So much like myself

See a newer (and better) version of this article here: Re: Nonpoint energy field theory

I recently read a blog post “proving god” and partook in a very interesting Twitter debate about the logical proof presented by this person. Now I am sure this post will be ripped apart by the philosphical wizards that they are, but there are some logical objections I would like to make clear.

But before I get to that, I would like to explain that this person, @schicagos, is much like myself, or a post version of myself, who believed in pantheism. I once believed pantheism

Pantheism is the belief that everything is god. But why call it god? The argument was made that when you define god as “all knowing, all powerful, and all present” that you can prove his existence.

And yes, the logical proof given was a really redundant way of proving that what exists truly does exists and then assigning the label god to it. That is not productive at all.

I could call my water bottle god (sure, it isn’t all present or anything) and remove the additional definition of god but that would be excessive. We can already call the water bottle a water bottle.

This guy went out of his way to redefine everything to mean god. Having been here before, it seems to be out of denial that there is no god.

I’m sorry if my ideas are getting jumbled here, but it is hard to debate and blog at the same time. But in effort to keep this coherent, here are some of the points that have made that haven’t been properly addressed.

  • If this “god” can know things as was asserted and it knows this because it is in the state of what it knows, then a pen knows about itself because it is in its own state.
  • Why call everything god if we already call everything “everything”?
You know it is wrong when
  • It was asserted that rocks know things
  • 7 people are attacking the claim
  • The person defending the claim starts to repeat himself
  • The person defending the claim doesn’t know why to call it god
  • You just need to believe in it so it is true for you. (Kind of wondering why all the work was put into a logical proof if faith is required)

Further points will be addressed via edit or in the comments.


15 thoughts on “So much like myself

  1. While pantheism *may be* a type of monotheism… I am NOT a pantheist.

    There was a *time* when I may have *believed* that I was… but I know the truth.

    The TRUTH to what I believe lies in all religions.. but MOSTLY in Islam AND Christianity.

    I did not touch upon my *personal* inner most beliefs yet… because I have not completed reading the Quran. And how can I judge something with honesty if I have not read it in its entirety?

    But I feel that the majority of all RELIGIONS agree on a single concept of MONOTHEISM.

    Which I FIRMLY stand behind.

    • I am a bit confused now. There are two definitions of pantheism. It can mean either a person who believes that everything is god (and you make it sound like the 0th dimension makes up everything so therefore is god. This would make you a pantheist) or it can mean a person who believes in all gods (which you are quite close to by saying “The TRUTH to what I believe lies in all religions..”). So, you are, as far as I can tell, a pantheist (ignoring your own labeling for the moment).

  2. I havent even read the book of mormon(which I doubt ill agree with.. but I also said the same about the Quran… and I find myself agreeing with it at basically every line)…
    So how can I judge it if I havent read it?

    Again.. I need to read EVERYTHING in its ENTIRETY with COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING in order to judge it.

    Ill let you know when I get to that point… even advanced chemistry books I disagree with at points… but guess what?
    I havent been proven wrong at those points.

    Check out my writings on quadruple bonding on 6th and 7th period of the periodic table.

    There was a short time, right after my father died that I did not believe in God… only cause I was in pain.
    But… that was very short lived.

    In scientific terms:
    Consider the postulate that your very THOUGHTS in the 4th dimension have influence over space-time. So… no… I dont view prayer as “illogical” and “stupid”.
    Consider that your very brain lets out electromagnetic waves of the same electromagnetic spectrum as gamma to longwaves.
    For all we know, these brainwaves influence the thought patterns of other living beings.
    Think of the brain as both a transmitter AND receiver… BUT.. if the 5th dimension exists.. our 4th dimensional brainwaves might not even influence other brainwave patterns.

    I dont know the answers…. I am both a man of faith AND a man of science.
    I will continue to read until I know the truth…

    But as far as I know(and have ALWAYS known) One God exists.

    • Are we still talking about nonpoint energy field theory? You are practically proving your own theory wrong by suggesting that a god might transmit gamma waves to our brain, a property which you failed to mention in your flawed proof.

      • thats not what I said.

        I said that the mind is 5th dimensional and the brain is 4th dimensional.

        Gamma rays are 4th dimensional… how can the be 5th dimensional?
        Are you asserting claims that I did not make?

    • I’m not really good at religious doctrines, but I think your idea of communicating with god through electromagnetic waves do not match with your belief of the quran’s god.

      According to what I understand, Islamic god is some kind of an incomprehensible being having created everything you see/know. That includes time, space and matter. Every thing known to human beings are bound by these dimensions or basic quantities, but these basic quantities cannot be defined. Once you believe that god created time, space and matter then it also means that you have no way of identifying/explaining God’s spacial location, or his location in time. The same aspect holds good in how we communicate with god. Essentially, god may not need some kind of an electromagnetic wave to communicate with anyone.

      I partly agree and partly disagree with “The TRUTH to what I believe lies in all religions.. but MOSTLY in Islam AND Christianity”. There is basic similarity between the concept of God in all religions but similarities vanish as we analyze a bit deeper. Bible talks about God very similar to the quran’s God in most places; but that becomes a bit blurred when it talks Trinity. If we take the description “created man in the image of God” literally, it becomes completely different from the islamic God (Image can be defined by space and time). Trinity itself is not very clearly explained in bible but goes against Quran’s god. I also see that quran vehemently disapproves the term “Son of God” and calls Jesus Christ the “son of Mary” which I’m sure will irritate most Christians.

      If God is some thing that Islam talks about then its a bit difficult to actually prove/detect His existence, as we have no knowledge of any thing outside the basic dimensions (time-space-matter). If god did not create time, space and matter then we should be able to prove or detect the existence of god scientifically (may be using some advanced form of quantum physics or something?). Then it also means the question, who created God (and when) also becomes valid.

      • While I think we agree that much of religion is nonsense, I am still puzzled by how you avoid the issue of the origin of a god. You seem to be saying that if we start with a premise that a god created space and time that he is therefore outside of space and time and the question as to the time of his creation or his/her/its location is irrelevant. However, it is illogical to assume that “if we assume a god which did something exists, god exists.” To use that explanation you would need to assume that a god exists to explain a contradiction with the existence of a god. I hope I made that clear enough but if you do not see the flaw in that, feel free to ask.

        I think you can also see the value in approaching the question of the origin of the universe scientifically rather than just assuming some type of supernatural explanation. If there was enough evidence to support the existence of a god, I would believe in one. However, I have not seen such evidence. If you have such evidence, I would be interested in seeing it.

        • I was really busy with work that I couldnt find time to sit down and reply for such a long time.

          I admit that there is a lot of nonsense in various religious beliefs especially in mythology (I dont want to look at nonsense and call it brilliant!), but AJ, I think there is a lot of nonsense in atheism too. I know atheism but as I said before Im not good at religious doctrines (Ive been reading some Christian and Islamic books).

          For any “ism” to be true, it should be able explain its basic beliefs with out contradicting itself. Atheists believe that existence of life can be explained through theory of evolution. But unfortunately, as you go deeper into its claims and apply it to what you see around, you understand that it cannot explain the existence of life. As a matter of fact I left atheism after trying to explain the existence of life using theory of evolution.

          Between christian and Islamic beliefs, there are both similarities and dissimilarities. Dissimilarities are in terms of how Christians see jesus christ vs how muslims do. I actually dont believe in the christian view and reject any human incarnation of god. For me God cannot be born as a human, its just too weird. Again I dont believe in Trinity I support the rigid monotheism of Islam. Muslims believe that all major religions are from god and started with the same islamic monothiesm and people later corrupted them and added various pagan beliefs.

          Coming back to Atheism and evolution, look around and see how creatures can evolve. Think about how this worm could have evolved –

          Think about evolution of eye and how scan order of retina is preserved from eye to brain (using a parallel connection). How can that evolve?

          It cannot evolve, it has to be created, it needs to be designed before creating. And cannot evolve through sporadic mutations.

        • Delayed responses are more than welcome. I understand what it is like to be busy (and I am rather busy myself). It has been a while so please forgive me if I repeat myself a little. It’s 4am here so I am sorry if this is disorganized.

          I think the biggest conflict here is the definition of atheism. Atheism does not include evolution in any way. Unlike religions, atheism is only about a person’s beliefs regarding god claims. It is true that many atheists apply the theory of evolution to explain how life came to exist, but it is not to be mistaken for atheism itself. In the same way you might find that many Christians in the United States vote for Republicans, but that does not mean that politics are included in their religion. And it certainly doesn’t mean that their religion depends on the validity of arguments made by a political party.

          In the same way, many atheists accept evolution as fact but it is not linked with atheism itself. However, I will admit that the situation is a little more sticky than that. Some atheists were de-converted by science or evolution in particular. Personally, I started questioning religion when I discovered some conflicts with quantum physics but science was not responsible for my complete de-conversion. Although I accept evolution as the truth, I would not convert to any religion if I found out that evolution does not happen (and many groups fighting evolution in school acknowledge that “micro-evolution” happens).

          Not believing in a god is the default position (at birth) and it is logically superior via Occam’s razor. It is up for the religion to provide the proof for the supernatural which has not happened as far as I am aware. Although I am not a biologist who is able to defend evolution when it comes down to the tricky cases, it works very well to describe the world around us (yes, that is an opinion). I have yet to see any evidence for supernatural events which is logically valid. I will defend evolution to a point, but it is not my strong point but it is not always relevant when it comes to atheism as it is normally just a point where people begin questioning religion.

          I know I provided some texts on the evolution of the eye on this blog before. Did I give that to you already?

          Again, sorry about the lacking organization. I hope it is understandable.

  3. Young Charles is quite the moron. He believes that atheists aren’t citizens because we’re a nation “under god.” Apparently the tool knows nothing about his own Constitution (shocking!) OR the history of the Pledge of Allegiance. After reading more and more about this yutz on Facebook and everywhere else he vomits forth his tripe, it’s becoming more and more clear that he was beaten up daily as a child. Pray for his children.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s