If there was a God, then every one in
the whole world would be Canadian!

:):)

God has many names.
God, Allah, Thor and Wayne.

God was invented by the small minority of clever "Haves" to keep the vast majority "have nots" from stealing their booty. So they invented the concept of heaven and a big reward after you die to dissuade the have nots from breaking their laws. Great scam, because when you are dead it's hard to come back and complain that you were bilked.

It was relatively easy to control or eliminate those who didn't buy the lie by promising loyal soldiers an even bigger piece of the pie, again after they died.

You stated the essence of that before.
You never responded to my legitimate question.
The haves and have-nots is perhaps 12000 years old, from around the time of domestication of animals and agriculture beginning.
Evidence of worship goes back at least 30000-40000 years.
So, was God invented by those you claim or, once they came to be (with the God concept already in existence), did they take advantage of it along with so many other things they take advantage of?

In my opinion your second explanation fits the facts. Early humans were apparently highly superstitious and like I have stated before needed an explanation for why natural events happened. Why does it rain, why are there draughts, why are there floods, why do volcanoes erupt, what are the stars and so on. They came to the conclusion that a god or gods caused things to happen and about the time humans shifted from being hunter gatherers to living in ever more organised communities the leaders and shamans got together to figure out how they were going to keep the population under control and gradually worked out the precepts of religion. They used the already in place concept of god(s) and created an atmosphere where the fear of god and themselves was used to control behavior. So they told the people that they were appointed by God to rule them and a combination of brutal punishment here on earth for misdeeds and a promise of a happy bountiful afterlife kept most of the masses in line. It has been ingrained in the human psyche for so long that modern humans, even in the face of massive evidence of how things really work, still believe in heaven and hell. My question is, where are heaven and hell? And without them in some form religion has no basis of operation and no hold over men and women.

When you think about it without bias it makes sense, doesn't it.

Thanks for the clarification. Putting your past two statements together makes it easier to understand where you're coming from. So, "hijacked" instead of "invented"?

My statements tend to be the Reader's Digest extremely condensed versions. I don't like typing very much so I usually try to cut out the fluff and get to the point.

The statements I make in here I would almost never make openly in public even though I suspect that many so called Christians have come to similar conclusions as I have. If I had a significant other who is a person of faith I would never try to convince her that there is no God. All my friends who have expressed deep religious convictions never hear me try to dissuade them as I feel they are entitled to their faith, unless they try to call me out. I am not an evangelist for atheism as I consider myself more an agnostic. Now that we know that over 75% of the universe is outside of our ability to detect it leaves open the possibility of some degree of doubt about most everything.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

P.S.
I also think that law and order might collapse without religion. I think that most people need something to believe in outside themselves and belief in god is that something that puts structure in their lives.

I just don't believe this. I believe that the faithful think they need to believe to be good, but I honestly think that if it were even proven that God does not exist, after a period of confusion and unrest, people would eventually learn to think for and believe in themselves.

I think they only believe because they know no other way, and for many, reality sucks.

P.S.
I also think that law and order might collapse without religion. I think that most people need something to believe in outside themselves and belief in god is that something that puts structure in their lives.

I just don't believe this. I believe that the faithful think they need to believe to be good, but I honestly think that if it were even proven that God does not exist, after a period of confusion and unrest, people would eventually learn to think for and believe in themselves.

I think they only believe because they know no other way, and for many, reality sucks.

I hope you are right. I don't consider myself to be especially bright to have figured out the truth. I did test to be in the upper 15% as far as IQ goes. I just had my own life as an example that if there is a fair and just god he/she cut me out of the equation. So instead I came to the conclusion that god either doesn't exist or doesn't care about our existence on a day to day basis.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Gobekli Tepe

...people would eventually learn to think for and believe in themselves.

Dat Quote be ROTFLMAO

Doze Are D Exact type FREAKS who Take Advantage of People. If Everyone Thought and Believed in Themselves, Da Vrold would be Destroyed in A HeartBeat.

yup Yep fO shO

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

The opposite of law and order is supposed to be chaos.

It could be disorder and turbulence, for that matter.

The first set relates to possible justice, the third a possible lack of such a thing.

Neither of these two are the same as a possible notion of God which means faith and possible religion, but the latter could be explained by means of given laws of physics, at least when it comes to elementary particles.

This is possibly the main reason that God might be explainable in a theological context, but not in a scientific one.

Thinking about it, there is a sentence being spoken before the word "Amen" is being used or said.

Perhaps the secret lies in this sentence.

I will try looking it up.

Edit: Finding the page using the native language version of Wikipedia.

For now I am stuck when it comes to the English version, which is a pity, since this pray is supposed to be one of the most important ones.

It mentions Matthew 6,9-13 for this pray, specifically.

The English version is being found here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(Bible)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(Bible)#Lord.27s_Prayer_.28Matthew_6:9-13.29

Should note that this is not my personal opinion when it comes to these things either.

