• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

lets list disproofs, or proofs, of a god.

moonyham said:
oh yes, because we know of all the problems.

So, i guess god helped people before cnn and cameras and broadband which allowed us to become educated in the poverty that strikes other parts of the world?

Its fucking retarded. God people view god and his plausability and actions IN TODAYS CONTEXT. The today that has internet, cars, guns, nuclear power, and so on.

We allow these conditions? OH yes because ALL problems humans face is because of OTHER HUMANS right?!!?!?!?!?!?!? HA. lame.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes, basically.
 
i would say most problems arise because of comparing yourself to other people when those people are not you, or anything like you.
 
Saying our problems are because of other people is a terrible way to go through life.
We can blame other people, but our problems will still be there. We can learn to accept ourselves, or fight our emotions.
 
Pindar said:
How is this "Thought Reality" any different from the Platonic Forms? Perception does not impact the "Thought Reality", (even though to be is to be perceived) and has little bearing on the "Physical Reality", except that one wouldn't know of a Physical Reality, nor speak of one, without signifiers, which would, I guess, come from "Thought Reality". Anyway we can agree to disagree. Unlike religion, we don't need any dogma in explaining existence.
Click to expand...

Well, perception greatly affects the Thought Reality.. This is where self-determination comes from. You have the capacity to affect anything in your life, and you do so often (even in very slight ways like stepping on grass).

Additionally, and this may be quite fallacious (it's something I experienced in a trip, and I'm not yet sure of it), I am beginning to believe that all Existence is just the Manifestation of Thought itself; meaning that the Physical Reality may not only be perceived, but composed by itself as Expression.
Again, I'm just coming off a trip, but there are legitimate philosophies that explore this idea (Solipsism for instance).

I do agree now more with the idea of signifiers, and I have taken a renewed interest in Linguistics as a key part of Cognitive Science.



I would also say that all problems are self-generative in the aforementioned context (Existence as Infinite Solipsism); or that all problems are caused by the accumulated experience of man.
Man does not individually go out and cause problems for humanity, they cause problems for other men.
These problems expand and compound each other, and result in problems on a larger scale.
 
sssssssssss said:
Saying our problems are because of other people is a terrible way to go through life.
We can blame other people, but our problems will still be there. We can learn to accept ourselves, or fight our emotions.
Click to expand...

it's not about THEM but about US
 
Antecessor said:
Ill start with a disproof, please follow my example when replying with your own disproofs, or aha 'proofs'.

Fact: A god must be omnipotent to be a real god.
1. Can god do anything?
Yes? Read question 2
No?
Then he is not a god.
2. Can god create a stone too heavy to lift?
No? Then he cannot do anything and so is not a god.
Yes? Then he cannot lift the rock, cannot do anything, and so is not a god.

Conclusion, god cannot exist.
Click to expand...


this is a wiki definition of omnipotent :
A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible

conclusion, you missed the point.


Pindar said:
Can we have a definition of God ? For if we cant have that. any discussion is useless..
Click to expand...

yeah thats what i was thinking
but what if god is so big that you cant put it into words

"the tao that can be told is not the eternal tao"

for me god is like the placebo effect, it works if you believe in it

imo the main problem that atheist have with the concept of god is related to the portrayal it gets from the various religion that tries to depict "it"
due to the usual "lost in translation" situation most followers starts worshiping the container instead of the content and the atheist accuse the container of not being real (and indeed the container is simply a social construct representative of a culture of that time)
but it aint about the container its about the content but when the content is emptiness than its kinda hard to talk about it
unless you have access to a direct experience with "it"
its a felt presence
and there is ways to get there, you get tai chi, yoga, zazen, meditation, prayer, entheogen, dancing, chanting ...
and there is ways to do those correctly, and there is ways to live your daily live and all that
and thats what religion is about, as a guide book to get you there, to reach enlightenment, find your Buddha nature, be part of the flow, be here now, be Christ like...
but all those religion and their depictions of god and gods and deity and all that magical mystical stuff,.. thats the container
and sure the container is empty, or else you could not use it to get there and fill your cup

anyway i wanted to do a short post and this is getting long and im sounding preachy so...
what i mean is that god isnt something to prove or disprove, its a experience to have or not to have, like the placebo effect
the problem is the religion, is it working ?

i like bruce lee and his mma approach, its mixed martial arts, you use what works, wherever you find it, its about the result, not the dogma
i feel the same way about religions
"I am a Muslim and a Hindu and a Christian and a Jew and so are all of you." - Gandhi
mixed religions : use whatever works for you and dont gets caught up in dogmas (including science)

in the western world we are in a situation where long ago in europe science and religion divided itself, they use to work along side until science started to bring result that the church didnt like..
so science lost its heart while religion lost its head
but we are gonna need to reconnect the two at some point if we want to reach health as a specie or some kind of adulthood (as opposition to wars and genocides and all that)
the atheist point of view would be to get rid of religion cuz its bad, but there is a need for it
its like drugs, some people think that getting rid of them is the answer even tho there is a need for them so you cant get rid of them, prohibition doesnt work, its not realistic
trying to disprove god for the sake of getting rid of religion is a misunderstanding of the situation imo
there is a need for it, thats why it evolved in the first place, and it aint something to be replaced by science and logic (just like art isnt to be replace by science)
life isnt about understanding it in your head, its about living it
science will never figure it all up, there will always be something new to discover,
there will always be a mystery in front of us
and religion can connect us with that
if its good religion...
and its good religion if you get result
and as seem in the ufc and those type of martial arts competition that started in the 90s where people where interested in which martial arts was the best, they realized that it wasnt about the martial art but the practitioner and the better ones where the more well rounded ones...
and i think thats where people need to go, to mix it all up, leave the dogma behind and keep what works for them
you are the center of the mandala
with one eye looking to the past using your head
while one eye look into the future using your heart
and the two can go hand in hand, and they should


(and btw i dont care about "god", my point of view about it is similar to the hindu that i am god (Brahman) playing hide and seek with myself, i am god you are god we are all god and so is everything)
 
Did you write that alone? It's quite a good text and I think most people here feel the same.
 
ninjadanslarbretabar said:
this is a wiki definition of omnipotent :
A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible

conclusion, you missed the point.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you missed the point. Drawing up vacuous definitions of inane concepts like omnipotence isn't acceptable in real discourse. Just thinking of something that can somehow defeat the laws of the universe through some unknown mechanism simply because its definition is "all powerful" isn't really a meaningful conception of anything real, you're just making up tautologies that have no bearing on reality.
 
IamMe90 said:
Actually, I think you missed the point. Drawing up vacuous definitions of inane concepts like omnipotence isn't acceptable in real discourse. Just thinking of something that can somehow defeat the laws of the universe through some unknown mechanism simply because its definition is "all powerful" isn't really a meaningful conception of anything real, you're just making up tautologies that have no bearing on reality.
Click to expand...

Case in point: the ontological proof for the existence of God doesn't work and never did work. You can't simply draw up incoherent concepts and affirm their truth definitionally.
 
IamMe90 : that sounds like you are contradicting yourself

you started this thread by trying to validate a argument you made up by using a concept you now say isn't valid

you said "Drawing up vacuous definitions of inane concepts like omnipotence isn't acceptable in real discourse."

but you started the thread with this : "Fact: A god must be omnipotent to be a real god."

how is that a acceptable argument in a "real discourse" ?
 
Sometimes just arguing for its own sake is more important than the supposed facts.


Did we ever satisfactorily define god ?

How about god is all powerful, all knowing, & everywhere all at once - does that sum up the general description of god ?

A poll about god would be nice - a menu of gods attributes or otherwise to choose from, then when & if we get a clear winner we can proceed to continue spiralling up & down instead of doing something useful :)
 
I would define the concept god as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and infinite. (Can't forget forever haha.)
 
ninjadanslarbretabar said:
IamMe90 : that sounds like you are contradicting yourself

you started this thread by trying to validate a argument you made up by using a concept you now say isn't valid

you said "Drawing up vacuous definitions of inane concepts like omnipotence isn't acceptable in real discourse."

but you started the thread with this : "Fact: A god must be omnipotent to be a real god."

how is that a acceptable argument in a "real discourse" ?
Click to expand...

Uh... where did I say that??? Please direct me to the post wherein I said a god must be omnipotent to be a god...

I might have said that God in the Judaeo Christian sense has to be omnipotent and omniscient because that is how the religion defines its God, and I may have argued against the existence of that God... I never claimed that to be the only defining parameters of a god though. God is only a term whose meaning is signified by convention.

You did, however, argue that someone misinterpreted the implications of ominpotence, and I was only pointing out that you can't just pack definitions and expect them to hold weight.
 
sssssssssss said:
^^but is god infinite or eternal?
Click to expand...

I would say that infinite and eternal (concerning these concepts' relationships to the concepts God and Time) are the same.

That is, infinite describes forever just as eternal does. Something cannot be infinite without being eternal (although, something can be eternal without being infinite; nonetheless, context haha).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top