No desire for a God. [Archive]

lifegazer

2nd October 2004, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by EdipisReks
well, i don't believe in a soul to search, but otherwise i think that this thesis is about as stupid as is humanly possible. i don't believe in god, and i feal fear, guilt, and shame. they are all hard wired biological responses. personally, i would like for a god to exist. it would take a lot of the difficulty out of living. For whom?
For a guy/gal who doesn't believe in the soul of the individual, you sure say "i" alot.
For a guy/gal who doesn't believe in introspection (soul-searching), you sure have alot on your mind.
To "not believe in God" is not the issue, though for a guy/gal who doesn't do any soul-searching, I'd sure like to ask you how you got to this conclusion.
If you don't believe in the reality of human emotion, you are stupid... the same as you would be stupid not to believe in the reality of human thought or human sensation. We feel, so deal with it.
For somebody who recognises no reality in human emotion, the human soul, or the worth of introspection, you sure make an ass of yourself with your final sentence:
"personally, I would like for a god to exist. it would take a lot of the difficulty out of living."
... For whom?, I ask.

You believe what you want to believe. You live in denial of your own existence when it's convenient to do so. You live in denial of your own introspective reality when it's convenient to do so (though exhibit an abundance of that attribute in your responses). You live in denial of the reality of your emotions, thus facilitating the need to address the core of this thread. Yet your responses are fueled with anger and contempt.
In short, grow up.

Lord Emsworth

2nd October 2004, 06:08 PM

Dymanic

2nd October 2004, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I think 'God' actually exists
You think God exists, or you know God exists?

thaiboxerken

2nd October 2004, 06:37 PM

Which god are you talking about?

EdipisReks

2nd October 2004, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
For a guy/gal who doesn't believe in the soul of the individual, you sure say "i" alot.
For a guy/gal who doesn't believe in introspection (soul-searching), you sure have alot on your mind.
To "not believe in God" is not the issue, though for a guy/gal who doesn't do any soul-searching, I'd sure like to ask you how you got to this conclusion.
If you don't believe in the reality of human emotion, you are stupid... the same as you would be stupid not to believe in the reality of human thought or human sensation. We feel, so deal with it.
For somebody who recognises no reality in human emotion, the human soul, or the worth of introspection, you sure make an ass of yourself with your final sentence:
"personally, I would like for a god to exist. it would take a lot of the difficulty out of living."
... For whom?, I ask.

You believe what you want to believe. You live in denial of your own existence when it's convenient to do so. You live in denial of your own introspective reality when it's convenient to do so (though exhibit an abundance of that attribute in your responses). You live in denial of the reality of your emotions, thus facilitating the need to address the core of this thread. Yet your responses are fueled with anger and contempt.
In short, grow up.

:big: that's gold. pure gold.

Lisa Simpson

2nd October 2004, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
For a guy/gal who doesn't believe in the soul of the individual, you sure say "i" alot.

Tell me, how does one refer to oneself if that person doesn't believe in the concept of the soul of the individual? Assuming one cannot use the word I.

apoger

2nd October 2004, 07:22 PM

That the non-existence of God would free the individual from much soul-searching, fear, guilt & shame.

Turn that around;

Does the existence of god shackle an individual to much soul-searching, fear, guilt & shame?

If you think this is the cosequence of god, then this explains a good deal of your silly attitidue.

Lord Muck oGentry

2nd October 2004, 07:25 PM

Lifegazer,
Let me make two points. First, whether any god exists is a question to be settled by argument and evidence; desire does not come into it. Second, even if some atheists happen to desire that no god should exist and cling to that desire because they suppose that the absence of a god frees them of moral constraints, it does not follow that they are right in their supposition; the rights and wrongs of our actions have no more to do with the wishes of a god ( if there is one) than they have to do with the wishes of anything else with large biceps. If a god exists, it is quite possible that he deserves only our moral contempt. Morality has nothing at all to do with theology.
Yours cheerfully and godlessly,
LMoG

thaiboxerken

2nd October 2004, 09:23 PM

I wouldn't want the god of the bible to be real, I mean.. that guy is an idiot.

I wouldn't want the greek gods to be real...... well, maybe Aphrodite, she's hot.

I think Thor would be cool to have as a real being though.

fishbob

2nd October 2004, 11:23 PM

. . . the non-existence of God would free the individual from much soul-searching, fear, guilt & shame. How?

And I is for individual, not 'soul of the individual'.

Atlas

3rd October 2004, 12:02 AM

It not that I don't want God to exist.

I don't want anyone forcing me to worship their invented, false God.

If God is the Universe... I've got no problem with that.

I don't want someone's invented evil God called All-Good and ready to torment the majority of his favored created souls for all eternity. Or threaten us with Armageddon. That's a dumb evil God. I don't want that God to exist.

Give me a caring, benign, loving god of good sex and happy joy. And a cute name like Bucky. But NOoooo. It's always Famine, disease, pestilence, death, and maybe a little good sex and happy joy thrown in so we don't give up.

The Cats Venm

3rd October 2004, 01:13 AM

I have no desire for any gods that I've heard of to exist.

If God is evil or neutral, I do not desire for God to exist.

I would like it very much if an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent God existed, but I see no evidence for such a Deity.

I don't believe that Good and Bad exist as anything but personal opinions. Any God that I would desire would know this as well and as such would not judge anyone, but instead alleviate all suffering (an easy task for God) regardless of ones actions (which would be a moot point anyway, as no one would have the ability, desire or even knowledge of 'bad' things). As made clear (I hope), I think it is obvious that the current state of things makes the existance of such a God highly unlikely.

I don't think my perspective leaves me without morals, but rather allows me to realise that other do not, will not, and should not always share my views on things. I also realise that if I want to lead a safe and happy life, I need to take others views into consideration, and sometimes reach a compromise. I think that my perspective leads me to be less egotistical, not more.

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
And yet, it is often the other way 'round. Namely that people seek justification for their goals from their "God." Just look at the Bible and how ambiguous this compilation is and how much opportunity it yields to read your preconceived notions into the text. And how often that happens ...

This is completely irrelevant to the thread. I don't want to talk about the mindset of believers, but of the mindset of non-believers.

And this God that you think exists wants from you what?

Irrelevant. I just want to talk about the desire for there not to be a God.

[i]And once you have found that your God agrees with you, this does not also free you from "soul-searching, fear, guilt & shame"?

Irrelevant.
There seems to be a reluctance on your part to face upto the issue at hand.

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
Tell me, how does one refer to oneself if that person doesn't believe in the concept of the soul of the individual? Assuming one cannot use the word I.
Exactly: The reality is that there is an individual experience of existence. The reality is that this individual is a complex rational and emotional being and one cannot get to the heart of what one thinks & feels without searching the depths of ones own experiential being.

The other guy/gal denounces the very existence of the individual, his/her feelings and thoughts, and the ability to search the depths of his/her being to unveil those thoughts.
... Ironic really, given the number of times he/she said "I" in his/her reply. Ironic really, given the opinions/beliefs expressed. Ironic really, given the presence of 'attitude' in his/her response.

If you don't believe in the concept of the individual, you should have no opinions, no feelings, and no self-awareness.

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by apoger
Turn that around;

Does the existence of god shackle an individual to much soul-searching, fear, guilt & shame?

Another individual afraid, perhaps, to confront the issue of this thread. I have no desire to discuss the mindset of theists. Deal with that.

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by Lord Muck oGentry
Let me make two points. First, whether any god exists is a question to be settled by argument and evidence;

There is no proof that God does not exist. There are large numbers of atheists out there and the question remains: Do these people not want God to exist?

desire does not come into it.

Of course it does. The individual who enjoys living a completely selfish and materialistic life and does not want to give it up or feel bad about such a life, must desire that there is no "God of existence".

the rights and wrongs of our actions have no more to do with the wishes of a god ( if there is one) than they have to do with the wishes of anything else with large biceps.

Surely you must understand that the rights and wrongs of our actions should be judged against the truth of existence? If God is that truth (as supposed), then the selfish materialistic "living life to the full" attitude of many - largely at somebody elses expense - would surely be questioned, even by those individuals themselves.

If a god exists, it is quite possible that he deserves only our moral contempt.

It is also quite probable that you do not understand the purpose of free-will and of suffering in the "Grand scheme of things".

Morality has nothing at all to do with theology.

Morality has alot to do with theology. I'm not saying that all atheists are completely amoral, but the average-Joe puts himself and his immediate family first, his friends second, and thinks little of anyone else. Sure, he might send 20 bucks to bandaid once a year and might shake his head at the attrocities he sees on the news, but you get the picture:- he's largely indifferent.

If you think that 'God' has no bearing upon the hearts and minds of men, then you have not thought deeply-enough about the profundity of such a truth.

Ratman_tf

3rd October 2004, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I put it to you that many of us don't even want God to exist.

I don't know about 'many' but I'll grant you that there are people like that out there.

So, now what?

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
I don't know about 'many' but I'll grant you that there are people like that out there.

Thanks for your honesty. Notice the reluctance of everyone else here to recognise this obvious truth.
The only thing I would criticise you for is your doubt that this applies to 'many'. Consider the life of the average-joe: largely spent pursuing selfish and materialistic gratification. Are you telling me that the proven existence of God would/should not change the average-joe?

So, now what?
My first aim here was to expose the desire itself. My second aim was to explain why alot of us have that desire.

I also want to discuss how this desire affects the method and manner of many posters here. How threads are affected by this actual desirelessness for God.
Let's face it, if you do not want God to exist, you're going to say whatever it takes to discredit a theist: mock his ideas first (though many don't bother with this first step), his credentials to discuss any ideas second, his personal life third.

This desirelessness is a thorn in the side of the pursuit to truth. Truly it is. How can you argue for the existence of God to an audience who do not want God to exist? Seriously.

epepke

3rd October 2004, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
This is a serious thread, aimed at unveiling a particular human-characteristic existing amongst a large percentage of humanity pertaining to the possible existence of God:-
The desire that God should NOT exist.

Why would anyone "desire" that a God of all creation should not exist?
... Simply because it would leave the individual to pursue any selfish/egotistical goal he or she wishes, without fear of repercussion, guilt, or shame.

There is only one person I know of who fits both of these criteria, that of not wanting God to exist and doing it for the purpose of eliminating fear or retribution, and that's G. Gordon Liddy. It's in the same book where he describes holding a lighter under his palm until the skin charred. (Which I think is probably a lie; it's far more likely that he developed second-degree burns and interpreted the sootiness at charring.)

There are people who object to the Judeo-Christian God on moral grounds. I'm not just talking about finding fault with the morality of God as expressed in the Bible but actually going to the point of suggesting that this is good reason not to believe that the character exists. Most of these seem to be women who object to the way women are supposed to be treated. I've always found this a bad argument--it is, of course, possible that God exists and is a jerk. We have examples of humans that are jerks but nonetheless exist. In my experience, only a small minority of these become atheists; most are attracted to Wicca or other religions.

However, there is a large sink for people who wish to be absolved of responsibility for their actions. It's called "antinomianism," and it's a Christian doctrine that, once you are saved, from then on, anything you do is by definition not a sin. Most Christian churches reject antinomianism, but not all. I know this because my mother once went to the funeral of a colleague at a church, and the preacher at the funeral (who was the church's main preacher) saying quite explicitly that once you are saved, you can lie, cheat, steal, rob, and even kill, and you'll still be saved.

This form of Christianity obviously provides a much more fruitful way for people to avoid fear, guilt, accountability, repercussion, etc. than atheism does. If one is an atheist who wishes to avoid responsibility, one has to go it alone or else deal with other atheists, the vast majority of whom rate accountability and responsibility rather highly and will make one feel unwelcome. If one is a Christian who wishes to avoid responsibility, one merely needs to find one of these churches and get a weekly or semi-weekly reminder, presented in an engaging manner, that Jesus provides an imprimateur for doing whatever you like. You also get a support group. The only drawback is that it costs a little bit more, financially.

Lisa Simpson

3rd October 2004, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Exactly: The reality is that there is an individual experience of existence. The reality is that this individual is a complex rational and emotional being and one cannot get to the heart of what one thinks & feels without searching the depths of ones own experiential being.

The other guy/gal denounces the very existence of the individual, his/her feelings and thoughts, and the ability to search the depths of his/her being to unveil those thoughts.
... Ironic really, given the number of times he/she said "I" in his/her reply. Ironic really, given the opinions/beliefs expressed. Ironic really, given the presence of 'attitude' in his/her response.

If you don't believe in the concept of the individual, you should have no opinions, no feelings, and no self-awareness.

Actually, I don't agree with you on any point. I don't think that just because one is an individual with individual thoughts and feelings, that equals a "soul". At least not as how I define soul.

I asked my original question because I wanted to know how you thought someone should refer to oneself even if they didn't agree with the concept of a soul. "I" is the word in the English language to do that. What word should EdipisReks used instead of "I" in his/her post?

Also, belief in the concept of god has little (or nothing) to do with one's ability to feel shame, remorse, or guilt. I worry more about the religious folks who feel they can't be good without god. What will they do if they happen to have a crisis of faith? Whereas, I know I am a decent human being without that faith.

Atlas

3rd October 2004, 07:12 AM

It is also quite probable that you do not understand the purpose of free-will and of suffering in the "Grand scheme of things".

I don't think I've heard your argument that suffering is good or proof or something that should make us want god to exist. Since you brought it up, would you mind clarifying it just a bit. If suffering in humans depended on god it is certainly a reason why some would choose that god did not exist.

How can you argue for the existence of God to an audience who do not want God to exist? Seriously.

This group has always been open to well reasoned arguments and evidence... Seriously.
Lifegazer, some people do not want fatty foods to exist. It's still possible to convince them that they do. Over time there are effects to be noticed when swallowing that stuff.

Consider the life of the average-joe: largely spent pursuing selfish and materialistic gratification. Are you telling me that the proven existence of God would/should not change the average-joe?

I would certainly be able to argue that. If the god of my own definition showed me that all life forms are designed to survive and acquire the means to survive, selfishness and the acquisition of material wealth for self and family would certainly be virtuous behaviors. Lifegazer I think you're confusing the issue when you assume the attributes of the deity you inquire after. Would you mind listing the attributes and meanings of the God you think most of us want not to exist?

BillHoyt

3rd October 2004, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Exactly: The reality is that there is an individual experience of existence. The reality is that this individual is a complex rational and emotional being and one cannot get to the heart of what one thinks & feels without searching the depths of ones own experiential being.

The other guy/gal denounces the very existence of the individual, his/her feelings and thoughts, and the ability to search the depths of his/her being to unveil those thoughts.
... Ironic really, given the number of times he/she said "I" in his/her reply. Ironic really, given the opinions/beliefs expressed. Ironic really, given the presence of 'attitude' in his/her response.

If you don't believe in the concept of the individual, you should have no opinions, no feelings, and no self-awareness.
Oy, lg, Lisa was not agreeing with you in the least. She was pointing out the foolishness of equating the soul with "I" in such a way that you think one can't say "I" without believing in a soul. You should check your illogic further though, given the nonsense about sensation and the non-existence of external objects. Under your bizarre twisting of reality there would be no "I" to worry about. But clearly logical consistency is not your forte. Now we can also add "simple ability to comprehend simple written statements" to the long list of things that aren't your forte.

Lord Muck oGentry

3rd October 2004, 08:10 AM

lifegazer,
If I am misunderstanding your position, please let me know. You appear to be asserting that there are many atheists who adhere to two notions:
1. I desire that there should be no god, so there is no god, and
2. If there is a god, my behaviour is shameful and deserves divine punishment. But my behaviour is not shameful and does not deserve divine punishment, so there is no god.
Let's call 1 Wishful-thinking Atheism (WTA), since wishful thinking is exactly what it is.
As for 2, we are spoilt for choice in criticism: is-ought fallacy, appeal to ( divine) authority, argumentum ad baculum, depending on how the premiss is defended. Let's call it argumentum-ad-baculum-atheism ( or ABA) for the moment.
In many years of keeping company with atheists, I have never met any that adhere to WTA or ABA. But perhaps I have led a sheltered life. If you have evidence of widespread WTA/ ABA, please let us see it.
If you choose to do so, please remember that your assertion is about reasons and motives for atheists' behaviour. You may not, on pain of question-begging, simply infer that, if atheists behave badly, they must be doing so for the reasons you suggest.
Still godless,
LMoG

BillHoyt

3rd October 2004, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
This is a serious thread, aimed at unveiling a particular human-characteristic existing amongst a large percentage of humanity pertaining to the possible existence of God:-
The desire that God should NOT exist.

Why would anyone "desire" that a God of all creation should not exist?
... Simply because it would leave the individual to pursue any selfish/egotistical goal he or she wishes, without fear of repercussion, guilt, or shame.

Let me make one thing clear here: I'm not saying that all atheists and agnostics have the minds & hearts of a Hitler. Indeed, in truth, I do not claim to be "without sin" myself... and as many of you know, I think 'God' actually exists.
... Nay, this thread simply wishes to expose an obvious truth:-
That the non-existence of God would free the individual from much soul-searching, fear, guilt & shame.

I put it to you that many of us don't even want God to exist.
[ sardonic ]Sure, lg, agnostics and atheists don't want God to exist. Clearly it is not possible to actually hold as true an assertion that gives one no comfort. Or that gives on active discomfort. To wit: it is patently obvious Hitler did not really exist. Such evil is unfathomable and, therefore, could not have been. Q.E.D. Sadly, from the more general assertion clearly established by this reasoning, it gives atheists great comfort to know the good is not guaranteed to vanquish the evil. Agnostics also, but to a lesser degree, delight in the knowledge that the universe does not conspire to the good. Old, fat, ugly atheists in particular are comforted by knowing their bodies will not live on for eternity. Ewwww. It is far more comforting to snuggle securely in the knowledge that the body will simply lie underground and rot and feed bacteria, nematodes and worms. I'm sure, also, they are greatly comforted to know they will never again see all those awful folk with whom they've had to share the planet. Wives and children, aunts and uncles, friends and mates. All gone in one swell fwoop. It brings a tear of joy to each and every agnostic or atheist's eyes to know there is no god, no heaven. To know they've got about 70 years, in and out, and will get recycled to become somebody else or somebody else's food. Or, better yet, part of the cemetary lawn. [ / sardonic]

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
I asked my original question because I wanted to know how you thought someone should refer to oneself even if they didn't agree with the concept of a soul. "I" is the word in the English language to do that. What word should EdipisReks used instead of "I" in his/her post?

Is there a "oneself" or not?
If not, then there is no word that ~one~ can use.

BillHoyt

3rd October 2004, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Is there a "oneself" or not?
If not, then there is no word that ~one~ can use.

I see we've hardly yet begun to plumb the full depths of your ignorance.

Lord Emsworth

3rd October 2004, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
This is completely irrelevant to the thread. I don't want to talk about the mindset of believers, but of the mindset of non-believers.

Irrelevant. I just want to talk about the desire for there not to be a God.

Irrelevant.
There seems to be a reluctance on your part to face upto the issue at hand.

It is all very relevant to the topic since this "God" thingy only seems to exist in the mindset of the believer. At least from my point of view. Also you failed to adress the key point in my post, but I give you a second chance ...

Originally posted by lifegazer
I put it to you that many of us don't even want God to exist.

A what?

Marquis de Carabas

3rd October 2004, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

... Nay, this thread simply wishes to expose an obvious truth:-
That the non-existence of God would free the individual from much soul-searching, fear, guilt & shame.
How so?

jimlintott

3rd October 2004, 09:29 AM

LG must believe in all the gods from all religions, or, there must be many gods that he desires to not exist.

Not believing in any gods has never freed me from feelings of guilt, shame, inadequacy, or from deep introspection.

I'm going to guess that lg does not yet have children.

Cosmo

3rd October 2004, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
How so?

Exactly. Lifegazer is making the common, yet blatantly false assumption that Theology is in any way connected with Morality. As Randi himself said in one of his commentaries, he found that assertion to be one of the most "patronizing" things you can say to an atheist. I tend to agree with him there.

I can't say I have a "desire", as you put it, for God not to exist. Granted that there is no evidence for him existing, however, it would be a lot easier than you might think, Lifegazer, to convince me that he did exist - a simple, extended, blatant disruption of the laws of physics, for example. And if this did happen, or if he did show himself? Then I can imagine we'd have quite a few people declaring their belief. :)

Dymanic

3rd October 2004, 09:41 AM

As I see it, lifegazer's argument reduces to:

1) Believing in God is morally superior to not believing.

2) You believe what you want to believe.

3) Genuine morality can never be internalized, but is derived exclusively from belief in God.

I suggest that these premises lead to a glaring contradiction.

Tricky

3rd October 2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
I see we've hardly yet begun to plumb the full depths of your ignorance.
You like totally ripped me off, man. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870558946&highlight=shallowness#post1870558946)

(S'okay. I'm not very proprietary. Sincerest of flattery, an' all that. ;) )

3rd October 2004, 10:45 AM

I strongly desire there to be a God. I believe there is a God. However, I believe no tangible proof of God exists, and that as a result, atheists are fully justified for their beliefs.

I also recognize that, in general, those who proclaim belief in God tend to act in a less morally correct way than those who do not. Don't know what that's about, but oh well.

Anyway, LG, since I believe in God, I'm not qualified to discuss this thread - seems to me, it's only logical to not believe in God, but that the general desire is that a God did really exist.

epepke

3rd October 2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Is there a "oneself" or not?

That is, as they say, a question.

However, it has little to do with what happened here. You used the term "soul" as in "soul-searching." That may simply be a figure of speech. However, the soul is a very different concept from the self. Then EdipusReks said that he didn't believe in a soul to search, which I took as pointing out that he didn't believe in the Immortal Soul of Religion and was making a comment on it. You, then, produced a highly comical response, albeit perhaps inadvertantly, where you made no distinction between the concept of a soul and the concept of the self.

You're still harping on about it, which seems to mean that you haven't gotten the point and really do consider the concept of the self, even as a convenience, equal to the Immortal Soul of Religion. So let's take it as given that you believe that anyone who does not believe in the Immortal Soul of Religion has no right to use the word "I" or speak of the self as a convenience or even a thwacking ding an sich.

What should be done with such people, pray tell?

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Lord Muck oGentry
lifegazer,
If I am misunderstanding your position, please let me know. You appear to be asserting that there are many atheists who adhere to two notions:
1. I desire that there should be no god, so there is no god,

Should read:
1. I desire that there should be no God so that I can live and enjoy my own selfish materialistic life not really worrying a hoot for anybody but me and mine. If there is no God, I can live like this without fear of retribution, shame or guilt and I don't have to redress my selfishness or shallow-mindedness. Since I haven't seen a proof for God I'll continue to live like I am... and let's hope that they don't find one anyway.

2. If there is a god, my behaviour is shameful and deserves divine punishment.

I never said that such behaviour deserves divine punishment. I did say that the individual might fear divine punishment, which is punishing enough in itself. Rather, should read:-
2. If there is a God, then my behaviour is shameful and deserves redress.

But my behaviour is not shameful and does not deserve divine punishment, so there is no god.

Well I don't know you and so can hardly comment. But if you're anything like the average westerner, then I'll bet that you're living comfortably with a decent home full of mod cons, nice car, 1.89 holidays a year, and having as good a time as you can with your friends and family. Maybe you'll watch the evening news most nights, shake your head and say "poor sods". Maybe you'll donate 20 bucks to bandaid once a year. Maybe you'll even say hello to the lonely old woman down your street, hoping to cheer her up. But the bulk of your time is invested in yourself - how you can increase your own financial worth... and how to better the quality of your leisurely life. In short, like the rest of us, you're probably very selfish and self-centred.
... If so, then your behaviour would be in need of redress IF there was a God.

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by epepke
However, the soul is a very different concept from the self.

Says who?
To divide the soul from the self is to be more than One.

and really do consider the concept of the self, even as a convenience, equal to the Immortal Soul of Religion.

I'm not religious.

What should be done with such people, pray tell?
Save their souls by showing them that they have one.

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
A what?

Do you understand the concept of 'infinity'? Have you ever seen one?
Do you understand the concept of 'nothing'? Have you ever seen nothing?

Don't make yourself look like a mug.

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic
As I see it, lifegazer's argument reduces to:

1) Believing in God is morally superior to not believing.

There's nothing morally superior to harbouring one belief over another. Moral superiority relates to how we act towards one another.
This thread has nothing to do with theism or theists. This thread deals specifically with the attitudes of the atheist and ponders whether that person actually desires that God should not exist. Why can't you talk about this without talking about theists? Are you afraid to admit that you enjoy your selfish life and don't want to lose all your nice material goodies? That's okay, I'm not here to string you up. I just want you to have the balls to tell the truth.

Lord Emsworth

3rd October 2004, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Do you understand the concept of 'infinity'? Have you ever seen one?
Do you understand the concept of 'nothing'? Have you ever seen nothing?

Don't make yourself look like a mug.

Don't know. Do you?

But I still do not know what you are talking about and, imperative to this thread, what people have no desire for to exist. "God" you say, but that is not really helpful now, is it?

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
seems to me, it's only logical to not believe in God,

That's a crock. Give me one - just one - reasoned FACT which supports this notion and I'll leave these forums tonight, never to pester a single soul here ever again.

but that the general desire is that a God did really exist.
Really? You think that these people here, generally, would have no problem in redressing the values of their selfish lives?

Lord Emsworth

3rd October 2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
That's a crock. Give me one - just one - reasoned FACT which supports this notion and I'll leave these forums tonight, never to pester a single soul here ever again.

No true scotsman fallacy already included ... Facts are usually things where no reasoning is necessary.

But I give you something ... It is only reasonable to believe in something when you have a hazy clue at least as to what to believe in.

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
Don't know. Do you?

You're going to stand before this forum and lie that you have no idea what the concept of 'God' relates to?

But I still do not know what you are talking about and, imperative to this thread, what people have no desire for to exist. "God" you say, but that is not really helpful now, is it?

We don't have to believe in the existence of a concept to understand what that concept means.
I don't want to turn this thread into a debate about what God means. Most people here are honest-enough to know that 'God' relates to some kind of supremely powerful being - the creator of all things.
But if you want to be difficult and/or are really interested in understanding what the rational definition of 'God' should be, then I direct you to this often-amusing but interesting thread:-

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30781&highlight=behold

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
Facts are usually things where no reasoning is necessary.

Name a fact then.
Actually, we're looking for facts that prove it to be "more logical to not believe in God", but I'd be interested to see any fact you think you know.

Dymanic

3rd October 2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Why can't you talk about this without talking about theists?I promise to do my best to frame my objections as neutrally as possible, but this may be difficult; it's like insisting that discussions about a coin be limited to only one side.

There's nothing morally superior to harbouring one belief over another.Yet:

Are you afraid to admit that you enjoy your selfish life and don't want to lose all your nice material goodies?

I don't see any other way to take than as an accusation; i.e., the choice not to believe is morally wrong in itself. Can you explain why you deny that this is what you are saying?

Is premise number one the only one you deny? There were three. Here they are again:

1) Believing in God is morally superior to not believing.

2) You believe what you want to believe.

3) Genuine morality can never be internalized, but is derived exclusively from belief in God.

thaiboxerken

3rd October 2004, 12:55 PM

That's a crock. Give me one - just one - reasoned FACT which supports this notion and I'll leave these forums tonight, never to pester a single soul here ever again.

Fact.. there is no evidence of any gods. It is not reasonable to believe in things for which there is no evidence.

Bye bye!

Anathema

3rd October 2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You think that these people here, generally, would have no problem in redressing the values of their selfish lives?

Is that just chock full of unfounded assumptions, or is it just me? I'd reckon it one of the most syllabically economical expressions of reckless, uninformed generalizations I've ever seen...

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic
I promise to do my best to frame my objections as neutrally as possible, but this may be difficult; it's like insisting that discussions about a coin be limited to only one side.

Well no doubt you could argue the upside of that coin till the cows come home: namely, you don't have to talk about atheism or atheists to discuss theism or the mindset of theists.

Yet:

Are you afraid to admit that you enjoy your selfish life and don't want to lose all your nice material goodies?

I don't see any other way to take than as an accusation

Well it's not aimed at you specifically. I'm talking about the mindset of the average Joe.

i.e., the choice not to believe is morally wrong in itself. Can you explain why you deny that this is what you are saying?

The choice not to believe frees the individual from caring about the rest of humanity as much as he cares about himself and his own, and frees the individual to care about "things" moreso than he otherwise would.
There can be no doubt that a definite realisation of God's existence should and would alter the mindset of the average Joe.
My point is that many of us are happy to revolve our lives around ourselves, our close family and friends, and amassing fame and fortune for ourselves. The actual existence of God and the repercussions for mankind as a whole [family] would conflict with such a self-centred life. That's why I think alot of people don't even want God to exist.

2) You believe what you want to believe.

What's your point? I don't understand.

3) Genuine morality can never be internalized, but is derived exclusively from belief in God.
Morality is forever internalised in relation to our beliefs and desires. Atheists can be good people. Theists can be nasty sods. It's a complex issue. But at the end of the day, not believing in a God takes alot of pressure off us in our decision-making.

thaiboxerken

3rd October 2004, 01:22 PM

I thought you said you'd never post again, Lifegazer.

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Anathema
Is that just chock full of unfounded assumptions, or is it just me? I'd reckon it one of the most syllabically economical expressions of reckless, uninformed generalizations I've ever seen...
What's society built upon? Money and family.

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
That's a crock. Give me one - just one - reasoned FACT which supports this notion and I'll leave these forums tonight, never to pester a single soul here ever again.

Fact.. there is no evidence of any gods. It is not reasonable to believe in things for which there is no evidence.

That's not a fact. You say that there is no "evidence" for God's existence. But what would you class as evidence?
There's a mountain of rational arguments, argued by some of the sharpest minds that ever lived throughout history, given as evidence for God's existence.
Strangely enough, the size of the mountain built of rational arguments to show that God doesn't exist, amounts to a mole-hill.

Skeptics argue about the credibility of the bible all the time, not realising that at-best they refute the credibility of that religion itself. But they don't refute the existence of a God by mocking stories about Noah.
I'm talking about proper rational arguments pertaining directly to God itself.

Lord Emsworth

3rd October 2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're going to stand before this forum and lie that you have no idea what the concept of 'God' relates to?

Next ad hominem. It is really all far to hazy for me, like your below definition.

Originally posted by lifegazer
We don't have to believe in the existence of a concept to understand what that concept means.
I don't want to turn this thread into a debate about what God means. Most people here are honest-enough to know that 'God' relates to some kind of supremely powerful being - the creator of all things.

But that can hardly be all now, can it? At least that will not be enough to make your OP point (which is actually also an ad hominem). You see the connection is missing from "some kind of supremely powerful being" (as outlined above) to your conclusion that people do not want that thing to exist because of selfishness etc.

But let me tell you what you are missing here. It is the intermediary (a preacher or some such) asserting to be speaking on behalf of this obscure being. Where we are straight back to the believers who you say are irrelevant to this thread ...

Originally posted by lifegazer
But if you want to be difficult and/or are really interested in understanding what the rational definition of 'God' should be, then I direct you to this often-amusing but interesting thread:-

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30781&highlight=behold

"On your knees heathens." Now why would poeple want to do that. If they don't, is it because they do not have a desire for God to exist?

----------

Originally posted by lifegazer
Name a fact then.

A 'general' fact? 73 Â°F

Originally posted by lifegazer
Actually, we're looking for facts that prove it to be "more logical to not believe in God", but I'd be interested to see any fact you think you know.

To name a fact for the nonexistence of an unfalsifiable (and hazyly defined) being would be pretty hard ... What could actually falsify the notion that there is some superpowerful being, which, much to our distress, uses this superpowers to remain stubbornly hidden? Nothing, I would hold, which ironically enough, is a very good reason not to believe in that thingy.

Edited pretty late to delete a "not" ...

thaiboxerken

3rd October 2004, 01:35 PM

That's not a fact. You say that there is no "evidence" for God's existence. But what would you class as evidence?

Scientific evidence is the only evidence that matters.

There's a mountain of rational arguments, argued by some of the sharpest minds that ever lived throughout history, given as evidence for God's existence.

Rationality is not evidence. The most intelligent person to have ever existed can put up an argument, but without actual scientific evidence.. it's just an argument.

Strangely enough, the size of the mountain built of rational arguments to show that God doesn't exist, amounts to a mole-hill.

No need for it to be big. The fact is that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any gods.

Skeptics argue about the credibility of the bible all the time, not realising that at-best they refute the credibility of that religion itself.

True.

But they don't refute the existence of a God by mocking stories about Noah.

It does show that the god depicted by the bible is really just a mythical character.

I'm talking about proper rational arguments pertaining directly to God itself.

Which god are you talking about?

Dymanic

3rd October 2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Well it's not aimed at you specifically
I don't take it personally, but that is irrelevant. It is, an accusation -- is it not?
There can be no doubt that a definite realisation of God's existence should and would alter the mindset of the average Joe.
Absent that realization, Joe doesn't seem to have a very well-established set of internalized morals -- which is precisely why he needs God. Having no morals of his own, he requires an external set of rules.

Right?

2) You believe what you want to believe.

------------------------

What's your point? I don't understand.
I seem to understand your premises better than you do. I am pointing out that you take it as an absolute given that belief is entirely a matter of choice.

But at the end of the day, not believing in a God takes alot of pressure off us in our decision-making.How so, if Morality is forever internalised?

3rd October 2004, 01:54 PM

Show me the evidence that God exists, and I'll be genuinely surprised.

There are, after all, two schools of belief: 1) Believing only that evidence proves existance, and 2) believing only that evidence of non-existance proves non-existance. If you are of the first school, you cannot believe in God because no evidence exists to prove God's existence. If the second, you are free to believe in god because there is no solid evidence that god does NOT exist. I may have mis-spoke earlier: it is logical, in one way, to believe that God does not exist, because there is no evidence of God - nor any evidence against God.

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Scientific evidence is the only evidence that matters.

Why's that?
You obviously take no interest in my threads, but if you had, you would have realised that science is the study of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things (abstract entities) of the mind.
Science studies the order present within awareness, of unreal entities.
Neither you nor science knows one fact about the sensed-world which shows that there is a reality beyond the awareness of one.

Rationality is not evidence.

When discussing the [i]nature of absolute reality, rationality is the only evidence that we can provide.

but without actual scientific evidence.. it's just an argument.

The cause of what we sense can obviously not be sensed itself. Reality is not an abstract thing.
Science tells us nothing about 'reality'.

The fact is that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any gods.

If you discard a mountain of reasoned-arguments by some of the sharpest minds ever to have existed, then sobeit. But it is clear to me that you do not understand the limitations of science.

It does show that the god depicted by the bible is really just a mythical character.

Only if you take the bible to be an accurate historical narrative of actual events. But there is ample evidence to show that many biblical narratives are primarily-concerned with symbolic and mystical teachings.

Which god are you talking about?
Omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnicreative... God IS existence.
I understand the concept of 'God' in its fullness, otherwise it has no rational meaning. All other [perceived] entities are finite and limited, by nature... so there is no way for rationale to discern one such entity from another.
For the true rationalist, God can have only one meaning... as defined above.

thaiboxerken

3rd October 2004, 02:28 PM

Why's that?

Because it's the only reliable method of gaining knowledge.

You obviously take no interest in my threads, but if you had, you would have realised that science is the study of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things (abstract entities) of the mind.

This is a bunch of hogwash. Science is the study of the universe, and all of it's aspects.

Science studies the order present within awareness, of unreal entities.

This is matrix like BS, perhaps you should stop believing the fiction.

Neither you nor science knows one fact about the sensed-world which shows that there is a reality beyond the awareness of one.

More matrix BS. You are not Neo, there is no matrix, you are not the one.

When discussing the [i]nature of absolute reality, rationality is the only evidence that we can provide.

No, when discussing the nature of reality, science is the only reliable method of investigation.

The cause of what we sense can obviously not be sensed itself. Reality is not an abstract thing.
Science tells us nothing about 'reality'.

Science tells us everything we know about reality.

If you discard a mountain of reasoned-arguments by some of the sharpest minds ever to have existed, then sobeit. But it is clear to me that you do not understand the limitations of science.

It's clear that you don't understand reality.

Only if you take the bible to be an accurate historical narrative of actual events. But there is ample evidence to show that many biblical narratives are primarily-concerned with symbolic and mystical teachings.

Hardly evidence, just opinions. Do you know for sure that the authors of the bible were concerned with symbology and metaphor, that they didn't want their audience to take what they wrote literally? No, you are basically full of crap and you're making up BS as you go along spouting your crap.

Omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnicreative... God IS existence. I understand the concept of 'God' in its fullness, otherwise it has no rational meaning. All other [perceived] entities are finite and limited, by nature... so there is no way for rationale to discern one such entity from another.
For the true rationalist, God can have only one meaning... as defined above.

The "true rationalist"?! Now you give yourself too much credit, you are hardly a rationalist. You also dismiss all of the other concepts of gods that there are out there. You have your own personal conception of what "god" is to you, that's fine. But for you to assert that your concept is the only rational concept is ABSURD. Your concept is no more rational than the the concepts of a pantheon of gods, like in Greek and Roman mythology. You sure do think you are a genius and smarter than everyone, don't you?

Well, buddy, you are hardly intelligent or rational. You are a fool walking amongst geniuses trying to convince yourself that everyone else is dumb.

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
Next ad hominem. It is really all far to hazy for me, like your below definition.

Then read [the end of] my previous post to thaiboxerken. You're determined to derail this thread so I have no choice other than to express the rationalist's understanding of the concept that is 'God'.

But let me tell you what you are missing here. It is the intermediary (a preacher or some such) asserting to be speaking on behalf of this obscure being.

You don't need to be a preacher or even a believer to rationalise the full meaning of a concept synonymous with being "The Creator".
Likewise, you don't need to be a God to rationalise the meaning of "infinity".
Likewise, it is possible to comprehend the absolute meaning of "nothing".

A 'general' fact? 73 Â°F

You're telling me that in absolute reality, it is 73 degrees?
Actually, in relation to the world that you sense, men have devised a scale which tells you it is 73 degrees where you perceive yourself to be. But this tells us nothing about reality.

[i]"On your knees heathens."

I told you it was sometimes amusing. Another memorable line:-
"I'm tired of bozos who don't understand the difference between 'God' and spiderman.".
I'm prone to a bit of banter.

To name a fact for the nonexistence of an unfalsifiable (and hazyly defined) being would be pretty hard

What you really have to do to prove that no God exists, is explain everything about existence without the need to invoke the existence of such an entity.
But you can't do that.

... What could actually falsify the notion that there is not some superpowerful being, which, much to our distress, uses this superpowers to remain stubbornly hidden? Nothing, I would hold,

As explained previously.

which ironically enough, is a very good reason not to believe in that thingy.

Actually, if you have no explanation for existence as a whole, you should have good reason to be open to the idea of the existence of a thingy.

3rd October 2004, 02:53 PM

Actually, you never will agree with us and vice versa- simply because you assume 'rational' thinking is superior to scientific evidence, when in fact the opposite is all too often true. So attempts to get us to 'understand' your posts can and must fail, and likewise our attempts to get you to understand reality also can and must fail.

Frustrating, but I think all too true.

Lord Muck oGentry

3rd October 2004, 03:07 PM

lifegazer,
Since I specifically asked you to correct any misunderstandings in my paraphrase of your position, I had better accept your corrections with good grace. It's your position, after all.
However, you persist in asserting that atheists desire or hope that no god exists, thus avoiding fear of retribution, shame and guilt. That is a factual assertion about atheists. Where is the evidence?
LMoG.

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Because it's the only reliable method of gaining knowledge.

I tried to explain to you that scientific-knowledge relates to the order amongst "things" given to awareness directly via the 5 sensations. This is an absolute fact, since humanity is only aware of "things" because of the sensations that he has.

This is a bunch of hogwash. Science is the study of the universe, and all of it's aspects.

Science is a study of the SENSED universe = science is the study of abstract things.

Science studies the order present within awareness, of unreal [in themselves] entities.

This is matrix like BS, perhaps you should stop believing the fiction.

This has got nothing to do with movies. It's just the truth that via the 5 sensations, a portrait of the world let's itself be known to us.
We have no knowledge or experience of real things - we cannot study the reality of things - we can only study the abstract representation of things.
This has obviously come as a shock to you but I can assure you that it's a basic philosophical fact.

No, when discussing the nature of reality, science is the only reliable method of investigation.

Are you just going to live in denial of a very simple and obvious truth for the rest of your life?
Science cannot study the 'reality' of a world... it can only study an abstract representation of a world. And the absolute-cause of the abstract world is necessarily not a sensed-thing itself.
The cause of the world we sense, can never, ever, be sensed.
As such, science is lame in regards "reality" and discovering the cause of what we sense.

Do you know for sure that the authors of the bible were concerned with symbology and metaphor, that they didn't want their audience to take what they wrote literally? No, you are basically full of crap and you're making up BS as you go along spouting your crap.

You get quite angry when the beliefs which safeguard your disbelief in God are challenged by credible reason. I only note this because of the title of the thread itself. Interesting.
Anyway, since you think I "made it up" here's some other opinions for you to browse:-
http://afgen.com/oldtest.html
http://afgen.com/newtest.html
http://home.att.net/~asassycat/BibleNumerology.html
http://www.jhom.com/calendar/sivan/symbolism.htm
http://www.bibletruths.net/Sermons/BTSOO87.htm
http://www.christcenteredmall.com/teachings/symbolism/

I've not checked these sites. Just letting you know that there is a large awareness of biblical symbology and that I didn't make it up myself.

The "true rationalist"?! Now you give yourself too much credit, you are hardly a rationalist.

Yes I am, for I don't just believe in the reality of things because they exist inside my mind, unlike yourself. And I question the authority of every establishment which claims to know about "reality"... science included.

You also dismiss all of the other concepts of gods that there are out there.

I explained why: All other entities are finite and limited... rationale cannot discern the difference between any of them.
For a rationalist, there can only be one logical meaning given to the concept of God.

You have your own personal conception of what "god" is to you, that's fine. But for you to assert that your concept is the only rational concept is ABSURD.

Name any other definition of God and I'll tell you why it makes no sense or has no significant difference to anything else which exists.

Your concept is no more rational than the the concepts of a pantheon of gods, like in Greek and Roman mythology. You sure do think you are a genius and smarter than everyone, don't you?

I'm not here to boast about myself.

Well, buddy, you are hardly intelligent or rational. You are a fool walking amongst geniuses trying to convince yourself that everyone else is dumb.
You've lost the plot mate. You don't have the reason so you resort to anger and mockery.
Anything to avoid expressing the fact that you desire 'God' should not exist.

thaiboxerken

3rd October 2004, 03:24 PM

I tried to explain to you that scientific-knowledge relates to the order amongst "things" given to awareness directly via the 5 sensations. This is an absolute fact, since humanity is only aware of "things" because of the sensations that he has.

This is absolute BS. Science studies those things that we cannot sense with any of our 5 senses, radiation is one of those things. You cannot see, feel, hear, smell or sense by touch gamma radiation. However, science has discovered gamma rays to be real by using scientific methods.

Your "explanations" are comlete lies and bunk. You are full of crap.

Science is a study of the SENSED universe = science is the study of abstract things.

No, and no. You are wrong on both accounts.

This has got nothing to do with movies. It's just the truth that via the 5 sensations, a portrait of the world let's itself be known to us.

This is more BUNK. We sense the world with our 5 senses. If we did not exist, the world would still be here.

We have no knowledge or experience of real things - we cannot study the reality of things - we can only study the abstract representation of things.

Bullcrap. We study reality, what you propose are merely abstracts about that reality.

This has obviously come as a shock to you but I can assure you that it's a basic philosophical fact.

Philosophy does not provide fact.

Are you just going to live in denial of a very simple and obvious truth for the rest of your life?

I will not convert to your religion simply because you have no evidence to support your claims.

You get quite angry when the beliefs which safeguard your disbelief in God are challenged by credible reason. I only note this because of the title of the thread itself.

I'm hardly angry, I'm just pointing out the lies, distortion, nonsense and crap that you spout is nothing but.. crap. You are a fool that simply ignores reality and evidence in order to justify your own personal version of "God".

I've not checked these sites. Just letting you know that there is a large awareness of biblical symbology and that I didn't make it up myself.

Yes, but other people have made it up. There are varying opinions about the bible, that it was to be taken literally, that it is symbolic, that it is a metaphor.. that it is a mix of all of these things. The reality is that it is mythology.

Yes I am, for I don't just believe in the reality of things because they exist inside my mind, unlike yourself. And I question the authority of every establishment which claims to know about "reality"... science included.

One can question science without being an idiot about it. You are simly being foolish by dismissing science simply because it doesn't agree with how you wish to percieve reality. Science is a proven method, the only proven method in discovering knowledge.

I explained why: All other entities are finite and limited... rationale cannot discern the difference between any of them.
For a rationalist, there can only be one logical meaning given to the concept of God.

Bulls*&T! Finite and limitted things are do not make things unreal. Humans live for a finite amount of time, and can only do limmited feats.. but that doesn't make us any less real.

Name any other definition of God and I'll tell you why it makes no sense or has no significant difference to anything else which exists.

Your definition of god makes no sense and has not significance on anything else that exists.

I'm not here to boast about myself.

But you sure do a good job of it.

You've lost the plot mate. You don't have the reason so you resort to anger and mockery.

You have not been reasoning at all, you've spouted nonsense and lies. You've lost your mind.

Anything to avoid expressing the fact that you desire 'God' should not exist.

I sure as heck wouldn't want your god to exist, especially if it's as insane as you are.

Lord Emsworth

3rd October 2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Then read [the end of] my previous post to thaiboxerken. You're determined to derail this thread so I have no choice other than to express the rationalist's understanding of the concept that is 'God'.

You mean "Omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnicreative... God IS existence." The omnies do not really tell me anything about that "being" upon which I could base (potential) belief. The hazyness again. And the second part just renames existence. It is like calling your budgie "God" and then in all seriousness asserting that God exists. I now gather that God is some omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnicreative being which is existence. But what to believe in?

Originally posted by lifegazer
You don't need to be a preacher or even a believer to rationalise the full meaning of a concept synonymous with being "The Creator".

But it would need a preacher or some such to tell me that God wants me to do this and wants me not to do that etc.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Likewise, you don't need to be a God to rationalise the meaning of "infinity".
Likewise, it is possible to comprehend the absolute meaning of "nothing".

What have "infinity" and "nothing" now got to do with anything?

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're telling me that in absolute reality, it is 73 degrees?

No, I am saying that the thermometer shows the temperature to be 73 Â°F (I just made that up actually), which is a piece of data, a (scientific) fact.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Actually, in relation to the world that you sense, men have devised a scale which tells you it is 73 degrees where you perceive yourself to be. But this tells us nothing about reality.

And?

Originally posted by lifegazer
I told you it was sometimes amusing. Another memorable line:-
"I'm tired of bozos who don't understand the difference between 'God' and spiderman.".
I'm prone to a bit of banter.

I understood your tongue in cheekness.

Originally posted by lifegazer
What you really have to do to prove that no God exists, is explain everything about existence without the need to invoke the existence of such an entity.
But you can't do that.

Regardless of whether we could do that or not, the notion which you are entertaining here is called "God of the Gaps." Hardly impressive.

Originally posted by lifegazer
As explained previously.

No, that would not falsify it.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Actually, if you have no explanation for existence as a whole, you should have good reason to be open to the idea of the existence of a thingy.

I am not impressed by arguments from ignorance.

But on a slightly different note, how would you explain the existence of your God?

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Lord Muck oGentry
However, you persist in asserting that atheists desire or hope that no god exists, thus avoiding fear of retribution, shame and guilt. That is a factual assertion about atheists. Where is the evidence?

The evidence is the society that we live in. It's largely about money, fame, power, comfort, leisure, and only really caring about close family and friends.
It's about the pursuit of these things at the adverse cost - physical, mental & emotional - to other individuals and nations/regions.

Nobody can doubt that selfishness and egotisticalness are good for the individual, but bad for the world as a whole. Yet those are the very attributes which come into conflict with the knowledge that God exists and those are the very attributes which one would feel inclined to redress given a realisation of God's existence.
Suddenly, one would be questioned to value their possessions, their limited expression of love, their desire to be held in high esteem, their desire for authority, their desire for comfort and lazy leisure, etc..
And yet you ask me why people might desire that God would not exist?

Lord Muck oGentry

3rd October 2004, 03:54 PM

lifegazer,
You made an assertion about atheists, their beliefs and the motives for holding those beliefs. And that is the assertion that stands in need of evidence. Generalities about the wickedness of the world won't do.
Do atheists behave as you say?Is the motivation for their opinions what you say it is (desire to feel free of guilt, shame,fear of retribution)?
Evidence, please.

lifegazer

3rd October 2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
This is absolute BS. Science studies those things that we cannot sense with any of our 5 senses, radiation is one of those things. You cannot see, feel, hear, smell or sense by touch gamma radiation. However, science has discovered gamma rays to be real by using scientific methods.

Scientific methods? You mean they sensed the existence of gamma rays on the machines which they built and calibrated, using their senses?
The existence of all things in the world are ultimately sensed before we know about them. It's a sensed-world that we have knowledge of... not a real world.
You really need to do some basic philosophical reading explaining this. I promise that I haven't "made it up".

Your "explanations" are comlete lies and bunk. You are full of crap.

You just don't understand the distinction which exists between the sense of a thing and the reality of a thing. To exist is one thing, to be perceived/sensed is something else.
All sensed-things are not real things.
Science is the study of things that are sensed.

All facts mate. Even materialist-philosophers recognise this distinction. You're just off the pace here.

One can question science without being an idiot about it. You are simly being foolish by dismissing science

I'm not dismissing science. It does a good job explaining the order which exists amongst the sense of abstract-things. I just pointed-out the limitations of science pertaining to "reality".

Science is a proven method, the only proven method in discovering knowledge.

Correction: science is the only proven method of discovering knowledge about the order which exists in our mind.

Finite and limitted things are do not make things unreal. Humans live for a finite amount of time, and can only do limmited feats.. but that doesn't make us any less real.

What's this got to do with my definition of 'God'?

Ratman_tf

3rd October 2004, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Thanks for your honesty. Notice the reluctance of everyone else here to recognise this obvious truth.
The only thing I would criticise you for is your doubt that this applies to 'many'. Consider the life of the average-joe: largely spent pursuing selfish and materialistic gratification. Are you telling me that the proven existence of God would/should not change the average-joe?

Because the average Joe does not care. He may (most likely) profess a belief in god, he may even go to church every sunday, but the existence of god does not affect his everyday life. He just doesn't care in the face of parking tickets and burnt pop-tarts and monday night football.
I personally think a lot of so-called religious people are just going through the motions like that.

As to your actualy question, the proven existence of god would change a great many things and people, it just seems to be a difficult thing to prove, doesn't it? ;)

My first aim here was to expose the desire itself. My second aim was to explain why alot of us have that desire.

I also want to discuss how this desire affects the method and manner of many posters here. How threads are affected by this actual desirelessness for God.

Discredit an opponent based on your impression of their intentions instead of their argument? I'd like to say I expected better of you... for shame.

Ratman_tf

3rd October 2004, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Really? You think that these people here, generally, would have no problem in redressing the values of their selfish lives?

OW! Quit slinging that mud around! You're getting it all over everybody. At least aim!

Cosmo

3rd October 2004, 05:39 PM

Well, LG...

1. If science is our only reliable method of gathering factual evidence, and
2. Scientific knowledge is merely that which we perceive with our five senses, through scientific instruments or otherwise,

then

3. We have nothing to gain by debating the real world which exists beyond our five senses, since we have no means of discovering a *single* thing about it.

What are you trying to prove here?

Anathema

3rd October 2004, 07:18 PM

So, let me get this straight: lacking a belief in some SupremeGodheadFigure automagically makes one callous, self-centered, and lacking any concept of a "greater good" toward "one's" neighbors? If it's not 100% so, what would your rhetorical guestimate be of the relative distribution of caring:callous, moral:immoral behaviors among atheists? What would be your distribution of these same traits among the entire population of theists? Would there be 0% callousness and 0% self-centeredness, and 100% love and selflessness?

BillHoyt

4th October 2004, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
What's this got to do with my definition of 'God'?
What's your definition of anything got to do with reality?

AWPrime

4th October 2004, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Why would anyone "desire" that a God of all creation should not exist?
... Simply because it would leave the individual to pursue any selfish/egotistical goal he or she wishes, without fear of repercussion, guilt, or shame.

A wrong assumption.

I don't believe in god nor have a need for one.

I behave wel because I want to be respected, live a good life and remembered well after I die.

lifegazer

4th October 2004, 12:51 PM

Look, the only question worth answering here is whether any atheists would welcome the definite news that there is a living God of all creation.
The answer is either yay or nay. I cannot say for sure what each individual would say, but since "yay" would necessarily involve the individual atheist completely redressing the values of his life with a view to abruptly changing his life, I would confidently predict that there are a large number of atheists out there that would not welcome such news.

The important aspect of this conversation relates to the profound difference a God of all creation would impact upon the
presently-perceived values of human existence.

Would you gladly embrace the world as your immediate family and stop limiting your love to a few people?
Would you gladly work for the whole, rather than for yourself and the few members of your family?
Would you gladly share your wealth with those that were poor?
Would you gladly humble yourself?

... These are the sort of questions one would be faced with upon the arrival of the aforementioned news.
Maybe now it might be clearer for everyone: the existence of God is bad news for the ego.
The ego, if honest, would at least admit to being troubled by the repercussions to its values of life.
Maybe now you will understand where I'm coming from when I suggest that there exists a lack of desire to discover God.

Anathema

4th October 2004, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Look, the only question worth answering here is whether any atheists would welcome the definite news that there is a living God of all creation.

Well, garsh....that's easy: YES. "Atheists" are a large and diverse group of people, so the odds that "any" of that large, diverse group would welcome the news is very high.

Marquis de Carabas

4th October 2004, 01:07 PM

balrog666

4th October 2004, 01:19 PM

... These are the sort of questions one would be faced with upon the arrival of the aforementioned news.

Wow, that's about the silliest idea you've expressed yet on this thread!

Seismosaurus

4th October 2004, 01:20 PM

Cosmo

4th October 2004, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The important aspect of this conversation relates to the profound difference a God of all creation would impact upon the
presently-perceived values of human existence.

Would you gladly embrace the world as your immediate family and stop limiting your love to a few people?
Would you gladly work for the whole, rather than for yourself and the few members of your family?
Would you gladly share your wealth with those that were poor?
Would you gladly humble yourself?

... These are the sort of questions one would be faced with upon the arrival of the aforementioned news.
Maybe now it might be clearer for everyone: the existence of God is bad news for the ego.
The ego, if honest, would at least admit to being troubled by the repercussions to its values of life.
Maybe now you will understand where I'm coming from when I suggest that there exists a lack of desire to discover God.

You assume that...

1. Atheists are immoral, self-centered, materialistic infidels who care not for their fellow man, and
2. The god which arrives not only fits the "traditional" definition of God as a being who is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful, but he's christian and is running the whole heaven-hell operation - in other words, your bible is 100% accurate.

Is it not possible that god, when he arrives, would instead favor atheists over theists, as atheists weren't the ones to mangle his supposed holy book into a shadow of its former self?

Piscivore

4th October 2004, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Look, the only question worth answering here is whether any atheists would welcome the definite news that there is a living God of all creation.
The answer is either yay or nay. I cannot say for sure what each individual would say, but since "yay" would necessarily involve the individual atheist completely redressing the values of his life with a view to abruptly changing his life, I would confidently predict that there are a large number of atheists out there that would not welcome such news.

I said before in another thread that I would definitly welcome proof of an extant "god of all creation" (this is different than "news" of one; we have that); if only to put to rest all the brutality done in its name. As for "redressing the values of [my] life"; well you are presupposing that this god shares different values than me, aren't you? What if it's all the "Christians" that must do?

Originally posted by lifegazer
The important aspect of this conversation relates to the profound difference a God of all creation would impact upon the
presently-perceived values of human existence.

Whose values? There are six billion "presently-perceived values of human existence"- which one is this god's? You are pre-supposing that "atheists" have fundamentally different values than god- why?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Would you gladly embrace the world as your immediate family and stop limiting your love to a few people?

No - My love isn't currently limited to "a few" people- a couple hundred, few related would be my off-the-cuff esimate- but gods aside I don't see myself extending this to the great dunder-headed mass of ignorant humanity, unless this god is going to fundamentally restructure my personality.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Would you gladly work for the whole, rather than for yourself and the few members of your family?

Become a Borg? A Communist? An ant? No. Seriously, if this is the kind of god you are talking about, I would oppose it. But with proof I would "believe" in it.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Would you gladly share your wealth with those that were poor?
I do now.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Would you gladly humble yourself?
How do you mean? I am not especially prideful now. Do you mean would I prostrate myself in front of this "god" and pledge eternal devotion? Well, as above- depends on its values.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Maybe now it might be clearer for everyone: the existence of God is bad news for the ego.

You are assuming much. "God" seems to like ego- he's got a bloody lot of it himself in the bible, and constantly speaks of aggrandising the faithful in that story. Where do you come up with the idea that god is a Communist?

Originally posted by lifegazer
The ego, if honest, would at least admit to being troubled by the repercussions to its values of life.

Charming. "Agree with my assesement or you're a liar." In any case, my "ego" wouldn't be troubled at all. I've done decades of evaluating and re-evaluating, examining and testing my morals and "values"- and do so to-day. I am confident that any "god" worth worshiping is going to at least respect the core of these ethics; if he does not, I am comfortable with not worshiping it no matter what the threat. Or even opposing it. As many posters have said in similar threads- any god that must threaten isn't worth worshipping. I don't see some "god" stepping up shaking that.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Maybe now you will understand where I'm coming from when I suggest that there exists a lack of desire to discover God.

Maybe now you will understand where I'm coming from when I suggest that you are wrong. I think there exists a lack of desire to discard one's favourite childhood fictions.

Atlas

4th October 2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
There's nothing morally superior to harbouring one belief over another. Moral superiority relates to how we act towards one another.
This thread has nothing to do with theism or theists. This thread deals specifically with the attitudes of the atheist and ponders whether that person actually desires that God should not exist. Why can't you talk about this without talking about theists? Are you afraid to admit that you enjoy your selfish life and don't want to lose all your nice material goodies? That's okay, I'm not here to string you up. I just want you to have the balls to tell the truth. This whole post struck me as odd and that's something I like about you lg.

I can see that you are trying to build a case here around the notion of desire and it's impact on truth of reality. But more, because of a certain desire our philisophical stance causes the enjoyment of life (which you here describe with somewhat immoral overtones.) You say there is no moral superiority but enjoying a life selfishly seems bad to you.

Anyway it seems that you are talking of desire and it's causal subsequents. You are making your case through assertion but I'd prefer some examples.

