The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: The Ellimist on September 15, 2014, 08:41:38 PM
-
How would one go about this? (All religion aside). Confirming the existence of a being that is at least in more than one place at once? If we can confirm this, all other questions can be answered because the being is conscious enough to answer if we ask it. We currently do not have.....what we need to confirm this, so the essential question is, what would we need?
I have 2 suggestions
A) This method is very unscientific; look everywhere, analyze and re -analyze everything in the known universe (periodically as new discoveries are made), that might show slight evidence of a conscious being in more than one place
B) Increase our methods and abilities of observation, through bio-engineering or some other way (periodically), then do (A)
-
THE ELLIMIST, at present, I don't think there IS a way to go about confirming the existence of God. I mean, there are philosophical ways, but at best, you are going to get strong arguments, not deductively proven arguments. Then there is the idea of miracles. But that is subjective. What is a miracle?
I'm a strong believer in God, as you may have observed if you have taken the time to read any of the posts in the forum. But I'm not an alterkacker enough to deny reality. At my age, with my experience in life, I'm prepared to take some things on faith.
-
At my age, with my experience in life, I'm prepared to take some things on faith.
Who told you that you should capitulate when you get older?
-
RAMA SET, nobody told me a damn thing. But when you've seen as much as I have of this world and what it can do to oneself and to others, you begin to feel grateful.
I'm not going to go into detail, but lets just say I've lived a pretty miraculous life. I went from marriage and divorce to alcoholism to homelessness to mental illness and hospitalisation in nut wards and near death in medical hospitals to living in a nice apartment with a beautiful new wife, and being happy as a lark.
I've seen the best and worst of what life has to offer. I've gone hungry. I know what its like to be "down and out". It sucks. But I believe it was my Faith in God that brought me back from all that. Of course I can't prove that, and I'm not even going to try. I'll let anyone believe or not believe whatever they like. But I know that I will accept things on Faith.
But like I said, I am not an alterkacker. I realise that Faith is not logical. God is a logically coherent idea, but there is no deductively certain argument that proves his existence. To deny that is just stupidity on the part of the theist, just as the strong atheist who denies even the possibility of the existence of God is an idiot.
-
In order for us to confirm the existence of a supernatural being (whatever it may be) scientifically, there must a measurable (more than once) effect of this being in our world that can only be a result of supernatural action. The method you proposed (someone being in different places at the same time) is very unreliable. And this is the problem: it's not so clear what would be a purely supernatural phenomenon that could be measured in practice (a true miracle*)
That being said, it's true that there are things we currently don't know, but ascribing them to a conscious supernatural being is falling into the god of the gaps fallacy.
*True as opposed to what some people call a miracle, which is just a very improbable event
-
RAMA SET, nobody told me a damn thing. But when you've seen as much as I have of this world and what it can do to oneself and to others, you begin to feel grateful.
I'm not going to go into detail, but lets just say I've lived a pretty miraculous life. I went from marriage and divorce to alcoholism to homelessness to mental illness and hospitalisation in nut wards and near death in medical hospitals to living in a nice apartment with a beautiful new wife, and being happy as a lark.
I've seen the best and worst of what life has to offer. I've gone hungry. I know what its like to be "down and out". It sucks. But I believe it was my Faith in God that brought me back from all that. Of course I can't prove that, and I'm not even going to try. I'll let anyone believe or not believe whatever they like. But I know that I will accept things on Faith.
But like I said, I am not an alterkacker. I realise that Faith is not logical. God is a logically coherent idea, but there is no deductively certain argument that proves his existence. To deny that is just stupidity on the part of the theist, just as the strong atheist who denies even the possibility of the existence of God is an idiot.
I would suggest that gratitude and spirituality by no means requires that you cease questioning the world around you.
-
The method you proposed (someone being in different places at the same time) is very unreliable.
That's not what I said. I basically said, how would we go about measuring the supposed supernaturalconscious being, or more importantly, finding where it is to measure. The methods I suggested were basically "Look everywhere, periodically" and "Increase observational abilities through bio-engineering, then look everywhere, periodically". You misunderstood.
That being said, it's true that there are things we currently don't know, but ascribing them to a conscious supernatural being is falling into the god of the gaps fallacy.
Didn't suggest that I was ascribing things we don't know to supernatural deities
-
How would one go about this? (All religion aside). Confirming the existence of a being that is at least in more than one place at once? If we can confirm this, all other questions can be answered because the being is conscious enough to answer if we ask it. We currently do not have.....what we need to confirm this, so the essential question is, what would we need?
Which god are you referring to? The Abrahamic one?
Are you even presuming one god, or a veritable Valhalla?
-
How would one go about this? (All religion aside). Confirming the existence of a being that is at least in more than one place at once? If we can confirm this, all other questions can be answered because the being is conscious enough to answer if we ask it. We currently do not have.....what we need to confirm this, so the essential question is, what would we need?
Which god are you referring to? The Abrahamic one?
Are you even presuming one god, or a veritable Valhalla?
Any of them. All of them. At least one. Does it really matter?
-
QUOTE: "How would one go about this? (All religion aside). Confirming the existence of a being that is at least in more than one place at once? If we can confirm this, all other questions can be answered because the being is conscious enough to answer if we ask it. We currently do not have.....what we need to confirm this, so the essential question is, what would we need?"
I'm not sure this question can even be answered per se. Who would do the answering? God? And JIMMY'S question is relevant. Because if you choose "Valhalla" you are automatically doing away with the concept of a Supreme Being. Remember that the Ontological Argument reads as follows:
1. I can conceive of a being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived, and exists.
2. Existence is greater than non-existence.
3. Ergo, God exists.
Now, my point is not to say that that argument is valid or not. But it is to say that according to it, you can't have TWO Supreme Beings. They would fight each other eternally. Neither of them would be ultimately supreme, because one would be as great as the other, and I can conceive of a being greater than that, and which exists!
So ultimately, you do get to One God, whether he is the Abrahamic God or otherwise not being relevant for the purposes of this discussion. He could be the Great Spirit (Wakan Tanka) of the Sioux Indians, for all that it matters, but ultimately, your argumentation gets you to One God.
Back to the question. What would we need to be able to ask God and get an answer? Good question. And I don't think that there is a single human on this planet right now, from the smallest child up to the highest prelate, that can answer it. NO ONE has a direct phone line to God.
Back in the day, the Bible records that Moses built an Ark of the Covenant, and that God's Presence was on the Mercy Seat. That God actually spoke to him from the Mercy Seat. In the film "Raiders of the Lost Ark" the antagonistic archaeologist Belloc tells Jones, "The Ark is a radio for talking to God!". We believe the Ark still exists and will be found one day. What if it is one day? Will it be used? Will someone try to use it to talk to God?
I remember reading about a college prof who tried with some of his grad students in the 1960s to build an Ark according to biblical specifications. They ended up not finishing, and destroying what they had built, because the son-of-a-bitch started to conduct enough electricity to literally explode.
So if such a thing today were to explode, why didn't it in Biblical days? What would it do today if found? Could we indeed talk to God? Would that satisfy you, Ellimist, that God exists?
And before you ask, no, I don't remember where I read that bit about the Professor and his Ark.
But, short of an Ark, how could we we "talk to God"? Hell if I know. I'm just some poor bastard living in Iowa on disability trying be a good Jew, chatting with my friends in the FES, playing video games, and reading. If I come up with anything, I'll be sure to let you all know.
-
And JIMMY'S question is relevant. Because if you choose "Valhalla" you are automatically doing away with the concept of a Supreme Being. Remember that the Ontological Argument reads as follows:
Odin could be the Supreme Being. The Supreme Being could have been posing as both Odin and the Abrahamic one. It doesn't matter, so much as we find one, then we can ask these specific questions.
So ultimately, you do get to One God, whether he is the Abrahamic God or otherwise not being relevant for the purposes of this discussion. He could be the Great Spirit (Wakan Tanka) of the Sioux Indians, for all that it matters, but ultimately, your argumentation gets you to One God.
Or one Supreme Being with multiple superior beings under it, or simply unaware or it.
What would we need to be able to ask God and get an answer? Good question. And I don't think that there is a single human on this planet right now, from the smallest child up to the highest prelate, that can answer it. NO ONE has a direct phone line to God.
The main question is how would we find God if he exists. We can't do what you're saying because it operates under premise that God already exists.
We believe the Ark still exists and will be found one day.
You believe the Ark described in the Bible still exists. I think Moses built a boat large enough to put his children and his animals in (Perhaps with a warning from God) in order to avoid a regional flood, then it rotted away, and the story was exaggerated. Not counting on it as a way to answer my question.
-
You're confusing Noah's Ark with the Ark of the Covenant. Noah's Ark was a boat used to save himself, his family, and animals from the Flood (whether worldwide or otherwise being beside the point now. That was in Genesis).
The Ark of the Covenant that Moses built was a far different thing. It was a large chest that Moses built, and it was used to contain the Ten Commandments of the Law, plus a few other sacred items. The box was covered by the Mercy Seat, which was decorated with Cherubim, in the middle of which God came down to speak to Moses. That was in Exodus.
-
And Raiders of the Lost Ark.
-
You're confusing Noah's Ark with the Ark of the Covenant. Noah's Ark was a boat used to save himself, his family, and animals from the Flood (whether worldwide or otherwise being beside the point now. That was in Genesis).
