edit:
Some days I should just stop before I post and read previous posts!

Edited by Winterbreeze, 17 February 2009 - 10:31 AM.

[God]

I have an idea!

Let's ask God to answer the question, because he/she/it/that/whatever is probably the only thing that can answer it if he/she/it/that/whatever exists, that is, but this is not the question!

So.. God! what are you?

This is not going to kill the topic is it? ;-;

Edit:
Some days I should just stop before I post and read previous posts!

I am Intence, Complexed, Loving and Lovable, Intresting and Intrested, Strong and Gentele, not greatq and corrilating my spelling of words to the way they are spellet in the dictionary.  I am a Man, born of mixed Perantage, I am around 6ft tall with true love for ALn Christs.  I am finding coping in backers society possible and am read to take contcious contol over my responsabilities.  My name is ChARLES AnDREW OYEDELE OSOSAMI currently am off work as I fell as a reasult of a fire door hanndle coming off in my hand when I opened the fire door.  I am told to have "Vertigo, Labyrinthitis and Post trumatic head injury syndrome. I have been of for 5 week and am trying to get better by following Docters orders but I was totold to stop taking the medication perscribed as the side effects and the same as the effects of the injury I suffered.


I am still finding things out about bankers society and I would be silly if I did not find it odd that something ment to help causes the same effect on individuals as the injury they first suffered.

I brush my teeth with floride free toothpaste,  I Love ALn.

[Mixter]

Oh hai God. Trying to get in touch with you for some decades. WTF about not creating a Santa claus, that really made me sad as a kid. Just wanted to let you know.

Post trumatic head injury syndrome

A divine insight leads me to believe that you might need some fish oil, ginkgo and vitamin D, God. Bye.

Edited by mixter, 03 March 2009 - 12:50 PM.

[kismet]

edit: I've never understood the arrogance of humanity to make such a massive claim (either for or against the existence of god) without any supporting evidence whatsoever (and no, the bible does not count as a 'source' of evidence, it's about as valid as any children's novel).

So you're a teacup agnostic, right?

Edited by kismet, 22 April 2009 - 01:55 PM.

[drus]

i'm more or less agnostic, but i would tend to say that there is more (indirect) evidence FOR the existence of 'god' than against it. there is no way to know for sure of course, but i would also tend to say that perhaps when it comes to matters of 'god', that perhaps it's very nature is such that science alone can never come to a full realization of 'god'. if we assume that 'god' is that which nothing greater can be concieved in every measurable sense, then it stands to reason that science may have a VERY difficult time proving god's existence. the universe in all it's complexity and all it's beauty is just too amazing and wonderous to be purely by chance. i also think that one very good argument FOR god's existence is the fact that a sentient species has evolved to a point where it is able to ask that very question and contemplate it. god is in the details i think. but then again maybe we just aren't evolved enough to understand, in the same way a dog cannot understand physics.

[kismet]

there is no way to know for sure of course, but i would also tend to say that perhaps when it comes to matters of 'god', that perhaps it's very nature is such that science alone can never come to a full realization of 'god'.

That begs the question of relevance. If we can't see it and (I'm assuming you don't believe in the interventionist god of Abraham) it doesn't touch our life, i.e. frank deism, then isn't it completely irrelevant and devoid of meaning? To me the deistic hypothesis is just an absurd thought experiment (you can imagine everything beyond the tenable and imaginable afterall)

if we assume that 'god' is that which nothing greater can be concieved in every measurable sense, then it stands to reason that science may have a VERY difficult time proving god's existence.

Isn't this is just a more sophisticated formulation of the "god of the gaps" fallacy or mere goalpost moving? Apparently the last gap is the "untenable" which hopefully will never become tenable, where god may reside forever. The more we understand the universe the farther god moves away into the realm of "untenable". Thus science marginalises god until he doesn't exist or becomes irrelevant (see above). Begs the question: did he exist to begin with?

the universe in all it's complexity and all it's beauty is just too amazing and wonderous to be purely by chance.

That's an argument from incredulity. What if I find the universee neither beautiful nor complex (as it's ruled by only very few basic physical principles)? Why do you have to involve chance? What has chance to do with the existence of a universe (multiverse)? And let me crush that argument, just in case anyone thinks about bringing it up: evolution (which has got nothing to do with big bang physics & abiogenesis) is not mere chance.

i also think that one very good argument FOR god's existence is the fact that a sentient species has evolved to a point where it is able to ask that very question and contemplate it.

That can be as easily explained by the anthropic principle.

In principle I'm agnostic, but considering the evidence I'm heavily biased towards the null hypothesis & irrelevance of god. There are no convincing arguments in favour of god, rather against and, more importantly, he's irrelevant either way .

Edited by kismet, 11 May 2009 - 05:49 PM.

