• 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.

L2R said:
nb. it is impossible to determine HOW anything came to be or WHY if you can't define WHAT that thing is.
Click to expand...

Can you make this a little less vague? I'm not trying to be an ass I just don't like vague one liners like this, be more precise.
 
sorry about that

we need to know
what is life
what is consciousness
what is humanity

before we can have any chance at figuring out
how we came to be

is that clearer?
 
Renz Envy said:
I think the existence of pre-destined flow of energy and timeless matter is proof of God.

I don't believe any science or philosophy can deny that God exists as the very force that drives our Universe. The force that leads you to read my messages.


However the belief in a personal God, or a God with a human persona is merely a tendency for people to feel comfortable emulating the beliefs of their parents/predecessors. It's only human nature to derive a feeling of comfort in packs.
Click to expand...

Then again calling isness "God" is just as arbitrary as anything else and it doesn't really get anyone anywhere. Maybe there is no where to go, but this is certainly one example of the nowhere that you can wind up in if you're not careful. Ya dig?
 
CoffeeDrinker said:
Then again calling isness "God" is just as arbitrary as anything else and it doesn't really get anyone anywhere. Maybe there is no where to go, but this is certainly one example of the nowhere that you can wind up in if you're not careful. Ya dig?
Click to expand...

It's interesting that most people will do anything to avoid doing nothing; but it's within nothingness that we realize ourselves. Your right, there is no where to go.. your already there, awakening to this realization is extremely profound in nature; but as you've pointed out.. you can 'wind' up there and get stuck. It's somewhat frustrating because you know you can't go backwards, but you don't know how to go forwards either because fundamentally, now is everything. I can sit outside and marvel at the world all around me; but the structure of my life as i understand it is falling apart completely.. and the irony is no matter where you go or what you do you; your always staring back at yourself. Inescapable.

Maybe one day i'll truly accept my own light instead of hiding in the shadows.
 
L2R said:
sorry about that

we need to know
what is life
what is consciousness
what is humanity

before we can have any chance at figuring out
how we came to be

is that clearer?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure we haven't answered all 3 of those questions, though the why and how are still very unclear in the former two questions' cases. What life is might be a little unclear when it comes to distinctions between biotic vs. abiotic functioning things, with viruses being a controversial example, but consciousness can be described phenomenologically and humanity can be defined depending on which instance of humanity you're using - both can be captured.

However, if our understanding of how something came to be is only as strong as our understanding of that thing itself, then while we may not have perfect knowledge of how we came to be, I'd say that we could have a fairly descriptive knowledge, given the right advances in philosophy and science occur.

panic in paradise said:
God is proven even more then before in the minds of those who attempt to out-wit the infinite.

... this is proof, that even in the smallest of places, the greatest sum exists.




sorry couldnt resist
Click to expand...

But this isn't any kind of proof for God. I'm not even sure the infinite exists, even conceptually, let alone in reality, and I don't see how failing to "out-wit" a nebulous concept is any kind of proof for 1) its existence, and 2) its existence in the specific form of God.

If you'd like to elaborate on that more, I'd be glad to hear.
 
well, maybe it was a very brilliant post, and is PiP as clever as Spinoza and talking about an infinite Substance and finite modes of attributes of this substance (panentheism).

On the other hand, maybe not. Perhaps he can clearify what he meant.
 
panic in paradise said:
^because to speculate the divinity of creation is to create a union with divinity with in yourself.
in my experience


... i cant explain it any further than that or i would of.
:-X
Click to expand...

The evidence of effect is not evidence of cause
b therefor a

This is a grand Non causa pro causa and Ignoratio elenchi
 
Last edited:
hiphophippy said:
You continually argue from a human subset. when you can surpass the imperfections of man with mathematics which exist regardless of consciousness. Values would exist numbers would not. the golden ratio would exist it just wouldn't be called the golden ratio Pythagoras would still exist it would just not be called Pythagoras. Your continually trying to add new, unnecessary, information to try and justify a fallacious view based on the imperfections of the human psyche. mathematically, a perfect circle exists regardless of human existence. A closed curve in which all points on the curve are equidistant from the geometric center of the circle.


Yes, it does contradict the creation from nothing. Humans evolved from primates. The difference between my and your arguments being is that my argument is supported by factual evidence instead of philosophical conceptions. Your argument is not only invalid but an Ad ignorantiam (logical fallacy; or possibly just an Argument from Personal Incredulity). Congratulations on pointing out we have contradicting view points.

The other problem with your argument is the assumption that energy hasn't always existed. but lets go on that track. You say my view is fallacious because science cannot explain where the energy that is the universe came from, alright fine, but then you say that god it's self created that energy. Which is still fine, but when asked where god came from, well excuse me form assuming but I'm pretty sure you would justify his existence as always having been and always being in which case you have stated the exact same thing as me but only just added another layer.



God is the consequence of ignorant people being un-able to accept that things can be complicated without having to be engineered.
gravity makes things fall to earth therefore god
this mandrake root looks like a person therefore god
DNA is so complex looking therefor god
I don't understand therefore god
Click to expand...


Listen, dont let your panties in a bunch lol, I was attempting just to show that notions of perfection and imperfection are useless in explaining reality; reality does not care if a circle is "perfect" or "imperfect", they are just terms describing human definition...A perfect circle is perfect because all the points are equidistant from the center, but its ratio between the circumference to its diameter is what? An irrational number right? An "imperfect" whole number. An ellipse is an "imperfect circle" because all the points are not equidistant from center. A circle is an imperfect "ellipse" because its eccentricity is zero..Whatever. However I will admit, this does open up more questions..Kant once said that nature is when "we understand the connection of appearances as regards their existence according to necessary rules, that is, according to laws.", so does that mean that our mathematics, and their application of physics makes us discover nature, or do we circumscribe reality with mathematical/physical laws and call the result nature?

Um where have I said "Energy hasn't always existed?", The Conservation laws state that Energy cannot be created or destroyed right? Whatever exists, is fixed and unchangeable. I never called this God, God means many things to many people...not "ignorant people" as you said, unless Newton and Maxwell were actually special-ed kids who just were lucky enough to create the laws of physics that you take for granted lol Even Dirac once said "God has used beautiful mathematics in creating the world." Lets use his formulation of God for a second...God is "perfect", as you said, so by extension "mathematics' is perfect, as you claim, so why is it that we will never be able to prove that any given mathematical system is consistent, As Godel stated? That would imply that we will never be able to prove if God is perfect or imperfect, or more importantly, it is a useless dichotomy in describing reality. It only is relevant when describing something else, not important in themselves.
 
IamMe90 said:
I'm not sure we haven't answered all 3 of those questions, though the why and how are still very unclear in the former two questions' cases. What life is might be a little unclear when it comes to distinctions between biotic vs. abiotic functioning things, with viruses being a controversial example, but consciousness can be described phenomenologically and humanity can be defined depending on which instance of humanity you're using - both can be captured.

However, if our understanding of how something came to be is only as strong as our understanding of that thing itself, then while we may not have perfect knowledge of how we came to be, I'd say that we could have a fairly descriptive knowledge, given the right advances in philosophy and science occur.
Click to expand...

p-consciousness is still disputed. representationalists argue there's no such thing. there are plenty of gaping holes in our understanding of what we are. we can describe our functions within certain contexts, but there is a chance it could be all fundamentally wrong.
 
Pindar said:
Listen, dont let your panties in a bunch lol, I was attempting just to show that notions of perfection and imperfection are useless in explaining reality; reality does not care if a circle is "perfect" or "imperfect", they are just terms describing human definition...A perfect circle is perfect because all the points are equidistant from the center, but its ratio between the circumference to its diameter is what? An irrational number right? An "imperfect" whole number. An ellipse is an "imperfect circle" because all the points are not equidistant from center. A circle is an imperfect "ellipse" because its eccentricity is zero..Whatever. However I will admit, this does open up more questions..Kant once said that nature is when "we understand the connection of appearances as regards their existence according to necessary rules, that is, according to laws.", so does that mean that our mathematics, and their application of physics makes us discover nature, or do we circumscribe reality with mathematical/physical laws and call the result nature?

Um where have I said "Energy hasn't always existed?", The Conservation laws state that Energy cannot be created or destroyed right? Whatever exists, is fixed and unchangeable. I never called this God, God means many things to many people...not "ignorant people" as you said, unless Newton and Maxwell were actually special-ed kids who just were lucky enough to create the laws of physics that you take for granted lol Even Dirac once said "God has used beautiful mathematics in creating the world." Lets use his formulation of God for a second...God is "perfect", as you said, so by extension "mathematics' is perfect, as you claim, so why is it that we will never be able to prove that any given mathematical system is consistent, As Godel stated? That would imply that we will never be able to prove if God is perfect or imperfect, or more importantly, it is a useless dichotomy in describing reality. It only is relevant when describing something else, not important in themselves.
Click to expand...

"The question wasn't answered to explain creation out of nothing...If God created man, imperfect or not, he created him from nothing, that contradicts the Standard Theory of Genetics and Evolution that was given, unless God can be defined with another term. If God created the universe, he created the universe from nothing, (something from nothing), which contradicts Big Bang Theory..unless God himself can be defined as the energy, then we're in Spinoza's God = nature."

Perhaps I drew from you trying to argue my point about explaining creation out of nothing?

While Pi is "irrational" is still a real number and by no means imperfect. That is a projection of your opinion. There is no such thing as a perfect ellipse because there is not standard for ellipses. You can have an ellipse with a minimum radius of 1 unit and a maximum radius of 26 as well as an ellipse with a minimum radius of 2 and a maximum radius of 3.
Sorry if I'm not debating your points with a bunch of western philosoph(ers)y but I won't even dip my toes in that shit storm.


And you crazy, fundy, bible humping people aren't supposed to know about Go:del ;) haha
 
By the way, Im not neither fundamental, nor a believer in God...God if anything is a metaphor...I was trying to say that some people consider God to be a metaphor for many things, including Energy. Sorry if my "reductio ad absurdum" threw y'all off.
 
Last edited:
Pindar said:
By the way, Im not neither fundamental, nor a believer in God...God if anything is a metaphor...I was trying to say that some people consider God to be a metaphor for many things, including Energy. Sorry if my "reductio ad absurdum" threw y'all off.
Click to expand...
Nah, I'm just teasing. I'm the same way haha. Pre-bastardation or "philosophical" Daoist. As I see it god is as real as luck. Does luck exist? in short... eh.... in long... meh. luck as a concept exists but luck is the product of the variables of a situation.(in simplest terms) I flip a coin; input force determines the number of rotations. Outside of an event where you care about the outcome are you likely to reduce it to luck? most likely not. If you are though and you "win" now luck is attributed. It is the compilation of lots of factors. So luck doesn't exist until it is attributed in which case it does exist even though it doesn't exist. You dig? haha.
 
"God" is just a label for an 'unknown.' Originally, "God" was just the sun, and while we didn't understand how it gave us life, we could see the correlation, and thus believed it was our creator. Funny how 'on track' we were back then hey? The idea of perfection is highly misunderstood. Diamonds can be considered perfect and flawless, yet cut and polished down to size. Maybe everything already is perfect, just not from your current perspective.

At present, for me, "God" is a label for all reality. This includes all matter/anti-matter/ect in the universe, any subsequent multi-verses, even the vacuum's and the insides of blackholes. Is all this self-determined? Well, I like to think I am, so I don't see why it couldn't be. Is it omnipotent? Well, it is everything. Could a "God" control a "God"? Lets refer to the previous question... I like to think I'm self-determined, so why couldn't everything be?

Could "God" make a rock that even "God" couldn't lift? Well, for starters, lets fix that. Could everything make a rock that everything couldn't lift? It kinda depend on that whole self-determination question I'm afraid. Can a rock lift itself? Asian dad says no, study harder. But science has a lot to learn about reality. For now, we'll call the rock God, and say if it wants to lift itself, it can, but I suspect that it doesn't, and I'm hoping for some warning if it changes it's mind. After all, can you imagine a giant rock at the center of all reality whose gravitational power is so intense it overwhelms all other forces in reality? Can we stop asking reality this question? I'm afraid it might itself get curious.
 
hiphophippy said:
Nah, I'm just teasing. I'm the same way haha. Pre-bastardation or "philosophical" Daoist. As I see it god is as real as luck. Does luck exist? in short... eh.... in long... meh. luck as a concept exists but luck is the product of the variables of a situation.(in simplest terms) I flip a coin; input force determines the number of rotations. Outside of an event where you care about the outcome are you likely to reduce it to luck? most likely not. If you are though and you "win" now luck is attributed. It is the compilation of lots of factors. So luck doesn't exist until it is attributed in which case it does exist even though it doesn't exist. You dig? haha.
Click to expand...

I think that this many instance probably captures the motivation behind many pantheists
 
^
i dont believe in luck either, or wishing, praying(for help or w/e), or superstition.
i honestly dont know what pantheism is, or who Spinoza is, and embrace my ignorance;-) - it is blissful envelopment, seeing and feeling how the more we learn the less we know - that is until one feels the total awe of ones own refinement into utter simplicity*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top