Do it yourself, make your own god

[Deeviant]

As the name suggests, this thread is for those who wish to make up their very own god.

Examining the way this has been done for many thousands of years, I have determined that there are a few rules, but nobody seems to know what they are, so have at it in any way you see fit!

I will, of course start this whole thing off.

My God.
Is big and furry, kind of like scully from monsters inc. He spends a lot of time bowling, but occasionally takes time to pay a vist to Earth and perform some good deeds, such as every good thing that happens on earth. He doesn't care much for rap but thinks rock music is the greatest and most important achievment of his children, in fact, he plans to take Audioslave to school for the next show and tell.

He never gets angry, but is often sad. He hopes his little critters will not end up blowing themselfs up. He tries to guide them to enlightenment and peace but has less time now with so much homework piling up. He does not know everything, but, compared to us he does.

He dislikes being told what to do, or what he is. He always feels sad about all the pain and confusion his creations undergo, but he understands the necessity of it for their growth. He als... wow what is that.. ... ... he is.. talking to me.. ... ..

I'm sorry, I can't tell you anything more about my god. Apparentely, I have told you far too much already, so must end this communication immeadiately else I will face a "divine nuggy," I don't know what that is, but, I really don't want to find out.

 

[Janitor]

There is a religion called 'The five percenters' which claims that black folks are deities, and the rest of humanity mere mortals.

{I was going to post this in that long racism thread, but I decided not to do anything more than just read that one.}

 

[Deeviant]

This is create your own god, not religion.

 

[Deeviant]

Oh I see, it sees black people AS gods. Interesting idea, could be promising with proper marketing techniques.

 

[phoenixthoth]

God is my remote control. no wait, it's a reptilian space alien. no wait, it's roses. or perhaps my cat is God? actually, i am God.

From Magick by Aliester Crowley:

I am a God, I very God of very God; I go upon my way to work my will; I have made matter and motion for my mirror; I have decreed for my delight that Nothingness should figure itself as twain, that I might dream a dance of names and natures, and enjoy the substance of simplicity by watching the wanderings of my shadows. I am not that which is not; I know which knows not; I love that which loves not. For I am Love, whereby division dies in delight; I am Knowledge, whereby all parts, plunged in the whole, perish and pass into perfection; and I am that I am, the being wherein Being is lost in Nothing, nor deigns to be but its Will to unfold its nature, its need to express its perfection in all possibilities, each phase a partial phantasm, and yet inevitable and absolute.
I am Omniscient, for naught exists for me unless I know it. I am Omnipotent, for naught occurs save by Necessity my soul's expression through my will to be, to do, to suffer the symbols of itself. I am Omnipresent, for naught exists where I am not, who fashioned space as a condition of my consciousness myself, who am the center of all, and my circumference the frame of my fancy.

if you're god too then you're god and if not then not.

 

[Janitor]

"black people AS gods" - Deeviant

Precisely. If anyone here watches Trinity Broadcasting television, there is a preacher who likes to say that people of his faith are (or can become) gods. I suppose he would claim that he himself has trod that path. I feel a little guilty when I find myself noticing the grammatical errors in his speech, since after all I as a mortal have no business pointing out flaws in a god, do I?

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Janitor
"black people AS gods" - Deeviant

Precisely. If anyone here watches Trinity Broadcasting television, there is a preacher who likes to say that people of his faith are (or can become) gods. I suppose he would claim that he himself has trod that path. I feel a little guilty when I find myself noticing the grammatical errors in his speech, since after all I as a mortal have no business pointing out flaws in a god, do I?

I will talk to my god and find out if there is any truth to this guy's ramblings

 

[phoenixthoth]

all you have to do is ask yourself because you're god.

 

[Deeviant]

Another day, another God.

Today my god is a angry Zuez-like incarnate of vengence. One who stikes down evil with divine precision. He hates ignorance and stupidity and wonders sometimes if it is time to end his science experiment. He is also late for class so we must end this channeling session.

 

[phoenixthoth]

yes, go to class to continue your "programming." have a blast! :P

let me ask you a question: if there are no external spirits, is it really possible to channel anything other than your self?

