Is God based on “Facts” or “Trust/Faith”???

Nope. Sorry, you're wrong. Everybody I know over the age of 10 knows how to use a fucking dictionary dictionary. What makes you think otherwise? Oh, wait a minute. Are you talking about a specialized dictionary devoted to fucking? I've never seen one, so I don't know whether I could use it or not! (I'm shy.)

 

But they're only 2% of the adult populationhttps://www.sciencealert.com/one-third-millennials-believe-flat-earth-conspiracy-statistics-yougov-debunk , and some of those might have been pulling the researcher's chain!

 

No, its true. I'd say at least 60% of the people I surveyed were offended by my claim the dictionary merely contains popular definitions, and went to some lengths to call me rude for even bringing the subject. Conan O'Brien has video of the same thing you can find at democracy now.

Both the dictionary and analog logic are taboo in civilization, while I describe how taboos work. The reason we don't have a theory of everything, is because all of our taboos have made half the sciences 200 years behind the rest. Its a nightmare, but its also our only salvation.

 

It may depend on how you said it. If you presented it the way you do here, I can believe at least 60% of whomever you said it to might be offended, especially if it were the 27th time!

I can use a dictionary. Mine says: taboo:
"a prohibition imposed by social custom or as a protective measure; something that is not acceptable to say, mention, or do. Definition of TABOO "So you're saying there's a taboo in civilization against the dictionary and analog logic. Has anybody heard of these? Maybe we're just uncivilized.

You mean the one where Jennifer Garner tells him "snuck" isn't a legitimate word, and he whips out his dictionary?
If that wasn't the one, what's the link or citation to the one you have in mind?

 

They don't know how to use a dictionary, because they don't know it merely contains popular definitions, so they invent whatever dictionary they prefer. For example, because the dictionary only contains popular definitions, it doesn't matter which one you use, but people commonly assume they're organized in a hierarchy, when they're just listed according to how frequently people use them. I've been tearing apart their contradictions, since I was five years old, having already discovered not a damn one of them ever graduated from Kindergarten. My book, covers every way imaginable that they're making half of reality taboo, for fun and for profit.

Civilization has infantilized its own populations, as a way to enforce crap constantly rolling downhill, but even our mathematics and sciences are beginning to fall apart, because we've made half of reality taboo.

 

So is that what you're trying to say? Dictionaries are just compilations of how people use words? I thought that was common knowledge.

Don't know about any such taboos, pal. Could you explain where you got this idea?

 

I've already suggested people check out Conan O'Brien's videos, at democracy now. Otherwise, I suggest actually paying attention to what I've already written.

 

The wealthy and powerful have made half of reality taboo, since the invention of agriculture. Long before there was such a thing as a dictionary, they enforced the idea of "Do As I Say, And Not As I Do! Its also useful for keeping state secrets, but modern computers are making their Three Stooges slapstick obsolete. You could say, all of our senses of humor have been stunted horribly, and we've all been infantilized, even raped by our own cultures, but simple pattern matching that can be automated can easily overcome the problem.

 

What is the link????????????? It's hard to pay attention to what you've written when its cryptic gobbledygook! I don't think you're a troll in the usual sense, since I suspect you're actually sincere about what you're trying to say. But you might as well be one. You've taken us way off topic, have made your abstruse nonsense the center of attention, and said nothing of substance that anybody can decipher. I think it best to give you the troll treatment, i.e., not to feed you.

 

Actions speak louder than words, especially, if you are trying to ignore someone. Just a suggestion.

 

I'll have to look that up.

 

The problem is, most religions, if not all, are united in principle. What makes them different are social and cultural differences. But a few of these religions teach that they are the one and only true religion, and the followers of many others act as if their religion is the one and only true religion even if the religion itself does not teach that.

 

LMAO! That would be funny to pull some researchers chain on this subject. But...

One of the first times I saw a Facebook page on flat earth I thought it was a joke. Especially since someone I only knew on Facebook, but thought to be fairly intelligent, was very active on it.

I wanted to join in on the fun and started posting what I thought were some hilarious posts about the earth as flat. At first I got likes. But after a few other posts people decided I was making fun of them and got upset. Man, was I surprised when I realized they were serious.

Today I have a very easy way for flat-earthers to prove the earth is flat, or discover that it isn't, as the case may be. But no flat-earther will take me up on it. There is a free app called Flight Radar. And it tracks airplanes around the world in real time. If you've never played with it, it is pretty cool. You can point your phone at an airplane overhead and see everything from what airline or company owns it, where it is headed, its flight path its altitude, speed and all kinds of other information. I have never had a chance to point it at a military plane. But there is a fairly new cargo company that located in a regional airport near me, and one night I kept watching this C-130 fly around the neighborhood. It kept circling, so I pulled up the app and saw that it was owned by that company as well as the flight path it had taken, and was taking (it was still in the air and it showed its position). I assume that they were either testing the plane, as I hadn't seen it before, or maybe training a pilot. It also display the same for private planes, and even balloons.

So just for fun I pulled my SAM missile launcher out of my trunk... (I'M JOKING!)

Another time my wife flew to Manila and I had to stay here, and I watched the flight from time to time from the app, and watched as it landed in Manila. For some odd reason it didn't land directly, as flights into Manila normally do, but was put into a holding pattern and circled from Manila back east to Mt Makiling in Cavite province before returning to land. I asked her if that is what happened, and she did confirm that when they reached Manila they had circled around before landing. In other words, this app is right on the money.

Now, I said it would be an easy way to prove the earth is flat, but to really make it provable, they should probably have a working understanding of global navigation which uses the geometry of a round spherical surface. Then they would have to pick different aircraft around the world, simultaneously track their flight times and airspeeds, and look for anomalies.

 

Interesting! This is off from what you have typed, but when I lived in a little town on the Oregon coast years ago, one day I was standing close to the beach and this huge airplane --like a 747--completely black with no markings at all, flew slowly by--too slowly it seemed--about 2oo hundred feet off the water. I never heard anything about it and I never met anyone else that had seen it. It was kind of spooky.

 

Anyone who has read much of my posts know that I needed proof of God, or proof that there was more to this universe than just the physical reality we understand. But of course trying to factually prove a nonphysical reality in physical terms is incredibly difficult. In fact I would say that to do this objectively with the limits of technology today is impossible. You can only find a subjective proof that would carry meaning for the person who experienced what they understand as proof, and nothing more.

For example, years ago, my brother bought a house. The family had a party and it was my wife's first chance to see the house. After going on a tour of it, my mom asked her what she thought of his new house. She answered that it was a very nice house, and she didn't want to say anything bad about it, but that there is a boy by the fireplace downstairs. My mom asked what she meant, and my wife responded that there is a spirit of a young boy. My mom's immediate reaction was that she might be jealous of my brother's house or was trying to say something bad about it. I immediately jumped in and said, "If she says something like that, it means she saw something." about a month later, my brother was getting to know one of his neighbors, and the neighbor asked him if they had told him, when he bought the house, that a 12-year old boy committed suicide by the fireplace in the basement. He responded that, 'No, he didn't know that, but his sister-in-law had said she saw the spirit of a boy there.' I first heard it from my mom who first told me, "Don't tell Minda, I don't want to encourage her."

So, did my wife see a ghost? Does this prove she saw one, or even prove that ghosts do exist? No. It doesn't factually prove anything. And this is just one of very many experiences like this that I have had with my wife.

Obviously from the context of fact, we can't prove that God exists. The deeper question would be, Is God based on truth, or trust/faith?

Post-Modern theorists argue that sustainable cultures have, at their center, a Unifying Truth. It is the truth that unifies the people within that culture and holds it together. It is what gives meaning to the culture and in turn, meaning to the lives of the people. This has always been a religious or spiritual belief system. And when it wasn't, as in the case of the Soviet Union, it was replaced by a pseudo-religion--Marxism. The Post-Modern argument is that the modern age destroyed that unifying truth for Post-Modern culture, and therefore we are struggling through a meaningless world that has no unifying theme, and are therefore collapsing into decadence.

The implication here is that truth is not universal. During the reign of the Spanish Inquisition, we could argue that God's existence was truth. If you wanted to argue against that point at that time, you got to experience first hand the 'truth' of the rack, or the iron maiden, or any other number of excruciatingly painful tortures. So many centuries before that in Northern Europe, the existence of Odin, was truth. In both cases the truth was a culturally shared understanding of what truth was within those cultures, and represented the best understanding they could obtain of the function of reality and the cosmology of their universe. So it was literally their truth.

Because truth was culturally defined in this way, to believe something other than that truth was to be seen as deranged and mentally ill (or possessed by the devil as the case may be). This implies that our interpretation of fact, is controlled by what our truth is. Before the dawn of the modern age, it was a fact that the earth was the center of the universe and everything went around it. It was so factual that if you tried to say any different, or even present factual evidence that it was not true, you could be put to death. So if we go back a few hundred years, many people would have answered the OP's question, that there is factual proof of god and likely point to the very same facts that people today would say, there is no proof of god.

People might answer that in the post-modern world, science has replaced religion as our unifying truth. But that is clearly an overly simplistic conclusion. For example, science clearly does not support the argument that the earth is flat. Yet outside of the flat-earthers that I have captured and locked in my basement dungeon, as a culture we do not subject them to the rack and other medieval torture devices. Nor do we commit them to sanitariums for the mentally ill.

Clearly science is not our unifying truth. One problem is that science cannot provide meaning to everyone concerned, especially with such critical existential problems as what happens after death. One might conclude, who cares? Why does the source of meaning for our culture have to provide meaning to everyone? Because that is what the unifying truth does. It is unifying because it does create meaning for all concerned. If it cannot do that, then the specter of Nihilism is ever-present, eating away at the philosophy of the culture, like a cancer slowly growing and killing everything existentially important.

So the answer is simple, right? Everyone just needs to find Jesus. Right? Wrong.

First of all we have serious problems like that of the question of this thread. There is no factual proof today of god so how can this be a truth. Therefore it cannot be a truth that forces us to interpret facts as proof of God. There is also a problem of whose god is representative of this truth?

We no longer live in a world of cultures independently living in various regions of the world. Modern culture has turned Western culture into a global culture that has assimilated almost all cultures into an international universally global culture. But whatever shell of a truth that dominates, is clearly that emanating from Modern Western culture. The truth has to answer to science as well as people's beliefs.

We have to find a unifying truth, and not to be redundant, but it has to represent science and our latest provable understanding of cosmology, and it has to meaningfully speak to each and every spiritual belief that provides meaning around the world.


Note: When I started writing this post, I wanted to look up the word 'truth' in the dictionary. Unfortunately I go page by page and it will take forever for me to find it. If only there was some kind of system or method I could use that would take me directly to that word. It seems that it is organized by letters, but in what way? How can I know which letter comes before or after the next one? And is that used in finding the rest of the word once I get the first letter?

...OK----I'm joking, not to make fun of anyone in this thread, but just to keep everyone's sense of humor alive. Don't take it personally, just laugh!

 

To those asking, what physical evidence, I would like to point out that modern philosophy has yet to come to terms with quantum mechanics. For example, we can demonstrate that quantum randomness is built into the structure of the universe, one example is the way that the distribution of mass throughout the known universe aligns with what is predicted by quantum randomness.

In wave-particle duality we can demonstrate that the wave is superpositioned, meaning it has infinite positions in time and space. Yet these particles, which to the best of our understanding collectively and literally make up the physical universe as we know it in any given moment of time, have single space-time positions within their moment of perceived existence. The particles, as we perceive them, are the physical manifestations of these waves in that moment. Quantum randomness dictates that they could manifest in any time at any point of space. Yet our physical reality always maintains consistency from one moment to the next.

It is information that maintains this consistency, and yet we cannot define this information as a physical thing. It can be neither created nor destroyed, and oddly enough, it fits many of the definitions of life---it can learn, remember, change, and so forth.

 

My book provides all of the evidence, that modern physics and philosophy are based on lies, and are currently attempting to censor half of reality.

Modern philosophy could not find its own ass with both hands, in no small part, due to everyone classifying and censoring anything related to humor. Wittgenstein is considered among the greatest philosophers in the last century, that even Bertram Russel admired, yet modern philosophers drove his work into the dirt, spit on it, and abandoned it, because everyone is censoring half of fucking reality, especially anything related to humor. The only people still claiming academia is objective, is Fox News. They do maybe 5% of the research, and Microsoft and others do the rest, then censor the news.

All the theories put forward for quantum mechanics, the only ones that survived worth a spit over the last century, have all incorporated Yin-Yang Push-Pull Dynamics, and many of the greats in physics were pantheists, and panentheists, such as Heisenberg and Wheeler.

Quanta are not simply waves, they are particle-waves, and they are not either a wave or a particle, but particle-waves. No matter how you try to slice them up, you always get both, and a single particle by itself is evidence that modern physics is merely lying to themselves again. You cannot measure the position and momentum at the same time, because we obviously occupy a universe that obeys Yin and Yang, and a context without any significant content is a complete oxymoron. The same reason its impossible to create a perfect vacuum.

Logic without a context is bullshit, and the issue is not whether God is real, but how to reformulate logic and the laws of thought, when the assholes are censoring half of reality.

Of course, people claim I'm full of crap, as the Chinese now start dumping steel and electronics on the market, attempting to drive the entire world economy into the toilet, and Russia prepares for WWIII. I just do the math, that the fucking AI can comprehend, because modern science is killing us!

If God is not the fucking truth, then what the fuck is he? Logic is not the problem, its the idiots censoring everything for the Tea Party, and Wall Street, and nothing academia can say will change that.