God must exist in at least form. [ I] Do not deny it. [A]thiests deny any of gods existance. You do not understand religion, you do not seem to .. care at all! Have you refuted Berkley? No? Then you should probably not profess god does not exist. Have you refuted God? No? Well you should probably not be refuting him.

Which of the myriad of gods purported throughout all of history do YOU deny exists?

Have you refuted God? No? Well you should probably not be refuting him.
I'm confused :shrug:

I'm just saying. I believe in god because your ignorances probably haven't refuted him yet. Besides, what is god? Something none of you probably know. It's just a saying [Deleted]?

Xev:

If you believed in his third toenail, you would probably believe also in his other toenail.

I don't have to prove 100% that there is no God, only that it is sufficently without reason that it's silly to believe it. It evolved out of the need to control society after it advanced beyond the tribal level. In a small tribe, social control was easy. The size of the human brain is due to an adaptation of infantile traits into adulthood, note the size of the infant's brain compared to it's body. Along with such advantageous traits, we are also left with the gullibility of children, although some of us can transcend this.

Spidergoat:

I am not going yet to discuss my religious thoughts.

I'm just saying. I believe in god because your ignorances probably haven't refuted him yet. Besides, what is god? Something none of you probably know. It's just a saying "you stupid athiest" ya know?


The burden of proof is on you, not us. Prove your (insert deity here) exists. You're making the claim it exists, you prove it.

And it's spelled atheist. If you're going to insult something, at least take the time to learn to spell it correctly.

God must exist in at least form. Do not deny it. [Deleted] deny any of gods existance. You do not understand religion, you do not seem to .. care at all! Have you refuted Berkley? No? Then you should probably not profess god does not exist. Have you refuted God? No? Well you should probably not be refuting him.

[Deleted]

I agree atheists enjoy pretending that theism is so irrational when they possess the same irrationality...no evidence of absence, no reasoning why God doesn't exist, they think unverifiability = false, they will say that they will believe if there was evidence but cannot give an example of what can be considered as evidence, and really think that a Flying Spaghetti Monster has anything to do with existence or non-existence of God...how can atheists being fools say anything that is not foolish?

I don't have to prove 100% that there is no God, only that it is sufficently without reason that it's silly to believe it. It evolved out of the need to control society after it advanced beyond the tribal level. In a small tribe, social control was easy.

Excellent...

With a lack of "law and order" what better way to control the masses. You can try to beat them into submission...but that takes manpower and costs alot....I know...we'll tell'm if they don't do what we say... they'll burn for eternity after they die...that'll scare 'em straight...and the best part...theres no way for them to tell if we're lieing...since no one knows what happens after we die. It's perfect! :)

Excellent...

With a lack of "law and order" what better way to control the masses. You can try to beat them into submission...but that takes manpower and costs alot....I know...we'll tell'm if they don't do what we say... they'll burn for eternity after they die...that'll scare 'em straight...and the best part...theres no way for them to tell if we're lieing...since no one knows what happens after we die. It's perfect! :)

The only problem with your theory is that if you can do the right thing with out belief what makes you think other people cannot?

Tribal level? We still have a violent society, i cannot see it being more violent considering that we also have established law enforcement. What else do we do that the cave men used to?

I don't have to prove 100% that there is no God, only that it is sufficently without reason that it's silly to believe it. It evolved out of the need to control society after it advanced beyond the tribal level. In a small tribe, social control was easy. The size of the human brain is due to an adaptation of infantile traits into adulthood, note the size of the infant's brain compared to it's body. Along with such advantageous traits, we are also left with the gullibility of children, although some of us can transcend this.

Yes you do, scientists don't say that the ether doesn't exist because "oh it just doesn't seem so, it's silly" (argument from personal incredulity), they say so because of evidence of absence...it's not sillly to believe in the many-worlds interpretation even though there's no evidence because a lack of evidence is caused by unverifiability...just as with God...

As for the concept of God coming from the need to control society even if this is true (which it isn't) it still tells us nothing about the existence or non-existence of God...

Yes you do, scientists don't say that the ether doesn't exist because "oh it just doesn't seem so, it's silly" (argument from personal incredulity), they say so because of evidence of absence...it's not sillly to believe in the many-worlds interpretation even though there's no evidence because a lack of evidence is caused by unverifiability...just as with God...

As for the concept of God coming from the need to control society even if this is true (which it isn't) it still tells us nothing about the existence or non-existence of God...
1. What was the evidence for the absence of ether?
2. What evidence could prove that your magic god does not exist?

glaucon....

Yes, it is humorous. Would you care to elaborate or give any link to dis-prove any of the statements presented thusfar?

Given the ridiculous nature of the OP, and its ad hominem conclusion, I have little to say beyond this: both parties should respect each others' beliefs, while paying attention to the fact that the question of the existence of god is ultimately moot.

1:
Pardon?
2:
Evidence, obviously, claiming that God does not exist. Simple.

Glaucon. Well said here, but not there (below):

Given the ridiculous nature of the OP, and its ad hominem conclusion, I have little to say beyond this:

First of all, there is no rediculous nature in the opening post. It is perfectly natural as it should be. You should not be saying such things when what has been presented is clear enough.

You know... to say a little more? I am still in the progress of re-configuring my life. Getting criticism from people, is pretty expected.

1:
Pardon?
2:
Evidence, obviously, claiming that God does not exist. Simple.The first question is relevant to VitalOne's post.

2. Could you be a little more specific on the nature of this evidence?

The point I am heading towards is that I think it's impossible and illogical to try and prove that god doesn't exist.

I think it's just funny how both sides basically stand that it's the other's problem to prove or disprove it :)...obviously no one really knows and it's not up to proof, because 'proof' in a form that is acceptable for both sides at once, is not going to come. The existence or non-existence of a deity does not seem like a scientific issue :) I have no idea why people would try to apply scientific methods for the discovery of truth to such an issue.

Excellent...

With a lack of "law and order" what better way to control the masses. You can try to beat them into submission...but that takes manpower and costs alot...
.I know...we'll tell'm if they don't do what we say... they'll burn for eternity after they die...that'll scare 'em straight...and the best part...theres no way for them to tell if we're lieing...since no one knows what happens after we die. It's perfect! :)
not so perfect apparently, since those evil atheists seen right thru it,
damn...
I guess it takes a genius to figure OUT that dead people are actualy DEAD.
and they cant realy go anywhere be it heaven or hell ;)

The point I am heading towards is that I think it's impossible and illogical to try and prove that god doesn't exist.

shaman_ is correct here: there can be no such thing as 'negative evidence', which is what is being asked of him.


...
Also. Glaucons post points out that the beliefs of athiests should be respected. Which is interesting, given their conclusions.


??

How so?

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to be implying here that the only beliefs an atheist can claim are those that pertain to the existence of a deity...

1. What was the evidence for the absence of ether?
Scientists performed many innumerable experiments to detect if the ether existed and detected nothing...this is evidence of absence...


2. What evidence could prove that your magic god does not exist?
Well right now nothing can prove the existence nor non-existence of God because it's unverifiable...

Scientists performed many innumerable experiments to detect if the ether existed and detected nothing...this is evidence of absence...


No it is not; it's not evidence at all.

Existence ontologically is not mutually exclusive: the denial of one does not necessarily assert the other.


...
Well right now nothing can prove the existence nor non-existence of God because it's unverifiable...


In this, you are indeed correct.

Glaucon:

It is interesting because they do not believe in a "diety". They have given up apparently, or rather, they fail to understand a Gods existence....

Glaucon:

It is interesting because they do not believe in a "diety". They have given up apparently, or rather, they fail to understand a Gods existence....

And how is this interesting?

Scientists performed many innumerable experiments to detect if the ether existed and detected nothing...this is evidence of absence...How is this different to god/gods?


Well right now nothing can prove the existence nor non-existence of God because it's unverifiable...Which is why there are weak atheists and agnostic atheists.

No it is not; it's not evidence at all.

Existence ontologically is not mutually exclusive: the denial of one does not necessarily assert the other.
Yes it is....if I tell you have a wallet in my pocket and you examine the pocket and there is no wallet then it is evidence of absence (of my wallet being in my pocket)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_ether#Experiments

How is this different to god/gods?

What do you mean how is it different? Can you tell me which experiment can verify if God exists or not? That's how its different....


Which is why there are weak atheists and agnostic atheists.
Weak atheism is just the same as atheism except they don't want to admit that atheism requires faith so they say we're "weak atheist"..."we don't believe in God but we disbelieve in God" wtf?

Yes it is....if I tell you have a wallet in my pocket and you examine the pocket and there is no wallet then it is evidence of absence (of my wallet being in my pocket)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_ether#Experiments

Evidence of the absence yes, but this evidence says nothing of the existence or non-existence of a wallet. Which is all to say that absence does not necessarily entail existence.

What do you mean how is it different? Can you tell me which experiment can verify if God exists or not? That's how its different....No it is the same thing. Scientists couldn't know for sure if the experiments to detect aether were the right ones either. The theory was left behind due to lack of evidence and better ones came along. The lack of evidence for god/gods is ignored by people because they desire to believe in magic deities - blind faith.



Weak atheism is just the same as atheism except they don't want to admit that atheism requires faith so they say we're "weak atheist"..."we don't believe in God but we disbelieve in God" wtf?No the definition of weak athiesm is fairly clear. You just refuse to accept it.

God must exist in at least form. [ I] Do not deny it.

Why must a god or gods exist? You've not established this. There simply is no good reason to accept that there must be a god. Ontological arguments go on about "the most perfect being," "prime movers," "original causers," etc., but none of them provide an explanation that doesn't fit with a godless universe that doesn't require "creation." Indeed, the godless universe is more parsimonious and fits Occam's Razor since it doesn't include an infinite regression of "creators."

[QUOTE=existabrent;1483539][A]thiests deny any of gods existance.

Some do. But the ones I know (including myself) simply state that there is no good reason to accept that the man-made concept of a god exists. Being an agnostic atheist, I recognize that I can't possibly know everything about the universe and thus cannot fully discount the existence of a god in it (I can't test every square km of the universe); but I don't accept the man-made explanations of the gods of humanity. Not Zeus, not Apollo, not Wotan, not Quetzecoatl, not Yahweh. There simply is no good reason to believe that either of these silly delusions of humanity are real.

You do not understand religion, you do not seem to .. care at all!

Being an anthropologist and archaeologist that specializes in ancient religion and cult practices, I'd say I'm far more credentialed in this area than you, but I'll not bother with it further.

Have you refuted Berkley? No?

Actually, yes. Indeed, many have. Berkeley was the nutty philosopher that believed that trees existed because we thought of them. And since there was no way that a tree in existence could exist all the time if we weren't always thinking about them, there must be an infinite being that is thinking about the tree in my backyard to hold that thing in existence. Thus, said Berkeley, a God must exist.

Does such nonsense really need detailed refutation?

Then you should probably not profess god does not exist. Have you refuted God? No? Well you should probably not be refuting him.

If there is a god, may he strike me down. Now. Right, freaking now........

I'm still here. God is refuted.

God must exist in at least form.

Why?


You do not understand religion,

Please provide evidence.



you do not seem to .. care at all!

About?


Have you refuted Berkley?

Who?


Have you refuted God?

Yes. Every single one that humans have claimed exists.

I agree atheists enjoy pretending that theism is so irrational when they possess the same irrationality...no evidence of absence, no reasoning why God doesn't exist, they think unverifiability = false, they will say that they will believe if there was evidence but cannot give an example of what can be considered as evidence, and really think that a Flying Spaghetti Monster has anything to do with existence or non-existence of God...how can atheists being fools say anything that is not foolish?

YOU disproof the Flying Spaghetti Monster then VitalOne ! Come on, disproof him. Lets see if you can do it.

God must exist in at least form. [ I] Do not deny it. [A]thiests deny any of gods existance. You do not understand religion, you do not seem to .. care at all! Have you refuted Berkley? No? Then you should probably not profess god does not exist. Have you refuted God? No? Well you should probably not be refuting him.

i do understand religion, i was bought up in a Mormom household, but the bible just contradicts itself all of the time, yes it is a good story but thats all people should see in it, a good story!

the idea that one man will save us all, is atually quite absurd!! no i am not a believer and i do not have to proove that he doesnt exsist i have to see proof that he does exsist! and until someone can do that i will keep being an atheist

No it is the same thing. Scientists couldn't know for sure if the experiments to detect aether were the right ones either. The theory was left behind due to lack of evidence and better ones came along. The lack of evidence for god/gods is ignored by people because they desire to believe in magic deities - blind faith.
No, it's not a lack of evidence, but experimental evidence that shows that the concept of ether was wrong.....as for god/gods the lack of evidence is caused by unverifiability not someone performing an experiment and finding the concept of God wrong...it's like someone saying there's no evidence for the many-worlds interpretation and being unable to give an example of evidence that can be considered as evidence of the many-worlds interpretation...

YOU disproof the Flying Spaghetti Monster then VitalOne ! Come on, disproof him. Lets see if you can do it.
Regardless if I could disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it wouldn't tell us anything about the existence or non-existence of God...it's like someone trying to disprove the theory of relativity by saying "well I don't believe in the geocentric theory" it doesn't make any sense...

Regardless if I could disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it wouldn't tell us anything about the existence or non-existence of God...it's like someone trying to disprove the theory of relativity by saying "well I don't believe in the geocentric theory" it doesn't make any sense...

It would however neatly illustrate why the burden of proof lies with you, and not with the atheists.
So.. do you or do you not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?

So.. do you or do you not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?

No, I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

No, I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

So you say the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesnt exist ?? Thats just pure ignorance. Prove to me he doesnt exist then!

Haha... I figured you guys would be discussing this forever.

Skinwalker and Crunchy Cat:

Your arguements which I have failed to read, do not even begin to scratch the surface of the comments presented thusfar. Don't try to lure me into being an atheist when, theism is the only perspective which captures the essence of Gods existance as existing.

Your arguements which I have failed to read, do not even begin to scratch the surface of the comments presented thusfar

Perhaps it's just me, but if you failed to read their arguments how would you know they do not begin to scratch the surface?

A prime example of theist intelligence?

Crunchy Cat:

Your arguements which I have failed to read, do not even begin to scratch the surface of the comments presented thusfar.

How can you know so much about something you failed to read? Consequently, there was no argument in my post. 3 questions, 1 request, and 1 answer.


Don't try to lure me into being an atheist when, theism is the only perspective which captures the essence of Gods existance as existing.

Which is more important to you, the perspective or truth?

Both crunchy cat. You also fail to meet my demands.

Perhaps it's just me, but if you failed to read their arguments how would you know they do not begin to scratch the surface?

A prime example of theist intelligence?

I stated my premise.

To me, this post is a prime example of a person who is unwilling to discuss intellectually! LoL.

scorpius says:

" why not? "

existabrent responds:

Stick around. Hopefully the arguement I actually am presenting will be put forth in the end; and we will see as I origonally intended the stupidity of most of the atheistic claims here. The logical ones, are another matter. But the prejudices aganist theists are uncalled for. Hence the thread. I'll get back around with my origional statement, and, POSSIBLY, meet crunchy cats "Demand"

Crunch cat:Why?

Because. There exists many ways a god can exist. It is the defination of truth. Moreso than a "why"....

Crunchy Cat:Please provide evidence.

Your statement "why" above shows the lack in your perceptual understaing of a gods existence.


Crunchy Cat:About?

The perceptual understanding and truth of a Gods existance, POSSIBLY?

Crunchy Cat: Who?

You maybe? Have you refuted him?

Crunchy Cat: Yes. Every single one that humans have claimed exists.



Why the hell should I respond to something that has already been presented, and especially- the stupid comments regarding 'every one humans claimed exists.' This is simply nonsence. Let's see how much bs I can make of this post. Possibly I won't make much.

You also have not refuted berkley, and this is one defination of God. Therefore, your agnostical atheisism should perhaps remain a little more skeptical than you would have liked to think.

Maybe?

You also have not refuted berkley, and this is one defination of God. Therefore, your agnostical atheisism should perhaps remain a little more skeptical than you would have liked to think.
If you prove god does not exist (which nobody here claims to do) then Burkley is wrong.
Burkley's idea of god existing was to fullfill empiricism. But, he did not prove that empiricism was correct, ie he made a baseless assertion, so already, I have no need to disproove him (and you can't prove or disproove empiricsm do to the nature of epistemology) thus, Berkley offers no evidence of god, even evidence that god existed would not prove Berkley's proposition, though evidence of god not existing would prove him wrong. Unfortunatly, god as Berkley requires it, is simply an omniscient being, and we cannot proove a universal negative for such a being. Which means, that neither stance on Berkley's idea is falsafiable.

Agnosticm realises that, thanks to epistemology, we cannot actualy know anything. Thus, it is foolish to assert anything about the existance of god. (Religions assert that (a) particular
god(s) exists and that others do not.)
An atheist may assert that no god of any kind definatly does not exist, however I have seen nobody on this site do that (actualy, I have never heard anyone claim that), and it would indeed be a groundless beleif.

It is of course possible to neither assert that god exists and to not assert that god does not exist, much as one can not assert that green swans exist, while simultaneously not asserting that green swans absolutly do not exist.

-Andrew

Personally, I'd like to see existebrent put together a coherent summary of which of Berkeley's works he feels is a definitive evidence of [insert favorite god].

Instead, what we're left with is a juvenile strawman argument that has no substance followed by a claim that no one has "refuted" it. Complete bollocks of an argument.

When Crunchy Cat asked "who?", he was referring to Berkeley. Not everyone has heard of him. Which is what makes your argument a strawman to begin with since you refuse to summarize Berkeley's position. Until now, that summary has been left to myself and Andrew above.

To me, this post is a prime example of a person who is unwilling to discuss intellectually!

The original post and indeed your later statement certainly show your above quote fits a certain someone quite well.

You think the most intelligent way to start a thread is "god must exist.."?

Now, I could go through it in depth like some others have done, but then you admitted to not even reading what they wrote, so I shall save my energy.

andbna (andrew):

Well said.

Snakelord:

Well said. Except that, you do not understand what position I had, and the intellectual arguement remark is nothing more than your refusing to apply any more to the thread than had already been done... I read what I must. If something is valueable, I will read it. Such as what is done by skinwalker above, wh ich of course, I will get to. Also, what has been presented by andrew is striking- and should be to you also.

Skinwalker:

Complete BS of a post, although the part that is not bs is the part about "existabrent(who never gets any recognition for what he is or has done and been through) putting forth an arguement about Berkley." Why should I not have just said Lebinez, and been done with it? None of the claims aganist god has been refuted, and if they have, I would like to see how God does not exist. This position is perfectly reliable & is by no means a "straw man arguement" - although, on its surface surely it would seem like it.

If the above does not make sence, skinwalker who gave me many infractions, please, simply ... try harder?

God must exist in at least form.



Why?



Because. There exists many ways a god can exist. It is the defination of truth. Moreso than a "why"....




The answer "because there are many ways god can exist" does not correspond to the question that applies to your claim. Again, why MUST 'God' exist in at least form?






You do not understand religion



Please provide evidence.



Your statement "why" above shows the lack in your perceptual understaing of a gods existence.




I'm sorry but that 'answer' is simply nonsensical. You just stated that I dont understand religion because I asked you why 'God' MUST exist in at least form.






you do not seem to .. care at all!



About?



The perceptual understanding and truth of a Gods existance, POSSIBLY?




You are correct then. I don't care about nonsense. What I do care about are people who make decisions that affect others based on nonsense.







Have you refuted Berkley?



Who?



You maybe? Have you refuted him?




You're answering the wrong question. Who is 'Berkley' (are there more words in his full name)? Why would I refute a person? That doesn't make any sense. What you probably meant to ask is have I refuted Berkeley's assertion of 'God's existence? Sure I have, because like all human claims of 'God' I can guarantee his argument will eventually make some fantastic assertion without supportive evidence. Go ahead and post Berkley's assertion and I'll be happy to show you all its specific flaws.






Have you refuted God?



Yes. Every single one that humans have claimed exists.



Why the hell should I respond to something that has already been presented, and especially- the stupid comments regarding 'every one humans claimed exists.' This is simply nonsence. Let's see how much bs I can make of this post. Possibly I won't make much.

You also have not refuted berkley, and this is one defination of God. Therefore, your agnostical atheisism should perhaps remain a little more skeptical than you would have liked to think.

Maybe?




Why is it nonsense? You haven't even asked for evidence of my claim. Whatever 'secret' I hold apprently applies to the assertions of Berkley or any other human; otherwise, the claim would have never been issued.

Also, don't confuse my assertion for claiming that a generic 'God' (not claimed by humans) does not exist. Myself or any other person would have zero knowledge of such a life form.

Myself or any other person would have zero knowledge of such a life form.

Dont be so sure.

God must exist in at least form.

Says who or what? I see no basis for this claim besides ego.

[ I] Do not deny it. [A]thiests deny any of gods existance.

Some do, some just don't believe in it. Atheism (lack of belief in god(s)) is a logical consequence of agnosticism.

You do not understand religion, you do not seem to .. care at all!


Obviously you have no basis for this either. Certainly there are some athiests that do not understand religion, and some that do.

Have you refuted Berkley? No?

Perhaps if you think there's something to refute, you should post (or at least link) what you want refuted.

Then you should probably not profess god does not exist.

I wouldn't dream of doing so. In the same notion, I wouldn't dream of asserting the opposite either. I would assert however, that god is necessarily unknowable by definition - and only unbounded ego or ignorance leads to assertions in either direction on the issue.

Have you refuted God?

What's to refute? I couldn't refute it any more than I could prove it. That's what makes the idea so nifty, and the source of such unbelievably extensive debate.

No? Well you should probably not be refuting him.

Who exactly is this "him" you speak of, eh?

and the intellectual arguement remark is nothing more than your refusing to apply any more to the thread than had already been done

Perhaps. It must be said however that I feel an unavoidable urge to point out when someone makes a daft statement such as [pp] "all your posts are BS... but I haven't read them". Can't help it, sorry.

If something is valueable, I will read it.

Sorry, can't help it..

How do you know whether it's valuable or not.... without reading it?

Such as what is done by skinwalker above

Therein is the point. After reading this post of Skinwalkers that I assume you considered 'valuable', (which is why you read it), you then instantly go on to say [pp] "Skinwalker, your post is bullshit". You've got me royally confused.

As to the original post, what exactly can be said that would be sufficient for you? You start with "a god must exist".. the only answer you'll ever really get is "why?" because there's nothing else you can really say to such a statement. You then go on to assert that because you can't prove a god doesn't exist, you should believe in it. Simply put, this is complete and utter codswallop and even you must recognise that.

There's little else that can be said.

Who ya gonna call?

http://www.toadking.com/6x9=42/ghostbusters.jpg

mythbusters.

Dont be so sure.

If a person discovered some generic sentient omnipotent life form, I am certain they would break out the video recorder.

Crunchy cat and others:
Reading this post, may clarify myself a little. I should re-do it, as I have discovered while typing it some of the thoughts I have lost. Possibly it will be a good post, as I said I should probably re-do it.


The answer "because there are many ways god can exist" does not correspond to the question that applies to your claim. Again, why MUST 'God' exist in at least form?


Thanks CC. This discussion has been of a great value to me. I am searching for answers as we all are. I would not say, that my beliefs are based off of nonsence, even if they were true. Anyway, to get to your question... Oh. But before that. I do hope that you guys can come to an understanding of me in this thread. That would be excellent. Reason?: I get a lot of criticism, as, I am still in the progress of reconfiguring my life. You see what I mean, maybe? It's hard work, and a lot of work. Anyway, back to your question.

God must exist at least in form in theory. This theory has been presented several pages back.

Lebinez says so, and the understanding I have says that he "must exist at least in form". Kant, for example. Says, that god must exist according to ethics. Who can say what happens when we die? Perhaps pantheisism Is a correct belief? Do you see what I am saying? Who has refuted God? Evidence of god? The evidence is everywhere. It exists within you, possibly.

Do I make myself clear?


I'm sorry but that 'answer' is simply nonsensical. You just stated that I dont understand religion because I asked you why 'God' MUST exist in at least form.


Precisely. You don't understand what I said ^^^^ (above) :) Cool man?
I could go further as skinwalker might suggest, but refuse. You guys can ... don't want to get modded. ----- just wait for that.



You are correct then. I don't care about nonsense. What I do care about are people who make decisions that affect others based on nonsense.

I am glad you said that. It will give me something to meditate on. While I am doing such, you can present further 'evidence' to this claim. I will be happy to eat it.



You're answering the wrong question. Who is 'Berkley' (are there more words in his full name)? Why would I refute a person? That doesn't make any sense. What you probably meant to ask is have I refuted Berkeley's assertion of 'God's existence? Sure I have, because like all human claims of 'God' I can guarantee his argument will eventually make some fantastic assertion without supportive evidence. Go ahead and post Berkley's assertion and I'll be happy to show you all its specific flaws.

LoL! Very snifty, CC!
His name may be John. Or herman. I am joking. I know, for sure, that he is a "Bishiop", or whatnot. At least I think....
Berkley was a philosopher who was sort of like an immaterialist or whatever. He stated matter does not exist except perceived by the mind. I am not sure about this statement, perhaps someone else would like to clarify EVERYTHING about berkleys stance. Regardless, Berkley is a philosopher in the specific sense at the very least. He stated many examples of why God exists, of course, I made the claim in the OP (opening post) meaning that you likely have not refuted berkley, you likely should not be refuting god, you are dumb or something... I don't understnad why you would refute God if you don't even know what god is.

Regardless. Lebinez also would be a great contribution to this arguement. I am sure, for example, were LightGigantic to come here he and I would at least have some agreement. You do know, there are intellectual theists, they do have profound arguements (such as the one that I am presenting perhaps?), and they do have evidence in words to back up their claims....




Why is it nonsense? You haven't even asked for evidence of my claim. Whatever 'secret' I hold apprently applies to the assertions of Berkley or any other human; otherwise, the claim would have never been issued.

Also, don't confuse my assertion for claiming that a generic 'God' (not claimed by humans) does not exist. Myself or any other person would have zero knowledge of such a life form.

Sure. I'm proud to try and be nice, it's what we humans do.

It's "nonsence" quote, because "every god humans said to exist" is saying you have refuted "God." I don't need evidence saying this is how I have retuted every god. I don't care about your claims. I care about mine and how they mesh with yours.

We can have knowledge of such a life form. This zero knowledge you speak, perhaps can contain some knowledge. I could, of course, as usual, be entirely wrong. If I am be entirely mean to me. It's what helps. Authority that is asserting it's actual and honest authority. Any General Grevious would be happy to relax.

Why, shit, don't we jump the gun and say as in another of the useless of all the threads, "Define God"?

We might say: God does not exist, therefore there is no such thing as God.

Or we might say: God exists because god is the defination of the unknown, or rather, God is the defination of the un-self.

These of course are just statements saying things, and I do believe I can eventually come to some sort of conclusion regarding the defination of God. Do we not all wish to come to a defination of God?

This thread obviously, is for the talking about this very issue.
If I have not, of course, presented myself very well, then perhaps you should examine further.
I like sci-forums. And I like philosophy. But I am not going to be told things to me that are simply un-true. None of you have seen the real, "existabrent" yet- Perhaps, one day you will. Until then guys, have good discussion of God, and make sure that it is worthwhile eh?

