Do You Know Why You Don't Believe?

[Papersock]

Why do you think God is intangible and something that you cannot know?

Because god supposedly lives in another dimension from us that we cannot sensed. And anything that might be taken as sensing god is subjective and open to interpretation. God is an abstract idea.
If a god does exist it would be unlike anything we could possibly comprehend because it is beyond our realm of experiencing.

Something like that. I'm having trouble explaining it.

 

[eudaimonia]

I did not make a typo. You need reasons to believe in God yet you do not need a reason to be an athiest?

That is correct. I don't need a reason to be an aleprechaunist either.

So particles just happen? And physical laws just happen?

Yes. That's no more strange than saying that "God just happens". I believe that natural reality is self-existent. It doesn't need to be created or propped up by anything else.

And life just happens?

Yes, given the right conditions, and through abiogenesis and natural selection.

Happens all the time.

It just needs to have happened once.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tiberius]

But pictures can be faked.

I'm not comparing God to the Eiffel Tower, I'm comparing the level of evidence for both.

If you never visit Paris, the Eiffel Tower is just as intangible as God is.

We can, and do, know to some degree what God is. You just won't accept it.

Except we have countless sources of evidence for the Eiffel Tower. Countless photos, eyewitnesses, and I'm sure you could probably find the construction blueprints as well.

Care to show me anything like that for God?

No?

Then don't tell me that the Eiffel Tower is just as intangible as God is. because it's not.

 

[Willamena]

Except we have countless sources of evidence for the Eiffel Tower. Countless photos, eyewitnesses, and I'm sure you could probably find the construction blueprints as well.

Care to show me anything like that for God?

No?

Then don't tell me that the Eiffel Tower is just as intangible as God is. because it's not.

God has texts, eyewitnesses, and construction blueprints if you know where to look (philosophy).

 

[doppelganger]

God has texts, eyewitnesses, and construction blueprints if you know where to look (philosophy).

Mysticism = philosophy + storytelling.
Religion = mysticism - philosophy + authoritarianism.

 

[Panda]

God has texts, eyewitnesses, and construction blueprints if you know where to look (philosophy).

Yes but this is not the same, blueprints and pictures are objective sources. Philosophy, texts and eyewitness accounts are all subjective not facts but opinions

 

[Autodidact]

You can try. Your scientists are up to 13.5 now.

My scientists? You reject science then?

 

[doppelganger]

My scientists? You reject science then?

Isn't that hilarious? S_U responds to existentialism with an avid faith in empirical reality, but then poo-poos those aspects of empiricism that don't help him. It really is quite amusing.

 

[Super Universe]

You said "How can we know what God is? Can you tell what a puzzle is when you only have part of it assembled?"
I took that to mean we cannot know what god is because we can only experience a very small part of it.
But I guess you meant the individual closed mind thing.

I restated the question someone asked and then I answered it with - Can you tell what a puzzle is when you only have a part of is assembled?

We can experience a tremendous amount of God. A universe full, more than we can even understand at this level. But even it is still a very small part of God.

As we ascend we will understand more and get the full experience.

 

[Super Universe]

Because god supposedly lives in another dimension from us that we cannot sensed. And anything that might be taken as sensing god is subjective and open to interpretation. God is an abstract idea.
If a god does exist it would be unlike anything we could possibly comprehend because it is beyond our realm of experiencing.

Something like that. I'm having trouble explaining it.

God does not live in another dimension. God exists in heaven which is non-space/time. The central hub of the multi-verse. The dimensions are created by God energy. Heaven is not.

We cannot sense God? Well, some people are born with certain genetics that allow them to channel ascended beings. Not all ascended beings are good. These people almost always believe that the being that is talking to them is "God". There is much you do not understand about other types of energy. You give away your energy to these beings when you worship them. Other ascended beings target people to cause fear, another way for them to get your energy.

The soul transmits information from our five senses to God. In this way, God experiences everything that you experience. The communication is actually both ways as God sends information to the soul as well but your human form is kept out of the loop so you maintain your individuality and free will. Also, you would go quite mad if any of the information somehow came into your brain, the frequency and amount of information is much to high for us to handle.

So since God creates the universe and everything in it we can begin to develop an understanding of what God is just by studying - everything.

 

[YmirGF]

Isn't that hilarious? S_U responds to existentialism with an avid faith in empirical reality, but then poo-poos those aspects of empiricism that don't help him. It really is quite amusing.

From a psychological viewpoint it is a bit troubling when one demonstrates a highly selective idea set, especially so when inherent contradictions arise within the idea sets used. It is further troubling when apparent contradictions are brushed off as being the fault of the reader/listener. When said personality type then begins outlining specialized knowledge based on the flimsiest logic, or dispenses with logic entirely, the reader/listener can on pause in stark recognition of what they are witness to. The assurance that the witnessed event IS as perceived is when others are critical of the displayed slip-shod thinking and are summarily rebuked for doing so like unimaginative pups in a somewhat imperious manner.

I could go one, but I think you get the idea.

I assume S_U's dog has eaten his homework and that is why he does not feel inclined to answer your original (and very sound) request many pages back.
I have no choice therefore but to fail him on that alone.
What say you, Doppelganger?

 

[Super Universe]

That is correct. I don't need a reason to be an aleprechaunist either.



Yes. That's no more strange than saying that "God just happens". I believe that natural reality is self-existent. It doesn't need to be created or propped up by anything else.



Yes, given the right conditions, and through abiogenesis and natural selection.



It just needs to have happened once.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Life happens through abiogenesis? But you can't get it to work. And natural selection doesn't cause life it only controls populations.

All these particles forming perfectly within incredibly precise tolerences and then somehow forming physical laws and then time and then life? Not only that, they had to form it all in a perfect order and it had to all work the first time. If the first time you try to form a universe it does not work, game over! There is no second chance. It doesn't go back to the beginning to give you another chance.

Ymir said there were two camps, one believes the universe is open and the amount of matter and gravity available isn't enough to slow down the expansion so it expands forever and eventually turns cold. The other camp believes in the closed universe, one where the amount of matter and gravity available is sufficient to slow down the expansion and cause it to contract back into itself eventually destroying everything.

But he left out the third camp, the flat universe. It seems that the universe is actually flat, perfectly balanced in the middle of being open and closed. It will expand and simply slow down.

Wow! What another incredible accident! Thank you particles!

 

[doppelganger]

I assume S_U's dog has eaten his homework and that is why he does not feel inclined to answer your original (and very sound) request many pages back.
I have no choice therefore but to fail him on that alone.
What say you, Doppelganger?

I'm afraid S_U is going to have to take an "incomplete" on this one. He's simply provided nothing for readers to consider or reflect upon - sound and fury signifying nothing. Too bad.

 

[Super Universe]

Except we have countless sources of evidence for the Eiffel Tower. Countless photos, eyewitnesses, and I'm sure you could probably find the construction blueprints as well.

Care to show me anything like that for God?

No?

Then don't tell me that the Eiffel Tower is just as intangible as God is. because it's not.

Countless sources of evidence for the Eiffel Tower? So to you, photos are always proof? Photo's have been faked many times. And eyewitnesses? Don't eyewitnesses sometimes see UFO's? And blueprints? But aren't blueprints just drawings, the thing might never have been built?

Care to show you anything like that for God? Umm, the atom.

 

[Super Universe]

My scientists? You reject science then?

Not all, some I do. The reason I say "Your" scientists is because you worship them as they prance around as if they have actually created the thing they discover.

But they've never created a thing.

 

[doppelganger]

Not all, some I do. The reason I say "Your" scientists is because you worship them as they prance around as if they have actually created the thing they discover.

I like my irony on the side, for dipping. How about you, Ymir?

 

[Super Universe]

Isn't that hilarious? S_U responds to existentialism with an avid faith in empirical reality, but then poo-poos those aspects of empiricism that don't help him. It really is quite amusing.

Who doesn't have some faith in what they see? If I don't trust the road then I can't drive on it. If I don't have faith in the wood then I can't live in a home built from it.

Those aspects that don't help me? Help me what?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Countless sources of evidence for the Eiffel Tower? So to you, photos are always proof? Photo's have been faked many times. And eyewitnesses? Don't eyewitnesses sometimes see UFO's? And blueprints? But aren't blueprints just drawings, the thing might never have been built?

Fakery is done by people with their own agendas... with their own reasons for convincing people that something is true. What possible agenda can you think of for someone wanting to convince the world that a non-existent tall iron structure is actually standing in Paris?

Care to show you anything like that for God? Umm, the atom.

Umm... try again. Or explain your response.

 

[Willamena]

The universe has no known width, length, or height?

Not true, the limits of it's width, length, and height are not known but it still has width, length, and height.

Next time, be stronger.

If you can tell me how you know something that is unknown, then I'll believe you.

 

[Super Universe]

From a psychological viewpoint it is a bit troubling when one demonstrates a highly selective idea set, especially so when inherent contradictions arise within the idea sets used. It is further troubling when apparent contradictions are brushed off as being the fault of the reader/listener. When said personality type then begins outlining specialized knowledge based on the flimsiest logic, or dispenses with logic entirely, the reader/listener can on pause in stark recognition of what they are witness to. The assurance that the witnessed event IS as perceived is when others are critical of the displayed slip-shod thinking and are summarily rebuked for doing so like unimaginative pups in a somewhat imperious manner.

I could go one, but I think you get the idea.

I assume S_U's dog has eaten his homework and that is why he does not feel inclined to answer your original (and very sound) request many pages back.
I have no choice therefore but to fail him on that alone.
What say you, Doppelganger?

Hehe, yes, you are soooo smart. You impress everyone with your superior word play.

Why didn't you just point out my supposed contradictions then?

Why didn't you point out the logic I dispensed with?

Homework? The string you were pulling wasn't connected to me.