Does God exist? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
User avatar
By Kasu
#13588184
I smoked DMT which our brains get flooded with at birth and death.. It is like our souls are in a higher dimension, we ARE 10 dimensional hyperspace, and you are simply looking down into the 3rd dimension and controlling this body like a puppet. Where there is a nervous system, there is consciousness. As long as serotonin is flowing between your neurons, you are confined to this 3D world of the here and now, in this particular body, in this ego, which you wake up to every day. The neurotransmitter is like a radio antenna tuned into a specific dimensional frequency. There are other antenna's which transmit higher dimensional data.

As soon as you replace serotonin with a higher energy neurotransmitter such as DMT, your true transdimensional nature -- the secret of reality -- is revealed, that you are God. Everyone, all biological life, is a microcosm of the universe, everyone is an expression of the whole (god). There is this 10 dimensional matrix of matter, energy, and information, which is here for who knows what reason, its unspeakable, and then there is the quantum observer which endlessly navigates through this data set and experiences every possible and impossible scenario forever.

And this transdimensional genetic object, which is behind all biological life (which is connected together through time by DNA), for some reason, set nervous systems up to flood with DMT at birth and death to remind life that it is a manifestation of God. You are not only you, you are your parents, your children, your grandparents/grandchildren, all of your ancestors, all of your successors, and ultimately every living being on the planet and universe which ever lived.

Time only appears linear to human consciousness during this life time of 60 or 70 years, and we think the entire universe is at this specific moment in time, that this is the "real time" of the universe. Wrong. This is the time that *you* are experiencing, this is how the brain puts together the fifth dimension. But reality is not confined to human consciousness. When you're dead, what is stopping time from flowing backwards? What will stop you from entering into the fifth dimension where all "time" occurs simultaneously and exists spatially, where you can flat out see all your past lives in full 4D view? What will stop you from waking up in a parallel timeline where you didn't die, or where you were someone else, being reborn as someone in the past or future, or in a different universe?

The unity and collaboration between the quantum observer and a quantum system IS God. This unity,this multiverse and quantum system, has no beginning and no end. Bodies are temporary, but the act of observing the infinite scenarios of the multiverse is eternal. That is God.
User avatar
By Suska
#13588221
Kasu is all whacked out on drugs, so he knows better than anyone what's real.
User avatar
By lubbockjoe
#13588239
Kasu wrote:I smoked DMT which our brains get flooded with at birth and death.. It is like our souls are in a higher dimension, we ARE 10 dimensional hyperspace, and you are simply looking down into the 3rd dimension and controlling this body like a puppet. Where there is a nervous system, there is consciousness. As long as serotonin is flowing between your neurons, you are confined to this 3D world of the here and now, in this particular body, in this ego, which you wake up to every day. The neurotransmitter is like a radio antenna tuned into a specific dimensional frequency. There are other antenna's which transmit higher dimensional data.

As soon as you replace serotonin with a higher energy neurotransmitter such as DMT, your true transdimensional nature -- the secret of reality -- is revealed, that you are God. Everyone, all biological life, is a microcosm of the universe, everyone is an expression of the whole (god). There is this 10 dimensional matrix of matter, energy, and information, which is here for who knows what reason, its unspeakable, and then there is the quantum observer which endlessly navigates through this data set and experiences every possible and impossible scenario forever.

And this transdimensional genetic object, which is behind all biological life (which is connected together through time by DNA), for some reason, set nervous systems up to flood with DMT at birth and death to remind life that it is a manifestation of God. You are not only you, you are your parents, your children, your grandparents/grandchildren, all of your ancestors, all of your successors, and ultimately every living being on the planet and universe which ever lived.

Time only appears linear to human consciousness during this life time of 60 or 70 years, and we think the entire universe is at this specific moment in time, that this is the "real time" of the universe. Wrong. This is the time that *you* are experiencing, this is how the brain puts together the fifth dimension. But reality is not confined to human consciousness. When you're dead, what is stopping time from flowing backwards? What will stop you from entering into the fifth dimension where all "time" occurs simultaneously and exists spatially, where you can flat out see all your past lives in full 4D view? What will stop you from waking up in a parallel timeline where you didn't die, or where you were someone else, being reborn as someone in the past or future, or in a different universe?

The unity and collaboration between the quantum observer and a quantum system IS God. This unity,this multiverse and quantum system, has no beginning and no end. Bodies are temporary, but the act of observing the infinite scenarios of the multiverse is eternal. That is God.

I do not wish to change your opinion. However, I believe this answer does not prove that god exists.

Two statements remain to the question: Does god exist?
1) The existence of god cannot be proven.
2) The existence of god cannot be disproven.
By Agent Steel
#13588334
Can't we end this thread, and all agree with:

1) The existence of god cannot be proven.
2) The existence of god cannot be disproven.

If your answer is no...
You think too highly of yourself.


Oh wow you're such a genius!!! I've never heard anyone come to that realization before. :roll:

Of course what you're saying is true, but the question is is it an important point to note? No, it isn't. It's not important to point out that God cannot be disproven because NOTHING can be disproven. We can't disprove the existence of unicorns, minotaurs, dragons, ghosts, loch ness, etc. THIS IS NOT A POWERFUL ARGUMENT. Saying that something cannot be DISPROVEN doesn't make something the SLIGHTEST BIT MORE LIKELY THAT IT'S REAL.

Of course God CAN be disproven depending on what definition you're talking about.
User avatar
By Melodramatic
#13588353
Agent Steel wrote:But see that’s just the thing; I don’t think you do fully believe that god exists, because earlier you admitted that my argument logically refuted your God.


I believe that god exists because I feel god exists. Due to this I don't base my logic on that belief.

Agent Steel wrote:You’ve already admitted that logic has nothing to do with it.


logic has everything to do you this invented diabolical machine. It has nothing to do with my belief, and neither does said machine.

Agent Steel wrote: You should have respect for other people of course,


That's what I meant...

Agent Steel wrote:I don’t accept your belief because it makes no sense.


I did not ask you to accept my belief. In fact you can't accept my belief if you don't feel it in the first place.

Agent Steel wrote:If you really knew God existed you would not need a faith.


I don't know anything. I believe.

Agent Steel wrote: The fact that you have faith is evidence that your belief cannot hold true based on its own merit. There is no merit to your belief.


How very uninteresting...

Agent Steel wrote:Unless you’re mentally ill yourself, you must be able to see why your words are sickening.


I am a logical man, and therefore do not see what is wrong with someone having an illogical belief as long as his logic is unaffected.

Agent Steel wrote:
Fortunately it’s not the other way around, for it easily could have been, had you been brought up in another culture.


how? I accept no doctrine. No religion whatsoever. My earlier attempts in understanding myself and my purpose in this world brought me to believe god wants me to help mankind. While I don't feel the need to connect this feeling to god anymore, the goal remains for its own sake. It has nothing to do with culture.

Agent Steel wrote:Because faith-based beliefs are grounded on absolutely nothing, and they make absolutely no sense.


And? If mans lets illogic affect logic I will raise an eyebrow, perhaps not in criticism but dissatisfaction. otherwise I don't see what you are fighting...

Agent Steel wrote:You just said that it makes you want to help humanity…now you say it has no function? Which is it?


It made me want to help humanity, in the past. It might still be the source, if so I would want to prevent that from happening, as it might cloud my judgment. Although even given the connection of my faith and goals, I feel no great urge to fight this. Goals can't be logically defined anyway...

Agent Steel wrote: I can only hope you don’t base any other beliefs on feelings alone, because that won’t get you anywhere in life, and it will also make you factually incorrect on many things.


I have no other beliefs that I now of. If there were I would prevent them form affecting my logic, I would not fight them, such is redundant as reserved for people not at peace with themselves.

Agent Steel wrote:Imagine trying to argue with your teachers by saying “I want to have an A in this class, I feel that I should have an A in this class, so therefore I believe I deserve an A”. That type of mentality is disgusting, because all you care about is how you feel, not caring the slightest about what’s true.


You can believe whatever you want. Acting on an illogical belief is the problem, or worse not accepting it as illogical.

lubbockjoe wrote:2) The existence of god cannot be disproven.


Logically there is no reason to assume something true unless proven true, or at least enough evidence is given to convince you it is true. All is untrue by default. Therefore, logically, there is no god. I, for one, still believe there is, but you can't ignore the basic rules of logic.

Agent Steel wrote: It's not important to point out that God cannot be disproven because NOTHING can be disproven. We can't disprove the existence of unicorns, minotaurs, dragons, ghosts, loch ness, etc. THIS IS NOT A POWERFUL ARGUMENT. Saying that something cannot be DISPROVEN doesn't make something the SLIGHTEST BIT MORE LIKELY THAT IT'S REAL.

Of course God CAN be disproven depending on what definition you're talking about.


Not so slight self contradiction there. God cannot be proved and cannot be disproved, and therefore does not logically exist.
By Pants-of-dog
#13588409
Agent Steel wrote:...It's not important to point out that God cannot be disproven because NOTHING can be disproven.....


I can disprove something.

The claim is that there is text between these two lines:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can clearly see that there is no text between these two lines. Therefore, we have disproven the above claim.

Therefore, certain claims can be disproven. Including your claim that nothing can be disproven.
By partisanin
#13776716
I say the question is meaningless because God doesn't have a meaningful definition. There is no core definition that everyone agrees on or that makes sense.

Good example for definitions that is not meaningful: God is love. God is 'insert word here'.


Quote taken out of another thread.
El Gilroy wrote:If the entire god-thing is metaphysical in the sense that it has no connection to the physical world, then it really doesn't matter at all since we're all rather stuck in the physical one. I'll remain an atheist, stating that there is no god here and no reason to bother with the metaphysical there (which is, appearently, by definition entirely beyond us).

I feel the same way. I always considered myself atheist, although there came the word 'agnostic' at a certain point and created another case.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13776749
partisanin wrote:I feel the same way. I always considered myself atheist, although there came the word 'agnostic' at a certain point and created another case


If you agree with El Gilroy then you have to be agnostic. EG is a bit confused when he says "I will remain an atheist" and then asserts that "There is no God 'here'" and by 'here' he means the physical world or what is within the bound of human cognition and possible experience but then claims 'not to bother' with metaphysics. But this is simply agnosticism. No on claims there is a God 'here' -- and God simply is metaphysical (of course God is metaphysical). The atheist makes a metaphysical knowledge claim. The agnostic does not. EG is an agnostic if he claims no to bother with metaphysics.

This is a confusion that these pop-atheists are guilty of (Hitchens, Dawkins et al.). Atheists, today, are so completely confused and so utterly inept in their arguments that one simply cannot take them seriously.
By partisanin
#13776795
Vera Politica wrote:If you agree with El Gilroy then you have to be agnostic. EG is a bit confused when he says "I will remain an atheist" and then asserts that "There is no God 'here'" and by 'here' he means the physical world or what is within the bound of human cognition and possible experience but then claims 'not to bother' with metaphysics. But this is simply agnosticism. No on claims there is a God 'here' -- and God simply is metaphysical (of course God is metaphysical). The atheist makes a metaphysical knowledge claim. The agnostic does not. EG is an agnostic if he claims no to bother with metaphysics.

Atheist rejects the belief in God. I used to argue that atheism and agnosticism are pretty much the same thing. If you look at God from religious perspective, then God is something that people made-up (to an atheist). If you look at God from philosophical perspective, then there really isn't a definition for God - God can be anything or everything, so you really don't know what it is. This is where atheism and agnosticism would be the same.
I don't think atheist makes metaphysical knowledge claim, that's what theist does. Atheist rejects metaphysics.

For clarity's sake, I'm using you definition of metaphysics. Which is:
What I mean by metaphysical I simply mean that which is beyond the limits of possible experience and thus beyond the categories of logic and the empirical sciences.
By TruePolitics
#13776824
lubbockjoe wrote:Does God exist?
When I look into the night sky…
And ponder the map of time before my eyes…
When I contemplate the boundaries of space…
I am brought to a place of humility.
I am humbled because of its vastness and humanly unfathomable reality.
I am also humbled by its greatness and my puniness.
Because the universe exists, God must exist.

Where are the flaws in this reasoning?


The flaws in your reasoning is that you make it seem like the Universe is beyond our understanding, when the truth is not really. There used to be a time when thunder and lighting was beyond our understanding, and this lead ancient cultures to use your exact same reasoning, and what they did is concluded that there must be a God, and their case they simply called it Thor. Now that humanity has a VERY FULL understanding of where thunder and lighting actually comes from, we don't need Thor to explain it. The truth is, scientists today have a pretty good grasp on what the Universe is and where it came from, and they are learning more and more every day. It is reasonable to assume that the logic you use to justify your idea of God will be laughed at many years in the future when humans gain much more knowledge and deeper understanding about the Universe. People won't have to be puzzled and bewildered anymore by looking into the night sky, because eventually the answers to the mysteries above you will become common knowledge.
User avatar
By Suska
#13776845
Say what TP?

Thor isn't God, nor is Thor the mystery of lightning, Lightning was just how Thor killed people when he wanted to act directly, it was how he gave people fire and thunder was how he expressed his power and mood.

God isn't, whatever we haven't figured out. God isn't beyond experience, I would argue God is the most immanent thing there is.

There's too many silly things going on here. Get a library card.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#13776893
Partisanin wrote:I don't think atheist makes metaphysical knowledge claim, that's what theist does. Atheist rejects metaphysics.

Actually, an atheist does make a metaphysical claim. To assert that the metaphysical either does not exist or is not important to our everyday lives is itself a metaphysical claim.

TruePolitics wrote:The flaws in your reasoning is that you make it seem like the Universe is beyond our understanding, when the truth is not really. There used to be a time when thunder and lighting was beyond our understanding, and this lead ancient cultures to use your exact same reasoning, and what they did is concluded that there must be a God, and their case they simply called it Thor. Now that humanity has a VERY FULL understanding of where thunder and lighting actually comes from, we don't need Thor to explain it. The truth is, scientists today have a pretty good grasp on what the Universe is and where it came from, and they are learning more and more every day. It is reasonable to assume that the logic you use to justify your idea of God will be laughed at many years in the future when humans gain much more knowledge and deeper understanding about the Universe. People won't have to be puzzled and bewildered anymore by looking into the night sky, because eventually the answers to the mysteries above you will become common knowledge.

Actually, most of physical science is not common knowledge, and even to this day scientists have a very imperfect understanding of the nature of lightning (as they are the first to admit). We do not reject supernatural causes for natural phenomena because we now understand those phenomena - many quite commonplace natural phenomena are still a mystery to scientists. Instead, we reject supernatural explanations because we have found a method of investigating and (hopefully) understanding natural phenomena, a method which we broadly label 'science'. Our faith in the method of science is, philosophically speaking, just as arbitrary as our faith in God or the Vanir or pixies. It just happens to give us more success at understanding and manipulating natural phenomena, that's all.
By TruePolitics
#13776927
Thor isn't God, nor is Thor the mystery of lightning, Lightning was just how Thor killed people when he wanted to act directly, it was how he gave people fire and thunder was how he expressed his power and mood.


??

Thor was believed to be the God responsible for lightning...

Actually, most of physical science is not common knowledge, and even to this day scientists have a very imperfect understanding of the nature of lightning (as they are the first to admit). We do not reject supernatural causes for natural phenomena because we now understand those phenomena - many quite commonplace natural phenomena are still a mystery to scientists. Instead, we reject supernatural explanations because we have found a method of investigating and (hopefully) understanding natural phenomena, a method which we broadly label 'science'. Our faith in the method of science is, philosophically speaking, just as arbitrary as our faith in God or the Vanir or pixies. It just happens to give us more success at understanding and manipulating natural phenomena, that's all.


You're missing the point. The point is that science has gained a stupendous amount of knowledge throughout history, and can effectively answer questions that were at one time only answerable by appealing to the supernatural. What is this faith in science that you speak of? Science doesn't work based on faith, it works based on evidence.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#13776952
You're missing the point. The point is that science has gained a stupendous amount of knowledge throughout history, and can effectively answer questions that were at one time only answerable by appealing to the supernatural. What is this faith in science that you speak of? Science doesn't work based on faith, it works based on evidence.

As Hume pointed out, science (and indeed any form of rational thought about the physical world) works by using inductive logic. This means that we cannot achieve logical certainty about anything much. We cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow morning; the fact that it has done so millions of times in the past is not proof that it will do so again. The same is true for all the other regularities of nature, which we call 'physical laws'. At bottom, the entire intellectual edifice of science, spectacularly successful though it is, is built on faith.
By TruePolitics
#13777046
The fact that we have observed the sun rise every morning that we know of should be considered very strong evidence that it will happen again tomorrow. Any rational minded person must accept this. This is not a belief from faith, but a belief from evidence.

Belief in God on the other hand, IS a belief that is based on faith, because it is not something that can be justified with evidence.
By partisanin
#13777050
Potemkin wrote:Actually, an atheist does make a metaphysical claim. To assert that the metaphysical either does not exist or is not important to our everyday lives is itself a metaphysical claim.

Well, you're looking at it slightly different view, more like Vera Politica.
In the way you put it any claim about God would be a metaphysical one.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13777497
partisanin wrote:In the way you put it any claim about God would be a metaphysical one.


This is the only claim modern theism (i.e. monotheism) has ever made and there is no other claim about the existence of God that makes any sense (pantheism may be somewhat of an exception to this, but a closer look really shows that it is also a metaphysical claim - in any case, pantheism is a fringe belief system).
User avatar
By ralfy
#13779374
Given a definition of God as infinite, definitely not.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10
Election 2020

in a photo op on church steps. ... of the church[…]

Not necessarily as large as people might think. L[…]

4] Therefore, current US Gov. should pay reparati[…]

The USA is far from perfect, but are the least mu[…]