Where Did God Come From?

n9newunsixx5150 · Apr 25, 2003

@Xianex...

It takes a significantly small amount of intelligence to attempt to put someone down. I stayed on the topic. And when you strayed from it I asked you to keep with the conversation. You still insisted on putting yourself on a pedestal...

It goes to show that you had nothing to reply back with. It resulted in you typing jargon completely off subject. Telling me I am this or that. But, when I asked you to be more specific you do not. Is that because you cannot?

If you can, don't hold yourself back on my account. I am inviting you to speak on what you see wrong.

You obviously do not like my answers, I suppose.

For instance you said, ""if truth is "truth" and false is un"truth" both are byproducts of truth therefore absolutely truthful. truth is a perspective. therefore it is mutable."

This statement is relative truth. Absolute truth is absolute. It has to be, otherwise we would have to agree that there is no absolute. If your grounds are some type of chaos theory, then perhaps we should get to the root and debate that.

I also attempted to explain what spirit-soul is. I asked if there was anything more I needed to explain. You did not even respond in regard to that paragraph.

You believe that our bodies are a part of us. You are not theist, but your implications seem to portray your acceptance of a lifeforce or soul. I simply stated that we are separate from our bodies. Our bodies are to us similar to how are clothes are to us. You tried to use some logic about us being bound to the rules of the body. Of course, as long as you or I are living in these temporal vessels we will be bound to these rules; pleasure, pain, etc. Your logic does not follow from this premise that we are our bodies, or that our bodies are even a part of the real being which animates it. You are in flaw.

Then we got into a standard versus tool debate. Sure a standard can be used as a tool to further one's realization. But, if a tool is not a standard, it will be disregarded when there is no need for it in progression of understanding truth. You imply that a personal God is an idea used as a tool to realize absolute truth. If you know this, then you must know absolute truth. I used the "finger pointing at the moon" analogy in this paragraph. Of course I get no response.

MizeryU · Apr 25, 2003

y tank u dubX

Hit The Blunt · Apr 25, 2003

XianeX said:

I do not know about YOU. However, it is possible to ascertain certain knowledge about Xianex. Whether Xianex bears any characteristics of yourself or has the same thoughts of yourself I do not know. If Xianex is just a character you have invented I do not know. But I can ascertain knowledge about Xianex.

XianeX said:

When did I say you did? I said "Xianex loves playing psychological games. In fact he is playing a different game with Heresy as well". Your game with Heresy uses totally opposite tactics. Your goal is not to discredit him. Your game with him serves a different purpose.

No, I know those are not the purpose.

When did I say your purpose was for gain? I will not expound, it is for heresy to see for himself (that is if he hasn't already). Heresy has hears to hear and eyes to see.

Koopa · Apr 25, 2003

Where Did God come from?

I DONT KNOW.............

but i once read this on the siccness...............
___________________________________________________
God Was Created by man, out of fear, because people needed a reason to fear death, if there was nothing known of God people would kill them selfs to find out what happens when you die, so God and Satin where created, which made man fear death....
___________________________________________________

n9newunsixx5150 · Apr 26, 2003

^^^^^^
Sadly, there are many people who believe in God out of fear...

Before I even got into studying about God and spiritual philosophy, I was more or less atheist. I completely accepted the "die and exist no more" concept, very comfortably.

Later my atheism turned into agnosticism which eventually led me to the study of these things.

XianeX · Apr 26, 2003

@koopa that was an interesting premise. something to ponder indeed.

@htb - how funny

@fuccfoff - de nada.

@9165150 - review my words in this entire thread. in it you will find the answer to every question. I refuse to answer questions that I already have, AGAIN.

Koopa · Apr 26, 2003

Yes it is... i still think of it at some times........ even though i read it like 3 years ago.......................................it stuck to me.......

n9newunsixx5150 · Apr 26, 2003

@X

what are you talking about?

here's the only question I asked:

"But, when I asked you to be more specific you do not. Is that because you cannot?"

BaSICCally · Apr 27, 2003

Where does zero come from? Has anyone seen zero?

XianeX · Apr 27, 2003

@koopa - do you remember who wrote it. I'd like to here more of where this philosophy was generated from.

@9165150 - I am specific. undoubtedly you are lost in what you think im saying as opposed to just taking what im saying as what it is.
if you expect me to go verse chasing and write a bibliography for everything i say you are sadly mistaken.

n9newunsixx5150 · Apr 28, 2003

@X

taking what you have said "as what it is", I can conclude that you have no real premise for anything you think you know regarding this topic.

If truth is all perspective then, according to you, there is no absolute objective truth. If we all create our own realities based on our individual perspectives we have no premise to base what is true or untrue.

Though, even according to this line of philosophy, one would come to the conclusion that the "absolute" is personal since it is each *person* who defines truth for themselves. Therefore each individual would be absolute in their own perspective of reality.

Now, somewhere into this (as per you) enters the idea of existence being overall impersonal. This does not follow from the line of reasoning above based on your "premise" for truth. I suppose, perhaps, what you may be stressing by proclaiming an impersonal absolute, is that the absolute is impartial. With this I agree. Everything in the universe works as it does based on impersonal law. God isn't up there saying, "I don't really like that guy, so I'm gonna put him into a severe car accident". If my suppositions are wrong about your philosophy, my bad.
And, if you wish to clarify how your premise for truth leads to your conclusion of an impersonal absolute, I would greatly appreciate it....

