Proof of God (Gnosticism = Knowledge is Power)

[cormac mac airt]

5 minutes ago, oslove said:

 

Thanks, dear Cormac, now what about you expound on whatever you have for your position on God, okay?

Try addressing the fact that you HAVE NOT “proven” God first. My position on a Creator has no bearing on your error. 
 

cormac

[Harte]

2 hours ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

How the Earth turned and orbited. Literally. ****ing gravity, dude. What do you think "general/special relativity" is?

Michelson-Morely wasn't designed to "confirm: anything about gravity or Earth's orbit.

That's like saying Galileo failed to confirm the charge on an electron.
Also, keep in mind that Einstein was 8 years old when the Michelson-Morely experiment was conducted.

2 hours ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

The aether hypothesis was the topic of considerable debate throughout its history, as it required the existence of an invisible and infinite material with no interaction with physical objects. As the nature of light was explored, especially in the 19th century, the physical qualities required of an aether became increasingly contradictory. By the late 1800s, the existence of the aether was being questioned, although there was no physical theory to replace it.

The negative outcome of the Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) suggested that the aether did not exist, a finding that was confirmed in subsequent experiments through the 1920s. This led to considerable theoretical work to explain the propagation of light without an aether. A major breakthrough was the theory of relativity, which could explain why the experiment failed to see aether, but was more broadly interpreted to suggest that it was not needed. The Michelson-Morley experiment, along with the blackbody radiator and photoelectric effect, was a key experiment in the development of modern physics, which includes both relativity and quantum theory, the latter of which explains the particle-like nature of light.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

You have nothing whatsoever to tell me about that experiment. I taught it in High School as predicate for my 4-week unit on Special and General Relativity.

Harte

[oslove]

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Try addressing the fact that you HAVE NOT “proven” God first. My position on a Creator has no bearing on your error. 
 

cormac

 

Dear Cormac, I have to know your position on God, otherwise I would not know how to prove to your satisfaction.

If you absolutely have no position on God, then it is impossible for me to prove God exists to your contentment.

If memory serves, I read in one post from you, that you are a deist, but you have no proof for your deistic God.

As you have no proof for the existence of your deistic God, perhaps I can help you on how to prove the existence of your deistic God.

What do you say, dear Cormac?

[cormac mac airt]

3 minutes ago, oslove said:

 

Dear Cormac, I have to know your position on God, otherwise I would not know how to prove to your satisfaction.

If you absolutely have no position on God, then it is impossible for me to prove God exists to your contentment.

If memory serves, I read in one post from you, that you are a deist, but you have no proof for your deistic God.

As you have no proof for the existence of your deistic God, perhaps I can help you on how to prove the existence of your deistic God.

What do you say, dear Cormac?

You can’t prove it to my satisfaction. You can’t prove it to anyone’s satisfaction as you don’t even know what proof is. And you’ve already claimed many times that you’ve proven God so it never required anyone else’s input according to you. Since you have no actual proof it can be assumed you make it up as you go along. 
 

cormac

[oslove]

3 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

You can’t prove it to my satisfaction. You can’t prove it to anyone’s satisfaction as you don’t even know what proof is. And you’ve already claimed many times that you’ve proven God so it never required anyone else’s input according to you. Since you have no actual proof it can be assumed you make it up as you go along. 
 

cormac

 

Okay, dear Cormac, you tell me, "you don’t even know what proof is."

But from your part you do know what it is to prove something to exist, so do tell me what it is.

[Duke Wellington]

20 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Try addressing the fact that you HAVE NOT “proven” God first. My position on a Creator has no bearing on your error. 
 

cormac

Proving Monism is very easy.

Nothingness is the absence of everything, and therefore cannot exist. This means there has never been nor will there ever be nothingness. Its impossible. Only things comprised of something have the quality of existence.

So lets ask ourselves what is the minimum that can exist. We can start by examining one thing.

If we think about it then one thing requires a set of things to have the quality of existence:

A place to exist at: Something can only exist if it exists somewhere. To exist somewhere means everywhere where it is not must also exist. Lets call them location and non-location. As they are connected to each other they are relative.

A time to exist at: Something can only exist if it exists at a point in time. Continued existence must create a flow of time in one direction. And to have a present moment in time also requires a before and after.

To be made out of something: Something can only exist if its made out of something. And this also defines what it is not made out of.

So we have: Nothingness is impossible > One thing exists > Space, Time, and Matter exist.

If you get an old copy of the Hebrew Bible instead of the King James you will find the opening sentence has been miss translated. Its miss translated into cause and effect, basically God creates the universe. But the correct translation means interdependent origination. One didn`t become before the other, their existence is both dependent on the other.

Now for my controversial part as I am going to argue that the universe is 5500-6000 years old.

Lets say you load up a computer game of the universe with all of history programmed into it. But the game starts in 2022, not 14.5 billion BC. Worse the game program was designed and written in 2020, not 14.5 billion BC either. What I am trying to point out is the start part of the universe can be 6000BC if at the moment it was initiated a history to go with it was also created.

So back to our one thing needing a time to exist it, and how that means a before and after must exist too. I am arguing that the before was retro-causality created when the universe was initiated.

Is it testable? Well, if I am right, and the universe has only been going 5500 to 6000 years, then across the universe all the alien civilizations that may or may not exist, have only had the same time as we have had to build up.

[oslove]

40 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Proving Monism is very easy.

Nothingness is the absence of everything, and therefore cannot exist. This means there has never been nor will there ever be nothingness. Its impossible. Only things comprised of something have the quality of existence.

So lets ask ourselves what is the minimum that can exist. We can start by examining one thing.

If we think about it then one thing requires a set of things to have the quality of existence:

A place to exist at: Something can only exist if it exists somewhere. To exist somewhere means everywhere where it is not must also exist. Lets call them location and non-location. As they are connected to each other they are relative.

A time to exist at: Something can only exist if it exists at a point in time. Continued existence must create a flow of time in one direction. And to have a present moment in time also requires a before and after.

To be made out of something: Something can only exist if its made out of something. And this also defines what it is not made out of.

So we have: Nothingness is impossible > One thing exists > Space, Time, and Matter exist.

If you get an old copy of the Hebrew Bible instead of the King James you will find the opening sentence has been miss translated. Its miss translated into cause and effect, basically God creates the universe. But the correct translation means interdependent origination. One didn`t become before the other, their existence is both dependent on the other.

Now for my controversial part as I am going to argue that the universe is 5500-6000 years old.

Lets say you load up a computer game of the universe with all of history programmed into it. But the game starts in 2022, not 14.5 billion BC. Worse the game program was designed and written in 2020, not 14.5 billion BC either. What I am trying to point out is the start part of the universe can be 6000BC if at the moment it was initiated a history to go with it was also created.

So back to our one thing needing a time to exist it, and how that means a before and after must exist too. I am arguing that the before was retro-causality created when the universe was initiated.

Is it testable? Well, if I am right, and the universe has only been going 5500 to 6000 years, then across the universe all the alien civilizations that may or may not exist, have only had the same time as we have had to build up.

 

Dear Cookie Monster, you are such a great comfort to me!

Why didn't I know you before!?

[cormac mac airt]

4 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

Proving Monism is very easy.

Nothingness is the absence of everything, and therefore cannot exist. This means there has never been nor will there ever be nothingness. Its impossible. Only things comprised of something have the quality of existence.

So lets ask ourselves what is the minimum that can exist. We can start by examining one thing.

If we think about it then one thing requires a set of things to have the quality of existence:

A place to exist at: Something can only exist if it exists somewhere. To exist somewhere means everywhere where it is not must also exist. Lets call them location and non-location. As they are connected to each other they are relative.

A time to exist at: Something can only exist if it exists at a point in time. Continued existence must create a flow of time in one direction. And to have a present moment in time also requires a before and after.

To be made out of something: Something can only exist if its made out of something. And this also defines what it is not made out of.

So we have: Nothingness is impossible > One thing exists > Space, Time, and Matter exist.

If you get an old copy of the Hebrew Bible instead of the King James you will find the opening sentence has been miss translated. Its miss translated into cause and effect, basically God creates the universe. But the correct translation means interdependent origination. One didn`t become before the other, their existence is both dependent on the other.

Now for my controversial part as I am going to argue that the universe is 5500-6000 years old.

Lets say you load up a computer game of the universe with all of history programmed into it. But the game starts in 2022, not 14.5 billion BC. Worse the game program was designed and written in 2020, not 14.5 billion BC either. What I am trying to point out is the start part of the universe can be 6000BC if at the moment it was initiated a history to go with it was also created.

So back to our one thing needing a time to exist it, and how that means a before and after must exist too. I am arguing that the before was retro-causality created when the universe was initiated.

Is it testable? Well, if I am right, and the universe has only been going 5500 to 6000 years, then across the universe all the alien civilizations that may or may not exist, have only had the same time as we have had to build up.

 

cormac

[Guyver]

I’m so sorry to take a short cut right now, but have we figured out if ghosts are real, or if in the least, the instruments used in measuring this phenomenon are accurate?

[cormac mac airt]

14 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I’m so sorry to take a short cut right now, but have we figured out if ghosts are real, or if in the least, the instruments used in measuring this phenomenon are accurate?

I think that's going to be a tall order to fill, considering that electromagnetic fields and radiation can set off many instruments how does one prove that it was because of a ghost and not some other unrelated phenomena? 

cormac

[oslove]

On 6/26/2022 at 11:18 AM, cormac mac airt said:

You can’t prove it to my satisfaction. You can’t prove it to anyone’s satisfaction as you don’t even know what proof is. And you’ve already claimed many times that you’ve proven God so it never required anyone else’s input according to you. Since you have no actual proof it can be assumed you make it up as you go along. 
 

cormac

 

The verb word 'prove' is not applicable to only mathematics - that's your belief, but also everywhere where people have to convince other people that something exists, for example: you can prove the presence of beef in the fridge by opening the fridge and showing the beef to everyone.

So, dear Cormac, you are mistaken with your insistence that proof is only for mathematics.

[oslove]

Dear Cormac, did you read this post from me:

oslove
Posted 7 hours ago  #1798
  

Dear everyone here, this is the way to prove something to exist:

1. Divide people whom you need to prove something to exist into two kinds:

(a) People who simply don't know that something exists.

(b) People who deny that something exists.

 

2. With (a) people, enable them to experience the something they don't know exists, for example, with people who don't know the existence of bread, give them bread to eat.

With (b) people who deny something or some entity to exist, like for example, they deny God exists: ask them whether they have any idea about what they deny to exist.

When they answer yes, and tell you God is a Flying Spaghetti Monster - you ask them where they get that idea.

Now, when they tell you, from their very learned school teacher, who loves to eat spaghetti noodle with sauce of ground beef and tomato paste, you go to that teacher and ask him whether he knows where he came from: from nothingness or from something-ness, etc. etc. etc. . . .

[+Liquid Gardens]

16 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

Nothingness is the absence of everything, and therefore cannot exist. This means there has never been nor will there ever be nothingness. Its impossible. Only things comprised of something have the quality of existence.

This is a word game, you're equivocating on 'exists' and 'nothing'.  You seem to be making the mistake of treating 'nothing' like it's a thing.

[oslove]

        19 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:
        Nothingness is the absence of everything, and therefore cannot exist. This means there has never been nor will there ever be nothingness. Its impossible. Only things comprised of something have the quality of existence.

Liquid Gardens
Posted 2 hours ago  #150
    This is a word game, you're equivocating on 'exists' and 'nothing'.  You seem to be making the mistake of treating 'nothing' like it's a thing.

==================

 

No, Cookie is not equivocating, he is referring to the word 'nothing' - how else can we humans deal with nothingness unless we give it a 'word'? In order to show ourselves that nothingness is the direct contradictory to something-ness.

 

Now, dear Liquid, tell me if you concur with me on the following two lines from me:

The default status of existence is reality.

And reality is the default status of existence.

 

So that not even God can annihilate existence and/or reality, because God cannot annihilate Himself.

 

Paging Cormac, do you think you can convince yourself that there is no God?

But if you want to really in an ironical way get rid of God, you can do something else that is to get rid of yourself, i.e. kill yourself. There, finally you have liberated yourself from God.

[rashore]

1 hour ago, oslove said:

        19 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:
        Nothingness is the absence of everything, and therefore cannot exist. This means there has never been nor will there ever be nothingness. Its impossible. Only things comprised of something have the quality of existence.

Liquid Gardens
Posted 2 hours ago  #150
    This is a word game, you're equivocating on 'exists' and 'nothing'.  You seem to be making the mistake of treating 'nothing' like it's a thing.

==================

 

No, Cookie is not equivocating, he is referring to the word 'nothing' - how else can we humans deal with nothingness unless we give it a 'word'? In order to show ourselves that nothingness is the direct contradictory to something-ness.

 

Now, dear Liquid, tell me if you concur with me on the following two lines from me:

The default status of existence is reality.

And reality is the default status of existence.

 

So that not even God can annihilate existence and/or reality, because God cannot annihilate Himself.

 

Paging Cormac, do you think you can convince yourself that there is no God?

But if you want to really in an ironical way get rid of God, you can do something else that is to get rid of yourself, i.e. kill yourself. There, finally you have liberated yourself from God.

Please do not ever suggest a member kill themselves ever again on UM. It is rude and uncalled for. 

[XenoFish]

Wow!

[cormac mac airt]

37 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Wow!

I think that’s an understatement. 

cormac

[oslove]

40 minutes ago, rashore said:

Please do not ever suggest a member kill themselves ever again on UM. It is rude and uncalled for. 

 

I sincerely apologize to Cormac, and I am determined to not do the same conduct again, thanks a lot to you dear Rashore.

[Duke Wellington]

3 hours ago, oslove said:

Paging Cormac, do you think you can convince yourself that there is no God?

But if you want to really in an ironical way get rid of God, you can do something else that is to get rid of yourself, i.e. kill yourself. There, finally you have liberated yourself from God.

I argue that everything which exists does so to provide the interdependence God needs to exist.

As nothingness is impossible, God always exists, and therefore the universe does too.

 

Looking at my point that the universe might have been created in 6000BC, then I argued that could be true if at the point of creation a history was created to prop it up too. Points I would like to raise are:

Space: God requires location and non-location, with them being relative to each other.

Time: God requires a present moment in time, and a flow of time in one direction for God to continue to exist.

Matter: God needs to be made out of something which also requires stuff God isn`t made out of.

So we have space, time, and matter. There has to be a start for each without violating their `always existence` because God has always existed. We can push that into the retro-causally created history. At the moment the present existed, and required a before, we can tie up the existence of space, time, and matter, into the period of time retro-causally created in the before. All the way back to the Big Bang.

Hence the Big Bang does not invalidate religion, but agrees with it. Of course the only way to prove it is to identity the exact moment that the present occupied. So lets try 6000BC:

Before 6000BC: This was retro-causally created at the point of creation.

After 6000BC: Time since then has flowed in one direction to interdependently support the existence of God.

What differences can we find between the before and after to show a distinction that can be inferred as a creation event? Well everything before 6000BC would only exist to support the creation event backwards in history. Where as everything after would only exist to support the continued existence of God. Hence I would argue a Big Bang combined with an open ended universe that doesn`t end in a Big Crunch is evidence.

Why is civilization around 6000 years old? Whats with that? Will we find no civilizations older than 6000 years across the entire universe? I would argue that this would be evidence too. I think this will be the big one, but it would mean its going to be very hard to detect any alien civilizations. Even if they got radio waves after 4000 years then thats only a radio range of 2000 light years which we would detect a civilization with that technology.

I know await the usual humour about me thinking the universe really is 6000 years old LMAO.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Cookie Monster

[oslove]

Dear everyone here, I just have this idea which I think is terrific for tying together everything that exists in reality, namely:

"The reasoning process is higher and broader and deeper than all mathematics and all logic."

Mathematics and logic can get you without you knowing it, into sophistry.

 

Why is the reasoning process higher and broader and deeper than all mathematics and all logic?

Because it is grounded on the true premise that everything including God are connected together, so that when we want to look for something, we just have to look into every direction and sooner than later we will find that something.

But first we have to map out a plan of searching, like for example the following plan:

1. Is it something that is permanently existing or not.

2. If not permanently existing, then it is transiently existing.

3. As it is transiently existing, we ask ourselves, Is it a living thing or a non-living thing.

4. Now, let us restrict ourselves to search for all living things.

5. Among all living things, we now choose to search for living things like ourselves, i.e. with intelligence and free will.

6. So, now we are into the search for a human but which human?

7. Say, a human like the one you and I and someone else but related to us as close as possible in dna.

8. There, you have found your grandfather on your mother's side.

 

Okay, I await your comments most keenly.

[+Hammerclaw]

11 minutes ago, oslove said:

Okay, I await your comments most keenly.

 

[XenoFish]

There shall never be proof / evidence of god. Just opinions.

[+Sherapy]

Just now, XenoFish said:

There shall never be proof / evidence of god. Just opinions.

Indeed, until one really gets this they are just chasing their tail or stuck in Plato’s cave of forms.

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Indeed, until one really gets this they are just chasing their tail or stuck in Plato’s cave of forms.

To me, if you get to the point where you have to rationalize something into existence you’ve already lost the argument. 
 

cormac

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Indeed, until one really gets this they are just chasing their tail or stuck in Plato’s cave of forms.

It's a really easy concept. I don't understand why it seems so difficult to grasp. 

I still get the feeling that those who look for an answer to God, need something solid to base their belief on. The whole point of faith (as I gather) is belief without evidence.