Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Proof of God (Gnosticism = Knowledge is Power)


InvestigativeThinker
 Share

Recommended Posts

The flying spagetti monster is as valid as other gods. Cthulhu, etc. I mean it's the idea of the thing and how it affects consciousness. I've been watching videos on Kabbalah lately. One thing I've noticed is the shear obsession with stuff. Basically cultivating a belief and reinforcing it. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

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. 

They have the need to somehow prove it so they can continue telling non-believers “Nuh uh”. 
 

cormac

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

They have the need to somehow prove it so they can continue telling non-believers “Nuh uh”. 
 

cormac

I can agree with this. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, the ones who argue the existence of God the most are the ones who have the least faith in their assumption and eventually apostatize. We've seen it happen here in the forums.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

The flying spagetti monster is as valid as other gods. Cthulhu, etc. I mean it's the idea of the thing and how it affects consciousness. I've been watching videos on Kabbalah lately. One thing I've noticed is the shear obsession with stuff. Basically cultivating a belief and reinforcing it. 

I'm a follower of the one-eyed, one-horned flying purple people eater, myself.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

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

My god is a bowling ball, and you can come to my house and see it anytime ;) . .   .  Just kidding..but my god ‘could’ be a bowling ball.   Someone else’s god could be …whatever they imagine ,think, believe, or even perceive it to be.?    Someone whom I respect for their honesty and ability to simplify concepts once said….” God is an idea”.  

     Sherapy said:   Indeed, until one really gets this they are just chasing their tail or stuck in Plato’s cave of forms.    
                 . . .  I took your recent comment to me about Philosophy to heart…and got out my wife’s old college level Philosophy book :)  ..I especially like becoming acquainted with the ideas of the pre Socrates guys.  They sound more like theoretical physicists than philosophers..dealing more with the nature of the universe and reality than the nature of man.    I was tickled pink to hear them giving voice to some of my own thoughts and ideas !*!   Some worthwhile…others..not so much. :P

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lightly said:

My god is a bowling ball, and you can come to my house and see it anytime ;) . .   .  Just kidding..but my god ‘could’ be a bowling ball.   Someone else’s god could be …whatever they imagine ,think, believe, or even perceive it to be.?    Someone whom I respect for their honesty and ability to simplify concepts once said….” God is an idea”.  

The idea can be a good one or a bad one. I mean, I guess the best metric for the value of religion/spirituality/faith is the fruit it bears. If it doesn't help to cultivate your better qualities, why follow it? (not directed at you, just in general.)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

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.

I don't see anything in your logic there though that doesn't also work for the universe having been created on June 27th, 2022.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't see anything in your logic there though that doesn't also work for the universe having been created on June 27th, 2022.

A point often raised in philosophy, and a good one.

We need to find what differences would exist before and after a creation point, to contrast them, and look for a way of proving the creation point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 cormac mac airt
Posted Sunday at 05:26 AM  #145

    
    On 6/26/2022 at 5:13 AM, oslove said:  
    1. Existence is the default status of reality.

    2. There are ultimately two kinds of reality:

    a. permanent self-existent reality

    b. transient reality

    3. The fact is that b. implicates the existence of a.

    Wherefore: God exists as the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.    

    So, let us start with No. 1, what is wrong with it?

 

From Cormac:

2:  is only partly true as 2a is unevidenced. One can’t, or shouldn’t, assume the conclusion ahead of any facts. You however DO. That’s not science that’s fiction.
 

3:  b DOES NOT implicate a, the only thing it implies is that ALL THINGS in our universe exist for a relatively brief time. It has no bearing whatsoever on what “might” have come “before” our universe.
 

Once again you’ve “proven” absolutely nothing.
 

cormac

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

 

Dear Cormac, you say that:  transient reality does not implicate permanent self-existent reality, "the only thing it implies is that ALL THINGS in our universe exist for a relatively brief time. It has no bearing whatsoever on what “might” have come “before” our universe."

 

May I just ask you:

(1) what are some of "ALL THINGS in our universe exist for a relatively brief time," and

(2) where did they go after their brief time existence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

A point often raised in philosophy, and a good one.

We need to find what differences would exist before and after a creation point, to contrast them, and look for a way of proving the creation point.

There are then a lot of potential and seemingly equivalent dates between 6000 years ago and now.  And that's if we exclude going further back, after all if God is going to do such violence to reality as to 'create a back history' of all the things we know are older than 6000 years, then I see no bounds at all.  God could have created the universe/Big Bang a zillion years ago and is similarly tricking us into thinking via science that it's ~14 billion years. 

Or we could just recognize that these factors make it futile and instead just go with science, it's really kinda proven itself as a worthy default, especially in this case where the saying 'all things being equal' literally applies to your theory.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, oslove said:

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.

I don't think I do, if these phrases actually mean something I think you need to back up at least a step and first have to show that 'existence' has a 'status'.  'Default' usually implies that other statuses exist, so what then are the other non-default statuses of existence?  If reality is the 'default', what are the other non-defaults?

That's giving it an unearned benefit of the doubt though that it actually means something.  It looks more to me actually that you need to look into what a 'tautology' is because that's what I think these statements actually are.  (If I asked you to define reality I'm guessing your answer would be something like, 'reality is everything that actually exists', so your statement then becomes 'the default status of existence is everything that actually exists' which is circular.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, do you all guys here agree with me that "the true premise (is) 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."

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

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its safe to say that god doesn't want us to be able to prove he exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hes the ultimate peeping tom, never been caught.  Nobodies ever seen so much while staying so perfectly hidden.

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2022 at 5:26 AM, cormac mac airt said:

 . . . One can’t, or shouldn’t, assume the conclusion ahead of any facts. You however DO. That’s not science that’s fiction.

 

Let that pass, that I already have a conclusion ahead of any facts . . .

 

Do you mean that you do science by starting with a blank mind or tabula rasa on what you are going to investigate? Otherwise you will lapse into what you are good at - no confirmation bias.

 

I see such a scientist to be out of his mind altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, XenoFish said:

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. 

Yeah same here, it’s just saying I don’t know when one cannot know. Lol 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Yeah same here, it’s just saying I don’t know when one cannot know. Lol 

Apparently when it comes to the existence of God honesty ISN’T the best policy otherwise those believing on faith wouldn’t feel the need to prove God. 
 

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Apparently when it comes to the existence of God honesty ISN’T the best policy otherwise those believing on faith wouldn’t feel the need to prove God. 
 

cormac

I think those who try to validate God's existence (prove it) had no faith in the first place. If they did it wouldn't even be a question. 

In the believers mind God exist. No science or philosophy needed.  With religion only establishing expectations, customs, and rituals in regards to worship. Those are just a show of faith. 

The experience of God is highly subjective. It just can't be proven.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

I think those who try to validate God's existence (prove it) had no faith in the first place. If they did it wouldn't even be a question. 

In the believers mind God exist. No science or philosophy needed.  With religion only establishing expectations, customs, and rituals in regards to worship. Those are just a show of faith. 

The experience of God is highly subjective. It just can't be proven.

EPHESIANS 2:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

There are then a lot of potential and seemingly equivalent dates between 6000 years ago and now.  And that's if we exclude going further back, after all if God is going to do such violence to reality as to 'create a back history' of all the things we know are older than 6000 years, then I see no bounds at all.  God could have created the universe/Big Bang a zillion years ago and is similarly tricking us into thinking via science that it's ~14 billion years. 

Or we could just recognize that these factors make it futile and instead just go with science, it's really kinda proven itself as a worthy default, especially in this case where the saying 'all things being equal' literally applies to your theory.

Well as a thought experiment we can pick any date, and uncover differences that must exist before and after it, and figure out how to prove a creation point at that date. Then we can look back and determine that date.

I shall spend a few days thinking about this now until I uncover a water tight way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, oslove said:

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.

I`m taking a not entirely different approach.

I am listing all interdependencies which structure reality, and seeing which can I tie to a creation point (which so far has been them all), and I am waiting for that eureka moment when I realise I can prove a creation point.

I start with one thing always existing and build it up from there.

Animal and human life are particularly interesting, I can get we exist to interdependently support the existence of God, and vice versa.

Edited by Cookie Monster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

There are then a lot of potential and seemingly equivalent dates between 6000 years ago and now.  And that's if we exclude going further back, after all if God is going to do such violence to reality as to 'create a back history' of all the things we know are older than 6000 years, then I see no bounds at all.  God could have created the universe/Big Bang a zillion years ago and is similarly tricking us into thinking via science that it's ~14 billion years. 

Or we could just recognize that these factors make it futile and instead just go with science, it's really kinda proven itself as a worthy default, especially in this case where the saying 'all things being equal' literally applies to your theory.

His argument sounds too much like “the Devil put those things there to confuse the timeline”. I’ve seen that argument used, quite unsuccessfully, decades ago. His is just a different take on an old idea. 
 

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

His argument sounds too much like “the Devil put those things there to confuse the timeline”. I’ve seen that argument used, quite unsuccessfully, decades ago. His is just a different take on an old idea. 

Agreed, although I usually hear it just as a 'maybe'.  He apparently has a thought experiment in mind where you 'uncover differences before and after' but I don't see how that could possibly work in this scenario, unless we're assuming God did a poor job of 'creating history'. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.