Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

God exists

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The word God denotes an aspect of reality which can be misunderstood. It does not cease to be a valid aspect of reality. So what does the word "God" denote? It denotes existance, as existance. The potential for an entity to exist, so to speak. Look, a human being is a huge collection of cells, which are a huge collection of atoms, which are a huge collection of subatomic particules, which we at some point just call "energy". This "energy", is "God". The "Universe" is "God's" "body", in a sense, when someone says "God" what they really mean is "The Universe" as "The Universe". Which does not mean they understand it. False beliefs regarding "The Universe" are not indicative of "The Universe" not existing.

The word "God" can also denote another aspect of reality, namely, beings with great power. Now, that doesn't mean a particular being exists, in fact. You can dream up a person, yet people exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 255
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The word God denotes an aspect of reality which can be misunderstood. It does not cease to be a valid aspect of reality. So what does the word "God" denote? It denotes existance, as existance. The potential for an entity to exist, so to speak. Look, a human being is a huge collection of cells, which are a huge collection of atoms, which are a huge collection of subatomic particules, which we at some point just call "energy". This "energy", is "God". The "Universe" is "God's" "body", in a sense, when someone says "God" what they really mean is "The Universe" as "The Universe". Which does not mean they understand it. False beliefs regarding "The Universe" are not indicative of "The Universe" not existing.

The word god denotes an omnipotent omniscient being that exists outside of, and independent from all reality. The ideal of god is a construct of prehistoric ignorance and as such is a figment of mans imagination. It has no correlation with and can have no effect on reality.

Sperm and egg have the potential to make an entity exist imagination does not.

When people refer to God they are referring to a supernatural being that caused the Universe to come into existence. To the vast majority god is a being that exists outside of the universe in that the rules that govern the universe have no bearing on and can be disregarded and manipulated by the god thing of their imagination. YOU, may believe that people are talking about the universe but that is an unsubstantiated opinion on your part and defies what people have written (in the Bible for example) about the god thing of their imagination.

The word "God" can also denote another aspect of reality, namely, beings with great power. Now, that doesn't mean a particular being exists, in fact. You can dream up a person, yet people exist.

People exist.

I can dream up flying pigs with integral lasers growing out of their purple spotted behinds but they will never exist, nor will god.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life."--Aristotle

This was the quote on the top of the forum. I think this is what the OP is trying to say?

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life."--Aristotle

This was the quote on the top of the forum. I think this is what the OP is trying to say?

More or less yes...

But of course Aristotle has far much more authority and elegance than me :P

____________________________________________________________________________

OK I come again, this time I will finally reveal my own theory about Gods, "Hard" Objectivists please open your minds:

Hypothesis:

There is some kind of "mystic instinct" in all men: Some kind of natural tendency to associate the things they don't understand or value very much to some "kingdom of magic" (Gods, angels, demons, spirits, reincarnation, gnomes, divination, astrology, whatever)

Thesis:

It is better for an Objectivist to know more about these "kingdoms of magic". Knowledge is personal and the most real knowledge can be only acquired by personal experience or proof, otherwise you just repeat by faith what other people said or wrote

Thus we Objectivists should know more closely about Gods or even worship some one (!), as long as we keep always clear in our minds that they are our invention: The God of money, the God of Wisdom, the God of Technology, the God of Love...

You can and should create Gods and these kind of Gods, your own Gods, should be concepts that you particularly value, admire and want to keep in some special place within your soul (your self-made soul as Ayn Rand said)

These "Gods" serve as an important part of the process by which your conscious mind constructs over the years your sense of life. (For an explanation about what I mean with "sense of life" please read Ayn Rand's essay "Philosophy and sense of life" in the Romantic Manifesto)

This extra knowledge about mysticism (and any other subject by the way) is also very useful to your mind in order to expand its limits an be able to extrapolate more concepts, based on more "points" of reliable reference-information

Explanation:

How can an Objectivist exercise his "mystic muscle" without renouncing to his principles?

Simple: Using the imagination, but always controlled by reason

Imagination is a powerful tool which importance is perhaps a little diminished in our Objectivist context where it is usually associated with fantasy, unreality, no-objectivity, no-reason

But correctly used imagination is one of the most powerful tools of reason. It allows to induction, to think about the not-yet-created. Imagination is essential to inventors, to discovery, to the thinkers of the not yet thought.

Unfortunately imagination is also essential (along with fear, ignorance, laziness, etc) for all sort of mystics and believers in the non-real

and I suppose it is the reason for its "bad fame" around Objectivists. Imagination, like a wild horse, can easily get out of control, out of the control of reason.

Thus a fine mind uses a lot of imagination but always under control of reason. There it resides the huge difference

I particularly propose worshiping a new God: Akatosh (from an invented mythology of the video game Oblivion)

I propose Akatosh be the "Soul of the World", this means all the knowledge accumulated by the effort of every individual that ever existed. The knowledge we inherited and which sum allows us to live in the wonderful World we live now, with internet, motorcycles, microwave furnaces, skyscrapers, guns, poetry, roads, satellites, medicine, movies and the Macbook computer in which keyboard I am writing just now these words.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I particularly propose worshiping a new God: Akatosh (from an invented mythology of the video game Oblivion)

I propose Akatosh be the "Soul of the World", this means all the knowledge accumulated by the effort of every individual that ever existed.

I fail to see what you can get out of this except a very long and drawn out explanation. Conveying and conversing ideas between humans is hard enough without bringing all this baggage to the table.

"I have never needed any other tool than reason, and I trust I never shall." - Thomas Paine

Link to post
Share on other sites

Belief in a deity is an relinquishment of personal sovereignty, and I'm firmly with Mill...

Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it John Stuart Mill that said that? That's surprising.

Occam's Razor, or the law of parsimony, makes a lot of sense in this case. By creating these superfluous "Gods", we take the focus off man, and what for? What is your hypothesis based upon?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it John Stuart Mill that said that? That's surprising.

Occam's Razor, or the law of parsimony, makes a lot of sense in this case. By creating these superfluous "Gods", we take the focus off man, and what for? What is your hypothesis based upon?

I've a theory that Mill is the worlds first Objectivist. I believe his message has been corrupted by Libertarians emphasizing the wrong pieces of the message.

Not to Hijack this thread too much, take the oft quoted…

A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

While Libertarians don’t deny the right of self protection they do deny the prudent action that in some cases should be taken to ensure the security of a nation. I take the preceding quote as Mill acknowledging that fact.

He also said...

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

And Libertarians fit the mold of the "thinks that nothing is worth war" definition. I don't think Mill would like Liebertarians at all.

Edited by Zip
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've a theory that Mill is the worlds first Objectivist. I believe his message has been corrupted by Libertarians emphasizing the wrong pieces of the message.

Not to Hijack this thread too much, take the oft quoted…

While Libertarians don’t deny the right of self protection they do deny the prudent action that in some cases should be taken to ensure the security of a nation. I take the preceding quote as Mill acknowledging that fact.

He also said...

And Libertarians fit the mold of the "thinks that nothing is worth war" definition. I don't think Mill would like Liebertarians at all.

I'm curious what you mean by 'Objectivist' in this instance, as I don't see how Mill could be considered 'Objectivist', much for the same reason that I don't consider Ludwig von Mises to be an Objectivist (this is not to say that there aren't values to be gained from reading them). Both came to certain conclusions that are agreeable in many instances, but they differ in principle to Ayn Rand. To the extent that I have read and understood him, John Stuart Mill's ethics (and thus politics) derives from the principle of utility (though a much more watered down version of it, compared to his father's or Bentham's use of the term). Further, I'd call him more of a restrictive-hedonist in that he ascribes the good as the pleasurable, to the extent that one is not harming other individuals.

The reason why he can fit into the camp of Libertarianism is because Libertarians accept individuals regardless of their philosophical basis for coming to the conclusion of liberty, which they consider to be a primary. As far as agreeing or disagreeing about war, Libertarians are a mixed bunch on this topic, precisely because they are unprincipled in their approach. Mill contends that the ideal 'utiliarian' states will provide the social, cultural and economic conditions under which citizens can live their lives according to their individual ideas of the good. There are superficial differences between libertarians, but most contend that people should just be left alone to do whatever it is they find pleasurable.

Edited by West
Link to post
Share on other sites
The word God denotes an aspect of reality which can be misunderstood. It does not cease to be a valid aspect of reality. So what does the word "God" denote? It denotes existance, as existance. The potential for an entity to exist, so to speak. Look, a human being is a huge collection of cells, which are a huge collection of atoms, which are a huge collection of subatomic particules, which we at some point just call "energy". This "energy", is "God". The "Universe" is "God's" "body", in a sense, when someone says "God" what they really mean is "The Universe" as "The Universe". Which does not mean they understand it. False beliefs regarding "The Universe" are not indicative of "The Universe" not existing.

The word "God" can also denote another aspect of reality, namely, beings with great power. Now, that doesn't mean a particular being exists, in fact. You can dream up a person, yet people exist.

A "god" is a supernatural (thus, nonexistent) being. To arbitrarily capitalize the "g" and make it "G" does not create a unique thing in reality. This simpleton attempt to create something out of nothing "works" for those who wish the wishes (gods) of their minds to be regarded as real and having power over existence. The man who has surrendered, or never developed, his reason, has no power over his life---its meaning, its happiness---and sets up this all-powerful being, this God, as something to worship, but never to reach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

God exists, and not in the illusionary or fantasy oriented notion originally presented by the first author on this topic. Before I begin let us take into account Ayn Rand's dedication to the individual mind and the power it holds. She believed that anything can be deciphered, understood, explained by that which gives us our power. And she was right. Now, look at God in a different light. Picture him not as a supreme king who sits on his high throne issuing commands from heaven, but rather call up the images of your most powerful and meaningful relationships. The key facet there is love. And love is the key to God. That love for one another is exactly where God is coming from, he resides in the place where evil cannot touch. It is the perfect place for what we define as heaven. Evil automatically cannot enter, and it is not something that can be bought stolen or broken. One dies, and that love is still there. Love is the most important thing in life, Ayn Rand declared it herself in a more subtle way. What was the driving force she proclaimed that Henry Rearden pursued Dagny and his metal. Was it not love. This mystical force that when confronted with in person, face to face, and sweeps us off our feet fills us with feelings that are almost supernatural. Love is God's crowning achievement and is his essence, but now let us turn to another few statements that may put this in a perspective. What you are about to hear will no doubt incite numerous denials and utter rejections from many of you. But though you may reject and discard of it now, I urge you to wait, for you cannot respond to this question until you have competed your turn here on earth. Everyone and I mean everyone has a desire for a God. Look at every single culture throughout history. And then look at the ones that have survived the longest. Islam, Christianity and Judaism. I believe that the evolution of faith has come as God began to spread throughout the many different cultures all centering on these three. And these three share the same God. If you trace the Koran and the Bible back you will see where the divergence of the two faiths occurred. Is it not interesting to note that these religions all share the EXACT same god. But back to this belief that everyone has a desire for a God (something else that binds together all of us. By the way notice bind{a relationship perhaps}.), be patient you will see. When this desire hits you it will feel very fundamental, as if it was actually a part of your being. It is like hunger or a thirst, wait, be patient. And if you look around you, you will see that every other fundamental desire has fulfillment. Hunger, sex, thirst, love etc.. Now why should this desire for a God not have fulfillment as well. Again, wait, be patient, it will come. Now Ayn Rand said herself that truth was not relative. Their are absolutes of good and evil. This could be termed as a moral code. So according to her philosophy it exists in everyone. Now animals don't have that same code. They at times exhibit semblance of this but not to any real extent. So this distinction because it forms the basis of what could be called the soul. This relates to love because love can only exist if one follows this moral code. Of which love is the key component. So it comes full circle, love dictates this code and thus love can only exist if one follows the moral way. Now Ayn Rand's main issue with God was that he dictated thoughts. But that is where free will enters. We can use our mind and thus our power to do whatever we want. So we can act morally or not. There are gray areas for sure, but the key judge of what is right and wrong is whether love is in the spectrum. Did you act with love or not. Though only a brief overview of my thoughts on God (The Desire for God aspect is adapted from C.S. Lewis), I welcome any thoughts and desire to hear the entirety of my ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your statements are rampant with fallacies to the point that the entire post quickly becomes unintelligible.

This is what I see as a summary of your initial argument. Please show me where I am wrong:

1. Love is mysterious

2. Something needs to explain this mystery

3. Therefore god exists and explains this mystery

Also, you go off on other tangents, such as this:

1. People have moral codes

2. Animals have moral codes, but they differ from those of people

3. Therefore the soul exists and explains these differences between animals and people

One of the problems with your statements, of course, is that you have explained nothing. You have these words "god", "soul", etc, but they are just as mysterious as the mysteries you're using to show their existence. You have made no progress in the matter, but simply done some relabelling.

Edited by brian0918
Link to post
Share on other sites

love is not a mystic force, nor is it someting arbitrary or spontaneous, but a consequence of man's choices. It certainly doesnt dictate our moral codes.

the distinction between a dog and a man is not a "soul" int he way you present it. Animals are almoast automatically governed by instincts, men are governed by themselves, i.e., the conscious act of thinking, making choices, displaces the need of an instinct. Biologically we're probably not that far from apes and pigs, but we can store information and exchange it in non-genetical ways (we speak! and write!) therefore value is not in the species but in the individual lifespan. Is that individual worth what you call a soul? I have a theory that some people use GOD as a metaphore for one's own uncharted consciousness, other as a synonim for the unkowable infinite. In either case you are not defining it, let alone proving it, but only ask us kindly to go die and see for ourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see. Here is your syllogism:

A. Everyone has a desire for god.

B. All desires have some form of fulfillment.

C. Therefore, god must be real.

Well, I really cannot imagine a clearer example of the primacy of consciousness fallacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that love is the essence of all things moral. Morality is not relative, Ayn Rand said so herself, God resides there. I then explained why he would reside there. He represents morality. I said animals appear to show moral codes at time but with humans it is universal, thus indicating a common moral base. You have not addressed any other of the key components and have taken things out of context as well as skipping over very pertinent parts. I would suggest you open your mind, read this again and focus on line 2. Could you possibly point out what exactly I have renamed. Another point you might want to consider is how can you say there is no God if you don't have any proof of his NOT existing, it kind of contradicts a key point in American Government which you profess to love so much:: innocent until proven guilty.

When did I say that the soul was different from the human being. It is one and the same. The soul is just the name for what moves on.

Let's see. Here is your syllogism:

A. Everyone has a desire for god.

B. All desires have some form of fulfillment.

C. Therefore, god must be real.

Well, I really cannot imagine a clearer example of the primacy of consciousness fallacy.

Enlighten me why is that a "Conscious Fallacy"

Link to post
Share on other sites

God resides where? In love? That doesnt even make gramatical sense.

On line 2 you seem to identify reason, anything can be understood, deciphered, through reason. Are you holding that reason is a mystical power? Or are your proposing that we can reach god through reason? In any case how does this relate to the topic?

The American Government is not a metaphysical authority (!) .

No one can disprove a negative, that is why the God issue is anathema to us. It is on your side the burden of the proof. But I wont ask you to prove the existence of your ghost, only to define it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
God resides where? In love? That doesnt even make gramatical sense.

On line 2 you seem to identify reason, anything can be understood, deciphered, through reason. Are you holding that reason is a mystical power? Or are your proposing that we can reach god through reason? In any case how does this relate to the topic?

The American Government is not a metaphysical authority (!) .

No one can disprove a negative, that is why the God issue is anathema to us. It is on your side the burden of the proof. But I wont ask you to prove the existence of your ghost, only to define it.

No I merely asked you to consider it with an open mind and use your reason. A few questions: why is god a negative, and why is the burden of proof on us. You can only explain the supernatural with the natural by showing the gateways into which it enters out lives. The answer to what our soul is, is that it is where the moral code and thus love resides. It is the essence of what makes us human:: the love and relationships we all have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, look at God in a different light. Picture him not as a supreme king who sits on his high throne issuing commands from heaven, but rather call up the images of your most powerful and meaningful relationships. The key facet there is love. And love is the key to God. That love for one another is exactly where God is coming from, he resides in the place where evil cannot touch. It is the perfect place for what we define as heaven. Evil automatically cannot enter, and it is not something that can be bought stolen or broken. One dies, and that love is still there.

That sounds great, but how do you know this? Why can we not think of love without linking it to superstition, or viewing it as some sort of 'mystical force'?

But back to this belief that everyone has a desire for a God (something else that binds together all of us. By the way notice bind{a relationship perhaps}.), be patient you will see. When this desire hits you it will feel very fundamental, as if it was actually a part of your being. It is like hunger or a thirst, wait, be patient. And if you look around you, you will see that every other fundamental desire has fulfillment. Hunger, sex, thirst, love etc.. Now why should this desire for a God not have fulfillment as well.

The desire for God is not a 'fundamental desire' just because you say it is. Much of the belief in God is based upon ignorance. An ignorant desire does not demand fulfillment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Primacy of consciousness is the fallacy of thinking that the function of consciousness it to create reality; it is the belief that reality, in effect, depends on and proceeds from consciousness. That is, in fact, the literal view of religious people who believe that God -- a consciousness -- created existence out of nothing.

Objectivism is so named because it rests on the acknowledgment that existence exists independent of the content or processes of any consciousness, that the function of consciousness is the perception of existence, not its creation, that existence is the object of consciousness, not its subject.

Apart from that, your post is so full of floating abstractions one scarcely knows where to start in demonstrating their lack of tie to reality. Let's start with a simple point. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is indeed a valid principle -- for the very simple reason that proof can apply only to that which exists or to that which happened.

Proof consists of facts, data, evidence, etc, which, taken together and viewed logically, allow us to reach a conclusion about reality. The unreal, that which does not exist, will not give rise to any facts, data or evidence-- it will not manifest itself in reality in any fashion whatsoever. That's why there will never be any evidence of the non-existence of something. The nonexistent creates no evidence -- it leaves no fingerprint.

So, in invoking this "innocent until proven guilty" principle, you have actually invoked the reason why the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that god exists -- and not on me to prove that he does not exist.

To illustrate this point a little better – and to introduce you to the meaninglessness of the arbitrary, I offer you this proposition (borrowed from Dr. Peikoff): I say there are gremlins on Venus studying Hegel. Prove that there are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On closer inspection of your argument it amounts to God doesn't exist because I don't believe he exists. It seems to me that that is the negative. You are laughable in your attempts to deny it. No, no, he is a negative so I SWEAR he doesn't exist. But on a lighter note, I would suggest taking 3 days and going into the woods and sit there. For three days. No book. No distractions. Only food and a tent. That is one way I have heard and experienced you can really begin to find the desire for God.

WHY IS IT IGNORANT?? Prove it is not a fundamental desire. Do you honestly believe there isn't something special about love. Can you actually refute ANY part of my argument with actual proof. I mean come on now. You really are just saying it is not a fundamental desire because I don't want it to be. Please step your arguments up.

Edited by US12345
Link to post
Share on other sites
No I merely asked you to consider it with an open mind and use your reason. A few questions: why is god a negative, and why is the burden of proof on us.

Should I open my mind with an icepick?

If you claim that something exists, which you can't define, nor quiet put your finger on, then how are we suppose to disprove it? I grant it that the concept GOD does exist, it is located in your mind and it stands for that which is undefineable.

u've heard this before but, if I claim there's an elf in the dark side of the mooon, who should prove it? Can you disprove it?

You can only explain the supernatural with the natural by showing the gateways into which it enters out lives. The answer to what our soul is, is that it is where the moral code and thus love resides. It is the essence of what makes us human:: the love and relationships we all have.

How can you explain that which is outside reallity with reallity? ISnt that a contradiction? I believe that if a natural world exists, that's prove enough that a supernatural world doesn't.

In your latter point you're using SOUL as a metaphor for your own consciousness, which is ok, I do too.

On closer inspection of your argument it amounts to God doesn't exist because I don't believe he exists. It seems to me that that is the negative. You are laughable in your attempts to deny it. No, no, he is a negative so I SWEAR he doesn't exist. But on a lighter note, I would suggest taking 3 days and going into the woods and sit there. For three days. No book. No distractions. Only food and a tent. That is one way I have heard and experienced you can really begin to find the desire for God.

WHY IS IT IGNORANT?? Prove it is not a fundamental desire. Do you honestly believe there isn't something special about love. Can you actually refute ANY part of my argument with actual proof. I mean come on now. You really are just saying it is not a fundamental desire because I don't want it to be. Please step your arguments up.

So you're point is that it exists because it is a fundamental desire?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Primacy of consciousness is the fallacy of thinking that the function of consciousness it to create reality; it is the belief that reality, in effect, depends on and proceeds from consciousness. That is, in fact, the literal view of religious people who believe that God -- a consciousness -- created existence out of nothing.

Objectivism is so named because it rests on the acknowledgment that existence exists independent of the content or processes of any consciousness, that the function of consciousness is the perception of existence, not its creation, that existence is the object of consciousness, not its subject.

Apart from that, your post is so full of floating abstractions one scarcely knows where to start in demonstrating their lack of tie to reality. Let's start with a simple point. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is indeed a valid principle -- for the very simple reason that proof can apply only to that which exists or to that which happened.

Proof consists of facts, data, evidence, etc, which, taken together and viewed logically, allow us to reach a conclusion about reality. The unreal, that which does not exist, will not give rise to any facts, data or evidence-- it will not manifest itself in reality in any fashion whatsoever. That's why there will never be any evidence of the non-existence of something. The nonexistent creates no evidence -- it leaves no fingerprint.

So, in invoking this "innocent until proven guilty" principle, you have actually invoked the reason why the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that god exists -- and not on me to prove that he does not exist.

To illustrate this point a little better – and to introduce you to the meaninglessness of the arbitrary, I offer you this proposition (borrowed from Dr. Peikoff): I say there are gremlins on Venus studying Hegel. Prove that there are not.

Essentially you are stating that there could be reality without any consciousness in the world. And that consciousness only serves to observe and interpret this reality. There could be but there isn't. Essentially you are saying absolutely nothing beside perpetuating my argument. There is always a reason for everything, so what is the reason consciousness is made. You have to prove I am "guilty" of the belief in God. You have said nothing here accept you think that the world would still exist if consciousness went away. You contradicted yourself by suffusing abstractions into this. CAN YOU ACTUALLY REFUTE THE EXAMPLES I LAID OUT WITHOUT SAYING O NO THATS NOT RIGHT BECAUSE GOD JUST DOENS"T EXIST????????

Link to post
Share on other sites
On closer inspection of your argument it amounts to God doesn't exist because I don't believe he exists.
As opposed to your argument that amounts to God exists because I believe He exists. That puts the burden upon you, my friend, to prove your own contention, not upon me to disprove that which you have not proven.

WHY IS IT IGNORANT?? Prove it is not a fundamental desire. Do you honestly believe there isn't something special about love. Can you actually refute ANY part of my argument without actual proof. I mean come on now. You really are just saying it is not a fundamental desire because I don't want it to be. Please step your arguments up.
You made the case that belief in God was somehow fundamental because there has always been some sort of a belief in a Diety throughout human history. I say that does not make it fundamental. All that says to me is that historically, man has been incredibly ignorant. If you want to cast aside reason and reality and believe in something that isnt there, go ahead. Faith is a belief in the absence of reason. It is a common theist trick to put forth an article of faith then demand that non-believers disprove it. Prove your God exists and I will have nothing to say, will I.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Should I open my mind with an icepick?

If you claim that something exists, which you can't define, nor quiet put your finger on, then how are we suppose to disprove it? I grant it that the concept GOD does exist, it is located in your mind and it stands for that which is undefineable.

u've heard this before but, if I claim there's an elf in the dark side of the mooon, who should prove it? Can you disprove it?

How can you explain that which is outside reallity with reallity? ISnt that a contradiction? I believe that if a natural world exists, that's prove enough that a supernatural world doesn't.

In your latter point you're using SOUL as a metaphor for your own consciousness, which is ok, I do too.

I did define it...love, the moral code. And if you look at the text you will see that you will see that it is not a contradiction because I did not say you can prove the supernatural world with the natural but only with the gateways between the two. And your last comment about the natural and supernatural world, that seems strikingly similar to I believe Earth is the center of the universe so the the sun isn't

Edited by US12345
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're proving Aisa's very well laid out point.

If a tree falls in the woods but there's no one there depriving himself of books to hear it. Does it make as sound?

We think yes, indeed it does. I'd assume you believe that it not only doesnt make a sound but it also doesnt exist until someone sees it.

So god is slang for love and moral codes.....

Which are the gateways between an existing world and a non existing world? I can only think of one: death.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...