How can god not exist?

[nephthys]

Greetings,
I have always had trouble understanding how people can say god doesn't exist. Many people believe in god which means if nowhere else, it exists at least in their minds. If you claim that they don't exist because they are only in someone's mind, then you should also say that concepts, thoughts, and emotions don't exist. Of course you could in such a case also say that the tooth ferry exists since it is in someone's mind and the problem that arrises is how to tell if something is more "real" than another. One way could be to look at whether its made up of matter or not, but this of course will not include the essence of most thoughts, concepts, and emotions. Maybe in the future science can look at the electrical signals or whatever and tell exactly what the person is thinking but this cannot be done today and so if man did indeed create god, we see contemporary science would be inadequate at any such analysis anwyay. Besides the possibility, this will probably never happen anyway because the nature of quantum physics is such that particles don't exist, but show a tendency to exist. It is all a complex interconnected probability web and you can only look at a small piece of matter (such as an electron) by watching the effects on that which is around it. You can't take a picture of an electron. In this sense matter doesn't even exist as "matter"; just some interactions and relationships which give rise to the illusory existence of matter.

If we look at it from angle of effect then we can see that the concept of god has led many people to do many things and has very greatly affected people's actions. If something can make somepeople, which you consider real do something, how can it really "not exist"?

[Vae Victus]

Hello,

I'll get right into my response:

Children run downstairs in the middle of the night to get presents from an entity that most people agree don't exist. Committing an act in the name of something isn't evidence in support of its existence.

Also, you already touched on the Tooth Fairy analogy. The difference between the Tooth Fairy and, arbitrarily, happiness, is that happiness, in a sense, is indeed matter and energy. Cocktails of chemicals and electric signals coupled with Pavlovian learning are what happiness is made from.

So, to answer your question, I (don't speak on behalf of all atheists, firstly) disbelieve in God because I haven't heard of any compelling evidence to the contrary. The only evidence I ever hear is anecdotal experiences that can't be reproduced, or lines of reasoning that are reducible to "My, this phenomenon is amazingly impressive, so God must exist and have done it," which I chalk up to a lack of imagination on their part.

Of course, you didn't say whether you were talking about the Deists' god, or the organized religions' gods. I also find the concepts of "faith," "supernatural," "other planes of existence," etc. etc. etc. to be very suspect and nonsensical.

So to put it bluntly, I'm an atheist because I believe it's true, and somewhere along the line I picked up the line of reasoning that I should believe what's true, regardless of what I wish was true.

I hope I was helpful. Did I clear anything up?

[veinglory]

Most people think the sun orbits the earth -- truth is not a democracy.

[nephthys]

You are not reading my argument but just refuting the traditional line of theist argument. I will try to explain very concisely. Please tell me where you don't like the argument.

1) People have created gods.
2) Gods are in people's minds.
3) Gods exists in people's minds.

Therefore gods exists... Why does their existence imply that they are in some far away place in the skies? If you are admitting that gods exist in people's minds, you are still admitting that gods exist.

I can predict your response but will wait for it to reply so that my post doesn't get too confusing.

"Most people think the sun orbits the earth -- truth is not a democracy."

In quantum physics the sun and the earth both exist and don't exist. When taking the not-existing aspect the earth does not orbit the sun. Yet you are willing to accept that the earth orbits the sun as a definitive comment. You probably say its 9:31 when it may be 9:31:54:32:25:42, etc... Why? Because the truth can only be approximated so 9:31 is a practical and useful answer. You have to be willing to accept different levels of approximations and people's thoughts are one such level of conventional reality.

[Vae Victus]

Your interpretation of quantum physics should be scolded. Things certainly do not both exist and not exist at the same time. If you're referring to Schrodinger's Cat, you've missed the point of the hypothetical.

1) People have created gods.
2) Gods are in people's minds.
3) Gods exists in people's minds.
There is a gaping difference between the words 'imagined' and 'created'. If imagining something renders it "real," the word "real" has no meaning whatsoever. I can sit here and imagine trees that grow money all day--it won't make me rich. By saying Concept A exists just because you can think about it, you're simply trying to define Concept A into existence.

[meishka]

think of the greeks cause i have typed the same thing so many times i've forgoten most of it.

[nephthys]

"Your interpretation of quantum physics should be scolded. Things certainly do not both exist and not exist at the same time. If you're referring to Schrodinger's Cat, you've missed the point of the hypothetical."

If you wish to confront my points, please confront my points as they are presented and not with your own additions. I never said at the same time, my dear. :) Besides, its not central to the argument.

"There is a gaping difference between the words 'imagined' and 'created'. If imagining something renders it "real," the word "real" has no meaning whatsoever."

That is in fact the point. The ultimate reality is emptiness. Conventionally everything concieved is real to a degree or another. This degree can only be

"I can sit here and imagine trees that grow money all day--it won't make me rich. By saying Concept A exists just because you can think about it, you're simply trying to define Concept A into existence."

Why not? It has been imagined. It exists in someone's mind. Why have you already decided where something has to exist for it to be "real"?

[random]

I think you're silly.

If you can say god exists because he exists in a persons mind, then I can say god doesn't exist, because he doesn't exist in my mind.

A kid can have an imaginary friend, and the friend will be real to that kid, but that doesn't make it real to anyone else.

Your whole argument is silly. That one word sums up every one of your posts on this thread.
That's all I have to say about it.

[nephthys]

"If you can say god exists because he exists in a persons mind, then I can say god doesn't exist, because he doesn't exist in my mind."

It only has to exist in one mind to exist at all. For it not to exist at all, it has to not exist in every mind.

"A kid can have an imaginary friend, and the friend will be real to that kid, but that doesn't make it real to anyone else."

Believe it or not, you just agreed with me. If the friend is real to the kid because he believed it is real, then a similar logic can be expounded in the negative. Making use of your very own logic, if someone imagines that an event is true, then the event is real for them. This means that for them all events which are mutually exclusive with the event the person percieves to be true "will be not real" (which is equivalent to "will not be real"). So supposing that the mutually exclusive event was the "accepted" one, the "accepted" event is not true for everyone by your own logic. This means that the "accepted" event cannot be the ultimate reality by virtue of someone imagining something else to be true. The logic is yours, my dear.

[Vae Victus]

It only has to exist in one mind to exist at all. For it not to exist at all, it has to not exist in every mind.
Translation: You're an absolute idealist, and therefore nothing I can say will ever make any sense to you. The earth is not flat just because some raving Bible-literalist still exist, and nor does god exist just because you can think about a concept like "god." We all have models with which to perceive reality (how else could we exist, after all), but to believe those models take precedent over reality is, to me, a combination of garbage logic and wishful-thinking.

By the way, are you conceding the point that god only "exists" in people's mind, or is this just hypothetical? (This is a real question.)

[matthew]

I have always had trouble understanding how people can say god doesn't exist.

Many clever people say many clever things too keep this whole thing 'alive' i think that 'god' is not real for the same reason a huge great big pyramid is not going to take me to the afterlife.

Lots of clever stuff

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html
http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/oolon1.htm
http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

Ok so i can't prove god does not exist...but i am prety sure the second coming will NEVER happen. And if god shows up after i am gone then shit i missed a great day..:)

[Kharakov]

I have always had trouble understanding how people can say god doesn't exist.
I always thought that orgasms were a myth until I had one.

[nephthys]

Vae,
"Translation: You're an absolute idealist, and therefore nothing I can say will ever make any sense to you."

Good; I was hoping we would get to this point quickly. Now we can remove the scaffoldings and get to the building.

Everything you said makes sense to me, and I used to once upon a time say the same things. Anyone with intuitive common sense would immediately understand your point. The problem here is logic. If someone imagines something, then it exists in their mind; therefore it exists. Notice that when we say something exists we are not specifying where it exists. So we can clearly see that the something does exist, going purely by logic. Of course in this case it is completely irrational to use such logic for any practical purpose. We choose to trust our intuitive common sense over the strange logic. Perfectly reasonable, but why? Should we continue down this line?

"By the way, are you conceding the point that god only "exists" in people's mind, or is this just hypothetical? (This is a real question.)"

As I have not expressed my opinion in this matter, I can't see how I could possibly be making a concession? By the very nature of your question, it is obvious that you differentiate between your logical and your intuitive realities. This is because it is natural to perceive that the reality we seem to live in directly, is the absolute reality. When you are at least intellectually willing to "concede" that the reality we live in is not the absolute reality then you have to consider which way to take. Here is where the point I am illustrating in this thread comes in. As you progress down the road, it seems like you can either have god as an absolute reality or come to the alternate view. Mine is the alternate view; one which is not worth expounding at this point as it would be meaningless. The alternate view is extremely pragmatic and with the right actions (actions which you will understand when its time) to follow it up you will be an extremely happy person.

As you seem to be very intelligent I am sure that if you are willing to trust your natural self over other people's techniques and ideas, then you will quickly progress down the road.

(btw I too was a Marxist and rationalist atheist once upon a time...)

[Vae Victus]

(btw I too was a Marxist and rationalist atheist once upon a time...)To be blunt, I no longer can find a reason to respond to your abstractions about possibilites. Also, if you're not a Marxist now, but were before, what are you? Frankly, I find this statement very hard to believe... No one can understand the reason poverty exists, and then simply not understand it anymore. So please, elaborate.

Well I can't say nothing about *faith*or the*supernatural* but other planes of existance are just simply other higher dimensions, all theoretically possible through mathematics or more simply put, through super string theory;)
I've heard before that superstring theory is crossing that fine line between pseudo-science and science, but even if it is true--if we have 11 dimensions--we are living in 11 dimensions right now--that's what the theory says anyway. The other dimensions wouldn't be tucked away in some weird "side" of the universe, they would be folded upon each other.

[nephthys]

"To be blunt, I no longer can find a reason to respond to your abstractions about possibilites."

Perhaps at this time, that is the best course of action. However, always remember that by blocking possibilities at first glance, you often miss them.

"Frankly, I find this statement very hard to believe... No one can understand the reason poverty exists, and then simply not understand it anymore. So please, elaborate."

I was a Marxist even before you were born. A lot more can change in time than you think. It is completely normal to think you will have the same view forever; that unlike many others you truly understand something and that will ensure that you will not change your mind. It also going to be completely normal to see that repeatedly, this will not be the case.

[Vae Victus]

Actually they are not tucked away, or curled up, they all exist together, one theory that I ran across on the discovery science channel, is that accessing these other dimensions is only a matter of tuning into their frequencies. Which makes a lot of sense to me, because all strings vibrate and produce frequency, the different vibrational frequencys are what make up different particles, furthermore, according to string theory, the universe can be viewed as one big massive super string, it vibrates as well, I envision that those higher dimensions are just more strings of dimensional space, then to access these dimensions, one would have to tune in to the frequency of its vibration, like finding a radio station on the dial. (emphases mine)

Most of what you said just expanded on the few statements I made--except where I italicized. I can honestly say I've never even heard the term "higher dimensions" used when speaking of string theories, but I'm certainly no expert. Could you provide a link?


Perhaps at this time, that is the best course of action. However, always remember that by blocking possibilities at first glance, you often miss them.And you as well. Have a good day.

I was a Marxist even before you were born.lol

A lot more can change in time than you think. It is completely normal to think you will have the same view forever; that unlike many others you truly understand something and that will ensure that you will not change your mind. It also going to be completely normal to see that repeatedly, this will not be the case.Yes, I would agree that no mind remains stagnant. If you used to be a Marxist, you already know I practice the mindset of materialistic dialectics, so what you said seemed a tad superfluous. But you didn't answer my question. I asked what you are now. Is their some term that best suits you; do you identify with any group in particular?

[butterfly]

Edited because I'm wrong, apparently.

[nephthys]

Butterfly,
Try reading the posts and not just the titles...

"Is their some term that best suits you; do you identify with any group in particular?"

No, I believe in pragmatism. Different systems suit different places and different policies suit different places.

" If you used to be a Marxist, you already know I practice the mindset of materialistic dialectics, so what you said seemed a tad superfluous."

Yes, at this point in time that is very likely to be the case.

"And you as well."

My dear, it was not I who dismissed something because I did not wish to understand it. You do not wish to really try to understand my idea because of the "abstractions" involved and therefore you do not argue it. I am arguing your ideas with these abstractions. I'm not the dead end, now am I?

[Razorofoccam]

......, because something didn't really sit well with me concerning the big bang theory, I sort of developed my own theory, about 5 years ago, out of my own knowledge and gift of visualization (mental visualization, nothing spiritual here)
Midnight

Please elucidate

Occam

[BlackBillBlake]

It does not seem to be possible to provide definite 'proof' of God's existence or inexistence. All the so called proofs that exist seem to me to be meerly constructions of the human mental faculties.

How can God not exist? in the same way that other human mental constructions don't exist, for example, fictional characters, the phlogeston theory of conbustion and so on.

However, I hasten to add that this does not imply that I don't think there is a God. I don't think though that any logical proof can be advanced that cannot as quickly be demolished.

Perhaps the faculty in us that can know God is not anything really to do with the discursive intellect, but a kind of intuition which surpasses and transcends the slow and stumbling intellect.

[squawkers7]

If a dirty, drunken, homeless person was standing outside talking when nobody appeared to be with him, would the cops arrest him for being a public nusense or just assume they were talking to GOD? If for whatever reason they believe that they are talking to GOD, does GOD talk back to them? I'll assume the cops and mental hospitals say he's nuts for believing he could talk to GOD because they don't think GOD exists.

If any welfare mother didn't want to name their babies father, could she put GOD as the father's name....seeing as GOD made us all? Seeing as GOD made us all then why do unwed teenage girls get such a bad rep when they have a baby?

[nephthys]

"How can God not exist? in the same way that other human mental constructions don't exist, for example, fictional characters, the phlogeston theory of conbustion and so on."

The point is why don't the other mental constructions don't exist? They exist in someone's mind and therefore they exist (somewhere, when we say they exist we don't imply any particular location). Of course this is not practical and the point I'm making is that in this case we trust our intuition over logic. So what does this mean?

[squawkers7]

It means that you have NO PROOF or solid hand-held evidence to show us that GOD, santa claus, tooth fairy, Easter bunny, or charlie Brown's great pumpkin exists except in a book and some people's mind. Guess seeing as they are all in somebody's mind they are all real

[BlackBillBlake]

Any concept is only real in the mind, in the realm of the 'ideal', unless there is either sensory evidence or irrefutable logical proof of it's existence in the actual universe.

To say that because it exists in the mind it must be real is to make an illicit transition from the realm of the ideal to the realm of concrete reality.

Saint Anselm's famous 'proof' of God's exitence - that God is the highest that can be thought or concieved and therefore must exist, because by definition the 'highest that can be thought' must exist (it would't be the highest otherwise) - collapses for the same reason.

At least, this is so for the discursive intellect...

[Vae Victus]

Provide a link? lol! heavens no I can't do that!
Okay. This seems to be the only pertinent part of your post. Thank you. Also, you may want to stop calling whatever you're refering to "string" theory, as there is more than one string theory. Just my opinion though.

[Vae Victus]

No, I believe in pragmatism. Different systems suit different places and different policies suit different places.
I would say that that statement is somewhat true, if a bit vague. Do you consider yourself capitalist? Do you think that "Leninism leads to Stalinism"? Do you still believe that most societies on earth today are split between 2 or more antagonistic classes? These are the kinds of questions I was referring to. Please, walk me through your development.


My dear, it was not I who dismissed something because I did not wish to understand it.
I would completely disagree. That's why statements like these are useless.

You do not wish to really try to understand my idea because of the "abstractions" involved and therefore you do not argue it. I am arguing your ideas with these abstractions. I'm not the dead end, now am I?
I understand your idea completely. That's why I believe the definition you have of "reality" is futile, and that you should no longer use the word.

Also, I missed this before:

By the very nature of your question, it is obvious that you differentiate between your logical and your intuitive realities.
Although I tend to disagree slightly with your wording, that is absolutely true. What I feel is not reality, just my model of it. And sometimes I have to sit back and say, "That's rather counter-intuitive. I suppose I was mistaken."

This is because it is natural to perceive that the reality we seem to live in directly, is the absolute reality.
Again, I feel I should *suggest* substituting the word "reality" with "mind model."

When you are at least intellectually willing to "concede" that the reality we live in is not the absolute reality then you have to consider which way to take.
This seems to be a false dichotomy, but perhaps I just don't understand what you mean.

Here is where the point I am illustrating in this thread comes in. As you progress down the road, it seems like you can either have god as an absolute reality or come to the alternate view. Mine is the alternate view; one which is not worth expounding at this point as it would be meaningless. The alternate view is extremely pragmatic and with the right actions (actions which you will understand when its time) to follow it up you will be an extremely happy person.
Now--and I may be mistaken here--are you referring to pragmatism in the sense of Peirce and James? The idea that basically says, "if you believe something, it's true, because you believe it." I severely hope not. Not only is this idea utterly bunk, but it's dangerous bunk. And being "extremely happy" takes a far backseat to trying to discover the truth--that's a handy little thing I call conscience. If you are a pragmatist in this sense, then you will be happy to know that you were never a Marxist. Someone that believes concepts are true because they make you happy simply does not have the tools necessary to understand Marxism. But again, I may have jumped the gun if this is not the version of pragmatism you subscribe to. If so, I apologize.

[Philly_Hippie17]

God, Jesus whatever you wanna call him, was made up my Man, There is no god, Nor is there heaven , hell ,

[Vae Victus]

I now more about string theory then you could possibly comprehend, so don't you EVER tell me stop, because your closed world of comprehensionj can't understand! Deal with it!LOL. No, you're the doody-head.

I've spent well over ten thousand dollars and most of my 20's learning the sciences, for myself! And your puny little mind thinks you can tell me!!!! Get educated, learn it for yourself, instead of "oh I need a link for that!?!?!?" Give me a break....kid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!So rich kids are supposed to be intelligent now? When did this happen? Just admit that you're pulling phrases out of your ass and twisting real scientists' hypotheses. Do you actually believe that anyone here--that anyone anywhere--believes you developed the string theory (because there's only one according to you!) and then just happened to figure out it was a theory being discussed by mainstream scientists? It's called illusions of grandeur, kid!!!!!!1112

And what are you talking about, $10,000? How old are you? Because $10,000 isn't even enough for a single semester at some schools nowadays.

[Cat In The Stove]

I believe that their could be A GOD, but that God could not possibly be the Christian God. That God just doesn't work.

Think of it this way.

God creates two perfect humans, Adam and Eve. Perfect. Without flaw. Without the capability to become flawed. They err. This is impossible, but it happens and men are cast from Eden. Some still get to heaven, but some people are doomed to Hell. That really sucks.

So, I wonder, why? Why does God allow this to happen if he loves us so? He is omniscient, which means he knew that Adam and Eve would fail him. He knew that some of us would suffer hellfire and torment, yet he went ahead and did what he did anyway, all in the name of free choice.

Which, if we were created by this God, is also impossible. If he knows what will eventually happen, then he knows how every little change he inflicts upon the Earth will affect the future generations and so on. Something as little as placing a tree in one spot over another could change the course of humanity and, knowing how these things would affect us, he created Earth, and the animals that live with us here. Knowing how all of his creations would interact and how that would decide their fate, he created us.

So, there is no free will, and God would be damning people rather randomly, if he did exist.

That's why I don't believe that he does exist.

[BlackBillBlake]

I've spent well over ten thousand dollars and most of my 20's learning the sciences, for myself! And your puny little mind thinks you can tell me!!!! Get educated, learn it for yourself, instead of "oh I need a link for that!?!?!?" Give me a break....kid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gosh spent all those dollar bills so you must be clever.

[Razorofoccam]

Well, I think I already discussed some of the stuff in the science and tech forum, but I'll breifly go over it again. Basically, this all came about when I tried to comprehend "pure nothingness" in the Big Bang theory dimensional space was created with the explosion. I believe that dimensional space exists, has always existed and always will exist, the Big Bang was just the dispersion of matter throughout space. One of the postulated theories for the universe under string theory is that our universe is just one of many and the called these individual universes "brands", I think, really its like the universe is one big super string, these brands of universes have their own energy vibrations and move about, picture a pocket comb, each brand would represent a universe, but when two of these brands touch eachother, an overload of energy results and explodes with incredable force, like crossing two electric wires, this is what the big bang would have been, ergo, the conversion of energy to mass and the distribution of matter throughout space!
Midnight

Interesting stuff.
Sorry for not following the sci and tech forum more closley.
Tend to pick out subjects like time/relativity..and nanotek.

Occam also believes that space... is not simply the 'emptyness'..Or lack of something..
Space, or 3 dimensional extension..
Is a thing in itself.

Zero point theory and others support this.

As to string theory..occam is woefully ignorant..
Thought he understands your conceptualisation to an extent.

Thank you..

Occam

[matthew]

I believe that their could be A GOD, but that God could not possibly be the Christian God. That God just doesn't work.

Think of it this way.

God creates two perfect humans, Adam and Eve. Perfect. Without flaw. Without the capability to become flawed. They err. This is impossible, but it happens and men are cast from Eden. Some still get to heaven, but some people are doomed to Hell. That really sucks.

So, I wonder, why? Why does God allow this to happen if he loves us so? He is omniscient, which means he knew that Adam and Eve would fail him. He knew that some of us would suffer hellfire and torment, yet he went ahead and did what he did anyway, all in the name of free choice.

Which, if we were created by this God, is also impossible. If he knows what will eventually happen, then he knows how every little change he inflicts upon the Earth will affect the future generations and so on. Something as little as placing a tree in one spot over another could change the course of humanity and, knowing how these things would affect us, he created Earth, and the animals that live with us here. Knowing how all of his creations would interact and how that would decide their fate, he created us.

So, there is no free will, and God would be damning people rather randomly, if he did exist.

That's why I don't believe that he does exist.
One of the many many many reasons why i don' think the ol boy is up there either.

[FreakyJoeMan]

God is arbitrary, and selfish.

[matthew]

freakyjoeman..have you any smaller pictures of yourself . I just hate seeing your mug. No offense or anything. . its like having a realy expensive sports car , when you have a small............

[Kharakov]

I now more about string theory then you could possibly comprehend, so don't you EVER tell me stop, because your closed world of comprehensionj can't understand! Deal with it!
I think you must acknowledge the fact that a nimbly, bimbly, little kitty might have a higher understanding of string theory than yourself. I mean, look how much fun they have with it.

[Kharakov]

God creates two perfect humans, Adam and Eve. Perfect. Without flaw. Without the capability to become flawed. They err. This is impossible, but it happens and men are cast from Eden. Some still get to heaven, but some people are doomed to Hell. That really sucks.

Sure it does. Maybe you just don't understand humor. Dork.

[squawkers7]

What is perfect?...the perfect person or perfect body might be different for each of us.
How do you know the hell exists? Can you prove you go to heaven or hell....has anyone came back to tell you where they went after death?

[bradofcentralpa]

Your interpretation of quantum physics should be scolded. Things certainly do not both exist and not exist at the same time. If you're referring to Schrodinger's Cat, you've missed the point of the hypothetical.
i was gonna say it sounded pretty from what i've read. he pulled from the cat and heisenburg's uncertainty principle all i've gotten and put it concisely. now, i don't know what's true (haha, sorry), but could you explain the "the point of the hypoethical for me?"

[FreakyJoeMan]

freakyjoeman..have you any smaller pictures of yourself . I just hate seeing your mug. No offense or anything. . its like having a realy expensive sports car , when you have a small............

I don't know how to make the images smaller. Curse my horrible photoshop skills!

[matthew]

I don't know how to make the images smaller. Curse my horrible photoshop skills!
its only as overtly HUGE as some others...not too worry. i wil get used too it..http://politicalroundtable.com/forums/images/smiles/109.gif (javascript:emoticon(':smt109'))

[veinglory]

Open it is Paint (comes free with windows) and use the 'stretch/skew' function.

[BlackBillBlake]

10 grand is chicken scratch anymore!!!!!! So what do you plan to do with your life, waste it on drugs, or do fuckin something, we all make are own choices!
Since you know absolutely nothing about me or my life, I consider this to be just an indication of the obvious ego problem you are manifesting here in this forum. Money doesn't buy knowledge, and I am fortunate enough to live in a country where one doesn't have to pay exhorbitant sums to attend university.

Even so, the fact that one has taken this or that course or has gained a particular qualification does not in my quite varied experience of life, neccesarily equate with any real understanding of anything beyond a narrow academic field.

As for 'what I intend to do with my life' - for all you know I could be 70 years old and have already lived it. I think you should engage that so expensively educated brain of yours before posting.

[J_Lazarus]

I didn't finish reading the first page. By a quick glimpse at the last pages it seems the topic has shifted from the original - and the point I make here might already have been addressed.


When an atheist says "A God does not exist" - they do not mean it to say that a "God does not exist in a person's imagination" but rather, "A God does not exist externally in reality". Certainly a person can imagine "God" (in numerous subjective senses) - but that is not relevant to the atheistic position, nor really to the theistic position.

The god-question is not concerned with dumb inquiries about what someone can conconct in their minds - but whether a particular concept exists as something in external and objective reality.

- J Laz

[Pablo]

Greetings,
1) People have created gods.
2) Gods are in people's minds.
3) Gods exists in people's minds.

Therefore gods exists... Why does their existence imply that they are in some far away place in the skies? If you are admitting that gods exist in people's minds, you are still admitting that gods exist.
You are right, god does exist in the same sence that cap'n crunch exists. But if cap'n crunch told me to kill, i don't think i would listen...hmmm. Or to anything else he told me to change about my life for that matter.

now if you'll excuse me, me an the cap'n are gonna make it hap'n.

[Warisfortheweakminde]

Hey um I'm a little late but heres my fifty pence,

As you said God exists in our minds as do concepts, however all Ibeleive as an atheist is that, while the concept of god(s) exists within the human imagination, an external or palpable God does not in our reality exist, only in the form of concepts and imagination.

So yes the concept of god exists , as (one of my atheist peers pointed out) does the concept of santa, the tooth fairy andm indeed Elvis Presley. :rolleyes:

[squawkers7]

Doesn't those gossip/trash papers at the store check-out lines have stoies about seeing Elvis or Kennedy alive sometimes? Seems like I've seen stories about people having alien babies too, and "the Ark" surprised I can't remember a story about seeing Moses with the ark. So maybe they can (or may have already) write a story on how GOD and the Easter bunny can really exist, so we can all buy that...story & the paper.

[Razorofoccam]

Doesn't those gossip/trash papers at the store check-out lines have stoies about seeing Elvis or Kennedy alive sometimes? Seems like I've seen stories about people having alien babies too, and "the Ark" surprised I can't remember a story about seeing Moses with the ark. So maybe they can (or may have already) write a story on how GOD and the Easter bunny can really exist, so we can all buy that...story & the paper.
squawkers

Yes.
Occam would dearly love to hear the story of how Noah got 2 million species+ and their food for 40 days and nights. Into a wooden craft his family built.

Or why god created the world to look like it was not created.

Or why a hell is required.


Occam

[themnax]

anything and everything we are capable of immagining
is capable both of existing and not existing and quite likely
in at least some cases both at the same time.

such are the paradoxes created not by reality's diversity
but by the imperfect mechanics of language

one thing that i never feel i can or have expressed often
and fully enough is my dissaggreement with the notion that
anything HAS to exist in order to do so!

there is certainly no natural requirement for nontangable
forces and beings to not exist

and just as certainly none for them
to resemble in any way shape or manor
anything anyone has ever believed or immagined
about them

i do not believe we know or are even capable of knowning:
the limits, if any, of what can or cannot exist. if indeed
it is even possible for anything to be either incapable of
existing OR required to do so.

=^^=
.../\...

[yazzi]

wow, most arguments FOR god were never convincing to me. it seems to me that your beliefs and ways of thinking are incredibly intellectual. most people who do believe in god are *ucking ignorant.

[dna]

squawkers

Yes.
Occam would dearly love to hear the story of how Noah got 2 million species+ and their food for 40 days and nights. Into a wooden craft his family built.

Or why god created the world to look like it was not created.

Or why a hell is required.


Occam
:) You would?
check it out! www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp)
www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html)

Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his/her heart,There is no God.
Psalm 10:3,4 The man greedy for gain curses and renounces
The Lord. In the pride of his countenance the wicked does not
seek him;all his thoughts are,"There is no God"

I often wonder what the atheists think of the laws that are
going to be passed against those who cannot tolerate the
religious beliefs of others,and what are they going to do when
they are forced to become part of the religious system when all religions are united together?
Most will no doubt conform. Have you known many atheists
who will die for what they claim they believe?
Atheists love sin,and they know it. No secret there,duh!

[dna]

wow, most arguments FOR god were never convincing to me. it seems to me that your beliefs and ways of thinking are incredibly intellectual. most people who do believe in god are *ucking ignorant.:) No,I think it would be awful hard to beat you and your lil'
side kick!
you little friend means the Lake of fire,not hell.
Yes,there is a price to pay for sin.
You need to face that fact,or keep on getting deeper
into you miserable life of nothingness.
One day,even your knee will bow. Thats a promise!

[LuciferSam]

I often wonder what the atheists think of the laws that are
going to be passed against those who cannot tolerate the
religious beliefs of others,and what are they going to do when
they are forced to become part of the religious system when all religions are united together?
Most will no doubt conform. Have you known many atheists
who will die for what they claim they believe?
Atheists love sin,and they know it. No secret there,duh!
Sheesh... you don't seem very tolerant of atheists yourself. How is it at all tolerant to force people to join a religious system? I'm curious as to how you predict the fate of agnostics like myself. And my God but you have some real batty predictions for the future, I'm sorry but you do. All religions united together?? What in the world leads you to that conclusion. I'm guessing you're assuming everything will be united under the aegis of Christianity or something too.

[dna]

It means that you have NO PROOF or solid hand-held evidence to show us that GOD, santa claus, tooth fairy, Easter bunny, or charlie Brown's great pumpkin exists except in a book and some people's mind. Guess seeing as they are all in somebody's mind they are all real:sunglasse Hey,as long as you are going to mix paganism with God's
word,you are no different than Constantine and it's wrong.
It was the pagans who added christmas,easter,ect.....
not the true christians,but your problems are way bigger
than that. Atheists are losing the fight because religious
tolerance is growing and it's the new trend today.
You have to be tolerant of everyones religious views and
soon laws will be passed to support it.
study history alot better and learn what the truth is.
yes,the religious system today has gone back to being
pagan like in the days of the power of the roman universal
church,but it's totally ignorant to blame that on true christians. The only true holy days are in the bible,but we are
no longer under the laws of the holy days,we do not have to
do them any longer,it is Jesus Christ who saves us and our faith
in him.We change naturally as our faith grows,so we do good
willingly not forcefully.
You are not omni present so you certainly cannot say God
doesn't exist.
The fool says in his/her heart that there is no God!

[dna]

Sheesh... you don't seem very tolerant of atheists yourself. How is it at all tolerant to force people to join a religious system? I'm curious as to how you predict the fate of agnostics like myself. And my God but you have some real batty predictions for the future, I'm sorry but you do. All religions united together?? What in the world leads you to that conclusion. I'm guessing you're assuming everything will be united under the aegis of Christianity or

something too.
:) to assume makes an ass out of "U" and "ME" whoever your
me is at the time.
"Holy so called War" is about what?
The religions are already talking about uniting together for
Global peace. If you are not tolerant of the religious views
of others,you'll be arrested by the law. Thats really gonna
happen. These are not my words. I didn't create it.
I am not making any predictions here.
The NWO and the Global religious system are already under
way now. "They will have a form of Godliness,yet they denie
the power". These words are really coming true today.
I didn't say it would be the true church at all. It will be a
false church united all religions together to form one global
church.I guess it's the churches so called efforts to promote
peace and religious tolerance. The Pope is all for it,so Mother
Harlot and her daughters are going to reunite back together.
If you cannot accept religion,you'll be seen as a threat and a
possible terrorist. Hey,I won't be accepted either just because
I believe Jesus is the "ONLY" way to God. The Global church
will be saying that there is many ways to God.

[dna]

Hey man, you attacked me first!
:cool: You could be a victim of a crime if you keep going the way
you are. Who cares who attacked who? This is your life man!
Do you want the Government to be your boss?
The I.D. chip is already being used on mexicans in Mexico.
Lighten up and learn whats goin' on!!!

[dna]

I didn't finish reading the first page. By a quick glimpse at the last pages it seems the topic has shifted from the original - and the point I make here might already have been addressed.


When an atheist says "A God does not exist" - they do not mean it to say that a "God does not exist in a person's imagination" but rather, "A God does not exist externally in reality". Certainly a person can imagine "God" (in numerous subjective senses) - but that is not relevant to the atheistic position, nor really to the theistic position.

The god-question is not concerned with dumb inquiries about what someone can conconct in their minds - but whether a particular concept exists as something in external and objective reality.

- J Laz:H God lives,and you can also see that by nature and the design in everything on this earth and the Heavens.
BTW,christians don't say the earth is flat,they say it's
round just like the bible says,and just because the word
sphere isn't in there doesn't mean squat!

[dna]

You are right, god does exist in the same sence that cap'n crunch exists. But if cap'n crunch told me to kill, i don't think i would listen...hmmm. Or to anything else he told me to change about my life for that matter.

now if you'll excuse me, me an the cap'n are gonna make it hap'n.:sunglasse Excuse me,but you are not all knowing or omni-present,and
for you to make that statement,you'd certainly need to be.
Creation is proof of God,and the fact that prophecy is happening
every day now,but you'd know that if you knew the bible.
The bible said that Israel would be a nation again,but many
of the christians from a little past 50 years ago and before that
thought the bible meant it spiritually,not literally,yet Israel did
become a nation again,and it did it in just one day under some very strange circumstances.


Israel
The war between the children or Sarah & Hagar.
Babylon and the war with Iraq
Pagan religion growing faster
religious freedom and tolerance
war against terrorists
the cry for global peace
Globalization
I.D. chip and tracking devices
camera's everywhere you go
The plan for a New World Order

If you look on a one dollar bill,you'll see that this new world
order plan was started long ago.
you'll see the words under the piramid with the all seeing eye
written in latin,:new world order.

[dna]

:sunglasse The conflict with Israel is no accident for all these years.
God is using this nation to show the world who he is.
The wars with Israel are ancient. This war is between the two
1/2 brother's Ishmael and Isaac. Son's of Abraham. One was the son God promised (Isaac) and one by the flesh( Ishmael)
The hatred of the jew's was no accident. Yes,they did stray from God,some of them,but many religious groups who didn't really
understand the bible thought that the jew's killed Jesus. Only
some of the jew's did,not all of them. Thats one of the excuses
Hitler used to kill so many of them and the true christians.
Hitler was into occultic practices,but he also claimed he was a
true catholic.
Satan of course hates all jewish people because Jesus come
through their race and people,and so did the Gospel.
The hatred towards the jews was no accident.
The romans actually did the killing of Jesus on the cross,but
only the jews were blamed. Thats not right. Many Jew's did
believe in Jesus and many still do.
look at the world now,people are not sure who to side with.,
the jews or the Palestinians,and we see the world is growing
more and more violent,so now there is a new peace plan to
attempt to get the world to be a peaceful place.
People said Iraq wouldn't literally rise back up in power again.
They said it was to be taken spiritually,yet now we hear that
some people want to help rebuild Iraq,which includes Babylon,
though Saddam has rebuilt much of it already and threw some
big parties there. The bible says it will one day be destroyed.
That is going to happen one day.
They say they also want Iraq to be a place for tourists,and
Iraq controls a great deal of the oil.
This ancient battle with Israel is really going to end as the
bible says it will. People today want a literal interpretation
of the bible,and we understand the bible more than we ever
did before.
I just hope that more people will listen and be saved.

[LuciferSam]

:) to assume makes an ass out of "U" and "ME" whoever your
me is at the time.
"Holy so called War" is about what?
The religions are already talking about uniting together for
Global peace. If you are not tolerant of the religious views
of others,you'll be arrested by the law. Thats really gonna
happen. These are not my words. I didn't create it.
I am not making any predictions here.
The NWO and the Global religious system are already under
way now. "They will have a form of Godliness,yet they denie
the power". These words are really coming true today.
I didn't say it would be the true church at all. It will be a
false church united all religions together to form one global
church.I guess it's the churches so called efforts to promote
peace and religious tolerance. The Pope is all for it,so Mother
Harlot and her daughters are going to reunite back together.
If you cannot accept religion,you'll be seen as a threat and a
possible terrorist. Hey,I won't be accepted either just because
I believe Jesus is the "ONLY" way to God. The Global church
will be saying that there is many ways to God.

Yes, it's so obvious that the Muslims and Jews and Christians all want to forget their differences and team up!:p You are nuts, I'm sorry. Even if some dingbats actually said those things, you're crazy if you believe it. Sure, there are parts of the worlds where religion wields a disproportionate amount of control, but you make it sound like every religion has some massive military force hiding undergound or something getting ready for a takeover.

[matthew]

Religeon is used and abused .(by all the religeons that fight each other)..when actualy all men and women want is money and power . Religeon is used as a scapegoat for hate in all its forms. ... I feel sorry for the true believers getting caught in the middle.

dna (this question is for all realy i guess)you would not kill for your beliefs would you ???..do you think your beliefs and codes of practice are 100% right ??

If the answer is NO then you can and should believe (in what you want) and accept the beliefs of all the people you meet.

[Razorofoccam]

:sunglasse The conflict with Israel is no accident for all these years.
God is using this nation to show the world who he is.
The wars with Israel are ancient. This war is between the two
1/2 brother's Ishmael and Isaac. Son's of Abraham. One was the son God promised (Isaac) and one by the flesh( Ishmael)
The hatred of the jew's was no accident. Yes,they did stray from God,some of them,but many religious groups who didn't really
understand the bible thought that the jew's killed Jesus. Only
some of the jew's did,not all of them. Thats one of the excuses
Hitler used to kill so many of them and the true christians.
Hitler was into occultic practices,but he also claimed he was a
true catholic.
Satan of course hates all jewish people because Jesus come
through their race and people,and so did the Gospel.
The hatred towards the jews was no accident.
The romans actually did the killing of Jesus on the cross,but
only the jews were blamed. Thats not right. Many Jew's did
believe in Jesus and many still do.
look at the world now,people are not sure who to side with.,
the jews or the Palestinians,and we see the world is growing
more and more violent,so now there is a new peace plan to
attempt to get the world to be a peaceful place.
People said Iraq wouldn't literally rise back up in power again.
They said it was to be taken spiritually,yet now we hear that
some people want to help rebuild Iraq,which includes Babylon,
though Saddam has rebuilt much of it already and threw some
big parties there. The bible says it will one day be destroyed.
That is going to happen one day.
They say they also want Iraq to be a place for tourists,and
Iraq controls a great deal of the oil.
This ancient battle with Israel is really going to end as the
bible says it will. People today want a literal interpretation
of the bible,and we understand the bible more than we ever
did before.
I just hope that more people will listen and be saved.

DeoxyRibonucleicAcid

Listen to what?
Saved from what?

What occam wants is a literal interpretion of 'the house at pooh corner'.
The bible is a poor fable compared to pooh.

You talk the talk of a pawn of organised bigotry.
All this devil hating the jews crap.
You wouldnt know a jew if one stepped on your face.

Occam is a jew
And a negro
And gay....
And agnostic

But he needs no 'book' to support his thought.
Especially a book that says a good man will suffer in hell
Because that man is does good by his own means, without 'the word'
to guide him.
That to be good by a code of reason.
IS not 'good enough

Occam

[FreakyJoeMan]

"I often wonder what the atheists think of the laws that are
going to be passed against those who cannot tolerate the
religious beliefs of others,and what are they going to do when
they are forced to become part of the religious system when all religions are united together?
Most will no doubt conform. Have you known many atheists
who will die for what they claim they believe?
Atheists love sin,and they know it. No secret there,duh!"


Ahhhh!! Fuck!! Head hurt!! No, I would not DIE FOR MY BELEIFE! I WOULD LIVE FOR IT!!!!! I WOULD NOT FORCE IT ON SOMEONE, AS CHRISTIANS, AND INDEED, ALL OTHER RELIGIONS HAVE DONE, I LET PEOPLE BE!! "ATHIESTS LOVE SIN"?????? WHAT THE FUCKING HELL??? I LOVE LIFE!!! I LOVE THE EXPERIANCE!!!! WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT I LOVE??!! YOU'VE NEVER MET ME, YOU'VE NEVER LIVED WHAT I'VE LIVED!!!! DON'T EVER EVEN PRESUME TO KNOW WHO OR WHAT I AM!!

I AM AN ATHIEST, AND I LOVE. :cool:

[meishka]

yea moobs!!! you tell that bible pusher!!

[Bacchus]

OK, so now I imagine that there is now and has never been a "god" or any sort of supreme being. By your logic, that is now the "truth".



Do you see how that is flawed?

[FreakyJoeMan]

OK, so now I imagine that there is now and has never been a "god" or any sort of supreme being. By your logic, that is now the "truth".



Do you see how that is flawed?
Now, I imagine that there is , and always has been a God. By your logic that is now "truth"

Do you see how it is flawed?

[Cloudminerva]

Well, all that I know is this...Behind everything is the unseen. There is a force that moves everything perfectly and in balance and gives us the ability to argue over things of this nature. I don't believe that the universe is an accident and I also am not a Bible pusher. I believe in inter-faith spirituality and I don't rely on physical evidence. To rely on physical evidence is a lie just as much as is trying to disprove God or the unseen in many cases. If your wife or loved one tells you that they love you, then you have physical proof because you heard this. This physical proof can be observed by looking at previous deeds judging if what they say is true...it can correspond and also seem untrue. However, emotionally, this physical proof can be a lie. You don't know what they feel, you only trust and acknowledge them. You can see and hear things that can be tested to be true, but really a test is a test, not reality, it is a complex thing to understand. Also , to deny the existance of a supreme power can be naive because science says that for every action is an opposite but equal reaction. A pine cone is not alone, for there is a great, massive tree that gave life to it. Man can know beautiful emotions and see beautiful things in the universe, thus comes the belief in a creational power that gave us existance. How can we accidentally be created from matter when the matter had no creation? There is something moving that matter and that is what I call God. The universal creation had to be of a sort of balance or desire to be made so perfectly. To simply deny the existance of a creator would be to only use a small portion of our minds. We have intelect, we have reason, we have passion, we have analytical drives, we have love, we also have faith. I can feel what the outcome of a situation may be. I can distrust my mind's perception and go find physical proof and realize that I was right or I can have faith and trust, and behold that I am right. The idea of there being no oneness or Brahmin because of no physical evidence doesn't proove anyhting to me. I can't see emotions but I can connect with people and we can share them. We can't see emotions but we can see the effects of them. They are real, gigantic things within us.To think something is an illusion because you can't test it or see it is an illusion. If I can feel something to be true, then dream it , then later find that what I felt and dreamt was true by word of mouth, then I know that my trust is not blind. Some may call themselves Atheists and others Christians, Hindus, or Buddhists. etc. Atheists may say that they do not believe in God, however they are still searching for what they have come from , just as any spiritual seeker. Both do the same thing, only one denies the existance of a particular word which seems imponderable. Terminology is incomplete and very limiting, reality is the total truth. Bullshit is what comes from us when we forget that life is imponderable and naturally mysterious. I am not afraid of bowing down to a power that is just and complete. I am rebellious, thus so is my creator. I am that which is the Earth, that which is Brahmin. Within me is Atman.The creator is within and without us all. That is how I see truth.

Anything man-made has flaws. Man makes flaw upon himself and the Earth. the Earth overpowers man, God is realized by man.


Ben.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Einstein: there are two ways to live your life, as though nothing is a miracle, or as though everything is a miracle.

[Cloudminerva]

Yes, very much so.


Ben.

[Raving Sultan]

Back to the quantum physics pseudo response, are you trying to tell me there is a good chance the sun isn't really there? I see it, I feel it. What the hell? As far as god, there are nights i go to bed thinking in my head there is no god and nights i talk to him because i want him to answer. All i do know is that religion has got god all wrong.

[isness]

Try the question, how are you to even know if god exists or not? I think you will find that god is only a notion, a theory. How can you know god to be any more than this. A tree is a theory. It is not a tree, it is only labeled tree, how can you prove that it is a tree? Show me god, and then we will discuss god.

[T.S. Garp]

If I may offer my two-cents-worth...

It strikes me that "god" begins wherever science ends. It also seems to me that the search for "god," if by that you mean an explanation for our creation, our death, and a plan for how we are to live together, is an expected result as we, as a species, moved beyond concerns of survival to having at least some leisure time. Much in the same way that a young child does not fully understand death (think of school children on 9/11/01 skipping and laughing as they were sent home early from school. By the way, I am thankful that many children still functioned somewhat normally as most adults were in a state of shock.), the human mind (in many cases) cannot deal with the realization that there is no greater meaning to existence and that the universe is a random set of events in a space so expansive that we could never comprehend. In all cultures there have been examples of attempts to fill in that vaccuum of understanding with something that provides meaning to our existence--our brains are simply too powerful to accept anything less.

Ultimately, I would argue that the existence of a beneficient higher power according to any specific religious edicts is essentially irrelevant. It is our contact with one another that holds meaning in all of this. We, as individuals, may choose to help to raise one another up or we may choose to add to each other's burdens; if there is a "god" in whatever form, he/she has no direct contact or effect on what we do here--it is up to each of us to see the essential good in helping one another, rather than to live for some perceived reward in the afterlife.

If you will for give the cliche, we must "pay it forward" to succeed in life.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Dear Isness, your truth and mine differ, but that is okay. I see Spirit in a blade of grass. If you saw God, would you still have the free will to choose whether or not to believe? that is the catch 22. I have begged, taunted and insulted Satan for a decade, calling him a chicken, coward, etc. because he won't appear to me face to face. My Christian friends get very nervous when I do that, but I dont believe in Satan so I do not. We can both be right, in my view, there is no God in your truth, but there is in mine. I have seen many miracles, many.

[Cloudminerva]

God to me is many things. Not the word, but the reality and the realization. There have been so many prophesies and so many miraculous events to occur in life, that there seems to only be a highest point. If everything were random, then visionaries probably could not pinpoint and tell us of occuring events so perfectly as they do and always have. Everything happens perfectly and cause and effect fit together perfectly, whether good or bad. Even if the universe was a random occurence in space, there was still some type of desire in something to create the occurence, it is still a miracle, thus I still believe in something moving this creation so perfectly. If atoms join together as such incredible speeds, then there is physical prof of desire when they combine. If we had all we needed only to survive, then we wouldn't need beauty but we still have it. We wouldn't have consciousness, because we ALL would be thiefs, liars and murderers...we would only need to survive, so there would be no thinking twice about hurting others...that is survival of the fittest!. There is still something in us all that speaks through us within. If we had only but essentials to survive, we would not have imagination and creative thinking. We have the power to create beautiful music, but the desire is within us first. Sometimes I don't know how the hell we come up with all this crazy stuff with all of these contradictory ideas. I mean, Buddhism agrees with Physics and so does Hinduism. Science does not seperate from Eastern philosophy, so why all the argument over the miraculous? I just don't believe that all the great sages, prophets, and visionaries were wrong, because the things they said have come true and are still coming true. A hallucination/vision is physically not there, but who in the hell has the right to say that it isn't real or Godly just because only one person can see it? Nothing happens to everybody the same way! Things happen in a physical and metaphyiscal manner, always. We suppossedely only see through light rays anyway,so our spiritual, emotional, and creative side, to me, has more proof than anything else. We cannot see feelings, but we can see the effects of feelings. We know it's real when we feel. Scientists use tools and equipment that already are prone to error and miscalculation, so how can those answers only get us anywhere?


Ben.

[Spiderman,UFO's]

believing in something at all is bad. especally if you dont have conclusive evidence to back it up. When we are born we know very little or almost to nothing about the world, colors, shapes, sounds. Are parents teach us morals and belifes in what we hear around us. This gets programmed into our brains, and thus we believe in it. We should look at everyones point of view on life as a lie. Actually more of a story. everyones has there own story on life, and nothing is wrong nor right. believe in nothing and you can look at life with endless possiblities. anything is possible. I'm sure many people in this forum can relate. I have been in worlds that no one can relate to. believing stops your brain from working, and it becomes clinically dead.

This is just my story

[Cloudminerva]

Well, in this day and age of materialism, we have lost connection with a great portion of ourselves. I believe that most of these ideas and beliefs of physical evidence beyond what we have within and without will fade with time. To me, it seems to only be a fad and an accepted way of thinking because of the times. America is powerful; we have nothing higher than ourselves to live for anymore because of our wealth and so our minds shape with the times..this could be a possibility (no disrespect to the hard working, good hearted Americans out there.) All I know is that neither side will ever win because we will always argue and fight over opinions. I believe that both worlds must unite and do. This age that we are living in though, is based on materialism more than anything else and so of course fads in thinking will emerge...they always do. Like I said, I am no Bible pusher, Science and Religion have to coinside to show the true meaning behind everything. People think in different ways but the truth is always existant despite popular ways of thinking and experimentation. Still, though, I look back and see that the end of an age is appoaching us and that this way of thinking that we are involved in was predicted a very long time ago and that we are on the emergence of a great realization perhaps. This is my belief. I do not deny science, I just understand the world through spirituality and religion and I also know that physically, these things correspond and should in science.


Peace,
Ben.

[gnrm23]

alan watts:
give us this day our daily faith
but deliver us from our beliefs

[Kharakov]

the human mind (in many cases) cannot deal with the realization ... the universe is a random set of events in a space so expansive that we could never comprehend.
You will find your mind is able to deal with the truth far better than it is able to deal with colorful descriptions of non existent conditions.

[Kharakov]

believing in something at all is bad. especally if you dont have conclusive evidence to back it up. .... believing stops your brain from working, and it becomes clinically dead. Nice beliefs. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

[isness]

I am not saying there is no god. God is whatever we want it to be. I see a tree, the tree is god. I see a rock, the rock is god. God exists in the imagination. I can call anything god. This does not hold any more truth than calling a tree a tree, or a rock a rock, or even a rock a tree. Perhaps god is the imagination.

[BlackGuardXIII]

My sense of God is my sense of wonder at the universe. Albert Einstein

[Kharakov]

I am not saying there is no god. God is whatever we want it to be. I see a tree, the tree is god. I see a rock, the rock is god. God exists in the imagination. I can call anything god. This does not hold any more truth than calling a tree a tree, or a rock a rock, or even a rock a tree. Perhaps god is the imagination.
Ideas such as these are why Judaism frowns upon idolatry. Things (paper, rock, scissors) are creations, God is a being which you have not (formally) met yet.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Ideas such as these are why Judaism frowns upon idolatry. Things (paper, rock, scissors) are creations, God is a being which you have not (formally) met yet.
I take it you are Jewish? Apologies if I am mistaken. Judaism may frown on idolatry, but it also seems to frown on Islam, Christianity, and many other beliefs. This is why I do not wish to be Jewish, or Christian, or Muslim. I accept them all. I do not believe that seeing God in a rock is idolatry, I believe it is one's personal belief, and is as true and valid as yours or mine.

[atropine]

well said blackguard.. although from MY personal experience (not meaning its fact, just what ive seen) jewish people frown upon others much less than christians or muslims.. from my perspective anyway

[T.S. Garp]

You will find your mind is able to deal with the truth far better than it is able to deal with colorful descriptions of non existent conditions.
Which, of course, leads to the obvious question, "what is the truth?" Again, every society of human beings has set out to define who they are and why they are here. Identifying any one of those views as "truth" is a difficult (if not impossible) pill to swallow. Saying that one believes completely is not enough. A group of Egyptians marched out across hundreds of miles of desert to build a city that faced two mountains. Between those two mountains, the sun rose every morning. These people believed so fervently that the sun was God, they moved away from civilization and went through unbelievable hardship to practice their faith. Are we to assume that any particular interpretation of god is superior to another, or are you simplysuggesting that it is true that god exists in whatever form a following believes?

[T.S. Garp]

I take it you are Jewish? Apologies if I am mistaken. Judaism may frown on idolatry, but it also seems to frown on Islam, Christianity, and many other beliefs. This is why I do not wish to be Jewish, or Christian, or Muslim. I accept them all. I do not believe that seeing God in a rock is idolatry, I believe it is one's personal belief, and is as true and valid as yours or mine.
I would say that Judaism has no corner on the market when it comes to feeling that its position is superior--most religions seem to have that as a quality. I believe that isness (please correct me if I am wrong) is describing the omnipresence of god in all things, not the worship of those things in and of themselves. And even if we are discussing the worship of all things as god, that is certainly not a new or strange concept--think of Native American tribes or other groups who are so dependent on the earth and what it provides for survival.

In the end, we are all climbing the same mountain; the path we each take is less important than making the journey of discovery in the first place.

[Cloudminerva]

I agree with many of the past few posts. I believe in the omnipotence of God and I believe that the presence of God is in everything, including ourselves. I have come to see God the clearist through Hinduism, Buddhism,and Christianity, since that was my first experience with God's power. Since then, I have found an equal truth in many cultures and I love exploring their beliefs. I have read the philosophies of mystics, the Egyptians, the Toltecs and the Mayas, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Shamans, Aborigines, and Native Americans. There is a supreme spirit in their beliefs, but each culture has a unique way of sheding light on and explaining the supreme. The names of God differ but the spirit, the realization, and the truth are all on the same plane. We can find God in any way that lets us see God within and without us and we will come to know God's true nature.


Ben.

[Kharakov]

I take it you are Jewish? Apologies if I am mistaken. Nope. No problem.

I do not believe that seeing God in a rock is idolatry, Seeing God in a rock is not idolatry. Thinking a rock is God is idolatry. Isness said "the rock is God" and some other things.

[Kharakov]

Which, of course, leads to the obvious question, "what is the truth?"Every individual has a wealth of personally true experiences, whether or not they can communicate these experiences depends on similarity of experience with other individuals. To talk of a higher truth to one who cannot yet experience it is to talk of a blue sky to a blind man. When the blind man is given sight, the descriptions of the blue sky will finally begin to make sense.

Are we to assume that any particular interpretation of god is superior to another,
Unless you seek knowledge of God based upon your own experience, you will never be satisfied with the explanations others make based upon their experiences. What rings true to your experience? Is this truth something that holds up to scrutiny? Are you missing a vital experience that explains why things are as they are?

or are you simplysuggesting that it is true that god exists in whatever form a following believes?
Not at all. There are many incorrect beliefs, including the one that the whole following perceives God in the exact same way (otherwise everyone would drink coca cola).

[Kharakov]

I would say that Judaism has no corner on the market when it comes to feeling that its position is superior
They were just one of many "Master Races" that got shown the truth, that God is the master, not some particular race or tribe.

[isness]

You have misunderstood me Kharakov. I only speak of our ignorance and irrationality that allows us to believe in theories. We believe that the rock is a rock, however it does not hold any more truth than calling the the rock god, because god is only a label to describe something, as is the word rock. Because we associate objects with labels and thus associate them as either good or bad, we see disorder in everything. The notion of god relies on what we associate with god, which is only a belief, a theory. It holds no relevance to truth. It is a word used to communicate that which we don't truly understand. If we understood it, I do not think we would be having this conversation.

[Kharakov]

We believe that the rock is a rock, however it does not hold any more truth than calling the the rock god, because god is only a label to describe something, as is the word rock. Language works because it uses the similarity of experiences associated with a word to convey a concept or idea.
How do you teach a child the word rock? You point at the rock and say "rock......rock.......rock....". They associate the word with rocks. Same with the word "God" or someones name "Kharakov".

We are taught at an early age to call a rock something other than a rock is a 'lie' or incorrect. If you start calling rocks zebras and mixing up the whole language you are not going to be able to communicate with anyone who communicates in the standard manner. To say 'calling a rock god is as true as calling a rock rock' is incorrect (and a lie) because there is a correct (agreed upon and truthful) usage of the language we are using that allows us to communicate ideas. If you start calling rocks zebras, nobody is going to know what you are talking about (except me and you, because we might remember this conversation).

The reason that we accept standards for language is so that we can communicate ideas and experiences.

It is a word used to communicate that which we don't truly understand. Maybe you do not understand God. This does not mean that everyone does not understand God.

[isness]

Nobody can understand god because it is not clear what god is. We have many beliefs, there is no truth in belief. It could be true, it could be false, but as long as the concept is based on theory, we cannot know for certain. The word is for communication, however the word itself means nothing. When we speak of god, you must be clear what you mean by god, otherwise you are just talking about an abstract object of no truth. When there is no truth in the meaning or in the label itself, what are we really talking about? For this, you must be clear. "How can god not exist?" is not a valid question, for it implies that god is only a theory that is not proven, and therefore it cannot possibly be anwered rationally. All answers will be based on a theory, and thus will not correctly answer the question. What do you mean by god? You cannot just say god, for the word god has no meaning in our perceived truth. What we perceive can be the only truth we know. We can rationalize, but no rationalization can lead to the truth of gods existance. I do not know how you would further discuss god then unless you were speaking of something that can be perceived.

[Kharakov]

Nobody can understand god because it is not clear what god is. Apparently "what god is" is not clear to you.
We have many beliefs, there is no truth in belief. There is truth in belief (you have experienced it every night/day that you believed you would wake up the next morning). There are false beliefs as well.
It could be true, it could be false, but as long as the concept is based on theory, we cannot know for certain. If you have a testable theory, you can be reasonably certain that it is correct.

The word is for communication, however the word itself means nothing. It means what we say it means. I generally (try to) go by the dictionary definitions of words so that I can be sure that people will understand me.

When we speak of god, you must be clear what you mean by god, otherwise you are just talking about an abstract object of no truth. When there is no truth in the meaning or in the label itself, what are we really talking about? For this, you must be clear. God, when capitalized refers to the supreme or ultimate reality (the perfect being).

What do you mean by god?God.

You cannot just say god, for the word god has no meaning in our perceived truth. What we perceive can be the only truth we know..... I do not know how you would further discuss god then unless you were speaking of something that can be perceived.Exactly. I perceive God. God can be perceived. God reveals God's existence through occurrences of patterns that display intent.

[T.S. Garp]

[QUOTE=Kharakov]Every individual has a wealth of personally true experiences, whether or not they can communicate these experiences depends on similarity of experience with other individuals. To talk of a higher truth to one who cannot yet experience it is to talk of a blue sky to a blind man. When the blind man is given sight, the descriptions of the blue sky will finally begin to make sense.
QUOTE]

If the only test that must be passed is that a person believes something to be true and that makes it so, there is little basis for any shared experience. Otherwise, "god" is whatever anyone says it is. "Truth" is defined as "fact," and has been pointed out, no form of god can be proved or disproved. Would you grant that people who believe that they have been abducted by aliens are speaking "truth"? What about those with forms of neuroses or psychoses--because they are having personally true experiences--this makes those experiences real? What about drug-induced hallucinations, or dreams? Besides, any faith in a god is just that, faith. Your example of a blue sky to blind man is an empirical experience that he is incapable of having. Faith is something that cannot be measured empirically.

You are also discussing the utilitarian language that we use to describe objects (such as rocks or zebras) to try to explain the faith that people have when they say a rock or a buffalo or the earth is god (or that Communion wafers are the body of Christ). These are simply two different uses for language, not the proof that a rock is or isn't god.

Ultimately, it is fair to say that god does not exist in whatever form anyone believes at the moment because personal experiences do not equal truth for anyone other than those having those experiences. It was touted in the 70s that God was dead in the sense that the mysticism about God from centuries ago is gone. We have distinctly different interpretations of god over time. Just who is going to give that blind man his sight anyway? God--who is defined by each individual's beliefs? Another person, whose own fallibility and reality differs from everyone elses? Will anyone discover the one variation of truth that finally answers all of these questions? To base "truth" on anything as changeable as all of this is folly.

[isness]

There is never truth in belief unless the belief is true now. The future is not true until it is now. Nothing is definite besides what is happening right now. I agree that words are a useful tool in communication, however without that association with its meaning, the word means nothing. We created the meaning through imagination. We can call something god, it is god if we want it to be. Wide acceptance of a belief does not create truth. What is the popular definition of god? The supreme being, the creator of the universe? How are we to perceive something like this? The only way is to associate it with something that we do perceive, and then call that a sign that god exists. This is a belief though, where is the truth in it? It could be true, however it is not a known fact.

[*Shoes_Are_Not_Toys*]

here is my proof as to why we dont need a god to be here

1. space is infinint
2. time is infininit
3. there are all elements in space.

now by knowing that you now can assume you have forever and a day for the proper elements to come in contact with each other and for evolution to start. you have all the room and time nessisary for such a event to occur. one down side to this is how space got here but at the same time how did god get there? when you answer me that one and not with the words he just is/was/faith answer then you win

[Kharakov]

If the only test that must be passed is that a person believes something to be true and that makes it so, there is little basis for any shared experience. Yup.

Would you grant that people who believe that they have been abducted by aliens are speaking "truth"? I don't know, why should I? Do they have compelling evidence? If I had been abducted by aliens I would tend to believe it when another person said they had been abducted by aliens. Never happened to me however.

What about those with forms of neuroses or psychoses--because they are having personally true experiences--this makes those experiences real? At the same time that these neuroses or psychoses exist in the minds of some who barely experience true reality, there are some that can experience the higher truth of reality (God).

Your example of a blue sky to blind man is an empirical experience that he is incapable of having.While he is blind. Like I said, when you give the man sight (on the condition he remembers to open his eyes), what you have said to him about the blue sky will begin to make sense.

You are also discussing the utilitarian language that we use to describe objects (such as rocks or zebras) to try to explain the faith that people have when they say a rock or a buffalo or the earth is god (or that Communion wafers are the body of Christ). I was just talking about language usage. I like words. A buffalo is a buffalo. Unless, of course, it is a wolf in a buffalo skin suit. But then it is only a wolf in a buffalo skin suit. Unless, of course, it is a buffalo in a wolf suit in a buffalo skin suit, which is another case altogether.

God--who is defined by each individual's beliefs?Nope, the God that exists independant of false beliefs, 214512 people can have different perceptions of the same person as 534152 people can have different perceptions of God. This doesn't mean that God is defined by each individuals beliefs, it just means that each individual perceives God in a different way, and of course, some perceive God more clearly than others.

[Kharakov]

The only way is to associate it with something that we do perceive, and then call that a sign that god exists. This is a belief though, where is the truth in it? It could be true, however it is not a known fact.Like everything else. Pretty much gotta except the whole universe on faith, just don't trust people, they are no damn good (thats what my Grandfather used to say).

[Kharakov]

at the same time how did god get there? I asked God that one once and God got really sad and said "I don't know".

[BlackGuardXIII]

Kharakov, that is quite a statement. You realize how many people will call you a liar, and a heretic for stating that there is something that God does not know? I was once told that when Moses spoke to God, the entity he was speaking with only told Moses he was God because the situation required it, but that it was not actually God. I have only spoken with three other people who have spoken with God, and for the most part, they have been mocked for sharing their experiences. Since I have had dreams that later came true to the most minute detail, I do not dismiss others claims out of hand, no matter how incredible they are.

[loveflower]

BlackGuard, does it matter what people will call Kharakov? Perhaps they were joking, perhaps they were being serious, but why dismiss what they're saying as a lie and proclaim yours as the only truth?

[*Shoes_Are_Not_Toys*]

well heres something for you noodle blackgaurd. Can god make a rock he cannot lift?

[steffan]

It is posible that the univere is aware of itself. Its anyones abilty to define that awareness i dont believe in, i just try not to worry too much about it and let things be. afterall the fact that things do happen is far more relevent than why they happen

[TrippinBTM]

well heres something for you noodle blackgaurd. Can god make a rock he cannot lift?
Why would you use an illogical argument to argue against an illogical argument? That question has no meaning because it is illogical. It is no help in proving god doesn't exist. It makes you just as irrational as people who argue for god as the First Cause or whatever other arguments they come up with.

[Kharakov]

You realize how many people will call you a liar, and a heretic for stating that there is something that God does not know?Well, lets just say that God knows everything that can be known. All knowing does not imply that God knows what a 'square circle' is, it implies that God knows that a 'square circle' does not exist (by definition). Neither does all knowing imply that God knows where God came from, since to have always existed means that you do not have a starting point to come from.

Can god make a rock he cannot lift?Why don't you say "Can God impose limits upon God?" That is a better way of framing the question. The answer is yes, and all it amounts to a decision on the part of God. God can decide 'I will never move that rock". Put it in its own universe so that nothing ever interacts with it, leave it alone for eternity. God could be like "Mental note to self, do not ever interact with that rock or let anything interact with it".

[Cloudminerva]

Well, I do agree with your posts about words and experiences. These past few posts alone have shown us that experiences are more powerful than words. If you haven't experienced something, then you surely cannot understand the explanation or description of it. There are even those of us who have experienced something so powerful that we cannot even describe the event ourselves. We rely on belief everyday just as said earlier. Beliefs are the many gateways to the one and eternal truth...this is all we really have. I don't believe that God is a figment of the brain or some theory like that because I know that a guitar cannot create music without a musician putting the music into the instrument. A guitar cannot simply play itself because there has to be the knowledgable one that knows how to play it to make music! The instrument is the vehicle through which music can be known, not the actual creation of the music. What do you guys think about that whole theory anyway? The one about God being a figment of the brain?


