What is your religion?

[PharaohUB]

Not necessarily. Many who consider themselves atheists don't claim to know there isn't a god (in fact I can't think of a single prominent atheist who claims to know with 100% certainty that no higher power of any kind exists or has ever existed). They simply haven't seen sufficient evidence to justify belief in a god. The burden of proof is on the side making the claim that something exists; not believing is the default position.

then they aren't atheist, they are agnostic, lol.

Atheism - The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Agnosticism - a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God

lol. people need to educate themselves, before they proclaim themselves something.

[DeeVeeOSs]

@JG
I don't have the energy to dismantle your position tonight.

First I'd ask if we're talking about a 3rd party subjective postulate,

or if we're talking about something objectively real. In-fact".

I'd ask you for which attributes you'd assign to God and why those and not others.


Any of these is enough to murder the word "God" from your mouth.

But if you think you can still use it with any type of context or merit, be my guest.


To use the word "God" means that you can account for it's....pardon me....His attributes.

Without that list, you are talking about less than nothing.
You are talking an inaccuracy.
An anti-science.


Flip back 18 months and read my book on the topic.


Seriously. You really ought not identify yourself an atheist. The position is dismantled before it ever stood.

What you are, is an ANTI-THEIST.

Because if you're not, then you need to produce your own definition of the proper noun "God".



FURTHER, you need to show that you've actually diligently tested for those attributes.


There is no hiding under the guise of soft atheism.

[JohnGalt2341]

i'm a true agnostic. i think anyone who thinks they truly know is stupid. atheist/christian/jew whatever. don't clump me in with those stupid atheists. nobody knows.

You are correct when you say "nobody knows". By pure definition this makes everyone on the planet(including those that believe in God) an Agnostic. That doesn't mean that a person can't have an opinion on something that is unknowable. Being an Atheist doesn't mean that you claim to know for sure(although some probably do I suppose). It just means that you don't believe in God. There are a lot of things that I don't believe are true but I also don't know for sure about many of them. When I hear about guys on SBR claiming to hit 70% of their plays long term do I believe it? NO. Could it be true? Yes, but it's unlikely.

Man has worshiped thousands of different Gods for thousands of years. I've never met a single person in my life that believes in every God that has ever been worshiped by man. By definition, that makes them an Atheist towards all the Gods that they don't believe in. I'm similar to them as I also don't believe in all the Gods that they consider nonsensical except that I go one step further and I also don't believe in their God as well. Do I know for sure that none of the Gods created by man really don't exist? Nope. Nobody does... as you said. But if I choose not to believe in them that makes me an Atheist by definition. And because it is unknowable I am also an Agnostic.

Also, although I'm sure there are plenty of stupid Atheists out there there are also plenty of VERY smart Atheists. Guys like Bill Gates come up with ideas that improve all of our lives. In fact, most of the best inventions in the history of mankind were created by Atheists.

[PharaohUB]

dunno what the fck this guy is saying above me. but yeah jg learn that you and "your friends" are agnostic, not atheist. being an atheist is one of the most hypocritical positions one can have. atheists piss me off, because they "almost get it". i wouldn't even try having a convo with the guy above me.

if you found another intelligent planet with no knowledge of our existence. then presented 10 of them with all the facts that we have about our existence, and our past. 10/10 wouldn't make a bet on one religion or another if you gave them +10000 odds. yet 99% of the world we live in subscribes to something, and thinks everyone else is idiots.

people struggle because religion/atheism gives them direction or an explanation of death, or a code of ethics. something that you should be able to create internally if you are raised right.

sometimes southpark explains it best

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=123_1190395606

[PharaohUB]

above above. above you jg.

I get what you are saying. I just disagree with people who think they "know". No matter what your belief system. And you find A LOT of people like that. Especially in America. Atheists all think Christians are fanatics, and Christians think all Atheists are going to burn in hell and have midguided ethics. And they truly BELIEVE it 100%. They are not agnostic in any sense of the word.

[DeeVeeOSs]

dunno what the fck this guy is saying above me. but yeah jg learn that you and "your friends" are agnostic, not atheist. being an atheist is one of the most hypocritical positions one can have. atheists piss me off, because they "almost get it". i wouldn't even try having a convo with the guy above me.

if you found another intelligent planet with no knowledge of our existence. then presented 10 of them with all the facts that we have about our existence, and our past. 10/10 wouldn't make a bet on one religion or another if you gave them +10000 odds. yet 99% of the world we live in subscribes to something, and thinks everyone else is idiots.

people struggle because religion/atheism gives them direction or an explanation of death, or a code of ethics. something that you should be able to create internally if you are raised right.

sometimes southpark explains it best

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=123_1190395606

Yeah man. They could be rid of a whole heap of troubles if they'd just say, "you see that crap over there that that guy says he believes in? Yeah, THAT, THAT CRAP I don't think is true."

Done.

Straight up anti-theist, no ifs ands or buts.


Once they take up any atheistic stance, they stoop to a level where they are beaten by the theist's experience.

[thetrinity]

id say christian i dont really like churches to be honest though, crooked as they come at those places.

[JohnGalt2341]

@JG
Flip back 18 months and read my book on the topic.

What is your book on the topic? Where can I find it? I will gladly read it.

I think my position is pretty clear. Do I believe in God? NO. Am I 100% certain that God doesn't exist? NO. My feelings are not 50/50 however. It's more like 99/1. It's sort of like... do I think the world is going to end on December 21st? NO. Am I 100% certain that it is not going to end on December 21st? NO.

[DeeVeeOSs]

What is your book on the topic? Where can I find it? I will gladly read it.

I think my position is pretty clear. Do I believe in God? NO. Am I 100% certain that God doesn't exist? NO. My feelings are not 50/50 however. It's more like 99/1. It's sort of like... do I think the world is going to end on December 21st? NO. Am I 100% certain that it is not going to end on December 21st? NO.

jgil. Not you.

But ut;s for you too. It's around the midpoint of these posts. 18 months back or so.


"Do I believe in God?" <---- the second you use that "God" word, you open your ass up to a flurry of prosecution.

Once you say that you believe in the absence of it, all the more.


You can't imagine the coals that I'll rake you over if you use that word.

In all directions.

There is NO CONTEXT that you can hide within and that's because the word itself has NO CONTEXT.

As long as I'm a cross-eyed theist, you can do fine.

You simply demand of me this and that and check mate.


The problem here is, I'm not a cross-eyed theist.

I'm a scientist.

And I see you being SLOPPY in my lab and I demand you get the penetrate out.

Go read. Get back at me tomorrow.

[DeeVeeOSs]

What is your book on the topic? Where can I find it? I will gladly read it.

I think my position is pretty clear. Do I believe in God? NO. Am I 100% certain that God doesn't exist? NO. My feelings are not 50/50 however. It's more like 99/1. It's sort of like... do I think the world is going to end on December 21st? NO. Am I 100% certain that it is not going to end on December 21st? NO.

You don't even know what you're talking about. Am I certain? No. But I'm 99:1 certain.

If you do, then tell me what you mean by "God"?

What attributes are you testing for?

Where did you get these attributes from?


Again, after you try to answer those question, go find my book starting on page 17.

[JohnGalt2341]

above above. above you jg.

I get what you are saying. I just disagree with people who think they "know". No matter what your belief system. And you find A LOT of people like that. Especially in America. Atheists all think Christians are fanatics, and Christians think all Atheists are going to burn in hell and have midguided ethics. And they truly BELIEVE it 100%. They are not agnostic in any sense of the word.

I agree. I wish people were more accurate when they claimed to be 100% certain of something because if they were.... I would bet everything I own on all the "100% guaranteed Lock" threads that I see on a daily basis. I'm willing to bet that the same people that make these kind of threads are 100% certain that their religion is the correct one.

There's an old quote by Clarence Darrow that I first read when I was 14 or so and I still like it to this day.
"I am an Agnostic. I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

[PBAbides]

I would call myself a 6.5 atheist on Richard Dawkins' scale. But if I had to follow anything, that's easy....Leviticus baby!

Full of carnage, gore and nonsensical rules for living a moral life. God was in a really cranky mood when he wrote that book.

[jgilmartin]

@DeeVeeOSs Yes, what defines something/someone as a deity is subjective. Do you reject the usage of 'anti-theism' to mean someone who is opposed to organized religion, though?

[DeeVeeOSs]

@DeeVeeOSs Yes, what defines something/someone as a deity is subjective. Do you reject the usage of 'anti-theism' to mean someone who is opposed to organized religion, though?

No I don't reject that for a second. I'd suppose

(opposition to) religion is part in parcel with anti-theism.

More than that, anti-theism is going to thoroughly prosecute any claims of all Gods.

It will trounce the subjective but filter through objective postulates. (typically there is nothing left to be strained)

Effectively...any working or competent definition of "God", would undergo a type of osmosis from the subjective to the objective.

For your intents and purposes, yes, anti-theism should create a vacuum anywhere you hear the word "God".

It simply should not compute.

It should register and posture itself no different than when people use the word "infinity" but think they are talking of an actual number.

It should have that same type of non-sensical 'nothingness' about it.

It's not even worth it to delve into what type of psychosis or other types of psychological variables contribute to one such miscalculation.

"God" is not to be treated as a non-sequitur, but as a non-starter.


The issue I've found, however, is like radioactive dye flushed into the system (all semantics regarding not only "God" but all of it's contributing systems from ontology to psychology and a plethora of tandems and parallels in communication with these).


Let's call it, "subjectivotope".

For intents and purposes, we can call it 'garbage detector' or 'mistruth susser'.

And when I see this light up, I need sunglasses.


But let's be DAMN CLEAR HERE..............if there were NOTHING to the idea of god... (*NOTE THE CHANGE FROM "G" to "g"*) ...then I would observe the ENTIRE SYSTEM LIT UP.


"It's it total and complete crap," would be my conclusion. You wouldn not hear me speak of neither "god" nor "God". I wouldn't be here.

This was not my findings. If you can pick up on what I mean from page 17-18-19 etc etc. you will begin to see what "objectiveness" I am talking about and why I can still use the word "god", how and why it was hijacked, and what it actually is.


This must seem like some bullshit riddle and so I will digress from this topic and continue my day.

It assumes that you've read my book starting from page 17 where I introduce a 3rd definition.

Really, it's not a skim read.

And since I've written that, a year and a half ago, gwiz is still the only person who understood a lick of what I am saying, much less overstood exactly what I was saying start to finish. More impressive is the fact that I stand by just about every paragraph almost 2 years later. That is an unprecedented in my ideation and history with science.

This topic matter has been 2 ships passing in the night in just about every other instance or conversation since.

747.

It demands a complete suspension of the semantics regarding "God", but more importantly, it demands a complete suspension of ego.

Why?

Because when it comes to god, (*NOTE THE CASING "g"*), it's time to stop with the religious "!!!", and it's time to start with the science "???".

That means that you won't catch me saying that it's a "being".
You won't find me saying it is "good" or "wants good".
You won't find me saying it is omnipresent (without a damned practical and solid pragmatic and empirical reasoning)
You won't find me saying it knows everything. (it could...I suppose...but I can't speculate upon that)
You won't find me saying it knows anything. (it could...I suppose...but I can't speculate upon that)


I mean to expand on that, people say, "I'm conscious and therefore of conscious".
This is wrong.

To me it's unclear. A sperm cannot experience.
Neither can an egg. I find that I am, more or less, 'of nothing' as much as I am 'of consciousness".

You will find me adopting the original meaning of the idea before there was even a word.
You will find me pointing at something objective and labeling it "god".
You will find that it plugs in anywhere a definition of god is needed.
You will find it practical.

That idea was.....(Page 17 if you're interested)


Aside from that, just trade "atheism" with anti-theism and you'll have a competent platform conducive with empirical logic.
Leave the word "God" far from your experience and you'll feel your IQ jump a few points.

[PharaohUB]

Nice thread here. Nice to see some sensible discussion. So sick of the atheist vs religion debate. Never heard of the word anti-theist before. Will definitely drop that vocab on some of my friends!

I just wish people would learn to stop grouping agnostics/atheists in the same group. It's insulting.

[jgilmartin]

@DeeVeeOSs No, I have read your 'book' and I (technically) agree with you that using the term 'god' inherently assigns arbitrary qualities, which creates a logical impossibility for someone claiming to believe in the absence of it. But I don't understand why you believe 'anti-theist' is a useful term in this context, given that not sharing the beliefs of a particular religion does not necessarily mean being actively opposed to that religion's existence.

[JohnGalt2341]

If you do, then tell me what you mean by "God"?

Let's just say that I don't believe in any sort of magical man in the sky. I don't believe there is any supernatural deity that has any influence over anything in the universe. When I die, I don't think I am going to Heaven or Hell. I also don't believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. I hope that helps.

I just noticed, you've been at SBR for nearly 2 and a half years and the majority of your 66 posts are in this thread. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing but I do find it intriguing.

[DeeVeeOSs]

Nice thread here. Nice to see some sensible discussion. So sick of the atheist vs religion debate. Never heard of the word anti-theist before. Will definitely drop that vocab on some of my friends!

I just wish people would learn to stop grouping agnostics/atheists in the same group. It's insulting.

That's an awesome awesome post man.

Typically anything I say is never received. (be it unclear presentation, be it cognitive dissonance)


You can thank Dawkins for muddying the line between the two.

Truly, the only reason he took time to do so was to present his platform in a patronizing way under the guise of authority by science.

As for agnositcs, there are 2 types:

1. "we can't know, no reason to test"

2. "we don't know yet and are therefore still testing"

I respect #2 because they are all about science.

I do not respect #1 not only because they're lazy but mainly that they all claim to fly the flag of "science" when really, they're anti-science.

But with that said, it's not like the topic matter is simple.
I can point to ANYTHING in the known universe and you will know the word for it...except God/god.

So on that point, it's fair enough that there be some confusion.

It's even fair enough to stray FAR CLEAR of the whole topic. That makes perfect sense and almost anything else would be more productive to think about.

But with that said, to NOT steer clear, to accept the challenge, well, in my book, that demands an amount of scientific discipline and the premise of "god" (not "God", I said "god"), *IF* there were to even be one....well....that ought not be taken lightly.

Einstein used the word god.

There is little question in my mind that Einstein had a grip on his imagination and I don't think that he was in want of it.

I think that if Einstein meant "fate" or "universe" or "time-space" he would have used those words.

No. Einstein used the word "god".

Now.

I don't for a second think that Einstein had in mind some personal "piece-pusher"..... some "being" that's "good and/ bad" etc etc ...
...

....

But then....unless we consider Einstein petty....ought we not consider and wonder "if that's not what he meant...then what *DID* he mean? What WAS he in fact thinking about as he used that word 'god'?"




Page 17 brings a 'perfect fit' into the scenario.

[statnerds]

i am 100% certain the world will not end 12.21.12. great idea, give credence to a calendar created by people that killed their own kids to please the gods and have a good harvest. in no way directed at you JG.

how many people die everyday because of religion? or should i ask how many people muslims kill everyday, including one another?

the arrogance of anyone claiming to know/believe anything humors me. we are all full of shit, at least some of us are aware of it.

but now i struggle with introducing my seven year old son to the church. i was raised in the church. my main motivation to take him would be to have think outside of himself, think of larger things than tv shows and video games.

The Dude abides, but God did not write the Bible. It may be the Word of God, but it is still written by men.

as you were...

[DeeVeeOSs]

i am 100% certain the world will not end 12.21.12. great idea, give credence to a calendar created by people that killed their own kids to please the gods and have a good harvest. in no way directed at you JG.

how many people die everyday because of religion? or should i ask how many people muslims kill everyday, including one another?

the arrogance of anyone claiming to know/believe anything humors me. we are all full of shit, at least some of us are aware of it.

but now i struggle with introducing my seven year old son to the church. i was raised in the church. my main motivation to take him would be to have think outside of himself, think of larger things than tv shows and video games.

The Dude abides, but God did not write the Bible. It may be the Word of God, but it is still written by men.

as you were...

Muslim is not comparable to religion.

It's comparable to "American".

Think of it as a political and a geological association, not as a religion, and you'll be far more accurate.

The prayer mat is like MLBaseball.
The head covering is like the declaration of independence.

etc etc etc.

But Muslim is not equal or on any plane with Christianity.

So now that we're clear on that.

Let's ask ourselves how many people were killed in the name of "America" in the same period.

In fact, given that US trained Bin Laden, buddy, you may as well pay attention to the middle, ring and little finger pointing back at you.

Your tribalistic agenda has imploded. It's "taken the flight path of a boomerang".

And yes, Bin Laden, a Saudi, did it. Not "Muslims" and not in the name of Allah.

Look up the word "scapegoat". Look up the word "whipping boy" and ask yourself if MAYBE Allah wouldn't suit those terms best.

If not, then explain to me why "Muslims under direction of the almighty Koran, that takes away their own thoughts, and instructs them to kill Americans" aren't bleeding millions of Americans every day?

If you REALLY thought that Muslims in general, or even to the minority, were instructed and gullible enough to "bleed Americans" you wouldn't DARE set foot outside.

Let me give your ignorant ass some perspective. 2 200 000 000.

That's 2.2 billion.

Here are the amount of Americans. 333 000 000.

That's a HELLUVA difference huh?

If you REALLY thought that "Muslims" attacked America, then you'd have to be the biggest idiot I ever met to set foot outside your house.

By the way, 222 000 000 are the target of 333 000 000.

You'd be lucky if the reds, browns and blacks didn't pick up box cutters along with the Muslims.

Trust me guy, be HAPPY that you're full of shit.

Because if Muslims REALLY wanted you dead, you'd be ******.

No no, your hero complex doesn't fight off exacto knives, you'd be ******.

[DeeVeeOSs]

@DeeVeeOSs No, I have read your 'book' and I (technically) agree with you that using the term 'god' inherently assigns arbitrary qualities, which creates a logical impossibility for someone claiming to believe in the absence of it. But I don't understand why you believe 'anti-theist' is a useful term in this context, given that not sharing the beliefs of a particular religion does not necessarily mean being actively opposed to that religion's existence.

It simply means to be in direct opposition with the practice of arbitrarily assigning subjective postulates in place of god.

[PharaohUB]

This DeeVee guy knows what he's talking about. Sorry I assuming you are male. I have found it is a very feminine trait to align to a popular belief, and struggle to think out the box. Not to bring sex into this, but it is a very female trait. If you haven't noticed it as females have become more powerful in society, the society has become more divided. Politically and religiously. This need to have this emotional extreme opinion against another side regardless of your position. Didn't mean to turn this into a sex thing. It's more of a cultural gender bias raised thing than a gender thing.

Good thing is the world is getting smarter and this is all just a process. To combat religions extreme ideas, the atheists arose. They needed as just a strong counterpoint to fight the religious point. I understand that. For years and years the idea of not having an opinion and searching for other answers (agnostic) was viewed as a weak position. It is slowly becoming a respected one as science becomes more powerful and understood.

I can sit around a campfire with you and prove beyond reasonable doubt how you have no proof of your religious beliefs. On the same token I can poke holes in evolution as Darwinists and Atheists believe it. Beliefs are a funny thing when you poke logic and science at it.

For a board full of people who gamble and should understand statistics, this should be a group of people that understand how chance and randomness contributes to the final unknown truth (end of game) as this all plays out. I think what frustrates all of us is that we are only get to play a few minutes of the game, and we never find out the end. When someone says I'm an Atheist or I'm a Christian and that's the way it is... that's the same people who say this game is a "lock"... only to have a 50/50 chance of being right.

[DeeVeeOSs]

This DeeVee guy knows what he's talking about. Sorry I assuming you are male. I have found it is a very feminine trait to align to a popular belief, and struggle to think out the box. Not to bring sex into this, but it is a very female trait. If you haven't noticed it as females have become more powerful in society, the society has become more divided. Politically and religiously. This need to have this emotional extreme opinion against another side regardless of your position. Didn't mean to turn this into a sex thing. It's more of a cultural gender bias raised thing than a gender thing.

Good thing is the world is getting smarter and this is all just a process. To combat religions extreme ideas, the atheists arose. They needed as just a strong counterpoint to fight the religious point. I understand that. For years and years the idea of not having an opinion and searching for other answers (agnostic) was viewed as a weak position. It is slowly becoming a respected one as science becomes more powerful and understood.

I can sit around a campfire with you and prove beyond reasonable doubt how you have no proof of your religious beliefs. On the same token I can poke holes in evolution as Darwinists and Atheists believe it. Beliefs are a funny thing when you poke logic and science at it.

For a board full of people who gamble and should understand statistics, this should be a group of people that understand how chance and randomness contributes to the final unknown truth (end of game) as this all plays out. I think what frustrates all of us is that we are only get to play a few minutes of the game, and we never find out the end. When someone says I'm an Atheist or I'm a Christian and that's the way it is... that's the same people who say this game is a "lock"... only to have a 50/50 chance of being right.

Wow. Yeah man. Well said. Very well said.

My main issue with atheism as far as evolution goes is that they don't join me in the dancehall.

They refuse to set one damned foot inside.

Look. They *CLING* to cause and effect as the tenant of evolution. (in fact, it appears to be the determining factor for everything within time-space). So that's right, and they should. They ought to observe that.

But then....as soon as they work it all the way backwards to the original aminos, they just call a TIMEOUT and stop the retro-perspective.

They say, "we don't know either, but we don't go around calling it 'God'".

OK. So good.

Then where they claim "WE DON'T KNOW EITHER" .... I should meet them in that spot. I should see them there.

There should be MUCH DISCUSSION on the topic.

But when I go to discuss the cause and effect leading up to.....I'm the only damned one in the room.

They're only happy enough to talk about shit that everyone already knows anyway. They LOVE to argue evolution with theists, but when it comes to the science regarding the TOTALITY of evolution, either they disappear or they turn into tumbleweeds.

Usually their response is, ".....no YOU'RE stupid!" (paraphrased)

Chicken shit. They're all chicken shit.

Not an ACTUAL scientific bone in their bodies.

They ride coattails of great minds who preceded them....but they don't want to add a damned thing to the craft when it's their turn to think hard. It's like they're convinced that unless they read it somewhere and pick it up with ease, that they can't think productively about certain problems. I wonder how they gave themselves that idea, that conviction.

It's annoying...but if they want to say that they don't know shit...then I suppose I'll take them at face value...

...after all...they're in a position to know best.

[PharaohUB]

Link is not working- Removed-)

[AribaAriba]

atheist-antichrist are all part of the bibles prophecy so i wouldnt be surprised with their numbers kinda increasing.

[PharaohUB]

atheist-antichrist are all part of the bibles prophecy so i wouldnt be surprised with their numbers kinda increasing.

there's a shocker. the bibles (written by religious people) associated their biggest threat (atheists) with anti-christs. think man think.

[DeeVeeOSs]

there's a shocker. the bibles (written by religious people) associated their biggest threat (atheists) with anti-christs. think man think.

By any WORKING, FUNCTIONAL, or PRAGMATIC definition of "god"...(there is only 1 that I've ever heard)...the truth is, it's scientists that seek god. It is those that worship their subjective postulates aka idols, that are the actual atheists.

See, a scientist studies what is IN FACT there. Knowledge is not information.
(and yes, I said it, and gave a lecture on it, before I ever heard it said by anyone else)


A scientist is concerned with the ogjective truth/ fact about something. Reality. What is. (if god were personal, indeed, it would say "I am"). So when we look at it that way, we have atheist scientists who quite literally seek (and find) god, and we have imaginative theists postulating their own subjective projected creations, and bowing down to them.

The irony ought strike you. It certainly does me.

Look. I am the Truth.

Well. It turns out that that's all that science actually endeavors itself to uncover!!

And correct me if I'm wrong, but if someone is imagining an attribute set to assign to "God", then that is an anti-truth.
Their own postulate stands between them and what in fact is.

God = whatever you say it is

god = what in fact is

-

It's beautiful.

This definition of god is a masterkey.
It's usage has compatibility in any area I've thought about yet.

It was crafted when I realized that if we start asking questions about a personal God we achieve a standoff.

Which was first, reality, or God?

The question is illuminating.

How could a God exist without a reality to serve as a stage?

So then maybe reality came first...

But if that's true...then what was the catalyst for it's existence?

---

So if God can't have come before reality...
And if reality couldn't have come before God....

Then we are certainly missing another factor.
There MUST be a common denominator between the two.
A third element that sorts it all out.


They are both expressions of information.

That's the key here.


And when we think of it that way, this subjective and personal "God" shrinks away.
It was helpful to think of "God" as a postulate, but now it's big boy time.

So effectively, we can say that god is information itself.

Think about it:

Can you even BEGIN to START to imagine a spot that you could name, where there is no information?
Can you even BEGIN to START to imagine a time that you could name, where there is no information?

When did 2+2 *first* equal 4?
When will it stop?

So we can see now, that information itself not only doesn't need a "prime mover"/"beginning"/"catalyst"...
...but it can't logically possibly have one!

This talk about "first cause" is murdered from the mouth of atheists by a WORKING definition of god.

Information is what we call truth. (with the exception of misinformation which is something else)
It's fact.
It's reality.
It's the objective fact of the matter.
It's what is.

It's absolutely everywhere.
It's absolutely everywhen.

What would transcend a singularity if nothing else? Information.

Think of it like a thermometer.

You have water(information) that "?exists?" '?outside?' and '?before?' the big bang.

("Exists" gets "" because that's a word that borrows from our locale of space-time. "Exist" is a VERY loose word to use for anything ?before? or ?outside? the big bang. But we don't have a word for that idea, so we will acknowledge "exists" as the only best descriptor.)

So you have water...but then, as the thermometer shows below freezing, you have ice. Ice being information manifesting inside our universe.

It's the exact same stuff...but it manifests itself differently based on the environment.

ie. information transcends space-time.

The only catch here is that in the case of information, it's also the inside of the universe, the universe itself, and everything other than the universe, including anything leading up to the existence of the universe as well as the existence of information itself.

(information can't have a creator because then the creator would have definition and information of itself, meaning information was present as it created information.)

So it's everything all at once. And when I say "everything", I damned well mean it.

It's -1 and +1 at the same time.

Once could say "god is good", but one could say "god is bad" just as easily.
Peronally, good and bad are not objective attributes so when it comes to assigning those attributes to god, it's really an exercise in nonsense and stupidity.

It's a non question. It's like asking a dude what type of tampons he uses.

Then, when he says, "uh...I don't use tampons you twit," one responds with, "THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION! I said WHICH TYPE DO YOU USE! I expect a brandname in reply this time."


And what's funny is this definition of god can't be indicted on any level because it's definition is literally "whatever is".

You know Pharoah, I really enjoy seeing that picture above my post as I write.

There are not too many things I could speak with Mr. Einstein about, but "information and god" ... are not 2 of those.

That guy felt like such an alien walking down the street.
I'm betting the loneliest man to walk this earth.
Likely, also the most blessed, in a way.

I wish he'd had time to finish thinking about his problems.
I wish he'd had as much time as he wanted.