Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 49855 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #319 on: May 19, 2013, 12:45:41 AM »
so the Probabilities of God's existence debate continuing are not good then? ;)
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline PaulGL

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #320 on: May 20, 2013, 03:01:15 PM »

There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.
First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created.
Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point).
The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:...

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

Such an entity would in all practicality be:

1.   Omnipotent and
2.   Omniscient and
3.   Omnipresent.

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.
By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.
Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.

Chapter Seven.  Past History: The World System                              p.145
...
            {   II.     The Religious System
A.   The Source of Religion <Hint: NOT God>
B.   The World’s Religions
C.   The Jewish Religion
D.   Christianity, the Religion   }


FROM: amessageforthehumanrace

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #321 on: May 20, 2013, 03:35:38 PM »
PaulGL, you agreed to not spam the boards with cut and pastes when you signed up. If you continue, your posts will be moderated.

Furthermore, abusing this community in the selfish pursuit of self-promotion is poor manners.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2064
  • Darwins +221/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #322 on: May 20, 2013, 03:52:45 PM »
Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.
This makes it sound like evolution is moving toward some sort of end, when in reality, that's not what it is at all.  In order for an entity to evolve and no longer be subject to time, it would require selection pressures in that direction.  What sort of selection pressures would give a survival advantage if they were no longer subject to time? 

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

Such an entity would in all practicality be:

1.   Omnipotent and
2.   Omniscient and
3.   Omnipresent.

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.
Actually, if we take your train of thought where you're taking it, the end result would not be A god, but many gods.  A whole species of Gods that are all omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.  Perhaps the Greeks were on to something.  I don't agree at all with where you're going, and you seem not to have a full grasp on evolution, but it's an interesting thought. 

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
  • Darwins +533/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #323 on: May 20, 2013, 03:59:51 PM »

There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.


The failure of reasoning in that statement is appalling.

If the universe is vast, what do you mean by "profusion of life"? As a percentage of the universe, "life forms" would not register.

"an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time." This borders on the insane. Please give some reason why this might be and how it could possibly be.

We want details.

Just because you do not have an understanding of time or the process evolution or the effects of "being outside time" (whatever that means) does not mean that you can pull theories out of your ass and announce them as if someone ought to accept them.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3013
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #324 on: May 20, 2013, 04:12:54 PM »
By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe...

Paul, if you actually want to have a conversation with us on such matters, please learn the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
  • Darwins +58/-14
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #325 on: May 23, 2013, 01:54:50 PM »
periboob,

You feel as if the universe was created by a hands off god?  You are convinced of it. 

How does a hands off god manifest itself in a compelling way to you?

I have a major problem with science as I understand it.  The creation of the basic building block of the universe (Energy) is difficult for me to fanthom its source. 

I can give it a natural source or magical god source.  But it would be impossible to tell the difference between a hands off god and a natural source.

As an agnostice  (someone who doesn't know) I lean both directions:) when I consider the universe spawning from nothing or something so advanced so powerful as a god having existed prior to the universe and creating it by sheer will.  I feel the more reasonable answer leans in favor of natural energy to exist than for a super being to have spawned from nothing.

Offline JesuisSean

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #326 on: June 01, 2013, 02:05:46 PM »
God is a tad bigger than people tend to think. His daily actions over mankind are also far greater than mankind tends to even attempt to imagine, and thus in turn people also fail see that his mind literally extends across time. Via his mind extending across time, his guidance also takes into account many many many events that in total stretch vast distances across time. Thus, if he guides the minds of those who write the Bible, and does so as his mind extends across time, all of what we call future translations of the Bible are all simultaneously taken into account from his massive massive enormously huge point of view.

Thus his mind sits above all of these translations and thus above the all variations that exist between different versions of the Bible, and it is to be noted that there is crystal clear proof of this. God managed to place both proof of his existence, and proof of Jesus Christ's existence within the Bible, and did so in such a clever yet simple and unique encoded manner, a manner that places this proof at a level that is obviously seen by God, but can seen by man with the help of today's computers.

To see this encoded proof, go to
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2a.htm

Be sure to click on the flashing words "Watch / Listen", and let the web page take you on a web page tour of such proof, and do so via automatic web page scrolling and complete audio coverage.

YOU WILL BE AMAZED !

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3013
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #327 on: June 01, 2013, 06:46:29 PM »
God is a tad bigger than people tend to think. His daily actions over mankind are also far greater than mankind tends to even attempt to imagine, and thus in turn people also fail see that his mind literally extends across time.

And how would humans whose minds do not "extend across time" go about verifying this rather dubious assertion?

Quote
To see this encoded proof, go to {link snipped}.  Be sure to click on the flashing words...

Uh, no.  I try to stay away from badly designed, multimedia-heavy web pages as they tend to give Me excruciating headaches. 
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
  • Darwins +533/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #328 on: June 01, 2013, 07:28:20 PM »
God is a tad bigger than people tend to think. His daily actions over mankind are also far greater than mankind tends to even attempt to imagine, and thus in turn people also fail see that his mind literally extends across time.

OK, admit it. You made all that up didn't you?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline JesuisSean

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #329 on: June 01, 2013, 09:56:44 PM »
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE, THE BIG TRUTH.

Unfortunately it's pretty well impossible to get people interested in the big truth these days.  Today there are two fields of interest. One is Science, and the other is Religion. These are two fields of incompleteness. If Science was complete, then there would be no room left for Religion. If Religion was complete, then there would be no room left for Science.

In the world of Religion for instance, there is another side to reality that in the religious context is called the spirit world.
In the world of Science, specifically physics, physicists say "Some of us may have our own personal religious beliefs, but we do not bring religion into our workplace. We simply deal with the physical, hence 'Physics'".

As a consequence of this,  physicists did not include the other side of reality as part of the understanding of complete reality. One side is different than the other. The laws of physics on one side are different from the laws of physics  on the other side. An event can be governed from either of the two sides. The outcome of the event is different if it is governed from one side rather than be governed from the other.

Thus the small minded physicists see strange phenomena such as Particle/Wave Duality, and yet they can not explain it. They observe entangled pairs, yet have no explanation.  They observe the Action at a Distance phenomena, yet here too they have no explanation. They observe Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments, yet they can not explain how these experiments manage to produce a clear cut case of retrocausality.

But this is what happens when you stick to remaining in one field of incompleteness or the other. You just don't see the big picture, the big truth. Instead people remain closed minded and thus they always "Reject Before Inspect", "Judge a book by its cover", "Judge a web site by its appearance, etc.",. Thus in turn they either hold on to mere beliefs and disbeliefs, or they choose to stand still and hold on to nothing at all.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2013, 10:28:16 PM by JesuisSean »

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2743
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #330 on: June 01, 2013, 10:27:36 PM »
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE, THE BIG TRUTH.

*rest of post sniped*

I see a lot of words and magical thinking, but no evidence or reasons to back them up.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #331 on: June 01, 2013, 10:34:50 PM »
I see, so physical world = physics...

I dont know where to begin...


on another note mods, why is it so bad to respond to an old thread? And if we shouldnt respond to them you should unsticky them, nah mean?

Offline JesuisSean

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #332 on: June 01, 2013, 10:38:34 PM »
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE, THE BIG TRUTH.

*rest of post sniped*

I see a lot of words and magical thinking, but no evidence or reasons to back them up.

If ones mind points toward the truth, then one sees both sides of reality, since both sides of reality truly exist.

If one sees both sides of reality, then one is truly in touch with reality. If one sees only one side, then obviously one is not in touch with the reality and instead still remains at a distance from it.

I can not hand evidence over to anyone who can not see it.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #333 on: June 01, 2013, 10:46:29 PM »
I see, so physical world = physics...

I dont know where to begin...

Actually, I think you're already finished.  I want to respond to this myself, but it's getting late, so it will probably have to wait until tomorrow.

Quote
on another note mods, why is it so bad to respond to an old thread?

Because the OP, and possibly other participants in the thread, might not be around anymore to respond.

Quote
And if we shouldnt respond to them you should unsticky them, nah mean?

Threads that are stickied, are stickied because they are threads that have not only been frequently responded to in the past, but also because many people still constantly refer to them in the present.  I don't doubt, for example, that many of the regulars here frequently reread kcrady's posts in the "kcrady old school" thread -- I certainly do, the man is brilliant -- and having the thread stickied simply makes it easier to find.  Necromancy has nothing to do with it.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Online kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #334 on: June 01, 2013, 10:57:09 PM »
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE, THE BIG TRUTH.Unfortunately it's pretty well impossible to get people interested in the big truth these days.

No, JesuS, it's all about the BIG DICK, and you are enormously over-qualified for that part. Can't help flaunting that priapismic arrogance eh?

Quote
Today there are two fields of interest.

that'd be either the open landmind that can be cultivated, or the vacant lot.  ......for example
 
Quote
One is Science, and the other is Religion.


Quote
These are two fields of incompleteness. If Science was complete, then there would be no room left for Religion. If Religion was complete, then there would be no room left for Science.

This is so accurate, I am almost mind-boggled. If religion ruled, of course they'd be no room for science. Science is the ultimate threat to irrational belief systems.
Thankfully, science is winning, and the wriggle room for religion is shrinking. Big Dick meet cold shower.

Quote
In the world of Religion for instance, there is another side to reality that in the religious context is called the spirit world.


And what a pity the vacant lot are incapable of offering the slightest evidence of this "spirit world".
Of course, arguing that there are two sides to reality could be re-phrased into

There are two sorts of reality in this world.   
The real,
........................and the unreal.

The vacant lot is littered with this unreal trash.


Quote
>snip<
As a consequence of this,  physicists did not include the other side of reality as part of the understanding of complete reality. One side is different than the other. The laws of physics on one side are different from the laws of physics  on the other side. An event can be governed from either of the two sides. The outcome of the event is different if it is governed from one side rather than be governed from the other.

Ah, the glory of the vacant lot, too busy mouthbreathing to offer the slightest evidence.

Quote
Thus the small minded physicists

And here we see the only evidence you really offer. Evidence of your arrogance.
What an awkward package to carry through life.
Engorged with your baseless certitude, it, erect and proud drags you stumbling along behind it, .....no wonder your view is so limited.
And you wonder why I call you Big Dick?

You've flopped it out here on display stoking the flames stroking the inflamed, and claim a personal knowledge of THE BIG DICK TRUTH.


Quote
>snip<
Thus in turn they either hold on to mere beliefs and disbeliefs, or they choose to stand still and hold on to nothing at all.

Well you've completely exposed to us what little truth you are actually holding.





« Last Edit: June 01, 2013, 10:59:48 PM by kin hell »
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #335 on: June 01, 2013, 11:03:03 PM »
Actually, I think you're already finished.  I want to respond to this myself, but it's getting late, so it will probably have to wait until tomorrow.
Yeah, looks like MAJOR work will be needed on that one.

Quote
Because the OP, and possibly other participants in the thread, might not be around anymore to respond.

Threads that are stickied, are stickied because they are threads that have not only been frequently responded to in the past, but also because many people still constantly refer to them in the present.  I don't doubt, for example, that many of the regulars here frequently reread kcrady's posts in the "kcrady old school" thread -- I certainly do, the man is brilliant -- and having the thread stickied simply makes it easier to find.  Necromancy has nothing to do with it.

Makes sense.... And I printed out the kcrady thread and proselytize the good news outside of churches handing out the paper copies as pamphlets.

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2743
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #336 on: June 01, 2013, 11:12:47 PM »
If ones mind points toward the truth, then one sees both sides of reality, since both sides of reality truly exist.

You claim this, but do you have anything to back it up?  (that is, other than more words)


Quote
I can not hand evidence over to anyone who can not see it.

Ah, so your words are just that.  Words.  Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


I know I'm not giving you much of a respond, but really, we've seen this sort of statement before.  Someone comes along to "awaken" us to the power of spirtual thinking, and then they never bother to explain how it's not a form of self delusionment.  Right now, all you offer is magical thinking.  Care to tell us how this is different?
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3013
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #337 on: June 02, 2013, 12:25:57 AM »
Instead people remain closed minded and thus they always "Reject Before Inspect", "Judge a book by its cover", "Judge a web site by its appearance, etc."...

IMO, a sloppily-designed website is a sign of a sloppily-conveyed message and in some cases sloppy thinking as well.

At its heart the universe appears to be made up of very basic and consistent stuff - Matter and energy.  I believe that the underlying "message" of the universe is similarly very simple and dependent neither upon regional mythologies such as the Jesus story, nor on bewildering cutting-edge scientific theories such as quantum physics.  My sense is that we've over-thought this way too much, and missed something.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #338 on: June 02, 2013, 06:37:51 AM »
I printed out the kcrady thread and proselytize the good news outside of churches handing out the paper copies as pamphlets.

Heh.  You know, that's actually not a bad idea.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline JesuisSean

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #339 on: June 02, 2013, 07:14:28 AM »
Instead people remain closed minded and thus they always "Reject Before Inspect", "Judge a book by its cover", "Judge a web site by its appearance, etc."...

IMO, a sloppily-designed website is a sign of a sloppily-conveyed message and in some cases sloppy thinking as well.

At its heart the universe appears to be made up of very basic and consistent stuff - Matter and energy.  I believe that the underlying "message" of the universe is similarly very simple and dependent neither upon regional mythologies such as the Jesus story, nor on bewildering cutting-edge scientific theories such as quantum physics.  My sense is that we've over-thought this way too much, and missed something.

If a group of people are in a life threatening situation, and time for any hope of survival is quickly ticking away, yet one fellow has come up with a sloppy sounding answer to resolve the life threatening problem, suddenly minds become open to his suggestion. And sure enough his idea saves the day. However, in other previous non life threatening situations, any other of his sloppy sounding suggestions were most likely always ridiculed and laughed at, if not violently opposed instead.

In other words, it is only when the "SELF"  is at risk, do many a people of this world suddenly put the act of demeaning of others, aside.  Thus if the fellow, with his sloppy sounding suggestions, is in fact quite brilliant, well tough luck for him say the masses, unless he is immediately in need as a servant and saviour.

Moving on.

To find a truth, you must look in the direction of truths.

Example:
Most people see "MOTION" occurring around them and they think that they understand what it is, and do so via seeing it. Yet, seeing is merely believing, and one is only dependent upon beliefs and disbeliefs if one is located at a distance from the truth in the first place, meaning located within the zone of less than truth. Thus those who simply believe what they see, are those whom in turn are quite happy with having a mere pinhole sized view of reality.

If however, you look at the big picture concerning motion, you soon notice that what you see going on around you is absolutely impossible. You soon understand that what appears to be happening only seems real if you are limited to having only a partial view what is truly happening on the absolute scale.

Step two, you convert this new understanding into a simple geometric representation, and then you use this geometric representation to convert your understandings into equations.

Next you search the web to see if your equations are found elsewhere, and bingo you find that your equations are identical to the famous equations known as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation, the Time Dilation equation, the Velocity Addition equation, and the Lorentz Transformation equations. These are the very equations that are found within Einstein's Special Principle of Relativity.

In short you understand Einstein's Special Principle of Relativity, and you also can see the absolute foundation which supports, and creates, relativity.

On top of that, you find that your method of deriving these equations is the shortest method possible, and that it is found nowhere else on the internet, nor in physics books.

Point being, even if you have no education in physics, if you analyze motion properly by looking at the big picture, thus by looking at the truth, you soon see Einstein's Special Principle of Relativity as mere child's play.

Thus if you have achieved this, then you are definitely walking on the path of truth.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #340 on: June 03, 2013, 03:45:08 AM »
If ones mind points toward the truth, then one sees both sides of reality, since both sides of reality truly exist.

Sorry dude - you are wrong.  There are THREE sides of reality, and in failing to recognise this you are missing out on a huge chunk of existence.

I wish you well in your quest to discover the third side of reality.  When you can see the third side, I will look forward to discussing it with you.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Online kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #341 on: June 03, 2013, 06:02:57 AM »
If ones mind points toward the truth, then one sees both sides of reality, since both sides of reality truly exist.

Sorry dude - you are wrong.  There are THREE sides of reality, and in failing to recognise this you are missing out on a huge chunk of existence.

I wish you well in your quest to discover the third side of reality.  When you can see the third side, I will look forward to discussing it with you.

It is not actually a third side, it is rather, the interstitial paradox of the whole two-faced reality.

Much like both sides of a realistic mask can give a completely convincing 3D image of a face, both sides of reality are the separated surfaces that only together create the 3rd Realm.

Without the knowledge of how to perceive this there is nothing more I can share. When you know, you'll really know.
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #342 on: June 03, 2013, 08:50:02 AM »
If ones mind points toward the truth, then one sees both sides of reality, since both sides of reality truly exist.

Sorry dude - you are wrong.  There are THREE sides of reality, and in failing to recognise this you are missing out on a huge chunk of existence.

I wish you well in your quest to discover the third side of reality.  When you can see the third side, I will look forward to discussing it with you.

It is not actually a third side, it is rather, the interstitial paradox of the whole two-faced reality.

Much like both sides of a realistic mask can give a completely convincing 3D image of a face, both sides of reality are the separated surfaces that only together create the 3rd Realm.

Without the knowledge of how to perceive this there is nothing more I can share. When you know, you'll really know.

Oh, quite.  I was trying to "dumb it down" to Sean's level - didn't want to put him off by making it too complicated too fast.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3013
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #343 on: June 03, 2013, 10:17:48 AM »
I think there are potentially infinite "sides" to reality, but that our perceptions are limited by our physical senses and our physical brain structure.

The act of striving to see more "dimensions," through whatever means, sounds at the very least like an interesting thought experiment.  It remains to be seen whether any of this will reveal an actual god, or "just"[1] take our knowledge to a new level.
 1. IMO, knowledge > gods.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6685
  • Darwins +890/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #344 on: June 03, 2013, 03:34:21 PM »
I think it is time for my favorite source of philosphical knowledge: the 1970's tv series Kung Fu.

Here, the wise master gives Grasshopper his advice on how to deal with force.



(My daughter, a junior black belt, is enjoying watching it on dvd with me. She is the exact same age I was when the show was originally on. I tell Mystery Science Theater type jokes during the slow non-fighting parts.)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #345 on: June 03, 2013, 08:16:07 PM »
Until you all realize that there is no reality, only true falsehoods you wont understand anything. You must look deep into everything that is false to find the inconsequential Truths with a capital T of life. Its why geometry is called GEOmetry, it has to do with earth.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #346 on: June 03, 2013, 08:45:07 PM »
Its why geometry is called GEOmetry, it has to do with earth.

No. It's called geoMETRY. Anyone can have a go.

That's my angle, anyway.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3013
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #347 on: June 03, 2013, 11:26:43 PM »
It's why geometry is called GEOmetry, it has to do with earth.

No. It's called geoMETRY. Anyone can have a go.

That's my angle, anyway.

Now you're just being obtuse.   ;)
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles