Yes, No, I don't know

Author: EtrnlVw

Posts

Total: 165
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
I do believe God exists and this is why...

BECAUSE EVERYTHING CAME FROM SOMETHING AND THAT SOMETHING IS OFTEN REFERRED TO AS "GOD" (OR NOUMENON)

There we go! you answered lol, thank you!

Do you have any other reason for your answer? or does that suffice?
I have a veritable wellspring of logic to relay on the subject, but you're the one insisting on a specific framework, so I'll have to ask you to "be the judge".
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Remember that religious delusions are commonly found in schizophrenia.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Step ONE, define EXIST

Step TWO, define GOD

Step THREE, compare and contrast the two

3ru, there is three cosmically primary catagorizatoons of existence, and Ive laid them out clearly for some two or more years here and at former DDO.

As well as many other years elsewhere.

1} ________fill in the blank and we will see if you get them correct,

2} _________,

3} _________.


My guess is that no one here at DArt can do it correctly.



ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@RationalMadman
....If reality weren't intelligently designed,....
Not a fair assement RM, because, 'intelligently" infers/suggests a biologic-like creature{s} ---with access to Meta{beyond}-space mind/intellect/concepts--- eternally creates our finite, occupied space Universe.

Rather, it is that humans, with their access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts have potential to discover the patterning coding at all levels of occupied space Universe existence, that, eternally regenerate themselves in causal, deterministic process of either;

1] simple-to-complex, and/or,

2} complex-to-simple.

I believe the patterning coding for all occupied existence, exists in some black holes ergo directly related to Gravity.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
MICRO MIND METAPHYSICAL SPACE (GNOSIS)

FINITE OCCUPIED SPACE (ONLY THIS ONE COUNTS)

MACRO INFINITE UNOCCUPIED SPACE (NOUMENON)
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
MICRO MIND METAPHYSICAL SPACE (GNOSIS)
Huh? Micro mind vs macro mind? Have no idea what that is about.  Not sure you either :--)

This not correct and is not 'metaphysical' is more refined --ergo closer to an absolute truth-- as Meta-space.
 
1} Meta{beyond}-space = Mind = intellect = concepts ergo knowledge is correct assessment of one of three blanks I provided. The word "gnosis" is not one Ive ever used and seems to be a throw back to some religous sect or something. I dunno.  There are better words to use. Ex intellect. as we may have physical knowledege of something hit us in the head, and that is not intellect.  Cows have knowledge yet very little acccess to intellect/mind/concepts.

Again 3Ru, you  get and E for effort.


FINITE OCCUPIED SPACE (ONLY THIS ONE COUNTS)

3} There are counting { 1, 2, 3 etc }  and non-counting { only 0 } numbers. To say occupied space is the only one that counts is incorrect.  Without access to #1 above you and I would not be having this conversation.  True, that, experience ergo experience of some occupied space leads to >>> humans acccess to Meta-space/Spirit-1.

You get another E for effort but still lacking a little on a more refined description.

MACRO INFINITE UNOCCUPIED SPACE (NOUMENON)
3ru, again your word noumenon lacks refined description and is through back to time lesser set of knowledge base, than  we had in subsequent years since we do experience unoccupied space, just not a true non-occupied space.

..."the object, itself inaccessible to experience, to which a phenomenon is referred for the basis or cause of its sense content."..Well, 3ru, gravity is not inaccessible to our experience, even tho we dont quantify nor quantise gravity.

To be clear we do not  have access to any macro-infinite, except in the case of conceptual infinite ex with numerical infinity.  Many mathematicians have worked with such ex Cantor.

In context of the true non-occupied space, it is true we have no such experience of knowledge of such, tho, we can derive its existence through knowledge of #3 above i.e. if the occupied space Universe is finite, then there is one rational, logical common sense conclusion, as to what exists outside of it.

So 3ru, you get another E for effort and being correct.

So that is the cosmic trinary outline, now there is the cosmic trinary subset of each of the three above.

I will help you

#2, macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space, that, exists outside{ beyond } finite Universe has three aspects,

1} shaped by  finite Universe ---where they meet,

2} macro-infinite,

3} has no properties, other than a inner shape ergo allows for expansion or contraction of finite, occupied space Universe.




3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
what's a word that means "the opposite of a definition" ?
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
what's a word that means "the opposite of a definition" ?

No idea.  Enlighten us 3ru.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Bones
Look I usually don't like going back and forth in forums,

That's cool, I don't want you to do anything that is not interesting to you. 

do you want to debate the existence of God? 

Honestly I'm a free form kind of guy guy not a formal guy, I feel I can do that right here in this topic as I have time. I don't think I'd be bad at formal debates but it's not my passion although I do love to read them...I'm also extremely busy, I might not be on here for three days and then I get to punch out a few posts when I get a minute. I can't commit to a debate because it's not really my thing.
I'm also not really interested in putting any notches on my belt, I'm more about wanting to find common grounds and seeing if we can harmonize our thoughts why? because as you said, if there is some God out there you would love to know about it right?
Well I can give you some strong points to consider and I have the ability to bring you different perceptions about life and spirituality. Your beliefs can actually hinder your potential for truth. 

I'll tell you what, I do like you and I'd rather this not turn into a fight. Why don't we do this....lets talk about the possibility of a Creator without the interference of any particular religious source. Just give me one problem you see why you think God can't exist that doesn't relate to religion and we can build from there. And again, I'm  not looking to debunk you or make you look bad or anything like that. I'm more interested in your thinking process and making sure you aren't limiting your potential when you really don't have to accept limiting ideologies where not necessary. 
You are a unique expression of God, while your parents created your physical body your inner being (soul) originates with the Creator. You may not know it, but you are completely free to express those origins however you see fit. You are very much a part of that Reality as anyone else. 
I'll let you start anywhere you like, and I'll make this as interesting as I can. Tell me what you think about God, or how you view the topic in general. 


EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I have a veritable wellspring of logic to relay on the subject

That I like to hear :)

but you're the one insisting on a specific framework,

I'm sorry I'm not following. I have insisted nothing here about any framework, you have complete freedom to express God in anyway you see fit. This is your time and the ball is in your court. 

so I'll have to ask you to "be the judge".

Sure, you'll have to give me some content to think about first. 



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sure, you'll have to give me some content to think about first. 
PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLD

IMPERFECT WORLD = IMPERFECT GOD
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLD

IMPERFECT WORLD = IMPERFECT GOD

Yes yes, I remember you posting this. I'm not sure what you wish to say. Or want to say to me. I'm okay with imperfection, I don't even know what perfection would look like. Do you have any point behind this? why do you have to cap/bold the letters lol?
I also know the universe wasn't t created to be perfect, it is meant to experience birth, death and decay. With those features there can be no perfection. 


EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope.

Nope what?

As clearly stated elsewhere....I do not BELIEVE in fantasy tales.

That's not what I have asked. 

I ACCEPT the principle of purpose....Which can be referred to as a GOD principle....Can be labelled as a FRED principle if you like....It's just that the label GOD is a well established one.

So you believe in God? adding the word "principle" means nothing. You either believe in God or you don't. I'm not asking if you believe in any depiction of God so don't be so scared to tell everyone you're really a Theist. 

I also accept the idea of purposelessness.

Okay, with the life that has been permitted you, what reason can you offer to justify that? 

In terms of universe, popular religion is a recent and typical stab in the dark (It was a magic bloke what did it)....Though in terms of knowledge, popular religion is an archaic and unscientific stab in the dark.(It was a magic bloke what did it).

I don't care about religion. I mean it serves its purpose so what? Why are you always obsessed with religion? 

So you believe in magic blokes.....No problem.....That's just your conditioned way of coping.

What magic blokes? do you even know my beliefs? consciousness is not magic, it is a fixed Reality. Out of consciousness comes creation, out of consciousness comes energy, out of energy comes the substance within all of life. This is a not about magic, it is about the nature of development. 

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
I also know the universe wasn't t created to be perfect, it is meant to experience birth, death and decay. With those features there can be no perfection. 
Well stated.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLD
Perfect = pure untainted


IMPERFECT WORLD = IMPERFECT GOD

Imperfect = tainted not pure.

Symmetrical is more pure, less skewed, left-right, in-out etc.

Asymmetrical is less pure, more skewed, left-right, in-out etc.

God/Universe is tainted existence.

