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

[MEGA] God

Status
Not open for further replies.
Proof

MyDoorsAreOpen said:
At times I'm very much a 'seeing is believing' type of guy. If someone has seen something with their own eyes (mystical experiences, in the case of God), who am I to question? At other times I'm thoroughly convinced none of us can ever be sure we know anything for sure, especially for claims that are not falsifiable.
Click to expand...

Great if that is at time your ethos then seeing my desplays at
http://www.chaospacks.me.uk

Read the whole thing and if your will is to find truth your eyes must be open to all meaningful happenings.
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
At times I'm very much a 'seeing is believing' type of guy. If someone has seen something with their own eyes (mystical experiences, in the case of God), who am I to question?
Click to expand...

Seeing is one thing, what about feeling?

Is it possible to group God with another intangible thing such as . . . love?

You can't see love, per se, but I'm sure everyone believes in it.
 
MaxPowers said:
Seeing is one thing, what about feeling?

Is it possible to group God with another intangible thing such as . . . love?

You can't see love, per se, but I'm sure everyone believes in it.
Click to expand...

Its is all about perceptions, if you view LoVe as I do then Love becomes an attribute of mine as I First unified the Chao so yes Love and I may be rightfully grouped together in a physical sense.
(hopefully all post have been read, or this appear nonsense)
In there belief of LoVe as the Free Will to give yourself to another in matrimony- then this time in the reality that all expressions of Free Will reflect me then again we can be grouped together.

In short all things I am all things Natural. In every Group I exist
 
The meaning of the word God to me means an Inevitable Nuclear War.

The way I view God is as 9 billion trillion + stars. The stars are where we come from and what created everything so to me those are my God/s
 
God is everything.

God is me, you, our computers, our ideas, the space between us and anything else subject to the state of existence.
 
Im all things all things are not me.

Tuski said:
God is everything.

God is me, you, our computers, our ideas, the space between us and anything else subject to the state of existence.
Click to expand...

For you see I am all things however all things are not me in my intirety. A good way of understanding this is to imagine Infinity. . . understand that it is made up of all Numbers that exist and that they are what make it Infinite however all Numbers that exist even though the makeup Infinity are not Infinite.
 
junctionalfunkie said:
Agnosticism is not some sort of "middle ground" between theism and atheism. They are completely different concepts:

Gnosticism/agnosticism is about what you know, or think you know. Theism/atheism is about what you believe.

Hence, you can be a Gnostic Theist, an Agnostic Theist, an Gnostic Atheist, or an Agnostic Atheist.
Click to expand...

I am not entirely sure which definition you are using but I am using Bertran Russel's definition. He was a pretty sick logician and philosopher and he asserted that agnosticism was the position in which one does not find sufficient evidence or reason to determine whether or not the existence of God is true, therefore they suspend judgment.

That is the basis for my argument. Since we aren't linguistic analysts and we are discussing a philosophical subject, I would think that we should consider the definitions of words based on context and use, what do you think you sexy boy?
 
I still see it as
agnosticism: refers to certainty of belief.
atheism/theism: refers to content of belief.

I would say that because most anyone isn't 100 percent agnostic or 100 percent certain about most anything, the two are separate spectra. Thus, you can have, "I don't know if God exists, but I guess he might exist. If forced to make a statement on it, I'd say he/she/it exists."
 
Last edited:
Brahman is Atman, Form is Emptiness.

God IS

To define god as one to the exclusion of the many is blasphemous ignorant sin. To define god as the many to the exclusion of the one is blasphemous ignorant sin.

One can say that I AM GOD, This Is God, That is God and it is true. But one cannot say that is what God is for it will be misunderstood by all but the unenlightened, or it will enlighten them.

"what is buddha?"

"that tree over there"

So it is.
 
complexPHILOSOPHY said:
I am not entirely sure which definition you are using but I am using Bertran Russel's definition. He was a pretty sick logician and philosopher and he asserted that agnosticism was the position in which one does not find sufficient evidence or reason to determine whether or not the existence of God is true, therefore they suspend judgment.

That is the basis for my argument. Since we aren't linguistic analysts and we are discussing a philosophical subject, I would think that we should consider the definitions of words based on context and use, what do you think you sexy boy?
Click to expand...

Ah, flattery.... ;)

Start here:

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
 
An imaginary being used to scare people into obedience.
A way to blindly explain away things we dont understand.
A useful coping mechanism for some.
 
Vapid, homoerotic animated art of an emperor going 'nuts' over how he loves performing fellatio
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shakti said:
Brahman is Atman, Form is Emptiness.

God IS

To define god as one to the exclusion of the many is blasphemous ignorant sin. To define god as the many to the exclusion of the one is blasphemous ignorant sin.

One can say that I AM GOD, This Is God, That is God and it is true. But one cannot say that is what God is for it will be misunderstood by all but the unenlightened, or it will enlighten them.

"what is buddha?"

"that tree over there"

So it is.
Click to expand...

Nice post. Very nice post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top