Does God Exist?

Yes.God needs downtime.

 

Fair enough, until I can at least emulate a teeny, "insignificant" subatomic particle and go through walls or other states I'm aware of yet can not accomplish, I don't really see any value in ascribing to the notion of being Gods. I think this leaves the door open for the slippery slope of all the dogmatic religious positions as well. However I am all for the existential type notion(s) of creating our own meaning in life and pushing the boundaries of what it means to be human.

 

How do you know God isn't coming to this thread?

Like what, coming to earth and talking to people? I don't get it. He's done it before. Why not right here right now in this thread? Would we all die or what?

 

I sincerely believe some people have some modicum of supernatural powers,and also believe in a kind of supernature.

 

You presented it as a serious allegory to the situation. If you meant it 100% in jest, then that means you didn't answer the point with which you used the joke as a reply. The point being, why does god make it so damn ambiguous to know that he exists? Why these hiding games, if our eternal souls be at stake? Why isn't every baby born with an innate knowledge of not just god, but Yaweh?

 

Some people make knowing conditional . Is there anything at all you feel you know unconditionally ?
The language you reply to this with might illustrate a condition that for a civilized man is inescapable .

 

Well as an example. One apple plus one apple equals two apples. But I was referring to the definition or value of words. Always and never are opposing values. If things are always in motion then there cannot be a lack of absolutes or if there are no absolutes then everything can't be in constant motion. Absolute: a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.

The subject matter is the integers and the plus or minus function. Nothing vague about it. You are right my statement is not contradictory. Your statement was contradictory because you claimed opposite values for the same thing, i.e. everything is vs, nothing is. To make your statement correct it could be said that absolutely everything is in constant motion or simple everything is constantly in motion.

Then don't claim there is, i.e. everything is in constant motion. Not suggesting that you shouldn't be able to exercise your breath any way you please but that you aren't imparting anything meaningful to the discussion with your self contradictory statements.

Honestly no. It is when you immediately contradicted it that I doubt you know what you are saying and are just flapping your gums or overreaching in this element.

Well no not by my logic, my logic simply says the statement there are no absolutes is not true as it engages a relative comparison.

To express a lack of absolutes you say not always or not absolutely.

No, I am weeding out the nonsense. Not everyone here has the difficulty you display and you are more than welcome to challenge any word I say.
You don't need to say every true thing at once in order to put together a number of true statements. However if one of those statements in a string of statements is not true then the line of reasoning or ontological conclusions becomes distorted. It is like taking a wrong turn, you don't get to where you intended to go.

I do not put words before reality except in terms of examining meaning. We use words to communicate views on reality or what we perceive as such.

I said the terms but that is not what makes them true. It is common but not necessarily recognized knowledge. This is the way our powers of distinction work, by determining whether a thing is the same or different and determining what a thing is for. What I am saying is not complex but clarifying or simplifying the complex, unusual, or obscure so that it can be discussed without relying on undisclosed assumptions or conclusions which is the reason things seem obscure in the first place.

Truth as a synonym for realilty is not relative to reality. If it is true then it is real and what is not real does not exist. Reality is not relative but encompasses all terms and requires none to be what it is. Truth if you are going to discuss it in terms of true or not is relative to true terms. Distinguishing truth is by comparison to fact, reality of itself requires no comparisons to be what it is.



As far as words being symbols, they a symbols for conditions. Behind every word we use is an experiential conjugation.

 

There's a good point to be made there. How can one sentient being prove to another that it is sentient? How could God prove it is aware? Maybe that is the beginning of faith, belief in other people. If you already believe in something you can't prove, how big of a leap is it really to posit that another something you can't prove exists? I think you have to admit that you take something for granted in your interactions with other people. You have to have faith on some level in order to be a confident person. Faith in goodness, I guess. Perhaps this goodness is synonymous with God?

 

You laid down criteria in which proof would be acceptable for you when you said "God can prove his existence by posting in the thread." Any sentient being with the understanding and capabilities could have met that 'test' particularly if 'goodness' is an attribute in which that would show.




What about entheogens? Do psychedelics in a spiritual context, allow for individuals to explore trascendent realms of reality in which we cannot explore otherwise?

 

What could God possibly post to prove its existence? Maybe pictures of all of us in our homes? Or would people still be like..."That's not God"???

 

One line god can not cross is it is impossible for God to lie.

And no, God does not come to earth and talk to people. What you are referring to is that God has sent representatives to Earth to talk to people and since what they say is what God wanted said it can be God spoke to them.

 

Actually I presented it as a humorous allegory to the situation. I meant it 90% in jest with nugget of truth. The point I was addressing was "Just for the people who happen to read God's response to this thread. Just wait for it, it's coming..." and the nugget was God uses representatives to do his work on the Earth and so perhaps he should stop waiting and check to see if God's representatives haven't already responded to this thread.

Hiding games? Oh yeah right, with your standards of proof, God would have stand right in front of you in a lab with cameras trained on him and do magic tricks while whistling Yankee Doodle Dandy, skipping rope and creating a small replica of the the earth that you can take home and use as a Globe and even then you would have wait till you reviewed the tapes to decide.

I believe they are but then people like you quickly disabuse them of it.

 

If God's powers were advanced as advertised, adding a new link in his post for us to click with an embedded video of different parts (galaxies, other planets, supernovas, etc.) of the universe both present and past (if not future) with perhaps some real time narrative and any potential physical manifestion he may take might be fairly convincing. For a start.

 

To Mr. Writer: Facts don't really engage the heart. It's kind of like knowing the formula for water is H20 vs. the experience of swimming. I could go to science and ask what love is and it would say it's simply a release of oxytocin. So it's extremely limited in areas that actually give life meaning.

Also, something else I noticed about Sam Harris is even after spending months in meditation sometimes up to 18 hours a day he still doesn't believe in the interconnectivity of all things.

 

Science would never answer in that way. You would either get "Please rephrase the question" or you would get a 5,000 page treatise covering the psychology, sociology, biology, philosophy, and who knows what else, of "love". Hardly lacking in meaning for those who take the time to learn!

 

Wait...doesn't God say in the Old Testament that Abraham should kill his son, and then he recants? Seems kind of like that was a lie.

 

To Mr. Writer: It's still all just head knowledge.

 

If this doesn't move you:

"If you stretched the DNA in one cell all the way out, it would be about 2m long and all the DNA in all your cells put together would be about twice the diameter of the Solar System."

Or the fact that you would die before you could count every single neuron in your body.

You may want to check your pulse...

Also some religions have not been above being opportunists in trying to associate god with certain scientific discoveries.

 

I think you think you know what you're talking about but you really don't. You're using extremely vague terms and if you spent a few minutes scrutinizing your assumptions and defining your terminology you'd see that you're not actually talking about anything at all, and if you are, it's better described with other words, like "mind".

Your head is the only place where knowledge is known. If you're actually getting hung up on expressions like "to feel it in one's bones" or "to know it in one's heart" then you are only on the precipice of the most rudimentary philosophy, because you haven't taken the time to realize that all those expressions still have to do with the brain.

 

To Mr. Writer: What I'm talking about is living life out of the heart. It's actually being fully alive totally absorbed in life itself. You're freed from constantly living in the conceptual jail cell of never ending thoughts and get to experience everything on a completely new level. This thread could be called Does Life, Truth or Reality exist? Trying to understand the ever changing complexity of every new moment through science alone can't be done. Science can give up over arching general facts about it, but it can't give us the experience itself.