|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:24 am
Yami_no_Eyes I don't beleive in much of the bible, but in the same argument, prove NOT god. Can't be done. I just explained we alerady have proven God. Yet it is your choice whether you comply or disagree with my chunks of typing or chose to ignore it, Inanycase >.> God is just the agreement of an infinite range of figures between people. Each figure representing a possible aspect of God.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:59 am
SurvivingPyrodoxManiac... To prove the identity of this GOD, we are to assume he has infinite powers and place faith and our thought and mind into the idea that there is a greater force watching over us, yet as we do not fully know what this if anything God is, it is simply X-infinity, Because of this. We are able to assume 'God' an unknown presence to be anything. Yet, to prove the existence of God, is to allow the opinions of others to comply with your own belifes by presenting 'proof' which can be interpreted by another to be acceptable or another rant of a madman. Thus, as it is only the mind and it's material thoughts which can prove the existence of God, as God could be standing infront of us with visual proof. If we deny that God is infront of us and believe that thought, it is and instantly becomes the new truth until the majority support a diffrent view. Because of this, there is no true way to proof the existence of any matter. As every single 'reality' is decided upon the majority idea and thoughts of others. The current arguement regarding God, is quite simple. One person picks a number between -Infinity and infinity, The next person agrees or disagrees with that number and so on and so forth. In terms of simple explanation via numbers. Thus, the closest proven thing that is here as far as the topic of 'God' goes, God is simply our thoughts and opinions. As we as humans can potentially deny or accept anything presented to us. Why only our thoughts and opinions? Aren't the neurons in our brains, which trigger these things in response to our environment, also apart of the matter/energy of this universe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:15 pm
I have a good quote for this. "For the believer no proof is necessary, for the sceptic no proof is posible."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:33 am
i have a hard time understanding what pyrodox maniac is trying to state in his posts, but as soon as i can (hopefully later today and not 4 in the morning), i'll dig up my books and post an outline on the argument to disprove descartes' philosophy of thinking and being. (incidentally, that famous statement isn't his, it was stuck onto his writings by later and lazier philosophers >.>)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:37 am
i fail, i was too busy today to dig up the appropriate articles on the theory, and i work tomorrow sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:54 am
In your own time, darlin'.
There's no rush.
I'm not deleting the guild anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:47 am
Demon Kagerou durrypoo also where the heck would Noah get a Beaver, Grisley Bear, Polar Bear and Penguin? xp I heard that that was one of the dilemmas Christians were hard pressed to explain upon discovery of the New World. With all different people and different animals... it's tricky to explain how Noah would of managed to save a part of the world that wasn't even known. I don't remember what was ultimately the excuse... The Bible was written by people. The people who wrote it probebly had as small a view on the world as Noah did. If they lived in a great big valley and everyone died except them and Noah saved every animal in the immediate area, the to them that could be the whole world. It is all they know of. (Of course my own opinion is that knowledge is existance, and if you don't know about it, it doesn't matter). Interesting idea: If the Christians are correct and that is what really happened, then all of the inbreeding that would have inevitably occurred in order to repopulate the entire planet would explain the lowered intelligence of the vast majority of the people on this earth. *grins* Hey, aren't they Christians against incest? Even if they are correct in everything, they are still hypocritical...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:24 am
The Rogue Doll Interesting idea: If the Christians are correct and that is what really happened, then all of the inbreeding that would have inevitably occurred in order to repopulate the entire planet would explain the lowered intelligence of the vast majority of the people on this earth. *grins* Hey, aren't they Christians against incest? Even if they are correct in everything, they are still hypocritical... Well, you also must take into the fact that there was inbreeding to begin with from Adam and Eve's children. A great fallicy occurs when Cain suddenly gets a wife from nowhere, and the fallicy continues to occur from non-existant women. Also, an interesting thing to watch is the age expectancy from father to son. It steadily decreases. It would be explained by inbreeding. Which is a scary theory if we ever restarted the population due to nuclear holocaust, disease, ect. The life expectancy would go way down due to the effects of whatever caused the population to drop so heavily, and then the incest would kill us off. Repopulation is seemingly impossible by simple procreation. Humans would have to be scientifically created to a exponent high enough to where the recessive gene would be so recessive, it wouldn't matter. But this is only in theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:30 am
SurvivingPyrodoxManiac... Yami_no_Eyes I don't beleive in much of the bible, but in the same argument, prove NOT god. Can't be done. I just explained we alerady have proven God. Yet it is your choice whether you comply or disagree with my chunks of typing or chose to ignore it, Inanycase >.> God is just the agreement of an infinite range of figures between people. Each figure representing a possible aspect of God. Of course there is the logic that: (a) We have no proof of reality. Therefore, our perception is reality. (b) Therefore, whatever we percieve to exist exists. (c) Therefore, because roughly one billion people believe in a Christian God, and more believe in Allah, etc. etc., God/Allah/Buddha/Zeus/Other Gods I'm Too Lazy To Remember all exist, and yet they are also existing separately at the same time because of the perception of their believers. (d) Therefore God exists. I hope that's what your argument was, because that's what I got. That is, your argument for God's existence. However, what we cannot prove or disprove is that God is a living, autonomous entity. Which is to say, we can prove no more or less of God than we can prove of anything at all except ourselves. In the same way, we can not prove that God is not a living, autonomous entity, yet we can in fact prove that he doesn't exist by the same logic that we proved that he does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:56 am
Viscount Cogito ergo sum, my friend. Because you understand that you are capable of doubting your own existence, you can reason that you, yourself, exist in a conscious state capable of doubting your own existence -- everything else, however, depends on if you pick the red pill or the blue pill. "God," however, can of course never be proven save hell rising, a Second Coming, or rapture. While I don't necessarily disagree with the possibility of their being a higher power, the arrogant position of every proselytizer in the world that their exact Church is the correct one down to the very grains of sand Jesus Christ bled profusely onto is extremely frustrating; they often try to "prove God" by proving certain stories in the Bible happened, which is retarded, because I can easily say I wrote this paragraph and then left for work because the angel Gabriel visited me in my sleep to do so. As a severely skeptic agnostic, I've spent years reviewing every religion I've come across thoroughly, breaking down their Gods to the last feasible brick of reason. After much review, I believe the most agreeable view of any Godlike being would have to be one of a time-transcendent God in order to account for the ever-cynical "If God made existence, then where did God come from?" If posed with the question, a religious individual could go "lol the future, dumbass. biggrin " God is born at the end, does his s**t, travels back in time, remakes the world, then maybe hatches a pantheon, goes back to death, whatever. Rene Descartes is fun to quote!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:17 pm
incidentally descartes never actually said 'cogito ergo sum.' that was just some catchy phrase that was attached to his work because it made it niftier to explain at parties or something >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:14 pm
nightlight incidentally descartes never actually said 'cogito ergo sum.' that was just some catchy phrase that was attached to his work because it made it niftier to explain at parties or something >.> And where did you get this information?
Rene did say "cogito ergo sum" because it is written in one of his books, Meditations of First Philosophy. But, the direct translation actually means something along the lines of "I am because I percieve." Someone along the line changed it to "I think, therefore I am" because it is easier to remember and understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:42 pm
Kitsune Crux nightlight incidentally descartes never actually said 'cogito ergo sum.' that was just some catchy phrase that was attached to his work because it made it niftier to explain at parties or something >.> And where did you get this information?
Rene did say "cogito ergo sum" because it is written in one of his books, Meditations of First Philosophy. But, the direct translation actually means something along the lines of "I am because I percieve." Someone along the line changed it to "I think, therefore I am" because it is easier to remember and understand. Je pense, donc je suis... Descartes was French, he wrote it in French, not Latin. Forgive me if I've mispelled or left out any accents in my French, I am no great polyglot of a person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:27 am
Kitsune Crux nightlight incidentally descartes never actually said 'cogito ergo sum.' that was just some catchy phrase that was attached to his work because it made it niftier to explain at parties or something >.> And where did you get this information?
Rene did say "cogito ergo sum" because it is written in one of his books, Meditations of First Philosophy. But, the direct translation actually means something along the lines of "I am because I percieve." Someone along the line changed it to "I think, therefore I am" because it is easier to remember and understand. *shrug* you'd have to take that up with not only my college professor and textbook, but apparently wikipedia. it's not anything descartes ever said, simply a thumbnail people use for one of his strongest arguments. i'm simply sharing what was taught to me from multiple sources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:10 pm
Nothing can be proved. That's just how life is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
