View Full Version : Still waiting on proof of one's god.
Medicine*Woman
06-21-08, 10:02 PM
*************
M*W: It's been hashed and rehashed. Where's the proof guys? Who is your god, and where is he/she/it? I'd really like to hear from theists on the proof of their deity(ies). If there is a deity, its existence has to be more than just a feeling or belief. Some people have said they've had a personal experience, well so did I when I was a christian until I realized I was hallucinating (not from drugs or any substance) but from my rabid belief in christianity! I've been there, where you are, and I want to know how you feel and interpret your god.
Thanks for your imput. I look forward to hearing from you!
~ M*W
MW, you know I love ya...but this is kind of an exercise in futility, no?
Medicine*Woman
06-21-08, 10:12 PM
MW, you know I love ya...but this is kind of an exercise in futility, no?
*************
M*W: Well, yes, but I want to hear the reasoning for the existence of their god without arguing the atheist position with them. I'm looking for their logical argument.
PS - Love ya, too!
But faith isn't logical. That's why it's called faith.
Well, anyway, good luck! :D
Simon Anders
06-21-08, 10:40 PM
*************
M*W: It's been hashed and rehashed. Where's the proof guys? Who is your god, and where is he/she/it? I'd really like to hear from theists on the proof of their deity(ies). If there is a deity, its existence has to be more than just a feeling or belief. Some people have said they've had a personal experience, well so did I when I was a christian until I realized I was hallucinating (not from drugs or any substance) but from my rabid belief in christianity! I've been there, where you are, and I want to know how you feel and interpret your god.
Thanks for your imput. I look forward to hearing from you!
~ M*W
You can't know you have been where they are.
PsychoticEpisode
06-21-08, 10:57 PM
EmDub, at least sun worshippers have something to point to.
nietzschefan
06-21-08, 11:55 PM
I will try to help them out.
How did we get those pesky 223 genes, that were not obtained through gradual evolution. Bacteria? Seriously?
I'll admit, i'm a layman with DNA stuff, but bacteria sounds as far fetched to me as Enki's test tube made of "clay":
http://www.enkispeaks.com/images/NinmahEnkiThothAdam_Sitchin1990p162.gif
I assumed "Deity" meaning not "The God" only, just whomever may or may not have had mastery over us in the distant past. Gods, elite king races, or whatever.
Medicine*Woman
06-22-08, 12:08 AM
You can't know you have been where they are.
*************
M*W: True, but from my religious experience, I really believe I was one of them at the time.
Medicine*Woman
06-22-08, 12:12 AM
EmDub, at least sun worshippers have something to point to.
*************
M*W: Yes, they do, and the literal sun was given many a name and different identities by humans over the millenia. That's one reason I know there is no true god.
Leo Volont
06-22-08, 03:05 AM
Well, in what realm do we look for God?
The answer is obvious, but few people seem to get there.
God is a Psychologicial Phenomena. God, as a Moral Influence, could hardly pick a better place to reside, no?
God is in the Mind. Anybody who has ever posted a Dream of God or a Vision of God, or even a Delusion or a good Hallucination of God has presented psychologically empirical evidence for the existence of God.
I had even once read a Paper on the therapeutic effects of God Delusions in psychotic episodes... that the appearance of God is a signal of a Crisis of Healing and Re-Intigration. God appearing in the Mind is not just some arbitrary and random symbol from a random and arbitrary subconscious mind, but a solidly systematic psychological event, a passage, akin to any other documentable phase of maturity.
cosmictraveler
06-22-08, 04:54 AM
If you could go around and convince others something that doesn't exist is making you who you are today and get paid for it and not pay taxes because your a church, I'm certain that is why many people choose religion over the truth because of money more than any other thing.
OilIsMastery
06-22-08, 05:44 AM
The proof is being itself. Being has a cause, namely the First Cause, aka God.
EmptyForceOfChi
06-22-08, 02:29 PM
Hey M*W I see you are still searching for the faith you once lost. Hope you find it again.
Peace.
Medicine*Woman
06-22-08, 03:55 PM
Hey M*W I see you are still searching for the faith you once lost. Hope you find it again.
Peace.
*************
M*W: Nope. That's just what you want to read into this thread. I have faith in many things, but not in christianity nor any other religion.
EmptyForceOfChi
06-22-08, 04:06 PM
*************
M*W: Nope. That's just what you want to read into this thread. I have faith in many things, but not in christianity nor any other religion.
I found myself subconsciously trying to destroy other peoples faith in god and the afterlfe, until I realised it was my own lack of faith in god I was lashing out at in beievers. everytime I questioned there beliefs I realised I was looking for assurance in that which I was trying to deestroy.
Ask yourself honestly what you are hoping to achieve when you ask the questions you do.
peace.
siledre
06-22-08, 04:10 PM
religion is about faith and if one actually goes and meets their god would it still be a faith
Medicine*Woman
06-22-08, 05:12 PM
I found myself subconsciously trying to destroy other peoples faith in god and the afterlfe, until I realised it was my own lack of faith in god I was lashing out at in beievers. everytime I questioned there beliefs I realised I was looking for assurance in that which I was trying to deestroy.
Ask yourself honestly what you are hoping to achieve when you ask the questions you do.
peace.
*************
M*W: That was your experience, not mine. There is a difference between trying to destroy another's faith and expressing the truth. What is truth for you may not be truth for anybody else. We must arrive at what we consider to be the truth for each of us. Atheism is the truth for me. It is clear to me that I will no longer believe in the mythology of christianity (nor any other religion). Once you come to that understanding, there is no going backward. Some say they had been atheists and then wen't back to a particular religion. I believe these people are laden with fear as well as in denial. The reason I ask the questions I do is because I really want to know what other people think and believe. I already know what I believe (or not believe) and for me, that will not change. I have faith in my choice to embrace atheism. IOW, I trust the knowledge I have gained regarding religions and myths, and although I want to learn why others make the choices they do, I won't be digressing into any religion or dogma. What I particularly expected from this thread was to hear the explanations of why people believe in the existence of their respective deities. If I were subconsciously yearning to return to christianity or any other religion, I'd be reading protheistic peer-reviewed texts written by biblical (or other) scholars.
What surprises me (or doesn't) is that no theist has yet replied with anything logical, rational or believable about his/her dogma and deity. I do not plan to argue or contradict them, (but I cannot stop anyone else from refuting them). I just want to know who, what, when, where, why and how, they believe what they believe and why they believe it. It seems to me that if theists present their pro-theological position, that should reinforce the beliefs of the other theists. I hope to receive some good pro-theological arguments from the believers. That's all. No ulterior motives intended.
Simon Anders
06-22-08, 05:23 PM
What surprises me (or doesn't) is that no theist has yet replied with anything logical, rational or believable about his/her dogma and deity. I do not plan to argue or contradict them, (but I cannot stop anyone else from refuting them). I just want to know who, what, when, where, why and how, they believe what they believe and why they believe it. It seems to me that if theists present their pro-theological position, that should reinforce the beliefs of the other theists. I hope to receive some good pro-theological arguments from the believers. That's all. No ulterior motives intended.
This seems really rather disingenuous. Your OP says that you know where they are at because you were once 'hallucinating' and had 'rabid belief'. This means that you think they are hallucinating their rabid beliefs. You also ask for proof.
This last post sounds like you are simply curious and are surprised no one has thought you had some motive.
Please.
Read your OP and then this last post and see if, perhaps, you could understand how someone might think that either 1) you are judging a believer in advance or 2) you don't really know what you are doing. If you still think both posts are honest and sincere, I am afraid I must conclude the latter. They just do not fit together.
EmptyForceOfChi
06-22-08, 06:27 PM
*************
M*W: That was your experience, not mine. There is a difference between trying to destroy another's faith and expressing the truth. What is truth for you may not be truth for anybody else. We must arrive at what we consider to be the truth for each of us. Atheism is the truth for me. It is clear to me that I will no longer believe in the mythology of christianity (nor any other religion). Once you come to that understanding, there is no going backward. Some say they had been atheists and then wen't back to a particular religion. I believe these people are laden with fear as well as in denial. The reason I ask the questions I do is because I really want to know what other people think and believe. I already know what I believe (or not believe) and for me, that will not change. I have faith in my choice to embrace atheism. IOW, I trust the knowledge I have gained regarding religions and myths, and although I want to learn why others make the choices they do, I won't be digressing into any religion or dogma. What I particularly expected from this thread was to hear the explanations of why people believe in the existence of their respective deities. If I were subconsciously yearning to return to christianity or any other religion, I'd be reading protheistic peer-reviewed texts written by biblical (or other) scholars.
What surprises me (or doesn't) is that no theist has yet replied with anything logical, rational or believable about his/her dogma and deity. I do not plan to argue or contradict them, (but I cannot stop anyone else from refuting them). I just want to know who, what, when, where, why and how, they believe what they believe and why they believe it. It seems to me that if theists present their pro-theological position, that should reinforce the beliefs of the other theists. I hope to receive some good pro-theological arguments from the believers. That's all. No ulterior motives intended.
I respect that, I just notice that you always focus on religion even if you oppose it your main focus fixates on it to this day.
maybe you focus on the written texts regarding religion too much instead of seperating the stories from the essence of gods meaning. for example like myself I don't hold the holy books in factual regard, but I do hold god in its true meaning in high regard as a possibility. for me to take sections of the bible and try to argue them as truth would not prove efective in a debate about truth.
But I would argue in these terms, for example an entity or being such as god not only created the universe but is infact the universe itself. something cannot come from nothing, 0+0 will always equal 0. Therefore the universe has alwys existed in some way shape or form. God is the unseen essence of everything, wave your hand infront of your face, your hand is moving through "empty space" which has no physical attributes energy or mass, therefore physicaly does not exist, but it does exist which allows mass to pass through the unseen structure or foundation of the universe. All of the particles in space float and move through this unseen fabric of existence. if a solid block of lead is placed on a table, that space where the block resides is still there unchanged, when you remove the block of lead it is again a relatively empty space. that emptyness is still physical in a non physical way.
What I am getting at is that the emptyness is basicaly nothing, I might be wrong but as far as I can tell it would be impossble for that empty space to be created by anything therefore always existed. that could be called god.
the deitys you speak of are caught up in mythology and stories, it would take faith alone to believe in such things. but in other terms it could be possible that our very own faith creates that god through our consciousness, ie if you believe you will go to heaven your consciousness might be sent there when you die on this earth. or if you truley have faith in eternal nothingness after you die everything will cease to exist to you. each of us might cause our own fate.
Im not religious as you know but things just seem too perfect to be coincidence and chance. Im starting to lean towards believing in god as a conscious being. The universe and existence itself from our position is too magnificent to explain by ourselves. I dont think it is too far fetched for an eternal god to exist. for example consciousness is all that exists, gods conscious mind. that mind is millions of times more potent than our minds, where our imagination and thoughts conjour up things, maybe gods conscious mind can actualy create independant beings, worlds, solar systems. intricate complex life forms that are all within this mind of his. we could all be manifestations of gods consciousness which is so powerful that he even creted thought forms that dont even belive in him. :).
peace.
PsychoticEpisode
06-22-08, 07:28 PM
Well, in what realm do we look for God?
The answer is obvious, but few people seem to get there.
God is in the Mind.
I won't argue with that. The only problem I have with that is how did he get there? Take someone who'd never experienced a god. Would they find Him in their mind? I doubt it. I mentioned in an earlier post that when the 5 year old emerged from his little house of horrors in Austria, he looked at the moon for the first time and asked if that was God.
I think what that kid said speaks volumes and should bear some serious study. Here's a kid who only had heard of god. God did not reside in this kid's mind. The kid fully expected God to reside in the sky however. Take someone who had never heard of god and I guarantee God is not in their mind. A little thing like indoctrination goes a long way.
The mind as we know it can be manipulated. If you agree with that statement then you can no longer suggest that it is God residing in your mind because whether you like it or not the possibility exists that you have been led to believe it. God cannot exist in your mind unless someone puts him there.
God has certainly been moving around over the last couple of thousand years. From his heavenly realm in the sky to actually walking the Earth to an incomprehensible reality to currently reside in the mind. That's gotta tell you something.
I can't prove he is or isn't. I have made one of two choices and I prefer to leave it at that. I do worry about people who dwell on their choice.
Take someone who had never heard of god and I guarantee God is not in their mind. A little thing like indoctrination goes a long way.
Then how do you explain the fact that every society in human civilization has created some sort of god mythology? I don't think it is a stretch to admit that there is some sort of built-in trait that makes us expect there to be something greater than us.
In female-centric societies, the gods were females--or at least the most revered gods were females--and in male-centric societies, the gods (or God) are male. It's very easy to see that we have created gods over and over again in our cultures, and those gods directly reflect the very nature of our culture.
My best guess is that we create Gods because we are an inquisitive species. We want answers to everything, we are knowledge-seekers. And when we are encountered with something we just can't wrap our minds around, we are not satisfied with no answer. "I don't know" doesn't cut it. So, we create a deity. I forget if it was Einstein or Hubble that said, after getting an understand for just how vast the universe must be, said that the more he discovered, the more he believed there must have been a creator.
That right there tells us when and why gods are created. Our last frontier as a species is, obviously, space, and because looking into it is akin to experiencing an earthquake 10000 years ago, of course we're going to see it and say "Yeah, there's no way this happened without some help."
If you want to make a logical argument for the existence of a god, then point to the fact that we, as a species, tend to believe. Don't point to a holy book, don't point to any specific religion's lasting power, don't try to put a face (or a number) on this supposed being. If there is one, none of us know who it is, or how many of them there are.
*************
M*W: It's been hashed and rehashed. Where's the proof guys? Who is your god, and where is he/she/it? I'd really like to hear from theists on the proof of their deity(ies). If there is a deity, its existence has to be more than just a feeling or belief. Some people have said they've had a personal experience, well so did I when I was a christian until I realized I was hallucinating (not from drugs or any substance) but from my rabid belief in christianity! I've been there, where you are, and I want to know how you feel and interpret your god.
Thanks for your imput. I look forward to hearing from you!
~ M*W
Hmmmm....proof. That's a tough one. Laying aside what proof you would accept what measeurement system you would use-and the fact you at once ask theists to describe God as more than a feeling and also how we feel up "our" deity, I will attempt this, though I consider it a sin.
So who is God? He is the alpha and the omega. Existing in eternity and reigning over all.
Where is God? He is everwhere but in our will, this world so to speak.
The proof is the color yellow.
spidergoat
06-22-08, 09:12 PM
So God is simply matter and energy? Those fit the description, although they arguably haven't existed for all of eternity.
Medicine*Woman
06-22-08, 09:15 PM
Hmmmm....proof. That's a tough one. Laying aside what proof you would accept what measeurement system you would use-and the fact you at once ask theists to describe God as more than a feeling and also how we feel up "our" deity, I will attempt this, though I consider it a sin.
So who is God? He is the alpha and the omega. Existing in eternity and reigning over all.
Where is God? He is everwhere but in our will, this world so to speak.
The proof is the color yellow.
*************
M*W: I am not accepting nor rejecting one's personal "proof" of a god. I just want to hear personal experiences described from what they consider to be proof to them. I would like for you to explain what you mean by "the proof is the color yellow." That is an interesting description. Thanks.
Of course you do not have proof that there is not one.
*************
M*W: I am not accepting nor rejecting one's personal "proof" of a god. I just want to hear personal experiences described from what they consider to be proof to them. I would like for you to explain what you mean by "the proof is the color yellow." That is an interesting description. Thanks.
My personal experience that allows me to believe is (my) life.
What about the color of Yellow does not prove the existence of God?
shaman_
06-22-08, 10:16 PM
What about the color of Yellow does not prove the existence of God?So the existence of which god is proven by the color yellow? All of them or just your favorite one?
PsychoticEpisode
06-22-08, 10:21 PM
Then how do you explain the fact that every society in human civilization has created some sort of god mythology?
Somebody came up with the idea once, possibly our first philosopher:D. Accepted, it became our ancestors legacy. Therfore, Gods had been heard of before. It wasn't like every civilization suddenly dreamed them up. God was passed down like a handshake.
The Sun was an obvious first candidate for divine status. I didn't say it was wrong to believe in god. I said it was one of two choices we all have considering there is no proof either way. But we dwell on it constantly. I think religion is a natural byproduct of saying yes to a god and it is perfectly normal for people to think there's a god. Unfortunately a positive belief allows the believer to expound on it. Ergo religion...
As humanity progresses and more and more knowledge is gained it seems like a lot of things once attributed to God are being stripped away. Thus He now exists in what seems like even more extreme places than ever before. The fact he gets moved around is proof enough to me at least, that the religious haven't a clue what they're talking about. They're playrights changing the script to suit an ever-changing audience. I accept religion for nothing more than it makes my 'no god' choice more plausible.
It is actually a very good analogy. The simple fact that you can see yellow and everything else is enough proof of something at least.
shaman_
06-22-08, 10:36 PM
Proof that humans evolved with a complex light sensor and a brain to interpret the images?
complex light sensor and a brain to interpret the images?
:D yep.
PsychoticEpisode
06-22-08, 10:49 PM
Yellow being the predominantly viewed color of the Sun. This is not a coincidence I assume.
So the existence of which god is proven by the color yellow? All of them or just your favorite one?
The God
Proof that humans evolved with a complex light sensor and a brain to interpret the images?
What proof do you require? On a side note, separate from this thread, if proof were given to your satisfaction, what would you do?
shaman_
06-22-08, 11:28 PM
The GodAh your favorite, Yahweh. I don’t mean to be disrespectful but many gods have been worshipped and credited with creating life. You have chosen one.
What proof do you require? On a side note, separate from this thread, if proof were given to your satisfaction, what would you do?If biblical events happened today (seas being parted by a man holding a staff ect) I could be convinced.
If proof existed I would become a devoted follower. It would be very comforting to believe there is a loving entity looking down on me.
lightgigantic
06-23-08, 07:41 AM
*************
M*W: It's been hashed and rehashed. Where's the proof guys?
its impossible to discuss issues of proof divorced from issues of qualification
Who is your god, and where is he/she/it? I'd really like to hear from theists on the proof of their deity(ies). If there is a deity, its existence has to be more than just a feeling or belief.
sure
Some people have said they've had a personal experience, well so did I when I was a christian until I realized I was hallucinating (not from drugs or any substance) but from my rabid belief in christianity!
I guess the next question is whether all personal experiences are the same or whether they can be distinguished through issues of qualification/philosophy
I've been there, where you are, and I want to know how you feel and interpret your god.
on the contrary, all you have said is that you had a personal experience - whether all personal experiences are identical is an issue you are not addressing
Ah your favorite, Yahweh. I don’t mean to be disrespectful but many gods have been worshipped and credited with creating life. You have chosen one.
If biblical events happened today (seas being parted by a man holding a staff ect) I could be convinced.
If proof existed I would become a devoted follower. It would be very comforting to believe there is a loving entity looking down on me.
What aspect of the phenomena of the sea being parted could make you a believer and what would you become a devoted follower of?
shaman_
06-24-08, 08:55 PM
What aspect of the phenomena of the sea being parted could make you a believer and what would you become a devoted follower of?I chose that off the top of my head because it is one of the more dramatic stories of the bible. I would consider it because it is a supernatural event of great power coming from a prophet.
