NationStates Jolt Archive

Its fairly simple...

Proof denies faith, you cant 'believe' in something (in the religious sense) if you have absolute proof of its existance. God, of course, has absolute proof of His own existance, therefore, God cannot believe in himself.
Thus, proffessing to be Christian would go against His own advice.
Therefore, God must be an athiest.
Of course, God COULD be Buddhist.

What I am NOT saying in this thread is whether Christianity is right or wrong. Its just an entertaining thought I had.

That's an interesting thought, when you put it that way.

he still knows he's God, it is very easy to believe something you are, for example
I still believe that I exist
so if your trying to say he doesn't have faith in himself, it doesn't mean he doesn't believe in himself, which he's god, so he believes he is God

Actually, he's a zen buddhist.

He's insane.

If you really want to go into it, we do have faith in reality. It's impossible to truly prove that anything beyond our own consciousness exists and isn't just a fantasy we've created. Of course, I believe that the very act of thinking of something brings it in to existence so it doesn't really matter whether those things beyond our own thoughts exist; when we think of it, it becomes reality. Perhaps not here, but somewhere.

Its fairly simple...

Proof denies faith, you cant 'believe' in something (in the religious sense) if you have absolute proof of its existance. God, of course, has absolute proof of His own existance, therefore, God cannot believe in himself.
Thus, proffessing to be Christian would go against His own advice.
Therefore, God must be an athiest.
Of course, God COULD be Buddhist.

What I am NOT saying in this thread is whether Christianity is right or wrong. Its just an entertaining thought I had.
very similar to an interesting thought in my favorite book ever. (or is that book series.....)

oh, and God doesn't need to believe in himself to exist, or does he? *creepy music*

If you really want to go into it, we do have faith in reality. It's impossible to truly prove that anything beyond our own consciousness exists and isn't just a fantasy we've created. Of course, I believe that the very act of thinking of something brings it in to existence so it doesn't really matter whether those things beyond our own thoughts exist; when we think of it, it becomes reality. Perhaps not here, but somewhere.
However, it can also be said that reality doesnt NEED to be believed in, or at least, people who stop believing in reality tend to stop existing shortly thereafter :P

Which brings up another question: Can God create a taco so spicy that He himself cannot eat it?

If you really want to go into it, we do have faith in reality. It's impossible to truly prove that anything beyond our own consciousness exists and isn't just a fantasy we've created. Of course, I believe that the very act of thinking of something brings it in to existence so it doesn't really matter whether those things beyond our own thoughts exist; when we think of it, it becomes reality. Perhaps not here, but somewhere.

In fact we don't even know if consciousness exist or is just some delusion.

However, it can also be said that reality doesnt NEED to be believed in, or at least, people who stop believing in reality tend to stop existing shortly thereafter :P

That's true as well. Of course, if we can bring a world in to contact with our existence by mere thought then all it would take is one person somewhere in the infinite span of universes to imagine us and we would exist regardless of individual belief. It also raises the question of what would happen if everyone stopped believing that our reality existed...would it cease to exist? If fewer and fewer conscious beings believe in it, does the fabric of reality become weaker?

It reminds me of 1984 when O'Brien mentions that if he says he can float like a soap bubble, and everyone believes him beyond a doubt that he can, that he will float off the ground.

In fact we don't even know if consciousness exist or is just some delusion.

If consciousness doesn't exist, we don't exist...that's a profound thought if you consider its ramifications. For all we know, we might just be a simulation created by some other beings with our history and universe programmed in to us; perhaps we're the equivalent of a gigantic game of Civ 4 meant to play out evolutionary or social scenarios.

Which brings up another question: Can God create a taco so spicy that He himself cannot eat it?

Of course he can, he's the almighty, he can do anything.

Its fairly simple...

Proof denies faith, you cant 'believe' in something (in the religious sense) if you have absolute proof of its existance. God, of course, has absolute proof of His own existance, therefore, God cannot believe in himself.
Thus, proffessing to be Christian would go against His own advice.
Therefore, God must be an athiest.
Of course, God COULD be Buddhist.

What I am NOT saying in this thread is whether Christianity is right or wrong. Its just an entertaining thought I had.
But how does god know he exists? How can you have proof of your own existence? Humans face this proiblem too, why not god? Whatever 'proof' we have is derived from the very existence we are trying to test. Furthermore, there is no such thind as proof, as it indicates a certainty, which cannot exist. Nothing can be 100% certain or impossible. So even when we have 'proof' of something, we still are required to beleive that our 'proof' is reliable. As such, I could beleive in my self as god, and in itself the beleif is self-validating. Therefore, God could be a deist, but he would be no less succeptible to arguements of logic than a human deist. This is incidentally why I beleive that if (in the supremely unlikely circumstances) there was a god, he would be immune to the rules of logic (he could make a shapeless cube, or lift rocks that he cannot lift...).

Which brings up another question: Can God create a taco so spicy that He himself cannot eat it?
I would say yes. He would create the taco so spicy that even he could not eat it, then he would eat it (not being subject to the rules of his making).

Its fairly simple...

Proof denies faith, you cant 'believe' in something (in the religious sense) if you have absolute proof of its existance. God, of course, has absolute proof of His own existance, therefore, God cannot believe in himself.
Thus, proffessing to be Christian would go against His own advice.
Therefore, God must be an athiest.
Of course, God COULD be Buddhist.

What I am NOT saying in this thread is whether Christianity is right or wrong. Its just an entertaining thought I had.

Excuse me for asking, but what is "proof"? The word "proof" when used in deductive systems is relevant to those deuctive systems only. Beyond those systems, you need to tell me what you mean by "proof". Furthermore, if something is proved, I can believe that it is proved. This does not result in any contradiction. If it does, then show me how.

If you really want to go into it, we do have faith in reality. It's impossible to truly prove that anything beyond our own consciousness exists and isn't just a fantasy we've created.

What's your standard of proof?

Its fairly simple...

Proof denies faith, you cant 'believe' in something (in the religious sense) if you have absolute proof of its existance. God, of course, has absolute proof of His own existance, therefore, God cannot believe in himself.
Thus, proffessing to be Christian would go against His own advice.
Therefore, God must be an athiest.
Of course, God COULD be Buddhist.

What I am NOT saying in this thread is whether Christianity is right or wrong. Its just an entertaining thought I had.
except that God would not hold the same belief of himself that his followers would of him. for the same level and definition of Belief, there would have to be a higher being than him. if there is none, then yes, God is an Athiest, if there isn't and God believes in that higher being, then no.

Which brings up another question: Can God create a taco so spicy that He himself cannot eat it?


This is one of those silly examples that is supposed to show that god does not have all the omni properties, but gone sillier.

The solution, accepted by both atheists and theists, God cannot do the logically impossible and this is no limitation on her/his power.

What's your standard of proof?

There isn't one; accepting the existence of reality is a fundamental axiom that has to be true in order for anything else to be proven. You can't prove it because to do so you have to use the methods that stem from the existence of reality. Reality has to exist in order to prove it exists.

There isn't one; accepting the existence of reality is a fundamental axiom that has to be true in order for anything else to be proven. You can't prove it because to do so you have to use the methods that stem from the existence of reality. Reality has to exist in order to prove it exists.

Then you can't prove the existence of your own consciousness, either, because doing so requires the use of methods stemming from the existence of reality.

Personally, I prefer to go with the notion that if in fact what we experience isn't "real," there is no reason we should care about what is "real," since it is irrelevant to our existence.

Edit: Well, no reason aside from idle philosophical speculation, that is. Which can be fun.

very similar to an interesting thought in my favorite book ever. (or is that book series.....)

oh, and God doesn't need to believe in himself to exist, or does he? *creepy music*
Just out of curiosity, what book series is it?

Just out of curiosity, what book series is it?
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. in concern to the Babblefish.

or so I guess.

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. in concern to the Babblefish.

or so I guess.
Yes, thats certainly what it sounded like.

Of course he can, he's the almighty, he can do anything.

but if he can do anything, shouldnt he be able to eat it?

I've seen this topic come up before (in a different forum). What it basically came down to after a while was whether the definition of "atheist" means "knowing there is no power higher than oneself" or "knowing there is no God," because only the former can be applied to the Christian God.

he still knows he's God, it is very easy to believe something you are, for example
I still believe that I exist
so if your trying to say he doesn't have faith in himself, it doesn't mean he doesn't believe in himself, which he's god, so he believes he is God
Steve down the street beleives he is god too, but he can't change the weather.

Steve down the street beleives he is god too, but he can't change the weather.

no but he can make women folk instantly fall in love with him

(so he thinks)

he still knows he's God, it is very easy to believe something you are, for example
I still believe that I exist
so if your trying to say he doesn't have faith in himself, it doesn't mean he doesn't believe in himself, which he's god, so he believes he is God
Faith isn't required to believe that you exist. You can work it out yourself using mirrors and magic markers.

Whether or not he exists, I find that statement humerous. :p

After being conscripted to go to a Christian camp for a week, they esentially explained that he's a communist. Anyone else agree with me here?

no he is a figment of your imaginations.

Its fairly simple...

Proof denies faith, you cant 'believe' in something (in the religious sense) if you have absolute proof of its existance. God, of course, has absolute proof of His own existance, therefore, God cannot believe in himself.
Thus, proffessing to be Christian would go against His own advice.
Therefore, God must be an athiest.
Of course, God COULD be Buddhist.

What I am NOT saying in this thread is whether Christianity is right or wrong. Its just an entertaining thought I had.

This amuses me. What you've done is point out that the existence of absolute proof for the existence of a thing is incompatible with true faith in that thing.

The funny thing is, I've known folks to have true faith, but I've never known them to have absolute proof. So I'm thinking that absolute proof doesn't exist, and your argument is based on a false premise, namely that there is such a thing as absolute proof.

I have so much fun with logic. :D

I don't think it makes God an athiest! He'd just know he was God.

Of course, I think the whole bit about faith being "required" for the existence of God (a different, but similar premise) is baloney. Having proof doesn't change the nature of that which is proven.

For all we know, we might just be a simulation created by some other beings with our history and universe programmed in to us; perhaps we're the equivalent of a gigantic game of Civ 4 meant to play out evolutionary or social scenarios.I've had this idea for a long time now, and it irks me that I can't find any logical disproofs of it...