Is there any proof God exists?
Hmm..
It is a very
interesting day..
in now..
but in still the spirit of
'stealing' evidence for the
higher power of GOD..
here is a 7542 word
PLUS multi-media
presentation of 'my' evolving
PROOF, FOR THOSE WHO HAVE EYES
AND EARS THAT SEE AND HEAR
A 'LITTLE' FURTHER..
than most if not all...
But it's just 'a day in the life for me'...
Dam.. i'm looking more like 'that statue' in
the front row all the time it seems like now..
But anyway.. sometimes life is just one big DOUBLE
ENTENDRE..
Yes.. at one point.. a rather cold-hearted dude.. named me as the 7000 word man..
from this website..
i guess he was/is a 'prophet' of sorts..
http://katiemiafrederick.com/2015/03/28/gods-higher-power-in-one-body-blood-and-words/
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
Canadian1911
Sea Gull
Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!
Quote:
"Never yet, found a reasonable argument in favor of 'god.''
More than likely that is because silly humans make the reasons and the rules.
God is not ruled by either humans or human reason.
One must 'get out' a 'little bit' to come to understand THAT
AND GOD TOO...
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD BUT
'Stepping out of the silly illusions of human reason'.
That goes beyond
ALL HUMAN CONSTRUCTED WORDS, MATH, SCIENCE AND THE WHOLE GAME
OF HUMAN "CULTURE PRESCRIBED LIFE"
CULTURE IS THE 'RED AND BLUE PILL'.
GOD IS THE GREEN PILL FOR JUST DOING LIFE AS IS.
SO YEAH, YNOT; GOD IS A GREEN
PILL;
YES, THE GREEN PILL; LIVE IT FREE
OR NOT, FOR 'REAL FOOLS' WHO DO
NOT BELIEVE THEY EVEN HAVE THE
POTENTIAL FOR RELATIVE FREE WILL;
OR THE HUMAN EMOTING EMOTIONS
OF FAITH, HOPE, AND BELIEF THAT MAKES
STUFF HAPPEN, NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE DEPENDING
ON THE IMAGINATION AND CREATIVITY THAT MAY OR
NOT POWER UP THOSE REAL HUMAN EMOTIONS FOR ACTION!
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
Did you seriously just post this on an autistic spectrum forum? Go ahead and report me to the mods, but I'm wondering if you're an NT and/or a troll. It's one thing to debate ideas and hold the views of others as ridiculous. It's entirely something else to attack someone outright with that level of insensitivity.
People, let's play nicely please.
I'm tired of this merry-go-round of nonsense.
Look here if you dare.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/lib ... orrupt.htm
Last time I got a count there were 135 of these inexplicable preservations recorded... some of which were chopped up for souvenirs for various dignitaries.
And if you are exceptionally brave;
http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_app ... cles1.html
I'm not presenting this as "proof" of anything but the arrogance and ignorance of the perverse. In about the last 200 years no "miracle" has been accepted as such unless it has been acknowledged by secular authorities as "inexplicable" according to the best science available.
Compare that scrupulousness to the credulity of Materialists who blithely accept fairy tales of "Singularities", Black Holes, Worm Holes, Multiverses and so on... none of which can be justified or verified by observation or experiment.
I kinda believe; but I don't follow any religion because I think religions are a way if controlling people and it's just dogma.
_________________
We become what we think about; since everything in the beginning is just an idea.
Destruction and creation are 2 sides of the same coin.
Premise #1. A thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist. (Self evident. The only possible alternative is self-contradictory and thus absurd.)
Premise#2. An effect cannot be greater than its cause(s). (An extension of #1. For an effect to be greater than its cause requires the spontaneous addition of something that was not in the cause(s). i.e. the extra something that didn't exist suddenly came to exist without a cause).
Therefore, an infinite regression of causes (with each preceding being greater that its successor) will inevitably regress by an infinite number of steps to an infinite cause. An infinite succession of anything will take an infinite time so however far back you go it hasn't begun yet and however far forward from the (infinitely wayback) beginning you haven't got here yet.
In a nutshell, that's why an infinite regression of causes is impossible.
I will also contend that an infinite First Cause will not need an infinite succession of sub-causes to be the cause of anything that is not self-contradictory.
As far as ontological-ish arguments go, that's actually fairly good.
Except that before the creation of time there is no causality at all, since you need time for that.
Premise #1. A thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist. (Self evident. The only possible alternative is self-contradictory and thus absurd.)
Premise#2. An effect cannot be greater than its cause(s). (An extension of #1. For an effect to be greater than its cause requires the spontaneous addition of something that was not in the cause(s). i.e. the extra something that didn't exist suddenly came to exist without a cause).
Therefore, an infinite regression of causes (with each preceding being greater that its successor) will inevitably regress by an infinite number of steps to an infinite cause. An infinite succession of anything will take an infinite time so however far back you go it hasn't begun yet and however far forward from the (infinitely wayback) beginning you haven't got here yet.
In a nutshell, that's why an infinite regression of causes is impossible.
I will also contend that an infinite First Cause will not need an infinite succession of sub-causes to be the cause of anything that is not self-contradictory.
As far as ontological-ish arguments go, that's actually fairly good.
Except that before the creation of time there is no causality at all, since you need time for that.
Obviously I expect an empirical answer complete with all the relevant data.
Premise #1. A thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist. (Self evident. The only possible alternative is self-contradictory and thus absurd.)
Premise#2. An effect cannot be greater than its cause(s). (An extension of #1. For an effect to be greater than its cause requires the spontaneous addition of something that was not in the cause(s). i.e. the extra something that didn't exist suddenly came to exist without a cause).
Therefore, an infinite regression of causes (with each preceding being greater that its successor) will inevitably regress by an infinite number of steps to an infinite cause. An infinite succession of anything will take an infinite time so however far back you go it hasn't begun yet and however far forward from the (infinitely wayback) beginning you haven't got here yet.
In a nutshell, that's why an infinite regression of causes is impossible.
I will also contend that an infinite First Cause will not need an infinite succession of sub-causes to be the cause of anything that is not self-contradictory.
As far as ontological-ish arguments go, that's actually fairly good.
Except that before the creation of time there is no causality at all, since you need time for that.
Obviously I expect an empirical answer complete with all the relevant data.
Didn't the Big Bang create spacetime? Without that there wouldn't be much causality. And we both know that even if I came up with a scientific article it is unlikely that either of us could interpret the data and the mathematics, unless you happen to be a theoretical physicist.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
Premise #1. A thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist. (Self evident. The only possible alternative is self-contradictory and thus absurd.)
Premise#2. An effect cannot be greater than its cause(s). (An extension of #1. For an effect to be greater than its cause requires the spontaneous addition of something that was not in the cause(s). i.e. the extra something that didn't exist suddenly came to exist without a cause).
Therefore, an infinite regression of causes (with each preceding being greater that its successor) will inevitably regress by an infinite number of steps to an infinite cause. An infinite succession of anything will take an infinite time so however far back you go it hasn't begun yet and however far forward from the (infinitely wayback) beginning you haven't got here yet.
In a nutshell, that's why an infinite regression of causes is impossible.
I will also contend that an infinite First Cause will not need an infinite succession of sub-causes to be the cause of anything that is not self-contradictory.
As far as ontological-ish arguments go, that's actually fairly good.
Except that before the creation of time there is no causality at all, since you need time for that.
Obviously I expect an empirical answer complete with all the relevant data.
Actually, what he's saying is logical. It makes sense. At a certain point, since infinite regression is impossible, you reach a point at which there are no causes left. Basically, if there was a first cause, what caused it? In other words, what caused God?
Except that's not a problem. Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. If something were to be infinite in nature, it can't be said to have ever BEGUN…it always WAS and always WILL BE. It is able to lie outside the causal chain and still initiate it. No caused first Cause is necessary. It is logical to conclude that the first Cause was uncaused.
There are also events that are probabilistic and not deterministic, such as radioactive decay. That just functions outside of causality (or maybe it has a cause that we have not yet been able to identify). Perhaps universes pop into existence in a probabilistic way, there is just no way to know right now. And to continue on my train of unfounded thought: perhaps universes cause other universes to exist. That could possibly explain the finely-tuned universe, as finely-tuned universes may be better at causing new universes to exist. Of course there is zero evidence for this, it's just something I was thinking of a while ago.
Well, yesterday morning I spent so much time posting to this thread that I was later than I wanted to be getting to my exercising. My exercising is important to me because it is critical for staying healthy, especially at my age. So, as enjoyable as it is to argue whether or not there's a magic man in the sky (or an ineffable non-corporeal intelligence outside of space and time who for reasons unknown decided to create a universe with a world as malformed as this one), I'm dropping out of this thread. I'm not leaving WP, just this thread. Have fun, all. Last one out, please turn off the lights.
Now that's common sense; TAKING A 'LONG' BREAK FROM THIS MARATHON THREAD.
Even I had to compress my extreme strength training/ballet/martial arts work-out at my military gym, from three hours to ONE hour, last night, after writing over 7,000 words here yesterday, in this one LONG frigging thread.
But creative writing is what I do as joy, not task or work, as being financially independent does have its perks, no matter how much I don't care for money, ironically, and also with COMMON SENSE..
Truly the GOD OF NATURE 'WOULD' AND WILL BE 'PROUD' OF YOU FOR USING YOUR MIND AND BODY IN BALANCE, WHETHER THAN BEING JUST A TALKING HEAD.
LESSON LEARNED FOR ME, WHEN I AM TWELVE YEARS OLD, AND EXERCISING WITHOUT FAIL EVERY WEEK, EXCEPT FOR MY FIRST LOVE WHO TALKS ME (P WHIPS) ME IN TO NOT DOING IT FOR A YEAR, WHEN I am 18 years old, and that IS a huge mistake, as my executive functioning goes to HELL IN A BOX OF STICKY LOVE..
It IS almost worth it; her breaking my heart; to get my mind and body BACK IN BALANCE.
Ahh, but without the requirement to work, I have time at age 54, to do things,
FEW other males GET TO JUST DO, MY AGE.
IT'S LIKE A MID-LIFE NUCLEAR EMPOWERING EXPLOSION;
INSTEAD OF IMPLODING HEALTH IN MIND AND BODY BALANCE CRISIS, AT WORK..
YES, I ALREADY DID THAT PART, AT AGE 47, FOR AROUND 66 MONTHS, OR SO.
ENJOY YOUR HEALTH, IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN LIFE.
And truly that is my area of speciality and expertise that will obviously not be well understood,
or appreciated here, for more than obvious reasons to me, OVERALL, at least.
WHOMEVER BELIEVES OTHERWISE WITH A TALKING HEAD,
may LOSE THEIR MIND AND BODY BALANCE,
IF EVER GAINED AT ALL,
in a hell of real life now.
To live with mind and body balance
is to live like the rest of Nature
AND/or GOD BEST WHEN IN BALANCE.
AND OH MY GOD of NATURE
THAT'S JUST FRIGGING COMMON SENSE TO
END HUMAN MISERY, SUFFERING, STRIFE,
AND EVEN KILLING FIELDS OF BLOOD.
EASY IN REAL LIFE, YES,
WHEN EXERCISED FULLY IN HUMAN POTENTIAL
BUT EXTREMELY HARD FOR TALKING HEADS,
AS THE EVIDENCE DOES PROVIDE,
at least for me, HERE, IRREFUTABLY AS SUCH.
Truly folks, who have anything close to mind and body balance,
USUALLY do not mind SHOWING THEIR REAL FACE AND OR BODY, TO OTHERS.
THAT'S JUST COMMON SENSE.
But of course, I'm not saying anyone should have to DO THAT online;
to each his own will, is my philosophy on that; no matter the eventual long term consequences,
of fuller or lesser human potential.
And I am certain that THE GOD OF NATURE AGREES TOO,
AS EXTINCTION OF ENTIRE SPECIES IS A WAY OF GOD TOO,
IN ALL WAYS THAT HAPPENS BOTH REAL and metaphorically too
IN MORE FULLY ATTAINING HUMAN POTENTIAL
OR NOT.
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
Anyhow, the best (most precise and succinct) definition of time that I know of is "time is the rate of succession of events". No events and no succession thereof = no time. It's an enchantingly beautiful definition if you think about it.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
The Opposite of Deja Vu Exists & It's Even More Uncanny |
15 Mar 2024, 6:44 pm |
There exists a book on Hanafuda Fortune Telling |
01 Apr 2024, 9:30 am |