Enmos
Valued Senior Member
So he doesn't exist ?
science disproves biblegod
- Thread starter scorpius
- Start date
So he doesn't exist ?
he??? God is of male gender!!
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
'He' would indeed suggest a male gender.. whats your point ? lol
Finally an atheist admits it...they really believe evidence causes something to become true...without evidence something is false
argument from ignorance...
No I didn't, I simply provided the definition of God according to scripture....the atheist's logic is amazing "well God just doesn't exist...checkmate"
Last edited:
how does this classification fit into the definition of the all supreme entity?
just for the record how many genders are there that meets criteria to qualify for this position?
In the beginning when nothing existed, nothing somehow still existed, and then it created everything because it was everything. God is the imaginary deity (imagination itself) that is born because nothing can't exist because it's nothing. Then that imagination dreams/creates the universe.
God obviously has no gender because "he" is nothing. I also have no gender because I am consciousness, God.
That god has a penis the size of the local group of galaxies?
Quite right.
One only has to turn the tables and ask how the physics were created prior to the Big Bang.
Whatever happened to the answer - I don't know for sure.
Ok, Mr. "Sensible" theist, how does one promote a god that cannot be found because he is 'outside' the universe?
What? :shrug:
No. I can go to china. I can meet chinese people. I can see china. There are an overwhelming number of documented and self-consistent pieces of evidence that china exists.
How can you possibly even think that your subjective "direct perception" of a god carries any weight at all? Can you take me to this god? Can I get on a plane and go meet him? (maybe if it crashes, right?) Can you take me to some factories in godland where they make god artifacts?
No? I guess your china example is just so much hot air then, huh?
And how's that? By evidence I mean a body of work that can be independently verified by neutral parties that consists of physical, documentary, and/or experimentally verifiable predictions. Predictions of the behavior of this system you call "god" that are explicit and repeatable and have no more "mundane" explanation. You can't do this, can you?
I do! I indeed have direct perception that nothing in the universe warrants the intellectually bankrupt leap to a mysterious "creator" to explain any damn thing.
Do you not see the difference here? I'm making a simple assertion that there is no more compelling evidence for a god than there is for a fat man bringing gifts to children in december. Also, do you not understand the concept that "direct subjective perception" is useless to a neutral third party trying to verify a claim? Eyewitness testimony is recoginized as the worst, last resort in law. Habeus Corpus my friend.
You silly dude. You keep trying this tactic of the strawman. I do not ever say that "god does not exist" in a serious discussion. Again and again, I say "show me some compelling objective evidence". What I am 100% convinced of is that there is no such compelling objective evidence.
Huh?
Bullshit! I don't "believe" anything! I have "opinions" on certain things that are as yet unproven or speculative. How can you begin to compare me saying "I believe that gravitons may exist based on theoretical predictions" to you saying "I believe in god"? I don't claim that gravitons exist at all. You claim that god absolutely exists. Intellectually utterly dishonest.
Ha! No. Like the bible, quran, etc...
And what evidence, pray tell, caused them to abandon one god for another?
Excuse me? I don't even know what the gideon institute is. And why would I ever go near a seminary?
And why, exactly would a large body of theistic "knowledge" help me in any way? Since you claim that only "direct (subjective) perception" shows that god exists? I've read several buddhist texts, the bible, some books on ancient roman and greek mythology, lot's of web research, and have had a general interest in theology since I was a young pup.
How's your science background? Ever read any Darwin? Feynman? Einstien? Hawking? Sagan? Pinker? Asimov (on chemistry and physics), Dawkins (on genetics)? Ever get an engineering degree? Ever generate a beam of "electrons" and watch it bend in the earths magnetic field (which I could show you)?
I have.
That's another thing. You seem to think that it's important that I can't "show" you an electron. Nobody cares. Even physicists can't "show" electrons to each other. All that really matters is that there is an "entity" we label "electron" and that it can be weighed, it's properties exactly measured (to many decimal places) and it's behavior predicted (barring certain quantum restrictions).
So, no one cares about your "it takes massive training to even be aware of god" statements.
So, now you'll say "how do you know that it isn't god all around you, responsible for trees and rocks and consciousness..."
I don't. And neither do you. What I do know is that as far as we can currently investigate, trees and rocks are made of measurable entities called protons and electrons and consciousness is a manifestation of the complex interaction of protons and electrons in the form of neurons.
Your leap to "godness" is the leap of a fool at the command of a shaman.
The likely answer is that the universe is cyclic and has no time-bound "existence". But no one knows.
And that's the point.
I suppose in your mind "turning the tables" and not having an answer for "how the physics were created" immediately leads to the existence of a god with a ready-made set of super powers.
Brilliant.
You use rhetoric and gullability of the masses. You appeal to their basic ignorance of even rudimentary logic (if god can't be "found" or objectively demonstrated then how do you know... blah, blah, blah).
People are stupid and religion is the best way yet discovered to round up herds of them to become willing slaves for you.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
This will be my last posting in this thread.
You said: "God is of male gender!!"
I have no opinion on the matter.
Nothing cannot create anything. Since there is something in existence it is reasonable to conclude that nothing never existed.
There never was nothing. It never existed.
Nothing cannot exist. To say that nothing exists is a contradictory in terms and descriptions. --if it exists it must be something. Nothing therefore cannot exist. Nothing never existed. There always was something.
Where?
“ Superluminal
Or do we have experience that the most common way to meet people like say the president is to cultivate the interests of the person in question (if you were an enterprising industrialist for instance, the president might grant you an interview) and approach them through a mutual friend
“
“
aside from engineering a more flattering platform on which you can launch your opinions, it still remains unclear why you turf out the foundations for establishing theistic perception, .... it all seems to bear a striking resemblance to a high school drop outs complete rejection of the foundations of physics
“
“
“
“
“
“ “ There's an overwhelming amount of ancient literature on him compared to other gods. ”
“ There's an overwhelming amount of ancient literature on him (Zeus)compared to other gods. ”
it could be in your interest
Or is it simply more efficient just to refute it without bothering with all those pesky book thingmadings?
you - What exactly gives believers the gall to insist that what they "believe" is true? ”
me - the same element that drives the statements such as "China exists" - direct perception or inductive knowledge
(in other words I don’t recall ever challenging the claims of science – at least those claims that can be demonstrated from cause through to effect)
electrons simply make their way into university curriculums to fill out a few vacant modules ...
SB 4.31.16 Just as the sunshine is nondifferent from the sun, the cosmic manifestation is also nondifferent from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Supreme Personality is therefore all-pervasive within this material creation. When the senses are active, they appear to be part and parcel of the body, but when the body is asleep, their activities are unmanifest. Similarly, the whole cosmic creation appears different and yet nondifferent from the Supreme Person.
If you can’t, we can know that you are bluffing
hence we can say china exists due to direct perception and inductive knowledge
much like china, its corroborated by others in a uniform way (in other words if one person says “china was great – the Mediterranean coast was magnificent” or “One thing I really appreciated in the villages of china was the home made pasta of all the locals” it raises suspicions)
So if you cannot take me to the president, the president doesn’t exist?
lol
you are already existing in and on one
do we have experience in this world that the “big guns” just have open houses for everyone to rock up and say “hello” or “you suck” anytime anyone wants ?
Or do we have experience that the most common way to meet people like say the president is to cultivate the interests of the person in question (if you were an enterprising industrialist for instance, the president might grant you an interview) and approach them through a mutual friend
“
given that the claims of physicists are verified by other physicists and not say house boat manufacturers, what do you mean by “independently verified”?
certainly – but it all requires a suitable foundation of qualification, much like there is no question of getting into an analysis of the credibility of physics without a substantial foundation of knowledge
“
colourful adjectives aside, you do realize that what you have is “inference” and not “direct perception” don’t you?
a high school drop out could say the similar things about the credibility of electrons
yes, therefore there is a focus on claims on the knowledge base that drives sense perception – that’s why there is a special emphasis on say the “direct perception” of forensic scientists in issues of law
aside from engineering a more flattering platform on which you can launch your opinions, it still remains unclear why you turf out the foundations for establishing theistic perception, .... it all seems to bear a striking resemblance to a high school drop outs complete rejection of the foundations of physics
“
you have serious discussions somewhere else other than this forum?
you do realize that even a court of law recognizes the inherent connection between “evidence” and “qualification” – that’s why they call on forensic scientists in certain situations as opposed to janitors
Surgeons must also be thankful that the medical profession doesn’t rely on your knowledge base and qualification for discerning the facts in the operation theatre too ....
“
is this your serious or non-serious side?
“
so you don’t believe that theists make claims based on speculation?
aka “beliefs”
both god and gravity have foundations of knowledge – the fact that you tagged “theoretical predictions” to gravitons and left god as a blank indicates your bias
if you want to separate knowledge base from claims, I suggest you take your arguments to day care centres
“
and if a high school drop out wanted to add “Advanced Physics for the new millennium” in such a collection of fables, what would you say to counter him?
“
the persons in the position of direct perception were defeated by others and thus they lost their credibility
“ “ There's an overwhelming amount of ancient literature on him compared to other gods. ”
you know – those guys who give out miniature bibles you need a microscope to read (oh, that’s right, you never opened the cover) and put bibles in motel rooms all over the world
if you want to make statements like
“ There's an overwhelming amount of ancient literature on him (Zeus)compared to other gods. ”
it could be in your interest
does it help to know something about something if you want to refute it?
Or is it simply more efficient just to refute it without bothering with all those pesky book thingmadings?
well, to go back to the top of the post, it reads
you - What exactly gives believers the gall to insist that what they "believe" is true? ”
me - the same element that drives the statements such as "China exists" - direct perception or inductive knowledge
do universities dish out qualifications on the basis of getting students to tick off how many books they have read or do they devise various means (pracs, exams, etc) to test whether the prospective candidate has developed the said qualities presented in books?
if you ever encounter a high school drop out who doesn’t believe in electrons you can most certainly convince them of the truth (provided they are not simply interested in asserting their agenda or plastering you with ad homs)
(in other words I don’t recall ever challenging the claims of science – at least those claims that can be demonstrated from cause through to effect)
it’s a response to you thinking that it is important that I “show” you god
I see
electrons simply make their way into university curriculums to fill out a few vacant modules ...
so in other words electrons have “qualities” and the perception of these qualities depends on successfully acquiring the relevant “qualifications” ??
if you want to say things like “nobody cares about electrons”, “nobody cares about god” etc you tend not to portray yourself as not very inquisitive
erm – god is all around
SB 4.31.16 Just as the sunshine is nondifferent from the sun, the cosmic manifestation is also nondifferent from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Supreme Personality is therefore all-pervasive within this material creation. When the senses are active, they appear to be part and parcel of the body, but when the body is asleep, their activities are unmanifest. Similarly, the whole cosmic creation appears different and yet nondifferent from the Supreme Person.
given your knowledge base, hardly surprising
regardless whether you want to say “I know God does not exist” in a mood of triviality or “I know you do not know god exists” in a mood seriousness, you remain a fool for as long as you cannot answer “How do you know?” – take note below for an example of how to know someone doesn’t know ....
Can you take some protons and electrons and make some consciousness?
If you can’t, we can know that you are bluffing
you are a greater fool because you dress around in a grass skirt in the name of science
I forgot what a complete asshat you are.
You haven't answered one of my questions directly or responded in any way but to totally sidestep the point and trivialize it. As always.
This isn't a discussion. It's you ignoring the valid points brought up by others and wasting my time.
BTW, you have zero qualifications to question my statements regarding engineering and science and the nature of the universe. I know more about the observable world and the underlying foundations of "consciousness" than you ever will. I've apparently ponedered these things far deeper than you, as is demonstrated by the insubstantial nature of your responses.
You and your fucking electrons and highschool dropouts. So, you don't accept the existence of anything that you can't see with your eyes? Electrons, chromosomes, atoms, "air", the round earth (unless you've seen it from space? Are you an astronaut LG?), china, the president, radio waves, magnetic fields, cells, bacteria (germs for those of you stuck in the middle ages).
So LG, just curious, but what is your explanation for how the circuits in your computer work? As an electrical engineer with 22 years of design experience, would you believe me? (note: it has something to do with "electrons")
Here's a simple question LG. Let's see if you can handle a simple question (probably not).
Could I prove to you that electrons exist?
Try not to sidestep the question please.
You and your fucking electrons and highschool dropouts. So, you don't accept the existence of anything that you can't see with your eyes? Electrons, chromosomes, atoms, "air", the round earth (unless you've seen it from space? Are you an astronaut LG?), china, the president, radio waves, magnetic fields, cells, bacteria (germs for those of you stuck in the middle ages).
So LG, just curious, but what is your explanation for how the circuits in your computer work? As an electrical engineer with 22 years of design experience, would you believe me? (note: it has something to do with "electrons")
Here's a simple question LG. Let's see if you can handle a simple question (probably not).
Could I prove to you that electrons exist?
Try not to sidestep the question please.