If it happened I might become a follower of whatever that person was preaching.
EmptyForceOfChi
06-24-08, 09:01 PM
Looking up at the stars at night is proof for me, but when I get annoyed or upset I lose that proof.
humans are stupid.
peace.
shaman_
06-24-08, 09:19 PM
Perhaps looking at the sun was proof of Ra for the Egyptians and hearing thunder was proof of Thor for the Norsemen.
EmptyForceOfChi
06-24-08, 09:26 PM
Perhaps looking at the sun was proof of Ra for the Egyptians and hearing thunder was proof of Thor for the Norsemen.
Yes and heavenly bolts are zues throwing his rage down from up above in mount olympus, see its good enough for you too.
peace.
codanblad
06-24-08, 09:40 PM
I found myself subconsciously trying to destroy other peoples faith in god and the afterlfe, until I realised it was my own lack of faith in god I was lashing out at in beievers. everytime I questioned there beliefs I realised I was looking for assurance in that which I was trying to deestroy.
Ask yourself honestly what you are hoping to achieve when you ask the questions you do.
peace.
i know what you mean, when i argue about religion with people i'd love for them to offer something to me, any kind of proof which could convince me of god. it doesn't have to be physical proof either, just in some way convince me of god. the only reason i look forward to such an event is because i know it would simplify my life so much, all i'd have to do is whatever that god said. however i still believe all organised religion to be misguided, and will do so until proved wrong. point is, just because it'd be nice for there to be god, doesn't mean i'm taking it out my frustrations on people who believe. my frustration with some religious people stems from my annoyance with their reasoning.
I found myself subconsciously trying to destroy other peoples faith in god and the afterlfe, until I realised it was my own lack of faith in god I was lashing out at in beievers. everytime I questioned there beliefs I realised I was looking for assurance in that which I was trying to deestroy.
But that's only natural, because you have been told your entire life that there is a God. It is a part of our culture to believe there is one, regardless of the religion. So when you found that you did not believe, you wanted to find out why you didn't believe, but more importantly, you wanted to find out why others did.
But please, do not accuse yourself of others who question faith as having bad or misguided intentions. I question people's faith because there is always a movement, at least in this country, to push science out of the classroom in favor of mythology. Worship rather than enlightenment. If faith was something that people could keep in their homes, and morso, in its proper place, then I would question no one. But society must (and does) fight against the idea of replacing actual education with religious myth. There are very real consequences for the world when people with faith have power, and let their faith influence their decision-making. I point often to stem cell research because it is a very good example, but there are others, such as elderly and sick people who want to end their lives on their own terms but are not allowed to, or the husband of Terry Shiavo, who wasn't allowed to have his his wife's feeding tube removed so she would no longer have to live in her vegitative state.
Those are all examples of how religion can negatively influence and impact the lives of citizens. I question these people because they need to be held accountable.
EmptyForceOfChi
06-25-08, 07:39 AM
i know what you mean, when i argue about religion with people i'd love for them to offer something to me, any kind of proof which could convince me of god. it doesn't have to be physical proof either, just in some way convince me of god. the only reason i look forward to such an event is because i know it would simplify my life so much, all i'd have to do is whatever that god said. however i still believe all organised religion to be misguided, and will do so until proved wrong. point is, just because it'd be nice for there to be god, doesn't mean i'm taking it out my frustrations on people who believe. my frustration with some religious people stems from my annoyance with their reasoning.
I know what your saying, but personaly im in it purely for the afterlife myself I just want to live forever and know that all of the people I love still live on somewhere and still have there individual mind.
Im very selfish deep down.
peace.
EmptyForceOfChi
06-25-08, 07:45 AM
But that's only natural, because you have been told your entire life that there is a God. It is a part of our culture to believe there is one, regardless of the religion. So when you found that you did not believe, you wanted to find out why you didn't believe, but more importantly, you wanted to find out why others did.
But please, do not accuse yourself of others who question faith as having bad or misguided intentions. I question people's faith because there is always a movement, at least in this country, to push science out of the classroom in favor of mythology. Worship rather than enlightenment. If faith was something that people could keep in their homes, and morso, in its proper place, then I would question no one. But society must (and does) fight against the idea of replacing actual education with religious myth. There are very real consequences for the world when people with faith have power, and let their faith influence their decision-making. I point often to stem cell research because it is a very good example, but there are others, such as elderly and sick people who want to end their lives on their own terms but are not allowed to, or the husband of Terry Shiavo, who wasn't allowed to have his his wife's feeding tube removed so she would no longer have to live in her vegitative state.
Those are all examples of how religion can negatively influence and impact the lives of citizens. I question these people because they need to be held accountable.
Yeah that bothers me alot to, I do get frustrated with many religious people but my frustration stems from the fact that I think all organized religions offer people eternal life in exchange for a tidy sum of gold coins, Like tithings collection plates donations etc, I hate seeing people work hrd at ther jobs and then go and give some kind of church 10% of there earnings. or seeing old people on there pensions giving what little they have to pople who earn money and profit from religion.
by the way I have never been religious in my life, I was raised an atheist from birth, my parents are atheists and my entire family is non religious save maybe 1 auntie and a couple of younger cousins. I actualy came to the conclusion that there most likely is a god through thinking about it during meditations and questioning the universe constantly everyday.
Sometims I also think maybe its better to live a happy life with hope rather than thinking the universe is cold and unloving. the smiles on religious peoples faces to me seem like they come from deep within and last alot longer, when non believers think about death they generaly seem to be dissapointed. accepting death in a happy way seems to be what sets peopl free from pain.
peace.
Yeah that bothers me alot to, I do get frustrated with many religious people but my frustration stems from the fact that I think all organized religions offer people eternal life in exchange for a tidy sum of gold coins, Like tithings collection plates donations etc, I hate seeing people work hrd at ther jobs and then go and give some kind of church 10% of there earnings. or seeing old people on there pensions giving what little they have to pople who earn money and profit from religion.
Well, I think most priest live very simple lives, and really only use the money to keep the church going, but yes, there are many that actually profit from it and feed off their congregations.
EmptyForceOfChi
06-25-08, 07:54 AM
Well, I think most priest live very simple lives, and really only use the money to keep the church going, but yes, there are many that actually profit from it and feed off their congregations.
Many traditional sects like roman catholic and christian priests seem to be quite poor which i like to see lol, but many newer sects and sub branches of these faiths seem to have leaders who take in tithings (10%) seem to have nice houses and drive flashy cars.
I generaly dont tend to trust people when money is involved full stop.
peace.
What aspect of the phenomena of the sea being parted could make you a believer and what would you become a devoted follower of?
I chose that off the top of my head because it is one of the more dramatic stories of the bible. I would consider it because it is a supernatural event of great power coming from a prophet.
If it happened I might become a follower of whatever that person was preaching.
So because this prophet could affect the laws of nature as we know it, in a supernatural way, you would do his/her bidding?
shaman_
06-25-08, 10:50 PM
Yes but it depends what their bidding is. People who believe in god don't stone people for picking things up on a Sunday or kill children who curse their parents.
spidergoat
06-25-08, 10:54 PM
Many traditional sects like roman catholic and christian priests seem to be quite poor which i like to see lol, but many newer sects and sub branches of these faiths seem to have leaders who take in tithings (10%) seem to have nice houses and drive flashy cars.
I generaly dont tend to trust people when money is involved full stop.
peace.
LOL Roman Catholics? Are you sure you don't want to rethink that? There have been few churches richer.
I chose that off the top of my head because it is one of the more dramatic stories of the bible. I would consider it because it is a supernatural event of great power coming from a prophet.
If it happened I might become a follower of whatever that person was preaching.
Yes but it depends what their bidding is. People who believe in god don't stone people for picking things up on a Sunday or kill children who curse their parents.
The weighing of Miracles is a value judgement. The color of Yellow is a miracle. It is proof of God as much as the parting of The Red Sea.
You say you wouldn't follow a deity of supernatural abilities if they didn't agree with your moral code. Does that make you a believer of the possibility of a deity?
cosmictraveler
06-28-08, 03:12 PM
but personaly im in it purely for the afterlife myself I just want to live forever and know that all of the people I love still live on somewhere and still have there individual mind.
Im very selfish deep down.
But what if you are wrong? I mean that in a humble way. What if you "believe" there's an afterlife but when you died you found there's nothing? I was dead once for about 3 minutes and I didn't see or hear anything while I was dead. They told me my heart had stopped for that long. I'm just letting you know from my own experiances that I found nothing when I died like what is being fed to everyone by most religions.
Jesus. He came to earth, performed miracles, and was resurrected after his death on the cross. There's no way you could do that without supernatural aid.
Vkothii
06-28-08, 09:27 PM
Jesus wasn't the only one to "do all that", he was the one that became the Christian religious hero.
He started out a different kind, though.
Jesus. He came to earth, performed miracles, and was resurrected after his death on the cross. There's no way you could do that without supernatural aid.
A lot of previous Pagan gods did the same damn thing he did. How come you don't worship them?
Ohhh, right...because Jesus is the most recent.
Love how you people don't even know where your religion comes from. :rolleyes:
Vkothii
06-29-08, 05:38 AM
I would tell someone who says they're "waiting for proof", that you have to find proof yourself.
Proof is not, in general, something that comes to "those who wait".
Pinocchio's Hoof
06-29-08, 06:20 AM
Jesus. He came to earth, performed miracles, and was resurrected after his death on the cross. There's no way you could do that without supernatural aid.
What miracles are you refering to as some have some reasonable explanation,considering he was a well travelled man for someone of that time....
Making the lame walk- its possible he met someone who taught him about splints..
Making the blind see- they were removing cataracts in india well before JC he may have learnt this on his travels..
Resurected- it could have been air being expelled from his corpse..
Don't forget what was classed as a miracle back then is probably a common occurance now.
EmptyForceOfChi
06-29-08, 04:04 PM
LOL Roman Catholics? Are you sure you don't want to rethink that? There have been few churches richer.
Im jus going by priests of individual churches, who dont seem to be that rich, not the vatican and heads of the church as a whole who I know are stinking rich. there are lots of roman catholic churches in London and the people who work there seem poor to me.
I might be wrong but they drive cheap cars, maybe they pretend to be poor or something.
peace.
I believe in Brahman, supreme consciousness
the evidence: perceptions
Perceptions require consciousness
This consciousness can not be you, because else it would also be a perception (your identity being perceived)
Thus consciousness cannot be anything you perceive nor conceived.
Because it cannot be perceived, neither conceived it cannot be separated, it is thus unique.
Thus consciousness that makes perceptions possible is one, it is brahman.
Jesus. He came to earth, performed miracles, and was resurrected after his death on the cross. There's no way you could do that without supernatural aid.
The real miracle is that anyone believes such crap.
I believe in Brahman, supreme consciousness
the evidence: perceptions
Perceptions require consciousness
This consciousness can not be you, because else it would also be a perception (your identity being perceived)
Thus consciousness cannot be anything you perceive nor conceived.
Because it cannot be perceived, neither conceived it cannot be separated, it is thus unique.
Thus consciousness that makes perceptions possible is one, it is brahman.
Well, I bet your're glad you got that off your chest. What a pity it is meaningless.
audible
06-29-08, 05:36 PM
I believe in Brahman, supreme consciousness
the evidence: perceptions
Perceptions require consciousness
This consciousness can not be you, because else it would also be a perception (your identity being perceived)
Thus consciousness cannot be anything you perceive nor conceived.
Because it cannot be perceived, neither conceived it cannot be separated, it is thus unique.
Thus consciousness that makes perceptions possible is one, it is brahman.And your a frigging nutjob, stay off the drugs.
Im jus going by priests of individual churches, who dont seem to be that rich, not the vatican and heads of the church as a whole who I know are stinking rich. there are lots of roman catholic churches in London and the people who work there seem poor to me.
I might be wrong but they drive cheap cars, maybe they pretend to be poor or something.
peace.
I believe you are right. The money is in the Vatican and that's where it stays. The majority of priests are good hearted people who believe in a myth but that does not stop them from doing some good in the world. The REAL reason they are forbidden to marry is that it would burden the Chirch with widows and possibly children at some time and, as we all know, that costs money.
Having said that . I believe the Catholic Church is a curse on humanity because of their opposition to progress. Consider the difference it would make , and would have made , had it not opposed the use of condoms in Africa. Think of the tiny, parentless children who are infected with AIDS. Meanwhile, a bunch of dogmatic old men in the Vatican continue to pursue policies which have disastrous worldwide implications in many ares of life.
And your a frigging nutjob, stay off the drugs.
Just to cheer you up, can I tell you that if you talk to Ronan the best has yet to come.
shaman_
06-29-08, 10:49 PM
The weighing of Miracles is a value judgement. The color of Yellow is a miracle. It is proof of God as much as the parting of The Red Sea. To part an ocean you would need some supernatural power (or advanced technology). No one has ever demonstrated supernatural powers so if you didn't want to call it a miracle you would have to at least admit there was something unique and special about the entity that could do it.
If the color yellow is enough to qualify as a miracle, is there anything that isn't a miracle?
You say you wouldn't follow a deity of supernatural abilities if they didn't agree with your moral code. Does that make you a believer of the possibility of a deity?Sure it's possible.
I'm saying that in this hypothetical situation which you have created I wouldn't instantly do the bidding of a god just because they were one. They could be an evil god I don't know. If we are talking about the supposed loving god of the bible (pretending that the OT doesn't exist for a second), then yes I would follow and obey.
Jesus. He came to earth, performed miracles, and was resurrected after his death on the cross. There's no way you could do that without supernatural aid.
That's what they say. There's a small problem though when it comes to providing hard ecidence.
What grounds have you for believing it ?
audible
06-30-08, 03:24 AM
Just to cheer you up, can I tell you that if you talk to Ronan the best has yet to come.I bloody well hope so. lol
He doesn't mean it in a good way, Audible. :D
I wonder what I should answer to such a post, If you want to talk about someone who is hear listenning, why don't you talk directly to him and answer to his arguments by arguments.
So far, the only argument has been: no brain, no consciousness.
But: no consciousness, no brain
some have attempted to say that consciousness has to come from somewhere but finnaly they admit that the matter they believe cause consciousness has never come from somewhere. Why do they change their opinion regarding consciousness?
If you really think what I am saying is the consequence of having be under influence of drugs. Why can't you simply show some good arguments?
I would be pleased to hear them but please give ones that are justified.
audible
06-30-08, 09:15 AM
I wonder what I should answer to such a post, If you want to talk about someone who is hear listenning, why don't you talk directly to him and answer to his arguments by arguments.
Because nobody wants to talk gibberish, and lunacy, they all want a proper debate. Something they are unable to get from you.
Ronan
Dont you think it's odd that everyone thinks your wrong, have you had one post where someone has agreed with you, doesn't that suggest you go and rethink your possition.
You dont seem to be doing to well with your stance.
Come forward with something that makes sense and people will willingly debate and probably agree with what you say, but you do need to rethink your possition.
thanks geeser
Ronan
Dont you think it's odd that everyone thinks your wrong, have you had one post where someone has agreed with you, doesn't that suggest you go and rethink your possition.
You dont seem to be doing to well with your stance.
Come forward with something that makes sense and people will willingly debate and probably agree with what you say, but you do need to rethink your possition.
thanks geeser
Right, I plan when I ll have time to clarify my position.
But I don think the number means that you are wrong when you are alone.
I still agree that maybe I express badly my idea especially because it require other people to rethink what they have learn all their life (in our scientific societies).
But here was a thread to express why we believe in god and to give our proof.
I did. if people do not like, it is their choice but then to attack the person instead of the arguments is really not nice from them.
But again, broseph, you offered no proof. All you said was that we are conscious, therefore we are god. None of what you said made sense. It's all just baseless talk. Being conscious isn't proof of god, it isn't proof of a deity, it isn't proof of anything spiritual, and it isn't proof that god is in nature. It's philosophy. Rubbish philosophy, at that.
I mean, what's the difference between what you said, and me saying "I am fork, therefore lemon" ? What's the difference?
I wonder what I should answer to such a post, If you want to talk about someone who is hear listenning, why don't you talk directly to him and answer to his arguments by arguments.
So far, the only argument has been: no brain, no consciousness.
But: no consciousness, no brain
some have attempted to say that consciousness has to come from somewhere but finnaly they admit that the matter they believe cause consciousness has never come from somewhere. Why do they change their opinion regarding consciousness?
If you really think what I am saying is the consequence of having be under influence of drugs. Why can't you simply show some good arguments?
I would be pleased to hear them but please give ones that are justified.
Your logic cannot be faulted.
No tea leaves and hot water = no tea.
no tea=no tea leaves and hot water.
My problem is knowing what is conscious of being conscious.
Right, I plan when I ll have time to clarify my position.
But I don think the number means that you are wrong when you are alone.
I still agree that maybe I express badly my idea especially because it require other people to rethink what they have learn all their life (in our scientific societies).
But here was a thread to express why we believe in god and to give our proof.
I did. if people do not like, it is their choice but then to attack the person instead of the arguments is really not nice from them.
Do you know the story of the mother who attended a passing-out parade. She said to a friend: " look, everyone is out of step but my Ronan ! "
Do you know the story of the mother who attended a passing-out parade. She said to a friend: " look, everyone is out of step but my Ronan ! "
What the point to attack my person ?
You just take part of this thread to do that.
Why ?
Have you get so much out of step that you try to find someone that seems to be out of step and jump on it to make you a little in the step ?
Stay a nice soldier but please do not be a snitch.
But again, broseph, you offered no proof. All you said was that we are conscious, therefore we are god. None of what you said made sense. It's all just baseless talk. Being conscious isn't proof of god, it isn't proof of a deity, it isn't proof of anything spiritual, and it isn't proof that god is in nature. It's philosophy. Rubbish philosophy, at that.
I mean, what's the difference between what you said, and me saying "I am fork, therefore lemon" ? What's the difference?
You show little understanding ofg what I am saying.
Maybe I express not so good but I never said that we are god, at least not in the way you seem to indicate.
I never said: we are conscious therefore we are god!
So all your critics of this post, you should send them back to you, You are the one with such idea, not me.
I said: There is consciousness , self-evident.
and: this consciousness cannot be the 'I' that we identify with our habits, our body, our thoughts...
It is beyond all that.
First thing to start a debate is to hear what the other has to say and if you feel it does not make sense maybe it is because you did not read correctly or that you did not understand some point or that the other did not express correctly on some point.
So if you do not understand, just ask, attack the person doe snot lead anywhere.
You show little understanding ofg what I am saying.
Yer damn right about that!
I said: There is consciousness , self-evident.
and: this consciousness cannot be the 'I' that we identify with our habits, our body, our thoughts...
It is beyond all that.
First thing to start a debate is to hear what the other has to say and if you feel it does not make sense maybe it is because you did not read correctly or that you did not understand some point or that the other did not express correctly on some point.
So if you do not understand, just ask, attack the person doe snot lead anywhere.
