Author Topic: Ten answers about God  (Read 27592 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

March 26, 2012, 04:32:05 AM
Reply #30

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3356
  • Karma:
    -40
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
As a believer that god and his dynasty only exist because of the combined belief of man, why do people who believe in divine creation have to keep raising the matter where as those who donít partake in the divine creation theory do not?

And why if someone disagrees as it got to be that it is there ego that is doing the disagreeing not that the disagreement is based on understanding?

This is actually very good question :). Image of God as personified being (sometimes called Demiurge, false god) does exist as an egregore thanks to the combined belief of man, you have a point for that.
From that we can see that God is just a word and depends a lot what definition you use. For example Buddhism has omitted word God totally but meaning behind their salvation from cycle of reincarnation is very same as a definition for God I use, but it isn't a reason for ego-related message, either.

Reason why I sent that message to Enchia was that I am not here to convert anyone, I just need 10 questions regarding God that I will answer for myself so I can track my progress much later after I finish reading Zohar. From that you can see there is no need for me to prove God and there is no need for anyone else to attack my belief.

For the rest I believe you can understand a written text and therefore you have no problem in understanding what the message really meant.

Now let's get back to the topic, I am still waiting for 2 questions :).

March 26, 2012, 06:05:07 AM
Reply #31

Enchia

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1018
  • Karma:
    28
    • View Profile
Quote
What proof is bigger than knowledge itself?

Testable claims, I guess.

Quote
Typically when you need a proof it means you are not sure about correctness of the knowledge(opposite is true as well, many people don't chase proofs because they are scared that their knowledge will be rendered as incorrect).

That's true.

Quote
And what about existence? Doesn't your and my existence prove something?

In my mind it proves something but not the thing you are thinking, I assume.

Quote
I will use a typical cliche here: And the God created the world.
What is the proof? Well, we can begin with the existence of the world

If I understand you right your logical argument goes like : God created the world therefore the world exists.
Then again I will reject the premise that God created the world because of the lack of evidence for the existence of such a being.

Quote
If you do not believe in God then you don't believe in any proof of God

Its a strawman you are making here. I don't believe in God not because I don't believe in any proof of God but because no solid proof has been presented to me.

Quote
and if you do believe in God, you don't need any proof, right?

I guess that is the best definition of what faith is.

Quote
My very personal opinion why you asked me was your Ego. Your Ego felt attacked by my post and that's why you paid me with the same coin, why you counter-attacked me and there is actually even more of that.
When you asked me about the proof, you didn't ask me, you asked yourself because you believe just in what you know for yourself, we simply cannot believe in anything we don't know.

Still does not addresses the point I was trying to make.

Quote
Reason why I sent that message to Enchia was that I am not here to convert anyone,[....] From that you can see there is no need for me to prove God and there is no need for anyone else to attack my belief.

Please don't be so sensitive. I was just asking for some proof.

Quote
I just need 10 questions regarding God that I will answer for myself so I can track my progress much later after I finish reading Zohar.

I am throwing some though questions toward you. Be a bit more gratefull.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2012, 06:12:31 AM by Enchia »

March 26, 2012, 06:18:30 AM
Reply #32

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3356
  • Karma:
    -40
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
@Enchia: As you wish :).
I cannot give you any testable claim of God beyond testable claims you already have that is for one simple reason.
God is beyond physical world and what is beyond physical world cannot be tested. This might sound stupid, so I will elaborate a bit more on something we all know and agree with.

PSI:
PSI is a metaphysical energy (meta = beyond), meaning that we cannot directly measure PSI. Still, there are tests that prove existence of PSI, how that is done?

Simply, in tests we don't measure PSI directly, but we measure its effect on physical matter. Whether it is spinning of a PSI wheel, affecting of random number generators or even suggesting certain image through telepathy, we don't measure PSI itself. We do not measure the process, just the output.

By using above example we can say we cannot measure God directly, we cannot measure His processes, just his output and the output is everywhere around you. Your life, your surroundings, the whole universe is of His creation and I understand you will hardly accept that as a proof.

March 26, 2012, 06:31:04 AM
Reply #33

Enchia

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1018
  • Karma:
    28
    • View Profile
The difference between testing psi and testing god is that with psi you have a testable cause and a testable effect.

You can test the existence of a psion (being present in the room) and its effect on for example a RNG. With god on the other hand you have a testable 'effect' so to speak but no testable cause.
The cause could be anything one can think of. It could be God or it could be Fred the drunken alien because there is no observation or testable claim of and even if there is a cause outside of the physical world.

Quote
I understand you will hardly accept that as a proof.

I am actually surprised to see that you come up what a more unique argument. I was expecting some cosmological arguments or pascals wager etc.

March 26, 2012, 06:36:59 AM
Reply #34

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3356
  • Karma:
    -40
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
The difference between testing psi and testing god is that with psi you have a testable cause and a testable effect.

You can test the existence of a psion (being present in the room) and its effect on for example a RNG. With god on the other hand you have a testable 'effect' so to speak but no testable cause.
The cause could be anything one can think of. It could be God or it could be Fred the drunken alien because there is no observation or testable claim of and even if there is a cause outside of the physical world.

Quote
I understand you will hardly accept that as a proof.

I am actually surprised to see that you come up what a more unique argument. I was expecting some cosmological arguments or pascals wager etc.

Sorry for not meeting your expectations :).

Quote
I understand you will hardly accept that as a proof.
I would compare this to the Matrix movie. You can hardly say that world around you is an illusion unless you already was in the real world.

Now to use your logic:
Quote
The difference between testing psi and testing god is that with psi you have a testable cause and a testable effect.
What's the cause of PSI? Why does it exist and how does it work?

March 26, 2012, 06:45:57 AM
Reply #35

Enchia

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1018
  • Karma:
    28
    • View Profile
Quote
What's the cause of PSI? Why does it exist and how does it work?

You answered it yourself...

Quote
Simply, in tests we don't measure PSI directly, but we measure its effect on physical matter. Whether it is spinning of a PSI wheel, affecting of random number generators or even suggesting certain image through telepathy, we don't measure PSI itself. We do not measure the process, just the output.

To make it more clear:

Testing Psi:

Psion (testable cause) - Unknown process (called psi in this context, hypothetical) - Effect on RNG (testable effect)

Testing God:

God (untestable cause) - God's power (I guess that would be the process, hypothetical) - Effect on the universe (assumed effect)

Without a testable cause how would you ever know what its effect is?

Anyway don't start moving the goalpost.

March 26, 2012, 07:06:51 AM
Reply #36

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3356
  • Karma:
    -40
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
I am not moving the goalpost, Enchia, I was just preparing the background :).
Kobok is both Christian and Psion so I believe that he will elaborate the topic to greater extent.

Now regarding the topic, I wasn't asking about the process of using PSI (psion = cause, etc), but about the existence and purpose of PSI itself.
And reason was you want me to explain something as untestable as God is, yet you do admit it is impossible to explain even something as testable as PSI is.

I will mystify this topic even more by listing PSI and Magick as a proofs of God and my work is done here :).

March 26, 2012, 07:14:30 AM
Reply #37

Enchia

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1018
  • Karma:
    28
    • View Profile

I will mystify this topic even more by listing PSI and Magick as a proofs of God and my work is done here :).

Proof it and its a go.

March 26, 2012, 07:24:36 AM
Reply #38

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3356
  • Karma:
    -40
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation

I will mystify this topic even more by listing PSI and Magick as a proofs of God and my work is done here :).

Proof it and its a go.

That's the best part. As we cannot measure PSI or Magick directly, we cannot trace it back to the Creator in the sense we are used to. This means that PSI and Magick cannot be either verifed or discarded as a proof of God.

Meaning: We got to the point where we should simply argue to the death whether these are/are not proofs of God same as children would do:

-IT IS
-IT IS NOT
-IT IS
-IT IS NOT
-IT IS
-IT IS NOT
-IT IS
-IT IS NOT
-IT IS
-IT IS NOT

So to simplify this process of argumentation, I already specified why I believe it is the way I believe it is. Now you should provide me with proofs that negate my believes. Provide me with a proof that God doesn't exist :).
« Last Edit: March 26, 2012, 07:29:40 AM by Akenu »

March 26, 2012, 08:08:22 AM
Reply #39

Enchia

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1018
  • Karma:
    28
    • View Profile
Its just to easy.

Quote
So to simplify this process of argumentation, I already specified why I believe it is the way I believe it is. Now you should provide me with proofs that negate my believes. Provide me with a proof that God doesn't exist .

There is no testable evidence so why believe in something like that?

But in all fairness, you are shifting the burden of proof on me but I don't make the claim, you do. I just asked you to proof that claim.

You make the argument this: "I believe in A so proof to me that it is wrong or else it is true".
In essence A could be God, a pixie or Fred the drunken alien and all have the same amount of validity because they all lack the same amount proof.

March 26, 2012, 08:12:21 AM
Reply #40

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3356
  • Karma:
    -40
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Which is true, I don't disagree with that, let's just say that either alien or fairy story raises a very obvious question.
Where does Freddy come from? Did Fred the alien created himself (and therefore could be rendered as God) or is he creation of someone else (which once again would lead us to God)? Same goes with the fairy.

If I consider this discussion I could sum it up as those ten answers, so let's start with the debate.

March 26, 2012, 08:17:50 AM
Reply #41

Enchia

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1018
  • Karma:
    28
    • View Profile
Quote
Which is true, I don't disagree with that, let's just say that either alien or fairy story raises a very obvious question.
Where does Freddy come from? Did Fred the alien created himself (and therefore could be rendered as God) or is he creation of someone else (which once again would lead us to God)? Same goes with the fairy.

Who knows but you can't just insert God in any gap of understanding. It's called the God of the gaps argument.
If you really want start a debate then propose a theory about a topic concerning the God hypothesis because we only talked about methods of defining proof.

March 26, 2012, 08:20:05 AM
Reply #42

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3356
  • Karma:
    -40
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Ok, but before I will do that and before we will continue in our debate overall, I want everyone willing to join the conversation to read this material:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

March 26, 2012, 08:24:07 AM
Reply #43

Enchia

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1018
  • Karma:
    28
    • View Profile
What are you trying to prove with that link? If you want to speculate on what came before the big bang then I can only say that it is unknown and if you want to insert God in that gap then I have to disappoint you because there are also other hypothesises concerning that question with just as much validity.

March 26, 2012, 08:41:45 AM
Reply #44

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3356
  • Karma:
    -40
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Not trying to prove anything with that link :).
I just want to make sure that we all will take those hypothesises you have talked about into consideration and we will work with new and creative ideas instead of repeating old arguments that led nowhere, anyway.
(wikipedia article about Big Bang leads to many other articles, even regarding creatio ex nihilo, creation from nothing).

But you are right I want to take the time predating big bang into consideration and for following reasons:
1) When Creator before the act of creation is called Ein Sof in Kabbalah and if we take Big Bang as a process of creation, then we at least have a fixed point. I don't want to direct discussion just into this part, I just want it to be part of the debate
2) By speaking about time before Big Bang, we will get rid of Fred the alien.