THERE IS NO "GOD", Ok?

Libertine your just a non-conformist emo fag. God exists to the people who believe in it, whatever the fashion. That makes it real enough for that person, therefore it is real enough for me. I already shared my beleifs I don't need to say it again. Organized Religion is bullshit but all comes from the positive aim of the gnosis. Its ok that you approach higher intelligence with a negative ideal. It just shows your an ego-maniac, that thinks the human intelligence is the highest form of intelligence in the universe. Your trapped inside the box. You should go live in Cuba, and be an atheist communist leader worshipping dipshit. At least theocracy has a higher deeper meaning. So you believe theres no such thing as a human soul or astral light body? This is being proved in science as we speak, with the study of Bi-photon particle wavelengths. It is proven in science all organisms emit light photons through an "astral body", just like the physical body sweats water and salt (in the human aspect of it). This is a groundbreaking new study, that will eventually prove the human light body, and our ability to process photons emitted by all other organisms on this plane, and control our own emissions. Making telekinesis, and telepathy not far out of the question. It suggests that this is how animals communicate, recognizing these emissions, as we would too if we never had our wires crossed by the annunaki.

Now this also coincides with the Enochian light language, written thousands of years ago. You say theres no god, so therefore you say theres no soul which is the major denomination behind all religion. Pretty soon science will admit the human soul.

 

We used to have sun gods, moon gods, fire gods, etc. Science disproved that, so they faded. Now, we have a universal god. Science will disprove that, and it shall fade too.

 

SOUL = from the root term "psuche" from which we derived the modern word "psyche" (i.e. the mind).

Yep, science already acknowledges the existence of the mind.

 

this is now the most unintelligent post I have ever read.

 

There is no WHAT?

 

Dude

 

I mean the soul as the astral body, that continues after death and Buddhist monks can get to leave their physical body during meditation which is highly documented. I mean a body made of subtle light particles that is the true essense of humans and all living organisms sometimes called the divine monad. This involves the bi-photon emission and understanding. I shouldnt've said "soul". My fault. Its going to prove the animists of ancient times were correct, its going to prove that this is what all of Religion came about, a means to describe this animation of all living organisms behind the gross material shell. Its what Obi wan turned into when he was fighting Vadar.

 

I have yet to see any evidence for this type of "soul"

 

I was doing some praying and heavy thinking last night and I kinda just fell into a visual memory from two years ago: the birth of my son. I could never fully express within myself, or outwardly just how 'in awe' my awareness of God was at that moment. I watched a new creation cross the threshold of life...I saw that first breath that represented everything he will ever experience till his very last. In that moment I was stripped down beyond any mental reason or understanding. I watched the placenta deliver; I watched the body adjust, and woman is an awesome piece of machinery with internal workings that man will never understand. I cannot but be in awe of the glory of what can be held physically through human perception. And what is 'glory'...the word has no real meaning, but we try to transcend existence with our "astrals, universals and galactics" because they represent the outter limits of physical human perception.

But at best its still only physical perception. It is absolutely below my mentality to even consider that "GOD" does not exist, and by GOD I mean the word-association with 'reason' for creation. And as I look around at Elton John's Circle of Life I am silenced amid the perfection of Godly engineering.

So thinking back on my little son. How can someone grow up to think of himself so much more than that moment when he burst through from fluid to gas...to have the audacity to allow human ego to question the existence of a divine creator.

There was once a time when I used to take acid weekly and rant about the figmentation of religion, God and the existence of soul.

I can say this with every confidence...drugs create fog, not clarity. And God surely does exist; I would stake a million moments in my life on it.

 

Subjective experiences are not objective evidence, unfortunately.

If so, anyone could attribute their personal experiences to whatever they believed and that would make it true.

 

It's been a while since I have posted, but I had a thought and I wanted to know what you (Libertine) would say about it.
In this world, many of the tools that we use depend on scientific theories. Some of these theories depend on "universal" constants (planck's constant, the Newtonian constant of gravitation, etc.). These constants must exist in actuality, but can only be determined by deductive reasoning, never through objective observation. They are immaterial and cannot be found through observation alone.

Would a logical deduction be considered proof of the immaterial?

If yes, then how do you refute those arguments that use logical deduction to "prove" God?

If no, then how do you justify using scientific standards when scientists make use of logical deduction in support of scientific theories (which you maintain is not proof)?

How can you affirm scientific theories that maintain that immaterial, universal constants exist, but deny that the same method of logical deduction is sufficient when supporting the idea of an immaterial being? That seems inconsistent.

 

Libertine if you don't beleive in a soul then how do you explain the Dhali Llama?

 

I have yet to hear such an argument. Everyone I've heard has been riddled with logical FALLACIES, rather than logic.

 

You can't be serious.

 

So you would admit that deductive logic is sufficient to "prove" the existence of an immaterial being? You just deny that a sufficient argument has been presented that was free of logical fallacies.

What about inductive logic? If deductive logic is good enough, and scientific reasoning is good enough, then what about inductive reasoning? Can that be used to provide "proof" for an immaterial being (note that I am not even talking about the Christian God at this point)?

 

Elaborate, please.

 

On which part?

 

that is the human condition and we're the matrix of the moment. you're doing it here...i'm doing it here...everything is subjective, most certainly your post "There is no God", ok?

 

You can pass anything off using induction, Al.

I could say there is no more reason for you believing the sun will rise tomorrow than me believing a giant potato will rise instead by using induction.

I could do the same with determinism. I could say that everything that happens is determined by a prior cause, etc...etc...ad infinity... and that there is no free will, but the illusion of such.

Neither determinism nor induction have legitimately been dismissed, but unfortunately--for those who love to use them philosophically, it doesn't quite mess with the way they live.

Even Hume admitted as such about induction.

 

It is definitely the weaker argument (when compared to a sound deductive argument), but that doesn't mean that we cannot use it. But that is not what I am stiving at here. I want to see where the limits of reason lie within your idea of "proof."

I am not sure that I would go that far, but you could produce an inductive argument, yes. However, it would be a weak argument, even as inductive arguments go. Inductive logic, however, is a part of logic. In many ways, it is the "common sense" part of logic. It still has rules. It deals with probability. We use it daily in our lives. We assume so many things every day via inductive reasoning. But, if you want to cut inductive reasoning out of the realm of possibility for "proving" God's existence, that is your perogative (since you get to decide what you will accept as evidence or proof). It seems intellectually dangerous to me to dismiss such a large part of logic (and it is a large part) but I understand your reasons for doing so.

I am just trying to figure out where the line is drawn in your concepts of "proof."

Again you would need a strong argument. Really strong. You could make one, though.

Like I said, I am just trying to see where you draw the line. Apparently, a sound deductive argument would be satisfactory for proof of existence (I am not saying that one exists, just hypothetically). Am I correct in this?

BTW, if induction is not reliable for giving us information about reality, then why do you rely on scientific theories? Science (as a field) is almost entirely *inductive*. Specifically, that for the results of an experiment to be given a serious thought they must be reproduceable. This is inductive, not deductive. It doesn't follow deductively that because an experiment cannot be duplicated that it therefore is unreliable or is worthy of more skepticism (than a repeatable experiment) or is untrue.

How do you justify having "faith" in scientific theories but denying the validity of the principles of inductive reasoning upon which those theories are founded?