The Ark of the Covenant that Moses built was a far different thing. It was a large chest that Moses built, and it was used to contain the Ten Commandments of the Law, plus a few other sacred items. The box was covered by the Mercy Seat, which was decorated with Cherubim, in the middle of which God came down to speak to Moses. That was in Exodus.
OH RIIIGHT, THAT ONE. I was thinking, how would a boat help you talk to God? However, the Covenant Ark isn't really reliable either. God might have cut of the connection, or something like that
You know, I have the sneaking suspicion that if God exists, he doesn't want to be found. Perhaps the only way to truly find God is through pure science, discovering everything we know about the universe and bumping into him by accident.
-
Aside from prayer, you might be right. I am not a scientist. A historian, a philosopher, a theologian, perhaps. A scientist, good God no!
-
How would one go about this? (All religion aside). Confirming the existence of a being that is at least in more than one place at once? If we can confirm this, all other questions can be answered because the being is conscious enough to answer if we ask it. We currently do not have.....what we need to confirm this, so the essential question is, what would we need?
I have 2 suggestions
A) This method is very unscientific; look everywhere, analyze and re -analyze everything in the known universe (periodically as new discoveries are made), that might show slight evidence of a conscious being in more than one place
B) Increase our methods and abilities of observation, through bio-engineering or some other way (periodically), then do (A)
(http://)
As a Gnostic Christian, I follow the advise given by Jesus to find God.
I have found what we have been calling God but it is not as described by religious God pissing contests. That have added too many lies to the title of God.
To the ancients before the idiocy of the God pissing contests, God was a man. Emperors named themselves God and their sons, sons of God.
Regards
DL
-
Back in the day, the Bible records that Moses built an Ark of the Covenant, and that God's Presence was on the Mercy Seat. That God actually spoke to him from the Mercy Seat. In the film "Raiders of the Lost Ark" the antagonistic archaeologist Belloc tells Jones, "The Ark is a radio for talking to God!".
That's actually the idea of the quack Erich Von Daniken. In his famous piece of hackery Chariots of the Gods - he claims it is to talk to an orbiting alien who everyone considers is a god. Later on in a film he goes for the more "traditional" hypothesis that the Ark was a giant Leyden Jar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyden_jar). Daniken pretty much just makes shit up as he goes along.
People have been claiming that the Ark was a giant condenser for while - Mythbusters even tested it. Of course if this was the case it just makes Moses a grand huckster using a trick to keep the people in line. No better than the priests putting bloodbags and the like in to statues and making them "weep" blood. I don't buy it myself, then again, I don't buy Moses existing in the first place.
I remember reading about a college prof who tried with some of his grad students in the 1960s to build an Ark according to biblical specifications. They ended up not finishing, and destroying what they had built, because the son-of-a-bitch started to conduct enough electricity to literally explode.
More Von Daniken bullshit I'm afraid.
And before you ask, no, I don't remember where I read that bit about the Professor and his Ark.
Which is kind of weird, as on June 1st on another, err, flat earth forum you were told it was from Von Daniken and admitted this story was bullshit:
I noticed that reference also. I can assure you that my Rabbi is no admirer of von Daniken, and neither am I, given what I have read of his stuff. I shall cheerfully withdraw the point. After having done the research, I have been able to find no corroborating evidence for the claim that students and their professor built a replica of the Ark. That point having been conceded, let us move on.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1104.msg31041#msg31041 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1104.msg31041#msg31041)
Which makes me think you are not being an honest debater ::) I'll cut you some slack and presume you forgot about that exchange.....though for an historian you have a pretty...hmm...easy going approach to sources.
-
To be honest, I had forgotten about the exchange. Thank you for the slack. I shall again concede the point, as I likely will be unable to find any valid sources re: "professor and his students". Re: Erich von Daniken, I have read his stuff, and found that it is bullshit, to be blunt. I have several of his books. I regret that I spent hard cash for them, but, well, we all do dumb things. I thought he might actually have a point or two to make, and I had heard he had some interesting theories.
Well, he DOES have some interesting theories. But not in a good way. The guy's a total schmuck. He's got his head so far up his own ass that he can taste his own breakfast when it comes out round teatime in his bowel movement. The worst part is, he's actually become a multi-fucking millionaire. I was willing to cut the guy some slack and give his ideas a chance as one of my threads here, entitled "Erich von Daniken", will indicate. But he is just an alter kacker of the truest kind.
I'm always willing to look at sources that other people might overlook, or not give a chance, but for fuck's sake, you can't compromise basic academic integrity. Von Daniken is just an asshole. I mean, for one whole section of the book, he quotes (or rather, misquotes) The Book of Mormon from hell to breakfast.