 

[phoenixthoth]

let me ask you another question. when you sit in your classes, do you accept what they teach you? if they tell you the results of an experiment, do you do that experiment for yourself to independently verify it or do you accept it? is that like a faith? is it faith that is well placed or blind faith? if you trust your teachers, why? is it because of the school's reputation? letters after their names? why does that mean you should place your faith in them?

i ask myself these questions about my subject, which is math. to be honest with myself, i accept most of it on a kind of blind faith, though i think it is fairly well placed faith. i don't learn how to prove every theorem i learn. i learn how to play the game and get along with other mathematicians. i know what they want to hear, for the most part, and what the language and rules are. so, yeah, i have faith that math is correct.

now repeat all those questions and apply it to your local priest with a doctor in divinity. get the same answers? why not? and should you? if so, why, and if not, why not?

i have more trust in math than anything. more faith in math than anything. if i don't know how to "prove" a theorem, i don't have true knowledge/understanding of that theorem. anyways, i have far less trust in science and my local priest. frankly, i think most scientists and priests are suspect. it's not that i automatically disbelieve them, but for some reason i don't trust what they say on a total blind faith.

if one has not "observed" God, then one has not gained true knowledge about God's existence or nature. those that have blind faith, the rank and file of religious proselytizers, preachers, and zealots, i have much contempt for. they at least have their faith in the right direction, though. kind of like how i think your faith in science is probably in the right direction. again, i have a distrust for my local michio kaku and my local roy masters. i don't automatically reject what they say, but i am weary. just weary.

i'm not really intending you to reply to this but ponder those questions if you haven't already and i don't need to see the answers. just ask. ok?

 

[Janitor]

Phoenix,I am curious if you see mathematics more as something that human beings discover, or as a free invention of humans. If we ever meet an intelligent race from some other part of the galaxy, would you expect their mathematics to have a great deal in common with ours, other than the obvious differences to be expected in notation?

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Janitor
Phoenix,I am curious if you see mathematics more as something that human beings discover, or as a free invention of humans. If we ever meet an intelligent race from some other part of the galaxy, would you expect their mathematics to have a great deal in common with ours, other than the obvious differences to be expeced in notation?

well honestly i have no idea what's up with aliens or even if there are aliens. I've never seen one. but if i daydream about it...

math on Earth is more or less the same as it is elsewhere. others are either "more advanced" than us or "less advanced" than us, obviously. i don't believe math has an end at which point one can say "i know all about math." thus, there is no alien out there, at least any with finite intelligence, that knows everything about math. we are moving into a new phase with the new internet and electronic global distribution of research. math can really start taking off, theoretically. i bet there's aliens out there who've gotten to a global exchange long ago. i bet there's type 3 aliens who have intergalactic exchange of math and they have a "one inch equation" and they can prove fermat's last theorem in kindergarden. the questions that they find difficult are not even within our scope of understanding. not the answers, the questions. the depth is immense. maybe they've got questions that even in the most efficient notation they know it's still a quadrillion bits long with an answer that is a google bits long. we have a ways to go yet.

i believe that at some point, there will be a finite number of different math structures. all "new" structures will be proven to be equivalent to an existing structure. i think we may have the majority of those different structures now but our depth of knowledge in each one is limited. pose even a simple question and you've got a 300 year wait for the answer. dynamics. if i ask for the fractional dimension of the julia set for a polynomial of degree 100 that has no radical solutions, that would take a while to figure out. that's the tip of the iceburg.

so i think there are finitely many (maybe a google, who knows) different kinds of math structures. even so, the depth one can go in some of them is infinite. each question raises ten questions, ad infinitum.

i believe that math is discovered, not created. i only have an inductive plausibility argument for this. take the number 0. did it "exist" before anyone thought about it and wrote it down or was the number zero created? actually, i have no idea how to prove my assertion but i believe that zero has always existed and always will exist, regardless of whether or not any human observes it. that's how i feel about the tree in the forest making a sound. do i know if it makes a sound if i didn't hear it myself? if you can answer that question with absolute certainty, then you will have certainty over your question. there are no wrong answers; there are answers that fit observation and data and observations that contradict observation and data. granted, most people would say the contradictory evidence is suggestive of a wrong answer, but can't it be because our "tools" of "observation" aren't honed enough yet? again, just plausibilty argument here.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

...but for some reason i don't trust what they say on a total blind faith.

if one has not "observed" God, then one has not gained true knowledge about God's existence or nature. those that have blind faith, the rank and file of religious proselytizers, preachers, and zealots, i have much contempt for. they at least have their faith in the right direction, though. kind of like how i think your faith in science is probably in the right direction. again, i have a distrust for my local michio kaku and my local roy masters. i don't automatically reject what they say, but i am weary. just weary.

Then you see the entire point of this thread. If god is not observable, he is not quantifiable and nobody can claim to any knowledge of a god. Once they start guessing what a god would be like, want, declare law or whatever they lose all credibility and are basically just flat out wrong. Once you get to this point, why bother stating the fact that there might be a god when there are an infinite amount of other things that may or may not be.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
Then you see the entire point of this thread. If god is not observable, he is not quantifiable and nobody can claim to any knowledge of a god. Once they start guessing what a god would be like, want, declare law or whatever they lose all credibility and are basically just flat out wrong. Once you get to this point, why bother stating the fact that there might be a god when there are an infinite amount of other things that may or may not be.

of course i see the point of the thread. people create their own gods all the time; I'm not arguing that. it's just that no human created God which is, by definiton, God. the God. a self-referential definiton? yes. a definition that is useful to you? probably not.

It is quantifiable in a sense. it is infinite. it is the largest infinity, if it were quantifiable. it is also more.

how do you know I'm flat out wrong? you will never meet my criteria for proof; you can't change what I've "Seen." and i will probably never meet your criteria for proof. that's fine. we'll agree to disagree and i got no qualms with that.

yes, there may or may not be a santa claus or a tooth fairy but I'm getting rather tired of that "recorded" answer. who knows if there is a santa claus in some parallel universe; I'm pretty sure I've never seen one with flying raindeer in this universe except on tv. i dont' know for sure and i don't care about santa. you say that zealots create a god to explain the "unexplanable" which happens when there is good ol occam's razor to tell you what to think: if there is a simpler explanation, it must be correct. well, to you the explanation that seems simple that humans need to create a god to satisfy some psychological lacking does fit the data and it is the simplest explanation. but that doesn't prove to me that humans did, in fact, literally create God. you'd have to prove, in ALL POSSIBLE cases, that occam's razor is absolutely perfect and correct; and i doubt you can do that. those are my criteria for proof. can you meet my criteria and shatter what i know?

 

[Janitor]

Thanks for the interesting comments, Phoenix. I believe your viewpoint makes you what they call a "Platonist" when it comes to the philosophy of mathematics.

Here is what the Wikipedia site has to say:

Platonism is considered to be, in mathematics departments the world over, the predominant philosophy regarding Foundations of mathematics. One statement of this philosophy is the thesis that mathematics is not created but discovered in some undescribed realm.

 

[Deeviant]

Thats the thing, you talk of god as if you know one personally, which I thought we just came to the conclusion that that was impossible.

You can not quantify god, you can only quantify your idea of a god, which is different altogether. I do not and have never held the position that a god can not exist but if somebody claims to know something about a god you can be sure that they are wrong, that is unless they happen to be able to prove you wrong.

You can not say that god is infinite or finite, mean or nice, or anything. What you can be say of is that there is absolutely no conclusive evidence of a god existing.

The Lock Ness monster could exist, but do you really think she does? Can I even call it a she with no observation evidence? Don't you see a pattern of human behavior in which we reinforce our beliefs with pure fiction because we hate being wrong or because we drew individual and societal strength from our beliefs, wether they are wrong or right? This type of behavior is why science was invented, we needed a way to separate our opinions from our fact.

 

[phoenixthoth]

What you can be say of is that there is absolutely no conclusive evidence of a god existing.

look. i totally agree with you on that point. but when is there conclusive proof of anything anywhere in any theory?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
Thats the thing, you talk of god as if you know one personally, which I thought we just came to the conclusion that that was impossible.

Who is "we"?

Originally posted by Deeviant
You can not quantify god, you can only quantify your idea of a god, which is different altogether. I do not and have never held the position that a god can not exist but if somebody claims to know something about a god you can be sure that they are wrong, that is unless they happen to be able to prove you wrong.

How does your point that not being able to quantify God prove God cannot be known? If you are correct, all it means is that God can't be quantified, it doesn't mean God cannot be known in some other way besides that which requires quantification.

Originally posted by Deeviant
You can not say that god is infinite or finite, mean or nice, or anything. What you can be say of is that there is absolutely no conclusive evidence of a god existing.

All you are saying is that there is no way to create an external proof of God. That is, I cannot prove to you or others there is a God. I agree. But so what? Personally I don't give a flying fish if you or anyone else knows what I know or not, I only care about what I know.

You are trying to impose your standard for knowing--the empirical standard--on knowing God. If you were half as informed as you seem to think you are, you'd know the real experts on God have always said it is known within a human being, not through external means. The subjective world exists for every living being, and just because you can't get at all of my experiences with your little quantification tests doesn't necessarily invalidate those experiences. I know I love my wife. Can you see that love, can you quantify it? No? Well, according to you that love therefore doesn't exist.

