Does God Exist?

let me put it this way, though i probably have more then once; there is no reason there couldn't be something big, friendly and invisible, that gives great hugs, and equally no reason, anything rational, no matter how powerful, would ever have the slightest desire to be worshiped.

(and that sounds good tikoo, just as a by the way. at least mostly harmless and perfectly believable, as far as it goes. which may very well be as far as it needs to as well. don't know about the substance bit. don't see it as needful.)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJioWKPlBIw

 

I love this......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sSTOhNr_5U

 

Funny atheist.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL-kkhNmAsI

 

there is a very large catigory of things, perfectly real things most of them probably, about which nothing human knows anything.
pretty much everything that has ever been called a god, anti-god, or the minions of either, along of course with a great many other things, belong to this catigory.

 

Assuming that you're seriously putting this forward as arguments for God, you might consider an opposing view claiming that your video is pseudoscience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHbRzbAdaW4

My problem with the arguments is more basic. Your video identifies four properties of God; says that if these are God's properties, science ought to be able to prove it; and then says science does prove it! I don't agree that these are God's distinguishing properties; I don't think science can test God, because God isn't a scientific concept; and I certainly don't think science has confirmed any of the properties.

 

if that is what you consider science, well then that explains a lot.

 

every thing that has ever been called a god, an anti god or the minions of either, belongs to that very large category of things, about which, nothing human, knows anything.
this is not a reason to assume their non-existence. it is merely what it is.

 

There’s a revolution going on in science.
A genuine paradigm shift. While mainstream science remains materialist, a substantial number of scientists are supporting and developing a paradigm based on the primacy of consciousness.Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D, a pioneer of this revolutionary new perspective within science shares with us his vision of the unlimited potential of consciousness as the ground of all being, and how this revelation can actually help us to live better. The Quantum Activist tells the story of a man who challenges us to rethink our very notions of existence and reality, with a force and scope not felt since Einstein. This film bridges the gap between God and Science. The work of Goswami, with stunning precision and without straying from the rigors of quantum mechanics, reveals the overarching unity inherent in the worlds major religions and mystical traditions.

www.quantumactivist.com

 

I've responded to this on two other threads. Sorry to be redundant. Keep in mind that Dr. Goswami comes from a Hindu background, and his "new perspective" sounds very much like the old perspective of Hindu theology. Like so many New Age thinkers, he draws on quantum paradoxes and anomalies to dress up metaphysical concepts which aren't scientific because they aren't falsifiable. For a skeptical view, see Victor Stenger, Quantum Gods. See also http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/
Sobottka http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/new_page_11.htm

What Goswami has done is to reinterpret tenets of Hinduism in the lingo of quantum mechanics. He starts with the anomalies and paradoxes of quantum physics: the uncertainty principle,non-locality, discontinuity, tangled hierarchy, etc., and invokes the concept of "quantum consciousness" to explain them. Only unlike prevailing New Age approaches emphasizing that we create reality, he adds the feature that "we" , as separate, individually conscious entities, are ourselves illusions created by the One (the consciousness field). This is metaphysics, not strictly speaking "science", because none of it is falsifiable. Monistic idealism is worth considering--but as philosophy or metaphysics. Goswami addresses the paradox that, if consciousness is singular and unitive, we seem to experience it as individual. The answer he gives is the Hindu one: our sense of individual consciousness is an illusion. He posits a pervasive consciousness field and maintains that physical reality is an illusion created by our minds--or rather by the collapse of wave functions by the consciousness field in a manner that we interpret as our own doing. Maybe so.

 

god is real, its america that doesn't exist. nor does christianity, capitolism, nor fascism.
nor is god what anyone thinks it is.
god is a committi of disembodied minds in a computer inside an artificial planet a long way from our milky way galaxy, or any galaxy.
of course it can take on the appearance of anything imaginable, and any place, real or imaginable as well.
but appearance is illusion.
physical space is real, and so is science. time is a bit stranger then what people think they know about it too.
now to take any of that literal is self defeating too, because other then gears and levers, physical isn't exactly how it works.
real and illusion are not the same, and yet they have been known to dance together.
you or i or anyone, can say whatever we feel best to say,
and it can be completely unrelated to something we can pick up and hand to anyone.
if we are crying to hard to tie our shoelaces, that is when it becomes a problem.
when people kill or injure each other, or destroy their world,
they're doing it wrong, no mater what they believe or don't.

 

no god can prevent sickness, pain, aging or death

 

in which case, what is the point of their being a god, what does it mean for them to be one?
i believe they restrain themselves from doing so, and i believe that is not easy,
perhaps they believe it is best for us, that we learn to overcome and prevent these things on our own.
but i don't believe, what a god can or cannot do, is known or can be.
just as i believe the will of any god, can only be speculated upon.

 

you're confused - look at the plain facts

 

there are no plain facts known by any human about any god. that is the plainest fact that there is.

nothing has to be known, spoken, or even imagined, about any unknown thing, for unknown things to exist.

even every known thing, has an unknown side.

the name god, is like all names, is a name humans have invented.

this plain fact in no way prevents any unknown thing from existing.

that likewise is a 'plain fact' too.

 

i'm not the one denying that a god CAN exist.

christians and moslems are the ones denying that it doesn't have to,

and that nothing human knows a damd thing about it anyway.

 

i don't know why i keep coming back to this one. i think there must be something damaged in my head that keeps forcing me to. but in a sense, yes, i believe anything we can imagine might exist, could exist, is capable of existing, and ten times as many things that we don't. but where i draw the line, is people telling each other, what to pretend to know about it.

and no book, is the "living will" of any god. its a book. and no matter how many thousands of years ago it was writen, it was writen by human bullshit artists. who may have had the best of all motivations. motivations i might share myself. but they still didn't know any more then humans today who quote them. and more often misquote them then not, because they have no connection, or even inkling, of the context in which they wrote it. and at any rate, has absolutely no connection, with whether one or more gods might actually exist, nor anything about them if they do.

 

its not that there couldn't be something extremely powerful an completely nonphysical.

its that goodness, and wanting to be feared, are intrinsically and irreconcilably mutually self contradictory.

 

i can believe in the existence of a billion invisible things, but i cannot believe in the goodness, of anything that wishes to be feared. so yah, it really depends on what you mean by god.

 

I'm just posting to get to the last page.