Ben.

[*Shoes_Are_Not_Toys*]

ok...you win. i never agreed with that whole thing but i just remember it from my phil of religion book as one of the arguments against god

[isness]

The universe is the body of the mind. Hehe. This is a statement worth discussion.

[Kharakov]

Well, I do agree with your posts about words and experiences. These past few posts alone have shown us that experiences are more powerful than words. If you haven't experienced something, then you surely cannot understand the explanation or description of it. There are even those of us who have experienced something so powerful that we cannot even describe the event ourselves.I agree and I do not like to separate the word from the experience it defines. I (trying not to judge) think you walk a thin line when you say that exeriences are more powerful than words. I feel that when you bind the experience to the word, and they should no longer be separatable. The word should conjure up the experience it is associated with. Words are a great work of art that has come about through people working together and coming to agreements on what experiences a word (or group of words) can describe. In my heart, i feel a kinship (loyalty) to us and the words that we use. They are so beautiful in so many ways- they require cooperation and understanding between neighbors in order to be useful. They bring people together and allow people to theorize outside of physical reality. People can share dreams with words, we can convey emotion from our innermost being with words. I truly love words for what they can be used for. Truthfully, the individuals who use their skills with words to build castles of thought are architects of heaven. To have many minds to add words to, that may be added to further, is the great thing.

What I struggle with know, is discounting others words as less valid because they might not make logical sense, or may not be used in the common manner. I think I should try and accept all that is said in a way that i truely see what can be built upon the words another said, without breaking down their statement as well. For me, my goal could be to always build upon the ideas I see. I need to put this in my signature to make sure that I do this.

The one about God being a figment of the brain? I was a skeptic for many years, and would have readily agreed with that statement. Now I am older, and have seen certain things that let me know I am on the right path. The first step for me was to recognize that what was happening was not simple coincidence. It took me a long time to adjust my thinking to understand what was going on. Now if something with a deep connection to my inner (private) thoughts shows up in the exterial world, I recognize it for what it is.

[Kharakov]

ok...you win. i never agreed with that whole thing but i just remember it from my phil of religion book as one of the arguments against godThere are many pretty, apparently logical, arguments against the existence of God. Unfortunately, unless the premise(s) of the argument are proven to be true and come to a logical conclusion, they are probably there for your amusement, or so you can learn to spot invalid logic. It's good you are interested in religion (even if only to argue against it) because you will eventually learn why things are as they are, which is part of growing up. You can learn more from an argument you fail (and admit you fail) than from winning an argument. You just need to analyze the wording of the argument until you see exactly what it means. Another, last, long winded note: It is always good to try ideas on other minds, for they can see falts that you never would.

[T.S. Garp]

Well, I do agree with your posts about words and experiences. These past few posts alone have shown us that experiences are more powerful than words. If you haven't experienced something, then you surely cannot understand the explanation or description of it. There are even those of us who have experienced something so powerful that we cannot even describe the event ourselves. We rely on belief everyday just as said earlier. Beliefs are the many gateways to the one and eternal truth...this is all we really have. I don't believe that God is a figment of the brain or some theory like that because I know that a guitar cannot create music without a musician putting the music into the instrument. A guitar cannot simply play itself because there has to be the knowledgable one that knows how to play it to make music! The instrument is the vehicle through which music can be known, not the actual creation of the music. What do you guys think about that whole theory anyway? The one about God being a figment of the brain?


Ben.Although I am not certain of the veracity of this claim (please see all other references made by many to the inability to prove or disprove God), God is a figment of the brain created to fill the gap left when reason no longer suffices. Because of each culture's unique point in time, each one has a different concept of what God is. As I mentioned in an earlier post, many people (or arguably, human brains in general) do not/cannot accept the unknown. I am reminded of a picture taken by the Hubble telescope showing a frame that contains thousands of galaxies. Each galaxy contains millions of stars with, accordingly, millions of planets orbiting those millions of stars. If I am remembering correctly, the frame was of a spot in the sky seen through the equivalent of an eight-foot-long drinking straw. Some of these galaxies are far enough away that the light given off takes billions of years to get here (even though the light is traveling at 186,000 miles per second).

We are on a non-descript planet in an average solar system in one of millions of galaxies in one tiny corner of an infinite universe. In that context, how can anyone claim to understand our place in the universe? Please note as well that none of the texts used by the major religions ever discuss anything in detail outside the bounds of this planet. Religion and belief in God are creations of the human mind based on our understanding of what we experience here on Earth.

...or all of what I have said is completely wrong.

[T.S. Garp]

I'm sorry, not wrong about everything, just possibly about the part about God as a figment of our imagination.

[Kharakov]

God is a figment of the brain created to fill the gap left when reason no longer suffices. If God didn't make God's presence know to me I might Use God to plug up gaps. Dunno why though, reasoning seems to be able to come up with logical explanations (for the gaps in knowledge) most of the time.
Because of each culture's unique point in time, each one has a different concept of what God is.God has a sense of humour, is very dramatic at times, and is the absolute master of sensuality, and likes to give comfort to those who enjoy it. Just a couple of good things about God. Another thing is, God knows when it is right to give you something.. the whole perfect timing thing.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, many people (or arguably, human brains in general) do not/cannot accept the unknown. Not to be a smart ass... What if an unknown hottie <non gender specific for all you different types> offers you a beer?
Religion and belief in God are creations of the human mind based on our understanding of what we experience here on Earth.
Do you say the religion and belief are creations of the Head Chef or the creations that participate?

I gotta go, took tones of provigil... wooot

[Cloudminerva]

Well, yes. I definitely agree with your post about words. I love words, too, because I am a songwriter. When words can take you to higher places and also relate to you, it is one of the greatest feelings. Words and phrases can be mood altering and can really shed light on our emotions. So yeah, I do agree with you on that. I just meant that sometimes experiences are more powerful, but really, words can be just as powerful...I guess that they are in balance!

Ben.



I agree and I do not like to separate the word from the experience it defines. I (trying not to judge) think you walk a thin line when you say that exeriences are more powerful than words. I feel that when you bind the experience to the word, and they should no longer be separatable. The word should conjure up the experience it is associated with. Words are a great work of art that has come about through people working together and coming to agreements on what experiences a word (or group of words) can describe. In my heart, i feel a kinship (loyalty) to us and the words that we use. They are so beautiful in so many ways- they require cooperation and understanding between neighbors in order to be useful. They bring people together and allow people to theorize outside of physical reality. People can share dreams with words, we can convey emotion from our innermost being with words. I truly love words for what they can be used for. Truthfully, the individuals who use their skills with words to build castles of thought are architects of heaven. To have many minds to add words to, that may be added to further, is the great thing.

What I struggle with know, is discounting others words as less valid because they might not make logical sense, or may not be used in the common manner. I think I should try and accept all that is said in a way that i truely see what can be built upon the words another said, without breaking down their statement as well. For me, my goal could be to always build upon the ideas I see. I need to put this in my signature to make sure that I do this.

I was a skeptic for many years, and would have readily agreed with that statement. Now I am older, and have seen certain things that let me know I am on the right path. The first step for me was to recognize that what was happening was not simple coincidence. It took me a long time to adjust my thinking to understand what was going on. Now if something with a deep connection to my inner (private) thoughts shows up in the exterial world, I recognize it for what it is.

[T.S. Garp]

Well, yes. I definitely agree with your post about words. I love words, too, because I am a songwriter. When words can take you to higher places and also relate to you, it is one of the greatest feelings. Words and phrases can be mood altering and can really shed light on our emotions. So yeah, I do agree with you on that. I just meant that sometimes experiences are more powerful, but really, words can be just as powerful...I guess that they are in balance!

Ben.
I agree with you about the power of words.

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world."
Ludwig Wittgenstein--German philosopher

[Kilgore Trout]

I bet if God wanted to, it could make itself not exist. I mean why not? Wouldn't it get boring being God after half an eternity?

[T.S. Garp]

Kharakov

If God didn't make God's presence know to me I might Use God to plug up gaps. Dunno why though, reasoning seems to be able to come up with logical explanations (for the gaps in knowledge) most of the time.

But the fact of the matter is that humans have rarely used reason to plug up the gaps. Cultures have made assumptions about natural disasters as punishment from God, have prayed and thanked God when things are good, and thank God when they are personally successfull. None of this falls under the category of reason.

God has a sense of humour, is very dramatic at times, and is the absolute master of sensuality, and likes to give comfort to those who enjoy it. Just a couple of good things about God. Another thing is, God knows when it is right to give you something.. the whole perfect timing thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "master of sensuality," or where you get your extensive knowledge of God (other than your personal experience, which we have discussed as untestable and unprovable for anyone else).

Not to be a smart ass... What if an unknown hottie <non gender specific for all you different types> offers you a beer?
Do you say the religion and belief are creations of the Head Chef or the creations that participate?

I gotta go, took tones of provigil... wooot

As a fellow smart-ass, I appreciate your sense of humor--but you would have to admit that your example doesn't really fit...Provigil--should I try some?

I enjoy discussing this with you.

[Kharakov]

None of this falls under the category of reason.:)

I'm not sure what you mean by "master of sensuality," or where you get your extensive knowledge of God (other than your personal experience, which we have discussed as untestable and unprovable for anyone else). When you experience these things, you will know what I speak of.

As a fellow smart-ass, I appreciate your sense of humor:)
--but you would have to admit that your example doesn't really fit..."As I mentioned in an earlier post, many people (or arguably, human brains in general) do not/cannot accept the unknown. " There are lots of things I do not know. Is this what you mean by accepting the unknown?
In addition, to accept something you have to know (or at least think you know) that something. So, as far as logic goes there is no possibility (as far as I know) of being able to accept the unknown (although I do not believe this is what you meant).

Provigil--should I try some? Google modafinal (I think). Well, as I don't really recall writting a lot of these things we are talking about in this conversation... and I mixed a bunch of klonipin with the provigil, god.. I am not taking provigil or klonipin for a long time. Thinking about it makes me feel nauseated.

Anyways, provigil is cool, they use it to keep marines up for days on end without to many side effects. However, if you just start eating it like candy because you decided to balance out the klonipin you took, and then you take more klonipin cuz you took too much provigil, and then you take more provigil..... Anyway, you understand what I am getting at.

[T.S. Garp]

I suppose that by "the unknown" I am referring to our creator, who is ultimately "unknown" (unproven/unprovable) to us. We cannot accept that unknown, and proceed to fill in the gaps with religion and faith. The alternative would be to understand that in the context of this infinite universe, we are nothing. Although I prefer to say that in the context of this infinite universe, how we exist and treat each other is everything; that is the reason to be moral, in my opinion, not because of the potential (or actual) existence of a creator.

[Kharakov]

I suppose that by "the unknown" I am referring to our creator, who is ultimately "unknown" (unproven/unprovable) to us. As are many things (unprovable). That is why I use the 'law's standard' for proof: beyond a reasonable doubt. God is as knowable as your wife, parents, friends, or neighbors. God will interact with you on a profoundly personal level, because God knows you better than your wife, friends, parents, or even you do. When you are ready to see evidence of God, you will see evidence of God, not before. God is the one who knows when you will be ready. There are probably a few things you can do to get ready, but once again, God knows when to lead you towards these steps. When it comes down to brass tacks, God is the most Common thing, personality, whatchamacallit in the universe, so it is really no big deal to realize God's existence.

Although I prefer to say that in the context of this infinite universe, how we exist and treat each other is everything; that is the reason to be moral, in my opinion, not because of the potential (or actual) existence of a creator.I am moral because it's the right way to be. :) Morality is a reward in itself.

[forest_pixie84]

Greetings,
I have always had trouble understanding how people can say god doesn't exist.
I don't know how he cannot, but I also don't know how he can. How are people supposed to prove or disprove questions like this? All we can really do is rattle on about things that manifest themselves in our reality, with hope of finding absolute.

[FreakyJoeMan]

Absolutes are seriously overrated, except this absolut:

http://solo.design.ru/pd/absolut.jpg

And anyway, ya hear bout the only constant in the Universe? It's change!

[forest_pixie84]

while that truth remains the same

AAAhhhhh!

[FreakyJoeMan]

And it's about this time the robot's head asplodes.

[NaykidApe]

"How can god not exist?"

He's God, He can do anything He wants.

[forest_pixie84]

"How can god not exist?"

He's God, He can do anything He wants.
lol, like not exist if he wants to? i'm just fucking with you.
have a nice day :)

[NaykidApe]

That's more or less what I was getting at pixie.

and thanx, I believe I will have a nice day. Hope somethin' magic happens at you today.

[forest_pixie84]

^wow i read that wrong, and it really made my comment sound stupid!
oopsie. :&

[NaykidApe]

NO, SAYING "OOPSIE" made your comment sound stupid...or cute...I can never tell the differance (hence the tragic nature of most of my relationships)

[BlackGuardXIII]

well, we didn't respect nature, so I agree, we are in for a serious buttkicking...
which I hope happens after I die. It will not be pretty. Of course, we could defy all logic and pull out of this communal, global, death spiral. lol as if We can't even slow down, let alone stop, let alone return to sustainability. See ya on the other side.

[Razorofoccam]

"How can god not exist?"

He's God, He can do anything He wants.
GOOD STUFF !!!!!! [what a great twister]

[Kharakov]

"How can god not exist?"

He's God, He can do anything He wants.He can be a she then? Awesome.

[gnrm23]

He can be a she then? Awesome.
god is a crazy black woman and her name is eris



~
hail eris
all hail discordia
!!
!!!

[Kharakov]

god is a crazy black woman and her name is eris



~
hail eris
all hail discordia
!!
!!!
My dog is a sane white man and his name is sire.

Sire Liah,

Alic Allahi Dir Dos (6.22)

[forest_pixie84]

lol :) :) :)

[Razorofoccam]

Occam does not think any of us have the faintest idea what a god is....

And that..is why organised religion exists...

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

Occam does not think any of us have the faintest idea what a god is....

And that..is why organised religion exists...

Occam
I do have the faintest idea of what God is, as a matter of fact I would say it is truly the faintest, could hardly be fainter.
I think God is beyond our comprehension, that is my faintest idea.

I think organized as opposed to traditional religion is more about power and control than anything else.

[Kharakov]

I do have the faintest idea of what God is, as a matter of fact I would say it is truly the faintest, could hardly be fainter.
I think God is beyond our comprehension, that is my faintest idea. Well, it might be appropriate to compare God to a cabbage. Not just any cabbage, but a leafy, really stinky cabbage. Maybe skunk cabbage, I dunno. To sum it up, I know God, and I know cabbage, and I know the differences between the two.

God is knowable, just like everything else.

I think organized as opposed to traditional religion is more about power and control than anything else. Or maybe its a joke, like terrorism, and people don't get it.

[Razorofoccam]

Yes .. if a god is... We have nothing but speculation.

And if it is..we,, with method a pig headed determination..will find it...

This is humanity...
And occam has faith in only one thing...
The potential of humanity to understand anything it wishes to.

This faith is based in precedent...[as opposed to the 'other' faith]


Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

And occam has faith in only one thing...
The potential of humanity to understand anything it wishes to.

This is certainly a leap of faith because there is no way it can be based on reason. How can you possibly know that a you can understand everything unless you know everything? You're not suggesting that you know everything, are you Occam? I never thought you to believe in a priori knowledge. And even if you do know everything, how are you so sure that there isn't something more which you don't know? After all, if you don't know it, how would you go about knowing that there is something you don't know, let alone go about learning it?

[Razorofoccam]

This is certainly a leap of faith because there is no way it can be based on reason. How can you possibly know that a you can understand everything unless you know everything? You're not suggesting that you know everything, are you Occam? I never thought you to believe in a priori knowledge. And even if you do know everything, how are you so sure that there isn't something more which you don't know? After all, if you don't know it, how would you go about knowing that there is something you don't know, let alone go about learning it?
Hammer

Once again you read wrong...

Occam said
"the potential of HUMANITY to understand anything it wishes to"

Is occam humanity?
NO..

Please start reading 'humanity' as humanity.
Imagine it a huge gestaltic organism....
Can one cell in that organism do what the whole gestalt can do..no.
No more than a cell in your butt can pick up a glass of water
Or understand geopolitics

Occam

[T.S. Garp]

This is certainly a leap of faith because there is no way it can be based on reason. How can you possibly know that a you can understand everything unless you know everything? You're not suggesting that you know everything, are you Occam? I never thought you to believe in a priori knowledge. And even if you do know everything, how are you so sure that there isn't something more which you don't know? After all, if you don't know it, how would you go about knowing that there is something you don't know, let alone go about learning it?
I think you have missed Occam's point. It is not that we understand everything; it is that we have the potential, through reason, to understand what we attempt to understand. One path is based on the tangible, the other is based on the intangible. I agree that understanding comes from the collective experience. As I have mentioned in other posts, when viewed in the context of an infinite universe, our interactions with each other are all that matter.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

Once again you read wrong...

No, the point still stands. How can anyone or any group of people, an individual or a collective, go about discoving something if they do not know what it is they are trying to discover? The immediate question that follows is, how can a person or group of people step outside of their own subjective experience, the limits of all possible contexts of all possible languages to discover some unchanging, objective Truth?

[T.S. Garp]

No, the point still stands. How can anyone or any group of people, an individual or a collective, go about discoving something if they do not know what it is they are trying to discover? The immediate question that follows is, how can a person or group of people step outside of their own subjective experience, the limits of all possible contexts of all possible languages to discover some unchanging, objective Truth?
It happens because of the human imagination and our incalculable ability to wonder.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

No, it doesn't happen at all; that's the point. Imagine trying to have thought, purely objective thought, without language. It just can't happen. And it doesn't matter how much wonder or desire to inquire we have.

[Razorofoccam]

No, the point still stands. How can anyone or any group of people, an individual or a collective, go about discoving something if they do not know what it is they are trying to discover? The immediate question that follows is, how can a person or group of people step outside of their own subjective experience, the limits of all possible contexts of all possible languages to discover some unchanging, objective Truth?
TheHammerSpeaks

If you had any faith in US

You would see the answer without words...

3000 years ago men looked at birds..and wished to fly with them. Yet they had not the faintest idea how that could happen....It was the most etherial of dreams

Now we do....

How did that happen?

For it SURELY DID HAPPEN...driven, by that very wish...

You say understanding god is something we cannot concieve of understanding...
Yet the fool down the road in the church says he knows what god is...
And you believe him.

Occam

[T.S. Garp]

And then language to describe that wonder and experience develops.

[T.S. Garp]

No, it doesn't happen at all; that's the point. Imagine trying to have thought, purely objective thought, without language. It just can't happen. And it doesn't matter how much wonder or desire to inquire we have.
I can't imagine it--I already have language. But the world does not begin and end with language. Thought does not begin and end with language. I agree completely that language facilitates all that you have said; but it (language) is not the alpha and omega of thought, it is a catalyst.

It is the combination of thought, language, and wonder that makes understanding possible. None of these elements can be viewed in isolation.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

If you had any faith in US

You would see the answer without words...
I certainly do have a certain degree of faith in humanity. I do not, however, have faith in humanity's faculty of reason.

3000 years ago men looked at birds..and wished to fly with them. Yet they had not the faintest idea how that could happen....It was the most etherial of dreams

Now we do....

How did that happen?

For it SURELY DID HAPPEN...driven, by that very wish...
I have no doubt that flight is something well within humanity's ability to understand. But why should I assume that everything can be understood by humanity based on such examples?

You say understanding god is something we cannot concieve of understanding...
Yet the fool down the road in the church says he knows what god is...
And you believe him.
Now this is interesting, but I want to make sure I clearly understand what you're saying before I reply. Would you care to clarify a little, especially the part about God being something we "cannot conceive of understanding?"

[TheHammerSpeaks]

And then language to describe that wonder and experience develops.
No, it disintegrates. Because the meaning of words changes with context. If someone describes an experience to me, then the meaning of that experience changes because my context differs from that of the original experiencer.

I can't imagine it--I already have language. But the world does not begin and end with language. Thought does not begin and end with language. I agree completely that language facilitates all that you have said; but it (language) is not the alpha and omega of thought, it is a catalyst.
Then how do you suggest we step outside of language to view pure thought?

It is the combination of thought, language, and wonder that makes understanding possible. None of these elements can be viewed in isolation.
I added in the italics becaues that's my point exactly. Thought or wonder or anything else cannot be viewed isolated from language, so they are always distorted because of context.

[Kharakov]

No more than a cell in your butt can pick up a glass of water
Or understand geopolitics How do you know that a cell in your butt cannot understand geopolitics? Isn't it necessary for all butt cells to act in the way they do to contribute their share to geopolitical formation?

[BlackGuardXIII]

Well, it might be appropriate to compare God to a cabbage. Not just any cabbage, but a leafy, really stinky cabbage. Maybe skunk cabbage, I dunno. To sum it up, I know God, and I know cabbage, and I know the differences between the two.

God is knowable, just like everything else.

Or maybe its a joke, like terrorism, and people don't get it.
I believe you, Kharakov, that God is knowable. Buddha said no, but I am sure he was not always right. You say you know God, and I am not one to doubt you.
I have no reason to, and see no reason for you to say it is so if it is not. So far, the exact nature of God is not known to me, but I have a strong belief in what God is not, and the list is a long one.

Organized religion could be a joke, one that you have to laugh at, cuz if you didn't you'd cry. They tv evangelists are excellent proof or your proposition.

[BlackGuardXIII]

No, it doesn't happen at all; that's the point. Imagine trying to have thought, purely objective thought, without language. It just can't happen. And it doesn't matter how much wonder or desire to inquire we have.
It can happen, and does happen with me every day. It is emotion. I feel love and the feeling is beyond words to describe. It exists without language.
I believe that the great spiritual leaders of the past were able to do just what you say cannot happen.

[BlackGuardXIII]

How do you know that a cell in your butt cannot understand geopolitics? Isn't it necessary for all butt cells to act in the way they do to contribute their share to geopolitical formation?
There are two books out that show many examples that memories are not just stored in the brain, but in the heart as well. These books are about the changes heart transplant recipients go through post operation. In many cases, they adopt the tastes, ideas, and sometimes even language of the donor.

[BlackGuardXIII]

No, it disintegrates. Because the meaning of words changes with context. If someone describes an experience to me, then the meaning of that experience changes because my context differs from that of the original experiencer.


Then how do you suggest we step outside of language to view pure thought?


I added in the italics becaues that's my point exactly. Thought or wonder or anything else cannot be viewed isolated from language, so they are always distorted because of context.
I think I understand your point. No one can ever truly understand another's reality. We have not, and will not experience it first hand, therefore, can never be sure we understand it. Having said that, I believe certain truths bridge all cultures. That is just my humble belief though. For example, I believe that the feeling and expression of brotherly love (agape), is understood by people of all cultures. The only ones who do not understand it, in my view, have closed their hearts to its existance, and I feel these people also exist in all cultures.

[Razorofoccam]

I certainly do have a certain degree of faith in humanity. I do not, however, have faith in humanity's faculty of reason.


I have no doubt that flight is something well within humanity's ability to understand. But why should I assume that everything can be understood by humanity based on such examples?


Now this is interesting, but I want to make sure I clearly understand what you're saying before I reply. Would you care to clarify a little, especially the part about God being something we "cannot conceive of understanding?"
Hammer

1. Why not...The difference between savages bringingdown an animal for food. Alone in a world of action and reation. Of pure enviroment and survival.
And the works of keats or shostakovitich.
Is reason.

2. You do not. But why not have faith that we can...?
So many have faith that we are sheep or born evil.
That we are helpless pawns
Occam prefers to have faithy that we can be anything we wish to be.
There is NO FATE..but what we make.

3. YOU said god was something we could not concieve of or understand.
That humans are not capable of it because of our subjective nature.
"how can a person or peole step outside their subjective nature"
But as PEOPLE..we can.

Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

1. Why not...The difference between savages bringingdown an animal for food. Alone in a world of action and reation. Of pure enviroment and survival.
And the works of keats or shostakovitich.
Is reason.
What does reason have to do with art, especially since Keats was a Romanticist?

You do not. But why not have faith that we can...?
So many have faith that we are sheep or born evil.
That we are helpless pawns
Occam prefers to have faithy that we can be anything we wish to be.
There is NO FATE..but what we make.
Why do I lack faith in man's faculty of reason? Because it's imperfect and has been demonstrated to be so. Pure reason cannot exist. Read Hamann and Herder. Western philosophy has overemphasised the importance of truth value anyway. As I've said, I'm far more conerned with meaning. And pride is the meaning of such faith in humanity. And what good is pride?

3. YOU said god was something we could not concieve of or understand.
That humans are not capable of it because of our subjective nature.
"how can a person or peole step outside their subjective nature"
But as PEOPLE..we can.
And how, exactly, do we accomplish this? I do not believe it can be done. That does not mean, however, that we cannot understand God. It only means that we cannot understand God through reason.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

I think I understand your point. No one can ever truly understand another's reality. We have not, and will not experience it first hand, therefore, can never be sure we understand it.
I've never expressed it like that before, but that's actually a pretty good way of understanding it.

Having said that, I believe certain truths bridge all cultures. That is just my humble belief though. For example, I believe that the feeling and expression of brotherly love (agape), is understood by people of all cultures.
Remember though, the general message can still get across, but people's views can still differ on the finer points of that message. So, which it seems likely that the general message of brotherly love can transcend all cultural boundaries, different people's interpretations of the particulars of that message will differ.

[Razorofoccam]

1: What does reason have to do with art, especially since Keats was a Romanticist?


2: Why do I lack faith in man's faculty of reason? Because it's imperfect and has been demonstrated to be so. Pure reason cannot exist. Read Hamann and Herder. Western philosophy has overemphasised the importance of truth value anyway. As I've said, I'm far more conerned with meaning. And pride is the meaning of such faith in humanity. And what good is pride?


3: And how, exactly, do we accomplish this? I do not believe it can be done. That does not mean, however, that we cannot understand God. It only means that we cannot understand God through reason.
Hammer

Great stuff..
This why occam posts here...
Because some minds wish answers.

1:
What does reason have to do with art....?
Let us go to the roots of it...
How do represent a 3Dreality on a 2dimensional surface...?
Rules of perspective.
Rules of perpective are a 'codec' to allow humans to represeent 3dreality
on a 2d surface.
These rules are rational/logical rules.

Without them ...90% of human 2d art..could not exist.

2:
Reason...it IS imperfect.
Everything is.
Occam does not believe the word perfect means anything.

Occams idea of perfection is absolute nothing.....
Where no questions can ever be spoke.
And no answers ever had...
A very difficult concept.

3.
Why not?

In a few 'ticks' of the second hand of the clock of reality...
Humans have gone from packs of pre homonids.
To creating the sun on earth.
From using the bones of prey as weapons.
To Employing armoured divisions backed by tactical air power
From scratching in the sand
To libraries of millions of books..and billions more 'online'

Occam suggests that this has come about through two things...
Drive...our ego
And
Reason..the way to do it.

And look at the world today..A mass of ego , supported by a shell of technology...based in reason...
Twisted by ego to do ego's will.

Occam never said reaon was infalible,, or even well used...
It is however..the only way the maximum number of people will survive the next few centuries...
We MUSt use it...
Or fall 'way back' and occam means 'WAY'

Occam

[Doors_67]

[QUOTE=Cat In The Stove]I Some still get to heaven, but some people are doomed to Hell.


God Doesnt want people to go to hell, and theres is no proff that ne one even went to hell, for all we know, everyone could be in heaven.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

1:
What does reason have to do with art....?
Let us go to the roots of it...
How do represent a 3Dreality on a 2dimensional surface...?
Rules of perspective.
Rules of perpective are a 'codec' to allow humans to represeent 3dreality
on a 2d surface.
These rules are rational/logical rules.

Without them ...90% of human 2d art..could not exist.
Okay. You have demonstrated that reason plays a role in art. But how big a role? What about the creative will?


Reason...it IS imperfect.
Everything is.
So then why have so much faith in it?

Occam does not believe the word perfect means anything.
Well, it certainly means something, even if it doesn't signify a concrete particular.


In a few 'ticks' of the second hand of the clock of reality...
Humans have gone from packs of pre homonids.
To creating the sun on earth.
From using the bones of prey as weapons.
To Employing armoured divisions backed by tactical air power
From scratching in the sand
To libraries of millions of books..and billions more 'online'

I wouldn't rank armoured divisions and tactical air power at the top of my list of greatest human accomplishments, but certainly reason has got us very far. I'm not questioning that. What I am questioning is whether reason can be used to understand everything, or if the capabilities of reason are limitted.

Occam suggests that this has come about through two things...
Drive...our ego
And
Reason..the way to do it.
But what if reason is not the appropriate way to do something? Then it wouldn't matter how much 'drive' we have.


Occam never said reaon was infalible,, or even well used...
It is however..the only way the maximum number of people will survive the next few centuries...
We MUSt use it...
Or fall 'way back' and occam means 'WAY'

But what's the point of living if there's no meaning in it? This is my point: reason cannot give our lives meaning, and knowing the truth does not necessarily make you a better person.

[Sera Michele]

Our point of living is to carry on our genetics, just like every other thing on this planet...

Sheesh, us humans with our brain power really have a tendency to overcomplicate things...

[Razorofoccam]

I wouldn't rank armoured divisions and tactical air power at the top of my list of greatest human accomplishments

hammer

Really?
Time to beat you sensless,,,''


What IS an armoured div?
You and society are IGNORANT on this,,
You dont know what and armoured div is..
Unless you spend more than 2 minutes working on it
AN DAYS WORKING IT OUT.

tell occam what a mechanised division is.
with NO refference to the net.

You have no idea.


You suggest that life has no meaning unless meaning is attached from outside.
Yes it is...
but some fuckers got to it before you did..
And called it religion.

Now YOU call the truth religion...
Because you have no faith
In YOU

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

Our point of living is to carry on our genetics, just like every other thing on this planet...

Sheesh, us humans with our brain power really have a tendency to overcomplicate things...
I sure hope you're wrong Sera, cuz that would be a huge let down for me personally. We are over 6 billion now, so I'd say we have been too successful at that. I really hope that our purpose here has some loving, compassionate, and protective aspect to it. I know that speaking up about the plight of the rest of earths creatures in one thing I feel compelled to do.

[BlackGuardXIII]

I wouldn't rank armoured divisions and tactical air power at the top of my list of greatest human accomplishments

hammer

Really?
Time to beat you sensless,,,''


What IS an armoured div?
You and society are IGNORANT on this,,
You dont know what and armoured div is..
Unless you spend more than 2 minutes working on it
AN DAYS WORKING IT OUT.

tell occam what a mechanised division is.
with NO refference to the net.

You have no idea.


You suggest that life has no meaning unless meaning is attached from outside.
Yes it is...
but some fuckers got to it before you did..
And called it religion.

Now YOU call the truth religion...
Because you have no faith
In YOU

Occam
I agree, Occam, and hope I am mistaken in sensing you letting hammers queries frustrate you. If they have gotten you a little perturbed, I hope you feel better.
To me, life is and end unto itself. Just the experience is in its own right meaningful beyond any words, to me. I felt lucky to be here thirty years ago, and every day since has been a bonus. And that includes this last year, which has been the most difficult in my life, and more difficult than I ever thought life could get. Still, it is a gift to be cherished.

to me, we try our best, we remain thankful, respectful, and giving, and after that, just enjoy our brief sojourn, which will end far too soon.
I just have to laugh when I recall as a teen doubting I'd live past 20, due to how reckless I was. Here I am at 40, shaking my head in wonder, who would have guessed?

[TheHammerSpeaks]

What IS an armoured div?
You and society are IGNORANT on this,,
You dont know what and armoured div is..
Unless you spend more than 2 minutes working on it
AN DAYS WORKING IT OUT.
Isn't an armoured division a bunch of tanks?

tell occam what a mechanised division is.
with NO refference to the net.
Well, I'm not sure, but I'm going to guess that's a bunch of tanks too. But I don't see why your so hung up on this.

You suggest that life has no meaning unless meaning is attached from outside.
The meaning comes from yourself, that's the only place meaning can come from. I choose to believe in God, and that choice makes my life meaningful, not God. I could choose not to believe in God and to make my life meaningful in other ways, or I could choose to make my life have no meaning at all. But my choice to believe in God does not make my life any less meaningful than anyone else's, and vice versa. There is no wrong meaning because meaning has nothing to do with truth.

Now YOU call the truth religion...
Occam, where have I ever called my religion the truth? You're putting words in my mouth. I've said that my religion is meaningful, but I've never even discussed truth in these posts. But I've been asking you a lot of question and, so far, you have replied to only a few of them. Why?

[Razorofoccam]

I agree, Occam, and hope I am mistaken in sensing you letting hammers queries frustrate you. If they have gotten you a little perturbed, I hope you feel better.
To me, life is and end unto itself. Just the experience is in its own right meaningful beyond any words, to me. I felt lucky to be here thirty years ago, and every day since has been a bonus. And that includes this last year, which has been the most difficult in my life, and more difficult than I ever thought life could get. Still, it is a gift to be cherished.

to me, we try our best, we remain thankful, respectful, and giving, and after that, just enjoy our brief sojourn, which will end far too soon.
I just have to laugh when I recall as a teen doubting I'd live past 20, due to how reckless I was. Here I am at 40, shaking my head in wonder, who would have guessed?
Blackguard

No, Hammer does not frustrate occam
Humanity does
[it drives him crazy..but also he accepts it...otherwise he would be crazy]

Yes. Life is US
WE..must work it out

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

Isn't an armoured division a bunch of tanks?


Well, I'm not sure, but I'm going to guess that's a bunch of tanks too. But I don't see why your so hung up on this.


The meaning comes from yourself, that's the only place meaning can come from. I choose to believe in God, and that choice makes my life meaningful, not God. I could choose not to believe in God and to make my life meaningful in other ways, or I could choose to make my life have no meaning at all. But my choice to believe in God does not make my life any less meaningful than anyone else's, and vice versa. There is no wrong meaning because meaning has nothing to do with truth.


Occam, where have I ever called my religion the truth? You're putting words in my mouth. I've said that my religion is meaningful, but I've never even discussed truth in these posts. But I've been asking you a lot of question and, so far, you have replied to only a few of them. Why?
Hammer

So let occam get this right

You have asked a lot of questions
No?

Please ask them again..occam is sorry if he missed them
And will do his best to answer.

And you choose to believe in god, which god?
ONE you SEE
Or one you have heard of?

If it is one you have heard of...who did you hear it from and were they god?
If they were not
Then what god do you believe in That exists

Occam can show you a mechanised division
An accelerated proton [lets go to cern in switzerland]
A fission reaction
gravity
Inertia
All the things that EXIST

Can you show occam your god?


Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

You have asked a lot of questions
No?

Please ask them again..occam is sorry if he missed them
And will do his best to answer.
Well, here's the most important one: How does knowing the truth make you a better person?

And you choose to believe in god, which god?
ONE you SEE
Or one you have heard of?
Both.

If it is one you have heard of...who did you hear it from and were they god?
I heard from a lot of people, my parents, my priests, my dad's a church organist so I grew up with it.

Can you show occam your god?
No, because my context differs from yours. We see the world in two very different ways. And you are far too conditioned for this conversation to have a significant impact on how you interpret the signs around you. Of course, you still have the choice to interpret these signs in a way in which God will reveal Himself to you, but, at least for now, you are clearly not going to make that choice.

[Razorofoccam]

No, because my context differs from yours. We see the world in two very different ways. And you are far too conditioned for this conversation to have a significant impact on how you interpret the signs around you. Of course, you still have the choice to interpret these signs in a way in which God will reveal Himself to you, but, at least for now, you are clearly not going to make that choice.
Hammer

Excelent

Please explain how occam is conditioned...
Do you mean conditioned differently to you?

Occam does not believe the words in THE book..
You do.
Yet he is conditioned?

You speak of significant impact...
That sounds a LOT like the talk of political spindoctors.
Is that you?

You imagine your god to exist...
Occam does not.
Occam thinks a 'direction' exists in reality...
A 'god' if you will...
But is not so arrogant as to imagine we know anything of such a being.
This is
Agnosticism

If you have sad feelings for occam and his false path,,
That is fine..

Occam believes implicitly that you have the right to believe anything you wish

Do you?

Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

Please explain how occam is conditioned...
Do you mean conditioned differently to you?Everyone is conditioned; it's an inevitable consequence of being alive. Past experience, especially early childhood experience, play an important role in determining who we are. And yes, you are conditioned differently than me because your past experiences differ from mine.

Occam does not believe the words in THE book..
You do.
Yet he is conditioned?
Yes. Because you do believe the words in THE book, only your book is The Origin of Species, or the Principia, or Meditations on First Philosophy. Don't give yourself so much credit. Your ideas aren't your own, they've all been borrowed from someone else.

You speak of significant impact...
That sounds a LOT like the talk of political spindoctors.
Is that you?What do the words 'significant impact' have to do with politics?

Occam believes implicitly that you have the right to believe anything you wish

Do you?Of course.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Well, here's the most important one: How does knowing the truth make you a better person?



I heard from a lot of people, my parents, my priests, my dad's a church organist so I grew up with it.



No, because my context differs from yours. We see the world in two very different ways. And you are far too conditioned for this conversation to have a significant impact on how you interpret the signs around you. Of course, you still have the choice to interpret these signs in a way in which God will reveal Himself to you, but, at least for now, you are clearly not going to make that choice.
Theoretically, but what if you think you know the truth, and you are off a bit, and only know a part. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

If you grew up in a Muslim area, then it is clear by that statement that you would now be a Muslim.

We are both right, blessings.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

Theoretically, but what if you think you know the truth, and you are off a bit, and only know a part. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
I'm not claiming that it's the truth, only that it's meaningful. It's my interpretation of the world around me. Nevertheless, your point still stands: we are both right, at least in principle. But understand, my choice to be a Catholic still means that I have to accept all the dogma that goes along with it.

[Razorofoccam]

Everyone is conditioned; it's an inevitable consequence of being alive. Past experience, especially early childhood experience, play an important role in determining who we are. And yes, you are conditioned differently than me because your past experiences differ from mine.

Truth

Yes. Because you do believe the words in THE book, only your book is The Origin of Species, or the Principia, or Meditations on First Philosophy. Don't give yourself so much credit. Your ideas aren't your own, they've all been borrowed from someone else.

Incorrect..Occam takes all he has read..and "weighs it". The result is belief.
A belief based on a conscious method. Somes things are functional fact..the highsest form of belief..You know it WELL..It is the reason you wont step off a cliff unless you wish to die.
Other things are less probable...
Like your existance. [to occam that is :-) ]

Understanding exists because we have information...
The information in books is provided by others...One takes the information and correlates it to all ather information held...using reason...
DO you BELIEVE every thing you read in books...?
DO you believe alice in wanderland,, the cat in the hat? the telly tubbies?
Are they real phenomena?
No.

Occam no more believes that The Origin of species is FACT that he believes the bible is, or the quran.

It is simply more probable.

What do the words 'significant impact' have to do with politics

You said
"You are far too conditioned for this conversation to have a significant impact on how you interpret the signs around you"

Is that not 'political' way of saying
That occam is incapable of understanding your perspective, And because he cannot...He will remain ignorant [of thier true meaning]

You assume that there ARE signs..
Are signs not just our interpretation of what is..
What if your interpretation is incorrect?

As occam admits HIS..may be.

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

The Galaxy Song
Monty Python

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

Sung by Eric Idle in "The Meaning of Life"

[Razorofoccam]

BlackGuard

Well occam did'nt expect the spannish inquisition. !!

Occam

----------
An interpetation of humanity by python

"Ooooh..whats that?"
"A Piston engine"
"What did you buy that for?"
"It was on special"
----------

[BlackGuardXIII]

BlackGuard

Well occam did'nt expect the spannish inquisition. !!

Occam

----------
An interpetation of humanity by python

"Ooooh..whats that?"
"A Piston engine"
"What did you buy that for?"
"It was on special"
----------
Here comes the hospital administrator, quick turn on all the machines.

"and what are we doing here today?"
"a birth"
"and what sort of a thing is that?"
"Its where we take a little baby out of a woman's tummy."
"Oh, the wonders of science these days, carry on."

[Razorofoccam]

Here comes the hospital administrator, quick turn on all the machines.

"and what are we doing here today?"
"a birth"
"and what sort of a thing is that?"
"Its where we take a little baby out of a woman's tummy."
"Oh, the wonders of science these days, carry on." BlackGuuard

HoHo...Occam has been kacking himself
Looked up the script of the 5 minute arguement skit.
A favourite...As so many others are.

But we should be very carefull here......
You know what happens when the * get talking.....!
The next 5 pages of this thread will drown in python quotes...

And would that be a bad thing?
No

These guys show 'us' from 'a' different perspective.
Python
Blackadder
Yes minister

We laugh at ourselves, our foibles and sillyness,,,,and this is one of our strengths...
Occam thinks laughter and humour to be 'an' antithesis of
what many might agree as evil...

Sometimes this forum is like the 5 minute arguement

Occam

[no it is'nt]

[BlackGuardXIII]

you're just contradicting me.

no I'm not

yes you are.

Ah, blackadder, also great

How about manuel, and his pet rat, Basil, ring any bells?

[TheHammerSpeaks]

Incorrect..Occam takes all he has read..and "weighs it". The result is belief.
A belief based on a conscious method. Somes things are functional fact..the highsest form of belief..You know it WELL..It is the reason you wont step off a cliff unless you wish to die.
Other things are less probable...
Like your existance. [to occam that is :-) ]Well I've definately seen you write out the cogito, so isn't Descartes' Meditations one of your the books. You seem to hold to a materialist metaphysics, so isn't Newton's Principia one of your the books?

Understanding exists because we have information...
The information in books is provided by others...One takes the information and correlates it to all ather information held...using reason...Right. It creates a cohesive view of the universe. And it seems that the existence of the self and atoms are fundamental building blocks in your cohesive body of knowledge.

Is that not 'political' way of saying
That occam is incapable of understanding your perspective, And because he cannot...He will remain ignorant [of thier true meaning]No, not exactly. I never said anything about true meaning. I said that you can't understand their meaning to me. But I still don't see how that's political.

You assume that there ARE signs..I perceive signs, which signify a meaning. It doesn't even matter if they're real or not, the point is they mean something. There's no assumption.

Are signs not just our interpretation of what is..Yes.

What if your interpretation is incorrect?It doesn't matter if it makes you a better person and gives life meaning.

As occam admits HIS..may be.So do I.

[Razorofoccam]

you're just contradicting me.

no I'm not

yes you are.

Ah, blackadder, also great

How about manuel, and his pet rat, Basil, ring any bells?
Blackguard...

Ring any bells?

HoHo

What is the best variation of the sign
'Faulty Towers' as show at beginning of show...
[it changes every episode]

'Flowery twats'

'watery fowls' is good...but twats are better :) [more tounge lashing here]

Manuel is of course..from barcelona....[where else]

Oh yes...umm ..is see ..umm ,is see... ohhh . yes i see...uommh yes...
MMMM is see...
[short description of sybil]

And as for blackadder...[3]
It is DEEP
"Kitcherers plan to win WW1.
Everybody dies but Kitchener"

Now THAT is true geopolitics.

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

I perceive signs, which signify a meaning. It doesn't even matter if they're real or not, the point is they mean something.

It doesn't matter if it makes you a better person and gives life meaning.

So do I. Hammer

Yes they do

They mean something to you
The problem with humanity is that individuals think THEIR 'something'
Is the only thing....
They discount the somethings of others...

Science does this by a method..It works...They take MANY somethings.
Many perspectives..and correlates them. Against eachother and the
phenomena of reality.
That somehing..gives us planes and PC's

Everyone elses something is just something we talk about.
If we talk well and accurately...
It may become science...
Untill then it can be nothing but opinion

This does not mean i has no worth..
it means WE cannot use the understanding.
You believe a thing...occam does not.
WE cannot agree on it. And untill we do..
It is indeterminate.

99.5% of all human belief is indeterminate...
It stands alone as personal belief..without verification outside the person.
Not one iota of it can be called fact..
Untill it can. [be verified by others outside the person..and by reality]

But what if you walk alone an t night..And a rift opens in reality
God looks at you..speaks to you..then the rift closes...
You cannot show the evidence..it is gone..but you saw it
It was real.
The answer science has for you is ..tough
And that is where science falls down.


Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

First, I think we're finally starting to agree on something. And do you know why I think that is? Because we've stopped talking about truth and have started talking about meaning. And the nice thing about meaning is that there can be no wrong interpretation of anything. So why are we talking then if neither one of us can prove the other wrong? To share contexts, to open up discourse, to bare our souls. And that's what philosophy's really about, isn't it?



They mean something to you
The problem with humanity is that individuals think THEIR 'something'
Is the only thing....
They discount the somethings of others...
It's an unfortunate side-effect of the scientific mind-set we've all been brought up around.

Science does this by a method..It works...They take MANY somethings.
Many perspectives..and correlates them. Against eachother and the
phenomena of reality.
That somehing..gives us planes and PC's
Yeah, but science looks for truth. That's its job, and it's been doing a pretty good job at that. But science is not the right tool for finding meaning, and it is not the right tool to determine morality.

Everyone elses something is just something we talk about.
If we talk well and accurately...
It may become science...
Untill then it can be nothing but opinion
No matter how well we talk about philosophy, it will never become science. If philosophy could become science, then I'm sure that Kant or Hegel would have talked their philosophies into being so. I can think of a few exceptions though: the atomists (they were no quantum physicists, but they had the basic idea right), the scientific method, which originally fell into the realm of philosophy, and bits and pieces of Aristotle, who knew a lot about biology. But generally, philosophy does not become science.

This does not mean it has no worth..
it means WE cannot use the understanding.
You believe a thing...occam does not.
WE cannot agree on it. And untill we do..
It is indeterminate.
But is it meaningful? Can something be meaningful without necessarily being true?

But what if you walk alone an t night..And a rift opens in reality
God looks at you..speaks to you..then the rift closes...
You cannot show the evidence..it is gone..but you saw it
It was real.
The answer science has for you is ..tough
And that is where science falls down.
What if it wasn't real, but seeing that hallucination inspires me to give all my worldly posessions to the poor and become a monk, and then a scientist came up to me and proved beyond any doubt that my vision was not real? Would science have succeeded or failed there?

[Razorofoccam]

The Hammer speaks

Excellent post...
thank you for your considered reply.


"First, I think we're finally starting to agree on something. And do you know why I think that is? Because we've stopped talking about truth and have started talking about meaning. And the nice thing about meaning is that there can be no wrong interpretation of anything. So why are we talking then if neither one of us can prove the other wrong? To share contexts, to open up discourse, to bare our souls. And that's what philosophy's really about, isn't it? "

Exactly

"It's an unfortunate side-effect of the scientific mind-set we've all been brought up around."
The scientific mind set is rational analysis...

Occam trust it ...If you do not..then are you rational.?
Reason is the process of MIND.
If you cannot believe the method of MIND...
You believe nothing.
MIND...Is the only method we have.

Yeah, but science looks for truth. That's its job, and it's been doing a pretty good job at that. But science is not the right tool for finding meaning, and it is not the right tool to determine morality.

Science is a TOOL
We use it.
The result is PC processors that process a million instructions per second.
Occam never said science had anything to do with morality.
And you know it.


No matter how well we talk about philosophy, it will never become science. If philosophy could become science, then I'm sure that Kant or Hegel would have talked their philosophies into being so. I can think of a few exceptions though: the atomists (they were no quantum physicists, but they had the basic idea right), the scientific method, which originally fell into the realm of philosophy, and bits and pieces of Aristotle, who knew a lot about biology. But generally, philosophy does not become science.

Really?
Philosophy IS science...
You call philosophy the wild imaginings of man...Do you not??
Then philosophy is the harbinger of nuclear fission
And fusion
Of satellites..
Of the NET
Of computers...
Of genetic manipulation

ALL were described in human fiction before they were made real by method..


But is it meaningful? Can something be meaningful without necessarily being true?

yes
The bible is such a thing.


What if it wasn't real, but seeing that hallucination inspires me to give all my worldly posessions to the poor and become a monk, and then a scientist came up to me and proved beyond any doubt that my vision was not real? Would science have succeeded or failed there?[/QUOTE]
Science does not come to your door and tell YOU
ANYTHING.
Religion does.

Science is a thing you adopt. It is NOT PROACTIVE...
It IS a method
NOT a philosophy

Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

The scientific mind set is rational analysis...
That's not really what I was talking about. I was thinking of the scientific mind-set as prioritizing truth above all else.


Occam trust it ...If you do not..then are you rational.?
Reason is the process of MIND.
If you cannot believe the method of MIND...
You believe nothing.
MIND...Is the only method we have.
How, exactly, do you define reason? Is it induction or deduction, a priori or a posteriori? So far you've told me that reason is the only way to gain knowledge, but you have not yet told me what reason is.

Occam never said science had anything to do with morality.
And you know it.
Yes you did. You said that reason can be the foundation of morality. Now, I know that reason and science are two different things, but you seem to think that they are very closely related, at least I've assumed as much since you use them almost interchangably. So, can science be a foundation for morality? Can reason?

Philosophy IS science...
It's definately not. For something to be a science, it has to use the scientific method.

You call philosophy the wild imaginings of man...Do you not??
Then philosophy is the harbinger of nuclear fission
And fusion
Of satellites..
Of the NET
Of computers...
Of genetic manipulation
We're in a lot of trouble if the bomb, an effective way of distribuing pornography, and the perversion of nature are the highest manifestations of man's creative will. But you are right that philosophy is about creativity and personnal expression, and that's what makes it an art, not a science.

ALL were described in human fiction before they were made real by method..
You've been throwing around the words reason, science, and method a lot. So what, exactly is this method, and don't give me something cryptic like it's "the way of the mind" or something. I need a better explaination. But we're moving away from meaning again and looking for truth. This is a problem because I'm not trying to prove that God exists, only that God is meaningful.


yes
The bible is such a thing.
Okay. So we've determined that meaning has nothing to do with truth value, we can agree on that. So here, once again, is the $64 question: Of what value is truth if it doesn't make you a better person? Or, does knowing the truth make you a better person?


Science does not come to your door and tell YOU
ANYTHING.
Obviously. But science is a method that, if practiced, will yield the same results each time an experiment is performed, at least it's supposed to when done right.

Religion does.
Come on. How does religion come to the door and tell me things? Representatives of religious denominations do, but they're not religion. So how is religion any less of a method than science? There are several methods to approaching theology such as the apothetic, process, empirical, etc.

Science is a thing you adopt. It is NOT PROACTIVE...
What do you mean by 'proactive'?

It IS a method
NOT a philosophy

You just said that philosophy is science in this post.

[WhisperingWoods]

"Okay. So we've determined that meaning has nothing to do with truth value, we can agree on that. So here, once again, is the $64 question: Of what value is truth if it doesn't make you a better person? Or, does knowing the truth make you a better person?"


Dude, if you can't be a better person without promise of an afterlife or fear of 'burning' in 'the pits of oblivion', you're an asshole. People like that don't deserve to go wherever they think they're going.

[J_Lazarus]

Well, actually, I would disagree with HammerSpeaks. To use science is certainly to practice philosophy, as science itself presupposes certain philosophical ideas - e.g. that man is competent to assess knowledge claims, that sensory experience is a valid method to gaining information, that there is an objective reality that we are contained in, etc.

I wouldn't really say that science IS philosophy, in the sense that the two are synonymous, but I would rather say that to advocate and use science is to already presuppose certain philosophical positions as being valid, and to employ such philosophical ideas when using the scientific method.

Reason can be properly defined by using Plantinga's definition of what a rational person is. To be rational is to:

(1) Act in accord with your believings
(2) Have no believings which violate any epistemic rules.

Reason itself, in this context, can be said to be the process of rational identification of sound ideas. The epistemic rules that one need pay mind when using such rational identification of such sound ideas are the rules of logic - which brings us through the process of discarding incoherent statements. Pretty basic stuff, wouldn't you say? I think this is sufficient enough.

And I would certainly agree with WhisperingWoods that truth is far more beneficial and is to be far more desired than non-truth.

- Laz

[Bare Foot Bunny Hugg]

I think the bible was some book someone made up one day. im not going to argue to much but i know a guy who was like..wanna make up a religion? thats how it all started. its just a fairy tale people choose to belieave to give them false hope. i would rather belieave something that i can see and not just read that some guy can part water and belieave that..

[J_Lazarus]

First, I think we're finally starting to agree on something. And do you know why I think that is? Because we've stopped talking about truth and have started talking about meaning. And the nice thing about meaning is that there can be no wrong interpretation of anything. So why are we talking then if neither one of us can prove the other wrong? To share contexts, to open up discourse, to bare our souls. And that's what philosophy's really about, isn't it?
lol - maybe the post-modernist all-embracing relativist nonsense that is gaining prevalence in modern day - but if you look at the term itself and the history of philosophy, no. The term itself simply means love of wisdom, famously coined by Socrates, if I remember correctly. And the term wisdom is defined as great understanding. From the Pre-Socratic era and forward, philosophers have been considered those who contemplate various ideas in an attempt to understand the world around them. This is why I would certainly say that science cannot escape being categorized in as having it's own philosophical presuppositions, as I discussed in my prior thread.

So I wouldn't say philosophy is about emotionalism, baring our souls, etc. - it's the attempt to understand our world - to gain both the truth *and* the meaning, the latter usually dictated by the former.

- Laz

[Bare Foot Bunny Hugg]

we are all going to die..we are just going to choose diffrent paths getting there. Live and Let Live.

[J_Lazarus]

I think the bible was some book someone made up one day. im not going to argue to much but i know a guy who was like..wanna make up a religion? thats how it all started. its just a fairy tale people choose to belieave to give them false hope. i would rather belieave something that i can see and not just read that some guy can part water and belieave that..
This shows you don't have much understanding about the Bible and it's make-up. There was no single individual that wrote the Bible - the Bible has many authors. There was not a single era in which the Bible was written - it was written over many centuries. There was no precise set of books that were considered sacred from the beginning - those books which were to be considered authoritative were decided by various councils throughout the first few centuries C.E. This also shows that you haven't read your Bible much - because much of it deals with history, even though it isn't to be considered an historical text. Further, in many versions you'll find an introduction that explains the history, discusses authorship, and the purposes of the individual books themselves.

Study up.

- Laz

[BlackGuardXIII]

What is the best variation of the sign
'Faulty Towers' as show at beginning of show...
[it changes every episode]

'Flowery twats'

'watery fowls' is good...but twats are better :) [more tounge lashing here]

Manuel is of course..from barcelona....[where else]

I enjoy that show so much, and am sure I have seen every episode at least twice, but having not had a tv for 7 years, my memory of the signs is dimming.
Wasn't one, " fatty owls", that is all I can recall.

I have a couple of favorite episodes, such as the guest dying one, and the Americans who request a Waldorf salad, the 'don't mention the war' one. Come to think of it, they are all masterpieces.
I always wanted to get a car alarm programmed to play Sybil shouting, "Basil, Basil, Basil, .....!"

The tale of the US studios attempt to do a remake is hilarious too, with moves such as writing Basil out of the cast!

lol

It is one of the funniest series ever made, in my view.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

Well, actually, I would disagree with HammerSpeaks. To use science is certainly to practice philosophy, as science itself presupposes certain philosophical ideas - e.g. that man is competent to assess knowledge claims, that sensory experience is a valid method to gaining information, that there is an objective reality that we are contained in, etc.
Well history presupposes causality. Does that make history philosophy? Every discipline presupposes some kind of philosophical belief. But philosophy is the only discipline to question those presuppositions.

And I would certainly agree with WhisperingWoods that truth is far more beneficial and is to be far more desired than non-truth.
WhisperingWoods completely missed my point, and I'm pretty sure is an idiot. But I'll bite. What if it was the truth that all Chinese people should be murdered? Would the truth be more desirable then?

maybe the post-modernist all-embracing relativist nonsense that is gaining prevalence in modern day - but if you look at the term itself and the history of philosophy, no. The term itself simply means love of wisdom, famously coined by Socrates, if I remember correctly. And the term wisdom is defined as great understanding. From the Pre-Socratic era and forward, philosophers have been considered those who contemplate various ideas in an attempt to understand the world around them. This is why I would certainly say that science cannot escape being categorized in as having it's own philosophical presuppositions, as I discussed in my prior thread.
I know the etymology of 'philosophy.' But surely you agree that semantics and the philosophy of language are important areas of study in philosophy.

So I wouldn't say philosophy is about emotionalism, baring our souls, etc. - it's the attempt to understand our world - to gain both the truth *and* the meaning, the latter usually dictated by the former.
The latter can't dictate the former because something doesn't have to be true to be meaningful. I actually think that a rigid division can be made between the two. And you don't think that philosophy is about 'baring your soul' because you see philosophy as a science. I see it as an art, in which baring one's soul is fundamental.

[Razorofoccam]

TheHammerSpeaks
That's not really what I was talking about. I was thinking of the scientific mind-set as prioritizing truth above all else.


And how does science do so.. By method..rational method

How, exactly, do you define reason? Is it induction or deduction, a priori or a posteriori? So far you've told me that reason is the only way to gain knowledge, but you have not yet told me what reason is.

Cut the latin..we speak to many..most have no understandind of apriori
or other such concepts...lets not alienate our thinking to those that may be interested in it...
Occam read a whole bunch of books by kant and others who spoke in
latin... Whos logic was a miasma of confusion. Who lost the POINT OF IT ALL,,in detail.
They were fools.
Shopenhaur did a better job by speaking in plain ideas and words...
Even if he was a mysognist bastard.
As did Nietsche...

Reason is method of thought.
We all have it..Many use it more than others
It is based in the method of reality..
Which seems the functional method..
It is based in laws that are not variable.
Those laws are logical... And process according to its own laws...
Moons orbit planets...why ,, because of logical rational method.
Reason is a method based in logic.
As is reality...
Occam will believe such a method..and adopt it himself for one reson only

IT WORKS

Yes you did. You said that reason can be the foundation of morality. Now, I know that reason and science are two different things, but you seem to think that they are very closely related, at least I've assumed as much since you use them almost interchangably. So, can science be a foundation for morality? Can reason?

Yes occam did..he screwed up on that one...
Reason can be a foundation of morality
And to occam .. it is.
Occams morality is based in reason...
Not a book..

he was incorrect in his earlier statement.


It's definately not. For something to be a science, it has to use the scientific method.

Ocams philosophy IS the scientific method. with varaitions.
How do you come to a philosophical conclusion?
Through a method...?
Or through a desire to believe?
The only method of thought in human though that works.
Is rational method.
Science.
[that is, NO PREDJUDICE]

Occam suggests that ALL human understanding is a product of rational method...
Buddha was a rational man..
As was christ.
As were a hundred great human thinkers.

We're in a lot of trouble if the bomb, an effective way of distribuing pornography, and the perversion of nature are the highest manifestations of man's creative will. But you are right that philosophy is about creativity and personnal expression, and that's what makes it an art, not a science.

Science IS art..It is our art to understanding..
Art is our description of reality.
Science is an accurate art..
ART is a descriptive perspective...

All is description..All is valuable.

You've been throwing around the words reason, science, and method a lot. So what, exactly is this method, and don't give me something cryptic like it's "the way of the mind" or something. I need a better explaination. But we're moving away from meaning again and looking for truth. This is a problem because I'm not trying to prove that God exists, only that God is meaningful.

Sorry

Okay. So we've determined that meaning has nothing to do with truth value, we can agree on that. So here, once again, is the $64 question: Of what value is truth if it doesn't make you a better person? Or, does knowing the truth make you a better person?

Believing you are doing the best for youself , and humanity
Based on you wisdom and understanding...
Based on the feedback from you actions...
That some have been aided in their path..and in their life..
By yopur actions...
Is all we can hope for...

Obviously. But science is a method that, if practiced, will yield the same results each time an experiment is performed, at least it's supposed to when done right.

And?

Come on. How does religion come to the door and tell me things? Representatives of religious denominations do, but they're not religion. So how is religion any less of a method than science? There are several methods to approaching theology such as the apothetic, process, empirical, etc.

HOW are they NOT RELIGION?
They say they speak for god
And keep saying it over and over...AND OVER AND OVER
Occam replies..he is an agnostic...
And that their beliefs are BELIEFS...NOT FACT.
RELIGION IS...the old ladies that show up at occams door...
He gives them a cup of tea...
And a nice conversation about jesus...

But he cuts them NO SLACK...about the validity of their belief.
He owes no-one ,, anything but his belief. Based in real phenomena.

Religion is also fundamentalist....Bombs and such
These people are NOT religion...
They are psychotic...
People who kill for religion...
A religion that says killing is wrong...
USE religion
They are NOT religious.

They are shitheads.
Controllers. Egoheads. manipulators,,,WEAK PEOPLE.
With weak minds.
Evil
For evil is ...weakness. It cannot exist without good humans to inflict it on.
Good..being resonable peolpe. Who hope, love and THINK.
Good is the norm. Reason. Evil is the antithesis of such.
Destruction of good for personal agenda.

What do you mean by 'proactive'?

Occam does not come to your door and sell you a way of life.
Religion does.
Proactive

You just said that philosophy is science in this post.

maybe..occam is saying that any philosophy that is accurate.
Uses a method
And the only method we know that works
Is rational method based in logic.
Science.

What other method is there????????????????????????????????????????????
Show occam a method of thought.
That is not based in reason.
That can manipulate reality.
In a way all humans can pecieve?

Occam sees none

Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

And how does science do so.. By method..rational method

No, it does so completely arbitrarily. There is no good reason to rank truth above living a good life, or finding meaning in life. If I'm wrong, then what is the reason for it?

Cut the latin..we speak to many..most have no understandind of apriori
or other such concepts...lets not alienate our thinking to those that may be interested in it...
Let's not overestimate the importance of this conversation. Chances are neither one of us is going to convince anyone of anything. And our audience here is miniscule at best. So why don't we just say what's on our minds?

Occam read a whole bunch of books by kant and others who spoke in
latin... Whos logic was a miasma of confusion. Who lost the POINT OF IT ALL,,in detail.
They were fools.
Obviously you'd think so because Kant questioned science's ability to reach objective truth. But nevertheless, Kant was one of the greatest philosophical systematizers ever. His philosophy was far from fool-proof, but his categories are useful tools for finding out exactly what reason is.

Shopenhaur did a better job by speaking in plain ideas and words...
Even if he was a mysognist bastard.
As did Nietsche...

Reason is method of thought.

I find Nietzsche to be very cryptic, but to each his own. I would not, however, call Nietzsche a champion of reason since he was decidedly irrational.

We all have it..Many use it more than others
It is based in the method of reality..
Which seems the functional method..
It is based in laws that are not variable.
So reason is a priori then. Good. We agree. But the problem with unvarifiability is the problem of induction. How do you solve this problem?

IT WORKS
So how is it that faith doesn't work?



Reason can be a foundation of morality
And to occam .. it is.
Occams morality is based in reason...
Not a book..
So then show me a deduction that proves an ethical truth.

Ocams philosophy IS the scientific method. with varaitions.
How do you come to a philosophical conclusion?
Through a method...?
Or through a desire to believe?
The only method of thought in human though that works.
Is rational method.
Science.
[that is, NO PREDJUDICE]
There are several methods that one can use to come to a philosophical conclusion. All are based, to a certain extent, on reason. You've got phenomenology, dialectic, and the list goes on. So what gives the scientific method such a priviledged position, and how is it that it is the appropriate method for dealing with ever question that could ever be asked?

Science IS art..It is our art to understanding..
Art is our description of reality.
Science is an accurate art..
ART is a descriptive perspective...
But art is necessarily subjective because it's all about creativity. There are no rules to art, or at least very few. The scientific method is the only way to do science, and science tries to discover objective truths. Therefore, it can't be subjective, there is no room for creativity, and it is not an art.

Sorry

Don't be sorry, just give me an answer. The scientific method is based on experience, and the goal of which is to create universal laws which govern the universe. That is not 'reason,' strictly speaking.


Believing you are doing the best for youself , and humanity
Based on you wisdom and understanding...
Based on the feedback from you actions...
That some have been aided in their path..and in their life..
By yopur actions...
Is all we can hope for...
Okay, Occam. But you're the one saying that belief doesn't matter when it stands next to objective truth. What if it was objectivelly true that you should kill six million people. Hitler thought that to be the case. So I'll ask again, how does knowing the truth make you a better person?

And?
So science does not account for individual choice or human creativity. I'd say that's a pretty big down-side.

HOW are they NOT RELIGION?

Because 'religion' is an abstract concept which can not be personified in any one or group of individuals.

Good is the norm.
I must be pretty damn evil then.

Occam does not come to your door and sell you a way of life.
Religion does.
Proactive
Okay. Much more clear now.


You just said that philosophy is science in this post.

maybe..occam is saying that any philosophy that is accurate.
Uses a method
And the only method we know that works
Is rational method based in logic.
Science.
How do thinks like faith, love, and responsibility not work, Occam? These are probably the least scientific concepts I can think of, but I think they work a lot better than a discipline which brushes these things off as chemical reactions which have no bearing on reality.

What other method is there????????????????????????????????????????????
Show occam a method of thought.
That is not based in reason.
That can manipulate reality.
In a way all humans can pecieve?
Well first of all, science can't even show us things that everyone can perceive. Much of it is just theoretical. And second, all methods are based on reason to a certain degree because the deductions all follow one another. But let's take faith and everything that comes with it, something not based on reason. It may be a bit of a stretch to call faith a method, but I think we have a pretty loose definition of 'method' here anyway.

[J_Lazarus]

Well history presupposes causality. Does that make history philosophy? Every discipline presupposes some kind of philosophical belief. But philosophy is the only discipline to question those presuppositions.


WhisperingWoods completely missed my point, and I'm pretty sure is an idiot. But I'll bite. What if it was the truth that all Chinese people should be murdered? Would the truth be more desirable then?


I know the etymology of 'philosophy.' But surely you agree that semantics and the philosophy of language are important areas of study in philosophy.


The latter can't dictate the former because something doesn't have to be true to be meaningful. I actually think that a rigid division can be made between the two. And you don't think that philosophy is about 'baring your soul' because you see philosophy as a science. I see it as an art, in which baring one's soul is fundamental. Heh - well, heard of Philosophy of History (http://http://www.eblaforum.org/library/philosophy/intphi18.html), much? Note also how Newall supports exactly what I said - almost word for word - about while such an issue (in this case history - in the other case we priorly discussed, science) is not to be used as a synonymous term with "philosophy" it nonetheless cannot be said to be seperate from philosophy or be said to escape philosophical influences (which is obvious - and I think you'd agree).

As for whether or not we should kill the Chinese - the answer is absolutely. Even in your own sentence structure you've already admitted it. You said if we "find out the truth that we *should* kill all Chinese people" - well, if we should, if by a certain discovery we realize that we are morally obligated to kill all Chinese people, then obviously we are morally obligated to kill all Chinese people - and to have had no discovery of the truth would have meant an avoidance of this moral obligation, which by definition is a bad thing.

As for any specific example of what such a situation could be where we would be morally obligated to kill all Chinese people - I do not know. But that's not the issue, of course, but rather whether or not the truth is more desirable itself. And it is - even in this extreme case we see it is.

Now I would disagree that the latter (meaning, etc.) is not generally dictated by the former (knowledge, truth, etc.) in philosophical systems. Meaning can only derive and be made sensible from the idea that we already know what we're talking about - or that we understand a concept in some such way that it provides meaning. Meaning cannot be obtained without some sort of understanding about a subject or subject set. Whatever we would be trying to derive meaning from would be meaningless or emotionless drivel, as it would make no sense to us at all.

My position is not that something has to be true to be meaningful, but rather than we have to understand or have a particular knowledge about that thing in order to derive meaning from it. I think this is also obvious, and is something you'll agree with. Established philosophical systems set up their epistemological and metaphysical theories, and then derive emotional, spiritual, and/or linguistic meaning from those theories. One famous example is Logical Positivism. We only understand the empirical, and thus anything that is said to be factually meaningful sans empirical verification is simply to speak meaningless drivel, that has no significance or bearing on the individual him or herself.

- Laz

[Razorofoccam]

Hammer

Real tired tonight..will answer tomorrow
Great post..

Occam

[Bare Foot Bunny Hugg]

why study something i will have no use for in life? This shows you don't have much understanding about the Bible and it's make-up. There was no single individual that wrote the Bible - the Bible has many authors. There was not a single era in which the Bible was written - it was written over many centuries. There was no precise set of books that were considered sacred from the beginning - those books which were to be considered authoritative were decided by various councils throughout the first few centuries C.E. This also shows that you haven't read your Bible much - because much of it deals with history, even though it isn't to be considered an historical text. Further, in many versions you'll find an introduction that explains the history, discusses authorship, and the purposes of the individual books themselves.

Study up.

- Laz

[TheHammerSpeaks]

Heh - well, heard of Philosophy of History (http://http://www.eblaforum.org/library/philosophy/intphi18.html), much? Note also how Newall supports exactly what I said - almost word for word - about while such an issue (in this case history - in the other case we priorly discussed, science) is not to be used as a synonymous term with "philosophy" it nonetheless cannot be said to be seperate from philosophy or be said to escape philosophical influences (which is obvious - and I think you'd agree).
I suppose I'd agree. But then every discipline would be inseparable from philosophy because the goal of any subject is attain knowledge (in the loosest sense of the word imaginable) and epistemology is within realm of (traditional) philosophy. So if science is philosophy, then so is sociology, psychology, and even atrology.

As for whether or not we should kill the Chinese - the answer is absolutely. Even in your own sentence structure you've already admitted it. You said if we "find out the truth that we *should* kill all Chinese people" - well, if we should, if by a certain discovery we realize that we are morally obligated to kill all Chinese people, then obviously we are morally obligated to kill all Chinese people - and to have had no discovery of the truth would have meant an avoidance of this moral obligation, which by definition is a bad thing.
You're reasoning is, of course, fool proof. But I think that the problem lies with reason itself, and not with the application of reason. If it is true that all Chinese people should be killed, then it is true that we should all go out and kill Chinese people. But do we have an obligation to do so? That question is a little more difficult to answer because do I really have an such alliegence to reason that reason can dictate my actions. This seems to me to nullify free will. It makes it seem as if I have little choice in the matter and that to not kill Chinese people would be a sin against reason. But I can't sin against reason because reason isn't conscious. Reason could care less if I killed or did not kill Chinese people. What I think it really comes down to is a choice, either to let reason determine my moral actions, or to choose them for myself. Of course, a degree of choice is always involved. Even if you let reason determine your actions, you have still chosen to let reason determine your actions. If God came down from heaven and told me to kill all Chinese people, then I would probably do so. However, God and reason are two very different things. For me, God is a concrete existent, which means God has all the complexity of a human being. Reason is an abstract concept and so is no more deep than the number two. It really comes down to choosing your alliegences, I suppose. And it's a decision that we must make very wisely. Human beings are in a very unique position to choose our masters, and that is why I disagree that reason is always the best master, at least in the case of ethical choices.

Now I would disagree that the latter (meaning, etc.) is not generally dictated by the former (knowledge, truth, etc.) in philosophical systems. Meaning can only derive and be made sensible from the idea that we already know what we're talking about - or that we understand a concept in some such way that it provides meaning. Meaning cannot be obtained without some sort of understanding about a subject or subject set. Whatever we would be trying to derive meaning from would be meaningless or emotionless drivel, as it would make no sense to us at all.
Is this the lingering influence of logical positivism? I think so. And logical positivism was undeniably disproven. Why? Because it's premises are trivial: "A statement is meaningful iff it is either analytically true, or potentially verifiable." There's far more to meaning than this.

My position is not that something has to be true to be meaningful, but rather than we have to understand or have a particular knowledge about that thing in order to derive meaning from it. I think this is also obvious, and is something you'll agree with.
I do. But then the question really becomes, "How can one have particular knowledge of a thing?" "Knowledge" is the key word, I suppose. And I think that we'll have very different definitions of "knowledge." For me, it is very difficult to distinguish between knowledge and belief, and belief itself is still a kind of knowledge. In some cases, belief is even more important than knowledge.

[Kharakov]

What if it wasn't real, but seeing that hallucination inspires me to give all my worldly posessions to the poor and become a monk, and then a scientist came up to me and proved beyond any doubt that my vision was not real? Would science have succeeded or failed there?
How can scienctists (who study the workings of the physical universe) prove or disprove anything about God who works outside of the physical universe? Science can describe the mechanical nature of the universe, but if God decides to make an alteration in the mechanical nature of reality (say, turn the great lakes into gasoline), scientists will have no explanation for it.

I have a cool idea to do if God does it.... the gun from "The Goonies".

[BlackGuardXIII]

Originally Posted by TheHammerSpeaks
What if it wasn't real, but seeing that hallucination inspires me to give all my worldly posessions to the poor and become a monk, and then a scientist came up to me and proved beyond any doubt that my vision was not real? Would science have succeeded or failed there?

Clearly it would have succeeded. I would qualify my answer with the one point that science does not, to me, prove anything. It is theory. Some of it very well researched and confirmed by many, but still just theory. I have had numerous things occur in my life that science would just balk at. The only explanation that would fit their criteria would be that I am lying, or that these were just very fluky coincidences. Neither answer satisfies me in the least. There is a limit to what science can answer, and the things I have witnessed and been a part of go against all scientific laws.

[Kharakov]

There is a limit to what science can answer, and the things I have witnessed and been a part of go against all scientific laws. Really? There is no law against describing the universe in a more accurate manner (newtonian--> better way of describing einsteinian--> incomplete so added quantuum mechanics), even if this manner takes into account a God that can change things without following the natural order.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Really? There is no law against describing the universe in a more accurate manner (newtonian--> better way of describing einsteinian--> incomplete so added quantuum mechanics), even if this manner takes into account a God that can change things without following the natural order.yes

[Kharakov]

yes What about when science gets to the point when it can label something as "of the natural order" or "caused by something other than the natural order"? Than science will be able to point to beings that influence our universe from the 'outside'.

[Antimatter235]

get inn the fucken xxi century. Science already DO that.

[Kharakov]

umm. hello foot.

[BlackGuardXIII]

umm. hello foot.
lol

Science already DO that?

do what?

[Razorofoccam]

Really? There is no law against describing the universe in a more accurate manner (newtonian--> better way of describing einsteinian--> incomplete so added quantuum mechanics), even if this manner takes into account a God that can change things without following the natural order.
Which manner is this you speak of?

[Kharakov]

Which manner is this you speak of?
Uhh, the manner that takes into account a God that can influence things outside of the 'natural order' of the universe. Say, all the sudden, a bunch of bubbles appeared all over the world with no 'natural' explanation for their existence.

[WhisperingWoods]

WhisperingWoods completely missed my point, and I'm pretty sure is an idiot.No. It wasn't my most intelligent post, but we all have our days. I didn't miss the point. I responded in an unexpected way.

*Fear comes with the christian religion, you can not deny this.

*Truth is more important than lies, if it takes a lie to make you a better person.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

No. It wasn't my most intelligent post, but we all have our days. I didn't miss the point. I responded in an unexpected way.
Well, it was unexpected, I'll give you that.

*Fear comes with the christian religion, you can not deny this.
I won't deny it, but that doesn't make Christianity bad or wrong. In fact, fear can be a good thing, such as the fear experienced when one realises that he is in control of his own destiny. My reasons for being a Christian have nothing to do with the salvation of my soul. I'm much more concerned about this life than the next.

*Truth is more important than lies, if it takes a lie to make you a better person.
I completely disagree with that. And I don't see how you can make that judgement since you'd have to step outside of truth, falsehood, and morality to view the situation objectively.

[WhisperingWoods]

I won't deny it, but that doesn't make Christianity bad or wrong. In fact, fear can be a good thing, such as the fear experienced when one realises that he is in control of his own destiny. My reasons for being a Christian have nothing to do with the salvation of my soul. I'm much more concerned about this life than the next.One step at a time. You say you're not really concerned about the afterlife (if there is one--nobody really knows for sure, I dont care who you are) and you have assumed your limitations in this life from what your religion and common knowledge tell you. What are your reasons for being a christian? I think I can feel what you're about to say.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

One step at a time. You say you're not really concerned about the afterlife (if there is one--nobody really knows for sure, I dont care who you are) and you have assumed your limitations in this life from what your religion and common knowledge tell you. What are your reasons for being a christian? I think I can feel what you're about to say.
Religion doesn't create limitations, it opens up possibilities. No, it does more than make absurdities possibilities; it makes them realities. Religion is most often contrary to common knowledge because it means believing in things which just seem impossible like a virgin birth, a being who is fully man and fully God, and, above all, God dying for the sake of man. Faith means constant self-overcoming in that you have to overcome crises of faith in order to make your faith stronger. In that way, faith makes you a stronger person because you can be confident in your convictions even when most people are against you. Faith makes me a better person. That's why I believe in God.

[Razorofoccam]

Uhh, the manner that takes into account a God that can influence things outside of the 'natural order' of the universe. Say, all the sudden, a bunch of bubbles appeared all over the world with no 'natural' explanation for their existence.

Kharakov

Which 'god' is that?

Occam conceeds that a god may exist...
But you seem to know when it will take a crap.

bubbles? really nice stuff

There are many events recorded that have no natural explanation...
However...How do these events relate to god?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indestinguishable from magic.
An unexpalined phenomena is JUST as likely to be an event of natural
process [1st]
A result of technology [2nd]
And an act of god [3rd]

Once one of these event occurs.
And is shown not to be a natural event we know nothing of
And is shown not to be a result of technology

THEN it may be an act of god

Process and method my friend
Occams razor
The simplest explanation is most likely to be....

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

Hammer

You say you are pretty sure WisperingWoods is an idiot.

This is an example of pure ego...
Of the thing we are supposed to leave behind when we gain understanding and wisdom.
You show an excellent example of prejudice and bigotry.

May occam point you out to others as such an example?

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

Religion doesn't create limitations, it opens up possibilities. No, it does more than make absurdities possibilities; it makes them realities. Religion is most often contrary to common knowledge because it means believing in things which just seem impossible like a virgin birth, a being who is fully man and fully God, and, above all, God dying for the sake of man. Faith means constant self-overcoming in that you have to overcome crises of faith in order to make your faith stronger. In that way, faith makes you a stronger person because you can be confident in your convictions even when most people are against you. Faith makes me a better person. That's why I believe in God.
Hammer

Really..
Religion does not create limmitations...
Religion open up possibillities?

How so..? Organised religion is dogma...
It teaches what the book says is truth..
And if we dont believe it...we are tortured forever..
Nice options.

Well you can believe that..and occams method supports your belief..
The same method you will send to hell..

Faith makes you strong? Yes.. if you believe it is fact.
But how do you show it is fact..
You cannot.
Understanding makes occam strong..
It is based in reason/logic. Which is our human interpretation of reality..

Occam can stand by his propositions. He has confidence in his method
Why
Because it works
Because he proposes from FACT.
That which can BE SHOWN TO ANY TO BE EXISTANT.
Occam FEARS NO QUESTIONS..

Your statement
"even when most people are against you"

Reveals the weakness in your position...

You fear others questions...why...?
Is it because you dont know why you believe what you do...
You just believe it. Faith

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

Kharakov

Which 'god' is that?

Occam conceeds that a god may exist...
But you seem to know when it will take a crap.

bubbles? really nice stuff

There are many events recorded that have no natural explanation...
However...How do these events relate to god?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indestinguishable from magic.
An unexpalined phenomena is JUST as likely to be an event of natural
process [1st]
A result of technology [2nd]
And an act of god [3rd]

Once one of these event occurs.
And is shown not to be a natural event we know nothing of
And is shown not to be a result of technology

THEN it may be an act of god

Process and method my friend
Occams razor
The simplest explanation is most likely to be....

Occamthe correct one. occam's razor

That is the first time I have noticed you refer to the adage itself. It is so very useful.
magic.
I have seen David Copperfield live three times, and came away with the same feeling about high technology. Whether he employed magic, or technology, it was just as amazing either way.

[Razorofoccam]

the correct one. occam's razor

That is the first time I have noticed you refer to the adage itself. It is so very useful.
magic.
I have seen David Copperfield live three times, and came away with the same feeling about high technology. Whether he employed magic, or technology, it was just as amazing either way.

Blackguard

Occams razor is a method..The principle of parsimony.
No more...
Occam calls himself TheRazorOfOccam because his method centers on this principle...
William of Ockham was not even the sole author of the principle...
It has been in human minds forever..

Experience has shown,, that the simplest answer to a problem is most likely the correct one.
Any who wish a perspective on this just need to type in 'occams razor'
on google. And pick the first listed link.
He would quote directly from the page but is using firefox and just cant get the SOB to copy/paste into a post...[any help on this?]

Yes...what would 1st century man say to a modern fellow who lifted of in a jetpack. Or turned on a simple laser presentation pointer...
Magic.

So many say reason is not the way...
But we chose it as the way ..long ago.
Now reason/technology is the only way...
to give it up would kill billions.

So if we all want to live..We must use that technology [rationally] to get us out of the hole that egotistical use of technology has dug.
For our world is the result of ego...using reason to get what it wants.
Hair die, cars , power, telephones, fashion , luxury, fast travel, cleaning products, contraceptives, insurance, and especially..toilet paper.

All we have to do..is do it.
With some reason and planning...
Not one watt of power needs to be generated on earth.
Not one mine needs to be dug.
No more industrial pollution..of any kind...

All we have to do is spend the 1.5 trillion US a year the world spends on defence...
In getting those things..which exist in ABUNDANCE...beyond earth.
So simple....
We can turn WAR..into prosperity and peace... And a stable future for our race.

Occams razor

All we have to do..is DO it. [it is well within our technology]

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

Blackguard

Occams razor is a method..The principle of parsimony.

Occam calls himself TheRazorOfOccam because his method centers on this principle...
William of Ockham was not even the sole author of the principle...
It has been in human minds forever..

Experience has shown,, that the simplest answer to a problem is most likely the correct one.

Yes...what would 1st century man say to a modern fellow who lifted of in a jetpack. Or turned on a simple laser presentation pointer...
Magic.

So many say reason is not the way...
But we chose it as the way ..long ago.
Now reason/technology is the only way...
to give it up would kill billions.

So if we all want to live..We must use that technology [rationally] to get us out of the hole that egotistical use of technology has dug.
For our world is the result of ego...using reason to get what it wants.
Hair die, cars , power, telephones, fashion , luxury, fast travel, cleaning products, contraceptives, insurance, and especially..toilet paper.

All we have to do..is do it.
With some reason and planning...
Not one watt of power needs to be generated on earth.
Not one mine needs to be dug.
No more industrial pollution..of any kind...

All we have to do is spend the 1.5 trillion US a year the world spends on defence...
In getting those things..which exist in ABUNDANCE...beyond earth.
So simple....
We can turn WAR..into prosperity and peace... And a stable future for our race.

Occams razor

All we have to do..is DO it. [it is well within our technology]

Occam
I am sure you are right that the idea predates Wickam by millenia...
It is very important, and true, in my view.

H. L. Mencken wrote "For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, clear, and wrong."

I agree about the 1st Century man and jetpack. How about showing Da Vinci a bic lighter? Or a cell phone? Even today, like I said earlier, David Copperfields illusions are so inexplicable to me, it matters not whether it is magic or technology.

I will die of shock if we do as you postulate as being a possibility, which is to halt our death spiral in time to save our present civilization from a very serious crash.

[gmdukes]

God Is The Sun.

[Razorofoccam]

I am sure you are right that the idea predates Wickam by millenia...
It is very important, and true, in my view.

H. L. Mencken wrote "For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, clear, and wrong."

I agree about the 1st Century man and jetpack. How about showing Da Vinci a bic lighter? Or a cell phone? Even today, like I said earlier, David Copperfields illusions are so inexplicable to me, it matters not whether it is magic or technology.

I will die of shock if we do as you postulate as being a possibility, which is to halt our death spiral in time to save our present civilization from a very serious crash.
Blackguard

Yes...The crash..Is a distinct possibillity....
Dislocation..collapse. Partially or globally.

There are reasons occam does not think it will happen...
The first is to do with optimism :)

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

Blackguard

Yes...The crash..Is a distinct possibillity....
Dislocation..collapse. Partially or globally.

There are reasons occam does not think it will happen...
The first is to do with optimism :)

Occam
I believe that an optimist can accomplish what others consider impossible, so that is a hopeful point. But other than that, all I have learned about us, and our actions, lead me to feel that we are in an inevitable collision course with the law of the jungle. Our ever accelerating devouring of the biomass is soon going to bear fruit, or should I say, come to an end.
I have felt this since about 1980, at which time our pace of consumption was well beyond sustainability, and it has increased every year since.
I am optimistic that after the nastiness, when the dust clears, the planet will be better for it, and hopefully, the people will not forget their history.
In my view, this will not be our first time to go through this, and I suspect it has happened many times in the last 250 000 years.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

You say you are pretty sure WisperingWoods is an idiot.

This is an example of pure ego...
Of the thing we are supposed to leave behind when we gain understanding and wisdom.
You show an excellent example of prejudice and bigotry.
His first response entirely missed my point, but I'm starting to warm up to the guy now.

May occam point you out to others as such an example?Do you really need my permission?


Really..
Religion does not create limmitations...
Religion open up possibillities?

How so..?
I already explained that: the virgin birth, ressurection from the dead, God dying for the sake of man. These are things that science, reason, and even common sense say are impossible, but not religion.

Organised religion is dogma...
It teaches what the book says is truth..
And if we dont believe it...we are tortured forever..
Nice options.
Every body of ideas is a dogma, even reason because reason fails to critique its own value. Reason is especially dogmatic because it demands that things be understood in accordance with a set of rules; that's limitting. The bible is so full of contradictions that it cannot possibly be used to devise a system of ethical absolutes. It demands that we accept some things as mysteries, things which we cannot understand. It is designed to be open to virtually endless interpretations, which is why there are so many denominations of Christianity. Do you still think the bible is dogmatic? If you do, then whose dogma is it? The Catholics, the Lutherans, the Seventh Day Adventists? If something is dogmatic, then it is designed to resist interpretation, meaning it should lack as much allegory, metaphor, and synecdoche as possible. So why is the bible so rich in these literary devices?

