| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bill M" |
| Date: |
08 Oct 2006 07:21:17 PM |
| Object: |
POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
Powerful evidence that no REAL gods exist.
A primary one is that there are thousands of different gods and god beliefs.
Any REAL god would make sure everyone is abundantly clear, directly from his
heaven, that he is the real god and all the others are fakes. He would use
his unlimited power to expose and eliminate the fakes.
This all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent designer, would
not create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Earth Quakes,
Wars, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases, serious body
malfunctions and starvation all of which punish people indiscriminately
regardless of their religious beliefs. If he did he would not be an all
loving all caring god but a brutal malevolent creature or nothing at all.
There are 12,000 known diseases that torture and kill man. The reality is
that no all loving and all powerful god would create or permit these
diseases to punish men of all religious persuasion and particularly totally
INNOCENT CHILDREN.
There is a similar quantity of diseases that punish animals. Animals don't
sin. Why are they being punished???
Why Is man born helpless and required to be nurtured, protected and trained
by adult parents for up to twenty years and then experience a punishing
physical and mental deterioration for approximately twenty years before
death? Supposedly they then experience a fantastic existence in a Heaven (or
punishment in Hell) for eternity!
If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most
egregious calamities, or he just does not care to. God, therefore, is either
impotent or evil.
This is all so illogical and ridiculous that it has to be the mythical
creation of men.
Religion is things hoped for but not yet seen or proven. Science is things
seen and proven but not necessarily hoped for.
The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite;
that man created imaginary gods! (thousands of them!)
.
|
|
| User: "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
08 Oct 2006 07:27:12 PM |
|
|
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HccWg.20678$vi3.10355@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Powerful evidence that no REAL gods exist.
A primary one is that there are thousands of different gods and god
beliefs. Any REAL god would make sure everyone is abundantly clear,
directly from his heaven, that he is the real god and all the others are
fakes. He would use his unlimited power to expose and eliminate the
fakes.
This all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent designer,
would not create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Earth
Quakes, Wars, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases, serious body
malfunctions and starvation all of which punish people indiscriminately
regardless of their religious beliefs. If he did he would not be an all
loving all caring god but a brutal malevolent creature or nothing at all.
There are 12,000 known diseases that torture and kill man. The reality is
that no all loving and all powerful god would create or permit these
diseases to punish men of all religious persuasion and particularly
totally INNOCENT CHILDREN.
There is a similar quantity of diseases that punish animals. Animals don't
sin. Why are they being punished???
Why Is man born helpless and required to be nurtured, protected and
trained by adult parents for up to twenty years and then experience a
punishing physical and mental deterioration for approximately twenty years
before death? Supposedly they then experience a fantastic existence in a
Heaven (or punishment in Hell) for eternity!
the all-powerful christian sky pixie sure does love to torment people.
and this is all because a few thousand years ago some people committed the
ultimate
crime and ate some fruit from the sky buddy's precious tree
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "joe" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
11 Oct 2006 09:31:19 AM |
|
|
1Co 1:18 " For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who
are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. "
" But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of
God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because
they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:21:17 -0400, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Powerful evidence that no REAL gods exist.
A primary one is that there are thousands of different gods and god beliefs.
Any REAL god would make sure everyone is abundantly clear, directly from his
heaven, that he is the real god and all the others are fakes. He would use
his unlimited power to expose and eliminate the fakes.
This all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent designer, would
not create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Earth Quakes,
Wars, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases, serious body
malfunctions and starvation all of which punish people indiscriminately
regardless of their religious beliefs. If he did he would not be an all
loving all caring god but a brutal malevolent creature or nothing at all.
There are 12,000 known diseases that torture and kill man. The reality is
that no all loving and all powerful god would create or permit these
diseases to punish men of all religious persuasion and particularly totally
INNOCENT CHILDREN.
There is a similar quantity of diseases that punish animals. Animals don't
sin. Why are they being punished???
Why Is man born helpless and required to be nurtured, protected and trained
by adult parents for up to twenty years and then experience a punishing
physical and mental deterioration for approximately twenty years before
death? Supposedly they then experience a fantastic existence in a Heaven (or
punishment in Hell) for eternity!
If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most
egregious calamities, or he just does not care to. God, therefore, is either
impotent or evil.
This is all so illogical and ridiculous that it has to be the mythical
creation of men.
Religion is things hoped for but not yet seen or proven. Science is things
seen and proven but not necessarily hoped for.
The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite;
that man created imaginary gods! (thousands of them!)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
11 Oct 2006 03:22:05 AM |
|
|
Bill M wrote:
Powerful evidence that no REAL gods exist.
A primary one is that there are thousands of different gods and god beliefs.
Any REAL god would make sure everyone is abundantly clear, directly from his
heaven, that he is the real god and all the others are fakes. He would use
his unlimited power to expose and eliminate the fakes.
And you know this how?
This all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent designer, would
not create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Earth Quakes,
Wars, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases, serious body
malfunctions and starvation all of which punish people indiscriminately
regardless of their religious beliefs.
Again, you know this how?
If he did he would not be an all
loving all caring god but a brutal malevolent creature or nothing at all.
What makes you think that God must be "loving all caring"?
There are 12,000 known diseases that torture and kill man. The reality is
that no all loving and all powerful god would create or permit these
diseases to punish men of all religious persuasion and particularly totally
INNOCENT CHILDREN.
There is a similar quantity of diseases that punish animals. Animals don't
sin. Why are they being punished???
Why Is man born helpless and required to be nurtured, protected and trained
by adult parents for up to twenty years and then experience a punishing
physical and mental deterioration for approximately twenty years before
death? Supposedly they then experience a fantastic existence in a Heaven (or
punishment in Hell) for eternity!
If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most
egregious calamities, or he just does not care to. God, therefore, is either
impotent or evil.
This is all so illogical and ridiculous that it has to be the mythical
creation of men.
Religion is things hoped for but not yet seen or proven. Science is things
seen and proven but not necessarily hoped for.
The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite;
that man created imaginary gods! (thousands of them!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
11 Oct 2006 03:13:41 PM |
|
|
On 10 Oct 2006 20:22:05 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Bill M wrote:
Powerful evidence that no REAL gods exist.
If he did he would not be an all
loving all caring god but a brutal malevolent creature or nothing at all.
What makes you think that God must be "loving all caring"?
Christianity claims that its god is omnibenevolent. We don't define
its god, it does.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
11 Oct 2006 03:39:55 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006 20:22:05 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Bill M wrote:
Powerful evidence that no REAL gods exist.
If he did he would not be an all
loving all caring god but a brutal malevolent creature or nothing at all.
What makes you think that God must be "loving all caring"?
Christianity claims that its god is omnibenevolent. We don't define
its god, it does.
You said God, not "christian" God, or any other kind of God.
According to you there is not God, and the christians don't know what
they are talking about when they say God exists, but you are willing to
believe them when they say God is omnibenevolent. Would you explain
that "small" contradiction?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
11 Oct 2006 07:02:58 PM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2006 08:39:55 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006 20:22:05 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Bill M wrote:
Powerful evidence that no REAL gods exist.
If he did he would not be an all
loving all caring god but a brutal malevolent creature or nothing at all.
What makes you think that God must be "loving all caring"?
Christianity claims that its god is omnibenevolent. We don't define
its god, it does.
You said God, not "christian" God
God is the name of the Christian god. Again, according to
Christianity. I didn't make his name up, they did.
According to you there is not God
I'm agnostic, I'd never say that.
and the christians don't know what
they are talking about when they say God exists
I never said that either - but they keep not providing any evidence to
back up their definite existential claim.
but you are willing to
believe them when they say God is omnibenevolent. Would you explain
that "small" contradiction?
Buggs Bunny lives in a hole. I know that it's only a cartoon
character, but *in the cartoon* the character lives in a hole.
The Christian god is only a character in a myth, but *in the myth*,
the character is omnibenevolent.
"What makes you think that God must be 'loving all caring'"? requires
that I stick to the terms defined by the myth, the same as a question
about Buggs Bunny wouldn't be referring to a real talking rabbit but
the one in the cartoon.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the
one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
-- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
13 Oct 2006 07:45:29 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7lfqi2pmerreflemfs1d0im8afu4b5k38e@4ax.com...
On 11 Oct 2006 08:39:55 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006 20:22:05 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Bill M wrote:
Powerful evidence that no REAL gods exist.
If he did he would not be an all
loving all caring god but a brutal malevolent creature or nothing at
all.
What makes you think that God must be "loving all caring"?
Christianity claims that its god is omnibenevolent. We don't define
its god, it does.
You said God, not "christian" God
God is the name of the Christian god. Again, according to
Christianity. I didn't make his name up, they did.
According to you there is not God
I'm agnostic, I'd never say that.
and the christians don't know what
they are talking about when they say God exists
I never said that either - but they keep not providing any evidence to
back up their definite existential claim.
Christians know their God and have seen Him in Jesus Christ on the cross
of Calvary. Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and Christ gave His
life for us sinners because of His love for us, and for no other reason.
YOUR god or devil, that invisible old man in the sky for which you keep
demanding "evidence" does indeed NOT exist. See below
Pastor Frank
"GOD" THE CHRISTIAN MEANING OF THE WORD ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE:
Jesus in Jn:4:24: "GOD IS A SPIRIT, and they that worship him must
worship him in spirit and in truth."
Jesus in John 14:6-10: Jesus saith unto him: "I am the way, the truth,
and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me,
ye should have known my Father also, and from henceforth YE KNOW HIM AND
HAVE SEEN HIM."
Philip saith unto him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us."
Jesus saith unto him: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER;
and how sayest thou then: Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am
in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak
not of myself, but the FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME, HE DOETH THE WORKS."
Jesus in Jn:10:30: I and my Father are one.
Jesus in John 12:44-46`Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes
in me, believes not in me but in Him who sent me. And he who sees me sees
Him who sent Me. I have come as a light into the world, that whoever
believes in me should not abide in darkness."
Jesus in Lk 17:20-21: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when
the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said: "The kingdom of
God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo
there! For, behold, the kingdom of GOD IS WITHIN YOU."
1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE.
1Jn:4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.
GOD IS LOVE; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Jesus in Jn:13:34: A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one
another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Jesus in Jn:13:35: By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples,
if ye have love one to another.
Jesus in Jn:15:12-13: This is my commandment: That ye love one another,
as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends.
Acts:17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Proverbs 10:22 God is nearer than our own soul, closer than our most
secret thoughts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
13 Oct 2006 02:31:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 03:45:29 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
<PastorFrank@christfirst.org> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7lfqi2pmerreflemfs1d0im8afu4b5k38e@4ax.com...
they keep not providing any evidence to
back up their definite existential claim.
Christians know their God and have seen Him in Jesus Christ on the cross
of Calvary.
As I said, "they keep not providing any evidence to back up their
definite existential claim".
Bye, Fraud.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF GOD |
14 Oct 2006 11:57:34 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:1n8vi25ivj8ttbd76p4mvb6eds51glfhq9@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 03:45:29 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
<PastorFrank@christfirst.org> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7lfqi2pmerreflemfs1d0im8afu4b5k38e@4ax.com...
they keep not providing any evidence to
back up their definite existential claim.
Christians know their God and have seen Him in Jesus Christ on the
cross
of Calvary.
As I said, "they keep not providing any evidence to back up their
definite existential claim".
Bye, Fraud.
Another typical atheist nonsense statement from fundamentalist atheist
Al Klein? Put it another way: Christians know their King of kings and Lord
of Lords and have seen Him as Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary.
Obviously Jesus is not YOUR King of kings nor Lord of lords, or you
would have known and seen Him too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mistylien" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF GOD |
16 Oct 2006 06:54:11 AM |
|
|
Keep up the good work Frank.
M,
"Pastor Frank" <PastorFrank@christfirst.org> wrote in message
news:2797$45326fc6$d1d89a65$1682@PRIMUS.CA...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:1n8vi25ivj8ttbd76p4mvb6eds51glfhq9@4ax.com...
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 03:45:29 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
<PastorFrank@christfirst.org> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7lfqi2pmerreflemfs1d0im8afu4b5k38e@4ax.com...
they keep not providing any evidence to
back up their definite existential claim.
Christians know their God and have seen Him in Jesus Christ on the cross
of Calvary.
As I said, "they keep not providing any evidence to back up their
definite existential claim".
Bye, Fraud.
Another typical atheist nonsense statement from fundamentalist atheist Al Klein? Put it
another way: Christians know their King of kings and Lord of Lords and have seen Him as Jesus
Christ on the cross of Calvary.
Obviously Jesus is not YOUR King of kings nor Lord of lords, or you would have known and
seen Him too.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dichard Rawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
14 Oct 2006 06:25:05 PM |
|
|
Pastor Frank <PastorFrank@christfirst.org> wrote in message
<65371$452f5852$d1d89a46$29090@PRIMUS.CA>
Christians know their God and have seen Him in Jesus Christ on the cross
of Calvary. Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and Christ gave His
life for us sinners because of His love for us, and for no other reason.
Maybe you guys ought to start looking at the other side of the cross. Instead
of waxing rapturous about what it means for someone to give up their life for
another, maybe you ought to consider the hatred that it takes to REQUIRE a
human sacrifice in the first place, and what it means to accept the death of an
innocent for what someone else did. That is every bit as much a part of
"Calvary" as the sacrifice, but for some reason Christians never think much
about that side of things. If you are going to say that Jesus IS God, then he
is both sides of that cross, the sacrifice out of "love" for mankind, and the
judge that REQUIRES a human sacrifice out of repulsion, and is willing to
accept the death of an innocent in order to let the guilty go free. He is both
the sadistic, psychotic judge that would make such a judgment, as well as the
willing object of his own disgust. That is not love, it is madness.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.4.2894
[ Followup-To: alt.religion.christian ]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
12 Oct 2006 12:27:46 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 08:39:55 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006 20:22:05 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Bill M wrote:
Powerful evidence that no REAL gods exist.
If he did he would not be an all
loving all caring god but a brutal malevolent creature or nothing at all.
What makes you think that God must be "loving all caring"?
Christianity claims that its god is omnibenevolent. We don't define
its god, it does.
You said God, not "christian" God
God is the name of the Christian god. Again, according to
Christianity. I didn't make his name up, they did.
You are a clever one.
Let's call him X. if that makes you happy.
Do we agree now that X is not necessarily what you call God?
I will assume that you agree (if not, explain), then how does the
non-existence of God prove the non-existence of X?
According to you there is not God
I'm agnostic, I'd never say that.
and the christians don't know what
they are talking about when they say God exists
I never said that either - but they keep not providing any evidence to
back up their definite existential claim.
but you are willing to
believe them when they say God is omnibenevolent. Would you explain
that "small" contradiction?
Buggs Bunny lives in a hole. I know that it's only a cartoon
character, but *in the cartoon* the character lives in a hole.
The Christian god is only a character in a myth, but *in the myth*,
the character is omnibenevolent.
"What makes you think that God must be 'loving all caring'"? requires
that I stick to the terms defined by the myth, the same as a question
about Buggs Bunny wouldn't be referring to a real talking rabbit but
the one in the cartoon.
We are talking about X.
Is reality a cartoon?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
13 Oct 2006 08:40:32 AM |
|
|
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160612866.188492.325140@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 08:39:55 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006 20:22:05 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Bill M wrote:
Powerful evidence that no REAL gods exist.
If he did he would not be an all
loving all caring god but a brutal malevolent creature or nothing
at all.
What makes you think that God must be "loving all caring"?
Christianity claims that its god is omnibenevolent. We don't define
its god, it does.
You said God, not "christian" God
God is the name of the Christian god. Again, according to
Christianity. I didn't make his name up, they did.
You are a clever one.
Let's call him X. if that makes you happy.
Do we agree now that X is not necessarily what you call God?
I will assume that you agree (if not, explain), then how does the
non-existence of God prove the non-existence of X?
Let Christ do the explaining. See below
Pastor Frank
"GOD" THE CHRISTIAN MEANING OF THE WORD ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE:
Jesus in Jn:4:24: "GOD IS A SPIRIT, and they that worship him must
worship him in spirit and in truth."
Jesus in John 14:6-10: Jesus saith unto him: "I am the way, the truth,
and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me,
ye should have known my Father also, and from henceforth YE KNOW HIM AND
HAVE SEEN HIM."
Philip saith unto him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us."
Jesus saith unto him: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER;
and how sayest thou then: Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am
in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak
not of myself, but the FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME, HE DOETH THE WORKS."
Jesus in Jn:10:30: I and my Father are one.
Jesus in John 12:44-46`Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes
in me, believes not in me but in Him who sent me. And he who sees me sees
Him who sent Me. I have come as a light into the world, that whoever
believes in me should not abide in darkness."
Jesus in Lk 17:20-21: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when
the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said: "The kingdom of
God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo
there! For, behold, the kingdom of GOD IS WITHIN YOU."
1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE.
1Jn:4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.
GOD IS LOVE; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Jesus in Jn:13:34: A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one
another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Jesus in Jn:13:35: By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples,
if ye have love one to another.
Jesus in Jn:15:12-13: This is my commandment: That ye love one another,
as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends.
Acts:17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Proverbs 10:22 God is nearer than our own soul, closer than our most
secret thoughts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
14 Oct 2006 01:56:56 AM |
|
|
Pastor Frank <PastorFrank@christfirst.org> wrote:
You are a clever one.
Let's call him X. if that makes you happy.
Do we agree now that X is not necessarily what you call God?
I will assume that you agree (if not, explain), then how does the
non-existence of God prove the non-existence of X?
Let Christ do the explaining. See below
Sorry, I don't consider explanations from fictional characters
compelling in the least.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF GOD |
15 Oct 2006 07:51:39 AM |
|
|
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1hn5t39.tmilla172661jN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
Pastor Frank <PastorFrank@christfirst.org> wrote:
You are a clever one.
Let's call him X. if that makes you happy.
Do we agree now that X is not necessarily what you call God?
I will assume that you agree (if not, explain), then how does the
non-existence of God prove the non-existence of X?
Let Christ do the explaining. See below
Sorry, I don't consider explanations from fictional characters
compelling in the least.
Any evidence for calling Jesus a "fictional character"? Or do you regard
yourself as some kind of private pope, whose pronouncements must be true, by
reason of his self-proclaimed infallibility, and who therefore has no need
to cite evidence?
But then I get the impression you would rather believe Joe Sixpack down
the street anyway, for he is a real "character", just not a "fictional" one.
Pastor Frank
"GOD" THE CHRISTIAN MEANING OF THE WORD ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE:
Jesus in Jn:4:24: "GOD IS A SPIRIT, and they that worship him must
worship him in spirit and in truth."
Jesus in John 14:6-10: Jesus saith unto him: "I am the way, the truth,
and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me,
ye should have known my Father also, and from henceforth YE KNOW HIM AND
HAVE SEEN HIM."
Philip saith unto him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us."
Jesus saith unto him: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER;
and how sayest thou then: Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am
in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak
not of myself, but the FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME, HE DOETH THE WORKS."
Jesus in Jn:10:30: I and my Father are one.
Jesus in John 12:44-46`Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes
in me, believes not in me but in Him who sent me. And he who sees me sees
Him who sent Me. I have come as a light into the world, that whoever
believes in me should not abide in darkness."
Jesus in Lk 17:20-21: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when
the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said: "The kingdom of
God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo
there! For, behold, the kingdom of GOD IS WITHIN YOU."
1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE.
1Jn:4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us.
GOD IS LOVE; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Jesus in Jn:13:34: A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one
another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Jesus in Jn:13:35: By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples,
if ye have love one to another.
Jesus in Jn:15:12-13: This is my commandment: That ye love one another,
as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends.
Acts:17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Proverbs 10:22 God is nearer than our own soul, closer than our most
secret thoughts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF GOD |
16 Oct 2006 03:54:36 AM |
|
|
Pastor Frank <PastorFrank@christfirst.org> wrote:
Let Christ do the explaining. See below
Sorry, I don't consider explanations from fictional characters
compelling in the least.
Any evidence for calling Jesus a "fictional character"?
Yes, it's called the Bible. Perhaps you've heard of it. Some call it the
greatest work of fiction ever written. Most acknowledge it as the most
influential work of fiction ever written.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF GOD |
17 Oct 2006 01:21:56 AM |
|
|
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1hn9o2k.1noa6py1e3jxbfN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
Pastor Frank <PastorFrank@christfirst.org> wrote:
Let Christ do the explaining. See below
Sorry, I don't consider explanations from fictional characters
compelling in the least.
Any evidence for calling Jesus a "fictional character"?
Yes, it's called the Bible. Perhaps you've heard of it. Some call it the
greatest work of fiction ever written. Most acknowledge it as the most
influential work of fiction ever written.
It's more poetry than prose and atheists are known for habitually making
an issue out of Biblical poetic symbolism and metaphor. It's just evidence
of their obtuse, perceptually and philosophically challenged condition.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
12 Oct 2006 03:38:28 AM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2006 17:27:46 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Let's call him X. if that makes you happy.
Do we agree now that X is not necessarily what you call God?
I don't call anyone or anything a god.
I will assume that you agree (if not, explain), then how does the
non-existence of God prove the non-existence of X?
Huh? What's 9/0? Your question is irrational. There's no such thing
as proof of non-existence. It's just words without meaning.
"Look! There's proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist! No footprints!"
Only a god could prove that no god exists, but his existence would
belie his proof, making the concept of a god irrational.
We are talking about X.
Is reality a cartoon?
Only if you're X.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
12 Oct 2006 07:17:56 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 17:27:46 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Let's call him X. if that makes you happy.
Do we agree now that X is not necessarily what you call God?
I don't call anyone or anything a god.
Good for you!!!
What about X?
Are you capable of calling someone or something X?
What a fucking nut!
I will assume that you agree (if not, explain), then how does the
non-existence of God prove the non-existence of X?
Huh?
Eh?
What's 9/0?
Infinity.
Your question is irrational.
Wrong.
There's no such thing
as proof of non-existence.
Wrong again.
It's just words without meaning.
To those who can't understand.
"Look! There's proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist! No footprints!"
Only a god could prove that no god exists,
How did you determine this? Prove it.
but his existence would
belie his proof, making the concept of a god irrational.
What have you been smoking?
We are talking about X.
Is reality a cartoon?
Only if you're X.
You sure?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
12 Oct 2006 04:38:01 PM |
|
|
On 12 Oct 2006 00:17:56 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 17:27:46 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I will assume that you agree (if not, explain), then how does the
non-existence of God prove the non-existence of X?
Huh?
Eh?
What's 9/0?
Infinity.
Nope.
Your question is irrational.
Wrong.
90/0 is irrational.
There's no such thing
as proof of non-existence.
Wrong again.
"Oh, look, there's proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist. No footprints."
Formal logic (whether you agree or not - no one is rewriting 3,000
years of study to match your opinion) maintains that unlimited
negative existential proof is irrational, the same as 90/0 is. We
don't define it because the definition wouldn't mean anything.
It's just words without meaning.
To those who can't understand.
Those who don't understand say things like "90/0=infinity" and "prove
that X doesn't exist" where X isn't limited.
"Look! There's proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist! No footprints!"
Only a god could prove that no god exists,
How did you determine this? Prove it.
An unlimited proof (which is what you stated)?
The "prover" would have to observe every Planck volume at once,
otherwise maybe he just missed X - X WAS there a moment ago, but now,
when the "prover" is looking there, X is elsewhere.
So the "prover" has to be not only omnipresent but omniscient - he has
to be able to observe the spaces between sub-atomic particles, and he
has to know what, if anything, exists in addition to the universe so
he can search there too. I'd call such a "prover" a god.
but his existence would
belie his proof, making the concept of a god irrational.
What have you been smoking?
English - something you apparently can't follow.
If a god finds proof that there's no god, that's proof that aside from
himself there is no god. He needn't even bother to look, though,
because if he exists the assertion "there is no god" is false - he's
the proof of that.
We are talking about X.
Is reality a cartoon?
Only if you're X.
You sure?
Absolutely. I'm always absolutely certain of what I say, even when I
say, "I don't know".
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
12 Oct 2006 08:49:49 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Oct 2006 00:17:56 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 17:27:46 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I will assume that you agree (if not, explain), then how does the
non-existence of God prove the non-existence of X?
Huh?
Eh?
What's 9/0?
Infinity.
Nope.
Your question is irrational.
Wrong.
90/0 is irrational.
You didn't well in math, did you?
There's no such thing
as proof of non-existence.
Wrong again.
"Oh, look, there's proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist. No footprints."
Ok smart guy, answer this very simple question:
Is there an American who isn't an American?
According to you, and I have given you enough chances to admit your
mistake, there is no such thing as proof of non-existence. If you
refuse to recognize your mistake, then try to answer the very simple
question, without contradicting yourself.
Formal logic (whether you agree or not - no one is rewriting 3,000
years of study to match your opinion) maintains that unlimited
negative existential proof is irrational, the same as 90/0 is. We
don't define it because the definition wouldn't mean anything.
It's just words without meaning.
To those who can't understand.
Those who don't understand say things like "90/0=infinity" and "prove
that X doesn't exist" where X isn't limited.
Define "X isn't limited".
"Look! There's proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist! No footprints!"
Only a god could prove that no god exists,
How did you determine this? Prove it.
An unlimited proof (which is what you stated)?
Is the above supposed to mean something?
The "prover" would have to observe every Planck volume at once,
otherwise maybe he just missed X - X WAS there a moment ago, but now,
when the "prover" is looking there, X is elsewhere.
Is what you see all there is? I can't see beyond the wall in front of
me, so obviously that's the end of the universe.
So the "prover" has to be not only omnipresent but omniscient - he has
to be able to observe the spaces between sub-atomic particles, and he
has to know what, if anything, exists in addition to the universe so
he can search there too. I'd call such a "prover" a god.
but his existence would
belie his proof, making the concept of a god irrational.
What have you been smoking?
English - something you apparently can't follow.
You have been smoking English?
If a god finds proof that there's no god, that's proof that aside from
himself there is no god.
Go pick up an Introductory Logic textbook, and read chapter 1. After
you get through it you and understand some of it, you might realize the
magnitude of the nonsense you have written above.
He needn't even bother to look, though,
because if he exists the assertion "there is no god" is false - he's
the proof of that.
More of the same contradictory nonsense.
We are talking about X.
Is reality a cartoon?
Only if you're X.
You sure?
Absolutely. I'm always absolutely certain of what I say, even when I
say, "I don't know".
Are you certain you don't know, or do you know you are uncertain?
Or maybe you are uncertain you know, or you don't know you are certain?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
13 Oct 2006 12:34:08 AM |
|
|
On 12 Oct 2006 13:49:49 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Oct 2006 00:17:56 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 17:27:46 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I will assume that you agree (if not, explain), then how does the
non-existence of God prove the non-existence of X?
Huh?
Eh?
What's 9/0?
Infinity.
Nope.
Your question is irrational.
Wrong.
90/0 is irrational.
You didn't well in math, did you?
I did exceptionally well, but that's arithmetic, not math. Pretty
basic arithmetic at that.
There's no such thing
as proof of non-existence.
Wrong again.
"Oh, look, there's proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist. No footprints."
Ok smart guy, answer this very simple question:
Is there an American who isn't an American?
According to you, and I have given you enough chances to admit your
mistake, there is no such thing as proof of non-existence. If you
refuse to recognize your mistake, then try to answer the very simple
question, without contradicting yourself.
An American, by definition, is an American. If he isn't an American
then he's not. Logic and definitions aren't in the same category. I
can define something in a logically impossible manner - that doesn't
make it logically possible, it just renders it meaningless for most
purposes.
Formal logic (whether you agree or not - no one is rewriting 3,000
years of study to match your opinion) maintains that unlimited
negative existential proof is irrational, the same as 90/0 is. We
don't define it because the definition wouldn't mean anything.
It's just words without meaning.
To those who can't understand.
Those who don't understand say things like "90/0=infinity" and "prove
that X doesn't exist" where X isn't limited.
Define "X isn't limited".
I thought YOU were the math genius here. Why would you want a simple
mathematical definition from someone who "didn't well in math"? Or
even from someone who didn't do well in math? (So you know this isn't
a typo flame, it's a logic bomb. In fact, this entire thread is a
logic bomb.)
"Look! There's proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist! No footprints!"
Only a god could prove that no god exists,
How did you determine this? Prove it.
An unlimited proof (which is what you stated)?
Is the above supposed to mean something?
Sure, but only if you understand the rules of logic. There are
limited proofs and unlimited proofs. There are proofs that are
limited and proof that aren't limited. (And a limited proof isn't the
same as a proof that's limited.)
The "prover" would have to observe every Planck volume at once,
otherwise maybe he just missed X - X WAS there a moment ago, but now,
when the "prover" is looking there, X is elsewhere.
Is what you see all there is?
I'm not omniscient, so how would I know? But an omnipresent entity
would, by definition.
I can't see beyond the wall in front of me, so obviously that's the end of the universe.
You obviously need to get out more.
So the "prover" has to be not only omnipresent but omniscient - he has
to be able to observe the spaces between sub-atomic particles, and he
has to know what, if anything, exists in addition to the universe so
he can search there too. I'd call such a "prover" a god.
but his existence would
belie his proof, making the concept of a god irrational.
What have you been smoking?
English - something you apparently can't follow.
You have been smoking English?
What language would you like this in? You don't seem to be able to
handle colloquial English too easily.
If a god finds proof that there's no god, that's proof that aside from
himself there is no god.
Go pick up an Introductory Logic textbook, and read chapter 1. After
you get through it you and understand some of it, you might realize the
magnitude of the nonsense you have written above.
I'm stupid - explain it to me.
He needn't even bother to look, though,
because if he exists the assertion "there is no god" is false - he's
the proof of that.
More of the same contradictory nonsense.
Explain, please.
We are talking about X.
Is reality a cartoon?
Only if you're X.
You sure?
Absolutely. I'm always absolutely certain of what I say, even when I
say, "I don't know".
Are you certain you don't know, or do you know you are uncertain?
If I say I'm certain I don't know it means I'm certain. If I say I
think I don't know it means I'm uncertain. 4th grade vocabulary.
Or maybe you are uncertain you know, or you don't know you are certain?
I'm certain that you don't know.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
13 Oct 2006 01:57:00 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Oct 2006 13:49:49 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Oct 2006 00:17:56 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 17:27:46 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I will assume that you agree (if not, explain), then how does the
non-existence of God prove the non-existence of X?
Huh?
Eh?
What's 9/0?
Infinity.
Nope.
Your question is irrational.
Wrong.
90/0 is irrational.
You didn't well in math, did you?
I did exceptionally well, but that's arithmetic, not math. Pretty
basic arithmetic at that.
There's no such thing
as proof of non-existence.
Wrong again.
"Oh, look, there's proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist. No footprints."
Ok smart guy, answer this very simple question:
Is there an American who isn't an American?
According to you, and I have given you enough chances to admit your
mistake, there is no such thing as proof of non-existence. If you
refuse to recognize your mistake, then try to answer the very simple
question, without contradicting yourself.
An American, by definition, is an American. If he isn't an American
then he's not.
So, is there an American who isn't an American?
Does such a creature exist?
Can such a creature exist? (this answer, according to you, is
impossible to answer in the positive)
Logic and definitions aren't in the same category. I
can define something in a logically impossible manner - that doesn't
make it logically possible, it just renders it meaningless for most
purposes.
Formal logic (whether you agree or not - no one is rewriting 3,000
years of study to match your opinion) maintains that unlimited
negative existential proof is irrational, the same as 90/0 is. We
don't define it because the definition wouldn't mean anything.
It's just words without meaning.
To those who can't understand.
Those who don't understand say things like "90/0=infinity" and "prove
that X doesn't exist" where X isn't limited.
Define "X isn't limited".
I thought YOU were the math genius here. Why would you want a simple
mathematical definition from someone who "didn't well in math"? Or
even from someone who didn't do well in math? (So you know this isn't
a typo flame, it's a logic bomb. In fact, this entire thread is a
logic bomb.)
Let's summarize:
I asked you a question about God.
You said you don't call anything God.
I congratulated you for your courage, and suggested we use the term X.
So the question, which you have avoided, is :
How does the non-existence of what you define to be God (notice I
didn't use the verb "call" because it apparently "offends" you) prove
the non-existence of X?
I will be waiting for your "logical" answer?
"Look! There's proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist! No footprints!"
Only a god could prove that no god exists,
How did you determine this? Prove it.
An unlimited proof (which is what you stated)?
Is the above supposed to mean something?
Sure, but only if you understand the rules of logic. There are
limited proofs and unlimited proofs. There are proofs that are
limited and proof that aren't limited. (And a limited proof isn't the
same as a proof that's limited.)
I notice that you still haven't proved your earlier assertion that "
Only a god could prove that no god exists"; don't think for a second
that your distractionary tactics force me to "take my eye off the
ball".
The "prover" would have to observe every Planck volume at once,
otherwise maybe he just missed X - X WAS there a moment ago, but now,
when the "prover" is looking there, X is elsewhere.
Is what you see all there is?
I'm not omniscient, so how would I know? But an omnipresent entity
would, by definition.
You can't even answer that simple question without contradicting
yourself! I am impressed!
I can't see beyond the wall in front of me, so obviously that's the end of the universe.
You obviously need to get out more.
So the "prover" has to be not only omnipresent but omniscient - he has
to be able to observe the spaces between sub-atomic particles, and he
has to know what, if anything, exists in addition to the universe so
he can search there too. I'd call such a "prover" a god.
but his existence would
belie his proof, making the concept of a god irrational.
What have you been smoking?
English - something you apparently can't follow.
You have been smoking English?
What language would you like this in? You don't seem to be able to
handle colloquial English too easily.
Let's try it again: What have you been smoking?
I hope the question isn't too complex for you.
If a god finds proof that there's no god, that's proof that aside from
himself there is no god.
Go pick up an Introductory Logic textbook, and read chapter 1. After
you get through it you and understand some of it, you might realize the
magnitude of the nonsense you have written above.
I'm stupid - explain it to me.
I noticed.
He needn't even bother to look, though,
because if he exists the assertion "there is no god" is false - he's
the proof of that.
More of the same contradictory nonsense.
Explain, please.
We are talking about X.
Is reality a cartoon?
Only if you're X.
You sure?
Absolutely. I'm always absolutely certain of what I say, even when I
say, "I don't know".
Are you certain you don't know, or do you know you are uncertain?
If I say I'm certain I don't know it means I'm certain.
According to you there is no such a thing as a proof of non-existence,
then I have to ask you, oh wise man, how is it that you can be certain
of the non-existence of your knowledge?
You really need to lay off those drugs.
If I say I
think I don't know it means I'm uncertain. 4th grade vocabulary.
Or maybe you are uncertain you know, or you don't know you are certain?
I'm certain that you don't know.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
13 Oct 2006 02:59:19 AM |
|
|
On 12 Oct 2006 18:57:00 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Ok smart guy, answer this very simple question:
Is there an American who isn't an American?
According to you, and I have given you enough chances to admit your
mistake, there is no such thing as proof of non-existence. If you
refuse to recognize your mistake, then try to answer the very simple
question, without contradicting yourself.
An American, by definition, is an American. If he isn't an American
then he's not.
So, is there an American who isn't an American?
Does such a creature exist?
Can such a creature exist? (this answer, according to you, is
impossible to answer in the positive)
I answered the question. Did you miss it? Or did you just not
understand words of more than one letter? I'll type slower next time.
Let's summarize:
I asked you a question about God.
You said you don't call anything God.
I congratulated you for your courage, and suggested we use the term X.
So the question, which you have avoided, is :
How does the non-existence of what you define to be God (notice I
didn't use the verb "call" because it apparently "offends" you) prove
the non-existence of X?
1) I don't define anything to be God (which is the name of one
specific god). I don't define anything to be a god either.
2) Unlimited proof of non-existence is an irrational concept.
You didn't expect a different answer to the same question, did you?
The burden of proof is on he who makes the positive existential
assertion. Simple logic. Simple debating, even.
I notice that you still haven't proved your earlier assertion that "
Only a god could prove that no god exists"
Your not understanding the proof isn't the same as my not providing
it.
A god may be anywhere at any time - no speed-of-light limit since a
god is atemporal, unless he was created with, or after, the universe
(has to do with the nature of singularities, but that would be too
boring for you), and that would be a limit, so we'll stay with an
atemporal god.
In order to look in every single place at one Planck instant (the only
way to be sure that no god exists), one has to be a god, or at least
atemporal and omnipresent, even if not a god (but if one had just
those two characteristics, I guess he'd be a god).
But if one is a god, one doesn't have to look to see whether a god
exists or not - one is a god and one exists, so one can't prove that
no god exists. A dog can't prove that no dog exists, can he? HE
exists.
So it's an intellectual exercise of no value, because the situation
needed to satisfy the condition prevents the condition from being
satisfied. Look up the word "paradox". You can't go back in time and
kill your grandfather before he fathered any children without changing
the time stream. Ouroboros. But what happens when he gets to the
end? Bummer. Or does he disappear in a puff of logic?
Is what you see all there is?
I'm not omniscient, so how would I know? But an omnipresent entity
would, by definition.
You can't even answer that simple question without contradicting
yourself!
I can't answer the question because there is no answer to it, no
contradiction.
I am impressed!
I'm not impressed by a child trying to appear to be an adult.
What language would you like this in? You don't seem to be able to
handle colloquial English too easily.
Let's try it again: What have you been smoking?
I hope the question isn't too complex for you.
Let's try it again: What language would you like this in? I hope the
question isn't too complex for you.
Your turn.
If a god finds proof that there's no god, that's proof that aside from
himself there is no god.
Go pick up an Introductory Logic textbook, and read chapter 1. After
you get through it you and understand some of it, you might realize the
magnitude of the nonsense you have written above.
I'm stupid - explain it to me.
I noticed.
I notice that you can't explain it.
He needn't even bother to look, though,
because if he exists the assertion "there is no god" is false - he's
the proof of that.
More of the same contradictory nonsense.
Explain, please.
Or that one.
According to you there is no such a thing as a proof of non-existence
According to formal logic, but ...
then I have to ask you, oh wise man, how is it that you can be certain
of the non-existence of your knowledge?
My knowledge isn't an unlimited existential thing, is it? Maybe
compared to yours it's unlimited, but really ...
--
Oh, and could you use a real newsreader. I'm sure that there are some
people reading this who don't need my sig repeated every time you
sniff at me.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
13 Oct 2006 03:29:59 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Oct 2006 18:57:00 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Ok smart guy, answer this very simple question:
Is there an American who isn't an American?
According to you, and I have given you enough chances to admit your
mistake, there is no such thing as proof of non-existence. If you
refuse to recognize your mistake, then try to answer the very simple
question, without contradicting yourself.
An American, by definition, is an American. If he isn't an American
then he's not.
So, is there an American who isn't an American?
Does such a creature exist?
Can such a creature exist? (this answer, according to you, is
impossible to answer in the positive)
I answered the question. Did you miss it? Or did you just not
understand words of more than one letter? I'll type slower next time.
I know you typed some randomly chosen words; a proper answer would
require them to be in a non-random order, unless you get very lucky.
So far you haven't been very lucky.
Let's summarize:
I asked you a question about God.
You said you don't call anything God.
I congratulated you for your courage, and suggested we use the term X.
So the question, which you have avoided, is :
How does the non-existence of what you define to be God (notice I
didn't use the verb "call" because it apparently "offends" you) prove
the non-existence of X?
1) I don't define anything to be God (which is the name of one
specific god). I don't define anything to be a god either.
Let's remember this for about 1 minute, ok idiot?
2) Unlimited proof of non-existence is an irrational concept.
You didn't expect a different answer to the same question, did you?
The burden of proof is on he who makes the positive existential
assertion. Simple logic. Simple debating, even.
That would be you.
I notice that you still haven't proved your earlier assertion that "
Only a god could prove that no god exists"
Your not understanding the proof isn't the same as my not providing
it.
A god may be anywhere at any time
What happened to "I don't define anything to be God (which is the name
of one
specific god). I don't define anything to be a god either.", you
moron?
- no speed-of-light limit since a
god is atemporal, unless he was created with, or after, the universe
(has to do with the nature of singularities, but that would be too
boring for you), and that would be a limit, so we'll stay with an
atemporal god.
In order to look in every single place at one Planck instant (the only
way to be sure that no god exists), one has to be a god, or at least
atemporal and omnipresent, even if not a god (but if one had just
those two characteristics, I guess he'd be a god).
It looks like some beggining freshman physics major thinks he knows how
everything works.
But if one is a god, one doesn't have to look to see whether a god
exists or not - one is a god and one exists, so one can't prove that
no god exists. A dog can't prove that no dog exists, can he? HE
exists.
So it's an intellectual exercise of no value, because the situation
needed to satisfy the condition prevents the condition from being
satisfied. Look up the word "paradox". You can't go back in time and
kill your grandfather before he fathered any children without changing
the time stream. Ouroboros. But what happens when he gets to the
end? Bummer. Or does he disappear in a puff of logic?
Is what you see all there is?
I'm not omniscient, so how would I know? But an omnipresent entity
would, by definition.
You can't even answer that simple question without contradicting
yourself!
I can't answer the question because there is no answer to it, no
contradiction.
Did your dog typed the answer?
I am impressed!
I'm not impressed by a child trying to appear to be an adult.
What language would you like this in? You don't seem to be able to
handle colloquial English too easily.
Let's try it again: What have you been smoking?
I hope the question isn't too complex for you.
Let's try it again: What language would you like this in? I hope the
question isn't too complex for you.
Still have no answers?
Your turn.
If a god finds proof that there's no god, that's proof that aside from
himself there is no god.
Go pick up an Introductory Logic textbook, and read chapter 1. After
you get through it you and understand some of it, you might realize the
magnitude of the nonsense you have written above.
I'm stupid - explain it to me.
I noticed.
I notice that you can't explain it.
You noticed I won't explain it. If you can't understand the concept of
a variable, it's doubtful (I am being generous here) you can understand
some basic logic.
He needn't even bother to look, though,
because if he exists the assertion "there is no god" is false - he's
the proof of that.
More of the same contradictory nonsense.
Explain, please.
Or that one.
According to you there is no such a thing as a proof of non-existence
According to formal logic, but ...
then I have to ask you, oh wise man, how is it that you can be certain
of the non-existence of your knowledge?
My knowledge isn't an unlimited existential thing, is it?
Prove it.
Maybe
compared to yours it's unlimited, but really ...
--
Oh, and could you use a real newsreader. I'm sure that there are some
people reading this who don't need my sig repeated every time you
sniff at me.
Is there such a thing as a non-real newsreader?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
13 Oct 2006 02:29:19 PM |
|
|
On 12 Oct 2006 20:29:59 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Oct 2006 18:57:00 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Ok smart guy, answer this very simple question:
Is there an American who isn't an American?
According to you, and I have given you enough chances to admit your
mistake, there is no such thing as proof of non-existence. If you
refuse to recognize your mistake, then try to answer the very simple
question, without contradicting yourself.
An American, by definition, is an American. If he isn't an American
then he's not.
So, is there an American who isn't an American?
Does such a creature exist?
Can such a creature exist? (this answer, according to you, is
impossible to answer in the positive)
I answered the question. Did you miss it? Or did you just not
understand words of more than one letter? I'll type slower next time.
I know you typed some randomly chosen words; a proper answer would
require them to be in a non-random order, unless you get very lucky.
So far you haven't been very lucky.
No, I haven't been. Seems that I'm talking to one of the chimpanzees
trying to duplicate Shakespeare by hitting keys randomly.
2) Unlimited proof of non-existence is an irrational concept.
You didn't expect a different answer to the same question, did you?
The burden of proof is on he who makes the positive existential
assertion. Simple logic. Simple debating, even.
That would be you.
"I don't accept your assertion" isn't existential OR positive.
I notice that you still haven't proved your earlier assertion that "
Only a god could prove that no god exists"
Your not understanding the proof isn't the same as my not providing
it.
A god may be anywhere at any time
What happened to "I don't define anything to be God (which is the name
of one specific god). I don't define anything to be a god either.", you
moron?
Oh, I thought I was talking to something alive, not a response
program. Silly me.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and
have always been an atheist."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945,
responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein
to convert from atheism. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
27 Oct 2006 06:19:06 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:38:28 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 17:27:46 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Let's call him X. if that makes you happy.
Do we agree now that X is not necessarily what you call God?
I don't call anyone or anything a god.
I will assume that you agree (if not, explain), then how does the
non-existence of God prove the non-existence of X?
Huh? What's 9/0? Your question is irrational. There's no such thing
as proof of non-existence. It's just words without meaning.
Wrong. We have proof of no good God, and no square circles.
"Look! There's proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist! No footprints!"
Only a god could prove that no god exists, but his existence would
belie his proof, making the concept of a god irrational.
We are talking about X.
Is reality a cartoon?
Only if you're X.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
11 Oct 2006 04:11:42 PM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Oct 2006 20:22:05 -0700, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Bill M wrote:
Powerful evidence that no REAL gods exist.
If he did he would not be an all
loving all caring god but a brutal malevolent creature or nothing at all.
What makes you think that God must be "loving all caring"?
Christianity claims that its god is omnibenevolent. We don't define
its god, it does.
You said God, not "christian" God, or any other kind of God.
According to you there is not God, and the christians don't know what
they are talking about when they say God exists, but you are willing to
believe them when they say God is omnibenevolent. Would you explain
that "small" contradiction?
thank you Tuco, I am so tired of people assuming what God should be
like and then require Him to do certain things.
Omnibenevolent is not a Biblical concept, I don't know where they get
that idea. And the idea that there are "innocent" people out there
suffering is also a non-sense.
I don't have a lot of time on hand debating these non-sense atheists,
but so far I have never seen a coherent atheist here.
Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF NO GODS |
11 Oct 2006 07:04:42 PM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2006 09:11:42 -0700, "timopeng@gmail.com"
<timopeng@gmail.com> wrote:
Omnibenevolent is not a Biblical concept
I never claimed it is. Most of Christianity is extra-Biblical. Where
is Limbo mentioned in the bible? Or, for that matter, Papal
infallibility? Or Protestantism?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| | | | |
