Post proof a god exists.

It's either Jesus or the Mona Lisa. Either where that is incontrovertible evidence.

 

I reject the concept of an intervening, reward-and-punishment kind of god. As well as the divinity of Jesus. To me, nothing more than the Christian iteration of any number of other similar myths throughout history. In that light, the bothersome aspect of Christianity is, no matter how moral, how loving, or what unselfish contributions I might make for the good of mankind, there is no room for me in their heaven.

 

I haven't been convinced yet one way or the other, but there are people who simply 'believe' one way or the other without the need for convincing. That doesn't work for me. In fact, it's kinda threatening.

 

The reason you don’t want to go further into this issue is that you have nothing. While it might be fun to look at some loony conspiracy theories at some superstitious old cats’ website about psychic powers, I don’t intend wasting more of my day on utter nonsense right now. It’s scientifically unproven that there are real psychics. Fact! You may as well start believing in faith healers.

Alas, I see you have not learned a single thing since our previous discussions on this topic. Still all you know about the Bible’s canonization stems from dubious atheist fanzites with out of context half-truths in articles that belong into the conspiracy theory sector. Back then I pointed you to scholars who occupy themselves academically (and scientifically) with topics such as Church History, Canonization, the Old and New Testament’s texts and Biblical apocrypha. They paint a picture that looks quite different to yours.
http://ixoyc.net/data/Fathers/134.pdf

So now it’s a God rather than just the Biblical God again? And of course nobody posted proof that God exists. There is no such proof, nor can there be, not because God does not exist, but because if He does, He certainly supersedes our tiny little human brain-power that - unlike God - is caught up in space and time.

Yes, there are a lot of whackos – both theist and atheist - in this forum.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't fret: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation

 

And the FLAWS of using Copenhagen have been pointed out to you. Copenhagen is not proof of god.

are you too dishonest to admit that?

 

yes. and that tenuous.

they hang by a gossamer thread, so rocking back and forth and repeating mantras "god is truth" or "god is great" is one way to keep reality from cutting that thread.

 

What is 'reality'? Where does 'reality' become recognized? What are the attributes of 'reality'? What are the dimensions of 'reality'? What is the color of 'reality'? What is the aroma of 'reality'? What does 'reality' taste like?

 

that's the great thing about reality, you can actually touch it and taste it.

having said that, asking for dimensions and attributes of reality is idiotic. it aint a thing, dear, it's a descriptive term. roughly, it means "stuff that exists". if you want the dimensions and attributes of STUFF THAT EXISTS, just select one example, and google up the wiki. why not try 'computer'

 

While I like to keep things down to earth, I've gotta say your statement here is pretty flat. How can you be sure that stuff exists at all and that you are not just imagining it? If we both bite into the same apple and I say it tastes sour and you say it tastes sweet, who's to say what's correct? If we both say the sky is blue, how can you be certain that what I see really is the same "blue" that you see? Some animals can hear sounds we can't hear. How do you know our senses are correct and tell us all there is to know about reality?

 

Aaaahh, but there was an apple to bite. A sky to see. Adding adjectives to a noun is subjective.
Saying a noun is a supernatural, is sketchy.

 

That is the nice thing about the spiritual realm... you cannot touch it or taste it.... Now what is reality? Where does reality become recognized? What are the attributes of 'reality'? What are the dimensions of 'reality'? What is the color of 'reality'? What is the aroma of 'reality'? What does 'reality' taste like?

So, now you are saying that reality is simply a description...
"de·scrip·tion (dĭ-skrĭp′shən)
n.
1. The act, process, or technique of describing.
2. A statement or an account describing something: published a description of the journey; gave a vivid description of the game.
3. A pictorial representation: Monet's ethereal descriptions of haystacks and water lilies.
4. A kind or sort: cars of every size and description."

So, what then is being described through the use of the term 'reality'? Is it possible for many people to give different descriptions of 'reality'? Who is the judge to determine which description out of many is the only valid description of 'reality'? How are descriptions formulated? Where do those descriptions originate?

 

perspective alters, not reality. an apple is still an apple despite your experience of tasting it. it has one taste, interpreted differently according to perspective. and a tree falling in a forest will make a sound whether you're there to hear it or not. trees exist, falling makes a sound, and sound carries.

you're effectively attempting to obscure the waters by swapping perspective for reality.

 

if it can be measured, checked, measured, checked again, measured, repeated, measured, checked, repeated, ad infinitum, it's reality. there are no other 'valid' descriptions. you refer, like your friend above, to perspectives - of which there are an infinite number. perspective is how you personally chose to view reality. the reality itself doesn't change, only your perspective. contrary to the old adage 'perspective is reality' - which is a weasel way of saying "if I think so, it must be true"

 

I really have no issue whatsoever as far as any person believing whatever religion they want as long as they are not killing people as a result.

But what I do have issues with is when a highly religious person who ordinarily I would NEVER EVER be wasting time playing Biblical or Talmud or Koran INTERPRETATION GAMES as such people just LOVE wasting vast amounts of time debating among themselves what they believe a specific live of their holy text might say and mean.

And honestly I not only support their right to do so but I will and have defended such a right.

BUT.....when I happen to post something science or mathematics specific or being a member I happen to read another member post something either attempting to disprove or make light of any scientific or mathematical based realities it is at that point I will reply or in this case create a Topic as an alternative to another topic were some members have actually and completely ILLOGICALLY somehow determined that the onus is upon Agnostics and Atheists to PROVE a GOD does not exist.

I have tried many times to explain to such lacking in basic skills of LOGIC individuals that the ONUS is NOT upon a person to PROVE A GOD DOES NOT EXIST.....but rather the ONUS is upon a person to prove a GOD DOES EXIST.

Unfortunately some members cannot seem to understand such basic logic and again I have TRIED MANY TIMES to explain to such people that something that they are claiming to exist...in this case being a GOD....cannot be assumed to be existing unless PROOF exists as well.

Logically and using basic Algebra....we will represent a GOD as g. We will represent the Universe as U...Unknown's as k....Life as L....Sentience as S....all Quantum Particle/Wave Forms as Q....and Space-Time as S....Matter is M...Energy is E....Force is F....Acceleration is A....Multiverse is v...Potential is p....Infinite is %

Now everything we know for certain is existing and proven with Physics and Mathematics or Experience to exist has a representative Capital Letter.

Everything that cannot or has not been proven to exist has a representative lower case letter.

Using these letters we can do some basic Algebra.

Q=M+E+%U/pQ

pL=H+k

U=S+Q+pL+Sk

Q=M+E

F=MA

g=k

vp=%Uk

gp=%Uk

Anyone else want to try?

AboveAlpha

 

You know....if there is anything a person might say about me is that I do NOT post about things that do not exist or are simply posts made to support some specific ideology as that is something I just will NOT do.

I understand your inability to come to terms with this issue specific to Psychic behavior, Remote Viewing and the last existing as the very but tinniest of all demographics....Telekinetic individuals....but such things exist and have been proven to exist and such people currently DO exist upon the PAYROLL of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA and other Advanced U.S. Military Research and Development Groups.

Recent research[edit]
In 2002, Michael Persinger, cognitive neuroscientist and professor at Laurentian University, published a study into remote viewing which suggests positive results.[40][41] He studied the remote viewing accuracy of remote viewer Ingo Swann, as measured by a group of ratings of congruence (between Swann's drawings and the locale being "viewed") by 40 experimentally blind participants[40] during stimulation with complex magnetic fields using a circumcerebral (around the head) eight-channel system. In 2010, Persinger (et al.) published a report of his work with the psychic Sean Harribance, reporting that blind-rated accuracies in his psychic insights correlated with specific Quantitative Electroencephalography profiles; specifically, congruence between activity over the left temporal lobe of those being "read" by Harribance and his right temporal lobe.[41] "The results indicate even exceptional skills previously attributed to aberrant sources are variations of normal cerebral dynamics associated with intuition and may involve small but discrete changes in proximal energy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

In 1981, when Psychic Investigator Noreen Renier first lectured at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, her work with police detectives was considered controversial. Now, she is a highly respected psychic detective who has worked on over 600 unsolved cases with city, county, and state Law Enforcement Agencies in 38 states and 8 foreign countries. She has a professional understanding of both the police and the paranormal.


Noreen never could have known this stuff beforehand and she was so accurate it was chilling."
— R. Krolak (Retired Lt. Commander)

quote...She helped to locate a plane containing the body of a relative of an FBI agent."
— Robert Ressler (Retired-FBI) Whoever Fights Monsters, St. Martin's Press

LINK....http://www.noreenrenier.com/

Stargate Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about United States government-sponsored remote viewing program. For other uses, see Stargate (disambiguation).
The Stargate Project[1] was the umbrella code name of one of several sub-projects established by the U.S. Federal Government to investigate claims of psychic phenomena with potential military and domestic applications, particularly "remote viewing": the purported ability to psychically "see" events, sites, or information from a great distance.[2] These projects were active from the 1970s through 1995 and were primarily handled by the CIA and DIA. They followed up early psychic research done at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), The American Society for Psychical Research, and other psychical research labs.[3]

The Stargate Project was terminated in 1995 with the conclusion that it was never useful in any intelligence operation. The information was vague and included a lot of irrelevant and erroneous data, there was also reason to suspect its project managers had changed the reports so they would fit background cues.[4] It is credited as the inspiration for the book and film The Men Who Stare At Goats

LINK....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

"Controlled Offensive Behavior — USSR" (DOD, U.S. Army, DIA)

A July 1972 U.S. Department of Defense Intelligence report prepared by the Medical Intelligence Office, Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army, and approved by the Directorate for Scientific and Technical Intelligence of the Defense Intelligence Agency that discusses Soviet research into methods of controlling human behavior. A portion of the report includes the following:



http://jamesaconrad.com/TK/DIA-Controlled-Offensive-Behavior-1972.pdf (5.63 MB)

http://www.dia.mil/public-affairs/foia/pdf/cont_ussr.pdf (no longer valid)

Update: In a routine check of the links on this page on February 15, 2014, it was discovered that the U.S. Government removed this document from the Internet, where it was stored in a Freedom of Information Act folder at the Defense Intelligence Agency. It is no longer available directly online from the U.S. Government. To obtain it directly from them, you would have to do your own FOIA request.

AboveAlpha

 

At the highlighted text below:

It is interesting that you make such an argument regarding the existence or non-existence of God and in that argument you show a requirement from you that 'PROOF' must exist. I agree with that argument from both sides of the argument. I agree because of the definition of the term 'PROOF'. "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." Unfortunately for you, the systems of logic fabricated by the mind of man have not and cannot compel my mind to accept an assertion that there is no God, while at the same time, I cannot and will not offer any argument or evidence that God does exist. In either scenario, showing proof of the existence or non-existence of God is a futile battle for the believer/non-believer on either side of the fence.

 

What I’m attempting to do is to introduce you to some basic philosophical questions. It’s the taste buds on your tongue that suggest to you that an apple has a taste. But how do you know that there is an apple, even if you can sense it with all your senses? How do you know you can trust your senses? How do you know that there’s a tree in the forest even if nobody is observing it? How do you know that anything including yourself exists? Of course you may not want to read Plato, Berkeley, Descartes, Kant etc. and occupy yourself with questions such as what is "the thing-as-such". It’s not as if I am well versed in questions of epistemology myself, but just having seen “The Matrix” (IMHO a rubbish film, but never mind) should suffice to inform even the most uneducated among us that “reality” is a highly disputed concept. So while I mostly think that Incorporeal’s posts are plainly rubbish, he has (again!) picked a corn here.

When it comes to reality I tend to stick to Socrates: I know that I know nothing. Nor do you for that matter, but unlike you I at least acknowledge that it’s mere faith that makes me get out of bed every morning.

 

Sorry, but from your very own source:

“Remote viewing was popularized in the 1990s upon the declassification of certain documents related to the Stargate Project, a $20 million research program that had started in 1975 and was sponsored by the U.S. government, in an attempt to determine any potential military application of psychic phenomena. The program was terminated in 1995 after it failed to produce any useful intelligence information.[n 1][5]
There is no credible scientific evidence that remote viewing works, and the continued study of remote viewing is regarded as pseudoscience.[6][7][8][9]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

As I said: you may as well believe in faith healing. It’s rather telling though that all the blokes in this thread, who seemingly believe in nothing but Empiricism and are running to any theists’ posts like flies to feces, let you get away with this blatantly pseudoscientific bullcrap.

 

How could one go too far in their service to their God without that fault lying within the religion? You are basically condemning them for truly believing what they believe. You have already stated one of the major dangers of religion and hinted at the point I was making about it being poisonous.

What did Jesus say about the old laws???? Don't dodge the issue.

But you are right that many atrocities have been done in the name of religion but were actually committed for other reasons, however good people championed them because of religion. In a world without religion good people would still do good things and bad people would still do bad things but in order for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

That last part is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and I'd asked you to prove it but why waste either of our time? Every good thing done in the name of religion has been and is being done without it. Fact.

No the fault lies with religion for giving people false strengths like the ones you mention above and trading an honest perspective for a fantasy. Kind of like drugs.

 

In case none of you have figured it out by now, there is no proof so the concept is bunk.

Ergo, if you still believe in this crap you are deluding yourself.

 

gee whiz, thanks for the intro - without you I'd never have known such ideas were possible

if torturing yourself into knots over the sound of one hand clapping works for ya, knock yourself out. it won't make god/s any more real, but it might make you feel better about the nonsense they truck.

meantime, do you think you have some sort of special status because "faith" makes you get out of bed in the morning? is this motivator somehow superior to the motivator an atheist might have ... like for example, the sheer joy of being alive and feeling the buzz of a day full of possibility?

you think atheists think they KNOW everything? how funny you are. it's the very fact we can't possibly know 'stuff' which renders many of us incapable of believing things with compel us to assert knowledge.

 

Who the hell are you to know whether or not anyone who believes in a God or a religion is getting false strength? You are one arrogant and condescending SOB, you know that? Beyond that, who the hell are you to crap on someone else's choices or values? There are a great many people who find strength and purpose through their religion, maybe you should consider the idea of live and let live.

 

if I may be so bold, I think the poster's intention was to crap on the belief itself, not the believer. and he was right to do so, imho.

meantime, if I told you my practice of sacrificing kittens to Zeus ever Wednesday afternoon gave me strength and purpose, would you consider that a perfectly acceptable thing? and what if I took it a step further and started lobbying for my practices to be incorporated into the curriculum of public schools, and taught to YOUR kids? what if I insisted that only I had the right to litter the landscape with billboards urging young people to start sacrificing kittens, and that any billboards suggesting that such a thing might not be such a good idea, were clearly beyond the pale and offensively unacceptable? still all good?

 

First of all, sacrificing animals is against the law, is it not? There no religions I know of that practice animal sacrifice, but if there are I would support outlawing the practice. One can practice that religion all they want, minus the sacrificial killing.

There are parochial schools who teach religion in their classrooms (I guess). Parents know about that when they enroll their kids, and if they are okay with that, so am I. Public schools, no way in hell.

You mighta went a little too far with the kitten killing on billboards concept, let's ratchet it down to proselytizing on a billboard or any other medium for your religion. I'm not real thrilled about it, but freedom of speech sometimes requires acceptance of someone else's religious ads. If someone else wants to advertise their opposition, fine by me. I think maybe it goes a little too far sometimes, with no Christmas parties and removing "under God" in the Pledge, stuff like that. I get that some people don't like religion being crammed down their throat, and I get that other people don't like anti-religion crammed down their throat either.

 

" No, the fault lies with religion for giving people false strengths like the ones you mention above and trading an honest perspective for a fantasy. Kind of like drugs. "


Let's explore this a little bit further. Anyone here familiar with the concept of the placebo effect? You give somebody a sugar pill or sterile water and tell the person it's a powerful drug and they get better. Sometimes anyway. Well religion is kinda like that in some ways. Leaving aside the question of whether God exists or not, which to me is a personal decision that no other person has the right to squash, those who do believe in God and in their religion may actually be drawing strength from that belief whether anyone else thinks it's bogus or not. It ain't bogus to them, and that's where the anti-religion folks need to dummy up. It isn't false strength or a fantasy to them and no one should try to take that away from them.

You wanna object to somebody trying to proselytize you, fine. I don't like it either. You don't like the religious billboards and ads wherever they are, fine. I don't either. But freedom of speech requires that we put up with a certain amount of crap from people who want to save our souls. It's the price we all pay, everybody gets to have their say. I wasn't too happy with those clowns from the Westboro Baptist Church, remember them? A bunch of a-hats showing up at the funerals for American soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, but they had a right to their opinion and the right to express it in a legal manner. We have to deal with it.