Is Memory the Key to Disproving the Existence of God?

[Squeeze]

I believe you called that other fellow a "moron".

and no one deserves name calling...

it is in fact a sign that the person cannot hold a conversation at an intelligent level, which is why intelligent people should refrain from using such words and tactics.

I am not going to argue with you any more about memory and such. one of us is not getting it, so rather than continue with this, I think it will be more productive to just let it be and each consider ourselves to be correct.

let the others decided how they may.

Mod,

You are such a egotist. I only called you a "name", go review the past posts. I asked you to look up references regarding time, rather than do that and educate youself you rant on on how I'm wrong. I gave examples where memory is not recalling past expereinces, rather than admit your wrong you rant on about being right with no arguments as to why.

So mod run away and lick your wounds...There is no all powerful god but only the nature of eternal matter. Matter need not behave in other universe as it does in our universe, but matter is all powerful.

 

[gizzybeans]

You are the most ignorant jackass I've ever run into! You don't even know what time is!

If a computer reads a cdrom is it recalling a past experience or sensing information? If the machine reads its memory to excute a program is it recalling a past experience or sensing information?

Does god have information? To be all knowing I would think that it would be necessary to have information! The information must be represented in some way and that representation is a form of memory. Your ignorance of what memory is really trying my patience. You're so backward that you think memory is recalling past experiences!

To get back to your lame explanation of time and god...You idiot time is cause and effect! Get it? Cause and effect! If god senses information that is a CAUSE and EFFECT, therefore TIME! Why do you think time is relative? Why do you think Einstein’s theory of relativity predicted relative time? You think time is a thread, or spatial dimension, its neither! Do a search on google and READ WHY CLOCKS SLOW DOWN DUE TO VELOCITY AND GRAVITY. Oh you might have to review some basic TRIGONOMETERY!

gizzybeans go BACK TO SCHOOL!

Jeez, don't get your panties in a bunch. Let's calm down Squeeze.

First off, my "lame" explanation of time and God is a explanation that has been used for thousands of years. It is standard Philosophy of Religion 101. Please, do some reading, I'm not saying anything new or revolutionary. I'm just repeating old facts, old facts that have long ago settled little problems like the one you have claimed to have divised yourself. Do you really think no one has pondered over this matter before? It has been debated hundreds of times, each time the debate has concluded that your disproof is flawed. You speak of time as relative, but really does that have any relevance on what I said? When the clock slows down, it is still changing, therefore time is still being measured, because it is measured as the change from one instance to the next. From Webster Unabridged Dictionary: time - "the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present ,or future." If the universe's temperature would suddenly drop from 3K to 0K today, time would stop. Why? Because we are no longer changing, we are freezing to death (in this example). I have pointed out the flaws of your proof to you, so have the others on this board. It is up to you to consider them or to continue to insult people ignorantly and to make yourself seem more foolish with each reply.

Also, memory can be defined many ways. Recalling past experiences is just one of them. That aside, it doesn't even matter if we are talking about the same memory or not. I think you have to clearly define that there is going to be a difference between how a computer stores "memory" and the "memory" of God if such a thing exists. But to have memory, I think that would mean God would have to be a changing being. To gain memory, one must change. But God cannot change, that is a fundamental property of God. Therefore, I don't think you can have a God that has "memory" as we have come to know it, unless he has had from eternity the same information stored forever. I explained how this is possible. Please, just ignore it, and continue to believe that it isn't possible.

There is a concept in Philosophy of Religion that you need to understand. If particular definition of God doesn't work, then it takes but a little redefinition and it will now work. Your proof does not work for all cases of God. The image of God can be redefined slightly and that slight redefinition renders your proof invalid.

By the way, I don't believe in God either, but your disproof of God just won't cut it, I'm sorry.

 

[gizzybeans]

is there any reason this "authority" needs to spam this website with comments promoting his theory?

yeah i know, there are like 10 other threads about this theory.

 

[Squeeze]

Jeez, don't get your panties in a bunch. Let's calm down Squeeze.

First off, my "lame" explanation of time and God is a explanation that has been used for thousands of years. It is standard Philosophy of Religion 101. Please, do some reading, I'm not saying anything new or revolutionary. I'm just repeating old facts, old facts that have long ago settled little problems like the one you have claimed to have divised yourself. Do you really think no one has pondered over this matter before? It has been debated hundreds of times, each time the debate has concluded that your disproof is flawed. You speak of time as relative, but really does that have any relevance on what I said? When the clock slows down, it is still changing, therefore time is still being measured, because it is measured as the change from one instance to the next. From Webster Unabridged Dictionary: time - "the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present ,or future." If the universe's temperature would suddenly drop from 3K to 0K today, time would stop. Why? Because we are no longer changing, we are freezing to death (in this example). I have pointed out the flaws of your proof to you, so have the others on this board. It is up to you to consider them or to continue to insult people ignorantly and to make yourself seem more foolish with each reply.

Your arguments of change and god being excluded from changed are fundamentally wrong. If god necessitates a will it is causing a change. Because god is an element in the reaction it is experiencing time. The reason for the reference to relativity was to clarify what time is, which is cause and effect. It doesn't matter if god is the cause; it is still a part of cause and effect and therefore experiences time.

Also, memory can be defined many ways. Recalling past experiences is just one of them. That aside, it doesn't even matter if we are talking about the same memory or not. I think you have to clearly define that there is going to be a difference between how a computer stores "memory" and the "memory" of God if such a thing exists. But to have memory, I think that would mean God would have to be a changing being. To gain memory, one must change. But God cannot change, that is a fundamental property of God. Therefore, I don't think you can have a God that has "memory" as we have come to know it, unless he has had from eternity the same information stored forever. I explained how this is possible. Please, just ignore it, and continue to believe that it isn't possible.

The mechanism of how information is stored is not the issue but that there must be some scheme and that scheme is not a creation by god. Because god requires the functionality of memory to be god it is therefore a product of systems whose nature create god.

There is a concept in Philosophy of Religion that you need to understand. If particular definition of God doesn't work, then it takes but a little redefinition and it will now work. Your proof does not work for all cases of God. The image of God can be redefined slightly and that slight redefinition renders your proof invalid.

Go ahead and try...

 

[modmans2ndcoming]

hey squeeze...I believe Gizzybeans did my work for me...he has just proven that you called some one other than me a name.

I am not licking any wounds...IU am stating a fact that I will not agree with you and you will not agree with me, neither of us will concede to the other, so I am done arguing and reading to your abusive, condensing words. I tried to end this politely once. so again, I am done with you. I do not care if you are done with me or not. others who read the thread can decide for themselves.

 

[SoumyaBanerjee]

i also believe that there is no such thing named god.it is also can be proved in various way.

 

[Jin314159]

The proof that there is no god:


The assumptions of god:

1. It has a personality or consciousness.
2. It is all-powerful and all knowing.
3. It controls all reality including the laws of matter or nature.
4. It has always existed.

You're personifying god too much. What if you break God down to this most fundamental components, namely intelligence and energy?

 

[Lord Flasheart]

Squeeze, have you ever had an imaginary friend? If you didn't, now you do.

I like to think of Humanity as a nuclear family. A single child represents the religious folk, and the parents represent the scientific community. (mother) The child wets his bed, and his parents discovers the stain the next morning.

"Who wet the bed?" she asks. The child, naive and desperate for an explanation, blames it on his newly created imaginary friend, God. This created entity is created by man, and questioned by man.

Who broke the china?
God.

Who is eating the pastries?
God is.

And a bit more complicated/modern...

Who created man?
God did.

What created the universe?
God!

He is really just a phantasm created by man to explain everything that humanity can't explain. The child doesn't know, so he makes it up. The parents are striving for an explanation. They know the child lies when he utilizes his imaginary friend. Therefore, they try to teach the child to grow up.

Perhaps the religious people are only creating God because they haven't met anyone else besides ourselves yet. If we met different entities from far away, what would happen?

Would the child no longer need an imaginary friend in the presence of other people?

Combust away.

 

[Squeeze]

You're personifying god too much. What if you break God down to this most fundamental components, namely intelligence and energy?

That's doesn't change anything, intelligence is an adaptive system. I was reluctant to go down the road of defining intelligence because technology hasn't reproduced it to a human level yet. All the evidence proves that the human brain's neural connections are the basis of our intelligence and emotions. Many then argue the ghost in the machine, you can then argue about animal intelligence, but the Hindus will argue that animals have souls too. Others who accept the neural basis of human intelligence then argue something about quantum consciousness. So I am sticking to the parts or functions that are clearly defined and measurable.

To make a long story short; intelligence requires information and information must be represented with some kind of structure, the more complex the information the more elements required to represent it.

 

[TENYEARS]

Well squeeze 1 for 4 isn't bad.

 

[felipefas]

Are you all trying to play God?. The meaning of God is what is in question. Not the definition. God as an idea was created to represent the creator of things we cannot understand. The moment we learn how anything works, it is not an event made by God anymore but the result of some force that must be created by God. In other words, God by definition is the creator of anything we are too ignorant to know yet. Trying to explaing God or attribute any characteristics (!memory!, PLEASE) is putting him in a level with us or below us. He automatically stops being God. If you would ever want to get an insight on God. Try a human psychology course.

 

[TsunamiJoe]

lord your right and that's my belief but I am going to pretend there was a god and considering i went through 12 yrs of private education learning about the christian god I am also going to assume squeeze is takling about that one

one of the posts touched on the principle that god is outside the universe - which is true, and in every religion one thing it clearly states is that god doesn't live in the physical realm but in the "metaphysical" realm

secondly god doesn't need energy for he doesn't live in the physical realm thus meaning every reason why a human persay needs energy is irrelevant to god

thirdly squeeze your talking as if god is a hard drive - which he is not I am going to relate god to a very rich person - the person wants a car he gets it why you ask? because he can. god wants to create the universe he does why you ask? because he can. its nothing to do with knowlage of god - think of god as being something with the right answers- not because god has tried and failed but because this god is required for excistance to be applicable

and squeese to me it sounds like your some small child who has no religous education or knowlage of any sort and your trying to disproove god - well I am going to end this thing with saying the classical term of without a god where did everything come from? youll say the big bang but i say whered the big bang come from? youll say tons of various differint answers of which i do not wish to deplore at the moment but where did those come from? an all powerful god(s) is the only way to proove any of it. Why? because we weren't there and we don't know who was and we didnt cause it and we can't recreate it yet.

additionally i can probably guess your going to say something like oh yah well then where did god come from? well like i said the physical world depends on a history of matter, where as the "metaphysical" world does not that's why its "meta" because all physical rules are inversed or inapplicable

 

[Deca-of-CD]

Ehh..

"If God created the world, where was He before Creation?...Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end."
-Mahapurana

(I probably spelled the name wrong, though.. I had to paraphrase since a friend is borrowing my hyperspace book..)

Okay.. To start: TsunamiJoe...PLEASE, learn how to type correctly..

"well I am going to end this thing with saying the classical term of without a god where did everything come from? youll say the big bang but i say whered the big bang come from? youll say tons of various differint answers of which i do not wish to deplore at the moment but where did those come from? an all powerful god(s) is the only way to proove any of it. Why? because we weren't there and we don't know who was and we didnt cause it and we can't recreate it yet."

I am going to take this apart, step by step..so you don't miss anything..

"Well, I'm going to end this thing by saying the Classical term of 'without a God, where did everything come from?'"

That just leaves yourself wide open for someone to say "Where did said God come from? Surely, (s)he could not have just..been here, or there--in the metaphysical plane--, without something else being here..."

For God to exist, there has to be Humans to exist to create God in their minds--into what they percieve..

"You'll say the big bang, but I say where'd the big bang come from? You'll say tons of various different answers of which I do not wish to explore at the moment, but where did these come from?"

Personally, as someone who likes physics, I think the Big Bang theory needs some work... Still, as I said a few lines up.. You said 'where did these come from?' .. Assuming you mean the answers, they, again, are what Humans percieve.. Not all humans percieve them, thus this thread is here..

"An all powerful God(s) is the only way to prove any of it. Why? Because we weren't there and we don't know who was and we didn't cause it and we can't recreate it yet."

Why...why must there be some almighty entity that can simply create such a complex universe in '6 days'.. And don't anyone even ****ing think of using that bull**** "Oh, well.. A 'day' way back then could have been thousands of years..".. So if you just had that thought, bash your skull in with a hammer.. The point is, there is no God.. The universe is a self-consistent being in itself, constantly changing and forming new materials that create planetary objects and the like..

And... That book you Christians read..the Bible... Is nothing but a fictitional piece of literature that people read for moral, ethical, etc purposes.. In fact, if you read the Bible as literal (as many people I know do--who happen to be narrow-minded fools), you literally are a ****ing idiot.. The Bible is just a story book..a compilation of numerous stories revolving around one man, whom I believe existed.. as a Rabbi--but certainly no Messiah. Because there is no God..

