Is Memory the Key to Disproving the Existence of God?

[Deca-of-CD]

What does Moses, the Middle East, and Nazis have in common?

And I was in church a few weeks ago (Note: forced to go O_O damnit..) and the dude was ranting about other religions being wrong, and that their followers are going to quote, "burn in HELLLL!", ending in a high pitch rush of anger that is common for Baptist preachers.. I was sitting there, already bored and unwaivered, and thought "Holy ****ing ****.. This guy is such a bigot, he doesn't even know anything about the other religions..." .. meh, my point is.. Too many people make up their mind BEFORE they hear the argument.. Just like liberals and conservatives--those ****ing pricks.. Which is kind of the case through out this whole thread.. And don't call me a hypocrite saying "Well, you seem to have made up your mind before you heard the blahblah" .. .Actually, I have enough religious (mainly Christian) friends whom have attempted, numerous and unsuccessful I might add, to 'convert me to Christianity'.. So I've pretty much heard all I'll ever want to hear about Christianity..

 

[TsunamiJoe]

*sigh* nazism wasnt a religion and you sound like everyone else on the planet who doesn't actually know what nazism truly was - even i dont, but I've vaguely got it down to purification, which is everyones goal...i mean your greatest nazi example didnt do a great job with it...but no one pays attention to that...also:

moses?? christ and god are all in the same religion base...

and the middle east??

i think you need to turn cnn abc nbc cbs OFF and realize the media has gone to the crapper and doesn't actually show reality

 

[n0n]

truely the best belief is believe what you want. for it ensures survival within your being of 'understand', what really confuses me is why is understanding looked at as bad. like, its good in this area but if you understand this, no that won't work, example: good to understand god, bad to understand science (note: to me science is great). What does it mean to understand god, and what's the difference in understanding science. both look for absolute trueth, both blerr beyond all comprehension in explaining what is the true universe at hand.

 

[Entropy]

Funny if you actually read the Bible you'd know that going with you feeling and trusting you "heart" is considered foolish. The Bible says the heart can be wicked, important decision should be made from what you know and not what you feel. The Bible actually incourages you to increase your knowledge and understanding. Believing isn't about some fuzzy feeling you have inside you, its about knowledge.

No offense to anyone who is deeply religous but religon is what restrains man from the peaceful ideals of science one such case is so impervious to outside beliefs that they teach their own children to hate anyone who doesn't believe in something that does not exsist. (ala, christ, god, moses/middle east/ NAZIs(booo))

What about Stalin, Lenin or Mao? Absence of religion really made those men "peaceful". You know Athesist can be just as impervious to religion as religous people are to other religions.

 

[phreak]

What about Stalin, Lenin or Mao? Absence of religion really made those men "peaceful". You know Athesist can be just as impervious to religion as religous people are to other religions.

Yes, but in today's world, religion seems to be the cause of many problems.

Atheism hasn't been the cause of problems for quite a long time.

[This conversation seems to be going toward the direction of an argument rather than a discussion. Try to steer it the other direction, because good rarely comes from an argument]

 

[zhaggy]

it depends on how you wish to look at God's existence...
either as a know-it-all,or as a catalyst,
who brings about change from one moment to another.
thus in theory creating new universes in different dimensions

 

[TsunamiJoe]

thas a good point very few wars have began not based on religion, though WW1 wasnt on religion and still big but the crusafdes on theotherhand i think were worse, meybe?

 

[n0n]

god is this: a wise man once said to be wise is to know you know nothing, and I shall add this, pun intended. get it?

What is nothing? Nothing is chaos, what does all of pi explain?, an unperfect circle for it cannot reach a whole. what is nothing to stop logic? nothing blocks pi from reaching a whole, a limit to something is nothing, and it can be as forcefull as the logic itself.
and so,
inf. n=1->
N = inf. distance & inf. closeness (or Time and Nothing)
0 = inf. # of N note: inf. means any number
N = (0*10^n) (0/10^n) note: 0 represents a # of N
nothing = N0N
something = N0N/N0N and the reduction to the least common denominator and nothing
something within time = the continual providance of such an act/ repetition of the reduction in ever changing complexity to order (multi - fractals).

what is order to ever changeing complexity? is it a single fractal? but fractals cannot explain the universe within a whole, but it does explain our individual minds. the idea of multi-fractal can. but do not doubt the size of infinity, for as our universe will die it will become like eather a seed or like the randomness that causes the seed to grow. it will take an almost infinite amount of time but it will happen and existence will all occur again in some other way. for the infinitness of a multi-fractal would be so huge that our universe is at that point of infinite closenes, at this time.

The word of a N0N who truly understands N0N/g0d can only be as clear as the whole of N0N/g0d needs it to be. people who believe in things happen because of some devine intervention are crazy, things happen because their is a logical process for things to happen, and if you want to apply some super power to it go for it, but that idea limits the human creativity, and thierfor limits your understanding of N0N/g0d, and is not consistant with the logic of N0N/g0d.

live in peace with all, do not war with anyone over things that do not need war over, and that should be the way of it always. Do not war over missunderstanding, war over the fact that one chooses not to understand. But do not fight, discuss as a war of intellectual blending to find both your answers as a correctness, and peace will exist. This is really hard for humans but it must be done or the conflict will rise to a point of no return and we could very well end our own being just from one button (lol humanity is so lame that we have a selfdestruct button, well symbolically anyways)

 

[Entropy]

thas a good point very few wars have began not based on religion, though WW1 wasnt on religion and still big but the crusafdes on theotherhand i think were worse, meybe?

Actually most wars are fought for personal reasons and then people create religious excuses for it. But its also the same is for scientific theories which have also been used to create excuses for horrible things, like social-darwinism.

And your crazy if you think the crusades could even compare to WW1. With the invention of machine guns and mass production aloud armies to be created far faster, meaning it was easier to get more soldiers which inturn lead to more massacars. Not to mention also the development of chemical warfare.

 

[TsunamiJoe]

i meant on deathscale *sigh* there were like 10 some odd crusades wasnt there? HUGE BATTLES i believe it to be larger then ww1 in my opinion

 

[Deca-of-CD]

Death scale?.. (since i don't know about WWI's counts, i will use WWII's)

Russians: Something like, 450,000
Allies: ~400,000
Nazi-Germans: Like.. +20some million
Holocaust Victims: ~9mil
Japan (fighting and a-bombs): Haven't a clue, but I'm guessing higher than 100k..

And I thought there was like... 14 Crusades... .. . .and what was the point of the Crusades?

And Entropy, it's spelled massacre ^_^

 

[TsunamiJoe]

well not to get seriously off topic I am going to tie in the answer to your question with this topic

the crusades as it were i believe was christianity vs. muslims or sommit out in the middle east wasnt it? but if you were a god and such and loved your creation would you protect them or sommit?

 

[yesicanread]

Oh. I got to say something.

You use the circle. I do as well. It is fitting I reply.

1.) The planar congruent triangle is made up of 3 points.
Point symmetry has 3 points.
Reason: given.

3.) The first point symmetry point is AB.
The second point, the centre, could be AA or BB.
The third last point could be AB.
Reason: given.

6.) The triangle made by 3A or 3B is a set of one symmetry point + the centre, and is a congruent triangle to the opposite symmetric point.
Reason: given.

7.) Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Format: (1 : the shape, size, and general makeup (as of something printed)).
A triangle is a shape. 2 triangles is 360 degrees. A circle is a shape. A circle is 360 degrees.
Reason. given.

8.) A format/shape/circle = radius action. One radius act does not = a circle format, you need many radius act(ion). One radius action = 180 degrees triangle shape when it causes a reaction via point symmetry.
Reason: given.

9.) Therefore. Congruent triangle = Plane=Circumference !

10.) ( Radius = Action ) < Congruent triangle = Plane=Circumference.

11.) Radius = Radius. So the Congruent triangle = Plane=Circumference existed! Pre-formatted.

12.) So the memory made by the radius/action man to create a reaction. Was already pre-formatted by the radius/action man.
Man = Man, Action = Action. Thought = thought. Existance = existence.
( Radius = Action ) < Congruent triangle = Plane=Circumference.

13.) If existence was before God. Congruent triangle = man = thought. How was the Man, God not in existence. With memory to create ? Answer: God is = to a man. Omnipotent/present, omnesient.

Have a nice day.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Points 1 - 6: Not very clear statement of geometry

Point 7: Dictionary definition

Points 8 - 13: Don't follow from above and constitute (a)private theory, and (b) religion.

 

[yesicanread]

Sorry ? I don't follow ?

Points 1 - 6: Not very clear statement of geometry

Point 7: Dictionary definition

Points 8 - 13: Don't follow from above and constitute (a)private theory, and (b) religion.

I'm sorry selfAdjoint. But I don't completely follow on how 8 - 13 doesn't constitute a complete logical thought that is correct in the order made.

If you would. Please, please show me the direct number in the numbers I listed. And, please, please, tell me how it is flawed.

Anybody who cares too. Look over each number in order and see if it makes sense, number by number. If you see a flaw. Please, please, tell me on this thread what that flaw. Specifically detailed, is.

Thank you.

 

[IronGeek]

This thread is silly. So are most theisms, imho, but why bother convincing anyone of it? I feel that the concept of "God" or "gods" are simply catch-all explanations for anything one cannot readily explain. If you think otherwise, that's cool.

 

[reilly]

Quite a long time ago David Hume, for all practical purposes, suggested that you can't prove anything. Godel did much the same thing -- roughly speaking, he came up with the formal version of, How high is up? To attempt to force "reality" into a particular mode by means of language is and will always be a fruitless endeavor. As far as nature is concerned, human language is not the voice of command, but rather the voice of description.

That being said, for those interested in such things, there is a fascinating book of a few years ago; Brain Science & The Biology of Belief: Why God Won't Go Away, by A. Newberg MD, Eugene D'Aquili , V. Rause. They suggest, on the basis of clinical work including brain scans, that we well might be hardwired to have the concept of God, ior, at least some of us.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[drumrboi]

I'm no authority on this subject but I just spent the last half hour or so reading an extremely informative article concerning this topic. The article can be found here: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1995/r&r9505a.htm?overture.com
This guys insight is unreal. Anyhow, enjoy.

 

[J.Troy]

Imparcticle wrote

"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)."
----------------------------------------------------------

The bible is in fact very loosley based on real people and events part myth part fable. Most of which has never been proven. I just took a look at the link you posted and its terrible. Many many claims with very little support.

There is no and i repeat zero extrabiblical evidence of Jesus.
If you think genisis happened i don't know what to tell you
Even the fabled exodus is in doubt.
I could go on but I think you get the point.

If you think the History channel has presented an accurate representation of biblical history you got another thing coming. I suggest you read into MODERN biblical scholarship and perhaps even take a look at the Jesus seminar.

 

[kekly]

It's true not all of the bible has been proven however nothing in it has been proven as false either.

 

[J.Troy]

It's true not all of the bible has been proven however nothing in it has been proven as false either.

How do you prove a negative claim? You cant.

Can someone prove that my almighty snarfwiddget doesn't exist? No.

 

[Olias]

How do you prove a negative claim? You cant.

Can someone prove that my almighty snarfwiddget doesn't exist? No.

One can ask quite simply:Do you believe that the Universe extends beyond our Physical Observational limit?.. if yes then there is no difference in stating that your 'snarfwiddget' more than likely exists there. If one searches for it within our observational limit "Observable Universe", then one can conclude that it exists in some conscious frame of your mind.

How does one convince me that it does 'NOT' exist when you have allready insinuated that it exists?..you think therefore it is!

 

[J.Troy]

One can ask quite simply:Do you believe that the Universe extends beyond our Physical Observational limit?..

The simple answer is I don't know. For me to say one way or the other is only speculation.

If one searches for it within our observational limit "Observable Universe", then one can conclude that it exists in some conscious frame of your mind.

How does one convince me that it does 'NOT' exist when you have allready insinuated that it exists?..you think therefore it is!

Point taken.
If you believe it is (regardless if its real or not) then it is.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think this is an important point, too, because things like God and the Devil have an influence on the quality of certain people's lives regardless of whether the entities exist in some physical quantity, or just our minds.

Things that exist as a human concept shared by millions still exist, and sometimes have a heavier influence on your current situation; in some cases, even more so than hard, physical objects that you can measure.

 

[maps]

Why?

"...If God created the world, where was He before Creation?..."
-Mahapurana

Most of you have made the unprovable assumption that there is a god (God). If this assumption is true, then who or what created this God? Did this God exist prior to the Big Bang? If so, how? Where? When? And most important of all - Why?

 

[juju]

Hi all,

If any real god exists, it does not care about proofs of its existence or even belief in its existence. Only a real devil would care about that.

Any real god does not need nor want to be worshipped. Only a real devil needs that.

A real god would want you to go about your existence in the best manner possible, and would help if and when it could.

juju

 

[maps]

Real god

If any real god exists, it does not care about proofs of its existence or even belief in its existence. juju

If that statement is true, then "any real god" doesn't give a damn about us. Thus, there is no real god.

 

[juju]

If that statement is true, then "any real god" doesn't give a damn about us. Thus, there is no real god.

That is not what my statement says.It doesn't say that a real god doesn't care about us. It says that a real god doesn't care about our beliefs and theories.

A real god (benevolent as opposed to a devil which is malevolent) would care about our state of being and about our relations with others.

juju

 

[maps]

A real god

A real god (benevolent as opposed to a devil which is malevolent) would care about our state of being and about our relations with others.

You know, juju, I go out at night and look up into the sky and I am in awe. It is filled with a host of bright shining objects. Some of these are part of the tens of billions of stars in our own Milky Way. The rest are tens of billions of distant galaxies each of which contain another tens of billions of stars. Now, if there were a real god overseeing these trillions upon trillions (ad infinitum) of stars (I refer you to Carl Sagan's book "COSMOS") why would he, she, or whatever it may be, care in the teeniest way "about our state of being and about our relations with others." Therefore I find your statement totally untrue. There is no "real god".

 

[Mahler765]

The question of why a god would create human beings and allow evil to run rampant through our world is one of the main questions of philosophy. Specifically this is called theodicy, or the study of evil. As to why that god would care about us, there is a simple answer. Stating that there is indeed a god would imply by definition that that god would be greater than ourselves. Since human beings do actually exist, it proves that that god would have to create us as it would be impossible to create ourselves.
Also, before attempting to simply state that there is no god, just try to prove that a rock doesn't or does exist. Just to get you started, here's how it would go. The simplest argument as to whether the rock exists would be to touch it and say "I'm experiencing this rock and I can describe it. Descartes said 'I think, therefore I am' so since I think and I perceive the rock, then the rock must also be real." As Socrates said, "The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms." So let's define 'touch'. When you put your hand to the wall, what's happening? On a molecular level, the atoms in your hand are only getting closer to the atoms in the wall. A geometric plane can still divide your hand from the wall on a molecular level, so really there is no such thing as touching. This is known as the Zeno Paradox which is the argument that to get from one point to another, you must first travel half the distance to that point. then half the remaining distance and so on to infinity. You will never reach that point. As applied to touching, the molecules in your hand can get closer and closer to the molecules of the wall but they will never actually make contact with one another.
that's enough for now