mathematical proof of the non existence of god

[peaccenicked]

let Y=God let 1 = an entity
If a1, a2,a3,a4.......................................... ab(infinity)
If 'a' represents all constants and variables in the universe including the universe.(outside of mans mind)
premise 1. No combinations of 'a' can be shown to be Y
premise 2. since no operation on 'a' by another can produce or be equated to Y
Y can never = 1
Y=0 at all times
No combination of a1,a2 can be shown to produce any probabality of Z=1 not even at an infinite to one ratio.
therefore Z can not have or can have ever existed.
that is to say all claims that Z=1 posit Z beforehand
THIS MEANS THAT GOD CAN ONLY EXIST AS AN ABSTRACT ENTITY CREATED MY MAN AND NECESSARILY HAS NO OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE OUTSIDE THOUGHT.
Does thise proof live up to a definition of a proof?
What is the objection.?
This seems to be the essence I have distilled from the derminator but maybe he'll derminate me.

[Xanderbeaux]

say what, run that through me again, this is just a hypothesis right?
cause this would be a great blow for the church

[El Che]

But you see the problem with your little equasion there is that you can not be sure of the possibility of objectivly identifing Y. This does not mean it doesnt exist, it means you cant see it, objectivly, mathematicaly indentify it. Or at least you cant be sure that you can. For entity Y posits it self on a different level from a1,a2,a3. no combination of a`s can be shown to be Y, but peace if you could identify Y then you wouldnt need your a`s would you? You must be true to logic. Must be true to math. I understand you want to help your friend, but this is not the way. Not the way.

* = any mathmatical combination/operation

a1*a2*a3 =/= Y

Y =/= a`s
Y=Y
Y=0 <--- You would have to know all of reality, in its full, to assert this.

If you knew all the a`s you might find this

a3312321231 =Y

Untill you acout for all the A´s you cant say that Y is not a given "a"

Whats more, not being an A doesnt mean its not something else. Maybe all you know, all you can grasp is A`s and maybe there is something that equals 1 and that is not an A.

These are the 2 errors with your little theory there.
1- You must acount for all the A`s, not dismiss them "to infinity"
2- You fail to prove how 0 of A = 0 of R, R being reality.

[El Che]

one more thing i forgot, you would have to acount for all the *. Can you peace acount for every possible mathmatical operation? not every operation known to man. Tell me did i determinate you?

[peaccenicked]

Your counter evidence is based in espitemological
agnosticism.
but I can account for all 'a's
all 'a's have an essential nature apart from quantifiers.
An entity for it to exist must have an essential nature ie
its telos, its development as process.
ALL operations on 'a' are not yet known, this is true.
However this is not good enough reason to dismiss a proof, for we do not wait for the universe to satisfy
every possible condition before we bury an old idea.
All attributes of god are historical. Nothing in history validates god or nothing in it proposes the future validation of god beyond the ressurection.
Should we wait for the end time to declare what all reason points to, god can have no substantiate qualities
beyond human guessing.
btw An atheist claims that he knows god does not exist
you have to persuade me that agnosticism has any more tangible raison d'etre than theology.

[Moskitto]

The thing with that is that some religions either do not worship god (Jainism) or worship god as an "abstract" form (Bhuddism and Taoism.) Ah, Eastern wisdom, one of the wisest things in the world.

[El Che]

Oh I know god doesnt exist, I just cant prove it. I know its just a folish superstition based human weakness and fear. I am convinced of this. That it is a fiction. But allas i cant in truth say im 100% sure. But to say that one can prove it! well, that is just a statement i cant resist to challange.

[Supermodel]

Peace, you're defining existence as mankind. God is not a man, so God does not exist in your model.

But God is not a man, no one ever claimed He was.

Here's some more circular logic for you: I can actually accept that God is a figment of man's imagination. Except that I also believe that God gave man his imagination. I don't need proof, I have seen enough of the miracle of life and the workings of the earth to know that we are not in charge.

[peaccenicked]

I think that knowledge and proof live side by side that they are interdependent. All the evidence points to the non existence of god as any sort of entitity what ever.
If a religion does not worship god that is at least one mistake less in its doctrines. God as abstract form, is at least an admission of the emptiness of the concept.
To say life is a miracle is a good value judgement on the begginning of life but it does not posit a creator. the creator is a theological construct. In one religion the universe is god's sneeze. There is no purpose to
first cause speculation other than to consruct a mythology.

[MindCrime]

Supermodel,

The Christian Church does recognize that God became mortal in the form of Jesus Christ. That he projected himself down as human form as the "Son of God." So in such respects, God could be concidered a man, or at least having similar properties as one (he had to eat, drink, breathe etc...). Therefore, God does share similar qualities with man. We were "made in his image" according to Christian mythos. Such as it is, certain qualities of Man can be attributed to the divine, and expected to work in the same manner, so God can perhaps be represented in the terms of Mankind.

[peaccenicked]

god is given super human atributes
but never the less human atributes.
There can be no image of god that does not refer to human characteristics....all powerful all seeing
etc are all absolte extensions of the human form.
god was invented out of the forms of human existence.
To say man is made in his image is to turn the truth on its head and reify mythology.
Lets call this the ontic proof of the non existence of god.

[Moskitto]

Perhaps "God" is the personification of all the laws of physics who's just been given human characterists.

[peaccenicked]

yes but this would be building a god out of concepts that have no intrisic interconnection.
here is Lenin on in a letter to Gorky.

TO MAXIM GORKY

. . . On the question of god, the god-like and everything connected with it, there is a contradiction in your position -- the same, I think, which I used to point out in our talks when we last met in Capri. You broke (or appeared to break) with the Vperyod people, without having noticed the ideological basis of "Vperyodism".

The same has happened now. You are "most vexed", you "cannot understand how the words 'for the time being' crept in" -- that is how you write -- and yet at the same time you defend the idea of God and god-building.

"God is the complex of those ideas, worked out by the tribe, the nation, mankind, which awaken and organise social feelings, having as their object to link the individual with society and to bridle zoological individualism."

This theory is obviously connected with the theory or theories of Bogdanov and Lunacharsky.

And it is clearly wrong and clearly reactionary. like the Christian socialists (the worst variety of "socialism", and its worst distortion), you make use of a method which (despite your best intentions) repeats the hocus-pocus of the priests: you eliminate from the idea of God everything about it that is historical and drawn from real life (filth, prejudices, sanctified ignorance and degradation, on the one hand, serfdom and monarchy, on the other), and instead of the reality of history and life there is substituted in the idea of God a gentle petty-bourgeois phrase (God = ideas which awaken and organise social feelings").


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The beginning of the letter has never been found. --Ed.

page 128


Your wish in so doing is to say something "good and kind", to point out "truth and justice" and the like. But your good wish remains your personal affair, a subjective "innocent desire". Once you have written it down, it goes out among the masses and its significance is determined not by your good wishes, but by the relationship of social forces, the objective relationship of classes. By virtue of that relationship it turns out (irrespective of your will and independently of your consciousness) that you have put a good colour and a sugary coating on the idea of the clericals, the Purishkeviches, Nicholas II and the Struves,[145] since in practice the idea of God helps them keep the people in slavery. By beautifying the idea of god, you have beautified the chains with which they fetter ignorant workers and peasants. There -- the priests and Co. will say -- what a good and profound idea this is (the idea of God), as even "your " leaders recognise, Messrs. democrats: and we (the priests and Co.) serve that idea.

It is untrue that god is the complex of ideas which awaken and organise social feelings. That is Bogdanov idealism, which suppresses the material origin of ideas. God is (in history and in real life) first of all the complex of ideas generated by the brutish subjection of man both by external nature and by the class yoke -- ideas which consolidate that subjection, lull to sleep the class struggle. There was a time in history when, in spite of such an origin and such a real meaning of the idea of God, the struggle of democracy and of the proletariat went on in the form of a struggle of one religious idea against another.

But that time, too, is long past.

Nowadays both in Europe and in Russia any, even the most refined and best-intentioned defence or justification of the idea of God is a justification of reaction.

Your entire definition is reactionary and bourgeois, through and through. God = the complex of ideas which "awaken and organise social feelings, having as their object to link the individual with society and to bridle zoological individualism".

Why is this reactionary? Because it falsely colours the idea of "bridling" zoology preached by priests and feudals. In reality, "zoological individualism" was bridled not by


page 129

the idea of God, it was bridled both by the primitive herd and the primitive community. The idea of God always put to sleep and blunted the "social feelings", replacing the living by the dead, being always the idea of slavery (the worst, hopeless slavery). Never has the idea of God linked the individual with society": it has always tied the oppressed classes hand and foot with faith in the divinity of the oppressors.

Your definition is bourgeois (and not scientific, not historical) because it operates with sweeping, general, "Robinson Crusoe" conceptions in general, not with definite classes in a definite historical epoch.

The idea of God among the Zyrian savages, etc. (including semi-savages) is one thing. With Struve and Co. it is something quite different. In both cases class domination supports this idea (and this idea supports it). The "popular" conception of God and the divine is "popular" ignorance, degradation, darkness, just like the "popular conception" of the tsar, the devil and dragging wives by the hair. I completely fail to understand how you can call the "popular conception" of God "democratic".

It is untrue that philosophical idealism "always has in view only the interests of the individual". Did Descartes have the interests of the individual more in mind than Gassendi? Or Fichte and Hegel as compared with Feuerbach?

That "god-building is the process of the further development and accumulation of social elements in the individual and society" is simply terrible!! If there were freedom in Russia, the entire bourgeoisie would praise you to the skies for such things, for such sociology and theology of a purely bourgeois type and character.

Well, that's enough for the time being: this letter is too long as it is. Once again, I shake your hand and wish you good health.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qframe.htm





(Edited by peaccenicked at 11:08 pm on Feb. 18, 2002)

[Rosa]

to Xander...: what, do you want to say that church don't know for theese arguments?
to El Che: when you think something, and you don't have a proofs for it - it's not called "KNOWLEDGE", but "believi..ie..to see dictionary.."beli(e?)ving"

[Rosa]

I have a proof that the god doesn't exist: "The god is dead! God becomes a dead! And we've killed him!" (Nietzsche, Die frohliche Wissenschaft, p.125)
That's the proof wich has the form of your prooves.
So,he doesn't exist. I've killed him. Proove that I'm wrong, if you can.
I killed him by my own hands, he yelled, and he scrimed, and he was angry, and he was threatening to me, but I killed him. And smiled. The rest of my life. So I KNOW that he doesnt exist(...smoke too much, sorry peaccenick)...Read Berger&Luckmann, "The Social Construction of Reality"

[MindCrime]

So true! A bieng of belief and though can be killed by simple exertion of the mind! By simple willing of it to be, God is no more...Very intriguing Rosa.

[alphaq]

Rosa thats a pretty smart response...
As for peaccenicked, although I don't believe in God, I can never prove that God doesn't exist. A woman once asked Stephen Hawking to prove that the universe did not rest on the back of a giant turtle. His first response was that they could physically look for it, perform some tests, etc. She then replied that this turtle was invisible to all tests and observations. Hawking replied that if there is no way to measure or observe it, then he certainly can't disprove it, but at the same time he has no reason to believe it. I think the best that we can do is show that the concept of God brings forth some logical conundrums... for ex., for those who believe that God is all powerful, one could ask them if He could create a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it. Any answer to this quesiton exposes the contradiction inherent in the concept of an all powerful being that is logically accessible to man.

[El Che]

Rubbish.

[peaccenicked]

stephen hawking might be a great scientist but he is a poor philosopher.
We know that the universe is not on the back on
a giant turtle because it defies all logic and questioning.
All you have done is render absurd mans tools of recognition.
If we use any all the meanderings of irrationalism.
we may as well wait for some magical elf to come along and give us freedom and hapiness.
in the word of El che "rubbish"

[Rosa]

you are the elf? I'll get my own freedom, thanks for the happiness.

[peaccenicked]

An elf no.
nasty big monster with five eyes and radiation sickness maybe.

[Rosa]

Elf, elf...won't fool me:it's an elf. Clever tiny gentile wood being with sense for estethics

[Da Shit]

bah
semanthics. the god of yesterday was an entity that created stuff. the god of today could be nature, everything, galaxies, stars, planets, matter/anti-matter, atoms, quarks, gluons, photons etc etc etc etc etc. the god of tomorrow will be sumthin else. or maybe not

i think god is merely the translation of what people in general think about existence, and the "whys" of it

(Edited by Da Shit at 1:54 am on Feb. 20, 2002)

[Bakunjin]

God didn't invent people...
PEOPLE INVENTED GOD

[Da Shit]

on the other hand i am god, for i am Da Shit

but that is obvious

(Edited by Da Shit at 1:59 am on Feb. 20, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

da shit
you get my vote but now that you're god will you help me prove that everything else is not god.
Get some real substance or become an elf like me.

[alphaq]

Hawking's point is that its absurd to claim that the universe rests on the back of a giant turtle, but as absurd as it is, you really can't disprove it. This is such with God, who is somewhat of an absurd concept. Since both the turtle and God are absurd concepts, most rational minds will choose not to believe in them, however, we cannot expect to construct mathematical proofs which show their non-existence.

[peaccenicked]

Let A=tooth fairy Let real world ouside of peoplesheads=B
A can never= something of B
by any operation mathematical or not.
Turtles holding up the universe and god fall by the wayside by this formula which cannot be shown to be untrue.

[CPK]

uhhh.... 2+2=3?

[sabre]

CPK - 2+2=5!( not 3 or 4 ! )

(1984)

[CPK]

dang...

[Rosa]

to Peaccenick: A can make B to become an A. A can try to do it. You don't know if you don't try. So, explore where your limits are. Then you'll find at least what your shape is.

[peaccenicked]

in real of the imagination anything goes
but no matter how much I excell in my limits.
God will not have any substantive form

[Rosa]

But if you are the demiurg, the creator, that makes you a god, doesn't it?

[peaccenicked]

my delusions of granduer are not so bold.
the status of human creator is good enough.

[vox]

"all 'a's have an essential nature apart from quantifiers."

Ah, but isn't this the real flaw in your original statement? You left a undefined. You left that which you seek to qualify undefined. If Y=God and a=something-other-than-God, then all you've really done is catalouged various forms of a. You've not dealt with Y at all, eh? Again, please refer to Fashionable Nonsense. I think you'll find it illuminating.

Beyond that, I think you might be interested in Wittgenstein's "unspeakable."

Something about which I'm a little surprised is that no one has brought up the "F" word: faith. Belief in God is not predicated on empirical proof but rather faith. The questions that have arisen in this thread, such as whether god has characteristics, are theological in nature.

By the way, Jesus isn't the only human form of god. Krishna, anyone? Some Hindus believe that Krishna has had many incarnations.

Too, on the nature of Jesus, Christian dogma demands that he was wholly human and wholly divine, which defies human logic, but then so does a bush which burns without being consumed (Moses, anyone?). This is why such things are called "miracles."

vox (never went to Sunday school)

[peaccenicked]

a=everything other than god
Y=0
All I am saying is that Y has no real relation to 'a' in any form
therfore does not exist .
elementary my dear vox,
Y=god
perhaps too simlple minded for you.

[Rosa]

but there are people who ARE CREATORS, and those who AREN'T.So, if you say that there's no God, and one of Gods atributes should be "creator", and if I respect them, why wouldn't I call them Gods?
....Ok, OK, you're right. I won't call them Gs. Ups, sorry, should say "left"

[vox]

"a=everything other than god
Y=0
All I am saying is that Y has no real relation to 'a' in any form
therfore does not exist .
elementary my dear vox,
Y=god
perhaps too simlple minded for you."

Perhaps, but perhaps it's too complex for you, eh?

You left a undefined, now you use my definition. Okay. You originally said that Y=God, now Y=0. Hmm. These changing definitions seem to mean that there is no "essential" nature to either, yes?

In fact, your original "mathematics" amount to little more than a poorly constucted word game, where a and Y equal anything you wish. One could just as easily say that a=everything-other-than-god and Y=the-essence-of-a and come to your conclusion that a never equals Y but Y always equals a.

Funny how these games work, isn't it?

vox

[peaccenicked]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 1:57 am on Feb. 17, 2002
let Y=God let 1 = an entity
If a1, a2,a3,a4.......................................... ab(infinity)
If 'a' represents all constants and variables in the universe including the universe.(outside of mans mind)
premise 1. No combinations of 'a' can be shown to be Y
premise 2. since no operation on 'a' by another can produce or be equated to Y
Y can never = 1
Y=0 at all times
No combination of a1,a2 can be shown to produce any probabality of Z=1 not even at an infinite to one ratio.
therefore Z can not have or can have ever existed.
that is to say all claims that Z=1 posit Z beforehand
THIS MEANS THAT GOD CAN ONLY EXIST AS AN ABSTRACT ENTITY CREATED MY MAN AND NECESSARILY HAS NO OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE OUTSIDE THOUGHT.
Does thise proof live up to a definition of a proof?
What is the objection.?
This seems to be the essence I have distilled from the derminator but maybe he'll derminate me.

your definition , are you always going to fabricate a picture than argue against my real position in every post.
At least IP has got an excuse he is a complete fool.
please stop it.
a is obviously everything outside of god
Y=god
so where am I using your definition
what does the words 'first draft' mean to you. Does it not indicate to you thet I nam approach this topic with some element of gamesmanship? Duh
Have a doughnut Homer.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 2:12 pm on Feb. 21, 2002)

[CPK]

take it easy guys...

[El Che]

peace you have to admit there are alot of flawes with your equasion. No point in going over them again, but in conclusion you fail to prove god does not exist.

[La Resistance]

people claim, that god, or this "entity" with this name exists...

your are born into religion my friends.

if you are raised a christian, you will praise everything it has to offer, ie. salvation

if you were brought up by someone worshipping satan, well, you'd be sacrificing goats and who knows what...

if you were born with an atheist upbrining, or agnostic, you'd think there's nada, zilch, bodidly squat out there...

it's all what you experience and what your imagination makes of it...

you can't say one religion is better than the other, because you can't PROVE SHIT.

let people do what the fuck they want, and lets leave it at that...



(Edited by La Resistance at 10:02 am on Feb. 22, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

what is wrong, with everybody, do I touch a raw nerve when I show the idea of god to be absurd,
Vox who quotes Marx on Feuerbach
el che who has done little but argue for agnosticism
and now la resistance was to lie flat down to the idea of god.
"In fact, if Christ himself stood in my way, I, like Nietzsche, would not hesitate to squish him like a worm."

[Che Guevara]

[Rosa]

The end of discussion? pitty...

[vox]

peacenicked,

Don't you realize that if you seek proof that God does not exist you cannot have Y=God? C'mon, man. If you set up a variable to equal the very thing you say doesn't exist you can't then say it doesn't exist!

Indeed, you can't even have "a" equal everything-not-God, for that implies that there is Y that IS God!

You've got a couple of thousand years of thought on this. I don't think that you'll be the one to break it.

I recommend Wittgenstein, personally: where language fails, mysticism begins.

vox

[peaccenicked]

comrade how do you define the word symbol?
mystery what mystery. giving a symbol to an abstract identity does not give it content.
let the symbol for god be Y
notice the
'let the' this is the way to open
a statement. Are you familiar with set theory?anyway
this 'proof' is essentially an illustration of a philosophical point.
the philosophical point you wish to rubbish merely for its form and
to paraphrase Wittgenstein when undestanding fails,
why not try a little bit of intellectual bullying.
highly amusing.
If you have been through a bad experience
in this dept, you should try calming it a bit
I have been through many of these type of people
and I know their tricks and ways.
the approach of listening and asking questions is more appealing I dont need not be treated like a Capis.
In glasgow we are made of very stern stuff, we also dont take nonsense easily.
admittedly this proof was meant more to throw up questions than to excercise an immortal hold on history.
Yet it takes a reasonable form and the first response
I recieved showed that I was in my meaning intelligible.
I do not expect sympathy but neither fatuous discouragement.

[vox]

Sorry, I missed this one earlier.

"giving a symbol to an abstract identity does not give it content.
let the symbol for god be Y
notice the
'let the' this is the way to open
a statement. Are you familiar with set theory?anyway
this 'proof' is essentially an illustration of a philosophical point."

Yes, I'm familiar with set theory, but you seek to give nothing an arbitrary symbol which, of course, would also mean nothing, and if it means nothing, your "proof" means nothing, yes?

Here's a different example:

A=vox
B=un-vox

B(1)+B(2)+B(3)...=B

A still equals A.

Your proof, that all that is not God is not God, has nothing at all to do with God.

Y may equal God or a moth. It doesn't matter. Y is not affected.

vox

[El Che]

but he introduces a thrid premiss:

A= all which is known reality i.e atoms, energy, etc etc

R[reality]=A1 A2 A3 A4 <--wrong

Y= (Y=/=A) = (Y=/=R) = 0

Y=0

But he does not know all of reality so he can make not such claim (that R= As ad infinitum). Elementry my dear watson.

There are also other issues but lets not complicate. Im sure a mathematician would have a good laugh at us amatures though :)

[eudaimonia]

if it turns out that there is some major flaw in my logic, point it out, i won't take it personally, seeing as how i'm only 17. but it seems to me that in every case where empirical (scientific) evidence is pitted against God, science is undeniably provable and God is not.

take, for example, the discovery of a part of the human brain responsible for religious/spiritual/supernatural experiences/beliefs. One might assume that this is God's gift to humans, that thanks to this, we were able to "communicate" with God. This is impossible due to the fact that there are multiple religions with different Gods. If one God be omnipotent, and He created in the human brain a way of experiencing him or whatever, then the existence of the multitude of faiths shows that either this God be nonexistent, or mistaken.
It is this way with every single argument. The observations that mankind takes of mankind's environment are always at odds with the inevitably unobservable concept of a God.
But of course, just because we can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Empirical evidence might not be capable of understanding or measuring or a God. But then, if there is no essential proof, then God has no effect on anything, and isolates measurable, observable reality from the imagined God and his heaven. It'd be like saying that at night, aliens come into your room and perform experiments, but no one is capable of seeing them, their space-ship, or the experimentation, and that when finished, they would leave everything precisely the way they found it to begin with. It becomes like Kant's perception of reality versus the "actual" object. IT DOESN'T MATTER. With that in mind, God(s)'s existence can never be proven or disproven, because God can never be perceived.

[peaccenicked]

The Atheists unlike the Agnostics, claim they know
god does not exist. Those who claim they are atheist and say they dont know are misrepresenting themselves.
God is not a member of the set of real things or entities.
Therefore he does not exist.
There is no set that is only god, because that would give it some connection with reality. It is only a connection with peoples thoughts.
Faith is not an argument for existence, it is futher proof of gods non existence. God is an entirely abstract concept. It is unscientific to declare otherwise.


(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:43 am on Mar. 17, 2002)

[El Che]

In other words peace is say that all which is not of sensible experience does not exist.

[Rosa]

no, that means that exsistence of God is not rational conclusion.
existence of God would mean that before 1st element, there was something before that 1st element that has created it, something that exsisted outside that 1st element...see tha contradiction?
It has nothing to do with sensibile experience.
It's just not rational, and knowledge is based on rational cognition.
So you can't say that you KNOW that God exsists, only that you "feel" his existance, or that you BELIVE that.
I would say that FAITH is based in sensibile experience which average man can't explain (...per ex: snow in the summer=punishment for... ). It's a lack of ratio.

[Lardlad95]

Ok people lets think for a second. Scientist claim that the big bang started the univerese. However what stareted the big bang? If besides the universe there is nothing than how can the universe exist under its own power? You cannot create something from nothing. THats impossible. There fore a higher being must exist.

[TheDerminator]

Lardlad95,

Yep. You got it right away! You are the first to say it!
You cannot create something from nothing! That's impossible! Mind U for El Che. There are no absolutes, even the impossible is a possible probable or is it vice-versa? Yep, surviving a nuclear bomb explosion whilst standing at the epicentre is not impossible, since that would be an absolute, or something like that or your senses might deceive your non-reality as you are vaporised or something like that!

However, it is not only time and space that is infinite, but also physical matter.
Physical matter can never become nothing. It is impossible for it to disintegrate into a vacuum of nothing. There was physical matter before the big bang, and the forces of the physical matter caused the big-bang.
Try to think of cause-and-effect in an infinite series of inter-connecting reactions. There is no reason to throw in the concept of God, if you see matter as an infinite phenomenon.
As for something never coming from nothing, you ought to check out the Can There Be a Definitive Proof That God Does Not Exist topic which discussed this question in detail.
Basically, just to re-cap for you. When you ask the question "why" you are always asking of causation.
Always.
So you can ask "why did we create the concept of God"?, and the answer is because we knew fuck-all about nature. We knew nothing. Get it yet?
God was the otherness to nothingness.
Nothingness caused us to created God as an abstract concept in our consciousness.
All of empirical science is dedicated to anwering the question of causation. If you know why something exists, you can see the logic of its development from that foundation.
Something cannot come from nothing!
The mathematical proof that God does not exist:

X = Nothingness = X1 + God
If X = 0, X1 = 0 + God.
X =0, then 0 = 0 + God
0 = + God
0 = God!!!!!!! 10/10 (100 %) *****(imagine gold stars)

The nuclear scientific proof that there is no God:
[ ] <------- Nothingness!!!
If nothingness is the causation God = Nothingness.
Hope that brings U up to date. Thought for more than a second on this one! The only higher being is U! U got it one. Something cannot come from nothing! U ought to have the same number of stars as Malte. Gold ones too. I have been waiting a long time for some one to grasp your logic!
Is the exact same as mine. As Monkey Soup would say "U are the real thing"! Thanks. Never thought the day would come when someone would agree that something cannot come from nothing. Made my day!
Just a pity U believe in God!
Ah well, can't have everything.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force with U!

derminated

Be afraid, be very afraid....

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[El Che]

Nop thats circular logic derminator.If there are no absolutes then its can not be proven absolutly that god does not exist nor that matter is of infinity caracter. Neither that math is an exact science, nor that science is worth the paper it is written on. Certainty of uncertainty. The religious can not show us good, but niether can anyone show anybody else anything. This is logic to its absurd conclusion. Furthermore there is the question of the supernatural, in which it is said there exists the absolute i.e god. But you can not experience/obtain the supernatural. U maybe refuse to except it as valid but you can not prove its non existence.

