Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2019, 03:50:58 AM *
News: 10th anniversary art contest
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 ... 503 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Scientific proof that God exists?  (Read 815631 times)
bl4kjaguar
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
September 02, 2014, 04:29:04 PM
Last edit: September 02, 2014, 04:46:26 PM by bl4kjaguar
 #441



Still reading that book I see.

Does a Harry Potter book provide anymore evidence of the "flobberworm"? It's mentioned in the book, so it MUST be exist.


It's not a book; it is a research paper.

Research papers set forth theories all the time; they do so by analyzing facts within an objective framework.

If you have a better theory than what Cunningham has proposed, then I am eager to hear it! Assuming, of course, you have already read and thought through his critiques of the competing theories...


I WILL wait for you to do your research. A lot of important theories were published in books and research papers, that does not mean that they are all right, it just means that we should not wish them away!

1CuUwTT21yZmZvNmmYYhsiVocczmAomSVa
1574049058
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1574049058

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1574049058
Reply with quote  #2

1574049058
Report to moderator
1574049058
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1574049058

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1574049058
Reply with quote  #2

1574049058
Report to moderator
The Bitcoin Forum is turning 10 years old! Join the community in sharing and exploring the notable posts made over the years.
1574049058
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1574049058

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1574049058
Reply with quote  #2

1574049058
Report to moderator
1574049058
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1574049058

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1574049058
Reply with quote  #2

1574049058
Report to moderator
1574049058
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1574049058

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1574049058
Reply with quote  #2

1574049058
Report to moderator
bl4kjaguar
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
September 02, 2014, 04:33:12 PM
 #442

Edit: As for the concept of eternal life after death.. well, I'd well hate to have to come back here and dae this pish again, thank fuck DEATH is ETERNAL,
but then again, would you like to know how to remember your PAST lives?
Hey, your post has an apparent contradiction in it; observe:

Does the personality survive after death? If so, then death is NOT eternal.
Yet you claim that death IS eternal, indicating NO existence after death (NO survival).

Did you already post the explanation for this contradiction? Or would you care to explain it now?

1CuUwTT21yZmZvNmmYYhsiVocczmAomSVa
Decksperiment
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 02, 2014, 05:03:05 PM
 #443

Aquarians contradict themselves quite often, especially when explaining to others that which they dont know how to convey to others, so use's what they believe the other would understand to create the point.. To understand an aquarian contradiction is to understand that they are so far ahead that they need to sloooow down and take things nice n easy, maybe explain things in a child like manner.. to the majority of the people..

The personality, being housed in the brain, not the arm or the arse, will die around 6-7 months after death, after all it is a fact that the brain still produces electrical signals for 6-7 months after death, so it's reasonably safe to assume that as long as the brain produces electricity, the personality, and all other functions of the MIND may in fact still be compus mentus.. although the body is physically DEAD.

Once the entire body is dead, (will cremation be quicker to answer your question?) death, your afterlife, is eternal. Existance will still be, but our body having decayed/burnt to dust, no longer exists in the form we know. we know we turn to dust, eternal dust.. forever and ever..

But to have in my possesion the exact instructions on how to remember the lives of the past, is to say, well, even I must be wrong, but cant know until I can follow the instructions, which can only be done on deaths door.

May I suggest people get rid of contradict, 'cause it's like we're not allowed to have several conflicting opinions, depending on whatever reasoning that brought us to have such contradictory thought's/opinions, it's almost akin to being unable to change our fuckin minds..
bl4kjaguar
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
September 02, 2014, 05:48:06 PM
 #444

Go ahead and have all the opinions you like!
Just explain each of them as best as you can, including some words as to how they relate,
then carefully revise what you have written, at least 3 times; 7 is better.

A fool will open his mouth to speak, but a wise person will carefully consider his words. I don't think you are a fool, but I have not yet understood your words, so I would like for you to try to tell me again what you are trying to say here:

Quote
But to have in my possesion the exact instructions on how to remember the lives of the past, is to say, well, even I must be wrong, but cant know until I can follow the instructions, which can only be done on deaths door.

1CuUwTT21yZmZvNmmYYhsiVocczmAomSVa
Decksperiment
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 02, 2014, 10:55:33 PM
 #445

Go ahead and have all the opinions you like!
Just explain each of them as best as you can, including some words as to how they relate,
then carefully revise what you have written, at least 3 times; 7 is better.

A fool will open his mouth to speak, but a wise person will carefully consider his words. I don't think you are a fool, but I have not yet understood your words, so I would like for you to try to tell me again what you are trying to say here:

Quote
But to have in my possesion the exact instructions on how to remember the lives of the past, is to say, well, even I must be wrong, but cant know until I can follow the instructions, which can only be done on deaths door.

What, I give you a truthfull explanation and you reply with this?

Do the fuckin research yourself you fuckin twat..

to quote you.. "so I would like for you to try to tell me again what you are trying to say here"

My answer: I have in my possesion the exact instructions on how to remember the lives of the past, I did say I MAY be wrong, but wont know UNTIL i can do the fuckin RITUAL.
Buffer Overflow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1015



View Profile
September 02, 2014, 11:20:32 PM
 #446

If you have a better theory than what Cunningham has proposed, then I am eager to hear it! Assuming, of course, you have already read and thought through his critiques of the competing theories...


I WILL wait for you to do your research. A lot of important theories were published in books and research papers, that does not mean that they are all right, it just means that we should not wish them away!

Yeah I heard of Jane Roberts, I don't think she was a fraud, my guess it was some sort of inner workings of her subconscious mind with some ESP chucked in. Spooky that one.

My research, done mine. My research found there is nothing to research because:
God cannot be proved or disproved.

dank
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1002


You cannot kill love


View Profile
September 03, 2014, 02:52:22 AM
 #447

Your point number 3 is wrong, though if it was the protocols you were refering to I would'nt be at all surprised..

Seems to me that folks dont wanna mention that the real reason jesus was killed was for lending and charging interest, going against the grain of whatever we are told regarding neither a borrower or a lender be.. he was killed for being a banker.. by hiding this fact they allow banking traits. This is probably why jews dont use jesus's name or masons use jesus name in the kapa valley (church)..

I have mentioned that space is where time becomes a loop, we will repeat 10.000 times every mistake until we learn not to make said mistakes, and if we kept a diary from day 1 of our birth, we'd know that no matter what is written, it WILL become reality as soon as the ink touches the paper, aka the power of the written word, once reality on paper becomes reality in fact.. I used to draw pictures of naked women until one came real, my daughter says the drawing looks like her mum.. the drawing was done 3 years before I met her..


Jesus was killed simply because He allowed His killers to Kill Him. If He had wanted, there would have been nothing to keep Him from stopping them. Jesus is God in human form.

It was a directive and a request of His Father that caused Jesus to allow His killers to kill Him. The reason for His death in the way it happened was to destroy the results of mistake making that people do constantly.

This universe hangs on spiritual things that are far greater than the simple physical things that we see. Although dank and I probably disagree on many things, this is an area that we would probably agree on, that the spiritual things of the universe are as great or greater than the physical.

The spiritual things of the universe require the ETERNAL DEATH AND PUNISHMENT of people for the wrong doing that they do all the time - even the accidental wrong doing. It is simply a law of nature that science wants to ignore as much as they can. And, intentional wrong doing is an affront to the dignity of God, Himself.

Jesus, in the power and love of God, died as an immensely powerful human being, so that He could take the "punishment" that was required by the natural spiritual nature of the universe, for the wrongs done by ALL mankind. Jesus rose from the dead because of His God part. God doesn't need life to exist. This fact allowed Jesus to rise back into life after death.

Smiley

I agree that Jesus died because he willed himself to do so.  Once you reach a certain level of consciousness, you can only die if you will yourself to die.  I am at that stage for if anyone tried to kill me, they would only prove my beliefs right.

I would need you to elaborate more on what you mean by eternal death and punishment.  I don't feel that is a law but a belief system rather.

13oZY8zzWEp48XZpEEi8zSkYJF5AWR2vXc DMhYmNzMnU2Avgu7sF3GSDybHumj8XH8V8
Currently seeking plot of land to host 1,000,000+ person music festival
Dankmusic - Hear the impossible, feel the impossible, be the impossible dankmusic.org dankcoin.org
bl4kjaguar
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
September 03, 2014, 07:20:24 AM
 #448


Yeah I heard of Jane Roberts, I don't think she was a fraud, my guess it was some sort of inner workings of her subconscious mind with some ESP chucked in. Spooky that one.
Yeah you have read my link? Or yeah something else? Try that link if you don't want to read the rest of this post.  Tongue

My research, done mine. My research found there is nothing to research because:

God cannot be proved or disproved.
OK, maybe you are telling us a fact;
what about all the old views that are being challenged?

That is a great item for discussion (especially if you have nothing new to say)!

I hope that with our discussion we can help make clear what is the bigger picture surrounding these facts:
Quote
1) that we can and should no longer wish away expansive phenomena of this type.
2) The psychical origin of the Seth material does not automatically invalidate its claims
3)  "Nothing is more likely to impede investigation than premature acceptance of 'explanations'"
4) personalities continue to exist after physical death
5) god cannot be proven nor dis-proven

Well, I wonder if you have any ideas about how fact 5 relates to the others. You mentioned an internal origin to solve the Problem... but I am asking for you to read Cunningham's critique of that idea; it is not adequate at all and it sounds extraordinary to me. Anyway, if you have done research then I want to hear the result and how your conclusion relates to the introduction; I would also want to hear a rebuttal of criticism such as may be found in Cunningham's paper.

I feel that it is only fair to question whether proof/dis-proof is a relevant concept. However, I need not state this explicitly in our discussion because mostly I am just asking you to clarify what you really think, activity well-suited for this thread. Also: who will read the research paper?  Roll Eyes I think that this is a good question; at least, I will make it a good thread by my questions.

Basic assumptions about the proof/dis-proof of God may be invalidated at a certain level of consciousness, even though typical reasoning may seem to validate these assumptions, it is actually through our experience that the "evidence" enters our minds. In the presence of Tao, the knots are untied, the glare is softened, and the question takes on meaning beyond proof/dis-proof, a sort of relevance that is hard to come by. It is amazing the opinions that people have on this question of God; one thing we do know is death and transformation; only you and your consciousness can shape how you live your life and your appreciation for the subtlety of life's great questions and paradoxes, in which are found the ultimate bliss or "God-consciousness". Therefore, God is expressed in the action of death and transformation, and also in your consciousness-response to life's many "questions" which are constantly being asked by some internal voice. Your "answers" need to be used for transformation of self--not so that we can know God--but because death is near and we urgently should ponder the questions that we can try to begin to understand at this current level of being. The old answers are not looking very acceptable.

Facts 1-4 are relevant to our discussion; for example,
Fact 4 is a type of expansive phenomena which should be seriously considered (pondered) in an adequate explanation of other expansive phenomena. Also, organized religions often emphasize the afterlife, so they do seem to at least have the facts down; however, their explanations are not adequate. Similarly, your "spooky" explanation is also not adequate.
Fact 3 is a slam-dunk reason to cointinue investigating the facts in our discussion.
Fact 2 means that you need to give a good reason for why your explanation is more adequate than the rest!
Fact 1 is presumably why you are having this coinversation to begin with! You are also seeking a good explanation, so let us use the Socratic method and find it!  Wink



OK, please if you could answer some of my questions.  Smiley

1CuUwTT21yZmZvNmmYYhsiVocczmAomSVa
Buffer Overflow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1015



View Profile
September 03, 2014, 12:07:39 PM
 #449


Yeah I heard of Jane Roberts, I don't think she was a fraud, my guess it was some sort of inner workings of her subconscious mind with some ESP chucked in. Spooky that one.
Yeah you have read my link? Or yeah something else? Try that link if you don't want to read the rest of this post.  Tongue

My research, done mine. My research found there is nothing to research because:

God cannot be proved or disproved.
OK, maybe you are telling us a fact;
what about all the old views that are being challenged?

That is a great item for discussion (especially if you have nothing new to say)!

I hope that with our discussion we can help make clear what is the bigger picture surrounding these facts:
Quote
1) that we can and should no longer wish away expansive phenomena of this type.
2) The psychical origin of the Seth material does not automatically invalidate its claims
3)  "Nothing is more likely to impede investigation than premature acceptance of 'explanations'"
4) personalities continue to exist after physical death
5) god cannot be proven nor dis-proven

Well, I wonder if you have any ideas about how fact 5 relates to the others. You mentioned an internal origin to solve the Problem... but I am asking for you to read Cunningham's critique of that idea; it is not adequate at all and it sounds extraordinary to me. Anyway, if you have done research then I want to hear the result and how your conclusion relates to the introduction; I would also want to hear a rebuttal of criticism such as may be found in Cunningham's paper.

I feel that it is only fair to question whether proof/dis-proof is a relevant concept. However, I need not state this explicitly in our discussion because mostly I am just asking you to clarify what you really think, activity well-suited for this thread. Also: who will read the research paper?  Roll Eyes I think that this is a good question; at least, I will make it a good thread by my questions.

Basic assumptions about the proof/dis-proof of God may be invalidated at a certain level of consciousness, even though typical reasoning may seem to validate these assumptions, it is actually through our experience that the "evidence" enters our minds. In the presence of Tao, the knots are untied, the glare is softened, and the question takes on meaning beyond proof/dis-proof, a sort of relevance that is hard to come by. It is amazing the opinions that people have on this question of God; one thing we do know is death and transformation; only you and your consciousness can shape how you live your life and your appreciation for the subtlety of life's great questions and paradoxes, in which are found the ultimate bliss or "God-consciousness". Therefore, God is expressed in the action of death and transformation, and also in your consciousness-response to life's many "questions" which are constantly being asked by some internal voice. Your "answers" need to be used for transformation of self--not so that we can know God--but because death is near and we urgently should ponder the questions that we can try to begin to understand at this current level of being. The old answers are not looking very acceptable.

Facts 1-4 are relevant to our discussion; for example,
Fact 4 is a type of expansive phenomena which should be seriously considered (pondered) in an adequate explanation of other expansive phenomena. Also, organized religions often emphasize the afterlife, so they do seem to at least have the facts down; however, their explanations are not adequate. Similarly, your "spooky" explanation is also not adequate.
Fact 3 is a slam-dunk reason to cointinue investigating the facts in our discussion.
Fact 2 means that you need to give a good reason for why your explanation is more adequate than the rest!
Fact 1 is presumably why you are having this coinversation to begin with! You are also seeking a good explanation, so let us use the Socratic method and find it!  Wink



OK, please if you could answer some of my questions.  Smiley

If you think I'm going to buy into that Jane Roberts & Seth is some sort of proof of god you are mistaken. After all that's the topic of the thread.
If you wish to start a supernatural thread by all means be my guest. I may even add my very own supernatural natural encounters to it. On 2 occasions to be exact. I haven't added them to this thread as IMO they don't belong in here. Do I class them prove/evidence of god? No. I don't fill in the blanks what I don't understand, with god.


 

Buffer Overflow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1015



View Profile
September 03, 2014, 01:56:35 PM
 #450

If you like I'll tell you about my supernatural encounters. Though this would be derailing the thread as it's not relevant.

Decksperiment
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 03, 2014, 02:22:13 PM
Last edit: September 03, 2014, 03:22:11 PM by Decksperiment
 #451

It all boils down to the simple fact that you need to be initiated into the kind of visual given upon initiation, where you see a figure 'not' of this world, again, with the wheels upon wheels on his finger.. This is the cause of the fear that cause masons to shut the fuck up.. not cause they know better, but cause of what will happen to them if they speak of HIM. Now the real question is, that since HE is mentioned in a multitude of different religious books, then it would be fair to say that SOMEONE with humanish form, is capable of striking mortal fear into ANYONE who see's him..

This 'lifeform' is not human (cant be, as any or all would be able to view him..)

So what is he?

He is mentioned throughout time.

"Few are the men who have looked upon that mighty face and lived.."

"Let he who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast.."

Google the wheels upon wheels, and dont tell me there is NO fuckin evidence of another lifeform that can assume a human form, not only that, but has the intelligence to not only put on, but wear a ring, and most are at least minutely aware of the symbolism of the ring they wear. Who designed the ring? This ring is thousands of years old. Who made the ring? What does he sit on if his body is of fire?

Again, your all asking the same questions asked throughout time. At least I got the savvy to ask slightly different questions that can be researched for sure..

Edit: lets pretend for a second that the orbit's of the angels, lords, or planets, are the wheels of this ring, (more likely true) all these orbits on a ring.. (circumference of our solar system?) this would mean another larger circular orbit.. with a 'finger' possibly being.. the tree of y'gdrasil, d'jed, or apprentice pillar.. now since this body is of light, it would be reasonably safe to assume so is the finger.. This 'finger' would be the energy shooting from the top/bottom of our own sphere, as it does every other sphere.. it could represent the same energy released in the same fashion from the center of our solar system, or it could be from the center of our galaxy.. if this is acceptable, then the figure with the wheels upon wheels on his finger is NOT from below since 'below' is viewed as 'inside' the earth, and 'NOT' underneath, ie, beneath planet earth. So now that we have established that the finger is not only documented, but written in stone, and scientifically proven, it's reasonably safe to say that actually, The proof is written everywhere..

God does exist.

Though I'm still on the fence Wink
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184
Merit: 1127


View Profile
September 03, 2014, 03:51:00 PM
 #452

Again, in simple English, the evidence for God is the existence of the kind of universe we live in.

For a moment, get any preconceived notions of God as you have heard of him through the religions, out of your mind. Then consider the following.

The whole universe, all of nature, acts like a gigantic, ultra-complex machine. Machines have makers.

At the same time we see the machine, everything is wearing out, running down, like a clock that needs to be wound up. We see nothing in nature that can make a machine anything like the universe. We don't see anything that can wind the clock of nature up again. Nothing!

If nature were not so complex, if we could figure it out in detail, then maybe there isn't a God. But, simply because of the way the whole universe and nature exist, there has to be a God. Machines have makers. And this Maker is way beyond us, far greater than we can ever think to be.

Proof is in the eye of the beholder. But the evidence is so overwhelmingly great that there simply is no other way.

Smiley

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
teodor87
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


Man is King!


View Profile
September 03, 2014, 04:03:59 PM
 #453

Depends on what do you mean by "God". If you think God is a person, who sends good people to heaven and bad people to hell - then no. His rules are impossible to follow. If they were true, no one would ever go to heaven.

This is the best formulation of a proof that God in the Bible/Quran/Other religions is man made. Probably has a logo too.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

There are forces in the Universe that we do not understand yet. It's a proven fact that everything has a magnetic field. We are all connected. Literally. Science has proven that. Planets even have auras. So again - depends on your concept of god. But to believe in Jesus, or Satan is hilarious.

1BXi1DWT9U8snSr8wmuL7iihqphNiPRN9k
Decksperiment
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 03, 2014, 04:10:51 PM
 #454

Again, in simple English, the evidence for God is the existence of the kind of universe we live in.

For a moment, get any preconceived notions of God as you have heard of him through the religions, out of your mind. Then consider the following.

The whole universe, all of nature, acts like a gigantic, ultra-complex machine. Machines have makers.

At the same time we see the machine, everything is wearing out, running down, like a clock that needs to be wound up. We see nothing in nature that can make a machine anything like the universe. We don't see anything that can wind the clock of nature up again. Nothing!

If nature were not so complex, if we could figure it out in detail, then maybe there isn't a God. But, simply because of the way the whole universe and nature exist, there has to be a God. Machines have makers. And this Maker is way beyond us, far greater than we can ever think to be.

Proof is in the eye of the beholder. But the evidence is so overwhelmingly great that there simply is no other way.

Smiley

I have detailed instructions on how to 're-start' that machine.. clues are already posted.. including the 'device' used.. for those with eyes to see.. if they were gouged out, google it.. lol.. a hint is in my posts re: star maps.. cant remember whit thread it's in.. I learnt this from a shaman's drum.
Decksperiment
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 03, 2014, 04:15:24 PM
 #455

Depends on what do you mean by "God". If you think God is a person, who sends good people to heaven and bad people to hell - then no. His rules are impossible to follow. If they were true, no one would ever go to heaven.

This is the best formulation of a proof that God in the Bible/Quran/Other religions is man made. Probably has a logo too.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

There are forces in the Universe that we do not understand yet. It's a proven fact that everything has a magnetic field. We are all connected. Literally. Science has proven that. Planets even have auras. So again - depends on your concept of god. But to believe in Jesus, or Satan is hilarious.

1. if i kill you and do life in jail, I am, lol, 'square' with the lord and will live in eternal bliss..

2. 'What' is this best formulation you speak of?

3. all religious books are a remix of 1 written by the victors of the age.. and hence disprovable..

