Outside Logic, Time/Space & Beyond...

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Mythbuster, Apr 1, 2006.

  1. Mythbuster Mushroomed Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    581
    Outside Logic/Time/Space & Beyond...

    I will show you why it is stupid to believe in god:

    credit to PIKACHU
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2006
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mythbuster Mushroomed Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    581
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ellion Magician & Exorcist (93) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    you are describing god in that sentence, he is that..... "in which we live and move and have our being."

    i appolgise to duendy for any offense caused by the use of the masculine HE to refer to the divine aspect of the universe.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Is that your version of god?
     
  8. ellion Magician & Exorcist (93) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    version? i dont have a version, i just swim with the currents of universal consciousness.

    sometimes i find i am drowning.
     
  9. ellion Magician & Exorcist (93) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    oh! but some people use that "version"

    the alpaha and the omega, the first and the last, all that is, all that was and all that is yet to come.
     
  10. nameless Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    686
    Accepting your 'assumptions' for a moment, of which there seem to be many,
    I think that it might be more accurate to replace your 'nothing' with 'not a thing' which has different implications and meaning.
    As in;
    1) God has no beginning or end.
    2) Things have a beginning and an end.
    3) God is not a thing.

    The overwhelming fallacy of your argument are the many assumptions that you make of this 'god' that you do not believe is real, and the mental permutations that you undergo to attempt to validate those assumptions;

    And then 'reach' so hard to make these assumptions into some kind of 'truth'!

    Wait a minute, isnt that what the 'true believers' do also?

    They make 'their' assumptions and find 'validating evidence' in their 'environment'; a bit of science here, a bit of myth there, a bit of imagination next, shaken (not stirred) together with a NEED TO BELIEVE THAT WHICH THEY BELIEVE.

    You attempt to 'define' this god that you say that you do not accept as 'real' in order to refute it.
    Is there 'something' to define or not?
    Could there be 'something' beyond your ability to 'define', to 'conceptualize'?
    If so, why try so hard to deny it?
    You are on the same coin as the theists, just another side.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2006

Share This Page