What's your definition of "God"?

[Ferre]

I do know about determinism John, and although I am familiar with the concept, at the same time I am one of those people who think that occurances are not always the result of unbroken chains, I am one of those people who only partly support the theory, I think that it is free will that can, and does change those chains of events, even when changed due to free will, a chain of events will still be unbroken.

As you know, I am not a philosopher neither did I study it, but that doesn't make my views less credible, there are numerous scientists and philosophers who do not agree with the theory. In fact, the theory is known to be something that mostly religious people support, you won't find many atheists supporting that idea.

It's an opinion, nothing more, as there is the theory that all we expierience is the projection of the mind's eye, just another theory, just as worthful, or worthless, whatever suits the interpretor.

Originally Posted by mvandemar

Ferre, do you have free will? Do you have the power to think and believe whatever you like, for instance?

Yes.

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Yes.

Ok, try this quick exercise if you could please...

Suspend your disbelief in God for a moment. Completely allow yourself to believe in a benevolent higher power, one who is, or who effectively is, omniscient. One that can take away pain from you, and give you strength when you need it. Don't just get the point where you allow for the possibility for God to exist. Bring yourself all the way to full fledged belief, to certainty.

Allow yourself to believe this completely for at least 10 minutes. Then come back and tell us what it felt like.

-Michael

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by mvandemar

Ok, try this quick exercise if you could please...

Suspend your disbelief in God for a moment. Completely allow yourself to believe in a benevolent higher power, one who is, or who effectively is, omniscient. One that can take away pain from you, and give you strength when you need it. Don't just get the point where you allow for the possibility for God to exist. Bring yourself all the way to full fledged belief, to certainty.

Allow yourself to believe this completely for at least 10 minutes. Then come back and tell us what it felt like.

-Michael

It felt like I was really trying hard to imagine there's a god that can take away imaginable pain and give me strength when I need it.

My "ego" can use its free will to attempt to feel and imagine stuff that's not there, it cannot make real that which is not there, that would be delusional, which I am not. Even when I suspend my disbelieve, wich I have done many times in the past for your information, allowing myself to 'see god' as I was adviced by others, open to get the message if it was there, I do not receive that message.


I did have a lot of enlightened experiences though, but none of those indicated that there is a god as described by the Abrahamic cults.


Did you ever use DMT, Ayahuaska or LSD during periods of time to explore your spirituality in such a way? It's the oldest method known to man to experience what some call god. I did, do it regulary and I do understand the concept but that doesn't make me believe in what Abraham made it to be.

To me, to describe 'god' would be that it's the intergallactic connection we feel through the energy source that feeds us all. Our earth being one of he adaptors.

[G10]

Originally Posted by Ferre

I am one of those people who only partly support the theory, I think that it is free will that can, and does change those chains of events, even when changed due to free will, a chain of events will still be unbroken.

Not sure if people would class me as religious or not but I also think that it is 'free will' that changes those events. Hell, even the bible (or manual in your case ) supports 'free will' for changing outcomes believe it or not.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Ferre

I do know about determinism John, and although I am familiar with the concept, at the same time I am one of those people who think that occurances are not always the result of unbroken chains, I am one of those people who only partly support the theory, I think that it is free will that can, and does change those chains of events, even when changed due to free will, a chain of events will still be unbroken.

As you know, I am not a philosopher neither did I study it, but that doesn't make my views less credible, there are numerous scientists and philosophers who do not agree with the theory. In fact, the theory is known to be something that mostly religious people support, you won't find many atheists supporting that idea.

It's an opinion, nothing more, as there is the theory that all we expierience is the projection of the mind's eye, just another theory, just as worthful, or worthless, whatever suits the interpretor.



Yes.

Everything in the physical world is subject the the law of cause and effect.

The fact that you believe in free will would seem to indicate that you believe in a non-physical dimension. Oh how Dawkins would be disappointed in you.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Everything in the physical world is subject the the law of cause and effect.
The fact that you believe in free will would seem to indicate that you believe in a non-physical dimension. Oh how Dawkins would be disappointed in you.

Yes, I do realize there's a non physical demension, and where did you get the idea that I care what Dawkins thinks about that?

Dawkins has a few theories I agree with, and he also has a few theories that I do not agree with. Like I have with you too. Some of your theories I can agree with, some other theories not.

Don't forget that I have experienced demensions we do not find in our daily life, don't forget that even scientific research has found that certain entheogens, like DMT, open the mind to other demensions than the physical one. dawkins does not have that experience, and therefor he cannot know for sure.

In the history of the universe, life has never randomly occurred.

Says who? Has the universe been totally researched now? that's news to me. Again, you display assumptions as if they are fact.

[vinodis]

God = The reverse.

[G10]

Seems like we got a Soup Dragons fan - You'll work it out!

[robert s.]

"When god created mankind - she was only experimenting!"

[G10]

You hit the nail on the head dude.

All the probs, all the wickedness, how it all went wrong can be summed up in one word - She

[aimhigh]

Originally Posted by robert s.

"When god created mankind - she was only experimenting!"

Where did you get such idea. You mean your parent also made an experiment and you are the result?

[robert s.]

life in general is so complicated, has so many traps and chances to f*** up - only a woman could have organized this!

[G10]

lol!

Not even I could get away with a comment like that here and I'm a male chauvinist pig

Too many women here at v7n to get away with stuff like that, dude. - I'm guessing those red blocks will never turn green

[K-Max]

Originally Posted by robert s.

life in general is so complicated, has so many traps and chances to f*** up - only a woman could have organized this!

A book was published about all of this. It's called "God is a Woman" by Ian Coburn. Really, there is a book by that name.

[briggidere]

OK, lets take it a bit further......

God is god, lets pretend he/she exists for sure for a minute. (not saying he/she does or doesn't, so don't bite my head off)

Do you not think he/she will be wondering, how the hell did i get here, someone must be looking over me? This is when he's not having a look at whats going on down here. (Amsterdam red light district i bet... LOL)

Does he/she have some friends to go the the big beer garden in the sky and watch the football with? (it's must always be sunny enough to sit outside there)

If God exists, something else must exist as well. (and dont say the devil...)

[John Scott]

If God exists, something else must exist as well.

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

[Zap]

I think it sounds like a "chicken and the egg" thing.

If God exists, someone or something must have created God. Who or What?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

If God exists, someone or something must have created God.

There are some who would argue this line, but the conclusion is not supported by a logical argument.

People can argue, is the universe exists, then it had to be created by somebody, an argument better applied to life than to the universe (life is infinitely more complex than the universe). I guess that would be the 747 argument.

probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane sweeping through a scrap-yard would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747"

(Dawkins responded to this by saying that living organisms developed through cumulative steps to their current level of complexity. The argument misses the point. We are not discussing the complexity of organisms, but the very complexity and absolute improbability of life. In the history of the universe, life has never randomly occurred.)

Back to the "God must have a creator" argument.

It assumes that God is a physical being subject to our physical laws, despite the fact that most "Supreme Being" arguments attribute an extra-physical nature to the Big Guy.

[ewomack]

All creationist arguments must deal with the question: "where did the creator come from?" Was it/he/she always present? Is it turtles all the way down? Did some energetic or biological process create a being that had omnipotence? Will the creator always be there? Is the creator infinite? These questions lie directly in the scope of metaphysics. They are questions that we have neither no, or at best indirect, physical evidence nor incorrigible logical arguments for. These arguments also apply to atheism, because that view represents more or less the negation of theism or embedded universal intelligence or force. The atheist then has to answer the question "why is there no creator or universal force that guides the universe?" The atheist and the theist are essentially in the same position when it comes to metaphysical questions of existence. So why do they argue so much? To speak in gross generalizations, both sides think or "believe" they know the "truth." Neither side actually knows anything regarding the answers to these questions.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by ewomack

All creationist arguments must deal with the question: "where did the creator come from?" Was it/he/she always present? Is it turtles all the way down? Did some energetic or biological process create a being that had omnipotence? Will the creator always be there? Is the creator infinite? These questions lie directly in the scope of metaphysics. They are questions that we have neither no, or at best indirect, physical evidence nor incorrigible logical arguments for. These arguments also apply to atheism, because that view represents more or less the negation of theism or embedded universal intelligence or force. The atheist then has to answer the question "why is there no creator or universal force that guides the universe?" The atheist and the theist are essentially in the same position when it comes to metaphysical questions of existence. So why do they argue so much? To speak in gross generalizations, both sides think or "believe" they know the "truth." Neither side actually knows anything regarding the answers to these questions.

Way to go Ed.!

What are we going to argue about now!

Maybe we should just ignore him, he doesn't really exist anyway.