The irrefutable existence of God

[King sns]

"For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering; for My name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts."
--Malachi 1:11

Yeah, if anything it opens up the possibility of Perennialism.

[youtube="gJpn6t7SQzE"]Christian twist to Perennialism[/youtube]

Despite the disturbing, (mildly southpark's "Cartman") accent, this is very interesting, and makes a lot of sense.

 

[skylights]

Have you ever seen something moving in the night sky, did you ever wonder, where did the kinetic energy come from? [...] Any questions?

why are we assuming that the laws of physics (and logic) as we are familiar with them are universally true and applicable?

not attempting to disprove the argument, just saying that it makes sense on a certain level but it assumes a closed circuit of reason.

 

[King sns]

Have you ever seen something moving in the night sky, did you ever wonder, where did the kinetic energy come from? Imagining an infinite chain of collisions still begs the question, from where did this seemingly inexplicable eternal force come from?... Any questions?

More importantly, though,....

can we pretend that airplanes in the night sky are like shooting stars?

 

[Mole]

The Plausible God - the Pause that Refreshes

Of course God or Gods are plausible. It should be plausible to anyone who admits that they don't know everything.

A short time ago it was plausible that the Sun went round the Earth. But as we discovered more, it became implausible.

And only a short time ago we found it plausible that madness was caused by demon possession and the churches practised exorcism. But today we have discovered that madness is a result of mental illness that can be treated by a doctor, and so demon possession became implausible.

And it is this process of discovery that has rendered so many beliefs implausible - such as astrology, eugenics, phrenology, homeopathy, tarot, numerology and MBTI.

And indeed it is the discoveries of psychometrics that had rendered MBTI implausible. And yet so many of us here find MBTI to be plausible.

 

[King sns]

A short time ago it was plausible that the Sun went round the Earth. But as we discovered more, it became implausible.

And only a short time ago we found it plausible that madness was caused by demon possession and the churches practised exorcism. But today we have discovered that madness is a result of mental illness that can be treated by a doctor, and so demon possession became implausible.

And it is this process of discovery that has rendered so many beliefs implausible - such as astrology, eugenics, phrenology, homeopathy, tarot, numerology and MBTI.

And indeed it is the discoveries of psychometrics that had rendered MBTI implausible. And yet so many of us here find MBTI to be plausible.

A short time ago, a lot of things were plausible, and are still plausible. The possibility that there is a God is still plausible, despite the fact that we haven't implausicated it yet. (and... spell check did not correct the word.. awesome. )

 

[Mole]

God - the Plausible and the Implausible

A short time ago, a lot of things were plausible, and are still plausible. The possibility that there is a God is still plausible, despite the fact that we haven't implausicated it yet. (and... spell check did not correct the word.. awesome. )

Well to some, the elephant headed God, Ganesh, is implausible. And to others, the God with three heads, the Trinity, is implausible.

So we might say each God is plausible to some and implausible to others.

 

[Santosha]

Consciousness project check out Human Consciousness project

 

[King sns]

Well to some, the elephant headed God, Ganesh, is implausible. And to others, the God with three heads, the Trinity, is implausible.

So we might say each God is plausible to some and implausible to others.

At the end of the day, anything that is not proven untrue is plausible.
(Yea, kind of a sketchy lawyerish retort. But it's true...)

 

[Qlip]

I think it's important to differentiate between types of realities. Yeah.. this is going to sound all spacey and far out, but it doesn't make it any less true. There's the reality of the material world which most people usually equate with 'really real', and there's the reality of human nature. It's argued, and possibly logically provable that the material world is all there exists. In which case we are just parts of it, systems governed by rules.

It seems self-evident that our rules strongly disagree with the assessment of what material world deems as important in terms of proportion, scale as compared to the whole. It's also very likely that our base 'software' cannot possibly comprehend the universe as a whole and has to shorthand it. This constitutes the reality that we perceive on a daily basis.

If you said God, even just a personal conception of God exists in only a human reality, and I had to choose which reality had precedence, I'd choose the human dimension. Thinkers are probably already getting nauseous reading this. But I do think a person's idea of God is a personification of what is important in being human. An idea with importance that outranks scientific findings.

The crux of the situation is when your conception of what is important conflicts violently with what other people think is important. But in my opinion this remains the same with or without personification.

 

[Mole]

At the end of the day, anything that is not proven untrue is plausible.
(Yea, kind of a sketchy lawyerish retort. But it's true...)

Sure.

 

[King sns]

I think it's important to differentiate between types of realities. Yeah.. this is going to sound all spacey and far out, but it doesn't make it any less true. There's the reality of the material world which most people usually equate with 'really real', and there's the reality of human nature. It's argued, and possibly logically provable that the material world is all there exists. In which case we are just parts of it, systems governed by rules.

It seems self-evident that our rules strongly disagree with the assessment of what material world deems as important in terms of proportion, scale as compared to the whole. It's also very likely that our base 'software' cannot possibly comprehend the universe as a whole and has to shorthand it. This constitutes the reality that we perceive on a daily basis.

If you said God, even just a personal conception of God exists in only a human reality, and I had to choose which reality had precedence, I'd choose the human dimension. Thinkers are probably already getting nauseous reading this. But I do think a person's idea of God is a personification of what is important in being human. An idea with importance that outranks scientific findings.

The crux of the situation is when your conception of what is important conflicts violently with what other people think is important. But in my opinion this remains the same with or without personification.

that makes sense, too. I'm inclined to think that sometimes human minds can't be happy/ sane without believing certain things to be true, though. I guess that doesn't make them any less true.

 

[Lark]

Peguy should expand on the whole deification of Buddha thing. I've always been more interested in Zen because it's very essential and stripped down. But I notice other groups have gone in different directions with it, ones I haven't bothered looking into.

To be honest I think that Zen is transcendent and could be associated with a lot of seperate or different relgious or ideological doctrines, Fromm discussed how Zen adn psycho-analysis could be congruent even, in Dune its a very slight aside but the Zen Sunnis are interesting for their combination of Zen mind and divine preordained planning to become the ultimate stoics, its only a literary example but still.

 

[Lark]

What we believe is always a matter of choice, or in other words, how far we feel that we feel 'convinced' or a certain idea or concept.

To an extent this is true, people can choose to believe the patently absurd, that the moon is made of cheese and the sky is green but it doesnt effect what really is, if you are interested in truth you wont be content with a simple choice or invention, either of your own or someone elses.

I think that the idea that man is so central to things and his thinking and decisions shape reality and are the only thing which gives reality any order or meaning at all is an inversion of what actually is the case, its a mistake which is age old and over laid with each new generations burgeoning narcissism.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Where there is little point to this if you willfully ignore your strongest opposing argument and grapple with the straw men. And look at that, just about everything abstract happens to be male...

 

[Totenkindly]

If you don't perceive an argument in one of my threads, please feel free to ignore it rather than creating a focal point of wasted attention which could be diverted elsewhere.

As a participating member of the forum, I'm allowed to respond to a non-proof on a topic that has been discussed zillions of times on the 'net and that entitles itself "The Irrefutable Existence of God," when it doesn't even offer the basics of a typical OPENING argument for God's existence.

(Unless you're just here for strokes, and then your argument should rightfully be placed in Bonfire or Fluff.)

As I said, your "proof" isn't a proof, it's a statement of belief. Apparently you don't feel like addressing this.

(Someone right after this post quoted Wikipedia, for goodness' sake, to dance circles around your OP.)

 

[Zangetshumody]

As a participating member of the forum, I'm allowed to respond to a non-proof on a topic that has been discussed zillions of times on the 'net and that entitles itself "The Irrefutable Existence of God," when it doesn't even offer the basics of a typical OPENING argument for God's existence.

(Unless you're just here for strokes, and then your argument should rightfully be placed in Bonfire or Fluff.)

As I said, your "proof" isn't a proof, it's a statement of belief. Apparently you don't feel like addressing this.

(Someone right after this post quoted Wikipedia, for goodness' sake, to dance circles around your OP.)

Being allowed to speak is not the same as knowing when too open your floodgate of blather. All the more engaging oppositions were already countered if you were capable of taking account of such things, perhaps you wouldn't mind perceiving your repeated and subsequent lack of substance with your posts, is this how one amasses 24k posts?

Oh, my cosmological argument was atypical... however will you process the complex rendering of my words, is it really too hard to follow? Please don't burden me with your personal problems.

 

[Giggly]

I think this is a fascinating topic. Among other things, it touches on how the universe came about, and that is an intriguing question.

 

[Ginkgo]

PROOF!

 

[Mal12345]

If you don't perceive an argument in one of my threads, please feel free to ignore it rather than creating a focal point of wasted attention which could be diverted elsewhere.

Your thread topic says something is "irrefutable," but it says nothing about an irrefutable argument. Jennifer is right: your personal beliefs on the subject are indeed irrefutable. I thought her analysis of your OP was spot on and appropriate for the thread topic.

Everybody has a right to their own subjective version of truth.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Your thread topic says something is "irrefutable," but it says nothing about an irrefutable argument. Jennifer is right: your personal beliefs on the subject are indeed irrefutable. I thought her analysis of your OP was spot on and appropriate for the thread topic.

Everybody has a right to their own subjective version of truth.

I believe one has to be quite dull to avoid all the elements of the cosmological argument in my words. If you require me to point these out in the form premise 1, premise 2, sub-conclusion and conclusion then I'm sorry, but this is something you really should be capable of parsing on your own. Does your mind truly get all fogged up when you read metaphor? Is it really too much to ask that you apply your mind when your shown all the elements of something assembled in an atypical form... excuse me for not catering to the INTP minority, who with just a bit of work could find the sustenance for their Ti to devour.