Proving that God is Imaginary by Logic

[February-Saturday]

I'm bringing the sword to myself? Jesus said "If your eye deceives you then cut it out." Maybe that's why Van Gogh cut the tip of his ear off?

I'm not afraid of you humans. Not afraid of atheists or devil worshippers or Luciferians, not even Jehovah's Witnesses scare me anymore, they used to when they were bigger than I was but not now. Catholics are creepy though, you never know where the bishops hands have been, you know?

I don't want to scare anyone. The Catholics had the Gnostics burned at the stake for heresy, even though they were mostly ascetics, just for the political clout. They would justify the war against the Luciferians through fantastical propaganda, which would later lead to Christian politicians again causing the Satanic Panic off of lies. If anyone wants you to be afraid of Satanists, it's not the Satanists; it's people abusing Christianity for political pursuits.

As for bringing the sword to yourself, I just mean that you're the one suffering because you're choosing to keep your mind in a state outside of the bliss of agape. And when you act out of hate or aggression towards others, you act out of hate and aggression towards the whole that you're both a part of because the whole cannot be cleanly divorced from its pieces. Hell, you're trapped in your phaneron. Every action you take is an interaction wholly contained within your own mind and subjective experience.

You cannot bring the sword to others. In trying to, the sword will always find you. Now, whether you recognize that process or not is up to you. It doesn't affect me. Most people have brief moments of lucidity where they recognize this underlying truth throughout their lives but brush it off. You will probably brush me off, to. I don't take offense to that.

 

[Thief]

I post about swords....quite a bit

wanna play?

if the search buttons were working we might find some of my older threads

 

[Quintessence]

What is more useful than real?

Discarding the false binary of "real" and "not real" to instead focus on experience and how humans experience things within the limitations they bear. "Real" and "not real" are overly-simplistic categories, as binaries tend to be. It's not a binary I find useful. I also don't wager folks really care what I do or don't find useful, so I'm going to leave this there.

 

[Super Universe]

I don't want to scare anyone. The Catholics had the Gnostics burned at the stake for heresy, even though they were mostly ascetics, just for the political clout. They would justify the war against the Luciferians through fantastical propaganda, which would later lead to Christian politicians again causing the Satanic Panic off of lies. If anyone wants you to be afraid of Satanists, it's not the Satanists; it's people abusing Christianity for political pursuits.

As for bringing the sword to yourself, I just mean that you're the one suffering because you're choosing to keep your mind in a state outside of the bliss of agape. And when you act out of hate or aggression towards others, you act out of hate and aggression towards the whole that you're both a part of because the whole cannot be cleanly divorced from its pieces. Hell, you're trapped in your phaneron. Every action you take is an interaction wholly contained within your own mind and subjective experience.

You cannot bring the sword to others. In trying to, the sword will always find you. Now, whether you recognize that process or not is up to you. It doesn't affect me. Most people have brief moments of lucidity where they recognize this underlying truth throughout their lives but brush it off. You will probably brush me off, to. I don't take offense to that.

People are very scary creatures and history is full of those in control abusing the weak.

I'm not suffering. I'm upper middle class. Freezer is full of ribeyes and BBQ has a full tank of propane.

Do I ever act out of hate or aggression? We all have our moments.

Hate or aggression towards others is hate towards the whole? It's really not.

I am trapped within my own phaneron? Not trapped.

I cannot bring the sword to others? If I answered that I might have the police at my door trying to determine my intentions. I'm defensive, but very ready for anything, zombie apocalypse, race war, plague, alien invasion, whatever.

The sword will always find me? The men who crucified Jesus got away with it. They paid in the afterlife though.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You're truly sorry? Don't try to fix people, you can't do that.

What hope did you have growing up? Just hope for a better life?

How did you get the idea that I was trying to "fix" you? I've never been guilty of that kind of hubris.

I can't even answer how, after many years, I came to have a less dismal view of the world, after suffering through what I did. And that is why I said I have nothing to offer you -- since I don't know how I found it, I can't help you find it.

But I was 100% honest when I said I am sorry about that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

the earth has been churning from the beginning
even before this particular planet took form

the churning will continue
our presence will not stop that
and our existence requires the churning to continue

Man was made to live in this world

you wanna blame God?....fine
you wanna hold Him responsible?.....go ahead and try

Now, do you think that you actually said anything that is fraught with meaning?

I mean, you made several silly statements from the outset -- like "the earth has been churning" along with "before this particular planet took form." This "particular planet" is "the earth." Trust me, before it took form, it didn't exist, and therefore wasn't "churning."

And the rest is just as devoid of any useful meaning.

 

[February-Saturday]

Hate or aggression towards others is hate towards the whole? It's really not.

I am trapped within my own phaneron? Not trapped.

As I said, I don't take offense to you brushing it off. It's really something that generally has to be experienced before you can really see it. I hope you experience it some time, but sadly I don't think you will any time soon. Maybe in the next life, if there is such a thing.

 

[Thief]

Now, do you think that you actually said anything that is fraught with meaning?

I mean, you made several silly statements from the outset -- like "the earth has been churning" along with "before this particular planet took form." This "particular planet" is "the earth." Trust me, before it took form, it didn't exist, and therefore wasn't "churning."

And the rest is just as devoid of any useful meaning.

the universe was set to spin......BEFORE the expansion began

yeah you have to think about it

 

[Thief]

Maybe in the next life, if there is such a thing.

and you lean to saying ?......nay?

7billion copies of a learning device
and it all ends in dust?

not one chance in billions that someone will survive the last breath?

 

[Super Universe]

How did you get the idea that I was trying to "fix" you? I've never been guilty of that kind of hubris.

I can't even answer how, after many years, I came to have a less dismal view of the world, after suffering through what I did. And that is why I said I have nothing to offer you -- since I don't know how I found it, I can't help you find it.

But I was 100% honest when I said I am sorry about that.

You apologized to me. I may have misunderstood it. I don't want sympathy from humans. That's blasphemy to me. I'm supposed to teach you now, not the other way around.

I did not go from dismal view to hope. I just put up with the abuse because I didn't know anything different. Children don't know there is a child protective agency and they don't want anyone to know anyway, also, they always think it could get worse. My life was like the Turpin kids, though not as bad as that.

I think my view of humanity actually has gotten worse since I left home though. I've been to many places and seen many things. Humans are disgusting things. They take their trauma out on their kids.

 

[Super Universe]

As I said, I don't take offense to you brushing it off. It's really something that generally has to be experienced before you can really see it. I hope you experience it some time, but sadly I don't think you will any time soon. Maybe in the next life, if there is such a thing.

I'm not brushing you off. I think we are never going to agree on much. You think Satan gives you freedom. I think Satan was a self absorbed peanut of an angel who took part in a rebellion that had no chance of real success but caused great harm to humanity, even to this day.

There is a next life but 85% of humans don't ascend and simply cease to exist.

Why do you think Satan is called the devil and Beelzebub and Lucifer?

 

[Koldo]

No.

Then why did you mention an emotion, rather than something else?

 

[February-Saturday]

I'm not brushing you off. I think we are never going to agree on much. You think Satan gives you freedom. I think Satan was a self absorbed peanut of an angel who took part in a rebellion that had no chance of real success but caused great harm to humanity, even to this day.

There is a next life but 85% of humans don't ascend and simply cease to exist.

Why do you think Satan is called the devil and Beelzebub and Lucifer?

Satan is called the devil because "devil" is just an English translation of the Hebrew "satan" from the Greek "diabolos" entering old English as "deofel." Amusingly, it's just two words for the same thing from different languages.

He's sometimes called Beelzebub by people who have never studied demonology, because in earlier myths Beelzebub was the ruler of the Jewish Underworld. However, in those same myths, Beelzebub was appointed by God over Satan. They're different figures. Beelzebub himself is likely a corruption of an older Mesopotamian deity, and the name was given to a demon because ancient Jews vilified neighboring tribes' gods. The modern Christian Satan, on the other hand, is likely a composite character of Azazel, Samael, and maybe Belial (it's unclear), but not Beelzebub.

He's called Lucifer because that's the name the Ophites and Naasenes gave to the serpent of Eden, because the Gnostics had Greco-Roman roots and saw the myth of the serpent as a mirror of the myth of Prometheus. The first Luciferians were actually Christian, it wasn't until persecution by the Catholic Church that the Ophites gave way to the Cainites. Supposedly, there's a good chance that Cainite sects sprouted out of this and began venerating Lucifer as Satan, which of course the heresiologists already accused of them of doing.

The reason most Christians refer to Satan as Lucifer is based on a mistranslation of a text about a Babylonian king, which later became erroneously associated with passages from Revelation as a way to create a narrative about Satan's angelic name being Lucifer or Lumiel. It then gained traction in folk Christianity, but it's never been officially supported by the Catholic or the Orthodox churches, if I recall correctly.

I approach it from the other direction by coming from the Greeks where, instead of associating Satan with Lucifer, I associate Lucifer with Satan. For this reason, I don't believe that Satan gives me freedom. "Lucifer" is a Latin word meaning "bearer of enlightenment." All he does is show the way. And, as I noted before, Lucifer was originally associated with Christ and not Satan. The move from the Ophites and Naasenes to outright Satanism is probably the only way that calling Satan Lucifer makes any sense, and every time you do it you're inadvertently supporting me.

 

[Super Universe]

Then why did you mention an emotion, rather than something else?

Wha... You lost me. Can you start from the beginning?

 

[Super Universe]

Satan is called the devil because "devil" is just an English translation of the Hebrew "satan" from the Greek "diabolos" entering old English as "deofel." Amusingly, it's just two words for the same thing from different languages.

He's sometimes called Beelzebub by people who have never studied demonology, because in earlier myths Beelzebub was the ruler of the Jewish Underworld. However, in those same myths, Beelzebub was appointed by God over Satan. They're different figures. Beelzebub himself is likely a corruption of an older Mesopotamian deity, and the name was given to a demon because ancient Jews vilified neighboring tribes' gods. The modern Christian Satan, on the other hand, is likely a composite character of Azazel, Samael, and maybe Belial (it's unclear), but not Beelzebub.

He's called Lucifer because that's the name the Ophites and Naasenes gave to the serpent of Eden, because the Gnostics had Greco-Roman roots and saw the myth of the serpent as a mirror of the myth of Prometheus. The first Luciferians were actually Christian, it wasn't until persecution by the Catholic Church that the Ophites gave way to the Cainites. Supposedly, there's a good chance that Cainite sects sprouted out of this and began venerating Lucifer as Satan, which of course the heresiologists already accused of them of doing.

The reason most Christians refer to Satan as Lucifer is based on a mistranslation of a text about a Babylonian king, which later became erroneously associated with passages from Revelation as a way to create a narrative about Satan's angelic name being Lucifer or Lumiel. It then gained traction in folk Christianity, but it's never been officially supported by the Catholic or the Orthodox churches, if I recall correctly.

I approach it from the other direction by coming from the Greeks where, instead of associating Satan with Lucifer, I associate Lucifer with Satan. For this reason, I don't believe that Satan gives me freedom. "Lucifer" is a Latin word meaning "bearer of enlightenment." All he does is show the way. And, as I noted before, Lucifer was originally associated with Christ and not Satan. The move from the Ophites and Naasenes to outright Satanism is probably the only way that calling Satan Lucifer makes any sense, and every time you do it you're inadvertently supporting me.

What if I told you that Lucifer was the highest angel who started the rebellion in a higher level of the universe, not on the earth? Satan was Lucifer's first assistant who also rebelled. Beelzebub was a lower angel who took part in the rebellion. And the devil, who's name is Caligastia, was the angel in charge of the earth who, instead of joining the rebellion, tried to secede the earth from Jesus control (a legal technicality since he didn't exactly join the rebellion). And the serpent in the garden was the devil, Caligastia. They are all different angels, not the same being.

I think the bible passage you are referring to is Isaiah 14:12, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" The reason Lucifer is called son of the morning is because Lucifer was a Bright Morning Star, which is the first angel formed in a new universe.

 

[February-Saturday]

What if I told you that Lucifer was the highest angel who started the rebellion in a higher level of the universe, not on the earth? Satan was Lucifer's first assistant who also rebelled. Beelzebub was a lower angel who took part in the rebellion. And the devil, who's name is Caligastia, was the angel in charge of the earth who, instead of joining the rebellion, tried to secede the earth from Jesus control (a legal technicality since he didn't exactly join the rebellion). And the serpent in the garden was the devil, Caligastia. They are all different angels, not the same being.

I'd say that I don't believe in angels or creationism, and you would have to sell me on those first. Then we can examine what evidence you have for this specific rendition of this myth, but the myth already presupposes that I believe in angels and creationism.

I think the bible passage you are referring to is Isaiah 14:12, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" The reason Lucifer is called son of the morning is because Lucifer was a Bright Morning Star, which is the first angel formed in a new universe.

How is this passage related in any way to a fallen angel? I don't think it is. The story of the angelic rebellion that you see throughout the NT are remnants of myths about Azazel and Belial. The "fallen angel named Lucifer" at that point is a complete invention, especially since Jesus refers to himself as Lucifer at numerous points.

I assume you're saying here that this passage isn't why Lucifer is called Lucifer, but I've already covered all of the historical reasons. I honestly don't have a high opinion of the trustworthiness of the Urantia Book, so I'm not even taking it into consideration. It's on you to prove that it's worth my time at all and that its reasons for Lucifer's name are the true ones. Good luck with that, given that Lucifer is a Latin title of Prometheus used by the Gnostics centuries before the Urantia Book.

 

[Heyo]

To claim that something is beyond logic... is illogical though.

No. It's just a form of saying that you don't want to talk about it.
When we discuss we try to use logic (as much as it given to us) to make inferences and form arguments and, eventually, come to a conclusion. Take away logic and the topic becomes unspeakable, taboo.

 

[firedragon]

I think this is a good video. Of course it is not a rigorous logical proof, but it is a good, commonsense video overall. I have no doubt that many religious people will not like it, but probably not be able to offer a sound refutation. Thoughts?

Too immature to be frank.

 

[PureX]

Electronic signatures can be measured, specific parts of the brain react to specify stimuli, the mri shown by @Heyo in post #10 indicates the activation of the area involved with love.

That proves nothing, however, as the same phenomena would be observable for the idea of God, or the idea of space aliens, or of any other "real" or 'imagined" conceptualization. If you are using an MRI to prove the "reality of love", then you have also just proved the reality of God, unicorns, and fairies. Because they all will have a similar electroencephalic signature.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Naive materialism, physicalism and naturalism, it is.

Only that which is tangible or otherwise sensible through a part of the body, is real.

Real is not tangible or otherwise sensible through a part of the body. Just as the word "God" the words "useful", "real" and "love" are not tangible or otherwise sensible through a part of the body.
In effect any rule in favor of materialism and what not is itself not material. Materialism is a weird form of idealism, where the idea is that only, that which is concrete, is real. The problem is that, this idea is not itself real, concrete, actual or exist as being material.

So as per the video:
Can you see, hear, touch, smell or taste "real, existence, useful, actual, concrete and so on"? These words are no different than God.
I am tired of this. Naive materialism et all is so naive. The claim that reality is material, is itself as the claim itself not material.
Any rule about what reality is, is, because it is a cognitive idea itself, non-material. You can't see, touch, smell or taste a rule.

Real is no different that God. It is an idea, which you believe in or not.
The idea, that only things are real, is not a thing and thus not real and yet if you believe in real then that is no different than to believe in God. You believe in something non-material.