Not attacking you, bronan. I'm just saying that what you say does not fly. There is no proof for what you say. Understand? It's not because I don't understand what you're getting at, it's because what you're getting at is imaginary. There is no proof for such a thing.
Yer damn right about that!
Not attacking you, bronan. I'm just saying that what you say does not fly. There is no proof for what you say. Understand? It's not because I don't understand what you're getting at, it's because what you're getting at is imaginary. There is no proof for such a thing.
no proof of consciousness?
come on!
You can see the evidence: consciousness exists.
If you already agree on that, then you will be able to follow me.
First, why are we so sure of the existence of consciousness?
It is because of the Cartesian doubt:
cogito ergo sum.
If you doubt all your perceptions as representing the real even the perception of yourself, then you are left with the process/entity that permits you to have this perceptions.
So what we have is: consciousness exists, it is not our perceptions.
Ok?
*************
M*W: It's been hashed and rehashed. Where's the proof guys? Who is your god, and where is he/she/it? I'd really like to hear from theists on the proof of their deity(ies). If there is a deity, its existence has to be more than just a feeling or belief. Some people have said they've had a personal experience, well so did I when I was a christian until I realized I was hallucinating (not from drugs or any substance) but from my rabid belief in christianity! I've been there, where you are, and I want to know how you feel and interpret your god.
Thanks for your imput. I look forward to hearing from you!
~ M*W
why are you so interested in other people's experiences? i've had revelations prophecy interpreted to me, and it was done through experiences that had to do with spiritual interactions and artistic expressions of various sorts, and it's changed me and my life forever. why don't you describe to me, some of your hallucinations? i've already described to you some of my spiritual interactions.
no proof of consciousness?
come on!
You can see the evidence: consciousness exists.
Dude, you're not just saying we're conscious. You're saying that consciousness is something waaaaay more than what it actually is. The only reason we are having this conversation is because humans have the gift of abstract thought. That's all there is to it.
audible
06-30-08, 03:36 PM
Do you know the story of the mother who attended a passing-out parade. She said to a friend: " look, everyone is out of step but my Ronan ! "or the time when ronan was driving home on the motorway, his friend phones and says " ronan stay of the motorway there crowded, and some nut is driving the wrong way down it" and ronan replies "theres not only one, theres hundreds of them."
or the time when ronan was driving home on the motorway, his friend phones and says " ronan stay of the motorway there crowded, and some nut is driving the wrong way down it" and ronan replies "theres not only one, theres hundreds of them."
:D :D
Dude, you're not just saying we're conscious. You're saying that consciousness is something waaaaay more than what it actually is. The only reason we are having this conversation is because humans have the gift of abstract thought. That's all there is to it.
you did not even read the following of the post, please tell me if you agree:
First, why are we so sure of the existence of consciousness?
It is because of the Cartesian doubt:
cogito ergo sum.
If you doubt all your perceptions as representing the real even the perception of yourself, then you are left with the process/entity that permits you to have this perceptions.
So what we have is: consciousness exists, it is not our perceptions.
Ok?
First, why are we so sure of the existence of consciousness?
It is because of the Cartesian doubt:
cogito ergo sum.
If you doubt all your perceptions as representing the real even the perception of yourself, then you are left with the process/entity that permits you to have this perceptions.
So what we have is: consciousness exists, it is not our perceptions.
I'm still having trouble making heads or tails of it. You're saying that consciousness is something bigger than the individual, right?
I'm still having trouble making heads or tails of it. You're saying that consciousness is something bigger than the individual, right?
Yes the individual is a perception (or a bunddle of perception), the body, the habits, the thoughts...
When I ask you who you are, you will try to describe your likes and dislikes, your appareance, your thoughts...
All that are perceptions.
Consciousness is not that. It is what makes these perception possible
But people aren't just their perceptions. People are the sum of their parts, so to speak. The heart, the lungs, liver, blood, intestines, all that stuff. And consciousness is just the result of a functioning brain.
But people aren't just their perceptions. People are the sum of their parts, so to speak. The heart, the lungs, liver, blood, intestines, all that stuff. And consciousness is just the result of a functioning brain.
You react like a tortoise.
If you do not want at least for one time to doubt what you always accepted before, you won't be able to understand what I am saying for sure.
remember, the existence of consciousness is proved by the Cartesian doubt
The existence of brain is not justified outside our perceptions. Nobody has yet been able to justify the existence of something beyond our perception except consciousness itself. Descartes tried but failed miserably with the assumption of the existence of a good god outside reality.
Now we are left with consciousness and perceptions, all other things are assumptions.
Ok?
if agree, then we will be able to continue.
You react like a tortoise.
And you type like a retard.
If you do not want at least for one time to doubt what you always accepted before, you won't be able to understand what I am saying for sure.
I've got an open mind, friend. But the shit you're spouting is just nonsense.
remember, the existence of consciousness is proved by the Cartesian doubt
The existence of brain is not justified outside our perceptions. Nobody has yet been able to justify the existence of something beyond our perception except consciousness itself. Descartes tried but failed miserably with the assumption of the existence of a good god outside reality.
That really is just philosophical bullshit. I'm being serious now.
if agree, then we will be able to continue.
For someone who gets on everyone else's case for not being willing to break from tradition, you're the only guy here who hasn't budged for his stance at all. I don't agree that nothing is real except for consciousness. Consciousness is a result of brain activity. That's why when the brain does, you are no longer conscious. Shit, all the brain has to do is suffer trauma and you're no longer conscious. The proof is right there.
So after you try to type your way around that one, feel free to fuck off.
We don't need Descartes to tell us we are conscious; we know that already. His Cogito relates to existence, not just consciousness, Cogito ergo sum = I think, therefore I am. Like the rest of us he took consciousness for granted otherwise who or what would have pursued the method of doubt. BTW, strictly speaking he was only entitled to say " there is thinking"
And you type like a retard.
:p
For someone who gets on everyone else's case for not being willing to break from tradition, you're the only guy here who hasn't budged for his stance at all. I don't agree that nothing is real except for consciousness. Consciousness is a result of brain activity.
Please doubt them at least, it is the only think I ask.
You will see why if you just make this effort.
That's why when the brain does, you are no longer conscious. Shit, all the brain has to do is suffer trauma and you're no longer conscious. The proof is right there.
no consciousness, no brain.
consciousness is never interrupted, when I wake up I only see that time jumped and that my body state changed abruptly from one position to another.
On your side, you only see me falling, but you cannot prove that I am not conscious. Also on your side there is consciousness.
We can never experience unconsciousness. (by definition)
So if you want to be a empiricist, you should realize that.
The discussion is again going nowhere because you do not want to take the stance that the existence of a brain beyond your perception is false.
You have no reason to at least not try with that because nobody can justify the existence of a brain beyond perception. nobody.
We don't need Descartes to tell us we are conscious; we know that already. His Cogito relates to existence, not just consciousness, Cogito ergo sum = I think, therefore I am. Like the rest of us he took consciousness for granted otherwise who or what would have pursued the method of doubt. BTW, strictly speaking he was only entitled to say " there is thinking"
You did not understand Descartes then.
Je pense donc je suis = I think therefore I am
The 'I' is not the body, the habits of descartes because all that is perceptions also.
The 'I' that Descartes talk is consciousness itself.
But he believed there was many 'I' consciousness different than his 'I', different souls.
But he failed to justify this. He tried with the assumption of the existence of a good god that created a world arround with different soul and give human the ability to know the world.
Also, when he was using the word thinking (penser in french) he was referring to consciousness.
so he was only entitled to say: there is consciousness!
Read him.
You are maybe a butterfly dreaming of being a human (Chuang Tzu)
The discussion is again going nowhere because you do not want to take the stance that the existence of a brain beyond your perception is false.
You have no reason to at least not try with that because nobody can justify the existence of a brain beyond perception. nobody.
I shouldn't have to take that stance. I've already told you that you're full of shit. Seriously, this is not reality you're talking about here. These are nifty ideas that have absolutely no basis in reality.
no consciousness, no brain.
consciousness is never interrupted, when I wake up I only see that time jumped and that my body state changed abruptly from one position to another.
On your side, you only see me falling, but you cannot prove that I am not conscious. Also on your side there is consciousness.
We can never experience unconsciousness. (by definition)
So if you want to be a empiricist, you should realize that.
:eek:
[QUOTE=ronan;1914273]You did not understand Descartes then.
Je pense donc je suis = I think therefore I am
The 'I' is not the body, the habits of descartes because all that is perceptions also.
The 'I' that Descartes talk is consciousness itself.
But he believed there was many 'I' consciousness different than his 'I', different souls.
But he failed to justify this. He tried with the assumption of the existence of a good god that created a world arround with different soul and give human the ability to know the world.
Also, when he was using the word thinking (penser in french) he was referring to consciousness.
so he was only entitled to say: there is consciousness!
I have read Descartes but I disagree with your interpretation. He was only entitled to conclude that there "is thinking". Thinking is what a brain does.
What on earth has "penser", to think, got to do with consciousness other than in the sense that I may be conscious that I am thinking. The terms are not interchangeable.
I have read Descartes but I disagree with your interpretation. He was only entitled to conclude that there "is thinking". Thinking is what a brain does.
What on earth has "penser", to think, got to do with consciousness other than in the sense that I may be conscious that I am thinking. The terms are not interchangeable.
Reread Descartes is the only thing I can tell you.
Anyway use your experience and check with yourself: if thinking is perceiving a rose, then I agree with you but the term consciousness is better to express what we do no matter how much thinking we do.
It was in this meaning that Descartes use the word "penser".
The only thing we can say for sure is that there is consciousness.
Maybe you want to say that there is thinking but not consciousness?
In this case I disagree and Descartes also would disagree.
Ronan(troll)
I tried the nice way the only conclusion to your extreme arrogance, is you must be a Troll.
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant messages in an online community.
It cant possibly be you, thats wrong can it.
WOW! your one cocksure arrogant tnuc.
Guys! don't feed the troll.
Pinocchio's Hoof
07-01-08, 04:14 AM
I shouldn't have to take that stance. I've already told you that you're full of shit. Seriously, this is not reality you're talking about here. These are nifty ideas that have absolutely no basis in reality.
:eek:
Perhaps ronan and pharoahmoan should get it on, they both talk aloof, self-ego inflating nonsense and will go nowhere with their logic and rationality...
Unless its somewhere you can't see,hear,touch,feel,smell..
Perhaps P/moan can enlighten ronan about his 13.7 billion year existence since before the big bang as a consciousness that has continuoulsy been reborn.......maybe they are the same person lol
What's funny is that these people don't even realize that they are arguing that their senses are lying to them. When you go blind, you're not really blind, all the lights just went out, is all.
What's funny is that these people don't even realize that they are arguing that their senses are lying to them. When you go blind, you're not really blind, all the lights just went out, is all.
Not true JDawg, I live in this world as you live in it, but I just relativise its existence because of logic.
But if you do not even want to follow just a little the logical argument, then it is your choice.
Not true JDawg, I live in this world as you live in it, but I just relativise its existence because of logic.
No, no, no. You can't have it both ways. You can spend 90 posts telling everyone that what they see is an illusion, and then turn around and say you're just "one of the guys".
There is no logic to your argument, friend.
EmptyForceOfChi
07-01-08, 07:00 PM
You are maybe a butterfly dreaming of being a human (Chuang Tzu)
Wasn't that first by lao tzu, I forget the daodejing verse let me check, by the way I understand what your saying to Jd.
peace.
EmptyForceOfChi
07-01-08, 07:05 PM
No, no, no. You can't have it both ways. You can spend 90 posts telling everyone that what they see is an illusion, and then turn around and say you're just "one of the guys".
There is no logic to your argument, friend.
I see logic in his argument, think about it properly go back and read the earlier posts before you two went off track. you was about to fully grasp it until he said your a slow tortoise then you got defensive because he got impatiet.
Go back and read it again up until the point where he insulted you, then continue the debate.
peace.
PsychoticEpisode
07-01-08, 10:29 PM
I'm trying to understand this.
Now we are left with consciousness and perceptions, all other things are assumptions.
Yes the individual is a perception (or a bunddle of perception), the body, the habits, the thoughts...
Quote #1 says we are left with consciousness and perception yet #2 says people & thoughts are perceptions. Consciousness you said was the only thing real so I would have to conclude that all perceptions are not real. Am I right so far?
Knowing this, can I rephrase 'I think therefore I am' to read:
Perceptions(I) perceive(think) therefore perceptions(I) are assumed(am)....
Assumed and am kind of contradict....am I missing something?
or
Nothing that is real (I) does nothing real(think) therefore nothing that is real(I) is assumed(am)....
Same problem....you did say everything else was an assumption so I'm using the state of being as an assumption.
If the state of being is an assumption and consciousness has a state of being then is not consciousness also an assumption?
If the state of being is a perception then is consciousness also a perception? No different than an individual. It would seem that state of being should also be real. If consciousness is real then it must have a state of being, therefore state of being is real.
TW Scott
07-02-08, 03:03 AM
*************
M*W: Yes, they do, and the literal sun was given many a name and different identities by humans over the millenia. That's one reason I know there is no true god.
How is that proof there is no true god? Logically it is lonly proof that the sun has been known by many names and that people have attributed it with personalities based on their culture. Extrapolating this to mean more is bad science and worse logic.
audible
07-02-08, 04:26 AM
Extrapolating this to mean more is bad science and worse logic.How so, explain.
Wasn't that first by lao tzu, I forget the daodejing verse let me check,
by the way I understand what your saying to Jd.
peace.
So finnaly I am not alone in the "wrong" way ;)
Good to know :)
No, no, no. You can't have it both ways. You can spend 90 posts telling everyone that what they see is an illusion, and then turn around and say you're just "one of the guys".
There is no logic to your argument, friend.
I assure you I am living here in this world, I am even typing on a computer to post some comment here on sciforums :p
The problem with our discussion is the use of words which have many meaning.
I'm trying to understand this.
Quote #1 says we are left with consciousness and perception yet #2 says people & thoughts are perceptions. Consciousness you said was the only thing real so I would have to conclude that all perceptions are not real. Am I right so far?
Here the word real have many meaning:
for example it can mean the banana in front of you is real, it means that I can grasp it and eat it and feel like I eat a banana. In other word it is not an fake banana.
In this way banana, people are real
Other definition of reality would mean what is beyond perception.
Here according to science what we see as banana is the result of our brain and is not really out there (in reality beyond our perception, at leats not as a banana). It is a construction made by our biological body, and as such it is share by the human community and thus it has a reality for them. It is thus a relative reality.
Similarly all our perception, including the brain have relative reality. they are perception due to our place in the world, due our identity, to our perspective.
Knowing this, can I rephrase 'I think therefore I am' to read:
Perceptions(I) perceive(think) therefore perceptions(I) are assumed(am)....
Assumed and am kind of contradict....am I missing something?
Here is the problem with the 'I'.
It can means consciousness or the percpetion of one self.
When I say I am ronan, this I is my body, my habits....
while when Descartes used his doubt, 'I' was reffering to consciousness.
therefore you should not confuse the 'I' which is consciousness and the 'I' which is your identity (perceived)
or
Nothing that is real (I) does nothing real(think) therefore nothing that is real(I) is assumed(am)....
Same problem....you did say everything else was an assumption so I'm using the state of being as an assumption.
If the state of being is an assumption and consciousness has a state of being then is not consciousness also an assumption?
If the state of being is a perception then is consciousness also a perception? No different than an individual. It would seem that state of being should also be real. If consciousness is real then it must have a state of being, therefore state of being is real.
Here I did not follow you,
what I say is that:
perception are real as perception but to say that they represent what is beyond themselves (reality) is an assumption.
while consciousness is real since without it there would be no perception.
And that this consciousness could not be a perception, thus it is not you, not me , neither anything perceived,
It is god. it permits perception, it permits the existence of our phenomenal world composed of banana and people.
without god (consciousness), no phenomenal world
so god/consciousness (which is not you, not me, not banana, not anything perceived) exists.
mustafhakofi
07-02-08, 09:40 AM
I see logic in his argument, think about it properly go back and read the earlier posts before you two went off track. you was about to fully grasp it until he said your a slow tortoise then you got defensive because he got impatiet.
peace.Can you explain it to the rest of us mere mortals, or do we all need a smack on the head with a mallet, to get it.
Simon Anders
07-02-08, 09:55 AM
How so, explain.
You cannot psychoanalyze a belief and find a pattern and say THAT IS THE CAUSE.
For example: a woman works at a company. Twice she has complained to management about two different supervisors. She says they are sexist and do not treat her with respect. We find out that the woman's father was a real tyrant who thought women should make babies and stay at home. We find out that she has had conflicts with male authority figures in the past.
So she must be wrong about these two guys?
No.
Her two supervisors could very well be assholes who think women are stupid and have treated her with no respect.
To see a psychological pattern can raise doubts, but it does not in any way constitute proof of anything.
mustafhakofi
07-02-08, 10:10 AM
So finnaly I am not alone in the "wrong" way ;)
Good to know :)Yes the lunatics are taking over the asylum.I assure you I am living here in this world, I am even typing on a computer to post some comment here on sciforumsYes it is surprising how your managing that, with a straight jacket on.
The problem with our discussion is the use of words which have many meaning.Or could it be you like to change the meaning of words to suit your current post.
Here the word real have many meaning: The word real only has one proper meaning, physically existing not imaginary, authentic undisputed verifiable fact.
for example it can mean the banana in front of you is real, it means that I can grasp it and eat it and feel like I eat a banana. In other word it is not an fake banana. In this way banana, people are real, Are they yellow these banana people of yours, or are they like the green pea pod people, from Pensacola, Florida.Other definition of reality would mean what is beyond perception. Absolute rubbish, in your imagination probably.Here according to science what we see as banana is the result of our brain and is not really out there (in reality beyond our perception, at leats not as a banana).So this banana, that looks, taste, smells, feels, and even sounds like a banana is a what!. If it waddles like a duck, looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, smells like duck and taste like duck, then it must be a fish. It is a construction made by our biological body,No it's a construction made by your imagination, emphasis on your imagination. and as such it is share by the human community and thus it has a reality for them. It is thus a relative reality.Rubbish, a banana is a banana to everybody, even though it may have different names, it will always be a half moon shaped, yellow, fruit. unless you wish to think of it as an orange, but us normal people will continue to see it as it is, a banana.Similarly all our perception, including the brain have relative reality. they are perception due to our place in the world, due our identity, to our perspective. No they are facts, in this world they would be fact irregardless of us existing, there would still be bananas, oranges and apples etc... You do talk some utter and complete bollocks.
Simon Anders
07-02-08, 10:19 AM
The word real only has one proper meaning, physically existing not imaginary, authentic undisputed verifiable fact.
You are so busy being insulting that you missed the fact that he described two different meanings for the word 'real'. So in this case, at least, your mocking and insulting comes off very poorly. I'll toss in a 3rd definition: REAL=actual rather than potential or possible.
audible
07-02-08, 10:22 AM
You cannot psychoanalyze a belief and find a pattern and say THAT IS THE CAUSE.Who's psychoanalyzing a belief, what M*W is stating, has been shown to be factual, given that all the belief systems past a present stem from the same thing.
If you use the same logic TWScott is using, you could say how is that proof that there isn't a flying pink unicorn. Stating an imaginary concept as real is infantile. The Sun however we can see, and feel, without it we would all die.
The "how so, explain" still stands.
mustafhakofi
07-02-08, 10:35 AM
You are so busy being insulting that you missed the fact that he described two different meanings for the word 'real'. So in this case, at least, your mocking and insulting comes off very poorly. I'll toss in a 3rd definition: REAL=actual rather than potential or possible.These so called other meaning or should we put them in there proper position sub-meanings were covered here "The word real only has one proper meaning, physically existing, not imaginary, authentic, undisputed, verifiable, fact." The main one being physically existing.
I didn't miss anything, he only gave what he believed reality meant, your is a sub-meaning see Authentic in the previous quote.
If a person continues to be ignorant whilst all around him is trying to correct him, then he doesn't deserve anything other then ridicule, it's Compounded ignorance the Romans had a word for it "dulcis ignorantia".
EmptyForceOfChi
07-02-08, 10:37 AM
Can you explain it to the rest of us mere mortals, or do we all need a smack on the head with a mallet, to get it.
Basicaly he is arguing that the working brain alone of an animal does not result in consciousness, for instance if you look at it on a computer wiring scale it comes to the same conclusion. A wired network and system can send and recieve information that is processed and checked as many ways as you like but it will not result in consciousness of the system.
We have perception of the working system outside of the regular function, Like I can have perception of a rock I look at, He is saying our perception is a higher state from another source, not a result of just a functioning computer.
peace.
Simon Anders
07-02-08, 11:45 AM
These so called other meaning or should we put them in there proper position sub-meanings were covered here The main one being physically existing.
Does a potential physically exist or not?
Does a fake banana exist or not?
Does a relationship physically exist?
Does the future or the past exist? Are they unreal in the same sense as the square root of negative one and my second penis?
Do ideas exist? Where?
Biophysicist Gregory Engel and his colleagues cooled a green sulfur bacterium—Chlorobium tepidum, one of the oldest photosynthesizers on the planet—to 77 kelvins [–321 degrees Fahrenheit] and then pulsed it with extremely short bursts of laser light. By manipulating these pulses, the researchers could track the flow of energy through the bacterium's photosynthetic system. "We always thought of it as hopping through the system, the same way that you or I might run through a maze of bushes," Engel explains. "But, instead of coming to an intersection and going left or right, it can actually go in both directions at once and explore many different paths most efficiently."
In other words, plants are employing the basic principles of quantum mechanics to transfer energy from chromophore (photosynthetic molecule) to chromophore until it reaches the so-called reaction center where photosynthesis, as it is classically defined, takes place. The particles of energy are behaving like waves. "We see very strong evidence for a wavelike motion of energy through these photosynthetic complexes," Engel says. The results appear in the current issue of Nature.
Does the light 'really' go down the various pathways at the same time?
I didn't miss anything, he only gave what he believed reality meant, your is a sub-meaning see Authentic in the previous quote.
If a person continues to be ignorant whilst all around him is trying to correct him, then he doesn't deserve anything other then ridicule, it's Compounded ignorance the Romans had a word for it "dulcis ignorantia"
You could ignore him.
mustafhakofi
07-02-08, 01:10 PM
Does a potential physically exist or not?No.
Does a fake banana exist or not?Yes, as a fake banana.
Does a relationship physically exist?No, not physically, but it's not imaginary and verifiable
Does the future or the past exist? No, but one did, and the other may do tomorrow, after it metamorphosis's as the present, they are also verifiable.
Do ideas exist?Yes. in the electric discharges in the brain. Because they are not imaginary, and verifiable.
mustafhakofi
07-02-08, 01:51 PM
Basically he is arguing that the working brain alone of an animal does not result in consciousness, for instance if you look at it on a computer wiring scale it comes to the same conclusion. A wired network and system can send and receive information that is processed and checked as many ways as you like but it will not result in consciousness of the system. Yes I gathered that, but it makes no sense, it is a poor analogy, a computer is a an inanimate object. Whereas mans/animals brains function, result in consciousness, the only way the brain couldn't would be if the man/animal was comatose. We have perception of the working system outside of the regular function, Do we, what like an outer body experience. Like I can have perception of a rock I look at, But so can I, but I'm not on the outside look in.He is saying our perception is a higher state from another source, I know he's making that baseless assumption, but it doesn't follow, it needs evidence, doesn't it... not a result of just a functioning computer.
humans/animals aren't just functioning computers. they are a lot more.
joepistole
07-02-08, 01:57 PM
Lack of proof is not in and of itself proof!
mustafhakofi
07-02-08, 03:45 PM
Lack of proof is not in and of itself proof! It only takes one micro instance of a thing to show it exists. It is however unreasonable to believe something, without evidence.
Without any reasonable proof, anything can be assumed to exist.
joepistole
07-02-08, 04:15 PM
Atoms were assumed to exist before there was proof of existence. Strings are presumed to exist without proof of existance. But again, lack of proof does not consitute proof.
mustafhakofi
07-02-08, 04:37 PM
Atoms were assumed to exist before there was proof of existence. Strings are presumed to exist without proof of existance. But again, lack of proof does not consitute proof.
And the earth was assumed to be flat, and the sun went round the earth, etc...
it still remains unreasonable to accept something without evidence.
Shall we go round again.
PsychoticEpisode
07-02-08, 05:44 PM
Here the word real have many meaning....
By your definition what you just said is an assumption. If there is only one meaning for 'real', then that is a perception, thusly rendering other meanings to the assumption category. Since we don't know which 'real' is being referred to, then any meaning for 'real' is an assumption, including the perceived real meaning. Any perceived meaning for a word thus becomes an assumption. IOW there can be no perceived meaning(perception) for words with multiple meanings. That said .....
Other definition of reality would mean what is beyond perception
Since reality is a derivative of the word 'real' which is endowed with multiple meanings and is an assumption then anything beyond perception, a definition you just mentioned for reality, is an assumption.
I just checked Answers.com for the meaning of consciousness. There are 4 meanings available to the reader. God has 6 meanings(freedictionary.com). without god (consciousness), no phenomenal world.......so god/consciousness (which is not you, not me, not banana, not anything perceived) exists. If God/consciousness is perceived but has multiple meanings then why is He not an assumption? By your definition God exists but since there is no way of knowing which meaning for consciousness or god you are using then it cannot be peceived and assumptions exist as I stated earlier. One true meaning would make god/consciousness a perception at least.
I can only conclude that nothing is real, perceived meanings are assumptions, god/consciousness because of their multiple meanings cannot be real, perception maybe but more than likely assumptions.
However I need something real, perhaps it's everything that's sensed. Maybe every word in the dictionary with multiple meanings should be reduced to one meaning and the other meanings given new words.
Yes the lunatics are taking over the asylum.
Don you want to join the party?
Yes it is surprising how your managing that, with a straight jacket on.
Try it. It makes the things lot's easier ;)
Or could it be you like to change the meaning of words to suit your current post.
No, the word "reality" has different meaning
The word real only has one proper meaning, physically existing not imaginary, authentic undisputed verifiable fact.
physically existing ?
do you want to refer to the physical theories that talk of physical object not perceivable?
do you want to talk of the physical reality behind our perception of which the brain is coomposed and generate our perception?
this is the meaning I was refering when I was talking abour the reality behind our perceptions. The physical reality is not composed of bananas :p
the other meaning is the one used in everydy language by the adjective "real":
this banana is real is to say that we can eat it and have the delicious taste of a real banana, as opposed to fake bananas.
But here we are not referring to something behind our perception, at least not to what the reality is composed of.
Absolute rubbish, in your imagination probably
.So this banana, that looks, taste, smells, feels, and even sounds like a banana is a what!. If it waddles like a duck, looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, smells like duck and taste like duck, then it must be a fish.
a banana has menaing only to beings able to interact with it. thus without humans or monkeys or anything, banana as yellow and sweet would loose its existence.
The existence, the reality of banana is relative to us.
you can say that this banana is an ensemble of atom (from your physical perspective) but it is no more a banana as something sweet, yellow.
all these adjective have meaning because of the interaction of these atom to our retinas and our gustative organ.
No it's a construction made by your imagination, emphasis on your imagination.
No it is in fact the definition you use: physical reality
No they are facts, in this world they would be fact irregardless of us existing, there would still be bananas, oranges and apples etc...
no they would be only bananas in potentiality. (to use Simon Anders definition)
You do talk some utter and complete bollocks.
Please read Varela or Brian Smith, maybe you will listen to them.
These so called other meaning or should we put them in there proper position sub-meanings were covered here The main one being physically existing.
physically existing, please define it.
Ithink you mean: what the reality is compose dof independently of our observation. in otehr word what is behind our perception and generate them in the case of the brain.
If a person continues to be ignorant whilst all around him is trying to correct him, then he doesn't deserve anything other then ridicule, it's Compounded ignorance the Romans had a word for it "dulcis ignorantia".
I am not ignorant on the basic scientific assumption, I am proposing an justified alternative
Basicaly he is arguing that the working brain alone of an animal does not result in consciousness, for instance if you look at it on a computer wiring scale it comes to the same conclusion. A wired network and system can send and recieve information that is processed and checked as many ways as you like but it will not result in consciousness of the system.
Not really, I want to say that our perception are the result of consciousness alone.
no need for a physical reality that give birth to consciousness in a unknown or magical way.
I know he's making that baseless assumption, but it doesn't follow, it needs evidence, doesn't it...humans/animals aren't just functioning computers. they are a lot more.
You BELIEVE I make such assumption but I do not. You are the one who amke sthe assumption that brain causes consciousness! isn'it?
Simon Anders
07-03-08, 10:07 AM
Is a experience real?
Where is it physically?
mustafhakofi
07-03-08, 04:18 PM
Yes the lunatics are taking over the asylum.
Don you want to join the party?Yes of course, if I believed god is consciousness, and we are mere perceptions.
Yes it is surprising how your managing that, with a straight jacket on.
Try it. It makes the things lot's easierwell concidering what you write it would seem so.
Or could it be you like to change the meaning of words to suit your current post.
No, the word "reality" has different meaningHowever you said "Here the word real have many meaning" which I queried. however reality has only one meaning also it is being real. A real thing, the objective universe.
The word real only has one proper meaning, physically existing not imaginary, authentic undisputed verifiable fact. ”
physically existing ?Pertaining to that which is material, actual being. IE: animate.
Also the properties of matter and energy other than those peculiar to living matter being real. IE: inanimate.do you want to refer to the physical theories that talk of physical object not perceivable?I'd like to see a link or to where this might be debated.
do you want to talk of the physical reality behind our perception of which the brain is coomposed and generate our perception?No, thats already known. unless we delve into your imagined version that is.
this is the meaning I was refering when I was talking abour the reality behind our perceptions. No you were not, you were referring to your imagined version. other meaning is the one used in everydy language by the adjective "real": As I have shown in a above reply, reality is being real, and real is physicaly existing.none of your abstract ideas fit.
So this banana, that looks, taste, smells, feels, and even sounds like a banana is a what!. If it waddles like a duck, looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, smells like duck and taste like duck, then it must be a fish.
a banana has menaing only to beings able to interact with it. thus without humans or monkeys or anything, banana as yellow and sweet would loose its existence.no it would still exist, if humans no longer existed, bananas would not cease to exist, Only humans would. lets make it slightly easier for you if a man is dead he ceases to exist, and as such he has no consciousness, so the banana does not exist to him as he can no longer interact with his surroundings, but the banana hasn't ceased to exist simply because the man has.
No it's a construction made by your imagination, emphasis on your imagination.
No it is in fact the definition you use: physical realityNot my definition, Have I written the word circle or the word square in the brackets (circle)? You can call a banana anything you like, but it will always be yellow and sweet irregardless of whether you or I exist.
No they are facts, in this world they would be fact irregardless of us existing, there would still be bananas, oranges and apples etc...
no they would be only bananas in potentiality. (to use Simon Anders definition)How so, do bananas cease to exist simply because we do. And please don't trying to explain, you will only come back with the same irrational rubbish.
You do talk some utter and complete bollocks.
Please read Varela or Brian Smith, maybe you will listen to them. Do you mean Francisco Varela the chilean biologist, a proponant of the Metaphysical embodiment BS.
These so called other meaning or should we put them in there proper position sub-meanings were covered here The main one being physically existing
physically existing, please define it.See reply 4 above.
Ithink you mean: what the reality is compose dof independently of our observation. in otehr word what is behind our perception and generate them in the case of the brain.if you mean the brains neuro-network then yes.
If a person continues to be ignorant whilst all around him is trying to correct him, then he doesn't deserve anything other then ridicule, it's Compounded ignorance the Romans had a word for it "dulcis ignorantia"
I am not ignorant on the basic scientific assumption, I am proposing an justified alternativeNo your proposing your imagined alternative, Some way of verifing it would not go amis.
I know he's making that baseless assumption, but it doesn't follow, it needs evidence, doesn't it...humans/animals aren't just functioning computers. they are a lot more.
You BELIEVE I make such assumption but I do not.have you got one ounce of evidence for verification. You are the one who amke sthe assumption that brain causes consciousness! isn'it How is the brain causing consciousness, an assumption, when your dead there is no brain function and therefore no consciousness, but when your alive there is brain function and low and behold consciousness, WOW would you wonder at it.
mustafhakofi
07-03-08, 04:31 PM
Is a experience real? not as a memory engram for something gained from what one has observed. But at the time of the objective experience happening, yes it's real, it later becomes a subjective memory of an objective experience. Which is pertaining to something that can be known as real, as part of reality.
Where is it physically?It was only an objective physical experience at the time of it's happening. after that it is merely a memory, explained above.
EmptyForceOfChi
07-03-08, 09:40 PM
mustafhakofi
Yes I gathered that, but it makes no sense, it is a poor analogy, a computer is a an inanimate object. Whereas mans/animals brains function, result in consciousness,
Only humans are conscious, not animals in general, and no the human brain is seen by science as just a very complex computer.
the only way the brain couldn't would be if the man/animal was comatose.
maybe so,
Do we, what like an outer body experience.
No like the fact that you can monitor all of your actions as you do them, while monitoring yourself monitoring yourself.
But so can I, but I'm not on the outside look in.
You dont have to be on the outside, the point is the perception regardless.
I know he's making that baseless assumption, but it doesn't follow, it needs evidence, doesn't it
It's not a baseless assumption it is a thought out guess based on something that doesent make sense yet to science. It does follow but it doesent have evidence to support it.
...humans/animals aren't just functioning computers. they are a lot more
wat would you say the brain is then if not an organic computer?.
peace.
EmptyForceOfChi
07-03-08, 09:44 PM
If you have a computer that can asses itself, monitor itself, test itself and send data back and forth to all of its various parts what then would you need to add to the computer to make it conscious of its own self analisys?.
peace.
mustafhakofi
07-04-08, 04:50 AM
mustafhakofi
Only humans are conscious, not animals in general, and no the human brain is seen by science as just a very complex computer. Sorry this is utter rubbish, see later statement.No like the fact that you can monitor all of your actions as you do them, while monitoring yourself monitoring yourself.Rubbish again, how do I monitor any one of the 3 trillion atoms in one blood cell traveling around my body, how do I tag it so I can watch it.It's not a baseless assumption it is a thought out guess based on something that doesent make sense yet to science. It does follow but it doesent have evidence to support it. lol. So it's a Guess that makes no Sense and has no Evidence, Right! a Baseless Assumption.wat would you say the brain is then if not an organic computer?. Computers were not designed to be models of the human brain.
The human brain is stimulated by chemicals, Which are only understood at a basic level. the two are mutually exclusive.
If you have a computer that can asses itself, monitor itself, test itself and send data back and forth to all of its various parts what then would you need to add to the computer to make it conscious of its own self analisys?.peace.You tell me!, when does something become Sentient then Sapient.
Animals qualify as a sentient beings, Computers don't. Because we know Computers can only make intelligent decisions or communicate, if it is programmed by an external source. But a sentient being has self will. A sentient being, can express itself without words by body/eye language and personal space.
So then it is a pretty damn impossible question to answer, which will probably be debated and tested for eons.
To be sentient all we know is, they must have these things, will, desire, self awareness, ethics, personality, intelligence, insight, fear of death, and so on.
But to become sapient they must have Human or higher level intelligence.
from the Latin Sentire "to feel" Sapere "to know"
medicine woman says she want to see, toutch, or feel God.
I want to say that we can't see material things that we use and control.
like atom electrones..etc.
it's only logical that the creator is noting like creation.
tell me who is controling your heart beat second by second and providing you the power to breath.
don't tell me nature cause you are a part of nature, and you use it.
nature has no mind this real merical that humans have, not monkeys!!!!!
God is this power that keeps every thing in order.
you can't see the power of electricity and magnatesm?
they are powers of nature.
who take our life in a certin time.
why the healthy sometimes die and the sick stays for a long time.
think about all that and you will see God in your heart so clear.
God is not a body of flesh and blood, he is not jesus, but jesus is just a messenger of God.
God is the only truth in this world, and from him and by him every thing is existing.
set alone, jsut you and go deep in your innerself and ask who are you, and who is holding you together, as the died become dust and dirt?????
ain.....
medicine woman says she want to see, toutch, or feel God.
I want to say that we can't see material things that we use and control.
like atom electrones..etc.
it's only logical that the creator is noting like creation.
tell me who is controling your heart beat second by second and providing you the power to breath.
don't tell me nature cause you are a part of nature, and you use it.
nature has no mind this real merical that humans have, not monkeys!!!!!
God is this power that keeps every thing in order.
you can't see the power of electricity and magnatesm?
they are powers of nature.
who take our life in a certin time.
why the healthy sometimes die and the sick stays for a long time.
think about all that and you will see God in your heart so clear.
God is not a body of flesh and blood, he is not jesus, but jesus is just a messenger of God.
God is the only truth in this world, and from him and by him every thing is existing.
set alone, jsut you and go deep in your innerself and ask who are you, and who is holding you together, as the died become dust and dirt?????
ain.....
Where's the proof guys?
here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEXGKzH0F9c
Pinocchio's Hoof
07-12-08, 10:15 AM
here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEXGKzH0F9c
lol:blbl:
medicine woman says she want to see, toutch, or feel God.
I want to say that we can't see material things that we use and control.
like atom electrones..etc.
it's only logical that the creator is noting like creation.
tell me who is controling your heart beat second by second and providing you the power to breath.
don't tell me nature cause you are a part of nature, and you use it.
nature has no mind this real merical that humans have, not monkeys!!!!!
God is this power that keeps every thing in order.
you can't see the power of electricity and magnatesm?
they are powers of nature.
who take our life in a certin time.
why the healthy sometimes die and the sick stays for a long time.
think about all that and you will see God in your heart so clear.
God is not a body of flesh and blood, he is not jesus, but jesus is just a messenger of God.
God is the only truth in this world, and from him and by him every thing is existing.
set alone, jsut you and go deep in your innerself and ask who are you, and who is holding you together, as the died become dust and dirt?????
ain.....
Do you wear a red nose when you recite that ? I bet you're a wow at parties.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.