No God???

Completely wrong...
No its not...
What is this concept of two?
Two isn't a concept. It's a label. An apple is one. We attach the label "1" to an apple (or any singular object). When we have an apple + an apple, we give it the group of objects the label two.
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.
Total bs. It is very solid proof. We label an apple and another apple together two. Therefore, if you place an apple (which has the label 1) together with another apple (which also has the label 1), you have an apple and another apple together. Therefore, they form the label two.

How about this...
...God exists because God exists.....
Translated: I have no evidence that God exists, so I'm going to try and trick you into thinking I don't have to provide evidence.
How about this...
...Santa exists because Santa exists...
 
No its not...

No......really.......it is.

Two isn't a concept. It's a label. An apple is one. We attach the label "1" to an apple (or any singular object). When we have an apple + an apple, we give it the group of objects the label two.

Ok..however stating that we have one apple added to another apple eqauls TWO apples does not prove that 1+1=2. What's your point because you obviously missed mine.

Total bs. It is very solid proof.

No....really...it's not.

You mean that anything is provable by simply stating what it is one is trying to prove, and corroborating it with that conclusion....

Translated: I have no evidence that God exists, so I'm going to try and trick you into thinking I don't have to provide evidence.

Uhhh yeaaahh....the statement the above was a response to was completely sarcastic. I mean...the point of making the comment was to show how silly you sound saying that 1+1=2 BECAUSE 1+1=2. But I guess you missed that....
 
Re: Raithere, it's been awhile but ya...

Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM
I needed a break and some time to think. So here we go.
No problem at all, I quite understand.
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.
I understand what an absolute frame of reference is, I just don’t see that one is evident. Perhaps some day we’ll discover one but in the meantime the lack of such an absolute does not invalidate the relative relationships we have discovered.
Do I consider myself a nihilist... no
Well, the argument you're giving is essentially nihilistic.
Upon what "rules" is logic based on? What governs possible and impossible? What is "true" and what is "false"?
There are no ‘rules’ per se to logic, there are only fallacies and more-or-less arguable propositions. Logic doesn’t have anything to do with what is true or false, possible or impossible outside of logical argument. Logic is simply a formal method of thought very similar to mathematics. It is a way to conceptualize reality and to analyze reasoning.
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?
I find it unlikely that there was a pre-defined concept. The concept was born from perception, most primary concepts are.

Oh really...why not?
Because motion is relative. Without a point of reference there can be no motion. Without motion the concept of rest is meaningless.

Anyhow, reality is relative to the observer. Only that which one perceives is considered "real".
This is a tough one. Reality, by definition, is not relative to the observer. However, Reality may in fact be relative (which quantum physics seems to be indicating) but relative to the rest of reality rather than to the observer. Currently, I am at the point where I find the truest resolution is not to always insist upon reduction. We may simply have to accept that there are multiple levels of reality that are true.
it is impossible to prove a negative
This is often misused. One can prove a negative within a finite ‘world’. For instance, I can quite conclusively prove that there are no wild boars in the room with me. I can also prove that the Greek Pantheon does not live atop Mt. Olympus. I can also prove, by definition, that there is no such thing as a square circle. The problem with proving a negative is when we’re dealing with the unknown or semantic differences.
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 think we’re off track but that’s not quite true. It might be nit-picking but we do accept the existence of things that we cannot perceive as long we can perceive some effect that thing may cause.
I am asking what state of motion I am in, relative to MYSELF, all other frames of reference are extraneous.
Unless you are talking about the movement of parts of your body relative to other parts of your body there is no motion. Relative to yourself you are always at rest.

What does motion "look like" to someone who has never been at rest?
We never are at rest because we are always in motion relative to something else. So things would look exactly the way they do.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM
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.
Undoubtedly exists? Care to give us your argument?

~Raithere
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: No God???

Originally posted by JOHANNsebastianBACH
I have nothing to rebel against. i am in the military (government) and i live alone.

Anyway, The people who become Christians from atheist parents are rock-bottom junkies, or people who have nothing going for them, or they are old and are going to die soon. All of these people claim to be what the Christians call SAVED. Saved from what? You might ask. The only thing they are being saved from is, being a junky, a life of bullshit, and well as for the old people, they are the smartest because they lived a great life and then are now forgiven.

Excellent argumants!
 
Yep...

Originally posted by Mystech
Then how is it that man has accomplished so much without him?

I find your level of blind devotion to be utterly sickening, time to get out and really see the world, and realize how utterly childish your views are. Don't you see that thinking like this is just a form of slavery? The church trys to control your mind by making you think that you are completely impotent and helpless without them.

I completely agree with you,Mystech.
 
Ok..however stating that we have one apple added to another apple eqauls TWO apples does not prove that 1+1=2. What's your point because you obviously missed mine.
Because we assign two apples with the value 2.
We assign one apple with the value 1.

Therefore, if the value's 1 and 1 are added together, which each represent one apple, you end up with two apples. Two apples has a value of 2.

There we go. It's been proven. 1 + 1 = 2.
 
I understand what an absolute frame of reference is, I just don’t see that one is evident. Perhaps some day we’ll discover one but in the meantime the lack of such an absolute does not invalidate the relative relationships we have discovered.

This is the frame in which the universe can be viewed from. And the reason why I state this undoubtably exists, is because if it did not we in fact could not ever refer to the universe as an singler entity. And when I say universe I am including all the other " bubble universes" that may exist.

This ultimate frame of reference is existence itself.

Well, the argument you're giving is essentially nihilistic.

Well where I feel I differ is in the sense that though I believe that everything is essentially undefineable and completely conjured, I believe this is because it is all created to be so. Why? I am not sure yet. But as profound as reality being a figment of our imagination may be, it is a truth.

There are no ‘rules’ per se to logic, there are only fallacies and more-or-less arguable propositions. Logic doesn’t have anything to do with what is true or false, possible or impossible outside of logical argument. Logic is simply a formal method of thought very similar to mathematics. It is a way to conceptualize reality and to analyze reasoning.

Well what makes something "Logical" or "illogical", what makes something true or false, what makes something a fallacy.



Because motion is relative. Without a point of reference there can be no motion. Without motion the concept of rest is meaningless.

Exactly...but without the concept of rest how is there motion?

I think we’re off track but that’s not quite true. It might be nit-picking but we do accept the existence of things that we cannot perceive as long we can perceive some effect that thing may cause.

So then order in the universe is an acceptable, and preceivable effect of implying a creator?


Unless you are talking about the movement of parts of your body relative to other parts of your body there is no motion. Relative to yourself you are always at rest.

So do you mind explaining to I, the entity of perpetual motion, what exactly this "rest" state that relative to me I exist in?



We never are at rest because we are always in motion relative to something else. So things would look exactly the way they do.

Maybe. But we in fact are never in motion relative to ourselves. For everything can be considered to be moving around us. A three dimensional conveyor belt if you will.

If I am in a perpetual state of motion what could I call this entity you claim is "rest". For the only real way to define something as "rest" is to use a reference object that would appear to be moving at the "same speed".

Hmmm... I need to think about this perptual motion idea a bit more.

I will get back to you on it.
 
Therefore, if the value's 1 and 1 are added together, which each represent one apple, you end up with two apples. Two apples has a value of 2.

Once again you have not proven anything, you have simply stated it.

Because we assign two apples with the value 2.
We assign one apple with the value 1.

We... assign... two apples... with... a value... of 2...And one apple... with a value of.... one....

Hmm, well then what is this "two" apples that we are assigning the value of 2 to?
 
Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM
And the reason why I state this undoubtably exists, is because if it did not we in fact could not ever refer to the universe as an singler entity.
Why not? A species is not a singular entity is it a categorization of individual organisms by traits, yet we can refer to insects, or humans as singular entities.

This ultimate frame of reference is existence itself.
How do you know that it’s absolute? What if it’s infinite in one or more dimensions?
Well where I feel I differ is in the sense that though I believe that everything is essentially undefineable and completely conjured, I believe this is because it is all created to be so. Why? I am not sure yet.
I have no problem with that as long as it is admitted.
But as profound as reality being a figment of our imagination may be, it is a truth.
Or would it be simpler to say that the nature of reality is that it can never be absolutely known?
Well what makes something "Logical" or "illogical"
A logical conclusion is one that is reached through a proper argument. For instance: A > B, B > C therefore A > C. An illogical conclusion skips some steps along the way: A > B therefore A > C.
what makes something true or false,
Ultimately? I don’t know. Personally, I find something to be more true the more it is congruent with other things.
what makes something a fallacy.
A fallacy is a technical flaw in an argument where the premises do not infer the conclusion. Such as the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance: Science does not know what caused the Universe to come into being therefore God must have created the Universe.

Exactly...but without the concept of rest how is there motion?
Motion is self-apparent, one does not need to have the concept of rest to understand it.

So then order in the universe is an acceptable, and preceivable effect of implying a creator?
’Order’ is caused by the laws of nature.

So do you mind explaining to I, the entity of perpetual motion, what exactly this "rest" state that relative to me I exist in?
Sure, the distance between you and yourself never changes.

Maybe. But we in fact are never in motion relative to ourselves. For everything can be considered to be moving around us. A three dimensional conveyor belt if you will.
Correct.

If I am in a perpetual state of motion what could I call this entity you claim is "rest". For the only real way to define something as "rest" is to use a reference object that would appear to be moving at the "same speed".
An object at rest, relative to you, is ‘moving’ at the same velocity and in the same direction as you, yes.

I will get back to you on it.
No problem. You might want to consider what Einstein had to say about it: http://www.bartleby.com/173/

~Raithere
 
Whether this does any good to post here again I don't know. Ha its been quite a while.

Raithere if you are still "right there" to answer I am back to continue, if you so choose.

Let it resume....

Why not? A species is not a singular entity is it a categorization of individual organisms by traits, yet we can refer to insects, or humans as singular entities.

The universe as it its parts is comprised of gas dust galaxies and light. But the idea of "universe" lends itself to a singular enity seprated from its opposite "not universe" for when one labels something he is seperating it from what it is not. More pertinently if the universe is, however curved in any way there is a greater dimension/entity in which curves relatively to. This presumably is the absolute frame of reference.

How do you know that it’s absolute? What if it’s infinite in one or more dimensions?

Infinty is a product of imperfect categorization. Our minds seperate an object into smaller, yet similar enities, but then treats this scaled version as a part of the original when truly it is the original. For instance, points on a line, if you seperate the line into "points" an infinity crops up, but this plenum of points is nothing more than a line, and each point is ultimately a line itself.

|____________|
|______|

One could say these are approximately a 2:1 ratio, but this is nothing more than the original segment scaled to a different size, not a seperate entity with a seperate "absolute value". This sense of absolute value is not, however, a product of absolute logic, rather a discernibly relative logic.


Or would it be simpler to say that the nature of reality is that it can never be absolutely known?

Maybe. But not necessarily. I'm pressed for time so I will get back to this, IF you're even reading this. Ha.



’Order’ is caused by the laws of nature.


As for my original statement that you were replying to, I take it back. I have come to realize that "order" has no absolute meaningThe Laws of nature we have invented just as we have invented mathematics, for chaos and order are relative observations just as truth and falsehood. Randomness does not exist.


But in the world, this existence, what is purpose, and why should it have absolute antecedence.

Essentially...can purpose have any purpose?

Is its integrality in man's tainted logic the manifestation of the given absolute?


Motion is self-apparent, one does not need to have the concept of rest to understand it.

My point is that its only "self-apparent" because rest exists.

Again, how can one define motion without a "motionless" point of reference?
 
God doesn't exist!

Originally posted by riverline
Mystech



This is not a logical statement. Logically, You can not prove that GOD DOES NOT exist. There is no evidence that he does not exist.

GOD is a theory which each person has his own way of beliving in.

Those who believe in GOD are

1. Some who believe in GOD by their heart just to conpensate for their lack of security in life, and hence dont care about evidence.

2. Some people tend to impose their logic on true logic and claim to have a proof to his existence.

3. and others see that the probability of his existence is more than the probability of his nonexistence.

I think I belong to the third category.

You can only think on entities who live in higher dimension,they are gods for us-we're in 3th dimension.So,in higher dimension-4th dimension entities are superior to 3dimensional entities.So,these entities you can call gods,but there is no god,what theists talk about.
 
I completely disagree,about world being an illusion...

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
Truthseeker, have you ever thought of the possibility that your whole world only exists inside your mind? All of us, your friends, the ground beneith you are only electrical signals in your brain, or perhaps you have quite a different neurological system? If I preached to you that this was true, that this universe does not actually exist exept in your mind, and I tell you I have faith in it, would you believe me?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is the world is NOT the illusion.If the world is illusion and if we create reality,we could change that reality antime we wake up,since we dream a different reality.Observers don't create reality,because you couldn't die,you could change reality as you wanted,and you could phase your hand thru these things like rock,woods or anything else what is made from solid matter.The world is a real place,but we don't see it in the entire spectrum-that's why we have instruments to see it.You can't say to poor,hungry kids that the world is an illusion,than why are they suffering,why people fight for survival,is that an illusion?No,it's real.Which proves that reality is real,and not the product of our own brain.It depends on how much our brain can detect reality.You can't create reality in your brain,unless you have memories.To have memories you have to pick up that information from the outside world.That irrefutably proves,that reality creates memories,memories of this reality are stored in the brain,which enables us to recognize that we have been here,or we haven't.You can't say that brain creates reality on the places you have never been and have never been remembered in th brain-that irrefutably proves that reality is true.People who say that brain creates reality,has never suffered in his life,never tasted the "l" from word "life",and haven't been torchered.Your brain could easily destroy/erase everyone and eerything on your way,if they,space around and the entire universe were being simply nothing more than just an illusion.Those philosophers that gave that the most illogical theory I've ever heard,don't what they talk about.However,our mind can't create reality,unless it has seen it before.All the images can't be create before you saw how the world looks like.Than when the brain sees how the real world looks like,than he created his own reality,to mix up with real,but the brain doesn't affect the real reality around us.That inside realit is created from the brain,as the result after seeing the reality around.Our mind don't control reality otherwise we could change are reality whenever we can,please.And it's not the mind who controls blinking, breathing, and other unconscious functions,it' the brain that controls them all-brain creates and controls our conscious and unconscious/sub-conscious mind.It is the brain's capacity to learn,not mind's.Saying that world is an illusion is the biggest stupidity I've ever heard.How does my mind create dreams?Simply,when someone/something bothers me,torchers me...Brain creates dreams because of the uncomplished wishes,you create dreams where the world is when you imagine.Every time you wake there is always the same world.Nothing happens when you die,many say your brain is mixing pictures and dreams(which are not reality,but hallucination),on the edge of death,however when you die,there is nothing left.The touch inside the dream can't kill you.I've been dreaming that someone has killed me,with the knife in my stomach.I didn't feel the pain,I didn't even feel the touch I only felt fear.When you fear something or someone in th real life,your brain creates images of that person or place where something happened,but it's not real.A dream is not temporal reality,it's only an answer to the circumstances you have been in-brain warns you to not forget it,until you face them.
However,I completely agree with you what you said about God-which is only a fantasy,nothing more,nothing less.
 
Re: god is the biggest HOAX ever

Originally posted by JOHANNsebastianBACH
I agree with Bates. I’ve gone to church off and on since I was born. I have not seen or felt anything that would prove to my-self that god exists. I always tried to talk to god but I only got silence. People think they talk to god. It is only their self they are talking to. They think the voice, which is theirs, is gods but they are sadly mistaken. I think speaking in tongs is a HOAX.

I completely agree with you,Johann.You,Mystech and Frenchneeze have completely proved how theists blind are,when you believe in something.The only thing I truly believe is energy and nature are totally,completely uncreateable and indestructible(energy creates laws of physics in any of the universes-if there are more than one,i's not the laws of physics that make energy indestructible).Energy can only be transferred into another form of energy,but it cannot be created or destroyed.With energy,nature operates infinitely,without beginning and end,no intelligence is really needed,because everything and everyone just made of natural processes and energy.
 
Re: WOW

Originally posted by moementum7
I CANT BELEIVE YOU GUYS HAVE GONE THROUGH 15 PAGES OF CHIT CHAT ENDING UP FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH THEN WHEN YOU BEGAN. NO TRUTHS...NO REALITY...ITS ALL IN YOUR MIND...GIVE ME A BREAK! EXISTENCE EXISTS.THIS IS TRUTH AND IRREFUTABLE.TRUTH ,KNOWLEDGE AND THE ABILITY TO HAVE SELF ESTEEM ALL STEM FROM ACCEPTING THIS AS FACT. PERIOD. OH WAHHH! NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN FOR CERTAIN. FUCK OFF. IF NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN FOR CERTAIN THEN YOU CANT BE CERTAIN THAT NOTHING CAN BE CERTAIN. and if you can be certain of that then....CERTAINTY IS POSSIBLE.simple.existence exists. reality is real. there are no cotradictions in the universe.its only when you place anothers consciousness above your own ,whether its a higher consciousness or a mans(its a mans) allowing a middleman between your consciousness and reality that you will continue to run around in circles, never having perceived reality for yourself. TO BE A MAN YOU MUST NEVER ALLOW ANOTHERS CONSCIOUSNESS TO COME BETWEEN YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS AND REALITY.never take anything on faith.faith kills.seriuosly. it is only faith that can beleive in nothing.its funny how everybody wants to understand and identify theyre existence yet denies the only means of acheiving it. your intellect, your mind. your senses tell you that something is but it is up to your mind to identify it.existence exists people. this is the beging of truth. kudos . www.aynrand.org. fucking amazing yet so simple

The only thing what is certain,is that reality we see is real,but we don't see the entire reality,we only see a small part of reality.That's why have measuring instruments for that.God doesn't exist,that's for sure.String theory may prove in the future that there are higher dimensions.If there is 4th dimension,and if there are entities in this 4th dimension than we can call them gods,because they simply live in higher dimension and we're incapable of harming them-one of the possible explanations why people see ghosts,the other irrefutable explanation is that when you believe too much in ghosts,you'll see them,but not because they exist,but only because they are simply a simulated hallucination of our tiny brain.Nature and energy are eternal,without beginning and end,that's certain,too,all other things are not certain.
 
Back
Top