Poetic indeed. But that hardly translates to anything actually observable or even relevant to an objective inquirer in the real world. Nothing indicates that this poetic idea is anything more than that.
Is God real enough for you?
- Thread starter Cortex_Colossum
- Start date
Poetic indeed. But that hardly translates to anything actually observable or even relevant to an objective inquirer in the real world. Nothing indicates that this poetic idea is anything more than that.
You also said:
Does imagination equal knowledge? How can I have knowledge of your imagination?
But since one's image of God can be good or bad, it's pretty much a crap shoot.
Some character created by humans with human traits and emotions...just like any other fairy tale character or creation.
“If it turns out that there is a God...the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.”
― Woody Allen
“If it turns out that there is a God...the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.”
― Woody Allen
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Really? It sure sounded like you were imploring spidergoat to do so, for the sake of his safety:
@Cortex --
Which conflicts harshly with every single observation anyone has ever made about the world we live in. If such a god like that exists, it's not a part of our universe.
Actually that is what you said. You said that you distinguish between good and evil in the same way that you distinguish beauty and ugliness. In other words, you have stated that your choices between good and evil are personal judgments based on your own moral criteria and likened that to making an aesthetic judgment which can only be based on your subjective values.
To put it bluntly, you have stated that your god has nothing to do with your morals. In which case I would have to ask why you think that your god would have anything to do with the morals of others?
If this god can interact with our universe then it possess inherently material traits(you need energy to interact with matter, energy is physical) and is thus a material being. If an entity lacks all physical traits this means it's non-material nature prevents it from interacting with our universe and thus makes it of little or no relevance for anything inside of our universe(namely us). And we'll forgo the obvious arguments against the existence of perfection and the fact that a perfect being would never have created our universe in the first place, for now at least.
So the fact that there are literally tens of thousands of gods that we know of(and probably more that we don't) who span the bridge between good and evil, sanity and madness, sadism and kindness, this fact doesn't indicate to you that such knowledge wouldn't necessarily push anyone in any particular direction?
Which conflicts harshly with every single observation anyone has ever made about the world we live in. If such a god like that exists, it's not a part of our universe.
Actually that is what you said. You said that you distinguish between good and evil in the same way that you distinguish beauty and ugliness. In other words, you have stated that your choices between good and evil are personal judgments based on your own moral criteria and likened that to making an aesthetic judgment which can only be based on your subjective values.
To put it bluntly, you have stated that your god has nothing to do with your morals. In which case I would have to ask why you think that your god would have anything to do with the morals of others?
If this god can interact with our universe then it possess inherently material traits(you need energy to interact with matter, energy is physical) and is thus a material being. If an entity lacks all physical traits this means it's non-material nature prevents it from interacting with our universe and thus makes it of little or no relevance for anything inside of our universe(namely us). And we'll forgo the obvious arguments against the existence of perfection and the fact that a perfect being would never have created our universe in the first place, for now at least.
So the fact that there are literally tens of thousands of gods that we know of(and probably more that we don't) who span the bridge between good and evil, sanity and madness, sadism and kindness, this fact doesn't indicate to you that such knowledge wouldn't necessarily push anyone in any particular direction?
You should read the writings of Christopher Michael Langan. His proof of the Absolute is irrevocable. God can be recognized by the mind's logic and once that logic is realized one experiences the divine.
Because once the Divine is experienced by everyone through ascertaining the existence of God via the mind alone then we would all act in a uniform manner to bring peace and love throughout the world.
Not necessarily. As I said it is the mind alone that grasps the existence of God then material objects are not needed.
There are no barriers to perfection. Perfection is the limit of what exists. A perfect soccer score for example is simply matchless. Perfection is genius.
Those many gods are not necessarily known by every single person's mind wholeheartedly but rather passively. It is when knowledge becomes more than a passive acquirement but a full personal experiencing that changes one for the better.
You can philosophize all you want, but no argument, logical or not, will ever validate an existence claim. I could, if I really wanted to, create an irrefutable argument for the existence of Russle's teapot, or The Giant Space Duck, but that doesn't mean that reality care's one whit about that argument.
And I still maintain that there isn't a single person on this planet who knows god in a way that is demonstrable to even a single other person. If such a person exists then they should really step forward and put an end to nonsense like this.
And I still maintain that there isn't a single person on this planet who knows god in a way that is demonstrable to even a single other person. If such a person exists then they should really step forward and put an end to nonsense like this.
I've never read anything coherent from Mr. Langan.
Here's a nice rebuttal to his nonsense:
http://anamericanatheist.org/2011/04/07/my-criticism-of-chris-langans-ctmu-theory/
Here's a nice rebuttal to his nonsense:
http://anamericanatheist.org/2011/04/07/my-criticism-of-chris-langans-ctmu-theory/
Cortex_Colossum
Proofs in math and philosophy are predicated on a fixed set of rules or precepts and are not about reality. There are no proofs about the real world, just probabilities and reason applied to evidence. Nothing in the real world has ever been proven.
Yeah, that's never worked yet. Religions have been the source of conflicts throughout history, often the goal has been to unite everyone else with your own beliefs(or to kill all that think otherwise). Religion/god belief is not some panacea of peace.
Yet the material world is where we live and all we know to exist(outside of your imagination).
Perfection within the limited confines of the rules of a game is limited by those rules. It just doesn't exist in the real world unless perfection is within a limited set of definitions of what perfection would be.
Meaningless gibberish.
More gibberish.
Grumpy
Proofs in math and philosophy are predicated on a fixed set of rules or precepts and are not about reality. There are no proofs about the real world, just probabilities and reason applied to evidence. Nothing in the real world has ever been proven.
Yeah, that's never worked yet. Religions have been the source of conflicts throughout history, often the goal has been to unite everyone else with your own beliefs(or to kill all that think otherwise). Religion/god belief is not some panacea of peace.
Yet the material world is where we live and all we know to exist(outside of your imagination).
Perfection within the limited confines of the rules of a game is limited by those rules. It just doesn't exist in the real world unless perfection is within a limited set of definitions of what perfection would be.
Meaningless gibberish.
More gibberish.
Grumpy
It is mathematics that governs reality and is based on observation of the real world.
That is because religion has been employed for evil.
It is not the imagination that ascertains the existence of God. It is an interception between God and my mind which is followed by the experience of the Divine and the light it brings.
Perfection is simply the limit of an action or a thought.
A genius may act more perfectly than others is all I mean.
More gibberish.
Grumpy
Your knowledge of God is rather passive which is why you disagree. The glory of God can be experienced by all of us at varying intensities.
Indeed. Praise Xmucane and Xpiayoc! (The Mayan creator god couple which helped create the first humans).
Wtf does that mean?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Cortex, you're just preaching. "You should listen to me because I believe this to be so."
That is not how discussions work. There is nothing there to be addressed by anyone but yourself.
You must make a case as you why we should find logic in your assertions.
From link
Abstract by: Christopher Michael Langan:
Inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality of which perception itself is the model (or theory-to-universe mapping).
Where information is the abstract currency of perception, such a theory must incorporate the theory of information while extending the information concept to incorporate reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic (self-contained) description of reality.
Atheism, Himmler wrote, “is the only world- or religious view that is not tolerated within the SS.” He further wrote, “I have not tolerated an atheist in the ranks of the SS. Every member has a deep faith in God, in what my ancestors called in their language Waralda, the ancient one, the one who is mightier than we are.” (Longerich, Heinrich Himmler, Oxford University Press, 2012, p. 220)
Last edited: