In order for you to believe in him?

Appear to me.
Talk to me.
Answer a few questions.
Maybe interact in some seemingly direct way with the universe.

Now, i'll believe in the being that does such things as much as i believe in the keyboard i'm typing on, because then they would have some kind of effect in my life, and in the same way i believe in the world and myself to exist.

But that does not mean i would remove my doubt...

What would it take for you to worship them?

Appear before me and convince me in person. I'm not in the habit of believing in persons I cannot see based on the words of others. Especially after getting burned by Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny

You know, if god was omniscient, he could just make us believe in him. Nevermind the freewill thing, it would be the easiest way. I mean, if some random guy appeared in front of us and said "Hi, I'm God!" we'd probably think hes mad.

As in genuinly "worship"?

Not just "if you get down on your knees for an hour, i'll do some good stuff".

Probably nothing.

Desiring worship is a childish little thing. The same kind of thing in people that sees them wanting fame.

And i'm not a big fan of childish gods...

He'd have to do something godly, miraculous (you know, bring someone back from the dead, cause earthquakes and volcanoes to erupt, walk through walls, something impossible like that), and say, "Hey, I'm the big G-O-D you tiny sack of crap"

DS: Edited flames

God has already done more than enough, and far more than we deserve.

It is up to us to meet Him the rest of the way.

Fine, God will have to have the dev team fix all the bugs in Counterstrike: Source before Summer CPL and have Day of Defeat: Source released before June before I believe in him.

Is this just a God bashing thread?

Not necisarily, unless you're specificly referring to the christian "god", which this thread did not specify.

The question is also what woul God have to do to make YOU (its a personal question, you see) believe in him.

But the question did not refer to anything other than a general "god" figure, which is why I said that.

what would *you* have to do to beleive in *yourself*?

So you suggest I should believe in god because I am god?

Sorry, had to troll that.

thats not troll - thats truth.

What is your idea of God's nature?

Gnuneo:

Many who endeavor to follow God also have a strong sense of self confidence.

Even, some might say, ego. They might even be so bold as to claim being the highlight, say, of this very site.

There was a reason I remember my philosophy prof annoying the hell out of me.. I believe in myself because I know I exist. No need for a 10 page essay to argue that

WTF? First, I'm assuming you mean "believe in yourself" in the ontological sense, not the sappy feel good sense.

As `me', I believe in myself because I'm sitting here existing. You can't get much more true-by-definition than that.

If you're asking "if you were someone else, you have to do to get the someone else to believe in you", well, I think that walking up to them would be pretty sufficient to all but the most solipsistic.

As for the original post, God would have to make a definite appearance to me. E.G. Having a conversation with me and then doing something miraculous of some sort. Of course, if God is reading this, I'd rather he just use his super-duper omnipotence to make me believe.

The answer of this question can give a lot of possibility
which will tunrs to be like wishes in the end, could happen or not.
maybe now those wishes didn't happen ,but does that mean we should stop thinking about the things we have in this universal , which maybe could answer and satisfy our doubts,...

God? Probably cannot be done, too many contridictions for it to exist...

god? Well maybe giving me god like powers would suffice... I am not... And well... yeah... does god give head?

Something doesn't have to seem logical to exist. The very fact of its existence proves it exists.

Being something other than a "god", it's hard to comprehend what exactly a "god" is.

In this matter... I don't think "god", assuming there is only one (which hasn't as of yet been proven to me any more than the existance of such a being), has any specific nature which can be explained accurately given the english language.

So the only way I can accurately define it without writing several pages is the ability to ignore the laws of nature (physics, chemistry, time, and various other things which non-"god" beings can't ignore, and even are designed around).

or





thats funny (non haha), because thats exactly the argument that beleivers in 'god' give...



but of course you are a god - the universe exists to you as a model that only exists inside your consciousness (see first quote), whilst it may behave unpredictably, that doesnt detract from the fact that ultimately *you* are your own *god*.



god can only be the consciousness of the universe - anything else can only fall short of absolute godhood.

P K dick gave the best example in his concept of VALIS (but not in the book of the same name).

there is no reason to suppose that god does not have to follow certain rules.

You're so long winded

If I am as you say, a "god", then what I am referring to is a higher level of being than a "god". A "supergod", if you will.

When I speak of a "god", I am speaking of a being who, while not necisarily unlimited in potential and capability, is much less so than we, as animals we label "humans", are.

uh huh..
I know I exist
If god exists then he knows he exists
Since I have had no contact of any sort with god I cannot say I know he exists. Its really quit simple, why are philosophers able to write thousands of pages in this shit? The world is very logical, its when you get all wishy-washy do things get messay. You are a human being, not a "form", a shadow on some fucking wall or any of that bullshit. Nothing more and nothing less. I can't believe I had to take and pay for such a nonsensical class

shenny:

'your body' is constantly changing, matter is passing in, passing out, the cells are dieing, and renewing, it is unlikely in a very real material sense that you have any cells in your body now, that you had when you were 2.

'your emotions' are constantly shifting, as the chemical balance and energy flow throughout your body changes, it is unlikley you have the same emotions now that you did 6 months ago - even about close friends/lovers. (or even favourite porn!!)

'your thoughts' change every few seconds, flowing through your mind like water through a river, only observed when in meditation, but happening nonetheless. It is unlikely you have the same thought now as you did 30 secs ago.

who is 'shenny'?

"Shenny" is his online persona .

What a silly question. Eric who I am right now, the sum of all my knowledge and lifetime experiences up to this point. Eric's body 10 years ago is Eric's body when he was 11. Eric's emotions 10 years ago were what he felt at that time, not now. Same with my thoughts. "Who is Eric?" is too broad a question, you must specify a timeframe. And Shenny is the personality I adopt online.

so 'you' are the sum total of your experiences up to this point.


ie - 'eric' is (or largely?) a memory construction?

Partially. If someone implanted different memories of a different childhood and recent past experiences I would likely have a different personality, different outlook on life, different opinions and all that jazz. However there are many things due to genetics that cannot be altered ( at least with present day technology) like the fact that I'm 21 years old, asian, hetrosexual, milodly allergic to penicillin..

Until people started looking at quantumn mechanics and the very small, i'm sure everyone thought the world was nice and clear cut.
As some, perhaps most, still do.

Truth be told, you don't just need quantumn mechanics to shake the world up. Reason itself should be enough.

We currently like to have our cake and eat it too.
We wish to live a material world that follows material rules.
Yet we also wish for consciousness and to have some say on that material world.

Very few beings i know of, despite all their professions, live as though there is no distinction between themselves and the material.

They want to believe in choice, they want to believe they have some say in things.

To do so, you've got to throw the deterministic universe out the window.

And then you realise things are a bit more complex then you first thought.

To keep a deterministic universe, you must admit your consciousness, the device for which you believe yourself to obtain knowlege, is not real. Is a mistake. Is an illusion.
You basically look through a window to the world, and derive empirically from what you see on the other side, that there is no window through which you can see.

Of course, everyone who knows a bit about physics is finding out the deterministic model is facing problems of its own empircally.

Then things start to go even more downhill.
So you've thrown out determinism.
But to retain any sort of meaning to anything in life, the scientific method, your own conclusions and knowlege, your own actions....you need cause and effect. You need connections. You need reason. You need there to be rules.

Suddenly, the determinism which rushes back in.

The world is not so clear cut. Far from it.

The philosophers of reason, and the scientists of empiricism, begin to realise the world appears anything but the straight forward "newtonian naturalistic" clockwork wonderland most modern people believe in (and yet also simultaeneously deny by holding onto a concept such as choice)

Gnuneo, do you believe in an objective reality?

i put it as possible, but i *very highly doubt* we percieve it directly.

