Final: Existence of God

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

skythe if you pray and hope that god will swoop in like the father figure we all instinctually wish didnt have to retire when we went to college, then you are in fact wasting your time.

i would never tell people to pray to the omnisuol because he is us. the universe is clearly not designed to give people what they want, it is pretty clear that praying doesnt do much. so yes that is a waste. i think the logical philosophically created religions like mine arent going to tell you to waste your time on anything. (besides writing all about it which i consider valuable verbal exercise)

what do you think of this? i think i value my life roughly as much as i would if i were atheist. i mean you could say that donating time to poor african housing development is a “waste” and i would just say that making smiles isnt a waste and you should try it, but i think atheists can appreciate the good of helping just fine.

it seems the only argument against believing in a non-prayer-time-or-money-worthy god is that youll somehow care less about your life today, youll throw away your time ‘talking to god’ or thinking about how great heaven is and you wont be out there jumping off of stuff and extreme freestyle walking.

well i dont want to do that stuff. i dont want to do anything that my life wasnt specifically designed to do right now. i mean there are things i irrationally desire, and i guess ill do them if i feel like it someday, but the fact that i believe in an afterlife doesnt really affect my happiness by discouraging me from ‘making the most of my life’, it makes me appreciate the specific things that fall into my lap.

i suppose if these things werent so great, then wallowing in hope for a better afterlife would be a drag, but thats certainly not whatll happen in all cases.

what kind of things do you do now that you wouldnt do if you believed in god? cause im gonna say theres nothing, but im young.

22

This topic is getting a bit crazier as it goes on. Let me put some more opinion in here.

Scythekain- (Good to see you again, sir!)

true pfloyd, but he’ll come back and say that I might be worth trusting your life savings with so god is worth giving your life too.

But, again. Probabolities. No one should gamble their time and faith in the most important thing.

You can measure physical and chemical processes so it stands to reason that you can measure the creator of said processes.

That’s the kicker, here. That sentence is what it is all about. Everything needs to stand in comparison to our reality, here on Earth, not in some sterile argument. Brilliant.

Future Man-

cause i know you cant unless you dont use any proof

But I can, since you left a gaping hole. I used this with Pinnacle of Reason, but apparently neither of you have benefitted from it. Ockham’s Razor. Answer me this (which you didn’t answer from my previous post):

Why believe in the supernatural omnisoul when pure utiliarian, atheist based ethics provide you the same benefits (minus the false assurance of the afterlife)? Why add in the Omnisoul when the golden rule is carrying all the weight? Or, more simply:

Why assume a non-provable, pointless entity wants us to use the Golden Rule when we can use it fine ourselves? He is a red herring, a left field variable, a conglamoration of rationality and the habit that is believing in God.

meh, really just to live forever and feel like im more important than some electron somewhere.

That’s where I play the truth card. How important is it to you, sir?

if you agree that living forever and meaning more than an electron is a good thing, and that humans should not suffer more than the average person does, then you believe that either the omnisoul exists, or that all evidence possibly points to the existence of that system.

Flat out wrong. Just because I feel that living forever would be a good thing (which I don’t think it is anyways) does not mean I HAVE to subscribe to your Omnisoul, nor do I have to concede that any evidence points that way. But what I will concede to is that although it’s a nice prospect, it is a fantasy.

i prefer the former, it helps me appreciate my life now instead of desperately trying to experience things that my life wasnt made for, and lamenting the infinite loss of those experiences that i am unable to participate in.

If I may be so bold, it seems that you want to be an atheist, but are afraid to do so. So you start a new paradigm with basically everything but the bureaucracy of the Church. In time, your system will have that same feature. The only way to ensure that it doesn’t happen is to afford no possibility of it, namely rejecting the supernatural. It’s like you’re almost there, but are too scared to take the final step.

aviemus-

God as a force, can be proven. God as an Omnipotent, Omniscient, being, has already been disproven times and times again.

Really? Must have missed that one.

[i]Have you ever felt a strong love for someone? Ever hear someone say: God is love?

Ever hated someone with all your heart? And you felt like you would stop at NOTHING to get your justified revenge?

Both are natural forces. Natural, in the fact that they were created by no human or higher being. The Higher Being IS these natural forces. There is no question about it. That is where the logic of life is, Pinnacle of Reason.[/i]

None of that is cogent. It’s at best flat out wrong. The statement, “The higher Being IS these natural forces” is an opinion based upon groundless assumptions, and ethically should not be followed with " There’s no question about it."

