I don't see how you people can't believe in God [YOU RESPOND]

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
I don't see how you people can't believe in God [YOU RESPOND]

 

 From: lukestew5@aol.com

Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:17 AM

Subject: [Defend my God!] Why

Luke sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.rationalresponders.com/contact.

I don't see how you people can't believe in God. Don't say well look at all
the bad things that happen in this world. God gave us free will and Adam
and Eve chose to eat the fruit which introduced sin into the world. There
is scientific proof that we are all related by going back to one man and
one woman. Ok let's say we did evolve. The creatures had to be created
somehow. Let's say there was a big bang that created the universe and
everything in it. The energy to create that big bang came from somewhere.
A higher power. GOD. If you don't want to believe that's your thing, but
don't push your beliefs on other people. And by the way if there was no
heaven or hell then what would happen after we die. There is evidence all
around us that God exists. GOD BLESS.
 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Quote: From:


Quote:

From: lukestew5@aol.com

Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:17 AM

Subject: [Defend my God!] Why

Luke sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.rationalresponders.com/contact.

I don't see how you people can't believe in God.

It's remarkably easy actually.

 

Quote:
"Don't say well look at all
the bad things that happen in this world. God gave us free will and Adam
and Eve chose to eat the fruit which introduced sin into the world."

If we have free will,why are we still punished for not believing? Free will would be if you believe, fine. if you don't, also fine. "but god loves us!He gave us free will!" We never asked to be created, and to then punish eternally for something we had no hand in doesn't seem too fair

 

Quote:
"There
is scientific proof that we are all related by going back to one man and
one woman."

Where is it?

Quote:
"Ok let's say we did evolve. The creatures had to be created
somehow. Let's say there was a big bang that created the universe and
everything in it. The energy to create that big bang came from somewhere.
A higher power. GOD."

OMG you're completly right!!Everything needs a creator!Except that one thing that didn't..but god just exists! If god can just exist, why no the universe?

Quote:
"If you don't want to believe that's your thing, but
don't push your beliefs on other people. And by the way if there was no
heaven or hell then what would happen after we die."

I would say the same the theists.I don't want to hear your beliefs! Besides, have you ever seen atheists preaching door to door? After we die,we rot. pretty simple

Quote:
"There is evidence all
around us that God exists."

O RLY? What evidence exactly?Which god?

Quote:
GOD BLESS.

Thanks but no thanks

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Larty
Larty's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Ok let's say we did

Quote:

Ok let's say we did evolve. The creatures had to be created
somehow. Let's say there was a big bang that created the universe and
everything in it. The energy to create that big bang came from somewhere.
A higher power. GOD.

The very reason that argument is so fallacious was perfectly demonstrated by you! 

Quote:

And by the way if there was no
heaven or hell then what would happen after we die.

You don't think you know, do you? 

Quote:

There is evidence all
around us that God exists. GOD BLESS.

If you want to be naiive, you can look at the "beauty" and life of the universe, concluding that God created it all. But to do that, you must ignore all the struggle, suffering and death that living beings go through every day. The amount of death in nature far outweighs all life that exists on the earth.

Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
NOT WORTHY OF IT'S OWN

NOT WORTHY OF IT'S OWN THREAD.  ANOTHER [YOU RESPOND]

 

From: arun135@hotmail.com

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 1:43 AM
Subject: [Defend my God!] Jesus christ

JESUS IS LORD AND HOLISPIRIT IS POWERFUL that is why all these fools deny
the lordship of Christ and power of the Holy Spirit. When you say I am
against GOD actually you are believing and proclaiming the very existence
of god. All these poor people are USED by somebody for their benefits
.Because none of these people do not have any clue about spirit, soul and
body system which is base of a human being.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: NOT WORTHY

Sapient wrote:

NOT WORTHY OF IT'S OWN THREAD. ANOTHER [YOU RESPOND]

 

From: arun135@hotmail.com

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 1:43 AM
Subject: [Defend my God!] Jesus christ

JESUS IS LORD AND HOLISPIRIT IS POWERFUL that is why all these fools deny
the lordship of Christ and power of the Holy Spirit. When you say I am
against GOD actually you are believing and proclaiming the very existence
of god.

When I say I am against the lies and violations of your christian 'brotherhood', what then am I believing and proclaiming?

 

Quote:
 

All these poor people are USED by somebody for their benefits.

 Have you been to your pastors house? 

 

 

Quote:

Because none of these people do not have any clue about spirit, soul and
body system which is base of a human being.

And you do have a clue about spirit soul and body system?

I see.....

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13854
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"I dont see how you cant

"I dont see how you cant believe in Allah"

"I dont see how you cant believe in Yahwey" 

If you can see how you dont believe that Thor made lighting, then you should be able to understand why I reject your Santa based myth as well.

For the same reasons you reject multiple armed deities, you should also reject the claim "I can fart a full sized Lamborginni out of my ass". If you can do that, and I hope you can, then you should be able to understand why I reject claims of ghosts kncoking up girls and zombie gods surviving rigor mortis after 3 days. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 .....  to the best of my

 .....  to the best of my drunk reason ....

By my definition we all believe in G-O-D, as we are "Awake", simply said.

When it comes to "God of Abe", that is mostly a dangerous retarded blind dark ignorance, and what bad religion is.

Religion dogma and it's rules are a crime against our humanity and rational common sense of "enlightened" Awe of the G-O-D cosmos of ALL.

Jesus worship is "idol worship", and against the obvious, "not so hidden", message of the atheist Jesus/Buddha character. "God of Abe" followers sadly lack common sense and are the ones with no "faith" in themselves.

It is the religious that need "saving", so reads the atheist "doctor" Jesus story character message. Read it all again and the Gnosiic books.

Arguments regarding the nature of "consciousness, love and morality" are scientific endeavours. Religion is an emotional argument who's main value demonstrates the ignorance of our human nature.

I AM so sick of these W-O-R-D problems. I wish that everyone would say 'God of Abe' or 'Religion Dogma' , instead just saying "God". It would make these debates etc more international, productive, and time saving.

But then again, saying "fuck god" , gets the attention this god/religion subject so badly needs,.... and many know what we "saved" caring atheists mean by that.

So yeah, that "God" can kiss my ass ! .... Forgive my poor communication skills, I AM only GOD AS YOU .... fuck all religion, that is so un-godly ....

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
I Don't See How You Can Not Un-Believe

Let's recap your argument: you have an invisible friend who is NOT responsible for all the bad things in the world. Okay. And he gave us Adam and Eve and free will, and for some reason they're eating fruit.

Honestly, what are you talking about?

Why should I believe in your invisible friend? It's up to you to come up with a good reason, not up to me to tell you why you don't have an invisible friend. In this case, it's not so much "pushing beliefs" as it is telling you the emperor has no clothes. Not "I believe the emperor has no clothes" or even "I hope the emperor has no clothes" but "the emperor is naked; wearing nothing; no clothes."

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad

RationalResponseSquad wrote:

 

From: lukestew5@aol.com

Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:17 AM

Subject: [Defend my God!] Why

Luke sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.rationalresponders.com/contact.

I don't see how you people can't believe in God. Don't say well look at all
the bad things that happen in this world. God gave us free will and Adam
and Eve chose to eat the fruit which introduced sin into the world. There
is scientific proof that we are all related by going back to one man and
one woman. Ok let's say we did evolve. The creatures had to be created
somehow. Let's say there was a big bang that created the universe and
everything in it. The energy to create that big bang came from somewhere.
A higher power. GOD. If you don't want to believe that's your thing, but
don't push your beliefs on other people. And by the way if there was no
heaven or hell then what would happen after we die. There is evidence all
around us that God exists. GOD BLESS.

How you get directly from "energy that had to come from somewhere" to "a higher power. GOD" eludes me. As for you evidence, show me. Don't just say that it's all around us and we can see God in a flower or a pool of water or the interactions of quantum mechanics. Show me where you see evidence directly linking the natural to the supernatural, 'cause man, the naturalistic world view does a pretty good job supporting itself with new discoveries.

 

As for you so-called scientific proof of one man and one woman being the ancestors of all humanity, that is a gross distortion of the actual facts: among other glaring inaccuracies of your interpretation of said research is the fact that the fancifully, even ironically named Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam lived many tens of thousands of years apart, in Africa. The only biblical connection comes from the quirky sense of humor on the part of some geneticists.

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Make lots and lots of

  Make lots and lots of educated kids FulltimeDefendent, you need a harem !


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Aw, shucks...


Make lots and lots of

Submitted by I AM GOD AS YOU on February 26, 2008 - 2:17am.

  Make lots and lots of educated kids FulltimeDefendent, you need a harem !

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aw, shucks! I need to go on more dates. Otherwise I'LL start naming hypothetical common ancestors after religious figures. I can see it now: Proconsul augustine, Nehemiapithecus erectus...

 

Sorry, channeling Robert Sapolsky there.

 

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Yeah, Stop killing

  Yeah, Stop killing Jesus

, give that wine maker a beer ! 

Anthropology would insist. 

 Robert Sapolsky 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky

"What's the punch line here?                                                                                                                           Physiologically, it doesn't come cheap                                                                 being a bastard 24 hours a day."

 //// I support Bastard Jesus, he cared

..... the way I read it. He was atheist !

??? !!! giggles ..... shit I AM Drunk, what did I say ???

I'll check back ..... tomorrow ....  if I AM lucky .....

 

 


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
And Edenopithecus adamensis

And Edenopithecus adamensis diverged into two species... and Edenopithecus cainensis slew Edenopithecus abelensis in a great struggle for existence. And cainensis migrated from its woodland habitat during the interglacial faunal exchange and built the city of Enosh. At that time people hominids began to invoke the name of the LORD.

This is the list of the descendants of the Edenopithecus adamensis adaptive radiation event of the Pre-Deluge. 30 mya, Edenopithecus adamensis begat Sethanthropus platyops. And the days of Sethanthropus numbered until 25 mya. And Sethanthropus begat enoshensis, and the days of enoshensis numbered until 23 mya. And enoshensis begat Kenanthropus erectus, and his days numbered until 20 my. And Kenanthropus begat mahalalelensis, and the days of mahalalelensis numbered until 15 mya. And mahalalelensis begat jaredensis...

 

You get the point.

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliateSilver Member
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad

RationalResponseSquad wrote:

 

From: lukestew5@aol.com

Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:17 AM

Subject: [Defend my God!] Why

Luke sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.rationalresponders.com/contact.

I don't see how you people can't believe in God. Don't say well look at all
the bad things that happen in this world. God gave us free will and Adam
and Eve chose to eat the fruit which introduced sin into the world. There
is scientific proof that we are all related by going back to one man and
one woman. Ok let's say we did evolve. The creatures had to be created
somehow. Let's say there was a big bang that created the universe and
everything in it. The energy to create that big bang came from somewhere.
A higher power. GOD. If you don't want to believe that's your thing, but
don't push your beliefs on other people. And by the way if there was no
heaven or hell then what would happen after we die. There is evidence all
around us that God exists. GOD BLESS.

Oh hooray, someone that can assume what fills in the gaps of THEIR knowledge! God did it ! God did it!

Phrases such as : "let's say"  and words such as "somehow" automatically put your argument into the realm of "unbelievable"

Proof - Put up or shut up

 

-Renee

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


Apokalipse
Apokalipse's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad

RationalResponseSquad wrote:
I don't see how you people can't believe in God.
I don't suppose you believe in Thor, do you?

I didn't think so.

How about Zeus, Anubis, Osiris, Ra, Baal, Apophis, Apollo, Isis, Hathor, Poseidon, Seti?

 

Just think about how easy it is to not believe in those gods.

That's how easy it is for us not to believe in yours.

 

 

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I don't see how you

Quote:
I don't see how you people can't believe in God. Don't say well look at all
the bad things that happen in this world. God gave us free will and Adam
and Eve chose to eat the fruit which introduced sin into the world.

So, then being created by God means nothing, and that small disobedience
destroys all possible God's perfection he would manifest through us?
C'mon, it was just an apple. This sin is dilluted by milliards of us who didn't commit it,
it matters no more than any small "sin" which we joyfully commit every day.

Quote:
Thereis scientific proof that we are all related by going back to one man and
one woman.
Yes, the mitochondrial DNA attached at every woman's egg cell.
It belongs to a female of pithecantropus erectus, who we can call Eve, or so I have read somewhere.
Human DNA is quite a messy patchwork, we even have traits of half-aquatic life forms,
(a bit weird for apes from jungle trees and savanna) and so much genetical flaws,
that it's impossible for evolutionary process to produce anything like this.
I think that Sumerian tablets gives the most precise answer.

Quote:
Ok let's say we did evolve. The creatures had to be created
somehow. Let's say there was a big bang that created the universe and
everything in it. The energy to create that big bang came from somewhere.
A higher power. GOD.
Of course. But why this
ultimate creator of universe should have interest in running a silly cult
on one of countless universe's planets? Between Yahweh and the being
what created all matter and laws of what it behaves, is quite a big difference.

Quote:
And by the way if there was no heaven or hell then what would happen after we die.

You can have a look for yourself, it just requires a bit of effort and practice.
If you're lazy, you can just read Far journeys by Robert Allan Monroe. His experiences are true
and things, he witnessed and communicated with, significantly participates on our lives.
What he discovered, was successfully compared with other sources of informations
and this knowledge is a good contribution to understanding of the life system.

Quote:
There is evidence all around us that God exists. GOD BLESS.

C'mon, every single sub-atomary particle is a proof of God.
They disappear into vacuum (or another dimension, whatever), and yet, they
appear again and they somehow know, what to behave, that they
form all the time all things we see and touch. But it's not a proof of Biblic God,
or rather that Yahweh does it. Yahweh could make smoke and fire pillars, lightning,
holograms of fire projected at a bush, playing with water, frogs, desert tribes, and so on,
but the first source of universe created it all before, on a sub-atomary level.
Mere toying with what was already created is not a sign of the highest possible God.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Apokalipse
Apokalipse's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Quote:I don't

Luminon wrote:

Quote:
I don't see how you people can't believe in God. Don't say well look at all
the bad things that happen in this world. God gave us free will and Adam
and Eve chose to eat the fruit which introduced sin into the world.

So, then being created by God means nothing
That's yet to be established (being created by god)

Quote:
Quote:
Thereis scientific proof that we are all related by going back to one man and
one woman.
Yes, the mitochondrial DNA attached at every woman's egg cell.
It belongs to a female of pithecantropus erectus, who we can call Eve, or so I have read somewhere.
Human DNA is quite a messy patchwork, we even have traits of half-aquatic life forms,
(a bit weird for apes from jungle trees and savanna) and so much genetical flaws,
that it's impossible for evolutionary process to produce anything like this.
No, the fact that we share so much genetic material with other organisms, and the fact that it contains so many flaws, is actually evidence for evolution.

Evolution works by building from previous DNA structures, and adapting to new and changing circumstances.

Mutations occur, and then those mutations go through the screening of natural selection.

Quote:
Ok let's say we did evolve. The creatures had to be created
somehow.
Epic fail.

Quote:
]Let's say there was a big bang that created the universe
The big bang didn't create the universe. It's just an event that occurred after a point we arbitrarily define as t=0. Whether this point in time is the beginning of the universe, or if there even is a beginning of the universe, is unknown.

Quote:
The energy to create that big bang came from somewhere.
How do you know? Maybe the universe did come from nothing.

Even if it came from somewhere, making assumptions about where/what that somewhere is, is not going to get us anywhere.
 

Quote:
A higher power. GOD.
A baseless assumption.

Quote:
Of course. But why this
ultimate creator of universe should have interest in running a silly cult
on one of countless universe's planets? Between Yahweh and the being
what created all matter and laws of what it behaves, is quite a big difference.
Why assume a creator in the first place?

Quote:
And by the way if there was no heaven or hell then what would happen after we die.
We don't actually know for certain. But, the most probable thing that would happen is... not much. your consciousness ceases to be, you get buried, your body decomposes. That's it.


Quote:
You can have a look for yourself, it just requires a bit of effort and practice.
No, all you really need to do is get killed somehow.

But then, you wouldn't be able to come back.

Quote:
There is evidence all around us that God exists. GOD BLESS.
Such as?


Quote:
C'mon, every single sub-atomary particle is a proof of God.
Why's that?


Quote:
They disappear into vacuum (or another dimension, whatever), and yet, they
appear again and they somehow know
Actually, they don't "know". They're just subject to physics.

 

Quote:
that they
form all the time all things we see and touch.
So.. how's that proof of a god?

 

Quote:
But it's not a proof of Biblic God, or rather that Yahweh does it.
That part's right.


Quote:
Yahweh could make smoke and fire pillars, lightning, holograms of fire projected at a bush, playing with water, frogs, desert tribes, and so on, but the first source of universe created it all before, on a sub-atomary level.
If you have actual, scientific evidence to back that up, I'd like to see it.


Quote:
Mere toying with what was already created
That's begging the question.

Quote:
is not a sign of the highest possible God.
I have yet to see evidence of any god.


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Yes, the

Luminon wrote:

Yes, the mitochondrial DNA attached at every woman's egg cell.
It belongs to a female of pithecantropus erectus, who we can call Eve, or so I have read somewhere.
Human DNA is quite a messy patchwork, we even have traits of half-aquatic life forms,
(a bit weird for apes from jungle trees and savanna) and so much genetical flaws,
that it's impossible for evolutionary process to produce anything like this.
I think that Sumerian tablets gives the most precise answer.

 

I hope you're kidding. Pithecanthropus isn't even in use anymore. Erectus was a hominid: Homo erectus. And the hypothetical Mitochrondial Eve would NOT have been a member of that species, but rather more likely an early ( or "archaic" ) member of Homo sapiens. Y-Chromosome "Adam," who lived 60,000 years ago, would DEFINITELY have been a Homo sapien. We do NOT have traits of aquatic life. These are mere convergences: the aquatic ape theory you refer to has very little actual scientific basis and is pretty much discredited.

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Apokalipse wrote:That's yet

Apokalipse wrote:
That's yet to be established (being created by god)

It was written for a christian, so I meant it in the religional sense. If God himself creates such a promising species as humans,  how a  mere feeling curiosity (added by God, of course) resulting in a minor disobedience can mess it all up? It's unequal response, just like punishing people forever by hell for a finite cause. To be immortal and to be like God is a good thing, how could God think that Adam and Eve won't give it a try, specially when they probably had nothing better to do for a while?

Apokalipse wrote:
Even if it came from somewhere, making assumptions about where/what that somewhere is, is not going to get us anywhere.
What about the outside of a gigantic glass test tube? Smiling Just kidding

Apokalipse wrote:
Why assume a creator in the first place?
Well, if you create something, then it exists, if you don't, it doesn't exist. The universe exists, so there is quite a high probability, that it has been created and designed. If I take in account other circumstances, which supports this possibility, it is even more obvious.

Apokalipse wrote:
We don't actually know for certain. But, the most probable thing that would happen is... not much. your consciousness ceases to be, you get buried, your body decomposes. That's it.

Actually, you can't logically assume, that the consciousness ceases to exist. Everything we know, is that the consciousness can communicate with others through a brain. Without an undamaged and functioning brain, it can't express itself effectively toward other consciousnesses in their brains, but nobody can say for sure it doesn't exist. A brain can live without consciousness, so it is worth to consider that consciousness can live without a brain. The brain creates a very special image of reality, which is very different to what actually exists out there, and the question is, why? Why it has to work with this pre-processed and censored input? Why it passes to our consciousness a different image than comes from our eye nerves?
Why does it lose a valuable time and energy to make us see LESS?

Apokalipse wrote:
Quote:
You can have a look for yourself, it just requires a bit of effort and practice.
No, all you really need to do is get killed somehow.
This is like you would say that the only way how to fly by an airplane is to become a lifetime employee of airlines company. The event of death is a subtraction from the human, not gaining anything new, so if anyone's able to see what is after their death, it should be possible also when the person is alive. But you're right in your thinking, Monroe himself, when he started to experience OOBE spontaneously, thought, that he is dead, or he is insane. Doctors disproved both of these things, so then he could start to investigate what's happening, without a fear, and he was successful in it.

(I know, I twist the logics almost unbelievably, but I hope you like it too )


Apokalipse wrote:
Quote:
C'mon, every single sub-atomary particle is a proof of God.
Quote:
They disappear into vacuum (or another dimension, whatever), and yet, they
appear again and they somehow know
Actually, they don't "know". They're just subject to physics.
But how does the physics know? Scientists doesn't explain physics, they just observe, write down what they see and describe it by equations. But they don't know why it is like it is. They know it could be different and what would then happen with world, but not why it isn't so.

Apokalipse wrote:
Quote:
that they
form all the time all things we see and touch.
So.. how's that proof of a god?
The sub-atomary particles appear and disappear all the time, as I said, and they doesn't resemble anyhow the object which consist of them (specially when it is solid and doesn't disappear). They literally support together a specific illusion of matter, let's say, human body, for example. But if they wouldn't appear in exact time and exact microscopic position, all this illusion wouldn't exist, a human body would suddenly become a medley of all possible and even some impossible elements, transforming every second, reacting with each other and exploding. No stabile matter could exist, specially not a material life based on it.

Apokalipse wrote:
Quote:
Yahweh could make smoke and fire pillars, lightning, holograms of fire projected at a bush, playing with water, frogs, desert tribes, and so on, but the first source of universe created it all before, on a sub-atomary level.
If you have actual, scientific evidence to back that up, I'd like to see it.

Well, for example, the ancient legends (like Indian or Sumerian) often described battles of gods. Where these battles happened according to the texts, was nowadays found with increased radioactivity and for example, on Sinai peninsula, with areas of a sand melted on glass, just like in White Sands, the USA nuclear shooting range. Local women even now have problems with sterility, caused by radioactivity. These oldest legends describes gods as  beings using a powerful and advanced technology, often described very extensively and precisely. In these times people could consider it as supernatural powers, but today we can recognize them as a technology, even not so superior to ours. One of these beings was called himself Yahweh, "I am who I am", when his human disciple asked him who he is. It literally means "that's not of your concern".
But this would really deseve a separate, extensive essay, which I currently don't know how to place here, I'm quite a newcomer on this forum.

Apokalipse wrote:
Quote:
is not a sign of the highest possible God.
I have yet to see evidence of any god.
Well, just look around you and replace these parts where you believe they are 'natural', 'automatical' or 'been always there' by 'designed by God' and look, here he is Smiling
I personally have experienced some parts of paradigm in practice, which basically assumes a hierarchic structure of consciousness, descending from the First source into the deepest matter and then back, through evolution of consciousness and merging again gradually into the one, carrying its experiences, which were obtained by living in various ways, on various places and time, with various types of consciousness, in various bodies. (it's such a boring esoterical doctrine, you see)
Thus I'm convinced the First source of consciousness exists, and if someone calls it God,  I don't care, just I make sure that they doesn't mean Yahweh, which is something different.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Apokalipse
Apokalipse's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Apokalipse

Luminon wrote:


Apokalipse wrote:
That's yet to be established (being created by god)

It was written for a christian, so I meant it in the religional sense. If God himself creates such a promising species as humans,  how a  mere feeling curiosity (added by God, of course) resulting in a minor disobedience can mess it all up? It's unequal response, just like punishing people forever by hell for a finite cause. To be immortal and to be like God is a good thing, how could God think that Adam and Eve won't give it a try, specially when they probably had nothing better to do for a while?
You've sidstepped the point I made.

Quote:
Apokalipse wrote:
Why assume a creator in the first place?
Well, if you create something, then it exists, if you don't, it doesn't exist.
This is the fallacy of converting a conditional. (If A then B, therefore if B, then A)

Besides, nobody has been able to create something without first having the materials necessary to make it in the first place.

If somebody creates a car for example, the materials that make-up the car didn't not exist prior to the car being formed. It is formed through shaping and modifying materials that were already present to begin with.


Quote:
The universe exists, so there is quite a high probability, that it has been created and designed.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. but even if it did somehow, that says nothing about who or what this creator is, or even if it is intelligent.

For all we know, maybe my goldfish created the universe yesterday.

Apokalipse wrote:
We don't actually know for certain. But, the most probable thing that would happen is... not much. your consciousness ceases to be, you get buried, your body decomposes. That's it.

Actually, you can't logically assume
I'm not assuming. That's just the most probable result, given the complete lack of evidence of anything else happening.

I mean, maybe it is wrong. Maybe we'll all somehow become god of our own universe after we die. Maybe we'll all be sent somewhere to be ruled by goldfish. But the probabilities of those happening, although technically not zero, are so immeasurably small that they're not worth considering.


Quote:
that the consciousness ceases to exist.
There is no evidence or indication that a person's consciousness still exists after they die.

Quote:
Everything we know, is that the consciousness can communicate with others through a brain.
I think you mean by producing and detecting audio (talking), symbols (writing, sign language), or through touch (braille).


Quote:
Without an undamaged and functioning brain, it can't express itself effectively toward other consciousnesses in their brains, but nobody can say for sure it doesn't exist.
nobody can say what doesn't exist? consciousness?

well, when somebody is functioning and communicating, of course there is plenty of evidence for a consciousness.

But when they're dead, that evidence is gone.

Quote:
A brain can live without consciousness
consciousness is the product of a functioning brain.

Quote:
so it is worth to consider that consciousness can live without a brain.
This is another converting a conditional. you are basically saying: If A, then B. Therefore if B, then A - which is a logical fallacy.


Quote:
The brain creates a very special image of reality, which is very different to what actually exists out there, and the question is, why? Why it has to work with this pre-processed and censored input? Why it passes to our consciousness a different image than comes from our eye nerves?
Why does it lose a valuable time and energy to make us see LESS?
Evolution only tends to introduce or change characteristics when they assist in the survival of that organism.

So basically, we probably wouldn't have really gained a survival advantage with better visual or audio input.

Quote:
Apokalipse wrote:
Quote:
You can have a look for yourself, it just requires a bit of effort and practice.
No, all you really need to do is get killed somehow.
This is like you would say that the only way how to fly by an airplane is to become a lifetime employee of airlines company.
Your analogy is useless unless you can back it up using scientific evidence.


Quote:
The event of death is a subtraction from the human
1. What the hell does that mean? Human - Human = 0? If that's it, then I would agree.

2. Evidence? your entire argument lacks it. Not just this part.


Quote:
so if anyone's able to see what is after their death
Assuming there even is anything after death.

Quote:
it should be possible also when the person is alive.
Why? if the person is not dead, how can they see what's after it? again, assuming there even is anything to see.

And the fact is, there is no scientific evidence that demonstrates that there is.


Quote:
But you're right in your thinking, Monroe himself, when he started to experience OOBE spontaneously, thought, that he is dead, or he is insane.
or on drugs.

Quote:
Doctors disproved both of these things, so then he could start to investigate what's happening, without a fear, and he was successful in it.
successful in investigating what? did he happen to find any scientific evidence of anything after death?


Quote:
Apokalipse wrote:
Actually, they don't "know". They're just subject to physics.
But how does the physics know?
that's begging the question.

Quote:
Scientists doesn't explain physics, they just observe, write down what they see and describe it by equations.
depends what you mean by 'explain'.

Quote:
But they don't know why it is like it is.
Again, begging the question. Why does there need to be a why? Why can't it just be that way, just because it is?

Quote:
They know it could be different
Do they? I'd like to see some evidence for that.

Quote:
Apokalipse wrote:
Quote:
that they
form all the time all things we see and touch.
So.. how's that proof of a god?
The sub-atomary particles appear and disappear all the time, as I said, and they doesn't resemble anyhow the object which consist of them (specially when it is solid and doesn't disappear).
Nothing is really "solid"

some things just appear that way, because that's how our brains interpret them.

Light (photons) are absorbed and re-emitted by the outer-electrons of the atoms on the surface of an object (of specific frequencies, depending on the elements it is composed of). Some of them end-up in our eyes, which are absorbed by the light-sensitive cells, which then send an electrical signal back to the brain. The brain collects the signals from all the light-sensitive cells, and constructs an image out of them. And in that image, some things appear to be solid. But they're not.


Quote:
They literally support together a specific illusion of matter
If by 'illusion' you mean, what the brain interprets, isn't exactly what's actually there. (seeing a solid, when it is actually a collection of protons and neutrons, which are comprised of up-quarks, down-quarks, gluons, and the orbiting electrons, which are just spin ½ leptons.

Quote:
let's say, human body, for example. But if they wouldn't appear in exact time and exact microscopic position, all this illusion wouldn't exist
Actually, it could still exist. just in a different form.

But that's assuming physics can actually change.

Quote:
a human body would suddenly become a medley of all possible and even some impossible elements, transforming every second, reacting with each other and exploding. No stabile matter could exist, specially not a material life based on it.
unfounded speculation, which still needs to assume physica can change.

Even if physics can be different, that doesn't mean life or matter won't exist. It could exist in a different form.

Apokalipse wrote:
Quote:
Yahweh could make smoke and fire pillars, lightning, holograms of fire projected at a bush, playing with water, frogs, desert tribes, and so on, but the first source of universe created it all before, on a sub-atomary level.
If you have actual, scientific evidence to back that up, I'd like to see it.

Well, for example, the ancient legends (like Indian or Sumerian) often described battles of gods.
And lightning used to be thrown down from the clouds by angry gods.


Quote:
Where these battles happened according to the texts, was nowadays found with increased radioactivity and for example, on Sinai peninsula, with areas of a sand melted on glass, just like in White Sands, the USA nuclear shooting range. Local women even now have problems with sterility, caused by radioactivity.
so basically, you're saying:

1. some areas have more radioactivity than others (no shit?)

2. sometimes, radiation causes problems (no shit?)

3. therefore, gods exist

There is absolutely no connection between your premises and conclusion.

Quote:
These oldest legends describes gods as  beings using a powerful and advanced technology, often described very extensively and precisely. In these times people could consider it as supernatural powers, but today we can recognize them as a technology, even not so superior to ours. One of these beings was called himself Yahweh, "I am who I am", when his human disciple asked him who he is. It literally means "that's not of your concern".
But this would really deseve a separate, extensive essay, which I currently don't know how to place here, I'm quite a newcomer on this forum.


The series of chemical, physical, geological, and biological changes by which carbon moves through the Earth's air, land, water, and living organisms is called the carbon cycle.

Carbon makes up no more than 0.27% of the mass of all elements in the universe and only 0.0018% by weight of the elements in the Earth's crust. Carbon occurs in many different chemical combinations, including calcium carbonate (CaCO3), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and a huge diversity of organic compounds (including hydrocarbons and biochemicals). In contrast to carbon's relative scarcity in the environment, it makes up 19.4% by weight of the human body. Along with hydrogen, carbon is the only element to appear in every organic molecule in every living organism on Earth.

The most abundant mineral forms of carbon in the rocks and soil of the Earth's crust are limestone (CaCO3) and dolomite [CaMg(CO3)2]. These mostly occur in sedimentary rocks, which were formed in ancient marine environments through biological influences that resulted in the precipitation of limestone and dolomite from ions of calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), and bicarbonate (HCO3-) dissolved in water. The amount of carbon stored in sedimentary rocks has not yet been accurately estimated, but is thought to be much larger than that occurring in any other compartment of the carbon cycle.

Carbon also occurs in spaces within sedimentary crustal rocks in the form of hydrocarbons (i.e., compounds only containing carbon and hydrogen), such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas (collectively, these are known as fossil fuels). These hydrocarbons are extremely important, but non-renewable, natural resources used as sources of energy and for the manufacturing of plastics and other materials. Wherever mining and drilling technology can access fossil fuel deposits, these deposits are being rapidly used up. Other organic compounds of carbon also occur within the rocks of the Earth's crust (these may contain additional elements, such as oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen), although in much smaller amounts than the hydrocarbons. All of these various kinds of organic carbon are derived from the partially decomposed biomass of ancient plants and other organisms, which became buried deep beneath marine sediment and were transformed very slowly (under intense pressure and heat in the absence of oxygen) into their present forms.

In the atmosphere, carbon exists almost entirely as gaseous carbon dioxide (CO2). Its global concentration is about 360 parts per million (ppm), or 0.036% by volume. This makes carbon dioxide the fourth most abundant gas in the atmosphere after nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. Some carbon is also released as methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO) to the atmosphere by natural and human mechanisms. Carbon monoxide reacts readily with oxygen in the atmosphere, however, converting it to carbon dioxide.

Carbon returns to the hydrosphere when carbon dioxide dissolves in the oceans, as well as in lakes and other bodies of water. The solubility of carbon dioxide in water is not especially high, 88 milliliters of gas in 100 milliliters of water. Still, the Earth's oceans are such a vast reservoir that experts estimate that approximately 36,000 billion tons of carbon are stored there. They also estimate that about 93 billion tons of carbon flow from the atmosphere into the hydrosphere each year.

Carbon moves out of the oceans in two ways. Some escapes as carbon dioxide from water solutions and returns to the atmosphere. That amount is estimated to be very nearly equal (90 billion tons) to the amount entering the oceans each year. A smaller quantity of carbon dioxide (about 40 billion tons) is incorporated into aquatic plants.

On land, green plants remove carbon dioxide from the air through the process of photosynthesis--a complex series of chemical reactions in which carbon dioxide is eventually converted to starch, cellulose, and other carbohydrates. About 100 billion tons of carbon are transferred to green plants each year, and a total of 560 billion tons of the element is thought to be stored in land plants alone.

The carbon in green plants is eventually converted into a large variety of organic (carbon-containing) compounds. When animals eat green plants, they use the carbohydrates and other organic compounds as raw materials for the manufacture of thousands of new organic substances. The total collection of complex organic compounds stored in all kinds of living organisms represents the reservoir of carbon in the Earth's biosphere.

The cycling of carbon through the biosphere involves three major kinds of organisms. Producers are organisms with the ability to manufacture organic compounds such as sugars and starches from inorganic raw materials such as carbon dioxide and water. Green plants are the primary example of producing organisms. Consumers are organisms that obtain their carbon (i.e., their food) from producers. All animals are consumers. Finally, decomposers are organisms such as bacteria and fungi that feed on the remains of dead plants and animals. They convert carbon compounds in these organisms to carbon dioxide and other products. The carbon dioxide is then returned to the atmosphere to continue its path through the carbon cycle.

Land plants return carbon dioxide to the atmosphere during the process of respiration. In addition, animals that eat green plants exhale carbon dioxide, contributing to the 50 billion tons of carbon released to the atmosphere by all forms of living organisms each year. Respiration and decomposition both represent, in the most general sense, a reverse of the process of photosynthesis. Complex organic compounds are oxidized with the release of carbon dioxide and water--the raw materials from which they were originally produced.

At some point, land and aquatic plants and animals die and decompose. When they do so, some carbon (about 50 billion tons) returns to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. The rest remains buried in the Earth (up to 1,500 billion tons) or on the ocean bottoms (about 3,000 billion tons). Several hundred million years ago, conditions of burial were such that organisms decayed to form products consisting almost entirely of carbon and hydrocarbons. Those materials exist today as pockets of the fossil fuels. Estimates of the carbon stored in fossil fuels range from 5,000 to 10,000 billion tons.


The processes that make up the carbon cycle have been occurring for millions of years, and for most of this time, the systems involved have been in equilibrium. The total amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere from all sources has been approximately equal to the total amount dissolved in the oceans and removed by photosynthesis. However, a hundred years ago changes in human society began to unbalance the carbon cycle. The Industrial Revolution initiated an era in which the burning of fossil fuels became widespread. In a short period of time, large amounts of carbon previously stored in the Earth as coal, oil, and natural gas were burned, releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.


Between 1850 and 1998, measured concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased from about 280 ppm to about 360 ppm, an increase of 29%. Scientists estimate that fossil fuel combustion now releases about five billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. In an equilibrium situation, that additional five billion tons would be absorbed by the oceans or used by green plants in photosynthesis. Yet this appears not to be happening. Measurements indicate that about 60% of the carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuel combustion remains in the atmosphere.


The problem is made even more complex because of deforestation. As large tracts of forest are cut down and burned, carbon dioxide from forest fires is added to that from other sources, and the loss of trees decreases the worldwide rate of photosynthesis. Overall, it appears that these two factors have resulted in an additional one to two billion tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere each year.


No one can be certain about the environmental effects of this disruption of equilibria in the carbon cycle. Some scientists believe that the additional carbon dioxide will augment the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, resulting in long-term global warming and climate change. Others argue that we still do not know enough about the way oceans, clouds, and other factors affect climate to allow such predictions.





therefore, the flying spagghetti monster exists.

source: http://www.bookrags.com/research/carbon-cycle-woc/

Apokalipse wrote:
Quote:
is not a sign of the highest possible God.
I have yet to see evidence of any god.
Well, just look around you and replace these parts where you believe they are 'natural', 'automatical' or 'been always there' by 'designed by God' and look, here he is Smiling
"here, just jump over this giant, gaping chasm that's devoid of logic"

Quote:
I personally have experienced some parts of paradigm in practice, which basically assumes a hierarchic structure of consciousness, descending from the First source into the deepest matter and then back, through evolution of consciousness and merging again gradually into the one, carrying its experiences, which were obtained by living in various ways, on various places and time, with various types of consciousness, in various bodies. (it's such a boring esoterical doctrine, you see)
Thus I'm convinced the First source of consciousness exists, and if someone calls it God,  I don't care, just I make sure that they doesn't mean Yahweh, which is something different.
No offence, but I don't believe what you may have gone through is anything more than mind tricks. I have yet to see any valid, scientific evidence of anything other than lack of consciousness after death


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Apokalipse:Please don't

Apokalipse:
Please don't divide a sentence or a paragraph on several pieces, they are meant to be considered whole. A person below IQ 90 could think that you prove your point when you take a piece of sentence out of context and show it doesn't give a sense, but not much of them can use internet and thus it's quite a waste of time.

Quote:
That's yet to be established (being created by god)

That would be a very complicated answer. But I can generally say, that on a creation of human participated several influences. Some could be called God, some not. The original context of this was Christianic, so I for a while accepted the Biblic version, for the purpose of discussion.

 
Quote:

This is the fallacy of converting a conditional. (If A then B, therefore if B, then A)

Besides, nobody has been able to create something without first having the materials necessary to make it in the first place.

If somebody creates a car for example, the materials that make-up the car didn't not exist prior to the car being formed. It is formed through shaping and modifying materials that were already present to begin with.

All right, "if A then B" doesn't necessarily mean "if B then A", I get it. But it means an increased chance of A, which is what I was trying to say.
If you seek for a material for creation, let me remind that matter = energy, vacuum contains almost infinite amount of energy (scientifically proven), and there's a lot of vacuum out there, so there's no problem in getting a material.

Quote:
I'm not assuming. That's just the most probable result, given the complete lack of evidence of anything else happening.
I mean, maybe it is wrong. Maybe we'll all somehow become god of our own universe after we die. Maybe we'll all be sent somewhere to be ruled by goldfish. But the probabilities of those happening, although technically not zero, are so immeasurably small that they're not worth considering.

You mean it correctly, when you know nothing about it, there's a chance of everything. Unless you get some clues, which specifies what you can expect. I guess I'm just lucky, not everyone gets so much evidence. I have seen hundreds of people exploring their previous lives in regression therapy, I have undergone it as well a few times, and it worked, I have seen and felt myself die in various circumstances and yet I'm here. All it required is to sit, close eyes, relax a bit, and follow instructions of therapist, and it works for practically everyone. It's a mechanism reliable enough to be scientifically recorded, but scientists doesn't care and therapists needs no goddamn scientific confirmation, they already know that it works. The customers doesn't care as well, they just want their problems solved. As you see, nobody cares for a scientific proof, there is no reason for even believing in life after death, it works if the customer believes in it or not (if it helps you, you can think these scenes you see are compiled by brain as a psychological mechanism ). If you've got a problem like a phobia or allergy, you can find a regression therapist, put some dollars in your pocket and give it a try. Just don't take any psychopharmacies, it wouldn't work if you're on these pills.

Quote:
There is no evidence or indication that a person's consciousness still exists after they die.

There isn't, but there is for a case, when person's consciousness temporarily leaves the body. I have experienced a spontaneous OOBE and I had a walk around my room, while I saw my body still slept on bed. Some people have trained OOBE into a form of astral projection and they can exit their body during a sleep intentionally and travel even very far. So, there's no reason why my consciousness should die with body, when it already can move around independently. Dunno how you, but I'm gonna definitely jump out again when this my physical vehicle dies.

Quote:

Quote:

    Everything we know, is that the consciousness can communicate with others through a brain.

I think you mean by producing and detecting audio (talking), symbols (writing, sign language), or through touch (braille).


Yeah. Also by telepathy, but nobody listens, and if yes, then goes to a shrink to get some pills. They should rather ask who's there, and if any dumbass who's says things like "go kill yourself" then there's necessary to find someone who can get that attached moron off the aura and make sure it won't happen again. A psychiatrist just gives pills, he doesn't solve the base of problem.

Quote:

Quote:

    Apokalipse wrote:

        Quote:

            You can have a look for yourself, it just requires a bit of effort and practice.

        No, all you really need to do is get killed somehow.

    This is like you would say that the only way how to fly by an airplane is to become a lifetime employee of airlines company.

Your analogy is useless unless you can back it up using scientific evidence.

All scientific evidences are just words written by people you'll never meet. The best evidence is subjective, for example, to train the astral projection, this is very convincing and then it's easier to assume, that when is the consciousness so independent, that it even can exist when the body dies. I don't have to train it, I'm quite satisfied with my psi-sphere ability, it has the advantage it works all the time, not only when sleeping, unlike astral projection.


Quote:

Quote:

    The event of death is a subtraction from the human

1. What the hell does that mean? Human - Human = 0? If that's it, then I would agree.

2. Evidence? your entire argument lacks it. Not just this part.


1. I actually meant it like Human - human body > 0.
2. There is no evidence, it's just a though exercise. You can only get an evidence with experiencing it by yourself. It works well, a strong experience can give you a sufficient evidence, even if the rest of the world is against it. There's just one disadvantage, a personal evidence can't be easily given to anyone else. As far as I know, only Krishna 6000 years ago managed it and he did it by knocking down a sceptic in a Chuck Norris' style. The sceptic fell unconscious for three hours and he had a mystical experience of God's existence and he then agreed with Krishna, that God exists. You see, it was quite dangerous to be a sceptic, before the internet was invented.

Quote:

Quote:

    it should be possible also when the person is alive.

Why? if the person is not dead, how can they see what's after it? again, assuming there even is anything to see.

And the fact is, there is no scientific evidence that demonstrates that there is.


There are non-material "bodies", visible a layers, which can be observed in aura, and they are something like a substitute bodies for consciousness, when it leaves the physical body, temporarily or forever. We use the same non-material equipment if we sleep and dream or if we are dead. As you know, in dreams you're able to see, hear, touch, and so on, so after a death there should be not much difference. Some people made some effort to train their aura vision, so they can see it for themselves, as I said, I can sense some non-material things by touch, so I'm lazy to train to see them.

If you want the scientific evidence so much, can you suggest who of the scientists should research it, what kind of science should it be, what laboratory facility, what scientific principles and what kind of results would be acceptable? I'd suggest the Monroe Institute (in California, I think).

Quote:
that's begging the question.

Sorry, I don't get it. What do you mean?

Quote:
depends what you mean by 'explain'.

I think it's a deeper understanding of the effect, so it opens new possibilities, much more than when you just describe it. But of course you can dig up an exact meaning of this word in some dictionary.

Quote:
Again, begging the question. Why does there need to be a why? Why can't it just be that way, just because it is?
Because that would be an irrational faith, just like you would be a religional guy (theist). When you believe that something just is because it is, it's the same like you would believe it is, because the flying spaghetti monster created it. It is even less logical, because for example, object A can't create A, because there was no A before A.
The only exception from this, which I leave to be, because I don't understand it, is an existence out of the time. The time is a specific characteristic property of mostly physical reality. Most of non-material existence doesn't have it (or is not dependent on it), but it is probably beyond language limits to describe, how it is to live without a time. Probably, without a time there is no "before", so there is no need to have a previous cause.

Quote:

Quote:

    let's say, human body, for example. But if they wouldn't appear in exact time and exact microscopic position, all this illusion wouldn't exist

Actually, it could still exist. just in a different form.

But that's assuming physics can actually change.

No, it couldn't exist. A form, any form, requires most of atoms to be the same like they were a while ago. Stability and continuity of physical laws. If they would transform all the time into different atoms, it wouldn't be a pleasant look.
Physics probably can change. I've seen some scientists theoretize, that in first moments of existence of universe there were different physical laws than today.

Quote:
so basically, you're saying:

1. some areas have more radioactivity than others (no shit?)

2. sometimes, radiation causes problems (no shit?)

3. therefore, gods exist

There is absolutely no connection between your premises and conclusion.

Nope. I wouldn't want to have your text understanding brain center.
1. some areas, on Sinai peninsula or in India have increased radioactivity and areas melted on glass by extreme heat (only possible by nuclear heat)

2. At these places were never performed any nuclear tests or explosions, by any nation.

3. In ancient legends, gods used things called "seven shining weapons" or "fire and sulphur" to fight, and surprisingly on these places which were later found radioactive.


Quote:
therefore, the flying spagghetti monster exists.

It is possible for it to exist in a form of egregore. Egregore is an occult concept representing a "thought form" or "collective group mind", an autonomous psychic entity made up of, and influencing, the thoughts of a group of people. (trust me, these things are a real pain in the ass) Fortunately, egregore is usually created by long-time religions with an intense faith, like christianity, a religion of flying spagheti monster just doesn't have the tradition.

Quote:
No offence, but I don't believe what you may have gone through is anything more than mind tricks.
Define mind tricks. Actually, mind is very limited. It's like a computer, it can't come with anything new, just processes what is on the input. If I experience something unique for me, like a spontaneous illumination, (I don't mean the music album) then it's not a trick of mind, but of something external. What exactly, the metaphysics can show.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.