If there is no Objective Reality, then does that mean nothing exists unless it is observed? That is essentially what you would have to be thinking to not believe in an Objective Reality, and even Quantum Mechanics acknowledges the cat exists--the only question is whether or not it has been shot.

it can mean that, yes.



depends on which theory you are looking through.

"if a tree falls in a forest, and no-one is around to hear it - does it make a sound?"

What else could it mean?

i dont know.


however the theories we have at the moment indicate that you are correct - but the possibility the universe itself is conscious of itself (pervieves itself) would remove many of the apparent contradictions of a 'perception only' model.

ok.. the world of quantum mechanics and miniscule particles has jack shit to do with the world we live in. Quantum mechanizs won't make a ball suddenly pass through a wall. Quantum mechanics won't make an object suddenly disappear and reappear somewhere else. Newtonian physics explains the world we live in quite well and that is perfectly logical and calculatable.

I brought Quantum physics up myself because it is relative generally than Newtonian Physics is. Also supposedly on the newtonian scale of things, Quantum Mechanics agrees very well with Newtonian Physics.

I'm sorry, but i wasn't aware that these miniscule particles and their behaviour existed in a world we don't live in...last i checked its the one and the same.

Without going all gnuneo on your arse, i think you mean the world you experience and know, not neccesarily the one you inhabit.



But it raises the question of why there is a table in front of you if there should be nothing there but merely quantumn states.
What has made that table appear?
What is the property and nature of this thing in us we know as observation that seems to be able to have these effects on the world?
And by god's name, how are we doing it?

Very well, give me an example of how quantum mechanics has affected your daily life. Philosophy has nothing to do with the hard sciences like quantum mechanics.



matter is made up of molecules composed of atoms. Elementary school physics here..



Many many moons ago a tree grew in a forest somewhere. Loggers cut it down and carpenders/machines fashioned it into a table. It was bought and paid for, and movers placed the table into its present location.



What a bunch of useless blather. I drop the table from a high place and I'll observe it shatter and break apart. I heat it up past a certain temperature and it'll burn to ash. The properties are predictable and well known. The observations have been done time and time again without any surprises.

Incorrect. Philosophy deals with EVERYTHING.

And atoms are subject to the rules of quantum physics.


And where did that forest come from?


What's your point?

Nerve Cells.

Riight, show me how philosophy has anything to do owith math or science



Any objects visible to the eye do not.



A seed fell into the ground.. you going anywhere with this?



Dunno, responding to some random shit by acow about the properties of observation. Look acow I'm not your highschool english teacher, no need to pad your posts with extra shit in a vain attempt to sound erudite. K.I.S.S., bulletpoints, these'll help you out in the business world.

The philosophy of pythagoras is that the NATURE OF REALITY (science) can be reduced entirely to numbers. Also, science was originally called the natural philosophy for a reason.



Yes they are. Just because you don't see something doesn't mean its not real.


Where'd the seed come from? Does the first cause argument at least mean anything to you?

Philosophy of science.

Is science a continuous accumulation, or is it disjointed, making partially irrational switches from one paradigm to another? (Kuhn)

Is induction valid, can we honestly use science to predict the future. (Popper)

What divides theoretical and observable entities? Is something we view with our eye theoretical or observable? With a microscope? With an electron microscope? (Carnap)

Can we believe in theoretical entities? Why do we believe in a theoretical entity if we choose to believe in it? Because it is indirectly observable, because it is indirectly manipulated, etc?

Does science proceed by falsification or not? If we do accept falsification, what do we falsify? The theory, the initial conditions, the background assumptions? If we falsify something, does that mean that we falsified the theory, or merely that we falsified all the scientific assumptions and theories used in the testing and formulation of that theory? (Duhem)

Can we develop a formal language to distinguish science and pseudoscience?
(Positivism)

etc.

Wow, what junk. Okay kiddies, lets go back to junior high science class and review The Scientific Process