Only one God created this world [Archive] - Dreamviews lucid dreaming forums

dattaswami

10-09-2005, 10:20 AM

Hindus say that Brahman is the creator, Muslims say
That Allah is creator, Christians say that the creator is
Jehovah, all say that the creation is this entire world.
If Hindus say that Brahman created India, and if
Muslims say that Allah created Arabian countries and
If Christians say that Jehovah created the western countries,
The problem is solved, there can be three Gods together,
Who have created the three parts of the earth separately.

But this is not so, each religion says that their God only
Created the entire world, unfortunately there is one world!
One world only! Come on, all of you sit together here
And give me the final conclusion after debate, otherwise,
The scientists are laughing on all of you! Shame to all!

They criticize that these religions do not have even
The basic logic, which is the fundamental common sense.
Because of you, the greatest God is also mocked by them
They say that the religions are rigid conservatisms!
Even a small boy is putting this question to all of you.

Stop all your discourses and first answer this question.
If you want to say that God created the entire world,
You have to accept that there is one God only always
And that His names are all the above three names.

We see in the world a single person having three names.
If there is one God, He only created this entire world.
All the human beings are invariably His children only.
No Father is partial to a single child and therefore
He must have preached the same knowledge to all
In different languages and in different methodologies
To different levels, this is Universal Spirituality.

At the Lotus feet of Datta Swami

kimpossible

10-09-2005, 10:45 AM

I created it. All the rest are wrong.

fersteger

10-09-2005, 10:52 AM

woo boy...

Distant Clone

10-09-2005, 02:31 PM

Wow...I really like kim's stubborn, challenging nature. She sort of reminds me of...me...

Besides, maybe they are all calling the same god, possibly kimpossible, by different names...You know, you can call a rose by any other name, but it will still smell just as sweet.

kimpossible

10-09-2005, 03:45 PM

Yuppers! And it's gonna be really tough to prove I'm not!

Nirvana Starseed

10-09-2005, 06:10 PM

kim tell me when your ready to stoping pretending to be god, and actually start being godlike.

Ex Nine

10-09-2005, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by kimpossible
I created it. *All the rest are wrong.

Care to demonstrate? ;)

kimpossible

10-09-2005, 06:26 PM

Of course not. You just have to believe. It's all about faith.

And if you dont - one of these days when you least expect it, I'll crack open a six pack o' smite on your booty.

Ex Nine

10-09-2005, 06:46 PM

Will I get anything out of it? Eternal life? Nationalized health insurance?

kimpossible

10-09-2005, 08:28 PM

You won't get smited. Isn't that enough for anyone?

LucidApple

10-09-2005, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by kimpossible
And if you dont - one of these days when you least expect it, I'll crack open a six pack o' smite on your booty.

Lol ;)

Kimpossible do u also have a chimpossible as a pet?
Could u please smite a hot pizza at me and aim at my plate oh worthy one lol!

*message for LostSoul...i shot the pork!*

kimpossible

10-09-2005, 08:36 PM

Nope. I have a Jack Russell Terrorist. They eat Naked Mole Rats. After they smite them.

LucidApple

10-09-2005, 08:55 PM

Rofl! your really into the smite scene! :laughtillhurts:

Please dont smite Dattaswami he is to funny!
But i think he should change his name to hmm SwamiCopycat!

Ex Nine

10-09-2005, 08:56 PM

Hey, I'm not a stranger to being smited (I own a dog, too)!

So, what do you get when I believe you created the world?

kimpossible

10-09-2005, 09:57 PM

A break in my heavy smiting schedule.

Ex Nine

10-09-2005, 10:14 PM

What are you gonna do with that break?

kimpossible

10-09-2005, 11:31 PM

Plan some upcoming vengeance. The whole "natural disasters and other misc. Acts of God" are gettin' kind old. Heck, they've had me written-out of insurance policies for the last couple millenia.

Ex Nine

10-09-2005, 11:41 PM

What if I offer to do a little more than just believe? Can I get a miracle or two if I help out with some of the vengence and smiting, Force Majeure?

kimpossible

10-10-2005, 12:29 AM

Just the fact that I deign to respond to you at all, puny corporeal-entity, should be miracle enough! :mad:

Ex Nine

10-10-2005, 03:15 AM

lol, alright I can take a hint. :bowdown:

Placebo

10-10-2005, 03:17 AM

"Smite me, oh mighty smiter"

Now, this thread is a bit of a problem.. .On the one hand it's gotten pretty senseless.
However IMO I'm reluctant to split it there, since without the senslessness, all that's left is dattaswami's copy/paste :P

Seeker

10-10-2005, 07:25 AM

Kim, by any chance were you in a bad mood when you created it? That would explain a lot, wouldn't it? =P

Poverty, disease, hunger, war. Yep, you WERE in a bad mood that day. :D

Placebo, lets let it run another few days and see where it goes.

Tornado Joe

10-10-2005, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Seeker
Kim, by any chance were you in a bad mood when you created it? That would explain a lot, wouldn't it? =P *
Poverty, disease, hunger, war. Yep, you WERE in a bad mood that day.

Well, let's see here, Seeker:
I believe it took her, what... seven days to create the world?
We'll give her 20 days to plan it all out in her head, plus 3 days to get materials, and the final 7 of creation:

20 + 3 + 7 = 30 days - one month. YEP, I'd say she was very likely a bit moody at that particular time of the month!

Tornado Joe[i]--checks calendar and braces himself for smiting! :o

Ex Nine

10-10-2005, 10:35 AM

Your theomythos is a bit confounded, TJ. The first day of creation is the first day. Period. You can't have days for planning the creation of days.

A pacifist yogi would smite you for that one.

dreamtamer007

10-10-2005, 11:18 AM

We will see were it goes. The bible says “The tong is an evil member and he who can control it controls his whole member”. It feels good to babble. What one becomes is just that,.. Babble

CryoDragoon

10-10-2005, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Seeker
Kim, by any chance were you in a bad mood when you created it? *That would explain a lot, wouldn't it? *=P

Poverty, disease, hunger, war. *Yep, you WERE in a bad mood that day. *:D

well, kimthingie just created it, it is the PEOPLE who are fucked, WE created hunger & stuff, WE do all these things don't we?

kingthimmie just observed, and studied,
but slowly... and surely, she drew her plans against us

kimpossible

10-10-2005, 11:28 AM

And you see - that's just it: My original post, and the exchange that followed, was finally controlled. Ex wasn't brought into the loop, but played the role perfectly even without a script.

In *my* frame of reference, the post by Dat'Swami, ya know, Dat Swami over der, was almost entirely babble.

This didn't degrade to babble until I went to bed (excluding Dat Swami's post). I expected a mod to lock it in the morning (darn you, Placebo! Ruining my plans! Stoopid "free will" - that was almost as bad of an idea as selfawareness!) and that it wouldn't get out of hand.

So everyone posting after about 2am goes on my smite-list. With a double-smite to Placebo.

Seeker

10-10-2005, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by kimpossible
Stoopid \"free will\"

I love a God(dess) that cannot spell! :rolllaugh:

Yeah, I think it's almost time to move this one into sensless banter.

CryoDragoon

10-10-2005, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by kimpossible

So everyone posting after about 2am goes on my smite-list. *With a double-smite to Placebo.

smiteity smite smitey smite smite

kimpossible

10-10-2005, 12:58 PM

"stoopid" is for emphasis. Sound it out.

And feel free to move it. Although the next religious debate I get into, I plan to reference it.

I still contend that you'll have a tough time proving I'm not.

Seeker

10-10-2005, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by kimpossible
I still contend that you'll have a tough time proving I'm not.

*snort* Hehe, it's much harder to disprove something than it is to prove it! Wish there was a kind of negative form of strong induction.

Ex Nine

10-10-2005, 02:01 PM

It's not that difficult to prove a negative as long as we have clearly defined premises. We might not even have to go beyond a syllogism.

Kim is claiming that she created the world, which is the same as claiming she is the creator (hereto capitalized as "Creator") of the world.

Now we must lucidly understand at least some properties of both Kim and the Creator before we can prove that they are not the same.

I say that the Creator, in order to fulfill the act of creation, would now have to be at least several billion years old, in light of the fossil record and material decay rates. Kim, despite her claims at times to feeling old, has already attested that her age range is not this exhorbitant. So...

The Creator is old.
Kim is not old.
---------------------------
Kim is not the Creator.

... we must change one of the premises and revise our original understanding of either Kim or the Creator in order to accept this new information.

And that's not out of step. Many already understand the Creator as timeless and that nothing created the Creator. Since Kim is a citizen of the US, she needed to have some documentation about her place of birth, and if she was born than she had a beginning and is not independent of time.

The Creator was not created.
Kim was created.
---------------------------
Kim is not the Creator.

Perhaps her documents were forged. Or, perhaps our understanding of birth and being created must change, so that it is no longer relevant to not being the Creator. Either way, that's way more effort than I'm willing to put into this and I'm simply content with the joys of not being smited by her with overwhelming force.

For now.

dreamtamer007

10-10-2005, 06:06 PM

Logically speaking it is impossible to prove a negative. Prove I'm not Mickey Mouse. It can't be done.

Ex Nine

10-10-2005, 06:16 PM

If you're talking about Mickey Mouse the cartoon character, then, if you are not a cartoon character, you can't possibly be Mickey Mouse.

Q.E.D. Done.

Is it that you are just parroting something you heard from somewhere or at least occasionally think?

dreamtamer007

10-10-2005, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Ex Nine
If you're talking about Mickey Mouse the cartoon character, then, if you are not a cartoon character, you can't possibly be Mickey Mouse.

Done.

Is it that you are just parroting something you heard from somewhere and at least occasionally think?
Polly wants a cracker… No, I'm really a cartoon and you can't prove otherwise. You sure got a lot of spunk ExNine

Ex Nine

10-10-2005, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by dreamtamer007

Polly wants a cracker… No, I'm really a cartoon and you can't prove otherwise. You sure got a lot of spunk ExNine

Watch me. Cartoon characters are a class of art limited by the scope of their medium and design, and as such they can't post to Internet forums, which you have just done, which negates the possibility of you being a cartoon character, which negates the possibility of you being Mickey Mouse.

Q.E.D.

So you actually proved it yourself.

Just to make sure... do you know what "proof" means?

dreamtamer007

10-10-2005, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Ex Nine

Watch me. Cartoon characters are a class of art limited by the scope of their medium and design, and as such they can't post to Internet forums, which you have just done, which negates the possibility of you being a cartoon character, which negates the possibility of you being Mickey Mouse.

Q.E.D.

So you actually proved it yourself.

Just to make sure... do you know what \"proof\" means?
Look at the Avatar. It’s actually me. All two dimensions. I’m dreamtamer007 when posting and Mickey when time permits. You obviously can’t understand because you are 3 dimensions. There is no way you can prove it. Are you dense or did you just sleep in science class?
Proof
The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
Where is your evidence? Because you say I typed this?
My secretary typed it. You go in circles Good night. Spunk

Ex Nine

10-10-2005, 07:02 PM

I was expecting an interesting and perhaps enlightening discussion about what "proof" means but you seem intent on either lying or rewriting the dictionary.

Science class! Hah! How nice it would've been if we actually talked about the nature of proof in those classes. But, you see, that's more in the area of philosophy. :P

Mickey Mouse is owned by the Walt Disney Company and protected as a trademark. Do you admit to being the property of Disney? If you are not the property of Disney, you cannot be Mickey Mouse. If you claim you are the Mickey Mouse owned by them, and are not actually owned by them, you're stealing their property. Christ, if you even impersonate Mickey Mouse without their permission, much less claim to be him, you could be tried in court! Disney has actually tried to get people who steal Mickey Mouse to be tried as criminals.

How about this. Mickey Mouse is smarter than you are.

kimpossible

10-10-2005, 07:43 PM

The age I reference as well as my apparent citizenship is strictly referring to the corporeal form I occupy in order that I might interact wtih you puny mortals without your skulls imploding. Atleast most of the time.

I am without beginning and without end. My corporeal existance is an insignificant metric.

So, in short, try again! 8)

Ex Nine

10-10-2005, 10:33 PM

Why did you choose to interact with us mortals?

For vengence? But if you wanted that, why not just interact with us directly so that we implode?

Placebo

10-11-2005, 12:58 AM

Wow, this is actually getting philosophical at last :P
To be (mickey mouse) or not to be, what is the question again?

Anyway, I find this thread amusing, I'll still leave it a little longer before I decide how to split it. (The new topic would be 'Is kim an angsty goddess?' :P)

spoon

10-11-2005, 03:41 AM

Logically speaking it is impossible to prove a negative. Prove I'm not Mickey Mouse. It can't be done. [/b]

Not true. For starters, you have to realise that every statement does not exist on its own - every negative statement implies a positive and vice versa. Whenever you prove a positive statement you are simultaneously proving a related negative. Thus, to prove a negative, you can just prove the implied positive statement. Take the claim "dreamtamer is not mikey mouse". The implied positive is "dreamtamer is something other than mikey mouse".

We could simply prove that "dreamtamer is something other than mikey mouse" by looking at you. Thus the negative is easily proven. But at the moment we can't see you, so lets just pretend that you are unable to be seen, and that there is no other clear proof refuting your claim (which people have already given). What you have made is an unproveable statement. Does this make the statement something we should automatically accept? Of course not.

Tiny invisible pixies consider my toothbrush a forest and live in there. The flying sphagetti monster created the universe. The invisible pink unicorn smites unbelievers. Invisible elves run around dragging everything back down to earth -gravity is a myth.

These are all examples of unproveable statements. Do you (or anyone) accept them as true? I'd hope not, and I'd hope that people would not believe in them because of a lack of proof. The burden of proof is on the affirmative side, especially claims that go against common sense or logic (like: fictional characters cannot interact with reality).

If you shift the burden of proof onto the negative side, then you automatically let in every belief any crazy comes up with, including all of the ones above.

so to sum up

- proving a negative is not impossible, or else proving a positive is just as impossible
- I'm going to go kill some pixies brushing my teeth. mwahahah I AM THEIR GOD

-spoon

CryoDragoon

10-11-2005, 06:09 AM

http://www.downloads.nl/cgi-bin/meta/do/np...borne&where=mp3 (http://www.downloads.nl/cgi-bin/meta/do/nph-zoek.cgi?qry=what+if+god+is+one+of+us+joan+osborne&where=mp3)

:wink:

Ex Nine

10-11-2005, 06:16 AM

http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_1490.html

;)

kimpossible

10-11-2005, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by Ex Nine
Why did you choose to interact with us mortals?

For vengence? But if you wanted that, why not just interact with us directly so that we implode?

naw, vengeance can be taken from On High. Much easier. Besides: You have toys I can take and break as I desire. Coastlines, cities, mud huts. You seem to get all excited when I do.

Nope... You were all an experiment into what would happen to a bunch of monkeys running around with basically free-will.

Once that experiment has run its course, I'll just format the planet and start over.

The end is nigh upon you!

Ex Nine

10-11-2005, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by kimpossible
You have *toys I can take and *break as I desire. *Coastlines, cities, mud huts.

Earthquakes and mudslides are pretty big smitings... when you do these things, are you only smiting non-believers? And if the corporeal being, Kim, is really a small part of your existence, then it seems people could still believe you created the world if they never met your current corporeal manifestation. How else could you give them a chance?

So it appears the onus has shifted from the simple notion of whether or not you created the world to a more complicated one, whether or not you are a corporeal manifestation of an incorporeal Creator, who potentially has other manifestations.

How many new parameters are you going to add? Did you smite Occam too?

kimpossible

10-11-2005, 09:00 AM

You're a pretty skilled interrogator, but you can't hold a candle to the Spanish Inquisition. Those bastards were near and dear to me.

----------

The point to the corporeal manifestation is to observe the experiment "up close and personal". The 50 bazillion-foot view only gets you so much, ya know?

Think of the mudslides and earthquakes and suchlike as kicking an anthill to watch the ants scurrying around. After all, in your own petty experiments you kill rats and pigs and chimps and such, right? That's not spite or smite but just taking stuff apart to see the results. Since I created this universe as a giant test-case (that you can hardly conceive even the tiniest smidgen of...), I have mainly let it run its course. Every now and then I shake it up a little to see the results.

-----------

Naw, I kinda like Occam. He gave everyone the clue to understanding the majority of my experiment. G.U.T. (Grand Unified Theory) is what you would call it. And at G.U.T.'s core is Occam's razor. So far, though, none of you have been able to capitalize on those clues.

I do find it amusing watching your efforts to try!

Ex Nine

10-11-2005, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by kimpossible
You're a pretty skilled interrogator, but you can't hold a candle to the Spanish Inquisition.

Kind of like, \"here's what I think you're guilty of... okay, now confess.\" I'll try the carrot before the stick with my potential Creator!

That's not spite or smite but just taking stuff apart to see the results.[/b]

What guarantee do your believers have that you won't "take them apart to see the results?"

If you're a supremely powerful being, there's nothing that can stop you from exercising your power as you see fit. So what benefit is there to kick over an ant hill, but ask the ants to believe that you did it?

