God Exists!

[Hegemonicretribution]

Alright, first of all forget any preconceptions of what is, or isn't a god. Scarcely two denominations, never mind religions have decided this the same, and I will not attempt to show anything along these lines as true, it is pointless.

God is that within which everything is contained, but is itself contained within nothing. Forget human traits, or even characteristics of conscience, morality, ethics, or anything else that has been attributed to god by man, for man's own ends.

There is no need for worship, it means nothing to something that exists only as an absolute concept.

As far as creationism goes, well as god is essentially taken as everything, creation is not conceivable without god, as the creation itself becomes a further extention of god.

Refute please.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 10:50 AM
Alright, first of all forget any preconceptions of what is, or isn't a god. Scarcely two denominations, never mind religions have decided this the same, and I will not attempt to show anything along these lines as true, it is pointless.

God is that within which everything is contained, but is itself contained within nothing. Forget human traits, or even characteristics of conscience, morality, ethics, or anything else that has been attributed to god by man, for man's own ends.

There is no need for worship, it means nothing to something that exists only as an absolute concept.

As far as creationism goes, well as god is essentially taken as everything, creation is not conceivable without god, as the creation itself becomes a further extention of god.

Refute please.
This makes absolutely no sense at all.

Next new-age crackpot theory, please.

[LSD]

Alright, first of all forget any preconceptions of what is, or isn't a god.

Alright, first of all that makes no sense.

It's like begining a mathematical proof that X=Y by saying "forget about Y".

The english word "God" has a specific meaning. Feel free to consult a dictionary to confirm this, but it's pretty universally accepted. Any "proof" of "God", therefore, must conform to this definition.

That is, a proof of "God" is really a proof of the underlying concepts understood to be described by the word "God". You didn't do that and as such, your "proof" is faulty.


God is that within which everything is contained, but is itself contained within nothing.

No, God is A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

Don't belive me? Look it up. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=God)


Forget human traits, or even characteristics of conscience, morality, ethics, or anything else that has been attributed to god by man, for man's own ends.

Sorry but "by man, for man's own ends" is all we've got. "God" is an invention of man; the word, the concept, the idea. You cannot remove the humanity from a human-born idea, you can only work with what you have.

If there really is a "God", then by definition, it is the "God" that people speak of. Something as exotic and impersonal such as you describe does not fit any reasonable definition of "God" and so cannot be in good faith called one.


Refute please.

Refute what?

Your "proof" was nice and verbose, not to mention pedantic, but it didn't actually address the subject.

You, basically, asserted that the universe ("that within which everything is contained, but is itself contained within nothing") exists, and considering that that the existance of an objective universe is a foundational axiom of materialist thinking... you really didn't accomplish anything!

If you want to prove that God exists, you'll have to actually prove that God exists!

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:50 PM






Alright, first of all forget any preconceptions of what is, or isn't a god. Scarcely two denominations, never mind religions have decided this the same, and I will not attempt to show anything along these lines as true, it is pointless.

So if we forget our preconceptions, how do we know it IS God?

If you forgot your preconceptions about humans, how would you know what a human was? You wouldn't.


God is that within which everything is contained, but is itself contained within nothing. Forget human traits, or even characteristics of conscience, morality, ethics, or anything else that has been attributed to god by man, for man's own ends.

Spinoza called: he wants Pantheism back.



There is no need for worship, it means nothing to something that exists only as an absolute concept.


As opposed to an inabsolute concept?



As far as creationism goes, well as god is essentially taken as everything, creation is not conceivable without god, as the creation itself becomes a further extention of god.

A God that is everything is a God that is nothing.

[Hegemonicretribution]

First of all the reason I didn't use a dictionary definition is because all sorts of people hold different views of god.

The perfect being is not held by everyone, there are those that think there is a creator, but with no specific attributes. There are "Christians" that deny the old testament god, and take Jesus as there god. What constitutes god is different in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity to some degree. So proof of one may not be that of another. Also every understanding is personal and unique.

I didn't talk about the ridiculous concept that we see as god for two reasons. First of all, not everyone that believes in god accepts this, second of all, it is ridiculous.


"God" is an invention of man; the word, the concept, the idea. You cannot remove the humanity from a human-born idea, you can only work with what you have.
Is this concept also not human in its creation?

I didn't address the subject as you guys anticiate it should be, because essentially I am with you as regards to that. I was just testing how complete the hatred of god as a concept in any form was. Could I claim this as a true religion :lol: ?


So if we forget our preconceptions, how do we know it IS God?
It is as I outlined it. All religion outlines it differently.


Spinoza called: he wants Pantheism back. :lol: :lol: LMAO, this actually made my night.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:31 AM



First of all the reason I didn't use a dictionary definition is because all sorts of people hold different views of god.

Which makes 'finding God' even MORE absurd a concept.

If every God is different, how are we to find him? Trust someone who says they did?




The perfect being is not held by everyone, there are those that think there is a creator, but with no specific attributes. There are "Christians" that deny the old testament god, and take Jesus as there god. What constitutes god is different in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity to some degree. So proof of one may not be that of another. Also every understanding is personal and unique.


Or, alternatively, they're ALL wrong.



I didn't talk about the ridiculous concept that we see as god for two reasons. First of all, not everyone that believes in god accepts this, second of all, it is ridiculous.


:rolleyes:



Is this concept also not human in its creation?

I didn't address the subject as you guys anticiate it should be, because essentially I am with you as regards to that. I was just testing how complete the hatred of god as a concept in any form was. Could I claim this as a true religion :lol: ?

Deism and panetheism are better than regular religion, I would agree, as they are not codified, specify no allegiance to either God or his earthly vessels are more logical than other religions.

But if you're rational enough to see that religion is shit and become a deist, as I was, why not just realize that deism is also pointless and take that final step of logic and become an atheist, as I did?



It is as I outlined it. All religion outlines it differently.

And you don't see anything wrong with the person determining the proof allowing himself to set up the criteria as well?

"This just in, 2+2=4 proves God exists, because 'My God' exists if '2+2=4'!"

See how rediculous this is?



:lol: :lol: LMAO, this actually made my night.

My wit knows no bounds.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I guess (as I am actually best described as an athiest) this post was taken more seriously than I expected. I was trying to create a "religious" concet that would be a little harder to knock than the normal crap we are presented with, and redefining god as something similar to Spinoza's interpretation of the "absolute" seemed like a bit of fun.

This was similar in intent to the Flying Saghetti Monster thread, but instead of creating another absurd concept, I wanted to attribute something that is self defined to the word "god." Saying that bachelors are unmarried is a bit like saying you belief in my version of god, and yes I see the problem with me both defining the premises of my god, and the roof for it, but it was a joke.


See how rediculous this is?
Yes, as I stated several times, fun though.


My wit knows no bounds.
You should introduce it to my god then.

[Publius]

I am God.

That should end further debate.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 07:11 PM
I am God.

That should end further debate.
Can you please get pray waiting or something? I'm really tired of busy signals.

[jambajuice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:50 PM
Alright, first of all forget any preconceptions of what is, or isn't a god. Scarcely two denominations, never mind religions have decided this the same, and I will not attempt to show anything along these lines as true, it is pointless.

God is that within which everything is contained, but is itself contained within nothing. Forget human traits, or even characteristics of conscience, morality, ethics, or anything else that has been attributed to god by man, for man's own ends.

There is no need for worship, it means nothing to something that exists only as an absolute concept.

As far as creationism goes, well as god is essentially taken as everything, creation is not conceivable without god, as the creation itself becomes a further extention of god.

Refute please.
I saw a UFO. Aliens exist.

Refute please.........

Does all that above that I just wrote sound familiar?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

:rolleyes:

The burden of proof lies on the person that makes a claim, it's not up the the cynic to prove it false.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:49 AM
The burden of proof lies on the person that makes a claim, it's not up the the cynic to prove it false.
The claim was made, and I thought it would more obvious what I meant. On the one hand I was implying God could be known a-priori because it (in the sense I implied) is detectable and logically coherent. Whether or not you view it as a non-claim, or pointless is another issue.

The idea was a show of the absurdity of religion, but whereas most crappy gods could not be realised, what I claimed was god could.

jambajuice, that is a very different example. If you want to criticise something by throwing an absurd example back at it, do it with one that has some relevance. "If the property most people attribute to black is the same as the one I attribute to "white" then I could claim that any black thing is a white thing." That is more like it. What you did was make an assertion based on apparent empirical evidence. However we did not observe you observing, so therefore this would be taken on faith, which is what we are against. You also have the problem of causality between the UFO and alien existence.

I claimed that part of our concept of existence was just that, but termed it god, that is all.

[Counter-Insurgent]

Until we get pass mythology as a prime driver and guide in our existence, we will not maximize our progress or self actualize as a species.