Critical Mass.

[Fafnir665]

Supposedly God exists on the faith of those who believe. Is there a minimum amount of people who need faith in a god, any of them, for that god to be real? Is this minimum number represented for God as christians believe in him?

A critical mass for a god.

Are all gods based on a faith in the existence with no real proof?

 

[Quigly]

Supposedly God exists on the faith of those who believe.

??? I do not agree. God Exists whether we have faith to believe or not. It is God's grace and mercy that have drawn depraved man to believe.

Is there a minimum amount of people who need faith in a god, any of them, for that god to be real?

God existed without anybody around, he needs no people to exist.

Are all gods based on a faith in the existence with no real proof?

Everything has proof whether it is proven to the satisfaction of all or not, but most religions base this on Faith. (Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.)

 

[Fafnir665]

Originally posted by Quigly
I do not agree. God Exists whether we have faith to believe or not. It is God's grace and mercy that have drawn depraved man to believe.

Trapped minds can see it no other way. I think you missed the point of my argument, I'm not debating the exitense of a God, I'm assuming that one exists, that this one god's existence is dependent on the millions of followers they have. The point of debate is whether or not this existence is determined by anumber of believers, or if a god could be created with a minimum of believers, or if any number of people can cause a god to exist

God existed without anybody around, he needs no people to exist.

So the bible says, but the bible was written by man, and man is not infallible.

Everything has proof whether it is proven to the satisfaction of all or not, but most religions base this on Faith. (Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.)

Faith is the topic of discussion, and lets assume that without faith in God, he does not exist. That is what I have been working on, for there would be no reason for a God to exist, unless there is faith in his existence.

Could God, be a distributed existence among his believers? And indoctrination into "the church" gives you certain mindseets that allow this "mind of minds" to operate?

I mean distributed in the sense that, without each individuals faith in Him, He does not exist. I'm working on the assumption that God is based on faith in his existence. If this is so, could God remain in existence with any number of believers? Could one person, with belief in Him, allow Him to remain in existence? Or is the brain power represented to little for him to have this existence? Or would he just be greatly diminished?

 

[vyze]

First off, Faith is beliving something based on no real proof.

Second off, I think that if ONE person belives in God, then they can freely go about telling others and getting others to FIND FAITH. Then, that person will of successfully started (starting) a religion.

Are all gods based on a faith in the existence with no real proof?

We all have "proof" about God, Moses, and Noah.... I just don't have my Weekly World News Handy right now. But, what about the proofs of the Norwiegan or Roman Gods? Do we have any proof of that? Or Shintoistic Gods? Or any others for that matter? It would be hilarious (?) if come Armageddon the Gates of Hell opened up and Hermes walked out and said "who did you think? satan?"

 

[Quigly]

I apologize fafnir, I must have misinterpreted the argument at hand.

The point of debate is whether or not this existence is determined by anumber of believers, or if a god could be created with a minimum of believers, or if any number of people can cause a god to exist

Assuming that you are talking about a polytheistic point of reference, then yes, one man can create a god. Again, this is based on the assumption that god is a creation of the mind and in the mind of people. The better question is this though. Can you patent the intellectual property of a god? like the god of honeycombs or something. Then if someone else tries to come along and use your god of honeycombs for a video game then you can sell the company licensing for your patent.

Anyway though. I believe that a god can be create by one man and perceived by any number of people. Just like any teaching though, one man can teach it as fact and get a large surrounding of people, whether it be accurate or not. The world was believed to be flat remember. There is proof for all things, whether it is proven yet or not.

 

[vyze]

quigley wrote:

God existed without anybody around, he needs no people to exist.

If this is true, then why must He be constantly worshipped and given so much attention. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't see God somewhere. From Court, to people sneezing, to the back of money. Maybe He has to. If He wasn't displayed everywhere, then {would He/He would} be no where?

 

[Quigly]

Since it is an open forum, I will use my personal beliefs in answering the question.

If this is true, then why must He be constantly worshipped and given so much attention. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't see God somewhere. From Court, to people sneezing, to the back of money. Maybe He has to. If He wasn't displayed everywhere, then {would He/He would} be no where?

God create man to have fellowship with him. God created the world for man. He created man after his own image and I believe he created earth in an image of heaven. (earth was created in a pre-fall state...What I mean is man was created without sin as was the world..Roses without thorns, non-violent animals... )

Yes...Man was created to worship. If man doesn't worship God, then he will always find something to worship. Whether it is himself, material things, religions, T.V., War...

You have to understand that whether anyone likes it or not, they were created for worship. Evolutionists need to figure that out on the evolution chain... Why is man drawn to his desires.. Why does man not have a free will?

Court, money, U.S.A... These are all things that men before us have brought to this great country. This is the only country ever founded on Christ and Godly principles.

As for sneezing... It was a superstition that a person who sneeze was possessed with a demon and that is where the God bless you started..

 

[Bebelina]

Fafnir, that's an interesting thought.
If people stopped believing in God now, then I think whatever that belief did create is now so big that it has a life of its own, so it need nobody anymore.
We planted a seed and now it grows.
But if we were to create a new god concept from scratch, then at least one person would need to believe in it.
I do however think that a larger consciousness existed before humanity, but that we have given it an altered "personality" by calling it different names as God, Allah, etc..

 

[Quigly]

Bebelina

Just out of curiousity, I have wanted to post this before on a different thread, but :

What constitutes a god? What attributes would it have to be in that, may I say...Category?

 

[Raithere]

The answer is...

