Does God really exist in any form?

[labelwench]

I have failed.

I remain unclear as to the manner of your 'failure', as your communication has been respectful to all.

When someone does not immediately glean our parameters of intent, it is no one's fault, that the intended outcome is other than expected or hoped for.

Though the act of communication may occasionally fail, the person making the attempt is not that which has failed.

A subtle distinction, yet an important one, as it affords us encouragement to continue with new and repeated efforts.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Refer to my previous responses from previous years.

Science is not a God; it doesn't know everything (yet), but it uses fact in lieu of wishes.

Loose talk appears to be the only defense possible (again).

The God I don't believe in is no God or Creator or Being or Consciousness or Brahman at all in any way, shape, or form; so it seems we are not the same.

I see no direct responses to the science of what I stated.

Lloyd ironically showed us a glimpse of what free religious nonsense going on here would be like, in the case of the dead God, Zeus.

Nice, but failing try about my scientific responses being out of order. That flies as about as well as a duck into a brick wall.

Are Robert's clear rules a problem? They have been referred to by him a number of times over the years.

[Meem]

People never use science as God Austino, men play God, and use science as God's power. Leading scientists are comparable to bishops in this view, St. Bohr.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Some people, being people, will always play God from any context, and then even go on to speak for the Guy.

They failed.

[Meem]

I never try to speak for God. I'm not even sure that's something God does, speaking. I only speak for myself, because it's the best thing I know with any degree of accuracy. Good try though.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Not you, Meem, for you can dam but not damn.


The Creep of Imaginary Truths

The “seems”, “could-be’s”, and “maybe”
Migrate to “is”, “must be”, and “should”.



Supply the proof and I will that refute,
Unless it is so that there is no proof, as usual,

But, if so, please supply the circumstantial,
But if there is none, I’ll take religious imagination.

(But one cannot go on to preach it on TQ)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Synthetic And The Real In The One__Wisdom of Love And Logic…

1st Philosophy__To mathematize the following, is to solve the simplex in the complex__and derive the Universal Truth of Everything…

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-toe-theory/5464-the-toe-the-logical-science-all-thought-possible-16.html#post133162

No wiser words ever spoken__and simply from the world's first major extremal modal logician__Socrates...

[Meem]

The Synthetic And The Real In The One__Wisdom of Love And Logic…

1st Philosophy__To mathematize the following, is to solve the simplex in the complex__and derive the Universal Truth of Everything…

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-toe-theory/5464-the-toe-the-logical-science-all-thought-possible-16.html#post133162

No wiser words ever spoken__and simply from the world's first major extremal modal logician__Socrates...

You know Llyod,

Sometimes you strike me as a man quick to give to his anger. Also, you confuse me, because in holding up a great, all the while at the same time, keeping him down a fool. For his logics were oriented on the good, and the possibilty ... not of many Gods ... save one ... "the good." You have stated "Absolutely_Not." I imagine you seeing yourself as a king in this refference, with Socrates on his hands and knees and a nice pillow adorned his back, and you step up onto his back to mount your horse. Oh high ... great king.

[Meem]

Not you, Meem, for you can dam but not damn.

The Creep of Imaginary Truths

The “seems”, “could-be’s”, and “maybe”
Migrate to “is”, “must be”, and “should”.

Supply the proof and I will that refute,
Unless it is so that there is no proof, as usual,

But, if so, please supply the circumstantial,
But if there is none, I’ll take religious imagination.

(But one cannot go on to preach it on TQ)

I find myself in the same position as you Austino, without any proof. But if I could offer just one of my personal thoughts realted to this subject area, I think there is a singal that is base-line and even if one doesn't really hear it, like I would you calling my name, it's there calling. I do not wish to be construed as preaching, and alas anyone can see clearly, it's just a thought. And as far religjons go, I think one needs no book, building, dress, or altar to connect with this "the good." For what would be there to help you without your book, building, robe, or sacrifice? I don't feel hardly comfortable around religous people, but the spiritual ones I do admire. The ones not quick to judge, anger, nor condem. And I would call you a spiritual person my friend. I hope you can tollerate that. I don't hold your lack of proof, or any dis against you. For you, I think somewhere, did think it possible but having gone mad -not off the deep end- trying to hammer it out. But like you, I suffer from an over active imagination, and I could be terribly wrong.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Perhaps it is wiser to fail Meem,
than to be the unfortunate target
of trolling and bullying?

Duly dealt with. That's all I can say. No nonsense this time around.

Utilize detachment learned from meditation when faced with contrary, scientific posts.