Here is the proof of God. Argument's over, time for bed...

Just as long as you understand that to many, God is not a joking matter.

Perhaps you overestimate the intelligence of the posters here, Pyedog. Or perhaps you have done a poor job of explaining your position.

"God is Math" means nothing to me.

Perhaps you could dumb it down a bit. For the sake of poor wretches like me who will otherwise be forced to continue making witty (lame) comments. I would welcome a lucid explanation that does not presume a background in whatever arts and sciences you have mastered in order to arrive at this unassailable "proof".

Personally, I get offended by people referring to God in the third person masculine. To me, God is not a 'he'. Nor a 'she', for that matter. God has no gender.

Merry Andrew,

I guess the reason I refer to God as a he is because He is referred to that way in the Bible. Jesus called Him His father.

But, when I thinkk about God, I don't have a picture in my mind of what God looks like, whether male or female.

Pyedog, Have you translated god into something you can grasp and understand? Thats good I guess. I don't know. Should that be what God is to everyone else? No. Can you prove God is 1+1=2? No. Will you judge everyone and call them stupid because they don't see god the same way you do? Yes you will because your in the same boat as the rest of us.

I think you need to try to understand god the same way you understand 1+1=2. God can make 1=1=3 in the blink of an eye. Then what is god. Your the same as the last 100 people that have come through here claiming to know the truth. The enlightenment you seek eludes you.

Momma, I take the Bible with a grain of salt. It is a beautiful book and the King James translation is superb poetry. But it also largely allegorical and filled with the myths of a semi-nomadic herding people. For me God is a sexless force, an energy, a higher power which I not only don't understand but which I do not believe to be understandable by the human mind in its present state of evolutionary development.

was young, I had to respect my elders. Now I'm old enough I don't have to respect anybody. - Marx

If my joking causes discomfort, well, sorry. But I don't intend to stop.

Hey I like that. Is that Groucho or karl?

edgarblythe Wrote:



And you see, I don't understand that attitude. You don't seem to care if you offend someone or hurt their feelings. I just don't understand.

It's a joke, not a life and death matter. You can tell all the atheist jokes you like. If they are funny, I promise to laugh.

Edgar,

That's the difference between you and me, I wouldn't tell an athesist joke at all.

What would happen if everyone in the world adopted the attitude of I am going to do it no matter who is offended or hurt?

Where does one make the distinction that it's not okay to make racist jokes or sexist jokes, but it's okay to make jokes about someone's God or religion?

I realize it's not a life or death matter. I am not angry at you or even upset. I am just trying to understand the attitude of what seems to be it's okay for you to do it no matter who it offends or hurts.

If you could tell me Edgar, I really would appreciate it. The more reasons I find for someone's behavior, the more I can understand it.

I like the atheist sketch that Rowan Atkinson (Mr Bean - although I can't stand his Mr Bean character most people know him as that) did where he was acting the part of Satan. He was directing the various sinners and got to the atheists and it went something like the following:

"Ah yes, the atheists.....I bet you feel pretty stupid now eh?"

It still gives me a chuckle

At an atheist funeral - All dressed up and no place to go.

I like Unitarian jokes better.

Two Unitarian missionaries ring your doorbell. But they're not quite sure why they're doing it.

Then there's the Unitarian wing of the KKK -- they burn a huge question mark on your lawn.

Bottom line, jokes are harmless. The kind I tell, anyway. There are some really rough religious jokes out there that rank right alongside racist jokes. That's where they cease to be humerous.

Isn't that kind of like well, so and so does it but I am not as bad as them?

Amazing.

No, it isn't at all.

Firstly, I apologize if I've offended anybody. That is absolutely not my intention. Nor is arrogance. But as you can see from the past page of posts what is mostly progressed is chatter. Seriously, who cares about lame jokes or serious offenses taken to those lame jokes. I see names with large post counts attached to them, but if this is a representative of the majority of their content then so what.

I think Grayfan is correct in that I've done a lousy job of explaining my position. I just detest speaking about religion with theists or atheists because both are usually too polarized to converse beyond "God loves you" or "yeah, and the Easter Bunny is on line 1 for you." However, it appears that to keep in good form I should state my personal beliefs. Do I think there is a God as in an entity that hears prayers or that is conscious of us and wrote the Bible - no. But I do believe there are very basic, very fundamental rules, truths, axioms, or whatever term makes sense, that dictate very basic, very fundamental states of being at the level where matter and energy are interchangeable and percolate "up" as reality. I believe those rules just "are". They always have been, always will be, and they are unchangeable. I don't believe these rules posses any kind of consciousness and thus there is no intent.

An analogy would be: rule(1)=left, rule(2)=right, rule(3)=right, rule(4)=right, rule(5)=park. This set of rules moves me from the 7-11 to my apartment. In this "universe" what appears as divine governance of moving me from the 7-11 to my apartment is nothing more than a set of immutable rules. Changing any one of them will result in an "impossible" state in that I would not be moved from the 7-11 to my apartment.

I take a lot of stock in physics and I believe that once we are able to unravel the ball of twine called reality there will be a very basic, very fundamental set of rules. Yes I know this is called a Unified Theory, but what I believe is different, that what will be found is at the very absolute base is "information". And that, "information" is the base of energy and matter. It, "information" is what reality is plied upon, it is the framework upon which reality hangs. Automatically it can be asked, "well who dictated the information?" But for me that is a meaningless question because the "information", the "rules", these tiny bits of non-existent obligations are the dictators of the dictations. I want to say they are self referential, but I would really have to say that IS my quandary.

Another analogy would be a fractal design. Out of basic rules given develop apparently elaborate and designed formations, but it is only a set of rules. "Well you created those rules!" So what?! I didn't create the perceived complex design that resulted, the rules did that. And that is where I think reality is too. The perceived complexity spawned by very basic, very simple rules. If the rules are changed, if 1+1=3, then there will be a different reality, but not by intent or design. A different fractal will be produced, if you will.

So when I say "God is math" I am saying that the genesis of our reality, I believe, is a framework and I believe "1+1=2" is as representative as any other "rule". It is almost as if the agnostics win, but they don't because I am saying that God exists, but to say God "is conscious", to ask for God's blessings is like asking a prime number for blessings?-it just doesn't make sense, it is prattle.

I made the opening for you to make that kind of a charge. I should know better than to go against my best judgement and try to reason with a fundamentalist thinker. You are just disappointed that I don't go along with your belief. Humor really has nothing to do with it.

My last addressed to Momma angel