Existence of god

Discussion in 'Religion' started by shivansh, Mar 27, 2013.

  1. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    That I can not say.
    I find the last question meaningless.
    Did time exist to enable a "before"?
    Yes, but probably not to your satisfaction (I don't mean that disparagingly).
    It would be in the same way that someone imagines any abstract notion.
    Whether the imagining is close to reality, however, is a different matter entirely.
    My imagining of nothing is the content of an empty set which is itself part of the contents.

    Postulations do not need to come from accurate imaginings.
    It is sufficient to conceptualise.
    Mathematically, logically, pictorially.
    However works.

    Aren't you presupposing that anything has "real purpose" other than what it might assign to itself (if capable)?
    Are you not merely begging the question?
    Concluding that there must be because you assume there is?

    Have lurked for long time.
    Still don't post much.
    But some things draw the eye.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member


    But it is not a meaningless question.

    So what did the explosion explode into if there was no time, or space?

    I take it that anything you can imagine is linked to what you would call ''reality''. But if reality doesn't exist how can you say you can imagine nothing.

    Enter ''transcendance''.

    ''Might assign itself''?
    Which one is more likely, given our experience, design or self organisation?


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    It is as meaningful as asking what is north of north.
    Or asking for a square circle.
    If you find those meaningful questions.
    I.e. you are asking a question regarding the passage of time in an environment (for want of a better word) that may not have time as a dimension.
    I don't know.
    Noone knows.
    So why guess.
    Why should what I imagine conform to anything other than what I imagine.
    Where is the reality in "the contents of an empty set which is itself part of the contents"?
    You seem to require "imagining" being in some pictoral sense?
    I don't follow?
    More likely of what?
    We can not speak for the creation of our universe.
    We can only come up with logically consistent ideas (e.g M-Brane theory).
    But once the universe exists then self-organisation is apparent.
    i.e. everything follows mundane laws and complexity appears to result from them.
    Whether you want to consider that self-organisation to be "designed" by the universe would appear to beg the question.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    You don't have to imagine, you are living in it! The universe is equivalent to nothing, since all it's energy is canceled out by gravitational potential energy, meaning things look exactly as they should if they came from nothing.

    I already told you, evolution. It's a cascading chemical reaction, like a fire. And it has no purpose, like a fire. It just happens when conditions come together in a certain way. The universe is full of various conditions and quantities of matter that interacts with other matter in complex ways, due to it's structure. This is the fundamental difference between western and eastern thinking. In Taoism, it is proposed that things come about passively, through their own nature. In the western mind, it's all entities with plans assembling things from otherwise inactive parts.
  8. rr6 Banned Banned

    Spirit - Soul = Finite Integrity = System and Structure Divinity = Integral Duality

    3D + time Spirit( physical/energy ) exists eternally as finite occupied space we call Universe

    The Universe( occupied space ) cannot be created nor destroyed however, it may expand and contract within the macro-infinite non-occupied space.

    At minimum if our observed 3D + time spirit/physical/energy went out of existence, its total quantity is still encoded in a finite, seemingly 2D surface of a seeming set of only two gravitational sphericals and a finite, seemingly 2D plane that exists as a common plane between the two gravitation sphericals.


    This poor textual graphic gives an static approximation of the phase/stated our finite Universe will exist as in the entropic heat death scenarios. This phases/state is both and ending and a beginning.

    O = gravitational spherical

    ! = matter maximally dispersed as one very large and very flat photon.

    The two sphericals are really 8 and when the finite, seemingly 2D flat plane unfolds, we see it expand outward to eventually reach another turn-around phase/state of exact equilibrium aka Vector Equilibrium aka cubo-octahedron.

    The cubo-octahedron has 8 triangles and there will be one gravitational spherical face bonded to each of the I triangles.

    4 axi and 8 parallel planes are the cosmic set that is common to all three of the only three, regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe

    icosa(20)hedron--12 phi-related pentagons and 15 phi-related golden rectangles

    octa(8)hedron--intermedieary between more complex above-^ and less complex-below-v

    tetra(4)hedron---see also birds-eye view as the 2D subdivided triangle set----


    Last edited: May 11, 2013
  9. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Even if I wanted to follow your reasoning, I couldn't. No-one could. It only makes sense in your own head. In fact I suspect that it might not even make sense there, either. With at least the first point in mind, then, the question is why do you even bother posting? Seriously. Without the effective communication of ideas (or at least a good initial attempt at such, which can be refined and expanded upon as discussion progresses) it's kinda pointless isn't it?

    Think about it.
  10. rr6 Banned Banned

    Spirit( 2 ) and Spirit( 1 ) = oen duality subcatorization of Universe

    rav,start with first word. If you do not understand it I can help you. A an English dictionary is also helpful.

    Since your offering generalization of my overall post and do not address any specifics, is just one part of the evidence that your behavior is troll-like. Very common trait of trolls. imho

    You offer little to no valid commentary in my regards and that is why you offer no specfics. Typical troll behavior. It is lot like what was said in the 50's science movies, what they don't understand scares them so they lash irrationally at what they do not understand, and in a trolls case, has desire to know.

    Trolls hang out under the bridge of life and the cosmos dribbling drivel onto their on reflection and the reflection of those who live their lives on the bridge and the reflection of the cosmos above.


  11. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    While all of the words you use have individual meanings, when you put them together in the order you've chosen, they're meaningless nonsense.
  12. Rav Valued Senior Member

    You need to realize that there is sometimes a big difference between the degree of explanation required to record an idea such that it makes sense to you, and that required to accurately communicate it to someone else. If your comments are to make any sort of sense at all, there has to be additional information and/or context and/or perspective that you're failing to provide. If you wish to be understood, then you need to provide it.
  13. Fork Banned Banned

    Last edited: May 11, 2013
  14. rr6 Banned Banned

    Trolls Are To Start at the Beginning As Do Most Humans

    Rav, when you want to drop your troll-like behavior and address specific set of two words you cannot grasp the association too each then please state as such. Get yourself a dictionary and start with the first two. Always start at the beginning. I assume that even a troll understand what it means to start at the beginning. I dunno, and you apparently don't either.

    When you have sincerity of heart to understand anything I've stated I can attempt to help you as I have offered you. I don't believe you have any sincerity in your heart to even attempt to associate the first two words. Typical troll behavior. imho

    so lets see now how many wasted posts have we had to deal with in regards to addressing r6's comments. This is wasted space because of troll-like behaviour generalizing-- nothing specific address and certainly nothing with any validity ----.


  15. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Gotta love the internet.
  16. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    Nyaya School had advanced a set of 9 proofs for existence of God. But they could not stand in the face of criticism by other schools, and were abandoned.

    Now the position is is this. There IS Brahma, but no proof is possible.
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

  18. rr6 Banned Banned

    What is "it"?

  19. xavierlizard Registered Member

    If we are talking about an all powerfull being then, No. Anything in the Universe is part of it and subject to it's rules down to and including subatomic laws. And being there is nothing outside/there is no outside of our universe that eliminates that option. Now if you are talking about a mostly powerfull being but not all powerfull, then it is possible, but there is no true scientific proof... "God" is as elusive to science as "Bigfoot". No proof, no goof.
  20. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    M*W: No and no.
  21. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Don't be so silly God can prove his own existence. Easy!
  22. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Your avatar looks so Christian. I am amazed.
  23. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Omni Schwomni

    "God is a spirit that resides in those that believe."

    M*W: That would depend on which concept of god, goddess or (fill in the blank) one understands and accepts as a divine creator, spiritual guide and personal savior. Let's assume for now that you are referring to the christian god. The christian god is said to be "omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient." If the god resides only in "those that believe," said god is not omni-anything except a liar.

Share This Page