The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

[alcoholbob]

Ok, let's see that "argument."

Google Elon Musk's argument that statistically we probably do not live in base reality.

 

[agent00f]

Google Elon Musk's argument that statistically we probably do not live in base reality.

I googled this and it appears he doesn't know just how complex the universe is relative to the limits of semiconductor lithography.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Google Elon Musk's argument that statistically we probably do not live in base reality.

What you're telling me is that you don't really understand it, you just know some important rich guy said it, so that makes it a "strong" argument.

Is that right?

 

[disappoint]

I googled this and it appears he doesn't know just how complex the universe is relative to the limits of semiconductor lithography.

What does the limit of semiconductor lithography have to do with it?

In the future it's possible we could devise new methods of creating simulations of reality that are not dependent on semiconductor hardware.

 

[agent00f]

What does the limit of semiconductor lithography have to do with it?

In the future it's possible we could devise new methods of creating simulations of reality that are not dependent on semiconductor hardware.

Sure, but "in the future" it's possible that humanity nukes itself or any number of more likely scenarios. Do you know what statistically means?

Frankly the only thing Musk reveals w/ that answer is he doesn't understand computers or tech well, but we already knew that.

 

[Marius Dejess]

mrjminer said:
I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am obviously logically correct.

You must either accept that there is a "God," or that you are literally nothing. Those are your two options. I have not made my selection yet, personally. I could see myself going either way. But, as I said, those are the only two possible options.

Oh forgot to mention, and "God" would be the first thing. I think you are misconstruing "God." Think of it like this: "God" isn't the first thing, the first thing is always "God" because it is the thing for which you must accept the impossible. Or nothing would be the only thing, whichever you choose :O
Click to expand...

What utter nonsense. We are something, "God(s)" are a completely unsubstantiated Hypothesis.

Dear Sandorski:

The verb 'are' has to do with existence.

Let us work together to concur on what is existence.

Here is my concept of existence:
Existence is anything at all which we experience when we are conscious.

What do you say to that?

.

 

[Marius Dejess]

Dear readers, I am going to do a reset on this thread, so that everyone in particular posters here will stay on topic.

Here is the original OP:

Title of thread: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.
• Thread starter Marius Dejess
• Start date Jun 7, 2016

#1 There is endless debate over God existing or not.

But there is no talk at all about how to concur on what it is or how to prove or disprove that something at all exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

I think I can and do so prove for myself that God exists, and you can also if you will concur with me on how to prove that something at all exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

Here is step #1 in proving or disproving that something at all, be it the nose in our face or God existing in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind:

#1 Parties engaged in proving or disproving something to exist must first work to concur on the concept of the thing, anything at all be it the nose in our face or God, otherwise it is an insane exchange of thoughts because parties will be talking past each other's head, and that is not communication at all or getting connected at all.

What do you guys here say?

When you accept my step #1, then I will or you guys here can propose step #2 for us all to work on to concur on it.

.

 

[mikeymikec]

@Marius Dejess

Why on earth would you try to achieve "God exists and I can prove it" when you cannot even perceive anything worth labelling as God, let alone any sign of their influence.

God was the explanation for our environment being the way it is before science began answering the questions. Adam and Eve as the origin for our species has been disproven by both evolution and genetics. What not-explained-yet phenomenon are you trying to explain away with "God did it" without any evidence, and most importantly, why are you so intent on God being the answer to your question?

Just because you don't understand consciousness, don't go for the intellectually lazy answer of "God did it". It's been done a multitude of times before in the face of the 'inexplicable' and proven wrong almost every time.

No-one worth listening to is going to try and prove the non-existence of something because it's logically impossible.

 

[Captante]

Apparently "god" willed a thread-title change?

Unfortunately though ... new thread title, same tired lame god-bot.

 

[IronWing]

Apparently "god" willed a thread-title change?

Unfortunately though ... new thread title, same tired lame god-bot.

This is a very old thread. I suspect intervention by the script writer.

 

[Marius Dejess]

This is a very old thread. I suspect intervention by the script writer.

Dear IronWing, I just came back to this thread of 2016, because I got curious to see whether I have some earlier threads in AT forum.

So now I am posting in two forums both from me, and you are - thank you, into contributing to two forums.

Both forums are into the issue God exists or not.

I am not going to turn you into what now I call myself a Goddist, what is a Goddist? See * below.

I wish you will share with me some honest intelligent productive thoughts from your mental database of information and opinion.


*From Marius Dejess:
A Goddist is a person who knows for a human certainty that God exists, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

What does goddist mean?

Definition of goddist in the Definitions.net dictionary. Meaning of goddist. What does goddist mean? Information and translations of goddist in the most comprehensive dictionary definitions resource on the web.

www.definitions.net

And I was thinking that I would make a name for myself as a knower of God with my own thought up name, Goddist - indicating God, God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning: but on a quick google; however, it turns out that the word goddist is already searchable with google.

.

 

[UsandThem]

 

[Captante]

A Goddist is a person who knows for a human certainty that God exists

So in other words they don't exist.

Also what "god" do 'bots worship? Electricity?

 

[sdifox]

So in other words they don't exist.

Also what "god" do 'bots worship? Electricity?

Nigerian Prince?

 

[TheELF]

So in other words they don't exist.

Also what "god" do 'bots worship? Electricity?

Neo, conqueror of the Matrix
Commodore LXIV, bringer of bricks
Flynn, freedom bringer to the network
Atari the pew-pew-iest.
...
...

 

[Iron Woode]

 

[BurnItDwn]

you ask me if i had a god complex?
I AM GOD
Creator of all
You will see my power
Once I get past these padded walls
I am God
I made your mortal soul
Delusions, disillusioned
No hallucinations here.
I am your God
See me bleeding from my eyes
I am the light, the hope, I am the creator of all
I am God
Leteth the purity of my heavenly protuberance
Penetrateth the inner canals of your sin-soaked frame
And leteth me wash away your dirtiness
With godly emissions from your lords holy scepter
I am God
The reward shall be great
When thou regurgitates the seminal honeydew of thine lord
Happy is he who gelds himself during unholy hardness
I am God
Creator of all
You will see my power
Once I get past these padded walls
I am God
I made your mortal soul
Delusions, disillusioned
No hallucination here.
I am your God
Loosen these straps that bind and tighten me
So I may lead you from my straight-jacketed confinement
And into the planes of theomaniacal salvation
I am God
See my babbling the meaningless
I am the lunatic, the crazed and the mentally ill
And leteth me wash away your dirtiness
With godly emissions from your lords holy scepter
I am God
Creator of all
You will see my power
Once I get past these padded walls
I am God
I made your mortal soul
Delusions, disillusioned
No hallucinations here.
I am your God
Idolize me now
Blessed words of psychosis
This asylum is no house of holiness
See my raving aberrations
I am the creator of delirium
I am the savior you refuse to believe
I am the madness, crazed and unsound
And leteth me wash away your dirtiness
With godly emissions from your lords holy scepter
I am God
The reward shall be great
When thou regurgitates the seminal honeydew of thine lord
Happy is he who gelds himself during unholy hardness


This thread reminds me of my favorite song by Broken Hope.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Okay, I'm bored so I will play with you for a bit.

#1 Parties engaged in proving or disproving something to exist must first work to concur on the concept of the thing, anything at all be it the nose in our face or God, otherwise it is an insane exchange of thoughts because parties will be talking past each other's head, and that is not communication at all or getting connected at all.

I will accept your first posit with this minor change: For us to prove something to exist we must first concur on the concept of the thing we are to prove.

We can not really ever prove the non-existence of a thing. It is simply not possible to prove something does not exist.

 

[Marius Dejess]

Dear Smog, thanks for your contribution.



Now, you declare:

"We can not really ever prove the non-existence of a thing."

That is a most overwhelming statement of a most definitive insistence from your part.

How about you give an example?

Okay, I'm bored so I will play with you for a bit.



I will accept your first posit with this minor change: For us to prove something to exist we must first concur on the concept of the thing we are to prove.

We can not really ever prove the non-existence of a thing. It is simply not possible to prove something does not exist.

 

[UsandThem]

How about you give an example?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Dear Smog, thanks for your contribution.



Now, you declare:

"We can not really ever prove the non-existence of a thing."

That is a most overwhelming statement of a most definitive insistence from your part.

How about you give an example?

Example of what? Not being able to prove something doesn't exist?

But, I will give a bit more explanation to what I mean. In general evidence is cumulative. I determine something exists because I have lots of evidence that it does, once I have enough evidence to feel that it is more likely to exist than not, I declare my confidence of it's existence. But lack of evidence is not itself evidence of a lack, because of that it is very hard to get evidence of something not existing. I can search the world over for unicorns, but having searched 99% of the world does not tell me that a unicorn does not exist somewhere I didn't look.

I will admit that if the burden of proof was even, such that something is just as likely to exist as not, then this would not be the case. But that is not the case. The null hypothesis must be the default position, because there are infinite things that could exist and it would be impossible to test for them all. So, we must start from the assumption that a thing does not exist and put the burden of proof to show that it does.

In the end existence is statistical.

 

[pete6032]

There are roughly 4200 religions in the world today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

So , please tell me why your religion is correct and everyone else is wrong?

Show me which of these other religions has over 25,000 manuscript copies that can be used to verify the historicity and accuracy of early manuscripts and we will talk.

 

[sdifox]

Show me which of these other religions has over 25,000 manuscript copies that can be used to verify the historicity and accuracy of early manuscripts and we will talk.

Oh Buddhism probably has more manuscripts.

 

[Iron Woode]

Show me which of these other religions has over 25,000 manuscript copies that can be used to verify the historicity and accuracy of early manuscripts and we will talk.

wait. are you saying religious texts are historically accurate? By their very nature they are not.

 

[sandorski]

Oh Buddhism probably has more manuscripts.

...and Hinduism.