[MEGA] God

[vegan]

^ you completely lack the ability to step outside of your own perception/ reality

pot.. kettle!
kettle... pot!

you're not making any effort to understand what we've explained to you
and here once more you just repeat what you were saying 4 pages ago and haven't realized it was not just a different theory, it's false

"infinite" doesn't mean "everything"
alphanumeric gave a good example with numbers, have you understood it?
have even read it?
i gave one with lines, that you seemed to have problems understanding too

when people say something that you don't understand, try harder before assuming that they're saying nonsense

i honestly spent time trying to see if i missed something about what you said, with no results. but i see clearly what you have missed

there is nothing silly about distinguishing between our universe and "anything else"
our universe is the one that we can observe, that we're trying to date, that we pertain to physically, etc.
be this universe that we know finite or infinite, we have no idea of what lays outside of it; no way to date it, and it's certainly not what people are answering to when they propose an age of around 13.5 billions years old

and even if the question was "when did all that exists come into existence?", "if there was nothing before [all that exists], then there wasn't anything before existence... thus it always existed" doesn't demonstrate anything
as long as we don't know why existence started or exists, we can't assume that it it didn't start from an instance 0 before wich there was nothing

and before you say it, "nothingness can't exist or then would exist existence" is just a bad play on words

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

in a medium... you can have two lines that are infinite and do not touch... but they come with the restriction of being lines...

since we are talking about the medium and not the lines.... the two are not infinite because they are lines

 

[PGTips]

But the example of 2 lines in a plane is an example of two n dimensional entities can exist in one n+1 dimensional expanse. Infact you can fit an infinite number of n dimensional entities in an n+1 dimensional expanse.

In the case of lines and a plane, n=1. In the case of some theories of the universe that are in development n = 4 or even 10!!

You are not correct saying "They aren't infinite because they are lines", they are infinite within their domains. If you are restricted to a line, you can move an infinite amount in along the line. In our universe we can move an infinite (assuming it is infinite) amount in 3 different directions. What is the say that our universe isn't an infinite 3d region of an infinite 4d, 5d or even 11d grander expanse? No matter how much we move in our little 3 dimensional "bubble" we cannot leave it, but within the grand expanse of this 11d space, there could exist other 3d bubbles which are themselves infinite bubbles in 3 dimensions but are seperated by a non-zero amount in the other 1, 2 or 7 dimensions in the grand expanse.

"Our universe" would be the 3d bubble we are stuck in. We can move infinitely in the 3 dimensions we can move in, but the multiverse would be the grand expanse all the bubbles are within. Move matter how we move, we cannot move outside our universe into the multiverse, so there is a real and distinct difference between our universe and other universe's within the multiverse.

I know that the definition of the universe is everything, but many words which define our concept of reality were derived at times before new ideas developed. If you defined "universe" to be "Everything we can ever reach in our travels, or observe" then universe would mean our bubble in the multiverse, yet wouldn't be everything.

I know it's a strange concept to think about because our brains work in 3d, but it's a very simple mathematical concept to work in more than 3d and very well established in what kind of conitations it can have.

You said to Vegan " you completely lack the ability to step outside of your own perception/ reality", but to be honest, it is you who are not stepping out of your own perception.

 

[euphorically]

^^ WTF?

Damn you beings make it all sound so complicated Words just can't explain the truth, we just already know, lays within us all.

God = The universe.........YES, I love it!

(meaningful for something so simple, it's also nice to see maths & the english language can be of use on this basic level)

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

AN
thank you

it makes a lot more sense to me now...

<<<Move matter how we move, we cannot move outside our universe into the multiverse, so there is a real and distinct difference between our universe and other universe's within the multiverse.>>>

i guess my only problem with that is that if we can't experience it... is it really there? (if a tree falls.. ect..)

i would say that until we invent/ discover some way to experience parts outside of our universe, then they don't exist. (exist = to be, especially to be present in the real world or universe rather than in story or imagination)

can you recomend a book on the subject that wouldn't be too difficult for me to understand?

 

[elemenohpee]

If a tree falls in the forest while no one is around, it will make compression waves in the air that, if a person were around, would be perceived as sound.

 

[B9]

^This is indeed true, but ?

zophen.

 

[elemenohpee]

i guess my only problem with that is that if we can't experience it... is it really there? (if a tree falls.. ect..)

i would say that until we invent/ discover some way to experience parts outside of our universe, then they don't exist. (exist = to be, especially to be present in the real world or universe rather than in story or imagination)

just because we do not experience it does not mean it is not there

 

[redeemer]

i would say that until we invent/ discover some way to experience parts outside of our universe, then they don't exist.

Lack of evidence by itself is no evidence. You cannot conclude that something does not exist based on lack of evidence for its existance.

 

[PGTips]

BHC, glad to hear my last post helped, though rereading it, I can imagine it might be hard to follow, I've a mental image of what I'm trying to convey to you in my head, and it generally involves a bit of maths I'm trying to give physical meaning to, so isn't too good.

There's a bit in the 3rd episode of "The Elegant Universe" , a documentry about String Theory on the PBS website. You've probably heard me mention it before. It talks specifically about these ideas, and does some computer graphics to help convey it, so definitely worth a look. It's a difficult concept to convey in words and books, becauses, as I mentioned, our words are often underdeveloped when dealing with these concepts. Computer graphics help a lot, and I'll admit a passing familiarity with the concept of "linear independence" from maths helped me get my head around it.

Lack of evidence by itself is no evidence. You cannot conclude that something does not exist based on lack of evidence for its existance.

Hence why science will never disprove the existance of God.

 

[VibeTribeScribe]

Response to the commonly accepted nonsense of "Redeemer"

"Lack of evidence by itself is no evidence. You cannot conclude that something does not exist based on lack of evidence for its existance." - Redeemer

If there is no evidence for something's existence, it cannot be argued to exist outside of human imagination.

If God does exist we just happened to imagine that he might exist coincidentally. The main support behind God's existence is man's curiosity about the origin of life and his eagerness to propose that life was designed and created just like tools are designed and created. Some individuals ascribe meaning and purpose to life and assert that we were meaningfully designed with an intended purpose.

The true state of existence is ambiguous and spontaneous. An innumerable amount of interpretations and irrefutable assertions can be made but the cosmos continues to ebb and flow independently of a driving force outside of itself. To make such claims is to assert that God's non-existence can be known and indeed it can, for believing in his existence is holding a convenient delusion which reconsiles the mysteries of life. There are no grounds for the claim of God's existence aside from the fact that it would make us capable of comprehending what would otherwise be unexplainable.

Most people say that claiming God's non-existence is just as foolish as claiming his existence. However I would beg to differ. God does exist in the mind's of humans but absolutely does not exist outside of anyone's mind unless the idea of God is meant to represent the (non-conscious) state of natural existence beyond our perception/comprehension. Of course the common conception of God has been anthropomorphized (associated with the human form and means of functioning) because man glorifies himself.

Exclusive monotheistic beliefs in an anthropomorphized God are prideful, self-righteous, outspoken, human/self-glorifying, human/self-centered, and condusive of disharmony with the natural environment.

 

[elemenohpee]

If there is no evidence for something's existence, it cannot be argued to exist outside of human imagination.

But it also cannot be argued to not exist. This is I think what redeemer was getting at.

If God does exist we just happened to imagine that he might exist coincidentally. The main support behind God's existence is man's curiosity about the origin of life and his eagerness to propose that life was designed and created just like tools are designed and created. Some individuals ascribe meaning and purpose to life and assert that we were meaningfully designed with an intended purpose.

I tend to agree, but that doesn't mean that that opinion is right. You've given no more evidence than a religious person claiming to know about ogd.

The true state of existence is ambiguous and spontaneous. An innumerable amount of interpretations and irrefutable assertions can be made but the cosmos continues to ebb and flow independently of a driving force outside of itself. To make such claims is to assert that God's non-existence can be known and indeed it can, for believing in his existence is holding a convenient delusion which reconsiles the mysteries of life. There are no grounds for the claim of God's existence aside from the fact that it would make us capable of comprehending what would otherwise be unexplainable.

Most people say that claiming God's non-existence is just as foolish as claiming his existence. However I would beg to differ. God does exist in the mind's of humans but absolutely does not exist outside of anyone's mind unless the idea of God is meant to represent the (non-conscious) state of natural existence beyond our perception/comprehension. Of course the common conception of God has been anthropomorphized (associated with the human form and means of functioning) because man glorifies himself.

Again, you assume that god does not exist, go on to make a bunch of statements to that effect, and then conclude that god does not exist.

Exclusive monotheistic beliefs in an anthropomorphized God are prideful, self-righteous, outspoken, human/self-glorifying, human/self-centered, and condusive of disharmony with the natural environment.

agreed.

 

[toejam]

what is there but emptiness in the pursuit of God as a metaphysical ultimate reality? as an antithesis to our own realities? an eternal, stable absolute in a universe of transience?

A God like this is contrary to everything we understand/experience as nature. And what have we to infer from, in the end, than our own subjectivities? Talk of a God that is external to our sensory awareness/existential being is meaningless:
"it is certain that knowledge of it [metaphysicalism] would be the most useless of all knowledge; more useless even than knowledge of chemical composition must be to a drowning sailor." - Friedrich Nietzsche

God is no personification ("It is not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image" - Ludwig Feuerbach), God is our universe and 'he' is ourselves because we are our universe. To look for meaning in an external realm/entity when the state of nature is inconstant, intangible singularity? When there is no internality/externality other than that created as an illusion of infantile self awareness? To seek that is to find emptiness.

peace :D

 

[VibeTribeScribe]

"God cannot be argued to not exist. You've given no more evidence than a religious person claiming to know about God. You assume that God does not exist, go on to make a bunch of statements to that effect, and then conclude that God does not exist." - Elemenohpee

True. Approaching the assertion/refutation of God through rational or logical arguments will not yield any validation. The only way in which one can attempt to prove or disprove God's existence is through the use of intuition.

I feel intuitively as though 'God' was an idea created by man to explain the facets of existence beyond our perception/comprehension. According to my subjective sense of intuition, God is nothing more than a delusion. In addition my intuition suggests to me that there was no origin of the universe and that the order which we perceive in the universe was not designed or created by a conscious creator.

Of course this has no more grounding than any argument for the existence of God, however I would argue that the intuitive argument which refutes God's existance is stronger than the intuitive argument that asserts it. Of course this brings into question whether any intuitive argument can be more or less strong than another since they are all subjective and relative to one's cultural lense.

But honestly, asserting that teleporting time travelling purple penguins with laser vision and snake ears exist has just as little grounding as refuting their existence but seriously now who would honestly believe in such a thing just because their existence can't be refuted?

 

[redeemer]

Response to the commonly accepted nonsense of "Redeemer"

Please explain what is nonsensical about my claim.

If there is no evidence for something's existence, it cannot be argued to exist outside of human imagination.

True, and I've never said anything opposing this. I said you cannot establish a fact based on lack of evidence.

Whether this fact is the non-existance of God or the existance of God is irrelevant.

 

[VibeTribeScribe]

"You cannot establish a fact based on lack of evidence. Whether this fact is the non-existance of God or the existance of God is irrelevant. Please explain what is nonsensical about my claim."

It is nonsensical to reserve judgment on the existence/nonexistence of invisible flying pink unicorns or teleporting time travelling purple penguins with laser vision. It is a fact that they do not exist on this planet. I know this by the fact that they are fantasy creatures created by the human imagination and it is foolish to consider that they might exist until it can be proven that they don't (which would be impossible without an omnipresent and omniscient consciousness).

The things which exist in reality are not things that humans imagined first and then stumbled upon later, they are things that humans perceived and then came up with symbols to represent and conceptualize about later. This argument is enough to prove that God doesn't exist and that anyone who ever claimed to perceive him was just misinterpreting natural phenomenon as God's presence. Obviously this is hard to swallow for rational/logical minded people, however logic is the science of being confident about being wrong and rational thinking can lead to irrational conclusions - hence my own in your eyes perhaps or yours in my eyes.

 

[VibeTribeScribe]

Refuting commonly accepted and deeply engrained nonsense

It is a fact that God doesn't exist because God is not something that people perceived and then came up with a symbol for. God is an idea that people imagined and then claimed that his non-existence couldn't be proven after while at the same time admitting that his existence couldn't be proven either (since there never was any evidence for his existence to begin with).

The fact that people claim to know that God has a human form (or at least that humans are made in God's image) but admit that noone has ever or will ever be capable of perceiving/comprehending his essence - goes to show that it is nonsense all around.

 

[toejam]

i dont think anyone can begin to determine another entities subjective reality, or the validity of it. lets use those invisible penguins to demonstrate. if i have total faith in the existence of invisivble penguins, can cite observable evidence of their 'effects' upon particular environments i am thus inferring their existence from my subjective experience. subjective experience is non-transferable, thus you can say what you like about those invisible penguins, but they're real mate and until you experientially homogenize with me to prove otherwise it will stay that way.

incidentally, on the invisible penguin train, if you were to compare our elusive birds to God youll see its pretty much the same thing. more importantly, though, the invisible penguins/God, are never actually (and by definition can not be) experienced; their existence is inferred from observational analysis. so we find that our invisible penguin actually has no inherent meaning (lack of experiential subjectivity) because it is not experienced, so it (or God) may as well just be an invisible platypus.

or not exist at all...?


(vibe tribe are fuckin' sic btw :D)

 

[VibeTribeScribe]

"I dont think anyone can begin to determine another entities subjective reality, or the validity of it. Subjective experience is non-transferable. (Something I perceive subjectively is) real and until you experientially homogenize with me to prove otherwise it will stay that way."

True, one cannot ever even attempt to do so. However the rationality movement set out to do just so by attempting to establish an objective reality in which commonly perceived phenomena were considered empirical evidence for objectively real things or occurences. You have used one of the standards of rationalism by arguing that something cannot be proven to exist without empirical evidence for its existence and arguing that nothing can ever be proven not to exist, we can only infer that it has yet to be proven to exist.

"If I have total faith in the existence of invisible penguins and can cite observable evidence of their 'effects' upon particular environments I am thus inferring their existence from my subjective experience."

Attributing the effects of "something" to an unperceived entity is faulty science. Anyone could say that the entire universe is the effect of God. This is b/s. Causation cannot be inferred by merely observing the effects of a speculated cause.

"If you were to compare our elusive birds (invisible penguins) to God you'll see its pretty much the same thing."

Actually it was teleporting time-travelling penguins with laser-vision and invisible pink unicorns but w/e same difference - any fantasy creature produced by human imagination.

"The invisible penguins/God, are never actually (and by definition can not be) experienced; their existence is inferred from observational analysis. So we find that our invisible penguin actually has no inherent meaning (lack of experiential subjectivity) because it is not experienced, so it (or God) may as well just be an invisible platypus."

Right, but somehow Judeo-Christians (among others) feel it acceptable to claim that we were made in God's image. Even though noone has ever perceived God's appearance. This shows that the whole idea of God is an imaginary fantasy and not a product of perception and subsequent symbolic representation. Claiming that there is a God with an obscure form who is conscious and designed and created existence is still anthropomorphizing. The only claim that holds any validity is that God is meant to represent the realm of metaphysical and spiritual obscurity that beckons human curiosity. It is valid to say that the universe was not created by a conscious being of whom we were made in the image. It would be just as valid to assert that any imaginary fantasy creature lives invisibly and has fantasy powers the likes of which transcend any possible natural ability (ie laser vision or teleportation).

The commonly accepted and deeply engrained nonsense of which I speak is the confusion that rational thinking can create and the fact that deductive reasoning can lead to irrational conclusions. I study philosophical Taoism which utilizes the paradox to demonstrate the faults of logic and deductive reasoning. Intuition and sentiment are the groundwork of rationalism. Relativism is the foundation upon which universalism or rationalism functions. Hallucinations and delusions create a problem for some who wish to assert that there is a commonly perceived reality. However, rationalism has facillitated the unwillingness to let go of deeply engrained delusions such as the existence of God.

 

[LouReed]

I dont like the cut of yer' gip....


Which came first the chick or the egg?
All that matters are gods thoughts!?!
Who is to say this isnt the first universe?

You'll find the bible clearly states, in not so few words, that it dont matter anyway and you should live by your faith/knowledge and not by foresight/intellect.

In other words its merely a matter of comprehension.....