PDA

View Full Version : How do you Define GOD?


Uncle Steezo
03-06-2010, 11:31 PM
what does God mean to you?
how would you explain what God is?


if you are atheist, what do you think does not exist? because you have to have an idea that you can refute or lack evidence of .

TheBoarzHeadBoy
03-07-2010, 12:17 AM
The anthropomorphic form of a concept.

For and example:

Allah is the concept of a conscious Universe as is Brahman.
Zeus is the concept of the power of the Heavens to make storms which affect life.
Horus is the concept of Avenging one's Father.
Nike is the concept of having victory.
Lady Liberty is the concept of freedom.
Chronos is time.
Odin is a god of Knowledge.
Quetzalcoatl or Aeolus is the winds.

diggy
03-07-2010, 12:28 AM
Allah is the concept of a conscious Universe as is Brahman.

Wrong.

EAGLE EYE
03-07-2010, 01:29 AM
yzMEAkI-yrQ

Uncle Steezo
03-07-2010, 04:53 AM
boarz, you got a few of those wrong. instead of interpreting other people's gods, define YOUR God.
FYI, horus represents the omniscient characteristic of God, among a host of other things.

rob is just too hip. i bet you have a chakra app on your ipad.

V4D3R
03-07-2010, 06:36 AM
my understanding is "god" is everything we know dont know infinitely in micro and macro - seen unseen.

"God" at one point was a little unseen speck of nothingness - but wanted to know itself more then itself - not as itself - split itself - big bang therory kicks in.

Fear was known in the unknown chaos - then love and attraction began - the universe "god" has expanded and will renuite to begin the cycle all over for infinity and he does this on all levels up or down for infinity.

My question is does "god" have a "god"?

Uncle Steezo
03-07-2010, 07:01 AM
my understanding is "god" is everything we know dont know infinitely in micro and macro - seen unseen.

"God" at one point was a little unseen speck of nothingness - but wanted to know itself more then itself - not at itself - split itself - big bang therory kicks in.

Fear was known in the unknown chaos - then love and attraction began - the universe "god" has expanded and will renuite to begin the cycle all over for infinity and he does this on all levels up or down for infinity.

My question is does "god" have a "god"?

nice.
my mind just folded in on itself with that question.

V4D3R
03-07-2010, 08:03 AM
I just realized I said "he" =\ society has an ingrained visual imprint of "god" as a man/being.

How could a man\being of created the universe and why would it choose to make the decisions it made in allowing failed civilizations time and time again?

Each soul (program) has free will until reunited the kingdom (god) and all are one with the main processor working as a whole and "the glory returns" ( knowledge knowledge )

And we learn it all in multiple lifetimes to become perfect beings balanced in knowing the difference in fear and love.

The creator having a "maker" is something we got to find out when the time is right is each our own time I'm thinking. A lot of questions we wont get answers to until we pass on.

RALPH WIGGUM
03-07-2010, 08:24 AM
To me, God is an ideal. He is everything man is not, he is perfect. I don't believe in a god in the sky.
I believe in an idea of god. For example I find ridiculous descartes's ontological proof of god's existence, that is that since god is perfect, and existing is more perfect than not existing, then he exists.
Im not an atheist because I don't place myself as oppsed to religion, I just have no religion, because I don't need it.
If I had to choose, even though I don't wish to be trapped in a category, I'd say Im a deist, because I'm finding it hard to believe and illogical that nothing is the origin of everything. But I don't believe that anyone is "closer " to god than anybody else because hes the pope or whatever.

Frank Sobotka
03-07-2010, 08:48 AM
I'm an atheist but instead of disregarding the concept of god I just looked at the universe for something that fits the definition of god.

As A Result I don't see god as a conscience but rather a name for all the powers that make the universe work.
God is often seen as the overseer & Controller of the universe, this transelates into gravity for example, it makes sure we stay on earth & the earth stays in orbit around the sun so that we hav elife.
Another example is Evolution, it oversees us and often gives what we need to survive.

SID
03-07-2010, 10:31 AM
God is all, he is everything and nothing.

Uncle Steezo
03-07-2010, 11:13 AM
I just realized I said "he" =\ society has an ingrained visual imprint of "god" as a man/being.

How could a man\being of created the universe and why would it choose to make the decisions it made in allowing failed civilizations time and time again?

Each soul (program) has free will until reunited the kingdom (god) and all are one with the main processor working as a whole and "the glory returns" ( knowledge knowledge )

And we learn it all in multiple lifetimes to become perfect beings balanced in knowing the difference in fear and love.

The creator having a "maker" is something we got to find out when the time is right is each our own time I'm thinking. A lot of questions we wont get answers to until we pass on.
this idea is stuck on my mind at the moment. like what if reality was a fractal? and no matter how far in or out you zoomed you were left with a macrocosm and a microcosm. on a grander level, God is a microcosm of the multiverse of multiple creators, in which that multiverse is governed by multiuniversal laws which they call "god"....to infinity.


but then going back to the "God's Introspection" concept... the ONE GOD may have created our God and other universe's gods out of himself, in order to experience multiplicity on a higher level.

i'm going to meditate on this this evening and come back.



I'm an atheist but instead of disregarding the concept of god I just looked at the universe for something that fits the definition of god.

As A Result I don't see god as a conscience but rather a name for all the powers that make the universe work.
God is often seen as the overseer & Controller of the universe, this transelates into gravity for example, it makes sure we stay on earth & the earth stays in orbit around the sun so that we hav elife.
Another example is Evolution, it oversees us and often gives what we need to survive.
i feel that.
ironically the 3 major religions often get this wrong. the man in the sky concept has created more atheists than anything else.

TheBoarzHeadBoy
03-07-2010, 11:38 AM
^I'm pretty sure that's how it is.

Everything is in constant flux. There are infinite universes which are infinitely similar or infinitely different. Each one has a starting point and ending point. We're somewhere in the middle, and its so vast we really can't understand it as more then numbers and pictures.

This universe started as a super atom which was held together with a unified force of gravity, electromagnetism, and the two nuclear bonds. Unified they were enough to hold together such a massively dense particle but gravity wigged out and separated which tore the universe into being. That's why gravity is an inherent part of the material of the universe.

Anyhow, now our universe is expanding at FTL and won't stop until it overwhelms itself and dissipates into nothing. But its so massive this will be billions of years from now. So if there was a universal force in our universe that is godlike it would have it's own greater beings it views as Gods or cannot understand ad infinity.

Just as our understanding of our universe is limited by our maximum lifespan of a century give or take, our god is limited to understanding what is an infinite universe by his own lifespan of the universe which is very long, but limited.

V4D3R
03-07-2010, 08:04 PM
this idea is stuck on my mind at the moment. like what if reality was a fractal? and no matter how far in or out you zoomed you were left with a macrocosm and a microcosm. on a grander level, God is a microcosm of the multiverse of multiple creators, in which that multiverse is governed by multiuniversal laws which they call "god"....to infinity.


but then going back to the "God's Introspection" concept... the ONE GOD may have created our God and other universe's gods out of himself, in order to experience multiplicity on a higher level.

i'm going to meditate on this this evening and come back.

Yep yep. And I'm thinking on this level to. One day we could possibly discover an evolved micro lifeform on the surface of something atomic/molecular size range. And vice versa - we may be a part of something bigger - and all this is happening - happened already and will happen again.

EAGLE EYE
03-07-2010, 08:29 PM
cFods1KSWsQ

PALEFORCE
03-07-2010, 08:35 PM
http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85416&highlight=what+god+means+to+me

diggy
03-07-2010, 08:46 PM
I'm an atheist but instead of disregarding the concept of god I just looked at the universe for something that fits the definition of god.

As A Result I don't see god as a conscience but rather a name for all the powers that make the universe work.
God is often seen as the overseer & Controller of the universe, this transelates into gravity for example, it makes sure we stay on earth & the earth stays in orbit around the sun so that we hav elife.
Another example is Evolution, it oversees us and often gives what we need to survive.


This is interesting.

Robert
03-08-2010, 05:05 PM
God is a concept our forefather's invented to protect us from ourselves.

WARPATH
03-09-2010, 10:15 AM
I do not pretend to know the nature of the creator.

SID
03-09-2010, 10:25 AM
God is a concept our forefather's invented to protect us from ourselves.

Humans built the sydney opera house right? engineered it?

So logically something must have engineered us, we just have never seen it, but it does not mean it's not there.

Can you see bacteria? NO. It's still there though.

LORD NOSE
03-09-2010, 11:22 AM
Can you see bacteria? NO. It's still there though.


bacteria is unseen ?

never knew that



God


We believe it's there - if it is, now what ?

our existence is iLL


as we get older, we cry less for our mothers

SID
03-09-2010, 12:07 PM
Can you spot E-Coli with the naked eye?

LORD NOSE
03-09-2010, 12:12 PM
maybe not - eyes with clothes on can though

Mr. Muhammad
03-09-2010, 12:19 PM
If you can "define" YOURSELF, then you can define GOD.

Ninja
03-09-2010, 03:48 PM
From the Quran, Chapter 112
Say: He is Allah, the One!
Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
He begetteth not nor was begotten.
And there is none comparable unto Him.

So in short, from the Islamic perspective, God is not a spirit, because a spirit is still a creation, and God is a creator, and not part of the creation, this is a very important concept in Islam and monotheism.

The Originator of the heavens and the earth; He made mates for you from among yourselves, and mates of the cattle too, multiplying you thereby; nothing like a likeness of Him; and He is the Hearing, the Seeing. Quran 42:11

So in short, there is nothing like Allah. Naught is as His likeness in attribute, knowledge, power and providence.

SID
03-09-2010, 05:42 PM
A book saying God is eternally Besought of all aint gonna convince no one.

Urban_Journalz
03-09-2010, 06:25 PM
I do not pretend to know the nature of the creator.

Finally, something worth co-signing to.

EAGLE EYE
03-09-2010, 07:16 PM
http://www.motherboard.tv/2010/3/9/most-americans-still-think-god-does-bad-things-to-mess-with-them

Robert
03-10-2010, 05:59 PM
humans built the sydney opera house right? Engineered it?

So logically something must have engineered us (explain to me why), we just have never seen it, but it does not mean it's not there.

that's not logical at all. What it is, is a logical fallacy. Such a familiar, baseless argument you have chosen also. I appreciate you choosing an australian example though, so i could understand your rock solid and highly complex viewpoint.

can you see bacteria? No. It's still there though.

you can see bacteria. A better example would have been oxygen gas or something of that nature, but it still wouldn't have strengthened your weak arguement.


shem hetep.

Robert
03-10-2010, 06:15 PM
The definition of God that Gavin, and VADER outlined, to me at least, is not a viable definition outside a Wutang Clan forum.

In reality, the majority of people define God as a man, who is probably white with a beard, who can send you to Heaven or Hell, and promises you eternal life. Of course I've simplified things immensely right there, but the themes people believe about "God" are essentially the same worldwide.

That definition of God, and all the horrendous, manipulative bullshit that goes with it, is EVIL, and I can't support it.

TheBoarzHeadBoy
03-10-2010, 09:03 PM
Humans built the sydney opera house right? engineered it?

So logically something must have engineered us, we just have never seen it, but it does not mean it's not there.

Can you see bacteria? NO. It's still there though.

But we didn't put the resources on earth, we just moved them around a bit. We didn't make anything. We're no different then the wind blowing sand into ultimately random patterns. They're temporary and irrelevant.

zooruka
03-10-2010, 09:50 PM
God = Love.


close thread.


peace be with you !

Wu-Tang Forum Internet Poster
03-10-2010, 10:21 PM
The Original Connecticutatic Jewish Man is God.

Anoint this dick, heathens.

Visionz
03-10-2010, 11:32 PM
God is the source of all life and creation as we do and don't know it.

SID
03-11-2010, 04:11 AM
(explain to me why), that's not logical at all. What it is, is a logical fallacy. Such a familiar, baseless argument you have chosen also. I appreciate you choosing an australian example though, so i could understand your rock solid and highly complex viewpoint,you can see bacteria. A better example would have been oxygen gas or something of that nature, but it still wouldn't have strengthened your weak arguement.

A building for example has a network of cables all feeding electricity to and from different parts of the building, they have computer networks that send data back and forth, they are structuarly engineered to fight and withstand the elements, they are a creation

The same as us, we have cables (nerves) that carry electrical signals, we have neurons that carry data,we have an immune system to combat illness, we are engineered just like the empire state was.

The golden gate bridge did not appear out of nowhere, it was painstakingly engineered and designed, just like we are thats my "arguement" nothing more nothing less.

LORD NOSE
03-11-2010, 12:30 PM
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/8471/whereisyourgodnow.jpg

SID
03-11-2010, 12:42 PM
ahahaha

You should be funny more often Sunny, it will soften your image as a militant NOI Leader, to a more lovable freedom fighter.

LORD NOSE
03-11-2010, 01:34 PM
you must be new

V4D3R
03-15-2010, 08:26 AM
How about we all take a year to focus on asking the Creator what it is?
How about an international - We Demand answers prayer day....

DiGitalChamberz
03-18-2010, 08:38 PM
its simple... GOD is everything. Period... he is the All in All no beginning or ending he just is and he is ALL.. We are the physical expression of God.. GOD is US

Rollo
03-19-2010, 11:16 AM
what does God mean to you?
how would you explain what God is?



An omnipotent, omnipresent, inescapable, supernatural being who can cut through space time, existed before the spatio-temporal realm(universe) and is unstoppable.


What he isn't
-The universe
-A warm fuzzy feeling in your stomach
-Your perception
-Subjective
-You

Any further explanation, just let me know...

LORD NOSE
03-19-2010, 11:59 AM
you seem so sure of all of this - have you not had many conversations about these things ?

Rollo
03-19-2010, 03:11 PM
you seem so sure of all of this - have you not had many conversations about these things ?

Plenty... Mostly with rationalistic philosophical types.
Many of whom believe in corn ball generalizations and vague metaphysical statements they have no data to actually back.

Of course, the question was how do you define God?
Not "What is God?"
My definition of God is based around the God I've always been exposed to.
If however someone who worships say... Xenu or some Shinto deity was to talk about God, I imagine their definition would be different.

In the end, it's a question of who is correct.
Objective truth is non-negotiable.

LORD NOSE
03-19-2010, 03:45 PM
Of course, the question was how do you define God?
Not "What is God?"



Peace

Rollo
03-19-2010, 05:21 PM
Peace

Definitions hinge on socially accepted and common understandings, I guess I could have worded that better?

What is God objectively and how you define God individually may very, that's my point...

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-22-2010, 01:44 PM
if you are atheist, what do you think does not exist? because you have to have an idea that you can refute or lack evidence of .


This implies atheism makes a positive claim about our reality, which it does not. Any atheist worth his salt will not say "there is no god" but "there is no shred of evidence that there exists what you (theists) claim to be god in any sense of the word". Thus, the burden of proof lies squarely on the theist making the claims.

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-22-2010, 01:50 PM
A building for example has a network of cables all feeding electricity to and from different parts of the building, they have computer networks that send data back and forth, they are structuarly engineered to fight and withstand the elements, they are a creation

The same as us, we have cables (nerves) that carry electrical signals, we have neurons that carry data,we have an immune system to combat illness, we are engineered just like the empire state was.

The golden gate bridge did not appear out of nowhere, it was painstakingly engineered and designed, just like we are thats my "arguement" nothing more nothing less.


The heart of this exchange y'all are having is the idea of a first cause. Everything exists because something caused it. It goes all the way back to the big bang, which so far, has no cause to my knowledge. This fact leads creationists to say god did it, which in turns begs the question: what caused god? leading into an illogical and highly improbable infinite regression.

ODB4EVER
03-22-2010, 01:53 PM
what does God mean to you?
how would you explain what God is?.

Well to me a god or god himself is a superior being. A being that is greater then all beings in the world. Most gods have the same beliefs. Beliefs of peace, equality, justice and to do onto others as you want done to you...
So basically thats what i think a god or god is.

Uncle Steezo
03-22-2010, 01:56 PM
This implies atheism makes a positive claim about our reality, which it does not. Any atheist worth his salt will not say "there is no god" but "there is no shred of evidence that there exists what you (theists) claim to be god in any sense of the word". Thus, the burden of proof lies squarely on the theist making the claims.


this is a cowardly stance to take. any PERSON worth his salt, can and will be able to explain and defend what he believes to be true.

i don't know who decided that this burden of proof argument was valid but i'd be willing to bet that they had a penis but peed sitting down.



anyway...

if you want a shred of evidence that God exists, look in the mirror.
then slap whoever told you he wasn't real.

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-22-2010, 02:00 PM
this is a cowardly stance to take. any PERSON worth his salt, can and will be able to explain and defend what he believes to be true.

i don't know who decided that this burden of proof argument was valid but i'd be willing to bet that they had a penis but peed sitting down.



anyway...

if you want a shred of evidence that God exists, look in the mirror.
then slap whoever told you he wasn't real.

I'll disregard your insinuations and have you take a look through this thread, as you can see when one starts talking about god you must start making shit up off the top of your head. I'll say it again, there isn't any single piece of evidence, nor has there ever been, that anything stated in here exists.

Regulas
03-22-2010, 03:18 PM
how about: isotropic vector matrix/void/vacuum/atem

Uncle Steezo
03-22-2010, 03:25 PM
there isn't any single piece of evidence, nor has there ever been, that anything stated in here exists.

but yet you have FAITH that everything that is in the known universe existed in a space smaller than an atom? (big bang)


smh

Uncle Steezo
03-22-2010, 03:33 PM
really, in 2010 athesism is just as silly and outdated as a bearded man sitting on a cloud.

we already know that modern science cannot detect 95% of what we call reality.

why the hell would anyone base his perception of what reality on what science can prove is if they can only "prove" 5% of it?




science is on that multidimensional, entangled, unseen forces, quantum flip, new age shit. some cats are still stuck in the 19th century lookin for god with a telescope.

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-22-2010, 04:04 PM
but yet you have FAITH that everything that is in the known universe existed in a space smaller than an atom? (big bang)


smh

It has nothing to do with faith at all. All of the EVIDENCE points to this, yes.



we already know that modern science cannot detect 95% of what we call reality.

why the hell would anyone base his perception of what reality on what science can prove is if they can only "prove" 5% of it?


That's 5% more than religion can "prove".



science is on that multidimensional, entangled, unseen forces, quantum flip, new age shit. some cats are still stuck in the 19th century lookin for god with a telescope.

Science doesn't seek to find a god, just an understanding of our reality through observation and measurement, if debunking religious dogma is a by-product of such, too bad.

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-22-2010, 04:13 PM
really, in 2010 athesism is just as silly and outdated as a bearded man sitting on a cloud.


Yet remains the fastest growing minority group in the U.S.

Frank Sobotka
03-22-2010, 04:44 PM
People often say god is allpowerfull but that's impossible since he gave us free will right...

Uncle Steezo
03-22-2010, 04:47 PM
Yet remains the fastest growing minority group in the U.S.
no.
latinos are.



you do have faith in the singularity. cause there is not a single shred of proof. NONE. ZERO.

science does try and is trying to find God. and in fact a large percentage of scientist believe in God.

i'm beginning to think that you don't even follow current science and are basing your perspective on old paradigms. show me why i'm mistaken.

Rollo
03-22-2010, 04:51 PM
Atheism is not obsolete, neither is religion.
The one thing that needs to fucking die is new age spiritualism and a faceless God who has no definite features.
It's vomit inducing to listen to people who sound like weeded out hippies talking about purpose and love and togetherness based on the warm fuzzy feeling they get when they do so.

Then again, I'm an asshole, so that has to be taken into consideration also.

Uncle Steezo
03-22-2010, 04:51 PM
People often say god is allpowerfull but that's impossible since he gave us free will right...

i don't see how those two things are in opposition.

Uncle Steezo
03-22-2010, 04:55 PM
Atheism is not obsolete, neither is religion.
The one thing that needs to fucking die is new age spiritualism and a faceless God who has no definite features.
It's vomit inducing to listen to people who sound like weeded out hippies talking about purpose and love and togetherness based on the warm fuzzy feeling they get when they do so.

Then again, I'm an asshole, so that has to be taken into consideration also.


what you call new age is older than both religion and atheism.

asshole.

Rollo
03-22-2010, 04:57 PM
what you call new age is older than both religion and atheism.

asshole.

I call? Everyone calls! Although some might call it Oprah...
Crazy whore...

Frank Sobotka
03-22-2010, 05:04 PM
i don't see how those two things are in opposition.
If I have freewill he can't have complete power over me.

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-22-2010, 05:04 PM
no.
latinos are.

Those identifying themselves as atheists doubled from 7% in 1990 to more than 15% in 2009, making atheists officially the fastest growing minority in the US.


you do have faith in the singularity. cause there is not a single shred of proof. NONE. ZERO. The universe had a beginning, Hubble's Law, Penzia's and Wilson's CMB which pervades the universe, and the abundance of helium and hydrogen are but some of the evidence which supports the big bang.

Faith is a belief in something without evidence. You're showing a lack of understanding of what you're arguing against.

science does try and is trying to find God. and in fact a large percentage of scientist believe in God.
This holds no significance whatsoever. Newton had several rather insane beliefs yet it does not mean gravity doesn't exist.

i'm beginning to think that you don't even follow current science and are basing your perspective on old paradigms. show me why i'm mistaken.
I'm beginning to think you're trolling. No one could be this irredeemably stupid.

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-22-2010, 05:07 PM
i don't see how those two things are in opposition.

Free will is god given, therefore I have free will not by my own choice to have free will, but by god's edict that I MUST have free will. Can I choose NOT to have free will?

The term itself implies a path or road of goodness that should be followed, yet you have the choice to diverge, The problem arises when religions state any divergence from this path results in hellfire, reducing free will to a form of celestial rebellion which is in turn, punished. Doesn't sound like free will at all if you ask me.

Rollo
03-22-2010, 05:14 PM
If I have freewill he can't have complete power over me.

You may have free will but your choices are ultimately limited to the possibilities he's allotted for you.
So... yes, he can.


Of course, even if you had free will beyond what he has allowed, being omnipotent means he can commit logical contradictions.
It's kind of like the Augustinian paradox, "Can God cast a stone so heavy, God himself cannot lift it?"

It's already acknowledged that since he is both omnipresent and omnipotent he can.
If he exists in one form which cannot and another which he can, well...

God isn't something you can really put a logical paradox on.
Humans and other material entities on the other hand, you can.
A better way to ask your question would be "If God is all knowing, how can I have free will? Surely I am not free to do anything outside of his knowledge" but even that falls to the previous scenerio I mentioned.


That leaves a salty taste in most people's mouths.
They'd rather have an answer that seems rational.
The problem is a God who can literally create from nothing isn't bound by our reason.

And that will continue to piss people off for years to come.

Uncle Steezo
03-22-2010, 05:23 PM
Those identifying themselves as atheists doubled from 7% in 1990 to more than 15% in 2009, making atheists officially the fastest growing minority in the US.

The universe had a beginning, Hubble's Law, Penzia's and Wilson's CMB which pervades the universe, and the abundance of helium and hydrogen are but some of the evidence which supports the big bang.

the singularity. not big bang. the IDEA that everything was once one.
zero evidence.

Faith is a belief in something without evidence. You're showing a lack of understanding of what you're arguing against.

see above

This holds no significance whatsoever. Newton had several rather insane beliefs yet it does not mean gravity doesn't exist.

gravity is not completely understood. so this may or may not be true.

I'm beginning to think you're trolling. No one could be this irredeemably stupid.
you are beginning to sound like a fundamentalist who gets mad when his faith is challenged.



do some more studying then come back. we can continue this when you feel ready.




rollo gets rep for the last post.

Mumm Ra
03-22-2010, 05:26 PM
Free will is god given, therefore I have free will not by my own choice to have free will, but by god's edict that I MUST have free will. Can I choose NOT to have free will?

YES.
most people do actually -
if you base all your decisions on base desires, emotions, impulses and automated responses then you don't really have free will, do you?
The term itself implies a path or road of goodness that should be followed, yet you have the choice to diverge, The problem arises when religions state any divergence from this path results in hellfire, reducing free will to a form of celestial rebellion which is in turn, punished. Doesn't sound like free will at all if you ask me.
you don't think there's a path of 'goodness' (for lack of better term) to be followed?
try living completely irrationally - try eating nothing but mcdonalds for a year - try punching random strangers -
and see what 'hellfire' you bring upon yourself

so yes - we have free will, even free will to live like a savage if we choose

Frank Sobotka
03-22-2010, 05:38 PM
Free will is god given, therefore I have free will not by my own choice to have free will, but by god's edict that I MUST have free will. Can I choose NOT to have free will?

The term itself implies a path or road of goodness that should be followed, yet you have the choice to diverge, The problem arises when religions state any divergence from this path results in hellfire, reducing free will to a form of celestial rebellion which is in turn, punished. Doesn't sound like free will at all if you ask me.Lol Didn't look at it like that.

I'm going to use this in my anti-religion arguments.

You may have free will but your choices are ultimately limited to the possibilities he's allotted for you.
So... yes, he can.


Of course, even if you had free will beyond what he has allowed, being omnipotent means he can commit logical contradictions.
It's kind of like the Augustinian paradox, "Can God cast a stone so heavy, God himself cannot lift it?"

It's already acknowledged that since he is both omnipresent and omnipotent he can.
If he exists in one form which cannot and another which he can, well...

God isn't something you can really put a logical paradox on.
Humans and other material entities on the other hand, you can.
A better way to ask your question would be "If God is all knowing, how can I have free will? Surely I am not free to do anything outside of his knowledge" but even that falls to the previous scenerio I mentioned.


That leaves a salty taste in most people's mouths.
They'd rather have an answer that seems rational.
The problem is a God who can literally create from nothing isn't bound by our reason.

And that will continue to piss people off for years to come.
This sounds like "I have no proof whatsoever but it's true"

Rollo
03-22-2010, 06:03 PM
Lol Didn't look at it like that.

I'm going to use this in my anti-religion arguments.


This sounds like "I have no proof whatsoever but it's true"



Sounds like you have no idea what you're arguing.
You cannot seperate the concept/definition of God from omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience because that is a part of that concept/definition.
I'm not saying it exists or is a fact that happened.

I'm saying, that's what God(the idea, the possible being) is.
If you're trying to dispute God, that's what you are disputing.
If your argument doesn't address that, then you have no argument at all.

You have to know what you're debating before you draw up an argument.
Sounds like you don't...

Mumm Ra
03-22-2010, 06:20 PM
^ and yet modern science is moving closer each day to proving the universe itself is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
so why try to say 'god' is illogical and irrational? (not pointing to anyone specifically)

look at quantum entanglement for instance - all things are interconnected

Frank Sobotka
03-22-2010, 06:30 PM
Sounds like you have no idea what you're arguing.
You cannot seperate the concept/definition of God from omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience because that is a part of that concept/definition.
I'm not saying it exists or is a fact that happened.

I'm saying, that's what God(the idea, the possible being) is.
If you're trying to dispute God, that's what you are disputing.
If your argument doesn't address that, then you have no argument at all.

You have to know what you're debating before you draw up an argument.
Sounds like you don't...I see, Posted something similar on page 1 or 2.
Filling in the definition of "God" with what we do know and not some ridiculous speculation.

Thought you were some religious guy saying god is so great we as humans cannot grasp his existance (as in a consiousness).

Rollo
03-22-2010, 06:50 PM
^ and yet modern science is moving closer each day to proving the universe itself is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
so why try to say 'god' is illogical and irrational? (not pointing to anyone specifically)

look at quantum entanglement for instance - all things are interconnected

Well, the universe would be omnipresent, it isn't actually expanding into anything, it is everything.
However, omnipotent? It is still bound by the finite expressions and principles that define it.

I think the best argument for a God is that those principles and intelligible expressions exist to begin with.
intelligible languages, codexes, syntaxes all require a sentient oracle...


Before a material universe could exist, this information had to exist as it's own dimension.
Just as the blueprint of a home is made before hand, a blueprint of everything that was and will be must have been as well. The data already exists now, we're just uncovering it piece by piece. The problem with an omnipotent self creating universe is simply that information itself cannot poof into existence. As I said before, only a sentient being of some sort could have defined these laws and expressions.

Mumm Ra
03-22-2010, 06:55 PM
Before a material universe could exist, this information had to exist as it's own dimension.
Just as the blueprint of a home is made before hand, a blueprint of everything that was and will be must have been as well. The data already exists now, we're just uncovering it piece by piece. The problem with an omnipotent self creating universe is simply that information itself cannot poof into existence. As I said before, only a sentient being of some sort could have defined these laws and expressions.
now we're getting somewhere :yes:^O^

Mumm Ra
03-22-2010, 07:22 PM
i forgot who i was talking to this about on here - but we mentioned that maybe god works through multiple faculties
maybe that 'information dimension' IS god?
formless...and being the information and foundation of all things in existence

LORD NOSE
03-22-2010, 07:50 PM
who said that one cannot learn anything in KTL ?

V4D3R
03-22-2010, 09:21 PM
I truly believe - non of us knows the truth.
We all tryna see the light of it all right?
Well light can be good and can also be bad for some.

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-22-2010, 09:38 PM
the singularity. not big bang. the IDEA that everything was once one.
zero evidence.

The big bang is evidence of the singularity, do you even know what the theory states? You basically just said: yes rain exists, but clouds? ehhh not so much.


gravity is not completely understood. so this may or may not be true.

Gravity not being fully comprehend again, doesn't negate it's existence, what is your point?

you are beginning to sound like a fundamentalist who gets mad when his faith is challenged.

You're beginning to sound presumptious as seeing how this is far from a challenge for me.

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-22-2010, 09:41 PM
YES.
most people do actually -
if you base all your decisions on base desires, emotions, impulses and automated responses then you don't really have free will, do you?

you don't think there's a path of 'goodness' (for lack of better term) to be followed?
try living completely irrationally - try eating nothing but mcdonalds for a year - try punching random strangers -
and see what 'hellfire' you bring upon yourself

so yes - we have free will, even free will to live like a savage if we choose

Acting like a savage is still the act of choosing to do so. A choice or exercise of free will. If this free will is mandated- my point still stands.

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-22-2010, 10:07 PM
Of course, even if you had free will beyond what he has allowed, being omnipotent means he can commit logical contradictions.
It's kind of like the Augustinian paradox, "Can God cast a stone so heavy, God himself cannot lift it?"


It's already acknowledged that since he is both omnipresent and omnipotent he can.
If he exists in one form which cannot and another which he can, well...

God isn't something you can really put a logical paradox on.
Humans and other material entities on the other hand, you can.
A better way to ask your question would be "If God is all knowing, how can I have free will? Surely I am not free to do anything outside of his knowledge" but even that falls to the previous scenerio I mentioned.


That leaves a salty taste in most people's mouths.
They'd rather have an answer that seems rational.
The problem is a God who can literally create from nothing isn't bound by our reason.

And that will continue to piss people off for years to come.

You're describing what's called the omnipotence paradox, which fails for several reasons. This is like asking if god can draw a square circle which makes the question (and paradox) meaningless.

So, god creates this stone that he cannot lift at the moment of it's creation. Seeing as how god is omnipotent he can later alter the stone or himself so that he can then lift it. If he alters the stone, it is no longer the same stone he originally created, if he makes himself stronger in order to lift the original created stone, you can argue he was not previously truly omnipotent in the logical sense.

Another way of dealing with this question is as such: god doesn't operate within our understanding of the laws of reality. it follows that he created the laws, why does he have to obey them? This line of thought only pushes the problem back a step where you must then ask "can god create an object even he cannot transmute?

Uncle Steezo
03-22-2010, 11:42 PM
The big bang is evidence of the singularity, do you even know what the theory states? You basically just said: yes rain exists, but clouds? ehhh not so much.

no. i never even negated the big bang nor the singularity. my point is that you don't have evidence to support the theory of a singularity yet you have faith in the theory just because it makes sense. i'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

since you cannot prove that the singularity existed, how is it any different than calling the universe proof that there is a God?




Gravity not being fully comprehend again, doesn't negate it's existence, what is your point?

ever consider that you don't fully comprehend God?



You're beginning to sound presumptious as seeing how this is far from a challenge for me.


as for the paradoxes you stated, God doesn't have arms so idk what lifting or creating a stone or drawing a circle has anything to do with anything.

i mean if you are talking about the man with a beard who sits on a cloud...then you might be on to something. but i think that the theists in this thread are talking about something a little more sophisticated.




rollo is on fire.

Uncle Steezo
03-23-2010, 12:00 AM
Acting like a savage is still the act of choosing to do so. A choice or exercise of free will. If this free will is mandated- my point still stands.

impulsive actions are not initiated by free will. once you let go of the steering wheel (choice) everything that happens after was not of your will. your only action was to release control. whether you crash or safely roll to a stop is not up to you.

but in many cases, people act on base desires without even choosing to do so because a choice would imply a knowledge of options.

Visionz
03-23-2010, 12:41 AM
The question of proof of God is a funny one.

The existence/agreement of what is proof is highly debatable. One says its everywhere, another will tell you nowhere. Perception is ultimately non-transferrable. I can respect an atheistic mindset as you're free to think and perceive as you will but I'd be lying if I was to ever tell anyone I truly understood it. The irony is that an atheist will most likely feel the say way.

I just have no qualms about accepting such things on faith and faith alone. Humans have only very recently had verifiable proof of DNA but they've had the double-helix snakes as symbol in one form or another since at least the times of Babylon, point being that our intuition collectively gets there before the facts do. To of course "discover" what's really been there the whole time.

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-23-2010, 01:10 AM
as for the paradoxes you stated, God doesn't have arms so idk what lifting or creating a stone or drawing a circle has anything to do with anything.

I'm sorry to hear you didn't comprehend what was written about the omnipotence paradox. It's well known and I'm certain you can find more information on it's failure to substantiate anything more than linguistic nonsense.

i mean if you are talking about the man with a beard who sits on a cloud...then you might be on to something. but i think that the theists in this thread are talking about something a little more sophisticated.

I've never made the ghost of a claim to anything of the sort. It's just as you say, the theists in this thread pulling shit out of their asses.

no. i never even negated the big bang nor the singularity. my point is that you don't have evidence to support the theory of a singularity yet you have faith in the theory just because it makes sense. i'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

I've provided evidence, I'll be more than happy to supply more.

impulsive actions are not initiated by free will. once you let go of the steering wheel (choice) everything that happens after was not of your will. your only action was to release control. whether you crash or safely roll to a stop is not up to you.

but in many cases, people act on base desires without even choosing to do so because a choice would imply a knowledge of options.

Granted. Yet at any moment the human being in question can choose to once again exercise his god given mandated free will. Just because he has chosen not to use it, doesn't mean it is no longer there. My point still stands.

ODB4EVER
03-23-2010, 05:02 AM
from what i know the usa has these percents of certain religions
Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4%
(last updated 2007) do not be offended by these results! this s just what government officials think....

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-23-2010, 06:30 AM
from what i know the usa has these percents of certain religions
Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4%
(last updated 2007) do not be offended by these results! this s just what government officials think....

Here is the latest, most up to date information:
The American Religious Identification Survey http://livinginliminality.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/aris_report_2008.pdf

Regulas
03-23-2010, 09:33 AM
I'm sorry to hear you didn't comprehend what was written about the omnipotence paradox. It's well known and I'm certain you can find more information on it's failure to substantiate anything more than linguistic nonsense.


I've never made the ghost of a claim to anything of the sort. It's just as you say, the theists in this thread pulling shit out of their asses.



I've provided evidence, I'll be more than happy to supply more.



Granted. Yet at any moment the human being in question can choose to once again exercise his god given mandated free will. Just because he has chosen not to use it, doesn't mean it is no longer there. My point still stands.

Two things:

1) Please provide actual evidence that the 'big bang' and 'singularity being fact and not just theory and perhaps your argument will have more ground then the average (new term) sky-god religionist.

2)How can you take a stance in an argument against the existance of god and then go on to say that free will is a 'god-given' attribute of man, sounds just a little contradictionary.

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-23-2010, 09:48 AM
Two things:

1) Please provide actual evidence that the 'big bang' and 'singularity being fact and not just theory and perhaps your argument will have more ground then the average (new term) sky-god religionist..

Firstly, you've seemed to have confused theorem with hypothesis. "Just a theory" holds no water. Gravity is "just a theory".

I will again outline the major evidence which supports the big bang theory:

The universe had a beginning

Cosmic microwave background radiation

Abundance of light elements in our universe

Hubble's Law



2)How can you take a stance in an argument against the existance of god and then go on to say that free will is a 'god-given' attribute of man, sounds just a little contradictionary.

I haven't taken that stance, I granted the claim in order to show it's fallacy. What is being implied is exactly the opposite.

Uncle Steezo
03-23-2010, 11:04 AM
I'm sorry to hear you didn't comprehend what was written about the omnipotence paradox. It's well known and I'm certain you can find more information on it's failure to substantiate anything more than linguistic nonsense.

i understood it just fine. i'm just trying to figure out why you think its valid. this is the second time you have stated that because an idea is popular then it makes it true.if we were debating the existence of a magical MAN, then i could see your point. but thats not the case.


I've never made the ghost of a claim to anything of the sort. It's just as you say, the theists in this thread pulling shit out of their asses.

if thats how you define sophistication...

I've provided evidence, I'll be more than happy to supply more.

you have yet to provide anything in terms of evidence or proof of a singularity.

Granted. Yet at any moment the human being in question can choose to once again exercise his god given mandated free will. Just because he has chosen not to use it, doesn't mean it is no longer there. My point still stands.

and what's your point again? cause nobody is denying the existence of free will when its not in use. when you let go of the wheel, you are not driving. grab the wheel, you are driving again.
tho some people have trouble grabbing the wheel or even know there is a wheel to grab.x




.

Uncle Steezo
03-23-2010, 11:28 AM
Firstly, you've seemed to have confused theorem with hypothesis. "Just a theory" holds no water. Gravity is "just a theory".

I will again outline the major evidence which supports the big bang theory:

The universe had a beginning

Cosmic microwave background radiation

Abundance of light elements in our universe

Hubble's Law





I haven't taken that stance, I granted the claim in order to show it's fallacy. What is being implied is exactly the opposite.


gravity is JUST A THEORY. thats why scientists are still trying to PROVE their model. the EFFECTS of what we CALL GRAVITY are real but the cause of this effect have not been proven. mostly because we still don't know what gives matter its mass. mass is a fundamental part of the current gravity theory.

theory- a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

just like big bang is a theory.



then you claim that hubble's law is proof of the big bang when all it does is describe the velocity and distribution of the stars in the universe.

thats like saying boyles law is proof that i farted when all it does is describe the behavior of gases.

you have yet to explain how a description of current states of the universe, micro radiation and light elements PROVES anything. you are describing the the smell of the fart and trying to pin it on me.



like i said yesterday, go back and study then come back.

Olive Oil Goombah
03-23-2010, 11:41 AM
ok godboy

ODB4EVER
03-23-2010, 12:22 PM
Here is the latest, most up to date information:
The American Religious Identification Survey

Thanks for the infomation!

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-23-2010, 01:55 PM
gravity is JUST A THEORY. thats why scientists are still trying to PROVE their model. the EFFECTS of what we CALL GRAVITY are real but the cause of this effect have not been proven. mostly because we still don't know what gives matter its mass. mass is a fundamental part of the current gravity theory.


theory- a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

just like big bang is a theory.

All true, changes nothing. Unless of course the next time you drop a pen it flies up towards the sky instead of falls to the floor.





then you claim that hubble's law is proof of the big bang when all it does is describe the velocity and distribution of the stars in the universe.

Here is where you show again, a complete and utter lack of understanding of what you're arguing against.

I'd like to first point out that I've never stated to have PROOF of any sort, only EVIDENCE which is testable and measurable and stands up to scrutiny. I see now that you haven't been reading my posts as carefully as I gave you credit for, subtlety is lost on you.

I picked up on your lame attempt (and tired argument) to insinuate the atheistic worldview involves any sort of faith whatsoever in any shape or form well in advance and in fact, expected it.

Faith: Belief without evidence. I have twice provided such.

thats like saying boyles law is proof that i farted when all it does is describe the behavior of gases.

you have yet to explain how a description of current states of the universe, micro radiation and light elements PROVES anything. you are describing the the smell of the fart and trying to pin it on me.

Here is the EVIDENCE (for a third time):

Large Scale homogeneity

Hubble's law and diagram

Abundance of light elements

Pervasive CMB and it's fluctuations

The universes beginning and it's large structure

Age of stars

Evolution of galaxies

Time dilation in supernova brightness curves

The Tolman tests

The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect

The Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect

But I'm not your educator. These are all observable, verifiable, measurable pieces of evidence that exist which support the big bang. Perhaps it is you and not I that needs to study.

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-23-2010, 02:14 PM
I also find it rather revealing of the theistic mindset to always needing or wanting to prove things. Science doesn't aim to prove anything, in fact science WANTS to be wrong, being wrong serves it to be made more right as in for example, the case of Newton and Einstein.

Regulas
03-23-2010, 02:39 PM
All true, changes nothing. Unless of course the next time you drop a pen it flies up towards the sky instead of falls to the floor.







Here is where you show again, a complete and utter lack of understanding of what you're arguing against.

I'd like to first point out that I've never stated to have PROOF of any sort, only EVIDENCE which is testable and measurable and stands up to scrutiny. I see now that you haven't been reading my posts as carefully as I gave you credit for, subtlety is lost on you.

I picked up on your lame attempt (and tired argument) to insinuate the atheistic worldview involves any sort of faith whatsoever in any shape or form well in advance and in fact, expected it.

Faith: Belief without evidence. I have twice provided such.



Here is the EVIDENCE (for a third time):

Large Scale homogeneity

Hubble's law and diagram

Abundance of light elements

Pervasive CMB and it's fluctuations

The universes beginning and it's large structure

Age of stars

Evolution of galaxies

Time dilation in supernova brightness curves

The Tolman tests

The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect

The Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect

But I'm not your educator. These are all observable, verifiable, measurable pieces of evidence that exist which support the big bang. Perhaps it is you and not I that needs to study.

One of the major problems here is the fact that you are afraid of the word faith, worst yet, due to your obvious segregative approach you fail to see how your argument sounds very similar to that of those who beleive in western religions. In fact more often than not, when this discussion is held amongst westerners the arguments from both the scientific and religious sides are often arguing the same points but using different vernaculr.

It has already been stated within this thread that science can only account(provide evidence) for 5% of our physical universe, which you agreed with. You then proceed to list evidence that supports a theory again that only leads to 5% of the picture.

Your beleif in the 5% of information that science provides as being support for a correct/logical view of our universe is no different than prof zookara stating that the bible is evidence that Jesus is the only path to a correct/logical view of our universe. Seems very akin to faith to me.

Do you really think that 5% of the bible couldn't be verified scientifically?

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-23-2010, 04:38 PM
One of the major problems here is the fact that you are afraid of the word faith, worst yet, due to your obvious segregative approach you fail to see how your argument sounds very similar to that of those who beleive in western religions. In fact more often than not, when this discussion is held amongst westerners the arguments from both the scientific and religious sides are often arguing the same points but using different vernaculr.

Gigantic baseless assumption.



It has already been stated within this thread that science can only account(provide evidence) for 5% of our physical universe, which you agreed with. You then proceed to list evidence that supports a theory again that only leads to 5% of the picture.

Your beleif in the 5% of information that science provides as being support for a correct/logical view of our universe is no different than prof zookara stating that the bible is evidence that Jesus is the only path to a correct/logical view of our universe. Seems very akin to faith to me.


Yes, I agreed, you paid close attention to that fact, and not what I suggested while doing so. I'll elaborate. Whether it's 5% of the universe that is observable or 17% doesn't change what science and religion both say about the observable. Science has a more logical, better, more scientifically sound, more true explanation for quite literally everything theism has ever claimed about our universe. Infallible god's word, or antiquated first attempt at science?

I'll even take it a step further and say science has shown us things about the observable universe that religion has not, and could not. One such thing being the Andromeda galaxy on a collision course with our own, due to collide and cause our annihilation in about 5 billion years or so from now, which in the grand scheme of things is basically like saying tomorrow.

Now let me ask you this, what type of plan is this? What type of creator would make such a plan? Oh right, an omniscient loving one that said to himself "Here, let me create an entire universe just for man's sake and place my most beloved creations on a planet in the midst of a galaxy i'm just going to obliterate tomorrow".

Do you really think that 5% of the bible couldn't be verified scientifically?Certainly it can be argued that 5% of the bible can be verified. At the same time, you're forced to say that 5% of any religious text can be verified, which then leaves you with pascal's gambit: which one is correct?! Which god should I worship?! I had better worship them ALL if i'm to avoid each religion's heavenly wrath.

Uncle Steezo
03-23-2010, 04:56 PM
now you are just being silly.

Rollo
03-23-2010, 05:26 PM
You're describing what's called the omnipotence paradox, which fails for several reasons. This is like asking if god can draw a square circle which makes the question (and paradox) meaningless.

So, god creates this stone that he cannot lift at the moment of it's creation.



Negative.
He creates a stone that in one of his infinite forms he could not lift, he exists simultaneously in another form which can lift it. God is not subject to the temporal nature of time.
He encompasses time, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

Time is a line, God exists through out it, slicing in and out of it's fabric.
Your argument is faulty.
Space time is physical, contrary to what some would like you to believe and as a fabric, it can be warped which means logical contradictions, probabilities and paradoxes are all completely meaningless.



As for square circles,

Can God make a square circle? Not within the constraints of the geometry that we usually mean when using the words "square" and "circle". But look carefully at the phrase "...we usually mean..." -- it refers to the body of knowledge classified as common sense. It's important to notice that this phrase state a limitation, and conveys a restriction upon God's action, based entirely upon a human way of thinking. To say that God has to think the same way we do is a very severe limitation - one that most of us would never ascribe to God, once we take note of how limited our own minds are.

Setting aside the differences between various languages, all human beings convey ideas to one another via language, which is rooted in culture and thought, and which has some inherent assumptions. When everyone has the very same set of assumptions lying beneath their processes of thought and language, what is called common sense is subject to the condition known as general bias. As Lonergan[2] has discussed, "Common sense... is incapable of analyzing itself, incapable of making the discovery that it too is a specialized development of human knowledge ..." The way out of general bias involves "...confronting human intelligence with the alternative of adopting a higher viewpoint or perishing."[3]

The language of mathematics is particularly well-suited to taking an upward step and adopting a higher viewpoint. In mathematics, assumptions are not hidden but are plainly stated up front. The very fact that it is abstract releases mathematics from the presuppositions of everyday thinking. The purpose of the example given here is to illustrate how adopting a highe=r viewpoint overcomes the bias that leads us to think God is limited in some way.

The question at hand is "How do you make a square circle?" As we usually mean these terms, you can't. But mathematics allows additional meanings, and the combination of all those meanings comprises the higher viewpoint.

Changing Coordinates

In the ordinary realm of everyday thought, we customarily live with a perception of nature given by Euclidean Geometry; that is the natural state of our culture, language and thought patterns. If we stay in that realm, then it is impossible to make a circle square. But we can add a new structure of thought, a higher viewpoint: once we step up to the level of Analytic Geometry, then in Cartesian coordinates (x, y) the circle is defined by

R^2 = x^2 + y^2 (1)

where R is a fixed number. Alternately, still within Analytic Geometry, we can convert to cylindrical coordinates (r, =A2), using the transformation x =
r cos=A2 and y = r sin=A2, and write =20 r = R for all values[4] of =A2, -=BC =BE =A2 =BE +=BC (2)

In these drawings, the one on the left is most definitely what we customarily call a circle, because we automatically think in terms of Cartesian coordinates. Implicit in looking at that figure is an x-y coordinate system superimposed upon it. That's simply the way humans think, how we ordinarily understand things. In Analytic Geometry, equation (1) above describes it correctly.

But now consider the drawing on the right [a square], and superimpose upon it a coordinate system in which the horizontal coordinate is the angle =A2, ranging from a limit of -=BC on the left to +=BC on the right; and the vertical coordinate is the radius r. Let r = zero denote the line across th= e bottom and r = R denote the line across the top. Equation (2) states that a circle has r = R for all possible values of =A2 and that's exactly what is shown in the right-hand drawing. With the coordinates labeled in this way (cylindrical coordinates), the drawing on the right most definitely defines[5] a circle.

Of course you will object, "Hey, that's not what I had in mind!" and that is precisely the point. You didn't think of it because of a priori limitations that are part of your customary outlook, your standard condition. Human beings carry around with them all sorts of limitations of thought, culture and language.

Dealing with Limitations

In mathematics and physics, we frequently defer to authority. For many arcane items, we read a proof or a derivation once, nod in agreement, and then just look it up whenever needed. The interested reader can find an example of this turning-to-authority in the appendix. The point made there is that either adopting a higher viewpoint or resorting to authority gives you the right answer. Of course, you have to have confidence in your authority for that path to work. Similarly, when you step up to a higher viewpoint, your confidence in that transition must be built upon some knowledge base that includes the recognition that your previous viewpoint was insufficient.

Conclusion

Too often human beings assume that God is subject to the same limitations we have. Because our ability to think is limited and constrained, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that God is likewise constrained.

Not only can God make a square circle, humans can too. The trick is to adopt a higher viewpoint, to allow your mind to rise above conventional ways of thinking.

DiGitalChamberz
03-24-2010, 01:05 AM
some of us could be a little more humble and sound less self righteous in their replies

Visionz
03-25-2010, 01:56 AM
Gigantic baseless assumption.




Yes, I agreed, you paid close attention to that fact, and not what I suggested while doing so. I'll elaborate. Whether it's 5% of the universe that is observable or 17% doesn't change what science and religion both say about the observable. Science has a more logical, better, more scientifically sound, more true explanation for quite literally everything theism has ever claimed about our universe. Infallible god's word, or antiquated first attempt at science?

I'll even take it a step further and say science has shown us things about the observable universe that religion has not, and could not. One such thing being the Andromeda galaxy on a collision course with our own, due to collide and cause our annihilation in about 5 billion years or so from now, which in the grand scheme of things is basically like saying tomorrow.

To point out that if five billion years old is basically like saying tomorrow is say that the entire universe as we know is then approx. 3 days old. The reality is that if we can manage not to kill ourselves off, if we get anywhere close to five billion years we'll have advanced tremendously in that time span as a species.



Now let me ask you this, what type of plan is this? What type of creator would make such a plan? Oh right, an omniscient loving one that said to himself "Here, let me create an entire universe just for man's sake and place my most beloved creations on a planet in the midst of a galaxy i'm just going to obliterate tomorrow".

You're confusing religion with God. God created a universe that where life can thrive it will thrive. Religion is man's attempt at understanding why he was placed in these conditions in the first place. It was said by someone else on the forum recently that science explains the how but makes no attempt to answer why. I agree with this reasoning. In religion's attempt to understand the why they pretended to know the how. They often got it wrong but that's not God's fault.



Certainly it can be argued that 5% of the bible can be verified. At the same time, you're forced to say that 5% of any religious text can be verified, which then leaves you with pascal's gambit: which one is correct?! Which god should I worship?! I had better worship them ALL if i'm to avoid each religion's heavenly wrath.
Why not they all only worship one God as it is? Even if you look at religions like Hinduism, there's all these aspects to their different gods but every god they worship are attributes that the nature of God does indeed display. The destroyers of world (and even galaxies) and what have you. The wisdom traditions of this planet are all paying homage to the same source. Through the course of this thread it seems you have gone from using "proof" and instead changed it to "evidence". These are two different things imo. You will not find "proof" of God anywhere but you will find evidence everywhere if only you have the eyes and the intuition to see.

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-25-2010, 07:01 AM
Negative.
He creates a stone that in one of his infinite forms he could not lift, he exists simultaneously in another form which can lift it. God is not subject to the temporal nature of time.
He encompasses time, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

This destroys monotheism, not one god exists but many, but i'll set that aside as it's not the main argument i'm about to make.

The fact you've given me infinite gods is generous, but only 2 are needed to point out the problem with what you're claming.

God 1: is not omnipotent, by your own admittance, he cannot lift the stone or else why would god 2 even need to exist. This is basically saying the answer to the question is yes.

God 2: Can lift the rock god 1 created. So it follows that god CAN create a stone too heavy for him to lift, but he can lift it ANYWAYS. Which renders the question itself contradictory. Since we're copying and pasting articles now, here's one from a christian website:

About the question "Can God make a rock so big he cannot pick it up?" as a problem for a view of God as omnipotent...

Couple of points here...

First, Omnipotence has historically been understood as the ability to perform any task consistent with His character and essence. (At least that's the classical definition/understanding of it). This would exclude 'things' like...

Re his character:
It is impossible for God to lie (He actually is the one who told us this in the scriptures).
It is impossible for God to break an promise.
It is impossible for God to deny his existence and character (tantamount to lying, of course). Re his essence:
It is impossible for him to split into two essences (a la cell division).
It is impossible for him to will himself out of existence. (These above statements are beyond the scope of this email.)

Secondly, there are some things that we can build pseudo-sentences about, that actually don't end up being 'tasks'...some can be quite comical... "Can God make this question into a declarative sentence?"
"Can God change the subject of this sentence to 'jello'?"
"Can God make this sentence so long that he cannot read it?"
"Can God make the slithy toves gyre and gimble in the wabe?"
(for any fellow Alice-in-Wonderland-Enthusiasts out there!) These 'sentences' seem odd to us, for they look like regular sentences, but they have what philosophers of language call 'ungrammaticality' (cf.Language and Reality--An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language, by Michael Devitt & Kim Sterelny, MIT Press, pps.89-92).

Then there is another class of sentences in which grammaticality is present, but there are improper referents and relations, similar to the linguists' favorite: "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". These sentences (and any questions based upon them like "Do colorless green ideas sleep furiously?") are said to have no truth value (neither true nor false)--they just don't have any meaning to BE true or false.

It is into this category that the following sentences/questions fit:
God can make a square circle.
(and the Q-version of it: Can God make a square circle?)
God can make colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
God can make a rock so big it turns into a peach.
God can make a rock so invisible that it casts a shadow 2 parsecs long! It is in this category that the famous "God can make a rock so big he cannot lift it" fits. As a 'sentence' it actually has no meaning, and hence is neither true nor false.

Your logic is impeccable. The omnipotent paradox has, since it's inception been a straw man argument that crumbles under sufficient rational inquiry, like most other claims for the existence of god. I do applaud you, we're at least on the same page overall.

As for square circles, I wasn't going to reply until the author of the article you so kindly presented sent me a copy of the original, including the diagrams, which I would wager aren't pictures of square circles. I thought to give you the benefit of the doubt, if a man can make a square circle, what part of god doing so demonstrate omnipotence, omniscience or any attribute at all?

What you're alluding to is a suspension of the laws of nature (and in particularly language and mathematics) in order to provide evidence of god's existence. Which in and of itself is illogical.

DRUNKENDRAGON
03-25-2010, 07:13 AM
Through the course of this thread it seems you have gone from using "proof" and instead changed it to "evidence". These are two different things imo. You will not find "proof" of God anywhere but you will find evidence everywhere if only you have the eyes and the intuition to see.

The only time I even mentioned the word proof without prompted to do so is in my reference to the burden of proof, which is with the party making claims that have no evidence. I have not made any claim whatsoever that does not have evidence, yet I went out of my way to provide such, needlessly I might add.

I do not confuse religion with god, a baby is born with no knowledge of god. It is taught, through religion.

Science is one and the same whether god exists or not, because science deals with the world as it is, and the world as it is, is the same world whether or not god exists.

Rollo
03-25-2010, 09:25 AM
This destroys monotheism

The fact you've given me infinite gods





And quantum mechanics is your death nell.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-microphone

Physicists have long known that, following the laws of quantum mechanics, objects at the scale of atoms or smaller can exist in multiple simultaneous states. For example, a single electron can move along multiple different paths or an atom can be placed in two different places, simultaneously. This so-called superposition of states should in principle apply to larger objects, as well.

And for the sake of pure amusement, let's assume God manifests himself in the form of electrons or positively charged ions. Have you ever heard of Ionic wind?

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Do-It-Yourself/Levitation_and_antigravity/Ionic_wind_thruster


There are ionic thrusters which can lift.
As for omnipresence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_dimension

Space time is it's own dimension.
A different metric is the fourth dimension, which cuts through our 3D universe

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/fourth.html

A 4-D being would be a god to us. It would see everything in our world. It could even look inside your stomach and remove your breakfast without cutting through your skin, just like you could remove a dot inside a circle by moving it up into the third dimension, perpendicular to the circle, without breaking the circle.

A hyperbeing can effortlessly remove things before your very eyes, giving you the impression that the objects simply disappeared. The hyperbeing can also see inside any 3-D object or life form, and if necessary remove anything from inside. The being can look inside our intestines, or remove a tumor from our brain without ever cutting through the skin. A pair of gloves can be easily transformed into two left or two right gloves. And 3-D knots fall apart in the hands of a hyperbeing, much as a 2-D knot (a loop of string lying on a plane) can easily be undone by a 3-D being simply by lifting the end of the loop up into the third dimension.

An entity who can rip through time and space, doing things that are seemingly impossible.
Quantum mechanics is getting us further and further away from the understanding of the world you cling to.

Things can exist in multiple places at once.
That is a fact.

And I'll take it one step farther
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniverse

The omniverse if it exists, means that all probabilities are utterly meaningless. With an infinite number of universes, every possibility that could be, will be an unlimited number of times over. Which means even lowly little me, would exist in multiple places at once.

Time travel is allowed by the laws of physics also.
Read The Elegant Universe By Brian Greene sometime.
What we're doing with string theory is quite fascinating.




So sorry... but... your arguments are dusty.







God 1: is not omnipotent, by your own admittance, he cannot lift the stone or else why would god 2 even need to exist. This is basically saying the answer to the question is yes.

There is no God 2, they are one in the same, see previous point above.



As for square circles, I wasn't going to reply until the author of the article you so kindly presented sent me a copy of the original, including the diagrams, which I would wager aren't pictures of square circles.




I thought to give you the benefit of the doubt, if a man can make a square circle, what part of god doing so demonstrate omnipotence, omniscience or any attribute at all?





What you're alluding to is a suspension of the laws of nature (and in particularly language and mathematics) in order to provide evidence of god's existence. Which in and of itself is illogical.

Actually, it fits quite well within the laws of nature and the expression of mathematics.
Your understanding of both though, seems superficial.

It looks like a square circle, as an expression.
Of course, saying the coordinates and the way they can be used are valid is a matter of opinion.
Just as you're copping out to authority by suggesting the classical understanding of a square circle is the only one, so too am I copping out to authority by saying my understanding of things as simple values and expressions.
The authority you reach toward is rationalistic philosophy, the one I reach toward is empiricism.

I consider mine greater.

As for strawmen, your strawman God which you pretended to base on my reasoning was nothing close to what I had in mind. Similarly, you have no continuity over the classical understanding of the Christian-Judean God.

1. If it actually exists, as I've established it could, your reason means very little.
2. If it's a fabrication, the patriarchs of the church get to define it however they like. It's their intellectual property and you aren't in a position to debate it's definition. You have no authority over the matter and to imply otherwise is ignorant on your part.

WARPATH
03-27-2010, 12:04 AM
/(some of us could be a little more humble and sound less self righteous in their replies


That's what I'm saying..

LORD NOSE
03-27-2010, 08:19 AM
was about to quote that also

Robert
03-27-2010, 02:50 PM
really, in 2010 atheism is just as silly and outdated as a bearded man sitting on a cloud.

How exactly?

we already know that modern science cannot detect 95% of what we call reality.

Where did you pull that from and what do we define as reality?

why the hell would anyone base his perception of what reality is on what science can prove is if they can only "prove" 5% of it?

Exactly. Why not base your perception on an abstract concept with no proof?


I'd be interested to know why you think atheism is outdated.

WuCanada
03-27-2010, 02:55 PM
i think gods a transgendered multi-racial child lol no
hes just the most important figure and being in the world

Uncle Steezo
03-27-2010, 07:28 PM
I'd be interested to know why you think atheism is outdated.

dark matter and dark energy make up 95% of the universe.
in other words "unseen".


i think atheism is outdated because science has uncovered so many "impossibilities" that previously supported an atheistic view.

DiGitalChamberz
03-28-2010, 05:03 PM
I think its also wise to preach the sermon of IDK

Claiming their absolutely isn't a GOD has the same ignorance and arrogance as saying their absolutely is

Robert
03-29-2010, 11:45 AM
dark matter and dark energy make up 95% of the universe.
in other words "unseen".


i think atheism is outdated because science has uncovered so many "impossibilities" that previously supported an atheistic view.

Sorry, I should of clarified before, but what is your definition of atheism?

DiGitalChamberz
03-29-2010, 11:31 PM
GOD = Genius Of Decision

Clan Destine
03-30-2010, 12:01 AM
dark matter and dark energy make up 95% of the universe.
in other words "unseen".


i think atheism is outdated because science has uncovered so many "impossibilities" that previously supported an atheistic view.

But science hasn't come to a point where belief in god is justifiable without faith. Simply 'not knowing' a great deal doesn't dispel the weak form of atheism, which is a disbelief in god, not a doctrine that there cannot be a God.

In any sense, I think a concept of God that has a consciousness and will similar to ours and cares about our affairs as we do, is ridiculously anthropocentric. There is certainly a great deal of mystery and unknown power in the universe, but to assert knowledge of an all-encompassing power, and to concentrate it into a word-concept 'God', based on an utterly limited vantage point, is epistemological arrogance.

Face of the Golden Falcon
03-30-2010, 12:38 AM
GOD = Genius Of Decision

:clap:

Genius
late 14c., from L. genius "guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth; spirit, incarnation, wit, talent," from root of gignere "beget, produce" (see kin (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=kin)), from PIE base *gen- "produce." Meaning "person of natural intelligence or talent" first recorded 1640s.

There are many different god's within and without that are the "Genius' of Decision" for various elements in your life. In fact the vast majority of people are incarnations of a particular god depending on their personality. Your personality type will give you insight as to which god you are worshiping.

Peace and blessings for the mini jewel there DiGital!

HETEPU

DiGitalChamberz
03-30-2010, 12:40 AM
You dont define GOD..

GOD defines YOU

DiGitalChamberz
03-30-2010, 12:42 AM
:clap:

Genius
late 14c., from L. genius "guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth; spirit, incarnation, wit, talent," from root of gignere "beget, produce" (see kin (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=kin)), from PIE base *gen- "produce." Meaning "person of natural intelligence or talent" first recorded 1640s.

There are many different god's within and without that are the "Genius' of Decision" for various elements in your life. In fact the vast majority of people are incarnations of a particular god depending on their personality. Your personality type will give you insight as to which god you are worshiping.

Peace and blessings for the mini jewel there DiGital!

HETEPU

Peace my young padawon ;)

T4R1K
03-30-2010, 05:44 AM
The anthropomorphic form of a concept.

For and example:

Allah is the concept of a conscious Universe as is Brahman.
Zeus is the concept of the power of the Heavens to make storms which affect life.
Horus is the concept of Avenging one's Father.
Nike is the concept of having victory.
Lady Liberty is the concept of freedom.
Chronos is time.
Odin is a god of Knowledge.
Quetzalcoatl or Aeolus is the winds.

There is ONLY ONE GOD my friend!!


La ilahe illallah, i dont know if u heard about that before

DiGitalChamberz
03-30-2010, 11:40 AM
^^ wheres your proof? Show n Prove that to be right n exact

Face of the Golden Falcon
03-30-2010, 05:19 PM
There is ONLY ONE GOD my friend!!


La ilahe illallah, i dont know if u heard about that before



Allah

Allah, He who has the Godhood which is the power to create the entities.


Ar-Rahmaan

The Compassionate, The Beneficient, The One who has plenty of mercy for the believers and the blasphemers in this world and especially for the believers in the hereafter.


Ar-Raheem

The Merciful, The One who has plenty of mercy for the believers.


Al-Malik

The King, The Sovereign Lord, The One with the complete Dominion, the One Whose Dominion is clear from imperfection.


Al-Quddoos

The Holy, The One who is pure from any imperfection and clear from children and adversaries.


As-Salaam

The Source of Peace, The One who is free from every imperfection.


Al-Mu'min

Guardian of Faith, The One who witnessed for Himself that no one is God but Him. And He witnessed for His believers that they are truthful in their belief that no one is God but Him.


Al-Muhaimin

The Protector, The One who witnesses the saying and deeds of His creatures.


Al-^Azeez

The Mighty, The Strong, The Defeater who is not defeated.


Al-Jabbaar

The Compeller, The One that nothing happens in His Dominion except that which He willed.


Al-Mutakabbir

The Majestic, The One who is clear from the attributes of the creatures and from resembling them.


Al-Khaaliq

The Creator, The One who brings everything from non-existence to existence.


Al-Bari'

The Evolver, The Maker, The Creator who has the Power to turn the entities.


Al-Musawwir

The Fashioner, The One who forms His creatures in different pictures.


Al-Ghaffaar

The Great Forgiver, The Forgiver, The One who forgives the sins of His slaves time and time again.


Al-Qahhaar

The Subduer, The Dominant, The One who has the perfect Power and is not unable over anything.


Al-Wahhaab

The Bestower, The One who is Generous in giving plenty without any return. He is everything that benefits whether Halal or Haram.


Al-Razzaaq

The Sustainer, The Provider.


Al-Fattaah

The Opener, The Reliever, The Judge, The One who opens for His slaves the closed worldy and religious matters.


Al-^Aleem

The All-knowing, The Knowledgeable; The One nothing is absent from His knowledge.


Al-Qaabid

The Constricter, The Retainer, The Withholder, The One who constricts the sustenance by His wisdomand expands and widens it with His Generosity and Mercy.


Al-Baasit

The Expander, The Englarger, The One who constricts the sustenance by His wisdomand expands and widens it with His Generosity and Mercy.


Al-Khaafid

The Abaser, The One who lowers whoever He willed by His Destruction and raises whoever He willed by His Endowment.


Ar-Raafi^

The Exalter, The Elevator, The One who lowers whoever He willed by His Destruction and raises whoever He willed by His Endowment.


Al-Mu^iz

The Honorer, He gives esteem to whoever He willed, hence there is no one to degrade Him; And He degrades whoever He willed, hence there is no one to give Him esteem.


Al-Muthil

The Dishonorer, The Humiliator, He gives esteem to whoever He willed, hence there is no one to degrade Him; And He degrades whoever He willed, hence there is no one to give Him esteem.


As-Samee^

The All-Hearing, The Hearer, The One who Hears all things that are heard by His Eternal Hearing without an ear, instrument or organ.


Al-Baseer

The All-Seeing, The One who Sees all things that are seen by His Eternal Seeing without a pupil or any other instrument.


Al-Hakam

The Judge, He is the Ruler and His judgment is His Word.


Al-^Adl

The Just, The One who is entitled to do what He does.


Al-Lateef

The Subtle One, The Gracious, The One who is kind to His slaves and endows upon them.


Al-Khabeer

The Aware, The One who knows the truth of things.


Al-Haleem

The Forebearing, The Clement, The One who delays the punishment for those who deserve it and then He might forgive them.


Al-^Azeem

The Great One, The Mighty, The One deserving the attributes of Exaltment, Glory, Extolement,and Purity from all imperfection.


Al-Ghafoor

The All-Forgiving, The Forgiving, The One who forgives a lot.


Ash-Shakoor

The Grateful, The Appreciative, The One who gives a lot of reward for a little obedience.


Al-^Aliyy

The Most High, The Sublime, The One who is clear from the attributes of the creatures.


Al-Kabeer

The Most Great, The Great, The One who is greater than everything in status.


Al-Hafeez

The Preserver, The Protector, The One who protects whatever and whoever He willed to protect.


Al-Muqeet

The Maintainer, The Guardian, The Feeder, The Sustainer, The One who has the Power.


Al-Haseeb

The Reckoner, The One who gives the satisfaction.


Aj-Jaleel

The Sublime One, The Beneficent, The One who is attributed with greatness of Power and Glory of status.


Al-Kareem

The Generous One, The Bountiful, The Gracious, The One who is attributed with greatness of Power and Glory of status.


Ar-Raqeeb

The Watcher, The Watchful, The One that nothing is absent from Him. Hence it's meaning is related to the attribute of Knowledge.


Al-Mujeeb

The Responsive, The Hearkener, The One who answers the one in need if he asks Him and rescues the yearner if he calls upon Him.


Al-Wasi^

The Vast, The All-Embracing, The Knowledgeable.


Al-Hakeem

The Wise, The Judge of Judges, The One who is correct in His doings.


Al-Wadood

The Loving, The One who loves His believing slaves and His believing slaves love Him. His love to His slaves is His Will to be merciful to them and praise them:Hence it's meaning is related to the attributes of the Will and Kalam (His attribute with which He orders and forbids and spoke to Muhammad and Musa -peace be upon them- . It is not a sound nor a language nor a letter.).


Al-Majeed

The Most Glorious One, The Glorious, The One who is with perfect Power, High Status, Compassion, Generosity and Kindness.


Al-Ba^ith

The Reserrector, The Raiser (from death), The One who resurrects His slaves after death for reward and/or punishment.


Ash-Shaheed

The Witness, The One who nothing is absent from Him.


Al-Haqq

The Truth, The True, The One who truly exists.


Al-Wakeel

The Trustee, The One who gives the satisfaction and is relied upon.


Al-Qawiyy

The Most Strong, The Strong, The One with the complete Power.


Al-Mateen

The Firm One, The One with extreme Power which is un-interrupted and He does not get tired.


Al-Waliyy

The Protecting Friend, The Supporter.


Al-Hameed

The Praiseworthy, The praised One who deserves to be praised.


Al-Muhsee

The Counter, The Reckoner, The One who the count of things are known to him.


Al-Mubdi'

The Originator, The One who started the human being. That is, He created him.


Al-Mu^eed

The Reproducer, The One who brings back the creatures after death.


Al-Muhyi

The Restorer, The Giver of Life, The One who took out a living human from semen that does not have a soul. He gives life by giving the souls back to the worn out bodies on the resurrection day and He makes the hearts alive by the light of knowledge.


Al-Mumeet

The Creator of Death, The Destroyer, The One who renders the living dead.


Al-Hayy

The Alive, The One attributed with a life that is unlike our life and is not that of a combination of soul, flesh or blood.


Al-Qayyoom

The Self-Subsisting, The One who remains and does not end.


Al-Waajid

The Perceiver, The Finder, The Rich who is never poor. Al-Wajd is Richness.


Al-Waahid

The Unique, The One, The One without a partner.


Al-Ahad

The One.


As-Samad

The Eternal, The Independent, The Master who is relied upon in matters and reverted to in ones needs.


Al-Qaadir

The Able, The Capable, The One attributed with Power.


Al-Muqtadir

The Powerful, The Dominant, The One with the perfect Power that nothing is withheld from Him.


Al-Muqaddim

The Expediter, The Promoter, The One who puts things in their right places. He makes ahead what He wills and delays what He wills.


Al-Mu'akh-khir

The Delayer, the Retarder, The One who puts things in their right places. He makes ahead what He wills and delays what He wills.


Al-'Awwal

The First, The One whose Existence is without a beginning.


Al-'Akhir

The Last, The One whose Existence is without an end.


Az-Zaahir

The Manifest, The One that nothing is above Him and nothing is underneath Him, hence He exists without a place. He, The Exalted, His Existence is obvious by proofs and He is clear from the delusions of attributes of bodies.


Al-Baatin

The Hidden, The One that nothing is above Him and nothing is underneath Him, hence He exists without a place. He, The Exalted, His Existence is obvious by proofs and He is clear from the delusions of attributes of bodies.


Al-Walee

The Governor, The One who owns things and manages them.


Al-Muta^ali

The Most Exalted, The High Exalted, The One who is clear from the attributes of the creation.


Al-Barr

The Source of All Goodness, The Righteous, The One who is kind to His creatures, who covered them with His sustenance and specified whoever He willed among them by His support, protection, and special mercy.


At-Tawwaab

The Acceptor of Repentance, The Relenting, The One who grants repentance to whoever He willed among His creatures and accepts his repentance.


Al-Muntaqim

The Avenger, The One who victoriously prevails over His enemies and punishes them for their sins. It may mean the One who destroys them.


Al-^Afuww

The Pardoner, The Forgiver, The One with wide forgiveness.


Ar-Ra'uf

The Compassionate, The One with extreme Mercy. The Mercy of Allah is His will to endow upon whoever He willed among His creatures.


Malik Al-Mulk

The Eternal Owner of Sovereignty, The One who controls the Dominion and gives dominion to whoever He willed.


Thul-Jalali wal-Ikram

The Lord of Majesty and Bounty, The One who deserves to be Exalted and not denied.


Al-Muqsit

The Equitable, The One who is Just in His judgment.


Aj-Jaami^

The Gatherer, The One who gathers the creatures on a day that there is no doubt about, that is the Day of Judgment.


Al-Ghaniyy

The Self-Sufficient, The One who does not need the creation.


Al-Mughni

The Enricher, The One who satisfies the necessities of the creatures.


Al-Maani^

The Preventer, The Withholder.


Ad-Daarr

The Distresser, The One who makes harm reach to whoever He willed and benefit to whoever He willed.


An-Nafi^

The Propitious, The One who makes harm reach to whoever He willed and benefit to whoever He willed.


An-Noor

The Light, The One who guides.


Al-Haadi

The Guide, The One whom with His Guidance His belivers were guided, and with His Guidance the living beings have been guided to what is beneficial for them and protected from what is harmful to them.


Al-Badi^

The Incomparable, The One who created the creation and formed it without any preceding example.


Al-Baaqi

The Everlasting, The One that the state of non-existence is impossible for Him.


Al-Waarith

The Supreme Inheritor, The Heir, The One whose Existence remains.


Ar-Rasheed

The Guide to the Right Path, The One who guides.


As-Saboor

The Patient, The One who does not quickly punish the sinners.







Which one is the ONE?

HETEPU

T4R1K
03-30-2010, 08:23 PM
digitalchamberz, u defined allah perfectly. all those 99 names is allah. allah has 99 names, and each of them got a meaning. for ex

Ar-Rahmaan
The Compassionate, The Beneficient, The One who has plenty of mercy for the believers and the blasphemers in this world and especially for the believers in the hereafter.


i have to give u 10/10 to u my friend :)))) perfect definiton :D

peace

oDoUoSoKo
03-30-2010, 08:32 PM
i define GOD as the manifestation of people's inner doubts and fortunes, collectively attributed to a single being, due to convenience.

DiGitalChamberz
03-30-2010, 08:37 PM
damn dude lighten up lol

Face of the Golden Falcon
03-30-2010, 09:21 PM
...all those 99 names is allah. allah has 99 names, and each of them got a meaning.

What's the difference between the 99 names of Allah and this...

Allah is the concept of a conscious Universe as is Brahman.
Zeus is the concept of the power of the Heavens to make storms which affect life.
Horus is the concept of Avenging one's Father.
Nike is the concept of having victory.
Lady Liberty is the concept of freedom.
Chronos is time.
Odin is a god of Knowledge.
Quetzalcoatl or Aeolus is the winds.

???

HETEPU

Uncle Steezo
03-30-2010, 10:58 PM
i define GOD as the manifestation of people's inner doubts and fortunes, collectively attributed to a single being, due to convenience.
so basically what somebody would call the universe or reality?

oDoUoSoKo
03-31-2010, 10:59 AM
no, what somebody would call lazy responsibility ditching...and fear of death/the unknown (not suggesting theyre the same)..no offense to anyone.

Uncle Steezo
03-31-2010, 12:16 PM
elaborate on that dusk.

oDoUoSoKo
03-31-2010, 03:10 PM
no problem. the concept of god(s) came about because people couldnt understand the complexities of our planet...and could only define such complexities as being created by a higher power. i think that concept has evolved into more of a need people have to believe in something higher..moreover someWHERE higher. its easier to believe God has a plan than to accept that your own decisions shape the outcome of ur life.

oDoUoSoKo
03-31-2010, 03:11 PM
no, what somebody would call lazy responsibility ditching...and fear of death/the unknown (not suggesting theyre the same)..no offense to anyone.
and tho i said no offense, this did come across as condescending and bitter. refer to what i said after...much better answer,

DiGitalChamberz
03-31-2010, 09:56 PM
what im curious to know is how did even the thought that something HIGHER existed or could exist even be conceived... where did they get this idea of something Ethereal and Unseen being come from?? hmmm that dogma didnt just come from them thinking "hey you know what? somebody invisible in space MUST be responsible for all of this" how did these thoughts of SOMEONE creating us creep into the human conscience and psyche? im just pondering how primitive minds could think in such advanced ways to ponder their creation in such a way to attribute it to a PERSON or Higher Being rather... where did they get the notion that such things could exist and or be possible?

oDoUoSoKo
03-31-2010, 11:30 PM
perhaps u should look at it this way...with all the resources available to humans at the time, things like construction...building...creating started to conceptualize..with that...perhaps..the notion that the same methods were taken to create the whole planet...and bam...there u go.

DiGitalChamberz
03-31-2010, 11:51 PM
hmmmm, ok then why wouldnt they think someone physical PHYSICALLY created all they physically saw in such a physical world they lived in? what im trying to get at is how did the human mind start to create this perception of an unseen being, when all that was before them was real and tangible... to your point... if they had sex and procreated wouldn't that instill in them more the thought that the same process was used for THEIR very creation and birth? i think at such a primitive time it would be hard to have such deep thoughts of that nature, especially since there was no concept of anything as an unseen being...

this topic is def one to grow on

Clan Destine
04-01-2010, 01:06 AM
hmmmm, ok then why wouldnt they think someone physical PHYSICALLY created all they physically saw in such a physical world they lived in? what im trying to get at is how did the human mind start to create this perception of an unseen being, when all that was before them was real and tangible... to your point... if they had sex and procreated wouldn't that instill in them more the thought that the same process was used for THEIR very creation and birth? i think at such a primitive time it would be hard to have such deep thoughts of that nature, especially since there was no concept of anything as an unseen being...


It isn't difficult to see how people can conceive of an 'unseen' being, many things occur that are unseen but have affect. The problem is why people would give it explanatory and agentive power in their lives.

I would just say that our closest experience of anything is ourselves. Our closest and surest experience of cause and effect is our will and the subsequent action. The first material for the conception of god is self.

Most indigenous cultures are animistic in this sense, everything in nature, a plant, a rock, a waterfall, has a will or a spirit. It is not difficult to see how deification is a most proximal mimicry. Its not hard to how these traditions morphed into different religions and systems.

Another explanation offered by some researchers is hallucinogens. The argument is that most of the worlds cults and religions arose from experience with powerful plant drugs. Any drug user can see how ingesting something can offer novel perceptions and conceptions.

DiGitalChamberz
04-01-2010, 01:27 AM
"The first material for the conception of god is self."

yet we keep searching for things that do not exist

Hellspawn
04-01-2010, 05:34 AM
my understanding is "god" is everything we know dont know infinitely in micro and macro - seen unseen.

"God" at one point was a little unseen speck of nothingness - but wanted to know itself more then itself - not as itself - split itself - big bang therory kicks in.

Fear was known in the unknown chaos - then love and attraction began - the universe "god" has expanded and will renuite to begin the cycle all over for infinity and he does this on all levels up or down for infinity.

My question is does "god" have a "god"?

God has no beginning and no ending, He's out of these two concepts, He's absolute that's why He has no god nor siblings (no parents and no children (Jesus??? lol))

Hellspawn
04-01-2010, 05:49 AM
really, in 2010 athesism is just as silly and outdated as a bearded man sitting on a cloud.

we already know that modern science cannot detect 95% of what we call reality.

why the hell would anyone base his perception of what reality on what science can prove is if they can only "prove" 5% of it?




science is on that multidimensional, entangled, unseen forces, quantum flip, new age shit. some cats are still stuck in the 19th century lookin for god with a telescope.

Co-sign this, I've seen somewhere (if I find the source I'll post it) that statistics nowerdays shows that only 8% of the world population is pure atheist.

Hellspawn
04-01-2010, 05:53 AM
People often say god is allpowerfull but that's impossible since he gave us free will right...

He gave you free will so you can make your own choices and assume them

On the other hand, He told you what you have and not have to do (religions IMO) and the choice is yours again.

DiGitalChamberz
04-01-2010, 08:36 AM
hahaha well like its been said... There is no Begging or End.. 360 degrees, so i think we only lose ourselves searching for something thats not there... maybe when we stop looking well find what were looking for.. maybe its closer than we think...

or maybe were so busy looking outward... that we never spend enough time looking within..

it would be interesting to find out if after all this time all we were looking for essentially was... ourselves...

oDoUoSoKo
04-01-2010, 08:57 AM
He gave you free will so you can make your own choices and assume them

On the other hand, He told you what you have and not have to do (religions IMO) and the choice is yours again.
he gave us free will because he doesnt exist...so we can do whatever we want anyway..eloels, that hadnt occured to you? we created god...for the same reason people probably think he created us...misery loves company.

DiGitalChamberz
04-01-2010, 09:12 AM
yea i always love when ppl say "he did this and he said that" lol this has got to be one of the most interesting build threads ive been on in a wlong while.. keep em comin...

oDoUoSoKo
04-01-2010, 09:38 AM
seriously..i can still see why people would think something not explained by science (alien race or something) could explain creation...but the concept of god? really? still?

Rollo
04-01-2010, 10:08 AM
God as an explanation offends you? Honestly, aliens aren't useful because that's merely taking the question of "How did life start?" to another planet.
Simply saying the universe emerged is not an explanation. Language, information/data cannot be explained with emergence, yet everything you see and understand is encoded with it. You require an immaterial, intelligent oracle that pre-dates space-time itself.
A God fits that remarkably well.

I think spiritualistic garb like Buddhism, native american religion, wicca/paganism and other forms of enlightenment through self or through our relatonships with nature are just remarkably obsolete.
In terms of atheism just not something I can take serious.
The cell is not seen as a blob anymore, the data contained within a single human cell put on a beta disc would be the size of the fucking moon.
At some point we have to acknowledge emergence is useless as a theory.
I think we're at that point now. Until Atheism offers me something better than "You're just here" or abiogenesis which no practicing biologist takes seriously, I really have no interest.


As for people projecting God through self, spare me......
Saying "You only believe in God as a way of comforting yourself", is like saying "You only believe in a lack of a God as a way of comforting yourself"
Neither is a reasonable thing to say, as you have no fucking clue whether that's the case.
You're talking out your ass when you presume to know and think what other people do.

Suppose you said "People who say they believe in giant squids only say that because it makes them feel like there's something interesting." and then one day, you're in the water and one pulls you under and drags you down about a thousand feet in say 12 seconds...

Now, do you think telling yourself it's just projection will help you when your inards are crushed and your eye balls start to pop out of your head??
I imagine probably not.
The existence of God doesn't hinge on whether people find comfort in him or whether you dislike the concept.

It either exists or it doesn't. Human projection has no power at all. Most people don't believe in God as something that's just a lovely feeling they get or something wonderful to imagine.

Uncle Steezo
04-01-2010, 10:32 AM
on the wave of human development, we are in the bottom of the trough, atheism is proof of that.

Clan Destine
04-01-2010, 10:59 AM
God as an explanation offends you? Honestly, aliens aren't useful because that's merely taking the question of "How did life start?" to another planet.
Simply saying the universe emerged is not an explanation. Language, information/data cannot be explained with emergence, yet everything you see and understand is encoded with it. You require an immaterial, intelligent oracle that pre-dates space-time itself.
A God fits that remarkably well.

I think spiritualistic garb like Buddhism, native american religion, wicca/paganism and other forms of enlightenment through self or through our relatonships with nature are just remarkably obsolete.
In terms of atheism just not something I can take serious.
The cell is not seen as a blob anymore, the data contained within a single human cell put on a beta disc would be the size of the fucking moon.
At some point we have to acknowledge emergence is useless as a theory.
I think we're at that point now. Until Atheism offers me something better than "You're just here" or abiogenesis which no practicing biologist takes seriously, I really have no interest.


As for people projecting God through self, spare me......
Saying "You only believe in God as a way of comforting yourself", is like saying "You only believe in a lack of a God as a way of comforting yourself"
Neither is a reasonable thing to say, as you have no fucking clue whether that's the case.
You're talking out your ass when you presume to know and think what other people do.

So God makes more sense than emergence how?

Your logic is everything complex needs to come from something, except God because he's just God. Why doesn't God need a cause? Why is he exempt? There's no reason why the universe without a God can't emerge in the same way you assert God emerged. In fact, 'natural' emergence obeys the laws of complexity better than a God theory. That something as complex as a conscious, omnipotent, and strangely humanly moral being was here before the disordered cosmos, which than arranged into somewhat more complexity and yielded our consciousness, is less elegant than simple emergence.

Simplicity>Complexity

not

Suspiciously humanlike complexity>Simplicity>Complexity

Also, all the 'proofs' you have, (essentially the old argument of irreducible complexity) comes from knowledge using a system of knowing that doesn't require a monolithic faith, but rather knowledge based on evidence. For you to come into the chain of knowledge and assert god, even when the science is still working on these problems (and will always have to work with unknowns) is just stealing the victory. Also, there are plenty of scientists who maintain abiogenesis is possible and there are definitely one's that don't, I don't know how you can maintain this. The point is we don't know, but you would rather just say 'divine intelligence' and end the investigation altogether. That epistemology SHOULD be outdated.

I'm not saying its entirely impossible that there is something like an inter-penetrating consciousness matrix, or a fundamental mindedness to reality and matter. Its simply that any religious system proclaiming both to assert this with certainty or to know it in a way that feels it can judge you, is presuming FAR too much.

And history will give you evidence of the emergence and uses of religion. Wherever you see the need to control people, you will see doctrinal religion. Wherever you see a lack of hope and subjugation there arises the 'otherworldy' religions of heaven and hell. Wherever you see a lack of explanation you will see god's work. When a person of faith has been convinced of the absurdity of faith one of last defence's is always they 'need it because it comforts them'. In times of crisis and stress people turn to god and prayer.

'God' is a master signifier and an absolute, 'he' very conveniently fills in and adds structure to our symbolic framework (which we need to stay sane). I'm not saying this is a case for all people at all times but its a far more likely explanation than the alternative, and isn't curious how everyone's use and conception of god is just slightly unique to them?

And no, not having absolute belief (which is different than believing in a lack of god) isn't comforting, I know I'll live and die in some state relative confusion and ignorance, but such is the nature of knowledge.

oDoUoSoKo
04-01-2010, 11:08 AM
well put^

its easier to put down atheism and agnosticism than it is to defend the concept of a god.

RALPH WIGGUM
04-01-2010, 11:28 AM
http://revolution.1789.free.fr/image/etre_supreme.gif
Robespierre burning atheism and fanatism and uncovering Truth.

Uncle Steezo
04-01-2010, 12:08 PM
clan destine. you made some good points but you failed to illustrate the superiority of your model outside of personal preference.

1. God did not emerge. God is and always has been.
2. the big bang from nothing theory, to quote mckenna, "is the mother of all improbabilities."
if you are going to assert this claim, then NOTHING can be ruled out. why? because the singularity defies all known laws, theories, behaviors and concepts of our universe.
so once we enter into the realm of the divine, all bets are off cause the basis of the atheistic model of the universe hinges on the most improbable, unlikely an arguably absurd notion that everything around us poof'd here out of nothing.

then you went off on a religious tangent which is not what the build is about. i think everyone can agree that religion is out of touch, to put it nicely.

oDoUoSoKo
04-01-2010, 12:12 PM
whoa..so God always having been is probable????with no explanation but that he always has been? Style..seriously why do u personally want to believe there is a god?

Uncle Steezo
04-01-2010, 12:55 PM
whoa..so God always having been is probable????with no explanation but that he always has been? Style..seriously why do u personally want to believe there is a god?


God is eternal, it has to be that way.

information existed before the bang and that information will exist after the universe wimpers out or crunches or whatever happens.

we can call that information "thought".




but like i said, if we are to say that the pre-bang singularity existed, then anything is possible.
i agree with the physics of the big bang BTW.

but its silly to claim "energy can't be created or destroyed....uh ...well.... except when it was 1st created and when it's destroyed at the end of time."

infinity(energy+information)=God




i don't want to believe there is a God. I KNOW God is real.

Rollo
04-01-2010, 01:13 PM
So God makes more sense than emergence how?

Your logic is everything complex needs to come from something


No. The fact is, all language all information and all things intelligible require an intelligent priori oracle/source. This is not a rational/logic I made up. This is a fact in information theory.
YOU CANNOT have an intelligible codex without a sentient being to put it in place.

Why doesn't God need a cause?


I just had one argument about quantum mechanics in this thread, and how space-time is encompassed by a timeless fourth dimension, do I really need to have another?

We already went over this. God as God is defined is beyond time itself. He existed before existence as we understand it existed.

I've already had this argument...

1. God is(by definition) omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
If your argument doesn't already acknowledge that, then you aren't debating God. That's what God is, even if ficticious. Anything else is just a strawman you've made up.

If that's a problem, my reply is go beyond 19th century philosophy because this "what was before God" garbage doesn't sit with modern physics.

We know time had a starting point. God is prior to that, therefor not subject to the fabric of space-time or to natural order.

Again, rationalistic philosophy is USELESS. It has failed as a school of thought.
If that's what you major in, kill yourself.
You might as well major in leprauchaun husbandry




Why is he exempt? There's no reason why the universe without a God can't emerge in the same way you assert God emerged.



The primeval atom was like any piece of matter, quanta-sized components and already encoded by the same very laws it has now as our universe. In fact, it was our universe before it expanded and cooled, all you've done is made it smaller, that still doesn't help you.
God is unlike it in that he is not material and not bound by the principles of physics that bound that atom to begin with.

So sorry, but your argument is deeply flawed.
That comparison is ignorant.





In fact, before I go any further, name me a language, the emerged with no intelligible entity to put it in place...



GO ahead, I'll wait.
The quantum is the most complex of all matrixes and yet you don't think it requires an intelligible source, that's exceptionism at it's worst.
Nobody has ever seen an atom just emerge........ Never.... There is not one shred of evidence that this could happen.


In fact, 'natural' emergence obeys the laws of complexity better than a God theory.

Emergence is nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual materialist way of ducking an obvious problem that mathematicians have been mocking for decades. Information does not emerge and there is nothing supporting the notion that it can.

And at least with a God rather than an atom exploding which depends on finite reactions via nuclear fission caused by hydrogen, he isn't bound by engineering principles or probability.
Further the primeval atom couldn't have self emerged because atoms themselves have no way of self organizing.

Unless you're going to suggest an eternal atom (which we know are universe is not eternal it has a finite age) there really is no argument to be made for the emergence of our universe.

That something as complex as a conscious, omnipotent, and strangely humanly moral being was here before the disordered cosmos'




There is no disordered cosmos. If you think that you must have a bad understanding of special relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, information theory and statistics.
Probabilities cause influxes and even chaos in the human eye, but all of it is predictable.
All of it falls humble to quantum mechanics and relativity.... I'm sorry but much like the cell that was a blob, the universe that lacked uniformity and order is a thing of 19th century thinking.

Your argument is old.





, which than arranged into somewhat more complexity and yielded our consciousness, is less elegant than simple emergence.

Simplicity>Complexity

not

Suspiciously humanlike complexity>Simplicity>Complexity



What kind of equation is that supposed to be?


The Primeval atom was our entire universe compressed into something that made a grain of sand look gigantic. How is that simple ?
I'm sorry but so what if something was similar to humanity's understanding of complexity? We are sentient beings who have language and especially important mathematics. Wouldn't we expect other beings who operate through similar means to be similar to us to begin with?

In fact, given that description isn't it kind of dumb on your part to say "Similar things operate in similar ways but cannot themselves be similar" ?

Clan Destine
04-01-2010, 01:26 PM
clan destine. you made some good points but you failed to illustrate the superiority of your model outside of personal preference.


Firstly, I don't have a fixed model. Emergence is simply something I'm defending over a willful creator.


1. God did not emerge. God is and always has been.


Again, why does god gain the benefit of eternity but not the universe? And how can you assert the validity of this claim? Why posit a subject that requires a property of eternity? And not simply eternity itself? Why can't 'God' simply be the universe without 'God' in it? Which goes back to your original question of how one defines God.



2. the big bang from nothing theory, to quote mckenna, "is the mother of all improbabilities."
if you are going to assert this claim, then NOTHING can be ruled out. why? because the singularity defies all known laws, theories, behaviors and concepts of our universe.
so once we enter into the realm of the divine, all bets are off cause the basis of the atheistic model of the universe hinges on the most improbable, unlikely an arguably absurd notion that everything around us poof'd here out of nothing.


A God model assumes just as much as a singularity, with the extra dimension of human-like properties and the lack of empiricism. A singularity could have always been here. In essence it WAS everything before it expanded. It needn't obey the laws as we know it, because there aren't really laws, just regularities. We only conceive of 'obeying' laws as metaphor. It certainly could have been 'obeying laws' for what the laws were at its state, but as we are and observe its expansion we obey the laws of a different, differentiated, expanded stated.

Also Existence as such, god or godless, is both a testament to 'the mother of all improbabilities' and also the only thing that can ever be, due to its nature. If there is a chance between existence and non-existence, there will always be existence, non-existence well, does not exist, its a false dichotomy. It isn't absurd that something came from nothing, because nothing is not anything that requires anything to super-cede it.

It would be more absurd to posit the opposite, that nothing can do anything or impede anything, that being is not just being forever. The problem I have is with giving existence a human-like face, a character. This is a species arrogance, or just simply a heuristic of understanding that shouldn't be taken seriously.

And just to clarify I don't necessarily subscribe to the belief that the Bing Bang Theory is the be all and end all of explanation. It is simply is as far as we can see, within a sensible framework of interpretation. Also, just because it appears orginary it doesn't mean it is, nor can it explain the rest of time, space, reality nor the future unfolding of existence. God is possible yet, it may be being born now.


then you went off on a religious tangent which is not what the build is about. i think everyone can agree that religion is out of touch, to put it nicely.

Fair enough. I was repsonding to another post, but I agree with keeping within the spirit of the original intent.


Hey Rollo, just saw that you posted, I need to sleep but I'll look over what you said

Uncle Steezo
04-01-2010, 01:55 PM
clan, i may be wrong, but i think we just agreed, conceptually speaking.

i'm just saying that if we all agree that we are "living the dream" so to speak, then the absurdity of God's existence goes out the window.

i would add that the physical universe is an expression of an idea. information.
so yes, the universe is God, as much as these pixels you are reading are an expression of my thoughts, but the pixels are not literally my thoughts.

i just watched a good 30 min clip of a mckenna lecture that touches on much of this build. time, universe creation, biology, life, and much more. ironically he doesn't mention God.
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-7146277212862409664#


i don't like the anthrophormophic god either.

Face of the Golden Falcon
04-01-2010, 08:36 PM
People often say god is allpowerfull but that's impossible since he gave us free will right...

...right.

The only way this would work would be if "he" is the "us"...

hmmmm...

HETEPU

oDoUoSoKo
04-01-2010, 09:29 PM
the he is us.

Rollo
04-01-2010, 10:44 PM
You have free will, but every choice that sits before you he already knows and since he is omniscient and omnipresent, he will always know what you are going to do.
You have the freedom to choose anything, however anything you choose he will have foreknowledge of.

Even when he doesn't know he knows...
As he exist in an infinite number of forms and everywhere through out eternity..

He is not a person... callybasi

oDoUoSoKo
04-01-2010, 10:50 PM
he isnt a person..hes a 6 foot rabbit with pink overalls that hands out chocolates and hides rotten eggs.

Rollo
04-01-2010, 11:09 PM
he isnt a person..hes a 6 foot rabbit with pink overalls that hands out chocolates and hides rotten eggs.

As I told someone earlier in the thread, he is defined by certain characteristics that you don't get to change. Even if you think he is a myth, you have no continuity over the concept as it isn't your intellectual property.

What he can do, isn't up for debate. That's a part of what the character is.

If you aren't addressing an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent God, you aren't addressing God at all.
All arguments must be made with these already accepted.


It's kind of like saying Wolverine doesn't have steel claws or that Barack Obama isn't mixed, it's not debatable.

oDoUoSoKo
04-01-2010, 11:14 PM
im not debating what attributes he has, my argument is that he WAS GIVEN them..by us.

Rollo
04-01-2010, 11:19 PM
im not debating what attributes he has, my argument is that he WAS GIVEN them..by us.

Doesn't matter if he was or not. My point was simply that he has them and free will with God is not a contradiction.

I'm not jumping into a does God exist debate because in the end neither side would give up their biases.
Most atheists have a "I don't like to be told I'm wrong, if I say it is it is complex" same with most religious people.

oDoUoSoKo
04-01-2010, 11:23 PM
am i really the only person that sees him arguing with himself?^^

Rollo
04-01-2010, 11:33 PM
am i really the only person that sees him arguing with himself?^^

I wasn't arguing with you, simply pointing out your prior post has nothing to do with what I said originally.
And I wasn't speaking to you when I made my statement about free will, it came up in a post from face of the golden falcon. You just assumed it was directed at you.

oDoUoSoKo
04-01-2010, 11:36 PM
no not necessarily..it just seems at times that ur less concerned with the topic and more concerned with how people handle it.

Rollo
04-01-2010, 11:46 PM
I think objectivity is worth killing for.
If people are going to debate something and come to a conclusion, they should do it on certain terms.

Uncle Steezo
04-02-2010, 12:01 AM
i think dusk is feeling trapped under the rubble of a crumbling paradigm.
but i don't want to turn this into gen chat so i'll leave it there.

i really enjoyed this thread and the contributions from both sides, specifically rollo, drunken dragon and the usual suspects of course.


i think this is an example of ktl at its best. we hit the topic from all angles from science to philosophy to metaphysics to opinion and emotion. all while being civil yet passionate.


bravo.


i'm gonna rep this whole thread now.

oDoUoSoKo
04-02-2010, 01:31 PM
bro are you serious? hahaha omg i love this forum...technically speaking everything ive said makes sense and supports my argument..and this is always the case..but when someone decides they disagree with what im saying, they decide im not making sense cuz they cant combat my logic. im not saying this in a contrived way, but seriously are you guys actually reading?

LORD NOSE
04-02-2010, 01:53 PM
__________________________________________________ _____


what we've been doing all along is trying to correct/adjust each others visions
sometimes that's painful

oDoUoSoKo
04-02-2010, 01:59 PM
right, explain to me how that remedies..or even appropriates the proper response.

zeppelin2k
04-02-2010, 02:03 PM
I'm an atheist but instead of disregarding the concept of god I just looked at the universe for something that fits the definition of god.

As A Result I don't see god as a conscience but rather a name for all the powers that make the universe work.
God is often seen as the overseer & Controller of the universe, this transelates into gravity for example, it makes sure we stay on earth & the earth stays in orbit around the sun so that we hav elife.
Another example is Evolution, it oversees us and often gives what we need to survive.

the laws of the universe in other words

Uncle Steezo
04-02-2010, 02:09 PM
I'm an atheist but instead of disregarding the concept of god I just looked at the universe for something that fits the definition of god.

As A Result I don't see god as a conscience but rather a name for all the powers that make the universe work.
God is often seen as the overseer & Controller of the universe, this transelates into gravity for example, it makes sure we stay on earth & the earth stays in orbit around the sun so that we hav elife.
Another example is Evolution, it oversees us and often gives what we need to survive.


missed this post.
i guess i would ask you for a definition of consciousness.

also

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

God, Yahweh, Jah, Allah, Mother Nature, Ausar ....Universe

LORD NOSE
04-02-2010, 02:16 PM
right, explain to me how that remedies..or even appropriates the proper response.



my reply was NOT directed toward you


i don't know what you're sayin

DiGitalChamberz
04-02-2010, 02:16 PM
this is a very good build thread but i stopped adding on my wisdom when i saw one too many self righteous replies, ill do the knowledge from afar...

not pointing figures but where the topic of God is concerned, i laugh at anyone who swears "Ive got it all figured out"...

LORD NOSE
04-02-2010, 02:22 PM
this is a very good build thread but i stopped adding on my wisdom when i saw one too many self righteous replies, ill do the knowledge from afar...

not pointing figures but where the topic of God is concerned, i laugh at anyone who swears "Ive got it all figured out"...

wouldn't it be better to question the root meaning of the word first
then go into why we are using it today ?

DiGitalChamberz
04-02-2010, 02:29 PM
yes... we need to approach things at the root source and build TOGETHER... alot of intelligent minds on here we should combine forces n search for truth together or at least teach each one according to ones level of understanding so that we can ALL at least see where we are ALL coming from and add on... love is love tho

Uncle Steezo
04-02-2010, 02:44 PM
yes... we need to approach things at the root source and build TOGETHER... alot of intelligent minds on here we should combine forces n search for truth together or at least teach each one according to ones level of understanding so that we can ALL at least see where we are ALL coming from and add on... love is love tho

to get to the roots you gotta dig.
thats what this thread is about, and like sunny said, its sometimes painful.

this topic has so many layers to it and some layers are close to the heart.

but don't let someone's approach discourage you from jumping in. we all have our own modes of operation. passion is healthy, it lets you and others know what beliefs are really yours.

i know we are all diff but personally i enjoy debating someone who really believes passionately in what they are saying cause it forces me to examine what i'm saying and come correct, even reevaluate what i believe.

DiGitalChamberz
04-02-2010, 02:48 PM
true indeed... i just hate when i start typing my essays that after a few minutes im signed out n gta copy n paste after signing back in lol

Hellspawn
04-05-2010, 06:54 AM
So basically if someone can't see god that means He does not exist ?

In this case, we can't see each other souls, so does it means that we have no soul ?

oDoUoSoKo
04-05-2010, 09:15 AM
that wasnt the best example bro..eloels. and no thats not why, in fact i dont think anyone has really resorted to using that argument yet.

LORD NOSE
04-05-2010, 10:23 AM
we try and force each other to view their walk in life the way we are seeing our own walk

we want everyone to walk our way - even if for a few minutes - we want to be understood and appreciated - accepted - we want to live - we'll doubt that we are this way though


HellSpawn - sometimes we have to have things pointed out to us before we can see it
but to be so sure of something we've never seen, to fight and shed blood over what we believe is there is insane - the book says it's there - we have a choice whether to believe what the book is saying or not -

Hellspawn
04-05-2010, 05:22 PM
HellSpawn - sometimes we have to have things pointed out to us before we can see it
but to be so sure of something we've never seen, to fight and shed blood over what we believe is there is insane - the book says it's there - we have a choice whether to believe what the book is saying or not -

I aint tryin to convince no one, I been here since 2003 and never seen someone being convinced :)

LORD NOSE
04-05-2010, 05:33 PM
how can one be convinced of what they say they believe in ?

they are convinced that what they believe is reality

convinced of a belief

i'm learning to look at all my beliefs and not be so convinced they exist

and to treat it as a belief and not fact

this helps me from looking at people as stupid infidel sinners

i'm still a nut - no doubt - but i'm working on it

DiGitalChamberz
04-05-2010, 07:26 PM
word sometimes u have to have the patience to watch a flower grow dealing with people and the different currents they come in

Hellspawn
04-05-2010, 07:57 PM
Hopefully we all have the same objective ;)

DiGitalChamberz
04-05-2010, 08:55 PM
i don't see why not.. shouldn't it be to teach he/her who does not know? so that they may be able to save themselves and then others, n then others n then others? it should be a chain effect i think. but mind you the whole total population isn't reachable or salvageable.. doubt well get back to Eden without weeding out a few bad apples, but you do your part nonetheless, regardless to whom or what you show n prove your power.

Hellspawn
04-05-2010, 09:10 PM
The problem is this is a double challenge ; you want to save a few souls and keep the other side from growin up. If you identify this last one you'll realize that a final confrontation is inevitable on earth (I know alot of people on the Corp know the deal). The dark side is as active as us if not more because they have very important measures.

oDoUoSoKo
04-05-2010, 09:16 PM
uh, well said.

DiGitalChamberz
04-05-2010, 09:23 PM
well im not saying be capt save a hoe and walk around like the Book of Eli either lol but you know what im saying and what i meant lol.. im not necessarily talking about armies of darkness battling the forces of light on sum final battle cgi Legion shit idk if i can handle actually seeing some crazy shit like that lol but i cee where u coming from bruh ;) i too feel that somethings on the horizon...

V4D3R
08-19-2012, 07:21 AM
missed this post.
i guess i would ask you for a definition of consciousness.

also

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

God, Yahweh, Jah, Allah, Mother Nature, Ausar ....Universe
Words and names and letters are powerful. And how right you were on how trying to manifest ill_ll! intended thoughts can backfire. Wouldn't you agree?

diggy
10-26-2012, 01:39 AM
Excellent build yo!!!

:clap:

John Nash
10-26-2012, 11:13 AM
it would be better if people would have asked more fundamental questions before they asked "how do you define God?"

questions such as "Is a god necessary?" "Why is a god necessary" "can god be defined?" etc

i think god is just a clumsy thought and a clumsy word.

D.projectile
10-26-2012, 12:44 PM
this thread is so beautiful

drippie k
10-27-2012, 02:38 PM
I don't believe in a big man in the sky, judging our actions, condemning us to hell if we fuck up (which coincidently is what i was raised to believe). There is no sin, just choices and consequences that result in you living a good life or a life of shit. To me. God is neither he or she or an actual being that knows itself exists. God is ultimatly inexplicable but it's whatever put us here. Whatever caused existance to exist. Esentially, in that sense, we wouldn't be here without God.

pro.Graveface
10-28-2012, 04:51 PM
God is here! ,,,drunk,,,
pEACE

Longbongcilvaringz
10-29-2012, 05:36 AM
he gave us free will because he doesnt exist...so we can do whatever we want anyway..

on the wave of human development, we are in the bottom of the trough, atheism is proof of that.

haha you're the worst gavin.

Soul Controller
11-02-2012, 05:36 AM
we are our own gods.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/523397_490318877656962_1866127315_n.jpg


^^ for those who believe in some other being; being god.. where would he fit in? in the known light spectrum? or anti matter/dark matter realities?(other dimensions)

pro.Graveface
11-02-2012, 05:44 AM
^^^both !

rainbow around the moon ! perception.

knewcheeze
11-02-2012, 11:52 AM
we are our own gods.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/523397_490318877656962_1866127315_n.jpg


^^ for those who believe in some other being; being god.. where would he fit in? in the known light spectrum? or anti matter/dark matter realities?(other dimensions)

hell yeah!!!!!

diggy
07-08-2014, 10:22 PM
i forgot who i was talking to this about on here - but we mentioned that maybe god works through multiple faculties
maybe that 'information dimension' IS god?
formless...and being the information and foundation of all things in existence


Do you believe in emanation?

Emanation, from the Latin emanare meaning "to flow from" or "to pour forth or out of", is the mode by which all things are said to be derived from the First Reality, or Principle. All things are said to be derived from the first reality or perfect God by steps of degradation to lesser degrees of the first reality or God, and at every step the emanating beings are less pure, less perfect, less divine.