Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

originally posted by: toktaylor
Intellectual Points to counter the existence of God:
1) humans have invented lots of gods – thousands. That in itself proofs that all Gods are invented.
2) God biggest aspect by believers is Prayers. Proving the usefulness of prayer is obvious and can be tested and debunked by anyone honest enough to take up the challenge.
3) The Bible and other religious texts. Bible is a book of myths (the illusion of prayer being one of those myths). Since the Bible is a book of myths, the God of the Bible is mythological. This is another way to know that God is imaginary.
4) Science..the more we find out how vast and intricate our universe is and how things, including evolution works...the more we realize there is no need to replace the unknown with "God".
5) The impossible attributes of God: omnipotent, all knowing, all powerful yet depends on people to speak on his behalf. Any lunatic can speak on God's behalf yet god remain silent.
6) the complexity of God: If complexity cannot arise without intelligence, then we immediately must ask, "Who created the intelligent creator? To say that the Universe is self contain...not in need of a creator. No other explanation is required.

In other words, by applying logic, we can prove that God is imaginary.

Only one mistake you're making with this list. Sadly for you it destroys
your whole post. You seem to think that applying mans logic to God.
You can take away the very definition of the word God. Of course you're
going to come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. If you apply our
scrawny logic to the query. All you're doing with that ding dong list
is saying Gods existence is impossible. Because God and miracles are
impossible. That's it same exact thing. You don't need the list to say
that we've heard it enough already. You could say where you're at
right now that it's impossible for me to text this message because I
don't know how to write. Nobody in your house could ever prove you're
wrong. But you would be. Your post is ridiculous.

a reply to: carsforkids
Logic is logic...if God existed and wanted us to know the nature of his ways or creation then the logic of man would and could only be the logic applied. You are reaching....

a reply to: toktaylor

There's dumb logic and smart logic

a reply to: Out6of9Balance
Dumb logic like below:

Supernatural spiritual beings can exist.
Spiritual beings can exist eternally without cause.
Spiritual beings can create new matter and energy from nothing.
Spiritual beings can exist outside of space and time.
Spiritual beings can store, retrieve, and creatively process information.
Spiritual beings are constantly learning, or are able to somehow have knowledge without ever being educated.
Spiritual beings have needs or emotions that lead them to create things.

a reply to: toktaylor

I don't care.

a reply to: toktaylor

Logic is logic...if God existed and wanted us to know the nature of his ways or creation then the logic of man would and could only be the logic applied. You are reaching....

Not at all it stood out plain as day. You don't know anything.
Because for you to say God does not exist you not only would
need to have full knowledge of the universe. But you would
need to have full knowledge of everything outside the universe.
Beginning with the knowledge that there even is an outside to our
universe or not. When you have all that knowledge. Then you'll
be able to say truthfully God does not exist. Of course you'll never
achieve that kind of knowledge because you're not God. There is no
knowledge that isn't known.

a reply to: Pachomius
Dear Pachomius,

You wrote:

"I exist (evidence), therefore God exists (conclusion)."

See what very quick comments you will make on my very quick proof on evidence for God's existence.

I write:

() me ()
therefore God.

Translation:
Before I existed to know and after I exist to know, God is,
therefore whether I know or know not, there is God,
therefore God is not dependent upon my existence.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Here's an article
Astral Projection: Just a Mind Trip

According to researcher Susan Blackmore, author of "Beyond the Body: An Investigation of Out-of-the-Body Experiences," people who experience astral travel "have been found to score higher on measures of hypnotizability and, in several surveys, on measures of absorption, [a] measure of a person's ability to pay complete attention to something and to become immersed in it, even if it is not real, like a film, play, or imagined event." Out-of-body experiencers are more imaginative, suggestible, and fantasy-prone than average, though have low levels of drug and alcohol use, and no obvious signs of psychopathology or mental illness. [Related: Out-of-Body Hallucinations Linked to Brain Glitch]

Though astral projection practitioners insist their experiences are real, their evidence is all anecdotal — just as a person who takes peyote or '___' may be truly convinced that they interacted with God, dead people, or angels while in their altered state. Astral projection is an entertaining and harmless pastime that can seem profound, and in some cases even life-changing. But there's no evidence that out-of-body-experiences happen outside the body instead of inside the brain. Until the existence of an astral plane can be proven — and made accessible — there's always the continuing adventures of the Sorcerer Supreme.

originally posted by: Pachomius
MONO

From Pachomius
This is an experiment to see whether any poster here is interested in the topic God exists or not, and has a thought about the issue, and cares to talk with me, so that we can learn from each other.


From pthena
You may start reading here www.abovetopsecret.com... August 4-5, in this your thread.

Dear pthena, here is what I care to see whether you will accept my very quick argument for God's existence, my proof on evidence:

"I exist (evidence), therefore God exists (conclusion)."


See what very quick comments you will make on my very quick proof on evidence for God's existence.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Pachomius

Dear Pachomius,

You may start reading here www.abovetopsecret.com... August 4-5, in this your thread.

Spoiler alert: in the direction of God existing.

Later on in this thread there is even a creed written by me.
----------
Edit to Add:

I noticed that at the bottom of my creed where I had intended to write "Vaya con Dios", I accidently wrote "Via con Dios".
Coincidence ? Maybe an implication.

Very lazy and self absorbed. But that's nothing new, and certainly not evidence of anything extraordinary or supernatural.

a reply to: Pachomius

Its been my experience that anything mankind can't or won't take credit for goes to God. If it is something so great it is undeniably beyond our capability, it must be God. If it is so horrific that it can't even be imagined to be the product of man, it must be God.

Even as a child I questioned the concept that God created everything. If so, where did God come from? I didn't buy into the whole 'He just is' thing. If the universe as we know it was created in the big bang, what went bang and where did it happen?

There are a lot of questions we just can 't answer, so we blame it on some all powerful 'being' which we invariably choose to believe is benevolent since the alternative is simply too frightening to consider. Then we act amazed and surprised that this being doesn't live up to our expectations in regards to compassion, suffering, disease, war, hunger, famine, etc.

I dunno...

a reply to: Vroomfondel

A two hundred fifty billion megaton nuke that can think and act on its own belongs in a Lovecraft novel where it remains horror fiction.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: TzarChasm

That's what Pachomius is doing, existence exists therefore we can track it down by the physical part of existence to an intelligent spiritual creator.

Great, so maybe you can show us a map of where to find this creature and a reliable means of engaging it directly, face to face. That's really the only kind of dialogue that has any value.

Where to find God?

He is everywhere, it is of His essence that He is co-extensive with all existence that is not from itself, but from God - God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

Wherever you be in space and whatever time you be at in the dimension of 'when', God is present within you and also outside you, He is the medium in which you are marinating.

You have a problem with that, let me know, okay?

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: Pachomius
Are you ignoring this part .."If anything should exist eternally it must be the thing that exist." The beginning you speak of is when we recognized and started measuring time...however the evidence proves that the universe has always existed in difference forms....we know the Universe exist ...we interact with it daily....that's the difference with the God theory...no interaction with God...no proof...no evidence.

Where is the evidence the universe has always existed, all inside your mental imagination i.e. fiction.

Science tells us the universe we are components of and where we exist in and move in and have our being, that universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Don't conflate fiction with facts.

Dear pthena, what do you say, can we divide existence into two kinds:

1. Existence that is from itself, only example is God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

2. Existence from another, that is everything created i.e. caused to come into existence by God, example is the nose on our face and the whole body of man, and in brief everything with a beginning.


NB Please everyone interacting with me for my replies to your posts, I will now just keep to exchange with pthena, and you just will know my reaction to your messages, by immediate access to the implications from my exchange with pthena, okay?

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Pachomius
Dear Pachomius,

You wrote:

"I exist (evidence), therefore God exists (conclusion)."

See what very quick comments you will make on my very quick proof on evidence for God's existence.

I write:

() me ()
therefore God.

Translation:
Before I existed to know and after I exist to know, God is,
therefore whether I know or know not, there is God,
therefore God is not dependent upon my existence.

MONO*




Dear readers and fellow posters here, try to investigate existence, ask yourselves the question: Has there ever been a status of non-existence, and then existence came about?







*MONO indicates that this thread is oriented toward the three most known monotheistic faiths or religions or most broadly to the world views of Christianity, Islam, Judaism.

a reply to: Pachomius

Dear pthena, what do you say, can we divide existence into two kinds:

Yes. I believe so.

1. Existence that is from itself, only example is God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

Unknowable is the source of Unnamed and Named alike.
Unnamed and Named exist together.
Named is a partial/incomplete/imperfect description of the relationship between Unnamed and Named.
Named is therefore two things; a part of the whole and a partial description of itself.

2. Existence from another, that is everything created i.e. caused to come into existence by God, example is the nose on our face and the whole body of man, and in brief everything with a beginning.

Everything existing begins unnamed. The interaction with other unnamed is a partial naming.
( I think that I am blowing it on this part. I'm probably trying too hard. )

------------------------
I would prefer to frame the issue differently.

There are two kinds of existence, that which I know and that which I have heard of.
To acknowledge that what I have heard of is real, is to acknowledge that the teller is as real as I am. That the teller has existence not dependent upon my existence.

example: I don't know Paris, France but I have seen and heard many accounts of Paris, France. The people there are real whether I ever meet them or not.

If we name the Named as God, then we must acknowledge that as a partial description of a part of the Whole. Only that which we know is properly grasped. What we know is very limited indeed.
-------------------------
That is the best I can do at this time.

Dear pthena:


Please think over your division of two kinds of existence, and rewrite them as to be more concise, clean, and comprehensible.


Refer below to quote-1 from Pachomius and quote-2 from pthena, reduce your two kinds of existence into two more concise, clean, comprehensible paragraphs.





Quote-1 Two kinds of existence from Pachomius

1. Existence that is from itself, only example is God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

2. Existence from another, that is everything created i.e. caused to come into existence by God, example is the nose on our face and the whole body of man, and in brief everything with a beginning.

Quote-2 Two kinds of existence from pthena

There are two kinds of existence, that which I know and that which I have heard of.
To acknowledge that what I have heard of is real, is to acknowledge that the teller is as real as I am. That the teller has existence not dependent upon my existence.

example: I don't know Paris, France but I have seen and heard many accounts of Paris, France. The people there are real whether I ever meet them or not.

If we name the Named as God, then we must acknowledge that as a partial description of a part of the Whole. Only that which we know is properly grasped. What we know is very limited indeed.

__________________________

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Pachomius

Dear pthena, what do you say, can we divide existence into two kinds:

Yes. I believe so.

1. Existence that is from itself, only example is God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

Unknowable is the source of Unnamed and Named alike.
Unnamed and Named exist together.
Named is a partial/incomplete/imperfect description of the relationship between Unnamed and Named.
Named is therefore two things; a part of the whole and a partial description of itself.

2. Existence from another, that is everything created i.e. caused to come into existence by God, example is the nose on our face and the whole body of man, and in brief everything with a beginning.

Everything existing begins unnamed. The interaction with other unnamed is a partial naming.
( I think that I am blowing it on this part. I'm probably trying too hard. )

------------------------
I would prefer to frame the issue differently.

There are two kinds of existence, that which I know and that which I have heard of.
To acknowledge that what I have heard of is real, is to acknowledge that the teller is as real as I am. That the teller has existence not dependent upon my existence.

example: I don't know Paris, France but I have seen and heard many accounts of Paris, France. The people there are real whether I ever meet them or not.

If we name the Named as God, then we must acknowledge that as a partial description of a part of the Whole. Only that which we know is properly grasped. What we know is very limited indeed.
-------------------------
That is the best I can do at this time.

a reply to: TzarChasm

We overcome this type of BS, you know.

originally posted by: pthena
...
I don't think I've ever had Rocky Mountain grown before.


ETA

Mountains do transcend valleys after all.

Possibly more than coffee grows in them-thar mountains...
Good old JD wrote about it, and the lyrics seem to fit our discussion : God, contemplation, rebirth, nature, etc...
Perhaps even transcendence ?

Lyrics
He was born in the summer of his 27th year
Coming home to a place he'd never been before
He left yesterday behind him, you might say he was born again
You might say he found a key for every door
When he first came to the mountains his life was far away
On the road and hanging by a song
But the string's already broken and he doesn't really care
It keeps changing fast and it don't last for long
But the Colorado rocky mountain high
I've seen it rainin' fire in the sky
The shadow from the starlight is softer than a lullabye
Rocky mountain high (Colorado)
He climbed cathedral mountains, he saw silver clouds below
He saw everything as far as you can see
And they say that he got crazy once and he tried to touch the sun
And he lost a friend but kept his memory
Now he walks in quiet solitude the forest and the streams
Seeking grace in every step he takes
His sight has turned inside himself to try and understand
The serenity of a clear blue mountain lake
And the Colorado rocky mountain high
I've seen it raining fire in the sky
You can talk to God and listen to the casual reply
Rocky mountain high
Now his life is full of wonder but his heart still knows some fear
Of a simple thing he cannot comprehend
Why they try to tear the mountains down to bring in a couple more
More people, more scars upon the land
And the Colorado rocky mountain high
I've seen it rainin' fire in the sky
I know he'd be a poorer man if he never saw an eagle fly
Rocky mountain high
It's Colorado rocky mountain high
I've seen it rainin' fire in the sky
Friends around the campfire and everybody's high
Rocky mountain high
Rocky mountain high
Rocky mountain high
Rocky mountain high
Rocky mountain high
Rocky mountain high

originally posted by: TzarChasm

It really is a shame these gurus and shaman types are unable to engineer some manner of recording their experiences and bringing back any kind of traces like NASA did during the moon landing. Now that's compelling evidence.

Don't really see it as a shame. They are not of scientific mind, so why the need for scientific proof ?
There are plenty of science-based investigations, into various phenomena, and you have probably heard of many.
Neurotheology;
the work of Tom Campbell at the Monroe Institute, etc...

Are you studying those sorts of fields, as well as being here, chatting with us simple non-sciency folks ?

'Compelling evidence' : hmmmm
Suppose some folks are more easily 'compelled' than others.
Am personally not attracted to stuff, that requires reliance on hearing what someone else's opinion, interpreting that, and then reacting to an emotional reaction, leading to accepting said 'evidence'.
Sounds kinda-sorta like a belief-system, no ?