Meteor.

[Godless]

It is conceivable further, that the conscious mind is also capable of say, telepathy.

I don't believe in telepathy beyond, this falls under pseudo science for me.

And yes I'm part of reality, however that mind that wills the arm is my own.
A baby moves his arm by automatic motion, reaction or sense of touch. Heck I dont know all the intricate details of science and neurology of brain to explain every motion, but it's as far I understand electrical signals produced by an entities brain, just as a dog walks, cat jumps, all those motions of these animals come form the mind.

If it happens that we discover a way for the human mind to alter it's body's own gravitational field, then at that time such things as human flight may be possible. I'm not saying that the impossible can be done. I'm simply asserting that the human mind, a conscious mind, may have active affect on reality, as far as it's able. Right now, it would seem that the extent of it's ability to so is simply to move the body, and, through it, shape the world as it is able.

To this I only assert that "The Matrix" is only a movie.

The mind can't produce us to bend metaphysical existence, this is just plainly imposible, we are not desined to fly by "mental power" nor telepathy, or kenetic energy to move objects by mental ability. this is pseudo science crap, none of these have been proven on a true metaphisical premise.

Well, take your mind, for instance, do you have full use and control of your mind? Or just your thoughts?

Lets not confuse consciousness with the physical brain, the brain does what evolution desined it to do, strive for survival of the system of my body, my thoughts, my thinking, my emotions all come from consciousness.

Again, with your body. Can you make your heart stop on comman? How about accelerated healing? Perhaps you can control fat intake? or when you have to use the bathroom? I'm not saying you don't have control over your body. I'm simply asserting that your conrtol isn't full, or maximal.

No no one can contradict the premise of metaphisics so no I can't make my heart stop on comand, metaphisics dictates that my heart beat in order to keep my organism alive. However I do control the intake of nutrients, to keep my heart healthy, or from lack of knowledge others eat food that hurt the system, and we get heart clogs. the automatic functions of the human ourganism is not what I was refering to having control of my body, nor of the automatic process of my brain. I was refering to the movement, nourishment, behavior, and my consciousness.

Do not other have influence in your experience? Perhaps the laws of a country influence your decisions, and so have perhaps a slight say in your destiny. I'm not saying you aren't in control, just that that control isn't maximal.

Not at the present moment I'm not married, nor do I have kids, however if there were they would not influence any of my experiences, nor any decision that I may make. Countries do not control or influence any decisions of mine. I live in a free state, so my destiny is up to my choices that I make in life. However when one lives in a total police state for example Nazi Germany, these individuals choices are influenced by the regimen they live under, but their decisions is still there, if they don't want to be slave of the state, they have a moral right if they so choose to escape or die trying. But this is politics.

My learning of religion comes from experience I've not always been an athiest.
And I do learn religion from the book, btw which book? thousand religions and only one god?. No religion is a primitive philosophical atempt to explain reality and metaphisics, it's an old dogma that has led to wars, missery on a global scale, and to this day it continues to stagnate humanity.

*Bible-believers claim that the universe came into existence through an act of divine consciousness. They claim that God spoke a commandment, apparently to non-existence, and existence resulted. This is the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, and assumes that consciousness has the power to produce matter where before there was none.* (



Thorn's Metaphysical Challenge )

Godless.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Godless, hehe, I don't know what you keep going on about the arm and the mind thing. You already admit that such movements come from the mind, and I have stated that I simply used such examples to show the mind is active. This activity is obviously wrought through chemical reactions and electrical impulses, yet it is still wrought by the mind. That is it.

As for the pseudoscience ideas. Well, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. There are some who would say that such things are possible. I believe them to be, and it has nothing to do with God, but rather the extent of human capability, and what it means to have full capacity of the human faculties. It is neither a bending of metphysical existence, or breaking of its laws. If it be part of human capacities, then it is also part of metaphysical laws, just at a level not yet understood. It is theorized that if one is able to think on a fifth dimension (out of the 10 or 11 in Strong Theory) then it may be possible to appear in two places at once (appear, not actually be). Therefore, what seems to be impossible on the three dimensional plane may not be impossible on higher-dimensional planes. There have been people in history known for Bi-location, if such cases aren't fraud (and I'm willing to be that they aren't) then such people were able (it seems) to think on at least one other dimension.

Actually, yes, some people can stop their heart on command, as well as speed it up, slow it down. It comes with a certain degree of AWARENESS and ensuing control of the body. What I mean by this is, consider when you get frightened suddenly, there is a "pang" in your chest. That is your heart muscle contracting for longer than it's supposed to. Once that feeling is understood, one may be able to trigger that feeling upon command, and make their heart stop. It is possible, it simply a matter of awareness, understanding, and practice for control.

Yes, there are plenty of religions, and each gives its attempt at understanding the infinite. There is bound to be differing opinions, just as there are differing opinions in many scientific matters. One example being how evolution occurred. Sure, scientists would say it's a given that it happened, but there is disagreement about how it happened. And that's to be expected about the unknown. So too, do religions take it as a given that God is a reality, but they differ on certain aspects of what that means. It's to be expected. I'm sorry you feel that religion is simply a set of old dogmas. Undoubtedly that's what it is for a great many people, rules to be followed. However, that isn't what religion is in essence, and that certainly isn't what religion is to me, and those who taught me. For another great many people, religion is a way of life. It isn't a matter of believing in a God, but rather a code of living. This is where you will find the peaceful, happy religious person. Take Islam for example. Not all Islamists are raving fanatical suiciders. Fanatics are those who have no open mind, who take the law to be law and nothing else outside of it is to be considered truth, who simply don't understand what the religion to which they ascribe themselves really teaches. "Muslim" means submission. A true Islamic is one of peace, not war, of intelligence, not ignorance. Just as a true Christian is one of peace, not war, of wisdom, not ignorance. Just as a true Buddhist is one of peace, not war, of enlightenment, not ignorance. Just as a true Hindu is one of peace, not war, of knowledge, not ignorance. The religious way of life is supposed to be that of learning, of good and honest living, of personal, as well as extrapersonal, growth and peace.

No, believers don't claim that God commanded "existence." God commanded THINGS to come INTO existence. There is a HUGE difference. Furthermore, ex nihilo is understood in the common usage of the term "nothing." The common usage of "nothing" is "nothingness" rather than "no thing." It's not that God commanded out of nothingness something. It's that God commanded out of no existing thing something. God contains, in His infinitude, the possibility for any existing thing, and is Himself not a "thing," for things are finite, not infinite. Ergo, since only God was prior to the existence of things, what was created was created out of no thing, but rather God, the infinite. Ergo, God used that which is contained within Himself to make the universe, which means that the universe is modelled after Him, and the laws of it are also modelled after Him. This is why things grow, because God is infinite, and all things growing tend toward infinity.

I've taken Thorn's Challenge, and it was easy to surpass.

 

[Godless]

Godless, you seem to be assuming that God is a conscience and therefore he is not allowed to do anything. Where does it say God is only conscience and nothing else?

Lets see, I'm going to create a universe, I have consciousness, the decision to create a universe comes from this premise. How would then god make any decision if it's not a "supreme consciousness" as you thiest like to claim? It/she/he whatever identity you give god, as there seem to be many, had to make a "decision" to decide to create something requires a consciousness. O!! and another added benefit it/she/he created a universe out of nothing.

Since He is outside the universe, he may also be able to use other laws we do not understand or which are not available to us in our universe. Just because we do not understand, does not make something false.

All this non-sense would fail under the scrutiny of metaphisical reality.

First, the fourth premise that God is pure consciousness is not proven and therefore may not be used as a premise.

True!! so why believe in a god. You have no clue of its existence. Hence god is pure consciousness NOT PROVEN!!.

God does have one constraint - he cannot (or will not) lie.

LOL!! don't even know your own bible do you.?
Here are the quotes from Jesus that proves that he lied:



And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)



Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)



Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matthew 18:19-20 NAS)



Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25 NAB)



And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Luke 11:9-13 NAB)



And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)



If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you. (John 15:7 NAB)



It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you. (John 15:16 NAB)



On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)

A lot of Christians ignore what Jesus actually says in the Bible. They also tend to add things to the actual words to make them say something else. If you honestly and truthfully read these quotes, without adding to them, it is very easy to see that Jesus is not saying that God will think about your prayers. He says God will grant all your prayers. Clearly, God doesn’t grant all prayers and this proves that Jesus was a habitual liar.

Now please come back when you really have some EMPERICAL EVIDENCE OF A DIETY!!.

BTW Beyond with all this chit-chat of The Matrix I'm watching it now..

Godless.

 

[Godless]

* Godless, hehe, I don't know what you keep going on about the arm and the mind thing.

It was late, very late, with this moving to vegas in less than 13 days there's a bit of added stress.

*I believe them to be, and it has nothing to do with God, but rather the extent of human capability.

I don't think pseudo science can hold water to metaphisical reality. Thus the extent of human capability is dictated by metaphiscal reality. The human brain is incapable to "bend" the rules of physics, it has to follow them.

*Therefore, what seems to be impossible on the three dimensional plane may not be impossible on higher-dimensional planes.

I dont totally agree with this, there's no such thing as "higher dimension" to me asserting this would be denying this dimension.

*Actually, yes, some people can stop their heart on command, as well as speed it up, slow it down. It comes with a certain degree of AWARENESS and ensuing control of the body.

Well yes to a certain degree mental capibility may alow some of this, however no man living can stop his heart of say a Year!. Or speed it up, without the added sense of excitement or phisical activity. No man would be able to sustain a rapid heart beat say for 72 hrs he would exaust his body capibilities and burst his heart.

*Sure, scientists would say it's a given that it happened, but there is disagreement about how it happened.

Sure there is!, scientists work on the premise of non-absolutes, therefore as more evidence is gathered the theories, or scientific discoveries change.

*I've taken Thorn's Challenge, and it was easy to surpass.

How Am I too believe that?.

Godless. Hey I'll get back to you Neo is going in the matrix "to meet oracle" it's getting good.

C-ya!!

Godless.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

*I don't think pseudo science can hold water to metaphisical reality. Thus the extent of human capability is dictated by metaphiscal reality. The human brain is incapable to "bend" the rules of physics, it has to follow them.

I agree, the human brain has to follow the laws by which it exists, how can it otherwise? I have not suggested it do so yet. What I have suggested is that what seems impossible may be exactly that, a SEEMING. If it really is impossible, then it really is impossible. All I mean to say is that there is much we do not yet understand.

*I dont totally agree with this, there's no such thing as "higher dimension" to me asserting this would be denying this dimension.

By "higher dimension" I simply mean one of the 6 or 7 dimensions aside from the perceived four (length, width, height and time), as thought to exist according to String Theory. I did not intend it to mean that those dimensions are any more valuable than the known four. So, I in no way denied the known four.

*Well yes to a certain degree mental capibility may alow some of this, however no man living can stop his heart of say a Year!. Or speed it up, without the added sense of excitement or phisical activity. No man would be able to sustain a rapid heart beat say for 72 hrs he would exaust his body capibilities and burst his heart.

Agreed, though I'm open to possibilities.

*How Am I too believe that?.

You simply need to believe that I can show Thorn's challenge to be ill-conceived, since it rests on false premises. I don't mean that I "created" something, I simply mean that the challenge itself is groundless, since Thorn doens't understand the reality of Christian belief. God is consciousness, yes. However, God is also existence. Ergo, no Christian (unless misguided) would claim that consciousness is primary. Existence is primary. Simple as that.

 

[Godless]

Existence is primary?.

Objectivism does not claim that it is not.

Metaphysics

Metaphysics is the first philosophical branch of knowledge. At the metaphysical level, Rand's Objectivism begins with axioms--fundamental truths or irreducible primaries that are self-evident by means of direct perception, the basis for all further knowledge, and undeniable without self-contradiction. Axioms cannot be reduced to other facts or broken down into component parts. They require no proofs or explanations. Objectivism's three basic philosophical axioms are existence, consciousness, and identity--presuppositions of every concept and every statement.

Existence exists and encompasses everything including all states of consciousness.*this implies existence primacy* The world exists independently of the mind and is there to be discovered by the mind. In order to be conscious, we must be conscious of something. There can be no consciousness if nothing exists. Consciousness, the faculty of perceiving that which exists, is the ability to discover, rather than to create, objects. Consciousness, a relational concept, presupposes the existence of something external to consciousness, something to be aware of. Initially, we become aware of something outside of our consciousness and then we become aware of our consciousness by contemplating on the process through which we became aware.

Rand explains that the metaphysically given (i.e., any fact inherent in existence apart from the human action) is absolute and simply is. The metaphysically given includes scientific laws and events taking place outside of the control of men. The metaphysically given must be accepted and cannot be changed. She explains, however, that man has the ability to adapt nature to meet his requirements. Man can creatively rearrange the combination of nature's elements by enacting the required cause, the one necessitated by the immutable laws of existence. The man-made includes any object, institution, procedure, or rule of conduct created by man. Man-made facts are products of choice and can be evaluated and judged and then accepted or rejected and changed when necessary.

*me.

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn074.htm

Godless.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Godless, I read and understood Rand's Objectivism. Actually, you mislisted the three axioms. They are Existence, Identity and Consciousness, NOT Existence, Consciousness, and Identity. The order is very important, since existence is primary, then whatever exists has identity, and then finally comes cosciousness. For the most part, I don't disagree with Rand's analysis of these axioms. I'm am not putting them to dispute. What I'm saying is that God does not breka these axioms, since God is exactly as you stated (though you didn't realize it), "Existence exists and encompasses everything including all states of consciousness." However, your (and Rand's) equation of the universe with existence is premature, and is given no explanation. "Existence" is a quality that things bear. It is the primary quality that comes before any other. I would not equate "existence" with the universe. What I WOULD equate with the universe is the "sum of existing things," for this definition is certain. If what we call "God" IS existence, then God is exactly those three axioms, encompassing all possibility. It is out of these very axioms that all things come. It is said that it is out of God that all things come.

I feel that in my previous posts I haven't been entirely clear, since you haven't been grasping what I've been trying to tell you (it's clear from your posts, and I don't mean any offense). So, I hope that this post is more clear, and you are able to grasp this concept. If it ISN'T, however, I would urge you to read over it, and my others if you so choose, until what I'm saying IS clear, since I feel that I'm simply reasserting much of what I've already said. Often, it is best not to post in haste, but to be certain that what is being conveyed by your dialoguee is understood, so that you may give answer to what he/she is saying. This gives both meaning to what is being proposed by posts, as well as honor to the poster that you would take the time to be certain that you understand what is being conveyed.

Again, I don't mean to be insulting in any way. I feel that these are guidlines that anyone should follow. I always try to understand what the person I'm debating with is trying to tell me, so that I can answer HIS (or her) question/assertion as best I can. I just feel like I've been repeating much of what I've said, and it would save me (and you) a lot of reading, writing and time if we both made certain of clarity.

 

[Godless]

First of all I've understood what you've been writing, second I dont take it personel, "I'm not perfect, I tend to make mistakes" this is why I let you know that with U I "sharpen" my debating skills with you

What I most enjoy of very few theists, is the compassion of understanding and debating skills, and the patience to not be calling each other names, slants, or right down flame wars. Like this no-one learns anything and get nowhere.

"God" IS existence, then God is exactly those three axioms, encompassing all possibility.

What you have done is yet give another (definition) to the word "god", god to me has no identity, the only identity you assert to him this time (is "existence".) You do sound more like a deist, than a Christian. No mal intent there more like a compliment.

However when theist assume that "god" created "existence", this sounds like a contradiction. How can a beign, create itself? For a being to create, it must possess a "consciousness" therefore it has to have an "identity" The identity given, though many are all questionable. Hence god is love, god is unknowable, "god is existence" C were I'm getting at.?

Godless.

 

[Godless]

You know what's funny?

We've completely highjacked this thread, LOL,LOL...

Pat,pat on both our backs!.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

*You know what's funny? We've completely highjacked this thread, LOL,LOL... Pat,pat on both our backs!.

Hehe... too true, too true.

Actually, I have a singular definition for God, which encompasses all of these others, and that is Infinite (more precisely the only existing Actual Infinite). I am not the only one to call God infinite (or existence). Many philosophers have called God infinite, and many still hold this to be true today. I doubt, however, that most who ascribe infinity to God really understands what that means.

And again, I'm going to speak as clearly as I can. God did not create existence. God created existing things. God created the sum of existing things. I do not equate the sum of existing things with existence, as I consider "existence" to be a quality that things bear, the most basic and primary quality that contains all possibility. Ergo, since God didn't create existence, as such, He cannot be said to have created Himself. Rather, Existence, as such, has always been. Existence, itself, in fact, may be said to be infinite, as well as identity and consciousness. However, existing things are not, ergo the sum of existing things isn't infinite, since at any given time some things may exist while others do not. Therefore, if existence itself is infinite, then the sum of existing things is not existence itself. Existence itself, I deem to be God.

Imagine, if you will, prior to the "universe," matter and energy, matter and form, the physical and non-physical. Imagine, a point of minimalism, at which matter and energy are not existing contructs, but rather all is in its most basic form, unconstructed. You virtually have an infinite sea of this "existence stuff." There is no change, ergo no measurable time. This "sea" extends infinitely, and is infinitely comprised. This existence-stuff is existence maximalized in simplicity, and complexity, for it contains within it infinite possibility, and therefore infinite expression. It is the maximalization of existence, identity, and consciousness, in their most basic forms. There is no "thing" existing yet, only this infinite sea of "existence-stuff." Because it is a maximalization of consciousness, it knows itself fully, and therefore understands its nature, and every one of its infinite possibilities. Creation, then, is the taking of "some" of this "existence-stuff" and combining it to make a "thing," (ex nihilo, out of nothing, or no-thing) which then is separate from the infinite, as it now has boundaries, limits. It is finite. Yet, it has, within itself, an inherent "design" or "functionality" of growth, a tending toward the infinite. And so this thing grows, and expands, consuming and combining with more and more of the "existence-stuff." This thing is now called the universe, and it continues to expand, and grow. Yet, since the sea of "existence-stuff" is infinite, it remains unchanged, and infinite. It is that which is beyond the boundaries of the universe. It is that which the universe continues to expand into, and will continue to expand into forever. All possibility is being met out in existing things.

I hope this makes sense. I want you to know, by the way, that this is the first time I've reached such clarity in my own mind.

 

[Godless]

*I hope this makes sense. I want you to know, by the way, that this is the first time I've reached such clarity in my own mind.

And guess who helped?.

I understood everything said above and I do agree with "almost" all the sum that you wrote above, however my friend I don't call it god, I call it "nature".

My disagreement:

I don't believe that the universe will continue expanding forever infenetly. I have a different theory I believe in the theory of the "oscillating universe", however this does not disagree with the sum that you have written, it does have a different perspective, of nature, or god, as you have defined it. But to be certain, we can't be certain of anythig, cause you nor I will live to see it.

Thus it has been enjoyable to debate with you, I believe we've reached a point were we must part, I have but a few days left before I dismantle my desktop and pack it away as I will move to Las Vegas on the 14th.

However if you like to know were a highschool drop out x-drug addict like me, gets his foundation of intelect seehere!.

I stumbled upon this in my quest to know thyself when I was young, however my life continued to be on the roller coaster of confussion for quite some time but reading along the way. After two drug induced nervous-break downs, one attempt at suitside. I finally came to the point of live or die. I chose to live, "oviously"
I started reading the lit from Neo-Tech, Ayn Rand, Bertrand Russel, Aristotle, Plato, Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"link

Thus in the past 9 years I've intergrated phylosophy to its core. "Survival of the human intellect."

And I've come to my own cliche: "I've found god, and god is I." Because I've looke in the mirror and saw the image reflecting back at me, and I've finally go to "know thyself".

Godless.

 

[SnakeLord]

Oh, but wait a minute – empirical evidence? I don’t have any empirical evidence that China exists… I’ve never been to China – never seen it or touched it. I know those who have gone to China and I have their testimony. They have told me about China and I believe them – even without empirical evidence.

If you want to check for yourself as to the existence of a place called China, all you need to do is go there. The same goes for Africa, Australia and India.

The same cannot be said of heaven, hell, valhalla, gods magical city of gold or the end of the rainbow.

How about the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, other planets, asteroids, galaxies, pulsars, or for that matter anything else that looks to me just like a pinprick in the fabric of night? I believe in those things even though I have not ever looked into a telescope to see for myself. Others tell me they have, or they know those who have, or they have read books by those who have – and I believe their testimony – despite my lack of empirical evidence?

All you need to do is look up at night and you'll see the moon. If you have doubts about its existence, you can actually go and find out for yourself. The same goes with Mars and Jupiter.

The same cannot be said of heaven, hell, valhalla, gods magical city of gold or the end of the rainbow.

What about going to the Moon… did Neil Armstrong really stand on the moon? I didn’t see it myself.

And as a consequence there are in fact people who raise doubts over the moon landing.

What about the towers in New York City? I never saw them before they were destroyed? How do I know this whole terrorist/fly-a-plane-into-the-building-and-commit-suicide thing isn’t just made up?

You seem to be delving further and further into the realms of stupidity, and while stupidity is a 'god-given' right, it limits my response. Can you really attempt to liken 'belief' in this to belief in the word of men born several thousand years ago who knew nothing about the world, and wrote about a big sky guy with a bad attitude?

How about Julius Caesar? There is much more written testimony that Jesus existed than Julius Caesar

That's not actually true. So much for 'authority'.

Why should I believe Caesar existed – yet I do, why? Testimony of witnesses! What about Nebuchanezzar, Sargon, Darius, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Catherine the Great… how do I know that any of them ever existed since I have no empirical evidence

Sure, you don't. So why is it you believe in them? Tell me.. why don't you believe in Gilgamesh or Hercules? How do you distinguish a difference between legend/myth and reality?

I mean it's quite clear that you do believe in Napoleon, Alexander and so on, but stop yourself when it comes to anyone "with powers". Tell me why you would dismiss Gilgamesh etc more easily than you would Napoleon.

Also we could then ask why you don't believe in vishnu, tiamat, allah, abellio, apollo.. the list goes on.

As you've been trying to point out, we have no empirical evidence for anything, so why would one specific invisible space being have any more worth than any other? Simply put, it wouldn't.

Instead one is 'picked out of a hat' or drummed into a childs head from birth. I guess you could have been stopped in the street by one of those religious halfwits and taught about a specific version of god there - but then why listen to that person, They have no evidence?

I don’t even have original documents for most of these, only copies.

The same goes for the bible. And the vedas, quran, epic of creation etc etc etc. Without any evidence, which is clearly the case, how do you decide which one you'll believe in?

I haven’t actually duplicated any of their experiments or checked their theories.

The only person responsible for that is you. You can duplicate their experiments if you want to. Don't try and pass it off as "no evidence" because you're a lazy ass.

Even if I were to set up such experiments, how do I know I can trust the instruments which someone else made and calibrated? Why should I believe when I have no direct empirical evidence – I have only their testimony and those who have checked their facts? I have never met any of these people nor have I ever met anyone who has met them. I have only copies of copies of copies of copies of their work and observations – yet I still believe them, why?

Science is openly testable. Once your lazy streak passes you can actually get up and check for yourself.

The same cannot be said of jesus, brahma, allah, marduk or the fairy godmother.

There is a concept called Authority. You must always accept some authority. Authority might be things you do yourself, empirical evidence, but this is actually rare. There is absolutely no way to check everything out yourself and see for yourself.

You might not have empirical evidence for everything, but when something causes you to doubt, you can go and check.

The same cannot be said when it comes to invisible sky beings, souls, daemons, angels, nephilim, or vampires. Damn, even the loch ness monster has more supporting evidence.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

*And guess who helped?.

You did, of course. It's always best to hash things out with people. My ideas are constantly changing and configuring.

*I understood everything said above and I do agree with "almost" all the sum that you wrote above, however my friend I don't call it god, I call it "nature".

This is another thing that needs to be hashed out, what is "nature." There are three connotations to the term, "nature," and I believe they each have the same general meaning. The first is individual nature (i.e., It's my nature to philosophize). The second is nature of a specie (i.e., It's human nature to love). The third is the nature of the universe, or Nature (i.e., When I look up at the countless stars at night, or at the complexity of a snowflake, I am filled with an awe of Nature).

It seems to me that "nature" refers both to construct and consequential function. Individual nature speaks about how an individual is likely to act (and this is due to the individual's particular makeup). Nature of a specie speaks about how a group of similar things (a specie) is likely to act (which is based upon the groups particular construction or makeup, ie, genetics). Universal nature, the nature that we talk about when we are speaking of trees and insects etc... is actually and overall construct, and consequential functionality. The universe as a whole is constructed in a specific way, all interconnected, and therefore also has a specific way of functioning.

However, this definition of nature cannot be applied to the infinite, since the infinite has no specification. Each nature, it seems, is specific, whether to be to the individual, the specie, or the universe. Therefore, nature cannot be an accurate way of describing the infinite, since the infinite would actually be a maximalization of every nature. So, it's "nature" would actually be infinite and therefore undefined. Furthermore, if we were to consider the original "existence-stuff" th emost basic form, and unconstructed, then again this concept of nature could not apply, since nature is function based on construct. Ergo, this "existence-stuff" would have no specific functionality, but rather the maximalization of every form of functionality, and therefore undefined (once again). So it doesn't seem to be proper to call this "existence-stuff" nature, since it's nature would be both undefined, and and non-specific.

Actually, thinking about this, I believe nature to be a fourth axiom. Existence is primary, and anything that exists has identity as something. Furthermore, any "thing" that exists is a constructed form, and therefore has nature, and even this is more primary than consciousness. This is exciting. Have I actually defined a fourth axiom? Existence, Identity, Nature and Consciousness? It would seem that I have.

*I don't believe that the universe will continue expanding forever infenetly. I have a different theory I believe in the theory of the "oscillating universe", however this does not disagree with the sum that you have written, it does have a different perspective, of nature, or god, as you have defined it. But to be certain, we can't be certain of anythig, cause you nor I will live to see it.

The oscillating universe theory does have merit. Actually, however, I would consider, if the universe IS oscillating, that it is a result of an unbalance caused by negation in creation. You may argue that an oscillating universe is capable of meeting out all possibility, and in fact that would be its functionality. However, the same could be said of an infinitely expanding universe. To me, that seems more likely, since the origin of the universe itself seems to be an infinite expanse. The oscillation then would be a result of an imbalance, and therefore a resulting collapse. A then reconstructed universe would be, in a sense, a "second try," if you will, for the universe to expand at a constant, balanced rate.

*Thus it has been enjoyable to debate with you, I believe we've reached a point were we must part, I have but a few days left before I dismantle my desktop and pack it away as I will move to Las Vegas on the 14th.

Indeed, it has been enjoyable. I hope you get to read this before you disassemble your computer. This doesn't have to be a parting, there is so much more to discuss. I believe our philosophies can be integrated. Why? Because we both utilize certain levels of faith (i.e., your belief in an oscillating universe) and reason. These are the only two tools by which we can come to know our universe (a hypothesis, or belief, is had prior to testing and observation, and consequential conclusion even in science). Therefore, the upholding of one to the exclusion of the other is detrimental to our human nature.

*I finally came to the point of live or die. I chose to live, "oviously"

I'm glad for your choice.

*Thus in the past 9 years I've intergrated phylosophy to its core. "Survival of the human intellect." And I've come to my own cliche: "I've found god, and god is I." Because I've looke in the mirror and saw the image reflecting back at me, and I've finally go to "know thyself".

Perhaps "god" isn't the best description.

 

[SnakeLord]

You might be surprised, but all you have to do to prove there is a God, is to ask. I cannot show you God, but God will show you Himself if you ask.

I'm not surprised, this is a common religious mans statement. I've heard the same from people of all religions.

However, you might be surprised if I tell you I did.

Oh wait.. we can't forget the christians "quick escape clause" which usually comes under the guise of "you weren't asking sincerely", or "you weren't looking hard enough", or "god was on vacation that particular day".

Seriously, that garbage is only worth giving to five year olds.

Many, many people have come to that stage in life where they need the existence of a god, and guess what... there's nothing there.

Not only could one question what kind of a being would do things in such manner where it's easier to 'find' the gold at the end of the rainbow than it is to find "him", but given the fact that people have asked - and heard nothing in return, and so many of those who say they have found/heard/felt god, one day turn round and realise it was all nonsense, suggests that there is just nothing there. Tell me, why would they do that? For example Southstar, (apologies for bringing you into the conversation). Tell me.. why would southstar who once knew there was a god, and had a relationship with him, now say there is no such being? I don't sit here believing in gravity one day and then changing my mind the next. And why even call it "belief" or "faith"? If you know you know. It's that bloody simple.

I know I have a daughter. I don't believe I have a daughter, or have faith that I have a daughter, I know I do.

It is by the phrases alone that people can tell you've got no more clue than anyone else.

It's easy to "believe" in something. Be it aliens, gods or genies - it takes absolute certainty to "know". How comes not one of you has any certainty but takes the safe "I believe" method instead?

Faith is the best you can achieve.. I find that shocking.

 

[SnakeLord]

You see, I was once like you, and I asked... There is absolutely nothing I can say which you would not ridicule and scorn - and I don't blame you since it would be totally outside your experience, and I might once have scoffed too.

Funnily enough it has nothing to do with ridicule or scorn, but simple testability. Your say so simply does not cut it - and if you thought it did, then the same must be said of every single other claim made throughout the history of humanity - from half man/half scorpion beings to martians.

It doesn't take much more however, than seeing someone who three weeks ago would have said exactly the same things you're saying, wake up one day and just not believe something exists anymore.

It either does or it doesn't, and you can never justify knowledge of something's existence suddenly turning into the same person saying "it doesn't exist". There is no other example of people knowing something exists one moment, then having doubts about its existence moments later. To put it simply:

There is nothing 'real' that rests solely on faith, solely on the hope that its true.

The thing is, you're no different. Every single thing you say, I have heard countless times as if you're all reading it from a "how to be religious" guidebook. Don't think you need to 'convey your experiences' because I have heard them a trillion times. It usually starts with "I was in such a bad state, my life was nearly at an end...", which shows that it's little more than a plead for help - a plead which you answer, but assign to the clouds.

If you will not believe the testimony of the biblical authors, or the thousands of other first-century writings, then you will certainly not believe me.

I must admit I'm facing some difficulty wrapping my head around this quote. Kindly tell me why you think corpses that have been rotting in the ground for over 2000 years, would have any more validity or worth than you?

Give me one decent grounded reason as to why anyone would assume a level of trust to people several eons past? And if so, why those specific people over others? (e.g the writers of the epic of gilgamesh).

Have the biblical writers proved themselves trustworthy anymore than the writers of the quran/vedas etc?

Although I admit your testimony would mean very little to me, it would certainly have more merit than the words of Mr.Anonymous dead guy.

Here you are assiging a level of trust to people you quite clearly cannot. You can't even give me names of these people.

I find it amusing that each non-thiest wants God to come perform a miracle just for them

I never asked for any miracles. Not to mention that any event can be construed as a 'miracle' to those with that kind of mentality. I remember when a gay radio station got hit by lightning that many religious people said it was god, but yet when a church got hit by lightning, it's simple electrical discharge.

When it affects you personally, science gives the answer - but when it affects others, it becomes a miracle, or act of god.

On the other side of that we have personal 'miracles'. Let's say you survive something heavily against the odds. You'll rant and rave about how jesus was being a nice guy, not realising that sometimes you just get lucky. But we can still look at the billions of people that don't get lucky.

Every religion has its set of 'miracles', all performed by differing deities, but should a 'miracle' not occur, again the answer is science, or in the case of fundamentalists: the devil.

God (Yehovah) has done exactly that in front of millions of people many times over the centuries

Oh yeah? When was that?

Let me ask you a question.. What caused the bubonic plague? I know, I bring it up a lot - but it makes a very important point. Why do you think as man has become more advanced scientifically, that the attributed answer is "rats/germs" etc.. but a plague that's happened 2000+ years ago when nobody knew anything about the world, is attributed to the sky guy?

Do you think god caused the bubonic plague because he was pissed with europeans, or does that just sound ludicrous? If it sounds ludicrous, why do biblical accounts sound any less ludicrous? Would it not be prevalent to state that they just didn't know about bacteria and various other scientific explanations that would have given an accurate answer?

It's a case of seeing miracles because that's what you want to see. They're not there, it's simply what you're looking for. Seek and ye shall find.

yet each generations insists they will not believe unless they see it for themselves, not willing to trust in the witness of others.

Well, a simple "hello" would do. But tell me, why is it that according to biblical accounts, god was "in your face" several thousand years ago and has since then slipped off the face of the earth?

No more sitting on mountains barking commandments, no more mass annihilations or city bombings, no more closing womens wombs, frog infestations or slaying of the first born. The dude has vanished off into obscurity, and science has taken his place.

When there's an earthquake, volcanic eruption or lightning storm, you don't claim it's god. You know why and how these things happen. We even have instruments that can tell us when they'll happen in advance of the event.

Unless you would now claim that these instruments can detect when god is having a bad hair day, we will have to concur that science is providing the 'real' answers to the events that take place on this planet. So what has changed?

Mankind has advanced to a degree where he can find the cause and reason for things. 2000 years ago man could not. They had no understanding and no devices with which to measure natural occurences. As such "god" was the simplest answer they could muster.

I can't blame them for their ignorance, but I can blame you for yours.

And you dare question why we don't "trust the word of these 'witnesses'"?

The fact is, they have absolutely nothing to offer.

Further to which, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that these people would have actually witnessed this being anymore than I have. The bible is full of these people.. their knowledge all coming from dreams, visions, or the word of others. Do you place much trust in dreams and visions?

I do acknowledge that dreams have been of great significance to many people, but how trustworthy are they?

But instead of reason, you put complete "faith" in a dream some guy had two millennia ago. That's lunacy, plain and simple. And then, incredibly enough, think you're in a position to question the existence of the moon.

Religious belief is the very borderline between sanity and insanity. It's only one small step until you're claiming pokemon was made by the devil, or stoning your children to death because you heard god telling you to. Yes, these people think they're sane, just like you probably do, but none of you are. You're stuck in this fantasy world, that isn't quite as groovy as alien abduction, nor as funny as bigfoot - but fantasy all the same.

Fear, loneliness or worldly ignorance - the choice is yours, but it's only a matter of time before you become a complete mental cabbage, locked in the realms of make believe forever.

I found that the only true religion was the religion of Jesus, not that of the Paulines nor that of the Jews. And then I asked...

Yeah, and they found that the only true religion was something else. Technically that means one of you must be mistaken, but in reality, you're all mistaken.

 

[Godless]

Me!! I'm dismanteling my computer the very last day I have here in this apt. The DSL connection will be till the 15th, I move the 14th!.

This is another thing that needs to be hashed out, what is "nature." There are three connotations to the term, "nature," and I believe they each have the same general meaning. The first is individual nature (i.e., It's my nature to philosophize). The second is nature of a specie (i.e., It's human nature to love). The third is the nature of the universe, or Nature (i.e., When I look up at the countless stars at night, or at the complexity of a snowflake, I am filled with an awe of Nature).

Well I'm only glad that you dind't simply state "god is nature" However you could "state" that he/it/she is part of our nature.

"Nature to be commanded must be understood" I've heard this before, however my books are long packed and ready. I can't recall.

The objectivist defenition of nature is; "the sum of that which is" hence nature is existence.

However we've worped words usage in our society, for example we communicate in metaphors, so when you state (that's his nature to philosophize, or I'ts human nature to love) you are stating characteristics of our species or individuals in metaphor. Nature is the sum of all that exists, so when you speak of the "nature of the universe" you are defining it's movements, its' elements, physics, astrophysics, and quantum physics. Therefore you are in quest of "understanding" that which exists.

However, this definition of nature cannot be applied to the infinite, since the infinite has no specification.

Existence has no specification, and since I've defined the metaphor word "nature" to mean existence, nature has no specification.

The oscillating universe theory does have merit. Actually, however, I would consider, if the universe IS oscillating, that it is a result of an unbalance caused by negation in creation. You may argue that an oscillating universe is capable of meeting out all possibility, and in fact that would be its functionality. However, the same could be said of an infinitely expanding universe.

The oscillating concept has credibility to my observation of nature, the ever expanding universe concept carries a death to it, the space between galaxies are widening, further and further, if this were to happen "enfinetly" what we know of space today would not exist, galaxies would fall apart, and gaps between them widen infinetly. Entropy would exhaust it's energy and the universe remaining elements would be sitting still in the cold dark space. At this moment here inject line from the movie (the matrix) "everything has a beging and an end" The end of entropy would bring forth the "big crunch" were gravity a minimal force become the strongest force starts pulling everything back to a finite point, and explode, again.

The good thing about this concept is that life will "rebirth", just as our flowers die in winter, and reborn in spring, by observing "the tiniest detail of nature" this flower example, may just explain futher "nature of the universe".

The reason why the oscillating theory of the universe is widely "rejected" is becuase it's mostly used by atheists, free thinker, humanists, skeptics, and the like. However I can remember when the "heliocentric" theory was also refuted by scientists under the influence of the church, and to even to speak of it, would be blaspheme and the individual would be inprisoned, burnt or killed. Thus is the rhetoric of religious beliefs.

However you on the otherhand, are not a bible thumping type of Christian, I appreciated that you resort to your own mind, to get answers.

Most Christians in these forums when debating their beliefs act in the manner of David F. sounding like a "idiot" claiming that there's no emperical evidence of China, when all he has to do is get off his ass and get a plane ticket, or a cruise ship ticket to China. Want emperical belief of China Dave?, pick up any toy sold in a dollar store!!. "made in China" The toy you hold is emperical evidence of China.

*Perhaps "god" isn't the best description.

What is "god" realy all about? "Control". Hence when I claim quote: "I found god and god is I"

I'ts simply stating that I've got "control" of my own choices and their consequences. My life, or anyone's elses is determined by the choices one makes, our destiny is shaped by the choices made during the course of our lives. A man is in control of his own destiny by the choices that he makes of his own volition. We learn from our wrong choices, "i oviously had at one time "chosen" a life style that put my own life in jeopardy, the decision to live, brought forth "choices" to be made, in order to change my lifestyle, and prolong my life" The right choice oviously was made, I'm still here free of drugs. Thus I use the word "god" as a "metaphor" that I live by my own volition, that I have "control" of my choices, wether they be wrong or not will be determined by the outcome of my life. So far so good.

Godless.