Is there something odd about God? Can anybody know anything about God?

[John Cuthber]

This particular logical fallacy "The answer is that the laws of logic are part of the nature of God. " is called begging the question, as are alll your other points concerning His nature.

 

" Even if it is a straw -man argument at least try and refute it, not dismiss it outright."

You really have given up on logic, haven't you?

Apart from the general wisdom of getting bogged down in stuff that'as not relevant, because nobody asked about it, I did, briefly comment on it.

I said "Nobody said that He can't exist, just that there's no reason to believe that He does."

 

But, if you accept that as a reply, you would need to be able to find evidence to counter it.

Well, you said you have evidence for God.

I asked you to tell us what it was.

You ignored that request.

I'm asking again; what evidence is there?

[Alan McDougall]

This particular logical fallacy "The answer is that the laws of logic are part of the nature of God. " is called begging the question, as are alll your other points concerning His nature.

 

" Even if it is a straw -man argument at least try and refute it, not dismiss it outright."

You really have given up on logic, haven't you?

Apart from the general wisdom of getting bogged down in stuff that'as not relevant, because nobody asked about it, I did, briefly comment on it.

I said "Nobody said that He can't exist, just that there's no reason to believe that He does."

 

But, if you accept that as a reply, you would need to be able to find evidence to counter it.

Well, you said you have evidence for God.

I asked you to tell us what it was.

You ignored that request.

I'm asking again; what evidence is there?

 

OK your points are noted!

 

In my opinion there is more reason or logic, if you like, to point to a designer or God than there is to suppose that the universe was created out of nothing, and the mathematics that sustain exist it, just by lucky chance.

 

It is more logical to believe that all the fundamental constants (Or Laws) came about with about due to a mathematical mind behind their equations. The universe is held together and sustained by these extremely precise mathematical laws, and this suggests to me, a mathematician of great intelligence behind the production of these equations and the consequential setting up these as universal constants of our particular universe. I know this is an old argument, but it warrants restating in my opinion.

[John Cuthber]

Have a look through these and see which one(s) apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_repetition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

 

 

In the meantime, perhaps, (in accordance with the site rules) you might like to provide the evidence you claimed earlier?

[Alan McDougall]

Have a look through these and see which one(s) apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_repetition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

 

 

In the meantime, perhaps, (in accordance with the site rules) you might like to provide the evidence you claimed earlier?

I will not go to those obviously links that are nothing but a patronizing attempt to dismiss anything I have said up to now as illogical, if you can go back and read again what I stated, I said there is "more, circumstantial evidence in my opinion", for the existence of God than the reverse. "I have a right to express my opinion" and if you really don't want me to express my opinion, then I will leave the forum, because, according to you, the forum rules prevent me from doing that.

 

Why for the life of me are you so obviously hostile to any suggestion that God might exist. Believing in God might just be a comfort to you, when you are on your death bed breathing out your last bit of life? Unlike you I have recently faced that exact situation due to AV heart block stoppage, and maybe if you came this close to death , you would quickly sober up, and have a real rethink about your atheism, why not you would have nothing to lose be doing that, remember the old saying "In the trenches there are no atheists" man believe me there is a lot of truth in that quote!. Or if you are absolutely determined to retain your present belief, you could even arrange for Richard Dawkings to come and comfort you in your dying moments, I suppose he would be a great help to you in those awful final moments before you blink- out and cease to exist forever.

 

Sometimes our human logic falls very short of explaining reality, such things as quantum non-locality or the light speed constant make no sense, to our limited human intellects, but are nevertheless true. Yes I am a theist, but I am not religious and nonetheless, that does not prevent me from been rational!

 

One more patronizing comment from you, will result in me unsubscribing from an forum that is otherwise populated by pleasant polite people, of course this is again just my own limited opinion.

 

Alan

[doG]

Define God.....

[Alan McDougall]

I will not go to those obviously links that are nothing but a patronizing attempt to dismiss anything I have said up to now as illogical, if you can go back and read again what I stated, I said there is "more, circumstantial evidence in my opinion", for the existence of God than the reverse. "I have a right to express my opinion" and if you really don't want me to express my opinion, then I will leave the forum, because, according to you, the forum rules prevent me from doing that.

 

Why for the life of me are you so obviously hostile to any suggestion that God might exist. Believing in God might just be a comfort to you, when you are on your death bed breathing out your last bit of life? Unlike you I have recently faced that exact situation due to AV heart block stoppage, and maybe if you came this close to death , you would quickly sober up, and have a real rethink about your atheism, why not you would have nothing to lose be doing that, remember the old saying "In the trenches there are no atheists" man believe me there is a lot of truth in that quote!. Or if you are absolutely determined to retain your present belief, you could even arrange for Richard Dawkings to come and comfort you in your dying moments, I suppose he would be a great help to you in those awful final moments before you blink- out and cease to exist forever.

 

Sometimes our human logic falls very short of explaining reality, such things as quantum non-locality or the light speed constant make no sense, to our limited human intellects, but are nevertheless true. Yes I am a theist, but I am not religious and nonetheless, that does not prevent me from been rational!

 

One more patronizing comment from you, will result in me unsubscribing from an forum that is otherwise populated by pleasant polite people, of course this is again just my own limited opinion.

 

Alan

 

As a monotheist this is my definition of God

The creator cause of all existence, the source from which all things emerged.

 

I do not perceive God as some sort of great being. I think this entity more as the infinite alpha point, primordial mind, the prime cause of our particular universe and whatever else might also exist outside of our human knowledge.

[Moontanman]

 

As a monotheist this is my definition of God

 

The creator cause of all existence, the source from which all things emerged.

 

I do not perceive God as some sort of great being. I think this entity more as the infinite alpha point, primordial mind, the prime cause of our particular universe and whatever else might also exist outside of our human knowledge.

 

 

Are you saying as we learn new knowledge god becomes smaller and smaller?

[pears]

Are you saying as we learn new knowledge god becomes smaller and smaller?

 

Prime cause of everything known or not I think is what he is saying.

Edited December 16, 2013 by pears

[Moontanman]

 

Prime cause of everything known or not I think is what he is saying.

 

 

He is positing a primordial mind and then saying it is everything we don't know, to me that infers it will be smaller as we learn more.

 

Since there is no need for a cause much less for it to be intelligent or a mind it's nothing but PRATT...

[Alan McDougall]

 

 

Are you saying as we learn new knowledge god becomes smaller and smaller?

 

Of course not! by saying "alpha point" I mean "a point" from which our limited concept of existence emerged, of course there might not have been an alpha point. There is also the "problem of infinite regression" which I reject, because with linear time the arrow of time would have to go back into the infinite eternal past, and the reality in which we exist would never have come into existence.There has to be a beginning, for linear time to flow. Thus, although we know that time in our universe, is linear from past to present into the future, there must be some sort of "timeless zone" from which all of reality got a push into linear time, with the of the lack of a better word, some sort of cosmic clock, at the moment of the Big Bang.

 

I don't like dogma from any source, I think the below short video would be of interesting to those with an opened mind, it is not about nonsensical spooky ethereal metaphysics but the view of a real modern day scientist

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

 

 

He is positing a primordial mind and then saying it is everything we don't know, to me that infers it will be smaller as we learn more.

 

Since there is no need for a cause much less for it to be intelligent or a mind it's nothing but PRATT...

 

That is nonsense!, Your logic suggests a scenario where the "designer of the Space Shuttle "knew less about its design", than the "astronauts" who only needed to know how to control and fly it, or the passengers of a great ocean liner knowing much more about its design, than the actual designer who spent years in its design.

 

Prime cause of everything known or not I think is what he is saying.

 

Yes! that sums up nicely what I am proposing, at the quantum fundamental level, (which underpins all of reality) we do not find certainty, but probability, and thus, science cannot prove anything to the point of absolute truth.

[Moontanman]

Of course not! by saying "alpha point" I mean "a point" from which our limited concept of existence emerged, of course there might not have been an alpha point. There is also the "problem of infinite regression" which I reject, because with linear time the arrow of time would have to go back into the infinite eternal past, and the reality in which we exist would never have come into existence.There has to be a beginning, for linear time to flow. Thus, although we know that time in our universe, is linear from past to present into the future, there must be some sort of "timeless zone" from which all of reality got a push into linear time, with the of the lack of a better word, some sort of cosmic clock, at the moment of the Big Bang.

That is quite an assertion, your rejection of an idea doesn't mean it has no merit and just because we cannot describe mathematically at this time anything before what we would see as a beginning does not mean there wasn't something before the universe and there is no reason to posit that something was a mind primordial or not..

 

I don't like dogma from any source, I think the below short video would be of interesting to those with an opened mind, it is not about nonsensical spooky ethereal metaphysics but the view of a real modern day scientist

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

He does nothing but erect various strawmen and arguments from ignorance, could be a reason why it was rejected by TED... I want my 18 minutes back...

 

 

That is nonsense!, Your logic suggests a scenario where the "designer of the Space Shuttle "knew less about its design", than the "astronauts" who only needed to know how to control and fly it, or the passengers of a great ocean liner knowing much more about its design, than the actual designer who spent years in its design.

Still PRATT Alan...

 

 

Yes! that sums up nicely what I am proposing, at the quantum fundamental level, (which underpins all of reality) we do not find certainty, but probability, and thus, science cannot prove anything to the point of absolute truth.

Still no reason to assume a mind primordial or other wise...

Alan you do understand why your idea of mind being necessary for the universe is PRATT? Order can indeed arise from Chaos with no mind to influence it. We have been through this conversation so many times just on this forum it's ridiculous. There is no reason to assume a prime mover no matter how you try to twist the definition around to suit your Dogma, yes I said Dogma, what you are pushing is nothing but an alternate Dogma...

A completely unjustified Dogma as well...

[John Cuthber]

 

OK your points are noted!

 

In my opinion there is more reason or logic, if you like, to point to a designer or God than there is to suppose that the universe was created out of nothing, and the mathematics that sustain exist it, just by lucky chance.

 

It is more logical to believe that all the fundamental constants (Or Laws) came about with about due to a mathematical mind behind their equations. The universe is held together and sustained by these extremely precise mathematical laws, and this suggests to me, a mathematician of great intelligence behind the production of these equations and the consequential setting up these as universal constants of our particular universe. I know this is an old argument, but it warrants restating in my opinion.

 

I will not go to those obviously links that are nothing but a patronizing attempt to dismiss anything I have said up to now as illogical, if you can go back and read again what I stated, I said there is "more, circumstantial evidence in my opinion", for the existence of God than the reverse. "I have a right to express my opinion" and if you really don't want me to express my opinion, then I will leave the forum, because, according to you, the forum rules prevent me from doing that.

 

Why for the life of me are you so obviously hostile to any suggestion that God might exist. Believing in God might just be a comfort to you, when you are on your death bed breathing out your last bit of life? Unlike you I have recently faced that exact situation due to AV heart block stoppage, and maybe if you came this close to death , you would quickly sober up, and have a real rethink about your atheism, why not you would have nothing to lose be doing that, remember the old saying "In the trenches there are no atheists" man believe me there is a lot of truth in that quote!. Or if you are absolutely determined to retain your present belief, you could even arrange for Richard Dawkings to come and comfort you in your dying moments, I suppose he would be a great help to you in those awful final moments before you blink- out and cease to exist forever.

 

Sometimes our human logic falls very short of explaining reality, such things as quantum non-locality or the light speed constant make no sense, to our limited human intellects, but are nevertheless true. Yes I am a theist, but I am not religious and nonetheless, that does not prevent me from been rational!

 

One more patronizing comment from you, will result in me unsubscribing from an forum that is otherwise populated by pleasant polite people, of course this is again just my own limited opinion.

 

Alan

" if you can go back and read again what I stated,"

OK

This is a statement of opinion, clearly identified as such.

"In my opinion there is more reason or logic, ..."

And this, on the other hand, is a bald assertion

"It is more logical to believe that all the fundamental constants (Or Laws) came about..."

That's the message I get when I read it.

But that's hardly the point.

You said this "There is a huge amount of evidence for God, although I admit that the evidence is circumstantial."

I asked you for that evidence (and I'm still asking)

I already knew your opinion, so restating it was pointless and patronising.

 

You have yet to provide any evidence of the assertion you made.

If you were to get chucked off the site, it wouldn't be for putting forward an opinion.

It might be for soapboxing, because you refuse to enter into a discussion. You say there's evidence.

I ask for it so we can discuss it, and your patronising reply is that you beleive it to be true.

Well that's a whole bunch of bad logic (though, to be fair, you already said you were abandoning that.)

It's also a tacit refusal to discuss the issue.

 

While I'm at it, you make yet another strawman attack- this time on me personally.

You say "Why for the life of me are you so obviously hostile to any suggestion that God might exist. "

well, as I already pointed out - nobody said that .And, I remind you that I pointed out that it was a strawman before.

 

You might choose to leave this site. You might possibly get barred, but if so, it won't be for expressing an opinion.

It might be for refusing to discuss that opinion and back it up.

It might be for trying to use a string of logical fallacies to put your belief across.

 

Here's something for you to contemplate.

If you need to use fallacies to explain your point of view, you ought to change your point of view.

Still, that's just logic and you have decided to do without that, so here's a link to a crochet pattern for a baby dinosaur.

 

http://myskillsguide.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/baby-dragon.html

[Alan McDougall]

That is quite an assertion, your rejection of an idea doesn't mean it has no merit and just because we cannot describe mathematically at this time anything before what we would see as a beginning does not mean there wasn't something before the universe and there is no reason to posit that something was a mind primordial or not..

 

 

He does nothing but erect various strawmen and arguments from ignorance, could be a reason why it was rejected by TED... I want my 18 minutes back...

 

 

 

Still PRATT Alan...

 

 

 

Still no reason to assume a mind primordial or other wise...

Alan you do understand why your idea of mind being necessary for the universe is PRATT? Order can indeed arise from Chaos with no mind to influence it. We have been through this conversation so many times just on this forum it's ridiculous. There is no reason to assume a prime mover no matter how you try to twist the definition around to suit your Dogma, yes I said Dogma, what you are pushing is nothing but an alternate Dogma...

A completely unjustified Dogma as well...

 

Entropy insures that order always descends into chaos, such as the running down of our universe from the time of the big bang, when zero entropy (Total order) existed for the one and only moment, until its ultimate state of maximum entropy.

 

You are right life is an example of entropy supposedly decreasing but life must borrow from the total order of the universe and this seems to indicate that chaos becoming more ordered and entropy decreasing, but the total entropy of the universe remains unaffected. A power-station is another example, heat up the water in boiler and the entropy and within that isolated system decreases,or reverses entropy, but after the steam is used and cooled and vented into a heat sink, the total entropy of the universe continues unabated.

 

" if you can go back and read again what I stated,"

OK

This is a statement of opinion, clearly identified as such.

"In my opinion there is more reason or logic, ..."

And this, on the other hand, is a bald assertion

"It is more logical to believe that all the fundamental constants (Or Laws) came about..."

That's the message I get when I read it.

But that's hardly the point.

You said this "There is a huge amount of evidence for God, although I admit that the evidence is circumstantial."

I asked you for that evidence (and I'm still asking)

I already knew your opinion, so restating it was pointless and patronising.

 

You have yet to provide any evidence of the assertion you made.

If you were to get chucked off the site, it wouldn't be for putting forward an opinion.

It might be for soapboxing, because you refuse to enter into a discussion. You say there's evidence.

I ask for it so we can discuss it, and your patronising reply is that you beleive it to be true.

Well that's a whole bunch of bad logic (though, to be fair, you already said you were abandoning that.)

It's also a tacit refusal to discuss the issue.

 

While I'm at it, you make yet another strawman attack- this time on me personally.

You say "Why for the life of me are you so obviously hostile to any suggestion that God might exist. "

well, as I already pointed out - nobody said that .And, I remind you that I pointed out that it was a strawman before.

 

You might choose to leave this site. You might possibly get barred, but if so, it won't be for expressing an opinion.

It might be for refusing to discuss that opinion and back it up.

It might be for trying to use a string of logical fallacies to put your belief across.

 

Here's something for you to contemplate.

If you need to use fallacies to explain your point of view, you ought to change your point of view.

Still, that's just logic and you have decided to do without that, so here's a link to a crochet pattern for a baby dinosaur.

 

http://myskillsguide.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/baby-dragon.html

 

You said this "There is a huge amount of evidence for God, although I admit that the evidence is circumstantial."

I asked you for that evidence (and I'm still asking)

 

Did I not state the universal fundamental laws or constants are evidence, but did I not admit it was circumstance. For someone so hostile and disinterested in the idea of an Almighty God you really spend a huge amount of time and effort with long posting a religious focus forum. This is not a philosophical forum, why not open one there, where you can debate it wit your intellectual equals and not a little deluded idiot you appear to think I am.

 

 

 

That is quite an assertion, your rejection of an idea doesn't mean it has no merit and just because we cannot describe mathematically at this time anything before what we would see as a beginning does not mean there wasn't something before the universe and there is no reason to posit that something was a mind primordial or not..

 

 

He does nothing but erect various strawmen and arguments from ignorance, could be a reason why it was rejected by TED... I want my 18 minutes back...

 

 

 

Still PRATT Alan...

 

 

 

Still no reason to assume a mind primordial or other wise...

Alan you do understand why your idea of mind being necessary for the universe is PRATT? Order can indeed arise from Chaos with no mind to influence it. We have been through this conversation so many times just on this forum it's ridiculous. There is no reason to assume a prime mover no matter how you try to twist the definition around to suit your Dogma, yes I said Dogma, what you are pushing is nothing but an alternate Dogma...

A completely unjustified Dogma as well...

 

You might be right, maybe a large pink elephant was the alpha point or maybe god is a pencil, I twist, you twist , we both twist and I am the primordial Staw- man, just waiting to frighten off logical thinkers like you.

OK give me proof that God does not exist, don't avoid the question by asking which god! I an not thinking about the god of religion , but an innate, intrinsic intelligence that created and sustains all things. To keep it simple restrict your answers to our universe?.

[John Cuthber]

"Did I not state the universal fundamental laws or constants are evidence"

Yes, you did.

Unfortunately, it's not evidence.

Someone else did a much better job of explaining it than I did so I will quote their work

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

 

via

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams

 

So, still no actual evidence.

 

" For someone so hostile and disinterested in the idea of an Almighty God "

Did it occur to you that my distaste for your postings doesn't relate to their subject- God, but to the fact that you won't follow the forum rules and back up your assertions.

 

I get just as ranty about bad chemistry or bad physics.

It's irrationality that annoys me.

Why do you think the abdication of logic should be permitted in religion?

What did beliefinGod do to deserve special treatment?

 

Unless you can answer that convincingly, your posting is yet another fallacy (special pleading).

 

Stop seeking to ascribe intentions to me, and stump up the evidence you claimed (or admit that there isn't any)

[Moontanman]

Entropy insures that order always descends into chaos, such as the running down of our universe from the time of the big bang, when zero entropy (Total order) existed for the one and only moment, until its ultimate state of maximum entropy.

No not really, I suggest you look up the laws you seem to be so fond of quoting, as long as the universe expands work can be done..

 

You are right life is an example of entropy supposedly decreasing but life must borrow from the total order of the universe and this seems to indicate that chaos becoming more ordered and entropy decreasing, but the total entropy of the universe remains unaffected. A power-station is another example, heat up the water in boiler and the entropy and within that isolated system decreases,or reverses entropy, but after the steam is used and cooled and vented into a heat sink, the total entropy of the universe continues unabated.

Again, not true on a universal scale...

 

 

 

Did I not state the universal fundamental laws or constants are evidence, but did I not admit it was circumstance. For someone so hostile and disinterested in the idea of an Almighty God you really spend a huge amount of time and effort with long posting a religious focus forum. This is not a philosophical forum, why not open one there, where you can debate it wit your intellectual equals and not a little deluded idiot you appear to think I am.

For someone who has no evidence you certainly spend a lot of time making claims you do about something seem to need called god...

 

You might be right, maybe a large pink elephant was the alpha point or maybe god is a pencil, I twist, you twist , we both twist and I am the primordial Staw- man, just waiting to frighten off logical thinkers like you.

The very idea of something primordial needing to exist is a straw in it's self..

 

OK give me proof that God does not exist, don't avoid the question by asking which god! I an not thinking about the god of religion , but an innate, intrinsic intelligence that created and sustains all things. To keep it simple restrict your answers to our universe?.

I don't know if a god exists, you're the one claims it does, in fact not only that but you keep making the assertion there has to be a god thing out there some place. Sadly you give nothing but arguments from incredulity for it..

[Alan McDougall]

"Did I not state the universal fundamental laws or constants are evidence"

Yes, you did.

Unfortunately, it's not evidence.

Someone else did a much better job of explaining it than I did so I will quote their work

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

 

via

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams

 

So, still no actual evidence.

 

" For someone so hostile and disinterested in the idea of an Almighty God "

Did it occur to you that my distaste for your postings doesn't relate to their subject- God, but to the fact that you won't follow the forum rules and back up your assertions.

 

I get just as ranty about bad chemistry or bad physics.

It's irrationality that annoys me.

Why do you think the abdication of logic should be permitted in religion?

What did beliefinGod do to deserve special treatment?

 

Unless you can answer that convincingly, your posting is yet another fallacy (special pleading).

 

Stop seeking to ascribe intentions to me, and stump up the evidence you claimed (or admit that there isn't any)

 

I am a huge fan of science fiction,and love the humor of Douglas Adams. You give me evidence and I will add to the evidence I have already posted, although you seem to be blind to anything but your own logic, which is just as wrong as mine is, because God if he exists, is totally beyond our tiny weeny little minute finite quantum brains. Put yourself in a true perceptive when you write about a being of infinite might.

 

Please reply to the comments below!

 

Try to remember what I am writing to you now very very carefully. On the day of your death, when you are gasping for breath, you will sober up very quickly and hope with all the power within your being that there is a creator god and an afterlife. Of course I might be wrong and you have absolutely no fear of death, but a loaded gun to your forehead will soon change this supposition.

 

Why not arrange in your will for Richard Dawkings or his like, to be at your deathbed, to comfort and give you hope in those final moments of cold fear as you breath out your last breath, perish, blink out of this world and cease existing forever.

 

Maybe in the event of the final stages of beloved ones and friends demise,, you could also arrange for Dawking or another atheist of note, to arrive a few hours before during the awful final process of their their death, in order to bring them some real hope and comfort, with his huge amount of wisdom of life and biology to comfort them even further he could tell them in, their very last moments on this earth ,that there is absolutely no God and the idea of a peaceful afterlife, is a delusion of the stupid.

 

Dawkings would most likely also be able to give them a great deal of hope and comfort by informing them in the most trying and fearful moment of their lives, that it is "just their selfish genes" that are killing them and it is that mindless gene that is responsible for their early death death, because they were programed by these very selfish genes to get sick and die early, much earlier that most other people.

 

His wisdom and knowledge and his very learned presence, might also bring about a huge amount of comfort to those full of sadness after the death of a beloved one, with his great intellect and expertise in biology, he could quickly bring them out of mourning and lead them into the sunshine of a new joyful day.

 

He would most definitely also put them right if they believed in God, telling them that this was a delusional lie propagated by religious fanatics, this will comfort them greatly don't you think?

 

My brush with death

 

I would like to repeat a statement I made earlier, during 2011 I woke up sweating with my heart beating extremely irregularly. I began to sweat profusely and could feel my heart actually starting and stopping. My wife called an ambulance and by this time I lapsed into and out of consciousness, and a cold fear like I have never experience before began ti grip me in unspeakable terror.

 

By the time they got me to the hospital, which luckily for me is only three kilometers from my home, my heart had stopped beating completely and I was in a state of total AV heart block. The doctors took two hours to get my heart started again on the resuscitation table and inserted a heart pace maker to keep me alive. When I finally regained consciousness, my doctor came to my bed and said 'You were really really clinically dead and if you had arrived even ten minutes later you would have died and it would have been impossible to get my heart to beat again"

 

This event , really sobered me up on the subject of the existence of God and the possible of a peaceful afterlife. I had a near death experience, but this forum is not the place to write about it.

 

As it would with anyone with even one neuron in their brick hardened brains

Edited December 16, 2013 by Alan McDougall

[Moontanman]

I am a huge fan of science fiction,and love the humor of Douglas Adams. You give me evidence and I will add to the evidence I have already posted, although you seem to be blind to anything but your own logic, which is just as wrong as mine is, because God if he exists, is totally beyond our tiny weeny little minute finite quantum brains. Put yourself in a true perceptive when you write about a being of infinite might.

 

Please reply to the comments below!

 

Try to remember what I am writing to you now very very carefully. On the day of your death, when you are gasping for breath, you will sober up very quickly and hope with all the power within your being that there is a creator god and an afterlife. Of course I might be wrong and you have absolutely no fear of death, but a loaded gun to your forehead will soon change this supposition.

 

Why not arrange in your will for Richard Dawkings or his like, to be at your deathbed, to comfort and give you hope in those final moments of cold fear as you breath out your last breath, perish, blink out of this world and cease existing forever.

 

Maybe in the event of beloved ones and friends, you could also arrange for Dawking or another atheist of note, to arrive a few hours before during the awful final process of their frightening demise, in order to give them some real hope and comfort, with his huge amount of wisdom of life and biology. To comfort them even further he could tell them in their very last moments on this earth ,that there is absolutely no God and the idea of a peaceful afterlife, is a delusion of the stupid.

 

Dawkings would most likely also be able to give them a great deal of hope and comfort by informing them in the most trying and fearful moment of their lives, that it is "just their selfish genes" that are killing them and it is that mindless gene that is responsible for their early death death, because they were programed by these very selfish genes to get sick and die early, much earlier that most other people His wisdom and knowledge and his very learned presence, might bring about a huge amount of comfort to those full of sadness, with his expertise he would quickly bring them out of mourning and lead them into the sunshine of a new joyful day. He would most definitely also put them right if they believed in God, telling them that this was a delusional lie propagated by religious fanatics, this will comfort them greatly don't you think?

 

My brush with death

 

I would like to repeat a statement I made earlier, during 2011 I woke up sweating with my heart beating extremely irregularly. I began to sweat profusely and could feel my heart actually starting and stopping. My wife called an ambulance and by this time I lapsed into and out of consciousness, and a cold fear like I have never experience before began ti grip me in unspeakable terror.

 

By the time they got me to the hospital, which luckily for me is only three kilometers from my home, my heart had stopped beating completely and I was in a state of total AV heart block. The doctors took two hours to get my heart started again on the resuscitation table and inserted a heart pace maker to keep me alive. When I finally regained consciousness, my doctor came to my bed and said 'You were really really clinically dead and if you had arrived even ten minutes later you would have died and it would have been impossible to get my heart to beat again"

 

This event , really sobered me up on the subject of the existence of God and the possible of a peaceful afterlife. I had a near death experience, but this forum is not the place to write about it.

Seriously Alan? Special pleading?

[doG]

 

As a monotheist this is my definition of God

So. The debate is pointless without a common definition that everyone agrees on so that everyone is talking about the same thing. Is there some reason to think your definition is the right one and everyone else's is wrong?

[Alan McDougall]

So. The debate is pointless without a common definition that everyone agrees on so that everyone is talking about the same thing. Is there some reason to think your definition is the right one and everyone else's is wrong?

 

Then why the heck are you part of this debate? No one can comprehend an infinite entity not you or I, you asked for a definition I gave it and promptly dismissed it! No matter what definition I give you, you will always respond in the same manner, I never said my definition was correct or any other persons wrong because they differ from it

 

I am frustrated with this topic, it is like trying to debate with a lamp post.

Seriously Alan? Special pleading?

 

What do you mean by pleading?, I want you to think seriously about your own moment of death, and make a sensible response about how you would handle that moment. Also would you invite the likes of Richard Dawkings to your deathbed to give you hope and comfort, what use would this type of person be to anyone in their dying moments?

 

I am not pleading, where do you think I am doing this, I am just making a point about the reality of death, it is a fatal illness that will kill us all. During the Holocaust there were people Jewish traitors "that would do anything","I repeat anything" to live for even one brief moment longer, because of the absolute fear of impending death, annihilation of self and the terror of ceasing to exist forever.

 

 

When I came so close to dying one sobering and frightening thought emerged blanking out all other thoughts in my mind then it was this, at the moment my heart began to flutter, and stop and start and as a cold sweat of fear came over me "the realization that I was actually dying" took hold. Go there and you will see and feel what I did and if you survive, you will come out a changed person.

[Moontanman]

Then why the heck are you part of this debate? No one can comprehend an infinite entity not you or I, you asked for a definition I gave it and promptly dismissed it! No matter what definition I give you, you will always respond in the same manner, I never said my definition was correct or any other persons wrong because they differ from it

 

I am frustrated with this topic, it is like trying to debate with a lamp post.

 

 

What do you mean by pleading?, I want you to think seriously about your own moment of death, and make a sensible response about how you would handle that moment. Also would you invite the likes of Richard Dawkings to your deathbed to give you hope and comfort, what use would this type of person be to anyone in their dying moments?

 

I am not pleading, where do you think I am doing this, I am just making a point about the reality of death, it is a fatal illness that will kill us all. During the Holocaust there were people Jewish traitors "that would do anything","I repeat anything" to live for even one brief moment longer, because of the absolute fear of impending death, annihilation of self and the terror of ceasing to exist forever.

 

 

When I came so close to dying one sobering and frightening thought emerged blanking out all other thoughts in my mind then it was this, at the moment my heart began to flutter, and stop and start and as a cold sweat of fear came over me "the realization that I was actually dying" took hold. Go there and you will see and feel what I did and if you survive, you will come out a changed person.

 

 

Yes Alan, when I die I will be dead, it splits the universe into three parts, before I existed while i exist and after I exist, not wanting to die does not make what you want to happen any more likely because it's what you want. And yes i have had a near death experience, it was disturbing but it just shows how the brain reacts to death by fantasizing a comforting feeling. It is not indicative of anything but what you want not what is...

 

If you can't show it then you don't know it..

I would feel honored to have Dawkins at my death bed, what use would anyone be be at that moment?

[Alan McDougall]

 

 

Yes Alan, when I die I will be dead, it splits the universe into three parts, before I existed while i exist and after I exist, not wanting to die does not make what you want to happen any more likely because it's what you want. And yes i have had a near death experience, it was disturbing but it just shows how the brain reacts to death by fantasizing a comforting feeling. It is not indicative of anything but what you want not what is...

 

If you can't show it then you don't know it..

I would feel honored to have Dawkins at my death bed, what use would anyone be be at that moment?

 

I accept that you would be honored by Dawkins presence at your death bed, but with all his knowledge and wisdom could he comfort you and give you hope. I do not accept you take on the near death experience, if you know more about it you would have read that it can be much more profound and detailed and beautiful. I am sad your NDE was disturbing, but most people who have one describe it as beautiful, joyful and life changing. Mine was very strange unlike any event I have had on earth , and I seemed to have gone into an alternate reality, which is almost impossible to describe in our three dimensional reality.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Get back on topic, please. And stop with the preachy posts; this is not a thread about whether or not God exists.

[Moontanman]

 

I accept that you would be honored by Dawkins presence at your death bed, but with all his knowledge and wisdom could he comfort you and give you hope. I do not accept you take on the near death experience, if you know more about it you would have read that it can be much more profound and detailed and beautiful. I am sad your NDE was disturbing, but most people who have one describe it as beautiful, joyful and life changing. Mine was very strange unlike any event I have had on earth , and I seemed to have gone into an alternate reality, which is almost impossible to describe in our three dimensional reality.

 

 

Who would you rather have? A priest or jujuman? I genuine do not believe in anything after death but worm food and your refusal to accept that is meaningless.

 

So my near death experience in a boat wreck at night in 30 feet of water with lights and voices and a presence urging me to awake and get up is meaningless? I say your is, in fact I doubt you even had one...

 

Oops, sorry HI crossposted...

Edited December 17, 2013 by Moontanman

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I guess I didn't make myself clear. Stop soap boxing. Alan, I have split your post into the trash.

[Lightmeow]

"Faith denies proof, and without faith I[God] am nothing.

-Douglas Adams

 

I see that is strange.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Lightmeow