An attempt to prove ‘God’ .. disprove if you like
Or can reality deviate from itself?……
^That’s what I’m guessing? There are no absolutes, even if we haven’t seen it behave thusly.
Don……. You’re aware that the notion that nothing is random is the same one on which all scientific inquisition is based ?
RIght??? ANd what the hell do you mean by “no random figures”?
What I’m saying is that when you look at a thing out of context it seems random.
When you walk in your door and see a gold fish hanging from your lightbulb, that seems random.
When you’re aware of the context, that it was put there as a practical joke. Not so random.
Nothing is random, if you could bother your arse to google the even that phrase you’d know that.
Take a look at game theory.
Wiki that stuff.
Don, you’re talking absolute crap here.
“There are no absolutes” ??? What kind of ridiculous sweeping statement is that?
You’re asking me to back-up well established stuff here and then you’re farting out inanities such as that.
THis site is growing ridiculous.
He is saying exactly what I was saying… he just won’t accept order coming from a being in my argument… I tried to avoid that in the beginning of this post (‘I don’t really care what you think ‘God’ is) but I added it in as this went on.. This order is what I’m saying ‘God’ is! The absence of anomalies, we could ONLY have happened because of their absence..
So you proved my point Stephen.. until i tightened up what ‘God’ meant..
Yeah pretty much. I didn’t know we were on the same page. Your point was to say that we are the result of a system that worked perfectly to bring about our existence?
yes… but throughout I threw a being back in there… I didn’t like any of the retorts really and I wasn’t doing a good enough job explaining myself but that was exactly what I was saying….
So then through deduction, if we said this system is just like AI, generated cause/effect through evolution (let’s say that’s the system, I can’t think of a better one) .. wouldn’t the system still have to come from a rational being… it’s tough because you have to bounce rational of yourself… well I am rational, therefor it is… I get that… but how can you not say it??
I’m a terrible at explaining things… I don’t read much… I hope you see what I’m getting at
Wow this is amazing. In fact if you take a look at the argument.
The system is everything. The system is reality all of reality. In that case, how can there be anything outside of it. Outside of reality ? How can anything stand outside of reality and create it?
If something stands outside of reality, it is by it’s very nature. Unreal. Untrue. Nothing exists outside of all that exists, and reality is all that exists. It is possible for us to have a mental concept of what something that stands outside of reality would be like, but the concept is false. Nothing stands outside of reality.
Do you see what you’ve done here?
You have probably made one of the strongest cases I have ever seen for the non existence of God.
If he is outside reality. Then he is not real. ANd you just proved that God is outside reality, outside this system that gave rise to us.
Now Matt P.
Here is the big question.
Are you an honest man? Are you going to accept this deduction you have accidentally stumbled upon?
Or are you going to cling to your belief out of fear?
I should congratulate you.
This is AWESOME. You have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that according to this view of reality (which I must say seems 100% sound) not only does God NOT exist, but it is impossible for any God TO exist.
lmao, I still feel proud of myself, thanks…
But yes I’m an honest person…
I have to propose to you, how do you know where reality ends?? But if you CAN do that, then it is an undeniable case..
In my mind the possibilities are endless, outside of ‘our linear course’, after death basically.. but I’m very quick to tell you how great ‘God’ is… which I’ll acknowledge is not compatible with logic… This is probably the closest you can come one way or the other…
It’s hard for me to say that there isn’t something outside the system.. but I can’t seem to figure out a way to do that without saying ‘I am a rational being, therefor it stems from a rational being’ .. I have tried…
But I have to held up with my claim… the system is ‘God’! as long as i don’t say it’s a being… would you agree?
I don’t know where it ends. That’s the genius of your proposal. You don’t need to know where it ends. All you need to know is that
1) The system of reality exists
Therefore, God is a separate entity from reality. Which means he isn’t real.
That is so subtle but wow. It’s perfect.
I used to be an agnostic but you really have shown me the light.
This is amazing.
And look, if god isn’t real, then there is only reality!!!
My God(lol)… That is so very elegant.
Thanks man. Just thank you.
God doesn’t exist….wow.
This is what is so great about this site, open minded people like yourself questioning their petty beliefs and inching ever closer to immutable truth.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for doing away with my childish superstition.
LOL, I’m glad I could help…
Couldn’t you substitute not real for for ‘all powerful??
It is slightly less logical I might agree… lol
got me cracking up here… :)
You really changed your argument by post 177. I had written a long reply to your original post, but now it seems a little pointless to post it. But here’s the little bit that relates to the current discussion.
You started out talking about a creator god. “[B]y ‘God’ I am referring to a creator that created us specifically.” Then changed to saying that, “This order is what I’m saying ‘God’ is”, referring to the order/structure of the Universe. So really you’re now saying that god is the Universe. This belief is called Pantheism (the belief that the divine is in nature, or that the Universe is a manifestation of the divine). If this is the case, then there is no creator (your word) and no guiding force governing the Universe. The Universe simply is, and you express your affinity towards it and connection to it by giving it the name ‘god’. There is no supernatural being, only near-infinite complexity.
I apologize for not keeping up with this post and responding to you… I won’t do that for future reference.. I felt like what Aaron said was an appropriate interpretation.. I wasn’t trying to flip flop.. I did start leaning toward my own view as the debate went on.. I will note that to self..
I’m still saying the system, the order, is in motion, and was/is thinking rationally… so the order is either rational, or, the impossible bridge to gap… came from a rational being… How can you prove a rational being without bouncing it off the notion of ‘self’ .. but then again, why can’t you?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.