Let's Pretend (an inspirational hymn)

[InTheMoment]

Let's Pretend

Jesus doesn't love us
But let's pretend he does.
He wasn't resurrected
But let's pretend he was.


There is no hell below us
Nor above eternal bliss.
No life for us after our death
But let's pretend there is.


Oh let's pretend, yes let's pretend!
Don't sit upon the fence!
Come join us in our fantasy
Of glorious pretence.


Our sun is not the biggest
Nor brightest of all stars.
We're not the centre of the cosmos
But let's pretend we are.


Our faith's not based on reason
Nor founded upon rock.
It's just the fruit of self-deceit,
But let's pretend it's not.


Oh let's pretend, yes let's pretend!
Don't trust intelligence,
That's just a way they'll try to sway
You from your sweet pretence.


The Bible's not the word of God
Its authors had no clue,
About the world they lived in,
But let's pretend it's true.


Oh let's pretend, pretend, pretend!
Pretend once more for luck.
For on pretending we depend
- It sure beats growing up.

[R.Carter]

Now that's funny ! When I first read about the creation ( ha! ) of this forum I figured I'd
probably never set foot for fear of zealot stampede. Happily mistaken ! I've been
smirking at organized religion all by my lonesome for years , now I have a true
bretheren.
Curious,though,InTheMoment,what do you believe? I posed this ? to another member
and am now reading the links he responded with. Maybe I'll post it as a topic.
Thanks for the chuckle.RC.

[InTheMoment]

Thanks big R, you do indeed have many bretheren on this forum.

I believe that no one knows where we come from and why we exists. Science has made the greatest leaps toward acquiring this knowledge, but until a solid theory can be proven unfalsifiable, I will remain content in just existing.

[Rakkantekimusouka]

Great poem/song, ITM! :D

[Nirvana Starseed]

I believe that no one knows where we come from and why we exists. Science has made the greatest leaps toward acquiring this knowledge, but until a solid theory can be proven unfalsifiable, I will remain content in just existing.[/b]

You are unbelieving in general. Which does not help you.

You should consider that there have been many intelligent individuals that understand more that the average mainstream. And if you were to read their writings understand and learn from them the best way you can, if you were seriously trying to work out these questions for yourself. You would indeed begin to make alot of progress. But instead you are lazy and sit back and say that you will follow whatever mainstream science has to say. But collective progress is slow. You can progress of yourself much faster if you applied some effort. Once again if you are lazy and unbelieving about finding answers, and do not apply yourself. You will reap the rewards of that.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
You are unbelieving in general. Which does not help you.

You should consider that there have been many intelligent individuals that understand more that the average mainstream. And if you were to read their writings understand and learn from them the best way you can, if you were seriously trying to work out these questions for yourself. You would indeed begin to make alot of progress. But instead you are lazy and sit back and say that you will follow whatever mainstream science has to say. But collective progress is slow. You can progress of yourself much faster if you applied some effort. Once again if you are lazy and unbelieving about finding answers, and do not apply yourself. You will reap the rewards of that.
Many other intelligent people realized that true wisdom is in knowing that nothing can be known.

[Nirvana Starseed]

true wisdom is in knowing that nothing can be known.[/b]

Not everything, but many things can be known. This statement is purely incorrect. And serves to suggest one need not bother to think about anything because 'nothing can be known'. If I was to listen to this statement I would truly become braindead. Because it is disabling the mind, and that is the first step in controlling it. No wise person has ever said this.

[Tsen]

No, we do a lot of work in proving theorems. But science has limits. For one, you normally can't prove a negative. Because of this, we cannot prove that God DOESN'T exist. BUT that doesn't stop us from assuming he doesn't exist. Since we don't have any evidence supporting his existence, we don't bother going to worship said God. Occam's Razor and all that. Since God doesn't affect reality in any way that we know of at this point in time, there's no point adding a God into our current laws of nature. IF God all of a sudden burst out of the clouds, spewing lightning bolts and screaming in fury, we'd obviously have to alter our current views on the laws of nature to compensate for this new variable. We'd have to do the same if he manifested himself in some less dramatic fashion. But the likelyhood of a new variable all of a sudden appearing decreases as time proceeds. It will never be truly impossible for a God to appear, but it's more likely that if he was going to have an effect on our world, he'd have done so by now.

Basically, we'll work towards progress, but for the moment, God isn't affecting this world actively, so there's no point in seeking him out. Meanwhile, we cannot prove God doesn't exist, so burden of proof is on the accuser. You say there is a God, go proove it. We've been waiting for you to do so for quite a while now.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>we cannot prove that God DOESN'T exist. BUT that doesn't stop us from assuming he doesn't exist.[/b]

Really.....well that's very scientific of you...

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>Since we don't have any evidence supporting his existence, we don't bother going to worship said God.[/b]

Depends what said god you are looking for exackly. If you are looking for a male with a beard up in the sky. And that is your only idea of god, it is no wonder you don't find evidence of him sitting on a cloud. If you are looking for life in the universe in general. You will find alot of that, and you could call everything that exists god. Since it is the universe and all that exists after all.


Originally posted by Tsen
God doesn't affect reality in any way that we know of at this point in time

1) Again depends on your idea of god doesn't it.


Originally posted by Tsen
It will never be truly impossible for a God to appear

See above statement 1

<!--QuoteBegin-Tsen@
Basically, we'll work towards progress, but for the moment, God isn't affecting this world actively, so there's no point in seeking him out.

Seeking who out? See above statement 1

<!--QuoteBegin-Tsen
we cannot prove God doesn't exist, so burden of proof is on the accuser. You say there is a God, go proove it. We've been waiting for you to do so for quite a while now.

Depends what your idea of god is. If it is something that does not exist. While another person believes in the universe as god. Than one person has proof of their idea of god, while another does not have proof of a totally different idea of god.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>God isn't affecting this world actively, so there's no point in seeking him out.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Tsen
we cannot prove God doesn't exist, so burden of proof is on the accuser. You say there is a God, go proove it. We've been waiting for you to do so for quite a while now.


Say you take the stance of not believing anything until it is proven to you. (Sometimes its better to believe something until it is proven not to work. Or proven false. Sometimes it can be a great loss not to believe something that is possibly true.) Well Here is an example of your logic here In practice. In very basic terms.

A person is about to drown because his boat is sinking and he can't swim.
Someone says to him that he should hold on to this plastic object he is going to throw over to him.

he yells back that he doesn't believe if he holds onto this plastic object it will save him, he's believes it could possibly not hold his weight and he will sink anyway. So he assumes he will sink because there is no evidence otherwise.

The person trying to save him yells back, you may as well try and grab on to it and see.

But he yells back the burden of proof is on him, and what is the point when there is no evidence. He doesn't grab onto the object and waits for the person to prove that it can hold his weight.

The guy yells back that he's an idiot for not trying, and that he cannot jump in and show him, and once more screams to grab on to the plastic object and save himself.

again he yells back that there is no point because he believes it does not hold his weight and so cannot save him, and there is not proof at this moment to suggest otherwise.

He drowns......It turns out the plastic object floating in the water would have saved him easily

In the same way, one with this attitude, will never discover god.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Nirvana+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nirvana)</div>Not everything, but many things can be known. This statement is purely incorrect. And serves to suggest one need not bother to think about anything because 'nothing can be known'. If I was to listen to this statement I would truly become braindead. Because it is disabling the mind, and that is the first step in controlling it. No wise person has ever said this.[/b]
The truth is that you can't be 100% sure of anything except the fact that you exist. You can't be sure if you're awake or asleep, you can't be sure if you're dead or alive, you can't be sure if the wall behind you exists, or even the wall in front of you. Everything you've ever known could be a complex deception. Unlikely but not impossible. Once you accept this basic fact, you'll see much more clearly.

Originally posted by Nirvana@
you could call everything that exists god.
I could also call a jar of peanut butter God, doesn't make it so.

<!--QuoteBegin-Nirvana
A person is about to drown because his boat is sinking and he can't swim.
Someone says to him that he should hold on to this plastic boat he is going to throw over to him.

he yells back that he doesn't believe if he holds onto this plastic boat it will save him, he's not sure if it holds his weight or if it will sink.

The person trying to save him yells back, you may as well try and grab on to it and see.

But he yells back what is the point when there is no evidence.

The guy yells back that he's an idiot for not trying, and to grab on to the plastic boat and see if it will work.

again he yells back that there is no point because he believes it does not hold his weight and so cannot save him, and there is not proof at this moment to suggest otherwise.

He drowns......
There's one key flaw in this analogy. The floatation device theory is testable and falsifiable, God is not.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by brady+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(brady)</div>The truth is that you can't be 100% sure of anything except the fact that you exist [so there is an exception]. Once you accept this basic fact, you'll see much more clearly.[/b]

Your saying that once you accept this truth, you will understand that nothing can be known.
But how do I know what your saying can be known then? According to this logic, since nothing can be known, what you say, can also never be known to be true.....So you see you are directly contradicting yourself here. You have to in order to make what doesn't make sense logical. My above statement about this still stands true.


<!--QuoteBegin-brady
There's one key flaw in this analogy. The floatation device theory is testable and falsifiable, God is not.

Understand the example. It was testable yes, in the same way knowing god is also testable. Which you will not admit. Just like the guy in the example will not admit the object floats. He believes it is not testable, thats why he doesn't try it and waits for someone to prove it. You understand it is testable because it is a very basic example. It's meant to be, to show you how you are doing the same thing with your beliefs.

The point is you refuse to search for what is testable because you think it isn't.(or do not know how) I say this in response to Tsen because he mentions he does not look for god because he believes "god" is nonexistent. Atleast his concept of what he imagines god to be. In the same way the guy imagined his concept of the plastic object, and how it would most likely sink if he held onto it. If he had a bit of faith and just held on to the object, he may have found out that it actually floats! In the same way you can have a little bit of faith in the real concept of god, instead of your concept of it, and realize who and what god really is.

try and concerntrate and understand what I am saying lol.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Nirvana+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nirvana)</div>But how do I know what your saying can be known then? According to this logic, since nothing can be known, what you say, can also never be known to be true.....[/b]
You're finally starting to get it.

Originally posted by Nirvana@
So you see you are directly contradicting yourself here. You have to in order to make what doesn't make sense logical.
Please explain to me how anything (other than the fact that you exist) can be known. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

<!--QuoteBegin-Nirvana
god is also testable.
Um...what? You're going to have to explain that one too. While you're at it, please demonstrate how any theory of God is falsifiable. If you don't know what that word means, look it up.

[Nirvana Starseed]

You asking for my explaination or you just saying it in defense?

I will reply later, out of time.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
You asking for my explaination or you just saying it in defense?

I will reply later, out of time.
Asking.

[Tsen]

Nirvana, thank you for completely RAPING my original post.

I think you've missed the point entirely.

It is more or less impossible to prove a negative. No matter how hard people try, they cannot prove something DOESN'T exist without extra conditions being added. Now, if you asked somebody to prove that there wasn't a fairy in your left hand, that COULD be proved, but only because of the condition defining your left hand as the location. With no limits on timeframe or location, you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Therefore, you must prove that God DOES exist rather than the other way around. But since God (in any damn form you could think of) hasn't manifested himself in anyway that would even SLIGHTLY affect us, we have no reason to go creating an extra five million laws of nature (not to mention destroying all the old ones we used that wouldn't work any longer with a God thrown into the system) just to make room for a diety that has no reason to exist (since he/she/it isn't DOING anything for the moment.) Now, WHEN said diety DOES something, we'll have our reason, and science will move to compensate.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>just to make room for a diety that has no reason to exist (since he/she/it isn't DOING anything for the moment.) Now, WHEN said diety DOES something, we'll have our reason, and science will move to compensate.[/b]

Your idea of a sole diety as god only, is inaccurate. Proving it is therefore irrevelant. That's the main point of what I was saying.


Originally posted by brady+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(brady)</div>Please explain to me how anything (other than the fact that you exist) can be known. I'd love to hear your thoughts.[/b]

I have a television. That is something that is known to me. I am sitting in front of a computer. Many other things are known to me. Those are a few very basic physical examples. If you say it could all be an illusion of perception. Well you can say life is an illusion, but you know we are living it now. Experiencing it. It is not really enlightening or useful to suggest everything is an illusion. When we experience things. Experience is real. Regardless if its a illusion

Why can only 1 thing be known. That I exist. This is the hole in your logic. You say nothing can be known. Yet I know this. If I know this. Why can I not know other things aswell. The main point here is I know this and things not simply by the mechanics of science. But through ones own mind and soul does one realize things. Such as I exist. I have experienced things, demonstrating truth. Saying nothing can be known and it is all an illusion. Doesn't mean anything useful, when the experience is lived.

<!--QuoteBegin-brady@
You're going to have to explain that one too. While you're at it, please demonstrate how any theory of God is falsifiable. If you don't know what that word means, look it up. Brady, asking how god is testably provable

Going with something that you understand, You exist. Now at the least. Since you know this much, you should be able to realize yourself as part of god. Since everything that exists is a part of it's consiousness and existence. Since you can do this from realizing yourself. God is falsifiable from what you cannot deny. [yourself, reality] You may not have obtained the degree of consiousness which another more evolved entity has obtained.
This does not mean that both entitys are not part of the same thing.
Nor does it mean you understand what the concept god implies. You think god is a seperate thing from yourself? It is simply stating that you cannot deny yourself and reality, and all that exists being god. It is obvious when you ask how god is falsifiable or to prove gods existence to you. That it is everything and everywhere. You being a part of it, within it, and connected to it. You need to understand the oneness princible.

<!--QuoteBegin-god
I am who I am

When people talk about "god" and worshipping god. What is mainly suppose to be involved is "the light and power of the soul" which is the wisdom and truth,that is god-consiousness perception. That is the life, way, truth, and eternal glory of god.

[Tsen]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
Your idea of a sole diety as god only, is inaccurate. Proving it is therefore irrevelant. That's the main point of what I was saying.

No, it's irrelevant whether there's one God, two Gods, fifteen million Gods, or one omnipresent God that makes up everything we see/are/whatever.

ANY WAY YOU FREAKIN' PUT IT, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT SAID DIETY DOESN'T PRESENT ITSELF IN A WAY THAT WOULD VOID OUR PRESENT LAWS OF NATURE.

You can dodge the point all you want, but it doesn't change anything. No matter HOW God exists, or even IF he exists, God isn't DOING anything that isn't explained by our current laws of nature. Therefore we don't need to go out of our way to find and define said God, because it's irrelevant to our current situation. If you feel so inclined, feel free to seek out God and talk to him all you want. When you've got conclusive proof, come along and tell us and we'll start caring about it.

What you're doing is comparable to hampering a mechanic fixing a car. The mechanic is busy looking for any problems by investigating the car as it runs, observing any errors or flaws, then seeking the causes and fixing them. Meanwhile, you run into the room, yelling that the car is yellow, but you want it to be green. Now, the mechanic's been at work for years, and he knows quite a bit about how cars work, but he also knows that he isn't perfect and there's still more to learn. He asks you why the color matters, since as far as the mechanic knows, a green car won't run any better than a yellow car. Rather than respond to the question, you go off spouting about how the grass and the trees and your t-shirt are all green, and how stupid the mechanic is because he doesn't acknowledge the universal importance of the color green.

Now answer the damn question or get out of the garage.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Nirvana
I have a television. That is something that is known to me. I am sitting in front of a computer. Many other things are known to me.
Those are things you can be pretty sure of. But they can't be \"known\". Knowing something and being reasonably sure are two very different things. Your senses cannot be trusted as a reliable source of information.

Well you can say life is an illusion, but you know we are living it now.[/b]
Exactly, you know that you exist. Nothing more. Existence and experience is one in the same, to exist is to experience...what and when you experience is another can or worms. Just because you are experiencing something does not mean you can \"know\" what that is with any degree of certainty.

It is not really enlightening or useful to suggest everything is an illusion.[/b]
Agreed, but tht doesn't mean that that's not the way it is.

You say nothing can be known. Yet I know this. If I know this. Why can I not know other things aswell. The main point here is I know this and things not simply by the mechanics of science. But through ones own mind and soul does one realize things. Such as I exist. I have experienced things, demonstrating truth.[/b]
Everything you think you know is nothing more than a pattern of neurons firing in your brain. At least that's what experience tells us. It's equally possible that there's a pink elephant floating inside our head, but to our eyes, it just looks like slimy mush that we call a \"brain\".

Since everything that exists is a part of it's consiousness and existence.[/b]
That's an assumption (and a fairly poor one at that), not a fact.

God is falsifiable from what you cannot deny. [yourself, reality] You may not have obtained the degree of consiousness which another more evolved entity has obtained.[/b]
You clearly have no idea what falsifiable means. Don't respond until you can demonstrate that you do.

[Mark75]

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>
ANY WAY YOU FREAKIN' PUT IT, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT SAID DIETY DOESN'T PRESENT ITSELF IN A WAY THAT WOULD VOID OUR PRESENT LAWS OF NATURE.[/b]

Whoa! Déjà vu! Bears a striking resemblance to a post of my own to Nitpick Starburst regarding a suspiciously similar issue...

<!--QuoteBegin-Mark75


REALLY?! HOLY CRAP, STOP THE PRESSES!

Again, you demonstrate your lack of basic reading comprehension skills. I was answering the question by speaking hypothetically that if god did indeed exist, and that it was indeed all-powerful, that yes, of course he could create such a universe. It was the only answer that made sense under THAT DEFINITION OF GOD. I will write it very clearly for you: I DID NOT COME UP WITH THIS DEFINITION OF GOD. IT IS NOT MY PERSONAL DEFINITION. THIS IS A DEFINITION THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO HIM BY OTHERS. NOT ME.

You follow?

It seems our good friend Mr.Starface has a tendency to inspire such responses, what with the yelling in caps and all.

EDIT

I see Starman had the good taste to remove the words "King Logic" from below his name.

[InTheMoment]

Originally posted by Mark
I see Starman had the good taste to remove the words \"King Logic\" from below his name.
I think it was originally supposed to be LacKing Logic.

[Chainsaw Kitten]

Nice lyrics.

Christianity is basically the escapists dream. One can avoid reality and act as if one were all-knowing. One can live to die instead of living to live, and this makes the world a lot more acceptable.

Saying that humanity was born sinful is a lot easier than trying to perfect oneself.

[Nirvana Starseed]

In the moment where am I lacking logic, and why havn't you mentioned the reason.

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>ANY WAY YOU FREAKIN' PUT IT, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT SAID DIETY DOESN'T PRESENT ITSELF IN A WAY THAT WOULD VOID OUR PRESENT LAWS OF NATURE.[/b]

What exackly are you trying to say here, that god does not present itself? God is obviously present considering the existence of everything as a whole being god.

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>You can dodge the point all you want, but it doesn't change anything.[/b]

First do you understand what I am saying, if so, what is your point?

Originally posted by Tsen
No matter HOW God exists, or even IF he exists, God isn't DOING anything that isn't explained by our current laws of nature

why is does this god not doing anything against the laws of nature statement, have anything to do with gods existence?

Originally posted by Tsen
anything that isn't explained by our current laws of nature.
laws of nature are part of truth. What is your point here?

Originally posted by Tsen
Therefore we don't need to go out of our way to find and define said God
If you don't define what you mean when you say 'god' to me, how can you even know what your talking about, or what I am talking about? We must define what we mean when we say god, or the conversation is pointless.

<!--QuoteBegin-Tsen@
If you feel so inclined, feel free to seek out God and talk to him all you want. When you've got conclusive proof, come along and tell us and we'll start caring about it.

conclusive proof to you would be what?

<!--QuoteBegin-tsen
What you're doing is comparable to hampering a mechanic fixing a car. The mechanic is busy looking for any problems by investigating the car as it runs, observing any errors or flaws, then seeking the causes and fixing them. Meanwhile, you run into the room, yelling that the car is yellow, but you want it to be green. Now, the mechanic's been at work for years, and he knows quite a bit about how cars work, but he also knows that he isn't perfect and there's still more to learn. He asks you why the color matters, since as far as the mechanic knows, a green car won't run any better than a yellow car. Rather than respond to the question, you go off spouting about how the grass and the trees and your t-shirt are all green, and how stupid the mechanic is because he doesn't acknowledge the universal importance of the color green.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you explain this analogy? Why do I want the mechanic to have a green car and what does this have to do with anything?

[InTheMoment]

What you're doing is comparable to hampering a mechanic fixing a car. The mechanic is busy looking for any problems by investigating the car as it runs, observing any errors or flaws, then seeking the causes and fixing them. Meanwhile, you run into the room, yelling that the car is yellow, but you want it to be green. Now, the mechanic's been at work for years, and he knows quite a bit about how cars work, but he also knows that he isn't perfect and there's still more to learn. He asks you why the color matters, since as far as the mechanic knows, a green car won't run any better than a yellow car. Rather than respond to the question, you go off spouting about how the grass and the trees and your t-shirt are all green, and how stupid the mechanic is because he doesn't acknowledge the universal importance of the color green.


I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you explain this analogy? Why do I want the mechanic to have a green car and what does this have to do with anything?[/quote]
I thought the analogy was quite fitting. If you didn't understand it, then perhaps you should reevaluate every post in this thread and try to determine whether or not you grasp what others have been, blatantly, pointing out.

God is obviously present considering the existence of everything as a whole being god.
From what source are you gathering evidence from, to make such a bold assertion?

[Nirvana Starseed]

InTheMoment if you understand the analogy feel free to explain it to me.

First so we do not watse any time. What is your idea of god? Then I will tell you if it exists.

God is obviously present considering the existence of everything as a whole being god.
]From what source are you gathering evidence from, to make such a bold assertion?[/quote]

This statement involves an entire princible, How is it a bold assertion to aknowledge this princible, Are you asking for evidence of it? What is evidence to you and what kind of evidence are you looking for in regards to this statement? I need you to be more precise if you have a problem with anything I am saying.

[InTheMoment]

InTheMoment if you understand the analogy feel free to explain it to me. [/b]
In a nutshell...you are challenging ideas and methodologies that have a lot of clout and are well established, with your (rather conceited) notions about \"oneness\" and the \"truth.\"

You don't provide any evidence or source references to back your opinion, yet you continue on and on about how your idea of god/afterlife/dimensions is the truth.

This statement involves an enitre princible, How is it a bold assertion to aknowledge it, Are you asking for evidence? what is evidence to you and what kind of evidence are you looking for in regards to this statement. Be more precise.[/b]
ANY evidence or source information would be a start. You say god is everything, therefore everything must be god. What makes you think this exactly?

First so we do not watse any time. What is your idea of god?[/b]
I don't believe in god(s).

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by inthemoment
you are challenging ideas and methodologies that have a lot of clout and are well established, with your (rather conceited) notions about \"oneness\" and the \"truth.\"

Just because a certain idea (religious or not) is well established, does not mean that it is a sensible or true notion. Or that is should not be challenged. There is nothing wrong with challenging what does not make sense.

Originally posted by Inthemoment+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Inthemoment)</div>You don't provide any evidence or source references to back your opinion, yet you continue on and on about how your idea of god/afterlife/dimensions is the truth.[/b]

I wasn't aware that the discussion required posting constant source references behind everything you do not agree with. Logic is a form of evidence in itself if one is capable of understanding the notion. If something is not logical, explain how so. If you require references, explain what you want precisely.


<!--QuoteBegin-Inthemoment
I don't believe in god(s).
Then I still don't understand the purpose behind your posts involving questions like, "Is God this or that" and "Can God create this or have that" When you clearly state you do not believe in the concept "God" at all. I just don't see what you are trying to achieve, or what the main point is, with these kind of posts, involving god. Which I have clearly explained to you, what does not make sense about the theory you present. And then you say, I know I know. I was being hypothetical. (and at the same time the theory is illogical, but maybe the idea or notion is well established) So i am left with the question well what is the point of posting it? That it is not true? If your main point is that it does not make sense. I don't know why you are posting it.

[InTheMoment]

Originally posted by Nirvana
Just because a certain idea (religious or not) is well established, does not mean that it is a sensible or true notion. Or that is should not be challenged. There is nothing wrong with challenging what does not make sense.
True, but what exactly does not make sense to you?

Then I still don't understand the purpose behind your posts involving questions like, \"Is God this or that\" and \"Can God create this or have that\" When you clearly state you do not believe in the concept \"God\" at all. I just don't see what you are trying to achieve, or what the main point is, with these kind of posts, involving god. Which I have clearly explained to you, what does not make sense about the theory you present. And then you say, I know I know. I was being hypothetical. (and at the same time the theory is illogical, but maybe the idea or notion is well established) So i am left with the question well what is the point of posting it? That it is not true? If none of it is true, and that is your main point, why post it to begin with.[/b]
My OP was intended for the Christians on this site, who believe that god is omnibenevolent. If this doesn't fit under your interpretation of god, then why bother responding?

Logic is a form of evidence in itself if one is capable of understanding the notion. [/b]
Saying that god is everything and everything is god, is not very logical. I agree it's convenient to think that way, but your concepts of god are purely subjective.

I wasn't aware that the discussion required posting constant source references behind everything you do not agree with.[/b]
Well until you do this, your arguments will remain unfounded and unconvincing.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by Inthemoment+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Inthemoment)</div>what exactly does not make sense to you?[/b]

What does not make sense to me is a god that is a supernatural infinitely powerful entity seperate from ourself and everything, That sends people to a physical hell with flames etc.

Originally posted by inthemoment+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(inthemoment)</div>My OP was intended for the Christians on this site, who believe that god is omnibenevolent. If this doesn't fit under your interpretation of god, then why bother responding?[/b]

I wasn't refering to this post but nevermind about that. I responded because I could see some misconceptions in the thread that I wanted to try and clear up.

<!--QuoteBegin-Inthemoment@
Saying that god is everything and everything is god, is not very logical. I agree it's convenient to think that way, but your concepts of god are purely subjective.

Why is it not logical. This is only a part of what I consider god is. There is more involved than oneness. But it is a major part of what we were talking about.

<!--QuoteBegin-inthemoment
Well until you do this, your arguments will remain unfounded and unconvincing.

Wait till a precise issue is being discussed about it, then I will explain it in detail, and post references where needed, Otherwise its difficult to know where to start. And it's difficult to know what you are disagreeing with an why. When it is stated that all my arguments are unfounded and unconvincing, it is being very general. Without discussing a particular subject or issue.

[Tsen]

Look, like I said Nirvana, it is irrelevant whether there is one God seperate from us or there is one God that makes up everything. My beliefs are irrelevant for this example.

I'll try to explain (using the smallest words possible): We have never seen, heard or felt any God here on earth. Not in any way that couldn't be explained by something other than a God. Simply put, God hasn't done anything Godly here on earth. With our current understanding of phyics, biology, chemistry and science in general, we can explain everything that has happened here on earth as far as we know. Therefore, you cannot prove God exists with any evidence from here on earth that we have gathered so far. He may be behind the things we've seen, but we cannot prove that he does or does not exist with current evidence. In essence, God hasn't come down and said "Hey you! I exist!" or anything similar. Therefore you cannot scientifically prove that God exists at the moment, at least unless you go and gather some new, undiscovered data. Now, YOU do not KNOW that God exists the way you think he does. You can suspect it all you want, and I certainly won't stop you from believing what you will, but you can't PROVE it. Now, don't even bother dissecting this post for the slightest deviation from your theory of God. We've been down that trail before, and like I said, it doesn't matter for this argument. God hasn't manifested himself EITHER as a bearded man sitting up in heaven OR as some grand one-ness.

UNTIL God manifests himself in whatever form, you can't prove much about anything.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by Tsen
Look, like I said Nirvana, it is irrelevant whether there is one God seperate from us or there is one God that makes up everything. My beliefs are irrelevant for this example.

I'll try to explain (using the smallest words possible): We have never seen, heard or felt any God here on earth. Not in any way that couldn't be explained by something other than a God. Simply put, God hasn't done anything Godly here on earth. With our current understanding of phyics, biology, chemistry and science in general, we can explain everything that has happened here on earth as far as we know. Therefore, you cannot prove God exists with any evidence from here on earth that we have gathered so far. He may be behind the things we've seen, but we cannot prove that he does or does not exist with current evidence. In essence, God hasn't come down and said \"Hey you! I exist!\" or anything similar. Therefore you cannot scientifically prove that God exists at the moment, at least unless you go and gather some new, undiscovered data. Now, YOU do not KNOW that God exists the way you think he does. You can suspect it all you want, and I certainly won't stop you from believing what you will, but you can't PROVE it. Now, don't even bother dissecting this post for the slightest deviation from your theory of God. We've been down that trail before, and like I said, it doesn't matter for this argument. God hasn't manifested himself EITHER as a bearded man sitting up in heaven OR as some grand one-ness.
UNTIL God manifests himself in whatever form, you can't prove much about anything.


I never thought I'd have a favourite post. But this has to be my favourite post at DV. Tsen :goodjob:


Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div> it is irrelevant whether there is one God seperate from us or there is one God that makes up everything. My beliefs are irrelevant for this example.[/b]
Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>With our current understanding of phyics, biology, chemistry and science in general, we can explain everything that has happened here on earth as far as we know[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-Tsen@
God hasn't done anything Godly here on earth
<!--QuoteBegin-Tsen
don't even bother dissecting this post for the slightest deviation from your theory of God.

:rolllaugh:

[Mark75]

... Was that supposed to be a retort?

He totally smashes your nonsense to peices and the best you can come up with is " :rolllaugh:" ? Oh, wait, let me guess: you ran out of time and will respond later.

[Nirvana Starseed]

I just thought it was funny.......

I will respond to the post soon, next post I make bonehead.

I am proud you have kept that name I made you u know.

[Mark75]

Originally posted by Nyjer Birdseed+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nyjer Birdseed)</div>I just thought it was funny.......[/b]
This seems to be a sort of fail-safe response of yours. Out of spite, I went and dug this up from a previous thread:
Originally posted by Numbass Halfbreed+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Numbass Halfbreed)</div>
Originally posted by God

I take responsibility for my own actions, statements, and beliefs.

Your sig says you take no responsibility, for intepretation of posts, or your views which are subject to change, and no warranty for your offensiveness.
[/b]
Originally posted by In response+ I--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(In response @ I)</div>
Seems to me like the interpretation of said post would be YOUR action. I fail to see the contradiction.
[/b]
To which you responded:
<!--QuoteBegin-Seeing Stars
I never said it was a contradiction. I just said it was stupid. lol
ITM cheer up, u know its funny.

<!--QuoteBegin-Nauseating Starspoon@

I will respond to the post soon, next post I make bonehead.
Did I call it, or what?
<!--QuoteBegin-Nirvana Starsheep

I am proud you have kept that name I made you u know.
You know why I kept it, right? It was a gesture to show how little it affected me to be called "bonehead". Seriously... bonehead... that's just weak...

[eXistenZ]

Originally posted by Tsen
Nirvana, thank you for completely RAPING my original post.

I think you've missed the point entirely.

It is more or less impossible to prove a negative. No matter how hard people try, they cannot prove something DOESN'T exist without extra conditions being added. Now, if you asked somebody to prove that there wasn't a fairy in your left hand, that COULD be proved, but only because of the condition defining your left hand as the location. With no limits on timeframe or location, you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Therefore, you must prove that God DOES exist rather than the other way around. But since God (in any damn form you could think of) hasn't manifested himself in anyway that would even SLIGHTLY affect us, we have no reason to go creating an extra five million laws of nature (not to mention destroying all the old ones we used that wouldn't work any longer with a God thrown into the system) just to make room for a diety that has no reason to exist (since he/she/it isn't DOING anything for the moment.) Now, WHEN said diety DOES something, we'll have our reason, and science will move to compensate.


I understand your point here Tsen, still I would challenge it. Showing that something doesn’t exist... is the current way to do some type of research... The null hypothesis in statistics is the rule, not the exception: you prove that something doesn’t exist in order to make your point. For instance, in mean comparison the researchers show that two means are not equal, they do not show exactly what they are. So they advance through demonstration of what is not.

You claim that God did not do anything in this reality. By claiming this, you don’t demonstrate much. Let’s deal for a moment with the most reported experience of deities’ manifestations: why we should discard those who claim to have seen God, Vishnu or whatever (thus a manifestation in this reality)? Some of them even claim that they were healed by some deity while science, according to some reports, would just forecast for sure the death of the subject.

In those cases, science allegedly did everything to prove that the facts were just natural, but failed. I personally think that most of those healings are explainable in other terms than deity’s intervention (suggestions, fake reports, misunderstandings), but the point is more subtle: why one should believe in science when science state that God doesn’t exists and the same subject does not believe in science when science would forecast by certain something (death of the ill) that reality disconfirms (healing)?

By stating that the scientists were not honest, that the reports were imprecise, that there was a trick and so on, one would just introduce justifications about science that are at the same and exact level of the justifications of those who believe in a deity. Same superstitions.

eXistenZ

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by Tsen
We have never seen, heard or felt any God here on earth. Not in any way that couldn't be explained by something other than a God.

This is your perception of god you are talking about here. My main point is that god can only be realized within, if not realized and understood there, outside realization such as physical evidence or outside forms has no effect at all and is not enough to convey and reveal what is needed to realize that \"concept\" that we are talking about.

It's been said that God is inside, Satan outside. That analogy is demonstrating that authority from outside sources or people is not reliable, and can be false. Where as looking within yourself is 100% reliable.

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>Simply put, God hasn't done anything Godly here on earth.[/b]

It depends what you define as godly. Alot of amazing and good things happen, and have happened, and will continue to happen on earth.

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>With our current understanding of phyics, biology, chemistry and science in general, we can explain everything that has happened here on earth as far as we know.[/b]

We are far from understanding all the mysteries, we do have some kind of basic to moderate understanding about these subjects. But there is still a way to go. There is alot more to be discovered. But as far as we know about it, we can to that extent, explain things so your right.

<!--QuoteBegin-Tsen@
Therefore, you cannot prove God exists with any evidence from here on earth that we have gathered so far.

You should try and understand it's one idea about god, that will make you state something like this. If you think god has to be a supernatural entity outside you, that talks to you and tells you I am god directly. Than I understand why you can't find any outside evidence. but once again its not outside evidence that will allow you to understand.

<!--QuoteBegin-Tsen
God hasn't manifested himself EITHER as a bearded man sitting up in heaven OR as some grand one-ness. UNTIL God manifests himself in whatever form, you can't prove much about anything.

Science still has a bit to go before it will discover without question the oneness structure of the universe. Then it will be easier to understand after science evolves more, exackly what I am trying to say.

I think your perception of god is different to mine. That is why I think that it is relevant what your beliefs about god are, because that is where the misconception we are having comes from. Our different views about it's definition in general.

[Tsen]

Hm...perhaps the words I used weren't quite small enough.

I'll try one last time:
The Oneness (Or God...whatever the hell you call him/it/she) hasn't given us any proof that they exist. I used the example of them coming down and saying, "Yo, I exist!" as a hyperbole. The fact is, NO scientific evidence has been gathered to show God exists in any form. That could change, but for the moment that's the way things are. NOTE: Personal beliefs or manifestations ARE NOT EVIDENCE. Since there could be a chance of the event being a hallucination by that person, or just a blatant lie altogether, they aren't substantial evidence. I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm saying that's what COULD HAVE happened.

Nirvana, like I said, I don't have any peculiar beliefs on God, and my beliefs are irrelevant for this discussion. I'm trying to see things through your eyes, and I'm saying that while YOU COULD BE RIGHT, you have NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOURSELF. I'm showing you why ANY GOD has no backing evidence. That includes your one-ness as well as the "bearded man in heaven" idea. BOTH have no backing.

Now, Existenz. Thanks for actually thinking about your post, I really appreciate it. For the most part, I agree, but I think that you've made an assumption that I haven't. Statistically, yes, you do prove things using the null hypothesis. But that's not the same type of proof I'm talking about. First, in statistics you NEVER prove something wrong that way. You remove all reasonable doubt (Say you're using an alpha level of .05, then you're showing that you're 95% sure, and if you were using an alpha level of .00001, then you're showing that you're 99.999% sure.), but you never fully PROVE anything. Excuse me if I quote myself:

But the likelyhood of a new variable all of a sudden appearing decreases as time proceeds. It will never be truly impossible for a God to appear, but it's more likely that if he was going to have an effect on our world, he'd have done so by now.
[/b]

This goes along exactly with what you're saying. We cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Not the way I'm seeing it, anyways. BUT, given enough time, we could deduce that he doesn't exist, beyond a reasonable doubt. We could be 99.999999999% sure that God doesn't exist, but there'd still be the most remote chance that we would still discover him.

In short, YES, statistics proves things using a null hypothesis. But NO, statistics do not actulaly PROVE these things. There's always the margin of error--still a chance for things to be proven otherwise.

[Nirvana Starseed]

ok basically Tsen your saying there is no evidence.

In the context you are speaking, It's because science has not evolved enough to understand.

When ones scientific knowledge is sufficient however, ones spiritual understanding must therefore be equal to it, and thus there will be what you could call "evidence" of the subject.

Until that point, it is simply not known by the individual. But you cannot say that it IS known. and that what I claim is proven false. It is by no stretch of the imagination proven false.
But it is not understood yet by mainstream science and collective understanding. And so it is even thought that there is little possibility that any more can be discovered. But this has always been the case. You will see dramatic changes in perception as higher concepts unfold. One example is the earth being flat then perceieved round. Was a shocking revelation, and that is only a basic example.

My impression is you consider there is a remote chance your perception and understanding of science will ever change dramatically. But I suggest that it will change even more dramatically that you imagined, as concepts you never expected are discovered and revealed, about how things work. When this happens. Old scientific models are cast away as a result of the greater understanding.

About god, I am saying from my personal experience it is so. But I know that it means nothing to you. In regards to evidence. Once laws of the universe are understood enough, they can be used to ones advantage, and thus freedom is achieved in this way. God could be a term used for the intuitive wisdom and intelligence perceived in the existence of these laws. Which science AND religion, try to understand in their own ways. On the inside and on the outside. In the end it is only the individual that must understand for themself. Society can hinder, or help. But as the saying goes a horse can only be lead to water, or not lead. Either way its up to the horse to drink the water.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
Once laws of the universe are understood enough, they can be used to ones advantage, and thus freedom is achieved in this way.
I'd make the exact oppostie assertion. The more the laws of the universe are understood, the more we realize that we're meaningless smudges of excrement on rock floating around in the middle of a vast sea of near nothingness.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
Once laws of the universe are understood enough, they can be used to ones advantage, and thus freedom is achieved in this way.

An example of this princible, when it was discovered that low air pressure and high air pressure could be induced by movement and wings of a machine to create lift, and from the observation of birds, together with the knowledge of engines. We were able to create machines that allowed us to travel in the sky in a similar fashion. So we overcame the law of gravity in that way. And were then free to use the laws of flight that we had discovered.

[Tsen]

Alright, with the exception of some meaningless junk, I can agree with your last post, Nirvana. In fact, that's EXACTLY what I've been saying this whole time.

AT THE MOMENT, with the current state of technology, WE CANNOT PROVE GODS EXISTENCE. I never said that God didn't exist, merely that he/it hasn't manifested itself in a way that would exclusively prove the existence of God. That doesn't stop you from believing what you will, but it DOES mean that you can't go around using your faith as proof. If you ever want to convert somebody, you'll need to do more than just say what you believe. You'll have to give THEM something to believe, and a reason to believe it. YOU STILL HAVEN'T DONE THIS. You run around, dodging the point and nitpicking at anything and everything EXCEPT the bulk of the post.

I DO believe that science will undergo mass changes in the future. It's pretty much inherent. We don't know everything, but as we come to know more, the models we use to represent our knowledge will have to change. I DO NOT, however, believe that such changes will reveal God, in any form. I'm more inclined to side with Brady. The more we know, the more we'll know that we're just inconsequential specks in the universe (albeit very arrogant specks).

So, yes, Nirvana, I AM saying there is no evidence to back you. I never said anything about the future--because for all I know God could pop up tomorrow. But NOW, HERE, there is no evidence to support your claim. And you've as much as admitted that you've got nothing in terms of proof, so kindly SHUT THE HELL UP UNTIL YOU GET SOME.