[TheDerminator]

El Che,

I fail to see the circular logic. U think there are no absolutes, but you cannot come up with a logical argument that proves the case. U can only state the same pre-determined dogma that there are no absolutes.
Maths is not an exact science?
What can be more exact than a singular finite number? If a X represents a singular finite number, then absolutely X = that finite number. U have no understanding of how abstract concepts work. It can be ten as the symbols 10 or ten oranges or ten fingers. Counting just requires the abstraction in the imagination, and X can = 10.
I do not disagree that Maths is an open-ended science, just like every other science, but there are absolute facts within the relative, just like the certainty of death if you are without protection in the epicentre of a nuclear explosion. Seems common-sense to most people.
You are accepting the existince of the supernatural as an absolute! How circular is that?
Come on my friend. You have to have some feasible ground for your premise. Why shoud I accept your absolute premise as a given?

May the Force be withU!

derminated

[Moskitto]

Urm, religious people who actually think rather than quote bibles use the arguement that something cannot be created from nothing and since god is omnipotent and therefore timeless, he is the only thing that can create something out of nothing, therefore god created the big bang.

Not giving any hints here, but if you do want to set about proving the (non-)existance of god then it might be a good idea studying the other viewpoint then it will make your arguements a bit more credible than just looking like fundamentalist dogma.

[El Che]

First premiss: man`s perception of reality is not perfect

Second premiss: man can assume no absolutes

Resulting conclusion: the above premisses are uncertain, for they if they are correct they can no be taken as absolutes there for they are uncertain. And if they are incorrect, then thereare absolutes in which case they prove them selves wrong. And if they are absolutly correct then they prove them selves wrong just by being right.

Forthwit resulting premisses:

First premiss: the issue of the existence of absolutes is uncertain.

Second premiss: the issue of weather or not man can assert absolutes is uncertain

Resulting conclusion: the above premisses are uncertain for they can not be taken as absolutes, because they them selves deny it. uncertain premisses = uncertain conclusion = unsolid ground apon which to practice logic.

Further resulting conclusions: the above stated uncertainty is in its self uncertain for it is so expressed in the premises. The uncertainty of the uncertainty above stated is a logical conclusion i.e deduction of the above premisses.

Further resulting conclusions: the above conclusion is in its self uncertain there for non valid.

Further resulting conclusions: the above invalidness is acording to the premisses apon which it is based uncertain in its self there for non valid

further resulting conclusions: the directly above stated conclusion regrading the invalidnesss of the further above stated is, by the premisses it is based on uncertain therefor non valid.

etc etc etc

final resulting conclusion: certainty of uncertainty

further resulting conclusion: the above is not suported by the premises.

further.............

In short I assert no absolutes, so I would not then directly contradict my self by stating my conclusions absolute. My conclusions defeat each other when it comes to asserting them selves absolutly. This much is true. It is a logical consequence that I must assume. but they equaly defeat any other claims that assert them selves as absolute. Herein you have a truly universal method, the tragic irony of it is that while it applies to every subject it produces no conclusions. It is non the less flawless. You go ahead, make your claims into the absolute, all i have to do is factor them into my method here and *pouf*. Can you show my method wrong? my logic herein? can anyone reading this which I think I am writting but again can not be absolutly sure of infact being?

(Edited by El Che at 10:38 pm on Mar. 16, 2002)


(Edited by El Che at 10:44 pm on Mar. 16, 2002)

[TheDerminator]

Moskitto,

Sometimes the fudamentalists can get it right!

It is just a logical statement.

Something cannot come from nothing!

You just side step the issue of relating the logic to causation. Neat side-step!
The other view-point? Durp! I am giving an athiest interpretation of common logic. It is the other viewpoint!

El Che,

The perception of reality was covered in the post called "Sense and Sensibility" You did not respond to it! As I recall Supermodel was the only person to respond to the post. You ducked the arguements in it, and I am not going to regurgitate it all again!
Your first premise is disproven in the above the thread. Your all other premises stem from a disproven premise. End of subject.
You dodge the issues all the time.
How can something come from nothing, and how come your denial every fact is completely against commonsense?
How do you survive unprotected at the epicentre of a nuclear explosion? How can this be a relative? The fact is you die. You die absolutely. Death is the absolute!
Supermodel realised the topic on the accuracy of the senses was aimed at you. Did you miss this thread?
Reply in the same thread or in this, but maybe paste the argument for the sake of continuity for the reader.
Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[El Che]

Well derminator I`ll look for that thread in which you say you give the arguements, you refuse to give now, which prove me wrong. However you did say somethings that contradict me although, in this thread, you do not back them up. You should back them up because if you dont that is unfair to me. It making this an informal cafe discussion in which you can just make claims without backing them up by logical method. In this context you can not say to me "the earth exists" and leave it at that, u must logicaly back up your statement beyond any possible doubt where reason is concerned. This is what I am doing, and unless the discussion is not viewed in such a manner as above expressed it is then a futile exercise, in which one of us is explaning he has certain veiws because the fundaments of the same force in to the conclusions that his views constitute, and the other says the first is wrong but does not atack the fundaments that force the first, by a question of coherance, to assume the views he assumes.

I could explain again why logic doesnt allow you, in my opinion, to consider death absolute, but im not going to because I too am wary of repeating my self. And furthermore you did back not it up logicaly, and that should be a self imposed requirement. Regards comrade.


(Edited by El Che at 4:11 pm on Mar. 17, 2002)


(Edited by El Che at 4:14 pm on Mar. 17, 2002)

[Moskitto]

The problem with fundamentalism isn't it's truthfulness, it's the fact that if someone comes along and says "Worship Jesus or you will go to hell" and then uses the bible you can just start quoting the Koran or Bhudda and argue against them and they can't really do anything except deny the reliability of the sources you'd use against them which makes them look like basically blind sheep.

However if your christian evangelist were to come along and instead of declaring the bible the sole source of authority on these matters he were to back up what is said in the bible with contemporary writers of the time, or other evidence then argue against contradictory ideas with similar means he doesn't look like so much of a blind sheep as he has shown that he has researched his ideas.

[TheDerminator]

El Che,

I made a lengthy post on the reliabiality of the senses. I am just being a bit lazy and directing to you it. I know it is not ideal, but I put some effort into the post, and you just need to paste it here to continue the thread logically.

Moskitto,

I know a devout Christian who is a fundamental believer in the tolerance of the Christian ethos. For him, that is the most fundamental part of the New Testament, and the teachings of Christ, and I agree with him.
Just because something stems from a religious direction does not mean it cannot contain more than just a grain of truth. You ought to know that with your tolerance of the genocide of wanton neglect.
Modern ideas?
Goodness, Moskitto!
You do not seem to know that all modern scientific method is the empirical method, and that all empiricism is grounded in the laws of causation.
Yep. The whole damn lot!
Something coming from nothing relates to the idea that you cannot create something from nothingness. Something you and El Che do not recognise as commonsense logic. There is no God, because the causation of the abstract concept of God = nothingness.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force with U!

derminated

[Moskitto]

The problem with the something cannot be created from nothing theory is that taken to it's logical extreme, the universe cannot exist.

So where did the universe come from or the stuff that made the universe?

I think it's 42 but i don't know what 42 was or is, the computer got destroyed 5 minutes before it could give the awnser.

[TheDerminator]

Moskitto,

You have no conception of the infinite!

Space is infinite; as is time; as is corporeal matter.

Matter reacts infinitely in a series of cause and effect actions and reactions ad infinitum.

Even if you belive in God, you believe in the infinite, because God must have always existed, and must always exist in the future. A finite God? You have to be joking!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[Rosa]

to Moskitto: certainly didn't come from being which has existed before existance (?! I really can't figure out what's the problem? How can you think that something existed beyond any exsistance? if you can't see the contradiction in that, am very sorry. very sorry)
if you think that there's possibility that some other being created our Universe, it has nothing to do with conception of God, bsc conception of god consider that there was NO EXSISTANCE, and "EXISTING" something CREATED 1ST EXISTING ELEMENT. if that element was the 1st one, than god must have been: WHAT? NONEXISTING? I agree with that.

[Moskitto]

After discussing this with a group of friends a bit ago, we came to the conclusion that one of the following must have happened.

If god does exist then he must be infinite which suggests that he/she/it could have evolved to become timeless (not always existing, just absent from time). Therefore allowing him to create the universe.

Or annother idea is that the universe was created by a parallel universe with different physics to our's which allows the creation of things from nothing.

Or through timetravel, we managed to create the first atoms which are what created the universe. However, a time machine cannot go back to a time before it was created. Therefore this idea is implausable.

Or, We are not really here.

Actually liberal religious thinkers do think god is infinite (it's to do with the omnipotence idea)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 6:20 pm on Mar. 17, 2002
Moskitto,

You have no conception of the infinite!

Space is infinite; as is time; as is corporeal matter.

Matter reacts infinitely in a series of cause and effect actions and reactions ad infinitum.

Even if you belive in God, you believe in the infinite, because God must have always existed, and must always exist in the future. A finite God? You have to be joking!

May the Force be with U!

derminated


matter can not be infinate. Because to be infinate it would have to have existed before and after. Matter can exist after but not before. Matter was not always there. Thats totally ilogical. matter does not just appear. It must be created. Matter can not exist with in itself simply because it is.

Take a rock for example, that rock has not always been here, not in that form, not in existance. The rock was created.

The matter that caused the big bang if you will could not have created itself. There must have always been something for which the universe to be inside of. There are only two possiblities of where it could be if there were not a God.

1. It existed in nothing and there is nothing out side of this. That isn't possible because as we have stated something can't come from nothing there fore something cannot exist in nothing

2. It is surronded by anti matter. That isn't logical since the universe is almost entirely antimatter there by meaning that the antimatter surronding the universe was part of the universe which leads back to the problem of what exist beyond the universe and obviously something (or someone) does becasue as I have shown the universe can not exist with in its self or within nothing.

Now those who would try say that the same two previous principles would also prove the existance of no God and I will explain what I mean.

Using what I have just said( my thoughts on why the universe must be inside a larger spectrum)let us see how the existance of God is impossible.

For this exercise God's spectrum will be known heavan=H The universe would be of course U, and unknown spectrum would be X, and G will be antimatter/heveanly anti matter Know lets begin

U cannot exist on its own be cauze it must be held in X. Lets say that H=X so then Heavan is the unknown spectrum. So now H(X) envelopes U. Now through the same principal as U being held in H(X). H can not exist on its own, there must be something surronding H, that would be X. Now we have established that X=H. SO heavean surronds heaven ,making it H(H)=G. However through the principle of Antimatter + Antimatter we must also use that in Heavenly Antimatter+Heavenly Anti matter, thus making Heaven larger without solving what exist beyond Heaven. There fore X, H, and G all equal the same thing.

THis proves that God cannot exist because like the Universe Heaven cannot exist on its on.


However the equation is flawed on one thing. Heaven unlike the universe isn't physical. It is spiritual and mental. There fore since it does not exist physically it has no boundaries. It is spiritually infinite. Then the universe can be thought of as physicaly infinite. Thus allowing the belief in God to be justified.

[komsomol]

I dont know God doesnt exist, but i am logical and know it to be very improbable, in the sence of the various religions anyway. THe mathematical equation doesnt prove anything. This might help you though.

imagination+insecurity=god=heavinly afterlife

lol

[TheDerminator]

Lardlad95
All matter is in movement. It is the movement of continuous cause and effect that provides its infinite continuum. Within every form of the infinite is the finite. Each finite part makes up the infinite in its totality.

The tiny piece of matter is finite, but the chain reaction is infinite, thus the matter always exists in infinity. Matter can never disintegrate into a vacuum, thus matter will always be infinite in its continuum.
You are thinking mechanically, you could use the same arguments for space in time.
The rock is just one finite form of matter created in the continuum.
The rest is just a hypothesis based upon a false premise.
There is no need to accept a single creator, once you realise there was a physical world prior to the big bang. Nuclear physicists are trying to find out the nature of that physical world, and common-sense is likely to turn to science rather than to creationists.

And oh, by the way you still did not explain how abstract nothing as concept becomes somethingness.
Moloch needs to use some logic to work that one out too!
Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force with U!

derminated

[RedRevolutionary1234]

Have you thought about chaos theory? There will always be unknown variables

[Moskitto]

I hate chaos theory, it makes everything too unpredictable.

[deadpool 52]

Prove God exists? Prove we exist.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 9:39 pm on Mar. 17, 2002
Lardlad95
All matter is in movement. It is the movement of continuous cause and effect that provides its infinite continuum. Within every form of the infinite is the finite. Each finite part makes up the infinite in its totality.

The tiny piece of matter is finite, but the chain reaction is infinite, thus the matter always exists in infinity. Matter can never disintegrate into a vacuum, thus matter will always be infinite in its continuum.
You are thinking mechanically, you could use the same arguments for space in time.
The rock is just one finite form of matter created in the continuum.
The rest is just a hypothesis based upon a false premise.
There is no need to accept a single creator, once you realise there was a physical world prior to the big bang. Nuclear physicists are trying to find out the nature of that physical world, and common-sense is likely to turn to science rather than to creationists.

And oh, by the way you still did not explain how abstract nothing as concept becomes somethingness.
Moloch needs to use some logic to work that one out too!
Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force with U!

derminated



the problem is scientist are trying to seperate science and religion when it falls into place.

People claim that because of the dinosaurs and Cave men creation has no arguement agaisnt it.

However religion allows the nebular hypothesis(the creation if our solar system as well as the universe) but people fail to realise this.

THe bible says in the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth. It does not say when, it hdoes not say how. God creates, humans figure out what he did to create.

Now as for cave men and dinosaur bones Christians have a trump card they never use. THE PRE-ADAMITE EARTH. Do you know what this is? Alot of Christians don't. Unknown to many scientist and Theologist the world existed before Adam and Eve, people inhabited it. But the people were animal like and savage, much like cave men. That world was destroyed. Thus the earth became the void in which God Created the Earth we are on now. Read the book of Daniel to find something out about the pre-adamite earth.

Now I suggest you read "Dispensational Truth", by Clarence Larkin.

This book explains alot about creation, revalation, the rapture, and the preadamite earth. It will explain what I'm talking about and it has diagrams.

As far as the outer physical world there is one way to explain it, the kingdom of God

[pastradamus]

Anybody who hates god & is trying to prove he doesn't exist just made themselves an enemy.
anyway my maths teacher shows us some mathamathical equations that like your one peace,that make perfectly mathimatical sence but don't make sence in reality.
when i can remember 1 i'll run it by ya.
Fuck all the satasist bastards & im gonna make sure those bastards stop acting the "im a fucking retard,who is just trying to be different" act! grrrrrrrrrrrr!

[Son of Scargill]

Sorry.Apologies if it's been said before,but I can't be arsed with reading the stuff defending the position of g-g=d being real.G-d doesn't exist.Stop all this bullshit,it ain't worth it.The only reason for religion is to teach moral values to humanity.Values that have exsisted,in one form or another,since time immemorial.Freedom,respect,equality,love of this rock we live on,that gives us life!
Islam,hinduism,christianity,judaism,taoism,ect,ect ,ect,....basically the same message......love the one god.humanity....-he/she exists,it is only the concious/sub-concious extension of our inner feelings.There is no supreme being,only our conciousness.Where's the problem with that.We can become our own gods,we shoud be our own gods....for the advancements of mankind.....Is that a problem?It seems so.We're capable of this,and so much more!

[Lardlad95]

good point. Live and let live. Personally I don't see how me believing in God offends an atheist, he may disagree with me for believing and I may with him disagree for not believing but the thing is we must respect one another and one anothers views. if we condem people than we have totally lost the Lords message of universal love(even those cappis no matter how greedy they are)

[TheDerminator]

Chaos theory: a butterfly spreads its wings and a virus called AIDS appears. Absurd. Mystification of cause and effect. Every accident has essential causation. Why mystify causation?

dead pool 52,

Descartes proved human existence.
"I think therefore, I am" Any and all consciousness proves definitevely that conscious being exists or has existed.

Lardlad 95,
I don't for a second dispute that there are Creationists and Creationists. Some of who are more able to accept evolution of the universe than others more strict dogmatists, but my friend, U did not really answer the argument, as to why something can come from nothing.

pastradamus, the "maths" is not maths. It is simple logic. Two different subjects. Your teacher will know a lot more than me about Maths, but I can argue philosophical logic with a nuclear scientist, and still come out on top, because logic is the realm of philosophy and not of science.
When, it comes to logic, the philosopher is always going to beat the scientist hands down, because it is a very different realm.
Try not to think mechanically, and think using the symbols as metaphors, and that is the way to understand the logic of the equations.

Lardlad 95,

"Live and let live". I wish it was live and let live! It is live and let die! Get a grip of reality. Religion is the injection of morphine that takes away the will of the people in underdeveloped countries to fight against the genocide of wanton neglect. It is "live and let die" on Planet fucking Grime.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[Rosa]

Moskitto: everything you say is okay, but when you say that The Creator existed when nothing else existed, it's not the same when you say that creator existed when there were no existance at all. If he was first existing (element, impulse, whatever) then he is first "element"/"impulse"/"wahtever", not a God as in religious conception.
bcs of that, I would rather not name it as "God",but of c: anyone can call it as he wishes, but distinction betw. that religious and ratinalistic/philosophy conception is lost if you call it "God".
...+ that "it is CONCERNED about us"...c'mon

Pastradamus: your math teatcher knows that math doesn't work in reality if you don't involve physic facts (as curvity of space which depends on mass of the body in that space etc) it's difficult for me to explain it to you, see that you're interested in matt, so try to read H.Reichenbach :"The Rising of Science". It's not difficult for reading, you would love it. high-school math doesn't work, but it doesn't mean that reality is something unexplainable/mystic. assume that your teacher wanted you to start questioning reality and research it, not to mystifie it.
School kids learn it just for developing their brains, anyway, no?

[TheDerminator]

Rosa, I honestly don't think that everything Moskitto has to say is "okay". First of all Moskitto denies the possibility of infinite the infinite existence of matter, and then immediately replaces this with the infinite existence of spiritual "God".
An atheist rejects all mysticism, and does not mystify the transformation of matter. The internal logic of Moskitto is not in the end good enough.
Moskitto says if there is a God. "If" is the all-important agnostic word. We cannot turn away from the greater logic:

Knowledge of causation answers why we create things and why things are created in nature. Once we know all the causation, we know the objective validity of the source of causation.
The validity is enshrined in objectively answering the "why" question.
The answer to the "why" question is to replace the nothing of human knowledge, and thus explain the forces of nature with superstitious opinions. Gods were created on the back of this process, and it objectively answers why we created Gods in historical development.
The answer to "why" is grounded in human invention. Invention in consciousness of the abstract concept of God. God comes only from the invention of human consciousness, and as such is only the product of the abstract imagination.
It is not a subconscious dream like state, it is the superstious conscious abstract imagination grounded only in ignorance. It is a form of social consciousness in its origination.
It is the invention upon nothingness, and if we strip the word God of the attributes which are the otherness of human attributes, we are left with an empty abstract word, which could be any semantic combination of letters meaning an abstraction grounded in nothingness.
Something cannot come nothing. The logic stands up time and again. A concept grounded in superstition is a concept grounded in non-reality without any tangible form of being other than the elucidation and expansion of its own fantasy.
"Why" always returns to original or primary causation, and in the case of the concept of "God" the latter is the nothingness of supernatural superstition. It replaces reality with non-reality.
El Che may not be able to differentiate due to the so-called "unreliabilty of the senses", but for the vast majority of people there is a common-sense dividing line between tangible reality, and supernatural non-reality.
The question "why" resolves itself in nothingness, and I will state it again like a broken down record machine. Something cannot come from nothing. There is no agnostic "if". There is no God, because in essence God is only abstract representation of nothingness.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[Moskitto]

Wait a minute, Rosa you're criticising me for not believing in the infinite, and Dermy you're criticising me for not believing in the infinite. Ah ha...

Well, yes I do believe in God, but I do not believe it is possible to prove of disprove his existance. I also do not believe in predestination (because i'm not a Calvanist or Muslim) and I believe the Eastern perception of what god is rather than the western perception.

[TheDerminator]

Moskitto, it seems to me that Rosa has misinterpreted U, but Rosa has to translate the text, and an error can be forgiven.

Yep, U believe in God on the basis of blind faith, and there is no logic to blind faith. It just ignores, the fact that something can never come from nothing. It is just pure dogma.
Your Eastern perception is just U striving for greater "sophistication", but is still the same dross U are believing in through your blind faith, that knows no reason.
It is pointless for U to respond, because U can never explain how something can come from nothing.
U are stuck with your dogmatic dross of blind faith, and it is for U the immovable object, because to move it is just too big a step in your consciousness.
It is the abandonment not just of your own belief system, but the belief system of family, friends, relations and your community, it is the basis of the common morality in your whole social life.
It is too much of a hurdle for U. There can be no logic, no reason, no bit between the teeth, only blind faith in what makes U, who U are, and who many, although not everyone in your social circles are, since they do not share an deep conception of what should be human spirituality.
U cannot be reasoned with. U will not grapple with logic. U will just repeat learned dogma in your consciousness. U cannot for a second entertain the idea that anyone could prove the non-existance of God, thus all U have is your subjective perception, and U do not want to get El Che started on the unreliability of perceptions.
I disagree with El Che, about perception. As Christopher Ross, an English common-sense philosopher more or less points out, we believe not with our eyes, but with our consciousness. It is consciousness that gives the judgement value and assessment of the accuracy of perception, and like the ancient Eastern writers on religion, all U possess is their superstitious subjective opinions on the nature of God, and spirituality created from an elaboration abstract nothingness in their imaginations.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the [b]Force be with U!

derminated

[El Che]

quote from thedeminator

You do not need to stop at dyslexia.
Blind peope communicate. People who cannot speak or talk still communicate. Never, never can we say that a lack of a sense perception, makes a person unintelligent, or makes a person possess a communicative consciousness.
It is not sense perception, which makes an understanding of the world a false understanding, it is the form of consciousness, of the person.
You might say that all forms of consciousness are interdependent upon sense perceptions, and these perceptions are flawed, but you have to live in the real world.
I have short-sightedness, but with the aid of an optician, my eyesight is functional. I can read and write, and the fact that I need to wear either glasses or contact lenses does not affect my understanding of any word I read or write. My understanding is gained through my conscious understanding.
The eye is a necessary medium, although, if I went blind, I would learn a medium for the blind. The medium is not unimportant, but as long as there is a medium, you are not catatonic.
Flawed "consciousness"? Can anyone become a perfect human being?
Sounds like a question for speculative science! Sure as hell, not during my life time!
Flawed consciousness. Well, if you are only capable of giving subjective opinion, that is a flawed consciousness. It is a lack of an objectification of your own social circumstances.
All consciousness, is historically grounded. If we take a person out of one time zone into another time zone from the past to the future, the person has the same biological perceptions as ourselves, but not the same consciousness, about our technologies.
We are not isolated individual's stuck on a desert island, we are social beings, and there is no mystery to flawed perceptions or flawed consciousness.
All perception has to be is functional, and we can prove that functionality, by there fact that we possess a medium to communicate to people.
What You See Is not Always What You Get! But we do not have to mystify flaws in the perception organs or mystify deliberate optical illusions. We can explain them scientifically.
" All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice."
Karl Marx.
I would add, that all consciousness is a practical-activity, thus it this theoretical practise is the foundation for the resolution, and comprehension of practise.
Very little human activity is not related directly to the conscious activity of the mind. We have to heed the call of nature so to speak, we have to sleep, we have to eat and drink some thing, though the form of the latter is decided in consciousness to some extent, though, sometimes people do not have a great choice.
Yep, consciousness is a practical activity initself, and you ought to know that any time you study a subject at school or at college or at university, or in a library or in your home. Studying is a practical learning activity, and gives you certain skills, you would not possess without that studying.
It is not education for the sake of education, it is education for the sake of knowledge. Knowledge can be very useful, and just because it is not useful to you individually, does not mean it has no use value to society.
Ofcourse, there are examples of useless knowledge.
It is called symbolic logic! And I would add that the "meta-critique" of Roy Baskhar is even worse than useless!
All that hat stuff is maybe going to be picked up by some marketing exec for a beret manufacturer! Er um. Maybe not! Could it be useless too! Who knows the great mysteries of life?
Durp!

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

Consciousness. Is consciousness perfect? seems like an odd question, doesnt it? But as far as this discussion is concerned, consciousness is important for it is with it that we arrive at conclusions. We posses tools, these tools work in the operating system that is consciousness. Be they science or phylosophy or simple observation and deduction, these process by means of which we make sense of the world, must be present in the conscious mind of the thinker. Consciousness, alone doesn`t do much. Any animal is conscious, he just does not possess the tools, we in our minds, in our consciousness possess. Consciousness, is in fact a limitation on mans ability to understand reality, because he can only understand the world through it, and it has limited potential. Im sure you will agree derminator, for if you dont you believe in superhumans that can understand everything. How will we ever know if something escapes our consciousness? if it escapes it we shall never know of it, the possibility is untouchable. Conscious we are, or we think we are, or do we think at all?

Now perception you say is unimportant, well without perception your conscious mind has nothing to work with, its like a computer with no software and no imput, the potential is there, but it is not developed.


Fact is none of our tools and preceptions are perfect, and fact is consciousness its self could be more of a limitiation then of anything thing else.

(Edited by El Che at 8:34 pm on Mar. 18, 2002)

[Moskitto]

ah, that would explain it.

Actually the Eastern perception of god is that you get to god through your own way if you choose to. Anyway the reason why I believe in god is precisely because something cannot be created from nothing, and since an omnipotent god would be timeless it would not exist before time because it exists with an absence of time. The theory of evolution could explain how such a being came about.

Of course fanatical athiests who try and remove all opposition to their ideas by declaring any theist as a christian, predestination believer who justifies all they say by saying things like "Job 2:24" (I wonder what that says) and thus gear their arguements only towards countering this other fanatic, Do not do their cause much good. Humanists are best.

(Edited by Moskitto at 9:27 pm on Mar. 18, 2002)

[TheDerminator]

El Che,

"Consciousness. Is consciousness perfect? seems like an odd question, doesnt it? But as far as this discussion is concerned, consciousness is important for it with it that we arrive at conclusions. We posses tools, these tools work in the operating system that is consciousness. Be they science or phylosophy or simple observation and deduction, these process by means of which we make sense of the world, must be present in the conscious mind of the thinker."

