Re: The (g)od That Exists

[Martin TK]

Okay, first off, no one is spiritually raping you here. If you don't want to engage, don't engage. I must say though, the way you are so arrogant about God and demand that he prove himself to you as if he were applying for a job is rather nauseating.   )

Ok, first off condescending arguments will get you NO WHERE with me.  If asking for some evidence of the existence of god is arrogant, then guilty as charged.  IF a deity named "GOD" exists and isn't able to or willing to present himself to the world in a way that isn't mumbo jumbo and relies on the mysticism of religion to interpret his existence; then I'm out and not interested.  You see you make the very simple Christian mistake of assuming that god exists, you make the argument from authority, and then you make the assumption that I BELIEVE that there is a god applying for said job.  As for your "14 century Christian Spirit" looking for a stake, some lamp oil and a hay cart, you have now moved yourself into a realm from which you have lost ALL credibility with me.  Sorry.

[Martin TK]

Oh here we go. As soon as you get scared you start screaming "TROLL!" Why don't you just gather some friends, some pitchforks and torches and march towards the castle.

You claim that WE are gathering friends with pitchforks, torches, and march toward the castle, then you make a statement to me that goes.  "It does provoke a certain 14th century Christian spirit within me and I find myself looking for a stake, some lamp oil and a hay cart. "

Could it be that you are confused, or is it unacceptable for others to question you, but you can feel qualified to find your own stake and attack the "unbelievers?"

You just seem like you are stretching, and that you are doing a bit of "begging the question" and seeing yourself as a "savior of the Christians" brings out a bit of my psychologist and kind of sets off more than a few warning bells.  Sorry, but I'm done here....

[Thumpalumpacus]

"I won't define what I don't believe in."

This is silly.  Can you define Ganesh?  Can you define the artillery park in my back yard which I use to rule my island country of Thumpalonia?  For that matter, please define Thumpalonia.  Don't forget details such as climate, flora, and fauna.  We're a beautiful little country, but we only permit visitors who believe we exist.

Do you now understand why the onus to define an object of belief is on the person avowing belief?

eta: I haven't called "troll", nor will I.  But I will call "youthful" and "overly philosophical".  Also, "in dire need of a scotch and soda".

[George]

If that's what you think I'm doing, I suggest you stay tuned. Because I would say you have it the wrong way around. I would say that in the end I will show you the "car" but you will refuse to step out and look at it--because you will know that once you have, you will never be able to justify not buying it.

But I suppose we'll see.

Thats quite a claim to make Edward, you really think you can show us all the 'car'. I'd definitely step out and have a gander if it was worth looking at!

I doubt you can but you've certainly got me reading!

[George]

'God' is a word that is best left to people that believe in magic.

The universe is not intelligent, it just does what it does.

Sometimes with atheists, the best thing to do is show their statements right next to each other.  

Don't see the point you're making here though..

[Sophus]

'God' is a word that is best left to people that believe in magic.

The universe is not intelligent, it just does what it does.

Sometimes with atheists, the best thing to do is show their statements right next to each other.  :raised:
Where is the contradiction?

I have no idea what Quantum Consciousness is. I have heard the term, but I have never looked into it. I couldn't define it if I tried.

It's the idea that erupted from a misunderstanding of the Observer Effect in physics that says the universe has a source consciousness of everything which can be tapped into or can even be malleable to the "observer". From Wikipedia, the philosophical claims are:

There is no observer separate from reality.
There is no separate reality from the observer.
The body is fundamentally made of information and energy and perceived as solid matter.
The mind and body are one and the same and are not divisible.
Biochemical reactions of the body are a product of awareness.
That perception of reality is a learned behavior.
That changing thoughts can and do change the body.
There is an underlying consciousness or intelligence that connects everyone.
Time is a human perception, not a reality.

[Godlessons]

I was recently banned from CARM for NOT agreeing with an idiot on there about his definition of god, then I was attacked because I actually hold a PhD, I was challenged and called just about every name in the book.

Those Nazis at CARM are some kind of special.  After my third account got banned, I took to attacking Matt's arguments on my blog.  He posted some nastiness on his blog about one of my posts and I forced him to remove the offending text.  During our heated discussion about that, he had the balls to ask me to call into his radio show for a debate.  I couldn't believe he wanted me to help his radio show after what he had said.

Just talking about this reminds me that I had planned to make fun of him for believing in black magic.  It's one thing to think that there's some magic man in the sky that can do magic, but he wrote a lengthy post on his blog about how people were practicing black magic/witchcraft against him.

Anyway, if you're looking for the worst kind of Christians there are, CARM is the place to find them.

That's the end of my sidetrack.

[SSY]

First, why don't you define what you mean a little more clearly?

In what sense do you use "modalities"? Are you sure topology is the correct word you want to use? Topology is concerned with a type of qualitative geometry, I can't see how it would apply to a god. Who's necessary attributes? The god's or the matter's? Your definition leaves this unclear. Necessary for what?

Second, provide some evidence, then we can actually begin a discussion. Asking a load of atheists whether they believe in a god is a little redundant.

Okay, I'm going to break this down for you. I know that sounds condescending, but I don't mean it to be; I'm breaking it down kind of for the first time for me to.

Modalities: This refers to the idea of a monistic universe and (g)od. That is, that there is no other substance than (g)od. The only thing that exists that is fundamentally real is (g)od. But this (g)od shapes itself into what we see around us, and thus what we have in the physical world is "modalities" of this monistic (g)od.

Understand, I'm not trying to prove this is true, not in this reply to you anyway. I'm merely trying to define at this point. Because if we don't come to a definition we can agree upon, then there is no way to move to the proof stage. You don't have to believe what I am saying in this definition; I don't necessarily believe it, either. But you have to come to a point where you say, "Okay, I understand your definition. I don't believe it, but I understand what you mean and we can go forward from there." That's all I'm trying to get at.

Topology: I believe this is the word I want to use, because I mean it in the way that mathematically topology is often graphically demonstrated. The classic graphic is a coffee cup turning into a doughnut shape and back again, which you can find little videos on YouTube under "coffee cup and topology." if you wanted to.

Necessary: I use this term in the philosophical sense in that to be otherwise would imply an impossiblity or a contradiction. In other words, the attributes of (g)od are such that they cannot be any other way or the idea of (g)od would be a contradiction.

Sounds to me like your modalities are basically an interpretation of pantheism, but no matter.

Your use of topology still confuses me, I have studied topology formally, and it only applies to things with spatial relations, I can't see how this would apply to any god, though I am sure you will elucidate.

I think the definition is now suitably clear, though as you correctly deduced, I as of yet, have no reason to believe in any of it. I look forward immensely to the evidence you will present to support each part of your hypothesis.  I appreciate you have many people to reply to, so take all the time you need.

I read that paper of yours, and can tell you for free, a much, much higher standard of evidence will be required if you wish to prove anything here.

[Tank]

Edward

You're wasting your time here, but it's your time to waste and it is fun to watch.

I'm not trying to convert you. I'm trying to vet  my ideas in a forum of people who don't agree with them. But if I can entertain the masses as well...then I'm happy. :hmm:

It's not that we won't listen to you,

Oh, here we go with the "we" talk. I love it when insecure people do this. They can't stand on their own, so they try to derive an imaginary support from the group. "We..." Who the hell is "We"?

The 'we' are the seasoned atheists who have seen your sort of woo before. Then the passive aggressive insults, implying that people who use a collective term are some how 'insecure'. I am quite capable of standing up for my own views thank you very much. So what we have is a classic attempt to 'troll', a quote mine followed by the twisting of intent followed by an attempt to goad one's interlocutor.

it's just that we've heard what you have had to say (with subtle variations) time and time again.

Wait. You haven't heard anything yet. I know all the classical arguments inside and freakin out. I even have a couple of original arguments for the existence of God. This isn't that at all. I think you're scared.    Please stop with the teasing just lay out you sales pitch and I will evaluate it and make my own mind up thank you very much.

Your feelings,experiences and wishes just don't 'cut the mustard' as evidence anymore. When humanity first faced the unknown and substituted 'God did it.' there were no reasonable explanations for why the world we live in is the way it is. However there are now and if you doubt that statement stop typing on your PC. Your PC is the result of the rigorous application of the scientific method exploited by clever engineers. 'God did it!' is no answer now we are getting to grips with what is really going on.  In addition your method of argument 'abused logic', as been pointed out by Thump, is bankrupt, it means nothing at all. It is an act of intellectual masturbation, you're enjoying it, we're enjoying watching it, but it is untimely worthless.

I was once called a "spiritual pornographer" by a Christian in a Christian group. I rather liked it. As for the scientific method, that is what I'm applying here. But all science starts with a hypothesis and a philosophy about that hypothesis. I'm not saying "no" to science. I'm saying scientific inquiry into cosmology can only go so far without taking the idea of consciousness into account. And if anything is unscientific, it's the atheists who simply accept the singularity as eternally existing until it banged into a universe. You all might as well be worshiping phallic heads on Easter Island.

I love it when insecure people hide behind the term 'atheists, because they can't face an individual atheist can be capable of independent thought. If you had had bothered to read my previous responses to you you would see I do not hold the strawman position about the Big Bang that you erroneously assign to all atheists.

Here is what I wrote viewtopic.php?p=77342#p77342

a)

'

why does anything exist at all'  don't know, TBA, watch this space (pardon the pun). Insert name of deity or personal wish fulfilment here if you must, just must have an answer where there is none, yet.[/list]

I don't know what happened at the apparent beginning of the universe, it would appear nobody does, in detail understand the conditions before (if the term before is even applicable) the origin. That there was an origin is supported by the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the Red Shift caused by the continued expansion of the universe. It is simply ludicrous to assume that because one does not  know what caused something what the cause is. It is also ludicrous to assume that our evolved 'cause and effect recogniser system' that evolved in the world of our limited perceptions has any validity when investigating the quantum world. Quantum mechanics has continually proved a valid way of describing some aspects of the physical world, yet in doing so it has proved reality to be mind bogglingly counter intuitive, common sense goes out the window and cause and effect can have no meaning whatsoever. So to make the statement 'it's the atheists who simply accept the singularity as eternally existing until it banged into a universe' is just plain wrong.

Your world view is your world view and you are entitled to it. The trouble is you are acting in a hypocritical manner. You would not accept the way you see the world as reasonable from any other person yet you expect us to accept it from you. Let me explain. A person comes to your door and tells you they have a fantastic deal on a 'car'. You don't know what a car is so the person explains and you can see the value of a car. You ask to see the car, the person explains that can't be done as you can't have the car until you die. So you ask for evidence of the car and are told that there is none, just that the person has 'experienced' the car in their dreams and that they were convinced it really, really existed!. hmmmmm. So you ask if there are any other people who have 'experienced' the 'car'. The person replies no, as he is the only person capable of seeing this particular car, which is the 'one true car', all other people who have experienced cars are misguided. Hmmmm. You'd tell this guy to bugger off, and having seen this display would tell all future car salesman to bugger off. You're sales pitch for your 'god' is exactly the same in structure as this fictitious car salesman's pitch for his 'car'. And that is why I dismiss your premiss of the existance of your personal 'god' as it has inherently no value, it has no more value than that of the fictitious car salesman's, which I contend you would also dismiss.

Chris

If that's what you think I'm doing, I suggest you stay tuned. Because I would say you have it the wrong way around. I would say that in the end I will show you the "car" but you will refuse to step out and look at it--because you will know that once you have, you will never be able to justify not buying it.

But I suppose we'll see.

I'm getting seriously fed up with your passive aggressive bait and switch attitude. So far you give me no reason to think your not just another 'car' salesman with no car to sell. The fact that you have to put up a defence argument (you can't believe me!) before you pitch just shows how utterly certain you are that your argument will be effectively rubbished yet again. This of course would destroy your world view, which you really are not prepared to accept. I, on the other hand would be delighted to believe in God as it would be a very simple and satisfying explanation for my existance and I could go on in my life happy in the knowledge that I knew the truth.  Edward, put up or shut up.

[skwurll]

After giggling for a bit on Tank's mention of "intellectual masturbation" and scrolling through this thread, I'd like to say that in no way do I believe in a god, capital G or otherwise.

But then again, this is an atheist forum, it says so in the url, I don't see why you would expect anything else.

[noisician]

Edward the Theist says:

A primordial conscious force. This force forms itself topologically into modalities of matter according to its necessary attributes. This force necessarily existed prior to the physical universe.... do you believe this type of god might exist?

Let me translate for those who haven't studied theology:

Magic magic. Magic magic magic. Magic magic magic.... Therefore god is true!

[Godlessons]

Something I came across about a week ago might upset any claim closing in on a cosmological argument.  This guy seems to be interested in cosmology, and I have heard many theists proclaim that the cosmological argument is "proof" of god, while others merely assert it is extremely strong "evidence" that there is a god.  At most, even given the current ideas about the origins of the universe, it is presuppositional BS.

As for what I was talking about though, http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.1750 shows an interesting theory about it that I don't fully understand, but what I do understand is very intriguing.  Essentially, it says that time gets converted into space, and mass into length, and the reverse is also true, which would mean that there is no actual big bang, nor is there ever a time where nothing existed.  It also appears to deal with some problems with big bang cosmology, like dark matter, and the unnecessary "cosmological constant".

[Tank]

Something I came across about a week ago might upset any claim closing in on a cosmological argument.  This guy seems to be interested in cosmology, and I have heard many theists proclaim that the cosmological argument is "proof" of god, while others merely assert it is extremely strong "evidence" that there is a god.  At most, even given the current ideas about the origins of the universe, it is presuppositional BS.

As for what I was talking about though, http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.1750 shows an interesting theory about it that I don't fully understand, but what I do understand is very intriguing.  Essentially, it says that time gets converted into space, and mass into length, and the reverse is also true, which would mean that there is no actual big bang, nor is there ever a time where nothing existed.  It also appears to deal with some problems with big bang cosmology, like dark matter, and the unnecessary "cosmological constant".

Been raised here viewtopic.php?p=75787#p75787 I'll ask the mods to split this off as the general consensus is that this new theory is not very rigorous.

[Edward the Theist]

I appreciate the bit about God only existing in your mind. Now spread the word to all the people who keep telling me I need to go to church so their God will pop out of their heads and start caring for me!

I will say that this god might exist, because it does not present any inherent paradoxes with it's nature. That being said, who cares about this god? It didn't do anything, your basically describing nothing. It's a loaded way to describe some sort of thinking Higgs Boson.

I don't care about that god. It's boring. Where's all the pillars of fire? Where is the elephant head? Where's the flying Fish-Hawk?!? Get one of those gods, then maybe it's worth a discussion. This god is just nothingness. It can't be seen, smelled, felt or measured in any way, so why should I give a shit about it?

Freakin good question. Seriously.

You should care, because you are it. Your body is it, your mind evolves to channel it in the physical world, your self-awareness is it, and when you die--that white light everyone talks about--that's you returning to your primordial state, which is it. That's why I say even atheists have a God, they just think their physical body is God.

Granted, I'm speculating on what I consider the implications of my theory, which I am just starting to piece togther after 17 years of making those pieces. So, I can't prove the above. But, that's what I believe the answer to your question is. I could be wrong. But that's what I think at the current moment.

Again, good question. You made me think.

[Edward the Theist]

I'll try this in a different way just to be clear: What I'm trying to say is that even if I accept that there is a chance that something that you propose might exist, you still have a very long journey/adventure ahead of you, filled with exciting fact gathering, dangerously defining what it is, heart pounding hypothesis testing and thrilling battles against the mighty peer review process before I can rationally accept it as true.

I don't think I'm going to be submitting papers to the mathematical association of america, or to one of the Ivy league colleges (where someone else will put their name on top of mine on the paper so others will read it). I'm a street philosopher. I'm a self-taught mathematician. No one other than the general populous is ever going to be interested in my work. And, I'll be damned lucky if they are. But here's one thing I know: I know that if they are, then all the Ph.D's will clamour to write their books saying why mine isn't so (assuming I write a book or something).

That's you're scientists. That's experts for you. I'm not Van Gogh. I say that now humbly, that I am not Van Gogh. If I had been alive and knew Van Gogh I would have said that with derision. He was a loser then. He was insane. No one bought his work, and no one cared. Now Ph.D. students write dissertations about him. That may never be the case with me, or any of you for that matter, but we do what we can until we take our last breath. Right?