Advanced God Theory

[Super Universe]

So obviously, there's something more fundamental than God.

How so?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife. His parents say that he did not commit the crime.

Why don't his parents accept that he did it?

People believe what they want to believe, not what the evidence suggests.

So science is essentially a giant sham in your opinion. I mean, if people don't actually care about evidence, then science is nothing more than people making stuff up, right?

Now, what was that about science finding God again?

 

[Super Universe]

So science is essentially a giant sham in your opinion. I mean, if people don't actually care about evidence, then science is nothing more than people making stuff up, right?

Now, what was that about science finding God again?

Science is a giant sham? Where did you get that from? God is the original scientist and science is finding the clues to how God did it all.

People care about evidence to varying degrees but if the evidence does not support their prejudices then they look for excuses or a reason to doubt or find fault.

Scott Peterson's can't accept that he murdered his pregnant wife because, to them, that means they failed as parents.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Science is a giant sham? Where did you get that from? God is the original scientist and science is finding the clues to how God did it all.

People care about evidence to varying degrees but if the evidence does not support their prejudices then they look for excuses or a reason to doubt or find fault.

Scott Peterson's can't accept that he murdered his pregnant wife because, to them, that means they failed as parents.

If all people are only interested in what they want reality to be, then science is nothing but inventions by people who call themselves "scientists", correct?

If no one cares what true reality is, there is no science. So you choose: science doesn't exist, or science doesn't support the existence of God (yet).

 

[Super Universe]

If all people are only interested in what they want reality to be, then science is nothing but inventions by people who call themselves "scientists", correct?

If no one cares what true reality is, there is no science. So you choose: science doesn't exist, or science doesn't support the existence of God (yet).

I didn't say that all people are only interested in what they want reality to be.

I did not say that no one cares what true reality is.

You're riding a roller coaster of either this or that and no in between. The universe is not either black or white.

The options are not just science or God. There is also science AND God.

 

[PolyHedral]

How so?

Because something distinct from God('s components) exists.

I didn't say that all people are only interested in what they want reality to be.

I did not say that no one cares what true reality is.

You're riding a roller coaster of either this or that and no in between. The universe is not either black or white.

The options are not just science or God. There is also science AND God.

Not if God contradicts science, there isn't.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I didn't say that all people are only interested in what they want reality to be.

I did not say that no one cares what true reality is.

People believe what they want to believe, not what the evidence suggests.

You were saying?

You're riding a roller coaster of either this or that and no in between. The universe is not either black or white.

The options are not just science or God. There is also science AND God.

Then kindly point me towards scientific studies which support your theory and/or God.

 

[Super Universe]

Because something distinct from God('s components) exists.

Not if God contradicts science, there isn't.

Something distinct from God exists? And what is that?

What part of God contradicts science?

If there ever is a part of God that contradicts science, then science is wrong.

 

[Super Universe]

You were saying?

Then kindly point me towards scientific studies which support your theory and/or God.

I was saying. What were you saying?

How long are we to play these word games? Language always presents the opportunity for these tricks. You can't disprove any of the substance so you take things and put them in a different context in order to change their meaning. But the universe does not change a bit.

Which scientific studies support this theory and God? Uh, string theory for one.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I was saying. What were you saying?

How long are we to play these word games? Language always presents the opportunity for these tricks. You can't disprove any of the substance so you take things and put them in a different context in order to change their meaning. But the universe does not change a bit.

And what different context would that be? The original post was:

Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife. His parents say that he did not commit the crime.

Why don't his parents accept that he did it?

People believe what they want to believe, not what the evidence suggests.

Now please explain to me how exactly I changed the context. I'm very eager to know.

Which scientific studies support this theory and God? Uh, string theory for one.

Please elaborate. How does string theory show the existence of a god?

 

[PolyHedral]

Something distinct from God exists? And what is that?

Nothing exists that is not a part of God, well, other than the void which is just a name that describes a vast nothingness.

It's not that hard to keep an argument straight, and yet look what happens.

If there ever is a part of God that contradicts science, then science is wrong.

Lol.

 

[Super Universe]

It's not that hard to keep an argument straight, and yet look what happens.


Lol.

The vast nothingness is a vast nothingness. Or maybe it's empty space but then how can space be empty, doesn't it have to have some framework in order to be called "space"?

Or maybe it's a beginning framework of space, not enough to support matter yet?

You can't see the stars when you climb into a box that can't fit them inside of it.

 

[idav]

Nothing exists that is not a part of God, ....

Then he didn't create anything except himself.

 

[Super Universe]

Then he didn't create anything except himself.

Correct.

Can you do something that is not you?

 

[apophenia]

Originally Posted by Super Universe
Because there are those who want to know why God does not reveal Himself.

Which, according to your notion of god, equals "because god pretends to want to know why god does not reveal himself"

The human does not pretend to want to know why God does or does not do anything.

Bafflegab !

You are saying everything is god. So obviously we are god. So "those who want to know why God does not reveal Himself" are god.

Therefore it parses as "Because god wants to know why god does not reveal himself"

It is simple symbol substitution.

Why are you avoiding the implications of your own assertion ?

 

[Super Universe]

Which, according to your notion of god, equals "because god pretends to want to know why god does not reveal himself"



Bafflegab !

You are saying everything is god. So obviously we are god. So "those who want to know why God does not reveal Himself" are god.

Therefore it parses as "Because god wants to know why god does not reveal himself"

It is simple symbol substitution.

Why are you avoiding the implications of your own assertion ?

Bafflegab is right.

When you say that God wants to know why God does not reveal Himself you are applying the same term to different values. God as a human is less than a speck of dust. God as the Creator of the multiverse is everything in existence, He is existence itself.

A grain of dust on a beach might be the earth but it's not equal to the earth as a whole.

 

[apophenia]

Bafflegab is right.

When you say that God wants to know why God does not reveal Himself you are applying the same term to different values. God as a human is less than a speck of dust. God as the Creator of the multiverse is everything in existence, He is existence itself.

A grain of dust on a beach might be the earth but it's not equal to the earth as a whole.

That just doesn't cut it.

If all conscious beings (in fact, everything, according to you) are actually god, then they are "existence itself".

How can god make a being "not-god" when only god is available as working material ?

 

[Super Universe]

That just doesn't cut it.

If all conscious beings (in fact, everything, according to you) are actually god, then they are "existence itself".

How can god make a being "not-god" when only god is available as working material ?

So a stone is equal to the tallest building?

A calculator is equal to a super computer?

A breeze is equal to a hurricane?

A kitten is equal to a grown tiger?

A bucket of water is a sea?

All conscious beings are a part of existence itself. So are unconscious things. I didn't say that God made a being "not God".

 

[apophenia]

All conscious beings are a part of existence itself. So are unconscious things. I didn't say that God made a being "not God".

You said everything is god. Ipso facto man is god.

Originally Posted by idav
Then he didn't create anything except himself.
Correct.

Super Universe :
Can you do something that is not you?

How can everything be god but not be god ? You seem confused about this.

 

[Super Universe]

You said everything is god. Ipso facto man is god.



How can everything be god but not be god ? You seem confused about this.

God is everything, but man is not everything.