Sincerely,

Floyd

23

because something created the universe. something created a system that contains people whos logically discernable mission is to live in harmony. the thing that created the universe created a system by which the things inside that observe the universe can never know how it was created thanks to the nature of cause and effect and its infinite regress.

all of those things happened, for sure. either youre atheist and they happened for no reason at all, and you are no different than electron #12409984, or a designer made that and it all makes perfect sense.

yes, in order to believe it was intelligently designed you have to make a leap of faith, but thats only because it was designed that way. god did not put evidence of himself in here on purpose. and if you believe that there is no evidence, and there is no way to prove him, then it is totally possible to believe that we are nothing or that we are reharmonizing omnisoul components. both are completely believable, both do not rely on evidence beyond that which is completely obvious. Occams razor is irrelevant!

in order to harvest the goo of selflessness, god must keep us in suspense and allow for people to doubt him. when you doubt him, you play into this need of his. he doesnt care if you believe in him, he cares if you do selfless good. only i care if i believe in an afterlife. dont you see how this is invincible?

why dont you choose to believe in an afterlife? i see the beginnings of a meaningful argument on this subject. the subject of the omnisouls existence was over before it began, you just cant provide evidence for why it doesnt exist, especially when you cant even provide an alternate theory of any kind.

the only argument for why you would want to believe in god that remains is why would you believe in an afterlife.

its a natural desire, self preservation. maybe if i wasnt an animal, i wouldnt want to live forever. fact remains that i am and i am entirely baffled by anyone who doesnt agree with this natural desire. i think if you dont want to live forever, thats only because your life has sucked or something. i cant imagine that at all.

when you responded to this quote

you basically just said that i want to be atheist because i reject the idiocy of the churches i see today. i dont see what believing in god has to do with religions at all. they are all scams if they claim to see gods empirical effects on the world. they are scams if they claim to know how to communicate with god or what specific things are moral besides the subjective golden rule.

i do want to create a new religion free from the stupidites that have plagued most of them. i dont think that beauracracy is a direct result of beliving in a deist type god, i believe its a result of me saying exactly how to pray and worship and saying that god dispenses grace only through me and my specially trained goons.

i wouldnt say that stuff, all i would say is that you should focus on your life today, and not all possible life experiences that you clearly werent designed to enjoy because today is not the only day that there is.

i can give you reasons why this belief helps me appreciate my life today, what reasons do you give for why your belief helps you appreciate today? cause i would say that trying to cram all possible life experiences into one is a bad thing. knowing that this is all that there is will lead you to try and find greater meaning from something that has no greater meaning.

if your a hedonist, it gets empty. what other good besides the acceptance of hedonism comes from knowing that there is no other good? the one good i could see is that your housing development projects in africa are going to be very selfless, and large amounts of meta-goo will spew. it doesnt seem like thats the argument you would use though.

24

PFloyd148

Alright. Be a smartass little s.o.b. I honestly don’t care.

The Christian God has been proven wrong. Go look around this damned forum, ingrate. I’m not going to make a long post explaning how.

I tend not to associate with people like you. You, Floyd, are the embodiment of all that pisses me off.

25

Atheists don’t have much defence except their argument over definitions of words, I don’t see anything I really need to refute. Just a lot of bold statements that have nothign to do with anything except slander towards theists. Also, none of you prove anything, you only give reasons why you don’t want to believe in Him.

Anselm prays weird prayers to his God, who is by the way, my God. He talks to God proving that He exists using basic human reason…here is another (of many proofs that I have) proof for God.

God = that than which none greater can be conceived (in the mind)

  1. It is conceivable that that than which none greater can be conceived exists in the imagination only. We shall label the conceivable God: cGod.

  2. Somethign that exists in the real world is greater than that which exists only in the imagination.

  3. It is conceivable that that than which nothing greater can be conceived can exist in the real world. In other words, I can imagine that a smurf exists in the real world, although one probably does not. So one can conceive that God exists in the real world. We shall call this real God: rGod.

1)+2)+3)=4) Therefore it is conceivable that rGod > cGod.

  1. Therefore that than which none greater can be conceived is not conceivable.

  2. But that is absurd, for we know that that than which none greater can be conceived is indeed conceived.

  3. Therefore that than which none greater can be conceived cannot be conceived to only exist in the imaginary world, but it must be in the real world as well.

(If you don’t understand how this works, email me, could be just a grammatical error on my part)

This argument only works for that than which none greater can be conceived. Anything that is not the greatest can always be better or for instance a smurf.

A smurf does not exist in reality, it was made up by someone’s imagination. Let’s put that into the argument…

  1. It is conceivable that a smurf exists in the imagination alone. cSmurf

  2. It is better to exist in reality than to exist in the imagination alone.

  3. It is conceivable that a smurf exists in the real world (although it doesn’t): rSmurf

1)+2)+3) = 4) rSmurf > cSmurf

  1. Therefore it is conceivable that a real smurf exists?? or is better than cSmurf? It doesn’t prove a thing trying to put somethign else into the argument other than that which none greater can be conceived. Not even the greatest smurf…no one knows what the greatest smurf is like. Anyways, enough with the smurfs…let’s all pray. LOL

Oh and the whole infinite regress thing doesn’t work for the atheist either, there must be a first cause or now wouldn’t exist, you can’t begin a journey of a thousand miles without taking a first step (1st effect = 1st cause). So you can’t begin the journey of 100,000,000,000 years without having a first event (effect) and thus, a first cause.

That first cause is omni-potent (not to be confused with infinite power/ omni means all) because all power comes from Him, unchanging before creation or He would need a cause, omni-knowledgable (with reason) for he cannot give such things to humans that He doesn’t have. Since He is reasonable He made everything for Himself for He was all that existed before that which was created. He had a first movement or else He would have a cause. This doesn’t exactly disprove the God of the Christians. In fact, I would love someone to e-mail me witht ath proof so that I can rest at ease and not have to deal with atheists anymore, because I’d probably be one.

I’m not expecting you guys to become Christians like me, but hey, might as well fight for what I place a lot of my of faith in and reason about.

Faith - That which requires evidence and reason to believe. (pretty much every event in history requires faith for someone to believe that it happened. I cannot reason out that Pearl Harbour occured except through evidence [witnesses, reports, etc.])

Reason - That which doesn’t require evidence but only reason to prove. This is the highest way of knowing things. (correction - I thought this was the highest way of knowing things, but now (2 months later) I think that it is faith that is the highest way of knowing something, for without a presupposition there can be no reasonable argument and conclusion, therefore we must first believe something on faith in order to prove something from that premise that requires that we put faith in it)

-The Brain

26

hey you know what maybe gods an axiom just something that you believe in with out proof. Listen, I’ve been touched by God (had horrible back pains), so naturally when I was said a prayer I felt a cool breeze swipe my back and then, no back pains!!! So, why ask this question. I mean nobodys going to become an atheist or deist for you so why bother?

27

Floyd quit living in the 17th century, when not only the supernatural, but much of the natural…could not be explained.

Hint…supernatural beings/events exsit outside the effects of our space/time domin, and without reguard to certain physical laws.

Is that so hard to comprehend? If so…may I suggest a quick look at quantum cosmology. This may be helpful for the faithless.

28

dust, face the facts gods facet has changed whenever science has advanced, and god now as you say “live outside of our space/time domin.” when we discover more about that “alternate reality” will god be shoved into another alternate space/time domin?

HINT:
God wasn’t always considered supernatural. seriously, he was made supernatural only within the last 300 - 400 years.

quantum cosmology can be used to disprove god, so what does that really prove? (how some effects have no cause.)

What does god provide you?

a sense of accomplishment? does he give you an open mind to new ideas?

No and no. You are stuck thinking that no matter what your god is the only correct god, any other god is a false god.

29

Future Man-

either youre atheist and they happened for no reason at all, and you are no different than electron #12409984, or a designer made that and it all makes perfect sense.

This is a false dichotomy. It could have happened for no reason at all, and make perfect sense, or it could have been designed and we could be no different than electron #12409984. You left those two out.

And I would be interested in hearing your justification for claiming the world makes perfect sense. I would claim that the happenings of the world were more consistent with a “random probability” theory than one which claims the world makes “perfect sense.” I am not a pessimist, but this world is not perfect, nor does it seem to make perfect sense. Explain congential defects, infant cancer, Tay Sachs disease. If the world made perfect sense, or at least mostly sense, those diseases woudl have no place in society, as those children have not, CANNOT have sinned. What does your monisoul say to that?

both are completely believable, both do not rely on evidence beyond that which is completely obvious. Occams razor is irrelevant!

I agree with the first part, but not the second. Both are equally believable, that is true due to our extensive imagintion. Theism, or any supernatural theory relies upon evidence or claims are not falsifiable.

Take Karma for example. If there is anything worse than claiming religion, it claiming Karma. Karma leaves no other option. Everything that happens agrees with Karma. It is a natural law, and cannot be broken. Or empirically tested. Or fasified. Or even argued against. But, on the other hand, it’s also sometimes claimed to be a moral law. Hmmm…a natural law and a moral law, huh? How is that possible? Does gravity tell us how to act? Does Kant’s ethical theory tell us how fast the speed of light is? Sorry for the tangent, but I have to admit I do hate Karma.

Ockham’s Razor is not irrelevant when dealing with matters of this nature. In fact, it can be the best tool we have. When you said, “both are equally believable,” I think you missed the point. The point was, although both can be equally believed, which is simpler, and therefore more likely? Nature doesn’t dawdle, and it’s hard to assume that God can dawdle, when he is powerful. So, when you have two theories which accomplish the same thing, and one is simpler, more understandable, is less exclusive, and doesn’t violate the laws of nature, why choose it? It seems we keep running around in circles, only to end up where we started, and evidently where religion started: the fear of death, and the desire for immortality.

he doesnt care if you believe in him, he cares if you do selfless good.

God doesn’t care if you believe in him? Christ, read the bible. He cares very much if you believe in him. It’s everywhere in there. He says you’ll go to Hell, eternal damnation if you DON’T! As Hume said, it’s pathetic that we assign one of the lowest human passions to God, the constant need for applause.

Aside from that, if he doesn’t care if we believe in him, then why do it, as long as we do selfless good?

i think if you dont want to live forever, thats only because your life has sucked or something. i cant imagine that at all.

As a rule, people, on a long enough timeline, get bored with everything. You get bored with Halo2, with your wife, with your job, with hating, love, etc… If we live forever, we will technically have experienced everything, but one thing: Death. This will drive us crazy, because it is the only thing we cannot do. Alot of people will get bored with immortality. Can you imgaine immortality? I mean, really imagine it? If we NEVER die, we will have the exact same conversation an infinite number of times. We will see God and infinite number of times. We will wave to Ghandi on Cloud Ave. an infinite number of times. Immortality would suck. All things come to an end, and rightfully so. If you can’t imagine immortality being a bad thing, I charge that you are not fully appreciating how infinite immortality is.

The next paragraph I’ll deal with at the end, one sentence at a time, because there is some good stuff in there. On we go:

i can give you reasons why this belief helps me appreciate my life today, what reasons do you give for why your belief helps you appreciate today?

Please share them, then. I would ask though, why does it help now? You are going to die and go to heaven and have an infinite amount of time to help people. Why do it today? And, I assume your answer will be something to the extent of:

“Because it’s the right thing to do, because the Omnisoul likes selfless people.”

To which I reply:

“Well, same reason for me. I do good things for people because I like to. Because it makes others feel better.”

You see? We have the same reason. The only difference is you added a supernatural being into the equation.

For the record though: I do like your system better than any religion I have yet seen, though. More amneable, less exclusive.

aviemus-

Lordy, that’s not very Christian of you, sir! Try reading my post again. I meant that the claim “God as a force can be proven” is the crappy one, not the unprovable omniGod. I thought that was a given, since like you said, the OmniGod has been disproven. So, is it my ingrate-ness, or your claim of insight in the English language? Are you a native speaker, or just drunk?

I tend not to associate with people like you. You, Floyd, are the embodiment of all that pisses me off.

As is commonly the retort for those who haven’t an answer, and for those who know their little attempt at subversive argument has been called. Ha.

light_elipseca-

Also, none of you prove anything, you only give reasons why you don’t want to believe in Him.

Nor did anyone prove God. And the burden of proof is upon your theists for claiming his existence, not ours for doubting your claim. Get it right.

Regarding Anselm’s Argument:

Try Guanilo’s Island. The Ontological Argument has been around for some time, do you think it hasn’t been disproven?

http://brindedcow.umd.edu/236/anselmcritique.html

Done and done.

Thoughtprovoker-

So, why ask this question. I mean nobodys going to become an atheist or deist for you so why bother?

So we get good at arguing for our side, and reconfirming our irrational beliefs. :slight_smile:

Dust of the Earth-

Floyd quit living in the 17th century, when not only the supernatural, but much of the natural…could not be explained.

Are you drunk? You are claiming the supernatural, and telling ME to quit living in the 17th Century? Excuse me, but HA.

Hint…supernatural beings/events exsit outside the effects of our space/time domin, and without reguard to certain physical laws.

Oh, ok. Well, that solves that! A hint from me…prove it. Name on other thing that exists without space and time, mass and energy. Oh wait, how about thoughts and ideas? Hey, just like God is a thought and idea, nothing more! Thanks.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

No, but it IS hard to believe that in opposition to much better arguments.

may I suggest a quick look at quantum cosmology. This may be helpful for the faithless.

I’ll check it out.

Future Man (again)-

why dont you choose to believe in an afterlife? i see the beginnings of a meaningful argument on this subject.

I simply consider all that I have seen, experienced, thought of, and rationalized, along with testimonies that I deem believable (which aren’t many), and make my decision according to the laws of nature. If you tell me there’s and afterlife, I would doubt you because nothing in this world lasts forever, and I find it more likely that we are making ways to feel like we cheat death than we actually live forever. Tell me ghosts can touch physical things, and I’ll doubt you, because if something is not incarnate (not physical), than it cannot touch corporeal things, nor could the ghost exist forever, because if it is physical, it would occupy space and time, mass and energy. Those are just a few examples.

the subject of the omnisouls existence was over before it began, you just cant provide evidence for why it doesnt exist, especially when you cant even provide an alternate theory of any kind.

Just because I can’t provide evidence for something NOT existing doesn’t mean that it exists! Here’s rule number 1 in argument: Those who makes the positive claim (you claiming the omnisoul) have the burden of proof. You claim the omnisoul, you prove that it exists.

If I claim squirzels exist, it falls upon me to prove that claim. The fact that you can’t provide evidence for squirzels NOT existing does not indicate their existence. It just doesn’t follow.

But, let’s try some evidence based upon a few things.

Evidence Against the Omnisoul

  1. Nothing in this world has been seen to last forever.
  2. Nothing in this world has broken the laws of nature.
  3. We have seen theism take a thousand different forms.
  4. All said forms seem to be rooted in attempting to cheat death to feel better.
  5. The Omnisoul wants to cheat death by believing in immortality.
  6. The Golden Rule works just as well as the Omnisoul.
  7. The Omnisoul and God are basically the same thing.
  8. All theism and belief originated from man (who makes mistakes)
  9. The Omnisoul assumes the world makes perfect sense, which it doesn’t.
  10. In all of human existence, no Omnisoul, nor a God has been seen or communicated with.
  11. Every addition of the Omnisoul/God/Religion seems to deal with proposed difficulties in the said system: more simply, alot of things are ad hoc.

There’s 11 reasons right there to NOT believe in the Omnisoul. They are based upon science, reason, probability, and well, the whole of human experience. Now, what were your reasons for believing in the Omnisoul, or any other supernatural belief, for that matter? Oh yeah.

You’re scared of death, want to feel better about it, and the design argument.

Sincerely,

Floyd

30

Floyd Usually in a debate such as this, a philospher tries finding who he can relate to. You, idiot, have fully retorted everything these people have said. Not only have you totally not won this debate, but you have all people against you, because you first went against them.

You YOURSELF, gave reasons why OmniSoul (God) cannot exist. These same things can be attributed to the Christian God, who I said HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN WRONG! HAHAHAHHA! You pathetic idiot! You proved him wrong for me! Those were great reasons, but you put them in a post retorting what I said about Xtian God being proven wrong! OOOohhhahahaha! This is precious!

Well now. The God of Aviemus is the only logical way to believe. MY God, is a rational and reasonable God.

31

PFloyd, the reason why i made up my theory is so that atheists can no longer say “there is no valid theory of god that fits the evidence we see, therefore he doesnt exist”

i realize that proving the existence of god is impossible, but it is very possible and quite easy to come up with a theory that fits all of the evidence we see. if “no valid theory” isnt your reason for being an atheist, which now that youve read and understood my theory it cant be, then there must be a more interesting (and probably indirect, misplaced) reason why you choose not to believe that there is more than what we see, and we will interact with it when we die.

youre right about immortality, it would suck. but not if you erased your memory every time you felt like reincarnating. what if we have a meta memory that remembers all the lifetimes we ever had since the omnisoul strapped itself into the machine. when we die, we can walk around and be amazed at the wonderful things we have been dying to learn about when we die. once weve run out of amazing excitement and awe and wonder god plugs us back into our memory storage cabinet and all of our previous memories of our old lives and the last time we died and learned all the mysteries, all that comes flooding back and we are one bored immortal just like you describe. so we go talk to some confuciouses and whoever is interesting and not currently reincarnated somewhere until we get really fully bored, then we hop back in the machine. we get a lotto ticket and hope to omnisoul that we land in suburbia. wipe the memory, wipe the boredom. whens the last time a 2 year old was bored when he wasnt in church?
plus theres no reason to think that such an idea as boredom exists in a world without time.

i know this stinks because of unfalsifiability, but its obviously possible: god has to trick us into believing that selfless good might not be the way to go. if he didnt do this, then selfless good would be normal, and it wouldnt be an impressive selfless sacrifice.

i admit that randomly getting diseases might be a little overboard, but what if god tried making this thing without microbes and it failed. it turned into complete harmony as soon as globalization started. the amount of selfless good would be much lower.

if your a doctor, i cant imagine that its actually enjoyable like being a ceo would be. the stress seems unimaginable. the pay seems good, but oh my god to be a doctor in africa, what an unbelievably selfless thing that is. i preach about how i like to help people, and i know that those doctors get the spine tinglies like nothing else when they save a destitute dad who is unable to choke out a thank you through his tears. yet i would still never do that, im just too selfish to deal with the pains of being a doctor and watching tons of people die on my watch and never even getting paid a decent amount of anything.

if the goal is to harvest selfless good, and not to join the nice people club in the sky, only harvesting selflessness, then a selfless act done in a universe with unfairness requires more selflessness than the same act done in a universe without unfairness. the average amount of selfishness to contrast the selflessness is larger and will remain in place longer in an unfair universe over a fair one.

in a universe without natural unfairness, humans would KNOW that all unfairness comes from them being asswipes. they cant appeal to ‘survival of the fittest’ or some such awful crap like they do today. if nobody is selfish, then selflessness is decreased greatly if not completely.

the person who wrote the bible wanted peasants’ cash, not the meta-goo of selflessness. the person who wrote the universe and the spine tinglies that accompany curing african malaria man to no self-benefit, that person wants selflessness.

because i beleive that knowing you have more than this life leads to a greater appreciation of this life. you claim the same, but what you are actually claiming is that you will appreciate the potential to experience all potential life experiences and not just those that you were specifically designed for.

i will refrain from trying to enjoy those things such as screaming at sports coaches through the tv, or flipping wheeled pieces of wood about since my body was not designed to enjoy those things. my body was designed to enjoy writing here and other such non-jock-skateboarder activities.

if i were to atheistically claw for happiness in all the possible ways that i can see, then i feel like my efforts will be less effective when shallowly spread as opposed to deeply stabbed. i will stab only nerd activities and i wont waste time trying to be a jock. the examples im using are extreme, but this premise is the only advantage i see coming from disbelieving in an afterlife: the utilization of all possible experiences, and not just those that we clearly were meant for.

no, definetely no signs of god or souls anywhere to be found here. im on the fence with the divine intervention that created life since its just so damn crazy that the laws of chemistry made it. but even if they did, fine, god made those laws and theres no way you can attribute the laws of chemistry to an ultimate set of laws that makes sense in the same way as arbitrary creation does.

in fact i completely fail to see how its possible that another set of laws is “more ultimate” than the ultimate grand unification theory that science is currently aiming at.

“why are there forces?” theres only one answer that makes sense: somebody made it, and somebody made it so that our system for explaining things is unable to explain the ultimate thing, except in this one way: arbitrary creation.

certainly. but what it does mean is that you certainly cannot say “i dont believe in god because there is no valid theory” and therefore you are forced to give another one. another, indirect, misplaced reason. what is that reason.

these are essential properties of any universe designed (designed skillfully) to harvest the meta-by-product created by selfless actions. if gods discerning eye, coupled with his wrath/grace, is watching over us when we do selfless good, then it is no longer selfless. discovering god created the universe or had a hand anywhere means that we will most likely start believing that selflessness is the normal thing to do, and it will no longer be so selfless. god doesnt want goodness, he wants selflessness.

thats because religion is not a part of the mission. the machine doesnt care what you think about meta-land, it cares that you do selfless good. we care if we believe in meta-land, and thats why people are able to make stuff up and steal money from peasants. those religious inventors were too stupid to come up with a theory that made good sense.

ad hoc means making the idea adjust to new evidence? well thats the only thing god gave us, sceintific evidence. as long as you dont claim to be some kind of ridiculous infallible pope and deserving of money or something retarded like that, then who cares.

yep, i love people and i love existing. i want to keep them happily, and i dont want to spread my experiences like fluffy butter onto a cube of ice, but rather stab them like a rapier into meatloaf.

those 11 that i see, they are reasons why the omnisoul appears to be something that maybe isnt real, or that maybe resembles things proven to be a scam, but not reasons why you should believe in eternal death.

what do you gain by choosing to not believe in any religion? so far ive heard “i dont want to look like a gullible idiot like catholics do” and “it helps me appreciate this life because i can spread my time over all possible experiences, instead of only those that i was clearly intended for”

i think the former is immature, especially when i also feel that the latter is misled, and ultimately just not right. i believe the latter wrongly believes that that which is unnattainable is good. just like the money monger thinks more money will help, those of you whose entire experience consists of this emptiness we currently see, you all believe, you must believe that around the next corner is a new experience that will change your emptiness.

having ‘a broad experience’ here on earth seems like the best way to go if its all that there is. i disagree, i think that the best experience will be had when you focus your gifts very tightly. this focus is facilitated by the knowledge that next time around, you can focus on screaming at the tv, so this time, dont worry about it.

32

good points pfloyd.

dust:

I would suggest you study up on the subject more in all seriousness.

vuletic.com/hume/cefec/1.html - proof that quantum cosmology doesn’t prove god.

33

your god is neither rational or reasonable because you can’t prove it’s existance.

34

Dust of Earth, you flibberty-gibbet, I am not afraid to conceal my beliefs, I am strong about the way I believe. I have no instinctual basis for God and I believe you are requoting someone making it sound as your own thoughts. You have a tinge of JJism mixed with Napolean-like ego. Let us make this clear enough for even JJ to understand… I do not believe there is a God, it is illogical. Although these are my own thoughts, now you may understand that I have no hidden secrets and I do not pray at night (it the contemporary view). Get your head out of your ass and realize that you are not me, nor anyone else, your thoughts are not hidden within my psyche (no, not Aristotles “ghost” psyche). My, so called, belief is that once you die you will cease to be, if there was a heaven to be existent, or a hell, then eventually it would end as well… leaving you consciousless and nonethe wiser of the heavens, henceforth it will not have mattered to go to heaven in the first place. Be offended all you like, for it is not innovative philosophy unless someone is offended.

35

Btw, referring to a previous post somewhere else, you can prove or disprove anything if you feel strongly enough about it. These are what I call extraordinary concepts, which neither are known, nor able to be know, only theorized…

  1. What we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence
    –Wittgenstein
36

Floyd: These probabilities are as indefinitely consistent as God is to a theist. God will always be God until God becomes something else. It is a matter of what you consider a truth to be, Fact and these words that are being slung around are a community of opinions and nothing more. Truth is anything we believe it to be.

I don’t go to church. I don’t spend money on my community, but I still believe in the rational intelligibility of the universe, the creativity of God. I will never argue that anyone should put their lives in the “warm” hands of God. I will claim that submitting to God might simply mean that one should acknowledge some form of God. This is the ignorance of the layman within the theological field. They take the religious God, usually the Judeo-Christian God, and apply it to every other field of theology and philosophy. You should read Whitehead on process philosophy and systematic theology, maybe Tillich or Word, or Gödel.

An infinite series of contingent beings are incapable of yielding sufficient reason for the existence of any being—which is exactly why dummies like me can’t give a rational explanation why God exists in any other way than proclaiming that God simply does exist, or simply is.

Scythekain: I don’t think that believing in any concept of God, whether it be Nirvana or Vishnu, is straying or giving up one’s humanity. That is a little extreme. And as for the afterlife, I don’t believe in an afterlife, which is why I am not arguing for a religious God. My conception of God is simple: God is the uncaused-cause. God exists. God is not a thing, or an entity in that it can be experienced. It is an entity because it simply is. If we were to take a rock floating in an infinite sea of nothing, and this rock had always been there without anything causing it to be, then that would be the uncaused-cause—God.

As Albert Einstein put it, not everything that is applicable to earth is applicable to the rest of the universe. So I can have faith that on some planet X, I can fly because the laws of gravity are different there. It is the superman theory. Superman came from Krypton, he could not fly on Krypton. Superman later arrives on Earth. He can fly on Earth. Why? His physical makeup, although similar to ours, is not limited by our planet’s laws of physics or science (as a whole) in most ways. The universe and its laws are relative.

So I agree with you. If you jump off of a building you will probably fall and die (depending on the height of the building). But this is true if and only if the laws of physics remain as indefinitely consistent as they are now. That’s all truth is—something that is indefinitely consistent.

It took great faith for the first believers to believe the world was circling the sun when everyone else “knew” the universe was circling the Earth, yes it did. We, also, can’t prove that the world is flat. I will write my theory on Perceptive Relativity and the Reality of the Material for you in another thread, I might just pm it to you.

I would agree with you that wallowing life away is garbage. But I like sports and others like books. One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure et cetera. It might not be a waste of time to someone who likes indulging themselves with the evangelical God. Giving money to a church that attempts to do good for the community might be bad. There might not be an afterlife. “So”? A wasted life is a life that has generated nothing useful for either yourself and/or others. If you were to die tomorrow what could you say about your life other than, I had sex, I got head, I worked a job, I lived, and then I died. That is a wasted life to me. Ultimately, a church can do more good than a single person can. So although you might have given some donations to this and that charity, the church’s donation would have been bigger. Not because they believe it is God’s will, but because the church’s intent as a social institution is to help society.

37

ImmanuelAy:

While a church can definately do good for the community (like the salvation army group) when they bring god to the plate as a means to the end of helping (like many evangelical groups do) I have a problem with that.

Can a group do more good than an individual? of course. That’s why the Humanist group was formed and the “american rationalist” There are many atheist organizations that are trying to make the world a better place to live. I think they intentionally get demonized by christian groups though.

I guess that depends on your definition of humanity. When you submit your will to an invisible non-existent god I consider that not only giving up your humanity I consider it laziness. But once again do these churches do good? Of course, but the cost is too high and there are better alternatives out there.

certainly that’s true, but that doesn’t mean your gonna go to mars and pluto and suddenly be able to fly, not unless the gravity is low enough that is. in which case you’ll be able to make large jumps.

I oft struggled with this question myself. Is the world still beautiful if it’s just a random act? is life still important?

Yes and Yes.

yes it can delude the dying man into thinking that his life wasn’t in vain and that he’ll move on to an imaginary afterlife. Delude him into thinking, well my body is in horrible shape but I don’t need to worry I believe in god, go to church every sunday so god will welcome me in heaven.

Your right there’s nothing wrong with ignorance.
as the old saying goes. “Ignorance is bliss.”

future man:

why believe in something impossible? what do you gain from it?

38

Scythekain:

On God: Invisible does not necessarily indicate a non-existence. I was listening to a theoretical physicist speak on a forum regarding human perception and the reality of the God, the afterlife and other other-worldly beings (i.e. ETs). He explained that one reason why humanity may have yet to encounter aliens is because they are outside of our visual spectrum or any known wavelength that humanity can implement. Or, we just can’t experience them on our own. Similarly, he explained that this might be why we cannot experience heaven while in our mortal bodies. Same with God.

As long as there is a possibility of a God to exist, in any sense of the word, then it is impossible for a God not to exist. So God might not be existent in the way that you are explaining it, as though it were supposed to be this physical entity that is aware of its existence, which is a limited concept that is uninformed of the field of theology as a whole.

The Universe: What we know of our immediate neighbors is that they are subject to the laws of our planet. That is why we can see them, potentially touch them, and observe them and all the sort of empirical study we are capable of. This does not mean that Planet X in the Solar System of –A- in the Piani Nebula Seven-quintillion light years away is subject to these laws. So on Planet X, I can fly, even though I have not undergone any physical change. Physics is only applicable to certain arenas of existence, such as ours. Our existence might be one of an indefinite amount of concurrent existences that cannot experience us on a similar token.

Back to God: I think you are trying to rationalize what I am saying with terms that are familiar to you, but do not necessarily apply to what I am making reference to. When I say the creativity of God, I am talking about God. It is the rational intelligibility of the universe (not intelligent design). So the world is a random act that has emanated from the uncaused-cause that is the creativity of God. It is not a will that has created the world manifest. It is the contingency of the universe that is rationalized by this uncaused-cause, whatever it may be. So I agree with you. The world is beautiful without God. And yes, life is still important because of what I know of myself, I live and I want to continue existing. But I do not believe that we ultimately cease to exist, I believe that we transform into something different, continuing our existence. This is not to say that we just reincarnate, no, I make reference to the universal consciousness. We are alive because the universe is alive. The universe is alive because of a necessary event. We are all a part of the necessary event by implication and transfer through it as different plains of existence. It might not be heaven, or a special afterlife, it is just continued existence.

The Church: I am referring to the church as a social institute. I don’t care about the dying man. You are too preoccupied with the religious component of theology.

39

Mr. ApocalypseOfWar I dont know, nor am I familiar with your reference to jj or jjism. Im definitly not quoting anyone about mankind having instinctual knowledge of God. It seems to me to quite an obvious obsevation, so Im not surprised that somebody has written, or said something on it.

Anyway…Check this out…
Proverbs 14:12 - There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death

This very profound truth is found in more than one place in the Bible. I sometimes paraphrase it like this…“There is a way that seems right, but in the end is wrong!” Im guilty of this from time to time, if not all the time. I strive not to be but…if I think Im right, yet Im wrong…how can I possible know that Im wrong?

So I move forward trepidisiously. I know I dont have all the right answers. I place faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I pray for guidance. I seek to find a way that is right…the end of which leads to life, but truly, I’m more motivated to have my son find a way that is right…but again, He must make the ultimate decision. I can humbly help…I can suggest…I can point…I can yell!..I can demand!..I can even egotistically point certain truths out…but I cant make the choice for him. So I pray…Father, open his eyes. Bless him with wisdom. Show him the path. Make him choose the right way…But…every man has to make that choice himself.

ApocalypseOfWar, may I suggest that you consider those who would look to you…those who would rely on YOU…consider these, when making choices for your own life.

This isn’t about the horrors of Christianity. It’s about relationship. It’s about love. There’s a father who loves you, as I love my son. He wants you to choose the right path Apoc…The path to death…the path to life…how can we know? How can we possibly know?

The precepts of this world have been pulled over our eyes.

40

it’s funny how ET’s and God are thrown together so often of late. Both are invisible both are just as hard to prove the existence of. The video footage of UFO’s? sure it wasn’t a bird?

Is it possible there’s ufo’s flying around in our atmosphere?

yes

Is it possible that they are invisible beings and so is god?

yes.

does that have any impact on my fundamental problem of god’s infinity?

no.

can invisible things exist? well certainly there’s a whole array of light data outside of the visible range, but if we’re talking in a strictly pejorative christian-muslim-judeo view point god is visible, and thus arguing about his invisibility will only serve the purpose of disproving those gods.

Do I think god is an invisible being? No, honestly if your gonna believe in an invisible all caring personal god, why not believe in Zeus, Thor, and Squirzels?

How do our souls acquire energy while attached to our bodies? our they parasitic in nature? sapping energy off of our bodies and eventually killing us?

pure conjecture, again I could reasonably using the same argument say santa clause exists outside of the visible realm, and that given enough time we’ll eventually be able to see him along with elvis up in a UFO.

sure it’s possible. It’s possible this is all a dream, it’s possible that we’re all alone in the universe, it’s possible that we are a terrarium for some alien. if god is possible so are a myriad of other things that are equally unlikely.

honestly I don’t see the laws of physics radically changing so much as to give us superman abilities on other worlds. I mean hell astronomy has shown us that stars 700,000 light years away are subject to the same physics model as our own, why should we assume that as you get even further away that suddenly the physics model changes?

Oh I remember so we can have a plausibile space for god to live in.

and you are trying to put god up into a non-existant corner of the galaxy seven-quintillion light years from earth, where the laws of physics we have here don’t apply.

once we know that the laws of physics do apply that far away will god move yet again to seventy-zillion light years from earth?

how can god be an uncaused cause that’s a contradiction? is god a contradiction?

well that’s rhetorical… but,

let’s say that I trip and cause the table to tip over which cause someones lunch to go flying out into the garden, which causes a colony of maggots to grow. That colony eventually turns into a large colony of mutant killer flys that destroys the human race.

How’s that for an uncaused cause?

so maybe god had an accident and it caused our creation.

or maybe just maybe there is no reason for the universe to have a cause, uncaused or not?