philisophical discussion

[Cocyta]

Originally Posted by darkarcher

I'm with killshot. As much as I'd like to add input, there's hardly any structure in the conversation at the moment.

What can we do to add coherence to the topic?

Originally Posted by Ishikawa Oshro

lolz I'm guessing you're just here to be the in detail man ^_~
elaborating further on the story as the plot thickens!!!

I want to make sure everything is clear.

Originally Posted by grimfang999

uniting all the religions is extremely difficult

This is true.

Originally Posted by Ishikawa Oshro

According to the bible, god knows it all. We only see the here and now. But what if he (the painter) sees the whole picture while we the people (aka brush strokes) only see strokes of paint?

I agree with the concept of God as a painter.

In Physics of the Impossible, I read about quantum retrocausality and how the movement of a single particle-wave moving backwards and forwards through time-space could have created everything with which we interact and think exists.

If God exists, this single particle-wave could be the paintbrush of our universe, and possibly others.

Going for a blast into the real past

[grimfang999]

Originally Posted by Cocyta

Going for a blast into the real past

interesting indeed, at least this guy seems to be going to attempt true time travel, just hope it does not cause anything destructive to happen

[Cocyta]

It's the end of the 'verse as we know it, and I feel fine

[grimfang999]

Originally Posted by Cocyta

It's the end of the 'verse as we know it, and I feel fine

actually the chorus but whatever :P

[Cocyta]

heheheh

"It's the End of the 'Verse As We Know It (and I Feel Fine)", a Firefly filk of R.E.M.'s "It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)"

[Ishikawa Oshro]

just start where sally and fared left off lolz.
Grim and I happened to branch off

[Fat1Fared]

Originally Posted by killshot

I feel that I should say something here, but since this has become a bad grammar orgy, I have no idea where to start. I don't even know what anyone is talking about anymore.

I'm, sorry normally I like your points killshot, but this is just plain self-indulgence mate. So what, if not everyone has same level of grammatical skill as you, this doesn't mean you should look down on them and say there points ain't worth debating from self made high ground. Both me and Grim have dyslexia, so what, we try not to let it handicap us, but it does, this doesn't mean we need poeple to rub our face in it or that our points ain't valid, and if you still feel this is conversation is under your grand level of notice, then just don't comment, rather insulting those involved. This comment doesn't add any relevance to our debate here, in fact, it is closer to just adding a peice of tolling spam (not quite there, as more superciliousness, than tolling but sure you understand my point)

Originally Posted by Cocyta

Atheism isn't quite the same as agnosticism. An atheist does not believe there is a god or gods. Agnostics either say there's no proof either way, or that they just don't know.

Atheism is certain. Agnosticism is not certain.

That is kind of what I said O_o, the point I was making is that many who call themselves Atheists would actually be considered agnostic in truth, because though their opinion is that there is no god, they know cannot prove it, so wouldn't call it fact or real answer

I would be atheist, because in answer to the you can't not prove comment, I say you cannot prove it ether and reason I cannot disprove it, is because cannot actually test something which isn't there and this is also why you cannot prove it, meaning this point in itself, (to me) removes god

Perhaps the problem is the belief that god or the gods are loving.

Even if god or gods exist, that does not mean that he/she/it/they care about us, or that they are even aware of us.

Now, I think the mistake you make here is that you believe this is what I believe god is, I don't even believe in god, so I have no thoughts on what he is like tech, however we are told he is loving god and this conflicting problem for church in many areas they face where god ether seems unfair or just doesn't give fig ether way, which comes off as unloving and this is why we get twisted answers to it

Some ancient cultures believed that humanity was created to be the slaves of the gods.

indeed and this would be fair point, however it isn't in line to god we are talking about, though does rise interesting point

which I will look at better tomorrow, as off out now

[HolyShadow]

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

I would be atheist, because in answer to the you can't not prove comment, I say you cannot prove it ether and reason I cannot disprove it, is because cannot actually test something which isn't there and this is also why you cannot prove it, meaning this point in itself, (to me) removes god

Unless God is attempting to humble you by disallowing you from proving His existence. In which case, your theory is flawed. Can you disprove this? Not really. In fact, I'd say it's proven given this situation. It all depends on whether you want to believe or not. Proof is meaningless and trying to prove or disprove God is not only pointless, but also doesn't allow for any type of logic to change this fact.

You can either guess and say, "You can't prove something that isn't there" or you can say, "The thing that I can't see there doesn't want to be found yet."

[grimfang999]

i think it would be funny if when everyone finally gave up and all became athiests God suddenly appeared in front of everyone. that would be so funny i think

[killshot]

I'm, sorry normally I like your points killshot, but this is just plain self-indulgence mate. So what, if not everyone has same level of grammatical skill as you, this doesn't mean you should look down on them and say there points ain't worth debating from self made high ground. Both me and Grim have dyslexia, so what, we try not to let it handicap us, but it does, this doesn't mean we need poeple to rub our face in it or that our points ain't valid, and if you still feel this is conversation is under your grand level of notice, then just don't comment, rather insulting those involved. This comment doesn't add any relevance to our debate here, in fact, it is closer to just adding a peice of tolling spam (not quite there, as more superciliousness, than tolling but sure you understand my point)

I wasn't trying to insult anyone, I am just pointing out that I would like to join the conversation, but I can't understand what exactly is being argued. I'm sorry if I insulted you, but I wasn't referring to anyone in particular.

i think it would be funny if when everyone finally gave up and all became athiests God suddenly appeared in front of everyone. that would be so funny i think

This really wouldn't change anything. Even if God showed himself, the only difference would be that atheists would all become theists. In fact, the term theist would become obsolete since God would be a fact and not something to believe or disbelieve. Even if God showed up, no one would know his will unless he told us and life would continue as normal. Everyone would assume the God in front of them is the God that they believe in (or believed in if we follow your scenario) and religion would continue unchanged.

[grimfang999]

i wasnt really meaning it for analysis i just think it would be funny in an ironic way you know :/

[Fat1Fared]

Originally Posted by ShiningRadiance

Unless God is attempting to humble you by disallowing you from proving His existence. In which case, your theory is flawed. Can you disprove this? Not really. In fact, I'd say it's proven given this situation. It all depends on whether you want to believe or not. Proof is meaningless and trying to prove or disprove God is not only pointless, but also doesn't allow for any type of logic to change this fact.

You can either guess and say, "You can't prove something that isn't there" or you can say, "The thing that I can't see there doesn't want to be found yet."

Yer, thats what is god doing sure, he is hidding, because well...errr....sure there is great reason for him to do this <treats this with same level of acceptance, gives little cousin when she tells him fairy in garden>
=More self vindication and twisted reasoning without any real reason or logic to it, to make idea of god acceptable

Fact is you can't actually test something which isn't there as nothing to test and so this is why cannot prove or disprove god, making this flawed reasoning to believe in something at very best and saying proof is meaningless is silly as well, I mean if don't want to actually believe in real proved things and instead just believe in something which have no actual reason to believe in, why not just give up all together and believe in anything, like said to you before, you don't believe in Flying Spettelli monster or fire breathing dragons, because all you know, tells you, there nothing there to believe in , so what makes god anymore believable? (aspecially when the actual idea behind him is lot less understandable than first 2)

Originally Posted by killshot

I wasn't trying to insult anyone, I am just pointing out that I would like to join the conversation, but I can't understand what exactly is being argued. I'm sorry if I insulted you, but I wasn't referring to anyone in particular.

Sorry, got little defensive there, don't like grammar insults at best of times (go figure) and at time, felt you came off little, condescendingly, and were saying that our ideas were pointless, which is another thing don't like, know probably didn't mean to come off this way ^_^ (even when see something as wrong, I at lest retort it ^_^)

This really wouldn't change anything. Even if God showed himself, the only difference would be that atheists would all become theists. In fact, the term theist would become obsolete since God would be a fact and not something to believe or disbelieve. Even if God showed up, no one would know his will unless he told us and life would continue as normal. Everyone would assume the God in front of them is the God that they believe in (or believed in if we follow your scenario) and religion would continue unchanged.

Back to agreeing with you and lets face it, most would be like me say, that isn't a god anyway, just someone saying their god (to me, the idea of god is actually impossible, in itself)

[grimfang999]

(to me, the idea of god is actually impossible, in itself)

my question is who or what created the universe, it could not have created itself, but then the answer back would be who or what created God. however i would just ask what is a proton shell made of and what is that made of. both could go on forever or both could eventually stop.

Gods power, as a truely omnipotent being i agree is unbelievable, which is why i say his power is not unlimited in the physical realm. this then could explain why he did not spontaniously create everything and perhaps, but to a lesser extent, why he wont appear. there could be something blocking him or he is simply not strong enough to withstand a physical form aside through the process of reincarnation, which if it worked as normal would mean he couldnt remember who he was until the point of his death, and even if he could he wouldnt be able to prove it.


brief: God is an Incredably powerful spirit but not omnipotent. he might manipulating the universes course but because of his limited power may not be strong enough to withstand the universe and to form an image to prove he is there.

[HolyShadow]

Actually, I do believe in flying spaghetti monsters. I've dreamt of them before, and my dreams come true.

[Cocyta]

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

That is kind of what I said O_o, the point I was making is that many who call themselves Atheists would actually be considered agnostic in truth, because though their opinion is that there is no god, they know cannot prove it, so wouldn't call it fact or real answer

That's OK, I guess I didn't completely understanding where you going with that statement.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

Fact is you can't actually test something which isn't there as nothing to test and so this is why cannot prove or disprove god, making this flawed reasoning to believe in something at very best and saying proof is meaningless is silly as well, I mean if don't want to actually believe in real proved things and instead just believe in something which have no actual reason to believe in, why not just give up all together and believe in anything, like said to you before, you don't believe in Flying Spaghetti monster or fire breathing dragons, because all you know, tells you, there nothing there to believe in , so what makes god anymore believable? (especially when the actual idea behind him is lot less understandable than first 2)

We don't know how to prove whether or not God exists. Just because we don't know how to prove something does not mean that something does or does not exist. The question simply remains unanswered.

Originally Posted by grimfang999

My question is who or what created the universe, it could not have created itself, but then the answer back would be who or what created God. However, I would just ask what is a proton shell made of and what is that made of - both could go on forever or both could eventually stop.

God's power, as a truly omnipotent being I agree is unbelievable, which is why I say His power is not unlimited in the physical realm. This then could explain why he did not spontaneously create everything and perhaps, but to a lesser extent, why He won't appear. There could be something blocking him or he is simply not strong enough to withstand a physical form aside through the process of reincarnation, which if it worked as normal would mean he couldn't remember who he was until the point of his death, and even if he could he wouldn't be able to prove it.


brief: God is an incredibly powerful spirit but not omnipotent. he might manipulating the universe's course, but because of His limited power may not be strong enough to withstand the universe and to form an image to prove He is there.

Or, on the flip-side, the universe might not be able to withstand having God within it.

Originally Posted by grimfang999

I think it would be funny if when everyone finally gave up and all became atheists God suddenly appeared in front of everyone.

That would be interesting. Some people may want proof at first, while others might jump right on board (after all, that's what some cult leaders do). There would also be people (like Fat1Fared said) who would continue to disbelieve in the existence of God.

[Fat1Fared]

Originally Posted by grimfang999

my question is who or what created the universe, it could not have created itself, but then the answer back would be who or what created God. however i would just ask what is a proton shell made of and what is that made of. both could go on forever or both could eventually stop.

Gods power, as a truely omnipotent being i agree is unbelievable, which is why i say his power is not unlimited in the physical realm. this then could explain why he did not spontaniously create everything and perhaps, but to a lesser extent, why he wont appear. there could be something blocking him or he is simply not strong enough to withstand a physical form aside through the process of reincarnation, which if it worked as normal would mean he couldnt remember who he was until the point of his death, and even if he could he wouldnt be able to prove it.


brief: God is an Incredably powerful spirit but not omnipotent. he might manipulating the universes course but because of his limited power may not be strong enough to withstand the universe and to form an image to prove he is there.

