How can God not exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't have a problem with not knowing everything.
That's reality. We don't know everything, but we can try and figure it out instead of looking for answers in ancient magic books.
 
YoYoPapaya,

Nobody said it was rational

That's irrelevant.
Why would that have quelled his fear of death and dying?


After the point in our evolution where our brains grew big enough to start thinking about such things and put them into some sort of language, no we didn't accept it. That's why we invented religion Example of ancient religion. It is only of late that people are starting to wake up.


Why wouldn't he accept it?
After all, it's the way things are.
The conversely, why are theists quick to claim that einstein was one of them but that hitler was an atheist ?[/QUOTE]"]San People, featured in that argument are still around today, pressumably
living (in some circumstances) as their ancestors did, yet they don't show the fear of which you speak.

The notion that some people were seeded by a reptilian race (nagas) is documented in scriptures. Well documented in some.
That is hardly reminiscient of the invention of God, in the way you summise.
In fact if you check out some
symbology littered in modern society, it is still accepted, albeit secretly.

It's kind of amusing how the people responded to the arrogance of the white man, in the link posted.

You're not quoting my honestly (I'm very surprised).
I'll answer this when you have reread my post and asked a question related to what i REALLY wrote.

I don't know how else to interpret that statement.
Maybe you could explain it in another way.


It's funny how you think it's so brilliant. It's not even very creative. A magic man that looks like man, talks like man and to some extent acts like man.

Maybe you didn't read my response to 'sci-writer';

1) humans aren't eternal
2) humans didn't create the universe
3 humans are physical creatures

And this is just the tip of the ice-berg of differences between man and God.

The only difference is he's infinitely powerful.

I think you should become more acquainted with that which you don't believe in.

Like huh??? If somebody wrote a piece of trash fiction like that today, I'm sure it wouldn't sell well. Lord of the Rings is way more creative.

Obviously you haven't read 'Mahabharata'. :)

The lack of reason in the debate comes from believing in unnatural things. You can't have a reasonable debate about religion.

Correction; You mean ''you can't''.

What would you say to me if i brought you a stick and said it was magic and could disintegrate people if i pointed at them and said the magic word?

I certainly wouldn't ask you to demonstrate it.

jan.
 
Ok lets say it didnt disintigrate people then but it could make water clean and remove air pollution and create food so nobody would ever starve again. Would you then want me to demonstrate?
 
Gee! I wonder where you're going with this? :rolleyes:
Okay. Yeah, in order to believe your claim I would ask for a demo.

jan.
 
If you kept refusing, eventually I would just forget about it.
.

I'm just trying to explain to you how i feel about magic sticks.

Unlike you, I would assume that the person who claims he has a magic stick is either crazy, dishonest or has been conned in someway to buy a fake magic stick.

That's also how i feel about other claims like magic jews that can part waters or heal wounds by touching them or invisible men in the sky.
 
I'm just trying to explain to you how i feel about magic sticks.

Unlike you, I would assume that the person who claims he has a magic stick is either crazy, dishonest or has been conned in someway to buy a fake magic stick.

That's also how i feel about other claims like magic jews that can part waters or heal wounds by touching them or invisible men in the sky.


Unlike you, I am open to possibilities. The person may indeed be crazy, or dishonest, but we're both in the same place and he has got my attention.
Because you're open to something, doesn't mean you have to believe it.

jan.
 
If i witnessed a divine miracle i would reconsider my stance. That is open minded innit?
 
Only an insane person would take comfort in an illusion or suggest to others to take comfort in something they know to be an illusion.

What you are suggesting is that people are basically insane.

:mad:

No, not insane, as those people can't even function, but just wrong thinking. Same for UFOs, abductions, OBEs, and more, although that is somewhat worse.

The wrong thinking ignores what is, as well as pays attention to what isn't—a double error. Then it preaches it as truth and fact, the third error.
 
What both you and others have said seems devoid of scientific or philoosophical input, but if you insist on this line of reason then I will continue.

Did the human being immediately desire an ''afterlife'', or, did the notion of the afterlife ''evolve''?

I suppose some of it evolved, from nature spirits on up to soul, then onto such as what Heaven is like.


1) humans aren't eternal
2) humans didn't create the universe
3 humans are physical creatures

They want more, for the last thing a brain wants to consider is its own end; it's function is geared to survival.


Where would the notion of ''strictness'' and it's relation to a ''father family figure'' come from?
Where in the animal kingdom (assuming evolution) are these traits to be found?

That was the family structure of the old times, and still is in some places.



I don't understand this part, could you explain it please?

Any mind, much less an infinite one, can't be first, for systems have parts.
 
The wrong thinking ignores what is, as well as pays attention to what isn't—a double error. Then it preaches it as truth and fact, the third error.

Obviously.

But how do you know to whom in particular this applies?
 
I don't have a problem with not knowing everything.
That's reality. We don't know everything, but we can try and figure it out instead of looking for answers in ancient magic books.

How do you know they are "magic books"?
 
How do you know they are "magic books"?

Back to this old circle:

religion.jpg
 
Obviously.

But how do you know to whom in particular this applies?

Anyone who makes claims upon the doings of the invisible unknown, say, by felt sensation or introspection alone, for they have ignored what, in this case, science knows about the neurological basis beneath the "second story" sensations.

There's no doubt that they believe it, though, for they don't just state that's it's a hypothesis, but state it as true, which is also wrong thinking, since it's only a maybe.

Emotion suppresses logical thinking, for some. They want an explanation for life, coming up with but a larger Life as an answer, which life suddenly requires no more explaining, but they have only begged the question, thereby creating a larger question, and infinitely larger one, even.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top