Why do you believe in God?

Author: TheAtheist

Posts

Total: 393
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,329
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
@disgusted
Reality and Imagination.
Sleep walker states " I dreamed I was walking in my sleep".


Supernatural become natural as it becomes more common to more people ex general store led to super-stores.

Novas lead to super-novas.  Conceptual imaginary black holes led to discovery of black holes or at least three distinct types.

Local gods and concept of God led to more wholistically comprehensive sets we label as God/Uni-V-erse.

Humans access to metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts and ego { }  ergo complexity can be considered to be supernatural in respect to most other biological life.

Natural = simple and common

Super-natural = most complex and not common.

Uni-V-erse ergo God is the most complex set.

"U" ni-V-erse ergo "G" is even more complex set because it is inclusive of the macro-infinite non-occupied space that embraces our finite Universe/God.  123, ABC thats how easy universe can be.

Aka the Cosmic Trinity and its subset of trinities.

Observed reality { /\/\/\/ } ergo Observed Time { /\/\/\/ } is based on triangulation 0, 3, 6, 12,15, 18 etc is rather simple for those who tend toward follow rational, logical common sense pathways of thought.

...Space( > * < )   ( > * < )Space......

Gravity = (  ) positive shaped geodesic Space

Dark Energy = )(  negative shaped geodesic Space

/\/\/\/ = resultant of inversions from geodesics of gravity and dark energy

Significance of numerical 4.  Archimedes was first to discover that the area of internal, four circular hexagons that define a spherical cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron, are equal to the outer surface area of the same spherical cubo-octahedron and this is similar to black holes in that what exists inside a black holes is expressed on its even horizon surface.  This was first discoverd by Jacob bekenstien.

surface area of sphere = 4 * Pi * r^2

volume of a sphere = 4 / 3 * Pi * r^3

Surface Area = 4 × Pi^2 × Radius × radius LINK

Volume of torus = volume of cylinder = (cross-section area)(length)


..."This is hardly a rigorous proof, but I am hoping that it conveys a qualitativeunderstanding. The notion of cutting objects into thin, measurable slicesis essentially what integral calculus does. Archimedes was practicing thismethod about 1900 years before the era of Leibnitz and Newton."...

Line 1} .....1..........5....7.............11......13............Gravity outer surface of torus all primes except  2 and 3 and non-prime odds


Line 2}..0.................6.....................12..................Observed Time/Reality...triangulated no primes
Line 3}............3................9..........................15....Observed TIme/Reality...triangulated and one prime


Line 4}.........2....4...........8....10..................14........Dark Energy inner surface of torus is all evens and one prime


These four lines exist as four semi-great circles of a specifically defined numerical, helical torus with inversion-outversions{ >< }






keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
I'm the one stating that these parts are apart of the elephant,
Big 'ed.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
most atheists who have a near death experience come back believing in a deistic god. that should count for something. 
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
If you have seen a mumuration of starlings - live or on youtube - you'll know it is one of the most beautiul things in nature.

It would be very easy to imagine the kaleidoscope of flowing shapes is the work of some over-arching choreographer and get very 'spiritual' about it.  To someone of a less fanciful  frame of mind - like me! - it's beautiful and awe inspiring.  I could watch them for hours! But I know there isn't a grand choreographer - all that beauty of movement comes from each bird obeying a simple rule.   That allows us to do simulations that are remarkably life like.
I think the 'anti-materialist camp' don't get that materialism doesn't preclude appreciation of the 'soft' stuff.   I don't the EV finds murmuations more beautiful or 'spiritual' than I do - the difference is I don't have a false notion of the origin of that beauty.  That those pattern derive from the operartion of simple rules is a lesson in how wonderful the world is without god.

How facile and uninteresting it is to imagine that there is a choreographer in the sky!

Ofcourse I am using mumuration only as a familiar eample.  The principle is applies all through - materialism is not the enemy of spiriuality - it is only the enemy of nonsense.
 







3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Ofcourse I am using mumuration only as a familiar eample.  The principle is applies all through - materialism is not the enemy of spiriuality - it is only the enemy of nonsense.
We are star-stuff?
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,013
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
We are star-stuff?

What I don't understand is how understanding that this is the fact somehow makes life LESS meaningful or mysterious or beautiful. I have teared up so many times explaining this to my kids.
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@TheAtheist
I believe in "god" bc i believe (suspect more than not) i will never die or more specifically, become non-existent. Therefore i've come to a tentative conclusion that i'm a duality between a finite entity (mortality) and an infinite entity (god - yeah i believe i am "a" god). Which platform(s) allow for this? Depending on how you define them... simulation, oneness, source, infinite consciousness, panpsychism, etc... i don't really care about the platform though bc it truly doesn't matter.     
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
We are star-stuff?
Apart from the hydrogen atoms!    The scientific account of creation is a far, far more wonderful story than any theogian invented - and much nearer the truth.

EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@keithprosser
Apart from the hydrogen atoms!    The scientific account of creation is a far, far more wonderful story than any theogian invented - and much nearer the truth.
They are one and the same, did you forget about that process I told you about already? oh never mind you ignore anything outside materialism. Creation myths and stories just attempt to reflect that there's a Creator involved, the process (of creating or evolving) is what we observe through science. 

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,408
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Yep.
Exactly the same data but a marginally different outcome. 

Call it  choices of ontological terminology if you will, but all that does is add a couple of longer words to the mix. 


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,408
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
Real or not, aren't Gods merely acquired and stored data?
So therefore theism and atheism are merely individual outputs derived from the same or similar data. As such atheism and theism actually occur as concepts in all databases. The only difference would be how the individual chooses to conclude and then output their conclusion. Eg. I am an atheist or I am a theist. The only real difference in this instance would be the inclusion of the letter A.

After all, a worldview is just an individual conclusion derived from the same or similar acquired and stored data. So primarily the only real difference in worldview all boils down to an extra A.

Of course, once a conclusion has been reached we can then go on and contrive appropriate accompanying rhetoric relative to a conclusion or worldview. Which once again though, is nothing more than a variation in data processing and output.

Though we might think to the contrary, the acquisition of narrative and sensory data is all internally brain activated and brain held and so is there ever any real external connection made between ourselves and the greater environment? Our worldview is only a contrivance of stored data and therefore only assumption of an external reality.

I think therefore I assume that I probably am. Maybe.

I also make loads of other assumptions. Which come and go and vary accordingly.


RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 568
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheAtheist
The problem is that God, as I discovered her to be, relishes immensely in the idea that only the smartest and most courageous of us will truly find her and devote ourselves to her. She loves the idea that the unworthy stay unworthy. These 'unworthy' are the plethora of individuals who believe in false deities or in no god at all, who can't think deep enough to realise their version of reality is logically inconsistent as it explains next to nothing.

You may ask then, did I simply 'solve my god'? No. There is also the 'experience' element for sure. I am in contact with alien demigods and it is not mental illness, I have tested it objectively and they are genuinely real but only show themselves to the worthy via patterns, messages etc. 

The journey is not one of a schizophrenic. You do not snowball more paranoia and fear of others the further you go down, you actually open up far more to others and comprehend their inferior ways of thinking and feeling. I know for certain I have the right religion because I see exactly what leads others to theirs and the errors they make in failing to disbelieve it. I have made no error in my journey, that is the beauty of it.

I am crazy to all who don't realise what I realise but it is so blatant if you would meet me IRL or just get to truly have a deep chat with me online that while I'm a cunning bastard with some deep seeded anger, I'm not really insane beyond that whatsoever. In fact, I am one of the most intelligent and unique-thinking humans to ever have existed. This isn't about me being proud of my superiority, this is about what led me to my God, as the question of the thread demands me to state.

What led me to my God were a series of secret messages, clues and absolute logical consistency in the reality I believe in (which I have never ever found in any other religion or in an atheist's reality at all).

I am not the prophet of my religion. It is essential to understand that my religion specifically prohibits me from dumbing it down for the simpletons to grasp, it is indeed a sin to do so. Only the worthy will meet her, only the worthy gain her and her alien demigods' respect and love. She is a brutal, sadistic being who will make you suffer at first for believing in her and it's very possible Wylted has/had met her in one of her many forms. I will simply say that my religion goes by the following ethos:

'be wise, but not so wise that you cower out of all risk.'
If you understand this statement in its entirety, you will begin your journey to my God(dess), that I guarantee. 
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,029
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Meth, it's a hell of a drug.....
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
So is alcohol. Quit drinking so early in the morning. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
The problem is that God, as I discovered her to be, relishes immensely in the idea that only the smartest and most courageous of us will truly find her and devote ourselves to her. She loves the idea that the unworthy stay unworthy. These 'unworthy' are the plethora of individuals who believe in false deities or in no god at all, who can't think deep enough to realise their version of reality is logically inconsistent as it explains next to nothing.You may ask then, did I simply 'solve my god'? No. There is also the 'experience' element for sure. I am in contact with alien demigods and it is not mental illness, I have tested it objectively and they are genuinely real but only show themselves to the worthy via patterns, messages etc. The journey is not one of a schizophrenic. You do not snowball more paranoia and fear of others the further you go down, you actually open up far more to others and comprehend their inferior ways of thinking and feeling. I know for certain I have the right religion because I see exactly what leads others to theirs and the errors they make in failing to disbelieve it. I have made no error in my journey, that is the beauty of it.I am crazy to all who don't realise what I realise but it is so blatant if you would meet me IRL or just get to truly have a deep chat with me online that while I'm a cunning bastard with some deep seeded anger, I'm not really insane beyond that whatsoever. In fact, I am one of the most intelligent and unique-thinking humans to ever have existed. This isn't about me being proud of my superiority, this is about what led me to my God, as the question of the thread demands me to state.What led me to my God were a series of secret messages, clues and absolute logical consistency in the reality I believe in (which I have never ever found in any other religion or in an atheist's reality at all).I am not the prophet of my religion. It is essential to understand that my religion specifically prohibits me from dumbing it down for the simpletons to grasp, it is indeed a sin to do so. Only the worthy will meet her, only the worthy gain her and her alien demigods' respect and love. She is a brutal, sadistic being who will make you suffer at first for believing in her and it's very possible Wylted has/had met her in one of her many forms. I will simply say that my religion goes by the following ethos:'be wise, but not so wise that you cower out of all risk.'If you understand this statement in its entirety, you will begin your journey to my God(dess), that I guarantee. 
So, you're essentially Gnostic?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 568
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Gnostic what, Theist? yeah
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Real or not, aren't Gods merely acquired and stored data?
So therefore theism and atheism are merely individual outputs derived from the same or similar data. As such atheism and theism actually occur as concepts in all databases. The only difference would be how the individual chooses to conclude and then output their conclusion. Eg. I am an atheist or I am a theist. The only real difference in this instance would be the inclusion of the letter A. 
The only real difference in this instance would be the inclusion of a THEOLOGY.

The question of "god(s) or no god(s)" is a magnificent red herring.

The key, pivotal, and salient factor here is THEOLOGICAL DOGMA.

GOT DOGMA?  Y/N
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Gnostic what, Theist? yeah
Do you subscribe to a DOGMATIC THEOLOGY?

Or do you rely more on a "direct experience of the divine" and or "personal revelation"?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 568
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe I am absolutely of the true ideology but I will not act violently due to this.

I am dogmatic in the sense I will never date or marry a Christian or Muslim as those 2 religions I have most issue with but I am peaceful overall and my religion teaches that. I aim to be very much like the copykitten in that scenario you brought up. I will only become nasty when someone is consistently and severely nasty to me, simple as that. 

If you didn't mean 'force' by 'dogmatic' then please specify what you mean.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
If you didn't mean 'force' by 'dogmatic' then please specify what you mean.
When I say "dogmatic" I'm asking if you unquestioningly follow RULES that have been handed to you by another person.

In contrast, it sounds like you don't "follow a book" but instead rely on your own intuition for "spiritual and or metaphysical guidance".

Self-guided, self-taught is the core of a Gnostic ideology (truth is individuated and custom tailored for each individual to find for themselves).

Authority-guided, book-taught is the core of a DOGMATIC THEOLOGY (a system or school of opinions concerning god(s) and religious questions) (there is only one truth, the same truth for everyone everywhere at all times).

You might like this, [LINK]
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm starting to suspect we agree more than we disagree.

Let me try this again.

The parts of the elephant the blind men can detect are real, factual, scientifically verifiable, Quanta.

The parts of the elephant the blind men can (not necessarily accurately) infer are abstract, imaginary, hypothetical, metaphysical, Qualia.

The parts of the elephant the blind men NEVER detect is noumenon.
This makes no sense. If there are parts the blind men can never detect, then they cannot posit the existence of the parts which they haven't identified, much less name them. The issue with extending the line of reasoning from the parable you cited is that the parable makes it clear that they received information from independent observers who presumably can see. Without the independent observation, then there's no informed reason to propose this:

The parts of the elephant the blind men can (not necessarily accurately) infer are abstract, imaginary, hypothetical, metaphysical, Qualia.
where "not necessarily accurate" must be omitted since there's no identifiable, independent information to which it can be related. Thus the difference between that which you consider Quanta and Qualia is (epistemologically) insubstantial at best.


But back to the point of contention.  There is a very important distinction between Reality and Imagination.
What is your reality without the abstract? How could you possibly control for that?





3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
What is your reality without the abstract? How could you possibly control for that?
Quantifiable reality is the individual pixels on your computer screen.

The sheer number of pixels and their brightness and their color and position are DATA (QUANTA) and emotionally meaningless.

Your brain deciphers and extracts identifiable (QUALIA) WORDS from a meaningless smattering of pixels.

Your brain projects MEANINGFULNESS (QUALIA) into those WORDS.  Like spraying paint onto a blank canvas. [LINK]

NOUMENON = UNKNOWN/UNKNOWABLE.

The problem with using the term "unknown" is that people still tend to conflate it with "nothingness" and or simply dismiss it as "unimportant" or "irrelevant".

The case for using the term NOUMENON is to emphasize that it is not "nothingness" and it is not only important, it is foundational.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 568
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
I genuinely loved that speech but some points if you truly are curious of my religion:
  1. He is wrong about the original argument for an Intelligent creator. The atheistic view that all is meaningless in the highest level of creation and power is absolutely true. This "fate" is without personality and is a random variable generator of what is vs is not at any given time (time is absolutely real). Fate randomly granted a conscious being at some time the 'is' of being able to alter fate and rig the variable generator. That random moment when this being (not necessarily the first at all but undeniably the most powerful ever) changed everything permanently. I call her Fiora, most call her God. She harnesses the meaningless authority that all reality sprung from and herself creates structure for her own pleasure and curiosity.
  2. God is not good and being Republican has nothing to do with denying reality is a monarchy. Reality undeniably is a monarchy if you believe in God.

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Quantifiable reality is the individual pixels on your computer screen.

The sheer number of pixels and their brightness and their color and position are DATA (QUANTA) and emotionally meaningless.

Your brain deciphers and extracts identifiable (QUALIA) WORDS from a meaningless smattering of pixels.

Your brain projects MEANINGFULNESS (QUALIA) into those WORDS.  Like spraying paint onto a blank canvas.

One's understanding of which is informed by abstract notions. How does one control for the information that isn't? Assume it exists?

NOUMENON = UNKNOWN/UNKNOWABLE.

The problem with using the term "unknown" is that people still tend to conflate it with "nothingness" and or simply dismiss it as "unimportant" or "irrelevant".
I'm not conflating "unknowable" with nothing; I'm conflating "unknowable" with "epistemological insignificance." The unknowable's being a limit is a matter of formal logic than epistemology: you can know only that which you can know; therefore the unknowable (can't be known) is a limit to the can be known.

The case for using the term NOUMENON is to emphasize that it is not "nothingness" and it is not only important, it is foundational.
There's a difference between stating that it can't be anything (nothingness) and that it doesn't matter (accepting the possibility that it's something, but it's not relevant to understanding the nature of one's knowledge and its advancement given that it's unknowable.)
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,013
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
Guys, can you please start calling each other names, like immediately? BEcause I'm not comfortable with the straight reasonable discussion you're having even though I think you disagree. There needs to be more personal attacks, how else will I decide which argument is better?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
I'm conflating "unknowable" with "epistemological insignificance."
...people still tend to conflate it with "nothingness" and or simply dismiss it as "unimportant" or "irrelevant".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
How does one control for the information that isn't? Assume it exists?
Please rephrase or expand this statement.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
...you can know only that which you can know; therefore the unknowable (can't be known) is a limit to the can be known. 
You've just described epistemological limits.  Which is the single most significant aspect of epistemology.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
...people still tend to conflate it with "nothingness" and or simply dismiss it as "unimportant" or "irrelevant".
It's possible that it's nothing, but it's insignificant because one can't know it.


Please rephrase or expand this statement.
How does one control for information that is not abstract?

You've just described epistemological limits.  Which is the single most significant aspect of epistemology.
Once again, it's a matter of formal logic; it's "p" and "not p"; not necessarily "p" and "q." Epistemology delineates all which is enclosed in set "p." Logically, this would create the negation of "p," but that can be expressed inversely or conversely creating sets "q" or "r." It's not the same as understanding that which we don't know (a known unknown which essentially are knowns); we can't know it, therefore we can't understand it (an unknown unknown which essentially are unknowables); hence, it's irrelevant.

disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Athias
You believe in gods because you've been indoctrinated in the false belief that when you die you won't be dead, how pathetic.