I believe that “God” does “, “, “, “, “ and none of this sentence.

[futrethink]

---First off, I want to explain that due to what I believe, I am not a theist, gnostic an agnostic or an atheist, in the definitions found in dictionaries. This is, because of the complete sentence that describes the entirety of my belief, which I will place below.

---Secondly, even though I know I am going to get arguments about the definition about what “God”, I would really wish that posters, on this thread, do not be so petty as to try and clog up the discussion as to what IT is. One reason for that, is that even though I know you want a solid and concrete something to be grab ahold of, to define it as other than a singularity capable of doing anything (with one exception; it can’t create the concept described by the word and any synonyms, “nothing”) and being anything it wants, at any time with nothing to stop it, is in my way of thinking simply putting a limit/mindtrap on your own thinking and mental capabilities.
---Another reason is that it is a waste of time and energy, which has seemingly been done to death on every thread that I have scanned through on this site and others. To me, beating a dead horse, simply to try and get someone else disgusted enough to give up their side of a debate is that; beating a dead horse. Don’t waste my time and yours.

---Thirdly, I have not the studious background which the majority of the posters, on the threads I have seen, seem to have, but while I ask you to follow the K.I.S.S principle, don’t take it to mean that I am an idiot. It merely means that I do not know the terms you are using, in the contexts you understand and might or probably understand the concept you are describing, but in a different perception.

---And finally, I hope you will have patience with me for the time it might take to answer your posts. I have no computer of my own at home and have ended up using library and internet café computers, to do my due diligence in answering opposing thoughts and posts. This limits my time and while my typing speed has picked up, I have only so much time allowed on the library computers and only so much for the internet café ones. As another time lengthening factor, I always must take time to thoroughly read and self-honestly think about your answers, because you will bring up points that I need to think about and with honest, think about.

---On to my hypothesis:
---I believe that God exists, doesn’t exist, is both at the same time, is neither of them, is all of the previous and none of this sentence.

---God has existed, does exist and will exist, because of, at the base level, the two scientific concepts of evolution and entropy (think about it; what are both concepts working towards?). Include in that, entanglement for thought in connection with a few other proven objective concepts, including belief (every individual exists with belief) and you get a “god.”

---‘God doesn’t exist’ for the reason that the consciousness of such a being, at the final level of perception, is gone. It sacrificed itself (sort of {a greater explanation will have to follow later}), so it could come into being. Due to that sacrifice and acceptance for itself and others, as it showed happens by sacrificing someone important, it allowed others to have the possibility and a foundation for to live a better life of their own choice. It in essence, died and caused all existence to stop being for a short period of time, based upon a belief.
---The reasoning behind this is that complete stability, an immovable rock if you will, is needed for an action and reaction to occur or for that matter, to have anything happen or start. Taking that into account, if you are the only thing within all of existence and it is constantly in flux, wouldn’t you think about how to create such a stability that would not count upon you constantly monitoring it; what something, in what state of being could be created that would forever exist outside of any individual’s control or possible ability to change?
---As has been shown time and time again, a sacrifice of something, albeit time, energy, thought, matter or anything relating to any entity’s life, is the only way for a change to come about. Please think carefully about this statement, in this paragraph, before arguing against it. Another way of looking at the concept I describe by the word “sacrifice” is “effort.”
---That change is for a seemingly subjective reality to become based upon an objective one. Hence, a sacrifice or an effort is made by the single individual capable of it.

---‘It is both’, because as of a proven state of existence you have probably found yourself in a few times: a sleep so deep, that when you awaken from it, you aren’t even sure that any time has passed, until you look at the world around you and notice what has happened in objective reality. From that, you have to think about it; to yourself and your own perception, do you exist or don’t exist when you are in such a state and what proof exists to you for either way, within your own internal perceptions, when you are in such a state? For you to awaken from such a state requires an external (from the consciousness) need, be it your body or some other part of reality, doesn’t it?
---If God consciousness is everything (and I have logic behind this, as well) and it were to enter a state, what external need would cause it to awaken from such a state of existence and non-existence? It would be ‘alive’ (in some obscure form), but ‘dead’ (in some obscure form) also, just like you are, wouldn’t it?

---‘It is neither’, because the state of existence is one concretely understood form, simply by it being “here” or “there” and the state of non-existence is a concretely understood form, simply by it being “not here” and “Not anywhere at all.” So, if it is not entirely one concrete way or the other concrete way, it is neither, correct?

---‘All of the previous’ is simple enough. All those things are happening at the same time and the only thing that changes is the way an individual looks at them.

---‘None of this sentence’ should be obvious as well. I am using words to describe something and to an individual, who isn’t attempting to describe anything to any other individual or itself, the entire sentence is completely unnecessary and the words don’t mean a thing. To put it as a seeming play on words, “IT simply is.”

---Let the fun begin...

[Unreal Zelta]

Such argument has been endeavored by many scholars in the past. It is simply a centrist argument which poses a series of convoluted questions and claims that are counter-productive.

You have taken most of the for and against arguments for the existence of god and combined them.

I would really wish that posters, on this thread, do not be so petty as to try and clog up the discussion as to what IT is.

Don’t waste my time and yours.

Without setting the foreground on an inquiry makes it more time consuming.

regards

Zelta

[austintorn@aol.com]

Would the core be that God, ever being, is a system of mind, who, person like, planned and created the cosmos, in whatever way, human mammals being a part or all of the intent?

This would be different, say, than something like the quantum realm being a 'dumb', uncaused source of all.

[futrethink]

---Unreal Zelta.

It is simply a centrist argument which poses a series of convoluted questions and claims that are counter-productive.

---The answers aren’t as twisted together as you might think and counter-productive to what? Finding the TOE? That’s not complicated either and while that might sound arrogant, I have an answer, but am searching for a way to prove it wrong, because of what it entails in its entirety. So far, with full self-honesty/objectivity, no luck.
---Again, that sounds arrogant, but no.

You have taken most of the for and against arguments for the existence of god and combined them.

---And? Your point?
---Haven’t you ever heard of times that everyone can be right in an argument, without knowing it?

Without setting the foreground on an inquiry makes it more time consuming.

---Fine. Begin your points, since you want to lock IT into an understandable and limited box. You already have the synopsis of my opinion on what IT is.

[futrethink]

---austintorn@aol.com.

Would the core be that God, ever being, is a system of mind, who, person like, planned and created the cosmos, in whatever way, human mammals being a part or all of the intent?

---Are you asking about the final level, after ITs death/nonexistence or the perception/level just before that?
---At that just before level, human mammals are a part of ITs beliefs/hopes for the future and ITs past, but not ITs full intent and could be even completely unimportant, because ITs full intent is purely selfish; for ITs own existence.
---At one of the levels before that, human mammals are a part of ITs intent, yes and are even the most important thing.

This would be different, say, than something like the quantum realm being a 'dumb', uncaused source of all.

---This isn’t just a cause and effect, but an effect and cause, at the almost final level. Paradox.
---IT is the knowing/smart source of all, but IT also, at the exact same time, is the dead/dumb stable foundation/source that IT must stand on to be able to be the source/start.

[labelwench]

The world is the way it is, because we like it this way.
Otherwise, we would change it.

Who's "we" in this statement, that you use as signature?

What change? To unify, which attempts seemingly lead to division, or by diversity which allows for the "sameness" of individuality?

Labelwench

[Unreal Zelta]

Futrethink,

If you wish to create a unifield theory, then it is pointless to state each of your proposals separately. A unifield theory is one that fuses 2 or more schools of thought 'cohesively'. Combining and believing all the theories is simply a sign of laziness.

Fine. Begin your points, since you want to lock IT into an understandable and limited box. You already have the synopsis of my opinion on what IT is.

If somehting is incomprehensible and intangible, what value does it have? ornamental/aesthetic value? If so, then god should only be discussed at the level of perception, not at the level of existence.

Please don't try to make unconfined thinking exclusive to yourself; intellectual property rights does not cover modes of thinking.

regards

Zelta

[Unreal Zelta]

Who's "we" in this statement, that you use as signature?

What change? To unify, which attempts seemingly lead to division, or by diversity which allows for the "sameness" of individuality?

Labelwench

Just a note on the signature as well;

Is the world static and resistant to change? Are we not changing our worlds? Are we happy with our worlds?

regards

Zelta

[futrethink]

---labelwench.

Who's "we" in this statement, that you use as signature?

---Simply put, it is every individual within existence, which has an existence that involves making choices.

What change? To unify, which attempts seemingly lead to division, or by diversity which allows for the "sameness" of individuality?

---Do you mean the division to come of what exists and doesn’t exist or the diversification which creates the situation of; since everything is ‘different’, there is nothing unusual?
---I am not trying to rewrite what you are saying, but attempting to place your wording in a compromising manner to allow me to comprehend your offered concept.
---Don’t forget the old saying; the more things change, the more they stay the same.

---Here is a link to the last discussion I had upon my hypothesis of reality/the world of existence, in a generalized manner, which I tried to keep at the level of this planet only: http://canadianskepticsforum.yuku.co...-this-way.html
---Since then, I have only offered pieces of it in discussions and kept it as my signature and if you wouldn’t mind, labelwench, could you keep the concept described by my signature out of this discussion, as that slightly diverges from the fun part/reason of this discussion?

[futrethink]

---Unreal Zelta.

If you wish to create a unifield theory, then it is pointless to state each of your proposals separately.

---I am not trying to create a unified theory, I already have it worked out. As for trying to state each of my synergistic proposals separately and that being pointless, do me a favour and try to completely describe a rainbow to others, without showing something about each of the colours?

If somehting is incomprehensible and intangible, what value does it have? ornamental/aesthetic value?

---How about a Higgs Boson? That was considered intangible wasn’t it and until recently, was pretty well incomprehensible, right? What value does it have?

If so, then god should only be discussed at the level of perception, not at the level of existence.

---Why? Because of it being intangible and incomprehensible?
---Within half of the levels of perception/existence it is tangible and comprehensible. The other half has no perception/idea/comprehension of it at all. It would have to be that way, because you can’t know what something is, unless you know what it isn’t.
---Also, If you perceive something or a point of “nothing”, it does have an existence and from that, it creates an effect upon the reality it exists in, and anything that is the cause of an ‘effect’, has an existence, right? Even if it doesn’t exist.

Please don't try to make unconfined thinking exclusive to yourself; intellectual property rights does not cover modes of thinking.

---So why did you post, “Without setting the foreground on an inquiry makes it more time consuming.” ?
---Since I asked people not to bother putting limits/a confinement on what IT is and try to get past that, why do you need such a foreground?

Is the world static and resistant to change? Are we not changing our worlds? Are we happy with our worlds?

---Yes and no. It depends on what level of existence you perceive and the way you are describing things.
---For instance, are you changing what happened in your life from 3 seconds ago or the future state of what one of the electrons, which exists in your mind at the point of perceiving the period at the end of this sentence, actually was, is and will be? Have you changed the life of the child, which will starve in 3 seconds from the point of finishing this sentence?
---Are you happy with cancer existing in the world or the idea that your computer will acquire a virus, if you don’t take time, every time, to check incoming information? No, I am guessing that you are not, but you haven’t created the cure and given it to the world or created a completely unbreakable antivirus, which can catch every hacker and every idea that they come up with, right? So, you ‘like’ the idea of people dying and your computer crashing, while time is taken to create these things.
---Let me show you another scenario from a TV show, which follows the same idea; a psychotic killer gives you the option of killing a loved one or of them killing you.
---The option you take is the future world you will be ‘happy’ with.
---It doesn't mean that you wouldn't change those things at a future now, at some time, but that it exists now as you like it.

---If you wouldn’t mind, Unreal Zelta, could you keep the concept described by my signature out of this discussion, as that slightly diverges from the fun part/reason of this discussion?