Alot of people find it hard to understand how God could have existed forever. Never ending, Never beginning.

I will explain, are you ready for it?

God created time. God does not exist in Time. God can step into and out of Time. But God does not exist in the dimension of Time. If you remove Time then guess what happens... There is no beginning or end. Remember something: Our brains cannot comprehend anything outside of Time. Time is a creation, and our brains our products of TIME. There is no way for us to think outside of time. This is why we have problems understanding how something can be eternal, "alpha and omega" first and last, never-ending never-beginning. But we can understand this concept: Remove time and there is no TIME. No beginning, no end.

I will also prove why the existence of God is Logically necessary:

How can we live on earth? Random Chance? ok. I would accept that. But how can we have a galaxy. Random Chance? ok. How can we have a universe... big bang? hmm. ok... where did that come from?.... How can we have existence?... hmm.... existence.... where did that come from? Where did our universe come from? If it was a big bang, what could have possibly caused that? Some type of energy, maybe? How did that energy get there? There has to be a beginning point. The only possible way for us to have existence is for existence to be put here by something eternal. You see, that ends the infinite paradox of "where did that come from? then where did that come from? then where did that come from? then where did that come from? If you equate the existence of the universe to a stack of coins, then the question arises: "What is the bottom coin that is holding everything else up?" Thus the bottom coin HAS to be eternal and constant because if it wasnt always there, then the rest of the coins would have never been able to stack on top of the first "Super Coin" that is holding everything else up. Secondly, the rest of the coins are (metaphorically: "us") obviously non-eternal, and have a beginning and an end. This means that the "Super Coin" had to have been able to duplicate itself in some (lesser) way and create an enviroment (a place of existence) for the rest of the coins to stack on top of itself.

anyways, perhaps some of this was unecessary, but it is truth. i hope you guys can use this information to refute athiesm and anti-theism wish is actually reletively easy for the properly informed to do. God Bless and have fun.

I would be interested to hear your retorts. Please, i don't want to hear any personal attacks. Just logical, freindly arguements against the material i have put forth here. thank you.

there is no way to win an argument against an athiest, nor is there any way to win an argument against a theist.

Both standpoints in a sense represent different versions of people's religions. There is no one religion for everyone, it is different for everybody.

Some people believe in God, some believe in something similar that has nothing to do with the bible, some incorperate science and evolution into their religions, some do not. Other people believe in buddha and some people don't believe in anything. Even more alarming some people are waiting for God to appear and on that day they say they will believe, some say even if a God does show it's face they will still refuse to believe.

It doesn't matter what you believe in, Just that you believe in something and through that belief you develop a set of values or morals by which you live.

The only way to know if there is a God or not, is to talk to other people honestly about your own personal experiences with God, not theories about why It must exist etc. People will only be persuaded by feeling like this is a planet built by a wise and merciful and beautiful God whoes presence can be felt. This is hard but not impossible.

God created time. God does not exist in Time. God can step into and out of Time. But God does not exist in the dimension of Time. If you remove Time then guess what happens... There is no beginning or end. Remember something: Our brains cannot comprehend anything outside of Time. Time is a creation, and our brains our products of TIME. There is no way for us to think outside of time. This is why we have problems understanding how something can be eternal, "alpha and omega" first and last, never-ending never-beginning. But we can understand this concept: Remove time and there is no TIME. No beginning, no end.


I agree , God is not dependant of time since time is His own creation . Now u say our brains cant coprehend eternity because our brains are product of time . I dont agree , and I have whitnissed myself it isnt so . As an uncosncious creature perhaps you indeed are subject to time , consciousness can show the possibility of the porigins of time , whitch lies in the brain itself . Just as God creates time , so do I . The thing is I am not God , so I do not know it . But i can know it , I can become God and exist independant of time , since time is nothing more than my own product so that I can establish relations between the states that I am in (before-during-after) . As long as I depends on these stages , I cannot understand eternity . But many people have created a state of mind that exists independant of time , that looks as time passes by with the speed God wishes the time to have gone by . Perhaps we see this people that they to die , or are subject to time . But we seem to forget that we rason from out own time-bonded perspective ourselves . Combine this knowledge with the purpose of psychology (repression of intelligence in purpose of survival) , and you might see my point why we cant allow our brain to look at a man and see him fly or turning inside out etc etc...all those "scientific" things that are not possible . Who created science , was that not God ?


How can we live on earth? Random Chance? ok. I would accept that. But how can we have a galaxy. Random Chance? ok. How can we have a universe... big bang? hmm. ok... where did that come from?.... How can we have existence?... hmm.... existence.... where did that come from? Where did our universe come from? If it was a big bang, what could have possibly caused that? Some type of energy, maybe? How did that energy get there? There has to be a beginning point. The only possible way for us to have existence is for existence to be put here by something eternal. You see, that ends the infinite paradox of "where did that come from? then where did that come from? then where did that come from? then where did that come from? If you equate the existence of the universe to a stack of coins, then the question arises: "What is the bottom coin that is holding everything else up?" Thus the bottom coin HAS to be eternal and constant because if it wasnt always there, then the rest of the coins would have never been able to stack on top of the first "Super Coin" that is holding everything else up. Secondly, the rest of the coins are (metaphorically: "us") obviously non-eternal, and have a beginning and an end. This means that the "Super Coin" had to have been able to duplicate itself in some (lesser) way and create an enviroment (a place of existence) for the rest of the coins to stack on top of itself.


I agree with this unmoved mover theory , to my knowledge as far as I can coprehend , there are 2 possibilities . 1 , It is us who is subject to the galaxy/universe etc , just like we imagine animals who are unconscious to be . Ofcourse something would be in that sense necesarry to make things move , to create the perfect cipher , to close the deal . Calling that God is great , but i dont see why ? As far as I know God is considered to be a superior being , not a superior force (like the sun/wind/gravity etc) . To conclude there is a force that creates logic into all these independant and coincident seeming systems , i agree .

But again something is being forgotten , how the fuck do we know about the universe etc , does not everything come through our own mind ? Are we not the ones creating universe through our brains , perhaps we are the ones creating animals and everything else to make it seem independent , we can never know from outside our brain . That is why i would consider the other possibility of God , a possibility that DOES go with all the religions , scriptures etc...the God in person . To Me I am God , I create my sight , I create everything else I "perceive" , I create emotions I create thoughts , I create physics , logics , mathematics , I create everything .

Its either Nihilism with a touch of Tao , or its just Me .

Thats all I can make of it , for now .

Originally posted by KenshiSoro
I will also prove why the existence of God is Logically necessary: ... You do absolutely nothing but pay homage to the God-of-the-Gaps. Given an unanswered question, you pretend that the answer "God" has more information content than does "I don't know". Try again ...

Absolutely spot on consequentA.
"filling gaps with gods"- I like that and it is exactly whats going on here.
Religious types notice atheists have the answers to alot of things but when they find something there is not an answer for they say "well if you guys are so smart then how come such and such? Aha! God!"
Well what the hell is that?
I am more than comfortable to say "I don't know" or "it is not known" about a hell of a lot of things. I'm not surprised at all that there are things we humans don't know and I wouldn't be surprised if there were things we will never know. Humans are just an animal that very recently developed the means to think about things. Why would we know how the universe started? We are a little dirty organism on one of the universe's rocks.
The fact we don't know something gives no more credibility to the concept of god than it does to the concept of the universe being a single molecule in the fecal matter of a giant donkey.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

-- Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man (1871)

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
You do absolutely nothing but pay homage to the God-of-the-Gaps. Given an unanswered question, you pretend that the answer "God" has more information content than does "I don't know". Try again ...

ok, where is your retort? your reply makes no sense. maybe i am too dumb. could you restate your post simply enough to where a kindergartner could understand? where is your use of logic to refute me? all you have done is acknowledged the God-of-the-Gaps so you are no longer an Atheist!

Again, it is incomprehensible that our universe "just appeared" here one day. You see, this is more than just a God-of-the-Gaps. It is only possible that something eternal sparked our beginning. You put more "faith" in your God (science) than i do may have in mine (the creator). But of course, the atheist mind must not be capable of such philosophically and logically deep thinking. This, eternal entity is what we call God. Now that we have established a God we ask, "How can we learn more about him?" Well he has revealed himself to mankind through those who seek him. You see, Atheism, and Anti-theism are logically and philosophically absurd. Atheism is a fairy tale for adults to escape the reality that there is a God, there is a judgement and we will be judged accordingly to our deeds. Lets say that the God-of-the-Gaps is some technology, or even a natural occurance somehow. a never ending paradox. you must understand that nomatter how much science can develope, it doesnt have all the answers. there is no paradox. the only way to solve this answer is with a creator.

now, can i have an actual rebuttle? (you see, you have been successful at criticizing my arguement above, yes. But you have not even come close to debunking it.)

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
The fact we don't know something gives no more credibility to the concept of god than it does to the concept of the universe being a single molecule in the fecal matter of a giant donkey. [/B]

interesting, but there is more evidence than this, you see i am merely scratching the surface with showing us what we DONT know. you see, i am establishing what we DONT know and you agree with me that we DONT know so now you are forced to become agnostic. Ahh, yes.

I shall now Refute Athiesm.

Here is an age old arguement. Have you ever been to brazil? I will assume no. Is it possible that God lives in brazil? For anybody reading this. If you have never been to brazil, even if you dont believe in God you have to say YES. So now everybody reading this is an agnostic. you see, in the sphere of your own personal experience you have not found God. Allow me to equate this example to your sphere of experience:

i will use a box instead of wasting my time mapping out a sphere.

----------------- .............................B
l----------------l
l-------0-------l
l----------------l
l----------------l ...........A
-----------------

This box is the matrix of your own personal experience. The 0 represents you. Is it possible that God exists at site "B"? is it possible that God exists at site "A"?

Welcome to agnosticism.

Originally posted by KenshiSoro
all you have done is acknowledged the God-of-the-Gaps so you are no longer an Atheist! Rubbish. What I said was: "You do absolutely nothing but pay homage to the God-of-the-Gaps." You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

In one fell swoop, Atheism is swept under the carpet! Amazing skills to be sure.


Have you ever been to brazil?

You're right, <b>KenshiSoro</b>. It's very likely, almost certain that God resides in Brazil. How could he not?

Moreover, how can we be sure that one of us is not God? One of us posters <i>could</i>, in fact, be God. Imagine that. Think of the ramifications of that statement. C'mon fess up. Fill in the gaps, so to speak &lt;elbows KenshiSoro in the ribs in a friendly way&gt; about what's going on here, and why you're so obsessed with talking only through President Bush.

Well, whoever here claims to be God, one thing's for sure: you're probably living in Brazil.

Originally posted by KenshiSoro
Again, it is incomprehensible that our universe "just appeared" here one day. No, it is currently incomprehensible to you. It is clearly "comprehended" by such things a M-Theory.

Originally posted by KenshiSoro

I shall now Refute Athiesm. ... Is it possible that God exists at site "B"? is it possible that God exists at site "A"?

Welcome to agnosticism. No. That's equivalent to refuting grapefruit by proclaiming the viability of summer squash. You're really not very good at this stuff. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by pragmathen
It's very likely, almost certain that God resides in Brazil. How could he not? Damn! No wonder I'm an atheist! ;) I've never been to Brazil.

Quoting: "Allahs_Mathmatics"
But again something is being forgotten , how the fuck do we know about the universe etc , does not everything come through our own mind ? Are we not the ones creating universe through our brains , perhaps we are the ones creating animals and everything else to make it seem independent , we can never know from outside our brain . That is why i would consider the other possibility of God , a possibility that DOES go with all the religions , scriptures etc...the God in person . To Me I am God , I create my sight , I create everything else I "perceive" , I create emotions I create thoughts , I create physics , logics , mathematics , I create everything .

Its either Nihilism with a touch of Tao , or its just Me .

Thats all I can make of it , for now .

So, where is the nearest scientology service? Oh i forgot, they "are'nt a religion". lol sorry if i sound shrewed. Let me reintegrate. I have heard your opinion before, but you see, you are subjective to your enviroment, you are mortal, your will is rarely accomplished in its entirety. This cannot describe God characteristics in you. I understand your point, but remember, you dont create what you see, you see what is created. You dont (in a sense) create your emotions (not of your own cognative will) but you see your emotions are subjective to your enviroment. If you disagree, then what would happen if your most beloved died today? you would be distraught. You create your own logic. But you dont create what is generally accepted as logic. You create physics (to a degree) but you are subjective to the laws of REAL physics. You see we are subjective to everthing. we are mortal. In a sense you are God of your destiny, but then again, fortune favors the few.

If we created our own reality logic would tell us that we would have alot more freakish anomolies in our world. With as many psychopathic denizens of earth it can be safe to say that there should be a more twisted and altered reality. In fact, the laws of our physics shouldnt even be constant, because our human minds are never constant. Want to disprove me? Try to focus on one thought for more than 5 minutes before you attempt.

There goes new age scientology....down the toilet.:rolleyes:

:D :p

consequentatheist said:

No. That's equivalent to refuting grapefruit by proclaiming the viability of summer squash. You're really not very good at this stuff.


that doesnt make sense but ok.:rolleyes:

BUT......know what? i cant help but to laugh cause your posts are actually funny. lol. could you take the brazil thing a bit more seriously? lol.

Make fun all you want though. its true. You CANNOT be athiest.
you see? you see? IT CANNOT BE REFUTED. HAHAHA.

:m: is thiswhat your smoking?

i gotta say though, you guys are tougher than your regular athiests. STOP GIVING ME PROBLEMS ARRGH.


well, at least consequentathies is.... Bah

Originally posted by KenshiSoro
I shall now Refute Athiesm. ... Is it possible that God exists at site "B"? is it possible that God exists at site "A"? Welcome to agnosticism.
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
No. That's equivalent to refuting grapefruit by proclaiming the viability of summer squash. You're really not very good at this stuff.
Originally posted by KenshiSoro
that doesnt make sense but ok.:rolleyes:

Were you not claiming to "Refute Atheism" by asserting the viability of agnosticism?

Make fun all you want though. its true. You CANNOT be athiest.
you see? you see? IT CANNOT BE REFUTED. HAHAHA

Make fun all you want though. It's true. You CANNOT be religious. You see? You see? IT CANNOT BE PROVEN. HAHAHA

This leaves the conclusion: Religious people are twerps, athiests are twerps, agnostics are on the ball.

As i've always said: "it's a might be, might not be" scenario.

ok, where is your retort? your reply makes no sense. maybe i am too dumb. could you restate your post simply enough to where a kindergartner could understand? where is your use of logic to refute me? all you have done is acknowledged the God-of-the-Gaps so you are no longer an Atheist!You missed his point. He's saying that these unknown things you're explaining with the theory of god can be explained without god, and there's no reason to believe god is the correct solution because there's no evidence.
Again, it is incomprehensible that our universe "just appeared" here one day.Why's that? Things appear out of nothing all the time. There's a theory that the universe was created from nothing, borrowing energy from nothing just like what happens in the vacuum of space to create particle pairs.
It is only possible that something eternal sparked our beginning.Why's that? "Eternal" means existing through all time, I assume you meant outside of time. Still, why?
You put more "faith" in your God (science) than i do may have in mine (the creator).This is laughable. Science does not rely on faith, religion does.
But of course, the atheist mind must not be capable of such philosophically and logically deep thinking.This actually got me laughing.
This, eternal entity is what we call God. Now that we have established a God we ask, "How can we learn more about him?"We have not established a god yet.
Well he has revealed himself to mankind through those who seek him.I don't think so. Many people see what they want to see, and sometimes no amount of convincing will change their mind.
You see, Atheism, and Anti-theism are logically and philosophically absurd.I disagree.
Atheism is a fairy tale for adults to escape the reality that there is a God, there is a judgement and we will be judged accordingly to our deeds.I, and many others probably judge themselves more harshly than god would.
Lets say that the God-of-the-Gaps is some technology, or even a natural occurance somehow.Now this statement is absurd. I contend that it is the religious mind who must not be capable of logically deep thinking (at least in this case).
you must understand that nomatter how much science can develope, it doesnt have all the answers. there is no paradox. the only way to solve this answer is with a creator.Says who? Science can never give us all the answers? I agree one cannot gain omniscience through science, but one could potentially gain a complete understanding of the universe and how it works though, because the universe is logically coherent and self consistent. There's no reason it can't be understood.
now, can i have an actual rebuttle?Can we?
I shall now Refute Athiesm.Fat chance.
Here is an age old arguement. Have you ever been to brazil? I will assume no. Is it possible that God lives in brazil? For anybody reading this. If you have never been to brazil, even if you dont believe in God you have to say YES.Even if I don't believe in god? I think not. I've never been to Brazil, but even so I still know there are no square circles there because the concept is impossible. If it can be shown god does not exist, then obviously he's not in Brazil, whether I've been there or not.
This is, once again, the logical fallacy of thinking you cannot prove a universal negative.

Kenshi,

your argument of the existance of a god as a understand it is basicly this:

How and where we and this univserse came from is a difficult problem to solve. since i can't think of an explanation then i'm going to instert God as a magic bullet of sorts. the absence of a currenlty known explanation does not prove the existance of God. it mearly makes the God option one of the many possible explanations.

it's kind of like encontering a novel technology and being unable to explain how it works i assert that it is magic despite the fact that it could merely be that i just don't understand how it works. if that logic is correct then my TV is magic.

also absence of proof against god does not prove that God exist. just keep that in mind.

Originally posted by Alpha
You missed his point. He's saying that these unknown things you're explaining with the theory of god can be explained without god, and there's no reason to believe god is the correct solution because there's no evidence. And more. KenshiSoro foolishly believes that he "refutes" atheism by introducing us to his pathetically simplistic desription of agnosticism. In fact, there is absolutely nothing about agnosticism that prevents someone from being an atheist or, for that matter, a theist who bases that theism on faith alone.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KenshiSoro
Where did our universe come from?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it didn't come from anywhere,
by the looks of it,it always existed,
in one form/shape or another,
making up some imaginary allmighty skydady doesn't explain anything!

----------------- .............................B
l----------------l
l-------0-------l
l----------------l
l----------------l ...........A
-----------------

Allah would be there where 0 is .

Kenshi

you are subjective to your enviroment, you are mortal, your will is rarely accomplished in its entirety. This cannot describe God characteristics in you.


How am I subject to my environment , if my environment does not exist to me when I am not there to view it ? Bringing me to mortality ? First of all , I can be mortal and still be the superior creator , can I not ? Because what is mortal , it is dying in YOUR world , because after my death I am no longer in that world . And my will being accomplished , what is will ? Will is merely an emotional force , something I create myself . I can decide how much I want something if I can be fully conscious on what I am dealing with , how do u not know then when I dont accomplish something , I simply do not want it enough ? God characteristics go beyond that , I am combining ethics , aesthetics , epistemology and ontology , into 1 person , the person that has created epistemology , ontology , aesthetics and ethics . Good is what I create to be Good etc ......
Being God is merely reaching perfection , u can only coprehend as a perfect being .


you dont create what you see, you see what is created


I know I think , and there it ends . For all the rest I am perfectly capable of creating whatever I see to be whatever I want them to be , nothing needs to exist whatsoever .


You dont (in a sense) create your emotions (not of your own cognative will) but you see your emotions are subjective to your enviroment.


No u dont create emotions out of cognitive will , because will is emotion itself , only Allah can create conscious emotions , and thats the shit Im talking about . And my emotions being subjective to my environment , what about the my environment to be the subject of me ? I create each and every environmental aspect of whatever I experience as environment . Perhaps only Allah can see how empty the world really is .


If you disagree, then what would happen if your most beloved died today? you would be distraught. You create your own logic. But you dont create what is generally accepted as logic. You create physics (to a degree) but you are subjective to the laws of REAL physics. You see we are subjective to everthing. we are mortal.


If my most beloved died my emotions would take over , because I am not Allah to perfection . If I was , I would be conscious of my own creation of belovedism . And no I dont create what is generally accepted as logic , what is generally accepted as logic is simply that what is general logics , we all function the same way in certain aspect . If u ask me 1-1 my brain says 2 , while anothers brain does the same . Have u ever asked a duck ? Perhaps he simply doesnt agree with u and doesnt want to get into discussions . Real physics are as real as real ethics , real aesthetics , real mathematics , they are sciences created by and for Allah . It is only your idea that we are subjective , we are as far as we choose to be , and we choose within the boundries of our knowledge , whitch we decide for ourselves . Epistemology=Ontology=Ethics=Aesthetics


In a sense you are God of your destiny, but then again, fortune favors the few.


It is God who creates the concept of fortune , I might be fortunate with A while another is fortunant with B while I would kill people over B and he would kill people over A , its a relative to the subject , because it is the subject who creates the object : relativism .


If we created our own reality logic would tell us that we would have alot more freakish anomolies in our world. With as many psychopathic denizens of earth it can be safe to say that there should be a more twisted and altered reality. In fact, the laws of our physics shouldnt even be constant, because our human minds are never constant. Want to disprove me? Try to focus on one thought for more than 5 minutes before you attempt.


Not necesary we focus on the same thoughts a million times .
U go into more customs , peoples , etc , and Ull see your twisted and altered reality , although everywhere u will find the basic things that are human or even animal , but surely enough people think they can walk over water , and perhaps they do , perhaps u simply dont acknowledge it because u would do so urself and ud surely drown , as u believe .

And on scientology , Im sure if u would care abit u would find many similarities between the essence of dianteics and freuds teachings , interestingly how in my created world they are both equals , while perhaps in yours freuds the man and scientology's a joke . Allah knows best .

Hey........and we are to compare scientology with religion , religions kicks scientologic ass when it comes to ignorance

How am I subject to my environment , if my environment does not exist to me when I am not there to view it ?

And when I close my eyes, the universe disappears.

:rolleyes:

Q

And when I close my eyes, the universe disappears.


If ur eyes are the only way u can perceive ur universe , Im seriously sorry for u .

If u ask me 1-1 my brain says 2

Mine says zero.

So much for the Mathematics, Allah.

:D

I know I think , and there it ends . For all the rest I am perfectly capable of creating whatever I see to be whatever I want them to be , nothing needs to exist whatsoever .

Nothing needs to exist? Does that include allah? You did say whatsoever and then flaw your own statement by including all this allah assumption in the rest of your post.

Nothing needs to exist? Does that include allah? You did say whatsoever and then flaw your own statement by including all this allah assumption in the rest of your post.


Well indeed that was a flaw I did not mean to imply , I would like to correct it : Nothing needs to exist but Allah . Everything else exists just Allahs Image . As I said :

I know I think

This implies I exist .

My whatsoever was the error , you are right about that .

Is that all that I flawed ?

Is that all that I flawed ?

No...

Nothing needs to exist but Allah

The flaw here comes from saying Allah needs to exist. A) There's no evidence to suggest 'need'. Answers have not been established to prove or even show substantial credibility to the existence or need of/for a higher being. B) If he does exist im sure he doesn't 'need' to do anything. If he 'needs', he too is flawed.

The flaw here comes from saying Allah needs to exist. A) There's no evidence to suggest 'need'


Sure Allah has to exist . If Allah does not exist , then how can I experience MY environment ? Do you understand that I and Allah are one and the same ? Without me NOTHING exists . Not to me , and I am all that matters since I am the only thing needed to think , and come up with this entire system of sciences and everything elese I use to prove existence of that what I create .
The evidence that suggests need , is Allah himself , I . If I do not exist , I do not exist .

Allah needs Allah to be Allah .


Answers have not been established to prove or even show substantial credibility to the existence or need of/for a higher being


There is no higher being than me in the world I create . Whatever seemingly superior creature I create , is not superieur because it is created by me , I am sure I can make it vanish as soon as I would become knowledged of the thing I create , existing is a mental issue , thats all Im saying . I made up value by creating myself as a living creature , then I made up value by creating myself as a thinking creature , becoming this thinking creature I again used my physical existence to create emotions that bring me to value certain things a certain way . I care this to be good and I care that to be beautifull , just as I cared me to breathe and think .


If he does exist im sure he doesn't 'need' to do anything. If he 'needs', he too is flawed.


Ofcourse he does , but not in the emotional concept you have of "need" . He must because he is the cause , he must not because somebody else tells him . He must in the context of a mathematical law , and that law is explained by the person starting this thread , if there is no 1 , there can be no 2 . Allah is 1 .

Sure Allah has to exist . If Allah does not exist , then how can I experience MY environment ? Do you understand that I and Allah are one and the same ? Without me NOTHING exists . Not to me , and I am all that matters since I am the only thing needed to think , and come up with this entire system of sciences and everything elese I use to prove existence of that what I create .
The evidence that suggests need , is Allah himself , I . If I do not exist , I do not exist .

Allah needs Allah to be Allah .

Well this is all kinda boring but i'll keep on track with it for a second...

Allah does not exist. My mind created you, my mind created you to think allah existed. Your environment and even your ability to type here for me to see comes from my mind. My brain made you up. Isn't this discussion pointless? Btw there's no need to reply. My mind is going to create your response, and as such i already know what it's gonna be.

There is no higher being than me in the world I create . Whatever seemingly superior creature I create , is not superieur because it is created by me , I am sure I can make it vanish as soon as I would become knowledged of the thing I create , existing is a mental issue , thats all Im saying . I made up value by creating myself as a living creature , then I made up value by creating myself as a thinking creature , becoming this thinking creature I again used my physical existence to create emotions that bring me to value certain things a certain way . I care this to be good and I care that to be beautifull , just as I cared me to breathe and think

Yes, and i created you to say that. I know this because im here. I can prove to myself that im real in which case you must just be a creation of my mind. *Yawn*

Ofcourse he does , but not in the emotional concept you have of "need" . He must because he is the cause , he must not because somebody else tells him . He must in the context of a mathematical law , and that law is explained by the person starting this thread , if there is no 1 , there can be no 2 . Allah is 1

Of course there can be a 2 without a 1. Are we discussing mathematics? I don't think so. Trying to compare existence of god/universe etc etc to pre school maths is completely worthless. It's not a law- it's just you lack of understanding to the facts. We're all in the same boat, so dont feel ashamed. Of course if everything's just a creation of our own minds yada yada you can always have a 2 without a 1, you can do whatever you want.

Not to mention Allah is just a name borrowed from Sumerian, (Alla), who was a god of the netherworld. The Allah that came a long time after is just a translation error/metaphor etc etc etc

*Snore* *yawn*

Sure Allah has to exist

Circular Reasoning Fallacy

If Allah does not exist , then how can I experience MY environment ?

Appeal to Consequences of Belief Fallacy

Do you understand that I and Allah are one and the same ?

Confusing Cause and Effect Fallacy

Without me NOTHING exists

Appeal to Consequences of Belief Fallacy

Not to me , and I am all that matters since I am the only thing needed to think , and come up with this entire system of sciences and everything elese I use to prove existence of that what I create .

Circular Reasoning Fallacy

The evidence that suggests need , is Allah himself , I .

False Dilemma Fallacy

If I do not exist , I do not exist .

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy

Your entire argument is riddled with fallacies and provides little more than senseless ramblings and doublespeak.

There were actually tons of flaws in your original 'proof' but I
wanted to point this one out in particular...

The only possible way for us to have existence is for existence to be put here by something eternal.

That's one limited scope of possibility you got there fella'... and
because you opine this it suddently becomes fact? puh-
leeeeassse.

Snake

Allah does not exist. My mind created you, my mind created you to think allah existed. Your environment and even your ability to type here for me to see comes from my mind. My brain made you up. Isn't this discussion pointless? Btw there's no need to reply. My mind is going to create your response, and as such i already know what it's gonna be.



Yes, and i created you to say that. I know this because im here. I can prove to myself that im real in which case you must just be a creation of my mind. *Yawn*


And how exactly are you refuting my point that I am Allah ? The only thing u prove is that your are Allah as well . But lets get beyond this paradox of imagination , lets bring things back for a moment . Is not possible that it is not I who create everything , but that you create everything as well , while when we are communicating we in a certain we agree on eachothers creation ?
And why is it so that just because I create something , that must mean that nothing is there automatically . U have no clue on what I create, neither do i have a clue on what U create . Yet we create the same as far language can help us agree on what we create .


Of course there can be a 2 without a 1. Are we discussing mathematics? I don't think so. Trying to compare existence of god/universe etc etc to pre school maths is completely worthless. It's not a law- it's just you lack of understanding to the facts. We're all in the same boat, so dont feel ashamed. Of course if everything's just a creation of our own minds yada yada you can always have a 2 without a 1, you can do whatever you want.


Do u not understand mathematics ? Ofcourse we are discussing matehmatics , we are always discussing mathematics , mathematics is always relevant because our minds created mathematics in order to coprehend what is created . And pre-school mathematics ? Hey man.....perhaps your algebra gets u anywhere when it comes to abstract and unexisting phenomena , as its that mathematics that has become a study of itself , almost an art . I am speaking of everyday mathematics , and hell yes I wish to compare mathematics to God and the universe , in mathematics lies the answer , perhaps u cant imagine it to be there because u have degraded mathematics t what is today , some insane number-game people who make it up dont even understand , most importantly , its meaningless . No If u would want to get into numerology and how that is relevant for the concept of God , u should wonder urself why Allah is 1 , always and ever , and go from there .....ull end up with understandings beyond what u even could imagine right now .

The facts i lack understanding is the facts u have made for actually no particular reason oither than simply accepting rules already established , perspectives already established , etc etc etc ......perhaps u should open ur mind for something new , because if we are honest and bring shit back to basics , we know SHIT . U know shit and I know shit , it just happens that I have assumed Allah to be the knower , thus as I wish to be Allah I need to know as well , yo man this whole concept is far more complicated than all the bull Im typing here btrying to figure out how shit worx .

Now back to 2-1 . If there is not 1 , how can there be 2 ? Im not saying the numbers 2 and 2 , sure theres 2 there 438348348 whatever u want , but if there is not one ITEM , u can never have 2 nor 3 nor 4 , because U would need 1 to start with . It doenst come any simpler than that .


Not to mention Allah is just a name borrowed from Sumerian, (Alla), who was a god of the netherworld. The Allah that came a long time after is just a translation error/metaphor etc etc etc


wtf is this netherworld ? Let me let u on on some shit , because u obviously dont know any shit on Arabic . Allah = AlifLamLamHah (ALLH) , it comes from the merge of Al-Illah (The God) , that is why Allah means theGod) . Now u speak of ALLA (AlifLamLamAlif) of Babylon not Sumer , who was within the 360 pantheon and considered the Moon God .

I have posted on this around here :
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20671

There I asked u where u got ur info on Akkadian Allah ? U didnt care to respond , but u do care to use the same argument ?

More at : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11795&perpage=20&pagenumber=5
pg 5-6

But Im sure Im posting this for nothing cuz u aint gonna give a fuck anyhow .


Your entire argument is riddled with fallacies and provides little more than senseless ramblings and doublespeak


Now for my man Q .
Apologies for my lousy mixup between + and - Q :D

Now u bring in interesting arguments on logic , whitch is wonderfull . As much as I love logics , I dont consider all its fallacy conclusions always relevant . They have taken it way to far with logics if u ask me , and should consider reviewing some aspects , of whitch the whole fallacy list is included .

