There is no proof of a god existing, nor is there proof of one not existing, it's foolish to claim one or the other. If you claim atheist or religious, you don't value facts.
Why aren't you agnostic?
WOAH HOLY SHIT DID YOU COME UP WITH THAT YOURSELF?
MIND = BLOWN
>>79067798
Good argument
>>79067707
>there is no proof of a god existing
prove it
>>79067707
Because gnosticism is way cooler. Spooky angelic critters and the soul are much more interesting and thought-provoking than just 'it could be.... Or it couldn't be....'
While half-true, (I know not what I know not), it's far superior to err on the side of God.
which is worse: being unprepared for nonexistence or being unprepared for eternity?
(I'll stick with eternity thanks)
The universe didn't just spontaneously create itself in an instant for no reason.
>>79068505
That's why it's only a theory
Maybe God did create it
>>79067707
My experiences have shown me that it's much more likely that God exists. Since I believe he exists I do my best to serve him and put my faith in him
>>79067707
Save and watch these videos in your spare time:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=A0iDNLxmWVM
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z0tyVdnIU9A
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dsbj7EN1Uzs
These will push you towards God. Also read about Christian miracles.
>>79071855
>watch these youtube videos they will convert you
>Christian miracles
>>79067707
Because being agnostic means you don't know and it just so happens that I do know therefore I'm a gnostic.
Why don't you know?
Theist - btfo
Atheists - btfo
Agnostics - btfo
Fuck you all and get in the """""KNOW"""""
>>79068505
Why would something spontaneous need a reason?
>>79068818
>Since I believe he exists I do my best to serve him
Do you service him too with random blowjobs faggot?
>>79072820
Nope. Just by not chopping off heads and dealing heroin, or torturing people
>>79073412
>heroin
Lol
>no torture
Hello guantanamo
>>79074159
What's funny about heroin?
>>79068505
A god didn't just spontaneously create himself in an instant for no reason
inb4
> he is eternal and not bound by time, duh
Then how did he create "time" or better causality? A concept he clearly wouldn't be able to grasp, like we can grasp the concept of being non-existent
>>79074991
>A concept he clearly wouldn't be able to grasp
How do you know that
>>79075155
Being free from causality makes it literally impossible to act, think or do anything. It means you are literally never changing in any way, like an indestructuble (because that includes, that nothing can change you), immortal object.
He wouldn't be able to learn, create or generally do anything, if he really would be free from causality and by extension "time"
>>79075846
Why are you trying to act like you know what the creator of everything would be capable of knowing or doing?
>>79076219
The creator of the universe would be capable of doing anything, for example deleting all evidence that he exists
>>79076488
Yeah, also showing that he exists and giving you the option to believe in him or not
>>79067707
I guess technically I am, but then again you have to be technically agnostic about literally every single thing you know since for all you know you're le brain in le vat, but it doesn't have any practical application to your behavior.
How about believing in luck ? Looks like people divide in lucky people and unlucky...religion is a bullshit idea created to escape lynching, and atheists are fucking retarded thinking they make a difference if they attack religion everytime.
>>79076219
Because, we talk about concepts, like "being eternal"
If you say "he's eternal and free from causality" and later say "he created", you contradict our definition of causality.
What you are actually arguing for during the second part is, that he's on some higher plane...like a kid looking down on his Lego creation, but that contradicts the "free from causality" concept, since such a kid does act within the concept.
If you stick to such a "higher plain" thing and assume causality exists, but works different, then I wouldn't be able to go on and we would be in a stalemate, since then we enter "making assumptions about unknown concepts" area.
But we know what our concept of "causality" means and inherits.
>>79067707
>There is no proof of a unicorn existing, nor is there proof of one not existing, it's foolish to claim one or the other. If you claim a-unicornist or unicornist, you don't value facts.
>>79067707
I understand math
If you can't prove or disprove a concept, then discussing it is a complete waste of time
>>79068319
Being this retarded.
Agnostics are the fags that think they are going to be the "smart" ones in the discussion by avoiding to take a stance on the subject.
Face it, you have some sort of idea in your mind how the universe functions. You son`t sit around thinking "what if it`s neither". You think about the options. And to repeat myself, you`re the faggot that denies the fact that he has some sort of personal view on the subject. You just deny it.
>>79067707
That doesn't make any sense... Atheist unless proof is displayed makes more sense.
>>79077592
>Face it, you have some sort of idea in your mind how the universe functions...
but because you are finite/human you accept the fact that you don't know.
>>79067707
There is no proof that invisible magic space clowns walk among us, but cannot interact with us or be detected. There is no proof they do not exist.
