Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[imaplanck.]

Theres nothing pseudo about quantum mechanic. Only certain levels of understanding on it.

Have a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cldg_Hcp9-c its a nice simple introduction into the real quantum world.

Have a day off will ya! I said the "supernatural interpretation" was pseudo.

I have a general physics diploma.

[Godless]

Now that was a very interesting video 4rd...
thanks for posting it! weird stuff!

[zira]

FOR:

If God(s) exist(s), then he or she or they created human conscience in a way that people can figure God or Gods in different ways, means each culture has it's own religion or image of God.
So all these religions, and the differences between them, are compatible with the existance of God(s).
You cannot talk about a "Christian God" as a fact. God(s) has then created ALL humans and all cultural contexts (even atheism!)

You cannot have distinct Gods creating distinct groups of peoples, distinct religions. If you have more than one architects for building your house, they must cooperate, they cannot work "each on it's own".

Distinct images of Gods and religions ARE NO PROOF AGAINST religion and God.

AGAINST:

If Gods do not exist, then something else created world religions and the images of God. The human imagination has so!

Gods images and religions are NOT A PROOF for existance of God. Because the philosophic and affective capabilities of human brains can create religions as well as any other myths.

Finally:
the question if God(s) exist(s) will remain open forever. We will never find a proof for or against existance of God, on this earth.
Maybe if God and life after death exist, then those who are gone away, know whether God exists...

[SnakeLord]

You cannot talk about a "Christian God" as a fact. God(s) has then created ALL humans and all cultural contexts (even atheism

That raises moral issues with a god creating atheists only to then damn atheists to eternal burning because they're atheists. While your statement might not in itself deny the possibility, it would certainly make some gods, (including the christian one), look like real assholes.

[Kendall]

(“ Originally Posted by Godless
I only asked what the hell is a theist doing in a scientific forum/subforum of religion, if not to LEARN or find ways to find converts to their way of thinking! . ” )

Kendall- I wanted to know if they meant that a theist should not be on a science forum or if they think science disproves god?

Is that your picture imaplanck.;)

[imaplanck.]

Is that your picture imaplanck.;)

Yeah! Me love you long timr baby, you have 10dollar?

[Kendall]

If thats your picture:D

[imaplanck.]

If thats your picture:D

No its in fact computer generated.

[Kendall]

I was just joking, you seem to spend alot of time in the religion forums for an atheist, are you thinking about becoming a believer?

[imaplanck.]

No Im thinking about starting out my own religion actually. Thus becoming rich, powerful and revered for asserting any old crap that my imagination can conjure up to an audience of fools.:)

[IceAgeCivilizations]

What will be the gist of your new religion?

[Kendall]

You would be better off not starting by calling your audience fools!

[imaplanck.]

What will be the gist of your new religion?

Well I thought about making the rule: On the seventh hour of the seventh day Thou must lieth with thou devine prophet if thou beith a hot chick.


What do you think? is that a good starting point? :bugeye:

[IceAgeCivilizations]

That's great, but I think Jim Jones already tried that.

[imaplanck.]

That's great, but I think Jim Jones already tried that.

Who dat?

[Kendall]

Nothing funnier than two people arguing sarcastically for both sides of the same thing!

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Jim Jones had a religious organization down in Surinam that didn't end up too well.

[Kendall]

The human mind is a strange thing, ever notice someone do the opposite of you to show you that they do not think you are right, I tell them to do the right thing:eek:

[Medicine*Woman]

Jim Jones had a religious organization down in Surinam that didn't end up too well.

*************
M*W: Gee, and all this time I thought it was Guyana.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Ok, Guyana it was.

[draqon]

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.

Cris

n0where in BIble...d0es it say that G0d is Omniscient

[thedevilmademe81]

BEWARE OF GOD


"god is an insult to us thinkers..."

Christianity is for the weak minded. Who would believe in a god wich you cannot see on blind faith. Why not believe in what's in front of your eyes.....evolution? It is everywhere in this world. Just the fact that we used to not be that advanced as a society, and now have this complex technological world shows me that we evolve everyday. The fact that we used to be very "primitive", and now are smart intelligent human beings proves my point.Evolution is much more than 'apes turned into humans', as the Christians would classify it.It is about having a problem and overcoming it, evolving. Not paying to some false god for help, helping yourself. Why would god create a world wich is run by so much evil. Innocent people are hurt, and killed everyday. Christians claim it's because we humans make our own decisions. If we kill some- body we pay the price, wich is hell. Life is one big test in other words. Well how come those who are murdered don't have the choice to live and create their own destiny. How Come only the wicked are able to chose if you die or live. What kind of god would create a evil world like that? Definitely a evil one, wich Christians claim Jesus isn't. What kind of god would send you to hell just because you don't believe in him? It doesn't matter if you were good in life, you still go to hell. But, a murderer can kill and kill and at the last minute beg for redemp- tion and go to heaven. How can Christians be so ignorant and selfish to think that everyone should believe in there religion? There are so many other religions out there to believe in, why believe in Christianity? Christians think you should because it is the biggest religion in the world, so it must be the true one. Christianity is the biggest religion in the world because for centuries Christians have been shoving it down other cultures throats forcing them to believe. Christians forced the African slaves, Indians in America, even the Vikings in Norway long ago (just to name a few). Christians actually brainwashed these people into forgetting their heritage, there way of life. They did this not through the love of the lord, but rather weapons, slavery, and force. If there was a god, would he want it this way? Christians even bend there own rules if it fits there agenda's. To me Christianity is no more than a false sense of hope in people. People long ago could not explain the stars in the sky, fire, the great oceans and simple things like that. Things that ruled there everyday life. They could not understand how a race as great as man has no control over his environment. So they blamed it on a god that they created out of fear. Things are the way they are because god did it. It helps Christians to sleep better at night if they think 'god' is in control of their destiny. But they need to wake up and realize that they have control of their own life and destiny and god can't help them if someone has a gun to their head. In short "god" is a false sense of hope. But I choose to walk through life using sight, not faith. God is an insult to us thinkers...Christians are doing the same thing that the Indiand did long ago. The Indians would tell their kids great amazing stories and fables of why the world is the way it is. They made these stories up to ease their children's curiosity. But that's all they are is stories. The Indians know that, but why not the Christians. Christians pride themselves in being so smart, so almighty, special.........so stupid. I mean come on! Adam and Eve, the Great Flood, resurrection. The bible is no more than a book of fairy tales, to us who are smart enough to decode it. Christians claim it is the only book in history with no mistakes. I read and pick out many. Like Noah and getting 2 of every animal on the planet on a boat (yeah, fucking right!), or people living till there 300 years old, and even women being man's downfall (and the list goes on). If there was a god would he not be a she. Woman gives life in nature. In just about every aspect of nature, the woman gets the food to nourish her children, why the males only purpose in provision of sperm. Women are our creators. So why pick a sexist, racist male to be our god? Christians did because our world has always been a male dominated one. So if you were to make up a god why not make him the perfect man. Well that version of god, and us being in his image, has died out long ago, with the ignorance of Christianity. People today are starting to believe in themselves and not some false prophet on a cross. They believe that they can make there own life. The more I think about Christianity, the more I laugh at the arrogance, selfishness, and ignorance behind it.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Ignorance? Pleeeeeeease.

[Medicine*Woman]

BEWARE OF GOD

"god is an insult to us thinkers..."

Christianity is for the weak minded. Who would believe in a god wich you cannot see on blind faith. Why not believe in what's in front of your eyes.....evolution? It is everywhere in this world. Just the fact that we used to not be that advanced as a society, and now have this complex technological world shows me that we evolve everyday. The fact that we used to be very "primitive", and now are smart intelligent human beings proves my point.Evolution is much more than 'apes turned into humans', as the Christians would classify it.It is about having a problem and overcoming it, evolving. Not paying to some false god for help, helping yourself. Why would god create a world wich is run by so much evil. Innocent people are hurt, and killed everyday. Christians claim it's because we humans make our own decisions. If we kill somebody we pay the price, wich is hell. Life is one big test in other words. Well how come those who are murdered don't have the choice to live and create their own destiny. How Come only the wicked are able to chose if you die or live. What kind of god would create a evil world like that? Definitely a evil one, wich Christians claim Jesus isn't. What kind of god would send you to hell just because you don't believe in him? It doesn't matter if you were good in life, you still go to hell. But, a murderer can kill and kill and at the last minute beg for redemption and go to heaven. How can Christians be so ignorant and selfish to think that everyone should believe in there religion? There are so many other religions out there to believe in, why believe in Christianity? Christians think you should because it is the biggest religion in the world, so it must be the true one. Christianity is the biggest religion in the world because for centuries Christians have been shoving it down other cultures throats forcing them to believe. Christians forced the African slaves, Indians in America, even the Vikings in Norway long ago (just to name a few). Christians actually brainwashed these people into forgetting their heritage, there way of life. They did this not through the love of the lord, but rather weapons, slavery, and force. If there was a god, would he want it this way? Christians even bend there own rules if it fits there agenda's. To me Christianity is no more than a false sense of hope in people. People long ago could not explain the stars in the sky, fire, the great oceans and simple things like that. Things that ruled there everyday life. They could not understand how a race as great as man has no control over his environment. So they blamed it on a god that they created out of fear. Things are the way they are because god did it. It helps Christians to sleep better at night if they think 'god' is in control of their destiny. But they need to wake up and realize that they have control of their own life and destiny and god can't help them if someone has a gun to their head. In short "god" is a false sense of hope. But I choose to walk through life using sight, not faith. God is an insult to us thinkers... Christians are doing the same thing that the Indiand did long ago. The Indians would tell their kids great amazing stories and fables of why the world is the way it is. They made these stories up to ease their children's curiosity. But that's all they are is stories. The Indians know that, but why not the Christians. Christians pride themselves in being so smart, so almighty, special........so stupid. I mean come on! Adam and Eve, the Great Flood, resurrection. The bible is no more than a book of fairy tales, to us who are smart enough to decode it. Christians claim it is the only book in history with no mistakes. I read and pick out many. Like Noah and getting 2 of every animal on the planet on a boat (yeah, fucking right!), or people living till there 300 years old, and even women being man's downfall (and the list goes on). If there was a god would he not be a she. Woman gives life in nature. In just about every aspect of nature, the woman gets the food to nourish her children, why the males only purpose in provision of sperm. Women are our creators. So why pick a sexist, racist male to be our god? Christians did because our world has always been a male dominated one. So if you were to make up a god why not make him the perfect man. Well that version of god, and us being in his image, has died out long ago, with the ignorance of Christianity. People today are starting to believe in themselves and not some false prophet on a cross. They believe that they can make there own life. The more I think about Christianity, the more I laugh at the arrogance, selfishness, and ignorance behind it.

*************
M*W: Although I agree with your sentiments, I'm sorry to say that I smell a sock puppet.

[Kendall]

"Originally posted by Medicine Woman.
So why pick a sexist, racist male to be our god?" Kendall- God would not be sexist or racist!

"Originally posted by Medicine Woman.
Christians did because our world has always been a male dominated one."

Kendall- Close, if the world is male dominated then only a male can fix what is wrong, he is his sisters keeper to! Do not do the injustice put upon you. You think that Women dont have the same rights as men. Men do not have equal rights, I know of women with way more rights then me.

[thedevilmademe81]

*************
M*W: Although I agree with your sentiments, I'm sorry to say that I smell a sock puppet.

Well I am glad that you agree but I am new to this so I have to ask you....what is a sock puppet?

[Nikelodeon]

So many Devils on Sciforums. But which one should I worship?

[Medicine*Woman]

Well I am glad that you agree but I am new to this so I have to ask you....what is a sock puppet?

*************
M*W: Okay, maybe I'm wrong. A sock puppet is a member who signs up under another username and posts as two different people. (Mods: Correct me if I'm wrong).

[draqon]

So many Devils on Sciforums. But which one should I worship?

Nickelodeon.

[Nikelodeon]

Nickelodeon.
Perhaps, but draqon is particulary evil.

[draqon]

Perhaps, but draqon is particulary evil.

not at all... I am cuddly little thing.

[Nikelodeon]

not at all... I am cuddly little thing.
Thats exactly what the Devil wants, he is actually very attractive and cuddly. If he wasnt it would be easy to ignore him.

[draqon]

Thats exactly what the Devil wants, he is actually very attractive and cuddly. If he wasnt it would be easy to ignore him.

but you see I am in reality very cold person. I do not react to jokes...to smiles...to hatred...to evil...to good...I am just like nothing happened ever. So I do not have this shell of an attractive logo of a Peter Pan bus.

[Nikelodeon]

but you see I am in reality very cold person. I do not react to jokes...to smiles...to hatred...to evil...to good...I am just like nothing happened ever. So I do not have this shell of an attractive logo of a Peter Pan bus.
I think that pretty much proves that the Christian God cannot exist.

[draqon]

I think that pretty much proves that the Christian God cannot exist.

yes...we finally came to this solid proof for the eternal bliss of humankind.

[Kendall]

Well i guess what I want is to live, just like anyone. And not to need to lie because of someone elses crime!

[ratsila]

Maybe the concept of free will itself is paradoxical like the the claim that God is omniscient.

"You must choose free will. You have no choice."

[qwerty mob]

Ignorance? Pleeeeeeease.

Would you like a Slurpee wit dat?


Thank You, Come Again.

[kl5k]

"Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined."
(disagree because knowing does not imply coercion. God can know the outcome without controlling the actions.)

"... knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action."
(but God does not have to take total action, He can choose to act or not.)

[swivel]

"Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined."
(disagree because knowing does not imply coercion. God can know the outcome without controlling the actions.)

"... knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action."
(but God does not have to take total action, He can choose to act or not.)

But did he know the outcomes before and as he was creating the universe and everything within it? If so...

And isn't taking no action, if you have the power to act, the same as taking an action? If a person steps in front of my car, several hundred feet down the road, and I do not budge, I keep my hands and feet exactly where they are, am I really not taking an action? What if I remove my hands and feet from the control surfaces and coast into the person at high speed? Am I less or more culpable then?

You are sticking up for a thing which doesn't exist, but if it did, is surely an evil abomination.

[kl5k]

But did he know the outcomes before and as he was creating the universe and everything within it? If so... "


Sure, omniscience means that He did. But, knowing something still does not imply action. I think what you are really getting at is the question: Is God so constrained by foreknowledge that He can only act in one deterministic way. Which implies God has no freewill of His own so how could He pass it on to his creatures? But the Bible indicates that God has freewill and He can choose to act (or not) in, through, or on His creations. So I would say in this discussion, it is impossible to prove by logic that God is constrained or not constrained by foreknowledge. It's an endless logic loop, but it is an interesting discussion anyways.

[swivel]

Sure, omniscience means that He did. But, knowing something still does not imply action. I think what you are really getting at is the question: Is God so constrained by foreknowledge that He can only act in one deterministic way. Which implies God has no freewill of His own so how could He pass it on to his creatures? But the Bible indicates that God has freewill and He can choose to act (or not) in, through, or on His creations. So I would say in this discussion, it is impossible to prove by logic that God is constrained or not constrained by foreknowledge. It's an endless logic loop, but it is an interesting discussion anyways.

The Biblical God isn't all that powerful, really. He gets in a wrestling match with Jacob and doesn't fare all that well.

And the Biblical God seems to be a blunderer, not a perfect creator. He makes man. Man seems lonely, so he brings his other creatures, none of them suit Man (God was unaware of what Man would like, even though he created him), so he makes Woman. God was fooled when Man and Woman ate the apple. He punishes them.

Later, all of God's creatures are acting funny, so he drowns all of them and tries to start over.

Later, all of God's creatures are acting funny, so God sends his Son down to be tortured and killed, which will somehow make Man act better.

And every now and then, God sends plagues, kills firstborns, and generally does rude things to Man because they are acting funny.

This is the weirdo I am talking about. I see nothing omniscient nor omnipotent in this dude. Hell, he isn't even omnipresent the way the Bible reads.

Besides, I've already disproved this God and all others like Him in another thread on SciForums. So we should move past wondering if He exists (he doesn't) and focus on why so many people buy into the delusion instead.

-swivel

[kl5k]

The Biblical God isn't all that powerful, really. He gets in a wrestling match with Jacob and doesn't fare all that well.

And the Biblical God seems to be a blunderer, not a perfect creator. He makes man. Man seems lonely, so he brings his other creatures, none of them suit Man (God was unaware of what Man would like, even though he created him), so he makes Woman. God was fooled when Man and Woman ate the apple. He punishes them.

Later, all of God's creatures are acting funny, so he drowns all of them and tries to start over.

Later, all of God's creatures are acting funny, so God sends his Son down to be tortured and killed, which will somehow make Man act better.

And every now and then, God sends plagues, kills firstborns, and generally does rude things to Man because they are acting funny.

This is the weirdo I am talking about. I see nothing omniscient nor omnipotent in this dude. Hell, he isn't even omnipresent the way the Bible reads.

Besides, I've already disproved this God and all others like Him in another thread on SciForums. So we should move past wondering if He exists (he doesn't) and focus on why so many people buy into the delusion instead.

-swivel


Unfortunately you have only disproved God exists in your own mind. I for one am throughly convinced God exists and cares what happens to us.

[zenbabelfish]

Excellent thread Chris...you have explained the obvious in a succinct manner.

[swivel]

Unfortunately you have only disproved God exists in your own mind. I for one am throughly convinced God exists and cares what happens to us.

Wouldn't it be neat if argumentation worked in such a manner! I can lay out a detailed and logical disproof, and then you can say, "No you didn't", without having to debate any of my actual points!

Much simpler, I'll admit, than the actual hard-work of having rational discourse.

My disproof stands until a flaw is found.

[lixluke]

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
WTF?
I haven't read this thread other than the OP, but the the falsehood of a paradox must be assumed. This is not proof that God does not exist.

I don't get these proves.
You know full well that Christians and other believers hold that God transcends human capacity of thought which is limited by logic and such. In other words, Christians beleive that God transcends logic, paradoxes, etc.

You are basically sitting there saying attempting to prove with logic that a being that transcends logic does not exist. Nice try.

[UncleChrist]

You are basically sitting there saying attempting to prove with logic that a being that transcends logic does not exist. Nice try.

And your sitting there saying logic and reason are not relevant :eek:

lets just make it up as you see fit

which is exactly why their are hundreds of religions/gods that transcend your logic

So ...what do you use to base your conclusions on

Oh thats right :rolleyes: absolutely nothing

most likely the tooth fairy transcends your logic aswell
heres a hint .... ( your parents left the money under your pillow ):p

[swivel]

WTF?
I haven't read this thread other than the OP, but the the falsehood of a paradox must be assumed. This is not proof that God does not exist.

I don't get these proves.
You know full well that Christians and other believers hold that God transcends human capacity of thought which is limited by logic and such. In other words, Christians beleive that God transcends logic, paradoxes, etc.

You are basically sitting there saying attempting to prove with logic that a being that transcends logic does not exist. Nice try.

God is beyond paradox? He can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? He can create a polygon with four sides of equal length, that all meet at right angles, with all points on the circumference an equal distance to a point in the center of the object? He can maker parallel lines intersect on a perfectly flat plane?

God is not immune to paradox, as a bit of thought on these questions will demonstrate. Which means that God is subject to the realm of logic to some degree. Which means that God can be disproved if some of his features create a paradox. Which, it just so happens, they do.

God cannot be a thinking being that has existed forever who created the universe. This is a paradox, and as I've just demonstrated, God is not immune to a paradox. He can't make the rock heavy enough that he can't lift it... or he can't lift it.

-swivel

[qwerty mob]

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.



Excellent post, Cris; a "classic" in message board terms. (2001?!) =)

Having appreciated a number of your posts these past few years and having considered this one for quite some time, I suggest rather humbly that this original argument reveals a couple of fundamental flaws; that of "supposing God" and "Omniscience"- but with the added weight of a valid, but narrow, meaning to "exist" (semantically) and the baggage of negative-definition (or negative-proof, if you will), logically.

To readers who haven't considered this before, modern "Atheistic Apologetics" which are direct and unambiguous, internally self-consistent and logical, and objective and positive (of structure and language) which are the most persuasive, regardless of audience, rely mainly upon Incoherency Apologetics (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/) (-Internal, -External, and Scientific), Semantic Apologetics, and Materialist Apologetics.

...

Semantic Apologetics are some of the weakest arguments in my opinion, because they are not necessarily objective, and can be reduced to "mere argument by assertion" (-that terms like "God" are meaningless (which they are, only to non-theists); and of course that, by none other than "mere counter-assertion"). Where they succeed, however, is in logically examining the details which believers regularly place on whatever "divinity" they have in mind. I suggest that Memetic Apologetics are directly (if distantly) related to Semantics because, culturally, Language is the most significant meme over and across- time, places, and generations of people.

Classic Materialist Apologetics are also rather weak in utility overall, and the very term is something of a misnomer. Generally, the arguments are pro-contingency (which are at least tied to something objective (which is good for transportability), but which are some mixture (or solution-) of semantics and incoherency. Where this branch of "Strong" Atheological Apologetics might proceed well is the area of Evidential Apologetics, since the arguments rely on something objective.

Of the Incoherency Apologetics, the Scientific subset is the most enlightening because it is almost entirely positive and objective. The Internal and External subsets suffer in some cases from "entertaining divinity" only to show that certain details are incompatible with others. As one with a strictly "scientific world view," I am most compelled by arguments which are tied to something objective, even if abstract.



Greetings

...

"All gods are imaginary, mythological beings."

[lixluke]

God is beyond paradox? He can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? He can create a polygon with four sides of equal length, that all meet at right angles, with all points on the circumference an equal distance to a point in the center of the object? He can maker parallel lines intersect on a perfectly flat plane?

God is not immune to paradox, as a bit of thought on these questions will demonstrate. Which means that God is subject to the realm of logic to some degree. Which means that God can be disproved if some of his features create a paradox. Which, it just so happens, they do.

God cannot be a thinking being that has existed forever who created the universe. This is a paradox, and as I've just demonstrated, God is not immune to a paradox. He can't make the rock heavy enough that he can't lift it... or he can't lift it.

-swivel
Wrong.
This is not a necessity.
The Christian God that defies paradox cannot be proven or disproven using the methods Cris uses in her OP.

Defying paradox is not just the question of God.
Questions regarding the universe and quantum physics also lead to paradoxes that are incomprehensible.

[zenbabelfish]

The tenets on which the god are predicated are paradoxical and time has proven that pupported to be truth as myth.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

It takes faith to "know" that there is no Creator God, so Atheism is just another faith.

[swivel]

The tenets on which the god are predicated are paradoxical and time has proven that pupported to be truth as myth.

Thank you.

It's not as fun when we agree, though.

-swivel

[qwerty mob]

It takes faith to "know" that there is no Creator God, so Atheism is just another faith.

You're an atheist too, then... you just believe in ONE more god than I do.

[zenbabelfish]

lol - we used to have comedy series in the UK in which two grumpy old professors engaged in debate: "I say, you are a fool..." and "I, Sir, say you are a buffoon" etc. - no time to discuss anything relevant and it is true to some extent.
This is why I find debate on SciForums such good fun - if ones theory cannot stand up to a friendly mauling by ones peers then it is probably (but not always) junk. I'm learning a lot.

Re: thread - Ditto on above.
I look forward to our next too-doo...All the best, zen

[swivel]

It takes faith to "know" that there is no Creator God, so Atheism is just another faith.

I'm not sure what you are trying to do here. I guess you realize that faith is a horrible thing, and you are trying to lump atheists in with yourself? How can religion be special if the lack of religion is the exact same thing to you?

Faith is the belief in "Something" without evidence. It is *not* the lack in faith of something for which there is no evidence. If it is both, then the word is meaningless and has no application. So lets make up new words for the two situations:

Deedlebunk will the the belief in things for which there is not a shred of evidence.

Gloryfish will be the state of disbelief in all things for which there is no evidence.

Since Deedlebunk and Gloryfish are mutually exclusive, we can not say that Deedlebunk = Gloryfish. And yet, that is precisely what you are trying to do with the words Atheism and Faith.

This is a low-down, intellectually dishonest, despicable act of semantic butchery and you lose all credibility by attempting it. Trust me, all of us have seen this cowardly, ignorant tactic hundreds of times before, and all it does is demarcate you as someone unable to have a rational discussion.

I'm sure that this is not what you want, so please reconsider. Let's use words according to their generally accepted definitions and not bandy them about in an attempt to confuse just so that points may be won.

-swivel (Gloryfish)


Edit: Zenbabe, I was typing a reply when our lovely thread was unfairly locked. I complained to SkinWalker a bit and saved the post in Notepad. I was going to PM it to you, but it says I need 20 posts before I am able to. So... it will be included in my last will and testament that this post be delivered to you upon the event of my death. Treasure it.

Second Edit: I know your name is a conjunction of Zen Babel and Fish (assuming a love of Adams), but I leave the lfish off to keep my wife on her toes. Hope you find it no great insult.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

It is what it is, the faith that there cannot be a Creator God, it's just intellectually dishonest.

[swivel]

It is what it is, the faith that there cannot be a Creator God, it's just intellectually dishonest.

Are you really going to persist in this insanity? I hope you are doing so just to be evil, because the alternative is worse for our purposes here... :confused:

Do you have "faith" that dragons don't exist on Earth? Do you have "faith" that the world is not flat? Seriously, Faith should be a cherished word to theists, and here you are dragging the foundation of all religion through the mud. If there is a god, she is very upset with you right now.

[zenbabelfish]

Yep - I agree Swivel...I reported it as I felt we had been unfairly accused of racism and I think we both know this is not true...its a valid science topic and our discussion reflected a well established wider-debate within the science community...but Skinwalker was right in that its not 'history' although sometimes the two are inseparable.
Good debate for a rainy day in the Human Sciences forum...

Re: thread - good explanation of mechanism by which we can recognise the difference between faith and atheism...sound logic.

[qwerty mob]

It is what it is, the faith that there cannot be a Creator God, it's just intellectually dishonest.

You seem to have a gift for demonstrating the latter.

[Godless]

An idiot is always an idiot, no matter what jargon, semantics, or logic they try to use, it's obvious that an idiot lacks comprehesion in logic, reason, and objective reality. (I've not claimed here who's the idiot, take it as you will, the one who may feel, or think I'm talking about them, then this party who may it ever be, is obvious the idiot!) :)

[zenbabelfish]

That settled that then....

[swivel]

As an atheist that loves a good disagreement, it aggravates me that religious debates always end up right here... with a few strong theists resorting to semantic gambits, and a group of atheists shaking their heads in sadness and frustration.

Where are the intelligent theists that can debate these points with sense? Or is intelligent + theist impossible? I'm not trying to be mean here, I really want a good, long discussion with theists who won't resort to the Atheism = Religion tactic, or the Science = Faith nonsense. I want someone who embraces illogical faith as a superior epistemological method to debate that choice. Someone who knows more about Christianity than we, as atheists, do.

*Sigh...*

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Swiv, since it takes faith to "know" that there is no Creator God, Atheists are people of faith, very simple.

[wesmorris]

humans are people of faith, very simple... and very complicated.

[SnakeLord]

since it takes faith to "know" that there is no Creator God, Atheists are people of faith, very simple

You need to do your homework pal. 'Atheist' does not mean "someone who 'knows' there is no god".

Come back and apologise once you've done some studying.

[SkinWalker]

Swiv, since it takes faith to "know" that there is no Creator God, Atheists are people of faith, very simple.

This, unfortunately, is an assumption that many theists make with regard to atheists. For some atheists, there may well be a "faith" that god doesn't exist, but for most (at least the ones I know) that isn't their position.

The only logically tenable position to maintain is that of agnostic-atheism: being without god(s), but recognizing that there is no way to "know" if there is or isn't a god(s) in the universe. There almost certainly isn't, particularly one based upon the various myths and philosophical fallacies of various human cultures and religions, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that there isn't one sitting in some remote corner of the universe (or an infinite number of gods for that matter) that simply hasn't interacted with us.

So it would seem that you're wrong on that point. Atheism, in general, doesn't state that there is any knowledge that a god(s) doesn't exist; it is simply a position of not believing in a god(s) based on a lack of evidence. Should the evidence arise, then a god would be naturally accepted.

[kl5k]

So it would seem that you're wrong on that point. Atheism, in general, doesn't state that there is any knowledge that a god(s) doesn't exist; it is simply a position of not believing in a god(s) based on a lack of evidence. Should the evidence arise, then a god would be naturally accepted.



Exactly what evidence do you need? If it existed. I am wondering if there is a way you could state the conditions: if this or that existed, then I would believe in God.

[zenbabelfish]

What about proof? That would be good evidence.

[swivel]

Exactly what evidence do you need? If it existed. I am wondering if there is a way you could state the conditions: if this or that existed, then I would believe in God.

What if everyone's prayers started being answered? Or things kept happening that defied the laws of physics, like: People that could fly through the air. People that could immediately speak in every language known to man, with a perfect accent. People that could cure blindness, AIDS, cancer, etc... with nothing but a touch.

How about if God's face appeared to every human being at the same time, and delivered a message. And as we went to our family and friends, with this amazing story, EVERYONE corroborated the story with their own. And God's message included information that no human could possibly know, but that could be verified. Like the recipe for a chemical that cures all diseases through magical means, or the solution to the top 10 mathematical problems of today.

Any of these events would sway my doubt. What will not is a very old book that was written by men, translated by men, cobbled together by men, and details the lives of mere men.

[kl5k]

What about proof? That would be good evidence.

I don't understand your comment. Proof is not evidence, but evidence(s) should support the proof. 1st def. in Webster's says: "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact."

[zenbabelfish]

Sorry I was being ironic...

[SkinWalker]

Evidence. You know: that stuff that's testable and verifiable.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

"Testable and verifiable," yeh, like Darwinian evolution?! Ahahahaha, woops, wrong thread.

[swivel]

"Testable and verifiable," yeh, like Darwinian evolution?! Ahahahaha, woops, wrong thread.

Don't you mean "Darwinian Natural Selection"? Darwin didn't dream up Evolution. Evolution is an OBSERVABLE FACT. It just means that species have changed over time. Natural Selection is the current best Theory to account for these changes.

It's no wonder you think this stuff requires Faith, you don't even understand the basics.

Atheists at least have the courtesy to know more about religion than theists, so that we can converse about their passions. Why can't theists expend the same effort in learning about the things that they reject?

Or perhaps they do, but they can not remain theists afterwards. Hmm...

[DRR]

He can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?

-swivel

Yes.

[lightgigantic]

The only logically tenable position to maintain is that of agnostic-atheism: being without god(s), but recognizing that there is no way to "know" if there is or isn't a god(s) in the universe.

then how would you know that?
Even this platform of agnosticism requires faith

[SkinWalker]

then how would you know that?
Even this platform of agnosticism requires faith

You're not even going to walk us through that? Talk about making confidence statements, LG.

Tell us: how does saying "I don't know" translate to having faith, which is blind trust without evidence?

[SkinWalker]

He can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?Yes.

Then, obviously, he's not omnipotent.

[DRR]

Then, obviously, he's not omnipotent.

I disagree.

[SkinWalker]

I'm wondering, then, why you would say he's not omnipotent in the post I quoted.

[TW Scott]

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

You are under the mistaken belief that Omniscience means that God made the decision for you. It is simply not true.

Let's say we have Joe, your sperm donor father, somehow he knows everything about you from your favorite color to you deep darkest secret. Now, joe, through this knowledge knows exactly how you will respond to every question you are ever asked, down to your choice of wording. Now let's say you never meet Joe and Joe never contacts you. Can you honestly say that Joe's knowledge of how you will respond takes away your free will in responding? No.

How is that above different from god except the sperm donor father part?

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Okay, so you are thinking perhaps that God should only create believers? Did it occur to you that as he is creating them he gives them free choice and then does not know they will do until just after giving them that wonderful gift. After all until choice is given to a person there can be no decision.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.

Cris

Your conclusion relies to heavily of Omniscience and Free Will being incompatiable and then throw in the fact that you too heavily link Omnipotence and Omniscience and your proof is little more that psuedo philosophical crap. There is no proof in what you suppose, only questions about your education

[lightgigantic]

You're not even going to walk us through that? Talk about making confidence statements, LG.

Tell us: how does saying "I don't know" translate to having faith, which is blind trust without evidence?
there is an obvious difference between the statements "I don't know" and "It cannot be known"

Is this what you really meant to say?

Originally Posted by SkinWalker


The only logically tenable position to maintain is that of agnostic-atheism: being without god(s), but recognizing that there is no way to "know" if there is or isn't a god(s) in the universe.

[SkinWalker]

Obviously, those that say, "I don't know" are a subset of those that say, "there's no way to know."

Regardless, are you going to bother breaking it down for us why this is a statement of faith? When I say "no way to know," I'm referring to the inability to examine every bit of the universe. Are you saying you have a way to empirically test the universe for a god?

[lightgigantic]

Obviously, those that say, "I don't know" are a subset of those that say, "there's no way to know."
actually saying "I don't know" is an admission of one's limitations and saying "there is no way to know" is an absolute statement about what is knowable/unknowable

Regardless, are you going to bother breaking it down for us why this is a statement of faith?
if a person says "there is no way to know god" it begs the question what process of knowledge did they use to determine that (which if you follow it down rationally enough, it becomes a negative absolute and thus fallacious)

When I say "no way to know," I'm referring to the inability to examine every bit of the universe. Are you saying you have a way to empirically test the universe for a god?
there are many names of god that determine how he is beyond the perception of empiricism (eg - adhoksaja) for reasons that you indicate (even the universe is greater than our senses, what to speak of god).
On top of this there are many references to how one can know god

BG 7.1: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Now hear, O son of Pṛthā, how by practicing yoga in full consciousness of Me, with mind attached to Me, you can know Me in full, free from doubt.

which brings in to call the second most sought after analogy on sciforums - namely that the only way a common person can come to directly perceive the president is if they cultivate needs interests and concerns that are on par with the president's (If one just attempts to barge in to see him they will not get past the first of his 500 secretaries)

Thus seeing the president is not a strict empirical process since one is required to meet certain criteria of behavior or socialization

[SkinWalker]

You can cite all the magical/imaginative references you want from all the mythical sources you like. They are all equally worthless when it comes to having a real discussion in reality. Perhaps a science forum isn't the place for you if all you have to discuss is your imagination.

[lightgigantic]

You can cite all the magical/imaginative references you want from all the mythical sources you like. They are all equally worthless when it comes to having a real discussion in reality. Perhaps a science forum isn't the place for you if all you have to discuss is your imagination.
no doubt you prefer the imaginative discussions of atheism and are not really geared up for seriously looking at the philosophical underpinnings of such a world view - which begs the q what the hell you are doing as a mod here?
:confused:

[SkinWalker]

Your ad hominem remarks notwithstanding, I find myself wondering what "imaginative discussions of atheism" you are referring to. The theists are the ones making the positive claims; atheists, agnostics and freethinkers are making inquiry.

[lightgigantic]

Your ad hominem remarks notwithstanding,
don't fret - its the natural consequence of trolling and flaming

I find myself wondering what "imaginative discussions of atheism" you are referring to.
that the claims of theism are imagination
the moment you declare "god is an imagination" you are making a positive statement about the nature of god

The theists are the ones making the positive claims; atheists, agnostics and freethinkers are making inquiry.
on the contrary, you are making assertions here

You can cite all the magical/imaginative references you want from all the mythical sources you like. They are all equally worthless when it comes to having a real discussion in reality.

[Prince_James]

I'm going to have to agree with Lightgigantic on this one:

Once you go past saying "there is no proof of God" to "God does not exist" you are claiming something positive. Accordingly, you have to present a reason why God is held not to exist, likely from principles of reason, as it seems rather erroneous to claim God is a matter of empirical analysis.

[SkinWalker]

You can go with him wherever you wish. I'm not making a positive claim about anything. I will say there probably is no god, based on the shear lack of evidence and the lack of a need for one. I will also say that I've no way of knowing for sure, since I cannot examine the entire universe. I'm an agnostic-atheist. LG seems to think that my position is that there *is* no way to know for sure if there is a god, and I may have been unclear, but my revised and clear stance is that *I* have no way to know for sure since *I* cannot examine the entire universe.

I'm making no positive claims; my opinion is open to change with the presentation of evidence. Perhaps it would be LG's evidence, except it appears to exist only in his mind and he claims (a positive claim) that he's only able to share it with fellow believers.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Agnostic.

[Sarkus]

Agnostic.And atheist.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

All at the same time, I see, similar to an atheistic Christian.

[Sarkus]

All at the same time, I see, similar to an atheistic Christian.What is your issue with being an agnostic atheist?
I'm guessing it's merely 'cos you have no real grasp of what the two words mean?
Agnosticism is NOT the middle ground between the two.
It is a separate position one takes, with regard to knowledge - in this case about God and God's existence.

(A)theism is merely about belief (or lack of) in the existence of God.

Separate matters.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

I see?

[Prince_James]

Skinwalker:

You can go with him wherever you wish. I'm not making a positive claim about anything. I will say there probably is no god, based on the shear lack of evidence and the lack of a need for one. I will also say that I've no way of knowing for sure, since I cannot examine the entire universe. I'm an agnostic-atheist. LG seems to think that my position is that there *is* no way to know for sure if there is a god, and I may have been unclear, but my revised and clear stance is that *I* have no way to know for sure since *I* cannot examine the entire universe.

Your clarification once again places you back into a belief where God is up in the air, thereby removing you from any duty to prove either position. Thanks for it.

[lightgigantic]

I'm making no positive claims; my opinion is open to change with the presentation of evidence. Perhaps it would be LG's evidence, except it appears to exist only in his mind and he claims (a positive claim) that he's only able to share it with fellow believers.

Actually I claim it can only be shared with persons who have applied the necessary processes - just like the claims of physicists can only be shared with physicists - any one else unqualified in the field of physics will determine the truth of their claims according to how they perceive physicists as credible (the high school drop out falling in at the end of the scale)

Thus most of the arguments one hears against theism are to do with the perception of how credible the practitioners are rather than an analysis of philosophy or concepts - and given the recent trends of materialistic society that has nurtured a growing number or spiritually bankrupt practitioners, such statements can be true - however it is not sufficient to say that because some (or even many) persons are wrong that all persons are wrong - just like if the medical practice was suddenly inundated with frauds, it wouldn't make the practice of medicine false - it wold simply make the task of locating a bonafide medical practitioner more difficult, since one is likely to be cheated at every corner - and the best way to protect oneself is to be proficient to some degree in knowledge, so that one can distinguish the characteristics between a real and pretend practitioner ("gee I really like the way he sings and his clothes look pretty snazzy - he's got to be the real McCoy")

[Prince_James]

A critique of George Harrison, Lightgigantic?

[lightgigantic]

A critique of George Harrison, Lightgigantic?
I don't think he can be claimed as a spiritual leader but as a follower (it would be difficult to establish him as making any substantial philosophical or authoritative claims regarding the nature of the absolute ..... although he expressed his appreciation of a variety of concepts through his musical finesse)

[DRR]

I'm wondering, then, why you would say he's not omnipotent in the post I quoted.

I believe that God's being able to create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it does not contradict his being omnipotent. You think it is obvious that it does.

Not to be confrontational, as that is not my style and as it rarely has the power to change minds, but would you mind beginning with the assumption “God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it” and taking me through to the point that it contradicts his being omnipotent?

[nds1]

Omnipotent means all powerful, right?

If a being has infinite power, then he should be able to lift any mass regardless of how much it weighs and regardless of weather he imagined it or not. There is nothing an omnipowerful or omnipotent God can imagine which can't be lifted by him.

[SnakeLord]

How about If I can prove to you that Abaddon exists and Lucifer, and if they exist God exists as well, see the abaddon thread

You'll find you can't. Of course you're under the delusion that a chunk of rock that has face like features is clearly "proof" (lol), of a hell but if you were to be serious you'd find you'll have serious trouble trying to prove anything of the sort.

[lightgigantic]

You'll find you can't. Of course you're under the delusion that a chunk of rock that has face like features is clearly "proof" (lol), of a hell but if you were to be serious you'd find you'll have serious trouble trying to prove anything of the sort.
I agree

It is very difficult to establish evidence to persons who lack the necessary foundations of theory, practice and values

[Godless]

It is very difficult to establish evidence to persons who lack the necessary foundations of theory, practice and values

Basically between the lines this reads: If you are not deluded as I am, you won't believe my assertions wihtout evidence! ;)

[SnakeLord]

It is very difficult to establish evidence to persons who lack the necessary foundations of theory, practice and values

Well let's try anyway. What exactly do you consider evidence in a faced shaped rock? Or, forget that for now.. we're not talking evidence we're talking "proof" apparently. So kindly explain it to me.

[lightgigantic]

Basically between the lines this reads: If you are not deluded as I am, you won't believe my assertions wihtout evidence! ;)
the high school drop out makes identical assertions to maintain their position in regard to electrons - yet persons who have applied the required process, having garnered a substantial knowledge base remain unphased

Well let's try anyway. What exactly do you consider evidence in a faced shaped rock? Or, forget that for now.. we're not talking evidence we're talking "proof" apparently. So kindly explain it to me.
I think you are mixing me up with someone else - I don't recall mentioning anything about a face shaped rock and have no clue what you are talking about

[Godless]

the high school drop out makes identical assertions to maintain their position in regard to electrons

This diatribe drivel bull shit has been reiterated & rehashed enough, many have already deemed flawed yet you keep using it! Next

[SnakeLord]

I think you are mixing me up with someone else - I don't recall mentioning anything about a face shaped rock and have no clue what you are talking about

Guess you shouldn't have butted in then, and indeed paid attention to what it was you were responding to.

You responded to me and directly quoted:

"Of course you're under the delusion that a chunk of rock that has face like features is clearly "proof" (lol)..."

I wasn't talking to you, you were talking to me.. You stated that it's apparently very difficult to establish evidence and, since I was talking about this chunk of rock and the claim that it's the door to hell based on the fact that it resembles a face, I proceeded to ask you to try and provide some evidence anyway. The fact that you butted in on a conversation that you "have no clue about", is your problem.

Pay attention or don't butt in on people's conversations. Understood?

[lightgigantic]

This diatribe drivel bull shit has been reiterated & rehashed enough, many have already deemed flawed yet you keep using it! Next
then maybe you could reiterate why it is flawed rather than trying to ad hom people into accepting your confidence statements - is it too much to ask for reasons for your opinions or should we simply accept your opinions on faith due to the strength of your charisma?

[lightgigantic]

Guess you shouldn't have butted in then, and indeed paid attention to what it was you were responding to.

You responded to me and directly quoted:

"Of course you're under the delusion that a chunk of rock that has face like features is clearly "proof" (lol)..."

I wasn't talking to you, you were talking to me.. You stated that it's apparently very difficult to establish evidence and, since I was talking about this chunk of rock and the claim that it's the door to hell based on the fact that it resembles a face, I proceeded to ask you to try and provide some evidence anyway. The fact that you butted in on a conversation that you "have no clue about", is your problem.

Pay attention or don't butt in on people's conversations. Understood?

the general principle still holds - you are not established in the field of theism, therefore your complete complexity in the field is predictable

[SnakeLord]

the general principle still holds - you are not established in the field of theism

No but I am established in the field of leprechaunism and Lenny, the leader leprechaun, ruler of the cosmos, told me that there aren't any such thing as gods - he indeed made up all the old texts just for giggles. Unfortunately you're not established in the field of leprchaunism, you're like the high school dropout, and as such have nothing to say on the matter.

There are no gods, Lenny said so.

However, established in the field of theism or not is of absolutely no relevance to providing evidence to support the claim that a face shaped rock is the doorway to hell.

[Sarkus]

LG, if you need to be so "established in the field of theism", why then do the majority of people who claim to be religious, e.g. 95% of the Christians in UK - do nothing different to UK atheists other than have "belief" in God - and maybe attend church once in a while.

Are you telling me that these people are also not "established in the field of theism"?

Please tell us what it is to be "established in the field of theism"?
Are you merely talking about those select people who have been sufficiently brainwashed to believe anything they are told by their "religious superiors"?
No?
Then what?

[Godless]

then maybe you could reiterate why it is flawed

I think Snake took care of it right here!

No but I am established in the field of leprechaunism and Lenny, the leader leprechaun, ruler of the cosmos, told me that there aren't any such thing as gods - he indeed made up all the old texts just for giggles. Unfortunately you're not established in the field of leprchaunism, you're like the high school dropout, and as such have nothing to say on the matter.

Now I'll explain it to you so perhaps you can grasp it!

It's because the "failed high school" charade of yours can be used to refuse any analogy made by the speaker against their criticisms of a belief.

Thus when Snake claims to believe in Leprechaunism, and you claim no such thing exists, he can use your same argument.

Since you are not educated in understanding the epistemology of leprechaunism you have no right to refute his analogy of leprechaunism, unless you educate yourself in such a concept. Once you become "enlightened" in the concepts of leprechaunism you will then understand that what he speaks is truth, you will accept Lenny as the one true god, of the universe, and that all other gods were made up by him.

Can you see how that flawed concept of yours can be made to refuse any discourse at having an intelligent conversation? Can you? or is it that reality to you is an illusion, and your brain is incapable of perceiving objective reality? Thus if Leprechaunism, had a 2000 year old following, ancient texts, many millions of adherents swearing this entity to be one true god, amongst the rest of thousands of religions in the world, claiming to be the "true religion of salvation" It be just another mystical belief that people would have, with out any credible empirical evidence, any belief system can be created, and some will be willing to believe such things. I.E newest religion invented by man scientology! :p

[lightgigantic]

No but I am established in the field of leprechaunism and Lenny, the leader leprechaun, ruler of the cosmos
then I guess you require something more philosophical substantial than your eager brethren with scissors and glue sticks on st patricks day



However, established in the field of theism or not is of absolutely no relevance to providing evidence to support the claim that a face shaped rock is the doorway to hell.
from your above statement, it should be obvious that a proper foundation of theory would be a humble beginning ....

[lightgigantic]

LG, if you need to be so "established in the field of theism", why then do the majority of people who claim to be religious, e.g. 95% of the Christians in UK - do nothing different to UK atheists other than have "belief" in God - and maybe attend church once in a while.


Are you telling me that these people are also not "established in the field of theism"?
there are many qualities of a theist - the bare minimum is that they take shelter of god - needless to say, a theist established in the field would be a bit more advanced, and distinctions between their activities and the activities of an atheist would be more pronounced


Please tell us what it is to be "established in the field of theism"?
Are you merely talking about those select people who have been sufficiently brainwashed to believe anything they are told by their "religious superiors"?
No?
Then what?
In short (because these 6 points can be elaborated at some length (http://vedabase.net/nod/14/en)), pure devotional service to god has six qualities

(1) Pure devotional service brings immediate relief from all kinds of material distress.
(2) Pure devotional service is the beginning of all auspiciousness.
(3) Pure devotional service automatically puts one in transcendental pleasure.
(4) Pure devotional service is rarely achieved.
(5) Those in pure devotional service deride even the conception of liberation.
(6) Pure devotional service is the only means to attract God.

[Benauld]

there are many qualities of a theist - the bare minimum is that they take shelter of god - needless to say, a theist established in the field would be a bit more advanced, and distinctions between their activities and the activities of an atheist would be more pronounced

:roflmao:

Are you saying all the best scientists are theists!?

[cole grey]

(4) Pure devotional service is rarely achieved.
(5) Those in pure devotional service deride even the conception of liberation.
(6) Pure devotional service is the only means to attract God.
Please reconcile the above for me.

Or are you just another person who believes that 95% of humanity is going to hell?
Seems like you wouldn't be, but I don't know.

[cole grey]

There is something about the "leprechaun" defense, the "pink unicorn" defense, and the "santa claus" defense (among others), that bothers me.

Why, if all these other things are understood in the common worldview to be non-existent, does the idea of God still make so much sense to people? If they are based on the same construction, i.e. belief for no reason, why are the others so wholeheartedly dismissed, while the God "construction" holds on so strongly?

And don't say "tradition". Tradition only goes about 50/50 when talking about individuals deciding on their beliefs - many people brought up in religious traditions discard them, and many individuals brought up with athiest beliefs "find God".

[audible]

quite simply cole you dont get brainwashed into belief in any of the others, only god, you dont have a church of santa, or leprechaunism on every corner in every town.many people brought up in religious traditions discard them, and many individuals brought up with athiest beliefs "find God".yes the few manage to shake off the religious ties that bind and become clear thinkers, and a few non-believers may become brainwashed into a religious, belief, these are usually weak minded individuals, but no atheist, converts to religion, these are people with clear critical minds, it would take a blow to the head for them to convert.

[(Q)]

There is something about the "leprechaun" defense, the "pink unicorn" defense, and the "santa claus" defense (among others), that bothers me.

Why, if all these other things are understood in the common worldview to be non-existent, does the idea of God still make so much sense to people? If they are based on the same construction, i.e. belief for no reason, why are the others so wholeheartedly dismissed, while the God "construction" holds on so strongly?

You eventually hear those others don't exist, one way or another, and having asked your parents, they confirm it.

Asking them to confirm god doesn't exist is another story.

[cole grey]

quite simply cole you dont get brainwashed into belief in any of the others, only god, you dont have a church of santa, or leprechaunism on every corner in every town.
My question is, why there are churches on every corner if this idea is just as ridiculous as santa, leprechauns, et al.?


but no atheist, converts to religion, these are people with clear critical minds, it would take a blow to the head for them to convert.
This idea you have that all athiests have clear critical minds is ludicrous. You couldn't possibly believe that.

[(Q)]

My question is, why there are churches on every corner if this idea is just as ridiculous as santa, leprechauns, et al.?

Because, your parents never stopped telling you your god was make-believe. And their parents.. and so on...

This idea you have that all athiests have clear critical minds is ludicrous. You couldn't possibly believe that.

I would agree with that completely. I've seen YouTube videos from alleged atheists who are complete idiots. They are an embarrassment to atheists everywhere.

[cole grey]

You eventually hear those others don't exist, one way or another, and having asked your parents, they confirm it.

Asking them to confirm god doesn't exist is another story.
The morals and ideas of parents are cast off generation after generation in every country on the planet. Perhaps your parents tell you to save your money, and as you grow up they confirm the truth and necessity of this ideal - yet you decide it is more important to enjoy what you have than save it for when you are too old to enjoy it. Beliefs parents hold and confirm, and the next generation denies, are ubiquitous.

As I was implying earlier, "tradition" is not strong enough to be the ONLY reason a certain idea believed in without reason could be propagated, even if we allowed for it to be say 50% of the reason.

[Sarkus]

Why, if all these other things are understood in the common worldview to be non-existent, does the idea of God still make so much sense to people? If they are based on the same construction, i.e. belief for no reason, why are the others so wholeheartedly dismissed, while the God "construction" holds on so strongly?Because people on the whole have lacked the courage to dismiss it. In the past this was often through fear of actual physical harm ("believe or burn" etc).

Also - the idea of a creator is, on the surface, logically sound: Z was caused by Y which was caused by X etc... all the way to the "initial cause". It is only when and, more importantly IF, you look at the underlying assumptions that this actually becomes logically inconclusive. But because most people don't look - the idea is acceptable - that something caused the Universe - and that something is slapped with the label "God".

Gradually, as non-theist views become more wide-spread, the role of the church in society might become less prevalent in society, less involved with the running of governments and the setting of policies, and more sidelined into a "If it doesn't harm anyone, let them continue" type of concept/practice.

[(Q)]

The morals and ideas of parents are cast off generation after generation in every country on the planet. Perhaps your parents tell you to save your money, and as you grow up they confirm the truth and necessity of this ideal - yet you decide it is more important to enjoy what you have than save it for when you are too old to enjoy it. Beliefs parents hold and confirm, and the next generation denies, are ubiquitous.

Financial planning and indoctrination are two different things.

Do you count the contents of your wallet before every meal? Do you sit listening to an accountant every Sunday morning?

Religion is thicker than blood. Just ask Cain. ;)

[John J. Bannan]

You assume God lives in the present. If God is infinite, he lives in all times. He can see your choices but not a priori, which only makes sense for us living in the present. We can have free will and God can know what we will do and there is no inconsistency. Your argument only works for a God stuck in our dimensions - not higher dimensions.

[lightgigantic]

:roflmao:

Are you saying all the best scientists are theists!?
not at all
I am saying there are different grades of theists and by the use of the term "established on the path of theism" I am meaning a theist who is displaying more characteristics than merely the notion of taking shelter of god

[lightgigantic]

Please reconcile the above for me.

Or are you just another person who believes that 95% of humanity is going to hell?
Seems like you wouldn't be, but I don't know.

I would say that more than 95% of humanity is taking birth again in the material world (whether that is as an animal or lower or as a human or higher, is a subject of speculation).
Attaining the supreme abode (as opposed to temporary material heavens and hells) is definitely exclusive.

BG 7.3: Out of many thousands among men, one may endeavor for perfection, and of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth.

BG 18.55: One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.

the reason is not because of quotas or god making difficult

BG 2.44: In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place.

as it applies to a theist who is not completely successful in this life time, they begin their unfinished business in the next


BG 6.37: Arjuna said: O Kṛṣṇa, what is the destination of the unsuccessful transcendentalist, who in the beginning takes to the process of self-realization with faith but who later desists due to worldly-mindedness and thus does not attain perfection in mysticism?

BG 6.38: O mighty-armed Kṛṣṇa, does not such a man, who is bewildered from the path of transcendence, fall away from both spiritual and material success and perish like a riven cloud, with no position in any sphere?

BG 6.39: This is my doubt, O Kṛṣṇa, and I ask You to dispel it completely. But for You, no one is to be found who can destroy this doubt.

BG 6.40: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Son of Pṛthā, a transcendentalist engaged in auspicious activities does not meet with destruction either in this world or in the spiritual world; one who does good, My friend, is never overcome by evil.

BG 6.41: The unsuccessful yogī, after many, many years of enjoyment on the planets of the pious living entities, is born into a family of righteous people, or into a family of rich aristocracy.

BG 6.42: Or [if unsuccessful after long practice of yoga] he takes his birth in a family of transcendentalists who are surely great in wisdom. Certainly, such a birth is rare in this world.

BG 6.43: On taking such a birth, he revives the divine consciousness of his previous life, and he again tries to make further progress in order to achieve complete success, O son of Kuru.

BG 6.44: By virtue of the divine consciousness of his previous life, he automatically becomes attracted to the yogic principles — even without seeking them. Such an inquisitive transcendentalist stands always above the ritualistic principles of the scriptures.



the 6 qualities of pure devotional service is split up into 3 categories of practitioners.
The first two are characteristics of persons who are performing religious duties out of an obedience to rules and regulations.

The middle two are characteristics of persons who have actually developed a spontaneous taste for religious duties, and hence obedience is adhered to not so much out of fear but love and attraction to the supreme
The last two are the characteristics of persons who are on the topmost platform and who's love for the supreme is so intense and concentrated that there is literally no room for any sentiment for things not related to the object of devotion (god) - in other words they couldn't fall in to illusion even if they tried

the three categories represent the general likelihood (up to 100%) of one's being successful

[lightgigantic]

There is something about the "leprechaun" defense, the "pink unicorn" defense, and the "santa claus" defense (among others), that bothers me.

Why, if all these other things are understood in the common worldview to be non-existent, does the idea of God still make so much sense to people? If they are based on the same construction, i.e. belief for no reason, why are the others so wholeheartedly dismissed, while the God "construction" holds on so strongly?

And don't say "tradition". Tradition only goes about 50/50 when talking about individuals deciding on their beliefs - many people brought up in religious traditions discard them, and many individuals brought up with athiest beliefs "find God".

basically its a fallacious argument that tries to glean success on the principle "some people got it wrong so everyone got it wrong"

[SnakeLord]

basically its a fallacious argument that tries to glean success on the principle "some people got it wrong so everyone got it wrong"

Typical, worthless LG nonsense.

Cole, I shall answer your question in a moment. For now, let it be said that leprechauns do exist. I have personally seen them and interacted with them. That certainly satisfies LG's criteria. Furthermore, LG is "bereft of the required foundations and qualifications etc etc" and thus can't say a word. LG is your typical high school drop out who thinks he knows it all.

No LG do not respond to me. What do we have to discuss when you haven't undergone the theory- practice or realisation? Your own arguments dismiss you from talking.


Right Cole... You asked:

"If they are based on the same construction, i.e. belief for no reason, why are the others so wholeheartedly dismissed, while the God "construction" holds on so strongly?"

The answer is simple: It's all about what's offered.

If there were no such concept as heaven, if the gods just said "well, when you die you cease to exist", nobody would even care if gods existed or not. The reason people hang onto god concepts is because of the rewards.

Likewise santa is quite the famous fellow - because he gives gifts. Alas it doesn't take long before the child works out that the parents are doing the buying. With gods you can't show that there is no reward for you until it's too late - and so people cling onto it just incase.

Leprechauns don't really offer anything, neither do mermaids etc etc. As such nobody cares whether they exist.

[lightgigantic]

Typical, worthless LG nonsense.

Cole, I shall answer your question in a moment. For now, let it be said that leprechauns do exist. I have personally seen them and interacted with them. That certainly satisfies LG's criteria. Furthermore, LG is "bereft of the required foundations and qualifications etc etc" and thus can't say a word. LG is your typical high school drop out who thinks he knows it all.

No LG do not respond to me. What do we have to discuss when you haven't undergone the theory- practice or realisation? Your own arguments dismiss you from talking.


Right Cole... You asked:

"If they are based on the same construction, i.e. belief for no reason, why are the others so wholeheartedly dismissed, while the God "construction" holds on so strongly?"

The answer is simple: It's all about what's offered.

If there were no such concept as heaven, if the gods just said "well, when you die you cease to exist", nobody would even care if gods existed or not. The reason people hang onto god concepts is because of the rewards.

Likewise santa is quite the famous fellow - because he gives gifts. Alas it doesn't take long before the child works out that the parents are doing the buying. With gods you can't show that there is no reward for you until it's too late - and so people cling onto it just incase.

Leprechauns don't really offer anything, neither do mermaids etc etc. As such nobody cares whether they exist.

for a more elaborate explanation of the principle of "some people get it wrong therefore everyone gets it wrong" please see the above post
:cool:

[SnakeLord]

Another utterly worthless LG post.. :bugeye:

[lightgigantic]

Another utterly worthless LG post.. :bugeye:
:bawl:

[cole grey]

The answer is simple: It's all about what's offered.
Thank you, that is a pretty good idea. I was hoping someone could give me an answer that hasn't already been shown to be insufficient by common experience, i.e. "it's because of tradition".
But doesn't the idea of God sometimes threaten more than it comforts? I propose that it does, even to, or especially to, christians. The way some people describe God, it may actually be an idea that would have been better discarded long ago.
I suppose it is possible that one person may believe from tradition, another from what is offered, but I would like to see if it is actually possible to explain the reason humanity has held on to the idea of God in a way that isn't immediately refutable with regards to large chunks of the population (rebels against tradition, people who are offered comndemnation, etc.).



also,
Also - the idea of a creator is, on the surface, logically sound: Z was caused by Y which was caused by X etc... all the way to the "initial cause". It is only when and, more importantly IF, you look at the underlying assumptions that this actually becomes logically inconclusive. But because most people don't look - the idea is acceptable - that something caused the Universe - and that something is slapped with the label "God".
People who believe in God because they think the universe had to have a creator are not being sensible, i agree - but the idea of a creator can be logically sound. There is a big difference between the perspectives of the possibility of a creator and the necessity of a creator.
Gradually, as non-theist views become more wide-spread, the role of the church in society might become less prevalent in society, less involved with the running of governments and the setting of policies, and more sidelined into a "If it doesn't harm anyone, let them continue" type of concept/practice.
I think the USA had it right to insist on the separation of church and state - unfortunately, in practice, our finest ideals are often left out (the disrepair of the system of checks and balances between the branches of government is another example of that).

P.S. lightgigantic - it seemed to me that you wouldn't be the type that assumes a 95% failure rate, but thanks for explaining.

[Klitwo]

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.

Cris

Being a Neanderthal (and proud of it), I've often asked myself the same questions.

[Hellblade8]

Typical, worthless LG nonsense.

Cole, I shall answer your question in a moment. For now, let it be said that leprechauns do exist. I have personally seen them and interacted with them. That certainly satisfies LG's criteria. Furthermore, LG is "bereft of the required foundations and qualifications etc etc" and thus can't say a word. LG is your typical high school drop out who thinks he knows it all.

No LG do not respond to me. What do we have to discuss when you haven't undergone the theory- practice or realisation? Your own arguments dismiss you from talking.


Right Cole... You asked:

"If they are based on the same construction, i.e. belief for no reason, why are the others so wholeheartedly dismissed, while the God "construction" holds on so strongly?"

The answer is simple: It's all about what's offered.

If there were no such concept as heaven, if the gods just said "well, when you die you cease to exist", nobody would even care if gods existed or not. The reason people hang onto god concepts is because of the rewards.

Likewise santa is quite the famous fellow - because he gives gifts. Alas it doesn't take long before the child works out that the parents are doing the buying. With gods you can't show that there is no reward for you until it's too late - and so people cling onto it just incase.

Leprechauns don't really offer anything, neither do mermaids etc etc. As such nobody cares whether they exist.

That's not true, leprechauns have pots of gold and many sailors thought that mermaids also existed. Not to mention giant sea monsters. All of these have had impacts upon reality, but humans tend to see things as something more mythical than they often are.

So by your logic, people should believe in leprechauns because they have something to offer. And what of demons? People believe that they exist and yet they are often considered as imaginary.

Mythical creatures where created from two things: misunderstanding of what actually happened (sea monsters, dragons, ect.) and why.

Why are we here? Why are we different? Why do we feel this way? Why am I angry? Why am I different? Why are we here? Why does the world orbit around a sun? Why? Why? Why? Why?

Science is not about explaining why. Science is about explaining how. How do I feel this way? How are we different? How am I angry? How am I different? How does the Earth orbit around a star? How?

Can science answer why questions? Yes...to some extent. Why does the earth orbit the sun? Answer: Because of gravity and its effects.

And yet, this doesn't offer up the true, ultimate question as to WHY?

God is the answer to why. The belief in God or any supernatural being is not wrong, and actually seems fairly natural. Do atheists disagree? Yes, they do and they have their reasons based on the way the view life. However, this does not make them correct, as proving the existence of God has failed for many, many years. People only assumed that God was real with what people percieved as evicdence in the dark ages, but in truth they where just seeing something and placing God as the cause, even though this was in fact discouraged by the bible. However, most people where not aware of this as most people did not read the bible, and this is true today. People believe in liars like Sylvia Brown who claim to talk to spirits and then disgraces the name of God by basicly using His good name to win people over. However in truth, she is a lying heretic of which God and the bible have always denounced.

[Hellblade8]

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.

Cris


Sorry, but I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding.:(

Because God has perfect knowledge or some such does not disprove God or Freedom of Will. Allow me to explain. Lets say when God is weaving the timeline that He offers someone the two hard choices. Naturally, God knows that the person shall choose the wrong one, does that mean that God did not give the human the ability to choose? No it does not. Allow me to explain it in a more understandable manner. Go to a child and give him the option of eating a cake or a carrot. Assuming the child is typical for his age, he will choose the cake over the carrot. You still gave the child a choice, but you knew what the outcome was. This is the same manner of which God works in. He does not offer us only cake or carrot, but both, even if He knows what we will do.:)

[SnakeLord]

But doesn't the idea of God sometimes threaten more than it comforts? I propose that it does, even to, or especially to, christians. The way some people describe God, it may actually be an idea that would have been better discarded long ago.

I would certainly stand by your question, yes. But is not the threat in itself enough reason to believe and further the belief?

In the same way that being offered a reward could ensure belief and service, so does the threat - "do this or suffer". Ultimately I would even say that the threat can be more powerful than the offer itself.

I suppose it's a reason why superstitions persist the way they do, (from the threats such as broken mirrors equalling bad luck to 'knocking on wood' equalling the hope for good luck).

That's not true, leprechauns have pots of gold and many sailors thought that mermaids also existed. Not to mention giant sea monsters. All of these have had impacts upon reality, but humans tend to see things as something more mythical than they often are.

Well, leprechauns are said to own pots of gold, but it isn't really offered - not so much as "knocking on wood" whereby leprechauns would give you luck. It's interesting to note that the latter is still quite commonly said today.

Magpies 'threaten' bad luck unless they're saluted, (dependant upon amount of magpies), and so people in this country at least still dilligently salute magpies. It's obviously ludicrous but people still do it because they don't want to risk being victim of the threat.

You have rabbits feet, horseshoes etc etc that are still commonplace in modern day society, (because they offer luck), and equally the avoidance of breaking mirrors, walking under ladders, (because of threats).

Yes, we could look at vampires and say that being bitten on the neck is a threat and therefore should be believed in - but it isn't a direct threat. It's not a case of "I will bite you on the neck unless you hang garlic out every night". Because there is no direct threat, (or offer), I would assert that humans have little overall interest in it and after time it becomes yet another scary campfire story and little else.

As for mermaids, they never were going to last long given that they are so confined, (something for the sailors only), and yes - largely stemmed from encounters with unknown sea creatures.. But again they are not so much 'direct threat'. Some sailors would hear their song and crash into the rocks etc but it wasn't personal like "do this or die".

What I am asserting, (as an opinion I should state), is that gods and other such things making direct offers/threats will outlive that which doesn't offer/threaten anything. It is quite typical behaviour even in normal life - that's why "buy one get one free" works so well.

So by your logic, people should believe in leprechauns because they have something to offer.

Indirectly people still do, (at least saying "touch wood/knock on wood" frequently). The supposed pot of gold is at the end of the rainbow.. that complicates the issue. :)

And what of demons? People believe that they exist and yet they are often considered as imaginary.

Some do, some don't yes.. you'll never get 100% agreement on anything.

And yet, this doesn't offer up the true, ultimate question as to WHY?

And here is the thing.. Some see the question as moot, some see the question as essential. I suppose that's where we differ.

However, if it is of any use in the future.. I heard this story, (probably utterly untrue), about a young guy doing a philosophy exam. A question cropped up that asked: "why?". His fellow students went to lengths to explain the things that you yourself have written on your post. This gentleman wrote: "why not?" and left.

Personally I find the response-question as valid as the original question.

God is the answer to why.

All due respect, but that isn't an answer. 'god' is merely a substitute for those that are too afraid to hear the words 'no good reason'. Of the world's most worthless copouts, "god did it" has to rank first place - and it ultimately doesn't answer anything. All those "why's" still exist along with countless other questions: which god, why did it create us, why do we sin, why blah blah blah. god did it, god did it, god did it.. what has been answered other than nothing at all?

The belief in God or any supernatural being is not wrong, and actually seems fairly natural.

It seems 'quite natural' for man to believe in many non-existant things - mostly stemming from early days when man knew very little about the planet. This even includes mermaids that are found throughout literature and even dating back to 5,000 bc. From Babylon to Greece, from Cameroon to England. This in itself is not an argument for existence.

What you do tend to notice with gods is that they are culture specific. You don't, for instance, find any hedgehog gods in India. They're elephants and other such animals. You don't find badger gods in Egypt, they're vultures and jackals. You also tend not to find fox gods in South America - they are generally snakes. The question I ask is whether perhaps there are many gods, or one god that likes to play dress-up or perhaps whether people would notice what was around them and elevate it to worship status because of it's power, it's infamy, (poisonous snakes etc), or simply not being too well known. We could also then look at specific stories and see if those places where the land was more prone to disaster have gods that were more prone to handing out punishments, (yhwh certainly liked plagues). A British god would be a good example because we have no dangerous animals or disasterous weather. All I can personally think of right now are druids, (meaning 'oak tree') - yes, there's shitloads of oak trees in England. The problem of course is that there's very little known about druids so I can't really use it as a good example.

While contemplating this I decided to have a cigarette. During my smoke I thought of other gods that I am not personally aware of that I could perhaps use as an example. For some reason, (probably because I mentioned Cameroon), I started to think of African gods and what we would expect to see from them. After some consideration I came to the idea that we would expect to see mentions of drought most certainly and perhaps rain if they were good and obeyed. So anyway, I did some google searching and found this for starters which certainly reflects Africa quite well:

Abiku: is a term used to describe a type of evil spirit in Yoruba mythology. They are reportedly constantly hungry and thirsty, and prefer to prey upon children. The name is also applied to spirits in the form of children who must repeatedly die and be reborn.

I hadn't factored this into my equations but I don't think we can sit and argue the parts I have bolded as being reflective of Africa. In fact when I read it my mind instantly conjured up those images we always see on TV of some scrawny, starving African child.

I am currently going through the a-z of African gods and it is certainly going well so far. You have Abuk, mother of the god of rain and fertility who is symbolised by a snake. This had me worried to begin with.. but Abuk was a god to the Dinka - a tribe that live in swampland.

Again the question is: Is there a god/s that play dress-up or is it perhaps more likely that early cultures worshipped that which was around them? (also worth mentioning that one of, if not the most, worshipped thing in early cultures was the sun