Meta-space is untainted existence, barring that relative truths and false narratives exist as a part of the Meta-space/Spirit-1,  mind/intellect/concepts.

Then natural decay rate end date for proton is not known.

Finite, occupied space Universe, is eternal transformation/change.

The so called intelligent design for all that exists an occupied space, that, is possiible to exist, I believe,  is encoded in the gravitational space of some black holes, if not all, or, in various kinds of black holes, that in total,  contain the encoding for all the possible occupied space existence.

Why do I believe that? Because we know of existence of physical laws/cosmic principles that are inviolate ergo eternal everywhere and everywhen. Ex there can only exist five kinds of regular/symmetrical, and convex polyhedra of Universe.

Only three of those five, are  triangularlly stable polyhedra;

1} 5-fold icosa{20}hedron,

2} 4-fold octa{8}hedron, --see also its dual and unstable non-triangulated cube--,

3} 3-fold tetra{4}hedron.

The 4-fold cubo-octahedron ---aka Vector Equlibrium { VE }-- will transform into all three of the above and six or more exotic cosmic shapes.

The spherical VE is defined by its four, hexagonal planes, whose total surface area, is equal to the surface area of the VE, being considered.  This is similar to our understanding of what is in a black hole exists/expressed on its 2D surface.

My thread on the 'Cosmic Primary Triangulate and Quadruplet, makes clear the association between the nucleated hexagons of a sequenctially numerical, spiral and invaginated { di-polar } torus, wherein we say that, the four great planes of the VE, are actually four 3D tori ergo 3D great circle vectors.

There is a sum-total of 31 left-skew and 31 right-skew great circles { tori } of the 5-fold icosahedron. That is 62 total.

There is total of 25 great circles of the 4-fold VE. 62 + 25 = 87 great circles  { tori ] LINK  but 14 are redundant ergo, there exists 73 primary great circles { tori } possiblities within the finite set 5-fold icosa, 4-fold octa, and 3-fold tetra.

All other polyhedra of Universe are some derivative of these three ergo they are another Cosmic Triangulate/Triplet.

Some say its turtles all the way to the bottom end. I say it is stabilizing triplet catagorys's,  all the way o to the bottom end.

Ex proton is composed of three quarks. Yes the muons are composed of two quarks, yet consider this, two circles = 360 degrees times 2 = 720 degrees and the tetrahedron has total of 720 degrees of surface angle i.e. its four surface triangles total 720 degrees. There is more to that story.

The most obvious hard one to find the triangulate, is the hydrogen atom, as it has one electron and one proton.  There is more to that story also.

........................space(> * <) (> * <)space...........

i = ego ergo Meta-space/Spirit-1, mind/intellect/concepts












zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
I DO NOT BELIEVE.


A FRED principle is that which MIGHT give purpose to everything.....Could be anything.

Everything MIGHT also be purposeless.

No one knows.

Just ideas Mr EtrnlVw, just ideas.

Brain held data, variously sequenced.

No theism no deism, just formulated  ideas that come to mind every now and then.


Though none of the above to be confused with the separate and totally bewildering  issue of creation.




So why do you find not believing so difficult?


P.S. As you are so fixated on the G deity, I thought it best to use FRED instead. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@EtrnlVw
if you don't want to commit to that, simply say you have no answer.
I did. You literally quoted it and thanked me for my answer.

Saying you believe it's more reasonable to believe God does not exist as a way to avoid the options doesn't work either, you're still not choosing the option that you don't know and there is no fourth option.
Not every thing is that simple.

If you’re talking to an atheist, “I don’t know” will almost always be the answer to that question because unless you specifically define god there will always be countless possibilities that the person you are talking too has never even thought of let alone formed a position on. That’s why I went ahead and explained not only what would make me answer no to that question, but how I could go a step further to show why even in the abstract we are closer to a no than a yes. Asking me to just pick one is disingenuous when I already explained in fine detail what my positions are and why.

If my child asked me if the tooth ferry exists of course I would say no, that's not what I would say about the existence of God. Lets just stay on track with things that make actual sense and are worth considering
Why is the tooth ferry not worth considering? Serious question, how did you rule out the possibility that it exists?

Between two positions there is no middle, so you have to pick one as your default.
The default position is that you have no position, that would be "I don't know".
Take note of the bold.

The question you began this thread with wasn’t “do you believe god exists”? You asked “Does God exist?”. Those are two different questions. The former has three possible answers, the latter only has two.

This is why when it comes to how you live your life there are only two possibilities. To explain with an analogy, think of a criminal trial. There is no “I don’t know” verdict. Why? Because we can either proceed as if the defendant were guilty (by sentencing him) or we will proceed as if he were innocent (by setting him free). There’s no rational middle ground here. How many years does “I don’t know” justify locking someone up for?

Would you accept that as at least a clear example of of "Y"? I'm not asking you to believe it, just that you consider the example.
No. In this case X is our universe and Y would be a universe resulting from an intelligence. You’re claiming X is indicative of Y, but you have no examples of Y to compare X to, which is what would be necessary to make that statement. You cannot claim X is indicative of something for which you have no established qualities.

This is the ultimate problem with any design/intelligence argument. Without an external point of comparison, all you have left are internal points of comparison. But internal comparisons cannot tell you anything about the external.

Not only that, but if you’re claiming the planets, solar system, galaxies etc. are the product of an intelligence then your claim is actually that everything is the product of an intelligence, at which point you have undermined you entire case because if everything is the product of an intelligence then no comparison of any kind has any meaning thereby invalidating your own comparisons.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
....I ACCEPT the principle of purpose...

Only in regards to biologic consciousness, not our finite, occupied space Universe/God.

I'm all for any religion that has set of rational, logical common sense morals ---ex do unto others etc----.

I'm not for the expansion of irrational, illogical lack of common sense conclusions that have  no basis in our observed  time reality.

And even worse, a false narrative, that contradicts the rational, logical common sense conclusions based on our observed time reality.

There exists five and only five possible regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra of Universe/God is a cosmic { inviolate everywhere everywhen } principle.

Many religions have no rational, logical common sense cosmic principles.


Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R

This is why when it comes to how you live your life there are only two possibilities. To explain with an analogy, think of a criminal trial. There is no “I don’t know” verdict. Why? Because we can either proceed as if the defendant were guilty (by sentencing him) or we will proceed as if he were innocent (by setting him free). There’s no rational middle ground here. How many years does “I don’t know” justify locking someone up for? 

Actually it's guilty or not guilty. A jury can feel a person is guilty but the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
That’s exactly my point. Not guilty does not mean innocent when it comes to what the jury believes, but the two are synonymous when it comes to how we proceed to handle the defendant.
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
Yes

I didn't reason my way there

This universe is not logical, as far as I can tell.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@janesix
This universe is not logical, as far as I can tell.

Cause [ action } >

 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect { reaction } >

> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resultant { complexity * * woman }

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< less complex evolutionary resultant <

/\   /\ { 2-ness } least complex evolutionary resultant

\Y/ = woman { Xx } symbolized by /\  contains man { Xy } symbolized by Y ergo \Y/ aka bird-eye-view of tetra{4}hedron


4 * Pi * radius^2 = surface area of a sphere and Archimedes was first to discover this.

The surface area of a sphere is equal to the area of four{ 4 } planar bisections of the sphere.

Surface area of a torus;

4 * Pi^2 * Large Radius * small radius  LINK

.." A torus is not topologically equivalent to a unit square, but it is equivalent to the quotient of a square. (A square with parts glued together)."... LINK

A torus is a tube connected at both ends. Unfold the torus and we have a square [  ].

Why 4?  Four-ness = Cosmic Systemic Operations via is correlations to Pi {3.1... } i.e. Pi is just a little bit more than Cosmic Structural Three-ness.

The cubo{6}-octa{8]hedron{ Vector Equlirbirum Operating System of Universe } --LINK--  has four, 60-degree oriented, operational axi { circular hexagons See A in previous Link } and ,

three, 90-degree oriented structural axi --see B in previous Link--.

Three-ness plus four-ness = seven-ness

Pi^7 = 3020.29 32 27 77 67 92 06 8

This resultant rounds to 3020 or,

3020.30, or,

3020.30 32, or

3032. 30 32 30 77 7 67
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@janesix
I didn't reason my way there

Well I don't really think we can "reason" our way into a belief in God. What I'm saying or asking about is that we usually have reasons why we accept our conclusions about reality. There must be something about reality that concludes you to believe in a God. However, I'm very familiar with your beliefs and hypothesis so I already know your answers.

This universe is not logical, as far as I can tell.

Perhaps, I guess. But it is functional, it does produce many things that logically function. If it weren't sensible or coherent I don't believe it could work, I don't think we'd be here. Maybe there are some factors you view as irrational about life, but I do think it tips more towards being a coherent work.



RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
How did everything come from nothing?

How did your god come from nothing?

If it didn't come from nothing, what is logically coherent about an entity that never didn't exist prior to its existence?

You keep saying you have absolute proof of god and souls but what is the proof? It's about educated guesses on either side. We are estimating and gambling, not directly knowing.

If you truly deeply know that God is real and if your basis is that it is simply logical, then what is logical about it? At least explain. How are you conscious of yourself? Why isn't your body just a puppet of the god?
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
I did. You literally quoted it and thanked me for my answer.

That was not your only answer. Obviously. 

Not every thing is that simple.

In this scenario, it was very simple. But at this point we're getting away from the point of the topic. I'm not going to get very far with you as I already knew, so I'm going to keep this short and sweet. 

Why is the tooth ferry not worth considering?

It is known to be make-believe. You do know the difference between fact (non-fiction) and fiction right? In other words I don't considered something promoted as fiction to be anything other than fiction. God is not proposed as a fictional proposition and it's influence and relevance is very much a part of human experience. 

Serious question, how did you rule out the possibility that it exists?

Other than that it is presented as fiction, there is no real correlation in my reality to a tooth fairy. Unlike God as a Reality that is very much a part of my life and my observations and there being many factors that indicate God exists as contrasted to that which is considered a child's story/game you are wasting my time. 
I know you believe that God's existence is as far fetched as the tooth fairy's and you think there is as much reason to believe the fairy exists as there is with the question of God's existence I get it, you guys make the stupid comparison all the time and for that I feel sorry for you. I don't agree that it is at all comparable but honestly STFU about it. 

The question you began this thread with wasn’t “do you believe god exists”? You asked “Does God exist?”

The question in this topic began with three options. All I asked of is that whatever of the three options were chosen to give reason why it was chosen. What I was looking for, was to expose the reasoning for either of the three options. 

This is why when it comes to how you live your life there are only two possibilities. 
There is no “I don’t know” verdict. 

In terms of beliefs, I know of Theist, Atheist and Agnostic. I place agnosticism in between theism and atheism. I personally place agnosticism in the neutral category. If you disagree I don't really care. Move on or move out. 

Would you accept that as at least a clear example of of "Y"? I'm not asking you to believe it, just that you consider the example.

No.

Lol, well I can't say that I actually thought you would. Think it was worth the try?
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@RationalMadman
How did everything come from nothing?

Everything originates as a product of energy in one form or another, which is a product of conscious activity (awareness). Energy co-exists with the conscious activity of God, energy is then manipulated as the original mechanism in creation. I'll explain below. 

How did your god come from nothing?

God is a fixed Reality, so using the phrase "come from" is incoherent, it simply has no meaning. A fixed state of existence doesn't come from anything because there is no linear time frame where there is an infinite past or future of two directions that reach no destination. Rather God's existence is a stationary conscious backdrop to all that exists. The Creators existence is not a progressive event where anything could happen prior to it.
We're not familiar with the concept of fixed because all our perceptions of life involve a process of birth and death, a point where something begins and a point where it ends but this does not occur in eternity. No linear time frame occurs. 
Consciousness is akin to energy in that there is no event that brought it into existence, it is an ocean of awareness that is always present and that presence co-exists with energy. Actually conscious activity generates energy, where one is present so is the other. Anywhere there is energy there is awareness and anywhere there is awareness there is energy. 
If you accept that energy is neither created or destroyed simply apply that concept to awareness (God). 

If it didn't come from nothing, what is logically coherent about an entity that never didn't exist prior to its existence?

This question is nonsensical to begin with.  But eternity is not an infinite past and future where there must have been something that happened at some point in time so there is no actual infinite regress paradox. Time is an illusion as it is simply a measurement between two events and that only appears as products of creation.
God exists as a static, fixed backdrop where creation presents itself as a process of life and death (beginning and an ending) which appears as movement from one event to the next. The expansion of the universe occurs on top of or within a Reality that has no linear time frame, it is literally a fixed state of existence. 
Since It is fixed, there is no before or after in terms of how we perceive time, so the term "prior" has no meaning or relevance. 
Time only appears as something we can measure as God brings events into existence as a process. That process creates the illusion of a linear progression, but it does not effect the eternal fixed (stationary) backdrop. 
We have two natures of experience and one nature does not apply to God. We have temporal and eternal....events that are temporal in nature have no effect on God, God simply observes it from an independent observation point. Although everything occurs within God not everything has the same nature of occurrence so there is no incoherence its just a matter of comprehending the two distinct concepts. 

You keep saying you have absolute proof of god and souls but what is the proof?

Where did you contrive this from? if I claimed anything, it is that the indicators are near impossible to reject or ignore. I present correlation (products of the universe) in terms of providing strong incentive to consider God's existence and I've used NDE's, paranormal encounters and religious observations as evidence to show how the soul exist independent of the physical body. Nothing can be shown to be "absolute proof" because of the nature of what we are discussing, absolute proof is a personal choice as a mere interpretation of the evidence.
The nature of what we are discussing transcends physical boundaries so the evidence has to be in the indication of it being a part of our reality. Apart from personal experience there is no absolute proof, even though the evidence is obvious. 

It's about educated guesses on either side. We are estimating and gambling, not directly knowing.

When the indications are so direct there is no real reason to be guessing anything. The information is there, it's been there for a long time, all the knowledge is at our fingertips in one form or another and the evidence is clear that these things are a part of and a product of reality or reality being a product of it. 

If you truly deeply know that God is real and if your basis is that it is simply logical, then what is logical about it? At least explain.

I do that in all my posts all over the forum lol. Do you even read my posts? you even created a topic where I explained much of my beliefs! heavens sake did you even read through your own topic about me?? where you gave me opportunity to explain anything you asked...

How are you conscious of yourself?

Consciousness can only be conscious of itself, that is the very nature of consciousness. Did you mean something else with this question? 

Why isn't your body just a puppet of the god?

Who says it is not? There is no distinction between the soul observing your body and God. God observes through every channel of consciousness. What you experience God experiences. 



RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
Everything originates as a product of energy in one form or another, which is a product of conscious activity (awareness). 
Firstly, no it doesn't. Matter isn't the same as energy, nor is space or time. Energy has many forms but to say that everything is energy is firstly physically false because 'field theory' hasn't been proven yet.

Even if you proved field theory true, your latter statement is false as consciousness has nothing to do with whether or not the brain is made out of energy. Are you saying that all forms of energy have consciousness as a result of them or are you saying the opposite? If not, I don't understand how this sentence flows. How did consciousness make electricity in a cable? How did consciousness make kinetic energy from movement?

God is a fixed Reality, so using the phrase "come from" is incoherent, it simply has no meaning. 
No it isn't and no it doesn't have no meaning. It has meaning, very clearly so, you just mean that you don't think God came from anything as you assert it as a supreme/ultimate/fixed reality and the rest of us as illusionary simulations resulting from the god-entity that always has existed. If you find that totally fine to assert then why is it that you find an issue with atheists asserting the very same thing about our reality itself? Why can't the reality we know be the fixed one and no God-reality existing beyond it? I'm challenging you because I think you have come up with a series of circular reasoning that proves itself true based on assertions as opposed to genuine consideration of facts.

Your theory fundamentally is rooted in the idea that everything is energy and that energy is tied to souls which then proves god true. This is entirely circular, since you ignore any other plausible explanation at any stage as well as ignoring the major issue which is what triggered or enabled the god entity in the first place? Nothing you have said explains the god, nor even the necessity for it. You simply say that because you believe souls are proven true, the rest follows and that is rooted in you asserting field theory (that fundamentally everything is fields of energy, as opposed to matter or empty space of any kind).
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
 What you experience God experiences. 
You are talking about porn, right?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Now I know why God loved the actor Earnest Borgnine. He lived until he was 95.  The 91-year-old legend appeared on Fox & Friends (God's channel) to promote his book and was asked his secret to longevity. He leaned in and whispered (easily heard over the microphone) “I masturbate a lot.” The hosts were in hysterics, rightly.