|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
The Last Ever God Thread
#9638167 - 01/19/09 01:15 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
1. As God is allegedly immaterial, then he would be unable to interact with the material world. If he could interact with the material world, then he would be part of the material world.
2. If God is immaterial and does not interact with the material world, then it is impossible to have any knowledge of him whatsoever.
3. If God is immaterial and interacts with the material world, then there would be some evidence of such (and would violate point 1).
4. How can a non-material object/being have known characteristics when it cannot be observed?
5. As nearly every definition of God is somewhat different because its characteristics cannot be known, how can one say that people who speak of God are even referencing the same 'object'/'being'?
--------------------
|
krypto2000
Unknown
Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
|
I can't get past #1, it seems wrong to me already. I can interact with the material world, yet you can't prove I'm material or not. No one knows what 'I' am in fact. I still clearly exist all the same.
|
krypto2000
Unknown
Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
2. If God is immaterial and does not interact with the material world, then it is impossible to have any knowledge of him whatsoever.
Why? I can interact with the non material world, or so I've led myself to believe, why can I not interact with something there?
Quote:
3. If God is immaterial and interacts with the material world, then there would be some evidence of such (and would violate point 1).
Some would argue 'I' am the evidence of that.
Quote:
4. How can a non-material object/being have known characteristics when it cannot be observed?
No one said it can't be observed.
Quote:
5. As nearly every definition of God is somewhat different because its characteristics cannot be known, how can one say that people who speak of God are even referencing the same 'object'/'being'?
You can't, but what's that matter? God is just a word, it has no meaning other than those you attach to it. I can't say whether I believe in god or not, cause I don't know how you define god, but I do believe when people say they are talking to god, that they must be talking to something.
|
Grapefruit
Freak in the forest
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
Re: The Last Ever God Thread [Re: krypto2000]
#9638225 - 01/19/09 01:24 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
There is a darn sight more evidence that you are material than for god which there is no evidence for.
-------------------- Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. "Chat your fraff Chat your fraff Just chat your fraff Chat your fraff"
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 25 days
|
Re: The Last Ever God Thread [Re: Grapefruit]
#9638240 - 01/19/09 01:26 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
What about all the churches?
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: The Last Ever God Thread [Re: MushroomTrip]
#9638250 - 01/19/09 01:29 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
They are on equal footing with the Star Trek and Star Wars conventions.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 25 days
|
|
Do NOT insult SF conventions, they nowhere near like churches. At a SF convention people are actually having fun... the goofy way, but fun nonetheless.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
Indigenous
Stranger
Registered: 01/08/09
Posts: 814
Loc: Celestial Realm
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: 1. As God is allegedly immaterial, then he would be unable to interact with the material world. If he could interact with the material world, then he would be part of the material world.
This is an assumption made by you. In order to believe this you would have to think that humans fully understand how your reality behaves and that there is nothing beyond your reality.
Quote:
2. If God is immaterial and does not interact with the material world, then it is impossible to have any knowledge of him whatsoever.
This is an assumption made by you. In order to believe this you would have to think that humans fully understand how your reality behaves and that there is nothing beyond your reality.
Quote:
3. If God is immaterial and interacts with the material world, then there would be some evidence of such (and would violate point 1).
This is an assumption made by you. In order to believe this you would have to think that humans fully understand how your reality behaves and that there is nothing beyond your reality.
Quote:
4. How can a non-material object/being have known characteristics when it cannot be observed?
Messengers and actions that can be observed.
Quote:
5. As nearly every definition of God is somewhat different because its characteristics cannot be known, how can one say that people who speak of God are even referencing the same 'object'/'being'?
Humans incorrectly interpret and inaccurately relay information.
|
krypto2000
Unknown
Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: The Last Ever God Thread [Re: Grapefruit]
#9638357 - 01/19/09 01:49 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Grapefruit said: There is a darn sight more evidence that you are material than for god which there is no evidence for.
Sure there's evidence that part of me is material, or what most people consider to be a part of 'I', but there's others who would debate this entirely. You surely can't say that 'I' am exclusively physical, which is the only point I was trying to make. If any part of 'I' is not physical, then asking whether 'god' exists in the physical world or not is irrelevant.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: The Last Ever God Thread [Re: MushroomTrip]
#9638361 - 01/19/09 01:50 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said: Do NOT insult SF conventions, they nowhere near like churches. At a SF convention people are actually having fun... the goofy way, but fun nonetheless.
Next you are going to tell me that exotic/erotic conventions are somehow 'fun'...
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 25 days
|
Re: The Last Ever God Thread [Re: Indigenous]
#9638367 - 01/19/09 01:50 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
This is an assumption made by you. In order to believe this you would have to think that humans fully understand how your reality behaves and that there is nothing beyond your reality.
There's nothing to point towards his assumptions, he was only making a point. Also, if humans don't understand how reality works (sine this is what you seem to be implying), then it means that chances are that the concept of god is nothing but delusional and wishful thinking.
Quote:
Messengers and actions that can be observed.
Quote:
mes⋅sen⋅ger /ˈmɛsəndʒər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mes-uhn-jer] Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a person who carries a message or goes on an errand for another, esp. as a matter of duty or business. 2. a person employed to convey official dispatches or to go on other official or special errands: a bank messenger. 3. Nautical. a. a rope or chain made into an endless belt to pull on an anchor cable or to drive machinery from some power source, as a capstan or winch. b. a light line by which a heavier line, as a hawser, can be pulled across a gap between a ship and a pier, a buoy, another ship, etc.
They're not messengers until the presence of the sender is proved.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
krypto2000
Unknown
Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
|
I've never heard of an erotic convention, but that sure sounds fun.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 25 days
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Next you are going to tell me that exotic/erotic conventions are somehow 'fun'...
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
Chronic7
Registered: 05/08/04
Posts: 13,679
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
How can a non-material object/being have known characteristics when it cannot be observed?
God is the observer so when you see God its not an objective seeing, like 'i see this material object', you see the seer, the emptiness of the core, like a black hole inside yourself seeing itself, its just pure self awareness, so your not seeing some 'thing', your seeing seeing itself.
Really God cannot have known characteristics as God will always be the seer & not the seen, but when certain feelings show up like bliss or love & you reject them as the seen, not the seer, it just grows & grows & grows, so then people attribute those characteristics to God
But 'Bliss' is just a word we use for fulfillment & fulfillment is just a word we use for being desireless etc...theres really no word for it, 100% complete satisfaction, can it be worded? We say words like love & bliss but they are just words, the experience itself is a must have imo
--------------------
|
krypto2000
Unknown
Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: The Last Ever God Thread [Re: MushroomTrip]
#9638394 - 01/19/09 01:54 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
They're not messengers until the presence of the sender is proved.
There is no proof that I am typing this, but you still believe it to be me do you not? If my memory were wiped and I had no memory of typing this then there is no proof in the world to be had. The fact that I typed this would be just as provable, or deniable, based on evidence alone, as is god. You take it on faith that I typed this because you assume I typed all the other ones and it just makes the most sense to keep believing that.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 25 days
|
Re: The Last Ever God Thread [Re: Chronic7]
#9638407 - 01/19/09 01:56 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
God is the observer ...
Really God cannot have known characteristics
Yet you seem to have an idea about what god is, even though you state that god can't have known characteristics, which this statement on its own is another characteristic you attribute to god.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
Indigenous
Stranger
Registered: 01/08/09
Posts: 814
Loc: Celestial Realm
|
Re: The Last Ever God Thread [Re: MushroomTrip]
#9638457 - 01/19/09 02:02 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
This is an assumption made by you. In order to believe this you would have to think that humans fully understand how your reality behaves and that there is nothing beyond your reality.
There's nothing to point towards his assumptions, he was only making a point. Also, if humans don't understand how reality works (sine this is what you seem to be implying), then it means that chances are that the concept of god is nothing but delusional and wishful thinking.
Quote:
First for his point is based on assumptions. Second This would not be delusional. It would be following science. You build a theory that fits the facts you have. I am not sure how it is wishful thinking. I never wished for a god. I built a theory around the facts I have, building on the work of others.
Quote:
Messengers and actions that can be observed.
Quote:
mes⋅sen⋅ger /ˈmɛsəndʒər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mes-uhn-jer] Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a person who carries a message or goes on an errand for another, esp. as a matter of duty or business. 2. a person employed to convey official dispatches or to go on other official or special errands: a bank messenger. 3. Nautical. a. a rope or chain made into an endless belt to pull on an anchor cable or to drive machinery from some power source, as a capstan or winch. b. a light line by which a heavier line, as a hawser, can be pulled across a gap between a ship and a pier, a buoy, another ship, etc.
They're not messengers until the presence of the sender is proved.
You build a theory that fits the facts you have.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: 1. As God is allegedly immaterial, then he would be unable to interact with the material world. If he could interact with the material world, then he would be part of the material world.
God is "immaterial" only in the sense that he is not confined to the material world. He transcends the world, but is within it as well. But let's suppose he is "immaterial." What is the basis of your claim that the immaterial cannot interact with the material? If indeed God is "supernatural," he should be able to cause things to happen from a distance.
Quote:
2. If God is immaterial and does not interact with the material world, then it is impossible to have any knowledge of him whatsoever.
The only ones I know of who would agree with both these initial premises would be deists, and their argument for his existence is teleological. They do not believe that God interacts with the world, and thus are unconcerned with his nature other than him being the first cause.
Quote:
3. If God is immaterial and interacts with the material world, then there would be some evidence of such (and would violate point 1).
It depends on how one believe that God interacts with the world. If one believes that God interacts through periodic miraculous interventions, there would indeed be evidence for it, but not scientifically testable evidence(experiments involving miracles could not be repeated by scientists). If one believes that God sustains the universe in every moment, then existence itself is evidence for his existence.
Quote:
4. How can a non-material object/being have known characteristics when it cannot be observed?
It depends on how you define "observation." Since the beginning of recorded history, mystics have given accounts of their encounters with divine reality. God cannot be observed through narrow empiricism, but according to William James' "radical empiricism," God can be and has been observed.
Quote:
5. As nearly every definition of God is somewhat different because its characteristics cannot be known, how can one say that people who speak of God are even referencing the same 'object'/'being'?
There are enough similarities, I think, to suppose that they're within the same ballpark. Mystics have always talked about the experience of God being beyond the bounds of language, so one can assume that any description of God will fall short of the actual experience of God. It's like a bunch of blind people touching different parts of an elephant. The one touching the trunk will have a different description from the one touching the tail.
--------------------
|
Chronic7
Registered: 05/08/04
Posts: 13,679
|
Re: The Last Ever God Thread [Re: MushroomTrip]
#9638470 - 01/19/09 02:04 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
God is the observer ...
Really God cannot have known characteristics
Yet you seem to have an idea about what god is, even though you state that god can't have known characteristics, which this statement on its own is another characteristic you attribute to god.
Does the observer have characteristics? The very nature of Awareness is that it is without attributes, because all attributes are seen by Awareness, so even the word Awareness is an attribute we place on something that is attributless, but even in that sentence saying 'something', is Awareness a thing?
Its the thing-less thing!
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 25 days
|
Re: The Last Ever God Thread [Re: krypto2000]
#9638484 - 01/19/09 02:05 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
krypto2000 said: There is no proof that I am typing this, but you still believe it to be me do you not? If my memory were wiped and I had no memory of typing this then there is no proof in the world to be had. The fact that I typed this would be just as provable, or deniable, based on evidence alone, as is god. You take it on faith that I typed this because you assume I typed all the other ones and it just makes the most sense to keep believing that.
You mean you're not registered as a citizen of a country, with an address, living with parents/ friends/ girlfriend/ around neighbors, who can state about you living where live? You mean that information can't be taken from all the people that know you and be correlated? You mean that your internet company doesn't have the documents to prove that you're their customer, along with a list of the websites you visit? You mean that tracking devices and/ or criminalistics methods can't be used to show this?
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
|