;-)

ps. I wish Sartre would post. Then again, he is dead :-P

There is no such thing as a Sartre, it's a myth.

Ah but there is I think at least a little evidence leaning towards all religions: what happens to the mind and the consius(sp) after death?

Ah but there is I think at least a little evidence leaning towards all religions: what happens to the mind and the consius(sp) after death?

How is that evidence towards religions?

The fact is we don't know what happens to the mind and consciousness after death. And the only thing you can infer from that is: we don't know what happens to the mind and consciousness after death.

Ah but there is I think at least a little evidence leaning towards all religions: what happens to the mind and the consius(sp) after death?
I think we can be pretty sure your consiousness wont exist when your body and brain dies.
some people think consiousness is a soul,some thought breath was soul,
its not
www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html

imo if people had souls,shouldnt they be able to comunicate with the dead peoples souls/spirits?

SnakeLord:

just so you know, I have deep respect for you.

Thanks CC. This discussion has been of a great value to me. I am searching for answers as we all are.

To what questions?



God must exist at least in form in theory. This theory has been presented several pages back.

Lebinez says so, and the understanding I have says that he "must exist at least in form". Kant, for example. Says, that god must exist according to ethics. Who can say what happens when we die? Perhaps pantheisism Is a correct belief? Do you see what I am saying? Who has refuted God? Evidence of god? The evidence is everywhere. It exists within you, possibly.

Do I make myself clear?

Quite. In summary 'God' must exist because you want it to be true and people you hold as 'authority' figures say its true.


Precisely. You don't understand what I said ^^^^ (above) :) Cool man?
I could go further as skinwalker might suggest, but refuse. You guys can ... don't want to get modded. ----- just wait for that.

It sounds like you have a great opportunity for improving your communication ability then.


I am glad you said that. It will give me something to meditate on. While I am doing such, you can present further 'evidence' to this claim. I will be happy to eat it.

Which one? I made two claims in that text snippet you referred to.


LoL! Very snifty, CC!
His name may be John. Or herman. I am joking. I know, for sure, that he is a "Bishiop", or whatnot. At least I think....
Berkley was a philosopher who was sort of like an immaterialist or whatever. He stated matter does not exist except perceived by the mind. I am not sure about this statement, perhaps someone else would like to clarify EVERYTHING about berkleys stance. Regardless, Berkley is a philosopher in the specific sense at the very least. He stated many examples of why God exists, of course, I made the claim in the OP (opening post) meaning that you likely have not refuted berkley, you likely should not be refuting god, you are dumb or something... I don't understnad why you would refute God if you don't even know what god is.

His name was George Berkley. His made the assertion that reality only exists when observed. Seeing as if you turned your head there would be a catastrophe in the existence of what you were just looking at, he proposed that a life form ('God') observes everything at all times.

The glaring flaw is that there is no evidence that Berkley's initial assertion is true (in fact there is contradictory evidence if you consider the universe has been around far longer than people have). So that's it, he stands refuted.


Regardless. Lebinez also would be a great contribution to this arguement. I am sure, for example, were LightGigantic to come here he and I would at least have some agreement. You do know, there are intellectual theists, they do have profound arguements (such as the one that I am presenting perhaps?), and they do have evidence in words to back up their claims....

None of them have evidence to back up their claims. Take LG for example, he claims that acquiring certain knowledge results in the generation of additional biological organs responsible for direct perception of 'God'. It should be simple for LG to show these biological changes in humans as a result of acquiring knowledge... but alas he can't. Know why? Because he is delusional.



I don't care about your claims. I care about mine and how they mesh with yours.

If you value truth, and I don't think you do, then you would care much more about how your claims mesh with reality.


We can have knowledge of such a life form. This zero knowledge you speak, perhaps can contain some knowledge. I could, of course, as usual, be entirely wrong. If I am be entirely mean to me. It's what helps. Authority that is asserting it's actual and honest authority. Any General Grevious would be happy to relax.

ooooooooook.


Why, shit, don't we jump the gun and say as in another of the useless of all the threads, "Define God"?

Definition of 'God': Anthropmorophization of reality.

There you go.



We might say: God does not exist, therefore there is no such thing as God.

Or we might say: God exists because god is the defination of the unknown, or rather, God is the defination of the un-self.

For something to exist, the mental representation must match to a corresponding object in reality.

Complete BS of a post,

I suspect it is "BS" to you because you don't like being called out. That must be true since you didn't bother explaining to us what, specifically, defines my post as "BS." I made several very salient points, namely that you are suggesting that "no one has refuted Berkely" as if the mere name of a mediocre philosopher is enough to offer evidence for a god.

I opened an opportunity for you to refine your argument from that of a strawman (an argument you expect your opposition to spend time on rather than deal with the delusion of religion head on) to an argument that is cohesive and to-the-point. You choose, instead, to take the low road and be satisfied with name-dropping and the juvenile "you're wrong because I'm right" argument.

None of the claims aganist god has been refuted, and if they have, I would like to see how God does not exist. This position is perfectly reliable & is by no means a "straw man arguement" - although, on its surface surely it would seem like it.

On the surface and from all other angles as well. Unless you flesh out your position that Berkeley has defined god in such a way that sends all reasoned mind packing for the nearest sheep pen of a church. Berkeley made many claims about god. Which, specifically, are you implying have gone un-refuted? Let us put your claim in the open and I'll cite you the proper refutation, for each of Berkeley's delusions, thought-experiments, and attempts at philosophical discourse have long been laid to rest with regard to the delusion that there is evidence of a god at work in the universe.

If the above does not make sence, skinwalker who gave me many infractions, please, simply ... try harder?

Why should I put any effort in making you look any worse than you're already doing to yourself. I almost feel ashamed.

So you say the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesnt exist ?? Thats just pure ignorance. Prove to me he doesnt exist then!

Well to prove he doesn't exist I would have to know all the attributes of FSM...but we do KNOW that it was intended fiction, an intended parody, something an atheist came up with to discredit the concept of God...but the concept of God is completely different from FSM in every imaginable aspect...it's like someone saying they don't believe in the geocentric theory, so every other theory in science must be false simply because they are also theories...

No, FSM hasnt been made up :mad:
Dont offend my God, please.

And it just so happens that the FSM has all the same attributes as your god.
So have a go at it.

No, FSM hasnt been made up :mad:
Dont offend my God, please.

And it just so happens that the FSM has all the same attributes as your god.
So have a go at it.

If FSM has the same attributes as God why use the words Flying Spaghetti Monster if it has nothing to with anything that's flying, sphaghetti, or a monster?

FSM was made up as intended fiction, an intended parody, the lies these atheists will come up with in order to preserve the atheistic faith is amazing...

but the concept of God is completely different from FSM in every imaginable aspect...How so?
Merely saying that you think it is different doesn't make it so.

Please state your "concept of God".


it's like someone saying they don't believe in the geocentric theory, so every other theory in science must be false simply because they are also theories...:rolleyes:
No... it's not. It's nothing like that.

To demonstrate this you will need to provide your "concept of God".
So please go ahead and do so.

If FSM has the same attributes as God why use the words Flying Spaghetti Monster if it has nothing to with anything that's flying, sphaghetti, or a monster?

FSM was made up as intended fiction, an intended parody, the lies these atheists will come up with in order to preserve the atheistic faith is amazing...

Ok, but you do see what im trying to do here, dont you ?
Really, since there no evidence whatsoever that proves Gods existence how exactly is that different from any imaginary deity or whatever i can make up ?

Please read up on the following, and you might understand where im coming from (and many, if not all, other atheists):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot

God must exist in at least form.
Wrong. Not only is physical evidence of your "god" totally absent, but there are particular mathematical formulae which prove that god is impossible to define, and therefore impossible to prove.

To what questions?

The questions that we all ask. Does God exist? Do I understand correctly if or not god exists? (BTW: Just took 2 ativans so i feel a bit drunk)


Quite. In summary 'God' must exist because you want it to be true and people you hold as 'authority' figures say its true.

Is this an incorrect meathod? Finding the best authority figures on God and the beliefs of the greatest of the christians for example, will at least show me how to be an atheist, which is a very distasteful position to me!

It sounds like you have a great opportunity for improving your communication ability then.

I am in the process of reconfiguring my life still.

Which one? I made two claims in that text snippet you referred to.

Make more please. "You don't care about truth Brent"
"Brent you don't want to accept the truth"
"Brent, you are a waste of everyones time.
"Brent, you should stop what you are doing and go be isolated somewhere as you so crave".

But it's sort of hard for me to say them to myself, so, give me more, please.

His name was George Berkley. His made the assertion that reality only exists when observed. Seeing as if you turned your head there would be a catastrophe in the existence of what you were just looking at, he proposed that a life form ('God') observes everything at all times.

The glaring flaw is that there is no evidence that Berkley's initial assertion is true (in fact there is contradictory evidence if you consider the universe has been around far longer than people have). So that's it, he stands refuted.

That's Right George Bishiop Berkley or whatever. If you are saying Berkleys arguement is refuted, also, your calling him a medociare philosopher stands aganist my reasoning, anyway, that's great. I'm glad you refuted him. I wish you could refute lebinez or spinozas pantheisism. There are intellectual believers of god. (ex God)

None of them have evidence to back up their claims. Take LG for example, he claims that acquiring certain knowledge results in the generation of additional biological organs responsible for direct perception of 'God'. It should be simple for LG to show these biological changes in humans as a result of acquiring knowledge... but alas he can't. Know why? Because he is delusional.

Rather, all of them are more than willing to back up their claims.

he does not claim that he sprouts new biological organs, first. I'm sure. Either way, if he is delusional, good for him. That sucks for him. I doubt we can logically disprove God exists. It may be done and if has been done, then perhaps I will wonder and be agnostical theist... Sorr for the ativan:p


You haven't I am sure refuted Lebinez.


If you value truth, and I don't think you do, then you would care much more about how your claims mesh with reality.

This part is interesting though. You have no idea at what hell I have been through. No idea whatsoever. I am still recovering. SKinwalker is still beating on me and i am making myself look foolish, but it is all on purpose I suppose. Damn that. ANyway, I will always value truth. I probably value it moreso than you do. I care about how my claims mesh with reality. I'll give this some thought as if I don't already have enough to think about.


ooooooooook.

Yup. Generial Grevious.. wants to relax.



Definition of 'God': Anthropmorophization of reality.

There you go.

I doubt that. More like "perceptual understanding of something called God." But either way, I don't feel like going further as I don't think anyone is going to disprove pantheisism or anything else.




For something to exist, the mental representation must match to a corresponding object in reality.

You mean like... What? Pantheisism?

Edit: Read the post by sciphemonon first as he says so.


Skinwalker;

It appears we are for the very first time about to meet face to face. I am well prepared (sort of), and expecting a great fight. Show me what I got and I'll show you what you got? Or I'll show you what I got and you show me what I got. Ok?



I suspect it is "BS" to you because you don't like being called out. That must be true since you didn't bother explaining to us what, specifically, defines my post as "BS." I made several very salient points, namely that you are suggesting that "no one has refuted Berkely" as if the mere name of a mediocre philosopher is enough to offer evidence for a god.


It was actually BS, because the whole post seemed to me as if it were falling into oblivion. It did not reach what I expected it to reach. I could go back. But I will deal with this post instead.
I don't mind being called out. Infact, were I well enough to debate with my full potential with you guys, things would change. But give that time.
What does define your post as bs? I don't know :rolleyes:

Well, the suggestion of berkley was actually preperation for an arguement that I simply DID NOT WRITE. It was going to say,

"Have you refuted Berkley? No, then you should not be refuting him. Have you refuted Lebinez? No, well why are you refuting him? Have you disproven god exists? Well why are you not refuting Berkeley, Lebinez, and all of the other... BLa bla bla bla. ............."



I opened an opportunity for you to refine your argument from that of a strawman (an argument you expect your opposition to spend time on rather than deal with the delusion of religion head on) to an argument that is cohesive and to-the-point. You choose, instead, to take the low road and be satisfied with name-dropping and the juvenile "you're wrong because I'm right" argument.


And I have failed skinwalker. I have failed. But, the arguement is still here for us, at least somewhat, if we feel like discussing it. The strawman arguement should have taken off, and I feel it is. I decide for them to deal with the arguement I am presenting, no delsuion. The your wrong because i'm right arguement isn't intended to be that way maybe. You're wrong, I'm right about God existing maybe? That seems like a reasonable position I think . if they want to discuss if, fine. if they don't want to discuss it, that's fine by me I guess. But perhaps they can instead see the potential arguement as what it was meant to be?


On the surface and from all other angles as well. Unless you flesh out your position that Berkeley has defined god in such a way that sends all reasoned mind packing for the nearest sheep pen of a church. Berkeley made many claims about god. Which, specifically, are you implying have gone un-refuted? Let us put your claim in the open and I'll cite you the proper refutation, for each of Berkeley's delusions, thought-experiments, and attempts at philosophical discourse have long been laid to rest with regard to the delusion that there is evidence of a god at work in the universe.

I am not going to argue for berkley. I will argue for theory. And if you have any problem with that... tell me.



Why should I put any effort in making you look any worse than you're already doing to yourself. I almost feel ashamed.

Don't feel ashamed about me.
I'm working on my shit. I've presented an arguement that I don't want to take no more part in than is necessary at the time. And I'm sorry for being a little bit drunk. But anyway, I hope the thread is good, and sorry for the infraction thing. I'll watch my back... in the future, that is.

No, I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

How dare you besmirch Pastafarianism? May HIS noodly appendage smite thee! We even have religious books (for example):

http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Pasta-Cookbook-Whitecap-Books/dp/1551106566

And, and, The Spaghetti Tree (Miracle of miracles)...

http://www.food-info.net/uk/products/pasta/history.htm

ALL hard evidence, as you can see.

How dare you besmirch Pastafarianism? May HIS noodly appendage smite thee! We even have religious books (for example):

http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Pasta-Cookbook-Whitecap-Books/dp/1551106566

And, and, The Spaghetti Tree (Miracle of miracles)...

http://www.food-info.net/uk/products/pasta/history.htm

ALL hard evidence, as you can see.
No, none of it is hard evidence and this is ALL intended fiction, you atheists will try any cheap tactic in order to preserve and protect the atheistic faith-based belief system....you do this in order to win converts and to promote and spread the faith...

Ok, but you do see what im trying to do here, dont you ?
Really, since there no evidence whatsoever that proves Gods existence how exactly is that different from any imaginary deity or whatever i can make up ?

No it doesn't make it the same at all...Is the superstring theory and many-worlds interpretation both the samething simply because there's no evidence for them? No you would never say that, if you did people you would be amazed at what a fool you were...similarly anyone who takes two completely different things, pretends they're same, then says "see if one isn't true, the other isn't either" is just irrational...


Please read up on the following, and you might understand where im coming from (and many, if not all, other atheists):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot
No, I don't understand at all...what does any of this have to do with God, the causeless cause?

How so?
Merely saying that you think it is different doesn't make it so.

Please state your "concept of God".

:rolleyes:
No... it's not. It's nothing like that.

To demonstrate this you will need to provide your "concept of God".
So please go ahead and do so.
Ok...God is the unborn, unmade, the causeless cause, the cause of all causes, always present within you, the cause of all existence, the one without second, unchanging, the non-doer, smaller than the smallest particle, the origin of all things, the source of all, the origin of reality itself, the basis of all realities/universes, etc...

Well said vital one. Perhaps I can get some credit from skinwalker now, that we have such a thread with it's current future. What is it, says snakelord? Next to nothing? Plese tell me how this thread is next to nothing, skinwalker/snakelord?

FSM was made up as intended fiction, an intended parody, the lies these atheists will come up with in order to preserve the atheistic faith is amazing...


God was made up as intended reality, an intended truth, the lies these theists will come up with in order to preserve the theistic faith is amazing...

It is truly amazing, how easy it is to substitute one god for another, and still end up with exactly the same meaning.

God was made up as intended reality, an intended truth, the lies these theists will come up with in order to preserve the theistic faith is amazing...

It is truly amazing, how easy it is to substitute one god for another, and still end up with exactly the same meaning.

How do you know God was made up??? I know how, using circular logic..

No, none of it is hard evidence and this is ALL intended fiction, you atheists will try any cheap tactic in order to preserve and protect the atheistic faith-based belief system....you do this in order to win converts and to promote and spread the faith...

Actually, the intent is to make theists look the fools. They usually follow suit.

No it doesn't make it the same at all...Is the superstring theory and many-worlds interpretation both the samething simply because there's no evidence for them? No you would never say that, if you did people you would be amazed at what a fool you were...similarly anyone who takes two completely different things, pretends they're same, then says "see if one isn't true, the other isn't either" is just irrational...

You're mistaken, no one is claiming superstring theory or the many worlds interpretation as a reality, they're merely theories that require testing. Theists ALWAYS claim their gods are real.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

Ok...God is the unborn, unmade, the causeless cause, the cause of all causes, always present within you, the cause of all existence, the one without second, unchanging, the non-doer, smaller than the smallest particle, the origin of all things, the source of all, the origin of reality itself, the basis of all realities/universes, etc...

No, that is the FSM.

How do you know God was made up??? I know how, using circular logic..

How do you know he wasn't?

Actually, the intent is to make theists look the fools. They usually follow suit.
Yeah, you're right atheism is entirely based off ridiculing theism..."Everyone else is just another delusional fool, except for atheists"


You're mistaken, no one is claiming superstring theory or the many worlds interpretation as a reality, they're merely theories that require testing. Theists ALWAYS claim their gods are real.

BIG DIFFERENCE!
No, it's not a big difference...if you say that FSM and God are the same even though they possess entirely different characteristics, attributes, properties, etc...then it's the same as the superstring theory and the many-worlds interpretation are the same...


No, that is the FSM.
If you say that FSM has the EXACT same attributes, properties, characteristics, etc...of God then I would say there's no point in the word FSM....it's just another tactic used to ridicule theists and preserve the atheistic faith-based belief system....why call something a Flying Spaghetti Monster if it has absolutely nothing to do with anything flying, spaghetti, or monster-like?

How do you know he wasn't?
Well I absolutely KNOW for 100% sure because of my personal experiences...

Also you're using an argument from ignorance...

Yeah, you're right atheism is entirely based off ridiculing theism...

Of course, and why not? Theists believe in superstitions and myths and delude themselves into thinking it's real.

No, it's not a big difference...if you say that FSM and God are the same even though they possess entirely different characteristics, attributes, properties, etc...then it's the same as the superstring theory and the many-worlds interpretation are the same...

No, not quite. Theists claim their gods are real and exist. Scientists postulate that superstrings and many worlds are real and exist.

Other theists believe those theists claims that gods are real and exist. Other scientists test to try and falsify by making a prediction; a guess. They try to demonstrate that superstrings and many worlds ARE NOT real and DO NOT exist.

If you say that FSM has the EXACT same attributes, properties, characteristics, etc...of God then I would say there's no point in the word FSM....it's just another tactic used to ridicule theists and preserve the atheistic faith-based belief system....why call something a Flying Spaghetti Monster if it has absolutely nothing to do with anything flying, spaghetti, or monster-like?

Oh, but the attributes, properties, characteristics, etc. of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are unknowable, yet are as clear as an azure sky. One must perceive the Flying Spaghetti Monster as without gender, yet completely androgynous, hence the FSM must always be referred to as the FSM. The use of personal pronouns such as he, him, his or some such term is meaningless.

Your god is but a mere mortal compared with the one true god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Well I absolutely KNOW for 100% sure because of my personal experiences...

I've often heard of and always welcomed to hear of the personal experiences that make one 100% sure of their gods. I haven't heard anything thus far that constitutes little more than what an imagination can conjure.

By all means, let's hear yours?

Also you're using an argument from ignorance...

Ignorant of what?

How do you know God was made up??? -VitalOne
How do you know he wasn't? -Q
Also you're using an argument from ignorance... -VitalOne
Of course the obviouse irony is that your original argument, VitalOne, was from ignorance, Q simply responded with the exact same one. Of course Q claims god was made up, the proof lies in the fact that nobody claims god wrote the bible, everyone (eg priests) who I have spoken to state that it was indeed created by humans; "God was made up as intended reality, an intended truth": the writers did intend it to be a book of truth, thus they made up this god from their ideas (even if they were based on sound evidence of god, thoug hwe can't prove that.) No this does not mean god does not exist, but it means there is still no proof for him to exist.
The difference between the bible and the book on the FSM is that in one, we assume the authors beleived what they were writing, and the other, the others didnt beleive. However, beleif does not effect truth.

you atheists will try any cheap tactic in order to preserve and protect the atheistic faith-based belief system....you do this in order to win converts and to promote and spread the faith...
Reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) the "cheap tactic" you are reffering too, and a valid argument. It doesn't say much for you that your counter-point is an argument ad hominem either.

No, I don't understand at all...what does any of this have to do with God, the causeless cause?
All of these (God, and invisible pink unicorn, and a teapot floating in space) have 2 identicle characteristics: neither have evidence proven in favour of them, and neither have evidence disproving them. Thus, we have the same amount of knowlege of the existance of each, ie: God is just as much likely to exist, or not exist, as an invisible pink unicorn.


No, none of it is hard evidence and this is ALL intended fiction,
Well, the fact is we happen to know weather those sources of the FSM were made by humans or not, but that does not disproove the FSM.
Just because something has been made up as fiction doesnt mean the idea could not be correct.
The point is to demonstrate how atheists see texts such as the bible: useless, not a provable text of god.

Yeah, you're right atheism is entirely based off ridiculing theism... Once again, ad hominem.

If you say that FSM has the EXACT same attributes, properties, characteristics, etc...of God then I would say there's no point in the word FSM....it's just another tactic used to ridicule theists and preserve the atheistic faith-based belief system....why call something a Flying Spaghetti Monster if it has absolutely nothing to do with anything flying, spaghetti, or monster-like?
Of course, if your definition of god then happened to coincide with the attributes of the predicted singularity which precluded the big bang (see Hawkings works) then in turn, god would be a pointless word...

Ok...God is the unborn, unmade, the causeless cause, the cause of all causes, always present within you, the cause of all existence, the one without second, unchanging, the non-doer, smaller than the smallest particle, the origin of all things, the source of all, the origin of reality itself, the basis of all realities/universes, etc...
So, let's compare to a singularity then:
-unborn and unmade: in a singularity, time has no meaning, so it cannot be born or made.
-the causeless cause, the cause of all causes, the cause of all existence, the origin of all things, the source of all, the origin of reality itself, (grouped these together since they essentialy mean the same thing): since time has broken down, so has causality, thus it is the starting chain of all causes, it is the start of all existance, and the origin of reality etc...
-the one without second, unchanging: once again, no time = no change and thus no seconds.
-the basis of all realities/universes: well that's the very basis of the theory.
-smaller than the smallest particle: indeed, such a singularity would have been infinitly small.
-always present within you: ah, the oddball, a very vague statement too. However, the universe is always presant within me, and it was the singularity, thus one could say it is always within me.
So then, looks like god is just a fancy name for the singularity that was the universe before the bigbang.

-Andrew

The questions that we all ask. Does God exist? Do I understand correctly if or not god exists? (BTW: Just took 2 ativans so i feel a bit drunk)

Do you understand why you are asking those questions?


Is this an incorrect meathod? Finding the best authority figures on God and the beliefs of the greatest of the christians for example, will at least show me how to be an atheist, which is a very distasteful position to me!


Every idea has authorities on it. Every idea does not have a corresponding object in reality. If you want to learn more about an idea, an authority is certainly an option. If you want to see an idea's corresponding object in reality, you have to go to reality (not an authority).


Make more please. "You don't care about truth Brent"
"Brent you don't want to accept the truth"
"Brent, you are a waste of everyones time.
"Brent, you should stop what you are doing and go be isolated somewhere as you so crave".

But it's sort of hard for me to say them to myself, so, give me more, please.


Is that what you hear in your head when you read my words?



That's Right George Bishiop Berkley or whatever. If you are saying Berkleys arguement is refuted, also, your calling him a medociare philosopher stands aganist my reasoning, anyway, that's great. I'm glad you refuted him. I wish you could refute lebinez or spinozas pantheisism. There are intellectual believers of god. (ex God)

I don't know what skill Berkley had with philosophy. It's pretty irrelevant. He made an incorrect claim. That's all there is to it. Sure I can refute Leibniz. He claimed 'Monads' exist... and there is no evidence for them... and there is evidence for other things that contradict Monads (strings for example). He stands refuted. Spinoza claimed 'God' is nature. Take human features and put it on nature and what do you get? Mother nature. Put human features on time, and you get Father time. Put human features on a rabbit and you get Bugs Bunny. Spinoza anthropomorphized nature... just like all humans anthropmorhopize something. He stands refuted.


Rather, all of them are more than willing to back up their claims.

It doesn't matter if they are willing or unwilling. They simply don't have the means to do so.


he does not claim that he sprouts new biological organs, first. I'm sure. Either way, if he is delusional, good for him. That sucks for him.

He claims just that and it probably does suck to be him.


I doubt we can logically disprove God exists. It may be done and if has been done, then perhaps I will wonder and be agnostical theist... Sorr for the ativan

The moment anybody assigns 'God' detail... such as a name, something it did, something it asserted, etc. is the moment it becomes falsifiable... and shortly after falsified. Every human claim of 'God's existence can be disproven. The generic idea of a 'God' cannot.



I doubt that. More like "perceptual understanding of something called God." But either way, I don't feel like going further as I don't think anyone is going to disprove pantheisism or anything else.


That's exactly what Pantheism is. Anthropomorphization of reality.


You mean like... What? Pantheisism?

In Pantheism, the reality certainly exists... just not the eyes, nose, mouth, emotion, etc. being put on it via anthropomorphization.

No, none of it is hard evidence and this is ALL intended fiction, you atheists will try any cheap tactic in order to preserve and protect the atheistic faith-based belief system....you do this in order to win converts and to promote and spread the faith...

Lol! That was kind of my point too! You severely lack comprehension of what constitutes an Atheist. We do not have faith, we have knowledge, that which can be observed, measured, predicted, tested and corobborated. It is most reasonable to assume that god does not exist until evidence to the contrary arises.

But of course, if you are denying that He revealed His visage unto me at the holy temple - Renato's Italian Restaurant (of Rene and Renato fame) - then I would HAVE to consider that unjust persecution of a minority religion. Why did He appear as a pasta dish? I do not know for "He works in mysterious ways", and not forgetting that, "His ways, are not Our ways"... you may as well ask, "What keeps the clouds in the sky?" (I'll tell you now it's invisible noodles...)

Crunchy cat:

Why do you care so much about my problems?

At the moment, I refuse to respond to your post.

Reason? You care too much about my problems. You do not know me at all.

I understand my problems, and besides the matter, you have not refuted God, yet. Or ever....

Crunchy cat:

Why do you care so much about my problems?

I didn't realize I did :shrug:. Which problems specifically?


At the moment, I refuse to respond to your post.

Reason? You care too much about my problems. You do not know me at all.

Whatever floats your boat.


I understand my problems, and besides the matter, you have not refuted God, yet. Or ever....

Would you like me to? I can refute all the man-made claims of 'God' but not a generic idea of one.

I understand my problems, and besides the matter, you have not refuted God, yet. Or ever....

Refuting a god is not the point, refuting the claims for god is the point.

That's why I asked you at the beginning of this thread which gods YOU don't believe in, or do you believe in them all?

Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Allah... take your pick and tell us which one you believe in and which one(s) you don't?

I didn't realize I did :shrug:. Which problems specifically?

Mainly the one about the words i'm seeing being reflected back into my eyes or whatever... that one.

the othern, which does not concern you, is the loss of emotion. Which i have started a thread 4 in bout members.

Whatever floats your boat.

Forgot what I said, and I frankly don't give a rats ass.

Would you like me to? I can refute all the man-made claims of 'God' but not a generic idea of one.

I doubt you or anyone else on this site can disprove Gods existance, much less, the god of Quantum Quack.


...

sure meat head:

Simply, the god which is the god of existance. I don't believe in any fairy tells, however they do have interest, which has not been refuted (aka the bible). The god of Quantum Quack is impossible to refute, however. But the god of the flying meat ball or whatever the hell , which is actual, is not dis prove either. I don't believe god will ever be refuted. And I want to believe that. And there is reason behind it.

Shove it.

sure meat head:

Simply, the god which is the god of existance. I don't believe in any fairy tells.

I thought you were a Christian? :confused:

nah.

sure meat head:

Simply, the god which is the god of existance. I don't believe in any fairy tells, however they do have interest, which has not been refuted (aka the bible). The god of Quantum Quack is impossible to refute, however. But the god of the flying meat ball or whatever the hell , which is actual, is not dis prove either. I don't believe god will ever be refuted. And I want to believe that. And there is reason behind it.

Shove it.

Such eloquent dialog. There is no such god called, the god of existance. Please specify your god of choice?

My "god of choice" as you pretend to claim it,

is the god of our natural existances's existance or existance.... it simply isn't defined yet how god exists, therefore most of the atheists here are simply.... scratching sticks, as they refuse to believe their naturality.

My "god of choice" as you pretend to claim it,

is the god of our natural existances's existance or existance.... it simply isn't defined yet how god exists, therefore most of the atheists here are simply.... scratching sticks, as they refuse to believe their naturality.

I don't understand, is your god made up by you? What's his name?

This inane thread is still going on???

Arrrg.

I see it has fallen upon (Q) to point out the lack of reason displayed by existabrent and VO....



...
Please specify your god of choice?


Alas, despite how many times a simple request for a definition is given, it never is delivered.

Thus, reasonable discussion cannot occur.

I call him existence.

I call him existence.

That is not a definition.

I call him existence.

That's all I need to know. So, you made him up. thanks.

Of course, that still leads to the same problem, in that you believe in this god you call 'existence' but you don't believe in all the other gods. So, you are in the same boat as the atheists. Very little difference.

No i am in no different boat than the atheists.

The flying spiegitti monster is a perfectly reliable god until all of him is disproven, which will not happen.

And the defination, Mr Glaucon the grandest, ... is hidden within all of my words. Shame, huh? Oh well. Check out my thread lost emotion at at the members. Shame. Hopefully this youngan will grow up and be happy, you say?

Either way, existence has many was a god can manefest. That is why I call him my god.

No i am in no different boat than the atheists.

The flying spiegitti monster is a perfectly reliable god until all of him is disproven, which will not happen.

And the defination, Mr Glaucon the grandest, ... is hidden within all of my words. Shame, huh? Oh well. Check out my thread lost emotion at at the members. Shame. Hopefully this youngan will grow up and be happy, you say?

Either way, existence has many was a god can manefest. That is why I call him my god.

You're in a completely different boat. The difference is that atheists don't believe in a FSM.

Can you try and describe your god for us?

And, if people seem to miss what you're trying to say, it's not cause they didn't read properly or ignored it. It's because your communication skills suck.

Thank you very much you edjucated bitch.

I have no emotion, give me a fucking infraction.

I have described it.
Pages back .

God exists because he is a part of our nature.
You cannot believe that there is no such thing as non-self, for example.
There are many examples of god and until they are refuted I will remain to believe in something "other than self".

Of course I could go on and on and on. There are more definations to go up my ass, somewhere.

...

The flying spiegitti monster is a perfectly reliable god until all of him is disproven, which will not happen.

Again, the problem is simply that it is illogical to say that existence is something that can be disproven. 'Proof' (sic) of existence is prima facie: something is either A or B; one cannot disprove not A, rather, one must (in this example) prove B.



...
And the defination, Mr Glaucon the grandest, ... is hidden within all of my words.


Then it fails to qualify as a definition. A definition must be explicit.

Thank you very much you edjucated bitch.

I have no emotion, give me a fucking infraction.

I have described it.
Pages back .

God exists because he is a part of our nature.
You cannot believe that there is no such thing as non-self, for example.
There are many examples of god and until they are refuted I will remain to believe in something "other than self".

Of course I could go on and on and on. There are more definations to go up my ass, somewhere.

I believe in plenty of things that are "other than self." Like rocks and stuff. Why does belief in god have to follow that thought process?

You don't know do you?

Well read some more. Read until you die. And when you have died then you may then perhaps understand that you are not dead and nothing, but dead with something.

Kant for example, said that god must exist according to some ethical principal, don't remember that one...

You don't know do you?

Well read some more. Read until you die. And when you have died then you may then perhaps understand that you are not dead and nothing, but dead with something.

Of course I don't know, that's why I asked you. :rolleyes:

Either way, existence has many was a god can manefest. That is why I call him my god.

Ok, and next time you speak with 'existence,' say hello. ;)

I will :)

Maybe god is death :D

Oh god definately exists...

but it's just an idea.

The idea "god" definately exists.

But the subject of the idea as in "a being" could never be confirmed or denied with any real confidence.

Oh god definately exists...

but it's just an idea.

The idea "god" definately exists.

But the subject on the idea as in "a being" could never be confirmed or denied with any real confidence.

All quite correct, as I've pointed out previously.

The problem here is that a few people refuse to comprehend this kind of definition....

Well said wes. The idea is presented in a form which clarifys it for our audience of (not intended as a attack) "stOOpid" atheists.

All quite correct, as I've pointed out previously.

The problem here is that a few people refuse to comprehend this kind of definition....


GLAUCON!

Whassup man.

Kickass to interact with ya man. You and crunchy are two of my several favorites. :)

Wow Xev posted too. Madness.

Maybe god is death :D

God is "Life"...to be separated from Him is to exist in the state of death. One's only escape from this state of separation/death is faith in Jesus Christ.

The Living Word of God (both Written and Incarnate) gives Life to the dead.

Well said wes. The idea is presented in a form which clarifys it for our audience of (not intended as a attack) "stOOpid" atheists.

HEY! I'm an athiest damnit. :P

GLAUCON!

Whassup man.

Kickass to interact with ya man. You and crunchy are two of my several favorites. :)

Wow Xev posted too. Madness.

lol

:-)

Hey Wes.. longtime no see.

Yep.. I missed you as well dude.

But wes you are saying that the idea of god exists. The idea of it is something you cannot so easily refute. The it is the idea of god that gives rise to god.

Refuting a god is not the point, refuting the claims for god is the point.

That's why I asked you at the beginning of this thread which gods YOU don't believe in, or do you believe in them all?

Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Allah... take your pick and tell us which one you believe in and which one(s) you don't?

The issue of which God is not technically a problem. The point is, that at least one God must be present in the universe's creation, who claims to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and the creator. Some mythical Gods claim to rule the "sun" or "moon"; these don't warrant a God who created the universe. The criteria any God must follow is, He must say He created all the universe.

Last edited by SkinWalker : 07-25-07 at 01:11 AM. Reason: Removed most of the unintelligent trolling but left the unintelligent mispellings

LOL: SkinWalker, you misspelled "mispellings"! Pot calling the kettle black, eh?

Mainly the one about the words i'm seeing being reflected back into my eyes or whatever... that one.

Do you have a problem with words being reflected back into your eyes?


the othern, which does not concern you, is the loss of emotion. Which i have started a thread 4 in bout members.

Sounds loony.


Forgot what I said, and I frankly don't give a rats ass.

Have you ever given a rats ass? Must make an aweful gift.



I doubt you or anyone else on this site can disprove Gods existance, much less, the god of Quantum Quack.


Give me some details about <place your favorite diety here>. I'll disprove it for you.

God must exist in at least form

Sure. Ideas exist. Gods don't create people. It works the other way 'round.

God is a concept,
By which we can measure
Our pain.
I'll say it again:
God is a concept
By which we can measure
Our pain.
I don't believe in magic.
I don't believe in I-ching.
I don't believe in bible.
I don't believe in tarot.
I don't believe in Hitler.
I don't believe in Jesus.
I don't believe in Kennedy.
I don't believe in Buddha.
I don't believe in mantra.
I don't believe in Gita.
I don't believe in yoga.
I don't believe in kings.
I don't believe in Elvis.
I don't believe in Zimmerman.
I don't believe in Beatles.
I just believe in me.
Yoko and me.
And that's reality.
The dream is over.
What can I say?
The dream is over.
Yesterday
I was dreamweaver,
But now I'm reborn.
I was the walrus,
But now I'm John.
And so dear friends,
You just have to carry on,
The dream is over.

(John Lennon)

The issue of which God is not technically a problem. The point is, that at least one God must be present in the universe's creation, who claims to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and the creator. Some mythical Gods claim to rule the "sun" or "moon"; these don't warrant a God who created the universe. The criteria any God must follow is, He must say He created all the universe.

So, one mythical claim is supposed to have credibility over another, merely based on 'one' parameter? :rolleyes:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster DID create the universe. That is a fact. ;)

The Flying Spaghetti Monster DID create the universe. That is a fact. ;)

Wrath of the FSM?

http://images.easyart.com/i/prints/rw/lg/8/2/Babies-Collection-Spaghetti-Head-82310.jpg

So, one mythical claim is supposed to have credibility over another, merely based on 'one' parameter? :rolleyes:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster DID create the universe. That is a fact. ;)

As long as you acknowledge an intelligent creator of the univese, I have no problem. Associating the creator with a specific name or image is immaterial and not of any concern to me. You can call the creator a "Flying Spaghetti Monster", and you can tag images to His or Her name. Far be it for me to judge you on something so harmless to me.

As long as you acknowledge an intelligent creator of the univese, I have no problem.

You SHOULD have a problem with that, that is the point. How many "intelligent creators" will mankind invent before you do have a problem?

Do you have a problem with words being reflected back into your eyes?

Seems so.

Sounds loony.

You're loony too. You obviously do not understand human nature as deeply as I, or Quantum Quack, who is similar in his ways.

Have you ever given a rats ass? Must make an aweful gift.

Hah! Hard to give a rats ass when the ones who love you the most are fucking bastards. Are you saying that my "gift" cannot be changed, to something, some thing else? Deleted? I wouldn't call such a gift though....


Give me some details about <place your favorite diety here>. I'll disprove it for you.

You couldn't do that. My favoriate diety is Quantum Quack. Dis prove him.... Good luck, too...

...

Beautiful Tiassa.

I wish we could convince the whole world that god does not exist.... Would do wonders do you not believe?

Beautiful Tiassa.

I wish we could convince the whole world that god does not exist....

What would we do with all the churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.? :shrug:

Not to mention, what would become of the Vatican? :eek:

Sure. Ideas exist. Gods don't create people. It works the other way 'round.

God is a concept,
By which we can measure
Our pain.
I'll say it again:
God is a concept
By which we can measure
Our pain.
I don't believe in magic.
I don't believe in I-ching.
I don't believe in bible.
I don't believe in tarot.
I don't believe in Hitler.
I don't believe in Jesus.
I don't believe in Kennedy.
I don't believe in Buddha.
I don't believe in mantra.
I don't believe in Gita.
I don't believe in yoga.
I don't believe in kings.
I don't believe in Elvis.
I don't believe in Zimmerman.
I don't believe in Beatles.
I just believe in me.
Yoko and me.
And that's reality.
The dream is over.
What can I say?
The dream is over.
Yesterday
I was dreamweaver,
But now I'm reborn.
I was the walrus,
But now I'm John.
And so dear friends,
You just have to carry on,
The dream is over.

(John Lennon)

lol

if believing in god is just a concept to measure our pain, what does that make yoko?

Uhuo!!!!


We have a theist here :D :) *blush*

What would we do with all the churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.? :shrug:

Not to mention, what would become of the Vatican? :eek:

Pool halls, dog urinals and bat sanctuaries. Not in that order.

So god does not exist.

Why is it, though, I can't believe that!!!

So god does not exist.

Why is it, though, I can't believe that!!!

Maybe you should come up with a reason for him to exist then. :bugeye:

There just seems like so many possibilities. I cannot discount what is written in reason. If he is non-existant, then I want to see it proved. Otherwise, I am an agnostic. I do not know if he exists, or not. Reason? Has he been disproved? Out of all the things that exist, is there some superior ... thing? Is there not something else out there, which can hear me? Is there not something that exists that is not me???

Sorry I can't do better. Maybe if you could answer this I would be satisfied.

There just seems like so many possibilities. I cannot discount what is written in reason. If he is non-existant, then I want to see it proved. Otherwise, I am an agnostic. I do not know if he exists, or not. Reason? Has he been disproved? Out of all the things that exist, is there some superior ... thing? Is there not something else out there, which can hear me? Is there not something that exists that is not me???

Sorry I can't do better. Maybe if you could answer this I would be satisfied.

I cant proof God exists, but the burden of proof lies with the ones that claim his existance.

I wish we could convince the whole world that god does not exist.... Would do wonders do you not believe?

I don't think it's possible. There is a reason we invent gods, and as nature abhors a vacuum, what will go in its place? In the end, I would settle for intellectual integrity in assertions about the mysterium.


What would we do with all the churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.?

Not to mention, what would become of the Vatican?

That's easy: upscale condos. In Seattle, condos with street-level retail are about the only acceptable development aside from office blocks.


if believing in god is just a concept to measure our pain, what does that make yoko?

The mother of his children? The light of his life? Whatever it is, Yoko is far more tangible than God.

Has anyone ever heard the track "Sean's In the Sky", from the Wonsuponatime collection?

Paul may have been the cute one, but John, in the end, was "Beautiful John".

How about if we settle on "John Lennon is God?"

Oh, wait, wait ... that title already goes to Brian Wilson.

I cant proof God exists, but the burden of proof lies with the ones that claim his existance.
and claims of direct perception usually come with the prerequisites that such perception is met by ......

(in otherwords if you have a person who is unwilling to undertake the process advocated to attain a state of direct perception, then never the twain shall meet ....)

tiassa
“
Originally Posted by Lightgigantic

if believing in god is just a concept to measure our pain, what does that make yoko?
”
The mother of his children?
.... now there's a concept to measure your pain by ....

The light of his life? Whatever it is, Yoko is far more tangible than God.
tangible to John perhaps



How about if we settle on "John Lennon is God?"

"the dream is over"

Hah!

Lg!

Wonderful thread aye?

You SHOULD have a problem with that, that is the point. How many "intelligent creators" will mankind invent before you do have a problem?

It is not the creator in and of itself which is important; what truly matters is that people believe in the concept of creation itself.

It is not the creator in and of itself which is important; what truly matters is that people believe in the concept of creation itself.

Why is the concept of creation important even if there was no God ?

It is not the creator in and of itself which is important; what truly matters is that people believe in the concept of creation itself.

Why should anyone believe in a concept that is complex and confusing with no indication of self-identification over one that is simple, understandable and is based on observation?

:shrug:

Why should anyone believe in a concept that is complex and confusing with no indication of self-identification over one that is simple, understandable and is based on observation?

:shrug:

lets get this straight

is this an argument for or against Richard Dawkins .....

haha. i love this ******g thread.

Why should anyone believe in a concept that is complex and confusing with no indication of self-identification over one that is simple, understandable and is based on observation?

:shrug:

So, (Q), what is the purely "scientific" explanation these understandable obvervations have concluded? Is the principle of origins in which you believe unanimous amongst all scientists/physicists? Do you ever wonder why science has never produced a theory to satisfy all questions? All the theories have flaws that other scientists themselves discover and criticize.

Seems so.


What does it mean and how / why is it a problem?



You're loony too. You obviously do not understand human nature as deeply as I, or Quantum Quack, who is similar in his ways.

How / why is it obvious?


Hah! Hard to give a rats ass when the ones who love you the most are fucking bastards. Are you saying that my "gift" cannot be changed, to something, some thing else? Deleted? I wouldn't call such a gift though....

Somewhere there might be a market for rats asses.


You couldn't do that. My favoriate diety is Quantum Quack. Dis prove him.... Good luck, too...


Quantum Quack is neither omniscient or omnipotent; hence, he doesn't qualify as a deity. Here is evidence:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69569

He stands disproven of being a deity.

What does it mean and how / why is it a problem?


Because CC, it is destroying my life.

How / why is it obvious?

How why is what obvious? That you don't obviously understand human nature as deeply as me? If you experienced a necessity to attempt to cry in order to have a return to feeling of a chair and emotion or feeling for things in an attempt to escape suicide, you may perhaps then understand. Until then, it is obvious that you do not understand human nature as deeply as I, ....

Somewhere there might be a market for rats asses.


So, I will forever be a rats ass. Such a nice remark Crunch the Great Cat.

Quantum Quack is neither omniscient or omnipotent; hence, he doesn't qualify as a deity. Here is evidence:

i disagree. I will view the thread, thanks.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69569

He stands disproven of being a deity.

And you stand proven of being a crunchy cat.

So, (Q), what is the purely "scientific" explanation these understandable obvervations have concluded?

Depends. What exactly are you referring? If it's the start of the universe and it's development, that certainly appears like it occured on its own, with no indication there was a creator or intelligence at the helm.

Is the principle of origins in which you believe unanimous amongst all scientists/physicists?

Pretty much. Maybe a couple who don't.

Do you ever wonder why science has never produced a theory to satisfy all questions?

Of course. But, I understand that one theory to satisfy all questions isn't likely. That's the problem with theists who insist on easy absolute answers to hard questions, they turn to religion for that offering. They also expect science, which is still in it's infancy, to have answered all questions, and when they find it has not, they think it useless.

But, let's remember that lightning and thunder used to scare the pantaloons off people who thought the gods were angry. Once it was discovered that lightning and thunder was the discharging of electricity to the earth with the resulting noise, they were happy they no longer had to believe the mighty Thor was trying to stick a lightnin