I was pantheist for a while after leaving the Methodist church.

For a deity to know the future and fate of every human or creature then it would have to know all the infinite timelines sprays and the positions of all the particles that create those creatures and that deity would have to exist somewhere in the universe.
That entity would have to be entangled with all the particles and have the ability to calculate and perceive various infinite possibilities. The Universe itself would have to be sentient and self-perceiving.

Modeling the climate for a single year of earth climate takes massive amount of commuting power spread among us volunteers; imagine the calculation and data manipulation of a mind capable of omniscience and omnipotence of all the humans on earth both past, present and future and the infinite time lines created from those humans' free will choice making.
At least if there was no freewill and a single timeline playing out then I could conceive of a omniscient deity but the Judeo-Christian books explicitly state humans have free-will.

Anyway, maybe there are intellects with massive perceptions in the universe but there's no way I can believe in the deities formulated in most any religion.

The YHWH described in the bible is so blood thirsty, petty and horrid with instances where it obviously doesn't know what will be the outcome (betting with the Adversary that he can break Job's faith?) that I couldn't believe it's omniscient nor omnipotent nor does it claim to be the only deity in the world; just that the Hebrews will not follow another deity under penalty of death.

I've read the bible more in the last 3 years than ever before and the things the ministers wanted us to ignore can't be ignored when you have Skeptic's Bible references abounding on the internet.

Still, there is plenty of evidence that humans have evolved to have religiosity and I read a prediction that at minimum 30% of the population will retain religious views as their brains are wired for it.

---

I always wondered about the line "thou shalt have no other gods before me". Like Marmot said that seems to allow the possibility of other gods that are not to be worshiped.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

I always wondered about the line "thou shalt have no other gods before me". Like Marmot said that seems to allow the possibility of other gods that are not to be worshiped.

Hmm. How do you know who the right God is?
Here the Bible has been translated to modern swedish.
First commandment.
"Focus your life on the God who is the origin of everything and goals".
But that leaves several Gods to choose from as well...

Lord Rayel is at it again ,

Be careful of the Claims of finding "Moshiach ben David - Code Discovered"

Those that read the hidden Code of David are cursed .......

I have the Torah Code and you do have to careful in interpretation of what you find . They are warnings only , the future is not set .

And do not prove there is god

you can find same in "Moby Dick" or "War & Peace"....go figure !!

---

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/612340/Origin-of-the-universe-riddle-solved-by-Canadian-physicists-and-er-it-wasn-t-God

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/612340/Origin-of-the-universe-riddle-solved-by-Canadian-physicists-and-er-it-wasn-t-God

Steve

LOL. That was comforting.
We are still nothing...
Or perhaps virtual at most with some uncertainty.

Maybe God exist with some uncertainty in the quantum world:)

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/612340/Origin-of-the-universe-riddle-solved-by-Canadian-physicists-and-er-it-wasn-t-God

Steve

LOL. That was comforting.
We are still nothing...
Or perhaps virtual at most with some uncertainty.

Maybe God exist with some uncertainty in the quantum world:)

We will never know for sure whether God exists, according to the universal laws and the laws of nature, our petty minds are not allowed to know this.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/612340/Origin-of-the-universe-riddle-solved-by-Canadian-physicists-and-er-it-wasn-t-God
Steve

LOL. That was comforting.
We are still nothing...
Or perhaps virtual at most with some uncertainty.
Maybe God exist with some uncertainty in the quantum world:)

We will never know for sure whether God exists, according to the universal laws and the laws of nature, our petty minds are not allowed to know this.

God works in mysterious ways. I wonder why...

Anyway. Thank God It's Friday.
Oops. Two gods in a row:)

God works in mysterious ways. I wonder why...

Anyway. Thank God It's Friday.
Oops. Two gods in a row:)

That is the key question Janne. TGIF indeed.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

The existence of god is a logical impossibility.

Making such a statement is not even logic; its is virtually a self referential fallacy.

If you don't understand what I am saying, try studying Plato. For an exercise in the principles of predication, the dialog Parmenides.

First of all, by the principles of predication can one prove existence of anything? By the principles of any naming convention in logic itself, can one prove existence?

Or is it a fact, that the Subject Naming Convention is defined in terms of the Predicate Naming Convention? And is it not a fact, by the Predicate Naming Convention (might want to reread Aristotle on this point) all one can do is name an abstraction?

Therefore, just like in mathematics, after all a logic is a logic and the principles of the language are identical, the Subject is always defined in terms of the predicates.

Therefore, to disprove God, one has to disprove not the subject term, but the predicates.
,
And, as the predicates are learned by induction, disproof is impossible.

And this is why, it was said, neither existence nor non-existence can be proven, that is not what proof does. As every logic rests upon the naming convention, proofing is always the simple verification that a chain of reasoning resolves back to that very same convention.


Or if you have a hard time with this, Check out the hundreds of examples of what a proof is in A Universal Language.

In the simple, if you want to find out if something is possible, then you define your term, your analog, in terms of a given set of predicates, which you have not done.

Logics are only indexing systems for analog content. The indexing system can not, does not prove that it indexes an analog. Logics themselves are abstracted from analog content. Surely, if one does not even know what logic is, a system of names, an indexing system, then one cannot even reason.

I.e. an index points to a reference in memory, if the memory is missing, it certainly cannot do a magic trick and create it.

Or, if one were able to understand the concept at all, one would have understood Euclid, The Point is that which has no part. i.e. the boundary is not the bounded, or again in general semantics, the map is not the territory.

One method of demonstrating a history of so call intellectual illiteracy is the fact that not one of them even comprehended what logic is to the point that all they could do is formulate one so call system of logic after another only to end up contradicting themselves, never once having the wit to understand the fallacy was in their own mind.


Once one understands the principles of language, one finds that God is the easiest term to prove. Or should I say once the mind is linguistically functional, God is the easiest thing to prove.

The mind functions, when it functions by the manipulation of virtual things, that is its only ability, its only power

Define a thing: A thing is material within limits a shape or form.

Material and form are the elements of a thing, i.e. its defining characteristics.

I.e. The subject naming convention, i.e. the first word, is defined in terms of the predicate naming convention.

Or again, the first word is true when the name of the material is true, and the name of the form is true,

Or, in a metaphor, which is not so mystical if you understand logic at all.

John 1:1: In the beginning was the word (i.e. first word, subject) and the word was with God (i.e. the material difference) and the Word was God (i.e. form)

Thus, through metaphor, one can teach the fact that thinking by definition requires both logic and the analog content indexed by it. Or, at the mouth of two or more witnesses is a thing true.

This is exactly how one proves even mathematical equations.

Language is the only power a mind has, if it has any at all. Therefore, when language is in fact an image, then it is this image, i.e. the Principles of Identity, which is God. I AM THAT I AM. is simply denoting the first principle of language as a biological function.

i.e. One can only know God, which is defined in terms of the predicates, when one can reason, or again Law.

---

https://archive.org/details/AUniversalLanguage

https://archive.org/details/TheDifferenceBetweenManAndBeast

https://archive.org/details/DelianQuest2015

Mankind always enumerates particular problems with human behavior, racism, sexism, politics, etc., but they never even address the only problem there is. It enumerate the particular problems without having any idea of the root problem, one becomes an ant pissing on a forest fire while it is playing with matches.

Mankind is currently proto-linguistic. This is due to evolutionary youth. Unless it can fulfill its purpose as mind to do its own work, it is doomed to one catastrophic event after another.

To prove that there is life in the Universe, life which has overcome this bottle-neck in evolution, certain things were written about a certain time in history, a nexus in history. This life cannot do for man what man must do for himself, if he is to survive as a species.

People are offended at the idea that they are the product of a biological organism, and as such they have a job to do which maintains and promotes life. They have to in fact, first remove the obstruction from their own eye.

One of the things written is that what mankind calls today Lucid Dreaming, will return to man on a global scale. Lucid Dreaming is an analog language. It is a virtual learning environment. It is not there to teach man technology, nor to warm his heart with fuzzy bull shit. It is there for the modification of human behavior, a virtual environment to model human behavior, psychological behavior.

It is also written that someone would be sent like Moses, to teach man about Law. As the mind is wholly linguistic by function, and as language is effected as standards of behavior, and as standards of behavior is Law, one can see why; so that mankind can have life, and have it more abundantly.

Mankind claims to be seeking intelligent life in the Universe, without having any idea of what intelligence is to begin with.

It was written, that only one person in history would do certain things, one of them was to solve for the name of the Beast 666. The reason is it is only solvable through the principles of language, Law. Take a look at The Difference Between Man and Beast. The link is below. Then examine the history of the puzzle and ask, did anyone even come close?

---

https://archive.org/details/AUniversalLanguage

https://archive.org/details/TheDifferenceBetweenManAndBeast

https://archive.org/details/DelianQuest2015

It must give you atheists a nice, warm fuzzy feeling to huddle together, here in the darkness, nodding in agreement among each other and acknowledging to each other that we are here, all alone. Nothing but the product of randomness in the vastness of space. A series of lucky rolls of the dice to lead us to "think, therefore we are... but why?" And then conclude that we all eat, reproduce and then die--all for no reason. A blink of an eye on a cosmic scale, then we vanish, cease, extinguish--back into nothingness.

Ah... Feels good to come to that conclusion, doesn't it?

I've never heard a better description about the belief of religion as you have just offered. Gives you a warm fuzzy feeling to believe in the mythical man in the sky who will make it all better.

psycosis: noun: a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

BTW there is a reason we eat, reproduce and die: entropy.

---