God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
-
ChaoticMelody
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:51 am
God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
If there are any Christians here.. I would like to see your logical view on how God with his (Supposedly) Infinite power can possibly exist in this universe of logic.
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
Yes, I am Christian. What's the Big Deal?
Good Citizen Carl
-
ChaoticMelody
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:51 am
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
State your facts.
-
ChaoticMelody
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:51 am
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
Exactly... What facts.
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
You posted in the other thread about "Suggestions" this. So, Christians or not, you're baiting. You don't believe in facts. You're asking for some hoping someone will prove you wrong? Heck of a way to go about it.It IS impossible to prove anything within this reality when we are uncertain of the reality itself.
Just like a AI in a computer might believe their truths are true, When they aren't absolute.
We have the same problem as we can NEVER be certain of anything
Good Citizen Carl
-
ChaoticMelody
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:51 am
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
Obviously I know there is no facts otherwise I wouldn't have posted a thread like this.
I was just hoping some fool would come along and spread his ridiculous word about God so that we could all flame him.
And let me rephrase the statement.
state your facts that are relevant to our perception of reality.
I was just hoping some fool would come along and spread his ridiculous word about God so that we could all flame him.
And let me rephrase the statement.
state your facts that are relevant to our perception of reality.
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
ROUND AND ROUND AND ROUND WE GO........I'M BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND HOW PAVLOV TRAINED HIS DOG!
Z
Z
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
Chaotic,
You're a poor communicator. Your opening sentense makes little sense. You pick on Christians, as if they are the only ones who believe in God, which makes me think you've got an emotional hangover from Christianity, and not God.
You're a poor communicator. Your opening sentense makes little sense. You pick on Christians, as if they are the only ones who believe in God, which makes me think you've got an emotional hangover from Christianity, and not God.
Truth is a pathless land.
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
Maybe God transcends logic.
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
Chaotic: Your thread title does not correspond to the content of your post. "Infinite power" does not translate to "existing above impossibility". I think you need to organize your thoughts more carefully before attacking such a big topic; perhaps by investigating the definitions of words, your problems would prove to be non-issues.
-
JohnChasWebb
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:45 am
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
ChaoticMelody wrote:If there are any Christians here.. I would like to see your logical view on how God with his (Supposedly) Infinite power can possibly exist in this universe of logic.
I cannot recall any compelling system of logic that can logically conclude the existence of God without first presuming it. Howsoever, 'absence of proof' is not 'proof of absence'. As such, any conclusion that "God does not exist is patently illogical.
Any conclusion that God does not exist must have its roots in an unfounded (without foundation) bias. The best that we can accomplish (logically) is that the existence or non existence of "God" is inconclusive.
One of my favorite spiritual aphorisms regarding any search for God is "You are looking for what it is that you are looking with". Aside from some of my perceived machinations of Christianity (e.g. God is 'out there' rather than within) I have found a significant spiritual truth in Albert Enstein's famous equation E=MC squared. The significant truth (personal) is that our physical forms contain 'trapped energy' that is equivalent to its mass times the speed of light squared. This is how I relate to Christianity and "The Christ".... as long as we are 'contained' in physical forms our true power is dumbed down by dividing it by 8.98755179 × 1016 m2 / s2.
If we find a way to release this energy we (opinion) will discover our 'real self' that was,
temporarily 'crucified' within 'matter' and seeming to be trapped in the realm ruled by death and severe temporal limitations. The realm wherein the ego/self has replaced God as the supreme being. A miserable condition that is, unfortunately, founded upon a fallacy that concludes the non existence of God.
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
John: You are working with several different versions of God.
For instance:
The empirical god of
For instance:
The empirical god of
is not identical to the God of'absence of proof' is not 'proof of absence'
The latter is the pantheist God -- a logical construct that is synonymous with "Reality" (or "Tao"). However, in the former case -- when you go looking for evidence that some entity exists -- you may as well be looking for Zeus, or aliens, or a genie."You are looking for what it is that you are looking with"
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
Webb's argument has more holes in it than a spaghetti strainer! He certainly knows how to tangle himself up. Lets sort him out, by using our, to quote Dostoyevsky, 'earthly Euclidean mind i.e. our ordinary faculty of Reason. When I look at his tapestry of clever statements in the 'light' of this Reason, his little house of cards comes toppling down, the obvious conclusion being, that god doesn't exist above or below impossibility. The Greek philosopher Epicurus solved it with his argument, which goes something like this: either god wants to abolish evil and cannot; or else he can but does not want to; or he cannot and does not want to. Now, if he wants to remove evil and cannot, he is not omnipotent. If he can and does not want to, he is not benevolent. But if god can abolish evils and wants to how is it then that evil exists and persists? Since evil does exist and persists, and god is described as being both omnipotent and benevolent - god does not exist!
There is of course a simple answer to all this, from the theist's point of view, especially if he leeches to one of the prevailing religious orthodoxies, that metaphysics - depending which brand turns you on - helps to prop up: Armageddon...now that's something to look forward to! Ask George Bush, Bin Lardin's boys or any crazy orthodox jew, who are all looking forward to this showdown with optimism and convinced that they are going to be on the winning side! If there was a god and this is all he can come up with - well, fuck him too!
z
There is of course a simple answer to all this, from the theist's point of view, especially if he leeches to one of the prevailing religious orthodoxies, that metaphysics - depending which brand turns you on - helps to prop up: Armageddon...now that's something to look forward to! Ask George Bush, Bin Lardin's boys or any crazy orthodox jew, who are all looking forward to this showdown with optimism and convinced that they are going to be on the winning side! If there was a god and this is all he can come up with - well, fuck him too!
z
Last edited by zarathustra on Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
JohnChasWebb
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:45 am
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
zarathustra wrote:Webb's argument has more holes in it than a spaghetti strainer! He certainly knows how to tangle himself up. Lets sort him out, by using our, to quote Dostoyevsky, 'earthly Euclidean mind i.e. our ordinary faculty of Reason. When I look at his tapestry of clever statements in the 'light' of this Reason, his little house of cards comes toppling down, the obvious conclusion being, that god doesn't exist above or below impossibility. The Greek philosopher Epicurus solved it with his argument, which goes something like this: either god wants to abolish evil and cannot; or else he can but does not want to; or he cannot and does not want to. Now, if he wants to remove evil and cannot, he is not omnipotent. If he can and does not want to, he is not benevolent. But if god can abolish evils and wants to how is it then that evil exists and persists? Since evil does exist and persists, and god is described as being both omnipotent and benevolent - god does not exist!
z
Trevor Salyzyn wrote:John: You are working with several different versions of God.
For instance:
The empirical god ofis not identical to the God of'absence of proof' is not 'proof of absence'The latter is the pantheist God -- a logical construct that is synonymous with "Reality" (or "Tao"). However, in the former case -- when you go looking for evidence that some entity exists -- you may as well be looking for Zeus, or aliens, or a genie."You are looking for what it is that you are looking with"
Trevor! I am on very good terms with both versions! :)
I suppose that my true personal belief is that "God" is primarily consciousness imbued with the powers of creation, maintaining, destruction, memory and experience. My comment about my favorite spiritual aphorism, "You are looking for what it is that you are looking with", was to suggest an alternative to the seeming Christian dogma that God is an external phenomenon. Ultimately, I believe that all concepts of "God" are, fundamentally templates (constructs) that we can actually become, or otherwise manifest, by believing them (or one of them) into existence.
There is a rationality associated with this approach, however, the 'rationality' is measured by metaphysics rather than mundane physics and mundane systems of logic. Fundamentally, the governing principle is "As Above, So Below". In some measure we humans wield creative, maintaining and destructive powers. These powers represent, in microcosm, a reflection of much expanded powers that exist on 'higher' levels (The Above) of reality.
I suppose that I am also believing that there is a power that preceeds "God" (or is an 'entry level' energetic devoid of significant attributes) and that power is without attribute other than being 'creative' and coupled with a creative desire... an embryonic consciousness that can become "God" or any other 'thing' with or without infinitely varying (temporal) limitations.... a vast unexpressed potential.
Perhaps I have arrived at a fuel efficient hybrid! A "God" who can be dumbed down and occupy a 'reality template' (archetype) or one who can dream an even greater God into existence. Regardless, my fundamental belief is that we must believe God into existence, otherwise we are struggling with our earlier belief system that (perhaps) negates the existence of higher powers.
I suppose my deepest concern is "How we wound up on 'death row'" and to then reverse the context that produced that undesireable result.
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
Then you are left with this: who constructed the construct? Round and round we go...'believe' is the operative word here. You can 'believe' anything, but it doesn't prove a thing...'Consciousness embued with the powers of creation', now that has a ring of truth about it ( which should not be mistaken for a halo )...I can accept this and still be an atheist. Life is by its very nature a mystery - and that's what makes it so damn good! To attribute this beautiful mystery to any sort of god is silly. Webb, your concept of life herebelow seems pretty glib i.e. trapped in our bodies, bla, bla...Its all a matter of 'how' you look at it mate...your vision can - if it hasn't already - only lead in two directions: to anti-depressants or through the door of a church, or both...My advise: learn to love life more than its meaning, cause you'll NEVER know that...
z
z
z
z
Last edited by zarathustra on Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
Do you believe this?zarathustra wrote:then you are left with this: who constructed the construct? Round and round we go...'believe' is the operative word here. You can 'believe' in anything, but it doesn't prove a thing...
You just got QRS'd. ;-)
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
John: (to replace God with a pantheist synonym,) you don't need to believe in Reality for it to be present everywhere.
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
define reality...
z
z
Last edited by zarathustra on Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
z, you must be joking.... oh well. Reality is that which is responsible for the existence of all things. Everywhere, everywhen, and infinite. It is that which when you say "is this real?" you are asking "is this a part of reality?"
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
define responsible....
z
z
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
Now you're just picking nits. I think you should be able to figure that one out on your own.
-
JohnChasWebb
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:45 am
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
zarathustra wrote:Webb's argument has more holes in it than a spaghetti strainer! He certainly knows how to tangle himself up. Lets sort him out, by using our, to quote Dostoyevsky, 'earthly Euclidean mind i.e. our ordinary faculty of Reason. When I look at his tapestry of clever statements in the 'light' of this Reason, his little house of cards comes toppling down, the obvious conclusion being, that god doesn't exist above or below impossibility. The Greek philosopher Epicurus solved it with his argument, which goes something like this: either god wants to abolish evil and cannot; or else he can but does not want to; or he cannot and does not want to. Now, if he wants to remove evil and cannot, he is not omnipotent. If he can and does not want to, he is not benevolent. But if god can abolish evils and wants to how is it then that evil exists and persists? Since evil does exist and persists, and god is described as being both omnipotent and benevolent - god does not exist! z
Your argument, zarathustra, is fallacious because it presumes, without question, the accuracy of the dichomoty of Good (God) and evil (Devil) as two distinct entities. In analyzes "God" as a linear / anal compulsive devoid of paradox.
The way out of the conundrum is to conclude (or to presume) that "God" is both good and evil and contains and expresses all pairs of opposites.
Another missing piece seems to be the absence of any concept of 'justice'.... Perhaps "God" does not vanquish evil because 'evil' is the natural result of certain actions or inactions.
Epicurus, hmmm, stacked the deck in favor of his seeming predetermined conclusion that God does not exist. He could have just as easily concluded that God expresses both good and evil and then attempted to discover why.
Quote: "If he (God) can (abolish evil) and does not want to, he is not benevolent" (end quote). The statement is illogical. It is based upon an unspoken premise that 'benevolence vanquishes evil'. Perhaps 'evil' is a teaching tool that instructs that certain activities produce certain like results.
Your argument is tained with bias and operates with an incomplete set of syllogisms (premises). Perhaps Good and Evil are the two faces of God (See, Genesis) and the face that is shown to any particular individual is a reflection of the face that that individual shows to God. The 'mirror premise' of 'reality'.
I am interested in your analysis of the fallacies (more holes in it than a spaghetti strainer) contained in my post.
Epicurus fallacy is also to (it seems) presume that "God" is something outside of one's self. That too is illogical. Epicurus only 'proved' that his conception of God does not exist. What applicability does this have to universal 'reality'?
-
JohnChasWebb
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:45 am
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
zarathustra wrote:Then you are left with this: who constructed the construct? Round and round we go...'believe' is the operative word here. You can 'believe' anything, but it doesn't prove a thing...'Consciousness embued with the powers of creation', now that has a ring of truth about it ( which should not be mistaken for a halo )...I can accept this and still be an atheist. Life is by its very nature a mystery - and that's what makes it so damn good! To attribute this beautiful mystery to any sort of god is silly. Webb, your concept of life herebelow seems pretty glib i.e. trapped in our bodies, bla, bla...Its all a matter of 'how' you look at it mate...your vision can - if it hasn't already - only lead in two directions: to anti-depressants or through the door of a church, or both...My advise: learn to love life more than its meaning, cause you'll NEVER know that...
Both atheism and faith are illogical conclusions unless based upon pre selected (biased) premises.
Quote "To attribute this beautiful mystery to any sort of god is silly". end quote.
What, my friend, are the premises that lead one to your conclusion of 'silly'? I know that they MUST be illogical.
My philosophy leads in more than two directions.... the alternate direction is to 'go within' and investigate the architecture of conscious experience. To attempt to discover the source of consciousness and its attendent experiences.
I am still of the opinion that belief or non belief is a function of personal (or perhaps scientific/cultural) bias and not logic. The train of thought contiunues.... bias is a function of ego (personal preference) and (so) perhaps 'ego' may be the barrier that discourages belief in God. The potential problematic context that arises is, IF the consciousness that determines that God does not exist is actually God in the process of self destructing...yet another paradox!
The (possible) inverted Oedipal mindset proclaims that it exists but God does not. It (the inverted mindset and accompanying consciousness) winds up on 'death row' yelping that God cannot exist because God would eliminate death (one expression of 'evil') from the cosmology; yet 'death' was (presuming) the result of the "no God mindset" that has its roots in choices freely made previously.
I am diggin' all of this!
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: God... He who supposedly exists above impossibility.
perhaps you should offer god some anti depressants, especially if he exists inside you...misery loves company! No seriously!
Anyway, I think I've got you on the run Webb...so lets look at a few arguments, which I think will cover most of the points you've raised. Firstly, it is often suggested that god - inside or out - values free will, which allows human beings to misuse their freedom and so generate evil, injustice and suffering. Well, we did - didn't we? So, the cause of evil is humanity, inside you, inside me. Now God does not interfere to stop this evil from continuing, partly out of respect for our freedom, and partly because this suffering is a just punishment for our sins and the sins of humanity, not god. But then, what about the idea of innocent children suffering for the sins of their forefathers? Doesn't this make your personalized internal god a little out of touch, a little helpless, a little redundant? I mean the child is a DIFFERENT person and cannot diserve the punishment and suffering due to another.
Ok lets look at poor old Adam (god's first whipping boy). Was he created good or bad or both? If he was created good, then it is inexplicable that he should sin. And if he was created innocent it is inexplicable that he would disserve punishment, since he acted from ignorance, prior to having eaten the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If he was indeterminant it is inexplicable how he could make a choice at all without a 'nature' or 'character' to act from; and if he was created bad, well, that again is god's fault and responsibility i reckon.
It makes no difference where you reckon god lives, inside or out, or both. You seem to be suggesting that god allows suffering and injustice to occur because it teaches us about good and evil, thus spurring us on to greater moral endevours and giving rise to qualities of character that may not otherwise develop, (such as those written above the gateway to this forum) and the determination to see JUSTICE gets done and the will to find ways to control the cause of suffering. However, a great deal of suffering is caused by natural disasters, which we often are not able to control, or which cause much misery for children. Why do these innocents suffer? Why did they come before, not later? Is this fair? Moreover, not much seems to have been learnt in 2000 years, since evil, suffering and injustice persist. It is also possible for those who 'witness' suffering to go the opposite way, to become bitter, angry, resentful... Suffering and punishment, can just as easily corrupt the human spirit as elevate it. If god - whatever and where you imagine it to be - created suffering and punishment to educate us, what a poor choice! In short, suffering and punishment have never been sound educational devises.
Suoppose we introduce the notion of 'incarnation' to all this. Would that help? You know' karma' ( a word used in this forum quite often). That might explain why some poor little f---ing innocent kid gets his head blown off by some nutcase fundamentalist or gum chewing GI listening to death metal as he blows him away with his AK47...Yeah, the kid probably disserved it, for being naughty in a previous life. But this doesn't solve the problem, but only moves it back into the past, and so doesn't remove it at all. For there must have been some FIRST INCARNATION ( you creationists out there - listen to this! ) where new-born spirits or souls must have been as yet INNOCENT. Yet evils were perpetrated against them, handicaps and hardships must have befell them from birth, and why were these IN THE BEGINNING distributed so unevenly, unjustly, so that some people got off to a good start and others did not, which no doubt would have upset their whole course down the track of lifetimes. So the problem remains with YOU WEBB: why does god - inside or out - permit all this injustice and suffering to occur, against the innocent, the childlike ones, the beginners? Why do you permit it? Or do you?
z
Anyway, I think I've got you on the run Webb...so lets look at a few arguments, which I think will cover most of the points you've raised. Firstly, it is often suggested that god - inside or out - values free will, which allows human beings to misuse their freedom and so generate evil, injustice and suffering. Well, we did - didn't we? So, the cause of evil is humanity, inside you, inside me. Now God does not interfere to stop this evil from continuing, partly out of respect for our freedom, and partly because this suffering is a just punishment for our sins and the sins of humanity, not god. But then, what about the idea of innocent children suffering for the sins of their forefathers? Doesn't this make your personalized internal god a little out of touch, a little helpless, a little redundant? I mean the child is a DIFFERENT person and cannot diserve the punishment and suffering due to another.
Ok lets look at poor old Adam (god's first whipping boy). Was he created good or bad or both? If he was created good, then it is inexplicable that he should sin. And if he was created innocent it is inexplicable that he would disserve punishment, since he acted from ignorance, prior to having eaten the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If he was indeterminant it is inexplicable how he could make a choice at all without a 'nature' or 'character' to act from; and if he was created bad, well, that again is god's fault and responsibility i reckon.
It makes no difference where you reckon god lives, inside or out, or both. You seem to be suggesting that god allows suffering and injustice to occur because it teaches us about good and evil, thus spurring us on to greater moral endevours and giving rise to qualities of character that may not otherwise develop, (such as those written above the gateway to this forum) and the determination to see JUSTICE gets done and the will to find ways to control the cause of suffering. However, a great deal of suffering is caused by natural disasters, which we often are not able to control, or which cause much misery for children. Why do these innocents suffer? Why did they come before, not later? Is this fair? Moreover, not much seems to have been learnt in 2000 years, since evil, suffering and injustice persist. It is also possible for those who 'witness' suffering to go the opposite way, to become bitter, angry, resentful... Suffering and punishment, can just as easily corrupt the human spirit as elevate it. If god - whatever and where you imagine it to be - created suffering and punishment to educate us, what a poor choice! In short, suffering and punishment have never been sound educational devises.
Suoppose we introduce the notion of 'incarnation' to all this. Would that help? You know' karma' ( a word used in this forum quite often). That might explain why some poor little f---ing innocent kid gets his head blown off by some nutcase fundamentalist or gum chewing GI listening to death metal as he blows him away with his AK47...Yeah, the kid probably disserved it, for being naughty in a previous life. But this doesn't solve the problem, but only moves it back into the past, and so doesn't remove it at all. For there must have been some FIRST INCARNATION ( you creationists out there - listen to this! ) where new-born spirits or souls must have been as yet INNOCENT. Yet evils were perpetrated against them, handicaps and hardships must have befell them from birth, and why were these IN THE BEGINNING distributed so unevenly, unjustly, so that some people got off to a good start and others did not, which no doubt would have upset their whole course down the track of lifetimes. So the problem remains with YOU WEBB: why does god - inside or out - permit all this injustice and suffering to occur, against the innocent, the childlike ones, the beginners? Why do you permit it? Or do you?
z