Do atheists know

[Cristiano]

So you are saying that God is not the prime cause. Then what would you call the prime cause?

There was no prime cause, the prime cause is inevitable, because something must always exist. In order to be truly perfect, it would be better for God to exist, than not to exist. Therefore, a prime cause is inevitable…

You just said that “there was no prime cause” and then you say that “the prime cause is inevitable”. This goes against the principle of self-contradiction, if you argue without using this principle you cannot build a logical argument.

 

[lemondiesel]

You just said that “there was no prime cause” and then you say that “the prime cause is inevitable”. This goes against the principle of self-contradiction, if you argue without using this principle you cannot build a logical argument.

You are just misinterpreting. There is no prime cause because there was never a “time” before time, because something must always exist. There can never be nothing, there must always be something. The ‘primary cause’ if anything, is simply being incapable of nonexistence. From there, the unity of every single atom, down to its core, creates a ‘conscious’ that allows these atoms to work the way they do, and to run on algorithmic situations.

 

[Cristiano]

You are just misinterpreting. There is no prime cause because there was never a “time” before time, because something must always exist…

You are just describing the concept of primary cause when you say that"something must always exist"

…The ‘primary cause’ if anything, is simply being incapable of nonexistence…

That again it is the definition of primary cause and by the way that is exactly the definition of God. God is existence, and that it is why he reveled himself. What do you think his name “I Am Who Am” really means if not existence?

…From there, the unity of every single atom, down to its core, creates a ‘conscious’ that allows these atoms to work the way they do, and to run on algorithmic situations…

And who did define the “algorithmic situations” if not an intelligent designer (a.k.a. God (a.k.a. prime cause))?

 

[lemondiesel]

You are just describing the concept of primary cause when you say that"something must always exist"

Yes, but I am saying the building blocks of atoms are constants, therefore creation of atoms is inevitable.

That again it is the definition of primary cause and by the way that is exactly the definition of God. God is existence, and that it is why he reveled himself. What do you think his name “I Am Who Am” really means if not existence?

That is what I am saying, God is existence, but as of now, I am not giving him any acknowledgment of being a personal, judging God. Without us, God truly does not know of his own existence. He doesn’t reflect on choices He makes, its more that, he just does because he can and its how everything is.

“I Am Who I Am”, does mean existence, but it lacks that personal name. I simply means “I am the Now”, but it does not give any recognition to a accumulation of past experiences. Therefore, God can not be a personal God.

My name, “John” symbolizes my past experiences, collected and molded into a perspective. Much like Plato’s Socrates represents a philosophical idea, my name represents my bodies experience. Where is God’s name? First Person only acknowledges the present, not the past. Names like God, YHWH, or whatever, are names that we as humans give to Existence, because it is truly unanswerable, and we want God to relate to our experiences.

I will accept Jesus Christ as this name, but I believe we can all become Sons of God.

And who did define the “algorithmic situations” if not an intelligent designer (a.k.a. God (a.k.a. prime cause))?

Life on Earth is based on doing whatever is necessary to survive. This mirrors all existence, it is just combined with Existence. Existence-Survival is one concept, and it exists within every atom. There is no need for a Creator, because atoms cant, not, exist (lol?) Therefore, they “know” to always exist, or survival…

 

[Cristiano]

… therefore creation of atoms is inevitable…

… There is no need for a Creator, because atoms cant, not, exist (lol?) Therefore, they “know” to always exist, or survival…

Creation of atoms is inevitable (they are caused) but they cannot be created(they do not have a cause). That again goes against the principle of non-contradiction. I do not have a problem if you choose to exclude such a principle but if you do so, then any discussion is worthless.

I guess that at this point it is better to drop the whole discussion because it is not possible to build an argument that can be verified against contradictions.

 

[_Locke]

Yes, but I am saying the building blocks of atoms are constants, therefore creation of atoms is inevitable.

That is what I am saying, God is existence, but as of now, I am not giving him any acknowledgment of being a personal, judging God. Without us, God truly does not know of his own existence. He doesn’t reflect on choices He makes, its more that, he just does because he can and its how everything is.

“I Am Who I Am”, does mean existence, but it lacks that personal name. I simply means “I am the Now”, but it does not give any recognition to a accumulation of past experiences. Therefore, God can not be a personal God.

My name, “John” symbolizes my past experiences, collected and molded into a perspective. Much like Plato’s Socrates represents a philosophical idea, my name represents my bodies experience. Where is God’s name? First Person only acknowledges the present, not the past. Names like God, YHWH, or whatever, are names that we as humans give to Existence, because it is truly unanswerable, and we want God to relate to our experiences.

I will accept Jesus Christ as this name, but I believe we can all become Sons of God.

Life on Earth is based on doing whatever is necessary to survive. This mirrors all existence, it is just combined with Existence. Existence-Survival is one concept, and it exists within every atom. There is no need for a Creator, because atoms cant, not, exist (lol?) Therefore, they “know” to always exist, or survival…

lemondiesel I think you need to read over your posts, and after every sentence ask “Is this true? How do I know this is true?” You’re putting forth a lot of unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable assertions.

 

[Spirithound]

“I Am Who I Am”, does mean existence, but it lacks that personal name. I simply means “I am the Now”, but it does not give any recognition to a accumulation of past experiences. Therefore, God can not be a personal God.

Would you rather He be called Jeff?

But seriously, God does not have past experiences because He is the Eternal Now, which means that He is present and personal in every moment.

 

[lemondiesel]

Creation of atoms is inevitable (they are caused) but they cannot be created(they do not have a cause). That again goes against the principle of non-contradiction. I do not have a problem if you choose to exclude such a principle but if you do so, then any discussion is worthless.

I guess that at this point it is better to drop the whole discussion because it is not possible to build an argument that can be verified against contradictions.

Well hey! at least we tried right?

lemondiesel I think you need to read over your posts, and after every sentence ask “Is this true? How do I know this is true?” You’re putting forth a lot of unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable assertions.

Yes, but I am saying the building blocks of atoms are constants, therefore creation of atoms is inevitable.
I know this is true because all atoms, as their primary building blocks, are similar. Therefore, these building blocks are constants, and should always be expected.

That is what I am saying, God is existence, but as of now, I am not giving him any acknowledgment of being a personal, judging God. Without us, God truly does not know of his own existence. He doesn’t reflect on choices He makes, its more that, he just does because he can and its how everything is.
I know this because these are the attributes ascribed to the definition of God.

“I Am Who I Am”, does mean existence, but it lacks that personal name. I simply means “I am the Now”, but it does not give any recognition to a accumulation of past experiences. Therefore, God can not be a personal God.
Everyone can say “I am,” but what distinguishes those "I"s? A personal name, which represents the experiences taken in through that individual body.

My name, “John” symbolizes my past experiences, collected and molded into a perspective. Much like Plato’s Socrates represents a philosophical idea, my name represents my bodies experience. Where is God’s name? First Person only acknowledges the present, not the past. Names like God, YHWH, or whatever, are names that we as humans give to Existence, because it is truly unanswerable, and we want God to relate to our experiences.
I know this because it is self explanatory after reading the above

I will accept Jesus Christ as this name, but I believe we can all become Sons of God.
Well, I accept this true, because I accept that Jesus as a Man actually existed. There is no evidence for his miracles, besides written works that are questionable. Therefore, I know Jesus was a “Son” of man, just as everyone else is. We just must dedicate our lives to this way of living.

Life on Earth is based on doing whatever is necessary to survive. This mirrors all existence, it is just combined with Existence. Existence-Survival is one concept, and it exists within every atom. There is no need for a Creator, because atoms cant, not, exist (lol?) Therefore, they “know” to always exist, or survival…
One thing I do acknowledge is that we are created in this God’s “image.” Not just as being able to recognize “I am,” but all Life, has a ‘conscious’ to some degree. All the parts of plant, as one, work together growing the plant, almost like a conscious. Therefore, at a larger ratio, we can say that the entire universe as a whole, creates some kind of “conscious.”

Would you rather He be called Jeff?

But seriously, God does not have past experiences because He is the Eternal Now, which means that He is present and personal in every moment.

Did you only read this part and decide to criticize my beliefs? God doesn’t have past experiences because he does not have a way of “remembering” them, therefore he lives, as you said, in the Eternal Now. The eternal now is Existence, but it does not include existed, only “we” provide that.

 

[_Locke]

lemondiesel:

Yes, but I am saying the building blocks of atoms are constants, therefore creation of atoms is inevitable.
I know this is true because all atoms, as their primary building blocks, are similar. Therefore, these building blocks are constants, and should always be expected.

What are the building blocks of atoms? What does it mean for them to be constant? If you mean they are all the same, how does that lead to the conclusion that the creation of atoms is inevitable?

lemondiesel:

That is what I am saying, God is existence, but as of now, I am not giving him any acknowledgment of being a personal, judging God. Without us, God truly does not know of his own existence. He doesn’t reflect on choices He makes, its more that, he just does because he can and its how everything is.
I know this because these are the attributes ascribed to the definition of God.

What god? The deist god? Furthermore, just because they are the attributes ascribed to some god does not make them true. That’s what I mean by unsubstantiated. Show me how the assertion “Without us, God truly does not know of his own existence” or maybe “God is existence” is true.

lemondiesel:

“I Am Who I Am”, does mean existence, but it lacks that personal name. I simply means “I am the Now”, but it does not give any recognition to a accumulation of past experiences. Therefore, God can not be a personal God.
Everyone can say “I am,” but what distinguishes those "I"s? A personal name, which represents the experiences taken in through that individual body.

This is a non-sequitor. “I Am Who I Am” as a phrase attributed to God no more shows he is not a personal God than it shows he is; nor does your reasoning lead to the conclusion that God is not personal.

lemondiesel:

My name, “John” symbolizes my past experiences, collected and molded into a perspective. Much like Plato’s Socrates represents a philosophical idea, my name represents my bodies experience. Where is God’s name? First Person only acknowledges the present, not the past. Names like God, YHWH, or whatever, are names that we as humans give to Existence, because it is truly unanswerable, and we want God to relate to our experiences.
I know this because it is self explanatory after reading the above

It is most certainly not self-explanatory. You argue that a name represents a body’s experience, but you don’t explain why, without a name, a body has no experience.

lemondiesel:

I will accept Jesus Christ as this name, but I believe we can all become Sons of God.
Well, I accept this true, because I accept that Jesus as a Man actually existed. There is no evidence for his miracles, besides written works that are questionable. Therefore, I know Jesus was a “Son” of man, just as everyone else is. We just must dedicate our lives to this way of living.

Why is having a name essential to being personal? What does it mean to be a “son of God”? Dedicate our lives to the “way of living” of being a son of man? Doesn’t just mean we should live as humans?

lemondiesel:

Life on Earth is based on doing whatever is necessary to survive. This mirrors all existence, it is just combined with Existence. Existence-Survival is one concept, and it exists within every atom. There is no need for a Creator, because atoms cant, not, exist (lol?) Therefore, they “know” to always exist, or survival…
One thing I do acknowledge is that we are created in this God’s “image.” Not just as being able to recognize “I am,” but all Life, has a ‘conscious’ to some degree. All the parts of plant, as one, work together growing the plant, almost like a conscious. Therefore, at a larger ratio, we can say that the entire universe as a whole, creates some kind of “conscious.”

This is all nonsense as far as I’m concerned. For example:

• This (life on earth) mirrors all existence, it is just combined with Existence.
• Existence-Survival is one concept, and it exists within every atom.
• There is no need for a Creator, because atoms cant, not, exist.
• Therefore, they (atoms) “know” to always exist, or survival.
  Your explanation just muddles things more; saying the whole universe is a conscious explains nothing.

Furthermore (and this is in reference to you disagreement with Cristiano) the law of non-contradiction is an axiom of logic, and arguing without it is pointless.

 

[lemondiesel]

What are the building blocks of atoms? What does it mean for them to be constant? If you mean they are all the same, how does that lead to the conclusion that the creation of atoms is inevitable?

I feel like I will never satisfy your expectation of a proper answer, so I respectively decline this question.

What god? The deist god? Furthermore, just because they are the attributes ascribed to some god does not make them true. That’s what I mean by unsubstantiated. Show me how the assertion “Without us, God truly does not know of his own existence” or maybe “God is existence” is true.

I am just talking about the term God in general. It represents an unknown, while also representing an idealistic definition for comparison. If we want to decide, let’s say in the USA, who is the most moral individual, we would need something to compare that individual too.

Our brains record images, and stores them in the brain. This allows us, as reasoning beings, to reflect back on these images. We give names to these images with language, and then use this language to create a past to present time line. “We” allow the universe to “know” of its existence, or perhaps the saying, “unconscious matter created consciousness” would imply here?

This is a non-sequitor. “I Am Who I Am” as a phrase attributed to God no more shows he is not a personal God than it shows he is; nor does your reasoning lead to the conclusion that God is not personal.

It simply explains why he can not think about his creation, he just is one with the creation. He can not truly interact with the creation, He can simply just be it.

It is most certainly not self-explanatory. You argue that a name represents a body’s experience, but you don’t explain why, without a name, a body has no experience.

Let’s say you and I meet at a park, and we sit down on a bench and begin discussing these very questions, or even political questions. You begin to explain your side of the story, and then I ask the question, “What shaped these opinions?” You will then go on to explain things that you have taken in through the senses, and the situation you were in. When you take in through your senses, you are experiencing, and you continue to grow upon your experiences.

All of a sudden, you get up and leave, and didn’t even leave me your name. I could refer to you as “I,” but that does not truly represent your belief, because “I” is not that specific. If I got your name, then I could truly assign your opinions with your name, therefore categorizing you as one ‘personal’ experience. John, represents the experiences my body has witnessed, and the choices I made on these experiences.

Why is having a name essential to being personal? What does it mean to be a “son of God”? Dedicate our lives to the “way of living” of being a son of man? Doesn’t just mean we should live as humans?

The way of living is the egalitarian message that Jesus preached. Son of God means you have molded your mind, into the “mind” of the universe, which I explained what that was in previous posts. You realize everything is one

This is all nonsense as far as I’m concerned. For example:

• This (life on earth) mirrors all existence, it is just combined with Existence.
• Existence-Survival is one concept, and it exists within every atom.
• There is no need for a Creator, because atoms cant, not, exist.
• Therefore, they (atoms) “know” to always exist, or survival.
  Your explanation just muddles things more; saying the whole universe is a conscious explains nothing.

Well, we will have to part ways on this discussion then. I do thank you for the questions

Furthermore (and this is in reference to you disagreement with Cristiano) the law of non-contradiction is an axiom of logic, and arguing without it is pointless.

The closest I can come to explaining it is that in order to even have a situation that requires logic, you must have the physical matter and a ‘time and place’. Atoms always exists, providing the potential environment for anything to happen. But there *must *always be something.

Why do I know that there must always be something? We have no other universe to compare to, this is the only one. Therefore, the universe works this way because that just how it is. It seems perfect, because that is how we interpret it to be since we do not know of an improperly based universe.

 

[BlueShadow123]

I
That is like asking me to provide evidence for the existence of God. It wasn’t that he couldn’t control, its more that it always just is. Imagine a large tree in a forest. (pretend now that this tree represents an infinite universe.) We, as in life, grows on the tree, benefiting from the tree. The tree doesn’t have a “choice” whether or not moss grows on it, it just happens and just does. This is what it is like for God.

That is your opinion. Not a fact.

 

[Spirithound]

Did you only read this part and decide to criticize my beliefs? God doesn’t have past experiences because he does not have a way of “remembering” them, therefore he lives, as you said, in the Eternal Now. The eternal now is Existence, but it does not include existed, only “we” provide that.

No, I do not intend to offend, but your beliefs are entirely new to me. I spoke as was logical to me. If God needs a name, why not Jeff? I still don’t understand why a name is necessary for personhood, and I don’t understand why “existed, past tense” is necessary, or desirable for personhood.
Locke has furthered the conversation in a similar way to how I would, so I’ll respond in that context.

_Locke_:

This is a non-sequitor. “I Am Who I Am” as a phrase attributed to God no more shows he is not a personal God than it shows he is; nor does your reasoning lead to the conclusion that God is not personal.

It simply explains why he can not think about his creation, he just is one with the creation. He can not truly interact with the creation, He can simply just be it.

God cannot “think” about his creation, but it does not necessarily follow that he is his creation.

_Locke_:

It is most certainly not self-explanatory. You argue that a name represents a body’s experience, but you don’t explain why, without a name, a body has no experience.

Let’s say you and I meet at a park, and we sit down on a bench and begin discussing these very questions, or even political questions. You begin to explain your side of the story, and then I ask the question, “What shaped these opinions?” You will then go on to explain things that you have taken in through the senses, and the situation you were in. When you take in through your senses, you are experiencing, and you continue to grow upon your experiences.

All of a sudden, you get up and leave, and didn’t even leave me your name. I could refer to you as “I,” but that does not truly represent your belief, because “I” is not that specific. If I got your name, then I could truly assign your opinions with your name, therefore categorizing you as one ‘personal’ experience. John, represents the experiences my body has witnessed, and the choices I made on these experiences.

No, you can’t refer to me as “I”. Only I can refer to myself as “I”. You use “he”. But even so, a name is only an abstract label. I don’t think that it even truly matters whether you have my name because you can still identify me by my appearance and mannerisms.

 

[lemondiesel]

No, I do not intend to offend, but your beliefs are entirely new to me. I spoke as was logical to me. If God needs a name, why not Jeff? I still don’t understand why a name is necessary for personhood, and I don’t understand why “existed, past tense” is necessary, or desirable for personhood.

God’s name is anything, whether it be ‘rock’, ‘tree’, ‘bear’, or ‘David.’ A personal name is necessary because it indicates that you have experienced, where “I” just says you are present.

I don’t think that it even truly matters whether you have my name because you can still identify me by my appearance and mannerisms.

That is when we develop stereotypes. Only a name can specifically identify you as an individual.

I feel we have come to a stopping point in this conversation, so I will leave you with this last post.

 

[tonyrey]

Love which is not limited by the indifference or hatred of others but is concerned only about everyone’s well-being and happiness.

Thank you for your kind words. “concerned” is certainly too weak a term to express the fullness of love. In fact no language is adequate but your examples stress the fact that love is at the very core of existence. Nothing would exist without Love…

The Creator of this immense and magnificent universe must have so much power that it exceeds our comprehension. We are certainly in no position to impose limits on His ability to determine when the universe will end…

This power is not allowing ‘nothing’ to truly exist. We can’t comprehend this, because our minds seem so bound to Earthly time explanations. Being able to always have matter in existence is the ultimate power. It allows subconscious’s like ours to exist, and to reveal the history of the observable. He will never let the universe end, because his love for simply just existing, is far beyond our comprehension.

You may well be right but there are probably other Creations besides this universe.

And why do you consider it immense? The universe is the largest, smallest thing, that is possibly conceivable. Size is irrelevant.

Size is irrelevant indeed but our limited intelligence isn’t! Although Pascal made the point that we are aware of the universe but the universe isn’t aware of us. At least there is no evidence that it is.

 

[lemondiesel]

Thank you for your kind words. “concerned” is certainly too weak a term to express the fullness of love. In fact no language is adequate but your examples stress the fact that love is at the very core of existence. Nothing would exist without Love…

Exactly! Mankind has tried to assign words to this ‘perfect love,’ but it is incapable. I think the next step in defining Perfect Love is being able to *understand *what Perfect Beauty is, because Perfect Beauty requires no words.

You may well be right but there are probably other Creations besides this universe.

True, but probably doesn’t cut it for me.

I remember my first astral travel. I acknowledge it 100% as a product of the brain, but I remember floating as a free conscious in fast emptiness, talking with someone that I couldn’t even see. The one point which was embedded with me, is that I was told this exact line:

“Once you truly understand the Love for matter, just its mere Existence and its Absolute Beauty, you will understand why it can never be destroyed.”

Size is irrelevant indeed but our limited intelligence isn’t! Although Pascal made the point that we are aware of the universe but the universe isn’t aware of us. At least there is no evidence that it is.

I agree to some extend. Even though it is not aware of “us”, it is still aware of our actions. By this I mean, if I put a pencil on a desk, the pencil is now aware of the desk, because the desk stops it from falling. These two objects have become “aware” of eachothers existence.