Yeah, too bad about the Roman Inquisition... letting Galileo's work get out under the guise of fiction. Very sloppy of you! ;)

dreamtamer007

10-11-2005, 05:22 PM

Babble..
You all got one phrase right. There is only one god

kimpossible

10-11-2005, 08:27 PM

And that's me. Until you can prove otherwise.

----------

I do "take them apart" - that's what the mudslides and earthquakes and hurricanes and whatnot are all about. Again - you have to see how they react under conditions that they haven't predicted.

Free will is a tough thing to model without going all out and building a test-case. That's the point to the whole thing.

Galileo - again, there's a smart guy. For his time. It's not like I'm trying to repress the ants. I'd be tickled pink if you guys figured out GUT and how I put it all together. What good is a work of art if none are sophisticated enough to appreciate it?

Ex Nine

10-11-2005, 10:13 PM

Belief in you will prevent smiting but it will not prevent being taken apart. But smiting (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=smiting) can be used as a means to taking something apart. How are we to tell the difference between your scientific investigation and your vengence?

Next, I'm going to tickle you pink. ;)

Awaken4e1

10-19-2005, 02:26 PM

Again another Serious :hijack: (k)impossible!

Ex Nine

10-19-2005, 03:01 PM

Come on, Awaken, she makes them interesting.

Look around and you'll find religious threads with the same conversations and same arguments and the same conclusions (or lack thereof) in every other forum on the Internet. I'm just estimating, there, on the "every," but doing so reasonably.

If you want, you can help me prove that she's not the Creator. And maybe God can help you with that. I've been getting more help from Kim herself in proving she's not the Creator than I've been getting from that aquatic monstrosity, Jesus.

Awaken4e1

10-19-2005, 05:00 PM

I'm sorry to hear that, but haven't you ever considered that it is Jesus working through (k) impossible?

Ex Nine

10-19-2005, 05:26 PM

No.

But now that you mention it, that should really belong in the funniest jokes you've ever heard (http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20936) thread.

Awaken4e1

10-19-2005, 05:39 PM

He who is sitting in the heavens doth laugh, The Lord doth mock at them.

Ex Nine

10-19-2005, 05:46 PM

If Jesus is working through Kim, then I guess you have no choice but to bow down before her, then.

Awaken4e1

10-19-2005, 05:54 PM

When I bear witness to the Sprit of God in her I will...

Ex Nine

10-19-2005, 06:46 PM

Are you sure you're not bearing false witness?

Placebo

10-20-2005, 04:30 AM

Be nice and on topic please :wink:

Awaken4e1

10-20-2005, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Placebo
Be nice and on topic please :wink:

Its nice to see a calm reasoning person in here...

Barbizzle

11-14-2005, 01:03 PM

haha Kim, your great :P

AirRick101

11-17-2005, 11:36 AM

If you can't prove a negative, you might as well not be able to prove a positive either. Why? Every statement that exists rest on some intangible justification, any "reason" that "within certain parameters" will explain why something is a certain way. We can never gather all the factors to determine what really causes what. At best, we have guesses, but not to say they're not education guesses.

Goddess Kim hasn't responded in a while. You think she is taking her 7th day?

Awaken4e1

11-17-2005, 01:05 PM

Goddess Kim hasn't responded in a while. *You think she is taking her 7th day?[/b]

That will never happen, it takes peace to rest

Ex Nine

11-17-2005, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
That will never happen, it takes peace to rest

Are you trying to prove a negative?

kimpossible

11-18-2005, 12:45 AM

Cut me some slack! Being this ambivalent is a lot of work!

dragonoverlord

11-18-2005, 09:57 AM

I would not feel conmfortable describing the christian god as being named jehovah.

Awaken4e1

11-18-2005, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by dragonoverlord
I would not feel conmfortable describing the christian god as being named jehovah.

Try these...

# Elohim (God)
# Jehovah/Yahweh (the self-existent one: I AM)
# Jehovah-jireh (the Lord will provide)
# Jehovah-rapha (the Lord who heals)
# Jehovah-nissi (the Lord our banner)
# Jehovah-Shalom (the Lord our peace)
# Jehovah-ra-ah (the Lord my shepherd)
# Jehovah-tsidkenu (the Lord our righteousness)
# Jehovah-shammad (the Lord is present)
# Jehovah-Elohim (the Lord God)
# Jehovah Sabaoth (the Lord of hosts)
# El Elyon (the most high God)
# Adonai (our master)
# El Shaddai (Almighty God, the strength giver)
# El Olam (everlasting God)