God does nor exist nor do gods exist!

Post Reply New Topic

So is the claim that the universe was created by a giant purple earwig:



The issue is the matter of a deity, not that of an afterlife. It is easy to prove that an afterlife is a foolish notion.

How easily does that proof coexist with the evidence for ghosts?

And with the easily proved impossibility of an end point to experienced time? Because the happening of any time instant is a change into a resultant state, the state where that instant's events have happened, but this resultant state itself is another later instant?

1. You're using cognates in language to say that the two are the same difference. My main issue with that is that you won't find me a single lexicon or concordance that will render the literal meaning of elohim that way. I'm basing my own understanding of it from concordances like Smith's, Thayer and Vine's, Strong's, etc. so I'd like to see if you have a decent source of your own.

2. The entire OT goes out to establish that this is a culture of people whose most prominent literature is vehemently against syncretism. Every example of syncretism is bemoaned and you expect us to believe your interpretation? You're trying to insert ideas into and draw comparisons from a polytheistic to a monotheistic religion.

God?

I don't believe there is -
A being significantly more powerful than us (humans),
That is significantly interested in us.


That leaves just us with the responsibility for everything in our *area, without ANY indication of a SafetyNet in case we f*ck up or give up this responsibility.
No one has Given us this responsibility, no one will apparently do anything about how we handle it.

We will either continue as a species, or die.
Possibly everything else local as well, more or less.

To live, it is clear we must solve our own problems. All of them.



*which kinda makes us the gods, therefore gods do exist.

wut?


btw, Persimmonpudding, love that bit about ..

"My kindly lord that rules over water."

Which tends to support my own view that this tale might have been descended from an ancient ruler who engineered an irrigation system that was relatively advanced for the time.

That's brilliant and insightful, unfortunately it was also Open-Minded which means you're a HERETIC!!!11!1

The only problem with that is that however brilliant and insightful it seems, in the real world facts matter and he doesn't seem to be in agreement with the majority of linguistic scholars. Some of his grammatical observations weren't even correct, let alone his definitions.

The existence of God (the uncaused First Cause) can be proved to be a logical necessity by the observation of the physical Universe and its operation (science) and simple and inevitable deduction.

It's a fact that's been known and well understood for millennia by astute observers and rational thinkers.

It was defined as an article of Faith at the First Vatican Council in the statement (as I recall off the top of my head) "If anyone shall say that the existence of God cannot be known with certainty by the light of natural reason alone... anathema sit". (Anathema sit means colloquially "you are dead wrong and not one of us").

I am astonished at the arrogance and ignorance of contemporary Materialism.

Perhaps that will be enough to get this thread locked too.

FIrstly the previous thread was locked because you broke the rules regarding personal attacks. Secondly I am astonished by your simple assertion that because we do not understand the nature of causation in relation to the universe/universes,you automatically ascribe A priori the existence of a creator God. The arrogance does not lie with those who as a starting point look for a naturalistic cause, rather it lies with those who by demanding the existence of a creator God effectively say "we know all there is to know". Not only this but people who hold this view also claim, once again A priori to know what lies beyond the Universe, which to my mind is positively ridiculous.

If, as the religious believe there is matter of some kind beyond our universe, then it is more than reasonable to dismiss the idea of an all powerful god for non mystical forces of causation.

To ridicule a point of view does not constitute a "personal attack" unless you are the one on thin ice whose backup of fashionable opinions to use as a bludgeon is found inadequate.

It's Materialists who pretentiously claim they know "all there is to know". If you think you know all there is to know I'll be happy to start a new thread and thrash it to death.

Perhaps you missed the post that said I'm not new to this argument. I have been arguing with Materialists ever since I argued myself out of that dungeon.

I agree totally with that. But you do not limit yourself to ridiculing a point of view.

I would dispute the colour - more of a reddish ochre.

Oh, great. Now, we're going to have the purple earwiggers and the red earwiggers, and it's all going to turn into a stinking holy war. Mark my words! The blood will be on YOUR hands!

Maybe a better way to phrase this would be "for me God does not exist" To assume that you are all knowing is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

I disagree.

A) If there were a deity, there would be nothing that I could do to stop that deity from existing, whether or not I found that deity to be agreeable.

B) If there be no deity at all, then there is no amount of wishful thinking that could cause such a thing to exist.

C) There is no more proof for a deity that demands your belief than there is for a deity that demands your disbelief. In fact, considering how convincingly the world has been "crafted" to look very much like it must be billions of years old, I could almost say that I would rather go on being convinced of the "illusion" to keep from insulting the artist! Perhaps those of us who obediently follow what empirical evidence has to tell us, rather than superimposing our own ideals, are the real "chosen people." There is plenty of evidence for this in the world: most countries where "belief in a supreme being" is relatively low tend to do fairly well. Surely, atheists must have divine favor!

D) And nor is there anymore or any less proof for a deity that gives EVERYBODY the same afterlife but maybe groups like-minded people together, so all the people who value power and force have to deal with each other for eternity and all us relatively tolerant people have to spend eternity hanging out with other tolerant people. The evidence for such constructs is equivalent to any other deity that could be named.

E) I could also believe that, if there were any REAL divine being of any kind, then her wrath would surely be aimed at those who argue needlessly with those to whom evidence and syllogisms have no meaning. Therefore, just to be careful, I will just nod agreeably from this point on unless you are saying something either racist or homophobic, and we'll figure the rest out later.



Yes, the last one was it. All hail Her Pinkess! Blessed be her Holy Hooves!

Every religious person is an atheist.

The majority of religions believe that only they have the goods on God, god or the gods. And even the anti-religious who believe in the supernatural think the same thing - only they have the truth about the gods. Regardless of the existence of god question itself, the elephant in the room is that each disagrees with the other on who or what the true deity or deities is or are.

Oh yes, they can be ecumenically polite and tolerant to the point of high-fives and backslaps, but the moment the back is turned, the reality is, the other guy is lost because he believes in the wrong deity.

I can imagine the cartoon.
Frame one: "Hello again, Yusef." "Hello again, Paul." Smiles and hugs.
Frame two: Each looking away, and each with the same thought bubble, "What a fool."

There is something in the order of 2,500 gods in the current beliefs around the world. It does not surprise me that the human imagination can invent such a rich tapestry of supernatural topography.

Yet, every one of you who believes in a god or gods is an atheist to all of those gods but your own.

You missed (or artfully dodged) the point. I repeat:
[quote=ODD]The existence of God (the uncaused First Cause) can be proved to be a logical necessity by the observation of the physical Universe and its operation (science) and simple and inevitable deduction.

It's a fact that's been known and well understood for millennia by astute observers and rational thinkers.

It was defined as an article of Faith at the First Vatican Council in the statement (as I recall off the top of my head) "If anyone shall say that the existence of God cannot be known with certainty by the light of natural reason alone... anathema sit". (Anathema sit means colloquially "you are dead wrong and not one of us").

I am astonished at the arrogance and ignorance of contemporary Materialism. [/quote]
I am arguing that God (the uncaused First Cause) is a logical and scientific necessity to the existence of anything and everything that is changeable. Only after that is established can we begin to argue about His shape, size, personality etc.

I am directly opposing and contradicting the thread title and opening post.

I will add further that Materialism is a superstitious ideology that cannot be justified by any honest observation of reality.

I can't make the quote box work for some reason.