The GOD Theory's Universal Flaw “Existence”

[TheJackel]

[Tanker]

It's a cut and paste spam-gasm.

[kenh]

OK...  a lot of stuff there.  Could you please boil it down to a short paragraph that the average creationist would understand?  

[LoneMateria]

:spam2:

[TheJackel]

Postby Tanker » Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:43 am
It's a cut and paste spam-gasm.

Actually, you are only half correct... I had written this paper prior to posting this.. much of this is a compilation of arguments that I had made from these threads on Newsvine .. So before you state something is a copy paste spam I suggest you actually know what copy paste spam is... If this is your excuse not to read it or ignore it then more power to you..

http://pwaibel.newsvine.com/_news/2009/ ... ism-its-on
http://pwaibel.newsvine.com/_news/2009/ ... ism-its-on
http://nearing.newsvine.com/_news/2009/ ... and-buddha
http://krishna109.newsvine.com/_news/20 ... rrelations

Post by kenh » Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:33 am
OK... a lot of stuff there. Could you please boil it down to a short paragraph that the average creationist would understand?

This isn't really that hard to understand..This is actually a very simplified and condensed version of the paper I had written.. If you want to boil it down for the class of morons who can't comprehend English, then it comes straight to these points below:

Simple preschool Level:
Existence simply exists because non-existence can not be a person, place or thing of existence... Existence is a Universal set to where all other things are subsets of existence that reside in Existence.... Existence is the container to all things that exist and the substance to all things that exist including itself... *if you are religious you must prove existence simply didn't always exist.. You must prove that non-existence is possible as a person, place, or thing of actual and literal existence. This of course is impossible and no example can be presented.. If you can even provide and example you fail to understand what non-existence actually means... Thus no example can be provided without negating the definition of non-existence... (if you comprehend this level you can graduate to the next level below)

Grade school Level:
 A GOD simply by moron rules of engagement can not be existence, or the creator of existence.. If you try to state GOD is existence, then you are stating everything else is a solipsist existence to where all things reside in said God's own mind.... So even if a religious nut thinks GOD is existence or always existed, they could not explain how a mind can wrap around itself to contain itself and everything else to be a Universal Set without defying the "free agent" argument... And this would still be false because a GODS mind would still be comprised of other various subsets of existence.. Intelligence, knowledge, awareness, consciousness, and self Identity are all subsets themselves that can not be created by that which requires them... A God can not create the base of inquiry itself requires.. And thus, this is self admission that a GOD did not create Knowledge or Information that represents the base of inquiry that all minds must have to even be conscious... Hence, information is higher in the order of importance than the GOD that is itself reliant on and slave to the need of for it's own self identity...  So a God can not be existence or the creator of existence because it completely fails to answer infinite regress and a Universal Set.  (if you comprehend this level you can graduate to the next level below)[/b]

The High School level:
Christianity and the Bible already try to state a GOD is it's own individual apart from us... They state that he resides in a place known as the Kingdom of heaven... This is self admitting that a GOD does not represent a Universal Set and that a God has containment apart from the rest of us... This means the GOD could not be existence nor the creator of existence.... It's self admitting that all minds require containment as well as a place of containment... All minds need a "where" or place to reside that they themselves can not create or quantify... To have a place in existence..... Which brings you back to the concept of reverse creationism.. For a religious nut to believe in a God according to the bible or their faith it would require the acceptance of the idea of reverse creationism...  In simple terms... To preexist (not exist) to create existence, or to  preexist the container to your own existence in order to create the container to your existence so yourself can exist.  This alone is a contradiction to the bible to where it states that something can not be created from nothing..

[Whitney]

Post by LoneMateria » Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:06 am
If this is your excuse not to read it or ignore it then more power to you.

We get a lot of spam here, I assumed it was spam too.  I even cross checked your IP against the Nostradamus spammer because the format was so similar.  Post something that looks like spam on your first post and you should expect that sort of response from members of whatever forum you are on.

Btw, the excuse not to read it was that most who post something like that on their first post do not come back...so I (and others) don't bother with a response till when and if they post more.  You'll find that people on other forums tend to do this too.

This isn't really that hard to understand... If you want to boil it down for the class of morons who can't comprehend English then it comes straight to this point:

Just because someone wants it boiled down doesn't mean they are a moron.  No one wants to have to read a thesis just to find out what the thesis is trying to demonstrate.  Also, the creationist attention span is short so you really need to be able to get your main points across in a small paragraph.

I'm going to respond to parts of the 'moron' version because I don't have time to read the OP.

Existence simply exists because non-existence can not be a person, place or thing of existence

So, your argument is that non-existence can't be a natural state of things because we can't label it with words we use for things that exist and therefore non-existence is impossible?  If so, you need to re-think this argument.

A GOD simply by moron rules of engagement can not be existence, or the creator of existence.. If you try to state GOD is existence, then you are stating everything else is a solipsist existence to where all things reside in said God's own mind.... So even if a religious nut thinks GOD is existence or always existed, they could not explain how a mind can wrap around itself to contain itself and everything else to be a Universal Set without defying the "free agent" argument... And this would still be false because a GODS mind would still be comprised of other various subsets of existence.. Intelligence, knowledge, awareness, consciousness, and self Identity are all subsets themselves that can not be created by that which requires them... A God can not create the base of inquiry itself requires.. And thus, this is self admission that a GOD did not create Knowledge or Information that represents the base of inquiry that all minds must have to even be conscious... Hence, information is higher in the order of importance than the GOD that is itself reliant on and slave to the need of for it's own self identity...  So a God can not be existence or the creator of existence because it completely fails to answer infinite regress and a Universal Set.

If a god created the universe then we live in what could most appropriately be called a supernatural world...nothing would have to follow the laws of physics because they all could be manipulated by this creator God.  There are a lot of reasons why a god existing doesn't make sense but there isn't necessarily a problem with god being the universe (the container) and us all living inside it.  That wouldn't harm arguments for free will any more than a god existing in general because either way said god would be in control and either way free will would be an illusion.

They state that he resides in a place known as the Kingdom of heaven... This is self admitting that a GOD does not represent a Universal Set and that He himself has containment apart from the rest of us

One of the working 'theories' is that god lives outside of the universe and time and that is how he created all that exists (ie the universe).  While there are problems with the whole idea of being outside of time I don't see how admitting a separation of places, the natural world and the spiritual world, is admitting any sort of containment.  It doesn't follow that just because two things are separate that they are contained and the Christians very obviously think there is some sort of overlap or connection between the two (ie ghosts, divine intervention etc).

Maybe you explained your ideas a bit better in the long version; but your 'moron' version needs some work.

[TheJackel]

We get a lot of spam here, I assumed it was spam too. I even cross checked your IP against the Nostradamus spammer because the format was so similar. Post something that looks like spam on your first post and you should expect that sort of response from members of whatever forum you are on.

Btw, the excuse not to read it was that most who post something like that on their first post do not come back...so I (and others) don't bother with a response till when and if they post more. You'll find that people on other forums tend to do this too.

Point Taken

Just because someone wants it boiled down doesn't mean they are a moron. No one wants to have to read a thesis just to find out what the thesis is trying to demonstrate. Also, the creationist attention span is short so you really need to be able to get your main points across in a small paragraph.

I'm going to respond to parts of the 'moron' version because I don't have time to read the OP.

Actually, I thought he was the one talking down to the education level of creationists... I wasn't actually responding to him on a direct level... Though I admit what I wrote was a bit insulting.. I figured that if someone actually read the post that it wouldn't need to be simplified as it's pretty comprehensible as is.. So my aplogies

So, your argument is that non-existence can't be a natural state of things because we can't label it with words we use for things that exist and therefore non-existence is impossible? If so, you need to re-think this argument.

If you are referring it to as a state, reality, place, empty space  or even an equilibrium it would thus not literally be "non-existence"... You are still stating it as something of existence even if you think it represents the terms "nothing, nothingness, void, non-existence, non-dimension, no, zero" Hence, there can't actually be "No" if "No" exists itself... "Zero" represents the base of existence...Or the 0dimensional plane... "Nothing" can only be a descriptive word to describe what isn't there that you expect to be there... Itself can not be a thing or place in the literal sense because itself also would not exist.. This goes for the rest of the terms listed to describe what is missing or isn't there... In essence you can best describe nothing as an unknown or currently un-quantified something of existence..

If a god created the universe then we live in what could most appropriately be called a supernatural world...nothing would have to follow the laws of physics because they all could be manipulated by this creator God. There are a lot of reasons why a god existing doesn't make sense but there isn't necessarily a problem with god being the universe (the container) and us all living inside it. That wouldn't harm arguments for free will any more than a god existing in general because either way said god would be in control and either way free will would be an illusion.

