Thread: A proof for the non-existence of God

Originally Posted by Sandform

Then I submit God's existence is evidence of another God...in an infinite loop of God makers.

That or one infinite God. Created from nothing. Existing as nothing.

Originally Posted by ClouD

That or one infinite God. Created from nothing. Existing as nothing.

You mean no God? I wish you would stop saying things that mean nothing. Essentially your not saying anything valid, or thought provoking, just introducing concepts that actually don't mean anything so it makes our minds go on an ape shit run.

Originally Posted by Sandform

You mean no God? I wish you would stop saying things that mean nothing. Essentially your not saying anything valid, or thought provoking, just introducing concepts that actually don't mean anything so it makes our minds go on an ape shit run.

A variation of word-salad.

I don't understand why every other person on this specific forum have their own various definitions of 'real', 'god', 'atheist', 'faith', 'belief', 'evidence', 'fact', 'theory' and 'energy'. It really defeats the purpose of speaking in a common language.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

A variation of word-salad.

I never heard of word salad, but I had heard of pseudo-enlightenment, anyways, Cloud continued after your post...so I assume he didn't know what word salad was either (or chose to ignore it).

Originally Posted by Sandform

You mean no God? I wish you would stop saying things that mean nothing. Essentially your not saying anything valid, or thought provoking, just introducing concepts that actually don't mean anything so it makes our minds go on an ape shit run.

You cannot justify meaning for anything so why question this meaning.

I was being as valid as you were: also introducing concepts that don't mean anything.

Originally Posted by ClouD

You cannot justify meaning for anything so why question this meaning.

I was being as valid as you were: also introducing concepts that don't mean anything.

My point was not meant to be a valid truth, but a mockery of another point which was, "your existence is evidence."

Or where you referring to my "you mean no god." Statement? Because it had relevance when stated after you said "Existing as nothing."

A statement which literally means nothing. To exist you can not be "nothing."


Cloud I really dislike the way you argue. It seems like every time you post your saying "stop thinking."

Originally Posted by Sandform

My point was not meant to be a valid truth, but a mockery of another point which was, "your existence is evidence."

Or where you referring to my "you mean no god." Statement? Because it had relevance when stated after you said "Existing as nothing."

A statement which literally means nothing. To exist you can not be "nothing."

My would be reply turns out to be word salad.

I've lost the mood.

"Your existence is evidence" - clasical circle thinking; I exist! Why am I? God made me! How do we know god is? I exist...

Originally Posted by gratismat

"Your existence is evidence" - clasical circle thinking; I exist! Why am I? God made me! How do we know god is? I exist...

Yep...word salad.

Originally Posted by ClouD

My would be reply turns out to be word salad.

I've lost the mood.

What are you saying?

Originally Posted by ClouD

Yep...word salad.

Atleast we agree about something.

Originally Posted by Sandform

To exist you can not be "nothing."


Cloud I really dislike the way you argue. It seems like every time you post your saying "stop thinking."

Truly, that is in the end, the point of it. To Stop thinking. Stop conceptualizing with the mind.

The mind contains thought

Thoughts arise from the mind

But the mind itself is also contained

What you would call "God" is what contains the mind


Say you have a fish bowl full of water with fish and all other sorts of things contained within it. From inside the tank It would appear as if the water extended outward beyond the walls of the tank, so that one would believe that the tank was also itself in the water. However, this is only a illusion of the perception from within the tank. You are seeing through the water whether its inside the tank or seeing whats beyon the tank walls.
From outside the tank The perception is different. You see the tank contains the water, and that the water does not extend beyond the tank walls.
Now if the water is representative of thought and mind, and the tank is representative of "God", the question is , can the water in the tank ever get itself around the tank to contain it?

The same is true of the mind. Can the mind, and the thoughts that arise from the mind , ever get themselves around that which is "God"? Can that which is "God" ever be contained within a mental concept?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Truly, that is in the end, the point of it. To Stop thinking. Stop conceptualizing with the mind.

The mind contains thought

Thoughts arise from the mind

But the mind itself is also contained

What you would call "God" is what contains the mind


Say you have a fish bowl full of water with fish and all other sorts of things contained within it. From inside the tank It would appear as if the water extended outward beyond the walls of the tank, so that one would believe that the tank was also itself in the water. However, this is only a illusion of the perception from within the tank. You are seeing through the water whether its inside the tank or seeing whats beyon the tank walls.
From outside the tank The perception is different. You see the tank contains the water, and that the water does not extend beyond the tank walls.
Now if the water is representative of thought and mind, and the tank is representative of "God", the question is , can the water in the tank ever get itself around the tank to contain it?

The same is true of the mind. Can the mind, and the thoughts that arise from the mind , ever get themselves around that which is "God"? Can that which is "God" ever be contained within a mental concept?

Well, if I am for the sake of arguing accept this representation the problem would be that as we being the fish(right?) it would not make sense to belive us being concealed within a fishbowl unless something indikates it like for instance someone poking the glass from the outside, this is the scientific aproach. The religious approach would be to belive it being a glassbowl just because it might be, right?

Originally Posted by gratismat

Well, if I am for the sake of arguing accept this representation the problem would be that as we being the fish(right?) it would not make sense to belive us being concealed within a fishbowl unless something indikates it like for instance someone poking the glass from the outside, this is the scientific aproach. The religious approach would be to belive it being a glassbowl just because it might be, right?

This needs help....... Seems I botched it the first time around


The mind contains thought

Just like the water contains the things in it

Thoughts arise from the mind

Just like those things move around in the water

But the mind itself is also contained

Just like the fish tank contains the water


Now....


What you would call "God" is what contains the mind. Not an individual or a distinct person, but an essence, an energy of some fashion.


What is being implied is that the mind cannot contain what is called "God". You cant wrap the mind around and conceptualize "God" with thought, no more than you can take the water out of the fish tank and contain the tank with the loose water.



Do you see the point now?