God?

[RainmanTime]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm very openminded and I'm interested in a lot of theories and phenomena (like timetravel, cropcircles, UFO's, religion, etc.). But as long as there's no proof, I see no point in accepting it as the truth.

And I have also said this before, in various ways, and I will say it again in a new way: Proof is NOT a boolean function. It is NOT an ON/OFF switch, and I think one would be hard-pressed to find any two people who have the same standard for proof. This is why it is important for one to be able to quantify their required standard of proof. If one cannot, then by saying "I demand proof" all you are really saying is that "I will only believe it when I see enough evidence that my gut instinct is satisfied." And this leads us right back to the distinction of what constitutes the dividing line between "pure faith" and "pure proof".

Let's try to explore what standard of proof might be acceptable to you, Roel. At the same time, we can look at some "proof" that there is such a thing as a global consciousness that connects us. The "proof" that is offered on this page is difficult to refute, for it abides by the most common definition of "proof", namely statistical significance of the probability of event occurrence. Statistical significance is most often characterized by deviation from the mean, in terms of Sigma (standard deviation). This is also the same basis for standard of proof that the US Federal Aviation Administration holds me to in "proving" that my designs are "safe".

Ever heard of The Global Consciousness Project? They have seen quite a few "coherence hits" that have been deemed statistically significant. One of the most telling events that showed statistical significance for the coherency of human minds at the cusp of a common event is for the 9/11 Terror Attacks. Another terrorist attack, the Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Tanzania, have an even higher level of statistical significance.

So.... while this might not speak to being "proof of God", I think it does speak to an interconnectedness of humans, beyond the physical, that some might say is "proof of soul or spirit" in that massive numbers of humans reacting to a global event can have a statistically significant effect on random number generating computers that are completely isolated from one another. Is this good enough "proof" for you Roel? Maybe trollface should "have a go" at these Princeton folks who organize/run this project? Seems like some fertile ground that a debunker would want to take on to show his mettle.

But perhaps some other debunkers have already taken them on and "proven" that their data is not statistically significant. All I know is: Chi Square analysis is pretty straightforward and a fairly defacto standard for determining the significance of mathematical distributions.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Speed of Light Defines Time

This article by Greg Hatten is insightful. One of the things I get out of this article is something that is also addressed in the writings of John A. Gowan. His quote at the top of this web page sort of says it all: "The intrinsic motions of light and time are metric equivalents".

In other words, our linear perception of time (and perception is based in observations, measurements, which generate information for our brains to process) is shaped by the speed of light. I've said this same sort of thing on this forum in the past, where I used the analogy of a species that did not have any sensory apparatus that was responsive to light. I proposed a species whose highest frequency response sensory apparatus was only responsive to sound. In such a species, their "view" of time would be shaped by their hearing, and therefore the speed of sound in the medium they live within. This also leads to a discussion of the speed of light and the speed of sound being fractal, self-similar "barriers" or phase transition points.

Many ancient spiritual and mystical texts tell us that "where God is there is no time" or that "God exists outside the bounds of time" or that "God exists only in the eternal now". All of these statements are supported by Einstein, who tells us that time slows down as we approach the speed of light, and that it stops at the speed of light. Thus, God can be said to "exist" at/beyond the speed of light, or to think of it in an alternative way, at/beyond the frequency of light.

Consider this: Our human optical instruments (eyes) are "tuned" to a narrow frequency band called visible light. How would our view of life and the universe change if our eyes were tuned to higher frequencies of light? What would we see?

It would be tempting to say "but we can already see in these frequencies, because RF telescopes can detect emissions in these higher frequencies." Where this is incorrect is that while these devices can detect in these frequencies, the transformation applied to their data into something we can understand is selected by us. That selection of a transformation is inherenly biased by our wish to see everything in the frequency bands of our natural senses. I submit that if our eyes and brains were tuned to these higher frequencies, we would see the universe in a MUCH different way.

