vetting god

[shruggedatlas]

Shrug
Quote:
Why do the faithful believe?
------------------------------

Its more like a "Knowing",than a Believing.

Almost like a "sense"  a Common sense we share!

Someday when you get ready to breathe your last breath,
you'll be moments away from
"The rest of the story"

Till then
??
Shrugs and kisses
Chet

But how can you know?  Is it maybe that it is a pleasant thing to hope for, an everlasting afterlife?  I suppose it would nice to live forever in paradise, but there is the downside of being forced to adore the almighty the entire time.  Hitchens compared this to North Korea, and I think he was not far off.

And Wilby, quit being such a tyrant.  Threads evolve, and if it wasn't for this tangential discussion, you would be buried off the front page already and that would be the end. 

You cannot tell me you have never steered a discussion off topic.

[Tenbatsu]

First, there is not enough evidence either way to prove the existence or non-existence of a god. 

We can only speculate one way or another -there is no right or wrong.  Therefore I believe the opinions of the people posting in this thread should not be squelched in this regard.

I would like to add this to the conversation:  Everything that we observe came from something, or rather nothing.  What started all of this?  And what started that? - and on and on into infinity.  What I have to assume is that in the beginning of time, space, energy, and matter there was nothing.  For all the detractors on this forum and around the world in the scientific community - our existence in this plane of reality should prove to all deniers that you can create an entire universe, multiverse or whatever you believe, out of nothing.  Now this revelation leads to the following questions:  Did nothing will itself into existence so we can observe its creation?  Was nothing bored with being nothing or did it just become aware of itself?  Is nothing sentient?  What created that nothing?  These are questions that cannot be answered we can only ponder. 

Now as far as hard evidence is concerned:

If there is hard evidence towards a connection to a greater energy it would be the experiments performed by Dr. Rick Strassman at the University of New Mexico with the chemical compound Dimethyl Tryptamine.  DMT is a chemical created by our pineal gland that is secreted in large quantities 40-50 days after conception and again right after we die.  It is the most powerful hallucinogen on this planet and it's naturally created by our brain.  DMT is classified as a schedule 1 drug and is illegal even though our own body creates it.  At the conclusion of the studies Dr. Strassman believed that DMT could be the "spirit molecule".  He wrote a book called DMT: The Spirit Molecule if any of you are interested.  DMT fits the bill as the chemical that could carry a soul to and from a human host, unfortunately due to its highly controlled nature I doubt anymore clinical studies will be performed on it.  Although the Uniao do Vegetal church won a battle against the Supreme Court recently to allow Ayahuasca (5-MeO DMT) to be used during its religious ceremonies.  I think it would be interesting to pursue more clinical research into the actions, methods, and purpose of DMT.

I hope I shed some light on this subject for you all.

[11:11]

hi bill, thanks for the humorous response. great timing.

i am well and hope you are too. to be truthful, i can't wait for hard water, even though the summer fishing has been great this year. i still have a couple jt's in the hard water kit for shining up glow jigs, but switched the icehouse lighting to a SEC circuit. i was playing around using the whole lake instead of just a glass of water... interesting stuff.

you rule-bashed all those poor innocent posters,
for typing what you perceived,
to be unrelated to this threads topic.

yet you did not rule-bash pirate,
for doing the exact same thing,
simply because you are friends with him !

even though what pirate posted to this thread,
was little different,
than what everyone else posted to this thread.



you then broke your own thread-rules,
by replying to pirate,
with an off-topic post of your own,
containing little more than words about fishing.



you have yourself done,
what you harassed and threatened everyone else,
for doing !

in addition to contributing several times more harassment and threats,
than you have advanced anything constructive.



you think it is ok,
for you and your friends,
to break your rules,
but not for everyone else ?

does your interest in criticism,
extend only to others,
yet not to yourself ?

and that does not include your lying,
about how little you understand,
for the intention of making yourself look superficially better,
than people who you dislike.



your personal ethics,
are conveniently flexible !

i thought you were made of sterner stuff !!!



the fish that you troll from the lake,
have a spine.

you should grow a spine as well,
and stop trolling your own thread !



i grow less and less interested in responding,
to your increasingly self-important positions,
your increasingly malignant character flaws,
and your narrow minded non-understanding.

this thread was already self-defeating in the first place,
for reasons that you have shown yourself,
to be philosophically incapable,
of understanding.



i have standards,
regarding what i will respond to.

and you are demonstrating yourself,
to fall far below those standards.



by the way.
i still prefer chocolate,
more than i prefer ice cream.

[The Eskimo Quinn]

One of the Big ones is there a God?

Well first we split the argument into science and god, simply because we cannot entertain a just because I think so argument.

People of faith must accept science as being part of their god, for all religions believe their god or god, created all things as such it follows that all things scientific are created by god. Now outcomes, some religions believe that God determines the results of things or outcomes, we can quickly dispel this as a myth, by saying god determined that a child should be raped tortured and then die, this would not follow that god is a being of wisdom nor would any right thinking person for or against the argument believe that anyone or god would determine this to be a desired outcome or result. This is a result of action by man.

So is there a god? Well science itself says there has to be a god by its own logic, an object be it god or other is determined to be real if it can be quantified or measured. How do we do this in simple terms? Easy, a scientist says just because they have faith in god does not make him real, but the scientists just did by saying "in god" "him" he classified god as an object, to reference something it has to exist. So how do we define further that it exists? is a mental thought proof of an object? A dream is an object that can be measured recalled and no single human denies the existence of dreams they are a physical existing measurable quanta, so too is faith, one in the conscience one in the unconscious, we do not say the content of the dream is real, but we do say it is real, yet we cannot see it, touch it, heat it or bottle it or examine it under a microscope. So too many scientific objects have the same problem, neutrinos for example, some items cannot be seen or measured, simply the result of their presence is the proof, in short something causes a reaction or something is missing from and equation, we cannot find it or see it yet we know it is there because of the end result of the equation, neutrinos were named for a missing part of an energy equation, we did not count neutrinos by there presence but by the change in the other component levels. We accepted on faith that it must be so, we accepted on faith that it must be so. So science itself works on faith that things must be so more often than you imagine, so how do we link the two? a novel or story is what links the two. Though it may be questioned as to what a dream is, a novel or story cannot be questioned, the story may be real or fictional but the story itself exists. A story handed down unwritten in texts exists, this form is an entity, unlike a thought that is a not real, the story itself is an entity as a story, god is a similar entity, not a story of a sequence of events that has created an entity, the story itself, unlike the story that can be the novel if placed in text, God can be separated as a single thought or entity an instant visualisation of all that one imagines God to be, not the story of god, but the singular word exists as an entity in all men, even atheists have this visualisation of an entity they believe false. So we can say that god is an entity and science can not argue, they can however argue whether the entity has any power of its own and can argue if without the creation of the entity, how could god have existed before man to create the world.  I pondered this as the greatest challenge to solve and consider the answer as this, we know in science and from history as an undeniable fact, that men will often have the same thought as another, this is seen often in the world of inventors and writers alike, they have never met yet this often unique thought has arrived in both, this is not math and conclusion, this is creativity, the concept of the invention or the story are both entities, if a single person did not start or create the entity and it simply exists and all mankind can draw or see the entity or if only two men see the entity, it is clear it exists and it is clear it exists beyond the realm of the story of an individual to create and pass on. This life existence of an entity able to perpetuate itself in anyone without even prior contact with another living human multiple times is prove the entity is self existent, an entity can be taken and moved and passed on, it is an object. If we simply go back to earliest man scattered over the planet, religions or god awareness sprang up unconnected as separate acknowledgement of the same entity, you can look at a star or outer planet an imagine there is other life, this is not entity is a math conclusion, based on your own existence on this planet, the original god entity had no mathematical logical or basis to create the conclusion that there is was or should be a god, without having the notion presented by others, the entity was found without reason or math simultaneously around the world. So we acknowledge there is an entity existing known as God, Is this entity an all powerful entity? without question the history of the world is determined by the faith in this entity, in God we trust is on currency, courts make you place your hand on the bible, so we know the entity has great power over men. Is the entity powerful without man is the only other question? Well, the measles are only powerful with man as a host, so too many things such as human only viruses that need a host, and so too mental disease that cannot be seen by a microscope, yet it exists and we accept that it does. So whilst a creative thought, virus, unseen mental illness or a dream may be the closest cousin to the entity God for comparative purposes, it does meet all the same criteria in scientific measurement. So the answer must be yes. As to the power of god outside the host other than that self replication in other hosts I cannot say in science.

But I did answer the question, is there a God.

As to intelligent design as an answer, I say no to design as a good argument as most objects have a reason for being and improve or evolve accordingly, what I think that the world missed that no one has ever written is that the planet and the surface of the planet do not support each other and are not connected, if one imagines that things evolve to support a surrounding system as part of a singular being such as the planet, you have failed to noticed that the planet under the 20 feet of plant crap and tree roots, does not give a rats ass about the surface content of the planet, volcanoes, tidal waves and so on that are created by the pre animal and plant world, the base planet constantly destroys the since created biological planet surface in an arbitrary manner, there is no symbiotic link between the two, for the upper also does not benefit the lower.

This is closer to proof of being placed here than any other recorded comment in history, no other human ever noticed or record this fact, that the planet and the surface bio planet are not symbiotic, so too it also proves the other theory that the biological evolution may be more random than even science realises, what it does disprove absolutely though is the Pagan earth mother theory, because this bitch does not care about what is on the surface, further no biological evolution will ever effect the subsurface pre-existing planet.

Our planet is not our planet, our world exists on this planet, that is like the lea calling the dog his own, we are as plants a fungal infection on the dog, as animals merely fleas with no teeth, they are not one entity nor do not they coexist, the dog has non use for the fleas or the fungus, just as the planet has no use for our thin film layer of fungus and fleas. Our world exists in a thin film of moss and insects that cover a rock. We are not one we are separate entities and a solar flare would show this accurate, for in one day the thin film of sludge that is our world would be gone and the planet would remain, that same molten ball of cooling particles orbiting without purpose in space.



One reply no other responses will be entered.

Vetted and done

[Pirate88179]

you rule-bashed all those poor innocent posters,
for typing what you perceived,
to be unrelated to this threads topic.

yet you did not rule-bash pirate,
for doing the exact same thing,
simply because you are friends with him !

even though what pirate posted to this thread,
was little different,
than what everyone else posted to this thread.



you then broke your own thread-rules,
by replying to pirate,
with an off-topic post of your own,
containing little more than words about fishing.



you have yourself done,
what you harassed and threatened everyone else,
for doing !

in addition to contributing several times more harassment and threats,
than you have advanced anything constructive.



you think it is ok,
for you and your friends,
to break your rules,
but not for everyone else ?

does your interest in criticism,
extend only to others,
yet not to yourself ?

and that does not include your lying,
about how little you understand,
for the intention of making yourself look superficially better,
than people who you dislike.



your personal ethics,
are conveniently flexible !

i thought you were made of sterner stuff !!!



the fish that you troll from the lake,
have a spine.

you should grow a spine as well,
and stop trolling your own thread !



i grow less and less interested in responding,
to your increasingly self-important positions,
your increasingly malignant character flaws,
and your narrow minded non-understanding.

this thread was already self-defeating in the first place,
for reasons that you have shown yourself,
to be philosophically incapable,
of understanding.



i have standards,
regarding what i will respond to.

and you are demonstrating yourself,
to fall far below those standards.



by the way.
i still prefer chocolate,
more than i prefer ice cream.

I beg to differ.  In my post I offered "material evidence or a logical proof" (To quote Wilby) in an attempt to keep to the topic at hand.  If someone does not agree with my proof, that is outside of my control.  I also posted a disclaimer to my proof as well.

Bill