There is no God!

[Aemeth]

So x3n, you are saying that my appeal to something above nature to explain something from nothing is laziness wearing a faith mask?

[x3n]

It could be, sure.
Lissin, I don't know what steps you've taken to arrive at your conclusions, I don't know if you are still actively looking for answers. Frankly, I don't know you and how important should this detail be for either of us?. What is of personal importance, and it should be for all of us (not just in the forum), is that we engage that which is of the utmost importance, with a bit more interest than what the VAST majority of our race has shown for thousands of years.

The fact is, I jump in here because I enjoy these trades. As you may judge from the huge amounts of shit I spill in my posts, complete with my own personal grammar and Tourette's, I don't have many people around me to discuss this shit. I've got flies and fleas aplenty. I'm surrounded at some point or another by experts, geniuses, jocks, teachers, assholes and preachers of all shapes, sizes and colors and when it comes down to talking God...I have to be respectful or avoid the topic altogether. Why?, because it's personal and very important.

Why am I bringing this up?, because here, like out there...we shoot the shit on as many topics as we are interested in and we have talked god like a muthafukka. The end result has always been the same, at the end of the day it's always the same 3 or 4 dudes trading ideas because most are completely fucking content and comfortable and very pleased with the idea of a God that I find fucking repulsive. The truth is that even though these conversations have gone on for, I think, maybe 4-5 years, how many have cared to revise their position on that stock mythology figure?

This isn't a battle, or a contest, its just conversation. Talk fucking god, for shit sake! isn't it so fucking important? No!, not important enough to be challenged, or meditated upon. No, it's just important enough to have the idea that I'm being watched and cared for and I should make plans and pray...but how silly of me to forget he has a plan. At the end of the day almost everyone wants to go back to bed with that notion.
We are at a stage in this conversation where we've established the strong possibility (out of simple deduction) that the god of the bible was never there. No one else cares to drop in their 3¢?...on your creator and your final destination?

You started the thread with a simplistic view that shows nothing of my stance and speaks volumes on yours. Don't go and get salty when I consider views on a higher power with human traits "lazy".
My only comment towards your constant pestering on "something can't come from nothing" was that it is, was and has been satisfied with god® in the mix, all over the threads. Isn't that just magical, how god makes it all make sense? your proposed question for this thread as well as your magical equation buster are akin to someone starting a thread on relationship advice and you starting with "bitches ain't shit" with no hint of irony or humor.

Now, if I may move on to my actual post:
Since all my other questions have been passed on somehow, I'd like to ask again, at least these two:

IF...we are talking about an interventionist god. Why are the proposed test of re-animation, regeneration, or simple exchange with his creation not viable means to acquire evidence?

If not, if the god we are proposing could be one, many, none, all, beyond or long-gone. Why the fervor and reliance on a lesser god, a human god. Again, why worship Dr Manhattan or Thor? Was that because of limited imagination?
I was reading some brief notes on my own Pre-Columbian culture. There are several legends regarding gods that simply left. They made the planet, the details were left for other deities and they just left to make other worlds. Why can my dudes come up with a story like that (one which has been proposed here) and then we end up with some humanity-plagued god, so easily adjusted and transformed? A god unworthy as George McDonald called it.

[raum]

I gotta go back to school work in a minute, but I really need to hit this thread again. Sorry this will be far quicker than I want it to be.

Aemeth: Don't think any of us are questioning your right to believe in your God, which is very much more like the Modern Fundamental Judeo-Christian understanding that is based on the existing Catholic or King James version of the Holy Bible, or some derivative text (NIV, etc.)

However, I personally have done extensive research in, around, and pertininent to the proof or disproof of that text that leads me to conclude it is far from definitive. I find it to be an artificial text, and can provide forensic evidence of the poor translation and redaction. I still, however, find it to be a text worth mention, and review.

That is not a comment on your faith, but a comment on the validity of the claims people who share your faith make about their text. If someone believes in the Christian God, fine. If they believe in the Bible, they are misinformed or ignorant of the tenets of the Judiasm and its doctrine, the origins of Christianity and its doctrine, or they are just following the flock on the subject, and it is really not a factor in their faith. or, they are in denial that no such thing as literal truth existed before the notion of Objective reality was philosophically introduced well after the gospels were written, and these are "inspired" texts of liturgy to achieve a liminal state.

It could be, sure.

I think this is really xen saying in summary:

None of are judging each other based on this conversation, which is really an engaging open forum conversation comparing and constrasting our personal and/or rational incentives and arguments either for or against the possibility of a being that ultimately validates the existence of God. Our opponents in this discussion are not necessarily each other, but rather are deductive reasoning, personal bias, and semantic confusion, and the fact that few if any of us actually know each other outside of our community online.

We are not looking to convert, but to converse. We are not looking to change minds, but wouldn't be upset if we happen to open them. This is something he can't really do, because he is surrounded by smart and powerful cats, but none who he can talk to about this. so, he hits these threads pretty hard, with prolly some questions that dwell unspoken in his forebrain because they are not up for discussion with his peers, friends, or even mentors (or hell maybe his servants and teachers, I dunno.) I think that is fair game, and I don't feel anyone is saying anyone is *wrong* except maybe deepsepia; which (s)he can clarify. However, deepsepia does seem to focus on the Judeo-Christian claims of God, as you do. You two seem to have more focus on proving or disproving the tenets of your faith; some of which are not really particular to a less specific idea of God, as understood outside of that Modern Fundamental assertion.

But personally, this thread is why i keep coming back here for now. This thread is officially getting the "vertical" seal of approval, now.

Fist to the chest, my brothers in humanity; a warrior-poet's salute!

Vertical,

raum

[AYHJA]

VU is back..! Spirit of the world rejoice, those who rather I continue to post pr0n in boredom shed tears..!

I wanna have a go at least one of these Zen, if I may...

IF...we are talking about an interventionist god. Why are the proposed test of re-animation, regeneration, or simple exchange with his creation not viable means to acquire evidence?

The first thing I would like to say is that what I feel the biggest obstacles in these conversations are preconceived notions or stances...If I'm understanding you correctly, you're basically saying that if God exists, why not commune with a brother on a regular..?

MY thing is, personally and not to cheapen the thought or question, is to say, 'Who are we to say that this doesn't happen..?' To many, for God to exist means we have to experience something magical, or out of the ordinary...For me, I have had my views and spirit broken down so far that I would attribute such a thing as a miracle to be something beyond even the scope of Gods...I do not feel the need to quantify my experiences...If seeing Shauna Danielle (I always take it back to wimmenz cause that's what we do, lol) makes me feel something I don't normally experience, why can that not be considered by the grace of God/God's..?

What's so wrong or dirty or unnatural or better yet, inconceivable as to think we might get a little help here and there..? That reminds me of the story in the bible about Moses bringing water from the rock...Of all the amazing and great things dude did, it was the simple thing he attributed to himself that made him unable to reach the promise land...The one thing he did that would have gone unchallenged as truth, the one sorta ordinary thing he did in the whole ordeal...I hear that story once as a child, and to hear it as an adult, it sounds totally different...

Historically inaccurate and a great big ass story it may be, you cannot deny some of the lessons in the good book are potent, and more so evolving...

If God is a kid with an ant farm, then its easy to see how something so simple as a sneeze is a hurricane...How a mundane task of carrying food to the mound was made possible by a well placed leaf over a ravine that may or may not have been there before, but not out of the ordinary to have happened...To us, a leaf is but a small piece of something much larger, and it has many functions and cycles and all kind of shit we can analyze and study...A leaf is some shit we step on and take for granted, a nuisance...To the ant, that's a bridge to his family, a way to keep his mound alive...

If presented to us in such a way, could we comprehend such a power..? Or will we be like Moses, so intent to validate ourselves we loose track of what's important..? What makes God to me is not the big things...It's the little things...The details...The questions...

Man, I don't know how the HELL I didn't get a ticket driving 100 all the way there.....I don't know how, but she came home with me.....I got that bill paid just in time....I didn't study, I guess I got lucky....I was able to be strong for my family whne they needed me most......

Do humans look like humans to ants..? When an ant is on the hand of a man, is it aware of its surroundings..? Us humans, we think we so smart that we would know we in the presence of Gods...Goes without saying I'm sure, but I'll say it anyway...In the grand scheme of things, we don't know shit...Imagine a few of the ants are able to see far and high enough to see trees as we do...

-- "Yo! You wouldn't believe it man, but that's not a bridge you're on..! That's a "leaf" and that shit is actually a structurally complete angiosperm that consists of a petiole (leaf stem), a lamina (leaf blade), and stipules (small processes located to either side of the base of the petiole)..!

-- Nigga...That's a bridge...

[Aemeth]

Ok, here is why I think the "nothing to something" argument leads to "God":

Nothing can't come from something
Something exists

The issue here, is that nothing can't come from something, not even potentially. I am not hailing to God in a way that someone who says "look at quantum physics: electrons disappear and reappear randomly! God's mysterious order must be at work." Nope. I think that is bullshit. It is only a matter of time before these things become more predictable than a Michael Phelps race. But, nothing came from something. That is logically impossible. If nature by itself can be responsible for producing such an event it would shake our fundamental understanding of everything more than Ron Artest writing a good speech (note that this is purely hypothetical and used to make a point; b/c nothing can't actually come from something).

So, what do we do with this? Yes, we are ants. But the rules of logic are the same for ants, humans, and everything else natural. Even God can't make 2 plus 3 be 4. I say that something coming from nothing implies something outside of nature. super-nature. Why? Because "science" will never be able to prove otherwise, since this is a logical issue.

Does super-nature imply God? It's not important, for now we are bickering over mere definitions. Shit, I will call it God. But not as a cop-out, but rather it just seems like the best explanation to me (other reasons come in to play here, but again, they are not important right now).

Something from nothing implies that something outside of nature and certain areas of logic must exist. I would be impressed if someone could convincingly dispute that.

[raum]

Nothing can't come from something

The ideas of "Nothing" and "Something" are dependent upon human awareness and distinction.

Even God can't make 2 plus 3 be 4.

I can.

2 fifty cent pieces + 3 dollar bills = 4 US Dollars. ta-da!

raum 1
God 0

[Fapper]

raum 1
God 0

I won against God cause he didnt showed up ... an unpunctual entity who claims to be omnipresent 8-)

[Aemeth]

Maybe we should ask raum to bail out AIG the way he flips that bread!

Nothing and something depend on human awareness and distinction? How so? It seems to me like it is logic based on principle rather than anything relating to perception or understanding.

Of course every thing is based on human awareness and distinction...but the idea of "a thing" itself..? Pretty bold...

[AYHJA]

But the rules of logic are the same for ants,

Unless you've been an ant, I'm gonna throw my hankey out on the field here...What you just said further proves what I said as busted thought processes in my last post...It works the same on the upside as it does the downside...

[Aemeth]

Experience is not necessary for principles of logic...

For an ant, two pieces of food plus two pieces of food is still four pieces of food...

Logic dependent upon experience, such as "we cannot explain the Sun, so God must be involved" is probably different from an ant's perspective.

But logic independent of experience and founded on principle such as "nothing can't come from something" is surely universal.