Thus far correct.
"Consciousness, alone doesn`t do much. Any animal is conscious, he just does not posses the tools, we in our minds, in our consciousness posses."
Incorrect.
A more advanced living animal has a functional brain, but
"consciousness" is not an attribute of animals. You are misusing the term, because you are thinking on the line, that a conscious being is an alive being, but the latter is just the common usage applied to humans correctly and to animals incorrectly
Consciousness is the tool of the human mind. What does consciousness mean it is the capacity to possess a language with a socially constructed syntax from communicative thought.
No animal possess this syntax, and thus how can their learned behaviour in their brains be described as consciousness.
Consciousness is thought attached to syntax.

"Consciousness, is in fact a limitation on mans ability to understand reality, because he can only understand the world through it, and it has limited potential."
Why is there a limitation? U merely state there is a limitation without giving causal reason for limitations, and, if U can only come up with "perception" as the limitation, it is open to the above criticisms, which myself and supermodel accept.
There are limitations which I admit to such as the historical period limits the capacity, as does the capacity of intellect of any individual. However, within these limitations there is the capacity for understanding, and that is the whole beauty of the human brain, in that it allows us to gain an understanding of reality. An understanding that no animal can come anywhere near.

" Im sure you will agree derminator, for if you dont you believe in superhumans that can understand everything. How will we ever know if something escapes our consciousness? if it escapes it we shall never know of it, the possibility is untouchable."
El Che U are mystifying the limitations of human consciousness. We are mortal humans, and we have a huge complex society. How can anyone human being every understand everything in our consciousness that we have discovered, never mind the undiscovered. I agree with U, that science is opened ended, but there is no reason to mystify that open-endedness.
There is no attempt to suggest there can be a "superhuman", only that just as Marx objectified the essence of the infrastructure, it is possible within a few volumes to objectify the essential superstructure. The "essential" only means what it is nessary to that superstructure. It is not the massive totality! Only an egoist would attempt to objectify the totality! The whole of human history in every nation! Impossible for anyone being to do, because there can be no time machine which is required. The vast majority of history is lost history.
All that is untouchable is that which is not in our capacity to understand. All potential is based upon capacity. Without the capacity, we can never reach a potential, and it is that lack of capacity, which limits us.

" Conscious we are, or we think we are, or do we think at all?
"You could not write that line without thinking it first.

"Now perception you say is unimportant, well without perception your conscious mind has nothing to work with, its like a computer with no software and no imput, the potential is there, but it is not developed."
Untrue:

The eye is a necessary medium, although, if I went
blind, I would learn a medium for the blind. The medium is not unimportant, but as long as there is a medium, you are not catatonic. I emphasise that a necessary medium is "not unimportant". For most of us, the means are our sight our ears and our speaking capacity, and these were required for consciousness to develop. All, I am saying is that to suggest some big collective calamatous miasmatic poisoining of our senses in relation to the development of social consciousness begs total disbelief. You are going against all commonsense.
We can communicate to each other because of the commanility of all human consciousness within our species, and the examples such as dyslexia show, that flawed perception does not = flawed understanding.
The latter could be interpreted an insult to the intelligence of dyslexic people, and I am sure that is not your intention.

"Fact is none of our tools and preceptions are perfect, and fact is perception its self could be more of a limitiation then of anything thing else."

El Che, this idea of the necessity for "perfection" is at the heart of everything. We do not need to require "perfect" perceptions; only functional perceptions, and that is what the "Braille" language is to a blind person. It functions as a means to percieve language and that medium is translated in conscious thought. Are U really saying a blind person has less an understanding just because they are blind, surely not.
Understand is rooted in social-political consciousness, and a blind socialist has more understanding of reality, than someone from the BORG mindset possess 20/20 vision. Surely U can see that.
The limitations upon all understanding in consciousness are limitations upon the capacities of an individual in an exact historical society. We need not mystify those limitations my friend, and we should not be bound by convention.

May the Force[b] be with [b]U!

derminated

[TheDerminator]

Moskitto,
The choice?
To be a dogmatist or not to be a dogmatist in blind faith in God, is what your choice seems to me.

No wonder Rosa, was confused.
"because it exist in an absence of time". What complete utter metaphysical drivel!
U can only have finite or infinite time!
Where did U get this "absence of time" from, some obsure Eastern dogma?
How the hell can time be absent?
Mind-blowing!
God existed in the absence of time. God existed with not before time, not after time began, but in some sort of timeless limbo? Is this a frozen moment? A moment is a finite moment. A moment is still a point of time. How long was God in this timeless limbo?
Yep, it is a bad fucking joke, that goes beyond all common-sense, and if anyone from the major churches tried to argue it, they would be facing complete ridicule from the scieintific community. It is spiritual bankruptcy invented out of thin air.
God existed in timelessness. Can we translate that as there was no time in which God existed! Sounds just about right to me!
A phenomemon without time! Other than finiteness, and infinite. Just going back to otherness, though taking it to an extreme absurdity.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force be with U!

deminated

[Moskitto]

Nope, not eastern drivel.

If something is omnipotent it does not have to exist within time. Because well, if it's all powerful then why should it want to be limited by time?

[TheDerminator]

Moskitto,

"If something is omnipotent it does not have to exist within time. Because well, if it's all powerful then why should it want to be limited by time?"

Where is the logic. There is no logic to the premise!

What does omnipotent mean? All-powerful!
U do a leap of logic from being all-poweful to the non-reality of time. Why does all-powerfulness transcend time?
Where does your blind faith in the logic of this assumption stem from?
It is a leap of faith into dogma:

omnipotent = transcending time.

Who says?
Where is it written in stone?
If God is a being how can this being exist in a reality which transcend time.
Does the being also transcend all reality, because God is omnipotent?
I mean why not?
Surely if God can transcend time God can transcend space too, and God can transcend all reality!
There was no time, no space no reality, just omnipotent God existing in well.....Durp.

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 8:22 am on Mar. 18, 2002




Lardlad 95,
I don't for a second dispute that there are Creationists and Creationists. Some of who are more able to accept evolution of the universe than others more strict dogmatists, but my friend, U did not really answer the argument, as to why something can come from nothing.



Lardlad 95,

"Live and let live". I wish it was live and let live! It is live and let die! Get a grip of reality. Religion is the injection of morphine that takes away the will of the people in underdeveloped countries to fight against the genocide of wanton neglect. It is "live and let die" on Planet fucking Grime.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force be with U!

derminated



first of all there is no need to explain how something can come from nothing because it is physically impossible. Since we live in a physical realm we cannot create something from nothing.

Also I'm am one of the few Catholics who believes in evolution. I believe it does occur, how ever modern humans did not evolve from the cave men(neanderthals, cromagnum[SP?]) Those lesser sapiens we the people of the preadamite earth in which the humans(if you can call them that) were savage and with out souls orthe breath of God.

Yes it is live and let die, but that doesn't mean I can't live and let live.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 10:25 pm on Mar. 18, 2002
Moskitto,

"If something is omnipotent it does not have to exist within time. Because well, if it's all powerful then why should it want to be limited by time?"

Where is the logic. There is no logic to the premise!

What does omnipotent mean? All-powerful!
U do a leap of logic from being all-poweful to the non-reality of time. Why does all-powerfulness transcend time?
Where does your blind faith in the logic of this assumption stem from?
It is a leap of faith into dogma:

omnipotent = transcending time.

Who says?
Where is it written in stone?
If God is a being how can this being exist in a reality which transcend time.
Does the being also transcend all reality, because God is omnipotent?
I mean why not?
Surely if God can transcend time God can transcend space too, and God can transcend all reality!
There was no time, no space no reality, just omnipotent God existing in well.....Durp.

Resistance is Futile!

derminated


the thing is that GOd did not start measuring time, man did. Since God is endless and beginningless (is that a word?) he has no need to record time. THe creation of the world and everything on it could have taken trillions of years, we don't know because we don't know God and how he operates

[El Che]

"just omnipotent God existing in well.....Durp. "

lols. Although we cant prove god does not exist, when you really take a carefull look at religion it sounds really childish. Im 99% sure no "god" exists... just like im 99% sure im here, writting on this here message board.

[Lardlad95]

there is no being sure about anything. Since there is no evidence of God not existing no one can be sure he doesn't exist.

How exactly are you 99% sure? what basis do you have for this assumption

also I say to you read "dispensational truth" and you will find out that Christianity is not at all childish, of course to understand it you must have some knowledge of the Bible

[peaccenicked]

El Che, I am 100% sure that you are there
maybe not in the head but I am sure you could find the remaining 1% very quickly.
No matter how hard we wish there is no way out of being alive.
It is only tragedy that creates such doubts. Let us not be miserable there is enough to doubt already in a world were trust, and love and respect are continually undermined. Let our curiousity be directed towards giving solidity to solidarity. Let us not liquidate reality at all.

[Rosa]

Moskitto, 1. I haven't accused you for not beliving in infinity of God, but wanted to say what Dermy expressed as "something can't come out from nothing".
2. Eastern conception of God says that God is in everything that exsists, so it's actually close to onthology, which tries to find the first element. The only difference is that eastern religions don't reach for that first element, just admits its exsistance.
3. If exsistance and non-exsistance constitute the living world, you can't call one of them as "god", bcs there is no hierarhical relation betw them. It can't be, bcs lit's logically impossible to think that one of them was previous to another one.
they are equal, and have equal influence in life.

And you certainly consider one of them to be "good" or "bad" bcs exsistance without ending is death. (for a being).

"bad" can only be annulment of one.
...of c: if you love the life itself.

[Valkyrie]

Without having yet read the whole thread.. this is what I have concluded... Peacenicked and Derminator are intimately related.... thou art brothers. Yes?

[peaccenicked]

paris, yes this fortunate circumstance is already alluded to in another thread. You know I have got to say fortunate.
..............well..............it is true.........................
familiarity does not always breed a cliche.

[El Che]

Sorry peace no can do.

[Valkyrie]

NOt always... but familiarity does breed contempt.

The systematic organization of physical matter might possibly succeed an intelligent source of energy-(ies).

[TheDerminator]

Lardlad95,

U are all confusion! That is my whole argument! Check out the other thread on the Definitive Proof of the non-existence of God! Something cannot come from nothing, and that goes for concepts as well as physical being!

The savage preadamite without a soul. Sounds like U are making it up as U go along! I am not saying that neanderthals etc, were our direct answers. The evidence is that the latter were contempories of our early ancestors. The difference between us and our early ancestors is our level of consciousness. "Soul" is just a dogma superstion sublimated onto the human essence for the sake of your immortal redemption. Hate to be the one to tell U this, but U are just going to die like the rest of us my friend!
U can let live. Very nice of U! Pity U aint God or in charge of world ethos! I wanna let live too. Gee I am so nice.

Our measurement of time is irrelevant. What Moskitto is peddling is the denial of time, and if U are peddling that too, U are peddling the same irrational thought, and it deserves to be ridiculed given its damage to humanity.
We are all agreeing except Moskitto that U are correct, all-powerful God must be "endless" or infinite in being and that is the logical position for most believers.
U no sod all about God. U have never met God, so any attribute U give is just the speculation U give and mine is of = value and wortlessness as regards specific attributes of a hypothetical God.
God "moves in mysterious ways" is just your "nice" way of comforting a victim of a terminal illness.
Sounds a bit worse than cold comfort to me!

El Che,
I am 100% percent sure with peaccenicked, that when U read this message board, U are reading the message board 100% with just a few lapses in your concentration! Joke! 10/10! Why quibble over a tenth of 1? We shouldn't be pedants, except when we have to be 100 percent sure of something! (no contradiction!)

El Che. Forgive me!
I thought U were taking an extreme position as regards non-reality!

Lardlad95,
is in denial of all reality! U are 99%! Lardlad is 0%!
Pinch yourself Lardlad! Test out the realiability of the senses in relation to the sense receptors in your brain. Just might work! Hope U are not paralysed.
Don't set yourself on fire!
It just might be a real lighter and a real tank of petroleum! Don't do it! Don't do it! Don't do it!
Paris it doesn't sound as if U don't need to be familiar with people to be contemptuous of them!
El Che. Less of that self-denial. U can do! U can do it my friend. Just that teenzy weenzy little push to that extra 1% percent when U see U self in a mirror and say "Aw what an absolutely beautiful person".
Singing "learning to live yourself is the greatest love of all" Take it away George Benson!
"I believe children are our future..never walked in any man's shadow" None of that head banging repetitive beat! beat! beat! Fucking brain damage!
Paris. U assume! U assume! U assume!
Nature is one huge mess of subjective eccentric development. The systematic plan is only in your head!
It is called dogma! The "might" is a non-starter, because for the might to occur U have to make a hypothetical assumption, which ultimatley falls back upon something comin from nothing in order to systemise shit. If this organised chaos U are arguing, I think U need to go back to ye ole mysterious ways!

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force with U!

derminated

[El Che]

Hey derminator the other day I was watching a program and it reminded me this very issue. The program is about the study of the brain conducted by a especialist in the area. He studies pacients with brain damage due to heart atacks or other unfortunate acidents. In any case by studing pacients with parts of the brain damaged he is able to objectify which parts of the brain play what role in the creation of consciousness. This particular episode was about people who had the right part of the brain damaged. As a result of this injury the left part of there vision didnt exist. to these people it was as if the left side of the world did not exist, they were not blind, both eyes worked just fine. But the left side would only see if the person consciously made the "effort" to look at what was going on in that part of their vision camp. They asked one pacient to draw a fllower, the lady did so, but see only drew half a flower, when the doctor called her atention to this she was suprised, she said "its wierd, I dont know why I did that, its as if I forget about the left side, its weird". Another thing that happened is that these pacients would deny that part of their body was paralised, they truly believed that it wasnt, dispite the fact that they had been in such condition for years and dispite the fact that they are mentaly sane in all other aspects. You could perfectly talk to them about any subject and they were lucid people. The Neurologist believes that one part of you brain is responsible for maintaining the "status quo" in relation to the certainties you have about different things in your life, like for example that both of your arms work fine. And the other part of your brain would be responsible for putting in question the things you assume as true in your mind when new information comes along that makes you question your certainties. Now these pacients had the "questioning" side of their brain damaged, so the doctor would ask them,"is your left arm working?", the man would say " yes of course doctor" the doctor would ask them "can you touch my nose with you right hand", the pacient would do so, then he asked them to do the same with the left arm, the pacient would lean towards the doctor as if trying to move his paralised arm, the doctor would ask "are you touching my nose yet?" the pacient said " not yet, im talking to my hand, im waking it up" Dening reality! reality to him was that both his arms worked! it was his consciousness, and it was wrong.


In another exercise the doctor put a mirror beside the pacients right side, then they put a man on his left holding a key, then they said "can you grad that set of keys there?", the man, dispite the fact that he was sane and that he rationaly knew of his condition, he knew he neglected the left side of the world, he knew that was what the doctor was questioning him about. Dispite all these things, all the understanding of his rational mind he would always start trying to grab the keys in the mirror its self and was unable to realise they were on his left side, the left didnt exist! Extraordinary. Then the repeated the experiment this the keys on the right and the mirror in front of him and he did everything right...

You place to much confidence in an organ my friend, we are not perfect, our consciousness could well be flawed and reality can be far away indeed. I am certain of nothing, not 100% anyway.

None the less I must live in this world if I dont wish to be commited to a nut house. The thing is, im carefull about what I consider true, and the degree of certainty involved in the consideration.

[TheDerminator]

El Che,
"to these people it was as if the left side of the world did not exist, they were not blind, both eyes worked just fine."
The left side of the world "did not exist". Nope, only their capacity to rationally understand the reality of the world was impaired.
Come on, El Che, I do live in the real world, and I know that the brain can distort reality from medical conditions, from drugs, and from the damage in an accident or even a congental condition.
Those are the exceptions. The majority of us are not exceptions, and U cannot use the Socratic method to rule out the general rule, just because the human brain is not immune to malfunction in some people. It is a bit simplistic to say the least.
"The Neurologist believes that one part of you brain is responsible for maintaining the "status quo" in relation to the certainties you have about different things in your life, like for example that both of your arms work fine. And the other part of your brain would be responsible for putting in question the things you assume as true in your mind when new information comes along that makes you question your certainties."
Must admit, it seems a bit of a mechanical compartmentalisation of the brain to me. I know parts have different functions, but I do not see how it is possible to say one part of the brain stores your organic beliefs, and the other is more related to your questioning capacity.
For some people a serious accident is a time when the question their own belief system in relation to what they have held to be important in life. Is this capacity diminished by the brain damage? Not sure the program U saw adequately answered that particular question.
I do not place confidence in the organ my friend. I place confidence in human consciousness. Well, not complete confidence in the sense that U confidently predict its indulgence in ignorance for the forseeable future!

I have only absolute confidence, that the human species is the human species, because it possess our level of consciousness.
A faulty organ whether an eye or brain is a physical defect. A fault in consciousness affecting a human community is a very different kind of flaw. It is a flaw in a mindset, and believe U me, that flaw has zero to do with bad eyesight or a damaged brain!

May the Force with U!

derminated

[El Che]

Consciousness is formed in the brain, that is what the program and the study of this man was all about. Understand the way our brain creates our understanding of the world around us, understanding how the brain creates consciousness. My point is, and the fact of the matter is, that consciousness is the result of an imperfect organ, hence the perfect[understanding]can never exist therein. Its as logicaly evident as that.

[TheDerminator]

El Che,
It is mechanical reductionism, consciousness is social consciousness. Not just created in the single brain on a human individual, but evolved in human society.

The damaged brain is still the exception. U have to go beyond the Robinson Crusoe, to the individual centred in human society, with human social norms.
I see the self-evident logic, but it is rooted in the ole Robinson Crusoe example, and it was long since discarded.

May the Force be with U!

dermianted

[El Che]

You know this ongoing discussion about consciousness is really starting to get to me in a good way. My curiousity is aroused. I bought the sentiment of self, well I dont know how the title is in english but its about consciousness, the author is Dr. Antonio Damasio. He is a leading neurobiologist, also author of Decart`s mistake, book in which he proves there is no reason without emotion. Im interested in what he has to say in the matter, I could take me a while to read this but I`ll make resumay of the essential points.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 3:02 pm on Mar. 20, 2002
Lardlad95,

U are all confusion! That is my whole argument! Check out the other thread on the Definitive Proof of the non-existence of God! Something cannot come from nothing, and that goes for concepts as well as physical being!

The savage preadamite without a soul. Sounds like U are making it up as U go along! I am not saying that neanderthals etc, were our direct answers. The evidence is that the latter were contempories of our early ancestors. The difference between us and our early ancestors is our level of consciousness. "Soul" is just a dogma superstion sublimated onto the human essence for the sake of your immortal redemption. Hate to be the one to tell U this, but U are just going to die like the rest of us my friend!
U can let live. Very nice of U! Pity U aint God or in charge of world ethos! I wanna let live too. Gee I am so nice.

Our measurement of time is irrelevant. What Moskitto is peddling is the denial of time, and if U are peddling that too, U are peddling the same irrational thought, and it deserves to be ridiculed given its damage to humanity.
We are all agreeing except Moskitto that U are correct, all-powerful God must be "endless" or infinite in being and that is the logical position for most believers.
U no sod all about God. U have never met God, so any attribute U give is just the speculation U give and mine is of = value and wortlessness as regards specific attributes of a hypothetical God.
God "moves in mysterious ways" is just your "nice" way of comforting a victim of a terminal illness.
Sounds a bit worse than cold comfort to me!

El Che,
I am 100% percent sure with peaccenicked, that when U read this message board, U are reading the message board 100% with just a few lapses in your concentration! Joke! 10/10! Why quibble over a tenth of 1? We shouldn't be pedants, except when we have to be 100 percent sure of something! (no contradiction!)

El Che. Forgive me!
I thought U were taking an extreme position as regards non-reality!

Lardlad95,
is in denial of all reality! U are 99%! Lardlad is 0%!
Pinch yourself Lardlad! Test out the realiability of the senses in relation to the sense receptors in your brain. Just might work! Hope U are not paralysed.
Don't set yourself on fire!
It just might be a real lighter and a real tank of petroleum! Don't do it! Don't do it! Don't do it!
Paris it doesn't sound as if U don't need to be familiar with people to be contemptuous of them!
El Che. Less of that self-denial. U can do! U can do it my friend. Just that teenzy weenzy little push to that extra 1% percent when U see U self in a mirror and say "Aw what an absolutely beautiful person".
Singing "learning to live yourself is the greatest love of all" Take it away George Benson!
"I believe children are our future..never walked in any man's shadow" None of that head banging repetitive beat! beat! beat! Fucking brain damage!
Paris. U assume! U assume! U assume!
Nature is one huge mess of subjective eccentric development. The systematic plan is only in your head!
It is called dogma! The "might" is a non-starter, because for the might to occur U have to make a hypothetical assumption, which ultimatley falls back upon something comin from nothing in order to systemise shit. If this organised chaos U are arguing, I think U need to go back to ye ole mysterious ways!

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force with U!

derminated



First of all I'm not making it up as I go along I told you what book I read, the book includes Bible passages that support it.

Second you entire arguement against religion is bullshit. I want you to prove, I mean to prove there is no God. Can you do it? No you can't a belief that for no aparent reason nothing just created something with an explosion is more fairytale than a higher being. At least I have reason to believe in God. You can't even explain where this matter that started it all came from.

Tell me where did it come from? Matter can't come from nothing. Thats impossible. Have you ever just seen some silver just appear out of no where? When you get down to it all begins with creation.

Also I never siad that God works in mysterious ways. You are putting a whole bunch of conservative Christian bullshit in my mouth that I never said. Yes I will die, but at least I wont regret having not believed. I'm 100 percent sure God exist you know why? Because matter just doesn't come from no where.

>>>U are all confusion! That is my whole argument! Check out the other thread on the Definitive Proof of the non-existence of God! Something cannot come from nothing, and that goes for concepts as well as physical being!<<<

God isn't a physical being, he can't be, because physical beings cannot create physical beings of matter from nothing. But then again you are stuck in the belief that matter just appears out of nowhere.

There is no way you can discredit anything about religion that has to do with God, Souls, Heaven, HEll, etc. because you can't prove it doesn't exist. Every damn atheist is running around saying" you can't prove God exist" well guess what my friend you can't prove he doesn't exist. And yes I keep saying this because I'm right you can't prove it.

>>>>The savage preadamite without a soul. Sounds like U are making it up as U go along! I am not saying that neanderthals etc, were our direct answers. The evidence is that the latter were contempories of our early ancestors. The difference between us and our early ancestors is our level of consciousness. "Soul" is just a dogma superstion sublimated onto the human essence for the sake of your immortal redemption. Hate to be the one to tell U this, but U are just going to die like the rest of us my friend! <<<<


You have got to be the funniest person in existence.

1. you have no idea if a soul exist or not so how can you tell me the differnces?

2. You don't now if sould exist or not so don't call it superstition

I want to let live but since you have something against God you feel you have to take it out on people that don't believe that this is all there is.

Humans measure time, so I'm allowed to also because I'm human. I said time is irrelavent to God, not humans. I said humans started measuring time, not God. I'm human I'm allowed to keep time

Tell me something, why do you believe that God doesn't exist, I want an honest answer of your personal veiws

Also you sound like one of those people that got made because God let you down so you don't believe anymore

(Edited by Lardlad95 at 1:56 am on Mar. 21, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

Now that I rethink what i have said I find that I should have just let the subject drop for several reasons.

You do not believe in the existence of God, I respect your decision. I on the other hand do. We should respect one anothers veiws because we both have our reasons for our beliefs. However I find the fact that you seem to look down on people with religous beliefs quite offending. Some ones beliefs are not something that should inable you to put them beneath you. Even if its a capitalist or something, that doesn't mean they are below you that means that they are wrong. I consider you to be wrong in your beliefs, and you me. Does that make you less of a person? No it doesn't. I find that lots of Atheist consider people who believe in higher beings to be fools. Why is this? I realise that you see these things as fairy tales, however I take pride in my beliefs. I don't consider them Fairy Tales, and perhapes if you took the time to get past this notion you would realise that there is alot of wisdom in the Bible. And maybe you will stop looking down upon people who have beliefs that conflict with yours.

There is nothing wrong with belief in God(s), because if you look about this world, it can'tjust be one big coeincidence(SP?) that this world was made just far enough from the sun to sustain life, that humans have the intelect to go from stone tools to computers. In my mind there the idea of no God is impossible. You claim a soul is a superstitous lie. How can you not feel it inside you, I simply don't understand how you can not feel that there is more than what we see around us. If there is nothing beyond this than life is not worth living, life is worthless then. All thought and philosophy, and morals need have no meaning to you. You wont remember anything any way in the end. There need be no respect for life if God does not exist.

Thats just how I feel, you have a right to your opinion as do I

[El Che]

Lardlad95,


You are a metaphysician, but your a bad one. Do you know why? its very simple, your making the most basic mistake any metaphisician could commit, your arguing your position with logic. You hold no sway with logic, logic is against you. If you argue your position in such a manner nothing will be easier then ripping your arguments to shreads one by one. Just some friendly advice there. Just say you believe because you believe and you feel because you feel, and leave it at that. Just because logic cant prove you wrong doesnt mean it will suport your religious theories. In logic you need more then especulation over the unknown, much more. Religious fundaments its self on circular logic, it is because it is. It is self suficient when it comes to fundamenting its self. If you try and go beyond that you will fall face down, all you have is circular logic so dont go too far away from its protection.

Just to address some points you made:

No you can't a belief that for no aparent reason nothing just created something with an explosion is more fairytale than a higher being. At least I have reason to believe in God. You can't even explain where this matter that started it all came from.

Why is the unknown a reason to believe in God? This is no reason to believe in God, its simply what it is, the unknown. Why especulate?

Tell me where did it come from? Matter can't come from nothing. Thats impossible. Have you ever just seen some silver just appear out of no where? When you get down to it all begins with creation.

