Existence Theory (plus a plausible way to kill off God)

Pages 123

darykk168

So what your saying is if we don't know whats happening in the other side of the bridge theres no world on the other side,Am I right?Cause if I am maybe you still think the world is flat.

StaticChange

14 years ago

film_orange wrote...

God is real. His name is porn. All seriousness aside, rofl...

I apply "perception as truth" to everything. People can will things out of existence by refusing to acknowledge/remember these things; this is why a civilization can't truly conquer another civilization until they've burnt all their books. With knowledge or proof of knowledge comes "existence." Take this away, edit it, whatever, it's something else altogether and the previous data is nonexistent.

Paradoxically, I believe that there is some arbiter out there in the cosmos, and I identify this arbiter's existence based on the existence of my perception. If I, the first and only human being on this planet, i.e.: "human" as possessing ability to perceive, had not first been envisioned by something or someone else, then I don't really exist - which can't be true, because in the very act of perceiving myself, I am existing. Even in the act of trying to will yourself away, you are existing because you perceive an "entity" also known as "your(very)self."

I think "God," a real god or omnipotent entity, lies in this paradox.

I have a very simple solution to your "paradox", and it starts with the realization that the paradox is not in your existence as perceived by others, but with their existence as perceived by you.

To clarify this, you suppose that there are unquestionably other people in existence to perceive your own existence and that by your own hypothesis that "perception is truth" you would cease to exist if they were to cease to perceive you. However, if you back up a couple steps, you will see that there is no way for you to perceive others as being separate entities of their own. That is, to your own perception they could just as easily be figments of your imagination. You have incorrectly assumed that other people even exist with certainty. As I write this now, I am aware of the possibility that I am perhaps only entertaining myself with a philosophical debate in my own mind.

Once you reach this conclusion you will see that your own existence is certain by virtue of your perception of it, and that the existence of others, as well as the existence of some "great arbiter", is only real in the sense that your perception of them is real. In other words, things only exist in a relative sense. Somethings are real to you, and some things that are not real to you may still be real to me and vice-versa.

Schnitzel

14 years ago

thegreatnobody wrote...

Okay, lemme start with a simple rhetorical question:

If a sound is made in a forest, and nobody hears it, does that sound exist?

Now, the answer of my choice is that because nobody hears it, its existence is practically non-existent. The idea is if nobody knows of it, it doesn't exist.

Now let's say that God exist because everybody believes in him (or at least knows him), thus He somehow exist. My thought is, what if everybody just forgets about God? Not everybody hating him, but everybody forgets he exists, maybe in the future when religion is banned and stuff. That means God will cease to exist right?

Now what if in reality, God really does exist though the power of thought and he created everything the same way, through thought. Will that mean that if we forget God, and He, who maintained creation through thought, will cease to exist, will we also, who are his creations, cease to exist together with Him?

Just a thought...

Avery good question, it hurt my brain just to be able tp process such a thing, but in my opinion i think even though the sound is made in the forest, its existence is still there, do to animals hearing it and such :3

stuff

14 years ago

thegreatnobody wrote...

Okay, lemme start with a simple rhetorical question:
If a sound is made in a forest, and nobody hears it, does that sound exist?

Yes it makes a sound. All because no one is around doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

thegreatnobody wrote...

Now let's say that God exist because everybody believes in him (or at least knows him), thus He somehow exist. My thought is, what if everybody just forgets about God? Not everybody hating him, but everybody forgets he exists, maybe in the future when religion is banned and stuff. That means God will cease to exist right?

I highly doubt if they banned religion people will forget about God and everything religion based. There are several things banned throughout the world and there are people who still thinks about it. So as long that there is something to remind people about that thing in particular, it will be difficult to forget about it completely in the future.

Don't think too far into this because you will never get an exact answer.

Vladimir Putin

14 years ago

You think God's as fake as the others?
Please, I'd like to see you go against any of this

Verses... let's see. Now, let's think... if I were a wise person and if I were to write a book for the Bible... which book would that be? Ah... remember Solomon, the wisest king of Israel? *unfortunately he would become an apostate later in his life, but I digress...* Solomon authored the books Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and READ EVERYTHING! So perhaps there might be words of wisdom from there? Hmmm... ah! Ecclesiastes 1:6 seems to tell us SOMETHING about WIND CIRCUITS! Wind circuits... cool! What's the actual verse? "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again ACCORDING TO HIS CIRCUITS." Hmmm... and this wasn't discovered until WAY later... probably in the 1900s or so. And if you're going to say "but this Bible was written after it, dur hurrrr...." Er... I'm using the KJV... READ EVERYTHING... and KJV was written in 1611... based off Erasmus's Textus Receptus... written in 1521 (somewhere around there)... based off the Byzantine Texts (Majority Texts)... over 5000 of them agreeing with each other... very ancient manuscripts NOT named Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex READ EVERYTHING. Hmm... interestingly enough, Ecclesiastes 1:7 talks about evaporation... which wasn't discovered until the 1500s by Galileo! Need wisdom? Look no further than the book of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes! And remember... READ EVERYTHING!!

and as for those fake deities made by man, foolish enough for anyone to believe, they thought that the world was being held by animal on top of animal, and as for the christians believing the world being flat, thats catholics. I could explain the differences of roman catholocism and actual christianity later if you want

Isaiah 40:22 states that "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE OF THE EARTH." The circle? Wait... wait a minute? Are you telling me that... Isaiah thought the world was circular, not flat? Since there was no word for sphere, circle is used... the Hebrew did not make separate words for 3D objects. And yes! Of course the world is round! If God indeed did author this book... wouldn't He know His OWN WORLD that HE created (Genesis 1:1... the very verse liberals/evolutionists/idiots ignore)? Yeah, at least we READ EVERYTHING now to show us that we aren't the ignorant ones... the world is indeed round... Flat world... tsk... what kind of an excuse are these people making?

It seems Job was wise too... and in his book, we can find something quite interesting. With all our modern physicists talking about light particles, photons, gamma rays, and whatnot, we would think we're making advances, no? Ah yes! Einstein discovered that light is a PATH... not an object. Hmmm, isn't that innovative? Oh wait! Look at this! Job 38:19 says "Where is THE WAY where light dwelleth?" The way... means PATH! Job didn't even say PLACE... he said WAY! Einstein first? Oh! Denied! That's why we take some time to READ EVERYTHING.

And regarding outer space, Job suggests that God "...hangeth the earth upon NOTHING." What? So God isn't a loony at all? Well, duh! He made the world! Of course the world would suspend in outer space... and when did WE find that out? Job seems to have known... it's crazy what people back then thought. They thought that the world hung on top of a giant elephant, standing on top of a giant snake, standing on top of a giant turtle! The Greeks believed that the god Atlas was punished into holding the world... and everyone believed in that as well! So why did Job know this? Well, simple... the Bible is very true! It is the word of God! GOD EXISTS

Go against ANY of this

BigLundi

14 years ago

Hmmm...God depends on our believing in him/her/it/shchlee in order to exist?

...so...god is...Santa Claus?

sorry, I know that was just one little thing said in the entirety of the thread but that just confused me a bit.

As for existence? I like to think nobody truly exists, as we're all made up of mostly empty space anyhow. All atoms are 99% empty space, everything in existence ismade up of atoms, thereofre we're all 99% empty space. So...I don't think something that's mostly empty space that that exists. However that's in a material prospect. On a social view, we all DO exist, as we all affect eachother in one way or another, whether we realize it or not(Butterfly effect :P)

So really it's not a question of science but philosophy, which do you rather, would you rather socially exist, or materially exist?

thegreatnobody

14 years ago

StaticChange wrote...

thegreatnobody wrote...

I call this the "dreaming reality" theory (yeah, i name my thoughts... anything wrong with that?) which states that because, in relation with the idea=reality thingy, we think of things beyond what already exist, they appear according our thoughts. For example, we once thought that the molecule is the smallest particle in existence, but because somebody thought there might be anything smaller, Atoms suddenly appeared into existence. This thought is somehow related to the japanese philosophy of Kotodama (which is thoughts materialize through words).

You propose a paradox conceived through a misunderstanding of the words “I think, therefore I am”. As you have interpreted these words, you are because you think. However, this is not what Descartes intended when he wrote them. The content of the excerpt from which the phrase comes deals with the fundamental uncertainties, whereas you suppose the opposite – that things exist with certainty only after you have thought of them.

The basic hypothesis behind the phrase was that Descartes could not be certain of anything due to the possibility of a “deceiver of supreme power”. In order to build a foundation of certainty for his other beliefs Descartes suggested that in spite of whatever power a supreme being could hold over his senses, the perception of your own thought is proof of your existence. He never suggested that this perception was the cause of his existence. As I mentioned, this would create a paradox, because you cannot think if you do not exist – and by your reasoning you would exist because you think. The two concepts are in direct opposition.

thegreatnobody wrote...

Oh yeah, kinda out of topic, but i have a rhetoric question for atheists that believes in only what they can see. There are millions of things out there that can be only viewed in a specific time and place, like stars for example. You cannot see them by day, but they are really obvious at night. There are also some things that requires viewing from another angle to make sense. In addition to all that, there are things that we know its existence but can never see them due to limitations of our human bodies. So how can you say that something does not exist when you have never tried looking for it night and day everywhere, nor look at another angle, nor add the factor of our flawed and limited human perception?

I will only answer this only to say that I think very few atheists, myself included, believe in only what they can see. So to some degree, you have unfairly constructed a strawman argument, though I suppose it could also simpily be construed to mean that your question was not aimed at me, despite that I am an aethist. However, the choice to disbelieve in one thing I cannot see is not synonymous with choosing to disbelieve in everything I cannot see. It is sufficient to say I believe that the likelyhood of there being some benevolent parent figure that lords above us (but doesn’t interact with us at all) and for some reason gets pissed when we doubt his existence is rather small.

Yeah, it's hard to imaging something out of nothing, you cannot think if you are inexistent. Point taken.

As for the atheist argument (fixed your spelling for you), I was just disarming the common argument of agnostic atheists (non-thinking atheists, you know, the ones joining the atheist bandwagon cause it's "cool") that the fact they fail to see a material God that means that he doesn't exist. It is still everybody's choice to either believe or not in a supreme being. Yet I do believe that there is a supreme being that designed all that exists (I'm an evolutionist that believes that evolution is a tool of the divine.)

Schnitzel wrote...

But it's stated that it wasn't heard, meaning that there were no living matter with hearing capacity is existent in the equation.

BigLundi wrote...

There's still the 1% in the atom, therefore, even if you say it's 99% empty space, it's still existent. Ghost, which are scientifically shown as non-material, still exist somehow. If ghosts exist, why shouldn't you, a thinking material being?

Soul_Slayer

14 years ago

Vladimir Putin wrote...

I have to say, you went against your own arguments by presenting them with such immaturity and vulgarity. Right there, you already lost any debate you were attempting to start; better yet, provoking a childish argument.

It has been widely found that much of what you quote is errors to which translations are subject, possibly total suppression of words, probably altered, or fabricated in whole. And that's not even going into all the mistakes made by the compilers of all these books into one "holy" tomb that proves most, if not all, of the books were written by someone other than the given credit; done so because no ones going to believe a nobody. The following are quick snippets I could remember. I'll let one with a little more energy to amuse you further.
Solomon:

Spoiler:

Isaiah:

Spoiler:

Whoever will take the trouble of reading the book ascribed to Isaiah, will find it one of the most wild and disorderly compositions ever put together; it has neither beginning, middle, nor end; and, except a short historical part, and a few sketches of history in the first two or three chapters, is one continued incoherent, bombastical rant, full of extravagant metaphor, without application, and destitute of meaning; a school-boy would scarcely have been excusable for writing such stuff; it is (at least in translation) that kind of composition and false taste that is properly called prose run mad. the compilers of the Bible mixed and confounded the writings of different authors with each other; which alone, were there no other cause, is sufficient to destroy the authenticity of an compilation, because it is more than presumptive evidence that the compilers are ignorant who the authors were. A very glaring instance of this occurs in the book ascribed to Isaiah: the latter part of the 44th chapter, and the beginning of the 45th, so far from having been written by Isaiah, could only have been written by some person who lived at least an hundred and fifty years after Isaiah was dead.

These chapters are a compliment to Cyrus, who permitted the Jews to return to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity, to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple, as is stated in Ezra. The last verse of the 44th chapter, and the beginning of the 45th [Isaiah] are in the following words: "That saith of Cyrus, he is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built; and to the temple thy foundations shall be laid: thus saith the Lord to his enointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden to subdue nations before him, and I will loose the loins of kings to open before him the two-leaved gates, and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before thee," etc.

What audacity of church and priestly ignorance it is to impose this book upon the world as the writing of Isaiah, when Isaiah, according to their own chronology, died soon after the death of Hezekiah, which was B.C. 698; and the decree of Cyrus, in favour of the Jews returning to Jerusalem, was, according to the same chronology, B.C. 536; which is a distance of time between the two of 162 years.

Job:

Spoiler:

the book of Job carries no internal evidence of being an Hebrew book; that the genius of the composition, and the drama of the piece, are not Hebrew; that it has been translated from another language into Hebrew, and that the author of the book was a Gentile; that the character represented under the name of Satan does not correspond to any Hebrew idea; and that the two convocations which the Deity is supposed to have made of those whom the poem calls sons of God, and the familiarity which this supposed Satan is stated to have with the Deity, are in the same case. It may also be observed, that the book shows itself to be the production of a mind cultivated in science, which the Jews, so far from being famous for, were very ignorant of. The allusions to objects of natural philosophy are frequent and strong, and are of a different cast to any thing in the books known to be Hebrew. The astronomical names, Pleiades, Orion, and Arcturus, are Greek and not Hebrew names, and it does not appear from any thing that is to be found in the Bible that the Jews knew any thing of astronomy, or that they studied it, they had no translation of those names into their own language, but adopted the names as they found them in the poem.

That the Jews did translate the literary productions of the Gentile nations into the Hebrew language, and mix them with their own, is not a matter of doubt; Proverbs xxxi. i, is an evidence of this: it is there said, The word of king Lemuel, the prophecy which his mother taught him. This verse stands as a preface to the proverbs that follow, and which are not the proverbs of Solomon, but of Lemuel; and this Lemuel was not one of the kings of Israel, nor of Judah, but of some other country, and consequently a Gentile. The Jews however have adopted his proverbs; and as they cannot give any account who the author of the book of Job was, nor how they came by the book, and as it differs in character from the Hebrew writings, and stands totally unconnected with every other book and chapter in the Bible before it and after it, it has all the circumstantial evidence of being originally a book of the Gentiles.

The Bible-makers, and those regulators of time, the Bible chronologists, appear to have been at a loss where to place and how to dispose of the book of Job; for it contains no one historical circumstance, nor allusion to any, that might serve to determine its place in the Bible. But it would not have answered the purpose of these men to have informed the world of their ignorance; and, therefore, they have affixed it to the aera of B.C. 1520, which is during the time the Israelites were in Egypt, and for which they have just as much authority and no more than I should have for saying it was a thousand years before that period. The probability however is, that it is older than any book in the Bible.

(my words) But seriously; you are contesting that because you interpret the word "the way" to mean "path" that the author of Job was the first to think up special relativity? You're mad.

And may I also add, you take great pleasure in boasting the truth of Christianity, and yet you quote the Hebrew Bible, or as you would know it the Old Testament. Let me refer you to what a famous Jew once said: "Keep your fucking Christian Right noses out of our reading material!"

Spoiler:

I have now gone through your post, as a man would go through a wood with an axe on his shoulder, and fell trees. Here they lie; and the the users, if they can, may replant them. They may, perhaps, stick them in the ground, but they will never make them grow.

BigLundi

14 years ago

thegreatnobody wrote...

Therein lies the problem, you're thinking material. Materially, no, we don't technically exist, as nothing that is 99% empty space CAN materially exist. It CAN,m however, socially exist on the sscale of communicating with others, affecting others, manipulating objects and the like. That's socially existing. Ghosts exist non-materially, but socially, because there are those who devote their lives to finding and communicating with ghosts, those who watch the shows dedicated to these beliefs, those who think that when their remote goes missing it's a ghost's fault. That's the way in which ghosts exist, through social means, not material. I'm not saying I don't exist. I'm saying I don't exist MATERIALLY. Socially I know I do, I have a family, friends, and I talk with you guys on the computer. That's different from materially existing.

Sprite

14 years ago

Deism- the religion in which God has created a world but has left it for itself.

Addonexus

14 years ago

fatman wrote...

The cat in the box is BOTH dead and alive. The reality of it doesn't collapse until observed.

You're my new best friend. :)
Not alot of people can quote Schrodinger

Sprite

14 years ago

God=doG, dogs are too cute to kill off.

Age

14 years ago

When I was very young I believed in God but nobody had told me who he was and I had never been to church if God was to disappear he would eventually just come back into peoples minds but probably more like an idea than a belief.

I had an idea with the whole theory of infinite universes that some where the god people believe in will probaly be some where and since God is ment to be omnipresent he then would possibly be in every universes.

Vladimir Putin

14 years ago

One of the most important verses regarding science is in Leviticus, the book those zany liberals bash for showing the wrathful nature of God. Well, Leviticus 17:11 seems to tell us that "For the life of the flesh is in THE BLOOD." So what about that? Hey... don't you remember how people used to BLEED people to cure them of their diseases? George Washington was bled to death trying to get his disease out... if only they had known that LIFE was in THE BLOOD and had READ EVERYTHING... Washington may have held on a bit longer. Interesting, no? It's very truthful. And it took these geniuses of scientists to figure it all out. "Oh... oxygen respiration takes place here... oops. Heh heh."

Can you at least count that as some proof for God?

Those are stories by the way. If God was believed to be able to create man, the universe, do ANYTHING, then why would giving animals the ability to have human wisdom be so unbelievable? Is it simply the sound of it? tsk tsk, if they're going to criticize how stupid something sounds, at least listen to what they have to say. It's always never thinking about anything and just running off blabbering things they didn't even bother going over.

I picked Christianity, knowing it was the one that had most positivity (if you're going to mention something regarding the crusades, catholic related things, and negative things about God, feel free to mention) and logic in it. Sure it doesn't make sense here and there sometimes, but its cause people never really take the time to understand. A shame really, their imminent blindness, pride, and foolishness are gradually tearing apart our earth, while they lie to themselves thinking its not happening and just forgetting about it and living life as they please.

Ieryuuda

14 years ago

Well we should try to apply SchrÃ¶dinger's cat in this theory... Sees what happen.

Well in japan, you could kill kami, but we should not do this....

BigLundi

14 years ago

Vladimir Putin wrote...

I believe someone said earlier to you that quoting the bible meant nnothing. It has been altered, restated, re translated ,and refurbished so many times that it's about as plausible as your average fiction book. I'm sure at some point the bibe wass pretty realistic, but it' been changed over the years so many times that yes, it could very wel say ANYTHING regarding semi-modern sciences, mainly because it was translated yet again after those sciences were already created and founded. Christianity doesn't make the most sense as a fact. It's perfectly ok if you're a christian, but don't seriously tell me that I'm blind for not being one. I can argue any quote unquote "Verse" you pull out of your ass, trust me, as can half of Fakku. I'll let religion guide mymorals, while i let science guide my knowledge. Mmmkay? Because to me? THAT makes the most sense and has the most logic.

FappingFury

14 years ago

I'm sorry I know this post belongs in IB but I just have to say I find it so funny how one goes to a hentai forum to debate theories of existence. It's just awesome.

Vladimir Putin

14 years ago

Soul_Slayer wrote...

I'm not going to bother arguing with someone so close minded, but I'd just like to point out how funny this sounds when read aloud. Are you fucking serious?

StaticChange

14 years ago

Vladimir Putin wrote...

I'm not going to bother arguing with someone so close minded, but I'd just like to point out how funny this sounds when read aloud. Are you fucking serious?

Soul slayer may have acted with more arrogance than was fair, and I will agree that the style of writing is somewhat comical, but the content is still spot on. When placed in context, as a reply to your own equally comical post, I would say he truly only followed in the wake of the tone set by your first post.

There are a lot of good things about religion, but you embody everything that is wrong with it. One of the greatest pitfalls of religion are overzealous fanatics like yourself, who cannot be content to simply practice the tenants of their faith, and instead feel that they have to shove them down everyone else's throats. I enjoy a good theological debate, but it is obvious to me that your mind is much more closed than most people here, whatever you say to the contrary - and without an open mind, every so called 'debate' can only devolve into a shouting match.

BigLundi

14 years ago

Vladimir Putin wrote...

Soul_Slayer wrote...

I'm not going to bother arguing with someone so close minded, but I'd just like to point out how funny this sounds when read aloud. Are you fucking serious?

Explain how he was being close minded please, im missing something.

Post Reply

Pages 123