To me you are lecturing about proof when you don't understand the standard yourself. Assuming the empirical standard is the proof you are talking about, to state the problem properly you'd say, "God cannot be proven to others." Accordingly, you'd stop saying God cannot be known since you cannot possibly prove that empirically.

Originally posted by Deeviant
Don't you see a pattern of human behavior in which we reinforce our beliefs with pure fiction because we hate being wrong or because we drew individual and societal strength from our beliefs, wether they are wrong or right? This type of behavior is why science was invented, we needed a way to separate our opinions from our fact.

All that applies to you too. Join the religion of science and think you know the TRUTH, get support from the many other Scientism believers here at PF and throughout society, and then preach to others how they don't know what they are talking about if they don't accept your belief system.

Science is great for understanding the physical world, but I have not been impressed with what it offers me about the best part of my inner self. I don't have the slightest problem respecting both science and my inner skills. For me they never, not even once, have been in conflict.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Well, according to you that love therefore doesn't exist.

the differnece being that he believes in love because he, i hope, has observed love and, i hope, felt it.

good example, too, because God has a lot to do with love.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Deeviant
This is create your own god, not religion.

It's also not metaphysics. Why is this here? There is a general discussion board that would work.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
the differnece being that he believes in love because he, i hope, has observed love and, i hope, felt it.

good example, too, because God has a lot to do with love.

Well, my point was that he cannot prove to me or others he feels love even though he can know for certain himself that he feels it. Therefore, all that can be known is not necessarily subject to empirical investigation, and knowledge of God could be one of those sorts of things!

 

[phoenixthoth]

my gosh, i think les gets it! but i can only know my perceptions; they include love and a "bit" more.

Originally posted by Fliption
It's also not metaphysics. Why is this here? There is a general discussion board that would work.

it is metaphysics. deeviant is making a point, though is conclusion is stated tacitly, as are his/her premises. hmm... i can percieve something invisible? how can that be? does not compute!

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Who is "we"?
phoenixthoth and I


How does your point that not being able to quantify God prove God cannot be known? If you are correct, all it means is that God can't be quantified, it doesn't mean God cannot be known in some other way besides that which requires quantification.

You don't find it awfully convient that your methods for "knowing god" don't work on anything except for "knowing god"? In physchology, this is called a self-reinforcing delusion. Its nice that you seem to have a direct connection with god himself, you must feel quite empowered.



All you are saying is that there is no way to create an external proof of God. That is, I cannot prove to you or others there is a God. I agree. But so what? Personally I don't give a flying fish if you or anyone else knows what I know or not, I only care about what I know.

No, I'm saying its completely impossible to know ANYTHING about god, and whenever I ask anybody to prove me wrong, I get a load of "you must look within yourself" bull. I want there to be a being of infinite wisdom and love looking after us but EVERY piece of observational evidence I have ran into in my life has suggested there is none

You are trying to impose your standard for knowing--the empirical standard--on knowing God. If you were half as informed as you seem to think you are, you'd know the real experts on God have always said it is known within a human being, not through external means. The subjective world exists for every living being, and just because you can't get at all of my experiences with your little quantification tests doesn't necessarily invalidate those experiences. I know I love my wife. Can you see that love, can you quantify it? No? Well, according to you that love therefore doesn't exist.

LW, I really do respect your view on life and I do try to understand it, however, I REALLY disagree with anybody being a "expert on god." It is a total contridiction in terms and people claiming to be an expert on something that is completely intangible, unknowable and 100% unproven, giving absolutely zero proof is driven by ego, not intellect. Your not the enlightened one here if you really think ego-driven thought processes are in any way superior to ideas of intellectual origin, backed by observational evidence. You have the classic bible-thumper attitude, the "Its in the book, I believe it, and that's that" view, you just express it in a different way.

To me you are lecturing about proof when you don't understand the standard yourself. Assuming the empirical standard is the proof you are talking about, to state the problem properly you'd say, "God cannot be proven to others." Accordingly, you'd stop saying God cannot be known since you cannot possibly prove that empirically.

It may not be possible to prove or disprove god but it is possible to prove that one can not know one. The very reason why the god claim is an unfalsifiable claim is the same reason this is true: in order for a god to exist it must have a excuse for basically all observational evidence pointing to the fact a god does not exist therefore people have claimed he is outside of normal reality, outside of physical reality, anything outside of a physical reality is untouchable and knowable, we can not observe god directely, indirectely, can not observe period.

All that applies to you too. Join the religion of science and think you know the TRUTH, get support from the many other Scientism believers here at PF and throughout society, and then preach to others how they don't know what they are talking about if they don't accept your belief system.

"I know you are but what am I!" Okay, science is not a religion, is does not believe in the supernatural, it places its belief in the natural(that would be the opposite of supernatural). And the far majority of the people on these boards and indeed people all around the world do not support me at all. And if you take just a little time to examine your tone on the majority of your posts, it would be quite clear that you are the one that "preachs to others how they don't know what they are talking about if they don't accept your belief system."


Science is great for understanding the physical world, but I have not been impressed with what it offers me about the best part of my inner self. I don't have the slightest problem respecting both science and my inner skills. For me they never, not even once, have been in conflict.

Perhaps you just didn't like the answer science gave you.

 

[phoenixthoth]

i disdain debating this subject but i'll take the bait.

You don't find it awfully convient that your methods for "knowing god" don't work on anything except for "knowing god"? In physchology, this is called a self-reinforcing delusion. Its nice that you seem to have a direct connection with god himself, you must feel quite empowered.

*hits deeviant with his/her sandle!

no, deeviant, YOU'RE in the delusion! we have escaped the delusion and have faced the TRUTH that there is a God. why hide from the truth? are you afraid of the truth? are you afraid you can't handle the truth? ask those questions in science first. it'll be easier to do that. you'll answer, no, of course. you're not afraid to face reality. ok, now how about the truth of yourself? are you afraid of the truth of yourself, what you're capable of? are you afraid that you have "evil" tendencies that might "escape" in an "uncontrolled" fashion? yes or no and why or why not. ok. now what about the whole truth? do you fear knowing the whole truth? i don't percieve you to be afraid of it, but I'm asking you to ask yourself. what if, WHAT IF, the truth is that there is a God? would you still not be afraid of that truth?

No, I'm saying its completely impossible to know ANYTHING about god, and whenever I ask anybody to prove me wrong, I get a load of "you must look within yourself" bull. I want there to be a being of infinite wisdom and love looking after us but EVERY piece of observational evidence I have ran into in my life has suggested there is none

the ASSUMPTION that "proof" equals truth is INCORRECT! we hold these truths to be self-evident; that is the only pure proof that one can have and it transcents all your mathematical or scientific conventions of proof. do you think induction is a proof? you're the delusional one, buddy. i do the experiment a thousand times and keep ignorantly seeing the same damn thing, so it must be the case that if i did it an infinite amount of time it would always turn out the same? and, by the way, the observations are not always exactly the same, ever. there is always variation. ever consider that as being a sign from God that there is far more than meets the eye? well, consider it. reject it if you will, i don't care, but consider it. if you have an open mind, you'll consider it. if you have a closed mind, you won't even consider it.

i have an open mind. for a decade of my life, i was just like you. my arguments weren't even as good as yours and i still did not believe in God. then i believed in God. then i knew God existed. now i know God exists.

LW, I really do respect your view on life and I do try to understand it, however, I REALLY disagree with anybody being a "expert on god." It is a total contridiction in terms and people claiming to be an expert on something that is completely intangible, unknowable and 100% unproven, giving absolutely zero proof is driven by ego, not intellect. Your not the enlightened one here if you really think ego-driven thought processes are in any way superior to ideas of intellectual origin, backed by observational evidence. You have the classic bible-thumper attitude, the "Its in the book, I believe it, and that's that" view, you just express it in a different way.

no one here better not claim to be an expert on God. there is only one expert on God and that's God. it is NOT driven by ego. my ego used to drive me. but it lost its license and not allowed to drive anymore. I'm not disrespecting YOUR position; you're doing the best job you can with the tools available to you as did i for that decade when i was a FIRM atheist. who here has thumped the bible? i NEVER said and I NEVER will justify my beliefs by some BOOK. NEITHER SHOULD YOU, you double standard-having person, you! when you say we express it in different way, that's a false impression. no one here is thumping the bible, period. don't put words in our mouth and pretend we're something we're not, please.

It may not be possible to prove or disprove god but it is possible to prove that one can not know one. The very reason why the god claim is an unfalsifiable claim is the same reason this is true: in order for a god to exist it must have a excuse for basically all observational evidence pointing to the fact a god does not exist therefore people have claimed he is outside of normal reality, outside of physical reality, anything outside of a physical reality is untouchable and knowable, we can not observe god directely, indirectely, can not observe period.

we don't claim to know God, i at least just claim to know it is there. i already know that i don't meet your self-limiting standards of "proof." it is DEFINITELY an unfalsifiable claim. therefore, why do you claim to "know" that IT IS FALSE?

"I know you are but what am I!" Okay, science is not a religion, is does not believe in the supernatural, it places its belief in the natural(that would be the opposite of supernatural). And the far majority of the people on these boards and indeed people all around the world do not support me at all. And if you take just a little time to examine your tone on the majority of your posts, it would be quite clear that you are the one that "preachs to others how they don't know what they are talking about if they don't accept your belief system."

there is no such thing as the supernatural, period. God is not supernatural, it is very NATURAL. one might even limit God by saying God is nature! if we SEEM to be preaching, then you SEEM to be preaching as well! but you're not and KNOW that we are not. i don't proselytize, i teach, as do you us about science because that's what you "know." :P

this bears repeating:

Science is great for understanding the physical world, but I have not been impressed with what it offers me about the best part of my inner self. I don't have the slightest problem respecting both science and my inner skills. For me they never, not even once, have been in conflict.

Perhaps you just didn't like the answer science gave you.

perhaps you just didn't like the answer i gave you. :P

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

it is metaphysics. deeviant is making a point, though is conclusion is stated tacitly, as are his/her premises. hmm... i can percieve something invisible? how can that be? does not compute!

A point may have revealed itself in the subsequent discussion but it doesn't exists in the original post. There is a fine line between making a point and patronizing.

 

[Deeviant]

phoenixthoth, thank you for your reply and I do understand your position.

I would like to ask you a couple questions.

What do you think takes more courage to believe in: A benevolent god, looking after us with infinite wisdom and compassion, or what I believe in.

What concept is easier to swallow: Some sort of afterlife, or no afterlife.

What do you think is easier: To find truth, or to create truth?

I have not, will not and have never denied that a god could exist, but I have see no evidence that one does, and I don't believe anyone has. Don't get my wrong, I'd like to believe in a god as much as the next person, I would say its part of the nature of humans, but something inside of me also thirsts to find truth, to clearly define reality, to understand our universe as it is, not as we think it should be.

 

[phoenixthoth]

i agree that deeviant has less than half the respect for the "God position" than i have for his "anti-God position." i agree that he/she was very patronizing. but rather than try to banish his arguments, which were crystal clear to me, i played along and i didn't let myself get offended. please don't be offended. to be honest, it takes a lot of courage to
1. hide from the truth
2. express your opinion

edit: to be frank, i wrote this before knowing what deeviant wrote. or maybe i did know because time is nonlinear. i firmly believe that science is right about that one.

i will write a new post to fully confront deeviant's writings.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
phoenixthoth, thank you for your reply and I do understand your position.

read proverbs 3:5. we aknowledge each other, then. i respect your postion, as well.

I would like to ask you a couple questions.

you bet. I'm here only for the open minded people on this planet. well, that's kind of a lie... but it works better when you ask the questions you need to ask and say what you need to say. i do the same but you don't write your answers to my questions. that's ok, ok? ;P i just want you to ask yourself those questions. it's not that i need to know the answers, you do because, to be frank, your a tad bit more ignorant than i am on certain subjects. i recognize that you know far more about science than i do. how would you feel if, knowing how little i know, i attacked science? would you think i even have a right to state my igonrant opinions? why or why not? there are no right or wrong answers here.

What do you think takes more courage to believe in: A benevolent god, looking after us with infinite wisdom and compassion, or what I believe in.

it takes more courage to have ignorance. ignorance is bliss. however, knowledge is also bliss. one fears the unknown. having said that, have have very little fear of the unknown. i don't fear science, for example. do you fear God? should you? why or why not? are you being honest with yourself? why or why not?

What concept is easier to swallow: Some sort of afterlife, or no afterlife.

i can't tell you what is easier for everyone. but it is easier to know that one day i will have a final moment in time. there is no after that. but having said that, to use our primitive language, "after" that, there will still be "life." if you have more questions on what "after" is like, go ahead and ask me and i'll give it my best shot though i am by no means an expert, just like a white belt in karate, a white belt in knowledge. i have begun, that is all. if you don't have even a white belt on, then you're not even trying to learn. deeviant, i think you have a white belt on, too. and that's not some faked humility. i know what i know but i also know that i don't know nor understand the vast majority of what's out there. nor would i want to. not yet, anyway. that would be incredibly boring! :P

What do you think is easier: To find truth, or to create truth?

that is an extremely difficult and good question. i can just tell you what is true for myself. for me, it is harder to create truth. in fact, that is impossible for me. to find truth is quite easy for me at this point because i have what i call universal sight. i can see pi for what it really is. do i understand what the hell I'm staring at? hellz no (well, I'm kind of lying but i don't want to sound terribly insane right now) but i wouldn't want to. that would be incredibly boring! jesus wrote in the gnsotic gospel of thomas, which is the best gospel left out of the bible, that "i reveal my mysteries to those worthy of my mysteries." he forgot to mention that we are all worthy. we just have to look in the right places for truth and ask the right people the right questions and use discernment to decide if it is indeed wise or not. free will, remember?

I have not, will not and have never denied that a god could exist, but I have see no evidence that one does, and I don't believe anyone has. Don't get my wrong, I'd like to believe in a god as much as the next person, I would say its part of the nature of humans, but something inside of me also thirsts to find truth, to clearly define reality, to understand our universe as it is, not as we think it should be.

i believe everyone has evidence for God. God is all around us. it binds us. it creates life. it makes it grow. luminous beings we are, not this crude matter. ;P

seriously, though... don't want to sound too crazy... anyways, that's where you and i differ and your signiture at the bottom of all your posts is perfect right now. i suggest you read it again and see it in a new perspective. variety is the spice of life. do you think i'd enjoy it if everyone was the same as me? hellz no! i love arguing. i love being a devil's advocate and i love being a God's advocate. right now, I'm defending that which is impervious to attack, but i do it because i choose to do it. it doesn't need me to do it, and i don't feel the need to do it, but i honestly decided that it would be fun to spar with someone
1. worthy of me
2. i could defeat. (call me a coward, if you choose to, just call me)

but when two white belts spar, who wins is determined by raw talent and not but their knowledge of the martial art. it will be quite fun to see who will give in in the end of this. i would surrender to you by saying: we'll have to agree to disagree.

i now want to tell you something regarding your last sentence. i feared God. i was afraid to see it for what it really is. terribly, terribly, terribly, afraid! petrified, stupified, mesmozied, of God. i thought really crazy things, my mind raced to try to explain all this data my mind was getting. it didn't compute! I'm an atheist, damn it! i want to be an atheist! and i surrendered to God and let it inside; rather i realized that some scripture is true: it is inside you and outside you. seek the kingdom of God, and you're doing a good job of that right now, deeviant, and you will find it. if you don't seek it, you won't find it unless you're truly exceptional. if you do seek it with all of your raw talent and will, you will find it. but you must not fear the truth. that's all. you must surrender your fear, your fear of truth and of God, and you must unlearn what you have learned. then start fresh and look at what you've learned in a new light, with new sight, and see the world for what it really is, see God for what God really is. this can come to you in a large variety of ways, in ways that unfortunatly will not compute. they will not be "proof." you won't understand it, nor would you want to unless you're truly exceptional and willing to surrender everything. would you die to know the real truth? would you throw your entire will upon the prayer, "please God, let me see you in some form i can recognize!"? by hook or by crook, one day you will see it; i have faith in you.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i agree that deeviant has less than half the respect for the "God position" than i have for his "anti-God position." i agree that he/she was very patronizing. but rather than try to banish his arguments, which were crystal clear to me, i played along and i didn't let myself get offended. please don't be offended. to be honest, it takes a lot of courage to
1. hide from the truth
2. express your opinion

I guess I'm just a little worn down from so much participation lately from the likes of worthless contributors like Zero. Carry on.

 

[phoenixthoth]

we're mostly all here to learn something and that makes us all worthy, in my humble opinion. people don't always rub one the right way, but that's life, folks.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
You don't find it awfully convient that your methods for "knowing god" don't work on anything except for "knowing god"? In physchology, this is called a self-reinforcing delusion. Its nice that you seem to have a direct connection with god himself, you must feel quite empowered.

Convenient for whom? You keep insisting that I have to prove to you what I know. Why is that? Maybe you need to have others put a stamp of approval on what you believe you know, but in terms of my inner life at least, I don’t need it.

In any case, I never said I had a direct connection to God. Where did you get that? I have not made any claims about my knowledge of God. My objection is to your claims that no one knows or can know. How the hell do you know that? You can’t come to a philosophy site and state epistimological opinions without justifying them.

Originally posted by Deeviant No, I'm saying its completely impossible to know ANYTHING about god, and whenever I ask anybody to prove me wrong, I get a load of "you must look within yourself" bull. I want there to be a being of infinite wisdom and love looking after us but EVERY piece of observational evidence I have ran into in my life has suggested there is none.

Because you know nothing about God you assume no one knows. Because you know nothing of value inside, you assume no one knows. You must be awfully taken with yourself to make your knowledge the standard for all truth.

Originally posted by Deeviant It is a total contridiction in terms and people claiming to be an expert on something that is completely intangible, unknowable and 100% unproven, giving absolutely zero proof is driven by ego, not intellect. Your not the enlightened one here if you really think ego-driven thought processes are in any way superior to ideas of intellectual origin, backed by observational evidence.

.

What does my ego have to do with rejecting your arbitrary statements, and asking you to properly make your case? For example, your statement “It is a total contridiction in terms and people claiming to be an expert on something that is completely intangible” is far from established as true. I again challenge you to make the love I feel for my wife tangible. Make it observable, prove it exists empirically.

Who said anything about one way being “superior to another”? It is you, not me, who is claiming the superiority of a method over all else. I have merely suggested there is evidence supporting claims that one can know through other means than empiricism. How much research have you done about these other ways? I’d be willing to bet a substantial sum that your education is about as broad as an anorexic’s behind.

Originally posted by Deeviant You have the classic bible-thumper attitude, the "Its in the book, I believe it, and that's that" view, you just express it in a different way.

For your information, I am not religious in the slightest. I am still objecting to your arbitrary statements. What do you know about the history of the inner experience, and those who have spoken from that experience? Nothing! Yet it doesn’t stop you from tossing out opinions like you are well-informed.

Originally posted by Deeviant It may not be possible to prove or disprove god but it is possible to prove that one can not know one. The very reason why the god claim is an unfalsifiable claim is the same reason this is true: in order for a god to exist it must have a excuse for basically all observational evidence pointing to the fact a god does not exist therefore people have claimed he is outside of normal reality, outside of physical reality, anything outside of a physical reality is untouchable and knowable, we can not observe god directely, indirectely, can not observe period.

I can’t believe you think that twisted bit of reasoning is a “proof.” If you can prove God is unknowable, I would love to see a proper proof of that. All that mess amounts to is a collection of your favorite opinions.

Originally posted by Deeviant . . . if you take just a little time to examine your tone on the majority of your posts, it would be quite clear that you are the one that "preachs to others how they don't know what they are talking about if they don't accept your belief system."

My tone is impatience with your condescending, opinionated posts. I may have beliefs, but at least I feel obligated to defend them logically and with evidence, which is a lot more than you are inclined to do.

Originally posted by Deeviant Perhaps you just didn't like the answer science gave you.

I love the answers science gives, but the nonsense you’re throwing around isn’t science. It is nothing more than physicalistic propaganda cloaked in the name of science. If I hadn’t seen so much of that here, guys who pop into preach materialism like it’s science, then maybe I wouldn’t feel so intolerant of the way you are talking.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

My tone is impatience with your condescending, opinionated posts. I may have beliefs, but at least I feel obligated to defend them logically and with evidence, which is a lot more than you are inclined to do.

That is by far the most hypocritcal statement I have ever ran across on these boards.

You offer no evidence, you have no position to defend(what is your position? I doubt you can even define it clearly)

There is no logic in your claims of "inner self" that is the nature of the entire concept of "inner self."

If you feel "obigated to defend(your ideas) logically and with evidence," why don't you do so?

 

[phoenixthoth]

les is, i think, claiming that empericism is not a perfect tool to learn the truth and that there are other ways that one can have in addition to empericism that also work. i believe einstein used the "other tools" to come up with his ideas on relativity and when did anyone take him seriously? when he was proved correct by the standards of science. since God is an unfalsifiable claim, your emperical tools are USELESS.

edit: i think the other tools are also imperfect, don't get me wrong. the best way to go is to combine every single thing into one.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
That is by far the most hypocritcal statement I have ever ran across on these boards.

You offer no evidence, you have no position to defend(what is your position? I doubt you can even define it clearly)

There is no logic in your claims of "inner self" that is the nature of the entire concept of "inner self."

If you feel "obigated to defend(your ideas) logically and with evidence," why don't you do so?

In case you've forgotten, I gave you (in another thread) a rather lengthy (for a thread anyway) essay on the history of reported successes with inner experience practices. Do I have to repeat that every thread you and I talk in?

However, in this thread I am not the one making claims, it is you, so what is it I am required to prove? You claim one cannot know God, and you can actually prove that one cannot know God. My challenge is centered on that. Make your case please.

Part of the problem is what you seem to think constitutes proper logic. For instance, your statement "There is no logic in your claims of 'inner self' that is the nature of the entire concept of 'inner self.'" is an example of how virtually every one of your arguments go. Tell me, how exactly is that a legitimate refutation?