My defination of God

[Tnerb]

My defination of God is kind of simple really.

It just involves either an electron,
or something complicated, like,

What IS an electron?

If you don't know you don't know what God is.
Sure, hold an athieist reality, I don't care nor do I give a shit. Likly you'll be an old atheist bastard, - I don't know really.... Maybe you wouldn't

What IS relations with our selves?

"Generator of consciousness" sounds like a pretty good defination to "a defination of God." and I know that there is a "checkmate" somewhere here in the "atheist bible" or atheist's here at sciforums.

If there isn't then boo hoo, atheists lose, and we go on with our little shi-bang-bang.

But I say he must exist because he is something that I am not. Therefore, there is other existence, outside world, things which do t hings which are not ourselves.

How do we say that then there is NOT rebirth.
How do any of you know the answer to some of these questions?

 

[one_raven]

I have no clue what you just said.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

My defination of God is kind of simple really.

It just involves either an electron,
or something complicated, like,

What IS an electron?

If we can't answer this then how can we possibly know what God is exactly? If we are unable to see past the 3rd dimensional perceptive realization, then the True Nature will remain unknown.

If you don't know you don't know what God is.
Sure, hold an athieist reality, I don't care nor do I give a shit. Likly you'll be an old atheist bastard, - I don't know really.... Maybe you wouldn't

What IS relations with our selves?

Good question. Only we ourselves could know that for ourselves. When two drops of water remain as such, they are never the same. Each is a mini system, a world of its own. From one perspective they could even be seen as oceans. When they enter the river, they become the river and eventually the ocean they came from.

"Generator of consciousness" sounds like a pretty good defination to "a defination of God." and I know that there is a "checkmate" somewhere here in the "atheist bible" or atheist's here at sciforums.

If there isn't then boo hoo, atheists lose, and we go on with our little shi-bang-bang.

Where is that checkmate?

But I say he must exist because he is something that I am not. Therefore, there is other existence, outside world, things which do t hings which are not ourselves.

How do we say that then there is NOT rebirth.
How do any of you know the answer to some of these questions?

I just saw an indicator that there are people incapable of understanding you (hint hint:I have no clue what you just said.-One Raven). In this case I assume they would be unable to answer your questions. This makes them unable to comprehend and challenge the essence of your assertion. You remain focused on the profound and inscrutable reality of self. Not everyone can contemplate that which is profound. Minds can become too weak and feeble to exceed certain capacities.

 

[Myles]

If we can't answer this then how can we possibly know what God is exactly? If we are unable to see past the 3rd dimensional perceptive realization, then the True Nature will remain unknown.



Good question. Only we ourselves could know that for ourselves. When two drops of water remain as such, they are never the same. Each is a mini system, a world of its own. From one perspective they could even be seen as oceans. When they enter the river, they become the river and eventually the ocean they came from.



Where is that checkmate?



I just saw an indicator that there are people incapable of understanding you (hint hint:I have no clue what you just said.-One Raven). In this case I assume they would be unable to answer your questions. This makes them unable to comprehend and challenge the essence of your assertion. You remain focused on the profound and inscrutable reality of self. Not everyone can contemplate that which is profound. Minds can become too weak and feeble to exceed certain capacities.




I just saw an indication that someone is incapable of understanding the consequences of his own beliefs. If I don't know what an electron is, I do not know god. So, before the electron was discovered no one knew god ? I don't really believe he is saying so but it certainly an odd way to argue/

What we are realy being offered is the usual type of wild speculation we have come to expect from those who have a need to believe something despite the absence of evidence.

Why no rebirth ? Becaise there is not the slightes evidence to support the notion. Moreover, it would necessitate a continuity which we lack. There is nothing to be reborn. Can you show otherwise ?

Don't mistake vague speculation for profundity !

 

[one_raven]

I just saw an indicator that there are people incapable of understanding you (hint hint:I have no clue what you just said.-One Raven). In this case I assume they would be unable to answer your questions. This makes them unable to comprehend and challenge the essence of your assertion. You remain focused on the profound and inscrutable reality of self. Not everyone can contemplate that which is profound. Minds can become too weak and feeble to exceed certain capacities.

Nor is everyone effective at communicating using the written english language. Some are entirely incapable of the feat.

I can't tell if you actually deciphered what he was attempting to say, if you are playing along or if you have induced some meaning into the poster's nonsensical jibberish, but the fact that it does not make any sense is not my fault.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

Nor is everyone effective at communicating using the written english language. Some are entirely incapable of the feat.

I can't tell if you actually deciphered what he was attempting to say, if you are playing along or if you have induced some meaning into the poster's nonsensical jibberish, but the fact that it does not make any sense is not my fault.

Are you the proprietor of what is sensible? It did not make sense to you because you where unable to sense or comprehend the meaning of it. If you go back and carefully consider or even try to make sense of it for yourself, it may just happen. As far as anyone may be concerned, you might be posting nonsensical gibberish. This concerns perspective and the amount of consideration put into it.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

I just saw an indication that someone is incapable of understanding the consequences of his own beliefs. If I don't know what an electron is, I do not know god. So, before the electron was discovered no one knew god ? I don't really believe he is saying so but it certainly an odd way to argue/

What we are realy being offered is the usual type of wild speculation we have come to expect from those who have a need to believe something despite the absence of evidence.

Why no rebirth ? Becaise there is not the slightes evidence to support the notion. Moreover, it would necessitate a continuity which we lack. There is nothing to be reborn. Can you show otherwise ?

Don't mistake vague speculation for profundity !

Is this suppose to be a checkmate?

Don't mistake profundity with that which can only be proven by scientific means, which are already proven to be limited.

I suspect that Sissyphus is saying that God is all present in a single Electron, that within a Single Electron, or Photon, or Particle is the entire pattern of Everything, and that is God. Science can't disprove or prove this as far as I know, thus how can we possibly rely on the scientific means to verify or dismiss this? It it is true, how can we be so dumb as to afford the opportunity to not find this out? If it is false, then we know better the profound Truth by which nature is grounded in. If science can't ever answer this, how can we know?

 

[one_raven]

This concerns perspective and the amount of consideration put into it.

It's a simple matter of expressing thoughts clearly and succinctly.
Either one has or has not.

Sometimes that line is gray and open to interpretation.
There is no gray line in this instance at all.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

It's a simple matter of expressing thoughts clearly and succinctly.
Either one has or has not.

Sometimes that line is gray and open to interpretation.
There is no gray line in this instance at all.

Certainly you are aware that I can interpolate this in many different ways. The opening statement was rather succinct, direct, and well pointed. The follow up however can easily be considered a little gray.

 

[Enmos]

My defination of God is kind of simple really.

It just involves either an electron,
or something complicated, like,

What IS an electron?

If you don't know you don't know what God is.
Sure, hold an athieist reality, I don't care nor do I give a shit. Likly you'll be an old atheist bastard, - I don't know really.... Maybe you wouldn't

What IS relations with our selves?

"Generator of consciousness" sounds like a pretty good defination to "a defination of God." and I know that there is a "checkmate" somewhere here in the "atheist bible" or atheist's here at sciforums.

If there isn't then boo hoo, atheists lose, and we go on with our little shi-bang-bang.

But I say he must exist because he is something that I am not. Therefore, there is other existence, outside world, things which do t hings which are not ourselves.

How do we say that then there is NOT rebirth.
How do any of you know the answer to some of these questions?

Wtf ?
Just stay off the booze alright ?

 

[Myles]

Is this suppose to be a checkmate?

Don't mistake profundity with that which can only be proven by scientific means, which are already proven to be limited.

I suspect that Sissyphus is saying that God is all present in a single Electron, that within a Single Electron, or Photon, or Particle is the entire pattern of Everything, and that is God. Science can't disprove or prove this as far as I know, thus how can we possibly rely on the scientific means to verify or dismiss this? It it is true, how can we be so dumb as to afford the opportunity to not find this out? If it is false, then we know better the profound Truth by which nature is grounded in. If science can't ever answer this, how can we know?

I know what he (and you ? ) are trying to say and without putting too fine a point on it it's a lot of bollocks.

To say that God is everything is nonsense. What warrant has he for saying that God is present in an electron? Is it just whay he feels ought to be the case

So, let's have a clear-cut definition of God ! Then we can talk about it in a sensible fashion shorn of all wild specultion and innuendo.

I am pissed off hearing "science can't prove this, science cant proce that" There are lots of things that science cannot proveat a given point ion time but. as the history of science shows progress is constantly being made.

If science cannot prove God's existence, what hope do you think you have, wittering on about electrons and reality. Are you really so vain or just deluded. Anyway, bring on the proof if you can !

It's one of the oldest tricks in the religious book to fill gaps in our knowledge with God. Science cannot prove X, therefore God must exist or some such. It's a primitive mode of thought which most of us have grown out of.

There was a time when thunder could not be explained, so Thor was invented, banging his big hammer in the sky. Gods of all kinds were invented to fill gaps in our knowledge. It's regrettable but such atavistic thinking is indulged in by some people today. Hence, science cannot explain reality, which you have not defined, so God must be omnipresent. Codswallop !

 

[one_raven]

I noticed Sciforums changed their logo.
It used to say "Intelligent Community".

I wonder why that changed.

 

[codanblad]

I just saw an indicator that there are people incapable of understanding you (hint hint:I have no clue what you just said.-One Raven). In this case I assume they would be unable to answer your questions. This makes them unable to comprehend and challenge the essence of your assertion. You remain focused on the profound and inscrutable reality of self. Not everyone can contemplate that which is profound. Minds can become too weak and feeble to exceed certain capacities.

all he's saying is the starting post sounded like the mad ravings of a fool, its really poorly written. and you're making the ridiculous accusation of 'because you disagree with me, i'm gonna maintain you just don't understand'.

to answer his questions - what is an electron: wtf does that have to do with anything. its something really fukn small that shit is made out of. not to do with god.

what is relation with our selves: relations with selves are the appreciation or lack thereof of our own attributes and actions. being capable of thought is due to electrons and nerves and shit, not god. again, wtf.

i say he must exist cos he's something that i'm not: you're a dumb shit, that does not make sense. i say intelligent people must exist because they're something that you're not.

how do we know there isn't rebirth: we don't. there's just nothing proving there is rebirth. i bet people prefer rebirth to nothing, what does that tell you.

the whole retarded argument is based on 'i'm gonna say a lot of shit and hope atheists can't prove me wrong, even though i have no evidence for my ridiculous claims'.

 

[codanblad]

Is this suppose to be a checkmate?

Don't mistake profundity with that which can only be proven by scientific means, which are already proven to be limited.

I suspect that Sissyphus is saying that God is all present in a single Electron, that within a Single Electron, or Photon, or Particle is the entire pattern of Everything, and that is God. Science can't disprove or prove this as far as I know, thus how can we possibly rely on the scientific means to verify or dismiss this? It it is true, how can we be so dumb as to afford the opportunity to not find this out? If it is false, then we know better the profound Truth by which nature is grounded in. If science can't ever answer this, how can we know?

dude what you're really saying is "science can't prove what my religion says, therefore religion is right". science is limited, in that it can't make claims without proof. religion just says whatever it wants.

 

[Tnerb]

It's a simple matter of expressing thoughts clearly and succinctly.
Either one has or has not.

Sometimes that line is gray and open to interpretation.
There is no gray line in this instance at all.

I don't know why I am going to draw the grey line that you just spoke of in a thread which seems to already be entirely dead, but here I go anyway [btw: people were discussing my inability to communicate properly here not so long ago and If I may say so myself you are as they had said in for some rough times. Hopefully I'll be able to do so properly here]


My defination of God is kind of simple really.


Profound!
It just involves either an electron,
Profound!

Basically what I mean here is it involves an electron. If God is the source (which all we are discussing here is the defination of God), of our existence or he is the generator of our consciousness (the closest checkmate I have heard thus far), it would be necessary to provide him with the existence of an electron of possibility.



or something complicated, like,
Trying to be complicated. And sound cool
What IS an electron?
Once again being profound.


If you don't know you don't know what God is.
Taken out of context. Therefore:

Sure, hold an athieist reality, I don't care nor do I give a shit. Likly you'll be an old atheist bastard, - I don't know really.... Maybe you wouldn't
I go on to elaborate...

What IS relations with our selves?
And name the biggest one of them all.
Which of course relates with the electron and the idea that God exists for us through our consciousnesses and this is the only realistic form of God other than that outside of heaven.

These are mostly epistemologicial propositions, I wouldn't expect someone to take down an epistemologicial speculation and call it ground.

"Generator of consciousness" sounds like a pretty good defination to "a defination of God." and I know that there is a "checkmate" somewhere here in the "atheist bible" or atheist's here at sciforums.

See?
Where is that checkmate Jozen Bo?


If there isn't then boo hoo, atheists lose, and we go on with our little shi-bang-bang.
Precisely


But I say he must exist because he is something that I am not. Therefore, there is other existence, outside world, things which do t hings which are not ourselves.
Furtherest thought out examination.

How do we say that then there is NOT rebirth.

Biggest profound statement I've ever made.
How do any of you know the answer to some of these questions?

How do you profess to say there is not rebirth by the examination presented above?

This of course is in the religion because I am describing my view of "God." And what it means to have a God.

 

[Tnerb]

What IS relations with our selves? ”

Good question. Only we ourselves could know that for ourselves. When two drops of water remain as such, they are never the same. Each is a mini system, a world of its own. From one perspective they could even be seen as oceans. When they enter the river, they become the river and eventually the ocean they came from.

Actually, relations with selfs I had meant

"There is a deeper relationship found between all human beings."

 

[Myles]

dude what you're really saying is "science can't prove what my religion says, therefore religion is right". science is limited, in that it can't make claims without proof. religion just says whatever it wants.

As far as I'm concerned that's the last word on the (non) subject.

Any gap in our knowledge is filled by god until we close that gap, in which case god moves on. There'll always be a gap for him to fill.

 

[Tnerb]

As far as I'm concerned that's the last word on the (non) subject.

Any gap in our knowledge is filled by god until we close that gap, in which case god moves on. There'll always be a gap for him to fill.

The question that only remains is how you accept that

 

[codanblad]

As far as I'm concerned that's the last word on the (non) subject.

Any gap in our knowledge is filled by god until we close that gap, in which case god moves on. There'll always be a gap for him to fill.

well then you're describing god as 'shit we don't know'. good for you, but i don't worship 'shit i don't know'. my definition of god is an entity which gave us intelligence to best figure out how to worship him. i wonder whether your wasting that gift by embracing the idea that 'god is stuff people won't ever figure out', because what it amounts to is that you won't have to think about it. to me that is a cop out. so cop that!

 

[Myles]

well then you're describing god as 'shit we don't know'. good for you, but i don't worship 'shit i don't know'. my definition of god is an entity which gave us intelligence to best figure out how to worship him. i wonder whether your wasting that gift by embracing the idea that 'god is stuff people won't ever figure out', because what it amounts to is that you won't have to think about it. to me that is a cop out. so cop that!

I am basing my god- of -the -gaps argument on the history of scence which continues to replace superstitious beliefs.

I am NOT describing god as "shit we don't know" I am saying that's what you and others are doing. You are part of a long tradition of inventing gods to fill gaps in our knowledge. If you know anything of history, you will know this is true.

As to your last bit, I'm afraid you are completely wrong. Its because people like me have thought long and hard about it that we have concluded that there is no evidence to support the notion of god. The people who choose not to think about it are the ones who most readily believe. This seems to fit your situation.


Your definition of god is a common one. What evidence persuaded you to believe it ?