But first u must understand , that I am merely trying to gain a concept of Allah , as I am based at Nihilism . I have rejected ethics , I have rejected aesthetics , and I am questing ontology and epistemology , I am wondering wheither they do not follow the tradition of ethics and aesthetics and just die in front of my eyes . In this same way U must understand this Allah understanding comes from , I was trying to give ethics and aesthetics a certain meaning , and as I moved int the understanding of Allah , trying to unitfy everything , I bump into epistemology and ontology . So shit....i dunno man , Im just making shit up , if logics is all we go by , then we end up where I ended up a long time ago , skepticism from a nihilistic point of view . Logics doesnt know any facts either , it only knows premisses assumed to be true in order to deduct logically .

Now for the fallacies :


Sure Allah has to exist
Circular Reasoning Fallacy


I am Allah , do I not have to exist , in order to exist ? Yes this sounds circular , but it isnt . Allah is simply the perfect combination that allows me (as a physical creature) to exist , from the perspective of the mind .
Now another thing about the circular reasoning argument , I do think circular reasoning indeed is fallacious , but there is absolutely not one single theory that doesn not end up in a circular argument . All I have to say is why? , and we'll end up repeating ourselves , justifying an answer by mixing up chronologicality . If Allah does not need itself to exist , can it exist without itself ? Nothing can exist without itself . If Im dead , Im not gonna be existing . I need me to BE .


If Allah does not exist , then how can I experience MY environment ?
Appeal to Consequences of Belief Fallacy


No this has nothing to do with consequences of belief fallacy .
There is no necesarry positive nor negative effect that motivates me saying Allah needs to exist , there is a factual effect . The fact is that I experience my own environment (remeber it is ME who is Allah , the creator of my own universe) , u can say I dont ....but hey........I dont know who elese should be experiencing my environment other than me .


Do you understand that I and Allah are one and the same ?
Confusing Cause and Effect Fallacy


Not really , I am Allah and I cause myself to exist in a physical way . The cause is me being Allah , the effect is my physical existence . It is not my physical existence that is Allah , Allah is all my existences put together , trying to become more perfect in their own way (developing of perfection) , that is exactly what Allah is al about .

Confusing cause and effect would be USA bombing Iraq saying its because of terrorism :D


Without me NOTHING exists
Appeal to Consequences of Belief Fallacy


Nope . Again my existence is neither negative nor positive , If I do not exist I do not exists , if I do I do , no attachements . The attachement u think of is that things depend on me to exist . They do , TO ME . Not to you , you do not even need to exist .
The idea is that wheh I am not arround , MY environmenty goes along with me , not YOUR .


Not to me , and I am all that matters since I am the only thing needed to think , and come up with this entire system of sciences and everything elese I use to prove existence of that what I create .
Circular Reasoning Fallacy


No , same error u make all over . If it is not me that is needed to create MY thoughts , what do I need then to create my thoughts ? You ?


The evidence that suggests need , is Allah himself , I .
False Dilemma Fallacy


No , this is only so when the dilemma that is presented indeed consiuders false assumptions . Can u explain me how I would create a false dilemma when I state that I am needed for me to exist . If Im not there , how the fuck can I exist ? I dont present a dilemma , there simply is no other way . Are u implying I dont need myself to exist ?


If I do not exist , I do not exist .
Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy


How the hell did u come up with that fallacy ? R u trying to say that when I do not exist , I do exist ? perhaps we confuse the meaning of existence .

Hey Q .....u fail the logics immense , and again ........if u didnt , logics needs premisses in the end we know shit , Im just trying to be constructive instead of destructive . And usual when u destroy something , at leats leave something there in replacement . Dont just refute shit by leading to some fallacy without even explaining why it is fallacious , oh u probably thought it spoke for itself , well nothing speaks for itself , it is the creator (Allah) that gives all this bullshit some meaning .

And how exactly are you refuting my point that I am Allah ?

Because it isn't your creation. It is the creation of someone thousands of years ago- you are simply standing on his head. You haven't created the world, me, or anything in it. You have observed what others have done and said and stolen that information and assigned it to your own doing. You can be Allah in your own little world, but the fact is he's part of someone elses creation- whether that be through factual historical truths or just the dreams of some other dude who had a similar way of thinking to you.

Do u not understand mathematics ?

Adequately.

ow back to 2-1 . If there is not 1 , how can there be 2 ? Im not saying the numbers 2 and 2 , sure theres 2 there 438348348 whatever u want , but if there is not one ITEM , u can never have 2 nor 3 nor 4 , because U would need 1 to start with . It doenst come any simpler than that

You say this with the limited human mind. We're humans- you can't solve the answers to the cosmos by saying 1+1=2.

I will show an example from your perspective:

"If G=Z+Y-N*H squared / B+R cubed, what is P?"

"I don't know the answer so it must be god."

Im sorry but that's completely worthless and in no way resembles what mathematics is. It's answering any mathematical formula with the same answer: 1+1=2, 37*100=2, 9/1=2. And you ask me if i understand maths? I understand that you must find the real answer instead of assigning any value in place of it.

From your perspective 1+1=2 but that doesn't mean the entire universe shares that same concept- it's just your human minds understanding of it.

But tell me..... if Allah is 1 and there must be a 1, what's to say the universe itself isn't 1? Why must it be an all powerful being? That is assigning random answers to mathematical equations without studying mathematics first.

Does the universe end? How can it not end, everything ends? Tell me, when it ends whats outside of it? Nothing? Hell even nothing is something right?

Answer=45.

Pointless. We do not know the answer thus we can sit here all day saying 1+1=2 but it means bugger all. Wouldn't it be more noble to just admit you don't know the answer instead of taking wild stabs in the dark? It sucks, i agree, but we don't know the answers.

wtf is this netherworld ? Let me let u on on some shit , because u obviously dont know any shit on Arabic . Allah = AlifLamLamHah (ALLH) , it comes from the merge of Al-Illah (The God) , that is why Allah means theGod) . Now u speak of ALLA (AlifLamLamAlif) of Babylon not Sumer , who was within the 360 pantheon and considered the Moon God .

Oh, now im speaking of Alla of Babylon? Aha, and ummm where did Babylonians take their beliefs from? That's right- the Sumerians.

Netherworld= The world of the dead. The Babylonians attributed the belief to the moon as it was a dead planet.

There I asked u where u got ur info on Akkadian Allah ? U didnt care to respond , but u do care to use the same argument ?

Samuel Noah Kramer. You can search up on what he does, or buy his books or go search for yourself.

Because it isn't your creation. It is the creation of someone thousands of years ago- you are simply standing on his head. You haven't created the world, me, or anything in it. You have observed what others have done and said and stolen that information and assigned it to your own doing. You can be Allah in your own little world, but the fact is he's part of someone elses creation- whether that be through factual historical truths or just the dreams of some other dude who had a similar way of thinking to you.


Just as I cant prove to you that everything that exists exists because of me , U cant prove to me everything here exists independant of anybody . I do not claim that your world will not exist when Im not here , I claim mine wont . The dilemma is weither you and I are actually perceiving some independant phenomena , or weither you and I agree on the phenoma we see , while there might never be any phenomena to begin with .
Both cant be proven , yours is simply more reasonable , but again thats only because our assumprion is that we are not all powerfull , while perhaps we are and simply dont know it .
Now my little world it may be , so is it yours , u can by no possible way independantly enter into my little world and change anything , only I can do so . And thats why u cant prove that what you believe to be reality as in objective and independant , is nothing but your own creation .
But in the end we both dont know , and your theory I already was aware of and its dead-ending , while this still has to be explored .


You say this with the limited human mind. We're humans- you can't solve the answers to the cosmos by saying 1+1=2.

I will show an example from your perspective:

"If G=Z+Y-N*H squared / B+R cubed, what is P?"

"I don't know the answer so it must be god."


lol , No thats not my quite my perspective . But if I look at it more carefully , does It not make me aware of the fact that about absolutely anything on this planet is being answered with : I dont know thus it must be X . Be it God , or Science , or whatever . Its all based several premisses that cant be proven .


Im sorry but that's completely worthless and in no way resembles what mathematics is. It's answering any mathematical formula with the same answer: 1+1=2, 37*100=2, 9/1=2. And you ask me if i understand maths? I understand that you must find the real answer instead of assigning any value in place of it.

From your perspective 1+1=2 but that doesn't mean the entire universe shares that same concept- it's just your human minds understanding of it.


Thats the whole shit , U presume the universe is some independant thing that can share some concept , while my human mind only understands it . Can it not be that my mind created the whole goddamn thing ?
And back to 1,2,3 : There is no way in hell that something can be multiple before it has been singular , or without being singular , thats what Im talking about . Now u can say , thats just because my logics dont allow other division between things , other relations , I say its because my mind created these whole concepts to begin with why it cant coprehend possibly others , it hasnt created others..........yet .


But tell me..... if Allah is 1 and there must be a 1, what's to say the universe itself isn't 1? Why must it be an all powerful being? That is assigning random answers to mathematical equations without studying mathematics first.


Because it has no life . It depends on how you approach it . As I posted in the beginning , as far as God goes beside me being God concept , I could see anything superior as a force , similar to the Tao , and in that sense hell yes the universe is 1 . But as I studied religions I couldnt but get over the fact these people make God as if he almost is wearing actual clothing and plays baseball n shit....so human . Knowing ethics and aesthetics to be hilarious bullshit , I tried to understand this concept of God (perfection) , in the way that it is God that creates what I find good/bad , beauty/ugly . In that sense I have already reached the point where I can call myself Allah in the ethical sense , because it is I who imagine and create , fully conscious if I wish , exactly what i call good or bad , and why . As this is possible , I can be God . But all this relates to the superior being thing , it has little to do with actually creating the universe by thinking of it , and thats what im trying to figure out , Can I combine what i already know about ethics & aesthetics with ontology and epistemology , through these ancient scriptures that have brought mass hysteria to the world . U must at least respect my attempt to bring some logic into these theologic theories people have nowadays (and yesterday as well) .


Does the universe end? How can it not end, everything ends? Tell me, when it ends whats outside of it? Nothing? Hell even nothing is something right?


Why should everything end , simply because YOU end ? And thats the mortality question , I could add something . I believe it was who mentioned we are mortals . What if we are not mortal at all , we absolutely know shit what happens after death , and we dont even know shit whats going on while we're alive . What if there is some way of mentally understanding some concepts , whitch could create infinity into our being , thus we dont ever die . Just cuz we didnt find it doesnt mean it isnt there , or better yet , just because didnt create it yet doesnt mean it cant exist .


Answer=45.


What if its 1 ? I mean u can joke around about it , but U and I both know shit , and I can give u at least a reasn for why its 1 .


It sucks, i agree, but we don't know the answers.


No we dont , but I wish to find out .


Oh, now im speaking of Alla of Babylon? Aha, and ummm where did Babylonians take their beliefs from? That's right- the Sumerians.
Netherworld= The world of the dead. The Babylonians attributed the belief to the moon as it was a dead planet.


Fair enough......still irellevant for the point I was making , whitch was the refutement of the point u were making . Allah doesnt come from the Babylonian Alla .


Samuel Noah Kramer. You can search up on what he does, or buy his books or go search for yourself.


Thank you I will .

Why should everything end , simply because YOU end ?

And back to 1,2,3 : There is no way in hell that something can be multiple before it has been singular , or without being singular , thats what Im talking about

Why should everything start from 1? Simply because YOUR understanding of human maths makes the same applicable to everything we both agree we do not know or understand?

As we can clearly see this is just a discussion based on pure speculation. There's nothing to suggest credibility to any of it. As such there's no reason there would have to be a 1 to create 2, it seems logical to us but is just a human assumption.

Fair enough......still irellevant for the point I was making , whitch was the refutement of the point u were making . Allah doesnt come from the Babylonian Alla

It comes from Sumerian.

What if its 1 ? I mean u can joke around about it , but U and I both know shit , and I can give u at least a reasn for why its 1

What reason? Because humans can't get to 2 without having a 1? Human ability does not neccesarily apply to everything.

Why should everything start from 1? Simply because YOUR understanding of human maths makes the same applicable to everything we both agree we do not know or understand?


This argument goes for absolutely everything ever on this planet as long as it deals with humans . I say this text u read right here write itself . It does , U just cant coprehend it , and neither can I , I type it , and I know its their because of me , but thats only because I assume whenever I type it gets on the screen , and I also assume this is being confirmed by looking at my srceen and actually seeing the cause-effect , still I dont know , could be all coincidence and these letters write themselves .


As we can clearly see this is just a discussion based on pure speculation. There's nothing to suggest credibility to any of it. As such there's no reason there would have to be a 1 to create 2, it seems logical to us but is just a human assumption.


It is , but again , everything is based on the arguments u are giving me . Im not saying i dont agree with u , Im just saying U shoudl not apply them only to thosae thngs science doesnt deal with , science is just as speculative as everything else .


It comes from Sumerian.


lol , Babyl , Sumer , it doesnt matter its all good . Alif Lam Lam Hah comes from Al-Illah meaning the God , not from the Moon God . Alla was a name like Hubal , Al Illah (The God) came with Islam .

That was the point I made to refute the point U made , whitch was Allah comes from Alla .


What reason? Because humans can't get to 2 without having a 1? Human ability does not neccesarily apply to everything.


Doesnt this make u think how extremelly dependable everything (even seemingly universal mathematical concepts) is on the human that imagines it ?
Human ability does not need to apply to anything , but it applies to us , we , the people who are experiencing all this shit .
For all we know there are millions of planets like the earth , perhaps even cloned copies , but we wont ever know of them , doesnt this make u think we only know what we create ourselves ? And when we only know what we create ourselves , are we not God ? Do we done create everything around us , so that we may know it ?

This argument goes for absolutely everything ever on this planet as long as it deals with humans

Pretty much yes. Anything that is beyond our current level of understanding. However many don't just say "We dont know the answer so it must be god, feather triceratops, the cosmic space monkey etc"- it's assigning an answer without studying the questions.

Some things though are absolute. For instance eating. From the very second of birth mankind intakes food via the mouth. We do not ingest food by tucking it up our bottoms, that's a fact. That is undeniable. We can argue why and how we instantly know to use our mouths. One is truth the other is speculation. If i then said every other creature in the universe eats the same way we do that too is groundless speculation. Just because mankind and the creatures that inhabit this planet do, doesn't mean it's the same everywhere, if there is other life out there... Same ending: There's no reason to assume you can't have 2 without 1. For humans- yes, for the universe- Who's to say?

It is , but again , everything is based on the arguments u are giving me . Im not saying i dont agree with u , Im just saying U shoudl not apply them only to thosae thngs science doesnt deal with , science is just as speculative as everything else

And science accepts that it's speculation and works to find the truth. Religion says it has the truth- thus it gives up the search. There was a time when medicine was 'new' to man. They made wild potions out of any shit they could find, probably killing many people in the process. Now in 2003 i know when i have a headache i should buy some paracetamol. Science advances, religion does not- namely because religion has found it's truth- where's it going to advance to? Science is aware things are speculation until they are proven to work. Imagine a calculator being speculation- the idea of it does not help you solve maths problems. Once the speculation leads to study and research it ends up giving us calculators. They work, they can be tried and tested and cannot be disputed.

lol , Babyl , Sumer , it doesnt matter its all good . Alif Lam Lam Hah comes from Al-Illah meaning the God , not from the Moon God . Alla was a name like Hubal , Al Illah (The God) came with Islam .

That was the point I made to refute the point U made , whitch was Allah comes from Alla .

By the same as i was asked: Tell me where this version of information comes from please.

For all we know there are millions of planets like the earth , perhaps even cloned copies , but we wont ever know of them , doesnt this make u think we only know what we create ourselves ? And when we only know what we create ourselves , are we not God ? Do we done create everything around us , so that we may know it ?

