Does God Exist?

Sigh, why step in the lame-o argument excuse and ask the atheist for evidence? Well I understand how you got there but I think it is more interesting to let him reply to this!:

Which seems excellent logic to me. Hope he doesn't try to refute the reasonable questions in the quote as 'irrelevant'

 

Tis your suggestion dear sweet not mine. The thought come first. Thought, word, deed. The impulsive, (thought,) is indiscriminate until it is articulated. I am hungry but I don't know what I am hungry for.
Remember I consider gravity and intent to be synonymous.

Are you saying I am naive and needy? My endeavor is showing up simply. I want for no thing. You see shadows and ignorance of your own casting. You are not afraid of a god fetish is a statement you can embrace but you also have a phono phobia as you attribute nothing to god as a matter of insistence, that if good and god were synonymous invocations it would make good less than it is. You are not less than you are for being called Dejavu but who you are is better apprehended.

Why, is your dimwitted loosey goosey grasp on identity superior to our agreeing to terms? Any way here is one. Everything is something as a whole but something is not everything unless it is the whole of everything.

Funny you are compelled to use the word god in denying you have a reliant concept of god.
No I have said things most definite about god. God is that which we invoke in kind, our invocation being a metaphysical/biological inheritance. To you the individual is most precious and occupies the god position in the psyche. We always choose with a guide owing to our native compulsion to invoke good.
I do not deny the existence of the individual, the integrity of self but I say the self transcends it's apparent boundaries which is the cause of the thrilling or inspiring.

I have a friend named Nate. Are you Nate?

You are many things in yourself and to other people but none of those things in particular or to the exclusion of any other save you can only entertain one thought at a time. Sometimes you are happy and sometimes sad and you are mistaken if you think that is peculiar to you.

I am here now, the light is come, come see.

Your desire to be special overwhelms your sense of being included. Do you fine yourself oft alone? How are we not equal in our power to create in your vainacular?

Those certainly are the parameters of your perception. If you didn't have your head in the sand however you would know that I ever include you.

Would that be the formal or informal definition of friend?

Which confirms the things I've said definitely about god. I and my source are one.

 

I do but unlike most I haven't put him/her or it into a box,the more thy look at the universe,and our own plaint the more we see that it is by intelligent designee,religion is a different story, I believe its been used for control the masses ,and twisted to fit the agendas of those in control, and if thy cant twist it thy rewrite it ,it keeps the people confused,and searching for answers and where do thy look ,right back to the ones that confused them to start with.
most all religions have commonality,thats were you have to began,I believe we all are a part of God as he is part of us,much like cells of your own boddy,we could never come close to understanding the world of god for we excess in our on ,but our actions can elect his world ,much like a sickness ,in a cell case antibody s would come to destroy we have free will and be live we are all just a small part of the puzzle

 

I basically agree. Organized religion does tend to put God in a box, and many of the canned answers which it offers up strike me as highly unlikely.

 

So many people say this that I realize: they're parroting thoughts that are not their own. The people who say things like that conform to commonly held, ill-informed beliefs of the masses.

I've slept in Churches, bathed in Churches and had Holiday / Holy Day meals in Churches .. with a community of people .. volunteers and other people just like me. The volunteers are AMAZING people. Those who speak ill of religion DO NOT KNOW religion and have no idea, really, what it's all about and how it works!

The volunteers that I've known are *excellent* people. And it's those people I think of first. The volunteers are people that "the masses" DON'T KNOW and never think of.

My entire apartment is furnished by the generosity of religiousy Churchy people .. even the keyboard I'm typing on and the couch I'm sitting on and the cup I drink from and bed I sleep on. And the altar in my living room.

Ain't nothing to hate about any of it. If people are going to Judge, then make sure you have the whole picture and understand it well.

People are prejudice. Their hate isn't justified. They've got to realize there is much and plenty that they do not know.

 

Did anyone say anything about hate? I do hate what people do sometimes, but that does not mean I hate them. There are good, charitable people everywhere....religious and not religious....I am very charitable, as I have a charitable, generous nature, and I am not any religion.

 

Gravity and intent aren't synonymous though despite your deepest consideration. Panpsychism is strange to me, and will never cease being so.

Good is not better apprehended for being called god. You want for clarity. There is desire in your endeavour. The will to ignorance I see in the goddish is not my own. If it was all I saw in them it would seem to be. lol Ignorance is never truly ones own. Even wilful ignorance is a forgivable appropriation. How does one become more innocent? The courage for knowledge!

A term I can agree on, entirely superior to your "Everything is nothing in particular". You're making exceptional headway Dope San!

Yeah, funny that.

God can be whatever you want it to be thedope, provided you're unwilling to go into detail.

I'm willing to entertain what you say. Which boundaries?

No thedope.

lol No-one's me except me thedope. Let's talk about these boundary stones to the self. They're not selves.

Glad to see you've lifted the veil of Maya, you may now kiss the bride... goodbye! :-D

It is true the desire to be myself overwhelms my desire to be included, never to the point of discluding it though. It wouldn't know how. They are always somewhere synonymous. We're not equal purely because we're not identical. Identity is ongoing.

I know it, and by your words, surprisingly! lol

I'm friendly to either, please don't mind my informal use of the word 'regardless'! :-D

So you're god. Good for you! I'm not sure what it makes me though, probably some sort of helper. Your humble squire, like Sancho Panza. So what do we do now?

 

You're talking about scientific theories. Airy Fox is talking about personal opinions.

But it is balleyhooed quite confidently by reputable scientists like Steven Weinberg and Stephen Hawking. As I understand it, they view it as the most promising alternative to God.

 

With all respect, Airy Fox seems to be saying something much more radical than that. He seems to be saying that any opinion that isn't empirically verifiable is illegitimate or nonsensical--a position that is known in philosophy as logical positivism or verificationism. It is an effort to strip discourse of "metaphysics". I'd argue that Democritus' metaphysics, albeit overtaken by QM, were legitimate positions that provided support for a line of scientific inquiry that eventually helped in the development of scientifically refutable atomic theory, and that efforts to squelch such speculation are counterproductive to intellectual progress. Your comments about M-theory illustrate the value of such proto-theories, which are essentially metaphysical.

 

'metaphysics' is not required to recognize that of even physical things, all that is humanly known, being we live in a universe so vast and diverse, is in all likelihood, no more then a tiny fraction. none of which absolutely precludes the existence of the completely non-physical. a completely non-physical which owes nothing to the mumbo-jumbo of 'meta' physics. and of which, inevitably, we must know even less, then we do of our physical environs.

i do not envoke a meta physics to recognize and acknowledge, that human understanding is not unlimited, and that there for, it is not unlikely, for a great deal to lie beyond it.

this does not however, bind to reality, any belief not rooted in objectivity.

it merely recognizes that what we don't know, and rather a great deal of it, can and likely does, exist.

 

Thank you for the introduction to that term. It is strange to you because you are vain. Even though you contravene yourself believing that being is yet to come in saying you will never cease being so, it remains to be seen whether you will gain a better sense of proportion. The psyche is complex reaction of physical forces not a thing apart. If this element of what I say is strange to you then none of what I say is as familiar to you as you think. For instance you don't know what my deepest considerations have been.

Oh yes ever so and more so than saying a cheeseburger is good. A particularly fine way to apprehend good is to not object. Creation is a law without opposite and if good exists then it has no opposition. Why discriminate, why do you call me good, only god, (the creator,) is good or as you put it good is what good is.

There is joy in my endeavor and it is not all my own, it is shared. We come seeking and having found we share. The only clarity I want is our agreement in terms. Knowledge is being shared. One does not become more innocent even though the saying has dramatic appeal. Innocent means harmless. Harmless is not by degree or decree but is the true nature of reality.

Everything is nothing in particular has never been my statement. There are many more syllables than the twelve you've written in the saying I have used that you presume to translate inferiorly. I enjoy the fact that you take me to task though and you have taught me much. You are one of the few who take me on account of my words as opposed to trying to make me account for their own characterizations of what I say.

We could write this another way, good can be whatever you want it to be thedope, provided it's detail is not god.

Skin and bone as one. A private life for another.

You understand my point.

Who what when and where are you? I've heard of the rolling stones but I don't know what you mean by boundary stones to the self.

There are no marriages in heaven.

A problematic interpretation of what I said and humble is purely your innovation. I am identifying with my source, I did not create myself but I am as I am created.

 

Do you understand human evolution? Why does mankind wonder from whence he came and why does he need to fill in the gaps of knowledge?.

How can we love without a guide?

It is prejudice that complicates society. It is one thing to profess trying to being cool and it is another to be cool.

 

I think you misunderstood ,when im talking of religion im not taking of the people that attend any church , but the teachers that used it or the false profits ,throw out history ,we are all working on understanding but it,s hard to do when you only have parts of a story,there were over 500 hundred books of the bible destroy alone ,and that's just in Christian belief,
and many book have been o meted, because of content,and if you look at all the other religions,that we use to hear were blasphemes and you look in to there text and you find similarity's ,the BASIC commandments to live by ,which even none believers often try to live by,its not our job to hate anyone ,I believe there is a God but he is fare beyond our understanding ,but we are part of him as he is part of us,so don't take thing to personal its just a search for truth ,

 

But can be the calling card of contradiction. If god is far beyond our understanding then to say we are part of him and he part of us is not an understanding about god.

 

I think there are several points of disagreement here. First of all, disputing logical positivism does seem to challenge, if not nullify, his statement, because he was arguing that it is simply illegitimate ever to believe in propositions that haven't been empirically verified. Second, nobody has said that lack of evidence is proof of anything, certainly not unicorns. Proclaiming scientifically unreachable realities obviously doesn't establish the existence of a god, but nobody said it did. There are, however, lots of subjects that don't lend themselves readily to scientific evidence, for reasons that I've elaborated in several previous posts. Yet there is enough evidence that reasonable people can make reasonable inferences. Third, unicorns are a fanciful example, because nobody I know of believes in them (with the possible exception of "KJV only" types), and lots of people believe in God. Has anyone recently claimed to have experienced a unicorn or put forth arguments for their existence? For a reasoned explanation of how a scientist might believe in God, albeit not proof, see James Spitzer, NewProofs for the Existence of God, and Paul Davies, The Mind of God. Fouth, your example about Democritus shows that atomic theory is scientific, but at the time he proposed it no one could have supported it by evidence. Airy Fox is asking for evidence now--of propositions that don't readily lend themselves to scientific testing. As for M-theory being "in the process of" becoming verifiable and refutable, does "in the process of count? Seems to me that belief that something will happen that's never happened before is faith. Fifth, once again, Airy Fox fails to distinguish between doing science and doing life. The true science nerd might think they're essentially the same, but most of us have to make our way through life on the basis of assumptions about reality that haven't been, and may never be, scientifically tested. We can flip a coin to make decisions,or we can take a chance on those that seem to be supported by the evidence of our personal experience, hunches, best available evidence etc. And the "test" of an like Justice or Democracy is its efficacy in guiding human conduct. Do either of them "exist"? Not in this country. Not in this world. But I wouldn't want to give up on them.

I closing, I give you some thoughts by Bruce Mazet presented in Skeptic magazine(1998, 6/2), of all places. Noting (with regard to multiple universes) that there is not only "no evidence whatsoever that this infinite number of hypothetical universes exists", but ,"according to the cosmologists who postulate these universes, nomeans by which to obtain such evidence", then "it is acceptable to postulate the existence of God".

 

Faith is required to learn. Unless you become as little children. Scientific method does not trump faith but affirms it.

 

"I can make the statement "unicorns are real", just because there is no evidence that they are real does not mean that they are, in fact, real.
"

Meagain, you just made me laugh with this.....but unicorns are real because I say so....LOL