One, The Book of Mormon is not accepted as a viable source by any academic person outside of BYU. I mean, seriously. Even if one does not accept belief in God, one can still use the Bible for its historical relevance, even if one questions how accurate it is. At least Jericho, for example, whether or not it had walls around it, and whether they fell down or not, was a city that existed (and still does, incidentally). Zarahemla was not, and is not, and never was. But to misquote the book is even worse!
I've read The Book of Mormon three times, and find it rather humourous, frankly. But that's beside the point. The fact that he would use it as a valid source tells you all you need to know about his skills as an academic. I remember when I was an up-and-coming academic myself, I asked a colleague, who taught Native American History (I then was an Adjunct teaching American History and World History), what she thought of The Book of Mormon. The look I got in response was more than enough. She didn't have to actually SAY anything at all.
So, back to the Ark of the Covenant. The Bible tells us that it was a device that Moses used to communicate directly with God. It tells us further that it could kill a person just because said person touched it. It says further that the army that marched with it was more or less invincible. Unfortunately, it does NOT indicate HOW any of this worked. It would take Lucasfilm to come up with all that.
So, von Daniken thinks that the Ark was a Leyden Jar. That seems a little odd. I mean, the Leyden Jar was certainly a fascinating invention in the 18th Century, by the standard of the time, and was created by an admittedly brilliant German scholar/clergyman. But one would think that GOD, I mean, seriously, we're talking about GOD here, one would think that God would have better ideas than an 18th Century invention by a German clergyman, no matter how brilliant.
I personally don't claim to know what the Hell the Ark was or is. I believe that if and when it is found (assuming it still exists), then we all stand to be a bit surprised, whether we are faithful Jews, or Lucasfilm execs. Personally, I think it does still exist, but that is possibly just wishful thinking on my part. Who knows?
But what is the thing? Maybe in biblical days it was what the Bible says it was. And maybe now, if we found it, it would be exactly those things again. On the other hand, our Rabbis have said, "After Malachi, the Prophecy went out of Israel". Will the return of the Ark indicate the coming of the Messiah and the Return of the Prophecy to Israel? Then I expect the Ark would BE those things again. But maybe the coming of Messiah will be only the fulfillment of prophecy and not the return thereof. In which case, the finding of the Ark might just be the finding of a very pretty and rather useless box, relevant for historical purposes only (granted, it would still hold, presumably, the Ten Commandments carved by God, so that would be interesting in and of itself, to get God's handwriting), so there you are.
-
How would one go about this? (All religion aside). Confirming the existence of a being that is at least in more than one place at once? If we can confirm this, all other questions can be answered because the being is conscious enough to answer if we ask it. We currently do not have.....what we need to confirm this, so the essential question is, what would we need?
I have 2 suggestions
A) This method is very unscientific; look everywhere, analyze and re -analyze everything in the known universe (periodically as new discoveries are made), that might show slight evidence of a conscious being in more than one place
B) Increase our methods and abilities of observation, through bio-engineering or some other way (periodically), then do (A)
(http://)
As a Gnostic Christian, I follow the advise given by Jesus to find God.
I have found what we have been calling God but it is not as described by religious God pissing contests. That have added too many lies to the title of God.
To the ancients before the idiocy of the God pissing contests, God was a man. Emperors named themselves God and their sons, sons of God.
Regards
DL
By God I mean a superior/supreme being. And by finding I mean scientifically finding
-
How would one go about this? (All religion aside). Confirming the existence of a being that is at least in more than one place at once? If we can confirm this, all other questions can be answered because the being is conscious enough to answer if we ask it. We currently do not have.....what we need to confirm this, so the essential question is, what would we need?
I have 2 suggestions
A) This method is very unscientific; look everywhere, analyze and re -analyze everything in the known universe (periodically as new discoveries are made), that might show slight evidence of a conscious being in more than one place
B) Increase our methods and abilities of observation, through bio-engineering or some other way (periodically), then do (A)
(http://)
As a Gnostic Christian, I follow the advise given by Jesus to find God.
I have found what we have been calling God but it is not as described by religious God pissing contests. That have added too many lies to the title of God.
To the ancients before the idiocy of the God pissing contests, God was a man. Emperors named themselves God and their sons, sons of God.
Regards
DL
By God I mean a superior/supreme being. And by finding I mean scientifically finding
What makes you think there are such beings or one such being around?
And if there was, why do you think he would be interested in such a stupid species as man?
(http://)
Regards
DL
-
How would one go about this? (All religion aside). Confirming the existence of a being that is at least in more than one place at once? If we can confirm this, all other questions can be answered because the being is conscious enough to answer if we ask it. We currently do not have.....what we need to confirm this, so the essential question is, what would we need?
I have 2 suggestions
A) This method is very unscientific; look everywhere, analyze and re -analyze everything in the known universe (periodically as new discoveries are made), that might show slight evidence of a conscious being in more than one place
B) Increase our methods and abilities of observation, through bio-engineering or some other way (periodically), then do (A)
(http://)
As a Gnostic Christian, I follow the advise given by Jesus to find God.
I have found what we have been calling God but it is not as described by religious God pissing contests. That have added too many lies to the title of God.
To the ancients before the idiocy of the God pissing contests, God was a man. Emperors named themselves God and their sons, sons of God.
Regards
DL
By God I mean a superior/supreme being. And by finding I mean scientifically finding
What makes you think there are such beings or one such being around?
That's the entire point of this thread. Discussing ways we would confirm/falsify God, the Supreme Being
And if there was, why do you think he would be interested in such a stupid species as man?
I've heard this argument many times. It's stupid. It's like asking why microbiologists create and study bacteria cultures. To gather information. Out of pure interest.
(http://)
Please refrain from linking videos I don't care about.
EDIT: Problems with the quote thingy
-
The biggest problem with proving/falsifying god is the claim is specifically designed to be unfalsifiable. God was once though to be living in a cave, that only the shaman could venture into and talk to, it was a method of control, as the leaders would divulge god's bidding to their followers, usually offerings and riches. Eventually one of the followers ventured into the forbidden cave, and found nothing. Then God was put on top of a mountain, then up in the sky, and eventually all around us, but invisible and undetectable except by those he chooses.
If you look everywhere in the universe and find nothing, it will be claimed god is beyond the universe, if you look beyond the universe, it can be claimed he is beyond whatever is beyond the universe.
-
How would one go about this? (All religion aside). Confirming the existence of a being that is at least in more than one place at once? If we can confirm this, all other questions can be answered because the being is conscious enough to answer if we ask it. We currently do not have.....what we need to confirm this, so the essential question is, what would we need?
I have 2 suggestions
A) This method is very unscientific; look everywhere, analyze and re -analyze everything in the known universe (periodically as new discoveries are made), that might show slight evidence of a conscious being in more than one place
B) Increase our methods and abilities of observation, through bio-engineering or some other way (periodically), then do (A)
(http://)
As a Gnostic Christian, I follow the advise given by Jesus to find God.
I have found what we have been calling God but it is not as described by religious God pissing contests. That have added too many lies to the title of God.
To the ancients before the idiocy of the God pissing contests, God was a man. Emperors named themselves God and their sons, sons of God.
Regards
DL
By God I mean a superior/supreme being. And by finding I mean scientifically finding
What makes you think there are such beings or one such being around?
That's the entire point of this thread. Discussing ways we would confirm/falsify God, the Supreme Being
And if there was, why do you think he would be interested in such a stupid species as man?
I've heard this argument many times. It's stupid. It's like asking why microbiologists create and study bacteria cultures. To gather information. Out of pure interest.
(http://)
Please refrain from linking videos I don't care about.
EDIT: Problems with the quote thingy
Yours is a logical fallacy. The only way to prove the God you are talking about is for him to show up.
There is no other possible piece of evidence that will do.
Regards
DL
-
Yours is a logical fallacy. The only way to prove the God you are talking about is for him to show up.
There is no other possible piece of evidence that will do.
Perhaps the bacteria culture will evolve enough to meet the scientist who made it?
-
The biggest problem with proving/falsifying god is the claim is specifically designed to be unfalsifiable. God was once though to be living in a cave, that only the shaman could venture into and talk to, it was a method of control, as the leaders would divulge god's bidding to their followers, usually offerings and riches. Eventually one of the followers ventured into the forbidden cave, and found nothing. Then God was put on top of a mountain, then up in the sky, and eventually all around us, but invisible and undetectable except by those he chooses
Yea, but the thing is, you've got your order mixed up. Theism existed before any sort of leadership system, and God was believed to be everywhere in nature at once, and then later on in history, priests and whatnot tried to say that God was in such-and-such temple and only they could talk to him.
-
I've heard this argument many times. It's stupid. It's like asking why microbiologists create and study bacteria cultures. To gather information. Out of pure interest.
Microbiologists don't get all upset when their bacteria cultures don't worship them.
-
Yours is a logical fallacy. The only way to prove the God you are talking about is for him to show up.
There is no other possible piece of evidence that will do.
Perhaps the bacteria culture will evolve enough to meet the scientist who made it?
We are not bacteria and we have already met our maker.
Who but a man has ever said anything of God. It has always been men as no God has ever popped up.
(http://)
Even Jesus said that man is God.
(http://)
Regards
DL
-
The biggest problem with proving/falsifying god is the claim is specifically designed to be unfalsifiable. God was once though to be living in a cave, that only the shaman could venture into and talk to, it was a method of control, as the leaders would divulge god's bidding to their followers, usually offerings and riches. Eventually one of the followers ventured into the forbidden cave, and found nothing. Then God was put on top of a mountain, then up in the sky, and eventually all around us, but invisible and undetectable except by those he chooses
Yea, but the thing is, you've got your order mixed up. Theism existed before any sort of leadership system, and God was believed to be everywhere in nature at once, and then later on in history, priests and whatnot tried to say that God was in such-and-such temple and only they could talk to him.
If you cannot see God everywhere, you will never find him anywhere.
That is more or less what Jesus taught.
Regards
DL
-
That is more or less what Jesus taught.
How do you know?
There is only one source for the teachings of Jesus, and that's the bible - a book you deny the historicity of. A book written 80 years after his death by people who never met him.
-
That is more or less what Jesus taught.
How do you know?
There is only one source for the teachings of Jesus, and that's the bible - a book you deny the historicity of. A book written 80 years after his death by people who never met him.
True.
I see the bible as a consolidation of many of the ancient religions and traditions and some of it is quite good. Especially what the church will never teach like the esoteric words that have been ascribed to Jesus.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
I do not know if there is actually anything original to Christianity in the bible although I have never heard of any other religion that is based on human sacrifice and adherents trying to profit from a God having his son needlessly murdered to appease his own wrath.
You are right though that I cannot know for a fact Jesus said those words. We have nothing that we think he himself wrote.
Here is how I as a Gnostic Christian see Jesus. A literalized myth.
(http://)
Regards
DL
-
The biggest problem with proving/falsifying god is the claim is specifically designed to be unfalsifiable. God was once though to be living in a cave, that only the shaman could venture into and talk to, it was a method of control, as the leaders would divulge god's bidding to their followers, usually offerings and riches. Eventually one of the followers ventured into the forbidden cave, and found nothing. Then God was put on top of a mountain, then up in the sky, and eventually all around us, but invisible and undetectable except by those he chooses
Yea, but the thing is, you've got your order mixed up. Theism existed before any sort of leadership system, and God was believed to be everywhere in nature at once, and then later on in history, priests and whatnot tried to say that God was in such-and-such temple and only they could talk to him.
My point still stands, and I never said that was the first instance of theism.
-
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
sorry a bit off topic, but this quote is one of my favorites.
I also like:
Matthew 6:5-6: And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
-
I've heard this argument many times. It's stupid. It's like asking why microbiologists create and study bacteria cultures. To gather information. Out of pure interest.
Microbiologists don't get all upset when their bacteria cultures don't worship them.
Neither does God.
-
The biggest problem with proving/falsifying god is the claim is specifically designed to be unfalsifiable. God was once though to be living in a cave, that only the shaman could venture into and talk to, it was a method of control, as the leaders would divulge god's bidding to their followers, usually offerings and riches. Eventually one of the followers ventured into the forbidden cave, and found nothing. Then God was put on top of a mountain, then up in the sky, and eventually all around us, but invisible and undetectable except by those he chooses
Yea, but the thing is, you've got your order mixed up. Theism existed before any sort of leadership system, and God was believed to be everywhere in nature at once, and then later on in history, priests and whatnot tried to say that God was in such-and-such temple and only they could talk to him.
If you cannot see God everywhere, you will never find him anywhere.
If you cannot detect dark matter anywhere, you will never find it anywhere. Owait.....
That is more or less what Jesus taught.
I don't care
EDIT: Problems with the quote thingy
-
I've heard this argument many times. It's stupid. It's like asking why microbiologists create and study bacteria cultures. To gather information. Out of pure interest.
Microbiologists don't get all upset when their bacteria cultures don't worship them.
Neither does God.
Really? Not in the book I read.
You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
-
I've heard this argument many times. It's stupid. It's like asking why microbiologists create and study bacteria cultures. To gather information. Out of pure interest.
Microbiologists don't get all upset when their bacteria cultures don't worship them.
Neither does God.
Really? Not in the book I read.
You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
I can't say I'm fond of your literature choices. It seems you forgot about the original post.
How would one go about this? (All religion aside)
-
I think the ability to even think about if there is a possibility of God means yeah there is because why would we ever need to think about that from an evolutionary perspective? I mean if evolution always led to higher life-forms I think it could be said, "Why didn't we just evolve to live forever?" Why do we need all this repeatedly dying over and over again bullcrap? Why would we even need to think in the first place or feel anything at all? What makes us more alive then a rock or air? What even is life? How did matter and energy even come to the universe in the first place if there was a big bang? If space is a vacuum what is sucking? Where is it sucking? And how is it sucking?
If you are saying what is the supreme being, wouldn't that by definition be that which is the entire universe because you can't be more supreme then everything combined, well unless you created that which is from nothing...
