[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy

1) Go read those grimoires.
2) Go act on those grimoires.

There ya go. Come back when you've done that and I'll give you step 3.

I'll consider doing it, but you've got to play along as well. So, you're the scientist now. You're objective is performing an experiment and recording the results. From that you make a logical conclusion. So, once again, what's the entire procedure? The reason I ask is because I want to make sure I don't waste several hours of my life on a completely flawed experiment.

Edit: saw your addition:

Dude, I presented you with the information. If you choose to ignore that information then that's your problem. I don't give a toss either way, but if you choose to ignore the information presented then you forfeit the right to call anyone (including conservatives) "ignorant".

See above. I'm willing to give you a chance, I'm just asking that you do the same with me.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I'll consider doing it, but you've got to play along as well. So, you're the scientist now. You're objective is performing an experiment and recording the results. From that you make a logical conclusion. So, once again, what's the entire procedure? The reason I ask is because I want to make sure I don't waste several hours of my life on a completely flawed experiment.

Well, since the minimum time frame for one of the required activities in those grimoires is six months, I believe your "several hours" is a bit optimistic.

Step three can't be explained to you until you've done one and two, after which it will make itself clear to you. Get to it.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Step three can't be explained to you until you've done one and two, after which it will make itself clear to you. Get to it.

I'm sorry to inform you that that is not how scientific experiments work. That only happens when you are performing an experiment on a test subject. The test subject is told to do something and they normally do not know the real reasoning behind everything, so as to make sure there is no bias in the experiment. You can't screw up the results if you don't know what they're testing in other words.

Here we have something different. I am not a "test subject". In this case we are both scientists. We are trying to explain something. We're trying to answer a question that we have, called a hypothesis. In this case, it is essential for us to come up with an experiment that is in no way flawed, and that will allow us to answer the question we have.

I'm just about through with you here but I'm going to try and understand why you think you have a scientific experiment, when so far you have only shown me that you do not.

Please, state the hypothesis we are testing.

Next, please state how we are going to test it. This means you're going to tell me every single step, so that I can verify your experiment is not as stupid as it sounds. Then, if you feel that your experiment involves getting test subjects to perform the experiment on (i.e. have them read these grimoires you're advocating), we can see about getting them.

Now, if you are unable to comply with these requests, it means you admit you have no experiment. You're then just a little kid that's saying: "hey! Guess what, I have a great secret, and I won't tell you the answer until you pay me $5!"

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Moderator

We need to stop arguing with these monkeys right now. We're trying to use reason to debate passionate ideology and ignorance. It can't be done. I propose that we use this forum simply for spreading relavant news, and maybe for discussing amongst ourselves...but no longer for bickering...it just plays into their hands.

We try to lower ourselves in order to argue at their level..but what is the result? We simply make a mockery of that which we defend. We are hurting our cause and doing our part to stifle progress by allowing the ignorant masses to define the debate.

We are dealing with people who value the comfort of dogma over the uncertainties of understanding. They hold this false nostalga for a yesteryear that never existed. Progress scares them. Why argue? They will kick and scream the whole way...lets just keep moving forward..they'll come around eventually...as they always do.

I'm going to do my best, starting this moment.

------------

Moderator, this coming from someone that posts FUD, and flames and writes outlandish "conspiracy theories" and then gets upset when we make fun of you for it.

Stop the crap and you'll probably get a long better with people in here.

BTW, to BE progressive you have to show some progress. From what I see from people that call themselves "Progressive" isn't progress. Just a bunch of whining.

Progressive is just a buzz-word used by people that want to project a ideal of "forward thinking"

Which is just more bullshit.

[davesimondotcom]

If there were really a scientific way of proving the existence of God, would there be any debate whether there was a God?

It's not like we debate the existence of gravity.

God is something you believe in, have faith in. But you can't PROVE that God exists.

Like I said, women are simultaneous proof that God does and does not exist.

[ebuddy]

... still calling all progressives...

[The Left]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

If there were really a scientific way of proving the existence of God, would there be any debate whether there was a God?

It's not like we debate the existence of gravity.

God is something you believe in, have faith in. But you can't PROVE that God exists.

Like I said, women are simultaneous proof that God does and does not exist.

Not the point.

People who "believe" in a "god" are fools looking for something to cover up their own ignorance with rituals of "faith" so they have something "productive" in their life they can look forward to.

Spare me those fools.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by The Left

Not the point.

People who "believe" in a "god" are fools looking for something to cover up their own ignorance with rituals of "faith" so they have something "productive" in their life they can look forward to.

Spare me those fools.

I hope someone from the forum made this account to make fun of the leftists that think this way.

But I have a feeling it's just another insecure ignoramous running his mouth.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I hope someone from the forum made this account to make fun of the leftists that think this way.

But I have a feeling it's just another insecure ignoramous running his mouth.

this thread specifically is for those of us on the left. It is not to appreciated to have the comments of those who believe in "god". Go pray or something.

[Kevin]

Ah I see, it was the latter.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by osiris

Okay. I will.

right.

[Doofy]

It's real easy, leftie dudes. I've just given you the tools so you can go see whether God actually exists or not, no faith involved. Yet you won't pick those tools up, you try to wheedle your way out of it and expect someone else to do it for you.

It's like OS X. If you're a Windows user and you've never experienced OS X, you're going to ask yourself why you would want to bother. Nobody can tell you how good it is - you have to experience it for yourselves before you realise the difference.

It's like that with proving that God exists (without faith). You have to go do it yourself because nobody can do it for you.

So, until you pick those tools up, you lefties have simply proven that you're the closed-minded bigots.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yep. You'll get the same results I did. That's because it's a science, not an art.



You have to do it for yourself. It's a bit like losing your virginity - nobody else can do it for you.

So, off you trot, get to it. You'll have your results in about ten years if you're dedicated.

10? I'd say closer to 5-6, if a person is dedicated and gets a good mentor. It's a lot harder if you go it on your own.

[Dakar]

What's a grimoire?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doofy

It's real easy, leftie dudes. I've just given you the tools so you can go see whether God actually exists or not, no faith involved. Yet you won't pick those tools up, you try to wheedle your way out of it and expect someone else to do it for you.

It's like OS X. If you're a Windows user and you've never experienced OS X, you're going to ask yourself why you would want to bother. Nobody can tell you how good it is - you have to experience it for yourselves before you realise the difference.

It's like that with proving that God exists (without faith). You have to go do it yourself because nobody can do it for you.

So, until you pick those tools up, you lefties have simply proven that you're the closed-minded bigots.

I made a similar offer over a year ago, but they wouldn't try it. *shrug*


Them: "Show me!"

Me: "Ok, here."

Them: "I don't wanna do that!"

Me: "Well, then you'll likely never know, willl you?"

Them: "It's crap anyway!"

Me: "And you decided this without any knowledge or personal experience? That's all I needed to hear."

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dakar

What's a grimoire?

I think Doofy provided a link for you.

Granted, it's not my preferred system (I'm an Enochian junky), but it does work.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

10? I'd say closer to 5-6, if a person is dedicated and gets a good mentor. It's a lot harder if you go it on your own.

Dude, they're lefties, so it's not like they're operating with the sharpest intellect.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

I think Doofy provided a link for you.

Sorry, apparently I hadn't scrolled far enough up that page.

Weird stuff.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Dude, they're lefties, so it's not like they're operating with the sharpest intellect.

Oh, come now, Sarra is a Greenie/Populist and is cutting a swath through the Abramelin operation variant that I designed for her. We don't agree on politics, but she's undoubtedly sharp as a tack.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Oh, come now, Sarra is a Greenie/Populist and is cutting a swath through the Abramelin operation variant that I designed for her. We don't agree on politics, but she's undoubtedly sharp as a tack.

That's a whole other discussion*.

(* i.e. "What is the apparent outward nature of centrist/conservative women?").