Of course, we also know from the mathematics of transformations, that when we transform information from one reference system to another, the "answer" changes! The classic example is relative velocities: If two bodies are moving towards each other, you can get 3 different answers of any one body's velocity depending on where you measure it. I can measure velocity on body 1, on body 2, and at a stationary (inertial) point that is on neither of these bodies. And, when I transform a velocity of object 1 measured in (for instance) the inertial reference frame, with the proper mathematical transformation, to the reference frame of object 2, the numerical "answer" of the velocity is modified.

All of the above is intended to, once again, point out that our senses do not tell us the whole story. In fact, if you are one who "demands proof" of something, and you limit your view of "proof" to your own perceptions, or even the basic perceptions of all humans, you are closing yourself off from a VERY large body of "evidence" that would actually "prove" that which you are demanding proof of.

Therefore, with respect to "demanding proof of God", the first thing you must acquiesce is that the universe around us is NOT completely and utterly described by the human system of logic, which is derived solely from our modes of perception. If you insist on rooting your standards of proof in the narrow perceptive band of humanity, I am sorry to say you ARE limiting your beliefs, and you will never see the "proof" of God that is everywhere.

No man is an island. Reality is much "bigger" than you could ever imagine. This is also "proven" by our discovery of dark energy... which is so much more massive than the mass we perceive.
RMT

 

[creedo299]

Re: Speed of Light Defines Time

Historical note;Rainman time deals with the subject of God god.

 

[KerrTexas]

I'm not limiting my views, but still I demand proof. Why would I believe something, which I think is completely illogical?

What proof do you have that God does not exist?
A more expanded response then.."I dont have any evidence" would be nice. Everybody has reasons as to why they accept a specific thought pattern.
What points are illogical?

People are limiting their views by NOT demanding proof

Roel, because I don't limit my view, I DID demand proof and went out and found it to satisfy my questions. Not all proof is necessarily words or mathematics on paper. God is an experience.
Limitation isnt necessarily a reference to the data you scan nor the mathematic's you formulate. If you walk in the forest to listen to the wind, to view the sunlight streaming through the leaves, to fill your lungs with the scent of the pines, oaks and maples...that is an experience. As I live my life, my awareness of God becomes stronger, my experiences become more fulfilling...so as the person that doesnt believe in forests misses out on the experience of such, so you miss out on the experience of God.

At this moment I could deny your existence. I have absolutely no proof you exist as I type these words in this reply. You may well be a construct of my imagination.

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: More than one way

quadrary and trianary numericically based systems

It doesn't really matter whether you have a trianry, quadrary, hexinary, or a billionary based system. You can not escape from the basic 0, 1 premise.

3 is 1 + 1 + 1
4 is 1 + 1 + 1 + 1

If you have a trinary based system, then obviusly there are 3 of something.
If you have four...then by gummers, you have 4 of something.

 

[Rhudey]

At this moment I could deny your existence. I have absolutely no proof you exist as I type these words in this reply. You may well be a construct of my imagination.

I find this to be somewhat of a poor comparison. Does God post to you on a forum? Are you telling us that he actually communicates with you? Because there is a person named Roel VanHouten that posts here regularly.

God is an experience.

This is why it cannot be proven or disproven that he exists. I personnally believe that if there is a "god", that he is nothing like the god that modern religion portrays him as.

Why do so many people believe in God? Because without the belief that we are part of a larger plan, then what is the point of our existence? It is what gives people hope to get up in the morning, believing that there is more than this. Unfortunately there is only one way to find out.

 

[enoch2]

Re: More than one way

Some people are born into this world with tails. Some are born with an extra brest or two. Some people are born Hamaphredites. The embrio has the capacity to develop such diferent traits because of the diversity of genetic information at its disposal. As creatures evolve they do not through away thier old genes. Genes are never truly bred out of a spiceies they are only ever switched of or deactivated. We call this deactivated DNA junk DNA. The vast majority of all our DNA is infact this deactivated Junk DNA. In your Genes is the information to make a tail. In your case the body corectly recognised that this sequence of DNA was deactivated and it remained unused in the very complex incubation period of the zygot.

Now we as a spicies were once bacteria. Bacteria have no sex and reproduce Asexualy, Hemaphredites have no sex and some people are born natural Hemaphredites. We as a spicies where once, like jellyfhish, scorpian, fish, reptile,etc etc. My basic point is that warm blooded mamals were rather late on the evolutionary seen. This means as compex organisms they had to have evolved from reptiles/dinocaurs. Everything in this world evolved from a very similar form of Bacteria. We just took our own path, my point is we never ditched the last 3 billion years of evolution. It is still with us it is called Junk DNA.

So it is funny that people cant bring themselves to believe in Aliens or Lepracons when in thier own DNA is a Fish, Reptile and Dinocaur. Fact is stranger than fiction.

All this talk of science and proof is just sillyness. Any one who understands quantum theory and realitivity knows thier is no such thing as absoloute proof of anything at all. Quantum and realitvity are themselves just a series of usumptions that can never be proven absoulutly, this is why it is called theory. Conceptualy thier is no such thing as proof for anything. So people who lack knowledge bandy this word around like abricadabra and ignorance is victorious over common sence.

It is funny that people want to understand God and they do not even know what they are. You are something. You have come out of the void which is nothing. It is understanding the relationship between something(you) and nothing(void) which will get you on the road towards the creator. Most people here do not even understand what they are themselves. One must study ones own consiousness before one even begins to contmplate who thought of you before you were.

Dear sir. I may not prove to you that you are real. I have no evidence at all to prove this theory. I will say in time you will gain the evidence yourself to prove your own exsistance, this evidence you search for is known as consiousness, it is what we do when we are not sleeping.

 

[KerrTexas]

At this moment I could deny your existence. I have absolutely no proof you exist as I type these words in this reply. You may well be a construct of my imagination

And if I believe that jumping off a cliff will not result in an injury, I can ask you for proof all I desire. I can throw off that everything you present as.."I do not believe you, show me proof!" However, if I do jump off the cliff, I have experienced the event for myself, regardless of any terminology or mathematical formulas. I can disagree and select individual comments or words to debate with you. When I strike the bottom of the cliff, the truth is discovered. As with God, I didnt really believe either until I experienced God.

This question is one of the very first concepts brought up in college philosophy classes. That is why the statement begins with...At this moment. When sitting in a room without any windows, can you prove absolutely that the outside world is still there...or do you have the faith that it will there when you exit the building?
And..can you prove absolutely that it is Roel that is posting?

This is why it cannot be proven or disproven that he exists. I personnally believe that if there is a "god", that he is nothing like the god that modern religion portrays him as.

I agree with you that the God MOST modern religions portray is not quite the truth. I used to sit in Church and think that there has got to be more to this then what the priests were saying. I then began to look elsewhere for "proof". I began to read ( and experience )all types of philosophies and these included hinduism, buddism, kabbalism, judaism, islam, as well as different types of faiths based on the Bible(s).
I began to practice methods of conjuration of elementals, demons and other powers. The results in those areas have been "Mister Toads Wild Ride" to say the least. I am basically as skeptical as they come, and have a negative view on most things.

When I first got into the conjuration of elementals, I engaged in a summoning ritual and nothing really happened ( I was also impatient ). I tossed the books aside and went about my business. For two weeks my life was extremely chaotic, I had all kinds of bizarre occurances taking place. I found one of my books and discovered that if a "gate" isnt closed with proper respect, then the elementals would treat you with dis-respect. I hadn't a clue about this fact before or during the "ritual". I proceeded to do a proper close and everything returned to mormal. This was the first of many experiences.

Does God post to you on a forum? Are you telling us that he actually communicates with you?

God communicates in many formats. Perhaps He has...And of course God communicates to me. I would not have much of an awareness if I couldnt perceive Gods presence in all things. That is the difference between some of humanity and lumps of stone.

 

[KerrTexas]

Why do so many people believe in God? Because without the belief that we are part of a larger plan, then what is the point of our existence?

Good question, Rhudey, what is the point of our existence?

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: More than one way

Any one who understands quantum theory and realitivity knows thier is no such thing as absoloute proof of anything at all.

Thank you for that. I believe this is the crux of what myself and OvrLrdLegion are trying to get across to Roel. The entire concept of logical and/or physical proof is only as valid as the grounding assumptions. It is no real trick, or even a good debating argument, to simply say "I think you are wrong, show me proof". This is an unending tactic, because one could provide a measure of proof, and then the one demanding proof can simply say "I don't believe your grounding assumptions. Show me proof". This recursion goes on forever. It is just as valid to ask someone "OK, fine. Now it is your turn to show me proof that what I am saying is incorrect." This is essentially the gauntlet that OvrLrdLegion has thrown down. There are things (a LOT of them) that are simply unproveable within a closed system of logic. This is the basis of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, and the limitations of any system of language means there are plenty of things that cannot be proven, or disproven, within that system of language.

The technique most often used to resolve such circular regressions is to "jump outside" the closed system of logic... in other words, rise to the next highest level of system context, and examine how the lower-level system interacts and integrates with the higher-level context. This is the "bigger picture" point that I have been trying to get across in the "In Triplicate, Please!" thread. However, trollface has only wanted to descend into minutia and use his debating tactics to argue about a "point mass" issue. That is reductionism, and it is a dead end. Systems Theory is more interested in the relationships between things, rather than the "proof of validity" of any one thing in and of itself. It uses a BALANCE of both reductionism and holism to explore and define the relationships of elements within a system.

If God is equivalent to the higher level system context of our universe, there is no way you will ever "prove" the existence of God within the closed system of our universe as we perceive it, simply because it is incomplete. The only way to do this is to be prepared to "jump outside" the context of our incomplete universal view and examine how our universe integrates with other universes at that next-highest systemic context.

I maintain that the biggest "clue" to this integration is given in the recursive, universal function we call creation, as manifested through the basic concepts of Matter in Motion, which we conveniently refer to as: Time. Time, Motion, and Matter are the 3 mutually orthogonal, independent variables that define the 3 systemic domains of Operational, Functional, and Physical respectively.

RMT

 

[creedo299]

Re: More than one way

Over said>Good question, Rhudey, what is the point of our existence?

Creedo answers; Because it was part of a manufactureing plan, that is over now.

Body by aliens, supplies by apelike creatures, soul and spirit, not all the time, by God.

 

[Rhudey]

Good question, Rhudey, what is the point of our existence?

I hope you did not take my post as an argument against yours, I honestly do not know if I believe one way or the other. I hope there is a god, I hope there is more, but unfortunately for me (unlike yourself) I have not found him yet. There have been times when I felt that there was no point, but I still hold on to the hope that there is.

I will not argue against your posts since I found them to be enlightening as well as very encouraging. :D

 

[Rhudey]

When sitting in a room without any windows, can you prove absolutely that the outside world is still there...or do you have the faith that it will there when you exit the building?
And..can you prove absolutely that it is Roel that is posting?

I just don't think that this is a fair comparison. I lived in the outside world before entering the room, I saw it, felt it, tasted it. I know that the unverse follows a set of laws that cannot be broken, therefore the outside world will be there when I leave the room (barring an earthquake, explosion, etc.). I cannot prove that the person posting is Roel, but I do know that someone IS posting regardless.

As for god, I have never seen, heard or felt god, nor has god communicated to me in any form that I am aware of. Don't get me wrong here, I am not arguing that there is no god, I just don't feel that this type of comparison is a valid argument, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Now saying this, as I posted above, I find your posts to be good reading and they have made me stop and think about what I truly believe. Unfortunately in this debate I am truly a "lost soul".

 

[Roel van Houten]

Let's try to explore what standard of proof might be acceptable to you, Roel.

That's very difficult to determine. Let me ask you a question. How can someone convince you to believe (or have faith) in something you think is completely illogical and which none of your senses can sense? Moreover, of which there is no proof available. You could - at best - consider the possibility, right?

So.... while this might not speak to being "proof of God", I think it does speak to an interconnectedness of humans, beyond the physical, that some might say is "proof of soul or spirit" in that massive numbers of humans reacting to a global event can have a statistically significant effect on random number generating computers that are completely isolated from one another. Is this good enough "proof" for you Roel?

I never denied and I even acknowledged that there are undoubtly countless phenomena which we can't explain using regular science. But like you say: this might not speak to being "proof of God". You could have left it at that, because that's exactly my point. I can't really argue with the rest of your post, except for the fact that it's not proof of god. None of your posts - and I must add, I've read them with great interests - contain factual proof of god.

Roel

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Godess?

Let me ask you a question. How can someone convince you to believe (or have faith) in something you think is completely illogical and which none of your senses can sense?

That's easy! Experience. Same point OvrLrdLegion is making. And now let me utilize the history of our world (hey! Time! on-topic!) /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif to "prove" my point

:

Over 200 years ago, your average person would have considered it "illogical" if someone walked up to them and told them "it is possible to have a back-and-forth conversation with someone who is 2000 miles away from here." That person would want "proof". Now, if we further say that the person making this claim was a time-traveling scientist from the future (I'm doing good weaving the topic in here, huh?), that scientist could, indeed, provide "proof" by writing out the electromagentic equations of Maxwell, and the communications theory of Shannon. Would the person accept that as "proof"? Not in the least. Yet it IS a major form of proof, it is simply "not accessible" to a person of that day and age. Now our time traveler whips out his cell phone and calls his partner on the other side of the continent (let's also assume they brought a COMM satellite with them on their trip!)

. Now the person is actually experiencing what the other person told them is possible. Will the person believe it? It depends solely on the person. If they are an ultimate skeptic, then they would never buy it. They would claim "that is just a parlor trick...you've just got a miniature phonograph in that little box and it is playing the phonograph." The demonstrator could even hand the cell phone to the disbeliever and say "ask the person on the other end anything you wish". Even if the person responded, and the subject may become totally astounded that he got an answer, he can still be hard-headed enough to refuse to believe. One must first be open to belief before one can recognize an experience that can reinforce that belief as "proof".

So how does this apply to God? I would be willing to bet that you have had at least one experience of God in your life. However, you have obviously not ever attributed it to God, since you are so vehement in your disbelief. How about when you are thinking of someone, and suddenly they call you, and they happen to have some wonderful information for you that you can put to use right then and there? Many can say "oh, that is just coincidence". Others can look at this as an experience of God. When such a "coincidence", which may have a statistically LOW probability of ever occurring, saves your life....many people will see this as an experience of God.

You could have left it at that, because that's exactly my point. I can't really argue with the rest of your post, except for the fact that it's not proof of god. None of your posts - and I must add, I've read them with great interests - contain factual proof of god.

Yes, I could've left it at that...but if I did, that would not serve *my* point. As I pointed out to trollface in the other thread: Facts change. It was once deemed a "fact" that the earth was the center of the universe. That changed. And in the old "fact" there was never a good scientific explanation for retrograde motion of the planets. With the changing of the "facts", suddenly we had "factual proof" that explained retrograde motion!

And the point of my link was, again, to show you that "factual proof" is not a boolean step function. It is a continuum, and it is always morphing. So let's not jump directly to God just yet. Let's stick closer to the point of my link. Would you see this data as statistically significant "proof" that human beings can be, and are, connected to each other in non-physical ways? Ways that cannot be positively detected by our limited senses? If so (and again, I find this data hard to argue with), then we are approaching some "factual proof" that humans may, indeed, have a non-physical soul and spirit that are capable of interacting with each other on exo-physical levels.

Per the teachings of Qabalah and the Tree Of Life, the "road to God" is consistent with climbing the Tree. This is also not a boolean function. The first level to climb is from the physical world (10) up to the world of the conscious mind (7-8-9). This is fairly easy, since you know you can think about things in your mind that you are not physically interacting with. The next step along the road is ascending to the world of the soul (4-5-6). A great many people NEVER get this far, and the reason is....their limiting beliefs. Those who do make it this far must now take the next step, up to the world of their spirit (1-2-3). There is another whole group of people who will not make it this far...even some of those who DO believe that they have a spirit. Still fewer people make that final "leap" from 1 to 0, and integrate with God.

Christ, Mohammad, Buddha, Krishna, etc. These were mortal men who made that leap. In fact, there are many (myself included) who believe Christ was actually trying to teach people the precepts of Qabalah. It was the ego-driven "elders" of the Catholic Church who twisted that teaching in order to enslave people. This is precisely why I reject religion and embrace spirituality, and why I maintain there is a significant difference between the two. There is a big difference than wanting to "convert" someone and wanting to "enlighten" them. One involves control, the other involves providing information and experience.

Cheers! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RMT

 

[Roel van Houten]

What proof do you have that God does not exist?
A more expanded response then.."I dont have any evidence" would be nice. Everybody has reasons as to why they accept a specific thought pattern.
What points are illogical?

I think I have to dissapoint you again. I am unable to provide negative proof of god's existence. You might as well ask me if I have proof that aliens do not exist.

Roel, because I don't limit my view, I DID demand proof and went out and found it to satisfy my questions. Not all proof is necessarily words or mathematics on paper. God is an experience.

Probably not to everyone, since I have never "experienced" god. I can't smell, see, hear, touch or taste god. I have never seen, or heard of any miracle either. That's why I think it's illogical for me to believe in god.

If you walk in the forest to listen to the win.d, to view the sunlight streaming through the leaves, to fill your lungs with the scent of the pines, oaks and maples...that is an experience.

But there's a significant difference between god and a forrest. I can drive to a forrest and use all my senses to confirm that the forrest DOES actually exist. In fact EVERYONE can do that! That's absolutely not the case with god.

At this moment I could deny your existence. I have absolutely no proof you exist as I type these words in this reply. You may well be a construct of my imagination.

Well, I think that's a ridiculous argument. I'm a human being and any other human being can confirm my existence using his or her senses.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Why do so many people believe in God? Because without the belief that we are part of a larger plan, then what is the point of our existence? It is what gives people hope to get up in the morning, believing that there is more than this. Unfortunately there is only one way to find out.

Who ever said there is a point to our existence? People somehow think that there must be a reason why we are alive.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Godess?

Thank you for that. I believe this is the crux of what myself and OvrLrdLegion are trying to get across to Roel. The entire concept of logical and/or physical proof is only as valid as the grounding assumptions.

I know what you are trying to say, but I totally disagree. Regardless of the fact that absolute proof doesn't exist, in my experience there's not even an indication that god really exists.

It is no real trick, or even a good debating argument, to simply say "I think you are wrong, show me proof".

But accepting something as the truth, without any proof or indication is an even worse debating argument!

However, trollface has only wanted to descend into minutia and use his debating tactics to argue about a "point mass" issue. That is reductionism, and it is a dead end.

Well, trollface has his debating tactics and you have yours. Instead of complaining about these "tactics" try replying to what he is saying. In the "In Triplicate, Please!" it seems as if you're avoiding answering certain questions. Personally I think trollface has made some excellent points.

I maintain that the biggest "clue" to this integration is given in the recursive, universal function we call creation, as manifested through the basic concepts of Matter in Motion, which we conveniently refer to as: Time. Time, Motion, and Matter are the 3 mutually orthogonal, independent variables that define the 3 systemic domains of Operational, Functional, and Physical respectively.

And I maintain that there is no reason as of yet to believe or assume that Creation is a process practiced by other entities besides the enitities of which we've confirmed their existence.

I would be willing to bet that you have had at least one experience of God in your life. However, you have obviously not ever attributed it to God, since you are so vehement in your disbelief.

You're making, what I believe is, a classic mistake. I could take this argument and turn it right around: You've probably had experiences in your life which you've attributed to god because there was no other explanation. Just like the people who "experienced" lightning for the first time. Since they had no explanation for this phenomenon, they attributed it to a god. Also, you are just as vehement in your BELIEF as I am in my DISBELIEF.

How about when you are thinking of someone, and suddenly they call you, and they happen to have some wonderful information for you that you can put to use right then and there? Many can say "oh, that is just coincidence".

Attributing that to god is what you call "reductionism" and that's "a dead end". I also experience these things, but I can't think of a single reason why I should attribute them to god. There are probably a million wonderful theories why these things occur, but if you attribute everything to god you're just limiting yourself.

Facts change.

Facts change. I'm willing to agree with you, BUT only if you accept the possibility that one day people will discover the NON-existence of god. Just like they once discovered that the universe was not the centre of the universe.

Qabalah

You can choose to deny it, but Quabalah is also a religion and that's an indisputable fact.

There is a big difference than wanting to "convert" someone and wanting to "enlighten" them. One involves control, the other involves providing information and experience.

No offence intended, but I think both are equally arrogant. When you say you want to "enlighten" me, you're assuming that you know more than me and that I am wrong in my thinking. I don't want to be enlightened... at least not in that way. Enlighten me with facts, not with fiction.

Cheers! (How did you know I was having a beer?) /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Roel

 

[KerrTexas]

Thank-You. I have always been impressed with your posts and wondered if it was ever possible to equal them, your statement indicates that perhaps I am posting worthwhile information. Thank-You again!

I apologize to you , I did sense you where debating in response to my post. And there is a point to existence. We influence others by our actions during the day, sometimes merely by smiling at someone will bring them happiness for the moment. Also whether you believe in God or not, to be able to appreciate what God/nature has done with some of the natural wonders is a gift on its own. Beauty is all around us, it is up to us to notice it.

If God did not create, how could He experience Himself as God?

If no one was around to notice the beauty or awesome creations of God/Nature...then what would bethe point of their existence as well?


In philosophy class, I felt the same way as you regarding the question of existence as posed by the instructor. We believed that indeed the outside WAS still there even though we couldnt see it, taste it, hear it, etc.. All we could go on was that it always seemed to be present when exiting the building. To deny that it still existed would in essence be a denial of your existence as well, and this is where the arguement shifts to your point of view. How do you know we exist when we vanish inside the building? You are going on the idea that in the past we return from within.

There are methods of satisfying your questioning of our existence via cell-phone, monitoring the room via cameras, possible noise heard from behind closed doors...but even with these tools it does not absolutely prove we still exist. You accept the fact that what you see or hear is a conveyance of the truth at the moment. The missing components are filled in with faith.

Such is the "proof" of God. I accept the fact of what I see/hear/feel as a conveyance of truth and the rest is filled in with faith.

 

[Roel van Houten]

We believed that indeed the outside WAS still there even though we couldnt see it, taste it, hear it, etc..

You had a perfectly good reason to believe that there was an outside and you even found proof for it:

All we could go on was that it always seemed to be present when exiting the building.

There's your proof. You can proof there's "an inside" by going INTO the building and you can proof there's "an outside" by stepping OUT OF the building. It's that simple. That's the same proof I'm asking for, but which you are unable to provide me with.

Roel