Actualy thats not impossible at all. Fact is you dont know, so you cant speak. If you say something is impossible, I must demand you prove the impossibility you state, and alas you cant, so like I said dont go there. Furthermore when you say "it all begins with creation" you are making another error. Again, since you are not fundamenting these assertions on circular religious dogma I must ask you to fundament your claims. Nop I wouldnt take your word for it, and the unknown will not help you where I am concerned.

God isn't a physical being, he can't be, because physical beings cannot create physical beings of matter from nothing. But then again you are stuck in the belief that matter just appears out of nowhere.

Again you make the mistake of pseudo-logical argumentation. So say "God is not a physical being", ok what is god, who is he and where is he, how do you know of his existence, can you prove his existence? indeed can you prove your own existence absolutly to me? I dont think you can but your welcome to try. But lets not mix things up, we were talking about god, you say god is not a physical being, then show me god. What will happen is this: You will fundament god on god its self, i.e on the supernatural, and we will leave it at that. But remember that in any other way other then that his existence is not recognised, so if you in the middle of a logical process introduce the figure of God you immediatly spoil the hole cake. Then you say "because physical beings cannot create physical beings of matter from nothing." this I can say with all confidence is down right wrong. First of all, when you say that physical beings can not create matter you are making an induction, i.e going from the particular to the general. Such a conclusion is the most inreliable in logic, even if all the premisses are correct the conclusion can still be wrong. Therefore, due to this objection alone, your somewhat pretencious claim, is proven unfundamented. You would have to know all physical beings that exist in the universe and all those that have existed in the past. And even then I would have something to object, but no need to complicate.

There is no way you can discredit anything about religion that has to do with God, Souls, Heaven, HEll, etc. because you can't prove it doesn't exist. Every damn atheist is running around saying" you can't prove God exist" well guess what my friend you can't prove he doesn't exist. And yes I keep saying this because I'm right you can't prove it.

Yup, I dont think he can prove it (never say never) but in any case, this to me is just being sloppy, if you believe in god because you feel god thats one thing (i guess), but if you believe because you just dont have any other explanation that really amounts to nothing. And again, in rational terms, the burned of proof is on the one making the claims not on the one asking for fundamentation of theory.

You don't now if sould exist or not so don't call it superstition

I call it unfundamented assertion, which is the same thing. Nothing you can do about it metaphysician, you can only fundament it on its self. If you fundamented it on the unknown(like you are doing) you are infact providing an argument against your self. Ask any priest and see if he makes the same mistake, no not him, he knows a bit more. He will fundament his claims on the mistery or the supernatural or the revelation etc... We ration men can`t go there, so its there that they hide from us, its the only quarter they get! Metaphysician! you must change your discourse or you wont stand a chance.

Tell me something, why do you believe that God doesn't exist, I want an honest answer of your personal veiws

May I answer this question? In my personal opinion, I dont believe because for me to believe in anything, for me to accept anything as true it must be fundamented on grounds which I consider valid, which is consider less pron to error. Circular logic I daresay doesn`t not fit this profile. To each his own I guess.

All thought and philosophy, and morals need have no meaning to you. You wont remember anything any way in the end. There need be no respect for life if God does not exist.

This just makes not sense. I respect people because they are people not because they are "god`s creation". And philosophy&thought have nothing to do with this type of triviality.


Again Lardlad95, I dont want to convince you of anything and im not trying to prove anything in the metaphysical level at least. But you just cant say everything that comes to mind without thinking twice.

[Lardlad95]

First of all when I said philosphy, morals, etc. I didn't mean they have no meaning with out Gd, I meant you have no need for them. Who gives a fuck if other people are human, who declared that grounds to respect people?No one said that because I was human you had to respect me did they? Atheist have no written code of morals. If you don't want to respect me you don't have to. By philosophy and thought I meant enlightenment.

>>>Why is the unknown a reason to believe in God? This is no reason to believe in God, its simply what it is, the unknown. Why especulate?<<<

Give me a reason not to believe in God, no one has given me a reason yet. I never said the unknown was my reason. I said I had a reason, my reason is that an explosion from nothing, that exapnaded, and expanded, and made other gases, that expanded, and compressed, and flung particules that fused, and fused, and became miniature planets, that revolved around a growing mass of gas, that had mini planets that continued to fuse until they were planets that revolved around a star,. And that of all these planets on just happened to fall in the right position, so that the temperature would be just right, and that the gases of this planet condensed and evaporated, then condensed again until it cooled the molten surface, and that these gases mixed right just to make water and breatheavle air, and large oceans, and that for no aparent reason some matter became living, and that this living organism evolved to be two celled, then four celled, then multicelled, then a organism that had instincts came from that, until a fish decided it liked the land better, that evolved into reptiles, and amphibians, which branched off to create small lizards, which branched to become small mamals and larger lizards, and these lizards grew huge, and then they all died, and the mamals got larger, and branched,and one mamal started swinging from a tree, and started to walk a little straighter than his brothers, until he dragged his knuckles that were developing an extra finger, that started to walk completeley upright, thats brain developed the power to reason and build tools, and more complaex tools, it is all far to ironic that all this stuff fell perefectly into place.


>>>Actualy thats not impossible at all. Fact is you dont know, so you cant speak. If you say something is impossible, I must demand you prove the impossibility you state, and alas you cant, so like I said dont go there. Furthermore when you say "it all begins with creation" you are making another error. Again, since you are not fundamenting these assertions on circular religious dogma I must ask you to fundament your claims. Nop I wouldnt take your word for it, and the unknown will not help you where I am concerned<<<

And I say to you prove that its not impossible, come to where I live and make some matter appear from nothing using no tricks. so I guess we are stalemated, I can't prove its impossible and you can't prove its possible

Your claims on why I am wrong are no better than my original claim. I was simply assuming just like you did, I assume that physical beings cannot create matter from nothing, just like you assume God doesn't exist.

Also Since I am going on religous beliefs to me God is not a physical being

>>>Yup, I dont think he can prove it (never say never) but in any case, this to me is just being sloppy, if you believe in god because you feel god thats one thing (i guess), but if you believe because you just dont have any other explanation that really amounts to nothing. And again, in rational terms, the burned of proof is on the one making the claims not on the one asking for fundamentation of theory. <<<


Excuse the language I'm about to use...don't ever fuckin tell me why I believe in something, don't assume why I believe in something. You don't know me, or my beliefs, don't assume that I'm some stupid little kid that just believes to explain the unknown. You don't know what I feel, you don't know hy I believe, all your doing is going around guessing like some know it all bastard who thnks he can explain every damn thing that everyone says. Don't try and explain anything about what I believe. If a person cna't explain to me why God does not exist then why do I have to explain why he does? He hasn't yet? Yet you aren't *****in at him. When you read my head then tell me why I believe something. I don't just believe in God because I can't explain something. All you fuckin atheist do is try and tell us that we are just believing cuz we can't prove. You can't prove anything either so shut the fuck up.

Now that I have blown off some steam...

>>>I call it unfundamented assertion, which is the same thing. Nothing you can do about it metaphysician, you can only fundament it on its self. If you fundamented it on the unknown(like you are doing) you are infact providing an argument against your self. Ask any priest and see if he makes the same mistake, no not him, he knows a bit more. He will fundament his claims on the mistery or the supernatural or the revelation etc... We ration men can`t go there, so its there that they hide from us, its the only quarter they get! Metaphysician! you must change your discourse or you wont stand a chance. <<<<

Do you know? Then thats the unknown also. I'm sick of seeing atheist complain about how we don't explain anything. You guys don't explain shit either. You guys don't know either. However I have a belief in God, I'm not trying to explain the unknown because to me its not unknown, God created the universe. Atheist don't have any beliefs so you guys are always gonna be guessing.

>>>May I answer this question? In my personal opinion, I dont believe because for me to believe in anything, for me to accept anything as true it must be fundamented on grounds which I consider valid, which is consider less pron to error. Circular logic I daresay doesn`t not fit this profile. To each his own I guess. <<<

I feel so so so sorry for you. Your one of those I can't believe unless I see people aren't you? The problem is that when you say you don't consider something valid all your doing is just disregarding something because you don't like the way it sounds. I mean how do you define valid? Everyones version of valid is different. The problem is all the theories on why we exist can't truly be considered valid, because there is no record of how. You weren't there when the first Neanderthal walked upright, you weren't there when that fish took its first gulp of air. Everything about those things are blind faith you see you are believing with out seeing, yet somethings you can't believe because you can't see.

Look I'm really getting tired of this so hurry up and shoot down everyone of my comments, cuz you know what. IF you are right and there is no God then its not like you'll get to gloat or anything, so why do you want to try and strip people of their beliefs. At least if I'm right I'm right, but you, you have to be right for your own sake. Besides I never came here to talk religion, I came to talk polotics, which I'm probably better at debating...at least for a fourteenyear old

You know I just remembered a belief I had when I was little, it sounds more like fairytale than any religous stories. I used to believe that whatever people believed religous wise would come true for them in death. Hindus and Bhuddist wwould be reincarnated, Christians would go to Heaven,So would Jews, and Muslims, but then I thought about atheist and I got sorta sad, cuz if theri beliefs came true for them they truly would be dead

Sorry I'm getting all sentamental, its sorta late and I'm tired so I guess I'm not at my peak thought hour. But hey like I said I don't like debating religion cuz I don't believe people should force their religos beliefs on others

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from El Che on 5:44 am on Mar. 21, 2002
Again Lardlad95, I dont want to convince you of anything and im not trying to prove anything in the metaphysical level at least. But you just cant say everything that comes to mind without thinking twice.


hey, did you ever consider that maybe I don't analyze every little thing people say? I mean I find no need to in this particular disscussion. I mean I'm not trying to convince you of anything, Now if I was trying to convince you perhaps I would take this more seriously. You know maybe if you had religion in your life you would relax more and stop being so intense.

[Guest]

This is El_Che

Ok first of all I didnt know you where 14 years old so im sorry if i came on a bit strong... That being said:


Give me a reason not to believe in God, no one has given me a reason yet. I never said the unknown was my reason. I said I had a reason, my reason is that an explosion from nothing, that exapnaded, and expanded, and made other gases, that expanded, and compressed, and flung particules that fused, and fused, and became miniature planets, that revolved around a growing mass of gas, that had mini planets that continued to fuse until they were planets that revolved around a star,. And that of all these planets on just happened to fall in the right position, so that the temperature would be just right, and that the gases of this planet condensed and evaporated, then condensed again until it cooled the molten surface, and that these gases mixed right just to make water and breatheavle air, and large oceans, and that for no aparent reason some matter became living, and that this living organism evolved to be two celled, then four celled, then multicelled, then a organism that had instincts came from that, until a fish decided it liked the land better, that evolved into reptiles, and amphibians, which branched off to create small lizards, which branched to become small mamals and larger lizards, and these lizards grew huge, and then they all died, and the mamals got larger, and branched,and one mamal started swinging from a tree, and started to walk a little straighter than his brothers, until he dragged his knuckles that were developing an extra finger, that started to walk completeley upright, thats brain developed the power to reason and build tools, and more complaex tools, it is all far to ironic that all this stuff fell perefectly into place.

I dont know why all these things happened, I dont know if there is some ocult meaning, or purpose behind these events. My position is I dont know, because I have no information of the subject that I consider credible.

>>>Actualy thats not impossible at all. Fact is you dont know, so you cant speak. If you say something is impossible, I must demand you prove the impossibility you state, and alas you cant, so like I said dont go there. Furthermore when you say "it all begins with creation" you are making another error. Again, since you are not fundamenting these assertions on circular religious dogma I must ask you to fundament your claims. Nop I wouldnt take your word for it, and the unknown will not help you where I am concerned<<<

And I say to you prove that its not impossible, come to where I live and make some matter appear from nothing using no tricks. so I guess we are stalemated, I can't prove its impossible and you can't prove its possible

Yes your right, but I dont say its impossible, I dont say anything. I say it could be possible and it could be impossible, I say I dont know. You dont, thats your problem. Thats why when I ask you to fundament your position your going to have to fundament it on religion its self. Thats the difference between us Lardlad95.

Excuse the language I'm about to use...don't ever fuckin tell me why I believe in something, don't assume why I believe in something. You don't know me, or my beliefs, don't assume that I'm some stupid little kid that just believes to explain the unknown. You don't know what I feel, you don't know hy I believe, all your doing is going around guessing like some know it all bastard who thnks he can explain every damn thing that everyone says. Don't try and explain anything about what I believe. If a person cna't explain to me why God does not exist then why do I have to explain why he does? He hasn't yet? Yet you aren't *****in at him. When you read my head then tell me why I believe something. I don't just believe in God because I can't explain something. All you fuckin atheist do is try and tell us that we are just believing cuz we can't prove. You can't prove anything either so shut the fuck up.

No problem, use whatever language you want. And I didnt say it you said it your self, or at least thats what I understood of what you wrote. You say that you believe in god because the universe doesnt makes sense without his existence and that something cant come from nothing. These are the reasons you give man... what else do you want me to think?

>>>I call it unfundamented assertion, which is the same thing. Nothing you can do about it metaphysician, you can only fundament it on its self. If you fundamented it on the unknown(like you are doing) you are infact providing an argument against your self. Ask any priest and see if he makes the same mistake, no not him, he knows a bit more. He will fundament his claims on the mistery or the supernatural or the revelation etc... We ration men can`t go there, so its there that they hide from us, its the only quarter they get! Metaphysician! you must change your discourse or you wont stand a chance. <<<<

Do you know? Then thats the unknown also. I'm sick of seeing atheist complain about how we don't explain anything. You guys don't explain shit either. You guys don't know either. However I have a belief in God, I'm not trying to explain the unknown because to me its not unknown, God created the universe. Atheist don't have any beliefs so you guys are always gonna be guessing.

Exactly, now your learning. You say I dont know and I dont explain all the things you know and explain. This is true in that I dont recognise as true many of the things you recognise as true, but whatever I do recognise as ture I`ll explain and fundament, eveything.

I feel so so so sorry for you. Your one of those I can't believe unless I see people aren't you? The problem is that when you say you don't consider something valid all your doing is just disregarding something because you don't like the way it sounds. I mean how do you define valid? Everyones version of valid is different. The problem is all the theories on why we exist can't truly be considered valid, because there is no record of how. You weren't there when the first Neanderthal walked upright, you weren't there when that fish took its first gulp of air. Everything about those things are blind faith you see you are believing with out seeing, yet somethings you can't believe because you can't see.


Dont feel sorry for me :) I do just fine without God trust me. And actualy I dont even believe what I see! lol. Hows that for a mind blower.

Anyway what I consider to be valid is always open to question. I dont assume anything "absolutly", its always provisorial, sort of "the-best-I-can" do certainty of things.

I respect your religious position, the point of my post was not that, but rather your logical gymnastics, trying to justify religion with something else other then religion.

[Lardlad95]

Ok, I'm not even mad anymore.

>>>I dont know why all these things happened, I dont know if there is some ocult meaning, or purpose behind these events. My position is I dont know, because I have no information of the subject that I consider credible<<<

Your right yu don't know, that is your position. However, though you say that you don't make absolutes such as possible or impossible consider one thing. You have got to know what humans are physically capable of. Is it impossible to survive a nuclear blast at its center? No one knows. However human's physical capacity doesn't include creation from nothingness. Do I know every human? No, however if you did ask every human living or dead, and they couldn't create something for nothing, that is what you would find, IU'm betting. Is it certain but your being to vaguege. In essence you have no belieffs then, because anything is possible. HHumans can do amazing things, but I'm betting we didn't create existence. And the fact is there is always a reason for everything, a logical reason? nO, however there is a reason. That reason could be God, or I could be wrong, however being vaguege(sp?) about such things is contradictory to one belief or the other, obviously someone has to be wrong

>>>Yes your right, but I dont say its impossible, I dont say anything. I say it could be possible and it could be impossible, I say I dont know. You dont, thats your problem. Thats why when I ask you to fundament your position your going to have to fundament it on religion its self. Thats the difference between us Lardlad95.<<<

But the thing is that i don't need to prve God's existence to myself, I believe it. An Atheist doesn't need to prove that God doesn't exist because thats what he believes(are you an agnostic by the way?)

>>>No problem, use whatever language you want. And I didnt say it you said it your self, or at least thats what I understood of what you wrote. You say that you believe in god because the universe doesnt makes sense without his existence and that something cant come from nothing. These are the reasons you give man... what else do you want me to think?<<<

The difference between explaioning the unknown and saying that the Universe makes no sense with out him are that using the unkown is blind faith, I'm considering all things that have happended and comparing them with religion and my outcome is that all this is not possible with out a God.

>>>Dont feel sorry for me I do just fine without God trust me. And actualy I dont even believe what I see! lol. Hows that for a mind blower.

Anyway what I consider to be valid is always open to question. I dont assume anything "absolutly", its always provisorial, sort of "the-best-I-can" do certainty of things.<<<


your not with out God. You don't believe, that doesn't mean he's not out there, atleast from my standpoint. I get along fine with out God's assistance because contrary to what people say God doesn't control us in everything we do, we have free will. I sin all the time, why would God make me sin? God knows all, that doesn't mean he forces us to believe in him. IF you don't want to God has given you that choice, I bet he would preffer that you would, but he is not a God that will strike you down with lightining for having an opinion.

[TheDerminator]

Lardlad,
"First of all I'm not making it up as I go along I told you what book I read, the book includes Bible passages that support it."
They just made it up in the Bible, and you are just repeating it, like a dogmatic parrot. Who says? It is in the Bible! An eye for an eye eh?


"Second you entire arguement against religion is bullshit. I want you to prove, I mean to prove there is no God. Can you do it? No you can't a belief that for no aparent reason nothing just created something with an explosion is more fairytale than a higher being. At least I have reason to believe in God. You can't even explain where this matter that started it all came from."
Lardlad. You are only 14, so I doubt U can understand what an abstract concept is. All I am saying is that God is an abstract concept invented out of nothingness. If U want to know more about that particular argument check out the other thread on the same subject in this forum. You came in a bit late in day. The first thread was up first and I have answered El Che at length on the subject of abstract concepts in the other thread.
You cannot say my proof is bullshit if you have never read my proof, and my proof is in the other thread, not in this thread started by peaccenicked. I did not want this thread to be started, but I am stuck with it, because the other one is out of sight and out of mind.
If you want to answer to the points in the other thread do so, but how can say "bullshit" if you have not tackled it?
"Tell me where did it come from? Matter can't come from nothing. Thats impossible. Have you ever just seen some silver just appear out of no where? When you get down to it all begins with creation."
You still do not understand infinite cause and effect. If time and space can be infinite why cannot matter be infinite in an infinite series of cause and effect reactions. Just because U say so? U are hardly a nuclear scientist. A nuclear scientist requires theory to make a judgement. What makes your presupposition better than mine? Your common-sense is about as common sense as the Flat Earth. Infinite causation is the only plausable answer, because God cannot come from the nothingness of an abstract concept.


"Also I never siad that God works in mysterious ways. You are putting a whole bunch of conservative Christian bullshit in my mouth that I never said. Yes I will die, but at least I wont regret having not believed. I'm 100 percent sure God exist you know why? Because matter just doesn't come from no where."
Presuppostion about the inherent nature of matter. You might well regret you belived in a philosophy that helped bound the whole "third world" to the genocide of wanton neglect.
"God isn't a physical being, he can't be, because physical beings cannot create physical beings of matter from nothing. But then again you are stuck in the belief that matter just appears out of nowhere. "
Nope, I believe in the infinite. There is not the nowhere of any point before time was measured, just an infinite series stretching into infinity.

"There is no way you can discredit anything about religion that has to do with God, Souls, Heaven, HEll, etc. because you can't prove it doesn't exist. Every damn atheist is running around saying" you can't prove God exist" well guess what my friend you can't prove he doesn't exist. And yes I keep saying this because I'm right you can't prove it."
Sounds complete unthinking unquestioning dogma. I'm right! I'm right! I'm right!
You are wrong. You just haven't tackled the arguments in the other threads, and are probably too lazy to try since I made you aware of its existence.

"You have got to be the funniest person in existence."
Yeah I'm a funny guy...

"1. you have no idea if a soul exist or not so how can you tell me the differnces?"
I have every idea that there is no soul. Again, U have not read the other thread.

"2. You don't now if sould exist or not so don't call it superstition"
Again it is in the other thread.

"I want to let live but since you have something against God you feel you have to take it out on people that don't believe that this is all there is. "
Sorry, but it is a childish argument. Life and death are social phenomona and I am taking out zero any one. My proof on the non-existence of God is a philosophical proof. Check the other thread.

"Humans measure time, so I'm allowed to also because I'm human. I said time is irrelavent to God, not humans. I said humans started measuring time, not God. I'm human I'm allowed to keep time"
How do you know time is irrelvant to God? Time is relevant to human society and to you. So what? I agree.

"Tell me something, why do you believe that God doesn't exist, I want an honest answer of your personal veiws" Check the other thread.

"Also you sound like one of those people that got made because God let you down so you don't believe anymore"
I was a red-diaper baby. No concept of God in my family
background. Sorry.



"You do not believe in the existence of God, I respect your decision. I on the other hand do. We should respect one anothers veiws because we both have our reasons for our beliefs. However I find the fact that you seem to look down on people with religous beliefs quite offending. Some ones beliefs are not something that should inable you to put them beneath you. Even if its a capitalist or something, that doesn't mean they are below you that means that they are wrong. I consider you to be wrong in your beliefs, and you me. Does that make you less of a person? No it doesn't. I find that lots of Atheist consider people who believe in higher beings to be fools. Why is this? I realise that you see these things as fairy tales, however I take pride in my beliefs. I don't consider them Fairy Tales, and perhapes if you took the time to get past this notion you would realise that there is alot of wisdom in the Bible. And maybe you will stop looking down upon people who have beliefs that conflict with yours."
If your beliefs were harmless beliefs, I wouldn't give a shit, but they are pernicious beliefs, which uphold the genocide of wanton nelgect in the underdeveloped countries.
"There is nothing wrong with belief in God(s), because if you look about this world, it can'tjust be one big coeincidence(SP?) that this world was made just far enough from the sun to sustain life, that humans have the intelect to go from stone tools to computers."

"conicidence" What if we are the only planet in the whole fucking infinite universe with advanced life, what sort of coincidence would that be?
" In my mind there the idea of no God is impossible. You claim a soul is a superstitous lie. How can you not feel it inside you, I simply don't understand how you can not feel that there is more than what we see around us. If there is nothing beyond this than life is not worth living, life is worthless then. All thought and philosophy, and morals need have no meaning to you. You wont remember anything any way in the end. There need be no respect for life if God does not exist."
Dreadful dogma.
I am a socialist. I have an ethos, and life has value because I believe there should be the spiritual equality of humanking. I believe in a real spiritual essence of humanity, not your phoney invisible soul stuff spirituality. I believe in a higher purpose for the whole of humanity, not for some empty abstract idol.

"Thats just how I feel, you have a right to your opinion as do I"
William Saffire writes:

"Just because something is a right; does not make it right."
You have your selfist subjective opinions, I have an objective analysis of the abstract concept of God!

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[DestinDisaster]

Peacenicked,

That was just circular logic. With circular logic you can prove or disprove anything.

[pastradamus]

hurray ive got back up
how come you dont post that often in other topics DD.
cuz u put up good argument man

[Lefty]

after reading that theory, i can safely say...

I AM SO FUCKING CONFUSED I AM GOING TO DIE!!!

what kind of math is this? could one of you at least explain it in words that i can understand? lol

[TheDerminator]

Glad to see a meeting of minds! Cannot recall your contributions in the definitive proof of the non-existence of God thread!

Resistance is Futile!

derminated.

(Edited by TheDerminator at 12:54 pm on Mar. 24, 2002)

[Guest]

all i can say is that i totally agree with derminator

and to all who don't
plz say SOMETHING...
all u have said so far is: "oh that's circular reasoning"
that's really cool...
BUT exactly what is circular reasoning
put it in words, you can do that right?
point out the specific part where there is evidence of circular reasoning
but if u can't i guess u just have a lot of nothing to say
unless anyone else can disprove derminator, the debate is over:
man with their limited thinking cannot "prove" the nonexistence of "God" in general

[Fires of History]

Hey Guest,

Please go worship your 'god' alone. There is no 'god.'

Save your religious preaching from this open-minded place.

You hiding 'guest' freak.

[Lardlad95]

Fires of History please take your atheist preaching away from this openminded forum.(Just joking)

Yeah this isnt a place for people to preach, but he was right, no one has given any real proof of God not existing

[TheDerminator]

Lardlad95,

Just because U say something does not mean it is true!

Something cannot come from nothing!

There is no God!

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

[Guest]

oh did i say god existed to everyone?
i'm sorry but what i meant was
u can't argue jack and u can't prove that god doesn't exist

i can't prove to U that god exists and i don't intent to but i know PERSONALLY that he does
plz dont be so easily offended
i'm not preachin this down your throat
just thinkin out loud

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 11:41 am on Mar. 26, 2002
Lardlad95,

Just because U say something does not mean it is true!

Something cannot come from nothing!

There is no God!

Resistance is Futile!

derminated


Take your own advice, just because you say something that doesn't make it true. The same goes for you saying there is no God

[TheDerminator]

Guest,

The guest knows personally! Is that an educated guess? Where has this knowledge been gained? How do U know anything, if U have no logical rational proof for what U know. Sounds the basis of non-science or is that nonsense?

Lardlad95,
The difference between my something cannot come from nothing and your creationist "something cannot from nothing" is that mine is based on rational argument, and yours is based upon dogmatic faith.
U cannot argue a rational case. U are like the guest. U can't prove anything! U can't prove anything! U can't prove anything! Just because U say it does not mean U have not already read the proof. Perhaps, Ur brain cannot register the truth of the proof, because U can only think subjectively, and perhaps there is no perhaps.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[El Che]

Your battling in vaid derminator. Give up on religion, we can only look after our selves... We cant force people into mental sanity u know.

[Moskitto]

The something cannot be created from nothing arguement doesn't solve the question. If something cannot be created from nothing then the real question is what was here first and how did it come about. If something cannot be created from nothing then theoretically we can't exist because there's nothing that we could have come from. However we are here, so where did we come from? I don't realisticly see this debate ending for a few thousand years.

Or a annother idea is.

"God" is the personification of the laws of physics and peoples ideas, not really "God" at all.

[Rosa]

Hegel said that Pure Being and Nothing are the one, they are the same, so they are pure abstraction., ...Being dialecticaly becomes Nothing and both notions are "aufgehoben" (resolved? Dermy help w translation?)in one notion: originating.
(Enc $ 87,88)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from El Che on 5:08 pm on Mar. 29, 2002
Your battling in vaid derminator. Give up on religion, we can only look after our selves... We cant force people into mental sanity u know.


What the fuck is wrong with you? Because I believe in God I'm not sane? You may be joking but thats whats wrong with people. How the hell can you be a leftist and not have an open mind? Atheist are just as bad as us because they refuse to keep open minds.


>>>Lardlad95,
The difference between my something cannot come from nothing and your creationist "something cannot from nothing" is that mine is based on rational argument, and yours is based upon dogmatic faith.
U cannot argue a rational case. U are like the guest. U can't prove anything! U can't prove anything! U can't prove anything! Just because U say it does not mean U have not already read the proof. Perhaps, Ur brain cannot register the truth of the proof, because U can only think subjectively, and perhaps there is no perhaps.<<<<


What Dogmatic Faith? Everything I said about the pRe Adamite Earth, and evolution goes against the Dogma of the Catholic Church. Also How can it be Dogma for me to say something cannot come from nothing when the Catholic Church never adresses this or has an opinion of it. Get this through your head, I believe what I believe, I don't beleive because I"m told to believe.

[El Che]

Lardlad you may be sane in clinical terms but your reasoning is most certainly not a sane one if you believe in god, it is my opinion and I will have you respect it.

[Lardlad95]

Why are you insulting my intellegence? Keep an open mind about things. I mean You are judging me for my beliefs? Are you going to be prejudice against me because I'm black also?

I will respect your opinion if you don't insult me

[Rosa]

1. giving rational arguments is not insulting. It's insulting only if you think that you're most clever man in the world. ...do I understand correctly that word "dogmatism" troubles you? maybe it wouldn't be the case if you look in dictionary, and find exact meaning of it. It's not like "stupid" or something.
I mean, even I.Kant said thet Hume's scepticism woke him up from "dogmatic slumber", and directed him in sphere of speculative philosophy.
Here we discuss the possibility of god's exsistence, if you don't want to discuss it,(for your opinion is final, and no arguments can change it) - okay, i respect you, but you must admit that a lot of belivers do not respect atheists...call them "disturbors" etc.
2. dogma= mensa, or meaning which is brought up steady, but with no proofs (brought)
Think that Dermy wanted to say that you didn't gave any proofs for your opinion, when he called it "dogmatic"+ open minded means "opened for critics", too, and not stuborness(if somebody's argument beats yours).

3. This discussion is not a fight, or rivalry, but seeking for the truth.
So, I think that you should leave your pride out of it.

4. I look forward to see your arguments, supose that you have some, bcs your position is so resolute.

[Lardlad95]

I meant he was insulting me by saying I was not sane for my beliefs. That my belief in God made me insane, that is an insult.

I have no problem with atheist beliefs, but I find atheist put themselves on a pedastel above the rest of us. I find alot of them to be self rightous amd alot of them feel they are smarter and superior to people who believe in God(s)

The entire arguement on both sides have no proof of their arguement, I cannot prove God's existence, you cannot prove that he does not exist.

I will use something I heard last night on a disscussion between a christian and an atheist

Christian: What exactly are your beliefs

atheist: I believe that there is no inttelegence controlng the universe

Christian: you say that because you can't feel God, or see him he doesn't exist

Atheist: yes

Christian: let me ask you this, can you see pain?

Atheist: no

Christian: but it exist right?

Atheist: but I can feel pain

Christian: well I can feel God

That is how I know God is there, I can feel his presence and his love

[Rosa]

pain=signal sent to your brain, and it makes you aware of harm that something makes to your body. Sorry, I really can't see any similarity betw concept of pain and concept of god.
See that you're talking about higher intelligence: of course that it could exsist, but it doesn't proove that it's the creator of everything in lower or higher levels7dimensions.
You obviously like making paralels as explanatory means, so (actually, have said it in this thread, but long ago) : are you a God to an ant? or to a water drop?
You are more powerfull than it, but you are not the creator, and you don't spend whole of your life considering them, and LOVING them, and IN ANGER FOR THEIR SINS...YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO WORSHIP YOU...etc.

[Malvinas Argentinas]

God exists because there is people who believe in him, if there was no one beliving in him, he wouldnt exist.
For example, as i believe god exists to me

[Rosa]

yes, socialy constructed. Of course, if some tribe belives that god exsists, and if they make their life to be like that god requests, he lives, damn!people need god, I can understand that...standing on the untitled land, on exposed position, with no father to save you from blasts, but you have to stand upright...not bcs someone will give you a candy for that, but bcs you're exploring the posibilities of your being...yes, that can make some people panicking. and I don't have anything against it, as long as those don't mess up in my exploring-possibilities-of-my-being-job. ...I'm aware that it could kill me, but "the death is the utmost possibility of a being" (Heidegg., "ZuZ", on many places). so say helo to your god, and farewell.

[TheDerminator]

Malvinas Argentinas,

"God exists because there is people who believe in him"
!!!

Can U not see this is complete blind faith?

Can U not see that complete blind faith = pure anuadulterated dogma!

How can any questioning mind accept pure unadulterated dogma? Are U a zombie?


Lardlad95, Rosa, Rosa is correct. Pain is a tangible feeling recognised by the human senses, and we although there is no measuring instrument, it is still possible for doctors to quantify and differentiate between different levels of pain.

God is put forward as a complete "non-tangible" that no one can prove exists one way or another. This is seen as the strength of the belief, but in reality U can trace the origins of why God and gods were created, and we know all we need to know about this process. All we need to know is that God is an abstract concept, that concept was invented in human consciousness, and does not exist beyond its origins in invention.
The onus is the believers to provide proof, and in over 30,000 years since the dawn of humankind, there has not be one substantiated shred of proof, that shows the concept of God is none other than an invention from within human consciousness. There is no God.

El Che called U insane, but perhaps all that was meant is that there is no rational basis for the belief in God. U possess a real belief. U possess a rational for that belief, but ultimately that belief is entrenched in an irrational dogma based upon blind faith.
It must be blind faith, because U say yourself "I cannot prove God's existence", thus Ur belief is based upon a blind dogmatic faith in the existence of something U cannot prove. El Che, is quite right to see this as a completely irrational belief. Unshakeable, unquestioning dogma.
It is a zombie mind set. It is anti-independence of thought. It knows know reason, because ultimately no one can reason with it.!

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

[Lardlad95]

The feeling of God isn't te same as the type of feeling as pain, the word feeling had two meanings, however they were put together because it was an analogy

Me feeling God is related more to an emotion. When your sad, you say I'm feeling sad. The word feeling is used to state that the emotion that you are feeling.

Also why would he call me insane when no one has brought proof why I shouldn't believe in God

also why are you speaking in absolutes? You cannot prove that God was created in the mind of man. You don't know, there fore you should stop speaking in absolutes.

[Rosa]

lard, it really would be the best that u read all posts in this thread, for questions u're asking were answered long time ago, and it really doesn't make a sense to do it all over.
It might be interesting to u...u can save the pages in your PC to avoid big telephone bill. Bye!

[Lardlad95]

fine give me the numbers of the posts that answer the following question

Proof that God does not exist(ligetamite proof)


This arguement is is getting old . No one here can prove their arguement anyway

[Lardlad95]

Just wanted to add this. My only problem is with the atheist here looking down on people who have religous beliefs. Me believing in God does not make me ignorant, I don't have to agree with you, you don't have to agree with me. But calling me insane? Thats just stupid, there was no need for that. Don't insult my beliefs, and I wont insult yours. Disagree if you will, but don't put my intlegence down for believing something you don't.

[Rosa]

ok, not insane, but u must admit that faith is based on irationality.

[Rosa]

+ don't be so laisy, read it all, it's really an interesting discussion in this thread. I assume that you're very young, and belive me, this is the one of rare places where u can find so many different arguments pro or contra god. It might help u to fortify your posit, too.
If you're courious, of course.

[Lardlad95]

who are you to say what is rational? Its not rational that a third world country would beat the US but look who won the Vietnam war. Its not rational that a man could survive for hours in icy water in Alaska but a man did it. Rationality doesn't have boundaries because there is no absolute, everything is possible, there may be a trillion to one chance, but theres always that one chance.

Also why would I admit that if I believed in God?

[Rosa]

of course that irational things happen, (Vietnam is not the case of irationality, they were familiar with the ground, clime, etc), but every philosopher which was pro-god gave no arguments for that postulat "god exists" bcs it's not provable. (Plato had some arguments, but mentioned that he made it for keeping people integrated and in fear of laws. ...and that proof is funny, not the rational one)....so, I see that you're derminated guy, but still uncritical to yourself, and why u don't want to read the whole thread? afraid to work on yourself?+laisy?I can reply to every your question by posting some already posted post. But u must admit that that would be arrogant of u, to require so much of my time (& my money, don't have it so much to search for your answers in theese 16 pages endlessly)

[guerrillaradio]

Ok, I haven't read the whole of this thread (sorry...I have limited time), but to me the question of god's existence seems irrelevant. We, as humans, have no idea whether he exists, so debating it is no more than pure conjecture. You cannot produce mathematical proof (or even evidence) of god's existence or non-existence. That considered, religion is based on faith and/or hopeful thinking and therefore misguided. It's just there to fill a gap in people's lives, and continue what Nietzsche calls "slave morality".

[El Che]

Lardlad if you are insane or not is not for me to say. As usual you misunderstand my words. What I said, and what I continue to say is that religion, is to me, insanity. You are religious therefore you are a participante in colective insanity! Extrodinary really. What are your doubts?

[Guest]

EL CHE, how does it make me insane though?

Rosa, I'm not about to read hundreds of posts. I have no problem with people not believeing in God. The arguements are irrelavent to me. I know I sound like a soar looser...but in reality I am very lazy

[Lardlad95]

The guest was me, I forgot to log in

[TheDerminator]

Lardlad95,

"I'm not about to read hundreds of posts. I have no problem with people not believeing in God. The arguements are irrelavent to me. I know I sound like a soar looser...but in reality I am very lazy"

Very nice of U to respect everyone who has contributed to the posts in this manne!

U have respec!

No, I don't thinkso.

There are only two main threads on the issue. This one and the Definitive Proof thread.

U can read, so please stop being a lazy ****.

Show some respec. to the people here. Check out the fucking posts. Then tackle the lack of logic of the arguments from a position of knowledge rather than a position of ignorance.

guerrillaradio, is in the same boat as U. If there is a debate in any thread, it is only respec to everyone who has posted to read the contents of that thread, before contributing, and because there is an overlapping thread U have to read that one too. I fell out with peaccenicked, because this thread was started in my view unecessarily when there was a thread started on it already. This thread has just become a continuation of the first thread. Same subject, and myself and El Che responding to the posts. Others have joined, but there is no real difference in the substance except everyone is ignoring all the territory we have covered except El Che and Rosa.
Sorry Lardlad95, but be a lazy **** elsewhere. All the real rational arguments have been given, and if Ur that interested in challenging them, then read the threads, and just paste what U think is an insult to Ur intelligence.
At the moment U are insulting everyone who has contributed posts to the two main threads on the subject. U have no respec.

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

[Lardlad95]

Derminator, ignore the post below this one.

While nothing would give me more pleasure than to have a shouting match with you. I see now that this thing has gotten way out of hand.

The funny thing is, I'm not even argueing about God's existence anymore. Now I'm just argueing with people about stuff that has little or nothing to do with the subject. Now I realize that it would be proper to read the entire thread. Though that would do little help now seeing as how the disscussion has sorted drifted from its original topic. Though i will read all the posts. Though it may take awhile because I don't have lots of time.

Really I just want to end this stupid arguement and have a regular disscussion. So i'm willing to put my anger aside if you are.


(Edited by Lardlad95 at 1:52 am on April 8, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

Also, how does it make me ignorant not to read everything someone said about a subject? If you had a disscussion on a certain book, does it make you ignorant if you haven't heard everyone in the entire world's opinion?

For some one who calls other people ignorant you have a serious problem. You are closedminded. You constantly say their is no God, as if you know absolutley. you come off as a person who doesn't even appear to try and understand where someone is coming from. You sound like you think your right there fore everyone else must be wrong.

(Edited by Lardlad95 at 1:45 am on April 8, 2002)

[Sasafrás]

Lazy ****? :o

Dude, that's way harsh...

[TheDerminator]

I guess it was a bit harsh, but Lardlad95 writes

"how does it make me ignorant not to read everything someone said about a subject".

It is not as if anything has been learned here!

It is still okay not to read the pertinent threads on the topic being discussed. Why make a value judgement based upon an admission of ignorance?

It is still disrespec to everyone who has contributed towards the thread.

If you were being harsh U might say the person was being a tad arrogant, just spouting opinion without a care for what went before.

"Everything" is only two threads. It is not Das Kapital or the Encylopedia Britannica!

It goes for every thread on any topic outside of Chit Chat, the Lounge, and Test. It is only a bit of respect to read the contributions of those involved in the thread, or U are just laying down the law of Ur own opinion without caring one iota for what has went before.

I will put my anger aside and be glad to have a regular discussion, but I am not going to apologise about venting my anger on this, because if someone more or less says "Here's my opinion, but I've not bothered to read the crap U have posted" it seems to me, there is more than a trace of contempt for the person in the statement.

Still, Lardlad is going to read the posts when there is time. End of subject. Fair dinkums.

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

[guerrillaradio]

So...you gonna debate my points now??

[Rosa]

"mathematical" was figure for "rational"...so, we all agree that god's exsistance is not rationally exceptable... it's understandable that people need him, but we think that we need a lot of things, but live without them... posit "god exsists"= placebo, for fear-dissease...

[guerrillaradio]

I agree. Man believes in God in order to explain what he cannot. It's an easy way to answer a question that reaches well beyond the realms of human knowledge...

[TheDerminator]

guerrillaradio,

U never read the threads either "I haven't read the whole of this thread"
If U haven't read even the whole of this thread, then U have not read the Definitive Proof that God does exsit thread, thus U are not saying why U do not see it as a proof, U are merely arrogantly stating Ur disapproval of any possibility without reference to what has went before.

Let me make it easy for U, since U obviously cannot be bothered checking things out.

The creation of an abstract concept

? = 0

? = 0 or God

0 -> God

0 = God

God = 0

There is the definitive proof that God does not exist.

It is not "mathematical", I did not start this thread, I started the other thread.

The proof is a philosophical logical proof based upon, how do we create abstract concepts in history.

Let me run it past U again, just incase U missed it.

? = 0

What created everything in the world?

= We don't know

= Nothingness

? = 0 or God

= We don't know or God are the only two choices.

0 -> God

Nothingness becomes somethingness, because God is the only answer. Nothingness is not a possible answer, because the people are subjective thinking historically primitive beings not philosophical logicians.

0 = God

Since answer nothingness is replaced by the answer God, it is only the concept of God transferred onto the historical vacuum of the unacceptable answer of nothingness.

Likewise:

God = 0

The transference is a transference only within human consciousness. There is no outer ground for the belief for the existence of God. God came purely from human consciousness. A human invention within consciousness.

There is no God!

Something cannot become nothing!

0 -> God is an impossibility!

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

[El Che]

"mathematical" was figure for "rational"...so, we all agree that god's exsistance is not rationally exceptable..."

I would say the exsistence of God is not rationaly confirmed, but its not denied either. It follows that the possibility of the exsistence of the entity "God" is logicaly acceptable. Whatever subjective[?] value one atributes to the concept of God.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 9:35 pm on April 8, 2002
I agree. Man believes in God in order to explain what he cannot. It's an easy way to answer a question that reaches well beyond the realms of human knowledge...


thats a matter of opinion. I'm very sure some people do turn to religion to explain the unexplainable. But did you ever think it possible that some people actualy believe in God's existence. They could be surronded in a cloud of false hope, but they still believe in him. Saying that about everyone is a rather hars generalzation.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 9:46 pm on April 8, 2002
guerrillaradio,

U never read the threads either "I haven't read the whole of this thread"
If U haven't read even the whole of this thread, then U have not read the Definitive Proof that God does exsit thread, thus U are not saying why U do not see it as a proof, U are merely arrogantly stating Ur disapproval of any possibility without reference to what has went before.

Let me make it easy for U, since U obviously cannot be bothered checking things out.

The creation of an abstract concept

? = 0

? = 0 or God

0 -> God

0 = God

God = 0

There is the definitive proof that God does not exist.

It is not "mathematical", I did not start this thread, I started the other thread.

The proof is a philosophical logical proof based upon, how do we create abstract concepts in history.

Let me run it past U again, just incase U missed it.

? = 0

What created everything in the world?

= We don't know

= Nothingness

? = 0 or God

= We don't know or God are the only two choices.

0 -> God

Nothingness becomes somethingness, because God is the only answer. Nothingness is not a possible answer, because the people are subjective thinking historically primitive beings not philosophical logicians.

0 = God

Since answer nothingness is replaced by the answer God, it is only the concept of God transferred onto the historical vacuum of the unacceptable answer of nothingness.

Likewise:

God = 0

The transference is a transference only within human consciousness. There is no outer ground for the belief for the existence of God. God came purely from human consciousness. A human invention within consciousness.

There is no God!

Something cannot become nothing!

0 -> God is an impossibility!

Resistance is Futile!

derminated


Ok, now this is just a question (trying to avoid another arguement, if someone has already brought this up, tell me so i can read the thread until I find it)

I know this falls back on dogma but to think of God someone must think of someone superhuman, a diety, immortal. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, and Atheist all think of the same thing reffering to what a God is. Because thats what the defenition of God is. So to assume that God would rely on the same means of creation as humansa vast condridiction is formed. because God could not exist if he had to come about the same as matter, there fore just like humans had to at some point (includingthe evolutionary stages). This in here lies the condradiction, of what God means. You cannot talk about apples and grow them the same as corn. The definition of God implies that they are above human abilities. So to say that God cannot exists from nothing implies that he is of matter, which cannot come from nothing goes against what a God is.

So my question to you is, how does your formula fit out when God comes not from the same means as humans or other matter. Of course going with the defenition of God, which says that a god is a supernatural being. Above what is natural....such as matter coming from nothing. Matter coming from nothing is natural, Gods are super natural.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 3:18 am on April 9, 2002[brBut did you ever think it possible that some people actualy believe in God's existence. They could be surronded in a cloud of false hope, but they still believe in him.

I never doubted that people actually believed in God. My point was that belief in him is largely, as you say, "false hope". And I said that it is impossible for us as humans to know for sure (or indeed, at all) whether he exists or not. Yes, I read Derminator's post, but I still don't think you can disprove God using Maths...those who believe in him would merely reply that the rules of Maths do not apply to God (let us remember that mathematics, like science, is a man-made concept, so, presumably, the rules only apply to man and earthly creatures).

[Lardlad95]

you mistook what I said. I said they MAY BE surronded in a cloud of false hope. Meaning its a possibility personally I don't think they are.

[Malvinas Argentinas]

God is the creation of human minds.Agree with that.

Philosofically, It cant be demonstrated that the world has existed ever or that it had a beggining. Marxist thesis say that matter is the first and autosuficient reality, thus, it is uncreated and self-dynamic.But is not easy to understand. Their must be somebody that created it. Ok, some scientifics said they saw the origin of cosmos reflected in the theory of Eddington-Lemaitre that explains the expansion of the universe within the explosion of giant primitive atom.. But nothing lets to demonstrate that that primitive atom had an origin in time.

Can anybody argue this?

[Malvinas Argentinas]

The idea i just wrote comes from a book that critisizes marxiat ideals, can anybody please give arguments to be oppesed to that, because i cant think about it,

Why does god, philosoficaly speaking, doesnt exists??

[Rosa]

bcs it's not logical.
u have it on several places in this thread, actually, the one explanation is on the previous (15 or 16th) page...

[Guest]

sorry this sounds alot less sophisticated then the other posts and I am an atheist...although if there is a God i doubt there is a way to prove he is alive through math...if he created us...we created math...how could we create mathematical equations determining god?

[Lardlad95]

Excuse me why hasn't anyone answered my question yet? Is it that none of you have an answer...by the way Rosa I'm taking care of the reading the whole thread thing

[Rosa]

uf, it was a tough job making you do that...am glad for you, and hope you'll see that knowledge can only benefit you. (actually, I think that Dermy's post was crucial, ...ha-ha, he can really make you tremble...good luck!!!)

[Lardlad95]

yes but for some reason Dermy has decided to avoid answering my question. It can't possibly be because he has no answer does he want me to repeat the question

I'll probably finish reading the thread this weekend

[TheDerminator]

Lardlad95,

You are still being lazy! There is more than one pertinent thread! Do Ur research! Knowledge is power!

"I know this falls back on dogma but to think of God someone must think of someone superhuman, a diety, immortal. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, and Atheist all think of the same thing reffering to what a God is."

Only otherness to non-human attributes. Every "super" attribute is only an otherness of an known human attribute. ie, infinite powers, immortality, infinite wisdom.
"Because thats what the defenition of God is. So to assume that God would rely on the same means of creation as humansa vast condridiction is formed."

The "contradiction" is only an invention. U have accepted the premises as a given truth upon which U build your "rationalisation"

"because God could not exist if he had to come about the same as matter, there fore just like humans had to at some point (includingthe evolutionary stages).

How "God" becomes is an interesting sphere of speculation, but it is dependent upon to factors, first the acceptance of the concept of God apriori, and secondly just pure speculation. Ultimately God "becomes" because is invented as an abstract concept in social consiousness. My guesses are maybe better than Urs!

"This in here lies the condradiction, of what God means. You cannot talk about apples and grow them the same as corn. The definition of God implies that they are above human abilities."

All othernessness to tangible human qualities. We know what the qualities are! They are otherness!

"So to say that God cannot exists from nothing implies that he is of matter, which cannot come from nothing goes against what a God is."

U miss the point the nothing is not "matter" it is the nothingness from the invention of the concept in consciousness. The different form of spiritual phenonemon is totally irrelevant, because its existence is at the heart of the matter. If the sphere of spiritual being cannot exist, anything attached to the sphere is equally worthless, including all speculation as to the exact nature of the form.

God "is" what U make God to be!

This was covered in the Definitive Proof that there was no God thread to some extent as regards the attributes of "God".

"So my question to you is, how does your formula fit out when God comes not from the same means as humans or other matter."

It is all the sames means of creating God. The creation of God as an abstract concept in social consciousness!
The matter only exists in Ur head!

"Of course going with the defenition of God, which says that a god is a supernatural being. Above what is natural....such as matter coming from nothing. Matter coming from nothing is natural, Gods are super natural."

The "matter" is just an extension of the God stuff! It only exists in Ur head! It has been invented add substance to non-substance. The whole sphere of the supernatural reality is a pure invention, and we know where the invention was created and why it was created. What else do we need to know about it?

guerrillaradio

U say "I still don't think you can disprove God using Maths"

U still have not read the thread! I did not start this thread! I started the Definitive Proof thread which is now dead. Funny enough!

I do not believe in a maths proof!

It is not a maths proof!

I am only using a few maths symbols = = the same as
+ = and.

It is a logical proof. A proof of logic. No maths!

U are not grasping the logic. U are only seeing + and = signs!

Guest....

All maths, all arithmetic and all alphabets are made up using abstactions. God is just another abstract concept. U do not understand why we create abstract concepts. They possess a necessary social function.


Lardlad95,

"Dermy has decided to avoid answering my question. It can't possibly be because he has no answer does he want me to repeat the question"

Avoiding nothing and nothingness! Have a tiny bit of a life outside of Che-lives. Am busy with other stuff. Can only do what I have time to do!

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 10:29 am on April 12, 2002
I do not believe in a maths proof!

It is not a maths proof!

I am only using a few maths symbols = = the same as
+ = and.

It is a logical proof. A proof of logic. No maths!

Ok, I get you...you and I seem to be making exactly the same point, so the obvious question is why are we arguing?? I agree that God was created by man to explain the transition from nothingness into somethingness, and that we cannot say that he exists. You are trying to disprove man's evidence for god's existence. However, in the same way that we aren't sure that the universe is on the back of a turtle (acknowledgements to Terry Pratchett), we cannot say for sure that he does not exist. Just because you have disproved man's evidence for god's existence does not mean that some form of god exists. I'm not saying he does exist, my point is: WE HAVE NO IDEA.


Have a tiny bit of a life outside of Che-lives. Am busy with other stuff. Can only do what I have time to do!


This from the person who's giving us all hell for not reading a 15-page thread!!! I read the first 10 pages, but then time constrictions (or, as you put it, having "a tiny bit of life outside Che-Lives" ) meant I had to post there and then...

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 10:29 am on April 12, 2002
Lardlad95,

You are still being lazy! There is more than one pertinent thread! Do Ur research! Knowledge is power!

"I know this falls back on dogma but to think of God someone must think of someone superhuman, a diety, immortal. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, and Atheist all think of the same thing reffering to what a God is."

Only otherness to non-human attributes. Every "super" attribute is only an otherness of an known human attribute. ie, infinite powers, immortality, infinite wisdom.
"Because thats what the defenition of God is. So to assume that God would rely on the same means of creation as humansa vast condridiction is formed."

The "contradiction" is only an invention. U have accepted the premises as a given truth upon which U build your "rationalisation"

"because God could not exist if he had to come about the same as matter, there fore just like humans had to at some point (includingthe evolutionary stages).

How "God" becomes is an interesting sphere of speculation, but it is dependent upon to factors, first the acceptance of the concept of God apriori, and secondly just pure speculation. Ultimately God "becomes" because is invented as an abstract concept in social consiousness. My guesses are maybe better than Urs!

"This in here lies the condradiction, of what God means. You cannot talk about apples and grow them the same as corn. The definition of God implies that they are above human abilities."

All othernessness to tangible human qualities. We know what the qualities are! They are otherness!

"So to say that God cannot exists from nothing implies that he is of matter, which cannot come from nothing goes against what a God is."

U miss the point the nothing is not "matter" it is the nothingness from the invention of the concept in consciousness. The different form of spiritual phenonemon is totally irrelevant, because its existence is at the heart of the matter. If the sphere of spiritual being cannot exist, anything attached to the sphere is equally worthless, including all speculation as to the exact nature of the form.

God "is" what U make God to be!

This was covered in the Definitive Proof that there was no God thread to some extent as regards the attributes of "God".

"So my question to you is, how does your formula fit out when God comes not from the same means as humans or other matter."

It is all the sames means of creating God. The creation of God as an abstract concept in social consciousness!
The matter only exists in Ur head!

"Of course going with the defenition of God, which says that a god is a supernatural being. Above what is natural....such as matter coming from nothing. Matter coming from nothing is natural, Gods are super natural."

The "matter" is just an extension of the God stuff! It only exists in Ur head! It has been invented add substance to non-substance. The whole sphere of the supernatural reality is a pure invention, and we know where the invention was created and why it was created. What else do we need to know about it?

guerrillaradio

U say "I still don't think you can disprove God using Maths"

U still have not read the thread! I did not start this thread! I started the Definitive Proof thread which is now dead. Funny enough!

I do not believe in a maths proof!

It is not a maths proof!

I am only using a few maths symbols = = the same as
+ = and.

It is a logical proof. A proof of logic. No maths!

U are not grasping the logic. U are only seeing + and = signs!

Guest....

All maths, all arithmetic and all alphabets are made up using abstactions. God is just another abstract concept. U do not understand why we create abstract concepts. They possess a necessary social function.


Lardlad95,

"Dermy has decided to avoid answering my question. It can't possibly be because he has no answer does he want me to repeat the question"

Avoiding nothing and nothingness! Have a tiny bit of a life outside of Che-lives. Am busy with other stuff. Can only do what I have time to do!

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force be with U!

derminated



First of all I have a life outside of here to so don't give me shit about not reading the whole thread when you say so.

Who's to say that superhumans simply have the opposite ability oof a ability a human has? Couldn't it also be abilities humans do not posses at all, such as having no beginning or end? Obviousy since we humans don't that would be super human.

>>>The "matter" is just an extension of the God stuff! It only exists in Ur head! It has been invented add substance to non-substance. The whole sphere of the supernatural reality is a pure invention, and we know where the invention was created and why it was created. What else do we need to know about it? <<<

For the last fucking time, stop speaking in absolutes. You don't know why it was created, you have no way of proving why or if it was created. You can only guess. You weren't around when and if the concept of God was created. There fore you cannot be totally sure. You speak as if you know everything about everything which you obviously don't.

[TheDerminator]

guerrillaradio,

"You are trying to disprove man's evidence for god's existence."

Not really the "evidence" since no evidence exists. There can be no evidence, and there never has been empirical evidence which our scientists can verify.

It is a logical rational, not a discourse on the non-existence of evidence for an empirical proof.

"However, in the same way that we aren't sure that the universe is on the back of a turtle (acknowledgements to Terry Pratchett), we cannot say for sure that he does not exist."

I do not agree with Pratchett. We are absolutely sure that the universe is not on the back of a turtle, and if U wish I will argue the case with U! Pratchett is guilty of mystifying unknowns. Not the first and not the last. Kant got there first in philosophy!

"Just because you have disproved man's evidence for god's existence does not mean that some form of god exists."

It is not the evidence is ultimately a logical rationale as U say Urslelf:

"God was created by man to explain the transition from nothingness into somethingness"

The rule for the general or particular form is the rule for the actual singular form. The rule is seen in historical development. The actual form, eg monotheistic Allah is grounded in the creation of the first general form, U cannot view it as an isolated ungrounded singular.

Sorry if the above paragraph is dense, but it is a deeply philosophical question, and if we are to examine the concept of God in depth, we have to examine it in relationship to historical development, that was the approach of Marx in relation to economics.

The general-particular form of the epoch is seen in historical development, and then each actual form is grounded in this overview of development. That is historical methodology.

"I'm not saying he does exist, my point is: WE HAVE NO IDEA."

You are contradicting Urself.

"God was created by man to explain the transition from nothingness into somethingness" This is THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE IDEA!!!

The foundation of the IDEA disproves the every form of the concept of God, because it grounds it each form in its creation within historically rooted social consciousness.

Glad U read the 1st ten pages, but I still have a valid point "knowledge is power" and the more U read on the matter, the more insightful Ur arguments. We covered a lot in the other thread, before this thread was even started, and in my view reading the other thread would be helpful in ensuring U know where people are coming from. It is as simple as that. It is another long thread, but if U get the time available, it might be worth Ur checking it out.

Lardlad95,

It is not about reading the whole thread, when I say so, only about contributing to a thread with respec for thosoe who have made previous contributions. I am dictating nothing, only asking for the curtesy that I believe people should give to each other, out of common manners.


"Who's to say that superhumans simply have the opposite ability oof a ability a human has? Couldn't it also be abilities humans do not posses at all, such as having no beginning or end? Obviousy since we humans don't that would be super human."

Who's to say?
What superhumans? U're accepting the premise as a fait accompli! U are starting with a dogma, as the beginning for U're premise!
There is no ground for believing in superhumans in a supernatural world. The attributes U give, are still only otherness of human attributes. U can give no attibutes without falling into that trap, and what use is God without attributes? No oranised religion can have an empty abstraction without attributes.

God would be meaningless without the attriubute of infinite goodness and the other infinite characacterisitics posited opposite our finite mortal qualities!

"For the last fucking time, stop speaking in absolutes."

Fuck-off! Is that what U are saying?

Why the hell should I be dictated to by the limitations of Ur thought?!

I am not a relativist!

U're the relativist!

I believe there are many many absolutes!

And Ur relativism is a poverty of thought!

I will continue with my absolutes, such as the absolute proof that God does not exist!

U know what U can do with Ur relativism!

"You don't know why it was created, you have no way of proving why or if it was created."

It is not a guess. What else is there? There are only two rational explanations for the causation of nature, either God or science. There are no other possibilities!

There were only two possibilities open to our ancestors God or nothingness. They did not possess any science, thus God explained all creation, thus Gods were created in consciousness.

It is not a guess. What are the other possiblities. The other possibilities do not exist!

"You can only guess. You weren't around when and if the concept of God was created. There fore you cannot be totally sure."

U do not need to be around to know and to know with absolute certainty, because U know there was no developed science. U know ths as an absolute fact.
U know as absolute fact that there are only two rationals for creation God or science, and U know as absolute fact that science was never an option.

U are trying to mystify history as well as mystify knowledge. U do not require to possess a time machine to understand historical processes. Karl Marx worked that one out well before me!

"You speak as if you know everything about everything which you obviously don't."

I don't "know everything about everything", but I am not an ignoramous either. I have studied philosophy at a reasonable depth, and I make no claims of understanding outside this one subject sphere.

In the sphere of philosophy, I am not shy, I will argue my case with anyone coming from any direction no matter their level of reading of philosophy. I am open to fresh ideas and fresh approaches.

For instance if U checked out the thread on Nietzsche, U will see that Rosa knows a hell of a lot more on him than I do, and that I ended up more or less agreeing with her position on Nietzche. I am not stuck in dogma, unlike Urself.

PS, maybe it is a good idea, just to quote stuff, U're going to answer, rather than the whole lot, since the whole lot already exists in the thread. Seems a waste of space to me.

U are still stuck with Ur dogmatic unquestioning blind faith in God, and ultimately it is still a zombie mind set.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 1:59 pm on April 13, 2002
It is a logical rational, not a discourse on the non-existence of evidence for an empirical proof.


Still...God-fearers (urgh!!) would merely claim that God is above logic, in the same way that alotta things are above morality. Logic is a man-made concept, so why should it apply to unearthly beings??


You are contradicting Urself.

"God was created by man to explain the transition from nothingness into somethingness" This is THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE IDEA!!!


Yeah, but what I'm trying to say (I'm not always very good at translating my thoughts into words, for which I apologise), is that although anyone who claims to know that God exists must be lying, WE DO NOT KNOW THAT HE DOESN'T. Just because you disprove the evidence behind an idea, doesn't make it automatically untrue, if you get what I mean. If you think of it numerically:

Without any evidence for God's existence, the chances are 50/50 (existence/non-existence). If evidence/logic is discovered that suggests he does exist, the chances go to 60/40 or 70/30. However, as you have rightly disproved the notion, the odds go down to 50/50. THEY DO NOT GO DOWN TO 0/100. I know it's quite a banal and simple anallergy, but it's the only way in which I could explain my thought passage.


For instance if U checked out the thread on Nietzsche, U will see that Rosa knows a hell of a lot more on him than I do, and that I ended up more or less agreeing with her position on Nietzche. I am not stuck in dogma, unlike Urself.

There's a Nietzsche thread?? This interests me...where is it??

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 1:59 pm on April 13, 2002
guerrillaradio,

"You are trying to disprove man's evidence for god's existence."

Not really the "evidence" since no evidence exists. There can be no evidence, and there never has been empirical evidence which our scientists can verify.

It is a logical rational, not a discourse on the non-existence of evidence for an empirical proof.

"However, in the same way that we aren't sure that the universe is on the back of a turtle (acknowledgements to Terry Pratchett), we cannot say for sure that he does not exist."

I do not agree with Pratchett. We are absolutely sure that the universe is not on the back of a turtle, and if U wish I will argue the case with U! Pratchett is guilty of mystifying unknowns. Not the first and not the last. Kant got there first in philosophy!

"Just because you have disproved man's evidence for god's existence does not mean that some form of god exists."

It is not the evidence is ultimately a logical rationale as U say Urslelf:

"God was created by man to explain the transition from nothingness into somethingness"

The rule for the general or particular form is the rule for the actual singular form. The rule is seen in historical development. The actual form, eg monotheistic Allah is grounded in the creation of the first general form, U cannot view it as an isolated ungrounded singular.

Sorry if the above paragraph is dense, but it is a deeply philosophical question, and if we are to examine the concept of God in depth, we have to examine it in relationship to historical development, that was the approach of Marx in relation to economics.

The general-particular form of the epoch is seen in historical development, and then each actual form is grounded in this overview of development. That is historical methodology.

"I'm not saying he does exist, my point is: WE HAVE NO IDEA."

You are contradicting Urself.

"God was created by man to explain the transition from nothingness into somethingness" This is THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE IDEA!!!

The foundation of the IDEA disproves the every form of the concept of God, because it grounds it each form in its creation within historically rooted social consciousness.

Glad U read the 1st ten pages, but I still have a valid point "knowledge is power" and the more U read on the matter, the more insightful Ur arguments. We covered a lot in the other thread, before this thread was even started, and in my view reading the other thread would be helpful in ensuring U know where people are coming from. It is as simple as that. It is another long thread, but if U get the time available, it might be worth Ur checking it out.

Lardlad95,

It is not about reading the whole thread, when I say so, only about contributing to a thread with respec for thosoe who have made previous contributions. I am dictating nothing, only asking for the curtesy that I believe people should give to each other, out of common manners.


"Who's to say that superhumans simply have the opposite ability oof a ability a human has? Couldn't it also be abilities humans do not posses at all, such as having no beginning or end? Obviousy since we humans don't that would be super human."

Who's to say?
What superhumans? U're accepting the premise as a fait accompli! U are starting with a dogma, as the beginning for U're premise!
There is no ground for believing in superhumans in a supernatural world. The attributes U give, are still only otherness of human attributes. U can give no attibutes without falling into that trap, and what use is God without attributes? No oranised religion can have an empty abstraction without attributes.

God would be meaningless without the attriubute of infinite goodness and the other infinite characacterisitics posited opposite our finite mortal qualities!

"For the last fucking time, stop speaking in absolutes."

Fuck-off! Is that what U are saying?

Why the hell should I be dictated to by the limitations of Ur thought?!

I am not a relativist!

U're the relativist!

I believe there are many many absolutes!

And Ur relativism is a poverty of thought!

I will continue with my absolutes, such as the absolute proof that God does not exist!

U know what U can do with Ur relativism!

"You don't know why it was created, you have no way of proving why or if it was created."

It is not a guess. What else is there? There are only two rational explanations for the causation of nature, either God or science. There are no other possibilities!

There were only two possibilities open to our ancestors God or nothingness. They did not possess any science, thus God explained all creation, thus Gods were created in consciousness.

It is not a guess. What are the other possiblities. The other possibilities do not exist!

"You can only guess. You weren't around when and if the concept of God was created. There fore you cannot be totally sure."

U do not need to be around to know and to know with absolute certainty, because U know there was no developed science. U know ths as an absolute fact.
U know as absolute fact that there are only two rationals for creation God or science, and U know as absolute fact that science was never an option.

U are trying to mystify history as well as mystify knowledge. U do not require to possess a time machine to understand historical processes. Karl Marx worked that one out well before me!

"You speak as if you know everything about everything which you obviously don't."

I don't "know everything about everything", but I am not an ignoramous either. I have studied philosophy at a reasonable depth, and I make no claims of understanding outside this one subject sphere.

In the sphere of philosophy, I am not shy, I will argue my case with anyone coming from any direction no matter their level of reading of philosophy. I am open to fresh ideas and fresh approaches.

For instance if U checked out the thread on Nietzsche, U will see that Rosa knows a hell of a lot more on him than I do, and that I ended up more or less agreeing with her position on Nietzche. I am not stuck in dogma, unlike Urself.

PS, maybe it is a good idea, just to quote stuff, U're going to answer, rather than the whole lot, since the whole lot already exists in the thread. Seems a waste of space to me.

U are still stuck with Ur dogmatic unquestioning blind faith in God, and ultimately it is still a zombie mind set.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force



.....fuck you.... I think that says it all pretty much. But let me alaborate.

1. You have no proof of God not existing

2. your going on an atheist dogmatic principle that God and Science cannot exist together

3. your an asshole

4. you put your self above others because you don't believe in God. Stop putting your self on a pedastal no one else sees you in that light, only you.

5. You ave a blind faith that God doens't exist, because you have yet to give me tangible proof of his non-existence


>>>U do not need to be around to know and to know with absolute certainty, because U know there was no developed science. U know ths as an absolute fact.<<<

There was no need for another possibility because the first person, Adam was in contact with God.

Now go ahead, you know what you want to say

"Dogma, your spouting Dogma"
But get this, of course its dogma, I didn't create the bible, I just learn from it.

I'm done with this for now, you seem to love admiring your self so once your done replying why don't you go take pictures of your self, or stare at your self in the mirror as it seems you would do, you self absorbed prick.

[guerrillaradio]

Dermy - I have a horrible feeling that you didn't see my points on my previous post. Due to my misunderstanding of the quoting system, all my points appeared in the same font and size as the preceding quotes, so they only become obvious upon closer examination. However, you will see that I am yet to sink to the level of insults, which is more than we can say for the above...

[Lardlad95]

me sinking to the level of insults? Hell yeah, but get this he did it first. THe man called me a ****...did anyone seem to forget this?

BEsides I'm tired of this man shooting down other people's thoughts then he turns around and syas that there is absolutley no god, yet he has no tangible proof. THe man is a hypocrit

[Rosa]

The man called you a **** bcs you were wrangling me that I should read every post in this thread and send it to you as an answer to your question.
my "nice way" didn't work, so he called you "laisy ****". Your anger shows that you're not here to search for the truth, but to feed your ego.
you haven't found any proof in this thread? Am so sorry, it seems to me that those explanations were simple, but you obviously need special learning techniques.
(+ ha-ha!to that "atheist dogma that God & Science cannot exsist together!!! My darling Lard baby, science doesn't give a damn about God, it isn't concerned about that question, it researches relations among phaenomenons, and that's all that is in it's range. (Aristotle, Eth.Nik.)
You really need some substance, otherwise you are funny, and anybody can see that you're pompous, but nothing more than ignorant.
Calling Dermy an "asshole" I won't forgive you.
And that accusation that HE is the one who admires himself, is only your projection.
I see that talking to you is "margharitas ante porcos".
Good bye.

[STALINSOLDIERS]

i dont think there is a god at all......first there to many like christ, budda, allah, shiva to many names to many different religion and cause of religion theres war. how about that was an idea thousand years ago just to make a group of belivers to fight none belivers....or a way to get money..

[TheDerminator]

Lardlad95,

"fuck you" Have a nice day Urself!

"You have no proof of God not existing"

U haven't tried to argue against the internal logic of the proof. Durp!

"your going on an atheist dogmatic principle that God and Science cannot exist together "

Where did U raise the question of science? What the hell is it got do with it? The answer needs to accept Ur dogma that religion has a rational foundation"! Durp!

"your an asshole" Durp! Durp! Durp!

"you put your self above others because you don't believe in God. Stop putting your self on a pedastal no one else sees you in that light, only you."

Plenty of athiests in the world who don't "see the light" only the eternal darkness of reiligious dogma!
The pedastil only exist in Ur head, a bit like God. Durp!

"You ave a blind faith that God doens't exist, because you have yet to give me tangible proof of his non-existence"

I a have no blind faith. I have a definitive proof. Something cannot come from nothing.
0 can never -> God, as an abstract concept. It is a tangible in Ur face proof! Durp! Durp!

"There was no need for another possibility because the first person, Adam was in contact with God"

U believe Adam was the progenitor of the human race with the vast population of the Earth. Darwin died in1882, and U still see Adam as the progenitor in 2002. At least U are an advance upon Muslim fundamentailists er um... So much for science and religion! Durp! Durp!
Durp!

""Dogma, your spouting Dogma"
But get this, of course its dogma, I didn't create the bible, I just learn from it."

Spouting? U're vomitting it in our faces! Learninng? Would U Adam and Eve it? Probably not! U're learning dogma and obviously proud of the fact! Why engage in debate, be happy with Ur dogma! U have nothing to learn! Stick with the bible! Durp! Durp! Durp!

"I'm done with this for now, you seem to love admiring your self [Durp!] so once your done replying why don't you go take pictures of your self [Durp! Durp!], or stare at your self in the mirror as it seems you would do[Durp! Durp! Durp!, you self absorbed prick." Durp! Durp! Durp! Durp! Durp! Durp!

I take it, it just the Old Testament U believe in!

No love Ur enemies form U!. That Jesus Christ fellow. Bloody socialist! Durp!

guerrillaradio,

sorry, I thought, I answered a few of Ur points. Maybe, not sufficiently. Any chance U can give a short summary, since I do not have access to a printer in the cafe and I don't like struggling with small print at the best of times?

STALINSOLDIERS,

I'm afraid culture was too primitive for non-believers to establish themselves. However, it is pure mythology, that religion ended war and I'm sure U will agree with that fact.

Infact, even last century, the bishops blessed the banners as the soldiers walked en masse to death in the imperialist WWI.

I probably shouldn't have insulted Lardlad 95 given his age, but I must admit, it does get a bit infuriating when someone takes the attitude that what went before in thread is irrelevant to their own contribution. I apologise for the insult, but it could be taken as an ageist thing!

One can only hope that Lardlad 95 moves onto the New Testament! It is the more enlightened text. Jesus makes a direct assault on the eye for an eye tooth for tooth dogma of the Bible, with his "turn the other cheek" teaching.

Jesus added "Forgive Ur enemies" This has been misinterpreted by very many.

Christ still believed that the evil would be "smited" by God. Thus God did not forgive or forget the evil done by humans.

It was only for humans to forgive, because they should not play God, with the lives of other humans. There can be no doubt that Jesus was against the Death Penalty, and would have took a strong stance against it, in so-called Christian countries, such as the USA.

If Christ had been an athiest, he could not logically hold the "love thy enemies" position, since he thought evil should be smited! Daresay, he wouldn't have taken a simplistic eye for an eye position either! Food for thougth!

Resistance is Futile!

derminated



(Edited by TheDerminator at 7:58 pm on April 15, 2002)

[guerrillaradio]

Dermy - What I'm trying to say (I'm not always very good at translating my thoughts into words, for which I apologise), is that although anyone who claims to know that God exists must be lying, WE DO NOT KNOW THAT HE DOESN'T. Just because you disprove the evidence behind an idea, doesn't make it automatically untrue, if you get what I mean. If you think of it numerically:

Without any evidence for God's existence, the chances are 50/50 (existence/non-existence). If evidence/logic is discovered that suggests he does exist, the chances go to 60/40 or 70/30. However, as you have rightly disproved the notion, the odds go down to 50/50. THEY DO NOT GO DOWN TO 0/100. I know it's quite a banal and simple anallergy, but it's the only way in which I could explain my thought passage.

Also, God-fearers (of which I am not one, might I add) would merely dismiss your "logical rationale" by claiming that God is above logic, and every other man-made concept.

[El Che]

This discussion is really de-railing, it need to be put down like a rabbid dog.

[TheDerminator]

Must agree with El Che to a very large extent, it is getting extremely repetitive.

guerrillaradio

"What I'm trying to say (I'm not always very good at translating my thoughts into words, for which I apologise)" No apolgies required, U have a much better grasp of a second language than myself, and I understand that there are obvious difficulties especially in the field of philosophy wherein some the terminology is not found in all the main concise dictionaries, which makes it all the harder to translate.

"is that although anyone who claims to know that God exists must be lying, WE DO NOT KNOW THAT HE DOESN'T. Just because you disprove the evidence behind an idea, doesn't make it automatically untrue, if you get what I mean."

I get what U mean, but consider the response of Engels to Kant, who said U can never know the "unknowable thing-in-itself". Engels responded "if U know everything about the thing in itself, U know the thing in itself."

guerrillaradio, this was answered in the other thread, but I know Ur busy, so I will more or less restate it again, unfortunately for El Che,
who probably does not wish to read it!

When it comes to abstract concepts, all U need to know is why the concept was created in order to know whether or not it is a valid concept or not. If U know everything about why the concept is created, U know its validity or lack of validity. What else is there for U to know about it? U're still mystifying the concept, and being transfixed by its quasi-non tangibility, but the reasons for why are extremely tangible and ultimately, it is only "quasi non tangibility" to coin a term.

What else is there to answer why? Some mystification of the historical process that Lardlad 95 would throw up? Surely not. U have to think logically and rationally. The reasons are knowable. We know the answer to why. It is all we need to know. The answer is nothingness. Something cannot come from nothingness. There is no God.

"If you think of it numerically" There is no numerical equation only logic, and numerically there are only two rational explanations.

"Without any evidence for God's existence, the chances are 50/50 (existence/non-existence)."
The evidence is the answer to the question why was the abstract concept of God created.

"If evidence/logic is discovered that suggests he does exist, the chances go to 60/40 or 70/30."

No, evidence is 100% for or 100% against or it does not pass muster as empirical evidence.

"However, as you have rightly disproved the notion, the odds go down to 50/50. THEY DO NOT GO DOWN TO 0/100. I know it's quite a banal and simple anallergy, but it's the only way in which I could explain my thought passage."

Obviously, U don't see the contradiction in Ur own logic. Once U prove God does not exist, he does not exist because all thought of God begs the question, where did U get the notion of God from, ultimately it is answered in the answer of "nothingness".

"Also, God-fearers (of which I am not one, might I add) would merely dismiss your "logical rationale" by claiming that God is above logic, and every other man-made concept."

Indeed they return to dogma. Still, as long as they admit the fact, it gives us something to work with if our movement ever goes beyond non-movement.


I'm afraid someone has just attacked a staff member in this cafe. Have to go now, since they are closing early.
Hope this is more accurate as a response to Ur initial post. Sorry I never understood the first time.

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

[guerrillaradio]

My thanks to Dermy for his thoroughness and the time taken in replying to this, and my apologies to El Che for the lack of entertainment in this thread (you don't have to read it y'know).


Quote: from TheDerminator on 9:56 pm on April 15, 2002
No apolgies required, U have a much better grasp of a second language than myself, and I understand that there are obvious difficulties especially in the field of philosophy wherein some the terminology is not found in all the main concise dictionaries, which makes it all the harder to translate.

Actually, English is my first language, what I meant was I have difficulty making my thoughts (which often revolve around notions and concepts rather than words) into prose.


I get what U mean, but consider the response of Engels to Kant, who said U can never know the "unknowable thing-in-itself". Engels responded "if U know everything about the thing in itself, U know the thing in itself."

But the truth is we do not know for sure everything about the thing in itself, for, it being an abstract, there could well be vast realms of it unexplored by humanity.


When it comes to abstract concepts, all U need to know is why the concept was created in order to know whether or not it is a valid concept or not.

Yet again, I am struggling transferring my thoughts into words. I agree with you that it is not a valid concept. I do not believe in the God humanity invented, but I refuse to catergorically deny the idea that there is a god out there somewhere in some form. To be honest, I am not even sure why I am still debating this, as we are close to agreement. I do not believe that god has to mean the God much of humanity and all theistic religions have come to believe in. God can mean so much more, in fact, the term is very vague. The difference between the God that you, Peaccenicked and others have disproved on this and the other thread that I am yet to find the time to read (once again, I apologise), and the one which I refuse to disbelieve in is so grate that they may as well be different words. They are definitely different concepts. "God" can take up so many forms that it is impossible to disprove him. For simplicity's sake, from now on, I will refer to the God that humanity created as "God" and the god that I believe may or may not exist as "god". As still not fully evolved human beings, there are very definite limits to our knowledge. And I believe that until we know everything that there is to know about everything, we cannot disprove a god. Of course, the problem is, we will never know when we, as humans, know everything about everything, so in effect, we can never disprove a god, however long the race survives and however far we evolve.

My apologies if these points have already been covered in earlier threads and my thanks once again to Dermy. Even if you haven't enjoyed this discussion I certainly have. It is so refreshing to be able to hold such a debate as this without constant referrals to monotheistic dogma.

[Lardlad95]

Dermy,

>>>I a have no blind faith. I have a definitive proof. Something cannot come from nothing.
0 can never -> God, as an abstract concept. It is a tangible in Ur face proof! Durp! Durp!<<<

THats not tangible. YOu forget that people who believe in God believe that God has no beginning. If you want me to try and prove to you that God exists, there is nothing I could ever say to make you believe and I can live with that and I'm sure you can. But you must also realise that saying 0--->can't equal God is tangible proof isn't going to convince anyone. OYu say something can't come from nothing and you are correct, however using that arguement there is no logical explanation to why we exist.

So to prove me wrong please explain to me how the unvierse started from nothing.

As far as the love thy enemy thing, I apologize for calling you an asshole. Though I find it amazng that you can call me a ****, yet as soon as I call you something everyone jumps on my back.



Rosa,

Whats ignorant about believing in God? Because I don't believe in the big bang theory? Because I have faith in something I can't see right? I have a right to my opinion, as do you. However i haven't tried to trash your beliefs.

Search for truth? What truth, he hasn't proved anything. He's called me names, he's said that I am a durp, a ****, I am not argueing against his logic, but proving that there isn't a God is not on this list.

Ignorance....ignorance. You only talk to me in this one thread, and you make such a judgement? You don't know me. You know nothing about me. Now if you mean belieiving in God is ignorant than you would be a bigot...unless you would like to elaborate on my ignorance.

And by the way I never told you to post everything said on the thread. I asked you to tell me what they said, which granted was lazy, but you seem to have the two confused.





Now Dermy, you realize of course that the nothingness arguement contradicts every possible creation explanation either scientific or religous. So I ask you, how did we come to be from the beginning. From the creation of the universe to me sitting right here typing this (not literally of course and please don't use any jokes or insults I'm serious) and please don't give me this read everything on the thread bullshit. I want to here it from you, what you think, what you believe. You feel I'm an ignorant dumbass who can't argue with logic than fill me up woth you knowledge. Tell me the history of the world. I want to know where the universe came from, what was there before it. No speculations. Because after all this I know you have a theory. You have got to have some kind of idea. Saying that simply God didn't create the universe isn't enough. I'm not going to try and explain it, you've won that battle, I believe what I believe and I'm not trying to make you believe if that makes me a lazy ignorant **** or durp or whatever so be it. I don't study scientific and religous comparisons I'm not a religous zealot, I spend most of my time studying politics (though I bet you think thats hard for an ignorant **** like me) so if you want to belittle my beliefs go right ahead. I give you my blessing. Talk all you want about my beliefs, call me a dogmatic asshole if you want, but please explain to me in your own way, how we came to be, this earth, these people, this universe, existence, tell me how it came to be.

[Lardlad95]

Noe as for this thread, when and if Dermy gives me an answer to my question. Either one of two things will happen.

1. if I can't think of anything to say, if he completley stumps me, I will leave quietly, give him some applause for a truly magnificant statement and never bother this thread again. at which point you can belittle me some more before you turn you attention back to the thread.

2. If I can find something to say back, I will reply, wait for his answer and so on. When eventualy( and hopefully) we can reach an understanding I will leave and never return to this thread.

No I apologize for my talk before you think attitude. I rarley ever disscuss religion because the idea doesn't intrest me, I believe what I believe and the reason that i was so shrewed was that i felt a hostility and a feeling that Dermy thought he was better than me agaisnt my beliefs, be it real or imagined.

I don't usually disscuss religion I jjust disscuss politics, when Im debating. And when it comes to religion I lose my temper for this I'm sorry. I realize that I have made quite a few enimies here, though I would rather not have you guys think of me this way I realize there is little I can do to change that.

All I can ask is that if we talk in other threads you wont hold my actions in this thread against me.

Many apologies to you all

-----------------Aaron

[TheDerminator]

guerrillaradio,

"I do not believe in the God humanity invented, but I refuse to catergorically deny the idea that there is a god out there somewhere in some form. "

This the heart of it. How can there be any other concept of God than our human invention? We can only think of "God" because we have invented God. It is like any invented concept. Take fairy or the Bogey Man as examples. We have invented these beings in consciousness, but it is ludicrous to then say these can exist outside of our consciousness, because all conception of them was invented in our conciousness. We can not think of them except in relation to the invention. God has to mean all-powerful creator etc. The concept created in consciousness has to be attached existence or existence is meaningless.

"As still not fully evolved human beings, there are very definite limits to our knowledge."

This is only the mystification of the unknown!

"And I believe that until we know everything that there is to know about everything, we cannot disprove a god."

Do we need to know everything about everything to prove everything? This is illogical and anti-science!
Facts develop upon the ground of facts. We can know some facts without knowing all-facts, and we can discount God and all other supernatural phenomena on the basis of know all there is necessary to know as regards their causation.

"Of course, the problem is, we will never know when we, as humans, know everything about everything, so in effect, we can never disprove a god, however long the race survives and however far we evolve."

The complete mystification of knowledge! Factual scientific objective knowledge is concrete, and we pour concrete upon the concrete as true objective knowledge develops.

Perhaps U deny the possibility of objective knowledge like El Che, but this is the topic of another thread.

"God" can take up so many forms that it is impossible to disprove him. "

The "form" is irrelevant! What is relevant is the prime causation of the abstract concept, and it is only this that we need to know. It is the pivotal question for validation or non-validation of the concept.


lardlad 95,

"THats not tangible. YOu forget that people who believe in God believe that God has no beginning."

It is irrelevant to the internal logic of the rationale proof that has been given, because it is taken as a given that most believer's will believe in the infinite existence of God in time. It is a non-issue, and is only another attribute we humans have allocated to God through what would be common logic, since God cannot be a finite being.

"If you want me to try and prove to you that God exists, there is nothing I could ever say to make you believe and I can live with that and I'm sure you can."

Er um. U have no proof. Kidding me?

"But you must also realise that saying 0--->can't equal God is tangible proof isn't going to convince anyone."

U're not anyone. U're a dogmatist! U're unable to accept the common rational logic of that something cannot come from nothing. Something U were using Urself from a creationist standpoint, but now U have ditched it, because it goes against Ur blind faith!

"OYu say something can't come from nothing and you are correct, however using that arguement there is no logical explanation to why we exist."

There is a logic explanation! Ur mummy had sex with Ur daddy! Hence U exist! Aint that the truth! U may not believe in scientific explanations for the evolution of the universe, life on earth etc, but believe it, or not I'm not completely alone in the world, in believing we do not need to mystify what we do not know, and that science can solve some of the great mysteries.

"So to prove me wrong please explain to me how the unvierse started from nothing."

Where did I say that the Universe began from nothing?
No where! I'm saying that matter in the universe existed in an infinite series of finite cause and effect relationships. Not one piece of infinite matter, but a continuum of cause and effect reactions.

Matter can never become nothing, it deteriorates into a base state, but not into a nothingless vacuum, thus we know matter will exist into infinity, so what is the problem in believing that matter began infinity?

It sounds more valid than any other explanation!

Well U only see the "****" word, but Rosa reminded U, that it was attached to the word "lazy" and the fact is that I would not have used the term, if U had not been so brazen about not read the thread in Ur own words. It was still an admission which treated everyone previously contributing as having nothing of value which U felt like taking on board, and I would rather U apoligise for that than calling me an "asshole". Water off a ducks back.

Right to Ur opinion? It is a harmful opinion. It is opinion that cause terrible damage all around the world, and as William Saffire says "Just because it is a right, does not make it right".

It is an ignorant position, because ultimately it relies upon non-questioning acceptance of dogma.

"So I ask you, how did we come to be from the beginning?"

Just because U don't accept the big-bang theory does not mean that I don't see it as a rational possibility, and there are plenty of people in this forum who will argue the evolutionist line with U, as U know already.

U want to know all the details of the evolution of the universe from the earliest time possible to the present day. Nuclear physicists are still working on how the big-bang might have come about, and I don't claim to be a nuclear physcist. At the same time, unlike U, I don't mystify what we don't know, and every mystery of nature has a scientific rational which solves that mystery, because the supernatural is just an invented fantasy, and can be proven to be such a fantasy.

U demand hard facts where there is only various scientific hypothesis, some of which is supported by facts in relation to the universe, and in relation to life on this planet, there are many incontrevertible facts which support evolutionary theory. Argue Ur case with a nuclear scientists and an expert in astro-physics! I claim to be neither, but such people could put U right on why some theories have become more established than others. If U dig hard enough, I'm sure U can come up with their arguments, but I guess U'll be too lazy to try.

U wish to answer all lack of knowledge with mystification. I never said U were an ignorant ****, the adjective was lazy. Politics? I think U would probably be okay on the matter, since I have read U elsewhere in the forums, but I think there is a contradiction between Ur politics and Ur religion, because at the end of the day, Ur religious beliefs are not consistent with a socialist position. They ultimately are let down for the people suffering most in the world.

"Saying that simply God didn't create the universe isn't enough."

U miss the point, all I'm saying is that the rational alternative explanations from science are not just more plausable, but provide the only basis for all future objective knowledge of the evolution of the universe, and of life on our planet.

U don't have to be a scientist, who understands all the exact science involved to comprehend that there is no validity in the God explanation, because God is only an invented abstract concept, and that even if we never know the "exact" way in which the universe evolved the only real explanation possible is a scientific explanation, because the alternative is ludicrous, and because there is no rational reason as to why we must mystify the unknown.

In the end the exact "how" is only of historical importance if it has no scientific application to the development of human technology. What matters more is that until or if the exact reasons are found out, that scientists reject all mystification of the unknown.

That may not satisfy Ur yearning for hard facts, but it seems fair dinkums to me.

Ur not an "asshole", but U're definitely a dogmatist, and even though Ur heart is in the right place Ure religiosity is a reactionary political position. U have accepted Ur position hook, line and sink in an unquestioning manner.

I don't see U as an enemy my friend. It is extremely small-minded in the extreme to have enemies amongst people who are essentially coming from the right direction, as U and others in this forum who believe in God are still doing.

U have built up some stuff in Ur head that does not exist, and that includes God. Sure there are some people here, who believe only they are the sole carriers of the torch, and that everyone else outside their narrow criteria are more or less the enemy, but as far as I can see, such people are in the minority, and if U think that is my direction, U are severely mistaken.

There is in my view a higher enemy, the BORGS! And ultimately, we should see what unites us against the bastards as the most important critirieon. The rest is just petty politicking, and I for one have no time for it, in the sense that I don't believe in just pushing one party line, as if nothing decent exist outside it.

At the same time, I will have no hesitation in being honest about my own viewpoints, and no, I don't expect to stump U, I expect irrational dogma, and I expect mystification of the unknown, and I'm pretty sure that is all U will deliver.

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

[Lardlad95]

You are dissmissing God on your own opnion which is fine, but since phyisicts are trying to discover how everything got started you still don't know so how can you dissmiss any possibility? Though God may not sound rational to you it is as possible as anything else since know one knows everything from the beginning.

>>>U're not anyone. U're a dogmatist! U're unable to accept the common rational logic of that something cannot come from nothing. Something U were using Urself from a creationist standpoint, but now U have ditched it, because it goes against Ur blind faith!<<<

Your not entirley correct sir, I said matter can't come from nothing, I never said God couldn't especially since I believe God is on a different plane than us. Matter cannot come from nothing in this you are correct however I will stand by my dogmatic veiw that God is not of matter. Like I said before I have no proof of this but I am allowed to believe what I believe.

>>>There is a logic explanation! Ur mummy had sex with Ur daddy! Hence U exist! Aint that the truth! U may not believe in scientific explanations for the evolution of the universe, life on earth etc, but believe it, or not I'm not completely alone in the world, in believing we do not need to mystify what we do not know, and that science can solve some of the great mysteries.<<<


You act as if I'm saying God invented the car and all that stuff. I never said science can't solve great mysteries I just believe that God created the universe.

And as far as my mom and my dad having sex you know what I meant about us existing. I meant how life got created, how the universe was created. We all just didn't appear because something cannot come from nothing there for the singularity that started the big bang could not have come from nothing.


>>>Where did I say that the Universe began from nothing?
No where! I'm saying that matter in the universe existed in an infinite series of finite cause and effect relationships. Not one piece of infinite matter, but a continuum of cause and effect reactions.<<<

But matter has to come from no where cause and effect can not just happen something has to exist to make a cause so in the history of the universe the matter has to come from somewhere. Is it possible that the universe is made of cause and effect reactions yes it is completley possible however what was there to cause it, in the very begning how did the matter that started the first cause come to be?

>>>Matter can never become nothing, it deteriorates into a base state, but not into a nothingless vacuum, thus we know matter will exist into infinity, so what is the problem in believing that matter began infinity?<<<

The problem is that as you said something cannot come from noting. Matter is just not there for no reason everything around us is cause and effect. You cannot destroy matter but you also can not create matter from nothing. Once matter is created it is infinite only in one direction it stretches out forever but it does not stretch back forever. In math it would be a ray because it needs some starting point.


>>>Right to Ur opinion? It is a harmful opinion. It is opinion that cause terrible damage all around the world, and as William Saffire says "Just because it is a right, does not make it right".<<<

Communism is an opinion, soldiers druing the Bolshevik Revolution were killed fighting communists because their ideas were different. Does that mean socialism or communism is bad? No it just means people disagree. People will believe what they believe. Just because you have the right to be an atheist, does that make it right? To me no to you yes. Our opinions differ, what is right to me is wrong to you, but what is right to you is wrong to me. I can not condone what some Christians have done to people but I'm not trying to kill you because you don't agree with me. Some people carry out their ideas radically, but does that give you the right to condem me for something someone else has done?

You know you are making an unfair generalazation. You are an intellgent person, yet you can't seem to realize that not all people that believe in God try and hurt Atheists or people of different religions.


>>Just because U don't accept the big-bang theory does not mean that I don't see it as a rational possibility, and there are plenty of people in this forum who will argue the evolutionist line with U, as U know already.<<<

It would be rational except matter can not exist on its own. Matter can not be destroyed but it does not exist on its own.

Stephen Hawking said that a singularity (like the one in black holes) was the point from which the big bang started. A very plausible idea, especialy since singularities in black holes explode. However a singularity is matter other wise it wouldn't have a gravitational pull. But there is no explanation of how the matter in the singularity came to be, unless God created matter the matter could not just appear. Besides were did the singularity reside in?


>>>U want to know all the details of the evolution of the universe from the earliest time possible to the present day. Nuclear physicists are still working on how the big-bang might have come about, and I don't claim to be a nuclear physcist. At the same time, unlike U, I don't mystify what we don't know, and every mystery of nature has a scientific rational which solves that mystery, because the supernatural is just an invented fantasy, and can be proven to be such a fantasy.<<<

Ok if it can be proven to be fantasy than prove it.

Mystify everything we don't know? I don't know if your really not a intellegent leapord that learned how to think and type but I'm betting you are a human because thayt is rational. You need to quit it with the generalizations. I don't mystify everrything I don't know. I don't know what chemicals go in laundry detergant but I'm pretty sure God didn't create it. The only claims I made where that God created the universe including man and animals. I never said evolution didn't exist. Read what i say before you talk next time.

>>>U demand hard facts where there is only various scientific hypothesis, some of which is supported by facts in relation to the universe, and in relation to life on this planet, there are many incontrevertible facts which support evolutionary theory. Argue Ur case with a nuclear scientists and an expert in astro-physics! I claim to be neither, but such people could put U right on why some theories have become more established than others. If U dig hard enough, I'm sure U can come up with their arguments, but I guess U'll be too lazy to try<<<.

What the hell is it with you and the jokes. "but I guess
U'll be too lazy to try" I try and apologize but its like you want to make me mad. Grow up and learn how to let things drop.

"Various scientific hypothesis" exactly, hypothesis meaning an idea. Its all speculation. They don't have the proof they have a good idea but little or any proof. The scientists are very very smart people, they spend their lives studying these things but they can't say anything is absolute yet. I'm pretty sure an expert in astro-phyiscs would tell me alot of things I don't kno. But there is one thing they have yet to figure out, what began the big bang, where did the singuarity come from?

>>>U miss the point, all I'm saying is that the rational alternative explanations from science are not just more plausable, but provide the only basis for all future objective knowledge of the evolution of the universe, and of life on our planet.<<<

Not necassarily. Personally I argue with alot of Christians because I believe science has a very strong hold on thiis planet and this universe. I'm just saying at the very beginning there is God. Unlike some people say God does not control everything in life otherwise you would be in a church right now. Thats why when people say what kind of God would allow people to die, I'm like he didn't let that person die, they died because they were sick, or because they were shot or because a tornado tossed them like a doll. Science I believe is a gift from God to help us explain things because is everything were mystic than science wouldn't be there. There is a rational explanation for most things. A scientific explanation but when it comes down to it God created the universe (I belieive) and everything else is left up to chance (science).

>>>Ur not an "asshole", but U're definitely a dogmatist, and even though Ur heart is in the right place Ure religiosity is a reactionary political position. U have accepted Ur position hook, line and sink in an unquestioning manner.<<<

Not on everything, I believe that evolution exists, I don't agree that only chritians will go to heaven. I just believe in God, everything else I discover for my self...most things. I don't agree with everything my fellow Catholics do, I think it was wrong that they persecuted those Jews, and Protestants. I believe that even if you don't believe in God he looks into your heart and that is how he judges you.

>>>U have built up some stuff in Ur head that does not exist, and that includes God. Sure there are some people here, who believe only they are the sole carriers of the torch, and that everyone else outside their narrow criteria are more or less the enemy, but as far as I can see, such people are in the minority, and if U think that is my direction, U are severely mistaken.<<<

I apoligize for misunderstanding your position. However I doubt your statement is just, as there is no proof of either of our explanations of how the universe was created.

>>>In the end the exact "how" is only of historical importance if it has no scientific application to the development of human technology. What matters more is that until or if the exact reasons are found out, that scientists reject all mystification of the unknown. <<<

Rejecting them is fine, they don't have to believe. However in turn, until they can explain to me where the matter that started the big bang came from I choose to believe.







>>>At the same time, I will have no hesitation in being honest about my own viewpoints, and no, I don't expect to stump U, I expect irrational dogma, and I expect mystification of the unknown, and I'm pretty sure that is all U will deliver<<<

The matter can't come from nothing thing isn't Dogma...unless you were argueing using dogma in that post back there. Also the singularity thing isn't dog ma. Though I do use dogma quite often I am trying to avoid as much as possible.

I apologize for any anger I may have let out, let there be no hostility between us comrade.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 8:38 pm on April 17, 2002
How can there be any other concept of God than our human invention? We can only think of "God" because we have invented God. It is like any invented concept. Take fairy or the Bogey Man as examples. We have invented these beings in consciousness, but it is ludicrous to then say these can exist outside of our consciousness, because all conception of them was invented in our conciousness. We can not think of them except in relation to the invention. God has to mean all-powerful creator etc. The concept created in consciousness has to be attached existence or existence is meaningless.

But the thing is, "god" could be a totally different concept. The fact that I first heard the word "god" in relation to the Christian form of him really bears very little relevance on its existence or non-existence. My point is, god could be a TOTALLY different concept to the "God" you are referring to. In fact, the only thing that connects the two is the fact that the English language is yet to invent a word for the thing that I am referring to, and therefore it shares it with "God". And I've changed my mind, this debate has become slightly boring. Thanks for your time Dermy, it's been a pleasure talking to you, I hope that we will meet again in other threads.

[Lardlad95]

guerrillaradio, I love that thing Woody Allen Said in your sig...it reminds me of an article in the onion (A joke newspaper in the midwest) if you don't know what it is. THe article was about God having Bi-Polar syndrome because he seemed nice but then turned angry, it was a great article, very funny. ANother funny one was about How Jesus decided to become a muslim and one about how Jesus hired an assitant Christ.

THe one about Islam was funny as hell, actualy all three were funny. Go to theonion.com and go to the archives and loook under religion.

[TheDerminator]

Lardlad95,

"You are dissmissing God on your own opnion which is fine [mighty big of U!]

My own opinion? Who says? U! Hey there, I believe in using objective methodolgy! U can use it too! U will come up with same logical rational for the non-existence of God!

"since phyisicts are trying to discover how everything got started you still don't know so how can you dissmiss any possibility?"

Nope, I didn't stump U! U delivered! U delivered big style! The mystification of the unknown! The point is that it is an either or situation, either there is a scientific solution or it was God going zap!

The scientific answer is not only a distinct probability, but a downright certainty, because U can prove there is no God to go zap.


"Though God may not sound rational to you it is as possible as anything else since know one knows everything from the beginning"

Nope, we don't need to know everything about the beginning to know it wasn't God going zap. We just need to know there is no God.

"Your not entirley correct sir, I said matter can't come from nothing, I never said God couldn't especially since I believe God is on a different plane than us. Matter cannot come from nothing in this you are correct however I will stand by my dogmatic veiw that God is not of matter."

U still don't get it! It is not a law of physical transformation of matter, it is a law of philosophical rational logic. God is an abstract concept, it is the concept which is based on nothingness, I'm not addressing qualities of physical being. There is a large difference, and ultimately God going zap is a conceptual abstract construct in Ur consciousness.


"Like I said before I have no proof of this but I am allowed to believe what I believe." All I know, is that all my knowledge is based upon ignorance. Blind belief is ignorant belief. I luxuriate myself in my own ignorance. I have no shred of evidence upon which to base my belief, but I'm going to beilieve in it any way, because that is my belief, and er um... No, Ur good! Ur good!

Reactionary dogma.... ! *+$$$%^£

Oops I swore.
My apologies...


"You act as if I'm saying God invented the car and all that stuff. I never said science can't solve great mysteries I just believe that God created the universe."

Just that particular mystery eh? No, Ur good! Ur good!
On what basis do U believe it? On the basis of dogma!
No, Ur good! Ur good!

"And as far as my mom and my dad having sex you know what I meant about us existing." [Glad U know the facts of life! Can't read Ur mind just yet, but U know some of U dogmatists have more than one mystery of the unknown up the sleeve!

"I meant how life got created, how the universe was created. We all just didn't appear because something cannot come from nothing there for the singularity that started the big bang could not have come from nothing."

Never came from nothing. Came from infinite cause and effect relationships transforming matter. Ur not much of a reader, U know. U prefer the singularity of God going zap!

"But matter has to come from no where cause and effect can not just happen something has to exist to make a cause so in the history of the universe the matter has to come from somewhere."

Says who? Says U! The whole point of an infinite series, is its an infintie continuum with no start and no end. U haven't thought out that infinity bit very well.

"Is it possible that the universe is made of cause and effect reactions yes it is completley possible however what was there to cause it, in the very begning how did the matter that started the first cause come to be?

Inifity requires no coming to be. It is infinite because it be! Hallelujah!

"The problem is that as you said something cannot come from noting. [The problem is in Ur head the problem is God in Ur head!] Matter is just not there for no reason everything around us is cause and effect." Right on dude!

"You cannot destroy matter but you also can not create matter from nothing." Yo!

"Once matter is created it is infinite only in one direction it stretches out forever but it does not stretch back forever." Say who? Says U! An Ur wrong! The infinite is infinite, because it exists in an infinite continuum, with no beginning, nor no end or otherwise it is not a complete infinite form.

"In math it would be a ray because it needs some starting point. " Says who? Says U! The linear ray only exists in Ur head with that being who went zap!

Oops, U shouldn't mock. Too late...Durp...

"Communism is an opinion, soldiers druing the Bolshevik Revolution were killed fighting communists because their ideas were different."

Communism is a state of society, it is a state of absolute freedom. Can there be such an absolute is a matter of speculation, thus all there is before is socialism.

Socialism is not an opinion, it is a way of doing things, and it is a societal condition. Opinion? Far out there man!

"soldiers druing the Bolshevik Revolution were killed fighting communists because their ideas were different."

U can only judge ethos, on the rights and wrongs of each individual case in relation to historical development, or the bigger picture. Socialists killing socialists does sound very comradely to me. Just stabbing in the dark but sounds like someone was more socialist than someone else!

"Does that mean socialism or communism is bad? No it just means people disagree." Ur believes maybe so founded, but not mine. One opinion is just as good as the next, so what do U say to "Oh, by the way, I think we should throw that Jewish baby into an oven?" Oh, just opinion? No, that is not what Ur saying, but Ur not far off. Agree to disagree? Na, far out there man. Depends on the subject. Always.

"People will believe what they believe." [Suckers! Come on. Get real man. Sorry for being a heavy dude, but what they believe can be completely offensive and downright evil! R U really that naive? I guess so.

"Just because you have the right to be an atheist, does that make it right? To me no to you yes."

Mighty big of U! The difference is my right is right and Ur right is wrong. Something like that. No, damn it. Dems the words!


"Our opinions differ, what is right to me is wrong to you, but what is right to you is wrong to me."

No, Ur good! Ur good! Okay, Ur not that good! I'm being completely objective and Ur being completely subjective! Sorry, but Ur more wrong than wrong or something like that, if not the exact words!

"I can not condone what some Christians have done to people but I'm not trying to kill you because you don't agree with me." Phew. Ur good! No, Ur good! [Enigma variation. Hope U get the subtext!]

"Some people carry out their ideas radically, but does that give you the right to condem me for something someone else has done?" Na, I'll crack the jokes!

What planet are U on? Ur on Planet fucking Grime!
Ur religious beliefs are directly implicated in the genocide of wanton neglect.

The beliefs U hold at this moment are doing terrible damage all around the world, where people are dying prematurely in poverty. Ur beliefs are dangerous in themselves.

Ur beliefs are evil in themselves, because people are fucking dying. Billions. Genocide. Ur beliefs leave people in subjugation not challenging their oppressors.

Because, whatever the nicieties of Ur version of the script, the bigger script is death unto U, because U will be rewarded in Heaven amen. Wait for it. Ur oppressors are God fearing people too. Don't side with the devil! Die! Sorry, my friend, but that belief to me, is evil in itself. Ur God stuff is killing people! Big style!

It is cause and effect, and the effect is the genocide of wanton neglect. No, U cannot just blame the system. The system has mind set underpinning its existence and Ur heartfelt dogmas are entrenched it, for the mass majority of BORGS.

"You know you are making an unfair generalazation. You are an intellgent person, yet you can't seem to realize that not all people that believe in God try and hurt Atheists or people of different religions." It is not just what U do. It is what U do not do. God judges U on what U do not do! So do the rest of us! They hurt themselves! They don't see their fellow believers as their oppressors, as the people leaving them to die in poverty. The poor are hurting themselves, whilst being hurt. An Ur part of it.

"It would be rational except matter can not exist on its own." Right on dude, it requires an outer ground, or essential environment. Yo!

"Matter can not be destroyed but it does not exist on its own." Dude. Ditto.

"Stephen Hawking [knows as much about philosophy as I know about science! If he's lucky...Ooops modesty]said that a singularity (like the one in black holes) was the point from which the big bang started." Na, he's guessing. An, I know he's wrong. What's that about modesty? Na, he's not saying how the singular was developed. What is the process? He's leading U up the garden path because he's a Godest.

A process led to the big-bang, an infinite cause and effect process. Pssst drop Stephen a line. Let him know....He's not that good, U know! Er um...Yeah, he's funny guy with all that God stuff...Aint that the truth!

"A very plausible idea, especialy since singularities in black holes explode. However a singularity is matter other wise it wouldn't have a gravitational pull." Singulary naff.

"But there is no explanation of how the matter in the singularity came to be [now there's a surprise!], unless God created matter the matter could not just appear [ funny guy that Stephen Hawkins.. funny guy... Besides were did the singularity reside in? In Stephen's head! Yeah he's a funny guy...Aint that the truth!

"Ok if it can be proven to be fantasy than prove it."

Consider it proven! Something cannot come from nothing! All supernatural phenomena are developed in abstract consciousness, and ultimately come from nothingness, because all are entrenched in the mystification of the unknown. All attributes are tangible attributes in relation to otherness of non "super" attributes that we know about or are just attributes we do know about such as the head of a sheep onto the body of a mouse gives the God Eewgf.com [Just running that one up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes!] or whatever.

"Mystify everything we don't know? I don't know if your really not a intellegent leapord that learned how to think and type but I'm betting you are a human because thayt is rational." Durp! Wal, want to exchange medication? Urs is having serious side-effects. It works! Can I try some too! Joke! Ask Red Celtic!

"You need to quit it with the generalizations." That "all generalisations tend towards the banal" is a self-defeating statement! Mine not Urs. Running it up the flagpole to see, if anyone salutes!

"I don't mystify everrything I don't know. I don't know what chemicals go in laundry detergant but I'm pretty sure God didn't create it. The only claims I made where that God created the universe including man and animals." At least Ur consistent! No, Ur good! Ur good!

"I never said evolution didn't exist. Read what i say before you talk next time." Pick the bones out of that! Ur good! No, Ur good.

"What the hell is it with you and the jokes. "but I guess
U'll be too lazy to try" I try and apologize but its like you want to make me mad. Grow up and learn how to let things drop."

Dropped.



"where did the singuarity come from?"

Infinite transformation, cause etc etc Zzzzzz. Aint that the truth!

". I'm just saying at the very beginning there is God . Unlike some people say God does not control everything in life otherwise you would be in a church right now [U know we have a will independent of gawd. Yo.] Thats why when people say what kind of God would allow people to die, I'm like he didn't let that person die, they died because they were sick, or because they were shot or because a tornado tossed them like a doll. Just Ur all-powerful God did fuck all to intervene, because the **** moves in mysterious ways. Mighty decent of the bastard. Funny guy... Aint the truth! Pick the bones out of that! Funny guy...

Not on everything [just the important stuff! Aint that the truth!], I believe that evolution exists [yo!], I don't agree that only chritians will go to heaven [mighty big of U!]. I just believe in God, everything else I discover for my self...most things [ the stuff that Disney matter]. I don't agree with everything my fellow Catholics do, I think it was wrong that they persecuted those Jews, and Protestants [right on. Toleration! Oops, I don't want to get [b]Moskitto started! Aint that the truth!] I believe that even if you don't believe in God he looks into your heart and that is how he judges you.
Aw shucks. He knows am a nice guy! Aint that the truth!

"I apoligize for misunderstanding your position. [dropped] However I doubt your statement is just, as there is no proof of either of our explanations of how the universe was created. U just cannae unnerstaun dem! Ma fault am sure. Aint that the truth!

"Rejecting them is fine, they don't have to believe. However in turn, until they can explain to me where the matter that started the big bang came from I choose to believe." Na, nae rejection. Just know what is speculative theory, and what is concrete fact.

"The matter can't come from nothing thing isn't Dogma...unless you were argueing using dogma in that post back there." Na, answered up there somewhere.

"Also the singularity thing isn't dog ma. [Now, that is taking the piss!]Though I do use dogma quite often [Aint that the truth!] I am trying to avoid as much as possible. [Now, that is taking the piss!]"


"let there be no hostility between us comrade" Hope, U have a sense humour about Urself! Not wanting any hostile reaction. Aint that the truth!

Pick the bones out of that!

guerrillaradio

"My point is, god could be a TOTALLY different concept to the "God" you are referring to." Na.

Sorry, but U still miss the point my friend. God has an absolute meaning, which covers every particular and every singular U know or care to dream up in Ur head. The absolute is the worshipped supernatural being. It covers the whole rotten lot. The form is irrelevant, because it is always subordinated under the universal, and it is only the universal, U have to see in development, because every actual singular and particular relates to the universal form. Heavy philosophy perhaps, but in the end, it has to be grasped. Aint that the truth!

Boorrinngggg?

Hell, stuff that challenges the mind is an orgasm man. This is the best sex some people have ever had! Aint that the truth! No names, no pack drill! U know who U R! Is that projection or transference? Aint that the truth! Funny guy...

"In fact, the only thing that connects the two is the fact that the English language is yet to invent a word for the thing that I am referring to, and therefore it shares it with "God" Sounds a word that U need to work on. How about Godishisummitmaybe. Aint that the truth!

Resistance is Fertile!

derminated

[guerrillaradio]

Lardlad - Yeah Woody's a genius. I love Annie Hall and Sleeper...

Dermy - er, yeah. Methinks you were under the influence during that post...yeah well, whatever, I guess I'll just have to "mystify the unknown" then. If you were to look over the recent "Science" thread you would see that I am of the opinion that truth is impossible and that as humans we know very little about anything. It would appear that you are of the opposite opinion. Can I ask, are you a rationalist?? Like I have said in many debates once they start to become repetitive, we are looking at this from ideologically different perspectives, and therefore we'll have to agree to disagree.

[TheDerminator]

guerrillaradio,

not under the influence, just pissed off with Lardlad95. The level of dogmatism, is serious brain damage, and the post reflects all the brain damage Lardlad95 is giving me! Call me over-sensitive!

Woody has lost the plot. It is someone comfortable with middle-class comedies of manner. No real satirical edge these days. Last half decent effort was Bullets over Broadway before that everything is over-rated
for several decades. Methinks the king is in his altogether!

"I guess I'll just have to "mystify the unknown" then." Methinks I'll just have to be a dogmatist then, eh Lardlad95. Which admission is the worst? Draw straws or something!

"I am of the opinion that truth is impossible and that as humans we know very little about anything."

Seems to be a trend. Can I ask does it save a lot of thinking to say "everything is relative". I kind of go with Engels. If U know everything about the thing in-it-self, U know what is the thing in itself.

I also agree with Marx..

"All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice."

We can objectify that practice, and to counter-pose relativistic mystification only reflects a poverty of thought. Myself and El Che have been over this ground, and we have a continuing debate in the 5th International forum, about this matter. This thread is dull enough without going off in a big tangent.

It is no suprise, that U possess this way of thinking, but U have some strange bed-fellows U know, and ultimately it is a reactionary quasi-religious position, even if it overtly rejects God. The position ultimately, is what the Goddists wish to promote.

"Can I ask, are you a rationalist?"

Descartes, was a rationalist, Marx was a rationalist, but there is a gulf between them both, and the gulf can be summed up by the word "dialectics". See myself as an objective analyst! Ah, well, make of it as U will, but if U are interested in Objective Methodology, it is given in the 5th International forum, in a simple as form as possible. I try not to label myself too much. Socialist is the one tag, I usually use to describe my philosophical position.

"therefore we'll have to agree to disagree."

Yeah, all this debate is kinda boring... It is just one opinion against another, blah, blah, blah... eh Monkey Soup? Best we just shoot the breeze and talk about nothing... I mean all this thinking is hard work, and my brain is getting frazzled by everybody. Maybe we ought to pack this in and start up a "love-in" where we can all hold hands and dwell upon each others beautiful inner essence. Just sit back and luxuriate.. er um. Perhaps not, and perhaps no perhaps.

Hope U find a corner to do Ur own thing.
Lardlad95, come back all is forgiven!

Resistance is Fertile!

derminated

[Rosa]

ha-ha, did you know that 1 symptom of serious mental disease called shizophrenia is "insane ideas" which means that you can't convince sick person (using logical arguments) that it's idea is wrong...that idea is called "paranoid matter" and psychologists recomend not to try any persuasion about the opposite, for it can only make things worse...

[RGacky3]

I believe in a god, It makes a lot of sence that he exists, but I don't believe that he takes us to heaven or hell thats, I believe that that was made up out of the fear of death.........but god does exist, I am convinced of that, it is impossible for everything to come up be chance, and in the bible it has many things that have come true, and it all fits together even though it was written over a large span of time, so I believe god exists only I also beleive that we are animals no better and perhaps worse, so when we die WE DIE

[Lardlad95]

Dermy, sorry I can't reply right now. I'm going skateboarding since the rest of my family abandoned me. I'll try and post tonight or tomorrow....ah the life of a dogmatic procrastinator

[TheDerminator]

RGacky3,

"I believe in a god [my sympathies], It makes a lot of sence that he exists [not to athiests!], but I don't believe that he takes us to heaven or hell thats, I believe that that was made up out of the fear of death [no, that is something is a tragic side effect, but not the causation for believing in God for most believers. It has some relevance, but it is not prime causation, the latter is in the early belief in Gods, and the latter was not due to the fear of death, but as the answer to what is the nature of the elements. The elements; earth, wind and fire were deified. U can't reduce it to the fear of death, it has to be placed in a historical context.

"but god does exist [news of the millenium], I am convinced of that [can I sell U a square football?], it is impossible for everything to come up be chance [evolution and historical development are not chance,. much necessity involved], and in the bible it has many things that have come true [like an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? Not the view of Jesus Christ.."Forgive your enemies." How selective are you in what is true and not true in the bible that Jesus Christ rejected.

" and it all fits together even though it was written over a large span of time, so I believe god exists only I also beleive that we are animals no better and perhaps worse, so when we die WE DIE"

Time? The bible existed for a considerable time before Jesus Christ. It did not prevent Jesus from seeing that its ethos was inadequate. Just because something has existed for a long time does not make it true.

When we die, we die.

Why shouldn't your all-powerful God step in and prevent U from dying, if he or she is that nice a person?

Resistance is fertile!

derminated

[deadpool 52]

A lot of people, even if anyone proves God does not exist with logic, believe God exists outside of logic.

[Lardlad95]

Exactly...so whats the point of trying to convince me Dermy? though saying I would go against logic isn't a strong arguement for my case....uh....forget I said anything

[Dan Majerle]

God cannot be proven or disproven using human methods as he is superior to that and does not compare to human apparutus such as experiments,etc. He is not 2-d like humans are. It is pointless to even debate this. I really think it lies in ones belief and faith. I dont think religion is oppressive as Marx said however it has been used for wrong purposes and been besmirched. Religion in theory as communism is pure and only wanting to do good for society.

[eudaimonia]

My question is.. whether or not you believe in God (I'm undecided), creation still remains a question. Is it enough to say that God just... existed? And then created? And then, (to simplify the scientific theories) what caused the Big Bang? Is it enough to say that it just... happened? On both sides, there is much that is not explained. Personally, I doubt that we'll ever really know what began existence. It's much more inviting to assume that existence always.. existed, because that leads one to believe there will be no end. Religion exists where science has not gone yet, and nothing, let alone science, can perceive unexistence.

[Lefty]

i think this is the 3rd time i have posted in this thread, under my 2nd alias. damn this is an old and confusing thread.

[peaccenicked]

what is this thread about?

[Fires of History]

I lost track as well. Clean cup! Clean cup! Move down! Move down! Move down!

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 10:33 am on May 11, 2002
what is this thread about?


Well you started it!!! LOL...

I think that more important to man than the question of God's existence if whether, even if he does exist, he actually has any relevance to man?? Is god really dead in terms of his usefulness and significance to man, as Nietzsche claims?? Opinions people...

[yuriandropov]

i've only read the last page of this thread but i'll give my opinions about god anyway. every scientific fact out there points to there being no god. not only that, but if there is a god, why do such terrible things happen? IMO, religion is used to appease the prolaterat. by saying, if you have a bad life on earth but get on with it and don't kick up a fuss, you'll go to heaven. virtually every war ever has been started by religion. i still can't believe so many people buy into it in the 21st century. however, i won't be arrogant enough to say, 'there is no god'. i don't know for sure, noone does. IMO everyone should just be agnostic. just get on with there lives and when the day comes and you die, just see what happens and hope for the best.

[peaccenicked]

right now I rememember.
Let me be completely arrogant on this issue. There is no god. It can be shown that it is purely man's invention.
No idea of god makes any real sense.
It is about time people on the left had the guts to spell this out.
There is nothing there and belief and faith are just brain glogging barriers to real thinking.
Saying that, every country has different conditions of religious freedom and communism does not seek to ban religion but put in the dustbin of history along with the capitalist class. Any good that comes out of religion can be taken on board but there is no good in the belief of god in itself. It is merely an over hyped stupidity that is sometimes hard to leave behind as science has no real need for it. Religion gives too much uniformity of unreason in a world crying out for rationalism.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from yuriandropov on 1:18 am on May 12, 2002
i've only read the last page of this thread but i'll give my opinions about god anyway. every scientific fact out there points to there being no god. not only that, but if there is a god, why do such terrible things happen? IMO, religion is used to appease the prolaterat. by saying, if you have a bad life on earth but get on with it and don't kick up a fuss, you'll go to heaven. virtually every war ever has been started by religion. i still can't believe so many people buy into it in the 21st century. however, i won't be arrogant enough to say, 'there is no god'. i don't know for sure, noone does. IMO everyone should just be agnostic. just get on with there lives and when the day comes and you die, just see what happens and hope for the best.


I'm not gonna try and convince you theres a God cuz that probably a useless battle but can we please cut the why does God let bad things happen bullshit? Shit happens because it does. GOd doens't control every single aspect of our lives. We have free will. Shit either happens because we do it our selves of some natural disaster just occurs. God isn't plotting every little thing in the universe.

[Guest1]

Ok, let's get this straight off the bat, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in the existence of a higher being. But if there's one thing I despise more than cappies, it's this fucking bullshit about "god doesn't exist, nyah nyah!". It's rediculous, people can believe what they want, there's no proof either way. us leftists of all people should know that the "There is no proof, therefore it does not/can not exist" excuse is CRAP. We can't prove that Communism can work either, so shut the fuck up and don't try to force your spiritual beliefs on others. That's precisely why I don't partake in organized religion, but what the fuck's the point if you're going to be forcing things down their throats like the minority of believers tried to force down mine and yours?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Che y Marijuana on 3:22 am on May 12, 2002
Ok, let's get this straight off the bat, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in the existence of a higher being. But if there's one thing I despise more than cappies, it's this fucking bullshit about "god doesn't exist, nyah nyah!". It's rediculous, people can believe what they want, there's no proof either way. us leftists of all people should know that the "There is no proof, therefore it does not/can not exist" excuse is CRAP. We can't prove that Communism can work either, so shut the fuck up and don't try to force your spiritual beliefs on others. That's precisely why I don't partake in organized religion, but what the fuck's the point if you're going to be forcing things down their throats like the minority of believers tried to force down mine and yours?

Hell, thats the first thing I agree with on this thread. And since I agree I'm going to leave this thread

[peaccenicked]

The point is not to interpret but to change it. if that means telling the truth as you see it then I think it must be done.
I dont want to stuff this down any ones throat.
It is only my belief and I want it to be heard.
Here is Shelley
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...of_atheism.html (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/percy_shelley/necessity_of_atheism.html)

[Fires of History]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 3:08 am on May 12, 2002

We have free will.


You have an interesting concept of free will believing in a 'god' that basically says "Love me, or I'll fucking kill you!"

The concept of 'free will' is incompatible with traditional doctrines of 'sin' and 'punishment.'

[peaccenicked]

We have dont have free will, that is a bourgeois illusion.
Freedom is social.
Eugene Debs put it something like this.
"While there remains a single human being in prison, I cannot be free.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Fires of History on 6:44 am on May 12, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 3:08 am on May 12, 2002

We have free will.


You have an interesting concept of free will believing in a 'god' that basically says "Love me, or I'll fucking kill you!"

The concept of 'free will' is incompatible with traditional doctrines of 'sin' and 'punishment.'


I know I said I would leave this thread but what the bloody hell are you talking about.

People can choose to sin or not sin people can choose to belive in God or not believe in God

[peaccenicked]

God is an historical entity. The choice to believe or not is conditioned very much by social factors. The pressure to conform to family culture is particularly oppressive.
If you have no money it is your duty to steal food.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 3:39 am on May 13, 2002
God is an historical entity. The choice to believe or not is conditioned very much by social factors. The pressure to conform to family culture is particularly oppressive.
If you have no money it is your duty to steal food.

THat is very much due to the family's culture, its a part of their history. YOu don't erase history. However not every family is like that. My Family is traditionally Catholic, but my cousin is a buddhist, my mom used to be a buddhist, and my dad has a preference towards Baptists, I am looking into Islam.

Family pressure isn't always present though it is a little opressive, but again that isn't religions fault its the family's fault

[peaccenicked]

My father once said " There is just about enough religion in the world for people to hate one another"

[Fires of History]

Lardlad95,

I think perhaps you have a different view of religion as opposed to organized religion? Maybe?

Personal spirituality is one thing, but socially organized religion is a curse, an oppressor, and a hierarchical model employed by the worst of tyrants.

[Lardlad95]

tht I may not disagree with organized religion has problems but personal spirituality is different

[LeonardoDaVinci]

Man can never ever prove or disprove the existence of God. We are limited by our five senses, our whole reality system is woven around these senses. As Kant claimed, even science probably says more about our perception of the universe and how we function than how the universe actually work. At the end of the day, what matters is that if you believe in God, you do not use your beliefs as a system to influence and manipulate the masses as so many in the past have done. On the other hand, if you are an atheist you must not spend your entire time bickering with others about your beliefs (or lack of). Everyone is entitled to his opinion as long as it does not hurt anyone. At the end of the day it is, and should always remain a personal matter.

I personally, even though I am a scientist, do believe in the existence of God. I don not believe that the existence of a God contradicts with science. And no, I do not believe in God in order to comfort myself or as a way of escapism from our cruel reality. My view on the question is very similar to that of the philosopher Thomas Hobbes; although I believe in God, I believe that in the reality of our everyday life he might as well just not exist as he has no bearing on it whatsoever. Furthermore, I denounce religious dogma which tries to personify God in order to bring him closer to us. I abhor the ideas of heaven and hell, which simply influences people to do good in fear of hell rather than doing it for the actual deed itself and for its objective morality.

I have heard pretty much every argument for and against the existence of God. Some of them are inherently flaws, others rely on their ambigious rhetoric. But the most amusing and audacious of them have been the ones relying on flawed mathematical theorem, which says more about their manipulation of quantities and theoretical premises than it does about clear and objective (humanly that is) mathematics.

At the end of the day, if we ever hope to establish a flourishing and utopian society hear on Earth, then our first mission should be to stop our pointless bickering and try to respect everyones individuality and opinion, as long as it does no harm to others or society. Moreover, we should focus our efforts and intelligence on more pressing matters such as ending world hunger and injustice worldwide, once we have achieved those mundane objectives, then and only then, should we spare the time for such talk.

[Unknown]

Hell, I Read 3 posts then my eyes glazed over

THAT EQUATION DOSENT PROVE ANY THING that dosent prove shit its just Numbers and letters and shit, im not a good maths guy hell i dont even know my 7x table but i do know that thats gobeldey gook maybe god dosent exist but that shurley dosent prove it......

Why dont you take that to Steven hawkins and let him sort that shit out......

And why havent you sent that to like sience labs and made it all famous

[TheDerminator]

Maybe, I can bury this thread.

Changed my mind. Hope, I haven't wound up too many believers. I stand by how the concept of God was invented in human consciounsness. Something did come from the nothingness of ignorance.

However, I re-examind my methodology on this subject, and realised that the concept itself is only a self-contained ground for the subject. Hope, that does not go over your heads!

In short it is an error to see only the concept of God in its conceptual development, because it does not rule out the possibility of God existing outside of that conscious development process.

Athiesm assumes the non-existence of God and blind faith assumes the existence of God, but if U don't know either way, U can only resort to probabilities.

What is the probability that God does not or does exist and base Ur value judgement upon what logic determines as the greatest likelihood.

I am not a dogmatist. It is not as if I gained this change of view from anyone writing in any of the threads. Something, I re-assessed myself.

I will always be true to myself, and as for the probalities which the agnostic dithers upon, it is an on-going research. I will tell U when I've got the definitive proof that God exists!

They say God loves a trier!

However, it is not as some say that there are no "absolutes", I would say absolutely that all traits attributed to God are only human assumptions and they are not based upon one iota of evidence that quanitifies this or that attribute.

Absolutely, all notion of God thus far has stemmed from inventions from human consciousness. The question is an open question, but it is the poor philosopher who remains content to leave it unanswered, because it makes another assumption.

Expect more on this subject from me at a later date. I have made some progress already, and I will be returning to it within the tradition of the "metaphysics" which was taken to its furthest by Marx.

As for Stephen Hawkins, he is not a philosopher, and this is the field of philosophy, not nuclear physics. It will be philosophy and not empircal science which sheds the greater light, and the assumption that nothing can be gained is only an assumption. I am learning about assumptions, even my own.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Fertile!

derminated

[guerrillaradio]

Brilliant...you've finally come round to somewhere near my thinking!!!

[TheDerminator]

Glad to be "somwhere"!

derminated

[peaccenicked]

The probability of god existence is zero.
It has never been shown to be none other than an invention of man. God is a concept with no indepence outside absract thought. No definition of god makes any sense beyond the realm of rationalising an an empty concept for the sake of safeguarding emotional attachments.

[TheDerminator]

peaccenicked,

U know from [i]Empirio-critisicism[i/],
that reality exists before humankind existed. Being existed before humans, and being exists outside of human consciousness, thus although we invented God in human consciousness, it does not mean to say we can prove the supernatural world did not exist outwith our invention of it.

If a "spiritual reality" exists even God can exist, although a first Creator being or Supreme being does not necessarily possess all the invented attributes which have been assumed, and for all we know such a being may not even see itself as God, just another, higher form of being.

It is all speculation and assumption and one could speculate that there is more than one creator being, because language is a social product.

Apart from that the above stuff on probabilities still applies.

May the Force[b/] be with [b]U!

derminated

[Fires of History]

What definition of "being" are you meaning Derm?

[TheDerminator]

Any definition of being, means existence is a fait accompli. This fait accompli is not proven in the case of God or a supernatural world, but the being in-itself, is a complete non-tangible thus far, because it has still to be given concrete ground. It might be argued that such ground can never be made tangible, but just because something is an open-question does not mean it is completely unsolveable. It means hard work has to be done to find out if any concrete ground is possible, but without the hard work being done U just make an assumption either way.

What other kind of being is there? It must be substantive or it is a dogmatic assumption one way or another.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[joseph K]

i like your equation; its the most math ive done since schooll... but i already knew god didn't exist. God is defined as the most perfect being possessing omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.
So god is able to do anything and make anything and generally all powerful. but this is a logically impossible state. God would have to be able to make a rock he couldn't lift to is he could make anything, but this would make him unable to do anything. obviously if he cant make the rock then he is still undone by the logic of what humans have defined him as. So all those church leaders really should have invented a better idea than a most perfect impossibility.

[Fires of History]

Dermy,

Congratulations on your last two posts, perfectly brilliant agnosticism!

I agree with you that existence, to us at least, is fait accompli, in that it is logically necessary for you and I to exist for us to be having this conversation. You exist right? ;)

However, I am going to have to agree with Peaccenicked. Any concepts of 'god' are confined to human consciousness. As such, do those beings exist outside of our minds? Does anything you can conceive of truly exist outside of your mind? And while it may be true that a 'god' exists 'out there,' that is quite irrelevant to any discussion of 'god' for we do not currently know, and will most likely never know, and to me it might as well not exist at all in such a scenario. We can only wait for 'god' so long before we need to move forward eh? Because all human interaction with any 'god' occurs within human consciousness, it is then the be all and end all of 'god's' existence.

Although, how can you prove a "spiritual reality"? I think it's a large jump to go from "being" to "supernatural world" as you said.

[guerrillaradio]

I covered this ground with Dermy a few weeks back on this thread. What do you mean by the term "God"?? I believe that the God monotheists (or indeed polytheists)believe in was created by man. however, I believe that there could well be some kind of higher power (which, in the English language, shares the term "God" with the aforementioned manmade creation) which could well have made existence. As far as the monotheistic God goes, I am atheist, but I guess I am an agnostic.

[hobo]

ok i don't believe in god so this thread hasn't changed much for me,TheDerminator did you get the Resistance is Fertile! from urban75 or was it your banner at mayday, if you have no idea what i'm talking about then dont worry about it

[thebigcom]

what the hell are you thinking. you dont want to piss god off man, just dont screw with god

[Well in doubt]

I wouldt be talking big com i think you pissed him off enough with out mentioning what you did.

[thebigcom]

oh thats rich coming from the "porn baron"

[anti machine]

If there is God, how do we expect to fathom him with bullshit mathematical equations? our minds are too puny to begin to do so.

[peaccenicked]

God created the universe then the stars the solar system our planet then people and then people who think we have puny minds. Perhaps not?

[Valkyrie]

Wow peacenicked!!!

and has our presence been graced...... with a PORN BARON?

[peaccenicked]

Hobo ''Resistance is fertile.''
I got it from a Faslane peace camp magazine. Dermi liked it to.

[maxfish17]

Of course there's no god - well at least not the type of god that the major human religions believe in. -

The belief that the universe was created by a white man is extremely arrogant. So much suffering and divisiveness is caused by religion.

- Max

[Lefty]

i believe this is the 5th time ive posted on this thread, and i still dont get it.

my personal belief is that there is something higher that humans, be it ethereal or alien. i dunno.

[Mazdak]

Religion?? It is the most foolish evidence of the backwardness of man.

i shall use the ideas of Arius and say if God was always present and never created then God and Jesus cannot be the same. Jesus was created, so he couldnt have been god.

And of course you cant disprove religion, but how many of us can prove that dragons dont exist either???

[Ymir]

Mathematics and science is just a faith with no supreme being.