The Unification of God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2013, 02:46 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2013 02:02 AM by JAH.)
RE: The Unification of God
childeye, please go away. The OP made a very interesting point about how monotheism may be related to a human need to have a simple easily understood explanation for existence and much more. OP please excuse my paraphrasing if you find it overly simple and inaccurate.

childeye instead of discussing this actually quite interesting possibility and the potential social/political reasons for it, you hijacked the thread with one of your god is love stupidities.

If god is love why cant I fuck with the same rigor as I could when 22.

To the OP, I tend to agree with Bucky Ball, the whole monotheism move was probably much more political than cultural. I through accident of ancestry became very interested in the Icelandic Sagas and Viking history. The unification of the Scandinavian countries was very much aided by the church. A move made to increase the churchs power.

I have no doubt that there is a human need to have a simple explanation for everything. I will not deny that is in the mix. But, I think consolidation of power and influence had a much greater influence.

One god, one king, one obligation
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 03:01 PM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2013 03:11 PM by childeye.)
RE: The Unification of God
(10-09-2013 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Drop the hammer...

(09-09-2013 11:47 PM)childeye Wrote:  I disagree. I clearly established using your own words from the record that you make up your own definitions of God which you then don't believe in. I proved that atheism always ends in hypocrisy when God is defined as Love. Hence love rules as the supreme moral authority.

Congratulations, your definition of a god is meaningless. Your god is an emotion, big fucking whoop. Love does not create the universe, love does not punish sin, love does not answer prayer. Love is simply an emotion, a chemical reaction in the brain experienced by sufficiently intelligent social animals. Your 'god' concept is indistinguishable from an aspect of nature, and thus is a superfluous and unnecessary assumption.
I think Love is meaningful not meaningless. Your reasoning is quite understandable however since you count empathy as no different than the bodily function of pooping and peeing.


Quote:Not at all. One cannot discern what is Light without the concept of darkness.


Quote:Light is a packet of energy in the visible light spectrum known as a photon. Darkness is simply an absence of photons, darkness is not a 'thing', it is the absence of something in particular. Much like atheism is a lack of belief in gods...
I think you have made my point.


(09-09-2013 10:46 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You are attempting now to create an exception to a rule, AFTER you posited a rule with no meaningful exception.
Quote: What rule would that be? I only posted the golden rule. What exception do you claim I am now putting forth?

He's talking about this...

Quote:Certainly any Creator would exist outside of time and space. That does not mean His energy is not in the creation. Nor does it exclude Him from entering it or declaring future events that He knew would happen according to His proposed purpose. Hence His energy and intentions would transcend matter since matter time and space were both conceived and composed by it. How you can claim nothing transcends matter is clearly a reach beyond your knowledge. You should admit at least that there exists an energy that all matter was composed of.

Quote:You're entire paragraph is a word soup of contradictions and presuppositions. You have no evidence for anything you've simply asserted out of this air. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
So you are saying any Creator would not be outside of the time and space he created? That makes no sense. What makes you an expert in Creators of universes when in fact you don't believe in any Creator? Are you saying that there was no energy that the universe was created from?


Quote:My point is matter is composed of energy which is supported by big bang theory and the discovery of the higgs boson which is believed to direct energy what to form in to. Hence energy existed before the physical matter we see. Sure, even the higgs boson is made of energy that came from somewhere. Still the energy came first.

Quote:I love the 'I don't know, therefore quantum mechanics, therefor god' arguments from ignorance. The Higgs Boson is a fundamental particle and part of the standard model, and is believed to confirm the existence of the Higgs field, which theoretically gives mass to the other fundamental particles. It is physics, not the Big Bang theory, that has posited and shown that matter is just another form of energy. Most likely everything was energy at first. Unfortunately we don't know where that energy came from, but I'd bet good money it didn't come from an emotion... Drinking Beverage
I don't think you've said anything here I disagree with other than your bet. At least you admit this, "Most likely everything was energy at first", which was my entire point.
(09-09-2013 10:11 PM)childeye Wrote:  Everything we say speaking of what is eternal is automatically a concept from the temporal since we exist in the temporal. One would not distinguish the Light without the dark is essentially saying the same thing. So what is your point?
My point is you've made no useful point by saying the phrase eternal endurance is a temporal concept. As far as I can tell, it is no different than saying temporal existence is an eternal concept.

Quote:Once again, what is the point of your word soup? If your objective is to write nonsensical drivel with the aim of being as obtuse and confusing as possible, then mission accomplished.
Read the record, Bucky Ball made the statement that is pointless. I simply pointed out why.


(09-09-2013 10:11 PM)childeye Wrote:  Finally, what exactly do you expect me to prove to you? I've proven Love exists and is the highest moral power for which most all sensible of mankind count as the highest reason to live and die for.
You all agreed Love rules as our moral spirit, you just don't want to reference Love as God. Hence you have an aversion to the term rather than what it refers to. I proved that and so did you.

Quote:We did not all agree to this and you have once again failed to 'prove' anything, thanks for playing, I award you zero points.
You weren't even there, so you have no place to stand and say anything about it.


(09-09-2013 10:46 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Love may be a "value", and in Christianity it may be a "virtue". No Christian theologian claims it's their deity.
Quote:How wrong you are. Even dictionaries recognize that God is love to Christians. The very act of Christ in the Gospel is regarded as a divine Love by Christians.

Quote:Need I start quoting the Bible to remind you of acts of divine hate, murder, war, genocide, misogyny, racism, etc.? Divine love? If you consider the tortured death of your 'only son' as divine love, I'd hate to see what you'd do to any of your children in sharing 'god's love' with them; as I imagine it would involve a pile of 2x4's and a nail gun, or maybe kerosene and matches.
Very funny,(not really).

Quote:Don't want to posit the tradition god of theism as love? Want to try for something more deistic? Doesn't work. This is not the universe that a loving god would create. Also the concept of 'love' is meaningless outside of an interventionist or creationist deity concept. A god that never does anything or never created anything has no way of expressing it's 'love', just being is not love.
When I read scripture, it points out that this world is a place that has been corrupted. That does not mean a loving God did not create it. Nor does it say God does nothing.


(09-09-2013 10:46 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It certainly is a human emotion.
It is no deity.You have proven nothing.
Quote:It is an emotion seen in many creatures.

Quote:Congratulation for finally figuring this out. Will it stop you from make baseless assumptions in the future on behalf of your god concept? Probably not...
Of course not. Indeed your claim that my assumptions are baseless are themselves baseless. I don't simply assume that Love is man's goodness, I know it from personal experience.


Quote:Your aversion to the term God is clearly seen.

Quote:Bucky and I both have an aversion to presupposition.
Then is it not hypocritical to presuppose that there is no God, no Godhead, no higher power than yourself?


Quote:Please try and understand that Faith is about wanting to believe God is Love, not proving Love is a deity.

Quote:Argument from ignorance.
How is it ignorant to know a person must choose what they will trust in?


Quote:So that you might ask yourself in all honesty why would you want to believe God is not Love?

Quote:Nope, argument from ignorance. There is no good reason to believe that a god exists, let alone that it's your unsupported and nonsensical assumption that it is an emotion.
Your aversion to the term God is not the point of the question. How is it that when I say what one believes to be true affects their state of mind, you call it nonsensical and an assumption? The fact is, it is your assumption that it is an assumption and nonsensical that is nonsensical. Of course what one believes affects their state of mind. That is how certain emotions are provoked. Tell me why God (if He exists) would not wish to be understood in the emotion of empathy as our moral guidance given to us by our Creator?


Quote:Ask yourself why anyone would want to believe Love does not endure forever?

Quote:Argument from consequence and ignorance. 'Love' is a label that we give to an emotion, born of chemical reactions in the brain.
Again, the bio- mechanical description of Love. And heroine is happiness.

In a universe that does not contain any life, or where all life ceases to exist, love will cease to exist. Unless you have some evidence to put forward that inanimate objects like rocks are capable of emotion and keeping 'love' alive in the absence of intelligent life.[/quote]
Indeed I would not try to prove that even intelligent life can keep Love alive. That is why I believe in God as Love. Because scripture claims intelligent Life cannot keep love alive. Hence the word grace is used.


Quote:Ask yourself what are the different implications of both beliefs and the accompanying spirits that dwell therein?

Quote:Evidence for spirits or GTFO.
Spirits are emotions. Note: spirit of joy, spirit of friendship, spirit of pride, etc...


Quote:I did ask those questions because I saw no harm in considering and weighing the different outcomes. Faith is logical.

Quote:Faith =/= Logic.

Faith
-complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Logic
-reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Notice how one requires evidence and justification, and the other does not? Drinking Beverage

The moral choice Love requires is whether I should sacrifice myself for others or sacrifice others for myself. It is clear to me that if everyone sacrifices them selves for others there need not even be any sacrifice. But if everyone believes they should sacrifice others for them selves, then we will all suffer and die. Faith is logical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 03:23 PM
RE: The Unification of God
childeye, ok I give up being polite, go away you asshole, you offer nothing to this thread. I assume that you are making the argument that monotheism arose because there is one true god and that god (by your definition I would point out) is "love". Now go away and allow those of who find this an interesting social/political question a chance to discuss.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like JAH's post
11-09-2013, 01:32 AM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2013 11:02 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: The Unification of God
(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Congratulations, your definition of a god is meaningless. Your god is an emotion, big fucking whoop. Love does not create the universe, love does not punish sin, love does not answer prayer. Love is simply an emotion, a chemical reaction in the brain experienced by sufficiently intelligent social animals. Your 'god' concept is indistinguishable from an aspect of nature, and thus is a superfluous and unnecessary assumption.

I think Love is meaningful not meaningless. Your reasoning is quite understandable however since you count empathy as no different than the bodily function of pooping and peeing.

Love can be meaningful, I happen to value love. But it is man made label of an objective chemical reaction that is valued and experienced subjectively. Love as an emotion is not meaningless (but it's value is still subjective), but using it as a place holder for your god concept is meaningless.



(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Not at all. One cannot discern what is Light without the concept of darkness.

Light is a packet of energy in the visible light spectrum known as a photon. Darkness is simply an absence of photons, darkness is not a 'thing', it is the absence of something in particular. Much like atheism is a lack of belief in gods...

I think you have made my point.

It does nothing to substantiate your word soup.

Quote:Everything we say speaking of what is eternal is automatically a concept from the temporal since we exist in the temporal. One would not distinguish the Light without the dark is essentially saying the same thing. So what is your point?

The existence of the concept of light and darkness does not prove the existence of anything existing outside of time. Light (photons) and darkness (absence of photons) both exist inside time, and can be substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no evidence for anything existing outside of time, let alone you using it to prove your god. Evidence or GTFO.



(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  
EvolutionKills Wrote:
(09-09-2013 10:46 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You are attempting now to create an exception to a rule, AFTER you posited a rule with no meaningful exception.
childeye Wrote:What rule would that be? I only posted the golden rule. What exception do you claim I am now putting forth?

He's talking about this...

Quote:Certainly any Creator would exist outside of time and space. That does not mean His energy is not in the creation. Nor does it exclude Him from entering it or declaring future events that He knew would happen according to His proposed purpose. Hence His energy and intentions would transcend matter since matter time and space were both conceived and composed by it. How you can claim nothing transcends matter is clearly a reach beyond your knowledge. You should admit at least that there exists an energy that all matter was composed of.

You're entire paragraph is a word soup of contradictions and presuppositions. You have no evidence for anything you've simply asserted out of this air. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So you are saying any Creator would not be outside of the time and space he created? That makes no sense. What makes you an expert in Creators of universes when in fact you don't believe in any Creator? Are you saying that there was no energy that the universe was created from?


I cannot fucking facepalm any harder. YOU are the one making unsubstantiated claims about what your god can and cannot do. I do not have to provide evidence that it cannot, I am merely skeptical of your unsubstantiated claim. If you want to claim that your god exists and can operate outside of space and time, present your evidence or shut the fuck up. You have the burden of proof here, not me. If you fail to meet your burden of proof, then your claim can be simply dismissed; and this is precisely what I and every other skeptic on this forum are doing.



(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
childeye Wrote:My point is matter is composed of energy which is supported by big bang theory and the discovery of the higgs boson which is believed to direct energy what to form in to. Hence energy existed before the physical matter we see. Sure, even the higgs boson is made of energy that came from somewhere. Still the energy came first.

I love the 'I don't know, therefore quantum mechanics, therefor god' arguments from ignorance. The Higgs Boson is a fundamental particle and part of the standard model, and is believed to confirm the existence of the Higgs field, which theoretically gives mass to the other fundamental particles. It is physics, not the Big Bang theory, that has posited and shown that matter is just another form of energy. Most likely everything was energy at first. Unfortunately we don't know where that energy came from, but I'd bet good money it didn't come from an emotion... Drinking Beverage

I don't think you've said anything here I disagree with other than your bet. At least you admit this, "Most likely everything was energy at first", which was my entire point.

Energy does not prove your god, or the existence of a prime mover or first cause. You cannot make that jump, it is a non sequitur. That was my point, which you appear to have missed.



(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  Everything we say speaking of what is eternal is automatically a concept from the temporal since we exist in the temporal. One would not distinguish the Light without the dark is essentially saying the same thing. So what is your point?
My point is you've made no useful point by saying the phrase eternal endurance is a temporal concept. As far as I can tell, it is no different than saying temporal existence is an eternal concept.
(10-09-2013 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Once again, what is the point of your word soup? If your objective is to write nonsensical drivel with the aim of being as obtuse and confusing as possible, then mission accomplished.

Read the record, Bucky Ball made the statement that is pointless. I simply pointed out why.

Two words, false equivocation.



(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
childeye Wrote:Finally, what exactly do you expect me to prove to you? I've proven Love exists and is the highest moral power for which most all sensible of mankind count as the highest reason to live and die for.
You all agreed Love rules as our moral spirit, you just don't want to reference Love as God. Hence you have an aversion to the term rather than what it refers to. I proved that and so did you.

We did not all agree to this and you have once again failed to 'prove' anything, thanks for playing, I award you zero points.


You weren't even there, so you have no place to stand and say anything about it.

Would it make you feel better if I said that I don't agree? Bucky clearly does not, nor have I seen anyone else speak up in agreement with you. This is the internet, and on this forum i have every right to say anything I want about it. The difference is, I'm not lying by putting words in other people's mouths.



(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(09-09-2013 10:46 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Love may be a "value", and in Christianity it may be a "virtue". No Christian theologian claims it's their deity.
childeye Wrote:How wrong you are. Even dictionaries recognize that God is love to Christians. The very act of Christ in the Gospel is regarded as a divine Love by Christians.

Need I start quoting the Bible to remind you of acts of divine hate, murder, war, genocide, misogyny, racism, etc.? Divine love? If you consider the tortured death of your 'only son' as divine love, I'd hate to see what you'd do to any of your children in sharing 'god's love' with them; as I imagine it would involve a pile of 2x4's and a nail gun, or maybe kerosene and matches.

Very funny,(not really).

No shit it's not funny. Seeing seemingly sane people whitewash the barbarity of their religious dogmas with a straight face instead of owning up to it is never funny.



(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Don't want to posit the tradition god of theism as love? Want to try for something more deistic? Doesn't work. This is not the universe that a loving god would create. Also the concept of 'love' is meaningless outside of an interventionist or creationist deity concept. A god that never does anything or never created anything has no way of expressing it's 'love', just being is not love.

When I read scripture, it points out that this world is a place that has been corrupted. That does not mean a loving God did not create it. Nor does it say God does nothing.

Scripture is not proof of anything (other than the terrible ignorance of the authors). Your claims must be substantiated outside of scripture, you know, in the real world. We need evidence to take anything you've claimed seriously, and parroting 'the Bible tells me so' is vapid and meaningless in the extreme.



(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(09-09-2013 10:46 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It certainly is a human emotion.
It is no deity.You have proven nothing.
childeye Wrote:It is an emotion seen in many creatures.

Congratulation for finally figuring this out. Will it stop you from make baseless assumptions in the future on behalf of your god concept? Probably not...
Of course not. Indeed your claim that my assumptions are baseless are themselves baseless. I don't simply assume that Love is man's goodness, I know it from personal experience.

Personal anecdotes are not evidence. Your claims are baseless because you haven't provided any real evidence; that is not a baseless assumption on my part, it's an honest observation of your lack of evidence. For fuck's sake, can you false equivocate any harder?



(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
childeye Wrote:Your aversion to the term God is clearly seen.

Bucky and I both have an aversion to presupposition.

Then is it not hypocritical to presuppose that there is no God, no Godhead, no higher power than yourself?

It is not presupposition to acknowledge the complete lack of evidence for any of those claims. Without evidence, there is no reason to believe any of those ideas are anything more than human concepts, and not facts of reality. If you want to claim they exist, then the burden is on you to provide evidence (and quoting scripture is not evidence).




(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
childeye Wrote:Please try and understand that Faith is about wanting to believe God is Love, not proving Love is a deity.

Argument from ignorance.
How is it ignorant to know a person must choose what they will trust in?

I'm sorry, what? How did you go from 'Faith is about wanting to believe God is Love' to 'How is it ignorant to know a person must choose what they will trust in'? It's ignorant because you are assuming things that you do not know, simple as that. And instead of admitting your ignorance and saying up front 'I know I have no evidence to support this position, but this is what I believe' (which would at least be intellectually honest, if not logical), instead you claim your beliefs as fact. Sorry, doesn't work that way. That is why you are staggeringly ignorant, as are all of your arguments.



(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
childeye Wrote:So that you might ask yourself in all honesty why would you want to believe God is not Love?

Nope, argument from ignorance. There is no good reason to believe that a god exists, let alone that it's your unsupported and nonsensical assumption that it is an emotion.
Your aversion to the term God is not the point of the question. How is it that when I say what one believes to be true affects their state of mind, you call it nonsensical and an assumption? The fact is, it is your assumption that it is an assumption and nonsensical that is nonsensical. Of course what one believes affects their state of mind. That is how certain emotions are provoked. Tell me why God (if He exists) would not wish to be understood in the emotion of empathy as our moral guidance given to us by our Creator?

Everything you've said is built upon the base assumption that a god exists. That is a baseless assumption, and everything else built upon that is flawed. Arguing over how your concept of god might like to be understood as is about as pointless as arguing over the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin or the number of feathers in their wings. It does nothing to substantiate any of your claims about your god's existence. Congratulations, you fail at logic 101.



(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
childeye Wrote:Ask yourself why anyone would want to believe Love does not endure forever?

Argument from consequence and ignorance. 'Love' is a label that we give to an emotion, born of chemical reactions in the brain.
Again, the bio- mechanical description of Love. And heroine is happiness.

If you want to claim that love is anything more than our human created label of the subjective experience of chemical reactions at the level of neurons in our brain, please provide evidence. Once again, quoting scripture is not evidence.



(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  In a universe that does not contain any life, or where all life ceases to exist, love will cease to exist. Unless you have some evidence to put forward that inanimate objects like rocks are capable of emotion and keeping 'love' alive in the absence of intelligent life.
Indeed I would not try to prove that even intelligent life can keep Love alive. That is why I believe in God as Love. Because scripture claims intelligent Life cannot keep love alive. Hence the word grace is used.

So, you can't prove what you're claiming, and that why you believe in other unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable claims? Yeah, that sounds intellectually honest. Once again, scripture is not evidence of anything.



(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
childeye Wrote:Ask yourself what are the different implications of both beliefs and the accompanying spirits that dwell therein?

Evidence for spirits or GTFO.
Spirits are emotions. Note: spirit of joy, spirit of friendship, spirit of pride, etc...

Scripture is not evidence, GTFO.



(10-09-2013 03:01 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
childeye Wrote:I did ask those questions because I saw no harm in considering and weighing the different outcomes. Faith is logical.

Faith =/= Logic.

Faith
-complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Logic
-reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Notice how one requires evidence and justification, and the other does not? Drinking Beverage

The moral choice Love requires is whether I should sacrifice myself for others or sacrifice others for myself. It is clear to me that if everyone sacrifices them selves for others there need not even be any sacrifice. But if everyone believes they should sacrifice others for them selves, then we will all suffer and die. Faith is logical.

Faith is not logical, you have just decided to re-define your use of the word 'faith' to fit your purpose. Playing word games does not magically make faith logical, even if a particular belief founded in faith might be logically coherent.

Also, sacrificing others for yourself is simply not love, that is a very selfish action (and quite honestly, 'sacrificing others for yourself' is simply 'sacrifice'). You are trying to create a false dichotomy here, an 'either-or' choice that simply doesn't exist. Love is a feeling of deep affection. You can love people, place, ideas, thoughts, memories, inanimate objects, pets, whatever. There are plenty of other emotions and actions outside the realm of 'deep affection' and 'to sacrifice' or 'not to sacrifice'.

What your pseudo-profundity boils down to is that being selfish is detrimental to overall societal happiness and success. Congratulations, you just used the most awkward means to stumble upon the common consensus found among social psychologists and evolutionary biologists.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
11-09-2013, 02:47 AM
RE: The Unification of God
This is really horrible. The OP makes an interesting comment on the possible reasons for the rise of monotheism and idioteye hijacks the thread with more of their useless ramblings. And, sane posters respond to idioteye's posts rather than discussing an interesting social/political subject.

I would suggest that we ignore idioteye and discuss further what we might know about the rise of monotheism. As I above posted above I believe it was mostly political. Monotheism has benefits for those who might want to control others.

I also accept that humans want a universal answer. I will state that Douglas Adams was probably correct with 42 but I wonder why that is better than 1,245,357.

Please ignore idioteye and discuss a real question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JAH's post
11-09-2013, 03:05 AM
RE: The Unification of God
what cant b real end being one but when existence starts from its end fact so one

only reality so true existence is the relation of free points bc true so u cant say them and bc existing u cant but let it as it is
so even if in concept points are of same ways, still each point is freely being existing truly present then existence is about infinite possible different presences ones

but what is invented and faked cant exist by its fact objectively but through one way, there must b initially a freedom gained from knowing so not true but also a word to do by abusing true existence things starting with weak individualities to built upon only one concept of possible staying still for some time
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 03:16 AM
RE: The Unification of God
(11-09-2013 03:05 AM)absols Wrote:  what cant b real end being one but when existence starts from its end fact so one

only reality so true existence is the relation of free points bc true so u cant say them and bc existing u cant but let it as it is
so even if in concept points are of same ways, still each point is freely being existing truly present then existence is about infinite possible different presences ones

but what is invented and faked cant exist by its fact objectively but through one way, there must b initially a freedom gained from knowing so not true but also a word to do by abusing true existence things starting with weak individualities to built upon only one concept of possible staying still for some time

[Image: 5huac.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 07:57 AM
RE: The Unification of God
(11-09-2013 02:47 AM)JAH Wrote:  This is really horrible. The OP makes an interesting comment on the possible reasons for the rise of monotheism and idioteye hijacks the thread with more of their useless ramblings. And, sane posters respond to idioteye's posts rather than discussing an interesting social/political subject.

I would suggest that we ignore idioteye and discuss further what we might know about the rise of monotheism. As I above posted above I believe it was mostly political. Monotheism has benefits for those who might want to control others.

I also accept that humans want a universal answer. I will state that Douglas Adams was probably correct with 42 but I wonder why that is better than 1,245,357.

Please ignore idioteye and discuss a real question.

That's a good point. The whole "meaning of life" question is one that refuses to go away.

Most theists seem to believe there is a universal meaning to life. Most atheists/humanists on the other hand generally tend to accept that the meaning of life is an individual thing, and often totally different from person to person.

I read a quote last night from Stephen Hawking on the idea of a 'theory of everything'. It seems he now believes it may be impossible.

"Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind."

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 08:29 AM
RE: The Unification of God
(09-09-2013 06:18 PM)Paranoidsam Wrote:  So, is a "theory of everything" really a possibility, or is it a wild goose chase, simply attempting to create a single theory to satisfy a natural, human desire for everything to be summed up neatly, as God does for theists?

I'm gonna struggle to get what I am thinking down into words.

I think that we (as our species of humans) in the whole picture of the universe, are nothing but an infinitely small speck. The universe existed long before we arrived and will exist if we were all wiped out tomorrow. So theoretically any answer may exclude ourselves, yet it is ourselves that are asking the question and seeking the "formula/theory of everything"

If an answer were possible could it be put into a sufficient and coherent explanation and would we accept it?

I think its a goose chase.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 09:17 AM
RE: The Unification of God
How about the mods split off the part of this thread when Chishish enters, and hijacks this perfectly legit thread, and it's question with his multi-thread series of non sequiturs and insistence that he gets to redefine the word "god" by bizarre definition. It's going to go on for hundreds of more pages. Since he is so blind to reality, that he actually claimed people agreed with him, and that he had "proven" something when in fact both were false, it's clear he lives in a fantasy world. Somewhere "else", which normal humans have no access to.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: