Did anyone notice that the Bibles were changed in 1982?.
No God???
- Thread starter CHRISCUNNINGHAM
- Start date
Raithere, it's been awhile but ya...
I know you may have completely forgotten about this thread simply because I had to venture all the way into the seventh page to find it, but I am back. I needed a break and some time to think. So here we go.
This is a frame where one would be able to see the universe(s). As the earth would seem to appear its own universe relative to someone who is unable to leave the planet, the universe seems to be its own engulfing entity, an entity that is inescapable.
Do I consider myself a nihilist... no. But your question is a one of even greater significance.
Upon what "rules" is logic based on? What governs possible and impossible? What is "true" and what is "false"?
But what good are the examples if there is no "pre-defined" concept to compare them too?
And how was this pre-defined concept defined?
Oh really...why not?
Really...why does that sound so familiar....
Anyhow, reality is relative to the observer. Only that which one perceives is considered "real". The fact that I cannot prove that these alien concepts of motion and rest do not exist is irrelevant for two reasons, one being that it is impossible to prove a negative, and the other, I do not need to prove that they do not exist for it is a widely accepted practice to simply assume that which is not perceptable is subsequently nonexistent.
I am asking what state of motion I am in, relative to MYSELF, all other frames of reference are extraneous.
What does motion "look like" to someone who has never been at rest?
I know you may have completely forgotten about this thread simply because I had to venture all the way into the seventh page to find it, but I am back. I needed a break and some time to think. So here we go.
This is a frame where one would be able to see the universe(s). As the earth would seem to appear its own universe relative to someone who is unable to leave the planet, the universe seems to be its own engulfing entity, an entity that is inescapable.
Do I consider myself a nihilist... no. But your question is a one of even greater significance.
Upon what "rules" is logic based on? What governs possible and impossible? What is "true" and what is "false"?
But what good are the examples if there is no "pre-defined" concept to compare them too?
And how was this pre-defined concept defined?
Oh really...why not?
Really...why does that sound so familiar....
Anyhow, reality is relative to the observer. Only that which one perceives is considered "real". The fact that I cannot prove that these alien concepts of motion and rest do not exist is irrelevant for two reasons, one being that it is impossible to prove a negative, and the other, I do not need to prove that they do not exist for it is a widely accepted practice to simply assume that which is not perceptable is subsequently nonexistent.
I am asking what state of motion I am in, relative to MYSELF, all other frames of reference are extraneous.
What does motion "look like" to someone who has never been at rest?
Last edited:
I'm sure... but the Bible is irrelevant. It's shoddy compilation of chidrens fables and in no way refutes the existence of a God.
Next...
Next...
Last edited:
Realize I did not say any god, I said God in reference to the one in the Holy Bible. Hawaii has landmarks for proof of the existence of Pele, one of several Hawaiian gods. Hinduism has landmarks which suggest the existence of at least one Hindu god. Greek mythology implied flat Earth which makes Greek gods false gods, unless you think Earth is flat. What god is yours, what are the basis for your beliefs, when did your religion begin, what is its theory of everything, and what are your grounds for theism instead of atheism and polytheism? If you only think a god exists without any basis for your thought, do not bother responding.
GodLied.
Realize that I never said anything about "the holy bibles God" I simply said God.
Please, I have plenty of base. You see I am not limited to following the shephard as so many others are. I come to my own conclusions, without anyone telling me anything to coerce them.
You see, there is this realm of "existence". This is the ultimate frame of reference. The absolute frame. Every person, every galaxy, every universe exists within this realm. For the very concept of existence is the embodiment of this realm. There is no escaping this realm, and it is all powerful, completely free to do what it wills. Quite simply put God doesnt have to be a man who is a magician with a flowing beard that likes to grant wishes to be a God. So stop making the assumption that because the existence of such a PERSON seems inane that a God must not exist.
Please, I have plenty of base. You see I am not limited to following the shephard as so many others are. I come to my own conclusions, without anyone telling me anything to coerce them.
You see, there is this realm of "existence". This is the ultimate frame of reference. The absolute frame. Every person, every galaxy, every universe exists within this realm. For the very concept of existence is the embodiment of this realm. There is no escaping this realm, and it is all powerful, completely free to do what it wills. Quite simply put God doesnt have to be a man who is a magician with a flowing beard that likes to grant wishes to be a God. So stop making the assumption that because the existence of such a PERSON seems inane that a God must not exist.
Um, isn't it quite easy to prove that 1 + 1 equals 2?
I get one apple. I get another apple. Together, I have 2 apples! Therefore, 1 + 1 = 2. It's been proven.
Right?
Completely wrong...
What is this concept of two?
How was it derived?
One apple plus another apple is not PROOF of "1+1=2" it arbitrarily displays it, and includes the conclusion in the proof itself. You are saying 1+1=2 BECUASE 1+1=2.
How about this...
...God exists because God exists.....
What is this concept of two?
How was it derived?
One apple plus another apple is not PROOF of "1+1=2" it arbitrarily displays it, and includes the conclusion in the proof itself. You are saying 1+1=2 BECUASE 1+1=2.
How about this...
...God exists because God exists.....
If I am not mistaken, by your own example you have proven that God does not exist. If there is no possible way to prove that 1+1=2--although it seems to make sense--there is no way to prove that God exists, especially because there is nothing that can be equated to a thing such as God. Perhaps I am wrong in this, but how would you prove that God exists if you cannot prove anything else "on God's green Earth"?
Quote the post I made that supports your statement. Failure to do so and you have misrepresented me. Misrepresentation is a false position. Is your true position that a god exists because it is "inane" for God to exist?
What manner of position is this, Chris?
GodLied
Re: Re: Re: No God???
There may have been a habitual liar that started the Old Testament. He might have had multiple personality disorder. Once others became aware of tax exempt tith, con artists and confused devout religious people promoted religion. It is a respectable tax shelter from which televangelists can earn millions. Currently reborn criminals enter into religion....they know they will not be jailed when they convert 1,000,000 followers to give $10.00 weekly to the Church for uplifting religious words.
Organized religion is the best con art in the world.
GodLied.
There may have been a habitual liar that started the Old Testament. He might have had multiple personality disorder. Once others became aware of tax exempt tith, con artists and confused devout religious people promoted religion. It is a respectable tax shelter from which televangelists can earn millions. Currently reborn criminals enter into religion....they know they will not be jailed when they convert 1,000,000 followers to give $10.00 weekly to the Church for uplifting religious words.
Organized religion is the best con art in the world.
GodLied.
Re: Re: Re: Re: No God???
How did they lie? I believe they were giving accurate interpretations generally to the best of their ability.. but that ability was significantly limited due to a lack of knowledge regarding their environment, which led to whatever ridiculous explanation you could come up with being as plausible as the next thing. Over time that would develop into intentional skewing so as to seem authoritative, which if you could read and write must have been pretty authoritative to someone who had never seen a person who could do as such. They just lacked good education because there was basically none to be had. After that yeah it became kind of a con, but no more so that any other lack of comprehension like "medicine" at the time. In any feild or craft the opportunistic (shallow) human will take the advantage presents itself and ensures his enhanced propagation into the future. Far too often that advantage is short sighted in terms of the larger context that individual's personal scenario... That's where the part where people are dumb comes in.
Unfortunately you are misktaken...
I have never stated that God exists becuase God exists.
I have stated that an absolute frame of reference, which undoubtably exists, can be and is the "realm" of God. The housing/emobdiment of God. And this ultimate frame of reference is COMPLETELY tantamount to such a thing as a God.
....unless you're talking about a God that grants wishes, and punishs those who follow free will in the wrong direction....but of course...you wouldn't be talking about that because it is completely exclusive of anything that would even be remotely pertinent when speaking about a God...
Last edited:
Pardon?
Re: Re: No God???
Good question! It is not a physical image but a spiritual image.
As I've said previously, we were put here on Earth to be a vessel for the spirit of God, our Creator, but we start out looking like our natural parents and end up looking like each other.
What I mean by this is that when mates grow old together, they take on each other's traits (both physical and spiritual). But as death nears, the old folks start deteriorating and end up looking like each other.
I had this experience when my mother died recently in the hospital. All the old folks near death looked alike and no longer resembled their children or family members.
Good question! It is not a physical image but a spiritual image.
As I've said previously, we were put here on Earth to be a vessel for the spirit of God, our Creator, but we start out looking like our natural parents and end up looking like each other.
What I mean by this is that when mates grow old together, they take on each other's traits (both physical and spiritual). But as death nears, the old folks start deteriorating and end up looking like each other.
I had this experience when my mother died recently in the hospital. All the old folks near death looked alike and no longer resembled their children or family members.
Re: Re: Re: No God???
I just love this type of authoritative tripe. As if you have some sort of special knowledge. What? Where do you attain such authority? Why do you fail to realize that the "reason we are here" is both
1) because our mother was impregnated and gave a successfull birth and
2) subjectively interpreted by pretty much every human, though there are a lot of people who are looking for someone to tell them the answer even though nobody has better than a subjective one.
It's amazing how people will buy that you are an authority just because you claim it. How is it that you feel so confident in your eronious conclusion?
I just love this type of authoritative tripe. As if you have some sort of special knowledge. What? Where do you attain such authority? Why do you fail to realize that the "reason we are here" is both
1) because our mother was impregnated and gave a successfull birth and
2) subjectively interpreted by pretty much every human, though there are a lot of people who are looking for someone to tell them the answer even though nobody has better than a subjective one.
It's amazing how people will buy that you are an authority just because you claim it. How is it that you feel so confident in your eronious conclusion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: No God???
I feel confident because this is what I instinctively believe just like Xians and Muslims have their own individual beliefs. I am not demanding that you or anyone else believe this because I say so. It is a belief that one would have to feel instinctly and not be forced to believe. It's a very personal revelation. I do believe I have the responsibility to share this belief with my fellow man but, ultimately, it is up to the individual to believe whatever they choose to believe. Personally, I don't care what other people believe.
I've never claimed to be an authority. If my self-confidence is mistaken as being authoritarian, it is because I believe in this concept with all my heart.
By the way, why does my self-confidence bother you so much?
Originally posted by wesmorris
I just love this type of authoritative tripe. As if you have some sort of special knowledge. What? Where do you attain such authority? Why do you fail to realize that the "reason we are here" is both
1) because our mother was impregnated and gave a successfull birth and
2) subjectively interpreted by pretty much every human, though there are a lot of people who are looking for someone to tell them the answer even though nobody has better than a subjective one.
It's amazing how people will buy that you are an authority just because you claim it. How is it that you feel so confident in your eronious conclusion?
I feel confident because this is what I instinctively believe just like Xians and Muslims have their own individual beliefs. I am not demanding that you or anyone else believe this because I say so. It is a belief that one would have to feel instinctly and not be forced to believe. It's a very personal revelation. I do believe I have the responsibility to share this belief with my fellow man but, ultimately, it is up to the individual to believe whatever they choose to believe. Personally, I don't care what other people believe.
I've never claimed to be an authority. If my self-confidence is mistaken as being authoritarian, it is because I believe in this concept with all my heart.
By the way, why does my self-confidence bother you so much?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No God???
Pardon, but you seemed to me to be promoting as otherwise.
Why?
Why would you draw that conclusion? That's silly.
Pardon, but you seemed to me to be promoting as otherwise.
Why?
Well, of course. Everyone has that decision to make regardless though.
Then why do you feel compelled to "spread the word"?
By "spreading the word" you appear to me to claim authoritative knowledge. I mean, you are the authority regarding your personal revalation right? You feel compelled to spread that message right? As such you claim authority, though your message is completely subjective and IMO, eronious typified tripe. I think that acceptance of a personal "spiritual" experience as implicative of objective truth is extremely short-sighted. You attach meaningless labels like "god" to that which you cannot explain and then promote the idea as some kind of revalation.
I tried to explain your appearance as authoritarian above. Obviously I don't know you and I don't necessarily think your self-confidence is mistaken except regarding your ability to draw rational conclusions from "spiritual" experiences. That and my looming question regarding your apparent compulsion to 'spread the word'.
Which makes me question your judgement.
Why would you draw that conclusion? That's silly.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No God???