Theories about god

[charon2187]

Thank you! :D

[nuit09]

From that web site:

Franz Bardon, a Czech magician, mentions in his work, The Practice of Magical Evocation, that it is possible for an undine to take over the body of a human woman and to live a life as a human being. She retains all her magical powers and her own personality as she does this. Bardon says this may occur when a magical pact is made between a magician and an undine. In this case, the undine may find a young woman who is dying and at the moment of the woman's death, the undine takes the body and revives it placing her own undine astral body within the human's physical body. Bardon says he once warned one of his students to not perform this magical action with an undine but the student went ahead and did it anyway--and this within the twentieth century!

On the other hand, sometimes individuals allow themselves to be strongly influenced by a spirit or elemental to such an extent that they almost share the same consciousness. The elemental has the memories and thoughts of the human being and the human being has the intuition and magick of the elemental. This can be done in positive and negative ways. It can also be done through ritual or occur naturally during moments of inspiration.

A dancer, singer, poet, or artist can fall into a natural trance and share or channel the elemental while performing or producing an art work. In Hawaii, for example, the traditional hula dancers would channel through the dance the Hawaiian deity who inspires hula. Those who are trained in the tradition can see when the channeling is occurring successfully or when the hula dancer is instead performing by relying upon artistic ability without the inner inspiration.

The same is true in Hopi Indian Katchina dancing. The one who dances is the particular Katchina spirit associated with individual mask and not the human being. In this sense, the entire tribe of initiated Hopi Indians are mediums. This may sound strange but in my understanding God wanted the entire nation of Israel to be priests and prophets. The Jews and Christians have just found this a hard pill to swallow. From a magical point of view, the Western world lacks spiritual imagination.

To summarize, the first way of interacting with undines is due to an outside influence which enables the undine to cross over from the inner planes to the physical world. The second method involves being psychic. You perceive the undine using your psychic abilities or, as with a medium, you allow the undine to draw upon the excess life force in your body to communicate with you or to materialize.

[SubmissMe]

OK, reality check.

You are NOT a mermaid. The fact that your starsign is a fish and fish are like mermaids is nothing more than coincidence! Mine is a crab and they are kind of like mermaids, so does that mean I am a mermaid too?

Nuit, my apologies I misread. But still as I am largely empirical you know what's coming. Whatever you saw could have been ANYTHING and there is nobody else bar you who will verify what you saw.

Now for the whole soul thing. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SOUL. I'm sorry, but it's true. I know it would be nice to believe in guardian angels and souls and God but none of this passes the verification principle of the Vienna Circle and AJ Ayer.

[nuit09]

OK, reality check.

{truncated for brevity}

Nuit, my apologies I misread. But still as I am largely empirical you know what's coming. Whatever you saw could have been ANYTHING and there is nobody else bar you who will verify what you saw.

That is true. it always is with subjective phenomenon. but that does not make it any less real to the person who experienced it. that would be me. :wink:

Now for the whole soul thing. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SOUL. I'm sorry, but it's true. I know it would be nice to believe in guardian angels and souls and God but none of this passes the verification principle of the Vienna Circle and AJ Ayer.

Unless you have seen them. then everybody else can sod off. :lol:

[charon2187]

OK, reality check.

You are NOT a mermaid. The fact that your starsign is a fish and fish are like mermaids is nothing more than coincidence! Mine is a crab and they are kind of like mermaids, so does that mean I am a mermaid too?

Nuit, my apologies I misread. But still as I am largely empirical you know what's coming. Whatever you saw could have been ANYTHING and there is nobody else bar you who will verify what you saw.

Now for the whole soul thing. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SOUL. I'm sorry, but it's true. I know it would be nice to believe in guardian angels and souls and God but none of this passes the verification principle of the Vienna Circle and AJ Ayer.

You're boring. :P

[goldragon_70]

OK, reality check.

You are NOT a mermaid. The fact that your starsign is a fish and fish are like mermaids is nothing more than coincidence! Mine is a crab and they are kind of like mermaids, so does that mean I am a mermaid too?

Nuit, my apologies I misread. But still as I am largely empirical you know what's coming. Whatever you saw could have been ANYTHING and there is nobody else bar you who will verify what you saw.

Now for the whole soul thing. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SOUL. I'm sorry, but it's true. I know it would be nice to believe in guardian angels and souls and God but none of this passes the verification principle of the Vienna Circle and AJ Ayer.

If that is true just image death. First the pain of how you die, then your senses fad, and then you are in a black place, no light, no sound not even the buzzing from your ears, (this would be enough to cause insanity), no touch (in fact you know you have no body, it doesn't exists), no smell, no taste, no air, only your thoughts, which slow and fade. Then (this is not comprehendible to the human mind) Nothing. No thoughts in fact you no longer exists, and anyone that can see your body in life is horrified. You body is moved sewed and even broken so it can have any horrifying look, made to placid. Because no one can comprehend death, then there is no end to them, because the end is the part that can't be comprehended. Is this what birthed the belief in the after life, or does that prove the afterlife. I think the latter.

[Jack]

Truth.

I thought I warned you not to be so dogmatic. You can know nothing beyond your own senses. These senses have limits. Objectivity is merely an agreement to a consenual subjectivity.

Let's say that you see an object with a solid square flat top, and four solid pieces project from the top until they touch the ground. Also, there is a solid piece of something in a squarish shape that is attached to side, and rises towards the sky. What is this object? A chair you say. Or is it a bed? Or a door stop? Or wood for a fire? Or an implement of war? This object is whatever you imagine you can use it for.

[charon2187]

Since I don't have a soul, what happens after I die?

[goldragon_70]

I thought I told you this, you still have a spirit, you'll have a choce to be something else or human again.

[charon2187]

OK

[goldragon_70]

Truth.

I thought I warned you not to be so dogmatic. You can know nothing beyond your own senses. These senses have limits. Objectivity is merely an agreement to a consenual subjectivity.

Let's say that you see an object with a solid square flat top, and four solid pieces project from the top until they touch the ground. Also, there is a solid piece of something in a squarish shape that is attached to side, and rises towards the sky. What is this object? A chair you say. Or is it a bed? Or a door stop? Or wood for a fire? Or an implement of war? This object is whatever you imagine you can use it for.

No senses and no thoughts to realize you have no senses. You try to stop thinking and when you have done it you have succeeded in killing yourself. (If you think you have done this, then you haven’t.) Better way to think of it, you should know what it is like because you were born into you mind and senses, but yet you still can comprehend it. Jack I don't believe in the after life like you will hear in most religions, so do make it more then just that, something after you physical life.

[Jack]

No senses and no thoughts to realize you have no senses. You try to stop thinking and when you have done it you have succeeded in killing yourself. (If you think you have done this, then you haven’t.) Better way to think of it, you should know what it is like because you were born into you mind and senses, but yet you still can comprehend it. Jack I don't believe in the after life like you will hear in most religions, so do make it more then just that, something after you physical life.

You assume that the conscious mind is in control. The conscious mind is a pimple on the ass of the mind. There are methods of stopping thought, and methods that can be used to stop the heart, or to make the heart pump so fast that human senses cannot keep up so it seems like the heart is stopped.

What I'm saying is that your conscious mind -can- be in control, but the vast majority of people never need to go that far. So they don't. Also, the subconscious mind can(and often does) assert control over the conscious mind. Although, it's usually done in ways that are too subtle for us to think "Hey! I'm on autopilot!".

Life. Death. Afterlife. All is now.

I feel an infinite potential.

Read and meditate on this for a week.

[goldragon_70]

No senses and no thoughts to realize you have no senses. You try to stop thinking and when you have done it you have succeeded in killing yourself. (If you think you have done this, then you haven’t.) Better way to think of it, you should know what it is like because you were born into you mind and senses, but yet you still can comprehend it. Jack I don't believe in the after life like you will hear in most religions, so do make it more then just that, something after you physical life.

You assume that the conscious mind is in control. The conscious mind is a pimple on the ass of the mind. There are methods of stopping thought, and methods that can be used to stop the heart, or to make the heart pump so fast that human senses cannot keep up so it seems like the heart is stopped.

What I'm saying is that your conscious mind -can- be in control, but the vast majority of people never need to go that far. So they don't. Also, the subconscious mind can(and often does) assert control over the conscious mind. Although, it's usually done in ways that are too subtle for us to think "Hey! I'm on autopilot!".

Life. Death. Afterlife. All is now.

I feel an infinite potential.

Read and meditate on this for a week.

What I'm saying is after the conscious and subconscious no longer works, after they decompose, if you don't believe in an after life then you no longer exists and you are not there to know it, you no longer know, there is nothing for you, in fact there is less then nothing, because there is nothing there to try. As an embryo there is no brain and there are no senses, so it's like you are in that same state. If we come from that, why can't we comprehend it? My point is that there is either a moving box or not/ there is an after life or not. I'm not trying to imply more then that.

As for the power of the mind I know that many of us are not even using a 10th of it, so there is allot the mind is able to move to. Even though it is not able to regenerate (although there is research saying otherwise now), that it can still make up for the damage in other areas and that it is very flexible and capable.

[Jack]

What I'm saying is after the conscious and subconscious no longer works, after they decompose, if you don't believe in an after life then you no longer exists and you are not there to know it, you no longer know, there is nothing for you, in fact there is less then nothing, because there is nothing there to try. As an embryo there is no brain and there are no senses, so it's like you are in that same state. If we come from that, why can't we comprehend it? My point is that there is either a moving box or not/ there is an after life or not. I'm not trying to imply more then that.

As for the power of the mind I know that many of us are not even using a 10th of it, so there is allot the mind is able to move to. Even though it is not able to regenerate (although there is research saying otherwise now), that it can still make up for the damage in other areas and that it is very flexible and capable.

There are diffent types/levels of intelligences. Embryos are at the cellular level of intelligence until the brain is "completed".

My point is best summed up in a quote. Cogito ergo sum. I think I will reincarnate, become one with everything, or become one with nothing. By the way, those last two are the same.

Doctors refer to what you're talking about as plasticity. The ability of the brain to utilize different sections of the brain to learn to perform the same as a part that has suffered some physical insult/injury. Some people would say that this is a bad design from an engineering point of view. I think we evolved this way because it increases the likelihood of success(reproduction and guiding offspring up to adulthood) to be able to suffer lots of trauma, and still be effective. Also, once we learn enough about our brain, we should/will be able to alter our systems for imparting our time-bindings to our offspring, and increase on a broad scale the intelligence of the human race.

Think about it, 30+ years ago there were no computers but abaci(bleh). In 30 years we went from the processor that was the equivalent of a modern calculator that took up a three story building(at least) to a processor that is 100x faster/stronger/more versatile. We have escaped our gravity well. We fly around the world on a regular basis. If only people weren't so neophobic this world would be a paradise.

[charon2187]

Actually the first "real" computer was the ENIAC built in the 1940s. It took up 1800 square feet and had the processing power of a .5 millimeter silicon chip.

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

[nuit09]

The senses we share as incarnate humans are not the only senses we have. we have senses that do not depend on physical impulses. Currently though they seem analogous to physical sight or hearing or touch, etc.
So much so that we confuse these senses with our animal senses.

The physical eyes have characteristics that most people are not aware of. for example the nuerotransmitters in the rods and cones of the eye are finite in amount and are constantly used and recycled. it is possible to temporarily use up all of the particular chemical that allows you to detect the color red, etc. when you do this an object that is red will appear green and Visa versa. find a flouresecent sticky note or other brightly colored object and stare at it fixedly in front of a light background. when you begin to fatigue your color receptors you will notice a few interesting phenomenon. first the color edges of the colored object will begin to flash and sparkle. the color of the object will ultimately fade. when you get to that stage take the object out of your filed of view. there is now a green negative image of the object you were gazing at. Most folks have no idea their eyes can do this. Now to the phenomenon i am most interested in sharing about the physiological characteristics of your eyes:


When you stare at something your eyes focusing mechanism will begin to fatigue in a matter of a couple of minutes. they begin to lengthen and contract to maintain focus but they over correct. this results in the image getting a little bigger and a little smaller in rapid succession. This blurs the boundary of the image. if you stare at your hand under candle light you will see what appears as a smokey haze around the borders of your hand. It will be grey at first. if you do this for long enough over a period of days or weeks each night the character of the "smoke" will change. firstly by placing your finger tips in proximity and looking at what the "smoke" is doing you will see streamers and tendrils of "smoke" interlacing with each other but always seeking the other hands identical finger no matter how you position the hands. Eventually the "smoke" will have flashes of color and sparks. gradually the formerly monochromatic grey smoke will become a full spectrum of colors. simultaneously the outer boundary will expand and layer. finally you will see objects embeded in the hazy region of colored "smoke."

At some point, the physical sense of sight gave way to a non physical sense or just knowing. an empiricist will no doubt note that the phenomenon beyond the grey haze is not rooted in physics or optical anatomyof any sort.

What happens is by seeking to see new phenomenon in the illusory boundary around your hand you eventually communicate your desire to the subconscious which takes advantage of it to communicate with you via symbolic language. and in the nearly hypnotic trance state you put yourself in by doing this exercise your subconscious can produce visual "hallucinations" in the same way you dream when asleep. But where does the subconscious get the information; the content of the visions it provides in this state? why does the vision make sense? Why does it seeem to convey information your normal self does not know?

Welcome to the world of those kooks who read "auras."

[nuit09]

Actually the first "real" computer was the ENIAC built in the 1940s. It took up 1800 square feet and had the processing power of a .5 millimeter silicon chip.

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

Erm actually the first computer ( The difference engine)was designed and built by Charles Babbage and lady Ada Byron (Whom the ADA programming language was named after) in the victorian era. ENIAC was the first digital computer. Babbage built several mechanical computers but was unsatisfied because the ones he had built so far could not do floating point division. Babbage's final design was capable of floating point division and had more power than the computer that sent men to the moon. Students at a university built a Babbage difference engine from the blue prints recently and the resulting machine worked. can you imagine the world if Babbage built his machine in the vitorian era? If the computer age had began in the time of queen victoria?

[Jack]

*shivers*

Btw, did I ever mention that I have no sense of time? I tend to think in millenia.

[charon2187]

Can you imagine the world if the Catholic Church had nuclear weapons in the dark ages? 8O

[nuit09]

1822 AD
Charles Babbage's Difference Engine





The first device that might be considered to be a computer in the modern sense of the word was conceived in 1822 by the eccentric British mathematician and inventor Charles Babbage.
a
In Babbage's time, mathematical tables, such as logarithmic and trigonometric functions, were generated by teams of mathematicians working day and night on primitive calculators. Due to the fact that these people performed computations they were referred to as "computers." In fact the term "computer" was used as a job description (rather than referring to the machines themselves) well into the 1940s, but over the course of time this term became associated with machines that could perform the computations on their own.
Charles Babbage
Copyright (c) 1997. Maxfield & Montrose Interactive Inc

a
In 1822, Babbage proposed building a machine called the Difference Engine to automatically calculate these tables. The Difference Engine was only partially completed when Babbage conceived the idea of another, more sophisticated machine called an Analytical Engine.
a
Interestingly enough, more than one hundred and fifty years after its conception, one of Babbage's earlier Difference Engines was eventually constructed from original drawings by a team at London's Science Museum. The final machine, which was constructed from cast iron, bronze and steel, consisted of 4,000 components, weighed three tons, and was 10 feet wide and 6½ feet tall. The device performed its first sequence of calculations in the early 1990's and returned results to 31 digits of accuracy, which is far more accurate than the standard pocket calculator. However, each calculation requires the user to turn a crank hundreds, sometimes thousands of times, so anyone employing it for anything more than the most rudimentary calculations is destined to become one of the fittest computer operators on the face of the planet!

[Jack]

*shivers* Bad thing!

Can you imagine if I had nukes?

"All I'm asking for is a few changes... or I'm nuking Mecca, the Vatican, and Washington DC."

.. or not.

[nuit09]

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

The analytical engine, an important step in the history of computers, is the design of a mechanical modern general-purpose computer by the British professor of mathematics Charles Babbage. It was first described in 1837, but Babbage continued to work on the design until his death in 1871. Because of financial, political, and legal issues, the engine was never actually built. General-purpose computers that were logically comparable to the analytical engine did not come into existence until about 100 years later.

Some believe that the technological limitations of the time were a further obstacle to the construction of the machine; others believe that the machine could have been built successfully with the technology of the era if funding and political support had been stronger.

Contents [hide]
1 Design
2 Partial construction
3 Influence
3.1 Computer science
3.2 Fiction
4 External links



[edit]
Design
Charles Babbage's first attempt at a mechanical computing device was the difference engine, a special-purpose computer designed to tabulate logarithms and trigonometric functions by evaluating approximate polynomials. As this project faltered for personal and political reasons, he realized that a much more general design was possible, he started work designing the analytical engine.

The analytical engine was to be powered by a steam engine and would have been over 30 meters long and 10 meters wide. The input (programs and data) was to be provided to the machine on punch cards, a method being used at the time to direct mechanical looms. For output, the machine would have a printer, a curve plotter and a bell. The machine would also be able to punch numbers onto cards to be read in later. It employed ordinary base-10 fixed-point arithmetic. There was a store (i.e., a memory) capable of holding 1,000 numbers of 50 digits each. An arithmetical unit (the "mill") would be able to perform all four arithmetical operations.

The programming language to be employed was akin to modern day assembly languages. Loops and conditional branching were possible and so the language as conceived would have been Turing-complete. Three different types of punch cards were used: one for arithmetical operations, one for numerical constants, and one for load and store operations, transferring numbers from the store to the arithmetical unit or back. There were three separate readers for the three types of cards.

In 1842, the Italian mathematician Luigi Menabrea, whom Babbage had met while travelling in Italy, wrote a description of the engine in French. In 1843, the description was translated into English and extensively annotated by Ada King, Countess of Lovelace, who had become interested in the engine ten years earlier. In recognition of her additions to Menabrea's paper, she has been described as the first computer programmer. The modern computer programming language Ada is named in her honor.

[edit]
Partial construction
In 1878, a committee of the British Association for the Advancement of Science recommended against constructing the analytical engine, which sank Babbage's efforts for government funding.

In 1910, Babbage's son Henry P. Babbage reported that a part of the mill and the printing apparatus had been constructed and had been used to calculate a (faulty) list of multiples of pi. This constituted only a small part of the whole engine; it was not programmable and had no storage.

[edit]
Influence
[edit]
Computer science
The analytical engine was then all but forgotten with three known exceptions. Percy Ludgate wrote about the engine in 1915 and even designed his own analytical engine (it was drawn up in detail but never built). Ludgate's engine would be much smaller than Babbage's of about 8 cubic feet (230 L) and hypothetically would be capable of multiplying two 20-decimal-digit numbers in about 6 seconds. Leonardo Torres y Quevedo and Vannevar Bush also knew of Babbage's work, though the three inventors likely did not know of each other.

Closely related to Babbage's work on the analytical engine was the work of George Stibitz of Bell Laboratories in New York just prior to WWII and Howard Hathaway Aiken at Harvard, during and just after WWII. They both built electromechanical (i.e. relay-and-switch) computers which were closely related to the analytical engine, though neither was (quite) a modern programmable computer. Aiken's machine was largely financed by IBM and was called the Harvard Mark I.

From Babbage's autobiography:

As soon as an Analytical Engine exists, it will necessarily guide the future course of the science.
[edit]
Fiction
The cyberpunk novelists William Gibson and Bruce Sterling co-authored a steampunk novel of alternative history entitled The Difference Engine in which Babbage's difference and analytical engines became available to Victorian society. The novel explores the consequences and implications of the early introduction of computational technology.

[edit]
External links
The Analytical Engine at Fourmilab
L. F. Menabrea, Ada Augusta, Sketch of the Analytical Engine, Bibliothèque Universelle de Genève, Number 82, October 1842.
Randell, Brian, From Analytical Engine to Electronic Digital Computer: The Contributions of Ludgate, Torres, and Bush, Annals of the History of Computing, Volume 4, Number 4, October 1982.
Special issue, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, Volume 22, Number 4, October–December 2000.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_engine"
Categories: History of computing | Early computers | English inventions | One-of-a-kind computers | Mathematical tools | Mechanical calculators

[nuit09]

The important part of the above is this:

The analytical engine was to be powered by a steam engine and would have been over 30 meters long and 10 meters wide. The input (programs and data) was to be provided to the machine on punch cards, a method being used at the time to direct mechanical looms. For output, the machine would have a printer, a curve plotter and a bell. The machine would also be able to punch numbers onto cards to be read in later. It employed ordinary base-10 fixed-point arithmetic. There was a store (i.e., a memory) capable of holding 1,000 numbers of 50 digits each. An arithmetical unit (the "mill") would be able to perform all four arithmetical operations.

The programming language to be employed was akin to modern day assembly languages. Loops and conditional branching were possible and so the language as conceived would have been Turing-complete. Three different types of punch cards were used: one for arithmetical operations, one for numerical constants, and one for load and store operations, transferring numbers from the store to the arithmetical unit or back. There were three separate readers for the three types of cards.


And as i said a university actually built a working version from Babbage's blueprints.

[Jack]

*nods* I had forgotten about Babbage. It's been quite a while since I read anything on the history/evolution of computing technology.

[nuit09]

It is astonishing. to think this thing was almost birthed 150 years before it's time. the excellent novel by the same name ( the difference engine) details what this would have done to society and civilisation.

[CuriousG]

Well, there are good reasons why nobody built the Babbage's engine. Even when real computers were built, people still didn't see what they would lead to. Contemporarily, the Difference Engine was seen as just a fancy mechanical calculator, relatively limited in application.

Nobody who had the means to make it foresaw the full potential.

[nuit09]

I'm not certain. beut even if true, the people who built the first modern computers did not necessarily see beyond the application the had intended it for. defense projects, perhaps a moon shot. Somehow though, i think Babbage had more in mind for his baby than just solving a few math problems. i mean look at the progamming language he wanted to use. it was obvious it had far more power than needed to solve a few math problems. it was too flexible to be only for that.

[SubmissMe]

When you die you are dead, and that's that. Why do people feel the need for anything more? Is life not enough?

[charon2187]

There are so many things in this world that we do not get to expierience. It would be nice if there is a way that we could expierience them. I think that is why people want to believe in an afterlife.

[goldragon_70]

When you die you are dead, and that's that. Why do people feel the need for anything more? Is life not enough?

The point of what I was asking is, can you realy understand what it would mean to be dead? And if you can't why is that?

[SubmissMe]

You can't understand what it is to be dead and you can't even accept it as an inevitability (Hume's causation).

I'd guess it would be like sleeping minus the dreams.

[goldragon_70]

You can't understand what it is to be dead and you can't even accept it as an inevitability (Hume's causation).

This is my point, we come from that, but we can't understand it, which can lead some to belief that something will live on. Most people find it hard not to think past there death, to what will happen, the mark they will leave. They will not be there to see it and it will probably not happen as they envision, so why do we do that? Probably because we don't truly stop, that there is a life after death. OK, I will stop talking about this.

[SubmissMe]

But if we base life on probability then we can come to the conclusion that there probably isn't an afterlife. I hope I'm wrong, but like most things in life I'm porbaby not :wink:

[goldragon_70]

But if we base life on probability then we can come to the conclusion that there probably isn't an afterlife. I hope I'm wrong, but like most things in life I'm porbaby not :wink:

I just told you one of the conclutions I made that made me think there was.

[SubmissMe]

I just don't see how you can use the uncertainty of death to concoct notions of an afterlife. Yes death is unable to comprehend, but I'm guessing the laws of science still apply long after we die. So I just don't find it logical to believe we float up to heaven or whatever.

[goldragon_70]

I just don't see how you can use the uncertainty of death to concoct notions of an afterlife. Yes death is unable to comprehend, but I'm guessing the laws of science still apply long after we die. So I just don't find it logical to believe we float up to heaven or whatever.

Right now or level of perception to what is really out there is so limited that many scientists will admit there is much we don't know. Even the level of perception of instruments that we use is limited and actually primitive when you get down to the basics of it.

[SubmissMe]

It is enough. Our perceptions have taught us everything about the world since when we were infants - see John Locke's Tabula Rasa


By the way, anyone in need of a good laugh check this out - its postman pat as you've never seen him before

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2717111507191712260&q=postman+pat

Tell me if you enjoy the link.

[goldragon_70]

It is enough. Our perceptions have taught us everything about the world since when we were infants - see John Locke's Tabula Rasa

Only enough for Survival.

[SubmissMe]

Hooray! This is post number 1000 on the philosophy area!

[charon2187]

And this is post 1001.

[NeKofLiP]

"We also have a ZERO tolerance for users who spam the Forums. "

[charon2187]

1003 :P

[Jack]

Infantile. Useless. Inane. Prodigal. Malignant.

[SubmissMe]

Or just pointing out a significant landmark. I'm hardly spamming the forums and I've made around 130 posts - only one of which was irrelevant to anything.

I think I deserve at least one post where I can say whatever I like. And if you think otherwise, then screw you because I've done it anyway.

[Mallic]

The Non-Sequitur thread lets you get away with it.

[goldragon_70]

"We also have a ZERO tolerance for users who spam the Forums. "

I've only seen this twic and I'm annoyed. BTW, it's "EMG", not "we".

[SubmissMe]

OK, well as penance for my act I'll get a new conversation started.

Lets pretend you found conclusive proof about the existance of God. Some may agrue this is not possible but lets just pretend you have conclusive proof. It may be that God exists, or that he doesn't exist. You recognise that this flawless discovery is hugely important.

Would you tell anyone? And if so, who?

[Mallic]

No, I wouldn't. I mean, if you know that you are going to an afterlife, whats the point of living?

[goldragon_70]

No, I wouldn't. I mean, if you know that you are going to an afterlife, whats the point of living?

To see what god has created, with eyes that don't know, for god.

[SubmissMe]

I would like to think I wouldn't tell anyone either, but for different reasons.

If God existed then I think he keeps his existence to himself (or herself) for a reason. I think God is very interested about who would perform the leap of faith and believe in him. If you took away the ambiguity surrounding God, there would be no criteria for seperating people who have good and moral basic instincts from those who have sinful instincts. We would all act the same because we would all KNOW God existed.

If God didn't exist I'd probably still keep quiet about it. I think that the idea of God has priceless qualities. I'm not talking about terrorists who die in the name of their God, I'm talking about the hope and reassurance God offers to the millions and millions of people who believe in God. And that is worth more than all the fame, glory and possesions in the whole world.