Proof there is a God

[Jan Ardena]

Sounds like change to me.

To acquire it requires change.
By definition Brahman is complete, meaning not lacking anything. Which must include knowledge.

Do you think that there is some portion of knowledge that is absolutely unknown?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes. Jan's latest definition of god as "unchanging" means god can not be intelligent / learning "knowledge and skills" - his definition of "intelligent." God needs to be changing as the universe is.

It's not a "latest definition" it is exactly the same one as before.

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

By definition Brahman is complete, meaning not lacking anything. Which must include knowledge.

And must include all reality.

So, how does one distinguish between Brahman and reality?

 

[Write4U]

I'm stating a definition, now if that is what you get from that definition, then it is the definition that entails the implication.
That I get the same thing, is no indication that I am offering tha as a statement, only that we agree on the same thing.

It only agrees on "a beginning", not the properties of the causality.

Do you agree that whatever caused us to be here, is necessary for us to be here, and is the cause of everything?

I disagree, whatever caused us to be here was
a probabilistic outcome and not by design or intention.

Because it's not necessarily about belief. You don't have to accept that as God, so you don't have to believe in God.
That is the zero in the equation. But you should accept the definition, because it explains the origins of our existence, which does not stray from scientific understanding.

Yes it does. It is not the similarity in concept, it is the garbage that gets attached to the concepts of Gods, Deities, that renders it meaningless.

So all explanations of origins, including the Big Bang are valueless by this logic?

The definition purely alludes to origins. If only those terms were so presented, then it becomes just a matter of terms used for "in the beginning". But then we get statements such as "God saw that it was good and decided to continue with His creation. IOW, the attachment of a sentient brain that can observe if something is good or bad gives God, (by any other name) a special and unnecessary quality, which disagrees with all the other qualities of assigned to a Godhead in every religion..

But the only quality that can be attached to the term *potential* is that it may become reality, which means that while not all potential becomes reality (remains latent), all reality was, is, and will be preceded by potential. THIS HAS BEEN TESTED AND VERIFIED, whereas all other descriptions of a sentient Creator, do not (cannot) offer a testable explanation and it becomes just another word, a left over from days where natural phenomena were ascribed to the work of Gods. IOW *mythology*, and we know what happened to all those mythological tales? They are placed in a library section under the name *mythology*.

You don't have to believe that Brahman is God, to accept that Brahman exists.
Write4U as far as I can tell, would accept Brahman as Potential. If that is the case I suspect it is due to the definition. This shows that the definition is religion free, even God free (if you don't believe in God), but most of all it connects with our view of reality, our ability to perceive reality, and scientific notions of reality.
jan.

If you want to call Potential by the name Brahman, that's fine with me as long as this Brahman has the qualities, and only the qualities of potential. But that is not the case. Brahman, just like the concept of God, is assigned unnecessary qualities, which are not in agreement with the term Potential.

In a probabilistic Universe, sentience is not required, only *opportunity*.[/quote]

 

[PhysBang]

To acquire it requires change.
By definition Brahman is complete, meaning not lacking anything. Which must include knowledge.

But you have just shown that your definition is inconsistent, since given your definition Brahman cannot be intelligent. So, by definition, Brahman lacks something and cannot lack something.

This is why evangelicals like you try to keep things vague: when you start being specific, your arguments fall apart. I'm sorry that it is this way, but I care about reality, I do not merely pretend to.

 

[Billy T]

It's not a "latest definition" it is exactly the same one as before. Jan.

If true, then it is the same as earlier ones, ONLY because it is so vague that it lacks all defined content or properties.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

A question that I ask sometimes when chatting with myself, silently for if out loud that would be crazy, is why do humans have a need to find purpose to their existence and moreover why they, for the most part, are not content to accept there need not be a purpose.
It seems the need for purpose may generate the need for a God.
The notion of inteligent design seems, to me, a similar attempt to find meaning or purpose.
I must say if I was running the show I would change a number of things, for a start I would not build a giraffe in the first place.
Would one, if a god of everything, let humans be so cruel or leave them unattended.
Or let them make up stuff about you and your creation to suit their made up reality.
Would you not arm them with specifics rather than let humans make up nonesence and bath in superstition.
Why the need for purpose, why the need to invent the various myths.
Why do humans for unsupportable beliefs.?
Why the need to present ones beliefs or reject anothers beliefs?
Why do I come to a science site and find any of this of interest?
The rain has set in maybe that holds the answer.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

I believe, in psychology its called "making decisions in the direction of greatest satisfaction"
i.e. Eternal Life.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I believe, in psychology its called "making decisions in the direction of greatest satisfaction"
i.e. Eternal Life.

There must be more one would think.
Although I recall a neighbour many years ago effectively saying he became a JW because he wanted the after life.. I also recall his reason for believing... He said "just look at a tree, the way it grows, how could you say god does not exist".... Well how could you argue with such acute logic.
Went sort of went crazy read the bible daily and lost his friends.
Alex

 

[river]

Interesting ....

I mean when has god not been crazy .......ever .

When has god been of sound mind ?

If god is every where ; then god can be of sound mind and not sound of mind.

We look for proof of god .

Where would we find this god ?

In what form ?

 

[Write4U]

Interesting ....

I mean when has god not been crazy .......ever .

When has god been of sound mind ?

If god is every where ; then god can be of sound mind and not sound of mind.

We look for proof of god .

Where would we find this god ?

In what form ?

Implacable Mathematical function. It is actually unfair to call God good or bad. It is neither, it just functions as it must. And we are beginning to understand those functions, which will allow us to identify the allegorical Gods under a single A Priori condition of *That* which may become Reality.

 

[river]

Implacable Mathematical function. It is actually unfair to call God good or bad. It is neither, it just functions as it must. And we are beginning to understand those functions, which will allow us to identify the allegorical Gods under a single A Priori condition of *That* which may become Reality.

Implacable mathematical function ? So god is purely a mathematical function of what ?

Mathematics is trying to put spirituality in mathematical terms to make god real ; and therefore accepted. Not only mathematically but spiritually as well !!!!????.

How screwed up is that concept ...very .

 

[Write4U]

Implacable mathematical function ? So god is purely a mathematical function of what ?

Of Mathematical Universal Constants which direct the dynamics of events.

Mathematics is trying to put spirituality in mathematical terms to make god real ; and therefore accepted. Not only mathematically but spiritually as well !!!!????.
How screwed up is that concept ...very

Because you try to screw the logic the wrong way. The mathematical functions that caused large events is that which early man saw as Gods. But reverse the equation and all becomes clear in both its grand implacable beauty and inconceivable horrors, without any spiritual (intelligent) observer, to oversee the functions and work done.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It only agrees on "a beginning", not the properties of the causality.

It is complete. Lacking nothing.

I disagree, whatever caused us to be here was
a probabilistic outcome and not by design or intention.

Doesn't matter. If it never occurred, we would not be in this situation. Hence it is necessary to our current existence.

Yes it does. It is not the similarity in concept, it is the garbage that gets attached to the concepts of Gods, Deities, that renders it meaningless.

That is your opinion. In reality it isn't garbage, and it is the source of meaning.

The definition purely alludes to origins.

And it's source being complete, along with its separate units (visible world).

IOW, the attachment of a sentient brain that can observe if something is good or bad gives God, (by any other name) a special and unnecessary quality, which disagrees with all the other qualities of assigned to a Godhead in every religion..

Firstly, I ain't concerned with religion.
Secondly if Brahman lacks nothing, then that includes intelligence, desire, ect...
Too bad if you don't like the def.

But the only quality that can be attached to the term *potential* is that it may become reality, which means that while not all potential becomes reality (remains latent), all reality was, is, and will be preceded by potential.

"It may become reality" from what? Reality. It is dependent upon reality.
Brahman may be described as potential, but is dependent on it, due to it being "complete, whole, and unchangeable.
From the definition, Brahman is both the beginning and end of all things. It is is the totality of all existence.

THIS HAS BEEN TESTED AND VERIFIED

Okay... let' see it.

whereas all other descriptions of a sentient Creator, do not (cannot) offer a testable explanation and it becomes just another word, a left over from days where natural phenomena were ascribed to the work of Gods. IOW *mythology*, and we know what happened to all those mythological tales? They are placed in a library section under the name *mythology*.

How can you set up a scientific test for Brahman? You would have to separate yourself from it's complete, whole, totality. Nothing, not any one can do that.
We have no choice but to accept that you are a unit of the totality. That totality is Brahman, whether you like it or not. You can call it different names, and imagine what it is or isn't as much as you like. But it doesn't chance what it is. Sorry!

If you want to call Potential by the name Brahman, that's fine with me as long as this Brahman has the qualities, and only the qualities of potential.

I can pretend with you if you like, but ultimately it is a waste of time.

ust like the concept of God, is assigned unnecessary qualities, which are not in agreement with the term Potential.

They're not unnecessary qualities. You just don't like the idea of God having those qualities. Maybe it's because it is more appealing to you or, or something.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

why do humans have a need to find purpose to their existence and moreover why they, for the most part, are not content to accept there need not be a purpose.

Because we have the intelligence to do so.
It is natural.

It seems the need for purpose may generate the need for a God.
The notion of inteligent design seems, to me, a similar attempt to find meaning or purpose.

The notion of Intelligent design is obvious to most people.

I must say if I was running the show I would change a number of things, for a start I would not build a giraffe in the first place.
Would one, if a god of everything, let humans be so cruel or leave them unattended.

The body of a giraffe could absolutely suitable to the conscious awareness of the soul that operates it.

Humans choose to be cruel, and have the potential to not be so.

Would you not arm them with specifics rather than let humans make up nonesence and bath in superstition.

We are armed with specifics, both within and without.

Why the need for purpose, why the need to invent the various myths.

Purpose seems to be a natural curiosity for humans.

What kind of myths do we invent?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The mathematical functions that caused large events is that which early man saw as Gods.

Evidence please?

But reverse the equation and all becomes clear in both its grand implacable beauty and inconceivable horrors, without any spiritual (intelligent) observer, to oversee the functions and work done.

You believe it to believe it?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And must include all reality.

So, how does one distinguish between Brahman and reality?

How do distinguish between yourself and the self you think you are?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

But you have just shown that your definition is inconsistent, since given your definition Brahman cannot be intelligent.

How so?

This is why evangelicals like you try to keep things vague:

It's not my definition, and it is anything but vague if utilize basic human intelligence.

I'm sorry that it is this way, but I care about reality, I do not merely pretend to.

Prove it.

Jan.

 

[PhysBang]

How so?

Because, your definition of God includes that god is unchanging and your definition of intelligence includes that a being can change to gain new information or to apply that information. Others have pointed this out, too.

It's not my definition, and it is anything but vague if utilize basic human intelligence.

Yes, it is vague. Maybe you're a liar, maybe you just lack the ability to think about this rationally.

That you now claim, "It's not my definition," is yet another stain on your character.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

What kind of myths do we invent?

Jan do you really need to ask?
Alex