# Defining what is God.

yes place electrodes on someone sleeping, ie in rem sleep and then tell me thats not objective evidence.

No its not. It proves they are in REM sleep, nothing more.

No its not. It proves they are in REM sleep, nothing more.
WOW! wtf do you think the subconscious mind is, ever heard of sleep learning, (learn whilst your asleep)thats because the information go's straight to your subconscious.

Wow, you really do have some goofy beliefs. Besides the point that sleep learning has never objectively been shown to work, even if it did that wouldn't prove there is a subconscious.

Sarkus:

Both.
But be careful - this is only my stance with regard to LG's search for the "superior" god, and all I am doing is following the logical path from the assumptions and the methodology ascribed. I myself am an agnostic atheist.

Certainly understood.

Yet tell me, is it rational to consider an infinite anything which is not composed purely of finite parts of an infinite number?

That is has an end digit.
An infinitely small number does not.
If you think it does - what is it?
If you think it is 2, then this can be reduced to 1 and the number is smaller.
If you think it is 1 then this can be reduced by making it 01.

My answer to this rests in the ideal nature of the infinitely small. That is to say, the infinitely small - like the infinitely large - cannot be reached finitely. However, when we discuss it, we're giving a number with a definite value, even if it has no finite value. The value must also be non-zero in order to make sense, for as I've stressed throughout, zero * x = zero, therefore, it cannot be "infinitely small" as it has no value, nor could it compose anything. That is to say, even if multipled infinitely, it would not get to one. Whereas the infinitely small, infinitely multipled, could. As 1 is the next digit after zero, it accordingly must be .000...1.

Well plugged, that man.
Oops - just realised it's another thread. Thought you'd written a book!!

Ha! I wish!

But the implied assumption in your analysis was that it was reachable - i.e. by starting at the final digit and working to the first.
With the infinite you can NOT reach the final digit and can not start from there.

Well consider this:

If we start from the reachable and progress to the unreachable, you will admit that though every step before the unreachable is reachable, the unreachable is not reachable. And if we go with what you said further, the step before the unreachable

I accept it as a concept, a notion, sure.
I do not know if it is possible in anything other than a concept.
I do not know it anything physical can be infinitely large (e.g. the Universe).
There are possibly limitations to the smallest size of "thing" to prevent things being infinitely small (e.g. Planck lenght etc).

Actually, is not the planck length a matter purely of what would happen with a wavelength of light narrower than half the diameter of an atom striking an atom? That the energy would itself "overload" space time and produce a black hole? In essence, it is not the end to space's disivibility, but what happens gravitically when such a measurement is taken?

This has the implied assumption that outside our Universe is "nothingness".
Since we can not progress from the inside of our Universe this claim can never be proven.

To claim as fact anything about that which is not within our universe is erroneous. At best we can but imagine.

But then this would also depend upon what you define as the Universe? And that is a whole other topic.

I was actually speaking of existence. That is, whether or not this means "universe" depends basically on whether or not the universe is infinite in all directions. If not, then it is a part of existence, if yes, it is all of existence.

But do you not agree that there is ultimately only two things one can have? Somethingness and nothingness? That is, there is no third state, yes?

That's hilarious. Posting those links is exactly like a Christian posting a link to the Bible as proof of God. Haha!

Posting those links is exactly like a Christian posting a link to the Bible as proof of God. Haha!
So why do you christians constantly cite the bible as corroboration for your fairytale explanations then?

-I don't characterize myself as a Christian. I don't cite the Bible as proof. Keep on making assumptions.

-I don't characterize myself as a Christian. I don't cite the Bible as proof. Keep on making assumptions.

Jesus Christ! Isnt there any bible bashers at all that admit to being christian these days?

Jesus Christ! Isnt there any bible bashers at all that admit to being christian these days?

What does this sentence mean? A Bible basher is someone who ridicules the Bible, so why would a Bible basher be a Christian? Did you mean Bible banger? In which case, why would they deny being a Christian? In either case, what the hell is it supposed to be responding to? Beyond that it should be "aren't there." That's why I asked you if english was your second language, loon.

Then, surely you can see the problem with clarity. In other English speaking nations, a "basher" is someone who ridicules and puts down -in this case, the bible. Both definitions are correct depending upon your context, but I think you can endeavor to tone down your willingness to insult other members over something so petty.

Then, surely you can see the problem with clarity. In other English speaking nations, a "basher" is someone who ridicules and puts down -in this case, the bible. Both definitions are correct depending upon your context, but I think you can endeavor to tone down your willingness to insult other members over something so petty.

Well its that dicks problem, if he doesnt understand English.

Skinwalker get off my case you fucking faggot

Then what confuses me is the fact that I haven't "bashed" the Bible at all. No matter how you cut it your sentence doesn't make sense. And I thought in England a fag was a cigarette?

Defining what is God; To me, At basic level, it looks to be "one prime force to all forces or "prime matter/particle' to al elementary particles". May be Goddess & God. Indescribable in indicated. At secondary levels, anyone possessing God/Goddess alike properties.

And I thought in England a fag was a cigarette

A fag is, a faggot isn't. A faggot is a kind of meatball made from pig heart/pork etc minced together with herbs.

A fag is, a faggot isn't. A faggot is a kind of meatball made from pig heart/pork etc minced together with herbs.

Isn't a faggot also a word for a small bundle of sticks or something.?.

Isn't a faggot also a word for a small bundle of sticks or something.?.

*************
M*W: Yes, you are correct. A faggot is also a little pouch of herbs and spices that is cooked with say a pot roast, but not dispersed within the meat. It's a little linen bag with a tie used for flavoring.

One of my favorite examples of a faggot is in the beginning scenes of The Crucible by Arthur Miller. All these men in Salem village were seen gathering and carring faggots of sticks to their village.