The Simpleton Notion of ‘God’ is Unveiled Here

S

SciWriter

Valued Senior Member
The Simpleton Notion of ‘God’ is Unveiled Here

Believers obtain a template from nowhere that says forms can’t just be here on their own, and so they go one level up, not down, and then instantly halt and throw their template away by saying that an even Higher Form—God—exists on its own, and even that it is First and Fundamental.

Not only is this notion a simpleton ‘analysis’, contradictory, and even compounding the supposed correct template, but it goes in the complete wrong direction—to the more complex, rather than to the simpler and simpler.

It gets worse, for they then dishonestly say that the unestablished ‘God’ is truth and fact.

Worse yet, they want to convert other people to their concept, and then further label anyone contrary as ‘evil’ and unsaved, which causes wars, even agains other religions, for the mere existence of other views appears to lessen their own credibility, and so that concept must be protected.

This is not even to mention more fabrications that are freely layered onto the scheme, such as the holy spirit, devils, angels, souls, and heavens and hells, etc.

They will often not even take in information, the emotion of their strong belief causing the neglect of it, so we continue to see all kinds of unbacked claims amounting to “God did it”.
 
‘Supernatural’ is not an answer at all, but just the posing of a larger question in the guise of an answer, such as a God with the magic of its powers beyond nature. The natural at any level must ever be natural, always talking the talk of the natural and walking the walk of the natural.

Certainly, a composite complexity cannot be First, whether a simple atom, a molecule, a human being, or a higher being called God, for they have parts that must be more elemental.

If there is a basic thing that can only be the way it is, with no other possibilities, then I suppose that this thing could have been around forever, but that still seems odd, for there would have been nothing to make it of, and nothing to account for its amount and location, but let us still go through it. If so, though, then it is eternal and could have had no creation point, so no Creator—God. A string of string theory would be such a thing, unmakable and unbreakable because it has no substructure of parts.

If there are no fundamental basic things, then either things must ever come from lesser things in an infinite regress or the ‘basic’ things must come from nothing, and neither of these methods is ‘God’, as we will see.

Things infinitely made of lesser things would take forever to work their way up, and, at any rate, this would still not provide an initial creation point, so, again, no creation, and thus no Creator.

If things are a balanced distribution of nothing, which is even as it seems to be, then ‘nothing’ is the eternal basis, requiring nothing else, so, no creation of this basis and so no Creator. Nor is nothing ‘God’, but its opposite.

Look for higher forms in the beyond of the increasing complexity of the future, not in the beneath and simpler of the past.
 
‘God’ has not been established in the least, and so it remains an empty word, as does ‘faith’, and the notion can even be gone against, so it is not even a “could be” at this point.

Old saws won’t go anywhere here, such as personal testimony, for not only do those vary and contradict, but cannot be substantiated and collaborated, nor the use beforehand of ‘results’ that have not been shown, such as God’s magic powers to do anything, for I am not out to have any more simpleton declarations piling up here; so, put something behind it, at least, or be called on the preaching of mere pronouncements.
 
Knowledge91 said:
blah blah blah.
God exist. Period. That's how simple it is to me.
Click to expand...

Neglect.

We even say how, why, and what about believers and they still make idle claims, and we fully understand and ever expect it of some.

Yes, the simplistic nature of belief is what this thread is about, but I'm not strict, so I'll consider any old stuff, as long as it has some stuffing to it.
 
Arioch said:
@Knowledge --

Which is why you would make an awful scientist.
Click to expand...

Scientist Knowledge91 might say that cold fusion exists, without even faking the non-repeatable experiment.

It's not that I like "whack a mole" but they keep popping up.
 
The Simpleton Notion of ‘God does not exist’ is Unveiled Here

Dis- Believers obtain a template from nowhere that says forms are just here on their own, and so they supposedly remain on one level .... and then instantly halt and throw their template away by saying that an even Higher Origin of Form—Nothing —exists on its own, and even that it is First and Fundamental.

Not only is this notion a simpleton ‘analysis’, contradictory, and even compounding the supposed correct template, but it goes in the complete wrong direction—to the more simple onwards to nothingness , rather than to the complex and more complex.

It gets worse, for they then dishonestly say that the unestablished ‘God doesn't exist’ is truth and fact.

Worse yet, they want to convert other people to their concept, and then further label anyone contrary as ‘evil’ and ignorant, and even go as far to falsely attribute international conflict to religious ideology ,, for the mere existence of other views appears to lessen their own credibility, and so that concept must be protected, namely that they have such a weak sense of self that they must pathologically attempt to apply the scientific process to their own neurosis.

This is not even to mention more fabrications that are freely layered onto the scheme, such as life is a chemical composition, or shrouding the origins of evolution in an ever changing mystical dialogue or time, space and matter.

They will often not even take in information, the emotion of their strong belief causing the neglect of it, so we continue to see all kinds of unbacked claims amounting to “Matter does it”.


PS - tentative arguments that go no further than opinion take all the hard work out of a rebuttal by providing all the required material.

;)
 
Last edited:
The OP's problem is straightforward: If you assume you know what the word "God" means, then it's no big deal to demonstrate what a stupid idea it is (that you have about God).

So, thanks for pointing out the blindingly obvious, eh?

Q: If you think that all you need is an idea and so you can think whatever you like, even something really dumb, what exactly have you got to say to anyone about it?

A: Something stupid.
 
SciWriter said:
Neglect.

We even say how, why, and what about believers and they still make idle claims, and we fully understand and ever expect it of some.

Yes, the simplistic nature of belief is what this thread is about, but I'm not strict, so I'll consider any old stuff, as long as it has some stuffing to it.
Click to expand...

I say how, and when, where, soon you will all know why. The problem is the evidence you seek is scientific, but the evidence we have is the furthest thing from science, so I do no present it, I just understand it as fact. The day this knowledge is accepted as fact is the morning Heaven is brought down to Earth.
 
arfa brane said:
The OP's problem is straightforward: If you assume you know what the word "God" means, then it's no big deal to demonstrate what a stupid idea it is (that you have about God).

So, thanks for pointing out the blindingly obvious, eh?

Q: If you think that all you need is an idea and so you can think whatever you like, even something really dumb, what exactly have you got to say to anyone about it?

A: Something stupid.
Click to expand...

I only reply what I am asked. One day this will give me a following of multitudes, and I will decide then if it is worth my time. God ask me not to do right by his will, but do right unto mine.
 
arfa brane said:
The OP's problem is straightforward: If you assume you know what the word "God" means, then it's no big deal to demonstrate what a stupid idea it is (that you have about God).

So, thanks for pointing out the blindingly obvious, eh?

Q: If you think that all you need is an idea and so you can think whatever you like, even something really dumb, what exactly have you got to say to anyone about it?

A: Something stupid.
Click to expand...
gotta love these tentative arguments

The OP's problem is straightforward: If you assume you know what the word "God" means, then it's no big deal to demonstrate what a stupid idea it is (that you have about God not existing).

So, thanks for pointing out the blindingly obvious, eh?

Q: If you think that all you need is an idea and so you can think whatever you like, even something really dumb, what exactly have you got to say to anyone about it?

A: Something stupid.
 
arfa brane said:
The OP's problem is straightforward: If you assume you know what the word "God" means, then it's no big deal to demonstrate what a stupid idea it is (that you have about God).
Click to expand...

OK, fine, He didn't create all and is just a guy living down the street.

The three main religious beliefs just failed then.

So, then, what do believers say God is?
 
Entrenchment

Some simplistically thought that our human life in its complexity and intelligence could merely be ascribed to some greater Life of More Complexity and Higher Intelligence, just halting there, suddenly satisfied with even more than that which gave them no satisfaction in the first place, for they were entrenched into the notion.

Did they care that they’d switched horses? No, for they were entrenched. They had ‘answered’ complexity with more, but where could this end, begging the question? It never could, for the error had been to go in the complete wrong direction to explain the composite.

Their second error was to ignore the correct direction, for complexity can only become of its composite parts and sub-parts, such as shown through solar system formation and evolution by natural selection.

Could their notion of a Higher Intelligence, too, been that of a higher but naturally evolved Life Form? No, for then that could have been all the more true of the lessor case of us evolving. Thus, the Higher Form had to be first and fundamental, but, of course, one cannot have complexity as a beginning, for it must have composition and be dependent on that. Did they care? No, for they were entrenched in their notion.

So now they had an infinitely worse case than when they had begun, for they have a massive Intelligence just sitting around unaccounted for. One would then think that surely all the more by their reasoning there would have to be MORE INTELLIGENCE behind this, but, no, for they were at their wit’s end after going but one level up, never even considering the opposite downward levels of composition that have even been shown by science.

Some even had it that species were made intact and immutable just a few thousand years ago, and that the Earth was flat and fixed. Some were so deeply entrenched that they could never be extracted.

They resorted to crabbiness, even blaming scientific truth for the roots of atheism, forgetting that all of their ‘truths’ were invisible and couldn’t be shown at all. Well, science is partly the reason, and rightly so.

Can any more errors be made, after the big two? Sure, they can dishonestly preach their notion as truth and fact to the unsuspecting, and then even go to war, both personally and nationally, to protect the notion, even from some similar but variant notions. It’s become too expensive to throw things out of the stained-glass window; yet, science throws things out when they don’t work, such as the non-repeatable cold fusion experiment.

Complexity is ever begotten by a higher complexity? Baloney. Complexity is made of lessor and lessor simplicity, which is even seen. We took 14 billion years to become. That’s 14,000 million years, and a million years is a 1000 millennia. Why such a mindlessly slow process? Because that’s only what it was.

The entrenched must neglect.

Look to our own future for more complexity, not to the simple beginnings. Turn around. Complexity is explained beneath and within, not above and beyond—which would just be an endless regress of more intelligences to be accounted for.
 
By LG… with my comments in brackets

Dis- Believers obtain a template from nowhere [yes, of nothing, for there is no other source] that says forms are just here on their own, and so they supposedly remain on one level .... and then instantly halt and throw their template away by saying that an even Higher [you are rushing your copying; perhaps you mean lower] Origin of Form—Nothing —exists on its own, and even that it is First and Fundamental. [Then undo it]

Not only is this notion a simpleton ‘analysis’, contradictory, and even compounding the supposed correct template, but it goes in the complete wrong direction—to the more simple onwards to nothingness , rather than to the complex and more complex. [wrong way dead end street]

It gets worse, for they then dishonestly say that the unestablished ‘God doesn't exist’ is truth and fact. [Nothing shown, so nothing to work with = dis-belief]

Worse yet, they want to convert other people to their concept, and then further label anyone contrary as ‘evil’ and ignorant [true, science must be ignored], and even go as far to falsely attribute international conflict to religious ideology [many wars are about differences in culture] ,, for the mere existence of other views appears to lessen their own credibility [nope, for they are made up preachings], and so that concept must be protected, namely that they have such a weak sense of self that they must pathologically attempt to apply the scientific process to their own neurosis. [So, this ‘illness’ is your last resort since you have not anything else useful?]

This is not even to mention more fabrications [facts] that are freely layered onto the scheme, such as life is a chemical composition [yes], or shrouding the origins of evolution in an ever changing mystical dialogue or time, space and matter. [Gobbledygook that undoes nothing of the triple confirmation of evolution]

They will often not even take in information [that’s what science does], the emotion [you mean facts and logic?] of their strong belief [nope, that’s for believers, and it’s all they have] causing the neglect of it [nothing there], so we continue to see all kinds of unbacked claims [science facts] amounting to “Matter does it”. [See physics, etc., instead of the pulpit preachings]

[Try again. A very poor showing all in all, and not even original. You have zip and it shows by your flailing away. Those who having nothing known can but push against what is known.]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top