A proof for the non-existence of God

Actually this isn't a real proper argument, but I find it funny. This is more of a parody of the many "logical" arguments for God's existence, rather than an argument in itself.




Not a solid or upstanding argument, but rather fun nonetheless.



1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore, God does not exist.

The third premise might seem odd; the intuition is that we are generally more impressed by, for example, a four-year-old child composing a marvelous symphony than the same composition of a professional. In fact, Graham Oppy, an expert on the ontological argument, who isn't particularly impressed with this parody, does not object to (3). Writing in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy he is mainly concerned with the first premise, asking "what reason is there to believe that the creation of the world is 'the most marvellous achievement imaginable.' Gasking was apparently thinking of the "world" or "universe" as the same as "everything."

If one is willing to accept the first premise, one has no choice but to accept the fourth premise. Thus, the philosophical point of this parody is to highlight problems when existence is taken as property: "whereas Anselm illicitly supposed that existence is a perfection, [Fred] is illicitly invoking the inverse principle that non-existence is a perfection."

I don't get it. Sure, it would be impressive if god didn't exist and still created the universe, but who says it would have to be that "impressive."

Secondly, my rebuttal: God is so omnipotent that he can not exist but still create the universe (and exist at the same time, though still not existing).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasup

Secondly, my rebuttal: God is so omnipotent that he can not exist but still create the universe (and exist at the same time, though still not existing).

---

Darn that rapscallion deity. Good sir; you have won, yet only due to the slippery nature of the deity in question. Bravo.

if you think God is out to impress? :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

if you think God is out to impress? :shock:

---

You think he's not?

He could have just waved his hand and forgiven all sin on Earth, but instead chose to embody himself (as a Son) in flesh and get nailed to a cross to do it (which he knew was going to happen because he's omniscient). If god chose to suffer for our sins in such a hideous, torturous way, one can only assume he decided to do it that specific way. He's God, he can do whatever he likes. But he chose to be brutally tortured and murdered. What a masochist. What a drama queen.

"I told you I was hardcore"

Blood and body sacrifice has its roots in pagan culture anyway. Why would your god want to associate with that?

Clearly God is a sadistic, lazy bastard.

If he cared so much why not just directly tell us? Or just make us believe? Huh?

Clearly God does not care then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Clearly God is a sadistic, lazy bastard.

If he cared so much why not just directly tell us? Or just make us believe? Huh?

Clearly God does not care then.

---

His infinite power has limits.

God wants you to chose! He wants you to be able to chose good or bad. But he doesn't want you to choose bad and will punish you if you do! But god wants you to choose bad instead of making you a robot. Otherwise he wouldn't allow bad or the ability to choose to do bad. God also wants to limit your ability to make an informed choice. You have to believe it's true even though he's trying to trick you into thinking it's not. But that's not really true, he's just testing your faith. You have to believe him not only in spite of all other reasons but actually because of it! It'll make sense in the end unless we're wrong in which case you'll never know anyway! Which means it can't possibly be wrong (that we'll know of! teehee!)

That looks like Pascal's Wager in a blender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

God wants you to chose! He wants you to be able to chose good or bad. But he doesn't want you to choose bad and will punish you if you do! But god wants you to choose bad instead of making you a robot. Otherwise he wouldn't allow bad or the ability to choose to do bad. God also wants to limit your ability to make an informed choice. You have to believe it's true even though he's trying to trick you into thinking it's not. But that's not really true, he's just testing your faith. You have to believe him not only in spite of all other reasons but actually because of it! It'll make sense in the end unless we're wrong in which case you'll never know anyway! Which means it can't possibly be wrong (that we'll know of! teehee!)

---

Fucking Win

Yup.

If you cannot prove God you do not know what you are trying to prove. When you know God, you do not need all proof, because that is exactly what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

God wants you to chose! He wants you to be able to chose good or bad. But he doesn't want you to choose bad and will punish you if you do! But god wants you to choose bad instead of making you a robot. Otherwise he wouldn't allow bad or the ability to choose to do bad. God also wants to limit your ability to make an informed choice. You have to believe it's true even though he's trying to trick you into thinking it's not. But that's not really true, he's just testing your faith. You have to believe him not only in spite of all other reasons but actually because of it! It'll make sense in the end unless we're wrong in which case you'll never know anyway! Which means it can't possibly be wrong (that we'll know of! teehee!)

---

Flaw #1(/11)

God came from man.

An idea to satisfy the unknown.

Your vague wording suggests that you are just firthere hiding the lack of reason for such an entity to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

If you cannot prove God you do not know what you are trying to prove. When you know God, you do not need all proof, because that is exactly what it is.



Flaw #1(/11)

---

Clarify terms. Define your God. Lets use logic?


Or keep to your highly vague impenetrable poetic prose with no application on the real world. I don't think you probably even fully know what you mean.


Either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Flaw #1(/11)

---

A lot of people who believe in god believe this to be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

God came from man.

---

Man came from God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

An idea to satisfy the unknown.

---

A memory to cleanse the suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Your vague wording suggests that you are just firthere hiding the lack of reason for such an entity to exist.

---

Firstly, consider "vague" a matter of one's perspective. Secondly, consider that "lack of reason" would keep me from posting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omicron

Clarify terms. Define your God. Lets use logic?


Or keep to your highly vague impenetrable poetic prose with no application on the real world. I don't think you probably even fully know what you mean.


Either way.

---

My God is yours, ultimately. Let's not use logic, this is not a logical matter.

God is the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent Spirit which animates and pervades everything in the entire Universe. He is not a person, nor something with logical judgements or personal favorites. My God is yours; He is Impersonal. We are Gods family, therefore, and God is in all of you people and things. God transcends the ego - and the fear of being wrong, or feeling better than others, He is love, infinite love and being. He is Home, the One which lasts forever. Your truest Self. The Grand Soul of those who accept.

Why would you scoff at these teachings which do not perish? Where is your compassion? Where are your eyes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

A lot of people who believe in god believe this to be true.

---

Your terrible assumptions appear to have mislead you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Man came from God.

---

Man came from me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

My God is yours, ultimately. Let's not use logic, this is not a logical matter.

---

I am your god, ultimately. Let's not use logic, this is not a logical matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

God is the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent Spirit which animates and pervades everything in the entire Universe. He is not a person, nor something with logical judgements or personal favorites. My God is yours; He is Impersonal. We are Gods family, therefore, and God is in all of you people and things. God transcends the ego - and the fear of being wrong, or feeling better than others, He is love, infinite love and being. He is Home, the One which lasts forever. Your truest Self. The Grand Soul of those who accept.

---

I am the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent Spirit which animates and pervades everything in the entire Universe. I am not a person, nor something with logical judgements or personal favorites. I am is your God; I am Impersonal. You are My family, therefore, and I am in all of you people and things. I transcend the ego - and the fear of being wrong, or feeling better than others, I am love, infinite love and being. I am Home, the One which lasts forever. Your truest Self. The Grand Soul of those who accept.

Why would you scoff at these teachings which do not perish? Where is your compassion? Where are your eyes?

Your terrible assumptions appear to have mislead you.

---------------------------------------------
Next time use logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Next time use logic.

---

Why? Look at what happens!

I don't completely understand your post.

Tell me, what tool have you got that consistantly produces more accurate results than logic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Your terrible assumptions appear to have mislead you.

---

o ok thx u 4 takin teh tiem 2 halp me undarstend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Clearly God is a sadistic, lazy bastard.

If he cared so much why not just directly tell us? Or just make us believe? Huh?

Clearly God does not care then.

---

Perhaps god has told us already? but we are able to choose what we want to believe, or what not to believe. You expect a voice to say "i am real, this is god"? people do say that, we call them crazy for saying god told him to do so and so, and they go to the hospital to get help. People have hallucinations in forms of NDE, or OBE, or whatever and say they felt and know god and all that stuff, we say it was brain related and it was not real. How are we going to know if gods real if we use the "brain" theory? i seriously doubt god cares if we believe or don't believe. If he exists that is.

RedfishBluefish can you explain your previous post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Tell me, what tool have you got that consistantly produces more accurate results than logic?

---

Logic isn't accurate here because this isn't a logical matter. What is used instead isn't labeled a "tool", because it is spiritual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

o ok thx u 4 takin teh tiem 2 halp me undarstend

---

Do you have any questions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Perhaps god has told us already? but we are able to choose what we want to believe, or what not to believe. You expect a voice to say "i am real, this is god"? people do say that, we call them crazy for saying god told him to do so and so, and they go to the hospital to get help. People have hallucinations in forms of NDE, or OBE, or whatever and say they felt and know god and all that stuff, we say it was brain related and it was not real. How are we going to know if gods real if we use the "brain" theory? i seriously doubt god cares if we believe or don't believe. If he exists that is.

---

It still seems that you think God is separate from the Individual and behaves as a person.

If god is not a part of this universe, then he cannot be proven by means of science which we use to explain reality. If the universe is existance therefore he does not exist. If you find Zeus hiding in the clouds then yay, otherwise it is pointless. Invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster.

Another universe could be outside. You could find a god there. But, untill we manage to rip the fabric of space-time and look "outside" we can't prove anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Perhaps god has told us already? but we are able to choose what we want to believe, or what not to believe.

---

As suggested in an older thread, why not believe you're a billionaire movie star then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

My God is yours, ultimately. Let's not use logic, this is not a logical matter.

God is the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent Spirit which animates and pervades everything in the entire Universe. He is not a person, nor something with logical judgements or personal favorites. My God is yours; He is Impersonal. We are Gods family, therefore, and God is in all of you people and things. God transcends the ego - and the fear of being wrong, or feeling better than others, He is love, infinite love and being. He is Home, the One which lasts forever. Your truest Self. The Grand Soul of those who accept.

---

God does not exist in this universe - mind.

^ Then God does not exist.

Which has been repeated over ten to the power of forty-two times five on this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Let's not use logic, this is not a logical matter.

---

This is positively dripping with irony, I love it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

^ Then God does not exist.

Which has been repeated over ten to the power of forty-two times five on this forum.

---

Exactly. There is no God. God is nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

Exactly. There is no God. God is nothing.

---

Not if you think of "god" as a person like people seem to think time and time again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

God does not exist in this universe - mind.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

There is no God. God is nothing.

---

Why - can you explain, where are these statements coming from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

^ Then God does not exist.

Which has been repeated over ten to the power of forty-two times five on this forum.

---

That is a little amount compared to elsewhere.

To know God, is to know nothing.
Knowing, comes from mind. Mind is universe.
Transcend mind - universe, and you find nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

To know God, is to know nothing.
Knowing, comes from mind. Mind is universe.
Transcend mind - universe, and you find nothing.

---

So, knowing God is transcending existence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

So, knowing God is transcending existence?

---

There is no knowledge of God in transcendence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

There is no knowledge of God in transcendence.

---

Oh yeah, sorry. I didn't mean to post so carelessly. What you meant was: to transcend existence is to transcend knowledge of God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Logic isn't accurate here because this isn't a logical matter. What is used instead isn't labeled a "tool", because it is spiritual.

---

Prove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

There is no knowledge of God in transcendence.

---

Sorry... at the same time you mean something else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Oh yeah, sorry. I didn't mean to post so carelessly. What you meant was: to transcend existence is to transcend knowledge of God?

---

You grasped that pretty quick...
Rather the other way though.
To transcend knowledge of God is to transcend existence.

edit* and people probably gonna get fishy with us for turning this thread spiritualistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

To transcend knowledge of God is to transcend existence.

---

Seeing, moving outward

self, thoughts of I, fade

Grasping ends

Non existant, existing

True freedom

Why do people not like talking in english anymore? :(

I'd settle for them making sense, in any language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Prove it.

---

A teacher said to Jon, "God is found Within." So Jon went and got a full-body X-Ray scan and later concluded "God doesn't exist".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

You grasped that pretty quick...
Rather the other way though.
To transcend knowledge of God is to transcend existence.

---

Wow.

God, his described bliss and his name, are nothing but echoes in this physical Universe - would you say?

Is nothingness at the beginning of all movement?

But what is left? Why nothing and not everything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

edit* and people probably gonna get fishy with us for turning this thread spiritualistic.

---

No doubt, that is a possibility. Generally curious people will get fishy with something they are not completely aware of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Seeing, moving outward

self, thoughts of I, fade

Grasping ends

Non existant, existing

True freedom

---

Can you describe the non-existence, furthermore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

But what is left? Why nothing and not everything?

---

They are one and the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

They are one and the same.

---

I was about to say! Paradoxes... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

A teacher said to Jon, "God is found Within." So Jon went and got a full-body X-Ray scan and later concluded "God doesn't exist".

---

Or the teacher was lying. Or being metaphorical. Or....

Still, tell me, how do I distinguish truth from lies in the absence of logic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Can you describe the non-existence, furthermore?

---

The term "non existant" as used in :

Quote:

---

Seeing, moving outward

self, thoughts of I, fade

Grasping ends

Non existant, existing

True freedom

---

... also refers to self.

When one reaches that transcendent state of being, when self surrenders to Self and finally lets go, all thoughts of "me and mine" indiginous to the self subside and fall away. The shackles to the mind are shattered. The term "I " becomes something of an ambiguity, a mere lingual term applying loosely to the shell, the form that "others" associate with in relation to themselves. It is used in language for the mere benefit of those who still percieve themselves as seperate so as they can understand the point of reference. The term " I " becomes more to the point of all inclusive to one who is free as such.

Non existance, in the sense used, refers to one who exists without seeing ones Self as being seperate from all that is being seen, witnessed, experienced.

Unless one experiences/realizes this themselves, using mere words to describe it fall short of conveying true meaning.
It is a paradox of sorts, but only for those who grasp firmly to the idea of themselves in the frame of mind of a seperate , stand alone "me", seeing everything else as seperate from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Do you have any questions?

---

I really don't. I don't even know how I could properly respond to what you'd said. You told me I was wrong in my assumption, but I was just going by what certain many people say about their god. Either they believe it or they were just lying. All I can tell you is I'm merely addressing a common view of god via parody by... basically retelling it verbatim as I had heard it so many times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Or the teacher was lying. Or being metaphorical. Or....

---

Don't bother, you could go on like that forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Still, tell me, how do I distinguish truth from lies in the absence of logic?

---

Are you implying that logic is a "lie-detector"!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

The term "non existant" as used in :




... also refers to self.

When one reaches that transcendent state of being, when self surrenders to Self and finally lets go, all thoughts of "me and mine" indiginous to the self subside and fall away. The shackles to the mind are shattered. The term "I " becomes something of an ambiguity, a mere lingual term applying loosely to the shell, the form that "others" associate with in relation to themselves. It is used in language for the mere benefit of those who still percieve themselves as seperate so as they can understand the point of reference. The term " I " becomes more to the point of all inclusive to one who is free as such.

Non existance, in the sense used, refers to one who exists without seeing ones Self as being seperate from all that is being seen, witnessed, experienced.

Unless one experiences/realizes this themselves, using mere words to describe it fall short of conveying true meaning.
It is a paradox of sorts, but only for those who grasp firmly to the idea of themselves in the frame of mind of a seperate , stand alone "me", seeing everything else as seperate from them.

---

Thanks for that, every part helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

I really don't. I don't even know how I could properly respond to what you'd said.

---

No interest? Why do you think so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

You told me I was wrong in my assumption, but I was just going by what certain many people say about their god. Either they believe it or they were just lying. All I can tell you is I'm merely addressing a common view of god via parody by... basically retelling it verbatim as I had heard it so many times.

---

Making assumptions as you did, takes you further from the true essence of your interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Are you implying that logic is a "lie-detector"!?

---

Logic has a history of detecting that, when people tell me the sky is green, or that I can buy something off ebay that will increase the size of my penis by 70%, they are lying.

Now answer the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Logic has a history of detecting that, when people tell me the sky is green, or that I can buy something off ebay that will increase the size of my penis by 70%, they are lying.

Now answer the question.

---

If people tell you the sky is green, you can look up.
Then you can decide whether you have been mistaking blue with green your whole life; if you are the only one that sees truth, or if they are lying.

Logic is the process that you use to choose an option.

Whatever option you choose, you can not know if you are correct or wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Making assumptions as you did, takes you further from the true essence of your interest.

---

Either they believe it or they were just lying. All I can tell you is I'm merely addressing a common view of god via parody by... basically retelling it verbatim as I had heard it so many times.

I still don't understand how I am meant to figure out the existence/nonexistence of god without using logic. What am I meant to do, guess?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

I still don't understand how I am meant to figure out the existence/nonexistence of god without using logic. What am I meant to do, guess?

---

What's good for the goose...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omicron

Actually this isn't a real proper argument, but I find it funny. This is more of a parody of the many "logical" arguments for God's existence, rather than an argument in itself.




Not a solid or upstanding argument, but rather fun nonetheless.



1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore, God does not exist.

The third premise might seem odd; the intuition is that we are generally more impressed by, for example, a four-year-old child composing a marvelous symphony than the same composition of a professional. In fact, Graham Oppy, an expert on the ontological argument, who isn't particularly impressed with this parody, does not object to (3). Writing in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy he is mainly concerned with the first premise, asking "what reason is there to believe that the creation of the world is 'the most marvellous achievement imaginable.' Gasking was apparently thinking of the "world" or "universe" as the same as "everything."

If one is willing to accept the first premise, one has no choice but to accept the fourth premise. Thus, the philosophical point of this parody is to highlight problems when existence is taken as property: "whereas Anselm illicitly supposed that existence is a perfection, [Fred] is illicitly invoking the inverse principle that non-existence is a perfection."

---

I haven't read this all yet, but I remembered this logic problem... it's meant as a philosophical, hypothetical paradox but whjy does that mean you shouldn't take it seriously? :D Here it is:

Facts -

- the God in question is omnipotent.
- "omnipotent" means "with the ability to do absoloutely everything".

Assuming those facts are correct, can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? It would seem not - which would prove that such a god cannot exist.

I mean, you can argue that the Bible contradicts itself over everything but this really is something special.

I doubt the peasants of the 1st century thought about the philosophical implications of the word "almighty" before using it. They may have assumed that omnipotence of the sort you describe is by it's nature illogical as you pointed out, so it's a given that they didn't mean that. What they probably meant by "almighty" is "more powerful than the king, and with more chiselled abs than hercules".

Yes, you're right - but the original definition doesn't matter, the way "almighty" is interpreted today does, because it is today's interpretation and the people following it that we are discussing.

For example, maybe when the Bible was written when it said "Do not lie with another man" or something it meant "Keep to your side of the bed when camping" (don't say that the possible example is absurd, it is no less absurd than saying that God very powerful as opposed to omnipotent). But the modern interpretation interprets "Do not lie with another man" as "It's wrong to have sexual intercourse with other men" (or something).

Original interpretations are irrelevant to the discussion lof how religion is followed/interpreted today.

This is the problem with the "Yeah? Well MY DAD is better than YOURS because -" child-like mentality of giving your gods powers. In order to make your god 'better' than someone elses, you have to give him/her more and more powers. You quickly reach a point where there is such a thing as 'too powerful', because it begins to conflict with anything you can observe about the works of said God.

God is omnipotent - therefore, he can do anything. (all powerful)
God is omniscient - therefore, he knows everything including your thoughts before you think them. (all knowing)
God is omnipresent - therefore, god is everywhere in the universe simultaneously. (all seeing)

How do you reconcile these properties with the observed suffering in the world? Incoming argument for 'suffering creates chances for generosity' and arguments for humanities free will causes suffering in 3.... 2.... 1....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alextanium

This is the problem with the "Yeah? Well MY DAD is better than YOURS because -" child-like mentality of giving your gods powers. In order to make your god 'better' than someone elses, you have to give him/her more and more powers. You quickly reach a point where there is such a thing as 'too powerful', because it begins to conflict with anything you can observe about the works of said God.

God is omnipotent - therefore, he can do anything. (all powerful)
God is omniscient - therefore, he knows everything including your thoughts before you think them. (all knowing)
God is omnipresent - therefore, god is everywhere in the universe simultaneously. (all seeing)

How do you reconcile these properties with the observed suffering in the world? Incoming argument for 'suffering creates chances for generosity' and arguments for humanities free will causes suffering in 3.... 2.... 1....

---

God is also all being.

That really falls under omnipresent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Still, tell me, how do I distinguish truth from lies in the absence of logic?

---

Excuse my stupidity! Logic - of course there must be! What I originally meant was: "This is not a logical matter", because I myself defined logic as: common sense, lateral thinking, maths etc. Not in the fuller, proper context of a system of reasoning. My bad.

Clearly, spiritual logic can not be found with lateral thinking as I have demonstrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fishy

Facts -

- the God in question is omnipotent.
- "omnipotent" means "with the ability to do absoloutely everything".

Assuming those facts are correct, can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?

---

Yes, he can. He can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift while still remaining omnipotent. That's why it's called omnipotent. Because he can do it.

There are two acts involved - the creation of the stone that is too heavy for him to lift (act 1), and the lifting of the stone (act 2).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

Yes, he can. He can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift while still remaining omnipotent. That's why it's called omnipotent. Because he can do it.

---

You have said, I think: Yes, he can do act 1, because he is omnipotent. But for that to be true, he will have to be unable to lift the stone, rendering him as not omnipotent.

There's a quote from Wiki that sums this up:

"J.L. Cowan attempts to resolve the paradox in "The Paradox of Omnipotence Revisited." He proposes the following:

1. Either God can create a stone which He cannot lift, or He cannot create a stone which He cannot lift.

2. If God can create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot lift the stone in question).

3. If God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot create the stone in question).

4. Therefore God is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence implies that God can lift anything, therefore it is illogical to say God can make a stone which He cannot lift. It is however logical to say if God can lift anything, then he is not capable of making a stone He cannot lift. Because He cannot make a stone He cannot lift, omnipotence is negated."

So unless you're making some claim that God is able to do anything (having the power to realise all opprotunities, no matter how they conflict) this makes so sense. If you are making that claiom, could you elaborate on it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fishy

So unless you're making some claim that God is able to do anything (having the power to realise all opprotunities, no matter how they conflict) this makes so sense. If you are making that claiom, could you elaborate on it?

---

Quote:

---

God is omnipotent - therefore, he can do anything. (all powerful)

---

God can lift something even if he himself made it so that he can't life it.

But if that's true, it means that in that case the rock IS liftable and so God has failed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fishy

But if that's true, it means that in that case the rock IS liftable and so God has failed.

---

God is omnipotent, thus he can lift an unliftable rock and still have it be unliftable.

As for the unliftable rock thing.

God can make himself into an irreversible form of a pussy, so that he can not lift a rock, however he wouldn't want to. OR. God HIMSELF doesn't adhere to logic so such conceptions don't exist for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

God is omnipotent, thus he can lift an unliftable rock and still have it be unliftable.

---

When you say "unliftable" at the end in this quote, do you mean merely unliftable or unliftable for him? Because if you mean the former definition, the rock is not unliftable, but if you mean the latter definition that "the rock is still unliftable, even for him" than it makes logical sense. Is this claim that God can embody absoloutley all opprotunites in the Bible? Or is it later interpretation? I've never heard of it.

Oh, btw, Elis D. : God doesn't adhere to logic, yes, I think we can agree on that, because it's not logical that there exists an invisible higher being that sees your every thought and is everywhere. But I'm not talking about the concept of god, I'm talking about the specific concept of his omnipotentcy. Are you waving away the logical paradoxes this causes by stating that logic doesn't matter? You are discussing rules religious people live their life by, are you serious posing "it doesn't have to make sense" as a reasonable argument?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alextanium

God is omnipotent - therefore, he can do anything. (all powerful)
God is omniscient - therefore, he knows everything including your thoughts before you think them. (all knowing)
God is omnipresent - therefore, god is everywhere in the universe simultaneously. (all seeing)

---

Well, God sure made some big booboos when it comes to biochemistry of the cell. Why would God make DNA so easily mutatable? Why would it be that if a mutant gene produces human pathology has the same effect when transformed into a mouse?

Also, why is it that all embryos of every animal look the same, why do they all develop into neural tubes, why do all the cells differentiate in the presence of morphogens and transcription factors?

From this argument, you can extrapolate that animals should have access to God just as equally as we do. BUT, animals cannot choose good or bad...therefore there can be no GOD. I am trying to say that everything living on this earth is RELATED to one another, humans are not special creatures. We only have a well developed neocortex.

We must all have sex just like animals do. Some bacteria also have sex (sex pilus insertion).

Anyway. Cells and DNA disprove God.

Why couldn't God make a parable that told everyone about DNA, the most important thing of life seen throughout all of nature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fy_iceworld

Well, God sure made some big booboos when it comes to biochemistry of the cell. Why would God make DNA so easily mutatable? Why would it be that if a mutant gene produces human pathology has the same effect when transformed into a mouse?

Also, why is it that all embryos of every animal look the same, why do they all develop into neural tubes, why do all the cells differentiate in the presence of morphogens and transcription factors?

From this argument, you can extrapolate that animals should have access to God just as equally as we do. BUT, animals cannot choose good or bad...therefore there can be no GOD. I am trying to say that everything living on this earth is RELATED to one another, humans are not special creatures. We only have a well developed neocortex.

We must all have sex just like animals do. Some bacteria also have sex (sex pilus insertion).

Anyway. Cells and DNA disprove God.

Why couldn't God make a parable that told everyone about DNA, the most important thing of life seen throughout all of nature?

---

Whats your definition of God?..

Quote:

---

Well, God sure made some big booboos when it comes to biochemistry of the cell. Why would God make DNA so easily mutatable? Why would it be that if a mutant gene produces human pathology has the same effect when transformed into a mouse?

Also, why is it that all embryos of every animal look the same, why do they all develop into neural tubes, why do all the cells differentiate in the presence of morphogens and transcription factors?

From this argument, you can extrapolate that animals should have access to God just as equally as we do. BUT, animals cannot choose good or bad...therefore there can be no GOD. I am trying to say that everything living on this earth is RELATED to one another, humans are not special creatures. We only have a well developed neocortex.

---

That's true, and we do die just like any other animal... but apparently there is another part of us which is not physical and lasts forever. It gives us our sentience and free will in a deterministic world. All the animals are like computers, even us, except we can control our bodies with something outside the deterministic world. That's how we're special. (At least that's what I'm thinking right now.)

Quote:

---

Why couldn't God make a parable that told everyone about DNA, the most important thing of life seen throughout all of nature?

---

Don't you know what a parable is? It's like an analogy, it uses something that lots of people will understand to explain something new. So making a parable about DNA wouldn't make much sense.

Anyways, I think God made DNA and all the other complex things in the universe for us to explore on our own. Telling us about it would ruin the surprise :P And imagine if you went back in time to when the Bible was written and tried to explain to people all about DNA. I don't think they'd understand it without learning a bunch of other stuff about science that they wouldn't have discovered yet.

God was made by man
Aliens made man

Let me guess -you've been indocrinated into believing science-fiction as to how the world was created, by a cult who you've now donated over $1000 to?

If not, please explain your remarks instead of posting random statements, it's really making people think you're on 24-hour weed intake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cannabisman

God was made by man
Aliens made man

---

Who made the aliens?

Turtles the whole way down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

Either they believe it or they were just lying. All I can tell you is I'm merely addressing a common view of god via parody by... basically retelling it verbatim as I had heard it so many times.

---

Because you repeated yourself, you've obviously missed my points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fishy

There are two acts involved - the creation of the stone that is too heavy for him to lift (act 1), and the lifting of the stone (act 2).

...

---

I'm sorry, but your claims and Cowan's are flawed right from the from the very beginning. This is especially evident in the failure to recognize what you are trying to prove (coupling with what God Really Is).

God is the Almighty and most Powerful; therefore you can draw no line where He can exhaust himself. God is not a separate thing. He is not a man, exclusively. He is All things; He is In the man.

Since God is Omnipotent, not only could he make a stone infinitely heavy, he could make himself, in any way, infinitely powerful to lift it. Whether the stone is heavy is dependent upon two separate issues; one relationship. Therefore this paradox is uselessly irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fishy

It is however logical to say if God can lift anything, then he is not capable of making a stone He cannot lift. Because He cannot make a stone He cannot lift, omnipotence is negated."

---

It is only negated with the misunderstanding that Omnipotence gives Him no ability to make himself infinitely strong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fishy

Oh, btw, Elis D. : God doesn't adhere to logic, yes, I think we can agree on that, because it's not logical that there exists an invisible higher being that sees your every thought and is everywhere.

---

Yes, He is logical, but can not be understood with typical, limited logic, I.e. that of lifting rocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fishy

But I'm not talking about the concept of god, I'm talking about the specific concept of his omnipotentcy.

---

It is better to understand one thing before moving on to the next. When you understand the concept of God, your following concept is already explained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. David Hawkins, 'Power vs. Force'

"A statement may be true at a high level of understanding, but be incomprehensible to the average mind. Its value may therefore be corrupted when the statement is distorted by the limitations of the listener. This has been the fate of religions throughout the ages when pronouncements originating from high levels of awareness were later misinterpreted by followers vested with authority."

---

^ I hope this quote is read and understood by everyone. Dr. Hawkins writes books worth everyones eyesight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

^ I hope this quote is read and understood by everyone. Dr. Hawkins writes books worth everyones eyesight.

---

Wrong. He's yet another self-proclaimed guru who pukes out unsubstantiated claims about the nature of the human without having shit to back it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

Wrong. He's yet another self-proclaimed guru who pukes out unsubstantiated claims about the nature of the human without having shit to back it up.

---

He may be but he is 1000 times smarter then you will ever be and he knows alot more then you about alot of things.

In my Personal view of God, rather detatched from mainstreamreligions, is a Creating force that made Something(existance) out of Nothing(Inexistance).

Therefor I see humans that have imaginairy visions/Dreams (Not from this physical ) and turn them into Paintings and sculptures (Physical Existance) also as Gods. Or at least halfgods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fishy

Let me guess -you've been indocrinated into believing science-fiction as to how the world was created, by a cult who you've now donated over $1000 to?

If not, please explain your remarks instead of posting random statements, it's really making people think you're on 24-hour weed intake.

---

Nope i dont no any cults and if people say god made the world i can say aliens made our world and who is anyone to say im wrong as i have as much proof as people who belive god made the world, even tho i dont belive that any made the world. I dont care what you think about me smoking weed as ur as real as my dream last night.

I didn't know when I posted that you actually smoke weed, I was just pointing out that it would be nicer if you explain your opinion instead of making a random remark as if you were on weed, because then I can understand you. Likewise with my bitter remarks on your actual comment - I don't have any problem with your view, I have a problem with you just posting a statement with no explanation, it's a little annoying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fishy

I didn't know when I posted that you actually smoke weed, I was just pointing out that it would be nicer if you explain your opinion instead of making a random remark as if you were on weed, because then I can understand you. Likewise with my bitter remarks on your actual comment - I don't have any problem with your view, I have a problem with you just posting a statement with no explanation, it's a little annoying.

---

Yes i understand it was random and my spelling is not so good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

In my Personal view of God, rather detatched from mainstreamreligions, is a Creating force that made Something(existance) out of Nothing(Inexistance).

Therefor I see humans that have imaginairy visions/Dreams (Not from this physical ) and turn them into Paintings and sculptures (Physical Existance) also as Gods. Or at least halfgods.

---

I really wish people like you would stop calling that God. Why not principle? When you say god it is a complete ripp and just makes my head want to explode because you don't mean god, you mean principle. Unless you think that the "creating force" had to have consciousness.

My personal definition of God is the all. God is everything.

Does everything exist? Yes. Everything exists, and we can all agree on that.

Therefore, we all agree, that my version of God, exists.

Sure, other versions of God, an old man with a beard sitting in heaven, are much harder to prove! But which version is the right version? Who decides which definition of God is the right definition? Are we allowed to pick our own definition? Or are we not allowed to pick or own definition? If we are not allowed to pick our own definition of God, who will define God? Your cat?

If we are allowed to pick our own definition of God, then I don't see how you can argue about his existence before knowing what that person actually means by "God".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

Wrong. He's yet another self-proclaimed guru who pukes out unsubstantiated claims about the nature of the human without having shit to back it up.

---

That is quite amusing. You must have gotten mixed up with somebody else, or in denial of the obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cannabisman

He may be but he is 1000 times smarter then you will ever be and he knows alot more then you about alot of things.

---

I don't think either of you two have looked far enough into his work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

Unless you think that the "creating force" had to have consciousness.

---

The creating force, or Creative Power, is consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

My personal definition of God is the all. God is everything.

Does everything exist? Yes. Everything exists, and we can all agree on that.

Therefore, we all agree, that my version of God, exists.

Sure, other versions of God, an old man with a beard sitting in heaven, are much harder to prove! But which version is the right version? Who decides which definition of God is the right definition? Are we allowed to pick our own definition? Or are we not allowed to pick or own definition? If we are not allowed to pick our own definition of God, who will define God? Your cat?

If we are allowed to pick our own definition of God, then I don't see how you can argue about his existence before knowing what that person actually means by "God".

---

This is called pantheism, "God is in everything, everything is God".

Well I have never heard of pantheism, but yeah I guess thats what it is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alextanium

This is called pantheism, "God is in everything, everything is God".

---

Don't forget, "everything is nothing"!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

Don't forget, "everything is nothing"!

---

I think that's atheism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

I think that's atheism.

---

Atheism is the belief in the lack of a God.

There is no God. Therefore it is Atheism.

It is also every 'religion' and every truth. Which is nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

Atheism is the belief in the lack of a God.

There is no God. Therefore it is Atheism.

It is also every 'religion' and every truth. Which is nothing.

---

/sigh. Your such a tool. Yes there not being a god is one definition of being atheist.

However, that is only because it fits into the REAL description which is the LACK of a belief in God. It means we have no evidence for God, so we do not believe in its existence.

Atheism is NOT a belief. People who are atheists can have beliefs but to be atheist is not to inherently disbelieve in God existing, it means not having a belief in such a god.

You can be agnostic and be an atheist. Most atheists are agnostic, however they don't say agnostic because agnostic sounds like you believe that there ARE things but you don't know what they are, vs. Atheism which means you don't have a belief in things, and it could very well be that there are no things spiritual.

Atheism is like the most stupid invention ever.

Atheist: "Hello, I'm an atheist, my view on life is that I don't believe in God".... em, that makes your view of life revolve around Gods existence doesn't it.

He could as well have said:
"Hello, my view on life is that I don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster".

If you don't believe in God why mention God? What the hell

I don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster, but im not gonna invent some stupid label for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Atheism is like the most stupid invention ever.

Atheist: "Hello, I'm an atheist, my view on life is that I don't believe in God".... em, that makes your view of life revolve around Gods existence doesn't it.

He could as well have said:
"Hello, my view on life is that I don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster".

If you don't believe in God why mention God? What the hell

---

I never say hello i'm an Atheist...your a moron.

And no, an atheists view of life is not ABOUT god not existing, its a view WITHOUT god existing.

I wasn't talking about you, just atheists in general. I didn't know you were an atheist and my apologies if I offended your view on life, but I really think its completely useless. You don't see me going around claiming I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster. I don't understand why you would want to go around and talk about something you don't believe in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Atheist: "Hello, I'm an atheist, my view on life is that I don't believe in God".... em, that makes your view of life revolve around Gods existence doesn't it.

---

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I forgot that people were only allowed to have one view on life at a time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

I wasn't talking about you, just atheists in general. I didn't know you were an atheist and and my apologies I offended your view on life, but I really think its completely useless. You don't see me going around claiming I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster. You're a moron if you go around talking about something you don't believe in.

---

Again, thats not how it works, your a moron.

Everyone is searching for the truth, except unlike certain theists, we don't restrict ourselves to staying in our little bubble of reality. Atheists explore everything because we want to know what the truth is. We aren't tools who believe in one thing and only one thing.

And no atheist introduces theirself as athiest. We only say athiest because people ask you "what religion are you." So instead of saying, none, we say atheists, so they don't instantly try to convert us.

Outside of places that are literally devoted to talking about views on the supernatural, I rarely ever talk about the supernatural

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Atheism is like the most stupid invention ever.

Atheist: "Hello, I'm an atheist, my view on life is that I don't believe in God".... em, that makes your view of life revolve around Gods existence doesn't it.

He could as well have said:
"Hello, my view on life is that I don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster".

If you don't believe in God why mention God? What the hell

I don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster, but im not gonna invent some stupid label for it.

---

We didn't 'invent' the label of atheism, the Ancient Greeks did, and it carried over into Latin, then into modern day English.

The pre-fix of 'a-' denotes the negative of the proceeding term:

- 'sexual' vs 'asexual'
- 'symmetrical' vs 'asymmetrical'
- 'typical' vs 'atypical'

And 'theism' (belief in god/s) vs 'atheism' (no belief in god/s). Lack of a belief in the flying spaghetti monster would still be labeled as atheism. It is wrong to assume that atheism is a label specifically for the non-belief in the Christian god, just because it happens to be the most commonly debated one. And congratulations ChaybaChayba, you ARE an atheist whether you like it or not, but with respect to any one of the other 10,000 gods that have been worshiped on Earth since the dawn of humankind. You don't believe in Baal, or Shiva, or Zeus, or Jupiter, or Venus, or Artemis, or Cupid, or Hades, or etc etc etc. You're an atheist with respect to all of them.

Quote:

---

your a moron.

---

It's "you're", as in "you are". If you're going to insult someone's intelligence, it looks better if your own grammar is better than theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

/sigh. Your such a tool. Yes there not being a god is one definition of being atheist.

However, that is only because it fits into the REAL description which is the LACK of a belief in God. It means we have no evidence for God, so we do not believe in its existence.

Atheism is NOT a belief. People who are atheists can have beliefs but to be atheist is not to inherently disbelieve in God existing, it means not having a belief in such a god.

You can be agnostic and be an atheist. Most atheists are agnostic, however they don't say agnostic because agnostic sounds like you believe that there ARE things but you don't know what they are, vs. Atheism which means you don't have a belief in things, and it could very well be that there are no things spiritual.

---

Mark was being literal. So was I in my reply.
I lack the belief that there is a God. Though 'it' does not mean 'we' have no evidence for God, as is subjective and therefore not 'we', but as for you an 'I'.

Atheism is very simply a statement. "I do not believe there is a God or Gods".

This is the fundamental building block of atheism.

Now I am saying - I do not believe there is a God or Gods.

Very literally (as Mark said) that is atheism.

You seem to choose not to grasp this perception.
Perhaps it's where you get off on calling people you think aren't atheists, tools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Atheist: "Hello, I'm an atheist, my view on life is that I don't believe in God".... em, that makes your view of life revolve around Gods existence doesn't it.

---

Not neccesarily.

Every person has an ulterior motive to what they do.
Depending on whether someone 'operates' on the 'big picture' scale, or on the 'detailed scale', defines why they do what they do.

Not all people have thought aout God. Many just get caught up in their lives' details.

A lot of people see irrelevance in details though and 'lvl up'* towards the 'bigger picture'.

The general idea of god, is not a detail. It is generally a theory of creation, not the subject of that which is already 'created'.

Religions, their labels, endless arrays of terms and "isms", distract one from the essential Truth; the Essence. It involves false judgment. Then, you can see that people are fighting, arguing and spreading conflict simply by their distractions from the Truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Religions, their labels, endless arrays of terms and "isms", distract one from the essential Truth; the Essence. It involves false judgment. Then, you can see that people are fighting, arguing and spreading conflict simply by their distractions from the Truth.

---

Truth = science and reason, so yeah. You mostly see religious people fuck shit up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

Mark was being literal. So was I in my reply.
I lack the belief that there is a God. Though 'it' does not mean 'we' have no evidence for God, as is subjective and therefore not 'we', but as for you an 'I'.

Atheism is very simply a statement. "I do not believe there is a God or Gods".

This is the fundamental building block of atheism.

Now I am saying - I do not believe there is a God or Gods.

Very literally (as Mark said) that is atheism.

You seem to choose not to grasp this perception.
Perhaps it's where you get off on calling people you think aren't atheists, tools.

---

Cloud what I was getting onto you about was that you said,

"Atheism is the belief in the lack of a God."

Which is just not true, yes you are an atheist if you believe that, but that is not what Atheism inherently is. The way you said it was as if every Atheist asserts that there is no god, which is just not true. It just means that they have no belief in one existing. Animals are atheists, but do they believe god doesn't exist?

as for Alex, Pardon me for forming posts quickly. I'll never more not stop to check my grammar before having my computer locked out...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

as for Alex, Pardon me for forming posts quickly. I'll never more not stop to check my grammar before having my computer locked out...

---

I wasn't picking on you :) It's just easier to insult someone when you appear to be on higher ground than they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

Cloud what I was getting onto you about was that you said,

"Atheism is the belief in the lack of a God."

Which is just not true, yes you are an atheist if you believe that, but that is not what Atheism inherently is. The way you said it was as if every Atheist asserts that there is no god, which is just not true. It just means that they have no belief in one existing. Animals are atheists, but do they believe god doesn't exist?

---

Mark claimed what Atheism is, through a simple and witty analysing of my post. If you wish to dispute the (obviously) subjective term, dispute it with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

Cloud what I was getting onto you about was that you said,

"Atheism is the belief in the lack of a God."

Which is just not true, yes you are an atheist if you believe that, but that is not what Atheism inherently is. The way you said it was as if every Atheist asserts that there is no god, which is just not true. It just means that they have no belief in one existing. Animals are atheists, but do they believe god doesn't exist?

as for Alex, Pardon me for forming posts quickly. I'll never more not stop to check my grammar before having my computer locked out...

---

How are animals Atheists? they don't even have a clue, to be an atheist is a choice, not "not knowing" thus animals can't be an atheist. Before the whole god thing even started nobody was an atheist, because they did not know, like animals don't know. Atheism is a choice, like i said. If you refuse to believe Atheism is a choice then you have to refuse religion is a choice too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

How are animals Atheists? they don't even have a clue, to be an atheist is a choice, not "not knowing" thus animals can't be an atheist. Before the whole god thing even started nobody was an atheist, because they did not know, like animals don't know. Atheism is a choice, like i said. If you refuse to believe Atheism is a choice then you have to refuse religion is a choice too.

---

All that is required to be an Atheist is to have a lack of belief in the supernatural. "Animals don't know." That is exactly my point. They have no belief in the supernatural. They don't disbelieve it (because they don't know) but they don't believe it either.

I fail to see where I said atheism wasn't a choice...

You guys act like animals are some disconnected type of organism from humans...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

All that is required to be an Atheist is to have a lack of belief in the supernatural. "Animals don't know." That is exactly my point. They have no belief in the supernatural. They don't disbelieve it (because they don't know) but they don't believe it either.

I fail to see where I said atheism wasn't a choice...

---

Animals don't have a choice, so they can't be an atheist who have choice.
Lack of belief=choose to believe or not, and not "not knowing" so i rest my case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Animals don't have a choice, so they can't be an atheist who have choice.
Lack of belief=choose to believe or not, and not "not knowing" so i rest my case.

---

What are you talking about? If you don't know about something then you have a lack of belief in it. That doesn't mean you have a belief in the lack of it. Animals most certainly are atheist.

You had no case to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Animals don't have a choice, so they can't be an atheist who have choice.
Lack of belief=choose to believe or not, and not "not knowing" so i rest my case.

---

Lack of belief and Belief in lack are two different things.

You seem to confuse them.

Well then Atheists don't have a lack of belief, they just don't believe so i am still right.

...

If you DON'T believe then you have a LACK of BELIEF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Well then Atheists don't have a lack of belief, they just don't believe so i am still right.

---

Lol why does this remind me of third grade?

If you don't believe then you don't believe.

Read slowly.

I shall explain this again:

Not believing in something is the same thing as Not believing in something. When you do not believe in something you show a lack of belief in it.

Gettit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

Lol why does this remind me of third grade?

---

What does 3rd grade have to do about anything? i guess this is how you roll, don't like what you see and "ZOMG YUO ARE TEH STUPIDCAKEZ@@!!!!!!!".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Read slowly.

I shall explain this again:

Not believing in something is the same thing as Not believing in something. When you do not believe in something you show a lack of belief in it.

Gettit?

---

Not believing in something is not believing in something. Lack of belief is not the same....i don't believe in hell, i don't have a lack in belief of hell since everyone says "hell is a place you suffer forever in". I just don't believe it because it sounds like a load of crap, and not because i can't understand it.

IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THEN YOU HAVE A LACK OF A BELIEF.

My Flying Spaghetti Monster you are not catching on!

I edited, read what i posted.

You don't believe.

Therefore, you lack belief in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

You don't believe.

Therefore, you lack belief in it.

---

I don't believe because i don't want to believe in it. It's not like say something i have no idea about, something like that i have a lack of belief in because i know nothing about it, not because i choose to not believe it. Obviously my "lack" of belief is not your "lack" of belief.

NO YOU STUPID SHIT!!!

"Lack of belief" is the same as "Not having a belief"!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

NO YOU STUPID SHIT!!!

"Lack of belief" is the same as "Not having a belief"!!!

---

That's your lack of belief, mine is different. What you call lack of belief i call "don't believe", what i call lack of belief is not knowing...like a dog can't be an atheist because the dog can't know and does not know, it's not a choice like us to "lack" belief in it.

1+2=3

Therefore

3=2+1

It's the same. I've tried to explain that, what, nine times?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

1+2=3

Therefore

3=2+1

It's the same. I've tried to explain that, what, nine times?

---

Good for you, is my opinion changing because of it? no.

Opinion < Fact

Care to explain how lack of belief is different from not having a belief? :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Opinon < Fact

---

Lack of belief is different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

Care to explain how lack of belief is different from not having a belief? :?

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

Care to explain how lack of belief is different from not having a belief? :?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Lack of belief is different.

---

Well, there you have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

Care to explain how lack of belief is different from not having a belief? :?

---

Did you not just read what i was saying the difference was? and i already know what he means because i used "lack", but i am not talking about what they are talking about. To not believe is different then not knowing period. How is that so unsimple to understand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Did you not just read what i was saying the difference was? and i already know what he means because i used "lack", but i am not talking about what they are talking about. To not believe is different then not knowing period. How is that so unsimple to understand?

---

So "lack" implies not knowing...I always thought "to lack" simply meant "to not have"...how'd you develop this "not knowing" meaning for "lack of belief"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

So "lack" implies not knowing...

---

I'm talking about animals can't be atheists because they can't know, atheists today don't believe because they don't want to know, it's not a "lack" per se, it's a choice to "not believe" Not knowing and knowing but not believing are not the same.

^ Prove that animals cannot know.

And it is a non-argument as it stands. The definintion of Atheist is the lack of belief in theology. Animals do not believe in theology; thus are atheists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Did you not just read what i was saying the difference was? and i already know what he means because i used "lack", but i am not talking about what they are talking about. To not believe is different then not knowing period. How is that so unsimple to understand?

---

Uh, no.

It has nothing to do with knowledge or informed opinions.

Just a logical conclusion.

To "Not believe" is to "Lack Belief". Simple as.

"Atheist" just means "not theist". An animal doesn't know if there is a god (as far as we know anyway), so is not theist...so is atheist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Uh, no.

It has nothing to do with knowledge or informed opinions.

Just a logical conclusion.

To "Not believe" is to "Lack Belief". Simple as.

---

Obviously you guys are not getting what i am saying. I know "lack" means to not know, everyone knows what lack means, listen to what i am saying. Not knowing compared to knowing but not believing is NOT the same.

No...

"Lack" means without.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Obviously you guys are not getting what i am saying. I know "lack" means to not know, everyone knows what lack means, listen to what i am saying. Not knowing compared to knowing but not believing is NOT the same.

---

er...to lack knowledge would be to not know :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

No...

"Lack" means without.

---

Also without a "lack" of knowledge and say something you lack shows ignorance.

But we aren't lacking Knowledge.

We're lacking belief... :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

er...to lack knowledge would be to not know :?

---

W/e i made a mistake there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Not knowing compared to knowing but not believing is NOT the same.

---

Someone who knows something and doesn't believe it is in quite some denial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

But we aren't lacking Knowledge.

We're lacking belief... :?

---

Lacking belief because of choice, not because you cannot know period. That's what the difference is. Knowing+choice=not wanting to believe, or your version of "lack", not knowing period=different because you can't know....can't know+ not believing via choice=different.

Um...

That's a non-object.

If you are not a theist then you are an Atheist.

Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Um...

That's a non-object.

If you are not a theist then you are an Atheist.

Period.

---

Atheist=choice, Period.

No.

Atheist = Not a Theist

You fail.

End of discussion.

GET OUT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

Someone who knows something and doesn't believe it is in quite some denial.

---

So Atheists are in denial? they know, but don't believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

No.

Atheist = Not a Theist

You fail.

End of discussion.

GET OUT.

---

Atheists=choice, Period.

Just like religion=choice, Period.

No!!! Atheist is the default position for everything that isn't a theist.

Quote:

---

So Atheists are in denial? they know, but don't believe.

---

She meant know to be true... :?

Technically, all of Theism is not knowing. As that is it's foundation:

Don't know->Make up explanation->Not know whether explanation is true

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

So Atheists are in denial? they know, but don't believe.

---

...they don't know...

I was trying to say, there's probably not a whole lot of cases where the person knows and yet does not believe...

Atheists=choice like everything else.

So when did you choose what your skin color was, and where you were born, and who your parents were, and who your siblings were, and what time period you would be born into?

If that is the premise of your whole argument then I mean... Just leave. You're wasting space and time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

...they don't know...

I was trying to say, there's probably not a whole lot of cases where the person knows and yet does not believe...

---

Only animals don't know, or humans if it's beyond their understanding or they don't think about it. They know=maybe not true but knows what it is thus "knowing" part.

Quote:

---

Atheist=choice, Period.

---

Quote:

---

Atheists=choice, Period.

Just like religion=choice, Period.

---

Quote:

---

Atheists=choice like everything else.

---

Right, we quite understand what your viewpoint is now, no need to keep repeating it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

So when did you choose what your skin color was, and where you were born, and who your parents were, and who your siblings were, and what time period you would be born into?

If that is the premise of your whole argument then I mean... Just leave. You're wasting space and time.

---

What does that have to do about Atheistm? stop making BS up to try and have something to say and stick with what we are talking about.:roll:

Excuse you but you are comparing apples to oranges here.

No two species of animals think the same. To say that all animals "Can't understand" is... Quite absurd.

The more we study animals, the more intelligent we see that they are.

If your entire argument is that you must choose to be atheist then JUST LEAVE. Because you've already lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

Right, we quite understand what your viewpoint is now, no need to keep repeating it.

---

Then stop forcing me to repeat. I gave you my belief and you keep trying to come back to the same thing over and over and over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Only animals don't know, or humans if it's beyond their understanding or they don't think about it. They know=maybe not true but knows what it is thus "knowing" part.

---

So...all humans except those who don't think about it know there's a God? How would there be atheists if that was the case?

The problem isn't that you believe what nonsense you do; The problem is it isn't true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Then stop forcing me to repeat. I gave you my belief and you keep trying to come back to the same thing over and over and over again.

---

We're trying to understand how you came to your belief. Restating it doesn't accomplish this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Excuse you but you are comparing apples to oranges here.

No two species of animals think the same. To say that all animals "Can't understand" is... Quite absurd.

The more we study animals, the more intelligent we see that they are.

If your entire argument is that you must choose to be atheist then JUST LEAVE. Because you've already lost.

---

So? they don't know what "god" is, and even if they did you will never know unless you can talk to them.

So then maybe we should start doing so with Gorillas that know Sign Language?

Get their opinion on it.

Go for it, and tape the whole thing and post it here. All animals aren't Gorrillas btw.

Well as of yet they are one of four that we can communicate with...

If only gorillas attached human semantics to language huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Well as of yet they are one of four that we can communicate with...

---

I just ment for the record, not saying you said Gorillas are the only animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

If only gorillas attached human semantics to language huh?

---

If only they could talk like us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

If only they could talk like us.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

If only gorillas attached human semantics to language huh?

---

You guys seriously aren't aware that there are several gorillas and I think a some orangutans that know sign language and are able to competently communicate with humans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

You guys seriously aren't aware that there are several gorillas and I think a some orangutans that know sign language and are able to competently communicate with humans?

---

I know about sign language and them, but not actual talking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

You guys seriously aren't aware that there are several gorillas and I think a some orangutans that know sign language and are able to competently communicate with humans?

---

...I guess not. How competently?

I did know about the sign language but have they shown signs of complex language understanding?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

I know about sign language and them, but not actual talking.

---

They can't talk because they don't have the correct muscles in their tongues. (along with other reasons)

That would be like getting an alien to speak English...not likely. Though you maybe able to have them have an understanding of language. Though it may be limited since their mind is probably composed extremely differently, as apposed to animals on Earth which have minds amazingly similar.

Meanwhile I said it reminded me of third grade because yous said "so I'm still right" and you keep repeating things as if that is going to make it true.

Also can we all agree at this point anyway that what you believe is not a choice anyway? You don't get to choose whether you believe in God...if it makes sense to you, then you believe it, if it doesn't, then you don't. That was a fictitious argument in the first place.

What the fuck happened to this thread. :?

Subjective debates on choice.

I haven't actually seen any evidence for the non-existence of God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

What the fuck happened to this thread. :?

Subjective debates on choice.

I haven't actually seen any evidence for the non-existence of God.

---

The only proof for the non-existence of something is no proof of it existing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

The only proof for the non-existence of something is no proof of it existing.

---

The sky is blue, because it is not green?

Perhaps it is blue because that is what we have labeled it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

The sky is blue, because it is not green.

Perhaps it is blue because that is what we have labeled it.

---

Please stick to writing poems and tackle logic after you got the basics down.

You can't prove a negative, which kind of makes this entire thread a farce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

Please stick to writing poems and tackle logic after you got the basics down.

---

I'm sorry that I've used a metaphor beyond your understanding.

Maybe though, you are choosing what to see in my words.

Yes, ClouD, defining the wavelength we call "Blue" as "Green" would make the sky Green.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

I know about sign language and them, but not actual talking.

---

...So people who communicate with sign language aren't actually communicating?

So what does that make text mediums then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

...I guess not. How competently?

I did know about the sign language but have they shown signs of complex language understanding?

---

Pretty competently actually.

Basic sentence structure, recognition of certain things and ideas, etc.

The smartest usually can communicate with the sentence variety and struture as your average nine year old.

African grey parrots can actually speak, and articulate ideas and even abstracts like 'zero', with far better proficiency than a gorilla can sign language.

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...&search=Search

OMG Wow.

There is a dog that can say I love you.

That parrot is so cool.

Yes, but the parrot can tell you he loves you and then say "It's dinner time".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Yes, but the parrot can tell you he loves you and then say "It's dinner time".

---

Hehe and that is awesome too.

I want an african grey parrot.

Awesome!

As for the non-existence of god proof I will refer to the "babelfish"... Nah actualy you can't belive in anything at all, for instance this forum or this thread, only one thing and that is that you actualy exist in some form. "Cogito, ergo sum - I think therefore I am" //Descartes if anybody haven't heard of him(find that highly unlikely). So what were left with is several different ways to belive, now here's the thing, when you belive in science you are obligated to belive in the most reasonable way possible, if something else is more reasonable then you're obligated to change. Also there is a part of science that exists only for itself, you don't find this in any other beliefsystem I dare to say, a lot of things science "proves"(main flaw to call it proof realy but since almost everybody else does it it would be hard to comunicate, apart from that this is probably one of the main problems when discussing belief and such, on this point to me this is absolutely wrong and science should change acordingly;)) does nothing but state that something is and does something else, it doesn't imply a reason for it wich for instance christianity does. Also I don't belive in the true free will and such, however I have an intresting theory on the going which implies something similar and gives you the freedom of being both determinist and freewillbeliver at the same time, this is what I belive in.

Holy crap we just keep finding out more and more about animals, for all we know, they might have the mental capacity to talk totally competently with us!

That parrot's communication wasn't just basic association.

Well, I had no idea :)

Alex the parrot (when he was alive anyway) had a vocabulary of over 1,000 words, and could express his feelings more than just 'parroting' things he'd heard. He was truly expressing himself. He could count past 10 and almost carry on a conversation. African greys are incredibly smart, but they require a lot of care and attention. If they are starved of stimulation or attention they just become stupid budgies. They're also endangered, so don't get your hopes up.

As for more self-expression:

Elephant painting

Now the elephant has been trained to produce those brush strokes, but that doesn't make it any less incredible that it is CAPABLE of doing so. Elephants are self-aware, they pass the dot-on-the-forehead mirror test by realising they are looking at themselves in a mirror (when most animals will assume it's another animal and begin to attack it, just think about the first time your dog saw it's own reflection).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Alex the parrot (when he was alive anyway) had a vocabulary of over 1,000 words, and could express his feelings more than just 'parroting' things he'd heard. He was truly expressing himself. He could count past 10 and almost carry on a conversation. African greys are incredibly smart, but they require a lot of care and attention. If they are starved of stimulation or attention they just become stupid budgies. They're also endangered, so don't get your hopes up.

As for more self-expression:

Elephant painting

Now the elephant has been trained to produce those brush strokes, but that doesn't make it any less incredible that it is CAPABLE of doing so. Elephants are self-aware, they pass the dot-on-the-forehead mirror test by realising they are looking at themselves in a mirror (when most animals will assume it's another animal and begin to attack it, just think about the first time your dog saw it's own reflection).

---

Babies do that too, and then they grow out of it and realize its them.

Dog's usually grow out of it as well, but the difference is that an elephant will see the big red painted dot on it's forehead, realise that dot ISN'T a part of its own conceptualised image of itself and will touch it with its trunk.

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

Happy the elephant, with a white X on his face

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

Truth = science and reason, so yeah. You mostly see religious people fuck shit up.

---

That is not what I meant. Truth of Spirituality/God: the Essence of religions. People deem God to be false in most cases because they find flaws and limitations of religions (but without the realization that those limitations are blocking the essential Spiritual meaning). People may become mislead from the essential Spirituality of a religion, through religious dogma and the possible faulty translations of their scriptures. For example, most evident is the interpretation of an anthropomorphic god through Christian Scriptures (Christianity). Then, one may think "God is 'selfish'" or ask "Why would god 'make'/'do' that/this?" Such leads from one fault to another. Advancing with other analogies made here: It is like someone speaking of the sky as it is green, then someone concluding the sky does not exist. Here, the Spiritual essence is the sky; the religious error is the color.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Technically, all of Theism is not knowing. As that is it's foundation:

Don't know->Make up explanation->Not know whether explanation is true

---

Spiritual Information may be corrupted by the following:

Generally starts with Avatar of Enlightenment -> Teachings of Spirituality/God-View-> Religion (Depends on Context: Values/Politics/Time/Place/Language/Translation/Transmission of Information) -> Audience's interpretation (Depends on Context: Intelligence/Consciousness of person perceiving/processing that information).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

The only proof for the non-existence of something is no proof of it existing.

---

This is only subjectively/relatively true, but not absolutely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gratismat

As for the non-existence of god proof I will refer to the "babelfish"... Nah actualy you can't belive in anything at all, for instance this forum or this thread, only one thing and that is that you actualy exist in some form. "Cogito, ergo sum - I think therefore I am"

---

God is Impersonal; He exists independent of personal opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

God is Impersonal; He exists independent of personal opinion.

---

Evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

Evidence?

---

Look.

Now.

Be.

Everywhere.

Your existence is evidence, yet your ego clouds you from the Truth. Until you find evidence/become Enlightened, you have to do the cleaning yourself. I can not Enlighten you with an instant but I can teach; teachings directly from Spiritual Avatars would be more reliable because they have been the founders of Spirituality itself, basically.

Evidence and observation of Spiritual Avatars is a pretty good start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Look.

Now.

Be.

Everywhere.

Your existence is evidence, yet your ego clouds you from the Truth.

---

Unfalsifiable, much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

Unfalsifiable, much?

---

Meaning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Meaning?

---

No matter what I say, you're always right.
Kinda like a conspiracy theory: If I question it, I'm part of it, so the theory is always valid. Kinda like solipsism: It's always true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Look.

Now.

Be.

Everywhere.

Your existence is evidence, yet your ego clouds you from the Truth. Until you find evidence/become Enlightened, you have to do the cleaning yourself. I can not Enlighten you with an instant but I can teach; teachings directly from Spiritual Avatars would be more reliable because they have been the founders of Spirituality itself, basically.

Evidence and observation of Spiritual Avatars is a pretty good start.

---

Then I submit God's existence is evidence of another God...in an infinite loop of God makers.

Why did this thread stop being about intelligent elephants and parrots, I was enjoying that before the word salad and pseudo-enlightenment took over again :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

Then I submit God's existence is evidence of another God...in an infinite loop of God makers.

---

That or one infinite God. Created from nothing. Existing as nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

That or one infinite God. Created from nothing. Existing as nothing.

---

You mean no God? I wish you would stop saying things that mean nothing. Essentially your not saying anything valid, or thought provoking, just introducing concepts that actually don't mean anything so it makes our minds go on an ape shit run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

You mean no God? I wish you would stop saying things that mean nothing. Essentially your not saying anything valid, or thought provoking, just introducing concepts that actually don't mean anything so it makes our minds go on an ape shit run.

---

A variation of word-salad.

I don't understand why every other person on this specific forum have their own various definitions of 'real', 'god', 'atheist', 'faith', 'belief', 'evidence', 'fact', 'theory' and 'energy'. It really defeats the purpose of speaking in a common language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alextanium

A variation of word-salad.

---

I never heard of word salad, but I had heard of pseudo-enlightenment, anyways, Cloud continued after your post...so I assume he didn't know what word salad was either (or chose to ignore it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

You mean no God? I wish you would stop saying things that mean nothing. Essentially your not saying anything valid, or thought provoking, just introducing concepts that actually don't mean anything so it makes our minds go on an ape shit run.

---

You cannot justify meaning for anything so why question this meaning.

I was being as valid as you were: also introducing concepts that don't mean anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

You cannot justify meaning for anything so why question this meaning.

I was being as valid as you were: also introducing concepts that don't mean anything.

---

My point was not meant to be a valid truth, but a mockery of another point which was, "your existence is evidence."

Or where you referring to my "you mean no god." Statement? Because it had relevance when stated after you said "Existing as nothing."

A statement which literally means nothing. To exist you can not be "nothing."


Cloud I really dislike the way you argue. It seems like every time you post your saying "stop thinking."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

My point was not meant to be a valid truth, but a mockery of another point which was, "your existence is evidence."

Or where you referring to my "you mean no god." Statement? Because it had relevance when stated after you said "Existing as nothing."

A statement which literally means nothing. To exist you can not be "nothing."

---

My would be reply turns out to be word salad.

I've lost the mood.