There'll never be closure on whether God exists

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 196
It's an open ended question and we will never truly know the answer. 
--> @Fallaneze
I whole heartedly disagree.

The Ultimate Reality by necessity exists. The position that there is no ultimate reality has no ground to stand on.

--> @Mopac
If there's a God it's not the Ultimate Reality but the first layer of the simulated reality. Think about it. The Ultimate Reality is layer 0, it can't have any consistent personality.
--> @RationalMadman
God is clothed in power and majesty.

Clothed.


The Ultimate Reality is God. Personality is as the power and majesty that God is clothed in.





The ultimate reality isn't God without a mask, it's literally nothingness that is randomly altering what is an what isn't real at any given time.

The reason why, say, your lamp doesn't suddenly become a purple light at random and then change into a red one is because at some point in the random generation of 'is' and 'isn't', Fate (AKA Ultimate Reality) generated a personality and granted it the power to alter Fate and begin organising and strategising the rest of what is and isn't real. This is how the simulation has logic to what otherwise would be total chaos.
--> @RationalMadman
The Ultimate Reality is exactly what it is.

And God is not anything less than that.

--> @Fallaneze
It's an open ended question and we will never truly know the answer. 
It's a very simple ontological choice.

Define "exist".

Define "god".

Check for logical compatibility.

Spinoza already proved god exists all the way back in 1665.
Define "exist". Define "god".
1} metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts exists, --check your typing concepts onto you keyboard and dictionary confirmation of their existence,

------conceptual line-of-demarcation--------------------

2} macro-infinite non-occupied space exists outside of our finite, occupied space is a minimal brainer for those who follow rational, logical common sense,

3} occupied space  exists as fermions, bosons, gravity (  ) and dark energy )( ---and perhaps a new hybrid 3rd catagory---- and any collection thereof.

Few choose to follow rational, logical common sense to its extremes because most are trapped  by their precondition educations irrepective of religious or secular, parents or personal experience.

'my education has been the biggest impediment to my learning'...A Einstein
--> @Fallaneze
It's an open ended question and we will never truly know the answer.

Are you speaking from an individual stand point or a collective one?

It's an open ended question and we will never truly know the answer.
"open ended} = infinite and there exists only two kinds of infinite this or that.

1} macro-infinite non-occupied space that embraces/surrounds our finite occupied space Universe, and,

2} conceptual infinite ex there exist infinite set of numbers.

We deduce truth from other truths.  We only observe a finite occupied space Universe.

Finite = integrity --systemic and structural integrity ergo naught { occupied space } can be created nor destroyed and only existent in eternal transformable configurations { shapes/patterns } recyclable { closure } existencte

Infinite = lack of integrity i.e. no closure.

Yet people assume he exists. That isn't the problem it is using that assumption to use books to dictate things to people. 

An atheist can't dictate a supposed not-natural begins commandments when they don't believe in it. 
--> @TheRealNihilist
Yet people assume he exists.
And "he" stems from patriarchal religious base.

If people want to follow a rational, logical common sense pathway of thought they need look no further than the 5{phi}-fold icosa{20}hedron to grasp how 5{ phi } contains 4 { VE }, 3{ structure }, 2 { four kinds of unity } and 1 { " U "niverse }

See LINK to understand how geometrically the 5-fold contains 4-fold and this also applys to any linear numerical system 

And the 4-fold cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron  ---7 opening axi--  aka the Vector Equlibrium { VE } is representative of zero and .."the closet we will ever come to knowing God"...Bucky Fuller

The 4-fold VE is based 12-around-one{ -in the oven } ergo the VE is pregnant with the 13th spherical in its womb.

If the 13th one-in-the-oven is born outward   ---as ex electron tunneling--- the VE via is jitterbugging transformable abilities --due to its square openings---  contracts to a quasi-5{phi}-fold icosahedral configuration. LINK

4-fold VE is representative of Female that is pregnant ergo matriarchal systems not patriarchal and representative of stability of structural fermionic matter of Universe.

5-fold icosahedron is representative of the stability of  female { Xx }structural as bosonic forces of Universe.

The 5-{fold} pentagonal dodeca-hedron that  is representative of the less stable male { Xy } because it has not triangulation.

In conceptual equality we have three X chromosome for every y chromosomes in Universe

A black hole may consist of both 5-fold ergo contains 4-fold, 3-fold 2-fold and 1-fold. LINK and this is just the primary set. We can take the number of new axi produced to get another higher set and the set of spinable axis only increases if not an exponential increase.

However, Archmedes discovered that the the four internal hexagonal areas of a spherical cubo-octahedron is equal to the outer convex surface area of that same cubo-octahedron and this is abstraction that approximates the mathematics of Jacob Bekenstiens black hole and holographic mathematics ---later confirmed by S Hawking---. See LINK to see how a 3-fold tetrahedron when brought to zero volume, ---as it maintains{ not lost } its four surface planes---   a VE is defined with 12 extending triangles { EMRadiation from a black hole??? }

Black holes evaporate and again, naught { occupied space } is naught lost.


--> @TheRealNihilist
Belief in God does not imply belief in books.

Belief that God exists is belief that there is Ultimate Reality.


That is all.

--> @Mopac
Belief in God does not imply belief in books.
Never said that. 
Belief that God exists is belief that there is Ultimate Reality.
Belief in God is a rejection of ultimate reality. When you look at the Bible as your word from God you reject a better measurement of ultimate reality as in science instead opt for a lesser much worse measurement also known as the Bible. 

--> @3RU7AL
Digging up a 17th century Philosopher and attempting to confound with definition and gobbledygook, doesn't prove a sausage.

And I agree with the notion that ultimate reality is 0. If a God existed it would have been 1.

We are still as reliant as we ever were, upon magic for the ultimate answer to the ultimate question.

There will
And the 4-fold cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron  ---7 opening axi--  aka the Vector Equlibrium { VE } is representative of zero and .."the closet we will ever come to knowing God"...Bucky Fuller
To clarify on why God is closet we will ever come to knowing God, is because of the equanitmity --perfect balance---  between two primary forces of Universe;

1} OUTward distintgrations forces ex EMRadiation and dark energy )(,
......24 radii of VE{ 12-around-1 sphericals cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron..........

2} INward integration forces ex magnetism and gravity ( )
.......24 chords of VE { 12-around-1 sphericals of the cubo-octahedron........

When the VE is constructed four hexagons ---spherical or Euclidean---   we find 24 radii anad 24 chords are involved.



--> @zedvictor4
Digging up a 17th century Philosopher and attempting to confound with definition and gobbledygook, doesn't prove a sausage.
Feel free to re-invent the wheel if you wish.  This issue has been settled for quite some time.

(IFF) a hypothetical god "exists" (THEN) everything that "exists" must be parts of god.

It's a purely ontological choice.  You can't define a god into existence without making everything that exists into god.

The problem here is that "does god exist" is actually a magnificent RED HERRING.

The questions that are obfuscated here are, "is the YHWH (or any other theistic "being") logically coherent" and "is there any compelling evidence that supports the belief in any one of the thousands of historical theistic "beings" over all the others?" and the answers would appear to be a resounding "no" to both.

Spinoza's god is de facto Monism, which is functionally identical to Atheism.
--> @TheRealNihilist
You are talking about books again.

The word "God" with a capital "G" means "Ultimate Reality". So you are wrong to say that accepting God is to reject Ultimate Reality.

And you don't understand my religion. If I explained it to you, you would call me a liar because you prefer to believe what you think you already know.


--> @Mopac
You are talking about books again.
Where do you get "God's word" again?
The word "God" with a capital "G" means "Ultimate Reality". So you are wrong to say that accepting God is to reject Ultimate Reality.
No they are not linked. You are making this up. Don't appeal to the dictionairy definition and whatever this is not correct. Do you have acutal evidence or is it muh self-evident muh I making stuff up that I think is right muh because my book said so.
And you don't understand my religion. If I explained it to you, you would call me a liar because you prefer to believe what you think you already know.
Your problem is that you fail to grasp an actual criticism for your Religion instead you see it for lack of a better term blasphemy. I am simply stating obvious special pleading where you use self-evident and a rejection of evidence for God but not for lets say you have fingernails. You can see your fingernails whereas you can't see God. You can prove the existence of your fingernails but you can't prove the existence of your God. 

--> @TheRealNihilist
You want me to prove something when you refuse to accept what it is being proven. This is not rational.

Also, you presume to understand my faith when you are very much in the dark about it. This is not reasonable.


You want me to prove something when you refuse to accept what it is being proven. This is not rational.
The rational thing to do is use the best measurement we have to find observable evidence. You are irrational to favor the Bible over science. Simple.
Also, you presume to understand my faith when you are very much in the dark about it. This is not reasonable.
Yes I do. I understand the problems that you can't even comprehend given how close-minded you are. 

--> @TheRealNihilist
You are creating this false dichotomy of the bible and science. You are accusing me of being closed minded simply because you refuse to accept what I believe as valid and it frustrates you.

You don't understand my faith, but you are not really open to understanding it because you have already dismissed it.


--> @Mopac
You are creating this false dichotomy of the bible and science. You are accusing me of being closed minded simply because you refuse to accept what I believe as valid and it frustrates you.
Someone who can't comprehend they can be wrong is trying to use a fallacy but ultimately failing?
Science is a better measurement than the Bible yet you can't comprehend it.
Your failure to understand this due to your close-minded nature and other things are the problem.
You don't understand my faith, but you are not really open to understanding it because you have already dismissed it.
You don't understand science, but you are not really open to understanding it because you have already dismissed it. 

--> @TheRealNihilist
You don't know what we believe, which is why you are pointing to the bible as if we took it as a scientific manual to begin with.


You sre simply assuming what we believe, and you do not really know. If I told you, you wouldn't believe me, because it doesn't conform to your current understanding.


My religion is not anti-science. I have always loved science. Even before I ever became a Christian. You are making a false dichotomy.