"Atheist proves god does exist"

[wynn]

If god is ever proved to exist I would suggest that it will proably be an atheist...

Howd'ya figure that out?

Because according to UD, 1. only atheists have no bias about God, and 2. only those who have no bias can find out the truth about something.


Of course, it is not clear how someone who has no bias would have any interest in anything either; and with no interest, how would they invest effort into proving something?

 

[wynn]

Is there a selective pondering process going on here?

Well, is there? You're not selective at all?

 

[wynn]

Praying and praising has failed so far to acquire evidence

Aww.

Praying and praising:

acquired evidence of success:

Of course, sometimes, it goes like this:

- but this is not yet proof that the original principle of praying and praising as such doesn't work!

 

[wynn]

C, What would this spell for the continuation of any form of praising as god will now be tangible and have his own methods, that do not necessarily relate to conventional wisdom?

God has got to have his own methods to begin with anyway.

 

[Jan Ardena]

gmilam

I don't know. I've found that different people mean different things by the word "god". It has a lot of baggage attached to it.

There is only one God.
People carry baggage.

To me, the universe is the only thing I think is worthy of the title. But I've found that referring to the universe as god just confuses people.

I think you have it the wrong way round.
The idea of the universe being God, is a confused one.

That's why, whenever anyone asks me if I believe in god, I ask them to define the word for me... Just to make sure we're on the same page.

We seldom are.

If you want a definition of God, then look in a scripture.
Anything else you concoct is your version.

jan.

 

[universaldistress]

I don't know. I've found that different people mean different things by the word "god". It has a lot of baggage attached to it.

To me, the universe is the only thing I think is worthy of the title. But I've found that referring to the universe as god just confuses people.

That's why, whenever anyone asks me if I believe in god, I ask them to define the word for me... Just to make sure we're on the same page.

We seldom are.

Don't mix scripture with logic. Scripture can be literal, non-literal and symbolic, metaphorical with nearly any meaning being able to be gleaned. If god is omnipotent then it holds that god is not just the creator but also the created as well?

 

[Rav]

I think you have it the wrong way round.
The idea of the universe being God, is a confused one.

Ever heard of Pantheism?

If you want a definition of God, then look in a scripture.
Anything else you concoct is your version.

How about Deism?

 

[universaldistress]

Because according to UD, 1. only atheists have no bias about God, and 2. only those who have no bias can find out the truth about something.


Of course, it is not clear how someone who has no bias would have any interest in anything either; and with no interest, how would they invest effort into proving something?

People with no bias have an interest in Everything, come on this is basic stuff.

Well, is there? You're not selective at all?

Could you specify the relevant selectivity I am employing please?

Aww.

Praying and praising:

acquired evidence of success:

Of course, sometimes, it goes like this:

- but this is not yet proof that the original principle of praying and praising as such doesn't work!

Praising and praying works from a psychological view like a placebo for the mind/body. No one is saying religious types do not find happiness in their bias. This success is not finding tested facts though ie the existence of god or not.

God has got to have his own methods to begin with anyway.

So what of scripture? Are most of the religions wrong or are all of them right. I could say that they are all right in their metaphorality (within an assumption god exists for argumental purposes) because god is adaptable. But can the practitioners?

praying does work. That doesnt mean god exists though

 

[universaldistress]

gmilam



There is only one God.
People carry baggage.



I think you have it the wrong way round.
The idea of the universe being God, is a confused one.




If you want a definition of God, then look in a scripture.
Anything else you concoct is your version.

jan.

Spoken like a true acolyte. Narrow the parameters to find the truth. Don't make me laugh . . . oh no I did LOL.

Who's using a concocted version. Who interpreted the text in your case? Who indeed wrote the text you interpret. So your whole understanding is based on an uncorroborated history, not testable fact/evidence.

 

[universaldistress]

Ever heard of Pantheism?



How about Deism?

Oh no, that doesn't fit in with my limited, blinkered viewpoint LOL.

On any other board in this site this thread would be closed down due to biased, nonsensical assumption?

 

[gmilam]

Don't mix scripture with logic. Scripture can be literal, non-literal and symbolic, metaphorical with nearly any meaning being able to be gleaned. If god is omnipotent then it holds that god is not just the creator but also the created as well?

I rest my case. I never said a word about any scripture. You carried that baggage on board all by yourself.

PS - It appears Jan was talking to me - sorry, I have Jan on ignore. (Well, no I'm not really sorry.)

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ever heard of Pantheism?



How about Deism?

Predictable, or what?

The scriptures hold that God is the original source, the supreme cause, the greatest, one without a second...

Pantheism, and Deism, falls within that. They are merely aspects of the whole.

There can only be one number one, everything is in relation to.
Even zero. Zero being the atheist position.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Spoken like a true acolyte. Narrow the parameters to find the truth. Don't make me laugh . . . oh no I did LOL.

Who's using a concocted version. Who interpreted the text in your case? Who indeed wrote the text you interpret. So your whole understanding is based on an uncorroborated history, not testable fact/evidence.

I'm not sure what you just said there.

But, if you are going to be serious, then we must use
proper definition.

Your whole premise is based on the idea that God is a mental concotion,
and therefore can be used anyhow, by anyone.

You want to have a logical discussion, then use proper definitions.

jan.

 

[scifes]

theists are atheists who proved god exists.

 

[universaldistress]

I rest my case. I never said a word about any scripture. You carried that baggage on board all by yourself.

You clearly didn't follow my meaning. I was talking about the difference between what people think god could be (what you were talking about) and what god actually is if he exists (cause if he is real he is one thing or another).

People's definitions of god are not really relevant hence the mention of scripture (which is a representation of what people think god is(what you were talking about)).

If you can't follow the meaning in your owns words...

Oh, and what case are you attempting to rest anyway?

If god does exist then it will be logical (and what he definitely is) , not what somebody has already defined him/her/it to be, unless they want to misinterpret evidence to their own ends?

 

[universaldistress]

Predictable, or what?

The scriptures hold that God is the original source, the supreme cause, the greatest, one without a second...

Pantheism, and Deism, falls within that. They are merely aspects of the whole.

There can only be one number one, everything is in relation to.
Even zero. Zero being the atheist position.

jan.

More scripture tainted assumption.

 

[universaldistress]

I'm not sure what you just said there.

But, if you are going to be serious, then we must use
proper definition.

Your whole premise is based on the idea that God is a mental concotion,
and therefore can be used anyhow, by anyone.

You want to have a logical discussion, then use proper definitions.

jan.

No its not. How can you so miss the point? If god exists, which he may, then I state it will be an atheist who does it, I am not saying god is definitely a delusion (my name is not Dawkins, can't stand the guy).

Do you wish to attack a specific point of mine, or just generalise so no one can finish your delusions off?

 

[universaldistress]

theists are atheists who proved god exists.

Maybe the originals, but it would seem the delusion of a parametered god (by man) is losing its momentum.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No its not. How can you so miss the point? If god exists, which he may, then I state it will be an atheist who does it, I am not saying god is definitely a delusion (my name is not Dawkins, can't stand the guy).

Do you wish to attack a specific point of mine, or just generalise so no one can finish your delusions off?

How can an atheist find God, when an atheist doesn't believe God exists?
How will he determine what is God?

jan.

 

[universaldistress]

How can an atheist find God, when an atheist doesn't believe God exists?
How will he determine what is God?

jan.

I think you need to read back through this thread from the beginning but this time take the info in.