EDIT: Sorry, was busy working on this post when Nirvana posted again. To reply to that: We never broke the laws of gravity in any way. Airplanes just generate enough lift to balance the effect of gravity, but gravity is still present. If you shot the wings off a 737 in flight, it'd still fall. No old knowledge was proved wrong, instead, new knowledge was just added to the old. More appropriate would be something like the evolution of Atomic theory: In the past we thought that electrons moved in predictable orbits around the nucleus, but new knowledge has made that obscure--we now know that it is impossible to pinpoint the location of an electron at any one point in time, and they don't follow precise orbits at all, but form something more akin to a cloud of probability, wherein the electron could be at any any point at any time. That knowledge is also open to change, and likely will change in the future.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
When ones scientific knowledge is sufficient however, ones spiritual understanding must therefore be equal to it, and thus there will be what you could call \"evidence\" of the subject. I'm wondering what sufficient scientific knowledge would be to discover evidence for god? I ask because over the last few hundred years we have made some incredible advances in all areas of science. None of these advances have contributed to any sort of religious idea, and the great majority has actually helped to explain the natural world in a way which does not require god. Even today, in the most esoteric or theoretical branches of the sciences, huge discoveries are being made - and none of them require any sort of deity.

It's been said that God is inside, Satan outside. That analogy is demonstrating that authority from outside sources or people is not reliable, and can be false. Where as looking within yourself is 100% reliable. [/b] Looking within yourself is entirely subjective - hence is not reliable. You will see what you want to see, and you will only find re-inforcements to your worldview if you arent actively challenging it. The whole point of scientific observation is to try and be objective (insomuch as we have that capacity), and not have your conclusions led along by these subjective beliefs.

-spoon

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by Spoon
The whole point of scientific observation is to try and be objective

That is an interesting point to make here. However it must be remembered that it is impossible to be objective in the way you are thinking. We aknowledge that this is so. We are always trying to find whats true though. Finding whats true does not involve achieving objectivity in this way. But it does mean we go about looking within when we carry out our scientific approaches to our discoveries of these laws. Truth is evident and provable. And we tune into what is true and become in alignment with that. So are we being objective, or are we looking within to see truth?

Why is it impossible to be objective? It would make sense that being objective would mean being outside yourself. If god was one entity. God could never be outside itself.

[OvErEchO]

I missed this hymn. Bastards

[Rakkantekimusouka]

Originally posted by OvErEchO
I missed this hymn. Bastards
:huh:

[Nirvana Starseed]

I'm with you Ramu

[InTheMoment]

You mean to tell me that you guys aren't related?

[Rakkantekimusouka]

OK, now I'm even more confused...@_@

[ptahsokar]

If I'm reading things correctly here, Nirvana is saying that the existance of God is provable, whereas others are contending that it is unprovable.

The answer is "Yes" and "No" For whatever reason God has choosen to do so, He has insisted that proof of his literal existance must be proved on an individual basis.

The great crime of organized religion, IMO, is that it has taught mankind that the proof of God can be reached on a collective basis. With the weakening of state religions control over the masses, forward-thinking and reasonable people have "dared" to point out the flaw in this approach. That organized religion may facilitate this proof, it is true but it does not cause it.

I respect the Athiestic position that God cannot be "scientifically" proven, however I, along with Nirvana, assert that the existance of God can be proven on an individual basis AND that the proving of it (and the necessary acting upon any knowledge received) can be done in scientifically rigorous way.

Whether you call it the "Spirit of God" or "Soul Contact" or the host of various names that different beleif systems assign to the giving of this proof, transmitted by God and received individually in a way that removes all doubt (when it has achevied its fullness in you), it doesn't matter. What matters is that it is proof.

Many people in this world confess that they have received this proof. From a statistical viewpoint, there are many hundreds of millions of people worldwide who can look you in the eyes and in full honesty plainly tell you that they have recevied this proof AND that the proof has had a benificial result in their lives.

However, their proof does you not one lick of good. The proof has to be transmitted by God to the "heart" of an individual person. I bring up the statistical arguement only to argue that it is scienfitically indicated that the search for proof may turn up the proof sought after. The formation of a hypothesis, if you will.

Here is a scientific experiment that any honest person may perform that, if God determines that you are "fit" to learn the answer (ie. that you are sincere, and other criteria He may have that I am unaware of) that he will give it you:

Read those things that have been told you are scripture. Contemplate on the meaning of what you read. The amount read is up to you. Think about it over a time and then ask God in prayer if these things are true. You may be able to trick God into telling you that what you are reading is true. A clever scientific mind will comprehend that if they receive a confirmation of the truthfulness of it (in a deeply spiritual way that you will definately know if it happens to you, I can assure you of this) that the transmission of that sensation, feeling, spiritual feeling, whatever, had to originate from somewhere. If you can acheive this level of connectedness with God, its a cake-walk from there.

All you have to do is repeat the experiment with scriptures that talk about God, and when you receive a personal confirmation that what you are reading is true, there's your proof.

Any presentation of the mechanics of how this happens would be fruitless. Get the confirmation first, and then you can start on the path of discovering more about it. Nirvana has talked about "soul contact". La Dee Da. You aren't even at the start of the path yet, you aren't even in Kindergarden yet. Perhaps some of the Athiests are at the school bus stop, but I suspect that most of them are watching TV in the warm comfort of their homes.

No matter what Nirvana or myself or anyone that beleives in the existance of God says to the Athiest makes no difference. The desire to know HAS to be self-initiated. Putting a gun to your head and marching you into the nearest Church won't help, and will put a barrier in your mind of "I hate Church" and perhaps "I hate the idea of a God."

I just wanted to assure you that the techniques of how to get the proof are out there. I can promise you based on personal, scientific experience, that this is the case. It is you that must put one foot in front of the other, figuratively speaking, and seek out that which is waiting to find you.

Nothing more can be done than this, to tell you of the possibility of it.

[Ex Nine]

Originally posted by ptahsokar
Here is a scientific experiment that any honest person may perform that, if God determines that you are \"fit\" to learn the answer (ie. that you are sincere, and other criteria He may have that I am unaware of) that he will give it you:

No, that's not a scientific experiment, because it's not falsifiable.