God? What do you think:

[Juddog]

I think this sums up many of the counterpoints:

 

[Juddog]

Also this:

 

[datalink7]

This is why philosophy is worthless.

This is not "Philosophy".

 

[LumbergTech]

if i were god....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t16AMFyMzpU

 

[Onceler]

Number 1 thing Christians need to do is stop the damn evangalical BS-don't cast your pearls before swine,stop trying to recruit everybody. They have to ASK for it.
athiests need to do the same

 

[Minjin]

Agnostic - I don't know and nobody else does either.

Are you agnostic about the Easter Bunny? How about Santa Claus?

 

[Malak]

If God is omnipotent, then why does he need traditions, rules and rites?

He doesn't. That was my point.

This doesn't answer my question.

You claimed that the mythological unicorn is based on a natural animal observable in reality. Where is the natural observable version of god?

You are asking the location of an omnipresent being? :sneaky:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You are asking the location of an omnipresent being? :sneaky:

No, I'm asking you to substantiate your claim that there exists an analogue to god in the natural world like you claimed there exists an analogue to unicorns in the natural world.

Apart from that, if it is your contention that God is omnipresent, then you have a number of new problems, not the least of which is Cantor's Powerset theorem which would strongly indicate that the very idea of omnipresence is incoherent (briefly, since we can construct a set of all the places God exists, one can identify an element which is not a member of that set via cantor's powerset theorem, which is a contradiction).

Moreover, the contention that you could determine God's omnipresence a posteriori doesn't withstand scrutiny -- you can't determine where things are until you can determine where they are not. Localizing objects demands segmenting them from the rest of reality. Therefore, you're basically just making it up.

So, go on, tell me again how it makes sense to be a theist.

 

[HAL9000]

No, I'm asking you to substantiate your claim that there exists an analogue to god in the natural world like you claimed there exists an analogue to unicorns in the natural world.

Apart from that, if it is your contention that God is omnipresent, then you have a number of new problems, not the least of which is Cantor's Powerset theorem which would strongly indicate that the very idea of omnipresence is incoherent (briefly, since we can construct a set of all the places God exists, one can identify an element which is not a member of that set via cantor's powerset theorem, which is a contradiction).

Moreover, the contention that you could determine God's omnipresence a posteriori doesn't withstand scrutiny -- you can't determine where things are until you can determine where they are not. Localizing objects demands segmenting them from the rest of reality. Therefore, you're basically just making it up.

So, go on, tell me again how it makes sense to be a theist.

Cerpin I doth my cap to you, I elected to read your comment, and it was intelligent, articulate, coherent and I learned something. You're off my ignore list. Thankyou for this post.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I am a Hard Atheist. (aka Positive Atheist.)

I do not believe it is possible for anything to exist that can break the laws of science and nature. Anything that can somehow "appear" to break the laws is not breaking the laws, we only do not properly understand all the laws.


"ghosts" and "life after death" do not exist.

God in the sense of invisible super being with magic powers does not (and CAN NOT) exist.

 

[Blackjack200]

I am a Hard Atheist. (aka Positive Atheist.)

I do not believe it is possible for anything to exist that can break the laws of science and nature. Anything that can somehow "appear" to break the laws is not breaking the laws, we only do not properly understand all the laws.


"ghosts" and "life after death" do not exist.

God in the sense of invisible super being with magic powers does not (and CAN NOT) exist.

There's just no hope for some people. I bet you don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny either.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to throw some holy water on my infected wound and pray for it. lol @ idiots with their secular antibiotics.

 

[HAL9000]

There's just no hope for some people. I bet you don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny either.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to throw some holy water on my infected wound and pray for it. lol @ idiots with their secular antibiotics.

I smiled.

 

[bfdd]

I believe God is the greatest human creation of all. It gave us the ultimate goal, the biggest hurdle, how do we become Gods?

 

[Blackjack200]

I believe God is the greatest human creation of all. It gave us the ultimate goal, the biggest hurdle, how do we become Gods?

Looking at your sig... I think Charlie Sheen comes pretty close. A briefcase full of cocaine is certainly a great start. :thumbsup:

 

[bfdd]

Looking at your sig... I think Charlie Sheen comes pretty close. A briefcase full of cocaine is certainly a great start. :thumbsup:

lol I meant in a more philosophical sense. God is seen as the ultimate creator, well we are creators as well, hence the whole "in his image" thing makes sense in that respect. We don't even just create things out of matter either, we create thought, ideas, things that aren't tangible(God for example). God is like the ultimate hill to climb, it's given humanity a purpose, to beat God or become better than God.

I'm not a believer of a God or gods, but the concept and structures we've built around it are quite interesting imo.

 

[Malak]

No, I'm asking you to substantiate your claim that there exists an analogue to god in the natural world like you claimed there exists an analogue to unicorns in the natural world.

How exactly would you like me to substantiate that even I exist in the natural world, let alone God? Your request is irrational.

Apart from that, if it is your contention that God is omnipresent, then you have a number of new problems, not the least of which is Cantor's Powerset theorem which would strongly indicate that the very idea of omnipresence is incoherent (briefly, since we can construct a set of all the places God exists, one can identify an element which is not a member of that set via cantor's powerset theorem, which is a contradiction).

I don't see how that applies to omnipresence.

Moreover, the contention that you could determine God's omnipresence a posteriori doesn't withstand scrutiny -- you can't determine where things are until you can determine where they are not. Localizing objects demands segmenting them from the rest of reality. Therefore, you're basically just making it up.

So, go on, tell me again how it makes sense to be a theist.

If they are omnipresent, they are not localized. Doesn't that make what you said invalid? Always everywhere, never nowhere. It is a state of being, not a location.

 

[bfdd]

Malak, have you been observed? God cannot be observed, in any form.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How exactly would you like me to substantiate that even I exist in the natural world, let alone God?

The same way you'd substantiate your claim that unicorns exist.

Your request is irrational.

Your inability or disinclination to respond to my request is no measure of it's rationality. YOU'RE the one that set your god alongside unicorns and said they both exist. YOU have the burden of substantiating that claim.

I don't see how that applies to omnipresence.

You wouldn't, because you're an idiot.

If they are omnipresent, they are not localized.

Oh so God doesn't exist, then. Thanks for clearing that up.

(Pro tip: things that exist in reality are localized in reality. Things that aren't localized in reality, do not exist in reality)

Doesn't that make what you said invalid?

No. Omnipresence, means "present everywhere," "or present at every location." Therefore we can construct a set of these locations, and thereby construct a powerset to that set, demonstrating an inconsistency with the idea of omnipresence.

Always everywhere, never nowhere. It is a state of being, not a location.

Like I said, you're just making it up.

 

[Lithium381]

how can you say no?

 

[Malak]

Malak, have you been observed? God cannot be observed, in any form.

Why not?

 

[Malak]

The same way you'd substantiate your claim that unicorns exist.

Are you saying that I have substantiated that unicorns exist and you want me to reproduce this with God, or are you mocking me?

(Pro tip: things that exist in reality are localized in reality. Things that aren't localized in reality, do not exist in reality)

You are making the term localized far too broad.

No. Omnipresence, means "present everywhere," "or present at every location." Therefore we can construct a set of these locations, and thereby construct a powerset to that set, demonstrating an inconsistency with the idea of omnipresence.

How can you define a concept you cannot observe, examine, nor experience? Why do you think that math will somehow disprove any kind of existence? You can't make something go away with a formula.

Like I said, you're just making it up.

As I go along. I have to, if I want to keep you company. I discovered a very long time ago that you like to talk and sound intelligent and really have no grasp of the concepts I deal with in any case, but I figure stringing you along would make you feel good about yourself. Ignorance is bliss, amirite?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I get a chuckle from all the folks who think those things which can not be measured are trivial or dismissed out of hand. Most of human existence has been shaped by philosophy, not science. Science is every bit as old as philosophy but, it has a major flaw. Science can never answer the question 'why' only 'how.' Both philosophy and science are needed to understand the world. Immersing yourself in one and, dismissing the other, is to willfully put blinders on and, declare yourself a fool.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Are you saying that I have substantiated that unicorns exist and you want me to reproduce this with God, or are you mocking me?

If you can't substantiate your claim that unicorns exist, then I don't expect you to substantiate your claim that your god exists, but that leaves me wondering why you'd make a claim in the first place and expect us to accept it when you know you can't substantiate it.

You are making the term localized far too broad.

What I said was not false. It's not my problem that it is inconvenient for your claims.

How can you define a concept you cannot observe, examine, nor experience?

You introduced the concept in this discussion, numbnuts.

Why do you think that math will somehow disprove any kind of existence? You can't make something go away with a formula.

I can easily show the concept to be incoherent. Incoherent things do not exist because they are logically impossible.

As I go along. I have to, if I want to keep you company.

That tells me all that I need to know. Nothing you say can be taken seriously.

I discovered a very long time ago that you like to talk and sound intelligent and really have no grasp of the concepts I deal with in any case

You just admitted that you don't grasp the concepts you deal with, either.

but I figure stringing you along would make you feel good about yourself. Ignorance is bliss, amirite?

You tell me. You're the one that doesn't know whether the things he claims are true are actually true.

So let's have it already. Show me that God has an analogue in reality like you claimed was true for unicorns.

Put up, or shut up.

 

[Blackjack200]

I get a chuckle from all the folks who think those things which can not be measured are trivial or dismissed out of hand. Most of human existence has been shaped by philosophy, not science. Science is every bit as old as philosophy but, it has a major flaw. Science can never answer the question 'why' only 'how.' Both philosophy and science are needed to understand the world. Immersing yourself in one and, dismissing the other, is to willfully put blinders on and, declare yourself a fool.

See, that's what people don't get; there is no why. None. The universe has been around for at least 14 billion years, and it probably has at least another 14 billion to go. The roughly half-million years the human species spends on this iron rock, tucked away in an infinitesimal corner of an average galaxy, is an imperceptible flash as far as the cosmos are concerned, your 80 years are even less significant. Just enjoy the ride.

 

[bfdd]

Why not?

Make the observation and back it up. You can't because you "see" God, you don't observe God.

I have no problem with your believing, but proving your existence is exponentially easier than proving Gods.