God Exists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2012, 04:51 PM
RE: God Exists
(19-02-2012 04:41 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Are you Rasputin now, Girly?

I'm just holding the mantle for HoC until he gets settled into his new digs.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
19-02-2012, 09:31 PM
 
RE: God Exists
(19-02-2012 03:01 PM)morondog Wrote:  So what you're saying is something like that the entire universe is alive and conscious of itself?

Not really. What I mean is that before anything existed there was a fundamental consciousness. This consciousness created the universe from its own substance. A good model for this would be a lucid dream. In a lucid dream an individual is able to create at will the elements within the dream.

As a thought experiment, consider this: You have a lucid dream, and in the dream you have a glass of water. You dump out the water and smash the glass, then you take a piece of glass and crush it to dust, then to molecules, then to atoms, then to quarks, and then when you got below that all you would find is yourself, your own consciousness.

Quote:[That which] existed prior to the universe I submit is outside the limit of human knowledge?

If that’s what you believe then you simply have to duck out of any conversation on the existence of God. I don’t agree with you, I believe the mind can conceive of what existed prior to the universe. No, we won’t be able to arrive at that knowledge through sensation, but we can arrive at it through logical speculation.

(19-02-2012 03:18 PM)morondog Wrote:  But with this weak concept of God I don't even have the postulate that he talks. I don't have any idea how you would give me evidence that this God existed which I would take as a reason to change my current position which is that this God does not exist.

I believe there is direct evidence for the existence of this fundamental consciousness. I believe experiments that have been done, and that I have done myself, with paramecium show that consciousness is not a product of any kind of nervous system, and in fact consciousness is apparent in these creatures and they have no conceivable way to generate it. Meaning that the consciousness must be external to them.

Furthermore, is precognitive experiences that many people, including myself, have had. There is no way to dispute them, and there is no way they could be possible from a natural process, given that they represent knowledge of a future occurance that has not happened yet.

These two repeatable phenomena are, in my opinion, the same kind of evidence for the fundamental consciousness as the cosmic background radiation is for the big bang.

We can talk more about these. But if you are to dismiss them based merely on an atheistic bias, then no, I have no way to prove the fundamental consciousness other than through philosophical arguments and thought experiments.

(19-02-2012 03:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  The universe may have existed forever, in which case there is no cause and no causer.

For centuries this has been shown to be impossible from a purely logical/philosophical position. Secondly, the evidence for the big bang is nearly irrefutable. Taken together, it is not rational to conclude that the physical universe is eternal. Rather, we have to accept it had a starting point.

Quote:The universe doesn't require a sustainer, it gets along just fine on its own.

How do you know?

Quote:The scientific view of the universe does not require a supreme being to be consistent and explanatory. Not everything is known. It's OK for something to not (yet) have an explanation; we don't have to make something up.

In that case, for all you know, next year “science” may determine that the universe is based on a fundamental type of consciousness.

(19-02-2012 04:32 PM)Thomas Wrote:  Test for God's existence.

Igor should parachute out of a plane and make no attempt to pull the parachute cord.

No matter what you post in this thread, I’m not going to respond to you. So, no matter what you have to say, I will not consider it.

(19-02-2012 04:33 PM)KVron Wrote:  What's the difference between that and Pantheism?

There is a subtle difference, but it is an important one. Pantheism states that the universe is God.

Monism states that everything is made from the substance of God.

With pantheism, the universe would have to be eternal, which is not possible, or God began to exist with the universe, which again is impossible.

With monism, God existed before the universe and created the universe from His substance.

(19-02-2012 04:37 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(19-02-2012 02:46 PM)Egor Wrote:  God is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.

Leibniz tried this route more than 3 centuries ago. Somehow I doubt you got the trailblazing skills to get farther than he did.

Not quite. His belief in monads was a bit different. And that would indeed be more like pantheism.

(19-02-2012 04:50 PM)Reactor Wrote:  Egor, do you got any obligations to this god, like praying or sacrificing?

In my religion, Veridicanism, the human purpose is to become Christ. Christ being God conscious of Himself from within His creation. So, my obligation is to fulfil my nature, like an acorn has the purpose of becoming an oak tree, so I have the basic purpose of becoming Christ.


