The God Denying Method

[Oli]

i rewrote it when i noted the dual nature....

So you were wrong.

i know that sentence does not make sense in the context you have it quoted

Context? It didn't make sense at all.

Wow you take a while to respond!

Oh yeah, 6 minutes as opposed to the 12 you took.

in case you are into reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy
and if you remember the 'gibbs free energy' material i shared a while back; notice even wiki is observing it too?
because that process does not follow the 'law' when defining the exchange of energy; the old standard frame converted to a wave analogy in which the energy is the specimen, not as chemically defined (reductionary)
so after you have read and comprehend the link, and when you comprehend what the wave function of schroedinger is; then you can ask me another question on why in biology, the scientist basically have to throw out chemistry (QM reductionary ignorance) to define the interractions of the energy at the molecular scale
when you comprehend WHY, then you can ask
but i am not here to baby sit you on physics, when you don't even comprehend or address the basics in common sense.

So blah blah another link that does NOT support your delusion and STILL you fail to point out HOW (in your delusion) it seems to...

 

[Sardaukar]

That is your perception.

It is your perception that he is pure and kind, there fore you have no validity. His nature is still un known. Regardless of perception his destructive nature is written in various text and undeniable.

I suppose that's one way of putting it.

Man doesn't even fully understand the universe, don't be so naive to say that you do, and that God must exist because that is how the universe functions.

You don't know that.
If you're talking about digging in the dirt, combining chemical, or trying
to find traces of Gods' DNA, then I would be inclined to agree.

Let me rephrase what I said, there is no evidence that we know of that proves his existence.

God is IS love, care, compassion etc..
By definition He IS reality.

Love is a mixture of chemical reactions and a state of mind. Do not attribute such metaphysical properties to things that can be rationally deduced and explained. But again perhaps by your perception he is all these things, that you could never hope to explain with reason.

That is an unreliable, and relative statement.

If religious text is un reliable, where did you learn of God's nature? You never seem to answer this.

I doubt that man is capable of making such a complete concept, which holds
for as long there have been humans.
There is no history of such a combined
effort, let alone one which last for so long.

As for rewards, fine. We are all looking for happiness, atheist and theist alike.
We just think differently.

The concept is entirely simple. Let me show you, "God created dinosaurs. God destroyed dinosaurs. God created Man. Man destroyed God. Man creates dinosaurs. Dinosaurs eat man...Woman inherits the earth". God is such a simple concept even the lesser minded can grasp it, but the edifice is riddled with so many holes and fallacies.

Most people don't believe in God because they want to answer questions of life.

You mean, do believe?

Having such questions answered does nothing for individual soul.

Next you're going to tell me that I'm a bad man and my soul is going to Hell.

This is where the explicit atheist dwells in order to prove at least to himself,
there is no God. Which is why the discussions have become bogged down.

I'm not here to disprove God.

I was hooking up my new computer, sorry for the wait.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=-

Evidently, theists aren't here to prove gods.

 

[scifes]

i had a looong reply to yor post skinwalker.. it was a good reply too..it got deleted..and i almost lost my mind, so i was avoiding this thread..but i still have one reply to say which won't take much effort.

This is an argument from ignorance. Not knowing how something works in no way necessitates the existence of [insert your particular notion of god].

i insert:
[god's nonresistance]
:roflmao:

which sums up the whole thing nicely..by your own words too.

 

[S.A.M.]

God has stepped out of the abstract, out of which nothing can be said, and into a verifiable realm where he is not invulnerable to betraying himself. The method seems to have been used throughout history without being formalized or inscribed for all to see...denial of another religions gods is a necessary condition of subscribing to one over the other (minus universalists) so a great many people have had experience with this across history. Can such a systematized god denying method exist to disprove all gods and not just the ones a particular group identifies with?

Your argument presupposes that God is bound by our descriptions. But the arguments make false assumptions that properties are limited or carry over without any problem. For example if limestone is calcium based and calcium is a neurotransmitter, can a piece of chalk think? Or if I dissect you to your smallest piece of indivisible matter [known so far] and it matches the smallest piece of indivisible matter shared by a rat or a rock, is there any difference between you, a rat and a rock?

People who use the scientific method to understand God fail to understand that the scientific method is a tool created by man to make sense of his surroundings. It doesn't necessarily mean that the tool can actually make sense of all his surroundings. Just the ones that fall within "natural laws". Which break down at the ends of a limited spectrum of matter.

Its like using a hammer to dissect a microchip.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=-

Using a hammer to dissect a microchip is like using a god to explain anything.

 

[swarm]

For example if limestone is calcium based and calcium is a neurotransmitter, can a piece of chalk think?

In as much as it is a part of a functioning brain, sure.

Or if I dissect you to your smallest piece of indivisible matter [known so far] and it matches the smallest piece of indivisible matter shared by a rat or a rock, is there any difference between you, a rat and a rock?

Once we are dissected into atoms? No, there aren't any appreciable differences at that point.

People who use the scientific method to understand God fail to understand that the scientific method is a tool created by man to make sense of his surroundings.

Not really. It is just a method for eliminating what can be shown to be wrong. like "god."

 

[Sin]

Hey S.A.M,
On the contrary, my argument presupposes that God is bound by his description of himself, given to us exactly as God intended in the religious texts that house God's character (the christian principle of inerrancy). It's not so much a matter of scientifically and conclusively disproving the concept of 'God', such a thing is impossible, but analyzing various alleged truths within the religion and characterization of God for inconsistency. Science (at least the way you seem to use it) may be useful for such a propisition-shading probabilities, evolutionary origins, the implausibility of miracles, etc- but it is by no means necessary for my purposes because this method relies on God, through his self-ascribed nature, betraying himself. The challenge of the method is showing exactly where this sort of betrayal occurs and forming a case around instances of inconsistency in 'truths'. From growing up in and studying Christianity it seems to me that these betrayals are worthy of rejection of God as an impotent imposter of what a "God" may really be like if one exists at all. It is the reason I post, so that I might distinguish areas demonstrably fallacious from those with even meager evidence of sound plausibility. I started with the account of Elisha and the bears and can continue as need.

And for Jan, concerning Elisha cursing the youths with ursine massacre, he is justified because he ressurected a child later on? Can even a doctor deliberately murder 42 people and be justified because he saves lives on a regular basis? Again rectification after the fact does not change the fact.

For SkinWalker, you have my thanks.

And for JDawg, no hard feelings on my end.