Simplistically God Does Exist

BlackBart · **#21** by **BlackBart** » Oct 23, 2014 12:36 pm

noahsociety wrote:Quite absurd & ridiculous IPU's exist. they exist in cartoons.

I've never seen an invisible pink unicorn in a cartoon. Ever.

noahsociety · **#22** by **noahsociety** » Oct 23, 2014 12:43 pm

BlackBart wrote:
noahsociety wrote:Quite absurd & ridiculous IPU's exist. they exist in cartoons.

I've never seen an invisible pink unicorn in a cartoon. Ever.

You got me there

ADParker · **#23** by **ADParker** » Oct 23, 2014 12:46 pm

noahsociety wrote:Quite absurd & ridiculous IPU's exist. they exist in cartoons. they exist in "proof arguments" they exist. Their force is not strong,but they still have a presence and every time you use a jpeg of a ipu its existence strengthens. Observe it for yourselves.
God exists. Gods force is very strong, life and death in fact. God's force propels human action, not all but a lot. When humanity no longer considers God and is no longer propelled by him then God will no longer exist. But the human brain has a program within it . Its the program that makes us consider & strive for perfection. Because of this, thoughts of God and therefore God's force will never die. Biblical ones might and go the way of baal etc but at the very least the concept of a perfect God will always remain in the minds of humanity . So again why would science even try to disprove the existence of God. Better to redesign instead

{Sigh} So you claim that God exists by redefining "exists" to include ideas of something being the same as that thing actually existing. Sounds ridiculous to me, like someone who desperately wants to hold onto something they can still call a belief in God while maintaining their realization that they don't see any reason to think it does exist at all. Way to tie yourself in knots there. :roll:

So if we play your little game then what:
So God exists, but does God exist-in-the-sense-that-everyone-else-defines-existence? :roll:

Why not just be honest and talk about whatever it is you want to talk about, instead of distorting words and concepts like this?! :what:

By the way; where did you get that odd notion that science is trying to disprove the existence of God?!

ADParker · **#24** by **ADParker** » Oct 23, 2014 12:48 pm

noahsociety wrote:
i think therefore i am
I think therefore it is
i am thought
God is thought
surely not a non sequitur followed by a false syllogism
2=1 3=1 everything =1

Gibberish.
Word salad.
Waste of everyone's time.

BlackBart · **#25** by **BlackBart** » Oct 23, 2014 12:50 pm

noahsociety wrote:
BlackBart wrote:
noahsociety wrote:Quite absurd & ridiculous IPU's exist. they exist in cartoons.

I've never seen an invisible pink unicorn in a cartoon. Ever.

You got me there

Doubtdispelled · **#26** by **Doubtdispelled** » Oct 23, 2014 12:51 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:http://www.noahsociety.co.uk/index.php/religious-debate/philosophy

1/ We are not sure there is a god.......

who is?

This is what the Noah Society brings to you.

noahsociety · **#27** by **noahsociety** » Oct 23, 2014 1:00 pm

1=2
1=total sum of all known things
2= 2 halves 1/2 + 1/2 =1 2=1
also 2= 1/2 3= 1/3 50= 1/50
The numbers are not being used in their normal meaning but the fact remains that the maths makes sense.
God exists but not in the way you try to observe or explain
You lot are no different to Qabbalists trying to gauge the speed of the Earths travel on its axis by consulting the Tetragammaton
You use the wong definitions, 8 the wrong logic I guess its because we still havent evolved enough yet in our science

Doubtdispelled · **#28** by **Doubtdispelled** » Oct 23, 2014 1:04 pm

This is all starting to look remarkably familiar.....

noahsociety · **#29** by **noahsociety** » Oct 23, 2014 1:10 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:This is all starting to look remarkably familiar.....

i know, I've been here before too and its pointless. No one can win but with the passing of time i expect science to change beyond all measure and then I'll try again

Doubtdispelled · **#30** by **Doubtdispelled** » Oct 23, 2014 1:13 pm

noahsociety wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:This is all starting to look remarkably familiar.....

i know, I've been here before too and its pointless. No one can win but with the passing of time i expect science to change beyond all measure and then I'll try again

Well, you could go off and de-program a few militant Islamists while you're waiting for 'science to change'....

I think you'll have quite a bit of time on your hands.

noahsociety · **#31** by **noahsociety** » Oct 23, 2014 1:28 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:
noahsociety wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:This is all starting to look remarkably familiar.....

i know, I've been here before too and its pointless. No one can win but with the passing of time i expect science to change beyond all measure and then I'll try again

Well, you could go off and de-program a few militant Islamists while you're waiting for 'science to change'....

I think you'll have quite a bit of time on your hands.

Thanks for That... We are!

surreptitious57 · **#32** by **surreptitious57** » Oct 23, 2014 1:31 pm

noahsociety wrote:
The numbers are not being used in their normal meaning but the fact remains that the maths makes sense

Mathematics is a deductive discipline that uses proof to validate its conclusions. It is the language of reality as all the laws of physics are written as such. But using it to prove the metaphysical is not what it is intended for and is therefore a misuse of its function. If mathematics could determine the existence of God then it would be absolute by default as all its proofs are

Ihavenofingerprints · **#33** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Oct 23, 2014 1:35 pm

Interest rates have a big impact on people's lives, they generate a lot of energy. It doesn't make them anything more than an abstract human construct.

noahsociety · **#34** by **noahsociety** » Oct 23, 2014 1:41 pm

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Interest rates have a big impact on people's lives, they generate a lot of energy. It doesn't make them anything more than an abstract human construct.

But they do exist and they have force and they came from the brain.

Ihavenofingerprints · **#35** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Oct 23, 2014 1:45 pm

noahsociety wrote:
Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Interest rates have a big impact on people's lives, they generate a lot of energy. It doesn't make them anything more than an abstract human construct.

But they do exist.

They exist because people repay more than they borrow from others. Before humans existed did interest rates exist?

If God didn't exist before intelligent life invented him, it kind of makes the concept pointless, don't you think?

noahsociety · **#36** by **noahsociety** » Oct 23, 2014 1:49 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
noahsociety wrote:
The numbers are not being used in their normal meaning but the fact remains that the maths makes sense

Mathematics is a deductive discipline that uses proof to validate its conclusions. It is the language of reality as all the laws of physics are written as such. But using it to prove the metaphysical is not what it is intended for and is therefore a misuse of its function. If mathematics could determine the existence of God then it would be absolute by default as all its proofs are

Godel?

DaveScriv · **#37** by **DaveScriv** » Oct 23, 2014 2:00 pm

noahsociety wrote:1=2
1=total sum of all known things
2= 2 halves 1/2 + 1/2 =1 2=1
also 2= 1/2 3= 1/3 50= 1/50
The numbers are not being used in their normal meaning but the fact remains that the maths makes sense.
God exists but not in the way you try to observe or explain
You lot are no different to Qabbalists trying to gauge the speed of the Earths travel on its axis by consulting the Tetragammaton
You use the wong definitions, 8 the wrong logic I guess its because we still havent evolved enough yet in our science

I have an educational video here which I think is in line with your theory:

I hope that helped.

Thomas Eshuis · **#38** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Oct 23, 2014 2:28 pm

noahsociety wrote:God does exist, quite simply because God has a "force" an "energy" in this world .

Blind assertion.
Just asserting something doens't make it so. Do provide evidence when you make claims like these.

noahsociety wrote: God causes Human to act and interact in many different ways and that is an energy.

A non-sequitur, based on another blind assertion.

noahsociety wrote: i don't really understand why science wants proof that God exists

First science doesn't want anything.
Secondly where did you get the incorrect notion that scientists want to prove, not proof, that God exists?

noahsociety wrote: when quite clearly this energy of god exists.

Except that this isn't clear at all.

noahsociety wrote: IPU arguments are irrelevant Pink Unicorns, invisible or not, teapots and spaghetti monsters do exist in our imagination but do not have a force in the world that drives humanity. God does.

Blind dismissal and more blind assertions.
God does not have a force in the world, the flying spaghetti monster does.

noahsociety wrote:Of course this is just a different way of defining the verb "exist" but its the same as asking Science whether thought exists.

It's science, not Science.
And depending on how you define though, science can most certainly demonstrate it exists.

noahsociety wrote:I read this on this forum

When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous

Care to link to post next time?

noahsociety wrote:Not too disimlar to thought. Its subjective, no-one else can hear or see it and it does nothing by itself except that it can become an energy.

If it's completely undetectable you cannot claim it exists.

noahsociety wrote: Thought exists therefore God exists.

Another circular non-sequitur.

noahsociety wrote:Those thoughts that relate to IPUs are fleeting and do not create much energy, perhaps the odd joke or two, but thoughts of God can change countries.

Anothe appeal to popularity fallacy.
And it's different god beliefs that changed countries, not one singular god.

noahsociety wrote:In the end the atheism theism debate is boring and defunct.

Then why bother with it?
Contradicting yourself quite a bit here.
And it isn't defunct as theists keep trying to enforce their blind belief on others.

noahsociety wrote:God exists in thought and therefore exists.

noahsociety wrote:Its far better to design a better less bloodthirsty God by helping to alter thinking patterns about a perfect God than it is to deny its existence. Whether you like it or not God does exist ie has an energy in this world . Energy has to come from somewhere ie our thought processes.
Of course I'm now waiting for an atheist to ask me to prove that thought exists .

Blind assertions all the way down, mixed with some profound ignorance and simplicity. :nono:

Thomas Eshuis · **#39** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Oct 23, 2014 2:31 pm

BlackBart wrote:
noahsociety wrote:Quite absurd & ridiculous IPU's exist. they exist in cartoons.

I've never seen an invisible pink unicorn in a cartoon. Ever.

Thomas Eshuis · **#40** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Oct 23, 2014 2:37 pm

noahsociety wrote:1=2

It's not, that's why they're two different numbers.

noahsociety wrote:1=total sum of all known things

Actually it's most likely to be 0.

noahsociety wrote:2= 2 halves 1/2 + 1/2 =1 2=1

Pure nonsense.

noahsociety wrote:also 2= 1/2 3= 1/3 50= 1/50

noahsociety wrote:The numbers are not being used in their normal meaning but the fact remains that the maths makes sense.

Contradicting yourself, again.

noahsociety wrote:God exists but not in the way you try to observe or explain
You lot are no different to Qabbalists trying to gauge the speed of the Earths travel on its axis by consulting the Tetragammaton
You use the wong definitions, 8 the wrong logic I guess its because we still havent evolved enough yet in our science

More gibberish.

Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Re: Simplistically God Does Exist

Who is online