FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


The Question of God





peajie
Why do so many people confuse God and religion. Because they have tiny minds?
Religion is always Man-man, as an attempt to promote somebody's conception of God.

Is GOD Real ? No, nothing is. Everything is an individual's own perception and interpretation. Other people have other names... Allah for example.
Does a CREATOR exist, by whatever name we chooses to call it? Ofcourse! How else could you be aware of yourself and have an interpretation or perception if YOU were not created.
The first cause and creator of everything is MIND. The Cosmic Clonsciousness of which you are a part. It is convenient to call this Mind by the name God, because it IS the creator of everything. All so-called matter is made from "Quarks" which are names given to bits of mind energy.

It is the movement of Mind in its activity which causes consciousness.

So how was mind created? It could not have existed until it became conscious of itself.
The mysterious catch 22.

Ofcourse " God" exists, simply because it is impossible to prove that IT doesn't.
But really is the question of any real importance to such mumdane self seeking things as humans; any yes or no does not change anything for us.
Perhaps we should concentrate on loving everything and everybody who is also sharing my mind.
Bikerman
Lots of supposition and a deal of error.
a) 'The first cause is mind'. This smacks of Deepak Chopra's quantum ravings. Clearly cause and effect must pre-exist before the development of mind, otherwise how could you 'cause' the mind - that way lies infinite regress.
b) "The Cosmic Consciousness of which you are a part." This is a nice metaphor by Sagan but needs to be tempered slightly. He is saying that the universe becomes conscious of itself via us - which is poetic but valid, since we are part of the universe, and we are conscious; so in a real sense at least part of the universe is conscious of itself. To take that further and expand it to an idea of 'universal consciousness' is simply assumption.
c) "All so-called matter is made from "Quarks" which are names given to bits of mind energy. ". No. Quarks are the name for fundamental particles. Mind, to the best of our knowledge, does not have any special 'energy' which can be quantised.
d) "It is the movement of Mind in its activity which causes consciousness. " This sounds deep but I can't find any depth in it. It seems to say that mind and consciousness are different, yet that mind in action produces consciousness. That seems to be OK at one level - consciousness being an emergent property of mind is certainly a defensible position - but meaningless at any deeper level, since without saying what 'mind' is, the assertion is entirely moot.
e) "So how was mind created? It could not have existed until it became conscious of itself. " This is a non-sequitur. Why could it not have existed?
f) "Of course " God" exists, simply because it is impossible to prove that IT doesn't. "
This is simply terrible logic. It is impossible to prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist, including faeries, Santa-Claus and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. That does not mean that they must exist.
Bluedoll
@peajie
What did you mean at the end, by "sharing my mind"?

@Bikerman
Of course our wonderful God does indeed exist and is not an IT, informational technology is I.T. but for the purpose of philosophy I will make a comment on f) and will show that f) is poorly manufactured and as it self states about the subject shows that it its self is terrible logic and really just the pot sniping at the kettle, “Why you are black!”

If f) is true (it is also suggesting that something is not true by pointing to things that appear to be false) then to be true it must prove that something can not exist which is something that was stated by f) was impossible. If something can be said to not exist based only on the fact by f) that suggests something can be said to not exist then by using f) that would be not true since f) states that something can not be proven to not exist.

The only thing that has been established by f) is that it is lacking in logic and that the most accurate statement that can be made about dealing with these kinds of circular arguments is they can not prove anything.

Regarding faeries, Santa-Claus and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I am not sure about faeries maybe they are friends of Bikermen. Laughing As for Santa-Claus I understood that he was originally a real person that gave way to legend however history shows that he did exist in spirit and in the hearts and minds of many children and adults. The pink unicorn is an interesting creative venture and if someone actually did a google search might find that it does exist. “The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) on the other hand is the goddess of a parody religion used to satirize theistic beliefs, taking the form of a unicorn that is paradoxically . . .”
see - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
@Bikerman
Of course our wonderful God does indeed exist and is not an IT, informational technology is I.T. but for the purpose of philosophy I will make a comment on f) and will show that f) is poorly manufactured and as it self states about the subject shows that it its self is terrible logic and really just the pot sniping at the kettle, “Why you are black!”
So, let's see this proof then?
Quote:
If f) is true (it is also suggesting that something is not true by pointing to things that appear to be false) then to be true it must prove that something can not exist which is something that was stated by f) was impossible. If something can be said to not exist based only on the fact by f) that suggests something can be said to not exist then by using f) that would be not true since f) states that something can not be proven to not exist.
Do you really think that this makes sense? You don't, for example, think it is incomprehensible gibberish? Interesting.
The statement that one cannot absolutely prove something (anything) does not exist is a simple statement of fact. You, for example, cannot prove that Dragons do not exist. That tells us nothing about whether Dragons actually DO exist.
The statement 'because we cannot prove something does not exist, it therefore exists' is logical nonsense, as should be clear to anyone with a basic grounding in English and an ability to think. I'm not sure which of those is giving you a problem....
deanhills
peajie wrote:
Perhaps we should concentrate on loving everything and everybody who is also sharing my mind.
Good point provided it is heart first. The stuff that goes on in the mind, particularly when ego is involved does have the tendency of moving in the opposite direction of love.
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
peajie wrote:
Perhaps we should concentrate on loving everything and everybody who is also sharing my mind.
Good point provided it is heart first. The stuff that goes on in the mind, particularly when ego is involved does have the tendency of moving in the opposite direction of love.


I wouldn't even put on that qualifier. Being compassionate need not require any sharing of perspective Wink
Bluedoll
Ankhanu wrote:
deanhills wrote:
peajie wrote:
Perhaps we should concentrate on loving everything and everybody who is also sharing my mind.
Good point provided it is heart first. The stuff that goes on in the mind, particularly when ego is involved does have the tendency of moving in the opposite direction of love.


I wouldn't even put on that qualifier. Being compassionate need not require any sharing of perspective Wink
Not completely sure what you meant but would not the sharing of a perspective be dependant on how that affects the person you want to be compassionate with?


So it is clear, what I think is incomprehensible gibberish is the idea that anyone can say God does not absolutely exist. If we write, “it is impossible to prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist does not mean that they must exist” and leave it just at that, I could accept it as a logical deduction however since most sentences here, obviously are connected to a religion, in this case, the belief of atheism which states that God is like the Invisible Pink Unicorn and does not exist. Connecting the two things together is what makes the statement very repulsively demeaning because any attempt to twist minds with these kinds of reasoning is rather annoying. Please do not be mistaken, I am not saying there is something wrong with people at all. I am saying however, that using this kind of logic is foolishness in connection with religious beliefs. The logic is not giving me a problem but the connection to try to make an assumption that absolutely God does not exist, certainly does.

Although everyone is entitled to an opinion, belief and freedom to express what they think (debatable in this forum) there is a big overall negativity in many statements, I do read that will never cut the mustard regarding religion – and that is the attitude. As far as I understand even science would be bothered with it as well.

“If you can not prove it exists – it does not,” shouts the angry debaters.

All things do not have to be proved to exist, some things are merely waiting for discovery and religious beliefs are certainly something that I do not need to prove to anyone because my belief belongs to me and needs no reassurance. Therefore, attempting to connect this kind circular logic in connection to religious beliefs is actually the real non-sense.
Bikerman
Try replying to the correct post....
Your entire point is a gigantic straw-man based on a lie.
Nobody here has said that "God does not absolutely exist" (or if they have, I am not aware of it, and I have certainly never said any such thing).
It would be a waste of time to explain, yet again, what atheism ACTUALLY is and why your notion of it is wrong...

PS - nor have I, or anyone else I am aware of, ever said "If you can not prove it exists – it does not,"

PPS - until you learn what circular reasoning actually is, it would be better to avoid trying to apply it, because it merely reveals that you don't know your circular reasoning from your asserting the consequents.
Bluedoll
peajie wrote:
Why do so many people confuse God and religion. Because they have tiny minds?
Religion is always Man-man, as an attempt to promote somebody's conception of God.
No one has ever said that "God does not absolutely exist"??????????- yeah right!
@Bikerman
Then how do you account for the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) the goddess of a parody religion used to satirize theistic beliefs if it is not mockingly associating no proof as non-existence? While it is obvious to me that atheism will not acknowledge the existence of God, it is none the less the atheist that formulates their own personal belief, not atheism and I can observe that your effort to convince others that your belief is correct has been extremely apparent.

Demanding someone else proof that God does exist (which you have done regularly by writing - Proof it!) with the intention to disproof what they write, so to enhance your argument that God does not exist is doing exactly as it says, “if you can not prove it – then it does not stand up.” is the logic being applied. I have always made it clear this is where science and religious beliefs draw the line. Religious beliefs do not need to be proved. There is no lie here.
Bikerman
As I advised, you would be best to steer clear of logical analysis until you know something about it.
I do not believe in God. I do not think it is possible to positively say that God does not exist - just as you cannot prove to me that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. You seem to feel that the notion of IPU is an insult - I feel similarly about your God. IPU doesn't threaten you with eternal torment if you don't believe in her. The worst threat she makes is to refuse to share her Pizza with you. You, on the other hand, believe (and state) that people like me are satanic and will burn in hell. I find that rather insulting.

The only 'maxim' being applied is the well established one - 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. In other words, those, like you, who claim that there IS a sky-fairy are responsible for providing evidence for the assertion, otherwise you have no 'right' to expect to be taken seriously.

As for my satire - since you don't enter into proper debate, then satire is, I think, a fair retort.
Bluedoll
Anyone might consider that “proper debate” is something that might be, at this point in time being demonstrated poorly now! The best debaters in my opinion are those that always stick to the topic and shy away from personal comments like
Quote:
“coming from someone who can barely string a coherent sentence together” –Bikerman
As I have confirmed on numerous occasions my role here is not one of literary assessment. If there is something that is not understandable because of sentence structure, point that out and perhaps I might be able to indulge and help a person understand the particular phrase or sentence or idea I am attempting to present. I can only do my best for that. I will advise anyone though not to consider that I am involved in a teacher/student relationship here with anyone. I am a person like anyone with feelings and whether posts are rude or not does not really change facts. I know some people do not show respect to all members (as Bikerman himself has stated often) but I do think everyone could at least consider that the kind of debate style that has been adopted, really stinks of bad attitudes towards other posters like me.

Back on topic... What I feel about the IPU is nothing. What I think about the UPI is that it is out of place in serious discussions and adds little to them. I never said, “people like you are satanic and will burn in hell”. That is not true, and certainly not my conflict now. I do not believe in hell. As for satanic, that is a religious persuasion and certainly real in religion. The existence of Satan is a belief I do have. In the bible it is shown that he would like nothing better for everyone to believe many things that are being presented in many of these threads. I can not help it, if two belief systems are complimentary. I did not write the bible and actually do feel compassion for people if someone is honestly insulted by the bible but it is sometimes what the subject is about.

I do understand the logic behind an extraordinary claim but I think extraordinary claim is not very applicable based on the context of the subject. This is not a science experiment or merely a philosophical debate about logic. Anyone can see this is religious thread concerning a religious topic and in that context it is not extraordinary at all but very reasonable to position under a topic “The Question of God” that God does indeed exist.
Bikerman
Quote:
The best debaters in my opinion are those that always stick to the topic and shy away from personal comments like ...
Quite right. I retract my personal comment about your English and will edit the posting accordingly.
Bluedoll wrote:
As I have confirmed on numerous occasions my role here is not one of literary assessment. If there is something that is not understandable because of sentence structure, point that out and perhaps I might be able to indulge and help a person understand the particular phrase or sentence or idea I am attempting to present. I can only do my best for that.
Doing your best would include reading the text back and checking it over, and not trying to use pompous sounding but meaningless sentences in the first place. Still - that is your choice.
Quote:
I will advise anyone though not to consider that I am involved in a teacher/student relationship here with anyone.
I don't see why anyone would think you are.
Quote:
I am a person like anyone with feelings and whether posts are rude or not does not really change facts. I know some people do not show respect to all members (as Bikerman himself has stated often)
Wrong. I said no such thing. I stated that the notion that all beliefs are automatically deserving of respect is wrong and dangerous. See the difference?
Quote:
Back on topic... What I feel about the IPU is nothing. What I think about the UPI is that it is out of place in serious discussions and adds little to them. I never said, “people like you are satanic and will burn in hell”.
Oh really? So you didn't start a thread called 'Satanic Atheism'? I beg to differ.
You didn't tell me that 'You preach for Satan'? Again I beg to differ.
As for whether you believe in Hell, I don't know of any Christian denominations, aside from Jehova's Witnesses, that don't believe in Hell, so if you are a JW or you have some version of Christianity that is
your own, then fine, but the assumption that a Christian would believe in hell is not, I think, an unreasonable one.
Quote:
That is not true.
Really? Do I have to provide the links?
Quote:
and certainly not my conflict now.
I don't understand that statement.
Quote:
I do not believe in hell.
OK, I stand corrected. I don't understand HOW you can believe in Satan and not in hell, but that is your business.
Quote:
As for satanic, that is a religious persuasion and certainly real in religion. The existence of Satan is a belief I do have. In the bible it is shown that he would like nothing better for everyone to believe many things that are being presented in many of these threads. I can not help it, if two belief systems are complimentary. I did not write the bible and actually do feel compassion for people if someone is honestly insulted by the bible but it is sometimes what the subject is about.
But you pick and choose from the bible (as we see with the disbelief in hell) so you can choose not to believe in Satan if you wish.
Quote:
I do understand the logic behind an extraordinary claim but I think extraordinary claim is not very applicable based on the context of the subject. This is not a science experiment or merely a philosophical debate about logic. Anyone can see this is religious thread concerning a religious topic and in that context it is not extraordinary at all but very reasonable to position under a topic “The Question of God” that God does indeed exist.
Any extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. The fact that this is the r&p forum does not change that. If someone entered and started talking about the Vacuum Cleaner God then I presume you would not believe in such a thing? If they provided extraordinary evidence then I would. There is no exception made for Christianity (or any other faith), since the Christian claims for God are about as extraordinary as claims get.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
deanhills wrote:
peajie wrote:
Perhaps we should concentrate on loving everything and everybody who is also sharing my mind.
Good point provided it is heart first. The stuff that goes on in the mind, particularly when ego is involved does have the tendency of moving in the opposite direction of love.


I wouldn't even put on that qualifier. Being compassionate need not require any sharing of perspective Wink
I have to agree with Bluedoll, I'm not quite sure what you mean. The author of this thread was referring to love specifically.
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
deanhills wrote:
peajie wrote:
Perhaps we should concentrate on loving everything and everybody who is also sharing my mind.
Good point provided it is heart first. The stuff that goes on in the mind, particularly when ego is involved does have the tendency of moving in the opposite direction of love.


I wouldn't even put on that qualifier. Being compassionate need not require any sharing of perspective Wink
I have to agree with Bluedoll, I'm not quite sure what you mean. The author of this thread was referring to love specifically.


What I mean is:
The author used the qualifier "... who is also sharing my mind." This explicitly excludes loving those who do not share your "mind" (being interpreted as a perspective, belief system, ideals, etc.). You counter this with "heart".
My point is that we should aim to drop the qualifiers: "love everything and everybody."

Lovey-dovey idealism? Absolutely.
Realistic? Not at all.
Lack of realism means that it shouldn't be a goal? Nah, unattainable goals are fine, they can even help us maintain awareness of our every day actions and their impacts on others.

Basically, we don't live in a vacuum, separate from the rest of society. We have impact on everyone we interact with, and even those we (immediately) do not. We should make efforts to maximize compassion/love and avoid causing suffering or harm. This idea shouldn't be limited to an "in group" who shares your belief. It's really pretty simple and it's at the heart of the "Golden Rule," amongst other compassion-based ethical systems.
Davidbroad
The Question of God ? the God is the answer of every quest............
Related topics
questions for Christians
What or Who Created God? Any ideas?
If God has taken all you love...do you have the right to act
why did "god" create "satan"
why i am not so sure about reigion
If there was a god...
A rant on God, religion and morality
I have always wondered...
Einstein On God
What is your choice?
Are religious people happier than non religious people?
Does God discriminate based on religion
This subforum is absurd
God is good!
Reply to an off topic post...
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.