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy

It's real easy, leftie dudes. I've just given you the tools so you can go see whether God actually exists or not, no faith involved. Yet you won't pick those tools up, you try to wheedle your way out of it and expect someone else to do it for you.

It's like OS X. If you're a Windows user and you've never experienced OS X, you're going to ask yourself why you would want to bother. Nobody can tell you how good it is - you have to experience it for yourselves before you realise the difference.

It's like that with proving that God exists (without faith). You have to go do it yourself because nobody can do it for you.

So, until you pick those tools up, you lefties have simply proven that you're the closed-minded bigots.

Ok, so we've established that whatever proof you have, it's definitely not scientific.

Now that you've dropped that, you're moving onto something more obscure. OS X versus XP is a matter of taste. It's saying that something's "better" than something else. That's completely different from proving that something simply exists.


Here. I'll help you out since you obviously seem in need of it. You're arguing like a 5 year old for crying out loud.


What does the Bible say? It says that God is a Man-like figure, probably with a beard, that lives up in the sky. Now, normally when I go about proving that something exists, to another human that can see, I say, "look at that". Or, say you can't see it, for example, magnetic fields. Then I point and say: "look at the effect it has".

I'm guessing your "proof" is of the latter type. In the case of magnetic fields, the effect is predictable and always the same. In the case of "God", the effect is not predictable, because "His" actions are not predictable. He is, after all, supposedly intelligent, and he can do whatever he wants.

So it's rather difficult to prove that God, as is described by Christianity, exists. If you see a tree blowing in the wind, is that God blowing on it? Or is it simply the natural forces that already exist in place? The natural forces all obey the laws of physics, so they are all predictable, but God is not predictable.

So if you want to prove that he exists, and you want to be sure about it, you have only one method of doing so. And only one.

One of the main ideas in the Bible is that this God created everything, including the physical laws of nature. Therein we are given the method of proof: simply find something that does not obey the laws of physics.

If you see a man walking around (and you're mentally stable), and suddenly he waves his hand and a flying carpet appears under his feet out of nowhere, then you've found the Christian God. Here's a more common example, given to us from the Bible: if you see a man take some water, and without touching or modifying the water in any way, turn it into whine, then you've found God.

Now, you'll have to be real astute in your observations because I've frequently seen magicians do things that appear to defy the laws of physics (when in reality they're simply using those laws better than most of us can).

That's the only way you can prove such a being exists. I look forward to seeing this proof.

[RAILhead]

Late to the party, but one thing people always seem to forget about God is that He designed His character and identity in such as way as to be "unprovable." If one had to have "proof" to believe and have faith in Him, what good would faith be?

More pointedly, He reveals Himself to man through His creations and their wonder/majesty/detail, etc., and He reveals Himself through His children, who are hopefully living life in such a way so others can see the love of Christ emanating from them.

My family members never had to prove that they love me. My wife and friends never proved they loved me. I just know they do because of the relationship I have with them. So it is with God, through Jesus.

[RAILhead]

dadgum database

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Late to the party, but one thing people always seem to forget about God is that He designed His character and identity in such as way as to be "unprovable." If one had to have "proof" to believe and have faith in Him, what good would faith be?

which is one reason why many of these systems were outlawed by the Church, and perhaps for good reason.

I had no faith, still don't, I simply have personal proof... and honestly, sometimes I wish I'd just taken things on faith.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by itistoday

That's the only way you can prove such a being exists. I look forward to seeing this proof.

No, it isn't. There are some things that take time and work before they're revealed to you (there are exceptions). Society, in general, is simply too near-sighted to see it.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Late to the party, but one thing people always seem to forget about God is that He designed His character and identity in such as way as to be "unprovable." If one had to have "proof" to believe and have faith in Him, what good would faith be?

More pointedly, He reveals Himself to man through His creations and their wonder/majesty/detail, etc., and He reveals Himself through His children, who are hopefully living life in such a way so others can see the love of Christ emanating from them.

RAILhead, welcome back. This is kinda what I'm trying to explain to Doofy, except I don't believe in a Christian God, nor most of the things the Bible says. Doofy, however, is kinda, well, doofy-in-the-head, and thinks he has a "proof" of God's existence. He's really just kidding himself because he really doesn't.

My family members never had to prove that they love me. My wife and friends never proved they loved me. I just know they do because of the relationship I have with them. So it is with God, through Jesus.

Heh, here you go again saying more silly things.

Your family did have to prove to you that they loved you. That's a fact. There are many children out there whose parents proved to them that they did not love them, and those people usually turn out to be rather bitter people. Not all parents love or care for their children, and so those that do show this by expressing their love by taking good care of them.

God, on the other hand, was pounded into you through years of brainwashing and because you grew up in an environment that really hammered the idea into you. And because God is neither provable nor disprovable by nature, you continue to "believe" in him. You know what would have happened had your parents, siblings, and friends continued to believe in the Easter Bunny? You would believe in it to this day.

There is no reason you should not believe in all the Gods as advocated by 99% of the religions that have existed in humanity's course. You sir, are not a man of faith, because if you really were, then you'd believe in Zeus, in Jupiter (the God), in Quezacotyl, in the Easter Bunny, and in all things inherently neither provable nor disprovable.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No, it isn't. There are some things that take time and work before they're revealed to you (there are exceptions). Society, in general, is simply too near-sighted to see it.

Again you speak like an egyptian soothsayer. Actually, I take that back. You speak more like a 3rd grader, "Na-ah! No it isn't! You're wrong!". You don't actually explain your reasoning, because you haven't got any.

[Shaddim]

Indulge me for a second.

Imagine, if you will, that you've lived in complete darkness all your life. True, it's the environment that you've always known, so it would be normal. You're guided by smell, touch, and hearing, and these senses dictate the way you interact with the world around you. Plus, everyone that you know is the same way, so there's no concept of sight, it simply doesn't exist.

Then, one day, something turns the light on. This would be amazing, spectacular, and even frightening... but then you soon realize something, the lights aren't "on" for other people.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Ok, so we've established that whatever proof you have, it's definitely not scientific.

See my original post on the subject. Notice the quotation marks around the word "scientific".

Originally Posted by itistoday

Now that you've dropped that, you're moving onto something more obscure. OS X versus XP is a matter of taste. It's saying that something's "better" than something else. That's completely different from proving that something simply exists.

Since this is a Mac board, I would have though that most people would have known what I was on about - that in order to see something (like the elegance and simplicity in OS X's interface) you have to do it for yourself.

Originally Posted by itistoday

What does the Bible say? It says that God is a Man-like figure, probably with a beard, that lives up in the sky.

It does? Want to quote me chapter and verse where it says that? I must have missed that bit.

Originally Posted by itistoday

Now, normally when I go about proving that something exists, to another human that can see, I say, "look at that". Or, say you can't see it, for example, magnetic fields. Then I point and say: "look at the effect it has".

I'm guessing your "proof" is of the latter type.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by itistoday

So it's rather difficult to prove that God, as is described by Christianity, exists.

So if you want to prove that he exists, and you want to be sure about it, you have only one method of doing so. And only one.

Nope. I've pointed you to another way. But you won't do it because you'd rather remain ignorant.

Originally Posted by itistoday

One of the main ideas in the Bible is that this God created everything, including the physical laws of nature. Therein we are given the method of proof: simply find something that does not obey the laws of physics.

Plenty of those knocking around if you know where to look.

Originally Posted by itistoday

Now, you'll have to be real astute in your observations because I've frequently seen magicians do things that appear to defy the laws of physics (when in reality they're simply using those laws better than most of us can).

You're aware that we're not talking about David Blaine, right? You've frequently seen magicians doing things?

Originally Posted by itistoday

That's the only way you can prove such a being exists. I look forward to seeing this proof.

Like I said, you have to do it for yourself. Get to it.

[dcmacdaddy]

MacNNstein, you've been speaking in parables and metaphors for quite a while now regarding this subject of "proof of God". Could you please provide some specifics as to how the way you have advocated works--which can take 10 years, by your own admission--and what specific actions the student does during this course of study? If you can't/won't provide this information, why not?

Again, I am talking specifics here.
Do you read certain books? perform physical activities, like yoga or meditation?
How does one progress through the stages of knowledge--I am assuming there are stages--to gain an advanced understanding of the proof of God using the method you advocate?
How does one test and verify their evidence for the proof?
Who are the outside authorities that can validate the observations and claims made as proof?
Do similar groups have proofs that can be used as a comparison? Who validates those proofs as accurate?


Some more information abotu your methodology and system for obtaining this "proof of God" would be appreciated.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Again you speak like an egyptian soothsayer. Actually, I take that back. You speak more like a 3rd grader, "Na-ah! No it isn't! You're wrong!". You don't actually explain your reasoning, because you haven't got any.

What do you want to know? That there are things right in front of your nose that you've never seen before? That there are certain beings that can be invoked to materialization? That after while, you don't even need to invoke them anymore, they can be seen by will alone? That it takes a part of you that you've likely never tred to contact in your life? That almost anyone can learn this? That some rare people don't need to learn it, they just come by it naturally?

No, you're probably not ready for that, it doesn't fit your vanilla world, much like most other people. Get back on your head.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Heh, here you go again saying more silly things.

Your family did have to prove to you that they loved you. That's a fact. There are many children out there whose parents proved to them that they did not love them, and those people usually turn out to be rather bitter people. Not all parents love or care for their children, and so those that do show this by expressing their love by taking good care of them.

God, on the other hand, was pounded into you through years of brainwashing and because you grew up in an environment that really hammered the idea into you. And because God is neither provable nor disprovable by nature, you continue to "believe" in him. You know what would have happened had your parents, siblings, and friends continued to believe in the Easter Bunny? You would believe in it to this day.

There is no reason you should not believe in all the Gods as advocated by 99% of the religions that have existed in humanity's course. You sir, are not a man of faith, because if you really were, then you'd believe in Zeus, in Jupiter (the God), in Quezacotyl, in the Easter Bunny, and in all things inherently neither provable nor disprovable.

Curious. On what do you base your comment that God was "pounded into" me? Brainwashing? Hammered?

Again, you miss my point because you're being, quite simply, a jackass know-it-all. For if you would have read my post, you wouldn't post such tripe. But I'll repeat it one last time:

God's love cannot be proved any more than a family or friend's love. You can't bottle it, measure it with a ruler, test it for a chemical makeup. I can merely tell you that, as best as I understand it, my family "loves" me. You may look at my family and question our love based on how you understand "love" — and I may do the same to you. Regardless, I know what I know and you know what you know based on our understanding of what we think and/or feel "love" is.

Am I right? Are you right? Yes.

So, like I said, it is with God and Jesus. We know Jesus was "real" and He walked among us. We know Who He claimed to be and What He claimed to be. We know He was crucified like most criminals of the day, and many of us believe that God raised Him from the dead to "prove" that Jesus really was Who He said He was.

2000+ years later, because f the life I have lead and the experiences I have had — both personally and those of friends and family — I has seen "evidence" of God's power, love, mercy, and faithfulness. Simple as that. I know what it's like to hit bottom and understand that all men have fallen short of the glory of God and that no man comes to the Father but through jesus, and that with a good heart a man can lead a righteous life, but with his mouth he confesses that Jesus is Lord, resulting in salvation. I know what it's like to experience God's love, mercy, and salvation.

I don't expect you to understand it. No one ever said you, or anyone else, should. No one ever said I should convince you of this. Rather, the Bible tells me to live like Jesus, following His commandments and lead, and by doing so, my changed life will impact those around me and I will be a witness to His love. Do I succeed in this? More often than not, no. But that is my calling, that is my "job."

I'm not here to convince anyone that God exists, I'm here to have a personal relationship with God Almighty. Maybe, just maybe, I'll walk close enough to Him to impact someone else, and I'll have an opportunity to share what Christ has done in my life — and I have done that before, several times.

But as I said, I can't expect you to understand this simply because you are, as Scripture says, "blind." YOu look at me and pity me because you think I'm "brainwashed" or whatever. I look at you and have pity because you are so utterly lost without Christ and have no idea of what true living really is.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

MacNNstein, you've been speaking in parables and metaphors for quite a while now regarding this subject of "proof of God". Could you please provide some specifics as to how the way you have advocated works--which can take 10 years, by your own admission--and what specific actions the student does during this course of study? If you can't/won't provide this information, why not?

Again, I am talking specifics here.
Do you read certain books? perform physical activities, like yoga or meditation?
How does one progress through the stages of knowledge--I am assuming there are stages--to gain an advanced understanding of the proof of God using the method you advocate?
How does one test and verify their evidence for the proof?
Who are the outside authorities that can validate the observations and claims made as proof?
Do similar groups have proofs that can be used as a comparison? Who validates those proofs as accurate?


Some more information abotu your methodology and system for obtaining this "proof of God" would be appreciated.

It's not something where I would point to a book and say "read this and you'll understand". My best advice would be to check out your local chapter of the OTO, ask questions, interact with them, go to some of their functions, etc.. They're just about everywhere, and most are great people to get to know.

edit:

Do I read certain books? As in, do the books themselves help a person achieve a certain state? No, not at all. Though, ritual magic is very well documented, and certain works are invaluable for study, the change occurs in the person.

Yes, I meditate, a minimum of 1 hour a day, sometimes more for various reasons.

Once you encounter the system, you'll understand the progression. Plus, it varies from person to person.

How does one test and verify their evidence for the proof? I don't know, how does one verify the evidence of the color yellow? It's pretty obvious.

It's interesting that you bring up the subject of "outside authorities", it's funny how the meaning of that phrase changes after being in this type of study. After a while, you understand that people are the real outsiders, and you become closer to the things you've discovered.

Go look up your local OTO, tell them what you're looking for. Make contact with them.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

It's not something where I would point to a book and say "read this and you'll understand". My best advice would be to check out your local chapter of the OTO, ask questions, interact with them, go to some of their functions, etc.. They're just about everywhere, and most are great people to get to know.

What is the OTO and how does going to their functions and getting to know them assist in delineating a methodology for proving the existence of God? I am asking this not because I am interested in undertaking any such practices but rather to investigate assertions made by you, and I think Doofy, that there is a way to prove the existence of God. So, how can going to meetings of some group I have never heard of be part of the methodology for proving the existence of God?

If your proof cannot be articulated in method and procedures that conform to the precepts of "proof" as outlined in western scientific and mathematical practice (can be conducted and reproduced by others under similar conditions) please say so. Because then this would not be a proof but rather a belief. And there is nothing wrong with that. But, as you and Doofy have been so vocal in advocating for a proof of God's existence, I was hoping to see/hear/read about a proof and not something else that requires faith. Thanks!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Doofy

That's a whole other discussion*.

(* i.e. "What is the apparent outward nature of centrist/conservative women?").

Speaking of that, I wonder if a person's conservatism or liberalism can be picked up from demeanor. And demeanor only.

A person's clothing and grooming and etc. give outward clues to a person's political philosophy. But, I wonder if just looking at a person's FACE in a video, with an emphasis on the eyes and their expressions, could help determine that person's political orientation.

If anyone wants to continue this line of thought let's start a new thread. You can do it or let me know and I will.

I don't wanna derail this one. I know Mac was irked at the way I jerked the other thread on Masculine/Feminine religious energies out from under him and a few others.

Sorry.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

What is the OTO and how does going to their functions and getting to know them assist in delineating a methodology for proving the existence of God? I am asking this not because I am interested in undertaking any such practices but rather to investigate assertions made by you, and I think Doofy, that there is a way to prove the existence of God. So, how can going to meetings of some group I have never heard of be part of the methodology for proving the existence of God?

If your proof cannot be articulated in method and procedures that conform to the precepts of "proof" as outlined in western scientific and mathematical practice (can be conducted and reproduced by others under similar conditions) please say so. Because then this would not be a proof but rather a belief. And there is nothing wrong with that. But, as you and Doofy have been so vocal in advocating for a proof of God's existence, I was hoping to see/hear/read about a proof and not something else that requires faith. Thanks!

Current western scientific and mathematical practice is a joke, and covers much less than most people can imagine.

Find your local OTO, join them, study with them, you'll find those answers.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

If your proof cannot be articulated in method and procedures that conform to the precepts of "proof" as outlined in western scientific and mathematical practice (can be conducted and reproduced by others under similar conditions) please say so. Because then this would not be a proof but rather a belief. And there is nothing wrong with that. But, as you and Doofy have been so vocal in advocating for a proof of God's existence, I was hoping to see/hear/read about a proof and not something else that requires faith. Thanks!

The proof isn't really something which can be measured from the same viewpoints as western scientific and mathematical practices. It's a repeatable proof which doesn't require faith, but you simply won't be able to understand it until your mind has been trained/conditioned to perceive what it is you're seeing.

As MacNStein states, it's like opening your eyes for the first time. If your eyes aren't open, you won't see the proof, so you first have to open them.
Look at it this way: In your state of blindness you think it's a radio playing in the room. When your eyes are opened, you see it's actually a TV with a bunch of music videos on it. You'll see the TV as clear as day. How do you describe what a TV is to those with no concept of vision? You can't say it's a box displaying moving pictures, because what's a picture? You can't describe a picture as something you look at, because what's "looking"? You have to open your eyes and experience vision for yourself - nobody can describe it to you.

If you don't require proof, it's much easier just to pop down to your local church. But if you need that proof, you can find it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doofy

The proof isn't really something which can be measured from the same viewpoints as western scientific and mathematical practices. It's a repeatable proof which doesn't require faith, but you simply won't be able to understand it until your mind has been trained/conditioned to perceive what it is you're seeing.

As MacNStein states, it's like opening your eyes for the first time. If your eyes aren't open, you won't see the proof, so you first have to open them.
Look at it this way: In your state of blindness you think it's a radio playing in the room. When your eyes are opened, you see it's actually a TV with a bunch of music videos on it. You'll see the TV as clear as day. How do you describe what a TV is to those with no concept of vision? You can't say it's a box displaying moving pictures, because what's a picture? You can't describe a picture as something you look at, because what's "looking"? You have to open your eyes and experience vision for yourself - nobody can describe it to you.

Exactly. That's just about the size of it.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Current western scientific and mathematical practice is a joke, and covers much less than most people can imagine.

Find your local OTO, join them, study with them, you'll find those answers.

OK. You don't have a "proof" by the generally accepted standards of that term as it is used nowadays. That's fine. But I will demur in joining the Ordo Templi. Like I said, I am not interested in undertaking their practices but rather in understanding the methodology of their practices. But if I have to practice to understand the method I am not interested. Thanks for all the replies though. This has been interesting.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Speaking of that, I wonder if a person's conservatism or liberalism can be picked up from demeanor. And demeanor only.

A person's clothing and grooming and etc. give outward clues to a person's political philosophy. But, I wonder if just looking at a person's FACE in a video, with an emphasis on the eyes and their expressions, could help determine that person's political orientation.

If anyone wants to continue this line of thought let's start a new thread. You can do it or let me know and I will.

That'd be worth talking about for a while. Go for it.

[Dakar]

I don't see how you could be impartial about it -- it all depends on what moment you decide to capture it.

Anyway, I think the conclusion has already been made to a certain degree -- conservatives (Or is it republicans) report a higher degree of personal contentment than their political counterparts.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

OK. You don't have a "proof" by the generally accepted standards of that term as it is used nowadays. That's fine. But I will demur in joining the Ordo Templi. Like I said, I am not interested in undertaking their practices but rather in understanding the methodology of their practices. But if I have to practice to understand the method I am not interested.

You can gain a certain amount of understanding by simply reading the books without practising. You won't find your proof of God that way but you'll perhaps gain something of an insight into the methodology. But again, it's not something which can be described here, since it'll require a huge amount of reading before it all starts to sink in.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

What do you want to know? That there are things right in front of your nose that you've never seen before? That there are certain beings that can be invoked to materialization? That after while, you don't even need to invoke them anymore, they can be seen by will alone? That it takes a part of you that you've likely never tred to contact in your life? That almost anyone can learn this? That some rare people don't need to learn it, they just come by it naturally?

No, you're probably not ready for that, it doesn't fit your vanilla world, much like most other people. Get back on your head.

Woah, MacNStein, I wish you had told me in our previous conversations that I was speaking to an "enlightened christian" (oh boy, if there was ever an oxymoron...), that way I would have known to address you in the appropriate manner. From now on I won't make that mistake, Your Holiness.

Anyways, we've got some juicy stuff here:

• "That there are certain beings that can be invoked to materialization?"
• "Though, ritual magic is very well documented, and certain works are invaluable for study"
• "Current western scientific and mathematical practice is a joke, and covers much less than most people can imagine."

I've got a little village in Africa that I can recommend to you for expanding your magical powers.

In other news, aberdeenwriter has suggested a phenomenal topic for discussion as usual. Yes aberdeenwriter, I am interested as to whether somebody's FACE can be used to tell their political leanings. Can you imagine the ruckus this would cause if politicians found out? It'd be like another Holocaust!

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Anyway, I think the conclusion has already been made to a certain degree -- conservatives (Or is it republicans) report a higher degree of personal contentment than their political counterparts.

Well we already knew ignorance is bliss. How is that news?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Woah, MacNStein, I wish you had told me in our previous conversations that I was speaking to an "enlightened christian" (oh boy, if there was ever an oxymoron...), that way I would have known to address you in the appropriate manner. From now on I won't make that mistake, Your Holiness.

Anyways, we've got some juicy stuff here:

I've got a little village in Africa that I can recommend to you for expanding your magical powers.

In other news, aberdeenwriter has suggested a phenomenal topic for discussion as usual. Yes aberdeenwriter, I am interested as to whether somebody's FACE can be used to tell their political leanings. Can you imagine the ruckus this would cause if politicians found out? It'd be like another Holocaust!

I'm not Christian (how many times have I explained that?), and I'm not "enlightened", though I am working on it, like most other people who realize that there's something more.

I have to say your tone is typical, and it's probably my fault, given that it's what I've come to expect from people of your type.

Again, carry on, back on your head.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

I'm not Christian (how many times have I explained that?), and I'm not "enlightened", though I am working on it, like most other people who realize that there's something more.

Oh... wait. I must've missed this. You're not Christian? Hmm... and you also believe in magic. So what are you if you don't mind me asking?

[Dakar]

He'd be considered an Occultist, from what I remember.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

OK. You don't have a "proof" by the generally accepted standards of that term as it is used nowadays. That's fine. But I will demur in joining the Ordo Templi. Like I said, I am not interested in undertaking their practices but rather in understanding the methodology of their practices. But if I have to practice to understand the method I am not interested. Thanks for all the replies though. This has been interesting.

They usually don't require a commitment from you at first, usually you can just drop by and visit, view some of the rites, talk a little, etc.. It would be a good step, and probably would be rather eye-opening.

The limitations we've placed on ourselves for centuries can be unlearned.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

The limitations we've placed on ourselves for centuries can be unlearned.

Amen to that. You want real enlightenment? Read some of Alan Watts' stuff. I'm really not expecting any of you to do so, but if there's someone on this forum that doesn't consider me a close-minded moron, then I recommend this to you:

http://www.zenhell.com/GetEnlightene...s/contents.htm

Read the first chapter. You'll be hooked.

[The Left]

excellent link!