Women are proof of the existence of God

[ChristineM]

Gods typically aren't constrained by physics though.

Btw, kudos for proper use of the term, "power".
People so often get it mixed up with force, & ignore time.

Physics isn't the problem, the problem is reality

BTW. Ta

 

[dfnj]

"Omnipotent" opens up a can of worms.
Such a power for a god would mean knowing the future in detail.
If the future is known (or at least knowable), there goes free will,
because one cannot deviate from the path foreseen by the god.

And this is a problem why? I would think the realization of omnipotence would require every possible reality to occur at least once. In others, a many-worlds type interpretation of reality would be required.

 

[dfnj]

Physics isn't the problem, the problem is reality

BTW. Ta

I thought you were going to say the problem is old sexist theist men who post on religious forums about beautiful woman being proof of the existence of God.

 

[Revoltingest]

Physics isn't the problem, the problem is reality

I agree....sort of.

BTW. Ta

"Ta?"

I wonder about his method of proving a deity exists....
He really likes women...a lot...a whole lot.
This not only proves there are gods, but also the exact number, ie, one.
Which one?
Odin (aka Mr Wednesday)?

 

[ChristineM]

Why would you ever think God is bounded by the laws of physics? How would you know that is true? Saying God is bounded by the laws of physics really seems like an assumption to me.

Omnipotent means being unlimited which to me is the same thing as saying not having any limitations.

Saying god isnt bounded by the laws of physics sounds like a guess to massage ones own sensibilities to me.

To say something exists in this universe is to say it must adhere to the natural laws.

Yes unlimited and without limitation are the same i was using the dictionary definition.

 

[ChristineM]

I thought you were going to say the problem is old sexist theist men who post on religious forums about beautiful woman being proof of the existence of God.

Nope.

 

[dfnj]

Saying god isnt bounded by the laws of physics sounds like a guess to massage ones own sensibilities to me.

To say something exists in this universe is to say it must adhere to the natural laws.

Yes unlimited and without limitation are the same i was using the dictionary definition.

Why would you think the creator of natural laws would be bounded by those laws. Just as much as my way of thinking presupposes the existence of a creator your way of thinking presumes the opposite. I think both ways are equal in the sense that one way is not better or more representative of our experience than the other. Both ways require certain assumptions that must be accepted as being true without any proof.

 

[dfnj]

Nope.

I'm glad you finally came around to my way of thinking about the divine nature of women.

 

[Revoltingest]

And this is a problem why?

It isn't for me.
But it could be one for those who believe in both free will and an omnipotent supreme being.

I would think the realization of omnipotence would require every possible reality to occur at least once. In others, a many-worlds type interpretation of reality would be required.

The omnipotent being would still know them all.
The can of worms remains....slimier than ever.

 

[ChristineM]

I agree....sort of.

"Ta?"

I wonder about his method of proving a deity exists....
He really likes women...a lot...a whole lot.
This not only proves there are gods, but also the exact number, ie, one.
Which one?
Odin (aka Mr Wednesday)?

Agreement. Yeehaa. Sort of ;-)

Ta is Lancashire for thanks.

Aphrodite or Freya for me.. but which one?

 

[ChristineM]

I'm glad you finally came around to my way of thinking about the divine nature of women.

Never said otherwise, i did say only (a maximum) of 50% of the population would agree with you and no god involved.

 

[shunyadragon]

So if you are theist, what objective evidence would you consider to be serious?

I do not consider there to be any objective evidence nor any notion of 'proof' when it comes to understanding the existence of God, nor trying to define God based on a hypothetical, subjective argument based on nothing but ones imagination.

I believe in the unknowable apophatic Source some call God(s).

If you are atheist, doesn't bother you the idea of a clockwork Universe or Matrix like simulation with hard determinism is simply not supported by any evidence in reality. The evidence we have from the smallest scale of measurement is the Universe is not clockwork by nature. The word God is as good as any to represent the uncertainty in nature's behavior.

I am scientist and yes, consider the nature of our physical existence deterministic from the physical perspective. This is not hard nor soft determinism, and cannot be compared to any sort of 'clock works' mechanistic universe on any scale. The science of determinism is indeed predictable on all scales regardless of the fact that unknowns indeed do exist, which represent the frontiers of scientific investigation.

There are many unknowns concerning the smallest quanta scale of Quantum Mechanics, but 'arguing from ignorance' does not represent a coherent argument for describing our physical existence as something that it is not. Despite what appears to be from the human perspective.

Even the apparent 'uncertainty' aspects of attributes of Quantum behavior not completely understood are indeed predictable behaviors that are consistent.

 

[ChristineM]

Why would you think the creator of natural laws would be bounded by those laws. Just as much as my way of thinking presupposes the existence of a creator your way of thinking presumes the opposite. I think both ways are equal in the sense that one way is not better or more representative of our experience than the other. Both ways require certain assumptions that must be accepted as being true without any proof.

There are several proofs that no gods (omnipotent creator gods) can exist in this universe that i find impossible to counter.

On the other hand, god believers will not accept those proofs because they destroy their belief system

 

[Sanzbir]

That it is not the only argument he uses

'Tis the only one used here.

Well spotted
But i cannot spot your religion on your posts, would you care to tell me where? Or perhaps you are to stupid to realise that the RF display is device dependent, css coding ensures that on a hand held device screen is not cluttered. Whether that info is displayed on a full size screen is not my problem.

Oh my, trying to use a phone for forum use?? Explains a lot, actually.

But if you're not going to take your time to look into someone's bio to see if they are of the religion you presume them to be before flying off the handle with a crazy post, you should expect to be mocked. It's a mockworthy act. If you have the time to type out a post on a phone surely you have the time to do some basic surface-level research, eh??

Wow, says then one who comes in here all guns blazing.

You mean you?? The way your silliness looks to me is:

OP: Women are beautiful and amazing!!
You, stereotypical neckbeard fedoratipper: WELL THE BIBLE SAYS GOD MADE CHILDBIRTH PAINFUL SO THERE!!

Your initial salty non-sequitur is hilarious, so please either carry on with amusing me, or head back to the stereotypical quagmire that is r/atheism, as you please.

My assumption is based on previous encounters with dfnj,

Really?? Granted I mostly lurk, so I may have missed something, but I've never seen the guy post something arguing bible literalism, which is what your initial post here stereotypically presumes. You just really seem to fit the (mostly untrue) atheist stereotype of being a person who thinks all theists are Bible-literalist Christians.

My clearest memory of his posts was this: My new way of thinking about God part II

Wherein he expresses belief in a pantheistic sense and seems to hold a very Jungian viewpoint of God, as well as some of the tenets of unifying duality as the key to happiness.

All very interesting ideas, but nothing from reading such posts would lead me to believe that the argument of "Well so the bible says" would even apply to someone who holds such a theological perspective.

your seems to be based on your need for an argument.

Nah, no point in trying to present argumentation to a living stereotype such as yourself. Mere mirth and me not taking this thread seriously is the cause behind my posts.

Also when you accuse someone of presumption it's generally a good idea to avoid doing so to the person you've accused after you've made that accusation. Makes ya look like a hypocrite, otherwise.

Yup, my bad, the missing word was know.

I thought it was knows.

But yeah, that's what happens when you type out angrily on a phone, things slip up.

Good of you to mock.

Thank you for making it so easy.

 

[Sanzbir]

Oh, and i made no such assumption, i did mention god causing pain of childbirth. One does dot need to be christian to follow the abramic god

OP, from my readings of his past posts, believes in a pantheistic god that exists as an experience in a very Jungian sense. This does not fit my understanding of an "Abrahamic God", but maybe it fits an "abramic god", ya got me there...

I don't think you actually have much experience talking with this person, I think you have experience arguing against a strawman of who you assumed they were.

 

[charlie sc]

You could say it is just simply animal lust feelings created by our genes. But I do not think so. There is absolutely nothing more beautiful and sacred than a man with his newborn. It is a most powerful experience.

Are you agreeing with the OP that god exists based on intense(pleasurable?) feelings?

 

[ChristineM]

'Tis the only one used here.



Oh my, trying to use a phone for forum use?? Explains a lot, actually.

But if you're not going to take your time to look into someone's bio to see if they are of the religion you presume them to be before flying off the handle with a crazy post, you should expect to be mocked. It's a mockworthy act. If you have the time to type out a post on a phone surely you have the time to do some basic surface-level research, eh??



You mean you?? The way your silliness looks to me is:

OP: Women are beautiful and amazing!!
You, stereotypical neckbeard fedoratipper: WELL THE BIBLE SAYS GOD MADE CHILDBIRTH PAINFUL SO THERE!!

Your initial salty non-sequitur is hilarious, so please either carry on with amusing me, or head back to the stereotypical quagmire that is r/atheism, as you please.



Really?? Granted I mostly lurk, so I may have missed something, but I've never seen the guy post something arguing bible literalism, which is what your initial post here stereotypically presumes. You just really seem to fit the (mostly untrue) atheist stereotype of being a person who thinks all theists are Bible-literalist Christians.

My clearest memory of his posts was this: My new way of thinking about God part II

Wherein he expresses belief in a pantheistic sense and seems to hold a very Jungian viewpoint of God, as well as some of the tenets of unifying duality as the key to happiness.

All very interesting ideas, but nothing from reading such posts would lead me to believe that the argument of "Well so the bible says" would even apply to someone who holds such a theological perspective.



Nah, no point in trying to present argumentation to a living stereotype such as yourself. Mere mirth and me not taking this thread seriously is the cause behind my posts.

Also when you accuse someone of presumption it's generally a good idea to avoid doing so to the person you've accused after you've made that accusation. Makes ya look like a hypocrite, otherwise.



I thought it was knows.

But yeah, that's what happens when you type out angrily on a phone, things slip up.



Thank you for making it so easy.

Easy when you make crap up, make stupid guesses and fail at every point. Stop projecting your hatred and anger, it only embarrasses you.

 

[ChristineM]

OP, from my readings of his past posts, believes in a pantheistic god that exists as an experience in a very Jungian sense. This does not fit my understanding of an "Abrahamic God", but maybe it fits an "abramic god", ya got me there...

I don't think you actually have much experience talking with this person, I think you have experience arguing against a strawman of who you assumed they were.

And your belief (guess) is relevant how exactly?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Women are just so amazingly beautiful. You could say it is just simply animal lust feelings created by our genes. But I do not think so. There is absolutely nothing more beautiful and sacred than a woman with her newborn. It is a most powerful experience. I think women are a direct conduit to God.

The feelings we associate or attach to our experiences are based on subjective judgments. The realm of spirit exists in our mind-space. The source of all the meaning in our lives comes from the Universe of ideas floating around in our mind-space. Our subjective experiences determines the reality we experience.

Our subjective experiences may be driven by forces and patterns in our unconscious mind but a lot of it can be brought to the forefront through the making of conscious choices. We can choose exactly how we wish or want to interpret the meaning of our experiences. I do not need a science to prove something I just know or choose to believe about the way we associate meaning to our experiences. I just know we have a choice in how we experience our lives.

I choose to experience the curves of a woman's body and the texture of her skin as divine.

I too find that women are alluring and have physical characteristics that I find very pleasant. I do wonder about your conclusion though. I wonder if Gertrude Baniszewski, Elizabeth Bathory, or Ilse Koch would agree with you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The beauty found in women is evidence for something transcendent and divine in spite of all our imperfections.

Not for me. Experiencing beauty is evidence that most minds have a faculty for this experience and enjoying it, a faculty that can be triggered by a face, a melody, or a field of flowers.

The word God is as good as any to represent the uncertainty in nature's behavior.

The word evokes the impression of a conscious agent in too many people. I prefer a word with less baggage. Einstein frequently used the word God to mean the laws of nature, and it created confusion and ambiguity over what he was referring to.

Why would you ever think God is bounded by the laws of physics?

I don't actually believe that any gods exist, but if I did, I would assume that there are natural laws which a god would be subject to. What forces keep a god from dissipating? Or maintaining the integrity of its thoughts and memories? What keeps the god conscious? These forces would need to be in place for a god to exist and persist.

Aren't the people making fine tuning arguments for the existence of god telling us that the god that they believe in is subject to natural limitations - how strong gravity must be or what the ratio of charge to mass in an electron must be in order for the universe to be hospitable to life and mind?

For that matter, what does a universe ruled by a creator god need with physical laws at all? Planets could orbit their stars according to its will rather than be subjected to an impersonal, fixed law of motion..