So god made a universe he cannot control, he MADE something he cannot actually have any EFFECT on, is what telling me

How and why, did he make it this way? (more silly theories to try and justife god)

Originally Posted by Cocyta

We don't know how to prove whether or not God exists. Just because we don't know how to prove something does not mean that something does or does not exist. The question simply remains unanswered.

No, it is simple fact there is nothing there to test (if there was something there, which didn't really understand, that would be different, but nothing there, means nothing there) in same way you cannot test a afirbe;wbhr;ewt, because not actual thing there,

it is something its own believers say cannot effect world or be in world with us, so what chance it stand,

That would be interesting. Some people may want proof at first, while others might jump right on board (after all, that's what some cult leaders do). There would also be people (like Fat1Fared said) who would continue to disbelieve in the existence of God.

Pretty much sums up what would happen, though to be honest, if he still hasn't shown up yet, I wouldn't hold your breath lol (he may not even be able too, as though he can create existence, he now cannot enter it, which in my opinion means that not only is he no longer not worth worshiping, he is actually pretty lame thing in general, sorry, just amuses me)

[Cocyta]

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

No, it is simple fact there is nothing there to test (if there was something there, which didn't really understand, that would be different, but nothing there, means nothing there) in same way you cannot test a fire without the actual thing there.

My point was that we don't know how to prove whether or not God exists.

I agree that a person cannot test something that isn't there.

Wildfires existed before humans learned to start fires. Atoms existed before we learned that they existed.

I am not saying that God exists. I don't know whether or not He does.
All I know is that I do not know.

[Fat1Fared]

Originally Posted by Cocyta

My point was that we don't know how to prove whether or not God exists.

I agree that a person cannot test something that isn't there.

Wildfires existed before humans learned to start fires. Atoms existed before we learned that they existed.

I am not saying that God exists. I don't know whether or not He does.
All I know is that I do not know.

though I do see your point, (with atoms being good example, though fire is less good example, as see that easily whether know what it is or isn't) but even in these examples, we still had something to test, even when we didn't know what it was we were testing, till we tested them, there something phyiscal there which testable. Here there is just plain thought, and not even some unknown thing to test, even those who believe in god, no nothing around to test, and even they have no idea what he is meant to be and, poeple say that something is there, but not there ether...etc to somehow try and cover this massive hole up

But there is just nothing there,

No present, no force, no physical matter, no material and no unknown thing, of any kind to test, but some poeple idea's which when looked at deeply, are full of plot holes and self-contradictions and make every little sense

Even with Atoms, we had something to test, even when weren't fully sure how to test it

[grimfang999]

Originally Posted by Cocyta

Or, on the flip-side, the universe might not be able to withstand having God within it.

yeah, i didnt include the "maybe he did it for the sake of protecting us" however that could be countered somewhat easily.

That would be interesting. Some people may want proof at first, while others might jump right on board (after all, that's what some cult leaders do). There would also be people (like Fat1Fared said) who would continue to disbelieve in the existence of God.

im meaning quite literally, BOOM appears right in front of everyone all angels singing kind of thing, something unbeleivably spectacular and stuff

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

So god made a universe he cannot control, he MADE something he cannot actually have any EFFECT on, is what telling me

How and why, did he make it this way? (more silly theories to try and justife god)

if a designer creates something, his plans are followed but he does not control the product itself. for example, a robot which can move and think on its own is made, the designer made it, but cannot completely control what it does. the creator may be able to change a few things here and there and guide it in the right direction, but in the end the control is not absolute.

so yes, he made the universe, but just because he made it does not mean he has absolute control, but can manipulate things here and there. like i said he is not omnipotent in the physical world at least and sudden apparations and movement of particles maintained in one place for a time through force of will would consume much energy, whereas manipulation or "changes" over time is less energy consuming.

this explaination, i would say, is more fesable (or however you spell it) and understandable than the omnipotent God idea which the only true explaination is because he doesnt want to.

[HolyShadow]

Did everyone just ignore me? Sad SR is sad.

[Cocyta]

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

But there is just nothing there - no presence, no force, no physical matter, no material and no unknown thing of any kind to test, but some people's ideas which when looked at deeply, are full of plot holes and self-contradictions and make every little sense.

The question remains: How do you know there is nothing there to test?