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

Originally posted by mytquin
Like I said before on a similar thread...I'd rather place my trust in God and after I die, find out he doesn't exist than to NOT believe and find out that he DOES exist when it's too late...oops!
Let us know how that works out for ya bud.

Hang on... if you die, how can you find out there isn't a god because without him, there's nothing but eternal oblivion. Surely you're not conceding here that there's something other than god and heaven after death where the conscious mind will continue?

Sounds to me like you have a sly bet going both ways! Hmmm

If you don't believe and find out he is true after death, then god is the all merciful, all forgiving is he not?


IRM

Originally posted by badmedia
Sure, to fix your mistakes is the way to go, but if everyone lived by this rule then advancements wouldn't happen. It is the "crazy" people who dare go outside the box who discover new things.

Erm... no... It is through observation new things are discovered... this is how science works...

You observe... and record... and draw conclusions...

sometimes, scientists decide to just try something "wacky", but it always comes down to observation... THIS is how science works...

Are you suggesting we don't learn from mistakes?

Again, it's not a matter of them changing their mind. It's the way they treat what they thought they knew as fact before, when it wasn't actually true, and the effects of that.

What are they supposed to do? They found new evidence that disrupted the conclusions they drew off their data pool... now, new conclusions are drawn... Sounds like learning to me...

But it also sounds like you're judging the scientific community as a whole based on what you know of a couple of people who may or may not be of strong character in your real life...

This is called prejudice btw.

And here you once again go back to looking for the worse argument to go back to. An unchanged idea for 4000 years? Please, you can only argue against the literal version because it is the only thing you can see in it.

so...how has the basic dogma of the religion changed? It hasn't... god still did all the stuff the bible says he did... god still floats up there... reading thoughts... The only thing that has changed are your apologetics and justifications.

My understandings go well beyond the bible, and I do not see things in the same way as most people.

So... how can you call them truth if you aren't incorperating a data set beyond your own?

Not to be mean, but other people who base their understandings of the world on "truth" they find themselves, without incorperating additional data sets... are typically called delusional...

David Koresh, Charlie Manson, Jim Jones... all of those individuals are most decidedly delusional... but they all found "truth" based on personal experiences that no one else could have. They also had "knowledge beyond the bible" and claimed to know the true nature of the universe...

Think of it man... with a little more charisma, you too could run your own cult.

Sorry, but there is nothing rational about living your life based on what other people can prove to you.

More rational than living your life based on assumptions and fairy tales.

I'll bring you nothing. I speak for those with ears and understanding. Go find out for yourself. That is the point. Any fool can know, the point is to understand.

Whoa, sounds like a brainwashing technique...

Like I said before... If I seek, and draw a different conclusion than you do... than obviously I am wrong and inferior to you right?

Well it's called a personal relationship and you will get your own way of understanding. While you may have a unique way of understanding and expressing things, basic concepts and understandings will be the same.

Don't you see how you just copped out of doing it?

LOL I spent years doing it mate... sorry to tell you... Only, i didn't stop my search with your "one true god". I studied multitudes of religious texts and dogma's from both living, and dead religions...

I did my search... and I arrived at the conclusion.. that all are hogwash...

how many religious texts have you read... maybe thats the problem.

Sure, plenty about the flesh, near nothing about the consciousness.

Offer me proof that there is anything more?

You assume what I say is based off data. It's not. I didn't get my beliefs from the bible. I do not even consider myself to be a Christian and I think the church is the church of Satan.

oh ok... religious zealotry.

it all clicks now.

No, according to me, you wouldn't even need me to tell you such things if you actually took an honest look.

who's to say I didn't take this "honest look"

This is a way to suggest that if I don't arrive at your belief, I'm wrong?

why are you right?

And now you are just looking for ways to avoid the point. Ever heard of a recall? You know why they have recalls? Because the problem exists in all of them.

Who said its a cop out? you mean the FAULTY PART exists in all the vehicles?

That faulty part could be the frame itself... or an air hose... or whatever... but the truth is.. recalls exist because the car is FAULTY...

Quit insulting peoples intelligence with these kinds of cop outs.

LOL I'll have my say on this line later... I haven't been warned in a while... I could prally take the ding.

The brain is just a tool and command center. Just like the drivers seat. Again you avoid the understanding involved and take things for the literal meaning.

No... if you're talking metaphorically, the command center is the driver. The car responds to the driver... the car reacts according to the driver's skill...

You're desperate attempts to define consciousness are tiring... Lets do that actually... before you mention consciousness again...lets see you come up with an all inclusive definition.

I have little time or patience for such low levels of thinking. And I always find it in both atheists and Christians. You are as blind as those you point fingers at.

An entire passage devoted to ad hominem? Seriously? This must mean your running out of ideas...

First off, I'm not religious.

Erm... so you don't believe in "god"?

I believe you are religious.. you just don't perscribe to a conventional dogma... there's a difference.

And once again you stick to the literal. As well, I personally don't care what you do, so long as you don't force me to it. This world doesn't scare me.

LOL I wouldn't force anyone to drop their religious beliefs... fortunately, i am also free to express my opinions of those beliefs.

however... God is dying... If trends continue... some major religions could die out in just over a generation...

For all I know you could be some AI bot and you really don't have a soul, and there is no chance you will ever understand what I say. And believe me when I say this world and society is designed in a way to make you act and be like that, subject to action and reaction.

I mean it is possible to create AI that mimics and appears to be conscious and have a soul. I came up with the logic behind all that. But I realized it wouldn't have a soul or consciousness, and the only way to give it that is either a literal act of god, or for me to put my consciousness into somehow.

Wow... tin foil hat's a little tight man...

I have no problem with animals having souls. I just don't know. I treat them as if they do, because I think it is again - the safe bet.

If animals have souls... doesn't that take away from us being unique by containing the "divine spark?"

Do you know why they say there is no logic that can prove or understand god? Because there is no logic that can create or understand consciousness. Logic is great for understanding the universe and many other things, but there just isn't any logic that can create consciousness.

So... in the event that science has a breakthrough, and can understand all aspects of consciousness, you will abandon your faith? and proclaim that your ways were wrong?

Seriously, shame on all of you. I find these endless debates very annoying and whichever troll started this, shame on you to. I also find it amusing that not one single scripture from the bible, or scientific journal is referenced in these posts. The only thing this has become is a battle of point-of-views with so reliable or consistent evidence. Its tit for tat. Both sides are obviously insecure in their own beliefs or else they would not have the propensity to continue such a futile debate.

I personally believe in the bible but I also have an avid interest in science.
I respect the bible for its message and science for its discoveries. But i respect that not everything in the bible can be proven at this present time and that science has only scratched the surface of what there is to discover.

Instead of wasting your time attacking the faith of others because of your own inferiority complex, why not instead respect their beliefs. There is a scipture which I think applies to both sides and that is to not cast your pearl before swine. It means not to give something you hold of value to someone who will not appreciate it, or is likely to denegrate it. Likewise all of you should respect the human right to have our own beliefs.


reply to post by nj2day

im not sure that qualified as a video lol but anyway i think epicurus put it best

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Says the anonymous user...

By the way... I'm only required to allow people to believe what they want... I'm not required in any way to respect the beliefs that they hold... simply their right to hold them...

But... grow a pair and create a username already...

But there is atleast 1 observer. Sure it may be there, but there will be nothing there to witness it, nothing there to understand it and so on. Without consciousness abilities such as reason and understanding just aren't possible. In the end, god is the only observer, yourself included. Without the scientist and consciousness of the scientist, there is no science and there is no understanding of science.

LOL thats funny, I mention that it doesn't take consciousness to observe, and you go off on Artificial Intelligence.

I'm sure you don't think mice are conscious beings... but they not only have the ability to observe, they have the ability to learn from those observations.

That is because trying to design and create actual intelligence is how I came to alot of my understanding. I've actually sat down and pondered the logic behind things for years. I use to be like you. In the end I realized it was nothing more than exactly what I say, a bunch of patterns following predetermined logic with no actual understanding of consciousness of the events taking place. No more consciousness than the moon which circles the earth based on the laws of Physics is.

I had to ask myself really difficult questions and find the logic behind it. For example, how does one determine what is true and what to believe? Do we take majority opinion? Do we put weight into certain people in our lives and base our truth off this? How about what can be proven? But how is this bundle of logic to understand it is proven in the first place? Basically, the AI has no way of understanding, and so it is only capable of repeating what it comes in contact with. Which is no different than any other fool on this earth, and hardly a sign of intelligence.

You are going off what other people have learned. I am going off what I have learned from my own experience.

Says you? right? apologetics at its best. Invent gods to fit the new realms science shows you. what happened to the 10th dimensional god? is he gone now?

Pure consciousness has no physical being? than how did he walk with moses?

Says me - for me. See the thing is, you think I am just accepting what I've been told or read. But in reality, these things I speak of aren't beliefs for me. I understand you don't believe me, and I don't expect you to. But it is hardly apologetic. The thing about understandings is you have to get them yourself.

Pure consciousness has no physical being, but obviously it does occupy vessels/people. Consciousness is the thinker, creation/logic is the thought.

But you do not realize the difference between patterns running based on the logic given, and the actual ability to understand and observe. That which is not conscious is unable to learn new logic.

What does this have to do with the scientific method? are you just talking jibberish now?

In the middle ages there was the black plague... The people at the time didn't understand it, thus, they said god was punishing them...

now, we know what caused it, how it was transmitted, and have in fact narrowed down that the plague entered Europe from a port in Italy, aboard a ship that came from Asia...

If you don't incorperate the new knowledge into your data set... you end up with "god dun it"...

in 2000 years, Christianity in particular, has refused to add new data to their data set... in the situations where it was impossible to ignore the new data, they change the definitions of parts of their religion... or start claiming it was all symbolic and figurative.

I'm not a Christian, I actually understand and follow Jesus. Christianity is the false religion Jesus warned about. You might actually know this is you actually understood what Jesus was saying, rather than looking at how people who do things in his name act and say. You aren't getting your own understanding, every argument you make is towards Christianity and what they do or say.

As for new knowledge, I had your perspective years ago, made the same argument years ago and so on. My opinion is based on new knowledge. To put it simple, you just do not understand consciousness and soul. And as I said before, if you don't and can't realize it then it is pointless to even talk to you.

We've been through this before. We can recognize the chemical interactions in the brain, and watch thought happening on a screen... science will eventually completely map the mind... and will be able to show you exactly what you're saying consciousness is...

Oh, now who's putting faith in things? Science will eventually map the mind? Even if such is true, you are only mapping the images and thought within the brain, consciousness is the part that actually observes and feels these things. It's no different than what I said about psychology earlier, it is nothing more than what? Pattern recognition. It has nothing to do with actual consciousness.

They already have video game controls that you wear on your head... you interface with the game via pure thought... now that is reading consciousness fairly well I would think.

No, that is called reading brain waves. Those are the things that bring things to consciousness, not actual consciousness itself.

The fact that you decide to assign some sort of divine attribute to conciousness and the fact that you have absolutely no understanding of what it is (scientifically) does NOT mean that it is truely divine in nature... this is just using "god" to explain the unexplainable... and isn't a real answer.

I don't assign divinity to it, I just realize and understand it is seperate of creation. No matter what you say, there is no logic that can create consciousness. No chemicals that combine to magically create consciousness.

But what you fail to understand is that consciousness is not part of the creation.

Has to be because you've discribed god as pure consciousness... and he said "let us create man in our own image". This was the rationality you used when explaining why god isn't "man shaped".

Nifty little contradiction you have going there.

In his image is consciousness. God is man shapped when in the form of the son(you). Of course, this is just a physical vessel and not truly the consciousness itself.

LOL classic! If I don't agree with you, something must be wrong with my thinking, and I'm somehow inferior to you...

This is actually a pretty common christian response... and you wonder why other religions despise christianity.

Again, I'm not Christian. This is a topic about god. I do not carry an overall good opinion of Christianity or the church. But I do know god, and I do see the truth in the bible, but if you understand the truth then you will not like the church or organized religion.

And btw, you have not presented a single argument that I have not thought of or made myself in the past. I've already had your perspective, and so I know it's wrong based on my own experiences. For some reason you seem to believe that anyone who believes in god was brainwashed into it.

Where are these magical molecules that have consciousness in them? You see yourself as being flesh and see yourself as machine. And yes, your body is from the dust of the earth, it is from the creation and it is a machine. But you are the driver, and if you can't understand that, then you will never understand me.

