Thanks xongsmith, I did not know such specifics of "Spinoza's God."
Sounds really good, actually.
Spinoza's wisdom writes:
Stop being so scared of me. I do not judge you or criticize you, nor get angry, or seek to punish you. I am pure love.
I am pure love.
I really like that part. That's what I've always thought.
If God is pure love... then Love is God. And we know Love exists, most of us experience (at least parts of) it every day. And if we know Love is there, and understand Love - there's no need for God, because they're the same thing.
If they're not the same... if some part of God is not Love... then that part of God isn't worthy of following/understanding anyway.
And, again, we come down to: understand, follow and fill your life with Love. No mention or understanding or following of God is necessary. For all things.
It sounds to me Stile like you believe in God a lot more than you think you do . What you're saying is really similar to the Apostle John in 1 John Sounds like the scriptures agree with you more than you realize
I have no issues sounding like I believe in God or agreeing with scriptures. Some definitions of God, and His scriptures, are very nice and attractive. I would like to be associated with such things, so thank-you for doing so.
If love has a being, why wouldn't I want to follow it/him/her/they? If a Divine Being exists, and it embodies love, why wouldn't we want more of it in our life?
If love had a being, I would follow it/him/her/they (because I follow love.) If a Divine Being existed, and it embodies love, then I think we should all want more of this Diving Being in my life (because I want more love in all lives.)
But if I already follow love, and a being happens to exist that embodies that love... nothing about my life would change. I would already be following that Divine Being, without even knowing it, just by following love.
So, again, the idea of such a Divine Being, regardless of whether or not it actually exists, is superfluous until such a time that this being is shown to exist, and can expound on our ideas of what love is.
Your reasoning here seems to be throwing away one specific outcome because you have rejected it ahead of time...
But... I haven't rejected anything. I am perfectly willing, open, and desire a connection with any being that can help show Love. That being can be as small as any mundane creature of this world (sometimes even a house-cat can teach us things we don't know about Love.) That being can be as large as a Diving Being. I am interested in anything that can teach us about or show Love.
Of course, as far as Gods are concerned... until one is actually shown to exist: I Know That God Does Not Exist. And, lucky for me, I can still follow Love as much as possible anyway.
I can prove god does not exist. I can prove god does exist.
I'm not sure you can do either.
If I exist something created me...
That's not true. Lots of things exist without being created. Like you and I and fish and rocks and trees and wind and snails.
...god is defined as creator of the universe. By definition god exists.
This definition is wrong.
On the other hand physical is apperception of atoms which are not physical.. atoms are subatomic electromagnetic energy waves.
What do you think physical means? "Subatomic electromagnetic energy waves" sounds pretty physical to me.
Angstroms decibels and firing synapses.. none of which are physical..
Those are all physical. Angstroms and just as physical as miles. Sound is based on physical waves. Synapses are physical things within your physical brain within your physical body.
Because all we are is thoughts trying to make our existence as a singularity consciousness in a universe of nothingness a more enjoyable experience.
Maybe that's all you are. That doesn't sound very nice.
I'm much more. I'm physical, with the ability to create thoughts and have emotions. Sometimes I want to make my life more enjoyable, and other times I want to make it more challenging. Sometimes I don't want anything at all.
In a universe of (0) nothingness.
The universe is not "(0) nothingness." The universe is filled with many things. Many alive, and many inanimate. Some can create other things, others cannot. Some simply are.
Everything in existence is created and communicated as a singularity vibrating in a universe of nothingness.
This isn't true since the universe is not "nothingness."
Time does not exist
Sure. Except for when it does.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed
Probably. But maybe not.
I don't know any different, anyway.
We are an ever expanding ever changing consciousness creating a physical perception of reality to make our boring lonely existence as a singularity in a universe of nothingness a more enjoyable experience.
I'm a consciousness that sometimes changes, and sometimes remains static. I experience a perception of reality, but I just do it... I don't do it for any particular reason. I discover my own purpose in life - and it's stronger than trying to not be boring. Or, at least, it is for me.
I don't think any of this has to do with knowing if God exists or not, though. But after reading it, I do think you could use some more Love in your life.
Which means, I still know that God does not exist.
I do realize that this OP is mainly to examine discussions of the existence of "God", a topic which is immensely important to theists but only marginally (*yawn*) to atheists.
Yes, I agree.
I don't find it important, but I do find it interesting.
Just like when I play video games - I don't find them important, but I do find them interesting.
In this topic, I wanted to explore the claim "I know God does not exist" and see how valid it was. Turns out, almost 3000 messages in, I still find the claim to be sufficient for how I understand the word "know" to be used for basically everything else in life.
Sometimes there's rebuttals like "you don't know God doesn't exist - prove it!" And I don't think there's any reason to run away from such a challenge.
The proof is the same for proving all other negatives - the complete lack of evidence to be found after over-reasonably searching for such evidence.
It then becomes a "standing theory" to "know God doesn't exist" just as we know all sorts of other imagination-only things don't exist.
The "possibility for being wrong" about knowing such a thing is exactly the same for all other things we also "know" - that the current standing theory is based on solid facts and knowledge, and it can be completely and immediately overturned by any identified evidence to the contrary in the future. Of course, if such a future never happens... then the current standing theory grows stronger and stronger...