Are they available though?

God is utterly unfathomable, beyond human systems of order, cognition and reason: the infinite transcends the finite. However, this understanding fails to take account of the "becoming space of time" and the "becoming time of space", which does not allow for any form of pure transcendence, outside human history, time, the universe. God is a human construct, and therefore subject to human systems of order and reason. What the idea of infinity in terms of space time means is that the only constant is change, that change "comes" or "happens" despite human attempts to control it, and thus exceeds the human. Space/time is truly infinite since it is not only the IDEA of a perfect, transcendent god beyond time, history and cognition. Space/time is infinite and not the idea of god, which is in fact bounded by a concept and is thus finite.

You and Cardboard Adolescent are going to get along well. I can tell already.

i don't know how comfortable i am equating the dialectic with god, the copulation of space and time may be infinite and necessary for experience, akin on another level to the copulation of zero and infinity. but this copulation does not necessarily transcend our finite human systems, since like Hegel we can construct dialectical systems which take into account recursion and self-reference. hence a truly transcendent God would go beyond space, time, zero and infinity, into a state of pure unity and oneness, a collapse of the dialectic, the absolute Void. see you there.

The idea of perfect unity or oneness, in Hegelian terms a final Aufhebung which would ultimately signify the end of the dialectical negation of "the other" and the "resurrection" of the self, and which would thus signify the culmination of history in oneness (another word for which is perfect sameness and non-difference), is indeed analogous the idea of the perfect oneness of god. I tend to think of the famous John Lennon song, impossible to imagine because of the infinity of radical, "non-dialectizable" culturally inscribed difference, i.e. history. The radical, time/space infinity of the discursive other/Other "within" history radically exceeds and evades the self's attempts to conceive and thus control it. The end of history in perfection - and here an absolute presence and an absolute absence seem to be two names for the same thing - is precisely impossible because of the becoming time of space and the becoming space of time - the infinite - a point which Hegel fails to take into account in his chronometric conception of history. Of course, there is no end to infinity, therefore God cannot be a perfect whole. God can cetainly not be both infinite, in the sense of transcending, overflowing or radically exceeding any attempts to subsume and thus reduce "him" and "his" radical transcendence under a bounded concept, AND the concept of a perfect bounded whole somehow thoroughly beyond (i.e. transcending) human thought (cognition, conception), i.e. a perfect concept for which there can be no concept because it is perfect and thus not bound to linguistic conceptuality, but which is still thought from "within" (I use this word with caution, for me there is no inside-outside, only infinity) the "realm" of linguistic conceptuality - "mathematical" word-concepts like "perfect," "unity"and "whole" - as a word-concept of the perfect. The absolute void or perfect overcoming of language (indeed "everything") cannot be thought from within language, which relies on an infinite and arbitrary system of word-concept differences for the generation of its meaning ("full" is "full" because it not "half full" or "empty", "absence" is only abscence because it is not "presence", "a cat" is "a cat" because it is not "a dog", nor "a parakeet", nor "a rat", nor "a baby grand piano," nor "Mobuto Sese Seko," nor "god"). "Void" and "perfection" are word-concepts, tied to the "non-appropriable" infinity of the human apprehension of language, culture, history, etc., and thus do not point to something somehow beyond linguistic conceptuality.

i agree that "the tao that can be spoken is not the tao," but I don't think there isn't any way out of the system. the system must rely on something outside itself. transcendence won't take place inside the system but in fact occurs when the infinity of the system--of space/time, self/other, matter/energy whatever you want--is revealed to be a hollow content-less circle... which must rely on some force outside it for sustenance.

Perhaps some time the perspective of other forms of physical comprehension will become applicable.

the implication that transcendence occurs within the confines of space and time ignores the larger unity of multiple dimensions for which there is no qualification. so while it may be that a transcendent being is not "of" the system ("the universe"), the broader "existence" is a term which cannot be quantified by measures of human knowledge, because it does not take into account the uncertainty of the system. in an infinitely-dimensioned universe (thus "dimensionless") there can be no qualification which can be ascribed to a "physical" being (physicality in this instance the proof of existence).

in essence the transcendence of a being is no more than a function of the uncertainty of the dimensions of a system. in a dimensionless system this manifests itself into nonbeing.

Oh man, you guys are dropping some philosophical rhetoric that's making my head spin!

God to me is a three letter word that I use as a matter of semantic convenience more than anything else. I talk about god a lot in my daily life and when I do I'm referring to the influences and experiences in my life that transcend the realm of egoic consciousness. People (at least non-atheists/agnostics) tend to relate to and understand the term "god" more readily than "The Quantum Field of Infinite Potential" or "The Void" or "The Superego". By strict definition I am an atheist, because I do not believe in an autonomous anthropomorphic entity with a will that is completely independent of our own intentions, conscious or unconscious.
However despite this belief, or lack thereof, I choose to interact with god (again semantics) as if "he" did exist. Because I believe that relating to "god" in this way adds dimension and fullness to my life. The pursuit of a relationship with the aspect of consciousness that is indeed transcendent can be a very healthy thing if it is perceived and practiced with the right attitude and understanding, but I will be the first to agree that organized religion is counter-intuitive and, more often than not, undermines the process in most individuals.
The point being is that I don't think its relevant whether or not God exists. In the case of trying to prove or disprove God's existence I agree with Cardboard Adolescents and Lao Tzu and say "The tao that can be spoken is not the tao" and leave any further pursuit to those who feel it important to contemplate further.

god and the bible are just rules to live by and how you should live in life and what to do and not to do, nothing less nothing more

With Neil and CA this thread has pretty much turned into a dadaist poetry jam.

haha ok

Pretty much. :laughing:

oh well still interesting for me

I was preaching a hybrid of Christian mysticism and Buddhism, I'm totally post-dada.

what the hell is dada anyway

www.belowtopsecret.com/thread2096/pg1


listen to that audio...its crazy

that was the stupidest thing i ever heard its a bunch of bs thats not true what so ever lol

I never said it was true... But you have to admit. It's weird.

snopes.com: The Well to Hell



The status:FALSE

I couldn't find the audio clip, but it honestly sounds really ridiculous.

I stumbled onto this while there though....

The Truth About Hell


...and couldn't believe the absurdity of their arguments.

It's pretty good. For example, I like this bit here :

Bit of biology in there :)

A question for all non-theists: Do you find it wrong to burn a bible?

I sure don't, but the people around me, even the atheists (which is most of them), usually rejects the idea.

the nazi's kind of made the whole book-burning thing look bad

would you burn the Qu'ran, Torah or Baghavad Gita? if not, why would you burn the Bible?

it's just insanely disrespectful, that's all.

I completely agree, urinating on the said documents is much more effective.

If you don't believe in it, where is the value in desecrating it?

i'm guessing it's because others believe and it's easier to define yourself by what you're not than by what you are

Personally, I think it's just a waste to burn books. Not having faith in a particular book doesn't justify burning it. In another light, aren't you practicing censorship in burning books? I think we can feasible argue against the christians who participated in book-burnings/bonfires in hopes to censor their communities. How does that improve us as humanity, though?

I have 2 things to say why i don't believe in god.


1. Religion is a sheild from reality.
People want to believe that there is something "worth" living for. Which leads them to believe in irrational thoughts and lifestyles.

2. The mind is to easy to trick.

Baked into most religions is the notion of duality. There’s a material body, and an immaterial “soul” that exhibits free will and lives on after death. While we don’t have full understanding of the brain yet, there’s no indication that there is such a thing. If the brain isn’t “really” where thoughts and choices are formed, what’s it for? Is it just the “hardware” on which the soul runs?
The mind is easy to trick. Religious experiences can be induced by drugs or through meditation. Drugs of various kinds profoundly affect the functioning of the brain. If your brain is damaged, consciousness may fail. This is strange if consciousness really resides in the soul. The mind is easy to trick. It is, as far as we can tell, a result of natural processes and accordingly isn’t always to be trusted. Religious experiences may be nothing more than delusions of the brain.



(I don't say that if you believe in god that you are wrong. It's you beliefes and you intitled to them.)

about religion being a shield from reality i believe that is true for some people but not all

again, quit plagiarizing, asshole. we're not amused or impressed by your copy and paste skills.

13 Reasons Not to Believe in God « import Mind.Reason

if you want to look at a weird @$$ religious site, go to this http://www.satansrapture.com

Well, I think it's full of ****. And how is it disrespectful if I do it in private?

I know people who have burned dictionaries, how is that any better? At least dictionaries hold an amount of truth and are useful, unlike the bible. And yes, I would burn the Qu'ran and the Torah as well.

this thread makes me dizzy... I'm going to pray for it to stop.

I think that's sick. It's so disrespectful to all different beliefs. I think actions like that reek with ignorance and immaturity.

Why would you even waste your time burning things?
So lame.

You think the bible holds absolutely no truths? Burning books is just stupid. It's like burning Disco.

Wait, scratch that last part.

Aren't you the same person who said something along the lines of every genre but rock was crap?

Anyways, what justification do you have for burning the Bible? If you don't stand behind it's teachings, why would you own a copy in the first place? Would you honestly go out and buy a copy for the sake of burning it?

About offending people, it's quite simple. Just because you believe something doesn't always mean you have to say it allowed, unless you're cool with being a total prick (not saying you are, we're talking hypothetically). Same thing applies in this scenario

No don't scratch that. let it stay. That is the great lesson in all thi, isn't it? Burning bibles IS like burning disco.