Quote:Also, why do you believe in this god?

Five reasons:

1. Assuming there is a God, I find the logic of monism compelling.

2. Jesus Christ seemed to refer to God monistically and to a monistic union between believers and himself.

3. I have had many precognitive experiences, but three very profound ones, and I can only reconcile those by assuming a monistic fundamental consciousness.

4. I have observed and read scientific papers on the behavior of paramecia that indicate consciousness is external to living systems.

5. Thought experiments, and the observations of how my mind works indicates to me that my consciousness does not reside in nor is generated from my body.

Quote:Can this god interact with us or the world in general?

I believe He is essential for maintaining the existence of the universe. I also believe that we make contact with God through prayer (of course in this sense, we are really, ultimately, communing with our Higher Self—like a Pharoh communing with Ra, or Jesus praying to the Father. There is an apparent dualism that results from creation, but that’s another topic related to the Veridican theory of souls which we don’t have to get into in this conversation. But prayer, in a Veridican sense, is much like one of your dream characters talking to you in a dream.)
Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2012, 09:46 PM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2012 09:49 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: God Exists
(19-02-2012 02:46 PM)Egor Wrote:  
God is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.

This being the case He existed prior to the universe, everything in the universe is made from His substance, and that substance is ultimately consciousness.

If you agree with me, please let me know. If you don't, please say why.

What is "God's substance"? What are its properties, and how could we test this?

To say that God existed prior to the universe is not evidence of anything. In fact, it doesn't make logical sense. How would one create time, for instance, without time? To create time, you'd have to have a moment before its creation and a moment after its creation (otherwise it would simultaneously exist and not exist, which is by definition mutually exclusive). But how would you bridge those moments without time? To create time, time already has to exist.

I'm not saying I understand how time can start, but neither can you. When we simply assert something that we believe as fact in the absence of a credible and testable theory, that is a classic Argument from Ignorance (also known as the God of the Gaps). To say that God existed prior to the universe is a claim that requires some evidence.

Furthermore, if you believe that God created the universe, you'd have to explain a mechanism for creating something from nothing. Even if we could prove that God was around when the universe came into existence, simply being there is not evidence that he created it. As one of my favorite YouTubers TheoreticalBullshit says, creation can happen ex materia (from existing parts) or ex nihilo (from absolutely nothing). We've observed creatio ex materia, but to posit a God that creates even the materials means that this isn't the creation that we're looking at... but creatio ex nihilo doesn't even make logical sense. How can you "create" a universe (or act upon it in any way) before it exists? What exactly is being acted upon?

You seem to believe that consciousness is proof of (and the foundation material for) God, but you haven't said why or how that works... you simply believe it because you lack another explanation. What have we ever observed to be made of consciousness? And if there is nothing ever observed to be created of or from consciousness, then why would we believe that something was (over the much better alternative that consciousness, having no physical parts, cannot be assembled to create anything)?

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2012, 10:23 PM
RE: God Exists
Proof that the universe is not conscious:

1) When I yell at the universe, it ignores me.
2) I am the most important person in the world and am not to be ignored.
3) The universe can't be conscious or it would know better than to ignore me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like rook2004's post
19-02-2012, 11:16 PM
RE: God Exists
(19-02-2012 02:46 PM)Egor Wrote:  
God is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.

Bacon is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.

Clam chowder is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.

Tom Selleck is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.


Do you see how "God" is an interchangeable term in this claim? Without even considering or disputing the idea of a "monistic entity of fundamental consciousness," I can determine that your conjecture is flawed.

Like most theists, you already have an answer and are trying to force the evidence to support what you have already concluded. WHY does this force have to be a god? More specifically, WHY does it have to be YOUR god? There are thousands of deities dreamt up throughout the existence of mankind, none of whom have ever been proven to not exist.

Why did you not conclude that "Zeus is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness?" Your need to jam in an anthropomorphic sky daddy is making any honest attempt at philosophical discussion futile.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Buddy Christ's post
19-02-2012, 11:32 PM
 
RE: God Exists
(19-02-2012 09:46 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(19-02-2012 02:46 PM)Egor Wrote:  
God is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.

This being the case He existed prior to the universe, everything in the universe is made from His substance, and that substance is ultimately consciousness.

If you agree with me, please let me know. If you don't, please say why.

What is "God's substance"? What are its properties, and how could we test this?

To say that God existed prior to the universe is not evidence of anything. In fact, it doesn't make logical sense. How would one create time, for instance, without time? To create time, you'd have to have a moment before its creation and a moment after its creation (otherwise it would simultaneously exist and not exist, which is by definition mutually exclusive). But how would you bridge those moments without time? To create time, time already has to exist.


What is time? Does time even exist in reality. Some would say it doesn’t. I am one of those. Time is just an illusion based on the relative motions of objects in the universe, and even that motion is illusory, for things are really not going anywhere when they move.

Consider this: The past is gone and the future has not yet occurred. Right? And that being the case, we still see that consciousness ticks right along in this eternal present moment.

Quote:I'm not saying I understand how time can start, but neither can you. When we simply assert something that we believe as fact in the absence of a credible and testable theory, that is a classic Argument from Ignorance (also known as the God of the Gaps). To say that God existed prior to the universe is a claim that requires some evidence.

God of the gaps is a valid argument, assuming we define God and that definition explains things. For instance, If there is design in the function of the universe, and if the universe started at some point in the past, then we know that there has to be an intelligent (which implies conscious), willful creator. And reason dictates such a being corresponds to what we call God.

Now, if there is no design. If there was no beginning, then “God” is not a reasonable gap filler. Just because I’m postulating a God of the gaps argument does not mean God doesn’t exist. An argument can be bad and still be right.

Quote:Furthermore, if you believe that God created the universe, you'd have to explain a mechanism for creating something from nothing. Even if we could prove that God was around when the universe came into existence, simply being there is not evidence that he created it. As one of my favorite YouTubers TheoreticalBullshit says, creation can happen ex materia (from existing parts) or ex nihilo (from absolutely nothing). We've observed creatio ex materia, but to posit a God that creates even the materials means that this isn't the creation that we're looking at... but creatio ex nihilo doesn't even make logical sense. How can you "create" a universe (or act upon it in any way) before it exists? What exactly is being acted upon?

I’m not going to spend a lot of time responding to this, because I never said God created the universe out of nothing. That would be dualism, or lead to it, and I don’t believe in that either.

Quote:You seem to believe that consciousness is proof of (and the foundation material for) God, but you haven't said why or how that works... you simply believe it because you lack another explanation. What have we ever observed to be made of consciousness?


Everything in a dream is made of consciousness. Is a dream real? While you’re in it, it sure is. Are we living in what amounts to a lucid dream of God’s. I think we are. And of course I must, because I believe God is the only thing that exists, and the only model of creation I can fathom given that position is a lucid dream.

Now, you will say, “prove it,” but I don’t know how. How does the dream character prove that they are in a dream? They would have to somehow manifest the consciousness of the dreaming mind.

So, perhaps the proof of God is not found in a laboratory of some sort, but in the mind. Perhaps, unlike scientific observations of the physical world that can be proven at large, proof of God is always an individual experience.

Jesus said, everyone who seeks finds. Maybe the honest seeking of the individual is the only way to see God.

Or maybe we’ll discover more as this conversation proceeds. We’ll see.


(19-02-2012 11:16 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
(19-02-2012 02:46 PM)Egor Wrote:  
God is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.

Bacon is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.

Clam chowder is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.

Tom Selleck is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.


Do you see how "God" is an interchangeable term in this claim? Without even considering or disputing the idea of a "monistic entity of fundamental consciousness," I can determine that your conjecture is flawed.

Like most theists, you already have an answer and are trying to force the evidence to support what you have already concluded. WHY does this force have to be a god? More specifically, WHY does it have to be YOUR god? There are thousands of deities dreamt up throughout the existence of mankind, none of whom have ever been proven to not exist.

Why did you not conclude that "Zeus is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness?" Your need to jam in an anthropomorphic sky daddy is making any honest attempt at philosophical discussion futile.

Simple answer: God is a three-letter word that is easier to use than "The Monistic Entity of Fundamental Consciousness." TMEOFC seems pretty contrived. So, why not "God?"

Do you have some kind of psychological resistance to that?

For the purposes of this conversation (Let me repeat: for the purposes of this conversation), the term "God" can be used. Or are you saying my definition does not fit a possible definition of what we would call, God?
Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2012, 12:55 AM
RE: God Exists
(19-02-2012 11:16 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Bacon is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.

I know you're trying to make a point here, but the problem is, I could fall for this religion.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Erxomai's post
20-02-2012, 01:30 AM
RE: God Exists
(19-02-2012 11:32 PM)Egor Wrote:  Simple answer: God is a three-letter word that is easier to use than "The Monistic Entity of Fundamental Consciousness." TMEOFC seems pretty contrived. So, why not "God?"

Because the term "God" already has its own set of properties and attributes. This is the same reason we don't refer to the Big Bang as "God." They are two separate things.


Quote:For the purposes of this conversation (Let me repeat: for the purposes of this conversation), the term "God" can be used. Or are you saying my definition does not fit a possible definition of what we would call, God?

Within the confines of this conversation, you are choosing to use "God" so that you can discreetly substitute an interchangeable word placement holder (three meaningless letters) with the deity of your religion (God). You could use the same technique with "Unicorn." For the purposes of this conversation, let's call this force of consciousness "Unicorn." Then at the end, you can proclaim, "See! Unicorns DO have proof of their existence." Swapping out the meaningless contextual term with the weighted religious one (or mythical one in this case). Might as well change the thread title to "Unicorns Exist."

But since your ultimate goal here is a purpose-driven linguistic deception to assimilate metaphysical "forces" with the god of your religion, carry on with your "God" nonsense.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Buddy Christ's post
20-02-2012, 02:06 AM
 
RE: God Exists
(20-02-2012 01:30 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Within the confines of this conversation, you are choosing to use "God" so that you can discreetly substitute an interchangeable word placement holder (three meaningless letters) with the deity of your religion (God). You could use the same technique with "Unicorn." For the purposes of this conversation, let's call this force of consciousness "Unicorn." Then at the end, you can proclaim, "See! Unicorns DO have proof of their existence." Swapping out the meaningless contextual term with the weighted religious one (or mythical one in this case). Might as well change the thread title to "Unicorns Exist."

But since your ultimate goal here is a purpose-driven linguistic deception to assimilate metaphysical "forces" with the god of your religion, carry on with your "God" nonsense.

The whole purpose of this discussion is to prove God exists. I finally do what no other theists seems willing to do, in that I define God first, so that we can actually debate the existence of such a being. And now you want to gripe about that.

Maybe it's because you always relied on God not being defined.

I realize you could put the word "Unicorn" in place of "God." But a unicorn already has a definition. What other being besides what we commonly refer to as God could match the definition "the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness"?

I'm willing to admit or concede that this being may not be anything like a person as we know a person to be, nothing at all like the beings we have imagined to be God in the past. In fact, that is kind of how I see God--I don't really think God is a person. I think God is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.

I was driving into work today and it was raining. And I realized that God was conscious of every raindrop. In fact, he's conscious of every molecule of air, and every star in the universe, at all times. And I realized, this is not a person as I know a person to be. This is the perfection of consciousness in which I share only a small part. I partake of only a bit of it.

I suppose we are His person, or at least we are when we become Christ, which is God conscious of Himself from within His creation. We try to understand him by seeing his revelation in people--like Jesus Christ, but that's a topic for another conversation.
Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2012, 02:40 AM
RE: God Exists
(20-02-2012 02:06 AM)Egor Wrote:  I realize you could put the word "Unicorn" in place of "God." But a unicorn already has a definition. What other being besides what we commonly refer to as God could match the definition "the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness"?

I'm willing to admit or concede that this being may not be anything like a person as we know a person to be, nothing at all like the beings we have imagined to be God in the past. In fact, that is kind of how I see God--I don't really think God is a person. I think God is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.

Egor, I think there is already a monistic entity of fundamental consciousness devoid of prior definition. Let me introduce you to your god:

[Image: flying_spaghetti_monster_2.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: