Is it possible to prove the non-existence of God?

[melanie]

'' I felt exceedingly small, but also exceedingly large, and the things that had once seemed so important now appeared trifling.
Actually, those things had never even existed. I’d imagined every last one of them.
Nothing ever really existed. Somehow, just then, navigating that cosmic ocean of sky, this was everything I needed to know ''


-unconditional allowing this moment to be as it is-

[austintorn@aol.com]

Indian summer has ended in the north; there are no leaves; there is no sky; there is no snow; there is no more warmth; that’s why they call it NOvember.

There are but a few embers left now and next month in DE[c]embers of the year when more fires burn. Then we Remember 2008 before Brand-New-Airy 2009, when Feb buries us in snow until we March with a spring in our step toward the lovely maidens of April, May, and June…

For now, indoor fires and pursuits call until ski season and the visiting and celebrating of the Saturnalian festivals begin.

The moments are ever as they are and will be.

[leskey]

Hi, Austin.

What would it be that IS?

Existence?

A Maker?

What is it that IS?

(No definition; no substance to IS.)

(Assumption false, for I do not know.)

It IS pretty simple:

is : form of be

be (EXIST) : verb [I] : to exist or live

You are correct: it IS what the individual chooses to know, or not know, in order to be the creator of his/her own individual experience. You can't deny that our point of view about all that we encounter is not unique and just IS what it IS.

Until science can read/record what we're actually thinking from the brain's electrical impulses, it remains unquantifiable.

[melanie]

A better Trilemna is that

1) Things could not have been around forever since then they would have been unlimited, plus being something that never could have been completed [since it had no beginning; completion is there.].

2) No thing can become of ‘nothing’.

3) ‘Nothing’ could not be, so there had to be something, and, obviously, ‘nothing’ did not prevail, for there is something.

So, what is the inescapable derivation from these?

Just THIS now. (unavoidably) (there's no escape hatch)

So watcha gonna do ? ......Or is there an escape hatch ??

[dleviwing]

Hi Dl...sorry to tell you I have no girdle and I fail to see what my gender has to do with what we are discussing.

Are you suggesting that scholars have no legitimacy if they are not recognized by science??

Ingo Swann presented the study I posted, to the United Nations in 1996. Mr. Gardner later consulted with his study, then took it to a study of quamtum theory, then met with scientist, Dr. Gebbie at the National Institute of Standards and Technology Laboratories in the United States, then conversed with physicists, neuroscientists and anthropologists across the globe. This was not a quick study but a study much labored through which he fully documented in his recent books.

And I as again; where is the peer review of those presentations? These people were given the usual polite thank you and then simple ignored into scientific oblivion as all worthless studies are.

Sorry Beverly but you are ignoring facts and attempting to win a debate with conjecture and hearsay. If their studies held any merit, even real scientist would acknowledge them.

I know a nurse that spent over twenty years working with neurological surgeons and she wrote a book on these experiences. I still would not call her a brain surgeon nor would I trust her to remove a tumor from someone’s brain. Would you? Don’t give people tiles they have not earned. It’s just that simple.

[ggullet]

A dictionary is merely a book of words describing each other, such is the discussion of existence. Logos, our true motivation for survival.

[austintorn@aol.com]

it IS what the individual chooses to know, or not know

Not true, Leskey. There is no "known" to choose for or against. All is not known. That's why humans make things up! (as even you admit.)

Again, you cannot claim to know the origin of the universe, and why, how, who, what, etc.

It is only known that we are, and everyone knows that they are, as in being… from "to be". Very few state that they are not.

Does the entire universe serve the pride of some higher mammals just recently appearing on the scene?

So our one flower could blossom for a moment?

Leskey, where is thy humility?

[Profpat]

A better Trilemna is that

1) Things could not have been around forever since then they would have been unlimited, plus being something that never could have been completed [since it had no beginning; completion is there.].Why can't thing(s) be around forever. If not where did those things come from NOTHING

2) No thing can become of ‘nothing’.OK

3) ‘Nothing’ could not be, so there had to be something, and, obviously, ‘nothing’ did not prevail, for there is something.OK, but I still still believe in the VOID, the great nothing.

So, what is the inescapable derivation from these?

I don't know, what is it.

[leskey]

A dictionary is merely a book of words describing each other, such is the discussion of existence. Logos, our true motivation for survival.

Hi, gg.

This is my understanding of Logos - from Wiki:

Heraclitus

This LOGOS holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they forget what they do while asleep. (Diels-Kranz 22B1)

For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the LOGOS is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding. (Diels-Kranz 22B2)

Listening not to me but to the LOGOS it is wise to agree that all things are one. (Diels-Kranz 22B50)[7]

[Mikal]

And I as again; where is the peer review of those presentations? These people were given the usual polite thank you and then simple ignored into scientific oblivion as all worthless studies are.

Sorry Beverly but you are ignoring facts and attempting to win a debate with conjecture and hearsay. If their studies held any merit, even real scientist would acknowledge them.

I know a nurse that spent over twenty years working with neurological surgeons and she wrote a book on these experiences. I still would not call her a brain surgeon nor would I trust her to remove a tumor from someone’s brain. Would you? Don’t give people tiles they have not earned. It’s just that simple.

Good job for scholars like Gardner that your not passing out accolades..you must think science is the only valid discipline to study...alot of people would have news for you there....


Mikal