I've said this before... you're the one saying you have all the answers... (especially with the whole consciousness thing) Not me... I say its foolish to make the leap... and will instead wait for science to run its course...

There's no shame in admitting that you don't understand something. For some reason, believers have to attribute misunderstanding to "god"

Because you yourself have not experienced or know something doesn't mean nobody else has either. What you lack you also deny in others. You keep on assuming I'm just repeating the bible, it's getting pretty old and insulting to be honest.

So we will not find agreement as long as you associate yourself as being flesh rather than soul/consciousness.

Oh we could agree, if science someday finds facts supporting your myths, I'll add that to my data set, and re-evaluate my positions.

Just another authority believing person. Same as all those Christians you point fingers at. Are you incapable of original thought? Incapable of discovering things on your own? Incapable of forming your own understanding?

But please tell me, to what are the electrical signals in your brain presenting this reality to?

Other chemicals and electrical impluses in your brain... interperited by receptors. You're starting to assign value to something because its a warm fuzzy...

Ok, so how do the receptors of these chemicals and waves present the reality we see? Are you saying the receptors are consciousness?

How does an electrical signal become the image you see? If it goes from light to the eyes, converted into electrical signals which go to the back of the brain, to what is that image presented to?

Optical receptors in the area of the brain that controls vision

Vision to what? To what are the receptors receiving signals for? Are these not things that produce the feelings, not what actually feels?

But it's just receptors feeding receptors? And from this we get reality?

Also having to split up posts.


[edit on 19-2-2009 by badmedia]

Originally posted by Fibonacci11235
im not sure that qualified as a video lol but anyway i think epicurus put it b

The Epicurian Riddle... I love it...

Love the screen name BTW

reply to post by badmedia


I'm sorry I had you confused with someone who believes in jesus.

which god do you identify with, new testament? Old Testament? Koran? bhagivhad gita?

reply to post by Gregor100


So, let me get this straight. The idea is that God is somehow limited because some guy on U-Tube says that he is.

I don't want to get into the very tedious and boring arguments about the existance of God, and what he would or wouldn't be able to do. We are not able to comprehend our own existance much less that of a Superior Being.

I would however like to point out the flaws in the argument.

Being able to change the future has no bearing on the ability to predict the future. This is especially true if the being (God) has the ability to change the future and to know the exact result. An all knowing being like God, could predict the future and all possible outcomes with perfect precision.

If we get Metaphysical for a moment and the Heisenberg Principle is true, then all possible outcomes of an action would exist and their relative probablilities to exist are unknown to us. We as mortals cannot predict which outcome would result, especially at the quantum level. What if we could know all possible outcomes and their probability? We would be able to predict the future with 100 percent accuracy. The scriptures that claim that all things are know to God and they are continually before His face, might actually be stating the very same concept.

Now bring in the omnipotent aspect of God, and you have a being capable of predicting all outcomes AND the power to select which of the outcomes are going to come about. This type of being could be as sure of His actions and their results as you or I are when we switch on a light. In fact, we are less sure of the outcome, since the lightbulb can burn out at any time and we cannot predict when. That is power indeed.

I see no way that the weak argument offered by some chucklehead on U-Tube overturns the centuries old debates regarding God, His existance, or His attributes.

What I do see is someone who is so confident in his intellectual ability that he failed to adequately critique his own argument. It took me more than ten seconds to type this up, but it took me less time to think up my response than the chucklehead on U-Tube probably spent thinking up his lame argument.

Last of all, I think that it is the very height of arrogance to suppose that a topic that has been debated for centuries by some of the finest minds, could be so easily defeated. The debate continues.

reply to post by 5thElement


I hate to tell you this, but far more than 6 million people the world over believe in Santa Clause. The fact that most of them are under the age of 8 is really not relevant.

reply to post by badmedia


Sorry BM,

I started to type up a lenghty response to your rantings, but decided against it...

You seem to not be able to get over the fact that there might be absolutely nothing to consciousness.

there might be absolutely nothing special about it... its just the individual who deems it important, and thinks that its critical to explain it...

I can't possibly stress enough about how consciousness is only chemicals and brainwaves... you refuse to even entertain that idea... apparently in your mind, there is a deep seated desire to find importance in this very primitive life function...

Until you get over the desire to paint yourself as "special", there can be no discussion.

