Logical proof of the existence of God

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Oh yes.... the Beast speaks.

What if I were to take away all your food. Would you kill me?

If you were God, just make some food grow.

If you were God, then just don't eat.

If you were God, then you wouldn't be arguing with me right now.




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Finity and infinity are human concepts, anyway.

They should stop doing that.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite
 


I am "currently thinking" otherwise. If you could provide your own thoughts instead of referring to what you call "current thinking" it would be more interesting I think...



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by VisitorQ
 


Then you are living in a bubble of your own making.

You might as well say that 1+1=3 since you could by "your definition".



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Current thinking or thinking 1000 years ago, it's all just jibber jabber.

If the enlightened ones knew thyselves so well, this argument wouldn't be happening and we'd all be eating thanksgiving feasts together and playing rock music in like a bunch of bands and driving space ships with aliens all over the place and we'd all have hot girlfriends and cool shades....

But no. You want to "solve existence".

Well here:

You can't because you are so smart you're stupid.

If you don't believe me, go back and talk to yourself as a 5 year old.

You'd agree with me back then. We'd be allies. Instead, you're arguing about stupid things like "Logical existence of my illogical existence and I'm so sad because my life makes no sense and I'm gunna die and then what?"

I'll tell you what, sirs and ma'ams.... the only good thing I have left to do is talk to you people.

I love it. It's my favorite. So argue away, but your opinions shall be nullified eventually!



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by wdkirk
 


I think everyone is living in a bubble of their own making. It's called the Universe.

And it's not unreasonable to define All-that-is as including everything. How else would you define it?



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by PnezakYahakotima
 


Sounds like you're talking to and about yourself mate...



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by VisitorQ
 


Premise One:

The universe is a peanut



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by streetfightingman
 


Great contribution. Did you figure that one out all by yourself?



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by VisitorQ
reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite
 


I am "currently thinking" otherwise. If you could provide your own thoughts instead of referring to what you call "current thinking" it would be more interesting I think...


It would be more worth your while researching the subject so that you are better informed thus then better able to premise. I am not an expert so best you take detailed info from them!



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by VisitorQ
Premise one:

The Universe (aka All-that-is) must be infinite. Otherwise something would exist outside of the Universe (All-that-is) and thus in reality be part of the Universe (All-that-is).

Since this would go on Ad infinitum the Universe must be infinite.

Premise two:

The Universe must “update itself” (i.e. change) in a non-linear fashion all at once so that “any change is a total change” (like a 3D version of stills being projected on the silver screen).

Given premise one (the Universe is infinite), if change happened in a linear fashion (like domino’s falling) it would take an eternal amount of time for anything to happen.

Since a lot of stuff happens all the time we can conclude that the Universe updates itself all at once in a non-linear fashion.

Premise three:

Non-linear “all-at-once” update of the Universe must be caused by an omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal Intelligence, otherwise everything would be chaotic, static, random noise and not the orderly Universe we perceive.

Conclusion

Given premise one, two, and three we can conclude that there is an omnipotent, omnipresent eternal Intelligence (also known as God).


VisitorQ, when viewing your perspective of the Universe from an emic view 1 can see how you came to the conclusions you have about this universe shared in the 3 premise you have presented. This is logical in ways to view the Universe and or a omnipotent, omnipresent eternal Intelligence / presence/Source.

When 1 looks at say a energy charged particle bundle circulating thru the LHC or other collider type machines on its way to collide with another particle -MATTER- bundle of gold, to produce data on the -Big Bang- or point sought of universe creation, what is being observed? Miniature creations (however those are defined in these laboratories -mini black holes -mini stars -mini galaxies -mini universes don't know if that far yet ) but these experiments are done in split seconds and when you think deeper on the micro level you got to wonder what would it be like for things so small they are not considered or seen by the observing scientist generated in these artificial energy containment zones if to add the miniature creations were aware of time and space which would not be the same in there as out here Emic-Etic and imagine the miniature creations were able to tell their LOCAL location within the LHC 17 mile elliptical labs? To 1 it would be hard to perceive totally for the miniature creations from the emic or inside of the energy containment device (collider) what is going on.

And it would make sense that with the best perception as CREATOR Creations from an emic observation point inside the Universe that the end evaluation of the universe could/would come out as a: omnipotent, omnipresent eternal Intelligence (also known as God). For some of those within for it is Creating inside the emic existence.

But just as there are some entities/beings or Scientist playing their parts in the LHC experiments observing from the outside of the LHC energy containment device and other devices like, 1 personally doesn't cut short the potentials for their being omnipotent, omnipresent eternal Intelligence (also known as God) outside or totally ETIC to those within the Universe.

Interesting thread VisitorQ got me thinking how could some eval. and produce their interpretations of the universe internally and the CREATOR and/or GOD.

NAMASTE
LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA*******



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by PnezakYahakotima
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Oh yes.... the Beast speaks.

What if I were to take away all your food. Would you kill me?

If you were God, just make some food grow.

If you were God, then just don't eat.

If you were God, then you wouldn't be arguing with me right now.


Who is arguing? And are you sure it is me you are replying to as it does not follow with what i have written?
edit on 20-1-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by VisitorQ
Given premise one, two, and three we can conclude that there is an omnipotent, omnipresent eternal Intelligence (also known as God).


You may conclude that, I don't. Please don't speak for me.

If the universe changes and even the smallest change can affect all others (butterfly effect), how can ANYTHING be "omnipresent"?



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot

Originally posted by VisitorQ
Given premise one, two, and three we can conclude that there is an omnipotent, omnipresent eternal Intelligence (also known as God).


You may conclude that, I don't. Please don't speak for me.

If the universe changes and even the smallest change can affect all others (butterfly effect), how can ANYTHING be "omnipresent"?


The present is always present - the same as you are.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by VisitorQ
 


tutut, you used the "P" word

I'm swtiching off...



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by VisitorQ
reply to post by wdkirk
 


I think everyone is living in a bubble of their own making. It's called the Universe.

And it's not unreasonable to define All-that-is as including everything. How else would you define it?


No...do not turn this into an existential trip.

You have no concept of "all-that-is". You think you know but you do not.

You do not know what "everything" is. You think you do but you do not.

No one knows.

You are creating a definition for it on your own terms and as that may work for you it is founded in part by personal opinion which makes it biased and unuseable in defining the known universe as "all-that-is".

If you want to define God and prove "its" existence using your terms and path of logic, no one can deny you your belief. It is soley yours. However, if you put it out there for speculation and people come along and drill holes in it to show you the fault in your line of thinking.....well, you can go ahead and keep believing your logic or you can modify it to encompass the knowledge that others have that may or may not augment you interpretation.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by VisitorQ
 


Title


Logical proof of the existence of God


Then, first line:



The Universe (aka All-that-is) must be infinite.


LOL I'll read more, but the contradiction between these two statements jumped out at me. Either the universe has always existed (and never created by a god) or a god created the universe and it is not infinite. These two things can't be mixed and matched like dresses and shoes.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Nor with bra's and underpants. Pants being the operative word here to sum up the God nonsense.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by VisitorQ
 


VisitorQ, You must be very patient or very tolerant or both because I would be tearing my hair out by now. But then maybe you already have. S&F from me for effort.




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NeverForget
reply to post by VisitorQ
 


Even if we grant your 3 premises, it still does solve the problem of evil.


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.


Inclusive of all = God. All that is.
You just want nice stuff but God provides all.


So wanting a peaceful world is just "nice stuff"? If God provides all, then he should provide us with a peaceful world and get rid of the evil people on the Earth. But he hasn't. For a long time.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant