Theist claims God doesn't exist.

C'mon Enmos, that's sort of a cheap shot. :p

It's not that he's claiming God doesn't exist, it's that he's claiming the non-nonsensical view that nothing is something. So when he says God is nothingness he means God is... somethingness.
 
I wonder how many theists would agree with his notion that God is nothingness..
 
But don't you see? Taking into account the rest of what he's saying, he actually means God is simultaneously nothingness and somethingness. I'm not saying that it makes any sense, but we should at least be honest about it.
 
ashura said:
But don't you see? Taking into account the rest of what he's saying, he actually means God is simultaneously nothingness and somethingness. I'm not saying that it makes any sense, but we should at least be honest about it.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm willing to settle for "God is composed of nonsense" lol
 
Have we ever used words to make distinctions about certain kinds of experiences or categories of 'objects' or 'things' and then run across 'something' that had qualities that before were considered mutually exclusive?

If you can think of examples - perhaps even from within the history of science (hint) - then we can be reminded that words are not things and new experiences may lead to category breakdowns, language being, ultimately shorthand for experience whether in a predictive sense or now-descriptive sense or, really, in any sense.
 
Enmos said:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82881&page=19


What to think of this ?
Click to expand...
sounds like he is influenced (directly or indirectly) by the teachings of sankaracharya

According to Adi Shankara, God, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Brahman (pronounced as /brəh mən/; nominative singular Brahma, pronounced as /brəh mə/) is the One, the whole and the only reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are false. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being. Brahman is often described as neti neti meaning "not this, not this" because it cannot be correctly described as this or that.
 
Simon Anders said:
Have we ever used words to make distinctions about certain kinds of experiences or categories of 'objects' or 'things' and then run across 'something' that had qualities that before were considered mutually exclusive?

If you can think of examples - perhaps even from within the history of science (hint) - then we can be reminded that words are not things and new experiences may lead to category breakdowns, language being, ultimately shorthand for experience whether in a predictive sense or now-descriptive sense or, really, in any sense.
Click to expand...

I agree. Someone should tell Mr. Bannan that though.
 
lightgigantic said:
sounds like he is influenced (directly or indirectly) by the teachings of sankaracharya

According to Adi Shankara, God, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Brahman (pronounced as /brəh mən/; nominative singular Brahma, pronounced as /brəh mə/) is the One, the whole and the only reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are false. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being. Brahman is often described as neti neti meaning "not this, not this" because it cannot be correctly described as this or that.
Click to expand...

Could be, but I doubt it. If you follow the link in the OP you will see why.

Mr. Bannan is just struggling not to explain away God here.
He said when multiple nothingnesses meet vortexes of nothingness occur out of which something can be created, and that this is how the universe came to be.
So he says that God is nothingness, what then are the other nothingnesses ?
Were there multiple Gods that stumbled into each other by pure accident, and the train wreck of these collisions is what he calls something (aka the universe) ?

Of course the notion that nothingness can occupy a particular space, which is needed for them to be able to bum into each other, is complete bollocks.
Even more absurd is the notion that the chaos of two colliding nothingnesses is something.
Mr. Bannan thus illogically claims that nothingness has attributes.
 
Last edited:
Enmos said:
I wonder how many theists would agree with his notion that God is nothingness..
Click to expand...

It depends on how you define 'nothingness'. I see nothingness as that which we cannot percieve with our basic senses, not non-existence.
In this sense I can see where JB is comming from, although I wouldn't necessarily put it in that way. :)
 
Enmos,
Is it not possible that a theist can have a brief moment of rational though? Although they seem to get terribly disturbed by that moment and quickly revert.
 
snake river rufus said:
Enmos,
Is it not possible that a theist can have a brief moment of rational though? Although they seem to get terribly disturbed by that moment and quickly revert.
Click to expand...

It is more than possible that theists may think rationally. I am a theist, and I am quite rational, thank you very much.

What purpose, precisely, does it serve to denigrate those with beliefs variant (but not explicitly harmful) to your own?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top