-
There is definitely no god7% Voted for by Edna Sweetlove, Princess Wolf.
This is so self-evident that further debate is pointless. There is NO god, there never has been, never will be. It's just an excuse for morons to avoid reality. This is scientific fact. Anyone who disagrees is a deluded simpleton.
-
How can one be sure that there is no God?7% Voted for by TeChNoWC, likewhatitis100.
I am seemingly unaware of these assurities of one's convictions and beliefs, except the denial of otherwise (which is denial). One just simply has faith in a concept that supports conviction rather than debasing it's own validity.
-
God will let the elect know for sure7% Voted for by Dwn, GaryCGibson.
If one is elected by God to be regenerated and saved, it will become clear to the lucky recipient of grace and salvation that God exists.
-
@Techno7% Voted for by Molzahn, C-a-s-m-e-r-o-k-u.
So you know revelation to be an irrefutable knowledge basis? Or do you believe so? …Through your words, are you trying to tell me you had a divine intervention showing you revelations' incorruptibility? If so, was it yours personally? Or another's? By church? By dream? Even if you believe you have experienced a revelation… even in the religious community it is questioned. For a belief, such as in the mindset of yourself, it is possible for a demon to modify memory and change your experience? how then do you know your world of religious experience is not tainted by these evils? How do you know you were not raised to believe evil is actually good? (Gospel of Judas). The truth bearing quality of revelation is not self-sustainable.
What is 'held as true' is not absolute certainty (we think of the world as 4 dimensional - string theory says 10 dimensions exist. Depending on the community, either idea will be held as true).
I'll translate what I said into your words, just for you: "this ideal argues nothing can be held as true!" = = "faith in MY solipsism hybrid convicts that every conviction is fallible, and thus conviction mustn't be accepted as common knowledge, but since my neural pathways connect the term faith with revelation and raw knowledge, instead of a synonym such as belief or CONVICTION (aka something held as true aka knowledge aka [strong] conviction), I can believe I didn't just make a contradiction, even though in my brain right now "God = True" . So I'm going to babble on how if you can see something it isn't necessarily there and can't be anything more than a thought, whereas something I was raised with and accepted as a child that I can't see and logically prove has to be true. Oh well… to hell with logic, I'm going to rant about semantics all day. Your convictions are stupid, cause you're an athiest, it's my conviction of an actualisation, I really don't mean to make 'derogatisations', but I refuse to look past an mechanical-anal-monotoned interpretations of words, which serve my hypothesis~ they are only convictions of what is, because obviously your being raped by a candy demon right now, so obviously you don't know if your memories haven't just changed to make you think I'm using the word wrong. Even though I've just made an assumption I hold as true I'm going to continue to convince everyone conviction is the only term you can use and that I really don't think it's true. apparently I think everyone who uses higher english has a superiority complex except for me, I'm so happy I almost know english, it's not condescending to simpletons in anyway…but that Molzahn guy… wow what an idiot. He doesn't know what he's saying. He only convicts stupidity… blah blah blah I am the cliche' christian who has a problem connecting alien concepts" ***that had sarcasm and a couple hyperboles in that if you didn't catch it - feel free to rebuttal my imitation and create your own btw***
Also when I mentioned "It is a meaninglessness argument to convince yourself no one can know anything for certain, concluding logic is useless" I was talking about how its ridiculous to extrapolate logic as being a useless tool, from the concept of uncertainty (as you constantly argue from). Yes, it's true, patterns are not in constant form, but pattern itself is a constant, ergo logic.
Perhaps it is simply from the fact nothing can be described absolutely via the inability of a logistical matrix to assimilate elements of one's environment into perfect conceptual vector equivalencies; namely because true physical equivalencies do not exist; hence the phrase "absolute certainty cannot exist, it is simply in the nature of perception." (certainty is an attribute of analyse. Ergo, it falls under the category of logics. Therefore the above may be rephrased as "Absolutes are the conceptual vectors of analyse, thus cannot be derived from perceptual input, as absolutes do not infact exist in reality")
"Not if your mind gets wiped or you got an alien probe in your head or something. You assume that your brain 'ought' always be clever enough to pick up all interference. A demon could be raping you right now, and wiping your memories every nanosecond. But you can't prove one isn't. You're not aware of the damn thing, supposedly."
If something is tangible physically it is measurable by nature.
If something can be measurable, it causes influence. Influences are measurable, because they can be perceived. I refer to the butterfly effect when I speak of this, the instance of interaction will ripple through and effect everything it can extend to. (A stone is thrown in a pond, it crashes with the surface of the water and pushes the surrounding water, and the water surrounding that; energy is dispersed). Energy cannot be destroyed, as many scientists would agree with, it can only change form. Yes, one would have to collect all of the pathways of the energy to deduce its attributes and thus the phenomenon cannot be directly seen, yet can be indirectly perceived -- call it a transcended symbol being channelled, which is of an otherwise physically manifested anomaly.
**"Our senses are the extent of our existence, our universe (Extrasensory is still a sense), beyond what is tangible to our senses is beyond our continuum of existence."**
"To you maybe, unless someone were to claim otherwise, like some sort of transcendental experience; but you would probably just deny it anyway out of conviction and ignorance, because your senses tell you that such a realm can't exist, don't they? My point still stands. You require faith in the senses. You cannot test their validity, you just assume their truth bearing nature. This is not science. This is hypocrisy."
Science - (the study of the world)- the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment.
NOT ALL LOGIC IS BASED ON SCIENCE. The scientific word is the realm of using our direct senses to interpret interactive qualities (the senses which can be cross referenced with each other to validate their existence) . Conceptual logic of perception extends beyond the measurable senses but is still logic (this is not science). I think this is the #1 misunderstanding you and every other christian I've known has had. LOGIC SUPERSEDES SCIENCE. I perceive through these senses (including extra-sensory) and incorporate their findings into my own cognition, my sum. Therefore I have conceived the perception (conception, also can be described as 'the incorporation of mental elements into one's self') These are still perceptions/conceptions, these still define my personal universe, just as your perceptions/conceptions define yours. Beyond our perceptions is beyond self.
"To you maybe, unless someone were to claim otherwise, like some sort of transcendental experience; but you would probably just deny it anyway out of conviction and ignorance, because your senses tell you that such a realm can't exist, don't they? My point still stands. You require faith in the senses. You cannot test their validity, you just assume their truth bearing nature. This is not science. This is hypocrisy."
We validate our senses by cross-referencing with the senses of the many. (I see the wall; you see one too; hence we validate the knowledge of its existence by the averages of our frequencies of reality) Now if a group of radicals have an average variance of the frequency is significant in contrast to the others, concepts of what is real will vary. And yes I have had experiences one would dub as 'transcended' or of the 'transcended world', but this debate isn't about the 'transcended world' it's about 'God', and there is a vast difference between the two subjects (Even if religion decides to conceptually merge them).
Why do we require faith in senses? They exist, they are not the flaw, it is the interpretation. We have to believe in the sufficiency of the information we can reach from this to seek viable knowledge is what we must do. A schizophrenic person sees dark shadowy "flies" whisping around her vision, distracting her on the road. We actually see that all the time, concentrate and you'll find it.. Our minds simply filter it out as visual white noise. Our brain filters out what it deems as irrelevant to operation all the time, but through meditation we can overcome this selective channelling. Sensory white noise is our ultimate flaw.. Our minds give a default of what we see of the perceivable.
________________________REDUNDANT POINT:____________________________
**"Language uses knowledge"** "I am convinced that language is based upon conviction, not knowledge. You are convinced of the fact, and therefore compelled to enact. It would just be too hard to escape this cycle, with you throwing all this conviction at me, I would hypothesize"
(Hypothesize this)
THE PROGRAMMERS' INTERPRETATION
Let me reintegrate. "Know - to believe firmly in the truth or certainty of something" Language is knowledge because it is mode of reference to what we firmly believe to be true. *points to apple* says "apple!" caveman replies "apple!" the correlation is [object("apple") = (true)] in both mine and the caveman's universe thus is held true collectively and henceforth is recognized as a common perceptual algorithm.
Lets work under this analogy further to expore your idea that a demon's will is 'inaccessible': (consider our conceptions as variations of a programming applications [eg Actionscript and Actionscript 2 for Flash]. Where if you writing in one of these formats and you were interpreting the end result, you could make out how to understand it for yourself and your variation of code. Whereas if your 'demon' were to write in Javascript, a Actionscripter could comprehend the visuals, but not necessarily the methodology at first, but the process can be inevitably interpreted and emulated.
________________________________________________________________________
"Says who. Say we use a word (or just a hypothetical) of something without any specified characterizations. Demon is just pretty easy to assume that it is some evil, supernatural thing that cant be tested via natural law and may even transcend reality (or supposed reality). So this 'thing' does it. How do you classify or make judgements on this 'thing'?"
By giving it a name, and an assumed quality e.g. demon + evil. Specifics are interpolated afterward. If it has a name it exists conceptually.
Through action, motivation is deducible
"Supposed reality"? It influences reality and is thus part of reality
There are higher beings which take birth from collectives of minds (as we take birth from the collective of our brain cells). It is frightening to see these beings, to see the complexity of their processes, each empowered by every person aligned in the same moral range. But they are not god's by any means, and are certainly not universally divine. They are strange to you see being channelled through people, but I hail to none of these entities. (Ever channelled an "evil" spirit? It's not fun)
I did try to minimize my use of technical examples as much as possible (it's hard to do), as you do not hail technical processes as reality, and oft rebuttal the point with dismissal, based on the inability of the point to serve the arcane interpretation. You fail to try to connect to the possibility that I am not of the hardcore "what I directly see is the only thing that exists" type. as I vaguely hinted to before, I am a spiritual atheist.
Logic and the Abstract function as a duality
Pattern on it's own isn't necessarily transcended by nature, it exists on all levels of reality. Ergo, logic is on all levels of reality. To say that pattern is of transcended quality is to say logic exists in the realm of the transcended. LOGIC = PATTERN
Animals believe in god too, it's in result of the psychological factor I spoke of. To believe in God… you could call it a "simplistic mental construct" as you could with any belief. My question is what are you comparing it to as to declare thoughts as simple?
We conceptualize knowledge, therefore knowledge can never be in its raw form.
What is real to us is what is our reality, as reality is to someone to what they incorporate through perception as. There is no universal reality only ranges of frequencies
You are sceptical of every logical point of view, then try to rational your own views cannot logically be touched by scepticism.
What you are unaware of is not part of your conceptual universe, true. And what connections can be made to rationalize phenomena often overlay what is actually there (e.g. optical illusion), true. Does that mean we can't ultimately break the illusion? No.
"Solipsism = the belief that the only thing somebody can be sure of is that he or she exists, and that true knowledge of anything else is impossible"
I live the transcended, but I find no God of which you speak of, there is no absolute caretaker, lest He be a metaphor.
-
God is real7% Voted for by xxxhugsnkissesxxx, TeChNoWC.
Even as a christian, i have struggled with gods existence, but i realised that you cant base it on all the facts of this world, besides, they are of this world arent they? I think basically that it makes more sense for there to be something supernatural in the universe, you say how could a god have been created out of nothing? well using science, how could the universe have been created out of nothing? But once you really know god, none of this matters. If you have felt his love for you and his power in your own life and lives around you you can have absoloutely no doubt that he is real! Without knowing this, you will struggle with all the wordly arguments on wether or not there is a god, and never come to a definate conclusion. But once you have felt god you know inside you that there is no other way and that he is most definately real. You forget about all the science of the universe.
-
Enough of the semantics!7% Voted for by Molzahn, C-a-s-m-e-r-o-k-u.
Perception - (perceive) - the process of using the senses to acquire information
Faith - (set of beliefs) - a strongly held set of beliefs and principles
Know - to believe firmly in the truth or certainty of something
Knowledge - general awareness or possession of information, facts, ideas, truths, or principles
Conviction - a belief or opinion that is held firmly
************************************************************ "You missed out one, common to induction, and where I firmly stand: I throw a rock, it falls, I throw a rock, it falls, I throw a rock, it falls – what is going to happen next? I don't know. Maybe the rock will float off into outer space, maybe it will turn into a giant candy monster; the motivations of an evil demon are unknown, therefore unassessable. You may have been trying to get to this via your second analogy, however, this is more of the animist, and not the solipsist."
