A Logical Proof for God

My own thoughts on the God question are similar to Tree's. I think because we can be quite sure we are on a flat Earth and we are probably the centre of the universe it seems to be quite reasonable that we were created by something/someone/some scientists. It could be many multiple possibilities as Tree quite rightly points out. There are some things that give some hints though:

1) The question of the soul and re-incarnation has always fascinated me (Dr Michael Newton has written some really good books on the topic), but I can't make it make sense logically. The fact that traits, both physical and most importantly, in character, are passed from one generation to the next for me disproves the idea that our souls keep getting re-incarnated for some mystical purpose. It seems to suggest most likely we are "programmed" and the program keeps evolving us either to reach some specific goal or we are just being observed to see what happens.

2) The fact that holograms and fractals seem to be at the root of all things seems to suggest a simulation as these are very efficient from a programming perspective.

I think there is a danger in believing there is something better in the "next life" because it causes us not to live this life. I can't help but think this is another diversion by the elites because they want us dead anyway, so if we believe by dying we end up somewhere better many people may choose death rather than fight for this life to be better. (Bear in mind that the elite seem to want to live forever!) At the same time we shouldn't be scared of death - it shouldn't really matter if this is our only life or not.

This planet is absolutely incredible, beautiful and worth fighting for. I just feel blessed whatever this thing is that is me has had the chance to experience it.

Although I now recognise Feynman to be a complete shill for the cabal, he said something that really resonated with me:

“I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything. There are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask "Why are we here?" I might think about it a little bit, and if I can't figure it out then I go on to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose - which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell.”

Good thoughts!

Also, I really like this quote!

Xander wrote:

“I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything. There are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask "Why are we here?" I might think about it a little bit, and if I can't figure it out then I go on to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose - which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell.”

I think you said it well with saying that whatever this mysterious world is it’s beautiful and worth fighting for.

Yes, could be a program, but my thoughts on ‘simulation theory’ have changed on because I now believe ‘programs’ and ‘computers’ (and all electronics) are probably not exactly what we think they are. But, yeah, could be ‘program’ of sorts. Fractals and holograms having such strange connections is weird. Then again, finding fractals at the heart of all things (including our programs) may seem to show life is more like a fractal than that of fractals being like programs. But, perhaps I’m confusing myself lol.


I find it surprising how often famous scientists, especially physicists such as Einstein or Michu Kaku, have quotes that really resonate with me. Even though I recognize that their ‘science’ is often purely theoretical and usually likely totally incorrect. It makes me feel like modern physicists have taken the place of philosophers and maybe even mystics. It’s like, Michu kaku is a smart guy and probably doesn’t know he’s likely totally wrong about space but he’s still spending so much brain power towards understanding something that at its very premise is incorrect.. but all that ‘logic’ and ‘Intelligence’ has to ‘go somewhere’ and so often it may manifest in the form of wise philosophy (as well as creative fantasies like string theory). It’s too bad their minds are pointed in the wrong directions by the Corrupters of our world, still, maybe if you can view their work as more ‘philosophical abstract ideas’ then there may actually be some use to their thinking!

Rest in Peace, Norm MacDonald

Oliver_Bestfall wrote:
Rest in Peace, Norm MacDonald

Oh shit I watched the whole video and laughed and wondered what norm is up to these days, then read your post
RIP. He was so funny and a good guy. And didn’t seem to cuck like most people in Hollywood.

I especially enjoyed his description of the Professor of Logic at the University of Science -- that's why I posted it on this particular thread.

But yes, Norm MacDonald will be missed dearly.

Tree wrote:

Also, I really like this quote!

Xander wrote:

“I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything. There are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask "Why are we here?" I might think about it a little bit, and if I can't figure it out then I go on to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose - which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell.”

It is a really good quote and I agree that some scientists are good philosophers too. I think Carl Sagan talked a lot of rubbish but he had some great quotes too. I wish I knew how many were genuine and how many were Freemasons knowingly deceiving us. I suspect the ones in the public eye are "chosen" for a reason, but there must be many working at places like NASA that haven't got the foggiest they are being lied to.

Yeah, I wonder that too. I’m almost more curious about who is lying and how much they know than I am about the shape of the earth! I think a lot of truthers tend to think more people are ‘in on it’ than actually are. I doubt most know. In fact, I kind of suspect the ones that do know are not the ones we see. I kind of question if Neil degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan know, just because it would be far safer for the corrupters to just put a ‘useful idiot’ in a position in the media than it would be a knowing mason. it would be super stressful for them and there’s always a chance they would crack. And there are plenty of brainwashed phds astrophysicists who really believe the lie and so can do a better job convincing the public. I believe this is also why they occasionally get them genuinely questioning the scientism narrative, like Michu kaku more recently, or say the guy from veritasium. I could be wrong but this is how I think they do it.

One group that have to be lying though are the astronaughts. And interestingly this shows! In the post-flight moon landing press conference with the astronaughts they are so nervous and uncomfortable. It was super suspicious. And ever since then it seems like they’ve done a better job choosing good actors for that job. But yeah, I’d guess they decided to limit the lime light for those in the know.

We simply just do not know what we do not know.
There are things we know, and things we don't know.
Eventually, things we don't know become known to us.
That is why we know what we do know.

But...

There are things that we will never ever know.
Never.
It is not possible for us to know.
Because it is simply un-knowable.

God or no god.
There is a middle way too, if you become aware of it.
It is a path of awe and wonder and magnificent beauty, where even the god and no-god come to witness this magnificent creation. Not even those two have the slightest clue as to what is going on.

Metaphor...
God is right brain
No-god is left brain.
God is just an over-exhalted version of your own imagination and mind construct.

He who speaks, do not know.
He who knows, do not speak.
~Lao Tzu~

KyriosMora - I think your logic is sound, I like that proof, it's unique and I haven't heard that one before. I too have thought up my own logical proofs and axioms for proving God. Similar to yours, though differently stated, my axiom is that there has to be an intelligent source which consciousness came from. The atheist/big bang believer, since he believes in randomness, MUST believe that consciousness is nothing more than a concoction of voltage, fluids, and chemicals fizzing and reacting in the brain. And in believing that, he MUST also believe that thoughts, intentions, emotions, and imaginations are able to be quantified in a physical way. And he MUST also believe that since consciousness is just a concoction of chemical processes (the atheist completely denies the idea that the spirit/soul is the source of thought/consciousness and that the brain is merely the conduit that it gets transmitted through into the physical), then his own thoughts and senses cannot be trusted at all, nor anyone else's. Because thoughts and senses, according to the atheist, are nothing more than electrical impulses and chemicals fizzing, so how can anything he perceives or thinks be considered accurate or consistent?

And that's only the first problem. Another huge problem for atheism which atheists don't seem to consider is the fact that the natural world and natural physics have 100% consistency. Everything works exactly as designed and never changes... i.e. water always finds its level, the law of density never changes, a 10-lb weight will always be a 10-lb weight, a certain air pressure will always have the same coefficient of producing lift, the stars/constellations always maintain their set location/path in the sky, etc etc. If randomness existed, then how could absolutely ANYTHING maintain any semblance of order, reliability, or consistency? It is logically 100% impossible. If randomness existed, it would have to mean that EVERYTHING experiences randomness and disorder, which would have to include the natural elements as well as laws of physics! Everything would be subject to constant change, and no natural, biological, material, physical, or metaphysical process would ever be affixed in a set operation, which would mean everything would be chaos all of the time.

See, I don't think the average atheist considers these things because frankly, I don't think they think very deeply or far ahead. Because if they did, it would be easily seen very quickly that lack of intelligent design is a 100% impossibility on a world where things have order and consistency.

Cheers

Pascal's Wager or Dubay's Gamble?



Pascal's Wager was a theological argument presented by 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal positing that everyone is essentially involved in a life-long gamble regarding belief in the existence of God. Pascal's contention was that every rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and believe or at least strive to believe in God. He reasoned that if God doesn't exist, then believers would incur only minor losses from being incorrect such as potentially sacrificing certain worldly pleasures or luxuries. However, if God does exist, believers stand to gain immensely, especially those of the Abrahamic faiths, which promise an eternal afterlife in heaven while simultaneously avoiding an eternity of burning in hell.

You Know Nothing:



Life is apt likened to a large ship sailing on a vast ocean. There are no shores in sight, no sails, no paddles, rudders, captain or steering wheel. The ship is home to everyone, but not a single person on-board knows who built the ship, where it came from or where it’s going. Nobody even knows how they got on-board in the first place. Everyone simply shares the same story of waking up one day and here they were...

Hello Im from Lithuania, I completely agree with the Administrator's words. It's very good to wake up, but at the same time it's unsettling.. And what's next?? What for real?? And so...

God the Gaslighter:



Gaslighting is a type of psychological manipulation in which an abuser attempts to gain power and control over another by sowing seeds of self-doubt and confusion, deliberately and systematically feeding false information, intentionally distorting reality and coercing the victim into constantly questioning themselves. The term originally derived from the 1944 film Gaslight in which a woman’s abusive husband slowly twists and shapes her reality until she believes she must be going insane. In many ways this parallels the metaphysical plight of the human condition, the constant confusion, contradictions and confounding nature of this realm...

Free Will is Mostly an Illusion:



When confronted and pressed on why God would create and allow evil to exist in the world, most people respond that it is because God gives us free will, and therefore evil exists because of Man, not God. People may choose to do evil things of their own accord, or through the influence of demi-gods like Satan, but the good God has nothing to do with it, because His only part to play was in providing us all with free will. But is that really the case? Can God be so easily let off the hook? Does man truly possess this prized and pedestalized concept called “Free Will,” or is that too mostly an illusion?