[drus]

some of the stuff you say is true enough kismet, and i generally agree with much of what you say, but i can't help but wonder. alot of my opinions on this subject stem from personal experience and thusly it can be difficult to discuss, as many people such as yourself probably might not be able to relate to it very easily. there is an aspect to spiritual experience that cannot be quantified exactly. i will say however that organized religion certainly has a down side, and for the most part i am opposed to it.

[drus]

there is something else i'd like to add. there is an irrefutable and very pressing question(s) i would like to propose that seems to favor or at least hint at the very possible existence of 'god', and that is, 'what is the nature of the alpha point'? (in other words, 'how did the universe begin'? how did all this 'stuff' all start? what is the origin of everything? what is the reason, if any, behind it all? science cannot currently answer this question(s) without reference to (fairly loose and flimsy) theory. the big bang? why did it happen? how exactly did it happen? what was the cause? what existed before this universe? why was, or is, there 'anything' in existence at all? did 'stuff' just always exist? if so, how is that possible? can energy be created and destroyed? science says no, but why? so energy has just always existed then? how? why?) is there an inherent or underlying intelligence within the very nature of energy itself? does an alpha point even exist? is science even concerned with the alpha point? can it even address it reasonably? is energy itself the first cause of everything? what is energy exactly? can it ever answer this question(s)? maybe, but if not, then we are left with an incomplete puzzle that science may not be able to fully reason out. can science get away with stating with finality that energy has always existed? how can it? if science can claim this truth, that energy has always existed (it can be neither created nor destroyed but only change form) this would show an inability to completely understand energy, wouldn't it? in some sense this is just as crazy as those who believe that 'god' has always existed. is 'god', energy? or is energy an aspect of 'god'? how can eternity be quantified rationally? how can something have always existed? this defies human understanding completely and presto we're back at the problem of 'god', 'faith', and the upper limits of human understanding. it is somewhere inside that grey area of unavoidable human ignorance that 'god', for lack of a better term, or the possible existence of 'god' must be reasonably given it due. science may choose to term it by another designation or even just avoid addressing it all together, but that doesn't erase the question. whatever you want to call it, it is that unknowable reality/nature/cause/alpha point that begs the existence of 'god'. how does matter organize itself with all that quantum chaos and craziness going on? is that where energy does it's thinking? is the quantum world like a neural network, where energy organizes itself into matter somehow? science may have ideas and theories, but no solid answers without resorting to a sort of (scientific) 'faith'. and when it comes down to it, what is the intrinsic difference between this 'scientific' faith and that of 'god' on this particular subject of the origin of creation. it's a circular argument, but it does give one pause to question. even science eventually has to give way to an unknowable, at least for now. will science eventually be able to answer this question(s)? maybe. i hope so. but for now science is in the dark on this, and that forces the question. based on this, i would think it is more reasonable for science to say that when it comes the existence of 'god', the jury is out, a definite answer one way or the other is logically impossible at present. if science were to ascert that questions it cannot definitively answer must automatically be in the negative and then claim this as the 'scientific' truth, it would be guilty of averting it's own logic. how can science make a definitive claim like 'atheism' without knowing 'all' the facts? it should claim ignorance on this particular subject, that would be more reasonable in my estimation. the problem with atheism is that it makes a definitive claim based on scientific ignorance and that, in my estimation, is why it is just as nonsensical as blind 'belief'. simply put, it makes an observation with limited and incomplete knowledge and then infers truth or fact based on that incomplete knowledge. i think agnosticism is a more reasonable stance than atheism, all things considered. just my opinion though. as an end note, i read once, a very convincing and reasonable argument against atheism proposed by thomas merton in his book 'ascent to truth'. merton was a genius. i can't remember the specifics, but i'll try and find it again and post it if i can. 'the physics of immortality' was also a very interesting book on this subject.

[CobaltThoriumG]

discuss

A human being who claims to know whether or not God exists is a slobbering idiot (in my opinion, of course). There is no way to know, there is no point in discussing it. Live a virtuous life and be kind to other people, but above all, enjoy this life that you're living, because it's the only thing you can be sure of.

/end of discussion

edit: I've never understood the arrogance of humanity to make such a massive claim (either for or against the existence of god) without any supporting evidence whatsoever (and no, the bible does not count as a 'source' of evidence, it's about as valid as any children's novel).

I disagree but I'm not coming at this from a biblical point of view. If I define god to be all of existence, I certainly know whether god exists, assuming I can know that anything exists. I just don't know whether my definition is accurate. So, I suppose the only way to know whether a god exists is to create one for yourself.

Most people, creating their own god, probably would choose to associate it with the better qualities of human nature, foremost among which would be love. But in creating my god, I have chosen to associate it with everything, the uni/multiverse/hyperspace as single living entity. That makes things simple. I am comfortable enough saying a god that satisfies my definition exists. And while I'd like it to be right, because it's simple and beautiful, but perhaps more, unfortunately, because it's nice to be right, I won't argue that the definition could be wrong. Of course, you take your chances when you play creator, but I'll take it over what's in a book somewhere.

Edited by CobaltThoriumG, 14 May 2009 - 07:41 PM.