____________________________________________________________ My apologises I forgot to mention the side that argues that
THEY KNOW NO ONE CAN KNOW ANYTHING,
I just figure your ideology being hypocritical and self-defeating would not merit mention.. You cannot argue from this point of view! You argue to convince the other you believe your idea is true, this ideal argues nothing can be held as true! - It is a meaninglessness argument to convince yourself no one can know anything for certain, concluding logic is useless, to say that because nothing can be known, faith has to be had. Faith in what? God. - Why a being? Why in some divine order vs. a totally unpredictable chaos? Because you have been programmed to interpret logically.. The perception of a logical and orderly universe while denouncing the principles of logic? As your bible would say: you just made your house on sand, boy
Knowledge is the analyse of trends and holding in mind that these patterns are continuous and hence trends. As I said before you cannot deny repetitions of interactivity among elements of the universe… and still argue your side? language is even a pattern! referencing to what is known in the universe. As things are encountered they are referenced to with a word, this is a system that assumes the existence of the continuum of an object or a state, capturing it by a verbal vector (word). This system operates under patterns of what can be predicted and interpreted. Language uses knowledge, so if you believe nothing is knowable: keep to your dogma, don't speak
You throw a rock, it falls, it turns into a candy monster -- you can assume there is an additional factor affecting the trend, say your demon, which although it cannot be accessed by our realm with the highest clarity, on some level we can perceive it, because of its interactions with this realm (like dark-matter, where we cannot see it directly, but we can witness its influence and thus know of it and can so deduce we can influence it)
You live in a logical perceivable universe -- go figure
************************************************************* "A waste of perception. Perception can be floated upon (simply going with what is generally derived by intrinsic mood) or it can be chosen. Ultimate (sub-conscious) perception would be hard, as one is bound by their nature, but one can alter belief. There is no empowerment in raw belief in no god, as raw belief, in itself, is not knowledge, and seeks only to serve benefit for one's mental state. However, a strong athiest does posit it as knowledge, and these are the most stupid people in the world, my conviction would suggest."
____________________________________________________________ Ones nature is built at conception… every layer of surrounding perceptual polarization forms with interactions with one's environment, the longer the part of one's psyche has developed the harder it is to shift, the heavier it is set. The longer you believe something the deeper the embedment. Remember belief is the perception of the world through a concept. We view the world through this monocle of crystallized and liquid opinions. Belief hypothetically can be altered assuming it hasn't solidified too far beyond malleability. Where was the first place you hear of god from? I'm assuming your parents? We were trained to believe in god, I rejected that path. Religions just push to instil their own moral coding upon people. People feel comfort from this reassurance of continued existence in an afterlife, of someone in control of their life, of rules of how things work (karma for instance) to feel comfort knowing order exists. This removes the fear of death.. But the never ending afterlife is impossible.
************************************************************* "That's because your angry and want to belittle the concept. Your own psychology theory destroys you, because all mental processes are used to merely benefit one so that they may survive; it would have nothing to do with revealing an actualisation, even your (I will refrain from derogatisation) 'little theory'. It was imposed for mental stability, just like the babies concept of God. Your belief comes not from power, but from timidity."
_____________________________________________________________ Mental process are the colourful dance of neurons and chemicals which allow us to think, to be. I think therefore I am. Every thought is part of existence, not merely survival so yes it has to do with theories and the whole of our mental universe - Every christian tells me that I am angry at god. Every christian says this about every atheist, whether the atheist is spiritual or not. Is this really the evidence of my anger? Or the projection of the christians anger unto the atheist for instilling doubt in them? I think you are simply angry at atheists. We disturb your personal contentment with religion.
_______________________________________________________________ "all mental processes (…) have nothing to do with revealing an [actuality] (…) [or] your 'little theory'"
________________________________________________________________ So we don't have to think to theorize? I see where your theories are coming from… jk jk I know what you mean. your trying to say our thoughts deal with our personal universe exclusively, right?
************************************************************ "Bull. Says who. Your perceptions? Like I said earlier, the concievement is not of something that is necessarily experienced, but of a concept, an ideal. I stand by what I said, you have only affirmed (in my mind) the deductive errors in the reasoning of atheists, and without any sort of certainties on your part (to back you up) I win via certainty based on revelation, while your stuck in so called 'primitive belief'. Faith in the senses? Please. An atheist has to have faith in the existence of no god. Ha."
______________________________________________________________ "the concievement is (…) a concept, an ideal"
A conception is conceived through the perception of people
_____________________________________________________________ "certainty based on revelation"
Certainty is either based on absolute knowledge or absolutely no knowledge, for both are the same; absolutes exist only in the realm of absolutity.
_____________________________________________________________ "Faith in the senses?"
Our senses are the extent of our existence, our universe (Extrasensory is still a sense), beyond what is tangible to our senses is beyond our continuum of existence.
______________________________________________________________ "An atheist has to have faith in the existence of no god"
Faith - (set of beliefs) - a strongly held set of beliefs and principles
Yes, I do believe god does not exist as we know it; I have faith in this concept
_______________________________________________________
If something can influence the perceivable, it itself is perceivable by extension
To know absolutly everything, you must know absolutly nothing
Latest •
Categories •
Groups •
Forums
| |
|
| |
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
October 1, 2006
Edit | Reply
TeChNoWC
October 5, 2006
Edit | Reply
keyman7
November 10, 2006
Edit | Reply
Sweetlove
I must say that I'm appalled at the undiplomatic nature of TeChNoWC's comment. You my sympathies. But I am currious as to why you state the non existance of God to be scientific fact. I'm a scientist, and would enjoy seeing a reason for such thought. You see, in my few years on this earth, all of science has made me believe that there must be a God. It is my opinion that the odds of our survival apart from a supreme being are very small. Everything about biology, chemistry, physics and physiology points to something much, much greater in my opinion. But I'd love to hear your view on this issue. Hope to hear from you soon.November 10, 2006
Edit | Reply
Non-god
Perhaps I should have said: there is no evidence for the existence of a god, there never has been, and it is unlikely that there ever will be. All science would suggest a deity to be fanciful. All common sense would suggest it is an invention. In the absence of evidence, the logical conclusion is to say there is almost certainly no god. Most intelligent philosophical thought assumes that. This is not to say that people do not have a right to believe in any sort of poppycock they wish. Just don't shove it in other people's faces. I really can't be arsed to reply to the drivel written by the person with the silly user TechnoToilet name.keyman7
November 28, 2006
Edit | Reply
Oral Fixation
December 20, 2006
Edit | Reply
Seems a little harsh...
to call our fellow humans simpletons, huh?mudgod
December 20, 2006
Edit | Reply
December 20, 2006
Edit | Reply
So be it!
Then I am a deluded simpleton - so what? It's better to actually believe in something than to wander mindlessly on this earth wondering what will happn after one dies. At least us "deluded simpletons" know HOPE.December 21, 2006
Edit | Reply
There IS a GOD!!!
Your the deluded simpleton! LOOK AROUND YOU! All the beautiful sceneries you see everyday did not just appear as if by magic! Evolution was a STUPID theory invented by people who just wanted an excuse to say there is no God. They just wanted to say something to make them LOOK smart!There is a GOD! Evolution is for people who don't know what they want to believe in. Evolution is a THEORY. It was never proven!
I BELIEVE THERE IS THE ONE TRUE GOD and NOTHING YOU SAY IS GONNA MAKE ME CHANGE MY MIND!
TeChNoWC
December 22, 2006
Edit | Reply
Lil Evil
December 23, 2006
Edit | Reply
Excuse me?
Did you really just say that atheists are intellectuall bigots? I am shocked at this remark as well as the initail simpltons comment. If there is A God there must be more, because we are made in his image and who of us doesn't suffer bordum especially for eternity. I'm sorry, but I know no one person who could constantly be alone and be entertained at the same time. Now your going to say "But God is perfect and doesn't suffer the shackels we humans suffer." Ok true, let me be a Catholic momentarily, they believe to some extent that we are all God. And don't you dare tell me that blastfamy or sacralig because it is most certainly not.I have argued theology for as long as I can remember and I am only 16. I have read damn near every religous book, to some extent, that I have come in contact with. I refuse to believe that here we are all alone, but I am also not about to say "Yes! There is a supreme being" if religion has any accuracy at all the right religion would be the greek one. As of yet, I don't believe in God for one reason and one only, if, indeed, there is a God there must be a Devil. I don't want to think that there is some little red demon guy with a tail and a trident going to make endless minons try and torture me forever. You cannot have one without the other, because as the movie Constantine so wonderfully put it "You should believe in him, because he believes in you."
Now you tell me. Am I an "intellectual bigot". No I would say not even if I am an atheist.
Oh yeah, there is no God, we are alone without suppernatural power to influence us, live up to it, get over it.
C-a-s-m-e-r-o-k-u
February 16, 2007
Edit | Reply
Applehead
August 7
Edit | Reply
LilEvil
I understood very little of what you just said.And no I didn't call atheists intellectual bigots any more than I called myself one. I 'insinuated' that Edna Sweetlove was trying to be one for whatever reason, and that I could very easily play along too; it proves very little in terms of your character (as your responses have shown). I believe that Edna can be intellectually considerate if she tries, and I am hoping that in future she will be.
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free