God is Impossible
- Thread starter Prince_James
- Start date
and what if they chose to refuse your request?
In other words is god, the ultimate authority in creation, dependant on being subservient to the demands of an entity under their jurisdiction?
What if they don't exist and therefore there is no entity to even deny it?
It's not too difficult for anyone to do in reality, let alone a god. Just theorize in creating a space with no energy or time within it, since it's void of everything (including me) it would pretty make anyone a god.
Just proves how delusional those that believe in a polymorphic story really are.
It's not too difficult for anyone to do in reality, let alone a god. Just theorize in creating a space with no energy or time within it, since it's void of everything (including me) it would pretty make anyone a god.
Just proves how delusional those that believe in a polymorphic story really are.
Last edited:
Hang on, hang on, they will right when they're done with a Unified Field Theory.
actually it seems to illustrate how terrified some people are of their own individuality
Well first of all, it's idiotic to ask anyone who doesn't make a claim to prove a claim!
Theist make the claim "god" exist, so therefore the onus of proving their claim is on them, not on those who deny it!
Get a clue, before you debate absurdities.
which brings us to the well worn out query of how one proposes to prove something to a person who adamantly refuses to participate in the processes that enable direct perception and is also outwardly inimical to persons established in t he field of knowledge in question .....Well first of all, it's idiotic to ask anyone who doesn't make a claim to prove a claim!
Theist make the claim "god" exist, so therefore the onus of proving their claim is on them, not on those who deny it!
Get a clue, before you debate absurdities.
you cannot deny that which does not exist, you must first believe it exists to deny it.
it only take one microbe to proof existence, just because we cannot proof something does not exist, ( we could not cover the entire unverse, to find out if it does.) does not mean it does by default, thats just plain foolish.
so the onus is alway on the one that makes outragious claims.
If I claim the flying teapot exist, then it is up to me to show it does.
it only take one microbe to proof existence, just because we cannot proof something does not exist, ( we could not cover the entire unverse, to find out if it does.) does not mean it does by default, thats just plain foolish.
so the onus is alway on the one that makes outragious claims.
If I claim the flying teapot exist, then it is up to me to show it does.
Last edited:
What knowledge, you have presented nothing new under the sun Lg nothing not seen before, nothing newly farbricated in the milliniums to justify the existence of an entity you have no knowledge of! if you claim you do, then you do much better then bible scholars who claim "god is unknowable" I doubt you can be so sure as to a god existing, you don't know! you hope it does, cause of your fear of death, and that's the whole clencher fear of death invented the gods!
Funny how theists are able to accept such a notion yet are unable to accept the fact that, "The Universe simply is."
Because God is not restricted to the universe. It is hard to accept the universe as an eternal entity, considering that we are not. If we are not eternal, how is it plausible that the universe is?
I can't blame you for not seeing something that you honestly don't see.
But you can't disprove a negative so your aggressive stance against something you don't believe is real, is unnatural don't you see?
Einstein said Faith is reuired to see reality as it really is.
Faith is that sixth sense.
Now if that were all there was to it.....
I would expect a certain neutrality on the part of those without this sixth sense.
But my experience is they are seldom neutral.
Jesus said "who's not for me is against me"
There is where we have a problem.
So lets just say what is proof to one may not be proof to another.
It's "obviously a matter of personal conviction" as Sauna put it.
But in reality, God hides himself so even the children of His enemies can have a long rich life here and never think too much about anything else but to eat, and drink, and be merry.
That's for the sons of men according to Ecclesiastics.
Have a nice life friend, I really mean that.
Some will be judged only by their works in this life.
If you were to play it safe, I think you would take more of a neutral stance and treat those who seem to have something with God with respect and suffer them as foolish even if you didn't believe are right.
What would you have to lose.
It's a win-win situation - right?
If you read the Bible, there is an economy of God and some will be rewarded life for being good to others, especially those called God's "little ones".
That's his children see....
So....Godless, what would you have to lose by playing it safe on the outside chance the "other guys" are right?
Nothing.
And you would have everything to gain, it should be a no brainier.
But you can't be neutral.
So why do some go out of their way to be such a pain in God's side, harassing his little ones instead of giving them a cup of water unawares.?
What does it profit you? You already have this life in this world.
You may have had some life in the next.
Wouldn't have cost you a thing.
Why can't you remain neutral in this conflict.
Why do you chose a name like Godless.
Does anything of the host remain?
Godless, I'll stop there. I want you to have a happy life.
Try to be neutral if you can.......
That's all the advice I can give you.
TheVisitor
But you can't disprove a negative so your aggressive stance against something you don't believe is real, is unnatural don't you see?
Einstein said Faith is reuired to see reality as it really is.
Faith is that sixth sense.
Now if that were all there was to it.....
I would expect a certain neutrality on the part of those without this sixth sense.
But my experience is they are seldom neutral.
Jesus said "who's not for me is against me"
There is where we have a problem.
So lets just say what is proof to one may not be proof to another.
It's "obviously a matter of personal conviction" as Sauna put it.
But in reality, God hides himself so even the children of His enemies can have a long rich life here and never think too much about anything else but to eat, and drink, and be merry.
That's for the sons of men according to Ecclesiastics.
Have a nice life friend, I really mean that.
Some will be judged only by their works in this life.
If you were to play it safe, I think you would take more of a neutral stance and treat those who seem to have something with God with respect and suffer them as foolish even if you didn't believe are right.
What would you have to lose.
It's a win-win situation - right?
If you read the Bible, there is an economy of God and some will be rewarded life for being good to others, especially those called God's "little ones".
That's his children see....
So....Godless, what would you have to lose by playing it safe on the outside chance the "other guys" are right?
Nothing.
And you would have everything to gain, it should be a no brainier.
But you can't be neutral.
So why do some go out of their way to be such a pain in God's side, harassing his little ones instead of giving them a cup of water unawares.?
What does it profit you? You already have this life in this world.
You may have had some life in the next.
Wouldn't have cost you a thing.
Why can't you remain neutral in this conflict.
Why do you chose a name like Godless.
Does anything of the host remain?
Godless, I'll stop there. I want you to have a happy life.
Try to be neutral if you can.......
That's all the advice I can give you.
TheVisitor
Last edited:
On the contrary god can be knowable enough to come to the platform of liberation - of course there is no point in me making statements "I know god" or even alternatively "I don't know god" because you lack the theoretical foundations to determine whether I am lying in either circumstanceWhat knowledge, you have presented nothing new under the sun Lg nothing not seen before, nothing newly farbricated in the milliniums to justify the existence of an entity you have no knowledge of! if you claim you do, then you do much better then bible scholars who claim "god is unknowable" I doubt you can be so sure as to a god existing, you don't know! you hope it does, cause of your fear of death, and that's the whole clencher fear of death invented the gods!
How can you blame me for being rational, and not gullible?
The proof always lays on the individual making the claim, you obvioulsly fail to understand this. I need not prove a damn thing to anyone I'm not making claims that an etity exist, but that you have to have "faith" in order for it to exist!
The Eistein card again, an absurd worn out appeal to authority, Eistein could have been a freaking priest for all I care, that doesn't mean that he would have not been infallible, BTW Eistein was an atheist!
as for the rest, nothing more than rhetorical bs, with nothing to add to the same old argument!
Lg
Liberation? of what, I'm no slave to tradition, gullible to theistical bs, that's your problem! I was liberated when I sought "reason" over myticism, I was liberated when I sought "logic" above traditional religious rhetoric.
Religion whether you like it or not, is a matter of geographics and enviorenmental upbringing. If you had been born in a Islamic family right now you be proffesing to me as to the truth of Allah and that the one and only religion is Islam! so enough with the BS!
Muslims are being born again by Jesus every day, and Hindus are too, so Godless, you don't know what you're talking about.
Many Muslims see in dreams who they know to be Jesus, and then they willingly accept Him. I have heard many testimonies like this, so dream on Godless.
Many Muslims see in dreams who they know to be Jesus, and then they willingly accept Him. I have heard many testimonies like this, so dream on Godless.
Who cares? Why is that important? What's your point?
All arguments are reflections of premise. I can present an argument that renders the typical notion of god necessarily "unknowable", but it is reflective of my position on epistemology: agnostic. I think of it more as "practical agnosticism", but whatever.
Satyr touched on some points I'd argue in my own way.
I cannot tell you though, if something exists of which I can have no knowledge. Actually I would guess that some things must exist of which I can have no knowledge.
Satyr touched on some points I'd argue in my own way.
I cannot tell you though, if something exists of which I can have no knowledge. Actually I would guess that some things must exist of which I can have no knowledge.
This is simply reflective of a belief based in "scripture". You're saying faith is the source of faith except for you call it "god" and pretend you know something of it. You know what you anthropomorphize of it, what you contextualize of it, and what some book and your associated social/internal reflections on it have left in your mind.
I'm always curious about this idea: You're a bright guy, etc. The bible is a book. For what reason do you choose to annoint this book, literally as gospel? Is there a reason that isn't circular?
I find this particular phenomenon of mind most interesting, because your statements demonstrate the faith you tout, but faith is necessarily subjective, so touting them in a forum as if they are objective facts is borderline sociopathic, as it projects the requirements of your particular understanding (means of relation to context) upon everyone you encounter.
I respect your belief and the apparent strength of your conviction, and hope you can find it within you to respect other ways to understand the same things you do. I think it's intellectually dishonest to be married to the words presented in "scripture", etc. Then again, some people lack the capacity to look beyond them. I tend to think that people who constantly tout "god" and "jesus", etc. demonstrate that lack. But then again they (you) have come to your own understanding of the issues through that book, and the opportunity cost of your faith is perhaps an inability to escape its context. Your faith tells you you're already at the source, and there is no reason to abandon its context in search of one more broad. Your reward is wholly subjective, but I'd guess it's strength of conviction. Your cost is well, an inability to relate positively to anything outside of that conviction, or something along those lines. Perhaps just an inability to communicate on philosophical topics without hinderance of your somewhat narrow scope of conviction.
So what I was saying is that I think there is a lot to be had from a faith like that I think you have:
- you can bond strongly with others of your faith, creating a stronger social unit. this bond is generally more powerful than the typical heathen's (unless they have gods too) because of its percieved divinity.
- if you're true to the faith, you do not suffer doubt
- you are possibily capable of more that a person who isn't of faith, as they lack the conviction and motivation of serving the "allmighty".
IMO, "knowledge" in general can be logically reduced to "utilitarian bullshit we tell ourselves to get through the day". Strong religious belief comprises some of the most powerful bullshit out there.
Fascinating shit, IMO.