Proving God to be fake... In under ten seconds...

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by fizliz

Originally posted by TruthParadox
How about this one:
If God is all knowing and all powerful, then while he created us, he created our end as well. Thus making him directly responsible for the result.
How then is any sort of judgment, trial, or tribulation not redundant and pointless when dealing with such a God.
He judges a person for how he made them?
He tests someone when he already knows what he will do, and in fact created him/her to do it?


I have heard this question so many times and wondered it myself until I thought about this. What if God knows every single outcome to every problem we encounter. Couldn't God know where each path leads? For example, let's say I have a test in a week. God know's what will happen should I choose to not study. He know's what will happen if I study the day before. He know's every single outcome to whichever study method I choose, but it is up to me to choose from the paths laid out before me. Does that make any sense?


The universe contains all possibilities. God knows all, so he knows all possibilities. You on the other hand do not know all, and so you make a path through all the possibilities. But you will eventually learn and figure out things. If you put your finger on the stove eye, it will burn you. Learn the lesson and you don't get burned anymore. Refuse to learn the lesson and you just keep getting burned and burned.

Take a movie. Stretch the film all the way out. In this perspective of the movie it has no time, change or anything. All is known and seen of the movie at once. This is the perspective of god, or the perspective as someone mentioned the 10th dimension. Now then, take that same film and turn it into frames, show those frames one after the other, and suddenly because you have a limited perception of the movie, it has time, change and so forth. This is your perspective, the son's perspective.

Now, if this were a linear reality, then free will and choice do not exist. You are stuck watching whatever the director put into the movie. But as all possibilities and such are known(all knowing), then it is not a linear movie. There is film strip after film strip laying "next" to each other. Each film strip is like the one next to it, only slightly different. This enables free will and choice. From your limited perspective, it still appears to be linear. Because you have taken a linear path across it. But every time you make a choice, you are changing dimensions and making your own path.

2 future dimensions exist. In 1 you raise your right hand, in the other you raise your left hand. Both exist, both are possible experiences. Which happens is your choice. You can obviously even choose to do nothing at all.

Time is the movement from 1 of these dimensions/frames to the other. So while it doesn't seem like you are changing dimensions, or moving in the dimensions, you are.

Now, it is known that you will reap what you sow. Your choices have consequences. Put your hand on the stove eye, it burns you. Go rob a bank, end up in a dimension where you are in jail. Run for office, maybe end up in one where you are in politics. All there, all known, all possible. Your choice where you go. This is why Jesus always talks about his path and walking it. Because if you are doing what he says then you will not be sowing bad things, and you will not reap bad things. You will sow good things and so that is what you will reap.

And this is why hypocrisy is such a huge problem. Because the hypocrite does not see that his actions are equally as bad. And so they continue to sow and reap bad things. People who think they are justified in their actions actually aren't. If you kill a man because that man killed, then it is 2 errors, not just 1. The hypocrite doesn't see that his killing was bad, and so he is doomed until he realizes what he does. Thus do not judge people. You have to actually be the change you want to see. If you are forcing things on others, then you are being a hypocrite and things will be forced on to you. Because while you may think you are right in doing so, what you are actually saying is - it is ok for 1 human to force something onto another, and so that is what you will reap.

Pity for hypocrisy, because these people do not really see their errors, and so they think they sow good things, but reap bad things.

This is not what the church does or teaches. It instead gets people to focus on the idol, worship the idol and then the people are kept ignorant to the truth and lead to do things which go against the path. And of course, this leads to them sowing bad things. They believe Jesus is going to save them and they won't have to reap what they sow.

Jesus says those who truly believe will follow him and walk the path. And if you actually understand and walk that path, then you are forgiven. Just like as soon as you remove your finger from that stove eye the source of the burning stops. You might feel a bit of pain for awhile, you might have to walk out of your own muck, but as you fix your mistakes, they are no longer a problem and thus you are immediately forgiven. Because it is all in hopes to teach you.

Look at what he actually says, rather than listening to people promising you free gifts and to accept the image of an idol. God rewards with wisdom and knowledge, the truth sets you free. It is not about ignorance and servitude to authority.

This all seems impossible to someone who see's themselves as flesh that is stuck in a linear dimension. Where free will to them is impossible, because they see everything as only the single movie film. To realize your true self and nature is to be born anew. To understand you are soul/consciousness and a son of god, just as Jesus was.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by badmedia]




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gregor100


....If you can change the future you are not omniscient.

If you cannot you are not omnipotent.



Doesn't the above pre-suppose that God is "within" time...but he's not he's eternal...

His 'vantage point' isn't linear....it's infinite.

Assumptions: OT is using biblical information in this post...sorry



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by fizliz
I have heard this question so many times and wondered it myself until I thought about this. What if God knows every single outcome to every problem we encounter. Couldn't God know where each path leads? For example, let's say I have a test in a week. God know's what will happen should I choose to not study. He know's what will happen if I study the day before. He know's every single outcome to whichever study method I choose, but it is up to me to choose from the paths laid out before me. Does that make any sense?



It's not just the "all knowing" part that nullifies our free-will, it's the fact that he created us while knowing the result, and therefor created the universe with the domino effect in place which would later appear to you to be your choice of studying for the test.
He's responsible for the cause and the result because he would have seen the result before he created the cause.
Just as you are responsible for shooting a gun for the simple fact that you know the result before you pull the trigger.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
Doesn't the above pre-suppose that God is "within" time...but he's not he's eternal...

His 'vantage point' isn't linear....it's infinite.


Doesn't your position pre-suppose that god must exist?

your working off the assumption that it is impossible for him not to exist, then trying to determine where he's "located".

you're doing it backwards




[edit on 19-2-2009 by nj2day]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day

Originally posted by OldThinker
Doesn't the above pre-suppose that God is "within" time...but he's not he's eternal...

His 'vantage point' isn't linear....it's infinite.


Doesn't your position pre-suppose that god must exist?

your working off the assumption that it is impossible for him not to exist, then trying to determine where he's "located".

you're doing it backwards


[edit on 19-2-2009 by nj2day]


Yes it does...that kinda why I put the Bible assumption in there...

I'll marinate on the backwards point,ok?



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


I have to ask, where you not hugged enough by your clergy at a young age? Or perhaps too much?


As a preface, I have to state, I am NOT a Christian any longer. My issue with your posts is that, as intelligent as you seem to be, you resort to oppressing peoples beliefs and faith to make your choice seem more right to you. You do this with almost militant fervor and righteous indignation that someone could possibly believe a story so stupid as the bible.

I pose the question to you sir, can you PROVE that he does NOT exist? No, no one can.

The Christians on this board do not have all the answers to their or your questions. They have "faith" to fill in the blanks. You denounce that faith as improbable and illogical.

I submit that your logic is merely faith under another name. As an example, a Christian is walking down the street. They see a quarter on the sidewalk and they pick it up. They walk on saying, "praise Jesus". An atheist will walk down the same street, see a quarter, pick it up and say "logic dictates that someone else dropped it, and I am fortunate enough to have found it".

No one witnessed how the quarter got there so no one can say with any level of certainty that it was someone elses misfortune, or God's providence. Without quantifiable proof, in any form, BOTH arguments could be correct. Or, and this is the kicker, BOTH arguments could be wrong.

Christians have faith in God, you have logic. You cannot prove your logic is more sound than a Christians faith. I know, in your years, you have had a series of circumstances that led you to believe, using logic, a specific outcome. Then that outcome turned out differently than what you rightfully, and quite logically concluded. Does that mean that your logic no longer applies in any situation? No. It means you were wrong about one aspect of your life that you applied your logic to.

A Christian has a friend who gets cancer. Using their faith, they conclude that God will save their friend. They pray and commune with God but their friend still dies. Does that mean that their faith fails in every aspect of their life? That it makes it incorrect? No. They were just wrong.

My whole point is that your logic and a Christians faith are a choice. What works best for you/them. Until the truth can be proven either way, they have no right to harangue you about your logic, and they have no right to tell you you're wrong. But the same applies to you. You have no right to attempt to poke holes in their faith system, or attempt to make them prove themselves.

Let it go brother.

To the OP, that video proves nothing. If God existed, why couldn't he change the future? He's omnipotent, he can do whatever he wants. The deeper question is why would he? In his omniscience he thought of a plan, found it to be good, set it in motion and let it run. I don't see the validity of that video, or your post. Please feel free to explain it to me



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

"The search for the Grail is the search for the divine in all of us. But if you want facts, Indy, I've none to give you. At my age, I'm prepared to take a few things on faith."

--Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade


Two interesting quotes but are they opposite in their meaning?

An argument can be made that disbelief without absolute proof is also a belief of the unknown and therefore a truth and not a fact. If you look at the story of Eden from the perspective of being literal, then we were cast out not just for disobeying but for fear that were would become immortal and therefore equal. In essence we would become gods ourselves. Immortality would grant infinite amount of knowledge and wisdom in time but it would not make us all knowing nor all powerful.

Good and Evil is an internal struggle. We can be either or both at different times. Killing is wrong but killing one for the greater good of others is right. In the time span of our existence we as species have gone from naked to being able to create elements that did not exist before hand and are on the verge of being able to create life at will by science without natural biology.

If we could change our make up to give up to grant immortality would we be equal then? Or would that just be the first threshold in order to eventually become a being of love and light or conversely darkness and hate?

Just like Schrödinger's cat, we have to open the box to know for sure if the cat is alive or dead. Any other answer is speculation and belief...in other words, by faith alone can it be answered without opening the box.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Someone at the start said that he/she didn't beleive in santa ! Excuse me ! , but I have personally sat on santa's knee When I was much younger and have a crystal clear photograph to prove it . I have never met any gods but I have seen drawings . If I am good ,santa will leave me a present . If I go to church I am expected to hand over some cash . I prefer to beleive in Santa ! No brainer .



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by devareous
it just means god is the alpha and the omega, he is teh all,love and hate,pain and pleasure, he is everything,thats what it means.Read the gosphel of thomas to understand when he gives allt he oppsites god is all them both side eveything.


I know that devareous is not alone in using this terminology...but putting a gender on God is: a) an insult towards God, and: b) shows just how little you think you know about God.

Just sooo tired of seeing that all the time.
Christians seem to be extra good at doing so.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by midnightbrigade
 


I see your point... but let me edit your quarter story a teeny bit to reflect more of the line of thinking I have...

Between the two stories, you have to weigh which one is more probable... Is it significantly more probable that the quarter ended up on that sidewalk by man.

Can I prove 100% conclusively that god didn't put it there? No, that much is obvious... but it is fairly safe to draw the conclusion that a natural series of events led to me finding this quarter, as opposed to a supernatural being guiding me to find it...

Apply Occam's Razor... The explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

That being said, my surmise that someone dropped the quarter makes less assumptions, and is thus the simpler, more probable explanation.

However, using logic based on evidence is not "Faith". Faith is belief without evidence. Applying Occam's Razor to all possible hypotheses and the evidence at hand, we can safely surmise the most probable explanation is the one derived through natural means... this is NOT faith...

I do believe it is a testament to ignorance that people still believe what some random people 2000 years ago wrote down in a book. Why is this book any more "factual" than any other ancient writings? Greek Myths, Beowulf or any of the like?

I am still saddened by the fact that you believe I am merely trying to rationalize my point of view by squashing that of others. However this is not the case. I am simply not required to respect the beliefs of others. I'm only required to respect their right to believe.

With that said, I can say that I think its ignorant, foolish and stupid, and recognize that as a personal opinion. Many people are just "put off" by this notion that we have to be mindful and respectful of people's religious beliefs. (religion is likely the only area this applies... as most people are less likely to respect political beliefs and the like)

You submit that I cannot disprove the existence of god... This is a fact I readily trumpet often in these forums. However, the fact you can't disprove unicorns doesn't mean that unicorns exist. Instead, Its just another Russell's Teapot (if you haven't read his comments on the Teapot, I highly recommend you do).

It is however, possible to prove something exists. This means that when a positive assertion as to the existence of something is made, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

4000 years and running on the judeo-christian god... however, there has not been one iota of evidence supporting the existence of such a being.

This is less evidence than we have for the crypto-zoology beasts people believe in. 1 blurry picture of bigfoot, hoax or not, is more than we've been offered on this magic man in the sky...

I will instantly change my tune and allow for the possibility of a supreme being when positive evidence shows up... thus is the way of science and the scientific method.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Hyde on that 70's show put it perfectly for me. If God can do anything can he make a boob so big that even he can't pick it up?
It's a flawed idea something always contradicts something else. I have always asked this " If lucifer is the Devil and he came from God does that mean that God is evil too?" The response I usually get is " He gave us free will, we make the bad decisions" That's when I respond with " you can't take a little piece of everything and put it off to the side and still have everything...Right?... so if EVERYTHING comes from God, evil must also come from God." Logical right? In the Bible Angels are clearly described to not have free will, to not have a soul, to only have porpose, (you're a muse, you're a musician, you're a messenger, you lay gold bricks) So basically Lucifer (an angel) created his own free will and then got sent down to mess with us for it. Thanks alot for that one big guy.
Would right be right if there was no wrong?
Fundamentaly all major religions break down to the same thing to me, an idea, a guideline that was put in place to help guide us, to help us understand that we should listen to that little voice that tells us we shouldn't do something because it's wrong. It's already in there you don't need a book to tell you what is moral and right the little voice tells you, some people just don't listen well and respond better when they see other people stepping in line they wanna do the same. (If the voice is telling you to do bad things that you know are wrong, Do not do, or listen to anything it says, it's defective and needs repair or replacement. Place the little voice back in it's packaging and take it to an authorized little voice repairman immediatley)
The way I see it if there is a God we are nothing more than Direct T.v., Billions of channels for your viewing pleasure. Guess the big guy likes reality tv. I wonder what he thinks of Rock of Love. (not really, i was trying to be a smart a@!) He'd prolly get a laugh out of Bret Michaels and his bandanna's. Now there's a conspiracy ATS needs to tackle " What's Bret Michaels hiding under the bandanna"



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


Occam's Razor is dumb IMO. It's just a way of being simple minded. It's just a way of appearing to be right all the time, but not actually being right. I see people who live by this all the time, and they are all dumber than a box of nails. They will never believe anything unless it is proven to them, and so they accept whatever answer is given. All the while you can sit there and plainly tell them the truth, but then they will stick to the simple answer. It's the same kind of thinking that leads to answers like swamp gas.

Nobody can prove god, because you can always just write it off as being something else. You can not prove it to another person, it only comes from personal understanding and seeking. Proof of god is your own consciousness/soul. If you ever realize how special and different it is, then you can start to understand. This is to be born anew, to be born of the virgin and realize you are a son of god.

The only thing that can come from nothing is thought. And the ability to observe is something only consciousness/soul can do. Without the ability to observe, feel and so on it is nothing more than a bunch of patterns running around. It doesn't come to life until there is something there to observe the creation itself. The father is the only true observer, and it is that bit of the father that allows you to observe.

It's amazing how many people tout science as the end all be all and then forget it takes a scientist to actually observe and understand it. Completely remove consciousness from things, and it is absurd. Anytime science runs into consciousness, it just labels the event as random. Which is against all the supposed rules of science. There is no random in a creation that is based on logic, IE: action and reaction. You're more likely to find god than you are to come up with logic that can generate a truly random number that is not predictable.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Your assuming that space time only exists within the realm of our perception, you are not accounting for ideas such as parallel dimensions or continuous creation.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by nj2day
 


Occam's Razor is dumb IMO. It's just a way of being simple minded. It's just a way of appearing to be right all the time, but not actually being right.