Faith makes you strong? Yes.. if you believe it is fact.
But how do you show it is fact..
You cannot.
That's right, you can't. But so what? What's the have to do with it?

Understanding makes occam strong..
It is based in reason/logic. Which is our human interpretation of reality..
No, reason makes people weak. People use reason to justify moral claims in order to convince everyone else, through pure sophistry, that their moral claims are the only right ones. Why do they do this? Because they are not strong enough to stand by their moral claims when others think something different or when they do not correspond to what most people think of as "reality." How many people would be martyred for the sake of science? Copernicus gave up on his helio-centric universe when the Church threatened him. Understanding doesn't make you strong, conviction does.

Occam can stand by his propositions. He has confidence in his method
Why
Because it works
Because he proposes from FACT.
That which can BE SHOWN TO ANY TO BE EXISTANT.
Occam FEARS NO QUESTIONS..
So what would you do if your method was undeniably disproven? Would you abandon it? Would you reform it?

Your statement
"even when most people are against you"

Reveals the weakness in your position...
But it reveals the strength of my constitution.

You fear others questions
No I don't. If I did, I wouldn't be here. I'm looking for new challenges to my faith so that I can strengthen it. Self-overcoming.

Is it because you dont know why you believe what you do...
You just believe it. Faith
I believe it because I've chosen to. And I've chosen to because it makes me a better person.

[WhisperingWoods]

Religion doesn't create limitations, it opens up possibilities. No, it does more than make absurdities possibilities; it makes them realities. Religion is most often contrary to common knowledge because it means believing in things which just seem impossible like a virgin birth, a being who is fully man and fully God, and, above all, God dying for the sake of man. Faith means constant self-overcoming in that you have to overcome crises of faith in order to make your faith stronger. In that way, faith makes you a stronger person because you can be confident in your convictions even when most people are against you. Faith makes me a better person. That's why I believe in God.Here it comes, back to the whole "better person" deal. Purely psychological. If you truly believe that taking "love pills" will make you a more caring individual, they will. I have faith that the boogie-man exists. You are all wrong by stating that he does not. My faith makes me stronger.

*I didn't ask why you believed in a "god", I asked why you're a CHRISTIAN. Why not any other religion out there? Most religions require faith which, to some people, means self-betterment (see above).

I know what you mean when you say these things though. I'm not an atheist/agnostic, or christian--I'm on neither side, really. I have faith; but I have faith in experimentation with beliefs and psychology.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

Here it comes, back to the whole "better person" deal. Purely psychological. If you truly believe that taking "love pills" will make you a more caring individual, they will. I have faith that the boogie-man exists. You are all wrong by stating that he does not. My faith makes me stronger.
Then how, exactly, does one go about becoming a better person? I don't even really understand your critique. Do you think that psychology is worthless, at least when compared to material reality?

*I didn't ask why you believed in a "god", I asked why you're a CHRISTIAN. Why not any other religion out there? Most religions require faith which, to some people, means self-betterment (see above).
I grew up in a Catholic family. The imagry has a deep effect on me, and is rich in context. If man is the sum total of his past experiences, then I am a Catholic. But mostly its a leap of faith and a decision to lead an authentic life. And I feel that the Christian, and Catholic in particular, suffer from the most crises of faith than the followers of any other religion. Christianity is a religion riddled with paradoxes, such as the ones I listed before. The more paradoxes faith encounters and overtakes, the stronger faith becomes. And, as I explained before, it makes you a stronger person because of it.

I know what you mean when you say these things though. I'm not an atheist/agnostic, or christian--I'm on neither side, really. I have faith; but I have faith in experimentation with beliefs and psychology.
So what, am I the subject in an experiment with beliefs and psychology? Cool!

[Razorofoccam]

TheHammerSpeaks
His first response entirely missed my point, but I'm starting to warm up to the guy now.

But how do you justify the 'idiot' comment?
Was it required? no..it;s a put down..an emotional ploy..
You consider yourself a good man?

Do you really need my permission?

No

I already explained that: the virgin birth, ressurection from the dead, God dying for the sake of man. These are things that science, reason, and even common sense say are impossible, but not religion.

Neither the scientific method of occams method consider such to be impossible.
Your preconceptions of others thought...is just that.
A defencive preconception.
If you wish to believe such..occam defends your right to do so
as your inherent right...
If the religious were one day draged into the streets to be killed.
A turn arround of what religion did to the non-religious.
Occam would be the first to step to the front and demand of all to
explain the actions of supposedly peacefull and rational beings.

Every body of ideas is a dogma, even reason because reason fails to critique its own value. Reason is especially dogmatic because it demands that things be understood in accordance with a set of rules; that's limitting. The bible is so full of contradictions that it cannot possibly be used to devise a system of ethical absolutes. It demands that we accept some things as mysteries, things which we cannot understand. It is designed to be open to virtually endless interpretations, which is why there are so many denominations of Christianity. Do you still think the bible is dogmatic? If you do, then whose dogma is it? The Catholics, the Lutherans, the Seventh Day Adventists? If something is dogmatic, then it is designed to resist interpretation, meaning it should lack as much allegory, metaphor, and synecdoche as possible. So why is the bible so rich in these literary devices?

Well said...But in no way justifies any religious book the claim to be he word of god.
A book cannot be the word of god...No mater how many people say it is...
GOD,,has to say it...in reality..not in a book.

No, reason makes people weak. People use reason to justify moral claims in order to convince everyone else, through pure sophistry, that their moral claims are the only right ones. Why do they do this? Because they are not strong enough to stand by their moral claims when others think something different or when they do not correspond to what most people think of as "reality." How many people would be martyred for the sake of science? Copernicus gave up on his helio-centric universe when the Church threatened him. Understanding doesn't make you strong, conviction does.

No religion uses its books to justify moral claims in order to convince everyone else.
Through pure dogmatic sophistry, that their moral claims are the only right ones. Why do thay do this, because they have no moral claims of their own.
How many people have been killed BY religion..For not believing it,
MILLIONS
How many people have been killed by science..for not believing it.?
Only those silly enought to walk off cliffs.

So what would you do if your method was undeniably disproven? Would you abandon it? Would you reform it?

Yes..in a second.
Can you show it to be so.?
Occam is a happy person..who does his best to be a good man.
That is a result of his method...A method collated from human understanding as a whole.
Not one book.
Thus if you wish to show occams method to be totally false..
You must first show rational/scientificl method..to be false..
You will have to show that that method CANNOT MAKE
jets, computers or replace a human hearts.

But it reveals the strength of my constitution.

Against what? Reality?

No I don't. If I did, I wouldn't be here. I'm looking for new challenges to my faith so that I can strengthen it. Self-overcoming.

OK.. here is a challenge.
Justify the concept of hell.

I believe it because I've chosen to. And I've chosen to because it makes me a better person.

Occam believes what he does because his method allows it.
And 'that' makes him a better person.
He simply replaced ego, with method...
Thus his understanding is free of hate, greed and fear.

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

TheHammerSpeaks

The more paradoxes faith encounters and overtakes, the stronger faith becomes.


Hammer

Or..
The more contradictions faith encounters, and overcomes by ignoring them.
The stronger faith becomes...

You call them paradoxes..occam calls them contradictions. And yes..
Religion is riddled with contradictions. :)

Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

The more contradictions faith encounters, and overcomes by ignoring them.
The stronger faith becomes...
But faith doesn't ignore them, it deals with them. If you ignore these paradoxes, then faith can't grow stronger. In fact, it grows weaker.

You call them paradoxes..occam calls them contradictions. And yes..
Religion is riddled with contradictions. :)

Yes it is.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

But how do you justify the 'idiot' comment?
Was it required? no..it;s a put down..an emotional ploy..
You consider yourself a good man?
Dude, calling someone an idiot doesn't make you a bad person.

No

So then don't ask for it.

I already explained that: the virgin birth, ressurection from the dead, God dying for the sake of man. These are things that science, reason, and even common sense say are impossible, but not religion.

Neither the scientific method of occams method consider such to be impossible.

Well, I can't speak for your method, but science definately says that a virgin birth is impossible. I don't know how you can deny this.

Every body of ideas is a dogma, even reason because reason fails to critique its own value. Reason is especially dogmatic because it demands that things be understood in accordance with a set of rules; that's limitting. The bible is so full of contradictions that it cannot possibly be used to devise a system of ethical absolutes. It demands that we accept some things as mysteries, things which we cannot understand. It is designed to be open to virtually endless interpretations, which is why there are so many denominations of Christianity. Do you still think the bible is dogmatic? If you do, then whose dogma is it? The Catholics, the Lutherans, the Seventh Day Adventists? If something is dogmatic, then it is designed to resist interpretation, meaning it should lack as much allegory, metaphor, and synecdoche as possible. So why is the bible so rich in these literary devices?

Well said...But in no way justifies any religious book the claim to be he word of god.
A book cannot be the word of god...No mater how many people say it is...
GOD,,has to say it...in reality..not in a book.
I never said it was the truth. I only said that its meaningful and is more capable of giving life meaning since it resists dogmatism. It doesn't even matter if it's the "truth" or the word of God.

No religion uses its books to justify moral claims in order to convince everyone else.
Through pure dogmatic sophistry, that their moral claims are the only right ones. Why do thay do this, because they have no moral claims of their own.
How can people with no moral claims try to convince people that their morality is the only right one? If they don't have a morality, then there's no morality to convince others of.

How many people have been killed BY religion..For not believing it,
MILLIONS
How many people have been killed by science..for not believing it.?
Only those silly enought to walk off cliffs.
Science doesn't have to kill people, their physical bodies anyway. Science kills contexts. It uses logic as a weapon and has convinced most people today that their own outlook on the world is false, and that their own subjective experiences don't matter. Don't get me wrong, science has done a lot of good, but it's too controlling, and in that way oppressive.

Yes..in a second.
Can you show it to be so.?
No, it's just a hypothetical question. But if you would give up your method if it were disproven, then you clearly have little faith in that which you have devoted your life to. Why? Because you value the objective, wherever that is, over the subjective.

Against what? Reality?

Against people who think that they can tell me what my reality is. You are one of these people because you believe that you somehow can claim to have an objective, and, unjustifiably, better outlook on reality than me.

OK.. here is a challenge.
Justify the concept of hell.
That's an easy one. If I am to commit myself to God, then I must submit to His will. I have to deal with the consequence of my faith that a lot of people I know and love will go to hell. Even if God sends my friends to hell for completely trivial reasons, it doesn't matter. It's staying true to my commitment that matters, not the final destination of my friends' souls.


Occam believes what he does because his method allows it.
And 'that' makes him a better person.
He simply replaced ego, with method...
Thus his understanding is free of hate, greed and fear.
Is it really? You replaced your own subjective experience with a method which claims to yield objective results. Why? Because you value objectivity over subjectivity. Why? Well, I don't think you've ever thought about it before. So you tell me.

[Kharakov]

But you seem to know when it will take a crap. Huh?

bubbles? really nice stuffBubbles rule.

How do these events relate to god?Cause.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indestinguishable from magic.
An unexpalined phenomena is JUST as likely to be an event of natural
process [1st]
A result of technology [2nd]
And an act of god [3rd]You are sorta right. There are times that people attribute one of God's acts to sorcery, aliens, or nature (since all of these are created and done by God).

Process and method my friend
Occams razor
The simplest explanation is most likely to be....God did it. :p

[mati]

Do not confuse "science", with the scientific method. Nor should we deplore the scientific method for the technological atrocities that have been brought forth in the name of science by those motivated by greed, hate, and power. What is needed is a science of human nature, as David Hume so rightly saw back in the middle of the 18th century. The scientific method can be just as rightly applied to moral subjects. Love and the pleasure that comes with it are easily observable as is the pain and oddity that hate brings. Experience is the basis of the scientific method. Philosophers would do well to study what is in front of their nose, their passions, likes and dislikes, rather than what is outside of the scope of experience.
Words are used to express ideas and confused with ideas, but they are not the same and caution should be exercised in relation to them.

[Razorofoccam]

But faith doesn't ignore them, it deals with them. If you ignore these paradoxes, then faith can't grow stronger. In fact, it grows weaker.

Yes it is. Hammer

You are still calling them paradox

How can jesus...the god of love and forgivness...Condone hell.
Contradictiction.

How can the god of love on earth..be the son of it who slaughters
[old testament god]
Contradiction...

Christianity is sounding more like internecine conflict..with each of your posts.

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

Hammer


You say

"You submit to his will"

Fine...
But dont come to this forum and post as a free thinking being...
You are not...you are a "tool of the will of your god"...
You are a mouthpiece for words not of your creation.

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

What is needed is a science of human nature, as David Hume so rightly saw back in the middle of the 18th century. The scientific method can be just as rightly applied to moral subjects.
Mati

Yes, it can.

Occam

[TheHammerSpeaks]

Hammer

[quote]You are still calling them paradoxWell, that's what they are.

Christianity is sounding more like internecine conflict..with each of your posts.If you mean that Christianity is a struggle for belief, then you're right. But it's not a violent struggle.

dont come to this forum and post as a free thinking being...
You are not...you are a "tool of the will of your god"...
You are a mouthpiece for words not of your creation.I'm posting as a being capable of choice. There's no such thing as "free thought." There's only the re-arrangement and combination of ideas that have already been thought of. So none of us are posting as free thinking beings. We just choose who are our masters. The difference between us is that I'm conscious of this choice, whereas you insist that your reason for choosing science as God is somehow more rational and more independent a decision than mine. You have to come to terms with what you are, a product of the past 400 odd years of Enlightenment dogma. I already know who I am.

Btw, Mati, Hume failed in his project, not that makes his works are any less brilliant. If Hume couldn't prove the existence of the self, then how could he create a psychology?

[mati]

Hammer,

By "self",Hume would say that we are nothing but "a bundle or collection of diffferent perceptions" which rapidly succeed each other. We falsely attribute to "self" a continued and distinct existence, separate from perception, and that is a fiction contrived by us to justify to ourselves our imagined identity. If by "psychology" you mean the observation of human life and the behavior of people, careful and exact experiments...of particular effects, which result from different circumstances and situations, then nothing more is needed than experience. A proof of some sort of concept of "self", not based on an impression is not necessary. What impression is the idea of "self" based on?

[themnax]

whatever god or gods may or may not see fit to exist is up to them and not us.

what i find highly questionable is the degree of signifigance accorded to the question of their doing so in the context of our own day to day existence and our own interactive influence with the 'world' that surrounds us.

as for how they 'can' exist or not exist; neither collectively nor individualy do we KNOW how it is possible for ANYTHING, our selves and our immediate surroundings included, to exist. which is not to deny our collective knowledge of the endless intimate details of the mechanics of our doing so.

we DO NOT know what HAS to exist. we likely never will.

but we do know that our describing of the nature and origen
of what is beyone our powers of objective observation
begins and ends in our own speculation about it.

we know that some things happen more often then others
and that some things happen more often when particular other things happen first

that is what we KNOW.

we also can and many of us do, experience that all of being
does not begin and end entirely with what we can tangibly
observe.

i believe there are deffinite limits though, as to how concrete we can be about the NONconcrete before we find ourselves circularly chaising our own tails.

and that the assumptions and speculations of organized beliefs, to a very great extent far exceed them

=^^=
.../\...

[TheHammerSpeaks]

By "self",Hume would say that we are nothing but "a bundle or collection of diffferent perceptions" which rapidly succeed each other. We falsely attribute to "self" a continued and distinct existence, separate from perception, and that is a fiction contrived by us to justify to ourselves our imagined identity.I haven't read "An Enquiry" in a long time but that sounds more like the natural conclusion that can be drawn from Hume rather than Hume's actual words. But this seems to me to be a more accurate and useful description of the self than Descartes' version. Descartes even said that while his cogito proved the existence of the self, the more important question is what the self is.

If by "psychology" you mean the observation of human life and the behavior of people, careful and exact experiments...of particular effects, which result from different circumstances and situations, then nothing more is needed than experience. A proof of some sort of concept of "self", not based on an impression is not necessary.That's not what I mean by psychology but I should have been more specific. Behaviourism is dead. I am talking about psychology as in the study of what constitutes particular selves.

What impression is the idea of "self" based on?None.

[Razorofoccam]

Hammer,

By "self",Hume would say that we are nothing but "a bundle or collection of diffferent perceptions" which rapidly succeed each other. We falsely attribute to "self" a continued and distinct existence, separate from perception, and that is a fiction contrived by us to justify to ourselves our imagined identity. If by "psychology" you mean the observation of human life and the behavior of people, careful and exact experiments...of particular effects, which result from different circumstances and situations, then nothing more is needed than experience. A proof of some sort of concept of "self", not based on an impression is not necessary. What impression is the idea of "self" based on? Mati

And what is it that allows us to contrive this fiction.
Existant reality.

As for the self...
'What' contrives.?

Occam

[_CT]

Well i guess its entirely subjective, but I really dont see anything that justifies the presence of a god...
There are perfectly reasonable explanations for just about anything and for what we cant explain yet there are perfectly plausible theories... Which are ofcourse not proven yet, but seem alot more rational then the equally un-proven theist explanations.

But ofcourse, I guess even THOSE require a bit of 'faith', as does believing in a God.
I'm really opposed to all the 'mysticism' bullshit that surrounds most religions, I mean really its like a fricking fairy tale that is supposed to be real... come up with a more plausible story and then maybe I'll be able to see some more sense in it.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Well i guess its entirely subjective, but I really dont see anything that justifies the presence of a god...
There are perfectly reasonable explanations for just about anything and for what we cant explain yet there are perfectly plausible theories... Which are ofcourse not proven yet, but seem alot more rational then the equally un-proven theist explanations.

But ofcourse, I guess even THOSE require a bit of 'faith', as does believing in a God.
I'm really opposed to all the 'mysticism' bullshit that surrounds most religions, I mean really its like a fricking fairy tale that is supposed to be real... come up with a more plausible story and then maybe I'll be able to see some more sense in it.
CT, I agree with your first line, and have no clue as to the nature of Spirit, although I believe in a higher power.
I dont agree with the second point you make, likely cuz I have seen too much that has no plausible theory, or reasonable explanation that I can find.
I'd like your opinions on precognitive dreams, astral travel, and life after death.
Do you believe in them? I only do cuz I have seen evidence up close and personal that was convincing. If i hadn't, I am not sure i would believe.

[_CT]

I'm fairly sceptic, but I like to think of myself as open minded, but so far nobody has been able to made me take any sort of equivalent of a 'higher power' but my good friend Jeff who's a brilliant philosopher, and we had some wonderful conversations about conciousness.

We are both lucid dreamers, which is probably why we think the way we both do.
Lucid dreaming is a wonderful thing and has opened my eyes to alot of things, and made me realise the power of the subconcious brain and how tricky it is. For example, I believe OBE's are a form of lucid dreaming, (OBE induction techniques are 99% similair to Lucid Dream induction techniques).

So with my experience with our tricky brain I believe that there's alot of answers and explanations for 'supernatural' things to be found in ourselves, rather then in some mysterious external force. I would also like to point out www.randi.org, which is a pretty good indicator for the amount of 'proof' out there on supernatural things.


---
hmm. I kinda lost my own point in there somewhere, I'm sorry i'm not that good at discussion :P maybe i'll follow up later when I think of more :P

[SelfControl]

The opening statement of this thread is quite bizarre. No-one who disputes the existence of God as an entity says that not only does God not exist, but that no-one in the whole world believes in Him either. If that's a common argument I've never heard it.

Without any actual evidence either way (and I mean proof specific to the existence of God, not just some vague indication of something science might not understand), I'm open to the possibility of the existence of deities, but not necessarily as anything to be worshipped. Within my scientific mind, I can only really imagine gods as a highly evolved animal, just like humans.

[SelfControl]

CT, I agree with your first line, and have no clue as to the nature of Spirit, although I believe in a higher power.
I dont agree with the second point you make, likely cuz I have seen too much that has no plausible theory, or reasonable explanation that I can find.
I'd like your opinions on precognitive dreams, astral travel, and life after death.
Do you believe in them? I only do cuz I have seen evidence up close and personal that was convincing. If i hadn't, I am not sure i would believe.

Einstein theorised that the linear passage of time is merely a product of human perception of a wider continuum; that time does not necessarily have an arrow. With this in mind, it is quite possible that you would be able to see some event or place you have not perceived yet while unconscious.

As to life after death, I'm intrigued as to what you have seen which proves this.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Einstein theorised that the linear passage of time is merely a product of human perception of a wider continuum; that time does not necessarily have an arrow. With this in mind, it is quite possible that you would be able to see some event or place you have not perceived yet while unconscious.

As to life after death, I'm intrigued as to what you have seen which proves this.
My friends grandmother had a really cool OBE, while her heart had stopped, where she went from her room to the hospital lobby and saw her friends sitting there. She told them what they were wearing the next day, when they scoffed.
Also, she was never afraid of death after that. But the one that I won't forget is this one.

I used to work with a fellow who's wife died of lung cancer, though she was a nurse who never smoked. It was less than a year from diagnosis till she was gone. Around a month before she passed on she told him that she was going to send him some kind of a sign. He is a very honest, family-oriented, devout Catholic. Then, from her hospital bed a week before she passed on, she told him she knew what the sign would be....lightning.
I have only been to one funeral in my life, hers, and it was at 1PM at St. Anne's Church. As we arrived it was pouring out, really hard, the sky was low overcast thick clouds, and it was dark like twilight. We sat down, and got settled in, and then boom, thunder, and the lights in the church went out for a couple of minutes. Kelvin told me that when the thunder struck, he looked at his watch and it was 1 o'clock on the dot.
After the funeral, we came outside to find that there was not a cloud in the sky, I swear. Everything was soaking wet, and dripping, and the sun was shining in a clear blue sky.

This happened about 20 years ago.
Namaste, BG13