The Scientific Proof That God Exists!!

Tony:

Odd. Well whadda you know, I seem to be the only person who's glad you're back.

But I am glad.

At the very least you keep Nelson from tormenting us all with his "LOVE", its implications re

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

aoism and why infinity is the same as zero.

Well, correct enough. If there were no thiesm there would be no athiesm.

Athiesm is essentially negative, a denial only.

That's nice of him, but I'd appreciate it if you not call the sincerity of my motives into question.

Ah, but there you are wrong. I will have an answer, in that unlikely event.

Belief in the absence of evidence is irrational.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*Originally posted by Xev
Well, correct enough. If there were no thiesm there would be no athiesm.

Athiesm is essentially negative, a denial only.*

This is a first!
An avowed atheist admitting that atheism is negative, a denial only!

Well, that saves a lot of time.
What is the positive that your life revolves around?

*That's nice of him, but I'd appreciate it if you not call the sincerity of my motives into question.*

Not doing that, mainly because I'm not concerned with the sincerity of your motives.
Besides, the issue of sincerity/insincerity came up because you were questioning the sincerity of MY motives.

*Ah, but there you are wrong. I will have an answer, in that unlikely event.*

I guess I should have been more specific.
You need to have the right answer.
Giving the philosophical equivalent of "the dog ate my homework" isn't going to cut it.

*Belief in the absence of evidence is irrational. *

Atheists all over are in trouble then, since practically all have a belief in the absence of evidence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tony:

Yes of course it is. Athiesm is simply a "I do not believe". The absence of theism.

Ummmm......I cannot say that my life revolves around anything.

Life, I suppose. The simple experience of living and living well.

Very well, how is;
There is just as much evidence against the existance of God as for
Occam's razor states that 'entities must not be multiplied unnecessarily'
Occam's razor is a valid logical tool
God is an entity
Therefore, believing in God is an unnecessary multiplying of entities
Therefore, believing in God is irrational.

That do? Do I get the philosophical equivalent of having my grades curved?

You know very well what I meant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

JMO

Hey there,
Xev, Occam's Razor "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"

Only ONE 'God' is possible, what that 'God' does of its volition is not with out reason.

 

no god is truly possible, but just for the sake of argument, why can't there be many gods?

maybe I like and praise ancient greek gods.
I believe as much as you tht they are the real gods
you can not force me to think different
nthing will fore me not to bring sacrifaces to thm.
I am as much as right as you are.
therefore I say tht one god is possible only if all the rest were killed.

cheers!

 

Your prerogative.

I won't try to change it. I have my own belief and will share it if your willing to listen. We are brothers and sisters in spirit under 'God' the 'Universal Father', Ripley. The Universal Father is infinite-having neither a beginning or ending- it just is what it is.

 

Whoever posted this thread shoudl go seek medical attention immediately. I worry and ache for your mental health, which is in dire danger.

For anything to be scientific, it has to be provable or disprovable with physical evidence. You say that god exists. True. It is always true, and IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE IT. It is THE absolute truth. You cannot disprove it. Therefore, it is unscientific and does not belong in science. It belongs in that room over there, sir, the one down the hallway. You'll find a big door there marked "Religion". THAT is where your rantings and sanctimonious tears about your god belongs. Don't even try to force your god into science.

 

And if I can give evidence of God?
Do you have a physical evidence for singularity? I don't think so. It belongs to science? Hummmm... yes.....

 

Xev, on anti-identification

Xev

To be an atheist is one thing.

To say, "I am an atheist," is an anti-identification.

To be "without God" is one thing.

To recognize that one is "without God" is the beginning of that anti-identification.

I just had to look in on this topic and see why it was still alive ....

Oh, well.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Oh, and Xev, before you get your cthulhian G-string in a bunch, I'm rolling my eyes at myself--I should always trust my better instincts and stay out of 24-page topics with no direction.)

Oh, well.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

All death-metal all the time?

Well, who gets to pick the radio station when driving to church?

And that's not nearly as whacked as it seems.

I point yet again to the Greek "monotheism". That is, all the diverse gods were limited in conduct and power, as the mythology tells us.

What limits the gods?

This authority becomes the godhead.

You can, in fact, have many gods if you want. Catholics can only have 3-in-1, for instance, so they have lots of saints and angels.

So God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are driving to 7-11. Who gets what Slurpee?

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Tiassa:

I am a liar, how's that?

Meh, you're right. I am identifying myself as against religion a bit.

There's really no point to the endless debating, is there?

W'hell, there's really no point to anything, is there?

Whoo-hhooo! I'm a real existentialist now!

Meh, I'm at the point where I would rather just learn. I am, of course, still an argumentative bitch.

"So God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are driving to 7-11. Who gets what Slurpee?"

Jesus.

Which reminds me of a debate I had once.

Who would win in a fight between Jesus and Mohammed?

See, I pick Jesus. I was in the minority - fellow stoners picked Mohammed because he was raised in the desert and would be tough.

But I think that Mohammed would underestimate Jesus. So Jesus would take a few punches, and then deliver a swift left hook.

Agree? Disagree?

 

Endless Pointless?

If I disagree, it's because, technically, Mohammed has to wait until Jesus takes a swing at him. Mohammed can only fight as long as Jesus is coming at him, and about the only thing I can think of that would cause that would be if someone whispered in Jesus' ear that Mohammed was a moneylender.

Honestly, that's one of the dangers of that "logical atheism" that I've spent so many words on. It's why I fled to Sisyphanism; it's one step short of Nihilism, which is not conducive to my vitality.

It's one of the reasons why I believe that humanity does, indeed, have a purpose. The whole living scheme seems otherwise pointless, though I reconciled that with the comfort that life is not so much a random chance as a specific necessity of the Universe. It is possible for matter to be assembled so that it "lives".

In which case, I'm a fan of the notion that we ought to stick around as a species for as long as we can. It's not so much that the Universe needs us specifically, but rather something to fill this particular state of matter (life) and this particular state of life (self-consciousness). Given that if we break down the living phenomenon to its utmost core scientifically, it merely means that we have proven scientifically what is self-evident, that a condition called life is, indeed, possible.

The next time you're in a pleasantly-altered state of mind, even if it's just brought on by pretty lights (I was getting high off sunlight today; pretty wild) think about the electrical currents in your brain in a strictly scientific manner. Go ahead and postulate fictitiously as much as your fancy will. That's part of the point. And, no, drugs or sunshine aren't necessary, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't on drugs the first time I started joyously trying to toy with my brain electricity as a matter of will.

It works. Mildly. I mean, any tripper will tell you that they can (to various degrees, and with varying degrees of honesty in the claims) "control" their hallucinations when on drugs. I generally don't hallucinate, though. My brain fires off like starbirth. So I'm largely left with a delightfully critical game of how-to-tweak-the-psyche. Trippy lights and good music help. In fact, I can actually set off what seems to be that "God center" of the brain, and what should actually be taken from that is that, while I can use P. pelliculosa, Christmas lights, and comfortable music to create an awareness of the immediate proximity of a female ebullience that bleeds with all the love of a wounded conscience ... Welcome home, welcome home, children, and you can almost hear it. It's a big, chemically-induced cosmic hug, to be honest. But that's the thing. Having played with that particular portion of my brain to delightful good, I learned much about how humans create gods, and why. It's almost instant anthropomorphization, just add mushrooms and water. But it's why I keep a goddess in my company in the first place, and why she keeps me--that this goddess is a psychological phenomenon only is something that I've even discussed in those topics of "my error"° in which I defended atheism.

In the end, though, it is a critical component motivating my notion that people create gods.

It is also a critical component in my understanding that our living experience is merely an electrical phenomenon.

Which did, in fact, contribute to my descent toward Nihilism, but not so much as one might expect. Trying to examine the moment while living it--now that inspires Nihilism.

I think that understanding (not merely perceiving)° that pointlessness is a necessary component of that magical "enlightenment" that all religions pursue° in one fashion or another.

The point of which is that I encourage you to take yourself seriously when you say, there's really no point to anything, is there.

Once you are sure you're perceiving it, well, the fun begins.

Some people think I don't have a sense of humor, and I can well understand why this is. But did you ever watch Mork & Mindy? Do you recall the episode where Mork got up and told bad jokes at an audition, and he asked the bigwig why he wasn't laughing? The bigwig pointed to his chest and said, "It's in here, babe." That's actually where I've bottled my sense of humor. Otherwise, I wouldn't ever stop laughing. It does, eventually, become problematic to not stop laughing.

But ... I offer you this, the 14th Psalm (or Lie) of Perdurabo:

In the end, it is all rather pointless. Perdurabo's lies, incidentally, form one of the highest expressions of Western theopsychology.° They also form one of the most striking testaments of theopsychological perversity.°

In the meantime, there is a specific advantage to discussing the differences 'twixt people. We're all in this together. It's quite obvious that working together we produce more pleasure amid the pointlessness. I mean, sure, certain pleasures have been around for ages, but I certainly could not, without the modernity achieved by cooperation amid the pointlessness, have managed to hop from one T&A bar to another up and down the I-5 corridor in Oregon, dropping an average of $1000 a month of other people's money in order to maintain the habit long enough to include amid that expense the feeding and entertaining dancers while pausing here in my memory to wonder about the poor schmuck who had to serve me breakfast at 3:30 in the morning for the benefit of pointlessness. That isn't sarcastic, either. The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular.°

Such are the first things that come to mind about the pointlessness of it all. I've often thought that should be the book I write, but it's painfully obvious that so many people have tried before me, and I'm quite sure that when I transcend that cacophony of Nihilist-fearing psychobabble, nobody will give even two-hundred pages of it any consideration beyond the effort to gun me down in the streets.°

Christ ... (If I might be forgiven ... that is, if I might be forgiven using a theological term as a declaration. Oh, hell.)

Fuck ... it would seem my footnotes are getting nearly as long as the post itself. On that note, I'll be along, now ....

Notes

° My error: So some say. Oh, well.
° Understanding/Perceiving: I make this distinction because, well, heck, I don't understand the sense of pointlessness that I perceive. If I ever do, be assured I'll let everybody know.
° Enlightenment: Strangely, religions tend to create a sense of purpose, act as a bulwark against the very perception of pointlessness that must take place before one can even know that there is a pointlessness to understand .... Um, yeah. But--they're religions. What, short of living paradox, can we expect? Does it inherently work against the necessary components of its attainment? Sure, call it a religion. Or a "free society". Interesting juxtaposition. Hmmm ....
° Theopsychology: Yes, I'm inventing a word,and no, it does not describe an alleged discipline. "Sociopolitical", for instance, and theopsychological as I've invented it ....
° Theopsychological perversity: One could make the joke, What do you call a Christian Sufi who tries way too hard? Perdurabo. It is a fair conclusion that Perdurabo, as hard as he chased enlightenment, could never manage to exscind certain accretions, and the result is, when we look at the various personas of Aleister Crowley, outright frightening.
° Universe/Joke ... um ...: No, I don't mean it any more than, well I have no idea what Perdurabo meant with any of it. See the pattern repeating here? But who isn't sympathetic to the idea of life being a sick joke? Or, at least, who in Western culture at least isn't aware of the notion of life being a sick joke? If there's one thing about Perdurabo that I can appreciate, it's that he understood the idea that things can get so ridiculous that you'll never stop laughing.
° Gun me down in the streets: It's possible, I suppose. On the one hand, look at how pissed off people can get at me here. To the other, there's nothing about that that is unusual to me. To yet another, we'll do an experiment sometime. I'll PM you a bunch of words and definitions, and then spring them on a newbie. I do, in fact, use words in a specific way that tends to piss people off, but I'm also convinced that they're pissed because they choose to recognize a specific definition of the word, and that definition always pertains directly to them. For instance, watch how flexibly I use the word integrity when I'm absolutely blazing across the boards. Every time I use it, I'm using it correctly according to a dictionary and the fact that I know damn well how to do this with words, as well as the fact that ... well, that gets even longer, but there are times when those words that people choose to take sharply are the most appropriate words. Really, if I turned two- or four- or ten-hundred pages of post-Existential, post-Christian, anti-Nihilistic, Camusite Sisyphanism on people in all my lexical glory, do you really think the readers are going to stand for it? Maybe 8% of the people who bother to buy the book in the first place will finish reading it without the craven need to kill me.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How much will the pay-per-view be?

Originally posted by Xev
Who would win in a fight between Jesus and Mohammed?

See, I pick Jesus. I was in the minority - fellow stoners picked Mohammed because he was raised in the desert and would be tough. But I think that Mohammed would underestimate Jesus. So Jesus would take a few punches, and then deliver a swift left hook. Agree? Disagree?

Originally posted by tiassa
If I disagree, it's because, technically, Mohammed has to wait until Jesus takes a swing at him. Mohammed can only fight as long as Jesus is coming at him, and about the only thing I can think of that would cause that would be if someone whispered in Jesus' ear that Mohammed was a moneylender.

I say It's undecided. Jesus gets to take the first swipe because Mohammed can't instigate the fight but if Jesus doesn't knock him out with the first punch Mohammed gets to pound away on him without return (the whole "turn the other cheek" thing). So J has to knock Mo out with the first punch or he's meat.

~Raithere

 

heya,

'A life for a life,' in the bible, came before, 'A tooth for a tooth.'
Jesus methinks would realise that by simply letting Mohammed win...his all powerful and everlasting dad would reap terrible vengeance etc. A men.

oh, who was it that said....something like.... the existance of hunger proves the existace of food...therefore the existance of belief proves the existance of god.

was it C.S Lewis?

 

*Originally posted by Avatar
no god is truly possible, but just for the sake of argument, why can't there be many gods?*

There are, otherwise the following would be pointless...

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
(Exodus 20:3, KJV).

*maybe I like and praise ancient greek gods.
I believe as much as you tht they are the real gods
you can not force me to think different
nthing will fore me not to bring sacrifaces to thm.
I am as much as right as you are.
therefore I say tht one god is possible only if all the rest were killed.*

Here's the challenge...

Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.
Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you.
(Isaiah 41:23,24, KJV).


Here's where they get killed...

Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
(Ezekiel 28:18, KJV).

and...

And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.
(Malachi 4:3, KJV).

 

Tiassa:

Agree on Sisyphusianism and the Absurd, although I found the Absurd to be more an observation than a philosophy per se. But lately I have been seeing the Absurd as a temporary phenomena. What Nietzsche called the first metamorphasis of the spirit, the camel, the load bearing spirit.

I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The strugg le itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

---Albert Camus---

Translation by Justin O'Brien, 1955

But it is not enough. I think it neglects what I call the divinity in man, as well as what Zarathrusra calls "the beast within". Sisyphus is a camel:

THREE metamorphoses of the spirit do I designate to you: how the spirit becometh a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child. Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong
load-bearing spirit in which reverence dwelleth: for the heavy and the heaviest longeth its strength.
What is heavy? so asketh the load-bearing spirit; then kneeleth it down like the camel, and wanteth to be well laden.
What is the heaviest thing, ye heroes? asketh the load-bearing
spirit, that I may take it upon me and rejoice in my strength.

THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA
translated by Thomas Common

I have told another poster once that to study Dr. Rieux of The Plauge would be to study me. I am Rieux.

But I also feel that a bit of Zarathrusra lives in me. I think I am trying to travel Friedrich's bridge to the overman.

As for your goddess, I think you have deified man. I once chortled when one of our posters said that de Sade deified man after killing God. What sort of moron deifies this miserable, disgusting little species?

I think I realize this now. It has been at least four years since reading Sade, but I do read (obsessively, yes) Nietzsche. I think this is why Nietzsche felt such nausea towards man - because he sensed what I call the divinity of man. Nietzsche's overman, your Goddess, my "core of human divinity"* - I think they are all shades of this potential.

Is there any proof for this? Not really. Buuuuut......

"I'm down to just one thing
And I'm starting to scare myself"

*Shrugs*

Get back to me after a few shots of vodka. I recently went through my own crisis of nausea - only directed towards myself, myself first and foremost. Disgust! Disgust at myself, disgust at the potential I had squandered, disgust! And I realize that my disgust is a symptom of this innate core.

*Don't even fucking ask.

 

*Originally posted by Xev
I think this is why Nietzsche felt such nausea towards man - because he sensed what I call the divinity of man. Nietzsche's overman, your Goddess, my "core of human divinity"* - I think they are all shades of this potential*

tiassa's "goddess" is just some demon that visits him.
Nietsche's uberman is probably quite similar to Hitler's "man of the future."
IOW, also demons.
Your core of human divinity is very different.

**Don't even fucking ask. *

Going thru some stuff?

 

Tony1:

And stays for coffee and struedel?

Oh no! Friedrich was not a Nazi at all, and he was definitely not an antisemite (yes well, Xev, we're heard this rant before).

Sorry, just had to get that in there.

Hitler's ideal man was a human who followed orders uncompromisingly, who was the representation of the mob almost. The Nazi conception of the ideal man was, well, I'm not sure if I understand fully, but it was someone who imposed his will on others. Nietzsche's overman could do this, and the overman definitely IS powerfull, but the overman is so much more.

More human than human, is how I understand it. The overman is everything that mankind could be.

Perhaps from Tiassa's goddess, but I believe my newfound reverence for the "soul" of mankind is quite like Nietzsche's overman.

Existential crises. Or rather, existentialist crises.

 

i am too lazy to search for the answer to this page by page. who resurrected this thread?

 

I suggest booze. Much booze. And possibly sex, lots and lots of it. A weekend of debauchery is a damn good way to clear the mind.