God does not exist

You're not recognizing the space inbetween, around, before and after everything. It's the space between the bars that holds the tiger. It's the spaces between the notes that allows the music to be played.

 

We are gods in our own likeness. Take in how extraordinary this life is, think of all things that is possible we create things with mere imagination like we are kids again. But we always were and are kids never growing up just learning more to expand imagination that we ignore is present. I am everything. and You are your everything.


PS: god can't be real because we are animals and in all religions matrimony is a spiritual thing but our only goal in life is to reproduce but we have been tricked into believing that we are more, but we are a creature in the middle of a cycle of evolution. Our species will end eventually, but a sub division of our species will take our place.

PPS: Now you see two of my viewpoints on the subject at hand very conflicting into which i propose I believe in most... Sometimes I find my self falling back into my Christian values.... This subject is difficult I think we can all agree

 

Certain issues of logic operate universally, but logic in general is concerned with all decisions we must face in life, not only the most simple. If you seek to approach an extremely complicated problem logically, you must go to much greater lengths than you go to when deciding that 2 + 2 = 4. In each individual there could be a entirely separate but also entirely valid logical conclusion reached from a set problem. In this sense logic is subjective. It is also subjective in that one person's idea of what is logical may be absolutely different from another's. There is no universal law of what does or does not qualify as logical.

Again, meagain, don't begin to think that I mean to prove to anyone the existence of god. I agree that the absence of evidence is not the proof of existence. The only point I seek to make is that a conclusive statement on the existence of god must be inherently flawed. The only accurate statement which can be made is whether or not someone believes in god.

Honestly, I don't see where anyone gets the idea that I'm trying to prove the existence of god. People keep assuming that simply because I don't agree with the statement "God doesn't exist."

It seems to me that any rational mind should be able discern that this statement has no scientific or logical backing.

 

your philosophy has a boundary , and in this it is spatial . to identify
space is to recognize a boundary .

some philosophies will identify the boundary of existence and
then be ruler of it . it is these people the aliens will eat .

 

a thought to ponder

if God does not exist and there is no creator, who created my brain? The most complex organism on the planet. How come I am not like the animals? Why do I not go by instinct like them? I have free will to do what I want, say what I want, eat what I want. Why are the best sights to my eyes things not created by man. Oceans, mountains and nature. Your belief in no creator is as much, as far fetched as someone who believes in a creator/God.

 

yes , our human nature is very mysterious . we make
these words mysteriously , and it good to have a philosophy
with soft borders to direct them . in this , we can receive
communion . we can intersect . this intersect may have a feeling
that is also mysterious - it's a perception of a natural otherness ,
within us , no division of the will twixt self and the otherness .
it expresses one in the spirit , one in love .

will some who say god does not exist declare also that
god is forbidden to exist ?

who will forbid the respect of a feeling by calling it unreal ?

 

Most animals have brains as well... You do go by instincts perhaps more than you realize as I highlighted. Eating, fucking, shitting, etc. are just a few of the mostly instinctual qualities that we share with many animals. The reason we can 'choose' what we want to eat is because we are well adapted to our enviornment and fortunate enough to not be born in some remote part of Africa.

 

Well said.

 

Interesting. Fasting and abstinence are two of the most prized habits in most religions. They are the two that separate us from the beasts. Shitting?......well if you fast it helps with that.

 

Apparently your parents don't value the most prized habits in religion at least and side with the beasts.

 

Nope, I was a mistake(surprise). I don't believe in black and white. There is a spectrum.

 

Just a couple of points of disagreement:

(1) The part about scientists, Nobel Prizes, and membership in the National Academy is a weak argument. This is one that Dawkins likes to make, for example, in The God Delusion. It's quite the rage these days in debates over evolution, global warming, etc., to produce lists of scientists who back the position being advanced. This fails to impress me, unless the scientist(s) concerned have thought deeply about the issue and preferably done research on it--which, in the case of God, is unlikely. What a marine biologist, like Dixie Lee Ray, thinks about global warming (she pans it) is irrelevant, particularly when she has political axes to grind. Likewise, what a botanist or paleontolgist thinks about cosmology is irrelevant. Scientists are humans, too, with their own biases, and some have written stuff that is ridiculous. Some are narrowly specialized and like fishes out of water outside their narrow disciplines. Are they atheists because of their knowledge or because it is an assumption they make in order to do science. Many scientists have a strong resistance to anything smacking of the supernatural or purpose in nature, for a good reason. Science has found that it hinders scientific progress to incorporate such beliefs into their research--a position that I strongly support. Phillip E. Johnson, the evangelical Christian who sponsors the theory of intelligent design, has taken science to task for rejecting supernatural explanations, but I think science has to do that. It is inherent in the scientific enterprise to search for naturalistic explanations. That doesn't mean, however, that science has found evidence against the supernatural. It only means that science proceeds on the assumption that such factors aren't relevant. Sometimes scientists forget that this is only an assumption. Of course, science can provide evidence that particular religious beliefs, like 6.000 year earths or 7 day creations, are false. That doesn't mean that science has disproven religion.

As for the beliefs of eminent scientists, a growing number who have turned their attention to religious matters support a belief in some kind of deity: physicists Paul Davies, Freeman Dyson, John Polkinghorn, Bernard Haisch, Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, Sir Arthur Eddington, Sir James Jeans, and Georges Lemaitre, to name a few. Those are "senior and learned" enough for me. Of course, when these men talk about God, they are doing metaphysics, not science. Rather than count noses, I think it's important to listen to what they say, look at their evidence, and evaluate their claims critically. Otherwise, we run into the logical fallacy of magister dixit.

(2) Another point of disagreement is with the use of the scientific model as the only legitimate model in the quest for knowledge. Science and "repeatable experiments" are the gold standard, but they aren't always feasible. Life is short, research funding is scarce, and there are many questions which no savvy scientist would touch with a ten foot pole, because they don't lend themselves readily to the rigorous methods of science and rapid publication in peer reviewed journals. Many of the Big Questions concerning ultimate meaning are of this kind. History and philosophy are in the same category. The social sciences aren't much better, and it's fashionable for the natural scientists to turn their noses up at them. But of course the natural sciences don't deal with such messy subjects as social and individual behavior, economics, politics, etc. Pending scientific "proof", are we to suspend all judgment or flip a coin? For example, a presidential election is coming up. Do we vote, or take the position that we can't possible prove who is the better candidate? I agree. We can't. But we can have informed opinions by reading and listening to the news and the debates and thinking about what we read and hear. It's not science, but it's not chopped liver. My religious beliefs are essentially informed opinions, which is what I mean by "faith". I don't "know" that they're true. I rely on my judgment to accept them on the basis of the available information, while trying to keep an open mind.

 

I took a little break away from here, and upon reading what has been posted I see nothing to which should be particularly responded.

I will make the obvious statement, however, which I am certain I already stated previously, that if there was proof of god's existence everyone would believe without question. Of course, the fact that people do not believe does not necessarily mean that god does not exist, but every day humanity makes assertions that something does not exist because there is no proof of its existence. Sure, we allow children the fantasy of Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy, but in every adult mind is the realization that neither being exists. There is no proof of the existence of unicorns or griffins, so should we believe in their existence just because they could exist? Just because something could exist is not a strong enough point compared to reason for faith.

 

It helps your argument when you outwardly admit you can't rebut any of what's been stated in opposition and instead restate your earlier points.

 

It would be untrue to state such a thing.

 

How do we use gifs?

 

There is a field called political science and many sorts of scientific techniques will be invoked to suggest who the better canidate is and why utilized by both sides. Things like track record on various issues, accountability, etc. These all function essentially as 'repeatability' 'reliability' albeit not in a controlled laboratory setting. We particularly in this culture thrive on competition, so even if there clearly was a better canidate based on track record and presidential criteria, we'd have aspects from these fellow physical human beings such as charisma and debating skills that may appeal to various aspects of our psyche and emotions that may sway our vote despite track records, accountability and what the science would suggest as a better choice.

However, while we may not be able to answer who will win between Obama and Romney with science , I bet utilizing and reviewing politcal trends we can hypothesized that Rosanne Barr is not going to be an elected president or any Third Party canidates.

 

Tikoo:

Peace is nothing more than harmony. In loving, we allow others their existence. We allow others to make their own allowances.

If we allow eachother life, we can approach everything of ourselves with love. Some say love is without condition, but life has a funny ( and mysterious ) way of being all we ever know of love. :-D

I seriously doubt it. The human body is an odd sort of democracy. Its atheism is truly only a clear conscience.

:-D Do our feelings want our respect? Feelings that can be hurt by doubt from without are worthy of changing into better ones.

lol That's like saying there is not everything without nothing, monkeyboy.

God is not everything, it is not nature, nor is it love. All these things are what they are. God, as synonym, is redundant.

I'll say god doesn't exist too if it means gods believers show where god is outside of their conception. In my experience with gods believers, they usually seem to be hiding something in their conception of god. It is as though their conception is nothing more than deference to conception. lol

 

I also find this a bit of a lazy statement I'm afraid.

I realize we are not in the religious faith thread but these topics do easily come together so I just wanna add here that if there was proof it would be knowing and not believing without question/having faith. Anyway, I think just because most of us accept Santa, fairies and unicorns are not real doesn't 'proof' or say anything about the possibility of God's existence at all. I know I can't convince you about that and neither do I want to. But me myself I am not waiting for proof at all. The only thing I wish for is tolerance, especially for people who have such a faith that they follow a religion (since I am convinced they are being generalized in a negative way).

Not a strong enough point for you. Does everybody has to think the same? People who have faith in something simply have faith, which you seem to lack. And no, you don't have to take it out of proportion and project the above statement on unicorns and the likes too. It's not what most peeps who believe in an higher entity do either. Ah well, you can do it of course but it serves less purpose than giving thanks to a (perhaps imaginary) deity.

 

our feelings , our respect . this is communion , though not first
communion . first communion is of child and mother and of
existence in the womb . remember this feeling . it will relate
to all feelings of intersected existence/will .