Yeah, we're god- our brains are. Still no need to summize a big invisible space dood as being fact.

And science accepts that it's speculation and works to find the truth. Religion says it has the truth- thus it gives up the search. There was a time when medicine was 'new' to man. They made wild potions out of any shit they could find, probably killing many people in the process. Now in 2003 i know when i have a headache i should buy some paracetamol. Science advances, religion does not- namely because religion has found it's truth- where's it going to advance to? Science is aware things are speculation until they are proven to work. Imagine a calculator being speculation- the idea of it does not help you solve maths problems. Once the speculation leads to study and research it ends up giving us calculators. They work, they can be tried and tested and cannot be disputed.


But Im not arguing religion here with you , Im arguing theology . And i know interestingly these 2 seem to be the same , but thats a lie they are not nearly . Weither you will take this theology beyond the points of aesthetics and ethics , into epistemology and ontology , or you stay there , its not religion .
Now for science , what is science . Are ethics science ?


By the same as i was asked: Tell me where this version of information comes from please.


Actually u were asked that in another thread already , but thats not the point an you know it .


Yeah, we're god- our brains are. Still no need to summize a big invisible space dood as being fact.


Finally we're getting somewhere . Nobody here is summizing an invisible space dood , not me anyways . Now Im not going to want to fill Gaps with God , but I do want to fill them with whatever they are filled with . And the biggest gap is life itself , the eternel question of why is answered with either "the universe/some force/blablabla" , or with "me" , or with some combination between the 2 . The other solution is complete nihilism , and even complete nihilism has a force , its called natural selection . I mean its not like there isnt anything , nothingness is something to as you have said yourself . Now why exactly we should or should call it God would be theology , and thats what Im getting at here . Not some big space-alien who plays the earth-game all day up in heaven .

But Im not arguing religion here with you , Im arguing theology . And i know interestingly these 2 seem to be the same , but thats a lie they are not nearly . Weither you will take this theology beyond the points of aesthetics and ethics , into epistemology and ontology , or you stay there , its not religion .
Now for science , what is science . Are ethics science ?

Theology:

1) The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2) A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
3) A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary

Aren't i questioning and debating within the realms of theology? I try to look at religious matters and instances in a 'rational' and questioning manner in order to ascertain answers relating to god etc etc.

What is science? Well aside from taking the dictionary default my best explanation of how i refer to science is this: Science=asking questions in order to find an answer. Religion=Giving an answer without knowing the question.

Actually u were asked that in another thread already , but thats not the point an you know it .

Im interested so i can do some research on it, so if you don't mind the extra work of typing it here please do.

Now Im not going to want to fill Gaps with God , but I do want to fill them with whatever they are filled with

The gaps are there whether we like it or not- why think we are in a position to fill those gaps? As much as I, and im sure everyone on this planet, would like to fill those gaps it isn't right to use playdoh. We are in a position where we could be god unto ourselves or we could be at the feet of some gigantic invisible space dood. I can't attain to answer one way or the other- im just left with mights and might nots. We can put playdoh in the gaps but it will fall apart pretty soon. It's obvious we all have gaps or nobody would be in here debating, but those gaps will remain gaps no matter what you put in them. As such i will debate an issue with you because it's a start on a long journey to truth- and even though it's unlikely we'll never find that truth- it gives us something to aim for. My brain might be god- leading me along the winding road of life, but by that same token it might be my soul leading my brain. By that same token it might be god leading my soul to lead my brain. It's sick not knowing the answers- but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Theology:
1) The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2) A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
3) A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary
Aren't i questioning and debating within the realms of theology? I try to look at religious matters and instances in a 'rational' and questioning manner in order to ascertain answers relating to god etc etc.
What is science? Well aside from taking the dictionary default my best explanation of how i refer to science is this: Science=asking questions in order to find an answer. Religion=Giving an answer without knowing the question.


No man , your definitions are incorrect . You see , there is theology without religion , there hardly is religion without theology (Taoism , but if you consider Tao to be God , its the same) .
Theology = Theos Logos , Knowledge of God .
Thats all . Religion brings in tradition/culture/customs

Now if we consider those Abrahmic religions , it is obvious that they are dealing with some invisible space alien , and and that is merely a definition of theology . Theology is much more than that , God can also be a chicken , gas , electricity or whatever people make up God is .

So if we debate theology , we shouldnt think just in those terms the religions of Abrahams God present us to be God .
Now if you would compare theology to science , you could just as easily compare philosophy to science , I absolutely see no difference between philosophy and theology only in the sence that theology is part of philosophy . Now u understand the major differences between philosophy and religion I suppose ?

But as you compare science to religion , I couldnt agree with you more . My question to you , is philosophy a science ?


Im interested so i can do some research on it, so if you don't mind the extra work of typing it here please do.


No problem , but I just dont know what exactly you mean ?


We are in a position where we could be god unto ourselves or we could be at the feet of some gigantic invisible space dood


Im sure u agree that the space dude is out of the question ?
At least he is out of the question as being something good and beautifull

As far as ethics aesthetics go....there is no doubt we are God ourselves . I mean its all the same , weither you wouldnt recognize them as real knowledge but made emotional concepts by people , bringing in Goddism as some superior thing is what it could possibly give it some value . Than u could say , I made up this superieur picture of what is this and that , and I try to follow it . It will be the same as when you say , hey..its all bullshit Im making it up myself .

I do believe you should reconsider the gapfilling , because do we not try to fill gaps all the time always with everything . I mean I understand you believe we see something and we question it , instead of putting something somwehere where its empty , but isnt that what questioning in the first place is all about ? I mean u believe u see this or that , and asks what is it , but how do you know it isnt there and what you see is the construction of your wondering what is there . Not that nothing is there (a gap isnt nothing , its just unknown) .


My brain might be god- leading me along the winding road of life, but by that same token it might be my soul leading my brain. By that same token it might be god leading my soul to lead my brain. It's sick not knowing the answers- but that's the way the cookie crumbles.


Sure , but we can figure out what a brain is , what a soul is , and what life is , perhaps if we do that we can end up with who's leading what where if anything is been lead anywhere to begin with .

No man , your definitions are incorrect

They were not my definitions. They were the meaning of the word 'theology' according to several different dictionaries but everything evolves. Well either way, it's not a big issue

Actually i think it's all pretty similar. Religion, theology, philosophy, science. It all shares distinct similarity but at the same time has a lot to keep it dinstinctly separate.

I asked if you could show where your statement of the origins of the word Allah came from. If you can i'd like to look up on it.

Well this is the thing.... I can't say the space dood, (sorry slang spelling of dude :) ), is out of the question because i do not know that for fact. There could be a space dood, i could be leading myself into a giant fiery abyss and so on and so forth but i require facts to commit fully, not speculation. As for his attitude if he exists i would say by the evidence prevalent within religious writing show he is a meany. I will at this point concur with you that it looks likely he's not quite like the religious establishments protray him.

I also concur we are god unto ourselves. We rule and lead and obey ourselves, (not always), and usually as far as things go are in complete control of our own being. However some in the religious camps would claim to state such a thing is going against god yada yada. We cannot just deny that claim, and we cannot just accept it. To all intents and purposes it would seem very apparent we are the rulers of ourselves, the creators of all that we know and do but at the same time we could be mere automotons doing what we do because we are programmed to do so by a higher entity.

It depends how we perceive gap filling. To me it's putting something in place to hold the outer walls, to fill something that is currently empty. I'd like that more than anything else but cannot do so if the gap filler is not concrete solid. Of course i could just be filling gaps by saying i dont want to fill gaps, i understand from that side aswell but i seem to have little choice being the person i am. Due to circumstances of upbringing, experience and whatever else, i am the person i am today. The seemingly main debate to these kinds of issues is our 'acceptance' of gravity. What i accept is the fact i stay firmly on the ground- it's an undeniable thing and that isn't in my eyes gap filling with playdoh, it's gap filling with permanent concrete. I guess that's it in whole: I need permanent gap filling as opposed to temporary answer that might well fall apart at any given moment.

As for your last statement... we might very well be able to work out the answers to the brain, the soul and life eventually but that's exactly why i don't gap fill- we don't know those answers yet. We could be mindless automotons as i said driven to do, say and think what we do because that's what we're told.

Regards.

P.S Apologies for not quoting and showing the reference of my replies but i was told quoting shows a lack of intelligence and is bad for debating.

the defintion , well then its not you who is incorrect its those several dictionaries :D

On the origins of the word Allah , my conclusions come from a combination of many bullshit put together with what I know of Arabic concerning this issue , Ill post some time on that as soon as I have it all organized .
for now :

http://www.plim.org/1Allah.html
(not quite my conclusion but a very possible thing leading to the same distinction between the pagan god and Abrahams god )

http://www.blessedquietness.com/alhaj/yitha.htm#TABLE
(very christian anti-islamic biased ebook on the origins of Allah)


However some in the religious camps would claim to state such a thing is going against god yada yada. We cannot just deny that claim, and we cannot just accept it


Oh but we can deny that claim . As far as I know there are 2 basic and necesarry characteristics of god everybody agrees on .
1)He is the creator . Now thats the problem right there , they claim the spaceman did it , we cant refute it . Although we can very very easily refute THEIR spaceman .
2)He is superior . And that is something what we can prove . For instance , as I refute the point of that spacedude , I am being superior (in some way) to them and their Gods . In this 2-person/group etc relation , one only deals with the other . Now the one least superior surely could say but God is superieur to both of us , but I as being superieur would refute this by saying : How do you know whats between me and God when u are beneath me ?


quoting shows a lack of intelligence


LMAO

this is the craziest statement I have read today
who told u that ? Id say making such statements shows a lack of intelligence , and that one on making debating easier.......not really . Prhaps for the one who is not quoting .

Firstly thanks for the links, they're interesting.

1)He is the creator . Now thats the problem right there , they claim the spaceman did it , we cant refute it . Although we can very very easily refute THEIR spaceman .
2)He is superior . And that is something what we can prove . For instance , as I refute the point of that spacedude , I am being superior (in some way) to them and their Gods . In this 2-person/group etc relation , one only deals with the other . Now the one least superior surely could say but God is superieur to both of us , but I as being superieur would refute this by saying : How do you know whats between me and God when u are beneath me ?

From what i have currently analysed i don't really see god as superior, (aside from his ability to destroy). However nowadays man has the ability to destroy on a massive scale so i would say the running for first place is very close. Aside from the destruction, god seems to be overly afflicted by human frailties and problems. I can get into this at a later date once my website is ready. Even the ten plagues.... God was competing against simple human magicians who could recreate quite a few of his tricks, (even turning the water to blood). God did win out in the end but 2000+ year old man put up a hell of a good challenge against him. The problem with being god is the meaning attributed to the word god. I don't even think you could label yourself as master unto yourself. In ways you do make decisions and master certain aspects of your own being... however you are also at the mercy of occurence. I think perhaps saying the planet earth is god would be more to the point. It feeds us, let's us breathe, clothes us, etc etc and so on. The problem with earth being our god is that the debate would arise that god is earths god and so on in such circular fashion it would make you dizzy. The reason i don't really wholly support a person being god unto themselves is the lack of control they have over so many things in life. We are at the sole mercy of a planet, or a god and have very little say in the matter.

LMAO

this is the craziest statement I have read today
who told u that ? Id say making such statements shows a lack of intelligence , and that one on making debating easier.......not really . Prhaps for the one who is not quoting .

Prisme. He's been having a go at me :( Kindly go into science vs religion thread and tell him to stop bullying me :D I told him exactly the same thing you've just said so he labelled me "Over-argumentative." Tragic.

From what i have currently analysed i don't really see god as superior, (aside from his ability to destroy). However nowadays man has the ability to destroy on a massive scale so i would say the running for first place is very close. Aside from the destruction, god seems to be overly afflicted by human frailties and problems. I can get into this at a later date once my website is ready. Even the ten plagues.... God was competing against simple human magicians who could recreate quite a few of his tricks, (even turning the water to blood). God did win out in the end but 2000+ year old man put up a hell of a good challenge against him.


But what God are you speaking of , is it not so U have only analyzed the God of the Bible and even through one specific traditional theologic concept . God is the superieur creature by definition , it is what gods stands for as a philosophic understanding . Now that religions couldnt have come up with a perfect God , thats not Gods fault is it ? God is flawless , you should start reading the Qu'ran instead of that Bible :D , ull find a much more intelligent approach of God even traditionally . Did u know the traditional Qu'ranic God already solved the incest problem adam and eve had , by simply creating other tribes ?
And thats not even the kind of progress Im speaking of , either way my point is there are many understandings of God , some where God is far more superior then others , God is the most superieur by definition . If he wasnt , there would be a God for him too . And that makes the entire word God pretty meaningless wouldnt u say ?


The problem with being god is the meaning attributed to the word god. I don't even think you could label yourself as master unto yourself. In ways you do make decisions and master certain aspects of your own being... however you are also at the mercy of occurence. I think perhaps saying the planet earth is god would be more to the point. It feeds us, let's us breathe, clothes us, etc etc and so on. The problem with earth being our god is that the debate would arise that god is earths god and so on in such circular fashion it would make you dizzy. The reason i don't really wholly support a person being god unto themselves is the lack of control they have over so many things in life. We are at the sole mercy of a planet, or a god and have very little say in the matter.


Not really , thats the great part of being God , it actually gives certain attributes some meaning , they are attributes because you are God . But a person ebing God , should not be understood as a statical thing , it fluctuates , because nothing IS , everything becomes . Thus the more superior man becomes , the more God he is . Now the earth could surely play God as long as it feeds us , but surely God would find another way , and there goes the earth concept . So this whole being god , is actually a proces of becoming perfection , the perfection once creates for himself . Sufist perfact man theory , or Aristotelean vurtue ethics perfectly fit in this concept of reasoning .

Indeed the persons seems to not have controll , but he does if he wishes , he developes and gaines more and more controll , becoming more and more God every day , year , milennia ..before you know we dont even have to physically exist anymore but use all sorts of mad connections to teleport our minds , or something I dont know Im just making shit up as I type :D .
My point is , the whole of idea of being God , relies on the fact that there is no such thing as being , just becoming more perfect ....at least thats when you are indeed being God and not being......yes yes , SATAN . I suggest the lacking of becoming God , means the becoming Satan . Ofcourse this is based on the fact that a concept is Gods perfect opposite .

Aesthetics : God=Beatifull , Devil=Ugly
Ethics : God= Good , Devil=Bad
Epistemology : God = Intelligence , Devil=Ignorance
Ontology : God=Existing , Devil=Unexisting ?

In each aspect , the gain in control(if its controll it should be defined by and i dont think it should really) would be becoming God , the loss in controll would be becoming Satan .


Prisme. He's been having a go at me Kindly go into science vs religion thread and tell him to stop bullying me I told him exactly the same thing you've just said so he labelled me "Over-argumentative." Tragic.


Over-argumentative ?
:D
Is that something like-over right , or over-relevant , or over-true ?
Man I cant believe these people , Im serious , I come across this kind of ignorance a thousand times a day everywhere I am , and after so many years being conscious of this FACT , i still cant believe it and everytime I see such retardedness I just simply cant handle it for being real , Im like.......fuck are these people serious , and I know they are , still I wonder , I oftenly ask them even if they are serious and even when they say yes , i just cant believe them .

Atheist are just as illogical illogical as most theist. Like two brothers of the same stature, grown up seperate, groomed towards the accepting and endowment of different disciplines of the same continuum. One never comprehending the knowledge of the other, thus leaving them both incomplete and ignorant of the entirety of their existance. Through the assumption of their own ignorance, they premise that they're twain in origin, and contrary. Never realizing that there are not many truths, but one.

P.S. We've been here, God does Exist (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11294&perpage=20&pagenumber=78)