First off the Universe is not existence as a whole.. It's merely another place in existence that is comprised of the substance of existence... The big bang does not explain existence either.. It only attempts to explain how our universe was formed within existence and by the substance of existence... Quantum Electromagnetic Physics comes pretty close to explaining that very process... You must remember that even our Universe has containment ... Existence contains itself and everything else through a loop known as the impossible... There isn't anything that can literally escape existence to exist outside existence.... It's simply not possible even for the supposed GOD... Even if you die and wake up somewhere else you are still in another place of existence you could not quantify...

2ndly, your next point fails.. If you state GOD is existence and we are all inside GOD then we are all apart of GOD and GOD himself... You would thus be made from the substance of GOD... And then you fail to describe what part of GOD do you reside in... Hence you can not be inside of what is existence and not be made from the substance of that existence.. You are thus not an individual of a free agent because in that respect you are GOD... At best you become an appendage of said Deity...And this would still be false because if GOD is infinite and represents the Universal set it wouldn't actually have a defined shape or appendage..It would be an infinite mind and thus It would still be a false existence or a solipsist existence... And you fail to explain said gods own containment for it's own mind and how he has created that container and all the subsets of his own mind.... It would still require reverse creationism for the GOD to create the container to his mind and the container still defies the need for the mind to be existing itself... Hence even the mind of a GOD still can not be the answer to existence or the creator of existence...

One of the working 'theories' is that god lives outside of the universe and time and that is how he created all that exists (ie the universe). While there are problems with the whole idea of being outside of time I don't see how admitting a separation of places, the natural world and the spiritual world, is admitting any sort of containment. It doesn't follow that just because two things are separate that they are contained and the Christians very obviously think there is some sort of overlap or connection between the two (ie ghosts, divine intervention etc).

Again the Universe is not existence as a whole and is only within existence and comprised of existence itself... Again please read up on Quantum Electromagnetic Physics.. And time really has no bearing on existence since non-existence never existed.. Thus the concept of time doesn't apply... Now the concept of where a god resides matters not.... It can be whatever realm, dimension, or place of reality you can possibly think of and it would still not escape the need to be in existence or a place of existence for itself to reside... It can neither create the place it needs to exist or destroy it... Itself could not exist without a place of existence and thus does not represent a Universal set because it requires something other than itself to exist... Thus, if a GOD existed it would yet still be a subset of the Universal Set to which it relies on to exist.. The other problem with the GOD is in existence theory is that it also means that in the vastness of infinite Existence that there would likely be more than just one GOD just like there is more than 1 human being on this planet...

Thus far there is Zero evidence of intelligence or self awareness outside the biological container... Unless you count robots with AI... And in that case we humans would define what a creator is actually like within existence... The ability to manipulate our own dimensional space and substance on a limited basis... Hence we could neither create our dimensional container or destroy it for we are made from the substance of our container.... The first 4 dimensions... Hence, if a GOD did exist it would have to be a 5 dimensional or above being... And that being would be bound to the same limited manipulative power over his own dimensional existence as we would be... And this would apply to 6 dimensional beings and above should they exist as well... None of them can be considered the creator of existence as a whole...

[kenh]

Actually, I thought he was the one talking down to the education level of creationists... I wasn't actually responding to him on a direct level... Though I admit what I wrote was a bit insulting.. I figured that if someone actually read the post that it wouldn't need to be simplified as it's pretty comprehensible as is.. So my aplogies

Yes, I was looking at it from the standpoint of trying to discuss something like that with a creationist (and being a little facetious too).  I certainly don't think all creationists are morons, some are quite smart, but it wouldn't be far into that thesis before you would get the "God did it, that's all I need to know" repetition from many creationists and they would refuse to listen any further.

[templeboy]

Do not feed the ctrl+v trolls

This is going straight to the dump-pile....

[TheJackel]

Re: The GOD Theory's Universal Flaw “Existence”

Post by templeboy » Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:00 pm
Do not feed the ctrl+v trolls

This is going straight to the dump-pile....
Do not feed the ctrl+v trolls

This is going straight to the dump-pile....

May I ask how this is trolling? And what do you have against people posting their writings here on this forum? Should I have posted a link instead to satisfy your Ctrl+V phobia?  Seriously, if this is your means to contribute to a logical debate then I must admit you have made yourself rather irrelevant... Trolling by definition is exactly what your post here represents... This post has nothing to do with trolling.. You simply use this as an excuse to either ignore the argument or devalue the argument into useless ignorance... If you can't contribute to the discussion in an intelligent manner then why bother posting at all? It's pretty sad that I share my point of view and then get attacked for doing so.. It seems I have struck a nerve... If you can't handle the argument or understand the context of the argument then don't bother posting... Do what you were going to do in the first place and ignore it....

Anyone else in desperate need of intention? Sheesh!  

[Tanker]

Re: The GOD Theory's Universal Flaw “Existence”

Post by templeboy » Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:00 pm
Do not feed the ctrl+v trolls

This is going straight to the dump-pile....
Do not feed the ctrl+v trolls

This is going straight to the dump-pile....

May I ask how this is trolling? And what do you have against people posting their writings here on this forum? Should I have posted a link instead to satisfy your Ctrl+V phobia?  Seriously, if this is your means to contribute to a logical debate then I must admit you have made yourself rather irrelevant... Trolling by definition is exactly what your post here represents... This post has nothing to do with trolling.. You simply use this as an excuse to either ignore the argument or devalue the argument into useless ignorance... If you can't contribute to the discussion in an intelligent manner then why bother posting at all? It's pretty sad that I share my point of view and then get attacked for doing so.. It seems I have struck a nerve... If you can't handle the argument or understand the context of the argument then don't bother posting... Do what you were going to do in the first place and ignore it....

Look in the thread "dump pile of crazy trolls past" (or something along those lines) you may find a very similar style between many of them and you. The reason so many, I would say most, people assume you are a spammer/troll is you used the same pattern many of them do. No introduction, no earlier posts, no open subject inviting a free discourse. Just a HUGE, tedious, copy and pasted, wall o' text. Not a great way to introduce youself or your subject matter.

Suppose you just met someone new and without even getting your name they talked non-stop for 20 minutes without ever letting you get a word in edge wise.Then they get pissed when you point out how rude they're being. In the forum world this is pretty good anolog for what you have done. I understand that you wern't attempting to come of this way but the fact is you have.

I would take this as a learning opertunity, try not to get too upset at the misunderstanding, and make future posts a little more reader friendly.

Welcome to the forum.

[TheJackel]

Actually, I thought he was the one talking down to the education level of creationists... I wasn't actually responding to him on a direct level... Though I admit what I wrote was a bit insulting.. I figured that if someone actually read the post that it wouldn't need to be simplified as it's pretty comprehensible as is.. So my aplogies

Yes, I was looking at it from the standpoint of trying to discuss something like that with a creationist (and being a little facetious too).  I certainly don't think all creationists are morons, some are quite smart, but it wouldn't be far into that thesis before you would get the "God did it, that's all I need to know" repetition from many creationists and they would refuse to listen any further.

I am not really after the debate with a Creationist who has been brainwashed all their lives.. I can't really fault them because they are victims of their own ideology... I am more interested in discussing this with those that are willing to discuss the issue and provide those who share the same point of view with something interesting to read. Plus, I don't mind reaching out to those who are capable of listening... I would hope that not every person of religion is some mindless robot of pure obedience and blind faith... After all we are all capable of logic and reason... I was a Christian for 20 years until I actually did my own critical thinking on the subject.. Much of that critical thinking started after I began to work in advertising for several churches across 5 states in the Midwest... It's pretty messed up and when you deal with the institution on this level you realize how corrupt it really is...

 If you have ever read a book on the mechanics of brainwashing you will see exactly how devotion to a faith is engineered... They all use this system to achieve a following that will follow without question.. Engineered to create control and order among the masses.. The basic mechanics used is the false pretext of "Love" , fear, seeding, subliminal programming, and the "no way out" mechanism...For example in Christianity they profess a god is of pure "love"... However, if you actually read the bible and actually listen and watch how they try and convert and advertise you will easily see the obvious contradiction or false use of the word "Love"...

Unconditional Love or Pure Love = Love without judgment, expectations, morality, or the demanding of obedience... It is purely without condition.. It must be of complete neutrality...The Love concept (Gimmick) is a means to establish the feeling of "Salvation" from damnation in order to setup the little hat trick we call the "No way out"... This is where fear of damnation is used to make the victim feel that they must seek salvation in fear of their own "souls" well being.... To submit their lives to the ideology....

Here is a pamphlet that I had made for a church in Boston MA..

I had made a folded pamphlet that had a Capital D on fire on a black back drop.. Under the D that was on fire was the words "Today is your Day of Decision" written in glowing white letters... Inside the folded pamphlet was a bunch of Fake examples of those who have been "Saved" All the stories were written by the institution.. In fact I have seen carbon copies of these stories before. All of these were false along with the pictures of those in the pamphlet... These perfect happy people were actually royalty free images from an Adobe suite...

