01.01.2021
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 157

Thread: Does God Exist

  1. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Urban_Journalz View Post
    The only flawed logic, is when someone clearly takes the side of what thier five senses can pick up as a determining factor between truth and falsehood. Meanwhile, even in using such faculties, they still misuse what they have, therefor misinterpreting what they experience.

    Logic always equals truth. The two can't be seperated. What you mean, is that truth doesn't always = what people want to hear. Such has always been the case, which is exactly why all of The Prophets met thier first opposition from thier own nations and family members.

    Your idea of, "logic" and "facts" is based on and around science. Worse, the weaker forms of science, because anyone who is familiar with Sacred Geometry will surely know that science and mathematics in itself are further proofs of His existence.

    Your problem seems to be, that because God cannot be viewed under a microscope, then He must not be there. You know nothing of religion, aside from what you see on the news and in papers. If you did, you would know that in order for the spirit to be whole and at full capacity, it needs to always keep in touch with it's source. The same way bears need hibernation.

    The concept of God goes well beyond concept, it's a fact. Therefore, it can't be flawed, except in the mind of someone who is too engrossed in worldly ways, that the idea of following a set order of rules disgusts them. Only the lawless deny the Law and it's Maker. Decorate your arguement as you may with all of the clever wordplay you will, not everyone is fooled by it.

    You say this, "concept" is manufactured, yet you bring no proof. You want people to take your opinion as fact. I brought forth Sacred Geometry as a testimony to God's manifestation in one of our most well known (and worshipped) sciences. What do you have?

    Actually, following your whims and desires, going after worldly things, material possessions, money, other people is spiritual weakness in it's truest essence. This leads to depression, and worse in some cases.

    Actually, you're not wrong for not having this knowledge, you're wrong for choosing not to have it. But please, don't make the fatal mistake of thinking that I actually care about you or your condition, all I'm saying is that your arguement is very weak.
    the open question is this:

    from a rational standpoint, how would one ever distinguish between a God who allegedly exists, but cannot be "detected" via human reasoning or logic, versus the counter argument that there is no god in the first place?

    what would be the definitive marker/reference point by which to objectively gauge an answer to the above question? (by objctive, im talking about not something that requires any prerequisite emotional stance).

    This issue all boils down to the concept of falsifiability. A rational stance is one in which there exists concrete falsifiability. Meaning that it has a definite and noticeable way in which to be proven false.

    For example, if someone holds a stance that their is no justifiable reason to believe in the concept of a "god", they can argue that their stance is rational simply because it has the definite potential to be proven false in an observable way! (for example, demonstrated evidence supporting a supernatural realm of some sort that cant be explained through normal rational thought would falsify a stance against belief in gods.).

    However, I have yet to hear any falsifiability for the stance for the belief in a god or supernatural realm.

    any takers?

    Available Worldwide via these book sellers:
    Barnes and Noble Bookfinder.com
    Amazon.com Trafford Publishing Target

  2. #122
    God's Replica Mumm Ra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Black Pyramid
    Age
    38
    Posts
    11,886
    Rep Power
    107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by My First Timbs View Post

    from a rational standpoint, how would one ever distinguish between a God who allegedly exists, but cannot be "detected" via human reasoning or logic, versus the counter argument that there is no god in the first place?
    well I can't speak against the type of god you're talking about here
    only the one that can be detected by reasoning and logic

    check out some of Ra Un Nefer's books....Metu Neter, 11 Laws of Maat
    he breaks down god very logically
    I wish I had the means to break it down in a short summary in this thread for everybody but there are too many aspects for me to know how to do that....

    peace


  3. #123
    Irondan 2: Curly's Gold Wu-Tang Forum Internet Poster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    United Fucking States of America, Pussy
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,325
    Rep Power
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucid View Post
    well I can't speak against the type of god you're talking about here
    only the one that can be detected by reasoning and logic

    check out some of Ra Un Nefer's books....Metu Neter, 11 Laws of Maat
    he breaks down god very logically
    I wish I had the means to break it down in a short summary in this thread for everybody but there are too many aspects for me to know how to do that....

    peace
    What "type" of god is it logical to believe in?

    I do not know how I feel about god, but I think believing in god requires some degree of blind faith. I also do not know if blind faith is necessarily a bad thing in all situations, but it is illogical.
    --youreallfags.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tectrus Moa View Post
    I'm sorry? Negro English? I think you mean Ebonics.

  4. #124
    God's Replica Mumm Ra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Black Pyramid
    Age
    38
    Posts
    11,886
    Rep Power
    107

    Default

    the type that exists as all things, everywhere
    I could give it any name but that wouldn't make any difference
    it's been touched on in small amounts in countless threads
    like I said if someone is truly unbiased, and honestly seeks an alternative to what they think god is or isn't, pick up some books and take a look - as much as I hate to "cop out" like that. It's far too much for me to summarize all the logical connections in this thread.
    I recently picked up a scanner maybe I'll scan some shit when I got time.


  5. #125
    HANIF Urban_Journalz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Inner Realms of Outer Space
    Posts
    2,093
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by My First Timbs View Post
    the open question is this:

    from a rational standpoint, how would one ever distinguish between a God who allegedly exists, but cannot be "detected" via human reasoning or logic, versus the counter argument that there is no god in the first place?

    what would be the definitive marker/reference point by which to objectively gauge an answer to the above question? (by objctive, im talking about not something that requires any prerequisite emotional stance).

    This issue all boils down to the concept of falsifiability. A rational stance is one in which there exists concrete falsifiability. Meaning that it has a definite and noticeable way in which to be proven false.

    For example, if someone holds a stance that their is no justifiable reason to believe in the concept of a "god", they can argue that their stance is rational simply because it has the definite potential to be proven false in an observable way! (for example, demonstrated evidence supporting a supernatural realm of some sort that cant be explained through normal rational thought would falsify a stance against belief in gods.).

    However, I have yet to hear any falsifiability for the stance for the belief in a god or supernatural realm.

    any takers?
    Again, the fact that God can't be put under a microscope and observed doesn't prove anything to the effect of Him not existing.

    In truth, the definitive marker/reference point is the soul itself. The soul came directly from God, and is our connection between Heaven and Earth.

    Everyone knows this, but the fact is, people would rather acknowledge the soul's capabilities when it comes to things like meditation, higher consciousness and out-of-body eperiences, but when it comes to using that very same faculty to identify, feel and experience The Source of all of the above-mentioned experiences, they convieniently fall short. Most. Not all.

    People can say, "what goes around comes around" and "You reap what you sow", with ultimate belief, but when the concept of Heaven and Hell comes along, then they need proof. When the analogy they presented before is an exact testimony to this one faculty of Universal Law.

    That's the whole problem that most people have though. Law. In thier folly, they believe that this Law is designed to keep them down, away from, "Fun", when in actual fact, it's there to bring them into harmony and equlibrium with all other forms of life. Seen and unseen.

    Of course, reading this, for most of them, is something to the effect of fantasy. Impossibility, but, seeing as they haven't even tried to live this lesson for themselves, they have no place to speak on it.

    Again, if you want scientific proof, look up Sacred Geometry. For most of you though, that won't be enough. If every miracle in the Heavens and the Earth were shown to you in never-ending line, you'd attribute it to magic, or a falsifying of the eye. You simply don't believe and that's obviously your purpose in living.

    Just know that if and when you cite things like, "The Big Bang Theory", know, that that is precisely why it's called a theory. No one knows if there was even a sound made when the Universe came into being. It could have been dead-dog quiet for all we know.

    Honestly, the fact that the orbits of Pluto and Uranus intersect, and the fact that they have never collided, is proof or order and control. The ancients weren't wrong when they attributed the male identity to the Sun and the female to the Moon, for indeed, they are living things just like the rest of us. The appreciation and understanding of this though, isn't for everyone. It's a lot like the first Jedi Mind Tricks album, "Psycho-Social..." or Company Flow's, "Funcrusher Plus", it's not going to reach everyone, and even among the ones that it reaches, there will be some who won't be able to appreciate it.

    I'm one of the ones that believes. You won't follow my way, and I won't follow yours. You to your way, and me to mine.
    "Die before you die."-Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh)

  6. #126

    Default

    Again, the fact that God can't be put under a microscope and observed doesn't prove anything to the effect of Him not existing.
    no one is stating that because god cant be put under a microscope = god doesnt exist.

    Teh argument is that because god cant be objectively discerned or detected, there is no rational reason to believe in the concept.. Whether or not a god exists is a totally different argument compared to whether or not it is rational to hold the belief.

    when you cite things like, "The Big Bang Theory", know, that that is precisely why it's called a theory.
    Please look up and understand the definition of a scientific theory before statements like this are posted...... do you hold this mindset toward the theory of gravity, theory of electromegnetism or germ/bacterial theory of medicine? i doubt it..

    No one knows if there was even a sound made when the Universe came into being. It could have been dead-dog quiet for all we know.
    Please look up and understand the Big Bang Theory before statements like this are posted....Big Bang theory has absolutely nothing to do with an explosion or sound during the development of our universe. (in order for an explosion to occur, there must already be existing space for something to explode out into... in order for sound to occur there must already be existing space and air to vibrate)... .. the evidence for the Big Bang Theory is overwhelming just as the theory that disease is caused by microbial life (the germ THEORY of medicine) is overwhelming...
    Last edited by My First Timbs; 04-20-2009 at 09:01 AM.

    Available Worldwide via these book sellers:
    Barnes and Noble Bookfinder.com
    Amazon.com Trafford Publishing Target

  7. #127
    Wobbling Totem Poles
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,020
    Rep Power
    0

    Default



  8. #128
    God's Replica Mumm Ra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Black Pyramid
    Age
    38
    Posts
    11,886
    Rep Power
    107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by My First Timbs View Post

    Teh argument is that because god cant be objectively discerned or detected, there is no rational reason to believe in the concept.. Whether or not a god exists is a totally different argument compared to whether or not it is rational to hold the belief.
    seeing as you are a fan of looking up and understanding things before speaking about them...
    look up and understand the Metu Neter. It will give a clear, rational, & logical viewpoint of god.

    peace


  9. #129
    God's Replica Mumm Ra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Black Pyramid
    Age
    38
    Posts
    11,886
    Rep Power
    107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by My First Timbs View Post
    the evidence for the Big Bang Theory is overwhelming just as the theory that disease is caused by microbial life (the germ THEORY of medicine) is overwhelming...
    I think that would make a good thread...
    as far as I know the theory doesn't offer any explanation to the earliest instance of expansion, but describes what happens since that instance.


  10. #130
    The People's Champ Visionz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    45
    Posts
    13,477
    Rep Power
    60

    Default

    no one is stating that because god cant be put under a microscope = god doesnt exist.

    Teh argument is that because god cant be objectively discerned or detected, there is no rational reason to believe in the concept.. Whether or not a god exists is a totally different argument compared to whether or not it is rational to hold the belief.
    This would depend on your definition of what God is wouldn't it? If I say God is the collective binding force that holds absolutely everything intact then wouldn't that be something that has atleast a potential qualitative value?

    Couldn't you make a valid argument that carbon is most likely an atom that has landed on other earth-like planets somewhere in other star systems and formed some kind of life form? We know absolutely a planet like ours can develop 1 out of 8 (or 9) times.
    Carbon pods still fall into our atmosphere today which suggest that where life can happen it will happen. Mathematical odds suggest we aren't alone.

    The time variance I think would make for an infinite number of possibilities but the phsyics of time and space are constant its just the knowledge to utilize what's there that is enhanced as time goes on. theoretically anyways.

    Support the Real. Click HERE

  11. #131
    Wu Vatican Rame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    NL
    Posts
    9,963
    Rep Power
    57

    Default

    I read that only 15% of the atheists in America dare to say they are.

    That's some weak ass shit.

    I'm not a believer.


    De mijne is 4x duurder!

  12. #132
    HANIF Urban_Journalz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Inner Realms of Outer Space
    Posts
    2,093
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by My First Timbs View Post
    no one is stating that because god cant be put under a microscope = god doesnt exist.

    Teh argument is that because god cant be objectively discerned or detected, there is no rational reason to believe in the concept.. Whether or not a god exists is a totally different argument compared to whether or not it is rational to hold the belief.



    Please look up and understand the definition of a scientific theory before statements like this are posted...... do you hold this mindset toward the theory of gravity, theory of electromegnetism or germ/bacterial theory of medicine? i doubt it..



    Please look up and understand the Big Bang Theory before statements like this are posted....Big Bang theory has absolutely nothing to do with an explosion or sound during the development of our universe. (in order for an explosion to occur, there must already be existing space for something to explode out into... in order for sound to occur there must already be existing space and air to vibrate)... .. the evidence for the Big Bang Theory is overwhelming just as the theory that disease is caused by microbial life (the germ THEORY of medicine) is overwhelming...
    Actually, a lot of people are making that assumption, regardless as to wether they actually say these things or not. Most of the time it's what's not said out loud that's actually the most important and what the person really wants to say.

    I don't care how you try to define the arguement, at the end of all the hair-splitting, the bottom line is that most of you would have to see Him face to face, or hear His voice. What's really funny, is that nothing has changed but the date. This arguement of yours is nothing new. The questions asked, the objections, etc. You saying, "He can't be objectively discerned or detected is the same thing as saying, "I can't hear Him and I can't see Him." If you really knew what was going on, you'd recognize your very own existence as proof. However, most people in your position try to divide things like theology and science, forgetting that one eventually confirms the other.

    The theories of electromagnetism and gravity aren't theories. They've been proven. They're called LAWS now. So you were right in doubting it.

    It's called The Big Bang Theory for a reason and I've heared numerous scientists testify to the sound effect that they, "believe" occured. There's eveidence pointing in the direction that all matter in the Universe is related and also that most stars are born out of explosions. That doesn't carry over to planets and moons, which is why these scientists are so confused about every other planet in our solar system except this one. Hell, they even guess about Earth a lot of the time as to it's true method of creation.

    If you payed as much attention to how the Heavenly Bodies functioned, the harmony and order embedded therein, as you did to the mechanical aspect of it, you just might learn something.

    Everyone has nicely side-stepped the Sacred Geometry comment as well. Typical.
    "Die before you die."-Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh)

  13. #133
    The Smell of The Future LORD NOSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Double Barreled Snot Gun
    Age
    1
    Posts
    15,139
    Rep Power
    82

    Default

    they do what they accuse others of doing

  14. #134
    anglophone rainbow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    24,581
    Rep Power
    119

    Default

    I am glad My First Timbs is posting again.

    But i'll say once again, to people like Urban Journalz, the onus of proof is on you.

    Just because something cannot be disproved, this does not guarantee it's validity.

    Everyone else here is explaining there approach to the concept of a "god".

    You and a couple of others are simply saying "God exist" and "prove me wrong".

    As if that makes you correct.

    Scientific 'theories' are not complete.

    They do not purport to be.

    However, they are concepts which are reached through a clearly logical path based on evidence.

    A theory is explained.

    Explain your theory of the concept of 'God'.



  15. #135
    HANIF Urban_Journalz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Inner Realms of Outer Space
    Posts
    2,093
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Bateman View Post
    I am glad My First Timbs is posting again.

    But i'll say once again, to people like Urban Journalz, the onus of proof is on you.

    Just because something cannot be disproved, this does not guarantee it's validity.

    Everyone else here is explaining there approach to the concept of a "god".

    You and a couple of others are simply saying "God exist" and "prove me wrong".

    As if that makes you correct.

    Scientific 'theories' are not complete.

    They do not purport to be.

    However, they are concepts which are reached through a clearly logical path based on evidence.

    A theory is explained.

    Explain your theory of the concept of 'God'.
    Actually, I'm not saying prove me wrong, because you can't prove me wrong. It's just that simple. I'm saying that if you're going to disagree, bring something a little more solid than, "That can't be proven." As I recall, I've presented more examples than anyone else thusfar, and I've also noticed that no one, but no one can bring themselves to look at Sacred Geometry, since Holy Scripture makes most people cringe.

    The concept of God is no theory, that's what you people who worship science don't understand. Truth itself superceeds all so-called logic. Especially the logic that man trys to rule by with his limited faculties of understanding and contemplation. Yet, even IN those limited faculties, the truth can be found. If one chooses to look for it.

    You work from the brain, and if that suits you, that's fine.

    I work from the soul and the mind. Both of which are spaceless and timeless and that's why my arguement remains solid and unapproachable.

    I'm bored with making you all look like morons though. Go ahead and respond to this with an attempt at reverse psychology and sattire, make yourself feel better, but um.....it's only for the approval of those who think like you, because I won't know about it.
    "Die before you die."-Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •