Thread: Let's Pretend (an inspirational hymn)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

... Was that supposed to be a retort?

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

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.

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 &#064; 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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I missed this hymn. Bastards

Originally posted by OvErEchO
I missed this hymn. Bastards

I'm with you Ramu

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

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

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.

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.