I think you misunderstand what Occam's Razor means in its entirety... It doesn't mean Simple is right. It means that you shouldn't make assumptions that wouldn't make an observable difference in experimentation.


Nobody can prove god, because you can always just write it off as being something else.


Well, if a supernatural being had walked the earth with moses, created everything in one fell swoop, and had as much of a hand in the world as the bible says... there would most certainly be evidence left from these actions. Its this evidence we require. after 4000 years of trying, no concrete evidence has been presented to verify the assertions in the bible... therefore, it is safe to assume that the events didn't happen in the manner discribed. Show me evidence, and we'll modify existing knowledge.


You can not prove it to another person, it only comes from personal understanding and seeking.


Or perhaps it comes from the genetic predisposition to believe in such things. What's more likely? the crazy guy down the street walks around and talks to god? or could he have a mental disorder?


Proof of god is your own consciousness/soul.


Define soul... Depending on your definition, you may be disappointed with some new Scientific findings.


If you ever realize how special and different it is, then you can start to understand. This is to be born anew, to be born of the virgin and realize you are a son of god.


Or, is it more likely that you just believe these things because they're warm and fuzzy...

Thats another thread... Comfortable lies vs. Unpleasant truth. I might start that one day.


The only thing that can come from nothing is thought.


Ok... than where did god come from?


And the ability to observe is something only consciousness/soul can do.


Not really... I could prove this to you, but its kind of a moot point... so nevermind.


Without the ability to observe, feel and so on it is nothing more than a bunch of patterns running around. It doesn't come to life until there is something there to observe the creation itself.


So you're saying that nothing existed until man? thats going to be tough to defend...


The father is the only true observer, and it is that bit of the father that allows you to observe.


Where did he come from... you just said nothing can come out of nothing but thought....


It's amazing how many people tout science as the end all be all and then forget it takes a scientist to actually observe and understand it.


Thats it in a nutshell... Science seeks to learn from the universe... Faith seeks to project predetermined beliefs onto the universe...


Completely remove consciousness from things, and it is absurd. Anytime science runs into consciousness, it just labels the event as random.


Incorrect.... but I'll give you a chance to explain your position first.

[qutoe]Which is against all the supposed rules of science. There is no random in a creation that is based on logic

What about the law of entropy? The universe could care less if humans think logic doesn't apply... the universe will remain governed by the same laws it always has...


You're more likely to find god than you are to come up with logic that can generate a truly random number that is not predictable.


Well, Chaos theory is designed to do that... but you're taking shortfalls of man to be able to create a random number generator as meaning that entropy doesn't exist. Who is to say that someday, Entropic laws won't be proven wrong... its very possible... but, that doesn't change the universe... merely man's understanding of the universe.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Thinking you can disprove G.d is just as silly and ignorant as those who think that G.d needs them to prove His existence to the world.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by gYvMessanger
Your assuming that space time only exists within the realm of our perception, you are not accounting for ideas such as parallel dimensions or continuous creation.


Not really... you're assuming god exists... and attempting to put him just barely outside our reach of knowledge...

Its not your fault... its been happening for 2000 years.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma
Thinking you can disprove G.d is just as silly and ignorant as those who think that G.d needs them to prove His existence to the world.


Russell's Teapot:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Its impossible to disprove the existence of anything.

therefore, the burden of proof is on the positive assertion... As positive proof is possible.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 



Its true I am making that assumption, but that is the common definition of god, so under that definition how does the initial statement disprove that definition.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
therefore, the burden of proof is on the positive assertion... As positive proof is possible.


I see your point, but where I differ in opinion is that if someone TRULY knows that G.d exists and that in Him is Truth, what need is there to prove it to anyone else? Only faith needs proof to exist. Truth is Truth and exists regardless of if one believes it or not. So, to try and prove either way really only goes to show that one needs the approval of others in order for their personal truth to exist.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Midnight in England - goodnight , friends, keep threadin' .





top topics
 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join