4. Drop the magnetic, for there is anti magnetism.. the planets ARE the lords.. or angels.. that command life here on earth, just as the sun reckons our years.. I note you say jesus but not god?
Buffer Overflow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1015



View Profile
September 03, 2014, 06:53:42 PM
 #456

Again, in simple English, the evidence for God is the existence of the kind of universe we live in.

For a moment, get any preconceived notions of God as you have heard of him through the religions, out of your mind. Then consider the following.

The whole universe, all of nature, acts like a gigantic, ultra-complex machine. Machines have makers.

At the same time we see the machine, everything is wearing out, running down, like a clock that needs to be wound up. We see nothing in nature that can make a machine anything like the universe. We don't see anything that can wind the clock of nature up again. Nothing!

If nature were not so complex, if we could figure it out in detail, then maybe there isn't a God. But, simply because of the way the whole universe and nature exist, there has to be a God. Machines have makers. And this Maker is way beyond us, far greater than we can ever think to be.

Proof is in the eye of the beholder. But the evidence is so overwhelmingly great that there simply is no other way.

Smiley

So your saying the universe is too complex to just appear, yet God (who would need to be exponentially more complex) just popped up?

I think I'm done with this thread now, just going round in circles now. Least decksperiment put some new stuff on the table.

I think the problem is there is no clear definition of what God is. Everyone has their own interpretation. Which means no-ones is going to get anywhere.
I think before discussing proof of God, everyone has to agree exactly what God is.

And that can only open up a fresh can of worms. (Maybe a Flobberworm!)

This is my last post. See ya around. Smiley

bl4kjaguar
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
September 03, 2014, 08:34:07 PM
 #457

Quote from: Buffer Overflow link=topic=737322.msg8653267#msg8653267

If you think I'm going to buy into that Jane Roberts & Seth is some sort of proof of god you are mistaken. After all that's the topic of the thread.
What is the topic? God? Well, there are so many related issues; we can talk about more than just proof.

I feel that it is only fair to question whether proof/dis-proof is a relevant concept. The old answers are not looking very acceptable. And you are proposing one of the OLDEST answers!


Quote from: Buffer Overflow link=topic=737322.msg8653267#msg8653267
If you wish to start a supernatural thread by all means be my guest. I may even add my very own supernatural natural encounters to it. On 2 occasions to be exact. I haven't added them to this thread as IMO they don't belong in here. Do I class them prove/evidence of god? No. I don't fill in the blanks what I don't understand, with god.

I wanted people in this thread to have a sense of the big picture and to become acquainted with "expansive phenomena". You propose a fact, and I do the same; there is plenty of expansive phenomena.

Your "spooky" explanation is not adequate; fails to account for the facts.

Maybe your 'facts' about god are also not adequate; I am questioning the relevance of the ideas you have posed here;
in my mind, the question of God is about challenging worldviews, not 'proof'.

1CuUwTT21yZmZvNmmYYhsiVocczmAomSVa
jackjack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1025


May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage


View Profile
September 03, 2014, 09:40:35 PM
 #458

Again, in simple English, the evidence for God is the existence of the kind of universe we live in.

For a moment, get any preconceived notions of God as you have heard of him through the religions, out of your mind. Then consider the following.

The whole universe, all of nature, acts like a gigantic, ultra-complex machine. Machines have makers.

At the same time we see the machine, everything is wearing out, running down, like a clock that needs to be wound up. We see nothing in nature that can make a machine anything like the universe. We don't see anything that can wind the clock of nature up again. Nothing!

If nature were not so complex, if we could figure it out in detail, then maybe there isn't a God. But, simply because of the way the whole universe and nature exist, there has to be a God. Machines have makers. And this Maker is way beyond us, far greater than we can ever think to be.

Proof is in the eye of the beholder. But the evidence is so overwhelmingly great that there simply is no other way.

Smiley

So your saying the universe is too complex to just appear, yet God (who would need to be exponentially more complex) just popped up?

I think I'm done with this thread now, just going round in circles now. Least decksperiment put some new stuff on the table.

I think the problem is there is no clear definition of what God is. Everyone has their own interpretation. Which means no-ones is going to get anywhere.
I think before discussing proof of God, everyone has to agree exactly what God is.

And that can only open up a fresh can of worms. (Maybe a Flobberworm!)

This is my last post. See ya around. Smiley

GODS
GODS EVERYWHERE!!


Own address: 19QkqAza7BHFTuoz9N8UQkryP4E9jHo4N3 - Pywallet support: 1AQDfx22pKGgXnUZFL1e4UKos3QqvRzNh5 - Bitcointalk++ script support: 1Pxeccscj1ygseTdSV1qUqQCanp2B2NMM2
Pywallet: instructions. Encrypted wallet support, export/import keys/addresses, backup wallets, export/import CSV data from/into wallet, merge wallets, delete/import addresses and transactions, recover altcoins sent to bitcoin addresses, sign/verify messages and files with Bitcoin addresses, recover deleted wallets, etc.
Decksperiment
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 03, 2014, 11:18:14 PM
 #459

Quote from: Buffer Overflow link=topic=737322.msg8653267#msg8653267

If you think I'm going to buy into that Jane Roberts & Seth is some sort of proof of god you are mistaken. After all that's the topic of the thread.
What is the topic? God? Well, there are so many related issues; we can talk about more than just proof.

I feel that it is only fair to question whether proof/dis-proof is a relevant concept. The old answers are not looking very acceptable. And you are proposing one of the OLDEST answers!


Quote from: Buffer Overflow link=topic=737322.msg8653267#msg8653267
If you wish to start a supernatural thread by all means be my guest. I may even add my very own supernatural natural encounters to it. On 2 occasions to be exact. I haven't added them to this thread as IMO they don't belong in here. Do I class them prove/evidence of god? No. I don't fill in the blanks what I don't understand, with god.

I wanted people in this thread to have a sense of the big picture and to become acquainted with "expansive phenomena". You propose a fact, and I do the same; there is plenty of expansive phenomena.

Your "spooky" explanation is not adequate; fails to account for the facts.

Maybe your 'facts' about god are also not adequate; I am questioning the relevance of the ideas you have posed here;
in my mind, the question of God is about challenging worldviews, not 'proof'.

I read this a few time's to get this right, and thought, if people think I should change the title of my thread, they are wrong and should create what they think themselves.. this shows laziness.. but this is not my thread..

I know personally of three 'void's' - when we sleep. The first we have to cross to get to either of the next two. The second is the falling dream, the one people think if they hit the bottom they die in real life.. then there's the one that, by the time you realise your in it, you wake up or you are.. ? expand this phenomena..

The question of god is NOT about CHALLENGING anything, it is the search for.. (as the thread title states..) be that proof, so be it.. some need it.. others dont.. for then will only those who want the proof be able to decide for themselves instead of being force fead useless crap no one actually cares about? Where do you fit in this expansive phenomena with regards to god, or is that beyond your comprehension?

Have you done your maths in relation to your subject 'expansive phenomena', or have you just read of it and fancy the idea, and think others might? Cause it aint a religion. I say this, because this search for proof of god involves reading countless religious books/scripts, taking the best of everyones posts, and throwing the rest in the bucket (my version of expansive phenomena) and I wondered what expansive phenomena has to do with these resource's we at least have to have a reasonable understanding of to know what the spirit is, or dont you know seth is akin to thoth?
bl4kjaguar
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile WWW
September 03, 2014, 11:47:52 PM
Last edit: September 04, 2014, 12:05:08 AM by bl4kjaguar
 #460

I have read quite a bit about the survival hypothesis, but mostly from an academic perspective; I would for sure love to hear more from non-academics, I just wish their writing was more coherent!

I am inclined to take a cautious position approaching expansive phenomena of this type, merely wanting to emphasize that we can and should no longer wish them away. The Problem of Seth's Origin is a metaphysical question also related to survival, so these expansive questions are, if nothing else, useful practice for other expansive questions!

Some people don't care for evidence; it is perfectly fine!

“To know how to choose a path with heart is to learn how to follow
intuitive feeling. Logic can tell you superficially where a path might
lead to, but it cannot judge whether your heart will be in it.”

Many things are sought and some are found. Many other things are not specifically sought for and found (serendipity).

It is through following the facts presented in the published record and remaining open to all avenues of fruitful speculation and intuitive possibilities that the problem of Seth's origin will most likely be solved.

Challenge is a part of the quest to find God just as much as soul-searching; all beliefs must be challenged if they are to hold up! I think that the survival hypothesis is important in this discussion; it is expansive enough to give us some hints about God.

1CuUwTT21yZmZvNmmYYhsiVocczmAomSVa
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 ... 503 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!