Will atheists cooperate with Christians to agree on concepts and rules for proving or disproving the existence of God?

Could you perhaps provide us with some examples of this disagreement? I’m not sure I quite understand what you’re talking about.

Well, for starters, I won’t accept “all of the beauty in the world around us” as proof of god(s)’ existence. Bananas are not an acceptable answer, either, for me.

Agree with those above, I’m not sure what kind of stuff the athiests you’re talking to have shot down, so I can’t begin to guess why they would have done so.

Part of the trouble is that it is impossible to disprove the existence of anything.

That’s like asking the guests on Jerry Springer to talk politely and use big words.

God cannot be observed in a rigid, scientific fashion. The way we think of science is in human terms, observable by us. It cannot fathom the physics or scale of a deity or its powers. It is simply incapable of achieving the task. Agreeing on rules, therefore, based on this proportionately weaker system is illogical from the jump.

Well, if there are atheists here, I like to ask them what is their information in regard to the concept of God in the Christian faith in God’s fundamental relation to the universe.

Pachomius

I happen to believe in both God and Science very strongly. I don’t fully understand your question. The drift I get is that you can’t understand why atheists are so sure there is no God? It’s not really anyones job to go around proving or denouncing Gods existence in my opinion. Much like science, if you are interested in it, dedicate yourself to it, write about it, get some things published and etc. People are not dumb. They can figure things out logically for themselves. Personally I’ve found the vastness of science very intriguing to go along with God.

Why does one have to prove or disprove their beliefs. Don’t aim to disprove what I believe and I won’t try to disprove what you believe. Accepting one another and their beliefs and enjoying ones beliefs without infringement is the positive way to go. Freedom of religion or non religion whatever the case may be.

@comity Well said.

I think it’s a good question, one that begs “why can we not talk about this nicely with ground rules?”

It doesn’t matter if we should debate. We (collectively) would like to debate. Doing so with ground rules would be great if it were possible.

What @comity said. You ain’t never gonna know who was right until you’re too dead to come back and tell anyone.

Don’t you think that if there was a God He’d be awfully pissed off that we’re arguing so loudly about this stupid shit while He’s trying to watch Pawn Stars?

he always knows what rick’s gonna pay for that stuff . . .

@digitalimpression Then shouldn’t the question be a long the lines of, “Why don’t atheists believe in God?”

I don’t think there is a definitive answer to this question. The answer will be different for each individual, sure, some will be close or even the same, but across the board? Probably not.

Before we get started, are you a native English speaker?

@whitetigress No, I don’t think so. The question could apply to many subjects on which people fundamentally disagree. Why can’t the opposing parties agree on a set of rules that would govern the discussion and make it productive? That’s how I read it.

Empirical proof. That is all.

The rules are already in existence. They have been developed over centuries of research and anyone can learn them in any institute of higher education. It’s called the scientific method and it has been the best way we know, so far, of creating knowledge about the external world.

Unfortunately, so far, the rules that apply to understanding the external world don’t help much when understanding the internal world, but that may be changing as we get increasingly sophisticated technology that can give us a clue as to what is going on inside people’s heads. God is an internal phenomenon —i.e., it is perceived inside, subjectively. There has never been any objective evidence for God so far—that is, no evidence that is independently reproducible. The only evidence we have is testimony. Testimony, of course, can not be reproduced independently.

So, in order for find objective evidence for God, we have to be able to objectively get at people’s testimony. We have fMRI that can look at brain activity. That gives us clues as to how people think, but it is not close to giving us much clarity on people’s experiences with God. But I would think that that is a mechanism that holds promise as something that believers could get behind. Assuming they wanted to understand the nature of their beliefs.

@wundayatta I’ve already explained why science won’t effectively help us. It’s like using a single toothpick to build a skyscraper.

@digitalimpression
that toothpick then is the best thing that exists. the only other alternatives are a drop of water, a teaspoon of flour, a cm³ of carbon dioxide and a frog.

I don’t think it’s a logical premise to think a Christian would work with anyone to disprove the existence of God. If they succeeded, they weren’t a Christian in the first place (if you believe the stuff John Calvin talked about). So there you have an inherent fallacy.

Open minded atheists would probably also not be too interested in proving or disproving the existence of God. Being unaffiliated with any religion, their decision whether to cooperate on such a task would be strictly anchored to their desire to obtain definitive proof that they were either wrong or right in their beliefs.

Nope. Atheists want to disprove the existence of god and are not interested in anything else. Likewise ,theists want prove the existence of god and won’t (or can’t) contemplate any otehr result. Two different games with completely different rules I’m afriad.

Neither atheists nor Christians represent a monoculture. Getting individual Christians and atheists to agree with each other within their own in-groups is hard enough as is, so getting these massive categorizations of people to set some kind of agreed-upon paradigm for debate would be absurd.

Well, I am still asking if there are atheists here, and if they are acquainted with the concept of God in the Christian faith in His God’s fundamental relation to the universe.

So far I have not seen anyone here first informing readers here that he is an atheist, and second telling readers here what is his acquaintance with the concept of God in the Christian faith in God’s fundamental relation to the universe.

Pachomius

@Pachomius there are many atheists here. I’m not sure why you aren’t getting the answers that you anticipated. I would give it some time.

What “concepts and rules for proving or disproving the existence of God” would you suggest @Pachomius?

I’m a theist but ironically I don’t believe that God likely can ever be proven for 2 reasons:

1) Relating to future discoveries in physics, astronomy and biology the existence of a surpreme deity will always be an assumption.

2) The concept of such an enormous entity would be so above us that even upon passing on (I believe in survival after physical death and an afterlife) that we still would not know of God any better than we do while alive (physically on earth). It may be possible someday to prove God’s existence but I think (if we survive this long) will be many milleniums from now.

Atheist? I don’t play softball, nihilism all the way! :)

I was raised christian (Baptist) and always had significant doubts. Eventually I went with my gut towards nihilism because to me, god’s existence isn’t logical, rational, or reasonable. Also I see Christianity (and all organized religion) more or less as a Ponzi scheme.

“Will Atheists cooperate with Christians to agree on concepts…..?” We have a multi cultural , multi religious society wherein many religions believe in God http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm If you’re reaching out, why not reach out to all people of different faiths who believe in God? Just curious.

In the absence of being told about a Bible, would anyone naturally conclude the rules of God on their own by observing the natural world?

just felt like saying that

Well, I guess anyone even though not an atheist but anything else, specially a Christian, can also give his concept of God in the Christian faith in God’s fundamental relation to the universe, and we can all see how it agrees or disagrees with each other one’s of us concept of God.

Please pay attention to this qualification in describing your concept of God, namely:

God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

So each one of us must know what is God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

I am a liberal Christian attending Sunday service in an independent Evangelical church, and my concept of God in the Christian in His fundamental realtion to the universe is as follows:

God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

So, if we see the universe as the totality of everything that exists including God, then God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

This means that in the totality of everything in the universe, if a thing is not God it is created by God.

Pachomius

Did your Christian God create the Chocolate Ice Cream I’m eating right now? Did it create Fluther? Did it create cancer and child abuse? What do you mean by “everything”?

Did your Christian God create a Hell specifically to burn the Atheists it created for all eternity?
_____________

Define God and give two examples.
_____________

Christianity Shmistianity… It didn’t even exist until charlatans figured a way to use it as a tool to control people with.

Christianity has NOTHING to do with the teachings of Christ.

Christ was NOT a Christian.

Initially, it was called The Way… referenced over a dozen times in the Christian Bible. They were all Followers of The Way… As in, The Way, The Truth, The Life.
_____________

Please @Pachomius, do not ignore my initial question to you. Again…

What “concepts and rules for proving or disproving the existence of God” would you suggest that Christians and Atheists “agree” upon? Christians don’t even agree with each other… hence the myriad of denominations that have sprung up over the centuries.

Please @Pachomius, do not ignore my initial question to you. Again…
What “concepts and rules for proving or disproving the existence of God” would you suggest that Christians and Atheists “agree” upon? Christians don’t even agree with each other… hence the myriad of denominations that have sprung up over the centuries.
RealEyesRealizeRealLies (22645 )

—————————————

Well, as a Christian I give my concept of God in the Christian faith His fundamental relation to the universe, and I explained it.

Now, if anyone has a concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, he can also give it here; then we can all see the similarities as also the differences, and with the best good will and honesty, work out a concurring mutually agreed on concept of God.

In this manner we will not be talking past each other’s heads.

About the rules to be observed in the exchange of thoughts on God, in order to come to the existence of God or His non-existence, that is also what I am proposing to atheists foremost and then to anyone at all who does have an opinion, to suggest one rule at least or several.

For myself I will suggest for the present that God should be limited in our search for God in the universe where we are living in and are parts of, as everything existing exists in, even things just imaginable but the subjects of man’s discourse.

So, what I mean about limiting our search for God to just our universe, the one where we live in and are parts of, and where we see the sun and the moon of our planet earth, and also the distant galaxies of our universe, is so that we will not be searching and searching and searching as long as we want to insist there there are other universes even though we are not living in them and neither are we parts of any of them.

I guess you get my idea.

But if you don, I am ready to explain more to make you get my idea.

I almost forgot, you say Christians don’t even agree witness the many denominations of Christians.

There is a common concept of God among Christians in God’s fundamental relation to the universe, and it is that God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

Ask any formally trained pastor or priest.

Pachomius

“God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.”

I ask again…
Did God create the Chocolate Ice Cream I’m eating right now? Did it create Fluther? Did it create cancer and child abuse? What do you mean by “everything”?

That is up to you about chocolate etc. but you are not focusing on the important aspects of God in the in the Christian faith etc.

Now, of course you will say that I say God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God, however suppose you keep chocolate etc. in abeyance for the present, and concentrate on the abstract aspect of everything that is not God which is created by God.

I will not anymore reply to your messages because you are into a direction that is not conducive to the concurrence of the concept of God, but into nitpicking flippancy.

However, you can ask a question in this website on how God is also the creator of chocolate and cancer, and the things that concern you, okay? after you agree to the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself—or you only restrict God to creating chocolate and cancer and whatever else you want to restrict God to, in which case you have a very restricted concept of God which is not the one in the Christian faith in God’s fundamental relation to the universe.

Pachomius

I use your word… “everything”, and in everything, there is Cancer and Child Abuse.

Thus by your rules God created Cancer and Child Abuse. You said “e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g”

You only call it “nitpicking flippancy” because you won’t accept the truth of your own premise.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

No doubt @ragingloli. I’m just hoping @Pachomius can accept that about the Christian God.

That’s Isaiah 45:7… I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create evil; I, the LORD, do all these things. King James version uses the word “evil”.

My question has to do with agreeing, not with contradicting.

If we can agree then we can work together to come to the resolution of the issue of God or no God.

So, everyone, if you are agreeable to the concept of God as creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, that is already sufficient for us to go forth and search for God in the universe.

Pachomius

But I don’t agree, because of the contradictions you refuse to acknowledge.

What is the contradiction you are referring to?

Pachomius

Did the Christian God create Cancer or not? Yes or no? It’s like pulling teeth to get an answer from you on this.

Why do we have to resolve any of this? It’s all based on faith and such arguments are futile. But don’t let me interrupt. Argue all night if you wish. No one will convince anyone of anything. There is NO proof of things one must believe based on faith. @Pachomius , you said you’ve argued on other sites; did they stop listening to you so you decided to continue on a fresh site?
Greener pastures? Do you have anything else in your life or is this your raison d’etre?

And I can’t go along with any premise where the one who presents it is not forthcoming on answering questions about it. Just state your case and leave it up for discussion. You’re trying to lead the class through an ill fated trail of logic crumbs, yet pay no mind to the problems along the way.

And stop signing your name at the bottom of every comment you make… please. Your name is listed at the bottom left of every post. We’re not writing love letters to each other friend.

Stop it… it’s creepy.

You want me to say that God created cancer and that is supposed to prevent us from coming to agreement on the concept of God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God?

You are not concentrating on the purpose of my question which is to ask whether atheists can come to agreement on the concept of God.

Now, I already said that God created everything including everything that exists in the universe, but I am saying to you to put cancer and chocolate in abeyance, and concentrate on the abstract of everything.

You really want me to say that God also creates cancer and chocolate etc., but your intention is not to concentrate on the purpose of the question but on bringing up dissension.

The purpose of the question is to ask whether atheists can agree to work together to come to agreement on the concept of God.

You agree already that God creates everything, don’t insist on requiring me to say that God also creates cancer and chocolate because that is to join you in nitpicking flippancy, which is not to the purpose of this question.

It is not helpful, instead it goes to show that you are intent on the conflicting aspect and not on the concurring aspect of God as creator.

You want to bring in the question of the existence of evil, which is however not relevant to the question in the instant case.

Please raise up that issue as your own question.

I will not allow you to derail the present question into a discussion on how to reconcile God’s goodness with the existence of cancer and chocolate.

Okay?

So, I am happy that you do agree that God creates everything in the universe which is not God Himself.

And it shows that atheists can agree to concur on the concept of God as the creator of everything in the universe.

Please ask your own question in your own question box, and I am sure there will be people here who will discuss with you the problem of evil and the goodness of God.

Now, about the rules for the search for God in the universe, is that acceptable to atheists that we humans just keep to our universe, otherwise we will never finish if we include all other universes which people can bring up but which we are not living in at all.

Pachomius

@Pachomius “I am saying to you to put cancer and chocolate in abeyance, and concentrate on the abstract of everything.”

Is the Bible written in abstract form, or literal form?

Okay, it is agreed from atheists here that God creates everything in the universe.

How did you come up with that?

By definition, Atheists don’t believe in the God that you say creates everything… including cancer.

Nevermind… Just redefine words and avoid answering questions to make your premise stand.

Everyone agrees with you. You win.

No, it is not a matter of winning or losing, it is the logical necessity for us to agree in order to go forth and search for God in the universe the one where we are living in.

If you do not agree that God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, you are entitled to your opinion.

But will you just tell people readers here what is your very own concept of God, so that readers here will know about your concept of God and know that it is not the concept of God in the Christian faith in God’s fundamental relation to the universe, that it does not concur with the concept of God in the Christian faith in God’s fundamental relation to the universe.

So when you say that there is no God you are referring to your concept of God, but not to the concept of God in the Christian faith in God’s fundamental relation to the universe, which is that God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

I want yo to know that there are atheists who do know about the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, only they have no evidence for the existence of God according to the concept as I have said repeatedly: in the Christian faith in God’s fundamental relation to the universe the one we humans are living in and are parts of.

So, Christians and such atheists who look for evidence, we can proceed to look for evidence for God, in the universe where we live in.

And you who have another concept of God, you can insist that in your concept of God, God does not exist, okay?

But I am inviting you to see whether you can accept the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself, and that is the question I am asking here.

If you will not then you do not, so I now have the acquaintance with one atheist who will not work to concur on the concept of God.

But there are atheists who do concur with the concept of God in the Christian faith etc., and they are looking for evidence, for which I will invite them to search with me in the universe where we live.

Well good thing I’m a nihilist because I certainly don’t agree with anything. Christians seem to have a tendency to believe that God only created good, all that is good and that he is incapable of doing or creating evil, which then would mean THAT MANY CHRISTIANS DON’T EVEN BELIEVE HE CREATED EVERYTHING.

@Pachomius So basically I should give you a description of my understand of the Christian god, which you have already decided is not the accurate description of God, so that we can start looking for proof of his existence or lack thereof, even if I have no interest in proving his lack of existence to others? There’s no way for me to win even a little bit in this scenario, so why should I even try?

The question I am asking here is the following:

———————————-
Will atheists cooperate with Christians to agree on concepts and rules for proving or disproving the existence of God?

I have discussed with atheists about the existence of God in web forums, and I have noticed that they don’t want to come to agreement on concepts and rules for proving or disproving the existence of God, like for example the very concept of God Whose existence they deny, and they don’t want to come to agree on rules to observe in proving or for them in disproving the existence of God.
——————————————-

Have I been correct that they atheists don’t want to come to concurrence about the concept of God?

Now, one atheist is insistent that he wants to talk about the evil that God does, well he can do it in his own question box.

So, addressing atheists here, if you have a concept of God which you are denying to exist, please produce it here, and we will see whether you care to work together with me to come to concurrence with my concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

The rest is just a lot of straying away from the question at hand.

Anyway, readers here can see for themselves what is the situation or possibility of atheists coming to work with Christians to arrive at a concurring concept of God.

From my own part I have the idea of God in the Christian faith in God’s fundamental relation to the universe in the following concept:

God is the creator of everything in the universe which is not God Himself.

Why is this question interesting to me?

Because as in everything else if people do not concur on the concepts of things they are arguing the existence about, and also the rules by which they are to prove or disprove the existence of, it is illogical for them to continue in their debate.

And also when they do concur on concepts and rules, they must not bring in alien issues to muddle up the issue at hand, wherefore both sides must be keen to spot when either side is into diverting into alien issues by stirring up the aggressive passions of the other side.

As an atheist, I can tell you what my perception of the Christian definition of a god is. It matches your own, but also includes “He intercedes in the lives of humans.” But I can’t agree with that definition, because I don’t believe in it. You might as well ask me what my perception of the Jewish/Muslim/Wiccan/any-other-religion definition of a god is. It doesn’t really matter what my perception of your god is, because I don’t believe in any god.

I think the simplest definition of a god is: a supernatural being. If you want to debate a god’s existence, it’s probably best to start from there.

Augustian says:

“As an atheist, I can tell you what my perception of the Christian definition of a god is. It matches your own, but also includes “He intercedes in the lives of humans.” But I can’t agree with that definition, because I don’t believe in it. You might as well ask me what my perception of the Jewish/Muslim/Wiccan/any-other-religion definition of a god is. It doesn’t really matter what my perception of your god is, because I don’t believe in any god.
I think the simplest definition of a god is: a supernatural being. If you want to debate a god’s existence, it’s probably best to start from there.”

That is most correct on your part, that you agree with me on the concept of God in the Christian faith in God’s fundamental relation to the universe as:

“God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.”

However you want to include the fact that God “intercedes in the lives of humans.”

And another atheist here wants to include his idea of God creating also evil.

Now, I ask you both, as atheists can you agree with me that we can already proceed to prove or disprove God’s existence on the concept of His being the creator of everything in the universe, without also bringing in the fact that He intervenes in the lives of humans and also for another atheist here who insists in his idea that God also creates evil.

That means that we will agree to prove or disprove the fact of God having created everything in the universe that is not himself, and leave the question of God intervening in the lives of humans as also the idea of another atheist here that God also creates evil as two sub issues that we will not go into in this present question box; but you Augustian can ask that question of God intervening in the lives of humans in your own question box, as also that other atheist here with his idea that God also creates evil, in his own question box.

Do you comprehend what I am asking from you about delimiting our discussion, so that we will not be overly loaded with three issues, one main issue and two sub-issues?

The thing is, I’m pretty positive we don’t have enough information yet to prove or disprove God, let alone within the confines of only the concept that he created everything.

Are you really trying to prove anything here, or are you just trying to paint athiests as uncooperative?

@Pachomius “And another atheist here wants to include his idea of God creating also evil.”

It’s not my idea. It’s in the Bible in God’s own words.

Isaiah 45:7… I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create evil; I, the LORD, do all these things.
_______

News Flash: I’m not an Atheist. I believe in a Proto Entity. Some might call it God. But it ain’t your God @Pachomius.

I am not into proving or disproving God’s existence in this my question box, and I am not into the exposition of whatever in the Bible saying that God creates good and God creates evil.

If you atheists want to go into those issues, you take them up in your own question boxes.

Read my question box again:

“Will atheists cooperate with Christians to agree on concepts and rules for proving or disproving the existence of God?

I have discussed with atheists about the existence of God in web forums, and I have noticed that they don’t want to come to agreement on concepts and rules for proving or disproving the existence of God, like for example the very concept of God Whose existence they deny, and they don’t want to come to agree on rules to observe in proving or for them in disproving the existence of God.”

So, please atheists, please, if you want to prove or disprove God’s existence do it in your own question box—but you are welcome to use the agreed on concurring concept of God, concurred on at least among me and atheists who do have the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in God’s fundamental relation to the universe.

Also atheists who want to talk God also creating evil, do that in your own question box.

Don’t muddle up the question box I am authoring here.

And yes, you are welcome to use the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is that God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, once I and atheists who merely lack belief in God agree with me on that concept of God.

“you are welcome to use the concept of God in the Christian faith”

But not what the Bible actually says in God’s own words?

That’s the problem with Christians… They listen to Pastors and Priests, but they never read the Bible for themselves.

And I hope that readers will now know that it is most important that Christians and atheists come to a mutually concurring concept of God in their interminable debate on God’s existence or non-existence, for otherwise they are talking past each other’s heads and that is being and acting illogical.

And also notice that atheists some and a lot of don’t want to come to concur on the concept of God with Christians in their interminable debate on God existing or not existing, but they want to talk about God also creating evil whatever they understand by evil but they will want to understand evil as the evil that is a big black eye to God.

I will just tell these atheists that they must require Christians and themselves to work to come to a concurring concept of evil, otherwise they are talking past each other’s heads.

But that is what people want to do, talk past each other’s head instead of being and acting logical: come to concurrence on concepts and rules first before you proceed to prove the existence or the fact of something.

It’s only “talking past” each other when you don’t address me directly. It’s only “illogical” when you claim “Christian concept” but completely ignore real Bible verses.

The answer to your question is, “No.” Flutherites: This person is talking to him or her self; can’t hear anything else. This is a non arguable situation. But if you’re having fun, go to it. Just so you recognize it for what it is.

fun fun indeed

@ragingloli I think Testimony should carry more weight than is granted by the scientific method.

@digitalimpression
Testimony is the weakest form of evidence that exists.
I do not care how sincere you claim to be to have been abducted by Extraterrestrials, if you have no concrete evidence, your words are empty, and that emptiness increases proportionally the more outrageous the claim becomes.
You could have been hallucinating, dreaming, misinterpreting pretty bland regular events, you could be completely delusional and you could just plainly be lying.
Testimony is the least reliable source of information, right after hearsay and rumors.

Testimony is part of the Scientific Method… Report your findings.

Though it is only appropriate if considered in context with the other processes within the method… Make Prediction, Repeat, Attempt Falsification… of which no one can do with any faith based premise.

@Pachomius I made a couple of comments, observed for awhile, but as @Sunny2 said “its someone talking to himself, not hearing others – not interesting to me = changing channels

Why is it that human beings can detect fairy tales with complete certainty when those fairy tales come from other faiths, but they cannot detect the fairy tales that underpin their own faith? Why do they believe their chosen fairy tale with unrelenting passion and reject the others as nonsense?

Well you’re talking about around ~45% of the world there – how can such a group of people agree on rules for anything? That’s quite a lot of people.

I can see now very clearly that atheists do not want to come to work together with Christians to concur on the concept of the God they claim to merely not have belief in, or for the aggressive atheists they claim to not exist.

But the aggressive atheists are in effect recognizing the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, as namely:

“The creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.”

How is that?

Simple, by their own words from their own lips and thus logically in their own heart and mind they recognize the God in concept as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself BY THEIR UNREMITTING COMPLAINT THAT GOD ALSO CREATES CANCER AND CHOCOLATE among the everything that God creates.

So what they don’t dare to face directly they give the lie away by their unremitting complaint that God creates cancer and chocolate and also all unpleasant things they complain about.

So, on the one hand I am correct that atheists do not want or do not dare to collaborate with Christians to come to concurrence on a mutually agreed on concept of God, but on the other hand I do see very clearly that by their unremitting complaint against God creating evil they conspicuously expose themselves to the admission that they do accept the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

Now, for folks here who want me to attend to their questions addressed to me, please let me know these questions, because I am not aware of any that is really of any weight but nitpicking flippancy.

Do it this way, “Hey Pachomius here is my weighty question (state the question).”

@Pachomius Actually, this atheist care zilch about whether god (s) exist. Therefore, it’s not important for me to figure out these rule because whether it exists or not, my life as I live it now will be my life as I live it. I don’t think ‘the answer’ to the god question is relevant to me whatsoever.

Rise Above says:
”@Pachomius Actually, this atheist care zilch about whether god (s) exist. Therefore, it’s not important for me to figure out these rule because whether it exists or not, my life as I live it now will be my life as I live it. I don’t think ‘the answer’ to the god question is relevant to me whatsoever.”

That is not a question.

What is it for all you care about?

A nitpicking self-flippancy.

——————————-

Dear readers here, I hope that my question and the reactions of participants here have been of advancement to you in your cognitive sojourn here.

Sorry, haven’t read anything since your last answer to me.

You wrote: God cannot be observed in a rigid, scientific fashion. The way we think of science is in human terms, observable by us. It cannot fathom the physics or scale of a deity or its powers. It is simply incapable of achieving the task. Agreeing on rules, therefore, based on this proportionately weaker system is illogical from the jump.

Here is why atheists can not cooperate with you to agree on concepts, etc. You have already decided what God is and how It should be observed. You say It can’t be observed in a rigid, scientific fashion. I have no idea what that means, but it sounds like you’re saying God can’t be observed.

I ask you this. If it can’t be observed, then how can we find evidence of its existence? The task you set is impossible. You seek to use knowledge you have apparently gained in a way unknowable to anyone else. You have, apparently without being aware of it, made it up all on your own. You dance around inside your head, constantly thinking you are in some new place that no one else can see, yet knowing that others should see it. You are experiences what are generally known in psychological circles as delusions and hallucinations.

If you don’t use the scientific method to create knowledge, then you must propose some other method. Perhaps you already have in this thread. Then if you would be so kind as to post a link to it, I would be happy to review it to see if it makes any sense.

@Pachomius oooh, you’re one of those. Someone should have warned me. See ya.

When trying to define something, it’s typically useful to figure out what it isn’t and the boundaries of what that thing is, than to focus on the core of the thing. So if someone wants to know what the definition of a chair is, it’s important to discuss when a chair is no-longer a chair and becomes a stool, or a bench, or is just a big tree-stump. Things are defined by that which they are not. Given this fact, it makes perfect sense to discuss the difficult edge cases when trying to define God, there is nothing flippant or nitpicky about it. It’s not derailing your initial question, and is perfectly topical with the question you raised.

If you define God’s creation to be everything that isn’t God, does that include mundane things (toothpicks, belly-button lint)? Does it include profane things (false idols)? Does it include things that may be considered obscene or indecent (vibrators, butt-plugs)? does it include things that are only used for evil purposes or to cause harm (torture racks)? Does it include things that we know exactly who the inventor was (e.g. the Model-t Ford), and if so are you claiming that the inventors are being influenced by God to make such creations? If this is the case, why would God have influenced the person who invented mustard-gas?

The biggest issue with trying to prove the existence of God empirically is that things need to be falsifiable in order to be studied scientifically. By definition, God isn’t falsifiable. Furthermore it’s important to consider people are easily deceived (just look at how impressive certain magic-tricks are), and so any proof of his existence would have to pass that level of scrutiny. Lastly, the more extreme the claim, the more extreme the level of proof that is required. An all-powerful, all-knowing, supernatural being that created the entire universe would require the highest levels of proof for such a powerful claim.

I’m on the fence about God, and I can appreciate the arguments from both sides. I think a good start for proving his existence would be to explain the unanswered questions about the laws of Physics and Mathematics (although a super-genius might be able to figure these out one day, or a very advanced alien). How would you be able to tell the difference between a God and a super-advanced alien with technology that would appear magical and supernatural to us?

Atheists prefer having a concrete way of proving if something is true or not, hence science. And yes, perhaps modern science can’t prove whether or not an existence of the face of the greatest ponzi scheme, excuse me, God actually exists but that doesn’t mean the science of man some years, decades, centuries in the future won’t be able to do so. And if God isn’t observable, how the hell can you prove his/her/it’s existence? You can’t. And just because we can’t prove he does or does not exist does not mean we should believe in him or have any reason to.

@Pachomius Please don’t mistake my lack of eager cooperation with you as meaning that I’m unwilling to work with Christians. There are many Christians I’m willing to work with, and when in the right mood, we could even look at this question. But that’s only when a relationship has been established, when all parties feel safe. I’m not willing to work on it with someone who seems more interested in proving how atheists are bad than listening to what any one atheist has to say.

Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: The four billion people who are not Christians look at the Christian story in exactly the same way that you look at the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. In other words, there are four billion people who stand outside of the Christian bubble, and they can see reality clearly. The fact is, the Christian story is completely imaginary.

How do the four billion non-Christians know, with complete certainty, that the Christian story is imaginary? Because the Christian story is just like the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. There is the magical insemination, the magical star, the magical dreams, the magical miracles, the magical resurrection, the magical ascension and so on…..........

You know, @germanmannn the “truth” of these stories is not found in the physical world. What amazes me is that so many believers insist on trying to prove things in any kind of way that would persuade people God is “real,” whatever that means.

I don’t think that some religious people understand their strengths. The religious mind and religious experience happens inside people. It has no outside corollary. The fact that it happens in the imagination does not invalidate it. It’s personal experience and that is valid. It can be very helpful to people.

Except when they insist it must have some external reality to it. When they insist that, they have to jump through all kinds of mental hoops to justify it, and one hoop is the issue of proof. They can’t prove it using the universally accepted way of proving something, so they try to get people to change the rules of what constitutes proof. Our OP is trying to get people to give up science, and to accept some other, undescribed, means of proving something.

Belief and Faith are all well and good. They are fine, on the individual level. For the most part, they do no harm. However they cause huge problems when people try to impose them on others. That is inhumane. But, they think they are doing a good thing. Essentially, they have lost sight of morality, and in that, they lose any right to be heard.

Why can’t they just leave it alone? It’s inside them. Leave it there. Let it give them the good it gives them and leave the rest of us the fuck alone. If you live your religious life without trying to tell others what to do, you’ll be much more effective (assuming your way works). People will see how well you are doing and t hey will ask you, of their own will if they can learn from you. No recruiting is necessary. Just live your good life, and let others live theirs without harassing them, and then you’ll find agreement on concepts and rules.

There are numerous reasons beyond religion to infer the existence of a higher being. From my rap about genetic code based in science, to ancient Samarian writings supposedly based on reportage, to well documented repeatable phenomenal experiences from the psychedelic drug culture… There is no reason to claim religion as the only source of support needed to infer the existence of higher beings. Some may call it God. Some may call it disembodied intelligence.

Your “soul” is make believe just like Santa. When the chemical reactions cease, you die. That is the end of it.  Knowing this, you can see that everything about religion is imaginary. God, the Bible, Jesus, the resurrection, prayer, the Ten Commandments, the creation story, your soul, everlasting life, heaven… every bit of it is the product of human imagination. The same goes for Allah, the Koran and so on. As a species we have believed all of this religious dogma for centuries, and most of us believe it today to some degree. And yet… it is all fiction. Today’s “God” is just as fictional as were the gods of the Egyptians, the Romans and the Aztecs.

It is time to choose a new name for those of us who know that all human gods are imaginary. There are two good reasons for picking a new name. First, the word atheist is overloaded with extraneous meaning right now, most of it negative. Second, there is no reason to define ourselves as the opposite of theists because theists are delusional. The word “atheist” gives theists way too much credit. The new name that I would like to propose is Rational Person.

@germanmannn “Your “soul” is make believe just like Santa. When the chemical reactions cease, you die. That is the end of it. Knowing this, you can see that everything about religion is imaginary.”

Surely this is your opinion, and no more fact than the imaginary religion you mock. How can you know this so truthfully as to speak confidently about such a thing?

Now here is the question: When the bacterium dies, does it get an afterlife?

There are not many people in the United States who believe that bacteria go to heaven. The Bible does not talk about heaven being filled with all the disease, putrefaction and pestilence that bacteria cause. And what, exactly, would go to heaven? Do all of the bacterium’s molecules get transported to another dimension so that they can keep reacting? If that were happening, there would be thousands of tons of chemicals leaving earth every day. Clearly there is no afterlife for bacteria cells.

What about mosquitoes? A mosquito is much more complex than a bacterium cell. For one thing, a mosquito is a multi-cellular insect with amazing capabilities. But if you look at each cell in a mosquito, it is very much like a bacterium in its basic functioning.

Do mosquitoes get an afterlife? Clearly not. Think of how many mosquitoes have lived and died over the course of millions of years. No one imagines heaven being full of septillions of everlasting mosquitoes. There is also the problem that we saw with bacteria—the only way for a mosquito to go to heaven would be to somehow transport all the chemicals in a mosquito from earth to heaven.

What about mice? They are no different from mosquitoes. Mice are multicellular organisms, but each cell is a little chemical factory very much like a bacterium. Dogs? Ditto. Chimps? Ditto.

So what about humans?

The human body is nothing but a set of chemical reactions. The chemical reactions powering a human life are no different from the reactions powering the life of a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. When a human being dies, the chemical reactions stop. There is no “soul” mixed in with the chemicals, just like there is no soul in a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. Why would there be an afterlife for the chemicals that make up a human body?

The whole notion of your “soul” is completely imaginary. The concept of a “soul” has been invented by religion because many people have trouble facing their own mortality. It makes people feel better, but the concept is a complete fabrication.

It is when you think about the chemical reactions powering your life and your brain that you realize how completely imaginary your “soul” truly is. And at that point, everything about religion comes unraveled.

@germanmannn I feel the exact same way. Either everything has a soul, or nothing does. If humans do, Neanderthals, homo erectus, homo ergaster, apes, reptiles,......viruses etc..must too. Unless of course, religious thinking just excuses explains it some other way.

@germanmannn “The whole notion of your “soul” is completely imaginary”

The type of soul you describe is not the type of soul I believe in. In fact, you didn’t describe a soul at all. You just assume for some reason that everything or nothing must have one in order for a soul to exist. What do you think a soul is… I mean, please describe the thing you don’t believe in. Do you mean something like, the ghost in the machine… or something like that?

If so, consider there may be another interpretation of what a soul is (supposed to be) other than the interpretation you depict and disregard as fantasy. I don’t believe in that type of soul any more than you do.

@cockswain “Unless of course, religious thinking just excuses explains it some other way.”

Religion is not required to provide a clear and concise explanation as to what a soul might be. When it comes to defining such a phenomenon, I feel religion is just as confused as anyone, always falling short with some type of “It’s the real you… inside the body” type of explanation. I don’t agree with that either… if that’s what you mean.
____________

We judge these things as if we have the qualifications necessary to do so. There could be deeper notions at play. It’s like judging a fat person as being an over eater, gluttonous… when in fact they may have a simple medical condition.
____________

Much of our understanding of what a soul is (or supposed to be), is put forth by thoughtless and self righteous religious fanatics that claim to hold some key to hidden reality… but when asked to describe it in detail, they fail miserably. I completely understand the skepticism with such ignorance. But beyond the ignorance, there may actually be something to the concept of a soul that deserves intelligent inspection.

I basically agree with you that we don’t understand everything there is to know about the physics of thought, our minds, and exactly the true nature of ourselves. And I have zero problems stating that I haven’t a clue. But physics continues to explore the fundamental nature of our cosmos (and by extension, ourselves), and continues to make progress. The key to understanding ourselves (and least I think so) comes from understanding the motions of the tiniest particles in the cosmos. Obviously we are a long ways from that and may never really understand it.

In the absence of that, there is no reason to make up stuff about what we think/wish the soul is.

No desire to make stuff up. No desire to downplay the role of physics for understanding reality. But just as you have an understanding of Nascar Racing (and all the intricacies) that I don’t, I have an understanding of thought/mind/soul/spirit that you don’t. Of course we could both be challenged by each other, but our challenges would be born of presumption and dogma rather than real knowledge.

My Uncle was a professional Nascar Driver on Richard Petty’s team. That gives me cause to believe I know something about it, an inside scoop. Imagine my surprise talking to a real Nascar Driver. My ignorance prevails… knowing just enough to get myself in trouble, but incapable of grasping the entirety of the craft as much as I think I do. I would only speak as a fool, when I should be asking questions… if I really wanted to understand where the person was coming from.

Really the end result is no one knows anything about “the soul” beyond what we think it is. That’s about it. Nothing has been proven. My personal philosophy is to not put too much stock in anything unproven. I may contemplate it, and even come up with possible ways such a thing could be real, but until it’s proven real in some way it’s just mental masturbation.

This is not a notion of proven or disproven. It’s a notion of considering logic and evidence, and from that, inferring truth… just like the scientific method.

People often misunderstand the scientific method. It doesn’t set out to prove anything. It is a tool to disprove things. And in the disproof, a closer understanding of truth is inferred. It’s the process of falsification.

Newtonian Physics is arrived at by disproving what can actually occur under defined circumstances. But that doesn’t prove anything. Assuming it does would prevent Quantum Physics from arising.

OK, fair enough. I wasn’t being rigorous enough in my explanation. I guess a more accurate statement for me is “please show me the data that confirm the hypotheses that comprise the Theory of the Soul.”

Oh… well to show you “the data” would require passing along two decades of research and hoping it made sense. Otherwise we’d have to settle for a simple discussion of my personal theories, of which I’m very forthcoming to answering questions about… if you really want to expand your understanding of such notions, that is.

The entire premise stands on the necessity of acknowledging that not everything is physical, and that nothing physical runs the show, so to speak. In that light, the first “disproof” comes from toppling @germanmannn‘s premise that “The human body is nothing but a set of chemical reactions.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

To really understand, requires inspection of what a “thing” actually is and what it is not. The Materialist insists that “things” are physical. So does thought qualify as a physical “thing”? If so, then please show me a physical thought.

If a physical thought cannot be demonstrated, then we must conclude that either thoughts don’t exist, or that thoughts are non physical. If thoughts are non physical, then we can confidently infer that some phenomenon are non physical agents, and thereby infer the existence of a non physical realm to accommodate them. If thoughts don’t exist, then this conversation is meaningless.

I’ll start you at the very beginning where I began with this two decades ago. A simple statement made by a mathematician who is the father of contemporary Cybernetics, the discipline that practically runs our entire modern lives.

“Information is information. Not energy and not matter. Any materialism that does not allow for this cannot survive in the present”.
Norbert Weiner, Cybernetics p147
_____________

Any intelligent discussion of a “soul” type agent must first define the parameters. The first of which is that a soul, by definition, is a non physical agent. Thus to proceed, we must first determine if a non physical realm of reality is a valid hypothesis. Norbert Weiner, and countless others in Cybernetics, Information Theory, Linguistics, Astro Physics, and Computer Science have confirmed this as a viable hypothesis.

To proceed further, intelligently, we must acknowledge that potential. If you care to ask questions, I’d be pleased to answer.

Well, first we would actually need to define “physical.” Depending on how you look at it, mass is a form of energy. How “physical” is an atom? A lepton? Or dark energy (which we really don’t understand yet)? Yet the space between an atomic nucleus and the orbiting electrons is filled with it. So sure I can acknowledge either non-physical or physical, depending on parameters. We also need to define information. Maybe we could define it physically (not us personally, though).

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies The real challenge will be trying to explain the mechanism of how a non-physical thing can interact or effect changes in a physical thing. We do know that there is most certainly a physical component to the human mind (you can lobotomize someone and even if a non-physical soul isn’t damaged in the process, it’s transmissions are unable to reach the appropriate physical structures to effect changes. It would be analogous to being able to send messages to a remote-controlled car but with a damaged antenna, it wouldn’t be able to receive those messages.

It seems likely that the communication is a 2-way street since input from the senses are transmitted to the soul as well. In this situation, one needs to explain how a physical thing can effect change in a non-physical thing. Thus the dilemma of the dualist. It’s an interesting question, and I don’t think it’s mental masturbation at all. It’s called Philosophy of mind.

OK, I’d like to retract my mental masturbation comment. It sounds harsher than I meant it. I more meant “theories without supporting hypotheses.”

In 2003, J. D. Bekenstein claimed there is a growing trend in physics to define the physical world as being made of information itself…

This is unfortunate. A growing trend is often the result of lacking discipline. Defining information in this way only leads to confusion when discussing the issue with an Information Theorist.

The problem of physics redefining the word “information” has gotten so bad that Robert M. Losee of UNC School of Information and Library Science has presented a paper A Discipline Independent Definition of Information to help resolve the issue.
“This discipline independent definition may be applied to all domains, from physics to epistemology… Models of communication (Shannon), perception, observation, belief, and knowledge are suggested that are consistent with this conceptual framework of information as the value of the output of any process in a hierarchy of processes. ”

More on this later… but I’ve got to get to work now.
__________

@gorillapaws “The real challenge will be trying to explain the mechanism of how a non-physical thing can interact or effect changes in a physical thing.”

Yes I agree.

@gorillapaws “We do know that there is most certainly a physical component to the human mind (you can lobotomize someone and even if a non-physical soul isn’t damaged in the process, it’s transmissions are unable to reach the appropriate physical structures to effect changes.”

Not necessarily. The transmitter/receiver mechanism is physical. A necessary mechanism to know the mind. But that doesn’t make it equal to the mind. The medium is not the message. They are separate agents… one physical, the other non physical.
____________

Information is the process of representing a non physical thought with a physical form.

That’s what the words and letters on this thread are doing. Our thoughts are represented in a physical form. We cannot communicate them otherwise.

“ation” denotes process. In-form – “informare “to shape, form,”
____________

Sorry I must go right now. Be back in a little while.

I still think we can’t discuss this further without defining the parameters of what is physical. We’ll end up coming back to it later if we don’t now. I don’t care how we define it, but we need to pick something.

@cockswain I think the more appropriate question is how to define the ontological status of thoughts, ideas and concepts.

I don’t see how we can do that without eventually facing the idea of what is physical vs. non-physical. Why do you think your way is more appropriate? I see it as another way to discuss the same thing.

@cockswain because physical things are for the most part fairly obvious, but this specific question revolves around the physicality of ideas, mental states etc. Plus there are thousands of years of discussion on these major ontological issues that your discussion could profit from, which I would think might be helpful.

I don’t think physical things are fairly obvious any longer. We haven’t had quantum physics and a LHC for thousands of years. Not that I’m discounting those concepts entirely, but mass and energy are different forms of the same thing. What I’m driving at (and I’m never going to be able to mathematically support this idea) is that the “space” between our neurons is filled in with quarks, all of which behave according to a physics of their own. I’m not framing this point as well as I’d like to, but I’m driving at the notion that our brains operate through a physical medium. I think there may be a physics of what we call thought. If our thoughts and information are waves in an energy field, then they have a certain physicality to them.

But maybe your point is about what drives the thoughts.

@cockswain what about the definition that physical things are comprised of subatomic particles? I’m not completely sure how energy fits into the picture, because things like potential energy don’t really seem to have any physical component to them, besides the relationship between at least two physical things. Again, I think pursuing the well-traveled metaphysics avenue of ontology might be the better approach because it has the benefit of contributions of many brilliant minds over thousands of years.

@cockswain Here is the philosophical definition of a physical body from Wikipedia:

“A physical body is an enduring object that exists throughout a particular trajectory of space and orientation over a particular duration of time, and which is extended in the world of physical space, e.g. as studied by physics. This contrasts with abstract objects such as mathematical objects which do not exist at any particular time or place. Examples are a cloud, a human body, a weight, a billard ball, a table, or a proton. This is contrasted with abstract objects such as mental objects, which exist in the mental world, and mathematical objects. Other examples that are not physical bodies are emotions, the concept of “justice”, a feeling of hatred, or the number “3”. In some philosophies, like the Idealism of George Berkeley, a physical body is a mental object, but still has extension in the space of a visual field.”

I’ve kept this Einstein quote in mind for enough years that it makes a bit of sense to me. “A bit” meaning that I understand mass is a concentrated form of energy.

“It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing—a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned above. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally.”

So it’s this fundamental thought that is driving my philosophy on this. This is why I took exception to you stating that a physical object is an obvious thing. An electron has mass, but is a form of energy. The space between a nucleus and an electron is not empty space. There is energy/mass in and around everything. We evolved on this planet out of atoms, and became self-aware, subject to these rules. I’m thinking of thought as a form of energy.

Does any of this make sense? I know this is pure philosophy and may well be talking directly out of my ass, but I like the idea of physics backing up my philosophy. To the extent I’m capable.

From my perspective, you are both correct in your assessments. I see no conflict. You’re just coming at it from different angles and perhaps not considering all that needs to be considered.

A physical “thing”, regardless of energy/matter ratio is measurable with instrumentation. This should satisfy the materialist on many levels. The “thing” is not information. Measuring, describing the thing is the creation of information, about it.

Two observers will measure and describe a single thing with entirely different methodologies. Some of that data will coincide. Some will be individual to the particular thought process that each observer employed to describe the thing with. A third observer describes in a third manner… and though the thing is still just the thing, three or more data sets are used to describe it with.

A non-physical thing is immeasurable. They come in many varieties beyond Thought and Mind. Consider Archetypes, Motifs, Qualia, Noumenon, Value, Meme, Morpheme… all immeasurable agents. Liken them to Platonic Forms, the Sphota of Bhartrihari, or even Biblical Principles of The Word.

Many will jump to believe that Thought is somehow measurable. This is not the case at all. They will look upon this page and determine the number of letters and words, or binary bits necessary to relate the information, and claim it has been measured. This is not the case at all.

The Physical Form can only represent Thought. We can measure the physical form, which is one “thing” that Information Theory is used to define. We can even measure the physical entropic forces which decay the physical form and burden the communication channel between sender and receiver mechanisms. But we cannot measure the Thought itself.

A single thought may be represented exactly the same in English or German. But measuring the German we find different efficiencies than English. With English, there is a 50% redundancy rate. If we removed half the words from this entire thread, we would still be able to understand the full meaning represented by those who wrote them. But if we were discussing this in German, removing half the words would make it impossible to understand the meaning. With German on the other hand, we could have this discussion with less words, since it has less redundancy built into the language.

Computer logic is based upon binary programming language. But the same logic could be expressed 256X more efficiently with trinary code. And 256X more efficiently than that with quaternary code. Trouble is, there aren’t many logicians intelligent enough to program trinary or quaternary. Google is just now beginning to run their search engines with limited forms of trinary coding… making them much faster and more stable than others who don’t.

Regardless of the coding, or language used, or choice of mathematical equation to determine an outcome… the Qualia of Meaning remains the same. We can put a measure to the physical tools used to represent that meaning. But we can not measure the meaning itself.

You are wise to mention ontology @gorillapaws. Therein lies valuable resources. But as you rightly noted, those notions have been discussed for thousands of years… way before the recent Age of Information Sciences. As Quantum Physics compliments Newtonian Physics, without replacing it, likewise we should consider the Age of the Petabyte as complimentary to traditional Ontological Philosophies. The old blokes didn’t have the Goog to weigh their theories against.
__________

Weigh their theories…

I must mention this. For it examples the utter shift of mental paradigm one must assume to even begin to understand what I’m talking about. Our language, in its current form, is barely suitable for discussing these notions. As with any new phenomenal awareness, new words must be crafted to describe it properly. I’m not qualified to do that. But I understand the importance of why it must be done, and try to do my part with selecting my choice of words extremely carefully.

Example… Have you noticed that I never say Discussing these “matters”? I say Discussing these “notions”. There is no matter in this discussion other than the photons firing on your computer monitor and the hardware we use to communicate with. The meaning, is not matter… so there is no matter to discuss.

Theories (thoughts) cannot be “weighed”... They cannot be touched, or smelt, nor tasted. The physical manifestations of a theory can be weighed as easily as putting a bowling ball on a scale. But the thought has no energy nor matter to be weighed.
__________

One last consideration about the difference between thoughts and physicality. Thoughts, birth new thoughts simply upon the merit of becoming aware of them. Matter and Energy are fixed constants in the known universe. They can combine in different ratios and be defined as distinguished phenomenon… But there is no more or less energy/matter in the universe today than there was 14 billion years ago. The thoughts I’ve shared with you will now birth new thoughts, brand new thoughts from anyone who becomes aware of this thread. That cannot be measure. We must simply accept it.

I get what you’re saying and I think you’ve done a fine job describing your view. And I genuinely don’t know if thoughts and meanings will ultimately remain a mystery and immeasurable. I can’t recall where I read it, but I heard that some scientists were able to monitor brain scans of mice to create some sort of video display of what they were dreaming. An extension of this could end up being using a combination of brain scans and advanced understanding of neurology to be able to monitor what someone is thinking. But it still leaves the idea that the thoughts themselves aren’t tangible.

Very interesting food for thought. I like how this thread has morphed from religion to physics and metaphysics. But isn’t that usually the natural destination of any open-minded discussion about God?

@cockswain “But it still leaves the idea that the thoughts themselves aren’t tangible.”

That’s right… you get this. Would be no different than translating Pig Latin into Klingon. The physical representation is always and only a representation.

@cockswain “I like how this thread has morphed from religion to physics and metaphysics. But isn’t that usually the natural destination of any open-minded discussion about God?”

Yep… you get it.

@gorillapaws still has the big question though. For discussions sake, let’s assume there are in fact immaterial agents, which require an immaterial realm to accommodate them. How does the immaterial realm affect a change upon the material realm? What is the mechanism.

I have a few clues, posibilities.

One from Carl Sagan and his rap about the fourth dimension. Mathematics are showing us what he calls “shadows” of a reality that we cannot detect with human instrumentation. We can detect the shadows, and thereby infer the existence of an agent which casts them. But we cannot detect the agent itself.

Gotta love Sagan… He’s like the Rod Serling of Astrophysics

This video picks up where Flat Land leaves off. Goes straight into the Shadows of 4th dimensional agents.

Point being, perhaps these shadows are some form of bridge between the realm of thought and the realm of physicality.

________

The other possibilities will require more time that I have at the moment to go into the details. But for your consideration…

Wess Warren of Washington University Genome Center has discovered that Speach Centers of Song Bird Finches are not controlled by the brain. They are controlled by ncRNA (Junk DNA), which instructs the brain to initiate a chain of commands to initiate the song. Could it be that thought arises from DNA… the proto code…? Song Bird Finches share 90% identity with Human Speech Centers.
_________

I strongly believe there is something to be learned from Terrence McKenna’s Psychedelic adventures. He has met an entity in there. Many people have. Mushrooms and Ayahuasca are the vehicles to the land of disembodied life forms… Creatures made of pure thought. Language is the mechanism.

___________

Gariaev has discovered Phantom DNA. Highly intriguing… and presents new found knowledge where DNA is not just a four letter code, but also emits sound and light for code enhancement. He’s actually photographed the Phantom.

I got to get back to work.

wundayatta (49684 ) says;
“Sorry, haven’t read anything since your last answer to me.
You wrote: God cannot be observed in a rigid, scientific fashion. The way we think of science is in human terms, observable by us. It cannot fathom the physics or scale of a deity or its powers. It is simply incapable of achieving the task. Agreeing on rules, therefore, based on this proportionately weaker system is illogical from the jump.”

———————————

I am Pachomius here writing now, that text above attributed to me is not from me—if I get it correctly that wundayatta (49684 ) is ascribing it to me, if not then please don’t bother with this message from me here the instant one I am writing how here.

It is from digitalimpression (4111 ):
“That’s like asking the guests on Jerry Springer to talk politely and use big words.
God cannot be observed in a rigid, scientific fashion. The way we think of science is in human terms, observable by us. It cannot fathom the physics or scale of a deity or its powers. It is simply incapable of achieving the task. Agreeing on rules, therefore, based on this proportionately weaker system is illogical from the jump.
digitalimpression (4111 )”

I Pachomius am however not yet very skillful in the use of this method here of exchanging thoughts, but please don’t attribute to me words which do not come from me.

However, I commend most heartily the owners and operators of this website, are they atheists or what or theists or Christians? I like to find out about them.

Here is their terrific introduction is:

———————————-

“Welcome to Fluther!

We think there’s still nothing better than getting an answer from a real person. So we made it easier.

Just ask Fluther, and we’ll direct your question to people who can help.

Asking and answering questions:

You’ll notice that there are two main sections on the homepage; General and Social.

General: Strict guidelines. The focus is to help people get the answers they need.

Social: Relaxed guidelines. Answerers are encouraged to express their opinions and flex their sense of humor. Social works best when you want to learn about people.

When asking a question, consider what type of answers would benefit it the most.”

—————————-

So, that is exactly my purpose here, to get to know what others have to tell me about their own information, knowledge, position, and attitude on an issue.

@gorillapaws (10479 )[...] By definition, God isn’t falsifiable. [...]
gorillapaws (10479 )

——————————-

Well, that is very interesting that “God by definition isn’t falsifiable.” Where did you learn that, from your own thinking or from someone else’s thinking?

Now, I want you to demand from that someone to prove to you that his definition of God is not falsifiable.

When you meet him next, ask him also what is his concept of God, no not whether he takes God to exist or to not exist, but just his concept of God.

Tell him that my concept of God is that “God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.”

@Aethelflaed (8497 ):
”@Pachomius Please don’t mistake my lack of eager cooperation with you as meaning that I’m unwilling to work with Christians. There are many Christians I’m willing to work with, and when in the right mood, we could even look at this question. But that’s only when a relationship has been established, when all parties feel safe. I’m not willing to work on it with someone who seems more interested in proving how atheists are bad than listening to what any one atheist has to say.
Aethelflaed (8497 ).

————————————

Well, I am glad to hear that you are after personal relationship whatever.

Can we just stick to the issue whether atheists can and will work together with Christians or just with me to come to a concurring concept of God, and also come to concurring rules to observe in the God debate?

I don’t see why any party in the exchange of thoughts should feel safe or unsafe, most important for you and others like you, we had better concur first on what will make you feel safe, or for myself I will just dispense you from this question box of which I am the author.

Well, I am extremely disappointed with atheists of the militant type, they just cannot keep to the question at hand, namely:

“Will atheists cooperate with Christians to agree on concepts and rules for proving or disproving the existence of God?

I have discussed with atheists about the existence of God in web forums, and I have noticed that they don’t want to come to agreement on concepts and rules for proving or disproving the existence of God, like for example the very concept of God Whose existence they deny, and they don’t want to come to agree on rules to observe in proving or for them in disproving the existence of God.”

———————————-

That is the question at hand, and if you do not want to work to concur etc., just also present your very own concept of God—if you don’t mind, otherwise I can’t see in writing on so many alien things here you are contributing to the question.

Pachomius

Share Question Flag as…
Atheists’ heart and mind

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Various physics theories all predict more dimensions. If I understand correctly, some quarks are blinking in and out of existence from other dimensions into ours. Gravity is explained by more dimensions. This is the sort of stuff I was alluding to. I’m calling this stuff “physical”, these shadows we can detect but not measure. There have been multiple times in history that math has predicted the existence or occurrence of something, then it takes years or decades to develop the technology to prove it. Check out this. It took about 40 years and $750M, but we proved it here.

Regarding the song-bird, there is nothing in that link that shows the brain isn’t part of it. But the notion that ncDNA is in fact useful just shows how science is willing to change its stance given data.

I’m very skeptical of the Phantom DNA claims. I’ve been worked in genetics for 12 years, and this is just fringe stuff. I’m equally suspicious of the papers he uses to cite his work. There may be something to it, but I’m very doubtful. I may review it more closely, but skimming it I found problems.

I’m also not very willing to accept psychedelic experiences as much proof of anything, despite my own mind-blowing experiences when I was younger.

@Pachomius These questions and subjects frequently travel into other areas of discussion. I wouldn’t get so upset. You also don’t seem to be listening very well to what others are saying.

@Pachomius could you perhaps make some suggestions on rules? Concepts is much harder as christians don’t even agree on it. Some believe he did create only good, some believe he created everything, some believe he created everything and thus it is all good so thus evil must not exist which makes no sense when they go off ranting about the evil of humans, the devil, etc.

Besides this isn’t just something where someone can go let’s do this this and this and everyone agrees. Atheists can be just as divided as the denominations of Christianity. Ex: I’m a nihilist and believe nothing we do matters and in the grand scheme, everything is purposeless and pointless, that everything you and I do amounts to nothing; another atheist however, may be an existentialist and believe we continuously make our own purpose and point to exist. So as you can imagine, it’s not easy to just lay down ground rules that we all agree to. Just like christians don’t have a set concept of God they all agree to.

You see, everyone here, I have this idea that unless people in a debate first agree on the concepts of things involved in a debate on their actual existence, and also the rules by which they will determine the fact of the existence of the things they do agree on as regards the concepts of these things, it is illogical for them to debate at all, they will be uselessly and foolishly talking past each other’s heads.

So, I don’t bother with messages here which are into thoughts alien to the question at hand.

On my part here is my concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe:

“God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.”

As regards the rules to observe in the debate, I have so far one rule, namely:

“That everyone should delimit himself to the actual universe where we humans are living in and are parts of, so don’t bring in all kinds of universes where we are not living in and not part of.”

So, atheists, if you have any concept of God and any rules you want to bind everyone to, please present them here, and we will work togehter to come to commonly agreed on concepts and rules, then in another question box from you atheists or from me we can talk about proving or disproving the existence of God.

In this question box, there is no sense in talking about proving or disproving God, I presume you can see the reason why—because we have not yet concurred on commonly agreed on concepts and rules on the issue of God or no God.

@Pachomius I have heard that fact elsewhere, but the statement that “God as you’ve defined the term is not a falsifiable concept” is true whether I say it, Elvis says it, a homeless person says it, or Steven Hawkings says it. If you believe the concept of God as you’ve defined it is in fact falsifiable, please share with us an example of a test one could perform that would conclusively prove God doesn’t exist if it happened to succeed. The reality is that one could argue that any sensory observation, or scientific instrument being used to measure could be interfered with by God to produce a false-negative result. As such there is no such possible test and thus God isn’t falsifiable.

I mentioned earlier the mental exercise of considering how you could tell the difference between a super-advanced alien and God. I would be interested in knowing how you would be able to tell that an alien being with seemingly limitless technology at their disposal wouldn’t actually be God, but simply an advanced specie.

One example of evidence that wouldn’t be sufficient to prove God, but would be enough to convince me, would be if you or someone else could pray to God and ask him to reveal to you the answers to some of the most difficult, unsolved mysteries in Physics and Mathematics. Assuming you could produce these answers, that would pass the scientific scrutiny and be validated with tests and experiments, I think you would win over many converts.

Dear readers here, see? it’s useless, people just cannot stick to the question, namely: present your concept of God if you have any.

Anyway, let us wait for anyone at all to come forth with a concept of God, instead of saying useless things insofar as the question is concerned.

Here is the question again:

“Will atheists cooperate with Christians to agree on concepts and rules for proving or disproving the existence of God?
I have discussed with atheists about the existence of God in web forums, and I have noticed that they don’t want to come to agreement on concepts and rules for proving or disproving the existence of God, like for example the very concept of God Whose existence they deny, and they don’t want to come to agree on rules to observe in proving or for them in disproving the existence of God.”

For readers who want to know what is my concept of God, I have already ad nauseum presented it already, anyway here it is again:

‘According to me in the Christian faith in God’s fundamental relation to the universe God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.”

People who will present their very own concept of God, you can do it this way also as I do, namely, put forth your qualifications first (like: According to me in the Christian faith in God’s fundamental relation to the universe), then your verbal formulation for your concept of God (like what I do: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God).

For example if I am an atheist who wants to be flippant, I will state the following:
“In my own heart and mind for my own worldview God is the flying spaghetti monster.”

Hey, that is only an example of an atheist’s possible concept of God, not my own, pleeeeezzzzz!

Wait, what do you want to do?

If such a thing as the Christian God exists, it’s one hell of a dysfunctional narcissistic parent at the least. Anyway,, it’s just a posterchild of a Ponzi scheme.

How about this rule for proving God: tell Him to have a book-signing. I’ll bring my bible for Him to autograph.

@Pachomius just to be perfectly clear, the fact that God isn’t falsifiable isn’t myself or others imposing some label or arbitrary condition into the definition of God. It is a logically necessary outcome of YOUR OWN definition (if I am wrong in this, please explain how God—as you’ve defined the concept—could be falsified). Furthermore, you refuse to discuss the details of your beliefs and are hiding behind the vagueness fallacy by refusing to address direct inquires about the details of your definition.

I personally have a hard time picturing God as the creator of Mustard Gas, weapons of mass destruction, female genital mutalation, cancer, HIV, Pop-up-ads, the Satanic Bible, etc. I like to think of God as being benevolent, but many of these examples (and there are thousands more) would tend to indicate otherwise. So, will you please clarify your definition to either acknowledge or deny that these things also fall under your definition. I’m asking for you to CLARIFY your definition because as it stands it seems vague.

@gorillapaws (10487 )
@Pachomius just to be perfectly clear, the fact that God isn’t falsifiable isn’t myself or others imposing some label or arbitrary condition into the definition of God. It is a logically necessary outcome of YOUR OWN definition (if I am wrong in this, please explain how God—as you’ve defined the concept—could be falsified). Furthermore, you refuse to discuss the details of your beliefs and are hiding behind the vagueness fallacy by refusing to address direct inquires about the details of your definition.
I personally have a hard time picturing God as the creator of Mustard Gas, weapons of mass destruction, female genital mutalation, cancer, HIV, Pop-up-ads, the Satanic Bible, etc. I like to think of God as being benevolent, but many of these examples (and there are thousands more) would tend to indicate otherwise. So, will you please clarify your definition to either acknowledge or deny that these things also fall under your definition. I’m asking for you to CLARIFY your definition because as it stands it seems vague.
gorillapaws (10487 )

——————————————

Thanks for your relevant message—can’t say that for a good number of writers here who are into flippancy of no useful contributions whatever for the enhancement of knowledge with people reading this question box.

But I still need to have your information on any concept at all on what is God, even though you say that God the concept is not falsifiable therefore you understand it the concept to be nothing to do with science.

Suppose you go outside science and put falsifiability or non-falsifiability in abeyance, i.e. prescind from science, and see whether you know any concept at all of God.

Yes, I am expecting that you will tell readers and me here that as an atheist you not only just lack any belief in gods, goddesses, deities, divinities and all those characters, but you as I presume you from your language to be an aggressive atheist also affirmatively deny God’s existence, period.

Just the same I hope you can see that at least you can choose one particular god or God for a concrete target to have a concept of, on which concept of God you deny Him to have any existence.

So, please come up with one, otherwise I cannot see how you can be logical in telling people that you deny God’s existence but you have no information whatsoever of any concept of the God of Whom you deny to have any existence.

You want me to clarify my concept of God, namely, God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.

That concept of God from me as verbalized is to my understanding clear enough also for you to understand, as for anyone with reading comprehension; anyway what words in the concept of God are not intelligible to you?

@Pachomius I’m not an atheist. I’m on the fence, and can appreciate the positions of both sides. As for my personal view, I tend to think of God like a scientist (if he exists). I think he created the parameters of the universe (the laws of physics, mathematics, logic, etc) and kicked things in motion to see how his creation would turn out. I don’t think a God would “meddle” in the affairs of people and certainly not operate at the level of helping one sports team win over another. I think, if he’s real, he is like a scientist/artist that created something wonderful and enjoys seeing how it all plays out.

“One hell of a dysfunctional narcissistic parent at the least,” that isn’t me being flippant. That is what I see god as from what I’ve read in the Bible.

@cockswain “Regarding the song-bird, there is nothing in that link that shows the brain isn’t part of it.”

I don’t think I gave you the proper link… sorry my bad. And I’m definitely not saying the brain isn’t a part of it. I’m just saying the brain is taking orders from something else… the ncRNA.

Two different links…
DNA from these genes is transcribed into short stretches of non-coding RNA that control the expression of other genes in the zebra finch brain involved in vocal communication.
(emphasis mine)
Here’s the actual paper

Alright, enough of that. If you want to answer for it… cool. But I’m only putting it out there as one of numerous potential mechanism which may explain the immaterial to material bridge that @gorillapaws so wisely questioned.
_________

I’d be interested in hearing why Garaiev is “fringe”... and why that’s a bad thing. Isn’t all new science “fringe”?
_________

@cockswain “I’m calling this stuff “physical”, these shadows we can detect but not measure… quarks blinking in and out… Gravity… more dimensions.”

Why would you call it physical? We don’t know if it is or not.
_________

@cockswain “not very willing to accept psychedelic experiences as much proof of anything, despite my own mind-blowing experiences when I was younger.”

Again, I’m not looking for proof. Science doesn’t work like that. Science is a discipline of disproving… demonstrating that which does not work is more valuable than demonstrating that which does. The entire scientific method crumbles without the falsification process.

I’d bet a plucked chicken that you’d be highly entertained and interested in The Spirit Molecule. This link is five parts. Interview after interview about the Shaman administered Ayahuasca experience of DMT.

As you know, Dimethyltryptamine is in practically every organism on the planet. Some scientists suggest it as a genuine neural transmitter. We are all carriers. I’ll leave you to form your own perspective… BUT…

IMPORTANT… my perspective on this is not what it immediately seems.

Have you heard of the term Over Mind?. It’s somewhat self defining in that it fulfills a certain degree of immaterial reality/knowledge pool, separate from any physical body, but accessible to anyone who pursues it.

Go with me here, for a second.

The Over Mind relates to each individual on their own terms. This confounds any Materialist who insists that proof of higher sentient being must come in one form. In parody, even if Gawd himself came down to earth and made himself known to all humans, there would be many who would deny it because that Gawd didn’t fit within their own personal dogmas of what a Gawd must be like.

The Materialist insists that any psychedelic (or religious) experience must all be consistent with the same being. For it to be true, there must be a unified consensus. But that may not be how it works.

Some people see UFO’s. Some see ghosts. Some see Mary, and some see Big Foot. You’ll notice on the video, no one sees the same thing within the DMT flash. One guy saw Men in Black. Another saw the Blue Lady… etc…

Keep open the possibility that the Over Mind may present itself to us within the best fit that we can each associate with it as individuals. That’s all I ask.
__________

Lastly… to put my favorite address to the mechanism which bridges the gap between immaterial and material realms…

Language

From Bhartrihari’s Sphota, to Chompski’s Innate Grammar… You can’t read a single page of Freud without discussion of Language and language tools. Lacan supported and expanded on that. Biblical principles of the Word and DNA Transcription alike point to the importance of Language/Code as the mechanism which bridges the gap between the immaterial to the material realm. Language is the only tool which allows Thought to Affect Intentional Change Upon the Material realm.

In light of Warrens research, the ncRNA could be seen as engaging upon desire of immaterial mind first, and then instructing brain to initiate a physical sequence allowing song to manifest into material reality. Just a thought… so to speak. Word!

i’m beginning to understand exactly why jesus wept . . .

gorillapaws (10487 )
@Pachomius I’m not an atheist. I’m on the fence, and can appreciate the positions of both sides. As for my personal view, I tend to think of God like a scientist (if he exists). I think he created the parameters of the universe (the laws of physics, mathematics, logic, etc) and kicked things in motion to see how his creation would turn out. I don’t think a God would “meddle” in the affairs of people and certainly not operate at the level of helping one sports team win over another. I think, if he’s real, he is like a scientist/artist that created something wonderful and enjoys seeing how it all plays out.
gorillapaws (10487 )

———————————-

Thanks for your concept of God, that He did everything but does not meddle in everything afterwards, that is already assenting to His having created everything in the universe that is not Himself, including the programming to keep it operating without further intervention from Himself.

I can see that concept to be in concurrence with the barebone concept from myself about God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

The further question is whether He does or does not meddle any further with His creation, that question can be put in abeyance; I can see that with that concept from you of a creator God but not an intervenor God, you can already have a logical debate with Christians on the existence of God.

Now there are atheists who want to insist that God is responsible for evil in the world, because He creates everything and that includes everything, and evil is a part of everything; so they do grudgingly admit the concept of God as the creator of EVERYTHING in the universe that is not Himself, including evil.

So, such atheists are ironically in the camp of Christians who maintain that God creates everything, but Christians just cannot ascribe to God’s creation the evil that is in the world.

Wherefore summing up: it seems clear that everyone even atheists are ascribing to God the creation of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

But for two reservations, that He does not meddle anymore after creation, and that He also creates evil which is part of everything He creates.

Now, what again is the controversy in the God debate?

The God debate now appears to be not in the existence or non-existence of God, but in the God NOT being a hand on the job God or an in effect absentee God, and for atheists, how to explain evil in the world.

Those two issues deserve two separate distinct question boxes.

I was a christian most of my life ,well read in the bible, but I always had doubt .this is about 10 years old but it ‘s what really changed my mind please watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs

Changed your mind about what @germanmannn? You decided to reject Christianity… or you decided to deny any God being whatsoever?

I don’t see how that video challenges either. Christianity isn’t necessarily against the concept of evolution. Creationists typically are, but they’re just one type of Christian. And we should note that there are different theories as to how evolution operates too… So which type are we discussing… Classic Darwinian Theory, or Neo Darwinian?

you have no idea what this means do you LMFAO .

The truth is this simple When you die, you die.
Some people have a tremendous amount of trouble getting their arms around this fact of life. Chances are that you have heard about eternal life and your everlasting soul since you were a toddler. Heaven is as deeply ingrained in you as is your native language. Nonetheless, everlasting life is imaginary.What about chimps the closest living relatives to humans?When you die, you cease to exist. Imagining eternal life and creating a fantasy called heaven does not change anything. When you die, you are dead? You are not a child. Imagining a place called “heaven” does not change the central fact about the chemical reactions that drive your cells. You simply need to grow up and face death like an adult,

Wow, did I just see others and my own words get taken out of context? Yes, I believe I just did. We did not say we believe god created evil/everything including evil. We said if he exists and created everything, then many christians seem to have differing opinions on what everything means as I see christians argue that everything means only everything good. Personally I believe good and evil are abstract constructs, in other words, they’re not real. Anyway, we never said we believed god created evil, we just said if he exists and if he created everything, then he must have created evil as well because that is part of everything. Please do not take what we said out of context. It can be quite irritating.

@germanmannn “you have no idea what this means do you LMFAO .”

Perhaps when you’re finished LYFAO… you could explain why exactly the fusion of two chromosomes into one somehow defeats the premise of a God being. I don’t get the connection you’re making here.

It’s no secret that humans evolved from primates. Primate olfactory genes have been found in human pseudogenes. They’re just turned off. The pseudogenes are being discovered as legacy files. How does this disprove a Creator?

@germanmannn “The truth is this simple When you die, you die. Some people have a tremendous amount of trouble getting their arms around this fact of life.”

Again… you foist this as “fact” when in fact it is nothing more than your opinion, and a shortsighted one at that.

@germanmannn “Nonetheless, everlasting life is imaginary.What about chimps the closest living relatives to humans?”

What about them? I’m not getting your connection here.

@germanmannn “When you die, you are dead?”

How do you know this to be “the central fact”?

@germanmannn “chemical reactions that drive your cells.”

Erm… last time I checked, chemical reactions didn’t drive cells. Code does…

Chemical reactions don’t instruct the cells to do anything. Code does…

Chemical reactions don’t predetermine a specific outcome in advance. Code does…

Chemical reactions don’t make you… Code does…

Forensics will confirm that for you after your next crime spree.

The dictionary defines delusion as, “A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence.” That definition fits perfectly.does it make more sense for you to believe that God wrote the Bible, or that primitive men wrote the Bible without any input from God? There is no reason for you to believe that you have a soul, or that you will have eternal life after death, or that there is a heaven and hell, unless you believe that God wrote the Bible.

@germanmannn The truth is this simple When you die, you die. Can you prove that or is it just another assumption?

Per your definition @germanmannn… Do you have any “invalidating evidence” that a soul does not exist?

______

Now look… perhaps we’re not even speaking the same language. Our personal definitions of “soul”.

For me…
Mind = Soul
Thought = Spirit

They are synonymous terms from separate disciplines.

You can’t see, touch, taste, smell a Mind or a Thought any more than a Soul or Spirit.

Many Thoughts build a Mind just like many Spirits build a Soul.
_______

This is just so you know where I’m coming from. Mine is not a Christian argument for Theism.

so you think you can still see, touch, taste, smell when your dead?

Will atheists cooperate with Christians to agree on concepts and rules for proving or disproving the existence of God?

I think when we die we all turn in to Leprechauns, Can you prove that we don’t?

@germanmann “so you think you can still see, touch, taste, smell when your dead?”

I have no idea. I’ve never been physically dead. Those that claim to have died and return to physical life say that every sense is enhanced exponentially… but not in a physical manner. I can’t say either way. I’ve never died.

But what I do know, is that Thoughts require a Mind to accommodate them. And I know that Thought is non physical… immaterial. And I know that I have access to the Thoughts of Abe Lincoln with two clicks of the mouse. Thus Abe’s Thought/Mind Spirit/Soul must be in existence somehow, otherwise I’d not be capable of accessing them.
_________

You’ve got to realize, these words on this thread are not our thoughts. They represent our thoughts. They will continue to do so long after we die every bit as much as they do currently. How could they do that if our thoughts didn’t exist somehow?

if every one was dead they wouldn’t live on only what was left visible in our world because we bring meaning into existence with our intelligence and our thinking.

Say again please… I just don’t understand how you phrased that statement.

if every one was dead they wouldn’t live on,“Thoughts of Abe Lincoln” only what was left visible in our world would be left. because we bring meaning into existence with our intelligence and our thinking.

I can’t say honestly that I understand your statement. I’ll try to dissect it. Forgive me if I’m missing how you worded this.

“if every one was dead they wouldn’t live on”

How do you know this? Of course they don’t live on physically. That’s not the issue. But if I have access to Abe’s Thought/Spirit, then he must live on Spiritually.

”“Thoughts of Abe Lincoln” only what was left visible in our world would be left.”

Just because we can’t access something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Even during Abe’s physical life, he created plenty of Thought/Spirits that no one but him had access to. Shall we claim the Thought/Spirits that he did not share with others somehow didn’t exist? Me Thinks not.

The Thought/Spirit I share with you right now is represented on your computer, mine, and numerous others following this thread. Multiple sources accessing the same Thought/Spirit. If someone’s computer crashes, that does not affect the Thought/Spirit whatsoever. It only affects their ability to access my Thought/Spirit.

The medium is not the message… never ever. We cannot truthfully claim that a Thought/Spirit dies just because the physical medium which represented it died. I cannot claim that Mozart ceases to exist just because my record player broke.

Multiple sources accessing the same Thought/Spirit.

Where is it?

@germanmannn I think when we die we all turn in to Leprechauns, Can you prove that we don’t? I’ll give you some friendly advice here, that statement is a very poor counter response to the debate of whether consciousness is more than a brain function, or not. Maybe it’s just me on fluther but this is not about trying to prove or disprove a negative but about research on the topic. I will give you just a few reasons why:

1. The cross correspondences which started with F.W Myers is very strong evidence that mind may be more than a brain function. Outside of some lame rebuttal attempts by those “sceptics” suffering from the Semmelweis Reflex the only real debate here seems to be which type of paranormal phenomena took place during the 30 year course of these files being written. Some sceptics claim that it was clairvoyance, not afterlife communications that occured here but either way it is evidence that has never been debunked.

2. There are seemingly endless tales of some type of telepathy or clairvoyance that happen to people such as the case of a man who decides for some reason that he does not want to board his flight, only to learn that it crashed shortly after despite the fact that he has flown many times before. Here is this case about twin telepathy which is eerily similar to an event which happened between my mother and my aunt (her sister) as kids. There are just too many of these “coincidences” to ignore here.

3. There is a phenomena known as near death experiences or NDE’s which perhaps some may be due to fraud, hallucinations or actual spiritual experiences but it is difficult to count them all out. Here is some interesting research by cardiologist Dr. Pim Van Lommel.

There are two distinct NDE cases (actually 3 but I can’t find the 3rd case at the moment) that really stand out to me. The first case is that of Vicki Umipeg whom was blind from birth. The second case is that of Olga Gearhardt who was able to relay a verified message to her son in law who was at home during a part of her (Olga’s) surgery at a hospital that went bad where she temporarily “died”. There of course are many more cases that I didn’t bring up here but I gave you two NDE websites to look at if you want to read for yourself.

4. Though this is not evidence in itself it does show that trying to compare disproving a negative vs researching paranormal phenomena or consciousness is rather futile. These are great modern day names in science that are convinced that mind and brain are seperate. Try explaining leprechauns to these great scientists. Brian Josephson, Freeman Dyson, Ron D Pearson, Sir Roger Penrose just to name a very few of the present day names.

I think that what is termed as paranormal will be the next great frontier in science when the physicalist paradigm shifts, and trust me it eventually will. In fact it has already begun on a small scale.

@Pachomius I’m not sure why the issue of God has to be confined to the Christian point of view. Theism, religionism and paranormal phenomena have different meanings from each other. Even Christians have differing views from each other on creation and evolution.

I bring up the issue of consciousness because I believe it is the only way to validate the existence of a supreme deity (however one may define such an entity). God will never be proven through biology, chemistry, astronomy and to a great deal; physics as we know it currently. No matter what advancements are made in the scientific disciplines I’ve mentioned (except for physics) the existence of God will always be an assumption.

@Paradox25 I would love to delve into the various links you’ve posted and try to find out whether or not we should find them valid or not. In particular, I’m interested in odd cases of apparent twin telepathy. Unfortunately I haven’t the time at the moment, which isn’t very helpful, but I want to reaffirm my continued interest in this thread.

God will never be proven through biology, chemistry, astronomy and to a great deal; physics as we know it currently. No matter what advancements are made in the scientific disciplines I’ve mentioned (except for physics) the existence of God will always be an assumption

Why do you think this? I think the main reason people have any concept of a sentient deity is cultural. If you (you being anyone) had never heard of Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, would you have ever arrived at the conclusion that our universe was created on your own?

The question that interests me today is (and I’m sure @Pachomius will complain we aren’t confining our discussion to his/her parameters) could the universe be considered conscious? It spawned creatures that contemplate it, it’s made of all the same stuff we are and far beyond, it can accommodate black holes and stars. Is it “alive” in the sense we think of ourselves? It’s unquestionably at least as dynamic a system as our bodies.

@cockswain “I think the main reason people have any concept of a sentient deity is cultural.”

Actually, that’s the reason people believe in a particular sentient deity. But not the reason for belief in deity in general. I know of no culture that began as Atheistic and stuck with it.

@cockswain “If you (you being anyone) had never heard of Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, would you have ever arrived at the conclusion that our universe was created on your own?”

Perhaps not those particular religions. But another would be invented. I’d wager that if we transplanted humans into any controlled environment, that we would observe the formation of an entirely new religious manifestation to explain apparent paranormal events and origins to some degree.

@cockswain “could the universe be considered conscious?”

Consciousness is determined by and directly relevant to the degree a being can express language. A Bee, with the few words its figure 8 waggle dance can communicate thoughts about the pollen will never be conscious of the coffee cup sitting at the breakfast table. It has no words to describe or become aware of such a phenomenon.

Thus, for the Universe to be considered conscious, one must first isolate a language structure that it can speak consciousness with.

@cockswain “It (the Universe) spawned creatures that contemplate it…”

Supposition.

@cockswain ”...it’s made of all the same stuff we are and far beyond…”

There is no code or language in the universe. Humans on the other hand, are created with code, author code, and create new code on the fly to describe new phenomenon with.

I’ve often pondered what is meant by the Biblical statement that Man is created in the image of God. I’ve come to believe that humans, like God, are the only creatures on earth that can create new language tools to describe new phenomenon. Where a Bee, or Wolf, or Whale is limited to an innate vernacular to describe the limited phenomenon that concerns them, Man is capable of continual conscious expansion with his unique ability to expand the language he uses ad infinitum.

More on the importance of language… I find these Biblical verses absolutely fascinating when viewed by the standard of Linguistics and Information Theory… Check this out.

Hebrews 11:5
“By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God translated him: for he hath had witness borne to him that before his translation he had been well-pleasing unto God”

The story of Enoch ends with him being one of a very select few humans that never had to die. God took him up to heaven before his death.

Many versions of the Bible use the word “translate” to describe this event. Other versions of the Bible replace “translate” with “taken up”.

This is uncannily similar to the modern process of a computer translation or information upload from one processor to another.

Our modern day court system would accept Enoch’s genetic code as proof of his existence. Our legal system depends upon the accuracy of viewing humans as pure code. One thing we know about code, is that it can always be perfectly mapped from one form to another. English can be mapped to German and Japanese with equal efficiency and integrity of meaning.

Could the essence of Enoch… the meaning of Enoch which is represented by his genetic code have been translated to another state that physical technology is incapable of detecting?

@cockswain I would love to delve into the various links you’ve posted and try to find out whether or not we should find them valid or not. They are based upon anecdotal evidence and I wasn’t able to find any real critiques of the cases mentioned. I do try to read multiple links to a story before I use it, including the critiques of each one. I also tend to believe a story when the experiences mentioned matched those that happened to me or others I know/knew.

I am a sceptical person and I’ve gotten into some strong debate with many proparanormal enthusiasts myself. I’ve criticized the Scole Experiments, the Pam Reynolds NDE, the James Leinninger case, etc just to mention a few. There are many people out there who are willing to turn issues important to some of us into a joke by combining paranormal phenomena with every quack treatment protocol or conspiracy theory out there. Many of these types of people/websites/books also tend to tell only one side of a story while leaving uncomfortable details out, which is why many times I have more respect for the sceptical point of view.

You also quoted me here: “God will never be proven through biology, chemistry, astronomy and to a great deal; physics as we know it currently. No matter what advancements are made in the scientific disciplines I’ve mentioned (except for physics) the existence of God will always be an assumption.” and then asked me why I think this. I think it is obvious, think about it. Right now the top arguments that theists have relating to intelligent design as far as biological arguments go is the complexity of DNA code along with irreduccible complexity (link is on my profile page). Regardless I don’t see how this proves God did it. I think the only way to prove God is through physics, researching paranormal phenomena along with trying to find out what consciousness is. I’ll explain why I feel this way.

I think the main reason people have any concept of a sentient deity is cultural. If you (you being anyone) had never heard of Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, would you have ever arrived at the conclusion that our universe was created on your own? I’m not sure I would use the term sentient deity here since I’ve always thought that term meant minimal awareness without the ability to relate to any type of external stimulus or minimal awareness without the ability to comprehend anything beyond being aware of one’s existence.

I do think that culture is a major part of belief systems, especially the correct brand of theism. Not all of us though, when I was little I used to make fun of certain biblical teachings I was subjected to. I used to laugh at the notion of Noah’s Flood as young as 7. I do hold the Bible in high regards but I try to look at it in a symbolic way. If read deeply there are hints of many New Age concepts there, especially in the New Testament. It is still a difficult book for me to comprehend though.

I arrived at the possibility that there may be a divine universe (with a purpose) because of too many personal experiences and those of others I knew. I then researched further and have found that the experiences of many others matched ours. Note: I never researched any type of material related to the occult or paranormal prior to these experiences.

After researching further about anything related to the paranormal, consciousness or an afterlife I did notice a common pattern that emerged from (alleged) afterlife entity communications with certain mediums. The link provided on my profile page explains kind of where I’m at with my spiritual views, what happens when we pass on, do all of us pass on consciously or with awareness at first, what does passing on actually feel like, what really determines who goes where and is it eternal, are we eternal, is faith important, what is our real purpose, etc, etc, etc. After 11 years of research and many experiences that hit close to home I’ve found that link (on my profile page) likely gives the most accurate descriptions of ‘death’.

To try to answer whether or not I think the universe is conscious or not the best I can give you is this link from Victor Zammit’s site. I can’t provide a direct link so you will have to scroll down to where it says in bold blue text where it says summary at the bottom of the Ron D Pearson article and click again. It is a brief but detailed summary. I’m still not sure that I’m with this theory all the way but there are several reasons why I take his hypothesis more serious than other theists. Likely though only certain evolved sections of the nuether/i-ther (read Pearson’s summary) develped a conscious intelligence with the rest of the i-theric grid remaining amoral and machine-like. I’m out of time right now. I’ll try to respond in more detail when I get back, afterall this is my favorite subject.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Do you think that consciousness just is, a point at where the buck stops somewhere and just is or do you think that consciousness (thought/mind) needs a vessel/medium/machine to manifest itself from? Do you think that thought can just exist by itself without something like a brain or machine-like system to generate it? I would think that even Mind would need to be generated from some type of energy fed system, even if mind is not merely confined to being a brain function.

Briefly, just this point: “God will never be proven through biology, chemistry, astronomy and to a great deal; physics as we know it currently. No matter what advancements are made in the scientific disciplines I’ve mentioned (except for physics) the existence of God will always be an assumption.”

I misunderstood what you meant and I agree. I thought you were saying God may one day be proven, but science will be an inadequate method of doing so.

@Paradox25 The confusion of this issue is the assumption that consciousness has anything at all to do with “some type of energy fed system”. It’s nothing to do with energy or matter or anything physical whatsoever.

Again, Weiner…
“Information is information. Not energy and not matter. Any materialism that does not allow for this cannot survive in the present”.
Cybernetics p147

There is a third agent at play. The laws of information are not reducible to the laws of physics.

@Paradox25 “Do you think that consciousness just is, a point at where the buck stops somewhere and just is or do you think that consciousness (thought/mind) needs a vessel/medium/machine to manifest itself from?”

In our physical realm, there seems to be the need for a physical representation. That’s what the words on this page are doing right now. These words represent thoughts that no one will ever be capable of detecting without the words which represent them. This is beyond simple brain scans to detect activity. This is code. This is a set of agreed upon symbols that represent specific meaning… far beyond brain scanning to detect activity.

The words on this page will represent our thoughts long after we die, or our computer dies. The physical medium is only required to make the thoughts accessible to other physical mediums. But the physical medium does not affect the thought. It just represents it.

Since the thought is not a physical agent, then there must be some immaterial realm of which to accommodate it. An immaterial realm should not be confined to the same criteria of a material realm. An immaterial realm, therefor, is not bound by notions of space-time. When speaking of an immaterial realm, we should not speak of beginning and ending any more than width and size.

Physics is the last place to look for consciousness. Consciousness, manifesting and relevant to varying degrees of Thought/Spirit building Mind/Soul is best left to the Information Sciences to detect… of which we have in spades.

All codes have authors. The codes represent the thoughts of authors, even long after the author has physically died. Therefor the thought is beyond the physicality of the material body.

@Paradox25 (1151 )
@Pachomius I’m not sure why the issue of God has to be confined to the Christian point of view. Theism, religionism and paranormal phenomena have different meanings from each other. Even Christians have differing views from each other on creation and evolution.
I bring up the issue of consciousness because I believe it is the only way to validate the existence of a supreme deity (however one may define such an entity). God will never be proven through biology, chemistry, astronomy and to a great deal; physics as we know it currently. No matter what advancements are made in the scientific disciplines I’ve mentioned (except for physics) the existence of God will always be an assumption.
Paradox25 (1151 )
————————————-
Begging your pardon, if you want to discuss the existence of God in another religion or in no religion at all, I am not against your concern.

I am just asking you whether you know about the concept of God in the Christian faith in God’s fundamental relation to the universe, which is according to me the following:
God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.
That is all I am asking people, namely, if they know the concept of God in the Christian faith in God’s fundamental relation to the universe.

I submit that the concept I presented, namely, God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself, is common to all Christians who believe in the existence of God.

Of course Christians could also believe differently in other things about God, but as creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself, that is the common concept, even though it is also known I mean the concept to non-Christians.

I want to commend the owners and operators of this forum for they do not interfere unlike most forums I had been to, in particular owned and operated by atheists, the tend to interfere as to impede my communication.

My purpose is to get atheists to have the correct acquaintance of the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

Atheists want to also insist that God creates evil for God creates everything, that is the logical implication, correct; but can we just talk about the socalled evils that God also creates in another question box, most important for me is that atheists get the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

So, if they atheists have the correct concept of God, and they want to exchange views with Christians about the existence of such a God, then they and Christians will be logical in talking about the same God, instead of talking illogically past each others’ heads.

But the existence of God to prove or disprove, that should be in another question box.
What I am noticing is that a lot of posters here just don’t want to focus on my question, but they go into other directions, seemingly they would not want to know about the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

How can they talk at all logically with Christians if they do want to talk with Christians at all, if they don’t want to get the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

Of course some atheists many of them in fact insist that they don’t care to talk to Christians about any God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., fine with me but just don’t show any anger: because I am asking other atheists who do care to exchange views with Christians about God’s existence, whether they have the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His God’s fundamental relation to the universe.

Okay, I get you, you are not angry… sorry.

I am really not yet conversant with the how of negotiating this forum so please bear with me if I don’t present a well-formatted post.

I thought I sent out already this message but I could not find it so I am sending it out again.

@Paradox25 (1161 )

I’m a theist but ironically I don’t believe that God likely can ever be proven for 2 reasons:
1) Relating to future discoveries in physics, astronomy and biology the existence of a surpreme deity will always be an assumption.

2) The concept of such an enormous entity would be so above us that even upon passing on (I believe in survival after physical death and an afterlife) that we still would not know of God any better than we do while alive (physically on earth). It may be possible someday to prove God’s existence but I think (if we survive this long) will be many milleniums from now. Paradox25 (1161 )

———————————

I invite you and all posters here specially atheists to join me in the new question box from myself, on the question:

“Will atheists agree with Christians on what is the concept of proving something to exist in actual reality, in particular: God?”

I have noticed that people atheists that is want to dive directly into proving that God does not exist, instead of first coming to agreement on a concept of God concurred on by everyone.

So, better since it is not possible with atheists to first have a separate question on a concurring concept of God, I will now dive into the proving of God exists or [for atheists] does not exist, and get from atheists what concept of God they are not believing in and seeking to prove His non-existence, but and a very big but we have to agree on what it is to prove something to exist in actual reality outside of concepts and the mind of man.

There are actually then in the new question box three sub-questions but the main one is to prove God exists or for atheists to prove God does not exist:

1. God exists or does not exist.
2. What is the concept of God everyone should concur on otherwise everyone is talking illogically.
3. What is it to prove that something exists in actual reality outside of concepts and outside of man’s mind.

Will atheists agree with Christians on what is the concept of proving something to exist in actual reality, in particular: God?

Here is the background of the question:

@Paradox25 (1161 )

I’m a theist but ironically I don’t believe that God likely can ever be proven for 2 reasons:
1) Relating to future discoveries in physics, astronomy and biology the existence of a surpreme deity will always be an assumption.

2) The concept of such an enormous entity would be so above us that even upon passing on (I believe in survival after physical death and an afterlife) that we still would not know of God any better than we do while alive (physically on earth). It may be possible someday to prove God’s existence but I think (if we survive this long) will be many milleniums from now. Paradox25 (1161 )

———————————

I invite you Paradox and all posters here specially atheists to join me in the new question from myself, namely:

“Will atheists agree with Christians on what is the concept of proving something to exist in actual reality, in particular: God?”

I have noticed that people atheists that is want to dive directly into proving that God does not exist, instead of first coming to agreement on a concept of God concurred on by everyone.

So, since it is not possible with atheists to first have a separate question on a concurring concept of God, better I will now dive into the proving of God exists or [for atheists] does not exist, and get from atheists what concept of God they are not believing in and seeking to prove His non-existence, but and a very big but we have to agree on what it is to prove something to exist in actual reality outside of concepts and the mind of man.

There are actually then in the new question from me three sub-questions but the main one is to prove God exists or for atheists to prove God does not exist:

1. God exists or does not exist.
2. What is the concept of God everyone should concur on otherwise everyone is talking illogically.
3. What is it to prove that something exists in actual reality outside of concepts and outside of man’s mind.

——————————-

I say that God’s existence can be proven, but I will elaborate on my proof of God as I proceed, from the inputs of other posters here and also most specially from atheists.

So, here is my idea to prove God’s existence:

Right away I say that God’s existence is proven from EVIDENCE, namely, the whole totality of existence that is my concept of the universe is the EVIDENCE for the existence of God.

How is that?

Like this:

Take for example, that I see a mansion and ask people who live in its neighborhood who built the mansion and who owns the mansion, they tell me the owner himself is the builder of the mansion all by himself.

From that example of a mansion, I come right away to the insight that in the totality of existence which I understand to be the whole universe there is that part that is the observable to man universe, it is built and owned and operated by God, Who I understand to be the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

How do I know that the observable to man universe is built, owned, and operated by God?

From the fact that the observable universe did not come from nothing, that is the EVIDENCE that God created the observable to man universe.

Amazing!

Well, in the succeeding discussion things will come out more clearly: just let us all be calm and be attentive to always work to agree on concepts and rules—nothing can be achieved without concurrence on concepts and rules.
——————————-

Hope this message comes out because I am not really conversant on how this forum works, but I do want to have a good exchange of thoughts with everyone here specially with atheists.

Anyway let me see the reactions of posters here specially the atheists here.

“From the fact that the observable universe did not come from nothing, that is the EVIDENCE that God created the observable to man universe.”

Not following the logic of this. Just because science CAN’T give a definite explanation of the beginning doesn’t mean it WON’T. This is just the stereotypical response man has given throughout the ages:

Kid: “Why is the sky blue?”
Adult: “Oh, ummmm… (Shit I don’t know! What can I tell him? I know, I’ll make up some super being and call it… looks at pet dog God!) It’s God kiddo, he made the sky blue for us to enjoy.” insert fake and hopeful smile here
Kid: (What f*** is this bullshit?) Oh, well, okay….

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I’ve always thought of information as just that, information, not thought in itself. The words written here by me are information about my thoughts and yes, we don’t see the thought source itself here but only the manifestation of my thoughts through my words, which of course would be information. Information needs to come from something other than itself I would think. Information can come from a book, person, computer, code, etc. Something still has to generate information.

I’m not comparing thought/consciousness in itself to physical matter, because it is not. What I’m saying is that thought, like information has to generated by something. Thought generates information but what generates thought? I’m open to other ideas here but I never heard of this Weiner. So what you’re saying is that information is information and you believe that thought is the same thing as information? So do you believe that thought just is, without a beginning or an end?

Information is the act of representing immaterial thought with material form.

“ation” – denotes process.

In-form (informare) to form the formless (in-to-form).

@Paradox25 “Thought generates information but what generates thought?”

Depends on what type of thought it is. The thoughts you just conveyed were generated by the thoughts before them. And those by the thoughts before them…

We are forced to consider a Proto-Thought which begat all others.

Brings new light to the verse:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh”.

Also see Bhartrihari’s Sphota Theory of Language.
“Understood as shabda tattva-the “word principle,” this complex idea explains the nature of consciousness, the awareness of all forms of phenomenal appearances, and posits an identity obtains between these, which is none other than Brahman.”

The mechanism which allows for this is explained by Chomsky’s Universal Grammar.

Interesting thing about Information…

It’s the only thing in the universe that duplicates simply by being observed. That duplication leads to new Information being birthed.

Unlike physical energy and matter, which are fixed constants in the universe.

At conception, DNA recombination from Mother strand and Father strand forms an entirely new strand of code unique unto itself.

This is no different that when two great ideas come together and birth a newer one greater than the original two.

Imagine if DNA suffered from dogma, lies, deception, fear, secrets… No beneficial new thoughts arise from this in human communication. No new life would arise from DNA recombination either.

@King_Pariah

“From the fact that the observable universe did not come from nothing, that is the EVIDENCE that God created the observable to man universe.”
Not following the logic of this. Just because science CAN’T give a definite explanation of the beginning doesn’t mean it WON’T. This is just the stereotypical response man has given throughout the ages:
Kid: “Why is the sky blue?”
Adult: “Oh, ummmm… (Shit I don’t know! What can I tell him? I know, I’ll make up some super being and call it… looks at pet dog God!) It’s God kiddo, he made the sky blue for us to enjoy.” insert fake and hopeful smile here
Kid: (What f*** is this bullshit?) Oh, well, okay….
King_Pariah

——————————————-

First, I don’t recall that I wrote that kind of a message, my purpose is to get atheists to agree on coming to concurring concepts and rules in the God debate.

Just the same, since the powers that be here in effect require me to stick to the present thread, because this thread is good enough to go into the debate of God existing or not, so I am now into the exchange of God existing, and in the process trying my best to get people to agree on concepts and rules.

Now, about science, well, science is into the observable universe and it does not go for ultimate explanations; for example, it is looking for the ultimate particle to find out I guess whether it can still be broken up into still smaller particles.

Now suppose science cannot anymore break up those last smallest particles, will scientists now go to the question what put those particles into existence by which everything in the universe is composed?

Besides, scientists avow that man cannot know a lot of the universe because a lot of the universe is simply beyond the access of man at this time and in the concrete environment man is located actually and until man exits i.e. departs from existence.

So when science finally comes to particles which science cannot anymore break into still smaller particles, what now?

Will scientists now ask themselves whether these smallest of particles have always been in the universe and nothing else exists; or they have to come up with some explanation of these particles by which explanation the particles did not put themselves into existence?

[ I regret that I still do not know how to format my messages here, I tried to find the codes here, but they seem to require a lot of patience from my part to master them; so, please, dear folks here, I will just get along and trust your intelligence to get my thoughts correctly. ]

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “The Brahman is without beginning and end, whose essence is the Word, who is the cause of the manifested phonemes, who appears as the objects, from whom the creation of the world proceeds”. So this is what you mean when you use the term ‘Proto-Thought’? Also, I’m not sure if I’m comprehending this correctly but I’m assuming that when we read “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God” the Brahman is God and the Word is the essence of Brahman (which is the God of the Bible).

“The Brahminic view of the cosmos put forth in the Vedas is one of constant and cyclical creation and dissolution. At the dissolution of each creative cycle a seed or trace (samskâra) is left behind out of which the next cycle arises.” So there were an infinite amount of ‘beginnings’ and there will continue to be an infinte amount of ‘beginnings’. It sounds like this theory is somewhat compatable with the cyclic big bang theory (Penrose). I do find it fascinating that the Vedas predates the Bible by at least a millenium and yet mentions this.

I find it interesting from when you had mentioned: Interesting thing about Information…
“It’s the only thing in the universe that duplicates simply by being observed. That duplication leads to new Information being birthed”, because if this trace is always left behind during this perpetual cycle I wonder if each new trace is greater than each preceding trace.

Q. So what do you think that Bhartrihari meant by ‘eternal’ relating to the word-principle (personally)?

“To talk of an absolute beginning of language is untenable. Language is continuous and co-terminus with human existence or the existence of any sentient being.” So I’m guessing that what is meant here is that since brahman, which is sentient, is eternal than language itself must be eternal.

“The meaning of the sentence, the speech-unit, is one entire cognitive content (samvit). The sentence is indivisible (akhanda) and owes its cognitive value to the meaning-whole. Thus, its meaning is not reducible to its parts, the individual words which are distinguished only for the purposes of convention or expression. The differentiated word-meanings, which are also ontological categories, are the abstracted “pieces” we produce using imaginative construction, or vikalpa. Sphota entails a kind of mental perception which is described as a moment of recognition, an instantaneous flash (pratibhâ), whereby the hearer is made conscious, through hearing sounds, of the latent meaning unit already present in his consciousness (unconscious).” Interesting, as was the whole read but that paragraph really caught my attention.

“Generally, Vedanta rejects the notion of an evolving Brahman since Brahman contains within it the potentiality and archetypes behind all possible manifest phenomenal forms.” This seems to be on par with the Silver Birch teachings that I’ve read about when he describes the Great Spirit of the Universe. However, this seems to oppose the evolving God/Mind hypothesis from a subquantum background medium known as the nuether or i-ther (the only true and ultimate form of reality) according to the Big Breed Theory by Pearson. So according to the Sphota Theory the effect preexists in the cause.

Very interesting read but I’m no linguilist and I had to do some alternative research just to try to comprehend that article since there were quite a few words that I never heard of before, but thanks. I’ve become interested in this Sphota Theory now since I’ve never heard of it before.

@Paradox25 In my three years of fluthering, I believe you are the first to actually read through the Bhartrihari material enough to offer it intelligent consideration. Kudos to you.

I wish I had more time to reply. I admire the time you took to consider the material before commenting further. This dialogue has moved beyond quick response.

@Paradox25 “I’m assuming that when we read “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God” the Brahman is God and the Word is the essence of Brahman (which is the God of the Bible).”

To ask a Hindu, or a Christian, no, Brahman is not the God of the Bible.

To ask me, yes, they refer to the same agent. For me, all religion is dogma, teetering on deception. But when we access the ancient text as close to the original source as possible, we find many correlations that cannot be denied. Religion is like language, to some degree. Essence of meaning can be represented equally with German or Japanese. The language doesn’t matter. What we seek is the meaning. Religion confuses the language with the meaning, insisting that all other religions are incorrect.

Those who do not read the actual materials for themselves, and compare them with interdisciplinary study, will not recognize this.

@Paradox25 ”...the Brahman is God and the Word is the essence of Brahman ”

Remember the Bible also stated that “The Word was God”, not just “with” God.

Terrence McKenna speaks of his DMT flash as taking him into a realm where beings are made of pure language. Syntax to them is like a heartbeat to us. Semantics to them is like body organs to us.

In our physical realm, the Medium is never the Message. Believing they are is at the heart of all evil and deception. But the immaterial realm is different. Meaning is not dependent upon a physical representation to confuse it with. The immaterial realm allows meaning to be Beheld for what is actually is unto itself, with no entropic physicality to deteriorate the representation.

McKenna likens this to the phrase: “I SEE what you mean”. We use that phrase metaphorically in our physical realm. Of course we cannot “see” meaning any more than we can “see” thoughts or mind. But the immaterial realm accommodates meaning that is actually seen, with a type of third eye so to speak.

I’ve got to go now.

I did make that statement: “From the fact that the observable universe did not come from nothing, that is the EVIDENCE that God created the observable to man universe.”

Please however take the whole context of that statement (see text between * and * in the quotation following below):

“I say that God’s existence can be proven, but I will elaborate on my proof of God as I proceed, from the inputs of other posters here and also most specially from atheists.

So, here is my idea to prove God’s existence:

Right away I say that God’s existence is proven from EVIDENCE, namely, the whole totality of existence that is my concept of the universe is the EVIDENCE for the existence of God.

How is that?

Like this:

Take for example, that I see a mansion and ask people who live in its neighborhood who built the mansion and who owns the mansion, they tell me the owner himself is the builder of the mansion all by himself.

From that example of a mansion, I come right away to the insight that in the totality of existence which I understand to be the whole universe there is that part that is the observable to man universe, it is built and owned and operated by God, Who I understand to be the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

*How do I know that the observable to man universe is built, owned, and operated by God?
From the fact that the observable universe did not come from nothing, that is the EVIDENCE that God created the observable to man universe.*

Amazing!

Well, in the succeeding discussion things will come out more clearly: just let us all be calm and be attentive to always work to agree on concepts and rules—nothing can be achieved without concurrence on concepts and rules.

——————————-

Hope this message comes out because I am not really conversant on how this forum works, but I do want to have a good exchange of thoughts with everyone here specially with atheists.
Anyway let me see the reactions of posters here specially the atheists here.”

—————————————-

Well, I am still waiting for folks here to react to my last message here:

”@King_Pariah
“From the fact that the observable universe did not come from nothing, that is the EVIDENCE that God created the observable to man universe.”
Not following the logic of this. Just because science CAN’T give a definite explanation of the beginning doesn’t mean it WON’T. This is just the stereotypical response man has given throughout the ages:
Kid: “Why is the sky blue?”
Adult: “Oh, ummmm… (Shit I don’t know! What can I tell him? I know, I’ll make up some super being and call it… looks at pet dog God!) It’s God kiddo, he made the sky blue for us to enjoy.” insert fake and hopeful smile here
Kid: (What f*** is this bullshit?) Oh, well, okay….
King_Pariah

——————————————-

First, I don’t recall that I wrote that kind of a message, my purpose is to get atheists to agree on coming to concurring concepts and rules in the God debate.

Just the same, since the powers that be here in effect require me to stick to the present thread, because this thread is good enough to go into the debate of God existing or not, so I am now into the exchange of God existing, and in the process trying my best to get people to agree on concepts and rules.

Now, about science, well, science is into the observable universe and it does not go for ultimate explanations; for example, it is looking for the ultimate particle to find out I guess whether it can still be broken up into still smaller particles.

Now suppose science cannot anymore break up those last smallest particles, will scientists now go to the question what put those particles into existence by which everything in the universe is composed?

Besides, scientists avow that man cannot know a lot of the universe because a lot of the universe is simply beyond the access of man at this time and in the concrete environment man is located actually and until man exits i.e. departs from existence.
So when science finally comes to particles which science cannot anymore break into still smaller particles, what now?

Will scientists now ask themselves whether these smallest of particles have always been in the universe and nothing else exists; or they have to come up with some explanation of these particles by which explanation the particles did not put themselves into existence?

[ I regret that I still do not know how to format my messages here, I tried to find the codes here, but they seem to require a lot of patience from my part to master them; so, please, dear folks here, I will just get along and trust your intelligence to get my thoughts correctly. ]”

————————————

Is there some instructions in this forum on how to refer to a message in a thread? Here below the edit box is this instruction: “Style your text! strong emphasis whisper link → link. See the entire list.”

I tried to use the * * to render a text bold but it didn’t work out for the whole line of a text, it is only working for one word.

HELP!

@Pachomius “Like this:

Take for example, that I see a mansion and ask people who live in its neighborhood who built the mansion and who owns the mansion, they tell me the owner himself is the builder of the mansion all by himself.

From that example of a mansion, I come right away to the insight that in the totality of existence which I understand to be the whole universe there is that part that is the observable to man universe, it is built and owned and operated by God, Who I understand to be the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

*How do I know that the observable to man universe is built, owned, and operated by God?
From the fact that the observable universe did not come from nothing, that is the EVIDENCE that God created the observable to man universe.*

Amazing!”

Yes, he amazingly used resources that were already on earth to build that mansion. Where did the resources come from to build god?

Blackberry says:

“Yes, he amazingly used resources that were already on earth to build that mansion. Where did the resources come from to build god?”

———————————-

That is the big question of whether God can create something without using previously available materials.

For myself it is impossible for created entities to produce something without using previously available materials, unless he has what I call power to change thought into material things, like I think of a good burger and I will it to exist, so it exists!

Do you know of any such beings outside of God the for you hypothetical God, who can create by just thinking and willing them to come to existence?

Yes, we read about such prowess in writings from people who are into paranormal phenomena.

However, we are not here into paranormal phenomena, although you will say that creation is a paranormal phenomenum for Christens in effect—hahahaha!

If you believe in God as creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then in man’s language God is into a paranormal act in creation, paranormal insofar as it is not normal with human ways of producing things.

The term used then is not paranormal but supernatural.

Anyway, if you ask me, “How does God create without any previously available materials for Him to use in order to change such materials into the things He wants to produce?”

What about this answer, “God uses His thoughts.”

You will say: now, that makes God a pantheistic God.

And some ancient thinkers also say that in Him we live and move and have our being.

Well, the way I see it, is that even though God uses His thoughts to produce things without any previously available materials to change them into things He would produce, the fact is that the things He did produce from His thoughts are not thereby substances of His own substance, or parts of Himself as to be immune to annihilation: these things exist only on His will, the moment He stops willing them, they stop existing.

Now, you will say that then God can will Himself into non-existence?

My answer to that question is that God is that something that cannot be nothing or is that something that philosophers have asked the question for, why is there something instead of nothing?

God is not powerful enough as to annihilate Himself; sorry for God, whatever He can do, He can’t annihilate Himself—hahahaha!

But man can, he can commit suicide, and for atheists that is total annihilation insofar as being man is concerned, though an atheist will say that no he has changed himself into ashes again from when he came antecedently to his self-annihilation—hahahaha!

I can imagine that there are rules whereby humans should not go into flippancy just to indulge in stubbornness.

What do you say?

“unless he has what I call power to change thought into material things, like I think of a good burger and I will it to exist, so it exists!”

I stopped reading there, sorry.

@Blackberry Every human made object in your entire life experience began as a thought in the mind of a human being. The shoes you wear, the car you drive, the fluther you use… all physical representations of thought. They all began by codifying thought into a set of plans. And from those plans which represent the thoughts of the designer, we form the raw energy and matter of the universe into a physical representation of the original thought.

Think of a Witch, or Magician, or High Preist… Chanting incantations to “poof” things into existence.

Think of a Programmer, an Architect, a Genetic Engineer… Coding incantations to “manifest” things into existence.

There is no difference.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Yeah, but I was inquiring about who made the programmer, human, engineer, god etc. and where their materials came from. This can be answered easily….all of these, except for “god”.

@Blackberry “who made the… god… and where their materials came from”

If that question was answered, then it wouldn’t be God.

The idea of a God is that it is not bound by material constraints. There is no “material” in an immaterial realm. There is nothing north of the north pole.

Likewise, notions of beginning and ending have no validity in a realm of infinity.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Yeah, I guess so.

@comity:
Why does one have to prove or disprove their beliefs. Don’t aim to disprove what I believe and I won’t try to disprove what you believe. Accepting one another and their beliefs and enjoying ones beliefs without infringement is the positive way to go. Freedom of religion or non religion whatever the case may be.
comity

————————————-

That is a very interesting opinion.

I hate to say this, but if you live in a democratic society which subscribes to the rule of the majority, and the majority have certain values which they even had them made into laws, I guess they would want to prove that their—if their religion is founded upon the idea of a creator God existing—God truly exists and He requires the observance of the values which the majority had them made into laws of the land.

So, if you are a person who does not want those laws, would it not be to your advantage if you can prove that the creator God does not exist.

And that is why atheists want to argue that God does not exist, while Christians want to argue that God exists.

Now, I can see into an insight, namely, that is why politicians who want to rule a country will side with Christians or God-believers if such persons are the majority in a country, otherwise they will be un-employed, and will have to live without their ever achieving their ambitions, which ambitions can only be satisfied by their being politicians, i.e., people who want to get into government.

So, think about that.

see what evolution hath wrought within us?

[Quote=Blackberry]
[Pachomius] “unless he has what I call power to change thought into material things, like I think of a good burger and I will it to exist, so it exists!”
I stopped reading there, sorry.
Blackberry
[/quote]
———————————

Blackberry, you say: “I stopped reading there, sorry.”

Why do you stop reading there, what are you apprehensive about; I submit that is not an indication of an open mind.

——————————————

[quote=RealEyesRealizeRealLies]
Every human made object in your entire life experience began as a thought in the mind of a human being. The shoes you wear, the car you drive, the fluther you use… all physical representations of thought. They all began by codifying thought into a set of plans. And from those plans which represent the thoughts of the designer, we form the raw energy and matter of the universe into a physical representation of the original thought.
Think of a Witch, or Magician, or High Preist… Chanting incantations to “poof” things into existence.
Think of a Programmer, an Architect, a Genetic Engineer… Coding incantations to “manifest” things into existence.
There is no difference.
RealEyesRealizeRealLies
[/quote]

There is a most distinctive difference between God and us whether scientists or magicians whatever, we need previously available materials before we can produce the things we conceive in our mind and want to produce outside our mind by using previously available materials.

Blackberry, I wonder if you will continue to exchange thoughts with me here, or you will go away.

Suppose you venture to think over these three propositions I am presenting to you, and tell me which ones you will agree to:

1. You and I exist.
2. The universe exist.
3. The universe did not make itself.

You can also present your propositions here and ask me to agree to them or not.

Will you be again apprehensive and “stop reading”?

What are you really apprehensive about?

@Pachomius “There is a most distinctive difference between God and us…”

I cannot open an intelligent dialogue with anyone who starts their position with a mandate existence of the God you define. Prove the God you define and we may talk.

@Pachomius “You and I exist.”

Who is the you in the I that you refer to?

@Pachomius “The universe exist.”

Yours or mine?

@Pachomius “The universe did not make itself.”

I make my universe. It’s quaint and dimly lit with christmas lights glowing all year round. Furniture is low to the ground and the air is constantly filled with ambient music and the scent of stale gasoline. I like to play with matches. One day I’ll become a star.

From RealEyesRealizeRealLies:

@Pachomius “There is a most distinctive difference between God and us…”
I cannot open an intelligent dialogue with anyone who starts their position with a mandate existence of the God you define. Prove the God you define and we may talk.
@Pachomius “You and I exist.”
Who is the you in the I that you refer to?
@Pachomius “The universe exist.”
Yours or mine?
@Pachomius “The universe did not make itself.”
I make my universe. It’s quaint and dimly lit with christmas lights glowing all year round. Furniture is low to the ground and the air is constantly filled with ambient music and the scent of stale gasoline. I like to play with matches. One day I’ll become a star.

————————————

You say: Prove the God you define and we may talk.

Yes, I am doing that: but you and I must have a concurrence on the concept of God I want to prove to be existing and you want to deny to be existing.

So, here is my concept of God: Creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

You accept or not that concept of God? If not then please propose your concept of God which you do not accept to exist—for even though you do not accept that God exists you have to be logical got to have a concept of God otherwise you are not denying any God to be existing.

You ask: Who is the you in the I that you refer to?

Humans.

You ask: “The universe exist.” Yours or mine?

The one where we see the sun and the moon in the sky, and also the stars and even the distant galaxies, the one where we live in and are parts of.

You say: I make my universe. It’s quaint and dimly lit with christmas lights glowing all year round. Furniture is low to the ground and the air is constantly filled with ambient music and the scent of stale gasoline. I like to play with matches. One day I’ll become a star.

You have a kind of a universe there, but it is not the universe but a part of the universe, and you make it from the materials in the universe where we see the sun and the moon in the sky, etc.

Now, I invite you to exchange thoughts with me on how we can concur on the concepts and rules for us to engage in the God debate i.e., whether God exists or not.

@Pachomius “You have a kind of a universe there, but it is not the universe but a part of the universe, and you make it from the materials in the universe where we see the sun and the moon in the sky, etc.”

You missed the point. My universe is all of my mind. My mind is non physical. Thus my universe didn’t use any material. The universe I depict is imaginary of mind. Yet you saw it in your mind based upon my description of it.

Likewise God’s universe is all of its mind. And likewise you see it based upon its description of it.

Likewise your universe is of your mind. And the God you describe is of your universe. Thus when I see your God, I only see the God that is of your mind.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I have found some remarkable similarities between Bhartrihari’s Sphota Theory of Language and the teachings of Silver Birch as translated by famous medium Maurice Barbanell. Here is a breif summary of this. In fact most afterlife books I’ve read (I’ve read a great many of them) almost all say the same things (repeatedly) which is why I take the teachings of Silver Birch as well as those from my links as likely being the most accurate relating to the true nature of “god”, who/what we are and our divine purpose.

Silver Birch: “You must try and understand that life in the spirit world is not dreamy or nebulous. It is full of activity. It is just as real as the life that each one of us lives here. We are accustomed to think of the material world as being real and solid, although actually this is not so, as the science of physics proves. The things of the mind, or the spirit, seem to us shadowy and vague, but to those who live on the Other Side, the mental is the real and the physical is the shadow.”

“The spirit world is round and about us. Some people see it and hear it, because they can tune in to its vibrations. It is not situated in some far-off continent. It is a part of the universe, blending and intermingling with the physical world.”

More from Silver Birch about questions many may have upon passing on from physical life to spirit: I know the question you will ask is, “How will I be able to recognise those who have gone before?” This is not a real difficulty. They will know you , having watched over you and kept in constant touch with you. Then, because the spirit world is a place where thought is the reality, they will be able to show themselves to you as you knew them.“_

“Sometimes, people are puzzled because they learn that there are houses on the Other Side. You must remember, though, these are not houses made of bricks and mortar, but constructed out of thought. This applies also to the clothing that is worn.”

The instinct to clothe oneself is deeply rooted and has become habitual. No one would dream of walking through the streets unclothed. This habit is part of our mental make-up. That is why it persists on the Other Side where mental states are the reality.

“What about food?” you may ask. “Do they eat?”
As long as there is a desire for food, this mental desire is mentally satisfied. As long as the individual craves for food and drink, he can obtain the illusion of what he requires – and it satisfies him. You may call this material if you like, but it is far more sane and logical than pearly gates and golden harps!

Very interesting statements by Silver Birch that seem remarkably similar to Bhartrihari’s philosophy “In the spirit world, there are no language difficulties. All people of all nations speak the same language – thought. There are no words to be mouthed, for ideas are conveyed telepathically, from one person to another. Words, after all, are but clumsy substitutions for thoughts. They are artificial means by which we communicate our ideas to one another. But words can never adequately express the thoughts one is trying to convey.”

“One day, when the human race has evolved, language will be abolished. We will have learnt how to send our ideas to each other telepathically. Then, many of our international difficulties will disappear.”

“In the spirit world, each person’s thoughts are known and cannot be hidden. There can be no deception of pretence. Every individual is known for what he is. He cannot deceive anybody, for lying is impossible.”

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I still think that Pearson’s ECM (Exact Classical Mechanics) hypothesis and his Big Breed Theory likely are the best explainations thus far in trying to find a link between physics and spirituality. I have always thought that his evolving consciousness speculation from the void of nothingness was one of its weakest points but I made the argument nevertheless. Of course if one examines what Pearson argues you would find that it is impossible for ‘nothing’ to exist, since according to his theories the void is merely an unstable subquantum existence of the ultimate reality consisting of either positive or negative primary particles.

I think that Pearson is correct about some things since if the world of ‘spirit’, or thought if you want to call it that, was truly transcendental and unrelated to our own than no paranormal activities would take place such as ghosts, esp, etc. It is very possible that there are many different levels of existence, or should I say varied degrees of consciousness which one experiences whether in body or spirit. The lower one’s vibrational thought patterns are the more likely they are to interact with our world. Maybe this is one reason why unguided communications with the spirit world can be considered potentially dangerous.

I think that Pearson does a good job in attempting to describe quantum mechanics in relation to the matter systems that minds perceive as reality, such as the ‘matter’ systems that each mind resides in or the physical/etheric bodies that each mind expresses itself through. Like I’ve said above there are likely some flaws in what Pearson determines what mind really is or how it came about.

@Pachomius Will atheists cooperate with Christians to agree on concepts and rules for proving or disproving the existence of God?

No i don’t think that Christians and Atheist will be able to work together as they have different beliefs.

My view is that If you choose to believe another human about their thoughts it is up to you to decied for yourself if it is believable or not. If you agree with what that person tells you and consider them to be a good source then that can become your own perspective if you want. If you do not agree then your perspective may remain with you first thought but you may consider that of others and accept that your own beliefs are different.

Beliefs are personal and can be shared if desired. I do not think that anything needs to be proved, I think that we should accept that others are like minded and that others are not.

Why should any human being tell another that their beliefs are wrong?