In the book "the seth materials" , the author tells you to imagine an energy that was aware of itself as itself but was unable to do anything about it.Like an artist who could imagine paintings but wasnt able to paint them. Over a long period of dreaming , imagining and adjusting the energy figured it out, ie big bang. Think thats the answer. wot u think
Every year millions of people convert to Islam and still get the same story that Islam is bad infact Islam the best thing that's why people are converting even in the countries that hates it. All I can say to those that are stupid that doesn't learn is that stop blaming somebody else for your own action, peoples are just jelous because EVERYBODY IS CONVERTING TO ISLAM. Just face the fact that ISLAM IS THE BEST AND WILL ALWAYS BE THE BEST.
WE are God. It is possible to experience this by realising that we are not our bodies, or our thoughts. To realise this reality is to become free. It is beyond description - this is why it is usually only alluded to in parables by those who have realised. They seek to help others , who they see suffering in ignorance. If you wish to know more please check out: Douglas Harding, Sri Ramana MaharshI, Sri Nisargadatta, Mooji, etc, etc, etc. And may God bless you, dear seeker of truth.
WE are God. It is possible to experience this by realising that we are not our bodies, or our thoughts. To realise this reality is to become free. It is beyond description - this is why it is usually only alluded to in parables by those who have realised. They seek to help others , who they see suffering in ignorance. If you wish to know more please check out: Douglas Harding, Sri Ramana MaharshI, Sri Nisargadatta, Mooji, etc, etc, etc. And may God bless you, dear seeker of truth.
God = Love. No mystery :) No man in the clouds, no hellfire and brimstone. God is Love, not man-made religion, not fear, not hate, not 'he' not 'she', no devils, the shadows are made by MAN, God is LOVE LOVE LOVE. WE are little pieces of God because God (LOVE) is Everywhere, this means that there is NO WHERE that God is not (including in US) that's my view, love to you and you and you:):):)
I believe that we are all essentially the same consciousness. We only see each other as separate because our sensory organs are separate. Everyone on the entire planet - One Mind.
Another way to look at it would be, if Consciousness started out as an ocean, each time a body was created it took a drop of water from that ocean of consciousness and is now a completely separate consciousness, but, when it dies it's soul returns to that sea and reintegrates. Maybe both are different levels of truth.
And from this, if God could be said to be consciousness itself, then alot of what theists say could actually make sense. For example, like God being all-knowing; it would be easy to understand just how God COULD be "all" "knowing."
And only in this way could heaven make any sense, because our individuality is what generates conflict, so we would have to lose our individuality in the afterlife.
Such mysticism has had adverse consequences in my life, though. That is why I am now a naturalist
Y can't God be a spatial extended substance. You seem to be saying that the theists defintion of God that doesn't include spatial extension is incoherent, since everything we refer to in the natural world seems to take up space. therefore the theists might refer to God as a spatialy extended mind substance that is not detectable if thats what he means by immaterial.
The word atheist is a pejorative term that theists hurl at members of the population that do not show deference to religious ideas. They attribute all manner of negative attributions to atheism and affix that stigmatized label on anyone who will not suspend their disbelief on behalf of certain supernatural ideas.
God is... a 10 ft tall squirrel that is made of matter that was charged with electricity and faded out of existence in this universe. The squirrel was so strong that nature had to exclude it and make it's own form of nature.
Your statement about anthropomorphizing God reminds me of Paul's statement in Romans about how men change the the glory of the incorruptible God into images of corruptible man and animals.
God is Spirit. He is invisible. He is not an object to be operated on by the 5 senses. He cannot be empirically verified.
Hi Blogrich55. There are some questions I always wanted to ask.
1. "God is Spirit." my follow-up question would be what is spirit?.
2. "He is invisible"... invisible like what?
3."He is not an object to be operated on by the 5 senses. He cannot be empirically verified" I don't know if I like him to be empirically verified, but my question is can he be an object that we can see or detect whenever he wants to?
4. My final question is how do you know all these?.
Okay, I'll start by saying I do not know much about this topic, but here goes. You say that God is a non-concept, that there is no way to refer to God as an actual being. My physics teacher once said during class that Energy is that property which allows us to do work, but that science does not actually know what exactly Energy is. Is Energy, then, a nonconcept? Please, I would like to hear what you have to say.
What exactly is Energy, then? Take, for example, mass. Mass is a measure of how much matter there is. On the other hand, we do not know what exactly energy is. You can say that Energy is the property which allows us to do work, but that does not tell what it is. This is merely a characteristic of energy. What exactly is energy?
Actually science knows all too well WHAT energy is, it is the question of WHY energy is that science will not grapple with. Physics has identified a number of different energies and linked their ability to affect matter to various subatomic particle interactions. Gravity alone lacks a full subatomic explanation but the science is a work in progress, not a "complete failure" like religion.
I notice you put complete failure in quotation marks. What is this supposed to mean? If you mean it literally, I will say that I agree with you to an extent. I personally am a believer, and yet I do not see the church (i.e. organized religion) as the ultimate authority concerning theological matters. But that's beside the point. About energy, I certainly don't presume to know what energy is and is not. If you can explain to me what energy is, I would really like to hear what you have to say.
Quotation marks not needed. My information is derived from Quantum Physics literature but I am not a physicist. I make an effort to keep abreast of developments in that field because they are fascinating. If you sincerely want to know what energy is, I suggest you study it closely. 500 characters from an informed physics layperson won't do it justice, it is, of necessity, highly complicated. It all comes down to subatomic particle interactions as I said.
This is what brings me to my point. You say that energy "is, of necessity, highly complicated." From what I've heard of it, energy seems to make sense. However, on the other hand, Christ/God is also, of necessity, highly complicated, and if you study it in depth it also seems to make sense. I'm not saying the Church makes sense, but that Christ makes sense. I can compare it to how a science fiction movie portrays science. That's about the same credibility the Church has when portraying Christ.
You are taking terrible liberties here. Energy can be measured, tested, and is amenable to mathematical modeling. The experiments involving these energies have been duplicated and subjected to rigorous criticism and peer review. Just because your scripture makes sense if you approach it in a non-critical way, does nothing to validate it. I am also surprised that you think (a) that I haven't studied your god and (b) that you think it is complicated, because it isn't, it's provably false.
Please do not assume that I did not think you have studied God. And do not assume also that I read scripture in a non-critical way, because that is quite the opposite. Also note that I never asserted that God can be measured, tested, or amenable to mathematical modeling. I merely stated that God is, of necessity, highly complicated. It is human depravity that attempts to make him simple, so most studies of God conclude that he is simple and a human invention. There's no proof for either side.
There is perfectly good proof of god's non-existence and fallacy. Consider that everything that is known about God has its origin in the Bible which is God's word. By definition God is all knowing. The Bible is however littered with absurd errors which no all-knowing entity could ever make, unless it was evil and purposefully wished to deceive the faithful. Consider page 1, the "firmament" refers to a ceiling.
The Earth has no ceiling. Simpleminded Hebrew savages dreamed this up.
Does your mind have capacity for metaphor? Did you even consider the possibility that it could be metaphor? I will hold you to your scientific standards by saying that you have no evidence to prove that simple minded Hebrew savages dreamed up God. I choose to believe by faith and do not claim to verify my faith by any scientific standards. That I will concede to you.
Metaphors are inappropriate here. Truth is not metaphor. Metaphor may allude to truth in a very primitive and inexact fashion, but it has been proven time and again to be a misleading and dangerous way to explain things as a metaphor only works so far. After that it becomes grossly misleading. An all-knowing God shouldn't be relying on such a primitive literary device, infinite knowledge should find a better way. There is no excuse for this, why not use maths for example ?
But I could also ask you the same question. Why not use metaphor instead of math? You obviously are biased against metaphors... I wonder if it is because I suggested that the Bible uses metaphors. Metaphors have not been proven time and time again to be misleading... you are just assuming this to be true.
I am amused and mildly shocked by this statement. Metaphors are misleading as they break down leading to dangerously false conclusions. Maths creates quantifiable descriptions and precision of observation. What you are talking about is the most absurd trading down to inferior methodology. Someone should replace your computer with a typewriter, and a fax. Take the metaphor "the sea is a hungry dog"... that would mean that it comes inland and looks up demandingly at you come 6pm. :D
"The sea is a hungry dog." Well, if I were examining this metaphor metaphorically, so to speak, I would not conclude that it comes inland and looks up demandingly at me come 6 pm. That would be a literalist viewing which would make no sense here. Metaphorically, on the other hand, this metaphor conveys some useful knowledge, mainly that of the tendency of the sea to "devour" ships during large seas. And by the way, it's math, NOT maths.
So you agree that dogs eat petrol tankers, cargo ships and oil tankers ? There you go, the metaphor is "excellent" and holds up to scrutiny "so well". My own dog could not be trusted around ships, he used to steal them from the local dockyards and bring them home and leave them half chewed under the house.
Next. MathematicS! Plural ! Therefore Maths in abbreviation. There are many forms of mathematics which have been combined into a single subject for teaching purposes. U lose.
Your argument fits your name... its formless, devoid of any legitimate points. You're claiming that metaphors are literally what they are referring to. Metaphors are a form of figurative language used to describe something. Therefore, it goes without saying that a ship is substituted for the dog's food in the metaphor. Forgive me for not knowing that "Maths" is an abbreviation. What's all this about "U lose"? It sounds like you aren't driven by an objective purpose, but rather wish to beat me.
I always say "U lose" when someone corrects me and gets it wrong. You should know Mathematics is plural, as you're clearly literate.
As to the issue of metaphor, the point I made was satirical. Which parts of a metaphor should be interpreted literally and which figuratively ?
I am reminded of the Zen sage who points at the Moon while his students intently regard his finger, or Lao Tzu's saying that the Tao that is spoken of is not the Tao. Metaphors are weak.
Math is a plural word...it is the abbreviation for mathematics. Have u wondered y ur the only one who ever says maths instead of math? Theres ur answer
The only logical way this makes any sense is if you say the sky water is an explination for rain (minus knowledge of gravity) AND the fact that the water is above all objects seen in the sky is because it is limited to the knowledge of the culture that wrote it. They knew nothing of flight (except birds) or outer space and the vast expanse of the universe. everything in the sky - WAS IN THE SKY !
The same level of thinking that had apollo drive the sun across the sky.
I wasn't worried about day 3. That just makes MORE problems, since ALL plants were created on the cold planet before the sun was created to warm it. :)
well, i guess if god planted all of the seeds on day three, there was no need for a power source yet =/
you mean to tell me they actually thought the planets and the sun and all of the stars were in the SKY!? like, in our ATMOSPHERE!?!?
gawwleee!! I can't even comprehend that lol, like i just took a walk outside on this full moon and there's like, no way i could think that today lol ^_^
I guess they thought air just continued out until, forever..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
yes god can be imagined. How do you think the negro came to be??I will tell you
satans real name is satanel. it means raw black angel. He was a beautiful angel but typical nigger. he tried to steal from god and god kicked him to earth. god then tried to make thing right and see if satanel wanted to behave. He thought he reconciled and asked satanel to help out with his creation adam and eve. first chance satanel got he drugged and raped both adam and eve. Again, typical moderna day nigger.
then eve gave birth to the first negro,cain.Not lucy. then cain ,being like his father satanel was also a typical nigger and murdered able from the whispers of jealousy from satanel. then god tols cain who his father was and told him if he did a few things that god would accept him. And like a typical nigger, he run his mouth. So god, being sick to the stomache of this, cursed him by making him the lowest IQ creature on the planet. and everyone would pity them.
Cain then ran off realy pissed instead of remorseful. Yeah, like any typical nigger.Cain was so mad he wanted to destroy everything god made to get even with him and began to had adam and eve and all their other children so he went out and violated all the animals. monkey orangutans,chimpanzee, etc....you got it, typical nigger. So got got so pissed because of this he flooded the whole planet to get rid of them. But satanel knew of this and helped some of his seed survive.
Now can you imagine how sick of this busshit god is? all these years later and after giving the nigger instruction on how to behave, and even after giving them the lowest IQ on earth so they wouldnt misbehave, they still are all typical niggers. they are sure going to get it this next time.
Talk about non sequitur! Do you take every question as an opportunity to vent your racism in metaphorical nonsense? You are a disgrace to the youtube community.
I am a follower of the Bible, and normally I respond to nonsense point by point. However, this entire thing is nothing but nonsense upon nonsense. It's sickening, tiring, and I hope no one believes a word of it, or believes that this is how things are written in the Bible, as it very much is not.
This is based at how "God" is something. What is god is nothing? Then again, I guess that's impossible. Also, you have already expressed at how the way God is Explained in english meaning (I mean the folowing sentence at saying the word God) to portray that God is of material.
I've always been asking myself this, but this is the first time it's been put in words. Thanks.
I agree with your argument but not with your definition of the word atheist.
Atheism is the lack, or absence, of a belief in a god(s); not the active disbelief of it.
Not understanding something, let alone the existence of it or its' essence, doesn't undermine the idea that you simply do not take part in believing in such a thing; as I do not.
I think the distinction between belief and truth is missing. Atheism exists to refer to a non-belief in god, not the truth of the god preposition. A belief is a posture or orientation toward a proposition that may or may not be true. It's important to remember that while a preposition may be contingent on coherency, belief in it is not (though one would prefer that it was). God need not be coherant to lack belief in it, but rather, the incoherency suggests that a belief in God is mistaken.
I think this is a very good way to present the argument. In it's atheism-friendly form: If you can't even imagine something, you certainly have no right to claim that that thing exists.
"I cannot take the position of theist or atheist on an incoherent concept"
Is that really true? I'm not sure about it.
1. X is a sound outside time and space.
2. X exists.
What do you think of this: 1 is meaningless (or incoherent, i'm not sure), but its incoherence means that we _can_ reject 2 on the grounds that X can't possibly refer to something in the world.
Yes, in it's current state, as it has been presented, "god" does not actually refer to anything at all. This is why guys like George Smith/Michael Martin/Francois Trembley use it as a justification for gnostic atheism.
But that's exactly why I ask for a clarification from theists. I want to be sure that the thing I am rejecting is an accurate representation of what they are attempting to refer to. I want to see the case made by the people presenting it before I take a position.
If you can't disbelieve in something with no ontology how can you believe in it? Just because someone is an an atheist who doesn't believe in something doesn't mean they disbelieve in it! You are just some pot smoking philosophy major who thinks he is enlightened. If you can't understand what it is that theists believes in and they can't tell you the logical thing to do is to not be a theist. The simple state of not being a theist is atheism. It's not the state of disbelief!
"If you can't disbelieve in something with no ontology how can you believe in it?"
You can't. I'm not convinced either label - "theist" or "atheist" - means anything. I don't like vague, useless terminology.
"You are just some pot smoking philosophy major"
I'm neither, actually.
This isn't anywhere near the first time I've had this accusation (drug use) leveled at me, but it is the first time it's come from someone I respect. Perhaps I should modify my delivery.
WE are God. It is possible to experience this by realising that we are not our bodies, or our thoughts. To realise this reality is to become free. It is beyond description - this is why it is usually only alluded to in parables by those who have realised. They seek to help others , who they see suffering in ignorance. If you wish to know more please check out: Douglas Harding, Sri Ramana MaharshI, Sri Nisargadatta, Mooji, etc, etc, etc. And may God bless you, dear seeker of truth.
watch this video:
BATTLE FOR YOUR MIND roy masters -1
Truth77Absolute 3 months ago
@Truth77Absolute I listen to his radio show every day. That's more than enough Roy Masters for me.
eightfootmanchild 3 months ago
In the book "the seth materials" , the author tells you to imagine an energy that was aware of itself as itself but was unable to do anything about it.Like an artist who could imagine paintings but wasnt able to paint them. Over a long period of dreaming , imagining and adjusting the energy figured it out, ie big bang. Think thats the answer. wot u think
rphcomposer 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every year millions of people convert to Islam and still get the same story that Islam is bad infact Islam the best thing that's why people are converting even in the countries that hates it. All I can say to those that are stupid that doesn't learn is that stop blaming somebody else for your own action, peoples are just jelous because EVERYBODY IS CONVERTING TO ISLAM. Just face the fact that ISLAM IS THE BEST AND WILL ALWAYS BE THE BEST.
mother4love 11 months ago
WE are God. It is possible to experience this by realising that we are not our bodies, or our thoughts. To realise this reality is to become free. It is beyond description - this is why it is usually only alluded to in parables by those who have realised. They seek to help others , who they see suffering in ignorance. If you wish to know more please check out: Douglas Harding, Sri Ramana MaharshI, Sri Nisargadatta, Mooji, etc, etc, etc. And may God bless you, dear seeker of truth.
wionbakee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WE are God. It is possible to experience this by realising that we are not our bodies, or our thoughts. To realise this reality is to become free. It is beyond description - this is why it is usually only alluded to in parables by those who have realised. They seek to help others , who they see suffering in ignorance. If you wish to know more please check out: Douglas Harding, Sri Ramana MaharshI, Sri Nisargadatta, Mooji, etc, etc, etc. And may God bless you, dear seeker of truth.
wionbakee 1 year ago
FUCK THEISM
I'M GONNA GO LISTEN TO SOME ELEVATOR MUSIC AND TEAR UP A BIBLE!
MrJizzinator 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@---->---->------
God = Love. No mystery :) No man in the clouds, no hellfire and brimstone. God is Love, not man-made religion, not fear, not hate, not 'he' not 'she', no devils, the shadows are made by MAN, God is LOVE LOVE LOVE. WE are little pieces of God because God (LOVE) is Everywhere, this means that there is NO WHERE that God is not (including in US) that's my view, love to you and you and you:):):)
michelle
urtheanswer 1 year ago
what the hell did he smoke before this clip.
oskarkeyser 1 year ago
what if I say HEY JEDI ?
gambitraven 2 years ago
God cannot be imagined, if he could then he would cease to be God becauuse he would have the same attributes as the creation. God is not a 'he' btw
siberiaice 2 years ago
You just refuted the "Ontological Argument."
SSJ3Ulcer 2 years ago 2
I believe that we are all essentially the same consciousness. We only see each other as separate because our sensory organs are separate. Everyone on the entire planet - One Mind.
Another way to look at it would be, if Consciousness started out as an ocean, each time a body was created it took a drop of water from that ocean of consciousness and is now a completely separate consciousness, but, when it dies it's soul returns to that sea and reintegrates. Maybe both are different levels of truth.
wesley111111111111 2 years ago
And from this, if God could be said to be consciousness itself, then alot of what theists say could actually make sense. For example, like God being all-knowing; it would be easy to understand just how God COULD be "all" "knowing."
And only in this way could heaven make any sense, because our individuality is what generates conflict, so we would have to lose our individuality in the afterlife.
Such mysticism has had adverse consequences in my life, though. That is why I am now a naturalist
SSJ3Ulcer 2 years ago
Y can't God be a spatial extended substance. You seem to be saying that the theists defintion of God that doesn't include spatial extension is incoherent, since everything we refer to in the natural world seems to take up space. therefore the theists might refer to God as a spatialy extended mind substance that is not detectable if thats what he means by immaterial.
ddhy1234 2 years ago
@ddhy1234
The idea of a mind that isn't attached to a brain is incoherent as well. Substance dualism fails to pass the coherency test in the same way as "god".
ctvwr 2 years ago
The word atheist is a pejorative term that theists hurl at members of the population that do not show deference to religious ideas. They attribute all manner of negative attributions to atheism and affix that stigmatized label on anyone who will not suspend their disbelief on behalf of certain supernatural ideas.
ANDR3W1848 2 years ago 4
God is... a 10 ft tall squirrel that is made of matter that was charged with electricity and faded out of existence in this universe. The squirrel was so strong that nature had to exclude it and make it's own form of nature.
...Not sure if that's coherent.
BlodhArget 2 years ago 2
just remember, god has tanned skin and has a white beard... and carries a AK47
Nades129 2 years ago
So God is essentially an aged Osama Bin Laden ? There's a comforting thought...
formless777 2 years ago
Yes pretty much...
he uses fear to control and salvation to manipulate...
Nades129 2 years ago
Your statement about anthropomorphizing God reminds me of Paul's statement in Romans about how men change the the glory of the incorruptible God into images of corruptible man and animals.
God is Spirit. He is invisible. He is not an object to be operated on by the 5 senses. He cannot be empirically verified.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Hi Blogrich55. There are some questions I always wanted to ask.
1. "God is Spirit." my follow-up question would be what is spirit?.
2. "He is invisible"... invisible like what?
3."He is not an object to be operated on by the 5 senses. He cannot be empirically verified" I don't know if I like him to be empirically verified, but my question is can he be an object that we can see or detect whenever he wants to?
4. My final question is how do you know all these?.
IhaveYetTo 2 years ago
Blogrich55
Thanks for answering the questions in advance.
IhaveYetTo 2 years ago
Okay, I'll start by saying I do not know much about this topic, but here goes. You say that God is a non-concept, that there is no way to refer to God as an actual being. My physics teacher once said during class that Energy is that property which allows us to do work, but that science does not actually know what exactly Energy is. Is Energy, then, a nonconcept? Please, I would like to hear what you have to say.
JeffL08 2 years ago
The definition of energy isn't something that came down from heaven out of blue. We invented it.
Energy is "defined" a physical quantity which allows us to do work. We define what energy is and what work is.
What's more, it turned out useful and consistent.
Thermal energy, nuclear energy, gravitational energy, it doesn't matter what kind of energy you are
talking about. All of them essentially fall into the above definition. It's because we wanted it to be defined that way.
IhaveYetTo 2 years ago
"science does not actually know what exactly Energy is"
I don't know why your teacher would say that. But I beg to differ.
Scientists do know what exactly energy is, which I already explained above.
IhaveYetTo 2 years ago
What exactly is Energy, then? Take, for example, mass. Mass is a measure of how much matter there is. On the other hand, we do not know what exactly energy is. You can say that Energy is the property which allows us to do work, but that does not tell what it is. This is merely a characteristic of energy. What exactly is energy?
JeffL08 2 years ago
Actually science knows all too well WHAT energy is, it is the question of WHY energy is that science will not grapple with. Physics has identified a number of different energies and linked their ability to affect matter to various subatomic particle interactions. Gravity alone lacks a full subatomic explanation but the science is a work in progress, not a "complete failure" like religion.
formless777 2 years ago
I notice you put complete failure in quotation marks. What is this supposed to mean? If you mean it literally, I will say that I agree with you to an extent. I personally am a believer, and yet I do not see the church (i.e. organized religion) as the ultimate authority concerning theological matters. But that's beside the point. About energy, I certainly don't presume to know what energy is and is not. If you can explain to me what energy is, I would really like to hear what you have to say.
JeffL08 2 years ago
Quotation marks not needed. My information is derived from Quantum Physics literature but I am not a physicist. I make an effort to keep abreast of developments in that field because they are fascinating. If you sincerely want to know what energy is, I suggest you study it closely. 500 characters from an informed physics layperson won't do it justice, it is, of necessity, highly complicated. It all comes down to subatomic particle interactions as I said.
formless777 2 years ago
This is what brings me to my point. You say that energy "is, of necessity, highly complicated." From what I've heard of it, energy seems to make sense. However, on the other hand, Christ/God is also, of necessity, highly complicated, and if you study it in depth it also seems to make sense. I'm not saying the Church makes sense, but that Christ makes sense. I can compare it to how a science fiction movie portrays science. That's about the same credibility the Church has when portraying Christ.
JeffL08 2 years ago
You are taking terrible liberties here. Energy can be measured, tested, and is amenable to mathematical modeling. The experiments involving these energies have been duplicated and subjected to rigorous criticism and peer review. Just because your scripture makes sense if you approach it in a non-critical way, does nothing to validate it. I am also surprised that you think (a) that I haven't studied your god and (b) that you think it is complicated, because it isn't, it's provably false.
formless777 2 years ago
Please do not assume that I did not think you have studied God. And do not assume also that I read scripture in a non-critical way, because that is quite the opposite. Also note that I never asserted that God can be measured, tested, or amenable to mathematical modeling. I merely stated that God is, of necessity, highly complicated. It is human depravity that attempts to make him simple, so most studies of God conclude that he is simple and a human invention. There's no proof for either side.
JeffL08 2 years ago
There is perfectly good proof of god's non-existence and fallacy. Consider that everything that is known about God has its origin in the Bible which is God's word. By definition God is all knowing. The Bible is however littered with absurd errors which no all-knowing entity could ever make, unless it was evil and purposefully wished to deceive the faithful. Consider page 1, the "firmament" refers to a ceiling.
The Earth has no ceiling. Simpleminded Hebrew savages dreamed this up.
formless777 2 years ago
Does your mind have capacity for metaphor? Did you even consider the possibility that it could be metaphor? I will hold you to your scientific standards by saying that you have no evidence to prove that simple minded Hebrew savages dreamed up God. I choose to believe by faith and do not claim to verify my faith by any scientific standards. That I will concede to you.
JeffL08 2 years ago
Metaphors are inappropriate here. Truth is not metaphor. Metaphor may allude to truth in a very primitive and inexact fashion, but it has been proven time and again to be a misleading and dangerous way to explain things as a metaphor only works so far. After that it becomes grossly misleading. An all-knowing God shouldn't be relying on such a primitive literary device, infinite knowledge should find a better way. There is no excuse for this, why not use maths for example ?
formless777 2 years ago
But I could also ask you the same question. Why not use metaphor instead of math? You obviously are biased against metaphors... I wonder if it is because I suggested that the Bible uses metaphors. Metaphors have not been proven time and time again to be misleading... you are just assuming this to be true.
JeffL08 2 years ago
I am amused and mildly shocked by this statement. Metaphors are misleading as they break down leading to dangerously false conclusions. Maths creates quantifiable descriptions and precision of observation. What you are talking about is the most absurd trading down to inferior methodology. Someone should replace your computer with a typewriter, and a fax. Take the metaphor "the sea is a hungry dog"... that would mean that it comes inland and looks up demandingly at you come 6pm. :D
formless777 2 years ago
"The sea is a hungry dog." Well, if I were examining this metaphor metaphorically, so to speak, I would not conclude that it comes inland and looks up demandingly at me come 6 pm. That would be a literalist viewing which would make no sense here. Metaphorically, on the other hand, this metaphor conveys some useful knowledge, mainly that of the tendency of the sea to "devour" ships during large seas. And by the way, it's math, NOT maths.
JeffL08 2 years ago
So you agree that dogs eat petrol tankers, cargo ships and oil tankers ? There you go, the metaphor is "excellent" and holds up to scrutiny "so well". My own dog could not be trusted around ships, he used to steal them from the local dockyards and bring them home and leave them half chewed under the house.
Next. MathematicS! Plural ! Therefore Maths in abbreviation. There are many forms of mathematics which have been combined into a single subject for teaching purposes. U lose.
formless777 2 years ago
Your argument fits your name... its formless, devoid of any legitimate points. You're claiming that metaphors are literally what they are referring to. Metaphors are a form of figurative language used to describe something. Therefore, it goes without saying that a ship is substituted for the dog's food in the metaphor. Forgive me for not knowing that "Maths" is an abbreviation. What's all this about "U lose"? It sounds like you aren't driven by an objective purpose, but rather wish to beat me.
JeffL08 2 years ago
I always say "U lose" when someone corrects me and gets it wrong. You should know Mathematics is plural, as you're clearly literate.
As to the issue of metaphor, the point I made was satirical. Which parts of a metaphor should be interpreted literally and which figuratively ?
I am reminded of the Zen sage who points at the Moon while his students intently regard his finger, or Lao Tzu's saying that the Tao that is spoken of is not the Tao. Metaphors are weak.
formless777 2 years ago 2
Math is a plural word...it is the abbreviation for mathematics. Have u wondered y ur the only one who ever says maths instead of math? Theres ur answer
caramount 2 years ago
MathematicS. Hence "Maths". Just because Americans can't speak English doesn't mean the rest of the English speaking world has to follow suit.
formless777 2 years ago
your metaphor argument is a wrong.
day 1 god created heaven, earth and light
day 2 god divided the waters (above and below) creating the firmament called the frimament heaven.
day 4 god created the sun, moon and stars and put all of them in the firmament.
he created heaven twice
had 3 days before the sun
and put all the heavenly bodies in the in the firmament under the SKY water.
continued...
UberLogic 2 years ago
The only logical way this makes any sense is if you say the sky water is an explination for rain (minus knowledge of gravity) AND the fact that the water is above all objects seen in the sky is because it is limited to the knowledge of the culture that wrote it. They knew nothing of flight (except birds) or outer space and the vast expanse of the universe. everything in the sky - WAS IN THE SKY !
The same level of thinking that had apollo drive the sun across the sky.
NO SPECIAL PLEADING !
UberLogic 2 years ago
your grammar in the first sentance is a wrong
wat about day 3? I mite sound like an idiot for asking that but i have never studied this subject before...
caramount 2 years ago
I probably just made a typo. :)
I wasn't worried about day 3. That just makes MORE problems, since ALL plants were created on the cold planet before the sun was created to warm it. :)
UberLogic 2 years ago
lawl.
well, i guess if god planted all of the seeds on day three, there was no need for a power source yet =/
you mean to tell me they actually thought the planets and the sun and all of the stars were in the SKY!? like, in our ATMOSPHERE!?!?
gawwleee!! I can't even comprehend that lol, like i just took a walk outside on this full moon and there's like, no way i could think that today lol ^_^
I guess they thought air just continued out until, forever..
wesley111111111111 2 years ago
think more of a snow globe look :)
UberLogic 2 years ago
hehe, nice. that's kinda fun actually lol. and yea, cuz the earth in a snowglobe is flat also lol.
wesley111111111111 2 years ago
Comment removed
IhaveYetTo 2 years ago
So.. energy that I talk about above has a reference to physical reality.
I don't know if you are a believer. If you are, I'd like to ask you a question.
What physical reality do you think god has a referece to which we can measure, detect or begin to imagine or whatever.?
IhaveYetTo 2 years ago
Comment removed
Zigiwy 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yes god can be imagined. How do you think the negro came to be??I will tell you
satans real name is satanel. it means raw black angel. He was a beautiful angel but typical nigger. he tried to steal from god and god kicked him to earth. god then tried to make thing right and see if satanel wanted to behave. He thought he reconciled and asked satanel to help out with his creation adam and eve. first chance satanel got he drugged and raped both adam and eve. Again, typical moderna day nigger.
lawyerjudgesdestroy 3 years ago
then eve gave birth to the first negro,cain.Not lucy. then cain ,being like his father satanel was also a typical nigger and murdered able from the whispers of jealousy from satanel. then god tols cain who his father was and told him if he did a few things that god would accept him. And like a typical nigger, he run his mouth. So god, being sick to the stomache of this, cursed him by making him the lowest IQ creature on the planet. and everyone would pity them.
lawyerjudgesdestroy 3 years ago
Cain then ran off realy pissed instead of remorseful. Yeah, like any typical nigger.Cain was so mad he wanted to destroy everything god made to get even with him and began to had adam and eve and all their other children so he went out and violated all the animals. monkey orangutans,chimpanzee, etc....you got it, typical nigger. So got got so pissed because of this he flooded the whole planet to get rid of them. But satanel knew of this and helped some of his seed survive.
lawyerjudgesdestroy 3 years ago
Now can you imagine how sick of this busshit god is? all these years later and after giving the nigger instruction on how to behave, and even after giving them the lowest IQ on earth so they wouldnt misbehave, they still are all typical niggers. they are sure going to get it this next time.
lawyerjudgesdestroy 3 years ago
lawyerjudgedestroy:
Talk about non sequitur! Do you take every question as an opportunity to vent your racism in metaphorical nonsense? You are a disgrace to the youtube community.
Zigiwy 3 years ago 3
Comment removed
wesley111111111111 2 years ago
lawyerjudgedestroy - you are outdated.
wesley111111111111 2 years ago
I am a follower of the Bible, and normally I respond to nonsense point by point. However, this entire thing is nothing but nonsense upon nonsense. It's sickening, tiring, and I hope no one believes a word of it, or believes that this is how things are written in the Bible, as it very much is not.
sadanyagci 2 years ago
Granted. So...
Hey sceptic! How do you prefer to be called?
Bizarrick 3 years ago
This is based at how "God" is something. What is god is nothing? Then again, I guess that's impossible. Also, you have already expressed at how the way God is Explained in english meaning (I mean the folowing sentence at saying the word God) to portray that God is of material.
I've always been asking myself this, but this is the first time it's been put in words. Thanks.
Kaynex 3 years ago
it's also impossible for god to be everything,
example: I say; "god likes to suck cock'
i've just commited blashpamy, but if god is everything i am god and i've just blasphmified (?) myself and are sent to hell
freespeech4u2 3 years ago
Matthew 26:3 "And God said, "Remember to watch the teeth (unless he's into that kinda thing)."
0platypus0venom0 3 years ago
what do you think about the 10th dimension?
elwalsho 3 years ago
I agree with your argument but not with your definition of the word atheist.
Atheism is the lack, or absence, of a belief in a god(s); not the active disbelief of it.
Not understanding something, let alone the existence of it or its' essence, doesn't undermine the idea that you simply do not take part in believing in such a thing; as I do not.
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
I think the distinction between belief and truth is missing. Atheism exists to refer to a non-belief in god, not the truth of the god preposition. A belief is a posture or orientation toward a proposition that may or may not be true. It's important to remember that while a preposition may be contingent on coherency, belief in it is not (though one would prefer that it was). God need not be coherant to lack belief in it, but rather, the incoherency suggests that a belief in God is mistaken.
JimGunning 3 years ago
Agreed. Well put^^
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
You asking some great questions with this series. Can't wait for the next one.
windex72 3 years ago
Well, I hope you like writhing in hellfire for all eternity.
Happy birthday, btw.
Forkfoot 3 years ago
You need to just revert to a child-like mind, be a little kid who wants a cookie.
mjdoyza 3 years ago
Food for thought.
good one
Xenithan 3 years ago
Once again , eightfootmanchild hits the nail on the head.
MickB0529 3 years ago
I think this is a very good way to present the argument. In it's atheism-friendly form: If you can't even imagine something, you certainly have no right to claim that that thing exists.
bitbutter 3 years ago
"I cannot take the position of theist or atheist on an incoherent concept"
Is that really true? I'm not sure about it.
1. X is a sound outside time and space.
2. X exists.
What do you think of this: 1 is meaningless (or incoherent, i'm not sure), but its incoherence means that we _can_ reject 2 on the grounds that X can't possibly refer to something in the world.
Rejecting 2, in the case of god, is atheism.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Yes, in it's current state, as it has been presented, "god" does not actually refer to anything at all. This is why guys like George Smith/Michael Martin/Francois Trembley use it as a justification for gnostic atheism.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
But that's exactly why I ask for a clarification from theists. I want to be sure that the thing I am rejecting is an accurate representation of what they are attempting to refer to. I want to see the case made by the people presenting it before I take a position.
I admit, it's a thin line.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
If you can't disbelieve in something with no ontology how can you believe in it? Just because someone is an an atheist who doesn't believe in something doesn't mean they disbelieve in it! You are just some pot smoking philosophy major who thinks he is enlightened. If you can't understand what it is that theists believes in and they can't tell you the logical thing to do is to not be a theist. The simple state of not being a theist is atheism. It's not the state of disbelief!
Theunderf00t 3 years ago
"If you can't disbelieve in something with no ontology how can you believe in it?"
You can't. I'm not convinced either label - "theist" or "atheist" - means anything. I don't like vague, useless terminology.
"You are just some pot smoking philosophy major"
I'm neither, actually.
This isn't anywhere near the first time I've had this accusation (drug use) leveled at me, but it is the first time it's come from someone I respect. Perhaps I should modify my delivery.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
"who thinks he is enlightened."
I wouldn't have made the first video if that were the case, let alone a second, third, fourth and (soon) fifth.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
Oh, wait. You're not Thunderf00t.
Banned for spamming.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
Holy shit he this spammer did a good job at impersonating TF. Haha. I was wondering why Thunderfoot would leave such an idiotic comment.
zbambam5 3 years ago
It's theists, after all, that dug this hole for themselves to begin with.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WE are God. It is possible to experience this by realising that we are not our bodies, or our thoughts. To realise this reality is to become free. It is beyond description - this is why it is usually only alluded to in parables by those who have realised. They seek to help others , who they see suffering in ignorance. If you wish to know more please check out: Douglas Harding, Sri Ramana MaharshI, Sri Nisargadatta, Mooji, etc, etc, etc. And may God bless you, dear seeker of truth.
wionbakee 1 year ago
Great vid, 8fmc!
Nicely reasoned.
And I agree, mostly, with your reluctance to call yourself atheist.
I don't call myself a-santaist, a-racist, a-sexist, a-smoker because these terms all describe a lack of something.
I prefer terms & labels that refer to present attributes rather than missing attributes.
It would be nice if there was a term (maybe rationalist?) for those who don't accept any loopy dippity-doo-da like religion or superstition.
Actually, rationalist is pretty good.
OccamKant 3 years ago 2