BaSICCally · Apr 28, 2003

I got a question...has anyone seen zero? cause we all know that zero "exists" but yet I still haven't seen zero. Just as an Atheist might say there is "NO" God, basically saying there is "zero" God. So what does this zero look like? And if there is zero can science messure it?

hmmm.....

XianeX · Apr 29, 2003

@9165150 - my foolish companion I have stated my premise several times. you must be reading my post on a braile machine.

we as humans comprehend truth from a human perspective. absolute truth is therefore absolute perspective. DUH!
if truth can be construed into a perspective in that it is objective. DUH!
if we base OUR truth on the absolute albeit construed our premise rendered absolutely is still absolute truth. DUH!

at least you got it correct in the middle paragraph

I've never postulated or theorized anything about anything being impersonal. do not make false accusations against me to bacc your broken logic. If i say we are the one what is impersonal about that??? if i say we are fragments of the one what is personal that??? DUH! haha

personal and impersonal rendered absolute = absolutely personal

you are ridiculously faulty in your logic. you misuse the facts of my words to convince yourself that you dont believe that I'm correct. you cant give up your crutch can you?

I've been clear on my position through the entire thread. you just choose to believe that it is in correct. your supposition of flaws come from your own conjecture expecting something to be said that isn't

here is an algorithm that I think you can comprehend without much of a strain: Everything is everything.

I will not bias my argument

@BaSICCally - I feel you, I missed your question the first time.
Zero is the "lacc of" the lacc of something is a thing "some" = the lacc of "thing" content. every constituent of everything lacks something because it is not everything. and everything absolutely is devoid of not being a thing therefore you see "zero" all around you although you dont see it at all.

all things being equal: no god is a god and vice versa.

bias is the bases of religion. religion holds to a perspective as being immutable, religion survives by supressing other perspectives as being false. the "truth" of a religion pervades by concensus.

n9newunsixx5150 · Apr 30, 2003

@X

you said the following ealier in this thread:

"I see so-called "god" as a personification of absolute truth. truth needs no personality."

Based on this I argued your premise for an impersonal absolute. Your position is clear, as is mine.

You believe that people use their likeness to describe God. You feel this is a tool which will eventually be discarded once we realize further truth. You believe further truth is impersonal. All of these things you have stated in this thread, directly and indirectly.

absolute truth is personal *not* partial. It is only vain to conceive of the absolute personality to be partial as our personalities are. Our consciousness came from greater consciousness. There is nothing impersonal about that.
"When the soul is present in the body, there is consciousness all over the body, and as soon as the soul has passed from the body, there is no more consciousness. This can be easily understood by any intelligent man. Therefore consciousness is not a production of the combinations of matter."
-A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

StickyGreen · Apr 30, 2003

lol of course god was created by man...dont take a genius to comprehend that. we're just animals that happen to have more sophisticated brains with great imaginations to explain the unexplainable and keep society in place.

BaSICCally · Apr 30, 2003

StickyGreen said:

If man created God then it would of been discredited a long time ago. Man made Santa Clause and it wasn't to hard to disprove his existence right?

Let me ask you this, what is the probability of me taking apart my computer then throwing it up in the air and having the computer put itself together again in a fucntional manner? The probability is very slim. So the same probability lies in the "chance" that this world just "happen" to be put together in harmony for humans to live on, without no higher power behind it.

Can fire exist with out having something to burn?

XianeX · Apr 30, 2003

@9165150 - ambiguity look it up. you answered your question by quoting me. LOL. I neve postulated anything impersonal I said there was no need. LOL. you need to pay attention rather than speculate and reach at conjecture.

i have no need for your theological references. If I told you the truth about the prabupada people you'd lose it. I bet you have yet to read the hidden agenda in their text. the organization is small now due to the many that have seen the blatant propaganda in the translation of the actual text. LOL. you have been deceived.

I ponder why you have such a strong wish to make me wrong?! you are a very strange person. you have the markings of one with either an inferiority complex or a person with great malice against strong ism. I have yet to see a purpose in your banter. you have no thesis. It seems to me you wish to talk only for the sake of discourse. If so, be upfront otherwise I will continue to quaff your posts as blissful futility.

thank you @Sticky. I'm glad to see someone else with a rational mind speaking. if others would use there brains without bias. . . .

BaSICCally · May 1, 2003

SHOW ME ZERO. I wanna see it!

So I see zero around me but yet there are billions of atoms, germs, smoke, chemicals, heat, vibrations and sounds. Yet this is still considered zero? I write zero on a piece of paper, it's a circle that can be messured or even could be the letter O. Still I have no zero.

Give me a concise example of zero which shows me NOTHING. What is nothing.....what can science offer me in which shows me nothing?

XianeX · May 1, 2003

"0"

futility

BaSICCally · May 2, 2003

Im disapointed....I thought you were going to show me "Zero".:devious: :angry:

Well could you atleast define irational?

Where Did God Come From?

Anti-feminist

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Member

Anti-feminist

Sicc OG

Member

Anti-feminist

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Anti-feminist

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Anti-feminist

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG