Alluring, isnt it?

[Zappa]

Okay - following this logic - please bow down before the invisible Pink Unicorn that sits on my desk every day.
Bob (that's HIS name) can't be disproven.



Knowing something can't be disproven is not utilising science or math. It utilises logic and an absolute lack of evidence.
Did you know that something that doesn't exist also can NOT be disproven??

No offence meant, but you have attained no proof whatsoever - you have merely come to the conclusion that there is no proof against His existence, and there will never be any, and have thus chosen to believe that He exists.

Again, I refer you to the example of something that doesn't exist....

Think of something that doesn't exist.
Anything at all - your choice.
Now prove to me it doesn't exist.

The fact is that the concept of GOD, something that exists outside of our dimensions and that created everything we are and know, is in a completely different category than anything your little mind(take no offense, I'm only being derogatory because you're human) can concieve of. To try to use something like that(indeed ANYTHING you can come up with as a comparison is ridiculous, as I stated before the concept of God IS IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CATEGORY THAN ANYTHING ELSE) as an example of God as as a logical fallacy is ridiculous and does nothing to further your argument.

 

[charles cure]

The fact is that the concept of GOD, something that exists outside of our dimensions and that created everything we are and know, is in a completely different category than anything your little mind(take no offense, I'm only being derogatory because you're human) can concieve of. To try to use something like that(indeed ANYTHING you can come up with as a comparison is ridiculous, as I stated before the concept of God IS IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CATEGORY THAN ANYTHING ELSE) as an example of God as as a logical fallacy is ridiculous and does nothing to further your argument.

right, have fun in fantasy land weirdo.

 

[Zappa]

Don't be an idiot. If you don't understand what I'm saying, ask me nicely to explain it further and I shall.

Everything I have put forth in that paragraph dealing with the subject at hand has everything to do with fact and nothing to do with fantasy.

The fact that the concept of God, because of his very nature, is seperate from any imaginary entity that we can concieve of is fact.

 

[charles cure]

A negative is the complimentary existance of a positive. Take an ocean for instance. You live under water and that is your "space" or sky, so to speak, and see a bubble. The bubble is in actuality the nonexistance of the elements in your environment, as we all know.

thats so fucking ridiculous and not true. inside the bubble exist elements from your environment in isolation from the rest of it. do you think a bubble forms and there is nothing inside of it? what the hell are you talking about? the bubble isnt the negative of your environment, its the seperation of two parts that make up your environment, thats all, the bubble proves or disproves nothing except in this case, the retarded nature of your example.

Well, of course, the 02 in h20 collides and makes a bubble of course and you can claim it is a part of your environment but that's getting technical.

its not getting technical, its called being accurate. something you seriously seem to not get.

But lightly speaking, h20 doesn't exist in the bubble. You can prove h20 doesn't exist within the bubble by the impression the oxygen around it leaves, even though you can't see it. Maybe I shouldn't have used that analogy, too complicated. But maybe you get my point.

still, regardless of this example, how exactly do you think that the non-existence of god can be disproven in an analagous way? what exact impression does god leave? the problem here is that if you had a bubble in the ocean, and you could look at it and analyze what is in it and what isnt, you would prove that there is no water inside of it, you wouldnt disprove the existence of ocean water in the bubble. thats proving a positive, not proving a negative, youre playing semantics. seeing the outline of the bubble proves nothing at all, because you dont have any idea what the bubble is made out of or what is or isnt inside it just by looking at it.

To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. And to every positive, there is a negative, perhaps just for the purpose to prove there is a such thing as a positive even though the negative can't be sensed, it still exists for the positive to exist. Without one, there can not be another.

so what you have done is extend this theory out to also include "there cannot be a humanity without a god?" that makes no sense. the axiom you are referring to applies to physics. how do you think it applies to the existence of god in any meaningful way? i'd love for you to articulate that for us.

 

[charles cure]

Don't be an idiot. If you don't understand what I'm saying, ask me nicely to explain it further and I shall.

Everything I have put forth in that paragraph dealing with the subject at hand has everything to do with fact and nothing to do with fantasy.

The fact that the concept of God, because of his very nature, is seperate from any imaginary entity that we can concieve of is fact.

im not being an idiot, i understand what you said, im just appalled by the stupidity of it. if you want to take a quick survey of history i think you'll see that there is no such thing as a comprehensive "god concept", but instead there exists GOD as a name for any being from human-like entities with humans flaws and supernatural powers, to forces of nature, to omnipotent, omnipresent, and infallible spirits capable of anything imaginable. god as a concept is a human construct and a product of imagining the depth of the unknown, so of course its like nothing else, how could it be, but if it is real and beyond comprehension, then it is meaningless, because we would be incapable of understanding anything about it, let alone its rules and pronouncements. so you cant have it both ways, humans can either be aware of god, and thus god can be qualified and quantified, or humans cannot comprehend god and therefore all its doings are meaningless to us because they are lost on us. its one or the other.

 

[usp8riot]

You're stuck in details. How do you expect to see the world through God's eyes if you keep looking at the world so close up? You got to step back and see the world through Hi s eyes. If you want to see a house, do you stick your face against the wall of it and look at the grain of the bricks? No, you have to step back to see the house. You're so stuck into details, you can't see the house as a whole. You're lost, going the wrong way. Why must you question? Questions always go >. Student questions the teacher. Therefore, teacher > student. I don't question disbelievers, I've been there, and done that. I can understand in a way, but you should also do some searching your own self if you seek knowledge of God. That's what I had to do and it instills a stronger sense of belief.

 

[Zappa]

im not being an idiot, i understand what you said, im just appalled by the stupidity of it. if you want to take a quick survey of history i think you'll see that there is no such thing as a comprehensive "god concept", but instead there exists GOD as a name for any being from human-like entities with humans flaws and supernatural powers, to forces of nature, to omnipotent, omnipresent, and infallible spirits capable of anything imaginable. god as a concept is a human construct and a product of imagining the depth of the unknown, so of course its like nothing else, how could it be, but if it is real and beyond comprehension, then it is meaningless, because we would be incapable of understanding anything about it, let alone its rules and pronouncements. so you cant have it both ways, humans can either be aware of god, and thus god can be qualified and quantified, or humans cannot comprehend god and therefore all its doings are meaningless to us because they are lost on us. its one or the other.

You should learn to discern semantics so we can move on with the issue at hand. I clearly defined the concept of God I was speaking of - the supernatural, spiritual entity described by the main religions - this being the only concept of God that will, by definition, forever exist outside physical/scientific explanations(unlike gods of yore that exist within the physical realm). And the fact is that in the Bible he is described as being incomprehensible; but this does not mean that our existence is meaningless. How do you figure?

 

[charles cure]

You're stuck in details. How do you expect to see the world through God's eyes if you keep looking at the world so close up? You got to step back and see the world through Hi s eyes. If you want to see a house, do you stick your face against the wall of it and look at the grain of the bricks? No, you have to step back to see the house. You're so stuck into details, you can't see the house as a whole. You're lost, going the wrong way. Why must you question? Questions always go >. Student questions the teacher. Therefore, teacher > student. I don't question disbelievers, I've been there, and done that. I can understand in a way, but you should also do some searching your own self if you seek knowledge of God. That's what I had to do and it instills a stronger sense of belief.

im not stuck in details, im stuck in reality. i dont expect to see the world through gods eyes, gods eyes are fictional as far as i am concerned, i would prefer to see the world through my own eyes because i know they are real. if the house is the world then i am in the house, and you are attempting to experience the house from 20 miles away. you are deflecting my nullification of your foolish argument by saying that i just dont understand how you see the world. well, so what? how does that prove anything at all? you bring poorly thought out premises to this argument, then you do not defend them but instead accuse me of being mired in detail when i should just sit back and not question and accept that god must have created the universe because its all so crazy and hard to understand. man you are a fucking ignoramus. the details are all that matters. to understand the world you must understand the processes by which it operates and progresses onward through time. such things are complex, and therefore fraught with detail. questioning and experimenting lead to a further understanding of these details which in turn eventually lead to an understanding of previously unknown events and phenomena. there is literally no other way to find conclusive answers. you can play around with philosophical number games and bubble metaphors, but its all pointless conjecture and ultimately - just your opinion. to claim that god must exist requires proof on the part of those making the claim. the human mind values evidence and demonstration, not opinion. atheists do not claim that god does not exist, they only deny the claim that god is manifest and refuse to follow a religious doctrine that falsely claims to be in touch with an unevidenced ultimate authority. if you make your claim, expect to have to prove it to gain acceptance, do not ask others to do your work for you by attempting to disprove something for which there is such a clear lack of evidence. and while youre at it pull your head out of your ass and pony up with some real reasoning or keep your mouth shut when it gets exposed for the idiocy that it is.

 

[charles cure]

You should learn to discern semantics so we can move on with the issue at hand. I clearly defined the concept of God I was speaking of - the supernatural, spiritual entity described by the main religions - this being the only concept of God that will, by definition, forever exist outside physical/scientific explanations(unlike gods of yore that exist within the physical realm). And the fact is that in the Bible he is described as being incomprehensible; but this does not mean that our existence is meaningless. How do you figure?

i figure it this way. if god is incomprehensible, then man cannot know god. if man cannot understand god, man cannot understand the motivating factors for gods action or inaction. if man does not understand the motivations that cause god to act in positive or negative ways, then ultimately, the world is in a state of chaos that fluctuates only at gods cruel whim, and if this is the case, then god as a concept is meaningless because man cannot ever expect to have any control over his own fate through knowledge or appeasment of god, so there might as well not be one.

 

[Godless]

I don't think he claimed our existence is meaningless. I think he was talking about god. It's existence is meaningless unless you can provide proof of it's existence! can you? No

Neither can I claim that a god does not exist, to do so, I would claim to have knowledge of what god is, yet I've to find what god is, other than the semantics used to ascribe a supernatural being, who created the universe bla,bla, bla, yada,yada,yada.. However no proof other than rhetoric, and when it comes down to it, the theist claiming I must have "faith" that a superior being than I exists.

Godless

 

[Zappa]

I don't think he claimed our existence is meaningless. I think he was talking about god. It's existence is meaningless unless you can provide proof of it's existence! can you? No

No I cannot. But I believe that a God is there. God is a concept, as I've pointed out, removed from any other. The concept cannot be compaired to that of an invisible pink unicorn, for reasons I've pointed out.

We, as humans, are presented with an idea that by nature we can never have hope of understanding - that is, eternal. The concept of eternal is never beginning, never ending - no time. We exist within time, so I hope you can understand why we cannot comprehend it.

But we know that eternal is. It always is.

Something always is.

The only idea that we as humans can conjure up as "always being," logically, is something we can never have hope of understanding because it exists outside of time -- everything that we experience and are able to experience.


Eternal...the elusive concept that we can only graze with our human minds...never beginning, never ending....something must be there, that something exists outside our our comprehension...it is not physical, it is not something we can ever understand, and we humans are aware of it...and we are somehow a result of whatever "it" is, as we lie within whatever "it" is.

You have either two concepts that human beings can fathom as being eternal. God, or nothing.


Are you following me so far? Many people seem to have a hard time understanding this. I want us to be on the same page(this goes for you too, charles).

The fact that we are able to be aware of a concept that we will NEVER be able to understand is incredible and forms the basis for the belief in a supernatural entity.

Nothing, or God.


I hope you can see why so many flock to the latter idea.

 

[usp8riot]

It's a wild goose hunt. Don't some of you get it? If He has to show Himself, the jigs all up. The test is over. The test, as I believe, is to believe in God and do His works. Would you want your child to do what you say because you are there and will punish him if he doesn't do right? Would you not rather have the child do right as you tell him because he or she loves you and wants to make you happy?
You may reason that yes, you do want Him to show His face so we will know it is Him and what He wants. But just as a child grows and his/her parents have to be around less to guide him, so it is with us now. In the days of Abraham, man was in his infancy. The Old Testament is told stern and to the point just as you would an infant. You spat his/her hand when done wrong because they do not understand words yet. And in the times of Jesus, man was in his toddlerhood. Tales of serpents and demons are common just as you would tell a toddler. And also if he has done wrong, at that age you can teach them forgiveness of others. And that's why Jesus came, he felt it was time for man to learn that. And supposedly if you believe in Islam, man was a little older and so the religion was taught by not using such "fairy tale" concepts as serpents and demons because man was gradually weening away from that. I guess you could say man was in his "teen" years in that era. And now, man is in the adult era of the timeline, very matured and learned a lot of the world. So people, sit tight. Soon there will be a messenger to teach the matured man and show him the way to God in the perspective of our eyes, disbeliever and not. Be it through the eyes of the unreligious scientifically minded or through the Christians now which despise reality and turn off the unreligious people through their ignorance.
Disbelievers are not hated by God. You should feel blessed that you question so much that you want to make sure the God you believe in to be the real God. Same way I felt. And it also makes your belief that much more harder to shake when all those questions are answered. Just like a long lost child questioning to find it's mother that it barely remembers anymore. The child goes to strangers asking if they are her mother and some say "yes" and some say, "your mother is this way". After trodding many paths and led astray, when she finally finds her real mother, the mother is thankful and blesses the child for questioning and her weariness in making sure she finds her real mother since she so desires to find her. That is the way God sees it. So have no fear anyone who doesn't know God, because He understands and keep searching.

 

[charles cure]

We, as humans, are presented with an idea that by nature we can never have hope of understanding - that is, eternal. The concept of eternal is never beginning, never ending - no time. We exist within time, so I hope you can understand why we cannot comprehend it.

But we know that eternal is. It always is.

we dont know what eternal is. we know the concept that the word refers to. a word that describes something, the true essence of which can never be fully understood, is meaningless except for purposes of rhetoric and hyperbole. time is a human construct. the world cannot be experienced by the human mind without a differentiation between past and present and future. if you understand this, then timelessness is the state that the world is in when it is devoid of life. if god exists in a state of timelessness then god also exists in a state of lifelessness. in this case, god is meaningless to us. if we cannot understand the nature of eternity, and god is eternal, then we cannot understand the nature of god, in which case gods existence or non-existence is nothing but a philosophical chess game, the ultimate outcome of which has zero impact on human existence.

The only idea that we as humans can conjure up as "always being," logically, is something we can never have hope of understanding because it exists outside of time -- everything that we experience and are able to experience.

so then if this is true, we do not experience god, because we cannot experience eternity. if this is true then we do not nderstand god and its existence is inconsequential because we have no ability to communicate with it, gain further understanding of it, or comprehend its effect on out lives. so god is meaningless.

 

[Sarkus]

Lerxst, in response to the "existence" thing - yes, it is possible that we are just a simulation or that there are multiple universes in which things "exist" that we can never know about.
So it comes down to the underlying meaning of what you consider to be "existence" - do you take existence to mean: "All that can theoretically exist" - such as multiple universe or outside the simulator; or do you take it to mean "all that can be evidenced (in the absolute sense I was discussing earlier) to exist" - i.e. all that can interract with any other thing in this Universe.

Anyhoo - please start another thread or PM me if you want to carry this on at all.

 

[Sarkus]

The fact is that the concept of GOD, something that exists outside of our dimensions and that created everything we are and know, is in a completely different category than anything your little mind(take no offense, I'm only being derogatory because you're human) can concieve of.

Evidence please?
An infinite number of things could exist outside of our observable dimensions, and could be claimed to be in a completely different category than anything your little mind can conceive of.

Please therefore explain how YOU know what this GOD of yours is like - what he can and can't do - in fact explain how you know ANYTHING about him - given that you can not conceive of him and there is no evidence of him.

Please?

To try to use something like that(indeed ANYTHING you can come up with as a comparison is ridiculous, as I stated before the concept of God IS IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CATEGORY THAN ANYTHING ELSE) as an example of God as as a logical fallacy is ridiculous and does nothing to further your argument.

Please explain WHY it is a logical fallacy?
My invisible pink unicorn is, as far as you can be concerned, IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CATEGORY THAN ANYTHING ELSE you can conceive of.

Please explain what evidence you have for God.
I'll then explain the evidence I have for my invisible pink unicorn.

Just waving around the words "logical fallacy" doesn't make it so. I suggest you visit a site like the "fallacyfiles.org" to get a better understanding.

And claiming/believing something exists, even though by your own words, it IS IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CATEGORY THAN ANYTHING ELSE is irrational and illogical due to the absolute lack of evidence.

 

[Zappa]

Evidence please?
An infinite number of things could exist outside of our observable dimensions, and could be claimed to be in a completely different category than anything your little mind can conceive of.

Please read my response to Godless. "could be claimed to be in a completely different category than anything your little mind can concieve of" We cannot categorize something we cannot concieve of. We will never be able to categorize something outside of our dimensions. The only thing that we could concieve of that would live beyond time(/our OBSERVABLE dimensions) are God and nothing. You cannot fathom anything else, no one can. And no one will ever be able to.

Please therefore explain how YOU know what this GOD of yours is like - what he can and can't do - in fact explain how you know ANYTHING about him - given that you can not conceive of him and there is no evidence of him.

He would be eternal, something has to be. This is the only thing I claim to know. The fact that we as humans can concieve of this concept - eternal - something we are aware is there but can never understand forms the foundation of philosophical questioning for God's existence. Something must be eternal. Something that we are a result of. What can you concieve of that is eternal?(remember, it's impossible for anything physical(within our universe) to be eternal)) I'm afraid you'll be left with only two conclusions. A supernatural entity, or nothing.



I said, "To try to use something like that as an example of God <b> as</b> a logical fallacy is ridiculous and does nothing to further your argument. " AS not IS. Although, it can be seen as a logical fallacy, especially given the concept of God that is the most widely accepted. Your invisible unicorn cannot exist outside of what we can understand. God does exist outside of our understanding. Your pink unicorn has properties of the physical and lies within physical realm. It cannot be eternal. The concept of God lies beyond the physical realm and cannot be compared to anything in it. NOTHING you or any person conjurs up to try to compare God to will ever be logically comparable because of the definition of God. No imaginary, no scientific explanation will ever suffice. That would be a physical explanation. If God is eternal(and I hope you'll agree that something must be), he is not physical. Follow?

My invisible pink unicorn is, as far as you can be concerned, IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CATEGORY THAN ANYTHING ELSE you can conceive of.

You are not understanding the point. The concept of God, eternal and supernatural(not having and physical characteristics) is in a completely different category than anything humans can concieve of. Invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters would be lumped into the same limited category of time and physicality.

Please explain what evidence you have for God.

Eternal. (read post to Godless)

 

[Sarkus]

He would be eternal, something has to be. This is the only thing I claim to know.

Firstly, apologies for misreading the AS for IS.

However, you claim that God is Eternal, seemingly on the sole basis that "something has to be".

There is, however, no evidence for this.
Why does something have to be eternal?

You also claim that this (its eternal nature) is the only thing that you can claim about God.

So where is the evidence that God created us? Surely that would be another claim?

Do you follow an organised religion?
Do you claim God is a benevolent God or assign any other characteristic to him/it/her?

If not, if all you are claiming is that GOD is Eternal and that you know/can know nothing else about GOD, then what is it that you are worshipping, if indeed you are religious?
I happily accept that there are unknowable things - such as anything outside our Universe. But I do not worship this unknowable thing as anything that is unknowable is logically equivalent to something that does not exist.
If you claim it is beyond comprehension - then it is unknowable and thus logically equivalent to something that does not exist - i.e. irrelevant.

So why claim/believe it exists?
And why call it God?

 

[Lerxst]

Lerxst, in response to the "existence" thing - yes, it is possible that we are just a simulation or that there are multiple universes in which things "exist" that we can never know about.
So it comes down to the underlying meaning of what you consider to be "existence" - do you take existence to mean: "All that can theoretically exist" - such as multiple universe or outside the simulator; or do you take it to mean "all that can be evidenced (in the absolute sense I was discussing earlier) to exist" - i.e. all that can interract with any other thing in this Universe.

Anyhoo - please start another thread or PM me if you want to carry this on at all.

Oh, I want to answer you here just to be contrary.

Also we don't really need to carry this on, I see you have other fish to fry right now. Take a rain check and et back to me when you are bored someday.

But you really have answered my question - you have broken things out into that which could theoretically exist and that which can be evidenced by the senses. My point is that the latter is a subset of the former and it may be a smaller set. To postulate that there may be things which we cannot know about is not unreasonable, as I have given several concrete examples of just how it might occur.

 

[Sarkus]

Oh, I want to answer you here just to be contrary.

Also we don't really need to carry this on, I see you have other fish to fry right now. Take a rain check and et back to me when you are bored someday.

But you really have answered my question - you have broken things out into that which could theoretically exist and that which can be evidenced by the senses. My point is that the latter is a subset of the former and it may be a smaller set. To postulate that there may be things which we cannot know about is not unreasonable, as I have given several concrete examples of just how it might occur.

But things which can only theoretically exist and are also unknowable are logically equivalent in every respect to something that does NOT exist, whether it actually does exist or not.

Hence the logical viewpoint of non-existence for these things.

 

[Lerxst]

But things which can only theoretically exist and are also unknowable are logically equivalent in every respect to something that does NOT exist, whether it actually does exist or not.

Hence the logical viewpoint of non-existence for these things.

I agree from a certain pragmatic POV that they are equivalent. However that does not enable one to make the leap to "I can be certain these things do not exist." You might say "since I cannot interact with them it is as if they don't exist" which I cannot argue with. But again, supposing that very strong theoretical reasons for a multiverse become apparent. That would put the status of other universes somewhere in a nebulous region between "knowable" and "absolute fantasy". But it would be unjustified to say "I'm certain they do not exist."