Originally posted by Fafnir665
Trapped minds can see it no other way. I think you missed the point of my argument, I'm not debating the exitense of a God, I'm assuming that one exists, that this one god's existence is dependent on the millions of followers they have. The point of debate is whether or not this existence is determined by anumber of believers, or if a god could be created with a minimum of believers, or if any number of people can cause a god to exist.

Fifty.

As long as we're imagining a universe based upon fantastical and arbitrary rules we might as well imagine an answer. So why not 50?

~Raithere

 

[Bebelina]

Quigly, I can only reply with what I think a "god" should include.
To me, it's simply a larger consciousness, probably made up from all consciousnesses in the universe, or the other way around. It existed first and then created smaller versions. Or maybe it's like the old chicken and egg dilemma...

 

[Quigly]

Bebelina:

I guess the big spin to this is that everyone who wants to believe in a god will still perceive the god through his own awareness and experiences.

Example:

The first god in an infants life is its parents or adopted parents... The infant would die if not otherwise fed, held, loved... To some extent the infant will grow to believe on a sub-conscious level that that is what god is like. Eventually, people will form their own idea about life and god, but they will most likely carry a little bit of patterns from their parents.

To me, it's simply a larger consciousness

By this, do you mean more awareness? More brain activity?(since we don't use the full brain power) Help me understand the above statement...Thanks

 

[Bebelina]

Yes, we are slaves to our own perception.
What I mean by a larger consciousness has nothing to do with brainpower.
I don't think a brain is necessary for having a consciousness. Take a tree for example, imagine its world, then take a planet, a solar system and then the whole universe. I believe the universe in itself is aware of itself and all that it has within it. We are like cells in the universes body.
It's very hard to explain what a larger consciousness is, because I'm limited with my small one.
It's a very abstract idea, almost mathematic in its nature.
Like the collective consciousness of the universe that has selfawareness.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Bebelina
Like the collective consciousness of the universe that has selfawareness.

Actually, this brings up a question I enjoy contemplating.

Physics has shown us that everything is ultimately made up of the primary forces and energy. Using this frame of reference everything, including conscious beings, is really just patterns of interacting force and energy. Matter is illusory along with the matter bound perception of separation. The Universe can be interpreted as a singular, unitary thing. Given this, the question I ask is, “If part of the pattern is conscious is the whole therefore conscious or is consciousness only a local condition?”

~Raithere

 

[Fafnir665]

Your responses are all interesting.

If people stopped believing in God now, then I think whatever that belief did create is now so big that it has a life of its own, so it need nobody anymore.

As do I, but I think that it's lifespan is limited to the life of the last indoctrinated. By indoctrination I mean, those that were devote christians at one point in thier life. Or devote budhists. Or a devote of any religion. I think theres a part of the brain that can become aligned with other peoples, to form a "psychic group". A part of the brain that is maliable only once, you can blow information into it, but thats it, no going back. Once this is aligned, it adds its power to that which are already there. So this creates a network of human minds, but what may arise from this network? Either it a subconcious tingling, or a being of enormous intelectual power. Which can influence human history by influencing the people under it's control. An "artificial" intelligence created by our faith in a system of belief.

well, just what i was thinking at the time

 

[Fafnir665]

Originally posted by Raithere
“If part of the pattern is conscious is the whole therefore conscious or is consciousness only a local condition?”

I would say that all the forces are acting at the speed of light, so that the whole conciousness would be such a slow conciousness, in our terms, because it takes eons for one thought t propogate over it's entire mind, so that conciousness can be a singular event, and a cosmic event, but neither have the tools for interpreting the other.

 

[Raithere]

mindbending

Originally posted by Fafnir665
I would say that all the forces are acting at the speed of light, so that the whole conciousness would be such a slow conciousness, in our terms, because it takes eons for one thought t propogate over it's entire mind, so that conciousness can be a singular event, and a cosmic event, but neither have the tools for interpreting the other.

Don't forget that the temporal frame of reference is relative. For that which travels at the speed of light there is no distance, everything is instantaneous.
Still, I like the proposition... wouldn't that mean the agnostics are right?

~Raithere

 

[Fafnir665]

Re: mindbending

Originally posted by Raithere
Don't forget that the temporal frame of reference is relative. For that which travels at the speed of light there is no distance, everything is instantaneous.

Hence the "Neither concious has the tools for interpreting the other", but your point is valid. While the thought traveling at the speed of light experiences no change, the distant sides will experience every instant the speed of light galactic thought is traveling. This galactic thought is only aware of itself though, and works within its mind, so it does not experience this delay as we would in interpreting its thoughts, it's thoughts just are at it's level. Thats why it can not be aware of our conciousness. Our lifespans would be a 60 lightyear blink to it, in the turn of universal things. If a conciousness exists whose thought is based on the known forces, then this would be like a nueron firing to use, we're not aware of each individual nueron, but we know they fire.

Little side thought, what if galaxies were each clusters of intelligence, a single mind, and they each offended each other, and thats why the universe is expanding?

 

[Greco]

GOD IS PROPORTIONAL TO HIS BELIEVERS AND INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO NON-BELIEVERS.




BELIEVERS
GOD=------------
NON-BELIEVERS

 

[Fafnir665]

Originally posted by Greco
GOD IS PROPORTIONAL TO HIS BELIEVERS AND INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO NON-BELIEVERS.




BELIEVERS
GOD=------------
NON-BELIEVERS

Thanks for your input, but in this, what would go be represented as? I think you need more detail and less capslock