God does not exist

Faith is belief in something for which there is no proof.

Religious people have faith in god, not proof in the existence of god.

Non-religious people have faith in their theories, not proof in the non-existence of god.

 

i mean that "exists" would become a meaningless distinction

 

Not as opposition to illusion. What is not real does not exist.
There is the extant but there is no non extant. There is a whole category of non words that have no objective constituents in reality. They are used as place holders in a field of abstraction. The symbol zero is just such a device. We can imagine things that do not exist because the mind is naturally abstract. We can say something does not exist as one thing but exists as another as in the hat does not exist as a dog but as an article of clothing, but we cannot deny existence all together.

 

Words are symbols of conditions, they are meaningless absent experiential conjugation. What new experience do you apprehend? dejavu...dejavu...dejavu.
The bodies condition lies within a minute sliver between the speed of light and absolute zero and that is it. Do you think your body greater than the slightest speck of dust in the vastness of space? You do not know your creations but they are everywhere waiting for you to see.

Shadow boxing. We are a bird in a cage seeing our reflection in a mirror and we think we see another bird. The only law table is equal exchange.

You don't know what you do. Nor I, except we know it does not change justice. Mercy allows it's perception.

Do you really want to subject me to evil?

Lean on me. You won't get arrested.

How does intoning bread sound? You should come for dinner.

I am grateful.

Nothing real is in jeopardy. What are you on about?

My dad is still looking for his place in the world.
The same way I answer you. It is not my concern. Just like the answer to, do I believe in reincarnation, it is not my concern. My only moment of concern is my relationship to here and now because that is the only place and time that is eventful.

At the same time I am in communion with a commonality that is kindly disposed toward me. Is it simply my own reflection? I go into altered states of consciousness, trance states, with a query and I am presented with the eureka moment. I am grateful for this sense as it makes footfall secure in an energetic world.

That is what I said. I like full body chuckles.

 

You make a great point. Faith is the lack of proof. And I'm neutral about this whole discussion. But I do believe that if there is a God - IF - then we probably would not as humans have the ability to prove it. It's likely something we do not yet understand or is supernatural and we will always be incapable of understanding it. All we will ever have is our belief and mental library of things we've experienced that seem somewhat supernatural.

It's kind of like Einstein's theory of relativity. We have a theory...but it can only be proved from a human standpoint if we approach the speed of light...which we may never be able to do. However, it seems like if we could, we would find the theory to be true.

 

it's funny how you seem to be making the same point as me. by saying that we cannot deny existence you are also suggesting that existence would become a meaningless distinction

 

We may be saying the same thing, but I haven't perceived it that way yet.
Distinction from what?

 

the distinction of whether something exists or not

 

There is no such thing as non-existence. Existence is not meaningful in terms of non-existence. The term existence is meaningful in terms of the extant only.
Abstraction exists but it has no objective constituents unless it can be temporarily articulated, meaning thought must be cultivated. Consequently non-existence is something you cannot demonstrate.

If you need a polar opposite to demonstrate polarity then let it be illusion rather than non-existence. Illusion you can deal with.

 

I think they believe in the divinity of Christ. What they mean by that is another question. We're getting into semantics here. I and my co-believers "accept" the existence of god(s), to the point on being willing to bet my life on it. I tend to be more traditional in my theism than Paul Tillich, widely regarded as one of the greatest Protestant theologians of our time. Tillich maintains that God is not a supernatural being, because God is the Ground of Being. Is it correct to say that the Ground of Being "exists"? I'd say probably not. What Tillich and I would say is that only God is ultimately important. Does Justice exist? What about Liberty or Democracy? Probably not in this world in any pure form. But to me they're more "real" than the ephemera materialists tend to call reality. Does this mean I believe in only in an abstraction. No. I'm convinced that there is substantial evidence consistent with intelligent agency in the universe (which I'll present in subsequent posts). All of this evidence points to something like Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. Is this the God I worship? Only if it has the characteristics of Dewey's Summation of Human Idealism. I'm betting that it does. (Admittedly, it's a long shot, but the idealism is more important to me than the cosmology.

Your dictionary has apparently not caught up to the religion of mainline Protestant theologians. It's certainly true that the viral meme of Christian superstition has done better than its rivals, even in modern time, because it offers the comforts of illusory certainty. But that virus is a mind crippling disease. I think the teachings and example of Jesus offer us much more. Many Christians understand that faith is different from certainty. Faith implies a degree of uncertainty, because if it were certain there would be no need for faith. As Luther said, faith is a "joyful bet". For an idea of what we believe about Christ and Jesus, see Oklahoma pastor Robin Meyer's Saving Jesus From the Church: How to Stop Worshiping Christ and Start Following Jesus, Marcus Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, and Bishop Spong's A New Christianity for a New World. Answering your other questions will take longer, so I'll have to leave that for another time.

 

You teach that knowledge is apart from perception. That the body is a dust bunny. To resign oneself to experience rather than to give oneself to it.

The instant is motion, faster than light; the bodys condition is of intelligence. You create a divide in the mind. At least your words do. But you are new, and so am I, and everyone else despite what we may deny.

No, the law is extension. All tables are in exchange.

That is a simple untruth. We do know, but not the extent of its greater effects. It is not mercy that allows that knowledge is never without its perception. :-D But
love, love love love...

That you reached from my words the idea that I would, is a shame, for I would never.
It is no business of mine if you don't want to go beyond good and evil.

You are a friend, but I stand well on my own. Watch.

Yes the bread of life may be called for, with or without the existence of a baker.
But let's make sure we remember to set to! lol

Close enough I suppose. :-D

So why then do you maintain that god alone is good?

The dance has never forsaken me, provided it is permitted to begin! lol
Our place in the world is the world.

Then you should have included those damned vascillating agnostics!
lol

 

:-D

 

I am sorry if that is the perception I have created for you. I said perception can lead to knowledge. That is it's connection.

No, that the body is a communication device, a machine through which we devise our machinations.

No, to recognize what it is, (experience).

Faster than light motion would be by definition transcendent.

The bodies condition is communication. Information displayed. We are an agglomerate.

How did I split your mind?

Each according to their kind.

So the tree does not fall without someone to observe it? Or there is no tree?

Sit also?

The whole defines the parts but the parts do not define the whole. Reality and god are synonymous terms in my dialect. No aspect of reality is better of worse.

Those who are born, die. The living create conditions for themselves.



Then you should have included those damned vascillating agnostics!
lol[/QUOTE]

 

thedope:

No, it doesn't only lead to it. Knowledge is perception. It is always perceived.
Being and becoming.

It isn't a machine. The body is intelligent.

Motion transcendent in itself? The instantaneous does not stop to be perceived.

And it is of intelligence. It is not a device of the mind, but its extension, and vice versa.

You didn't. Your words do, since I think differently. But then I have my own, and my thoughts besides.

Did I say that? Where is knowledge not perceived? Where is knowledge ever anything more than the act of knowing?

I just meant begin.

It is not uniformity that births the dialectic. The parts do define the whole, being infinite. If you cannot allow the process of definition, your conception is a stillborn.

Birth does not necessitate death. Our place in the world is the world. We are our own realization.

 

I was standing on a hill one day looking at a territorial view. I thought I saw a rider on a horse coming up the hill in the distance but as the sun marched higher in the sky it turned to be a trick of reflected light.

God in the machine?

As observer of the world we see only the past, reflected light. As conceiver of the world we can see a world different from the past. Knowledge is not being, perceived, it is being shared. Perceived being is not knowledge for you can confuse one being for another but knowledge is being shared non the less.

My perception is one mind, many thoughts. That reality is divided into good and evil is truly a perception of a split mind.

 

So what you knew changed in light of more. Knowledge is knowing.

Deus ex machina

I'm not too good with latin. I translate it as do it yourself.

You make out that our conception is not always observed to be so by us. Confusion does not mean that what is known is not perceived to be known.

How else do you think we can be perceived without knowing it? lol

My perception is of many minds, for those many thoughts.

I agree. And your teaching that god alone is good doesn't help. LOL

 

The point is what I had perceived was an illusion. There wasn't even an object posing as a horse and rider.

How does the machine is intelligent translate to do it yourself?

My teaching is that measuring good is not something we are good at.

 

thedope:

An illusion? I thought what you perceived was reflected light? Your notion that knowledge is not perception posits the erroneous idea that knowledge is total, or complete, as you say. No-one is asking you to account for infinity.

It doesn't translate in my understanding. Get it?

Then you're a poor teacher. It's possible you may have to learn what your riches are from another.

 

Where my treasure is there is my heart also.
I am called many things by many people, and I am those things to those people at those times but I am none in particular.
Is it possible that you have not heard? You object to my terms. My point is that good is not symbolic.
You cannot point to it and say that is it. We might believe that it come in a certain form and then someone comes along and objects to that particular association. Is it good then to insist on your model of good? Could it be better that we be unanimous in our appreciation of one another?

I ask the question, what is it for, and from there determine the level of functionality toward that end/purpose.

 

The image I made of the reflected light was an illusion. It represented textures, a shape, that did not in fact exist to reflect the light.

Knowledge is when,
object and observer are the same, being shared. What is absent from the moment?

I could lend you mine.