Are you agnostic about invisible magic space clowns? Or do you simple not believe they exist?
>>79067707
>There is no proof of a god existing
Which means he doesn't exist.
>>79078030
They probably swam you faggot
>>79078462
They aren't fucking roaches like us. How would they swim on land?
>>79078462
>swam thousands of kilometers to get on a wood ship that would survive a flood.
If they could swim like that they could survive a flood.
And the ark has been dis-proven, it wouldn't survive the described the flood anyway.
>>79078462
>They probably swam you faggot
Why did they need to get on the ark during the flood? They can just swim anyway, so the flood ought to be no issue. Plenty of floating trees and shit to perch on when they get tired, and plenty of fish in the sea. I mean, if they can survive antarctic weather, they can survive rain for 40 days and 40 nights
To take a trivial illustration: just as a man who in a company of gentlemen made no advances, asked a warrant for every concession, and believed no one's word without proof, would cut himself off by such churlishness from all the social rewards that a more trusting spirit would earn,--so here, one who should shut himself up in snarling logicality and try to make the gods extort his recognition willy-nilly, or not get it at all, might cut himself off forever from his only opportunity of making the gods' acquaintance. This feeling, forced on us we know not whence, that by obstinately believing that there are gods (although not to do so would be so easy both for our logic and our life) we are doing the universe the deepest service we can, seems part of the living essence of the religious hypothesis. If the hypothesis were true in all its parts, including this one, then pure intellectualism, with its veto on our making willing advances, would be an absurdity; and some participation of our sympathetic nature would be logically required. I, therefore, for one, cannot see my way to accepting the agnostic rules for truth-seeking, or wilfully agree to keep my willing nature out of the game. I cannot do so for this plain reason, that a rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule. That for me is the long and short of the formal logic of the situation, no matter what the kinds of truth might materially be. I confess I do not see how this logic can be escaped.
William James
>>79067707
The burden of proof is with the people claiming that god exists. It's not up to us to come up with proof that he doesn't exist, it's up to christians to come up with proof that he does exist. This is a classic logical fallacy.
>>79077577
>i personally have never encountered sufficient evidence for the existence of God
is much different from
>there is no proof of god
>>79067707
You can't prove morals exist, but we know they're there. Not everything can be proven scientifically. Science is about how, not why.
>>79067707
once it starts relating to how you live your life the god question doesn't exist in a vacuum anymore.
functionally the real question is 'are you going to live your life like the bible tells you to'? if you say no you're more or less atheist, if you say yes you're not an atheist
this whole sneaky 'i'm better than everyone because i refuse to have an opinion even though i don't go to church' thing needs to go
also when we get to this point, if you're arguing purely for the existence of god without religion, you need to define on your own terms what you think god is
so agnostics btfo, not a legitimate position
>>79079581
also this is how agnostism is actually defined lol
>>79079673
WHERES MY PROOFS?
>""""""""""agnostic""""""""""
you're an atheist.
>>79067707
I'm a Christian Agnostic Deist.
>Christian values are necessary for a happy and cohesive socoety.
>Agnosticism is an obvious requirement for any belief because of the points OP said.
>If there is a god I think he'd be the clock maker type.
Maybe I'll meet another one one day.
>>79079673
Show me scientific evidence for god
Also
>tumblr filename
Evidence:
>Holy Bible
>The Torah
>The Quran
It's called faith for a reason, dumbass. We know there's a possibility that there is no God, but we have faith that one day we will ascend into divinity to dwell in the Kingdom of God.
At least you're not an atheist.
>>79079903
>Christian Deist
This is literally an oxymoron. If you believe in the "clockmaker" God, you are not a Christian.
>>79079914
>Evidence:
>Holy Bible
>The Torah
>The Quran
>book that says book is true, therefore is true
>>79080043
faith = forcing yourself to believe something until one day you actually believe it
also here's a list of religions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
you've picked a subbranch of a single one of them, what're the odds you made the right choice? it's like winning lottery
>>79080093
It's an adjective describing the values I adhere to, not a noun referring to me. Can't I follow the teachings of the church without believing in their god?
>>79080043
>We know there's a possibility that there is no God
a very large portion of religious people would not agree anon.
>>79079163
tl;dr
I don't know...muh feels.
>>79080043
>We know there's a possibility that there is no God,
how large is that possibility out of interest? 10%? 1%?
>>79080656
possibility of god = 1/infinity
>>79080314
Faith
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing
Point starts and ends there. I put my faith in Jesus Christ and try to follow in his footsteps. Just like I believe in capitalism and freedom to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and will vote based on who I think best represents those ideas, like Trump for example
>>79080518
Of course, but you can't call yourself a Christian
>>79080808
ayyy but what about my other point about the sheer number of religions that have existed?
because that's some needle in a haystack type shit
>>79080808
I believe in capitalism but i certainly wouldn't say I have "faith" in it. At least faith that not backed by cold hard evidence and reasoning. What would be the point?
>>79079914
“The Pythagorean numbers, envisaged as the principles of things, are by no means numbers as understood by the moderns, whether mathematicians or physicists…this is but one more instance of the fact that the profane sciences of which the modern world is so proud are really and truly only the degenerate ‘residues’ of the ancient traditional sciences, just as quantity itself, to which they strive to reduce everything, is…no more than the ‘residue’ of its existence emptied of everything that constituted its essence; thus these pretended sciences, by leaving aside or even intentionally eliminating all that is truly essential, clearly prove themselves incapable of furnishing the explanation of anything whatsoever.”
There's no proof I'm not fucking your mother while I post this either
Would you say you're agnostic on this issue as well?
>>79067707
>nor is there proof of one not existing
the lack of proof that one exist is proof enough that one doesn't
>>79080656
Maybe a 1% chance that God doesn't exist. Your mileage my vary.
>>79067707
Because I have proof God does exist, but it is not the God of the Bible.
>>79081210
That's quite high. Interesting.
>>79081304
describe this god
>>79080856
Kinda weird since I attend church every week but okay
>>79081304
what god is it and post proofs
inb4 schizophrenic
>>79081109
Is this from The Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus?
Top post ever, BTW
>>79081444
>don't believe in the teaching of the church
>attend anyway
makes sense
>>79081029
Because all three of the sacred texts in succession (Torah, Bible, Quran) acknowledge one another and confirm the events that took place. They all descended from Abraham. So I believe that Jehova, God, Allah, etc. is the one true God. I think that the messiah has already come, but I think Islam is heresy. Not sure how else to explain it there. I would say there's more reasons that the big three have the most followers other than "JOIN OR DIE INFIDEL"
>>79081210
proof necessary for the existence of god = 0
number of possible gods under no proof rule = infinite.
possibility of god = 1/infinity
>Thousands of gods made up in every country
>BUT MY GOD IS THE REAL GOD BECAUSE IT SAYS SO HERE IN THIS BOOK WRITTEN BY A MAN
There's no evidence of God, but plenty of the enrmy
>>79081721
>leaf
>>79081597
I believe in many of their teachings.
>>79081184
>>79078456
>my personal knowledge of things determines whether or not said things exist
>>79081661
i'd say the reason they're so popular is because of how simple the basic concept is, 1 god instead of many who demands an exact list of things from you
honestly if i signed up for an abrahamic religion it'd be judaism simply because it was the earliest and hence most likely to be correct
>>79082040
You don't get to pick and choose
>>79082258
Sure I do.
Watch this: I believe in Christian gender roles but not in hell.
>>79082454
Then you're not a Christian. It's pretty simple.
>>79082454
so where do bad assholes go then?
inb4 dante'a inferno tiered afterlife
>>79078030
> implying all Christians take the bible literally.
Wow thats not a strawman thats a fucking wickerman
>>79067707
Because I don't value facts.
>>79083008
if you don't take it literally you're not taking it seriously
that is basically what 'cultural christianity' is
mind you cultural christianity is what should have happened, you see in other cultures that people acknowledge previous beliefs are crazy but take only the good from it (i.e japanese shinto, still make new gods to this day but don't actually believe in them)
inb4 weeb anthropology of religion is a hobby
>>79067707
>>79072820
>>79072077
>>79072438
>>79074991
>>79076994
>>79078030
>>79078456
>>79080227
I would like to point the scientifically minded atheists ITT to these scientific articles:
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/12/07/physicists-send-particles-of-light-into-the-past-proving-time-travel-is-possible/
https://hacked.com/venture-capitalist-explains-quantum-computers-harness-parallel-universes/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
TL:DR—ARTICLE 1: 98% of AI specialists believe that within 60 years we will create an artificial intelligence that is infinitely smarter than the sum of humanity. In our world, 130 IQ means genius. An AI with a 12,310 IQ and growing would never be able to be outwit by even the top geniuses of the world all working together—their combined intellect would be that of an ant compared to this mathematically inevitable, infinite AI.
ARTICLE 2: Physicists create an artificial wormhole, send a photon of light through it, and successfully have it interact with its older self. The first bit of PROOF that time travel is indeed possible.
ARTICLE 3: Quantum Computers utilize the idea of superposition and parallel universes to solve problems that could not be solved by a conventional computer, even if you gave them an infinite amount of time to try and gave them every last atom of resources in our known universe to build the computer with.
ARTICLE 4 (video): This famous "double slit" experiment shows how the mere act of observation changes reality. When light goes through the two slits unobserved, it creates an interference pattern. When you try to observe the individual particles to see what they're doing...they no longer act like a wave. The mere act of observing, changes reality. Consciousness changes reality.
Infinite intelligence, time travel, parallel universes, consciousness changing reality...all very real and proven.
CONT
>>79083276
True, I believe that with Christian values at heart people build better communities.
>>79083447
>the mere act of observation changes reality
i believe it but this has always annoyed the shit out of me
like how? are eyes magic or something lol
>>79082172
>it was the earliest and hence most likely to be correct
that doesn't follow.
even if that weren't a genetic fallacy, the Bible has it's final form around 300 AD, but used text at least a century older, with the first being created before 70 AD.
the talmud, whose first texts were written 200 AD, and last texts 500 AD, are clearly much younger.
>>79083276
some parts are meant to not be taken literally, take what Jesus says in John 10:7 for example:
"I am the door[...]"
for us to take the Bible seriously, do we have to believe that he's saying he's a literal door?
the other way round: What about the ATEIST FAITH. You trust in a Big Bang and
"random" Evolution. The first is Biggest Blunder (as said by Einstein), and the Evolution was not "random" and "local" and it can be proved.
It can be mathematically proved, that Cosmos was created, as is written in 1st ten rows of Genesis - by an accoustic wave in cold hydrogen medium from "above", being hyper-spherical, as Einstein have shown, but scientists that "corner-stone" had rejected and invented that big non-sense of Big bang.
There are more "mathematic proofs" in Bible, yet to come. Then the jews could not understand that by themselves, SOMEONE had to tell them. There is a proof of knowledge of far planets until Pluto in evangelium and it can be proven, that they could not "see" them with their equipment...
Look at Kaaba, where Muslims are playing alive statue of a Galaxy. You probably know there is a black hole in center of galaxy, you do not know yet it is 4+t-dimensional internally, and is best depicted by a black cube, arround which they are marching in a proper direction, throwing "stones" into the black-hole... Any more evident proof there was SOMEONE, who inspired Muhammad with this? Because he could not understand a galaxy by himself... And it is SO obvious...
So how about your unscientific Faith or Trust in big-bang? (You did not verify it, you just believe scientists... Some of them were mistaken, some of them are outright liars, like the WMAP team, and can show in what exactly...)
So better be at least "agnostic" yet, but politely prepare for a choice, that "they" (the Christians and partly Muslims) were mostly (but not exactly!) right and scientists were not.
>>79067707
yah, im agnostic, but i also dont fucking care enough to be christian or atheist, so that probably explains it
CONTINUED FROM
>>79083447
I ask you scientifically minded people this question—given the light of time travel, parallel worlds, super intelligence, and the effect of consciousness on reality...do you truly believe we are the first ones to harness these powers?
There is an idea in physics where if you had the power to move things atom by atom, you could indeed change one substance into another. It's physically possible, we just can't move things that small.
There is another idea that if you can change the atomic structure of things, we could replenish organs and cells forever, achieving immortality. The first article goes into this and the prior topic of transforming one element into another.
Suddenly, with immortality, time travel, transmutation, parallel worlds, and consciousness's affect on reality, all proven with scientific backing...is it truly impossible to believe that someone else got to these powers first, and is putting us through a test?
Suddenly water into wine, eternal life, and a super intelligent omniscient being must seriously be considered. This isn't sky fairy euphoria. This is science, proving the inevitability of Godlike powers.
Do you truly believe, in the infinite expanse of time...that we are the first? That the bible is...impossible?
If you're intrigued, I suggest you look up the prophecy of the last pope (it's Francis), the strange connections Obama has to the number 666 and Islam, and the strange significance of 9/23/2015.
Do not assume we know anything about this known universe. Only a fool believes he is wise.
>>79084011
>that doesn't follow.
you hate mohammad for doing more or less what jesus did, hijacked an initial belief system to make their own
>"I am the door[...]"
obvious metaphor but what should you even take as a metaphor? is there no correct way to interpret the thing?
There is no such thing as just "Agnostic" You're either an Agnostic Deist or an Agnostic Theist.
>>79084074
>as is written in 1st ten rows of Genesis - by an accoustic wave in cold hydrogen medium from "above", being hyper-spherical
whut? Where does it say that in genesis? Why is "above" in quotes?
>What about the ATEIST FAITH. You trust in a Big Bang and
"random" Evolution.
christians believe in the big bang and evolution too. Why is "random" in quotes? What's random about evolution?
>>79082617
Devils advocate but so anyone who doesn't take every word of the Bible word for word isn't a Christian?
>>79082667
Does hell not sound like the most human creation ever?
>people I don't like burn. Forever.
>people I like live forever.
>all based on the 80 years they spent on earth
>>79084880
you're completely right hell was made up in the medieval period to stop peasants killing themselves actually, but then if that's not right how are evil people even punished lol
>>79067707
I used to be agnostic, but now I'm not so sure
>>79072820
My side's
>>79084880
There are so many perversions and alterations of Christianity. The fact that many believe their life on Earth is the only test is one of them. After the second coming, there will be a 1000 year reign on Earth by Christ. Those who pass their mortal life test will be in the government of God, and their job is to convert the rest of humanity. After this 1000 year reign, those who do not wish to obey God will die and suffer hell fire.
There is a book called Mystery of the Ages that I highly suggest you read. Christianity will make sense to you, I promise.
>>79083948
No it doesn't. This is another meme created by those who didn't understand what the experiment actually achieved. It shows the duality of light as having both the characteristics of a wave and a particle at the same time. To really, really oversimplify it, it isn't that it changes when you observe it, it's that it changes depending on how you observe it.
>>79084505
my feewings toward mohammad aside, whether or not something predates another thing has no impact on its veracity is what i was trying to express.
you should take as a metaphor what the author intended to be a metaphor, that would be the correct way.
we can't know for 100% certainty what exactly that is, but we don't just go picking the ones we like or flipping a coin.
>>79085774
It's still aware that you're observing it.
An electron particle changes its behavior because it knows you're watching it.
Care to tell me how that makes sense mr. anon science man?
>>79085774
thankyou rare flag i profess total ignorance of the experiment 2bh
>>79077146
I never said that though. That's just you assigning traits to God because you're trying to disprove him
You're trying to put God in this box for some reason when the concept of God is that he has no limits. He can be eternal and create something. There's no reason that doesn't make sense
>>79084464
>and a super intelligent omniscient being must seriously be considered
...or an infinite number of super intelligent omniscient beings in an infinite number of universes must seriously be considered.
which god is the god of gods...?
>>79067707
>There is no proof of God existing or not existing so I'm an atheist but with a different title.
>>79079914
OK not show me one with athiesm
>Taught to young males
>Told to be gentleman and wear fedoras
>encouraged to only attack christans and their belifs
>will never lose their virgnity
>>79086419
>which god is the god of gods
The one that is
>>79074991
>Implying time is a actual, tangible thing; not just a tool/concept dreamt up by humans.
>Implying God is a person, and bound by grasping concepts and limited creativity.
God is a force, much less of a person. God is the will of the universe, the will for the universe to exist and thrive. God is unlike us in many ways, and using the same standards of humans, to compare to God, is plain silly.
if you believe that time and space are infinite, or if you believe in multiverse theory, then you must concede that at some point in spacetime in some dimension there is an all knowing and all powerful being
>>79086635
Does "the one that is" have a god?
>>79086419
Christianity has an answer for this—the angels are like lesser gods.
1/3 of the angels work for Lucifer, the most powerful angel, and the other 2/3's work for God, the most powerful being in the universe. All the angels are smarter than us. All the angels are immortal. All the angels have things we would consider "superpowers". They are immortal, made of spirit, have talents, jobs, and free will. Even Lucifer has free will. God has turned his free choice of rebellion into a job—to corrupt humanity, to test and see which humans will resist him. Those who resist him are chosen to rule with Christ in the Government of God, where they will be made like God, greater than the angels. And the job of the Government of God is to convert the rest of humanity.
>>79086857
Obviously not
>>79086115
>an electron particle changes its behavior because you're observing it
No you fuck nugget, it displays both states at the same time, but could only be observed in one state prior to the experiment. It's about wave particle duality in hand waves quantum physics shit, which is fucking hard to explain in layman's terms. To put it simply, What we see changes with HOW the experiment observes it, not the act of observing it itself. It didn't change because we looked at it, how we looked at it changed what we saw.
>>79086131
That's not a problem, as long as you don't pretend to know what you're talking about. If you're willing to learn, no one should give you any shit.
>rare flag
I haven't been called rare in quite a long time. I've been told I'm uncommon at best.
>>79084464
lost me at the end but I get the jist of what you're saying. Basically everything and anything can happen when taking into consideration quantum mechanics. But aren't the findings based on observations? Parallels can be drawn to this experiment and the blue&black / White&gold dress, individual minds created that perception based on the evidence that was given. I don't know the specifics of the experiment but it seems rather foolish to simply 'watch and see what happens'
And with the immortality and reconstruction of life, the water into wine argument. Yes theoretically that could work, but you can't just plop on atoms on top of one another. They share bonds and interact with one another, and consequently form these elements. Instantly changing the chemical makeup of something (water into wine) would cause that compound to be unstable.
>>79088262
>>79084464
To be universally intelligent is one thing, but to create life is another.
Also, I might add that compounds can change very quickly and almost instantaneously by normal means. Provide me with evidence that we can create by inorganic means.
>>79067707
Science explains how things/exist work, but really as to why,
This is why I believe in God.
>>79089057
but *not really as to why
>>79086709
An infinite number of possibilities does not guarantee all must occur at some point.
>>79087862
So it exists in all states until I choose to observe it.
My conscious decision to observe it collapses its wavefunction, thus changing it's outcome from an objective to subjective state, making a wave of potentials into a concrete thing, in our reality.
The reality of what is, is dependent on my choice. It is a wave of potentials until I act upon it, forcing the electrons to act differently because of my CONSCIOUS CHOICE TO OBSERVE IT.
>>79085092
Some get punished, some don't. If there's anything I doubt it's after the grave though.
>> 79084620
> why "above" in quotes ?
Gn1.2 - "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
"upon the face" is actually word "above". In quotes, because you understand "above" as +Z direction, and instead it is +U direction in fourth spatial dimension, above the surface of the hyper-sphere...
Gn1.2 "... without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep" - you will once appreciate this physically... Homogenous cold and dark hydrogen. Nothing else inside the hypersphere and really very deep. That one, who started it, had to be "above" (outside) the sphere... By an accoustic wave the condensation nuclei are created, and they gravitationally collapse to stars and the Light is started...
The hyper-spherical space, as promoted by Einstein, is possibly ONLY, if it is from the very beginning large and continuous. Mathematically can show, that it could never be small or too dense at some point, it had to be "dark, cold and formless" at the beginning, and inside that "dark and void" could not be the "Starter", it had to be outside - say "above"...
Then - "firmament" is not the "sky"...
Then Gn1.11, creating "plants" before "Solar system" - find "Panspermia" theory - the DNA bio-computer had to be developed outside Earth - if it could appear here just few milions of years after water from asteroids, it would happen many times later similar. It never happened again - it was brought here from outside... Then it evolved here on Earth, but not "at random", instead in "protection until now from ancient" (translated instead as "garden in eden from east"), some steps of evolution could not happen "randomly", someone had to "help them"...
Then Gn2, the "side" (not a "rib") from "the red one" (adam) is called Luna, the chapter starts "this is generation of Sky and Earth", chapter starts Gn2:4.
Then only Gn3 is about "human" (adam) generally, no single "Adam" man...
Rest of Genesis is book of alive Archetypes, not the book of a dead past History...
>>79084620
>...
Rest of Genesis is book of alive Archetypes, not the book of a dead past History...
The "Heaven" is not the "Sky", it is outside from the hypersphere, here everywhere very near. There also is the "downward" (inside) world... (hypersphere is 4D sphere with 3D surface, which we experience as our world...)
Then - how much do you 3D being influence a 2D "anime" below the "glass" screen? Not much often, but possibly can. How would it understand +Z direction while being flat? How often influences 4D God us 3D beings below the "glass" of "event horizont" ? Sometimes, probably not that often...??
>>79089878
How is "hypersphere" defined in Genesis? I doubt the concept of the hypersphere existed back then. I recall one of those books implying that PI = 3.
>>79089604
>So it exists in all states until I choose to observe it
It exists in all states whether you observe it or not. We can only look at one state at a time.
>my conscious decision to observe it collapses it's wave function
You're pulling this directly out of your ass. It exists as BOTH a wave AND a particle, AT THE SAME TIME. When you look at it as a particle, IT'S STILL A WAVE TOO.
>forcing the electrons to act differently until I observe it
Did you even read what I said? They don't behave any differently than they do already, we just can't see both at the same time. It changes nothing about how it acts, it just changes what we can see. Where is all this shit coming from?
>>79083447
[1] AI is as smart as programmer and it learns in similar way as human.
[2] "Although no CTCs (closed timelike curves) have been discovered to date, quantum simulation nonetheless enables us to study their unique properties and behaviour." Theory of something that doesn't even exist - bullshit.
[3] crazy science-fiction claims.
[4] observation doesn't change reality, and in fact individual particles act as wave. It looks like you don't understand basics of quantum mechanics. Read about Schroedingers equation first.
>>79088827
I can't provide evidence with what creates life because there is very little study on what consciousness actually is?
What is a thought? Are they particles? Waves? Both? Are they a series of electrons? They certainly exist, so they must be made of something. Some thoughts are conscious, others are not. Where do the unconscious thoughts come from? Are they put there? Do the come from random organic fluctuations?
If a thought is a wave, can it be picked up, like a radio wave?
There is so much science of thought that we don't know. And there are so many tremendous breakthroughs in strange science happening right now, all in perfect concordance with biblical end-time prophecy from judaism, christianity and islam. Are we getting right to the point where we can peek beyond the veil?
The gravity particle discovered last year had some very interesting implications. A particle that can slip into other dimensions. What is in those other dimensions? Are they conscious? Can they hear our thoughts? Are thoughts able to slip into other dimensions, like gravity particles?
I feel as though science is like a 1,000,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, and we both have to put it together, and find all the pieces, which are lost. Let's say the first 100,000 pieces we find are all pictures of water. So naturally, we assume the puzzle is that of an ocean or a lake. But now we're finding pieces that do not look like water. They look like eyes, hands, hair, stone. Turns out the water was just a picture inside a bigger picture, that contains a woman and a floating eye. Would you describe this puzzle as "a puzzle depicting a body of water" or would describe first the woman and the floating eye? Would you even mention the water? Even though for 6000 years you thought that's all it was?
The things we discover now might throw into question the value of everything we've ever held as the Truth, in regards to science.
>>79091442
No, AI is not as smart as a programmer.
If I program an AI that utilizes the sum total of human knowledge, and I give it a specific job—to make a better AI, it quickly becomes smarter than a programmer. You didn't read the article, because it was probably too long. And that's ok :)
>>79091710
>If a thought is a wave, can it be picked up, like a radio wave?
Yes, the tech already exists. You can play PC games with your mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kctOHnrvuM
>>79084620
So then back to the begining - agnosticism...
You are not omniscient and not stone-dumb, so you need to believe something and also doubt many.
You probably believe scientists, because they look wise - but few centuries ago it were scientists, who proved, that the Earth is flat and alive creatures like flies and earthworms are just "happening" by itself from non-alive mud. Now they just moved it an octave further, that universe is 3D flat and Live just "happened" from non-alive mud some billions of years ago, but it is still the same nonsense... So you can believe them much, but ultimatelly not all.
And really better be polite before accusing others of nonsense, because there always is a certain level of Blunder.
Same with churches - everyone, who has a patent for infallibility, is in the blunder which he does not want to correct...
So they (we) understood as much from God, as was suitable for antique people, and a lot of knowledge had to wait, until Humanity of mankind is developped, so that the unwise and ruthless usage of Knowledge, without "Love, Compassion and Mercy" teached by Christ, would damage or destroy the planet and us, and if "They" waited few billions of years tending Their garden "Earth", did not want us to destroy us...?
There is no god and nothing happens when you die.
>>79092309
There you go. If a thought is a wave, and can be picked up by technology, what's to say a conscious being in another dimension cannot?
Now, let's say I smoke cigarettes. Keeping the body free of impurities is a command in the Bible. But if I didn't know that, am I sinning? If my intentions are to follow the bible, and I do everything else right, am I damned? I would say, no. BUT, if I think "should I look up if smoking is a sin?" and quickly think "no, because then if it is I'll have to quit, and I don't wiant to", did I just think myself into a sin? I know I should look it up, but I chose to remain ignorant, so that I could sin with impunity. I would say, yes...now it's a sin. I just changed my reality of being damned/saved with a thought, because it translated into an action of willful ignorance—defiance.
God knows your intent. Once you become aware, you must act. Thoughts change your reality.
>>79093046
This
Gnostics are just faggots too pussy to admit that we're it
>>79092982
>but few centuries ago it were scientists, who proved, that the Earth is flat
Which scientists were they?
If the best evidence at the time suggested that the earth is flat, then why believe anything different?
you need to work on your english christoff.
>>79076488
kekkediddllykekked
>>79093410
The best evidence of the time is not necessarily the truth. The best evidence of our time suggests there is no God. The best evidence of their time suggested the earth was flat. We found out they were wrong.
Is it possible that despite our best evidence about God, that we are wrong?
>>79093363
You don't know the difference between gnostic and agnostic it appears.
>>79093772
>The best evidence of the time is not necessarily the truth. The best evidence of our time suggests there is no God. The best evidence of their time suggested the earth was flat.
agreed. But why believe anything else except what the best evidence suggests? Would you think people who believed the earth was flat at 500BC were unwise to think so?
>Is it possible that despite our best evidence about God, that we are wrong?
Of course. But it's possible that everything we know is wrong. That doesn't mean we shouldn't believe anything. Our best evidence suggests there is not a purple troll named "Edgar" who enjoys english tea who lives on the dark side of the moon. We could be wrong about that. But does that mean we should believe Edgar is real because we can't be sure he isn't? The odds of him being real are astronomically low to the point where no one would seriously believe he exists based on what evidence we have.
>>79091710
Very interesting, I like the notion that these particles may have a conscious. But it seems like conclusions are being drawn or are in the process of being drawn with little evidence. Why not say these are just random occurrences or sporadic moments? Didn't people think that there was no way there could be any life without a creator because it seemed too un-ordinary?
Things just happen, there does not need to be a rhyme or reason to it. This is the flaw within humans. We have trouble believing in coincidences or things that seem to be too good to be true. Its the same pattern as 100 years ago to 1,000 years ago. Just because you survived a car crash going 100 mph doesn't mean god was looking out for you. Your grandma beating the odds against cancer wasn't god looking out for her. Because for every one of those survivors there are countless deaths from the same causes.
Lack of evidence is not proof for anything. Stating that there is a god or intelligent creator without any hard evidence is just as foolish as stating there is not one. But as of right now we have no evidence for a god so by default is 'there is no god'. But it does not mean we should stop looking. Drawing conclusions like this are what is wrong with the world. We must take the data at face value until it is proven otherwise. If a god exists and can be scientifically proven I will accept it. Until then I have no reason as to why I should.
>>79090679
> How is "hypersphere" defined in Genesis?
No, hypersphere was proved by Einstein (see wiki/Einstein's_universe ) and it is just mathematics and physics. The "redshift" was then almost correctly explained by "David Crawford" recently in 2011, no expansion...
Only if you understand it, then you also will understand, what the lines Gn1:1-10 really mean (water is hydrogen, "the earth" is "3D universe"...) or what Rev4 and Ez1 mean, and it will be immediatelly clear, that antique jews could not understand it by themselves and just invent it, hence SOMEONE had to tell them. Mathematic proof. Then WHO told them you can believe, HOW is he you can only imagine or believe, but there are parts, that will be possible to prove with our current level of Knowledge...
Then if He or They wanted us to understand Him or Them as God(s), then why not? (In old testament, 99% occurences of word "God" are in plural, but used often with a verb in singular...)
Remember the Aztec (or Inka?) figures, that are visible, only if you fly high? There are also "figures" in ancient books and rituals, that you will start to see (comprehend), only if we will be sufficiently "high" level, but then they will become obvious...
And similar is a Kaaba alive statue of Galaxy, it is obvious only now in "cosmic" age, when we know, how such a galaxy looks and that it is not a "milky whitish path" on the sky... (but it does not justify at all, how they bent and spoiled the Islam, the "peacemaking", later... that some parts are genuine does not mean that all is genuine and infallible... everywhere is a certain level of Blunder...)
>>79067707
Fuck off OP, if you don't believe in something it will not exist within you. You clearly did not get the point.
>>79092178
knowledge is nothing without intelligence, look at poeple with eidetic memory. When you project AI you have to create it's intelligence, the way it thinks, the way it learn new things. It's sad to say but today artificial neural networks have nothing to do with intelligence and abstract thinking. It's great mathematical tool but nothing more yet.
>>79095698
>No, hypersphere was proved by Einstein
then why did you say
>as is written in 1st ten rows of Genesis - by an acoustic wave in cold hydrogen medium from "above", being hyper-spherical
Einstein didn't come up with the hypersphere either. A hypersphere is a mathematical concept.
>The "redshift" was then almost correctly explained by "David Crawford" recently in 2011, no expansion...
What are you on about?
>what the lines Gn1:1-10 really mean
What are those lines?
>water is hydrogen
Water is absolutely not hydrogen. What would make you think that?
>"the earth" is "3D universe"
How do you know that's what it means?
I'm still trying to figure out ways of talking to ants.
>>79067707
Because when I come up to whatever the fuck is up in heaven or hell I can proudly tell them that I've made a decision on what I want to believe in instead of just pulling the "Yo, I didn't say you didn't exist." card.
>>79067707
I'm an agnostic theist to be honest, it's perfectly as valid as its inverse
see Argument from Ignorance
>inb4 Burden of Proof
It does not affect the (lack of) validity of the Argument from Ignorance