You haven't even bothered to explain why its necessary to assign such importance on this... but oh well..

Originally posted by nj2day

To what are feelings presented to? Isn't it beyond just a signal telling you something is happening? If all these things like free will and such are illusions, then to what are the illusions to?

Christ, we could go at this all day... but it doesn't change the fact that just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it can't be explained. I swear, If science comes up with a way to create "consciousness in a jar", you'd find some other reason to explain your situation...

You are the one who doesn't understand it. You can't answer the questions because you know there is no logical answer for these things.

Reading brain waves and such like you mentioned before is no different than reading a jpg file and turning it into an image. It's still just the image, it's not the observer.

really? You can prove randomness doesn't exist? I'm sure you're the chaos theory expert now?

Well if you know chaos theory then you know there is no randomness. That even a butterfly flapping it's wings can have effects elsewhere. That is not randomness, that is cause and effect. If you have the variables there, you could predict what the effect would be. Only because you do not have the variables does it appear to be random. But in generating random numbers for PC, all variables are known and so it is predictable. Random enough to suit most purposes though.

What's this fuss about true randomness?

www.random.org...

What I'm an expert at is logic. That is how I make my living, based on the logic I understand and can create. All action and reaction. Science/Technology based. My strong subjects in school were Math and Science. When you build houses all day, you understand what the limits of your building materials are. When you design logic all day, you come to understand the limits of what logic can do.

Than explain the electron... There are two things we can be sure of when it comes to elections... 1) Its specific location and 2) It's path and where it will be in the future...

Unfortunately, you can never know both at the same time... this has been something Quantum physics has been trying to tackle for a while. that appears to be pretty random to me... and the best thing... is its randomness in the universe... not man made.

And quantum physics is ridiculed for including consciousness in it's theories. The answer is the particle is in a wave of possibilities, and the act of observing collapses the wave of possibilities down into a single electron. The positions aren't known simply because they are unable to see or know where the wave is all the time. If they can ever get the wave out and known, then it won't be random. But as many already suggest, these waves are just part of a universe in which all possibilities exist, as I have been talking about. The recognition of the wave is really just the first glimpse and hint of other dimensions.

Science doesn't know why yet, but it is against the laws of quantum to be able to accurately state both assertions about any given electron. BUT, just because science doesn't understand why, doesn't mean they don't recognize it as a fact.

It's a matter of seeing the wave or seeing the particle. Rather than seeing in absolutes(particles), I see in expressions. While 1+1=2 is a truth(a particle), A+B=C is the wave which contains many truths. And this is also how I look at religion.

Ok, I'll concede that point... Randomness is precieved in nature... it might very well be that nothing is random, and its truly just a complex system that is governed by a set of rules in the universe...

I can concede this point, because it might very well be true... BUT if it is true, man will find the answer through science. This is what the "Theory of Everything" is going to achieve.

Randomness is just not possible in a place of action and reaction. A place of logic. When things are based off action and reaction then the outcome is predictable. Because of this, we are able to create technology and programs that do things for us. They have no free will, and because of that they are reliable. If it didn't, then if you tried to shoot a rocket into space, you'd have no clue where it would end up, because it would be able to choose another direction on it's own. Thus because of action and reaction in the universe, we are able to control such things.

Why does propaganda play to emotions and such? Because they are trying to get a certain reaction out of you. This makes you easily controllable. But if everything is just action and reaction, then why is this needed to control things? Why is it not just like that rocket? You don't have to manipulate the rocket into thinking it has the right amount of fuel to get where it's going.

It may only seem random because we are looking at physics the wrong way.. (I have a few... unconventional views when it comes to physics... don't ask

). But, if it is the case that there is no randomness... than everything follows a specific set of rules in the universe... so specific in fact, that any "dabbling" by a supreme being would upset the balance, and cause a butterfly effect across the ripple of spacetime.

Well it's only ever going to seem random. There is no random in the universe and creation. Many things seem random. Shuffle a deck of cards and then they seem random. But of course we know that each of those cards ended up in a specific place for a reason.

Quantum physics seems to allow for randomness, and it does seem random with that electron. But when you start to see that all possibilities and such exist, then the randomness goes away.

In effect, if there truely are no random numbers... god is powerless to act in our universe, or it will come unraveled.

Nope, in order for free will and such to exist, all possibilities must exist. If all possibilities do not exist, then you are the limited to choice. So in truth, the universe is static, it doesn't move at all. It has no change, no time. Time and change is only the result of our limited perceptions. Just like looking at the movie film at once, or watching the movie. Only of course, every possible movie.

Think of it as like a choose your own adventure book. Ever read one of those? All those possibilities exist all in the same book. The choices you make for the story dictate what page you go to. And so as you make those choices you go to certain parts of the book. The parts you go to make the story even though many other possible stories were known and contained within the same book. Each page jump from your choice, is a jump into a another dimension. Only this book contains any possible choice and outcome you can think of and more.

reply to post by lunarminer


So, let me get this straight...

Some guy some 2000 years ago said that there is a God and he did not even have U-tube account

Here is my question:

How many would really believe in what Bible claims if there is no promise of eternal life (just that lil' part being left out) ?

Life after death is the CORE of belief in God. Nothing else matters (much). Surviving death (lol) is the ultimate goal and lure. Without that all major religions would be long dead and forgotten...

Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by 5thElement

 

I hate to tell you this, but far more than 6 million people the world over believe in Santa Clause. The fact that most of them are under the age of 8 is really not relevant.

Hmmm, that was really not the point...

Santa is actually very well tested brain fertilizer for more successful planting of the God idea, yeah, good job Santa

reply to post by 5thElement


As I said, I have no interest in "debating" the existance of God or His attributes.

What I did address were the flaws in the logic of supposing that the ability to predict the future somehow limits the power to influence it. I am sure that the original author of that gem was trying to draw some parallel to Quantum Mechanics or some other subject that they don't adequately understand.

The Quantum rules cannot be applied to the Macro world. What is more, I think that the basic premises of Quantum Mechanics serve to point out our limitations and the current state of the art of the science of physics. I doubt very much that they will exist in their current state 500 years from now.

As for the Bible. I made no mention of the Bible. I don't know why you brought it up.

The existance (or non-existance) of God does not depend upon the Bible, the Koran, or any other book. Just as my existance does not depend upon what is written in my journal.

The Bible is a book and it contains human thoughts on the nature and existance of God. It is really irrelevant to the debate at hand.

Ummmmm....Yeah. Well that convinces me right there...not! I believe the definition of omniscient to be "all-knowing" and omnipotent to be "all-powerful". So how does being able to change the future make you not omniscient? Better yet show me an example.
troylawson

Originally posted by Gregor100

If you can change the future you are not omniscient.

If you cannot you are not omnipotent.

The problem is in the definition of god. It's like saying this:

God can travel to the end of any line, no matter how long.

And then saying "What about a circle? Can god reach the end of that?"

...Oops. There's no end to a circle. So saying god can reach the end of the line on a shape that has no end shows not a problem with god, but a problem with your logical prerequisites you assume define god.

If you believe in god, you understand that god transcends our silly attempts at description.

Originally posted by nj2day
I'm sorry I had you confused with someone who believes in jesus.

which god do you identify with, new testament? Old Testament? Koran? bhagivhad gita?

I believe in the father. The same father as Jesus. Jesus is 100% speaking the truth. The father is speaking through Jesus just as he says. I learned everything Jesus says, but I did not learn it from Jesus, I learned it from the father. I was shown to not put my importance into the idols and literal meanings, but instead of put the importance into what was being said. And this was not towards the bible or religion, but all things. Never once when I was learning did the name Jesus come up, however I did recognize the occasionally thing that was like Jesus at first.

I was shown the path and so on. It was not until months later that I started to see little Jesus quotes here and there, or someone who hear me explain something and mention that Jesus said something similiar etc. And everytime I would actually read what Jesus said, I was like wow, that is exactly right, he is telling the truth. But the way I understand it I never heard in a church. I completely rejected Christianity, Jesus and all of it because of the things I seen Christians do. I grew up in the bible belt and hated the hypocrisy of the church. I dealt with it on a daily basis. I had to profess Christianity everywhere I went, otherwise I was not treated nicely. Didn't matter what I believed, I knew how I better answer. And so I rejected the ideas completely and made the same arguments you make.

But now I realize that what they do is actually not what Jesus talks about. What they preach is not what Jesus talks about. The way they understand it, is not how Jesus taught it. It is manipulation. They have taken the understanding and as a way of keeping it hidden get people to focus on the idol and worship the idol and symbolism, and because they do not understand they follow and do things against what Jesus says. And the sad part is Jesus even actually warns about it.

These people with no understanding only see the literal. And I find myself stuck between 2 sides who only understand the literal. 1 side is for it, 1 side is against it, and neither side actually understands what it is they are for or against. 1 side accepted it blindly as literal. And another side who points out how silly the literal reading is, and the dumb things people stuck on the literal say. But again, no understanding.

Christians of today find their salvation in his death. I view Jesus as a sacrifice of truth so that the lie of this world could live. And it is in his life example that one finds the truth that will set them free, rather than in his sacrificial satanic death. I think Bill Hicks said it best in regards to the cross, it's about like carrying around a rifle pendent in memory of JFK.

So I didn't learn from the bible, I just see what I learned being told about and such in the bible. My first and most basic understanding of consciousness and soul was when I experienced John 14:20. I had no idea it was in the bible. I was stunned to see it in there. And there is plenty more.

I do not carry the dogma's of the church. Don't defend them and point them out as much as possible. I believe Paul is a false prophet, he does everything I was shown not to do. If I had my understandings during the past 2000 years anytime other than now, I would have been killed as a heretic - by "Christians". Jesus says a religion will form in his name that will fool many. Over 1 billion Christians? And all the while they don't even realize that Christianity is a religion that was formed after Christ, in his name and it then went around killing anyone who didn't go along, just as the prophecy they wait for now states.

I seek and follow truth. Truth can be expressed in many ways. I find alot of things Buddha said to be truthful as well, but a different expression of the truth. I do not know other religions enough to know if they express the truth as well, or if all I see of their religion is the idol worship. But the same basic themes run through all religion. Because the idols, people and places are just variables in an expression of truth.

Even if you could flat out prove Jesus doesn't exist and is just a story, it wouldn't change my beliefs at all. Didn't get them from there anyway, just see them repeated in him. Those aren't the things I focus on and they don't matter to me. Even if there is no afterlife or no rewards, my beliefs still do not change. I don't care about that stuff, it is unimportant details/variables. Right is right, and truth is truth.

Originally posted by username371

The problem is in the definition of god. It's like saying this:

God can travel to the end of any line, no matter how long.

And then saying "What about a circle? Can god reach the end of that?"

...Oops. There's no end to a circle. So saying god can reach the end of the line on a shape that has no end shows not a problem with god, but a problem with your logical prerequisites you assume define god.

If you believe in god, you understand that god transcends our silly attempts at description.

actually I keep getting told that god is illogical, and logic doesn't apply to god...

That means... logical paradox or no... he can do it...

Lets see him draw a square circle

reply to post by 5thElement


I would agree that the issue of "life after death" or "eternal life" is key to most people's belief in God.

The truth is though that the existance of an afterlife does not really affect the reality of God. It is only a key to Judeo-Christian-Muslem concepts of God.

The ancient Greeks believed very strongly in the existance of gods and goddesses but they had no real concept of an afterlife. In the earliest stages of their pagan religion, only the gods could hope to live forever and not even all of them, since Kronos was overturned by Zeus.

If one or more Supreme Beings exist, they are as far removed from our comprehension as single celled animals are removed from comprehending a human being.

Our interpretation of their actions, attributes, whims, thoughts, etc. is really not relevant to the issue of whether or not their existance is possible.

I think that the possibility exists that there can be Supreme Beings. If you believe in evolution, then you must also concede that more advanced and more intelligent lifeforms exist. We are probably not even the most intelligent race on our own planet. Whales for instance are millions of years older than our race, and a whale's brain weighs more than a man. What do they use all of that extra brain mass for?

I have pointed out on other threads that the Drake equations, that everyone loves to quote, don't really point out the certainty of other intelligent races. What they do in fact point out is that MORE ADVANCED races are a certainty. It took life a couple of billion years to form on earth and a couple of billion years to evolve to its current state. The Universe is at least 8 billion years older than the earth. What would a race of beings be like if they are a billion years more advanced than us? What if they are 5 billion years more advanced? There is nothing that we could rule out for a race that is that old.