The moral of this was to target weak and impressionable minds or vulnerable minds.. To seed the subliminal and powerful message of salvation in the face of damnation to make the victim feel as if they had no choice but to submit their lives to the ideology.... And this is how devotion, and faith without question is engineered... The bible is written in the exact same manner from cover to cover... It doesn't take a genius to realize this... Reading books on the mechanics of brainwashing really opens your eyes to such manipulative things such as religious ideologies... It's pretty messed up stuff...

[TheJackel]

Re: The GOD Theory's Universal Flaw “Existence”

Post by templeboy » Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:00 pm
Do not feed the ctrl+v trolls

This is going straight to the dump-pile....
Do not feed the ctrl+v trolls

This is going straight to the dump-pile....

May I ask how this is trolling? And what do you have against people posting their writings here on this forum? Should I have posted a link instead to satisfy your Ctrl+V phobia?  Seriously, if this is your means to contribute to a logical debate then I must admit you have made yourself rather irrelevant... Trolling by definition is exactly what your post here represents... This post has nothing to do with trolling.. You simply use this as an excuse to either ignore the argument or devalue the argument into useless ignorance... If you can't contribute to the discussion in an intelligent manner then why bother posting at all? It's pretty sad that I share my point of view and then get attacked for doing so.. It seems I have struck a nerve... If you can't handle the argument or understand the context of the argument then don't bother posting... Do what you were going to do in the first place and ignore it....

Look in the thread "dump pile of crazy trolls past" (or something along those lines) you may find a very similar style between many of them and you. The reason so many, I would say most, people assume you are a spammer/troll is you used the same pattern many of them do. No introduction, no earlier posts, no open subject inviting a free discourse. Just a HUGE, tedious, copy and pasted, wall o' text. Not a great way to introduce youself or your subject matter.

Suppose you just met someone new and without even getting your name they talked non-stop for 20 minutes without ever letting you get a word in edge wise.Then they get pissed when you point out how rude they're being. In the forum world this is pretty good anolog for what you have done. I understand that you wern't attempting to come of this way but the fact is you have.

I would take this as a learning opertunity, try not to get too upset at the misunderstanding, and make future posts a little more reader friendly.

Welcome to the forum.

The post was quite reader friendly... If someone is too lazy to read a "wall of text" then they really don't care what it had to say even if it were a single paragraph. It's the same concept of someone who is too lazy to click on a link.. Sorry but the subject matter can not be summed up in a single easy to read paragraph... In fact I condensed 80 pages of my paper into a single page... Perhaps this is a lesson to be learned that nobody should be allowed to post anything of significance on their first post without being labeled a spammer?  Maybe I should follow your Theocritus rules of forum engagement so it's not to offend anyone with a wall of text... Thus, by your standards anything more than 1 paragraph is irrelevant? Makes you wonder if you can sit still long enough to even read news article in the news paper... Like I said before, if you think it's spam or a wall of text then don't bother responding.. Just ignore it because I really don't care if that is your opinion of it...  Some advice, actually validate what is Troll or spam before you label it as such.. A "wall of Text" is by no means spam if it's addressing the subject with a valid point of view regardless of how long or detailed it is... And I had already apologized and addressed this issue with someone else... This tells me that you didn't even bother to read my reply "point taken".. You just jump in and start the process all over again..

So please don't bother responding.. We will have to agree to disagree... And this is where I end this discussion..

[LoneMateria]

If someone is too lazy to read a "wall of text" then they really don't care what it had to say even if it were a single paragraph.

This has nothing to do with laziness.  This has to do with us identifying spam.  Just because you say your wall of text isn't spam it still looks like spam.  Why should we bother to read something that looks like spam?

[TheJackel]

If someone is too lazy to read a "wall of text" then they really don't care what it had to say even if it were a single paragraph.

This has nothing to do with laziness.  This has to do with us identifying spam.  Just because you say your wall of text isn't spam it still looks like spam.  Why should we bother to read something that looks like spam?

What looks like and what is are two different things.. If it looks like spam to you then don't bother reading it.. I am not sitting here demanding that you read anything at all... It's amazing that we are even having this little dramatic episode... Clearly we have concluded that it's intent is not spam after the first reply... And you people label this site "Happy atheist forums? It's almost an oxymoron to even call it that at this point... So far only 1 person had even attempted to address the topic of discussion... It seems like the Spam label is now being used as a method of discredit.. I have never run into this problem with any other place or forum when posting a paper.. Even on so called "first posts"... It seems like a few of you have some growing pains to get over with... Again, this post is not intended for those who won't read it or care not to read it... If you want to ignore it then do so.. Dump it in any pile of BS you want because it's irrelevant to me if you do or if you don't... This website almost needs to add this tag at the end of it's url..