 

[felipefas]

Deca of CD those are very harsh words to state a point that cannot be proved. I'm I mistaken or you believe in causality? God does not control fate but men control fate. In which case God is mostly (as it has been with the Gods of every other culture) a resort to our innerselves insecurities. At least once in your life you have been in a position where you wish your life wasn't completely in your hands but in the hands of some higher force that may feel pity in you. Before trying to take new found knowledge which is still being studied (big ban) and assume that it is the answer to thousands of years of mental evolution, try to understand our real knowledge of God. The idea of God didn't just happen to come about in the times of Moses or in the time of Jesus Christ, or in the time of Mohammed or in the times of the Mayas and Aztecas or American Indians...blahh...blahh...blahh. Before laws there was religion. The ten comandments may seem trivial on todays standards but it wasn't quite so back then. Killing somebody during a fight over market prices may have been seen as routine. For the higher authorities to wish to have sex with any woman no matter her civil status was probably painful but an every day problem. Ten commandments gave a written law that allowed society to evolve in a healthy way under the watchful eyes of an unknown force bigger than you.

Today, technology has an explanation for most things we used to value as deities. Including the beginning of this universe and many others we don't even know. We can now incorrectly assume that because we understand how things work, we don't need anymore of a God figure. If we can clone...are we Gods ourselves? If we know as much as God does...then where is he? Maybe so if you take in consideration that the individual is vulnerable without society. Leave a modern man in the middle of a deserted island all by himself and he will inevitably die because he is not independent anymore. He is subject to the Chinese or Italian (depending on your wealth) to dress. To the Indian for its rice and to the educated class for his health problems. If the conscept of society has replaced the concept of God then this may be a healthy solution to this discussion. In which case, the only way we can survive phase I (as per Dr. Kiku's book on the Theory of Hyperspace) is to have society follow all those rules that appear in that book (as you say) some christians read called the Bible. Or read the Koran or the Tao or any other religion oriented book out there. They will all agree on the same thing. We need of a certain order which must be bigger than ourselves to keep track on society. Don't get so caught up on the wording. There is much more about it that meets the eye

 

[Deca-of-CD]

"Before trying to take new found knowledge which is still being studied (big bang) and assume that it is the answer to thousands of years of mental evolution, try to understand our real knowledge of God."

I did not say, nor insinuate, that I thought the big bang is right or the correct thing to think... I said the opposite, actually..

But you expect me to believe that some entity was just sitting around on a metaphysical plane and decided to create a universe in the phyiscal?... How is it that said entity is even in existence in the first place? How is it that this entity is in the metaphysical plane instead of the physical, yet he can control both? ... And that is not the main reason I berate and bash religion...

The main reason is that most religions command you to not question..to not wonder... SImply to just blindly follow..just as a cult.. It seems quite odd that many people who are seemingly smart do not want to 'waste their time on petty things such as why we are here', yet spend all of their time on wanting to bang their secretary at work... I don't know why that analogy came out, it's just what I typed v.v

 

[Imparcticle]

"If God created the world, where was He before Creation?...Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end."
-Mahapurana

Hm, if time is without beginning or end, then it cannot be "uncreated". Apparently, this Mahapurana fellow is not familiar with what time is, and existentialist philosophy. Anyway, it is impossible for there to be nonexistence in the first place. If there was such a thing as non existence, then nonexistence would have to exist, therefore contradicting the meaning of nonexistence.

The universe is a self-consistent being in itself, constantly changing and forming new materials that create planetary objects and the like..

You are asserting that the universe is alive? If the universe could have always been, then what's to stop God from always being?

That book you Christians read..the Bible... Is nothing but a fictitional piece of literature that people read for moral, ethical, etc purpose

I suggest you get your facts straight. There have been multiple instances where historians have admitted that the historical references made in the bible are infact, true. That is, consistent with the history books. There have been quite a few documentaries concerning this on the History Channel. Though I could not find
exactly what I was looking for on the History Channel website ( ironically, I found an essay concerning the history of biblical archeaology), I found another site:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-arch1.html

Note the author is a PhD archaologist. I believe his opinion must have some weight (as he has studied to the highest degree).

In fact, if you read the Bible as literal (as many people I know do--who happen to be narrow-minded fools),

Please don't generalize. Some people do take some parts a little too literally(so literally, I wonder if there is any common sense left in this world...). The book of revelation for example recites Armegeddon (sp?). The whole book is entirely symbolic; to understand the symbolism, knowledge of ancient history, and thorough knowledge of the bible is extremely helpful.
While others do not take it literally. Almost every Christian I know do not take it literally because they are well educated.

whom I believe existed.. as a Rabbi--but certainly no Messiah.

Why do you believe this? A messiah, by the way, does not neccesarily have to have some sort of paranormal power. A messiah by definition is a "liberator, a savior". Someone who does save many people/animals can indeed be considered a messiah of sorts.

Because there is no God

To restate, according to your logic: "whom I believe existed...as a [religious leader]--but certainly no [liberator]. Because there is no God..."
There have been many great leaders who have saved his/her people in history. Because by definition, a liberator (which is anologous with "messiah") is (this definiton is actually for the root word, liberate) "To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control." Take Hitler. He oppressed the Jews who resided in the premises of Germany. Then, with the help of the U.S. Americans, the Jews were freed. The U.S. Americans where the liberators; the messiah.
When analyzed this way, your last statement "Because there is no God" is irrelavant to your aforementined statements.

 

[Imparcticle]

I did not say, nor insinuate, that I thought the big bang is right or the correct thing to think... I said the opposite, actually..

That it is incorrect??

But you expect me to believe that some entity was just sitting around on a metaphysical plane and decided to create a universe in the phyiscal?... How is it that said entity is even in existence in the first place?

There is no PHYSICAL evidence to prove it otherwise. Unless you would like to present some?

How is it that this entity is in the metaphysical plane instead of the physical, yet he can control both? ... And that is not the main reason I berate and bash religion...

Please define what "metaphyscal" is and "physical" is in your argument (so we may interpret it in full context. I am not referring to a dictionary definition)

The main reason is that most religions command you to not question..to not wonder... SImply to just blindly follow..just as a cult..

Yes some do and some don't. Be more specific. It is logical to disagree with a religion that does not allow any inquiry concerning the specific branch of religion's beliefs. Take Jehovah's Witnesses for example. They research everything that constitutes their religious beliefs by applying science and history. They question all their beliefs.

It seems quite odd that many people who are seemingly smart do not want to 'waste their time on petty things such as why we are here',

Why is it a waste of time to contemplate our reason for being here? It is a perfectly logical contemplation.

yet spend all of their time on wanting to bang their secretary at work... I don't know why that analogy came out, it's just what I typed v

What do you mean by "bang their secretary at work"?

 

[Deca-of-CD]

Mahapurana is a book, I think...

And what of the thousands of Jews in Egypt as slaves.. There is no recording in history of Jews ever being slaves in Egypt..

In fact.. There are several instances in history in which are only stated in the bible! ..

And, the many unknown writers of the bible can just as easily take some event that actually happened and incorporate it into their writings..

Just as Dean Koontz did in the book Lightning.. One of the characters .. ends to Britain in the 1940's and tells British Prime Minister (forgot his name) to bomb Berlin at..certain points... (I typed it like so... so that if anyone reading, or wanting to read, the book won't have it ruined... If you want exactly how it happens and all, PM me, or ask me on IRC..Imparcticle )

And I just got caught up again in IRC.. So I forgot what else I was going to say...

 

[Deca-of-CD]

Damn, you posted a second time?... Bah, now I have to reply to that...

Please define what "metaphyscal" is and "physical" is in your argument (so we may interpret it in full context. I am not referring to a dictionary definition)

I am...

What do you mean by "bang their secretary at work"?

..I was referring to the rich, businessmen type religious people...

 

[felipefas]

"But you expect me to believe that some entity was just sitting around on a metaphysical plane and decided to create a universe in the phyiscal?... How is it that said entity is even in existence in the first place? How is it that this entity is in the metaphysical plane instead of the physical, yet he can control both? ... And that is not the main reason I berate and bash religion..."

I understand what you mean. However, there is an example that may help my point of view. A cell. A human cell standing alone is quite a living thing. It eats, it defecates, it breaths and makes energy and reconstitutes itself. It duplicates. You could argue that the God for this cell is a Stem cell (the first original cell where every other one came from). However, if you looked at the cells as a group and realize that they are part of something bigger (a liver). Now the cell itself or the stem cell have a different meaning and the sum of all together is the real meaning of their existence. You could still argue that the liver is only part of the digestive system and itself is of no use but the fact that is part of something bigger makes us its God (I hope is not confusing). If you believe God to be an entity (like an individual), then you are expecting to find God within the cells of the body. Just think that you are a finger of God and Imparticle is a hair. As individuals we are let's say disposable. However, as a whole we create a much bigger entity in which the idea of God is better fitted. I think that when Jesus says that he is the son of God and that we are his brothers, he is also saying that we are as sons or daughters of God as much as he was. We all (in another plane) form part of this God. Therefore, he is still much bigger than us to understand. If we weren't around to create an idea of God, would he still exist?

 

[Deca-of-CD]

I just woke up, so the majority of your post makes no sense...

If we weren't around to create an idea of God, would he still exist?

Depends on what you would call existence... Even if something is not thought of, thought up, or used in some way...it can still exist... Unless, you mean, is the only reason we have a God and religion is because of the human's imagination and need to have some "fool-proof" system in which nothing ever goes wrong and that when you die, to go to a magical place of happiness..

 

[felipefas]

Yes and no. God is created by us but does not exist only in the imagination as a fool proof technique. The moment you are born you are adding to that energy complex we call God. So (again, it is only my opinion) You wouldn't think of God as an individual or something made up but something that will exist without you however, you add to it in a positive or negative way.

You know how a two dimensional person, if lifted into a three dimensional plane, would see different slices of the person as it's coming up? That person wouldn't see a being as a whole but as different slices which he envisions as individual entities. For example: by the feet he would see two slices. By the hip he would see a large slice. By the arms he would see three different slices, and so on. In our dimension, we would only see our individual selfs without assuming that all those individuals in another dimension might be part of a whole being. We I think in those lines, the idea of God is more meaninful than saying: We make it up

 

[Deca-of-CD]

You mean to say as.. The universe is God?

 

[felipefas]

You mean to say as.. The universe is God?

yes but in a different plane. Or, the universe makes up God

 

[Deca-of-CD]

So.. you mean that God is not a single entity, but is everything that is... is 'God'... I think I just confused myself with my own words...

 

[shadowman]

God does not need a memory. becuase we are human matter, we need this. by saying god needs a memory, you are putting God in the same boat as us. However, God is different because God is NOT human. God is a spirit. He has no human atribute. Since He has no human atribute, how can you limit Him as we are limited? How can you limit a spirit at all? It is impossible because the Bible quotes Him as being..." separated from this world", therefore not limiting Himself to anything. God however, can be limited. He can limit himself only by himself. This is why he chooses not to sin. he could, but he does not want to. sorry, but if they could not have proven god wrong in the last two thousand years, i don't think you have much of a shot either... If you want to know more about my God feel free to e-mail me and I will tell you how you can come to know Him.

 

[Deca-of-CD]

Why the hell would I want to 'know' some fictitional character from -your- religion, which I am guessing is Christianity...

I'm going with Felipefas, in a way... Humans percieve the universe as God--or, they concieve the idea of God because they can not understand, or do not attempt to understand, anything of the universe...

 

[TENYEARS]

Why the hell would I want to 'know' some fictitional character from -your- religion, which I am guessing is Christianity...

I'm going with Felipefas, in a way... Humans percieve the universe as God--or, they concieve the idea of God because they can not understand, or do not attempt to understand, anything of the universe...

Could it be the opposite?

 

[felipefas]

We all seem to think differently about God no matter what. Shadowman sees God as an individual somewhere out there all-knowing, all-seeing.

I can't understand what ten-years mean by the opposite. You mean to say that God perceive us?

"o.. you mean that God is not a single entity, but is everything that is... is 'God'... I think I just confused myself with my own words..."

I think that's closer to what I'm referring to. It shouldn't take away from the idea that God does exist. Just not as an individual but as a collection of the energy that exists in all the universe of which we form part. I guess whitout proof there is not much that can be said. However, the picture seems to fit better everyone beliefs on God. We posses control over our actions, however, they are regulated by this much bigger force. Every time we do something good for others it reflects back on us. Not only materially but energetically. Look at the Dalai Lama, a good person that inspires only happiness and goodness. And every time we do something bad to others, it haunts our consciousness (there is a thread going on conciousness and weather it exists in other planes we don't know about), and our health. We've got plenty of examples of those.

 

[Hagie190]

No disrespect intended but people have been proving and disproving the existence of god since the time of Isaac Newton so what your doing is nothing new.