Thread: Now a topic to really get the mind going...god.

because, i wanna see people opinions. but everyone is giving me shit and telling me the way i think its stupid. and its sad because what i said makes way more sense then what there saying. definition of god? wtf? if you dont know what god means...then wtf are u still doing here? and your not stupid for asking. question leads to answers. and obviously no one here has a answer for their own.

Who is truly more wise? One who questions his assumptions and what's taken to be "common sense", or one who just believes them without question?

Common sense tells us the world is flat and that if you sail too far from land you;ll fall of the edge of it. It tells us humans are obviously nothing like mere animals and couldn't possibly have evolved from monkeys.

It wasn't until people began to question these simple assumptions that we began ato advance toward greater understanding.

Do you really think your idea of God is exactly the same as everyone else's? If so ,then why are there so many different denominational churches? And why have so many terrible things been done in his name, which go directly against biblical commandments and Jesus' teachings? Could it be because different people interpret God differently, or in some cases even deliberately misinterpret to justify their own selfish deeds?

sero - lol show's how little you know. you do know what metaphor means right?LOL and HAHAHAHA evolution aren't real...yeah...ok. thats why we still have creatures from the dinosaur age, walking around in zoo's.
and saying "unless they prove it, then it was my plan" is exactly what i mean. you think god planned everything...hahaha. anyway this thread was pointless now. no one has answers and no one can think for themselves...which is sad. haha go back to your dream reality.

Well guys, who can argue with logic like that? Guess we've all been schooled.

obviously one believe them without question are not the wise one.
and i know people have different belief in god. that why there's different religion. BUT ALL THE RELIGION talks about one being who is supreme. see that?

lol no one can. because its logic of being human. question logic is what humans do. but know from logic and stupidity.

Originally Posted by Xei

No it isn't. The OP uses this assumption, it doesn't prove it. Why can't you tell the difference?

The OP poses questions that justify why there is a 90% belief in God and not 100% (correct me if I'm wrong, 420Dreamer), and solved his own problems by saying those questions essentially cannot be answered.

Really - is that what he's saying?

Its a bit hard to tell, through all the insults and aggression.

Doesn't make sense... Ok, let's assume that's actually what we're discussing. I'm really not at all sure if it is.

So if we're concerned only with the problem of "where did God come from?" and ignoring all other inconsistencies associated with the Christian religion, then 420Dreamer still needs to define what kind of God he's talking about, because it obviously isn't the uncreated creator who has always existed, which is the God of the bible. He seems to accept the bible except for this one point.

If you don't accept that God has always existed then why accept everything else about him?

You act like you know a lot about the beginning of the universe. Even the best physicists know very little about the early universe, so you are not exactly an authority on the matter.

For all you know, this universe could be just one bubble in a much bigger thing. Your premise, that the only two options are:

1) god created everything
2) matter came out of nowhere (nothing created something)

is wrong, since those are NOT the only two possibilities. Therefore, your conclusion is entirely unfounded.

420dreamer...stop double, triple, and quadruple posting. You can edit your previous post to add more to it, but do not double post again. Also, please refrain from being insulting and disrespectful to your fellow forum members. Official warning. And if the lot of you can't play nice, thread is going to get locked.

Originally Posted by 420Dreamer

LOL like i said...dumb..."pointed false" hahaha wow...really? did they gave me actually evidence that proved i was wrong? hahaha. all they did was disagree with me and gave me math facts wtf? he said this and i said that. but what i said is my own thinking plus other scientist thinking. I dont learn to point out others that their wrong. and learning to think on your own and outside the box is wayy better then following what others say -,- simple facts lost by the dumbs.

This will be my last post in this thread.

You've been rude, flippant, dismissive of arguments against your position, and you've insulted the members of this forum more than once. This kind of attitude will get you NOWHERE here. It doesn't take one long to find that most of us here at DV like a good debate, and likewise most of us here are fairly mature and thoughtful. If you're going to initiate a debate, at least provide a respectful and well thought out series of arguments.

In short, You stole fizzy lifting drinks! You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing! You LOSE!

GOOD DAY, SIR!!!

EDIT: hmm.....It appears I tend to get sniped when I leave a post half-written for 30 minutes.

Originally Posted by nina

420dreamer...stop double, triple, and quadruple posting. You can edit your previous post to add more to it, but do not double post again. Also, please refrain from being insulting and disrespectful to your fellow forum members. Official warning. And if the lot of you can't play nice, thread is going to get locked.

Wait a minute. Where did this come from? I didn't see double, triple and quadruple posting. I saw someone [420dreamer] who doesn't seem to want to do anything but call other members stupid and ask about what others think about God, but not listen to their answers, and not define what he means by the term god or the term religion though.

Originally Posted by DreamVail

But what is this person's definition of god? I've run into this so many times. People ask if I believe in god, but they do not define what they mean by god.

You're right, Integral Philosophers believe one starts their development based on an idea of right and wrong and projecting upon them, using a King God. They start off as separate, warring King Gods sacrificed to and shit but evolved into Almighty Gods that control everything but still behave like a person and carry the evolutionary tactic of making the followers believe everyone must acquire that religion. Then people acquire a level of empiricism and believe if you can't prove it it's probably not true. From there, you get to the next level of consciousness through understanding the true nature of reality and and see the undivided Self. God loses the devotional obligation and gains devotional practice as a means for freedom from suffering.

As humans develop they want different things and so have different Gods. Pleasure oriented people have a God that rewards and punishes as a reminder for them to behave themselves. Success oriented people have a relationship with their God, some believe their soldiers for their God, some believe he's backing their success. Justice oriented people are often either headed in the direction of skepticism or already there, concentrated on the practical means to make the world a better place. Consciousness oriented people understand the way to make the world better is to awaken themselves to higher awareness and unity.

By the way that's a generalization. What the person's God is may also change as there are many less-evolved atheists and very evolved theists. Evolved theists still acquire a level of skepticism, even if they don't disown God in the process they at least disown the false teachings and traditions of God that have been used for the lesser evolved purposes.

Originally Posted by DreamVail

Wait a minute. Where did this come from? I didn't see double, triple and quadruple posting.

Yeah, that's because I merged them. Thanks for the input though.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You're right, Integral Philosophers believe one starts their development based on an idea of right and wrong and projecting upon them, using a King God. They start off as separate, warring King Gods sacrificed to and shit but evolved into Almighty Gods that control everything but still behave like a person and carry the evolutionary tactic of making the followers believe everyone must acquire that religion. Then people acquire a level of empiricism and believe if you can't prove it it's probably not true. From there, you get to the next level of consciousness through understanding the true nature of reality and and see the undivided Self. God loses the devotional obligation and gains devotional practice as a means for freedom from suffering.

As humans develop they want different things and so have different Gods. Pleasure oriented people have a God that rewards and punishes as a reminder for them to behave themselves. Success oriented people have a relationship with their God, some believe their soldiers for their God, some believe he's backing their success. Justice oriented people are often either headed in the direction of skepticism or already there, concentrated on the practical means to make the world a better place. Consciousness oriented people understand the way to make the world better is to awaken themselves to higher awareness and unity.

By the way that's a generalization. What the person's God is may also change as there are many less-evolved atheists and very evolved theists. Evolved theists still acquire a level of skepticism, even if they don't disown God in the process they at least disown the false teachings and traditions of God that have been used for the lesser evolved purposes.

Do you study Jungian psychology? "Consciousness oriented people understand the way to make the world better is to awaken themselves to higher awareness and unity."
The Beauty of awareness.

ITT: Everything needs a cause therefore 'god' exists and has none.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

ITT: Everything needs a cause therefore 'god' exists and has none.

The logic is that god is without a cause, but "Everything" needs a cause. It's not very logical at all.

Originally Posted by DreamVail

Do you study Jungian psychology? "Consciousness oriented people understand the way to make the world better is to awaken themselves to higher awareness and unity."
The Beauty of awareness.

Yeah Integral Philosophy borrows a lot of terminology from Jung. In a way he's the father of the current Western approach to spiritual philosophy.

Originally Posted by DreamVail

The logic is that god is without a cause, but "Everything" needs a cause. It's not very logical at all.

Why does everything need a cause? God created the Universe and is beyond causality. How about that?

Causality is a projection.

He was critiquing the logic of the OP. Basically repeating what I said - I'll repost it to keep the question fresh:

420Dreamer still needs to define what kind of God he's talking about, because it obviously isn't the uncreated creator who has always existed, which is the God of the bible. He seems to accept the bible except for this one point.

If you don't accept that God has always existed then why accept everything else about him?

I'd like to hear from 420Dreamer on this.

Threads like this prove that most of the people around here have very good patience. It is actually refreshing to see patient people. Also, I don't know what is happening with politeness lately. I see that the discussion is already lost if there has been an attack against personal qualities of either side. *sigh*

I don't see any problem with the idea that matter just pops into existence. Sure, we cannot explain it as we do not posses the knowledge or means to study it properly. A being people often adress as god could as simply be the very first thing to assemble itself from the separate particles that popped into existence. Maybe not unlike how the first living creatures on earth began to combine and split their cells and evolve.

I think the most interesting part in this whole universum discussion is the concept of time within it. Time is by far one of the top philophical areas in my mind. Usually people want to know what happened in the beginning. Maybe there never was a beginning to begin with.

Time is often seen as a river that flows into one direction. Maybe it is just like a big sea of time where time goes every direction, beneath and above itself. Perhaps the universum creates itself again and again every moment.

Originally Posted by 420Dreamer

lol only dumb people wouldn't know the definition of god. my point proven case closed. all you guys are fuking idiot who can't think for themselves.

I am pretty sure you are either a bad troll or just another mind lost. Also I think you are very young. Either way I will have to comment on this. You have been repeatetly arrogant, aggressive and unpolite beyond measure to not even read what other people write to you. This already speaks for yourself and about your own personality and intellect. Actually I can tell pretty much already in the way you write your text.

Only a close minded, arrogant and ignorant person would think that there is only one definition for god. I doubt there would be so many religions around here if this was the case. We are representing our ideas through language, thus it is inevitable that there will be different opinions, misunderstandings and differences. That is why we must define what is our concept of "god". Be assured, what you think is not what I think.

Originally Posted by Unelias

I don't see any problem with the idea that matter just pops into existence.

I like your thought process, this being the case then you should equally not see a problem with the concept of any type of Deity existing.

Originally Posted by Unelias

Sure, we cannot explain it as we do not posses the knowledge or means to study it properly.

Then by definition this would fall outside of the realms of Science.

Originally Posted by Unelias

A being people often adress as god could as simply be the very first thing to assemble itself from the separate particles that popped into existence.

This would omit the God of Abraham as there is no substance that predates this particular God.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I like your thought process, this being the case then you should equally not see a problem with the concept of any type of Deity existing.

I don't see there is a particular problem. I have never really had problem with existence of any deity. I rather see it that there is no reason to worship one even if they existed. Nor I am ready to listen and believe any mortal human who tells me about that being.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Then by definition this would fall outside of the realms of Science.

This is true. I am no scientist and I don't have problem accepting the possibility that there is something we simply cannot perceive or understand by means of science or with our senses.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

This would omit the God of Abraham as there is no substance that predates this particular God.

I also think it would omit many other creator deities. In my eyes it is just another way to glorify the existence of absolute being. It would be a lot more lamer if there were just particles that combined itself by an accident leading to some kind of intelligent existence that started to shape the world. It is more grander that there is a being that has always existed.

Originally Posted by really

Why does everything need a cause? God created the Universe and is beyond causality. How about that?

Causality is a projection.

You do understand that I was saying that the logic that everything needs causes is fallible, and this means that logic itself is fallible, correctemundo?

Originally Posted by Unelias

Threads like this prove that most of the people around here have very good patience. It is actually refreshing to see patient people. Also, I don't know what is happening with politeness lately. I see that the discussion is already lost if there has been an attack against personal qualities of either side. *sigh*



I am pretty sure you are either a bad troll or just another mind lost. Also I think you are very young. Either way I will have to comment on this. You have been repeatetly arrogant, aggressive and unpolite beyond measure to not even read what other people write to you. This already speaks for yourself and about your own personality and intellect. Actually I can tell pretty much already in the way you write your text.

Only a close minded, arrogant and ignorant person would think that there is only one definition for god. I doubt there would be so many religions around here if this was the case. We are representing our ideas through language, thus it is inevitable that there will be different opinions, misunderstandings and differences. That is why we must define what is our concept of "god". Be assured, what you think is not what I think.

Your statements contradict themselves. Sort of like the kettle calling the pot black, eh?

My post was edited just why?