God did it !

reply to post by randyvs

I'm growing board

Cool, i'm growing board games in my laboratory. That's my last "shot" for the night, i can't possibly attempt to use reason and logic.

reply to post by randyvs


firefox makes me double post. sorry mods!

reply to post by awake_and_aware

i can't possibly attempt to use reason and logic.

That isn't my fault.You've had plenty of opportunity.

reply to post by randyvs


Yeah, i'm full of nonsense, irrationalism and fail logic, take a look through my posts; there's evidence of it.

No evidence of God though,

So Randy after you are done trolling these guys mind commenting on the complexity of "God" and how that does not fit your original statement ?

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Did I limit God within the parameters espoused by a certain type of fundamentalist hatemonger? No, I did not. I would venture to at least guess that the God these people worship (the "type" that you are referring to) is little more than the egotistical code embedded within them (this code developed based upon there life experiences and there perception thereof), an algorithm of sorts, almost like the code in the binary part of your brain, the brain stem. And our ideas about God are never perfect and can never be perfectly explained. Trust me, I am not trying to convert anyone to anything or anything like that. I also have the curious belief that people do not really get God until they have gone through their own personal apocalypse. And when they get God, they realize that God is not what they imagined. And maybe not even then, as this sort of experience can be quite unsettling, and the first couple of "apocalypses" might encourage one to immediately forget, as it is quite the blow to the ego (which, as I said, is ironically the God that some worship) Think metaphorically. But trust me, there is that which is greater, just not some old dude with a beard, and not some blond woman on a unicorn either. These are place holders which encourage a drastic reality check at the end of a tunnel. God is far more dynamic, yet attractive than that, at least in my view. Do you get what I am saying? Try to read between the lines.

reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment


I don't know if you are referring to NDEs but this still doesn't not prove the existence of a supernatural deity. There are many studies into these NDEs, yet inconclusive, and quite often subjective.

If you are simply referring to God as consciousness or nature itself, then are you referring to the Pantheistic stance in regards to God, which is merely a labelling act. As soon as knowledge of nature and the universe is expanded, so is the scope of "GOD".

I'm not sure if i read in between the lines correctly. Please remedy my misunderstandings.

So basically, you are saying scientists don't have all the answers, and therefore a mythical creature did it all. And while scientists have to prove their theories with evidence, you refuse that and simply say "prove me wrong". In essence, you are stating that you're blindly believing in something you have no evidence of...right?

If not, in what sense am I wrong?

reply to post by awake_and_aware


No, these behaviors could be indicative of a snake pretending to love, following rigid guidelines, in order to get some hot pussy or dick. Love cannot be proven, at least not using the scientific method. There is that je ne sais quoi element.

reply to post by MrXYZ


It's really quite simple, God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, no man has the knowledge of what is the source of reality, if there even is a creator. Arguments from ignorance are not always necessarily false, but not always true.

Because we don't have the information to negate or prove a theory we can't claim to it's true of falsehood. But going further and claiming to know the theorised entitie's thoughts and desires is just beyond rediculous. It's really quite easy to understand when you realise that man is the creator of God, the words didn't come from the source of reality (there might not be one) the words came from the mind of man, this explains why there are so many different religions.

Agnostic Atheism is the humble and honest stance which admits "we don't know, not enough information, currently an unfalsifiable hypothesis" "We arn't irrational enough to form a belief system on blind faith"

reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment


Love can actually be proven as "madnessinmysoul" has already pointed out, if you care to read his post as well.

reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment


Another thing, and quite off topic: in regards to your name; did you imply your wish to enlighten people with the wish to bring about an Orwellian-like civilisation. Or do you mean that you are enlightened from reading George Orwell's 1984, and wishing that it doesn't come about?

reply to post by awake_and_aware


You have valid points. We might agree more than we disagree. I cannot properly explain, as it is an understanding of mine. But, in reference to your consciousness statement, I would say God is more akin to a dynamic consciousness, plus will, plus something else. That which guides and cannot be ignored. We cannot define God. God defines us. And I am not trying to take a cop out. I am not one of those fools who basically puts himself up as God, and tells you to worship God as a way in order to be worshiped myself indirectly. I am being deliberately vague, as the other approaches have been done to death, and an educated person such as you (just to let you know, I am definitely not being sarcastic, as it is obvious you are educated) has seen the other approaches done to death.

reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment


Then surely your position comes from the Pantheism? And thanks for your kind comments.

I understand your point though, the problem seems to be with defining God. But i postulate do we even need to define it, the energy,the force, (maybe) the cause of it all?

Why not use another word, perhaps something "VAGUE" as you state, perhaps "THE ENERGY", or "THE FORCE"? Why God? and secondly, why personify "it"?

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I absolutely do not want an orwellian civilization. And I loved both 1984 and Animal Farm. This is more of an explanation of the meltdown and abysmally unenlightened, perfectly fixed state that occurs when irreconcilable opposites clash. Think of the paranoid android from Hitchhiker's Guide. Depressed as hell because he explored "all" possibilities. There was nothing new under his sun. This would be like my explanation of what happens when somebody meets the "creator" of a cycle in life which just came to a head. But you only meet this particular "creator" if you think you can be a little know-it-all. This "creator" is more akin to a destroyer. Do you catch my drift?

reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment


I loved them too I'm glad that was your answer!

I think i catch your drift, I think i understand the paranoid android reference/anology, seems a rather ironic statement to bring up in support of "GOD" - Douglas Adams was a renowned Atheist.

I see why someone might infer God, but it merely is just a God of the Gaps. in ancient times, People thought Volacanos were deities to be adorned and worshipped for fear of it getting "angry". There was much a desire from a lack of understanding to anthropomorphize natural phenomenon.

We of course later learnt that we live on a heating and cooling planet, and we ceased to describe Volcanoes as "GODs"

I just don't see the need, or at miminum the reason to believe "GOD" or attempt to define nature with abstract words without definitions.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


My view probably comes a little from pantheism. Name an ism, and I have studied it. But I would take it a step further and say that if you are both very aware of your own free will (which I believe does not become obvious until after several stages of development) and if you align yourselves with that which is greater (which is not the easiest to be aware of, as this world can be full of self-interested deception both on the part of others and oneself, basically cutting through a seemingly endless stream of rationalizations), then something magical, for lack of a better word, happens. And I also think that God, even though we try to frame God, changes us rather than the other way around. If one sits in the archway, so to speak, then they stop developing. And you are very right about the pitfalls of definition. But remember back to when you were a little child, you needed placeholders to move to further stages of development, right? People know what they need to know when they are ready to know it AND they make that choice.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I think I agree to an extent. I honestly place my views on this subject, because some young punks who happen to be atheists are merely taking an idiotic stance, much like the fundies but on the flipside, merely riding the coattails of an ideology. You can tell it is not their own thoughts that they are expressing, much like a cut and paste. I am also old enough and experienced enough to know that people also never fully reveal what they believe. If they do, it all unravels. It is also impossible without major effort, and even then it is limited.

People essentially know what they need to do, and they do it. Those who rebel against this concept are in for a rude comeuppance. People believe what they believe, and how they express it is so limited when placed besides the actual belief. I believe that people on so-called higher levels tend to approach the same ideas from different angles when they put their ideas out there. I also believe that some atheists are looking at it the wrong way, almost like they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Emphasize SOME atheists. Basically, I do what I do for a reason, but I will not expressly tell you.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Well, if God is love................ Oh, and regarding Douglas Adams and his atheism: Ya see, I love wordplay. I also believe in the raw power of language. It is a demigod of sorts. A-the-ism. Now, one could view this as without-thee-ism. This itself can be viewed at least a couple of ways. This could be viewed in such a way that the singular concept, thee, is without or outside of oneself, beyond oneself. Kind of like a view in a God who cannot be rigidly defined within parameters and is beyond us. Or, it can be viewed through the lens that we are without "the" altogether. Now, does Douglas Adams exist? Is there not THE Douglas Adams, that which always changes but somehow remains the same? Basically, I think we live in a solipsistic dream until enough things click. I think they naturally click at a young age for many, but they are oh-so-hard to explain. I also think many of us "fall" only to find what we once knew again later.

BTW, language itself seems to me to be split down the middle. Perhaps "thee" is THE word, nothing and everything, impossible to explain but understood when experienced. I will be straight with you and tell you that I experienced what could be described as a linguistic singularity, the source of language. Smart ass musicians call it the ho-tel, as if it is a direct telephone line to the cosmic whore or something, but there is a flipside to that as well. There I am being vague yet again, but there is a place in my view where all these concepts swirl together. But I also think we need not concern ourselves with always looking, as it remains there even when we don't look. Looking too much is hazardous to one's health, sucking one in. Live life and it sorts itself out.

Edit: And I will play with your handle as well, because I will enjoy it (wait, that didn't sound right). Awake: without wake, ie., not at a funeral. Aware: without wariness or fear. Basically, you don't like to focus on death. I think the focus on death is one of the major pitfalls of humanity, because on that which one focuses, one moves toward. I realize this is just me having fun with word fragments on one level, and not too much can be read into it, but I do believe words have a profound subliminal effect nonetheless.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Alright, enough vagueness. I will be blunt on this one. We all have "alters." Alters are that which we idealize, and that which alter us literally when things come to a head. Our parents, friends, heros, abstract concepts, etc. When we meet an "alter," things either change dramatically for us or we slip back into a hole like cowards. Mankind's views on "God" are very important, as these views are contagious and spread rapidly. Honestly, I think Jesus, or whoever made up Jesus, was trying to redefine God. Basically, God for many was either an angry warrior that bound people together, or one was in a society which had multiple alters that didn't always get along too well. I think there is a need in a civilized society for something of a singular alter, but nothing like, say, a stone statue. I would call this alter love, as love is pretty much the impenetrable web. Granted that love can be selfish or collective, but it is always there. Strength in numbers people. The love of the selfish dwindles in the face of the love of the collective. These concepts are how to change the world for the better, they are self-correcting, and they don't involve forcing someone to believe in an algorithm.

Oh yeah, and it's a good thing God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. If we could prove God doesn't exist, we would go right down the drain as well. Unfortunately, there was a time in my life in which I convinced myself I did just that. Hell is no fun, I assure you. Hell is separation from God, or love, causing severe unipolar depression (I am aware of biochemical processes, not laying blame on this one). Heck, it could even be explained (although very limited in scope) that hell is when we spitefully or out of panic or fear shut down the love part of our brains, rejecting God so to speak.