• 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.

These are my opinions on the topic

Best rationale for there not being a western anthropomorphic god: human suffering. A compassionate, all powerful, all knowing god would've just created a world without suffering.

Best rationale for god existing in general: Every effect has a cause and those causes have causes. If you'll agree that there can not be an infinite regress of causes then there must be a first cause. I call that cause God.
 
I dunno...if a a god knows everything perhaps he/she knows that we must experience suffering in order to learn something. Maybe we just don't understand the reason for certain experiences. If god is all-knowing and humans are not, then the rules by which god operates couldn't really be assumed to be understood by us.

I feel the word itself has already become butchered to the point that is has no practical use because it can mean something different to everybody. Some people consider "God" in the sense of Christianity, some think there are many Gods/Goddesses, some think God is the universe, some think God is love.
 
Drogan said:
These are my opinions on the topic

Best rationale for there not being a western anthropomorphic god: human suffering. A compassionate, all powerful, all knowing god would've just created a world without suffering.

Best rationale for god existing in general: Every effect has a cause and those causes have causes. If you'll agree that there can not be an infinite regress of causes then there must be a first cause. I call that cause God.
Click to expand...

1) Causality isn't necessarily attributable to reality in itself, if there exists such a thing, and
2) Infinite regress of causes makes just as much sense as a "first cause," if you consider causality a real property of the universe (which I don't necessarily).
 
I feel the word itself has already become butchered to the point that is has no practical use because it can mean something different to everybody. Some people consider "God" in the sense of Christianity, some think there are many Gods/Goddesses, some think God is the universe, some think God is love.
Click to expand...

yup. good luck finding a consensus on what "God" is.
 
is there a consensus on what "good music" is ?

god is a subjective experience but thats my subjective opinion : )
what if it does have a practical use because it can mean something different to everybody ?

ill smurf to that
 
futurama god
Godentity.jpg

versus
south park god
god.jpg


round one
...
fight!
 
ninjadanslarbretabar said:
is there a consensus on what "good music" is ?

god is a subjective experience but thats my subjective opinion : )
what if it does have a practical use because it can mean something different to everybody ?

ill smurf to that
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is subjective and everybody gets to create their own meaning. Just does't make it a very good candidate for proving/disproving ;)
 
i read this just last night... i think it sums up the whole argument rather nicely...

'if i am capable of grasping god objectively, i do not believe, but precisely because i cannot do this i must believe. if i wish to preserve myself in faith i must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, still preserving my faith.' - kierkegaard

essentially, trying to prove or disprove gods existence through reason only detracts from your faith, therefore reducing your religious passion. if you accept proof of god, it will destroy the deep emotional connection formed through believing in god in the first place, and therefore have an adverse effect your moral judgements. i'm not positive, but i think this is where the term "sunday catholic" comes from.
 
ninjadanslarbretabar said:
is there a consensus on what "good music" is ?

god is a subjective experience but thats my subjective opinion : )
what if it does have a practical use because it can mean something different to everybody ?

ill smurf to that
Click to expand...
i don't think anybody is arguing that god has no practical use. religion performs many social functions, some beneficial, some harmful, some vestigial. it's an integral part of our intellectual history.
 
"The finite mind can never percieve the infinite, but the finite mind can become infinite"

The proof for God comes from direct experience. You are God. The Truth is very simple, so simple that most would not be willing to ever accept it. And you shouldn't.. you must prove it for yourself! But in a nutshell.. you are everything, and you are nothing.
 
^I agree direct experience is the only way to really know something. But it also means there's no reason to believe that statement just for having read it.
 
^ theoretically i would say that experience is the only way to experience something, knowledge is the only way to know something and feeling is the only way to understand something

but thats just how i play with words and i associate knowledge with head, understanding with heart and experience with the animal body
 
Interesting. I guess that's how I would use the term knowledge...to encompass both the mind and body. Information or intellect to me would mean just facts and ideas that are stored up in the head. Words are hard to use for expressing things when they mean something different to everybody :)
 
i remember seeing on a sign outside a church "Yes, there is a God. No, it's not you."
 
ninjadanslarbretabar said:
^ theoretically i would say that experience is the only way to experience something, knowledge is the only way to know something and feeling is the only way to understand something

but thats just how i play with words and i associate knowledge with head, understanding with heart and experience with the animal body
Click to expand...

Language and semantics is not proof, that's a problem we have as a species. McKenna spoke alot about language (if you haven't heard his stuff, i recommend it). Only a direct experience is proof. This is why Jesus said I AM the Truth, not I have the Truth. Of course with intuition and minor direct experiences of your own you can find the Truth through language, but it is still never the same as the direct experience of Enlightenment unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top