Proof there is a God

[Jan Ardena]

Yep. This is my conclusion too.

"the Full", "one as opposed to zero". These are fluffy terms that avoid description.

Both one and zero exist.
Zero exists as a concept in the absence of of one.
One cannot not exist. All numbers exist because one exists
No matter how many zero's you add together, they all amount to zero.
Add one in front of any amount zeros, you get value.
One is the boss.
There a saying that goes (can't remember the source) ''God is one, without a second''.

The one and zero analogy is not intended to prove God exists, only to give some idea of what God is.

jan.

 

[PhysBang]

Both one and zero exist.
Zero exists as a concept in the absence of of one.
One cannot not exist. All numbers exist because one exists
No matter how many zero's you add together, they all amount to zero.
Add one in front of any amount zeros, you get value.
One is the boss.
There a saying that goes (can't remember the source) ''God is one, without a second''.

The one and zero analogy is not intended to prove God exists, only to give some idea of what God is.

jan.

Your metaphorical language utterly fails to get at either reality or any idea of god separate from reality.

 

[DaveC426913]

Both one and zero exist.
Zero exists as a concept in the absence of of one.
One cannot not exist. All numbers exist because one exists
No matter how many zero's you add together, they all amount to zero.
Add one in front of any amount zeros, you get value.
One is the boss.
There a saying that goes (can't remember the source) ''God is one, without a second''.

The one and zero analogy is not intended to prove God exists, only to give some idea of what God is.

jan.

For Pete's sake, we get the concept that metaphorically zero is nothing and one is everything. It's not exactly a revelatory concept for God. "Hey guys! I've got a deepity! God is, like, everything!"

But as a description of God, it is content-free.


After 1600 posts, this thread looked like it was going to actually address the idea of what God might be in rational terms, but nope, it just the same old metaphorical fluff.

Requesting this thread be moved to the Poetry forum. Requesting we make a Poetry forum solely so that it can harbor metaphorical fluff.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Jan may be still playing games by presenting nonsence and letting folk discuss such nonsence as though it holds a credible meaning when clearly it does not.

Jans scriptures are set in a battle and the author seeks to use the battle as a metaphor to present various aspects of the authors personal beliefs on morality and cosmology.

Unfortunately these scriptures reflect personal beliefs which take us nowhere and although voluminous and ancient offer us nothing but superstition as an excuse for cosmology.

It is easy to fall into the trap of nonsence when trying to give meaning to mystical sounding words.

In the effort of trying to extract meaning from nonsence folk often fool themselves into thinking they are finding answers when in fact they are reinventing nonsence or making up more nonsence.

The full... not even good grammer but sounds mystical so lets give it meaning way beyond the nonesence it is.. Step back and ask.. What point is there in trying to extract meaning from nonsence or from texts recording the personal made up view of an ancient author on cosmology when clearly they were mostly ignorant about astronomy, they were unaware that there was more than one Sun or the structure or concept of gallaxies or indeed that there are billions upon billions of gallaxies.

Why give these scriptures such a high credibility when a simple analysis shows them to be nothing more than interesting attempts to record uninformed opinions on the Universe.

And why now that we are more enlightened do we need to regard these ancient recorded personal opinions on cosmology as anything more than interesting examples of ancient litrature.

Jan you present nothing, you offer nothing, you talk in riddles to give a sence of mystery when there is none... You hold a belief and that is fine, believe what you wish, but remember it is a mere belief.

You fail to offer evidence yet act as though we can expect something to come real soon... It wont I know it but I really dont think you know that..

Nevertheless thanks for presenting your position and personal beliefs I do find it interesting how you draw folk in to have a warm and fuzzy chat about, well, nonsence.

Alex

 

[Write4U]

That would mean there is a reality beyond Brahman. The definition clearly states that Brahman remains the same, meaning it is unchanging.
''Potential'' means having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.

...the visible (the world) too is the Full. From the Full (Brahman), the Full (the visible) universe has come.
The Full (Brahman) remains the same, even after the Full (the visible universe) has come out of the Full (Brahman).’

The potential is within the visible world, which has a finite time.
Brahman, according to this definition, is complete, and unchanging.
IOW there is no need of potential. jan.

Wrong, Potential is a *latent* ability, and MUST have existed in the abstract before it was expressed in our reality. In any case, and this is the crux of the discussion, Potential is not Intelligent and Emotionally motivated. Pure Potential is a latent and timeless permittive condition, by any other name. It is That which may become expressed in our reality.

 

[Sarkus]

Both one and zero exist.
Zero exists as a concept in the absence of of one.
One cannot not exist. All numbers exist because one exists
No matter how many zero's you add together, they all amount to zero.
Add one in front of any amount zeros, you get value.
One is the boss.

But then De La Soul would disagree as to it all being about 1...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan may be still playing games by presenting nonsence and letting folk discuss such nonsence as though it holds a credible meaning when clearly it does not.

Talk about shifting winds.
I thought we were jelling, and it seems you've switched.

Jan you present nothing, you offer nothing, you talk in riddles to give a sence of mystery when there is none... You hold a belief and that is fine, believe what you wish, but remember it is a mere belief.

You fail to offer evidence yet act as though we can expect something to come real soon... It wont I know it but I really dont think you know that..

How do you know I fail to offer evidence?

To prove something you need to define the thing you seek to prove.

Let me know when you are the person involved in our recent dialogues.

Jan

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Talk about shifting winds.
I thought we were jelling, and it seems you've switched.

We are jelling Jan I was questioning your strategy I thought you were pulling some legs here and there but I guess you were serious. Sorry my mistake.

How do you know I fail to offer evidence?

To prove something you need to define the thing you seek to prove.

Let me know when you are the person involved in our recent dialogues.

Sorry Jan this business of the full and the full sort of let me down. I was expecting more so my disappointment has overcome my patience.
I admit I have bad days where I need to manage better.
But I did think you were presenting nonsence to see if you could get folk discussing it as though there was merit. It presented that way to me I am embarassed that I was wrong.
Alex

 

[Sarkus]

How do you know I fail to offer evidence?

Because you have failed thus far and show no signs of changing that position.

To prove something you need to define the thing you seek to prove.

Then simply define what you consider God to be and then prove that the God you have defined actually exists.
But let's hope that it's more than just "God is defined as necessary, therefore God must exist" or some such.

Personally I am not holding my breath for you to progress to actually providing any evidence. Not only do you require people to accept your definition up front when that is simply not necessary for you to prove to us the existence of your definition, but secondly as soon as anyone asks you to provide evidence you go off on a long evasive sidetrack to question what it is we would accept as evidence, with your entire aim to avoid actually presenting anything.

But please, do feel free to correct me.
Oh, that's right, I'm on your ignore list 'cos so you don't have to keep facing continual criticism of your position nor continual calls for you to actually provide the evidence you want others to believe you can produce.
In that case I must be talking to a wall. Which is no practical difference from when you actually engage in communication.

 

[PhysBang]

Talk about shifting winds.
I thought we were jelling, and it seems you've switched.



How do you know I fail to offer evidence?

To prove something you need to define the thing you seek to prove.

Let me know when you are the person involved in our recent dialogues.

Jan

Jan, your posts have been a real stain on your character.

You have willingly deceived us that you wished to seriously entertain a discussion. You again and again prove this wrong.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You have willingly deceived us that you wished to seriously entertain a discussion. You again and again prove this wrong.

Not at all. We have to establish real definition of God. My posts a ire genuinely serious attempts to do just that.

The one and zero analogy is not a deception. The definition of God,d I provided, is not as deception.

Jan.

 

[PhysBang]

Not at all. We have to establish real definition of God. My posts a ire genuinely serious attempts to do just that.

Why lie to us? You have just admitted that your definition of "God" is simply reality. This gets us nowhere, especially since every religious person out there vehemently disagrees with you.

The one and zero analogy is not a deception. The definition of God,d I provided, is not as deception.

I cannot believe that you would be so stupid as to think that anyone would find those definitions acceptable or that anyone would think that sating that "God" is just reality is helpful in any way.

You seem taken with the Vedic tradition by having taken a cursory skimming of the Bhagavad Gita, but you seem to have missed the important parts of that tradition: where they identify deities.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not at all. We have to establish real definition of God. My posts a ire genuinely serious attempts to do just that.

The one and zero analogy is not a deception. The definition of God,d I provided, is not as deception.

An analogy is not a description.

There's nothing here any more than any other faith-based belief.

How disappointing.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why lie to us?

Where have I lied to you?

You have just admitted that your definition of "God" is simply reality.

I distinguished between the definition I gave, and Write4U's understanding of it.
He was claiming that "potential" is the all-pervading reality, and God is just a word for it.

I cannot believe that you would be so stupid as to think that anyone would find those definitions acceptable or that anyone would think that sating that "God" is just reality is helpful in any way.

I assume you have a reason why you think God does not, or may not exist. In order to prove God's existence we must have a definition that all reasonably agree on.

I've given one definition, the one and zero analogy is analogous to the definition.
Now please explain what is stupid about this definition and analogy?

You seem taken with the Vedic tradition by having taken a cursory skimming of the Bhagavad Gita, but you seem to have missed the important parts of that tradition: where they identify deities.

We're not at that stage yet. We need to agree upon a definition of what God, or supposed to be, according to scriptures where we find the most comprehensive information on God.

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

I've given one definition, the one and zero analogy is analogous to the definition.
Now please explain what is stupid about this definition and analogy?

The definition provided is not parsable.
Drop the analogy, concentrate on the definition. Write it so it can be understood.

 

[PhysBang]

Where have I lied to you?

Here: "We have to establish real definition of God. My posts a ire genuinely serious attempts to do just that."

You know that you aren't genuinely trying to define "god".

I distinguished between the definition I gave, and Write4U's understanding of it.
He was claiming that "potential" is the all-pervading reality, and God is just a word for it.

Please, stop the lying and the stalling. If you have a clear definition of god, then present it. Otherwise, don't waste our time and deceive us by pretending to be interested in the debate.

I assume you have a reason why you think God does not, or may not exist. In order to prove God's existence we must have a definition that all reasonably agree on.

I've given one definition, the one and zero analogy is analogous to the definition.
Now please explain what is stupid about this definition and analogy?

It is not stupid, it is deceitful because nobody, and I mean not even you, define "god" as reality. You are pretending to take part in this discussion but then you provide a definition that is completely worthless.

We're not at that stage yet. We need to agree upon a definition of what God, or supposed to be, according to scriptures where we find the most comprehensive information on God.

And yet you are either lying to us about your familiarity with these texts or you are lying to us about their contents. Easy lies to see through. Provide us with a clear definition to move forward. Or continue, in bad faith, to try to be vague and dissemble. Show us your character.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Ok god is "the full" who created "the full" who is "one" and is "reality".
Lets regard that sentence as a draft which we may add to or alter.
Anyone need to add or change it?
So now we need to define "the full" and also define "the full" and also define "reality" also we need to define "define".
Jan I think you are certainly on the road to proving something assuming we can define "road" and "something".
I was correct in my earlier view of what you are doing here.. No?.
You did not deal with my all concerns re the scriptures so I ask do you accept my points re thei scriptures fallability. Of course not I need not ask.

I doubt we will ever resolve this matter as all have their beliefs and I doubt any arguement will see anyone changing their position. Do you agree? Dont answer there is no need.
So what is going on here? Editing this post I realise the futility of questions so again dont answer.
You are clearly not trying to prove there is a god so there may be something else.
Will we ever know. No answer required I think I have one.
I must leave this thread and I thank you for the entertaining display of whatever it was that I was witnessing, I am still not sure what it was, and return to the real world, my reality which I am happy to say is superstition free.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

You know that you aren't genuinely trying to define "god".

Of course I am. Why wouldn't I be?

If you have a clear definition of god, then present it. Otherwise, don't waste our time and deceive us by pretending to be interested in the debate.

There's nothing wrong with that definition.
It is a translation from the original text. If there's something you don't comprehend then lets' talk about it.

It is not stupid, it is deceitful because nobody, and I mean not even you, define "god" as reality. You are pretending to take part in this discussion but then you provide a definition that is completely worthless.

I was explaining to Write4U that there is no preceding Brahman, by definition. Therefore, by definition, Brahman is reality.
You are the one that interpreted that the definition of Brahman is reality.

Look at posts 1613 and 614.

And yet you are either lying to us about your familiarity with these texts or you are lying to us about their contents. Easy lies to see through. Provide us with a clear definition to move forward. Or continue, in bad faith, to try to be vague and dissemble. Show us your character.

I've shed a little more light on the definition if post 1613.
Tell me what you think?

jan.

 

[PhysBang]

Of course I am. Why wouldn't I be?

Because arguments for the existence of god fail. They are all really bad. So people who want to evangelize try to trick people.

So far, you appear to be on the trick people side. You certainly are doing everything but being direct.

There's nothing wrong with that definition.

Yes there is, as everyone else here has said. Your one of your two definitions is useless (since god=reality tells us nothing about god and disagrees with everything any religious person ever believed) and the other is too vague.

It is a translation from the original text. If there's something you don't comprehend then lets' talk about it.

Cherry-picking from a document that I seem to know better than you will not help you here.

I was explaining to Write4U that there is no preceding Brahman, by definition. Therefore, by definition, Brahman is reality.
You are the one that interpreted that the definition of Brahman is reality.

And you agreed with that definition.

Look at posts 1613 and 614.

I've shed a little more light on the definition if post 1613.
Tell me what you think?
[/QUOTE]
It's garbage. You apparently cannot or will not be direct.

 

[Write4U]

I distinguished between the definition I gave, and Write4U's understanding of it.
He was claiming that "potential" is the all-pervading reality, and God is just a word for it.

Yes indeed and I can demonstrate that Potential and it's derivatives are either latent or
functional abilities as defined in all phases of science as well as every day life, whereas God (by any other name) can only be defined as a spiritual intelligent motivated entity which exists in all of reality, but "works in mysterious ways" which of course doesn't really define anything and moreover, is not true, because we know how many things work and that potential is an a priori requirement for ability to do work.

Right or wrong, I have defined an *all inclusive concept* of all those spiritual metaphors for "That which may become reality" and its numerous applications, defined in every dictionary and encyclopedia.
Now, give me one example which would confirm it is the work of a God and which does not involve the pre-condition (Implicate) of Potential. IOW, a *miracle*.