So before I start I just want to make a couple things clear:
1) I'm atheist
2) I understand that many of you guys will disagree with me so please reply so I can have a better perspective
3) This is just a general idea, not even worthy to be called a hypothesis or theory
4) Seeing that I am atheist, there are three relevant precepts to keep in mind of where I am coming from:
a) God is a made up superstition designed to help people cope with the idea of death and uncertainty
b) religion seeks to control people by using false book such as the BOM, Bible, Quran, Tora, ect.
c) There is no verifiable, quantifiable, observable, empirical evidence to support any current theories of a God, Savior, or One True Religion.
That being said, I may now actually say something that will surprise some people:
I am atheist, I very much dislike religion, but I don't dislike the idea of a God, a Divine Creator, and I do not discourage the pursuit of evidence of that creator. I don't think it's that crazy of an idea, I think religion is crazy (seeing as the mormon faith and surrounding christians really put a bad taste in my mouth and my mind does not allow my to believe in any sort of dogma without reason and logic.)
Being an atheist, I believe the pursuit of science would eventually unveil the existence of a god if he/she/it existed.
Any true atheist or logical thinker cannot deny the possibility of a god, and would certainly have to accept the existence of one if given evidence.
Atheists and agnostics deny religion and don't focus too much on the possibility of a god, theists usually accept religion because they believe in the possibility of a god, or perhaps are convinced that there has to be a god.
That being said, I think it is inherently unavoidable to come upon the idea of a god or creator.
I propose that individuals join religions only because of they agree with that assumption: the existence of a god. Religions then manipulate that innocent belief to impose dogmas, rules, cultural constructs, ect.
This is my proposal because because I do not necessarily see the idea of a belief of a god very destructive, but I do see the the belief systems of religion to be extremely destructive.
What do you guys think? I need some feed back to either correct this proposal or get rid of it entirely.
Do you think people join religions and follow them without question only because it agrees with the assumption of a higher intelligence?
(I hope I articulated this well enough.)
Also, that being said, I do reject the importance or existence of a god or higher intelligence. I'm not sure if that was clear. I just don't condemn the belief of a god, I condemn religion.
What's a 'god'?
Also: Watch less Zeitgeist-ish bullshit. Most religions are not designed. A case could be made for mormonism and scientology being sorta designed by their crazy prophets, but that's about it.
Christianity designed? There's about 30.000 denominations out there dude.
Sorry. You said manipulated.
Quote from: Bibliofagus on April 16, 2014, 02:05:32 PM
What's a 'god'?
Also: Watch less Zeitgeist-ish bullshit. Most religions are not designed. A case could be made for mormonism and scientology being sorta designed by their crazy prophets, but that's about it.
Christianity designed? There's about 30.000 denominations out there dude.
I don't know what Zeitgeist is.
Doesn't matter, all denominations of any religions are perpetuated by selfish con men who use it to control people, extort money, and political agendas. They're all the same. Look at christianity from the beginning, it's always been a beacon of power, from the pope, to the huegenots, to mormons. It's all the same thing, just different mask.
Sorry about me misinterpreting you.
I agree that control, extortion, and agenda's play a role. All of them 'conmen'...? Not so much.
Before we can even consider the possibility of the existence of a "god", we first must properly articulate what we are discussing as a concept. Too often we take it for granted that the other person knows what we mean when we say "god", and because of that oftentimes we end up talking past each other.
Believing in the possibility of a god is one thing, but application is another. The problem with gods, et al, is that they are distinctly lacking in their influence on mankind. Every religion is traceable to human origins, whether it be the Jewish evolution from a polytheistic to a monotheistic belief, or Golden plates discovered by a farm boy in upstate New York.
Just like the concurrent thread with Casparov- you can postulate the existence and then come up with a whole host of rationalizing that it/he exists. But that is exactly backward of deductive thinking; you are assuming the outcome and then supplying "evidence" to support it.
A god by definition is not a super intelligence. A super intelligence implies that at some point, we could gain enough intelligence to become that or understand it, which would mean it has an explanation in the natural world.
A god is supernatural, meaning beyond our understanding of what we can perceive in the natural world. Assuming that a god lives forever and created the universe, it would first have to exist in a state outside anything we consider the nature of existence; hence incomprehensible by our standards.
But that also creates a dichotomy, because the god to be involved in human affairs it has to be in the universe. So the god has to be inside/outside at one and the same time.
There may be a god that created the universe, but we have no way of testing, measuring or knowing it, because it is outside of any understanding we have. If it is eventually understandable, then it is not a god.
This is why postulating the existence or possibility of a god is a waste of time, because you can't possibly prove it. On the other hand, you can believe whatever you want.
Quote from: Bibliofagus on April 16, 2014, 02:29:49 PM
Sorry about me misinterpreting you.
I agree that control, extortion, and agenda's play a role. All of them 'conmen'...? Not so much.
Oh no worries.
And you don't think they're all conmen? Perhaps some are innocent victims to the theist argument and religion? Or do you think the world is perhaps better off with some of these religions?
Quote from: stromboli on April 16, 2014, 02:38:56 PM
Believing in the possibility of a god is one thing, but application is another. The problem with gods, et al, is that they are distinctly lacking in their influence on mankind. Every religion is traceable to human origins, whether it be the Jewish evolution from a polytheistic to a monotheistic belief, or Golden plates discovered by a farm boy in upstate New York.
Just like the concurrent thread with Casparov- you can postulate the existence and then come up with a whole host of rationalizing that it/he exists. But that is exactly backward of deductive thinking; you are assuming the outcome and then supplying "evidence" to support it.
A god by definition is not a super intelligence. A super intelligence implies that at some point, we could gain enough intelligence to become that or understand it, which would mean it has an explanation in the natural world.
A god is supernatural, meaning beyond our understanding of what we can perceive in the natural world. Assuming that a god lives forever and created the universe, it would first have to exist in a state outside anything we consider the nature of existence; hence incomprehensible by our standards.
But that also creates a dichotomy, because the god to be involved in human affairs it has to be in the universe. So the god has to be inside/outside at one and the same time.
There may be a god that created the universe, but we have no way of testing, measuring or knowing it, because it is outside of any understanding we have. If it is eventually understandable, then it is not a god.
This is why postulating the existence or possibility of a god is a waste of time, because you can't possibly prove it. On the other hand, you can believe whatever you want.
I would have to completely agree, thank you so much for your input. It's really helped me adjust my entire argument which quite literally is irrelevant now. Thank you so much for your points. Today I really need to get the God Delusion. haha
For me, the only issue here is what would be my reason for believing in this god? Specifically that means what is the evidence for such a god? Suppose you could make a case that believing in this god did extraordinary things to make humans better people. Even if believing in such a god could be shown not to be "so crazy," (or by some other more concrete metric, whatever it might be), what is the evidence that he actually exists?
Quote from: Shol'va on April 16, 2014, 02:33:46 PM
Before we can even consider the possibility of the existence of a "god", we first must properly articulate what we are discussing as a concept. Too often we take it for granted that the other person knows what we mean when we say "god", and because of that oftentimes we end up talking past each other.
You're right, I just meant in a general sense that Christianity has proposed it to be which is...quite mysterious rubbish in it's self. haha. So perhaps my entire is completely void and mute. Thank you for your input. :) I love the freedom to ask questions and then shifting my opinions appropriately. I've spent 20 years living, thinking in my head. haha
Quote from: elconquistador on April 16, 2014, 02:40:19 PM
Oh no worries.
And you don't think they're all conmen? Perhaps some are innocent victims to the theist argument and religion? Or do you think the world is perhaps better off with some of these religions?
I've seen and heard some priests turned atheist, and have no reason to doubt the stuff they say about their motivations while being a priest.
And I think we would be better of without religion right now.
Quote from: SGOS on April 16, 2014, 02:45:42 PM
For me, the only issue here is what would be my reason for believing in this god? Specifically that means what is the evidence for such a god? Suppose you could make a case that believing in this god did extraordinary things to make humans better people. Even if believing in such a god could be shown not to be "so crazy," (or by some other more concrete metric, whatever it might be), what is the evidence that he actually exists?
Great point :) thank you! It all just really comes down to the definition of a god which is an oxymoron, and the evidence to support that definition. You're absolutely right.
Quote from: Bibliofagus on April 16, 2014, 02:48:48 PM
I've seen and heard some priests turned atheist, and have no reason to doubt the stuff they say about their motivations while being a priest.
And I think we would be better of without religion right now.
Like you mean when the priests say they had genuinely good intentions?
Quote from: elconquistador on April 16, 2014, 02:40:19 PM
Oh no worries.
And you don't think they're all conmen? Perhaps some are innocent victims to the theist argument and religion? Or do you think the world is perhaps better off with some of these religions?
The world would be a better place without religion no doubt. Taking away religion will not turn this world in to a paradise. Humans will still have the same problems like sicknesses death and war. Most humans are assholes anyway. Greedy people wanting power and control over the masses will always exist until humans become extinct.
Quoteelconquistador
Quotebut I don't dislike the idea of a God, a Divine Creator, and I do not discourage the pursuit of evidence of that creator.
I dislike the idea of a god, because that would prove they are all pretty shitty. The pursuit of a "creator" is why many of us ended up here.
QuoteI don't think it's that crazy of an idea
of course not, man has done it hundreds of thousands of times, that ain't crazy.
QuoteI believe the pursuit of science would eventually unveil the existence of a god if he/she/it existed.
finding evidence of non-existing things, (especially if they choose to remain hidden) is pretty hard, no matter what kind of science we may come up with
Quotecannot deny the possibility of a god,
I still think one can, given the inordinate amount of circumstantial evidence that shows the evolution of religion and the types of gods man has invented leads to a pretty good conclusion they are made up nonsense.
Quotehave to accept the existence of one if given evidence
no one will argue that, I don't think
Quoteperhaps are convinced that there has to be a god.
people WANT a god, period
QuoteI think it is inherently unavoidable to come upon the idea of a god or creator.
as history has proven that assertion correct, you agree with history.
QuoteDo you think people join religions and follow them without question only because it agrees with the assumption of a higher intelligence?
people join religions number one because it is societal for many, they were raised that way and cannot not be religious, they WANT a god. They fear death.
Quotejust don't condemn the belief of a god, I condemn religion.
In this the 21st century I condemn the belief in a god
I can appreciate why ancient man might have invented gods, when virtually no science was understood.
Take the sun, travels across the sky every day. How? Why? Who controls it?
Since the how or why are totally beyond the knowledge of the day, then 'who' controls it, and they must have some magical powers. Then in the middle of the night, fear creeps into their mind. What if I displease whoever brings the sun every day. Just to be safe, I'll build an altar to worship whoever controls the sun and praise him so the sun will come back tomorrow.
Thiests today, cling to the ignorance of ancient man, and cling to it in spite of the vast knowledge that today make it clear that god(s) only purpose was to alleviate the fear caused by ancient man's lack of knowledge.
Quote from: elconquistador on April 16, 2014, 02:00:28 PMAny true atheist or logical thinker cannot deny the possibility of a god, and would certainly have to accept the existence of one if given evidence.
A logical thinker can certainly deny the existence of specific Gods from history's long list of religions since none of them have provided any proof. This would mean that if there is a god/all-knowing being/universal creator, then it would either have to be a different one than any religion has ever worshipped, or said religions have gotten things about this deity completely wrong.
The only other possibility is a deistic creator. The reason I stopped being a deist years ago is that I realized that there's simply no point or reason for the existence of this deistic creator; even if it did exist it would be pointless and unnecessary. I think most deists have come to the conclusion that there is no omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being in the universe that is obsessed with the human race and that most are just one step away from abandoning the sloppy First Cause argument and becoming atheists.
QuoteAtheists and agnostics deny religion and don't focus too much on the possibility of a god, theists usually accept religion because they believe in the possibility of a god, or perhaps are convinced that there has to be a god.
1. All agnostics are atheists by definition.
2. Atheists are actually definited by not believing in any gods, not by denying religion. Nobody denies religion. That is a very real thing.
Quote from: Bicod on April 16, 2014, 04:21:12 PM
1. All agnostics are atheists by definition.
2. Atheists are actually definited by not believing in any gods, not by denying religion. Nobody denies religion. That is a very real thing.
And all theists are atheists, for there are many gods they do not believe in.
I'll just respond to the argument in the OP with my favorite question that never gets answered:
What the everloving fuck is a god?
Quote from: stromboli on April 16, 2014, 02:38:56 PM
Just like the concurrent thread with Casparov- you can postulate the existence and then come up with a whole host of rationalizing that it/he exists. But that is exactly backward of deductive thinking; you are assuming the outcome and then supplying "evidence" to support it.
Assuming an outcome and then supplying evidence, I agree would be intellectually dishonest, it is therefore why I have painstakingly developed my world view from the ground up instead. Just because someone believes in God does not automatically mean that he had some insatiable desire for this outcome. It is possible that it is the logical outcome of a line of reason that did not begin with the intent to arrive at that conclusion.
QuoteA god is supernatural, meaning beyond our understanding of what we can perceive in the natural world.
If you define God as "supernatural" then you simply define God out of existence. Anything that is known or can be known must therefore be natural, "supernatural" must always be that which is beyond our reach, so no matter how large our body of knowledge expands, we can never quite reach what we label as "supernatural" otherwise it would be "natural."
If a God actually exists it is necessarily "Natural", not "supernatural".QuoteIf it is eventually understandable, then it is not a god.
Only when you define God as that which can never be understandable. That's like saying, "God is that which does not exist, therefore God does not exist."
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 02:08:33 AM
If a God actually exists it is necessarily "Natural", not "supernatural".
What's a god?
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 17, 2014, 03:03:51 AM
What's a god?
god noun \gäd also gȯd\
: The supreme or ultimate reality : The ground of all being : Infinite Mind.
http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-god-in-seventh-dimension.html (http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-god-in-seventh-dimension.html)
Next question?
Oh well, if we're going to use dictionary definitions, why not use the Collins definition (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/god):
god
noun
a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force related adjective divine
an image, idol, or symbolic representation of such a deity
any person or thing to which excessive attention is given â‡' money was his god
a man who has qualities regarded as making him superior to other men
(in plural) the gallery of a theatre
Under that definition I'm a god :)
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 03:15:53 AM
god noun \gäd also gȯd\
The supreme or ultimate reality
The ground of all being
Infinite Mind.
I like these various groups of words. They sound really cool. I like "the ground of all being". It says so much and it's really clear what that means. "Ultimate reality" is cool because it describes a state that is more ultimate than a less alternate state of reality, and that helps me understand what a god is. He's more ultimate than the less ultimate parts of reality, which apparently comes in various degrees of ultimateness. It's probably a good idea to choose the most ultimate one.
Do you know what word salad is?
God: An undetectable immaterial fog like neutrality inhabiting the Aether that senses as it permeates the environment.
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 03:15:53 AM
god noun \gäd also gȯd\
The ground of all being
This is incomplete. It should read "positive" ground of all being.
But then it's your god. You can define him as you like, although he lacks the positive quality of my god.
Quote from: SGOS on April 17, 2014, 05:48:57 AM
I like these various groups of words. They sound really cool. I like "the ground of all being". It says so much and it's really clear what that means. "Ultimate reality" is cool because it describes a state that is more ultimate than a less alternate state of reality, and that helps me understand what a god is. He's more ultimate than the less ultimate parts of reality, which apparently comes in various degrees of ultimateness. It's probably a good idea to choose the most ultimate one.
And what about the word "supreme"? They were a cool band back in the 60's.
QuoteDo you know what word salad is?
[lmgtfy]Salad[/lmgtfy]
I also question whether a god or gods need be supernatural, mystical or personal. If some entity or entities created our universe, even if the entities themselves were subject to physical laws and eventually died, wouldn't they be gods? I think if a group of entities from outside our universe made themselves know when creatures like humans evolved enough to understand the necessary concepts, and were able to explain how they created this universe-- created space, time, matter, energy, consciousness from neural interaction-- then I would say they are gods. I don't think gods need to have direct interaction with humans, they don't even need to exist anymore, to be gods. Gods don't have to be associated with life after death or morality. If something created the universe then I would consider that to be god.
Gods require a definition, and I know when people say God they mean a Christian god or a personal god, but I think "God: that which created the universe" qualifies.
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 03:15:53 AM
god noun \gäd also gȯd\
: The supreme or ultimate reality : The ground of all being : Infinite Mind.
This barely covers any entries on Godchecker (http://www.godchecker.com/). Try again.
If God is supernatural how could He even be known? And if He is natural wouldn't science have found He exists after 2,000+ years of inquirer? Solitary
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 17, 2014, 12:32:26 PM
This barely covers any entries on Godchecker (http://www.godchecker.com/). Try again.
:eek: I didn't realize when you asked "What is God?" you were really saying "Pick a God from this list of God's on this specific website," you really should be more specific if you are going to ask a question and then reject any answer that does not appear on some website you have in mind. But okay... I'm game... umm... I choose
Indian Mythology, and
Brahman.
Quote"According to Hindu thought, the entire universe we perceive and understand is just an infinitely tiny blip in the infinite infinity of infinity. True reality is the underlying soul of the universe, an eternal unchanging Truth upon which all is based. BRAHMAN is impossible to know except by looking inwards to your own soul. When you understand yourself, you understand the universe." - From GodChecker
Quote from: Solitary on April 17, 2014, 12:55:30 PM
If God is supernatural how could He even be known?
It couldn't. If God actually exists, it isn't "supernatural".
QuoteAnd if He is natural wouldn't science have found He exists after 2,000+ years of inquirer? Solitary
Highly unlikely. Considering that compared to billions upon billions of years 2,000 years is almost nothing at all. Just 100 years ago we didn't even know that atoms actually existed. Just 100 years ago the Milky Way was what we thought the entire universe was. Today we can't even explain how consciousness exists. Why should we assume that in 2000 years, less than a blink of an eye in terms of time, we could have already have accurately discovered and described the ultimate reality? highly unlikely.
Let's work on an explanation of consciousness first and work our way up to God.
This troll is actually funny.
You mean, pathetically funny.
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 01:47:24 PMI choose Indian Mythology, and Brahman.
So as a theist you're saying that you believe in Brahman, or are you saying that Brahman is easier to explain than your god? By the way, that explanation of Brahman as a god is still ridiculous. "I understand myself, therefore God is real." You cannot expect anybody to take that seriously.
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 01:57:49 PMHighly unlikely. Considering that compared to billions upon billions of years 2,000 years is almost nothing at all. Just 100 years ago we didn't even know that atoms actually existed. Just 100 years ago the Milky Way was what we thought the entire universe was. Today we can't even explain how consciousness exists. Why should we assume that in 2000 years, less than a blink of an eye in terms of time, we could have already have accurately discovered and described the ultimate reality? highly unlikely.
So we haven't discovered god because we haven't had enough time to find evidence of god, therefore god exists?
I never understood this argument from Christians. It follows the same argument that we cannot possibly grasp the idea of a god because it is beyond human capability. Whatever. Has science provided all the answers so far? Of course not. But we learn more and more every day about how the universe works. And there is a lot that we have no idea about, but there's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know". Just because I don't know doesn't mean things can be substituted with "God did it even though I have nothing to back that up with".
QuoteLet's work on an explanation of consciousness first and work our way up to God.
Consciousness and gods are independent of each other, unless you are suggesting some sort of subjective reality. Or maybe you're suggesting that humanity cannot make simultaneous discoveries. Regardless, scientists are not and never will look for proof of the existence of gods, they only study how the universe works. If that work proves that a deity is behind it, then fine, but that is the only way your "ultimate reality" will ever come into serious discussion of existence and purpse; through evidence.
Also you don't need to post so many times in a row.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on April 17, 2014, 02:11:28 PM
You mean, pathetically funny.
I think he is fooling around with us . This troll seems to have fun . You guys are taking him too seriously.
Just read the OP, I do not understand how your subject fits with the content of it. You stated that the idea of "God" is not crazy, but offered no arguments to support this at all. You stated that you don't dislike the idea of a god, but what you like and dislike is irrelevant. I don't dislike the idea of idea of pixies, but that has no bearing on whether believing in them is crazy or not. You also said we can't disprove god, sure, but you also can't disprove pixies or flying spaghetti monsters.
So why isn't the idea of "God" (with a big G) crazy?
Note: I do agree with pretty much every single one of your point, including supporting scientific studies looking at the hypothesis. I'd like something to indicate a god exists before we start wasting money on it of course, but if private resources, go right ahead. The only thing I'd probably disagree with is that the concept of god isn't dangerous.
I also do think the concept of a monotheistic god that was not created is rather crazy, but is a mind/being that always existed and then created the universe and interacts with it is rather crazy myself. So I'd like some counter-points. Of course, many scientific concepts that seem likely now appear crazy as well, so you never know. ;)
Quote from: Casparov on April 17, 2014, 01:47:24 PM
:eek: I didn't realize when you asked "What is God?"
I said "what is
a god." Granted, I already knew that reading comprehension was not your strong suit a long time ago, but come on, this is 4th-grade level reading at best.
Quote from: leo on April 17, 2014, 02:06:54 PM
This troll is actually funny.
Funny like watching a spastic trying to bowl, amusing at first, but pretty soon you really begin to feel sorry for him.
I can understand why people used to believe in a god a long time ago. Hard to fault early man when he had no real alternatives.
Today, I think the idea stems mostly from fear of death and as a mental virus implanted in children that is carried forward by inertia.
So ya, it's pretty much a crazy idea.
I do have some sympathy for those who fear death to the point that they need a crutch to make it through life. But I find it more than just irritating when they want to force someone with a healthy mind to use the crutch as well. It's like forcing a fit person to use a wheelchair.
Quote from: Berati on April 18, 2014, 01:46:34 AM
I can understand why people used to believe in a god a long time ago. Hard to fault early man when he had no real alternatives.
Today, I think the idea stems mostly from fear of death and as a mental virus implanted in children that is carried forward by inertia.
So ya, it's pretty much a crazy idea.
I do have some sympathy for those who fear death to the point that they need a crutch to make it through life. But I find it more than just irritating when they want to force someone with a healthy mind to use the crutch as well. It's like forcing a fit person to use a wheelchair.
The crutch is kind of a two edged sword/crutch. It may help alleviate the fear of death, but it can also blow it out of proportion. When my mother was dying of cancer she was in a ward with a bunch of other terminal patients. One was a young black woman, who was quiet most of the time. But doctors would come into the ward, turn patients over, take tests, and monitor the decline of patients. Whenever they would approach this woman and start to handle her, she would start screaming, "God have mercy!" That's all she said, and she would repeat it constantly 50 times during the monitoring process.
I don't mean repeating it like a "Hail Mary full of grace" type prayer. She was screaming it in abject terror, begging her version of god for mercy. I was a Christian back in those days, and I couldn't help think this terror had something to do with her belief that death might involved an eternity of torment beyond comprehension. Simply leaving our living state of consciousness behind as we die would not warrant that kind of terror. Religion may help, but it can also make things worse.
Even if a person's belief in an afterlife does not formally recognize a Hell, their whole belief system is filled with spirits, gods, angels, and apparitions of the Netherworld. They are not in a very solid position to arbitrarily exclude demons and devils on the grounds they don't want them. They really can't. One can never know what evil lurks in the spirit world once such a world is accepted as real.
My take on God!, every "theist", even the most devoutly religious, is an agnostic at best. They are just not prepared to admit it or are just plain delusional. In the weight of current evidence no one can possibly know there is a God as much as they would like to believe in a God, they simply cannot know. Yes, not even Carl Jung could know there is a God.
Crazy: 1: mentally disordered 2: wildly impractical. God exist with no evidence accept a book written by sheep herders that spoke to a God or An Angel. Believe that faith without evidence and ignorance is better than science. Right! Solitary.
The God who is interested in this planet or anybody on it is the one who created a geocentric universe. In other words, the little man who lives in the heads of people who listen to the little man who lives in their head.
Quote from: SGOS on April 17, 2014, 05:48:57 AM
I like these various groups of words. They sound really cool. I like "the ground of all being". It says so much and it's really clear what that means. "Ultimate reality" is cool because it describes a state that is more ultimate than a less alternate state of reality, and that helps me understand what a god is. He's more ultimate than the less ultimate parts of reality, which apparently comes in various degrees of ultimateness. It's probably a good idea to choose the most ultimate one.
Do you know what word salad is?
Quote from: SGOS on April 17, 2014, 06:31:05 AM
God: An undetectable immaterial fog like neutrality inhabiting the Aether that senses as it permeates the environment.
Quote from: SGOS on April 17, 2014, 06:36:28 AM
This is incomplete. It should read "positive" ground of all being.
But then it's your god. You can define him as you like, although he lacks the positive quality of my god.
HA HA HA!!!
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 16, 2014, 04:45:14 PM
I'll just respond to the argument in the OP with my favorite question that never gets answered:
What the everloving fuck is a god?
I am.
Sent via your mom
Quote from: pioteir on April 22, 2014, 07:26:28 AM
HALLELUJAH !
PRAISE THE LORD!!!!
:lol:
Sent via your mom