...I suppose there is no way to believe in God without faith, because faith is believing in what you cannot see. Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but we still have to believe that our past memories are true or else our whole life just degrades into pure lunacy.
-
I can't say I'm fond of your literature choices. It seems you forgot about the original post.
What, the one where you didn't specify which god you are referring to?
Most religions involve a god that requires worship and/or sacrifice.
-
I think the ability to even think about if there is a possibility of God means yeah there is because why would we ever need to think about that from an evolutionary perspective? I mean if evolution always led to higher life-forms I think it could be said, "Why didn't we just evolve to live forever?" Why do we need all this repeatedly dying over and over again bullcrap? Why would we even need to think in the first place or feel anything at all? What makes us more alive then a rock or air? What even is life? How did matter and energy even come to the universe in the first place if there was a big bang? If space is a vacuum what is sucking? Where is it sucking? And how is it sucking?
If you are saying what is the supreme being, wouldn't that by definition be that which is the entire universe because you can't be more supreme then everything combined, well unless you created that which is from nothing...
...I suppose there is no way to believe in God without faith, because faith is believing in what you cannot see. Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but we still have to believe that our past memories are true or else our whole life just degrades into pure lunacy.
What even is this...what?
Okay I think i can make some sense of this.
Why didn't we just evolve to live forever?" Why do we need all this repeatedly dying over and over again bullcrap?
That mutation didn't pop up.
Why would we even need to think in the first place or feel anything at all?
That mutation did pop up.
What makes us more alive then a rock or air?
Having a brain and being made of organic compounds.
What even is life?
The state of being alive....?
If space is a vacuum what is sucking? Where is it sucking? And how is it sucking?
I wish there was a facepalm emoji. You guys need to put one in.
-
I can't say I'm fond of your literature choices. It seems you forgot about the original post.
What, the one where you didn't specify which god you are referring to?
Most religions involve a god that requires worship and/or sacrifice.
How would one go about this? (All religion aside)
-
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
sorry a bit off topic, but this quote is one of my favorites.
I also like:
Matthew 6:5-6: And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
At the end of this post there is an Allan Watts link you will like.
Gnostic Christian Mystery School Secret Truth #1.
All that can and is said of all Gods is speculative by nature as none of it is provable. To state that God exists cannot be a true statement unless one has a God to show. This is irrefutable as it can be shown that all Gods are based on ancient myths and stories. They are always to remain mysterious.
(http://)
All religions are based on myths, legends and hope in an afterlife that unfortunately turned to literal belief, --- and this one issue created the war against free thought that led to the purge of many cults that did not want to read literally and to the Inquisition and the Dark Ages. It ended the Mystery Schools.
Literalists cannot help but be wrong unless they rely on blind faith and that faith of fools has pushed Christians and Muslims to kill many due to this blind faith mind set. Christians will kill again, --- just like Islam is doing today thanks to literal reading, --- given the chance.
Christian literalist won against free thinking religions thanks to Constantine’s support --- but they cannot win today thanks to an intelligent population who are not superstitious nor as gullible as in past times and do not believe in fantasy, miracles and magic.
(http://)
Is literal reading of any scripture or holy book mentally good, or mentally evil?
Has literal reading done the damage I alluded to or has it been a good influence for mankind?
Regards
DL
P.S.
This thinking is the Gnostic Christian’s goal. (http://)
This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus.
(http://)
-
I've heard this argument many times. It's stupid. It's like asking why microbiologists create and study bacteria cultures. To gather information. Out of pure interest.
Microbiologists don't get all upset when their bacteria cultures don't worship them.
Neither does God.
God sure does. Payback is a bitch.
(http://)
Regards
DL
-
I've heard this argument many times. It's stupid. It's like asking why microbiologists create and study bacteria cultures. To gather information. Out of pure interest.
Microbiologists don't get all upset when their bacteria cultures don't worship them.
Neither does God.
God sure does. Payback is a bitch.
(http://)
Regards
DL
How would one go about this? (All religion aside)
Please refrain from posting stupidity no one cares about. We aren't talking about any form of Christianity, or any other religion, so all your Bible quotes and speculation on Christian history are irrelevant. Contribute to the topic or get the fuck out.
-
I think the ability to even think about if there is a possibility of God means yeah there is because why would we ever need to think about that from an evolutionary perspective? I mean if evolution always led to higher life-forms I think it could be said, "Why didn't we just evolve to live forever?" Why do we need all this repeatedly dying over and over again bullcrap? Why would we even need to think in the first place or feel anything at all? What makes us more alive then a rock or air? What even is life? How did matter and energy even come to the universe in the first place if there was a big bang? If space is a vacuum what is sucking? Where is it sucking? And how is it sucking?
If you are saying what is the supreme being, wouldn't that by definition be that which is the entire universe because you can't be more supreme then everything combined, well unless you created that which is from nothing...
...I suppose there is no way to believe in God without faith, because faith is believing in what you cannot see. Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but we still have to believe that our past memories are true or else our whole life just degrades into pure lunacy.
Evolution doesn't always lead to higher life forms (whatever "higher" means). It isn't about what we, or any other species, needs. Evolution is change over time, sometimes the changes are beneficial and sometimes they aren't. Also, there's no reason to evolve into beings that live forever, survival of the species only requires life long enough to produce successful offspring.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php#a3 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php#a3)
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.
CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive — for several reasons. First, as described in a misconception below (link to "Natural selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments"), natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are "good enough" to survive. Hence, evolutionary change is not always necessary for species to persist. Many taxa (like some mosses, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little physically over great expanses of time. Second, there are other mechanisms of evolution that don't cause adaptive change. Mutation, migration, and genetic drift may cause populations to evolve in ways that are actually harmful overall or make them less suitable for their environments. For example, the Afrikaner population of South Africa has an unusually high frequency of the gene responsible for Huntington's disease because the gene version drifted to high frequency as the population grew from a small starting population. Finally, the whole idea of "progress" doesn't make sense when it comes to evolution. Climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and an organism with traits that are beneficial in one situation may be poorly equipped for survival when the environment changes. And even if we focus on a single environment and habitat, the idea of how to measure "progress" is skewed by the perspective of the observer. From a plant's perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic ability; from a spider's it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery system; from a human's, cognitive ability. It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many twigs on the tree.
Re the topic - If there is a god somewhere, it would depend on the properties of the god whether or not it could be detected. If this being was omnipotent it could keep us from detecting it. If it isn't omnipotent, then it's not really a god, although there could be a being so advanced that it would seem like a god.
-
Re the topic - If there is a god somewhere, it would depend on the properties of the god whether or not it could be detected. If this being was omnipotent it could keep us from detecting it. If it isn't omnipotent, then it's not really a god, although there could be a being so advanced that it would seem like a god.
First thing relevant to the post in a long time. But I slightly disagree on the last statement. What about not being omnipotent makes something less of a god? We're not omnipotent, but we're still "potent" enough to control a bacteria or an ants universe.
-
Maybe you should explain your criteria for what constitutes a god, then. There's a possibility that there are creatures more advanced than humans somewhere in the universe... how much more advanced than us would they need to be to be gods to us?
-
Oh, sorry I just thought of this. Bacteria and ants are potent enough to control our universe, too.
We rely on bacteria, and we are killed by bacteria. We are not the gods of bacteria! If all humans died, there would still be bacteria. If all bacteria died, we wouldn't survive. We have a symbiotic relationship with them, but they don't need us.
We don't control the ants' universe. Being able to kill a few of them, isn't the same thing. The ants go marching on. They can kill us, we can kill them.
-
Maybe you should explain your criteria for what constitutes a god, then. There's a possibility that there are creatures more advanced than humans somewhere in the universe... how much more advanced than us would they need to be to be gods to us?
A god would be something that isn't physical, and probably exists on a different dimension than us.
-
Oh, sorry I just thought of this. Bacteria and ants are potent enough to control our universe, too.
We rely on bacteria, and we are killed by bacteria. We are not the gods of bacteria! If all humans died, there would still be bacteria. If all bacteria died, we wouldn't survive. We have a symbiotic relationship with them, but they don't need us.
We don't control the ants' universe. Being able to kill a few of them, isn't the same thing. The ants go marching on. They can kill us, we can kill them.
Yea, it was a bad comparison. Maybe it's more like we are gods to art and other drawn things, which is 2-dimesional and whose existence is completely dependent on us.
-
Maybe someday quantum physics will be able to determine what is in other dimensions.
-
Maybe someday quantum physics will be able to determine what is in other dimensions.
Someday might be in a couple decades.
-
Maybe someday quantum physics will be able to determine what is in other dimensions.
You will never see quantum physics be able to answer that question but in four decades (Approx: March 21st, 2055) a race of horned, winged, talking flying ape-like shape-shifters along with tens of thousands of Egyptians (Along with Ramses adopted brother of Moses) who where swallowed by the counter-space vortex and ended up on the outside of the World will return. They have not died because they have been implanted with nano-bots that make them never age and allow them to control elements. The total number returning might be around 200,000 total both men and beast. However even when they return asking them the question of if God exist won't really get you any answers because their leaders is the biggest liar in the universe and when he speaks of a lie he speaks of his own so he will probably just tell you that there are many gods and that you could become your own god if you follow him ect... of course I'm not sure how all of this will play out but I should still be alive by then so I guess it's all wait and see. I'll probably eventually be murdered by them though, at least most probably.