Some here don't believe in God. I venture that none believe in your God. That is their stated primary position. You are implying that a desire for no god exists prior to that or because of that (I'm not sure) but it affects their moral choice in no good way. If they lead a good life, it's accidental or something. Belief in God is the only informed reason for leading a moral and unselfish life, in your opinion - is that true? Anyway, it is confusing because we are not only talking about desire in this thread, but each person's notion of God and notions of morality and we had put no bounds on any of these terms.

It's obvious to me that a child's desire to believe in Santa Claus can help the child in his struggle for moral action in the 2 weeks before Christmas. I'm unsure of the effect that learning his moral choices were based on a lie has on the maturing child.

As a metaphor, is your position that if we desire that Santa exists we are making a good choice that will enhance the moral choices we make in daily life? And regardless of the truth, wise people choose to believe.

I might accept that, but the converse does not seem as clear.

If we desire that Santa not exist we may lead a moral life but the guiding principle is lost and our choices are suspect. It is advantageous in that by desiring Santa's nonexistence we achieve a comfortable state where we no longer need to consider any quality of moral preference and so practically guarantee immorality. Is that close?

You say there is nothing morally superior in harboring one belief over another but then imply that enjoying what you've worked to acquire in life indicates some smallness on the part of the atheist not present in the believer when you ask accusingly... Are you afraid to admit that you enjoy your selfish life... You don't ask this of the believer. It's difficult to think that you don't favor the believer's wish that God exists because of the moral unselfish life that religionists will lead because of it.

Whoops, I see you've just moved the goalposts...Look, the only question worth answering here is whether any atheists would welcome the definite news that there is a living God of all creation. Well, I guess I've been beaten to the answer again, but doesn't this depend on who shows up to claim the title. If the God of Creation is a man-eater who needs brainmeat to advance intellectually, that's going to affect my desire levels. Yah it will change the way I live. I'll probably hide more. Honestly LG, this is so hypothetical without restricting us into finding out that you were the only one that had the right answer about God all along and that's not gonna happen.

Lord Emsworth

4th October 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Look, the only question worth answering here is whether any atheists would welcome the definite news that there is a living God of all creation.
The answer is either yay or nay. I cannot say for sure what each individual would say, but since "yay" would necessarily involve the individual atheist completely redressing the values of his life with a view to abruptly changing his life, I would confidently predict that there are a large number of atheists out there that would not welcome such news.

This does not follow. Merely finding some God of all creation does nowhere entail that all Atheists will have to change their lives. You are already presupposing that this possible God agrees with your worldview and disagrees with Atheists - but that ain't necessarily so.

Upchurch

4th October 2004, 01:57 PM

I'm a little late to the party and haven't read hardly any of the thread, but...Originally posted by lifegazer
Why would anyone "desire" that a God of all creation should not exist?
... Simply because it would leave the individual to pursue any selfish/egotistical goal he or she wishes, without fear of repercussion, guilt, or shame.Maybe this has already been addressed, but what is this conclusion based on? Lacking any reference, it sounds like a jumped to conclusion.
Let me make one thing clear here: I'm not saying that all atheists and agnostics have the minds & hearts of a Hitler.A bit of a non-sequitor unless you're trying to suggest that all atheists and agnostics "desire" that God not exist. If that is the case, it is demonstrably false.
... Nay, this thread simply wishes to expose an obvious truth:-
That the non-existence of God would free the individual from much soul-searching, fear, guilt & shame.Well, if by "soul-searching" you mean "self discovery", I have to disagree on all four counts. God is not required for one to want to "find oneself". God is not required to feel fear (think about a scary dog or a loved one's life in danger). God is not required to feel guilt (that's what mothers are for ;) ). God is not required to feel shame (that's what friends are for :D ).

Frankly, I reject the whole conclusion as narrowly construed and generally false.
I put it to you that many of us don't even want God to exist. Maybe, maybe not. I think it would be very interesting if one did exist, depending on it's form.

Upchurch

4th October 2004, 02:13 PM

Ah, just worked my way through the thread. It's just more of the same ol' same ol' cry for attention through name calling. :rolleyes:

lifegazer

4th October 2004, 02:29 PM

The repercussions to one's values of life - given the existence of God is finally proven - are of course dependent upon the absolute nature of that God.
For somebody such as myself, with a clear idea of what 'God' must mean, those repercussions are obvious.
However, given that most of you aren't sure what God would be and since most of you relate 'God' to the entity portrayed in the bible, I've come to understand that explaining these repercussions is going to take a supreme effort on my part.
Firstly, I'd have to convince you that 'God' would have to be, by rational default, existence itself.
I.e., if God exists, nothing else does.

Only then could I clearly explain why the repercussions to one's values of life entail the absolute abandonment of ones ego and a resolve to "love thy neighbour as thyself". For if God is existence, your neighbour is yourself.

By explaining this sacrifice of the ego, I would then highlight the plight of the ego: Accept God and give yourself to the whole, abandoning the values of your limited life... or, give God the finger and continue to live for your ego's satisfactions.

Only via this route could I clearly explain why there is an underlying desirelessness, of the ego, to see the emergence of God.

Given the complexities of such a task within a single thread, I think I shall retire... unless somebody wants to discuss something specific to the above.

Thanks, as ever, for your time.

Piscivore

4th October 2004, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Of course it does. The individual who enjoys living a completely selfish and materialistic life and does not want to give it up or feel bad about such a life, must desire that there is no "God of existence".

I disagree- the individual who enjoys living a completely selfish and materialistic life and does not want to give it up or feel bad about such a life, must desire that there is a "god" willing to unconditionally forgive them their trespasses.

But you said you didn't want to talk about theists...

Originally posted by lifegazer
...the average-Joe puts himself and his immediate family first, his friends second, and thinks little of anyone else. Sure, he might send 20 bucks to bandaid once a year and might shake his head at the attrocities he sees on the news, but you get the picture:- he's largely indifferent.

Wait- I thought you didn't want to discuss theists. Only, all those "average Joes"- they are theists. The want for there to be a god.

Personally, the gods I'd want to be real are those of the Navajo.

Piscivore

4th October 2004, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The repercussions to one's values of life - given the existence of God is finally proven - are of course dependent upon the absolute nature of that God.
For somebody such as myself, with a clear idea of what 'God' must mean, those repercussions are obvious.
However, given that most of you aren't sure what God would be and since most of you relate 'God' to the entity portrayed in the bible, I've come to understand that explaining these repercussions is going to take a supreme effort on my part.
Firstly, I'd have to convince you that 'God' would have to be, by rational default, existence itself.
I.e., if God exists, nothing else does.

Only then could I clearly explain why the repercussions to one's values of life entail the absolute abandonment of ones ego and a resolve to "love thy neighbour as thyself". For if God is existence, your neighbour is yourself.

By explaining this sacrifice of the ego, I would then highlight the plight of the ego: Accept God and give yourself to the whole, abandoning the values of your limited life... or, give God the finger and continue to live for your ego's satisfactions.

Only via this route could I clearly explain why there is an underlying desirelessness, of the ego, to see the emergence of God.

Given the complexities of such a task within a single thread, I think I shall retire... unless somebody wants to discuss something specific to the above.

Thanks, as ever, for your time.

Now you are re-inventing Buddhism. Nice work, Siddartha. Either that or you are advocating assimilation by the Borg. I never can tell with you.

roger

4th October 2004, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The repercussions to one's values of life - given the existence of God is finally proven - are of course dependent upon the absolute nature of that God.
For somebody such as myself, with a clear idea of what 'God' must mean, those repercussions are obvious.
However, given that most of you aren't sure what God would be and since most of you relate 'God' to the entity portrayed in the bible, I've come to understand that explaining these repercussions is going to take a supreme effort on my part.
Firstly, I'd have to convince you that 'God' would have to be, by rational default, existence itself.
I.e., if God exists, nothing else does.

Only then could I clearly explain why the repercussions to one's values of life entail the absolute abandonment of ones ego and a resolve to "love thy neighbour as thyself". For if God is existence, your neighbour is yourself.

By explaining this sacrifice of the ego, I would then highlight the plight of the ego: Accept God and give yourself to the whole, abandoning the values of your limited life... or, give God the finger and continue to live for your ego's satisfactions.

Only via this route could I clearly explain why there is an underlying desirelessness, of the ego, to see the emergence of God.

Given the complexities of such a task within a single thread, I think I shall retire... unless somebody wants to discuss something specific to the above.

Thanks, as ever, for your time. What? Your OP assumes that we atheists don't want God to exist, because then we would have to completely change our lives. But in this post, you claim that we have no understanding of this point, and that it would be nearly impossible to explain it to us so that we thought it was true. You can't have it both ways.

Marquis de Carabas

4th October 2004, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The repercussions to one's values of life - given the existence of God is finally proven - are of course dependent upon the absolute nature of that God.
For somebody such as myself, with a clear idea of what 'God' must mean, those repercussions are obvious.
However, given that most of you aren't sure what God would be and since most of you relate 'God' to the entity portrayed in the bible, I've come to understand that explaining these repercussions is going to take a supreme effort on my part.
Firstly, I'd have to convince you that 'God' would have to be, by rational default, existence itself.
I.e., if God exists, nothing else does.

Only then could I clearly explain why the repercussions to one's values of life entail the absolute abandonment of ones ego and a resolve to "love thy neighbour as thyself". For if God is existence, your neighbour is yourself.

By explaining this sacrifice of the ego, I would then highlight the plight of the ego: Accept God and give yourself to the whole, abandoning the values of your limited life... or, give God the finger and continue to live for your ego's satisfactions.

Only via this route could I clearly explain why there is an underlying desirelessness, of the ego, to see the emergence of God.

Given the complexities of such a task within a single thread, I think I shall retire... unless somebody wants to discuss something specific to the above.

Thanks, as ever, for your time.
So God is everything. We're all God. So you are trying to convince God that God doesn't want God to exist, because if God existed, God would then have to lead a more moral life, out of deference to God?

ETA: Hey, don't thank me for my time. It's God's time. It's your time. But, you're welcome, anyway.

Lord Emsworth

4th October 2004, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
unless somebody wants to discuss something specific to the above.

Yes.

Originally posted by lifegazer
I.e., if God exists, nothing else does.

If this God is omnimax (as outlined somehwere in this thread) then whence this (apparently unwanted) desirelessness, whence the ego:

Originally posted by lifegazer
Only via this route could I clearly explain why there is an underlying desirelessness, of the ego, to see the emergence of God.

Wouldn't the ego be God (partially at least) too? If so, how could it be/do wrong?

ETA: Of course somebody, in this case the Marquis, essentially beat me to it ...

lifegazer

4th October 2004, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by roger
What? Your OP assumes that we atheists don't want God to exist, because then we would have to completely change our lives.

It's true, but it's dependent upon your view of what God is.
One or two people have already admitted to not desiring a God of the bible. Others have said they don't desire a God that's going to have specific attributes or a God who lacks specific attributes.
Their desirelessness for God has already been expressed, but it mirrors a God that is alien to my understanding.

But in this post, you claim that we have no understanding of this point, and that it would be nearly impossible to explain it to us so that we thought it was true. You can't have it both ways.
The course of the conversation has shown me that the points I really want to make and discuss are reliant upon the reader accepting my definition of the divine concept... which presently, they don't.

Piscivore

4th October 2004, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The course of the conversation has shown me that the points I really want to make and discuss are reliant upon the reader accepting my definition of the divine concept... which presently, they don't.

Aw, too bad, you can't make a point without us accepting the premises by which you want to make that point. I told you your communication skill were lacking.

lifegazer

4th October 2004, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
If this God is omnimax (as outlined somehwere in this thread) then whence this (apparently unwanted) desirelessness, whence the ego

I ultimately contend that God has immersed itself within its own dream/illusion of the world, forgeting the reality of Itself whilst in the dream.

Before you protest, remember that the Mind plunges itself into its own dreams each night, lost to the dream itself.

Wouldn't the ego be God (partially at least) too?

Yes, the ego is God too.

If so, how could it be/do wrong?

Because it forgets itself and fails to remember that nothing else exists except Itself. Believing what is sensed within awareness to be separate from Itself, the potential to be good or bad is unleashed upon the world.

Piscivore

4th October 2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I ultimately contend that God has immersed itself within its own dream/illusion of the world, forgeting the reality of Itself whilst in the dream.

Brahman. You started by assuming Hinduism, then moved to Buddhism. Big surprise.

This doesn't make you brilliant, or logical. This makes you a clown to billions of Asians who got there first.

Edited to insert a signifigant "n"

Atlas

4th October 2004, 03:19 PM

Only then could I clearly explain why the repercussions to one's values of life entail the absolute abandonment of ones ego and a resolve to "love thy neighbour as thyself". For if God is existence, your neighbour is yourself.

By explaining this sacrifice of the ego, I would then highlight the plight of the ego: Accept God and give yourself to the whole, abandoning the values of your limited life... or, give God the finger and continue to live for your ego's satisfactions.
Even here you fail to say why just the opposite isn't called for. God is extremly egocentric and why we shouldn't be like that? If my neighbor is me, why should I not be a shining example of egoism so that he will see "the way"? (edit: You assume bad results but competition is the reality we are immersed in. It has resulted in the Land of Plenty compared to any communal society that has existed. Ego is the reality and the way, why not. Examples would help.)

Your God does not give us an afterlife. This seemingly physical life is all that we get. There is no afterlife punishment for living one way or another. If we find comfort in egocentric lives how are we certain that God, who made us this way, doesn't want us to enjoy our short existence this way?

Piscivore

4th October 2004, 03:35 PM

For the Gallery, as LG no longer reads my stuff:
Originally posted by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman)
In the Vedantic (and subsequently Yogic) schools of Hinduism, Brahman is the signifying name given to the concept of the unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality that is the Divine Ground of all being. It is regarded as the source and sum of the cosmos, that constricted by time, space, and causation, as pure being, to some extent a sort of "world soul." ... It is said that brahman cannot be known, that we cannot be made conscious of it, because brahman is our very consciousness. Brahman is also not restricted to the usual dimensional perspectives of being, and thus enlightenment, moksha, yoga, samadhi, nirvana, etc. in the Hindu perspective is not merely coming to know brahman, but to realize one's 'brahman-hood', to actually realize that one is and always was brahman. Indeed, closely related to the Self concept of brahman is the idea that it is synonymous with jiva-atma, or individual souls, our atman (or soul) being readily identifiable with the greater soul of Brahman.

Any of this sound familiar?

lifegazer

4th October 2004, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore
Brahma. You started by assuming Hinduism, then moved to Buddhism. Big surprise.

I've never even studied those religions, so I assume nothing from them. And somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but from the little knowledge I have of both, don't Buddhists reject the notion of a living God? And don't Hindus worship multiple Gods?

This doesn't make you brilliant, or logical. This makes you a clown to billions of Asians who got there first.
It doesn't matter who got where first. It just matters whether what I say is the truth.

Piscivore

4th October 2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
don't Buddhists reject the notion of a living God?

Not all of them. Buddhism itself says little about deities. There are Christian Buddhists, and Atheist Buddhists. The vast majority worship multiple gods, as their cultural roots are Chinese and Indian. Then there are the Tibetans, that invented a slew of gods to call their own. All are Buddhist

Originally posted by lifegazer
And don't Hindus worship multiple Gods?

Yes, but at the centre is Brahman (see above post)

Originally posted by lifegazer
It doesn't matter who got where first. It just matters whether what I say is the truth.

Fine. Where is your proof you claim to have worked out? Type it up, aready.

Atlas

4th October 2004, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've never even studied those religions, so I assume nothing from them. And somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but from the little knowledge I have of both, don't Buddhists reject the notion of a living God? And don't Hindus worship multiple Gods? Well, if you are a reincarnation you may have some residual memory... of course, since you don't now believe in reincarnation your current philosophy is wrong.

It's all so confusing.

lifegazer

4th October 2004, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
If my neighbor is me, why should I not be a shining example of egoism so that he will see "the way"?

If you are both God, you should treat him like that God and he should treat you like that God. People with big egos tend to want to be treated and worshipped like a God but give nothing back.

(edit: You assume bad results but competition is the reality we are immersed in.

Actually, 'ignorance' is the reality we are immersed in and 'competition' is the consequence of this ignorance.

It (God) forgets itself, failing to remember that nothing else exists except Itself. Believing what is sensed within awareness to be real and separate from Itself, the potential to be good or bad is unleashed upon the world.

It has resulted in the Land of Plenty

For about 1% of the world's population maybe. And none of them will be taking their riches with them when the dream is over.

compared to any communal society that has existed.

Communism can only work when you "Love your neighbour as yourself.".

Your God does not give us an afterlife.

My God is life... and there is no death.
If only God exists, then who dies? Only sensations die.

This seemingly physical life is all that we get.

In relation to my philosophy, there is no "we".

There is no afterlife punishment for living one way or another.

I never said there was "punishment". You're getting that from your biblical teaching.

If we find comfort in egocentric lives how are we certain that God, who made us this way, doesn't want us to enjoy our short existence this way?
You think that God would settle for the measley existence accepted by the mind which believes itself to be mortal and separate from everything else in existence?

lifegazer

4th October 2004, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Well, if you are a reincarnation you may have some residual memory... of course, since you don't now believe in reincarnation your current philosophy is wrong.

It's all so confusing.
I do believe in reincarnation. In the world as perceived, God lives and dies and lives and dies and lives and dies and lives and dies and...

Piscivore

4th October 2004, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
You started by assuming Hinduism, then moved to Buddhism. Big surprise.
I've never even studied those religions, so I assume nothing from them.

I didn't mean that strictly literally. You sound, to me, as foolish as someone who claims to have "reasoned" out a "philosophy" in which there is a creator god that demands sacrifice for transgressions of his will, but is merciful so he creates a body and sacrifices himself.

Whether or not this person realises it, he is walking in another man's shoes. As are you. This is another trait you share with Iacchus, bye the bye, and this is why we tell you (both of you) to read more.

Education counters arrogance, not god.

uruk

4th October 2004, 03:55 PM

Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! No it's lifegazer! He's the General of genralizations, He leaps to conclusions in a single bound. Ignores evidence and refutiations faster than a speeding bullet. With his awsome powers of logical phalacies. He twists and rends and redresses old ideologies into new and worthless philosophies. Disguised as an average human being he is lost in this world alone, like the rest of us. In his Fortress of singularity, he seeks to hide from his pain by denying reality and wishing for an all loving supreme being.
Just don't point out his mistakes in logic, or you will suffer the rath of his caustic toung.

lifegazer

4th October 2004, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore
You sound, to me, as foolish as someone who claims to have "reasoned" out a "philosophy" in which there is a creator god that demands sacrifice for transgressions of his will, but is merciful so he creates a body and sacrifices himself.

What??
I'm not a Christian though I believe (no proof supplied) that Jesus existed and was who he said he was. Why do I believe that? - Because everything he said makes perfect sense to me. "I and the father are one", is a more poetic version of my own philosophy. "Love thy neighbour as thyself", "Did I not say ye are Gods?"... dozens more quotes posted upon request.
Christianity has distorted the message of Jesus, imo, since that message was that God is the essence of the self and there is no death and that God judges no man, except as man.

Don't call me a fool whilst you slumber under the delusion that your dream is your reality.

Atlas

4th October 2004, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You think that God would settle for the measley existence accepted by the mind which believes itself to be mortal and separate from everything else in existence? Well, yah. All the plants and animals agree. God enjoys lower forms of intelligence and watching the struggle. You get too smart and your are punished with religion and stuff.

lifegazer

4th October 2004, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by uruk
Just don't point out his mistakes in logic, or you will suffer the rath of his caustic toung.
Incorrect. It's when people criticise me without pointing-out the mistakes in my logic - as you have - that my tongue becomes caustic.
Plonker.

Piscivore

4th October 2004, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
What??
I'm not a Christian though I believe (no proof supplied) that Jesus existed and was who he said he was. Why do I believe that? - Because everything he said makes perfect sense to me. "I and the father are one", is a more poetic version of my own philosophy. "Love thy neighbour as thyself", "Did I not say ye are Gods?"... dozens more quotes posted upon request.
Christianity has distorted the message of Jesus, imo, since that message was that God is the essence of the self and there is no death and that God judges no man, except as man.

Don't call me a fool whilst you slumber under the delusion that your dream is your reality.

*sigh*
Read that again carefully- I said NOTHING about your beliefs. Let me rephrase, and in the meantime you can practise your reading comprehension skills:

You sound, to me, as foolish as someone who claims to have "reasoned" out a "philosophy" in which there is a sky god whose "sons" and "daughters" are personifications and patrons of various human attitudes and traits, and who battle amongst themselves for power.

Piscivore

4th October 2004, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Don't call me a fool whilst you slumber under the delusion that your dream is your reality.

I'm a Muppet, hiding undercover in a Muppet Calypso band, being sought by and all but discovered by the Skeksis from "Dark Crystal" and a couple Muppet "Men in Black"? 'Cause that's what I was dreaming this morning.

Dogwood

4th October 2004, 05:07 PM

How can an all-knowing all-powerful deity figure forget anything? especially parts of itself? Wouldn't that make it imperfect and therefore not god?

Ratman_tf

4th October 2004, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The repercussions to one's values of life - given the existence of God is finally proven - are of course dependent upon the absolute nature of that God.
For somebody such as myself, with a clear idea of what 'God' must mean, those repercussions are obvious.
However, given that most of you aren't sure what God would be and since most of you relate 'God' to the entity portrayed in the bible, I've come to understand that explaining these repercussions is going to take a supreme effort on my part.
Firstly, I'd have to convince you that 'God' would have to be, by rational default, existence itself.
I.e., if God exists, nothing else does.

Only then could I clearly explain why the repercussions to one's values of life entail the absolute abandonment of ones ego and a resolve to "love thy neighbour as thyself". For if God is existence, your neighbour is yourself.

By explaining this sacrifice of the ego, I would then highlight the plight of the ego: Accept God and give yourself to the whole, abandoning the values of your limited life... or, give God the finger and continue to live for your ego's satisfactions.

Only via this route could I clearly explain why there is an underlying desirelessness, of the ego, to see the emergence of God.

Given the complexities of such a task within a single thread, I think I shall retire... unless somebody wants to discuss something specific to the above.

Thanks, as ever, for your time.

Sounds a bit like Childhood's End by A.C. Clarke. Interesting book. Creepy ending.

4th October 2004, 11:01 PM

If, in fact, we are all the dream of God, then what we do doesn't matter, ultimately, anyway. Whether we love each other or wage war, in the end it is all meaningless - we can never be 'apart from God' and there is no 'divine retribution', no 'punishment'. Likewise, there is no 'heaven' and no 'eternal rewards', so there is neither incentive nor deterrant for any human behavior, except that which exists within the parameters of the dream-reality state.

In other words, if LG's philosophy is true, then we are in exactly the same state of affairs as we would be if God didn't exist at all.

So God becomes irrelevant.

Ya know, LG, I just can't find any reason whatsoever to accept your philosophy! lol

H'ethetheth

5th October 2004, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The repercussions to one's values of life - given the existence of God is finally proven - are of course dependent upon the absolute nature of that God.[...]
Firstly, I'd have to convince you that 'God' would have to be, by rational default, existence itself.
I.e., if God exists, nothing else does.

So God is the universe, and he's moral. That means that there are morals in the universe that are the only right morals. But if God/universe wants us to live some way, why doesn't he just say how we should live? Am I just supposed to guess the right way to live?
It just doesn't make sense that God creates morals, and then just looks around and sees who happens to live by them.
Religious books have allways been full of morals for this reason, but they allways turn out to more or less represent the morals of the time and people who "received the devine lecture". Morals from the bible are hardly the morals of today, and are even contradictory here and there because they were written by different people in different times.
e.g. "an eye for an eye" vs. "turn the other cheek".
I do not believe in a moral God, because no matter what you hold to be the right thing, you'll allways run into situations where two of your rock solid moral standards collide and produce a horrible dilemma. There are lots of classical examples of these dilemmas. Morals are a human invention.

Atlas

5th October 2004, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
But if God/universe wants us to live some way, why doesn't he just say how we should live? H'eth,

Although I don't speak for lg, I enjoy trying... I think he would tell you, "God gave you the internet so I could tell you."

I'm troubled by other questions lg raised though like...

Why, if God doesn't exist, do we spend our emotional strength simultanously desiring that he stay nonexistent and immorally happy with our selfish lives? If we would just stop desiring that God stay nonexistent we'd be moral but nooooooo, we won't do it. It's troubling.

I'm so perplexed. I'm trying to find an illuminating metaphor.

If lg did not exist, would we desire that he stay nonexistent just so we could selfishly be happy? I'm not sure.

If lg did not post, how much of our lives would we happily desire that he remain silent though it meant we would never understand why we are immoral.

Do doctors prescribe medicines that make us blissful to kill the desire that God remain nonexistent in our lives or to replace God as the important being in our lives? Should I refill my prescription or not? If I don't and then die, will everyone desire that I remain dead because they are immoral and don't want me back? I'm God too, for God sake!!

daenku32

5th October 2004, 07:49 AM

I haven't read all the replies yet, but i want to say this before I forget it:

In order to "desire" the non-existance of a God in order to avoid judgement would require the Positive belief in a very specific type of God.

This would be akin to first believing that biblical Satan is the true God, and that you will become his servant, therefore giving you a "desire" to not believe in God (ie. Satan).

Quite frankly, it would be easier to just change your description of God and just consider him to bless all your actions. Whatever they might be.

uruk

5th October 2004, 09:05 AM

Incorrect. It's when people criticise me without pointing-out the mistakes in my logic - as you have - that my tongue becomes caustic.
Plonker.
I did not say anything about criticising you, I said "point out your mistakes." You insult people either way. Wanker.

Anyhoo, you deny the rest of the post do you?

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
But if God/universe wants us to live some way, why doesn't he just say how we should live? Am I just supposed to guess the right way to live?

The history of humanity is the evolution of God's morality.
There is no "we".
There is God, thinking itself to be separate and distinct from everything else that is perceived, thus opening the door of moral options to the world.
One day, the option to love thy neighbour as thyself will win the day.

God created self-ignorance for a purpose: to make choices.

Morals from the bible are hardly the morals of today, and are even contradictory here and there because they were written by different people in different times.
e.g. "an eye for an eye" vs. "turn the other cheek".

There's nothing contradictory about loving your neighbour as yourself.

I do not believe in a moral God, because no matter what you hold to be the right thing, you'll allways run into situations where two of your rock solid moral standards collide and produce a horrible dilemma. There are lots of classical examples of these dilemmas.

I challenge you to think of any examples that would produce a dilemma to the morality I have mentioned.
Forget religions: Most of them teach that man is separate from man and also separate from God. That's why you get your dilemmas.

Morals are a human invention.
The potential to be good or bad is not a human invention.

Piscivore

5th October 2004, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
God created self-ignorance for a purpose: to make choices.

Whose "choices"- I thought it was all god?

Originally posted by lifegazer
There's nothing contradictory about loving your neighbour as yourself.

I challenge you to think of any examples that would produce a dilemma to the morality I have mentioned.

This is the only morality I see you've mentioned. Be explicit- what is the depth and breadth of your morality?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Forget religions: Most of them teach that man is separate from man and also separate from God. That's why you get your dilemmas.

If it is "all one", then I propose that nothing is immoral- because how can anything one (god) voluntarily chooses to do to oneself be immoral?

Originally posted by lifegazer
The potential to be good or bad is not a human invention.

"Good" and "Bad" are human value judgements. Was the eruption of Vesuvius "good" or "bad"?

Atlas

5th October 2004, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The history of humanity is the evolution of God's morality.

The potential to be good or bad is not a human invention. For an unchanging Omni-everything being outside time the phrase "evolution of God's morality" stikes me as odd.

Good and bad are human inventions. We define God as all good. He doesn't. Or are we back to the egoism of God? Is candy good? Does God like candy? Potentially? Is disease bad? Armageddon? To whom?

Again, if these are merely god defining what god knows then isn't Piscavore correct when he asks: If it is "all one", then I propose that nothing is immoral- because how can anything one (god) voluntarily chooses to do to oneself be immoral?

Gastric ReFlux

5th October 2004, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Why would anyone "desire" that a God of all creation should not exist?
... Simply because it would leave the individual to pursue any selfish/egotistical goal he or she wishes, without fear of repercussion, guilt, or shame.

http://winace.andkon.com/pics/strawman.jpg

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore
Whose "choices"- I thought it was all god?

It is all God. But for each perception of being a specific human individual, choices are there to be made by the God that is lost within those perceptions.

This is the only morality I see you've mentioned. Be explicit- what is the depth and breadth of your morality?

Remember what I said yesterday:-

Only then could I clearly explain why the repercussions to one's values of life entail the absolute abandonment of ones ego and a resolve to "love thy neighbour as thyself". For if God is existence, your neighbour is yourself.

By explaining this sacrifice of the ego, I would then highlight the plight of the ego: Accept God and give yourself to the whole, abandoning the values of your limited life... or, give God the finger and continue to live for your ego's satisfactions.

Why do I need to be specific here? Isn't it obvious?
The ego of man would be replaced by the ego of God... and with this new mindset, the individual would direct his efforts and love towards the whole, rather than to himself and the few people he had loved with the mindset of a man.

If it is "all one", then I propose that nothing is immoral- because how can anything one (god) voluntarily chooses to do to oneself be immoral?

I've explained this:- When God is ignorant of Its own existence - as It is when lost within the dream of being man - then the consequent belief is one of separation and inequality, thus facilitating choices/actions which are at-odds with existential unity and harmony.

"Good" and "Bad" are human value judgements. Was the eruption of Vesuvius "good" or "bad"?
I'm specifically talking about the good and bad that emanates from within mankind himself.

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 12:13 PM

Note to Gastric and others:- That conversation is over. I decided to retire for reasons given on page 3. The current conversation pertains to things I said in that post.

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
For an unchanging Omni-everything being outside time the phrase "evolution of God's morality" stikes me as odd.

Being lost within the dream is quite real - the dream is not.

We define God as all good.

You do?
I don't.
God would be a limited entity if It could only perform good actions. Surely you must see why a God who was only capable of good actions would be at-odds with 'omnipotence'?

He doesn't. Or are we back to the egoism of God? Is candy good? Does God like candy? Potentially? Is disease bad? Armageddon? To whom?

Good and bad are defined by man who knows good and bad because it exists within him to know it. As I said to Pesky, I'm specifically talking about the good and bad that exist within the individual.
The individual can define candy as good or bad, depending upon his point of view.

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Dogwood
How can an all-knowing all-powerful deity figure forget anything? especially parts of itself? Wouldn't that make it imperfect and therefore not god?
Let's discuss 'omnipotence'. Which God exhibits a greater omnipotence here:-
(1) A God who never forgets itself.
(2) A God who never forgets itself unless it chooses to do so.

... ?
The answer must be obvious... in which case, I hope I've answered your question.

5th October 2004, 12:33 PM

I'll say it again:

If, in fact, we are all the dream of God, then what we do doesn't matter, ultimately, anyway. Whether we love each other or wage war, in the end it is all meaningless - we can never be 'apart from God' and there is no 'divine retribution', no 'punishment'. Likewise, there is no 'heaven' and no 'eternal rewards', so there is neither incentive nor deterrant for any human behavior, except that which exists within the parameters of the dream-reality state.

In other words, if LG's philosophy is true, then we are in exactly the same state of affairs as we would be if God didn't exist at all.

So God becomes irrelevant.

Of course, this 'God-singularity-omnimax' concept is based entirely on a false assumption (see real things and unreal things thread for that discussion), so the basis of this philosophy is shaky as well.

TragicMonkey

5th October 2004, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Let's discuss 'omnipotence'. Which God exhibits a greater omnipotence here:-
(1) A God who never forgets itself.
(2) A God who never forgets itself unless it chooses to do so.

... ?
The answer must be obvious... in which case, I hope I've answered your question.

So, God is not all-knowing. If he were, he'd know the contents of the erased memory. If he's capable of deliberate ignorance, then is it possible for him to be deceived by others?

I would have thought it would be a much more untraditional view to hold that God erases his own memory than to hold that he knows all, but refuses to act for reasons he hasn't shared.

5th October 2004, 12:38 PM

If he's capable of deliberate ignorance, then is it possible for him to be deceived by others?

Not that I want to defend LG or anything, but by his philosophy, there are no 'others' by which to be deceived.

Minor point. Please, carry on.

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
If, in fact, we are all the dream of God, then what we do doesn't matter, ultimately, anyway. Whether we love each other or wage war, in the end it is all meaningless - we can never be 'apart from God' and there is no 'divine retribution', no 'punishment'.

Dreams aren't real but the experiences and emotions of those dreams are.
Pain, despair, fear... all very-real emotions and feelings. Likewise: love, joy, peace.
There's nothing meaningless about the dream - it facilitates real experience and provides an avenue for God's expression.

Likewise, there is no 'heaven' and no 'eternal rewards', so there is neither incentive nor deterrant for any human behavior, except that which exists within the parameters of the dream-reality state.

There is no incentive to desiring the experience of universal love, eternal peace & joy?

In other words, if LG's philosophy is true, then we are in exactly the same state of affairs as we would be if God didn't exist at all.

Nonsense.
Do you know what would happen if the other 6 billion people on the planet all knew that God was existence and that, therefore, they were God?
I'll tell ya:-
(1) You would love your neighbour as yourself because they are yourself.
(2) There would be no more killing/war.
(3) There would be no more crime.
(4) There would be no more borders.
(5) There would be no more poverty.
(6) There would be no more racism.
(7) There would be no more injustice.

Ya know, LG, I just can't find any reason whatsoever to accept your philosophy! lol
Then choose war, crime, borders, poverty, racism, injustice.

Marquis de Carabas

5th October 2004, 12:42 PM

LG,

What is it, in this world you have observed all your life, that leads you to the conclusion we are all a part of one entity? What leads you to the conclusion that that entity is omnipotent? What leads you to the conclusion that that entity made itself willfully ignorant, and that it did so to make choices? What supports these ideas?

Gastric ReFlux

5th October 2004, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Dreams aren't real but the experiences and emotions of those dreams are.
Pain, despair, fear... all very-real emotions and feelings. Likewise: love, joy, peace.
There's nothing meaningless about the dream - it facilitates real experience and provides an avenue for God's expression.

There is no incentive to desiring the experience of universal love, eternal peace & joy?

Nonsense.
Do you know what would happen if the other 6 billion people on the planet all knew that God was existence and that, therefore, they were God?
I'll tell ya:-
(1) You would love your neighbour as yourself because they are yourself.
(2) There would be no more killing/war.
(3) There would be no more crime.
(4) There would be no more borders.
(5) There would be no more poverty.
(6) There would be no more racism.
(7) There would be no more injustice.

Then choose war, crime, borders, poverty, racism, injustice.

If you get 6 billion people to agree, please send the instructions to God. He's obviously been missing them.

Marquis de Carabas

5th October 2004, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Do you know what would happen if the other 6 billion people on the planet all knew that God was existence and that, therefore, they were God?
I'll tell ya:-
(1) You would love your neighbour as yourself because they are yourself.
(2) There would be no more killing/war.
(3) There would be no more crime.
(4) There would be no more borders.
(5) There would be no more poverty.
(6) There would be no more racism.
(7) There would be no more injustice.

Do you know what would happen if I killed the other 6 billion people on the planet? All of yours except number one, which would become irrelevant. Now, shall I choose "war, crime, borders, poverty, racism, injustice" or shall I let everyone continue to breathe?

Even if universal acceptance of your philosophy would bring about such sweeping changes in the human condition, what makes it true?

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
So, God is not all-knowing. If he were, he'd know the contents of the erased memory. If he's capable of deliberate ignorance, then is it possible for him to be deceived by others?

When your mind dreams at night, it is both lost within the dream and simultaneously aware that it is creating that dream.

Omnipotence stretches to both end of the spectrum.

You must have heard the question about whether God can create a rock that he cannot carry?
If no, then he isn't omnipotent.
If yes, then he isn't powerful-enough to pick up the rock - not omnipotent.
However
If both yes and no, then God IS omnipotent.

My philosophy solves all such so-called paradoxical questions.
Take a look at the world around you: rocks that you (God) can pick up... and rocks that you (God) cannot.

5th October 2004, 12:52 PM

Actually, if you convince even a 100th of those people that they are God, do you know what you'll get? 60 million egotists trying to force THEIR views down everyone elses throats. 60 million new religions. 60 million new wars, crimes, etc.

Even if you could convince people that they are all part of God, how do you propose getting them all to agree on what's right and what's wrong? You can't. Since your God has willfully forgotten everything that it feels is right and wrong, how can that knowledge be realized? It can't.

So, no, your religion would be no different from any other in the world. First, you'd never, EVER, convince everyone that it was right. Second, you'd never, EVER, get anyone, even those you converted, to agree on every point of morality. Does God love homosexuals? Or is homosexuality an abomination? What about incest and pedophilia? Are you aware that there are religious denominations that already insist that, since we are all God's children, that incest is a non-issue? Are you aware that some religions insist that children have no souls until they go through some ritual or another, and are fair game sexually until then? These people believe that this is the Will of God. So what, exactly, does your God believe is right and wrong, and how can you convince 6 billion people to agree with you?

As for ending hunger - what, exactly, causes hunger, poverty, and want? Do you honestly think the resources exist to banish hunger and poverty for every human on earth? It might - I'm not saying it doesn't exist. But if we're overloaded, what then? Do we execute a number of people at random until our supply and demand balance out? Is this the 'will of God'?

Methinks that, while your fantasy is a pretty one, it fails utterly to take into account the harsh, cruel nature of reality. Will this mass conversion stop natural disasters from occuring? Will it freeze volcanoes and control the weather? Somehow, I think people will suffer, no matter what faith they proclaim.

And can you explain what leads you to believe that God is all that exists? Since the 0-d point thing turned out to be wrong, what ELSE might you have to justify such a belief?

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Do you know what would happen if I killed the other 6 billion people on the planet? All of yours except number one, which would become irrelevant.
Armageddon is a choice that we have.
The world heads for that or the unification of mankind. It's one or the other.

5th October 2004, 12:54 PM

So you answer paradox with paradox. Logic, therefore, has no meaning to you.

Well, that about sums it up - no reason, no logic, just faith. Typical.

5th October 2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Armageddon is a choice that we have.
The world heads for that or the unification of mankind. It's one or the other.

Or the world carries on as it always has and always will. I certainly don't think our future is entirely one way or the other.

Marquis de Carabas

5th October 2004, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Armageddon is a choice that we have.
The world heads for that or the unification of mankind. It's one or the other.
Armageddon is the unification of mankind, in its own special way. Now, is it the right choice? How do you know?

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
So you answer paradox with paradox.

Howso?

Or the world carries on as it always has and always will. I certainly don't think our future is entirely one way or the other.

America will crumble but will unleash hell before she falls.

TragicMonkey

5th October 2004, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You must have heard the question about whether God can create a rock that he cannot carry?
If no, then he isn't omnipotent.
If yes, then he isn't powerful-enough to pick up the rock - not omnipotent.
However
If both yes and no, then God IS omnipotent.

My philosophy solves all such so-called paradoxical questions.
Take a look at the world around you: rocks that you (God) can pick up... and rocks that you (God) cannot.

You "philosophy" is not what most of the posters here would consider to be philosophy at all. Proper philosophy is

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

Since you are asserting that A or B is the same as A and B, you are clearly rejecting logic. Therefore, definitions 1 through 6 cannot apply to your thought. You are left with 7 and 8....mushy feelings and vague mysticism.

I'd also point out that omnipotence does not mean that there are some things you cannot do--it's being able to do everything, by definition. Either God is omnipotent or he is not--there is no middle ground or magical compromise there.

5th October 2004, 01:03 PM

America will crumble but will unleash hell before she falls.

Nations fall - that's a fact of life. Things change - that's a fact of life too. Even if America falls, it won't end Humanity as we know it.

And America undoubtably will fall. All nations fall, to be replaced by other nations. The Soviet Union had enough nukes to destroy the world ten times over, and it fell. But no armageddon - so if the same thing happens here, I suspect we'll see the same results.

Even if nukes were unleashed, I suspect mankind would survive. SOMETHING would survive. Certainly the earth itself would survive, and eventually, if probability allowed for it, life would emerge yet again. And if not - the Universe would carry on, same as always, and maybe in 15 billion millenia, there would be a new life-sustaining planet with intelligent life.

As to your paradox answer - yes AND no. THat's a paradox, buddy.

Carry on.

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
As to your paradox answer - yes AND no. THat's a paradox, buddy.

Let's discuss 'omnipotence' again. Which of these Gods exhibits a greater degree of omnipotence:-
(1) A God that can only X.
(2) A God that can only -X.
(3) A God that can do one or the other.

... ?

True omnipotence must, by rational-default, embrace the ability to do both the positive AND negative of any action.

There's no paradox whatsoever in saying that God can both create a rock he can and cannot carry. In fact, 'omnipotence' demands such ability.

TragicMonkey

5th October 2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
There's no paradox whatsoever in saying that God can both create a rock he can and cannot carry. In fact, 'omnipotence' demands such ability.

You're freeing God from having to conform with reason itself--which is heresy according to the Roman Catholic Church, at least. They've always maintained that God is the source of reason, and cannot defy it...by definition.

Omnipotence is the ability to do everything, not the suspension of the laws of reason. If you're going to argue that omnipotence means immunity from reason itself, then there is no argument at all. God can and can't do X because pink lizard mellow.

Marquis de Carabas

5th October 2004, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

There's no paradox whatsoever in saying that God can both create a rock he can and cannot carry. In fact, 'omnipotence' demands such ability.
True, "omnipotence," taken as strictly as possible, does demand this. Similarly, I demand the power of telekinesis. We'll see which demand gets met first.

Also, in case you missed it...Is Armageddon the right choice? How do you know?

5th October 2004, 01:19 PM

And therein lies the paradoxical nature of omnipotence. Omnipotence simply isn't possible, because at no point should an omnipotent entity ever face something it cannot do - including lifting a stone. That omnipotent entity can always do anything, including creating a stone it cannot lift. But since it can always do anything, it can lift any stone, meaning it cannot create a stone that it cannot lift.

Paradox ensues.

Your mental aerobics of assigning a lesser fragment assumes that an omnipotent entity can be comprised of non-omnipotent components - which in turn would lead to imperfection. Further, it denies the concept that there is only God - since we would then have things that are separate from the singularity, i.e. an omnipotent singularity cannot, by definition, consist of a non-omnipotent component.

Omnipotence is logically impossible.

At best, a being might be described as being able to create a stone that it chooses not to lift. Hardly omnipotence at all.

5th October 2004, 01:23 PM

There is, of course, the concept that a true 'omnipotent' being could exist, but only outside of the realms of logic and reason. In other words, it would have to be a being outside of all known physical laws, outside of all known existance. It would have to be, in short, an unreal entity. This is closest to my own belief - that Deity is unreal - but at the same time, means we can neither infer nor reason any of the attributes of such a being. Such a being defies any encapsulization within our minds, and as such, is beyond our scope of comprehension or conceptualization. Such a being, therefore, becomes irrelevant, as we can never, ever, 'know' the 'mind of God'. Further, this posits a God that is ultimately separate from this universe, inserting a necessary dualistic dichotomy into what, by your philosophy, should be a singularity. So either God is a singularity, and not omnipotent; or God is separate from Universe, and possibly omnipotent.

Lord Emsworth

5th October 2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Let's discuss 'omnipotence' again. Which of these Gods exhibits a greater degree of omnipotence:-
(1) A God that can only X.
(2) A God that can only -X.
(3) A God that can do one or the other.

... ?

True omnipotence must, by rational-default, embrace the ability to do both the positive AND negative of any action.

There's no paradox whatsoever in saying that God can both create a rock he can and cannot carry. In fact, 'omnipotence' demands such ability.

Congratulations, you just left the realm of logic. ;)

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
Congratulations, you just left the realm of logic. ;)

Explain why it's wrong.

Lord Emsworth

5th October 2004, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Explain why it's wrong.

You mean with ... logic? :(

TragicMonkey

5th October 2004, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Explain why it's wrong.

One premise contradicts the other. You cannot reach a valid conclusion while accepting two contradictory premises. That's logic.

If you want to make a mystical argument for God using paradox, you can. But you can't claim to be playing by logic if you defy the rules of logic.

5th October 2004, 01:36 PM

Or, in short form, A can equal anything except not-A. If any variable (B, C, TX, G(1), Exx01) equals not-A, then A cannot equal that variable.

Therefore,

A cannot be an 'omni' variable.

Piscivore

5th October 2004, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Remember what I said yesterday:-

Only then could I clearly explain why the repercussions to one's values of life entail the absolute abandonment of ones ego and a resolve to "love thy neighbour as thyself". For if God is existence, your neighbour is yourself.

By explaining this sacrifice of the ego, I would then highlight the plight of the ego: Accept God and give yourself to the whole, abandoning the values of your limited life... or, give God the finger and continue to live for your ego's satisfactions.

Why do I need to be specific here? Isn't it obvious?

If it was obvious, I wouldn't have asked. You've already demonstrated your veiw differs from what I, and others, have come to expect from proponents of outlandish philosophies, so you'll have to forgive me for asking for clarifications from time to time.

It would seem to me that by extinguishing the ego, you are by definition extinguishing self-love. It follows then that "to love one's neighbor as one's self" is meaningless- and one can go about ignoring one's neighbor as before. Convenient.

Originally posted by lifegazer
The ego of man would be replaced by the ego of God...
Why is this better? Even allowing that "god's ego" is somehow more "refined and civilised" than ours, doesn't this extinguish variety?

Originally posted by lifegazer
and with this new mindset, the individual would direct his efforts and love towards the whole, rather than to himself and the few people he had loved with the mindset of a man.

I still don't see how this follows. Why is living like an ant superior to living like an individual? And if it is the case that communal life is superior, why does mankind tend to a small quasi-tribal group when left to his own devices?

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've explained this:- When God is ignorant of Its own existence - as It is when lost within the dream of being man - then the consequent belief is one of separation and inequality, thus facilitating choices/actions which are at-odds with existential unity and harmony.

How do you know? And why do you assume that "existential unity and harmony" are one of the "good" things?

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm specifically talking about the good and bad that emanates from within mankind himself.

I thought all "sensations" exist within our minds? Are you suggesting that the eruption of Vesuvius is external to myself?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Good and bad are defined by man who knows good and bad because it exists within him to know it. As I said to Pesky, I'm specifically talking about the good and bad that exist within the individual.

The individual can define candy as good or bad, depending upon his point of view.

We know all that. What we want to know is what is god's opinion of candy? What is god's favourite food? What was god's opinion of the Vesuvius eruption?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Do you know what would happen if the other 6 billion people on the planet all knew that God was existence and that, therefore, they were God?
I'll tell ya:-
(1) You would love your neighbour as yourself because they are yourself.
(2) There would be no more killing/war.
(3) There would be no more crime.
(4) There would be no more borders.
(5) There would be no more poverty.
(6) There would be no more racism.
(7) There would be no more injustice.

Not at all granting that this would indeed be the case, but given that your interpretation of this is true, that would also mean:

(1) You wouldn't care anything about anyone,
(2) There would be no more sports or games,
(3) There would be no more achievment,
(4) There would be no more culture,
(5) There would be no more literature,
(6) There would be no more art,
(7) There would be no more variety.

Your philosophy envisions an artistically dead, meaningless hive-mind existance. And you wonder why people aren't lining up to join you? In the face of such dreary monotony, is "unity" and "harmony" so very valuable? Why would your sleeping god continue dreaming if the dream of this "utopia" of yours is empty?

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
One premise contradicts the other. You cannot reach a valid conclusion while accepting two contradictory premises. That's logic.

I never provided a premised-based argument. I asked a question and gave a choice of three answers.

TragicMonkey

5th October 2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I never provided a premised-based argument. I asked a question and gave a choice of three answers.

Sorry, thought you responded "explain why it's wrong" to someone's statement that you had left the realm of logic.

Your argument may or may not be right, but it's not logical.

5th October 2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I never provided a premised-based argument. I asked a question and gave a choice of three answers.

That being the case, the third answer would have to be eliminated for logical contradiction, leaving you only with options of x and -x. Therefore, omnipotence cannot exist.

Atlas

5th October 2004, 02:00 PM

If the omnipotent God of Lifegazer exists He could create all things as a dream like lifegazer says, or He could create the real substantial world with real people that we all see and create confusion in mind of lifegazer alone.

5th October 2004, 02:09 PM

Or both. Simultaneously. Perhaps this real and substantial world is ALSO merely a dream within God's mind... it is both real and unreal, and both physical and non-physical. After all, LG's god is a contradictory living paradox, isn't it?

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore
It would seem to me that by extinguishing the ego, you are by definition extinguishing self-love. It follows then that "to love one's neighbor as one's self" is meaningless- and one can go about ignoring one's neighbor as before. Convenient.

The actual proposal is to extinguish the ego of man and swap it for the ego of God. Essentially, that asks you to love your Godself... so it doesn't extinguish self-love.

Why is this better? Even allowing that "god's ego" is somehow more "refined and civilised" than ours, doesn't this extinguish variety?

What sort of variety? The variety that exists between good-will and bad-will maybe. But are you all for bad-will to alleviate boredom?

I still don't see how this follows. Why is living like an ant superior to living like an individual?

You are still an individual whilst loving, caring and striving for the whole.
You make it sound as though you can only be an individual whilst hating, not caring and being totally selfish.

And if it is the case that communal life is superior, why does mankind tend to a small quasi-tribal group when left to his own devices?

I don't understand the question.

How do you know? And why do you assume that "existential unity and harmony" are one of the "good" things?

You don't find any good in a humanity defined as a unified-harmony?

I thought all "sensations" exist within our minds? Are you suggesting that the eruption of Vesuvius is external to myself?

No... Vesuvius is a sensed-thing (unreal) and its activity (good or bad) is defined by the individual, not the volcano itself.

We know all that. What we want to know is what is god's opinion of candy? What is god's favourite food? What was god's opinion of the Vesuvius eruption?

God likes candy, dislikes candy, and is indifferent to candy.

God can only experience the taste of candy if God loses itself within the dream that enables God to taste candy.

Not at all granting that this would indeed be the case, but given that your interpretation of this is true, that would also mean:

(1) You wouldn't care anything about anyone,

Caring about everyone was why those things occured.

(2) There would be no more sports or games,

Correction: There would be no more dirty games or bribed/corrupt games or games that end in a fight.

(3) There would be no more achievment,

The achievements of the individual are for the whole.

(4) There would be no more culture,

Why?

(5) There would be no more literature,

Not true at all. People love fiction, history, science, geography, etc. etc.

(6) There would be no more art,

Why? If Mozart lived in such a time, his love for music would not be stifled. And peoples' love for his music would not allow such a thing.

(7) There would be no more variety.

Of what?

Your philosophy envisions an artistically dead, meaningless hive-mind existance.

Nonsense. The death of a man's ego is not the death of his being.

Why would your sleeping god continue dreaming if the dream of this "utopia" of yours is empty?
You've watched too many episodes of Star trek.

Marquis de Carabas

5th October 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Explain why it's wrong.

OK (http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/41630df0_b767/bc/My+Documents/AND.bmp?bf.JxYBBs5mQSqYo).

And the output is?

Atlas

5th October 2004, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Armageddon is a choice that we have.
The world heads for that or the unification of mankind. It's one or the other. I have never understood this "choice" of yours. I think you have misinterpreted your own vision. Armageddon is God's swift end to man and His dream of the universe.

The penalty is the slow, painful, dwindle to the last human being, the "unification of man" as one. And then he dies lonely and forgotten. And even God is alone an knows it.

What a choice you present. No matter how you interpret it, mankind is doomed. There is nothing that harmony will bring us except an understanding of our destroyer and the goodness that knowledge implies about the One who tosses us aside like annoying little bugs.

Your makebelieve God offers no reward in makebelieve heaven. No penalty except Armageddon but probably death before that anyway and no further penalty. And if not Armageddon, slow death.

The omnipotent one confuses only you lg.

Atlas

5th October 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Or both. Simultaneously. Perhaps this real and substantial world is ALSO merely a dream within God's mind... it is both real and unreal, and both physical and non-physical. After all, LG's god is a contradictory living paradox, isn't it? I, as God, forgot that one --- Good one Z.

5th October 2004, 02:29 PM

God can only experience the taste of candy if God loses itself within the dream that enables God to taste candy.

Thereby proving, once again, that God is not omnipotent after all.

Odd, so God has no preferences at all. So God prefers neither 'good' nor 'evil' - explain again how our awareness of God will change the world?

Still don't make no sense, hombre. And I notice you are astutely and fastidiously avoiding the point-location error - since you can't argue against it, can you at least admit you made a mistake, and discuss how such a mistake may alter your fundamental philosophy? Or are you too busy trying to find a work-around for the error?

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
If the omnipotent God of Lifegazer exists He could create all things as a dream like lifegazer says, or He could create the real substantial world with real people that we all see and create confusion in mind of lifegazer alone.
You are wrong, but it was a good attempt to be right. I applaud your thoughts.
My explanation...

By my philosophy/definition (and that is the thing you are challenging here), God Itself IS existence.
Also...
God is omnipotent. But what does that mean? - It means that God has all the power IN existence (**Of course, it is meaningless to talk about God having power in non-existence**).
It also means that God should be able to effect any possible creation within that existence (**Of course, it is meaningless to talk about God effecting creations in non-existence**).
So...
So, where does that leave us?
... We are left with the fact that an omnipotent God has sole-power to effect any possible creation within itself.
However...
Since God IS existence, then any possible creation must
be a non-existent illusion occuring within/upon God's awareness.

This is not a limit to omnipotence, but a requirement of it.
To speak of an omnipotent God is to speak of a God who can create any illusory scenario within itself.

Clearly, any question pondering existence beyond (apart from) God defies the logic of God being existence.

5th October 2004, 03:22 PM

Since God IS existence, then any possible creation [u]must[/b] be a non-existent illusion occuring within/upon God's awareness.

This doesn't follow. If God IS existence, then a statement such as 'non-existent illusion' is a non-sequitur. The notion of 'God is existence' doesn't imply singularity or that no existence exists; rather, it implies that God is everywhere and everything, that God is every physical and real thing we see and observe as well as us.

If you insist upon the philosophy of illusions upon God's awareness, you cannot then use the 'God IS existence' card, because existence is also therefore illusion. At best, you can use 'God is the illusion of existence played upon God's awareness', but this sounds, on the surface at least, to be a circular statement with a non-inclusive entity. Or, existence is an illusion played upon God's awareness, but you would need to explain this statement and why you believe it.

Oh, and you opened with [u] and ended with [/b] - nitpick.

To speak of an omnipotent God is to speak of a God who can create any illusory scenario within itself.

Then every thing that can think is an omnipotent God - by that definition. Somehow I think your definition needs some narrowing down.

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Odd, so God has no preferences at all.

God IS existence. What else is there to prefer but the illusion of something?
God can like the illusion of candy or God can dislike the illusion of candy or God can be indifferent to the illusion of candy.
That's exactly what you get in this dream of ours: A god with a taste and a distaste for everything. Exactly what my philosophy would predict.

And I notice you are astutely and fastidiously avoiding the point-location error - since you can't argue against it, can you at least admit you made a mistake, and discuss how such a mistake may alter your fundamental philosophy?

I'm avoiding nothing. After 550+ posts, I'm getting bored of talking about the same thing, particularly when it's going nowhere. Don't regard your inability to comprehend my reasoning or your desirelessness to do so be the scale of that thread's quality.
I may return to it sometime. To be honest, I'm enjoying this thread at the moment.

5th October 2004, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
God IS existence. What else is there to prefer but the illusion of something?
God can like the illusion of candy or God can dislike the illusion of candy or God can be indifferent to the illusion of candy.
That's exactly what you get in this dream of ours: A god with a taste and a distaste for everything. Exactly what my philosophy would predict.

So I ask again, what cares God for good or evil, then? Or harmony or chaos? What, in fact, would demand humans change our ways of life that is in any way different from the same pressures now? Other than the wish for a better world, what possible incentive would humans have if your God made itself known to people? Since God likes, dislikes, and is indifferent to everything? By your philosophy, there is no absolute moral value or judgement in anything.

I'm avoiding nothing. After 550+ posts, I'm getting bored of talking about the same thing, particularly when it's going nowhere. Don't regard your inability to comprehend my reasoning or your desirelessness to do so be the scale of that thread's quality.
I may return to it sometime. To be honest, I'm enjoying this thread at the moment.

Actually, I regard your failure to respond to people's much superior logic and reasoning as an avoidance to deal with the facts as presented. Not overly surprising - I'm counting how long it takes before you throw out logic and reasoning entirely and try your hand on bibles or dreams. Thus far, your reasoning fails to achieve even middling marks in logic and comprehension; your understanding of reality is warped and marred; you seem to be the one confused as to the nature of reality, not us.

Glad you're enjoying this thread - do carry on.

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Your argument may or may not be right, but it's not logical.
Do you realise how illogical this statement is?

There can be no truth that is illogical.
Or...
It cannot be illogical to be right.

You statement infers otherwise.

Atlas

5th October 2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You are wrong, but it was a good attempt to be right. I applaud your thoughts. I thank you. :D
My explanation...

By my philosophy/definition (and that is the thing you are challenging here), God Itself IS existence.

Since God IS existence, then any possible creation must
be a non-existent illusion occuring within/upon God's awareness.
This argument makes the most sense if what is true on our scal of God-experience is also true on the large scale of God-experience namely: Existence = Illusion.

Then your argument reduces to: God is Illusion, hence any possible creation within God is illusion.

I sorta feel this way myself and ask for your comment.

Piscivore

5th October 2004, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The actual proposal is to extinguish the ego of man and swap it for the ego of God. Essentially, that asks you to love your Godself... so it doesn't extinguish self-love.

So why is god's better than mine? Why can I not love my neighbor as I love myself without god?

Given the amount of brutality and suffering perpatrated by this dreaming god's avatars, can we conclude that It has, subconciously at least, a nihilistic personality? God loves us as he loves himself- thus we die the death he craves and cannot have?

Originally posted by lifegazer
What sort of variety? The variety that exists between good-will and bad-will maybe. But are you all for bad-will to alleviate boredom?

Yes. And given the state of the dreaming god's world, it appears It agrees with me.

Originally posted by lifegazer
You are still an individual whilst loving, caring and striving for the whole.
You make it sound as though you can only be an individual whilst hating, not caring and being totally selfish.
No, one can only be an individual whilst not subverting oneself to a group-mind.

Incidentally, I said that those in a group-mind will neither love nor hate. If all are alike, what difference would there be to love or to hate? "Selfishness" wouldn't even be an option, but neither would be altruism. One wouldn't have a choice.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
And if it is the case that communal life is superior, why does mankind tend to a small quasi-tribal group when left to his own devices?
I don't understand the question.

If living in a group-mind is the best way for humans to live, why do the groups we tend to form self-destruct when they grow too large? Why have all large-scale attempts at living communally failed? Has there been no knowledge of the god-mind until you?

Originally posted by lifegazer
You don't find any good in a humanity defined as a unified-harmony?

None whatsoever. I find it repellent, and not for the ego-reason you think- quite the opposite, in fact. I think it is incubent upon every human being to make the most of what life gives him. To live large, be bold, try new things, go to new places. To read books they don't think they'll like, see films that will shock them, eat food that looks disgusting. To comfort someone who is afflicted, afflict someone who is too comfortable. To alleviate the sufferings he can, correct the injustices he can, and to cry out agains those he cannot. To love because of differences, not in spite of them. To fail at all of it and try again anyway.

And if he never succeeds, to die knowing he did his best.
Naturally, "she" may be freely substituted in the above.

Originally posted by lifegazer
God likes candy, dislikes candy, and is indifferent to candy.

Exactly- the god-ego is a flat line, a white screen. Utterly devoid of content or meaning.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Caring about everyone was why those things occured.

No, submitting to the god-ego is why those things occured. There is nothing to indicate that "caring" about others will lead to the realisation of, or union with, this god-ego.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
(7) There would be no more sports or games.
Correction: There would be no more dirty games or bribed/corrupt games or games that end in a fight.

There would be no competition of any kind. Such goes against the definitions of both "unity" and "harmony"- unless you want to proffer something apart from the usual useage of those words.

Originally posted by lifegazer
The achievements of the individual are for the whole.
Whatever you say, O'Brian. So it goes for ants. Why is that good for humans?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
(4) There would be no more culture,
Why?

If everybody is thinking the same thing in the same way, what need is there of intellectual or creative pursuits?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
(5) There would be no more literature,
Not true at all. People love fiction, history, science, geography, etc. etc.

"Literature" is fiction. Fiction involves conflict. Conflict is incompatible with Unity and Harmony. Besides, if everybody is thinking the same thing in the same way, what need is there of language?

Without war, crime, borders, poverty, racism, and injustice, where is History?

According to you, there is no external reality and no distance, so Geography is meaningless, as is Science.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
(6) There would be no more art,
Why? If Mozart lived in such a time, his love for music would not be stifled. And peoples' love for his music would not allow such a thing.

Music, art- these things are born of passion, dissatisfaction, injustice. Not contentment. If everybody is thinking the same thing in the same way, what need is there of representation?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Originally posted by Piscivore
(7) There would be no more variety.
Of what?

Of anything. If everybody is thinking the same thing in the same way, what need is there of difference?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Nonsense. The death of a man's ego is not the death of his being.
Substituting it for someone else's is.

Originally posted by lifegazer
You've watched too many episodes of Star trek.
Probably. But the question still stands- what benefit is it to your dreaming god to have six billion dreams, all alike?

I believe I referred you once to "A Wrinkle in Time". I do so again. It addresses your group-mind quite well.

Edited to correct tag

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Since God IS existence, then any possible creation must be a non-existent illusion occuring within/upon God's awareness.

This doesn't follow. If God IS existence, then a statement such as 'non-existent illusion' is a non-sequitur.

Why? Illusions do exist within awareness and they are non-existent.

The notion of 'God is existence' doesn't imply singularity or that no existence exists;

If God alone IS existence, then nothing else does exist. Therefore, existence itself is indivisible (since nothing else exists to divide it).
Also, nothing else exists to embrace or envelope it. There is no boundary or end to existence.
When you discuss an indivisible and boundless existence, you are talking about a singularity of existence, without beginning or end.

rather, it implies that God is everywhere and everything, that God is every physical and real thing we see and observe as well as us.

What are "things" and how can an indivisible entity be separated by space?
Let me remind you again that God ALONE is existence.

If you insist upon the philosophy of illusions upon God's awareness, you cannot then use the 'God IS existence' card, because existence is also therefore illusion.

Rubbish. You must be familiar with this:-
Something is having the illusion/sense of being human.
... ?
Note the distinction between the reality of the ~thing~ which has the experience and the illusory-nature of the experience itself.
It takes a real dreamer to have an unreal dream.

Atlas

5th October 2004, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Your argument may or may not be right, but it's not logical.
Originally posted by lifegazer
Do you realise how illogical this statement is?

There can be no truth that is illogical.
Or...
It cannot be illogical to be right.

You statement infers otherwise. An old radio and early TV comedy team featured George Burns an his wife Gracie Allen. Gracie was always doing things and George would observe, "That was a good idea, what made you think of it". To which Gracie would launch on a very funny and illogical explanation that would lead her to some action that was advantageous. George just smoked his cigar and listened and when done he would step up to the camera and lament that there was nothing really for him to do except listen. We, at home, all agreed.

You can be quite illogical and still reach valid conclusions.

uruk

5th October 2004, 03:54 PM

Armageddon is a choice that we have.
The world heads for that or the unification of mankind. It's one or the other..
Why would it matter either way? If we commit mass suicide or unify in one big orgy of singng kumbuy-ya? It's not real, were not real. Nothing is real. If we all die, what happens to god? Nothing?
Why should I treat anybody any different if were all god? Why does it matter if I live or die. I'm not real. I'm just god thinking that I am me. What is it that dies? Surely nothing real. Because I'm not real.
Why should we care about killing or hurting others? They are no more real than I am.

Rather than spewing insults, please explain how everything will change once we all realize that we are god and the same. Please give specific events and reasons. Please tell us exactly how this will all happen.

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
You can be quite illogical and still reach valid conclusions.
I don't understand that at all. Give me a truth that is illogical, then we can do business.

Atlas

5th October 2004, 03:56 PM

I think they're funny!

(George and Gracie enter holding hands. Gracie stops, turns, looks toward the wings, and waves. She lets go of George's hand and walks toward the wing, still waving. Then she stops and beckons to whomever she is waving to come out. A man comes out, puts his arms around Gracie, and kisses her, and she kisses him. They wave to each other as he backs offstage. Gracie returns to George center stage.)
Gracie: Who was that?
George: You don't know?
Gracie: No, my mother told me never to talk to strangers.
George: That makes sense.
Gracie: This always happens to me. On my way in, a man stopped me at the stage door and said, "Hiya, cutie, how about a bite tonight after the show?"
George: And you said?
Gracie: I said, "I'll be busy after the show but I'm not doing anything now," so I bit him.
George: Gracie, let me ask you something. Did the nurse ever happen to drop you on your head when you were a baby?
Gracie: Oh, no, we couldn't afford a nurse, my mother had to do it.
George: You had a smart mother.
Gracie: Smartness runs in my family. When I went to school I was so smart my teacher was in my class for five years.
George: Gracie, what school did you go to?
Gracie: I'm not allowed to tell.
George: Why not?
Gracie: The school pays me $25 a month not to tell.
George: Is there anybody in the family as smart as you?
Gracie: My sister Hazel is even smarter. If it wasn't for her, our canary would never have hatched that ostrich egg.
George: A canary hatched an ostrich egg?
Gracie: Yeah...but the canary was too small to cover that big egg.
George: So?
Gracie: So...Hazel sat on the egg and held the canary in her lap.
George: Hazel must be the smartest in your family.
Gracie: Oh, no. My brother Willy was no dummy either.
George: Willy?
Gracie: Yeah, the one who slept on the floor.
George: Why would he sleep on the floor?
Gracie: He had high blood pressure--
George: And he was trying to keep it down?
Gracie: Yeah.
George: I'd like to meet Willy.
Gracie: You can't miss him. He always wears a high collar to cover the appendicitis scar on his neck.
George: Gracie, your appendix is down around your waist.
Gracie: I know, but Willy was so ticklish they had to operate up there.
George: What's Willy doing now?
Gracie: He just lost his job.
George: Lost his job?
Gracie: Yeah, he's a window washer.
George: And?
Gracie: And...he was outside on the twentieth story washing a window and when he got through he stepped back to admire his work.
George: And he lost his job.
Gracie: Yeah...And when he hit the pavement he was terribly embarrassed.
George: Embarrassed?
Gracie: Yeah...his collar blew off and his appendicitis scar showed.
George: Gracie, this family of yours--
Gracie: When Willy was a little baby my father took him riding in his carriage, and two hours later my father came back with a different baby and a different carriage.
George: Well, what did your mother say?
Gracie: My mother didn't say anything because it was a better carriage.
George: A better carriage?
Gracie: Yeah...And the little baby my father brought home was a little French baby so my mother took up French.
George: Why?
Gracie: So she could understand the baby--
George: When the baby started to talk?
Gracie: Yeah.
George: Gracie, this family of yours, do you all live together?
Gracie: Oh, sure. My father, my brother, my uncle, my cousin, and my nephew all sleep in one bed and--
George: In one bed? I'm surprised your grandfather doesn't sleep with them.
Gracie: Oh, he did, but he died, so they made him get up.

5th October 2004, 03:57 PM

THat last post was largely indecipherable, LG. You're breaking apart. Try again?

Why? Illusions do exist within awareness and they are non-existent.

This sentence is illogical - if 'illusions do exist' then they cannot be 'non-existent'.

f God alone IS existence, then nothing else does exist. Therefore, existence itself is indivisible (since nothing else exists to divide it).

Incorrect - it can divide itself. For one thing, we're discussing an omnipotent God - if such omnipotence is possible. For another, I am alone but composed of many parts, therefore I am singular yet divisible. God can be the exact same.

What are "things" and how can an indivisible entity be separated by space? Let me remind you again that God ALONE is existence.

Since we haven't yet established that an 'ALL THERE IS' is indivisible, this statement is rubbish. God's components can be separated by God's space - if God alone is existence, then the space between parts of God are also God. Easy.

Something is having the illusion/sense of being human.

This statement is ill-formed. Something is experiencing the sense of being human. Yes, this still seems to separate the STATE of being human from the SENSE of being human, but since senses are part of the STATE of being human, the EXPERIENCE of being human is an integral part of the STATE of being human.

It takes a real dreamer to have an unreal dream.

And what proof, exactly, do you have? Of either part of this statement? Have you evidence of real and unreal beings, and studies of their individual dream-states? Have you evidence of the reality or non-reality of the dream? IN fact, what evidence have you of much of anything at all?

Back to square one, or at least try explaining this a little more sensibly.

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by uruk
Why would it matter either way? If we commit mass suicide or unify in one big orgy of singng kumbuy-ya? It's not real, were not real. Nothing is real. If we all die, what happens to god? Nothing?

I've been asked this before.
What God decides here is critical to God: Will It choose to have eternal being or will It choose to die to being?

God cannot die. But this dream facilitates the expression of God's being.
This might be confusing due to the language that we have. Let me see if I can explain this by asking you to notice the difference between the following statements:-
(1) God is.
(2) God is being 'x'.

(1) Explains that existence is God. (2) Explains that God is expressing itself as 'x', where 'x' can be any trait, emotion, attitude, etc., exhibited through the perception of being man.

So, if the world ends in armageddon, God cannot be.
Do not make light of the decision which God will make - through us - pertaining to armageddon or unity.
It's very important.

5th October 2004, 04:13 PM

So, if the world ends in armageddon, God cannot be.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

What strange reasoning reaches this conclusion, LG? It's utterly senseless.

Does the entire universe exist within God? If so, what matters the death of one world?

Besides, Armageddon can only happen IF the biblical God exists. Otherwise, Armageddon is a non-event.

You've claimed before that you're not a religious person, that you're not Christian. If this is so, then you can easily set aside silly notions such as Armageddon. Now, can you, or are you a liar and hypocrite?

Piscivore

5th October 2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've been asked this before.
What God decides here is critical to God: Will It choose to have eternal being or will It choose to die to being?

God cannot die. But this dream facilitates the expression of God's being.
This might be confusing due to the language that we have. Let me see if I can explain this by asking you to notice the difference between the following statements:-
(1) God is.
(2) God is being 'x'.

(1) Explains that existence is God. (2) Explains that God is expressing itself as 'x', where 'x' can be any trait, emotion, attitude, etc., exhibited through the perception of being man.

So, if the world ends in armageddon, God cannot be.
Do not make light of the decision which God will make - through us - pertaining to armageddon or unity.
It's very important.

You've already said that the "world" is just an unreal dream of god's- why should he cease to exist if he dreams the world ends? Can't he just dream a new one?

And even if you are correct, why should his existance matter to me? I'm not real.

Atlas

5th October 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I don't understand that at all. Give me a truth that is illogical, then we can do business. That's backwards to my assertion. I'm saying not only that good logic can lead to bad "truth" ...

Aristotle, master logician, believed that the sun orbited the earth.

But also bad logic can lead to real truth...

I posted this in another thread on the truth of "cool" -- I think I reach a valid conclusion.

Originally posted by Atlas
My brother, he almost had this dream, where he was going to be in a play if he got a part.
He was hoping they'd make him the lesbian because that would be funny...

Ok forget my brother. He's such a tool. Here's my point.

If I get the silicon injections would my boobs be like transistor radios?
I mean, with my body, would I only get the oldies station?
Cuz you know what would be cool? At my funeral if my boobs started playing polka music.
Cuz I'd be dead.

lifegazer

5th October 2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore
You've already said that the "world" is just an unreal dream of god's- why should he cease to exist if he dreams the world ends?

I never said God ceases to exist. I said 'he' ceases to be ('x').
The death of the world = the death of God's expressive being... not the death of God's existence.

Can't he just dream a new one?

He could, but if God chooses armageddon, then God chooses armageddon. Why would God renege on the choice that It has already made?
There's only God making these choices, since nothing else exists. If God creates a scenario facilitating divine expression which ends with God choosing armageddon to being, then that's that.
God, alone, for eternity.

And even if you are correct, why should his existance matter to me? I'm not real.
It should matter to you because you are God... sensing/thinking that you are Pesky.

Do you want to be alone for eternity, without the choice to express yourself? If not, then resolve not to contribute towards armageddon.

Piscivore

5th October 2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
He could, but if God chooses armageddon, then God chooses armageddon. Why would God renege on the choice that It has already made?

Why should he not? Isn't he omnipotent?

ETA: "It should matter to you because you are God... sensing/thinking that you are Pesky."

Whether this is true or not, whether there is an Armageddon or not- I will still die. I'm okay with that, and no sucking up to any god has ever changed that fact, for anyone.

Anyone outside fiction, that is...

FETA: I'll also point out that your distinction between "is" and "be"- italicised or not- is just nonsense as they are differently conjugated instances of the same verb. If you want them to mean different things, you must use different words to be understood- except I suspect all your insight would evaporate by using precise language.

Atlas

5th October 2004, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
You can be quite illogical and still reach valid conclusions.
Originally posted by lifegazer
I don't understand that at all. Give me a truth that is illogical, then we can do business.
Your demand is backwards from my assertion. I'm merely saying bad logic can still yield correct results...

Figuring that my last example concerning the truth of "cool" would be unsatisfactory, I set about looking for a good answer... You might find this satisfactory...

Five students each answered five questions on an quiz consisting of two multiple-choice questions (A, B or C) and three True-False questions. They answered the questions as follows:

Student Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
Alex .......A....A....T...T....T
Bert .......B....B....T...F....T
Carl .......A....B....T...T....F
Dave......B....C....T...T....F
Eddy......C....A....F...T....T

No two students got the same number of correct answers. Who got the most correct answers?

Traditional teenage blonde girl's illogical response.... Um, there is this dreamy boy I know in Algebra who is way smart and his name is Dave... So I'll guess Dave.

And she would be correct.

Better logic here... (http://perplexus.info/show.php?pid=2245&cid=16963)

By the way, I think to answer your question anyway, I would suggest that quantum fluctuations are a truth that seems illogical.

Upchurch

5th October 2004, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
So I'll guess Dave.

And she would be correct. Dollars to donuts says lg doesn't recognize this as a "truth"

Lord Emsworth

5th October 2004, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Originally posted by lifegazer
I don't understand that at all. Give me a truth that is illogical, then we can do business.

[...]
Figuring that my last example concernin the truth of "cool" would be unsatisfactory, I set about looking for a good answer... You might find this satisfactory...
[...]

No, Atlas, that doesn't do it. After all it isn't illogical that Dave has the most answers correct. It is only that the Traditional teenage blonde girl arrives at the correct (logical) conclusion while using faulty logic.

In fact it is far easier than that. God's omnipotence would be a wonderful example. To be able to do the logically impossible is illogical, but it would have to be true for Lifegazer's God to exist ...

5th October 2004, 05:32 PM

Do you want to be alone for eternity, without the choice to express yourself? If not, then resolve not to contribute towards armageddon.

But if God is omnipotent, he just as easily may choose to start a new dream. And whether or not he chooses Armageddon, that choice won't be made based on our decisions. Otherwise, you are asserting a blind and stupid God that knows nothing and can change nothing. In other words...

An irrelevant God.

LG, this is about the stupidest 'philosophy' I think I've ever come across, just short of the theory that Stimpy is God... It's not that I mean to insult you, but I don't think you've thoroughly explored the implied consequences of your statements and theories. And they certainly don't fit in with logic and reason.

Atlas

5th October 2004, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
.... LG, this is about the stupidest 'philosophy' I think I've ever come across... Hold it Z,

I'm not sure I follow...

Let's see.... You don't exist, but the experience of you is aware that God has oodles of imaginary friends that he destroys one after another, often in horrible ways to the experience that is you... Oh yah...you're next!

Are you saying that doesn't deserve love and respect?

Maybe you're just ignorant and immoral. :D

5th October 2004, 05:57 PM

That's me - the ignorant and immoral priest. :D

RebeccaBradley

5th October 2004, 07:58 PM

I've just read right through all five pages of this thread, and with the pathetic remnants of my waning eyesight, I'd like to post a question to Lifegazer. LG, you were very cutting about the "selfish materialistic lives" of all us unenlightened god-denying egotists, and have consistently claimed to hold the high moral ground. I'd be really interested in knowing how you apply your philosophy to your own life. I assume you have retained some material resources, since you have a computer, internet access, and (apparently) a whole lot of time to use it. So - are you already actively engaged in being One with God and loving your neighbour as yourself? If so, how are you going about it? Or are you holding off until the other six billion of us catch up with you? Many thanks.

uruk

6th October 2004, 07:58 AM

I've been asked this before.
What God decides here is critical to God: Will It choose to have eternal being or will It choose to die to being?

This does not answer the question.

Piscivore

6th October 2004, 08:27 AM

Lifegazer, please don't lose track of this part (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870624924#post1870624924) of the conversation, even though it is getting buried. Thank you.

lifegazer

6th October 2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
In fact it is far easier than that. God's omnipotence would be a wonderful example. To be able to do the logically impossible is illogical, but it would have to be true for Lifegazer's God to exist ...

What's logically impossible?

6th October 2004, 12:21 PM

OMNIPOTENCY is logically impossible.

Can God destroy anything? The obvious answer would be yes. Then can God make an indestructible thing? Again, the obvious answer would be yes. This set of questions presents us with logically impossible answers, yet God would have to be able to do the logically impossible in order to be omnipotent.

lifegazer

6th October 2004, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
But if God is omnipotent, he just as easily may choose to start a new dream.

If God chooses armageddon to being (expression), then God chooses armageddon to being.
Are you implying that God is a bit of a ditherer?
I can just imagine it now... God, all alone after armageddon, with no more possibility to express itself and thinking:-
"Perhaps I should try that again but give myself more of a chance next time.".

We're not talking about your mother in a shoe shop mate - we're talking about God. Its choices and decisions are divinely authorative.

And whether or not he chooses Armageddon, that choice won't be made based on our decisions.

Only God exists, remember. The only entity making any decisions here is God.

lifegazer

6th October 2004, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
OMNIPOTENCY is logically impossible.

No it's not.

Can God destroy anything? The obvious answer would be yes. Then can God make an indestructible thing? Again, the obvious answer would be yes. This set of questions presents us with logically impossible answers, yet God would have to be able to do the logically impossible in order to be omnipotent.
I've been through this once already.

Let's discuss 'omnipotence' again. Which of these Gods exhibits a greater degree of omnipotence:-
(1) A God that can only X.
(2) A God that can only -X.
(3) A God that can do one or the other.

... ?

True omnipotence must, by rational-default, embrace the ability to do both the positive AND negative of any action.

There is absolutely-nothing wrong with the above logic.

Piscivore

6th October 2004, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
If God chooses armageddon to being (expression), then God chooses armageddon to being.
Are you implying that God is a bit of a ditherer?
I can just imagine it now... God, all alone after armageddon, with no more possibility to express itself and thinking:-
"Perhaps I should try that again but give myself more of a chance next time.".

We're not talking about your mother in a shoe shop mate - we're talking about God. Its choices and decisions are divinely authorative.

On your say so? Why do you feel it necessary to restrict god from changing its mind, restarting its game?

Even if what you say is true, though- for me, this "god... sensing/thinking that Pesky" will cease to exist no matter what- so why should I give a minute's worry whether the simulation [i]in toto ends or not? Not my bloody problem, mate- if this god dreaming to be me doesn't want it that way, he shouldn't have made the rules of the dream such. Like you say:

Originally posted by lifegazer
Only God exists, remember. The only entity making any decisions here is God.

AWPrime

6th October 2004, 12:42 PM

Lifegazer you make baby logic cry....;)

Indestructible means it can't be destroyed. If anything can destroy it than it isn't indestructible.

lifegazer

6th October 2004, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime
Indestructible means it can't be destroyed. If anything can destroy it than it isn't indestructible.
He never asked whether God could make an indestructable thing which could be destroyed. That would be a bit like asking whether God could make a green thing that was red. An utterly stupid question... meaningless.

Piscivore

6th October 2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
He never asked whether God could make an indestructable thing which could be destroyed.

Yes, he did:

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Can God destroy anything?

The "indestructible thing" would be a "thing", so would be part of the set "anything".

ETA: Your poor reading comprehension skills are showing again.

lifegazer

6th October 2004, 01:03 PM

By my philosophy/definition (and that is the thing you are challenging here), God Itself IS existence.
Also...
God is omnipotent. But what does that mean? - It means that God has all the power IN existence (**Of course, it is meaningless to talk about God having power in non-existence**).
It also means that God should be able to effect any possible creation within that existence (**Of course, it is meaningless to talk about God effecting creations in non-existence**).
So...
So, where does that leave us?
... We are left with the fact that an omnipotent God has sole-power to effect any possible creation within itself.
However...
Since God IS existence, then any possible creation must
be a non-existent illusion occuring within/upon God's awareness.

This is not a limit to omnipotence, but a requirement of it.
To speak of an omnipotent God is to speak of a God who can create any illusory scenario within itself.

Clearly, any question pondering existence beyond (apart from) God defies the logic of God being existence.

Marquis de Carabas

6th October 2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
No it's not.
Good one.

I've been through this once already.

Let's discuss 'omnipotence' again. Which of these Gods exhibits a greater degree of omnipotence:-
(1) A God that can only X.
(2) A God that can only -X.
(3) A God that can do one or the other.

... ?

True omnipotence must, by rational-default, embrace the ability to do both the positive AND negative of any action.

Hmmm...AND (http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/41630df0_b767/bc/My+Documents/AND.bmp?bf.JxYBBs5mQSqYo), you say?

Piscivore

6th October 2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
So, where does that leave us?
... We are left with the fact that an omnipotent God has sole-power to effect any possible creation within itself.
However...
Since God IS existence, then any possible creation must
be a non-existent illusion occuring within/upon God's awareness.

Therefore, nothing we say, do, or think is of any consequence whatsoever- so no morality need apply.

6th October 2004, 01:40 PM

We're not talking about your mother in a shoe shop mate - we're talking about God. Its choices and decisions are divinely authorative.
Only God exists, remember. The only entity making any decisions here is God.
So since only God exists, then OUR choices and decisions are GOD'S choices and decisions. Therefore, OUR choices and decisions are divinely authorative. However, our choices and decisions are often arbitrary and often contradictory. Since 'the only entity making any decisions here is God' then God's decisions are often arbitrary and contradictory - therefore, God may just as well change his mind and start over after armageddon.

That is, if you even believe God would bother with armageddon in the first place.

IF God is the only being in existence and making all the decisions, then God would most likely not choose armageddon, since Man would most likely not choose armageddon. Oh, many might; but if even one voice dissents, then God dissents. Or does God act on the majority will of Humanity?

Frankly, your grasp of even simple logic is weak at best.

Further:

It is logically impossible to both be able and unable to perform a given feat. Can God create a rock that God cannot lift? Not, mind you, a rock that a portion of God cannot lift, but that God himself cannot lift. Can God (being omnipotent) create ANYTHING AT ALL that God cannot influence? Can He make a sword that He cannot break, or a person that He cannot kill? Can God make a being greater than God?

Simply put, true omnipotence - the ability to do everything - is logically impossible. However, if, as I suspect, you are re-defining OMNIPOTENT to mean 'Possessing all power in the Universe' then God could easily be said to be omnipotent. However, this God is still limited, therefore, to what powers exist within this universe. That might be worth its own discussion!

lifegazer

6th October 2004, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Good one.

Hmmm...AND (http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/41630df0_b767/bc/My+Documents/AND.bmp?bf.JxYBBs5mQSqYo), you say?
If you want me to make a rational point pertaining to my argument which relates to this, then you'll have to explain your point.

lifegazer

6th October 2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore
Therefore, nothing we say, do, or think is of any consequence whatsoever- so no morality need apply.
What's the matter with you?
How many times do I have to tell you that 'you' are God?
Given this, surely you can see that everything you say, do or think, is of supreme consequence?

Marquis de Carabas

6th October 2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
If you want me to make a rational point pertaining to my argument which relates to this, then you'll have to explain your point.
My point is that you have no grasp of logic, and you just illustrated it. The picture you see there is an AND gate, two inputs, one output. The input is derived from the output according to the following truth table:

Input 1 Input 2 Output
0 0 0
0 1 0
1 0 0
1 1 1

(You can call the 0s and 1s lows and highs, falses and trues, or what have you; the point remains.)

The last row is in bold to emphasize that in an AND statement, both inputs must be 1 (high, true) to get a 1 on the output. Any other combination, nothing.

Moving on, the lower of the two inputs in my picture is tied to the first, but goes into a NOT gate, changing it from a 0 to 1, or vice versa.

In this arrangement, you will note that the output can never be high, as the inputs will always be different. Put another way, it cannot result in a true statement.

Therefore this:

(1) A God that can only X.
(2) A God that can only -X.

as other have pointed out, does not work.

Atlas

6th October 2004, 02:35 PM

Piscivore

6th October 2004, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
What's the matter with you?
How many times do I have to tell you that 'you' are God?
Given this, surely you can see that everything you say, do or think, is of supreme consequence?

No. Not as "Pesky", and not as "god"

Pesky cannot change the world by force of will- and believe me, I've tried. Pesky cannot know the "thoughts" of one single other avatar's actions except through communication and guesswork. Pesky cannot make any of his wishes become "reality"- perceived or otherwise- except through direct action. Pesky suffers consequnces- whether "sensed" or "real"- when he violates the operating rules for this simulation. Therfore, in my incarnation of the avatar "Pesky", nothing I say, do, or think is of any consequence whatsoever to the inalterable omnimax entity you call "god".

As an unalterable, omnimax entity, "god" is not affected whatsoever by the actions or limitations of this simulation or its avatars. Further, since "I", as god, cannot harm myself- this would be "altering"- therefore nothing done in the simulation- which is comprised entirely of myself- can be considered "immoral".

What I see here is your fear- fear that what I choose to do is going to affect you. That's precious; you've decided everyone is god, so now you fear the actions of anyone can get you snuffed. Guess what? You will die. No amount of reason, philosophy, prayer, or divine ass-kissing is going to change that. Get used to it.

And I'll bloody well start the game over if I want. Who are you, my mother? Only this time it'll be the ducks.

Piscivore

6th October 2004, 08:32 PM

Does the fact to began a new thread to pontificate in mean you've conceded this point?

7th October 2004, 03:55 AM

No, it's his pattern. He runs to a new thread once the old one becomes too hard for him to handle, and then tries feeding us the same manure from a new spoon.

You notice, he still can't face the argument about 0-D locations in 4-D space - he's willfully ignoring that argument in the hopes it just fades away.

lifegazer

7th October 2004, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
No, it's his pattern. He runs to a new thread once the old one becomes too hard for him to handle, and then tries feeding us the same manure from a new spoon.

1. I retired from the issue of this thread on page-3, giving my reasons why.
2. Since then, there has been no issue. I've just been chatting about different aspects of my philosophy with different people.
3. Is it your contention that the person who posts last in a thread is "the winner"? If so, you are very dumb.

You notice, he still can't face the argument about 0-D locations in 4-D space - he's willfully ignoring that argument in the hopes it just fades away.
You posted last so you "won"?
I could go to that [550+ post] thread now and rip your last post to shreds but you wouldn't listen to a word I said and I'd just be repeating stuff I've already said.
Grow up zaa.

7th October 2004, 04:45 AM

Where did I ever say the last poster in a thread 'won'? Where have I ever claimed this is a 'win-lose' scenario? That seems to be an inference YOU are making. All I'm saying is, you are obviously unable to 'tear my post to shreds'.

Simply put, if you have a valid argument to counter mine, you ought to present it. Failure to present a counter-argument typically demonstrates inability to do so. Therefore - if you can honestly reply to my discussion of 0-point locations in multidimensional space, then you should do so. Otherwise, you should concede the point and move on. This is proper debate - not just ignoring it and hoping it will go away.

Likewise, 'retiring' from an issue is another sign that you have failed to properly debate your point. But, no, like other kooks who post here, you simply try to let the issues die and fade away, and bring them back later to try hooking different suckers into your cult.

Therefore -

If you're gonna bring it at all, bring it strong, bring it hard, and bring it all.

Basically, though, you are a troll. You post tidbits, then try to get people to agree with you before moving on. This tells me that either a) you're just a common troll; b) you have very little confidence in your own philosophy, and are looking for an ego-boost, or c) you don't want to waste your time preaching to a brick wall. However, we have to disclude c) because you continuously post to a forum dedicated to ripping tripe like yours to shreds, so that leaves us with a) or b). However, the voice of your posts suggests b) is also not an option, unless we simply assume you are good at SOUNDING like what you are NOT - which is always an option.

So I think you're just a troll, looking for an ego boost.

Anyway, I eagerly await more of your posts - To give you due credit, at least you are trying hard to find the proper angle to make your philosophy sensible. You haven't succeeded yet, but keep trying. Ya never know. And just to set your mind at ease, I am not an atheist; in fact, it is in my own best interests if God could be proven to exists, being a Priest and all. But it has to be PROOF - it has to be logically consistant and rational, and utterly defensible, or elsewise it doesn't support my career choice at all. I much prefer the 'I don't know' answer to a half-proof that can be torn apart easily by someone with a high-school diploma. So it is in my best interests as a Priest to ensure that any 'proof of God' you offer will ACTUALLY work. So don't think this is a personal thing against you or some atheist programme to eliminate God.

lifegazer

7th October 2004, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I am not an atheist; in fact, it is in my own best interests if God could be proven to exists, being a Priest and all.

You're really a priest?
Want to protect your flock from the notion that they are God?
My nasty little philosophy would destroy christianity, so it's no wonder you've got your claws out.

:th:

BillHoyt

7th October 2004, 05:01 AM

7th October 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're really a priest?
Want to protect your flock from the notion that they are God?
My nasty little philosophy would destroy christianity, so it's no wonder you've got your claws out.

:th:

Apparently, you can't read sig lines either.

Why is it, when the ignorant hear the word 'priest' they assume Christianity?

Besides, your 'nasty little philosophy' has been around for at least a hundred years, and still hasn't destroyed anything, except the credibility of those who profess it, so there really is no need to 'get my claws out'.

(Funny - I guess proper logic, reason, and a decent education are now 'claws')

Piscivore

7th October 2004, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Apparently, you can't read sig lines either.

Why is it, when the ignorant hear the word 'priest' they assume Christianity?

If his rantings have proven anything here, it is the lack of education he suffers from. No one who has had any education in philosophy or logic would think that "god is existance" was new and dangerous. It was an essay option in one of my classes for Ed's sake. Everything is framed for him by the shadow of Christianity; evidentiary quotes available on request.

If my experience counts for anything, our Mr. Lifegazer is on a path that will eventually lead him to atheism, as he is exhibiting all the symptoms of someone discovering there are, to him, undiscovered countries outside what his childhood religion taught. Only trouble is, like Columbus, lifegazer has "discovered" a country that has been inhabited for thousands of years by other people. He even insists on using his own name for it, rather than the one used by the people that were there first.

Maybe we should have an award for that.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Besides, your 'nasty little philosophy' has been around for at least a hundred years,

More like thousands. It pre-dates Jesus.

RebeccaBradley

7th October 2004, 08:26 AM

I have an unanswered question for Lifegazer, posed on p.5 of this thread. LG can (can, hell! does ) go on forever on theoretical issues, bizarre logic, twisted semantics - but I'm curious about the practical application of his philosophy. So here is my question again:

LG, you were very cutting about the "selfish materialistic lives" of all us unenlightened god-denying egotists, and have consistently claimed to hold the high moral ground. I'd be really interested in knowing how you apply your philosophy to your own life. I assume you have retained some material resources, since you have a computer, internet access, and (apparently) a whole lot of time to use it. So - are you already actively engaged in being One with God and loving your neighbour as yourself? If so, how are you going about it? Or are you holding off until the other six billion of us catch up with you? Many thanks.

uruk

7th October 2004, 08:30 AM

God cannot die. But this dream facilitates the expression of God's being.
This might be confusing due to the language that we have. Let me see if I can explain this by asking you to notice the difference between the following statements:-
(1) God is.
(2) God is being 'x'.

(1) Explains that existence is God. (2) Explains that God is expressing itself as 'x', where 'x' can be any trait, emotion, attitude, etc., exhibited through the perception of being man.

So, if the world ends in armageddon, God cannot be.
Do not make light of the decision which God will make - through us - pertaining to armageddon or unity.
It's very important.
All this still does not answer my question. What does it matter?

All you are saying here is that if arrmageddon happens then god will just cease to be us. God still is. Just like when we wake up from a dream. The "things" in our dream is gone but we are still here.
Why is it important to god? It is important to us, but we are not real.
So again I ask you. what is the difference? why is it important?
Especially if we and everything we know and percieve is not real.

You seem to keep avoiding answering this question.
Is that you really don't know yourself?

Atlas

7th October 2004, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Piscivore
If my experience counts for anything, our Mr. Lifegazer is on a path that will eventually lead him to atheism, as he is exhibiting all the symptoms of someone discovering there are, to him, undiscovered countries outside what his childhood religion taught. Only trouble is, like Columbus, lifegazer has "discovered" a country that has been inhabited for thousands of years by other people. He even insists on using his own name for it, rather than the one used by the people that were there first.

Maybe we should have an award for that.
I had this same thought once, now I'm not sure. When I first read Lifegazer I thought of him as a searcher on the path to enlightenment. But as I read on I felt that this "searcher" was more of a dinosaur stuck in the La Brea tar pits.

He wasn't going anyplace and he was calling out to others to join him. C'mon into the tar pits. We'll harmonize on the way down. No really, this is what enlightenment looks like. It's sticky here at singularity.

I expect a couple things from my enlightened Guru. They should smile and enjoy life. And most importantly, the enlightened should not waste their time on the unready.

If anything, lifegazer's style alienates those from his "truth". On these boards no one that I know of has converted or is even leaning. All he has attracted are anti-disciples. It sure doesn't sound like an enlightened one.

But the deeper he sinks into his singularity tar pit the more sure he is of its special super reality. You Plonkers! Don't you want to be a part of this?!!?

Prester John

7th October 2004, 08:34 AM

This is a serious thread, aimed at unveiling a particular human-characteristic existing amongst a large percentage of humanity pertaining to the possible existence of God:-The desire that God should NOT exist

I don't desire God not to exist, i just don't think he does. My life is not in any way defined by his absence, anymore than it is defined by the absence of faires, elves, hobbits, santa claus or the IPU. I don't deny him because quite simply hes not there to deny.

Piscivore

7th October 2004, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Atlas
I had this same thought once, now I'm not sure. When I first read Lifegazer I thought of him as a searcher on the path to enlightenment. But as I read on I felt that this "searcher" was more of a dinosaur stuck in the La Brea tar pits.

He wasn't going anyplace and he was calling out to others to join him. C'mon into the tar pits. We'll harmonize on the way down. No really, this is what enlightenment looks like. It's sticky here at singularity.

I expect a couple things from my enlightened Guru. They should smile and enjoy life. And most importantly, the enlightened should not waste their time on the unready.

If anything, lifegazer's style alienates those from his "truth". On these boards no one that I know of has converted or is even leaning. All he has attracted are anti-disciples. It sure doesn't sound like an enlightened one.

But the deeper he sinks into his singularity tar pit the more sure he is of its special super reality. You Plonkers! Don't you want to be a part of this?!!?

Aptly put. :D

7th October 2004, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Prester John
I don't desire God not to exist, i just don't think he does. My life is not in any way defined by his absence, anymore than it is defined by the absence of faires, elves, hobbits, santa claus or the IPU. I don't deny him because quite simply hes not there to deny.

How DARE you deny the existence of the IPU! No DVD player for YOU!! :D

Beerina

11th October 2004, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Lord Muck oGentry
Second, even if some atheists happen to desire that no god should exist and cling to that desire because they suppose that the absence of a god frees them of moral constraints, it does not follow that they are right in their supposition; the rights and wrongs of our actions have no more to do with the wishes of a god ( if there is one) than they have to do with the wishes of anything else with large biceps. If a god exists, it is quite possible that he deserves only our moral contempt. Morality has nothing at all to do with theology.
Yours cheerfully and godlessly,
LMoG

Praise be to that!

I would not want a god to exist, for if it did, just looking at the evil in the world around shows it is extremely perverted and sadistic. And wouldn't that be terrible?

Worse, if this was a Christian style god who did all the awful stuff in the Bible, hated sex except in bizzare rules, created parasites to live off humans, killing them, etc., then that would be even worse. Such a god is beneath contempt. It is just some evil thing lording over us for some sick, diseased reason.

1st November 2004, 04:52 PM

Ah, here's the classy thread whereupon his last statement was to completely misunderstand my statement of priesthood... And he never returned to address is error! he he he

1inChrist

2nd November 2004, 12:12 AM

The fact is, is that atheists do not want God to exist because that would mean they can no longer live a selfish and sinful life. This is proven over and over again by the fact atheists argue against God with a fundamentalist attitude and clearly do not want to believe that He exists.

However, the fact of the matter is that God does exist and the choices in your life have eternal consequences.

Atheists are pretty safe in their circular thinking world of materialist fundamentalism. Well, safe until they die and are Judged by Him.

1inChrist

2nd November 2004, 12:25 AM

I won this debate.

Operaider

2nd November 2004, 03:21 AM

sure you did, cupcake :rub:

2nd November 2004, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by 1inChrist
The fact is, is that atheists do not want God to exist because that would mean they can no longer live a selfish and sinful life. This is proven over and over again by the fact atheists argue against God with a fundamentalist attitude and clearly do not want to believe that He exists.

However, the fact of the matter is that God does exist and the choices in your life have eternal consequences.

Atheists are pretty safe in their circular thinking world of materialist fundamentalism. Well, safe until they die and are Judged by Him.

Actually, most atheists I know don't lead selfish or sinful lives - well, not what common morality considers 'sinful' - and it's not that most Atheists don't want God to exist; they simply don't believe God exists.

The 'fact of the matter', little boy Crisp, is that GOD can be neither proven nor disproven, and the choices in your life have consequences in this world for other people - but not much beyond that.

Besides, according to Scripture, the Big Man doesn't judge any more. He let his Son be killed so that everyone could be forgiven.

Now - go troll somewhere else, GarageXian